Laserfiche WebLink
• years has been significantly below the remainder of the samples. <br />,~ This indicates that the well bore is influencing the pH of the <br />. .... ground water in. the well. Some cement contamination is likely in <br />this well. <br />The field pH of water from the GC wells does not show a trend <br />and are within expected limits, except for some high pH values in <br /> 1976 and 1977 from well GC2. <br /> Twenty Mile Sandstone well GD1 had a significant increase in <br /> pH in 1984. Field pH values are presently back to levels that are <br /> expected and that were present for the first several years from <br /> this well. The recent pH values are thought to be more <br /> representative of the aquifer water because well GD1 has been <br />• pumped consistently in the last five years. Field pH from well <br /> GD2 does not demonstrate a trend. The upgradient mining in the QR <br /> aquifer has not affected the pH in this area of the aquifer. The <br /> pH values from backfill well GD3 are slightly below neutral but <br /> near the values in the native aquifer at well GD2. Values from <br /> GE1 gradually declined for several years and seem to have <br /> stabilized slightly above neutral. The pH of water from well GE2 <br /> has varied from slightly less than 7 to approximately 9. The pH <br /> values for well GE3 have remained between 7.0 and 8.9 in 1990. <br /> Twenty Mile Sandstone well GF1 generally contains water with <br />_. ~ a pH near neutral, while the U aquifer well (GF2) and KLM aquifer <br /> well (GF3)_.at this site contain water with a pH of approximately <br /> 8.5. A slightly higher pH (near 9) has been observed for the HI <br /> <br /> aquifer at well GF4. Data from backfill well GF5 indicates that <br />3-10 <br />