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...;,---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 ~ 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.