Ground-water quality in Georgia for 1994 [1997]

bf\
NLoo.&4
'1
cs
ILK

GROUND-WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA FOR 1994

John C. Donahue

GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
ATLANTA 1997
CIRCULAR 12K

GROUND-WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA FOR 1994
John C. Donahue
The preparation ofthis report was funded in part through a grant from the US Environmental Protection Agency under the proviszons ofSection 106 ofthe Federal Water Pollution Control Act
of 1972. as amended.
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES LONICE C. BARRETT, COMMISSIONER
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION HAROLD F. REHEIS, DIRECTOR GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
WILLIAM H. McLEMORE, STATE GEOLOGIST
ATLANTA
1997
CIRCULAR 12K

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose and Scope 1.2 Factors Affecting Chemical Ground-Water Quality 1.3 Hydrogeologic Provinces of Georgia
1.3 .1 Coastal Plain Province 1.3.2 Piedmont/Blue Ridge Province 1. 3. 3 Valley and Ridge Province 1.4 Regional Ground-Water Problems 1.5 Tropical Storm Alberto
2.0 GEORGIA GROUND-WATER MONITORING NETWORK 2.1 Monitoring Stations 2.2 Uses and Limitations 2 3 Analyses
3.0 GROUND-WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA 3.1 Overview 3.2 Cretaceous Aquifer System 3 3 Providence Aquifer System 3. 4 Clayton Aquifer System 3. 5 Claiborne Aquifer System 3. 6 Jacksonian Aquifer System 3. 7 Floridan Aquifer System 3. 8 Miocene Aquifer System 3. 9 Piedmont/Blue Ridge Unconfined Aquifers 3. 10 Valley and Ridge Unconfined Aquifers
4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
5.0 LIST OF REFERENCES
APPENDIX Analyses of samples collected during 1994 for the Georgia Ground-Water Monitoring Network
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 The Hydrogeologic Provinces of Georgia Figure 3-1 The Seven Major Aquifer Systems of the Coastal Plain
Province Figure 3-2 Water Quality of Selected Wells in the Cretaceous Aquifer
System

Page 1-1 1-1 1-2 1-2 1-4 1-4
1-5 1-5 1-6
2-1 2-1 2-1 2-3
3-1 3-1 3-1 3-4 3-8 3-8 3-11
3-15 3-21 3-21 3-26
4-1
5-1
A-1
1-3
3-2
3-3

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

Figure 3-3 Iron Concentrations for Selected Wells in the Cretaceous

Aquifer System

3-5

Figure 3-4 Nitrate/Nitrite Concentrations for Selected Wells in the

Cretaceous Aquifer System

3-6

Figure 3-5 Recharge Area and Limit ofUtilization ofthe Providence

Aquifer System

3-7

Figure 3-6 Recharge Area and Limit ofUtilization ofthe Clayton

Aquifer System

3-9

Figure 3-7 Water Quality of Selected Wells in the Claiborne Aquifer

System

3-10

Figure 3-8 Iron Concentrations for Selected Wells in the Claiborne

Aquifer System

3-12

Figure 3-9 Nitrate/Nitrite Concentrations for Selected Wells in the

Claiborne Aquifer System

3-13

Figure 3-1 0 Water Quality of Selected Wells in the Jacksonian Aquifer

System

3-14

Figure 3-11 Iron Concentrations for Selected Wells in the Jacksonian

Aquifer System

3-16

Figure 3-12 Nitrate/Nitrite Concentrations for Selected Wells in the

Jacksonian Aquifer System

3-1 7

Figure 3-13 Water Quality of Selected Wells in the Floridan Aquifer

System

3-19

Figure 3-14 Iron Concentrations for Selected Wells in the Floridan

Aquifer System

3-20

Figure 3-15 Nitrate/Nitrite Concentrations for Selected Wells in the

Floridan Aquifer System

3-22

Figure 3-16 Water Quality of Selected Wells in the Miocene Aquifer

System

3-23

Figure 3-1 7 Iron Concentrations for Selected Wells in the Miocene Aquifer

System

3-24

Figure 3-18 Nitrate/Nitrite Concentrations for Selected Wells in the

Miocene Aquifer System

3-25

Figure 3-19 Water Quality of Selected Wells in the Piedmont/Blue Ridge

Unconfined Aquifers

3-27

Figure 3-20 Iron Concentrations for Selected Wells in the Piedmont/Blue

Ridge Unconfined Aquifer System: Piedmont Sector

3-28

Figure 3-21 Iron Concentrations for Selected Wells in the Piedmont/Blue

Ridge Unconfined Aquifer System: Blue Ridge Sector

3-29

Figure 3-22 Nitrate/Nitrite Concentrations for Selected Wells in the Piedmont/

BlueRidge Unconfined Aquifer System: Piedmont Sector

3-30

Figure 3-23 Nitrate/Nitrite Concentrations for Selected Wells in the Piedmont/

Blue Ridge Unconfined Aquifer System: Blue Ridge Sector

3-31

Figure 3-24 Water Quality of Selected Wells in the Valley and Ridge

Unconfined Aquifers

3-32

11

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

Figure 3-25 Iron Concentrations for Selected Wells in the Valley and Ridge

Unconfined Aquifers

3-34

Figure 3-26 Nitrate/Nitrite Concentrations for Selected Wells in the Valley

and Ridge Unconfined Aquifers

3-35

LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1 Georgia Ground-Water Monitoring Network, 1994 Table 2-2 The Significance of Parameters of a Basic Water Quality
Analysis, Cations Table 2-3 The Significance of Parameters of a Basic Water Quality
Analysis, Anions Table 4-1 Pollution and Contamination Incidents, 1994 Table A-1 Standard Water Quality Analysis: Physical Parameters, Major
Anions, Minerals and ICP/AAS Metals Screen Table A-2 Additional Water Quality Analyses: Organic Screens #1, #2, #3,
#4, #5, #7, #8, #9, #1 0 and Mercury Screen Table A-3 1994 Ground-Water Quality Analyses of the Cretaceous Aquifer
System Table A-4 1994 Ground-Water Quality Analyses ofthe Claiborne Aquifer
System Table A-5 1994 Ground-Water Quality Analyses ofthe Jacksonian Aquifer
System Table A-6 1994 Ground-Water Quality Analyses of the Floridan Aquifer
System Table A-7 1994 Ground-Water Quality Analyses ofthe Miocene Aquifer
System Table A-8 1994 Ground-Water Quality Analyses ofthe Piedmont/Blue
Ridge Unconfined Aquifers Table A-9 1994 Ground-Water Quality Analyses oftheValley and Ridge
Unconfined Aquifers

2-2 2-4 2-5 4-2 A-2 A-4 A-17 A-18 A-19 A-20 A-27 A-28 A-30

111

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

This report for calendar year 1994 is the eleventh in a series of annual summaries discussing the chemical quality of ground water in Georgia. These summaries are among the tools used by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) to assess trends in the quality ofthe State's ground-water resources. EPD is the State organization with regulatory responsibility for maintaining and, where possible, improving ground-water quality and availability. EPD has implemented a comprehensive statewide ground-water management policy of anti-degradation (EPD, 1991 ). Five components constitute EPD's ground-water quality assessment program:

1. The Georgia Ground-Water Monitoring Network. The Geologic Survey Branch of EPD maintains this program, which is designed to evaluate the ambient ground-water quality often aquifer systems throughout the State of Georgia. The data collected from sampling on the Ground-Water Monitoring Network form the basis for this report.

2.

Sampling of public drinking water wells as part ofthe Safe Drinking Water

Program (Water Resources Management Branch). This program provides

data on the quality of ground water that the residents of Georgia are using

3. Special studies addressing specific water quality issues. A survey of nitrite /nitrate levels in shallow wells located throughout the State of Georgia (Shellenberger, et al., 1996; Stuart, et al., 1995) and the operation of a Pesticide Monitoring Network, currently conducted jointly by the Geologic Survey Branch and the Georgia Department of Agriculture (GDA), (Webb, 1995) are examples of these types of studies. The special studies undertaken also included investigations intended to measure the effects that flooding associated with Tropical Storm Alberto had on ground-water quality.

4. Ground-water sampling at environmental facilities such as municipal solid waste landfills, RCRA facilities, and sludge disposal facilities. The primary agencies responsible for monitoring these facilities are EPD' s Land Protection, Water Protection, and Hazardous Waste Management Branches

5. The development of a wellhead protection program (WHP), which is designed to protect the area surrounding a municipal drinking water well from contaminants. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved Georgia's WHP Plan on September 30, 1992. The WHP Plan became a part of the Georgia Safe Drinking Water Rules, effective July 1, 1993 The protection of public water supply wells from contaminants is important not only for maintaining ground-water quality but also for ensuring that public water supplies meet health standards.

1-1

Analyses of water samples collected for the Georgia Ground-Water Monitoring Network during calendar year 1994 and from previous years form the data base for this summary. The Georgia Ground-Water Monitoring Network comprises 128 wells and springs. Though sampled at various frequencies in the past, all stations on the network switched to an annual sampling frequency during 1994. In 1994, EPD personnel collected 97 samples from 85 wells and 4 springs. Preliminary scheduling for 1995 includes stations not visited in 1994; data from these visits will be presented in the 1995 report. A review of the 1994 data and comparison of these data with those for samples collected as early as 1984 indicate that ground-water quality at most of the 128 sampling sites generally has changed little and remains excellent.
1.2 FACTORS AFFECTING CHEMICAL GROUND-WATER QUALITY
The chemical quality of ground water drawn for sampling is the result of complex physical, chemical, and biological processes. Among the more significant controls are the chemical quality ofthe water entering the ground-water flow system, the reactions of infiltrating water with the soils and rocks that are encountered, and the effects of the well-and-pump system
Most water enters the ground-water system in upland recharge areas. Water seeps through interconnected pores and joints in the soils and rocks until discharged to a surfacewater body (e.g., stream, river, lake, or ocean). The initial water chemistry, the amount of recharge, and the attenuation capacity of soils have a strong influence on the quality of ground water in recharge areas. Chemical interactions between the water and the aquifer host rocks have an increasing significance with longer underground residence times. As a result, ground water from discharge areas tends to be more highly mineralized than ground water in recharge areas.
The well-and-pump system can also have a strong influence on the quality of the well water. Well casings, through compositional breakdown, can contribute metals (e.g., iron from steel casings) and organic compounds (e.g., tetrahydrofuran from PVC pipe cement) to the water. Pumps often aerate the water being discharged. An improperly constructed well can present a conduit that allows local pollutants to enter the ground-water flow system.
1.3 HYDROGEOLOGIC PROVINCES OF GEORGIA
This report defines three hydrogeologic provinces in Georgia by their general geologic and hydrologic characteristics (Figure 1-1 ). These provinces consist of:
1. the Coastal Plain Province of south Georgia; 2. the Piedmont/Blue Ridge Province, which includes all but the northwest
1-2

10

10

20

3p

40 MILES

Figure 1-1. - The Hydrogeologic Provinces of Georgia. 1-3

corner of Georgia; and 3. the Valley and Ridge Province of northwest Georgia.
1.3.1 Coastal Plain Province
Georgia's Coastal Plain Province generally comprises a wedge of loosely consolidated sediments that gently dip and thicken to the south and southeast Ground water in the Coastal Plain Province flows through interconnected pore space between grains in the host rocks and through solution-enlarged voids.
The oldest outcropping sedimentary formations (Cretaceous) are exposed along the Fall Line, which is the northern limit of the Coastal Plain Province. Successively younger formations occur at the surface to the south and southeast
The Coastal Plain contains Georgia's major confined (artesian) aquifers. Confined aquifers are those in which a layer of impermeable material (i.e., clay or shale) holds the top ofthe water column at a level below that to which it would normally rise. Water enters the aquifers in their up-dip outcrop areas, where the more permeable sediments of the aquifer tend to be exposed. Many Coastal Plain aquifers are unconfmed in their up-dip outcrop areas, but become confined in down-dip areas to the southeast, where they are overlain by successively younger rock formations. Ground-water flow through confined Coastal Plain aquifers is generally to the south and southeast, in the direction ofthe dip ofthe rocks.
The sediments forming the seven major confined aquifers in the Coastal Plain range in age from Cretaceous to Miocene. Horizontal and vertical changes in the permeability of the rock units that form these aquifers determine the thickness and extent of the aquifers. Several aquifers may be present in a single geographic area, forming a vertical "stack".
The Cretaceous and Jacksonian aquifer systems (primarily sands) are a common source of drinking water within a 35-mile wide band that lies adjacent to and south of the Fall Line. Southwestern Georgia relies on four vertically stacked aquifers (sands and carbonates) for drinking-water supplies the Providence, Clayton, Claiborne and Floridan aquifer systems. The Floridan aquifer system (primarily carbonates) serves most of south-central and southeastern Georgia. The Miocene aquifer system (primarily sands) is the principal "shallow" unconfined aquifer system occupying much ofthe same broad area underlain by the Floridan aquifer system It becomes confined in the coastal counties and locally in the Grady, Thomas, Brooks and Lowndes County area of south Georgia.
1.3.2 Piedmont/Blue Ridge Province
Crystalline rocks of metamorphic and igneous origin (primarily Precambrian and Paleozoic in age) underlie the Piedmont and Blue Ridge Provinces. These two provinces differ geologically but are discussed together here because they share common hydrologic properties. The principal water-bearing features are fractures, compositional layers, and other geologic discontinuities in the rock, as well as intergranular porosity in the overlying soil and
1-4

saprolite horizons. Thick soils and saprolites are often important as the "reservoir" that supplies water to the water-bearing fracture and joint systems. Ground water typically flows from local highlands toward discharge areas along streams. However, during prolonged dry periods or in areas of heavy pumpage, ground water may flow from the streams into the fracture and joint systems.
1.3.3 Valley and Ridge Province
Consolidated Paleozoic sedimentary formations characterize the Valley and Ridge Province. The principal permeable features ofthe Valley and Ridge Province are fractures and solution voids; intergranular porosity also is important in some places. Locally, groundwater and surface-water systems closely interconnect Dolostones and limestones of the Knox Group are the principal aquifers where they occur in the axes of broad valleys. The greater hydraulic conductivities of the thick carbonate sections in this Province, in part due to solution-enlarged joints, permit development of higher yielding wells than in the Piedmont and Blue Ridge Province.
1.4 REGIONAL GROUND-WATER PROBLEMS
Data from ground-water investigations in Georgia, including those from the GroundWater Monitoring Network, indicate that virtually all of Georgia has shallow ground-water sufficient for domestic supply. Iron, aluminum, and manganese are the only constituents that occur routinely in concentrations exceeding drinking-water standards. These metals are naturally occurring and do not pose a health risk. Iron and manganese can cause reddishbrown stains on objects.
Only a few occurrences of polluted or contaminated ground waters are known from North Georgia (see Section 4) Aquifers in the outcrop areas of Cretaceous sediments south of the Fall Line typically yield acidic water that may require treatment The acidity occurs naturally and results both from the inability ofthe sandy aquifer sediments to neutralize acidic rainwater and from acid-producing reactions between infiltrating water and soils and sediments. Nitrite/nitrate concentrations in shallow ground water from the farm belt of southern Georgia are usually within drinking-water standards, but are somewhat higher than levels found in other areas ofthe State.
The Floridan aquifer system contains two areas of naturally-occurring reduced ground-water quality besides the karst plain area (Dougherty Plain) in southwest Georgia. The first is the area of the Gulf Trough, a narrow, linear geological feature extending from southwestern Decatur County through central Bulloch County. Here, ground water is typically high in total dissolved solids and contains elevated levels of barium, sulfate, and radionuclides. The second is the coastal area of Georgia, where influx of water with high dissolved solids contents presents problems. In the Brunswick area, ground-water withdrawal from the upper Floridan results in up-coning of water with high dissolved solids contents from deeper parts ofthe aquifer. In the Savannah region, a cone of depression caused by pumping
1-5

in and around Savannah induces saline ground water to flow down-gradient from the Port Royal Sound area of South Carolina toward Savannah.
1.5 TROPICAL STORM ALBERTO
["Tropical Storm Alberto has made landfall, is currently centered over Dothan, Alabama. and is rapidly losing strength."-- weather announcement televised on the evening of July 3, 1994.]
The above weather announcement gave no hint of what would shortly befall the State. On July 3, 1994, Tropical Storm Alberto, by then officially downgraded to a tropical depression, began moving northeastward into Georgia (Stamey, 1995) Over the next four days, the storm unleashed torrential rainfall over a broad area of western, central, and southwestern Georgia, advancing as far north as the southern and eastern portions of the metro Atlanta area, then retreating into central Alabama. Americus and the surrounding area received the most precipitation, an unprecidented 27.6 inches over the five-day period. The greatest volume of the deluge fell in the Flint and Ocmulgee River basins; over the following two weeks, both basins had the worst flooding on record. The storm and the resultant flooding took 31 lives and caused an estimated $1,000,000,000 in damage. Especially severe harm befell roads, railroads, bridges, dams, public water systems, crop and forest lands, and housing. A number of communities lost water service, and, flooding of major thoroughfares made access to certain areas, notably Macon and Americus, extremely difficult The flooding contaminated two public water-supply wells on the Ground-Water Monitoring Network, Newton Well #1 (GWN-PA43) with coliform bacteria and Shellman Well #3 (GWN-CL5) with nitrate/nitrite, and forced their eventual abandonment
In the late summer of 1994, EPD and local health departments sampled and analyzed approximately six thousand wells (McLemore, 1995, letter to Representative Robert Hanner) for coliform bacteria. In the winter of 1995, EPD resampled, or attempted to resample, 153 wells (approximately a 2.5 percent spot check) and test the samples again for such bacteria In general, EPD concentrated its resampling efforts to those counties that (a) were most severely affected by the Flint River flooding and (b) were sinkhole-prone, as some speculation existed that some flood waters had entered and contaminated the Floridan aquifer via sink holes. Of the 153 wells, fifty-seven percent were wells which, while testing positive for coliform bacteria in the summer of 1994, tested negative in the winter of 1995; twenty percent were wells that remained positive. Thirteen percent were wells that tested negative during both the summer 1994 sampling and the winter 1995 sampling. Bacteria measurements were indeterminate or infeasible for ten percent of the wells. In other words, approximately seventy-four percent ofthe summer 1994 bacteria-contaminated wells were negative in the winter of 1995, and, no uncontaminated wells became contaminated between summer and winter. Also, wells proximal to the Flint River, that had been contaminated with bacteria appeared to be "cleaning up" similar to wells distal to the river. Although the information base was limited, long-term bacterial contamination appeared to correlate with well
1-6

construction (i.e., more commonly associated with ungrouted wells). EPD's analysis indicated that the bulk of the Floridan aquifer of the Lower Flint River Basin should be considered free of bacteria contamination. Although no data suggested that they actually occur, some isolated pockets of flood water may have continued to exist within the aquifer.
One special Geologic Survey investigation examined nitrate/nitrite contamination in Shellman Well #3 (GWN-CLS). This examination concluded that unusually heavy precipitation had flushed nitrate fertilizers out of row crop fields and pecan groves in the vicinity of the town, elevating the nitrate content ofthe well water above the primary MCL (Lineback, 1994, Georgia Geologic Survey internal memorandum).
A study undertaken by the U.S. Geological Survey (Hicks, 1995) examined the effects of the flood on ground-water hydrology in the Upper Floridan in an area along the Flint River in southern Lee, western Worth, Dougherty, northern Baker, and northern Mitchell Counties The study concluded that (a) in an area north of Albany, the potentiometric surface rose slowly because of the lower hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer in that area; (b) in the general Albany area and south of the city, the potentiometric surface rose rapidly because of higher hydraulic conductivity, but the slope of the potentiometric surface, inclined steeply upward away from the river, would have limited river water intrusion into the aquifer; and (c) in an area around Newton, the rise ofthe potentiometric surface was also rapid, but the slope of the potentiometric surface, gently upward away from the river, would have allowed river water intrusion into the aquifer. The contamination ofNewton Well #1 (GWN-PA43) would be consistent with these findings
1-7

2.0 GEORGIA GROUND-WATER MONITORING NETWORK
2.1 MONITORING STATIONS
Stations ofthe 1994 Ground-Water Monitoring Network are situated in the seven major aquifers and aquifer systems of the Coastal Plain Province and in the unconfined ground-water systems ofthe Piedmont and Blue Ridge Provinces and of the Valley and Ridge Province (Table 2-1). Monitoring stations are located in three critical settings:
1. areas of surface recharge; 2. areas of potential pollution related to regional activities (e.g., agricultural and
industrial areas); and 3. areas of significant ground-water use
Most ofthe monitoring stations are municipal, industrial, and domestic wells that have reliable well-construction data. The Monitoring Network also includes monitoring wells in specific areas where the State's aquifers are recognized to be especially susceptible to contamination or pollution (e.g., the Dougherty Plain of southwestern Georgia and the State's coastal area)
2.2 USES AND LIMITATIONS
Regular sampling of wells and springs of the Ground-Water Monitoring Network permits analysis of ground-water quality with respect to location (spatial trends) and with respect to the time of sample collection (temporal trends). Spatial trends are useful for assessing the effects ofthe geologic framework of the aquifer and regional land-use activities on ground-water quality Temporal trends permit an assessment of the effects of rainfall and drought periods on ground-water quantity and quality. Both trends are useful for the detection ofnon-point source pollution. Non-point source pollution arises from broad-scale phenomena such as acid rain deposition and application of agricultural chemicals on crop lands.
It should be noted that the data ofthe Ground-Water Monitoring Network represent water quality in only limited areas of Georgia. Monitoring water quality at 128 sites located throughout Georgia provides an indication of ground-water quality at the locality sampled and at the horizon corresponding to the screened interval in the well or to the head of the spring at each station in the Monitoring Network. Caution should be exercised in drawing strict conclusions and applying any results reported in this study to ground waters that are not being monitored.
Stations of the Ground-Water Monitoring Network intentionally are located away from known point sources of pollution. The wells provide baseline data on ambient water quality in Georgia. EPD requires other forms of ground-water monitoring for activities that
2-1

Table 2-1. Georgia Ground-Water Monitoring Network, 1994

AQUFER SYSTE:VI
Cretaceous
ProYJdence

-.t:MBER OF MONITORING STATIONS VISITED & SAMPLES TAKEN IN 1994
8 stations (8 samples)

PRIMARY STRATIGRAPHIC EQUIVALE!'\TS

AGE OF AQUFER FORMATIONS

Ripley Formation, Cusseta Sand, Blufftown Formation, Eutaw Formation, Tuscaloosa Formation, and Gaillard Formation

Late Cretaceous

0 stations (0 samples)

Providence Sand

Late Cretaceous

Clanon

0 stations (0 samples)

Clayton Formation

Paleocene

Claiborne

3 stations (3 samples)

Tallahatta Formation

Middle Eocene

.lacksoman

7 stations (7 samples)

Barnwell Group

Late Eocene

Floridan Miocene

42 stations (50 samples)
8 stations (8 samples)

Predominantlv Suwannee Limestone and Ocala Group

Predominantly Middle Eocene to Oligocene

Predominantly Altamaha Formation Miocene-Recent and Ha\\1horne Group

Piedmont/Blue Ridge

13 stations (13 samples)

Vallev and Ridge

8 stations (8 samples)

Various igneous and metamorphic complexes

Predominately Paleozoic and Precambrian

Shady Dolomite, Knox Group, and Chickamauga Group

Paleozoic, mostly Cambnan and Ordovician

2-2

may result in point source pollution (e.g., landfills, hazardous waste facilities and land application sites) through its environmental facilities permit programs.
Ground-water quality changes gradually and predictably in the areally extensive aquifers of the Coastal Plain Province. The Monitoring Network allows for some definition of the chemical processes occurring in large confined aquifers. Unconfined aquifers in northern Georgia and the surface recharge areas of southern Georgia are of comparatively small areal extent and more open to interactions with land-use activities. The wide spacing of monitoring stations does not permit equal characterization ofwater-quality processes in these settings. The quality ofwater from monitoring wells completed in unconfined aquifers represents only the general nature of ground water in the vicinity of the monitoring wells. Ground water in the recharge areas of the Coastal Plain aquifers is the future drinking-water resource for down-flow areas. Monitoring wells in these recharge areas, in effect, constitute an early warning system for potential future water quality problems in confined portions of the Coastal Plain aquifers.
2.3 ANALYSES
Analyses are available for 97 water samples collected during 1994 from 85 wells and 4 springs. In 1984, the first year ofthe Ground-Water Monitoring Network, hydrogeologists sampled water from 39 wells in the Piedmont/Blue Ridge and Coastal Plain Provinces Three of these wells have been sampled each year since 1984. Since 1984, the Ground-Water Monitoring Network has been expanded through addition of further wells and springs to cover all three hydrogeologic provinces, with most of the monitoring done in the Coastal Plain.
Ground water from all monitoring stations is tested for the basic water quality parameters included in the Monitoring Network's standard analysis. The standard parameters include pH, specific conductivity, chloride, fluoride, sulfate, nitrite/nitrate, and thirty metals (Appendix, Table A-1). Where regional land-use activities have the potential to affect ground-water quality in the vicinity of a monitoring station, additional parameters such as chlorinated pesticides (Organics Screen #2), and phenoxy herbicides (Organics Screen #4) are tested. These and additional chemical screens are listed in the Appendix (Table A-2). The pH measurements are performed in the field, whereas, other parameters are measured in the laboratory. Tables 2-2 (cations) and 2-3 (anions) summarize the significance of the common major constituents found in ground water.
The Drinking Water Program of the EPD's Water Resources Management Branch has established Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL's) for certain parameters included in the analyses done on Ground-Water Monitoring Network samples. Primary MCL's pertain to parameters that may have adverse effects on human health when their values are exceeded. Secondary MCL' s pertain to parameters that may give drinking water objectionable, though not health-threatening, properties that may cause persons served by public water systems to cease its use. Foul odor and unpleasant taste are examples of such properties. MCL 's apply
2-3

Table 2-2. The Significance of Parameters of a Basic Water Quality Analysis, Cations (after Wait, 1960).

PARAMETER(S)

SIGNIFICANCE

pH (Hydrogen ion concentration)

pH is a measure of the concentration of the hydrogen ion. Values of pH less than 7. 0 denote acidity and values greater than 7.0 indicate alkalinity. Corrosiveness of water generally increases with decreasing pH. However, excessively alkaline waters may also corrode metals. A pH range between 6.0 and 8.5 is considered acceptable.

Calcium and magnesium*

Calcium and magnesium cause most of the hardness of water. Hard water consumes soap before a lather will form and deposits scale in boilers, water heaters, and pipes. Hardness is reported in terms of equivalent calcium carbonate. The hardness of a water can be estimated by the sum of multiplying the ppm of calcium by 2.5 and that of magnesium by 4. 1.

Water Class
Soft Moderately Hard Hard Very Hard

Hardness (parts per million) Less than 60 60 to 120 121 to 180 More than 180

Sodium and potassium*

Sodium and potassium have little effect on the use of water for most domestic purposes. Large amounts give a salty taste when combined with chloride. A high sodium content may limit the use of water for irrigation.

Iron and manganese

More than 300 ppb of iron stains objects red or reddish brown and more than 50 parts per billion of manganese stains objects black. Larger quantities cause unpleasant taste and promote growth of iron bacteria, but do not endanger health.

*,\1ajor metallic ions present in most ground waters.

2-4

Table 2-3. The Significance ofParameters of a Basic Water Quality Analysis, Anions (after Wait, 1960).

PARAMETER(S)

SIGNIFICANCE

Chloride

Chloride salts in excess of 100 ppm give a salty taste to water. Large quantities make the water corrosive. Water that contains excessive amounts of chloride is not suitable for irrigation. It is recommended that the chloride content should not exceed 250 ppm.

Nitrate/Nitrite

Excessive amounts of nitrate/nitrite in drinking water or formula water for infants may cause a type of methemoglobinemia ("blue babies"). Nitrate/nitrite in concentrations greater than 10 ppm (as nitrogen) is considered to be a health hazard.

Sulfate

Sulfate in hard water increases the formation of scale in boilers. In large amounts, sulfate in combination with other ions imparts a bitter taste to water. Concentrations above 250 ppm have a laxative effect, but concentrations up to 500 ppm are not considered unhealthful

2-5

only to treated water offered for public consumption, nevertheless, they are useful guidelines for evaluating the quality ofuntreated (raw) water. Tables A-1 and A-2 in the Appendix list the Primary and Secondary MCL's for Ground Water Monitoring Network parameters.
Most of the wells originally on the Monitoring Network had in-place pumps. Using such pumps to purge the wells and collect samples reduces the potential for crosscontamination of wells For those wells that lacked in-place pumps, EPD personnel used portable pumps for purging and sampling. In recent years, however, all wells that lacked inplace pumps were dropped from the Monitoring Network, except for a flowing well tapping the lower Floridan, GWN-PA9C (see Appendix, Table A-6).
Sampling procedures are adapted from techniques used by the USGS and the EPA. Hydrogeologists purge the wells (three to five times the volume of the water column in the well) before the collection of a sample to minimize the influence of the well, pump and distribution system on water quality. Municipal, industrial, and domestic wells typically require approximately 30 to 45 minutes of purging before sample collection.
EPD personnel monitor certain water quality parameters prior to sample collection. The personnel observe and record pH, dissolved oxygen content, specific conductivity, and temperature using field instruments A manifold captures flow at the pump system discharge point before the water is exposed to the atmosphere and conducts it past the instrument probes With increased purging time, typical trends include a lowering of pH, dissolved oxygen content, and specific conductivity, and a transition toward the mean annual air temperature. The hydraulic flow characteristics of unconfined aquifers, the depth of withdrawal, and pump effects may alter these trends.
Samples are collected once the parameters being monitored in the field stabilize or otherwise indicate that the effects of the well have been minimized. Files at the Geologic Survey Branch contain the records of the field measurements taken during sampling (i.e, pH, dissolved oxygen content, specific conductivity, and temperature). EPD personnel fill the sample bottles and then promptly place them on ice to preserve the water quality The personnel next transport the samples to the laboratories for analysis on or before the Friday of the week in which they were collected
During 1994, various laboratories performed the chemical analyses of water samples for the Ground-Water Monitoring Network. Before tropical storm Alberto, EPD laboratories did the following standard water quality tests on all regular samples: specific conductance, an ICP/AAS metals screen, a nitrate/nitrite test (results reported as ppm nitrogen), and an ion chromatography screen (chloride, fluoride, and sulfate). EPD laboratories also did the following optional tests on various samples: mercury, organic screen #7 (EDB), organic screens #8 and #9 (semivolatile organic compounds), and organic screen # 10 (volatile organic compounds). Organic screen #7 is performed simultaneously with organic screen #10. The Georgia Department of Agriculture laboratory performed analyses for screens # 1, #2, #3, #4, and #5 (pesticides and PCB's) during this same period. Following the Alberto flooding, EPD laboratories became the main agency responsible for testing drinking water supplies in the
2-6

flooded areas and had only limited capacity to analyze Monitoring Network water samples Samples, which EPD laboratories could not test, were forwarded to the Cooperative Extension Service laboratories at the University of Georgia for the standard water quality tests
2-7

3.0 GROUND-WATER QUALITY IN GEORGIA

3.1 OVERVIEW

Georgia's ten major aquifers and aquifer systems are grouped into three hydrogeologic provinces for the purposes of this report

The Coastal Plain Province comprises seven major aquifers or aquifer systems that are restricted to specific regions and depths within the province (Figure 3-1 ). These major aquifer systems, in many cases, incorporate smaller aquifers that are locally confined. Ground-Water Monitoring Network wells in the Coastal Plain aquifers are generally located in three settings:

1. Recharge (or outcrop) areas that are located in regions that are geologically up-dip and generally to the north of confined portions of these aquifers.

2. Up-dip, confined areas that are located in regions that are proximal to the recharge areas, yet are confined by overlying geologic formations. These areas are generally south to southeast ofthe recharge areas.

3

Down-dip, confined areas, located to the south and southeast in the deeper,

confined portions ofthe aquifers distal to the recharge areas.

Small-scale, localized ground-water flow patterns characterize the two hydrogeologic provinces of north Georgia, the Piedmont/Blue Ridge Province and the Valley and Ridge Province. Deep regional flow systems are unknown in northern Georgia. Geologic discontinuities (such as fractures) and compositional changes within the aquifer generally control ground-water flow in the Piedmont/Blue Ridge Province. Local topographic features, such as hills and valleys, influence ground-water flow patterns. Many of the factors controlling ground-water flow in the Piedmont/Blue Ridge Province also apply in the Valley and Ridge Province. The Valley and Ridge Province additionally possesses widespread karst features, which significantly enhance porosity and permeability in localized areas and exert a strong influence on local ground-water flow patterns.

3.2 CRETACEOUS AQUIFER SYSTEM
The Cretaceous aquifer system is a complexly interconnected group of aquifer subsystems developed in the Late Cretaceous sands of the Coastal Plain Province. These sands crop out in an extensive recharge area immediately south ofthe Fall Line in west and central Georgia (Figure 3-2). Overlying Tertiary sediments restrict Cretaceous outcrops to valley bottoms in parts of the northeastern Coastal Plain. Five distinct subsystems of the Cretaceous aquifer system, including the Providence aquifer system, are recognized west of the Ocmulgee River (Pollard and Vorhis, 1980). These merge into three subsystems to the

3-1

J 10 0 10 Z,O '

tp .. LIS

'0

'0 Xl II 60 CIIIlOfiETUtS

,.

e~ ~ - . - -

... FLORIDA

,.

---! \ ( )

B

E

MSL ~s:::r-~-1 FLORIDAN
-1000 I

B

MIOCENE

C

c

D

EfF:::mill MSL -1000 I

FLORIDAN

FLORIDAN

Figure 3-1_ - The Seven Major Aquifer Systems of the Coastal Plain Province.

3-2

. 83

'0

'0

2.0

30

40 MILES

General recharge area (from Davis, et al., 1988)

Soft water

0 Manganese exceeds MCL 0 Iron exceeds MCL

Figure 3-2. Water Quality of Selected Wells in the Cretaceous Aquifer System 3-3

east (Clarke, eta!, 1985). Aquifer sands thicken southward from the Fall Line, from where they pinch out against crystalline Piedmont rocks, to a sequence of sand and clay approximately 2,000 feet thick at the southern limits of the main aquifer-use area (limit of utilization, Figure 3-2). Vertical leakage from overlying members of the aquifer system provides significant recharge in down-dip areas.
EPD sampled 8 wells in 1994 to monitor the water quality of the Cretaceous aquifer system, exclusive of the Providence aquifer system. All the sampled wells are located in updip areas in or adjacent to outcrop and surface recharge areas for the Cretaceous aquifer system All wells yielded soft, acidic water.
Iron concentrations exceeded the State secondary MCL of 300 parts per billion (ppb) in only two wells: GWN-K3 in Washington County (580 ppb) and GWN-K9 in Macon County (500 ppb). Well GWN-Kl yielded a sample with a manganese concentration of60 ppb, which exceeds the applicable secondary MCL of 50 ppb. Figure 3-3 shows trends in iron concentrations for selected wells in the Cretaceous aquifer system
Aluminum concentrations exceeded the secondary MCL of 200 ppb in samples from two wells GWN-K 1 (2600 ppb) and GWN-K9 (440 ppb). All samples contained low or undetectable levels of major alkali and alkaline earth metals (potassium, sodium, calcium, and magnesium). Water samples from various wells also had detectable levels of the following trace elements: copper, barium, strontium, molybdenum, vanadium, zinc, lead, and selenium.
Water samples from six wells contained detectable levels of nitrite/nitrate, with the highest concentration, 0.71 ppm as nitrogen, occurring in a sample from well GWN-Kl. Figure 3-4 shows trends in levels of nitrite/nitrate (reported as parts per million [ppm] nitrogen) for selected wells. All of the samples contained detectable chloride; the majority of the samples also had measurable sulfate. None of the samples contained quantifiable synthetic organic compounds. Table A-3 in the Appendix lists the analytical results for samples collected from the Cretaceous aquifer system.
3.3 PROVIDENCE AQUIFER SYSTEM
Sand and coquinoid limestones of the Late Cretaceous Providence Formation comprise the Providence aquifer system of southwestern Georgia. Outcrops of the aquifer system extend from northern Clay and Quitman Counties through eastern Houston County (Figure 3-5). At its up-dip extent, the aquifer system thickens both to the east and to the west of a broad area adjacent to the Flint River. The aquifer system also generally thickens downdip, with an area where the thickness exceeds 300 feet existing in Pulaski County and an area of similar thickness indicated in the Baker/Calhoun/Early county region (Clarke, et a!, 1983). Figure 3-5 also shows the down-dip limit of the area in which the aquifer system is utilized.
3-4

1600.-------------~------------.-------------.-------------.-----------~

I
1400 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - ... - - - - - -

____ ...,I. ______ _

I

I

----~--------------~--------------
1

21200
OJ :J
0
g 1000
II
__J
u :2: 800
--__J
OJ :J
- 600
Q)
LL
c
2 400

I
------------- .L-----I
--------------rI ------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - r - - - - .. -
I
------------- ..... ------
- -- --- - -- - -- --.- - -- -. -

I
--- _J_ ------
I
-----I.-------
----,------I

____ JI _____ _

I ----- L --------------
-----r-------------1

200

0

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

WeiiiD

D ~ K1

K3

m K9

K12

Iron levels below the detection limit are assigned a value of 5.1 ppb. A missing bar indicates that data are not available for that year.
Figure 3-3. -Iron Concentrations for Selected Wells in the Cretaceous Aquifer System
3-5

5,-------------~--------------~------------~--------------r-------------,

4.5

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -r- - - - - - - - - - - - - - , - - - - - .. - - .. - - .. - - .. T - .. - - - - - - - - - - - - - r" - - .. - - .. - - .. - - - - - -

I

I

I

:z::: 4
O'l
E
0 3.5
3

- - - - - - - - - - - - - .. -1- .. - - .. - - .. - - - - - - - .J- - - - - .. - - .. - - " - - .. .L- .. - - - - - - - - - - - - - L - - .. - - .. - - .. - - - - - -

-

-- -

-- -

-- -

-- -

- _II _ -

-

-

--

-

--

-- -

-- -

J- -
I

-- -

--

-

--

-

--

-

-l
I

-

--

-- -

-- -

-- -

-- - ~ I

-

--

-

--

-

--

-- -

--

----,.---------------,.---------------r.---------------

:z:::2.5
O'l
E 2
(")
0 z1.5 o<l
N
0 z

I
- -- - -- - -- - -- - --,I- .. - - .. - - -

I
- -- - -- - -- - -- - - -r- .. - - .. - - ..
I

I

-

--

-

--

-

--

-

--

-

..

I
_,_

-

-

-

---

-

-- - -_,_ -- - -- - .. I

----,I---------------TI ---------------rI ----------------

----,---------------T---------------r---------------

1

I

I

----.J---------------.1-------- -----L---------------

____ J________ -----l-------- -----~---------------

1

I

0.5 -------

----,------ -----,------

1990 WeiiiD

1991

1992

1993

1994

D K1 ~ K2

m K5

K10 [~~~ K16

Nitrate/nitrite levels below the detection limit are assigned a value of 0.05 ppm A missing bar indicates data are not available for that year.
Figure 3-4. -Nitrate/Nitrite Concentrations for Selected Wells in the Cretaceous Aquifer System
3-6

General recharge area (from Davis, et al., 1988)
Figure 3-5 -Recharge Area and Limit ofUtilization ofthe Providence Aquifer System 3-7

The permeable Providence Formation-Clayton Formation interval forms a single aquifer in the up-dip areas (Long, 1989) and to the east of the Flint River (Clarke, et a!., 1983) This same interval is recognized as the Dublin aquifer system to the east of the Ocmulgee River (Clarke, et al., 1985). Outcrop areas and adjacent covered areas to the east of the Flint River, where the aquifer is overlain by permeable sand units, are surface recharge areas. The Chattahoochee River forms the western discharge boundary for this flow system in Georgia. EPD did not collect any samples from Providence aquifer wells in 1994.
3.4 CLAYTON AQUIFER SYSTEM
The Clayton aquifer system of southwestern Georgia is developed mainly in the middle limestone unit ofthe Paleocene Clayton Formation. Limestones and calcareous sands of the Clayton aquifer system crop out in a narrow belt extending from northeastern Clay County to southwestern Schley County (Figure 3-6). Aquifer thickness varies, ranging from 50 feet near outcrop areas to 265 feet in southeastern Mitchell County (Clarke, eta!., 1984) Both the Flint River, to the east, and the Chattahoochee River, to the west, are areas of discharge for the aquifer system in its up-dip extent Leakage from the underlying Providence aquifer system and from permeable units in the overlying Wilcox confining zone provides significant recharge in down-dip areas (Clarke, et a!., 1984). The Clayton Formation and Providence Formation merge to form a single aquifer unit in up-dip areas (Long, 1989) as well as east of the Flint River (Clarke, eta!., 1983). In areas east ofthe Ocmulgee River, the combination ofthese two aquifers is referred to as the Dublin aquifer system (Clarke, eta!., 1985). Figure 3-6 also shows the down-dip limit of the area in which the aquifer system is utilized. EPD did not sample any Clayton wells in 1994.
3.5 CLAIBOR~E AQUIFER SYSTEM
Sands ofthe Middle Eocene Claiborne Group are the primary units of the Claiborne aquifer system of southwestern Georgia (Figure 3-7). Claiborne Group sands crop out in a belt extending from northern Early County through western Dooly County. Recharge to the aquifer system occurs both as direct infiltration of precipitation in the recharge area and as leakage from the overlying Floridan aquifer system (Hicks, eta!., 1981; Gorday, eta!., 1997). Discharge boundaries of the aquifer system are the Ocmulgee River, to the east, and the Chattahoochee River, to the west Figure 3-7 shows the down-dip limit of utilization
The aquifer generally thickens from the outcrop area towards the southeast, attaining a maximum of almost 300 feet in eastern Dougherty County. In down-dip areas where the Claiborne Group can be divided into the Lisbon Formation above and the Tallahatta Formation below, the Claiborne aquifer system generally lies within the Tallahatta Formation, and the Lisbon Formation acts as a confining unit that separates the Claiborne aquifer from the overlying Floridan aquifer (McFadden and Perriello, 1983; Long, 1989). The permeable Tallahatta unit is included in the Gordon aquifer system east of the Ocmulgee River (Brooks, et a!., 1985).
3-8

...

...

10

10

20

30

~ M11.ES

.,.

General recharge area (after Davis, et al., 1988)

Figure 3-6. -Recharge Area and Limit ofUtilization ofthe Clayton Aquifer System 3-9

...

33"--'-:--+--T--i:7=='==.--Lf------1r--~~~~+---~--+---+-----:;,.L--';--33'
,- --y/

..-----

-r

,

; .

z -"

'
\

i
'

/
_?

General recharge area Soft water Hard water 0 Manganese exceeds MCL 0 I ron exceeds MCL

(from Davis,

et al.,

1988)

Figure 3-7. -Water Quality of Selected Wells in the Claiborne Aquifer System. 3-10

During 1994, EPD personnel used three wells to monitor the water quality of the Claiborne aquifer system. The pH of the water samples from the up-dip area (wells GWNCL4 and GWN-CL8) fell below 7.00, while the pH of the sample from the down-dip area (well GWN-CL2) slightly exceeded 7.00. The two up-dip wells yielded soft water, while well GWN-CL2 yielded hard water. Manganese levels in samples from wells GWN-CL4 and GWN-CL8 and iron in the sample from well GWN-CL8 equaled or exceeded the secondary MCL's for these elements.
The sample from the down-dip well GWN-CL2 had the highest calcium concentration. The down-dip well GWN-CL6 yielded the sample with the highest sodium concentration. The calcium concentration in the down-dip sample is consistent with ground waters derived from limestone. Other metals and semimetals detected included barium, strontium, aluminum, zinc, copper, silver, arsenic, vanadium, molybdenum, and lead Figure 3-8 shows trends in iron concentrations in three wells.
Samples from all three wells (GWN-CL2, GWN-CL4, and GWN-CL8) contained detectable levels of nitrite/nitrate, with the sample from GWN-CL4 having the highest concentration. In the aftermath oftropical storm Alberto, routine samples oftreated water from well GWN-CL5 (Shellman Well #3, Randolph County), collected for EPD's Drinking Water Program, began showing nitrite/nitrate levels in excess of the primary MCL (Lineback, 1994) The well collapsed in November of 1994, before the yearly Monitoring Network sample could be collected. Lineback (1994) reported the increase in nitrite/nitrate concentration in water from well GWN-CL5 to be due to leaching offertilized row crop fields and pecan groves north and west of the town by storm precipitation. Figure 3-9 shows nitrite/nitrate concentrations for selected wells.
Samples from all three wells contained measurable chloride, with a maximum of 6 2 ppm in the sample from well GWN-CL4. Samples from wells GWN-CL2 and GWN-CL8 contained detectable sulfate. Well GWN-CL2 yielded a sample containing fluoride at a concentration of 5.0 ppm, which exceeded the primary MCL of 4 ppm. Previous testing has shown the fluoride levels to be low or undetectable in samples from this well, and, the 5 0 ppm value is thought to be spurious. The sample from well GWN-CL4 contained benzene ( 10 ppb) in excess of the primary MCL of 5 ppb and a non-quantifiable trace of xylenes. Table A-4 in the Appendix gives the analytical results for the samples from Claiborne wells
3.6 JACKSONIAN AQUIFER SYSTEM
The Jacksonian aquifer system of central and east-central Georgia comprises predominantly sands of the Eocene Barnwell Group, though, locally, isolated limestone bodies are important. Barnwell Group outcrops extend from Macon and Peach Counties eastward to Burke and Richmond Counties (Figure 3-1 0). Aquifer sands form a northern clastic facies of the Barnwell Group; the sands grade southward into less permeable silts and clays of a transition facies (Vincent, 1982). The water-bearing sands are relatively thin, ranging from ten to fifty feet in thickness. Limestones equivalent to the Barnwell Group form a southern
3-11

700,-------------~--------------~------------~-------------r------------~

600

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - .J- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L.- - - - - .. - - .. - - - - - J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

::J
cnsoo
::J
0 0
(")
II
u_j 400
~
_j
cn3oo
::J
Cll LL
c 200
.0....

------------- . -I.---- .. ----------,I--------- . -----,I---------------,I------- .

I
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -t- .. - - - - - - - - - - - - -t--- - - - .. - - - - - .. - - ' I - - .. - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - ..

I

I

------------- .. -I ,---------------,I ---------------

---------------,I---- .. -- .

I

I

I

I

- -- - -- - -- - -- - - ~- - - - - - - - - -- - -- - ~- - -- - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - -- - -- - -- - - -- - - - - - - -

100

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

WeiiiD

D ~ CL2

CL4

CLB

Iron levels below the detection limit are assigned a value of 5.1 ppb. A missing bar indicates data are not available for that year.
Figure 3-8. -Iron Concentrations for Selected Wells in the Claiborne Aquifer System.
3-12

10,-------------~----------~------------~------------~----------~

::::: 8
z
OJ
E
0

I I --------------~-----

--------------.I----- .

--.....J
z

OJ

E
4

--------------.-----

M

0 z

o(j

N
0z 2 --------------.I----- .

---,I ---

-----,---- .. -----,--------------
I
--,I --------------

-----,----

--,--------------

------.I ---

--,I ---

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

WeiiiD

D ~ CL4

CLS

CL8

Nitrate/nitrite levels below the detection limit are assigned a value of0.05 ppm. A missing bar indicates data arenot available for that year.
Figure 3-9. -Nitrate/Nitrite Concentrations for Selected Wells in the Claiborne Aquifer System.
3-13

10

0

10

20

~

40 M!LES

General recharge area (from Davis, et al., 1988) ~Facies boundary (from Vincent, 1982)

Soft water

Moderately hard water

0 Manganese exceeds MCL

Hard water

Figure 3-1 0. - Water Quality of Selected Wells in the Jacksonian Aquifer System. 3-14

carbonate facies and are included in the Floridan aquifer system. The Savannah River and Ocmulgee River are eastern and western discharge boundaries respectively for the up-dip flow system of the Jacksonian aquifer system.
EPD monitored water quality in the Jacksonian aquifer system in 1994 by sampling seven wells. Five wells are in the clastic facies (one,GWN-J2A, drawing from an isolated limestone body), and, two wells are in the transition facies. Except for two up-dip wells, GWN-17 and GWN-J8, which yielded very acidic water, the pH of the water samples ranged from 6.68 to 7.72. Water hardness ranged from soft (up-dip wells GWN-17 and GWN-J8) to hard. Concentrations of iron, aluminum, and manganese in the water samples fell below the secondary MCL's for drinking water, except for wells GWN-J3 and GWN-J8, which yielded samples with excessive manganese (130 ppb and 70 ppb, respectively). The samples tested generally low in sodium, with the highest concentration occurring in a sample from the transition well GWN-J3. Calcium concentrations ranged from 37 ppm to 65 ppm in in samples from five ofthe wells, but fell below 10 ppm in samples from the up-dip wells GWN17 and GWN-J8. Samples from five of the wells contained magnesium, with the highest level of 6.4 ppm occurring in the sample from transition well GWN-13. Other detected metals and semimetals included barium, strontium, copper, lead, zinc, vanadium, beryllium, and arsenic. Higher nitrite/nitrate concentrations occurred in samples from the up-dip wells, with the concentration in a sample from well GWN-J8 exceeding the primary MCL of 10 ppm as nitrogen. In no samples did fluoride, chloride, or sulfate exceed their respective MCL's. Likewise, none ofthe samples contained any quantifiable synthetic organic chemicals. Figures 3-11 and 3-12 depict trends in iron and nitrite/nitrate concentrations for selected wells. Table A-5 in the Appendix lists the analytical results for all the wells sampled.
3.7 FLORIDAN AQUIFER SYSTEM
The Floridan aquifer system consists predominantly of Eocene and Oligocene limestones and dolostones that underlie most ofthe Coastal Plain Province. The aquifer is a major source of ground water for much of its outcrop area and throughout its down-dip extent to the south and east.
The upper water-bearing units of the Floridan are the Eocene Ocala Group and the Oligocene Suwanee Limestone (Crews and Huddlestun, 1984). These limestones crop out in the Dougherty Plain (a karstic area in southwestern Georgia) and in adjacent areas along a strike to the northeast. In Camden and Wayne counties the Oligocene unit is absent, and the upper part ofthe Floridan is restricted to units ofEocene age (Clarke, et al., 1990). The lower portion of the Floridan consists mainly of dolomitic limestone of middle and early Eocene age and pelletal, vuggy, dolomitic limestone ofPaleocene age but extends into the late Cretaceous in Glynn County. The lower Floridan is deeply buried and not widely used, except in several municipal and industrial wells in the Savannah area (Clarke, et al., 1990) From its up-dip limit, defined in the east by clays of the Barnwell Group, the aquifer thickens to well over 700 feet in coastal Georgia. A dense limestone facies along the trend of the Gulf Trough locally limits ground-water quality and availability (Kellam and Gorday, 1990). The
3-15

240,--------------r------------~------------~------------~-------------.

200

I

-

-- -

-- -

-- -

-- -

M _II _ M -

-

-

-

-

-

-

--:::J
O"l :::J
0 160 0
M
II
_J
u
~ 120
--_J
O"l :::J

tf 80
c .0...

40

___ JI _______________ lI _______________ Il __

I

I

I

---rI -1 I
---l-1

0 -+----""-----

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

WeiiiD

DJ3~J5 J6

Iron levels below the detection limit are assigned a value of 5.1 ppb. A missing bar indicates data arenot available for that year.
Figure 3-11. -Iron Concentrations for Selected Wells in the Jacksonian Aquifer System.
3-16

5~------------,-------------~------------~------------,-------------~

4.5
::2 4
z
0)
0E 3.5

I

I

I

I

--------------.-------------~--------------,--------------y--------------

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

--------------.-------------~--------------,--------------y--------------

I

I

I

I

--------------.-------------~--------------,--------------y--------

u...J 3
~
z::2 2.5
0)
E 2
M
0 z
~ 1.5
N
z 0
0.5

I
--------------~-------------~--------------~--------------+--------

---L-------------~1--------------J--------------lI --------

I

I

I

I

I

---1L-------------~I--------------JI--------

-- -'I---I

- .. - - - - -..J- -1 I
------ _.... _--
_______ .... __ _

--------..1--1
---------~---

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

WeiiiD

D ~ J1B

J2A

J7

Nitrate/nitrite levels below the detection limit are assigned a value of0.05 ppm. A missing bar indicates data arenot available for that year.
Figure 3-12.- Nitrate/Nitrite Concentrations for Selected Wells in the Jacksonian Aquifer System.
3-17

Gulf Trough is a linear depositional feature in the Coastal Plain that extends from southwestern Decatur County through central Bulloch County.
A ground-water divide separates a smaller southwestwardly flow regime in the Floridan aquifer system in the Dougherty Plain from the larger southeastwardly flow regime in the remainder of Georgia. Rainfall infiltration in outcrop areas and downward leakage from extensive surficial residuum provides recharge to the Dougherty Plain flow system (Hayes, et al., 1983). The main body ofthe Floridan aquifer system, to the east, is recharged by leakage from the Jacksonian aquifer system and by rainfall infiltration in outcrop areas and in areas where overlying strata are thin. Significant recharge also occurs in the area of Brooks, Echols and Lowndes counties, where the Withlacoochee River and numerous sinkholes breach upper confining beds (Krause, 1979).
In 1994, EPD collected 50 samples from 42 wells in the Floridan aquifer system (Figure 3-13). The pH levels in all samples were basic, and, water hardness ranged from moderately hard to very hard. Iron and aluminum concentrations fell below the secondary MCL's in all samples. Trends in iron levels from selected wells in the Floridan aquifer are shown on Figure 3-14. Most wells yielding water with detectable manganese levels fall within the GulfTrough area (wells GWN-PA18, GWN-PA19, GWN-PA29, GWN-PA30, GWNPA32, and GWN-PA33). The manganese concentration in a sample from well GWN-PA18 exceeded the secondary MCL of 50 ppb.
Sodium concentrations ranged from 1.9 to 800 parts per million (ppm), and, magnesium ranged from undetected to 110 ppm. Both elements are most abundant in samples from wells in the coastal area, with the highest concentrations of these elements occurring in a sample from well GWN-PA9C in Brunswick Calcium ranged from 24 ppm in samples from wells GWN-PA2A and GWN-PA33 to 160 ppm in well GWN-PA9C. The barium concentration from well GWN-PA33 in the GulfTrough area was 2200 ppb which exceeds the primary MCL of2000 ppb. Other metals detected in measurable concentrations included potassium, molybdenum, strontium, copper, and zinc. None ofthese substances exceeded applicable MCL's.
All water samples underwent tests for the anions: chloride, sulfate, fluoride, and nitrate/nitrite. A few samples also recieved tests for phosphorus. Chloride levels ranged from 1. 9 ppm to 1770 ppm. The 1770 ppm level occurred in well GWN-PA9C in the coastal area and was the only value to exceed the secondary MCL (250 ppm) for chloride. Sulfate ranged from undetected to 398 ppm. This high sulfate level occurred in the sample from well GWNPA9C and exceeds the secondary MCL (250 ppm). The concentrations offluoride ranged from undetected to 0.9 ppm. The sample collected from well GWN-PA39 was the only sample to have a synthetic organic compound, a non-quantifiable trace of chloroform.
Most of the samples collected from the confined portions of the Floridan aquifer contained no detectable nitrite/nitrate, whereas, most samples in the unconfined portion contained detectable concentrations of nitrite/nitrate. The highest level, 4.08 ppm as nitrogen, was in a sample collected from well GWN-PA53 in the Dougherty Plain. Trends in nitrate
3-18

...

10

0

10 20 30 40 MILES

...

General recharge area (from Davis, et al., 1988)

Moderately hard water
Hard water + Very hard water

0 Manganese exceeds MCL

Figure 3-13. - Water Quality of Selected Wells in the Floridan Aquifer System.

3-19

500,-------------~-------------r------------~------------~------------~

400
--_J
Cl :::l
0 0
C")
II 300
_J
u ::?!
--_J
Cl
-:::l 200
a;
u..
c
.0....
100

- -- - -- - -- - -- ---I- - - - --- - - -- - -- - ~- - -- - - - - - - - -- -- ~----------

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -'- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i' - -
1

-- --- - -- - -- - -- - - -- - -- - ---- --- -.,I --

I

I

_., ______ ,I __
I

--~---------------

1990 Well 10

1991

1992

c==J PA9C ~ PA29

1993

1994

PA34 ~ PA43 ~ PASO

Iron levels below the detection limit are assigned a value of 5.1 ppb. A missing bar indicates data are not available for that year.
Figure 3-14. -Iron Concentrations for Selected Wells in the Floridan Aquifer System.
3-20

levels from selected wells in the Floridan Aquifer are presented in Figure 3-15. The Appendix (Table A-6) gives the analytical results for samples from the Floridan aquifer system.
3.8 MIOCENE AQUIFER SYSTEM
Much of south-central and southeastern Georgia lies within outcrop areas of the Miocene Altamaha Formation and Hawthorne Group. Discontinuous lens-shaped bodies of sand, 50 to 80 feet thick, are the main permeable units. Miocene clays and sandy clays are thickest, more than 500 feet, in Wayne County (Watson, 1982).
Areas of confinement exist in the coastal counties. Leakage from overlying surface aquifers into the Miocene aquifer system and, in some areas, from the underlying Floridan aquifer system is significant in the coastal counties (Watson, 1982). Here, two principal aquifer units are present (Joiner, et al., 1988). Clarke (et. al, 1990) use the names upper and lower Brunswick aquifers to refer to these two sandy aquifer units.
EPD collected water samples from eight wells to monitor the water quality in the Miocene aquifer system (Figure 3-16). The pH of the samples ranged from 4.05 to 7.65 and hardness from soft to hard. Iron and manganese levels ranged from undetected to 2200 and 210 ppb, respectively. The water sample from well GWN-MI13 contained iron in excess of the secondary MCL (300 ppb). Water samples from four wells, GWN-MI5, GWN-MI8A, GWN-MIIOB and GWN-MI13, exceeded the secondary MCL (50 ppb) for manganese. Figure 3-17 shows trends in iron concentrations in selected wells. Samples from three wells contained aluminum in excess of the secondary MCL, at levels of 430 ppb, 730 ppb, and 740 ppb. Sodium ranged from 1.7 ppm to 7.7 ppm, and, calcium ranged from 5.8 ppm to 54 ppm Other metals detected were potassium, magnesium, barium, strontium, and zinc. None of these exceed applicable MCL's.
Chloride concentrations ranged from 2.1 ppm to 40.1 ppm, and, sulfate levels ranged from undetected to 3.4 parts per million. The deeper domestic wells (GWN-Mll, GWNMI2, GWN-MIIOB, and GWN-MI13) yielded samples with the lowest chloride concentrations. Samples from four wells contained quantifiable concentrations of fluoride. Detectable levels ofnitrite/nitrate, ranging from 0.1ppm to 14.1 ppm, occurred in samples from four wells (GWN-MI2, GWN-MI5, GWN-MI8A, and GWN-MI15). Nitrate/nitrite concentrations in wells GWN-MI8A and GWN-MI15 exceeded the primary MCL (10 ppm as N). Concentrations of nitrate/nitrite for selected wells are illustrated in Figure 3-18. None of the samples contained synthetic organic chemicals. Table A-7 in the Appendix gives analytical data for samples drawn from Miocene aquifer system wells.
3.9 PIEDMONT/BLUE RIDGE UNCONFINED AQUIFERS
Georgia's Piedmont and Blue Ridge Physiographic Provinces are developed on metamorphic and igneous rocks that are predominantly Precambrian and Paleozoic in age.
3-21

5,-------------~------------~------------~------------r------------.

I
- - - - - - - - - - - - - .. - ~ .. - - .. - - .. - - - - - - - -1... - - - - - - - .. - - .. - - .. - - .. - - -

I
- --I- -. --.. --..

---------------,..--------- -- -~- --- . --. --. -.- ----

-z_-J-
0)

E_ 2
('I')
0 z

---------------~1----------

o2l

N

~1

---------,.---

I
-- -L..---I
-- -r---

1990 WeiiiD

1991

1992

D ~ PA43

PA46B

1993
PA51

1994
mPA53

Nitrate/nitrite levels below the detection limit are assigned a value of0.05 ppm. A missing bar indicates data arenot available for that year.
Figure 3-15. -Nitrate/Nitrite Concentrations for Selected Wells in the Floridan Aquifer System.
3-22

...

Soft water

10

0

10 20 :SO <10 MILES

...

o Iron exceeds MCL

Moderately hard water

0 Manganese exceeds MCL

Hard water

Figure 3-16.- Water Quality of Selected Wells in the Miocene Aquifer System.
3-23

2500,-------------~-------------r-------------r------------~-------------,

2000
:..:..:_i
Ol :l
0 0
(")
II 1500
u....J
~
--....J
Ol
-:l 1000
Q)
LL
c
.0....
500

I
______________ JI ______ _
I I I
--------------~-------
--------------.I-------
______________ ..I. ______ _

I

I

I

-----L---------------~1 ------

I

-----~---------------~------

-------rI -------

-------L.--

1990 WeiiiD

1991 DMIS

1992
~ Ml108

1993
Ml13

1994
Ml15

Iron levels below the detection limit are assigned a value of 5.1 ppb. A missing bar indicates data are not available for that year.
Figure 3-17. -Iron Concentrations for Selected Wells in the Miocene Aquifer System.
3-24

20,-------------~------------,-------------,-------------~------------,

I

I

18

I

I

I

- -- - -- - - - - -- - -~- - - -- - - - - - -- - - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - r - - - - - - --

I

I

I

I
-.-I
-- I -- - . -- -- --- - . I

I

I

I

~16

-

--

-

--

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

I -~-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

--

-

-,I

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

rI

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

z

en

c5 14 --------------0--------------,0--------------i0 --------

- --.II- -- -. -- ----- -. ---.---------

II
d 12
~

I

I

I

-

-- -

--

-

-- -

-- -

-~0

-

-

-

-

--

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

J0 -

-

-

-

--

-

--

-

-

-

-

- L0 -

-

::::: 10
z
en

--------------1--------I

E 8
(")

--

-

--

-

-I I

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

..

z 0
c2! 6

----- --I-- .. -- --- .. I

- _J--
I
- _J--
I
- _..,.-I

I
-----L-1
---- ...I. - . I

N

~ 4

--- --- -.. - -.. --- -_.I.,.--

---- ...I. -.

---- ----- - . -

2

---- -- - --- ... - - - - _..,.--

----- . --

I

1990 WeiiiD

1991

1992

D Ml7 ~ MI8A

1993

1994

m MI9A

Ml15

Nitrate/nitrite levels below the detection limit are assigned a value of0.05 ppm. A missing bar indicates data are not available for that year.
Figure 3-18. -Nitrate/Nitrite Concentrations for Selected Wells in the Miocene Aquifer System.
3-25

Soil and saprolite horizons, compositional layers, and openings along fractures and joints in the rocks are the major water-bearing features. Fracture density and interconnection provide the primary controls on the rate of water flow into wells completed in crystalline rocks. The permeability and thickness of soils and saprolite horizons determine the amount of well yield that can be sustained.
EPD collected 13 ground-water samples from twelve wells and one spring in the Piedmont/Blue Ridge Province. Figure 3-19 shows locations of the monitoring stations. Hardness ranged from soft to moderately hard. The pH ofthe water fell below 7.00 at eleven ofthe sampling stations and was greater than 7.00 at two others. Iron and manganese ranged from undetected to 1600 ppb (GWN-P9) and 230 ppb (GWN-P16C), respectively. Iron exceeded the secondary MCL (300 ppb) in water samples taken at three stations, and, manganese exceeded the secondary MCL (50 ppb) at five stations. None ofthe samples contained detectable aluminum. Figures 3-20 and 3-21, respectively, show trends in iron concentrations for selected stations in the Piedmont and Blue Ridge sectors of the province.
Samples from all stations contained sodium, with concentrations ranging from 1.4 ppm to 15.0 ppm. All well samples (except GWN-P14) contained calcium and magnesium (except GWN-P14 and GWN-BR1A). Testing also detected potassium, barium, strontium, and zinc, at concentrations below applicable MCL's.
Chloride and sulfate concentrations in the water samples ranged from undetected to 11.0 ppm and 55.9 ppm, respectively. Samples from four out of thirteen stations contained quantifiable fluoride. Concentrations of nitrite/nitrate, present in water samples from ten stations, were below the primary MCL (1 0 ppm as N). Figures 3-22 and 3-23 show nitrite/nitrate concentrations in selected stations from the Piedmont and Blue Ridge sectors, respectively. A non-quantifiable trace of naphthalene occurred in a sample from well GWNP2, which is located in an urban setting. An analytical summary for the Piedmont/Blue Ridge sampling stations is in Appendix Table A-8.
3.10 VALLEY AND RIDGE UNCONFINED AQUIFERS
Soil and residuum form low-yield unconfined aquifers across most of the Valley and Ridge Province of northwestern Georgia. Valley bottoms underlain by dolostones and limestones ofthe Cambro-Ordovician Knox Group are the locations of most higher-yielding wells and springs that are suitable for municipal supplies.
EPD collected water samples from five wells and three springs to monitor the water quality in the Valley and Ridge unconfined aquifers (Figure 3-24). Three of these wells and all three springs produced water from Knox Group carbonates. The other wells are representative ofwater from the Ordovician Chickamauga Group in Walker County and the Cambrian Shady Dolomite in Bartow County. Water from the Valley and Ridge monitoring stations ranged in pH from 7. 08 to 7. 91 and in hardness from moderately hard to very hard. Only one station (GWN-VR4) yielded a sample containing detectable iron and manganese.
3-26

... \
~~----~--T----;~~~~---+~~~-~--~\-~~~ _......-\~,

oo

0

+0

20

30

40 MIL.5

...

Soft water

0 Manganese exceeds MCL

Moderately hard water

0 Iron exceeds MCL

Figure 3-19. - Water Quality of Selected Wells in the Piedmont/Blue Ridge Unconfined Aquifers
3-27

3000,-----------~~-----------r------------~-----------,------------~

2500
--::::J
Ol
g::I 2000
(V)
II
....J
u ~ 1500
--....J
Ol
-::I
~ 1000 c .0...

I

I

I

I

--------------+--------------~--------------~---------------~--------------

1

I
-------- ..I --- --------..,I --
I I
________ JI __ _
I

I
- - - - - r - .. - -

500

1990 WeiiiD

1991

1992

~ P18 ~ P9

1993

1994

m P12

P15A

*Iron levels below the detection limit are assigned a value of 12.1 ppb. A missing bar indicates data are not available for that year.
Figure 3-20. -Iron Concentrations for Selected Wells in the Piedmont/Blue Ridge Unconfined Aquifer System: Piedmont sector.
3-28

180~------------~------------~------------r-----------~r------------,

160 -------------~1-----

140
--...J
OJ :::J
0120
0
(Y)
II
d 100
~
a,...J 8o
:::J
QJ
LL 60
c e
40

-------------1I ----1
-------------~-----
-------------.I-----
-------------~--~---

20

.. -

--

-

- .LI -

--

-

-- -

--

-

.. -

-

-I- -

--

-

--

-- -

-- -

-

.&. I

--

-

--

-

--

-

.. -

-

I

I

I

I

I

I

- - - - - T - - - - - - - " - - " - - -~- - - - - - - - - - - - T - - - - - - - - - -

I

I

- - - - - .&. - - - - - - - .. - - .. - - -- - - - - .. - - - - - - - - .&. - - - - - - - - - - - - - ..

--------y------------- I

I

I

- -- - - T - -- - -- - .. - - .. - - -.- - ..

- -- - - + - - - - - - - .. - - .. - - -- - -
I I

-----.II --
-----+--
. -----i--

I
--------,I---
1 I
- -- -. - - - - I
- ----- -...-- ..

---------------------
--------.II ---
----------1

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

WeiiiD

D BR1A~ BR2A

BR3A

Iron levels below the detection limit are assigned a value of 5.1 ppb. A missing bar indicates data are not available for that year.
Figure 3-21.- Iron Concentrations for Selected Wells in the Piedmont/Blue Ridge Unconfined Aquifer System: Blue Ridge Sector.
3-29

4.5,-------------~------------~------------~------------~----------~

I

4

-

-

-

-

--

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

TI -

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1I

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

--

-

-

-

I -~-

-

-

-

-

-

-

z:J' 3.5
Ol
E
0 or- 3
__J
u :2: 2.5
--__J
z
Ol 2
E
(")
~ 15
~ N
0 z

I

I

I

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - lI - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JI - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _II_ - - - - - -

- -- - -- - -- - -- - ... - .. - - - - - - - -- - -- ... -- - -- - - - - .. - - - - -- - - - - --

----TI -------------,I ------ I

0.5

-----rI --------------
I
-----L1 ------

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

WeiiiD

c==J P2 ~ P4C

P12 ~ P14

Nitrate/nitrite levels below the detection limit are assigned a value of0.05 ppm. A missing bar indicates data are not available for that year.
Figure 3-22. -Nitrate/Nitrite Concentrations for Selected Wells in the Piedmont/Blue Ridge UnconfinedAquifer System: Piedmont Sector.
3-30

1.8,-----------~------------~-----------r----------~~--------~

1.6
_J
z1.4
C)
E
0 ..-- 1.2 II
_J
u :2: 1.0
--_J
zE'o.a

I

I

- - - - - - - - - - - - - ..I. - - .. - - - - - .. - - - - - .1I. - - - - - - - - - - .. - - -I- - .. - - - - - - - - - - - ..1I - - - - - - - .. I

I

I

I

- -- - -- - -- - - - - -,-- - - - - - - - - - - T - -- - - - - . - - - - - -~-- - - - - -

I

I

I

. I

I

- -- - - - - - - - - - - .. - - - - - .. - - .. - - - - - + - - - - -- - .. - - - - - -- - - - -

I

I

I

- --- -- - -.- -- - - - - - -- -- -- i --- --- - - -- .. - - -.- - .. - -

- -- - - +---- -- - - - - . - - -- - . --

('I)
~ 0.6
c2J
N
0z 0.4
0.2

I

I

- ---- iI - ----- - - - - .. - - -I.- - ---

- -- - - + - - - - - - - - - - .. - - - - .. - -
-----;.--------------.-----

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

WeiiiD

D ~ BR1A

BR2

BR3A

Nitrate/nitrite levels below the detection limit are assigned a value of0.05 ppm. A missing bar indicates data are not available for that year.
Figure 3-23. -Nitrate/Nitrite Concentrations for Selected Wells in the Piedmont/Blue Ridge Unconfined Aquifer System: Blue Ridge Sector.
3-31

...

I
/
'-t---;-----r---+-t=~r-::-:::::.j_:_t;==.:::=,_-+t------>...;,---r='-"'=='---j-t---;;:~~:";;- ,,.
! "")
I !
...---L, ___\~ ____Ij __

10

10

20

30

<40 MILES

...

Hard water

Very hard water

6 Moderately hard water

Figure 3-24. -Water Quality of Selected Wells in the Valley and Ridge Unconfined Aquifers.
3-32

Concentrations fell below applicable MCL' s. Samples from all eight stations contained calcium and magnesium. The commonly detected trace metals consisted of barium and strontium. The highest barium concentration, 600 ppb, occurred in a sample from well GWNVR6. This particular well draws water from the Shady Dolomite Group which contains an abundance ofbarite (BaS04) deposits. Chloride concentrations ranged from 1.1 ppm to 11.7 ppm, and sulfate ranged from undetectable to 42.3 ppm. Spring GWN-VR3 yielded the only sample with detectable fluoride. Except for stations GWN-VR1 and GWN-VR3, samples from all wells and springs contained nitrate/nitrite. The highest nitrate/nitrite concentration (2.8 ppm as N) occurred in a sample from well GWN-VR4. Figures 3-25 and 3-26 show iron and nitrite/nitrate levels, respectively, for selected sampling stations in the Valley and Ridge aquifers.
The sample from well GWN-VR6, which is located in an industrial setting, contained a non-quantifiable concentration of tetrachloroethylene. Also, methyl-tert-butyl ether occurred at a level of 23 ppb in well GWN-VR5, which is located in a rural setting. There is no MCL for the compound. Appendix Table A-9 presents the analytical summary for the wells and springs located in the Valley and Ridge unconfined aquifers.
3-33

3000,--------------r------------~------------~--------------r-------------,

2500
--:J"
Cl
g:::l 2000
(V)
II
u....J ~ 1500
--....J
Cl
-:::l
J:: 1000
c:
.0....

I

I

I

--------------1l --------------~I--------------~I-----

I

I
-------------TI --------------,I ----
1

------..I,----

I

I

--------------l1 --------------~I----

I

I
------~1-----

500 - -- - ----- - -- - . ~ - . - - . --.--- - -- ~ ----

I
- - - - - - -LI - - - . - - - - . - - I
I
-------Ir--------------
- - - - - - -LI - - - - - - - - - - -

0 +-----lo.-

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

WeiiiD

DvR2

VR4

A missing bar indicates that data are not available for that year.
Figure 3-25. -Iron Concentrations for Selected Wells in the Valley and Ridge Uncon:finedAquifers.
3-34

3.5.-------------r-----------~------------~------------~------------,

3.0
z:2
Ol
E 2.5
0
_J
u::2: 2.0
--_J
z
Ol
E 1.5
(Y)
0 z
~ 1.0
N
0 z
0.5

-- -- ------~---- --- -- -- --- --- - - ---.. -

1

I

I

I

---- -- - -- -- -- - ------'-----1

- --

I

---

. .. .. .. I

_____ j _____________ _ I

-- ______ .I... ____ _ I

- -- - - I -- ---

--- - -- ... I . --. -

_____ j I _____________ _ I

I

-.- I
- - - - - - ,I - - - - - -

I
------.I ------

-. --..

I I

. ----

I
------.I ------

1990 WeiiiD

1991

1992

D ~ VR1

VR3

1993

1994

tEE VR5

VR6

VR9

Nitrate/nitrite levels below the detection limit are assigned a value of0.05 ppm. A missing bar indicates data are not available for that year.
Figure 3-26. -Nitrate/Nitrite Concentrations for Selected Wells in the Valley and Ridge UnconfinedAquifers.
3-35

4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

EPD personnel collected 97 raw water samples from 85 wells and 4 springs on the GroundWater Monitoring Network in 1994 for inorganic and organic analysis. These wells and springs monitor the water quality of seven aquifer systems in Georgia:

...

Cretaceous aquifer system

...

Claiborne aquifer system

...

Jacksonian aquifer system

...

Floridan aquifer system

...

Miocene aquifer system

...

Piedmont/Blue Ridge unconfined aquifers

...

Valley and Ridge unconfined aquifers

Comparisons of analyses of water samples collected in 1994 were made with analyses for the Ground-Water Monitoring Network dating back to 1984, permitting the recognition of temporal trends. Table 4-1lists the major contaminants and pollutants detected at the stations of the GroundWater Monitoring Network during 1994. Although isolated water quality problems existed during 1994 at specific localities, the quality of water from the majority of the Ground-Water Monitoring Network stations remains excellent.

Nitrate/nitrite are the most common substances present in ground water in Georgia that can have adverse health effects. Three wells, all shallow domestic wells tapping the Miocene and the up-dip Jacksonian aquifer systems (J8, MI8A and MilS) yielded water samples in 1994 with nitrite/nitrate concentrations exceeding the primary MCL of 10 ppm as nitrogen (Table 4-1 ). Spatial and temporal limitations of the Ground-Water Monitoring Network preclude the identification of the exact sources ofthe increasing levels of nitrogen compounds in some of Georgia's ground water. Nitrite/nitrate originates in ground water from direct sources and through oxidation of other forms of dissolved nitrogen, deriving from both natural and man-made sources. The most common sources of man-made dissolved nitrogen in Georgia usually consist of septic systems, agricultural wastes, and storage or application offertilizers (Robertson, et. al, 1993). Dissolved nitrogen also is present in rainwater and can be derived form terrestrial vegetation and volatilization of fertilizers (Drever, 1988). The conversion of other nitrogen species to nitrate occurs in aerobic environments such as recharge areas. Anaerobic conditions in ground water, which commonly develop along the flow path of ground water, foster the denitrification process. However, this process may be inhibited by the lack of denitri:tying bacteria in ground water (Freeze and Cherry, 1979).

Iron, manganese, and aluminum are the three naturally occurring substances responsible for the greatest incidence of ground-water quality problems in Georgia (Table 4-1 ). Although minor increases or decreases in iron, manganese, and aluminum occurred at some stations, no long-term trends in concentrations ofthese metals were documented for the majority of the wells and springs sampled.

The presence of synthetic organic compounds again became apparent in water from a few of the wells sampled in the Valley and Ridge. The sporadic nature of the occurrence of such

4-1

Table 4-1. Pollution and Contamination Incidents, 1994.

Station

Contaminant/ Pollutant

GWN-Kl

Al=2600ppb

GWN-K3

Fe=580ppb

GWN-K9

Fe=SOOppb Al=440ppb

GWN-CL2

F=S.Oppm*

GWN-ClA

C 6H 6=10ppb 0-xylene=tr Mn=62ppb

GWN-CL8

Fe=660ppb Mn=50ppb

GWN-J3

Mn=l30ppb

GWN-J8

NOx=l0.7ppm as N Mn=70ppb

GWN-PA9C

S04=398ppm CI=I770ppm

GWN-PA18 Mn=52ppb

G\VN-PA33 Ba=2.2ppm

GWN-PA39 GWN-M15

CHCI3=tr
Mn=llOppb Al=430ppb

GWN-Ml7

Al=730ppb

GWN-Ml8A

NOx=l0.3ppm as N Al=740ppb Mn=74ppb

GWN-MllOB Mn=l60ppb

GWN-Mll3

Fe=2200ppb Mn=210ppb

GWN-Mll5

NOx=l4.lppm as N Al=220ppm

*belioeved to be questionable

PrimaryMCL
F=4.0ppm C6H6=5.0ppb xylenes=lO,OOOppb
NOx=lOppmasN
Ba=2.0ppm trihalomethanes= 1OOppb NOx=lOppm as N
NOx=lOppm as N
4-2

Secondary MCL Al=200ppb Fe=300ppb Fe=300ppb Al=200ppb
Mn=50ppb Fe=300ppb Mn=50ppb Mn=50ppb
Mn=SOppb S04=250ppm CI=250ppm Mn=SOppb
Mn=50ppb Al=200ppb Al=200ppb
Al=200ppb Mn=SOppb Mn=SOppb Fe=300ppb Mn=50ppb
Al=200ppb

Table 4-1 (continued). Pollution and Contamination Incidents, 1994.

Station

Contaminant/ Pollutant

GWN-BR3A Mn=72ppb

GWN-P2

naphthalene=tr

GWN-P6B

Mn=85ppb

GWN-P9

Fe=l600ppb Mn=l70ppb

GWN-PISA

Fe=480ppb Mn=8lppb

GWN-Pl6C

Fe=900ppb Mn=230ppb

GWN-VR5

methyl-tert-butyl ether=23ppb

GWN-VR6

tetrachloroethylene=tracc;:

PrimaryMCL (noMCL)
(noMCL) tetrachloroethylene=5ppb

Secondary MCL Mn=SOppb (no MCL) Mn=SOppb Fe=300ppb Mn=SOppb Fe=300ppb Mn=SOppb Fe=300ppb Mn=50ppb (no MCL)

4-3

compounds in most of these wells makes defining spatial and temporal trends in levels of organic pollutants impossible at this time.
Tropical Storm Alberto apparently was only responsible for localized chemical ground-water quality degradation but caused widespread bacterial contamination. The storm is believed to have been instrumental in causing excess nitrate/nitrite to enter well water at Shellman and bacterial contamination of numerous domestic wells. A reconnaissance sampling of Ground-Water Monitoring Network wells in the Dougherty Plain found that the overall chemical quality of Floridan ground water was only minimally affected. Sampling of inundated wells in the Flint River area, however, showed that many of these wells suffered flood-related bacterial contamination.
4-4

5.0 LIST OF REFERENCES
Brooks, R., Clarke, J.S., and Faye, R.E., 1985, Hydrology ofthe Gordon Aquifer System of East-Central Georgia: Georgia Geologic Survey Information Circular 75, 41 p., 2 pl.
Clarke, J.S., Brooks, R., and Faye, R.E., 1985, Hydrogeology ofthe Dublin and Midville Aquifer Systems of East Central Georgia: Georgia Geologic Survey Information Circular 74, 62 p., 2 pl.
Clarke, J.S., Faye, R.E., and Brooks, R., 1983, Hydrogeology ofthe Providence Aquifer of Southwest Georgia: Georgia Geologic Survey Hydrologic Atlas 11, 5 pl.
Clarke, J. S., Faye, R.E., and Brooks, R., 1984, Hydrogeology of the Clayton Aquifer of Southwest Georgia: Georgia Geologic Survey Hydrologic Atlas 13, 6 pl.
Clarke, J.S., Hacke, C.M., and Peck, M.F., 1990, Geology and Ground-Water Resources of the Coastal Area of Georgia: Georgia Geologic Survey Bulletin 113, 116 p., 12 pl.
Crews, P.A., and Huddlestun, P.F., 1984, Geologic Sections of the Principal Artesian Aquifer System, in Hydrogeologic Evaluation for Underground Injection Control in the Coastal Plain of Georgia: in R. Arora, ed., Georgia Geologic Survey Hydrologic Atlas 10, 41pl.
Davis, K.R., Donahue, J.C., Hutcheson, R.H., and Waldrop, D.L., 1988, Most Significant Ground-Water Recharge Areas of Georgia: Georgia Geologic Survey Hydrologic Atlas 18, 1 pl.
Drever, J. I., 1988, The Geochemistry ofNatural Waters: Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 437 p.
EPD, 1991, A Ground-Water Management Plan for Georgia: Georgia Geologic Survey Circular 11, 100 p.
EPD, 1994, Rules for Safe Drinking Water, Section 391-3-5, Rules of the Georgia Department ofNatural Resources Environmental Protection Division, p. 601-728.
Freeze, R.A., and Cherry, J.A., 1979, Groundwater: Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 604 p.
Gorday, L.L., Lineback, J,A., Long, A.F., McLemore, W.H., 1997, A Digital Model Approach to Water-Supply Management of the Claiborne, Clayton, and Providence Aquifers of Southwestern Georgia: Georgia Geologic Survey Bulletin 118, 31 p., Appendix, Supplements I and II.
5-1

Hayes, L.R., Maslia, M.L., and Meeks, W.C., 1983, Hydrology and Model Evaluation ofthe Principal Artesian Aquifer, Dougherty Plain, Southwest Georgia: Georgia Geologic Survey Bulletin 97, 93p.
Hicks, D.W., 1995, The Independence Day Flood of 1994 and Effects on Water Levels in the Upper Floridan Aquifer, Albany Area, Georgia: Proceedings of the 1995 Georgia Water Resources Conference, K.J. Hatcher, ed., p. 23-26.
Hicks, D.W., Krause, R.E., and Clarke, J.S., 1981, Geohydrology of the Albany Area, Georgia: Georgia Geologic Survey Information Circular 57, 31 p.
Joiner, C.N., Reynolds, M.S., Stayton, W.L., and Boucher, F.G., 1988, Ground-Water Data for Georgia, 1987: United States Geological Survey Open-File Report 88-323, 172 p.
Kellam, M.F., and Gorday, L.L., 1990, Hydrogeology of the Gulf Trough-Apalachicola Embayment Area, Georgia: Georgia Geologic Survey Bulletin 94, 74 p., 15 pl.
Krause, R.E., 1979, Geohydrology of Brooks, Lowndes, and Western Echols Counties, Georgia: United States Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 78-117, 48 p., 8 pl.
Long, A.F., 1989, Hydrogeology ofthe Clayton and Claiborne Aquifer Systems: Georgia Geologic Survey Hydrologic Atlas 19, 6 pl.
McFadden, S.S., and Perriello, P.D., 1983, Hydrogeology of the Clayton and Claiborne Aquifers in Southwestern Georgia: Georgia Geologic Survey Information Circular 55, 59p., 2 pl.
Pollard, L.D., and Vorhis, R.C., 1980, The Geohydrology ofthe Cretaceous Aquifer System in Georgia: Georgia Geologic Survey Hydrologic Atlas 3, 5 pl.
Robertson, S.J., Shellenberger, D.L., York, G.M., Clark, M.G., Eppihimer, R.M., Lineback, J. A, 1993, Sampling for Nitrate Concentrations in North Georgia's Ground Water: 1993 Georgia Water Resources Conference 364-365, 1 p.
Shellenberger, D.L., Barget, R.G., Lineback, J.A., and Shapiro, E.A., 1996, Nitrate in Georgia's Ground Water: Georgia Geologic Survey Project Report 25, 12 p., 1 pl.
Stamey, T.C., 1995, Floods in Central and Southwestern Georgia in July 1994: Proceedings of the 1995 Georgia Water Resources Conference, K.J. Hatcher, ed., p. 23-26.
Stuart, M.A., Rich, F.J., and Bishop, G.A., 1995, Survey ofNitrate Contamination in Shallow Domestic Drinking Water Wells in the Inner Coastal Plain of Georgia: Ground Water, Vol. 33, No. 2, p. 284-290.
5-2

Vincent, R.H., 1982, Geohydrology ofthe Jacksonian Aquifer in Central and East Central Georgia: Georgia: Geologic Survey Hydrologic Atlas 8, 3 pl.
Wait, R.L., 1960, Source and Quality of Ground Water in Southwestern Georgia: Georgia Geologic Survey Information Circular 18, 74 p.
Watson, T., 1982, Aquifer Potential of the Shallow Sediments of the Coastal Area of Georgia: Proceedings, Second Symposium on the Geology of the Southeastern Coastal Plain, Arden, D.D., Beck, B.F., Morrow, E., eds., Georgia Geologic Survey Information Circular 53, p. 183-194.
Webb, G.L., 1995, Pesticide Monitoring Network 1993-1994: Georgia Geologic Survey Project Report 22, 52 p.
5-3

ANALYSES OF SAMPLES COLLECTED DURING 1994 FOR THE GEORGIA GROUND-WATER MONITORING NETWORK

All water quality samples that are collected for the Georgia Ground-Water Monitoring

Network are subjected to a Standard Analysis which includes tests for pH, specific

conductance, certain common inorganic anions, and thirty metals. Analyses for additional

parameters may be included for samples that are collected from areas where the possibility

of ground-water pollution exists due to regional activities. These optional tests or screens

include tests for mercury, agricultural chemicals, coal-tar creosote, phenols and anilines, and

volatile organic compounds (Tables A-I and A-2). Because parameters other than the two

physical parameters, three of the major anions, and eight of the metals of the Standard

Analysis were detected less commonly or rarely, other parameters are listed in the following

analytical results table only if they were detected.

For this appendix, the following abbreviations are used:

SU

= standard units

mg/L

=milligrams per liter (parts per million)

mg!L as N = milligrams per liter (parts per million), as

nitrogen

ug/L

= micrograms per liter (parts per billion)

umho/cm
u

= micrornhos per centimeter =less than (below detection limit). Where this

abbreviation is used for a figure that is a

calculated average, the average is below the

typical detection limit for the parameter

(Note: detection limits may change due to temporarily improved instrument performance or to use of different analytical methods by different laboratories.)

A-1

Table A-1. Standard Water Quality Analysis: Physical Parameters, Major Anions, Minerals and ICP/AAS Metals Screen.

Parameter METALS
Silver (Ag) Aluminum (AI) Arsenic* (As)
Gold (Au) Barium (Ba) Beryllium* (Be) Bismuth (Bi) Cobalt (Co) Chromium (Cr) Cadmium* (Cd) Copper (Cu)
Iron (Fe) Manganese (Mn) Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (Ni) Lead (Pb) Antimony* (Sb) Selenium* (Se) Tin (Sn) Strontium (Sr) Titanium (Ti) Thallium* (Tl) Vanadium (V) Yttrium (Y)

Typical Detection Limit
30 ug/L 50 ug/L 25 ug/L 10 ug/L 10 ug/L 2 ug/L 25 ug/L 10 ug/L 10 ug/L 2.5 ug/L 20 ug/L 20 ug/L 20 ug/L 10 ug/L 20 ug/L 50 ug/L 3 ug/L 25 ug/L 90 ug/L 10 ug/L 10 ug/L 1 ug/L 10 ug/L 10 ug/L

Max.Contaminant Level
100 ug/L2 200 ug/L2 50 ug/L1
None 2000 ug/L1
4 ug/L1 None None 100 ug/L1 5 ug/L1 1000 ug/L2 300 ug/L2 50 ug/L2 None 100 ug/L1 None 6 ug/L1 50 ug/L1 None None None 2 ug/L1 None None

A-2

Table A-1 (continued)

Parameter Zinc (Zn) Zirconium (Zr) ANIONS Chloride (Ct) Sulfate (S04=) Nitrate/Nitrite
(NOx-) Fluoride (F-) MINERALS Calcium (Ca) Potassium (K) Magnesium (Mg) Sodium (Na) OTHER PARAMETERS
pH Conductivity

Typical ~etection Limit 20 ug/L 10 ug!L

Max. Contaminant Level 5000 ug/L2 None

0.1 mg!L 2.0 mg!L 0.1 mg!L as N
0.1 mg/L
l.Omg/L 5.0 mg/L 1.0 mg/L 1.0 mg/L

250 mg/L2 250 mg/L2 10 mg!L as N1
4.0 mg/L~> 2.0 mg/L2
None None None None

0.01 su
1.0 mho/em

None None

*Analyzed by atomic absorbtion spectrophotometry (AAS), using graphite furnace. 1=Primary Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL). 2=Secondary MCL.
!v!CL 's from Georgia Rules for Safe Drinking Water, March 1994 edition (EPD, 1994).

A-3

Table A-2. Additional Water Quality Analyses: Organic Screens #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7, #8, #9, #10 and Mercury Screen.
ORGANIC SCREEN #1 (organophosphates/herbicides)

Parameter

Minimum Detection Limit

Alachlor Atrazine Azodrin Chloropyrifos Cyanazine DCPA Dasanit Demeton Diazinon Dimethoate Disyston Eptam Ethoprop Fonophos Guthion Isopropalin Malathion Metolachlor Metribuzin Mevinphos Parathion (E) Parathion (M)

l.Oug/L 0.3 ug!L l.Oug/L 0.8 ug!L 1.0 ug/L 0.01 ug!L 0.6 ug/L l.Oug/L l.Oug/L 0.5 ug/L l.Oug/L 0.5 ug/L 0.5 ug/L 0.5 ug!L 2.0 ug!L 1.0 ug!L 1.4 ug/L l.Oug!L 1.25 ug!L 1.4 ug/L 0.08 ug/L 0.1 ug/L

Primary Maximum Contaminant Level
2.0 ug!L 3.0 ug!L
None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None

A-4

Parameter
Pebulate Pendimethalin
Phorate Profluralin Simazine
Sutan Terbufos Trifluralin Vernam

ORGANIC SCREEN #1 (continued) (organophosphates/herbicides)

Minimum Detection Limit

Primary Maximum Contaminant Level

0.6 ug/L

None

0.8 ug/L

None

l.Oug/L

None

0.9 ug/L

None

0.9 ug/L

4.0 ug/L

0.7 ug/L

None

3.0 ug/L

None

1.0 ug/L

None

0.5 ug/L

None

Parameter
Chlordane Dicofol Endrin
Methoxychlor gamma-HCH
(lindane) PCB's Permethrin Toxaphene

ORGANIC SCREEN #2 (organochlorine pesticides!PCB 's)

Minimum Detection Limit

Primary Maximum Contaminant Level

2.0 ug/L

2.0 ug/L

0.1 ug/L

None

0.03 ug/L

2.0 ug/L

0.3 ug/L

40.0 ug/L

0.008 ug/L

0.2 ug/L

0.6 ug/L 0.3 ug/L 1.2 ug/L

0.5 ug/L None
3.0 ug/L

A-5

Parameter
2,4-D Acifluorfen Chloramben
Dalapon Dinoseb Pichloram Silvex Trichlorofon

ORGANIC SCREENS #3 AND #4 (dinoseblphenoxy herbicides)

Minimum Detection Limit

Primary Maximum Contaminant Level

5.2 ug!L

70.0 ug!L

l.Oug!L

None

0.2ug!L

None

0.2ug!L

200 ug!L

0.1 ug!L

7ug!L

500 ug/L

500 ug/L

0.1 ug/L

50.0 ug!L

2.0 ug/L

None

Parameter
Carbaryl Carbofuran
Diuron Fluometron
Linuron Methomyl Monuron
Ox amyl

ORGANIC SCREEN #5 (carbamate pesticides)
Minimum Detection Limit
2.0 ug/L l.Oug!L 1.0 ug/L l.Oug!L 1.0 ug!L l.Oug!L l.Oug!L 2.0 ug!L

Primary Maximum Contaminant Level
None 40.0 ug/L
None None None None None 200 ug!L

A-6

Parameter EDB

ORGANIC SCREEN #7* (volatile organic compound)

Minimum Detection Limit

Primary Maximum Contaminant Level

5.0 ug!L

0.05 ug!L

*currently analyzed along with Organic Screen #10.

ORGANIC SCREENS #8 AND #9 (semivolatile organic compounds)

Parameter

Minimum Detection Limit

Primary Maximum Contaminant Level

N-Nitrosodimethylamme

10.0 ug/L

None

2-Picoline

10.0 ug/L

None

Methylmethanesulfonate

10.0 ug!L

None

Ethylmethanesulfonate

20.0 ug!L

None

Aniline

10.0 ug/L

None

Phenol

10.0 ug!L

None

Bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether

10.0 ug/L

None

2-Chlorophenol

10.0 ug!L

None

1.3-Dichlorobenzene (m)

10.0 ug/L

None

1, 4-Dichlorobenzene (p)

10.0 ug!L

75.0 ug!L

Benzyl Alcohol

20.0 ug/L

None

1,2-Dichlorobenzene (o)

10.0 ug!L

600.0 ug!L

2-Methylphenol

10.0 ug!L

None

A-7

ORGANIC SCREENS #8 AND #9 (continued) (semivolatile organic compounds)

Parameter

Minimum Detection Limit

Primary Maximum Contaminant Level

Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) Ether

10.0 ug/L

None

Acetophenone

10.0 ug!L

None

4-Methylphenol

10.0 ug/L

None

N-Nitrosodi-NPropylamine

10.0 ug/L

None

Hexachloroethane

10.0 ug/L

None

Nitrobenzene

10.0 ug/L

None

N-Nitrosopiperidine

20.0 ug/L

None

Isophorone

10.0 ug!L

None

2-Nitrophenol

10.0 ug/L

None

2, 4- Dimethylphenol

10.0 ug/L

None

Bis(2-Chloroethoxy) Methane

10.0 ug/L

None

Benzoic Acid

50.0 ug!L

None

2, 4-Dichlorophenol

10.0 ug!L

None

1,2,4Trichlorobenzene

10.0 ug/L

None

A,a-Dimethylphenylethylamine

10.0 ug!L

None

Naphthalene

10.0 ug/L

None

4-Chloroaniline

20.0 ug/L

None

2, 6-Dichlorophenol

10.0 ug/L

None

Hexachlorobutadiene

10.0 ug/L

None

N-Nitroso-Di-NButylamine

10.0 ug!L

None

A-8

ORGANIC SCREENS #8 AND #9 (continued) (semivolatile organic compounds)

Parameter

Minimum Detection Limit

Primary Maximum Contaminant Level

4-Chloro-3methyl phenol

20.0 ug!L

None

2-Methyl Naphthalene

10.0 ug/L

None

1,2,4,5Tetrachlorobenzene

10.0 ug/L

None

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene

10.0 ug/L

50 ug!L

2,4,6Trichlorophenol

10.0 ug!L

None

2-Chloronaphthalene

10.0 ug!L

None

2,4,5Trichlorophenol

10.0 ug/L

None

1-Chloronaphthalene

10.0 ug/L

None

2-Nitroanaline

50.0 ug/L

None

Dimethyl phthalate

10.0 ug!L

None

Acenaphthylene

10.0 ug!L

None

2,6-Dinitrotoluene

10.0 ug!L

None

3-Nitroaniline

50.0 ug!L

None

Acenaphthene

10.0 ug/L

None

2,4-Dinitrophenol

50.0 ug!L

None

4-Nitrophenol

50.0 ug!L

None

Dibenzofuran

10.0 ug!L

None

Pentachlorobenzene

10.0 ug!L

None

2, 4-Dinitrotoluene

10.0 ug/L

None

1-N aphthylamine

10.0 ug!L

None

2-Naphthylamine

10.0 ug!L

None

A-9

ORGANIC SCREENS #8 AND #9 (continued) (semivolatile organic compounds)

Parameter

Minimum Detection Limit

Primary Maximum Contaminant Level

2,3,4,6tetrachlorobenzene

10.0 ug/L

None

Diethylphthalate

10.0 ug/L

None

Fluorene

10.0 ug/L

None

4-Chlorophenyl Phenyl Ether

10.0 ug/L

None

4- Nitro aniline

20.0 ug/L

None

Diphenylamine

10.0 ug/L

None

4, 6-Dinitro-2methyl phenol

50.0 ug/L

None

N-Nitrosodiphenylamine

10.0 ug/L

None

1,2-diphenylhydrazine

10.0 ug/L

None

4-BromophenylPhenyl Ether

10.0 ug/L

None

Phenacetin

20.0 ug/L

None

Hexachlorobenzene

10.0 ug/L

1 ug/L

4-Aminobiphenyl

20.0 ug/L

None

Pentachlorophenol

50.0 ug/L

l.Oug/L

Pronamide

10.0 ug/L

None

Pentachloronitrobenzene

20.0 ug/L

None

Phenanthrene

10.0 ug/L

None

Anthracene

10.0 ug/L

None

Di-N-Butyl Phthalate

10.0 ug/L

None

Fluoranthene

10.0 ug/L

None

A-10

ORGANIC SCREENS #8 AND #9 (continued) (semivolatile organic compounds)

Parameter

Minimum Detection Limit

Primary Maximum Contaminant Level

Benzidine

80.0 ug!L

None

Pyrene

10.0 ug!L

None

P-Dimethylaminoazobenzene

10.0 ug/L

None

Nbutylbenzylphthalate

10.0 ug/L

None

Benzo (a) Anthracene

10.0 ug/L

None

3,3Dichlorobenzidine

20.0 ug!L

None

Chrysene

10.0 ug/L

None

Bis(2-Ethyl-hexyl) Phthalate

10.0 ug/L

6 ug!L

Di-N-Octyl Phthalate

10.0 ug!L

None

Benzo ( B)Fluoranthene

10.0 ug/L

None

Benzo (K)Fluoranthene

10.0 ug/L

None

7, 12-Dimethylbenz (A)Anthracene

10.0 ug!L

None

Benzo (A)Pyrene

10.0 ug!L

0.2ug/L

3-Methylcholanthrene

10.0 ug/L

None

Dibenz( A,J)Acridine

10.0 ug/L

None

Indeno(l ,2,3-CD)Pyrene

10.0 ug!L

None

Dibenz(A H)Anthracene

10.0 ug!L

None

A-11

ORGANIC SCREENS #8 AND #9 (continued) (semivolatile organic compounds)

Parameter

Minimum Detection Limit

Primary Maximum Contaminant Level

Benzo(GHI)Perylene

10.0 ug/L

None

a-BHC

10.0 ug/L

None

'Y-BHC (Lindane)

10.0 ug/L

0.2ug/L

o-BHC

10.0 ug/L

None

~-BHC

10.0 ug/L

None

Heptachlor

10.0 ug/L

0.4 ug/L

Aldrin

10.0 ug/L

None

Heptachlor Epoxide

25.0 ug/L

0.2 ug/L

Endosulfan 1

50.0 ug/L

None

Dieldrin

10.0 ug/L

None

P,P'-DDE

10.0 ug/L

None

Endrin

20.0 ug/L

2.0 ug/L

Endosulfan 2

50.0 ug/L

None

P,P'-DDD

10.0 ug/L

None

Endrin Aldehyde

10.0 ug/L

None

Endosulfan Sulfate

25.0 ug/L

None

P,P'-DDT

10.0 ug/L

None

Parameter
Dichlorodifluoromethane

ORGANIC SCREEN #10 (volatile organic compounds)

Minimum Detection Limit

Primary Maximum Contaminant Level

5.0 ug/L

None

A-12

ORGANIC SCREEN #10 (continued) (volatile organic compounds)

Parameter

Minimum Detection Limit

Primary Maximum Contaminant Level

Chloromethane

10.0 ug!L

None

Bromomethane

10.0 ug!L

None

Chloroethane

10.0 ug!L

None

Vinyl Chloride

10.0 ug/L

2.0 ug!L

Dichloromethane

5.0 ug!L

5.0 ug!L

Trichlorofluoromethane

5.0 ug/L

None

Acetone

100 ug!L

None

Dibromomethane

5.0 ug!L

None

Trans-1,2Dichloroethylene

5.0 ug/L

100 ug/L

Iodomethane

5.0 ug/L

None

Carbon Disulfide

5.0 ug/L

None

1, 1-Dichloroethylene

5.0 ug/L

7.0 ug/L

1, 1-Dichloroethane

5.0 ug!L

None

Cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene

5.0 ug!L

70.0 ug/L

2,2-Dichloropropane

5.0 ug/L

None

Bromochloromethane
Chloroform

5.0 ug!L 5.0 ug!L

None
100 ug!L*

1, 1-Dichloropropylene

5.0 ug/L

None

1,2-Dichloroethane

5.0 ug!L

5.0 ug!L

Methyl Ethyl Ketone

100 ug!L

None

A-13

ORGANIC SCREEN #10 (continued) (volatile organic compounds)

Parameter

Minimum Detection Limit

Primary Maximum Contaminant Level

1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane

5.0 ug!L

200 ug/L

Carbon Tetrachloride

5.0 ug/L

5.0 ug/L

Vinyl Acetate

50 ug/L

None

Bromodichloromethane

5.0 ug/L

100 ug!L *

1,2-Dichloropropane

5.0 ug/L

5.0 ug/L

Trichloroethylene

5.0 ug/L

5.0 ug/L

Benzene

5.0 ug/L

5.0 ug/L

2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ether

5.0 ug/L

None

Cis-1,3Dichloropropylene

5.0 ug!L

None

Trans-1,3Dichloropropylene

5.0 ug/L

None

Chlorodibromomethane

5.0 ug/L

100 ug!L*

1, 1,2Trichloroethane

5.0 ug!L

5.0 ug/L

Bromoform

5.0 ug/L

100 ug!L*

1,2,3-Trichloropropane

5.0 ug!L

None

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone

50 ug!L

None

Methyl N-butyl Ketone

50 ug/L

None

Tetrachloroethylene

5.0 ug!L

5.0 ug/L

1,2-Dichloropropane

5.0 ug!L

5.0 ug/L

A-14

ORGANIC SCREEN #10 (continued) (volatile organic compounds)

Parameter

Minimum Detection Limit

Primary Maximum Contaminant Level

1, 1,2,2,-Tetrachloroethane

5.0 ug/L

None

Toluene

5.0 ug/L

1000 ug/L

1,2-Dibromoethane

5.0 ug/L

None

Ethylene dibromide

5.0 ug/L

0.05 ug/L

Chlorobenzene

5.0 ug/L

100 ug/L

Ethylbenzene

5.0 ug/L

700 ug/L

1,1, 1,2-Tetrachloroethane

5.0 ug/L

None

Styrene

5.0 ug/L

100 ug/L

Xylenes (total)

5.0 ug/L

10,000 ug/L

Isopropyl benzene

5.0 ug/L

None

Bromo benzene

5.0 ug/L

None

N-Propylbenzene

5.0 ug/L

None

2-Chlorotoluene

5.0 ug!L

None

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene

5.0 ug/L

None

4-Chlorotoluene

5.0 ug/L

None

Tert-Butylbenzene

5.0 ug/L

None

1,2, 4-Trimethylbenzene

5.0 ug/L

None

Sec-Butylbenzene

5.0 ug/L

None

1,3 -Dichlorobenzene (m)

5.0 ug/L

None

1, 4-Isopropyltoluene

5.0 ug/L

None

1,4-Dichlorobenzene (p)

5.0 ug/L

75.0 ug/L

A-15

ORGANIC SCREEN #10 (continued) (volatile organic compounds)

Parameter

Minimum Detection Limit

Primary Maximum Contaminant Level

N-Butylbenzene

5.0 ug!L

None

1,2-Dichlorobenzene (o)

5.0 ug!L

600 ug!L

1,2-Dibromo-3Chloropropane

5.0 ug!L

0.2ug/L

1,2,4Trichlorobenzene

5.0 ug!L

70.0 ug/L

Hexachlorobutadiene

5.0 ug/L

None

Naphthalene

5.0 ug/L

None

1,2,3Trichlorobenzene

5.0 ug/L

None

* Indicates a trihalomethane compound The primary MCL for total trihalomethanes is 100
ug!L.

Parameter Mercury (Hg)

MERCURY SCREEN* Method Detection Limit
0.2 ug/L

Primary Maximum Contaminant Level
2.0 ug/L

*Analysis is by manual cold vapor.

A-16

Table A-3. 1994 Ground-Water Quality Analyses of the Cretaceous Aquifer System

PARAMETER

pH

Na

K

Ca

Mg

Sr

Ba

Fe

Mn

AI

Cl

F

S04 Nitrate/ Spec. Other

Nitrite Cond. Parameters

Detected

UNITS

su

mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ug/L

ug/L

ug/L

ug/L

ug/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mgN/L mho/em ug/L

GWN-K1

4.60 Well Name: County: Date Sampled:

2.6

0.4U

3.8

1.7

Englehard Kaolin Company #2

Wilkinson

1994/09/22

13

60

60

2600 2.36 0.5U 12.5 0.71

102 Cu=9

Mo=20

Pb=60

Se=0.9

V=16

Zn=20

GWN-K2

4.03

1.7

5U

1.2

1U

10U 10U

53

10U sou

2.0

0.1U

3.9

0.31

29

Well Name:

Irwinton #2

County:

Wilkinson

Date Sampled: 1994/09/28

GWN-K3

5.26

2.1

5U

17

1.3

54

23

580

30

sou

2.2

0.1U

7.3

0.1U

102

Well Name:

Sandersville #78

)>

County:

Washington

I -->.

Date Sampled: 1994/09/28

-..1

GWN-K6

5.25

3.3

1.3

4.3

0.53

16

30

1U

25U 0.24 0.5U 5.81 0.24

53 Zn=20

Well Name:

J.M. Huber #6

Cu=9

County:

Twiggs

Date Sampled: 1994/09/22

GWN-K7

4.90

1.9 0.4U 1.84

Well Name:

Jones County #4.

County:

Jones

Date Sampled: 1994/09/22

0.38

13

10

1U

25U 0.32 0.5U 1.05 0.32

24 Zn=40

Pb=30

Mo=5

GWN-K9

3.87

1.3

0.4U 0.69 0.24

Well Name:

Marshallville #1

County:

Macon

Date Sampled: 1994/09/21

5U

500

5U

440 0.61 0.5U

9.3

0.24

53

GWN-K18A

4.72

1.3

5U

1.3

1U

10U 10U 20U 10U sou

1.6

0.1U

3.6

0.16

22

Well Name:

Buena Vista #6

County:

Marion

Date Sampled: 1994/09/21

GWN-K19

4.86

1.6

0.4U

0.6

0.3

Well Name:

Hephzibah Murphy St. Well

County:

Richmond

Date Sampled: 1994/09/28

5

20

5U

30

1.74 0.5U

2.0

0.2U

10 Cu=6

V=5

Other Screens Tested
2,3,4
10
1,2,3,4,5, 10 10
2,3,4
2,3,4,10
1 ,2,3,4,5, 10

Table A-4. 1994 Ground-Water Quality Analyses of the Claiborne Aquifer System.

PARAMETER

pH

Na

K

Ca

Mg

Sr

Ba

Fe

Mn

AI

Cl

F

S04 Nitrate/ Spec. other

Nitrite Cond. Parameters

Detected

UNITS

su

mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ug/L

ug/L

ug/L

ug/L ug/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mgN/L mho/em ug/L

GWN-CL2

7.04

1.7

0.58

47

0.87

Well Name:

Unadilla#3

County:

Dooly

Date Sampled: 1994/09/21

GWN-CL4

4.51

4.3

5U

2

1.3

15

Well Name:

Plains #3

County:

Sumter

Date Sampled: 1994/09/21

GWN-CL8

6.01

1.9

2.0

9.8

1.07

Well Name:

Flint River Nursery office well

County:

Dooly

Date Sampled: 1994/09/21

~ I ->.
a>

20

100

5U

30

3.8

5.0

7.13 0.75

302 Ag=7

As=0.7

Zn=7

17

20U

62

sou

6.2

0.1U

2U

2.8

55 Cu=52

Zn=64

C6H6=10

xylene (o)=tr

30

660

50

30

1.03 0.5U

8.3

0.26

91 Ag=10

Mo=5

Pb=40

V=50

Zn=460

Other Screens Tested
3,4
1 ,2,3,4,5, 10
1,2,3,4,5

Table A-5. 1994 Ground-Water Quality Analyses of the Jacksonian Aquifer System.

PARAMETER

pH

Na

K

Ca

Mg

Sr

Ba

Fe

Mn

AI

Cl

F

S04 Nitrate/ Spec. other

Nitrite Cond. Parameters

Detected

UNITS

su

mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ug/L

ug/L

ug/L

ug/L

ug/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mgN/L mho/em ug/L

WeiiiD#

GWN-J1B GWN-J2A

7.12

3.8

5U

55

1U

25

Well Name:

Hudlow house well

County:

Burke

Date Sampled: 1994/09/29

7.45

1.3

5U

51

1U

56

Well Name:

Oakwood Village Mobile Home Park #2

County:

Burke

Date Sampled: 1994/09/29

20

20U

10U sou

8.3

0.1U

2U

1.8

265

40

20U

10U sou

1.6

0.1U

2U

0.5

246

GWN-J3

7.72

10

2.01

37

6.4

701

210

130

70

17.4 0.5U 3.39 0.2U 230 As=3

Well Name:

Black house well

Cu=80

County:

Emanuel

Pb=40

Date Sampled: 1994/09/29

V=43

)>

Zn=70

I

~

<D

GWN-J4

6.68

3.4

5U

48

2.3

180

10U

67

36

50U

3.0

0.1

6.4

0.1

251

Well Name:

Wrightsville #4

County:

Johnson

Date Sampled: 1994/09/28

GWN-J5

7.40

3.2

2.31

65

2.42

Well Name:

Cochran#3

County:

Bleckley

Date Sampled: 1994/09/21

9

30

30

30

1.73 0.5U 29.1

0.21

392 Zn=10

GWN-J7

4.62

4.1

0.52 2.62 1.78

Well Name:

Templeton liovestock well

County:

Burke

Date Sampled: 1994/09/28

28

30

5U

70

6.14 0.5U 0.66 3.71

40 Cu=7

Pb=30

V=15

Zn=20

GWN-J8

4.66

5.5

0.4U 9.56

1.78

Well Name:

Kahn house well

County:

Jefferson

Date Sampled: 1994/09/28

42

10

70

80

8.38 0.4U 0.52

10.7

130 Be=3

Cu=20

Ni=10

V=18

Zn=30

Other Screens Tested 1 ,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5, 10 1,2,3,4,5, 10
1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5, 10 1 ,2,3,4,5 1 ,2,3,4,5

Table A-6. 1994 Ground-Water Quality Analyses of the Floridan Aquifer System

PARAMETER

pH

Na

K

Ca

Mg

Sr

Ba

Fe

Mn

AI

Cl

F

S04 Nitrate/ Spec. Other

Nitrite Cond. Parameters

Detected

UNITS

su

mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ug/L

ug/L

ug/L

ug/L

ug/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mgN/L mho/em ug/L

Other Screens Tested

GWN-PA1

45

5U

29

12

360

11

20U

10U

50U

70.1

0.3

12.4 0.1U

462

Well Name:

Thunderbolt #1

County:

Chatham

Date Sampled: 1994/09/29

GWN-PA2

11

5U

25

7.6

280

12

20U

10U 50U

3.9

0.3

4.9

0.1U

217

Well Name:

Savannah #6

County:

Chatham

Date Sampled: 1994/09/29

GWN-PA4

50

5U

35

24

1200 10U

20U

10U 50U 40.4

0.7 122.6 0.1U

594

Well Name:

Tybee Island #1

County:

Chatham

Date Sampled: 1994/09/29

)>

I

GWN-PA5A

8.01

16

5U

26

14

430

30

20U

10U 50U

5.3

0.5

34.5 0.1U

301

10

N 0

Well Name: County:

Interstate Paper #2 Liberty

Date Sampled: 1994/02/01

GWN-PA6

14 tr(5U) 24

Well Name:

Hinesville #5

County:

Liberty

Date Sampled: 1994/02/01

12

360

22

20U

10U tr(50U) 4.4

0.4

22.3 0.1U

267 Ag=tr

Ni=tr

10

Au=tr

V=tr

Cu=tr Y=tr

Co=tr Zn=tr

Cu=tr Zr=tr

GWN-PA7

7.80

24

5U

45

27

720

51

110

10U 50U 26.1

0.5

147

0.1U

540

10

Well Name:

Darien #2 South

County:

Mcintosh

Date Sampled: 1994/02/01

GWN-PA8

7.83

17

5U

32

17

540

72

20U

10U 50U

7.0

0.4

52.3 0.1U

349

10

Well Name:

ITT Rayonier #4D

County:

Wayne

Date Sampled: 1994/02/01

GWN-PA9C

7.59 800

19

160

110 2600

68

Well Name:

Miller Ball Park TW25

County:

Glynn

Date Sampled: 1994/02/02

270

10U

50U 1770.0 0.34

398 0.1U 5568 Cu=27

Table A-6 (Continued) 1994 Ground-Water Quality Analyses of the Floridan Aquifer System

PARAMETER

pH

Na

K

Ca

Mg

Sr

Ba

Fe

Mn

AI

Cl

F

S04 Nitrate/ Spec. Other

Nitrite Cond. Parameters

Detected

UNITS

su

mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ug/L

ug/L

ug/L

ug/L

ug/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mgN/L mho/em ug/L

WeiiiD#

GWN-PA10B

7.29

68

5U

78

Well Name:

Gilman Paper #11

County:

Camden

Date Sampled: 1994/02/02

42

770

39

20U

10U

50U 123.6 0.6

155.8 0.1U 1024

GWN-PA11

7.43

22

5U

73

36

630

33

27

10U

50U 32.2

0.5 169.2 0.1U

714

Well Name:

St. Marys#2

County:

Camden

Date Sampled: 1994/02/02

GWN-PA12

7.27

23

5U

70

29

510

33

41

10U 50U 37.2

0.4 150.8 0.1U 633

Well Name:

Folkston #3

County:

Charlton

Date Sampled: 1994/02/02

)>

I
N.......

GWN-PA13

7.52

16

5U

42

Well Name:

Waycross#3

17

340

70

20U

10U 50U

15.0

0.3

55.2 0.1U 395

County:

Ware

Date Sampled: 1994/02/02

GWN-PA14

8.07

6.5

5U

34

5.1

200

32

20U

10U 50U

2.6

0.2

5.1

0.1U 220

Well Name:

Statesboro #7

County:

Bulloch

Date Sampled: 1994/01/27

GWN-PA15

8.20

8.0

4.2

28

8.7

410

10U

51

10U 50U

2.0

0.3

6.1

0.1U 223

Well Name:

King Finishing Co. fire well

County:

Screven

Date Sampled: 1994/01/27

GWN-PA16

8.06

4.9

5U

48

3.1

200

10U

27

36

50U

5.2

0.1

6.3

0.1U

267

Well Name:

Millen#1

County:

Jenkins

Date Sampled: 1994/01/27

GWN-PA17

7.73

4.3

5U

52

1.6

140

180

150

10U

58

3.8

0.8 tr(2U) tr (0.1U) 248

Well Name:

Swainsboro #7

County:

Emanuel

Date Sampled: 1994/04/06

Other Screens Tested
10
10
10
10
10
10

Table A-6 (Continued). 1994 Ground-Water Quality Analyses of the Floridan Aquifer System

PARAMETER

pH

Na

K

Ca

Mg

Sr

Ba

Fe

Mn

AI

Cl

F

S04 Nitrate/ Spec. Other

Nitrite Cond. Parameters

Detected

UNITS

su

mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ug/L

ug/L

ug/L

ug/L ug/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mgN/L mho/em ug/L

GWN-PA18

8.04

10

su

30

3.2

240

25

20U

52

sou 3.6

0.1

3.0

0.1U

211

Well Name:

Metter#1

County:

Candler

Date Sampled: 1994/01/27

GWN-PA19

7.85

11

1.6

47

1.8

460

56

44

28 tr(SOU) 8.2

0.3

78.6 0.1U 393

Well Name:

Douglas#4

County:

Coffee

Date Sampled: 1994/02/23

GWN-PA20

7.73

5.0

su

46

16

190

27

20U 10U sou 3.2

0.2

67.1 0.1U 348

Well Name:

Lakeland #2

County:

Lanier

Date Sampled: 1994/02/18

)>

GWN-PA21A

8.00

3.1

su

38

8.0

110

14

20U

15

50

2.8

0.2

27.9 0.1U

254

I
1\.)

Well Name:

Valdosta New #4

1\.)

County:

Lowndes

Date Sampled: 1994/02/18

GWN-PA22

7.94

7.2

su

47

19

310

22

20U

10U

65

7.0

0.5

68.7 0.1U

389

Well Name:

Thomasville #6

County:

Thomas

Date Sampled: 1994/02/17

GWN-PA23

7.88

15

2.3

36

1.5

360

Well Name:

Cairo#8

County:

Grady

Date Sampled: 1994/02/17

GWN-PA24

7.86

2.5

su

41

3.2

37

Well Name:

Bainbridge #1

County:

Decatur

Date Sampled: 1994/03/22

GWN-PA24

7.68

2.0

su

38

3.3

36

Well Name:

Bainbridge #1

County:

Decatur

Date Sampled: 1994/08/09 (special for Alberto flood)

120 tr (20U) tr(10U) 60
10U 20U 10U sou 10U 20U 10U sou

6.7

0.3

42.8 0.1U

2.6

0.1U tr(2U) 1.2

2.93 0.1U

2U

1.39

340 Mo=12 212 223 P=0.06

Other Screens Tested 10 10 10
10
1,2,3,4,5, 10 1 ,2,10

Table A-6 (Continued). 1994 Ground-Water Quality Analyses of the Floridan Aquifer System.

PARAMETER

pH

Na

K

Ca

Mg

Sr

Ba

Fe

Mn

AI

Cl

F

S04 Nitrate/ Spec. other

Nitrite Cond. Parameters

Detected

UNITS

su

mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ug/L

ug/L

ug/L

ug/L ug/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mgN/L mho/em ug/L

WeiiiD#

GWN-PA25

7.51

4.1

5U

58

1U

Well Name:

Donalsonville 7th Street Well

County:

Seminole

Date Sampled: 1994/03/22

25

10U

20U

10U 50U

3.9

0.1U tr(2U) 0.1U 275

GWN-PA25

7.71

3.7

5U

55

1U

25

Well Name:

Donalsonville 7th Street Well

County:

Seminole

Date Sampled: 1994/08/09 (special for Alberto flood)

10U

20U

10U 50U 4.39 0.1U

2U

1.32 120.1 P=50

GWN-PA26

7.62

2.6

5U

47

1U

20

10U 20U

10U 50U

2.7

0.1U tr(2U) 1.5

221

Well Name:

Colquitt#3

County:

Miller

Date Sampled: 1994/03/22

)>

I
1\.)

GWN-PA26

7.68

2.6

5U

44

1U

19

10U

20U

10U 50U 3.00 0.1U

2U

1.63 120.1 P=50

c..v

Well Name:

Colquitt#3

County:

Miller

Date Sampled: 1994/08/09 (special for Alberto flood)

GWN-PA27

7.72

2.4

5U

47

1.1

37

10

20U

10U

50U

2.0 tr (0.1U) tr(2U) 0.2

218

Well Name:

Camilla New Well

County:

Mitchell

Date Sampled: 1994/03/23

GWN-PA27

7.85

1.9

5U

44

1.1

36

Well Name:

Camilla New Well

County:

Mitchell

Date Sampled: 1994/08/09 (special for Alberto flood)

11

20U

10U 50U 2.41 0.1U

2U

0.31

223 P=70

GWN-PA28

7.97

27

5U

40

21

2000

88

20U

10U

53

8.4

0.6

118 0.1U 468

Well Name:

Moultrie#1

County:

Colquitt

Date Sampled: 1994/02/21

GWN-PA29

7.90

3.7

5U

44

14

270

12

67

35

53

3.1

0.2

48.6 0.1U

323

Well Name:

Adel#6

County:

Cook

Date Sampled: 1994/02/17

Other Screens Tested
1,2,3,4,5,10
1,2,10
1,2,3,4,5,10 1,2,10
1,2,3,4,5,10
1,2,10
10

Table A-6 (Continued). 1994 Ground-Water Quality Analyses of the Floridan Aquifer System.

PARAMETER

pH

Na

K

Ca

Mg

Sr

Ba

Fe

Mn

AI

Cl

F

S04 Nitrate/ Spec. Other

Nitrite Cond. Parameters

Detected

UNITS

su

mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ug/L ug/L

ug/L

ug/L ug/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mgN/L mho/em ug/L

Other Screens Tested

GWN-PA30

7.82 Well Name: County: Date Sampled:

5.1

1.3

45

Amoco/Nashville Mills #2

Berrien

1994/02/18

16

230

50

170

37

72

3.5

0.2

60.0 0.1U 346

GWN-PA31

7.37

2.9 tr (5U) 45

Well Name:

Tifton#6

County:

Tift

Date Sampled: 1994/02/24

8.0

270

67

20U tr(10U) 50

2.0

0.1

2U

0.1U 271 Au=tr

Ni=tr

Bi=tr

Sn=tr

Co=tr

V=tr

Cr=tr

Zn=tr

Cu=tr

Zr=tr

Mo=tr

GWN-PA32

7.52

2.7 tr(5U) 35

4.8

150

78

140

29 tr(50U) 2.2 tr (0.1U) tr (2U) 0.1U 198 Cu=tr

10

Well Name:

Ocilla#3

Sn=tr

)>
I

County: Date Sampled:

Irwin 1994/02/23

V=tr Zn=tr

I\)

~

GWN-PA33

8.01

3.4 tr(5U) 24

8.4

270 2200 20U

15 tr(50U) 2.0

0.1

2U

0.1U

174 Cu=tr

10

Well Name:

Fitzgerald Well C

Ni=tr

County:

Ben Hill

V=tr

Date Sampled: 1994/02/23

Zn=tr

GWN-PA39

7.80

3.5

5U

48

8.3

390

170

20U

10U 50U

3.0

0.1

2.2 tr (0.1U) 289 CHCI3=tr

10

Well Name:

Sylvester #1

County:

Worth

Date Sampled: 1994/04/05

GWN-PA40

7.49

2.8

5U

59

1.0

49

17

20U

10U 50U

2.9 tr (0.1U) tr(2U) 1.3

280

10

Well Name:

Merck and Co. #8

County:

Dougherty

Date Sampled: 1994/03/23

GWN-PA40

7.60

2.5

5U

58

1.1

51

Well Name:

Merck and Co. #8

County:

Dougherty

Date Sampled: 1994/08/10 (special for Alberto flood)

18

20U

10U

50U

3.6

0.1U

2U

1.7

291 P=0.07

1,2,10

GWN-PA43

7.49

3.2

5U

49

1U

39

10U

20U

10U

50U

2.8

0.1U tr (2U) 1.5

236

Well Name:

Newton #1

County:

Baker

Date Sampled: 1994/03/23

2,3,4,5

Table A-6 (Continued). 1994 Ground-Water Quality Analyses of the Floridan Aquifer System.

PARAMETER

pH

Na

K

Ca

Mg

Sr

Ba

Fe

Mn

AI

Cl

F

S04 Nitrate/ Spec. Other

Nitrite Cond. Parameters

Detected

UNITS

su

mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ug/L

ug/L

ug/L

ug/L

ug/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mgN/L mho/em ug/L

WeiiiD#

Other Screens Tested

GWN-PA43

7.65

2.5

5U

46

1U

37

Well Name:

Newton#1

County:

Baker

Date Sampled: 1994/08/10 (special for Alberto flood)

10U

20U

10U sou

3.5

0.1U

2U

1.95 240 P=0.06

1 ,2,10

GWN-PA44

7.67

2.6 tr(5U) 33

Well Name:

Sycamore#2

County:

Turner

Date Sampled: 1994/02/24

4.2

290

150

20U tr (10U) tr(50U) 1.9

0.2 tr(2U) 0.1U 182 Au=tr

V=tr

10

Cu=tr Zn=tr

Ni=tr

Zr=tr

GWN-PA45

7.57

2.1 tr(5U) 56

11

72

66 tr(20U) 10U tr(50U) 2.2 tr (0.1U) tr(2U) 0.1U

241 Cr=tr

Ni=tr

10

Well Name:

Abbeville #1

Cu=tr V=tr

County:

Wilcox

Mo=tr

Date Sampled: 1994/02/23

:l>

I
1\.)

GWN-PA468

7.58

3.1

5U

47

1.0

31

0'1

Well Name:

Wenona Mobile Home Park well

County:

Crisp

45

20U

10U sou

6.2

0.1U

2U

3.7

259 P=0.08

1 ,2,10

Date Sampled: 1994/08/10

GWN-PA49

7.74

2.1 tr(5U) 42

0.63

25

Well Name:

Harmony Church well

County:

Dooly

Date Sampled: 1994/02/24

GWN-PA51

7.66

2.9

5U

47

1U

21

Well Name:

J.L. Adams house well

County:

Mitchell

Date Sampled: 1994/03/24

GWN-PA51

7.81

2.9

5U

45

1U

21

Well Name:

J.L. Adams house well

County:

Mitchell

Date Sampled: 1994/08/09 (special for Alberto flood)

GWN-PA52

8.13

2.2

5U

40

1U

24

Well Name:

James Simmons house well

County:

Mitchell

Date Sampled: 1994/03/22

19

20U

10U tr(50U) 2.4 tr (0.1U) tr(2U) 1.2

10U

20U

10U

sou

2.6

0.1U tr(2U) 0.8

10U 20U

10U

sou

3.8

0.1U

2U

1.6

10U

10U

10U sou

3.2

0.1U tr(2U) 2.6

198 Cr=tr Cu=tr Mo=tr

V=tr Zn=tr

225 Zn=22

239 Zn=21

200 Zn=48

1 ,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,10 1 ,2,3,4,5

Table A-6 (Continued). 1994 Ground-Water Quality Analyses of the Floridan Aquifer System.

PARAMETER

pH

Na

K

Ca

Mg

Sr

Ba

Fe

Mn

AI

Cl

F

S04 Nitrate/ Spec. other

Nitrite Cond. Parameters

Detected

UNITS

su

mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ug/L ug/L

ug/L

ug/L ug/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mgN/L mho/em ug/L

GWN-PA52

8.04

2.3

su

38

1U

23

Well Name:

James Simmons house well

County:

Mitchell

Date Sampled: 1994/08/10 (special for Alberto flood)

GWN-PA53

8.14

3.4

su

39

1.1

26

Well Name:

Lorene Cato house well

County:

Decatur

Date Sampled: 1994/08/09

10U 20U 10U sou

13

20U 10U sou

4.2

0.1U

2U

6.5

0.1U

2U

3.1

206 Zn=55

4.08

220 Zn=33

Other Screens Tested
1,2,10
1,2,10

)>
I
"'Q)

Table A-7. 1994 Ground-Water Quality Analyses of the Miocene Aquifer System.

PARAMETER

pH

Na

K

Ca

Mg

Sr

Ba

Fe

Mn

AI

Cl

F

S04 Nitrate/ Spec. Other

Nitrite Cond. Parameters

Detected

UNITS

su

mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ug/L ug/L

ug/L

ug/L ug/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mgN/L mho/em ug/L

WeiiiD#

GWN-MI1

7.65 Well Name: County: Date Sampled:

7.6

5U

24

McMillan house well

Cook

1994/10/27

13

120

20

20U

28

sou 2.2

0.4

3.4

0.1U

250

GWN-MI2

5.16

2.9

5U

31

1U

10U 10U 20U 10U sou

2.1

0.4

2U

0.1

39

Well Name:

Boutwell house well

County:

Lowndes

Date Sampled: 1994/10/27

GWN-MI5

5.09

5.7

5U

6.1

1.7

30

78

83

110

430

10.4 tr (0.1U) 2.8

1.6

72

Well Name:

Carter house well

County:

Appling

Date Sampled: 1994/04/07

)>

I
1\.)

GWN-MI7

4.05

5.3

5U

6.3

5.3

54

98

20U

15

730

10.9 0.1U

2U

0.1U

166

-..J

Well Name:

Chaudoin house well

County:

Irwin

Date Sampled: 1994/10/26

GWN-MI8A

4.64

2.4

5.6

5.8

4.7

52

120

20U

74

740

40.1

0.11

2U

10.3

262 Zn=50

Well Name:

Barry house well

County:

Colquitt

Date Sampled: 1994/04/18

GWN-MI10B

6.37

7.7

6.2

9.7

6.2

89

220

230

160

sou

2.2

0.3

2U

0.1U

137

Well Name:

Calhoun house well

County:

Colquitt

Date Sampled: 1994/10/24

GWN-MI13

7.49

2.3

5U

54

0.76

48

Well Name:

Taylor house well

County:

Screven

Date Sampled: 1994/04/06

24

2200 210

sou

3.2 tr (0.1U) tr(2U) 0.1U

257

GWN-MI15

4.37

1.7

5U

11

7.8

100

60

28

16

220

8.1 tr (0.1U) tr(2U) 14.1

165

Well Name:

Aldrich house well

County:

Bulloch

Date Sampled: 1994/04/06

Other Screens Tested
1 ,3,4,5,10
1 ,3,4,5,8,9, 10 1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1 ,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1 ,2,3,4,5
1 ,2,3,4,5

Table A-8. 1994 Ground-Water Quality Analyses of the Piedmont/Blue Ridge Unconfined Aquifers.

PARAMETER

pH

Na

K

Ca

Mg

Sr

Ba

Fe

Mn

AI

Cl

F

S04 Nitrate/ Spec. Other

Nitrite Con d. Parameters

Detected

UNITS

su

mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ug/L ug/L

ug/L

ug/L ug/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mgN/L mho/em ug/L

Other Screens Tested

GWN-BR1A

6.27

2.1

5U

17

1U

89

16

69

10U sou

1U

0.1U 4.75 0.1U

155 Zn=70

Well Name:

Hiawassee #7

County:

Towns

Date Sampled: 1994/08/02

GWN-BR2A

5.06

3.8

5U

3.4

1.5

42

50

20U

18

sou 3.54 0.1U 1.61

1.5

60

10

Well Name:

Notla Water Auth. #3

County:

Union

Date Sampled: 1994/08/03

GWN-BR3A

6.20

4.5

5U

3.2

1.5

25

26

20U

72

sou 4.37 0.1U 2U

1.7

52 Zn=20

Well Name:

Dawsonville City Spring

County:

Dawson

Date Sampled: 1994/08/02

)>

I

GWN-BR4

5.88

8.2

5U

10

2.2

100

10U

20U

10U

sou 4.73 0.1U 1.19

1.9

109

"0->'

Well Name: County:

Morganton Old Well Fannin

Date Sampled: 1994/08/02

GWN-P2

6.42

9.8

5U

12

1.4

80

24

56

10U sou 2.0

0.1

2.0

1.0

113 naphthalene=tr

10

Well Name:

Riverdale Delta Drive Well

Zn=51

County:

Clayton

Date Sampled: 1994/08/23

GWN-P4C

5.91

7.7

5U

6.7

1.1

72

21

20U 10U sou

1.3

0.3

2U

1.1

78

10

Well Name:

Barton Brands #3

County:

Fulton

Date Sampled: 1994/08/22

GWN-P6B

7.30

7.8

5U

17

2.4

44

10U 20U

85

sou 2.3

0.3

5.6

0.1U

128

Well Name:

Shiloh #1

County:

Harris

Date Sampled: 1994/09/22

GWN-P7

6.29

7.7

5U

11

4.3

70

50

20U

10U sou

1.2

0.3

2U

1.2

116

10

Well Name:

Hampton#6

County:

Henry

Date Sampled: 1994/08/22

Table A-8 (Continued). 1994 Ground-Water Quality Analyses of the Piedmont/Blue Ridge Unconfined Aquifers.

PARAMETER

pH

Na

K

Ca

Mg

Sr

Ba

Fe

Mn

AI

Cl

F

S04 Nitrate/ Spec. Other

Nitrite Cond. Parameters

Detected

UNITS

su

mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ug/L ug/L

ug/L ug/L ug/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mgN/L mho/em ug/L

WeiiiD#

GWN-P9

6.28

15

4.4

20.0

9.4

Well Name:

Gray#4

County:

Jones

Date Sampled: 1994/09/22

50

1600 170

25U 7.87 0.5U 55.9 0.22

288

GWN-P12

5.87

13

su

11

2.2

69

35

20U

10U

sou

11.0 0.1U

4.7

3.5

137 Zn=38

Well Name:

Specialty Brands #1

County:

Meriwether

Date Sampled: 1994/09/22

GWN-P14

5.01

1.4

su

1U

1U

10U

28

20U 10U sou

1.5

0.1U

2U

0.33

17

Well Name:

Upson County Sunset Village well

County:

Upson

Date Sampled: 1994/09/22

)>

I
1\J
(.0

GWN-P15A

7.24

7.8

5U

17

Well Name:

Bolton garden well

4.2

92

58

480

81

sou

2.0

0.1U

3.1

0.2

159 Zn=290

County:

DeKalb

Date Sampled: 1994/08/23

GWN-P16C

6.17

2.2

5U

6.4

1.3

45

10U

900

230 sou

1U tr(0.1U) 6.60 tr (0.1U) 58 Zn=35

Well Name:

Mt. Airy#4

County:

Habersham

Date Sampled: 1994/04/07

Other Screens Tested
10 10

Table A-9. 1994 Ground-Water Quality Analyses of the Valley and Ridge Unconfined Aquifers

PARAMETER

pH

Na

K

Ca

Mg

Sr

Ba

Fe

Mn

AI

Cl

F

S04 Nitrate/ Spec. Other

Nitrite Cond. Parameters

Detected

UNITS

su

mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ug/L

ug/L

ug/L

ug/L ug/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mgN/L mho/em ug/L

Other Screens Tested

GWN-VR1

7.91

1.6

SU

2S

14

17

10U 20U 10U sou

1.7

0.1U

2U

0.1U 222

10

Well Name:

Floyd County Kingston Rd, Well

County:

Floyd

Date Sampled: 1994/08/2S

GWN-VR3

7.62

1.S

SU

30

13

24

77

20U 10U sou 11.7 0.2

42.3 0.1U 237

10

Well Name:

Chickamauga/Crawfish Spring

County:

Walker

Date Sampled: 1994/08/:!S

GWN-VR4

7.20

16

SU

73

18

630

110

30

18

sou

7.9

0.1U

3.S

2.8

S19

10

Well Name:

Coats-American #3

County:

Walker

Date Sampled: 1994/08/30

)>

w I
0

GWN-VRS

7.08 Well Name: County:

S.2

SU

74

Chattooga County #4

Chattooga

Date Sampled: 1994/08/30

3.7

170

100 20U 10U sou

2.7

0.1U

2U

1.0

387 methyl-tert-butyl ether 10

=23

GWN-VR6

7.S1

S.1

SU

27

16

210

600

20U

10U

sou

4.1

0.1U

4.4

0.8

2S8 tetrachloroethylene=tr 10

Well Name:

Chemical Products Corp. East Well

County:

Bartow

Date Sampled: 1994/08/2S

GWN-VR7

7.SO

1U

SU

27

13

23

31

20U

10U sou

1.1

0.1U

2U

0.4

219

10

Well Name:

Adairsville/Lewis Spring

County:

Bartow

Date Sampled: 1994/08/2S

GWN-VR8

7.71

1.6

SU

32

14

22

13

20U 10U sou

1.6

0.1U

2.1

0.6

2S6

10

Well Name:

Cedartown Spring

County:

Polk

Date Sampled: 1994/08/2S

GWN-VR9

7.21

1.S

SU

3S

12

2S

10

20U 10U sou

1.9

0.1U

2.1

0.6

2S2

10

Well Name:

Polk County #2

County:

Polk

Date Sampled: 1994/08/2S

Cartographer: Donald L. Shellenberger
Quantity: 100/Cost: $505.75
The Department of Natural Resources is an equal opportunity employer and offers all persons the opportunity to compete and participate in each area of DNR employment regardless of race, color,
religion, national origin, age, handicap, or other non-merit factors.