ML20098F097

Evaluation of Drift Deposition Rates at Vogtle Electric Generating Plant

ML20098F097
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	09/25/1984
From:	GEORGIA POWER CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20098F093	List: ML20098F092 ML20098F097
References
NUDOCS 8410020312
Download: ML20098F097 (14)

Text

,.. ______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ .

ATTACHMENT 3 EVALUATION OF, DRIFT DEPOSITION RATES

., AT THE V0GTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT Prepared by Georgia Power Company

~

for submittal to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission l.

l September 25, 1984 6

4 8410020312 840925 PDR ADOCK 05000424

• DR

p r ,

l l

i I

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE A. Assumptions..................................................l

8. Ori gi nal Estimate at VEGP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 C. Revised Emission Rate at VEGP............................... 2

D. Estimated Peak Deposition Rates at VEGP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 E. Estimated Offsite Peak Deposition Rates at VEGP............. 5 Appendix 1 - VEGP Location and Vicini ty Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Appendix 2 -

Annual Water Deposition at Beaver Valley 2........14 Appendix 3. - So u rc e Da ta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 e

1

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___._______.__.______.______________m__ . - __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _

p ,

,  ;, I I

1 A. Assumptions L

1.- .It is assumed that Susquehenth, Beaver Valley, Shearon Harris and Grand Gulf Power Plants have similar salt drift characteristics and meteorological conditions as VEGP. This position is based on the available information on cooling tower parameters (i.e., type of cooling tower, tower height, circulating flow rate) and annual average _ meteorological parameters (See Appendix 3). Other unknwon parameters _ that will affect salt drift deposition are further assumed to be the same.

2. It is assumed that VEGP has the similar deposition patterns as the above mentioned four plants. On this basis the following should be true:

(a) Peak' depositions occurs at about the same distance in the predominant downwind direction for the cooling towers.

(b) The relationship between peak deposition and decrease in dsposition with distance is the same, and between two relatively close distances such relationship is linear.

(c) Peak deposition rates are proportional to the emission rates and wind rose frequencies.

(d) The ratio of distance at the peak deposition to the distance at a deposition other than the peak is equivalent. This

, relationship is illustrated below:

Plant A Deposition al a2 al = bl rate H W (lb/ac/yr)

Plant B bl b2 0

Distance (miles)

y 2

B. Original Estimate at VEGP Emission Rate tased on conservative design parameters:

Cooling Tower Units = 2 CircJating Flow Rate = 484,600 gpm Drift Loss = 0.03%

TDS fr Makei.'s Water = 76 mg/l Cycles of Concentration ~ = 8 Operating Factor = 0. 8 -

Emission Rate (ER) from Each Tower:

ER = 484,600 gpm x 60 min /hr x 24 hr/d x 3.751/ gal x 0.03% x (76 mg/l x 8) x 10-6 kg/mg x 2.2 lb/kg

= 1050 lb/d Total ER = 1040 lb/d x 2

= 2010 lb/d Deposition Rate based on uniform deposition within 1 mile radius:

Pu = 2010 lb/d x 365 d/yr x 0.8 (1 mile)' x n x 640 ac/ mile 2

= 305 lb/ac/yr C. Revised salt drift emission rate for VEGP based on current expected operating conditions Circulating Flow Rate = 484,600 gpm Drift Loss- = 0.008%

TDS in Makeup Water = 60 mg1 ,

Cycles of Concentration _= 4 Operating Factor = 0.8 Units = 2 Emission Rate from Each Tower:

• =

ER = 484,600 gpm x 60 mig /hr x 24 hr/d x 3.751/ gal x 0.008%

(60 mg/l x 4) x 10-0 kg/mg x 2.2 lb/kg

= 110.5 lb/d Total Emission Rate TER = 110.5 lb/d x 2 towers

= 221 lb/d This is about

• 0 of the original es'.imated emission rate, mainly due to the reductions 'n drift loss, concentr< tion factor and TDS in makeup water.

r 3

D. Estimated Peak Onsite Deposition Rates at VEGP (based on the ratio of the VEGP emission rate and wind rose frequency to those from the four power plants):

a) VEGP - Susquehanna PVEGP = 110.5 lb/d/ tower x 2 towers x 12%

3 lb/ac/yr 186 10/d/ tower x 2 towers x 14.55 PVEGP = 1.5 lb/ac/yr b)~ VEGP - Beaver Valley #1 -

(1 ). Based on Beaver Valley #1 ER-OLS PVEGP = 110.5 lb/d/ tower x 2 towers x 12%

80 lb/ac/yr T050 lo/d/ tower x 1 tower x 15.65 PVEGP = 13 lb/ac/yr (2) Based on Beaver Valley #2 ER-OLS Total maximum deposition rate from 2 units = 9.9 lb/ac/yr Emission ratio of Unit 1 to Unit 2

= 1050 lb/d - Unit 1 266 lo/d - Unit 2

= 3.7 Therefore, the salt deposition contributed from Unit 1 is:

9.9 lb/ac/yr x 3.7 = 7.8 lb/ac/yr 3.7+1 PVEGP =

110.5 lb/d/ tower x 2 towers x 12%

7.8 lb/ac/yr 1050 lb/d/ tower x 1 tower x 10.5%

PVEGP = 1.9 lb/ac/yr c)- VEGP - Beaver Valley #2 Salt deposition contributed from Unit 2 is:

9.9 lb/ac/yr - 7.8 lb/ac/yr = 2.1 lb/ac/yr PVEGP =~ 110.5 lb/d/ tower x 2 towers x 12%

2.1 lb/ac/yr 286 lb/d/ tower x 1 tower x 10.6% ,

PVEGP = 1.9 lb/ac/yr

4 d) VEGP - Sheron Harris (1) The daily salt emission based on 0.05% drift loss

= 1543 lb/d/ tower The corresponding peak deposition rate

= 100 lb/ac/yr per tower.

On this basis, the expected peak deposition at VEGP would be:

=

PVEGP 110.5 lb/d/ tower x 2 towers x 12%

Tun /ac/yr 1543 lb/d/ tower x 1 tower x 10.6%

PVEGP = 16.2 lb/ac/yr (2) If based on the expected drift loss of 0.002% at Shearon Harris, the daily emission rate would De:

' 1543 lb/d/ tower x 0.002r, =

61.7 lb/d/ tower

'D UH" The peak deposition rate would also reduce according to:

100 lb/ac/yr per tower x 0.002%

0.05%

l = 4 lb/ac/yr On this basis the peak deposition rue at VEGP would be:

PVEGP =

110.5 lb/d/ tower x 2 towers x 12%

TTb/ac/yr 61.7 lb/d/ tower .x 1 t;wer x 10.6%

PVEGP = 16.2 lb/ac/yr It can be seen that the peak deposition rate at VEGP would be 16.2 lb/ac/yr regardless of which drift loss for Shearon Harris is used, because with the reduction in drift loss the deposition rate at Shearon Harris would be. reduced accordingly.

e) VEGP - Grand Gulf

=

PVEGP 110.5 lb/d/ tower x 2 towers x 12%

T.'Ul' lb/ac/yr 1022 lb/d/ tower x 2 towers x 9%

PVEGP = 0.7 lb/ac/yr

~

w l i

, I

, l 5

In summary, the peak deposition rate at VEGP ranges from 0.7- l lb/ac/yr to 16.2 lb/ac/yr (for both units combined) in the * ~

s -predominent wind direction (SE) within 0.3 to 0.6 miles of the '

cooling towers with the possibility to reach as far as 0.9 miles from the cooling towers..

It should be noted that the earlier salt drift modeling (in early

~

70's) conducted at Beaver Valley #1 and Shearon Harris provides a peak deposition rate at VEGP between 13 to 16.2 lb/ac/yr, yet the recent modeling (late 70's and early 80's) at Susquehenna, Beaver Valley #2 and Grand Gulf provides a peak deposition rate at VEGP between 0.7 to 1.9 lb/ac/yr.

E. Estimated Offsite Peak Deposition Rates at VEGP (based on 2 deposition patterns from Susquehenna and Beaver Valley Units 1 and 2):

(1) The only available dats on drift deposition patterns are provided by Susquehenna and Beaver Valley Unit 2. Susquehenna has a deposition pattern with two peaks and the maximum deposition occurs at 0.6 miles from the cooling towers in the predominant wind direction,- ,

whereas Beaver Valley Units 1 and 2 has a deposition pattern with one peak and it occurs at 0.9 miles from the cooling towers in the predominant wind direction (Appendix 2). Therefore by matching the deposition patterns with the locations of maximum deposition, there are four possibilities that could potentially be the case at VEGP:

Case 1: Following Susquehenna's deposition with maximum deposition at 0.6 miles from the cooling towers Case 2: Following Susquehenna's deposition pattern with maximum deposition at 0.9 miles from the cooling towers Case 3:- Following Beaver Valley Unit 1 and 2's deposition pattern -

-with maximum deposition at 0.9 miles from the cooling towers Case _4: Following Beaver Valley Unit 1 and 2's deposition pattern with maximum deposition at 0.6 miles from the cooling towers.

The offsite peak deposition rates at VEGP would be estimated

.according to each case for three wind sectors: SE, NE and E._ SE is-the prodominant wind sector at VEGP, and the closest site boundaries

~

with respect to cooling towers are in the NE and E wind sectors (Appendix 1).

k

r . .-

i l

1 6  !

(2) A sample calculation for Case 3 is presented below:

Case 3 - VEGP folicws Beaver Valley Unit 1 and 2 Deposition Pattern with peak deposition at 0.9 ciles from the cooling towers.

The deposition pattern from Beaver Valley Unit 1 and 2 has only one .

peak and the deposition beyond this peak would decrease with the increase in distance (Appendix 2).

(a) The peak deposition in the SE wind sector at VEGP would be 16.2 lb/ac/yr at 0.9 miles from the cooling towers. This peak would

, occur within the site boundary. The offsite peak deposition in this wind sector would occur just beyond the site boundary, approximately 1.0 mile from the cooling towers (Appendix 1).

Based on Appendix 2, the peak deposition for Beaver Valley Units 1 and 2 is at 0.9 miles E of the cooling towers and the predicted deposition of 5 lb/ac/yr in the same wind sector i occurs about 1.75 miles from the cooling towers. Based on the Assumption 2(b) (page 1), the deposition rate at 1.0 mile E of the cooling towers would be:

9.9 lb/ac/yr - 9.9 lb/ac/yr - 5 'lb/ac/yr x (1.0 mile -0.9 miles) 1.76 miles - 0.9 miles

= 9.3 lb/aclyr A fall off ratio of deposition rates between 0.9 miles and 1.0 mile at Beaver Valley Unit I and 2 is:

9.9 lb/ac/yr = 1.1 9.3 lb/ac/yr Applying the same fall off ratio at VEGP, the deposition rate at 1.0 mile SE of the cooling towers would be:

16.2 lb/ac/yr x 1 = 14.7 lb/ac/yr 1.1 Therefore, the offsite peak deposition at VEGP in the SE wind sector would be approximately 14.7 lb/ac/yr at 1.0 mile from the cooling towers, just beyond the site boundary.

(b) The peak deposition in the NE wind sector of VEGP would be:

Wind frequency in the NE wind sector = 6%

Wind frequency in the SE wind sector = 12%

16.2 lb/ac/yr = 12%

x 6%

x = 8.1 lb/ac/yr t

(

L_

F 7

This peak would occur at 0.9 miles NE of the ccoling towers, which is 0.5 miles beyond the site boundary (Appendix 1).

(c) The peak deposition in the E wind sector of VEGP would be:

Wind frequency in the E wind sector = 8.3% ,

16.2 lb/ac/yr = 12%

x 8.3%

x = 11.2 lb/ac/yr This peak would occur at 0.9 miles E of the cooling towers, which is about 0.3 miles beyond the site boundary (Appendix 1).

In summary, the off site peak deposition at VEGP, which follows Beaver Valley Unit 1 and 2's deposition pattern with the peak deposition at 0.9 miles from the cooling towers, would be approximately 14.7 lb/ac/yr at 1.0 miles SE of the cooling towers, immediately beyond the site boundary.

(3) Similar aproaches can be taken to calculate the other cases and Table 1 summarizes the offsite peak deposition based on the 4 cases described above. It can be noted from the table that the most conservative prediction for offsite peak deposition at VEGP would be provided by Case 3, having a . deposition rate of about 14.7 IS/ac/yr at 1.0 mile SE of the cooling towers.. However, even with thic number the offsite peak deposition concentrations are expectec to be below the guideline levels for vegetation damage provided by NUREG-0555 and Reg. Guide 4.11.

3

r:-

8 Table 1 Summary of Predictions of Offsite Peak Deposition Rates at.YEGP 1 2 3 4 Assumptions Location of the 0.6 0.9 0.9 0.6 peak deposition from cooling towers (miles)

Deposition Susquehanna Susquehanna Beaver Beaver Patterns Valley 2 Valley 1 Offsite Peak 0.6 miles 0.9 miles 1.0 miles 0.6 miles Deposition E of the CT E of the CT SE of the CT E of the Expected CT Site Boundary 0.6 miles .

0.6 miles 1.0 miles 0.6 miles in the E of the CT E of.the CT SE of the CT E of the Corresponding CT Direction -

Estimated Offsite Peak

.9eposition 11.2 11.2 14.7 11.2 llate (1b/ac/yr)

F.

I APPENDIX 1 Page 13 .

a.  ;

a.

d 1

.e

~.*

e <

b 0

= '.

' t0 -

g

// i

j k.

H g j es

{

!. I i if ' l*

C

!I I i o I g 1 il 3 l!illll d b  !'ll lNi!!!

fe'/N

~'

' .  !! j s r <

.c , e<4 2

e c

~ ' j

.J [ b C t

. , f . f- _ e;

=\ el se

/ 50'd \ 55

/ -

i: )i' .,5 3

') [.m/p

=r;;p, @-

sein a h

It, (1 l -

-- Q, .'-

.._m r,___

/ -

y o * 'y --

+-~\

I Ih f.- .\. b kg 6 V

s'.* D./ ' ~ E f *

/

, _ pp f .! $

? g%  % W r- ',' i Q

s.o,~ 6 0 '_ . _._'.4, a . _ . . _ .- N- '

_1

.n

• t

~

g _- ,- ,

,, s ..

'[

ft ..). l ,s : y

. .= u g

\

d l' i $'.'~~

. .V' }  ; . !..

O

.g p

,.==.= - .

.~ -

.! l . ) N', "

") I A. . 2%,'

. .x ' .s .- /  :

/..l [ii g ?! jI , > gll.

iF

, /7'%. ' J i g__ /

s c-i e J, .

na .hO ' t!:_ ._'\ ~~. en 1 .__

./.~ %6 (

f s.r'

/ %. '

.s S ./ I. i .

' u',..rj. [#

p .

t sgi.EC, ? *%. ,

+ _ . - f, z. .

s r  :

~

'l,- ,

,)

s ./.,, , ,"

s  %'. .. -. .-n ; , 3 4r'. g- - ,--cw -

f

-g. - o ,, .,4="

f.x y.

g*

Bi ~

$q'l ' % ,N j rl4 s 2> % - . --

--rg x ._ '.-. ju .% .

s -8 t -

E- s w,

/, *jA A-[ y- -*

. . .. ,yj e m( _. ,_ M.l-

. [,f [ s i

k s [ \g . '

,g h. . " - ,. LV,. -i

\

l'}

s/ . 3=RR

' f:W eiIl

.y* y 1[ %

r8'- T-

• ^h^ -

s

? f ~%,,

,r-

z. e

, & ,$ b O ',

,.tN  !)

.W p ,,.

=

, .- l3 i

i- ..]s r -

._ \,8. %

'~

~

, 'I

,j <

/'s' ' V V 1

.I

& 1,  ! ,s .s s,..

b%

I. i. h. . .  !. .

E

• * }

APPERDIX 2 Page 14 j 2 .. -

, x[s t. .

h5("lk.

wh[ s

,.\.

hm k hj g b

Y Y. 5 .

.

w88y ken 2 4.;;f h$ .f, fQ. O J fQ

$..:.? ' b. wL. ' qq'Ov %a54%p3 C .n D ..~-

]} '!

. . ., y - -,

e.,,

r p,..y .. r..G.

p11.P. ~ p, .

~f

.,,D .v

,fg r^

~. $D~y ,'., bi .&?N i Y p.

-Q- ,

'^

ft . --

g[g ,Qsy,'\(, . j,.I,I!,

i

\% "T.'r'%N% .k. ' > ( 9(,] ( , y 7 ~ . M ...',yf l ?

Y _

,y, r -

/p % N '.

a

. x  % - -

i---

g y 3 ,I.

W . m

...~ - , ,s . s d.of;, ]- . A [.

,T - h.. s

.s

,; %0lx ' ity v & c' .s

-g J-n' M,- -

Nk J,[C( , f.'>',. Nff'l(l r w i '- -

m. )

U y0' e8'Y,;-4.'-1)

, ,\ 8

'. i - 5* * ,

'( .'

k i 7

g'"" -g.

h. l, Y.4h Q fff &.w ) V .g 4 f,. v- m.. Q. y ,- T-t w .

y.tph~?

.-,o,,...=, 1- t ,. .-

Q' .:/q,q'+.

-~

,/ .

.. ~ +,,. N '-1,.; gg 1 c s, [,J. 7' e.y g s,.eg . C is por.p s g.:

py> Q

, t

': y1 3,  ;

m .- 9gN

< u , - s .,, _ g',oj.,'l . a,nr, - - .

Q@x.'~yy ...

,; ; --c t<

a r, y Ys -

,Q,. p y)o3g g._ p (r7 y.

iw -,.. . e ..1...s .e.z.,s % x q.x s

-s t

r ..

g a

( ..

. v. Qin .N: + W,3 }

& cs &. }to + ['- s.x ,3 a L +Qf Q f,}_\' %,i. .. , . ds. r.+a y . ,.pl'; ,.g- m & .w~.q',,.. .

/ < i ..

- (. .- _s , 4t~,-

[ s u i /:{ ?p<uq, r x & ,_f M

• * + , ,m, -r w L .

q

. /

g r :., % .~

m.r v~ ; e

._P)m,-p

,Qr , p c-_ ,

p*e&o.;

e. s. n,.... 's '

• L, . , ,r+w- . x..',3,

^-

. .Q,, .g% *.s.ys y C

• y\f,l}t i;

,'. .i : '.C 'E' t ..

y ~ f gf . . 7

\

!i

'~

L h t'/, 7 ( .j I,i,:.  !/ Y- OLp p8C g ,;.. .%',,,[,/y .l./f,( ,

(hh 'f ,  % i.3. h-O',['yy

? , .]h

. h, g.

~ .

i ,

1. es a,

-- ,/ .

&7. g y ;

• w , ^ air.m -

au

,k i " n. 9 %x ,

-r ~

"rQ'b+(- by.Y*h+ .-Sf:l , m, ..}1,:;b&gg, wf f.( t.w. A D,&ps .i

. ], _  ;

r ~- .

- . p yv . t . e -

gG J g' ' _ ig .-v -

j . ' ht. i .Q, , s/ f ,c(

.y v A ,

,. 3 + a.-

, 0,n7. - ~;r~ $ r/; ,;)~ f~  ; w., , ~~>

'y et V *,$ s ,. . , . , " 7' ' n k .

iff ,

~_

f f .[ f p h . g. %hg E 'i ' C; '

e []h]; ~4.p ,$'4 %

k.fr Qbkh, , u' &k East wind sector: nile 0.18 0.3 0.45 0.9 1.75 2.95 h

NOTE:

Q MAXIMUM VALUE OF 20,3OO LB/ ACRE /YR lb/ac/yr 1 3 5 9.9 5 3 4,000 FT EAST FIGURE 3 8-5 o o. 5 i ANNUAL WATER DEPOSITION

/

(L8/ ACRE /YR)

( SCALE-MILES BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION UNIT 2 ENV!RONMENTAL REPORT OPERATING LICENSE STAGE

y v

Plant /

Type or Cooling Vogtle/ Susquehe.ina/ Beaver Va lley/ Shearon llarris/ Crand Cul f/

Towe r Na tu ra l D ra f t N1tu ra l D ra f t Na tu ra l D ra f t Na tu ra l Dra f t Na tu ra l Dra f t Unit 1 Unit 2 Rate 15 lb/ acre /yr N 3 lb/ acre /yr M NA ,9.9 lb/ acre /yr$A 5.02 lb/ acre /yr M Max offsite Distance from 1.0 miles UI O.6 miles NA 0.9 miles '

NA 0.6 miles d ri f t cooling tower deposition Wind sector SE SSW NA E NA E deposited in .

Ilumidity 72% 70% 69%(*3 73.5%('3 71% 76%

Tempe ra tu re 63.4*F 49'F 50.3*F 49.1*F 60*F 65.5'F Wind speed in 6.6 miles /hr"3 8.7 miles /nr 5. 6 *3 6.6 "I 8.7 miles /hr 6.4 miles /hr"I Meteo ro log i ca l predominant miles /hr miles /hr '

conditlons, direction snnuaI avg frequency or 12% 14.5% 15.6% 10.5% i 10.6% 9.0%

dominant wind Dom i na nt E D E D E-F 0-E Pasquil stability class

a. Design maximum values were used in salt drift modeling,

b. Average wind speed in the dominant wind direction is not available, local average wind speed is applied. The actual wind ~

sprec is espected to be higher. @

rn

c. Wind speed has been adjusted from 33 f t to 150 f t by the following equation: V/V = (Z/Z ) , with V = wind speed at a given level, Z = reference height, and P = 0.45.

y

.4 x

d. Although droplet size distribution for Unit 1 cooling tower was not provided in the environmental repo rts, it is expected w to bo similar to that for Unit 2.

, c. Based on the data collected onsite between September 5,1969 to September 5,1970.

1 l f. Based on the data coIIected onsite between January 1, 1976 to December 31, 1980. o",

s.o

! g. Deposition rate represents the contribution from both units. O l h. The drift loss used in drif t deposition modeling as indicated in the references. Ut

3. The peak deposition will occur within 0.3 to 0.9 miles of the cooling tower.

J. Deposition rate represents the contribution from four units.

.-. +

l . . .

o I

COOLING TOWER DRIFT PARAMETERS FOR VOCTLE AND FOUR OTHER PLANTS 1 ,

Plant / ~

! Type or Cooling Vogtle/ Susquehenna/ Beaver Valley / Shearon Harris / Grand Gul f/

Tower Natural Dra f t Na t ura l' 0ra f t Na tu ra l Dra f t Na tu ra l Dra f t Natural Dra f t Unit 1 Unit 2 Number or cooling towers 2 2 1 1 4 2-Height or -cooling tower 550 ft 540 rt 501 ft 501 ft 520 ft 522 ft 0.05% W Gua ranteed 0.03% I "3~ I I 0.02% 0.05% 0.013% "3 0.008% "3 Orlft Rate Expected 0.008% I"3 0.002% I"3 0.005% NA 0.002% NA Circulating water flow rate 484,600 gpm 478,000 gpm 480,400 gpm 507.400 gpm 482,000 gpm 572,000 gpm Ccncentration in maltcup 60 mg/l-(avg) 432 mg/I*3 I 204 mg/l (avg) 203 mg/l 70 mg/l (avg)'- 376 mg/l ('a vg )

(max) (avg)

Cencentration factor 4 (evel 3.8 (avg) 1.8 (avg) 1.8 (avg) 7.7 (avg) 5 (max)(*3 Concentration in blowdown ' 240 mg/l'(avg) 1640 mg/l - 368 mg/l (avg) 365 mg/l 539 mg/l (avg) 1880 mg/I*lmax)

I

. (max) (avg)

Evaporation rate 3.0% '2.3% -1.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.8%

Plant capacity 0.8 *0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 3 Orople t 100 45% 20% NA 35% NA 45% E size 100-300 50% .70% NA gap 65% NA 55%

ca distribution "

300 5% 10% NA 0% NA'

• 0%

w I

Rate 17 lb/ acre /yrI '3 3 lb/ acre /yr I'3 80 lb/ acre /yr 3 lb/ acre /yr 400 lb/ acre /yr 0I NA o O

3 0.9 miles I

'3 Max onsite drift Distance from CT 0.6 miles 0.3 miles . 0.75 miles 0.3 miles NA E dtposition

. Wind sector SE NE SE SW SW NA y deposited in ne in (D

Q

.