ML19338C700

Forwards NRC Draft Environ Protection Plan,Revised Per 800729 Meeting W/Util.Mods Reflect Site Specific Application.Requests Consideration of Encl Conductivity Study for Deletion of Certain Programs from Tech Specs

ML19338C700
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	08/07/1980
From:	Clayton F ALABAMA POWER CO.
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8008180479
Download: ML19338C700 (30)

Text

-

,1 A:aca~a M*er Cercary 600'e ?8? St eet Pas:C* ce Ocs 2641 Berram A.aca a MM sewas msw THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS POOR QUAllTY PAGES h k

" cu"

• Alabama Power aero s ce Pes 3,

m nav m: c asse August 7, 1980 Docket Nos. 50-348 50-364 Director .

Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Re: Environmental Protection Plan Gentlemen:

On May 19, 1980, Alabama Power Company submitted proposed changes ,

to Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Operating License No. NPF-2 involving the Appendix B Non-Radiological Environmental Technical Specifications. This same submission was also to apply to Farley Unit 2.

Mr. R. L. Ballard's memo to L. L. Kintner of July 16, 1980 responded to our letter of May 19, 1980, and provided a draft Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) for Farley Unit 2. On July 29, 1980, representatives of Alabama Power Company met with your staff to discuss the draft EPP.

As a result of thac meeting, certain aspects of the draft EPP have been modified to reflect site specific application for both Farley Units 1 and

2. These modifications are incorporated into Attachment I, which is a rewrite of the draf t EPP forre2ded by Mr. Ballard's letter of July 16, 1980.

During tr.e July 29, 1980 meeting, certain studies were discussed relative to programs conducted pursuant to the current NPF-2 Technical Specifications. These studies included a conductivity study, a visibility I monitoring study, and the program to correct erosion conditions and provide l screening along transmission line rights-of-way. With the exception of the conductivity study, all these documents have been submitted to the NRC as part of the annual report. Pursuant to this letter, we are formally submitting as Attachment II a copy of the conductivity study. This study was not required by NPF-2 Technical Specification until Unit 2 had been in operation for two years. We request consideration of this formal submission and the other referenced studies for the deletion of certain programs from the NPF-2 Technical Specifications. These considerations also apply to the deletion of certain programs from the draft Environmental Protection Plan.

COQY S

///

8 0 08180 N b [

. _ . . . .. . . , . . . - - ~ .- _

o

? i 1

- Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Page 2 August 7, 1980 l

i j

With the above referenced :nodifications, the draf t EPP can be l

incorporated into the license for Farley Unit 1 and the license for Farley Unit 2. Such incorporation will provide the same programs for both units of the Farley Nuclear Plant.

If you have any questions, please advise.

r l

Very truly ours, ,

1 m f d // D' jl% * ,

F. L. Clayton, Jr.

FVB:1 Attachment i

cc: Mr. R. A. Thomas l Mr. G. F. Trowbridge l

i 4

I

e 1

9

• O a me

=W Attachment I n

=

I

! 4 I.

i e

1 1 - . - -- . . - - - - _ _

.7.-__._._.._7.,__ -

• i

. i i .

i, .

APPENDIX S 1 ,

j I TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-1 T ~

FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT J

! UNIT 2

r

. s "9

i 1

1 ALABAMA POWER COMPANY DOCKET No. 50-364 t

i

! l 4

eem 4

ij - -

J t

! ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN l

I (NCN-RADIOLCGICAL) i 4

1 l

a 9

l l

I l

+

I I

i  !

l

--..- _. -.-.-.._.,_m,.-,..-_,..._~...- . . . . _ _ _ _ . - - - , _ _ . . - . . . _ . _ . _ . - . - - - -

._ ._ . -_._s _. 2 .- .. - - -4 2 - . - . . _ _ _ . . - . . - . = - . . . - , .

JOSEPH M. FARLEY 'lVCLEAR PLA?6 UtlIT 2 EtWIR0fMNTAL PROTECTION PLAtt (NON-RADIOLOGICAL)

TA3LE OF CONTEtES ,

Section Page 1.0 Objectives of the Environmental Protection Plan . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 2 .0 Environmental Protection Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 2 .1 Aq ua t ' e I s s u e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 2.2 Te rre s t ri a l I s s ue s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2

~

3 .0 Cons is tency Requi reme nts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ '. . . 3-1 3.1 S ta tio n Des i gn and Ope ratio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 3 .2 Reporting Related to the tiPCES Permits and State Certification. . . . 3-2 3 .3 Changes Required for Compliance with Other Regulatory Requirements. . 3-3 4 .0 Envi ronmen tal Co ndi tio ns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 4 .1 Unusual or Important Envircnmental Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

. 2 Envi ronme ntal Mo ni tori ng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 5 .0 Admi ni s t ra ti ve Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 5 .1 Review and Audit. . . . ....................... 5-1 5.2 Reco rds Re ten tio n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 5.3 Cha n ges i n Envi ronme ntal P ro tec ti o n Pl a n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2 5 .4 Station Reporting Requi ments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2 s

1.0 Cbjectives of the Environm:ntal Protection Plan l

The EPP is to provide for protection of environmental values during construction and operation of the nuclear facility. The principal objectives of the EPP are as fotLows:

(1) Verify that the plant is operated in an environmentally acceptable manner, as established by the FES and other NRC environmental impact assessments. .

(2) Coordinate NRC requirements and maintain consistency with other Federal, State and Local requirements for environmental protection.

(3) Keep NRC informed of the environmental effects of f acility construction and operation and of actions taken to control those effects.

t -

a.

t .

Environmental concerns identified in the FES which relate to water quality matters are regulated by way of the Licensee's NPOES permit.

d 1

1 1

ea *%

1-1 l

l l

2.0 Environmental Protection Issu2s In :ne FES-CL dated December 1974, the staf f censidered the envircnmental iscacts associated with :he coeratien of the two uni: Farley Nuclear Plant. Certain envirenmental issues were identified whien recuired stucy er License conditiens to resolve environmental concerns and to assure adecuate are:ection of the anvi ronment.

2.1 Aquatic Issues Scecific aquatic issues raised by the staf f in the FES-CL were: .

1. The need for aquatic monitoring programs to confirm that thermal mixing occurs as predicted, that chlorine releases are centrolled within those i~ discharge concentrations., evaluated, and that ef fects on aquatic biota and water quality due to plant operatien are no greater than predicted.

~

2. The need for scecial studies to document levels of intake entrainnent and impingement.

(FES-CL: Summary and Conclusions and Sections 6.2, 6.3 and 6.6) 4 Aquatic issues are addressed by the effluen Limitations, monitoring recuirements and the Section 316(b) demonstration recuirement centained in the effective NPDES permit issued by EPA-Regicn IV and new ic=lemented by the Alaba=a Water

.s e

2-1

-,c- - . , , - . . . - - - - , , . - - . .--

• \

Improvem:nt Ccmmissicn. The NRC uitL rely on theso agencies for regulation of 1 i

matters involving water quality and aquatic biota, 2.2 Terrestrial Issues

1. Potential imoacts on the terrestrial environnent associated with drift f rom the mechanical draf t cooling towers. (FES-OL Section 6.5)

2. Potential increase in fogging associated with operation of the mechanical draft cooling towers. (FES-OL Section 6.5)

3. Potential erosion and visual effects along transmission Line corridors and at highway crossings, respecti.vely. CFES-OL Sections 4. 2, 5.4.4.1, 1.2) r __ ,-

t .,

4. The need for controlled use of herbicides on transmission rights-of way.

(FES-OL Sections 4.2, 5.4.4.2, 11.2)

5. The need for documentation of the Licensee's commitment to conduct a land management program. (FES-OL Sections 5.2 and 6.5)

NRC requirretits with regard to the above terrestrial issues are specified in

! Subsection 4.2 of this EPP.

i l

(

2-2

3.0 Consistency Requirements 3.1 Station Design and Operation The Licensee may make changes in plant design or operation or perform tests o r experiments affecting the envirencent provided such changes, tests, or experiments do not involve an unreviewed environmental question, and do not

~

i nvolve a change in the Environmental Protection Plan. Changas in plant design o r operation or tests or experiments which do not affect the environment are not s ubject to the requirements of the Environmental Protection Plan. Acti vities governed by Section 3.3 are not subject to the requirements of this section.

Before engaging in additional construction or operational activities which may a ffect the environment, the licensee shall prepare and record an environmental e valuation of such activity. When the evaluation indicates that such activity i nvolves an unreviewed environmental question, the licensee shall provide a i written evaluation of such activities and obtain prior approval from the Director, Office of ibclear Reactor Regulation. When such activi ty involves a change in the Environmental Protection Plan, such activity and change to the Environmental Protection Plan may be implemented only in accordance with an

~

appropriate license amendment as set forth in Section 5.3.

A proposed change, test or experiment shall be deemed to involve an unreviewed environmental question if it concerns (1) a matter which mcy result in a s ignificant increase in any adverse environmental impact previously evaluated i n the final environmetnal statement (FES) as modified by staff's testirony to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, supplements to the FES, environmental

(

3-1

impact appraisals, or in any decisions of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board; o r (2) a significant change in effluents or power level (in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51.5(b)(2)) or (3) a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated i n the documents specified in (1) of this Subsection, which may have a s ignificant adverse environmental impact.

The licensee shall maintain records of changes in facility design or operation a nd of tests and experiments carried out pursuant to this Subsaction. These records shall include a written evaluation which provide bases for the determina-tion that the change, test, or experiment does not involve an unreviewed environmental question nor constitute a decrease in the effectiveness of this EPP to meet the objectives specified in Section 1.0. The licensee shall include as part of his Annual Environmental Operating Report (per Subsection 5.4.1) biref descriptions, analyses, interpretations, and evaluations of such changes, tests and experiments.

l-3.2 Reporting Re:ated to the NPDES Perr its and State Certifications Violations of the NPDES Permit or the State certification (pursuant to

- S ection 401 of the Clean Water Act) shall be reported to the NRC by submittal o f copies of reports required by the NPDES Permit.or certification. The licensee shall also provide the NRC with copies of the following studies at the same time they are submitted to the permitting agency:

A. 316(b) Demo 1stration Study B. Chlorine minimization study

• h 3-2 1

Changes and additions to the fiPCES Pemit or the State certification shall be reported to the fiRC within 30 days following the date the change is approved.

I I f a permit or certification, in part or in its entirety, is appealed and s tayed, the fiRC shall be notified within 30 days fel10 wing the date the stay i s granted.

! The fiRC shall be notified of changes to the effective NPCES Pemit proposed by the licensee by providing fiRC with a copy of the proposed change at the same  ;

l time it is submitted to the pemitting agency. The notification of a licensee i nitiated change shall include a copy of the requested revision submitted to the permitting agency. The licensee shall provide the NRC a copy of the application for renewal of the fiPCES permit at the same time it is submitted to the pemitting agency.

3.3 Changes Required for Compliance with Other Regulatory Requirements

- r Changes in Plant Cesign, Operation, or tests or experiments which are required to achieve compliance with other Federal, State or local environmental regulations i

a re not subject to the requirements of subsection 3.1.

I i

-s 3-3

.. - . , . . . . . , , . , - - . - . - . . _ . . , ~ . _ - . _ - . . - . - _ . _ , - - - , . - . _ _ ,

4.0 Environmental Conditions 4.1 Unusual or Important Environmental Events Any occurrence of an unusual or important event that indicates or could result i n significant environmental impact casually related to plant operation shall be recorded and promptly reported to the flRC within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> by telephone, telegraph, or facsimile transmissions followed by a written report (per Subsection 5 .4.2) . The following are examples: excessive bird impaction events, onsite plant or animal disease outbreaks, mortality or unusual occurrence of any species protected by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, fish kills, increase in nuisance organisms or conditions and unanticipated or emergency discharge of waste water or chemical substances.

No routine monitoring programs are required to implement this condition.

4.2 Environmental Fbnitoring 4 .2.1 Aerial Remote Sensing Vegetation communities of the site and vicinity whithin 1 kilometer of the cooling towers in all directions shall be aerially photographed to detect and assess the s ignificance of damage, or lack thereof, as related to cooling tower drift I

d ispersions . Photography shall be done by aerial overflight during May to June.

Monitoring shall include a program of low altitude false color aerial photography (either color infrared photography or multispectral or multiband photography).

The scale for full coverage shall be adequate to enable identification of vegetative damage over relatively small areas of terrtin. Some circumstances may warrant inspection of photographs discerning individual trees. Such scale should be in the interval between 1:1000 and 1:12,000 as appropriate to resolve i mpacted features.

4-1

Photographs shall be companed with baseline to ascertain chang::d v:getation.

Photographic interpretations shall correlate data from ground truth from ground i nspection surveys with areas of stress and nonstress as seen on the photographs for purposes of verification of results and interpretation. Ground truth s urveys shall be perfonned during the aerial photographic monitoring for two unit operation. This program shall require aerial photographic monitoring during the first May to June period after Unit 2 has been in operation for o ne year and the program shall be repeated during the same period two years t herea f ter. A report shall be submitted as part of the annual report following the last aerial photographic monitoring period. The report shall contain a descriotion of the program, results, and interpretative analyses of environmental i mpacts . Results reported shall contain information encompassing but not limited to the following: sampling data; time of day; film types; spectral bands; and o ne (1) set of resultant color transparencies encompassing an area within approx-imately a one kilometer (1 km) radius of the Unit I and 2 towers.

4 .2.2 Herbicide Application The use of herbicides within the following corridor rights-of-way shall conform to the approved use of selected herbicides as registered by the Environmental P rotection Agency and approved by State authorities and apolied as directed by said authorities: Farley to Pickard - South - 230 KV; Farley to Webb to Pickard - 230 KV; and Farley to Snowdown - 500 KV.

Herbicide use shall be summarized in the annual report. If herbicides are used, the annual report shall include the following infor-ation: name of transmission

! line corridor; commercial name of the herbicides; quantity of each herbicide; and method and frequency of applications for each herbicide. A, statement shall be 4-2

i I included that application of herbicides has confortned to the Environmental P rotection Agency and State requirements.

J 4.2.3 Land Panagement l _ There shall be a land management program instituted at the F'.P to provide for

! revegetation of site areas impacted during construction as cescribed in Section 5.2 of the FES-OL. ~his program requires landscaping of certain areas around the plant buildings and the revegetaticit and management of the remiander of the site as a wildlife refuge. There shall be no reporting requirement associated wi th this i tem.

)

i

3. -

i l

[

4-3

,-,e.-----._,----..-m,,.. . . . , , - . ,,,w-.--.,.,7 .,,- ,.-y _ , , , _ .,m., , , m.._-,.,w.. . . - .%,, ,e, , . _ . . ,. . , ,,.- _.,m% ,,_ . - . -- -.--,_-..- ,,,, ,

5.0 Administrative Procedures 5 .1 Review and Audit The licensee shall provide for review and audit of compliance with the E nvironmental Protection Plan, The audits shall be conducted independently o f the individual or groups responsible for perfor:.iing the s;acific activity.

A description of the organization structure utilized to achieve the independent review and audit function and results of the audit activities shall be maintained and made available for inspection.

5.2 Records Retention Records and logs relative to the environmental aspects of plant operation shall be made and retaired in a manner convenient for review and inspection.

These records and logs shall be made available to NRC on request. ,,

Records of modifica: ions to plant structures, systems and components determined to potentially affect the continued protection of the environnent shall be retained for the life of the plant. All other records, data and

~

logs relating to the Environmental Protection Plan shall be retained for five years or where applicable in accordance with the requirements of other Federal, S tate, or local agencies.

e 5-1

5.3 Changes in Environmental Protection Plan f

l Recues:

for change in the Environmental Protection Plan may be submitted to the NRC at any time. The request shall include an assessment of the environmental l

. Implementation imcact of the proposed change and a supporting justifica 'on.

accroval of ,

of such changes in the EPP shall not commence prior to NR in:ceporating the the proposed changes in the f orm of a license amendment accropriate revision to the Environmental Protection Plan. .

5. 4 Station Reporting Requirements 5.4.1 Routine Reports An Annual Environmental Operating Report describing implementation of this EPP for the previous year shalL be submitted to the NRC prior to May 1 of each year. The initial report shaLL be submitted prior to May 1 of the year

.. following l' ,

issuan:e of the operating License.

The period of the first report shall begin with the date of issuance of the operating License.

The report shall include summaries and analyses of the results of the environ-mental protection ac:ivities required by Subsection 4.2 of this Environmental Protection Plan for the report period, including a comparison uith preopera-tional studies, operational controls (as appropriate), and previous non-radiological environmental monitoring reports, and an assessment of the If harmful observed impacts of the station operation on the environment.

effects or evidence of trends towards irreversible damage to the environment are observed, the Licensee shall provide a detailed analysis of the data and a proposed course of action to atLeviate the problem.

• 5-2

The Annual Environmental Operating Report shall also include:

(a) A list of EPP noncompliances and the corrective actions taken to remedy them.

(b) A list of all changes in station design or operation, tests, and experi-ments made in accordance with Subsection 3.1 which involved a potentially s ignificant unreviewed environmental issue.

(c) A list of nonroutine reports submitted in accordance with Subsection 5.4.2.

In the event that some results are not available by the report due date, the report shall be submitted noting and explaining the missing results. The missing data shall be submitted as soon as possible in a supplementary report.

5.4.2 tbnroutine Rccarts A written report shall be submitted within 30 days in the event that an " Unusual o r Important Environmental Event", as speci fied in Subsection 4.1, occurs.

Events reportable under this Subsection which also require written reports to other Federal, State, or local agencies for ea.v1091 mental protection shall be reported in accordance with those reportief requirements'in lieu of the requirements of this Subsection. The M As y ' ', ba provided a copy of s uch reports at the same time they ait submitted to the other agency.

5-3

o

?bnroutine reports, to the extent practicable, shall (a) describe, analyze, a nd evaluate the event, including extent and magnitude of the impact and plant operating characteristics, (b) describe the probable cause of the event, (c) indicate the action taken to correct the reported event, (d) indicate the corrective action taken to preclude repetition of the event arc to prevent

- similar occurrences involving similar components or systems, and (e) indicate the agencies notified and their preliminary responses.

j-9

. 5-4 1

. _ . - . _ . _ _ _ , . _ _ _ _ ~ . . _ . , . - . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ - . . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . .. ._. , _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . - - _ _ , _ - . . . _ _ , , .

l l

{

- i Attachment II O

e da

- - - ,r- - - - - , . , ,

FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT CONDUCTIVITY STUDY

.w-

,e. ..

G h

I.

i i

e

l l

l i

Introduction:

Section 31.1.(b)-1 of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Non-Radiological Environmental Technical Specifications require a program to assess the impacts due to drift from the mechanical draft cooling towers at the plant. This study consisted of establishing sampling stations (see Figure ') at three locations and obtaining pre and post cceration soil conductivity data from the various sample points. The data obtained was to be statistically analyzed to determine the impact of cooling tower drift on soil conductivity. Although the study was to continue through Unit 2 operation, an interim analysis has been performed on Unit 1 operation related data.

Results:

The analysis of Unit I related data shows no statistically valid effects on soil conductivity from cooling tower crift. This is confirmed by the following statistical analyses. ,,

t ,

1 w

I J

,. - . ,- y..- ,, - -

-m,y, m 7-., -- y ,___ .,_--4.__,_ - - . - - _ - -,_.---e----_-- --,-- -- r -,<w- -. , - -

a Figure I. ,-

(Taken from Farley Environmental Technical Speci fications)

$ . . . . ._ . . . . .s . . . . .i.--

g 4, . . . . .. .s 2

) s t

6. (*, .

l *

1. 40PjnfY UNC .

\

lp ~

l A i

I6 i

a 15

, NNW N I

'L ,

> . ,.x

,.... ._......u. . . ....NNE _ , , , . ,, , __

f N $ , NE 2 ,

/! l

\

/r 1 s

f

• 1 % l'.

11is 3 i i i .

/ I,S% . . -. . .. . ..c.oco v. rows ss ENE l F04 UN:7 /2 -

I jj jl

/ / ./ \

i 1',,

'% +, /

j4

,, _ mar _i .

E

!F:-

/ arou .

_t s,

.. .. . ~ _ _ . ~  ?. ., . ,,,

l ..f . .. g . _. . . . . . f . . .. ,

Y j  %

- i .r - -  : , x x Aaj i

'\ ( w's'w

\\

\ /

\l ,

E!E ;

I

,/

'\

. . **.000 8 10 6 s SW SE

\. \A .

I - . . , 9 7 *

' SSW SSE g

8

- 8

, i.

. ..\.

• f bM . ~. .. . . . . . . .. .. ~...... . .

g .. ,,

\ _= __

7 A SAMPLING STATION ALAB&wa Pose 8t COwravy

.CSEPw u FamL E Y NUC'.E1.R Pt. AMT E N yt *Ch u t N TA L fECHmCAL 57ECar CateCa#S y

, LCCt.TICN CF SCtt S.*.MPL6NG STA 3 -18 FCR COOLING TOW E R DRIFT EFFECTS FIGURE 3. t -2

O In order t.o test for possible effects of tne cooling towers at Farley fluclear plant, the following procedure was :eveleped:

Each of three sampling stations surrounding -he cooling towers was sub-divided into sixteen grid cells. During the pm-operatiomi monitoring period, eight soil samples from each grid cell in each quadrant were collected anc analyzed. Similarly, eleven samples were taken during the post-ocerational period. From this infonnation the mean conductivity for each quadrant cell for both pre and post-operational periods was computed for use in a statistical analysis.

In testing the hypothesis that for a given quadrant, the mean conductivity during the pre-op period is equal to that of the post-op ..

period (i .e. u pre =u post), the paired t-test was applied. Tne first step in the analysis involved computing the difference between the average pre-op value and the average post-op value for each grid cell (i.e. dj =

Y pre, i - T post, i for i = 1,2, . . 16) . By forming the differences in cell observations, any effect the grid cell might have on the results is

~

cancelled. Therefore, testing the hypothesis that u -u post = 0 is equivalent to testing Ho:ud=0 H1 :ud/0 _

-0 d ,

I The test statistic, T-RATIO = Sd /6 1 n l where d = ii E_ dj l i =1 n

( Z. d$) 2 n 2 i=1 2

and d5

• 1=1

.E di -

n is t-distributed with n-1 n-1 degrees of freedom. If lT-RATIO J s to/2, n-1, we fail to reject Ho.

The results for each quadrant are as follows:

l FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF SOILS CONDUCTIVITY PEASURE!!ENTS (A TEST OF HYPOTHESIS ON MEANS)

• • • SW QUADRANT ***

CELL # PR E-O P MEAN PO S T-O P Ff E A N DIFFERENCE 1 46.38 42.36 4.02 2 47.00 40.64 6.36 3 52.38 43.55 8.83 4 51.13 42.36 8.77 5 45.13 40.18 4.95 6 48.38 40.36 8.02 7 56.00 47.82 8.18 8 53.13 49.27 3.86 9 43.38 47.45 -4.07 10 55.25 53.82 1.43 11 45.50 48.18 -2.68 12 52.75 50.27 2.48 13 51.63 50.45 1.18 14 42.13 46.45 -4.32 15 47.25 41.36 5.89 16 44.38 42.36 2.02

, . . 48.86 45.43 3.43.

T-RATIO = 3.15329 UITH 15 DECREES OF FREEDOM FORE.=0.05, T-RATIO)2.132=T4 ,g TPEREFORE, WE REJECT Ho (U3 =0). -

w D

b 10 e

. - , . - - , - - - -. , . . . - - - - , - - - . , +, ,-.

. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF SOILS CONDUCTIVITY MEASl'R EMENTS (A TEST OF HYPOTHESIS ON MEANS)

• • • ESE QUADRANT ***

CELL # PR E-OP M EAF POST-OP MEAN DIFFERFMCE 1 75.00 86.82 11.82 2 54.88 61.82 -

6.94 3 65.88 57.55 8.33 -

4 41.25 48.55 -

7.30 5 67.75 70.36 -2.61 6 79.88 58.73 21.15 7 39.50 40.36 - 0.86 8 49.88 64.73 14.85 9 82.38 64.90 17.48 10 64.75 44.18 20.57 11 46.00 45.91 0.09 12 34.75 52.00 17.25 13 46.13 38.73 7.40 14 49.13 39.27 9.86 15 43.75 58.82 15.07

16 51.00 40.09 10.91 55.74 54.55 1.19 T-RATIO = 0.37060 MITH 15 DECREES OF FREEDOM FORM =0.05, T-R AT IO < 2 .13 2 =To /2.. is THEREFORE, WE FAIL TO REJECT Ho (Ug=0).

amen e

k l

t l

l

-- ,,, -- , , < . - - . - , , - ,n..------- , ,- , , -

FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT -

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF SOILS CONDUCTIVITY MEASUR EMENTS (A TEST OF HYPOTHESIS ON !!EANS)

• • • N;;W QUADRANT ***

CELL i PRE-OP !!EAN P O S T-O P !! E A N DIFFERENCE 1 34.13 37.18 -3.05 2 30.00 35.09 -5.09 3 35.38 36.27 -0.89 4 62.29 49.18 13.11 5 40.43 42.18 -1.75 '

6 35.38 46.55 11.17 7 58.63 50.00 8.63 8 55.00 . 61.18 -6.18 9 46.25 44.45 1.80 10 47.14 55.27 -8.13 11 62.71 46.64 16.07 12 57.50 56.55 0.95 13 55.71 42.73 12.98 14 50.63 54.64 .4 . 0

• 15 58.00 51.91 6.09 16 42.25 60.73 18.48 48.21 48.16 0.06 i -

T-RATIO = 0.02328 WITH 15 DECREES OF FREED 011

FCPN.=0.05, T-RATIO <2.132=Lf2,g TH ER E F O P. E , WE FAIL TO REJECT Ho ( Ug,= 0 ) .

e N

9 9

e 4

., .- . -, n . - - - - - .-- - - - - - -- ,-. - - -

b___ - -

Due to the rejection of Ho for the SW quadrant, an additional analysis was conducted to test the hypothesis:

H : u o d(0 H : u '

• d In the one-tailed t-test we fail to reject H if T - RATIO 6 t ,

The results from this analysis are:

j_ ..

6 M

S S

E et -

,_ Qy1 s

j

• g E

l

FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF l

SOILS CONDUCTIVITY 11EASUR EMENTS

( .\ TEST OF HYPOTHESIS ON 11EANS)

• • • SU QUADRANT ***

CELL # PR E-OP MEAN POST-OP MEAN D IF F ER ENC E 1 46.38 42.36 4.02 2 47.00 40.64 6.36 3 52.38 43.55 8.83 4 51.13 42 36 8.77 5 45.13 40.18 4.95 6 48.38 40.36 8.02 7 56.00 47.82 8.18 8 53.13 49.27 3.86 9 43.38 47.45 -4.07 10 55.25 53.82 1.43 11 45.50 48.18 -2.68 12 52.,75 50.27 2.48 13 51.63 50.45 1.18 14 42.13 46.45 -4.32 15 47.25 41.36 5.89 16 44.38 42.36 2.02 48.86 45.43 3.43 T-RATIO = 3.15329 UITH 15 DECR EES OF FREEDOM

- ~

FORE,=0.05, T-R ATIO)1. 7 5 3 =Ta ,6 T!! E P.E F O R E , UE REJECT Ho (U(40).

w e

. 9 e

l l

An assumption of the paired :-test is that the two groups of data have equal variances. In order to ensurs the saccle data complied wi th this res triction, the statistic F= PEE 32 POST n n -

2. ( X -X )2 f_ (X -X )2 2 PRE,i PRE 2 i=1 POST,i POST where 5 ppg = i=1 and S POST "

n-1 n-1 was computed to test the hypothesis 2

Ho: U PRE

• POST H

1*a PRE n POST

, We fail to redect H o if F1 4 2,n-1,n-14 F 4 F=/2,n-1, -

n-1 -

The results of the test are illustrated in the following table.

een 4

e e- , - , ,- - - - - - . . . --.-r- - . _ , . . - - - - - - . , - _ - - , , - . , - - - , a n n. , , . - , , --

1.,

m . . _ . .- . .

O s -

_g_

, F ARLEY NUCLE /.R PLANT STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF SOILS CONDUCTIVITY P.EASURE.MENTS (A TEST OF HYPOTHESIS ON VARIANCES)

SU OUADRANT ESE OUADRANT N Nk' OUADRANT F-RATIO: 1.024 1.228 1.723 F O R e - 0 . 0 5 , E f. ,,,, .g = 2 . 8 2 .

THEREFCRE, WE FAIL TO REJECT Ho IN ALL THREE CASES.

O 4

9 e

e="  %

i t

t

• I

-e 9

i ,

o l

I f

. s i .

t i .

-- -. . - ... . . _ . ..__ ._ ,._- -___--.-_-_,__,,,,-__... - ..- -__ _.____ __ -- _ ,,,,,_, .. , _ ,