Laserfiche WebLink
<br />with time. Additional monitoring of this well will be useful in defining the cause <br />of the change in TDS concentration. <br />Well GBBI has been influenced by cement contamination and, therefore, its TDS <br />values have also been significantly affected by the cement. The December, 1985 and <br />August, 1986 samples from well GBB1, after the mechanical bailing of this well, are <br />thought to represent water quality conditions of the Third White Sandstone fairly <br />well at this site. The plot of well GBBI (see Figure 4.8-44) should not be used to <br />indicate changes in this aquifer. <br />Water from well GB2 has generally been slightly below neutral. Table 4.8-10a <br />shows that the pH of well GBBI has been elevated above the expected value. The <br />bailing of well GBB1 caused the pH to drop drastically. The pH of water from well <br />GBBI gradually declined during pumping of the November sample. Additional pumping <br />would probably decrease the pH value to the true aquifer value. The very low <br />pumping rate (0.15 gpm) of well GBB1 would probably require the length of continued <br />pumping to be very long for the pH to stabilize. <br />SAR values for water from well GB2 are typically slightly less than one, while <br />SAR values for well GBBI in the last two years have been very high. <br />SECOND WHITE SANDSTONE AQUIFER <br />TDS has averaged approximately 500 mg/1 for the last few years in well GE3 <br />0 <br />(see Figure 4.8-45). A considerable variation in TDS has been observed in the last <br />Pew years. TDS has been significantly less the last few years than it was in 1976 <br />4-233 bb REVISED FFR 17 TP