e GA- 
 
e f\!~oo.G,4 
 
I 
 
 51 
 
 1'7 . 
 
e 
 
 
no. 
 
aiL\ 
 
I 
ASSESSME~T OF ENVI~ONMENTAL EFFECTS ASSOCIAifED WITH POTENTIAL AQUIFER STORAGE RECOVERY PROJECTS IN COASTAL 
GEORGIA 
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES I 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION I GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY I I I 
Atlanta 
2001 
PROJECT REPORT 44 
 
                                            
 
ASSESSMEfjjT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ASSOCIAifED WITH POTENTIAL AQUIFER 
STORAGE RECOVERY PROJECTS IN COASTAL GEORGIA 
Performed as parte' the Georgia Environmental Protection Division's . Interim Strategy t0 protect coastal Georgia from salt-water intrusion 
 
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES I Lonice C. Barrett, Commissioner 
 
. I 
 
. 
 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION 
 
Harold F. Reheis, Director . 
 
f3EORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY William H. Mclemore, State Geologist 
 
Atlanta 
2001 
PROJECT REPORT 44 
 
                                            
 
Reply To: Georgia Geologic Survey Room 400 19 Martin Luther King, Jr. Di. S.W . Atlanta, Georgia 30334 (404) 656-3214 
 
Georgia Department of Natural Resources 
205 Butler Street, S.E., East Floyd Tower, Atlanta, Georgia 30334 
Lonice C. Barrett , Commissioner 
Harold F. Reheis, Director Environmental Protection Division 
(404) 656-4713 
 
June 1, 2001 : 
To: Coastal Georgia Ground Water Stakeholders 
From: William H. MJemoreb<---- 
State Geologist 
 
Subject: Project Report 44; ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 
 
I 
 
ASSOCIATED WITH POTENTIAL AQUIFER STORAGE RECOVERY 
 
' 
 
I 
 
PROJECTS IN COASTAL GEORGIA 
 
This Project Report cohrains two separate reports (Appendices 1 and 2) dealing with the 
 
environmental impacts!that might be associated with aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) 
 
projects in coastal Georgia.. In this regard, two separate contractors were given the 
following identical mi~sion to assess the published and unpublished technical literature 
 
regarding the following issues, which have been raised by coastal Georgia stakeholders 
 
(i.e., identified as part! of a facilitated meeting sponsored by the Georgia Conservancy 
 
under contract to EPD and included in this Project Report as Appendix 3): 
 
 
 
"What happenl during aquifer storage and recovery (ASR)? That is, what 
 
happens to m4vement of stored water, quality of stored water and quality of 
 
natural water under ASR? What are the effects locally? What is the localized I 
movement? What are the effects across the full sphere of influence? How far 
 
does the spheri of influence extend? Others include: 
 
 
 
--effects bf mixing aerobic and anaerobic waters; 
 
 
 
-geochJmical effects on the aquifer itself(on the limestone formations); 
 
-effects lofprior treatment; and 
 
-mixing effects in general. 
 
In addition to the above, EPD requested the two contractors to also consider: . 
 
P~tentibz (1) 
 
for the introduction of regulated or radioactive (i.e., tritium) 
 
chemicals intd the subsurface, and in the event that such chemicals were 
introduc~d, thJ viability of successfully removing such chemicals and preventing 
 
them from bein1g introduced into a public drinking water system.  
 
: I 
(2) Potential impact upon wells belonging to other persons (i.e., loss of 
 
water) . 
 
(3) Other negative impacts. " 
 
  
 
The assessment of the above issues, which did not indude any field studies or 
measurements, w~s to bb summarized in a short report that would generally discuss actual 
and. perceived adv,erse JInvironmental impacts. Any actual environmental im.pacts would be documented and properly cited . 
 
The above work was lontracted to the firms of CH2MHill. (Appendix 1) and Golder 
 
I 
 
. 
 
Associates (Appendix 2). Both CH2MHill's and Golder's reports were peer reviewed by 
 
LAW Environmental ahd Engineering, Inc. and Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. LAW 
 
and Camp Dresser ancl McKee were further requested to render a technical opinion 
 
regarding: 
 
 
 
Are the~e any inherent adverse environmental impacts associated with 
 
ASR in coastal Georgia that could not be mitigated by competent and reasonable 
engineering de~ign and thus would preclude the siting and construction of such a 
 
facility . 
 
Before proceeding further, it is important to remember that ASR is regulated as part of Underground Injection/ Control (UIC), which_ is a federally delegated program from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The legal authority under which UIC rules are promulgited is the Georgia Water Quality Control Act (O.C.G.A. 12-5-20). In the spring of2001) Georgia's UIC rules were revised to achieve consistency with changes in EPA regul~tions. The revised rules, which became effective on April 26, 2001 are provided in .Aippendix 4. 
 
Georgia's UIC ll!les p1ovide: 
 
No person shaH operate an ASR in a manner that allows the movement of fluid 
 
containing any/ contaminant into any aquifer, if the presence of the contaminant 
 
may caus~ a vi0lation of drinking water standard. 
 
~SR Injected 
 
later shall be sited so that both the aquifer and nearby wells are not 
 
. contaminated./ [Note: Georgia's Ground-Water Management Plan further 
 
provides that such a siting study shall only be done by a Georgia P.E. or P.O.] 
pro~ulgated Injected ASR Later shall not contain. any. contaminate that exceeds. 
 
drinking : watet standard (i.e., the injected water must meet drinking water 
 
standards) . 
 
ASR shall not proceed without the owner first obtaining a permit from EPD; and the permit mal contain provisions for monitoring, testing, and reporting. 
 
Both CH2MHili and <Golder point out several potential impacts (i.e., reducing conditions in the aquifer, mobilization of metals, disinfection by-products, etc.); however, both firms also point out that lsuch impacts can be mitigated by proper siting, testing, and . modifications to design and/or operations.  
 
                                            
 
In their concluding remarks, CH2MHill states: 
"Experie~ce dLing the past 17 years with ASR development in other states has I 
shown that initial uncertainties, such as the questions posed in this memorandum I 
(the CH2MHill Assessment) are relatively normal....... Full confidence in the I 
applicability oj ASR technology in Georgia can only come from having at least one full. size ASR well constructed, tested, permitted and placed in operation. Until that timJ arrives, partial confidence can be achieved through literature reviews, studiks, investigations, modeling, and site visits to other nearby operating ASR sites utilizing the upper or lower zones of the Floridan Aquifer as a storage zone. " 
 
Similarly Golder concludes:   
 
"In summary, lsR has the potential to be a useful water resource management 
 
tool in .coastal Georgia. Some concerns have been identified, but no 
 
environmental impacts have been identified that could not potentially be 
 
mitigated. An active permit program administered by GAEPD could insure that 
 
pre-construction investigations, pilot testing, and ASR design, operation, and 
monitoring ar~ adequate to achieve the water resource management benefits 
 
while mitigatiAg envimnmental impacts. " 
 
perf~rmin~ Finally, in 
 
their peer reviews,. both LAW and Camp Dresser. and McKee 
 
could not identify any inherent adverse environmental impacts that would be associated 
 
with a properly desigrted and operated ASR system. 
 
-oOo- 
 
With the above in mind, EPD recommends that coastal Georgia stakeholders seriously consider ASR as an ehvironmentally sound approach to enhance the water supply options of region. 
 
  
 
APPENDIX 1 
 
                                            
 
CH2MHILL 5 0 Celebrating 
Years 
April 2; 2001 160843.GG.01 
 
~~ fo)rE @rr:a w(E~ 
!il APR 05 2001 
By 
 
CH2M HILL 3011 S.W. Williston Road Gainesville, FL . 32608-3928 Mailing address: P.O. Box 147009 Gainesville, FL 32614-7009 Tel 352.335.7991 Fax 352.335.2959 
 
Dr. William H. McLemore, State Geologist 
 
King Georgia Geological Sclvey  
 
. 
 
19, Martin Luther Drive, S.W., Room 400 
 
Atlanta, GA 30334 
 
Subject: Aquifer Storage Recovery'in Coastal Georgia 
 
Dear Dr. McLemore: 
 
CH2M HILL is pleasefi to submit our final report entitled "Assessment of Adverse 
 
Environmental Impacts Associated with Potential Aquifer Storage Recovery Projects in 
 
Coastal G.eorgia/' I . 
 
. . 
 
. 
 
 
 
We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to work with the Georgia Geological Survey on this 
 
F project and hope that :the report will prove to be helpful in addressing some of the questions 
that have been raised recent years_ regarding this technology. If we can assist further in 
 
any way, please' let us know. 
 
. . 
 
We would appreciate/receiving a copy of the broader report that you mentioned in oU:r last telephone conversation, for which this CH2M HILL report would be a part. 
 
Sincerely, 
 
{_/ 
 
$?12-Lj 
 
~vid;. Pyn~P~~ 
 
Bryan B. McDonald, f.G . 
! 
I 
 
                                            
 
Assessment of Adverse Environmental Impacts Associated with 
Po~ential Aquifer Storage Recovery Projects in 
Coastal Georg~a 
Prepared for Georgia Geological Survey 
by R. David G. Pyne, P.E. 
and Bryan B. McDonald, P.G. 
CH2M HILL, Inc. Gainesville, Florida 
April 2, 2001 
 
                                            
 
Assessment of Adverse Environmental Effects Associated with Potential Aquifer  Stfrage Recovery Projects in Coastal Georgia 
Prepared for the Environmental Protection Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources 
Prepared by R. David G. Pyne, P.E., and Bryan B. McDonald, P.G. 
CH2M HILL, Gainesville, Florida 
April2001 
 
Background 
 
As of April, 2001, at least 39 ASR projects are known to be operational and fully- 
permitted in the Uni~ed States. At least 50 more projects are estimated to be in various stages of dev~lopment, ranging from initial planning to already operational 
 
but not yet fully perdutted. These 39 projects are located in 14 states. Application of 
this water managem~nt technology has been fairly rapid; as recently as 1983 there 
were only 3 ASR projects nationally. ASR systems are also operational in Canada, 
 
England, Israel and Australia and are under development in several other countries. 
 
st~re Most ASR projects 
 
water in deep, confined aquifers, as has been proposed for 
 
coastal Georgia. Stotage zone depths range from as shallow as 200 feet to as deep as 2600 feet. Geologic cbnditions for the storage zones include sand, sandstone, clayey 
 
sand, limestone, doldmite, basalt and glacial drift deposits. Projects range from single wells with recbvery capacities of under one million gallons per day (MGD), to 
 
more than 30 wells J.ith combined recovery capacity exceeding 100 MGD. Storage 
 
volumes range from ~s small as about 10 million gallons (MG) to about 2.7 billion 
 
. 
 
I 
 
. 
 
gallons (BG). Most storage zones contain fresh water while some contain brackish 
 
,. 
 
wASaRtewr. e11s. 
 
are 
 
d'ff I t 1 er~n 
 
m  
 
both 
 
d estgn 
 
a.nd 
 
oper.ation 
 
fr o~ 
 
InJ ection 
 
we11s 
 
or 
 
. 
 
production wells. A?R wells are designed for storage and recovery of high quality 
 
water whereas injecqon wells are designed and operated for either recharge or 
 
disposal of water. ASR wells resolve the inherent operational drawbacks of single- 
purpose injection w~lls by equipping each well with a pump and operating it in a 
 
dual-purpose mode for both recharge and recovery. This approach to aquifer 
 
recharge typically o1ercomes the plugging associated with most injection wells, the 
hydraulic limitation~ associated with many surface recharge sites, and the large land area requirements o~ these sites. ASR wells are typically backflushed for a few 
minutes every few days to few weeks, to remove accumulated particulates from the 
well, thereby maint~ning long term recharge and recovery rates. Such particulates 
tend to plug injectio~ wells, which are not usually provided with a pump capable of b~ckflushing partic~lates to waste. Accordingly, injection wells require either an 
 
  
 
extremely transmissive injection zone, such as occurs in south Florida, or they 
require periodic exp~nsive redevelopment, as for the southern California salinity 
 
intrusion barriers in <Drange and Los Angeles counties during the past 40 years. 
o~ ASR systems meet a keat variety of needs. Most common is the storage water to 
 
meet seasonal, emergency or long-term needs during drought-flood cycles. Others include water quali~ improvement during storage, reduction or elimination of 
 
withdrawals from SUfface water sources during dry weather periods, salt water 
 
intrusion control, reducing water facility expansion costs, maintaining water 
 
I 
 
. 
 
distribution system flows or pressures, and about 20 other applications. Most ASR 
 
systems store treated! drinking water. However in recent years a growing number of 
 
ASR systems are stoting high quality reclaimed water; partially-treated, high quality 
 
surface water; or gro}mdwater from overlying or underlying aquifers, or from the  
 
same aquifer at a different location. 
 
v~lume Typically the same 
 
of water stored in an ASR well can be recovered. In 
 
some situations it mJy be possible to recover a greater volume than the amount 
 
recharged, relying upon mixing between the stored water and the surrounding 
 
native water in the aguifer to provide a blend of acceptable quality. In other 
situations, leaving a ~mall percentage of the stored water in the ground may be 
 
desirable to restore depleted groundwater reserves; to address concerns regarding 
potential geochemic~l plugging; to form or maintain a buffer zone between stored 
 
water and surroundfug brackish or poor quality native water; or to build up a  
 
reserve for future redovery during droughts, emergencies, or anticipated times of 
 
I higher demand. 
 
. 
 
 
 
ASR recovered watef usually requires no retreatment following recovery, other than 
 
disinfection for potaple uses. In a few situations, pH adjustment of the recovered 
 
water ot blending with high quality _water may also be-needed.. 
 
Aquife~ The Floridan 
 
underlies Florida and portions of Georgia and South Carolina. 
 
Within this area, nin~ ASR projects are operational and at least 30 more are in 
 
development. Of th~se nine operational projects, four are in locations where the 
 
native groundwater !in the aquifer is fresh while the remainder are in ~ocations 
 
w~ere it is brackish.! The closest ASR site to coastal Georgia is at Beaufort Jasper 
 
Water and Sewer Authority in South Carolina, immediately north of Savannah. This 
 
site has been in oper1ation for over a year and is being expanded to include two 
 
additional wells. I 
 
 
 
ASR P.roposed ApplIication in Coastal Georgia 
 
 . 
 
During the past few!years, ASR has been proposed for application in coastal 
 
Georgia, to meet public water supply needs and also to help reverse salt water 
 
intrusion. As showt;l in Figure 1, groundwater levels in the upper Floridan aquifer in coastal Georgia h~ve experienced significant declines during the past few  
 
decades, reflecting primarily industrial and urban water supply withdrawals in the 
 
I 
 
2 
 
                                            
 
Savannah area and u~'ban water supply withdrawals in the Brunswick area. Similar 
 
to many other areas a:long the Eastern Seaboard, salt water intrusion is occurring in 
 
the upper Floridan aquifer in coastal Georgia and adjacent portions of South  
 
Carolina. The occurr~nce of a large, regional"bowl" in the potentiometric surface of 
 
the upper Floridan aquifer, as shown on Figure 1, presents a good opportunity for 
 
aquifer recharge with' seasonally available water supplies.from various potential 
 
sources. Any water +charged would be unlikely to leave the region due to the 
 
configuration of the potentiometric surface. 0  
 
p~oposed ASR was originally 
 
for storage in the upper Floridan aquifer in coastal 
 
Georgia, reflecting re~onal water management needs and opportunities, and the 
 
minimal amount of ittformation available regarding hydraulic characteristics and 
 
water quality of the lbwer Floridan aquifer in this area. Subsequently attention has 
 
also focused on the pbtential for ASR storage in the lower Floridan aquifer. Field 
 
investigations are untlerway or planned that would provide further information to 
support a careful ass~ssment of which storage zone may be preferable. 
 
Several questions hate been raised regarding these ASR proposals. Following are the key questions, aslsummarized by the Georgia Geological Survey, and answers to each . 
 
(1) What happens during aquifer storage and recove,.Y (ASR)? That is, what 
happens to moveme~t of stored water and quality of natural water under ASR? 
 
What are the effects focally? What is the localized movement? What are the effects . 
 
across the full sphere of influence? How far does the sphere ofinfluence extend? 
 
Others include: I 
 
. 
 
eff.ects oI f mixing aerobic and anaerobic waters? 
 
Geoch~mical effects upon the aquifer itself (on the limestone 
 
formations) 
 
. 
 
Effects lof prior treatment, and 
M t.xt.ngIIe.JnJ.ects t.n ge. nera l. 
Aquifer storage recoyery is defined as the "storage of water in a suitable aquifer through a well durir\g times when it is most available, or when water quality is most suitable, and recovery from the same well when the water is needed, or when water quality from other squrces is unacceptable. During storage of water in an ASR well, a large bubble of stored water is created, displacing water in the aquifer around the well. Typically the bubble of stored water is sufficient in volume to meet a planned recovery duration, such as 90 days, at the rate available from that well, such as 2 million gallons per day (2 MGD) while meeting water quality criteria established for that well during rec<?very. 0 This is called the "stored water volume." It is perhaps 
 
3 
 
                                            
 
helpful to envision thl.s process as shown in Figure 2, which is a somewhat 
 
simplified version of the expected conditions underground during ASR operations. Figure 2 shows a typi~al ASR well in a confined artesian aquifer, as may be expected 
 
in coastal Georgia. , 
 
 
 
Surrounding the storEfd water volume is a buffer zone, which contains a mix of stored water and natiye groundwater. The volume required in the buffer zone depends upon several factors such as aquifer thickness, porosity, permeability, degree of confinement, regional hydraulic gradient, nativewater quality and recovery water qualitY criteria. If there is no real difference between recharge water quality and native gr?undwater quality, there may be no buffer zone volume required. Most ASR sites, however, require a buffer zone volume due to the presence of one or more water quality constituents that would otherwise require treatment of the recoyered water in order to meet drinking water quality standards. 
 
I 
The sum of the stored water volume and the buffer zone volume is called the 
 
"Target Storage Voluffie," or TSV. Experience at several operational ASR sites 
 
I 
 
 
 
suggests that, once the TSV is reached, subsequent ASR operations usually achieve 
 
full recovery of the W:ater stored after that time. Prior to achieving the TSV, less than 
 
full recovery may occur. The radial distance from the ASR well to the edge of the 
 
TSV depends upon tne thickness and bulk porosity of the aquifer, and the volume of water stored. Howe~er typical radial distances are a few hundred feet around each 
 
ASR well. Within the TSV, water quality will change during recharge and recovery. 
 
Figure 2 shows the stpred water volume, buffer zone volume, and the Target Storage 
 
Volume . 
 
Outside the TSV, na9ve groundwater quality is theoretically unchanged. The water may move slightly iti one direction during recharge and the opposite direction during recovery, however the quality of that water would not be changed as a result of ASR operations. J?uring a typical recharge and recovery cycle, such as one year, the net movement of:the native water surrounding an ASR well would be no different than if the ASR well did not exist, unless the ASR well is operated purposefully to leave water underground, such as for a salinity barrier, or to recover more water than is recharged, such as for a wellfield. 
 
Although water quality changes occur fairly close to an ASR well,pressure changes extend much further, creating a "sphere of influence" for ASR wells. Water level in adjacent wells may rise during recharge and decline during recovery at distances of up to a few thousand feet .from an ASR well. Table 1 indicates approximate changes in water levels in wells at distances of 100, 1000 and 10,000 feet from an ASR well recharging at an assumed rate of 2 MGD in the upper Floridan aquifer near Savannah. Assumed transmissivity is 30,000 ft2/ day, which is perhaps representative of the Savannah area. Actual transmissivities in coastal Georgia vary 
over a wide range, from less than 10,000 to more than 200,000 ft2 I day, so the 
drawdown estimates shown in Table 1 are approximate. Water level impacts 
 
4 
 
  
 
associated with ASR wellfields, instead of single wells, will be proportionately greater. 
 
Table 1 Distance Drawdown Impacts 
 
Radial Distance (ft) 
 
100 
 
Change in Water Level (ft) 
 
2.4 
 
1000 0.1 
 
10,000 
 
During a typical annual cycle of ASR operations, the net change in water level in  
 
adjacent wells will be about zero, unless the ASR well is used for multiple purposes, 
 
including salinity control. With salinity control operation, water levels would 
 
increase during recharge and decline during recovery, however recharge volume 
 
would exceed recovery volume, and therefore annual average change in regional 
 
water level would be positive. 
 
 
 
As described above and as shown in Figure 1, ASR operations proposed in coastal Georgia would superimpose any water level changes in adjacent wells upon an aquifer that has already experienced significant historic water level declines. An important criterion for engineering design and operation of ASR systems will be the appropriate selection of the well location and storage zone to be utilized, considering the high gradient occurring historically inthe upper Floridan aquifer and the consequent potentially high rate of lateral movement of stored water around an ASR well between the time of recharge and the time of recovery. Where the water quality difference between the stored water and the native groundwater is insignificant, any lateral movement of the storage bubble should also be insignificant. In the Savannah area, in particular, the configuration of the "bowl" in the potentiometric surface is such that no recharged water will flow out of the .regional system, except by pumping from other wells. 
 
As described above, Figure 2 is a somewhat simplistic version of what actually happens underground around an ASR well. In reality, the boundaries between the storage volume, the buffer zone volume and the surrounding native water in the aquifer are not that well defined, representing a gradation from one quality to the next. In fine-grained aquifers, such as sand or sandstone, this proposed "model" of the TSV is probably fairly accurate, whereas for karst limestone aquifers, the boundaries are more diffuse. For most purposes; however, this model is sufficient since it leads to workable initial estimates of the TSV required for new ASR sites.. These initial estimates are then adjusted during initial operations, as needed to achieve ASR objectives at each site. 
 
5 
 
  
 
The general framework described above is applicable for most ASR sites, particularly those storing treated drinking water in limestone aquifers, as proposed for coastal Georgia. It is most appropriate for conservative water quality constituents, such as chloride and total dissolved solids. It is less appropriate for non-conservative constituents, for which concentrations may change during ASR storage due to reaction processes other than simple mixing, dilution, diffusion and dispersion. Such non-conservative processes typically include geochemical and microbiological processes. ASR experience since 1983 in the United States has shown that ASR storage of treated drinking water is successful, such that nonconservative underground reactions are insignificant in most, but not all sites. Drinking water is disinfected so bacterial reactions underground tend to be limited. Furthermore, drinking water tends to be relative stable from a geochemical perspective, so subsurface geochemical reactions are usually minor, transitional and insignificant. When treated drinking water is stored in an ASR well, it usually meets drinking water standards during recovery, although disinfection is provided after recovery before the water is sent to the distribution system in order to meet regulatory public health requirements. At a few sites, pH adjustment of the recharge water or the recovered water is provided, in order to control potential reaction processes. 
~ffects of Mixing Aerobic and Anaerobic Waters 
Native water in aquifers used for ASR storage is usually, but not always, devoid of oxygen, reflecting bacterial and geochemical processes naturally occurring underground during movement from the location of recharge at an outcrop area to locations of discharge, such as production wells or natural discharge into the Atlantic Ocean. Typical travel times for this movement range from hundreds to thousands of years, or longer, during which oxygen: in the recharge water is consumed and.eventually converted to minerals in the aquifer, such as carbonate. 
When this water quality equilibrium is disturbed, such as through recharge in an ASR well, the composition of minerals and clays in the aquifer may tend to change, moving toward a new equilibrium through a variety of natural processes such as ion exchange, adsorption, desorption, solution and precipitation. These various processes have been the subject of extensive geochemical research to define the reaction pathways, reaction times, and end products. Modeis are now available, with varying degrees of complexity, to provide a reasonable basis for estimation of geochemical changes expected underground during ASR storage, the rate at which these changes occur, and the reactions that occur along this pathway. The models usually indicate the tendency of mixed waters, in the presence of certain minerals, to dissolve or precipitate clays or other minerals, depending upon the pH and the Eh of the various waters. Oxidation reduction ("Redox") potential, or ORP, are other 
6 
 
                                            
 
terms for Eh that are commonly used, depending upon the equipment used for measurement. 
Somewhat less well-defined are the bacterial changes occurring underground. Bacteria are naturally present in ASR storage zones, even at great depths. Addition of water containing oxygen, carbon, nutrients, or with other constituents different than native groundwater, can cause a change in bacterial metabolic activity that can raise or lower pH values in the stored water, thereby potentially triggering geochemical reactions. Similarly, geochemical changes can cause a shift in pH,  affecting microbial activity. 
Fine-grained ASR storage zones such as sands, sandstones and clayey sands tend to be more reactive than limestone, dolomite or basalt aquifers, which sometimes have greater pore space. ASR experience during the past 17 years in the United States has demonstrated the need for extensive coring and geochemical analysis to support successful development of ASR wells in new areas utilizing such fine-grained aquifers. Redox reactions in such aquifers can cause the precipitation of iron and the dissolution of manganese, if minerals containing these elements are present in the storage zone and if these reactions are allowed to occur in ASR wells. Successful experience has shown that such reactions can be controlled, such as through pH adjustment of the recharge water, so that recovered water does not contain iron or manganese at unacceptable concentrations, even from storage zones where iron and manganese are abundant.  
On the other hand, substantial experience in limestone aquifers has shown them to be relatively non-reactive. Other than water quality changes due to mixing and dispersion, recovery water quality has typically been similar to recharge water quality. Accordingly, ASR systems in limestone aquifers have received significantly less attention to changes in water quality associated with storing water from surface and groundwater sources that may or may not contain oxygen, in aquifers that do not contain oxygen. 
Recent experience has shown that limestone aquifers can be more reactive than previously understood. During the past two years, detailed investigations at two ASR sites under develop~ent in Florida, utilizing limestone aquifers for storage of treated drinking water, have shown that minerals occurring in the storage zone can release arsenic into the recovered water at elevated concentrations compared to either the recharge water or the native groundwater. Based upon these investigations, the following preliminary conclusions have been drawn: 
1. The occurrence of arsenic in therecovered water from ASR wells is a transitional phenomenon, most likely to occur at new ASR sites during cycle testing and initial operations. Through natural attenuation processes occurring in the aquifer, arsenic concentrations diminish with time, approaching background concentrations after four to eight operational cycles. 
7 
 
 ,. 
 
Concentrations also appear to diminish with distance from the ASR well and are probably contained within the stored water volume and certainly within the target storage volume surrounding an ASR well. Arsenic is absent in the recovered waters from long-term operating ASR systems at several Florida and South Carolina sites that have been checked to date. 
2. ASR systems utilizing groundwater sources are less likely to have a problem with arsenic 'in the recovered water during cycle testing and initial operations. ASR systems utilizing surface water sources are more likely to experience arsenic in the recovered water during cycle testing and initial operations, however such occurrence will attenuate with continuing operations . 
3. If arsenic is initially present in the recovered water from an ASR site at unacceptable concentrations, that geochemical process can be controlled .quickly and relatively inexpensively through a chemical feed into the recharge water. The arsenic naturally present in the aquifer will stay in the 
 
                         
 
aquifer and will not be dissolved out through successive storage and recovery operations so long as the chemical feed continues. 
4. It is possible to accelerate the process by which arsenic concentrations decline 
in the recovered water from an ASR well, through ini_tial control of pH and oxidation processes. At some sites this approach for managing As concentrations during the transition period may be worthwhile if options are available for blending and/or treatment of the recovered water in early cycles . 
5. Arsenic is present naturally in Floridan aquifer limestones and in natural groundwaters in the upper Floridan aquifer. It is one of the most common elements globally present in the environment. It is often associated with the presence of pyrite minerals and the occurrence of iron and manganese in natural groundwaters. For 17 years of ASR operations, and at eight operating sites to date in the Floridan aquifer, arsenic has not been a problem. However until recently it has not been studied intensively during initial cycle testing programs. Typically these programs have demonstrated that natural  groundwater, recharge water and recovered water at the end of the cycle testing programs, have complied with drinking water standards. Expensive coring and geochemical analyses in limestone ASR systems has typically not been implemented since there appeared to be no need. In other states with finer-grained aquifer systems, such coring and geochemical analysis is routine. As a result there is little information ori differences in pyrite concentrations, and other minerals that may contain arsenic, at different ASR locati<?ns in the Floridan aquifer. In the absence of such information, the potential for arsenic formation should be assumed to be roughly the same at different locations where the aquifer is present. 
B 
 
                                            
 
 6. Where it occurs, the generation of 'As appears to be primarily due to an oxidation-reduction reaction, reinforced by natural bacterial activity. underground. Groundwaters and other water sources with low Redox potential are less likely to dissolve arse~ic from aquifer min~rals that may be present. Surface waters tend to have higher dissolved oxygen concentrations and also higher concentrations of natural organics that can drive bacterial reactions underground, potentially altering pH and releasing any arsenic that may be present in the aquifer. As described above, such reactions are believed to be transitional and their rate and duration can be controlled, as needed to meet regulatory constraints. 
.Geochemical Effects on the Aquifer Itself (on the limestone formation) 
No significant geochemical effects on the aquifer have been noted at operating ASR sites to date. 
. At the first ASR site, in Manatee County, Florida, dissolution of the limestone was noted in the immediate vicinity of the well during initial cycle testing conducted prior to 1983. This manifested as a steady rise in the specific capacity of the well during both recharge and recovery of the initial test cycles. Specific capacity is a measure of the rate of water movement into or out of the well (gallons per minute), divided by the increase.or decrease in water level at the well (feet). Once the mechanism was understood and quantified, the source of water for recharge was changed so that the recharge water woul~ be treated drinking water, which is geochemically stable, rather than a more convenient piping location at the original ASR site, which was at the water treatment plant, that yielded water from an intermediate point in the process flow stream that was not.geochemically stable. The ManateeASR site is now expanding for the third.time, which reflects satisfactory ASR performance at that site. 
Temporary well plugging has been noted at most ASR sites, however this is a normal part of the operation and is usually resolved by periodic backflushing of the well to remove accumulated particulates in the well bore or the screen and gravel pack. Permanent plugging of the aquifer around the well, such as might occur from precipitation of calcium carbonate or ferric hydroxide, has been a source of concern at a few ASR sites where the potential for this to occur was evident, however to the best of our knowledge no such plugging has been noted. Aquifer performance tests have been conducted at a few sites, to compare aquifer hydraulic data before and after ASR operations. However such comparisons have not noted any significant differences. Plugging pot~ntial in limestone aquifers, such as those present in coastal Georgia, is less likely to be significant. Plugging potential is greater in ASR systems using fine-grained aquifers, which often require more frequent backflushing of ASR wells during normal operation. 
9 
 
                                            
 
Effects of Prior Treatment 
Water proposed for recharge into coastal Georgia ASR wells would meet state and federal drinking water standards. Treatment prior to recharge would depend upon the water source, however if it is assumed that this is a river such as the Savannah, Ogeechee or Altamaha rivers, then treatment might include a range of processes such as disinfection, chemical coagulation, precipitation and filtration. Other water sources, such as brackish aquifers, might include membrane treatment such as reverse osmosis. Microfiltration or ultrafiltration process_es may also be used to render the water suitable for drinking purposes or for ASR storage. 
To enhance the likelihood of ASR success, water treatment process design, ASR system design, and the design of connecting piping should be integrated into a single project so that the quality of water for recharge, and the quality of water produced during recovery, are compatible with water distribution-system needs and opportunities while also being compatible with aquifer mineralogy and native water quality. Where there is inadequate integration or coordination of treatment, transmission and recharge components, a higher risk exists that the ultimate plan may not work properly. 
In some situations, the quality of drinking water leaving the water treatment plant is not compatible with the materials of construction for the piping in the transmission or distribution system, creating corrosion problems. Corrosion reaction products . then can plug ASR wells during recharge in addition to arousing customer complaints regarding "red water" conditions. In other situation~, treatment processes may continue in the piping system, creating aluminum hydroxide floes or microbial masses, either of which can cause well plugging. Also, the geochemical and other constraints imposed by the aquifer mineralogy in the ASR storage zone may not be compatible with the quality of water available for recharge. These are not common problems, however they occur sufficiently often that they need to be considered at each ASR site. In such situations, further pretreatment of the recharge water may be required, in addition to, or instead of, more frequent backflushing of the ASR well. This may typically include filtration, sand separation or pH adjustment.  
As posed in the question above, "prior treatment" is assumed to include those supplemental processes that may be required in addition to treatment to meet drinking water standards. Prior treatment may therefore include supplemental filtration, sand separation or pH adjustment. Supplemental filtration has never been required for recharge of ASR wells in the Floridan aquifer storing treated drinking water. This reflects the high quality of th~ water source and the high permeability of the storage zone typically utilized for ASR storage. 
10 
 
                                            
 
Sand separation is sometimes required in areas utilizing sand and sandstone aquifers for production purposes, or for ASR storage, since sand may accumulate in distribution systems even though it is not present at significant concentrations in the water leaving the water treatment plant. During ASR recharge, flow direction in nearby portions of the water distribution system may reverse direction, flushing . sand deposits into the ASR well and contributing to well plugging. This is also not a problem for ASR systems utilizing the Floridan aquifer. 
pH adjustment of the recharge water is uncommon in drinking water ASR systems, occurring where needed to control mobilization of manganese and arsenic, or precipitation of ferric oxyhydroxide during ASR storage. pH adjustment tends to condition a portion of the aquifer in a short radial distance around an ASR well so that undesirable reactions are either controlled or do not occur~ Such reactions include control of iron precipitation as ferric oxyhydroxide, manganese solution, and also solution of arsenic. At the edge of this treatment zone, no change in pH would be anticipated. 
In a few states, laws or regulations have been implemented or are under consideration that call this short radial distance a "Zone of Discharge (ZOD)" or an "ASR Management Zone (AMZ)," within which natural subsurface treatment is allowed to occur. In the Netherlands, this practice has been utilized for over 50 years to treat the water supply for the City of Amsterdam. It is also practiced in Australia, to improve the quality of recharge water being stored in aquifers containing brackish water. In the United States such practice is probably consistent with federal law (1974 Safe Drinking Water Act) but may be inconsistent with the current interpretation of EPA regulations promulgated in 1981 pursuant to that law. 
Mixing Effects in General 
As described above, mixing effects occur within the target storage volume for an ASR well, which is usually within a radius of a few hundred feet. For very thin aqu~fers and large storage volumes, the TSV may extend to perhaps as far as 1000 to 2000ft radius, however that would be unusual. 
Mixing effects would include primarilydispersion but also diffusion. Dispersion would be advective, including movement downgradient away from the ASR well due to the slope of the potentiometric surface in the upper Floridan aquifer, as shown in Figure 1. Lateral dispersion would also occur around an ASR well, due to mixing between stored water and native groundwater during recharge and recovery operations. To put these into perspective, the diameter of a typical stored water bubble might be 1000 ft. During a typical si~ month period between the middle of recharge and the middle of recovery, this bubble might move downgradient about 100 ft due to the steep gradient of the potentiometric surface in the Savannah area. If the same volume of water stored is recovered, the quality of the water at the end 
11 
 
  
 
of recovery would represent a blend of recharge water and native groundwater in the aquifer. Fortunately in the Savannnah area, the two water qualities are probably similar so there would be no practical adverse effects due to mixing. However in other areas where the Floridan aquifer is brackish, this level of mixing may impact ASR operations by creating a situation where some of the stored water is lost every year. Where the value of stored water is high, this could be a substantial annual cost, perhaps necessitating selection of a different site in the same aquifer, or a different aquifer for storage. Fortunately such situations are rare for ASR wells. 
Diffusion would also occur, between the solution channels within the limestone, and the adjacent pores within the limestone. However, this "dual porosity" aspect of Floridan aquifer limestones is believed to be a relatively insignificant mechanism affecting quality of the recovered water during initial ASR tes~ng and operations. 
(2) Potential for introduction of regulated or radioactive (ie: tritium) chemicals into the subsurface, and in the event that if such chemicals are introduced, the viability of successfully removing such chemicals and preventing them from being introduced into a public drinking water d~stribution system. 
Water proposed for recharge into ASR wells .in coastal Georgia would probably be .from a public drinking water distribution system. Monitoring programs are already in place, or would be required, to protect public health and water quality. If any regulated or radioactive chemicals are in the drinking water, t;heir introduction into ASR wells may be considered a much smaller threat to public health than their direct consumption for public supply purposes. Many regulatory procedures are in place to ensure the high quality and reliability of water provided to the public for drinking purposes in Georgia. Since the continued availability of this valuable resource is threatened by salt water intrusion in some areas, ASR is a water management tool under consideration to enhance water supply reliability by helping to control salt water intrusion. 
Many barriers are available to protect public health and drinking water quality. In .the event of contamination of any surface water source, such as due to an accidental spill of contaminants, the water treatment plant intake could be shut down until the contaminants have passed by. Monitoring systems are in place on the Savannah River for this purpose, and others could be added if other rivers are developed for water supply purposes. A second barrier to protect public health is the water treatment plant, to the extent that treatment processes are capable of treating the contaminants of concern. A third barrier is that ASR recharge would probably only occur during high flow months of the year, so any source water contamination occurring at other times of the year would not lead to aquifer recharge of those contaminants able to pass through the water treatment plant. A fourth barrier is that contaminants able to pass through the water treatment plant processes would 
12 
 
  
 
tend to be non-reactive, traveling easily with the water. As a result they should be 
 
removable from an ASR well by pumping to waste a sufficient volume of water from 
 
the well so that concentrations of the contaminant are reduced to acceptable levels. 
 
Typically this might include pumping 1.5 to 2 times the volume of contaminated 
 
water introduced into the well. Assuming that any contaminant spill is detected 
 
within one day, recovery of at least 4 MG of stored water should resolve the 
 
problem. This would require about two days.A fifth barrier is that any portion of 
 
the contaminant remaining underground in the ASR well despite each of the first four barriers, would be subject to natural attenuation due to ~xing, geochemical 
 
and bacterial processes in the aquifer during storage, prior to recovery. The ASR 
 
well could be operated in more of a production well mode for ~ limited time period, 
 
such as recovering 120 percent of the recharge volume each year, thereby controlling 
 
movement of the contaminant toward adjacent wells and ensuring iliat all stored 
 
water is recovered from the ASR well. This water would not be sent into the public 
 
distribution system until testing indicates that it meets applicable water quality 
 
. 
 
I 
 
standards. 
 
 
 
The presence of tritium in water from the Savannah River is widely known. The Beaufort Jasper Water and Sewer Authority obtains its water supply from this river, and has maintained records of tritium levels for many years. tritium has a half-life of 13.4 years, so activity levels are declining. Typical tritium activity levels at the water treatment plant intake location on the Savannah River from July 1987 to June . ..1998 ranged from a maximum of 4460 picoCuries/litre (pCi/L) in January 1989 to a minimum of 111 pCi/L in April1993. The drinKing water standard for tritium is 20,000 pCi/L, so at no time did the acti':'ity level exceeded 25 percent of the standard during this monitoring period. Furthermore, a clear declining: trend in tritium concentrations is evident in the data from this period of record. 
 
Recharge water containing any tritium and entering an ASR Well will probably be 
 
recovered for direct potable use within a few months of storage. However any 
 
portion of the water remaining underground will tend to move toward a point of 
 
discharge, such as an adjacent well. Assuming subsurface moYement of between 35 
 
and 350 feet per year in coastal Georgia, due to the gradient of the potentiometric 
 
surface, the distance to an adjacent water supply well that would achieve a further 
 
half-life reduction of tritium activity would be 470 to 4,700 feet. This is provided 
 
only as a point of reference, since all such activity levels are consistent with drinking 
 
water standards. 
 
 
 
(3) Potential impact upon wells belonging to other persons (ie: loss of water) 
Potential impacts may include changes in water levels or changes in water quality, both of which have been discussed above. Careful siting of any ASR facility will ensure that no adverse effects result from ASR operations. 
 
13 
 
                                            
 
Changes in water levels will depend upon the intended use of an ASR system. Ifit is used only for seasonal water storage, water levels in adjacent wells will be unchanged on an annual average basis, however they will rise during recharge periods and fall during recovery periods. The amount of rise and fall will need to be determined on a site-specific basis, however Table 1 provides a preliminary estimate based upon representative data for the Savannah area. If the ASR system is intended for multiple uses, such asseasonal storage and also salt water intrusion control, then average water levels will tend to rise, offsetting the substantial decline that has occurred during the last few decades of heavy groundwater production. This would tend to reduce pumping costs for adjacent well owners. 
Changes in water quality are not expected outside the radius associated with the target storage volume for an ASR well. As described above, for a typical ASR well in the upper Floridan aquifer in the Savannah area, the radius of the TSV is estimated at approximately 2000 feet or less, associated with seasonal water storage operations. Adjacent wells located outside this radius would be unlikely to experience any change in water quality associated with seasonal storage operations. If much greater volumes are stored, or if storage durations are such that considerable advective transport of the stored water occurs, it is possible that adjacent wells located downgradient of the ASR well might experience a slight change in water quality, associated with blending treateq drinking water with the fresh water naturally occurring in the aquifer. 
(4) Other negative impacts 
We are aware of no other negative impacts upon groundwater quality, public health or the environment, associated with ASR operations at 39 sites around the United States. The principal driver for implementation at these sites has been the relatively low cost of meeting urban and ecosystem water needs with ASR technology, compared to other conventional options. Typically ASR can meet these needs at less than half the capital cost of other options. 
A very important secondary driver has been the perceived environmental benefits of ASR compared to other water storage technologies. In particular, ASR has been supported by many water management and regulatory agencies as a desirable approach that provides sustainable water supplies, reducing or eliminating the need for diverting water from rivers and lakes during dry periods, maintaining minimum flows and levels, and reducing or eliminating the need for construction and operation of surface storage reservoirs. 
Opposition to ASR has occurred at two locations that we are aware of. The first was in Kerrville, Texas, about five to eight years ago when whitewater kayaking recreational interests intervened legally to block efforts by the Upper Guadalupe River Authority to operate an ASR system that they had already constructed and 
14 
 
                                            
 
tested. Their opposition was based upon concern regarding diverting water from 
 
the river at high flow periods. After three court decisions in three years, that legal 
 
challenge was ended and the Kerrville ASR system is now in satisfactory operation, 
 
with expansion underway. The second area of legal opposition has been in coastal 
 
Georgia, which has been the subject of this brief report. 
 
' 
 
Other technical and regulatory issues have arisen on virtually all of the operating ASR sites, and have bee1,1 successfully resolved. Typically the first ASR system in each new state requires a lot of effort to resolve issues and que~tion5 that are raised. Once the first system is constructed and placed into operation, other systems usually follow rapidly to capitalize on the benefits and cost-savings of :ASR. 
 
Some more common water quantity issues have included whether or not water can be stored in wet periods and recovered in dry periods, as intended, or whether recharge and recovery should be constrained to occur within a calendar year or a water year, regardless of whether or not that year is relatively 'wet or dry. Ownership or permitted rights to the stored water is also an issue in some areas, although the direction of legal and regulatory decisions is to sustain permitted rights to recover the stored water from an ASR well, rather than requiring separate permits for recharge and for recovery. Mitigation of any significant adverse effects upon water levels in wells of adjacent well owners has sometimes arisen as a site-specific issue. And the definition of ambient groundwater quality in a proposed storage zone has been the subject of recent discussion in Florida, whether to evaluate this based upon pumping a well for a few hours or days until water quality reaches an equilibrium, or to define it after sampling three casing volumes irrimediately after well construction, regardless of whether water quality equilibrium has been reached . 
 
A high profile, current ASR water quantity issue that is now the subject of much discussion is the planned Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program in south Florida. That plan includes over 300 ASR wells capable of recharging and recovering water at combined rates up to two billion gallons per day. Concern has been expressed that such high rates may hydrofracture the Hawthorn confining layer over the upper Floridan aquifer, which is proposed as the storage zone. The confining layer is about 600 feet thick and is composed of stiff clays, low permeability limestones and clayey sands. A series of ASR Demonstration Sites are planned to gather the information needed to properly address this issue. Preliminary modeling conducted by CH2M HILL suggests that this should not be a problem. It is significant, perhaps, to the proposed regional ASR applications in coastal Georgia since this Florida project is the first planned large-scale regional application of ASR tedmology. 
 
Some water quality issues of concern at different sites have included the need for control of iron, manganese, fluoride, hydrogen sulfide, chloride, total dissolved solids, sulfate, arsenic, radium (224, 226, 228), radon, gross alpha radioactivity, 
 
15 
 
                                            
 
disinfection byproducts, coliform bacteria, protozoa, viruses, nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, phosphorus, mercury, dissolved gases, and other natural constituents sometimes found in native groundwaters. or in aquifer minerals. For some of these issues, the effort required to achieve resolution has been time consuming, however in each case to date a satisfactory resolution has been found, enabling these projects to move forward. 
 
Conclusion 
 
Experience during the past 17 years with ASR development in other states has 
 
shown that initial uncertainties, such as the questions posed in this memorandum, 
 
are relativelynormal. It is hoped that the responses that have been offered will 
 
prov~ helpful in guiding future ASR development in coastal Georgia and other parts 
 
of the state, providing one more proven water management tool to those charged 
 
with managing regional water resources and providing urban, domestic, 
 
agricultural and industrial water supplies. 
 
 
 
Full confidence in the applicability of ASR technology in Georgia can only come from having at least one full size ASR well constructed, tested, permitted and placed into operation. Until that time arrives, partial confidence can be achieved through literature reviews, studies, investigations, modeling, and site visits to other nearby operating ASR sites utilizing the upper or lower zones ofthe Floridan aquifer as a storage zone. In South Carolina, such sites are located at Beaufort Jasper Water and Sewer Authority, Mt Pleasant Waterworks, and Grand Strand Water and Sewer Authority, while an additional site is approaching completion of testing at Kiawah Island. In Florida, the nearest operational ASR sites are at the City of Cocoa, Town of Palm Bay, City of Tampa, Manatee County, Peace River/Manasota Regional . Water Supply Authority and City of Boynton Beach. 
 
To assist in this process, pertinent references regarding ASR are included at the end of this report. Several web sites have also been developed for ASR, including www.asrforum.com, which has links to some of the other web sites. 
 
References 
 
AWRA, "Conjunctive Use of Water Resources: Aquifer Storage Recovery" Conference Proceedings Oct-19-23, 1997 Long Beach, California, 1997. 
 
AWWA Research Foundation. "Aquifer Storage Recovery of Treated Drinking . Water," 1996. 
 
Clarke, et al. Geology and Ground-Water Resources of the Coastal Area of Georgia. 
 
Georgia Geologic Survey Bulletin 113. p. 106, 1990. 
 
 
 
 
 
16 
 
  
 
Gill, H.E., and Mitchell, G.D. Results of Colonels Island Deep Hydrologic Test Well; In Investigations of Alternative Sources of Ground water in the Coastal Area of Georgia: Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Geologic and Water Resources Division Open-File Report 80-3, p. C1-C13, 1979. 
 
Gregg, D.O., and Zimmerman, E.A. Geologic and Hydrologic Control of Chloride Contamination in Aquifers at Brunswick, Glynn County, Georgia: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply paper 2029-D, p. 44 1974. 
 
Krause, R.E. and Randolph, R.B., 1989, Hydrology of the Floridan Aquifer in . Southeast Georgia and Adjacent Parts of Florida and South Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1403-D. 1989. 
 
McCollum, M.J., and Counts, H.B., 1964, Relation of Salt-Water Encroachment to the 
Major Aquifer Zones, Savannah Area, Georgia and South Carolina: U.S. Geological ~urvey Water-Supply Paper 1613-D, p. 26 1964. 
 
Miller, J.A., Hydrogeologic Framework of the Floridan Aquifer System.in Florida and in Parts of Georgia, South Carolina, and Alabama: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1403-B, p. 91 1986. 
 
McNeal and Craig, "St. Petersburg's REWARD Program: A Step Toward Full Reuse Optimization" FS/AWWA Annual Conference, Nov 29-Dec 2,1999 
Pyne, R. D. G., Groundwater Recharge and Wells: A Guide to Aquifer Storage Recovery, Lewis Publishers, CRC Press, ISBN 1-56670-097-3, 376 pp., 1995.  
 
Pyne, McNeal and Glanzman (in prep.) "The Occurrence and Control of Arsenic in 
 
Aquifer Storage (ASR) Wells." CH2M HILL,2001 
 
. 
 
17 
 
 ~ 
 
Jasper 
 
Savannah 
 
L0 .-" I 
r' 
r--........_/ 
'-......- 
I 
0 
l,"' r----- 
---~-J 
Charlton 
 
ffi 
 
Approximate Scale in Miles 
 
0 
 
5 
 
10 15 
 
--20- Water Level Contour 
Shows altitide at which water level would have stood in 
tightly cased wells . 
Contour interval is 10 feet. Datum is sea level. 
 
(U.S. Geological Survey, 1996) 
 
_F....:::ig:.._u_re_1_._U...:..p:_pe_r_F_Io_ri_d_an_A_q..:...u_if_er_P_o_te_n_ti_om_e_t_ric_Su_rf_a_c_e,_M_ay=---19_8_8_._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___,CH2MHILL 
W042001001GNV 
 
  .      .) 
., 
 
.. ..if.:  .'t' .... ~ 
-.J 
.J 
J: 
:& 
:Nuc 
 
., 
 
,.-~ 
     
 
E 
.l.l..l 
C> lll 
0 
 
~ 
<>D 
0 0 
a<D: 
 
<D 
 
C> 
 
l..l..l 
0 
-e..n.. 
<D 
-:; 
 
c- 
 
<( >z 
 
" C'i ;; 
 
Cl) 0 
 
...' 
 
e:In 
 
0 
'0:::/ 
 
u:: ~ 
 
 ., 
 
APPENDIX2 
 
 ,. 
,. 
 
.I 
Golder Associates Inc. 
3730 Chamblee Tucker Road Atlanta. GA USA 30341 Telephone (770) 496-1893 Fax(770)934-9476 
TRANSMITTAL LETTER 
TO: Georgia Geologic Survey 19 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive SW Room 400 Atlanta, Georgia 30334 
ATTN: Dr. William McLemone 
 
DATE: April27, 2001 Project No.:003-3019.002 
 
 
 
State Geologist 
 
Sent by: Jim Renner OMail 
D Air Freight D Hand Carried 
 
QUANTITY 3 
 
ITEM Reports 
 
D Under Separate Cover D Enclosed 
[8J Federal Express 
DESCRIPTION Report on Environmental Review of Aquifer Storage and Recovery in the Floridian Aquifer of Coastal Georgia 
 
1 
 
Remarks: Per:  
 
OFFICES IN AUSTRALIA. CANADA. GERMANY. HUNGARY. ITALY, SWEDEN. UNITED KINGDOM. UNITED STATES 
 
 \. 
 
Golder ASsociates Inc. 
3730 Chamblee Tucker Road Atlanta. GA USA 30341 Telephone (770) 496-1893 Fax (770) 934-9476 
 
REPORT ON. 
 
 
 
ENVIRONJ\.1ENTAL REVIEW OF AQUIFER STORAGE AND RECOVERY 
IN THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER OF COASTAL GEORGIA 
Submitted to: 
Georgia Geologic Survey  19 MartinLuther King Jr. Drive SW 
Room 400 Atla1;1ta, Georgia 30334 
Prepared by: 
Golder Associates Inc. 3730 Chamblee Tucker Road 
.Atlanta, GA 30341 
 
Distribution: 
3 Copies - Georgia Geologic Survey 9 Copies -Golder Associates Inc. 
April2001 
 
003-3019.002 
 
OFFICES IN AUSTRALIA. CANADA. GERMANY. HUNGARY. ITALY. SWEDEN, UNITED KINGDOM, UNITED STATES 
 
 ,. 
        
 
Georgia Geologic Survey Dr. William McLemore 
 
- 1- 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
April2001 003-3019.002 
 
Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................. i Exe~utive Summary ................................................................. ~................................................... E-1 
 
SECTION 
 
PAGE 
 
J.,Q INTRODUCTION .......................................:........................................................................ 1 
Ll Background ........................................................................................................................ 1 !.1 Report Objective and Approach ........................................................................................ 2 
2.0 ASR PHYSICAL AND HYDROCHEMICAL PROCESSES ..............................................4 
D Physical Processes ............................................................................................................. 4 
2.2 Water Quality Processes .................................................................................................... 5 . 3:0 IMPACTS AND IMPACT MITIGATION- LOWER FLORIDAN AQUIFER .................. 7 
lJ. Physical Effects ................................................................................................................. 7 
3.2 Water Quality Effects ........................................................................................................ 7 3.2.1 Suspended Sediment Fonnation ................................................................................. 7 
3.2.2 Disinfection By-products ........................................................................................... 8 3.2.3 Solute Transport Effects ............................................................,................................ 9 
4.0 IMPACTS AND IMPACT MITIGATION- UPPER FLORIDAN AQUIFER.................. tO 
11. Physical Effects ................................................................................................................ 10 
4.2 Water Quality Effects ...................................................................................................... 11 
4.2.1 Suspended Sediment and Disinfection By-products ................................................ 11 4.2.2 Uranium Mobilization and Introduction of Tritium ................................................. 11 
4.2.3 Pyrite Oxidation .......................................................................:............................... 12 4.2.4 Advective Transport ................................................................................................. 12 4.2.5 Diffusion Exchange ofSolutes..........................................................:...................... 13 5.0 SUMMARY ....:......... ~.; .............................................................................,......................... 14 
 
In Order Following 
Page 13 
 
TABLES 
 
TABLE 1 TABLE 2 
 
Potential Impacts Associated with ASR Operations in the Lower Floridian Aquifer Potential Impacts Associated with ASR Operations in the Upper Floridian Aquifer 
 
FIGURES 
 
FIGURE 1 Conceptual ASR Operation 
 
APPENDICES 
 
APPENDIX A Summary of Documented Environmental Impacts of ASR Operation APPENDIX B Floridan Aquifer Hydrogeology APPENDIX C Bibliography 
 
Golder Associates 
 
  
 
Georgia Geologic Survey Dr. William McLemore 
 
- E-1 '- 
 
April2001 003-3019.002 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
 
The Georgia Environmental Protection Division Geologic Survey Branch (GAEPD) requested that Golder Associates Inc. identify environmental impacts tha.t might arise from construction and operation of an aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) system in the Floridan Aquifer of coastal Georgia. This review .included an examination of the following issues identified by GAEPD as being of significance to coastal Georgia stakeholders: 
 
 Movement and distribution of water recharged to the aquifer; 
 
 Pressure. effects resulting from injection, including ground stability or water level 
 
impacts on wells adjacent to the ASR well field; 
 
 Alteration of the quality of the water recharged to the aquifer (including the likely 
 
effects of chemical reaction between the recharged water and the Floridan Aquifer 
 
limestones); 
 
 Alteration of the quality of any in situ groundwater affected by ASR operations 
 
(including general mixing effects and the effect of mixing aerobic and anaerobic 
 
water); 
 
 
 
 Potential for the introduction of regulated or radioactive substances (e.g. tritium) ~o 
 
the Floridan Aquifer; and 
 
 Likelihood that contamination can be successfully remediated. 
 
Golder Associates performed a limited review and assessment of the published and unpublished technical literature on ASR and considered the physical and hydrochemical processes of ASR in light of the characteristics of the Upper and Lower Floridan Aquifers. No instances where aquifers have become polluted as a consequence of ASR have been reported by EPA. In addition, no literature was reviewed that identified physical impacts resulting from an operating ASR. However, physical and hydrochemical processes of ASR could result in environm~ntal impacts depending on the design and operation of a specific ASR system, the characteristics of the storage aquifer and confining or interconnected units, and the utilization of other production wells. Potential impacts of ASR in the Floridan Aquifer of coastal Georgia might include: 
 
Lower Floridan Aquifer 
 
 . Generation of suspended iron and manganese oxi-hydroxide sediment due to 
 
dissolved oxygen in the injected water; 
 
~ 
 
 Generation of Disinfection by Products (DBP's) as a consequence of organic matter 
 
oxidation by disinfection chemicals present in the injected water; 
 
 Increased solute concentrations in the Upper Floridan Aquifer as a consequence of 
 
the ASR-induced displacement of poor quality water from the Lower Floridan. 
 
Golder Associates 
 
                                            
 
Georgia Geologic Survey Dr. William McLemore 
 
- E-2- 
 
April2001 003-3019.002 
 
Upper Floridan Aquifer 
 Uncontrolled discharge from improperly abandoned wells, loss of yield in nearby production wells, and ground destabilization effects linked to water level changes during injection and recovery; . 
 Suspended sediment and DBP generation similar to that described for the Lower Floridan Aquifer; 
 Increased concentration of dissolved uranium due to oxidation of uranium-bearing minerals by dissolved oxygen in the injected water; 
 Increased sulfate and metal concentrations and decreased pH as a consequence of pyrite oxidation in the Upper Confining Unit due to ASR-induced dewatering of the unit; 
 Lateral migration of poor quality water to other production wells due to flow in large diameter conduits in the southern coastal area and steep hydraulic gradients. in the northern coastal area; 
 Diffusion of exchange of solutes between the injected water and the aquifer matrix. 
 
In each case, the probability of the impact being realized, the severity of the impact, and the need for and design of impact mitigation measures could be ass.essed by site-specific investigations for a proposed ASR. Such investigations would: 
 
 Describe the local geology, hydrogeology, and hydrochemistry;  Model the behavior of the aquifer and associated units during alternative injection 
and recovery scenarios;  Define source-pathway-receptor relationships (e.g. the influence of the proposed 
ASR on other production wells or sensitive hydrologic systems). 
Following the initial assessment, pilot testing would be an effective means of validating models, making direct observations of physical and hydrochemical pr?cesses, and comparing alternative ASR designs and operating schedules. Finally, monitoring water quality, aquifer characteristics, and ground conditions in potentially sensitive areas during ASR operation would alert operators to possible concerns. Such a monitoring program implies effective facility maintenance, staffing, and operator training as a necessary requirement of ASR operation. 
 
In summary, ASR has the potential to be a useful water resource management tool in coastal Georgia. ~orne concerns have been identified, but no environmental impacts have been identified that could not potentially be mitigated. An active permit program administered by GAEPD could insure that pre-construction investigations, pilot testing, and ASR design, operation, and monitoring are adequate to achieve the water resource management benefits while mitigating environmental impacts. 
 
Golder Associates 
 
                                            
 
Georgia Geologic Survey 
 
Dr. William McLemore 
 
- 1- 
 
April2001 003-3019.002 
 
1.0 INTRODUCTION 
 
1.1 Background 
 
Aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) is a water resources management technique in which treated water is stored by injection into permeable geologic formations. Common ASR applications include: 
 
 Meeting demand during periods when the available reserves of raw water are depleted (during droughts, .for example); 
 Meeting demands which exceed the available treatment capacity (peak demand. management); 
 Managing groundwater levels for the purpose of maintaining well-field yields or t: controlling salt-water intrusion. 
During typical ASR operations, treated water from a surface source or supply aquifer is injected 
into an alternate aquifer when surplus water resources are available, demand is low, and surplus 
treatment capacity exists (Figure 1). The duration of the subsequent storage period is usually a 
I 
function of seasonal influences on resource availability and demand. A combination of demand, 
. available yield and the total volume of treated water in storage determine the rate and duration of 
recovery . 
 
Operational ASR facilities are found in Europe, Africa, Australia and the United States. Systems . in the United States have been in operation or in pilot studies for about thirty years, including approximately 34 facilities in Florida, several of which utilize the Floridan Aquifer. Typically; these facilities utilize either treated surface water or treated ground water as their supply source. However, Florida has recently issued two construction permits, received another construction application and held two pre-application meetings with several utilities interested in using reclaimed wastewater as an ASR source water. Raw ground water injection and raw surface water injection are also proposed (ASRIT, 1999). 
 
In South Carolina, three ASR systems are operating and one system has been under study for 6 . years (Campbell, 2000): 
 
 The Beaufort-Jasper Water and Sewer Authority injects treated Savannah River water into the Upper Floridan Aquifer to supply peak demands during summer months, thereby avoiding the need to build an additional treatment plant. The ASR system has operated for one year. Last year 140 million gallons were injected and120 million gallons were 
 
Golder Associates 
 
.) 
 
  
 
Georgia Geologic Survey 
 
Dr. William McLemore 
 
-2- 
 
April2001 003-3019.002 
 
withdrawn at a rate of about 2.5 mgd. The withdrawn water is treated lightly (slight disinfection) and mixed with treated surface water. Plans call for increasing capacity to 500 million gallons (Saxon, personal communication).  The Mt. Pleasant Waterworks uses reverse osmosis to treat approximately 400 to 500 gaVmin (less than 1 mgd) of water withdrawn from the Cretaceous Middendorf Aquifer. Excess water is injected i11to the Santee Limestone, a Lower Floridan equivalent, allowing the reverse osmosis system to operate at a constant rate.  The Grand Strand Water Authority serves the seasonal peak demand of Myrtle Beach by injecting treated surface water into the Cretaceous Black Creek Aquifer.  The U.S. Geological Survey has been testing an emergency ASR system for the City. of Charleston to provide water during severe weather when the old distribution system typically experiences problems. This system is somewhat unusual in that it will rely on one time injection of treated surface water into the Santee Limestone. 
 
In Georgia, the state legislature has instituted a moratorium on ASR permitting in order to allow the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD) to consider the benefits and consequences of ASR in the coastal area. Additionally, the GAEPD is interested in the utility of ASR in managing salt water intrusion in the vicinity of Savannah and Brunswick. 
 
1.2 Report Objective and Approach 
The purpose of this report is to identify environmental impacts that might arise from ASR operations in the Floridan Aquifer of coastal Georgia and to identify possible me.ans by which impacts could be mitigated or managed. For this report, environmental impacts are taken to be any situation or circumstance that has the potential to cause harm or damage to human health or the environment, including: 
 
 Physical impacts such as flooding, loss of well yield, and ground destabilization effects (such as ground heave, subsidence, or hydraulic fracturing); 
 Water quality impacts, such as concentrations of chemicals or micro-biological organisms that are in excess of those currently permitted in drinking water. 
To identify potential impacts and mitigation measures, Golder Associates Inc. (Golder) reviewed literature describing the hydrogeology and hydrogeochemistry of the Floridan Aquifer of coastal Georgia and assessed critical features of the ~uifer system relative to ASR. Floridan Aquifer characteristics were then compared to theoretical and actual descriptions of ASR processes, as documented in peer-reviewed journals, conference proceedings, published and unpublished reports and on the internet. Owing to marked differences in Floridan Aquifer hydrogeology, the potential for ASR-related environmental impacts is discussed in terms of the northern (Savannah) and southern (Brunswick) coastal areas . 
 
Golder Associates 
 
                                            
 
- - - ----- ----- 
 
Georgia Geologic Survey 
 
Dr. William McLemore 
 
.; 3 ~ 
 
April2001 003-3019.002 
 
In identifying ASR impacts and mitigation measures, Golder made several ,assumptions, as directed by GAEPD: 
 
 Any ASR system will require a permit from GAEPD;  ASR permit applicants will have to _perform site specific investigations under the 
direction of qualified geologists, hydrogeologists, and engineers to address the potential for adverse environmental impacts;  Only entities with sufficient capital to invest in appropriate operational facilities, staffing, and operator training will be permitted to develop ASR;  Any water injected into the Floridan Aquifer will meet State drinking water standards.  Water may be injected into the Upper or Lower Floridan Aquifers, but not the Fernandina Permeable Zone.  
For purposes of this report, impacts resulting from operator error (e.g. accidental injection of 
i.mproperly treated water) are not emphasized since operator error is possible with any water 
treatment or distribution system and is not unique to ASR. 
 
Golder Associates 
 
                                            
 
Georgia Geologic Survey 
 
Dr. William McLemore 
 
-4- 
 
April2001 003-3019.002 
 
-2.0 ASR PHYSICAL AND HYDROCHEMICAL PROCESSES 
 
ASR operations initiate physical and hydrochemical processes in the. storage aquifer. Physical processes include deformation of the aquifer host rock and movement of the injected or native ground water. Ground water pressure changes are often associated with physical processes. Hydrochemical processes include alteration of the chemical characteristics of the recharged water (including changes due to chemical reaction with the aquifer host rock) and alteration of the insitu ground water quality. 
 
2.1 Physical Processes 
No literature was reviewed that identified physical impacts directly related to an operating ASR system. Nonetheless, ASR physical processes could provide an opportunity for environmental impacts, depending on the characteristics of the aquifer, the design and operation of the ASR system, and the presence of nearby sensitive receptors (other production wells). 
 
The treated drinking water used for ASR is typically recharged using large-diameter purposefully designed injection wells or modified production wells; These wells allow the water to enter the well via the pump column, sized drop-pipes, drop pipes with flow control valves or direct injection into the annular space between the casing and the pump rising main. Recharge rates are maintained either by gravity flow or pressure in the distribution system; the choice being dependent upon the rest water level in the well and the water level rise or pressure ("head") increase which occurs in response to injection. The head build-up in the well is a function of both the hydraulic properties of the aquifer and the well efficiency; the head build-up in the aquifer is a  function of the aquifer properties alone. Similar effects- determine the water level response to . recovery . 
 
Storage of recharged water in confined aquifers occurs principally by elastic deformation of the 
aquifer matrix. However, ASR storage processes are evident as both a head level increase 
associated with elastic deformation and a displacement of the in situ groundwater by the injected 
tl 
water. Typically, the pressure effects are transmitted over larger areas than the change in w~ter 
quality that is associated with displacement of the in-situ groundwater. 
 
Golder Associates 
 
                                            
 
Georgia Geologic Survey 
 
Dr. William McLemore 
 
-5 - 
 
April2001 003-3019.002 
 
The shape and properties of the region of increased pressure or water level rise and the recharged 
water mass,is a function of: 
 
 Recharge rate and duration (total stored volume);  Distribution of aquifer properties (vertically and horizontally);  Presence of aquifer boundary conditions;  Properties of the in situ groundwater (pressure, temperature, salinity);  Pre-existing hydraulic gradients. 
For a given aquifer geometry, in situ groundwater quality, and well efficiency, ASR operations in higher transmissivity/lower storativity systems produce smaller head changes and more rapid stabilization of head build~up and draw-down than equivalent operations in lower  transmissivity/higher storativity systems. In all cases, transmissivity effects dominate over storativity effects. 
 
Simultaneous ASR operations in closely spaced wells typically produce head build-ups or drawdowns that are greater than would be anticipated on the basis of the performance of each individual well. This effect arises as a consequence of the superposition of the head changes associated with each well (termed "well interference"). 
 
2.2 Water Quality Processes 
. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reported that there have been no instances where aquifers have become polluted as a consequence of ASR (EPA, 1999a). However, ASR-related changes in water quality can be observed within the stored water, in the mixing zone between the stored and in situ water, and at locations removed from the ASR aquifer and the stored water mass. Physical and chemical processes that may be responsible for such changes include: 
 
Within the Stored Water 
 
In 
 
the 
 
Mixing 
 
Zone 
 
 Reactions between constituents in the injected water and the aquifer matrix minerals; 
 On-going reactions between constituents in the injected water;  Diffusion of constituents in the injected water into the matrix-held 
groundwater and vice-versa (in dual porosity aquifers) 
 Reaction between dissolved constituents in the injected water and the in situ groundwater; 
 Hydrodynamic-dispersion of the injected water, including mechanical dispersion and diffusion 
 
Golder Associates 
 
  
 
Georgia Geologic Survey 
 
Dr. William McLemore 
 
-6- 
 
April2001 003-3019.002 
 
At Off-site Locations 
 
 Pressure displacement of in situ groundwater and migration into adjacent 
 
aquifers or surface waters. 
 
 
 
Golder Associates 
 
                                            
 
Georgia Geologic Survey 
 
Dr. William McLemore 
 
- 7- 
 
Apri12001 003-3019.002 
 
3.0 IMPACTS AND IMPACT MITIGATION AQUIFER 
 
LOWER FLORIDAN 
 
3.1 Physical Effects 
 
No adverse physical environmental impacts are anticipated from ASR operations in the Lower Floridan Aquifer due to: 
 
 Large thickness of overlying strata (750ft to 1500 ft).  The postulated high permeability of the Lower Floridan Aquifer in the southern coastal 
area. Therefore, the pressure effects arising from injection or recovery are likely to be both small and spread over a large area.  The absence of production wells that penetrate the Lower Floridan Aquifer. 
Consequently, there is little potential for ASR-related ground destabilization, flooding, reduced  yield in other wells, or other physiographic or hydrologic impacts. 
 
3.2 Water Quality Effects 
3.2.1 Suspended Sediment Formation No data describing the redox conditions in the Lower Floridan Aquifer were available. However, given the widespread occurrence of reducing conditions in the Upper Floridan Aquifer and the origin of freshwater in the Lower Floridan Aquifer as recharge from the Upper Floridan Aquifer, itis considered likely that reducing conditions prevail in the Lower Floridan Aquifer. 
 
When treated water containing dissolved oxygen is injected into reducing groundwaters that contain iron or manganese, oxidation of these constituents will result in the formation of oxide and oxy-hydroxide precipitates. In the conduit flow systems ofthe southern coastal region, these precipitates may remain suspended in solution under the infl.uence of high groundwater velocities or turbulent flow. Such suspended material may then adversely impact the quality of groundwater thatis withdrawn from affected portions of the aquifer. 
~ 
The affected portion of the aquifer is likely to be restricted to the mixing zone between the injected and in-situ water in areas where (a) the mixing zone is penetrated by wa~er supply wells and (b) the in-situ ground water contains dissolved iron and manganese. Given the limited  development of the Lower Floridan Aquifer for water supply purposes and the likely presence of 
 
Golder Associates 
 
  
 
- - - - - ----------- 
 
Georgia Geologic Survey Dr. William McLemore 
 
.- 8- 
 
April2001 003-3019.002 
 
sulfide in the in-situ groundwater, the potential for adverse impact is small. Additionally, impacts could be effectively managed by a combination of the following measures: 
 
 Identification of production wells in the vicinity of the mixing zone between the injected and in~situ water; 
 Site specific assessment of the redox conditions and dissolved constituents in the in-situ ground water; 
 Water quality monitoring during ASR pilot testing;  Modification of the ASR location, size, and/or operations schedule (injection rate, storage 
duration, recovery rate, etc.);  Relocation of potentially affected production wells if impacts are observed or predicted;  Treatment of withdrawn water to remove suspended sediment. 
3.2.2  Disinfection By-products In ASR operation, raw water from a surface source or alternative aquifer is treated to drinking water standards prior to injection into the storage aquifer. Residual disinfectant compounds may be present in the injected water, and oxidation of organic matter in the storage aquifer may J>roduce disinfection by-products (DBPs). Some DBPs are believed to adversely affect human health (e.g. trihalomethanes). Under circumstances in which DBPs are generated and accumulate, stored water quality may be adversely affected. ASR provides an opportunity for generation of DBPs beyond that encountered in traditional water supply operations due to the introduction of treated water after disinfection into a medium (the storage aquifer) that may contain organic matter . 
The potential for forming DBPs is a function of the disinfectant (chlorine compounCis are of . particular concern), disinfection method (concentration, contact time, etc.), the types of organic matter present in the storage aquifer, water temperature, pH, and the concentration of bromide in the in-situ ground water. It is likely that impacts. associated with DBP formation can be effectively managed by: 
 
 Characterization of the injected and in-situ water quality and the organic matter content of the ASR aquifer matrix material; 
 Modeling and assessment of the potential for DBP formation;  ASR pilot testing and monitoring of injected, in-situ, and extracted water;  Modification of the disinfection method of the injected water;  Injection into a stratum with lower potential for DBP formation;  Managing the ASR injection and extraction schedule to promote natural attenuation of 
the DBPs;  Additional treatment of water extracted from the storage aquifer prior to distribution. 
 
Golder Associates 
 
  
 
Georgia Geologic Survey 
 
Dr. William McLemore 
 
-9 - 
 
April2001 003-3019.002 
 
3.2.3 Solute Transport Effects In localized areas of both the northern and southern coastal regions, the Lower Floridan Aquifer is thought to be in hydraulic continuity with the Upper Floridan Aquifer. In the north this is reflected in the hydraulic response of both aquifers to pumping from the Upper Floridan Aquifer. In the south it is suggested by the pattern of saline upconing in Brunswick. 
 
If injection into the Lower Floridan Aquifer results in an increase in the head gradient across the Middle Confining Unit, upward flow from the Lower to the Upper Floridan Aquifer may be increased. In such cases, the quality of Upper Floridan Aquifer water may be adversely affected if the quality ofwater migrating upward from the Lower Florida~ Aquifer is poor. The potential for adverse impacts to production wells in the Upper Floridan Aquifer will be a function of the insitu .water quality, local permeability distribution, the size of the proposed ASR system, and the proximity of the system to production wells in the Upper Floridan Aquifer. This suggests that the potential for any adverse impacts are likely to be local and so may be effectively managed by: 
 
 Characterization of the groundwater quality of the Lower Floridan Aquifer;  Assessment of the existing and predicted hydraulic gradients and the permeability of the 
Middle Confining Unit;   Modeling of ground water migration under different operation conditions;  ASR pilot testing and monitoring in the Upper and Lower Floridan Aquifers;  Identification of local Upper Floridan Aquifer production wells, and monitoring during 
ASR operation;  Alteration of the ASR operation schedule to reduce the potential for upward migration 
(possibly including relocation to an area where the confining unit is least permeable). 
 
Golder Associates 
 
 e 
 
Georgia Geologic Survey Dr. William McLemore 
 
- 10- 
 
April2001 003-3019.002 
 
4.0 IMPACTS AND IMPACT MITIGATION- UPPER FLORIDAN AQUIFER 
 
4.1 Physical Effects 
 
It seems unlikely that substantial physical impacts will derive from ASR in the Upper Floridan Aquifer of the southern coastal region, principally due to a combination of the significant thickness of the overlying Upper Confining Unit and extremely high values of aquifer transmissivity. Under such circumstances, ASR-induced head changes are likely to be small and distributed over a large area, so that ground effects or interference with nearby production well yields are likely to be minimal. 
 
By contrast, the lower transmissivity of the Upper Floridan Aquifer in the northern coastal region, combined with the reduced thickness or local absence of the Upper Confining Unit, means that there is a greater potential for ASR-related physical effects. Such effects would arise from the larger head responses that may occur in response to injection or recovery and could include: 
 
 Uncontrolled overflow from poorly sealed or capped wells or very localized flooding by upward leakage through the Upper Confining Unit; 
 Loss of yield in nearby wells;  De-stabilization of deep foundations as a consequence of re-saturation of near surface 
sediments and an associated loss of mechanical strength;  Ground heave or subsidence caused by changing pore-water pressures in near surface 
sediments;  Hydraulic fracturing of confining strata. 
 
Cooper-Jacob seeping calculations indicate that the risks are only likely to be significant in areas 
 
close to the ASR site, where the resultant potentiometric surface is at or near ground level and 
 
where 
 
exceptionally . 
 
large 
 
volumes 
 
of 
 
water 
 
are 
 
recharged 
 
and 
 
rec.overed 
 
through 
 
.networks 
 
of 
 
closely spaced wells. This suggests that the potential for any associated impact is likely to be 
 
localized and so may be effectively managed by: 
 
, . 
 
 Site-specific characterization of the geology and hydrogeology at the test site;  Hydrologic modeling to determine the magnitu~e of the head level changes that are likely 
 
to-result from ASR operations; 
 
 Reducing the amount of injected or recovered water; 
 
 Modifying the ASR well-field layout so as to increase the distance between adjacent 
 
wells . 
 
 Monitoring foundation movement and ground elevation in the immediate vicinity of 
 
injection and recovery wells during pilot testing and operation; 
 
 Capping and/or properly abandoning unused Floridan Aquifer wells. 
 
Golder Associates 
 
 .                 
\ 
 
Georgia Geologic Survey Dr. William McLemore 
 
- 11- 
 
April2001 003-3019.002 
 
4.2 Water Quality Effects 
4.2.1 Suspended Sediment and Disinfection By-products The potential for formation of suspended iron and manganese oxi-hydroxide sediment and DBPs impacts in the Upper Floridan Aquifer and the opportunity for mitigating these impact is similar to the Lower Floridan Aquifer. 
 
4.2.2 Uranium Mobilization and Introduction of Tritium Eocene and Miocene rocks in Georgia frequently contain strata of clay, organic material, phosphates, or dolomites which contain uranium minerals. In particular, concentrations. of the element are found in the phosphate bearing minerals that are distributed throughout the Upper Confining Unit. 
 
Given the reducing conditions. in the Upper Flor:idan Aquifer, any uranium that is present is likely to be in the form of the low solubility mineral uraninite. Under circumstances in which the uraninite comes into contact with injected water containing dissolved oxygen, however, oxidation may result in dissolution of the mineral and mobilization of the associated uranium. Where  _concentrations of the element accumulate, an ad'-:erse impact on the stored water quality may potentially_ occur. 
 
Given that phosphate-bearing minerals are relatively uncommon, except in the Upper Confining Unit, the associated risk is likely to be localized and so may be effectively managed by: 
 
 Characterizing the mineral assemblages present in the aquifer host rocks and the . 
 
confining units, with particular emphasis on identification of uranium bearing minerals in 
 
the strata targeted for ASR development; 
 
 Examine the accessibility of the uranium-bearing minerals to the injected water 
 
containing dissolved oxygen and predict dissolution and resultant concentrations of 
 
dissolved uranium ions; 
 
 
 
 
 
 If necessary, identify alternate locations for the ASR system where uranium minerals are 
 
not abundant or case off individual uranium-bearing strata; 
 
 Operate the ASR system to extend storage time to promote natural reduction of dissolved uranium . 
 
 Monitor for dissolved uranium during ASR pilot testing and operation. 
 
Tritium is a constituent of concern in Savannah River water due to the Savannah River Site nuclear facility upstream. Reported levels of radionuclides in Savannah River water are well 
 
Golder Associates 
 
  
 
Georgia Geologic Survey Dr. William McLemore 
 
- 12- 
 
April2001 003-3019.002 
 
below regulatory guidelines, so the likelihood of introducing tritium into an ASR system that made use of Savannah River water would appear to be low. In addition, the City of Savannah and other entities already use the Sava'nnah River as a raw water supply. Therefore, the risk of utilizing Savannah River water for ASRdoes not seem to be substantially different than the risk now accepted by existing water users, except that the processes of diffusion exchange and advective transport described below could influence the transport of tritium introduced into the aquifer . 
 
4.2.3 Pyrite Oxidation Although not detected during visual inspection of cores and washed samples (USGS, personal communication), pyrite may be locally present in the clays, silts and sandy clays of the Upper Confining Unit. If groundwater withdrawal from the Upper Floridan Aquifer dewaters the Upper Confining Unit, pyrite may be oxidized, possibly causing adverse sulfate, pH, iron or alkali metal impacts on the quality of the recovered water. The magnitude of the impact will be a function of the amount of pyrite. present, the permeability of the Upper Floridan Aquifer and the Upper 
I 
Confining Unit, and the extent to which withdrawals induce dewatering of the Upper Confining Unit. Special attention should be paid to pyrite oxidation in areas where the Upper Confining Unit has already been dewatered by extensive pumping. Impacts from pyrite oxidation may be effectively managed by: 
 
 Quantify the pyrite content of the Upper Confining Unit strata likely to be affected by the proposed ASR operations; 
 Predict the draw-down likely to be experienced during the extraction of the stored water;  If necessary, relocate the ASR system to a more favorable location;  Reduce the amount of stored water that is recovered in an individual well;  Increase the spacing between extraction wells to minimize exaggerated drawdown caused 
by well interference;  Monitor water quality during ASR pilot testing and operation; 
4.2.4 . Advective Transport 
,. Poor quality water generated by any of the mechanisms previously described could laterally 
migrate within the Upper Floridan Aquifer due to: 
 
 The concentration of flow in large-diameter conduits such as cavities and solution channels in the southern coastal region; 
 The occurrence of steep hydraulic gradients in areas close to Savannah in the northern coastal region; 
 
Golder Associates 
 
  
 
Georgia Geologic Survey Dr. William McLemore 
 
- 13- 
 
April2001 003-3019.002 
 
 The presence of a large number of public and private water supply wells in both the northern and southern coastal regions. 
The potential for extensive lateral migration of poor quality water could be effectively reduced 
by: . 
 
 Employing previously described measures to limit the opportunity to generate poor quality water; 
 Controlling the ASR injection and extraction schedule and well locations to avoid substantial steepening of hydraulic gradients; 
 Monitoring water quality in nearby production wells. 
4.2.5 Diffusion Exchange of Solutes Where groundwater flow .in the Upper Floridan Aquifer of the northern coastal region occurs through fractures, the moderate hydraulic conductivity of the unit suggests that these may include a significant number of relatively small-scale features. A group of small-scale fractures has greater surface area relative to the amount of void space versus a large fracture. If the fractured matrix also possesses significant porosity, solute species flux between the fractures and the matrix via the process of diffusion exchange. Under these circumstances, poor quality water that enters the system may partition between the water in the fractures and the matrix-held pore water. Therefore, if ASR introduces or generates poor quality ground water, the poor quality water and/or undesirable constituents may be retained longer than would be predicted for ground water flow in large scale fractures . 
 
The options for mitigating the impact of solute exchange and extended retention of poor quality water are the same as those for managing other water quality concerns. In addition, if an acute water quality problem were identified (e.g. accidental injection of poor quality water) it might be prudent to monitor the recovered water for constituents of concern for an extended period. 
 
While the process of diffusion exchange could also occur in the Upper Floridan Aquifer of the southern coastal region, the associated impact is likely to be mitigated by the concentration of flow in this system in large-diameter conduits. 
 
Golder Associates 
 
  
 
Georgia Geologic Survey Dr. William McLemore 
 
- 14- 
 
April2001 003-3019.002 
 
5.0 SUMMARY 
 
No instances where aquifers have become polluted as a consequence of ASR have been reported by EPA. In addition, no literature was reviewed that identified physical impacts resulting from an operating ASR. However, physical and hydrochemical processes of ASR can result in . environmental impacts depending on the design and operation of the ASR system, the characteristics of the storage aquifer and confining or interconnected units, and the utilization of other production wells. Potential impacts of ASR in the Floridan Aquifer of coastal Georgia could include: 
 
Lower Floridan Aquifer 
 
 Generation of suspended iron and manganese oxi-hydroxide sediment due to dissolved oxygen in the injected water; 
 Generation of DBP's as a consequence of organic matter oxidation by disinfection chemicals present in the injected water; 
 Increased solute concentrations in the Upper Floridan Aquifer as a consequence of the ASR-induced displacement of poor quality water from the Lower Floridan. 
Upper Floridan Aquifer 
 
 Uncontrolled discharge from improperly abandoned wells, loss of yield in nearby 
 
production wells, and ground destabilization effects linked to water level changes during 
 
injection and recovery; 
 
 
 
 Suspended sediment and DBP generation similar to that described for the Lower Floridan 
 
Aquifer; 
 
 Increased concentration of dissolved uranium due to oxidation of uranium-bearing 
 
minerals by dissolved oxygen in the injected water; 
 
 Increased sulfate and metal concentrations and decreased pH as a consequence of pyrite 
 
oxidation in the Upper Confining Unit due to ASR-induced dewatering of the unit; 
 
 Lateral migration of poor quality water to other production wells due to flow in large 
 
diameter conduits in the southern coastal area and steep hydraulic gradients in the 
 
northern coastal area; 
 
. 
 
 Diffusion of exchange of solutes between the injected water and the aquifer matrix. 
 
r!' 
In each case, the probability of the impact being realized, the severity of the impact, and the need 
for and design of impact mitigation measures may be assessed by site-specific investigations for a proposed ASR (Table 1, Table 2). Such investigations would: 
 
 Describe the local geology, hydrogeology, and hydrochemistry; 
 
Golder Associates 
 
 - 
 
Georgia Geologic Survey Dr. William McLemore 
 
~ 15- 
 
April2001 003-3019.002 
 
 Model the behavior of the aquifer and associated units during alternative injection and recovery scenarios; 
 Define source-pathway-receptor relationships (e.g. the influence of the proposed ASR on other production wells or sensitive hydrologic sy~tems) . 
 
Following the initial assessment, pilot testing would be an effective means of validating models, making direct observations of physical and hydrochemical processes, and comparing alternative ASR designs and operating schedules. Finally, monit<;>ring water quality, aquifer characteristics, and ground conditions in potentially sensitive areas during ASR operation would alert operators _ to possible concerns. Such a monitoring program implies effective facility maintenance, staffing, and operator training as a necessary requirement of ASR operation. 
 
ln summary, ASR has the potential to be a useful water resource management tool in coastal Georgia. Some concerns have been identified but no environmental impacts have been identified that could not potentially be mitigated. An active permit program administered by GAEPD could insure that pre-construction investigations, pilot testing, and ASR design, operation, and monitoring are adequate to achieve the water resource management benefits while mitigating environmental impacts. 
 
Golder Associates 
 
                                            
 
  
 
TABLE 1 ( 1 of2) Potential Impacts Associated with ASR Operations in the Lower Floridian Aquifer 
 
Potential 
 
Responsible 
 
Region Where Impact Most . 
 
Mitigation or Management Strategy 
 
Environmental 
 
Process(es) 
 
Likely to be Experienced 
 
Impact 
 
Increasing solute concentrations 
 
Pressurization ofthe Lower Floridan as a consequence of 
 
Areas where the treated water is 
 
 Characterization of the groundwater quality of the Lower Floridan Aquifer; 
 
injected into poor quality in-situ 
 
 Assessment of the existing  and predicted hydraulic gradients and the 
 
groundwater, where upward vertical 
 
penneability of the Middle Confming Unit; 
 
in the Upper Floridan 
 
injection and upward migration of poor quality groundwater under the influence of increasing vertical head gradients 
 
head gradients are likely to develop as a consequence of injection and where there exists a pathway between the Upper and Lower Floridan 
 
 Modeling of ground water migration under different operating conditions;  ASR pilot testing and monitoring in the Upper and Lower Floridan 
Aquifers; 
 Identification of local Upper Floridan Aquifer production wells, and monitoring during ASR opei;ation; 
 Alteration of the ASR operation schedule to reduce the potential for upward 
 
migration (possibly including relocation to an area where the confming unit 
 
is least penneable). 
 
Increasing concentrations of disinfection by-products (DBP's) 
 
Oxidation of organic matter by (disinfection) chemicals present in the injected water 
 
Stored water in areas where the potential for in-situ fonnation of DBP's is high 
 
 Characterization of the injected and in-situ water quality and the organic 
matter content of the ASR aquifer matrix material; 
 Modeling and assessment of the potential for DBP fonnation;  ASR pilot testing and monitoring of injected, in-situ, and extracted water;  Modification the disinfection method of the injected water;  Injection into a stratum with lower potential for DBP fonnation;  Managing the ASR injection and extraction schedule to promote natural 
attenuation of the DBPs; 
 Additional treatment of water extracted from the storage aquifer prior to 
distribution. 
 
-- ---- 
 
---- 
 
-- 
 
  
 
Generation of suspended sediment and increasing turbidity 
 
TABLE 1 (continued 2 of2) 
 
Oxidation of any dissolved iron or manganese that is present in the in-situ groundwater 
 
The mixing zone between the stored  ~ite s~eci?c assessment of the redox conditions and dissolved constituents 
 
water and in-situ groundwater in 
 
m the m-s1tu ground water; 
 
 
 
 areas where the in-situ groundwater 
 
Identification of production wells in the vicinity of the mixing zone between 
 
contains dissolved iron or 
 
the injected and in-situ water; 
 
manganese. 
 
 Water quality monitoring during ASR pilot testing; 
 
 Modification of the ASR location, size, and/or operations schedule (injection 
 
rate, storage duration, recovery rate, etc.); 
 
 Relocation of potentially affected production wells if impacts are observed 
 
or predicted; 
 
 Treatment of withdrawn water to remove suspended s~diment. 
 
  
 
TABLE 2 ( 1 of3) Potential Impacts Associated with ASR Operations in the Upper Floridian Aquifier 
 
Potential Environmental 
Impact Flooding, loss of yield and ground destabilization 
 
Responsible Process(es) 
Water level changes associated with injection and recovery 
 
Increasing solute concentrations 
 
Lateral migration of any poor quality groundwater that enters the Upper Floridan from the Lower 
 
Region Where Impact Most Likely to be Exp_erienced 
 
Mitigation or Management Strategy 
 
Regions close to the ASR well(s) in  Site-specific characterization of the geology and hydrogeology at the test 
 
areas where either the permeability 
 
site; 
 
of the Upper Floridan aquifer is relatively low, large quantities of 
 
 Hydraulic modeling to determine the magnitude of the head level changes that are likely to result from ASR operations; 
 
treated water are injected and recovered or where the Upper Confming Unit is thin or absent. 
 
 Reducing the amount of injected or recovered water;  Modifying the ASR well-field layout so as to increase the distance between 
adjacent wells. 
 
 Monitoring foundation movement and ground elevation in the immediate 
 
vicinity of injection and recovery wells during pilot testing and operation;  
 
 Capping and/or properly abandoning unused Floridan Aquifer wells. 
 
Wells with capture zones that intersect pathways between the Upper and Lower Floridan through which poor quality groundwater could migrate from the underlying Lower Floridan. 
 
 Employing measures described in Table I to limit the opportunity to generate poor quality water; 
 Controlling the ASR injection and extraction schedule and well locations to 
avoid substantial steepening of hydraulic gradients; 
 Monitoring water quality in nearby production wells . 
 Extended monitoring if diffusion exchange is a concern. 
 
  
 
TABLE 2 (continued 2 of 3) 
 
Increasing concentrations of disinfection by-products (DBP's) 
 
Oxidation of organic matter by (disinfection) chemicals present in the injected water 
 
Stored water in areas where the potential for in-situ formation of DBP's is high 
 
 Characterization of the injected and in-situ wa_ter quality and the organic 
matter content of the ASR aquifer matrix material; 
 Modeling and assessment of the potential for DBP formation;  ASR pilot testing and monitoring of injected, in-situ, and extracted water; 
 Modification the disinfection method of the injected water;  Injection into a stratum with lower potential for DBP formation; 
 Managing the ASR injection and extraction schedule to promote natural attenuation ofthe DBPs; 
 Additional treatment of water extracted from the storage aquifer prior to 
distribution. 
 
Introduction of tritium and increasing concentrations of uranium 
 
Oxidative dissolution ofuranite 
 
Stored water in regions where dissolved oxygen is likely to come into contact with uranite, including by migration into the base of the Upper Confming Unit. 
 
' 
 
---- 
 
------- 
 
 Characterizing the mineral assemblages present in the aquifer host rocks and 
the confming units, with particular emphasis on identification of uranium 
bearing minerals in the strata targeted for ASR development; 
 Examine the accessibility of the uranium-bearing minerals to the injected  water containing dissolved oxygen and predict dissolution and resultant 
concentrations of dissolved uranium ions; 
 If necessary, identify alternate locations for the ASR system where uranium 
minerals are not abundant or case off individual uranium-bearing strata; 
 Operate the ASR system to extend storage time to promote natural reduction 
of dissolved uranium. 
 Monitor for tritium and dissolved uranium during ASR pilot testing and 
operation. 
 
  
 
TABLE 2 (continued 3 of3) 
 
Increasing sulphate and trace metal concentrations and decreasing pH 
 
Dewatering of Upper Recovered water where recovery 
 
 Quantify the pyrite content of the Upper Floridan Aquifer and Upper 
 
Confming Unit strata results in dewatering of the Upper 
 
Confming Unit strata likely to be affected by the proposed ASR operations; 
 
during recovery of Confming Unit or stored water the stored water and where injection raises the water 
 
 Predict the draw-down likely to be experienced during the extraction of the 
stored water; 
 
oxidation of pyrite or level in the Upper Floridan into 
 
 If necessary, relocate the ASR system to a more favorable location; 
 
mobilization of 
 
previously dewatered Upper 
 
 Reduce the amount of stored water that is recovered in an individual well; 
 
historical pyrite 
 
Confming Unit strata that originally  Increase the spacing between extraction wells to minimize exaggerated 
 
oxidation products contained pyrite. 
 
drawdown caused by well interference; 
 
 Monitor water quality during ASR pilot testing and operation; 
 
... 
 
  
 
FIGURES 
 
                                            
 
CD RAW WATER WITHDRAWAL FROM RIVER 
 RAW OR POTABLE WATER WITHDRAWAL FROM ALTERNATIVE SUPPLY AQUIFER 
0 WATER TREATMENT PLANT 0 TREATED WATER 
TO USERS 
 TREATED WATER TO RECHARGE WELL 
 TREATED WATER INJECTED INTO STORAGE AQUIFER 
RECHARGE DURING LOW DEMAND PERIOD OR WET SEASON 
NO OR REDUCED WITHDRAWAL FROM RIVER 
NO OR REDUCED WITHDRAWAL FROM ALTERNATIVE AQUIFER 
WATER TREATMENT PLANT 
{;\ TREATED WATER TO 
\::J  USERS (INCLUDING 
RECOVERED WATER) RECOVERED WATER ADDED TO DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM WITH MINOR TREATMENT (e.g., DISINFECTION) 
STORED TREATED WATER RECOVERED FROM AQUIFER 
 
WITHDRAWAL DURING PEAK DEMAND PERIOD OR DRY SEASON 
 
CUE NT/PROJECT 
 
TITLE 
Atlanta, Georgia 
DRAWN 
GAEPD/ ASR/GA 
 
CONCEPTUAL ASR OPERATION 
 
RJS 
 
DATE SCALE FILE NO. 
 
12/00 . N.T.S. 003-3019 
 
JOB NO. DWG NO. 
 
003-3019 
REV. NO. 
 
SUBTITLE 
 
FIGURE NO. 
 
  
 
APPENDICES 
 
  
 
APPENDIX A 
Summary of Documented Environmental Impacts of ASR Operation 
 
 (. 
          
 
ueorgta,ueotogtc :survey Dr. William McLemore 
 
- A-1- 
 
April2001 003-3019.002 
 
. APPENDIX A 
 
Summary of Documented Environmental Impacts of ASR Operation 
 
A.l Physical Impacts 
Physical impacts associated with ASR operations theoretically include flooding, interference with nearby production wells, and ground stability effects. No examples of any such effects could be found in the literature, although routine assessment of the associated risks was apparent. 
 
A.2 Water Quality Impacts 
Hydrogeochemical processes that have the potential to impact ASR water quality include reduction-oxidation reactions, dissolution, and ion exchange. These processes may act singly or in combination, with the associated water quality changes being observed in either the stored . water mass or the mixing zone between the stored water and the in situ groundwater. Solute transport processes that may subsequently act to influence the movement and distribution of ASR-related poor quality water include advection, mechanical dispersion, and diffusion. 
Examples of ASR facilities where there has been an observable (but not necessarily critical) hydrogeochemical impact on the quality of either the recovered water or in situ groundwater include: 
I 
 Tri;-halomethane (THM) impacts on the quality of water recovered from an ASR scheme in the basin sediments of Las Vegas, NV (Thomas et al, 2000 and Landmeyer et al, 2000); 
 Nickel and arsenic concentration impacts on the quality ofwater recharged to a series of sandy aquifers in the Netherlands (Stuyfzand, 1998a); 
 Iron concentration and low pH impacts on the quality.ofwater recharged to the Magothy aquifer of Long Island, NY (Ragone and Vecchioli, 1975); 
e Sulfate, magnesium, potassium and total hardness impacts on the quality of water r~covered from an ASR scheme in the London Basin Chalk (Flaviri and Joseph, 1981 ); 
  Sodium, potassium and ammonium concentration impacts on the quality of water injected into marginal quality groundwater in the London Basin Chalk (Moncaster and Cook, 1999); 
 Recovery of water contaminated with excessive quantities of manganese from an ASR  scheme in Chesapeake, Virginia (lbison et al, 1995); 
 Dissolution driven suspended sediment contamination of water recovered from an ASR scheme in Australia (Rattray et al 1986). 
 
                                            
 
APPENDIXB 
Floridian Aquifer Hydrogeology 
 
                                            
 
Georgia: Geologic Survey Dr. William McLemore 
 
APPENDIXB Floridan Aquifer Hydrogeology 
 
April2001 003-3019.002 
 
B.l GENERAL 
 
The Floridan Aquifer comprises a "vertically continuous sequence of carbonate rocks of generally 
 
high permeability that are of Tertiary age, hydraulically connected in varying degrees, and whose 
 
permeability is generally several orders of magnitude greater than that of the rocks that bound the 
 
system above and below" (Miller, 1986). 
 
 
 
I 
The system underlies all of Florida, southeast Georgia and adjacent parts of Alabama and South Carolina. In Georgia, the Floridan Aquifer strata outcrop parallel to the fall line and dip to the south and southeast. The thickness of the sequence increases from less than I00 ft at outcrop to more than 2,000 ft at the (Atlantic) coast. In the coastal areas, the aquifer is divided into two permeable sub-units, the Upper and Lower Floridan Aquifer. These sub-units are separated by a confini~g unit of variable hydraulic properties. 
 
Groundwater recharge to the coastal Georgia system occurs as a combination of groundwater 
 
inflow from updip or adjacent units of the Floridan Aquifer and natural or induced leakage 
 
through the upper confining unit. The predominant direction of flow is from west to east in the 
 
south aitd from north-west to south-east in the north, in both cases from topographically high 
 
regions .inland towards pumping centers located at the coast. Groundwater discharge occurs both 
 
as withdrawal at the coastal pumping centers and, in areas to the south and east, via upward  
 
leakage into the upper confining layer. All of the withdrawal in coastal Georgia is understood to 
 
be from wells that penetrate the Upper Floridan Aquifer. However, the yield from these wells is 
 
sustained in part by upward leakage from the Lower Floridan Aquifer. This occurs as a 
 
consequence of both natural and induced head gradients and is locally facilitated by the presence 
 
of high permeability flow-paths associated with a series of high-angle faults. Groundwater 
 
development and use in coastal Georgia has resulted in a regional decline in the potentiometric , 
 
surface and pronounced cones of depression at major pumping centers, notably around Savannah 
 
and Brunswick. 
 
 
 
 
 
Water quality in the Floridan Aquifer system varies from a calcium bicarbonate type inland to a calcium magnesium bicarbonate or calcium magnesium bicarbonate sulfate at the coast. In addition, high levels of withdrawal in some parts of the region have resulted in saline intrusion to the aquifer. Consequently, concentrations of chloride are locally excessive. The intrusion occurs both laterally and vertically, with poorer quality water entering the Upper Floridan Aquifer from the areas offshore and from deeper sections of the aquifer, respectively. 
 
A brief description of the lithology and hydraulic properties of each of the components of the 
 
Florid~ Aquifer system is given below. This is largely derived from Krause and Randolph 
 
(1989). 
 
. 
 
~ 
 
B.2 .UPPER CONFINING UNIT 
The Upper Confining Unit comprises an interbedded sequence of sand, silt, clay and sandy clay of low permeability. The unit achieves a maximum thickness of 600 ft in the vicinity of Brunswick and thins northwards to less than I00 ft in the vicinity of Savannah. Locally, in the area of, Savannah and Hilton Head Island, the unit has been breached by the effects of erosion with the result that the underlying Floridan Aquifer is exposed. 
 
  
 
ueorg1a fjeologic Survey Dr. Willi.arn McLemore 
 
- B-2- 
 
April2001 003-3019.002 
 
Measured values of the vertical hydraulic conductivity of the Upper Confining Unit vary between SE-07 ft/d and 1.1 ft/d, while values estimated from the results of regional aquifer modeling vary between lE-05 ft/d and IE-03 ft/d.  Leakance estimates systematically increase from less than lE-06 ft/d/ft in the south to greater than IE-04 ft/d/ft in the north. This trend reflects the decreasing thickness of the unit towards the north and the relatively narrow range of composite or average vertical hydraulic conductivities. 
 
B.3 UPPER FLORIDAN AQUIFER 
In the study area the Upper Floridan Aquifer comprises Oligocene and Late Eocene units including the Suwannee and Ocala Limestone. The former is composed of limestones which vary from soft, chalky and fossiliferous to dense, calcitized, saccharoidal and unfossiliferous. The latter is a white to gray, fossilferous, recrystalized, porous limestone containing large solution cavities .. 
 
Wells in the Brunswick area penetrate two permeable zones in the UpperFloridan Aquifer which are both within the Ocala limestone. The upper zone. is between 75 ft and ISO ft thick and contributes up to 70% of the available yield. The lower zone, which locally includes part of the Middle .Eocene Avon Park Formation, is between 15 ft and 110 ft thick and contributes the remaind~r. In the Savannah area, wells also penetrate two permeable zones in the Upper Floridan Aquifer. The upper of these is less than 50 ft thick and lies within basal Suwannee and Upper Ocala strata; the lower is between 25 ft and 75 ft thick and is entir~ly within middle Ocala strata: These two zones contribute 70% of the available yield. 
 
Estimates of the transmissivity of the Upper Floridan Aquifer derived from aquifer testing vary 
 between 30,000 ft2/d and 280,000 Wid, while estimates derived from regional aquifer modeling 
range between 50,000 ft2/d and 250,000 ft2/d. In both cases values decrease to the south and 
north of Camden County, with extremely high values occurring in the vicinity of Brunswick. Associated estimates of the hydraulic conductivity vary between 80 ftld and 670 ftld. Estimates 
of the storativity, where these are available, are of the order of 0.0004 to 0.0006. 
 
The extremely high values of aquifer transmissivity reflect flow through cavities, cavernous zones and solution channels in the limestone. The majority of these are orientated in the horizontal plane, enhancing lateral permeabilities, although vertical features associated with highangle fault zones are also present. 
 
B.4 THE LOWER FLORIDAN AQUIFER AND MIDDLE CONFINING UNIT 
 
In the study area the Lower Floridan Aquifer comprises strata of the Lower and Middle Eocene including the Avon Park, Oldsmar, and Cedar Keys formations and the Gosport equivalent. The 
hydraulic properties of the unit have not been determined, although transmissivity is thought to vary between 2000 ft2/d and 400,000 W/d and to be less than 100,000 ft2/d in areas outside of extreme southeast Georgia. 
 
' 
 
~ 
 
In the vicinity of Brunswick, the lower two-thirds of the Avon Park formation and the upper 
 
portion of the Oldsmar formation comprise an interbedded sequence of limestone and dolomite in 
 
which significant secondary permeability has developed as a consequence of solution activity 
 
along bedding planes. By contrast, upper Avon Park strata is composed of a dense, low- 
 
permeability recrystalized carbonate. This sub-unit acts to confine groundwater in the Lower 
 
Floridan Aquifer, separating it from groundwater in the Upper Floridan Aquifer except in areas where f~ulting allows flow between the two. The vertical hydraulic conductivity of intact Middle 
 
  
 
Georgia G' eologic Survey Dr. William McLemore 
 
- B-3- 
 
April2001 003-3019.002 
 
Confining Unit strata is estimated from cores recovered in the Brunswick area to vary between 
4E-06 ftld and 5E-05 ftJd. Water level differences across the unit vary between 2 ft and 20 ft but are gene~ally thought to be less than 5 ft. 
 
The bas~ of the Lower Floridan Aquifer in the Brunswick area contains an additional semi- 
confining unit and an underlying cavernous limestone known as the Fernandina Permeable Zone. 
The hydraulic properties of each of these sub-units are unknown, although the scale of the 
caverns ih the limestone are such that the transmissivity of the unit is thought to be of the order of 1E06 ft2/d. 
 
I ' 
 
. 
 
In the Savannah area, the Gosport equivalent is composed of a calcareous sand or very sandy 
 
limestone. The unit resp~mds to pumping in the Upper Floridan Aquifer and is thus thought to be 
 
in hydraulic continuity with the Upper Floridan Aquifer. Properties for the Lower Floridan 
 
Aquifer and middle confining. unit in this area are unknown. 
 
. I 
 
. ,. 
 
  
 
APPENDIXC . 
Bibliography 
 
                                            
 
; . 
i 
Georgi~ Geologic Survey Dr. Wil,liam McLemore 
 
- C-1- 
 
April2001 003-3019.002 
 
APPENDIXC 
 
Bibliography 
 
The fol)owing references are. pertinent to a description of ASR environmental i!Jlpacts and were reviewed in preparing this report. Included in this list are specific literature citations from this report, as well as references of general use. 
 
AndreeV, B. M., E.P. Magomedbekov, Y.S. Pak, M.B. Rozenkevich. 1999. Tritium Removal 
 
I 
 
. 
 
from Water Flows and Concentration of Tritium by Isotope Exchange in Systems with 
 
Molecular Hydrogen (H2-H20, H2-Pd). Radiochemistry 41, no. 2, (1999): pp. 136. 
 
Appelo; C.A.J. and D. Postma. 1996. Geochemistry, Groundwater and Pollution. Rotterdam: 
i 
A.A. Balkema, 536 pp. 
 
i 
 
 
 
Aquife~ Storage and Recovery Issue Team (ASRIT). 1999 
 
i 
 
Assessrhent Report and Comprehensive Strategy; A Report to the South Florida Ecosystem 
 
' 
 
Restoration Working Group, July 1999. Available on the web at 
 
I 
 
. 
 
httf://www.sfrestore.org/teams/asr/documents/asrreport.htm. 
 
i 
 
Arino, Dwayne Rene. 1996. The removal of tritium from water using counter-current packed col~mns. Thesis (M.S.)-University ofNevada, Reno, 114 p. 
 
Barber,; L.B., G.K. Brown, K.R. Kennedy, J.A. Leenheer, T.l. Noyes, C.E. Rostad, and K.A. 
 
Thtim. 1997. "Organic constituents that persist during aquifer storage and recovery of I 
reclaimed water in Los Angeles County, California,'; in Kendall, D.R. (ed) Conjunctive Use 
 
of Water Resources: Aquifer Storage and Recovery; Proceedings of AWRA Symposium, 
 
' 
 
. 
 
' 
 
. 
 
October 19-23, Long Beach, California. 
 
I 
 
. 
 
.. 
 
I 
 
. 
 
. 
 
Barker,! J.A., R. Mackenzie, and B. Fretwell. 1997. The importance of Matrix Diffusion for 
 
' 
 
ASR Implementation in the Chalk Aquifer. Report for CH2M Hill, .UniversitY College 
 
I 
 
\ 
 
Lori don . 
 
Beals, D.M. and D.W. Hayes. 1995. Technetium-99, iodine-129 and tritium in the waters of the 
Sav'annah River site. Science of the Total Environment v 173/174, pp. 10 I. 
I 
 
  
 
I 
Georgia Geologic Survey 
Dr. w'illiam McLemore 
 
-t-2- 
 
April2001 003-3019.002 
 
; 
i 
Biererls de Haan, S., J.E. Rae, and A. Parker. 1994. Pyrite oxidation in the Tertiary sands of the I 
 
L6ndon Basin. Applied Geochemistryv. 9: pp 161-175. 
 
Bottre'll, S.H., P.L. Smart, F. Whitaker, and R. Raiswell. 1991. Geochemistry and isotope systematics of sulphur in the mixing zones of Bahamian blue holes. Applied Geochemistry v. 6(1) pp 97- 104. 
 
Breac~, B. and B. Paetsch. 1998. Overview of residual disinfection practice by European water suppliers. Water Supply 16(3-4):25-33 . 
v 
Bull, R.J., C.P. Gerba, and R.R. Trussell. 1990. Evaluation of the health risks associated with 
I 
disinfection. Crit. Rev. Environ. Control20:77-113 . 
 
Burt, .R.A. 1993. Groundwater Chemical_ Evolution and Diagenetic Processes in the Upper Floridan Aquifer, Southern South Carolina and Northeastern Georgia. USGS Water Supply P~per2392 . 
 
Campbell, B.G. 2000. Personal communication to Jim Renner, Golder Associates, regarding USGS I teSting ofthe Charleston, South Carolina ASR system. 
 
Campl;>ell, B.G., K.J. Conlon, J.E. Mirecki, and M.D. Petkewich. 1997. Evaluation of aquifer 
! 
st9rage and recovery in the Santee Limestone/Black Mingo Aquifer near Charleston, South 
Colina,l993-95. US Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 96-4283.. 
 
Castro, J.E. and L.R. Gardner. 1997. "A Geochemical Model for the Aquifer Storage and 
 
Recovery Project at Myrtle Beach, SC," in Kendall, D.R. (ed.) Conjunctive Use of Water 
 
' 
 
. 
 
Resources: Aquifer Storage and Recovery Proceedings of AWRA Symposium, October 19- 
 
23, Long Beach, California. 
 
CH2MHill. 1997. East Bay Plain Phase 1 ASR Investigation. Technical Memorandum to East 
 
! 
 
. 
 
. . 
 
B~y Municipal Utility District. 
 
I 
 
  
 
i ! 
I 
I 
Georgifi Geologic Survey Dr. William McLemore 
 
- C-3- 
 
April2001 003-3019.002 
 
Clarke; J.S. 1995. Ground-Water Flow Study in the Vicinity of the Savannah River Site, South 
' 
Carolina and Georgia. USGS Fact Sheet 178-95. Available on the web at: 
http://wwwga.usgs.gov/publications/fs 178 95/fs 178 95.html 
 
Clarke; J.S., W.F. Falls, L.E. Edwards, N.O. Fredricksen, L.M. Bybell, T.G. Gibson, and R.J . Litwin. 1994. Geologic, hydrologic, and water-quality data for a multi-aquifer system in co:astal ~lain sediments near Millers Pond, Burke County, Georgia. Georgia Geologic Survey Information Circular 96, 34 p. 
' 
Davisson, M.L., G.B. Hudson, J.E. Moran, S. Niemayer, and R.L. Herndon. 1998. Isotope tracer 
ap~roaches for characterizing artificial recharge and demonstrating regulatory compliance. 
A~nual UC Water Reuse Research Conference, June 4-5, 1998, Monteray, California. 
! 
Daviss~n, M.L., G.B. Hudson, J.E. Moran, S. Niemayer, and R.L. Herndon. 1999. Tracing and ag~-dating recycled waste water recharged for potable reuse in a seawater injection barrier, So~them California, USA. Inti. Atomic Energy Agency Inti Symp on Isotope Techniques in Water Resources Development and Management, Vienna, 10-14 May 1999. 
 
Dillon~ P. P. Pavelic, S. Toze, S. Ragusa, M. Wright, P. Peter, R. Martin, N. Gerges, and S. 
: 
Rinck-Pfeiffer. 1999. Storing recycled water in an aquifer: benefits and risks. AWWA J. 
! 
 
Water 26(5) 21-29. 
 
I 
 
. 
 
' 
 
I 
! 
Downi~g, R.A., D.B. Smith, F.J. Pearson, R.A. Monkhouse, and R.L.Otlet. 1977. The Age of 
 
l 
Groundwater in the Lincolnshire Limestone, England and its Relevance to the Flow 
I 
Mechanism. Journal ofHydrology v 33: pp. 201~216. 
 
Drever, James I. 1988. The Geochemistry ofNatural Waters. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : PrenticeH~ll . 
~ 
EPA. 1999. Maximum contaminants levels for beta particles and photon radioactivity from man- 
' 
made radioactivity from man-made radionuclides in community water systems, 40 CFR (C~apter 1) 141.16., revised July I, 1999. 
 
  
 
Georgia Geologic Survey 
 
April2001 
 
Dr. William McLemore 
 
- C-4- 
 
003-3019.002 
 
l 
 
EPA l999a. The Class V Underground Injection Control Study: Volume 21 Aquifer Recharge 
 
ru1d Aquifer Storage and Recovery Wells. EPA/816-R-99-014u, Office of Ground Water and 
 
Drinking Water. 
 
EPA 1999b. Providing Safe Drinking Water In America: 1997 Nation~! Public Water Systems Compliance Report And Update On Implementation of 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments. EPA 305-R-99-002, April, 1999. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Ptotection Agency, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. 
 
EPA 2000. Providing safe drinking water in America; 1998 national public water systems co'mpliance report. EPA 305-R-00-002. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection 
 
Agency, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, available on the web at: 
 
' 
 
. 
 
. h~p://es.epa.gov/oeca/main/fedgov/compliance/pws98.pdf 
 
: . 
: 
I 
 
Fetter~ C.W. 1993. Contaminant Hydrogeology. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 
 
458 pp. 
 
Flavi~,I R.J. and J. B. Joseph. 1983. The hydrogeology of the Lee Valley and some eff~cts of 
 
' 
 
) 
 
aryificial recharge. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology v. 16 : pp 65-82. 
 
Ford, D.C. and P.W. Williams. 1989. Karst Geomorphology and Hydrology. London : Unwin 
 
Hyman Ltd, 
I 
I 
 
Fordham, Stephen Myles. 1995. Removal of tritium from water using tritium free water-saturated 
 
air. Thesis (M.S.}-University ofNevada, Reno, 211 p. 
 
I 
 
. 
 
. 
 
! 
 
I 
 
Foster, S.S.D. 1975. The Chalk groundwater Tritium anomaly- a possible explanation. Journal 
 
! 
 
. 
 
of:Hydrology v. 25: pp 159-165. I . 
 
~ . 
 
Foster, S.S.D. and A.H. Bath. 1983. The distribution of agricultural soil leachates in the 
 
unsaturated zone of the British Chalk Environmental Geology v. 5(2): pp 53-59. 
I ' 
 
Free~, R.A. and J.A. Cherry. 1979~ Groundwater. New Jer.sey: Prentice Hall. 
 
                                            
 
Georgia Geologic Survey Dr. William McLemore 
 
- C-5- 
 
April2001 003-3019.002 
 
Fugro West Inc. 1998. East Bay injection/extraction groundwater pilot project phase II report to 
I 
East Bay Municipal Utility District. Project No 96-71-3998, dated Feb. 1998. 
 
I 
Fugro West Inc. 1999. East Bay injection/extraction groundwater pilot project demonstration 
 
test: operations report to East Bay Municipal Utility District. Project No 97-71-2464, dated 
 
! 
 
 
 
Sept. 1999. 
 
Golder Associates Inc. 1995. Preliminary Evaluation of ASR in the (Little) Bear Creek Drainage. Report no. 943-1702.004 
j 
Golder ,Associates Inc. 1996a. City of Salem, ASR Pilot Project, Technical Memorandum on L~dslide Evaluation. Report no. 943-1653.804. 
 
Golder :Associates Inc. 1996b. City of Salem, ASR Pilot Project, Technical Memorandum on Groundwater Quality. Report no. 943-1653.301 
: 
Golder ;Associates (UK) Ltd 1998a. Assessment of the Impact of Diffusion Exchange on ASR Op~rations at Abberton. Report for Essex and Suffolk Water, Chelmsford, UK. 
 
Green, :Richard C., Jonathon D. Arthur, and David DeWitt. 1995. Lithostratigraphic and hy~rostratigraphic cross sections through Pinellas and Hillsborough counties, southwest 
Florida, Open File Report 61, Florida Geological Survey. 
 
Hawnt, R.J.E., J.B. Joseph, and R.J. Flavin. 1981. Experience with Borehole Recharge in the 
Lee Valley. Journal of the Institution of Water Engineers and Scientists v. 35(5): pp 437- 
I 
452 . 
 
Hickey~ J.J. and G.G. Ehrlich. 1984. Sub-surface injection of treated sewage into a saline aquifer at St. Petersbyrg, Florida - water quality changes and potential for recovery of injected sewage. Ground Water v. 22 (4): pp 397-405.  
 
Hoffinan, T. and U. Schettler. 1998. "Microparticle facilitated transport of contaminants during 
artipcial groundwater recharge" in Artificial Recharge of Groundwater, in J.H Peters et al. 
(eds.) Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Artificial Recharge of 
I 
I 
 
  
 
' 
Georgia Geologic Survey I 
Dr. Wpliam McLemore 
 
- C-6- 
 
April2001 003-3019.002 
 
i 
. G~oundwater - TISAR 98, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 21-25 September 1998. Rotterdam : 
 
Balkema. 
 
Hudsoh, G.B., M.L. Davisson, C.A. Velsko, S. Niemeyer, B.K. Esser, and J. Beiriger. 1995. I 
I 
Preliminary report on isotope abundance measurements in groundwater samples from the Talbert 
 
1 
injection 
 
barrier 
 
area, 
 
Orange 
 
Co~nty 
 
Water 
 
District. 
 
Isotope 
 
Sciences 
 
Div., 
 
Lawrence 
 
I 
 
Livermore National Laboratory, UCRL-ID-122450. I 
 
' 
!bison; M.A., Sanders, F.A., Glanzman, R.K. and Dronfield, D.G. 1995. "Manganese in 
recovered water from an ASR well" in Johnson, A.I. and R.D.G. Pyne, (eds.) Artificial 
R~charge of Groundwater II, Proc. 2nd International Symposium on Artificial Recharge of 
Groundwater, Orlando, Florida, 17-22 July, 1994. 
I i 
James :M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1979. Water Factory 21 Virus Study. Final 
Report to Orange County Water District. OWRT Contract 14-34-0001-8520. 
i 
 
James~ Montgomery Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1981. Water Factory 21 Environmental virus and paksite monitoring. Report to Orange County Water District, Dec 1981. . 
I 
 
Jones, fH.K., D.M.J. MacDonald, and I.N. Gale. 1998. The Potential for Aquifer Storage and 
R~c' overy in England and Wales. British Geological Survey Technical Report WD/98/26. 
I 
 
Kelso, :Robert Charles. 1994. The removal of tritium from contaminated water using hollow fiber 
 
I 
 
. 
 
membranes. University ofNevada, Reno, 96 p. 
 
I 
 
 
 
I 
 
Kinneburgh, D.G., I.G. Gale, P.L. Smedley, W.G. Darling, J.M. West, R.T. Kimblin, A. Parker, 
 
J.E. Rae, P.J. Aldous, and M.J. O'Shea. 1994. The effects of historic abstraction of 
 
I 
 
. 
 
. 
 
. 
 
I 
 
gr~undwater from the London Basin aquifers on groundwater quality. Applied Geochemistry 
 
v. 9: pp 175-1~5 . 
 
Krause, R.E. and R.B. Randolph. 1989. Hydrology of the Floridan Aquifer System in Southeast Ge'orgia and Adjacent Parts of Florida and South Carolina. USGS Professional Paper 1403-D, 65j>p . 
 
  
 
Georgi~ Geologic Survey 
 
., 
 
April2001 
 
Dr. William McLemore 
 
- C-7- 
 
003-3019.002 
 
I 
 
Landmeyer, J.E., P.M. Bradley, and J.M. Thomas. 2000. Biodegradation of disinfection by-products 
 
I 
 
. 
 
a I 
as removal process during Aquifer Storage Recovery. Journal of the American Water Works 
 
I 
As~ociation (AUG 01 2000) v. 36(4): p. 861- . 
 
Las Vegas Valley Water District 1997. Las Vegas Valley Water DistrictArtificial Recharge Project, 1996 Year End Report. Nevada Division of Water Resources Permit Nos. R-001, R-003 and R012, and Nevada Division ofEnvironment Protection Permit No. NEV 87054. 
Lawre~ce, A.R. and S.S.D. Foster. 1986. Denitrification in a limestone aquifer in relation to the security of low-nitrate groundwater supplies. Journal of the Institute of Water Engineers and 
I 
Scientists v. 40 (2) : pp 159-172. 
I 
Lawredce~ A.R. and S.S.D. Foster. 1991. The legacy of aquifer pollution by industrial 
chemicals: technical appraisal and policy implications. Quarterly Journal of Engineering GeologyV. 24: pp 231-239. 
 
Lazarova, V., P. Savoye, M.L. Janex, E.R. Blatchley, and M. Pommepuy. 1999. Advanced 
I 
waStewater disinfection technologies: state of the. art and perspectives. Water Science and 
! 
Technology v. 40(4-5): pp. 203-213 . 
 
McCart}r, P.L., M. Reinhard, J.W. Graydon, J. Schreiner, K. Sutherland, T. Everhart, and D.G. 
Argo. 1980. Advanced treatment for wastewater reclamation at Water Factory 21. Stanford 
I 
Un~versity, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Ci~il Engineering Technical Report No. 236, 149p. 
 
McCarty, P.L., M. Reinhard, N.L. Goodman, J.W. Graydon, G.D. Hopkins, K.E. Mortelmans, and D.G. Argo. 1982. Advanced treatment for wastewater reclamation at Water Factory 21. Staflford University, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Civil Engineering Technical Report No. 267, 223Ip, 
 
Merritt, M.L. 1985. Subsurface storage of freshwater in South Florida: A digital model analysis 
I I 
ofr~coverability. USGS Water Supply Paper 2261, 44pp. 
I 
I 
Miller, 1I -A. 1986. Hydrogeologic Framework of the Floridan Aquifer System in Florida and in 
 
I 
 
parts of Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina. USGS Professional Paper 1403-B, 91 pp. 
 
I 
 
 
 
. 
 
  
 
I 
Georgia Geologic Survey 
Dr. william McLemore 
 
- C-8- 
 
April2001 003-3019.002 
 
' 
 
Millet, C.J., L.O. Wilson, G.L. Amy, and K. Brothers. 1993. Fate of organochlorine compounds 
 
\ 
 
. 
 
d~ring aquifer storage and recovery. Ground Water v. 31 : pp 410-416. 
 
I 
 
Mire~ki, J.E., B.G. Campbell, K.J. Conlon, and M.D. Petkewich. 1997. Solute Changes During 
Aquifer Storage and Recovery Testing in a Lhnestone/Clastic Aquifer" Ground Water v. 
I 
36(3): pp. 394- 493 . I 
 
I 
MonC:aster, S.J. and M.C. Cook. 1999. "The ASR Potential of the Confined Chalk at Great 
Horkesley, Essex, England," in ASCE 1999 International Water Resource Engineering C~I nference, August 8-12, Seattle. 
 
Montgomery Watson 1997. Review of embankment stability in connection with a proposed 
chalk aquifer storage and recovery scheme. Report to Essex and Suffolk Water, Chelmsford, 
England . 
I { 
 
i 
 
. 
 
National Research Council. 1994. Ground Water Recharge Using Waters of Impaired Quality. 
 
I 
 
Cpmmittee on Ground Water Recharge, Water Science and Technology Board, Commission 
 
o~ Geosciences, Environment and Resources. Washington DC : National Academy Press, 
I 
283p. I I I i 
Nicksbn, R.T., ).M. McArthur, P. Ravenscroft, W.G. Burgess, and K.M Ahmed. 2000. 
I 
Mechanism of arsenic release to groundwate~, Bangladesh and West Bengal. Applied 
I 
Geochemistry v. 15 : pp. 403-413. 
' ' 
 
Nicholson, R.V., R.W. Gillham, and E.J. Reardon. 1988a. Pyrite oxidation in carbonate-buffered I solution: 1. Experimental kinetics. Geochima CosmochimicaActa v. 52: pp 1077..:1085.. 
 
I 
 
Nicholson, R.V., R.W. Gillham, and E.J. Reardon.. 1988b. Pyrite oxidation in carbonate- 
 
. 
 
I 
 
bJffered solution: 2. Rate control by oxide coatings. Geochima Cosmochimica Acta v. 54 : 
I 
p~. 395 -402. 
 
! ' 
 
. 
 
. 
 
. 
 
I 
 
Peters, J.H., M.J.V. van Baar, P.J. Nobel, A.J. Vogelar, J.F. Schijven, W. Hoogenboezem, J. 
 
I 
 
. 
 
. B~rgsma, and A. Stakelbeek. 1998. "Fate of pathogens and consequences for the design of 
 
artificial recharge systems" in Artificial Recharge of Groundwater," in, J.H Peters et al. 
I 
1 . 
 
                                            
 
Georgia Geologic Survey  Dr. w:illiam McLemore 
 
- t-9- 
 
April2001 003-3019.002 
 
(eds.), Artificial Recharge of Groundwater, Proceedings of the Third International S~' mposium on Artificial Recharge of Groundwater- TISAR 98, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2~-25 September 1998, Rotterdam: Balkema.. 
 
Pinho~ster, G. 1995. Drinking recycled wastewater. Environmental Science and Technology 29(4):174A-179A 
 
Plumrher, L.N., E. Busenburg, S. Drenkard, P. Schlosser, B. Ekwurzel, R. Weppernig, J.B 
 
McConnell, and R.L. Michel. 1998a. Flow of river water into a karstic aquifer - I. Tracing 
 
thb young fraction in gr~undwat,er mixtures iri the Upper Floridan Aquifer near Valdosta, 
 
G~orgia. Applied Geochemistry v. 13(8): pp. 995- 1017. 
 
. 
 
Plummer, L.N., E. Busenburg, S. Drenkard, P. Schlosser, B. Ekwurzel, R. Weppemig, J.B 
~cConnell, and R.L. Michel. 1998b. Flow of river water into a karstic aquifer - 2. Dating th~ young fraction in groundwater mixtures in the Upper Floridan Aquifer near ValdosUt, 
' 
Gforgia. Applied Geochemistry v. 13(8): pp. 1017-1043. 
I 
i 
Plummer, LN., M.G. Rupert, E. Busenburg, and P. Schlosser. 2000. Age oflrrigation Water in Ground Water from the Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer, South-Central Id~ho. Ground 
~ater v. 38(2) : pp. 264-284. 
 
Pontiqs, F.W. 1993a. Federal drinking water regulation update. Journal of the :American Water ~orks Association v. 85(2): p. 42. 
 
Pontius, F.W. 1993b. D-DBP rule to set tight standards. Journal of the American Water Works Association v. 85(11): p. 22. 
 
Pyn~. 1 R.D.G 1995. Groundwater Recharge and Wells: A Guide to Aquifer Storage and R~covery. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press. 
 
Pyne, R.D.G., P.C. Singer, and C.T. Miller. 1996. Aquifer storage recovery of treated drinking 
 
I 
 
. 
 
Wl;lter. 
: 
 
Final 
 
Re.port 
 
to 
 
A WWA 
 
Research 
 
Foundation, 
 
176p . 
 
I 
 
                                            
 
Georgia Geologic Survey I 
Dr. William McLemore 
 
:. \ c~1o:. 
 
April2001 003-3019.002 
 
Quinones-Aponte, V., K. Kotun, and J.F. Whitley. 1996. Analysis of Tests of Subsurface 
Inj~ction, Storage and Recovery of Freshwater in the Lower Floridan Aquifer, Okeechobee 
County, Florida. USGS Open-File Report 95-765 . 
 
Ragone, S.E. and J. Vecchioli, 1975. Chemical Interaction During Deep Well Recharge, Bay 
I 
Patk, New York. Ground Water v. 13(1): pp. 17-23 . 
 
I 
Rattray, K.J., P.J. Dillon, A.L. Herczeg, and P. Pavelic. 1986. Geochemical processes in I I aq':Jifers receiving injected stonnwater. Centre for Groundwater Studies Report No. 65 
I 
I I 
Reinh~d, M., W.-H. Ding, and Y. Fujita. 1994. Organic carbon characterization of.advanced 
 
trekted wastewater at Water Factory 21, Orange County. Stanford University, Dept. of Civil 
 
I 
 
. 
 
En~ineering, Civil Engineering Technical Report No. 320. 
 
i 
 
Rittmah, B.E., P.L. McCarty, and P.V. Roberts. 1980. Trace Organics Degradation in Aquifer 
I 
Re~harge. Ground Water v. 18(3): pp. 237-243 . 
 
I 
Robert:S; P.V. 1985. "Field observations of organic contaminant behaviour in the Palo Alto 
Bariands" In: Artificial Recharge of Groundwater, edited by T. Asano. Butterworth Publishers, 
pp~647-679 . 
I 
i Roberti>, P.V., J.O. Leckie, P.L. McCarty, G.A. Parks, R.L. Street, L.Y. Young, M. Reinhard, 
and R.C. Cooper. 1978. Groundwater recharge by injection of reclaimed water in Palo Alto. S~nford University, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Civil Engineering Technical Report No. 229, 
I 
12lP 
 
Rose, ~ 1993. Environmental tritium systematics of baseflow in Piedmont Provine watersheds, 
 
Gebrgia (USA). Journal ofHydro1ogy (Mar 15 1993) v. 143 (3/4): pp. 191- . 
 
' 
 
I 
 
I 
 
I 
 
I 
 
Rosenl1ein, J.S. and J.J. Hickey. 1977. Storage ofTreated Sewage Eftluent and Stonn Water in 
 
a S~line Aquifer, Pinellas Peninsula, Florida. Ground Water v. 15(4): pp. 284-293 . 
I 
I' 
 
I 
de Ruiier, H. and P. Stuyzland, 1998. "An experiment on well recharge of oxic water into an 
I 
anric aquifer" in, J.H Peters et al. (eds.), Artificial Recharge of Groundwater, Proceedings 
 
I 
I 
 
                                            
 
Georgia Geologic Survey Dr. William McLemore 
 
- C-i i- 
 
April2001 003-3019.002 
 
I 
of ~e Third International Symposium on Artificial Recharge of Groundwater - TISAR 98, 
I 
Amsterdam, Netherlands, 21-25 September 1998, Rotterdam : Balkema. 
I 
I 
 
Sakharovskii, Y. A., M. B. Rozenkevich, B. M. Andreev, E. P. Magomedbekov. 1999. Removal 
of :Tritium from Water Flows by the Method of Chemical Isotopic Exchange of Hydrogen 
with Water. Atomic energy= Atomnaia energiia. v. 85 (1): pp. 462. 
I 
 
Sasaki; T. S-1. S-1 Ishii, and M. Senda. 2000. Tritium in [ISO]water, its identification and 
"I 
removal. Applied radiation and isotopes v. 52(2000): pp. 175-179. 
\ 
I 
Saxon,~ E., 2000. Personal communication to Jim Renner, Golder Associates, regarding operation 
I 
of the Beaufort-Jasper Water and Sewer Authority ASR system. 
 
I 
 
Sedlack, D.L. 1999. "Pharmaceutically active compounds in the aquatic environment and their 
 
i 
 
 
 
rel~tionship to water re-use" in 9th Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of 
 
Grbundwater, Tempe, Arizona, June 10-12, 1999. 
 
I 
Singer,!P.C., R.D. Pyne, A.V.S. Mallikarjun, C.T. Miller, and C. Mojonnier. 1993. Examining the 
impact ofaquifer storage and recovery on DBPs. Res. & Tech. 85-94. 
 
South Florida Water Management District. 2000. 
 
SFWMD web page 
 
http://141.232.1.11/org/pld/proj/asr/asrupdate.htm Posted September 22, 1999. 
I 
Sprinkle, C.L. 1989. Geochemistry of the Floridan Aquifer System in Florida and Parts of 
 
Georgia, South Carolina and Alabama. USGS Professional Paper 1403 -I. 
I 
 
Street)~, M.J. 1998. "Th.e use of modelling to predict the behaviour of ASR systems" in, J.H 
 
Pet~rs et al. (eds.), Artificial Recharge of Groundwater, Proceedings of the Third I 
International Symposium on Artificial Recharge of Groundwater - TISAR 98, Amsterdam, 
 
I 
Netherlands, 21-25 September 1998, Rotterdam: Balkema. 
I 
i 
i 
 
Streetly, M.J. and S. Kotoub. 1998. Determination of aquifer properties in northern Qatar for 
 
I 
 
 
 
application to artificial recharge. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology v. 31 : pp. 199- 
 
1 
209 . 
! 
 
                                           
 
I 
Georgia Geologic Survey 
I 
Dr. WiHiam McLemore 
I 
 
April2001 003-3019.002 
 
StumJ, W. and J.J. Morgan. 1981. Aquatic Chemistry: An Introduction Emphasizing Chemical 
Eq~ilibria in Natural Waters. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 
I ! 
 
StuyrzlImd, P.J. 1998a. "Quality changes upon injec.tion into .anoxic aquifers in the. Netherlands: 
 
Ev~luation of 11 experiments" in, J.H PeterS et al (eds.), Artificial Recharge of Groundwater, 
 
I 
Pr<?ceedings of the Third International Symposium on Artificial Recharge of Groundwater - 
 
I 
 
 
 
TISAR 98, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 21-25 September 1998, Rotterdam : Balkema.. 
 
I 
 
I 
 
Stuyfumd, P.J. 1998b. "Fate of pollutants during artificial recharge and bank filtration in the 
 
I 
 
Ne~herlands," ill, J.H Peters et al. (eds.), Artificial Recharge of Groundwater, Proceedings of 
 
I 
 
. 
 
th~ Third International Symposium on Artificial Recharge of Groundwater - TISAR 98, i 
Amsterdam, Netherlands, 21-25 September 1998, Rotterdam: Balkema., pp. 119-125. I I 
 
I 
 
I 
 
Stuyfzand, P.J. 1998c. "Simple models for reactive transport of pollutants and main constituents 
 
I 
 
dufing artificial recha~ge and bank filtration," in, J.H Peters et al. (eds.), Artifici~l Recharge 
 
I 
 
 
 
I 
of Groundwater, Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Artificial Recharge of 
 
I 
Groundwater- TISAR 98, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 21-25 September 1998, Rotterdam : I I 
BaJkema, pp. 427-434 . 
 
I 
I 
I 
Summ~rour, J.H., E.A. S~apiro, J.A. Lineback, P.F. Huddlestun, and A.C. Hughes. 1994. An 
 
investigation of tritium in the Gordon and other aquifers in Burke County, Georgia--Final 
 
l 
 
. 
 
. 
 
Report. Georgia Geologic Survey Information Circular 95, 93 p. 
 
I 
 
I 
 
Thorn~, J.M., W.A. McKay, E. Cole, J.E. Landmeyer, and P.M. Bradley. 2000. The Fate of 
 
I 
 
. 
 
Haloacetic Acids and Trihalomethanes in an Aquifer Storage and Recovery Program, Las 
 
! 
 
. 
 
. 
 
Vegas, Nevada. Ground Waterv. 38(4): pp. 605-614. 
 
I 
USGS.12000. Personal communication: Fred Falls, Hydrologist (U.S. Geological Survey) to 
 
Chtis Hemingway, Golder: regarding saturation indices in the Lower Floridan/Fednandina, I I 
usipg WATEQ speciation routines, emails dated November 2 and 3, 2000.. 
 
I 
I 
I 
Wesne~, G.M. 1999. Annual Report. Orange County Water District Wastewater Reclamation, 
 
I 
Talbert Barrier, and Recharge Project- Calendar Year 1998. Orange County Water District. 
 
! 
 
. 
 
i 
 
I 
 
I 
I 
 
  
 
II . 
 
I 
I 
 
Georgia Geologic Survey Dr. W~lliam McLemore 
 
- C-13- 
 
April2001 003-3019.002 
 
I .Pr~pared for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region, Report 
 
I 
O~der No. 91-121. 
 
Wester' hoff, P. and P. Pinney. 2000. Dissolved organic carbon transformations during 
laboratory-scale groundwater recharge using lagoon-treated wastewater. Waste Management i 
v.!20(1): p. 75-83. 
I 
I 
 
Westinghouse Savannah River Company. 1994. Savannah River Site environmental report for 
 
I 
 
. 
 
1~93: Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, S.C., WSRC-TR-94-075, prepared fo~ 
 
u:s. Departm~nt of Energy, contract no. DE-AC09-89SR18035, variously paged. 
 
i 
Wilson, Timothy E. 1996. The removal of tritium from contaminated water usin'g aeration. 
Jesis (M.S.)--University ofNevada, Reno, 253 p.  
I 
I 
Zhen~ou, Li. 1998. Removal of tritium. from tritiated water using electrodialysis and 
m~tallothermic reduction processes. Thesis (M.S.)--University ofNevada, Reno, 102 p. 
i 
 Zullei~Seibert, N. 1998. "Your daily drugs in drinking water ? State of the art for artificial 
I 
grhundwater recharge" in, J.H Peters et al (eds.), Artificial Recharge of Groundwater, 
P~oceedings of the Third International Symposium on Artificial Recharge of Groundwater - 
TISAR 98, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 21-25 September 1998, Rotterdam : Balkema. 
I 
I 
I 
 
"" 
 
  
 
I . 
I, 
I 
 
APPENDIX3 
 
  
 
'he Georgia :onservaqcy 
 
A. Sibley Ill  lenr 
 
10 OF TRUSTEES Izard Jr., Chairman  
 
I. Addrson Jr.. Alpharetta ' 
 
Allen. Atlanta 
 
AndP.rson. A rlanta 
 
, 
 
1 C Archer Ill. Suwanee ! 
 
M. Bledsoe. Atlanta  
 
 C. Boone.. Stone Mounta1'1 
 
yR. Boring. Ph.D. Albany, 
 
E. Bostic Jr.. Atlanta 1 
 
'!I R. Buchanan. Atlanta  , 
 
IBid Carroll. Ph.D.. \VatJ:.msvillt.: 
 
~hace. Ph.D .. Atlanta 
 
: 
 
Champion. Ph.D.. Pine Mofintain' 
 
R Davrs, Atlanta 
 
1e H. Detlels. Atlanta 
 
Di>on. Albany 
 
i 
 
mE. Draper. Ph.D .. At/ant~ 
 
a Faga. Atlanta 
 
I 
 
1 R. Foote. Alpharetta 
 
1 
 
Fowler, Athens 
 
:. Goldfrank. Columbus 
 
t Helms. Atlanta 
 
'J. Hill. Roswell' 
 
B. Hudson. M.D.. Augusta 
 
1ghes. Savannah 
 
 W. Isley, Ph. D.. Statesboro 
 
zard Jr.. Atlanta' 
 
I 
 
n Kenny. Atlanta 
 
stes Klamon. Atlanta 
 
'pher Klein. Savannah 
 
ty Laird Jr. ' 
 
'ontgomery. Rome  
 
Mori. Atlanta  
 
e T. Olmstead. Atlanta 
 
1 Parker. Atlanta 
 
1dat Roark. Atlanta 
 
~. R;::,:~ :~~~;a ~ariettal 
 
i el J. Rumke. Cummmg  
 
A. Rutllerford. Sa,annall ~ 
 
>anler. Atlanta  
 
el M. Sizemore. Atlanta 
 
Stoices. Atlanta 
 
i 
 
lS R. Swift. M.D.. Augusta 
 
s H. Tisdale Jr. A 1/anta 
 
1SORY BOARD 
rnk Barron. Jr. Rome on Bevington. Atlanta ~n T. Buller. Columbus '. Cowan. Peachtree City y Currey Jr. Atlanta y Hale. Atlanta 
1 
:l. Hardman. M.D.. Af/antH 1 "d C. Harris. A f/anra Jip Humann. Atlanra tA ur:;. Jasper Lev1lclS. Atlanta : la11g. Atl:.mw uer. AtlwJI,J M. Ratc:lillt:!, Atlanta 
o.~., Sn11th. Dulvtll f Tenenbaum. S.Honna/1 
/are. AtliWW Q \Villuttns. Atlanta 
 
ted on recyclc<l P~P"' 
 
. . , _-.._.~_: ~~ ! :.: 
 
1 
 
.......:: 
 
i-"~: JUN 1 tf1 2000 
 
!-J-y ------=-- 
 
428 Bull Street Savannah. GA 3140 I 
9121447-5910 9121447-0704(fax) www.gaconservancy.org e-mail: tgccoast@bellsouth.net 
 
ME\10RI\NDUM 
 
To: From: 
 
Groundwater Stakeholder Meeting Participants 
Patty Mclnt~astal Programs Direct~r . 
The Georgia Conservancy 
 
Date: 
 
June 16, 2000 
 
Subject: 
 
Meeting Summaries 
 
Enclosed are summaries of both groundwater stakeholder meetings. The February meeting summary was revised based on corrections and comments received from participants. The May meeting summary contains the  stakeholder recommendations that will be forwarded to the Georgia Environmental Protection Division, the US Geological Survey. and the Upper Floridan Aquifer Technical Advisory Committee. 
 
We anticipate hosting additional stakeholder meetings as the Sound Science Initiative proceeds and groundwater management policies are fonnulated. We hope you will continue to participate in these important sessions. Your 'input is invaluable to developing a sound strategy that will ensure a safe, adequate water supply for coastal Georgia. We will notify you of future meetings as they are scheduled. 
Please contact me at (912) 447-5910.or.tgccoast@bellsouth.net if you have any C()mments or questions about the enclosed meeting summaries. Thank you. 
 
                                            
 
Groundwater Stakeholder Meeting 
Hosted by The Georgia Conservancy Wednesday,. February 23, 2000  1:00-4:00 PM 
Midway, Georgia 
 
Meeting One Summary 
 
'urpose: 
 
he meeting was held as one of the tasks outlined in the Georgia Environmental Protection ivision's! (EPD) Sound Science Initiative to address saltwater intrusion into the Upper Floridan .quifer. EPD contracted with The Georgia Conservancy to plan, arrange and host the meeting. takehold7rs representing industry, local government, agriculture, recreation and non-profit rganizati()ns were asked to identify groundwater management questions they would like EPD's roundwater models and technical investigations to answer. Stakeholder input will be used by PD and !the United States Geological Survey (USGS) in developing the next generation of roundwaier models for use in the Sound Science Initiative. 
i 
 
lttendance 
 
'resenter~: 
 
. 
 
tr. Bill McLemore, Georgia EPD Jhn ClarkeI , USGS 
 
orothy Payne, USGS 
 
I 
' 'anel Pafticipants: 
 
Facilitator: 
Gail Cowie Carl Vinson Institute of Government University of Georgia 
 
1ck Amasbn ea Garde~ Seafood 
I 
I 
:en BrewtIon I 
:oastal Environmental )rganizatipn and Bryan 
:ounty j 
 
~ichard 
 
' 
Dpuglas 
 
:oastal Georgia Regional 
 
>evelopm~nt Center 
 
' 
lilly Edwards :ity of Hi~esville 
I 
\I Elfer ! 
ekylllslapd Authority 
I: 
riary Elfn'er 
:oastal G~brgia Land Trust 
IJ 
1. 
3ill Fostet: Jr. tepresent)ng Sea Island 
:ompanyj 
 
Wes Harris Bulloch County Extension Service  
Dan Hawthorne Mcintosh County Soil Conservation Commission 
Glen Hoffman Hercules, Inc. 
John Karrh Effingham County 
Lamar Keller Savannah Electric 
Jack Lantz The Landing Golf Courses 
Dave Kyler Coastal Georgia Center for Sustainable Development 
 
Michelle Liotta Fort James Corporation 
Dean Moss Beaufort-Jasper Water and Sewer Authority 
Milton Peterman Representing Glynn County 
Pete Peterson Effingham County Chamber of Commerce 
Dave Rutherford City of Port Wentworth 
Doug Shaw The Nature Conservancy Altamaha Bioreserve 
Deborah Sheppard Mcintosh County Chamber of Commerce 
 
1 
 
                                            
 
Otl1ers m. aI!ttendanee: 
 
John 
 
C. 
 
Bai1~d I . 
 
. 
 
Jekylllslani:J Authority 
 
j  
 
Jackie Jackson Fort Stewart 
 
Camille Ransom SC DHEC 
 
' 
Sid Beauchamp 
The Landin'gs i 
I i 
Michael Dale 
 
Elliott jones USGS 
.Harry Jue 
 
.Constance Riggins Mcintosh County Chamber of Commerce 
 
South Caro)ina Department of 
 
City of Savannah 
 
Roy Rountree 
 
Natural Resources I I ~ 
Robert G. E>eWin R&R Seaf~od Company 
 
Gail Krueger Savannah Morning News 
 
Georgia EPD 
Steve Royer Georgia-Pacific Corporation 
 
t: 
Kenny Durpas 
 
Christi Lambert The Nature Conservancy 
 
Gary Sharpe 
 
City of Sa~annah 
 
Gilman Paper Company 
 
Tony Foyl~ 
 
Tom Matyok Coastal Georgia Center for 
 
Don Smith 
 
Georgia Squthern University 
li 
 
Sustainable Development 
 
South Atlantic Utilities 
 
Jeri Gale (; 
 
. 
 
Patty Mcintosh 
 
Jon Sprague 
 
The Georgia Conservancy 
,I' 
i! 
 
The Georgia Conservancy 
 
TSG Water Resources 
 
Amy Horton 
 
York Phillips 
 
Welby L. Stayton 
 
Brunswick:News  
 
. 
 
iI : 
 
Coastal Georgia Regional Development Center 
 
USGS 
 
Rick Krause I 
USGS, RetI,ired i 
I I 
 
Allan Pulaski The Landings 
 
Katherine Zitsch Camp Dresser & McKee 
 
I, 
Opening:Remarks 
 
Patty Mcl~tosh, Director of Coastal Programs for The Georgia Conservancy, welcomed panel participants 
 
and others/ in attendance, discussed the 'purpose of the meeting, and introduced the presenters and the 
 
facilitator.) Dr. Bill McLemore, State Geologist, discussed the use of models in the Sound Science Initiative, ~fforts and costs to date, and how the stakeholder meeting fits into the Sound Science Initiative 
and lnteri,~, Strategy for Addressing Saltwater Intrusion into the Upper Floridan Aquifer. I ~ 
 
I' 
 
USGS Overview of Modeling Effort . 
 
 
 
II John Clark~, USGS Project Manager of the Sound Science Initiative, made a presentation explaining what 
 
the ground~ater models can and cannot do. He also gave a historical overview of the movement of 
 
saltwater into the Upper Floridan Aquifer, relating that movement to the drop in artesian pressure due to I, 
pumping over the years to support development. 
! 
 
USGS mJdeler Dorothy Payne gave a presentation about flow and soiute transport models, modeling II 
objectives and modeling limitations. She defined a model as a quantified educated guess and said the models ar~ complex because the hydrologic system is complex. She explained how the groundwater flow system is ~onceptualized, how the models are constructed and calibrated, how management scenarios can 
 
be applied; and how the models can be verified. She also explained the differences in capability between 
 
i\I I 
 
' 
 
 
 
I! 
 
2 
 
                                            
 
j I 
I 
j: 
 
I' 
I i 
 
II' 
 
. 
 
r: 
 
. 
 
he current models and the next generation of models USGS will use in the aquifer study. The next 
seneratio~ of models will update the previous models, focusing on confined aquifers. 
 
Based on! input from the Groundwater Stakeholder meeting, USGS will look at how to orient the 
models t<;>: address areas of interest and specific boundaries. The problems and issues highlighted in today's meeting will affect the size and location of the model boundaries. This process 
encourages stakeholders to think of issues not addressed by the previous models. The new . generati~n of models may or may not be able to answer all of the questions posed. 
al~o USGS noted the potential that the proposed Savannah Harbor deepening may cause more 
saltwate~ intrusion into the aquifer. The new models could be used to show the vertical flux of the waterI~table system and m.ay provide more information about the potential for downward movement of saltwater over time. 
 
Questionl/concems posed to EPD and USGS by panel participants: 
Jack Am*son asked about the Snapper Hole. Con~em ras expressed about th~ lack of k~owledge regar~ing agri~ultural pumpage. Dr. McLemore rephed th~t DNR has contract w1th the Agncultural ExtensiOn Serv1ce to calculate pumpage over a fiveyear peri?d by sampling a subset of irrigation systems. The study began in July I 998 . 
Does agricultural use of groundwater require a permit? EPD responded yes. I 
i 
Facilit~ted Discussion I 
Gail Co~ie, with the University of Georgia's Carl Vinson Institute of Government, introduced herself as 
the facilitator. She stated that her role was to help the group focus on information needs. She also stated 
that a se~ond meeting may be needed and that when the information is compiled, results would be sent to 
EPD andIshared with the Upper Floridan .Aquifer Technical Advisory Committee. 
 
After an /opening exercise in which panel participants indicated their expectations for the next generation 
 
of models, the facilitator asked each participant to think of questions for the groundwater models in the 
 
following terms: 
 
. 
 
w+ would happen to (object) if(action) takes place in this location (boundary)? 
 
The panel participants were asked to break into small groups and discuss groundwater management 
questio~s in the suggested format, keeping in mind what would make significant changes to life in coastal 
 
Georgia[ The group then reconvened and the facilitator recorded the scenarios each group felt should be 
 
addressJd by the EPD's models and technical investigations. 
 
. i' 
 
The following scenarios were posed by participants and recorded by the facilitator: 
 
I 
 
. 
 
I' 
 
. 
 
1. What would happen to the Miocene aquifer(s) if it/they were developed?  
 
. 
 
Whht would happen to the surficial aquifer and surface water bodies, wetlands, etc., if the Miocene 
 
aqu,fer(s) were developed? 
 
2. Wh~t would happen to river base flow and freshwater inflow to the estuary and freshwater wetlands if the~e were increased development of the Miocene and surficial aquifers? What would happen to river 
 
base flow and freshwater to the estuary and freshwater wetlands for any alternative use scenario? Mo~e generally, what would be the ecological impacts of each scenario? 
3. wJIat would be the geological impacts ofpu~ping from the Miocene . aquifer? 
 
3 
 
                                            
 
I 
II , 
I: 
 
I 
 
I, 
 
' !i 
 
. 
 
II 
 
. 
 
4. What would happen 1f groundwater use were reduced bv 50% and surface water used instead? 
 
Are surface water sources sufficient to provide this am~unt? What would be the ecological effects of 
 
such a;scenario? I 
5. What ~vou ld happen to the saltwater interface if specific water conservation actions were 
 
implemented (e.g., retrofits)? How much water (mgd) could be saved? What would be the impact of 
 
speciti;c reductions in use (e.g., 10%, 20%, 30%) on the saltwater interface? 
 
I 
 
. 
 
6. What Vo'ould happen to saltwater intrusion and groundwater quantity if certain wells closest to the 
 
coast Jnd to the cone of depression were abandoned and withdrawals were relocated to the west 
 
where/the aquifer is deeper? Similarly, what would happen to saltwater intrusion and groundwater 
 
quantity ifthese wells were abandoned and use shifted to surface water sources at the coast? 
 
~ould 7. What 
 
be the effect on existing inland wells (water level, particularly) if use were moved 
 
inlandf Scenarios include shifting pumpage from downtown Brunswick to western Glynn County; 
 
from Qlynn County to Camden, Wayne, or Mcintosh County; and Chatham County to Effingham 
 
Count)' . 
 
8. What ~ould happen to saltwater movement into Hilton Head if 5 mgd of freshwater were injected as 
 
a barrier on the north end of Hilton Head Island? . 
 
_ 
 
9. How much water can be pumped out of existing wells in Glynn County and still have the Floridan 
aquife~ reach a steady state (steady state in terms of groundwater level and salt concentration)? Simil~rly, how much can be pumped from existing wells in Chatham County with the Floridan 
 
reachipg a steady state? Moreover, are the conditions at that steady state acceptable? 
I0. What ~ould be the quantity and quality effects in Chatham and the surrounding areas from 
 
unchanged withdrawals in a) Chatham County or b) the study region? 
 
~ould 11. What 
 
be the effects on biological functions of unchanged withdrawals region-wide? 
 
I. 
 
12. What is the local effect on saltwater movement due to wells in southern Bryan, southern Effingham, 
 
and all counties in the study area? That is, was the cap on withdrawal put in place because of 
 
contributions to localized saltwater impacts or because of contributions to impacts elsewhere? 
 
13. What kre the potential impacts of existing open-bore wells along the Georgia coast? 
 
 
 
I 
 
14. Whatlhappens during aquifer storage and recovery (ASR)? That is, what happens to 
 
inovefent of stored water, quality of stored water and quality of natural water under ASR? 
 
What; are the effects locally? What is the localized movement? What are the effects across 
 
the fUll sphere of influence? How far does the sphere of influence extend? Other include: 
 
-effects of mixing aerobic and anaerobic waters 
 
. 
 
-geoc~emical effects on the aquifer itself (on the limestone formations); 
 
-effects of prior treatment; and 
 
-mixi~g effects in general. 
! 
 
15. What !would he the flow scenarios (short-term and long-term) under major drought conditions? 
 
I 
 
- 
 
. 
 
16. What ;would happen to groundwater and surface_ water quality and quantity with continued alteration 
 
of wetlands (i.e., drain and fill) across the region? 
 
 
 
I 
 
- 
 
17. What ;would happen to the saltwater intrusion due to sea-level rise? 
 
I I 
.,i I . I, ! 
I 
i 
' 
4 
 
                                            
 
Other qurstionslcomments posed by participants: 
 
I A few related questions arose during discussion at the meeting and some participants submitted additional 
 
scenarios in writing at the close of the session. These questions and comments are listed below: 
 
. 
 
! 
 
 What }vould be the relative cost/benefit of investment in water conservation equipment for major 
 
industrial users versus the development of other water sources?  
 
. ! 
 
 
 
 What happened to the money allocated in 1995 for offshore wells to be drilled? [Dr. McLemore 
 
answered that: money was allocaledfor Tybee and St. Mary's, but not for offshore drilling} 
 
I' 
 Concern \vas expressed about the effects of saltwater intrusion in the aquifer on freshwater in the 
 
estuaries and the refusal ofDNR's Coastal Resources Division to see the connection . I I 
 Does ground water press.ure or absence of same affect the quantity of fresh water in coastal estuaries? 
 
The aryswer to that question should be transferred to the legislature, the Coastal Resource.s Division or 
 
Environmental Protection Division of Georgia DNR, and South Carolina DNR. 
' 
 What can the new models tell us about the potential of downward saltwater leakage caused by harbor 
 
deeperying? 
 
I 
 
 What is the long-term potential for saltwater intrusion impacting the Skidaway wells based on current  
 
I 
 
. 
 
region11l withdrawal rates? 
 
. 
 
. 
 
 If the ~hallow aquifer on Skidaway is utilized to reduce demand on the Floridan Aquifer, will the 
 
potential for saltwater intrusion be increased? 
I 
 How s~sceptible is the shallow aquifer to saltwater.intrusiol')? 
I 
 What would the "head pressure" become for the Floridan Aquifer (knowing what pre-well days I were)?, Would the pressure be reyersed enough to reduce or eliminate the flow of saltwater intrusion 
 
if a policy dictates an MGD reduction? If not, what is the purpose of continuing the model building 
 
process other than for monitoring if in fact we are not solving what seems to be a futuristic problem? 
I i Conclus1;on/Adjournment 
 
At the closb of the meeting, participants agreed that it would be useful to meet a second time to review the 
 
scenarios J!sted above and discuss priorities in the face of limited resources. At that meeting, EPD and 
 
USGS willi provide feedback on the scenarios and their suitability for model application. If possible, 
 
informatiot;t from the USGS report on previous modeling efforts, currently being finalized, will be 
 
provided t() the panel before the next meeting, which will be held late spring. 
 
I I 
 
. 
 
I 
 
The meeting was adjourned promptly at 4:00 PM. 
 
I 
 
. 
 
5 
 
  
 
Groundwater Stakeholder Meeting 
Hosted by The Georgia Conservancy Wednesday, May 17,2000  1:00-4:00 PM 
Midway, Georgia 
 
Meeting Two Summary 
 
urpose' 
 
he meetihg was held to conclude the work of stakeholders in identifying groundwater management 
 
uestions Jnd modeling scc:;narios for input into groundwater models and other technical investigations 
 
;:ing COJlducted under EPD's Sound Science Initiative. The initial meeting was held on 
 
ebruarv 2C3, 2000. 
 
- 
 
j 
 
I 
 
1ttendance 
I ' 
'resenters: I 
)hn Clarke, USGS 
orothy P~yne, USGS 
 
Facilitator: 
Gail Cowie, University of Georgia, Carl Vinson Institute of Government 
 
'ane/ Pa~ticipants: 
1ck Amas;on ea Garden. Seafood 
Ob Benson I 
ilynn Co~nty 
' 
I 
.en Brewt'on :oastal Erivironmental lrganization and .ryan County 
I 
.ichard D9uglas .ong Courtty 
,J Elfer I 
;:kyll lsla~d Authority 
I 
 1ary Elfn~r . 
:oastal G~orgia Land Trust 
I 
 
Kelly Ferda South Island Utilities HHI, SC 
Wes Harris Bulloch County Extension Service  
j 
Richard Johnston Glynn County 
Lamar Keller Savannah Electric 
David Kyler Coastal Georgia Center for Sustainable Development 
 
Jack Lantz The Landing Golf Courses 
Michelle Liotta Fort James Corporation 
Dean Moss Beaufort-Jasper Water and Sewer Authority 
Pete Peterson Effingham County Chamber of Commerce 
David Rutherford City of Port Wentworth 
Deborah Sheppard Mcintosh County Chamber of Commerce 
 
)thers in: attendance: 
.aurie K. Abbott :oastal WaI ter & Sewerage 
I 
'ony Abbptt :onsolidated Utilities 
I 
~am Arora lydrovisibn 
I 
' 
 
John C. Baird Jekyll Island Authority Deatre Denion Chatham-Savannah MPC Kenny Dumas City of Savannah 
1 
 
Fred Falls US Geological Survey, Columbia, SC 
Dieter Franz Camp, Dresser & McKee 
 
                                            
 
I 
I I 
Jeri Gale j: 
The Georgi~ Conservancy 
I 
Christine Griffiths I 
The Nature, Conservancy 
I 
Phyllis Isley Georgia so:uthern University 
 
Jean McDowell Chatham-Savannah MPC 
Patty Mcintosh  The Georgia Conservancy 
Andy Ninnemann Landings Club 
 
SteveRoyer Georgia-Pacific Corporation 
Gary Sharpe Gilman Paper Company 
Cardwell Smith Army Corps of Engineers 
 
Alice Miller Keyes The Georg~a Conservancy 
Rick Krau~e Hydrovision 
1 
Gail K.rueger Savannah rytorning News 
I 
Judy JenniDgs Sierra Club 
I 
I I, 
Openinfir Remarks 
 
Jimmy Otto Mcintosh County Development Authority 
Camille Ransom SC DHEC 
Roy Rountree Georgia EPD 
 
 Jon Sprague TSG Water Resources 
Steve Walker Georgia Geological Survey 
James White SC DHEC 
 
USGS staff discussed their model scenario report and provided feedback on the 17 scenarios posed by stakeholders at the February 23rd meeting (see list of scenarios and USGS responses attached to this 
I 
summary).! Bill McLemore (GAEPD) and Dieter Fr:anz (Camp, Dresser, & McKee) reviewed the surface water assessments underway as part of the Sound Science Initiative. Under contract with GAEPD, a consultant '(Camp, Dresser & McKee) is looking at surface water supplies and storage needs. Their 
studies wifl address reclaimed water, off-mainstream impoundments, conjunctive surface-groundwater 
use, and Wfiter conservation opportunities. 
 
I 
I 
Meeting p~rticipants stressed the importance of protecting minimum flows in the large rivers. The 
 
consultant.is evaluating ways to provide water supply during minimum flow periods (e.g., conjunctive 
 
surface-gn;mndwater use). Participants suggested that GAEPD and their consultants look at water supply 
 
in an envir'onmentally s~lUnd manner, including protection of riverine habitat with provision of water 
 
supply (a doncern for the Ogeechee River, in particular). 
 
! 
 
. 
 
Facilitated Discussion 
 
Participants broke into five small groups to review the modeling scenarios developed at the February 23rd 
 
meeting. Each group was asked to select up to five scenarios they felt would provide information critical 
 
to the future of the region. The following items were selected: 
 
r 
 
. 
 
I 
Selected b'y four groups 
 
a) What ~ould happen to river base flow and freshwater inflow to the estuary and freshwater wetlands if 
 
there ~ere increased development of the Miocene and surficial aquifers? What would happen to river 
 
base flow and freshwater to the estuary and freshwater wetlands for any alternative use scenario? I 
More generally, what would be the ecological impacts of each scenario? 
 
I 
Sugge~ted revision: Ecological concepts should be defined and considered up-frpnt in developing 
 
scenafios to be studied. For example, what minimum in-streamflow and seasonal.fluctuations are 
 
necessary to maintain ecological junctions ofsubject streams? 
 
I 
 
. 
 
I 
 
Facilitator's note: This item is closely related to item g, which was selected by two ofthe groups. 
 
I 
I 
 
2 
 
                                            
 
b) What would happen to saltwater intrusion and groundwater quantity if certain wells closest to the coast a~d to the cone of depression were abandoned and withdrawals were relocated to the west where the aquifer is deeper? Similarly, what would happen to saltwater intrusion and groundwater quantity if these wells were abandoned and use shifted to surface water sources at the coast? 
I 
Facilitawr s note: Item) includes a related question. 
Selected by: three groups . c) What ~'ould happen if groundwater use were reduced by various amounts (e.g., 50%) and surface. 
water u'sed instead? Are surface water sources sufficient to provide this amount? What would be the ecologi,cal effects of such a scenario? 
I 
d) What ~ould happen to the saltwater interface if specific water conservation actions were implemented (e.g., retrofits)? How much water (mgd) could be saved? What would be the impact of specifi4 reductions in use (e.g., I 0%, 20%, 30%) on the saltwater interface? 
e) How m:uch water can be pumped out of existing wells in Glynn County and s~ill have the Floridan aquifer:reach a steady state (steady state in terms of groundwater level and salt. concentration)? Similarly, how much can be pumped from existing wells in Chatham County with the Floridan 
I 
reach in~ a steady state? Moreover, are the conditions at that steady state acceptable? I 
Selected by; two groups 
f) What would happen to the Miocene and Lower Floridan aquifer(s) if developed as an alternative to the Upper Floridan Aquifer? What would happen to the surficial aquifer and surface water bodies, wetlanqs, etc. if the Miocene aquifer were developed? 
g) What Jould be the biologial and ecological effects of all scenarios evaluated? EPD must accept that there isla relationship between groundwater and surface water and a compound effect o.n the coastal ecology and estuaries. All water decisions need to be considered as they affect the coastal ecology . 
h) What i~ the local effect on saltwater movement due to wells in southern Bryan, southern Effingham, and all counties in the study area? That is, was the cap on withdrawal put in place because of contributions to localized saltwater impacts or because of contributions to :impacts elsewhere? 
i) What h~ppens during aquifer storage and recovery (ASR)? That is, what happens to movement of stored ~ater, quality of stored water, and quality of natural water under ASR? What are the effects locally? What is the localized movement? What are the effects across the full sphere of influence? How far does the sphere of influence extend? 
I 
Related issues: effects of mixing aerobic and anaerobic waters; geochemical effects on the aquifer itself (o.n the limestone formations); effects of prior treatment; and mixing effects in general. 
! 
Selected by!one group 
j) What Would be the effect on existing inland wells (water level, particularly) if use were moved inland?! Scenarios include shifting pumpage from downtown Brunswick to western Glynn County or from Glynn and Chatham counties to Bryan and Effingham counties, respectively. 
' 
Facilit~tor 's note: Related questions are listed on item b above. k) What ~o' uld be the quantity and quality effects in Chatham and the surr~>Unding areas from 
unchanged withdrawals in a) Chatham County or b) the study region? 
i I 
I 
, . 
3 
 
  
 
I 
I 
Ii , 
I 
i 
i 
I 
n summary, participants recommended the following: 
Asses~ the ecological effects of all use scenarios, particularly effects on river base flow, on wetlands. 
and on freshwater inflow to estuaries (see items a, c and g above) . 
1 Model specific use scenarios listed above (see items b, c, d, f, i and j). 
I. Asses~ conditions at steady state groundwater levels and chloride concentrations (see item e) . 
L Specify impacts of current and unchanged withdrawals (see items h and k) . 
I 
I 
. ';onclu~}on/Adjournment 
 
rhe facilitator reiterated that the purpose of the two stakeholder meetings was to solicit input specifically or the grdundwater ~odels and technical investigations. Some questions can be answered through these nechanis~s, but others are beyond the scope and will have to be addressed by EPD in another manner. 
 
rhe result!ofthe facilitated sessions will be forwarded to EPD, the Upper Floridan Aquifer Technical 
 
\dvisory ~ommittee, and meeting participants. 
 
 
 
! 
Jpon an offer from EPD, stakeholders expressed interest in participating in additional meetings to 
 
>rovide input as the Sound Science Initiative studies progress and management policies are formulated. 
 
rhe Georgia Conservancy agreed to host the meetings and will notify interested parties as they are 
 
;cheduled: 
 
 
 
I 
 
rhe meeting was adjourned at 4:00PM. I I ' 
 
I 
I 
I 
4 
 
                                            
 
USGS Feedback on Stakeholder Modeling Scenarios 
 
I ' 
The foiiO\\:ing scenarios were posed by stakeholders at the February 23'd meeting. USGS reviewed the 
 
scenarios to determine their suitability for model application. Their responses appear in italics . 
 
. 
 
I 
 
I 
 
' 
 
I. What would happen to the Miocene aquifer(s) if it/they were developed? 
 
What ~ould happen to the surficial aquifer and surface water bodies, wetlands, etc., if the Miocene 
 
aquif~~(s) were developed? 
 
I 
 
This question may be addressed by scenario testing with the models, and is within the scope of the 
 
propo~ed modeling. 
 
I 
 
 
 
.., What ~ould happen to river base flow and freshwater inflow to the estuary and freshwater wetlands if 
 
there \yere increased development of the Miocene and surficial aquifers? What would happen to river 
 
base fl,bw and freshwater to the estuary and freshwater wetlands for any alternative use scenario? 
 
More ~enerally, what would be theecological impacts of ea~h scenario? 
 
t 
This question may be partially addressed by the models. Differences in groundwater discharge to the surfac~-water body resulting from changes in pumpage can be simulated. Ecological impacts that 
 
result }rom these changes cannot be addressed directly by the model. To simulate the particular 
 
proceises occurring in the es/Uaries, a more specific model ofthe surficial aquifer would be required. 
 
The tifne scale and the length scale are much shorter in the surficial aquifer than in the confined 
 
aquifer system, and the unsaturated zone behaves differently than the saturated zone. These 
 
conditions should be considered and incorporated into a more detailed surficial aquifer model. HowevIer, this is not compatible with the proposed modeling scope. The modeling results may 
 
subsequently highlight or provide a framework from which to build a proper, more accurate surficial 
 
mode( 
 
3. What Would be the geological impacts of pumping from the Miocene aquifer? 
 
I 
 
. 
 
. 
 
Subsidence and aquifer compaction are not addressable by the type ofmodeling proposed, nor are they u~derstood to be part ofthe scope. 
 
4. What ~ould happen if groundwater use were reduced by 50% and surface water used instead? 
 
Are surface water sources sufficient to provide this amount? What would be the ecological effects of 
such aI scenario? I 
 
A det4iled surface water model is not proposed, but impacts on surface water can be addressed in a 
 
general manner as described in point #2 above. Ecological effects may be inferredfrom the 
 
modeling, but are not directly addressed. Impacts ofpumpage reductions on ground water conditions 
 
can bf?I simulated by the models. 
 
 . 
 
. - 
 
5. What ~would happen to the saltwater interface if specific water conservation actions were imple!llented (e.g., retrofits)? How much water (mgd) could be saved? What would be the impact of 
 
specific reductions in use (e.g., 10%,20%, 30%) on the saltwater interface? 
I 
 
Scendrio testing using the saltwater transport model will address questions such as these, for specific 
 
I 
 
. 
 
locations. Similar scenarios have been tested using existing ground water models in coastal Georgia 
 
(see s~enarios A-2, A-3 in USGS report). 
 
I 
I 
 
5 
 
  
 
l 
i' 
t 
I 
6. W~at would happen to saltwater intrusion and groundwater quantity if certain wells closest to 
thd coast and to the cone of depression were abandoned and withdrawals were relocated to 
th~ west where the aquifer is deeper? Similarly, what would happen to saltwater intrusion an~ ground"vater quantity if these wells were abandoned and use shifted to surface water 
sources at the coast? I 
Scbnario testing using the saltwater transport model will address questions such as these, for spJcijic locations; the model will address surface water effects in a general way. Similar scJnarios have been tested using existing ground water models in coastal Georgia. 
I 
7. What would be the effect on existing inland wells (water level, particularly) if use were 
mdved inland? Scenarios include shifting pumpage from downtown Brunswick to western GlyI nn County; from Glynn County to Camden; Wayne, or Mcintosh County; and Chatham Cdunty to Effingham County. 
Th~ regional flow model will address these questions through scenario testing. Similar 
sc~narios have been tested using existing ground water models in coastal Georgia. I 
8. What would happen to salt"vater movement into Hilton Head if 5 mgd of freshwater were injected as a barrier on the north end of Hilton Head Island? 
 
Thle saltwater transport model could address this.through scenario testing. 
 
HJw 9. 
 
much water can be pumped out of existing wells in Glynn County and still have the 
 
FJbridan aquifer reach a steady state (steady state in terms of groundwater level and salt 
 
cobcentration)? Similarly, how much can be pumped from existing wells in Chatham County 
 
wifh the Floridan reaching a steady state? Moreover, are the conditions at that steady state . 
 
acceptable? 
T~ese questions can be addressed using transient simulations ofground water flow and  I 
solute transport. Whether these conditions are acceptable or not can then be evaluated by waIter managers. 
I 
I0. What would be the quantity and quality effects inChatham and the surrounding areas from u~changed withdrawals in a) Chatham County or b) the study region? 
 
TAese will be addressed by the scenario testing ofthe models. 
 
11. w'hat would be the effects on biological functions of unchanged withdrawals region-wide? 
 
I 
 
I 
 
. 
 
, 
 
The models will not be able to address this directly, but the results may be usefulfor other 
 
stfdies regarding this question. 
 
. 
 
12. W;hat is the local effect on saltwater movement due to wells in southern Bryan, southern 
 
Effingham, and all counties in the study area? That is, was the cap on withdrawal put in  
pl~ce because of contributions to localized saltwater impacts or because of contributions to 
 
irrtpacts elsewhere? 
 
I 
This question can b.e addressed by ground water flow and solute transport modeling. 
 
I 
 
. 
 
13. ~hat are the potential impacts ~f existing open-bore wells along the Georgia coast? 
 
This is a site-specific problem that could be addressed with very high resolution modeling, I 
but is probably beyond the scope ofthe planned models. 
 
6 
 
  
 
14. ~hat happens during aquifer storage and recovery (ASR)? That is, what happens to 
 
mpvement of stored water, quality of stored water and quality of natural water under 
 
ASR? What are the effects locally? What is the localized movement? What are the I 
e~fects across the full sphere of influence? How far does the sphere of influence 
 
e~tend? Other include: 
 
-effects of mixing aerobic and anaerobic waters 
-g~ochemical effects onthe aquifer itself(on th~ limestone formations); 
 
-effects of prior treatment; and 
 
-mIix.ing effects in general. 
Although the models are capable ofevaluating the impact ofaquifer storage and recovery on gr~und water levels and sal/Water intrusion, they are not capable ofemluciting ~ater-quality 
 
in!pacls of injected waters. Such questions can be addressed using geochemical speciation a~d reaction-transport modeling, which are not part ofthe planned models.  
 
I 
 
. 
 
. 
 
.JS. W,hat would be the flow scenanos (short-term and long-term) under maJor drought 
 
conditions? 
I 
T~is can be addressed through scenario testing of both the flow and solute transport models 
 
by: varying the amounts ofsurficial recharge. 
 
 
 
! 
 
16. What would happen to groundwater and surface water quality and quantity with continued 
 
alt1eration of wetlands (i.e., drain and fill) across the region? 
 
 
 
TJis is a specific question that is probably better addressed by smaller scale modeling of su~ficial aquifers that can account for changes that occur in engineered situations: changes 
 
in ~urface topography, sediment compaction, etc. 
 
I 
 
17. WhI at would ha.ppen to the-saltwater intrusion due to sea-level ri.se? 
 
. 
 
It is possible to address the effect ofsea level change on the movement ofthe saltwater.fr~shwater interface, but the time scale ofa sea level change ofsufficient magnitude to affect 
 
thJ interface (thousands ofyears) is likely to be many times greater than the time scale of 
 
interest to management problems (one hundred years); 
 
l 
 
7 
 
  
 
I 
I 
 
I 
USGS response to summary of stakeholder recommendations 
2?,I I 
July 2000 . 
I 
I 
The s~mmary of stakeholder recommendations is concise and specific and provides 
 
reconhnendations that are generally achievable by, and are appropriate to the scope of the 
I 
modelIing study. Our response to the f.our recommendations follows: 
I 
! 
( 1) ~ssess the ecological effects of all use scenarios, particularly effects on river base 
 
flow, jon wetlands and on freshwater inflow to estuaries: The models cannot address 
ecolo~ical effects directly, but they can be made to address at least in a general way the 
 
.niteracitJ.On between the surface water and ground water. The regw" nal flow model and. 
subre~ional solute-transport models will each simulate flow in the surficial aquifer, and 
 
I 
 
can thus simulate interactions with between the ground water and s4rface-water systems, 
 
r~:e~:::::~~OW  h 1 
Wit o 
 
r   
 
model will include major rivers and streams as part Of the upper 
 
I model boundary. The surficial aquifer will be actively modeled and will be 
I 
' allowed to interact with the surface water and the underlying confined and semi- 
 
confined aquifers. Data used to characterize this part of the model will be taken, 
 
in part, from a stream-baseflow analysis, yet to be performed. The results of this 
 
model will not be able to simulate, in detail, individual wetland or estuarine  
 
systems because the time and areal scale of the model will be of too coarse a 
 
resolution. Despite these limitations, simulations may indicate specific areas 
 
appropriate for more-detailed modeling ofsurface water/groundwater interactions. 
 
 For the Savannah-Hilton Head Island solute-transport model, it is particularly 
 
important to characterize the surficial aquifer and interactions between surface 
 
water bodies and the confined aquifers. A leading hypothesis for saltwater 
 
contamin<~:tion of the Upper Floridan aquifer in this area is thinning or breaching 
 
.of the surfical aquifer, both off-shore, and landward of the barrier islands (intra- 
 
coastal areas). The areal scale of this model will also be more conducive to 
 
characterizing the local estuarine systems. 
 
_i -- 
 
                                            
 
 For the Brunswick solute-transport model, the primary area of concern is upward 
II, 
migration of hypersaline water at depth (Fernandina permeable ~one) . 
I 
1 Interactions between the surface water bodies and the confined aquifers are not 
I likely to be very important, as the aquifers are deeply buried and the overlying 
confining unit is extremely thick. Nonetheless, the surficial aquifer can be 
modeled actively, and interaction between the surface water and confined aquifers 
will be considered. 
 
(2) jodel specific use scenarios: The scenarios discussed at the meetings included 
 
unchahged (or increased) withdrawals, conservation actions, use of surface water in place 
 
I 
 
. 
 
of gro,und water, redistribution of pumping locations, and redistribution of pumping to 
 
other hsable aquifers. Interest was expressed in the resulting effects of these scenarios on 
 
of surfaJe-water bodies (as discussed above), on ground-water levels the various aquifers, 
o~ and saltwater movement. The calibrated models will be capable of evaluating each of 
I 
these jmpacts to varying degrees. It should be noted that these ground-water flow and 
I 
 
solutd-transport models will not be able to specifically address the surficial water I 
 
resoutces, but, as indicated previously, the effect of changing surface-water flow on the 
 
I 
 
surficial and underlying aquifer flow systems can be examined. 
 
I 
 
. 
 
i 
I 
 
(3) Aissess ground-water levels and chloride concentrations under steady-state 
 
I 
 
. 
 
. 
 
conditions: Transient model simulations will be used to evaluate the maximum quantity 
 
I 
 
. 
 
of ground water that can be removed before the system can no longer sustain a steady- 
 
~ondition. state 
 
For the ground-water flow model, the flow system will be stressed to the 
 
I point iof assumed unrecoverable loss of aquifer head (incomplete saturation of the 
 
confihI ed aquifers). For the solute-transport models, ste.ady state is ach.ieved when the 
 
saltwIater front (transition zone) is stationary; which.may occur under entirely different 
 
condiItions than steady state. for the ground-water flo.w model. These models may be used 
 
to assess the time it takes for a steady state flow system to achieve steady state chloride 
 
I 
 
I 
 
distribution, and the geometry of that distribution. Each of these scenarios will help 
 
I 
 
. 
 
assesk the water-supply potential of the various aquifers . 
I 
I 
I 
I 
I I 
 
                                            
 
(4) S)pecify impacts ofcurrent and unchanged withdrawals: This is essentially a specific 
I 
use sdenario as described under "Model-specific use scenarios". This will be addressed 
I ; 
as patIt of model calibrat.ion to current conditions. 
I 
i I 
 
  
 
I . 
 
I 
Modelj Boundaries 
 
To facilitate development of specific model scenarios, we offer the following 
 
maps 
 
I 
that 
 
show 
 
the 
 
anticipated 
 
boundaries 
 
for 
 
the 
 
flow 
 
and 
 
solute-tr~msport 
 
models. 
 
~re Th. ese I subject to change with additional information, directives, or preiiminar.y 
 
modeling results. All model boundaries are shown in red. 
I 
I 
 
. i 
 
Regional Flow Model Boundary I 
I 
I 
I 
I 
 
20 
I . 
 
Georgia.. 
 
~: ,  
A/Janlic 
 
..---. - 
 
  
 
I 
Brunrick Solute Transport Model 
I 
i 
 
I_ 
 
                                            
 
I 
. I 
 
Savannah-Hilton Head Island Solute Transport Model 
 
I , 
 
I I 
 
. ' 
 
...._. 
I! 
 
I 
 
I 
 
I 
 
 Beaufort County 
 
I 
 
c ' . Jasper .  
 
<-,----I~- 
 
ounty ._ 
 
/ 
 
\~. 
 
, 
 
Hilton Head Island 
 
_.. -. 
.. _ . 
 
Chatham 
 
- 
 
County 
 
Savannah .:.: . 
 
Atlantic 
 
.............,_ 
 
.. .. 
-~~-.} 
,: 
 
0 4 
 
  
 
I 
 
Georgia beparhnent of Natural Resources 
 
I 
 
205 Butler Street, S.E., E~st Floyd Tower, Atlanta, Georgia 30334 
 
Lonice Barrett, Commissioner 
 
i 
 
Harold F. Reheis, Director 
 
Environmental Protection Division 
 
October !13, 1999 
 
I 
John Sibley Prest"denIt 
The Geo~gia Conservancy 
1776 Pe<I;ichtree Street, NW .. 
 
Ste. 400 !South 
 
Atlanta, ,GA 30309 
I I . 
 
Dear Mr!. Sibley: I i 
 
This letter follows up on discussions between Dr. William McLemore, the State Geologist, and Mrs . 
 
I 
 
. 
 
. Patricia Mcintosh of the Conservancy's Savannah Office. This letter also is an Agreement between 
 
the Envitonmental Protection Division (EPD) and the Georgia Conservancy, Inc. for the purposes of the C~nservancy facilitating a meeting on "Ground-Water Modeling Needs for Coastal Georgia" 
 
sometirtie in the Winter/Spring of 1999-2000. This meeting represents Task# 1 of Project Three- 
 
Scenarid Development (a photocopy of the narrative description of this task taken from the 
 
Recomn\endations of the Upper Floridan Technical Advisory Committee is attached and is made 
 
I 
 
. 
 
part ofthis Agreement.) A copy of the Recommendations report has been provided separately to 
 
Mrs. Mdintosh. 
 
i 
 
pri~ary The 
 
objective ofthe facilitated meeting would be for the convened stakeholders to identify 
 
those gtound-water management questions that they expect EPD's tecluiical investigations and 
 
I 
 
. 
 
ground-}vater modeling to answer. For illustrative purposes, examples of the questions might 
 
include: I 
 
I 
i C1) What would happen if Upper Floridan pumpage in Chatham County is reduced by 
*- million gallons per day? 
I. . 
 
~2) What would happen if x million gallons of pumpage in Brunswick, Glynn County 
 
were moved westward to the vicinity of Mt. Pleasant in Wayne County? 
 
I 
 
. 
 
, 
 
In this tegard, it does need to be remembered that modeling is useful in making predictions of 
changes in .chloride concentrations over time. Thus the answer to Question #i might be that the 
chlorid~ front would take an additional y years to reach Savannah, or the upward plume at 
 
Brunswick would shrink in areal extent by z percent. Modeling will not tell whether the scenario 
 
is good rr bad; it will only give estimates of changes in salt-water intrusion. 
 
With th~I above in mind, the Co.nservancy shall: 
I 
(A) Secure a meeting site in either Savannah or Brunswick for the purposes of the 
ineeting. The meeting shall last between Y2-l days; and the Conservancy shall provide boffee, tea, and other refreshments to meetingparticipants. 
 
I 
 
-. 
 
! 
 
() 
 
                                           
 
(8) Provide a meeting facilitator to Recp the meeting focus~d on th~ specific goal of 
modeling needs. The Consernncy shall further provid<: a court r~port<:r. who'' illtran~~.:ri11L meeting notes and pand comm~nts .. 
 
(C) Invite and secure confinnations ofapproximately two dozen panel p~micipants. The Conservancy shall further invit~ the members of the Technical Alh isory Committ~<.: and the USGS. whom will not be panel participants. The Conservancy shall also penn it a maximum of six of EPD"s contractors or employees to attend, strictly for educational purposes. 
 
(D) Insure that the panel is approximately equally divided between industry (large and small). local governments (large and small), agriculture and recreation, and non-profit organizations (chambers of commerce, environmental advocacy organizations. political advocacy organizations. etc.). The Conservancy. shall attempt to insure that the panel generally reflects the water users of coastal Georgia. 
 
(E) Summarize meeting results/recommendations in a short report (six copies, \vhich 
EPD will reproduce, as needed). The Conservancy shall also provide one copy of the court 
. reporter's transcript. The report and transcript shall be provided to EPD within 90 day.s of 
the meeting. 
 
(F) All work shallb~ completed by September 30, 2000. 
 
! 
 
I 
 
. 
 
The Gonservancy's fee for the above services shall be for a fixed fee of$7,000, which be paid upon 
 
receipt of an invoice upon completion of activities (A through E, above). If the above tenns and 
 
1 
conditions are acceptable, please sign in the space below and. return four originals to myself. I 
I 
 
Sincerely: 
~.OM\N 
 
i 
Harold F. Reheis 
Director i 
 
I 
Accepted: The Georgia Conservancy, Inc. 
I 
):~4$z 
 
Title: 
 
Date:! 
I 
I. 
cc: Bertha Turner I WilIliam M. cLemore Carolyn Cardin 
USGS I I I 
 
                                            
 
' ' 
'' 
Engineering and Environmental &rvices, different models based on differer.t computer codes may be needed a~ Savannah-Hilton Head and at Brunswick. Law 
recommends and EPD supPc>i'ts thai tfie 5olute-ttansport codes selected be chosen after a comprehensive analysis of the major prog:rams and available case studies. 
In this regard, it is recogn.iz.ed that national experts, including the USGS and private companies, be convened, utilizing a facilitator, to analyze the technicaJ issues and make a recommendation regarding the model or models to be used. The expens should attempt to define the expected capability of the model and the expected c:alibration/validation/documentation. The only limitation on the model recommendation would be that thecode is documented and it is aceeptable to the USGS, which is the agency that provides modeling expertise to the States of Georgia,. Florida, and South Carolina as well as local governmental agencies through a variety of joint funding agreemt'nt The general minutes of the 
convened experts as well as their recommendations should be described in a report . 
 
Task #4 
 
Develop three~imensionaL density dependent, transient solute-transport models . 
for both the Savannah-Hilton Head area and the Glynn County area. The models 
should be based on the computer codes recommended in Project Two-Task *4. 
 
above. Both models also should be integrated and compatible with the 
 
recalibrated flow model including the revised estimates of agricultural pumpage 
 
and n:configured potentiometric surface at Savannah reflecting the three offshore 
 
monitoring wells, The Savannah-Hilton Head model should be capable of 
 
estimating travel times for an encroaching salt water wedge (i.e., 2SO ppm, SOO 
 
ppm, and 1000 ppm) to reach certain water supply wells on Hihon Head and at 
 
SavaDDab from known or suspec:ted entra.Dce points. The Brunswick model should 
 
be capable of estimating the salt water flux frcm the Femafina Permeable Zcme 
 
to the Lower Floridan and from the Lower Floridan to the Upper Floridan IS well 
 
as the chan&e in size of curtail T shaped plume. Sea models should be 
 
capable of considering diffusion, ldvecticm. md. mediiDicaJihydroclyuamic 
 
dispelsiOD. The results of the modeling and. the ISSitmptions upon which the 
 
modeling is based should be deScribed in two reports (one for Savannah-Hilton 
 
Head and one for Brunswick). The model also should be made available to 
 
i 
1 
 
ssctaekneahno.olsd.ers in digital format so that dley may independently perform their own 
 
I 
Project ~euario DeveJopmeut: 
 
Scenario Cievelopment involves modeling actual and hypothetical changes in recharge and 
 
withdrawals to assess the impact of salt water intrusion. Basically the scenario development 
attempts tb answer a variety of -what would happen if" questions. 
 
Task *1 i 
 
Obtain a general consensus on the needed modeling scenarios. The effectiveness of scenario development is dependent on a general consensus that the scenarios being modeled are reasonable and appropriate; therefore. it is recommended that 
 
13 
 
                                            
 
appropriate stalceholders be convened and querried, utilizing a facilitator, regarding ne-eded ~narios. The general minutes of the convened stakeholders and their recommendations should be described in a repon. 
 
Task ~2 
 
Model varying pumping and ground-water management scenarios. Depending on the recommendations of the aforementioned convened stakeholders, scenarios would be modeled and the results would be presented in map and Damtive format. Information that should be provided for each scenario should include: a potentiometric map, salt watrz travel times to key wells for tbe Savannah-Hilton Head area, changes in flux and changes in size of the plume in the Brunswick area, and narrative describing modeling assumptions and impacts {i.e., the Hilton Head wedge would reach a certain well in approximately a certain number of years or the ..,... shaped plume at Brunswick would increase in. size by a certain 
percentage). While the exact number of modeling scenarios is not predictable at this time, for estimating purposes it is anticipated that the total number will be on the order of 200. It is further recommended that upon completion of aD modeling  scenarios, that the results be SUIIlii'Wiz.ed in a repon or a series of repons.s 
 
Projed FbIur-Impact Analysis:. 
 
i. Task 4'1 
 
Validate hydrogeologic rationale for separating the Northern and Central Subareas. 
 
i Ground-water flow modeling by the USGS {Professional Paper 1403-D) indicates 
. I 
1 that Upper Aoridan withdrawals north of the Gulf Trough6 have little impact on 
 
water levels south of the Gulf Trough. While the Gulf Trough is reasonably well- 
 
defined southwest of Statesboro, its e.xi~eDU ~ of Statesboro is DOt well 
doalmented ExteDskm of the Gulf Trouah from Statesboro to the SaVIDDih 
 
Riwr would be JeUOMble jlsdficatiaa b maintwininl tbe JDtesrity of the 
Nanhem Subela ad Jess Jestrictiw water 111eleplaticDL OD the other bm1. 
 
if the Troup does DOt atald Daltheast rl Statesbcro, tbeD it may be appopriate 
 
to include portions of Bulloch IDd Saeven counties in the Ceubal Subarea. 
 
Validation of the northeast eXtension of the Gulf Trough should be 1ssessod by 
 
performing two seismic-reflection profiles, generally perpendicular to the axis of 
 
the Trough, and coring three deep borings, w1izing EPD's wire-tiDe coring 
 
equipment, along one or near ODe of the seismic profiles, through the confining 
 
units and into the carbonate portion of the aquifrz fOr about 100a200 feet. The 
 
seismic pronles would define the exmence or Dallelh1ence of any DOrtheastward 
 
I 
' t1uch d lbe PiDaJ Sn~egy Will be depeMem Cllllbe modelioa ICmlrios dill~ de~oped. Many d 
 
these may be analyZed betweeo July I, 2005 when EPD iDitiates ~ d lbe PIDII S~r~~qy IDd December 
31, 200S wbieo EPD 8 scheduled 10 fmaJize 1be PiDal Snaqy. In aD Jikibocd,lbe ~qat desc:ribiD& lbe 
 
sceaarios wCi:Wd DOC be iDitiated UDiil &her JaDuary 1, 2006. 
 
 
 
. 
 
I 
6 ~Gulf Troueb is a subsUrface poJocic feaue tbat sepuates !be Ncnbem.Subuea from lbe CeDiraJ 
 
Subarea. 1 
 
I 
 
I I 
 
14 
 
I 
 
I 
 
  
 
APPENDIX4 
 
                                            
 
i I 
I 
I 
 
I 
Water Quality Control 
 
Chapter 391-3-6 
 
I RULES 
 
OF 
 
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 
 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION 
 
CHAPTER 391-3-6 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
I 
391-3-6-.13 Underground Injection Control 
I 
I 
391-3-6-.13 Underground Injection Control 
I 
(1) PuQ>ose. The purpose of this rule, 391-3-6-.13 is to establish classes of injection wells, 
pro~ibitions, criteria and standards applicable to injection wells. 
 
I 
(2) Definitions. Amended. All terms used in this rule shall be interpreted in accordance with 
 
the aefinitions as set forth in the Act, unless otherwise defined in this Paragraph or in any oth~r Paragraph of this Chapter. All federal regulations adopted by reference are those in 
 
effe:ct as of January 1, 2000. 
 
(a) "ABandoned well" means a well whose use has been permanently discontinued or which is in 
 
a stkte of disrepair such that it cannot be used for its intended purpose or for observation 
 
I 
 
. 
 
purposes. 
 
(b) "Aquifer" means a geological formation, group of formations, or part of a formation that is cap~ble of yielding water to a well or spring. 
(c) "Ar~a of review" means the area surrounding.an injection well or field where migration of 
 
the injection and/or formation fluid into an underground source ofdrinking water may occur. 
 
(d) "Casing" means a pipe or tubing of appropriate material of varying diameter and weight, 
 
I 
lowered into a borehole during or after drilling in order to support the sides of the hole and 
 
I 
 
. 
 
thus prevent the walls from caving, to prevent loss of drilling mud into porous ground or to 
 
I 
 
prevent water, gas or other fluid from entering or leaving the hole. 
 
I . 
 
(e) "Catastrophic collapse" means the sudden and utter failure of overlying strata caused by the 
 
renioval of underlying materials. 
 
(f) "CJmenting" means the operation whereby a cement slurry is pumped into a drilled hole I and/or forced behind the casing. 
 
(g) "CJsspool" meaps a "drywell" that receives untreated sanitary waste containing human 
exc~eta, and which sometimes has an open bottom and/or perforated sides. I 
(h) "Cl~ss V septic system" means a "septic system" that handles sanitary and/or other wastes 
 
anci has the capacity to serve 20 or more persons a day.  I 
(i) "C<?nfining bed" means a body of impermeable or distinctly less permeable material 
 
str~tigraphically adjacent to one or more aquifers. 
 
I 
 
I 
 
I 
 
I 
I 
j 
 
                                            
 
fo~ations, (j) "Cdnfining zone" means a geological formation, group of 
 
or part ofa formation 
 
tha~ is capable of limiting fluid movement above or below an injection zone. 
 
. 
 
(k) "Cqntaminant" means any physical, chemical, biological or radiological substance or matter 
 
in water. 
 
(l) "Cbnventional mine" means an open pit or underground excavation for the production of 
 
minerals . 
 
(m)"Di:sposal well" means a well used for the disposal of waste into a subsurface stratum. (n) "D~ainage well" means a well used to drain surface water into a shallow aquifer. An induced 
 
rec~arge well which drains ground water from a shallow aquifer into a deeper aquifer is not a 
 
drainage well. 
 
. 
 
. 
 
(o) "Dr\ywell" means a well, other than an improved sinkhole or subsurface fluid distribution 
 
sysiem, completed above the water table so that its bottom and sides are typically dry except 
 
whtm receiving fluids . 
 
(p) "E~empted aquifer" means an aquifer or its portion that meets the criteria in the definition of 
 
unqerground source of drinking water but which has been exempted according to the 
 
pro~edures in Rule 391-3-6-.13(4) ofthis Chapter. 
 
(q) "Facility, operation or activity" means any injection well or system.  
 
(r) "Flhid" means any material or substance which flows or moves whether in a semisolid, liq~d, sludge, gas, or any other form or state. 
 
(s) "Fdrmation" means a body ofconsolidated or unconsolidated rock characterized by a degree 
 
oflithologic homogeneity which is prevailingly, but not necessarily, tabular and is mappable 
 
on the earth's surface or traceable in the subsurface. 
 
I 
 
. 
 
(t) "Formation fluid" means fluid present in a formation under natural conditions as opposed to 
 
I 
 
introduced fluids, such as drilling mud. 
 
 
 
(u) "G~nerator" means any person, by site location, whose actor process produces hazardous 
 
w~te identified or listed in Federal Regulations, 40 C.F.R. Part 261. 
 
(v) "Groundwater" means water below the land surface in the zone of saturation. 
 
(w)"Gtout" means a mixture of not more than six gallons of clear water to one 95 pound bag of 
 
portland cement or a mixture of clear water and bentonite adequate to create an impervious I 
sea,. The mixture may contain additives in proper amounts as necessary to reduce shrinkage 
 
and increase compatibility of the grout to injection and formation fluids. I 
 (x) "Hazardous waste" means a hazardous waste as defined by the Georgia Hazardous Waste 
 
 Management Act, Georgia Laws 1979, p. 1127, et seq., and the rules adopted pursuant to the 
 
I 
 
. 
 
Act 
 
(y) "Hkardous waste management facility" means all contiguous land and structures, other 
 
appurtenances and improvements on the land used for treating, storing, or disposing of I 
h~dous waste. A facility may consist of several treatment, storage, or disposal opera~ional 
 
units. 
 
I 
 
. 
 
(z) "!~proved sinkhole" means a naturally occurring karst depression or other natural crevice 
 
fo~nd in other geologic settings which has been modified by man for the purpose ofdirecting 
 
and emplacing fluids into the subsurface.  
 
(aa) ! "Injection" means the subsurface emplacement of fluids. 
 
(bb) I "Injection well" means a well into which fluids are being, or intended to be, injected. 
 
: 
 
2 
 
I 
 
                                            
 
( cc) 
 
"Injection zone" means a geological formation, group of formations, or part of a 
 
I 
formation receiving fluids through a well. 
 
(dd)  "Packer" means a device lowered into a well to produce a fluid-tight seal. 
 
( ee) 
 
"Person" means any individual, corporation, association, partnership, county, 
 
mmPcipality, State agency, Federal agency or facility or other entity. 
 
(ff) "Plugging" means the act or process ofstopping the flow ofall fluids, including water, oil or 
 
gas ;into or out of a formation through a borehole or wep penetrating that formation. 
 
(gg) 1 "Point of injection" means the last accessible sampling point prior to waste fluids beiqg released into the subsurface environment through an injection well. For example, the 
 
point of injection of a Class V septic system might be the distribution box -- the last acc~ssible sampling point before the waste fluids drain into the underlying soils. For a 
d~ell, it is likely to be the weil bore itself. 
(hh) i "Radioactive waste" means any waste which contains radioactive material. 
 
(ii) "S~itary waste" means liquid or solid wastes originating solely from humans and human 
 
activities, such as wastes collected from toilets, showers, wash basins, sinks used for I 
cleaping domestic areas, sinks used for food preparation, clothes washing operations, and 
 
sinks or washing machines where food and beverage serving dishes, glasses, and utensils are 
 
cleahed. Sources of these wastes may include single or multiple residences, hotels and 
 
motels, restaurants, bunkhouses, schools, ranger stations, crew quarters, guard stations, c~pgrounds, picnic grounds, day-use recreation areas, other commercial facilities, and 
 
industrial facilities provided the waste is not mixed with industrial waste. 
GD "Septic system" means a "well" that is used to emplace sanitary waste below the surface and 
 
is tYpically comprised of a septic tank and subsurface fluid distribution system or disposal 
 
systFm. 
 
(kk) 1 "Site" means the land or water area where any facility, operation or activity is phy~ically located or conducted, including adjacent land used in connection with the facility, 
 
operation or activity. 
 
(ll) "Stratum (plural strata)" means a single sedimentary bed or layer, regardless of thickness, 
 
thatIconsists of generally the same kind of rock material. 
(mm) i "Subsidence" means the lowering of the natural land surface in response to: earth 
mo~ements; lowering offluid pressure; removal ofunderlying supporting material by mining 
 
or solution of solids, either artificially or from natural causes; compaction due to wetting I 
(hydrocompaction); oxidation of organic matter in soils; or added load on the land surface. 
(nn) i "Subsurface fluid distribution system" means an assemblage of perforated pipes, 
 
draih tiles, or similar mechanisms intended to distribute fluids below the surface of the 
 
ground . 
(oo) i "Underground source of drinking water" means all aquifers or portions of aquifers 
 
which are not exempted aquifers. 
(pp) i "Waters or Waters ofthe State" includes any and all rivers, streams, creeks, branches, 
 
reservoirs, ponds, drainage systems, springs, wells, and all other bodies of surface or 
 
sub$urface water, natural or artificial, lying within or forminga part ofthe boundaries ofthe 
 
State which are not entirely confined and retained completely upon the property of a single 
 
individual, partnership, or corporation. 
 
I 
I 
 
. 
 
3 
 
                                            
 
I 
(qq) I "Well" means an open bored, drilled or driven shaft, whose depth is greater than the 
lar~est surface dimension; or an open dug hole whose depth is greater than the largest surface di~ension; or, an iniproved sinkhole; or a subsurface fluid distribution system. Ditches and 
drains, open or filled, are not wells. 
(rr) "Well head protection area" means that land area delineated in accordance with Rule 391-3- 
5-.40 (ss)"Well injection" means the subsurface emplacement of fluids through a well. 
I 
(tt) All! other technical terms shall be defined in accordance to the definitions provided in 
Dri'scoll, F.G., 1996, Groundwater and wells, Johnson Division, St. Paul, MN 55112. 
 
' 
(3) Classification oflnjection Wells. Amended. I (a) Cl~ss I Wells. This class consists ofindustrial and municipal disposal wells that inject fluids 
 
otM:r than hazardous waste or radioactive waste below the lowermost formation containing, 
 
within two (2) miles of the well bore (or greater distance if determined by the Director), an 
 
underground source of drinking water. (b) Cl~ss II Wells. 
1. ~is class consists of wells which inject fluids: 
 
(i) :which are brought to the surface in connection with conventional oil or natural gas I ;production and which may be commingled with waste waters from gas plants which are 
 
ian integral part of production operations, unless those waters are classified as a 
i I 
hazardous waste at the time of injection; 
 
(ii)i for enhanced recovery of oil or natural gas; and 
 
(iii) for storage of hydrocarbons which are liquid at standard temperature and pressure. 
 
(c) Cl&ss III Wells. 
 
 
 
1. This class consists of wells which inject fluids for the extraction of minerals including: 
 
(i) tuining of sulfur by the Frasch method; 
 
(ii)! in situ production of uranium or other metals; this category includes only in situ 
1 
1! production from ore bodies which have not been conventionally mined. Solution mining 
 
.of conventional mines such as stops leaching is included in Class V; and 
I 
(iii} solution mining of minerals, such as salt or potash. 
 
(d) Class IV Wells. 
 
 
 
I 
 
 
 
1. T}\is class consists of injection wells used by generators ofhazardous waste or ofradioactive 
 
w~te, by owners or operators of hazardous waste management facilities, or by owners or 
 
operators of radioactive waste disposal sites to dispose of hazardous waste or radioactive I 
w~te into the subsurface or gro\.md water. 
 
2. Any septic tank, well or cesspool used by generators of hazardous or radioactive waste, or 
b~ owners or operators ofhazardous or radioactive waste management facilities, to dispose 
 
of fluids containing hazardous or radioactive wastes into the subsurface or ground water. 
 
3. The subsurface emplacement ofhazardous waste or radioactive waste by well injection into 
th~ subsurface or waters of the State is hereby prohibited. No permit authorizing or 
e~tablishing an effluent limitation inconsistent with the foregoing shall be issued. 
 
(e) Clc\.ss V wells consists of all injection wells not included in Classes I, II, III or IV. Typically, 
 
Cl~ss V wells are shallow wells used to place a variety of fluids directly below the land 
 
i 
 
4 
 
. 
 
  
 
I - 
I 
 
! 
I 
surface. However, if the fluids placed in the ground qualify as a hazardous waste under the 
Re~ource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the well is a Class IV well, not a Class V 
 
well. Class V wells include, but are not limited to: 
 
 
 
1. Ai:r conditioning return flow wells or any other open-loop system used to return to the 
 
supply aquifer or any aquifer the water used for heating or cooling in a heat pump; 
 
2. Large-capacity cesspools including multiple dwelling, community or regional cesspools, or 
 
other devices that receive sanitary wastes, containing human excreta, which have an open 
 
bdttom and sometimes have perforated sides. These requirements do not apply to single 
 
I 
 
. 
 
family residential cesspools nor to non-residential cesspools which receive solely sanitary 
 
wkte and have the capacity to serve fewer than 20 persons a day; 
 
3. Cooling water return flow wells used to inject water previously used for cooling; . 
 
4. Dtainage wells used to drain surface fluid, primarily storm runoff, into a subsurface 
 
I 
 
. 
 
. 
 
formation;, 
 
5. Dtywells used for the injection of wastes into a subsurface formation; 6. R~charge wells used to replenish or store water in an aquifer; 7. R~mediation wells used to inject water, air, oxygen, nutrients, or partly clean water to 
 
retnediate sites contaminated with hydrocarbons or chemicals; 
 
8. Sa,lt water intrusion barrier wells used to inject water into a fresh water aquifer to prevent the 
 
intrusion of salt water into the fresh water; . I 
9. Sand backfill and other backfill wells used to inject a mixture of water and sand, mill I tailings or other solids into mined out-portions ofsubsurface mines whether what is injected 
 
is Ia radioactive waste or not; 
 
10. Septic system wells used to inject the waste or effluent from a multiple dwelling business I e1stablishment, community or regional business establishment septic system. These rules do I 
riot apply to single family residential septic system wells, nor to non-residential septic I 
system wells that are used solely for the disposal ofsanitary waste and have. the capacity to 
 
sfrve fewer than 20 persons a day; 
 
! 
(4) Idimtification of Underground Sources of Drinking Water and Exempted Aquifers. 
 
Arbended. I 
(a) The Director may identify by narrative description, illustrations, maps, or other means, and 
sh~ll protect, except where exempted under subparagraph (b) of this paragraph, as an 
un~erground source of drinking water, all aquifers or parts of aquifers whichmeet the 
 
: deftnition of an Ounderground source of drinking waterO for the purposes of these rules. 
 
Uqless specifically exempted by the Director under subparagraph (b) ofthis paragraph, all 
 
aquifers shall be considered, for the purposes of these rules, as underground sources of 
 
drihl:ing water.  
 
 
 
I 
 
(b) Tile Director may identify by narrative description, illustrations, maps, or other means, all 
 
aqhifers or parts of aquifers which the Director proposes to designate as an exempted aquifer, fo~ the purposes of these rules, if it meets the following criteria:  
 
1. It 'does not currently serve as a source of drinking water; 
 
I 
 
2. The total dissolved solids (TDS) is greater than 3,000 milligrams per liter; 
 
I 
 
. 
 
. 
 
I 
 
I 5 
 
j 
 
                                            
 
I 
I 
I 
 
I 
3. Injection into the aquifer will not cause salt-water to move into and contaminate ~derground sources of drinking water; and 
4. It ~annot now and will not in the future serve as a source of drinking water because: 
 
(i) it is mineral, hydrocarbon or geothermal energy producing or can be demonstrated by a I ;permit applicant for a Class II or III operation to contain minerals or hydrocarbons, that 
 
;considering their quantity and location, are expected to be coinrnercially producible 
 
1based on available information; or 
 
(ii) iit is situated at a depth or location which makes recovery of water for drinking water 
 
!purposes economically or technologically impractical; or 
 
. 
 
(iii) it is so contaminated that it would be economically or technologically impractical to 
 
[render the water fit for human consumption; or 
 
(iv) .it is located over a Class III mining area subject to subsidence or catastrophic collapse. 
 
(c) Fot Class III wells,.the pirector shall require an applicant for a permit which necessitates an 
 
aqJifer exemption to furnish the data necessary to demonstrate that the aquifer is expected to 
 
be bineral or hydrocarbon producing. Information contained in the mining plan for the 
 
probosed project, such as a map and general description of the mining zone, general 
 
inf6rmation on the mineralogy and geochemistry of the mining zone, analysis of the 
 
ambnability of the mining zone to the proposed mining method and a timetable of planned 
 
I 
 
development of the mining zone shall be considered by the Director in addition to the 
 
I 
 
 
 
information required by Rule 391-3-6-.13(6). Approval ofthe aquifer exemption shall be 
 
treJted as a program revision under this paragraph. 
 
(d). Fot Class II wells, a demonstration of commercial productibility shall be made as follows: 
 
1. Fdr a Class II well to be used for enhanced oil recovery processes in a field or project c~ntaining aquifers from which hydrocarbons were previously produced, commercial 
 
prpductibility shall be presumed by the Director upon a demonstration by the applicant of 
 
hi~torical production having occurred in the project area or field. 
 
2. F9r Class II wells not located in a field or project containing aquifers from which 
 
hxdrocarbons were previously produced, information such .as logs, core data, formation 
 
d~scription, .formation depth, formation thickness and formation parameters such as 
 
p~rmeability and porosity shall be considered by the Director, to the extent such information 
 
is ;available. 
 
 
 
(e) No, designation ofan exempted aquifer, for the purposes ofthese rules, shall be final until the 
 
Di*ector has provided public notice and opportunity for a public hearing on the proposed 
 
deSignation and the designation has been approved by the Administrator. 
. II 
 
(5) Prhhibition of Movement of Fluid into Underground Sources of Drinking Water. 
 
Ariiended . I 
(a) Nd owner or operator shall construct, operate, maintain, convert, plug, abandon, or conduct 
 
ant other injection activity in a manner that allows the movement of fluid containing any 
 
cob.taminant into underground sources ofdrinking water, ifthe presence ofthat contaminant 
 
may cause a violation of any primary drinking water regulation under Georgia's Rules for 
 
I 
 
. 
 
Safe Drinking Water, Chapter 391-3-5-.18, or may otherwise adversely affect the health of 
 
I I 
 
. 
 
I 
 
I 
 
6 
 
                                            
 
I 
I 
I per~ons. The applicant for a pennit shall have the burden of showing that the requirements 
 
of t.pis paragraph are met. 
 
(b) Ex~ept for remediation wells, injection of fluids shall be prohibited in the inner management 
 
zone of any well head protection area defined by Rule 391-3-5-AO. l I I 
(6) Pe~mit Application for Class I, II and III Wells. Amended. 
 
(a) No person shall, in accordance with Section 10 ofthe Act, construct or operate a Class I, II, or 1~1 injection well without first having applied for, and obtained, an injection well pennit 
 
from the Director. The requirements for Class II wells do not include permits for 
 
I 
 
. 
 
. 
 
exp,loration, drilling and well construction for oil and/or gas production. 
 
 
 
(b) Th~ subsurface emplacement ofhazardous waste or radioactive waste by well injection into 
 
the J subsurface or waters of the State is hereby prohibited. No permit authorizing or 
 
establishing an effluent limitation inconsistent with the foregoing shall be issued. 
 
. 
 
I 
 
(c) Applications for injection well permits for Class I, II or III injection wells shall be in 
 
accbrdance with Federal Regulations, 40 C.F.R. 144.11, 144.21, and 144.31. Applications I 
shall be on fonns as may be prescribed and furnished from time to time by the Division and . I 
sha~l be accompanied by all pertinent infonnation as the Division may request including, but 
 
not: limited to, the infonnation the Director must consider for authorizing Class I, II or III weVs as set forth in the ~ederal Regulations, 40 C.F.R. 146.14, 146.24 and 146.34. 
 
(d) Alllpennit applications and reports for Class I, II, or Ill injection wells shall be signed in 
 
accbrdance with the Federal Regulations, 40 C.F.R. 144.32, 146.12 and 146,22. I 
(e) WHen a facility or activity is owned by one person but is operated by another person, it is the 
 op~rator's duty to obtain a pennit. 
 
No~ice (7) 
 
and Public Participation for Class I, II and Ill Wells. Amended. 
 
(a) Wl'ien the Division is satisfied that the application is complete, a tentative determination will 
be ~ade to issue or deny the pennit. If the tentative detennination is to issue the pennit, a 
 
draft permit will be prepared in accordance with Federal Regulations, 40 C.F.R. 124.6 and 
ap~licable State laws prior to the issuance of a public notice. 
 
(b) Public notice of the draft pennit will be prepared and circulated in a manner designated to I inf?rm interested and potentially interested persons of the proposed injection and of the 
 
proposed detennination to issue or deny a pennit for the proposed injection. Procedures for 
 
cirdulation of the public notice shall include the following: I 
1. Within the geographical area of the proposed injection the public notice shall be circulated 
. ' 
bYr at least one ofthe following: posting in the post office or other public buildings near the 
 
prbmises of the applicant in which the injection is located or posting at the entrance of the 
ap~licant's premises or nearby; .and publication in one (1) or more newspapers of general 
 
circulation in the area affected by the injection; 
 
2. Pdsting of the public notice in the Office of the Secretary of State; 
 
I 
 
. 
 
3. A popy of the public notice shall be mailed to the applicant; 
 
4. M*iling of the public notice to any person or group upon written request including persons 
 
 so'licited from area lists from past pennit proceedings. The Division shall maintain a 
 
m~iling list for distribution of public notices and fact sheets. Any person or group may 
 
I 
 
. 
 
: 
 
7 
 
I 
 
I 
 
                                            
 
request that their names be added to the mailing list. The request should be in writing to the 
 
Division and shall be renewed in December ofeach year. Failure to renew the request shall 
 
result in the removal of such name from the mailing list; 
 
I 
 
. 
 
. 
 
5. The Division shall provide a period ofnot less than thirty (30) days following the date ofthe 
 
I 
 
. 
 
public notice in which interested persons may submit their written views on the tentative 
 
determination with respect to the draft Injection Well Permit. All written comments 
 
submitted during the thirty (30) day comment period will be retained by the Division and 
 
cohsidered in the final determination with respect to the permit application and shall be I 
responded to in accordance with Federal Regulations, 40 C.F.R. 124.17. The comment 
 
period may be extended at the discretion of the Director; 
 
6. The contents ofthe public notice will be in accordance with Federal Regulations, 40 C.F.R. 
12~' .10; 
 
7. The Division will prepare and distribute a fact sheet in accordance with Federal Regulations, 
 
40JC.F.R. 124.8 and applicable State laws. A copy ofthe fact sheet will be available for 
 
public inspection at the Division office in Atlanta. Any person may request in writing a 
 
copy of the fact sheet and it will be provided. The Division shall add the name of any 
 
petson or group upon request to the mailing list to receive copies of fact sheets; I 
8. The Division will prepare and distribute a statement of basis in accordance with Federal 
R~gulations, 40 C.F.R. 124.7; 
 
9. Copies ofthe draft permit shall be transmitted to the Regional Administrator for review and 
 
cohunents in such manner as the Director and Regional Administrator shall agree. 
(c) Th~ Director shall provide an opportunity for an applicant, any affected state or interstate 
 
agency, the Regional Administrator or any other interested agency, person or group of 
 
per~ons to request a public hearing with respect to an Injection Well Permit. Any such 
 
I 
 
 
 
req~est for public hearing shall be filed within the 30 day comment period prescribed in 
 
su~paragraph 391-3-6.13(7)(b) 5. and shall indicate the interest of the party filing such a 
 
req'uest, the reasons why a hearing is requested, and those specific portions ofthe application 
 
or Information to be considered at the public hearing. The Director shall hold a hearing ifhe 
 
determines that there is sufficient public interest in holding such a hearing or ifthe Director 
 
de~ires to clarify a permitting decision: 
 
. 
 
1. .Arty public hearing held pursuant to this subparagraph shall be held in the geographical area 
 
of: the proposed injection or other appropriate location at the discretion of the Director; 
 
2. 3. 
 
Th'e Director may hold one public hearing on Public notice of any hearing held .pursuant to 
 
groups of related permit applications; this su. bparagraph shall be provided at 
 
least 
 
thlrty (30) days in advance of the hearing date and shall be circulated in accordance with 
F~deral Regulations, 40 C.F.R. 124.10(c) where applicable to State-issued permits. 
 
(d) A bopy of the administrative record for the final permit (40 C.F.R.124.18(b)(1)), including 
 
bui not limited to the Injection Well Permit Application, public notice, fact sheet, statement I 
.of pasis, draft permit and other well forms related thereto, written public comments of all 
 
governmental agencies thereon and other reports, files and information not involving 
m~thods or processes entitled to protection as trade secrets, and not including written public 
 
comments by any person, shall be available for public inspection and copying during normal 
 
bukiness hours at the Division office in Atlanta and in addition shall be distributed in 
 
I ' 
 
s 
 
I 
I 
I 
 
  
 
accbrdance with Federal Regulations, 40 C.F.R. 124.10(e). Public access to such 
 
infdrmation shall be in accordance With Federal Regulations, 40 C.F.R. 14.5. 
(e) AnyI information submitted in an Injection Well Permit Application form together with 
 
repbrts, records or plans that are considered confidential by the applicant should be clearly 
 
labeled 0 Confidential 0 and be supported by a statement as to the reasons that such 
 
infdrmation should be considered confidential. If the Director, with the concurrence ofthe 
 
Regional Administrator, determines that such information is entitled to confidential 
 
protection, he shall label and handle same accordingly: 
 
1. when the information being considered for confidential treatment is contained in the ap~lication, the Director shall forward such information to the Regional Administrator for 
 
his concurrence in any determination of confidentiality. 
 
2. Ariy information accorded confidential status, whether or not contained in the application, sh~ll be made available, upon written request, to the Regional Administrator or his 
 
authorized representative who shall maintain the information as confidential. 
 
 
 
I 
 
(f) Claims for confidentiality for the following will be denied: 
 
1. Thb name and address of any permit applicant or permittee; or 
 
i 
 
. 
 
2. InfIormati.on which deals with the existence, absence, or level of contaminants in drinking water. 
 
! 
(8) Te~ms. and Conditions of Permits for Class I, II, or III Wells. Amended. 
 
(a) Terms and conditions under which an Injection Well will be permitted will be specified on 
 
. the/permit issued and shall be in accordance with Federal Regulations, 40 C.F.R. 144.4, 40 C.~.R. 144.51 and 40 C.F.R. 144.52, Rule 391-3-6-.13(9) of this Chapter and as may be 
 
adcVtionally required by the Director. (b) Nojlnje~tion ,Well Permit.shall be issued au~o~izing the ~ovement of fluid containin~ any 
 
 coiltammant mto.underground sources of dnnkmg water 1fthe presence ofthat contammant 
 
maY cause a violation of any primary drinking water regulation set forth in Georgia Rules for 
 
Safe Drinking Water, Chapter 391-3-5, or may otherwise adversely affect the health of I 
persons. The applicant for a permit shall have the burden ofshowing that the requirement of 
 
thi~ paragraph is met. 
 
. 
 
(c) ~en the corrective action plan as required in Paragraph 391-3-6-.13(9) is adequate, the 
 
Dirbctor shall incorporate it into the permit as a condition. Where the Director's review ofan 
 
apP,lication indicates that the permittee's plan is inadequate (based on the factors in Federal 
Re~ulations 40, C.F.R. 146.07), the Director shall require the applicant to revise the plan, 
pre~cribe a plan for corrective action as a condition of the permit under paragraph (b) ofthis 
 
section, or deny the application. 
 
1. N9 ovmer or operator of a ne": injection well may begin injection until all required 
 
.corrective action has been taken. 
 
2. Tne Director may require as a permit condition that injection pressure be so limited that 
 
I 
 
pressure in the injection zone does not exceed hydrostatic pressure at the site of any 
 
I 
 
improperly completed or abandoned well within the area ofreview. This pressure limitation 
 
I 
 
. 
 
shall satisfy the corrective action requirement. Alternatively, such injection pressure 
 
I 9 
 
  
 
i 
I 
I I 
I 
 
I 
I 
liihitation can be part of a compliance schedule and last until all other required corrective 
 
action has been taken. 
 
 
 
 
 
.  
 
I 
 
. 
 
3. When setting corrective action requirements for Class III wells the Djrector shall consider 
 
th~ overall effect ofthe project on the hydraulic gradient in potentially affected underground 
 
so'urces of drinking water, and the corresponding changes in potentiometric surface(s) and 
 
flow direction(s) rather than the discrete effect of each well. If a decision is made that c~rrective action is not necessary based on the determinations above, the monitoring 
I 
prpgram required in Federal Regulations, 40 C.F.R. 146.33(b) shallbe designed to verify 
 
the validity of sucli determination. (d) Th~ permittee shall report any monitoring or other information which indicates any 
corit~inant that may cause an endangerinent of an underground source of drinking water, 
any noncompliance that may endanger health or the environment, or any noncompliance with 
 
a p~rmit condition or malfunction of the injection system which may cause fluid migration 
 
intp or between fresh water zones or underground sources of drinking water. Any 
 
nob.compliance with a permit condition or a malfunction ofthe injection information shall be 
 
reported by telephone to the Director within twenty four (24) hours from the time the 
 
.Per;mittee becomes aware ofthe noncompliance and a written submission within five (5) days 
 
of: the oral notification. The written submission shall contain a description of the 
 
no~compliance and its cause, the period of noncompliance including exact dates and times, 
 
the corrective action taken to reduce or eliminate the noncompliance, and the steps planned 
 
I 
 
. 
 
to prevent a recurrence of the noncompliance. 
 
(e). Th~ permittee is required to maintain financial responsibility and resources to close, plug and 
 
abandon the underground injection operation in a manner prescribed by the Director~ The 
 
petrnittee must show evidence offinancial responsibility to the Director by the submission of s~ety bond, or other adequate assurance, such as financial statements or other materials 
 
acceptable to the Director. 
 
(f) The permittee shall operate the well so as not to exceed maximum injection volumes and 
 
pressures as necessary to assure that fractures are not initiated in the confining zone; that 
 
injbcted fluids do not migrate into fresh water zones or underground sources of drinking 
w~ter; or that formation fluids are not displaced into underground sources ofdrinking water. 
 
Th;e Director shall establish such volumes and pressure limits as permit conditions. 
 
(g) lnj:ection may not commence until construction is complete and written approval to 
 
 commence has been given by the Director. The permittee shall submit notice ofcompletion 
 
of;construction to the Director including: 
 
1. Ail available logging and testing program data on the well; 
 
2. A! demonstration ofthe mechanical integrity ofthe well; 
 
3. The anticipated maximum pressure and flow rate at which the permittee will operate; 
 
4. T~e results of the formation testing program; 
 
5.The actual injection procedure; I 
6.The compatibility of injected waste with the fluids in the injection zone; and I 
7.The status of corrective action on defective wells in the area of review to prevent fluid 
 
rJovement into underground sources of drinking water. I 
I 
 
. / 
 
10 
 
                                            
 
(h) The fpermittee shall notify the' Director in writing of any proposal to abandon an injection 
 
well! and that the plugging and abandonment plan approved as part of the permit will be 
 
followed . 
(i) A pJrmit shall be issued for a period not to exceed five (5) years fro~ the date of issuance. 
On ~xpiration of the permit the permit shall become invalid and the injection prohibited I 
unle1ss application is made at least ninety (90) days prior to the expiration date for a 
 
reis~uance ofthe permit. When a permittee has submitted a timely and sufficient application 
a for new Injection Well P~rmit and the Director is unable, through no fault ofthe permittee, 
 
to issue the new permit before the expiration date of the existing permit, then the Director 
 
shali extend the existing permit until a new permit is issued. 
 
G) A pbrmit may be transferred to any person provided the permittee notifies the Director in I writ~ng at least 30 days in advance ofthe proposed transfer date and the transfer is approved 
 
by t~e Director. 
 
(k) The:permit does not convey any property rights of any sort or any exclusive privilege. 
 
(1) Thei permit may be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated for cause, or minor 
 
modifications may be made in accordance with Federal Regulations, 40 C.F.R. 124.5, 144.39 
 
and i144.41. The permittee shall furnish the Director any information which the Director may 
 
request to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking and reissuing or 
 
temhnating a permit or to determine compliance with the permit. 
 
. 
 
(m)The; Director may terminate a permit during its term or deny a permit renewal for the 
 
fo110wing causes: 1. No~compliance by the permittee with any conditions of the permit; 
 
2. Th~ permittee's failure in the application or during the permit issuance process to disclose 
 
fully all relevant facts, or the permittee's misrepresentation ofany relevant facts at any time; 
3. A d~termination that the permitted activity endangers human health or the environment and 
 
I 
cari only be regulated to acceptable levels by permit modification of termination; or 
4. A f~ilure by the permittee to demonstrate that continuation ofthe operation under the permit 
 
wi~l not result in degradation of the water quality. 
 
 
 
(n) For:Class I, II and III Wells, if any water quality monitoring of an underground source of 
 
drinking water indicates the movement of any contaminant into the. underground source of I 
drinking water, the Director shall prescribe such additional requirements for construction, I . 
corrective action, operation, monitoring or reporting (including closure ofthe injection well) 
as Je necessary to prevent ~uch movement. I 
(oYNot,withstanding any other provisions ofthis rule the Director may issue a temporary permit 
 
for a specific injection in accordance with the Federal Regulations, 40 C.F.R. 144.34. 
 
I 
 
. 
 
I 
 
(9) Coirective Action. 
 
I 
(a) Applicants for Class I, II, or III injection well permits shall identify the location ofall known 
 
wells within the injection well's area of review which penetrate the injection zone, or in the I 
case of Class II wells operating over the fracture pressure of the injection formation, all kno:WU wells within the area of review penetrating forma~ions affected by the increase in 
 
preSsure. For such wells which are improperly sealed, completed, or abandoned, the I 
applicant shall also submit a plan consisting of such steps or modifications as are necessary 
 
1 
 
11 
 
I 
i 
I 
I 
 
  
 
I 
.I 
 
I 
 
I 
 
. 
 
to prevent movement offluid into underground sources ofdrinking water (corrective action). 
 
where the plan is adequate, the Director shall incorporate it into the permit as a condition. 
 
where the Director's review of an application indicates that the permittee's plan is inadequate 
(b~ed on the factors in subparagraph 391-3-6-.13(8)(c)), the Director shall require the 
 
appl_icant to revise the plan, prescribe a plan for corrective action as a condition ofthe permit 
 
under subparagraph (b) of this paragraph or deny the application. 
 
(b) In ;determining the adequacy of corrective action proposed by the applicant under this 
 
paragraph and in determining the additional steps needed to prevent fluid movement into 
un~erground sources ofdrinking water, the following criteria and factors shall be considered 
 
by !the Director: 1. N~ture and volume of injected fluid; 2. N~ture of native fluids or by-products of injection; 
 
3. Pdtentially affected population; 4. G~ology; 
 
5. Hydrology; 
 
6. History of the injection operation; 
 
7. cbmpletion and plugging records; I 
8. Abandonment procedures in effect at the time the well was' abandoned; and 
9. H~draulic connections with underground sources of drinking water. . 
I 
I 
(10) C~iteria and Standards Applicable to Class I, II, and III Injection Wells.  
 
(a) Each permittee shall comply with the criteria and standards for underground injection control 
 
fot Class I, II and III injection wells as set forth in the Federal Regulations, 40 C.F.R. 
14~.12, 146.22 and 146.32 and as may be additionally prescribed by the Director. 
 
(b) AI~ Class I wells shall be sited in such a fashion that they inject into a formation which is 
 
beheath the lowermost formation containing, within a two (2) mile radius ofthe well bore or 
gr~ater if determined by the Director, an underground source of drinking water. 
 
(c) All Class II wells shall be sited in such a fashion that they inject into a formation which is I separated from an underground source of drinking water by a confining zone that is free of 
 
knpwn open faults or fractures within the area of review. 
 
(d) Operating, monitoring and reporting requirements shall be in accordance with Federal 
 
I 
 
. 
 
. 
 
R~gulations, 40 C.F.R. 146.13, 40 C.F.R. 146.23 and 40 C.F.R. 146.33 and as may be 
 
adpitionally prescribed by the Director. ! 
 
(11) Pe1rmit Application for Class V Wells. Amended. . (a) E~cept as identified in subparagraph 1. below, no person shall, after the effective date ofthis 
I 
ru~e, construct or operate a Class V injection well for the injection of contaminants or fluids 
 
unless authorized by a permit issued by the Director. 
 
1. Irt accordance with O.C.G.A. 12-5-30 (f.), the use of a Class V septic system that handles 
 o~ly sanitary wastes shall be permitted under a General Permit issued by the Director. 
 
c:overage under this permit shall be automatic upon notification by the Georgia Department I 
ofHuman Resources that such a system meets requirements of290-5-26 and 391-3-16-.02. 
 
shch notification shall be in the form of an annual inventory of new and existing systems. 
 
12 
 
  
 
i 
I 
I 
~eptic  TJe Genefat Permit and a list ofall Class V systems shall be maintained in the offices 
 
oft the Division. 
(b) A~er the effective date of this rule, use of a new or existing Class V septic system that 
 
hartdles sanitary and/or other wastes shall be permitted by the Director provided that a 
 
written hydrogeologic determination has been made by a professional geologist or 
 
prqfessional engineer registered in the State of Georgia in accordance with Chapter 19 or Ch~pter 15, respectively, of Title 43 that such a system does not endanger an underground 
 
source of drinking water nor is such a system within the inner management zone of any exi~ting well head protection area. 
(c) Th~ use of a Class V remediation well that is used as part of a Division - approved plan to 
 
reniediate a site having contaminated soil and /or ground water shall be permitted by the 
 
Ditector provided that such an approved plan has been prepared and signed and sealed by a pro1fessional geologist or professional engineer registered in the State of Georgia in 
 
acdordance with Chapter 19 or Chapter 15, respectively, of Title 43. 
(d) Cl~ss V wells apply to all injection wells not included in Classes I, II, III or IV. Class V 
 
wells are defined in subparagraph 391-3-6-.13(3)(e). 
 
(e) Ex6lusive ofthe authorizations indicated in subparagraphs (a) 1. above ofthis paragraph, any I person desiring to construct a Class V well shall apply in writing to the Director for an inj~ction well permit. Any persons owning or operating any unpermitted well meeting the 
 
definitions ofa Class V well, exclusive ofthe authorizations described in subparagraph (a) 1. 
 
abqve ofthis paragraph, prior to the effective date ofthis rule shall submit an application and 
 
infbrmation to the Director no later than July 1, 2001. The. application shall include, but 
 
nedd not be limited to, the following information: 
 
. 
 
1. Na:me, mailing address telephone number, latitUde and longitude and location ofthe facility; 
 
2. Na;me and address ofthe owner and operator, telephone number, ifdifferent than the facility; 
 
3. A fllap showing the location of each existing or proposed injection well at the facility; 
 
4. A\ diagram showing the details of the construction existing injection well(s) and the 
 
proposed construction of any proposed injection well(s). 
 
5. Prbposed or existing injection rate and injection pressure or gravity flow; 
 
6. Thb chemical, physical and radioactive characteristics ofthe fluid injected or to be injected; an~ 
7. Si~nature ofthe applicant. 
 
(d) Upbn receipt of the application, the Director shall: 
 
1. D~termine if the facility is a Class V well. 
 
. 
 
2. D~termine if additional information is required to evaluate the facility. 
 
3. As~ess the pcitenti.al adverse affect upon the underground source of drinking water. 
 
4. Determine any construction and operating requirements to protect the underground drinking 
 
water source. 
 
 
 
(e) Aftr an evaluation of the application, the Director shall: 1. Is~ue a permit in the form of a letter containing any special permit conditions as may be ne~essary such as well construction, operation, monitoritig and reporting. The permit shall 
 
beifor a period not to exceed ten (10) years. 
 
13 
 
  
 
i 
I 
 
I 
 
2. If!the Director determines that the facility is not a Class V well, he shall require. the 
 
applicant to submit a permit application in accordance with Rule 391-3-6-.13(6) of this 
 
Chapter. The application processing and permit issuance shall be. in accordance with Ru1es 
 
I 
 
. 
 
3Q1-3-6-.13(6) and 391-3-6-.13(7). 
 
3. Ddny the issuance of a permit. 
 
(f) Nofperson shall be issued a permit to operate a Class V well where the movement offluid, in the~udgment ofthe Director, may cause a violation of any primary drinking water ru1e under 
 
the:Georgia Rules for Safe Drinking Water, Chapter 391..:3-5, or which may adversely affect 
 
the!health of persons. 1. If ~t any time the Director learns that a permitted Class V well may cause a violation under 
 
this paragraph, the Director shall: 
 
I 
 
. 
 
(i) order the injector to take such actions as may be necessary to prevent the violation, 
 
I 
 
including where required closure of the injection well; or 
 
I 
 
(ii):take enforcement action. 
 
. 
 
2. Ndtwithstanding any other provisions of this paragraph, the Director may take emergency 
 
achon upon receipt of information that a contaminant which is present in, or is likely to e~ter a pubic water system, may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to the 
 
he~lth of persons. 
 
. 
 
(g) Any persons operating an existing unpermitted Class V well and injecting fluids after the effective date of this rule shall be authorized to continue the.operation under condition~ of 
pe~its or other authorization in effect prior to the effective date of this rule, provided an 
 
apP,lication is submitted within twelve months after the effective date of this rule. An 
ex~eption to this rule is that any person injecting fluids that may endanger an underground 
 
soJrce of drinking water shall notify the Director within thirty (30) days ofthe effective date 
 
of this rule. 
 
(12) Stjndards and Criteria Applicable to Class V Wells. Amended. 
 
(a) Except as identified in subparagraph 391-3-6-.13(11)(a)1: above, no person shall construct a . Cl~ss V well without first having applied for and obtained a permit from the Director. 
(b) Cl~ss V wells shall be sited so that the injection fluid does not contaminate an underground 
 
>ource of drinking water. 
 
.r 
 
(c) Ex~ept for remediation wells, the injected fluid, upon reaching any underground source of 
 
dri~ng water, shall not contain any chemical constituents that exceed any Maximum 
 
Co~taminant Levels (MCL) identified in Rule 391-3-5-.18. For Class V septic systems, the 
 
flui,d leaving the subsurface distribution system may exceed any maximum contaminant 
 
levrls (MCLs) identified in Rule 391-3-5-.18 provided that the MCL is not exceeded upon 
 
the!fluld reaching any underground source of drinking water. 
 
(d) With the exception of remediation wells, no Class V well shall be located within the inner 
 
mattagement zone of any well head protection area after the effective date of this rule. 
 
(e) Class V well construction. 
 
I, 
 
. 
 
Subsections 1., 2. and 3. below shall not apply to Class V septic systems as identified in I 
suBparagraphs 39f-3-6-.13(11)(a)l. and (b.) above: 
 
\ 
 
I i 
 
14 
 
I 
I 
! 
 
                                            
 
I 
I 
I 
1. T~e person constructing the well shall be a licensed water well contractor in the State of G~orgia in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 5 of Title 12. 
 
2. cdsing shall extend at least five (5) feet into the injection zone unless otherwise specified by 
 
the Director. 
 
3. The annular space around the entire length of the casing shall be grouted and sealed to 
 
I 
 
, 
 
pf.event pollution by surface waters, other formation fluids or pollutants into the formation 
 
above the injection zone. 
 
I 
 
4. Special construction requirements may be specified by the Director or the permit to prevent 
 
I 
 
cqntamination of an underground source of drinking water. 
 
 
 
5. Sptic systems shall be constructed in accordance with the Georgia Department of Human 
 
R~sources requirements in 290-5-26. 
 
. 
 
I 
(f) An; injection permit may be transferred to any person provided the permittee notifies the 
 
Di~ector in writing at least 30 days in advance of the proposed transfer date and the transfer 
 
is ~pproved by the Director. 
 
(g) A permit issued by the Director may include permit conditions for the monitoring, testing 
 
an~ reporting of the injection facility. 
 
(h) Plugging and Abandonment. Ex~ept for septic systems identified in subparagraphs 391-3-6-.13(11)(a)l. and 2. above, the 
 
following shall apply: 
1. T~e Director may order a Class V well plugged and abandoned by the owner when it no 
 
longer performs its intended purpose, or when it is determined to endanger underground 
 
s~urces of drinking water.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2. It ~hall be the owner's responsibility to have any injection well plugged and abandoned by 
 
th~ water well contractor before removing the drilling equipment from the site ifthe well is 
 
nqt completed for its intended purpose. 
 
3. It shall be the owner's responsibility to have any exploratory and/or test well(s) constructed f~r the purpose of obtaining information on an injection well site, plugged and abandoned 
 
by the water well contractor. 
 
4. Tile entire depth of the well shall be completely filled with cement grout, which shall be 
in~roduced into the well by a pipe which extends to the bottom of the well and is raised as 
 
w~ll is filled, unless otherwise approved by the Director. 
 
I 
l 
(13) M~chanical Integrity. Amended. Ex~ept for septic systems as identified in subparagraphs 391-3-6-.13(11)(a)l. and 2. above, 
 
the following shall apply: 
 
(a} An injection well has mechanical integrity if:  
 
1. There is no deteCtable leak in the casing, tubing or packer; and 
 
I 
 
2. There is no detectable fluid movement into an underground source ofdrinking water through 
 
v~rtical channels adjacent to the injection well bore. 
 
I 
 
 
 
(b) 0Qe ofthe following methods must be used to evaluate the absence ofdetectable leaks under 
 
subparagraph 391-3-6-.13(13)(a)l: 
 
I 
1. Monitoring of annulus pressure; or I . 
2. Pr~ssure test with liquid or gas. 
 
I 
 
ts 
 
                                            
 
(c) Th~ methods used to determine the absence of detectable fluid movement into an un~erground source of drinking water shall be the results of a temperature or sonic log. 
 
(d) 
 
In 
 
onducting 
' 
 
and 
 
evaluating 
 
the tests 
 
for 
 
mechanical 
 
integ.rity, 
 
the owner or operator and 
 
the 
 
Director shall apply methods and standards generally accepted in the industry. When the 
 
owper or operator reports the results of mechanical integrity tests to the Director, the report 
 
shall include a description of the test(s) and method(s) used. The Director, in making an 
 
evcil.uation shall review monitoring and other test data submitted since the previous 
 
eva,luation. (e) The Director may waive mechanical integrity testing of remediation wells in shallow 
 
unsonfined aquifers. 
I I 
 
(14) PIJgging and Abandoning Class I, II and III Wells. Amended. I (a) The permittee shall inform the Director in writing of the permittee's intent to abandon an I injection well at least forty-five (45) working days prior to the abandonment. (b) Th~ permittee shall be responsible for the plugging of any injection well that is abandoned. 
 
Such plugging shall be in accordance with the criteria identified in Chapter 5 (120-138) of I 
Title 12. (c) W~Us shall be plugged with cement in a manner which will not allow the movement offluids 
 
eitller into or between underground sources of drinking water. I 
(d) The placement of the cement shall be accomplished under pressure from bottom to top. 
 
(e) The well to be cemented shall be in a state of static equilibrium with the mud weight I equalized top to bottom, either by circulating the mud in the well at least once or by a 
 
cor#parable method prescribed by the Director, such as the use of a packer, prior to the 
 
placement of the cement plugs. I 
(f) The Director may require ground water monitoring after well abandonment ifcontamination 
Jn of underground source of drinking water is suspected. 
 
(g) The permittee shall certify to the Director within thirty (30) days of plugging that the 
 
injcliction well was plugged. according to permitted procedures. 
I 
(15) E~ergency Action. If at any time the Director learns that an injection well may cause or 
 
has;caused the movements of any fluids containing contaminants into an underground source 
 
of drinking water or otherwise adversely affect the water quality or adversely affect the 
 
pu~lic health, the Director shall: 
 
 
 
I 
 
(a) Order the injector to cease the operation and take such actions as may be necessary to prevent 
 
the 1violation; 
 
. 
 
(b) Order the injector to take such actions as may be necessary to correct the violation; 
 
(c) Tak~ enforcement action; or 
 
. 
 
(d) Take emergency action upon receipt of information that a contaminant is likely to enter a 
 
I 
 
. 
 
pub,lic water system and present an imminent and substantial endangerment to the health of 
 
the public.  
 
-' 
 
! 
 
(16) Pr.)bibited Wells. Amended. The following types of wells are specifically prohibited 
 
I 
 
Statewide. 
 
I 
 
16 
 
  
 
(a) All! Class IV wells that are used to emplace hazardous waste or radioactive waste into the 
 
suosurface . 
 
I 
 
. 
 
(b) New drainage wells, except where such wells have been permitted and designed by a 
 
I 
 
professional geologist or professional engineer registered in the State of Georgia in 
 
accbrdance with Chapter 19 or Chapter 15, respectively, of Title 43 ancl the injected fluid 
do~s not contain any chemical constituent that exceeds any Maximum Contaminant Level I 
(MCL) identified in Rule 391-3-5-.18. 
(c) Ne~ large~capacity cesspools are prohibited. A large-capacity cesspool receives sanitary 
 
wruhe from multiple dwellings and community or regional establishments serving more than I 
20 persons a day. Existing large-capacity cesspools shall be closed by April 5, 2005. Such 
 
closure shall include a 30 day notification prior to closure. Well closure shall include 
 
rerrioval ofcontaminated materials, disinfection, and plugging with an impervious bentonite- 
ce~ent mixture. Closure shall be in accordance with criteria identified in the Chapter 5 I 
(120-138) ofTitle 12. 
 
(d). Op6n loop heat pump systems where return water is discharged into a well. 
 
(e) Motor vehicle waste disposal wells. 
 
. II . 
 
. 
 
. 
 
Authonty p.C.G.A. Sec. 12-5-23 (Ga. L. 1957) p. 629, Sec. 4; Ga. L. 1964, p. 416, Sees. 5, 24; 
 
Ga. L. 196~, p. 316, Sec1; Ga. L. 1972, p. 1015, Sees. 1517, 1534; Ga. L. 1972 p. 1266, Sec. 1; 
 
Ga. L. 1.974, p. 599, Sees. 6, ~; G.a. L. 1977,,p. 368, Sec. 2. Administrative History: Original 
 
. Rule entitle1d "Underground InJection Control was filed on Dec. 9, 1983, eff. Dec. 29, 1983. 
I 
 
I 
 
I 
I 
 
I 
 
17 
 
I 
I 
I