Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4020

An Estimate of Chemical Loads From Ground

Water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana

Harbor Canal, Northwestern Indiana

Prepared in cooperation with the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4020

An Estimate of Chemical Loads From Ground

Water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana

Harbor Canal, Northwestern Indiana

Prepared in cooperation with the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Indianapolis, Indiana

2001

By Timothy C. Willoughby and Qaadir A. Siddeeq

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

GALE A. NORTON, Secretary

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Charles G. Groat, Director

The use of firm, trade, and brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and

does not constitute 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 III

CONTENTS

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

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

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

Description of Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Geohydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Study Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Selection of River Reaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Selection of Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Selection of Water-Quality Constituents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Simulation of Ground-Water Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Computation of Chemical Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Chemical Loads to the Grand Calumet River and the Indiana Harbor Canal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

References Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Data Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Figures

1-3. Maps showing:

1. Location of study area, northwestern Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2. Location of river reaches and ground-water model nodes used for the estimate of

chemical loads from ground water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal . . . . . . . 5

3. Water-table altitude (June 23-25, 1992) and locations of observation wells used for estimate

of chemical loads from ground water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal . . . . . 6

Tables

1. Selected characteristics of observation wells and river reach assigned to the well used for the estimate

of chemical loads from ground water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal . . . . . . 7

2. Constituents of interest and wells from which samples were analyzed for each constituent used to

estimate chemical loads to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3. Simulated ground-water fluxes for the eight reaches on the Grand Calumet River and the

Indiana Harbor Canal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

4. Estimated chemical loads from ground water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal,

computed using a horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 50 feet per day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

5. Estimated chemical loads from ground water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal,

computed using a horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 100 feet per day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
IV Contents

CONVERSION FACTORS. VERTICAL DATUM, AND ABBREVIATED WATER-QUALITY UNITS

Vertical datum: 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 both the United States and Canada, formerly called

Sea Level Datum of 1929.

Chemical concentration is given in milligrams per liter (mg/L) and 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.

Load is given in kilograms per day (kg/d).

Multiply By To obtain

Length

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer

Area

square mile (mi2

) 2.590 square kilometer

Flow rate

cubic foot per second (ft3

/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second

Hydraulic conductivity

foot per day (ft/d) 0.3048 meter per day
Abstract 1

An Estimate of Chemical Loads from Ground Water to the Grand

Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal, Northwestern Indiana

By Timothy C. Willoughby and Qaadir A. Siddeeq

Abstract

Chemical loads from ground water to the

Grand Calumet River and the Indiana Harbor

Canal in northwestern Indiana were estimated to

aid in determining the total maximum daily load.

Data from two previous studies, completed in

1987 and 1993, were used to compute loads. The

first study included a ground-water-flow model.

Results from this model were used to determine

ground-water fluxes to eight distinct reaches of the

Grand Calumet River and the Indiana Harbor

Canal at assumed horizontal hydraulic conductivities of 50 and 100 feet per day. In addition, waterquality data collected during the first study and a

second study that further described the quality of

water from wells screened in the Calumet aquifer,

were used with the ground-water fluxes to

compute estimates of chemical loads for selected

constituents contributing to the Grand Calumet

River and Indiana Harbor Canal. Constituents

included trace elements, polychlorinated biphenyls, pesticides, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, and selected general chemistry properties.

Total dissolved solids, sulfate, chloride, and

dissolved ammonia as nitrogen had the largest estimated loads to the Grand Calumet River and the

Indiana Harbor Canal for any river reach. The estimated loads for total dissolved solids ranged from

239 to 12,800 kilograms per day. Dissolved iron

had the largest estimated load for the trace

elements and exceeded 1 kilogram per day for all

river reaches for which data were available. The

majority of ground-water concentrations for polychlorinated biphenyls, pesticides, and polynuclear

aromatic hydrocarbons were reported as less than

the method reporting limit, resulting in small

computed loads to the river and canal.

Introduction

The Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor

Canal in northwestern Indiana have been identified as

an area of concern having one or more specific impairments to beneficial uses of Great Lakes waters (International Joint Commission, 1978). Section 303(d) of

the Clean Water Act (Indiana Department of Environmental Management 303(d) list, 2000) requires each

State to complete the following tasks: (1) Identify

water bodies that do not meet State requirements for

water-quality standards for their designated uses; (2)

develop a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), or the

amount of a specific pollutant that can be absorbed

without causing in-stream water-quality violations; and

(3) implement strategies to meet the TMDL requirements in order to meet the water-quality standards. The

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is determining the TMDL for the Grand Calumet River and the

Indiana Harbor Canal. Determination of TMDL’s

requires knowledge of inflow and outflow components

of the river system. Of these components, the relation

of ground water to surface water is often the most difficult to determine. A previous study in northwestern

Indiana by the U.S Geological Survey (USGS)

included development of a surface-water-flow model

that simulated flow to the Grand Calumet River and the

Indiana Harbor Canal. The model was used with waterquality data to estimate chemical loads from ground

water to the entire river system (Fenelon and Watson,

1993). For determination of the TMDL, the USACE

needed estimates of chemical loads for individual

reaches of the river. On the basis of the previous study,

the USACE and USGS entered into an agreement to

estimate chemical loads from ground water to the

Grand Calumet River and the Indiana Harbor Canal for

eight river reaches.
2 Estimate of Chemical Loads from Ground Water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal

Purpose and Scope

This report describes the methods used to

compute the estimated chemical loads from groundwater to the Grand Calumet River and the Indiana

Harbor Canal. Loads are presented for eight river

reaches. The report also describes known limitations of

the methods and data and discusses the potential effects

on the results of the computation of the loads.

Description of Study Area

The Grand Calumet River watershed is in northwestern Indiana and northeastern Illinois. The river

consists of three parts. The east branch, which is about

10 mi long, flows westward from its headwaters near

the Grand Calumet Lagoons to its confluence with the

Indiana Harbor Canal (fig. 1). The west branch, which

is about 6 mi long, flows both eastward to the Indiana

Harbor Canal and westward to Illinois from a divide

near the Hammond-East Chicago border. The Indiana

Harbor Canal, which flows northward approximately

3 mi from its confluence with the Grand Calumet River,

discharges into Lake Michigan (Crawford and Wangsness, 1987). For this study, the Lake George Arm of

the Indiana Harbor Canal also was included. The Lake

George arm begins approximately 2 mi west of the

Indiana Harbor Canal and has its confluence with the

Indiana Harbor Canal approximately 1.5 mi north of

the confluence of the Grand Calumet River and the

Indiana Harbor Canal.

Usage of Lake Michigan for the transport of raw

materials and finished goods, as well as a source for

process water and a location for waste disposal,

brought about an industrialization and urbanization of

the study area in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s

(Crawford and Wangsness, 1987). The area grew into

one of the most industrialized regions in the United

States. Major industries in the study area include steel

production; refining and storing of petrochemicals;

railcar, truck, and automobile assembly plants; scrap

processing; and chemical manufacturing (Kay and

others, 1996). Major population centers in the study

area are East Chicago, Gary, Hammond, and Whiting

(fig. 1).

Geohydrology

The study area is in the Calumet Lacustrine

Plain, a subdivision of the Northern Moraine and Lake

Region as defined by the Indiana Department of

Conservation (Malott, 1922, p. 113) and by the Indiana

Geological Survey (Schneider, 1966, p. 50). The

Calumet Lacustrine Plain is characterized by a flat to

undulating surface that slopes gently toward Lake

Michigan. The Calumet aquifer, designated by Hartke

and others (1975), is an unconfined, or water-table

aquifer and is continuous through most of the study

area. The Calumet aquifer consists primarily of sand,

including dune, beach and lacustrine sediments that

may contain thin, discontinuous layers of muck, peat,

and organic material. The sand ranges in thickness

from 0 ft to more than 100 ft and is thickest in the

eastern part of the study area (Duwelius and others,

1996).

The Calumet aquifer is recharged by direct infiltration of precipitation. The average depth to water is

probably less than 10 ft. The saturated thickness of the

aquifer is approximately 40 ft (Watson and others,

1989). Discharge from the Calumet aquifer is primarily

to surface water, including rivers, ditches, wetlands,

and lakes (Duwelius and others, 1996). A substantial

amount of water in the Calumet aquifer may discharge

to sewers in some urban areas (Fenelon and Watson,

1993). The horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the

Calumet aquifer previously was estimated to range

from 10 to 130 ft/d (Rosenshein and Hunn, 1968).

Other estimates of the horizontal hydraulic conductivity for the Calumet aquifer, in the central part of the

study area, ranged from 47 to 63 ft/d (Geosciences

Research Associates, Inc., 1987).

Streamflow in the Grand Calumet River and

Indiana Harbor Canal is controlled mainly by intake

and discharge of industrial process water and by

discharge from municipal wastewater-treatment plants

(Crawford and Wangsness, 1987). Streamflow also is

affected by backwater from Lake Michigan, especially

in the Indiana Harbor Canal. The drainage area for the

river system is indeterminate; however, it is relatively

small (less than 50 mi2

) and the sandy texture of the

soils results in small contributions to streamflow from

surface runoff. The contribution to streamflow from

discharge of ground water was determined to be less

than 10 percent of the total streamflow (Crawford and

Wangsness, 1987, p. 1).

4 Estimate of Chemical Loads from Ground Water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal

Three streamflow gaging stations are located

within the river system. The Indiana Harbor Canal at

East Chicago (station number 04092750) has a mean

annual discharge of 647 ft3

/s for the period of record

1994-99 (Stewart and others, 2000, p. 186). The record

at this station was rated poor (greater than plus or

minus 15 percent of the true value) because the

discharge is affected by backwater from Lake Michigan. The mean annual discharge in the east branch of

the Grand Calumet River at the Grand Calumet River at

Industrial Highway at Gary (station number 04092677)

was 484 ft3

/s for water years 1995-99 (Stewart and

other, 2000, p. 185). The record at this station was rated

good (within plus or minus 10 percent of the true

value). The mean annual discharge in the west branch

of the Grand Calumet River at the Grand Calumet

River at Hohman Avenue at Hammond (station number

05536357) was 44.9 ft3

/s for water years 1991-99

(Stewart and others, 2000, p. 234). The record at this

station was rated poor.

Study Methods

This section describes the methods used to estimate chemical loads from ground water to eight

reaches of the Grand Calumet River, Indiana Harbor

Canal, and the Lake George Arm of the Indiana Harbor

Canal. This section also describes the ground-waterflow model used to estimate the ground-water flux to

surface water for each of the defined reaches, the selection of ground-water wells and water-quality data, and

the constituents of interest.

Selection of River Reaches

Eight reaches were selected by the USACE for

determination of chemical loads from ground water.

Three reaches were on the east branch of the Grand

Calumet River, and two reaches were on the west

branch of the Grand Calumet River (fig. 2). Two

reaches were selected on the Indiana Harbor Canal.

The Lake George Arm of the Indiana Harbor Canal

also was defined as a reach. The river reaches were

selected to coincide with river reaches in the surfacewater models used by the USACE for the TMDL determinations. The locations of wells sampled for water

quality in previous studies by the USGS also were a

factor in selecting some of the river reaches.

Selection of Wells

Wells used for this study (fig. 3) were installed

either during 1985 or 1987 as part of a study to describe

the geohydrology and water quality of the Calumet

aquifer (Fenelon and Watson, 1993), or as part of a

study conducted in 1993 to describe the ground-water

quality in the Calumet region (Duwelius and others,

1996). The direction of ground-water flow in relation to

the wells and the river was determined from a comprehensive map of water levels measured in 525 wells and

at 34 surface-water sites during a synoptic water-level

survey of northwestern Indiana and northeastern Illinois conducted during June 23-25, 1992 (Kay and

others, 1996). Figure 3 shows the water-table altitude

and location of the observation wells used in the

current study. Directions of ground-water flow and (or)

proximity of the well to the river were used to assign

each well to one of the eight reaches.

All of the wells selected were within 0.5 mi of

the Grand Calumet River or Indiana Harbor Canal.

Table 1 lists well characteristics and the river reach to

which each well was assigned. Because changes in

ground-water quality can occur with distance along the

flow path, wells 0.5 mi or closer to the river were

believed to better represent the quality of ground water

entering the river than samples from wells greater than

0.5 mi away from the river. The wells ranged in depth

from 4 to 37 ft and were constructed with stainlesssteel screens and either stainless steel or polyvinyl

chloride casings. At three locations (B7-B8, D67-D68,

and D30-D31), two wells were installed within several

feet of each other and were screened at different depths

in the Calumet aquifer.

Selection of Water-Quality Constituents

The constituents of interest for this study were

selected by the USACE and were limited by analyses

completed for the previous studies. Constituents that

were measured in samples from each well are listed in

table 2. Constituents not listed as dissolved are total or

unfiltered measurements. Constituent concentrations

measured in samples collected from these wells were

published previously (Fenelon and Watson, 1993;

Duwelius and others, 1996). The constituents selected

by the USACE include trace elements, polychlorinated

biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, polynuclear aromatic

hydrocarbons, major ions, and general water-chemistry

properties. Not all constituents of interest to the

USACE were measured during the two previous

studies. Only constituents that were measured in the

previously published studies are discussed in this

report.


Study Methods 7

Table 1. Selected characteristics of observation wells and river reach assigned to the well used for the estimate of chemical loads fro

to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal, northwestern Indiana

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey;  ̊, degrees;  ́, minutes;  ́ ́, seconds; SS, stainless steel; PVC, polyvinyl chloride]

Well

name1

Assigned

river reach Latitude Longitude

USGS site

identification number

Land surface

altitude

(feet above

sea level)

Scre

inte

(feet 

land s

A3 A 41 ̊ 36 ́ 31 ́ ́ 87 ̊ 18 ́ 20 ́ ́ 413631087182000 590 3A4 A 41 ̊ 36 ́ 30 ́ ́ 87 ̊ 18 ́ 21 ́ ́ 413630087182100 603 18

A15 A 41 ̊ 36 ́ 17 ́ ́ 87 ̊ 19 ́ 12 ́ ́ 413617087191201 591 2

BH20 A 41 ̊ 36 ́ 15 ́ ́ 87 ̊ 20 ́ 13 ́ ́ 413615087201301 600 14BH12 A 41 ̊ 36 ́ 20 ́ ́ 87 ̊ 20 ́ 44 ́ ́ 413620087204401 601 10

B3 B 41 ̊ 36 ́ 33 ́ ́ 87 ̊ 22 ́ 20 ́ ́ 413633087222000 594 18B7 B 41 ̊ 36 ́ 17 ́ ́ 87 ̊ 22 ́ 52 ́ ́ 413617087225202 596 8B8 B 41 ̊ 36 ́ 17 ́ ́ 87 ̊ 22 ́ 52 ́ ́ 413617087225201 596 32B5 B 41 ̊ 36 ́ 32 ́ ́ 87 ̊ 23 ́ 40 ́ ́ 413632087234001 589 7

C10 C 41 ̊ 36 ́ 49 ́ ́ 87 ̊ 26 ́ 21 ́ ́ 413652087274901 584 1C12 C 41 ̊ 36 ́ 50 ́ ́ 87 ̊ 26 ́ 20 ́ ́ 413650087262000 584 13

D66 C 41 ̊ 36 ́ 54 ́ ́ 87 ̊ 27 ́ 40 ́ ́ 413654087274000 587 17D67 D 41 ̊ 36 ́ 47 ́ ́ 87 ̊ 28 ́ 25 ́ ́ 413647087282502 589 4D68 D 41 ̊ 36 ́ 47 ́ ́ 87 ̊ 28 ́ 25 ́ ́ 413647087282501 589 18

E10 E 41 ̊ 37 ́ 22 ́ ́ 87 ̊ 30 ́ 41 ́ ́ 413722087304101 586 6

D60 F 41 ̊ 37 ́ 58 ́ ́ 87 ̊ 28 ́ 10 ́ ́ 413758087281001 587 5D40 G 41 ̊ 38 ́ 35 ́ ́ 87 ̊ 28 ́ 51 ́ ́ 413835087245101 584 4

E1 G 41 ̊ 38 ́ 44 ́ ́ 87 ̊ 31 ́ 04 ́ ́ 413844087310401 582 5

D25 H 41 ̊ 39 ́ 09 ́ ́ 87 ̊ 28 ́ 03 ́ ́ 413804087291102 588 5D30 H 41 ̊ 39 ́ 07 ́ ́ 87 ̊ 27 ́ 58 ́ ́ 413758087290702 586 6D31 H 41 ̊ 39 ́ 07 ́ ́ 87 ̊ 27 ́ 58 ́ ́ 413907087275901 586 12

1Well names are those used in Fenelon and Watson (1993) and Duwelius and Kay (1996) and are not associated with the assigned river r
8 Estimate of Chemical Loads from Ground Water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal Table 2. Constituents of interest and wells from which samples were analyzed for each constituent used to estimate chemical loads 

Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal, northwestern Indiana Constituent Well name, by river reach A BC D EF 

Trace elements Mercury A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C12, D66 D67, D68 E10 D60 Aluminum (dissolved) A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C10, C12, D66 D67, D68 E10 D60 Iron (dissolved) A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C10, C12, D66 D67, D68 E10 No welLead (dissolved) A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C10, C12, D66 D67, D68 E10 D60 Manganese (dissolved) A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C10, C12, D66 D67, D68 E10 No welNickel (dissolved) A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C12 D67, D68 E10 No welArsenic (dissolved) A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C10, C12, D66 D67, D68 E10 D60 Barium (dissolved) A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C10, C12, D66 D67, D68 E10 No welCadmium (dissolved) A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C10, C12, D66 D67, D68 E10 D60 Chromium (dissolved) A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C10, C12, D66 D67, D68 E10 D60 Copper (dissolved) A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C10, C12, D66 D67, D68 E10 D60 Zinc (dissolved) A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C10, C12, D66 D67, D68 E10 D60 Selenium (dissolved) A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C12 D67, D68 E10 No welPolychlorinated biphenyls Aroclor 1260 A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C12 D67, D68 E10 No welAroclor 1254 A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C12 D67, D68 E10 No welAroclor 1232 A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C12 D67, D68 E10 No welAroclor 1248 A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C12 D67, D68 E10 No welAroclor 1016 A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C12 D67, D68 E10 No welAroclor 1242 A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C12 D67, D68 E10 No welPesticides Heptachlor epoxide A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C12 D67, D68 E10 No welEndosulfan sulfate A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C12 D67, D68 E10 No welAldrin A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C12 D67, D68 E10 No welalpha-BHC A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C12 D67, D68 E10 No welbeta-BHC A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C12 D67, D68 E10 No weldelta-BHC A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C12 D67, D68 E10 No welEndosulfan II A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C12 D67, D68 E10 No wel4,4'-DDT A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C12 D67, D68 E10 No wel
Study Methods 9

Pesticides—ContinuedEndrin ketone A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C12 D67, D68 E10 No welChlordane (technical) A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C12 D67, D68 E10 No welgamma-BHC (Lindane) A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C12 D67, D68 E10 No welDieldrin A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C12 D67, D68 E10 No welEndrin A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C12 D67, D68 E10 No welMethoxychlor A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C12 D67, D68 E10 No wel4,4'-DDD A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C12 D67, D68 E10 No wel4,4'-DDE A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C12 D67, D68 E10 No welEndrin aldehyde A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C12 D67, D68 E10 No welHeptachlor A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C12 D67, D68 E10 No welToxaphene A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C12 D67, D68 E10 No welEndosulfan I A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C12 D67, D68 E10 No welPolynuclear aromatic hydrocarbonsAnthracene A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C10, C12, D66 D67, D68 E10 D60 Pyrene A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C10, C12, D66 D67, D68 E10 D60 Benzo(ghi)perylene A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C10, C12, D66 D67, D68 E10 D60 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C10, C12, D66 D67, D68 E10 D60 Benzo(b)fluoranthene A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C10, C12, D66 D67, D68 E10 D60 Fluoranthene A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C10, C12, D66 D67, D68 E10 D60 Benzo(k)fluoranthene A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C10, C12, D66 D67, D68 E10 D60 Acenaphthylene A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C10, C12, D66 D67, D68 E10 D60 Chrysene A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C10, C12, D66 D67, D68 E10 D60 Benzo(a)pyrene A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C10, C12, D66 D67, D68 E10 D60 Benzo(a)anthracene A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C10, C12, D66 D67, D68 E10 D60 Acenaphthene A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C10, C12, D66 D67, D68 E10 D60 Phenanthrene A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C10, C12, D66 D67, D68 E10 D60 Fluorene A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C10, C12, D66 D67, D68 E10 D60 Naphthalene A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C10, C12, D66 D67, D68 E10 D60 

Table 2. Constituents of interest and wells from which samples were analyzed for each constituent used to estimate chemical loads Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal, northwestern Indiana—Continued

Constituent

Well name, by river reach

A BC D EF 
10 Estimate of Chemical Loads from Ground Water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal General chemistry Hardness as CaCO3 No well No well No well No well No well No wel

Total dissolved solids A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C10, C12, D66 D67, D68 E10 D60 Total suspended solids A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C12 D67, D68 E10 No welNitrate-Nitrite as N A3, A4 B3, B7, B8 C10 D67, D68 E10 No welChloride A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C10, C12, D66 D67, D68 E10 D60 Sulfate A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C10, C12, D66 D67, D68 E10 D60 Fluoride A3, A4 B3, B7, B8 C10, C12, D66 D67, D68 E10 D60 Total organic carbon A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C12 D67, D68 E10 No welTotal phenols A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C10, C12, D66 D67, D68 E10 D60 Ammonia as N A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C12 D67, D68 E10 No welOrthophosphate (dissolved) A3 B3, B7, B8 No well No well E10 No welAmmonia as N (dissolved) A3, A4 B3, B7, B8 C10 D67, D68 E10 No welDissolved oxygen A3, A4, A15,BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C10, C12, D66 D67, D68 E10 D60 Cyanide (dissolved) A3, A4, BH20, BH12 B3, B7, B8, B5 C10, C12 D67, D68 E10 D60 

Table 2. Constituents of interest and wells from which samples were analyzed for each constituent used to estimate chemical loads Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal, northwestern Indiana—Continued Constituent Well name, by river reach A BC D EF 
Chemical Loads to the Grand Calumet River and the Indiana Harbor Canal 11

Simulation of Ground-Water Flow

The ground-water-flow model used in this study

is described by Fenelon and Watson (1993). No modifications were made to the model for this study. The

model is a three-dimensional, finite-difference,

ground-water-flow model (McDonald and Harbaugh,

1988) and was used by Fenelon and Watson (1993) to

evaluate (1) recharge to the Calumet aquifer, (2) movement of water through the Calumet aquifer as a homogeneous aquifer, (3) flow of water between the bedrock

and the Calumet aquifer, (4) flow of water between the

Calumet aquifer and surface waters, and (5) discharge

of ground water to sewers and ditches. The model

simulated flow in one layer and was used to evaluate

only steady-state conditions.

Two model simulations were used by Fenelon

and Watson (1993) to estimate a water budget for the

Calumet aquifer. The first simulation assumed a horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 50 ft/d. The second

simulation assumed a horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 100 ft/d. These two simulations were selected

to bracket the probable rates of ground-water discharge

to the river and canal (Fenelon and Watson, 1993). For

both simulations, a vertical hydraulic conductivity of

1 ft/d was used for the riverbed. Simulated thickness of

the river bed ranged from 3 to 9 ft.

The flow of water between the aquifer and

surface waters—specifically the Grand Calumet River,

the Indiana Harbor Canal, and the Lake George Arm of

the Indiana Harbor Canal—were of interest for this

study. The Grand Calumet River, the Indiana Harbor

Canal, and the Lake George Arm of the Indiana Harbor

Canal were simulated by river nodes. Model node sizes

along the Grand Calumet River and the Indiana Harbor

Canal were either 1,000 by 1,000 ft, 1,000 by 2,000 ft,

or 2,000 by 2,000 ft. In each node, the river is assigned

a width and length, a water level, and a vertical

hydraulic conductivity and thickness of the riverbed.

The model calculates flow, or flux, to the river by use of

Darcy’s law and the gradient between the water-level in

the river and the adjacent ground-water level simulated

by the model. The ground-water flux for each reach

was computed as the sum of the fluxes for each of the

model nodes within the river reach. Figure 2 shows the

model nodes, the number assigned by the model to

each node, and the river reach to which each node was

assigned.

Computation of Chemical Loads

Chemical loads were computed by multiplying

the concentration of each constituent by the groundwater flux simulated by the ground-water-flow model.

For wells having samples in which selected constituents were measured more than once, chemical loads

were computed on the basis of only the most recently

measured constituent concentrations. When two wells

at the same location were screened at different depths

within the Calumet aquifer—wells B7 and B8, D67 and

D68, and D30 and D31—constituent concentrations

from the wells were averaged for that location. An

average constituent concentration was then computed

for all the well locations that contributed to each of the

eight reaches.

The average concentration was multiplied by the

two ground-water fluxes simulated for each river reach

by the ground-water-flow model (table 3) to obtain a

high and low (minimum and maximum) estimate of the

chemical load. A range for each chemical load was

computed for a specific flux if any of the wells contributing to a river reach had a measured constituent

concentration less than the method reporting limit. In

these cases, a minimum chemical load was computed

by substituting zero for the constituent concentration

and a maximum chemical load was computed by

substituting the method reporting limit for the concentration. If all of the measured constituent concentrations were greater than the method reporting limit, a

single value for the constituent load for that river reach

was computed for each of the two horizontal hydraulic

conductivities. Chemical loads are reported in kilograms per day.

Chemical Loads to the Grand Calumet River and

the Indiana Harbor Canal

The river reaches and the minimum and

maximum simulated ground-water fluxes are listed in

table 3. Ground-water fluxes ranged from 0.28 to 1.95

ft3/s for individual reaches when the horizontal

hydraulic conductivity of the Calumet aquifer was

simulated as 50 ft/d, and from 0.58 to 3.63 ft3

/s when

the horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the Calumet

aquifer was simulated as 100 ft/d.
12 Estimate of Chemical Loads from Ground Water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal

Tables 4 and 5 (at the back of this report) list the

average constituent concentrations and the estimated

chemical loads computed from the two horizontal

hydraulic conductivities for each of the eight reaches.

The largest loads of specific trace elements were for

dissolved iron, which had estimated loads ranging from

47.4 to 90.9 kg/d in river reach C. Iron exceeded 1 kg/d

in all of the other reaches, with the exception of reach

F, which had no data. Dissolved aluminum, barium,

and manganese were the only other trace elements that

had loads greater than 1 kg/d.

Most of the PCBs, pesticides, and the polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons measured in samples from

wells used for this study were reported at concentrations less than the method reporting limit, resulting in

small computed loads to the river, less than 0.1 kg/d.

For these constituents, the estimated maximum loads

are dependent on the method reporting limit and may

be overestimated based on the concentrations in the

limited data sets. PCB loads for each river reach were

less than 0.01 kg/d, with the exception of reach F,

which had no data. The largest load of pesticides was

that for toxaphene. Toxaphene loads of 0.038, 0.044,

and 0.040 kg/d were computed for a horizontal

hydraulic conductivity of 100 ft/d for reaches A, B, and

C, respectively. The loads for the polynuclear aromatic

hydrocarbons ranged from 0 to less than 0.1 kg/d;

however, these estimates are based on the method

reporting limit. All the concentrations of the polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons were reported at less than

the method reporting limit.

Total dissolved solids had the largest estimated

loads computed for any of the constituents. Total

dissolved solids loads ranged from a minimum of

239 kg/d for reach D to a maximum of 12,800 kg/d for

reach C. Chloride, sulfate, and dissolved ammonia

were the only other constituents which had maximum

estimated loads that exceeded 1,000 kg/d for an individual river reach. Total suspended solids was the only

other constituent that had maximum estimated loads

that exceeded 100 kg/d for an individual river reach.

The ammonia concentrations reported for well

A3 appear to be inconsistent. Fenelon and Watson

(1993) reported a value of 640 mg/L for dissolved

ammonia. Duwelius and others (1996) reported a value

of 90.3 mg/L for total ammonia. Lacking other data for

this well, the use of these reported concentrations

results in a larger load of dissolved ammonia to the

river compared to total ammonia. The discrepancy may

indicate that concentrations of ammonia in ground

water near well A3 are highly variable, or may be the

result of an error in sampling, analysis, or reporting.

Limitations of the Study

The estimates of chemical loads are subject to

several limitations, including those inherent in the

ground-water-flow model and those related to the availability, location, and consistency of ground-waterquality data. Ground-water-flow models are, at best,

simplifications of a real system. The model that

provided the flux of ground water to the river for this

study was described by Fenelon and Watson (1993,

p. 34) as not calibrated because of too many unknown

parameters. No changes were made to the model for

this study. To improve the ground-water-flow model,

additional information would be needed about the rates

and distribution of recharge, the distribution of

hydraulic conductivity in the aquifer and streambed,

and locations and flow rates of pumping wells and

leaking sewers. The limitations of the model are

described in more detail by Fenelon and Watson (1993,

p. 37). To account for some of the uncertainty in the

volume of ground water discharged to the stream, two

values of horizontal hydraulic conductivity were

assumed in the simulation to provide a range for the

estimates of loads.

Table 3. Simulated ground-water fluxes for the eight

reaches on the Grand Calumet River and the Indiana Harbor

Canal, northwestern Indiana

[ft3/s, cubic foot per second; ft/d, foot per day; EBGCR, East Branch of the

Grand Calumet River; WBGCR, West Branch of the Grand Calumet River;

IHC, Indiana Harbor Canal; LGAIHC, Lake George Arm of the Indiana

Harbor Canal

River

reach Location

Ground-water flux

(ft3/s)

Horizontal

hydraulic

conductivity of

the Calumet

aquifer

simulated as

50 ft/d

Horizontal

hydraulic

conductivity of

the Calumet

aquifer

simulated as

100 ft/d

A EBGCR 1.68 3.10

B EBGCR 1.95 3.63

C EBGCR 1.68 3.23

D WBGCR .39 .68

E WBGCR .28 .58

F IHC .45 .91

G LGAIHC .55 1.20

H IHC .50 .98
Summary 13

The ground-water-quality data also are limited,

not only in the number and location of sampled wells,

but also in consistency of constituents analyzed among

collected samples. No new wells were installed and no

new water-quality data were collected for this study.

The wells installed for previous investigations were not

situated to provide ground-water-quality data everywhere adjacent to the river, and none of the wells used

for this study were installed in known contaminated

areas, or drilled into known contaminated groundwater plumes. The number of wells available for each

of the selected river reaches ranged from one to six.

Data were not available from both sides of the river for

several of the reaches. The assumption that water

quality determined for samples from the wells is representative of the ground-water quality adjacent to the

river becomes more valid as the number of wells

sampled increases.

In addition, the wells used for this study were

limited by distance from the river. Because the loads

were estimated by multiplying the average constituent

concentration by the flux of ground water, the method

assumes no change in water quality between the well

and the river. Chemical constituents in ground water

are subject to several natural processes such as adsorption, volatilization, chemical mixing, and biodegradation, which can change the concentrations as the water

moves along the flow path. The effect on the estimates

of loads depends on the constituent. For example,

organic compounds such as pesticides are more likely

to degrade, resulting in a change in concentration, than

is chloride, which is considered stable. Wells were

selected for this study on the basis of their proximity to

the river to provide the shortest potential flow path to

the river.

Water quality also may change as the water

moves through the sediments in the streambed. Generally, the concentration of dissolved oxygen is much less

in ground water than in surface water. Constituents

dissolved in the ground water and prone to oxidation,

such as iron and other metals, may form oxides and

precipitate as the water moves from the ground water to

the river. This effectively lowers the constituent

concentration in the river below that of the ground

water. In these cases, the method used for this study

may overestimate the constituent load.

For constituents such as pesticides and PCB’s

that were reported as less than the method reporting

limit, the true concentrations in ground water are not

known. The constituent may not be present, or may be

present at any concentration below the reporting limit.

Two estimates of loads are provided, one assuming the

constituent is not present (zero concentration) and one

based on the reporting limit. This provides a range of

possible loads and increases the likelihood that the

actual load is somewhere within that range.

Summary

Data from two previous studies were used to

compute estimates of chemical loads from ground

water to the Grand Calumet River and the Indiana

Harbor Canal. The first study included a ground-waterflow model that was used to determine the groundwater flux to the Grand Calumet River and the Indiana

Harbor Canal; however, the model could not be calibrated because of uncertainties in several model

parameters. Loads were therefore computed using

fluxes resulting from two modeled horizontal hydraulic

conductivities of 50 and 100 ft/d in an attempt to

bracket the probably range of fluxes. Water-quality

data from 21 wells sampled in 1987-88 and (or) in 1993

were used in conjunction with the ground-water fluxes

to compute the loads.

The largest computed loads to the Grand

Calumet River and the Indiana Harbor Canal for any

river reach were from total dissolved solids, sulfate,

chloride, and dissolved ammonia as nitrogen. The estimated loads for total dissolved solids ranged from

239 kg/d to 12,800 kg/d. Dissolved iron had the largest

estimated loads for the trace elements. Iron exceeded

1 kg/d in all of the river reaches that data were available. The majority of the concentrations measured in

the 21 wells for PCBs, pesticides, and polynuclear

aromatic hydrocarbons were measured less than the

method reporting limit, resulting in small loads to the

river. Maximum loads estimated for the PCBs, pesticides, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons were

less than 0.1 kg/d.
14 Estimate of Chemical Loads from Ground Water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal

References Cited

Crawford, C.G., and Wangsness, D.J., 1987, Streamflow and

water quality of the Grand Calumet River, Lake County,

Indiana, and Cook County, Illinois, October 1984: U.S.

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations

Report 86-4208, 137 p.

Duwelius, R.F., Kay, R.T., and Prinos, S.T., 1996, Groundwater quality in the Calumet region of northwestern

Indiana and northeastern Illinois, June 1993: U.S Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report

95-4244, 179 p.

Fenelon, J.M., and Watson, L.R., 1993, Geohydrology and

water quality of the Calumet aquifer, in the vicinity of

the Grand Calumet River/Indiana Harbor Canal, northwestern Indiana: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 92-4115, 151 p.

Geosciences Research Associates, Inc., 1987, Remedial

investigation of Midwest Solvent Recovery, Inc.,

(Midco I), Gary, Indiana, public comment draft:

Unpublished report on file in Chicago at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, sections 1-4, (various

pagination).

Hartke, E.J., Hill, J.R., and Reshkin, Mark, 1975, Environmental geology of Lake and Porter Counties, Indiana—An aid to planning: Bloomington, Ind., Indiana

Geological Survey Special Report 11, 57 p.

Indiana Department of Environmental Management, 2000,

303(d) list, Access Indiana Informational Network,

from URL

http://www.state.in.us/idem/owm/planbr/wqs/303d.ht

ml, accessed December 12, 2000, HTML format.

International Joint Commission, 1978, Great Lakes water

quality agreement of 1978: signed November 22, 1989,

Ottawa, Canada. Available from World Wide Web:

http://www.ijc.org/agree/quality.html#agrm.

Kay, R.T., Duwelius, R.F., Brown, T.A., Micke, F.A., and

Witt-Smith, C.A., 1996, Geohydrology, water levels

and direction of flow, and occurrence of light-nonaqueous-phase liquids on ground water in northwestern

Indiana and the Lake Calumet Area of northeastern Illinois: U.S. Geological Water-Resources Investigations

Report 95-4253, 84 p.

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 WaterResources Investigations, book 6, chap. A1, 586 p.

Rosenshein, J.S., and Hunn, J.D., 1968, Geohydrology and

ground water potential of Lake County, Indiana: Indiana Department of Conservation, Division of Water

Resources Bulletin 31, 36 p.

Schneider, A.F., 1966, Physiography, in Lindsey, A.A., ed.,

Natural features of Indiana: Indianapolis, Ind., Indiana

Academy of Science, p. 40-56.

Stewart, J.A., Keeton, C.R., Hammil, L.E., Nguyen, H.T.,

and Majors, D.K, 2000, Water resources data Indiana

water year 1999: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data

Report IN-99-1, 386 p.

Watson, L.R., Shedlock, R.J., Banaszak, K.J., Arihood, L.D.,

and Doss, P.K., 1989, Preliminary analysis of the shallow ground-water system in the vicinity of the Grand

Calumet River/Indiana Harbor Canal, northwestern

Indiana: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report

88-492, 45 p.
Data Tables 15

DATA TABLES
16 Estimate of Chemical Loads from Ground Water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal
Data Tables 17

Table 4. Estimated chemical loads from ground water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal,

northwestern Indiana, computed using a horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 50 feet per day

[Minimum average concentration and minimum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting limit set

equal to zero; maximum average concentration and maximum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting

limit set equal to the reporting limit; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; kg/d, kilogram per day; μg/L, microgram per liter; mg/L, milligram per liter;

--, no load estimated; ND, no data]

Constituent

(in concentration units)

River

reach

Ground

water flux

(ft3/s)

Number of

analyses

used to

compute

averages

Minimum

average

concentration

Minimum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)

Maximum

average

concentration

Maximum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)

Trace elements

Mercury, in μg/L A 1.68 4 0.073 0.0003 0.120 0.0005

B 1.95 4 .073 .0003 .140 .0007

C 1.68 3 .210 .0009 .250 .0010

D .39 2 0 0 .100 .0001

E .28 1 .150 .0001 .150 .0001

F .45 1 .200 .0002 .200 .0002

G .55 2 0 0 .100 .0001

H .50 3 .100 .0001 .150 .0002

Aluminum (dissolved),

in μg/L

A 1.68 4 19.6 .080 30.0 .123

B 1.95 4 17.6 .084 28.0 .134

C 1.68 3 367 1.51 377 1.55

D .39 2 12.3 .012 22.7 .022

E .28 1 0 0 23.5 .016

F .45 1 0 0 10.0 .011

G .55 2 0 0 22.2 .030

H .50 3 33.4 .041 33.3 .040

Iron (dissolved), in μg/L A 1.68 4 875 3.59 878 3.60

B 1.95 4 6,150 29.4 6,150 29.4

C 1.68 3 11,500 47.4 11,500 47.4

D .39 2 1,270 1.22 1,270 1.22

E .28 1 3,480 2.40 3,480 2.40

F .45 0 ND -- ND --

G .55 2 8,660 11.7 8,660 11.7

H .50 3 15,000 18.2 15,000 18.2

Lead (dissolved), in μg/L A 1.68 4 1.03 .0042 1.30 .0053

B 1.95 4 2.30 .011 2.30 .011

C 1.68 3 67.1 .277 68.7 .283

D .39 2 .75 .0007 1.45 .0014

E .28 1 0 0 1.1 .0008

F .45 1 6.00 .0066 6.00 .0066

G .55 2 1.10 .0015 1.65 .0022

H .50 3 0 0 3.05 .0037
18 Estimate of Chemical Loads from Ground Water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal

Trace elements—Continued

Manganese (dissolved),

in μg/L

A 1.68 4 635 2.61 635 2.61

B 1.95 4 336 1.61 336 1.61

C 1.68 3 717 2.96 717 2.96

D .39 2 61.9 .060 61.9 .060

E .28 1 631 .434 631 .434

F .45 0 ND -- ND --

G .55 2 688 .93 688 .93

H .50 3 1,130 1.37 1,130 1.37

Nickel (dissolved), in μg/L A 1.68 4 0 0 5.40 .022

B 1.95 4 1.08 .0052 5.00 .024

C 1.68 1 0 0 4.70 .019

D .39 2 3.40 .0033 5.75 .0055

E .28 1 0 0 6.10 .0042

F .45 0 ND -- ND --

G .55 2 0 0 5.40 .007

H .50 1 0 0 6.10 .007

Arsenic (dissolved),

in μg/L

A 1.68 4 4.28 .018 5.12 .021

B 1.95 4 2.03 .010 4.28 .020

C 1.68 3 18.3 .075 19.2 .079

D .39 2 1.80 .0017 3.15 .0030

E .28 1 0 0 1.70 .0012

F .45 1 3.00 .0033 3.00 .0033

G .55 2 4.45 .006 5.80 .0078

H .50 3 15.3 .019 15.3 .019

Barium (dissolved), in

μg/L

A 1.68 4 34.9 .143 34.9 .143

B 1.95 4 301 1.44 301 1.44

C 1.68 3 227 .936 260 1.07

D .39 2 53.7 .052 53.7 .052

E .28 1 47.1 .032 47.1 .032

F .45 0 ND -- ND --

G .55 2 50.2 .068 50.2 .068

H .50 3 15.8 .019 65.8 .080

Table 4. Estimated chemical loads from ground water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal,

northwestern Indiana, computed using a horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 50 feet per day—Continued

[Minimum average concentration and minimum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting limit set

equal to zero; maximum average concentration and maximum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting

limit set equal to the reporting limit; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; kg/d, kilogram per day; μg/L, microgram per liter; mg/L, milligram per liter;

--, no load estimated; ND, no data]

Constituent

(in concentration units)

River

reach

Ground

water flux

(ft3/s)

Number of

analyses

used to

compute

averages

Minimum

average

concentration

Minimum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)

Maximum

average

concentration

Maximum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)
Data Tables 19

Trace elements—Continued

Cadmium (dissolved),

in μg/L

A 1.68 4 0 0 1.60 0.0066

B 1.95 4 0 0 1.50 .0072

C 1.68 3 0 0 4.17 .017

D .39 2 0 0 1.50 .0014

E .28 1 0 0 1.70 .0012

F .45 1 0 0 1 .0011

G .55 2 0 0 1.6 .0022

H .50 3 0 0 1.35 .0016

Chromium (dissolved),

in μg/L

A 1.68 4 0 0 5.45 .022

B 1.95 4 0 0 5.10 .024

C 1.68 3 13.3 .055 18.4 .076

D .39 2 3.95 .0038 6.50 .0063

E .28 1 0 0 5.80 .0040

F .45 1 20.0 .022 20.0 .022

G .55 2 0 0 5.45 .007

H .50 3 5.00 .006 7.90 .010

Copper (dissolved),

in μg/L

A 1.68 4 17.6 .072 19.7 .081

B 1.95 4 0 0 4.00 .019

C 1.68 3 23.7 .098 25.0 .103

D .39 2 0 0 4.00 .0039

E .28 1 0 0 4.20 .0029

F .45 1 0 0 1.00 .0011

G .55 2 0 0 4.10 .0055

H .50 3 0 0 2.60 .0032

Zinc (dissolved), in μg/L A 1.68 4 1.58 .0065 4.20 .017

B 1.95 4 0 0 3.70 .018

C 1.68 3 46.3 .191 47.6 .196

D .39 2 3.75 .0036 5.60 .0054

E .28 1 0 0 3.40 .0023

F .45 1 7.00 .008 7.00 .0077

G .55 2 0 0 3.55 .0048

H .50 3 5.00 .0061 6.70 .0081

Table 4. Estimated chemical loads from ground water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal,

northwestern Indiana, computed using a horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 50 feet per day—Continued

[Minimum average concentration and minimum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting limit set

equal to zero; maximum average concentration and maximum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting

limit set equal to the reporting limit; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; kg/d, kilogram per day; μg/L, microgram per liter; mg/L, milligram per liter;

--, no load estimated; ND, no data]

Constituent

(in concentration units)

River

reach

Ground

water flux

(ft3/s)

Number of

analyses

used to

compute

averages

Minimum

average

concentration

Minimum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)

Maximum

average

concentration

Maximum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)
20 Estimate of Chemical Loads from Ground Water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal

Trace elements—Continued

Selenium (dissolved),

in μg/L

A 1.68 4 1.38 0.0057 2.53 0.010

B 1.95 4 .800 .0038 3.88 .019

C 1.68 1 0 0 2.30 .009

D .39 2 0 0 3.70 .0036

E .28 1 0 0 2.30 .0016

F .45 0 ND -- ND --

G .55 2 0 0 2.90 .0039

H .50 1 0 0 2.30 .0028

Polychlorinated biphenyls

Aroclor 1260, in μg/L A 1.68 4 0 0 1.00 .0041

B 1.95 4 0 0 1.00 .0048

C 1.68 1 0 0 1.00 .0041

D .39 2 0 0 1.00 .0010

E .28 1 0 0 1.00 .0007

F .45 0 ND -- ND --

G .55 2 0 0 1.00 .0013

H .50 1 0 0 1.00 .0012

Aroclor 1254, in μg/L A 1.68 4 0 0 1.00 .0041

B 1.95 4 0 0 1.00 .0048

C 1.68 1 0 0 1.00 .0041

D .39 2 0 0 1.00 .0010

E .28 1 0 0 1.00 .0007

F .45 0 ND -- ND --

G .55 2 0 0 1.00 .0013

H .50 1 0 0 1.00 .0012

Aroclor 1232, in μg/L A 1.68 4 0 0 1.00 .0041

B 1.95 4 0 0 1.00 .0048

C 1.68 1 0 0 1.00 .0041

D .39 2 0 0 1.00 .0010

E .28 1 0 0 1.00 .0007

F .45 0 ND -- ND --

G .55 2 0 0 1.00 .0013

H .50 1 0 0 1.00 .0012

Table 4. Estimated chemical loads from ground water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal,

northwestern Indiana, computed using a horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 50 feet per day—Continued

[Minimum average concentration and minimum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting limit set

equal to zero; maximum average concentration and maximum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting

limit set equal to the reporting limit; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; kg/d, kilogram per day; μg/L, microgram per liter; mg/L, milligram per liter;

--, no load estimated; ND, no data]

Constituent

(in concentration units)

River

reach

Ground

water flux

(ft3/s)

Number of

analyses

used to

compute

averages

Minimum

average

concentration

Minimum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)

Maximum

average

concentration

Maximum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)
Data Tables 21

Polychlorinated biphenyls—Continued

Aroclor 1248, in μg/L A 1.68 4 0 0 1.00 0.0041

B 1.95 4 0 0 1.00 .0048

C 1.68 1 0 0 1.00 .0041

D .39 2 0 0 1.00 .0010

E .28 1 0 0 1.00 .0007

F .45 0 ND -- ND --

G .55 2 0 0 1.00 .0013

H .50 1 0 0 1.00 .0012

Aroclor 1016, in μg/L A 1.68 4 0 0 1.00 .0041

B 1.95 4 0 0 1.00 .0048

C 1.68 1 0 0 1.00 .0041

D .39 2 0 0 1.00 .0010

E .28 1 0 0 1.00 .0007

F .45 0 ND -- ND --

G .55 2 0 0 1.00 .0013

H .50 1 0 0 1.00 .0012

Aroclor 1242, in μg/L A 1.68 4 .250 .0010 1.00 .0041

B 1.95 4 0 0 1.00 .0048

C 1.68 1 0 0 1.00 .0041

D .39 2 0 0 1.00 .0010

E .28 1 0 0 1.00 .0007

F .45 0 ND -- ND --

G .55 2 0 0 1.00 .0013

H .50 1 0 0 1.00 .0012

Pesticides

Heptachlor epoxide,

in μg/L

A 1.68 4 0 0 .050 .0002

B 1.95 4 0 0 .050 .0002

C 1.68 1 0 0 .050 .0002

D .39 2 0 0 .050 .00005

E .28 1 0 0 .050 .00003

F .45 0 ND -- ND --

G .55 2 0 0 .050 .0001

H .50 1 0 0 .050 .0001

Table 4. Estimated chemical loads from ground water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal,

northwestern Indiana, computed using a horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 50 feet per day—Continued

[Minimum average concentration and minimum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting limit set

equal to zero; maximum average concentration and maximum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting

limit set equal to the reporting limit; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; kg/d, kilogram per day; μg/L, microgram per liter; mg/L, milligram per liter;

--, no load estimated; ND, no data]

Constituent

(in concentration units)

River

reach

Ground

water flux

(ft3/s)

Number of

analyses

used to

compute

averages

Minimum

average

concentration

Minimum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)

Maximum

average

concentration

Maximum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)
22 Estimate of Chemical Loads from Ground Water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal

Pesticides—Continued

Endosulfan sulfate, in μg/L A 1.68 4 0 0 0.100 0.0004

B 1.95 4 0 0 .100 .0005

C 1.68 1 0 0 .100 .0004

D .39 2 0 0 .100 .0001

E .28 1 0 0 .100 .0001

F .45 0 ND -- ND --

G .55 2 0 0 .100 .0001

H .50 1 0 0 .100 .0001

Aldrin, in μg/L A 1.68 4 0 0 .050 .0002

B 1.95 4 0 0 .050 .0002

C 1.68 1 0 0 .050 .0002

D .39 2 0 0 .050 .00005

E .28 1 0 0 .050 .00003

F .45 0 ND -- ND --

G .55 2 0 0 .050 .0001

H .50 1 0 0 .050 .0001

alpha-BHC, in μg/L A 1.68 4 0 0 .050 .0002

B 1.95 4 0 0 .050 .0002

C 1.68 1 0 0 .050 .0002

D .39 2 0 0 .050 .00005

E .28 1 0 0 .050 .00003

F .45 0 ND -- ND --

G .55 2 0 0 .050 .0001

H .50 1 0 0 .050 .0001

beta-BHC, in μg/L A 1.68 4 0 0 .050 .0002

B 1.95 4 0 0 .050 .0002

C 1.68 1 0 0 .050 .0002

D .39 2 0 0 .050 .00005

E .28 1 0 0 .050 .00003

F .45 0 ND -- ND --

G .55 2 0 0 .050 .0001

H .50 1 0 0 .050 .0001

Table 4. Estimated chemical loads from ground water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal,

northwestern Indiana, computed using a horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 50 feet per day—Continued

[Minimum average concentration and minimum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting limit set

equal to zero; maximum average concentration and maximum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting

limit set equal to the reporting limit; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; kg/d, kilogram per day; μg/L, microgram per liter; mg/L, milligram per liter;

--, no load estimated; ND, no data]

Constituent

(in concentration units)

River

reach

Ground

water flux

(ft3/s)

Number of

analyses

used to

compute

averages

Minimum

average

concentration

Minimum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)

Maximum

average

concentration

Maximum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)
Data Tables 23

Pesticides—Continued

delta-BHC, in μg/L A 1.68 4 0 0 0.050 0.0002

B 1.95 4 0 0 .050 .0002

C 1.68 1 0 0 .050 .0002

D .39 2 0 0 .050 .00005

E .28 1 0 0 .050 .00003

F .45 0 ND -- ND --

G .55 2 0 0 .050 .0001

H .50 1 0 0 .050 .0001

Endosulfan II, in μg/L A 1.68 4 0 0 .100 .0004

B 1.95 4 0 0 .100 .0005

C 1.68 1 0 0 .100 .0004

D .39 2 0 0 .100 .0001

E .28 1 0 0 .100 .0001

F .45 0 ND -- ND --

G .55 2 0 0 .100 .0001

H .50 1 0 0 .100 .0001

4,4'-DDT, in μg/L A 1.68 4 0 0 .100 .0004

B 1.95 4 0 0 .100 .0005

C 1.68 1 0 0 .100 .0004

D .39 2 0 0 .100 .0001

E .28 1 0 0 .100 .0001

F .45 0 ND -- ND --

G .55 2 0 0 .100 .0001

H .50 1 0 0 .100 .0001

Endrin ketone, in μg/L A 1.68 4 0 0 .100 .0004

B 1.95 4 0 0 .100 .0005

C 1.68 1 0 0 .100 .0004

D .39 2 0 0 .100 .0001

E .28 1 0 0 .100 .0001

F .45 0 ND -- ND --

G .55 2 0 0 .100 .0001

H .50 1 0 0 .100 .0001

Table 4. Estimated chemical loads from ground water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal,

northwestern Indiana, computed using a horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 50 feet per day—Continued

[Minimum average concentration and minimum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting limit set

equal to zero; maximum average concentration and maximum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting

limit set equal to the reporting limit; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; kg/d, kilogram per day; μg/L, microgram per liter; mg/L, milligram per liter;

--, no load estimated; ND, no data]

Constituent

(in concentration units)

River

reach

Ground

water flux

(ft3/s)

Number of

analyses

used to

compute

averages

Minimum

average

concentration

Minimum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)

Maximum

average

concentration

Maximum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)
24 Estimate of Chemical Loads from Ground Water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal

Pesticides—Continued

Chlordane (technical),

in μg/L

A 1.68 4 0 0 0.040 0.0002

B 1.95 4 0 0 .050 .0002

C 1.68 1 0 0 .050 .0002

D .39 2 0 0 .050 .00005

E .28 1 0 0 .050 .00003

F .45 0 ND -- ND --

G .55 2 0 0 .050 .0001

H .50 1 0 0 .050 .0001

gamma-BHC (Lindane),

in μg/L

A 1.68 4 0 0 .050 .0002

B 1.95 4 0 0 .050 .0002

C 1.68 1 0 0 .050 .0002

D .39 2 0 0 .050 .00005

E .28 1 0 0 .050 .00003

F .45 0 ND -- ND --

G .55 2 0 0 .050 .0001

H .50 1 0 0 .050 .0001

Dieldrin, in μg/L A 1.68 4 0 0 .100 .0004

B 1.95 4 0 0 .100 .0005

C 1.68 1 0 0 .100 .0004

D .39 2 0 0 .100 .0001

E .28 1 0 0 .100 .0001

F .45 0 ND -- ND --

G .55 2 0 0 .100 .0001

H .50 1 0 0 .100 .0001

Endrin, in μg/L A 1.68 4 0 0 .100 .0004

B 1.95 4 0 0 .100 .0005

C 1.68 1 0 0 .100 .0004

D .39 2 0 0 .100 .0001

E .28 1 0 0 .100 .0001

F .45 0 ND -- ND --

G .55 2 0 0 .100 .0001

H .50 1 0 0 .100 .0001

Table 4. Estimated chemical loads from ground water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal,

northwestern Indiana, computed using a horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 50 feet per day—Continued

[Minimum average concentration and minimum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting limit set

equal to zero; maximum average concentration and maximum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting

limit set equal to the reporting limit; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; kg/d, kilogram per day; μg/L, microgram per liter; mg/L, milligram per liter;

--, no load estimated; ND, no data]

Constituent

(in concentration units)

River

reach

Ground

water flux

(ft3/s)

Number of

analyses

used to

compute

averages

Minimum

average

concentration

Minimum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)

Maximum

average

concentration

Maximum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)
Data Tables 25

Pesticides—Continued

Methoxychlor, in μg/L A 1.68 4 0 0 0.500 0.0021

B 1.95 4 .010 .00005 .340 .0016

C 1.68 1 0 0 .500 .0021

D .39 2 0 0 .500 .0005

E .28 1 0 0 .500 .0003

F .45 0 ND -- ND --

G .55 2 0 0 .500 .001

H .50 1 0 0 .500 .001

4,4'-DDD, in μg/L A 1.68 4 0 0 .100 .0004

B 1.95 4 0 0 .100 .0005

C 1.68 1 0 0 .100 .0004

D .39 2 0 0 .100 .0001

E .28 1 0 0 .100 .0001

F .45 0 ND -- ND --

G .55 2 0 0 .100 .0001

H .50 1 0 0 .100 .0001

4,4'-DDE, in μg/L A 1.68 4 0 0 .100 .0004

B 1.95 4 0 0 .100 .0005

C 1.68 1 0 0 .100 .0004

D .39 2 0 0 .100 .0001

E .28 1 0 0 .100 .0001

F .45 0 ND -- ND --

G .55 2 0 0 .100 .0001

H .50 1 0 0 .100 .0001

Endrin aldehyde, in μg/L A 1.68 4 0 0 .100 .0004

B 1.95 4 .010 .00005 .060 .0003

C 1.68 1 0 0 .100 .0004

D .39 2 .010 .00001 .060 .0001

E .28 1 0 0 .100 .0001

F .45 0 ND -- ND --

G .55 2 0 0 .100 .0001

H .50 1 0 0 .100 .0001

Table 4. Estimated chemical loads from ground water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal,

northwestern Indiana, computed using a horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 50 feet per day—Continued

[Minimum average concentration and minimum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting limit set

equal to zero; maximum average concentration and maximum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting

limit set equal to the reporting limit; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; kg/d, kilogram per day; μg/L, microgram per liter; mg/L, milligram per liter;

--, no load estimated; ND, no data]

Constituent

(in concentration units)

River

reach

Ground

water flux

(ft3/s)

Number of

analyses

used to

compute

averages

Minimum

average

concentration

Minimum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)

Maximum

average

concentration

Maximum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)
26 Estimate of Chemical Loads from Ground Water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal

Pesticides—Continued

Heptachlor, in μg/L A 1.68 4 0 0 0.050 0.0002

B 1.95 4 0 0 .050 .0002

C 1.68 1 0 0 .050 .0002

D .39 2 0 0 .050 .00005

E .28 1 0 0 .050 .00003

F .45 0 ND -- ND --

G .55 2 0 0 .050 .0001

H .50 1 0 0 .050 .0001

Toxaphene, in μg/L A 1.68 4 0 0 5.00 .021

B 1.95 4 0 0 5.00 .024

C 1.68 1 0 0 5.00 .021

D .39 2 0 0 5.00 .0048

E .28 1 0 0 5.00 .0034

F .45 0 ND -- ND --

G .55 2 0 0 5.00 .007

H .50 1 0 0 5.00 .006

Endosulfan I, in μg/L A 1.68 4 0 0 .050 .0002

B 1.95 4 0 0 .050 .0002

C 1.68 1 0 0 .050 .0002

D .39 2 0 0 .050 .00005

E .28 1 0 0 .050 .00003

F .45 0 ND -- ND --

G .55 2 0 0 .050 .0001

H .50 1 0 0 .050 .0001

Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons

Anthracene, in μg/L A 1.68 4 0 0 10.0 .041

B 1.95 4 0 0 10.0 .048

C 1.68 3 0 0 6.67 .028

D .39 2 0 0 10.0 .010

E .28 1 0 0 10.0 .007

F .45 1 0 0 5.00 .006

G .55 2 0 0 10.0 .013

H .50 3 0 0 7.50 .009

Table 4. Estimated chemical loads from ground water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal,

northwestern Indiana, computed using a horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 50 feet per day—Continued

[Minimum average concentration and minimum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting limit set

equal to zero; maximum average concentration and maximum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting

limit set equal to the reporting limit; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; kg/d, kilogram per day; μg/L, microgram per liter; mg/L, milligram per liter;

--, no load estimated; ND, no data]

Constituent

(in concentration units)

River

reach

Ground

water flux

(ft3/s)

Number of

analyses

used to

compute

averages

Minimum

average

concentration

Minimum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)

Maximum

average

concentration

Maximum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)
Data Tables 27

Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons—Continued

Pyrene, in μg/L A 1.68 4 0 0 10.0 0.041

B 1.95 4 0 0 10.0 .048

C 1.68 3 0 0 6.67 .028

D .39 2 0 0 10.0 .010

E .28 1 0 0 10.0 .007

F .45 1 0 0 5.00 .006

G .55 2 0 0 10.0 .013

H .50 3 0 0 7.50 .009

Benzo(ghi)perylene,

in μg/L

A 1.68 4 0 0 10.0 .041

B 1.95 4 0 0 10.0 .048

C 1.68 3 0 0 10.0 .041

D .39 2 0 0 10.0 .010

E .28 1 0 0 10.0 .007

F .45 1 0 0 10.0 .011

G .55 2 0 0 10.0 .013

H .50 3 0 0 10.0 .012

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene,

in μg/L

A 1.68 4 0 0 10.0 .041

B 1.95 4 0 0 10.0 .048

C 1.68 3 0 0 10.0 .041

D .39 2 0 0 10.0 .010

E .28 1 0 0 10.0 .007

F .45 1 0 0 10.0 .011

G .55 2 0 0 10.0 .013

H .50 3 0 0 10.0 .012

Benzo(b)fluoranthene,

in μg/L

A 1.68 4 0 0 10.0 .041

B 1.95 4 0 0 10.0 .048

C 1.68 3 0 0 10.0 .041

D .39 2 0 0 10.0 .010

E .28 1 0 0 10.0 .007

F .45 1 0 0 10.0 .011

G .55 2 0 0 10.0 .013

H .50 3 0 0 10.0 .012

Table 4. Estimated chemical loads from ground water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal,

northwestern Indiana, computed using a horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 50 feet per day—Continued

[Minimum average concentration and minimum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting limit set

equal to zero; maximum average concentration and maximum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting

limit set equal to the reporting limit; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; kg/d, kilogram per day; μg/L, microgram per liter; mg/L, milligram per liter;

--, no load estimated; ND, no data]

Constituent

(in concentration units)

River

reach

Ground

water flux

(ft3/s)

Number of

analyses

used to

compute

averages

Minimum

average

concentration

Minimum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)

Maximum

average

concentration

Maximum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)
28 Estimate of Chemical Loads from Ground Water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal

Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons—Continued

Fluoranthene, in μg/L A 1.68 4 0 0 10.0 0.041

B 1.95 4 0 0 10.0 .048

C 1.68 3 0 0 6.67 .028

D .39 2 0 0 10.0 .010

E .28 1 0 0 10.0 .007

F .45 1 0 0 5.00 .006

G .55 2 0 0 10.0 .013

H .50 3 0 0 7.50 .009

Benzo(k)fluoranthene,

in μg/L

A 1.68 4 0 0 10.0 .041

B 1.95 4 0 0 10.0 .048

C 1.68 3 0 0 10.0 .041

D .39 2 0 0 10.0 .010

E .28 1 0 0 10.0 .007

F .45 1 0 0 10.0 .011

G .55 2 0 0 10.0 .013

H .50 3 0 0 10.0 .012

Acenaphthylene, in μg/L A 1.68 4 0 0 10.0 .041

B 1.95 4 0 0 10.0 .048

C 1.68 3 0 0 6.67 .028

D .39 2 0 0 10.0 .010

E .28 1 0 0 10.0 .007

F .45 1 0 0 5.00 .006

G .55 2 0 0 10.0 .013

H .50 3 0 0 7.50 .009

Chrysene, in μg/L A 1.68 4 0 0 10.0 .041

B 1.95 4 0 0 10.0 .048

C 1.68 3 0 0 10.0 .041

D .39 2 0 0 10.0 .010

E .28 1 0 0 10.0 .007

F .45 1 0 0 10.0 .011

G .55 2 0 0 10.0 .013

H .50 3 0 0 10.0 .012

Table 4. Estimated chemical loads from ground water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal,

northwestern Indiana, computed using a horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 50 feet per day—Continued

[Minimum average concentration and minimum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting limit set

equal to zero; maximum average concentration and maximum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting

limit set equal to the reporting limit; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; kg/d, kilogram per day; μg/L, microgram per liter; mg/L, milligram per liter;

--, no load estimated; ND, no data]

Constituent

(in concentration units)

River

reach

Ground

water flux

(ft3/s)

Number of

analyses

used to

compute

averages

Minimum

average

concentration

Minimum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)

Maximum

average

concentration

Maximum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)
Data Tables 29

Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons—Continued

Benzo(a)pyrene, in μg/L A 1.68 4 0 0 10.0 0.041

B 1.95 4 0 0 10.0 .048

C 1.68 3 0 0 10.0 .041

D .39 2 0 0 10.0 .010

E .28 1 0 0 10.0 .007

F .45 1 0 0 10.0 .011

G .55 2 0 0 10.0 .013

H .50 3 0 0 10.0 .012

Benzo(a)anthracene,

in μg/L

A 1.68 4 0 0 10.0 .041

B 1.95 4 0 0 10.0 .048

C 1.68 3 0 0 6.67 .028

D .39 2 0 0 10.0 .010

E .28 1 0 0 10.0 .007

F .45 1 0 0 5.00 .006

G .55 2 0 0 10.0 .013

H .50 3 0 0 10.0 .012

Acenaphthene, in μg/L A 1.68 4 0 0 10.0 .041

B 1.95 4 0 0 10.0 .048

C 1.68 3 0 0 6.67 .028

D .39 2 0 0 10.0 .010

E .28 1 0 0 10.0 .0069

F .45 1 0 0 5.00 .0055

G .55 2 0 0 10.0 .013

H .50 3 0 0 7.50 .0091

Phenanthrene, in μg/L A 1.68 4 0 0 10.0 .041

B 1.95 4 0 0 10.0 .048

C 1.68 3 0 0 6.67 .028

D .39 2 0 0 10.0 .010

E .28 1 0 0 10.0 .0069

F .45 1 0 0 5.00 .0055

G .55 2 0 0 10.0 .013

H .50 3 0 0 7.50 .0091

Table 4. Estimated chemical loads from ground water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal,

northwestern Indiana, computed using a horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 50 feet per day—Continued

[Minimum average concentration and minimum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting limit set

equal to zero; maximum average concentration and maximum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting

limit set equal to the reporting limit; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; kg/d, kilogram per day; μg/L, microgram per liter; mg/L, milligram per liter;

--, no load estimated; ND, no data]

Constituent

(in concentration units)

River

reach

Ground

water flux

(ft3/s)

Number of

analyses

used to

compute

averages

Minimum

average

concentration

Minimum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)

Maximum

average

concentration

Maximum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)
30 Estimate of Chemical Loads from Ground Water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal

Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons—Continued

Fluorene, in μg/L A 1.68 4 0 0 10.0 0.041

B 1.95 4 0 0 10.0 .048

C 1.68 3 0 0 6.67 .028

D .39 2 0 0 10.0 .010

E .28 1 0 0 10.0 .0069

F .45 1 0 0 5.00 .0055

G .55 2 0 0 10.0 .013

H .50 3 0 0 7.50 .0091

Naphthalene, in μg/L A 1.68 4 0 0 10.0 .041

B 1.95 4 0 0 10.0 .048

C 1.68 3 0 0 6.67 .028

D .39 2 0 0 10.0 .010

E .28 1 0 0 10.0 .007

F .45 1 0 0 5.00 .006

G .55 2 0 0 10.0 .013

H .50 3 0 0 7.50 .009

General chemistry

Hardness, as CaCO3,

in mg/L

A 1.68 0 ND -- ND --

B 1.95 0 ND -- ND --

C 1.68 0 ND -- ND --

D .39 0 ND -- ND --

E .28 0 ND -- ND --

F .45 0 ND -- ND --

G .55 1 .24 .32 .24 .32

H .50 0 ND -- ND --

Total dissolved solids,

in mg/L

A 1.68 4 621 2550 621 2,550

B 1.95 4 1,370 6,550 1,370 6,550

C 1.68 3 1,620 6,670 1,617 6,670

D .39 2 248 239 248 239

E .28 1 523 360 523 360

F .45 1 436 482 436 482

G .55 2 370 499 370 498

H .50 3 1,970 2,390 1,970 2,390

Table 4. Estimated chemical loads from ground water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal,

northwestern Indiana, computed using a horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 50 feet per day—Continued

[Minimum average concentration and minimum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting limit set

equal to zero; maximum average concentration and maximum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting

limit set equal to the reporting limit; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; kg/d, kilogram per day; μg/L, microgram per liter; mg/L, milligram per liter;

--, no load estimated; ND, no data]

Constituent

(in concentration units)

River

reach

Ground

water flux

(ft3/s)

Number of

analyses

used to

compute

averages

Minimum

average

concentration

Minimum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)

Maximum

average

concentration

Maximum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)
Data Tables 31

General chemistry—Continued

Total suspended solids,

in mg/L

A 1.68 4 8.62 35.4 10.1 41.5

B 1.95 4 16.92 80.9 17.4 83.3

C 1.68 1 28.0 115 28.0 115

D .39 2 3.50 3.37 5.00 4.82

E .28 1 18.5 12.7 18.5 12.7

F .45 0 ND -- ND --

G .55 2 22.9 30.8 24.4 32.8

H .50 1 214 260 214 260

Nitrate-nitrite, in mg/L A 1.68 2 1.30 5.33 1.30 5.33

B 1.95 3 .300 1.43 .310 1.48

C 1.68 1 .320 1.32 .320 1.32

D .39 2 2.00 1.93 2.00 1.93

E .28 1 0 0 .010 .0069

F .45 0 ND -- ND --

G .55 1 0 0 .010 .013

H .50 2 0 0 .010 .012

Chloride, in mg/L A 1.68 4 63.1 259 63.1 259

B 1.95 4 435 2,080 435 2,080

C 1.68 3 86.2 356 86.2 356

D .39 2 7.10 6.84 7.10 6.84

E .28 1 6.80 4.68 6.80 4.68

F .45 1 15.0 16.6 15.0 16.6

G .55 2 23.0 31.0 23.0 31.0

H .50 3 291 353 291 353

Sulfate, in mg/L A 1.68 4 194 797 194 797

B 1.95 4 48.7 233 48.7 233

C 1.68 3 504 2,080 504 2,080

D .39 2 44.5 42.9 47.0 45.3

E .28 1 28.0 19.3 28.0 19.3

F .45 1 35.0 38.7 35.0 38.7

G .55 2 203 273 203 273

H .50 3 930 1,130 1,860 2,260

Table 4. Estimated chemical loads from ground water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal,

northwestern Indiana, computed using a horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 50 feet per day—Continued

[Minimum average concentration and minimum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting limit set

equal to zero; maximum average concentration and maximum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting

limit set equal to the reporting limit; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; kg/d, kilogram per day; μg/L, microgram per liter; mg/L, milligram per liter;

--, no load estimated; ND, no data]

Constituent

(in concentration units)

River

reach

Ground

water flux

(ft3/s)

Number of

analyses

used to

compute

averages

Minimum

average

concentration

Minimum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)

Maximum

average

concentration

Maximum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)
32 Estimate of Chemical Loads from Ground Water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal

General chemistry—Continued

Fluoride, in mg/L A 1.68 2 5.35 22.0 5.35 22.0

B 1.95 3 .500 2.39 .500 2.39

C 1.68 3 2.20 9.07 2.20 9.07

D .39 2 .850 .819 .850 .819

E .28 1 .800 .551 .800 .551

F .45 1 2.30 2.54 2.30 2.54

G .55 1 1.00 1.35 1.00 1.35

H .50 2 1.60 1.94 1.60 1.94

Total organic carbon,

in mg/L

A 1.68 4 7.07 29.0 7.07 29.0

B 1.95 4 7.00 33.5 7.00 33.5

C 1.68 1 8.70 35.9 8.70 35.9

D .39 2 3.65 3.52 3.65 3.52

E .28 1 9.10 6.26 9.10 6.26

F .45 0 ND -- ND --

G .55 2 15.2 20.5 15.2 20.5

H .50 1 24.4 58.6 24.4 29.6

Total phenols, in mg/L A 1.68 4 0 0 .010 .041

B 1.95 4 0 0 .010 .048

C 1.68 3 .0054 .022 .0090 .037

D .39 2 0 0 .010 .0096

E .28 1 0 0 .010 .0069

F .45 1 .0030 .0033 .0030 .0033

G .55 2 0 0 .010 .013

H .50 3 .0015 .0018 .0065 .0079

Ammonia as N, in mg/L A 1.68 4 22.7 92.9 22.7 93.1

B 1.95 4 1.73 8.27 1.73 8.27

C 1.68 1 2.20 9.07 2.20 9.07

D .39 2 .150 .145 .150 .145

E .28 1 1.94 1.34 1.94 1.34

F .45 0 ND -- ND --

G .55 2 .320 .431 .370 .499

H .50 0 ND -- ND --

Table 4. Estimated chemical loads from ground water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal,

northwestern Indiana, computed using a horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 50 feet per day—Continued

[Minimum average concentration and minimum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting limit set

equal to zero; maximum average concentration and maximum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting

limit set equal to the reporting limit; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; kg/d, kilogram per day; μg/L, microgram per liter; mg/L, milligram per liter;

--, no load estimated; ND, no data]

Constituent

(in concentration units)

River

reach

Ground

water flux

(ft3/s)

Number of

analyses

used to

compute

averages

Minimum

average

concentration

Minimum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)

Maximum

average

concentration

Maximum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)
Data Tables 33

General chemistry—Continued

Orthophosphate

(dissolved), in mg/L

A 1.68 1 0.460 1.89 0.460 1.89

B 1.95 3 .250 1.20 .250 1.20

C 1.68 0 ND -- ND --

D .39 0 ND -- ND --

E .28 1 .060 .041 .060 .041

F .45 0 ND -- ND --

G .55 0 ND -- ND --

H .50 0 ND -- ND --

Ammonia as N

(dissolved), in mg/L

A 1.68 3 320 1,310 320 1,310

B 1.95 2 3.01 14.4 3.01 14.4

C 1.68 1 .160 .660 .160 .660

D .39 2 .010 .0096 .010 .0096

E .28 1 1.70 1.17 1.70 1.17

F .45 0 ND -- ND --

G .55 1 .870 1.17 .870 1.17

H .50 2 .820 .996 .820 .996

Dissolved oxygen, in mg/L A 1.68 5 2.22 9.11 2.22 9.11

B 1.95 4 1.67 7.99 1.67 7.99

C 1.68 3 .230 .948 .230 .948

D .39 2 .950 .916 .950 .916

E .28 1 1.00 .688 1.00 .688

F .45 1 .800 .884 .800 .884

G .55 2 .300 .404 .300 .404

H .50 3 .450 .547 .450 .547

Cyanide (dissolved)

in μg/L

A 1.68 4 7.85 .032 15.4 .063

B 1.95 4 11.0 .053 17.8 .085

C 1.68 2 0 0 5.01 .021

D .39 2 0 0 10.0 .0096

E .28 1 0 0 10.0 .0069

F .45 1 0 0 .01 .00001

G .55 2 0 0 10.0 .013

H .50 3 7.11 .0086 7.11 .0086

Table 4. Estimated chemical loads from ground water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal,

northwestern Indiana, computed using a horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 50 feet per day—Continued

[Minimum average concentration and minimum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting limit set

equal to zero; maximum average concentration and maximum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting

limit set equal to the reporting limit; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; kg/d, kilogram per day; μg/L, microgram per liter; mg/L, milligram per liter;

--, no load estimated; ND, no data]

Constituent

(in concentration units)

River

reach

Ground

water flux

(ft3/s)

Number of

analyses

used to

compute

averages

Minimum

average

concentration

Minimum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)

Maximum

average

concentration

Maximum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)
34 Estimate of Chemical Loads from Ground Water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal
Data Tables 35

Table 5. Estimated chemical loads from ground water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal,

northwestern Indiana, computed using a horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 100 feet per day

[Minimum average concentration and minimum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting limit set

equal to zero; maximum average concentration and maximum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting

limit set equal to the reporting limit; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; kg/d, kilogram per day; μg/L, microgram per liter; mg/L, milligram per liter;

--, no load estimated; ND, no data]

Constituent

(in concentration units)

River

reach

Ground

water flux

(ft3/s)

Number of

analyses

used to

compute

averages

Minimum

average

concentration

Minimum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)

Maximum

average

concentration

Maximum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)

Trace elements

Mercury, in μg/L A 3.10 4 0.073 0.0006 0.120 0.0009

B 3.63 4 .073 .0006 .140 .0012

C 3.23 3 .210 .0017 .250 .0020

D .68 2 0 0 .100 .0002

E .58 1 .150 .0002 .150 .0002

F .91 1 .200 .0004 .200 .0004

G 1.20 2 0 0 .100 .0003

H .98 3 .100 .0002 .150 .0004

Aluminum (dissolved),

in μg/L

A 3.10 4 19.6 .149 30.0 .228

B 3.63 4 17.6 .157 28.0 .249

C 3.23 3 367 2.90 377 2.98

D .68 2 12.3 .021 22.7 .038

E .58 1 0 0 23.5 .033

F .91 1 0 0 10.0 .022

G 1.20 2 0 0 22.2 .065

H .98 3 33.4 .080 33.3 .080

Iron (dissolved), in μg/L A 3.10 4 875 6.64 878 6.67

B 3.63 4 6,150 54.7 6,150 54.7

C 3.23 3 11,500 90.9 11,500 90.9

D .68 2 1,270 2.12 1,270 2.12

E .58 1 3,480 4.95 3,480 4.95

F .91 0 ND -- ND --

G 1.20 2 8,660 25.5 8,660 25.5

H .98 3 15,000 36.0 15,000 36.0

Lead (dissolved), in μg/L A 3.10 4 1.03 .0078 1.30 .0099

B 3.63 4 2.30 .020 2.30 .020

C 3.23 3 67.1 .530 68.7 .543

D .68 2 .75 .0013 1.45 .0024

E .58 1 0 0 1.1 .0016

F .91 1 6.00 .013 6.00 .013

G 1.20 2 1.10 .0032 1.65 .0049

H .98 3 0 0 3.05 .0073
36 Estimate of Chemical Loads from Ground Water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal

Trace elements—Continued

Manganese (dissolved),

in μg/L

A 3.10 4 635 4.82 635 4.82

B 3.63 4 336 2.99 336 2.99

C 3.23 3 717 5.67 717 5.67

D .68 2 61.9 .103 61.9 .103

E .58 1 631 .896 631 .896

F .91 0 ND -- ND --

G 1.20 2 688 2.03 688 2.03

H .98 3 1,130 2.71 1,130 2.71

Nickel (dissolved), in μg/L A 3.10 4 0 0 5.40 .041

B 3.63 4 1.08 .0096 5.00 .044

C 3.23 1 0 0 4.70 .037

D .68 2 3.40 .0057 5.75 .0096

E .58 1 0 0 6.10 .0087

F .91 0 ND -- ND --

G 1.20 2 0 0 5.40 .016

H .98 1 0 0 6.10 .015

Arsenic (dissolved),

in μg/L

A 3.10 4 4.28 .032 5.12 .039

B 3.63 4 2.03 .018 4.28 .038

C 3.23 3 18.3 .145 19.2 .152

D .68 2 1.80 .003 3.15 .0053

E .58 1 0 0 1.70 .0024

F .91 1 3.00 .0067 3.00 .0067

G 1.20 2 4.45 .013 5.80 .017

H .98 3 15.3 .037 15.3 .037

Barium (dissolved),

in μg/L

A 3.10 4 34.9 .265 34.9 .265

B 3.63 4 301 2.68 301 2.68

C 3.23 3 227 1.79 260 2.05

D .68 2 53.7 .090 53.7 .090

E .58 1 47.1 .067 47.1 .067

F .91 0 ND -- ND --

G 1.20 2 50.2 .148 50.2 .148

H .98 3 15.8 .038 65.8 .158

Table 5. Estimated chemical loads from ground water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal,

northwestern Indiana, computed using a horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 100 feet per day—Continued

[Minimum average concentration and minimum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting limit set

equal to zero; maximum average concentration and maximum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting

limit set equal to the reporting limit; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; kg/d, kilogram per day; μg/L, microgram per liter; mg/L, milligram per liter;

--, no load estimated; ND, no data]

Constituent

(in concentration units)

River

reach

Ground

water flux

(ft3/s)

Number of

analyses

used to

compute

averages

Minimum

average

concentration

Minimum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)

Maximum

average

concentration

Maximum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)
Data Tables 37

Trace elements—Continued

Cadmium (dissolved),

in μg/L

A 3.10 4 0 0 1.60 0.012

B 3.63 4 0 0 1.50 .013

C 3.23 3 0 0 4.17 .033

D .68 2 0 0 1.50 .0025

E .58 1 0 0 1.70 .0024

F .91 1 0 0 1 .0022

G 1.20 2 0 0 1.6 .0047

H .98 3 0 0 1.35 .0032

Chromium (dissolved),

in μg/L

A 3.10 4 0 0 5.45 .041

B 3.63 4 0 0 5.10 .045

C 3.23 3 13.3 .105 18.4 .145

D .68 2 3.95 .0066 6.50 .011

E .58 1 0 0 5.80 .0083

F .91 1 20.0 .045 20.0 .045

G 1.20 2 0 0 5.45 .016

H .98 3 5.00 .012 7.90 .019

Copper (dissolved),

in μg/L

A 3.10 4 17.6 .133 19.7 .149

B 3.63 4 0 0 4.00 .036

C 3.23 3 23.7 .187 25.0 .198

D .68 2 0 0 4.00 .0067

E .58 1 0 0 4.20 .0060

F .91 1 0 0 1.00 .0022

G 1.20 2 0 0 4.10 .012

H .98 3 0 0 2.60 .0062

Zinc (dissolved), in μg/L A 3.10 4 1.58 .012 4.20 .032

B 3.63 4 0 0 3.70 .033

C 3.23 3 46.3 .366 47.6 .376

D .68 2 3.75 .0063 5.60 .0094

E .58 1 0 0 3.40 .0048

F .91 1 7.00 .016 7.00 .016

G 1.20 2 0 0 3.55 .010

H .98 3 5.00 .012 6.70 .016

Table 5. Estimated chemical loads from ground water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal,

northwestern Indiana, computed using a horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 100 feet per day—Continued

[Minimum average concentration and minimum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting limit set

equal to zero; maximum average concentration and maximum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting

limit set equal to the reporting limit; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; kg/d, kilogram per day; μg/L, microgram per liter; mg/L, milligram per liter;

--, no load estimated; ND, no data]

Constituent

(in concentration units)

River

reach

Ground

water flux

(ft3/s)

Number of

analyses

used to

compute

averages

Minimum

average

concentration

Minimum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)

Maximum

average

concentration

Maximum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)
38 Estimate of Chemical Loads from Ground Water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal

Trace elements—Continued

Selenium (dissolved),

in μg/L

A 3.10 4 1.38 0.010 2.53 0.019

B 3.63 4 .800 .0071 3.88 .035

C 3.23 1 0 0 2.30 .018

D .68 2 0 0 3.70 .0062

E .58 1 0 0 2.30 .0033

F .91 0 ND -- ND --

G 1.20 2 0 0 2.90 .0085

H .98 1 0 0 2.30 .0055

Polychlorinated biphenyls

Aroclor 1260, in μg/L A 3.10 4 0 0 1.00 .0076

B 3.63 4 0 0 1.00 .0089

C 3.23 1 0 0 1.00 .0079

D .68 2 0 0 1.00 .0017

E .58 1 0 0 1.00 .0014

F .91 0 ND -- ND --

G 1.20 2 0 0 1.00 .0029

H .98 1 0 0 1.00 .0024

Aroclor 1254, in μg/L A 3.10 4 0 0 1.00 .0076

B 3.63 4 0 0 1.00 .0089

C 3.23 1 0 0 1.00 .0079

D .68 2 0 0 1.00 .0017

E .58 1 0 0 1.00 .0014

F .91 0 ND -- ND --

G 1.20 2 0 0 1.00 .0029

H .98 1 0 0 1.00 .0024

Aroclor 1232, in μg/L A 3.10 4 0 0 1.00 .0076

B 3.63 4 0 0 1.00 .0089

C 3.23 1 0 0 1.00 .0079

D .68 2 0 0 1.00 .0017

E .58 1 0 0 1.00 .0014

F .91 0 ND -- ND --

G 1.20 2 0 0 1.00 .0029

H .98 1 0 0 1.00 .0024

Table 5. Estimated chemical loads from ground water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal,

northwestern Indiana, computed using a horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 100 feet per day—Continued

[Minimum average concentration and minimum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting limit set

equal to zero; maximum average concentration and maximum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting

limit set equal to the reporting limit; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; kg/d, kilogram per day; μg/L, microgram per liter; mg/L, milligram per liter;

--, no load estimated; ND, no data]

Constituent

(in concentration units)

River

reach

Ground

water flux

(ft3/s)

Number of

analyses

used to

compute

averages

Minimum

average

concentration

Minimum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)

Maximum

average

concentration

Maximum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)
Data Tables 39

Polychlorinated biphenyls—Continued

Aroclor 1248, in μg/L A 3.10 4 0 0 1.00 0.0076

B 3.63 4 0 0 1.00 .0089

C 3.23 1 0 0 1.00 .0079

D .68 2 0 0 1.00 .0017

E .58 1 0 0 1.00 .0014

F .91 0 ND -- ND --

G 1.20 2 0 0 1.00 .0029

H .98 1 0 0 1.00 .0024

Aroclor 1016, in μg/L A 3.10 4 0 0 1.00 .0076

B 3.63 4 0 0 1.00 .0089

C 3.23 1 0 0 1.00 .0079

D .68 2 0 0 1.00 .0017

E .58 1 0 0 1.00 .0014

F .91 0 ND -- ND --

G 1.20 2 0 0 1.00 .0029

H .98 1 0 0 1.00 .0024

Aroclor 1242, in μg/L A 3.10 4 .250 .0019 1.00 .0076

B 3.63 4 0 0 1.00 .0089

C 3.23 1 0 0 1.00 .0079

D .68 2 0 0 1.00 .0017

E .58 1 0 0 1.00 .0014

F .91 0 ND -- ND --

G 1.20 2 0 0 1.00 .0029

H .98 1 0 0 1.00 .0024

Pesticides

Heptachlor epoxide,

in μg/L

A 3.10 4 0 0 .050 .0004

B 3.63 4 0 0 .050 .0004

C 3.23 1 0 0 .050 .0004

D .68 2 0 0 .050 .00008

E .58 1 0 0 .050 .00007

F .91 0 ND -- ND --

G 1.20 2 0 0 .050 .0001

H .98 1 0 0 .050 .0001

Table 5. Estimated chemical loads from ground water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal,

northwestern Indiana, computed using a horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 100 feet per day—Continued

[Minimum average concentration and minimum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting limit set

equal to zero; maximum average concentration and maximum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting

limit set equal to the reporting limit; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; kg/d, kilogram per day; μg/L, microgram per liter; mg/L, milligram per liter;

--, no load estimated; ND, no data]

Constituent

(in concentration units)

River

reach

Ground

water flux

(ft3/s)

Number of

analyses

used to

compute

averages

Minimum

average

concentration

Minimum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)

Maximum

average

concentration

Maximum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)
40 Estimate of Chemical Loads from Ground Water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal

Pesticides—Continued

Endosulfan sulfate,

in μg/L

A 3.10 4 0 0 0.100 0.0008

B 3.63 4 0 0 .100 .0009

C 3.23 1 0 0 .100 .0008

D .68 2 0 0 .100 .0002

E .58 1 0 0 .100 .0001

F .91 0 ND -- ND --

G 1.20 2 0 0 .100 .0003

H .98 1 0 0 .100 .0002

Aldrin, in μg/L A 3.10 4 0 0 .050 .0004

B 3.63 4 0 0 .050 .0004

C 3.23 1 0 0 .050 .0004

D .68 2 0 0 .050 .00008

E .58 1 0 0 .050 .00007

F .91 0 ND -- ND --

G 1.20 2 0 0 .050 .0001

H .98 1 0 0 .050 .0001

alpha-BHC, in μg/L A 3.10 4 0 0 .050 .0004

B 3.63 4 0 0 .050 .0004

C 3.23 1 0 0 .050 .0004

D .68 2 0 0 .050 .00008

E .58 1 0 0 .050 .00007

F .91 0 ND -- ND --

G 1.20 2 0 0 .050 .0001

H .98 1 0 0 .050 .0001

beta-BHC, in μg/L A 3.10 4 0 0 .050 .0004

B 3.63 4 0 0 .050 .0004

C 3.23 1 0 0 .050 .0004

D .68 2 0 0 .050 .00008

E .58 1 0 0 .050 .00007

F .91 0 ND -- ND --

G 1.20 2 0 0 .050 .0001

H .98 1 0 0 .050 .0001

Table 5. Estimated chemical loads from ground water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal,

northwestern Indiana, computed using a horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 100 feet per day—Continued

[Minimum average concentration and minimum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting limit set

equal to zero; maximum average concentration and maximum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting

limit set equal to the reporting limit; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; kg/d, kilogram per day; μg/L, microgram per liter; mg/L, milligram per liter;

--, no load estimated; ND, no data]

Constituent

(in concentration units)

River

reach

Ground

water flux

(ft3/s)

Number of

analyses

used to

compute

averages

Minimum

average

concentration

Minimum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)

Maximum

average

concentration

Maximum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)
Data Tables 41

Pesticides—Continued

delta-BHC, in μg/L A 3.10 4 0 0 0.050 0.0004

B 3.63 4 0 0 .050 .0004

C 3.23 1 0 0 .050 .0004

D .68 2 0 0 .050 .00008

E .58 1 0 0 .050 .00007

F .91 0 ND -- ND --

G 1.20 2 0 0 .050 .0001

H .98 1 0 0 .050 .0001

Endosulfan II, in μg/L A 3.10 4 0 0 .100 .0008

B 3.63 4 0 0 .100 .0009

C 3.23 1 0 0 .100 .0008

D .68 2 0 0 .100 .0002

E .58 1 0 0 .100 .0001

F .91 0 ND -- ND --

G 1.20 2 0 0 .100 .0003

H .98 1 0 0 .100 .0002

4,4'-DDT, in μg/L A 3.10 4 0 0 .100 .0008

B 3.63 4 0 0 .100 .0009

C 3.23 1 0 0 .100 .0008

D .68 2 0 0 .100 .0002

E .58 1 0 0 .100 .0001

F .91 0 ND -- ND --

G 1.20 2 0 0 .100 .0003

H .98 1 0 0 .100 .0002

Endrin ketone, in μg/L A 3.10 4 0 0 .100 .0008

B 3.63 4 0 0 .100 .0009

C 3.23 1 0 0 .100 .0008

D .68 2 0 0 .100 .0002

E .58 1 0 0 .100 .0001

F .91 0 ND -- ND --

G 1.20 2 0 0 .100 .0003

H .98 1 0 0 .100 .0002

Table 5. Estimated chemical loads from ground water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal,

northwestern Indiana, computed using a horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 100 feet per day—Continued

[Minimum average concentration and minimum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting limit set

equal to zero; maximum average concentration and maximum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting

limit set equal to the reporting limit; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; kg/d, kilogram per day; μg/L, microgram per liter; mg/L, milligram per liter;

--, no load estimated; ND, no data]

Constituent

(in concentration units)

River

reach

Ground

water flux

(ft3/s)

Number of

analyses

used to

compute

averages

Minimum

average

concentration

Minimum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)

Maximum

average

concentration

Maximum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)
42 Estimate of Chemical Loads from Ground Water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal

Pesticides—Continued

Chlordane (technical),

in μg/L

A 3.10 4 0 0 0.040 0.0003

B 3.63 4 0 0 .050 .0004

C 3.23 1 0 0 .050 .0004

D .68 2 0 0 .050 .00008

E .58 1 0 0 .050 .00007

F .91 0 ND -- ND --

G 1.20 2 0 0 .050 .0001

H .98 1 0 0 .050 .0001

gamma-BHC (Lindane),

in μg/L

A 3.10 4 0 0 .050 .0004

B 3.63 4 0 0 .050 .0004

C 3.23 1 0 0 .050 .0004

D .68 2 0 0 .050 .00008

E .58 1 0 0 .050 .00007

F .91 0 ND -- ND --

G 1.20 2 0 0 .050 .0001

H .98 1 0 0 .050 .0001

Dieldrin, in μg/L A 3.10 4 0 0 .100 .0008

B 3.63 4 0 0 .100 .0009

C 3.23 1 0 0 .100 .0008

D .68 2 0 0 .100 .0002

E .58 1 0 0 .100 .0001

F .91 0 ND -- ND --

G 1.20 2 0 0 .100 .0003

H .98 1 0 0 .100 .0002

Endrin, in μg/L A 3.10 4 0 0 .100 .0008

B 3.63 4 0 0 .100 .0009

C 3.23 1 0 0 .100 .0008

D .68 2 0 0 .100 .0002

E .58 1 0 0 .100 .0001

F .91 0 ND -- ND --

G 1.20 2 0 0 .100 .0003

H .98 1 0 0 .100 .0002

Table 5. Estimated chemical loads from ground water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal,

northwestern Indiana, computed using a horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 100 feet per day—Continued

[Minimum average concentration and minimum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting limit set

equal to zero; maximum average concentration and maximum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting

limit set equal to the reporting limit; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; kg/d, kilogram per day; μg/L, microgram per liter; mg/L, milligram per liter;

--, no load estimated; ND, no data]

Constituent

(in concentration units)

River

reach

Ground

water flux

(ft3/s)

Number of

analyses

used to

compute

averages

Minimum

average

concentration

Minimum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)

Maximum

average

concentration

Maximum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)
Data Tables 43

Pesticides—Continued

Methoxychlor, in μg/L A 3.10 4 0 0 0.500 0.0038

B 3.63 4 .010 .00009 .340 .0030

C 3.23 1 0 0 .500 .0040

D .68 2 0 0 .500 .0008

E .58 1 0 0 .500 .0007

F .91 0 ND -- ND --

G 1.20 2 0 0 .500 .001

H .98 1 0 0 .500 .001

4,4'-DDD, in μg/L A 3.10 4 0 0 .100 .0008

B 3.63 4 0 0 .100 .0009

C 3.23 1 0 0 .100 .0008

D .68 2 0 0 .100 .0002

E .58 1 0 0 .100 .0001

F .91 0 ND -- ND --

G 1.20 2 0 0 .100 .0003

H .98 1 0 0 .100 .0002

4,4'-DDE, in μg/L A 3.10 4 0 0 .100 .0008

B 3.63 4 0 0 .100 .0009

C 3.23 1 0 0 .100 .0008

D .68 2 0 0 .100 .0002

E .58 1 0 0 .100 .0001

F .91 0 ND -- ND --

G 1.20 2 0 0 .100 .0003

H .98 1 0 0 .100 .0002

Endrin aldehyde, in μg/L A 3.10 4 0 0 .100 .0008

B 3.63 4 .010 .00009 .060 .0005

C 3.23 1 0 0 .100 .0008

D .68 2 .010 .00002 .060 .0001

E .58 1 0 0 .100 .0001

F .91 0 ND -- ND --

G 1.20 2 0 0 .100 .0003

H .98 1 0 0 .100 .0002

Table 5. Estimated chemical loads from ground water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal,

northwestern Indiana, computed using a horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 100 feet per day—Continued

[Minimum average concentration and minimum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting limit set

equal to zero; maximum average concentration and maximum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting

limit set equal to the reporting limit; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; kg/d, kilogram per day; μg/L, microgram per liter; mg/L, milligram per liter;

--, no load estimated; ND, no data]

Constituent

(in concentration units)

River

reach

Ground

water flux

(ft3/s)

Number of

analyses

used to

compute

averages

Minimum

average

concentration

Minimum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)

Maximum

average

concentration

Maximum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)
44 Estimate of Chemical Loads from Ground Water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal

Pesticides—Continued

Heptachlor, in μg/L A 3.10 4 0 0 0.050 0.0004

B 3.63 4 0 0 .050 .0004

C 3.23 1 0 0 .050 .0004

D .68 2 0 0 .050 .00008

E .58 1 0 0 .050 .00007

F .91 0 ND -- ND --

G 1.20 2 0 0 .050 .0001

H .98 1 0 0 .050 .0001

Toxaphene, in μg/L A 3.10 4 0 0 5.00 .038

B 3.63 4 0 0 5.00 .044

C 3.23 1 0 0 5.00 .040

D .68 2 0 0 5.00 .0084

E .58 1 0 0 5.00 .0071

F .91 0 ND -- ND --

G 1.20 2 0 0 5.00 .015

H .98 1 0 0 5.00 .012

Endosulfan I, in μg/L A 3.10 4 0 0 .050 .0004

B 3.63 4 0 0 .050 .0004

C 3.23 1 0 0 .050 .0004

D .68 2 0 0 .050 .00008

E .58 1 0 0 .050 .00007

F .91 0 ND -- ND --

G 1.20 2 0 0 .050 .0001

H .98 1 0 0 .050 .0001

Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons

Anthracene, in μg/L A 3.10 4 0 0 10.0 .076

B 3.63 4 0 0 10.0 .089

C 3.23 3 0 0 6.67 .053

D .68 2 0 0 10.0 .017

E .58 1 0 0 10.0 .014

F .91 1 0 0 5.00 .011

G 1.20 2 0 0 10.0 .029

H .98 3 0 0 7.50 .018

Table 5. Estimated chemical loads from ground water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal,

northwestern Indiana, computed using a horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 100 feet per day—Continued

[Minimum average concentration and minimum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting limit set

equal to zero; maximum average concentration and maximum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting

limit set equal to the reporting limit; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; kg/d, kilogram per day; μg/L, microgram per liter; mg/L, milligram per liter;

--, no load estimated; ND, no data]

Constituent

(in concentration units)

River

reach

Ground

water flux

(ft3/s)

Number of

analyses

used to

compute

averages

Minimum

average

concentration

Minimum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)

Maximum

average

concentration

Maximum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)
Data Tables 45

Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons—Continued

Pyrene, in μg/L A 3.10 4 0 0 10.0 0.076

B 3.63 4 0 0 10.0 .089

C 3.23 3 0 0 6.67 .053

D .68 2 0 0 10.0 .017

E .58 1 0 0 10.0 .014

F .91 1 0 0 5.00 .011

G 1.20 2 0 0 10.0 .029

H .98 3 0 0 7.50 .018

Benzo(ghi)perylene,

in μg/L

A 3.10 4 0 0 10.0 .076

B 3.63 4 0 0 10.0 .089

C 3.23 3 0 0 10.0 .079

D .68 2 0 0 10.0 .017

E .58 1 0 0 10.0 .014

F .91 1 0 0 10.0 .022

G 1.20 2 0 0 10.0 .029

H .98 3 0 0 10.0 .024

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene,

in μg/L

A 3.10 4 0 0 10.0 .076

B 3.63 4 0 0 10.0 .089

C 3.23 3 0 0 10.0 .079

D .68 2 0 0 10.0 .017

E .58 1 0 0 10.0 .014

F .91 1 0 0 10.0 .022

G 1.20 2 0 0 10.0 .029

H .98 3 0 0 10.0 .024

Benzo(b)fluoranthene,

in μg/L

A 3.10 4 0 0 10.0 .076

B 3.63 4 0 0 10.0 .089

C 3.23 3 0 0 10.0 .079

D .68 2 0 0 10.0 .017

E .58 1 0 0 10.0 .014

F .91 1 0 0 10.0 .022

G 1.20 2 0 0 10.0 .029

H .98 3 0 0 10.0 .024

Table 5. Estimated chemical loads from ground water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal,

northwestern Indiana, computed using a horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 100 feet per day—Continued

[Minimum average concentration and minimum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting limit set

equal to zero; maximum average concentration and maximum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting

limit set equal to the reporting limit; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; kg/d, kilogram per day; μg/L, microgram per liter; mg/L, milligram per liter;

--, no load estimated; ND, no data]

Constituent

(in concentration units)

River

reach

Ground

water flux

(ft3/s)

Number of

analyses

used to

compute

averages

Minimum

average

concentration

Minimum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)

Maximum

average

concentration

Maximum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)
46 Estimate of Chemical Loads from Ground Water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal

Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons—Continued

Fluoranthene, in μg/L A 3.10 4 0 0 10.0 0.076

B 3.63 4 0 0 10.0 .089

C 3.23 3 0 0 6.67 .053

D .68 2 0 0 10.0 .017

E .58 1 0 0 10.0 .014

F .91 1 0 0 5.00 .011

G 1.20 2 0 0 10.0 .029

H .98 3 0 0 7.50 .018

Benzo(k)fluoranthene,

in μg/L

A 3.10 4 0 0 10.0 .076

B 3.63 4 0 0 10.0 .089

C 3.23 3 0 0 10.0 .079

D .68 2 0 0 10.0 .017

E .58 1 0 0 10.0 .014

F .91 1 0 0 10.0 .022

G 1.20 2 0 0 10.0 .029

H .98 3 0 0 10.0 .024

Acenaphthylene, in μg/L A 3.10 4 0 0 10.0 .076

B 3.63 4 0 0 10.0 .089

C 3.23 3 0 0 6.67 .053

D .68 2 0 0 10.0 .017

E .58 1 0 0 10.0 .014

F .91 1 0 0 5.00 .011

G 1.20 2 0 0 10.0 .029

H .98 3 0 0 7.50 .018

Chrysene, in μg/L A 3.10 4 0 0 10.0 .076

B 3.63 4 0 0 10.0 .089

C 3.23 3 0 0 10.0 .079

D .68 2 0 0 10.0 .017

E .58 1 0 0 10.0 .014

F .91 1 0 0 10.0 .022

G 1.20 2 0 0 10.0 .029

H .98 3 0 0 10.0 .024

Table 5. Estimated chemical loads from ground water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal,

northwestern Indiana, computed using a horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 100 feet per day—Continued

[Minimum average concentration and minimum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting limit set

equal to zero; maximum average concentration and maximum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting

limit set equal to the reporting limit; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; kg/d, kilogram per day; μg/L, microgram per liter; mg/L, milligram per liter;

--, no load estimated; ND, no data]

Constituent

(in concentration units)

River

reach

Ground

water flux

(ft3/s)

Number of

analyses

used to

compute

averages

Minimum

average

concentration

Minimum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)

Maximum

average

concentration

Maximum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)
Data Tables 47

Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons—Continued

Benzo(a)pyrene, in μg/L A 3.10 4 0 0 10.0 0.076

B 3.63 4 0 0 10.0 .089

C 3.23 3 0 0 10.0 .079

D .68 2 0 0 10.0 .017

E .58 1 0 0 10.0 .014

F .91 1 0 0 10.0 .022

G 1.20 2 0 0 10.0 .029

H .98 3 0 0 10.0 .024

Benzo(a)anthracene,

in μg/L

A 3.10 4 0 0 10.0 .076

B 3.63 4 0 0 10.0 .089

C 3.23 3 0 0 6.67 .053

D .68 2 0 0 10.0 .017

E .58 1 0 0 10.0 .014

F .91 1 0 0 5.00 .011

G 1.20 2 0 0 10.0 .029

H .98 3 0 0 10.0 .024

Acenaphthene, in μg/L A 3.10 4 0 0 10.0 .076

B 3.63 4 0 0 10.0 .089

C 3.23 3 0 0 6.67 .053

D .68 2 0 0 10.0 .017

E .58 1 0 0 10.0 .014

F .91 1 0 0 5.00 .011

G 1.20 2 0 0 10.0 .029

H .98 3 0 0 7.50 .018

Phenanthrene, in μg/L A 3.10 4 0 0 10.0 .076

B 3.63 4 0 0 10.0 .089

C 3.23 3 0 0 6.67 .053

D .68 2 0 0 10.0 .017

E .58 1 0 0 10.0 .014

F .91 1 0 0 5.00 .011

G 1.20 2 0 0 10.0 .029

H .98 3 0 0 7.50 .018

Table 5. Estimated chemical loads from ground water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal,

northwestern Indiana, computed using a horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 100 feet per day—Continued

[Minimum average concentration and minimum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting limit set

equal to zero; maximum average concentration and maximum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting

limit set equal to the reporting limit; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; kg/d, kilogram per day; μg/L, microgram per liter; mg/L, milligram per liter;

--, no load estimated; ND, no data]

Constituent

(in concentration units)

River

reach

Ground

water flux

(ft3/s)

Number of

analyses

used to

compute

averages

Minimum

average

concentration

Minimum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)

Maximum

average

concentration

Maximum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)
48 Estimate of Chemical Loads from Ground Water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal

Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons—Continued

Fluorene, in μg/L A 3.10 4 0 0 10.0 0.076

B 3.63 4 0 0 10.0 .089

C 3.23 3 0 0 6.67 .053

D .68 2 0 0 10.0 .017

E .58 1 0 0 10.0 .014

F .91 1 0 0 5.00 .011

G 1.20 2 0 0 10.0 .029

H .98 3 0 0 7.50 .018

Naphthalene, in μg/L A 3.10 4 0 0 10.0 .076

B 3.63 4 0 0 10.0 .089

C 3.23 3 0 0 6.67 .053

D .68 2 0 0 10.0 .017

E .58 1 0 0 10.0 .014

F .91 1 0 0 5.00 .011

G 1.20 2 0 0 10.0 .029

H .98 3 0 0 7.50 .018

General chemistry

Hardness, as CaCO3,

in mg/L

A 3.10 0 ND -- ND --

B 3.63 0 ND -- ND --

C 3.23 0 ND -- ND --

D .68 0 ND -- ND --

E .58 0 ND -- ND --

F .91 0 ND -- ND --

G 1.20 1 .240 .706 .240 .706

H .98 0 ND -- ND --

Total dissolved solids,

in mg/L

A 3.10 4 621 4,720 621 4,720

B 3.63 4 1,370 12,200 1,370 12,200

C 3.23 3 1,620 12,800 1,617 12,800

D .68 2 248 415 248 415

E .58 1 523 745 523 745

F .91 1 436 974 436 974

G 1.20 2 370 1090 370 1,090

H .98 3 1,970 4,730 1,970 4,730

Table 5. Estimated chemical loads from ground water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal,

northwestern Indiana, computed using a horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 100 feet per day—Continued

[Minimum average concentration and minimum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting limit set

equal to zero; maximum average concentration and maximum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting

limit set equal to the reporting limit; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; kg/d, kilogram per day; μg/L, microgram per liter; mg/L, milligram per liter;

--, no load estimated; ND, no data]

Constituent

(in concentration units)

River

reach

Ground

water flux

(ft3/s)

Number of

analyses

used to

compute

averages

Minimum

average

concentration

Minimum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)

Maximum

average

concentration

Maximum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)
Data Tables 49

General chemistry—Continued

Total suspended solids,

in mg/L

A 3.10 4 8.62 65.4 10.1 76.8

B 3.63 4 16.92 151 17.4 155

C 3.23 1 28.0 221 28.0 221

D .68 2 3.50 5.85 5.00 8.36

E .58 1 18.5 26.3 18.5 26.3

F .91 0 ND -- ND --

G 1.20 2 22.9 67.3 24.4 71.7

H .98 1 214 514 214 514

Nitrate-nitrite, in mg/L A 3.10 2 1.30 9.87 1.30 9.87

B 3.63 3 .300 2.67 .310 2.76

C 3.23 1 .320 2.53 .320 2.53

D .68 2 2.00 3.34 2.00 3.34

E .58 1 0 0 .010 .014

F .91 0 ND -- ND --

G 1.20 1 0 0 .010 .029

H .98 2 0 0 .010 .024

Chloride, in mg/L A 3.10 4 63.1 479 63.1 479

B 3.63 4 435 3,870 435 3,870

C 3.23 3 86.2 681 86.2 681

D .68 2 7.10 11.9 7.10 11.9

E .58 1 6.80 9.68 6.80 9.68

F .91 1 15.0 33.5 15.0 33.5

G 1.20 2 23.0 67.7 23.0 67.7

H .98 3 291 699 291 699

Sulfate, in mg/L A 3.10 4 194 1,470 194 1,470

B 3.63 4 48.7 433 48.7 433

C 3.23 3 504 3,980 504 3,980

D .68 2 44.5 74.4 47.0 78.6

E .58 1 28.0 39.9 28.0 39.9

F .91 1 35.0 78.2 35.0 78.2

G 1.20 2 203 597 203 597

H .98 3 930 2,230 1,860 4,460

Table 5. Estimated chemical loads from ground water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal,

northwestern Indiana, computed using a horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 100 feet per day—Continued

[Minimum average concentration and minimum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting limit set

equal to zero; maximum average concentration and maximum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting

limit set equal to the reporting limit; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; kg/d, kilogram per day; μg/L, microgram per liter; mg/L, milligram per liter;

--, no load estimated; ND, no data]

Constituent

(in concentration units)

River

reach

Ground

water flux

(ft3/s)

Number of

analyses

used to

compute

averages

Minimum

average

concentration

Minimum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)

Maximum

average

concentration

Maximum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)
50 Estimate of Chemical Loads from Ground Water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal

General chemistry—Continued

Fluoride, in mg/L A 3.10 2 5.35 40.6 5.35 40.6

B 3.63 3 .500 4.45 .500 4.45

C 3.23 3 2.20 17.4 2.20 17.4

D .68 2 .850 1.42 .850 1.42

E .58 1 .800 1.14 .800 1.14

F .91 1 2.30 5.14 2.30 5.14

G 1.20 1 1.00 2.94 1.00 2.94

H .98 2 1.60 3.84 1.60 3.84

Total organic carbon,

in mg/L

A 3.10 4 7.07 53.7 7.07 53.7

B 3.63 4 7.00 62.3 7.00 62.3

C 3.23 1 8.70 68.7 8.70 68.7

D .68 2 3.65 6.10 3.65 6.10

E .58 1 9.10 13.0 9.10 13.0

F .91 0 ND -- ND --

G 1.20 2 15.2 44.7 15.2 44.7

H .98 1 24.4 58.6 24.4 58.6

Total phenols, in mg/L A 3.10 4 0 0 .010 .076

B 3.63 4 0 0 .010 .089

C 3.23 3 .0054 .042 .0090 .071

D .68 2 0 0 .010 .017

E .58 1 0 0 .010 .014

F .91 1 .0030 .0067 .0030 .0067

G 1.20 2 0 0 .010 .029

H .98 3 .0015 .0036 .0065 .016

Ammonia as N, in mg/L A 3.10 4 22.7 172 22.7 172

B 3.63 4 1.73 15.4 1.73 15.4

C 3.23 1 2.20 17.4 2.20 17.4

D .68 2 .150 .251 .150 .251

E .58 1 1.94 2.76 1.94 2.76

F .91 0 ND -- ND --

G 1.20 2 .320 .942 .370 1.09

H .98 0 ND -- ND --

Table 5. Estimated chemical loads from ground water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal,

northwestern Indiana, computed using a horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 100 feet per day—Continued

[Minimum average concentration and minimum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting limit set

equal to zero; maximum average concentration and maximum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting

limit set equal to the reporting limit; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; kg/d, kilogram per day; μg/L, microgram per liter; mg/L, milligram per liter;

--, no load estimated; ND, no data]

Constituent

(in concentration units)

River

reach

Ground

water flux

(ft3/s)

Number of

analyses

used to

compute

averages

Minimum

average

concentration

Minimum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)

Maximum

average

concentration

Maximum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)
Data Tables 51

General chemistry—Continued

Orthophosphate

(dissolved), in mg/L

A 3.10 1 0.460 3.49 0.460 3.49

B 3.63 3 .250 2.22 .250 2.22

C 3.23 0 ND -- ND --

D .68 0 ND -- ND --

E .58 1 .060 .085 .060 .085

F .91 0 ND -- ND --

G 1.20 0 ND -- ND --

H .98 0 ND -- ND --

Ammonia as N

(dissolved), in mg/L

A 3.10 3 320 2,430 320 2,430

B 3.63 2 3.01 26.8 3.01 26.8

C 3.23 1 .160 1.26 .160 1.26

D .68 2 .010 .017 .010 .017

E .58 1 1.70 2.42 1.70 2.42

F .91 0 ND -- ND --

G 1.20 1 .870 2.56 .870 2.56

H .98 2 .820 1.97 .820 1.97

Dissolved oxygen, in mg/L A 3.10 5 2.22 16.9 2.22 16.9

B 3.63 4 1.67 14.9 1.67 14.9

C 3.23 3 .230 1.82 .230 1.82

D .68 2 .950 1.59 .950 1.59

E .58 1 1.00 1.42 1.00 1.42

F .91 1 .800 1.79 .800 1.79

G 1.20 2 .300 .883 .300 .883

H .98 3 .450 1.08 .450 1.08

Cyanide (dissolved),

in μg/L

A 3.10 4 7.85 .060 15.4 .117

B 3.63 4 11.0 .098 17.8 .158

C 3.23 2 0 0 5.01 .040

D .68 2 0 0 10.0 .017

E .58 1 0 0 10.0 .014

F .91 1 0 0 .0100 .00002

G 1.20 2 0 0 10.0 .029

H .98 3 7.11 .017 7.11 .017

Table 5. Estimated chemical loads from ground water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal,

northwestern Indiana, computed using a horizontal hydraulic conductivity of 100 feet per day—Continued

[Minimum average concentration and minimum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting limit set

equal to zero; maximum average concentration and maximum chemical load were computed from concentrations measured less than the method reporting

limit set equal to the reporting limit; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; kg/d, kilogram per day; μg/L, microgram per liter; mg/L, milligram per liter;

--, no load estimated; ND, no data]

Constituent

(in concentration units)

River

reach

Ground

water flux

(ft3/s)

Number of

analyses

used to

compute

averages

Minimum

average

concentration

Minimum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)

Maximum

average

concentration

Maximum

chemical

loading

(kg/d)
52 Estimate of Chemical Loads from Ground Water to the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal