Laserfiche WebLink
[~ <br />fluctua+.ion but could have been influenced some b,~ previous mining. <br />FiE;ure B-5 presints the conductivity data for well GC1. <br />Concentrations have been very steady from this well in 1989 and <br />1990, with the 1991 value significantly less. Figure B-6 shows <br />some scatter in the conductivity data taken fron~ well GC2. These <br />changes in conductivity are natural. Figure B-7 presents the <br />conductivity versus time plot for well GC3. A fair amount of <br />scatter is seen on the plot, but an increase in values was seen <br />from 1984 to 1986, with fairly stable values afi;er the rise. The <br />1991 values indicate a declining trend may b~ starting. All <br />changes in the aquifers at the GC site are natural due to the <br />distance from active mining. <br /> <br />Well GD1 is a Twenty Mile Sandstone well an~i has been used as <br />the potable water supply well for the mine an<L the power plant <br />since 1985. The increase of water use has resulted in the higher <br />conductivities since 1985 shown on Figure B-8. The 1989 through <br />1991 values have fluctuated, with a few values below 900 umhos/cm, <br />but no trend has developed. <br />Figure B-9 presents the field conductivity data for well GD2. <br />Conductivities for well GD2 have remained fairly steady the last <br />nine years. The backfill well GD3 has been fais•ly steady with an <br />average around 1600 .umhos/cm. Figure B-10 presents the field <br />conductivity data for well GD3. The mining upgr:idient of well GD2 <br />has not affected conductivities in this area o:E the QR aquifer. <br />Any changes are thought to be within the :range of natural <br />fluctuations. <br /> <br />3-2 <br />