Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br /> <br />' Table B-1 shows that the pH of wells GBB1 and GBB2 has been <br />' elevated above the expected values while the valuer for the other GBB <br />well is normal. The bailing of well GBB1 caused the pH to drop <br />' drastically. The pH of water from well GBB1 was gradually declining <br />during the pumping of the November sample. Additional pumping would <br />' probably decrease the pH value to the true aquifer value. The very <br />low pumping rate (0.15 gpm) of well GBB1 would probably require the <br />length of continued pumping to be very long for the pH to stabilize. <br />' <br /> The pH of water from well GBB2 was in the expected range during <br />' the September of 1986 sampling (see Table B-1 of Appendix B). At <br /> least one casing volume needs to be removed from well GBB2 to obtain a <br />' field pH that is representative of this aquifer. <br />' The pH of water from well GBB3 has been in t:he expected range. <br />The variations in pH of water from well GBB3 seem natural. The pH <br />values from alluvial wells J1 and Coy have been slightly above 7 and <br />' seem to be stable. <br />' 3.3 SAR <br />' The sodium-absorption ratio (SAR) is tabulated on the second <br /> series of pages in Table B-1, starting on page B-49. The SAR values <br /> measured for water from well GA1 and GA2 are low with an average value <br /> of approximately 0.3. SAR values for water from well GB2 are <br />t <br /> typically slightly less than one. The SAR from we1.1 GBS has typically <br />1 <br />' 3-9 <br />