Laserfiche WebLink
GF-2, GF-3 and GF~3 also existed prior to mining in this area and also are due to very low <br />calcium and magnesium concentrations. The SAR values in backfill well GF-5 are similar <br />to the HI aquifer values in this area prior to mining. The SAR values in well GP-4 were <br />higher prior to mining than present values. The present values, even though greater than <br />15, are thought to be natural. The QR seams have not been mined near well GP-5. The <br />higher values in this well existed prior to the mining of the HI seams in this area. The higher <br />SAR's in well GP-8 have to be natural due to its distant location from mining. Flow from the <br />Trapper mine pits does not move in the 3rd White Sandstone to well 81-03A and, therefore, <br />the high SAR values in this well have not been caused by Trapper mining. The high values <br />existed prior to the B pit mining to the south of well 81-03A. High SAR values are naturally_ <br />common in the Trapper ground water. Mining does not seem to have affected the SAR <br />values at this site. <br />The decrease in calcium and magnesium concentrations in wells GB-5 and GE-2 <br />occurred after mining in these two areas. Their decrease is very abrupt which is not typical <br />of water quality changes in ground water. A decreasing trend for sodium concentrations <br />is being observed in well GP-6 with a questionable latest value. Values at well GF-7 are, <br />overall, gradually declining. The major constituent increases in well GC-2 have to be <br />natural due to its location. <br />The minor constituent variations have been erratic. No changes in these <br />cow nstituents are thought to be attributed to mining.wHigher radium 226 concentrations have <br />also been sparse and the variation in radium 226 concentrations are thought to be natural. <br /> <br />6-5 <br />