Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Figures B-20 and B-21 present field conductivity data versus <br />time for well GF7 and GF11, respectively. Recovery of water levels <br />in the backfill materi.sl near well GF7 has caused the riselin <br />conductivity since the well was installed in 198?. The increase;in <br />r_onductivity in this well is due to around water dissolviing <br />- ~ <br />I <br />constituents as it enters the backfill material. Conductivity has <br />I <br />been fairly stead,v for 1989 through 1991. The 199? results show <br />considerable scatter. An overall increasinz' trend seems tobe <br />occurring in the backfill avatar at GF11, with .a significant amount <br />I <br />o£ fluctuation for this uppermost .aquifer. The r_onductivities in <br />this backfill aquifer are very close to bsr_kground values. <br />Figure R-22 presents the plot of field conductivity versus <br />time for well GF1. A fair amount of scatter is seer. in the dlta • <br />with the last few years" r_onductivity 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 GF2 contains more scatter than the <br />last five values which is probably due to the variation in _=_mpIles <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. Condurtivity data for well GF.3 which is .s <br />flowing well is presented on Figs-ire R-?4, h~.it shows some scatter. <br />The conductivities from well GP3 have beer. fairly steady I,at <br />approximately 1?00 umhosicm. <br />The data for well GP4 presents .a fairly ate=dy plot with daia <br />stayine close tp a value of 1300 umhos/cm (see Fi?~.ire B-25). Wells • <br />j-4 <br />