Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />natural variations esi~pected for this aquifer. <br />Figures B-20 and B-21 present field conductivity data versus <br />time fo.r well GF7 and GF11, respectively. Recovery of water levels <br />in the backfill material near well GF7 has c.3used the rise in <br />conductivity since the well was installed in 1987. The increase in <br />conductivity in this well is due to ground water dissolving <br />I <br />constituents as it enters the backfill material. Conductivity has <br />been fairly steady for 1989 through 1991 and may be starting a <br />gradual decline, as expected. An overall increa::ing trend seems to <br />be occurring in the backfill water at GF11, with a significant <br />amount of fluctuation for this uppermost aquifer. The <br />conductivities in this backfill aquifer ar~s very close to <br />background values. <br />Figure B-22 presents the plot of field conductivity versus <br />time for well GP1. A fair amount of scatter i:~ seen in the data <br />with the last few years' conductivity values showing a decline <br />below the 1986 and 1987 values. <br />Figure B-23 presents field conductivity data for KLM well <br />GP2. The early data from well GP2 contains moms scatter than the <br />last five values which is probably due to the variation in samples <br />bailed from the well versus those which were pumped during the <br />September monitoring each year. The pumped .samples present a <br />fairly steady plot. Conductivity data for we:~_1 GP3 which is a <br />flowing well is presented on Figure B-24, but shows some scatter. <br />The conductivities from well GP3 have been fairly steady at <br />approximately 1300 umhos/cm. <br />3-4 <br />