U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of

Ground-Water Flow in the Vicinity of a Former

Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana,

1997–2000

By Richard F. Duwelius1, Douglas J. Yeskis2, John T. Wilson1,

and Bret A. Robinson1

Prepared in cooperation with the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4221

Indianapolis, Indiana

2002

________________

1

U.S. Geological Survey, Indianapolis, Indiana

2

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

GALE A. NORTON, Secretary

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

CHARLES G. GROAT, Director

The use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only

and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

For additional information, write to:

District Chief

U.S. Geological Survey

5957 Lakeside Boulevard

Indianapolis, IN 46278-1996

Copies of this report can be purchased from:

U.S. Geological Survey

Branch of Information Services

Box 25286

Federal Center

Denver, CO 80225-0286
Contents

Contents iii

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

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

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

Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Description of Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Site History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Physiographic and Geohydrologic Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Methods of Data Collection and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Previous Monitoring-Well Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Installation of Monitoring Wells and Well Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Geophysical Logging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Aquifer Hydraulic Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Single-Well Aquifer Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Multiple-Well Aquifer Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Water-Level Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Streamflow and Seepage Measurements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Water-Quality Sample Collection and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Quality Assurance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Ground Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Surface Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Ground-Water-Flow Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Geohydrology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Results of Geophysical Logging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Aquifer Hydraulic Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Results of the Single-Well Aquifer Tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Results of the Multiple-Well Aquifer Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Water Levels and Directions of Ground-Water Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Water Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Results of Quality Assurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Ground-Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

General Ground-Water Chemistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Minor Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Organic Compounds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

1,4-Dioxane in Ground Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Surface-Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

General Surface-Water Chemistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Minor Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

1,4-Dioxane in Surface Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Contents—Continued

iv Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana

Simulation of Ground-Water Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Simplifying Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Model Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Model Calibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Model Sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Simulated Water Levels and Flow Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Results of Model Simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Contaminant Plume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Possible Mechanisms of Contaminant Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Pumping from Supply Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Pumping from Capture Wells. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Model Limitations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Appendixes:

A. Supplemental Data Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

B. Quality Assurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Quality-Assurance Sample Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Results of Quality Assurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

C. Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Figures

1–3. Maps showing:

1. Study area in LaPorte and Porter Counties, Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2. Physiographic regions and surficial geology in the study area in LaPorte and Porter Counties,

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3. Locations of monitoring wells, well points, and other wells used during the study of

geohydrology and water quality near Westville, Indiana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

4. Graphs showing examples of common responses of water levels to slug tests in monitoring wells . . . . 11

5. Map showing locations of streamflow measurements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

6. Diagram of seepage meter developed for the study of geohydrology and water quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

7. Map showing locations of surface-water-sampling sites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

8. Geologist’s log and geophysical logs for well MW-7XD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

9. Graphs showing precipitation amounts and water levels in wells LP-1, MW-7D, and PZ-1MD

before and during the multiple-well aquifer test, April 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

10. Diagram showing map view and section of maximum drawdown measured during the multiple-well

aquifer test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

11. Graph showing water levels measured in monitoring wells at well site MW-2, 1997 through 2000 . . . . 28
Contents v

Contents—Continued

Figures—Continued

12–14. Maps showing:

12. Altitude of water table measured December 16, 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

13. Altitude of potentiometric surface in the D-series wells measured December 16, 1997 . . . . . . . . . . 31

14. Altitude of potentiometric surface in the XD-series wells measured December 16, 1997 . . . . . . . . 32

15. Diagram showing ground-water levels along a section from well site PZ-1 to well site MW-16,

December 16, 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

16. Graphs showing water levels in monitoring wells at sites LP-3, MW-4, and MW-5 during pumping

of the municipal supply well at Westville, Indiana, July 16–17, 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

17. Map showing maximum concentrations of 1,4-dioxane in ground water, December 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . 45

18. Concentrations of 1,4-dioxane in ground water along a section from well site PZ-1 to well site

MW-16, December 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

19. Map showing concentrations of 1,4-dioxane in surface-water samples, August 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

20. Model grid used to simulate ground-water flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

21. Diagram showing subdivision of aquifer into model layers at well site MW-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

22. Graphs showing relation between simulated error in water levels and changes in the value of

model parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

23–26. Maps showing:

23. Simulated water levels in model layer 1 and ground-water levels measured December 16, 1997 . . 59

24. Simulated streamflow and streamflow measured December 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

25. Contaminant plume simulated at steady state by particle tracking from the western edge of

the former refinery site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

26. Simulated drawdown for three wells, each pumping at a rate of 25 gallons per minute, at the

leading edge of the plume of 1,4-dioxane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Tables

1. Summary of subsurface geophysical logging completed in monitoring wells near Westville, Indiana . . 10

2. Average values of horizontal hydraulic conductivity determined from single-well aquifer tests . . . . . . 22

3. Hydraulic conductivity, transmissivity, and specific yield determined with drawdown data from

individual wells and selected groups of wells from the multiple-well aquifer test, April 1998 . . . . . . . . 26

4. Horizontal gradients and calculated ground-water-flow velocities at and near the former refinery site . 33

5. Vertical hydraulic gradients for selected pairs of monitoring wells, December 1997 through

July 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

6. Measurements of flow in Crumpacker and Forbes Ditches and Crooked Creek, April 1997 through

August 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

7. Discharge and vertical hydraulic conductivity determined from measurements of seepage in

Crumpacker Ditch, August–September 1997 and July 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

8. Results of calculations for major ions and water type for ground-water samples, April–June 1997 . . . . 42
Contents—Continued

vi Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana

Tables—Continued

9. Results of calculations for major ions and water type for surface-water samples, April–May 1997 . . . . 49

10. Initial and calibrated values of hydraulic parameters for the model used to simulate ground-water

flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

11. Measurements of error in water levels simulated by the ground-water-flow model and water levels

measured December 16, 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

12. Water budget for the ground-water-flow model determined by steady-state simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

13. Average ground-water pumpage in 1997 and model-simulated pumpage possibly required to draw

water from the contaminant plume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Appendix Tables

A1. Selected characteristics of monitoring wells and well points used to monitor ground-water flow and

quality near Westville, Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

A2. Water levels measured in monitoring wells and well points, June 1997 through August 2000 . . . . . . . . 79

B1. Concentrations of common constituents in duplicate ground-water samples, April–June 1997 . . . . . . . 98

B2. Concentrations of minor elements in duplicate ground-water samples, April–June 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

B3. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds in duplicate ground-water samples, April 1997

through May 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

B4. Concentrations of 1,4-dioxane in duplicate ground-water samples, April 1997 through May 1999 . . . . 107

B5. Statistical summary of relative percent differences for analytes detected in duplicate ground-water

samples, April 1997 through May 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

B6. Concentrations of water-quality constituents in equipment-rinse samples, April through

December 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

B7. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds in trip-blank samples, April through

December 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

C1. On-site measurements of ground-water samples, April 1997 through May 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

C2. Concentrations of common constituents in ground-water samples, April–June 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

C3. Concentrations of minor elements in ground-water samples, April–June 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

C4. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds in ground-water samples, April 1997 through

May 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

C5. Concentrations of 1,4-dioxane in ground-water samples, April 1997 through May 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

C6. On-site measurements of surface-water samples, April 1997 through May 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

C7. Concentrations of common constituents in surface-water samples, April–May 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

C8. Concentrations of minor elements in surface-water samples, April–May 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

C9. Concentrations of 1,4-dioxane in surface-water samples and well points, April 1997 through

May 1999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Conversion Factors, Vertical Datum, and Abbreviations

Contents vii

Multiply By To obtain

inch(in.) 25.4 millimeter

foot(ft) 0.3048 meter

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer

acre 4,047 square meter

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer

cubic foot per second (ft3

/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second

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

foot squared per day (ft2/d) 0.0929 meter squared per day

gallon (gal) 3.785 liter

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

gallon per day (gal/d) 0.003785 cubic meter per day

million gallons (Mgal) 3,785 cubic meter

Temperature, given in degrees Celsius (°C), can be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) by use of the following equation:

°F = 1.8(°C) + 32

Sea level: In this report, “sea level” refers to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD of 1929)—a geodetic

datum derived from a general adjustment of the first-order level nets of the United States and Canada, formerly called Sea Level

Datum of 1929.

Abbreviated water-quality units used in this report: Chemical concentrations and water temperature are given in metric

units. Chemical concentration is given in milligrams per liter (mg/L) or micrograms per liter (μg/L). Milligrams per liter is a unit

expressing the concentration of chemical constituents in solution as weight (milligrams) of solute per unit volume (liter) of water.

One thousand micrograms per liter is equivalent to one milligram per liter. For concentrations less than 7,000 mg/L, the numerical

value is the same as for concentrations in parts per million. Concentrations of bacteria are given in colonies per 100 milliliters

(col/100 mL).

Specific conductance of water is expressed in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius (μS/cm). This unit is equivalent

to micromhos per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius (μmho/cm), formerly used by the U.S. Geological Survey.

Volumes of water-quality samples are given in liters (L) and milliliters (mL).

Other abbreviations used in this report:

DO dissolved oxygen

NTU nephelometric turbidity units

ORP oxidation-reduction potential

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl

PSI pounds per square inch

RPD relative percent difference

SC specific conductance

SVOC semivolatile organic compound

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

VOC volatile organic compound

Abstract 1

Abstract

Geohydrologic and water-quality data collected during 1997 through 2000 in the vicinity

of a former waste-oil refinery near Westville,

Indiana, define a plume of 1,4-dioxane in

ground water that extends to the southwest

approximately 0.8 miles from the refinery site.

Concentrations of 1,4-dioxane in the plume

ranged from 3 to 31,000 micrograms per liter.

Ground water containing 1,4-dioxane is discharged to Crumpacker Ditch, approximately

one-half mile west of the refinery site. Concentrations of 1,4-dioxane detected in surface

water ranged from 8 to 140 micrograms per

liter; 1,4-dioxane also is transported in ground

water beneath the ditch.

The study area is underlain by glacial

deposits of sand and gravel that overlie lacustrine clay and shale. The sand and gravel

deposits form an extensive aquifer ranging

from 148 to 215 feet thick in the study area.

Ground water generally flows from northeast

to southwest and the depth to water ranges

from about 3 to 36 feet below land surface.

The average horizontal hydraulic conductivity

of the aquifer, determined from a multiple-well

aquifer test, was 121 feet per day, and the transmissivity was 18,600 feet squared per day.

Vertical hydraulic conductivity ranged from

24 to 36 feet per day and specific yield ranged

from 0.05 to 0.08. Analysis of single-well

aquifer tests indicated that horizontal hydraulic

conductivity ranged from 0.6 to 127 feet per

day and was largest in the lower part of the

aquifer. Horizontal gradients averaged about

0.001 feet per foot; estimated ground-waterflow velocities averaged about 0.1 feet per day

in the upper and middle parts of the glacial

aquifer and about 0.4 feet per day near the

bottom of the aquifer.

Analytical results of water samples

indicate the ground water generally is a

calcium-bicarbonate type with a nearly neutral

pH. Specific conductivity ranged from 437

to 1,030 microsiemens per centimeter at

25 degrees Celsius in water from wells upgradient from the refinery site and 330 to

3,780 microsiemens per centimeter at 25

degrees Celsius in water from downgradient

wells. Barium, iron, manganese, nickel, and

zinc commonly were detected in samples of

ground water. Volatile organic compounds

(including chlorinated solvents and aromatic

hydrocarbons) were consistently detected in

samples from shallow wells near the boundaries of the former refinery site. Concentrations

Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Ground-Water

Flow in the Vicinity of a Former Waste-Oil Refinery near

Westville, Indiana, 1997–2000

By Richard F. Duwelius, Douglas J. Yeskis1, John T. Wilson, and Bret A. Robinson

_____________________________________

1U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois.
2 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana

of 1,4-dioxane were detected in water from

wells screened in the upper, middle, and lower

parts of the aquifer downgradient from the

site and in samples of surface water collected

approximately 5 miles downstream from where

the plume intersects Crumpacker Ditch.

A three-dimensional, four layer groundwater-flow model was constructed and

calibrated to match ground-water levels and

streamflow measured during December 1997.

The model was used to simulate possible

mechanisms of contaminant release, the effect

of increased pumpage from water-supply

wells, and pumping at the leading edge of

the plume as a possible means of remediation.

Based on simulation of three waste-oil lagoons,

a vertical hydraulic conductivity of 0.2 feet

per day was required to move contaminants

into the bottom layer of the model at a constant

leakage rate of about 98 gallons per minute.

Simulations of a disposal well in layer 3

of the model indicated an injection rate of

50 gallons per minute was necessary to spread

contaminants vertically in the aquifer. Simulated pumping rates of about 300 and 1,000

gallons per minute were required for watersupply wells at the Town of Westville and the

Westville Correctional Facility to draw water

from the plume of 1,4-dioxane. Simulated

pumping from hypothetical wells at the leading

edge of the plume indicated that three wells,

each pumping 25 gallons per minute from

model layer 3, would capture the plume of

1,4-dioxane.

Introduction

In 1997, the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (USEPA) began a field investigation of the

environmental conditions at a former waste-oil

refinery in Westville, Ind. As part of this investigation, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) completed a study of geohydrology and water quality in

the vicinity of the refinery. Previous investigations

had detected contamination in soils at the site

(ATEC Associates, Inc., 1985) and in off-site

ground water (Dames and Moore, Inc., 1996).

The site was listed as a Superfund site by USEPA

in 1999.

The USGS study included installing monitoring wells, geophysical logging, aquifer testing,

measuring ground-water and surface-water levels,

measuring streamflow, and collecting water-quality

samples. On the basis of a conceptualization of geohydrologic conditions developed from analysis of

the collected data, the USGS constructed a groundwater-flow model for the study area. The calibrated

model was used to investigate possible mechanisms

of contaminant release, the effects of increased

ground-water pumpage from nearby water-supply

wells on contaminant distribution, and the capability of remediation by pumping from capture wells.

Purpose and Scope

This report presents findings of the USGS

investigation of geohydrology and water quality

near a former waste-oil refinery in Westville, Ind.

A description of the study area with emphasis on

the geohydrologic setting is given, as is a description of the methods of data collection and analysis.

Selected water-quality data are presented to provide

a description of water quality in relation to the site

of the former refinery. The report also describes

the ground-water modeling completed for this

investigation and presents the results of model

simulations.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the municipal staff from the Town of

Westville, especially Bart Frank, Utility Superintendent. Mr. Frank provided logistical support

during the investigation and served as a liaison

between the USEPA, USGS, and the Town of

Westville. The assistance of Mark Hale, Street

Department Superintendent of the Town of Westville, is appreciated. In addition, Michael A.

Gifford, Remedial Project Manager (USEPA), is
Description of the Study Area 3

credited for his initiation of the project and his

assistance during much of the field investigation.

The assistance of Terry Roundtree and Michael

Collins (USEPA) during the later stages of

the investigation and report writing also is

appreciated.

Field work was completed by USGS and

USEPA personnel and their contractors. Drilling

expertise was provided by USGS employees of the

Western Region Drilling Services Unit in Denver,

Colo. Measuring-point altitudes for ground-waterlevel measurements and other reference marks were

surveyed by Jim Kiel of Jim Kiel and Associates,

Land Surveyors. Employees of Ecology and

Environment, under the direction of Christianne

Ottinger, provided assistance during field activities

throughout the study. Robert Kay and Patrick Mills

of the USGS Illinois District assisted during well

installation and sampling. David Cohen and Leslie

Arihood of the USGS Indiana District constructed

and calibrated the ground-water-flow model.

Description of the Study Area

The site of the former waste-oil refinery (hereafter referred to as the “refinery site” or the “site”),

in section 29 of Township 36 North, Range 4 West,

on the Westville 7.5-minute quadrangle (U.S. Geological Survey, 1969), is on the north side of

Westville in LaPorte County, Ind. The site consists

of approximately 15 acres west of the intersection

between U.S. Highway 421 and Indiana Highway 2. The study area (fig. 1) is within LaPorte and

Porter Counties. In LaPorte County, the study area

is defined roughly by County Road 200 South to the

north, Wozniak Road to the east, and County Road

800 South to the south. The western boundary for

the study area is approximated by County Road 600

East in Porter County.

 Although land use surrounding Westville is

principally agricultural, local industry includes

automobile salvage, trucking, and package shipping and delivery. Agricultural land use predominates immediately to the north and west of the site;

residential areas are immediately south and east.

An abandoned railroad grade runs along the western edge of the site. The Westville Correctional

Facility, operated by the Indiana Department of

Correction, is approximately 1 mi south from the

center of town.

The water supply for the Town of Westville

is drawn from glacial deposits of sand and gravel.

At the time of this study, the Town had two watersupply wells (MUN-1 and MUN-2); however, only

the western-most well (MUN-1) was pumped on a

regular basis. The Town was in the process of establishing a new well field 0.5 mi east of the refinery

site (fig. 1). The new well field became operational

in February 2000 (after data collection for this

study was completed) and the two previous watersupply wells were plugged (Bart Frank, Town of

Westville, written commun., 2001). The Westville

Correctional Facility has three wells that pump

from the same glacial deposits. Numerous privately

owned domestic water-supply wells are in use

throughout the study area.

Site History

In the mid-1930’s, a waste-oil refinery began

operations in Westville, Indiana (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999). The refinery included

numerous storage tanks, a filter press, several

cracking towers, and a cannery. Waste oil was purchased from a variety of generators and cleaned and

refined for automotive and industrial applications.

Lagoons for storing waste oil were constructed

at the refinery prior to 1951 and were in use when

the site was closed in 1987 (Kartman, 1999). The

lagoons were excavated in the native sandy soils

and had no bottom liners to prevent the contents

from seeping into the ground. Several lagoons had

overflowed during heavy precipitation, releasing

contaminants to nearby streams (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999).

After refinery operations ceased in February

1987, the facility remained vacant until 1999, when

the refinery works were dismantled and removed.

As early as 1984, environmental investigations documented that soils at the site were contaminated

with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB’s), volatile

organic compounds (VOC’s), and lead (ATEC
4 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana
Description of the Study Area 5

Associates, Inc., 1985). By 1996, a less-commonly

reported contaminant, 1,4-dioxane, was found in

off-site ground water (Dames and Moore, Inc.,

1996).

Climate

The climate of the study area is characteristic

of the northern midcontinent. Average monthly

temperatures range from about 25°F during January

to 77°F during July, and the average annual temperature is approximately 50°F (Midwestern Climate

Center, 2001). The National Weather Service

operates a weather station at Valparaiso, Ind.,

approximately 9 mi southwest of the refinery site,

and one at LaPorte, Ind., approximately 10.5 mi

northwest of the site. National Weather Service data

from 1961 through 1990 indicate the average annual precipitation is about 40 inches. Average

precipitation by month ranges from about 2 to

4 inches and is nearly equally distributed, with

slightly more precipitation during spring and

summer months compared to fall and winter.

Physiographic and Geohydrologic Setting

A general description of the physical setting of

the study area was derived from previous studies

completed in LaPorte and Porter Counties (Malott,

1922; Shaver and others, 1986; Indiana Department

of Natural Resources, 1990; Fraser and Bleuer,

1991a and 1991b; Bleuer and Woodfield, 1993) and

from the Hydrogeologic Atlas of Aquifers in Indiana (Fenelon, Bobay, and others, 1994).

The study area is characterized by rolling terrain to the north and west and generally flat terrain

to the south and east. Surface drainage generally

is to the south and southwest. The stream nearest

the site is the Crumpacker Arm of Forbes Ditch

(hereafter referred to as “Crumpacker Ditch”).

Crumpacker Ditch discharges into Forbes Ditch,

which discharges into Crooked Creek (fig. 1) and

then into the Kankakee River, approximately 21 mi

southwest of the refinery site.

Malott (1922) defined and described the physiographic regions of Indiana and, in some cases,

subdivided regions into sections. Within this framework, the study area is in the Northern Moraine and

Lake Region and lies on the boundary between the

Kankakee Outwash and Lacustrine Section and

the Valparaiso Moraine (fig. 2). Soils in the study

area are described as moderately to well drained

(U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1982).

The Kankakee Outwash and Lacustrine Section is an intermorainal lowland, trending northeast

to southwest and primarily consisting of thick

wind- and water-deposited sand and gravel (Fraser

and Bleuer, 1991b, p. 1). In scattered areas, the

sand and gravel are overlain by thin, discontinuous

deposits of muck, peat, and marl (fig. 2). Lacustrine

clay and silt underlie the sand and gravel.

The Valparaiso Moraine is a topographic high

that curves around the southern end of Lake Michigan. In most areas, the Valparaiso Moraine contains

three types of deposits. At the base and resting

directly on bedrock are relatively continuous and

widespread lacustrine deposits of clay and silt. The

core of the moraine primarily is sand, while clayey

till caps the moraine (Fraser and Bleuer, 1991a,

p. 2–3). Near their common boundary, the sand

units of the Valparaiso Moraine and the Kankakee

Outwash are interfingered. Clayey till is present

in some locations near the northern and western

boundaries of the study area.

The sand forming the core of the Valparaiso

Moraine and the sand in the Kankakee Outwash

and Lacustrine Plain are hydraulically connected

and have similar hydraulic properties. These sand

units form the principal aquifer within the study

area. Northwest of the refinery site, the aquifer is

part of the Valparaiso Moraine; at and south of the

site, the aquifer is part of the Kankakee Outwash. In

the study area, the deposits of sand average about

150 ft in thickness.

The Ellsworth Shale of Devonian and Mississippian Age underlies the unconsolidated deposits.

The Ellsworth Shale contains alternating beds of

grayish-green and brownish-black shale with thin

and discontinuous lenses of limestone and dolomite

(Shaver and others, 1986, p. 42). In the study area,

bedrock altitudes range from less than 600 ft above

sea level to the north to greater than 650 ft above sea
6 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana
Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 7

level to the south. A map of the bedrock surface in

Indiana shows a bedrock valley, or trough, trending

from southeast to northwest in the study area (Gray,

1982).

Methods of Data Collection and Analysis

This investigation included installation and

geophysical logging of monitoring wells, measurement of water levels, hydraulic testing of the

aquifer, determination of ground-water and surfacewater interactions, collection and analysis of

water-quality samples, and development and testing

of a ground-water-flow model. The methods used

were those of the USEPA (1992, 1993a, 1993b, and

1993c) or the USGS (Rantz and others, 1982;

Lapham and others, 1997; Wilde and others, 1998).

Previous Monitoring-Well Network

Prior to this investigation, monitoring wells

were installed for several geotechnical or environmental studies at the former refinery site (fig. 3).

Four wells (wells B-1 through B-4) were installed

at the site during 1985 (ATEC, Associates, Inc.,

1985). Well B-3, near the southwest corner of the

site and not shown on figure 3, was destroyed prior

to this investigation. In 1986, the LaPorte County

Health Department installed wells LP-1 through

LP-3 northeast and southwest of the site (EIS Environmental Engineers, Inc., written commun. to

LaPorte County Health Department, 1986). Four

wells were installed by the USEPA in 1987—two

wells (wells EP-2 and EP-3) along the northern site

boundary, one well (well EP-1) along the abandoned railroad grade northwest of the site and one

well (well EP-4) in a residential area south of the

site. Studies completed by Dames and Moore, Inc.,

(1996) resulted in the installation of 14 wells at sites

MW-1 through MW-6. These sites generally are

west and south of the refinery; and at each site, two

or three wells were completed at different depths.

Data for this investigation were collected from all

of the wells installed for previous studies.

Several wells not associated with previous

studies of the refinery also were used for this

investigation. Water levels were measured in

an abandoned well on the refinery site (well OSW,

which was rehabilitated during the investigation)

and in two wells (wells NDF-MW-1 and NDF-MW2) installed at a gasoline station approximately 1 mi

southwest of the site (EMES, Inc., 1992). The NDF

wells also were sampled for water quality. A test

well (well TW-95A) installed for the Town of

Westville (Peerless-Midwest, Inc., 1996) was used

to measure water levels and served as the pumped

well for the multiple-well aquifer test. In addition,

the USEPA collected water-quality samples from

privately owned water-supply wells in the study

area.

Installation of Monitoring Wells and Well Points

For this investigation, 31 monitoring wells (for

collection of water levels and water samples) were

installed to various depths at 13 sites (site MW-2

and sites MW-7 through MW-18) and 9 observation

wells (for collection of water levels) were installed

at sites PZ-1 through PZ-3 (fig. 3) at the Town of

Westville’s new well field. Well installation was

completed in three phases. Twenty-three wells were

installed at sites MW-2, MW-7 through MW-11,

and PZ-1 through PZ-3 during March–May 1997;

7 wells were installed at sites MW-12 through

MW-14 during September 1997; and 10 wells were

installed at sites MW-15 through MW-18 during

November 1997 (table A1, at the back of the

report). Site locations for each phase of well installation were selected based upon evaluation of the

data collected from previously installed wells.

The vertical placement of the well screens and

the well-naming convention initially were consistent with those used for wells installed by Dames

and Moore, Inc. (1996), whereby an “S” indicates a

water-table well, “D” indicates a well screened near

the middle of the aquifer (generally 80 ft deep) and

“XD” indicates a well screened at the bottom

of the aquifer (approximately 148 to 210 ft deep).

An additional category of wells, designated with

“MD,” was installed at sites MW-2, MW-15, MW17, and PZ-1 through PZ-3. The MD wells generally are between 100 and 150 ft deep. Placement of

the well screen for D and MD wells at sites MW-15
8 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana
Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 9

through MW-18 was determined from interpretation of geophysical logs.

Well drilling was completed using 4.25-in.

inside-diameter hollow-stem augers. The boreholes

were logged lithologically from cuttings returned to

land surface and by observation of the drill rig during drilling. Attempts were made to collect samples

of the aquifer sediments during drilling at site

MW-7; however, hydrostatic pressure caused sand

to heave upwards into the augers when the plug at

the bottom of the augers was removed to obtain a

sample, even at shallow depths of 20 ft below the

water table.

Water used for drilling operations was obtained from the Westville municipal water system.

Samples of the water were analyzed several times

during the three phases of well installation. Based

on the analytical results, no contaminants associated with the refinery site were detected. The

drilling rig, augers, and equipment were cleaned

between each drilling location with a high-pressure,

hot-water cleaner.

With the exception of well MW-12, all wells

are constructed of 2-in.-diameter schedule 40 polyvinyl chloride (PVC) risers with type 304, 10-slot,

stainless-steel well screens. Wells screened across

the water table (S wells) are constructed with 10-ftlong screens. Wells screened below the water table

(M, MD, and XD wells) are constructed with 5-ftlong screens.

The well screen and riser pipe were installed

through the augers and the aquifer sediments (sand)

were allowed to collapse around the well screen. If

the collapsed sand did not rise at least 2 ft above the

top of the screen, a filter pack of coarse, washed

quartz sand was placed down the annular space

between the augers and riser pipe. A high-solids

bentonite grout was used to fill the borehole above

the filter pack as the augers were removed. A 6-in.-

square outer protective casing with a lock was

installed around each well and set in place in a

concrete pad.

The drilling rig could not reach the MW-12

site—at this location, a 2-in. hole was excavated

with a hand-turned bucket auger to a depth of 17 ft.

A 10-ft stainless-steel screen with a drive point and

a stainless-steel riser were lowered into the hole.

The well was driven approximately 3 more feet

into the underlying materials with a fence-post

driver. Bentonite chips were used to grout the annular space from 2 to 3 ft below ground level. The

remaining construction details for well MW-12 are

the same as those described for the other wells.

To remove fine sand and silt that accumulated

in and around the well screen during installation

and to assure hydraulic connection between the

well and the aquifer, the wells were developed

by vigorous surging, bailing, and/or overpumping.

Well-development progress was measured by monitoring field water-quality characteristics, primarily

turbidity. Development ceased when successive

measurements of turbidity were 5 or less nephelometric turbidity units (ntu) after surging, or when a

volume of water greater than 10 times that used to

install the well was removed.

Well points (WP) 1 through 7 and well point

WP-P were installed at selected locations along

Crumpacker Ditch (fig. 3). Data collected from

the well points aided the interpretation of groundwater/surface-water interactions. Well point WP-8

was installed to determine the relation between

ground water and a small pond near an area where

1,4-dioxane was detected in water from a privately

owned water-supply well.

Well points were constructed of 2-in.-diameter

stainless steel and had 1- or 2-ft-long screens and

short (about 5 ft) risers. The well points were

installed by hand augering into the streambed sediments as deeply as possible and then driving the

screen and riser to the desired depth. The top of

the well screen was installed deep enough into the

streambed so that sediments would provide a seal

around the well riser above the top of the screen

and isolate the screen from the surface water. In

general, the tops of the screens were greater than

1.6 ft below the streambed; the screen for WP-8

was 1.2 ft beneath the bottom of the small pond.

The altitudes of the tops of the concrete pads

for the monitoring wells and the tops of the well risers for the monitoring wells and well points were

surveyed by a professional land surveyor licensed

by the State of Indiana. Altitudes of the streambed
10 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana

at the well-point locations also were determined by

the surveyor. A few locations were surveyed by the

USGS and USEPA. Latitude and longitude were

determined at each location by USEPA personnel,

using a global-positioning system capable of

reporting to 0.01 second of latitude or longitude.

Selected information about the wells used for this

investigation is listed in table A1 at the back of

the report.

Geophysical Logging

Borehole geophysical surveys of natural

gamma, electromagnetic induction, and neutron

absorption were completed in selected monitoring

wells to acquire lithologic data as well as information that may be related to the movement of

contaminants in the aquifer. The wells were logged

by the USGS Borehole Research Group, by the

USGS Indiana District, and by the USEPA Superfund Division (table 1). Selected wells in the area

of ground-water contamination were logged for

electromagnetic induction periodically during the

study.

Natural gamma logs measure the relative

amounts of naturally occurring gamma radiation in

geologic materials. This radiation is primarily the

result of the decay of the radioisotopes Potassium40, Uranium-238, and Thorium-232. These radioisotopes are most commonly associated with clay

minerals; therefore, natural gamma logs can be

used to interpret the relative amounts of clay in a

deposit (Keys and MacCary, 1971, p. 64–65).

Electromagnetic induction logging measures

the decay of an electrical field in geologic materials

when an electrical field is induced and then

removed. The electromagnetic log indicates the

conductivity of the geologic materials, which is

controlled primarily by water content. If no other

factors are present, the electromagnetic log should

correlate closely with the natural gamma log. For

example, if more clay is present (higher naturalgamma response), then a higher electromagnetic

response is expected. Electromagnetic logs, however, also are sensitive to the conductivity of fluids

in the aquifer. If a ground-water contaminant that

increases conductivity is present, a higher electromagnetic reading is expected (Mack, 1993).

Table 1. Summary of subsurface geophysical logging

completed in monitoring wells near Westville, Indiana

[NG, natural gamma; EM, electromagnetic induction; USGS,

U.S. Geological Survey; IN, Indiana District; N, neutron; BRG,

Borehole Research Group; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency]

Well name Date logged Type of logs Logged by

MW-2XD 07/02/97 NG, EM USGS-IN

11/02/97 NG, EM, N USGS-BRG

MW-4XD 11/25/96 EM USEPA

07/02/97 NG, EM USGS-IN

05/10/00 EM USEPA

MW-7XD 07/01/97 NG, EM USGS-IN

11/01/97 NG, EM, N USGS-BRG

MW-8D 07/01/97 NG, EM USGS-IN

11/02/97 NG, EM, N USGS-BRG

MW-9XD 07/01/97 NG, EM USGS-IN

MW-10XD 07/01/97 NG, EM USGS-IN

11/02/97 NG, EM, N USGS-BRG

08/18/99 EM USEPA

05/10/00 EM USEPA

08/25/00 EM USEPA

MW-11XD 07/01/97 NG, EM USGS-IN

MW-13XD 11/01/97 NG, EM, N USGS-BRG

MW-14XD 11/01/97 NG, EM, N USGS-BRG

MW-15XD 11/12/97 NG, EM USGS-IN

08/18/99 EM USEPA

05/10/00 EM USEPA

08/25/00 EM USEPA

MW-16XD 11/14/97 NG, EM USGS-IN

MW-17XD 11/14/97 NG, EM USGS-IN

PZ-1XD 11/1/97 NG, EM, N USGS-BRG

PZ-2XD 11/1/97 NG, EM, N USGS-BRG

PZ-3XD 11/01/97 NG, EM, N USGS-BRG

TW-95A 11/25/96 NG, EM USEPA

11/01/97 NG, EM, N USGS-BRG
Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 11

Neutron absorption logging measures hydrogen content, which correlates to water content

and porosity of the aquifer materials (Keys and

MacCary, 1971, p. 74). The neutron tool uses a

radioactive source to emit radioactive particles that

are absorbed by hydrogen atoms, a principle component of water. A high neutron count indicates few

neutrons are being absorbed by hydrogen/water,

which in turn indicates low aquifer porosity.

Aquifer Hydraulic Testing

Single-well and multiple-well aquifer testing

were used to characterize the hydraulic properties

of the geologic materials in the study area. Analysis

of single-well aquifer-test data provided estimates

of horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer

sediments in the vicinity of the well screen. Analysis of data collected during the multiple-well

aquifer test provided estimates of horizontal and

vertical hydraulic conductivity, transmissivity,

and specific yield for a larger part of the aquifer

than that tested by the single-well method. Information from the aquifer tests was used to estimate the

rate of ground-water flow through the aquifer.

Single-Well Aquifer Tests

Single-well aquifer tests (slug tests) were completed in 48 of the monitoring wells to provide

estimates of horizontal hydraulic conductivity of

the aquifer. Hydraulic conductivity is determined

from the rate of rise or fall of the water level in a

well after a known volume or “slug” of water is

displaced suddenly. Generally, the faster the water

level returns to its pre-test static level, the higher

the hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer sediments

around the well screen. Falling-head and risinghead slug tests were completed as appropriate for

the type of well being tested.

To complete a falling-head slug test, the static

water level in the well was measured and a submersible pressure transducer was placed in the well

approximately 10 ft below the water surface. The

water level was allowed to stabilize; then, a solid

cylindrical polyvinyl chloride (PVC) slug with a

known volume was inserted quickly into the water

column and water-level changes with time were

recorded by a data logger. Data were collected

until the water level returned to and stabilized at

or near the pre-test static level. After completing

the falling-head slug test, a rising-head slug test

was done by rapidly removing the PVC slug from

the water column and monitoring the water-level

response. For the S-series wells (wells with the

screened interval intersecting the water table),

only rising-head tests were completed.

For most of the slug tests, the water level

responded in a decreasing exponential manner in

returning to the pre-test static water level (fig. 4A).

This type of response is referred to as the overdamped response (van der Kamp, 1976, p. 5).

For several of the tests, water levels quickly returned to, rose above, and then returned to the

static level, indicating a critically damped response

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.0

-1.6

-1.4

-1.2

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

WELL MW-9XD WELL MW-2MD WELL MW-17MD

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

-1.4

-1.2

-1.0

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

1.0

-2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0

0.5

WATER LEVEL ABOVE OR BELOW

TIME SINCE START OF TEST, IN MINUTES

STATIC (zero) WATER LEVEL, IN FEET

A OVERDAMPED B CRITICALLY DAMPED C UNDERDAMPED

Figure 4. Examples of common responses of water levels to slug tests in monitoring wells near Westville, Indiana;

(A) overdamped response, (B) critically damped response, and (C) underdamped response.

0.8
12 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana

(fig. 4B). For a few of the tests, water levels oscillated above and below the static water level,

providing an underdamped response (fig. 4C). The

oscillatory responses of the critically damped and

underdamped conditions are often indicative of

highly permeable aquifer materials (Sepulveda,

1992, p. 1).

The analytical method of Bouwer and Rice

(1976) and Bouwer (1989) was used to analyze data

from tests that resulted in an overdamped response.

Although this method was developed to analyze

data from rising-head tests, it also is appropriate for

falling-head tests provided that the pre-test static

water level is above the screened interval of the

tested well. Tests that resulted in an underdamped

response were analyzed using the method of van

der Kamp (1976) which provides an estimate of

transmissivity. Horizontal hydraulic conductivity

was calculated by dividing the transmissivity by the

screen length. An appropriate analytical method

was not determined for slug tests that resulted in

critically damped responses, and horizontal hydraulic conductivity was not calculated.

The Bouwer and Rice (1976) and the van der

Kamp (1976) methods assume the following conditions:

• The aquifer is homogeneous and isotropic.

• Drawdown of the water table in the

vicinity of the well is negligible.

• Flow above the water table (in the capillary

fringe) can be ignored.

• Head loss, as the water enters the well, is

negligible.

All of these conditions are probably met or

at least approximated in the glacial aquifer in the

vicinity of the well screens. The Bouwer and Rice

(1976) method was developed for unconfined aquifers. The method of van der Kamp (1976) assumes

a fully penetrating well in a confined aquifer; however, if vertical hydraulic conductivity is small

compared to horizontal hydraulic conductivity, the

flow induced by the small stress applied by the test

should be primarily horizontal. In addition, wells

for which slug-test data showed an underdamped

response were in the MD or XD series, where the

depth below the water table would partially confine

the aquifer. Therefore, the assumption was made

that the Bouwer and Rice and the van der Kamp

methods would provide reasonable estimates of

horizontal hydraulic conductivity.

Multiple-Well Aquifer Test

A constant-discharge, multiple-well aquifer

test was completed at the Town of Westville’s new

well field (fig. 1). Analysis of the test results provided estimates of horizontal and vertical hydraulic

conductivity, transmissivity, and specific yield for

the aquifer. The location for the aquifer test was

selected because of the presence of a 5-in.-diameter

test well (TW-95A) at the site. In addition, the

location was not near the area of ground-water contamination and therefore avoided the need to treat

the pumped water prior to disposal.

The aquifer test was divided into three phases.

The first phase consisted of pre-test monitoring of

water levels in wells LP-1; MW-7S, D, and XD;

MW-5S and XD; and PZ-1S, MD, and XD (locations shown on fig. 3). Water levels were collected

every half hour by use of submersible pressure

transducers and data loggers. The water-level data

were inspected to identify the presence and magnitude of background trends in ground-water levels

that might affect interpretation of drawdown in the

observation wells during pumping. The second

phase of the aquifer test consisted of pumping well

TW-95A at a rate of 86 gal/min for 3,048 minutes

(a little more than 2 days) and monitoring water levels in wells at sites PZ-1, PZ-2, and PZ-3. Water

levels also were monitored in background wells

during pumping to determine if ambient processes

were affecting the test results. The third phase of the

aquifer test consisted of monitoring the recovery of

water levels in all the observation wells and in the

pumped well once the pumping ceased. Recovery

was monitored for 2,440 minutes, by which time all

water levels had recovered to, or above, the prepumping water levels.

During the test, water levels were monitored

using submersible pressure transducers rated at

0-5 psi or 0-10 psi in all of the wells except the

pumped well. These transducers are capable of

accurately detecting water-level changes of 0.01 ft.
Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 13

Water levels in the pumped well were monitored

with a 0-30 psi transducer capable of accurately

detecting water-level changes of 0.05 ft. Water levels were recorded by data loggers. The frequency of

data collection was determined by the elapsed time

since pumping started or ceased. Water levels were

recorded every 0.0083 minutes during the first

minute after starting or stopping the pump, every

0.2 minutes from 1 to 10 minutes, every 2 minutes

from 10 to 100 minutes, and every 15 minutes after

100 minutes. The accuracy of the water levels

obtained with the pressure transducers was checked

periodically with manual measurements, using an

electric tape.

Barometric pressure was measured and

recorded during the aquifer test and precipitation

was measured at one manual gage and one automated gage, both approximately 1 mi southwest

of the test location. Barometric-pressure readings

were compared with water levels in the background

wells to determine the effect of barometric-pressure

fluctuations on ground-water levels during pumping. Changes in ground-water levels caused by

changes in barometric pressure and precipitation in

wells that were unaffected by the pumping were

applied when necessary to correct drawdown data

from the affected wells.

A flowmeter was connected to the discharge

line to monitor whether discharge from the pumped

well remained constant. Water was pumped from

well TW-95A into two holding tanks. Another

pump was used to move the water from the holding

tanks to a Town of Westville sewer, a distance of

about 1,000 ft. The holding tank had a series of

inner compartments with baffles that restricted the

flow of water among compartments; this caused

the compartment into which the water was pumped

to overflow. Because the pump and discharge hose

to the sewer did not have the capacity to accept all

of the water pumped from the well, some water was

discharged onto the ground approximately 500 ft

southwest of the pumped well.

Data from the multiple-well aquifer test were

analyzed using AquiferTest software developed

by Waterloo Hydrogeologic, Inc. (Roenrich, not

dated). On the basis of an analysis of the geohydrologic data collected in the study area and inspection

of the aquifer-test data, a method of analysis

described by Moench (1993 and 1995) was selected

as the most appropriate. This method, which is

based in part on Neuman’s (1972 and 1974) method

for partially penetrating pumping and observation

wells in unconfined aquifers, also allows for

delayed yield from the unsaturated zone that results

as the water table is lowered. The assumptions for

the use of Moench’s analysis are

• The aquifer is infinite in extent, homogeneous, and isotropic.

• Drawdown is small compared to the

saturated thickness of the aquifer.

• The water table is horizontal prior to

pumping.

• The well is pumped at a constant rate.

• The diameter of the pumped well is small

enough that well storage is negligible.

These conditions were met or approximated at the

test site.

The method of Moench (1993) required waterlevel data from the pumped well and one or more

observation wells; distances between wells; pumping rate; and well characteristics such as diameter,

depth, and length of well screen. The AquiferTest

software uses the input data to determine the appropriate type curve(s) for the analysis. The software

calculates aquifer properties of transmissivity, horizontal and vertical hydraulic conductivity, and

specific yield as the plotted water-level data are

moved interactively on the computer screen to

obtain the best fit between the type curve and the

data.

Water-Level Measurements

Measurements of surface- and ground-water

levels were made in monitoring wells and at

selected well points within the study area to determine the altitude of the water surface, identify

directions of flow, and characterize surface-water

and ground-water interactions. Measurements were

made approximately bimonthly from June 1997

through July 1998 and intermittently from May

1999 through August 2000. The measurements provide information about the seasonal fluctuations of
14 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana

water levels and whether changes in ground-waterflow directions may occur with fluctuations.

Water-level measurements were made with an

electric tape and were referenced to the surveyed

point on each well. Generally, two or more measurements were made to confirm the result. The

altitude of the surface water at each well-point location also was determined by measuring from the

reference point. Water-level measurements from

the well points were used to determine the magnitude and direction of hydraulic gradients across the

streambed of Crumpacker Ditch and the bottom

sediments of a small pond.

Water levels were monitored continuously in

the wells at sites MW-4 and MW-5 and in well

LP-3 (locations shown on fig. 3) for approximately

3 months in summer 1997. Water levels were monitored by use of submersible pressure transducers,

and data were recorded hourly. Precipitation,

barometric pressure, and pumping from the

municipal-supply well for the Town of Westville

also were monitored. The data were used to investigate the possible influence of pumping on the

contaminant plume. The summer months were

selected for monitoring because water demand,

and therefore pumping rates, generally are greatest

during these months.

Streamflow and Seepage Measurements

Streamflow was measured at selected locations in Crumpacker Ditch, Wright Arm, Forbes

Ditch, and Crooked Creek (fig. 5). The times of

measurement correspond with ground-water-level

measurements or sample collection. The same

locations were not measured each time because

some locations were dropped and new locations

were added. Streamflow measurements were used

to estimate the contribution of ground water to

surface-water flow. If no rain occurs prior to the

measurements and if other sources of inflow are

considered, the difference between streamflow at

two locations along a stream indicates the volume

of water gained or lost in the intervening reach.

Streamflow measurements were made according to techniques described by Rantz and others

(1982). Measurements were made with a standard

Price pygmy or Price type AA current meter. The

meter was connected to an AquaCalc computer that

calculates the volume of flow based on the velocity

from the meter and the cross-sectional area from

measurements input by the hydrographer. During

periods of very low flow, such as in August and

December 1997, a Parshall flume was used at site

SW-1 to determine streamflow according to methods described by Kilpatrick and Schneider (1983).

Seepage measurements were made near

selected well points in Crumpacker Ditch, using

seepage meters developed for this investigation.

Measurements were made as part of the investigation of the relation between ground-water flow and

Crumpacker Ditch; these measurements augment

the streamflow data and water-level data collected

from the well points. The measurements provide an

estimate of the volume of ground water entering the

stream at the location of the seepage meter.

Seepage meters were constructed of 8-in.-

diameter, 16-in.-long PVC pipe. A nipple was

connected to the pipe and extended through the

outer wall so that plastic tubing could be attached.

The seepage meter was pushed 3 to 4 in. into the

streambed (fig. 6) to obtain a seal around the meter

and to position the nipple below the water surface

in the stream. Plastic tubing was attached to the

nipple, and a plastic bag was attached to the tubing.

Rocks were used as weights to hold the plastic bag

beneath the water surface. For each measurement,

the bag was allowed to collect water for approximately 24 hours. The volume of water in the bag

was measured, and seepage into the stream was

calculated based upon the elapsed time, the volume

of water collected, and the cross-sectional area of

the seepage meter.

Water-Quality Sample Collection and Analysis

Samples of ground water and surface water

were collected and analyzed to document waterquality conditions in the vicinity of the refinery site.

Ground-water samples were collected from monitoring wells, well points, and privately owned

water-supply wells. Surface-water samples were
Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 15
16 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana

collected in selected locations from Crumpacker

Ditch, Forbes Ditch, and Crooked Creek. Samples

were collected by the USEPA, their contractors, and

the USGS. All samples were analyzed either at the

USEPA Region 5 Central Regional Laboratory or at

a USEPA-contracted laboratory.

Quality Assurance

The sample collection followed qualityassurance and quality-control (QA/QC) protocols

established in the Draft Sampling and Analysis

Plan (SAP) (U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, written commun., 1997). The SAP specified bottle types, preservation, and holding times

for the samples; equipment-decontamination procedures; and frequency for the collection of QA/QC

samples, such as duplicate and blank samples. Each

sample collection was recorded on field data sheets.

The contract laboratories provided narrative

QA/QC documentation and data qualifiers with

the reported analytical results. The results were

reviewed to determine the suitability of the data for

use, and the laboratory report was revised if necessary by the USEPA or their contractors. Analytical

results reported by the USEPA Region 5 Central

Regional Laboratory were reviewed internally by

the USEPA.

Ground Water

Water samples were collected from 36 monitoring wells during April–June 1997, 45 wells during September 1997, 48 wells during December

1997, and 29 wells during May 1999. Samples collected during April–June 1997 were analyzed for

selected major and minor inorganic constituents,

VOC’s including 1,4-dioxane, and semi-volatile

organic compounds (SVOC’s) including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB’s) and pesticides. Samples

were collected and analyzed for 1,4-dioxane during

September 1997, December 1997, and May 1999.

Samples collected in May 1999 were analyzed for
Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 17

VOC’s, including 1,4-dioxane, and SVOC’s to

monitor potential changes in water quality from

clean-up activities at the refinery site and to monitor

changes in the area of ground-water contamination.

Ground-water samples were collected by use

of submersible, low-flow pumps. All pumps were

positive displacement with controlled variable-flow

rates and were constructed of Teflon and stainlesssteel components. The pumps were equipped with

Teflon discharge lines.

Prior to collection of each sample, the interior

of the sampling pump was cleaned by placing the

pump in a series of three PVC tubes containing

soapy water, tap water, and distilled water. Approximately 3 gal of soapy water and 3 gal of tap water

were run through the pump and discharge line, followed by 1 to 2 gal of distilled or deionized water.

The exterior of the pump was cleaned with a soapy

water spray and by scrubbing with a brush, a rinse

of tap water, and a rinse of distilled water.

The water level in the well to be sampled was

measured prior to placing the sampling pump in

the well. The well was pumped at a rate of approximately 1 gal/min to remove stagnant water in

the casing. The discharge line was connected

to the flow-through cell of a multi-parameter

water-quality meter. This allowed measurements of water temperature (T), pH, specific

conductance (SC), dissolved oxygen (DO), and

oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) to be recorded

before the water came in contact with the atmosphere. Periodic measurements of turbidity were

made with a portable turbidimeter.

Samples were collected after three consecutive

measurements indicated stable conditions according to the following protocol:

T = + 0.5°C,

pH = + 0.25 pH units,

SC = + 50 μS/cm,

DO = + 10 percent,

ORP = + 25 mV, and

turbidity = + 10 percent,

or after a minimum of three casing volumes had

been removed. Samples were collected after the

pumping rate was slowed to minimize aeration of

the sample while the bottles were filled. Samples

were placed in coolers with ice for storage prior to

shipment to the laboratories by overnight delivery.

Privately owned, domestic water-supply wells

in an area southwest of the site were sampled

periodically for VOC’s and 1,4-dioxane, beginning

in April 1997. The majority of private watersupply wells are screened in the upper half of the

glacial aquifer with many of the wells obtaining

water from depths between 40 and 65 ft. Samples

also were collected from the municipal well for

the Town of Westville, supply wells for the Westville Correctional Facility, and from a well at a

mobile-home park along Indiana Highway 2. In

some cases, results of analyses of samples from

water-supply wells guided the placement of new

monitoring wells.

Most of the samples collected from watersupply wells were collected by USEPA personnel,

although some samples were collected by the

USGS or by USEPA contractors. Samples were

collected as close as possible to the pump to

avoid the effects of treatment and storage systems.

Pumps were activated for a minimum of 10 minutes

prior to collection of the sample. Sample preservation and handling were the same as procedures

described previously for samples from the monitoring wells.

Surface Water

Surface-water samples were collected at locations in Crumpacker Ditch, Forbes Ditch, and

Crooked Creek (fig. 7) during April–May 1997,

August–September 1997, December 1997, and

May 1999, to coincide with ground-water sampling. Samples collected April–May 1997 were

analyzed for major and minor inorganic constituents, VOC’s including 1,4-dioxane, and SVOC’s

including PCB’s and pesticides. The remaining

samples were analyzed only for 1,4-dioxane.

With the exception of samples collected in

December 1997, samples were collected by submerging a closed sample bottle in the stream to a

point approximately two-thirds of the distance from

the water surface to the streambed. The bottle was
18 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana
Geohydrology 19

opened and allowed to fill. The bottle was capped,

brought to the surface, wiped clean, and placed

in a cooler with ice for storage prior to shipment

to the laboratory. Samples collected during December 1997 were collected with a Teflon bailer

equipped with a bottom-control valve used to fill

the sample bottles. Because 1,4-dioxane is not very

soluble in water and is not very volatile, the use

of a bailer should not bias the analytical results

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999).

Field measurements of T, pH, SC, DO, ORP,

and turbidity were recorded at the time of sample

collection by submerging the multi-parameter

water-quality meter in the center of flow.

Ground-Water-Flow Model

Ground-water flow was simulated with the

USGS modular three-dimensional finite-difference

ground-water-flow model developed by McDonald

and Harbaugh (1988) and updated by Harbaugh and

McDonald (1996). The digital model was based on

a conceptualization of the aquifer geometry and

geohydrology determined from data collected during installation, geophysical logging, and hydraulic

testing of the monitoring wells. Particle tracking

(Pollock, 1989 and 1994) was used to simulate

the plume of 1,4-dioxane and to evaluate possible

mechanisms of contaminant release, the effects of

existing and planned ground-water pumping, and a

potential method of remediation.

Well logs for privately owned water-supply

wells in the study area were obtained from the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) and

provided lithologic data for parts of the study area

where monitoring wells were not installed. The

data allowed the boundaries of the model to be

set far enough away from the refinery site and the

contaminant plume to provide better definition of

flow in these areas of the model. Records of groundwater pumpage for wells capable of producing

100,000 gal/d also were obtained from the IDNR

for simulation by the model.

Geohydrology

A geologic description of the glacial sand aquifer underlying the study area was developed from

the lithologic and geophysical logs. The subsurface

sediments primarily are fine- to medium-grained

sand intermixed and possibly layered with varying

amounts of gravel, silt, and clay. Gravel and silt

were reported at various depths throughout the

aquifer, but clay, if present at all, generally was

reported only for the upper 10 ft below land surface

and at the base of the aquifer. Large gravel, cobbles,

and boulders occasionally were reported, generally

at depths less than 25 ft. At most of the drilling

locations, an increase in sand grain size and a

decrease in silt content with depth was observed.

Lithologic logs for wells at sites MW-4, MW-7,

MW-15, and MW-17 indicated an abundance of

dark-gray to black shale gravel mixed with sand

in lower parts of the aquifer.

The aquifer thickness in the vicinity of the

refinery site ranges from 148 ft at site MW-9 to

215 ft at site MW-7. The sand is underlain by moderately hard to stiff grey or blue clay. The log for

well TW-95A reported 8 ft of blue clay on top of

shale bedrock.

Results of Geophysical Logging

The natural gamma logs, in general, show

decreasing gamma radiation with depth (fig. 8).

This interpretation supports the decrease in silt

content with depth observed during drilling. A few

layers that showed elevated gamma readings at

depth in some wells do not appear to correlate

among well locations. The elevated gamma readings may indicate small lenses of clay and/or silt

that are thin and discontinuous within the study

area. Although these lenses of clay can alter the

flow of ground water locally, they probably do not

substantially affect regional ground-water flow.

Electromagnetic conductivity logs generally

correlate with the lithologic changes indicated

by the NG logging, except for specific wells

(MW-2XD, MW-4XD, MW-10XD, MW-14XD,
20 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana
Geohydrology 21

MW-15XD, and possibly MW-17XD) within the

area of ground-water contamination. High values of

SC, generally greater than 1,200 μS/cm, were measured in water from many of these wells compared

to SC of water from wells not in the area of contamination that ranged from about 400 to 600 μS/cm.

Concentrations of chloride ranged from 62 to

799 mg/L in water samples collected downgradient

from the refinery site at well sites MW-2 and

MW-4 during April–May 1997, compared to a

range of 9 to 15 mg/L in water from upgradient

wells at MW-7. The high EM response in wells

within the plume of contamination probably is

a result of high SC and chloride concentrations

associated with the plume. Although a direct correlation between 1,4-dioxane and SC was not found,

EM logs were used to determine vertical placement of the well screens for wells MW-15MD and

MW-17MD.

With the exception of the bottom few feet of

some wells, the neutron logs generally correlate

well with the natural gamma logs. The change in

neutron response near the bottom of the well is

attributed to a difference in water content of the

natural collapse/filter pack around the well screens

compared to the bentonite grout above the screened

interval. The bentonite grout has low permeability

but also has high porosity and retains more water

than the filter pack or aquifer material. The high

water content of the bentonite results in low neutron

readings because neutrons are absorbed by water.

Aquifer Hydraulic Properties

Single-well aquifer tests (slug tests) were

completed to assess the spatial variability of horizontal hydraulic conductivity in the study area. A

multiple-well aquifer test was done to determine

the response of the aquifer to pumping and to provide additional estimates of hydraulic properties.

Results of the single-well and multiple-well tests

generally are in good agreement.

Results of the Single-Well Aquifer Tests

Slug tests were completed in 20 shallow

wells, 6 D-series wells, 6 MD-series wells, and

16 XD-series wells. Results from slug tests at one

MD-series wells and three XD-series wells were

not analyzed because of erratic oscillations of the

water level during recovery. Slug-test results for

eight wells completed by the USEPA in 1994 were

included in the analysis (table 2). In general, values

of hydraulic conductivity obtained from the slugtest data indicate a large degree of variability. The

average horizontal hydraulic conductivities determined at individual wells range from 0.6 ft/d at well

MW-3D to 127 ft/d at well MW-17MD.

Results of the slug tests were grouped according to the depth of the well to evaluate vertical

differences within the aquifer. The geometric mean

of hydraulic conductivity was selected as the indicator of central tendency. Horizontal hydraulic

conductivity for the S-series wells and other shallow wells ranged from 8.6 to 53.3 ft/d, and the

geometric mean was 21.3 ft/d. Horizontal hydraulic

conductivity for the D-series wells ranged from 0.6

to 62.4 ft/d, and the geometric mean was 12.2 ft/d.

Horizontal hydraulic conductivity for the MDseries wells ranged from 46.8 to 127 ft/d, and the

geometric mean was 89.9 ft/d. For the XD-series

wells, horizontal hydraulic conductivity ranged

from 9.7 to 118 ft/d, and the geometric mean was

64.4 ft/d.

Single-well aquifer-test results for the D-series

wells indicate a bimodal distribution of hydraulic

conductivity. Values of horizontal hydraulic conductivity obtained at wells MW-1D, MW-2D,

MW-3D, and MW-14D were about two or more

times smaller than the geometric mean; whereas,

values of hydraulic conductivity for other D-series

wells were about three or more times larger than

the geometric mean. The D-series wells for which

low values of horizontal hydraulic conductivity

were determined are along the western edge of the

former refinery site (wells MW-2D and MW-3D),

south of the site (well MW-1D) and west of the

site near Crumpacker Ditch (well MW-14D). The

results may indicate an area of relatively low horizontal hydraulic conductivity in the aquifer west of

the refinery site to Crumpacker Ditch at the 80-ft

depth of the D-series wells. Values of horizontal

hydraulic conductivity for the remaining D-series

wells generally are similar to those obtained for

wells in the MD and XD series.
22 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana

There are several limitations to using slug-test

results to develop hydraulic-conductivity estimates

for aquifer sediments. Because of the small hydraulic stress imposed on the aquifer during a slug test,

only the properties of the aquifer sediments in the

immediate vicinity of the borehole (or well screen)

are tested. At best, a slug test provides estimates

of horizontal hydraulic conductivity for the materials within a few feet around the well, whereas a

multiple-well aquifer test can provide a measure

of hydraulic properties over a much larger volume

of the aquifer. In addition, artifacts of well construction or ineffective well development can

restrict flow of ground water between the well

and the aquifer, resulting in incorrect estimates

of horizontal hydraulic conductivity. In general,

slug-test results have been shown to be consistent

with results of multiple-well aquifer tests. In

some cases, however, hydraulic conductivity values

derived from results of slug tests can be three

to five times smaller than values derived from

data from multiple-well aquifer tests (Rovy and

Cherkauer, 1995).

Table 2. Average values of horizontal hydraulic conductivity determined from single-well aquifer tests near Westville, Indiana

[ft/d, foot per day; test results analyzed by method of Bouwer and Rice (1976) except as noted]

a

Well tested previously by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, August 2, 1994.

b

Critically-damped response—test data not analyzed.

c

Well for which data were analyzed by the method of van der Kamp (1976).

Well name

Average

horizontal

hydraulic

conductivity

(ft/d) Well name

Average

horizontal

hydraulic

conductivity

(ft/d) Well name

Average

horizontal

hydraulic

conductivity

(ft/d) Well name

Average

horizontal

hydraulic

conductivity

(ft/d)

B-4 12.5 MW-4XD 83.7 MW-12 22.1 MW-17XD 9.7

EP-2 27.4 MW-5XD 118 MW-13S 51.1 MW-18S 20.2

EP-3 34.6 MW-7S 15.8 MW-13D 32.8 MW-18XDc 104

LP-1a 17.2 MW-7D 62.4 MW-13XD 111 NDF-MW-1 34.6

LP-3a 53.3 MW-7XD 81.4 MW-14S 14.3 NDF-MW-2 7.85

MW-1Sa 23.0 MW-8S 8.6 MW-14D 3.4 PZ-1S 18.0

MW-1Da 2.9 MW-8D 47.9 MW-14XD 50.4 PZ-1MDc 110

MW-2Sa 21.6 MW-9S 14.9 MW-15S 37.4 PZ-1XD not determinedb

MW-2Da 7.2 MW-9XD 50.0 MW-15MD 46.8 PZ-2S 25.9

MW-2MD not determinedb MW-10S 18.0 MW-15XD 85.7 PZ-2MDc 105

MW-2XD 29.3 MW-10XD 90.7 MW-16S 20.2 PZ-2XDc 79.8

MW-3Sa 20.9 MW-11S 34.1 MW-16D 36.7 PZ-3S 13.4

MW-3Da .6 MW-11D 38.1 MW-16XD not determinedb PZ-3MDc 85.8

MW-4S 28.1 MW-11XD not determinedb MW-17MDc 127 PZ-3XDc 79.5
Geohydrology 23

Results of the Multiple-Well Aquifer Test

A constant-discharge, multiple-well aquifer

test was completed at the location of the Town of

Westville’s proposed well field. The test consisted

of pumping well TW-95A and recording changes

in water levels in the PZ-series wells (locations

shown on fig. 3). Analysis of the test results provided estimates of horizontal and vertical hydraulic

conductivity, transmissivity, and specific yield for

the aquifer.

Water levels were monitored during 6 days

prior to the aquifer test in wells LP-1; MW-7S, D,

and XD; MW-5S and XD; and PZ-1S, MD, and

XD. Precipitation data indicated about 0.6 to 0.8 in.

of rain had fallen during April 8 and 9. The data

show that ground-water levels rose steadily from

April 10 through April 13 as a result of recharge

from precipitation (fig. 9).

Well TW-95A was pumped at a rate of

86 gal/min for 3,048 minutes (approximately

2.1 days) beginning at 1:42 p.m., April 14, 1998.

Prior to turning off the pump, 16 ft of drawdown

was measured in the pumped well. Drawdown was

observed in all the PZ wells, ranging from 0.079 ft

in well PZ-1S to 0.29 ft in wells PZ-2MD and

PZ-3MD. Water levels in the MD- and XD-series

wells were lowered more by the pumping than were

water levels in the S-series wells. This indicates

that the lower part of the aquifer supplied most of

the water pumped from the well. The pump was

turned off at 4:30 p.m., April 16, and water levels

were monitored in the wells for another 2,440 minutes (approximately 1.7 days). By that time,

ground-water levels had recovered to or above

their pre-test levels.

The water was pumped into two large tanks at

the site. Most of the water then was pumped from

the tanks to a town sewer approximately 1,000 ft

away. After pumping for approximately 1,000 minutes, it was necessary to allow some excess water to

drain intermittently from the tanks through a hose

onto the ground approximately 500 ft southwest of

well TW-95A. Based on a flow rate of 12 gal/min

and the total amount of time that water was drained

(825 minutes), the estimated volume of water discharged onto the ground is less than 10,000 gal, or

3.8 percent of the approximately 260,000 gal

pumped. The discharged water did not appear to

affect ground-water levels in the pumping or observation wells during the aquifer test.

Some discrepancies between drawdown measured by the pressure transducer and drawdown

measured by electric tape were observed in the data.

The discrepancies were determined to be caused by

changes (drift) in the electrical current output from

the pressure transducer over the time period of

the aquifer test. These changes are not related to

changes in water level but can be caused by changes

in temperature and barometric pressure, stretching

of the transducer cable, or electrical interference.

The water-level data were referenced to a common datum by subtracting the measured depth to

water from the surveyed measuring point of the

appropriate well. The results were plotted on graphs

and inspected visually. Two types of corrections

were made to the water-level data based on the

inspections.

 First, comparison of the manual measurements with data collected by the pressure

transducers and data loggers indicated data from

the transducers were subject to drift that resulted

in small errors in the recorded water level. Generally, the manual measurements were considered

more accurate than the transducer output; however,

corrections were made only when differences of

more than 0.01 ft were observed between data collected manually and data stored on the data loggers.

Corrections for transducer drift were made on an

individual basis as determined from the data.

Water levels also were corrected to account

for ambient or background water-level conditions

on the basis of water levels collected from wells

at MW-7 and well LP-1. The changes in water

levels measured in these wells include the effects

of recharge and changes in barometric pressure.

Assuming that water levels in wells at the test site

would have similar responses, the background

water levels can be used to correct for ambient

water-level conditions. Data collected prior to the

test (fig. 9) show nearly identical trends of rising

water levels in these wells and in the wells at PZ-1

at the test site. Water levels in the wells at MW-7
24 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana
Geohydrology 25

and well LP-1 continued to rise during the test as a

result of recharge to the aquifer from almost 1.5 in.

of rainfall that occurred on April 13. The water

level in well MW-7D, an 80-ft-deep well west

of the test site, rose 0.05 ft during pumping. It is

assumed that water levels at the aquifer-test site

also were rising during pumping, so drawdown

measured during the test would be less than the

drawdown that would have occurred without

the recharge. Water-level data from the PZ wells

and well TW-95A were corrected by prorating the

rise in water levels measured at MW-7D with time

during pumping and adding the results to the measured drawdown.

The method of Moench (1993) was used to

analyze drawdown data from all of the PZ wells

individually and in selected groups. Groups analyzed were (1) observation well site (PZ-1, PZ-2,

or PZ-3) and (2) depth (S, MD, or XD). Drawdown

data from all wells in the group were plotted together for these analyses. Water-level data from the

recovery phase of the aquifer test were analyzed,

using the same procedures used for the drawdown

data. Data from the recovery phase were used to

check and verify results obtained for the pumping

phase.

The corrected data files were analyzed with the

AquiferTest (Roenrich, not dated) analytical software. The shape of the type curve(s) generated by

the software can be modified by specifying input

variables for s, β, and the ratio between vertical and

horizontal hydraulic conductivity (Kz/Kr). Moench

(1993) defines s as S/Sy

where,

S = storativity

and Sy = specific yield,

and β as Kzr

2/Krb2

 ,

where,

Kz = hydraulic conductivity in the

vertical direction,

Kr = hydraulic conductivity in the

horizontal direction,

r = radial distance from the center

of the pumped well,

and b = initial saturated thickness of the

aquifer.

Input values of s and Kz/Kr were adjusted to

obtain the type curve that best matched the shape

of the plotted data. The variable β had little or no

effect on results of this analysis and was left at the

default value (109

).

The method of Moench (1993) provides an

estimate of horizontal and vertical hydraulic

conductivity, transmissivity, and specific yield

(table 3). With the exception of results from well

PZ-1S, the analysis of the aquifer-test data provided

similar values of hydraulic conductivity. It is not

clear why the results from well PZ-1S differ from

the majority of analyses; however, well PZ-1S is the

water-table well farthest from the pumping well,

and it had the smallest measured drawdown. The

lower value for hydraulic conductivity obtained for

this well compared to the others may be related to

an area of low permeability caused by an increase

in silt content of the aquifer materials in the vicinity

of the well, preferential flow paths within the aquifer, or error in measurement or analysis.

Results of analysis of data from individual

wells (table 3) indicated average values of about

17,200 ft2/d for transmissivity, 112 ft/d for horizontal hydraulic conductivity, 20 ft/d for vertical

hydraulic conductivity, and 0.05 for specific yield.

Individual values ranged from 7,400 to 20,800 ft2

/d

for transmissivity, 48 to 136 ft/d for horizontal

hydraulic conductivity, 4.8 to 36 ft/d for vertical

hydraulic conductivity, and 0.01 to 0.08 for specific

yield. The range of values are the result of differences in the composition of the aquifer, which

changes mostly with depth but also areally to some

extent. For most of the analyses for individual

wells, data from the S-series wells produced lower

values for all hydraulic parameters than data from

the MD- and XD-series wells. Also, values obtained using data from observation wells at site

PZ-3, southeast of the pumped well, were slightly

higher than values from observation wells located

northeast (well sites PZ-1 and PZ-2).

Results of analyses grouped by well site and

by well depth were similar to those obtained from

analysis of individual wells (table 3). With the

exception of the group containing all wells at site

PZ-1 that resulted in values slightly lower than the

other groups, values for hydraulic parameters deter-
26 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana

mined from grouped analysis were consistent

among groups. The results of the analysis by groups

probably provide the best estimates of aquifer properties because they take into account more of the

data. Based on the grouped analysis, the aquifer

transmissivity is 18,600 ft2/d and horizontal hydraulic conductivity is 121 ft/d. Values for vertical

hydraulic conductivity for each group ranged from

24 to 36 ft/d, and values for specific yield ranged

from 0.05 to 0.08.

Drawdown data were plotted (fig. 10) to analyze the relative degree of anisotropy, or existence

of preferential ground-water-flow directions, within

the aquifer. The lack of a substantially elongated

cone of drawdown indicates the aquifer is virtually

isotropic in the horizontal direction. The plot of

drawdown along a cross section from well TW-95A

to well site PZ-1, however, illustrates that drawdown was greater in the lower part of the aquifer

compared to drawdown at the water table. This

indicates that most of the drawdown was transmitted horizontally and not vertically through the

aquifer and is most likely the result of partial penetration of the pumped well (the well is not screened

through the entire thickness of the aquifer). The

small values of vertical hydraulic conductivity

compared to horizontal hydraulic conductivity indicate that the aquifer is anisotropic with respect to

vertical and horizontal flow.

Table 3. Hydraulic conductivity, transmissivity, and specific yield determined with drawdown data from individual wells and

selected groups of wells from the multiple-well aquifer test near Westville, Indiana, April 1998

[ft/d, foot per day; ft2/d, square foot per day]

Well or group name

Horizontal

hydraulic

conductivity

(ft/d)

Vertical

hydraulic

conductivity

(ft/d)

Ratio of

horizontal to

vertical

hydraulic

conductivity

Transmissivity

(ft2

/d)

Specific

yield

 (dimensionless)

PZ-1S 48 4.8 0.1 7,400 0.01

PZ-1MD 121 24 .2 18,600 .07

PZ-1XD 121 24 .2 18,600 .05

All wells at PZ-1 108 30 .3 16,600 .08

PZ-2S 108 10.8 .1 16,600 .03

PZ-2MD 121 24 .2 18,600 .08

PZ-2XD 108 21 .2 16,600 .08

All wells at PZ-2 121 36 .3 18,600 .06

PZ-3S 121 12 .1 18,600 .02

PZ-3MD 136 27 .2 20,800 .07

PZ-3XD 121 36 .3 18,600 .08

All wells at PZ-3 121 36 .3 18,600 .06

All S wells 121 24 .2 18,600 .05

All MD wells 121 24 .2 18,600 .06

All XD wells 121 36 .3 18,600 .06
Geohydrology 27

0.20

0.10

0.22

0.25

0.28 0.11

0.11

15.8

15.8

0.5

1

15

5 10

0.08

0.09

0.09

0.11

0.19

0.10 0.20

0.27

0.28

0.25

1 5

10

15 15.8
28 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana

With the exception of wells PZ-2S and PZ-3S,

the results of the multiple-well aquifer test (table 3)

are in reasonable agreement with results of slug

tests in the PZ wells (table 2). Both results indicate

increased hydraulic conductivity with depth in the

aquifer. The larger values of hydraulic conductivity

obtained from the aquifer-test data compared to the

slug tests are a result of the difference in scale of the

two tests. The stress applied to the aquifer during a

slug test is minor and tests only a small part of the

aquifer near the open interval of a well. The small

stress of the slug test results in estimates of hydraulic conductivity that are more conservative than

estimates obtained from applying a larger stress

to the aquifer by pumping.

The pumping rate of 86 gal/min maintained

during the multiple-well aquifer test represents a

small stress to the particular aquifer tested. The

small amount of drawdown measured in the observation wells indicates that most of the water supplied to the pumped well was induced ground-water

flow with a lesser amount obtained from storage.

It is probable that the aquifer can sustain larger

pumping rates with small increases in drawdown.

Therefore, it is possible that the values for aquifer

properties obtained from the aquifer-test analyses

are conservative and underestimate the permeability of the aquifer.

Water Levels and Directions of

Ground-Water Flow

The average depth to water measured in the

monitoring wells ranged from about 3 ft below land

surface in wells at sites MW-4 and MW-15 to about

36 ft below land surface in well LP-1. Depth below

land surface is calculated by subtracting the altitude

of the water surface (table A2 at the back of the

report) from the land-surface altitude (table A1 at

the back of the report). Beneath the refinery site, the

average depth to water was about 30 ft below land

surface at well B-1 on a high bank along the eastern

edge of the site and about 16 ft below land surface

at well MW-2MD on the abandoned railroad grade

west of the site. The average depth to water in well

B-2 near the center of the site was 17.5 ft for three

measurements made during June through August

1997.

Ground water in the study area is recharged by

direct infiltration of precipitation. Generally, water

levels are highest in spring when precipitation

is greatest and lowest in fall when precipitation is

least. This pattern is observed in hydrographs for

the wells at site MW-2 (fig. 11) for data collected

from June 1997 through July 1998. Because of

the variable frequency of data collection after July

1998, the extreme high and low water levels for this

period probably were not measured. In addition,

precipitation was below normal in 1999 and during

the first part of 2000, and water levels declined

during that time.

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

1997 1998 1999 2000

772.5

777.5

773.0

773.5

774.0

774.5

775.0

775.5

776.0

776.5

777.0

WATER LEVEL, IN FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL

EXPLANATION

WELL MW-2S

M S

WELL MW-2D

WELL MW-2MD

WELL MW-2XD

Figure 11. Water levels measured in monitoring wells at well site MW-2 near Westville, Indiana, 1997 through 2000.

NO DATA
Geohydrology 29

Seasonal fluctuations of ground-water levels

appear to be related to the location of the well in the

study area. Water levels in wells near and northeast

of the refinery site generally were highest in July

1998 and lowest in May 2000 (table A2 at the back

of the report). Water levels in wells southwest of the

site and near Crumpacker Ditch generally were

highest in March 1998 and lowest in August 2000.

Water levels in wells at sites LP-2, MW-11, and

MW-12 were highest in May 1998 and lowest in

December 1999. The observed pattern is most

likely related to areas of ground-water recharge

and discharge but also may be affected by the distribution of precipitation and resulting infiltration

or areal differences in hydraulic properties of the

aquifer.

Water-level fluctuations during the study

ranged from about 5.6 ft in the PZ wells to about

2 ft in wells at site MW-9. The average fluctuation

in wells near the refinery site was about 4.2 ft. The

magnitude of the fluctuations measured in individual wells was related to the distance of the well

from Crumpacker Ditch. Water-level fluctuations

measured in wells near Crumpacker Ditch were less

than those in wells farther away from the ditch.

Water levels in deep wells had fluctuations similar

to those in shallow wells at the same site.

Contour maps of water levels were prepared

for the S-, D-, and XD-series wells (figs. 12, 13,

and 14). Water levels measured in the B, EP, LP, and

NDF wells were included with the S wells because

these wells are screened across or near the water

table. Water levels from wells that contained floating oil were not used in constructing the contour

maps because the oil layer obscures the true

water surface. Well MW-6S contained floating oil

throughout the study, and floating oil entered well

MW-1S between measurements made in July 1998

and May 1999. The source of the oil in these wells

is assumed to be the refinery site, although additional wells are necessary to document the source

and determine the extent of the oil. Water levels

from the MD-series wells were not contoured

because of the small number of wells in that series.

Inspection of the water-level-contour maps

prepared for each set of measurements indicated

no substantial change in directions of ground-water

flow during the study; therefore, water levels

measured on December 16, 1997, were selected

as representative and to illustrate ground-water flow

in the study area (figs. 12, 13, and 14). The highest

measured ground-water altitudes in the study area

are northeast of the refinery site and the lowest altitudes are southwest, indicating flow beneath the site

is to the southwest. Water-level altitudes in shallow

wells near Crumpacker Ditch are higher than the

surface-water altitudes in the ditch, indicating a

potential for ground water to discharge to the ditch.

Ground-water-flow directions are similar in the

shallow (S wells), middle (D wells), and deep (XD

wells) parts of the aquifer. Discharge of shallow

ground water to Crumpacker Ditch is shown on

figure 12 by contour lines that wrap around the

ditch in the upstream direction. The potentiometric

maps for the middle and deep parts of the aquifer

(figs. 13 and 14) show a more generalized flow

direction to the southwest. The potential for discharge of water from the middle and deep parts

of the aquifer to Crumpacker Ditch is not obvious

from inspection of figures 13 and 14, although

water levels in the D- and XD-series wells (with

the exception of well MW-14XD) are higher than

the nearby surface-water levels.

Horizontal hydraulic gradients were determined from the contour maps of ground-water

levels (table 4). Estimates of horizontal groundwater-flow velocities were determined by use of

the Darcy flow equation:

where,

V is the ground-water-flow velocity,

Kh is the horizontal hydraulic

conductivity of the aquifer,

∆h is the difference between measured

ground-water altitudes,

∆l is the distance between the

two measuring points along

the direction of flow, and

n is the effective porosity of

the aquifer.

V

Kh

n

------ ∆h

∆l = ⋅ ------ , (1)
30 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana
Geohydrology 31
32 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana
Geohydrology 33

The geometric-mean values for horizontal

hydraulic conductivity determined from the singlewell aquifer tests were used for the calculations.

The difference in water-level altitudes and the distance between measuring points were determined

from figures 12, 13, and 14. The effective porosity

was not determined during this study; however, the

neutron logs showed little variation in porosity with

depth. Therefore, effective porosity was estimated

to be 25 percent, based upon literature values for

similar geologic materials (Fetter, 1995).

Horizontal-flow velocities were calculated for

ground water beneath, south, and west of the refinery site and for shallow, middle, and deep parts of

the aquifer (table 4). The results indicate that velocities are similar, between 0.09 and 0.15 ft/d, in the

shallow and middle parts of the aquifer. Velocities

calculated for the deep part of the aquifer averaged

0.44 ft/d, which is about three to five times faster

than velocities determined for the shallow and middle parts of the aquifer.

Water-level data from sites having wells

screened at different depths were compared to

determine vertical gradients and directions of vertical flow in the aquifer. Vertical gradients (table 5)

were calculated for selected well pairs, using water

levels obtained at four different times to represent

seasonal variability. Vertical gradients calculated

from the data were variable, ranging from an average of 0.0016 ft/ft between wells MW-2D and

MW-2MD to -0.0085 ft/ft between wells MW-2MD

and MW-2XD. A positive vertical gradient indicates potential for upward flow, and a negative

gradient indicates potential for downward flow.

Positive gradients were determined consistently

between well pairs MW-2S and MW-2D, MW-2D

and MW-2MD, and MW-14S and MW-14D.

Results for wells at MW-7 and PZ-1 indicate very

small or no vertical gradients between those wells.

The largest vertical gradients were calculated

from ground- and surface-water-level data collected

at well point WP-2. Vertical gradients at WP-2

averaged 0.22 ft/ft. The positive gradient indicates

the potential for ground water to flow upward to

Crumpacker Ditch. The relatively large gradient,

however, also suggests that the fine-grained materials in the streambed have lower hydraulic

conductivity compared to that of the glacial sand

aquifer.

A cross section, roughly along the flow path

of ground water, was constructed to illustrate vertical ground-water flow (fig. 15). Directions of flow

Table 4. Horizontal gradients and calculated ground-water-flow velocities at and near the former refinery site near

Westville, Indiana

[ft/d, foot per day; ft, foot; ft/ft, foot per foot]

Calculation zone

Horizontal

hydraulic

conductivity

(ft/day)

Difference

between

ground-water

altitudes

(ft)

Distance

between

measuring points

(ft)

Horizontal

gradient

(ft/ft)

Flow

velocity

(ft/day)

Water table—

southwest of site

21.3 2 1,478 0.00135 0.12

Water table—

at site

21.3 2 1,109 .00180 .15

Middle—

west of site

12.2 2 1,035 .00193 .09

Deep—

at site

64.0 2 1,109 .00180 .46

Deep—

southwest of site

64.0 2 1,214 .00165 .42
34 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana

determined from the contours in the cross section

suggest that flow in the glacial aquifer may be

separated into a shallow, local flow system that

discharges to Crumpacker Ditch and a deep,

regional flow system that flows beneath the ditch.

Vertical gradients calculated for the wells at site

MW-2 (table 5) illustrate the two flow systems.

Water-level altitudes in wells MW-2S, MW-2D,

and MW-2MD indicate an upward component of

flow; the data for wells MW-2MD and MW-2XD

indicate a downward component of flow in the

aquifer between the screened intervals of these

wells. This pattern of vertical flow also was determined from water-level altitudes in wells at site

MW-14 near Crumpacker Ditch.

Table 5. Vertical hydraulic gradients for selected pairs of monitoring wells near Westville, Indiana, December 1997

through July 1998

[Differences in water levels are calculated by subtracting the water-level altitude in the second well from the water-level altitude of the first well;

well locations shown on figure 3]

a

Vertical distance between mid-point of saturated parts of well screens was 44.1 in December 1997 and March 1998, 44.8 in May 1998, and 44.9 in July 1998. bVertical distance between mid-point of saturated parts of well screens was 69.6 in December 1997 and 70.1 in March 1998, May 1998, and July 1998. c

Vertical distance between mid-point of saturated parts of well screens was 111.9 in December 1997, 111.6 in March 1998, 112.3 in May 1998, and 112.7 in July 1998. dVertical distance between mid-point of saturated parts of well screens was 3.33 in December 1997, 3.52 in March 1998, 3.77 in May 1998, and 3.13 in July 1998.

Well pair

Vertical

distance

between

mid-point of

well screens

(feet)

Difference

in waterlevel

altitude,

December

1997

(feet)

Vertical

hydraulic

gradient,

December

1997

(feet/foot)

Difference

in waterlevel

altitude,

March 1998

(feet)

Vertical

hydraulic

gradient,

March 1998

(feet/foot)

Difference

in waterlevel

altitude,

May 1998

(feet)

Vertical

hydraulic

gradient,

May 1998

(feet/foot)

Difference

in waterlevel

altitude,

July 1998

(feet)

Vertical

hydraulic

gradient,

July 1998

(feet/foot)

MW-2S-

 MW-2D 57.2 + 0.02 + 0.00035 + 0.01 + 0.00018 + 0.03 + 0.00052 + 0.03 + 0.00052

MW-2D-

 MW-2MD 47.4 + .08 + .0017 + .07 + .0015 + .06 + .0013 + .08 + .0017

MW-2MD-

 MW-2XD 52.5 - .46 - .0088 - .44 - .0084 - .44 - .0084 - .44 - .0084

MW-7S-

 MW-7D variablea 0 0 0 0 - .01 - .00022 0 0

MW-7D-

 MW7XD 130.6 0 0 0 0 + .01 + .00008 - .01 - .00008

MW-14S-

 MW-14D variableb + .02 + .00029 + .05 + .00071 + .07 + .00010 + .06 + .00086

MW-14D-

 MW-14XD 81.1 - .74 - .0091 - .37 - .0046 - .30 - .0037 - .29 - .0036

MW-15S-

 MW-15MD 88.9 - .10 - .0011 - .13 - .0014 - .11 - .0012 - .13 - .0015

MW-15MD-

 MW-15XD 56.1 - .21 - .0037 - .20 - .0036 - .18 - .0032 - .18 - .0032

PZ-1S-

 PZ-1MD variablec - .01 - .00009 0 0 0 0 - .01 - .00009

PZ-1MD-

 PZ-1XD 35 - .02 - .00057 - .01 - .00029 - .01 - .00029 - .01 - .00029

WP-2 insideWP-2 outside variabled + .30 + .09 + 1.06 + .301 + .82 + .218 + .89 + .284
Geohydrology 35
36 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana
Geohydrology 37

Pumping at the municipal well for the Town of

Westville has the potential to affect directions of

ground-water flow within the area of influence, or

cone of depression. To determine the area of influence, water levels in wells at sites MW-4 and MW-5

and well LP-3, along with rainfall and barometric

pressure, were monitored continuously for approximately 3 months during summer 1997. Pumping

was determined by recording when the municipalwell pump turned on and off.

Selected data for July 16–17 are shown on

figure 16. During the time of monitoring, no

changes in water levels in the monitored wells

were observed that correspond clearly to pumping.

Therefore, the area influenced by pumping does not

extend to that part of the aquifer monitored by wells

at sites MW-4, MW-5, and LP-3 and cannot be

defined by the monitoring wells. One limitation to

this interpretation is that water demand was not as

large as expected because of the wet summer during

1997. The extent of the cone of depression caused

by pumping the municipal well would be expected

to be seasonally and annually variable.

Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions

In addition to analysis of water levels, two

methods were used to examine the interaction

between ground water and surface water in the

study area. The first method used streamflow

measurements at selected locations to estimate

the contribution of ground water to surface-water

flow. The second method used seepage meters to

measure ground-water discharge into Crumpacker

Ditch.

Measurements of flow along Crumpacker and

Forbes Ditches and Crooked Creek (table 6) ranged

from no flow to 3.8 ft3/s at the upstream site SW-1

Table 6. Measurements of flow in Crumpacker and Forbes Ditches and Crooked Creek near Westville, Indiana,

April 1997 through August 1999

[Streamflow is in cubic feet per second; --, not measured]

a

Locations of measuring stations shown on figure 5.

b

Measuring station is an upstream location on a tributary to the principal stream of interest.

Measuring

stationa

April

1997

June

1997

August

1997

December

1997

March

1998

July

1998

May

1999

August

1999

SW-1 0.04 0.13 0.05 0.02 3.83 0.33 0.06 0

SW-2 .51 .89 .38 .27 4.59 .91 .26 .03

SW-3 .76 -- .73 .62 6.32 1.04 .63 .41

SW-10 -- .95 -- .56 6.38 1.06 .78 --

SW-9 1.45 1.35 1.02 .75 8.00 1.77 1.09 .51

SW-7 3.35 3.92 3.77 2.56 13.8 5.59 3.22 1.72

SW-8b 0 .41 0 0 20.0 .15 .01 0

SW-4 5.00 7.43 5.49 3.08 30.8 9.85 5.14 2.37

SW-5b 2.71 3.33 2.43 1.41 11.4 3.57 2.81 .94

SW-11 -- -- 8.37 6.74 41.2 17.6 9.60 2.94

SW-6 16.8 25.6 16.6 14.2 66.5 29.1 18.6 9.94
38 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana

and from 9.9 to 66.5 ft3/s at the downstream site

SW-6 (locations shown on fig. 5). According to

local residents, Crumpacker Ditch often is dry

upstream from the Town of Westville’s treatedsewage outfall (near streamflow-measurement

site SW-3) during summer. This condition was

observed in August 1999. The largest streamflows

were measured during March 1998.

For most of the measurements, streamflow

consistently increased from upstream to downstream-measurement stations. No rain occurred

prior to measurements made during April, August,

and December 1997 and May and August 1999;

therefore, the increase in streamflow generally is

attributed to discharge of ground water. Substantial

ground-water discharge occurs between specific

measurement stations but is seasonally variable.

For example, an increase of 0.69 ft3

/s was measured

between stations SW-3 and SW-9 in April 1997.

Between the same two measurement stations in

August 1999, the measured increase was 0.1 ft3

/s.

Streamflow measurements in December 1997 at

stations SW-3 and SW-10 indicate a decrease in

flow; however, these results are within the margin

of error for streamflow measurements (usually

about 5 percent).

Not all of the increase in streamflow between measurement stations is the result of

ground-water discharge. The outfall from the

wastewater-treatment plant for the Town of

Westville is between measurement stations SW-2

and SW-3, and the outfall from the Westville Correctional Facility wastewater-treatment plant is

between measurement stations SW-9 and SW-7.

Numerous drainage-tile outfalls from farm fields

also discharge to the stream system in the study

area. The drainage tiles intercept ground-water

recharge and bypass the natural flow system by

routing the water to the streams.

Data from the seepage meters were used to

estimate the vertical hydraulic conductivity of streambed sediments, using the following form of the

Darcy equation:

where,

Kv is the vertical hydraulic conductivity,

Q is the ground-water discharge,

A is the cross-sectional area of flow, and

∆h/∆l is the vertical hydraulic gradient or

change in water level (∆h) over

distance (∆l).

Water collected by the seepage meter represents the discharge (Q) through the streambed

within the cross-sectional area of the seepage

meter (A)—in this case, 0.340 ft2. Discharge is

equal to the volume of water collected divided by

the length of time for collection. For these calculations, the hydraulic gradient (∆h/∆l) was assumed

to equal the vertical gradients measured at well

points near the seepage meters.

Seepage measurements were made near well

points WP-1,WP-2, WP-3, and WP-P (table 7).

At well points WP-2 and WP-P, different values

of vertical hydraulic conductivity were calculated

for different dates of measurement. The difference

probably results from the seepage meters not being

placed in exactly the same location for both measurements and the variability of the streambed

materials which range from sand to silt.

Results of the seepage measurements indicate that vertical hydraulic conductivities of the

streambed sediments are two or more orders of

magnitude less than horizontal hydraulic conductivities for the glacial aquifer determined from

the single-well and multiple-well aquifer tests.

The largest streambed vertical conductivity, nearly

2 ft/d, was determined from data collected near

well point WP-1, where the streambed is sand.

Between well points WP-P and WP-3, the streambed is mostly silt, and vertical conductivity

values averaged 0.25 ft/d. The results of the seepage

measurements substantiate the water-level and

streamflow measurements and indicate that ground

water is discharged to Crumpacker Ditch.

Kv

Q

A × ( ) ∆h ⁄ ∆l = ------------------------------- (2) ,
Water Quality 39

Water Quality

A description of water quality in the study area

was determined from analytical results of selected

ground-water and surface-water samples collected

for the USEPA field investigation. Samples were

collected April–June, August–September, and

December 1997 and May 1999. Based on previous

environmental studies, the primary contaminant

of concern for this study is 1,4-dioxane. Water

samples also were collected and analyzed for inorganic constituents and organic compounds, and

on-site measurements of selected water properties

were made.

Results of Quality Assurance

The USEPA quality-control data-assurance

review indicated that the analytical results reported

by the laboratories were acceptable for use with

respect to the applicable data qualifiers. One general exception was the analysis of 1,4-dioxane for

samples collected April–June 1997. At that time,

the laboratory was developing the analytical methods for 1,4-dioxane and the results for many of

these analyses were qualified as unusable. Additional discussion of quality-assurance results and

results of analyses are provided in appendix B.

Ground-Water Quality

Ground-water samples collected for the

USEPA investigation were analyzed for major

ions, minor elements, VOC’s, SVOC’s, pesticides,

and PCB’s. SVOC’s, pesticides, and PCB’s generally were not detected in ground-water samples

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999)

and are not discussed in this report. The primary

delineation of ground-water quality is based on four

rounds of sample collection from the monitoring

wells. Water samples also were collected from

27 private-supply wells during the USEPA investigation.

General Ground-Water Chemistry

The pH of ground water in the study area generally ranged from 6.0 to 8.0 (table C1 at the back

of the report). Wells MW-12 and MW-14XD produced water with pH values less than 6.0, and well

MW-14S produced water with a pH value less than

5.0. The pH of water from wells at B-4, MW-2,

MW-3, and MW-6, along the western (downgradient) edge of the refinery site, ranged from 6.0 to 7.5,

compared to a range of 7.0 to 7.9 for water from

wells at B-1, EP-3, and MW-7, east (upgradient) of

the site. This difference suggests that ground-water

conditions at the site are lowering the pH. No trends

in pH with depth were apparent.

Table 7. Discharge and vertical hydraulic conductivity determined from measurements of seepage

in Crumpacker Ditch near Westville, Indiana, August–September 1997 and July 1998

[ft3/d, cubic foot per day; ft/d, foot per day]

a

Locations of measuring stations shown on figure 5.

Location

of

measurementa

Date

of

measurement

Discharge

(ft3/d)

Vertical hydraulic

gradient

Vertical hydraulic

conductivity

(ft/d)

WP-1 09/10/97 0.115 0.173 1.96

WP-2 07/07/98 .0238 .59 .119

WP-2 08/26/97 .0118 .41 .085

WP-3 08/27/97 .0151 .235 .189

WP-P 09/10/97 .0108 .25 .127

WP-P 07/08/98 .102 .404 .745
40 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana

Except for well MW-3D and several shallow

monitoring wells, concentrations of dissolved oxygen (DO) in ground water in the study area were

less than 2.0 mg/L (table C1 at the back of the

report). Concentrations of DO in water from well

MW-3D ranged from 3.5 to 5.8 mg/L; however,

water from this well was reported to effervesce

during sample collection. The effervescence likely

was caused by degassing of the water resulting

from pressure changes during pumping, and the

degassing probably affected the measurements of

DO. The largest DO concentration, 9.3 mg/L, was

measured in water from well PZ-1S. The larger

concentrations of DO in water from the shallow

wells compared to those in deeper wells may

indicate that the shallow ground water is recharged

recently to the aquifer through infiltration of precipitation containing large concentrations of DO.

In addition, the water table is in contact with the

atmosphere, which allows mixing of oxygen with

ground water.

The oxidation-reduction potential (ORP)

measures whether conditions in the aquifer are

chemically oxidizing or chemically reducing and

commonly is related to the concentration of DO.

Chemical reactions in which an element loses electrons are referred to as oxidations, while those in

which electrons are gained are referred to as reductions (Hem, 1985, p. 20). Measurements of ORP are

made to determine relative potentials. A positive

value indicates oxidizing conditions; a negative

value indicates reducing conditions; and the magnitude of the value indicates the relative potential.

Measurements of ORP in ground water indicated

relatively reducing conditions through most of the

deep part the aquifer. Wells MW-5D and MW-5XD

were the only deep wells that produced water with

consistently positive values of ORP. Measurements

of ORP in water from most of the shallow wells

indicated the potential for oxidizing conditions in

the shallow part of the aquifer, although water from

shallow wells B-1, B-2, B-4, MW-6S, MW-9S, and

MW-10S consistently had negative values of ORP.

Specific conductance (SC) is a measure of the

fluid electrical conductivity. Although not a direct

relation, small and large values of SC generally

equate to small and large concentrations of dissolved constituents. Measurements of SC ranged

from 330 μS/cm in water from well MW-9XD to

3,870 μS/cm in water from well MW-15XD. An

increase in SC was observed downgradient from

the refinery site, indicating that materials at the

site are being dissolved and transported in ground

water. SC ranged from 437 to 1,030 μS/cm in water

from wells upgradient from the refinery site and

from 330 to 3,780 μS/cm in water from downgradient wells. In addition, SC measurements upgradient

from the site indicated little or no difference in SC

related to depth in the aquifer; whereas, downgradient from the site, SC values were variable

with depth. For example, at the upgradient well site

MW-7, SC ranged from 504 to 652 μS/cm in water

from well MW-7S; 520 to 605 μS/cm in water from

well MW-7D; and 437 to 541 μS/cm in water

from well MW-7XD. Downgradient from the site,

SC ranged from 630 to 1,160 μS/cm in water from

well MW-2S; 1,010 to 1,450 μS/cm in water

from well MW-2D; 481 to 528 μS/cm in water from

well MW-2MD; and 3,450 to 3,780 μS/cm in water

from well MW-2XD.

Major ions are abundant, naturally occurring

substances that readily dissolve in water and

therefore constitute the majority of the dissolved

constituents found in natural water. Ions that have a

positive electrical charge are known as cations; ions

that have a negative charge are known as anions. To

determine the relative abundance of specific ions,

the concentrations in milligrams per liter were converted to milliequivalents per liter. Milliequivalents

per liter account for differences in atomic weight

and ionic charge of the ions considered in the analysis (Hem, 1985, p. 55–56). The total concentration

of cations and anions in a sample can be calculated,

and concentrations of specific ions can be expressed

as percentages of the total. The charge balance

between cations and anions indicates whether the

ions selected for the analysis include the majority

of dissolved constituents in the sample. Ideally, the

cations and anions are combined and their ionic

charges are canceled, resulting in a charge balance

of zero. A small charge balance is acceptable,

because of the range of error in chemical analyses;

however, a large charge balance can indicate an

error in the chemical analysis or that not all of
Water Quality 41

the major constituents were included in the calculations. A charge balance of + 10 percent was

considered acceptable for this study.

Calculations were made for samples that had

sufficient analyses to determine the charge balance

(table 8). Cations included in the calculations

are calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, and

iron; anions are bicarbonate, chloride, and sulfate

(tables C2 and C3 at the back of the report). The

cation-anion charge balances are less than + 10 percent for samples from 13 of the 27 wells. Charge

balances for samples from wells EP-1, MW-2XD,

MW-5S, MW-5D, MW-6D, and MW-8D exceeded

+ 25 percent—indicating that the calculations do

not account for all of the ions for these samples.

The calculations for major ions indicated

that ground water in the study area generally is a

calcium-bicarbonate type. Ions were considered

dominant if they accounted for 50 percent or more

of the positive or negative charge. Calcium was

the dominant cation in 21 of the 27 samples, accounting for 50.3 to 66.6 percent of the cations.

Bicarbonate was the dominant anion in 20 samples

and accounted for 50.3 to 91.7 percent of the

anions. The analyses of samples from wells MW5D and MW-8D indicated magnesium was the

dominant cation; samples from wells MW-4D,

MW-5S, MW-6D, and MW-8D indicated chloride

was the dominant anion. The analysis of samples

from wells B-1, MW-1D, MW-4D, and MW-6D

indicated no dominant cation; analysis of samples

from wells MW-1D, MW-3D, and MW-7D indicated no dominant anion.

Calculations that resulted in charge balances

greater than + 10 percent are considered inconclusive to determine water type. Generally, samples

with the largest charge-balance discrepancies also

had data qualifiers of less than or greater than the

reported value used for the calculations. The lack

of a charge balance also may result from the presence of ions that were not analyzed or changes in

some ion concentrations (such as alkalinity) caused

by biological processes. In addition, calculations

for the duplicate sample from well MW-4XD (not

shown in table 8) indicated a calcium-sulfate water

type; whereas, the original sample indicated a

calcium-bicarbonate type.

Minor Elements

Ground-water samples collected April–June

1997 were analyzed for concentrations of minor

elements (table C3 at the back of the report). The

minor elements principally are metals or elements

that chemically act as metals, such as arsenic. These

elements are naturally occurring, have various solubilities, and often are detected in natural water. In

ground water, the variety and abundance of minor

elements often is indicative of the composition of

the geologic materials in the aquifer. For example,

iron and manganese commonly are detected in

ground water in glacial aquifers as a result of the

abundance of minerals in the glacial sediments that

contain these elements.

Barium, iron, and manganese were detected in

samples from all of the monitoring wells. Concentrations of barium ranged from 13.0 μg/L in water

from well MW-7D to 498 μg/L in water from well

MW-10D. Iron was detected in the largest concentrations compared to the other minor elements and

was included in the calculations for major ions;

in these calculations, iron accounted for 0.04 to

16 percent of the cations in the samples. Concentrations of iron ranged from an estimated 31.5 μg/L

in water from well MW-5XD to 69,300 μg/L in

water from well MW-6S and exceeded 1,000 μg/L

in 29 of 36 samples. Concentrations of manganese

ranged from 7.8 μg/L in water from well MW-7S

to 3,500 μg/L in water from well MW-2S. Concentrations of manganese greater than 1,000 μg/L were

reported for water from two other wells, B-2 and

EP-2.

Nickel and zinc were detected in all but four

samples. Detected concentrations of nickel ranged

from 1.1 μg/L in water from well MW-7S to

182 μg/L in water from well MW-2S. Detected

concentrations of zinc ranged from an estimated

2.6 μg/L in water from well MW-1D to an estimated 503 μg/L in water from well MW-2S.

Antimony was detected at estimated concentrations, ranging from 2.1 to 9.1 μg/L in all but nine

samples. Concentrations of antimony exceeded the

USEPA Primary Drinking Water Standard of

6 μg/L (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
42 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana

Table 8. Results of calculations for major ions and water type for ground-water samples collected near

Westville, Indiana, April–June 1997

[meq/L, milliequivalents per liter; cations are calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, and iron; anions are bicarbonate,

chloride, and sulfate; a positive charge balance indicates excess cations; a negative charge balance indicates excess anions]

a

Results inconclusive for water type; charge balance exceeds 10 percent.

Well

Sum of cations

(meq/L)

Sum of anions

(meq/L)

Charge

balance

(percent) Water type

B-1 10.3023 -8.6396 8.78 Low calcium-bicarbonate

B-4 14.7734 -16.3717 -5.13 Calcium-bicarbonate

EP-1 5.8000 -3.2148 28.7 Calcium-bicarbonatea

EP-2 8.5363 -6.6516 12.4 Calcium-bicarbonatea

LP-2 6.7936 -4.9575 15.6 Calcium-bicarbonatea

LP-3 7.4034 -6.2036 8.82 Calcium-bicarbonate

MW-1S 8.3117 -6.9291 9.07 Calcium-bicarbonate

MW-1D 10.0450 -11.6983 -7.60 Low sodium-low chloride

MW-2S 9.9386 -10.0665 -.64 Calcium-bicarbonate

MW-2D 14.3821 -14.8187 -1.50 Calcium-bicarbonate

MW-2MD 6.0647 -5.5371 4.55 Calcium-bicarbonate

MW-2XD 46.9240 -25.4940 29.6 Calcium-bicarbonatea

MW-3S 17.1186 -16.8844 .69 Calcium-bicarbonate

MW-3D 14.6453 -15.3766 -2.44 Calcium-low bicarbonate

MW-4S 9.1523 -8.1809 5.60 Calcium-bicarbonate

MW-4D 21.6711 -30.0870 -16.3 Low calcium-chloridea

MW-4XD 48.5502 -32.8411 19.3 Calcium-bicarbonatea

MW-5S 4.5961 -17.7077 -58.8 Calcium-chloridea

MW-5D 37.6266 -9.1154 61.0 Magnesium-bicarbonatea

MW-5XD 5.5953 -7.1668 -12.3 Calcium-bicarbonatea

MW-6D 7.5053 -17.7077 -40.5 Low calcium-chloridea

MW-7S 7.0391 -4.5573 21.4 Calcium-bicarbonatea

MW-7D 6.8055 -6.1987 4.67 Calcium-low bicarbonate

MW-7XD 5.7438 -4.3806 13.5 Calcium-bicarbonatea

MW-8D 59.0717 -16.8644 55.6 Magnesium-chloridea

MW-9S 8.2225 -7.0205 7.89 Calcium-bicarbonate

MW-9XD 6.5221 -4.8417 14.8 Calcium-bicarbonatea
Water Quality 43

2001) in water from wells MW-2D, MW-10D, and

MW-11D.

Aluminum and copper were detected in all but

10 samples, and cobalt was detected in all but 11

samples. Detected concentrations ranged from 9 to

1,230 μg/L for aluminum, 1.1 to 38.5 μg/L for copper, and 1.2 to 113 μg/L for cobalt. Arsenic was

detected in all but 13 samples; detected concentrations ranged from 2.1 μg/L in water from well

LP-2 to 29.4 μg/L in water from well MW-6S.

Concentrations of chromium ranged from an estimated 1.2 to 63.4 μg/L.

The remaining minor elements were detected

in less than half of the samples and in concentrations less than 10 μg/L. Thallium was detected in

16 samples, 15 of which contained concentrations

exceeding the USEPA Primary Drinking Water

Standard of 2 μg/L (U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 2001). Vanadium was detected in seven

samples, lead was detected in three samples, and

silver was detected in two samples. Beryllium,

cadmium, mercury, and selenium were detected

in only one sample each (table C3 at the back

of the report). The concentration of cadmium

reported for the sample from well MW-2S exceeds

the USEPA Primary Drinking Water Standard of

5 μg/L (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

2001).

No relation between the detection of minor

elements with respect to ground-water flow and the

refinery site, or with depth, is readily apparent.

The largest concentrations of cadmium, cobalt,

manganese, and nickel were detected in water from

well MW-2S at the western edge of the site. The

largest concentrations of aluminum, copper, lead,

vanadium, and zinc were detected in water from

well MW-11S, approximately 0.75 mi southwest

of the site.

Organic Compounds

VOC’s were detected in ground-water samples

during each round of sample collection, although

more compounds were detected during the first

round (table C4 at the back of the report). Water

from 12 of 36 wells sampled April–June 1997 contained one or more VOC’s; whereas, samples from

9 of 46 wells collected September 1997, 3 of 41

wells collected December 1997, and 12 of 15 wells

collected May 1999 contained VOC’s. Fifteen

different VOC’s were detected during April–June

1997, compared to 13 VOC’s detected during September 1997 and 12 VOC’s detected during December 1997 and May 1999.

VOC’s generally were detected in samples

collected from wells at or near the refinery site.

Well B-2, the only well sampled on the refinery

site, was vandalized prior to sample collection

in December 1997; seven VOC’s were detected in

water from this well collected during April 1997,

and nine VOC’s were detected during September

1997. Although the compounds and concentrations detected in samples from well B-2 are

variable between sampling rounds, vinyl chloride,

chloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethane, benzene, and

trichloroethene were detected at similar concentrations in samples from both rounds.

 The average concentrations in water from

well B-2 for the two rounds of sampling are

54 μg/L for vinyl chloride, 7.5 μg/L for chloroethane, 150 μg/L for 1,1-dichloroethane, 5 μg/L

for benzene, and 30.5 μg/L for trichloroethene.

In addition, a concentration of 1,500 μg/L of

total 1,2-dichloroethene was reported for the first

sampling round, while concentrations of 20 μg/L

of trans-1,2-dichloroethene and 1,400 μg/L of

cis-1,2-dichloroethene were reported for round

two.

Shallow wells west and south of the refinery

site (wells B-4, MW-1S, MW-2S, MW-3S, and

MW-6S) also provided samples in which VOC’s

consistently were detected. Chloroethane was

detected in the four samples collected from

well B-4, three of four samples from well MW-2S,

and in two of four samples from well MW-1S.

Concentrations of chloroethane in these samples

averaged 442 μg/L for well B-4, 82 μg/L for

well MW-2S, and 2 μg/L for well MW-1S. Based

on four samples, the average concentration of

1,1-dichloroethane was 115 μg/L for well B-4 and

68 μg/L for well MW-1S. This compound was

detected in only one of three samples collected

from well MW-3S at an estimated concentration

of 15 μg/L. The average concentration of trichloro-
44 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana

ethene in four samples from well MW-1S was

13 μg/L. Concentrations of benzene averaged

122 μg/L for well B-4, 7 μg/L for well MW-1S,

16 μg/L for well MW-2S, and 4 μg/L for well

MW-3S.

Other VOC’s also were detected in water from

shallow wells near the former refinery site. Toluene,

ethylbenzene, and xylenes were detected consistently in samples from well B-4 in concentrations

of 7 μg/L or less. Toluene also was detected in

samples from well MW-2S in concentrations

of 1 μg/L or less, and similar concentrations of

xylenes were detected in samples collected from

well MW-6S during September 1997. Methylene

chloride was detected in four samples from wells

B-4 and MW-2S in concentrations ranging from

4 to 90 μg/L. Water from well MW-1S contained

an average concentration of 93 μg/L of 1,1,1-

trichloroethane, based on three samples.

Detections of VOC’s in ground water primarily

were limited to shallow wells on or near the refinery

site. One exception is well MW-14S, approximately

0.4 mi southwest of the former refinery, that produced a sample in which methylene chloride was

detected at a concentration of 1 μg/L during the

December 1997 sampling. Methylene chloride

was detected consistently at concentrations ranging

from 4 to 7 μg/L in samples from wells B-4 and

MW-2S along the western refinery boundary; therefore, the detection in water from a well farther

downgradient may indicate that some VOC’s are

being transported in the direction of ground-water

flow. Well MW-14S was installed during November

1997 and was not available for sampling during the

first two rounds of sample collection. No other

samples were collected from this well to determine

whether methylene chloride is persistent in the

ground water at this location.

The detected VOC’s generally are classified

as chlorinated solvents, such as chloroethane,

1,1-dichloroethane, and trichloroethane, or aromatic hydrocarbons, such as benzene, toluene, and

xylene. Chlorinated solvents were detected with

greater frequency and in the larger concentrations

(as much as 1,500 μg/L of 1,2-dichloroethene from

well B-2) than the aromatic hydrocarbons (as much

as 140 μg/L of benzene from well B-4). Chlorinated

solvents are used as cleaners and de-greasers; aromatic hydrocarbons are components of oil and

gasoline.

1,4-Dioxane in Ground Water

Samples for analysis of 1,4-dioxane were

collected during all rounds of sample collection

(table C5 at the back of the report). The most complete sample collection was during December 1997,

based on the number of wells sampled; therefore,

the description of the extent of 1,4-dioxane is primarily based on results of that sample collection.

Concentrations of 1,4 dioxane were detected

in water from 20 of 48 wells and 1 of 3 well points

in Crumpacker Ditch sampled during December

1997. Samples containing 1,4-dioxane were collected from wells along the western boundary

of the refinery site and from wells southwest of the

site along the direction of ground-water flow that

roughly parallels State Road 2 (fig. 17). Concentrations ranged from 3 μg/L in water from well LP-3

to 4,270 μg/L in water from well MW-8D. Water

from wells MW-10S and MW-10XD, approximately 0.8 mi southwest of the site, contained

concentrations of 1,4 dioxane of 7 and 10 μg/L.

Along the western (downgradient) boundary

of the refinery site, concentrations ranged from

20 μg/L in water from well MW-6D to 3,800 μg/L

in water from well MW-2D for samples collected

during December 1997. During September 1997,

the laboratory estimated a concentration of

11,000 μg/L in water from well MW-2D. Although

not sampled during December 1997, samples collected during September 1997 from well B-2 on

the refinery site and well MW-3D along the western

boundary contained 1,4-dioxane, ranging from

220 μg/L at well B-2 to 1,600 μg/L at well MW-3D.

Concentrations of 1,4-dioxane varied not

only horizontally but also vertically in the aquifer

(fig. 18). The vertical distribution is affected by

vertical flow paths and the heterogeneity of aquifer

materials and hydraulic properties. At site MW-2,

the largest concentration of 1,4-dioxane was

3,800 μg/L in the sample from the 80-ft-deep

well, MW-2D. The smallest concentration was

380 μg/L in the sample from the 130-ft-deep well,
Water Quality 45
46 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana
Water Quality 47

MW-2MD. Concentrations of 1,4-dioxane were

1,900 μg/L in the sample from well MW-2S,

screened across the water table, and 1,500 μg/L in

the sample from well MW-2XD, screened at 182 ft,

the bottom of the aquifer. Similar patterns of concentration with depth were observed for results of

the samples collected from this well during the

other rounds of sampling.

Downgradient from the site, the largest concentrations of 1,4-dioxane generally were detected

in samples from the deep wells (fig. 18). At sites

MW-4, MW-10, and MW-14, the largest concentrations of 1,4-dioxane were detected in samples from

wells screened at the bottom of the aquifer. At site

MW-15, the largest concentration was reported for

the sample from the 100-ft-deep well MW-15MD

and at site MW-8, the largest concentration was in

the sample from the 65-ft-deep well MW-8D. Well

MW-8D is the deepest well at this site; therefore,

the concentration of 1,4-dioxane at greater depth at

this site is not known.

The sample collected from well point WP-P

during December 1997 contained 160 μg/L of

1,4-dioxane. Although 1,4-dioxane was not detected in samples from well points WP-2 and

WP-3 collected during December, it was detected

in samples from well points WP-P (180 μg/L) and

WP-2 (5 μg/L) collected during September 1997.

The detection of 1,4-dioxane in the well points and

the previously discussed discharge of ground water

to Crumpacker Ditch indicate the potential for

1,4-dioxane to be entering surface water along this

part of the ditch.

Water collected during December 1997 from

well MW-7XD, approximately 0.1 mi upgradient

from the site, also contained 1,4-dioxane. The

concentration was low, 8 μg/L, but is above the

method-detection limit and the result was not

qualified by the USEPA quality review. During

September 1997 or May 1999, 1,4-dioxane was not

detected in samples collected from this well; however, it was reported at a similar concentration for

the sample collected during May 1997 (table C5

at the back of the report). The detection of 1,4-

dioxane in water from an upgradient well is not

easily explained and the possibility of sample contamination, or laboratory error is acknowledged.

The specific density of 1,4-dioxane at 20οC relative

to the density of water at 4οC is about 1.03; therefore, 1,4-dioxane would not be expected to sink in

the aquifer unless it was mixed with other, more

dense, compounds. It is possible that natural flow

gradients were altered by former lagoons at the site

that created downward vertical gradients and radial

flow off site.

Samples from 3 of the 27 private water-supply

wells sampled contained 1,4-dioxane (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999). Two of these

wells are in the area where 1,4-dioxane was detected in samples from the monitoring wells, and

the concentrations are comparable. The third watersupply well, near monitoring well MW-12, is west

of the area where 1,4-dioxane was detected. Concentrations of 1,4-dioxane in samples from this

well ranged from 4 to 34 μg/L (U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 1999). Samples from nearby

well MW-12 or from wells LP-2, MW-13, and

MW-11 that are between well MW-12 and the

area of 1,4-dioxane contamination did not contain

1,4-dioxane. The geographical distribution

of detection and nondetection suggests that the

water-supply well may be affected by a source of

1,4-dioxane other than the refinery site.

The pattern of 1,4-dioxane concentrations in

ground water defines a plume that extends from the

vicinity of the former refinery site to the southwest

along State Road 2 approximately 0.8 mi (fig. 17).

Detectable concentrations of 1,4-dioxane are present in ground water beneath the refinery site (well

B-2) and throughout the thickness of the aquifer

at the western boundary (site MW-2). This compound is miscible in water and not easily sorbed

onto aquifer materials (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999), indicating that it is easily

transported in ground water. In addition, because

1,4-dioxane does not degrade easily and has low

volatility, the only processes that may be decreasing the concentration of 1,4-dioxane in the ground

water are dilution from precipitation recharging

the aquifer, mixing due to dispersion, and diffusion

with uncontaminated ground water (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999). The large

concentrations throughout the plume, however,

indicate the relative dilution rates are not large.
48 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana

The plume of 1,4-dioxane is only roughly

defined by the monitoring-well network. The width

of the plume is about 0.17 mi at the western boundary of the refinery and increases to at least 0.25 mi

between well point WP-P and well LP-3. In addition, because concentrations of 1,4-dioxane vary

with depth, it is possible that contaminants may be

present at depths where the monitoring wells are

not screened. For example, large concentrations

of 1,4-dioxane were detected in water from 65- to

100-ft-deep wells at sites MW-8 and MW-15;

whereas, sites MW-9 and MW-10 have no wells

screened at intermediate depths.

Surface-Water Quality

Surface-water samples collected April–May

1997 were analyzed for selected major ions,

metals, VOC’s, SVOC’s, pesticides, PCB’s,

and 1,4-dioxane. Organic compounds (including

VOC’s, SVOC’s, pesticides, and PCB’s) generally were not detected in surface-water samples

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999) and

are not discussed in this report. After the initial

sample collection, sampling focused on the part of

Crumpacker Ditch that was receiving ground water

from the contaminant plume; samples of surface

water collected during August and December 1997

and May 1999 were analyzed for 1,4-dioxane.

General Surface-Water Chemistry

Measurements of pH at surface-watersampling sites ranged from 4.5 to 8.3 (table C6

at the back of the report). Most pH values were

between 7.0 and 8.0, with the exception of measurements made December 1997; three of four

measurements at that time indicated a pH of

about 4.5. During December 1997, a pH of 4.8

was measured in water from well MW-14S near

Crumpacker Ditch in the area where the surfacewater samples were collected; however, a pH of

6.7 was measured in surface water near well point

WP-P and adjacent to well site MW-14 (see fig. 3

for location). Streamflows reported for December

1997 were among the lowest measured during the

study. It is not known whether the low pH values

measured in surface water during December 1997

reflect the quality of water discharged to the ditch

during low-flow conditions or are the result of measurement error.

Concentrations of dissolved oxygen in surfacewater samples ranged from 0.2 to 13.6 mg/L and

typically were larger than 5 mg/L (table C6 at the

back of the report). Measurements of ORP ranged

from -196 to 464 millivolts. Most measurements

indicated relatively oxidizing conditions in the surface water, except for measurements made during

August 1997 when relatively reducing conditions

were measured at 10 of 13 sites. The SC of surface

water ranged from 371 to 1,350 μS/cm. Some of the

largest values of SC were measured at sites SW-7,

SW-8, and SW-11, where values consistently exceeded 1,000 μS/cm. SC values also were larger

than 1,000 μS/cm at least once during sampling at

sites SW-9, SW-10, SW-13, SW-WP-2, SW-WP-3,

and SW-WP-P.

Calculations were made to determine the

cation-anion charge balance for surface-water

samples collected during April–May 1997 (table

C7 at the back of the report). The charge balances

are less than + 10 percent for all of the analyses

(table 9), indicating the constituents included in

the analysis account for the majority of the ions

in the samples. The results indicate that the surface

water is generally a calcium-low bicarbonate water

type. Water at sampling sites SW-8, SW-9, and

SW-11 is a low-calcium low-chloride type. These

sites are downstream from the outfall for treated

sewage from the Town of Westville. In addition,

they are near a point where a state highway crosses

Crumpacker Ditch. Concentrations of chloride in

the treated effluent or runoff of highway-deicing

chemicals could explain the increase in chloride

concentration and the large values of SC measured

at these sites. Additional samples of surface water

were not collected for analysis of major ions,

and it is unknown whether this condition is normal

or persistent.

Minor Elements

Aluminum, barium, iron, manganese, and zinc

were the only minor elements detected in concentrations greater than 10 μg/L (table C8 at the back

of the report). Concentrations of aluminum ranged

from estimates of 9 to 590 μg/L, and concentrations of barium ranged from about 32 to 74 μg/L.
Water Quality 49

Iron was detected in the largest concentrations,

compared to the other minor elements. Iron was

included in the calculations for major ions, where

it accounted for 0.2 to 1.7 percent of the cations

in the surface-water samples. Concentrations of

iron ranged from 723 to 4,680 μg/L and exceeded

1,000 μg/L in 10 of the 12 samples. Concentrations

of manganese ranged from 62.4 to 1,200 μg/L; estimated concentrations of zinc ranged from 3.1 to

121 μg/L.

Cobalt was detected in all samples of surface

water collected April–May 1997 at estimated

concentrations ranging from 1.2 to 2.6 μg/L. Beryllium, copper, nickel, and thallium were detected

in 11 of 12 samples, with detected concentrations

ranging from estimates of 1 to 1.8 μg/L for beryllium, 1.2 to 8.4 μg/L for copper, 1.1 to 3 μg/L for

nickel, and estimates of 2.3 to 4 μg/L for thallium.

Antimony, chromium, and vanadium were detected

in five or fewer samples. The remaining minor elements were not detected in surface-water samples.

1,4-Dioxane in Surface Water

Samples of surface water for analysis of 1,4-

dioxane were collected during all rounds of sample

collection (table C9 at the back of the report).

Samples collected in August 1997 are used to illustrate the detection of 1,4-dioxane in surface water

(fig. 19). With two exceptions, 1,4-dioxane was

detected in all surface-water samples collected

in August 1997. The exceptions are site SW-13,

the most upstream location on Crumpacker Ditch,

and site SW-3 on Crooked Creek, upstream from

the confluence with Forbes Ditch. A concentration

of 54 μg/L of 1,4-dioxane was detected in water

from Crumpacker Ditch collected at site SW-WP-P,

near well point WP-P. Concentrations of 1,4-dioxane increased downstream at each location from

site SW-WP-P to a maximum concentration

of 140 μg/L at site SW-8, north of U.S. Highway 6.

Concentrations of 1,4-dioxane were detected in

samples downstream from site SW-8 in Crumpacker Ditch, Forbes Ditch, and Crooked Creek.

Table 9. Results of calculations for major ions and water type for surface-water samples collected near Westville,

Indiana, April–May 1997

[meq/L, milliequivalents per liter; cations are calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, and iron; anions are bicarbonate, chloride, and sulfate; a positive charge balance indicates excess cations; a negative charge balance indicates excess

anions]

Surface-water

site

Sum of cations

(meq/L)

Sum of anions

(meq/L)

Charge

balance

(percent) Water type

SW-1 9.9583 -8.4838 8.0 Calcium-low bicarbonate

SW-2 8.9869 -8.6348 2.0 Calcium-low bicarbonate

SW-3 8.9845 -8.5978 2.2 Calcium-low bicarbonate

SW-4 9.6885 -9.1242 3.0 Calcium-low bicarbonate

SW-5 9.1536 -8.7400 2.3 Calcium-low bicarbonate

SW-6 9.5506 -9.8737 -1.7 Low calcium-low bicarbonate

SW-7 10.3506 -8.9015 7.5 Low calcium-low bicarbonate

SW-8 10.8741 -12.2882 -6.1 Low calcium-low chloride

SW-9 11.0590 -11.3404 -1.3 Low calcium-low chloride

SW-11 11.6653 -9.7538 8.9 Low calcium-low chloride

SW-12 8.0166 -7.9189 .6 Calcium-bicarbonate

SW-13 5.8924 -5.5144 3.31 Calcium-bicarbonate
50 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana
Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 51

The sample from site SW-1, the farthest downstream location sampled, contained 8 μg/L of

1,4-dioxane.

Concentrations of 1,4-dioxane in surfacewater samples collected in August 1997 were

evaluated with concurrent streamflow measurements to assess which mechanisms (dilution,

volatilization, or degradation) might be affecting

the concentrations of 1,4-dioxane in surface water.

If dilution were the only mechanism affecting

concentrations of 1,4-dioxane, the concentrations

should decrease downstream proportionally to the

increase in flow. If the concentrations of 1,4-

dioxane decreased at a rate greater than that, then

another mechanism (such as volatilization) might

be affecting the concentrations.

The data suggest that 1,4-dioxane is entering

Crumpacker Ditch in ground-water discharge

between sample-collection sites SW-WP-P and

SW-8, with the largest concentration, 140 μg/L,

in the sample from site SW-8. Streamflow was

not measured at site SW-8 but is estimated from

streamflow measurements at sites SW-3 and SW-9

(locations shown on fig. 5). Streamflow at these

sites was 0.73 and 1.02 ft3/s. By interpolating

between these two measurement points, a flow

of 0.85 ft3/s was assigned for the SW-8 sampling

location.

At surface-water-sampling site SW-2, approximately 3 mi downstream from site SW-8, the

measured streamflow was 8.37 ft3/s (streamflowmeasuring site SW-11); at sampling site SW-1, the

most downstream site, the measured streamflow

was 16.6 ft3

/s (streamflow-measuring site SW-6).

The estimated streamflow for SW-8 (0.85 ft3

/s)

accounts for 10.1 percent of the streamflow

at site SW-2 and 5.1 percent of the streamflow at

site SW-1. If dilution were the only mechanism

acting to reduce the concentration of 1,4-dioxane

between these sampling sites, a concentration of

about 14 μg/L would be expected at site SW-2 and

a concentration of about 7 μg/L would be expected

at site SW-1. Concentrations of 1,4-dioxane in

samples collected at sites SW-2 and SW-1 were

12 and 8 μg/L.

Simulation of Ground-Water Flow

Ground-water flow was simulated by use of the

USGS modular three-dimensional finite-difference

ground-water-flow model developed by McDonald

and Harbaugh (1988). The digital model was based

on a conceptualization of the aquifer geometry and

geohydrology developed from data collected during

installation, geophysical logging, and hydraulic

testing of the monitoring wells. The model was

used to investigate the effects of existing and

planned ground-water pumping, the possible mechanisms of contaminant release, the interaction

between the contaminant plume and Crumpacker

Ditch, and potential methods of aquifer remediation.

Simplifying Assumptions

The following assumptions were made for the

geometry, hydraulic properties, and other characteristics of the ground-water-flow system in the

study area:

• The sand and gravel deposits define the

principal aquifer in the study area.

• The base of the aquifer is an impermeable

boundary formed by the underlying clay

and shale.

• Horizontal hydraulic conductivity varies

with depth but is uniform in each model

layer. Vertical hydraulic conductivity is 0.2

times the value for horizontal conductivity.

• The simulated value of streambed vertical

hydraulic conductivity is based upon a

streambed thickness of 1 ft.

• The ground-water-flow system is in dynamic equilibrium. Dynamic equilibrium

is defined as water levels fluctuating above

or below a long-term average water level.

The starting water levels are assumed to be

at steady state.

Model Design

The digital model is based on a rectangular

block-centered-grid network that covers 17.4 mi2

of the study area (fig. 20). The grid is 5.0 mi by
52 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana
Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 53

3.48 mi, with the longest distance along the northeast to southwest. The grid contains 20,636 blocks

(134 rows by 154 columns) that range in size from

about 100 ft by 100 ft in the central part of the

model to almost 1,710 ft by 1,140 ft at the corners

of the model. The 100-ft by 100-ft block size was

used to provide detail in the principal area of interest—the former refinery and the 1,4-dioxane

plume.

Ground-water flow was simulated by four

model layers determined from the vertical positions

of the well screens of the monitoring wells (fig. 21).

The four model layers allowed the simulation of

differences in horizontal hydraulic conductivity

with depth determined from the single-well aquifer

tests. Wells were screened at four general depths;

the tops and bottoms of the layers were calculated

to be the vertical midpoints between the well

screens. In areas without data from monitoring

wells to calculate the tops and bottoms, the aquifer

was divided into layers that represent the same

percentage of the total aquifer thickness as was

calculated for the monitoring wells. For example,

if 25 percent of the total aquifer thickness was represented by layer 2 at the monitoring wells, then

25 percent of the total thickness was used to represent layer 2 at other locations. The total thickness

of the aquifer was determined from available well

logs and by use of a 1:500,000-scale map of bedrock-surface altitude (Gray, 1982). To account for

the thickness of clay above the bedrock, the bottom

of the aquifer was assumed to be 8 ft above the bedrock surface, as reported on the geologic log for

well TW-95A.

Boundary conditions in the ground-water

model were selected so the location and type of

the boundary would have a minimal effect on model

simulations in the area of interest. Boundaries were

placed far from major ground-water pumpage so

the boundary condition would have minimal effect

on the simulated response of the ground-water

system to pumping in the area of interest. Constanthead boundaries were placed on each of the four

sides of each model layer. Generally, constanthead nodes are useful to simulate flow across the

model boundary and to help stabilize the iterative

solution process. A no-flow boundary was assumed

at the bottom of the model because of the presence

of low-permeability clay and shale beneath the

aquifer. The upper surface of the model was simulated as a free-surface boundary to represent the

water table.

Lithologic data for two privately owned wells

within the modeled area showed clay and silt in the

upper part of the unconsolidated sediments, indicating that the aquifer may not be present in layer 1 in

this area. Both wells are in boundary nodes along

the northern edge of the model. One was too far

away from other points of data to confirm or deny

190

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

LAYER 1

LAYER 2

LAYER 3

LAYER 4

BOTTOM OF MODEL

TOP OF MODEL

WATER TABLE

LAND SURFACE

MW-2S MW-2D MW-2MD MW-2XD

Figure 21. Diagram showing subdivision of aquifer into model

layers at well site MW-2 near Westville, Indiana. DEPTH BELOW LAND SURFACE, IN FEET

MW-2S

EXPLANATION

MONITORING WELL

SCREENED

DESIGNATION

AND

INTERVAL
54 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana

its validity; the other was near several other points

of data that indicated sand at similar depths.

Therefore, layer 1 was simulated everywhere

as an aquifer.

One data point, also near the northern boundary, indicated the aquifer was not present in layer 2

of the model; however, two other points of data

within 600 ft of this point showed the aquifer was

present. Therefore, layer 2 was simulated everywhere as an aquifer.

The lithologic data indicated clay and silt

between layer 1 and layer 2 in several areas in the

northwestern and north-central parts of the model

(fig. 20). A small area of clay and silt, defined by

data from four wells, was mapped between layers 2

and 3 in the north-central part of the model. None

of the lithologic data indicated clay or silt between

layers 3 and 4. The thickness of clay and silt deposits was not included in the calculation of thickness

of sand and gravel for each layer.

Layer 1 is simulated under unconfined (or

water-table conditions) in most of the modeled

area; it is simulated as confined in parts of the

model along the northern and western boundaries

where clay and silt are at land surface. Layers 2,

3, and 4 are simulated under confined conditions.

Horizontal hydraulic conductivities were assigned

to each layer, based on the geometric-mean values

determined from the single-well aquifer tests.

Vertical hydraulic conductivities of the layers were

set at 0.2 times the value for horizontal conductivity. For areas where confining beds were mapped

between layers, vertical leakance between aquifers

was calculated using a value of 0.001 ft/d for the

vertical hydraulic conductivity of the confining bed

based on a range of values reported for silt and clay

(Morris and Johnson, 1967, p. D21).

A total of 179 river nodes were used to simulate parts of Crumpacker Ditch, Wright Arm,

Forbes Ditch, and Crooked Creek. River nodes

represent large streams that can supply water to

the aquifer when the water table declines below the

bottom of the stream. Drain nodes represent small

streams that cease to flow when the water table

declines below the bottom of the streambed. Drain

nodes receive ground-water discharge but do not

recharge the aquifer. A total of 273 drain nodes

were used to simulate the upstream parts of the

streams where they were shown as intermittent

on USGS 7.5-minute topographic maps or where

streamflow data indicated the stream went dry.

There were two exceptions to this convention—

Crumpacker Ditch was simulated by river nodes

south of State Road 2 where perennial flow was

observed, and Wright Arm, north of State Road 2,

was simulated by drain nodes because no flow was

observed at that location on several occasions. For

the initial model simulations, streambed thickness

was assumed to be 1 ft and vertical hydraulic conductivity was assumed to be 1 ft/d. Lakes and ponds

were not simulated in the model.

Data for ground-water pumpage, obtained

from the Indiana Department of Natural Resources

and from the Westville Correctional Facility,

showed four locations of substantial pumpage—

the correctional facility (three wells), the Town of

Westville (one well), and two mobile-home parks

(three wells) (fig. 20). Individual wells were simulated in the appropriate model node (based on the

location information) and the appropriate model

layer (based on the screened interval of the well).

The well for the Town of Westville and wells at the

northernmost mobile-home park obtain water from

model layer 3. The remaining simulated wells

obtain water from model layer 2. Monthly pumpage

for each of these wells reported for 1997 were

totaled and then averaged to obtain a rate of pumpage in cubic feet per second for input to the model.

Average rates of pumpage ranged from 0.9 ft3/s

(581,400 gal/d) at one of the wells at the correctional facility to 0.02 ft3/s (12,920 gal/d) for one of

the mobile-home parks. The total rate of pumpage

simulated by the model is 1.54 ft3/s (994,840 gal/d).

Recharge from precipitation was applied

to the simulated water table in layer 1. The rate

of recharge was dependent on the surficial geology.

Initial rates of recharge were estimated on the

basis of values used for model simulations of

similar geologic materials in Indiana (Bergeron,

1981; Imbrigiotta and Martin, 1981; Arihood,

1982; and Duwelius and Greeman, 1989). Three

rates of recharge were applied—a rate of 3 in/yr

was applied to areas of the model where the geo-
Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 55

logic map indicated clay and silt (glacial till) at the

land surface (see fig. 2); a rate of 8 in/yr was applied

in areas mapped as muck, peat, or marl less than

5 ft thick overlying sand and gravel; and a rate of

12 in/yr was applied to areas of sand and gravel

(glacial outwash).

Model Calibration

The model was calibrated to match groundwater-level and streamflow data collected December 16, 1997. Calibration consisted of adjusting the

values of model parameters (such as water levels

at the boundaries and horizontal hydraulic conductivity) until model-simulated ground-water levels

and ground-water discharge to streams agreed as

closely as possible to measured values. The data

collected during December 1997 were assumed to

represent steady-state-flow conditions. A total of 63

ground-water-level measurements and 10 streamflow measurements were used for the calibration.

The final calibrated parameter values are listed with

the initial values in table 10.

The choice of water levels around the boundary of the model had some effect on the simulated

water levels in the center of the model. Boundary

water levels were changed by as much as 5 ft from

original estimates, which caused simulated water

levels in the center of the model to change by as

much as 0.2 ft. A maximum change of 5 ft was considered acceptable because it is within the range of

error for the method used to estimate the original

boundary water levels. Changes were made to initial water levels along the northern and western

model boundaries to improve the match between

simulated and measured water levels in the western

part of the model after all other reasonable modelparameter changes had been made.

Initial values of horizontal hydraulic conductivity were increased by 25 percent during

calibration to improve simulated water levels near

Crumpacker Ditch. The final values used in the

model are within the range of horizontal hydraulic

conductivities determined from the hydraulic tests.

Table 10. Initial and calibrated values of hydraulic parameters for the model used to simulate ground-water flow

near Westville, Indiana

[ft/d, foot per day; in/yr, inches per year]

Model parameter

Initial values

used for model

Calibrated values

used for model

Horizontal hydraulic conductivity of layer 1 21.3 ft/d 26.6 ft/d

Horizontal hydraulic conductivity of layer 2 12.2 ft/d 15.2 ft/d

Horizontal hydraulic conductivity of layer 3 89.9 ft/d 112.4 ft/d

Horizontal hydraulic conductivity of layer 4 64.4 ft/d 105.5 ft/d

Vertical hydraulic conductivity of clay semi-confining units .001 ft/d .001 ft/d

Recharge rate to clay and silt (glacial till) 3. in/yr 3. in/yr

Recharge rate to muck, peat, or marl overlying sand and gravel 8 in/yr 4 in/yr

Recharge rate to sand and gravel (glacial outwash) 12. in/yr 8.8 in/yr

Streambed hydraulic conductivity 1 ft/d .1–50 ft/d
56 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana

Vertical hydraulic-conductivity values for the

streambed were changed from the initial estimate

of 1 ft/d; this helped to match observed seepage

determined from streamflow measurements and

streambed conductivity determined with the seepage meters. Data from the seepage meters were

available for the portion of Crumpacker Ditch that

appears to be intercepting part of the plume of 1,4-

dioxane. Although the data indicate the potential

for large variability in vertical hydraulic conductivity, the average measured value was about 0.1 ft/d;

therefore, this value was used along that part of

the ditch. Other parts of Crumpacker Ditch and the

other streams simulated in the model were assigned

values of streambed hydraulic conductivity of 1

to 50 ft/d, depending on the need to increase or

decrease simulated seepage to match measured

streamflow.

Recharge to the model generally was decreased from initial estimates in order to lower

simulated water levels. Recharge to areas of surficial sand and gravel (glacial outwash) was reduced

to 8.8 in/yr and recharge to muck, peat, or marl

overlying sand and gravel was reduced to 4 in/yr.

The recharge rate to clay and silt (glacial till) was

not changed.

During calibration of the model, differences

between simulated and measured ground-water

levels are minimized. The determination of the

differences is based on the mean absolute error,

bias, the percent mean absolute error, percent bias,

and the standard deviation of the differences. The

first four of these terms are defined below:

The determinations of error terms resulting

from calibration of the model to ground-water

levels measured during December 1997 are listed

in table 11. The mean absolute error ranges from

0.09 ft in layer 3 to 0.17 ft in layer 2. The percent

mean absolute error is 1 percent and the standard

deviation of the differences is 0.22 ft for all model

layers. The results indicate the model provides a

reasonable simulation of ground-water flow in the

study area.

Mean absolute error = simulated water levels - measured water levels

total number of observations

Σ

Percent mean absolute error = Mean absolute error

maximum - minimum measured water level

 Percent bias = Bias

maximum - minimum measured water level

Bias = (simulated water levels - measured water levels)

total number of observations

Σ

Table 11. Measurements of error in water levels simulated by the ground-water-flow model and water levels

measured December 16, 1997, near Westville, Indiana

Model layer

Number of

measured

water levels

Mean

absolute

error

(feet)

Percent

mean

absolute

error

Bias

(feet)

Percent

bias

Standard

deviation

(feet)

1 29 0.16 1 -0.01 0 0.24

2 12 .17 1 -.06 0 .23

3 6 .09 1 .02 0 .11

4 16 .15 1 .03 0 .22

All 63 .15 1 -.01 0 .22
Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 57

Model Sensitivity

A sensitivity analysis was completed following

calibration of the model to determine which modelinput parameters most affect the simulated water

levels. Parameters that have a large effect on model

simulations must be accurate if the results of model

simulations are to be considered reliable. The input

parameters included in the analysis were the horizontal and vertical hydraulic conductivities of

the aquifer, the vertical hydraulic conductivity

of the streambed, and recharge.

Model sensitivity was analyzed by varying

one input parameter while all other parameters remained constant. Each parameter was varied from

0.2 to 2.4 times its calibrated value in increments

of 0.2. Sensitivity was determined by observing

changes in the mean absolute error and bias of the

resulting simulated water levels (fig. 22).

The sensitivity analysis indicates that simulated water levels are most sensitive to changes

in recharge and horizontal hydraulic conductivity

(fig. 22). Increases and decreases in the rate of

recharge caused similar errors in simulated water

levels, while decreases in horizontal hydraulic conductivity caused larger errors than increases in this

model parameter. Changes to vertical hydraulic

conductivity of the aquifer or the streambed did

not result in substantial changes to simulated water

levels.

Because recharge and horizontal hydraulic

conductivity are critical input parameters for the

model, it is important that reliable information is

used to determine or estimate these parameters.

Recharge was not measured directly, and initial

rates of recharge were estimated based on values

used for model simulations of similar geologic

materials. Although recharge rates for the glacial

outwash and for muck, peat, and marl overlying

sand and gravel were reduced during calibration,

the values of recharge in the calibrated model are

within the range of values used in the other model

simulations. Initial values of horizontal hydraulic

conductivity were estimated from results of the

single-well aquifer tests and were increased during

calibration. The calibrated values are in general

agreement with those obtained from the multiplewell aquifer test.

Simulated Water Levels and Flow Budget

Simulated water levels for layer 1 and groundwater levels measured in the shallow wells on

December 16, 1997, are shown on figure 23. The

simulated and measured values are in reasonable

agreement and have a maximum absolute difference of 0.83 ft in layer 1 near Crumpacker Ditch at

well MW-14S. Simulated water levels in layers 2

through 4 are nearly identical to those in layer 1; the

maximum absolute difference between simulated

and measured water levels is 0.60 ft at well MW14D for layer 2, 0.17 ft at well MW-15MD for layer

3, and 0.59 at well MW-2XD for layer 4. In general,

simulated water levels were slightly higher than

measured water levels in the vicinity of the refinery

site and were slightly lower than measured water

levels near and west of Crumpacker Ditch.

Simulated discharge to selected stream

segments and streamflow attributed to groundwater discharge based on measurements during

December 9 and 10, 1997, is shown on figure 24.

Estimates of the volume of treated wastewater

discharged to Crumpacker Ditch from the Town of

Westville (0.25 ft3/s) and the Westville Correctional

Facility (1 ft3/s) were subtracted from the measured

streamflow to determine streamflow attributed

to ground-water discharge. The total simulated

ground-water discharge to streams is 2.57 ft3/s

compared to the measured increase in streamflow

of 3.23 ft3/s, indicating that the model accounts for

about 79 percent of the actual streamflow. Additional discharge to the streams occurs through

field-drainage tiles, which may account for the

larger measured streamflow compared to the simulated discharge. Also, streamflow measurements

commonly are subject to error, depending on channel geometry and flow conditions.

The model simulates three sources of water—

recharge, inflow across model boundaries, and

leakage from streams. There are three options for

discharge—outflow across model boundaries, discharge to streams, and pumpage from wells. A

water budget was used to determine rates and

volumes of flow (table 12).
58 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana

58 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana

0.2 2.4 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2

MULTIPLIER OF THE CALIBRATED HORIZONTAL

HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY OF ALL MODEL LAYERS

-2

6

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

SIMULATED ERROR, IN FEET

0.2 2.4 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2

MULTIPLIER OF THE CALIBRATED RECHARGE

TO MODEL LAYER 1

-2

6

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

SIMULATED ERROR, IN FEET

0.2 2.4 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2

MULTIPLIER OF THE CALIBRATED VERTICAL

HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (VCONT)

-2

6

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

SIMULATED ERROR, IN FEET

0.2 2.4 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2

MULTIPLIER OF THE CALIBRATED VERTICAL

HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY OF THE STREAMBEDS

-2

6

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

SIMULATED ERROR, IN FEET

EXPLANATION

Mean absolute error for all simulated water levels

Bias for all simulated water levels

Reference lines for errors and calibrated model parameters

Data point for simulated error

Figure 22. Relation between simulated error in water levels and changes in the value of model parameters.
Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 59
60 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana
Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 61

Total simulated ground-water flow in the

steady-state model is 8.61 ft3

/s (5.56 Mgal/d).

About 75 percent of the total inflow is from

recharge; about 25 percent is inflow across the

model boundaries; less than 1 percent is leakage

from streams. Outflow from the model is about

45 percent across model boundaries, about 37 percent leakage to streams, and about 18 percent

pumpage from wells. Because the constant-head

boundary can add or subtract water, the model

budget may not represent the actual ratio between

recharge and boundary flux. Because the model is

calibrated to measured streamflow, the simulated

volume of flow probably is reasonable.

The total inflow across model boundaries

(boundary flux) is 2.13 ft3

/s (table 12), of which

73 percent is across the eastern boundary, 16 percent across the northern boundary, 8 percent across

the southern boundary, and 3 percent across the

western boundary. Outflow across model boundaries is 3.88 ft3

/s, of which 37 percent is across the

southern boundary, 25 percent across the northern

boundary, 23 percent across the western boundary,

and 15 percent across the eastern boundary.

The model budget indicates that the largest

volumes of horizontal ground-water flow are in

layers 1 and 3. Horizontal flow was determined

by summing the components of outflow for each

layer, with the exception of leakage across layer

boundaries. Horizontal flow is 3.51 ft3/s in layer 1,

1.62 ft3

/s in layer 2, 2.55 ft3/s in layer 3, and

0.92 ft3

/s in layer 4. The large volume of flow

in layer 1 is related to recharge that is applied to

this layer in the model. The large volume of flow

in layer 3 results from this layer having larger horizontal hydraulic conductivity than the other model

layers.

Recharge applied to layer 1 also provides water

to the rest of the model through vertical leakage

between layers (table 12). Downward flow of

ground water, mostly from recharge, is 5.74 ft3

/s

from layer 1 to layer 2, 5.06 ft3/s from layer 2

to 3, and 1.45 ft3/s from layer 3 to 4. Ground water

flows downward primarily in areas away from the

streams. Upward flow of ground water is 1.04 ft3/s

from layer 4 to layer 3, 3.38 ft3

/s from layer 3 to 2,

and 2.61 ft3/s from layer 2 to 1. Upward flow of

ground water occurs near streams.

Results of Model Simulations

The calibrated model was used to simulate

(1) the plume of 1,4-dioxane, (2) two possible

mechanisms of contaminant release at the refinery

site, (3) the effect of additional pumping from

existing water-supply wells and pumping at the

proposed well field for the Town of Westville, and

(4) the capability of pumping at the leading edge of

the plume to capture the contaminants.

Contaminant Plume

The plume of 1,4-dioxane was simulated by

use of the MODPATH particle-tracking program

(Pollock, 1989 and 1994) and the MODTOOLS

program for translating data from MODPATH into

geographic information system files (Orzol, 1997).

The location and movement of the plume were

visualized by placing particles in the four layers

on the downgradient side of model cells along the

western edge of the refinery site. When the model is

run, the MODPATH program traces the movement

of particles along the simulated flow path to provide

a “picture” of the simulated contaminant plume

(fig. 25). This technique assumes a conservative

contaminant (such as 1,4-dioxane) that moves at

the rate of ground-water flow and is not affected by

dilution, sorption, biodegradation, or other mechanisms that may control movement of contaminants

in ground water.

The location of the simulated plume approximates that mapped from results of ground-water

sampling (compare figs. 17 and 25). In addition,

the model simulates discharge of some particles

to Crumpacker Ditch and flow of other particles

beneath the ditch. Because the model simulates

steady-state-flow conditions, the plume extends

farther downgradient than has been documented by

the water-quality sampling. As the plume continues

southwest, particles are discharged to streams at

locations where the streams intersect the plume. At

steady state, the plume extends to Crooked Creek.
62 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana

Table 12. Water budget for the ground-water-flow model determined by steady-state simulation

[ft3/s, cubic foot per second; <, less than]

Inflow

Rate

(ft3

/s)

Percentage of

total Outflow

Rate

(ft3/s)

Percentage of

total

Layer 1

Recharge 6.45 70 Boundary flux 0.32 3

Boundary flux .16 2 Leakage to layer 2 5.74 62

Leakage from layer 2 2.61 28 Leakage to streams 3.19 34

Leakage from streams .03 < 1

Total inflow, layer 1 9.25 100 Total outflow, layer 1 9.25 100

Layer 2

Boundary flux .18 2 Boundary flux .32 3

Leakage from layer 1 5.74 62 Pumpage from wells 1.30 14

Leakage from layer 3 3.38 36 Leakage to layer 1 2.61 28

Leakage to layer 3 5.06 54

Total inflow, layer 2 9.29 100 Total outflow, layer 2 9.29 100

Layer 3

Boundary flux 1.28 17 Boundary flux 2.31 31

Leakage from layer 2 5.06 69 Pumpage from wells .24 3

Leakage from layer 4 1.04 14 Leakage to layer 2 3.38 46

Leakage to layer 4 1.45 20

Total inflow, layer 3 7.38 100 Total outflow, layer 3 7.38 100

Layer 4

Boundary flux .51 26 Boundary flux .92 47

Leakage from layer 3 1.45 74 Leakage to layer 3 1.04 53

Total inflow, layer 4 1.96 100 Total outflow, layer 4 1.96 100

All layers

Recharge 6.45 75 Boundary flux 3.88 45

Boundary flux 2.13 25 Leakage to streams 3.19 37

Leakage from streams .03 < 1 Pumpage from wells 1.54 18

Total inflow, all layers 8.61 100 Total outflow, all layers 8.61 100
Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 63

Possible Mechanisms of Contaminant Release

Two possible mechanisms of contaminant

release—leakage from lagoons and injection by

pumping into a disposal well—were simulated to

determine if these mechanisms could account for

movement of 1,4-dioxane into the deep part of the

aquifer. The two mechanisms selected for simulation may not be the only possible mechanisms

to explain the distribution of contaminants. The

particle-tracking program, MODPATH (Pollock,

1989 and 1994), was used to visualize groundwater flow for these simulations. The simulations

were run at steady state.

An aerial photographic analysis of the refinery

site by the Environmental Sciences Division of

USEPA (Kartman, 1999) showed that the number

of lagoons increased from 3 in 1939 to 12 in 1958.

From 1958 until about 1980, smaller lagoons were

joined to make larger lagoons. The lagoons were in

various stages of use, with some having standing

liquids and others showing staining. The number

of lagoons was reduced to three in 1987, and no

lagoons were visible on photographs of the site

taken in 1992 (Kartman, 1999).

Leakage from two lagoons along the northern

boundary and from one lagoon in the southwest

corner of the site was simulated by assigning values

of constant head and vertical hydraulic conductivity to the appropriate model cells in layer 1. The

constant heads were set equal to the land-surface

altitude, and vertical hydraulic conductivity was

varied over a range from 0.1 to 10 ft/d. Based upon

these simulations, a vertical hydraulic conductivity

of 0.2 ft/d for the lagoon beds was required to move

contaminants into layer 4 of the model and 0.4 ft/d

was required to push contaminants to the bottom of

the aquifer. All of the simulations showed mounding and radial flow of ground water beneath the

lagoons. Simulations using 0.4 ft/d or more for

vertical hydraulic conductivity of the lagoon beds

resulted in the contaminant plume spreading to the

vicinity of the water-supply well for the Town of

Westville. Analyses of samples from the watersupply well indicate this has not occurred. At these

rates of leakage, the simulations also show water

from the lagoons would reach Crumpacker Ditch

within 10 years.

Flow budgets for the simulations indicate that

the rate of leakage is about 195 gal/min when the

vertical hydraulic conductivity of the lagoon beds

is 0.4 ft/d and about 98 gal/min when the vertical

hydraulic conductivity is 0.2 ft/d. Although the

actual rate of leakage is not known, the simulated

rates appear to be too large because they imply a

constant rate of leakage and, therefore, a continuous source of liquid during the operation of the

refinery. At 98 gal/min, the annual leakage rate

is about 51.5 Mgal.

The second simulated mechanism for movement of 1,4-dioxane was injection by pumping into

a disposal well. During the site investigation, a

consultant for the group of industries that brought

materials to the refinery found and restored a

6-in.-diameter well on the refinery site (well OSW).

The well is about 135 ft deep. For the model simulations, an injection well was included that added

water to layer 3 of the model.

The simulations indicated an injection rate of

50 gal/min was required to spread contaminants to

the bottom of the aquifer. At that rate, most of the

injected water moves horizontally through layer 3,

then vertically upward to discharge in Crumpacker

Ditch. Some of the injected water also moves upward into layer 2 near the source of the injection.

The simulations also show that water injected into

layer 3 can spread into layers 2 and 4 and reach

Crumpacker Ditch within 10 years.

The simulations of the two possible mechanisms for release of contaminants indicate that

either, or both, mechanisms could spread contaminants throughout the thickness of the aquifer.

The disposal well requires about half of the water

needed to spread the plume throughout the aquifer

as that needed for the lagoons to do so. The location

of the plume determined by the particle tracking

varies slightly, depending on the source of the

water.
64 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana
Simulation of Ground-Water Flow 65

Pumping from Supply Wells

The model was used to simulate pumping from

existing supply wells for the Town of Westville and

the Westville Correctional Facility. Pumping rates

were increased above the average rates for these

wells to investigate whether additional pumpage

could draw water from the plume of 1,4-dioxane.

Pumping also was simulated for the new well field

for the Town of Westville to estimate the pumpage

required to begin drawing water from the refinery

site. The simulations of pumping were completed

separately for each well. The combined effect of

increased pumpage from all wells was not simulated.

Table 13 lists the average ground-water pumpage based on reported withdrawals for 1997 and

the simulated pumpage required to possibly draw

water from the contaminant plume. The model

simulations indicate that a pumping rate of about

300 gal/min (more than 500 percent of the average

pumpage) is required to possibly draw water from

the plume toward the existing water-supply well for

the Town of Westville. Simulated pumpage at the

correctional facility was 1,000 gal/min (174 percent

of the average pumpage). For the new well field for

the Town of Westville, a model-simulated pumping

rate of 1,000 gal/min caused drawdown extending

to the refinery site and possible contribution of

ground water from the eastern edge of the site. The

final pumping rates cause simulated flow paths to

pass sufficiently near the plume or refinery site so

that contaminants may be induced into the supply

well. In addition, the rates selected were round

numbers, such as 1,000 gal/min. It is possible that

a simulated pumping rate of 980 gal/min, for example, also could induce contaminants into the well.

Pumping from Capture Wells

Pumping from wells at the leading edge of the

contaminant plume was simulated to determine

the rate of pumping required to capture water

from the plume horizontally and vertically. For

these simulations, the locations of pumped wells

and rates of pumping were varied to achieve complete capture with the least pumpage. The plume

of 1,4-dioxane was simulated by particle tracking

from the western edge of the former refinery site.

Table 13. Average ground-water pumpage in 1997 and model-simulated pumpage

possibly required to draw water from the contaminant plume near Westville, Indiana

[gal/min, gallon per minute; -- no data]

Pumpage center

Average pumpage

in 1997

(gal/min)

Approximate

pumpage required

to intercept

contaminant plumea

(gal/min)

Percent

of

average

pumpage

Town of Westville,

existing well 58 300 517

Correctional facility 575 1,000 174

Town of Westville,

new well field -- 1,000 --

a

Simulation of increased pumpage was done separately for each well. The combined effect of increased pumpage was not simulated.
66 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana
Summary and Conclusions 67

To completely capture the plume simulated

by the particle tracking, three wells were placed

in adjacent model cells at the leading edge of

the plume west of Crumpacker Ditch and near the

intersection of U.S. Highway 6 and State Road 2

(fig. 26). Water was pumped from layer 3 at a combined rate of 75 gal/min—25 gal/min for each

well. Reducing the pumping rate below 75 gal/min

resulted in some of the particle plume bypassing the

capture wells.

Model Limitations

The capacity of ground-water-flow models to

simulate actual field conditions is limited by the

amount of input data available to define aquifer

characteristics, water levels, flow rates, and the

geometry of the flow system. The ground-waterflow model constructed for this study was based on

data from 65 monitoring wells installed in the vicinity of the former refinery site and from logs for

more than 50 privately owned wells throughout the

study area. This information provides adequate data

for construction of the model, and the calibration

statistics indicate close agreement between simulated and measured water levels (mean absolute

error is 0.15 ft). In addition, comparison of measured and simulated ground-water discharge to

streams provides assurance that flow quantities are

reasonable. Therefore, it is likely that the simulation of flow quantity and direction in the area of the

monitoring wells is a reasonable representation of

field conditions. The greatest uncertainty is in predictions of flow directions in areas of the model

away from the monitoring wells. Water-level data

outside the area of monitoring wells are only estimates derived from water levels recorded by drillers

of the privately owned wells. The trends in flow

directions predicted by the model, however, appear

reasonable because ground water tends to flow

toward the major local streams.

Summary and Conclusions

A study of the geohydrology and water quality

at a Superfund site—a former waste-oil refinery

near Westville, Ind.—was completed as part of

environmental investigations by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at the site. The refinery

was in operation from the mid-1930’s until about

1987. By 1996, several geotechnical and environmental studies had documented contaminants in

soil at the site, and 1,4-dioxane was found in offsite ground water.

The site of the former refinery is underlain

by approximately 150 ft of glacial deposits on top

of shale and lacustrine clay. The glacial deposits

include clayey till, silt and sand of the Valparaiso

Moraine in the northern part of the study area, and

silty sand and gravel of the Kankakee Outwash in

the central and southern parts of the study area.

An increase in sand grain size and a decrease

in silt content with depth were observed during

installation of monitoring wells. This observation

was substantiated by natural-gamma and electromagnetic-conductivity logging completed in the

monitoring wells and by single-well and multiplewell hydraulic testing. The well testing generally

indicated an increase in hydraulic conductivity with

depth. The average horizontal hydraulic conductivity determined from the multiple-well aquifer test

was 121 ft/d, and the aquifer transmissivity was

about 18,600 ft2/d. Values of vertical hydraulic

conductivity ranged from 24 to 36 ft/d, and specific

yield ranged from 0.05 to 0.08.

Ground water generally flows from northeast

to southwest in the study area. The depth to water

ranges from about 36 feet below land surface northwest of the refinery site to about 3 feet below land

surface southwest of the site. Horizontal gradients

average about 0.001 ft/ft; estimated horizontal

ground-water-flow velocities average about

0.1 ft/d in the upper and middle parts of the glacial

aquifer and about 0.4 ft/d near the bottom of the

aquifer. Ground-water levels near Crumpacker

Ditch, about one-half mile west of the site, are

higher than water levels in the ditch, indicating discharge of ground water to the ditch. Streamflow
68 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana

measurements showed an increase in flow along

the ditch and along other streams in the study area.

Seepage meters installed in the ditch measured a

range of ground-water discharge from about 0.01

to 0.12 ft3

/d, and the data were used to estimate

a range of vertical hydraulic conductivity for the

streambed of about 0.1 to 2 ft/d.

Based upon the analysis of ground-water

levels, several conclusions can be made about flow

in the glacial aquifer:

• Ground-water flows predominantly from

northeast to southwest in the study area.

• Flow in the aquifer is predominantly horizontal.

• Flow in the shallow part of the aquifer discharges to Crumpacker Ditch. Flow in the

middle part of the aquifer may discharge to

Crumpacker Ditch or may be a part of a

regional flow system.

• Flow in the deep part of the aquifer is part

of a regional flow system that probably

does not discharge to Crumpacker Ditch.

Ground water in the regional system flows

beneath Crumpacker Ditch and may discharge to Forbes Ditch or to Crooked

Creek.

• Ground-water-flow velocities are three or

more times faster in the deep part of the

aquifer, compared to the shallow and middle parts of the aquifer.

A description of the water quality in the study

area was determined from analytical results of

selected ground-water and surface-water samples

collected for the USEPA investigation. These

results show the ground water generally is a

calcium-bicarbonate type with a nearly neutral

pH. Specific conductivity ranged from 437 to

1,030 μS/cm in water from wells upgradient from

the refinery site and 330 to 3,780 μS/cm in water

from downgradient wells. Barium, iron, manganese, nickel, and zinc commonly were detected in

ground-water samples.

Although semi-volatile organic compounds

(including pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls) generally were not detected consistently or in

large concentrations in ground-water samples, shallow wells near the boundaries of the refinery site

provided samples in which volatile organic compounds consistently were detected. The compounds

detected generally are classified as chlorinated

solvents such as chloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethane,

1,2-dichloroethene, and trichloroethane or aromatic hydrocarbons such as benzene, ethylbenzene,

toluene, and xylenes. Chlorinated solvents were

detected with greater frequency and in larger

concentrations (as much as 1,500 μg/L of 1, 2-

dichloroethene) than the aromatic hydrocarbons

(as much as 140 μg/L of benzene).

Detected concentrations of 1,4-dioxane ranged

from 3 μg/L to more than 4,000 μg/L in wells

screened at different depths in the glacial aquifer.

The detections of 1,4-dioxane define a plume of

ground-water contamination that extends from the

refinery site to approximately 0.8 mi southwest

along the direction of ground-water flow. Downgradient from the site, the largest concentrations

generally were found in the lower half of the

aquifer. Ground water containing 1,4-dioxane is

discharged to Crumpacker Ditch, as evidenced by

detections of 1,4-dioxane in samples of surface

water. Concentrations of 1,4-dioxane detected

in surface water ranged from 8 to 140 μg/L; 1,4-

dioxane also is transported in ground water beneath

the ditch.

A three-dimensional ground-water-flow model

was constructed based upon the aquifer geometry

and hydrologic properties determined from the collected data. The model simulates flow in four layers

defined by the depths of the monitoring wells. The

model was calibrated to match ground-water levels

and surface-water flow measured in December

1997.

The plume of 1,4-dioxane was simulated

by tracking particles placed in all model layers

along the western boundary of the site. Possible

mechanisms for release of contaminants were

investigated by simulating leaking lagoons and

a disposal well. Based on the simulation of three

lagoons, a vertical hydraulic conductivity of

0.2 ft/d was required to move contaminants into the

bottom layer of the model at a constant leakage rate

of about 98 gal/min. The simulations of a disposal

well indicated an injection rate of 50 gal/min was

necessary to spread contaminants vertically in the

aquifer.
Summary and Conclusions 69

The ground-water-flow model also was used

to estimate rates of pumping required for drinkingwater-supply wells at the Town of Westville and the

Westville Correctional Facility to draw the contaminant plume toward the wells. Pumping at the new

well field for the Town of Westville also was simulated. The simulations indicated that a rate of about

300 gal/min (more than 500 percent of the average

pumpage) was required for the supply well at the

Town of Westville to possibly begin drawing water

from the plume. The rate of pumping at the correctional facility would have to be approximately

1,000 gal/min (174 percent of the average pumpage). A pumping rate of 1,000 gal/min also was

required to draw water from beneath the refinery

site toward the new well field.

Pumping from wells at the leading edge of the

contaminant plume was simulated with the groundwater-flow model to determine a rate of pumping

that would capture water from the plume horizontally and vertically. For these simulations, the

plume was generated by placing particles in all

model layers along the western edge of the refinery

site. The simulations indicated that three wells,

each pumping 25 gal/min from model layer 3,

would completely capture the contaminant plume.
70 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana

References

Arihood, L.D., 1982, Ground-water resources of the

White River Basin, Hamilton and Tipton Counties,

Indiana: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources

Investigations Report 82-48, 69 p.

ATEC Associates, Inc., 1985, Ground water study

Cam-Or facility Westville, Indiana: ATEC Associates, Inc., Indianapolis, Ind., variously paginated.

Bergeron, M.P., 1981, Effect of irrigation pumping on

the ground-water system in Newton and Jasper

Counties, Indiana: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 81-38, 73 p.

Bleuer, N.K., and Woodfield, M.C., 1993, Glacial terrain, sequences, and aquifer sensitivity, Porter

County, Indiana: Indiana Geological Survey Open

File Report 93-2, variously paginated.

Bouwer, Herman, and Rice, R.C., 1976, A slug test for

determining hydraulic conductivity of unconfined

aquifers with completely or partially penetrating

wells: Water Resources Research, v. 12, no. 3,

p. 423–428.

Bouwer, Herman, 1989, The Bouwer and Rice slug

test—An update: Groundwater, v. 27, no. 3,

p. 303–309.

Dames and Moore, Inc., 1996, On-site source characterization and off-site groundwater investigation—

Westville, Indiana: Dames and Moore, Inc.,

Indianapolis, Ind., variously paginated.

Duwelius, R.F., and Greeman, T.K., 1989, Geohydrology, simulation of ground-water flow, and

ground-water quality at two landfills, Marion

County, Indiana: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 89-4100, 135 p.

EMES, Inc., 1992, Monitoring well installation phase

I—Imperial Oil Company Next Door Food Store,

April 8, 1992: Lansing, Mich., Environmental

Management and Engineering Services, variously

paginated.

Fenelon, J.M., Bobay, K.E., and others, 1994, Hydrologic atlas of aquifers in Indiana: U.S. Geological

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 92-

4142, 197 p.

Fetter, C.W., 1995, Applied hydrogeology (3d ed.): New

York, McMillian Publishing Co., 691 p.

Fraser, G.S., and Bleuer, N.K., 1991a, Geologic framework of the aquifers of the Valparaiso Moraine:

Indiana Department of Natural Resources Geological Survey Occasional Paper 59, 8 p.

———1991b, Geologic framework of the aquifers in the

Kankakee River Lowland: Indiana Department of

Natural Resources Geological Survey Occasional

Paper 60, 10 p.

Gray, H.H., 1982, Map of Indiana showing topography

of the bedrock surface: Indiana Department of Natural Resources Geological Survey Miscellaneous

Map 35, 1:500,000.

———1989, Quarternary geologic map of Indiana: Indiana Department of Natural Resources Geological

Survey Miscellaneous Map 49, 1:500,000.

Harbaugh, A.W., and McDonald, M.G., 1996, Programmer’s documentation for MODFLOW-96, an

update to the U.S. Geological Survey modular

finite-difference ground-water flow model:

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 96-486,

56 p.

Hem, J.D., 1985, Study and interpretation of the chemical characteristics of natural water (3d ed.):

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2254,

263 p.

Imbrigiotta, T.E., and Martin, Angel, Jr., 1981, Hydrologic and chemical evaluation of the ground-water

resources of northwest Elkhart County, Indiana:

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 81-53, 140 p.

Indiana Department of Natural Resources, 1990, Water

resource availability in the Kankakee River Basin,

Indiana: Indiana Department of Natural Resources

Division of Water, Water Resources Assessment

90-3, 247 p.

Kartman, A.S., 1999, Aerial photographic analysis

Cam-Or site Westville, Indiana: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Services

Division, TS-PIC-9905554S, 59 p.

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

of borehole geophysics to water-resources investigations: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of

Water-Resources Investigations of the United States

Geological Survey, book 2, chap. E1, 124 p.

Kilpatrick, F.A., and Schneider, V.R., 1983, Use of

flumes in measuring discharge: Techniques

of Water-Resources Investigations of the United

States Geological Survey, book 3, chap. A14, 46 p.
References 71

References—Continued

Lapham, W.W., Wilde, F.D., and Koterba, M.T., 1997,

Guidelines and standard procedures for studies of

ground-water quality—Selection and installation of

wells and supporting documentation: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report

96-4233, 110 p.

Mack, T.J., 1993, Detection of contaminant plumes by

borehole geophysical logging: Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 107–114.

Malott, C.A., 1922, The physiography of Indiana, in

Logan, N.W., and others, Handbook of Indiana

geology: Indiana Department of Conservation,

Division of Geology, Publication 21, p. 112–124.

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

modular three-dimensional finite-difference

ground-water flow model: U.S. Geological Survey

Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations,

book 6, chap. A1, 586 p.

Midwestern Climate Center, 2001, Historical climate

summaries, Indiana, LaPorte and Valparaiso:

Accessed June 26, 2001, at URL http:/

mcc.sws.uiuc.edu/index.html.

Moench, A.F., 1993, Computation of type curves for

flow to partially penetrating wells in water-table

aquifers: Ground Water, vol. 31, no. 6, p. 966–971.

———1995, Combining the Neuman and Boulton models for flow to a well in an unconfined aquifer:

Ground Water, vol. 33, no. 3, p. 378–384.

Montgomery, J.H., 1991, Groundwater chemicals field

guide: Wall, N.J., Lewis Publishers, 320 p.

Montgomery, J.H., and Welkom, 1990, Groundwater

chemicals desk reference, Volume 1: Wall, N.J.,

Lewis Publishers, 1,348 p.

Morris, D.A., and Johnson, A.I., 1967, Summary of

hydrologic and physical properties of rock and soil

materials, as analyzed by the hydrologic laboratory

of the U.S. Geological Survey 1948–60: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1839-D, 39 p.

Neuman, S.P., 1972, Theory of flow in unconfined aquifers considering delayed response of the water

table: Water Resources Research, vol. 8, no. 4,

p. 1,031–1,045.

———1974, Effects of partial penetration on flow in

unconfined aquifers considering delayed aquifer

response: Water Resources Research, vol. 10, no. 2,

p. 303–312.

Orzol, L.L., 1997, User’s guide for MODTOOLS—

Computer programs for translating data of MODFLOW and MODPATH into geographic information system files: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File

Report 97-240, 86 p.

Peerless-Midwest, Inc., 1996, Test well 95A test drilling

results, pumping test analysis, permanent well recommendations, water plant site—City of Westville,

Indiana, February 8, 1996.

Pollock, D.W., 1989, Documentation of computer programs to compute and display pathlines using

results from the U.S. Geological Survey modular

three-dimensional finite-difference ground-water

flow model: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File

Report 89-381, 188 p.

———1994, User’s guide for MODPATH/MODPATHPLOT, Version 3—A particle tracking postprocessing package for MODFLOW, the U.S. Geological Survey finite-difference ground-water flow

model: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report

94-464, variously paginated.

Rantz, S.E., and others, 1982, Measurement and computation of streamflow—Volume 1, Measurement of

stage and discharge: U.S. Geological Survey WaterSupply Paper 2175, 284 p.

Roenrich, T., not dated, AquiferTest©: Waterloo,

Ontario, Canada, Waterloo Hydrologic, Inc.,

version 2.53.

Rovy II, C.W., and Cherkauer, D.S., 1995, Scale dependency of hydraulic conductivity measurements:

Ground Water, vol. 33, no. 5, p. 769–780.

Shaver, R.H., Ault, C.H., Burger, A.M., Carr, D.D.,

Droste, D.L., Eggert, D.L., Gray, H.H., Harper, D.,

Hasenmueller, N.R., Hasenmueller, W.A., Horowitz, A.S., Hutchison, H.C., Keith, B.D., Keller, S.J.,

Patton, J.B., Rexroad, C.B., and Wier, C.E., 1986,

Compendium of Paleozoic rock-unit stratigraphy in

Indiana—A revision: Indiana Department of Natural Resources Geological Survey Bulletin 59, 203 p.

Sepulveda, Nicasio, 1992, Computer algorithm for the

analysis of underdamped and overdamped waterlevel responses in slug tests: U.S. Geological

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 91-

4162, 20 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1982, Soil survey of

LaPorte County, Indiana: U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, 162 p.
72 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana

References—Continued

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989, Preparing perfect project plans—A pocket guide for

the preparation of quality assurance project plans:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/

9-89/087, 62 p.

———1992, Standard operating safety guides:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Publication

9285.1-03 PB92-963414, 182 p.

———1993a, Use of airborne, surface, and borehole

geophysical techniques at contaminated sites:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA/625/

R-92/007, variously paginated.

———1993b, Subsurface characterization and monitoring techniques—A desk reference guide, vol. I,

Solids and ground water, Appendices A and B:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/625/

R-93/003a, variously paginated.

———1993c, Subsurface characterization and monitoring techniques—A desk reference guide, Vol. II,

The vadose zone and field screening, Appendices C

and D: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

EPA/625/R-93/003b, variously paginated.

———1999, Field Investigation Report for Cam-Or,

Westville, Indiana, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Chicago, variously paginated.

———2001, Current Drinking Water Standards:

Accessed June 13, 2001 at URL http:/

www.epa.gov/safewater/mcl.html.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1969, Topographic map of

Westville, Ind.: U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-Minute

Series Topographic Maps, scale 1:24,000.

van der Kamp, Garth, 1976, Determining aquifer transmissivity by means of well response tests—The

underdamped case: Water Resources Research,

vol. 12, no. 1, p. 71–77.

Wilde, F.D., Radtke, D.B., Gibs, Jacob, and Iwatsubo,

R.T, eds., 1998, National field manual for the

collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological

Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations Book 9, Handbooks for water-resources

investigations, variously paginated.
Appendix A.

Supplemental Data Tables
74 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana

Table A1. Selected characteristics of monitoring wells and well points used to monitor ground-water flow and quality near Westville, Indiana[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; ID, identification; --, no data; ?, unknown]

Well name

Date

installed

Latitude/

longitude

USGS site

ID number

Landsurface

altitude

(feet

above

sea

level)

Measuringpoint

altitude

(feet

above

sea

level)

Inside

diameter of

well casing

and screen

(inches)

Screened

interval

(feet

below

land

surface)

B-1 03/08/85 413245/865353 413245086535301 806.3 808.51 2 26 - 42B-2 03/11/85 413248/865359 413248086535901 795.0 796.18 2 13 - 23B-4 03/12/85 413251/865406 413251086540501 796.7 797.50a 2 17 - 27

EP-1 1987 413254/865405 413254086540501 798.2 800.13 2 18 - 28EP-2 1987 413251/865359 413251086535901 796.7 798.12 2 24 - 32b

EP-3 1987 413251/865354 413251086535401 802.0 802.35 2 31 - 39bEP-4 1987 413237/865356 413237086535601 805.7 807.30 2 27 - 37bLP-1 1986 413301/865337 413301086533701 815.7 816.99 2 33 - 43LP-2 1986 413238/865450 413238086545001 785.6 786.98 2 14 - 24LP-3 1986 413233/865421 413233086542101 783.2 784.12 2 9 - 19MW-1S 1993 413242/865402 413242086540201 790.2 792.31 2 15 - 25MW-1D 1993 413242/865402 413242086540202 790.2 792.53 2 75 - 80MW-2S 1993 413245/865407 413245086540701 788.5 790.91 2 15 - 25MW-2D 1993 413245/865407 413245086540702 788.8 790.94 2 75 - 80MW-2MD 04/21/97 413245/865406 413245086540601 791.4 794.26 2 125 - 130MW-2XD 04/19/97 413245/865406 413245086540602 790.9 792.79 2 177 - 182MW-3S 1993 413248/865406 413248086540601 795.2 797.54 2 15 - 25MW-3D 1993 413248/865406 413248086540602 795.4 797.76 2 75 - 80
Appendix A: Supplemental Data 75

Table A1. Selected characteristics of monitoring wells and well points used to monitor ground-water flow and quality near Westville, Indiana—Continued

MW-4S 01/--/96 413235/865428 413235086542801 775.7 778.21 2 5 - 15MW-4D 01/--/96 413235/865428 413235086542802 775.8 778.30 2 75- 80MW-4XD 12/21/95 413235/865428 413235086542803 775.7 778.24 2 145 - 150MW-5S 12/--/95 413238/865406 413238086540601 786.4 789.16 2 10 - 20MW-5D 12/--/95 413238/865406 413238086540602 786.4 789.16 2 75 - 80MW-5XD 12/15/95 413238/865406 413238086540603 786.0 788.42a 2 145 - 150

MW-6S 01/--/96 413242/865407 413242086540701 789.9 792.11 2 --MW-6D 01/09/96 413242/865407 413242086540702 789.8 792.19 2 75 - 80MW-7S 03/14/97 413253/865346 413253086534601 809.2 812.20 2 26 - 36MW-7D 03/22/97 413253/865346 413253086534602 809.3 811.70 2 75 - 80MW-7XD 03/26/97 413253/865346 413253086534603 809.2 810.91 2 205.5 - 210.5MW-8S 04/21/97 413230/865434 413230086543401 775.4 778.50 2 3 - 13MW-8D 03/12/97 413230/865434 413230086543402 775.5 778.67 2 59.5 - 64.5MW-9S 04/21/97 413221/865434 413221086543401 774.2 777.80 2 3 - 13MW-9XD 04/22/97 413221/865434 413221086543402 774.0 775.40 2 143 - 148MW-10S 04/24/97 413222/865440 413222086544001 773.2 776.50 2 1.5 - 11.5MW-10XD 05/07/97 413222/865440 413222086544002 773.2 774.67 2 148.5 - 153.5MW-11S 05/08/97 413235/865456 413235086545601 785.6 788.16 2 10.5 - 20.5

Well name

Date

installed

Latitude/

longitude

USGS site

ID number

Landsurface

altitude

(feet

above

sea

level)

Measuringpoint

altitude

(feet

above

sea

level)

Inside

diameter of

well casing

and screen

(inches)

Screened

interval

(feet

below

land

surface)
76 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana Table A1. Selected characteristics of monitoring wells and well points used to monitor ground-water flow and quality near Westville, Indiana—Continued MW-11D 05/09/97 413235/865456 413235086545602 785.6 787.77 2 70.5 - 75.5 MW-11XD 05/08/97 413235/865456 413235086545603 785.5 787.00 2 168.5 - 173.5 MW-12 09/09/97 413235/865502 413235086550201 786.0 787.65 2 10 - 20 MW-13S 09/26/97 413239/865441 413239086544101 793.1 794.40 2 19 - 29 MW-13D 09/23/97 413239/865441 413239086544102 793.5 796.50 2 75 - 80 MW-13XD 09/24/97 413239/865441 413239086544103 793.4 794.50 2 176 - 181 MW-14S 09/26/97 413239/865431 413239086543101 775.3 777.91 2 2.5 - 12.5 MW-14D 09/26/97 413239/865431 413239086543102 775.2 778.29 2 75 - 80 MW-14XD 09/25/97 413239/865431 413239086543103 775.1 777.28 2 156 - 161 MW-15S 11/10/97 413227/865436 413227086543601 773.2 775.68 2 3.5 - 13.5 MW-15MD 11/14/97 413227/865436 413227086543602 773.3 775.62 2 95 - 100 MW-15XD 11/11/97 413227/865436 413227086543603 773.2 775.47 2 151 - 156 MW-16S 11/10/97 413220/865451 413220086545101 772.8 775.38 2 3.5 - 13.5 MW-16D 11/19/97 413220/865451 413220086545102 772.5 774.97 2 57.5 - 62.5

MW-16XD 11/12/97 413220/865451 413220086545103 772.6 774.79 2 150 - 155MW-17MD 11/18/97 413225/865446 413225086544601 777.8 780.00 2 115 - 120MW-17XD 11/13/97 413225/865446 413225086544602 777.9 780.13 2 173 - 178MW-18S 11/16/97 413231/865419 413231086541901 780.6 782.67 2 6 - 16

Well name

Date

installed

Latitude/

longitude

USGS site

ID number

Landsurface

altitude

(feet

above

sea

level)

Measuringpoint

altitude

(feet

above

sea

level)

Inside

diameter of

well casing

and screen

(inches)

Screened

interval

(feet

below

land

surface)
Appendix A: Supplemental Data 77

Table A1. Selected characteristics of monitoring wells and well points used to monitor ground-water flow and quality near Westville, Indiana—Continued

MW-18XD 11/17/97 413231/865419 413231086541902 780.8 782.88 2 145 - 150NDF-MW1 01/24/92 413224/865447 413224086544701 777.4 779.54 2 7 - 12NDF-MW2 01/24/92 413225/865446 413225086544603 777.7 779.81 2 7 - 12OSW -- -- -- 791.1 794.22 6 ? - 130PZ-1S 03/27/97 413253/865314 413253086531401 814.1 815.12 2 29 - 39PZ-1MD 04/02/97 413253/865314 413253086531402 814.1 817.07 2 145 - 150PZ-1XD 04/03/97 413253/865314 413253086531403 814.2 816.80 2 180 - 185PZ-2S 04/05/97 413252/865316 413252086531601 813.9 816.66 2 30 - 40PZ-2MD 04/07/97 413252/865316 413252086531602 813.8 816.25 2 145 - 150PZ-2XD 04/04/97 413252/865316 413252086531603 814.3 816.79 2 180 - 185PZ-3S 04/09/97 413250/865316 413250086531601 813.6 816.05 2 30 - 40PZ-3MD 04/09/97 413250/865316 413250086531602 813.5 816.06 2 145 - 150PZ-3XD 04/08/97 413250/865316 413250086531603 813.6 816.05 2 180 - 185TW-95A 12/19/95 413251/865317 413251086531701 813.3 815.84 5/4c 175 - 185

WP-1 04/08/97 413252/865426 -- 771.9 775.05 2 2.1 - 3.1WP-P 08/26/97 413239/865432d -- 770.6 772.44 2 2.6- 5.6

WP-2 03/25/97 413232/865433d -- 769.5 772.97 2 1.7 - 2.7WP-2 new 08/26/97 413232/865433d -- 769.4 771.55 2 --

Well name

Date

installed

Latitude/

longitude

USGS site

ID number

Landsurface

altitude

(feet

above

sea

level)

Measuringpoint

altitude

(feet

above

sea

level)

Inside

diameter of

well casing

and screen

(inches)

Screened

interval

(feet

below

land

surface)
78 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana Table A1. Selected characteristics of monitoring wells and well points used to monitor ground-water flow and quality near Westville, Indiana—Continued WP-3 04/14/97 413228/865434 -- 768.7 771.44 2 2.5 - 3.5 WP-3 new 08/26/97 413228/865434 -- 768.7 770.26 2 -- WP-4 06/06/97 413220/865434 -- 767.0 770.64 2 1.7 - 2.7 WP-5 03/25/97 -- -- 766.3 769.84 2 1.8 - 2.8 WP-6 03/25/97 413159/865448d -- 764.5 767.71 2 2.1 - 3.1 WP-7 03/25/97 413159/865500d -- 763.6 766.79 2 2.0 - 3.0 WP-8 06/06/97 413235/865509d -- 778.6 782.67 2 1.2 - 2.2

aWell repaired, change made to measuring-point altitude.bScreen length determined by use of borehole camera.cLatitude/longitude determined from 7.5-minute topographic map.dWell has 5-inch-diameter casing and 4-inch-diameter screen.

Well name

Date

installed

Latitude/

longitude

USGS site

ID number

Landsurface

altitude

(feet

above

sea

level)

Measuringpoint

altitude

(feet

above

sea

level)

Inside

diameter of

well casing

and screen

(inches)

Screened

interval

(feet

below

land

surface)
Appendix A: Supplemental Data 79

Table A2. Water levels measured in monitoring wells and well points near Westville, Indiana, June 1997 through August 2000[nm, not measured; --, no data; O/S, outside of casing (surface-water level); I/S, inside of casing (ground-water level)]

Well name

Measuringpoint altitude

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

06/02/97

Altitude of

water surface

06/02/97

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

07/22/97

Altitude of

water surface

07/22/97

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

08/27/97

Altitude of

water surface

08/27/97

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

10/21/97

Altitude of

water surface

10/21/97

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

12/16/97

Altitude of

water surface

12/16/97

(feet above

sea level)

B-1 808.51 30.41 778.10 30.35 778.16 30.14 778.37 30.92 777.59 31.37 777.14B-2 796.18 18.74 777.44 18.69 777.49 18.59 777.59 nm -- nm --B-4 797.50 20.48 777.02 20.45 777.05 20.40 777.10 21.14 776.36 21.55 775.95EP-1 800.13 22.92 777.21 22.88 777.25 22.84 777.29 23.54 776.59 23.98 776.15EP-2 798.12 20.41 777.71 20.36 777.76 20.26 777.86 20.96 777.16 21.40 776.72EP-3 802.35 nm -- nm -- 23.85 778.50 24.51 777.84 24.99 777.36EP-4 807.30 30.03 777.27 30.00 777.30 29.82 777.48 30.65 776.65 31.09 776.21LP-1 816.99 36.25 780.74 36.26 780.73 36.15 780.84 35.60 781.39 37.09 779.90LP-2 786.98 15.42 771.56 15.33 771.65 15.63 771.35 16.40 770.58 16.66 770.32LP-3 784.12 10.34 773.78 10.18 773.94 10.76 773.36 11.46 772.66 11.62 772.50MW-1S 792.31 15.47 776.84 15.39 776.92 15.39 776.92 16.23 776.08 16.61 775.70MW-1D 792.53 15.65 776.88 15.58 776.95 15.57 776.96 16.40 776.13 16.77 775.76MW-2S 790.91 14.42 776.49 14.32 776.59 14.41 776.50 15.21 775.70 15.54 775.37MW-2D 790.94 14.39 776.55 14.30 776.64 14.38 776.56 15.20 775.54 15.55 775.39MW-2MD 794.26 17.67 776.59 17.55 776.71 17.64 776.62 18.44 775.82 18.79 775.47MW-2XD 792.79 16.54 776.25 16.43 776.36 16.51 776.28 17.33 775.46 17.78 775.01MW-3S 797.54 20.85 776.69 20.78 776.76 20.80 776.74 21.57 775.97 21.93 775.61MW-3D 797.76 20.98 776.78 20.89 776.87 20.92 776.84 21.68 776.08 22.05 775.71
80 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana Table A2. Water levels measured in monitoring wells and well points near Westville, Indiana, June 1997 through August 2000—Continued MW-4S 778.21 5.09 773.12 4.83 773.38 5.59 772.62 6.18 772.03 6.28 771.93 MW-4D 778.30 5.26 773.04 5.02 773.28 5.74 772.56 6.32 771.98 6.43 771.87 MW-4XD 778.24 5.52 772.72 5.30 772.94 5.98 772.26 6.55 771.69 6.73 771.51 MW-5S 789.16 12.72 776.44 12.66 776.50 12.84 776.32 13.99 775.17 14.24 774.92 MW-5D 789.16 13.13 776.03 13.02 776.14 13.18 775.98 14.02 775.14 14.34 774.82 MW-5XD 788.42 12.47 775.95 12.33 776.09 12.47 775.95 13.32 775.10 13.63 774.79 MW-6S 792.11 16.73a 775.38 16.67b 775.44 17.20c 774.91 17.85d 774.26 17.55e 774.56 MW-6D 792.19 15.87 776.32 15.78 776.41 15.90 776.29 16.74 775.45 17.07 775.12 MW-7S 812.20 32.78 779.42 32.71 779.49 32.59 779.61 33.17 779.03 33.68 778.52 MW-7D 811.70 32.29 779.41 32.22 779.48 32.09 779.61 32.67 779.03 33.18 778.52 MW-7XD 810.91 31.51 779.40 31.42 779.49 31.31 779.60 31.89 779.02 32.39 778.52 MW-8S 778.50 6.98 771.52 6.71 771.79 7.50 771.00 7.99 770.51 8.05 770.45 MW-8D 778.67 7.16 771.51 6.90 771.77 7.67 771.00 8.17 770.50 8.23 770.44 MW-9S 777.80 8.01 769.79 7.90 769.90 8.47 769.33 8.78 769.02 8.80 769.00 MW-9XD 775.40 5.12 770.28 5.01 770.39 5.70 769.70 6.11 769.29 6.13 769.27 MW-10S 776.50 6.15 770.35 6.10 770.40 6.95 769.55 7.49 769.01 7.52 768.98

MW-10XD 774.67 4.33 770.34 4.32 770.35 5.13 769.54 5.66 769.01 5.72 768.95MW-11S 788.16 17.23 770.93 17.47 770.69 17.48 770.68 18.30 769.86 18.55 769.61MW-11D 787.77 16.84 770.93 17.04 770.69 17.08 770.69 17.89 769.88 18.14 769.63MW-11XD 787.00 16.11 770.89 16.26 770.74 16.31 770.69 17.12 769.88 17.37 769.63

Well name

Measuringpoint altitude

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

06/02/97

Altitude of

water surface

06/02/97

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

07/22/97

Altitude of

water surface

07/22/97

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

08/27/97

Altitude of

water surface

08/27/97

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

10/21/97

Altitude of

water surface

10/21/97

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

12/16/97

Altitude of

water surface

12/16/97

(feet above

sea level)
Appendix A: Supplemental Data 81

Table A2. Water levels measured in monitoring wells and well points near Westville, Indiana, June 1997 through August 2000—Continued

MW-12 787.65 nm -- nm -- nm -- 18.11 769.54 18.38 769.27MW-13S 794.49 nm -- nm -- nm -- 23.12 771.37 23.32 771.17MW-13D 796.50 nm -- nm -- nm -- 25.23 771.27 25.43 771.07MW-13XD 794.50 nm -- nm -- nm -- 23.29 771.21 23.61 770.89MW-14S 777.91 nm -- nm -- nm -- 5.92 771.99 6.03 771.88MW-14D 778.29 nm -- nm -- nm -- 6.26 772.03 6.39 771.90MW-14XD 777.28 nm -- nm -- nm -- 5.97 771.31 6.12 771.16MW-15S 775.68 nm -- nm -- nm -- nm -- 5.85 769.83MW-15MD 775.62 nm -- nm -- nm -- nm -- 5.89 769.73MW-15XD 775.47 nm -- nm -- nm -- nm -- 5.95 769.52MW-16S 775.38 nm -- nm -- nm -- nm -- 7.32 768.06MW-16D 774.97 nm -- nm -- nm -- nm -- 6.89 768.08MW-16XD 774.79 nm -- nm -- nm -- nm -- 6.73 768.06MW-17MD 780.00 nm -- nm -- nm -- nm -- 10.92 769.08MW-17XD 780.13 nm -- nm -- nm -- nm -- 11.05 769.08MW-18S 782.67 nm -- nm -- nm -- nm -- 10.10 772.57MW-18XD 782.88 nm -- nm -- nm -- nm -- 10.29 772.59NDF-MW-1 779.54 nm -- nm -- nm -- nm -- nm --NDF-MW-2 779.81 nm -- nm -- nm -- nm -- 10.57 768.97OSW 794.22 nm -- nm -- nm -- nm -- nm --

Well name

Measuringpoint altitude

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

06/02/97

Altitude of

water surface

06/02/97

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

07/22/97

Altitude of

water surface

07/22/97

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

08/27/97

Altitude of

water surface

08/27/97

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

10/21/97

Altitude of

water surface

10/21/97

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

12/16/97

Altitude of

water surface

12/16/97

(feet above

sea level)
82 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana Table A2. Water levels measured in monitoring wells and well points near Westville, Indiana, June 1997 through August 2000—Continued PZ-1S 815.12 32.45 782.67 32.61f 782.51f 32.45 782.67 32.72 782.40 33.19 781.93 PZ-1MD 817.07 34.39 782.68 34.55f 782.52f 34.40 782.67 34.67 782.40 35.15 781.92 PZ-1XD 816.80 32.45 784.35 34.29f 782.51f 34.15 782.65 34.42 782.38 34.90 781.90 PZ-2S 816.66 nm -- 34.31f 782.35f 34.16 782.50 34.43 782.23 34.91 781.75 PZ-2MD 816.25 nm -- 33.91f 782.34f 33.75 782.50 34.05 782.20 34.52 781.73 PZ-2XD 816.53 nm -- 34.20f 782.33f 34.03 782.50 34.32 782.21 34.80 781.73 PZ-3S 816.05 nm -- 33.83f 782.22f 33.67 782.38 33.94 782.11 34.44 781.61 PZ-3MD 816.06 nm -- 33.84f 782.22f 33.67 782.39 33.61 782.45 34.45 781.61 PZ-3XD 816.05 nm -- 33.80f 782.25f 33.63 782.42 33.91 782.14 34.41 781.64 TW-95A 815.67 33.34 782.33 33.48f 782.19f 33.33 782.34 33.61 782.06 34.12 781.55 WP-1 O/S 775.05 2.69 772.36 2.58f 772.47f 2.73g 772.32g 2.69 772.36 2.72 772.33 WP-1 I/S 775.05 1.95 773.10 1.76f 773.29f 2.03g 773.02g 2.00 773.05 1.97 773.08 WP-P O/S 772.44 nm -- nm -- .87g 771.57g .96 771.48 .82 771.62 WP-P I/S 772.44 nm -- nm -- .07g 772.37g .45 771.99 .55 771.89 WP-2 O/S 772.97 1.02 771.95 2.38 770.59 2.44g 770.53g 2.48 770.49 2.42 770.55 WP-2 I/S 772.97 .14 772.83 1.53 771.44 1.87g 771.10g 2.11 770.86 2.12 770.85

WP-2N O/S 771.55 nm -- nm -- nm -- nm -- .99 770.56WP-2N I/S 771.55 nm -- nm -- nm -- nm -- .63 770.92WP-3 O/S 771.44 nm -- nm -- 2.34 769.10 nm -- 2.33 769.11WP-3 I/S 771.44 nm -- nm -- 1.48 769.96 nm -- 1.64 769.80

Well name

Measuringpoint altitude

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

06/02/97

Altitude of

water surface

06/02/97

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

07/22/97

Altitude of

water surface

07/22/97

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

08/27/97

Altitude of

water surface

08/27/97

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

10/21/97

Altitude of

water surface

10/21/97

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

12/16/97

Altitude of

water surface

12/16/97

(feet above

sea level)
Appendix A: Supplemental Data 83

Table A2. Water levels measured in monitoring wells and well points near Westville, Indiana, June 1997 through August 2000—Continued

WP-3N O/S 770.26 nm -- nm -- nm -- nm -- 1.15 769.11WP-3N I/S 770.26 nm -- nm -- nm -- nm -- .48 769.78WP-4 O/S 770.64 3.04h 767.60h 2.89f 767.75f 2.38g 768.26g 3.19 767.45 3.18 767.46

WP-4 I/S 770.64 2.20h 768.44h 1.91f 768.73f 1.50g 769.14g 2.35 768.29 2.35 768.29WP-5 O/S 769.84 nm -- nm -- nm -- nm -- nm --WP-5 I/S 769.84 nm -- nm -- nm -- nm -- nm --WP-6 O/S 767.71 nm -- 2.14f 765.57f nm -- nm -- 2.68 765.03

WP-6 I/S 767.71 nm -- 1.51f 766.20f nm -- nm -- 2.25 765.46WP-7 O/S 766.79 nm -- nm -- nm -- nm -- nm --WP-7 I/S 766.79 nm -- nm -- nm -- nm -- nm --WP-8 O/S 782.67 2.11h 780.56h 2.23 780.44 nm -- 3.60i 779.07i dry --

WP-8 I/S 782.67 nm -- 2.29 780.38 nm -- 3.66i 779.01i 4.04 778.63

Well name

Measuringpoint altitude

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

06/02/97

Altitude of

water surface

06/02/97

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

07/22/97

Altitude of

water surface

07/22/97

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

08/27/97

Altitude of

water surface

08/27/97

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

10/21/97

Altitude of

water surface

10/21/97

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

12/16/97

Altitude of

water surface

12/16/97

(feet above

sea level)
84 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana Table A2. Water levels measured in monitoring wells and well points near Westville, Indiana, June 1997 through August 2000—Continued Well name Measuring- point altitude (feet above sea level) Depth to water surface 01/28/98 Altitude of water surface 01/28/98 (feet above sea level) Depth to water surface 03/19/98 Altitude of water surface 03/19/98 (feet above sea level) Depth to water surface 05/21/98 Altitude of water surface 05/21/98 (feet above sea level) Depth to water surface 07/08/98 Altitude of water surface 07/08/98 (feet above sea level) Depth to water surface 05/06/99 Altitude of water surface 05/06/99 (feet above sea level) B-1 808.51 31.12 777.39 30.98 777.53 29.74 778.77 29.65 778.86 31.34 777.17 B-2 796.18 nm -- nm -- nm -- nm -- nm -- B-4 797.50 21.07 776.43 20.75 776.75 19.82 777.68 19.77 777.73 21.00 776.50 EP-1 800.13 23.50 776.63 23.30 776.83 22.22 777.91 22.19 777.94 23.82 776.31 EP-2 798.12 21.03 777.09 20.86 777.26 19.70 778.42 19.65 778.47 21.45 776.67 EP-3 802.35 24.74 777.61 24.64 777.71 23.35 779.00 23.25 779.10 25.30 777.05 EP-4 807.30 30.74 776.56 30.49 776.81 29.40 777.90 29.30 778.00 31.03 776.27 LP-1 816.99 37.26 779.73 37.36 779.63 35.88 781.11 35.44 781.55 38.24 778.75 LP-2 786.98 15.85 771.13 14.98 772.00 14.79 772.19 15.04 771.94 15.70 771.28 LP-3 784.12 11.16 772.96 9.45 774.67 10.42 773.70 10.00 774.12 11.06 773.06 MW-1S 792.31 16.15 776.16 15.64 776.67 14.96 777.35 14.79 777.52 17.69j 774.62 MW-1D 792.53 16.30 776.23 15.80 776.73 15.12 777.41 14.98 777.55 16.58 775.95 MW-2S 790.91 15.00 775.91 14.39 776.52 13.87 777.04 13.73 777.18 15.18 775.73 MW-2D 790.94 15.01 775.93 14.41 776.53 13.87 777.07 13.73 777.21 15.21 775.73 MW-2MD 794.26 20.27 775.99 17.66 776.60 17.13 777.13 16.97 777.29 18.48 775.78

MW-2XD 792.79 17.25 775.54 16.63 776.16 16.10 776.69 15.94 776.85 17.48 775.31MW-3S 797.54 21.39 776.15 20.99 776.55 20.23 777.31 20.15 777.39 21.62 776.92MW-3D 797.76 21.52 776.24 21.10 776.66 20.35 777.41 20.27 777.49 21.74 776.02
Appendix A: Supplemental Data 85

Table A2. Water levels measured in monitoring wells and well points near Westville, Indiana, June 1997 through August 2000—Continued

MW-4S 778.21 5.83 772.38 4.38 773.83 5.29 772.92 4.95 773.26 5.82 772.39MW-4D 778.30 5.98 772.32 4.54 773.76 5.42 772.88 5.07 773.23 5.93 772.37MW-4XD 778.24 6.20 772.04 4.74 773.50 5.57 772.67 5.22 773.02 6.03 772.21MW-5S 789.16 13.49 775.67 12.73 776.43 12.34 776.82 12.18 776.98 12.94 776.22MW-5D 789.16 13.84 775.32 13.01 776.15 12.75 776.41 12.57 776.59 13.91 775.25MW-5XD 788.42 13.10 775.32 12.26 776.16 11.98 776.44 11.71 776.71 13.12 775.30MW-6S 792.11 nm -- 16.02k 776.09 15.79l 776.32 15.59m 776.52 18.93n 773.18

MW-6D 792.19 16.54 775.65 15.77 776.42 15.44 776.75 15.24 776.95 16.72 775.47MW-7S 812.20 33.59 778.61 33.63 778.57 32.20 780.00 31.95 780.25 34.37 777.83MW-7D 811.70 33.09 778.61 33.13 778.57 31.71 779.99 31.45 780.25 33.87 777.83MW-7XD 810.91 32.32 778.59 32.34 778.57 30.91 780.00 30.67 780.24 33.08 777.83MW-8S 778.50 7.68 770.82 6.37 772.13 7.29 771.21 6.99 771.51 7.64 770.86MW-8D 778.67 7.87 770.80 6.54 772.13 7.45 771.22 7.17 771.50 7.81 770.86MW-9S 777.80 8.59 769.21 7.60 770.20 8.35 769.45 8.09 769.71 8.52 769.28MW-9XD 775.40 5.87 769.53 4.60 770.80 5.54 769.86 5.21 770.19 5.78 769.62MW-10S 776.50 7.10 769.40 5.41 771.09 6.65 769.85 6.32 770.18 6.95 769.55MW-10XD 774.67 5.28 769.39 3.60 771.07 4.82 769.85 4.49 770.18 5.10 769.57MW-11S 788.16 17.68 770.48 17.01 771.15 16.54 771.62 17.00 771.16 17.52 770.64MW-11D 787.77 17.27 770.50 16.56 771.21 16.14 771.63 16.55 771.22 17.11 770.66

Well name

Measuringpoint altitude

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

01/28/98

Altitude of

water surface

01/28/98

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

03/19/98

Altitude of

water surface

03/19/98

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

05/21/98

Altitude of

water surface

05/21/98

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

07/08/98

Altitude of

water surface

07/08/98

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

05/06/99

Altitude of

water surface

05/06/99

(feet above

sea level)
86 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana Table A2. Water levels measured in monitoring wells and well points near Westville, Indiana, June 1997 through August 2000—Continued MW-11XD 787.00 16.51 770.49 15.77 771.23 15.39 771.61 15.78 771.22 16.37 770.63 MW-12 787.65 17.47 770.18 16.78 770.87 16.09 771.56 16.77 770.88 17.28 770.37 MW-13S 794.49 22.65 771.84 21.72 772.77 21.78 772.71 21.82 772.67 22.48 772.01 MW-13D 796.50 24.76 771.74 23.83 772.67 23.89 772.61 23.93 772.57 24.60 771.90 MW-13XD 794.50 22.94 771.56 21.91 772.59 22.08 772.42 22.09 772.41 22.78 771.72 MW-14S 777.91 5.63 772.28 4.31 773.60 5.12 772.79 4.80 773.11 5.51 772.40 MW-14D 778.29 5.94 772.35 4.64 773.65 5.43 772.86 5.12 773.17 5.85 772.44 MW-14XD 777.28 5.46 771.82 4.00 773.28 4.72 772.56 4.40 772.88 5.10 772.18 MW-15S 775.68 5.47 770.21 4.04 771.64 5.02 770.66 4.75 770.93 5.32 770.36 MW-15MD 775.62 5.52 770.10 4.11 771.51 5.07 770.55 4.82 770.80 5.38 770.24 MW-15XD 775.47 5.56 769.91 4.16 771.31 5.10 770.37 4.85 770.62 5.43 770.04 MW-16S 775.38 6.72 768.66 4.75 770.63 6.07 769.31 5.87 769.51 6.47 768.91 MW-16D 774.97 6.28 768.69 4.32 770.65 5.64 769.33 5.43 769.54 6.03 768.94 MW-16XD 774.79 6.11 768.68 4.16 770.63 5.47 769.32 5.27 769.52 5.85 768.94 MW-17MD 780.00 10.33 769.67 8.77 771.23 9.67 770.33 9.56 770.44 10.12 769.88 MW-17XD 780.13 10.43 769.70 8.88 771.25 9.76 770.37 9.66 770.47 10.20 769.93

MW-18S 782.67 9.62 773.05 7.92 774.75 8.83 773.84 8.40 774.27 9.51 773.16MW-18XD 782.88 9.78 773.10 8.14 774.74 9.07 773.81 8.57 774.31 9.68 773.20NDF-MW-1 779.54 10.14 769.84 8.38 771.16 9.50 770.04 9.33 770.21 10.17o 769.37o

Well name

Measuringpoint altitude

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

01/28/98

Altitude of

water surface

01/28/98

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

03/19/98

Altitude of

water surface

03/19/98

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

05/21/98

Altitude of

water surface

05/21/98

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

07/08/98

Altitude of

water surface

07/08/98

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

05/06/99

Altitude of

water surface

05/06/99

(feet above

sea level)
Appendix A: Supplemental Data 87

Table A2. Water levels measured in monitoring wells and well points near Westville, Indiana, June 1997 through August 2000—Continued

NDF-MW-2 779.81 9.97 770.49 8.46 771.35 9.45 770.36 9.33 770.48 10.15o 769.66oOSW 794.22 nm -- nm -- 16.44 777.78 16.34 777.88 17.98 776.24PZ-1S 815.12 33.67 781.45 33.88 781.24 32.34 782.78 31.61 783.51 34.93 780.19PZ-1MD 817.07 35.62 781.45 35.83 781.24 34.29 782.78 33.57 783.50 36.89 780.18PZ-1XD 816.80 35.36 781.44 35.57 781.23 34.03 782.77 33.31 783.49 36.63 780.17PZ-2S 816.66 35.38 781.28 35.57 781.09 34.02 782.64 33.32 783.34 36.63 780.03PZ-2MD 816.25 34.96 781.29 35.17 781.08 33.61 782.64 32.92 783.33 36.23 780.02PZ-2XD 816.53 35.27 781.26 35.45 781.08 33.89 782.64 33.20 783.33 36.50 780.03PZ-3S 816.05 34.89 781.16 35.09 780.96 33.50 782.55 32.81 783.24 36.13 779.92PZ-3MD 816.06 34.90 781.16 35.10 780.96 33.52 782.54 32.82 783.23 36.15 779.91PZ-3XD 816.05 34.86 781.19 35.05 781.00 33.47 782.58 32.79 783.26 36.11 779.94TW-95A 815.67 34.54 781.13 34.74 780.93 33.17 782.50 32.49 783.18 35.78 779.89WP-1 O/S 775.05 2.77 772.28 2.10 772.95 2.73 772.32 2.59 772.46 2.67 772.38WP-1 I/S 775.05 1.67 773.38 1.01 774.04 1.68 773.37 1.41 773.64 1.53 773.52WP-P O/S 772.44 .86 771.58 .27 772.17 .79p 771.65p .59 771.85 .92 771.52

WP-P I/S 772.44 .18 772.26 flowing -- flowingp -- flowing -- .14 772.30

WP-2 O/S 772.97 2.59 770.38 2.23 770.74 2.80p 770.17p 2.62 770.35 3.11 769.86

WP-2 I/S 772.97 1.95 771.02 1.17 771.80 1.98p 770.99p 1.73 771.24 2.20 770.77WP-2N O/S 771.55 1.10 770.45 .74 770.81 1.38p 770.17p 1.09 770.46 1.63 769.92

Well name

Measuringpoint altitude

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

01/28/98

Altitude of

water surface

01/28/98

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

03/19/98

Altitude of

water surface

03/19/98

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

05/21/98

Altitude of

water surface

05/21/98

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

07/08/98

Altitude of

water surface

07/08/98

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

05/06/99

Altitude of

water surface

05/06/99

(feet above

sea level)
88 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana Table A2. Water levels measured in monitoring wells and well points near Westville, Indiana, June 1997 through August 2000—Continued WP-2N I/S 771.55 .39 771.16 flowing -- .24p 771.31p flowing -- .50 771.05 WP-3 O/S 771.44 2.35 769.09 2.03 769.41 2.32p 769.12p 2.28 769.16 2.40 769.04 WP-3 I/S 771.44 1.54 769.90 .91 770.53 1.41p 770.03p 1.28 770.16 1.49 769.95 WP-3N O/S 770.26 1.17 769.09 .85 769.41 1.16p 769.10p 1.13 769.13 1.22 769.04 WP-3N I/S 770.26 .37 769.89 flowing -- .27p 769.99p .14 770.12 .34 769.92 WP-4 O/S 770.64 3.14 767.50 2.68 767.96 3.05p 767.59p 3.04 767.60 3.07 767.57 WP-4 I/S 770.64 2.28 768.36 1.60 769.04 2.10p 768.54p 1.99 768.65 2.18 768.46 WP-5 O/S 769.84 nm -- nm -- nm -- nm -- nm -- WP-5 I/S 769.84 nm -- nm -- nm -- nm -- nm -- WP-6 O/S 767.71 2.76 764.95 2.20 765.51 2.53p 765.18p 2.23 765.48 2.95 764.76 WP-6 I/S 767.71 2.19 765.52 1.16 766.55 1.92p 765.79p 1.55 766.16 2.11 765.60 WP-7 O/S 766.79 nm -- nm -- nm -- 2.07 764.72 nm -- WP-7 I/S 766.79 nm -- nm -- nm -- 1.40 765.39 nm -- WP-8 O/S 782.67 2.93q 779.74q 1.92r 780.75r 1.99p 780.68p 2.41 780.26 2.00 780.67 WP-8 I/S 782.67 3.00q 779.67q 1.94 780.73 1.98p 780.69p 2.44 780.23 1.98 780.69 Well name Measuring- point altitude (feet above sea level) Depth to water surface 01/28/98 Altitude of water surface 01/28/98 (feet above sea level) Depth to water surface 03/19/98 Altitude of water surface 03/19/98 (feet above sea level) Depth to water surface 05/21/98 Altitude of water surface 05/21/98 (feet above sea level) Depth to water surface 07/08/98 Altitude of water surface 07/08/98 (feet above sea level) Depth to water surface 05/06/99 Altitude of water surface 05/06/99 (feet above sea level)
Appendix A: Supplemental Data 89

Table A2. Water levels measured in monitoring wells and well points near Westville, Indiana, June 1997 through August 2000—Continued

Well name

Measuringpoint altitude

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

08/18/99

Altitude of

water surface

08/18/99

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

12/08/99

Altitude of

water surface

12/08/99

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

05/10/00

Altitude of

water surface

05/10/00

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

08/23/00

Altitude of

water surface

08/23/00

(feet above

sea level)

B-1 808.51 32.38 776.13 33.31 775.20 34.16 774.35 33.81 774.70B-2 796.18 nm -- nm -- nm -- nm --B-4 797.50 22.40 775.10 24.36 773.14 23.91 773.59 23.58 773.92EP-1 800.13 24.86 775.27 25.87 774.26 26.50 773.63 26.10 774.03EP-2 798.12 22.33 775.79 24.34 773.78 24.10 774.02 23.68 774.44EP-3 802.35 nm -- nm -- nm -- nm --EP-4 807.30 32.00 775.30 32.88 774.42 33.53 773.77 33.24 774.06LP-1 816.99 38.44 778.55 39.69 777.83 40.76 776.23 40.34 776.65LP-2 786.98 17.24 769.74 17.85 769.13 17.78 769.20 17.65 769.33LP-3 784.12 12.31 771.79 12.68 771.44 12.89 771.23 13.00 771.12MW-1S 792.31 18.64s 773.67 19.89t 772.42 20.34u 771.97 18.77v 773.54

MW-1D 792.53 17.66 774.87 18.54w 773.99 19.07 773.46 18.84 773.69

MW-2S 790.91 16.36 774.55 17.21 773.70 17.66 773.25 17.45 773.46MW-2D 790.94 16.37 774.57 17.22 773.72 17.68 773.26 17.46 773.48MW-2MD 794.26 19.62 774.64 19.46 774.80 20.95 773.31 20.73 773.53MW-2XD 792.79 18.59 774.20 19.43 773.36 19.90 772.89 19.69 773.10MW-3S 797.54 22.78 774.76 23.68 773.86 24.18 773.36 23.92 773.62MW-3D 797.76 22.90 774.86 23.79 773.97 24.29 773.47 24.03 773.73
90 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana Table A2. Water levels measured in monitoring wells and well points near Westville, Indiana, June 1997 through August 2000—Continued MW-4S 778.21 6.95 771.26 7.25 770.96 7.38 770.83 7.48 770.73 MW-4D 778.30 7.06 771.24 7.36 770.94 7.50 770.80 7.60 770.70 MW-4XD 778.24 7.15 771.09 7.35 770.89 7.57 770.67 7.65 770.59 MW-5S 789.16 15.11 774.05 15.86 773.30 16.28 772.88 16.13x 773.03x MW-5D 789.16 15.15 774.01 15.88 773.28 16.32 772.84 16.20x 772.96x MW-5XD 788.42 14.33 774.09 15.09 773.33 15.53 772.89 15.39x 773.03x MW-6S 792.11 19.29y 772.82 19.67z 772.44 nm -- 20.13aa 771.98x MW-6D 792.19 17.92 774.27 18.72 773.47 nm -- 18.98x 773.21x MW-7S 812.20 34.82 777.38 36.75 775.45 36.89 775.31 36.46 775.74 MW-7D 811.70 34.34 777.36 36.27 775.43 36.41 775.29 35.98 775.72 MW-7XD 810.91 33.55 777.36 35.47 775.44 35.61 775.30 35.18 775.73 MW-8S 778.50 8.65 769.85 8.76 769.74 8.80 769.70 8.94 769.56 MW-8D 778.67 8.83 769.84 8.95 769.72 8.99 769.68 9.12 769.55 MW-9S 777.80 9.20 768.60 9.13 768.67 9.21 768.59 9.32 768.48 MW-9XD 775.40 6.61 768.79 6.55 768.85 6.65 768.75 5.76 769.64 MW-10S 776.50 8.15 768.35 8.05 768.45 8.08 768.42 8.27 768.23

MW-10XD 774.67 8.32 768.35 6.25 768.42 6.27 768.40 5.46 769.21MW-11S 788.16 19.11 769.05 19.74 768.42 19.58 768.58 19.46 768.70MW-11D 787.77 18.69 769.08 19.33 768.44 19.18 768.59 19.06 768.71MW-11XD 787.00 17.94 769.06 18.55 768.45 18.42 768.58 18.29 768.71

Well name

Measuringpoint altitude

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

08/18/99

Altitude of

water surface

08/18/99

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

12/08/99

Altitude of

water surface

12/08/99

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

05/10/00

Altitude of

water surface

05/10/00

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

08/23/00

Altitude of

water surface

08/23/00

(feet above

sea level)
Appendix A: Supplemental Data 91

Table A2. Water levels measured in monitoring wells and well points near Westville, Indiana, June 1997 through August 2000—Continued

MW-12 787.65 18.97 768.68 19.69 767.96 19.49 768.16 19.36 768.29MW-13S 794.49 23.87 770.62 24.35 770.14 24.39 770.10 24.32 770.17MW-13D 796.50 26.01 770.49 26.50 770.00 26.51 769.99 26.45 770.05MW-13XD 794.50 21.14 770.36 24.62 769.88 24.64 769.86 24.58 769.92MW-14S 777.91 6.68 771.23 dry -- dry -- dry --MW-14D 778.29 7.04 771.25 7.38 770.91 7.44 770.85 7.54 770.75MW-14XD 777.28 6.74 770.54 7.05 770.23 7.10 770.18 7.15 770.13MW-15S 775.68 6.40 769.28 6.48 769.20 6.45 769.23 5.61x 770.07xMW-15MD 775.62 6.46 769.16 6.50 769.12 6.49 769.13 5.86x 769.76xMW-15XD 775.47 6.64 768.83 6.72 768.757 6.70 768.77 6.65x 768.82xMW-16S 775.38 8.01 767.37 8.01 767.37 7.90 767.48 8.06 767.32MW-16D 774.97 7.58 767.39 7.58 767.39 7.47 767.50 7.62 767.35MW-16XD 774.79 7.41 767.38 7.41 767.38 7.31 767.48 7.46 767.33MW-17MD 780.00 11.59 768.41 11.76 768.24 11.64 768.36 11.76 768.24MW-17XD 780.13 11.68 768.45 11.84 768.29 11.73 768.40 11.87 768.26MW-18S 782.67 10.80 771.87 11.17 771.50 11.43 771.24 11.57 771.10MW-18XD 782.88 10.95 771.93 11.32 771.56 11.63 771.25 11.69 771.19NDF-MW-1 779.54 11.41 768.13 11.51 768.03 nm -- 11.53 768.01NDF-MW-2 779.81 11.37 768.44 11.51 768.30 nm -- 11.51 768.30

Well name

Measuringpoint altitude

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

08/18/99

Altitude of

water surface

08/18/99

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

12/08/99

Altitude of

water surface

12/08/99

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

05/10/00

Altitude of

water surface

05/10/00

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

08/23/00

Altitude of

water surface

08/23/00

(feet above

sea level)
92 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana Table A2. Water levels measured in monitoring wells and well points near Westville, Indiana, June 1997 through August 2000—Continued OSW 794.22 18.99 775.23 19.88 774.34 20.49 773.73 20.22 774.00 PZ-1S 815.12 34.91 780.21 35.79 779.33 37.22 777.90 37.04 778.08 PZ-1MD 817.07 36.86 780.21 37.73 779.34 39.18 777.89 38.99 778.08 PZ-1XD 816.80 36.61 780.19 37.47 779.33 38.92 777.88 38.74 778.06 PZ-2S 816.66 36.60 780.06 37.50 779.16 38.90 777.76 38.70 777.96 PZ-2MD 816.25 36.18 780.07 37.08 779.17 38.51 777.74 38.32 777.93 PZ-2XD 816.53 36.48 780.05 37.35 779.18 38.80 777.73 38.59 777.94 PZ-3S 816.05 36.08 779.97 37.01 779.04 38.40 777.65 38.19 777.86 PZ-3MD 816.06 36.13 779.93 37.01 779.05 38.43 777.63 38.22 777.84 PZ-3XD 816.05 36.08 779.97 36.97 779.08 38.38 777.67 38.17 777.88 TW-95A 815.67 35.76 779.91 36.63 779.04 38.07 777.60 37.86 777.81 WP-1 O/S 775.05 2.73 772.32 2.86 772.19 dry -- dry -- WP-1 I/S 775.05 2.29 772.76 2.90 771.15 3.15 771.90 3.03 772.02 WP-P O/S 772.44 .98 771.46 dry -- 1.19 771.25 dry -- WP-P I/S 772.44 1.12 772.30 1.51 770.93 1.58 770.86 1.72 770.72 WP-2 O/S 772.97 2.77 770.20 2.97 770.00 3.05 769.92 2.62 770.35

WP-2 I/S 772.97 2.62 770.35 2.82 770.15 2.89 770.08 2.82 770.15WP-2N O/S 771.55 1.31 770.24 1.55 770.00 1.62 769.93 1.12 770.43WP-2N I/S 771.55 1.12 771.05 1.36 770.19 1.49 770.06 1.42 770.13

Well name

Measuringpoint altitude

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

08/18/99

Altitude of

water surface

08/18/99

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

12/08/99

Altitude of

water surface

12/08/99

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

05/10/00

Altitude of

water surface

05/10/00

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

08/23/00

Altitude of

water surface

08/23/00

(feet above

sea level)
Appendix A: Supplemental Data 93

Table A2. Water levels measured in monitoring wells and well points near Westville, Indiana, June 1997 through August 2000—Continued

aObserved floating oil in well.bDepth to oil was 15.57 feet.cDepth to oil was 15.62 feet.dMeasurement made September 22, 1997; depth to oil was 16.52 feet.eDepth to oil was16.89 feet.fMeasurement made July 23, 1997.gMeasurement made August 28, 1997.hMeasurement made June 5, 1997.iMeasurement made September 22, 1997.

tDepth to oil was 18.13 feet.uDepth to oil was 18.67 feet.vDepth to oil was 18.50 feet.wDepth to oil was 18.52 feet.xMeasurement made August 24, 2000.yDepth to oil was 17.58 feet.zDepth to oil was 18.51 feet.aaMeasurement made August 24, 2000;

 depth to oil was 18.70 feet.

bbMeasurement made December 9, 1999.

jDepth to oil was 16.19 feet.kDepth to oil was 15.60 feet.lDepth to oil was 15.28 feet.mDepth to oil was15.10 feet.nDepth to oil was 16.47 feet.oMeasurement made May 10, 1999.pMeasurement made May 22, 1998.qWater frozen in well point and pond.rWater frozen in pond.sDepth to oil was 17.30 feet.

WP-3 O/S 771.44 2.43 769.01 nm -- nm -- 2.52 768.92WP-3 I/S 771.44 1.93 769.51 nm -- nm -- 2.14 769.30WP-3N O/S 770.26 1.24 769.02 nm -- nm -- 1.38 768.88WP-3N I/S 770.26 .76 769.50 nm -- nm -- 1.00 769.26WP-4 O/S 770.64 3.10 767.54 3.12 767.52 3.11 767.53 2.47 768.17WP-4 I/S 770.64 2.52 768.12 2.48 768.16 2.53 768.11 2.43 768.21WP-5 O/S 769.84 nm -- nm -- nm -- nm --WP-5 I/S 769.84 nm -- nm -- nm -- nm --WP-6 O/S 767.71 2.66 765.05 2.63bb 765.08bb 2.86 764.85 3.03 764.68

WP-6 I/S 767.71 2.52 765.19 2.37bb 765.34bb 2.53 765.18 2.55 765.16WP-7 O/S 766.79 nm -- nm -- nm -- nm --WP-7 I/S 766.79 nm -- nm -- nm -- nm --WP-8 O/S 782.67 dry -- dry -- 3.61 779.06 3.42 779.25WP-8 I/S 782.67 4.48 778.19 dry -- 3.60 779.07 3.42 779.25

Well name

Measuringpoint altitude

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

08/18/99

Altitude of

water surface

08/18/99

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

12/08/99

Altitude of

water surface

12/08/99

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

05/10/00

Altitude of

water surface

05/10/00

(feet above

sea level)

Depth to

water

surface

08/23/00

Altitude of

water surface

08/23/00

(feet above

sea level)

Appendix B.

Quality Assurance
96 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana

Quality-Assurance Sample Collection

Duplicate samples were collected sequentially

during sample collection from selected wells at a

rate of 1 duplicate sample for every 10 regular samples. Duplicate samples can indicate the variability

of the sampled medium or the variability of the

methods of sample collection and laboratory analysis. Samples also were collected for use as matrix

spikes at a rate of 1 matrix spike for every 20 regular samples. Matrix-spike samples are used by the

laboratory to determine recovery rates by adding

known concentrations of a substance to the sample and analyzing for that substance. Matrix-spike

samples also can be used to evaluate whether the

sample water contains substances that may cause

interference with the analysis.

Two types of blank samples were collected—

trip blanks and equipment-rinse blanks. Trip blanks

consisted of laboratory-certified organic-free water

poured into sample bottles for analysis of volatile

organic compounds (VOC’s) and 1,4-dioxane. A

trip blank was kept in a cooler that accompanied

each sampling crew during sample collection and

subsequently was sent to the laboratory for analysis. Trip blanks can indicate if contamination of

the regular samples occurred during shipping.

Equipment-rinse blanks, sometimes referred

to as method blanks, were collected after decontamination of the sampling equipment by pumping

distilled or deionized water through the sampling

pump and discharge tubing. The blank sample was

collected from the discharge tubing in the same

manner as the regular samples. Equipment-rinse

blanks were collected for each sampling device

used, with a maximum frequency of 1 equipment

blank for every 20 samples collected. Analysis

of these blank samples can indicate whether the

decontamination procedures were effective or if

contaminants were introduced by the sampling

equipment.

Results of Quality Assurance

Results of analysis of duplicate samples (tables

B1 through B4) were compared by use of the relative percent difference (RPD). The RPD was

calculated with the following formula for 33

analytes detected in the regular and duplicate

samples

where,

C1 is the larger of the two concentrations, and

C2 is the smaller of the two concentrations

 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

 (1989, p. 13).

Analytes detected in one but not both of the

sample pairs and analytes not detected are not

included in the RPD analysis because of uncertainty in the actual concentration of analytes

reported as less than the quantitation limit.

The RPD analysis generally indicated small

differences between concentrations of most analytes in the sample pairs (table B5). Of 110 individual comparisons, only 13 RPD’s are greater than

25 percent. Although the range of RPD’s is varied

among analytes, the median RPD’s for 23 of the

33 analytes are 10 or less. The median RPD’s for

two analytes—copper and thallium—exceeded 25.

These analytes are not critical to the discussion of

water quality in this report.

Of the 11 sample pairs analyzed for 1,4-dioxane (table B4), 4 were reported as less than the

quantitation limit in the regular and duplicate

samples. The RPD analysis for 1,4-dioxane (table

B5) is based on the remaining seven sample pairs.

The RPD’s for 1,4-dioxane range from 0 to 36.6

and have a median of 16.7. The largest RPD is

for samples collected from well MW-4XD during

April 1997. Estimated concentrations of 1,4-dioxane in the regular and duplicate samples exceeded

3,000 μg/L. An RPD of 22.2 was calculated for

regular and duplicate samples collected from

well MW-2D during May 1999. These samples

were diluted for analysis, and the reported concentrations exceeded 8,000 μg/L. The RPD analysis

of 1,4-dioxane may indicate an error in the dilution

RPD ( ) C1 – C2 × 100 percent

( ) C1 + C2 ⁄ 2 = ------------------------------------------------------------ (3)
Appendix B: Quality Assurance 97

process or a loss of analytical precision at large

concentrations.

Results of the equipment-rinse samples (table

B6) indicate that the sampling equipment and

procedures did not alter the water chemistry substantially. With the exception of potassium in one

sample and sodium in two samples, concentrations

of major elements reported for equipment-rinse

samples were less than the smallest concentration

reported for these constituents in the environmental samples. Potassium and sodium are common

constituents in water and may have been present

in the deionized or distilled water used for

equipment decontamination and to make up

the equipment-rinse sample.

Except for aluminum, concentrations of minor

elements in equipment-rinse samples generally

were low (table B6); however, concentrations

reported for barium, copper, thallium, and zinc, as

well as aluminum, are within the range of concentrations reported for the environmental samples.

Detection of these constituents may indicate that

minor elements were present in the water used for

equipment decontamination or that decontamination was inadequate to remove these elements. In

either event, the detection of these minor elements

in water samples is not critical to the interpretation

of water quality in relation to the former refinery.

Several of the VOC’s detected during April–

June 1997 were not detected in subsequent samples

from the same wells. For example, small concentrations of acetone were detected in water from wells

B-1, MW-4XD, MW-11D, and MW-10S, as well as

small concentrations of toluene in water from well

EP-4 and all three wells at MW-5. Those results

were not duplicated in samples collected from these

wells during later sampling rounds. In fact, no

VOC’s were detected in samples from these wells

during the remainder of the investigation. The

initial detections of VOC’s in samples from wells

B-1, EP-4, MW-4XD and all wells at MW-5, MW10S, and MW-11D probably are not indicative of

ground-water quality and may have resulted from

contamination in the field or the laboratory.

Five volatile organic compounds were detected

at least once in the 10 equipment-rinse samples

analyzed during the study (table B6). Acetone

was detected in four equipment-rinse samples at

concentrations ranging from 15 to 49 μg/L; bromodichloromethane and dibromochlromethane

were detected in two samples at concentrations

ranging from 3 to 6 μg/L; 2-butanone and toluene

were detected in one sample each at concentrations

of 10 and 0.5 μg/L, respectively. Detections of

2-butanone and dibromochloromethane were not

reported for any of the environmental samples.

Acetone was detected in three environmental

samples, and bromodichloromethane was detected

in one environmental sample. These compounds,

however, were reported in samples collected

during April and May 1997, and the detections

in the equipment-rinse samples occurred during

August–September and December 1997. Toluene

was detected in 12 environmental samples collected

from eight wells at concentrations ranging from

1 to 7 μg/L. Of these, only one sample was collected during December 1997, when toluene was

reported in the equipment-rinse sample.

Analysis of the trip-blank samples detected

no volatile organic compounds (table B7). These

results indicate no contamination of the samples

in the field during handling and shipping.
98 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana Table B1. Concentrations of common constituents in duplicate ground-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April–June 1997 [mg/L, milligram per liter; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; --, not sampled; J, concentration is estimated; >, greater than] Well Date of sample collection Bi- carbonate alkalinity (mg/L) Ammonia as nitrogen (mg/L) Hardness (mg/L as CaC03) Calcium (mg/L) Chloride (mg/L) Magnesium (mg/L) Potassium (mg/L) Sodium (mg/L) Sulfate (mg/L) Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (mg/L) Total organic carbon (percent) MW-4XD 04/29/97 1,080 2.7 2,620 512 > 260 228 3.24 J 42.1 J > 375 4.44 15 Duplicate 1,060 -- >2,640 527 252 226 3.12 J 41.2 J > 1,500 -- -- MW-8D 04/29/97 375 -- 652 -- 380 -- -- -- 0 -- -- Duplicate 385 -- 664 -- 395 -- -- -- 8 -- -- MW-9S 04/29/97 232 -- 236 99.8 58 30.0 1.69 J 13.9 J 76 -- -- Duplicate 237 -- 296 95.5 64 29.4 1.60 J 12.4 J 84 -- -- MW-2S 05/01/97 340 -- 420 111 J 56 27.5 J 5.46 J 33.5 J 140 -- 46 Duplicate 365 -- 420 112 J -- 27.6 J 5.32 J 32.8 J -- -- 46 MW-2XD 05/01/97 852 -- 2,360 522 > 132 212 19.5 J 36.5 J > 375 -- -- Duplicate -- 2.7 1,160 526 > 266 215 20.0 J 37.3 J >375 4.65 16 MW-10XD 06/03/97 -- -- -- 139 -- 58.3 2.63 52.2 J -- -- --

Duplicate -- -- -- 155 -- 64.2 2.70 J 53.7 J -- -- --MW-11D 06/03/97 -- -- -- 86.8 -- 34.4 .679 4.07 J -- -- --Duplicate -- -- -- 86.9 -- 34.3 .673 4.06 -- -- --
Appendix B: Quality Assurance 99

Table B2. Concentrations of minor elements in duplicate ground-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April–June 1997[μg/L, microgram per liter; J, concentration is estimated; <, less than]

Well

Date of

sample

collection)

Aluminum

(μg/L)

Antimony

(μg/L)

Arsenic

(μg/L)

Barium

(μg/L)

Beryllium

(μg/L)

Cadmium

(μg/L)

Chromium

(μg/L)

Cobalt

(μg/L)

Copper

(μg/L)

Iron

(μg/L)

MW-4XD 04/29/97 < 9 4.0 J 5.4 21.1 < 1 < 1 1.5 < 1 2 65,100Duplicate 18.4 J 4.0 J 7.7 J 20.1 J < 1 < 1 < 1 1.3 J 1.5 J 66,300MW-9S 04/29/97 229 2.3 J < 2 55.4 < 1 < 1 3.1 1.7 1.9 3,540Duplicate 183 3.1 J < 2 54.2 < 1 < 1 2.7 1.3 1.4 3,170MW -2S 05/01/97 138 J 3.7 J 9.9 J 70.9 J < 1 5.6 1.3 J 113 < 1 15,100Duplicate 140 J 4.0 J 7.9 J 71.4 J < 1 5.8 1.1 J 116 < 1 15,000MW-2XD 05/01/97 1,120 J 2.5 J 3.0 J 21.7 J < 1 < 1 2.4 J < 1 3.6 J 37,700Duplicate 1,380 J 3.7 J 3.4 J 23.6 J < 1 < 1 2.2 J < 1 3 J 38,300MW-10D 06/03/97 28.7 J 6.8 J < 6 498 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 9.9 2,530Duplicate < 4 8.1 J < 6 516 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 6.6 J 2,790MW-11D 06/03/97 18.1 J 6.3 J < 6 28.1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 2.8 J 1,480Duplicate 18.3 < 3 < 6 28.1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 3 1,470
100 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana Table B2. Concentrations of minor elements in duplicate ground-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April–June 1997—Continued Well Date of sample collection Lead

(μg/L)

Manganese

(μg/L)

Mercury

(μg/L)

Nickel

(μg/L)

Selenium

(μg/L)

Silver

(μg/L)

Thallium

(μg/L)

Vanadium

(μg/L)

Zinc

(μg/L)

MW-4XD 04/29/97 < 1 160 <0.2 82.7 < 3 J < 1 6.3 J < 1 6.1Duplicate < 1 159 < .2 J 80.3 < 3 < 1 11.2 J < 1 7.2 JMW-9S 04/29/97 2 173 < .2 3.5 < 3 J < 1 < 2 < 1 12.5Duplicate < 1 154 < .2 2.8 < 3 J < 1 < 2 < 1 9.2MW-2S 05/01/97 < 1 3,500 < .2 J 182 < 3 < 1 .5 J 1.9 503 JDuplicate < 1 3,580 < .2 185 < 3 < 1 6.4 J 1.8 515 JMW-2XD 05/01/97 < 1 434 < .2 J 5.2 < 3 < 1 5.8 J 3.1 41.5 JDuplicate < 1 443 < .2 J 5.5 < 3 < 1 5.2 J 2.9 10.0 JMW-10D 06/03/97 < 2 56.5 < .2 3.6 < 4 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 3Duplicate < 2 58.5 < .2 3 < 4 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 3MW-11D 06/03/97 < 2 90.4 < .2 1.5 < 4 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 3Duplicate < 2 90.3 < .2 1.5 < 4 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 3
Appendix B: Quality Assurance 101

Table B3. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds in duplicate ground-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April 1997 through May 1999[Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) Registry Numbers are in parentheses in column header; μg/L, microgram per liter; <, less than; J, concentration is estimated, number given is below quantification limit]

Well

Date of

sample

collection

Chloromethane

(74-87-3)

(μg/L)

Bromomethane

(74-83-9)

(μg/L)

Vinyl chloride

(75-01-4)

(μg/L)

Chloroethane

(75-00-3)

(μg/L)

Methylene

chloride

(75-09-2)

(μg/L)

Acetone

(67-64-1)

(μg/L)

Carbon

disulfide

(75-15-0)

(μg/L)

1,1-Dichloroethene

(75-35-4)

(μg/L)

1,1-Dichloroethane

(75-34-3)

(μg/L)

1,2-Dichloroethene

(total)

(540-59-0)

(μg/L)

Chloroform

(67-66-3)

(μg/L)

B-2 04/29/97 < 33 J < 33 61 11 J < 33 < 33 < 33 < 33 150 1,500 < 33Duplicate < 100 J < 100 58 J < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 160 1,500 < 100MW-4XD 04/29/97 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 6 J < 10 <10 <10 <10 <10Duplicate < 10 J < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 <10 <10 < 10 <10 < 10MW-9S 04/29/97 < 10 J <10 J <10 J < 10 J < 10 J <10 J <10 J <10 J <10 J <10 J <10 JDuplicate < 10 J <10 J <10 J < 10 J < 10 J <10 J <10 J <10 J <10 J <10 J <10 JMW-2S 05/01/97 < 10 J <10 J <10 J 90 J 6 J <10 J <10 J <10 J <10 J <10 J <10 JDuplicate < 10 J <10 J <10 J 90 J 5 J <10 J <10 J <10 J <10 J <10 J <10 JMW-2XD 05/01/97 < 10 J <10 J <10 J < 10 J < 10 J <10 J <10 J <10 J <10 J <10 J <10 JDuplicate < 10 J <10 J <10 J < 10 J < 10 J <10 J <10 J <10 J <10 J <10 J <10 JEP-4 09/03/97 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1Duplicate < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1PZ-3XD 09/03/97 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1Duplicate < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
102 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana Table B3. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds in duplicate ground-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April 1997 through May 1999—Continued MW-10XD 09/08/93 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 Duplicate < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 MW-15XD 12/09/97 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 3 < 2 J < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 Duplicate < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 3 < 2 J < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 MW-14D 12/10/97 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 3 < 3 J < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 Duplicate < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 3 < 3 J < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 MW-17MD 12/16/97 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 3 < 3 J < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 Duplicate < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 3 < 4 J < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 MW-2D 05/04/99 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 3 J < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 Duplicate < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 3 J < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 MW-7XD 05/03/99 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 3 J < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 Duplicate < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 3 J < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 Well Date of sample collection Chloro- methane (74-87-3)

(μg/L)

Bromomethane

(74-83-9)

(μg/L)

Vinyl chloride

(75-01-4)

(μg/L)

Chloroethane

(75-00-3)

(μg/L)

Methylene

chloride

(75-09-2)

(μg/L)

Acetone

(67-64-1)

(μg/L)

Carbon

disulfide

(75-15-0)

(μg/L)

1,1-Dichloroethene

(75-35-4)

(μg/L)

1,1-Dichloroethane

(75-34-3)

(μg/L)

1,2-Dichloroethene

(total)

(540-59-0)

(μg/L)

Chloroform

(67-66-3)

(μg/L)
Appendix B: Quality Assurance 103

Table B3. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds in duplicate ground-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April 1997 through May 1999—Continued

Well

Date of

sample

collection

1,2-Dichloroethane

(107-06-2)

(μg/L)

2-Butanone

(78-93-3)

(μg/L)

1,1,1-Trichloroethane

(71-55-6)

(μg/L)

Carbon

tetrachloride

(56-23-5)

(μg/L)

Bromodichloromethane

(75-27-4)

(μg/L)

1,2-Dichloropropane

(78-87-5)

(μg/L)

cis-1,3-

Dichloropropene

(10061-01-5)

(μg/L)

Trichloroethene

(79-01-6)

(μg/L)

Dibromochloromethane

(124-48-1)

(μg/L)

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

(79-00-5)

(μg/L)

Benzene

(71-43-2)

(μg/L)

B-2 04/29/97 < 33 < 33 < 33 < 33J < 33 < 33 < 33 28 J < 33 < 33 4 JDuplicate < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 29 J < 100 < 100 < 100MW-4XD 04/29/97 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10Duplicate < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10MW-9S 04/29/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 JDuplicate < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 JMW-2S 05/01/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J 16 JDuplicate < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J 16 JMW-2XD 05/01/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 JDuplicate < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 JEP-4 09/03/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1Duplicate 09/03/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1PZ-3XD 09/03/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1Duplicate 09/03/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
104 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana Table B3. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds in duplicate ground-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April 1997 through May 1999—Continued MW-10XD 09/08/93 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 Duplicate 09/08/93 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 MW-15XD 12/09/97 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 Duplicate 12/09/97 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 MW-14D 12/10/97 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 Duplicate 12/10/97 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 MW-17MD 12/16/97 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 Duplicate 12/16/97 < 1 < 3 < 1 J < 1 J < 1 J < 1 J < 1 J < 1 J < 1 J < 1 J < 1 J MW-7XD 05/03/99 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 Duplicate 05/03/99 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 MW-2D 05/04/99 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 Duplicate 05/04/99 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 Well Date of sample collection 1,2-Dichloro- ethane (107-06-2)

(μg/L)

2-Butanone

(78-93-3)

(μg/L)

1,1,1-Trichloroethane

(71-55-6)

(μg/L)

Carbon

tetrachloride

(56-23-5)

(μg/L)

Bromodichloromethane

(75-27-4)

(μg/L)

1,2-Dichloropropane

(78-87-5)

(μg/L)

cis-1,3-

Dichloropropene

(10061-01-5)

(μg/L)

Trichloroethene

(79-01-6)

(μg/L)

Dibromochloromethane

(124-48-1)

(μg/L)

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

(79-00-5)

(μg/L)

Benzene

(71-43-2)

(μg/L)
Appendix B: Quality Assurance 105

Table B3. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds in duplicate ground-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April 1997 through May 1999—Continued

Well

Date of

sample

collection

trans-1,3-

Dichloropropene

(10061-02-6)

(μg/L)

Bromoform

(75-25-2)

(μg/L)

4-Methyl-2-

pentanone

(108-10-1)

(μg/L)

2-Hexanone

(591-78-6)

(μg/L)

Tetrachloroethene

(127-18-4)

(μg/L)

1,1,2,2-

Tetrachloroethane

(79-34-5)

(μg/L)

Toluene

(108-88-3)

(μg/L)

Chlorobenzene

(108-90-7)

(μg/L)

Ethyl

benzene

(100-41-4)

(μg/L)

Styrene

(100-42-5)

(μg/L)

Xylene

(total)

(1330-20-7)

(μg/L)

B-2 04/29/97 < 33 < 33 < 33 < 33J 26 J < 33 < 33 < 33 < 33 < 33 < 33Duplicate < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 24 J < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100 < 100MW-4XD 04/29/97 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10Duplicate < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10MW-9S 04/29/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 JDuplicate < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 JMW-2S 05/01/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J 1 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 JDuplicate < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J 1 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 JMW-2XD 05/01/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 JDuplicate < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J 1 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 JEP-4 09/03/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1Duplicate 09/03/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
106 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana Table B3. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds in duplicate ground-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April 1997 through May 1999—Continued PZ-3XD 09/03/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 Duplicate 09/03/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 MW-10XD 09/08/93 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 MW-10XD D 09/08/93 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 MW-15XD 12/09/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 MW-15XD D 12/09/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 MW-14D 12/10/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 MW-14D D 12/10/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 MW-17MD 12/16/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 Duplicate 12/16/97 < 1 J < 1 J < 2 J < 2 J < 1 J < 1 J < 1 J < 1 J < 1 J < 1 J < 1 J MW-7XD 05/03/99 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

Duplicate 05/03/99 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10MW-2D 05/04/99 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10Duplicate 05/04/99 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

Well

Date of

sample

collection

trans-1,3-

Dichloropropene

(10061-02-6)

(μg/L)

Bromoform

(75-25-2)

(μg/L)

4-Methyl-2-

pentanone

(108-10-1)

(μg/L)

2-Hexanone

(591-78-6)

(μg/L)

Tetrachloroethene

(127-18-4)

(μg/L)

1,1,2,2-

Tetrachloroethane

(79-34-5)

(μg/L)

Toluene

(108-88-3)

(μg/L)

Chlorobenzene

(108-90-7)

(μg/L)

Ethyl

benzene

(100-41-4)

(μg/L)

Styrene

(100-42-5)

(μg/L)

Xylene

(total)

(1330-20-7)

(μg/L)
Appendix B: Quality Assurance 107

Well

Date of

sample collection

1,4-Dioxane

(123-91-1)

(μg/L)

MW-4XD

Duplicate

04/29/97 3,800 E

5,500 E

EP-4

Duplicate

09/03/97 < 5

< 5

PZ-3XD

Duplicate

09/03/97 < 5

< 5

MW-10XD

Duplicate

09/08/97 6

6

MW-15XD

Duplicate

12/09/97 318 D

305 D

MW-14D

Duplicate

12/10/97 13

11

MW-17MD

Duplicate

12/16/97 < 5

< 5

MW-2D

Duplicate

05/04/99 8,800 D

11,000 D

MW-7XD

Duplicate

05/03/99 < 5

< 5

MW-10XD

Duplicate

05/07/99 5 J

5 J

MW-14D

Duplicate

05/07/99 9

7

Table B4. Concentrations of 1,4-dioxane in duplicate groundwater samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April 1997

through May 1999

[Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) Registry Numbers are in parentheses in column header; μg/L, microgram per liter; <, less than;

D, concentration determined after dilution; J, concentration is estimated, number given is below quantification limit; E, concentration

is estimated, sample required dilution to increase accuracy]
108 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana

Table B5. Statistical summary of relative percent differences for analytes detected in duplicate ground-water samples collected

near Westville, Indiana, April 1997 through May 1999

[RPD, relative percent difference; mg/L, milligram per liter; CaCO3, calcium carbonate; J, concentration is estimated for at least one sample of the

pair; --, insufficient data; E, concentration is estimated for at least one sample of the pair, sample required dilution to increase accuracy]

Analyte

Number of

sample pairs

Minimum

RPD

Maximum

RPD

Median

RPD

Number of

sample pairs

exceeding 25 RPD

Common constituents

Bicarbonate alkalinity 4 1.9 7.1 2.0 0

Hardness (mg/L as CaCo3) 4 0 68.2 12.2 1

Calcium 6 .12 10.9 1.9 J 0

Chloride 2 3.9 9.8 6.85 0

Magnesium 6 .29 9.6 1.14 0

Potassium 6 .89 5.5 J 2.6 J 0

Sodium 6 .25 J 11.4 J 2.2 J 0

Sulfate 1 -- -- 10.0 0

Total organic carbon 1 -- -- 0 0

Minor elements

Aluminum 4 1.1 J 22.3 11.1 J 0

Antimony 5 0 J 38.7 J 17.4 J 2

Arsenic 3 12.5 J 35.1 J 22.5 J 1

Barium 6 0 8.4 J 2.9 0

Cadmium 1 -- -- 3.5 0

Chromium 3 8.7 J 16.7 J 13.8 0

Cobalt 2 2.6 26.7 14.65 1

Copper 5 6.9 J 40.0 J 28.6 J 3

Iron 6 .66 11.0 1.7 0

Manganese 6 .63 11.6 2.85 0

Nickel 6 0 22.2 4.25 0

Thallium 3 10.9 J 171 J 56.0 J 2

Vanadium 2 5.4 6.7 6.05 0

Zinc 4 2.4 J 122 J 23.45 J 2
Appendix B: Quality Assurance 109

Table B5. Statistical summary of relative percent differences for analytes detected in duplicate ground-water samples collected

near Westville, Indiana, April 1997 through May 1999—Continued

Organic compounds

Vinyl chloride 1 -- -- 5.0 J 0

Chloroethane 1 -- -- 0 J 0

Methylene chloride 3 0 J 18.2 J 0 J 0

1,1-Dichloroethane 1 -- -- 6.4 0

1,2-Dichloroethene 1 -- -- 0 0

Trichloroethene 1 -- -- 3.5 J 0

Benzene 1 -- -- 0 J 0

Tetrachloroethene 1 -- -- 8.0 J 0

Toluene 1 -- -- 0 J 0

1,4-dioxane 7 0 36.6 E 16.7 1

Analyte

Number of

sample pairs

Minimum

RPD

Maximum

RPD

Median

RPD

Number of

sample pairs

exceeding 25 RPD
110 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana Table B6. Concentrations of water-quality constituents in equipment-rinse samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April through December 1997 [mg/L, milligram per liter; μg/L, microgram per liter; <, less than; --, not sampled; J, concentration is estimated] Sample Date of sample collection Calcium (mg/L) Magnesium (mg/L) Potassium (mg/L) Sodium (mg/L) EQUIP 1 F 06/03/97 0.162 0.012 0.011 0.069 EQUIP 2 05/01/97 32.2 10.3 1.16 J 6.51 J EQUIP 3K 05/01/97 .202 .079 .076 J 4.79 J Sample Date of sample collection Aluminum

(μg/L)

Antimony

(μg/L)

Arsenic

(μg/L)

Barium

(μg/L)

Beryllium

(μg/L)

Cadmium

(μg/L)

Chromium

(μg/L)

Cobalt

(μg/L)

Copper

(μg/L)

Iron

(μg/L)

EQUIP 1F 06/03/97 12.4 J < 3 < 6 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 15EQUIP 2 05/01/97 66.6 J < 2 < 2 17.5 < 1 < 1 < 1 1 11 10.3EQUIP 3K 05/01/97 25.2 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 1.7 < 1 < 1 < 9

Sample

Date of

sample

collection

Lead

(μg/L)

Manganese

(μg/L)

Mercury

(μg/L)

Nickel

(μg/L)

Selenium

(μg/L)

Silver

(μg/L)

Thallium

(μg/L)

Vanadium

(μg/L)

Zinc

(μg/L)

EQUIP 1F 06/03/97 < 2 < 1 < 0.2 < 1 < 4 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 3EQUIP 2 05/01/97 < 1 < 1 < .2 J < 1 < 3 < 1 2.8 J < 1 7.6 JEQUIP 3K 05/01/97 < 1 < 1 < .2 < 1 < 3 < 1 2.7 J < 1 5.9 J
Appendix B: Quality Assurance 111

Table B6. Concentrations of water-quality constituents in equipment-rinse samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April through December 1997—Continued

Sample

Date of

sample

collection

Chloromethane

(74-87-3)

(μg/L)

Bromomethane

(74-83-9)

(μg/L)

Vinyl chloride

(75-01-4)

(μg/L)

Chloroethane

(75-00-3)

(μg/L)

Methylene

chloride

(75-09-2)

(μg/L)

Acetone

(67-64-1)

(μg/L)

Carbon

disulfide

(75-15-0)

(μg/L)

1,1-Dichloroethene

(75-35-4)

(μg/L)

1,1-Dichloroethane

(75-34-3)

(μg/L)

1,2-Dichloroethene

(total)

(540-59-0)

(μg/L)

Chloroform

(67-66-3)

(μg/L)

SW-method1 05/03/97 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 < 10 J <10 <10 <10 <10 <10SW-method2 05/30/97 < 10 J < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10BAILER 1 08/97 <1 < 1 < 1 < 1 <2 18 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1PUMP 1 09/03/97 <1 < 1 < 1 < 1 <2 15 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1PUMP 2 09/04/97 <1 < 1 < 1 < 1 <2 15 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1PUMP 1 12/08/97 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 3 < 3 J < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1PUMP 2 12/11/97 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 49 < 3 J < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1PUMP 3 12/11/97 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 3 < 3 J < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1BAILER 1 12/12/97 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 3 < 2 J < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1PUMP 4 12/15/97 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 3 < 4 J < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
112 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana Table B6. Concentrations of water-quality constituents in equipment-rinse samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April through December 1997—Continued Sample Date of sample collection 1,2-Dichloro- ethane (107-06-2)

(μg/L)

2-Butanone

(78-93-3)

(μg/L)

1,1,1-Trichloroethane

(71-55-6)

(μg/L)

Carbon

tetrachloride

(56-23-5)

(μg/L)

Bromodichloromethane

(75-27-4)

(μg/L)

1,2-Dichloropropane

(78-87-5)

(μg/L)

cis-1,3-

Dichloropropene

(10061-01-5)

(μg/L)

Trichloroethene

(79-01-6)

(μg/L)

Dibromochloromethane

(124-48-1)

(μg/L)

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

(79-00-5)

(μg/L)

Benzene

(71-43-2)

(μg/L)

SW-method1 05/03/97 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10SW-method2 05/30/97 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10BAILER 1 08/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1PUMP 1 09/03/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1PUMP 2 09/04/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1PUMP 1 12/08/97 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1PUMP 2 12/11/97 < 1 10 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1PUMP 3 12/11/97 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 1 6 < 1 < 1 < 1 3 < 1 < 1BAILER 1 12/12/97 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 1 4 < 1 < 1 < 1 3 < 1 < 1PUMP 4 12/15/97 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
Appendix B: Quality Assurance 113

Table B6. Concentrations of water-quality constituents in equipment-rinse samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April through December 1997—Continued

Sample

Date of

sample

collection

trans-1,3-

Dichloropropene

(10061-02-6)

(μg/L)

Bromoform

(75-25-2)

(μg/L)

4-Methyl-2-

pentanone

(108-10-1)

(μg/L)

2-Hexanone

(591-78-6)

(μg/L)

Tetrachloroethene

(127-18-4)

(μg/L)

1,1,2,2-

Tetrachloroethane

(79-34-5)

(μg/L)

Toluene

(108-88-3)

(μg/L)

Chlorobenzene

(108-90-7)

(μg/L)

Ethyl

benzene

(100-41-4)

(μg/L)

Styrene

(100-42-5)

(μg/L)

Xylene

(total)

(1330-20-7)

(μg/L)

SW-method 1 05/03/97 <10 < 10 < 10 <10 <10 < 10 <10 < 10 < 10 <10 < 10SW-method2 05/30/97 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10BAILER 1 08/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1PUMP 1 09/03/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1PUMP 2 09/04/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1PUMP 1 12/08/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 .5 J < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1PUMP 2 12/11/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1PUMP 3 12/11/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1BAILER 1 12/12/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1PUMP 4 12/15/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
114 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana Table B7. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds in trip-blank samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April through December 1997 [Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) Registry Numbers are in parentheses in column header; μg/L, microgram per liter; <, less than; J, concentration is estimated, number given is below quantification limit] Sample Date of sample collection Chloro- methane (74-87-3)

(μg/L)

Bromomethane

(74-83-9)

(μg/L)

Vinyl chloride

(75-01-4)

(μg/L)

Chloroethane

(75-00-3)

(μg/L)

Methylene

chloride

(75-09-2)

(μg/L)

Acetone

(67-64-1)

(μg/L)

Carbon

disulfide

(75-15-0)

(μg/L)

1,1-Dichloroethene

(75-35-4)

(μg/L)

1,1-Dichloroethane

(75-34-3)

(μg/L)

1,2-Dichloroethene

(total)

(540-59-0)

(μg/L)

Chloroform

(67-66-3)

(μg/L)

TRP BLK 1 05/29/97 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 10 < 10 3 JTRP BLK 2 05/01/97 < 10 J < 10 < 10 J < 10 < 10 < 10 J < 10 < 10 10 < 10 2 JTRP BLK 3 05/29/97 <10 < 10 < 10 <10 <10 < 10 J <10 < 10 < 10 < 10 3 JTRP BLK 1 09/02/97 <1 < 1 < 1 < 1 <2 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1TRP BLK 2 09/03/97 <1 < 1 < 1 < 1 <2 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1TRP BLK 3 09/04/97 <1 < 1 < 1 < 1 <2 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1TRP BLK 4 09/08/97 <1 < 1 < 1 < 1 <2 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1TRP BLK 1 12/09/97 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 3 < 3 J < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1TRP BLK 2 12/10/97 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 3 < 3 J < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1TRP BLK 3 12/15/97 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 3 < 2 J < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
Appendix B: Quality Assurance 115

Table B7. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds in trip-blank samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April through December 1997—Continued

Sample

Date of

sample

collection

1,2-Dichloroethane

(107-06-2)

(μg/L)

2-Butanone

(78-93-3)

(μg/L)

 1,1,1-

Trichloroethane

(71-55-6)

(μg/L)

Carbon

tetrachloride

(56-23-5)

(μg/L)

Bromodichloromethane

(75-27-4)

(μg/L)

1,2-Dichloropropane

(78-87-5)

(μg/L)

cis-1,3-

Dichloropropene

(10061-01-5)

(μg/L)

Trichloroethene

(79-01-6)

(μg/L)

Dibromochloromethane

(124-48-1)

(μg/L)

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

(79-00-5)

(μg/L)

Benzene

(71-43-2)

(μg/L)

TRP BLK 1 05/29/97 <10 < 10 < 10 <10 <10 < 10 <10 < 10 < 10 <10 < 10TRP BLK 2 05/01/97 < 10 J < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10TRP BLK 3 05/29/97 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10TRP BLK 1 09/02/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1TRP BLK 2 09/03/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1TRP BLK 3 09/04/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1TRP BLK 4 09/08/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1TRP BLK 1 12/09/97 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1TRP BLK 2 12/10/97 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1TRP BLK 3 12/15/97 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
116 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana Table B7. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds in trip-blank samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April through December 1997—Continued Sample Date of sample collection trans-1,3- Dichloro- propene (10061-02-6)

(μg/L)

Bromoform

(75-25-2)

(μg/L)

4-Methyl-2-

pentanone

(108-10-1)

(μg/L)

2-Hexanone

(591-78-6)

(μg/L)

Tetrachloroethene

(127-18-4)

(μg/L)

1,1,2,2-

Tetrachloroethane

(79-34-5)

(μg/L)

Toluene

(108-88-3)

(μg/L)

Chlorobenzene

(108-90-7)

(μg/L)

Ethyl

benzene

(100-41-4)

(μg/L)

Styrene

(100-42-5)

(μg/L)

Xylene

(total)

(1330-20-7)

(μg/L)

TRP BLK 1 05/29/97 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10TRP BLK 2 05/01/97 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10TRP BLK 3 05/29/97 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10TRP BLK 1 09/02/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1TRP BLK 2 09/03/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1TRP BLK 3 09/04/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1TRP BLK 4 09/08/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1TRP BLK 1 12/09/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1TRP BLK 2 12/10/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1TRP BLK 3 12/15/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
Appendix C.

Water Quality
118 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana

Table C1. On-site measurements of ground-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April 1997 through May 1999

[°C, degree Celsius; mv, millivolt; mg/L, milligram per liter; μS/cm, microsiemen per centimeter at 25°C; ntu, nephelometric turbidity unit;

--, not measured; <, less than]

Well

Date of

sample

collection

Temperature

(°C)

pH

(units)

Oxidationreduction

potential

(mv)

Dissolved

oxygen

(mg/L)

Specific

conductance

(μS/cm)

Turbidity

(ntu)

B-1 04/29/97 12.2 7.10 -35 4.0 1,030 1.2

09/05/97 11.9 7.11 -55 .10 973 .7

B-2 04/29/97 12.3 6.75 -28 6.1 1,110 3.1

09/09/97 12.6 6.60 -46 .13 1,320 1.7

B-4 05/01/97 10.2 6.36 -50 .20 1,430 6.8

09/08/97 11.1 6.48 -76 .38 1,080 --

12/11/97 10.5 6.38 -6 .14 923 2

05/04/99 11.0 6.65 161 .16 890 1

EP-1 04/29/97 10.8 7.72 146 7.3 554 100

09/03/97 10.8 7.51 319 7.4 501 45

EP-2 04/28/97 10.9 6.96 290 6.2 799 15

09/02/97 10.7 6.66 155 .35 677 65

12/08/97 10.5 6.68 337 .13 705 --

EP-3 09/02/97 10.8 7.26 30 4.1 795 --

12/08/97 10.5 7.35 330 3.04 819 --

EP-4 04/30/97 13.0 7.03 -- 5.6 855 146

09/03/97 11.9 6.88 278 6.3 761 23

12/10/97 11.7 6.69 377 4.6 792 1.1

LP-1 09/02/97 11.1 6.95 188 8.5 678 0

LP-2 04/30/97 10.8 7.02 -- 2.4 684 90

09/03/97 11.0 6.78 341 2.8 633 2.2

12/10/97 10.9 6.78 374 2.8 681 .2

LP-3 04/30/97 10.3 7.35 > 200 .50 647 175

09/03/97 11.8 7.10 103 .52 630 14

12/10/97 11.4 6.95 332 1.5 657 2.3
Appendix C: Water Quality 119

Table C1. On-site measurements of ground-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April 1997 through

May 1999—Continued

MW-1S 05/01/97 11.0 7.01 -- 0.16 756 6.5

09/09/97 13.2 6.80 -65 .08 960 2

12/10/97 12.6 6.69 104 1.5 928 .3

05/05/99 12.4 6.91 207 .05 829 1

MW-1D 04/30/97 12.2 7.45 -129 .75 1,160 .4

09/09/97 12.2 7.28 -118 .07 848 .6

12/10/97 10.9 7.08 16 .76 708 --

05/04/99 12.1 6.92 -- .08 1,100 --

MW-2S 05/01/97 11.0 6.24 33 .16 1,010 5

09/09/97 11.8 6.20 -32 .08 1,160 1.8

12/15/97 11.8 6.33 -43 .18 952 0

05/03/99 11.3 6.22 240 .11 630 2.7

MW-2D 05/01/97 12.7 6.78 -100 .08 1,450 1.2

09/09/97 13.0 6.81 -120 .05 1,310 1.9

12/15/97 12.4 6.69 -196 .17 1,280 .6

05/03/99 12.9 6.93 111 .05 1,010 3.2

MW-2MD 05/01/97 12.4 7.28 -145 .30 509 .4

09/08/97 12.8 7.50 -189 .05 528 --

12/12/97 12.0 7.07 -157 .08 510 --

05/05/99 13.8 7.10 109 .19 481 --

MW-2XD 05/01/97 12.2 6.15 -- .08 3,640 .2

09/08/97 12.7 6.22 -61 .05 3,450 --

12/12/97 12.0 6.01 -115 .12 3,630 --

05/05/99 12.4 6.16 193 .67 3,780 1

MW-3S 05/01/97 10.9 7.02 13 2.1 1,480 2.9

09/08/97 12.1 6.56 -56 .45 1,260 --

05/04/99 11.4 6.44 203 3.2 1,630 1

Well

Date of

sample

collection

Temperature

(°C)

pH

(units)

Oxidationreduction

potential

(mv)

Dissolved

oxygen

(mg/L)

Specific

conductance

(μS/cm)

Turbidity

(ntu)
120 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana

Table C1. On-site measurements of ground-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April 1997 through

May 1999—Continued

MW-3D 05/01/97 14.8 7.22 -66 3.5 1,320 8.3

09/08/97 14.0 7.02 -68 4.7 1,100 --

05/04/99 16.6 6.88 193 5.8 1,500 3

MW-4S 04/29/97 9.1 7.38 334 -- 800 5.4

09/05/97 15.8 6.77 242 .08 842 --

12/15/97 12.4 6.82 202 1.1 863 2.4

MW-4D 04/29/97 12.9 7.07 -109 -- 1,770 .4

09/04/97 12.0 6.60 -103 .05 2,210 .15

12/12/97 11.2 6.68 -317 .06 2,330 .1

MW-4XD 04/29/97 13.1 6.28 -57 -- 2,900 1.2

09/05/97 12.9 6.15 -45 .1 3,510 --

12/12/97 11.3 5.96 -226 .09 3,720 .9

MW-5S 04/30/97 10.3 6.89 227 3.0 439 10

09/04/97 12.8 6.14 298 .82 351 1.6

12/09/97 11.7 6.39 259 .45 533 1

MW-5D 04/30/97 11.9 7.68 35 1.5 820 .2

09/04/97 12.0 7.12 72 .05 693 .2

12/09/97 11.2 7.24 18 .04 680 1

MW-5XD 04/30/97 11.5 7.5 72 1.7 458 .1

09/04/97 11.7 7.18 73 .04 448 .3

12/09/97 11.2 7.33 329 .04 476 1

MW-6S 05/01/97 9.1 6.75 -120 1.4 630 163

09/09/97 13.4 6.66 -140 .12 652 --

05/05/99 10.4 6.50 135 .07 812 4

MW-6D 05/01/97 12.0 7.36 -83 1.0 1,290 1.0

09/09/97 12.3 7.15 -117 .08 1,350 15

12/11/97 11.4 6.86 -83 1.8 1,250 .2

05/05/99 12.4 6.82 185 .16 1,810 --

Well

Date of

sample

collection

Temperature

(°C)

pH

(units)

Oxidationreduction

potential

(mv)

Dissolved

oxygen

(mg/L)

Specific

conductance

(μS/cm)

Turbidity

(ntu)
Appendix C: Water Quality 121

Table C1. On-site measurements of ground-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April 1997 through

May 1999—Continued

MW-7S 04/28/97 12.7 7.57 98 9.2 565 3.9

09/02/97 11.7 6.97 372 8.0 504 3.1

12/09/97 10.4 7.19 419 7.0 557 .3

05/03/99 11.7 6.88 728 6.5 652 .7

MW-7D 04/28/97 11.8 7.80 -85 2.6 602 .9

09/02/97 11.9 7.08 -98 .05 520 .35

12/08/97 10.4 7.42 -109 .07 593 --

05/03/99 11.1 7.06 162 .57 605 .2

MW-7XD 05/01/97 10.7 7.90 -89 1.8 515 15

09/02/97 12.0 7.13 -155 .04 437 .42

12/08/97 10.0 7.42 -167 .07 481 0

05/03/99 8.5 7.24 107 .14 541 .2

MW-8S 04/29/97 9.8 7.48 -206 -- 970 8

09/09/97 17.5 7.27 -148 .08 806 12

12/10/97 12.3 7.24 5 .11 738 1.1

MW-8D 04/29/97 12.2 7.03 -- .18 1,640 3.5

09/09/97 12.2 6.88 -141 .08 1,600 .8

12/10/97 11.1 6.65 7 .12 1,510 0

MW-9S 04/29/97 11.1 7.36 -- .19 778 < 1

09/03/97 13.0 7.28 -43 .36 491 113

12/09/97 11.6 7.38 -92 .26 475 --

MW-9XD 04/29/97 11.8 7.55 -- .04 330 16

09/03/97 11.6 7.55 -156 .07 523 1.8

12/09/97 11.3 7.54 -153 .05 504 2

MW-10S 06/03/97 10.8 7.02 -1 1.2 1,620 --

09/08/97 15.4 6.95 -145 .05 1,520 7.1

12/09/97 11.0 6.91 -70 .10 1,240 13

05/10/99 11.6 6.84 200 1.8 2,040 4

Well

Date of

sample

collection

Temperature

(°C)

pH

(units)

Oxidationreduction

potential

(mv)

Dissolved

oxygen

(mg/L)

Specific

conductance

(μS/cm)

Turbidity

(ntu)
122 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana

Table C1. On-site measurements of ground-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April 1997 through

May 1999—Continued

MW-10XD 06/03/97 11.9 7.43 -128 0.05 1,530 2.6

09/08/97 12.6 7.25 -217 .04 1,410 .4

12/09/97 11.1 7.18 -139 .04 1,580 --

05/10/99 12.7 7.14 106 .07 1,950 --

MW-11S 06/03/97 10.0 7.03 157 7.6 1,010 10

09/04/97 11.5 6.81 111 .78 908 34

12/09/97 10.9 6.77 250 5.0 921 2.1

MW-11D 06/03/97 11.1 7.22 -74 .09 729 1.8

09/04/97 11.1 7.03 -96 .07 720 0

12/09/97 10.2 7.00 -147 .09 696 0

MW-11XD 06/03/97 11.2 7.68 -157 .06 496 4.2

09/04/97 11.4 7.47 -169 .14 504 .4

12/09/97 10.4 7.44 -222 .07 484 0

MW-12 09/10/97 10.7 5.52 181 .62 503 --

12/11/97 9.4 5.68 568 .70 393 --

MW-13S 12/10/97 10.6 6.95 109 .34 560 7

MW-13D 12/10/97 10.4 7.14 -102 .04 575 0

MW-13XD 12/10/97 10.9 6.91 -122 .04 1,650 3

MW-14S 12/11/97 10.6 4.77 52 .14 528 12

05/07/99 10.5 7.20 291 .03 570 1

MW-14D 12/10/97 10.9 6.88 -117 .05 1,820 10

05/07/99 11.9 6.67 160 .04 2,160 1

MW-14XD 12/10/97 10.9 5.83 -70 .08 4,750 1

05/07/99 11.7 5.83 202 .16 5,770 0

MW-15S 12/09/97 12.0 6.86 34 4.2 997 14

05/07/99 11.3 6.93 182 .34 1,740 10

MW-15MD 12/09/97 10.8 6.76 -122 .06 1,810 0

05/07/99 14.1 6.96 144 .07 2,150 4

Well

Date of

sample

collection

Temperature

(°C)

pH

(units)

Oxidationreduction

potential

(mv)

Dissolved

oxygen

(mg/L)

Specific

conductance

(μS/cm)

Turbidity

(ntu)
Appendix C: Water Quality 123

Table C1. On-site measurements of ground-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April 1997 through

May 1999—Continued

MW-15XD 12/09/97 10.9 6.68 -154 1.82 2,740 0.1

05/07/99 11.6 6.60 167 .10 3,870 2.1

MW-16S 12/11/97 10.5 6.67 32 5.7 1,190 15

05/06/99 9.5 6.78 216 .15 2,570 0

MW-16D 12/11/97 10.9 6.78 -20 .12 763 1.5

05/06/99 11.6 7.01 163 .28 941 1

MW-16XD 12/11/97 10.9 7.15 -223 .07 625 0

5/06/99 11.1 7.33 107 .11 820 0

MW-17MD 12/16/97 11.1 7.05 -231 .08 901 0

05/06/99 11.4 7.08 143 1.1 1,020 --

MW-17XD 12/16/97 10.9 7.22 -230 .10 992 0

05/06/99 11.7 7.30 106 .05 1,020 1

MW-18S 12/11/97 11.0 6.89 300 .13 567 3.8

05/11/99 9.8 7.16 686 2.7 686 5

MW-18XD 12/11/97 10.9 7.10 -21 .44 371 0

05/11/99 11.6 7.36 108 .12 463 0

PZ-1S 09/03/97 11.4 6.93 343 9.3 555 1.1

PZ-1MD 09/03/97 11.9 7.12 -132 .05 384 .4

PZ-1XD 09/03/97 11.8 7.07 -113 .04 410 .3

PZ-3S 09/03/97 11.5 7.11 348 9.1 493 1.1

PZ-3MD 09/04/97 11.7 7.09 -133 .04 500 4.0

PZ-3XD 09/03/97 11.9 7.10 -118 .04 400 .4

MUN-1 09/03/97 11.8 8.23 103 .05 588 --

12/16/97 -- -- -- -- -- --

05/06/99 -- -- -- -- -- --

WP-P 12/11/97 9.4 4.42 90 2.1 524 --

WP-2 12/11/97 10.8 4.48 51 1.5 849 --

WP-3 12/11/97 10.4 4.43 74 10.4 784 --

Well

Date of

sample

collection

Temperature

(°C)

pH

(units)

Oxidationreduction

potential

(mv)

Dissolved

oxygen

(mg/L)

Specific

conductance

(μS/cm)

Turbidity

(ntu)
124 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana

Table C2. Concentrations of common constituents in ground-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April–June 1997[mg/L, milligram per liter; CaCO3, Calcium carbonate; -- not sampled; J, concentration is estimated; <, less than; >, greater than]

Well

Date of

sample

collection

Bicarbonate

alkalinity

(mg/L)

Ammonia

as

nitrogen

(mg/L)

Hardness

(mg/L as

CaC03)

Calcium

(mg/L)

Chloride

(mg/L)

Magnesium

(mg/L)

Potassium

(mg/L)

Sodium

(mg/L)

Sulfate

(mg/L)

Total

Kjeldahlnitrogen

(mg/L)

Total

organic

carbon

(percent)

B-1 04/29/97 388 -- 388 98.9 72 29.0 1.8 J 64.6 J 12 -- --B-2 04/29/97 282 -- 506 137 -- 36.6 1.29 J 24.8 J -- -- --B-4 05/01/97 522 -- 655 181 52 43.1 6.15 J 22.5 J 305 -- 43EP-1 04/29/97 136 -- 258 71.2 J 32 25.6 J .621 J 2.24 J 4 -- --EP-2 04/28/97 278 -- 280 114 30 30.0 1.34 J 7.55 J 60 -- --EP-4 04/30/97 -- < .05 248 107 J 26 37.7 J 19.2 J 11.6 J 40 < .1 < 3LP-2 04/30/97 168 -- 320 70.3 56 29.8 1.56 J 17.2 J 30 -- --LP-3 04/30/97 246 -- 312 80.6 J 15 33.8 J 3.68 J 10.6 J 84 -- --MW-1S 05/01/97 316 < .05 386 91.4 34 34.0 6.74 J 15.4 J 38 < .1 5MW-1D 04/30/97 265 < .05 328 75.0 J 184 25.5 J 1.71 J 94.3 J 104 < .1 3.1MW-2S 05/01/97 340 -- 420 111 J 56 27.5 J 5.46 J 33.5 J 140 -- 46MW-2D 05/01/97 650 .48 290 145 144 26.7 2.62 J 97.2 J 5 2.02 55MW-2MD 05/01/97 250 < .05 294 73.8 J 23 21.4 J .996 J 8.37 J 38 < .1 4.3MW-2XD 05/01/97 852 2.7 2,360 522 > 132 212 19.5 J 36.5 J > 375 4.65 --MW-3S 05/01/97 580 2.73 > 820 204 66 66.6 3.31 J 18.7 J 265 3.69 15MW-3D 05/01/97 446 1.76 578 154 J 100 66.9 4.40 J 26.2 J 252 2.26 14MW-4S 04/29/97 301 -- 470 96.6 62 40.4 2.10 J 21.8 J 72 -- --MW-4D 04/29/97 466 -- 876 214 790 82.7 2.30 J 86.4 J 8 -- --MW-4XD 04/29/97 1,080 2.7 2,620 512 > 260 228 3.24 J 42.1 J > 375 4.44 15
Appendix C: Water Quality 125

Table C2. Concentrations of common constituents in ground-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April–June 1997—Continued

MW-5S 04/30/97 123 -- 212 51.6 44 17.9 3.17 J 9.83 J 60 -- --MW-5D 04/30/97 280 -- 472 107 66 379 1.13 J 24.5 J 128 -- --MW-5XD 04/30/97 -- -- 286 71.3 < 20 23.3 .748 J 2.28 J 92 -- --MW-6S 05/01/97 -- -- -- 44.3 -- 11.6 2.42 J 30.2 J -- -- --MW-6D 05/01/97 325 -- 278 64.2 436 22.5 3.02 J 147 J 4 -- --MW-7S 04/28/97 203 -- 314 71.8 < 20 26.4 .865 J 3.09 32 -- --MW-7D 04/28/97 183 -- 358 81.3 16 30.9 .910 J 3.46 J 132 -- --MW-7XD 05/01/97 245 < .05 298 66.8 < 10 24.8 .970 J 6.52 J 4 .86 < 3MW-8S 04/29/97 -- -- 272 116 J 88 30.0 J 4.49 J 29.6 J 0 -- --MW-8D 04/29/97 375 -- 652 169 380 578 2.44 J 64.9 J 0 -- --MW-9S 04/29/97 232 -- 236 99.8 58 30.0 1.69 J 13.9 J 76 -- --MW-9XD 04/29/97 261 -- 280 69.3 < 20 27.4 1.34 J 16.6 J 0 -- --MW-10S 06/03/97 -- -- -- 86.2 -- 25.9 3.84 165 J -- -- --MW-10XD 06/03/97 -- -- -- 139 -- 58.3 2.63 52.2 J -- -- --MW-11S 06/03/97 -- -- -- 129 -- 54.4 3.51 38.0 J -- -- --MW-11D 06/03/97 -- -- -- 86.8 -- 34.4 .679 4.07 J -- -- --MW-11XD 06/03/97 -- -- -- 59.0 -- 23.8 .866 10.1 J -- -- --

Well

Date of

sample

collection

Bicarbonate

alkalinity

(mg/L)

Ammonia

as

nitrogen

(mg/L)

Hardness

(mg/L as

CaC03)

Calcium

(mg/L)

Chloride

(mg/L)

Magnesium

(mg/L)

Potassium

(mg/L)

Sodium

(mg/L)

Sulfate

(mg/L)

Total

Kjeldahl

nitrogen

(mg/L)

Total

organic

carbon

(percent)
126 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana Table C3. Concentrations of minor elements in ground-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April–June 1997

[μg/L, microgram per liter; <, less than; J, concentration is estimated]

Well

Date of

sample

collection

Aluminum

(μg/L)

Antimony

(μg/L)

Arsenic

(μg/L)

Barium

(μg/L)

Beryllium

(μg/L)

Cadmium

(μg/L)

Chromium

(μg/L)

Cobalt

(μg/L)

Copper

(μg/L)

Iron

(μg/L)

B-1 04/29/97 < 9 3 J 4.2 45.2 < 1 < 1 < 1 1.4 < 1 3,510B-2 04/29/97 < 9 3.4 J 6 49.3 < 1 < 1 < 1 9.9 4.4 4,640B-4 05/01/97 13.7 5.0 J 20 115 < 1 < 1 1.3 3.3 < 1 29,600EP-1 04/29/97 463 J < 2 < 2 11.8 J < 1 < 1 2.6 J 2.2 J 4.4 J 776EP-2 04/28/97 185 2.6 J < 2 45.5 < 1 < 1 1.2 14.2 3.9 477EP-4 04/30/97 705 J 3.1 J 2.3 J 51.6 J < 1 < 1 63.4 6.9 8.1 J 2,840LP-2 04/30/97 343 3.5 J 2.1 18.8 < 1 < 1 2.7 2.2 2.5 1,290LP-3 04/30/97 586 J 2.9 J 3.8 J 66.0 J < 1 < 1 2.7 J 1.6 J 1.1 J 1,280MW-1S 05/01/97 < 9 < 2 4.1 35.3 < 1 < 1 1.4 2.8 < 1 3,120MW-1D 04/30/97 16.3 J 2.2 J 2.6 J 49.3 J < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 3.2 J 1,660MW -2S 05/01/97 138 J 3.7 J 9.9 J 70.9 J < 1 5.6 1.3 J 113 < 1 15,100MW-2D 05/01/97 102 9.1 J < 2 68.9 < 1 < 1 2.4 < 1 2.7 18,300MW-2MD 05/01/97 23.6 J 2.1 J 6.1 J 30.8 J < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 6,480MW-2XD 05/01/97 1,120 J 2.5 J 3.0 J 21.7 J < 1 < 1 2.4 J < 1 3.6 J 37,700MW-3S 05/01/97 33.5 J 2.4 J 10.3 J 66.4 J < 1 < 1 < 1 9.9 7.5 J 15,700MW-3D 05/01/97 35.2 J 2.5 J 3.1 J 51 J < 1 < 1 2.4 J 1.9 J 24.7 J 5,730MW-4S 04/29/97 < 9 2.7 J 4.5 82.8 < 1 < 1 < 1 1.6 2 185MW-4D 04/29/97 < 9 3.3 J 7.9 186 < 1 < 1 < 1 1.5 < 1 10,400MW-4XD 04/29/97 < 9 4.0 J 5.4 21.1 < 1 < 1 1.5 < 1 2 65,100
Appendix C: Water Quality 127

Table C3. Concentrations of minor elements in ground-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April–June 1997—Continued

MW-5S 04/30/97 328 2.3 J < 2 54.4 < 1 < 1 2.1 3.7 10.9 1,120MW-5D 04/30/97 < 9 < 2 5.2 42.7 < 1 < 1 < 1 2.8 2.8 430MW-5XD 04/30/97 < 9 < 2 < 2 29.0 < 1 < 1 < 1 2.2 1.2 66.8MW-6S 05/01/97 9.3 2.1 J 29.4 81.5 < 1 < 1 < 1 3.1 2.8 69,300MW-6D 05/01/97 < 9 < 2 4.3 97.6 < 1 < 1 1.3 3.3 < 1 29,600MW-7S 04/28/97 9 J < 2 < 2 14.5 1.4 J < 1 1.4 1.7 J 1.9 31.5 JMW-7D 04/28/97 < 9 < 2 < 2 13.0 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 918MW-7XD 05/01/97 100 2.3 J 7.5 176 < 1 < 1 1.2 < 1 1.3 1,730MW-8S 04/29/97 612 J < 2 3.5 J 70.6 J < 1 < 1 5.3 J 1.2 J 2.4 J 4,650MW-8D 04/29/97 11.6 J 4.4 J 3.6 J 176 < 1 < 1 < 1 1.4 J < 1 5,740MW-9S 04/29/97 229 2.3 J < 2 55.4 < 1 < 1 3.1 1.7 1.9 3,540MW-9XD 04/29/97 33.4 < 2 < 2 175 < 1 < 1 2.2 < 1 < 1 1,500MW-10S 06/03/97 182 J 4.7 J < 6 94.7 < 1 < 1 < 1 1.5 6.8 J 2,940MW-10D 06/03/97 28.7 J 6.8 J < 6 498 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 9.9 2,530MW-11S 06/03/97 1,230 5.1 J 8.6 70.0 < 1 < 1 2.4 9.7 38.5 4,380MW-11D 06/03/97 18.1 J 6.3 J < 6 28.1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 2.8 J 1,480MW-11XD 06/03/97 15.9 J 3.1 J < 6 188 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 1.4 J 1,530

Well

Date of

sample

collection

Aluminum

(μg/L)

Antimony

(μg/L)

Arsenic

(μg/L)

Barium

(μg/L)

Beryllium

(μg/L)

Cadmium

(μg/L)

Chromium

(μg/L)

Cobalt

(μg/L)

Copper

(μg/L)

Iron

(μg/L)
128 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana Table C3. Concentrations of minor elements in ground-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April–June 1997—Continued Well Date of sample collection Lead

(μg/L)

Manganese

(μg/L)

Mercury

(μg/L)

Nickel

(μg/L)

Selenium

(μg/L)

Silver

(μg/L)

Thallium

(μg/L)

Vanadium

(μg/L)

Zinc

(μg/L)

B-1 04/29/97 < 1 479 <0.2 1.4 < 3 J < 1 < 2 < 1 5.8B-2 04/29/97 < 1 3,360 < .2 19 < 3 J < 1 < 2 < 1 4.5B-4 05/01/97 < 1 824 < .2 11.2 < 3 J < 1 4.8 J < 1 16EP-1 04/29/97 < 1 26.3 .2 J 3.6 < 3 < 1 < 2 1.4 10.5 JEP-2 04/28/97 < 1 1,960 < .2 16 < 3 J < 1 < 2 < 1 43.8EP-4 04/30/97 3.1 61 < .2 J 27.1 < 3 < 1 6.0 J 2.6 24.6 JLP-2 04/30/97 < 1 26 < .2 4.9 < 3 J < 1 < 2 < 1 15.6LP-3 04/30/97 < 1 104 < .2 J 1.8 < 3 < 1 < 2 1.3 17.5 JMW-1S 05/01/97 < 1 134 < .2 2.6 < 3 J < 1 2.1 J < 1 6.2MW-1D 04/30/97 < 1 137 < .2 J < 1 < 3 < 1 4.1 J < 1 2.6 JMW-2S 05/01/97 < 1 3,500 < .2 J 182 < 3 < 1 .5 J 1.9 503 JMW-2D 05/01/97 < 1 153 < .2 18.2 < 3 J < 1 < 2 J < 1 21.6MW-2MD 05/01/97 < 1 76.2 < .2 J 1.8 < 3 < 1 3.0 J < 1 3.4 JMW-2XD 05/01/97 < 1 434 < .2 J 5.2 < 3 < 1 5.8 J 3.1 41.5 JMW-3S 05/01/97 < 1 819 < .2 J 9.8 < 3 < 1 5.1 J < 1 5.8 JMW-3D 05/01/97 < 1 467 < .2 J 5.5 < 3 < 1 2.5 J < 1 7.8 JMW-4S 04/29/97 < 1 296 < .2 2.1 < 3 J < 1 < 2 < 1 4.5MW-4D 04/29/97 < 1 179 < .2 16 < 3 J < 1 < 2 J < 1 < 1MW-4XD 04/29/97 < 1 160 < .2 82.7 < 3 J < 1 6.3 J < 1 6.1
Appendix C: Water Quality 129

Table C3. Concentrations of minor elements in ground-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April–June 1997—Continued

MW-5S 04/30/97 < 1 162 < .2 24.9 < 3 J < 1 < 2 < 1 47.1MW-5D 04/30/97 < 1 256 < .2 3.6 < 3 J < 1 < 2 < 1 2.7MW-5XD 04/30/97 < 1 410 < .2 1.8 < 3 J < 1 < 2 < 1 8.1MW-6S 05/01/97 < 1 606 < .2 2.5 < 3 J < 1 9.4 J < 1 5.9MW-6D 05/01/97 < 1 84.6 < .2 1.7 < 3 J < 1 2.6 J < 1 16MW-7S 04/28/97 < 1 7.8 < .2 1.1 < 3 < 1 3.3 J < 1 7.3 JMW-7D 04/28/97 < 1 99.2 < .2 1.3 < 3 J < 1 < 2 < 1 2.8MW-7XD 05/01/97 < 1 82.2 < .2 5.7 < 3 J < 1 < 2 < 1 6.4MW-8S 04/29/97 < 1 204 < .2 J 4 < 3 < 1 4.0 J 1.3 11.4 JMW-8D 04/29/97 < 1 158 < .2 J 9.2 < 3 < 1 4.0 J < 1 3.3 JMW-9S 04/29/97 2 173 < .2 3.5 < 3 J < 1 < 2 < 1 12.5MW-9XD 04/29/97 < 1 38 < .2 < 1 < 3 J < 1 < 2 < 1 9.2MW-10S 06/03/97 < 2 197 < .2 < 1 5.4 < 1 9.7 J < 1 4.7MW-10D 06/03/97 < 2 56.5 < .2 3.6 < 4 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 3MW-11S 06/03/97 8.7 142 < .2 20.3 < 4 1.1 J < 5 3.1 53.2MW-11D 06/03/97 < 2 90.4 < .2 1.5 < 4 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 3MW-11XD 06/03/97 < 2 19.7 < .2 < 1 < 4 1.4 J < 5 < 1 < 3

Well

Date of

sample

collection

Lead

(μg/L)

Manganese

(μg/L)

Mercury

(μg/L)

Nickel

(μg/L)

Selenium

(μg/L)

Silver

(μg/L)

Thallium

(μg/L)

Vanadium

(μg/L)

Zinc

(μg/L)
130 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana Table C4. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds in ground-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April through May 1999 [Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) Registry Numbers are in parentheses in column header; μg/L, microgram per liter; <, less than; E, concentration is estimated, sample required dilution to increase accuracy; J, concentration is estimated, number given is below quantification limit; D, sample was diluted; H, concentration is estimated, result is biased high; R, data not usable] Well Date of sample collection Chloro- methane (74-87-3)

(μg/L)

Bromomethane

(74-83-9)

(μg/L)

Vinyl chloride

(75-01-4)

(μg/L)

Chloroethane

(75-00-3)

(μg/L)

Methylene

chloride

(75-09-2)

(μg/L)

Acetone

(67-64-1)

(μg/L)

Carbon

disulfide

(75-15-0)

(μg/L)

1,1-Dichloroethene

(75-35-4)

(μg/L)

1,1-Dichloroethane

(75-34-3)

(μg/L)

1,2-Dichloroethene

(total)

(540-59-0)

(μg/L)

Chloroform

(67-66-3)

(μg/L)

B-1 04/29/97 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 4 J < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

09/05/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <2 < 5 <1 <1 <1 < 1a <1

B-2 04/29/97 < 33 J < 33 61 11 J < 33 < 33 < 33 < 33 150 1,500 < 33

09/09/97 <1 <1 47 E 4 <2 < 5 <1 .6 J 150 E 1,420b <1

B-4 05/01/97 < 25 J < 25 J < 25 J 390 J 6 J < 25 J < 25 J < 25 J 160 J < 25 J 240 J

09/08/97 <1 <1 <1 520 E 4 < 5 <1 <1 140 E .9c J < 1

12/11/97 <1 <1 .8 J 620 D 4 < 3 < 2 J < 1 140 D < 1a < 1

05/04/99 < 10 <10 <10 240 7 J < 10 <10 <10 19 <10 <10

EP-1 04/29/97 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 J <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

09/03/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <2 < 5 <1 <1 <1 <1a <1

EP-2 04/28/97 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 < 10 J <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

09/02/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <2 < 5 <1 <1 <1 <1a <1

12/08/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <1 < 3 < 3 J <1 <1 <1a <1

EP-3 09/02/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <2 < 5 <1 <1 <1 < 1a <1

12/08/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <1 < 3 < 3 J <1 <1 <1a <1

EP-4 04/30/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J

09/03/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <2 < 5 <1 <1 <1 < 1a <1

12/10/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <1 < 3 < 3 J <1 <1 < 1a <1
Appendix C: Water Quality 131

Table C4. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds in ground-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April through May 1999—Continued

LP-1 09/02/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <2 < 5 <1 <1 <1 < 1a <1

LP-2 04/30/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J

09/03/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <2 < 5 <1 <1 <1 <1a <1

LP-3 04/30/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J

09/03/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <2 < 5 <1 <1 <1 < 1a <1

12/10/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <1 < 3 < 3 J <1 <1 <1a <1

MW-1S 05/01/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J 2 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J 86 J 91 J < 10 J

09/09/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <2 < 5 <1 <1 78 E 101d E <1

12/10/97 <1 <1 .6 J 2 <1 < 3 < 3 J 6 49 D 68e D <1

05/05/99 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 < 10 <10 <10 57 70 <10

MW-1D 04/30/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J

09/09/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <2 < 5 <1 <1 < 1 < 1a <1

12/10/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <1 < 3 < 3 J <1 <1 < 1a <105/04/99 < 10 <10 <10 <10 3 J < 10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

MW -2S 05/01/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J <10 J 90 J 6 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J

09/09/97 <1 <1 <1 74 E 4 < 5 <1 <1 <1 < 1a <1

12/15/97 <1 <1 <1 120 D 5 < 3 < 2 J <1 <1 < 1a <105/04/99 <10 <10 <10 52 H 4 J < 10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

Well

Date of

sample

collection

Chloromethane

(74-87-3)

(μg/L)

Bromomethane

(74-83-9)

(μg/L)

Vinyl chloride

(75-01-4)

(μg/L)

Chloroethane

(75-00-3)

(μg/L)

Methylene

chloride

(75-09-2)

(μg/L)

Acetone

(67-64-1)

(μg/L)

Carbon

disulfide

(75-15-0)

(μg/L)

1,1-Dichloroethene

(75-35-4)

(μg/L)

1,1-Dichloroethane

(75-34-3)

(μg/L)

1,2-Dichloroethene

(total)

(540-59-0)

(μg/L)

Chloroform

(67-66-3)

(μg/L)
132 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana Table C4. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds in ground-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April through May 1999—Continued MW-2D 05/01/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J 09/09/97 <1 <1 < 1 <1 <2 < 5 <1 <1 <1 < 1a <1 12/15/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <1 < 3 < 3 J <1 <1 < 1a <1 05/04/99 <10 <10 <10 <10 3 J < 10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 MW-2MD 05/01/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J 09/08/97 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2 < 5 <1 <1 <1 <1a <1 12/12/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <1 < 3 < 3 J <1 <1 < 1a <1 05/05/99 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 < 10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 MW-2XD 05/01/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J 09/08/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <2 < 5 <1 <1 <1 < 1a <1 12/12/97 <1 R <1 R <1 R < 1 R <1 R < 3 R < 3 R <1 R <1 R < 1a R <1 R 05/05/99 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 < 10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 MW-3S 05/01/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J 15 J 22 J < 10 J 09/08/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <2 < 5 <1 <1 <1 14f <1 05/04/99 < 10 < 10 3 J < 10 3 J < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

MW-3D 05/01/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J

09/08/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <2 < 5 <1 <1 <1 < 1a <1

05/04/99 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 3 J < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

Well

Date of

sample

collection

Chloromethane

(74-87-3)

(μg/L)

Bromomethane

(74-83-9)

(μg/L)

Vinyl chloride

(75-01-4)

(μg/L)

Chloroethane

(75-00-3)

(μg/L)

Methylene

chloride

(75-09-2)

(μg/L)

Acetone

(67-64-1)

(μg/L)

Carbon

disulfide

(75-15-0)

(μg/L)

1,1-Dichloroethene

(75-35-4)

(μg/L)

1,1-Dichloroethane

(75-34-3)

(μg/L)

1,2-Dichloroethene

(total)

(540-59-0)

(μg/L)

Chloroform

(67-66-3)

(μg/L)
Appendix C: Water Quality 133

Table C4. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds in ground-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April through May 1999—Continued

MW-4S 04/29/97 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

09/05/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <2 < 5 <1 <1 <1 < 1a <1

12/15/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <1 < 3 < 3 J <1 <1 < 1a <1

MW-4D 04/29/97 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

09/04/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <2 < 5 <1 <1 <1 < 1a <1

12/12/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <1 < 3 < 3 J <1 <1 < 1a <1

MW-4XD 04/29/97 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 6 J < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

09/05/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <2 < 5 <1 <1 <1 < 1a <1

12/12/97 <1 R <1 R <1 R < 1 R <1 R < 3 R < 3 R <1 R <1 R <1a R <1 R

MW-5S 04/30/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J 1 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J

09/04/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <2 < 5 <1 <1 <1 < 1a <1

12/09/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <1 < 3 < 2 J <1 <1 < 1a <1

MW-5D 04/30/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J

09/04/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <2 < 5 <1 <1 <1 < 1a <1

12/09/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <1 < 3 < 3 J <1 <1 < 1a <1

MW-5XD 04/30/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J

09/04/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <2 < 5 <1 <1 <1 < 1a <1

12/09/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <1 < 3 < 3 J <1 <1 <1a <1

Well

Date of

sample

collection

Chloromethane

(74-87-3)

(μg/L)

Bromomethane

(74-83-9)

(μg/L)

Vinyl chloride

(75-01-4)

(μg/L)

Chloroethane

(75-00-3)

(μg/L)

Methylene

chloride

(75-09-2)

(μg/L)

Acetone

(67-64-1)

(μg/L)

Carbon

disulfide

(75-15-0)

(μg/L)

1,1-Dichloroethene

(75-35-4)

(μg/L)

1,1-Dichloroethane

(75-34-3)

(μg/L)

1,2-Dichloroethene

(total)

(540-59-0)

(μg/L)

Chloroform

(67-66-3)

(μg/L)
134 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana Table C4. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds in ground-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April through May 1999—Continued MW-6S 05/01/97 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 8 J < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 09/09/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <2 < 5 <1 <1 <1 <1a <1 05/05/99 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 MW-6D 05/01/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J 09/09/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <2 < 5 <1 <1 <1 < 1a <1 12/11/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <1 < 3 < 3 J <1 <1 < 1a <1 05/05/99 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 3 J < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 MW-7S 04/28/97 < 10 J < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 09/02/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <2 < 5 <1 <1 <1 < 1a <1 12/09/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <1 < 3 < 3 J <1 <1 < 1a <1 05/03/99 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 3 J < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 MW-7D 04/28/97 < 10 J < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 09/02/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <2 < 5 <1 <1 <1 < 1a <1 12/08/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <1 < 3 < 3 J <1 <1 < 1a <1 05/03/99 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 3 J < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

MW-7XD 05/01/97 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 J < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

09/02/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <2 < 5 <1 <1 <1 < 1a <1

12/08/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <1 < 3 < 3 J <1 <1 < 1a <105/03/99 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 3 J < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

Well

Date of

sample

collection

Chloromethane

(74-87-3)

(μg/L)

Bromomethane

(74-83-9)

(μg/L)

Vinyl chloride

(75-01-4)

(μg/L)

Chloroethane

(75-00-3)

(μg/L)

Methylene

chloride

(75-09-2)

(μg/L)

Acetone

(67-64-1)

(μg/L)

Carbon

disulfide

(75-15-0)

(μg/L)

1,1-Dichloroethene

(75-35-4)

(μg/L)

1,1-Dichloroethane

(75-34-3)

(μg/L)

1,2-Dichloroethene

(total)

(540-59-0)

(μg/L)

Chloroform

(67-66-3)

(μg/L)
Appendix C: Water Quality 135

Table C4. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds in ground-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April through May 1999—Continued

MW-8S 04/29/97 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 < 10 J <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

09/09/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <2 < 5 <1 <1 <1 < 1a <1

MW-8D 04/29/97 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

09/09/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <2 < 5 <1 <1 <1 < 1a <1

MW-9S 04/29/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J

09/03/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <2 < 5 <1 <1 <1 < 1a <1

MW-9XD 04/29/97 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

09/03/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <2 < 5 <1 <1 <1 < 1a <1

MW-10S 06/03/97 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 < 10 J <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

09/08/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <2 < 5 <1 <1 <1 < 1a <1

MW-10XD 06/03/97 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 < 10 J <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

09/08/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <2 < 5 <1 <1 <1 < 1a <1

MW-11S 06/03/97 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 < 10 J <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

09/04/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <2 < 5 <1 <1 <1 < 1a <1

MW-11D 06/03/97 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 < 10 J <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

09/04/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <2 < 5 <1 <1 <1 < 1a <1

MW-11XD 06/03/97 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 < 10 J <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

09/04/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <2 < 5 <1 <1 <1 < 1a <1

Well

Date of

sample

collection

Chloromethane

(74-87-3)

(μg/L)

Bromomethane

(74-83-9)

(μg/L)

Vinyl chloride

(75-01-4)

(μg/L)

Chloroethane

(75-00-3)

(μg/L)

Methylene

chloride

(75-09-2)

(μg/L)

Acetone

(67-64-1)

(μg/L)

Carbon

disulfide

(75-15-0)

(μg/L)

1,1-Dichloroethene

(75-35-4)

(μg/L)

1,1-Dichloroethane

(75-34-3)

(μg/L)

1,2-Dichloroethene

(total)

(540-59-0)

(μg/L)

Chloroform

(67-66-3)

(μg/L)
136 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana Table C4. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds in ground-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April through May 1999—Continued MW-12 09/10/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <2 < 5 <1 <1 <1 < 1a <1 12//11/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <1 < 3 < 3 J <1 <1 < 1a <1 MW-13S 12/10/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <1 < 3 < 3 J <1 <1 < 1a <1 MW-13D 12/10/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <1 < 3 < 3 J <1 <1 < 1a <1 MW-13XD 12/10/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <1 < 3 < 3 J <1 <1 < 1a <1 MW-14S 12/11/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 1 < 3 < 3 J <1 <1 < 1a <1 MW-14D 12/10/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <1 < 3 < 3 J <1 <1 < 1a <1 MW-14XD 12/10/97 <1 R <1 R <1 R < 1 R <1 R < 3 R < 3 R <1 R <1 R < 1a R <1 R MW-15S 12/09/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <1 < 3 < 3 J <1 <1 < 1a <1 MW-15MD 12/09/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <1 < 3 < 3 J <1 <1 < 1a <1 MW-15XD 12/09/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <1 < 3 < 2 J <1 <1 < 1a <1 MW-16S 12/11/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <1 < 3 < 3 J <1 <1 < 1a <1 MW-16D 12/11/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <1 < 3 < 3 J <1 <1 < 1a <1 MW-16XD 12/11/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <1 < 3 < 3 J <1 <1 < 1a <1 MW-17MD 12/16/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <1 < 3 < 3 J <1 <1 < 1a <1

MW-17XD 12/16/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <1 < 3 < 3 J <1 <1 < 1a <1MW-18S 12/11/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <1 < 3 < 3 J <1 <1 < 1a <1MW-18XD 12/11/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <1 < 3 < 3 J <1 <1 < 1a <1

Well

Date of

sample

collection

Chloromethane

(74-87-3)

(μg/L)

Bromomethane

(74-83-9)

(μg/L)

Vinyl chloride

(75-01-4)

(μg/L)

Chloroethane

(75-00-3)

(μg/L)

Methylene

chloride

(75-09-2)

(μg/L)

Acetone

(67-64-1)

(μg/L)

Carbon

disulfide

(75-15-0)

(μg/L)

1,1-Dichloroethene

(75-35-4)

(μg/L)

1,1-Dichloroethane

(75-34-3)

(μg/L)

1,2-Dichloroethene

(total)

(540-59-0)

(μg/L)

Chloroform

(67-66-3)

(μg/L)
Appendix C: Water Quality 137

Table C4. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds in ground-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April through May 1999—Continued

MUN-1 09/03/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <2 < 5 <1 <1 <1 < 1a <1

12/16/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <1 < 3 < 3 J <1 <1 < 1a <105/06/99 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

NDF-MW1 12/16/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <1 < 3 < 5 J <1 <1 < 1a <1

NDF-MW2 12/16/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <1 < 3 < 3 J <1 <1 < 1a <1PZ-1S 09/03/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <2 < 5 <1 <1 <1 < 1a <1PZ-1MD 09/03/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <2 < 5 <1 <1 <1 <1a <1PZ-1XD 09/03/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <2 < 5 <1 <1 <1 < 1a <1PZ-3S 09/03/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <2 < 5 <1 <1 <1 < 1a <1PZ-3MD 09/04/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <2 < 5 <1 <1 <1 < 1a <1PZ-3XD 09/03/97 <1 <1 <1 < 1 <2 < 5 <1 <1 <1 < 1a <1

aLaboratory reported as less than 1 microgram per liter cis-1,2-dichloroethene (CAS number, 156-59-2) and less than 1 microgram per liter trans-1,2-dichloroethene (CAS number, 156-60-5).bLaboratory reported as 1,400 micrograms per liter cis-1,2-dichloroethene (CAS number, 156-59-2) and 20 micrograms per liter trans-1,2-dichloroethene (CAS number, 156-60-5).cLaboratory reported as less than 1 microgram per liter cis-1,2-dichloroethene (CAS number, 156-59-2) and 0.9 microgram per liter trans-1,2-dichloroethene (CAS number, 156-60-5).dLaboratory reported as 96 micrograms per liter cis-1,2-dichloroethene (CAS number, 156-59-2) and 5 micrograms per liter trans-1,2-dichloroethene (CAS number, 156-60-5).eLaboratory reported as 63 micrograms per liter cis-1,2-dichloroethene (CAS number, 156-59-2) and 5 micrograms per liter trans-1,2-dichloroethene (CAS number, 156-60-5).fLaboratory reported as 13 micrograms per liter cis-1,2-dichloroethene (CAS number, 156-59-2) and 1 microgram per liter trans-1,2-dichloroethene (CAS number, 156-60-5).

Well

Date of

sample

collection

Chloromethane

(74-87-3)

(μg/L)

Bromomethane

(74-83-9)

(μg/L)

Vinyl chloride

(75-01-4)

(μg/L)

Chloroethane

(75-00-3)

(μg/L)

Methylene

chloride

(75-09-2)

(μg/L)

Acetone

(67-64-1)

(μg/L)

Carbon

disulfide

(75-15-0)

(μg/L)

1,1-Dichloroethene

(75-35-4)

(μg/L)

1,1-Dichloroethane

(75-34-3)

(μg/L)

1,2-Dichloroethene

(total)

(540-59-0)

(μg/L)

Chloroform

(67-66-3)

(μg/L)
138 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana Table C4. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds in ground-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April through May 1999—Continued Well Date of sample collection 1,2-Dichloro- ethane (107-06-2)

(μg/L)

2-Butanone

(78-93-3)

(μg/L)

1,1,1-Trichloroethane

(71-55-6)

(μg/L)

Carbon

tetrachloride

(56-23-5)

(μg/L)

Bromodichloromethane

(75-27-4)

(μg/L)

1,2-Dichloropropane

(78-87-5)

(μg/L)

cis-1,3-

Dichloropropene

(10061-01-5)

(μg/L)

Trichloroethene

(79-01-6)

(μg/L)

Dibromochloromethane

(124-48-1)

(μg/L)

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

(79-00-5)

(μg/L)

Benzene

(71-43-2)

(μg/L)

B-1 04/29/97 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

09/05/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

B-2 04/29/97 < 33 < 33 < 33 < 33 < 33 < 33 < 33 28 J < 33 < 33 4 J

09/09/97 3 < 5 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 37 < 1 < 1 6

B-4 05/01/97 < 25 J < 25 J < 25 J < 25 J 12 J < 25 J < 25 J < 25 J < 25 J < 25 J 140 J

09/08/97 8 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 100 E12/11/97 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 120 D05/04/99 <10 < 10 < 10 <10 <10 < 10 <10 < 10 < 10 <10 130

EP-1 04/29/97 <10 < 10 < 10 <10 <10 < 10 <10 < 10 < 10 <10 < 10

09/03/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

EP-2 04/28/97 1 J < 10 < 10 <10 <10 < 10 <10 < 10 < 10 <10 < 10

09/02/97 < 1 < 5 .6 J < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 112/08/97 < 1 < 3 .8 J < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

EP-3 09/02/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

12/08/97 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

EP-4 04/30/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J

09/03/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 112/10/97 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
Appendix C: Water Quality 139

Table C4. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds in ground-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April through May 1999—Continued

LP-1 09/02/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1LP-2 04/30/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J

09/03/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

LP-3 04/30/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J

09/03/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 112/10/97 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

MW-1S 05/01/97 < 10 J < 10 J 96 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J 12 J < 10 J < 10 J 8 J

09/09/97 <1 <5 120 E <1 <1 <1 <1 15 <1 <1 912/10/97 < 1 < 3 80 D < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 17 < 1 < 1 805/05/99 <10 <10 63 <10 <10 <10 <10 7 J <10 <10 3 J

MW-1D 04/30/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J

09/09/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 112/10/97 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 105/04/99 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

MW-2S 05/01/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J 16 J

09/09/97 2 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 1312/15/97 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 2005/04/99 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 14 H

Well

Date of

sample

collection

1,2-Dichloroethane

(107-06-2)

(μg/L)

2-Butanone

(78-93-3)

(μg/L)

1,1,1-Trichloroethane

(71-55-6)

(μg/L)

Carbon

tetrachloride

(56-23-5)

(μg/L)

Bromodichloromethane

(75-27-4)

(μg/L)

1,2-Dichloropropane

(78-87-5)

(μg/L)

cis-1,3-

Dichloropropene

(10061-01-5)

(μg/L)

Trichloroethene

(79-01-6)

(μg/L)

Dibromochloromethane

(124-48-1)

(μg/L)

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

(79-00-5)

(μg/L)

Benzene

(71-43-2)

(μg/L)
140 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana Table C4. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds in ground-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April through May 1999—Continued MW-2D 05/01/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J 1 J 09/09/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 12/15/97 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 05/04/99 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 MW-2MD 05/01/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J 09/08/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 12/12/97 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 05/05/99 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 MW-2XD 05/01/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J 09/09/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 12/12/97 < 1 R < 3 R < 1 J < 1 J < 1 J < 1 J < 1 J < 1 J < 1 J < 1 J < 1 J 05/05/99 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 MW-3S 05/01/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J 5 J 09/08/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 3 05/04/99 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 4 J

MW-3D 05/01/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J

09/08/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 105/04/99 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

Well

Date of

sample

collection

1,2-Dichloroethane

(107-06-2)

(μg/L)

2-Butanone

(78-93-3)

(μg/L)

1,1,1-Trichloroethane

(71-55-6)

(μg/L)

Carbon

tetrachloride

(56-23-5)

(μg/L)

Bromodichloromethane

(75-27-4)

(μg/L)

1,2-Dichloropropane

(78-87-5)

(μg/L)

cis-1,3-

Dichloropropene

(10061-01-5)

(μg/L)

Trichloroethene

(79-01-6)

(μg/L)

Dibromochloromethane

(124-48-1)

(μg/L)

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

(79-00-5)

(μg/L)

Benzene

(71-43-2)

(μg/L)
Appendix C: Water Quality 141

Table C4. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds in ground-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April through May 1999—Continued

MW-4S 04/29/97 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

09/05/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 112/15/97 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

MW-4D 04/29/97 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

09/04/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 112/12/97 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

MW-4XD 04/29/97 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

09/05/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 112/12/97 < 1 R < 3 R < 1 J < 1 J < 1 J < 1 J < 1 J < 1 J < 1 J < 1 J < 1 J

MW-5S 04/30/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J

09/04/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 112/09/97 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

MW-5D 04/30/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J

09/04/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 112/09/97 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

MW-5XD 04/30/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J

09/04/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 112/09/97 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Well

Date of

sample

collection

1,2-Dichloroethane

(107-06-2)

(μg/L)

2-Butanone

(78-93-3)

(μg/L)

1,1,1-Trichloroethane

(71-55-6)

(μg/L)

Carbon

tetrachloride

(56-23-5)

(μg/L)

Bromodichloromethane

(75-27-4)

(μg/L)

1,2-Dichloropropane

(78-87-5)

(μg/L)

cis-1,3-

Dichloropropene

(10061-01-5)

(μg/L)

Trichloroethene

(79-01-6)

(μg/L)

Dibromochloromethane

(124-48-1)

(μg/L)

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

(79-00-5)

(μg/L)

Benzene

(71-43-2)

(μg/L)
142 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana Table C4. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds in ground-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April through May 1999—Continued MW-6S 05/01/97 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 09/09/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 05/05/99 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 MW-6D 05/01/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J 09/09/97 .9 J < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 12/11/97 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 05/05/99 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 MW-7S 04/28/97 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 09/02/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 12/09/97 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 05/03/99 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 MW-7D 04/28/97 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 09/02/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 12/08/97 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 05/03/99 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

MW-7XD 05/01/97 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

09/02/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 112/08/97 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 105/03/99 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

Well

Date of

sample

collection

1,2-Dichloroethane

(107-06-2)

(μg/L)

2-Butanone

(78-93-3)

(μg/L)

1,1,1-Trichloroethane

(71-55-6)

(μg/L)

Carbon

tetrachloride

(56-23-5)

(μg/L)

Bromodichloromethane

(75-27-4)

(μg/L)

1,2-Dichloropropane

(78-87-5)

(μg/L)

cis-1,3-

Dichloropropene

(10061-01-5)

(μg/L)

Trichloroethene

(79-01-6)

(μg/L)

Dibromochloromethane

(124-48-1)

(μg/L)

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

(79-00-5)

(μg/L)

Benzene

(71-43-2)

(μg/L)
Appendix C: Water Quality 143

Table C4. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds in ground-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April through May 1999—Continued

MW-8S 04/29/97 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

09/09/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

MW-8D 04/29/97 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

09/09/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

MW-9S 04/29/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J

09/03/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

MW-9XD 04/29/97 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

09/03/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

MW-10S 06/03/97 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

09/08/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

MW-10XD 06/03/97 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

09/08/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

MW-11S 06/03/97 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

09/04/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

MW-11D 06/03/97 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

09/04/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

MW-11XD 06/03/97 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

09/04/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Well

Date of

sample

collection

1,2-Dichloroethane

(107-06-2)

(μg/L)

2-Butanone

(78-93-3)

(μg/L)

1,1,1-Trichloroethane

(71-55-6)

(μg/L)

Carbon

tetrachloride

(56-23-5)

(μg/L)

Bromodichloromethane

(75-27-4)

(μg/L)

1,2-Dichloropropane

(78-87-5)

(μg/L)

cis-1,3-

Dichloropropene

(10061-01-5)

(μg/L)

Trichloroethene

(79-01-6)

(μg/L)

Dibromochloromethane

(124-48-1)

(μg/L)

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

(79-00-5)

(μg/L)

Benzene

(71-43-2)

(μg/L)
144 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana Table C4. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds in ground-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April through May 1999—Continued MW-12 09/19/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 12/11/97 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 MW-13S 12/10/97 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 MW-13D 12/10/97 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 MW-13XD 12/10/97 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 MW-14S 12/11/97 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 MW-14D 12/10/97 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 MW-14XD 12/10/97 < 1 R < 3 R < 1 J < 1 J < 1 J < 1 J < 1 J < 1 J < 1 J < 1 J < 1 J MW-15S 12/09/97 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 MW-15MD 12/09/97 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 MW-15XD 12/09/97 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 MW-16S 12/11/97 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 MW-16D 12/11/97 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 MW-16XD 12/11/97 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 MW-17MD 12/16/97 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

MW-17XD 12/16/97 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1MW-18S 12/11/97 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1MW-18XD 12/11/97 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Well

Date of

sample

collection

1,2-Dichloroethane

(107-06-2)

(μg/L)

2-Butanone

(78-93-3)

(μg/L)

1,1,1-Trichloroethane

(71-55-6)

(μg/L)

Carbon

tetrachloride

(56-23-5)

(μg/L)

Bromodichloromethane

(75-27-4)

(μg/L)

1,2-Dichloropropane

(78-87-5)

(μg/L)

cis-1,3-

Dichloropropene

(10061-01-5)

(μg/L)

Trichloroethene

(79-01-6)

(μg/L)

Dibromochloromethane

(124-48-1)

(μg/L)

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

(79-00-5)

(μg/L)

Benzene

(71-43-2)

(μg/L)
Appendix C: Water Quality 145

Table C4. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds in ground-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April through May 1999—Continued

MUN-1 09/03/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

12/16/97 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 105/06/99 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

NDF-MW1 12/16/97 < 1 < 3 < 1 J < 1 J < 1 J < 1 J < 1 J < 1 J < 1 J < 1 J < 1 JNDF-MW2 12/16/97 < 1 < 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1PZ-1S 09/03/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1PZ-1MD 09/03/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1PZ-1XD 09/03/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1PZ-3S 09/04/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1PZ-3MD 09/04/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1PZ-3XD 09/03/97 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Well

Date of

sample

collection

1,2-Dichloroethane

(107-06-2)

(μg/L)

2-Butanone

(78-93-3)

(μg/L)

1,1,1-Trichloroethane

(71-55-6)

(μg/L)

Carbon

tetrachloride

(56-23-5)

(μg/L)

Bromodichloromethane

(75-27-4)

(μg/L)

1,2-Dichloropropane

(78-87-5)

(μg/L)

cis-1,3-

Dichloropropene

(10061-01-5)

(μg/L)

Trichloroethene

(79-01-6)

(μg/L)

Dibromochloromethane

(124-48-1)

(μg/L)

1,1,2-Trichloroethane

(79-00-5)

(μg/L)

Benzene

(71-43-2)

(μg/L)
146 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana Table C4. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds in ground-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April through May 1999—Continued Well Date of sample collection trans-1,3- Dichloro- propene (10061-02-6)

(μg/L)

Bromoform

(75-25-2)

(μg/L)

4-Methyl-2-

pentanone

(108-10-1)

(μg/L)

2-Hexanone

(591-78-6)

(μg/L)

Tetrachloroethene

(127-18-4)

(μg/L)

1,1,2,2-

Tetrachloroethane

(79-34-5)

(μg/L)

Toluene

(108-88-3)

(μg/L)

Chlorobenzene

(108-90-7)

(μg/L)

Ethyl

benzene

(100-41-4)

(μg/L)

Styrene

(100-42-5)

(μg/L)

Xylene

(total)

(1330-20-7)

(μg/L)

B-1 04/29/97 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

09/05/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

B-2 04/29/97 < 33 < 33 < 33 < 33 26 J < 33 < 33 < 33 < 33 < 33 < 33

09/09/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

B-4 05/01/97 < 25 J < 25 J < 25 J < 25 J < 25 J < 25 J 7 J < 25 J 4 J < 25 J < 25 J

09/08/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 1 < 1 2 < 1 112/11/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 1 < 1 3 < 1 .8g J

05/04/99 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 2 J < 10 4 J < 10 2 J

EP-1 04/29/97 < 10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

09/03/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

EP-2 04/28/97 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

09/02/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 112/08/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1h

EP-3 09/02/97 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

12/08/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1h

EP-4 04/30/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J 1 J < 10 J 1 J < 10 J < 10 J

09/03/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 112/10/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1h
Appendix C: Water Quality 147

Table C4. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds in ground-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April through May 1999—Continued

LP-1 09/02/97 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10LP-2 04/30/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J

09/03/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

LP-3 04/30/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J

09/03/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 112/10/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1h

MW-1S 05/01/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J

09/09/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 112/10/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1h

05/05/99 <10 <10 <10 J <10 <10 <10 2 J <10 1 J <10 5 J

MW-1D 04/30/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J

09/09/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 112/10/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1h05/04/99 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

MW-2S 05/01/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J 1 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J

09/09/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 112/15/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1h05/04/99 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 1 J <10 <10 <10 <10

Well

Date of

sample

collection

trans-1,3-

Dichloropropene

(10061-02-6)

(μg/L)

Bromoform

(75-25-2)

(μg/L)

4-Methyl-2-

pentanone

(108-10-1)

(μg/L)

2-Hexanone

(591-78-6)

(μg/L)

Tetrachloroethene

(127-18-4)

(μg/L)

1,1,2,2-

Tetrachloroethane

(79-34-5)

(μg/L)

Toluene

(108-88-3)

(μg/L)

Chlorobenzene

(108-90-7)

(μg/L)

Ethyl

benzene

(100-41-4)

(μg/L)

Styrene

(100-42-5)

(μg/L)

Xylene

(total)

(1330-20-7)

(μg/L)
148 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana Table C4. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds in ground-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April through May 1999—Continued MW-2D 05/01/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J 09/09/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 12/15/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1h 05/04/99 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 MW-2MD 05/01/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J 09/08/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 12/12/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1h 05/05/99 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 MW-2XD 05/01/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J 09/08/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 12/12/97 < 1 J < 1 J < 2 J < 2 J < 1 J < 1 J < 1 J < 1 J < 1 J < 1 J < 1h J 05/05/99 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 1 J <10 <10 <10 1 J MW-3S 05/01/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J 09/08/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 05/04/99 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

MW-3D 05/01/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J

09/08/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 105/04/99 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

Well

Date of

sample

collection

trans-1,3-

Dichloropropene

(10061-02-6)

(μg/L)

Bromoform

(75-25-2)

(μg/L)

4-Methyl-2-

pentanone

(108-10-1)

(μg/L)

2-Hexanone

(591-78-6)

(μg/L)

Tetrachloroethene

(127-18-4)

(μg/L)

1,1,2,2-

Tetrachloroethane

(79-34-5)

(μg/L)

Toluene

(108-88-3)

(μg/L)

Chlorobenzene

(108-90-7)

(μg/L)

Ethyl

benzene

(100-41-4)

(μg/L)

Styrene

(100-42-5)

(μg/L)

Xylene

(total)

(1330-20-7)

(μg/L)
Appendix C: Water Quality 149

Table C4. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds in ground-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April through May 1999—Continued

MW-4S 04/29/97 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

09/05/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 112/15/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1h

MW-4D 04/29/97 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

09/04/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 112/12/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1h

MW-4XD 04/29/97 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

09/05/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 112/12/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10i J

MW-5S 04/30/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J 2 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J

09/04/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 112/09/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1h

MW-5D 04/30/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J 2 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J

09/04/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 112/09/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1h

MW-5XD 04/30/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J 1 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J

09/04/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 112/09/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1h

Well

Date of

sample

collection

trans-1,3-

Dichloropropene

(10061-02-6)

(μg/L)

Bromoform

(75-25-2)

(μg/L)

4-Methyl-2-

pentanone

(108-10-1)

(μg/L)

2-Hexanone

(591-78-6)

(μg/L)

Tetrachloroethene

(127-18-4)

(μg/L)

1,1,2,2-

Tetrachloroethane

(79-34-5)

(μg/L)

Toluene

(108-88-3)

(μg/L)

Chlorobenzene

(108-90-7)

(μg/L)

Ethyl

benzene

(100-41-4)

(μg/L)

Styrene

(100-42-5)

(μg/L)

Xylene

(total)

(1330-20-7)

(μg/L)
150 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana Table C4. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds in ground-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April through May 1999—Continued MW-6S 05/01/97 < 10 < 10 3 J < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 09/09/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 05/05/99 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 MW-6D 05/01/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J 09/09/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 12/11/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1h 05/05/99 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 MW-7S 04/28/97 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 09/02/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 12/09/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1h 05/03/99 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 MW-7D 04/28/97 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 09/02/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 12/08/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1h 05/03/99 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 2 J < 10 MW-7XD 05/01/97 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

09/02/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 112/08/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1h05/03/99 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

Well

Date of

sample

collection

trans-1,3-

Dichloropropene

(10061-02-6)

(μg/L)

Bromoform

(75-25-2)

(μg/L)

4-Methyl-2-

pentanone

(108-10-1)

(μg/L)

2-Hexanone

(591-78-6)

(μg/L)

Tetrachloroethene

(127-18-4)

(μg/L)

1,1,2,2-

Tetrachloroethane

(79-34-5)

(μg/L)

Toluene

(108-88-3)

(μg/L)

Chlorobenzene

(108-90-7)

(μg/L)

Ethyl

benzene

(100-41-4)

(μg/L)

Styrene

(100-42-5)

(μg/L)

Xylene

(total)

(1330-20-7)

(μg/L)
Appendix C: Water Quality 151

Table C4. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds in ground-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April through May 1999—Continued

MW-8S 04/29/97 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

09/09/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

MW-8D 04/29/97 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

09/09/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

MW-9S 04/29/97 < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J < 10 J

09/03/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

MW-9XD 04/29/97 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10 < 10

09/03/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

MW-10S 06/03/97 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

09/08/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

MW-10XD 06/03/97 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

09/08/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

MW-11S 06/03/97 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

09/04/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

MW-11D 06/03/97 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

09/04/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

MW-11XD 06/03/97 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

09/04/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Well

Date of

sample

collection

trans-1,3-

Dichloropropene

(10061-02-6)

(μg/L)

Bromoform

(75-25-2)

(μg/L)

4-Methyl-2-

pentanone

(108-10-1)

(μg/L)

2-Hexanone

(591-78-6)

(μg/L)

Tetrachloroethene

(127-18-4)

(μg/L)

1,1,2,2-

Tetrachloroethane

(79-34-5)

(μg/L)

Toluene

(108-88-3)

(μg/L)

Chlorobenzene

(108-90-7)

(μg/L)

Ethyl

benzene

(100-41-4)

(μg/L)

Styrene

(100-42-5)

(μg/L)

Xylene

(total)

(1330-20-7)

(μg/L)
152 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana Table C4. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds in ground-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April through May 1999—Continued MW-12 09/10/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 12/11/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1h MW-13S 12/10/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1h MW-13D 12/10/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1h MW-13XD 12/10/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1h MW-14S 12/11/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1h MW-14D 12/10/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1h MW-14XD 12/10/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1h MW-15S 12/09/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1h MW-15MD 12/09/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1h MW-15XD 12/09/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1h MW-16S 12/11/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1h MW-16D 12/11/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1h MW-16XD 12/11/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1h MW-17MD 12/16/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1h

MW-17XD 12/16/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1hMW-18S 12/11/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1hMW-18XD 12/11/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1h

Well

Date of

sample

collection

trans-1,3-

Dichloropropene

(10061-02-6)

(μg/L)

Bromoform

(75-25-2)

(μg/L)

4-Methyl-2-

pentanone

(108-10-1)

(μg/L)

2-Hexanone

(591-78-6)

(μg/L)

Tetrachloroethene

(127-18-4)

(μg/L)

1,1,2,2-

Tetrachloroethane

(79-34-5)

(μg/L)

Toluene

(108-88-3)

(μg/L)

Chlorobenzene

(108-90-7)

(μg/L)

Ethyl

benzene

(100-41-4)

(μg/L)

Styrene

(100-42-5)

(μg/L)

Xylene

(total)

(1330-20-7)

(μg/L)
Appendix C: Water Quality 153

Table C4. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds in ground-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April through May 1999—Continued

gLaboratory reported as 0.8 microgram per liter m- and/or p-xylene (CAS number 1083836423) and less than 1 microgram per liter o-xylene (CAS number, 95-47-6).hLaboratory reported as less than 1 microgram per liter m- and/or p-xylene (CAS number 1083836423) and less than 1 microgram per liter o-xylene (CAS number, 95-47-6).iLaboratory reported as less than 10 micrograms per liter m- and/or p-xylene (CAS number 1083836423) and less than 10 micrograms per liter o-xylene (CAS number, 95-47-6).

MUN-1 09/03/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

12/16/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1h

05/06/99 <10 <10 <10 J <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

NDF-MW1 12/16/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1h

NDF-MW2 12/16/97 < 1 < 1 < 2 < 2 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1hPZ-1S 09/03/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1PZ-1MD 09/03/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1PZ-1XD 09/03/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1PZ-3S 09/03/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1PZ-3MD 09/04/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1PZ-3XD 09/03/97 < 1 < 1 < 5 < 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Well

Date of

sample

collection

trans-1,3-

Dichloropropene

(10061-02-6)

(μg/L)

Bromoform

(75-25-2)

(μg/L)

4-Methyl-2-

pentanone

(108-10-1)

(μg/L)

2-Hexanone

(591-78-6)

(μg/L)

Tetrachloroethene

(127-18-4)

(μg/L)

1,1,2,2-

Tetrachloroethane

(79-34-5)

(μg/L)

Toluene

(108-88-3)

(μg/L)

Chlorobenzene

(108-90-7)

(μg/L)

Ethyl

benzene

(100-41-4)

(μg/L)

Styrene

(100-42-5)

(μg/L)

Xylene

(total)

(1330-20-7)

(μg/L)
154 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana

1,4-dioxane, in micrograms per liter

Well April–May 1997 September 1997 December 1997 May 1999

B-1 not sampled 3 J not sampled not sampled

B-2 620 E 220 D not sampled not sampled

B-4 (unusable) 200 D 153 D 240 D

EP-1 < 5 J < 5 < 5 not sampled

EP-2 <5 J < 5 < 5 not sampled

EP-4 16 < 5 < 5 not sampled

LP-2 15 J < 5 < 5 not sampled

LP-3 not sampled 3 J 3 J not sampled

MW-1S 140 E < 5 < 5 < 5

MW-1D < 5 J < 5 < 5 8

MW-2S (unusable) 880 D 1,900 D 820 D

MW-2D 31,000 E 11,000 E 3,800 E 8,800 D

MW-2MD 1,600 E 640 D 380 D 82

MW-2XD 4,700 E 1,200 D 1,500 D 1,100 D

MW-3S 2,600 E 370 D not sampled 740 D

MW-3D 6,400 E 1,600 D not sampled 12

MW-4S (unusable) 9 < 5 not sampled

MW-4D 970 E 200 J 249 D not sampled

MW-4XD 3,800 E 760 D 870 D not sampled

MW-5S < 5 J < 5 < 5 not sampled

MW-5D (unusable) < 5 < 5 not sampled

MW-5XD < 5 J < 5 J < 5 not sampled

MW-6S 1,040 E < 5 not sampled < 5

MW-6D 82 E 29 20 25

MW-7S < 5 J < 5 < 5 < 5

MW-7D < 5 J < 5 < 5 < 5

MW-7XD 19 J < 5 8 < 5

MW-8S (unusable) 28 16 not sampled

MW-8D 7,700 E 3,800 D 4,270 D not sampled

Table C5. Concentrations of 1,4-dioxane in ground-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April 1997 through

May 1999

[J, concentration is estimated below the quantification limit; D, concentration determined after dilution; E, estimated concentration from

analysis of diluted sample; <, less than]
Appendix C: Water Quality 155

Table C5. Concentrations of 1,4-dioxane in ground-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April 1997 through

May 1999—Continued

MW-9S (unusable) < 5 < 5 not sampled

MW-9XD (unusable) < 5 < 5 not sampled

MW-10S not sampled 10 7 5 J

MW-10XD not sampled 6 10 5 J

MW-11S not sampled < 5 < 5 not sampled

MW-11D not sampled < 5 < 5 not sampled

MW-11XD not sampled < 5 < 5 not sampled

MW-12 not sampled < 5 < 5 not sampled

MW-13S not sampled not sampled < 5 not sampled

MW-13D not sampled not sampled < 5 not sampled

MW-13XD not sampled not sampled < 5 not sampled

MW-14S not sampled not sampled 109 D 42

MW-14D not sampled not sampled 13 9

MW-14XD not sampled not sampled 1,480 D 1,700 D

MW-15S not sampled not sampled 3 J < 5

MW-15MD not sampled not sampled 2,400 D 3,500 D

MW-15XD not sampled not sampled 318 D 580 D

MW-16S not sampled not sampled < 5 < 5

MW-16D not sampled not sampled < 5 < 5

MW-16XD not sampled not sampled < 5 < 5

MW-17MD not sampled not sampled < 5 < 5

MW-17XD not sampled not sampled < 5 < 5

MW-18S not sampled not sampled < 5 < 5

MW-18XD not sampled not sampled < 5 < 5

PZ-1S not sampled < 5 not sampled not sampled

PZ-1MD not sampled < 5 not sampled not sampled

PZ-1XD not sampled < 5 not sampled not sampled

PZ-3S not sampled < 5 not sampled not sampled

PZ-3MD not sampled < 5 not sampled not sampled

PZ-3XD not sampled < 5 not sampled not sampled

1,4-dioxane, in micrograms per liter

Well April–May 1997 September 1997 December 1997 May 1999
156 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana

Table C6. On-site measurements of surface-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April 1997 through May 1999

[°C, degree Celsius; mv, millivolt; mg/L milligram per liter; μs/cm, microsiemen per centimeter at 25°C; ntu, nephelometric turbidity unit;

--, not measured]

Surface-water

site

Date of

sample

collection

Temperature

(°C)

pH

(units)

Oxidationreduction

potential

(mv)

Dissolved

oxygen

(mg/L)

Specific

conductance

(μS/cm)

Turbidity

(ntu)

SW-1 04/29/97 15.7 8.03 331 13.55 834 --

08/27/97 14.8 7.35 -17 9.14 848 7.8

05/04/99 14.3 7.42 -- 7.83 759 --

SW-2 04/29/97 18.5 8.21 289 13.45 349 --

08/27/97 15.8 7.42 -7 9.36 856 12.4

SW-3 05/01/97 16.8 8.31 278 12.54 825 --

08/27/97 15.1 7.43 25 9.44 798 6.4

SW-4 04/29/97 16.7 8.22 265 9.26 936 --

08/27/97 17.2 7.46 -8 8.52 900 0

SW-5 04/28/97 10.7 7.56 435 8.53 898 --

08/27/97 21.4 7.40 187 7.66 966 0

SW-6 05/02/97 14.3 7.57 464 8.0 944 --

05/04/99 19.5 7.66 -- 9.42 839 --

SW-7 04/30/97 13.4 7.58 396 8.05 1,080 --

08/27/97 18.8 7.30 -40 5.66 1,140 0

SW-8 04/30/97 17.5 7.72 329 8.68 1,160 --

08/27/97 19.9 7.27 -18 4.84 1,270 8

SW-9 05/01/97 17.5 7.72 329 8.68 1,160 --

08/27/97 11.0 6.78 341 2.8 633 2.2

SW-10 08/28/97 20.0 7.28 -35 4.41 1,150 0

09/03/97 11.0 7.10 103 .5 630 14

SW-11 05/01/97 14.3 7.75 286 9.16 1,350 --

08/27/97 19.9 7.36 -19 7.33 1,260 0

SW-12 05/01/97 10.0 7.83 401 6.77 758 --

08/27/97 17.2 7.30 -27 7.25 777 0
Appendix C: Water Quality 157

Table C6. On-site measurements of surface-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April 1997 through May 1999—Continued

SW-13 05/01/97 13.0 7.85 357 10.59 559 --

08/27/97 15.2 7.29 -31 4.51 601 15

12/11/97 7.27 4.58 101 4.31 1,020 --

05/04/99 17.1 7.31 -- 7.8 371 --

SW-WP-2 08/28/97 7.02 7.38 -51 7.02 1,130 8

12/11/97 7.4 4.56 113 6.28 893 --

05/04/99 17.2 7.64 -- 9.3 1,230 --

SW-WP-3 12/11/97 8.31 4.45 167 5.93 519 --

05/04/99 17.7 7.28 -- 7.62 1,210 --

SW-WP-P 08/28/97 15.2 7.27 -43 5.16 668 8

12/11/97 12.4 6.69 -196 .17 1,280 .6

05/04/99 18.3 7.70 -- 10.5 540 --

Surface-water

site

Date of

sample

collection

Temperature

(°C)

pH

(units)

Oxidationreduction

potential

(mv)

Dissolved

oxygen

(mg/L)

Specific

conductance

(μS/cm)

Turbidity

(ntu)
158 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana Table C7. Concentrations of common constituents in surface-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April–May 1997 [mg/L, milligram per liter; CaCO3, Calcium carbonate; -- not sampled; >, greater than] Surface-water site Date of sample collection Bi- carbonate alkalinity (mg/L) Hardness (mg/L as CaC03) Calcium (mg/L) Chloride (mg/L) Magnesium (mg/L) Potassium (mg/L) Sodium (mg/L) Sulfate (mg/L) SW-1 04/29/97 239 325 116 32 30.9 4.72 30.8 176 SW-2 04/29/97 241 355 105 48 34.1 3.12 18.7 160 SW-3 05/01/97 253 323 114 22 34.6 1.7 8.11 184 SW-4 04/29/97 243 410 104 76 35.3 4.99 32.6 144 SW-5 04/28/97 238 392 96.4 83 33.3 5.14 32.7 120 SW-6 04/30/97 233 378 94.5 132 34.4 7.41 40.6 112 SW-7 04/30/97 244 393 93.4 100 34.2 6.87 60.9 100 SW-8 04/30/97 251 424 94.4 216 35.3 6.66 69.8 100 SW-9 05/01/97 243 432 95.8 190 36.2 6.92 70.4 96 SW-11 04/30/97 217 404 90.9 > 140 34.1 1.11 98.1 108 SW-12 05/01/97 246 392 90.3 64 34.7 1.17 13.8 100 SW-13 05/01/97 290 288 63.3 27 20.0 3.31 4.22 0
Appendix C: Water Quality 159

Table C8. Concentrations of minor elements in surface-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April–May 1997[mm, month; dd, day; yy, year; μg/L, microgram per liter; <, less than; J, concentration is estimated]

Surface-water

site

Date of

sample

collection

(mm/dd/yy)

Aluminum

(μg/L)

Antimony

(μg/L)

Arsenic

(μg/L)

Barium

(μg/L)

Beryllium

(μg/L)

Cadmium

(μg/L)

Chromium

(μg/L)

Cobalt

(μg/L)

Copper

(μg/L)

Iron

(μg/L)

SW-1 04/29/97 590 J < 2 < 2 73.8 1.7 J < 1 5.1 2.2 J 2.6 4,680SW-2 04/29/97 9 J < 2 < 2 44.1 1.8 J < 1 < 1 1.5 J 1.2 1,370SW-3 05/01/97 9 J 2.4 J < 2 63.6 1.8 J < 1 < 1 1.4 J 8.4 1,490SW-4 04/29/97 20 J < 2 < 2 44.4 1.3 J < 1 < 1 1.3 J 1.9 1,380SW-5 04/28/97 63.6 J 4 J < 2 41.2 1.2 J < 1 < 1 2.2 J 2.8 1,400SW-6 04/30/97 134 J 2.2 J < 2 53 1.4 J < 1 1.1 1.2 J 5.1 1,390SW-7 04/30/97 120 J < 2 < 2 51.7 < 1 < 1 < 1 1.6 J 4.5 1,450SW-8 03/10/97 70.5 J < 2 < 2 50.2 1.2 J < 1 < 1 1.9 J 4.3 1,490SW-9 05/01/97 184 J < 2 < 2 52.8 1 J < 1 < 1 2 J 5 1,720SW-11 04/30/97 44.1 J 2.2 J < 2 31.6 1.1 J < 1 < 1 2.2 J 4.4 806SW-12 05/01/97 9 J 2.2 J < 2 33.4 1.2 J < 1 < 1 1.8 J < 1 723SW-13 05/01/97 251 J < 2 < 2 43.6 1.4 J < 1 1.1 2.6 J 1.9 J 2.230
160 Geohydrology, Water Quality, and Simulation of Flow in the Vicinity of a Waste-Oil Refinery near Westville, Indiana Table C8. Concentrations of minor elements in surface-water samples collected near Westville, Indiana, April–May 1997—Continued Surface- water site Date of sample collection (mm/dd/yy) Lead

(μg/L)

Manganese

(μg/L)

Mercury

(μg/L)

Nickel

(μg/L)

Selenium

(μg/L)

Silver

(μg/L)

Thallium

(μg/L)

Vanadium

(μg/L)

Zinc

(μg/L)

SW-1 04/29/97 < 1 208 <0.2 3 < 3 < 1 4 J 1.6 10.4 JSW-2 04/29/97 < 1 114 < .2 1.1 < 3 < 1 3.8 J < 1 10.3 JSW-3 05/01/97 < 1 111 < .2 < 1 < 3 < 1 4 J < 1 8 JSW-4 04/29/97 < 1 141 < .2 1.3 < 3 < 1 3.5 J < 1 12.6 JSW-5 04/28/97 < 1 145 < .2 1.5 < 3 < 1 2.8 J 1 17.1 JSW-6 04/30/97 < 1 114 < .2 2 < 3 < 1 3.4 J < 1 31.4 JSW-7 04/30/97 < 1 97.1 < .2 1.6 < 3 < 1 3.6 J < 1 63.1 JSW-8 04/30/97 < 1 78.4 < .2 2.1 < 3 < 1 < 2 < 1 72.6 JSW-9 05/01/97 < 1 80.6 < .2 1.8 < 3 < 1 3.9 J < 1 72.6 JSW-11 04/30/97 < 1 62.4 < .2 1.9 < 3 < 1 2.3 J < 1 121 JSW-12 05/01/97 < 1 140 < .2 1.4 < 3 < 1 3.4 J < 1 3.1 JSW-13 05/01/97 < 1 1,220 < .2 2.6 < 3 < 1 2.6 J 1.2 7.6 J
Appendix C: Water Quality 161

Table C9. Concentrations of 1,4-dioxane in surface-water samples and well points collected near Westville, Indiana, April 1997

through May 1999

[J, concentration is estimated below the quantification limit; D, concentration determined after dilution; E, estimated concentration from analysis

of diluted sample; <, less than]

Concentration of 1,4-dioxane in micrograms per liter

Sample location April–May 1997 August 1997 December 1997 May 1999

SW-1 unusable 8 not sampled 3 J

SW-2 unusable 12 not sampled not sampled

SW-3 < 5 J < 5 not sampled not sampled

SW-4 unusable 22 not sampled not sampled

SW-5 118 D, J 33 not sampled not sampled

SW-6 170 E not sampled not sampled 26

SW-7 600 E 83 not sampled not sampled

SW-8 unusable 140 D not sampled not sampled

SW-9 670 E 130 E not sampled not sampled

SW-10 not sampled 98 D not sampled not sampled

SW-11 180 E 73 not sampled not sampled

SW-12 unusable 72 not sampled not sampled

SW-13 < 5 J < 5 < 5 < 5

SW-WP-2 not sampled 77 55 43

SW-WP-3 not sampled not sampled 90 84

SW-WP-P not sampled 54 27 26

Well points

WP-P not sampled 180 D 160 D not sampled

WP-2 not sampled 5 < 5 not sampled

WP-3 not sampled < 5 < 5 not sampled