20030147 Ver 0_Report_20100204

- n III
Progress Energy FIEB 2010
DENR - WATER QUALITY
VIET! ANDS AND S?DRh°N:AT>:44 WNGH
February 3, 2010
Mr. John Dorney
N.C. Division of Water Quality
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Dear Mr. Dorney:
SUBJECT: Submittal of 2009 Tillery and Blewett Falls Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement
Verification Methods Report
Yadkin-Pee Dee Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
Please find enclosed the final report regarding the turbine aeration dissolved oxygen (DO)
verification methods study conducted at the Tillery and Blewett Falls hydroelectric plants in
August 2009 (Yadkin-Pee Dee River Hydroelectric Project No. 2206). This verification testing
was conducted as part of Progress Energy's DO Enhancement Plan to achieve water quality
standards for dissolved oxygen by the end of 2011, per 401 Water Quality Certificate
requirements. This report contains the DO enhancement recommendations for each power plant
as well as the proposed compliance monitoring points.
Progress Energy will be implementing the proposed enhancement modifications this year and
will continue further verification testing this summer and in 2011.
If you have questions regarding the 2009 report or our enhancement plans, please call me at 910-
439-5211, Ext. 1200 or John Crutchfield at 919-546-2019.
Sincerely,
r e
Hydro Operations Manager
Enclosures
c w/ enclosures: John Crutchfield
Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.
Tillery Hydro Plant
179 Tillery Dam Road
Mount Gilead, NC 273N
ARCADIS
Infrastructure, environment, buildings
Progress Energy
Yadkin-Pee Dee River Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 2206
Raleigh, North Carolina
Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement
Field Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Phase IV - 2009: Baffle Plates,
Aeration Ring, Partial Trashrack
Blockage and Air Diffuser
Deployment
Imagine the result
January 2010
ARCADIS
Table of Contents
Glossary of Terms
Executive Summary
1 Introduction
1.1 Background: Previous Evaluations
1.1.1 Dissolved Oxygen Monitor Locations
1.2 Tillery Development: Facility Description and 2006-2008 Evaluation Results
1.2.1 Tillery Development - Facility Description
1.2.2 Tillery Development: 2006 - 2008 Evaluation Methods/Results
1.2.2.1 Tillery Development - 2006 Evaluations
1.2.2.2 Tillery Development - 2007 Evaluations
1.2.2.3 Tillery Development - 2008 Evaluations
1.2.2.4 Recommendations
1.3 Blewett Falls Development: Facility Description and 2006-2008 Evaluation
Results
1.3.1 Blewett Falls Development - Facility Description
1.3.2 Blewett Falls Development: 2006-2008 Evaluation
Methods/Results
1.3.2.1 Blewett Falls Development - 2006 Evaluations
1.3.2.2 Blewett Falls Development - 2007 Evaluations
1.3.2.3 Blewett Falls Development - 2008 Evaluations
1.3.2.4 Recommendations
2 2009 Work Plan
2.1 Research Conducted for Development of 2009 Work Plans
2.2 Tillery Development - 2009 Work Plan
2.3 Blewett Falls - 2009 Work Plan
2.3.1 2009 Dissolved Oxygen Monitor Locations
2.3.2 Tillery Development Dissolved Oxygen Monitors
2.3.3 Blewett Falls Development Dissolved Oxygen Monitors
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
4
5
6
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
10
10
11
11
11
11
13
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022-DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx
ARCADIS
Table of Contents
3 2009 Verification Evaluation Methods
3.1 Equipment Used
3.1.1 Tillery Development
3.1.2 Blewett Falls Development
3.2 Evaluation Methods
3.2.1 Tillery Development
3.2.2 Aeration through Vacuum Breaker Vents and Draft Tube
Vents
3.2.2.1 Baffle Plate Assembly
3.2.2.2 Aeration Ring Assembly
3.2.2.3 Selective Withdrawal
3.2.2.4 Diffuser Rack Assemblies
3.2.2.5 Air Flow Monitoring
3.2.3 Blewett Falls Development
3.2.3.1 Baffle Plate Assembly
3.2.3.2 Aeration through Vacuum Breaker Vents
3.2.3.3 Air Flow Monitoring
4 Discussion of Results
4.1 Tillery Development
4.1.1 Aeration through Vacuum Breaker Vents and Draft Tube
Vents
4.1.2 Baffle Plate Assembly
4.1.3 Selective Withdrawal
4.1.4 Diffuser Rack Assemblies
4.1.5 Minimum and Spawning Flows through Trash Gate
4.2 Blewett Falls Development
4.2.1 Aeration through Vacuum Breakers and Draft Tube Vents
15
15
15
16
17
17
17
18
18
18
19
19
20
21
21
21
23
23
23
25
25
27
28
30
30
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx
ARCADIS
Table of Contents
5 Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 Tillery Development
5.1.1 Compliance Monitoring Location
5.1.2 DO Enhancement Requirements
5.1.3 Conclusions - DO Enhancement Methods
5.1.4 Recommendations
5.2 Blewett Falls Development
5.2.1 Compliance Monitoring Location
5.2.2 Conclusions - DO Enhancement Methods
5.2.3 Recommendations
6 References
Tables
1 Tillery Development Turbine - Generator Equipment
2 Blewett Falls Development Turbine -Generator Equipment
3 Tillery Water Quality Monitor Location Descriptions
4 Blewett Falls Water Quality Monitor Location Descriptions
5 Tillery Development Verification Evaluation Equipment
6 Blewett Falls Development Verification Evaluation Equipment
Figures
1 Cross Section Profile of the Tillery Powerhouse
2 Cross Section Profile of the Blewett Falls Powerhouse
3 Change in DO from Monitor TYCM00 to Monitor TYCM1-2
33
33
33
33
34
35
37
37
38
38
40
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022-DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx
ARCADIS
Table of Contents
Appendices
A-1 Tillery 2009 Verification Evaluations Schedule
A-2 Blewett Falls 2009 Verification Evaluations Schedule
B-1 Tillery 2009 Intake and Mid-Reservoir Daily Dissolved Oxygen Profiles
B -2 Tillery 2009 Intake and Mid-Reservoir Daily Temperature Profiles
B-3 Blewett Falls 2009 Intake Channel Daily Dissolved Oxygen Profiles
B-4 Blewett Falls 2009 Intake Channel Daily Temperature Profiles
C-1 Tillery 2009 Downstream Dissolved Oxygen Profiles
C-2 Blewett Falls 2009 Downstream Dissolved Oxygen Profiles
D-1 Tillery 2009 Verification Evaluation Results Summary
D-2 Blewett Falls 2009 Verification Evaluation Results Summary
E-1 Tillery 2009 Water Quality Monitor Locations Near Powerhouse
E-2 Blewett Falls 2009 Water Quality Monitor Locations Near Powerhouse
F-1 Tillery 2009 Dissolved Oxygen and Velocities with Selective Withdrawal at
Unit 1
F-2 Tillery 2009 Dissolved Oxygen Projections with Selective Withdrawal at
Unit 1
F-3 Tillery 2006 - 2009 Station Flow
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022-DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx iv
ARCADIS
Glossary of Terms
cf - cubic foot/feet
cfm - cubic feet per minute
cfs - cubic feet per second
DO - dissolved oxygen concentration
FERC - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
fps - feet per second
Hg - mercury
KW- kilowatt
mg/I - milligrams per liter
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
Monitor - measuring device for continuously recording water quality characteristics
MW - megawatt
NCDWQ - North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources -
Division of Water Quality
psi - pounds per square inch
TVA - Tennessee Valley Authority
USGS - United States Geological Survey
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
ARCADIS Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
Executive Summary
Progress Energy owns and operates the Tillery and Blewett Falls hydroelectric
developments (Yadkin-Pee Dee River Project, FERC No. 2206), located on the Pee
Dee River in North Carolina. Sections of the Pee Dee River downstream of these
developments experience seasonally low dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations and,
as a result, have been listed by the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources - Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) as impaired for aquatic life
under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (NCDWQ 2007). Previous DO monitoring
studies conducted by Progress Energy during the current Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) relicensing proceedings for the Project have confirmed that
Project releases during minimum flow release periods and during unit operation
periods do, on occasion, register DO concentration levels that are below state water
quality DO standards (i.e., minimum instantaneous DO concentration of 4.0 mg/I and
daily average DO concentration of 5.0 mg/1). These occurrences of low DO
concentration levels in Project tailwaters coincide with periods of reservoir thermal
stratification from mid to late May to mid to late September).
In 2005, Progress Energy instituted a comprehensive DO improvement program to
evaluate and determine the most effective methods of enhancing DO concentration
levels in the Tillery and Blewett Falls Development tailraces. The goal of this program
is to have methods in place by December 31, 2011 that will meet the state water
quality standards for DO concentrations during all times of the year. This program has
been designed to systematically evaluate alternative DO enhancement technologies
through the conduct of field verification trials of the currently available, feasible
technologies in order to identify viable methods for meeting the state standards. Each
of these technologies is being assessed for DO uptake efficiency, impacts to turbine-
generator performance, and unit operation and maintenance impacts.
Since early 2004, in addition to evaluating alternative DO concentration improvement
technologies, Progress Energy has also undertaken an extensive program of water
quality monitoring in the Pee Dee River below each of the Project Developments. The
monitoring program has been developed and implemented in consultation with the
NCDWQ as part of the relicensing studies for the Project. In addition to DO
concentration levels, the monitoring program also records water temperature, pH, and
conductivity. Results from the monitoring program are provided to the NCDWQ for
review and comment. During the 2009 verification trials, DO concentration,
temperature, pH and conductivity levels were also recorded.
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
ARCADIS Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
The monitoring program referenced above measured DO concentrations that
were below state water quality standards between May and September, with the lowest
concentrations occurring in late July and August during the period of greatest thermal
stratification. The 2009 DO verification trials at the project were conducted between
July 31st and August 20th in order to evaluate DO enhancement methods during the
time period when the greatest levels of DO enhancement will be required. It is
expected that methods that can address DO concentration enhancements during the
high stratification period will also resolve any DO issues during periods with higher
naturally occurring DO concentrations.
This 2009 report provides a summary of the 2006 through 2008 evaluation trials, the
work plan, methodology, results, and the conclusions and recommendations
associated with the 2009 trials. Intensive field verification trials were conducted at each
Development during a three week period in August, 2009.
The overall objective of the 2009 verification trials was to further evaluate the most
promising methods for enhancing DO uptake determined from the 2006 through 2008
study efforts and to also evaluate some additional measures not previously evaluated
at these Developments but which have been evaluated elsewhere with positive results.
Methods Evaluated in 2009
At the Tillery Development, the following methods were evaluated:
• Minimum and spawning flows provided through the trash sluice adjacent to the
powerhouse.
• Passive and forced aeration through vacuum breakers.
• Passive and forced aeration through the vacuum breaker with the addition of a
baffle plate located above the point where the vacuum breaker piping enters the
draft tube.
• Forced aeration through the draft tube vent located near the bottom of the draft
tube.
• Forced aeration through new aeration ring inserted at top of draft tube cone.
• Selective withdrawal by blocking off the lower portions of the trashracks.
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
ARCADIS
• Aeration through air diffuser racks placed in the intake forebay in front of
the trashracks.
• Various combinations of methodologies at varying turbine operation levels.
At the Blewett Falls Development, the following methods were evaluated:
Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
• Passive aeration through new draft tube vents located near the top of the draft
tube with baffle plates installed just above the point where the vents enter the draft
tube.
• Passive aeration through the existing vacuum breakers. Including modification of
Units 1-3 vacuum breaker globe valves to gate valves.
• Various combinations of draft tube vent and vacuum breaker methodologies at
varying turbine operation levels.
Results of 2009 Evaluations
As a result of the 2009 verification trials, the following results were obtained.
Tillery Development:
• Minimum and spawning flows alone through the trash gate typically showed DO
levels in compliance with the state daily average standard (5.0 mg/1) and the state
instantaneous standard (4.0 mg/1)
• During the operation of one or more units without DO enhancement methods being
employed, DO concentrations were typically below the daily average state
standard (5.0 mg/1).
• When minimum and spawning flows from the trash gate were attempted to be
mixed with flows from operation of a unit, the DO concentration levels measured at
the proposed compliance monitoring location at the NC Highway 731 Bridge,
typically did not meet the daily average state standard (5.0 mg/1) but did meet the
instantaneous state standard (4.0 mg/1) for two of the three trials involving these
combined flows. These results reflect the lack of flow mixing between the
powerhouse discharge and the NC Highway 731 Bridge.
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx III
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
ARCADIS
Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
Passive aeration through the vacuum breakers provided varying results for
the different units. Ability to draw air into the draft tube was also affected by unit
load and tailwater elevation. Unit 1 was capable of drawing between 15 and 30 cfs
through the vacuum breaker, while Unit 2 would draw between 2 and 8 cfs. With
the addition of the baffle plates at the vacuum breaker discharge into the draft
tube, the air flow for Unit 3 was approximately 5 to 40% greater than the Unit 1 air
flow. The greatest increase occurred at the higher tailwater elevations. The typical
increase in DO levels with this type of aeration as the flow progressed through
each unit ranged from 0.4 to 0.8 mg/1. The variation in DO concentrations and
results with the installed prototype baffle plate suggested that further refinement of
the baffle plate may correspondingly increase DO uptake. The DO levels with only
this type of passive vacuum breaker aeration were below the state daily average
standard (5.0 mg/1) at the prioposed compliance monitoring location at the NC
Highway 731 Bridge, but above the instantaneous state standard (4.0 mg/1).
Passive vacuum breaker aeration causes a loss in generation which was difficult to
determine, but is estimated to be between 5 and 10%. In comparison to the
modest air flow on Units 1 - 3, the air flow into the Unit 4 draft tube with Unit 4
operating at the 9 MW load point, was approximately 80 cfs with this type of
aeration. In 2009, Unit 4 was only evaluated in combination witjh other units so no
individual measure of DO uptake for Unit 4 was determined. At higher load points
for Unit 4, e.g., best efficiency or maximum load, the vacuum breaker is typically in
the closed position with no air uptake occurring.
• Forced aeration with 3,200 cfm through the draft tube vents was estimated to
increase DO levels from 1.1 to 1.5 mg/I as flow progressed through each unit. The
maximum air flow with forced aeration was 53 cfs (3200 cfm). The DO levels with
an airflow of 53 cfs on Unit 3 were below the state daily average standard (5.0
mg/1) at the proposed compliance monitoring location at the NC Highway 731
Bridge, but above the instantaneous state standard (4.0 mg/1).
Forced aeration through a fabricated ring attached to the top of the Moody draft
tube cone was attempted on Unit 3. This evaluation was unsuccessful due to the
inability to maintain air line supply connections to the ring during unit operation.
• Under the selective withdrawal evaluation, the lower 40 feet of the trashracks on
Unit 1 were blocked off with canvas tarps in 20 foot increments. With 40 feet of
blockage (29 feet below normal water level) the results varied with the depth of
stratification and resultant DO profile in the forebay. The DO readings at the
proposed compliance monitoring location at the NC Highway 731 Bridge were in
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx IV
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
ARCADIS Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
compliance with the state instantaneous and daily average standards
during the first day of trials, but were less than the standards on subsequent days
when the stratification increased and the transition from high to low DO conditions
moved higher in the water column. The evaluations with 20 feet of tarps on the
racks were performed in conjunction with other aeration methods and generally
showed DO readings below the state standards at the proposed compliance
monitoring location at the NC Highway 731 Bridge. Selective withdrawal, through
use of a submerged weir was evaluated as a potential DO enhancement method
and provided promising results, but will not be pursued as a compliance option due
to the potential high cost, high approach velocities over the top of the weir, and the
increased withdrawal of water from higher in the water column.
• Forced aeration through air diffuser racks consisted of two - 20 foot long air
diffuser arrays stacked on top of one another in front of and at the bottom of a set
of trashracks at Unit 1 with the selective withdrawal tarps in place. For these
evaluations, there were 20 feet of tarps in place. The DO increase through the unit
with use of the diffuser racks was 0.7 mg/1. The DO readings at the proposed
compliance monitoring location at the NC Highway 731 Bridge were below the
daily average state standard (5.0 mg/1). During this evaluation the maximum
amount of air (1,600 cfm from a compressor) that could be passed through the
diffusers was provided. This was verified by the observation of air bubbles in the
head gate area of the unit during the evaluations, indicating some movement of the
diffused air back to the penstock entrance area. Since more air than can be
provided through the air diffusers would be needed to meet DO enhancement
requirements, this DO enhancement method will not be pursued further.
Blewett Falls Development:
• New draft tube vents with baffle plates installed above the draft tube vent outlet
were installed on Unit 5. Passive aeration through the new draft tube vents ranged
from 68 to 74 cfs. DO concentration was raised approximately 1.1 to 1.5 mg/l
during the evaluations with passive aeration through the draft tube vents. The DO
readings at the mid-channel BF Units 3-4 continuous monitor in the tailrace
consistently met the state standards during these evaluations.
• For passive aeration through existing and modified vacuum breaker vents, DO
concentration increased between 1.4 and 2.3 mg/l during the evaluations using the
vacuum breaker valves on Unit 5. With both vacuum breaker valves open, the air
flows were approximately 63 cfs and 122 cfs for Units 1-3 and 4-6, respectively.
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx v
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
ARCADIS Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
The DO readings at the BF Units 3-4 compliance monitor met the state
standards during these evaluations.
• Various combinations of draft tube and vacuum vent methodologies and turbine
operation levels were evaluated. These evaluations involved the use of three of the
smaller units (Units 1-3), three of the larger units (Units 4-6), or all the units
concurrently. Evaluation combinations of full or partial vacuum breaker operation
and draft tube vents with the baffle plates were conducted. The DO readings at the
proposed compliance monitor location met the state standards during these
evaluations.
Generation impacts varied by Unit size and generation load. Use of the vacuum
breakers and draft tube vents typically reduced unit generating capacity. For the
smaller units (Units 1-3), generating capacity was reduced by approximately 12 %
with use of the vacuum breakers. For the larger units (Units 4-6), generating
capacity was reduced by approximately 17% with use of the vacuum breakers, and
9 % with use of the draft tube vents.
Recommendations
Tillery Development:
At the Tillery Development, a 3.5 mg/I increase in DO concentration level is required
under the most extreme expected conditions to meet the state daily average standard
(5.0 mg/1) under maximum levels of stratification in the forebay. No single method of
DO enhancement evaluated during these trials was found capable of achieving the
level of increase required. As a result, a combination of methods will be necessary to
meet the state standards. In addition, the operating sequence of the Units will be
evaluated to optimize the recommended methods of DO enhancement at Tillery. The
implementation of the following methods during 2010 is recommended.
Vacuum Breaker Passive Aeration. Passive aeration through the 6-inch vacuum
breakers on Units 1-3 is recommended as the primary method of DO uptake. Further
refinement of the baffle plate design used above the vacuum breaker inlets during the
2009 verification trials may allow for more efficient DO uptake than the 0.4 to 0.8 mg/I
observed during the trials.
Draft Tube Vent Aeration. Forced aeration through the10-inch draft tube vents on
Units 1-3 can provide a second and most significant source of DO uptake. Using
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx vi
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
ARCADIS Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
compressed air, the DO uptake observed, when 3,200 cfm of compressed air
was supplied to the draft tube vent, was 1.1 to 1.5 mg/I. As reflected in Section 5.1.3, it
is projected that an air supply of approximately 26,000 cfm will achieve DO compliance
for these three Units at full load during the most severe intake forebay stratification
conditions. The use of air blowers instead of compressors will be evaluated since the
compressors provide air at much higher pressures than needed and the power
consumption with the anticipated flow requirements will be high.
Unit 4 Generation Optimization. When operated at a reduced load point
(approximately 9 MW of load), passive aeration through the vacuum breaker for Unit 4
allowed for the uptake of approximately 80 cfs of air. At load levels above 9 MW the
vacuum breaker closes resulting in no air uptake. During the periods of time when
reservoir stratification is highest, operating Unit 4 at the 9 MW load level is expected to
optimize the level of DO concentration increase.
DO Compliance Monitoring Location. As reflected in Section 5.1.1, it is recommended
that the compliance monitoring location be located at mid-river at the NC Highway 731
Bridge.
Blewett Falls Development
At Blewett Falls, use of the vacuum breakers and draft tube vents with baffle plates
under passive aeration conditions was observed to provide sufficient DO uptake to
meet the state DO standards during the 2009 verification trials. It is recommended that
the primary source of DO enhancement is the installation of draft tube vents as
discussed below.
Draft Tube Vent Aeration. Installation of two draft tube vents with baffle plates per draft
tube is recommended and will be the primary source of DO enhancement at Blewett
Falls. With an increase in the vent pipe diameter to 6-inches, it is anticipated that the
new vents will have to be installed on one draft tube per unit. The draft tube air inlets
should be hard piped to a location above the turbine deck. Inlet silencers and remote
operation capability for the vent valves from the plant control room should be installed
to allow for control of this passive aeration method.
Vacuum breakers. Passive aeration through the vacuum breaker vents can be used to
supplement aeration through the draft tube vents. During the 2009 verification trials, 3-
inch gate valves were installed on the vacuum breaker lines for Units 1-3 and utilized in
lieu of the existing 3-inch globe valves. The gate valves allowed for greater air flow and
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx VII
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
ARCADIS Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
DO uptake through the vacuum breaker lines. It is recommended that the
installed gate valves remain in place for potential future use.
Proposed DO Compliance Monitoring Location. As reflected in Section 5.2.1, it is
recommended that the DO compliance monitoring location be located mid-channel at
the tailwater buoy line just downstream of the plant discharge.
Operation Sequence. Since the proposed DO compliance monitoring location in the
tailrace is at the center of the tailrace channel, it is recommended for plant start-up that
Units 3 and 4 be operated first, followed by Units 2 and 5 and then Units 1 and 6. Plant
shut-down is generally expected to follow the reverse pattern of first Units on, last off.
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx VIII
Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement
Field Verification Methods for the
ARCADIS Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
Introduction
Progress Energy has been conducting water quality-related evaluations at the Tillery
and Blewett Falls Developments since 2004 as part of the FERC relicensing process
and NCDWQ 401 Water Quality Certification process for the Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2206), which includes both developments. These
evaluations have been conducted to address seasonally low dissolved oxygen
concentration (DO) levels in certain portions of the Pee Dee River in the vicinity of each
of the developments. The waters below these two developments have been listed as
impaired for aquatic life under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act by the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Water
Quality (NCDWQ 2007).
The section of the Pee Dee River from Tillery Dam to Blewett Falls Lake is classified
by the NCDWQ as Class WS-IV&B and WS-V&B waters, which are to be suitable for
the designated uses of aquatic life use and propagation, drinking water and primary
and secondary recreational uses. From Blewett Falls Lake to Hitchcock Creek, the
Pee Dee River is classified as a Class C river (NCDWQ 2006). The designated uses
of Class C waters are propagation of aquatic life and secondary recreational uses.
Downstream of the Tillery Development, the NCDWQ has documented, on occasion,
the occurrence of DO concentrations below the state water quality standards of 4 mg/I
measured on an instantaneous basis and 5 mg/I measured on a daily average basis
(NCDWQ 2003, 2007). These occurrences appear to coincide with summertime
seasonal periods of reservoir thermal stratification, with resulting low DO conditions in
hypolimnetic waters (i.e., the bottom and most dense layer in a thermally stratified
water body). For the Blewett Falls Development, DO concentrations in the tailwater
area have been recorded on occasion to be below state water quality standards.
Similar to the Tillery Development, these low DO occurrences coincide with periods of
seasonal reservoir thermal stratification with their attendant low DO conditions in the
reservoir bottom waters, especially during the summer period from May through
September. In addition, algal photosynthesis and respiration dynamics in the
powerplant tailwaters affect the DO regime in these areas. Creek inflow of low DO
water may also influence DO dynamics in these tailwater areas on occasion.
In July 2007, as part of the relicensing process, Progress Energy filed the
Comprehensive Settlement Agreement for the Relicensing of the Yadkin-Pee Dee
River Project. Section 2.3 of the Comprehensive Settlement Agreement specifically
addressed water quality issues, including dissolved oxygen. In May 2007, Progress
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx
ARCADIS
Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement
Field Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
Energy filed its 401 Water Quality Certificate application with NCDWQ which specified
a DO Enhancement Plan to address seasonally low DO conditions. The Plan provided
a schedule to Progress Energy for meeting the North Carolina DO water quality
standards. Subsequently, in September 2008, the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources issued the Section 401 Water Quality Certificate
(WQC) for the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Project which states the conditions for meeting
the DO standards at the Project. The 401 WQC stipulates that Progress Energy must
have measures in place at the Tillery and Blewett Falls Developments by the end of
December, 2011 that will enhance dissolved oxygen levels and meet state water
quality standards in the Pee Dee River below each hydroelectric development.
1.1 Background: Previous Evaluations
Dissolved oxygen enhancement evaluations have been conducted at the Tillery and
Blewett Falls Developments, starting in 2004 as part of Project relicensing and
continuing to the present date. During the 2006 through 2008 timeframe, initial field
evaluations of potential DO enhancement measures at each Development were
conducted. A brief discussion of the 2006 through 2008 evaluation programs at the
Tillery and Blewett Falls Developments is provided below.
1.1.1 Dissolved Oxygen Monitor Locations
During the 2006-2008 evaluations, Progress Energy recorded DO readings from
continuously recording monitors located in several intake and tailwater locations.
Typically, one monitor was located in the Development forebay, one was placed in
front of a Unit's discharge area in the tailrace and moved around as different Units
were evaluated, and several monitors were located downstream of the respective
tailrace areas. At the Tillery Development, three monitors below the tailrace were
placed at the NC Highway 731 Bridge location. At Blewett Falls, one monitor was
placed along the tailrace buoy line located upstream of the point where the tailrace
discharge channel re-joins the river below the dam. Three additional monitors were
located further downstream of the powerhouse and dam, just below the separating
peninsula. In addition, several other DO monitors were placed at downstream points in
the river where other tributary streams entered the river or where weirs or other
channel obstructions create additional aeration effects. Details of the locations of all the
DO monitors during the 2006-2008 evaluation efforts are provided in the final
evaluation reports for each year (see Section 6, References).
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx
ARCADIS
Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement
Field Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
The locations of the DO monitors for the 2009 evaluation effort are discussed below in
Section 1.4.
1.2 Tillery Development: Facility Description and 2006-2008 Evaluation Results
1.2.1 Tillery Development - Facility Description
The Tillery Development consists of a dam and adjoining powerhouse with an average
water depth at the powerhouse intake area of approximately 70 feet. There are three,
vertical Francis turbine units (Units 1-3) and one, fixed blade propeller unit (Unit 4) in
the powerhouse, providing a total rated capacity of 84 MW. Each unit receives water
from a 23-foot diameter penstock that is approximately 70 feet long. The hydraulic
capacity of the Tillery Development is approximately 17,700 cfs with all four units
operating. The centerline of each of the penstock intakes is located approximately 50
feet below the normal water surface elevation in the forebay. The intake for each
generating unit has three bays with trashracks creating a single unit intake area of
approximately 60 feet in width by 70 feet of water depth. Figure 1 provides a typical
cross section of the Tillery Development powerhouse. Table 1 provides a summary
description of the Tillery turbine-generator equipment.
Table 1
Tillery Development Turbine - Generator Equipment
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 House
Year Installed 1927 1927 1927 1960 1927
Type Vertical,
Francis Vertical,
Francis Vertical,
Francis Vertical,
Propeller Vertical,
Francis
Manufacturer IP Morris IP Morris IP Morris Allis Chalmers Leffel
Rated Turbine Power
(hp) 31,100 25,600 31,100 33,000 650
Speed (rpm) 90 75 90 128.6 100
Runner Diameter (in) 173
(throat) 170.5 (throat) 173 (throat) 180 (OD
blades) n/a
Unit Output
Best Efficiency (MW) 19.0 16.0 19.0 23.00 n/a
Max Power (MW) 21.0 18.0 21.0 27.0 450 kW
Rated Head (ft) 70 70 70 70 70
Normal Head Range
(min-max) (ft) 65-75 65-75 65-75 65-75 n/a
Turbine Flow Characteristics at 70 ft Rated Head
Minimum (est) (cfs) 2,428 1,933 2,428 3,603 100
Best Efficiency (est) cfs) 3,613 2,818 3,613 4,230 n/a
Maximum (est) (cfs) 4,540 3,700 4,540 5,220 n/a
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx
ARCADIS
1.2.2 Tillery Development: 2006 - 2008 Evaluation Methods/Results
1.2.2.1 Tillery Development - 2006 Evaluations
Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement
Field Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
The 2006 dissolved oxygen (DO) evaluations at the Tillery Development focused on
using existing turbine draft tube vents and turbine vacuum breaker valves under
passive aeration conditions in combination with the addition of compressed air through
these devices to increase DO concentrations in the water below the powerhouses. The
units were tested singly and in combination with the other units and also at varying
wicket gate openings reflecting minimum, best efficiency (economy load) and
maximum turbine operation. At the time of the testing, the DO readings at the
centerline elevation of the unit intakes in the forebay ranged from 0.2 - 0.7 mg/I.
Evaluations were conducted during July and August when reservoir stratification and
low DO conditions were present.
As a result of the evaluations, the composite downstream DO readings recorded for
Units 1-3, when operated singly, ranged from 2.7 - 4.2 mg/I and were predominantly in
the 2.7 - 3.8 mg/I range. These readings were generally below both the average daily
standard requirement of 5.0 mg/I as well as below the instantaneous minimum
standard requirement of 4.0 mg/I. The downstream DO readings recorded for Unit 4
ranged from 3.6 - 6.2 mg/I and were predominantly above 4.2 mg/I. When Units 2 and
4 were run simultaneously, the composite DO reading was 4.6 mg/I. When Units 1 and
4 were run simultaneously, the composite DO reading was 4.3 mg/I. When Units 2, 3
and 4 were run simultaneously, the composite DO reading ranged from 3.1 to 3.3 mg/I.
The readings for Unit 4, when operated alone, generally exceeded the instantaneous
minimum standard requirement of 4.0 mg/I. During these evaluations, Unit 4 was
typically operated between the loading range of 9.0 MW and 23.7 MW. The Unit 4, 8"
vacuum valve, is mechanically controlled with gate position and opens when the Unit
loading is below approximately 13 MW and mechanically closes when the loading level
increases beyond 13 MW. Manual operation of the vacuum valve is required for
loading levels above 13 MW. [See Table 5 from 2006 Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Study Report (Appendix A - 2006 Tillery Aeration Study Results
Summary)].
1.2.2.2 Tillery Development - 2007 Evaluations
The 2007 DO evaluations at the Tillery Development included forebay surface water
mixing, passive aeration through the vacuum breaker valves, compressed air injection
through the turbine draft tube vents and minimum and spawning flow releases from a
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx
ARCADIS
Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement
Field Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
combination of the trash sluice gate and one of the tainter gates at the dam. The
testing involved Units 1, 2, and 4. The units were tested singly and in combination with
the other units and also at varying wicket gate openings reflecting minimum, best
efficiency and maximum turbine operation. At the time of the testing, the DO readings
at the centerline elevation of the unit intakes in the forebay were 0.1 mg/I. Ambient air
temperatures were very high, ranging up to 103.2 OF.
During the 2007 evaluations, the downstream DO readings at the centerline of the river
(most representative of average conditions) recorded for Units 1 and 2 ranged from 2.4
- 5.3 mg/I and were predominantly in the 2.4 - 4.0 mg/I range. These readings were
generally below both the average daily standard requirement of 5.0 mg/I and below the
instantaneous minimum standard requirement of 4.0 mg/I. The same downstream
location DO readings recorded for Unit 4 ranged from 3.3 to 5.0 mg/I. Unit 4 was
operated in the 9 MW to 15 MW range for these evaluations. When Units 2 and 4 were
run simultaneously, the DO readings ranged from 2.8 to 5.7 mg/I. When Units 1 and 2
were run simultaneously, the DO readings ranged from 2.8 to 2.9 mg/I. [See Table 5
from 2007 Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement Study Report (Appendix A - 2007 Tillery
Aeration Study Results Summary)].
As a result of the minimum and spawning flow evaluations through the trash sluice
gate and the tainter gate, downstream DO readings associated with the minimum flow
(227 cfs average) evaluation ranged from 5.6 to 8.0 mg/I and ranged from 6.0 to 8.0
mg/I for the spawning flow (536 cfs average) evaluation.
1.2.2.3 Tillery Development - 2008 Evaluations
The 2008 DO evaluations at the Tillery Development included the use of compressed
air fed through diffuser racks in the intake forebay, surface mixing in the forebay,
passive aeration and compressed air through the draft tube vents, and minimum and
spawning flow releases through the trash sluice gate. Units 3 and 4 were tested singly
and in combination with the other Units and also at varying wicket gate openings
reflecting minimum, best efficiency and maximum turbine operation. At the time of the
testing, the minimum DO reading at the centerline elevation of the unit intakes in the
forebay was 0.1 mg/I.
As a result of the generating unit evaluations, the centerline of river downstream DO
readings recorded for Unit 3 ranged from 2.0 to 3.3 mg/I. The same location readings
for Unit 4 ranged from 5.3 to 5.8 mg/I. Unit 4 was operated in a vented mode in the 9
MW to 10 MW range for these evaluations. When all four units were run
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx
ARCADIS
Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement
Field Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
simultaneously, the centerline of river reading was 4.1 mg/I. When Units 2 and 4 were
run simultaneously, the DO readings ranged from 5.3 to 5.5 mg/I. When Units 3 and 4
were run simultaneously, the DO readings ranged from 3.2 to 5.0 mg/I. [See Table 7
from 2008 Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement Study Report (Appendix A - Tillery 2008
Aeration Study Results Summary)].
As a result of the minimum and spawning flow evaluations through the trash sluice
gate, downstream DO readings associated with the minimum flow (330 cfs) evaluation
ranged from 6.5 to 6.8 mg/I and ranged from 6.2 to 7.0 mg/I for the spawning flow (725
cfs) evaluation.
1.2.2.4 Recommendations
As a result of the 2008 and preceding evaluations, it was determined that compressed
air injection through draft tube vents and air diffuser racks in the intake forebay for
Units 1 through 3 held the most promising potential for increased DO uptake
downstream of the Tillery Powerhouse during operations. Use of these enhancement
methods coupled with the operation of Unit 4 in the venting mode at lower gate settings
appeared to be the most technologically feasible methods for DO uptake at Tillery.
1.3 Blewett Falls Development: Facility Description and 2006-2008 Evaluation Results
1.3.1 Blewett Falls Development - Facility Description
The Blewett Falls Development consists of a dam, an intake canal located adjacent to
the right abutment of the dam, a powerhouse located in the intake canal and a tailrace
that rejoins the river below the dam. The average water depth at the powerhouse
intake area in the forebay is approximately 35 feet. There are six, quad-runner,
horizontal Francis turbine units (Units 1-6). Two runners for each unit discharge into a
draft tube, resulting in two draft tubes per unit. Units 1-3 are smaller in generation
capacity than Units 4-6. The total rated generation capacity for the powerhouse is 24
MW. Each unit receives water from a 17 foot diameter penstock that is approximately
50 feet long. The hydraulic capacity of the Blewett Falls Development is approximately
9,195 cfs with all six units operating at maximum gate opening. The centerline of each
of the penstock intakes is located approximately 27 feet below the normal water
surface elevation in the forebay. Figure 2 provides a typical cross section of the Blewett
Falls Development powerhouse. Table 2 provides a summary description of the
Blewett Falls turbine-generator equipment.
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx
ARCADIS
Table 2
Blewett Falls Development Turbine - Generator Equipment
Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement
Field Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit 5 Unit 6
Year Installed 1912 1912 1912 1912 1912 1912
Type Horizontal, Horizontal, Horizontal, Horizontal, Horizontal, Horizontal,
Twin Twin Twin Twin Twin Twin
Francis Francis Francis Francis Francis Francis
Manufacturer S. Morgan S. Morgan S. Morgan S. Morgan S. Morgan S. Morgan
Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith
Speed (rpm) 164 164 164 160 160 160
Unit Output
Rated Turbine 5,350 5,350 5,350 6,400 6,400 6,400
Power (hp)
Rated Head (ft) 47 47 47 47 47 47
Normal Head 40-50 40-50 40-50 40-50 40-50 40-50
Range
min-max ft
Turbine Flow Characteristics at 47 ft Rated Head
Minimum (est) 759 759 759 961 961 961
(cfs)
Best Efficiency 1,210 1,210 1,210 1,248 1,248 1,248
(est) cfs)
Maximum (est) 1,350 1,350 1,350 1,715 1,715 1,715
cfs
1.3.2 Blewett Falls Development: 2006-2008 Evaluation Methods/Results
1.3.2.1 Blewett Falls Development - 2006 Evaluations
The 2006 dissolved oxygen (DO) evaluations at the Blewett Falls Development
focused on using existing turbine vacuum breaker valves under passive aeration
conditions to increase DO concentrations in the water below the powerhouse. Units 1,
3, 4 and 6 were tested singly and in combination with the other units and also at
varying wicket gate openings reflecting minimum, best efficiency and maximum turbine
operation. At the time of the testing, the DO readings at the centerline elevation of the
unit intakes in the forebay ranged from 2.5 - 7.4 mg/I.
As a result of the evaluations, the composite downstream DO readings recorded at
monitoring locations BFCM1A, BFCM1 B and BFCM1 C, for Units 1, 3, 4, and 6, when
operated singly, ranged from 4.6 to 7.4 mg/I and were predominantly above 5.0 mg/I.
The composite downstream DO readings recorded for all unit operation ranged from
4.4 to 7.3 mg/I and were predominantly above 5.0 mg/I. When two units were run
simultaneously, the composite DO readings ranged from 5.2 to 8.2 mg/I. When three
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx
ARCADIS
Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement
Field Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
units were run simultaneously, the composite DO readings ranged from 4.1 to 7.6 mg/I.
When five units were run simultaneously, the composite DO readings ranged from 4.4
to 6.8 mg/I. Use of the vacuum breaker valves on each unit reduced power production
by 10-15% for Units 1 -3 and 20-35% for Units 4-6. [See Table 6 from 2006 Dissolved
Oxygen Enhancement Study Report (Appendix A - 2006 Blewett Falls Aeration Study
Results Summary)].
1.3.2.2 Blewett Falls Development - 2007 Evaluations
The 2007 DO evaluations at the Blewett Falls Development focused on using the
existing vacuum breaker valves under passive aeration conditions in combination with
the use of small surface mixers in the intake forebay to increase DO concentrations in
the water below the powerhouse. Unit 5 was tested singly and in combination with
Units 4 and 6. The separate evaluation of Unit 5 was done to simulate provision of the
minimum flow through use of a single generating unit for all the evaluation runs, the
units were operated at the best efficiency point (75% gate opening). At the time of the
testing, the DO readings at the centerline elevation of the unit intakes in the forebay
ranged from 1.1 to 7.0 mg/I.
As a result of the evaluations, the downstream DO readings recorded at monitoring
location BFCM1 for Unit 5, when operated singly to simulate single unit provision of the
minimum flow, ranged from 5.0 to 8.9 mg/I, and were predominantly above 5.0 mg/I.
The downstream DO readings recorded for operation of Units 4, 5 and 6
simultaneously, ranged from 4.3 to 7.5 mg/I. [See Table 6 from 2007 Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Study Report (Appendix A - 2007 Blewett Falls Aeration Study Results
Summary)].
1.3.2.3 Blewett Falls Development - 2008 Evaluations
The 2008 DO evaluations at the Blewett Falls Development focused on using the
existing vacuum breaker valves under passive aeration conditions in combination with
the use of a surface mixer in the forebay as well as air diffuser racks in the forebay to
increase DO concentrations in the water below the powerhouses. Units 2 and 5 were
tested singly. At the time of the testing, the DO readings at the centerline of the unit
intakes in the forebay ranged from 1.3 to 3.7 mg/I.
As a result of the evaluations, the downstream DO readings recorded at monitoring
location BFCM1 for Unit 2, when operated singly, ranged from 1.9 to 4.0 mg/I. The
downstream DO readings recorded for operation of Unit 5 when operated singly to
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx
ARCADIS
Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement
Field Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
simulate single unit provision of the minimum flow, ranged from 2.7 to 5.3 mg/I. [See
Table 8 from 2008 Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement Study Report (Appendix A - 2008
Blewett Falls Aeration Study Key Results Summary)].
1.3.2.4 Recommendations
As a result of the 2008 and preceding evaluations, it was determined that passive
aeration through the Unit vacuum breaker valves held the most promise for increased
DO uptake downstream of the Blewett Falls powerhouse. The vacuum breakers on
Units 1-3 are operated with use of a 3-inch diameter globe valve while the vacuum
breakers on Units 4-6 utilize 4-inch gate valves. The gate valves on the vacuum
breakers for Units 4-6 appear to allow for more air uptake than the globe valves
installed on the vacuum breakers for Units 1-3. It was recommended to retrofit Units 1-
3 with the larger 4-inch gate valves to increase oxygen uptake during further testing in
2009.
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx
ARCADIS
2 2009 Work Plan
Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement
Field Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
Building on the positive gains in understanding the most effective methods for
increasing the uptake of dissolved oxygen from the previously conducted evaluations,
Progress Energy determined that during 2009 the evaluation of some other successful
industry-tried, prototype methods should be evaluated.
2.1 Research Conducted for Development of 2009 Work Plans
To assist in determining what additional DO enhancement methods to pursue in 2009,
Progress Energy contacted Alabama Power Company which has obtained good
results for vertical Francis turbines with baffle plates installed above the draft tube vent
outlets at the top of the draft tubes and below the runner hub. The baffle plates help
enhance the area of low pressure which allows for greater aeration into the draft tube.
This method was evaluated at Alabama Power's Yates Project (FERC Project No.
2407). The Tillery Development Units 1-3 are also vertical Francis units (See
References, Section 6 for additional information).
Progress Energy also contacted Georgia Power Company which has tested the baffle
plate technology on horizontal Francis turbines, similar to the Blewett Falls Units. Good
results in improving DO levels downstream of the powerhouse were achieved at
Georgia Power's Lloyd Shoals Project (FERC Project No. 2336). (See References,
Section 6 for additional information).
In addition, a literature search was conducted to determine the latest methods in use
for DO enhancement at hydro projects. Magazine articles on dissolved oxygen
enhancement at hydroelectric projects from Hydro Review magazine (HCI
Publications) were reviewed. In addition, research papers on this subject developed by
Georgia Power, TVA, Voith Hydro and the US Army Corps of Engineers were also
reviewed. (See References, Section 6 for additional information).
Based on the information received from the discussions with Alabama Power and
Georgia Power as well as the research into the current methods in use for dissolved
oxygen enhancement at various hydro facilities, the following work plans for each
Development were developed.
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx 10
ARCADIS
2.2 Tillery Development - 2009 Work Plan
Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement
Field Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
The 2009 DO enhancement evaluations for the Tillery Development focused on: (1)
passive and forced aeration through the vacuum breakers; (2) improvement of passive
aeration through the use of a baffle plate at the point where the vacuum breaker pipe
enters the draft tube; (3) selective withdrawal through the use of partial trashrack
blockage; (4) forced aeration through the 10-inch draft tube vent pipe which enters at
the lower section of the draft tube; (5) forced and passive aeration through an aeration
ring placed at the top of one of the draft tube discharge cones; (6) and aeration through
the use of fine bubble air diffusers located at the trashracks for one of the Units.
Evaluations were performed at best efficiency and maximum load points for Units 1, 2
& 3. Unit 4 was operated in a vented mode at 9 MW and then operated in a nonvented
mode up to the maximum load point. In addition, minimum and spawning flow
evaluations were conducted over approximate 24 hour periods to evaluate DO levels
under these conditions.
2.3 Blewett Falls - 2009 Work Plan
The 2009 DO enhancement evaluations for the Blewett Falls Development focused on:
(1) passive aeration through the vacuum breakers, including the installation of
replacement gate valves for the existing globe valves on Units 1 through 3; and (2)
passive aeration through the 4-inch draft tube vent pipes with baffle plates installed
above the location where the new vent line enters the draft tube on Unit 5. Evaluations
were performed under best efficiency and maximum load conditions. In addition,
minimum flow evaluations were performed for 24 hour periods, utilizing Unit 5 to
simulate single unit provision of the recommended minimum flow of 1,200 cfs.
2.3.1 2009 Dissolved Oxygen Monitor Locations
2.3.2 Tillery Development Dissolved Oxygen Monitors
At the Tillery Development, two monitors were used in the intake forebay (i.e., mid-
reservoir and immediately in front of the intake structure) to develop profiles of DO
concentrations for the full depth of the impoundment at the placement locations. One
monitor was placed in front of the Unit discharge tunnels depending on which unit was
being evaluated. Two monitors were anchored in the tailrace below Units 3 and 4,
respectively. Three monitors were placed at the NC Highway 731 Bridge, one near the
eastern shoreline; one near the center of the river; and one near the western shoreline.
In addition, one monitor was placed downstream at the shoals area below the NC
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx 11
ARCADIS
Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement
Field Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
Highway 731 Bridge; one monitor above the confluence of the Pee Dee and Rocky
Rivers; and one monitor below the confluence of the Pee Dee and Rocky Rivers. Table
3 provides additional information on the deployment of the water quality monitors for
the Tillery 2009 evaluation work.
Table 3
Tillery Water Quality Monitor Location Descriptions
Monitor
Identification Location Monitor Type Description
TYB2 Mid reservoir Discrete vertical water Mid reservoir, approximately
quality sampling 1,250 ft. upstream of dam
TYB2 Intake Discrete vertical water Approximately 200 ft.
quality sampling upstream of intake structure
TYCM00 Discharge tunnels Continuous water Just downstream of draft
(tested units) quality sampling tube discharge tunnel
outlets to tailrace
TYCM01 (Unit 3) Below draft tube Continuous water Buoy line in front of Unit 3
discharge quality sampling approximately 100 ft.
downstream of powerhouse
TYCM02 (Unit 4) Below draft tube Continuous water Buoy line in front of Unit 4
discharge quality sampling approximately 50 ft.
downstream of powerhouse
TYCM1-1 East side of river at NC Continuous water In vicinity of eastern bridge
Hwy. 731 Bridge quality sampling piers; bridge located
approximately 2,250 ft.
downstream of powerhouse
TYCM1-2 Center of river at NC Continuous water In vicinity of center bridge
Hwy. 731 Bridge quality sampling piers; bridge located
approximately 2,250 ft.
downstream of powerhouse
TYCM1-3 West side of river at Continuous water In vicinity of western bridge
NC Hwy. 731 Bridge quality sampling piers; bridge located
approximately 2,250 ft.
downstream of powerhouse
TYCM1A East side of river near Continuous water Approximately 1.4 miles
shoals area near quality sampling downstream of powerhouse
former dam site
TYCM2 Near center of river Continuous water Approximately 3.8 miles
above confluence with quality sampling downstream of powerhouse
Rocky River
TYCM2A Near east side of river Continuous water Approximately 6.5 miles
below confluence with quality sampling downstream of powerhouse
Rocky River
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx 12
ARCADIS
Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement
Field Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
Appendices B-1 and C-1 provide the figures showing the changes in DO
concentrations during each evaluation period for the Tillery Development. Appendix B
provides graphical profiles of DO concentrations at and upstream of the Unit intakes.
Appendix C provides graphical profiles of DO concentrations at the Unit discharge
areas and downstream of the Unit discharge areas at the NC Highway 731 Bridge,
where the probable compliance location will be. Appendix E-1, Figure 3, shows the
locations of the DO monitors in the vicinity of the Tillery Development.
2.3.3 Blewett Falls Development Dissolved Oxygen Monitors
At the Blewett Falls Development, three monitors were placed in the forebay intake
channel; one monitor out in the lake; three monitors in front of several of the Unit
discharge tunnels along a buoy line approximately 300 feet below the powerhouse;
one monitor below the dam in the main river channel; three monitors approximately 0.5
miles downstream of the powerhouse located on the eastern, western and center of
the river; and one monitor approximately 1.5 miles downstream of the powerhouse in
the center of the river. The following table provides additional information on the
deployment of the monitors for the Blewett Falls 2009 evaluation work.
Table 4
Blewett Falls Water Quality Monitor Location Descriptions
Monitor
Identification Location Monitor Type Description
BFB2A Forebay Intake Continuous water quality Approximately 125 ft. upstream
(Intake) sampling/Discrete vertical of intake structure
water quality sampling
BFB2B (Mid Forebay channel Continuous water quality Approximately 400 ft. upstream
Forebay) sampling/Discrete vertical of intake
water quality sampling
BFB2C Forebay channel Continuous water quality Approximately 1,650
(Upper sampling/Discrete vertical ft.upstream of intake at mouth
Forebay) water quality sampling of intake channel
BFB2 (Lake) Lake above the Discrete vertical water Approximately 1,000 ft. above
dam quality sampling center of dam
BF (Unit 1) Along buoy line Continuous water quality Approximately 400 ft. below
across tailrace sampling Unit draft tube discharge area
area
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx 13
ARCADIS
Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement
Field Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
Monitor
Identification Location Monitor Type Description

BF (Unit 3-4) Along buoy line Continuous water quality Approximately 300 ft. below
across tailrace sampling Units 3-4 draft tube discharge
area area
BF (Unit 6) Along buoy line Continuous water quality Approximately 250 ft. below
across tailrace sampling Unit draft tube discharge area
area
BF (Dam) Below dam Continuous water quality Approximately 1,200 ft. below
sampling dam in center of river channel
BFCM1A Towards eastern Continuous water quality Approximately 2,250 ft.
side of river sampling downstream of powerhouse
BFCM1 B Towards center of Continuous water quality Approximately 2,250 ft.
river sampling downstream of powerhouse
BFCM1 C Towards west side Continuous water quality Approximately 2,250 ft.
of river sampling downstream of powerhouse
BFCM2A Mid-river (Walls Continuous water quality Approximately 1.5 mi.
Landing) sampling downstream of powerhouse
Appendices B-3 and C-2 provide the figures showing the changes in DO
concentrations during each evaluation period for the Blewett Falls Development.
Appendix B provides profiles of DO concentrations in the intake channel upstream of
the Unit intakes. Appendix C provides profiles of DO concentrations below the Unit
discharge areas at the buoy line where DO compliance monitoring is anticipated to
occur. Appendix E-2, Figure 4, shows the locations of the DO monitors in the vicinity of
the Blewett Falls Development.
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx 14
ARCADIS
3 2009 Verification Evaluation Methods
3.1 Equipment Used
3.1.1 Tillery Development
Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement
Field Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
Table 5 provides a list of equipment used for the 2009 DO verification evaluations at
the Tillery Development.
Table 5
Tillery Development Verification Evaluation Equipment
Item Used for Description Quantity
Unit No.
Level All Unit DI 502 level logger 5
Logger Trials
Baro Logger All Unit Trials DI 500 Baro Logger 1
Water Quality All Unit Trials YSI 600 XLM 9
Monitors
Radio Telemetry All Unit Trials Radio Telemetry Unit for real-time readout of 1
Unit continuous monitor
Logger All Unit Trials YSI 6820V2 and 650 MDS Logger 2
Logger All Unit Trials YSI 6820 and 650 MDS Logger 1
Baffle plate Unit 3 Steel plate with 451 baffle fabricated for 1
assembly installation in the draft tube above draft tube
vent pipe outlet
Canvas tarps Unit 1 20'x 20' single fill, 12 oz. canvas tarps for 6
trashrack blockage
Water flow meter Unit 1 Marsh-McBirney Model No. 2000 1
Air flow meter Units 1-4 Ashtead Model No. 8386 2
Air compressor Unit 3 1600 cfm @ 150 psi, diesel 2
(compressors)
Boat 1 11'- 6" inflatable boat (provided by Progress 1
Energy)
Aeration ring Unit 3 Fabricated steel ring with 451 baffle plate with 1 (Ring)
4 fittings for air hose attachment and open
slots for air exit, fitted and attached to top of
draft tube discharge cone
Miscellaneous Unit 3 160' of 8" Wilcox hose with flanged ends; 60' 1 (Ring)
pipe, hose and of 8" Bauer pipe; 8" steel header with 4@4"
fittings outlet connections; various fittings, clamps and
bolts for connections; 350' of 2" supply hose
Air diffusers Unit 1 Two air diffuser assemblies with thirty 2.6" 1 (Set)
diameter x 39" long fine bubble membrane
tube diffusers
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx 15
ARCADIS
3.1.2 Blewett Falls Development
Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement
Field Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
Table 6 provides a list of the equipment used for the 2009 verification evaluations at
the Blewett Falls Development.
Some of this equipment was re-deployed from the Tillery Development verification
evaluations which preceded the evaluations at the Blewett Falls Development.
Table 6
Blewett Falls Development Verification Evaluation Equipment
Item Used for Description Quantity
Unit No.
Water Quality Monitor All Unit
trials YSI 600 XLM 17
Baro Logger All Unit
Trials DI 500 Baro Logger 1
Level Logger All Unit DI 502 Level Logger 4
Trials
Radio Telemetry Unit All Unit Radio Telemetry Unit for real-time 1
Trials readout of continuous monitor
Logger All Unit YSI 6820V2 and 650 MDS Logger 1
Trials
Logger All Unit
Trials YSI 6820 and MDS Logger 2
Baffle plate assembly Unit 5 Steel plate with 450 baffle fabricated 2
for installation in the draft tube above
draft tube vent pipe outlets
Hose and fittings for Unit 5 4" vacuum service-rated hose and 2 (sets)
draft tube vents fittings
Gate valve assemblies Units 1-3 3" gate valve assemblies to replace 3" 6
globe valves on vacuum breaker
valves
Air flow measurement Units 3 & 5 3" and 4" steel pipe for insertion of air 3" - 2
pipe section flow meter 4" - 2
Air flow meter Units 3 & 5 Ashtead Model No. 8386 2
Vacuum gauge Units 3 & 5 Vacuum gauge 1
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx 16
ARCADIS
3.2 Evaluation Methods
3.2.1 Tillery Development
Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement
Field Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
The 2009 evaluations at the Tillery Development were designed to verify and build
upon the results from the studies performed in previous years. The specific evaluations
are described below. These trials involved the evaluation of individual methods and
various combinations of the different methods to determine which method or
combination methods can be effectively used to achieve the state water quality DO
standards.
3.2.2 Aeration through Vacuum Breaker Vents and Draft Tube Vents
Passive aeration through the vacuum breakers refers to the ability of the vacuum
breaker valve to draw air into the draft tube by passive means through the vacuum
breaker piping. This passive aeration occurs as a result of vacuum conditions that are
present in the draft tube and is dependent on draft tube design and unit position
relative to tailwater elevation. Forced aeration refers to the use of an air compressor to
force air into the draft tube through either the vacuum breaker piping or other vent
piping which enters the draft tube.
Passive aeration through the 6-inch vacuum breaker piping was evaluated for Units 1,
2 and 3 separately and in conjunction with other evaluation methods. Forced aeration
through the 6-inch vacuum breaker piping for Units 1 and 3 was also evaluated with
compressed air from one 1600 cfm compressor. The forced aeration through the
vacuum breaker piping was also performed separately and in conjunction with other
evaluation methods. For Unit 4, the 8-inch vacuum breaker was evaluated under
passive aeration conditions only. In addition, the 10-inch draft tube vent pipe on Unit 3
was evaluated under forced aeration conditions using both one and two compressors.
Passive aeration through the 6-inch vacuum breakers on Units 1 through 3 can be
accomplished at all loads by opening a 6-inch manual valve in the vacuum breaker
piping. The Unit 4 vacuum breaker is controlled by a cam which is moved with gate
position; therefore, the Unit 4 vacuum breaker would only open when the unit was
operating at 9 MW or less. The 10-inch vent for Units 1 through 3 enters the draft tube
near the bottom and was determined in previous evaluations to provide insufficient
vacuum for passive aeration, therefore, this vent could only be evaluated under forced
aeration conditions.
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx 17
ARCADIS
3.2.2.1 Baffle Plate Assembly
Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement
Field Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
A steel baffle plate assembly, consisting of a 26-inch wide by 10-inch high steel plate
bent to the radius of the draft tube was bolted to the steel draft tube liner wall just
above the 6-inch draft tube vacuum breaker vent pipe outlet on Unit 3. The steel base
plate was fitted with a braced 450 baffle plate to help enlarge the zone of low pressure
at that point to allow for increased passive aeration into the draft tube. During the
evaluation proceedings, both passive aeration and forced aeration methods (utilizing
compressed air) were used on the Unit 3 vacuum breaker vent. As discussed above,
this type of dissolved oxygen enhancement method has been successfully used by
Alabama Power at its Yates Hydroelectric Project.
3.2.2.2 Aeration Ring Assembly
An aeration ring assembly, consisting of a fabricated steel ring with a continuous
braced baffle plate angled at 450 was attached to the top of the draft tube cone on Unit
3 at the bottom of the runner. A series of horizontal steel plates with 1-inch spaces
between the plates spanned the space between the ring attachment plate and the
lower edge of the baffle plate to allow for air passage. Four 4-inch flexible hose
connections were attached to the horizontal steel plates of the ring assembly to allow
air to enter the ring either through passive aeration or forced aeration with a
compressor. Air supply hoses and pipes were installed and secured to provide
compressed air from the compressors located on the draft tube deck to route to the
ring. When the turbine was placed into operation, connection problems with the hose
connections and the retaining straps for the hoses and pipes developed during the
initial functional evaluation. All 4-inch hoses failed under the high velocity conditions in
the draft tube and the anchors on the 8-inch hose also failed. It was determined that
there was not a viable method of keeping the hose connections in place under the
operating conditions they were exposed to; therefore, this evaluation method was not
pursued further.
3.2.2.3 Selective Withdrawal
The intent of selective withdrawal is to modify the flow patterns into the intake to
withdraw more water with high DO concentrations from the oxygenated zone of the
water column. For the selective withdrawal evaluation, canvas tarps were installed in
20 foot panels over the bottom 40 feet of the trashracks on Unit 1. Evaluations were
performed with 40 vertical feet of trashrack blockage, 20 vertical feet of trashrack
blockage, and no trashrack blockage. Water velocity measurements were taken at 5-
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx 18
ARCADIS
Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement
Field Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
foot vertical intervals, down to the full depth (70 feet) in front of the center and eastern
or western portions of the trashrack assemblies. The velocity measurements were
taken with 40 vertical feet of tarp in place and with tarps removed.
The purpose for the selective withdrawal evaluations was to develop vertical profiles of
the water velocity under each level of blockage for varying Unit operation scenarios.
The velocity profiles, coupled with the dissolved oxygen profiles, provide information
which can be used to estimate what volume of more oxygenated water in the upper
portion of the water column mixes with the lower, less oxygenated levels in the lower
portion of the water column. Figures F.1-1 through F.1-6, show the intake velocity
profiles and intake and mid-reservoir DO concentration profiles, during the selective
withdrawal evaluations.
3.2.2.4 Diffuser Rack Assemblies
The diffuser rack assemblies fabricated and evaluated in 2008 were utilized again in
2009 for verification of their effectiveness. The assemblies consist of a header pipe (6
inches in diameter), mounted on a steel frame with multiple, 2.6-inch-diameter fine
bubble membrane tube diffusers at right angles to the header pipe. The rack
assemblies measured approximately 20 feet in length. Two of the diffuser assemblies
were stacked on top of one another in a horizontal configuration and attached to the
bottom of the intake trashrack assembly in front of Unit 1. During the diffuser evaluation
process, the lower 20 feet of the trashracks on Unit 1 was also covered with tarps. The
diffuser assemblies were mounted immediately in front of the trash racks in an effort to
entrain a greater percentage of the bubbles into the intake than was accomplished in
2008.
3.2.2.5 Air Flow Monitoring
For the evaluations involving passive aeration, the air flow volume was recorded
through use of an air flow meter (Ashtead model 8386) with a probe inserted into a 3/8-
inch hole in the extension piping attached to the vacuum breaker valve assembly. The
meter measures air velocity, using a thermal anemometer and converts the velocity to
a volumetric flow rate (cubic feet per minute) using the pipe diameter entered into the
instrument. The accuracy of the thermal anemometer was checked by taking a pitot
tube traverse across the pipe and manually calculating the volumetric flow rate. Air
flow measurements were converted to air volume in cubic feet per second to determine
the volume of air being supplied to the turbine. The water volume going through the
Units was determined based on Unit power generation curves.
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx 19
ARCADIS
Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement
Field Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
For Unit 4, velocity measurements using the thermal anemometer were taken across
the 18-inch by 16-inch wall opening at the inlet to the 8-inch vacuum breaker pipe. A
velocity grid was developed and a volumetric flow rate calculated. For the evaluations
involving the use of forced aeration, the air flow volume was determined by the rated
flow of the compressor and was 1,600 cfm.
The DO evaluations at the Tillery Development ran from August 6, 2009 through
August 14, 2009 and then during the morning of August 20, 2009. Most of the
evaluations occurred on weekdays during this period which coincided with typical peak
generation times. The detailed schedule of the evaluations for the Tillery Development
is shown on the "Tillery Hydro Verification Trials Schedule" in Appendix A.1. The
schedule shows the Units and DO enhancement methods being evaluated on an
hourly basis for each day of the evaluations.
Some of the Units were evaluated separately or in combination with other Units. Unit
loading was done under best efficiency and maximum load conditions. In addition to
Unit loading, separate evaluations of the minimum flow (330 cfs) and the Spring
spawning flow (725 cfs) were made. These flow releases were made through the trash
sluice gate adjacent to the powerhouse. Releases were made from the reservoir
surface waters.
Table D.1-1 in Appendix D-1 provides a summary of the results of the evaluations at
the Tillery Development.
3.2.3 Blewett Falls Development
The 2009 evaluations at the Blewett Falls Development focused on passive aeration
methods utilizing the existing vacuum breakers on Units 1 through 6 and new draft
tube vents on Unit 5. A baffle plate, installed above each draft tube vent outlet in the
upper draft tube area was used to improve passive aeration conditions. To enhance
passive aeration air flow at Units 1 through 3, the existing 3-inch globe valves on the
vacuum breakers were replaced with 3-inch gate valves. Units 4 through 6 have
existing 4-inch gate valves on the vacuum breakers, and it was noted during previous
evaluations that the configuration of the gate valves allows for greater air flow in
comparison to globe valves.
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx 20
ARCADIS
3.2.3.1 Baffle Plate Assembly
Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement
Field Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
Two new draft tube vents were installed near the top of the downstream draft tube for
Unit 5. The vents are 4-inch diameter and have a baffle plate at a 45 degree angle just
above the point where the vent enters the draft tube. The intent of the baffle plate was
to create a low-pressure area just below the trailing edge of the plate in the area of the
4-inch-diameter air injection location. This low pressure area provides for more
efficient air intake. A 4-inch diameter piece of flexible hose was attached to the pipe
stub and fed through a hole in the draft tube floor. A straight section of 4-inch steel
tubing with a 3/8-inch diameter hole was attached to each hose at the air inlet side to
accommodate flow measurement. Passive aeration methods were used on the Unit 5
draft tube vents during all evaluations.
3.2.3.2 Aeration through Vacuum Breaker Vents
For the evaluations involving the vacuum breaker vents on Units 1 through 3, the
existing 3-inch globe valves on the vacuum breakers were replaced with 3-inch gate
valves to decrease the flow resistance. For Units 4 through 6, the existing 4-inch gate
valves on the vacuum breakers were used. Straight sections of pipe for flow
measurement were added to Units 2 and 5 only. Passive aeration was used for all
vacuum breaker evaluations at the Blewett Falls Development.
3.2.3.3 Air Flow Monitoring
At Blewett Falls, the velocities in both the 3-inch and 4-inch pipe used for conveying air
through the vacuum breakers and the draft tube vents exceeded the maximum velocity
limits of the thermal anemometer. In addition, the pitot tube provided with the air flow
meter was too large to be used with the 3-inch and 4-inch pipe. Therefore, an alternate
method of flow measurement was utilized.
To measure flow, a vacuum gauge was used to measure the static pressure (vacuum)
in the pipe just downstream of the inlet. Using an entrance loss coefficient of 1.0 for a
Borda Entrance, the velocity can be calculated using the formula HL=Ke(V2/2g), where:
HL = Head Loss (ft of air)
Ke = Entrance Loss Coefficient
V = Velocity (fps)
G = Acceleration Due to Gravity (32.2 ft/sZ)
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx 21
ARCADIS
Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement
Field Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
The vacuum measured in the pipe represents the head loss across the pipe entrance,
because it is the difference between the atmospheric pressure outside the pipe and the
static pressure (vacuum) inside the pipe.
To confirm the accuracy of the head loss coefficient selected for this entrance, a probe
was fabricated to measure stagnation pressure in the pipe, which is equal to the static
pressure and the velocity head (\/2/2g). Each time it was measured, the stagnation
pressure was essentially zero, which means that the vacuum in the pipe (head loss
across the entrance) was equal to the velocity head. Returning to the equation
presented above, if the velocity head and the head loss are equal, using 1.0 for the
entrance loss coefficient is accurate.
For each air flow measurement at Blewett Falls, the vacuum in the pipe was measured
using a vacuum gauge and the measured vacuum were used to calculate the velocity
using the method described above. Using the pipe area, the velocity could then be
converted to a volumetric flow rate.
Table D.2-1 in Appendix D-2 provides a summary of the results of the evaluations at
the Blewett Falls Development.
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx 22
ARCADIS
4 Discussion of Results
4.1 Tillery Development
Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement
Field Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
Table D.1-1 in Appendix D-1 provides a summary of the 2009 DO evaluations at the
Tillery Development. The table provides: (1) the date; (2) trial identification number; (3)
Unit(s) being evaluated for each trial; (4) water flow in cfs through the turbine; (5) air
flow in cfs through the various aeration points; (6) the turbine load point (i.e., best
efficiency or maximum flow); (7) a brief description of the evaluation method; (8) the
headwater, tailwater and gross head at the time of the trial; and (9) the average DO
monitor readings over the duration of the evaluation. In developing the average DO
monitor readings for each evaluation, the first one half hour set of readings was not
used to allow the water flow conditions to stabilize. The average DO concentrations at
the three DO monitors at the NC Highway 731 Bridge, as well as the monitor at the
Unit discharge points, are also shown in Table D.1-1.
The DO monitors at the NC Highway 731 Bridge generally showed lower DO readings
at the eastern side of the river, with higher DO readings at the western side of the river.
This spatial difference in recorded DO concentrations was consistent with results from
studies conducted in previous years (See; Devine Tarbell and Associates, April 2007,
Devine Tarbell and Associates, June 2008, and HDR/DTA, June 2009). The DO
readings in the center location (monitor number TYCM1-2 in the table) provided either
a DO concentration level between the east and west locations or the highest of the
three monitored locations depending upon unit operating scenarios.
The 2009 results indicated that when a single unit is in operation, the resulting
discharge spreads out in the downstream channel. However, when multiple units are
in operation, downstream mixing between the Tillery discharge and the NC Highway
731 Bridge is minimal. It appears that based on flow patterns between the Tillery
discharge and the NC Highway 731 Bridge under both single-unit and multiple-unit
operating scenarios, the most representative downstream compliance monitoring
location is at TYCM1-2, located at river mid-channel.
4.1.1 Aeration through Vacuum Breaker Vents and Draft Tube Vents
The vacuum breaker vent on Units 1, 2 and 3 at Tillery have shown the ability to draw
outside air into the draft tube at all loads. Between the best efficiency point and
maximum load, there is little difference in the amount of air drawn through the vacuum
breakers. What has shown to have a greater effect on the air flow through the vacuum
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx 23
ARCADIS
Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement
Field Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
breaker vents is tailwater elevation. For Unit 1 operating at best efficiency, an increase
in tailwater elevation of 2 feet (205.5' to 2075- USGS elev.) will cause the air flow
through the vacuum breaker vent to decrease from approximately 28 cfs to 18 cfs. A
similar change was seen for Unit 2, except the air flow was only 8 cfs with a tailwater
elevation of 205.8 feet and fell to 2 cfs when the tailwater elevation increased to 207.3
feet. Unit 3 also demonstrated a similar pattern; however, the air flow decrease with
higher tailwater was not as great. For Unit 3, an increase in tailwater elevation from
205.5' to 207.5' causes an air flow decrease from approximately 30 cfs to 25 cfs.
The Unit 4 vacuum breaker was only able to be tested up to an operating point of 9
MW. Beyond 9 MW, the cam operated vacuum breaker valve closes. Plant personnel
believe that vacuum is maintained up through 15 MW, but without adjusting the cam
position or forcing the vacuum breaker valve to open, the capability of the vacuum
breaker could not be tested above 9 MW. At 9 MW, the Unit 4 vacuum breaker draws
approximately 80 cfs.
Assuming 100% of the oxygen is dissolved, approximately 3.5 cubic feet (co of air is
required for every 1,000 cf of water to increase the DO concentration by 1 mg/I. Using
the incremental change in the DO level between the base trial (normal operation) and a
subsequent trial with aeration for Units 1 and 3, it was determined that the increase in
DO concentration was approximately 30 to 35% of the theoretical values. This
relationship held true for air flows from 25 cfs through 79 cfs. At best efficiency, air flow
of 25 to 30 cfs through the vacuum breaker (passive or forced aeration) increased the
DO concentration approximately 0.60 to 0.75 mg/I at the draft tube discharge location.
With air flow increased to 79 cfs using both passive aeration through the vacuum
breaker and forced aeration with two compressors through the 10-inch draft tube vent
on Unit 3, the DO concentration at the draft tube discharge point was increased by
1.94 mg/I. The DO concentration at the draft tube discharge for Units 2 and 4 was not
measured during these trials.
Adding air through the draft tube has the negative effect of reducing the vacuum in the
draft tube, therefore, reducing the net head and power generation. When operated in
automatic control, the units at Tillery attempt to maintain a target load. If net head
decreases, efficiency is reduced, or flow is restricted, the wicket gates will be opened
further in an attempt to bring the unit back up to the target load. For this reason, actual
load loss when adding air through the vacuum breakers was not able to be determined
from the station instrumentation during this evaluation period. This load loss will be
further evaluated during plant modification verification trials in 2010 and 2011.
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx 24
ARCADIS
Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement
Field Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
To determine potential power loss, the draft tube vacuum under normal operation was
observed to be between 2.5 and 5.0 inches of mercury (in.Hg) on Units 1 and 3. The
draft tube vacuum varied between the two units and changed with different tailwater
elevations. Once the vacuum breaker valves were opened, a significant portion of the
vacuum was lost. Due to the location of the vacuum sensing port in the vacuum
breaker piping, the vacuum reading with air flow in the pipe is not an accurate
representation of the actual vacuum in the draft tube. When the vacuum breaker valve
was opened, the draft tube vacuum typically dropped to zero. If it is assumed that the
draft tube vacuum must be at least equal to the velocity head of the air flow in the
vacuum breaker pipe at 8,000 fpm, then the total loss in net head could potentially
reach 5 feet of water. With this loss in net head, the generation loss for each unit could
potentially reach 1.4 MW when operating at the best efficiency flow. From another
perspective, the water flow would have to be increased by approximately 275 cfs to
maintain the same load as when operating without any air flow into the draft tube. This
estimate is consistent with the fact that Unit 3 was only capable of producing 20 MW at
full gate position with one other unit operating. Typical full gate generation is 21 MW.
4.1.2 Baffle Plate Assembly
With the baffle plate installed on the Unit 3 vacuum breaker vent, the air flow was
greater than on Unit 1 which was operating without the baffle plate. With tailwater
levels ranging from 205.9 ft. to 207.5 ft, the air flow on Unit 1 was between 28 and 18
cfs. In this same range of tailwater elevations, the Unit 3 air flow ranged from 30 to 25
cfs. Therefore, depending on tailwater elevation, the additional air flow achieved with
the installation of the baffle plate was between 7 and 39 percent, with the greatest
increase occurring at higher tailwater elevations.
4.1.3 Selective Withdrawal
Blocking the bottom 40 feet of the trash racks did produce improved downstream DO
concentration levels. The level of improvement was highly dependent on the
magnitude of the stratification and the depth at which the transition from high DO to low
DO concentration occurs. With 40 feet of tarp in place, the top of the tarp was
approximately 29 feet below the normal water level.
Three evaluations were performed with 40 feet of tarp in place and no other DO
enhancement methods. The first two were performed on August 6th. The first trial
(T09-2) was run with Unit 1 at best efficiency (3600 cfs) and the second trial (T09-4)
was run at maximum load (4500 cfs). The next trial (T09-6) was run on August 7th and
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx 25
ARCADIS
Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement
Field Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
was performed at 3600 cfs again. On August 6th the DO at Unit 1 discharge was 4.66
mg/l at best efficiency and 4.52 mg/l at maximum load. The discharge DO dropped to
3.42 mg/l at best efficiency on August 7th. Both trials on August 6th were performed
during early and late afternoon, therefore, it appears that photosynthesis assisted in
increasing DO concentration above 5.0 mg/l between the discharge location and the
proposed compliance monitoring point at the NC Highway 731 Bridge. The trial on
August 7th was performed in the morning and the DO concentration level (3.42 mg/1) at
the proposed compliance monitoring location was essentially the same as at the
discharge location (3.76 mg/1).
Between the trials on August 6th and 7th, there was a significant shift in the elevation
of the transition point between high and low DO concentrations at the intake. On the
afternoon of August 6th, the DO concentration at the intake dropped below 5.0 mg/l at
approximately 2 feet above the tarp. On the morning of August 7th, the 5 mg/l
transition point was approximately 7 feet above the tarp. Since the maximum velocity
at 3600 cfs occurs at approximately 5 to 10 feet above the tarp, this shift in the
elevation of the transition from high to low DO had a significant impact on the DO
concentration at the unit discharge.
Unit 3 was also operated on August 7th with aeration and the DO concentration at the
discharge was 2.40 mg/1. This is 1.02 mg/l lower than the draft tube discharge DO
concentration levels for Unit 1 operating at the same load and on the same day, except
with 40 feet of trash rack blockage.
Trials were also performed with only 20 feet of tarp on the bottom section of the trash
racks, however, these trials were performed in conjunction with other flows or aeration
methods. Therefore, data is not available to determine the effectiveness of 20 feet of
trash rack blockage.
Using the velocity profile and the DO profile at the intake, it was possible to estimate
the average level of DO concentration for the water drawn into the intake. These
calculations are provided in Appendix F-2. For trials T09-2, T09-4 and T09-6, the
actual DO concentration levels measured at the discharge were between 80% and
90% of the calculated levels. By August 10th, the transition point moved to an
elevation approximately 15 feet above the top of the tarp. An independent trial with just
selective withdrawal was not performed at that time. However, using this method of
calculating the DO, it is estimated that the actual DO concentration at the unit
discharge would have been approximately 2.6 mg/l as compared to the measured
value for Unit 3 of 2.01 mg/l without supplemental aeration.
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx 26
ARCADIS
Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement
Field Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
With the tarp in place the maximum measured approach velocity in front of the trash
racks was approximately 1.1 fps at 3600 cfs and 1.35 fps at 4500 cfs. The point of the
maximum velocity varied, but was between 5 and 20 feet below the water surface. In
comparison, the maximum measured approach velocity without the tarp installed was
approximately 1.0 fps at 3600 cfs and 1.2 fps at 4500 cfs. Without the tarp installed the
maximum velocity occurs near the centerline of the intake at approximately 50 to 55
feet below the water surface.
To ensure that the water velocity through the trashracks remains in an acceptable
range, it is anticipated that a submerged weir would need to be constructed
approximately 30 feet upstream of the trashracks. This would ensure that through
screen velocities would remain the same as they are currently. The top of the weir
would be approximately 15 feet below the normal water surface elevation. Under full
station flow conditions (18,000 cfs), the water velocity over the top of the weir would be
approximately 4.6 fps. However, flow close to 18,000 cfs only occurs approximately 2
hours per month on average. Using 2006 through 2009 operating data, flow above
12,000 cfs occurs less than 45 hours per month from May through September. During
July and August, when maximum stratification conditions occur, the average time
above 12,000 cfs is less than 30 hours per month. At 12,000 cfs, the average velocity
over the top of the submerged weir would be approximately 3.0 fps. During the same
two months, 7,200 cfs (1.86 fps average velocity) is exceeded less than 70 hours per
month. A complete summary of operating hours at varying levels of flow during May
through September for the 2006 through 2009 time period is provided in Appendix F-3.
4.1.4 Diffuser Rack Assemblies
The two diffuser assemblies were stacked one on top of the other and mounted
horizontally at the bottom of the center trash rack on Unit 1. They were mounted as
close as possible to the trash racks and as deep as possible in an effort get as much
air as possible entrained in the water entering the intake. From visual observation of
the water surface during the diffuser trials, it appeared that the location of the diffusers
was successful in achieving essentially complete entrainment of the air. During
operation, no air bubbles were observed on the water surface.
The quantity of air being released into the water during the operation of the diffusers is
difficult to estimate with the equipment available during the trials. The air flow through
the diffusers can change greatly with very minor variances in the difference between
the supply air pressure and the hydrostatic head. A 0.2 psi change in supply air
pressure can cause a change in flow of 100%. The pressure regulators and pressure
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx 27
ARCADIS
Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement
Field Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
gauges utilized were not capable of providing that level of accuracy. Because the
diffusers provide their maximum air flow at less than 1 psi differential, it is assumed
that the diffusers were operating at maximum air flow or possibly above maximum
design flow and allowing a flow equal to the rated compressor flow. Under this
assumption, the diffuser air flow is estimated to be between 1380 cfm (23 cfs) and
1600 cfm (27 cfs).
Comparing trials T09-21 and T09-22, the addition of the diffusers increased the DO
concentration at the unit discharge by 0.70 mg/I. When comparing trials T09-24 and
T09-25, the DO concentration at the unit discharge actually decreased after the
diffusers were started. Although no known problems with the instrumentation existed
and other DO measurements downstream of the powerhouse also recorded a similar
decrease in DO concentration from trial T09-24 to T09-25, a decrease in DO
concentration after the addition of the diffusers defies logic and this data was not
considered for further analysis. The DO concentration profiles at the intake on August
13th, when trials T09-21 through T09-25 were performed, were also examined and
significant changes occurred which would have provided the counterintuitive changes
in DO concentration levels.
Trials T09-21 and T09-22 were performed with a flow of 3600 cfs through Unit 1. From
a theoretical analysis, approximately 3.5 cubic feet (cf) of air is required for every 1000
cf of water to increase the DO concentration by 1 mg/I. With an air flow of 1380 to
1600 cfm (23 to 27 cfs) and a water flow of 3600 cfs, the maximum feasible increase in
DO concentration would be 2 mg/I. Using the data from T09-21 and T09-22, the 0.70
mg/I increase in DO concentration represents a 35% effectiveness in oxygen capture
even though entrainment into the intake appeared to be 100%.
4.1.5 Minimum and Spawning Flows through Trash Gate
The trash gate was used separately and in combination with the operation of Unit 1 for
determining the effect on downstream DO concentration levels.
Trial T09-1 evaluated the effects of releasing the targeted minimum flow of 330 cfs
over a 24 hour period on August 1St and 2nd. During this time period a flow of 350 cfs
was measured at the NC Highway 731 Bridge. No units were in operation during this
time period. The average DO concentrations at the continuously recording monitors at
the NC Highway 731 Bridge ranged from 6.73 mg/I at the center monitor to 7.15 mg/I at
the eastern monitor and 7.24 mg/I at the western monitor. Over this 24 hour period, DO
concentration readings remained above the 5.0 mg/I daily average state standard as
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx 28
ARCADIS
Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement
Field Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
well as above the instantaneous state standard of 4.0 mg/I reflecting the release of
relatively high DO level water from the reservoir surface waters through the trash gate.
There was no release of low DO concentration water from unit operation during this
trial period.
Other trials (T09-21, 22 and 23) involving minimum flow releases through the trash
gate also included concurrent operation of Unit 1. For all of these additional trials, Unit
1 had the bottom 20 feet of the trash racks blocked with canvas tarps. For trial T09-22,
the air diffusers were also in operation in front of the Unit 1 trash racks. Air to the
diffusers was turned off for trial T09-23, and the 6-inch vacuum breaker valve for Unit 1
was opened.
For trial T09-21, the DO concentration levels recorded at the NC Highway 731 Bridge
monitors ranged from 2.86 mg/I at the eastern monitor (TYCM1-1), 3.47 mg/I at the
center monitor (TYCM1-2) to 5.19 mg/I at the western monitor (TYCM1-3). The highest
DO concentration levels were recorded for trial T09-23, where the DO concentrations
were 3.74 mg/I, 4.40 mg/I and 5.79 mg/I for the east, center and west locations
respectively. These differences likely reflected a lack of the mixing of lower DO
concentration level water from operation of Unit 1 with the higher DO concentration
level water being released at the gate.
The trash gate was also used to evaluate the spawning flow - a targeted flow of 725
cfs. Trials T09-12a and T09-29 evaluated the spawning flow with no other Units in
operation. The measured flow recorded for Trial T09-12a was 600 cfs and the
measured flow recorded for Trial T09-29 was 550 cfs.
For trial T09-12a the average DO monitor readings at the NC Highway 731 Bridge
ranged from 7.67 mg/I (TYCM1-1) to 8.34 mg/I (TYCM1-2) to 8.69 mg/I (TYCM1-3).
Trial T09-12a was intended to be performed for a 24 hour period but, due to the need
to bring some of the Units on-line to support system generation needs, the trial was
only performed for a 4 hour period. During the trial period, no Units were on-line and
the DO readings were above both the state average daily standard of 5.0 mg/I and the
state instantaneous standard of 4.0 mg/I
For trial T09-29, the respective (east to west) average DO levels at the NC Highway
731 Bridge monitors were 6.90 mg/I, 6.31 mg/I and 6.43 mg/I. This trial was scheduled
to occur for a 24 hour period but, due to the need to operate Units to support system
generation needs, it was only performed for a 16.5 hour period. These readings reflect
fairly high DO concentration levels during this trial period, Most of the average DO
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx 29
ARCADIS
Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement
Field Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
readings at the bridge location were above the state daily average standard of 5.0 mg/I
during the trial period reflecting the release of relatively high DO concentration level
water through the trash gate. All readings during the trial period were also above the
state instantaneous standard of 4.0 mg/I. No Units were in operation during this trial.
Several trials were performed with minimum or spawning flow through the trash gate
while another unit was also operating. The same was also done with a taintor gate
opened 2 feet. The intent was to see if the high DO concentration water through the
gate would mix with the lower DO concentration water from the generating unit and
meet DO concentration compliance levels at the proposed compliance monitoring
location. These trials showed a lack of mixing of the two or more flows. The west side
DO concentration levels remained high from the flow through the gate, but the center
location did not see a significant increase in DO from the flow released from the gate
due to the unit flow pushing water towards the west bank.
4.2 Blewett Falls Development
Table D.2-1 in Appendix D-2 provides a summary of the 2009 evaluation efforts at the
Blewett Falls Development. The table provides: (1) the trial date; (2) trial identification
number; (3) Unit(s) being evaluated for the trial; (4) water flow in cfs through the
turbine; (5) air flow in cfs through the various aeration points; (6) the turbine load point
(either best efficiency or maximum flow); (7) a brief description of the evaluation
method; (8) the headwater, tailwater and gross head at the time of the trial; and (9) the
average DO monitor readings over the duration of the evaluation. The average DO
reading at the three DO monitors along the buoy line below the powerhouse is shown
in the table. The DO monitor number BF Units 3-4 (in the table) is recommended as
the long term monitoring location used for determining DO compliance during the new
license term. Monitor BF Units 3-4 is located in the middle of the tailrace below the
plant.
4.2.1 Aeration through Vacuum Breakers and Draft Tube Vents
The vacuum breakers for all units enter each turbine casing downstream of the runner
and somewhere near the shaft elevation. Each unit has two vacuum breaker lines.
There is a strong vacuum in the area where the vacuum breaker lines enter the turbine
casing and all units are very effective in drawing high volumes of air when the vacuum
breaker valves are opened. The vacuum is maintained at both best efficiency and
maximum load.
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx 30
ARCADIS
Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement
Field Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
For Units 1 through 3, the air flow was approximately 63 cfs for each unit with both
vacuum breaker valves open. An air flow of approximately 122 cfs was achieved for
each unit when both vacuum breaker valves are opened on Units 4, 5, and 6. The total
air flow through the new draft tube vents on Unit 5 was 68 to 74 cfs. There is very little
difference in air flow between best efficiency and maximum load.
Table D.2-1 provides a summary of the verification trial results for the Blewett Falls
Development. The table provides the average DO readings recorded during each trial
period for each of the three monitors located at the buoy line in the tailrace.
For the 2009 verification trials, Unit 5 was designated as the turbine to be used to
provide the minimum flow (1,200 cfs) that will be required. Utilizing the new draft tube
vents during the 24-hour minimum flow trial, the average DO concentration at the
center monitoring point (BF Units 3-4) on the buoy line was 5.88 mg/I. During the 24-
hour period, the DO concentrations never dropped below 5.0 mg/I.
Using DO readings at BF Units 3-4, all trials with aeration through the vacuum breakers
or the draft tube vents achieved the required daily average state standard DO
concentration of 5.0 mg/I. The only trial that did not meet this level was the
independent operation of Unit 2 with the vacuum breaker valves open. The DO
concentrations during this Unit 2 operation ranged from 4.45 mg/I to 4.61 mg/I.
When operated independently, Unit 5 was capable of raising the DO concentration at
monitor BF Units 3-4 by 2.3 mg/I at best efficiency and 1.4 mg/I at maximum load with
the vacuum breaker valves open. Through use of the new draft tube vents, the DO
was raised approximately 1.1 mg/I at both load settings.
One significant observation was the impact of Units 1 and 6 on the DO concentration at
monitor BF Units 3-4 when operating multiple units. When operating all units with the
vacuum breaker or draft tube vent valves open, Units 1 through 3 with all valves open,
or Units 4 through 6 with all valves open, the valves on Units 1 and/or 6 can be closed
without impacting the DO concentration at monitor BF Units 3-4.
The addition of air into either the turbine case through the vacuum breakers or into the
draft tube through the draft tube vents reduces the units generating capacity. At
maximum load, the generating capability of Unit 2 was reduced by 470 kW with the
vacuum breaker valves open. Unit 5 capacity was reduced by 800 kW with the
vacuum breaker valves open and 450 kW with the draft tube vent valves open. The
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx 31
ARCADIS
Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement
Field Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
power loss is proportional to the amount of air admitted into the unit. Power loss at
maximum load ranged from 6.5 to 7.5 kW per cfs air flow.
It is recommended that the mid-channel monitor location (BF Units 3-4) be used for
long-term DO concentration compliance monitoring. This recommendation is based on
flow patterns with unit operation and that the mid channel location will provide the best
representation of DO concentration with multiple unit operation.
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx 32
ARCADIS
5 Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 Tillery Development
5.1.1 Compliance Monitoring Location
Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement
Field Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
From the DO monitoring locations used during the 2009 trials, Monitor TYCM1-2
(center location at the NC Highway 731 Bridge) provides the most representative
indication of DO concentration for all of the potential operating scenarios. This location
sees the majority of the flow when Units 1 through 4 are operating and also receives
some of the high DO concentration water when the trash gate is used for compliance
flows. Monitor TYCM1-2 will be referred to as the proposed compliance monitoring
location throughout the remainder of this document.
In addition to the stratification that occurs in the forebay and the withdrawal of water
with low levels of DO from the lower levels of the water column, several factors affect
the DO concentration readings at the proposed compliance monitoring location. The
major factor is the algal photosynthesis and respiration dynamics in the river,
downstream of the Tillery site. The DO concentration readings at the proposed
monitoring location typically exceed the DO concentration readings at the discharge of
the operating unit (TYCM00). Using data from 2007, 2008 and 2009, during the mid
day hours (12:00 PM through 5:00 PM) the DO concentration at the monitoring location
exceeded the discharge DO concentration by an average of 1.06 mg/I with a standard
deviation of 0.50 mg/I. During the morning and evening hours (6:00 AM through 11:30
AM and 5:30 PM through 7:00 PM) this differential had a mean of 0.56 mg/I with a
standard deviation of 0.83 mg/I. Graphs of the differential in DO concentration for all
three years are provided in Figure 3.
5.1.2 DO Enhancement Requirements
Under normal unit operation, the lowest measured DO concentration levels measured
at a unit draft tube discharge during the 2009 trials was 2.01 mg/I. During 2007 and
2008, the minimum discharge DO concentration was 2.23 mg/I and approximately 1.5
mg/I respectively. With this information, the DO enhancement requirement should be
set at 3.5 mg/I to meet the target daily average state standard DO concentration of 5.0
mg/I at the compliance monitoring location. No individual method of DO enhancement
evaluated during these trials was capable of consistently achieving the required level of
increase. Therefore, some combination of technological methods will be required for
compliance with the water quality standard.
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx 33
ARCADIS
5.1.3 Conclusions - DO Enhancement Methods
Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement
Field Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
From past testing and the 2009 verification trials, three methods of DO enhancement
proved to be most effective. These are selective withdrawal, aeration through the
existing vacuum breakers and forced aeration through the 10-inch draft tube vents
using compressed air. Due to potential high costs and possible permitting issues due
to withdrawal higher in the water column and increased velocities, selective withdrawal
is not one of the DO enhancement methods recommended at this time. Therefore, the
recommended methods for DO enhancement are aeration through the existing vacuum
breakers and forced aeration through the 10-inch draft tube vents using compressed
air. The DO enhancement capability of each recommended method and the
associated implementation requirements are provided below.
Aeration through the 6-inch vacuum breakers and the lower 10-inch diameter draft tube
vents proved effective in increasing the DO concentrations. Results indicated that
volumetric air flow must reach approximately 1.0 to 1.2% of the water flow to increase
the DO concentration at the unit discharge approximately 1 mg/I. With Units 1 and 3
operating with a water flow of 3600 to 4500 cfs, the passive air flow through the
vacuum breaker for each unit is approximately 25 to 30 cfs, which is 0.5% to 0.8% of
the water flow. When the air flow was increased to 79 cfs on Unit 3 using two
compressors to force air through the 10-inch diameter vent in the lower section of the
draft tube, the relationship between the air flow rate and DO concentration increase
remained consistent.
The Unit 2 vacuum breaker is not very effective in drawing air into the draft tube. The
air flow through the Unit 2 vacuum breaker ranged from 2 to 8 cfs. If the same
relationship between air flow and increase in DO concentration exists for Unit 2 that
was determined for Units 1 and 3, the 8 cfs air flow would only result in an increase of
0.25 mg/I at the best efficiency operating point. Unit 2 is the smallest size unit at Tillery
and its smaller size may result in lower vacuum pressure conditions in the draft tube
resulting in less air being drawn through the vacuum breaker.
Unit 4 is the most effective unit with regard to passive aeration through the vacuum
breaker. However, Unit 4 is capable of passive aeration at an approximate 9 MW load
only.
For Units 1, 2 and 3, the air flow through the vacuum breakers decreases as the
tailwater elevation rises. Therefore, when more units are operating, the effectiveness
of each unit at aerating the water through passive aeration decreases. With an
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx 34
ARCADIS
Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement
Field Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
increase in tailwater elevation of 2 feet, the Unit 1 air flow decreased approximately
35%. With the baffle plate on Unit 3, the decrease in air flow with the same rise in
tailwater was only 15%. Therefore, during single unit operation the baffle plate only
improves air flow by 5 to 10%, but at multiple unit operation the increase in air flow with
a baffle plate may be closer to 35 to 40%.
With draft tube aeration there is an associated loss in power output. It was estimated
that the power loss was approximately 1.0 to 1.5 MW on Units 1 and 3 when operating
with passive aeration through the vacuum breakers. When forcing air into the draft
tube using an air compressor, there is a power loss plus there is the additional parasitic
load due to the operation of the air compressor.
5.1.4 Recommendations
The results achieved during these trials indicate that passive aeration through the
vacuum breakers for Units 1 and 3 can achieve a 0.4 to 0.8 mg/I increase; and forced
aeration through the 10-inch diameter draft tube vent with 3200 cfm (53 cfs) of
compressed air can achieve an incremental increase of 1.1 to 1.5 mg/I for a single unit.
With further enhancement of passive aeration capability for Units 1 - 3 and the addition
of approximately 26,000 cfm of compressed air, it is expected that DO compliance
levels can be achieved. In addition, Unit 2 has lower passive aeration capability than
the other units and Unit 4 is limited to passive aeration at 9 MW loads only. Therefore,
when utilizing passive aeration, it is likely that operational procedures would also have
to be optimized to make use of the units with the greatest passive aeration capability to
achieve compliance.
In order to achieve compliance it is recommended that the primary effort be focused on
passive aeration using the draft tube vacuum breakers. Further improving the capability
of Units 1, 2 and 3 to draw air into the draft tube during operation with installation of
either a second vent line or through improvement of the baffle plate should be
investigated. Based on the initial investigation for the installation of a second vent line,
it is anticipated that this option may not be feasible but nonetheless should be
investigated further through an engineering analysis. The potential of improving flow
through the use of a more effective baffle design is possible and will be implemented.
It is suggested that baffle plates be installed on Units 1 through 3. The following steps
are recommended for implementation of passive aeration through the vacuum
breakers.
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx 35
ARCADIS
Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement
Field Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
Complete engineering feasibility review of the capability of installing a second
draft tube vent at the level of the existing vacuum breaker. The air inlets to
each vent will be above the draft tube deck. To fully assess the feasibility of
installing this vent it is recommended that a contractor with core drilling
expertise be engaged to assist with determining the feasibility of this method.
A site visit by the contractor will be needed during early 2010 to determine the
best method for installing the second vent. If determined to be feasible, the
second vent line should be designed and a contractor obtained to complete
the installation during 2010.
• Evaluate the Unit 3 baffle design to determine if an improvement in the design
is possible. Collect the appropriate information needed to refine the baffle
plate design, utilizing the drawings of the Unit 3 prototype baffle plate used
during the 2009 verifications trials.
Complete design of modified baffles by mid-spring 2010.
• Fabricate and install modified baffles on Units 1, 2 and 3. If previously
designed baffle used in Unit 3 is determined to be adequate, it should be
utilized for all three units. If the Unit 3 baffle needs to be re-designed, the new
design should be used to replace the 2009 prototype design and installed on
all three units. Installation work to be completed by late spring 2010.
• Conduct new series of verification trials in July-August 2010 to evaluate DO
concentration increase provided by new baffle plates.
The injection of compressed air through the 10 inch vent line at the bottom of the draft
tube (Units 1, 2 and 3 only) will be the second method of DO enhancement. The use
of baffle plates on the Unit 1 through 3 vacuum breaker vents will not provide enough
DO concentration increase to meet the state water quality DO standards. Therefore,
to provide an additional source of DO, the use of compressed (forced) air injection
through the draft tube vent openings will be pursued. It is anticipated that the required
air flow for Units 1 and 3 will be approximately 190 cfs each for a DO increase of 3.5
mg/I at full load. For Unit 2, the air flow requirement will be approximately 155 cfs. If it
is assumed that the modified vacuum breaker vent will be capable of providing
approximately 40 cfs for Units 1 and 3 and 15 cfs for Unit 2, then the total compressed
air requirement will be approximately 440 cfs (26,400 cfm). The following steps are
recommended for implementation of the air injection process.
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx 36
ARCADIS
Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement
Field Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
• Evaluate the economics and capabilities of air blowers versus air compressors
for the air supply to the draft tube vents and develop a capital and operating
cost estimate for both a compressed air and blower air supply system.
Determine which type system is technically feasible and most economical.
• Design and install new forced air system by mid-spring 2010.
• Install forced air system by late spring 2010.
• Conduct new series of verification trials in July-August 2010 in conjunction with
baffle plate trials to evaluate DO concentration increase provided by the new
forced air injection system.
During the 2010 verification trials for the new baffle plates and the new draft tube
vents, it is recommended that operation of the Unit 4 vacuum breaker be modified to
induce passive aeration uptake under higher load conditions. An engineering analysis
will determine if the vacuum breaker can be forced to remain open at operational loads
greater than 9 MW and if passive aeration through the vacuum breaker is effective at
the higher loads. If the amount of additional air flow is minimal with the Unit 4 vacuum
breaker open at the higher load levels or if vacuum is lost completely at the higher
loads, it may be necessary to optimize Unit 4 operation at the 9 MW level during
periods of the year when reservoir stratification is high. It is expected that the other
Units would be able to provide the additional generation that would not be achieved
from Unit 4.
5.2 Blewett Falls Development
5.2.1 Compliance Monitoring Location
In review of the downstream DO concentrations during the multitude of trials performed
at Blewett, the monitor location near the center of the tailrace buoy line located just
downstream of the station discharge (BF Units 3-4) provides the most representative
and consistent results for DO compliance monitoring with multiple unit block-loaded
operation. This location will be referred to as the proposed compliance monitoring
location.
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx 37
ARCADIS
5.2.2 Conclusions - DO Enhancement Methods
Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement
Field Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
In general, the conclusion from the trials performed at Blewett is that the power plant is
capable of meeting the DO standards using aeration through the vacuum breakers
and/or the draft tube vents. This will require operation of the correct units with the
correct number of vents open. Anticipated operation would be for Units 3 or 4 to be
started first with vent valves open and then followed by Units 2 or 5 and then Units 1 or
6. Vent valves on Units 2 and 5 and then Units 1 and 6 would be opened as
necessary. The Unit shutdown sequence would follow a similar pattern, in reverse.
Use of the draft tube vent with the baffle plate in lieu of the vacuum breakers did not
provide any specific advantages related to air flow or generation loss. The generation
loss was less; however, the air flow was also less than what was achieved through the
4-inch vacuum breaker valves. The actual power loss per cfs of air flow was consistent
for all venting applications. Different combinations of open vacuum breakers and draft
tube vents can be optimized to reduce the power loss while still maintaining the
required DO concentration levels. During some of the trials, closure of one valve on a
unit would reduce the generation loss without decreasing the DO concentration at the
proposed compliance monitoring location.
The draft tube vents with the baffle plates produced approximately the same air flow as
the 3-inch vacuum breakers, but less air flow than the 4-inch vacuum breakers. The air
flow through the draft tube vents could be increased with larger diameter hose. This is
verified by the consistent flow difference between the two draft tube vents. The vent
with the longer length of hose produced a flow which was 25% less than the vent with
the shorter hose.
One potential advantage of the draft tube vents over the vacuum breakers for air
injection is the location further from the runner and closer to the discharge. This may
reduce the potential for cavitation wear downstream of the injection location and
produce less disturbance of the flow exiting the runner. None of the results or
observations from the trials performed at Blewett indicated specific problems with
either venting location.
5.2.3 Recommendations
As noted in the previous section, DO compliance can be achieved at Blewett using
either the existing vacuum breakers or vents installed in the draft tubes. If draft tube
vents are to be used, it is recommended that two 6-inch draft tube vents with baffle
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx 38
ARCADIS
Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement
Field Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
plates be installed in one draft tube for each unit. This would also require that each
draft tube vent be hard piped to a location above the turbine deck. Regardless of
which option is selected, inlet silencers would be required and it is anticipated that
remote operation of the vent valves would be desired. To improve the air flow and
reduce the velocity of the air, it is recommended that the piping for each draft tube vent
be increased to 6 inches, which provides more than twice the cross-sectional area of
the 4 inch hose used during the 2009 trials.
The addition of the draft tube vents will be the higher cost option. If the cost differential
is not significant, it would be recommended to install the draft tube vents and leave the
vacuum breakers to operate as vacuum breakers only, providing an additional back-up
system for Unit aeration. In addition, although no definitive supporting evidence
exists, the draft tube vents may provide less of a disturbance to the runner exit flow
and a lower potential for runner cavitation.
Since the addition of air either at the vacuum breaker location or into the draft tube
causes a loss in generation, the addition of air should be limited to the flow necessary
to meet DO compliance levels. To provide this capability, the air inlet valves at each
unit should have the capability of being remotely operated from the control room.
Control could be open/close only or have throttling capability.
Implementation should consist of the following:
Develop a preliminary design and a cost estimate for the installation of new draft
tube vents in early 2010. The installation of the draft tube baffles and new vent
piping is recommended to be done for one of each of the two draft tubes at each
Unit.
Finalize design and procure equipment and materials by mid-spring 2010.
Design of the system will include the ability to remotely operate all valves from
the plant control room and should be automatically controlled using the DO input
from the monitoring location.
Complete installation of all new systems by late spring 2010.
Conduct new series of verification trials in July-August 2010 to evaluate DO
concentration increase provided by the new draft tube vents with baffles, and with all
flow control and noise reduction equipment in place. These trials will also include
determining the optimal sequencing of Units, e.g., Units 3 and 4 placed in service first,
then Units 2 and 5 and finally, Units 1 and 6.
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx 39
Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement
Field Verification Methods for the
ARCADIS Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
6 References
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Water
Quality. 2003. Yadkin-Pee Dee River basinwide water quality plan. March 2003. North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Dlvision of Water
Quality, Raleigh, North Carolina.
2006. Basinwide information management system. North Carolina waterbodies reports
(including stream classifications). Yadkin River Basin. [Online]
URL:http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/basinsand waterbod ies/hyd roYad kin. North
Carolina Division of Water Quality. (Accessed on March 20, 2006).
2007. North Carolina water quality assessment and impaired waters list (2006
integrated 305 (b) and 303 (d) report). Final. Approved May 17, 2007. North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Raleigh,
North Carolina.
Yadkin-Pee Dee River Hydroelectric Project. FERC Project No. 2206. Investigation of
Measures to Enhance Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations in the Tailwaters of the Tillery
and Blewett Falls Hydroelectric Developments. PHASE 1: Turbine Venting. Devine
Tarbell & Associates. April 2007.
Yadkin-Pee Dee River Hydroelectric Project. FERC Project No. 2206. Investigation of
Measures to Enhance Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations in the Tailwaters of the Tillery
and Blewett Falls Hydroelectric Developments. PHASE 11: Surface Mixing and
Compressed Air. Devine Tarbell & Associates. June 2008.
Yadkin-Pee Dee River Hydroelectric Project. FERC Project No. 2206. Investigation of
Measures to Enhance Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations in the Tailwaters of the Tillery
and Blewett Falls Hydroelectric Developments. PHASE 111: 2008 Reservoir Air Diffuser
with Surface Mixing. HDR/DTA. June 2009.
Comprehensive Settlement Agreement for the Relicensing of the Yadkin-Pee Dee
River Project. FERC Project No. 2206. Electronic filing. James H. Hancock, Jr..,
Counsel for Progress Energy, Balch & Bingham Attorneys and Counselors. July 30,
2007.
Yadkin-Pee Dee Project for Tillery and Blewett Falls Reservoirs, Rockingham, Stanly,
Anson, Richmond and Montgomery Counties. DWQ#2003-0147, Version 2.0; Federal
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx 40
ARCADIS
Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement
Field Verification Methods for the
Tillery and Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No. 2206
Energy Regulatory Commission Project Number 2206. APPROVAL of 401 Water
Quality Certificate - Modified. Cyndi Karoly, Supervisor. North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. September 30, 2008.
Personal Communication with Larry Moore, Georgia Power Company. June, 2009.
Personal Communication with Christi Nix, Alan Peoples, Charles Gulver, Alabama
Power Company, June 24, 2009.
Moore, L.B., Jr. Increasing Dissolved Oxygen with a Draft Tube Aeration System,
Hydro Review, March 2009, pp. 32-38.
Black, J.L., Davis, D.A., Dixon, D.A., Increasing Dissolved Oxygen at Hydroelectric
Projects, Hydro Review, June, 2004.
March, P.A., Hopping, P.N., Fisher, R.K., Jr., Status and Vision of Turbine Aeration,
Tennessee Valley Authority, Engineering laboratory, Norris, Tennessee, Voith Hydro,
Inc., York, Pennsylvania 1996.
March, P.A., Brice, T.A., Mobley, M.H., Cybularz, J.M., Turbines for Solving the DO
Dilemma, Hydro Review, March, 1992.
Hopping, P., March, P., Brice, T., Cybularz, J., Update on Development of Auto-
Venting Turbine Technology, Waterpower'97: Proceedings of the International
Conference on Hydropower, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY,
August 1997.
Thompson, E.J., Oxygen Transfer Similitude for a Vented Hydroturbine, US Army
Corps of Engineers, Waterway Experiment Station, St. Anthony Falls, MN, December,
1994.
G:\Div10\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\263911022_DO Enhancement
Studies Report.docx 41
ARCADIS
Figures
- i
VT!_TTATi 4
L.Y. s ry 7 ,i i..e xewe e.a. I el ? ry- < r 'eciw?.«o?.....ei e.,.ee ?
_ I GEU_wsTORS ? ? T •Y ('^ ?
I i I -e. 1 gyn.: {as`oo ...>:.o _ ..:..w.e ,
i ? ;, ?. a r,R? ::?:::? :?-•-K=?a
xw v? .awxuni w.TU.G. GvYTwYt RO ?
sy
c
.
TYRE `'• • •• -- _ _ _
uwrt?1.?-a?.,oo x;,o•wawo CL3iarLx4e,ao vY. _= "airw?eu+orts ••1 - - --?
ueli?z ^Z.oo - a. see ze • - Ta - i ?. ?. _ _ __? .? _- _? _._.._ __. _ _ . _-
lob. 37 _ _ -a-'.a?-..t-`-:",?e.• /:.=u /' ____?_ da•?_ u. s.c.
+i Y-
w. "...• ?_-r __ „z.-. a Pa-us PY-
S++ 'T? 30. L 7
a?
-mow
.
PRO.ECT NO -NORTH CAROLM
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT C06PANY
FIGURE 2
nv'ruP RT FWT'.TT FALL S POWERHOUSE
TyCp'?cw aSSe u0n
Thru Powe&ousa WAh
5GKE 7rt FEET
Figure 3
Change in DO from Monitor TYCM00 to Monitor TYCM1-2
Change in DO - TYCMOO to TYCM1-2
2009 Data
2.5
2
1s
0
0
0 0.5
12:03AM E:00AM 12:60'141 G:OOPM 12:00AM
Time of Day
s Change in DO
Change in DO - TYCMOO to TYCM1-2
2008 Data
1.5
1
m
0
0
o -O.5
1
12:OOAM 3:00AM 12:OOPM C:OOPM 12:00AM
Time of Day
?Changein DO
Change in DO - TYCMOO to TYCM1-2
2007 Data
3
2.5 •
2
c
Q 1.5 ? +
v ? Change in DO
1
o
O.5 ?
O
12-GOANI E:OOAM 12-00 IM G:00 PM 1200 AM
Time of Day

ARCADIS
Appendix A-1
Tillery 2009 Verification Evaluations
Schedule
Progress Energy
2009 Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement Methods Verification
Tillery Hydro Verification Trials Schedule
17-Auq-09
Date Day Test No. Time Unit # Load Flow (cfs) COA Description
08/01/09 Sat. N/A 0700 Sat N/A N/A N/A Adjust trash gate for reduced flow
08/01/09 Sat. T09-1 0930 Sat - 0830 Sun N/A N/A 330 Trash ate minimum flow 24 hrs
08/04/09 Tue. Functional 1430 - 1600 3 Min/Best/Max 1800 - 4500 Functional test of the new 6" vacuum breaker
baffle plate and aeration ring with all air transport
piping and compresors. Ran minimum load for
10 min., best efficiency for 20 min., best
efficiency with vacuum breaker valve open for 15
min., best efficiency with vacuum breaker valve
closed and both air compressors on for aeration
ring for 15 min., best efficiency with vacuum
breaker valve open and both air compressors on
for aeration ring for 15 min., maximum load with
vacuum breaker valve open and both air
compressors on for aeration ring for 15 min.
08/05/09 Wed. N/A 0800 - 1200 N/A N/A N/A No scheduled activity
08/05/09 Wed. N/A 1200 - 2000 N/A N/A N/A Replace existing damaged sections of tar
08/06/09 Thu. N/A 0800 - 1200 N/A N/A N/A Installation of 2nd level of tarps on Unit 1, raising
blocked section of trash racks to 40 ft.
08/06/09 Thu. T09-2 1300 - 1430 1 Best Efficiency 3600 Bottom 40 ft of trash racks blocked
08/06/09 Thu. N/A 1430 1 Best Efficiency 3600 Open Unit 1 vacuum breaker valve
08/06/09 Thu. T09-3 1430 - 1600 1 Best Efficiency 3600 Bottom 40 ft of trash racks blocked and natural
aeration through vacuum breaker
08/06/09 Thu. N/A 1600 1 Transition Transition Increase Unit 1 operating point from best
efficiency to maximum load and close vacuum
breaker valve
08/06/09 Thu. T09-4 1600 - 1730 1 Max 4500 Bottom 40 ft of trash racks blocked
08/06/09 Thu. N/A 1730 1 Max 4500 Start Compressor
08/06/09 Thu. T09-5 1730 - 1900 1 Max 4500 Bottom 40 ft of trash racks blocked and forced
aeration through vacuum breaker
08/07/09 Fri. T09-6 0800 - 0900 1 Best Efficiency 3600 Bottom 40 ft of trash racks blocked
08/07/09 Fri. N/A 0900 1 Best Efficiency 3600 Start Compressor
08/07/09 Fri. T09-7 0900 - 1030 1 Best Efficiency 3600 Bottom 40 ft of trash racks blocked and forced
aeration through vacuum breaker
08/07/09 Fri. N/A 1030 1 Transition Transition Increase Unit 1 operating point from best
efficiency to maximum load, shut down
compressor and open vacuum breaker valve
08/07/09 Fri. T09-8 1030 - 1200 1 Max 4500 Bottom 40 ft of trash racks blocked and natural
aeration through vacuum breaker
08/07/09 Fri. N/A 1200 Transition Transition Transition Shut down Unit 1 and start Unit 3
08/07/09 Fri. N/A 1200 - 1230 N/A N/A N/A Move real time DO probe to Unit 3
08/07/09 Fri. T09-9 1230 - 1330 3 Best Efficiency 3600 Normal Operation
08/07/09 Fri. N/A 1330 3 Best Efficiency 3600 Open 6" vacuum breaker valve
08/07/09 Fri. T09-10 1330 - 1500 3 Best Efficiency 3600 Natural aeration - 6" manual vacuum breaker
w/baffle plate
08/07/09 Fri. N/A 1500 3 Transition Transition Increase Unit operating point to maximum load
08/07/09 Fri. T09-11 1500 - 1630 3 Max 4500 Natural aeration - 6" manual vacuum breaker
w/baffle plate
08/07/09 Fri. N/A 1630 3 Max 4500 Start both compressors (connected to 10" draft
tube vent)
08/07/09 Fri. T09-12 1630 - 1800 3 Max 4500 Natural aeration through 6" manual vacuum
breaker w/baffle plate and forced aeration
through 10" draft tube vent
08/08/09 Sat. N/A 0700 - 0900 N/A N/A N/A Install weir and adjust trash gate for reduced flow
08/08/09 Sat. T09-12a 0930 Sat - 1330 Sat N/A N/A 725 Trash gate spawning flow (24 hrs - planned), trial
only able to be run for 4 hours due to Unit
operation needs.
08/10/09 Mon. T09-13 1000-1100 1 & 3 Best Efficiency 7200 Unit 1: Bottom 40' of trash rack blocked, Unit 3:
Normal operation
08/10/09 Mon. N/A 1100 1 & 3 Best Efficiency 7200 Unit 3: Open 6" vacuum breaker valve
08/10/09 Mon. T09-14 1100-1230 1 & 3 Best Efficiency 7200 Unit 1: Bottom 40' of trash rack blocked, Unit 3:
Natural aeration through 6" vacuum breaker
valve w/baffle plate
08/10/09 Mon. N/A 1230 1 & 3 Best Efficiency 7200 Unit 1: Open 6" vacuum breaker valve
08/10/09 Mon. T09-15 1230 - 1400 1 & 3 Best Efficiency 7200 Unit 1: Bottom 40' of trash rack blocked and
natural aeration through 6" vacuum breaker
valve, Unit 3: Natural aeration through 6"
vacuum breaker valve w/baffle plate
08/10/09 Mon. N/A 1400 Transition Transition Transition Start Unit 4
08/10/09 Mon. T09-16 1400 - 1530 1, 3 & 4 Best Efficiency TBD Unit 1: Bottom 40' of trash rack blocked and
(Unit 4 @ 9 natural aeration through 6" vacuum breaker
MW) valve, Unit 3: Natural aeration through 6"
vacuum breaker valve w/baffle plate, Unit 4:
Natural aeration through vacuum breaker valve
Date Day Test No. Time Unit # Load Flow (cfs) COA Description
08/11/09 Tue. T09-17 1100-1200 3&4 Best Efficiency 7800 U1, U2 Unit 3 and Unit 4: Normal operation
08/11/09 Tue. N/A 1200 3&4 Best Efficiency 7800 U1, U2 Start compressors for Unit 3 10" vent
08/11/09 Tue. T09-18 1200 - 1330 3&4 Best Efficiency 7800 U1, U2 Unit 3: Natural aeration through 6" vacuum
breaker valve w/baffle plate and forced aeration
(2 compressors) through 10" draft tube vent,
Unit 4: Normal operation
08/11/09 Tue. N/A 1330 3&4 Best Efficiency TBD U1, U2 Unit 3: Turn off compressors, Unit 4: Reduce to
9 MW and open vacuum breaker valve
08/11/09 Tue. T09-19 1330 - 1500 3&4 Best Efficiency TBD U1, U2 Unit 3: Natural aeration through 6" vacuum
breaker valve w/baffle plate, Unit 4: 15 MW with
vacuum breaker open
08/11/09 Tue. N/A 1500 Transition Transition Transition U2 Start Unit 1 and increase Units 1, 3 and 4 to
maximum load
08/11/09 Tue. T09-20 1500 - 1630 1, 3 & 4 Max 14200 U2 Unit 1: Bottom 40' of trash rack blocked and
natural aeration through 6" vacuum breaker
valve, Unit 3: Natural aeration through 6"
vacuum breaker valve w/baffle plateand force
aeration (2 compressors) through 10" draft tube
vent, Unit 4, Normal full load operation
08/12/09 Wed. N/A 0700 - 1800 N/A N/A N/A U1 U2 Installation of tars and diffusers on Unit 1
08/13/09 Thu. T09-21 0800 - 0930 1 Best Efficiency 3930 U2, U3, U4 Unit 1: Bottom 20' of trash racks blocked, Trash
Gate: Open for minimum flow
08/13/09 Thu. N/A 0930 1 Best Efficiency 3930 U2, U3, U4 Start compressor and establish air flow to
diffusers on Unit 1
08/13/09 Thu. T09-22 0930 - 1100 1 Best Efficiency 3930 U2, U3, U4 Unit 1: Bottom 20' of trash racks blocked and air
flow through diffusers, Trash Gate: Open for
minimum flow.
08/13/09 Thu. N/A 1100 1 Best Efficiency 3930 U2, U3, U4 Open 6" vacuum breaker valve on Unit 1
08/13/09 Thu. T09-23 1100-1230 1 Best Efficiency 3930 U2, U3, U4 Unit 1: Bottom 20' of trash racks blocked, air flow
through diffusers, and natural aeration through 6"
vacuum breaker valve, Trash Gate: Open for
minimum flow.
08/13/09 Thu. N/A 1230 1 Best Efficiency 3930 U2, U3, U4 Close trash gate, close 6" vacuum breaker valve
and stop air flow to diffusers
08/13/09 Thu. T09-24 1230 - 1400 1 Best Efficiency 3600 U2, U3, U4 Unit 1: Bottom 20' of trash racks blocked
08/13/09 Thu. N/A 1400 1 Best Efficiency 3600 U2, U3, U4 Start compressor and establish air flow to
diffusers on Unit 1
08/13/09 Thu. T09-25 1400 - 1530 1 Best Efficiency 3600 U2, U3, U4 Unit 1: Bottom 20' of trash racks blocked and air
flow through diffusers
08/13/09 Thu. N/A 1530 1 Transition Transition U2, U3, U4 Open 6" vacuum breaker valve on Unit 1 and
increase operating point to maximum load
08/13/09 Thu. T09-26 1530 - 1700 1 Max 4500 U2, U3, U4 Unit 1: Bottom 20' of trash racks blocked, air flow
through diffusers, and natural aeration through 6"
vacuum breaker valve
08/14/09 Fri. N/A 0700 - 1200 N/A N/A N/A U1, U2 Removal of diffusers and tarps from Unit 1.
Remove environmental equipment from river and
mobilize at Blewett
08/14/09 Fri. T09-27 1300 - 1430 1 Best Efficiency 3600 U2, U3, U4 Normal operation.
08/14/09 Fri. T09-28 1430 - 1600 1 Max 4500 U2, U3, U4 Normal operation.
08/15/09 Sat.- Sun. T09-29 0900 Sat. - 0700 N/A N/A 725 All Units Spawning flow 24 hour trial (Start time is based
Sun. (16.5 hrs.) on the time that the spawning flow is established
on Saturday). Trial ran from 0900 Sat. through
1500 Sat. then from 2000 Sat. through 0700 Sun
( total of 16.5 hrs.)
Minimum Flow Schedule
08/11/09 Tue. N/A 1700 - 0400 Wed. N/A N/A 330 N/A Drop trash gate to estimated position for
minimum flow and run minimum flow in
preparation for flow measurements starting at
0700 Wed.
08/12/09 Wed. N/A 0400 - 1300 N/A N/A 330 All Units Measure and establish correct minimum flow
08/12/09 Wed. N/A 1300 - 0800 Thu. N/A N/A 330 N/A Maintain minimum flow in preparation for testing
starting at 0800 Thu.
08/13/09 Thu. N/A 0800 - 1230 N/A N/A 330 U2, U3, U4 Maintain minimum flow for Unit 1 trials. See
Thursday's schedule.
08/13/09 Thu. N/A 1230 N/A N/A N/A N/A Close trash ate
Supplemental I est
08/20/09 Thu. T09-30 0800 - 0930 2&4 Best Efficiency 7050 U1, U3 Unit 2 - Best efficiency with 6" vacuum breaker
open; Unit 4 - Best efficiency, normal operation
08/20/09 Thu. N/A 0930 2&4 Best Efficiency Transition U1, U3 Open the second taintor gate over from the
power house two feet. Flow through gate should
be 2,040 cfs.
08/20/09 Thu. T09-31 0930 - 1100 2&4 Best Efficiency 9090 U1, U3 Unit 2 - Best efficiency with 6" vacuum breaker
open; Unit 4 - Best efficiency, normal operation,
Taintor Gate - 2 feet open
ARCADIS
Appendix A-2
Blewett Falls 2009 Verification
Evaluations Schedule
Progress Energy
2009 Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement Methods Verification
Blewett Hydro Verification Trials Schedule
Date Day Test No. Time Unit # Load Flow (cfs) Description
8/14/09 Fri. 0800 - 1700 N/A N/A N/A Mobilize
8/15/09 Sat. B09-1 0700 Sat - 0700 Sun 5 Best Efficiency 1200 Minmum flow - Normal operation
8/16/09 Sun. N/A 0700 Sun 5 N/A N/A Open new draft tube vent valves
8/16/09 Sun. B09-2 0700 Sun - 0700 Mon 5 Best Efficiency 1200 Minmum flow - New draft tube vents
8/17/09 Mon. B09-3 0800 - 0900 5 Best Efficiency 1200 Normal Operation
8/17/09 Mon. N/A 0900 5 N/A N/A Open vacuum breaker valves
8/17/09 Mon. B09-4 0900 - 1030 5 Best Efficiency 1200 Aeration - Vacuum breakers
8/17/09 Mon. N/A 1030 5 Transition Transition Increase operating point to maximum load
8/17/09 Mon. B09-5 1030 - 1200 5 Max 1700 Aeration - Vacuum breakers
8/17/09 Mon. N/A 1200 5 N/A N/A Close vacuum breakers
8/17/09 Mon. B09-6 1200 - 1300 5 Max 1700 Normal Operation
8/17/09 Mon. N/A 1300 5 N/A N/A Open draft tube vent valves
8/17/09 Mon. B09-7 1300 - 1400 5 Max 1700 Aeration - New draft tube vents
8/17/09 Mon. N/A 1400 5 Transition Transition Reduce operating point to best efficiency
8/17/09 Mon. B09-8 1400 - 1500 5 Best Efficiency 1200 Aeration- new draft tube vents
8/17/09 Mon. N/A 1500 5 Best Efficiency 1200 Close upstream draft tube vent valve
8/17/09 Mon. B09-8a 1500 - 1600 Best Efficiency 1200 Aeration with downstream draft tube vent
8/17/09 Mon. N/A 1600 5 N/A N/A Close draft tube vent valves and reposition
real time DO monitor to Unit 2
8/18/09 Tue. B09-9 0800 - 0900 2 Best Efficiency 1200 Normal Operation
8/18/09 Tue. N/A 0900 2 N/A N/A Open new 3" gate valves on vacuum
breakers
8/18/09 Tue. B09-10 0900 - 1030 2 Best Efficiency 1200 Aeration - Vacuum breaker through new 3"
gate valves
8/18/09 Tue. N/A 1030 2 N/A N/A Close vacuum breaker valves
8/18/09 Tue. B09-12 1030 - 1200 2 Max 1350 Normal Operation
8/18/09 Tue. N/A 1200 2 N/A N/A Open new 3" gate valves on vacuum
breakers
8/18/09 Tue. B09-13 1200 - 1330 2 Max 1350 Aeration - Vacuum breaker through new 3"
gate valves
8/18/09 Tue. N/A 1330 2 Transition Transition Close both 3" gate valves for vacuum
breaker, decrease load to best efficiency
8/18/09 Tue. B09-13a 1330 - 1430 2 Best Efficiency 1200 Aeration - Downstream vacuum breaker
only through new 3" gate valve
8/18/09 Tue. N/A 1430 2 N/A N/A Close vacuum breaker valves
8/19/09 Wed. B09-14 0800 - 0900 1,2 & 3 Best Efficiency 3600 Normal Operation
8/19/09 Wed. N/A 0900 1,2 & 3 N/A N/A Open new 3" gate valves on vacuum
breakers
8/19/09 Wed. B09-15 0900 - 1010 1,2 & 3 Best Efficiency 3600 Aeration - Vacuum breaker through new 3"
gate valves
8/19/09 Wed. N/A 1010 1,2 & 3 Best Efficiency 3600 Close both 3" gate valves for vacuum
breaker on Unit 1 and close 3" gate valve
for upstream vacuum breaker on Unit 2.
8/19/09 Wed. B09-15a 1010-1110 1,2 & 3 Best Efficiency 3600 Aeration: Unit 1-Normal operation, vacuum
breaker valves closed; Unit 2-Only 3" gate
valve for upstream vacuum breaker open;
Unit 3-Both 3" gate valves for vacuum
breakers open.
8/19/09 Wed. N/A 1110-1130 N/A N/A N/A Close vacuum breaker valves, shut down
Units 1,2 & 3, reposition real time DO
monitor to middle, start Units 4,5 &6
8/19/09 Wed. B09-16 1130-1230 4,5 & 6 Best Efficiency 3600 Normal Operation
8/19/09 Wed. N/A 1230 4,5 & 6 N/A N/A Open vacuum breakers on Units 4 & 6,
open draft tube vent valves on Unit 5
8/19/09 Wed. B09-17 1230 - 1330 4,5 & 6 Best Efficiency 3600 Aeration - Units 4&6: Vacuum breakers;
Unit 5: New draft tube vents
8/19/09 Wed. N/A 1330 4,5 & 6 Best Efficiency 3600 Close both vacuum breakers on Unit 6
8/19/09 Wed. B09-17a 1330 - 1430 4,5 & 6 Best Efficiency 3600 Aeration: Unit 4-Both vacuum breakers
open; Unit 5-Both draft tube vent valves
open; Unit 6-Normal operation, vacuum
breakers closed
Wed. N/A 1430 N/A N/A N/A Shut down Units 4, 5 & 6 and relocate real
time DO monitor to the middle
8/20/09 Thu. B09-18 1300 - 1400 All Units Best Efficiency 7200 Normal Operation
8/20/09 Thu. N/A 1400 All Units N/A N/A Open vacuum breakers on units 1-3, 4 & 6,
open draft tube vent valves on Unit 5
8/20/09 Thu. B09-19 1400 - 1500 All Units Best Efficiency 7200 Aeration - Units 1-3: Vacuum breakers
through new 3" gate valves; Units 4&6:
Vacuum breakers; Unit 5: New draft tube
vents
8/20/09 Thu. N/A 1500 All Units Best Efficiency 7200 Close both 3" gate valves for vacuum
breaker on Unit 1 and close 3" gate valve
for upstream vacuum breaker on Unit 2.
Close both vacuum breakers on Unit 6
8/20/09 Thu. B09-19a 1500 - 1600 All Units Best Efficiency 7200 Aeration: Unit 1-Normal operation, vacuum
breaker valves closed; Unit 2-Only 3" gate
valve for upstream vacuum breaker open;
Unit 3-Both 3" gate valves for vacuum
breakers open. Unit 4-Both vacuum
breakers open; Unit 5-Both draft tube vent
valves open; Unit 6-Normal operation,
vacuum breakers closed
8/20/09 Thu. N/A 1600 All Units Transition Transition Bring all units up to max load
8/20/09 Thu. B09-20 1600 - 1700 All Units Max 9000 Aeration - Units 1-3: Vacuum breakers
through new 3" gate valves; Units 4&6:
Vacuum breakers; Unit 5: New draft tube
vents
8/20/09 Thu. N/A 1700 All Units N/A N/A Close vacuum breaker valves Units 1-3, 4
&6, close new draft tube vents on Unit 5
8/20/09 Thu. B09-21 1700 - 1800 All Units Max 9000 Normal Operation
8/20/09 Thu N/A 1800 All units N/A N/A Close vacuum breakers Units 1-3, 4 & 6.
close new drat tube vents Unit 5
8/21/09 Fri. N/A 0800 - 1600 N/A N/A N/A Demobilize
ARCADIS
Appendix B-1
Tillery 2009 Intake and Mid-Reservoir
Daily Dissolved Oxygen Profiles
Figure B.1-1 Lake Tillery dissolved oxygen concentrations, July 30, 2009
285
280
275
270
265
260
255
250
w
245
0
240
W
235
230
225
220
215
210
205
200
0.0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
B2 (mid res.) - PM B2 (Intake) ::PM
Figure B.1-2 Lake Tillery dissolved oxygen concentrations, August 1, 2009
285
280
275
270
265
260
255
250
w
245
0
240
W
235
230
225
220
215
210
205
200
0.0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
B2 (mid res.) - PM B2 (Intake) ::PM
Figure B.1-3 Lake Tillery dissolved oxygen concentrations, August 2, 2009
285
280
275
270
265
260
255
250
w
245
0
240
W
235
230
225
220
215
210
205
200
0.0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
B2 (mid res.) - PM B2 (Intake) ::PM
Figure B.1-4 Lake Tillery dissolved oxygen concentrations, August 4, 2009
285
280
275
270
265
260
255
250
w
245
0
240
W
235
230
225
220
215
210
205
200
0.0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
B2 (mid res.) - PM B2 (Intake) ::PM
285 r
280
275
270
265
260
255
250
w
245
0
240
W
235
230
225
220
215
210
205
200
0.0
Figure B.1-5 Lake Tillery dissolved oxygen concentrations, August 5, 2009
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
B2 (mid res.) - PM B2 (Intake) ::PM
Figure B.1-6 Lake Tillery dissolved oxygen concentrations, August 6, 2009
285
280
275
270
265
260
255
250
245
a 240
A
235
230
225
220
215
210
205
200
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
B2 (mid res.) - AM B2 (Intake) -AM - - B2 (mid res.) - PM - - - B2 (Intake) - PM
285
280
275
270
265
260
255
250
w
245
0
240
W
235
230
225
220
215
210
205
200
0.0
Figure B.1-7 Lake Tillery dissolved oxygen concentrations, August 7, 2009
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
B2 (mid res.) - AM B2 (Intake) -AM - - B2 (mid res.) - PM - - - B2 (Intake) - PM
Figure B.1-8 Lake Tillery dissolved oxygen concentrations, August 10, 2009
285
280
275
270
265
260
255
250
w
245
0
240
W
235
230
225
220
215
210
205
200
0.0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
B2 (mid res.) - AM B2 (Intake) -AM - - B2 (mid res.) - PM - - - B2 (Intake) - PM
Figure B.1-9 Lake Tillery dissolved oxygen concentrations, August 11, 2009
285
280
275
ITRAS GATE]
270
265
260
255
250
w
245
0
240
W
235
230 IWAKE
225
220
215
210
205
200
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
B2 (mid res.) - AM B2 (Intake) -AM - - B2 (mid res.) - PM - - - B2 (Intake) - PM
Figure B.1-10 Lake Tillery dissolved oxygen concentrations, August 13, 2009
285
280
275
270
265 s
260
255
250
w
245
0
240
W
235
230
225
220
215
210
205
200
0.0
TRASH GATE

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
B2 (mid res.) - AM B2 (Intake) -AM - - B2 (mid res.) - PM - - - B2 (Intake) - PM
Figure B.1-11 Lake Tillery dissolved oxygen concentrations, August 14, 2009
285 r
280
275
270
265
260
255
250
w
245
0
240
W
235
230
225
220
215
210
205
200
0.0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
B2 (mid res.) - PM B2 (Intake) -PM
Figure B.1-12 Lake Tillery dissolved oxygen concentrations, August 20, 2009
285
280
275
270
265
260
255
250
w
245
0
240
W
235
230
225
220
215
210
205
200
0.0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0
Dissolved Oxygen (nWL)
B2 (mid res.) - AM B2 (Intake) - AM
ARCADIS
Appendix B-2
Tillery 2009 Intake and Mid-Reservoir
Daily Temperature Profiles
Figure B.2-1 Lake Tillery water temperatures, July 30, 2009
285.0
280.0
275.0
270.0
265.0
260.0
255.0
250.0
w
245.0
0
240.0
W
235.0
230.0
225.0
220.0
215.0
210.0
205.0
200.0
24.0 25.0 26.0 27.0 28.0
Temperature (deg Q
B2 (mid res.) - PM
B2 Intake - PM
29.0
30.0
Figure B.2-2 Lake Tillery water temperatures, August 1, 2009
285.0
280.0
275.0
270.0
265.0
260.0
255.0
250.0
w
245.0
0
240.0
W
235.0
230.0
225.0
220.0
215.0
210.0
205.0
200.0
24.0 24.5 25.0 25.5 26.0 26.5 27.0
Temperature (deg Q
B2 (mid res.) - PM
B2 Intake - PM
27.5 28.0 28.5 29.0
Figure B.2-3 Lake Tillery water temperatures, August 2, 2009
285.0
280.0
275.0
270.0
265.0
260.0
255.0
250.0
w
245.0
0
240.0
W
235.0
230.0
225.0
220.0
215.0
210.0
205.0
200.0
24.0 24.5 25.0 25.5 26.0 26.5
Temperature (deg Q
B2 (mid res.) - PM
B2 Intake - PM
27.0 27.5 28.0
Figure B.2-4 Lake Tillery water temperatures, August 4, 2009
285.0
280.0
275.0
270.0
265.0
260.0
255.0
250.0
w
245.0
0
240.0
W
235.0
230.0
225.0
220.0
215.0
210.0
205.0
200.0
23.5 24.5 25.5 26.5 27.5
Temperature (deg Q
B2 (mid res.) - AM
B2 Intake - AM
28.5
29.5
Figure B.2-5 Lake Tillery water temperatures, August 5, 2009
285
280
275
270
265
260
255
250
w
? 245
0
240
W
235
230
225
220
215
210
205
200 L
24.0
25.0 26.0 27.0 28.0 29.0 30.0 31.0 32.0
Temperature (deg Q
B2 (mid res.) - PM
B2 Intake - PM
Figure B.2-6 Lake Tillery water temperatures, August 6, 2009
285.0
280.0
275.0
270.0
265.0
260.0
255.0
250.0
w
245.0
0
240.0
W
235.0
230.0
225.0
220.0
215.0
210.0
205.0
200.0
24.0 25.0 26.0 27.0 28.0 29.0 30.0
Temperature (deg Q
B2 (mid res.) - AM B2 (Intake) - AM - - - B2 (mid res.) - PM - - - B2 (Intake) - PM
31.0
Figure B.2-7 Lake Tillery water temperatures, August 7, 2009
285.0
280.0
275.0
270.0
265.0
260.0
255.0
250.0
w
245.0
0
240.0
W
235.0
230.0
225.0
220.0
215.0
210.0
205.0
200.0 ,.
24.0 25.0 26.0 27.0 28.0 29.0 30.0 31.0 32.0
Temperature (deg Q
B2 (mid res.) - AM B2 (Intake) - AM - - B2 (mid res.) - PM - - - B2 (Intake) - PM
Figure B.2-8 Lake Tillery water temperatures, August 10, 2009
285.0
280.0
275.0
270.0
265.0
260.0
255.0
250.0
w
245.0
0
240.0
W
235.0
230.0
225.0
220.0
215.0
210.0
205.0
200.0
24.0 25.0 26.0 27.0 28.0 29.0 30.0 31.0 32.0 33.0 34.0
Temperature (deg Q
B2 (mid res.) - AM B2 (Intake) - AM - - B2 (mid res.) - PM - - B2 (Intake) - PM
Figure B.2-9 Lake Tillery water temperatures, August 11, 2009
285.0
280.0
275.0
270.0
265.0
260.0
255.0
250.0
w
245.0
0
240.0
W
235.0
230.0
225.0
220.0
215.0
210.0
205.0
200.0
24.0 25.0 26.0 27.0 28.0 29.0 30.0 31.0 32.0 33.0 34.0
Temperature (deg Q
B2 (mid res.) - AM B2 (Intake) - AM - - B2 (mid res.) - PM - - B2 (Intake) - PM
Figure B.2-10 Lake Tillery water temperatures, August 13, 2009
285.0
280.0
275.0
270.0
265.0
260.0
255.0
250.0
w
245.0
0
240.0
W
235.0
230.0
225.0
220.0
215.0
210.0
205.0
200.0
24.0 25.0 26.0 27.0 28.0 29.0 30.0
Temperature (deg Q
B2 (mid res.) - AM B2 (Intake) - AM - - - B2 (mid res.) - PM - - - B2 (Intake) - PM
31.0
Figure B.2-11 Lake Tillery water temperatures, August 14, 2009
285.0
280.0
275.0
270.0
265.0
260.0
255.0
250.0
w
245.0
0
240.0
W
235.0
230.0
225.0
220.0
215.0
210.0
205.0
200.0
24.0 25.0 26.0 27.0 28.0 29.0 30.0
Temperature (deg Q
B2 (mid res.) - PM B2 (Intake) - PM
Figure B.2-12 Lake Tillery water temperatures, August 20, 2009
285.0
280.0
275.0
270.0
265.0
260.0
255.0
250.0
w
245.0
0
240.0
W
235.0
230.0
225.0
220.0
215.0
210.0
205.0
200.0
24.0 25.0 26.0 27.0 28.0 29.0 30.0
Temperature (deg Q
B2 (mid res.) - AM B2 (Intake) - AM
ARCADIS
Appendix B-3
Blewett Falls 2009 Intake Channel
Daily Dissolved Oxygen Profiles
Figure B.3-1 Blewett Falls Lake Forebay dissolved oxygen concentrations, August 14, 2009
180.0 r
178.0
176.0
174.0
172.0
170.0
168.0
166.0
164.0
w 162.0
° 160.0
W 158.0
156.0
154.0
152.0
150.0
148.0
146.0
144.0
142.0
140.0
2.0
2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
B1-PM B2-PM B3-PM
179.0 r
177.0
175.0
173.0
171.0
169.0
167.0
165.0
163.0
161.0
w 159.0
° 157.0
W 155.0
153.0
151.0
149.0
147.0
145.0
143.0
141.0
139.0
137.0
135.0
1.5
Figure B.3-2 Blewett Falls Lake Forebay dissolved oxygen concentrations, August 15, 2009
2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
B1-PM B2-PM B3-PM B2-PM
Figure B.3-3 Blewett Falls Lake Forebay dissolved oxygen concentrations, August 16, 2009
179.0
177
0
.
>
175
0
.
173.0
171
0
. --
169
0
.
167
0
.
165
0
.
163
0
.
161.0 °- ---- --
w 159.0 ?? ?.?-.?,?-.. ?? -? ?• ??- ??? ?-
157.0

W 155.0
153.0 -
151.0
INTAKE
149.0
147.0
N
145.0 -
143.0
141.0
139
0
.
137
0
.
135.0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5 12.0 12.5 13.0 13.5
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
B1-AM B2-AM B3-AM B2-AM B1-PM B2-PM B3-PM B2 PM
Figure B.3-4 Blewett Falls Lake Forebay dissolved oxygen concentrations, August 17, 2009
179.0
177.0
175.0
173.0
171.0
169.0
167.0
165.0
163.0
161.0
w 159.0
° 157.0
W 155.0
153.0
151.0 `-
149.0 !IL
147.0
145.0
143.0
141.0
139.0
137.0
135.0
0.0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5 12.0 12.5 13.0 13.5
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
B1-AM B2-AM B3-AM B2-AM B1-PM B2-PM
Figure B.3-5 Blewett Falls Lake Forebay dissolved oxygen concentrations, August 18, 2009
179.0
177.0
175.0
173.0
171.0
169.0
167.0
165.0
163.0
161.0
w 159.0
° 157.0
W 155.0
153.0
151.0 `-
149.0 !IL
147.0
145.0
143.0
141.0
139.0
137.0
135.0
0.0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5 12.0 12.5 13.0 13.5
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
B1-AM B2-AM B3-AM B2-AM B1-PM B2-PM B3-PM B2-PM
Figure B.3-6 Blewett Falls Lake Forebay dissolved oxygen concentrations, August 19, 2009
179.0
177.0
175.0
173.0
171.0
169.0
167.0
165.0
163.0
161.0
w 159.0
° 157.0
W 155.0
153.0
151.0 `-
149.0 !IL
147.0
145.0
143.0
141.0
139.0
137.0
135.0
0.0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5 12.0 12.5 13.0 13.5
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
B1-AM B2-AM B3-AM B2-AM B1-PM B2-PM B3-PM B2-PM
Figure B.3-7 Blewett Falls Lake Forebay dissolved oxygen concentrations, August 20, 2009
179.0
177.0
175.0
173.0
171.0
169.0
167.0
165.0
163.0
161.0
w 159.0
° 157.0
W 155.0
153.0
151.0 `-
149.0 !IL
147.0
145.0
143.0
141.0
139.0
137.0
135.0
0.0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5 12.0 12.5 13.0 13.5
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
B1-PM B2-PM B3-PM B2-AM
ARCADIS
Appendix B-4
Blewett Falls 2009 Intake Channel
Daily Temperature Profiles
Figure B.4-1 Blewett Falls Lake Forebay water temperatures, August 14, 2009
180.0
175.0
170.0
165.0
w
° 160.0
W
155.0
150.0
145.0
140.0
28.0 28.5 29.0 29.5 30.0
Temperature (deg Q
I B1-PM B2-PM B3-PM
Figure B.4-2 Blewett Falls Lake Forebay water temperatures, August 15, 2009
180.0
175.0
170.0
165.0
w
° 160.0
W
155.0
150.0
145.0
140.0
Temperature (deg Q
I B1-PM B2-PM B3-PM B2-PM
27.0 28.0 29.0 30.0 31.0 32.0 33.0
Figure B.4-3 Blewett Falls Lake Forebay water temperatures, August 16, 2009
180.0
175.0
170.0
165.0
w 160.0
0
W 155.0
150.0
145.0
140.0

i

i

/x

I
135.0
27.0 27.5 28.0 28.5 29.0 29.5 30.0 30.5 31.0
Temperature (deg Q
B1-AM B2-AM B3-AM B2-AM ---B1-PM ---B2-PM B3-PM ---B2-PM
Figure B.4-4 Blewett Falls Lake Forebay water temperatures, August 16, 2009
180.0
175.0
170.0
165.0
w 160.0
0
W 155.0
150.0
145.0
140.0

i
i
y

135.0
26.5 27.0 27.5 28.0 28.5 29.0 29.5 30.0 30.5 31.0 31.5
Temperature (deg Q
B1-AM B2-AM B3-AM B2-AM ---B1-PM ---B2-PM B3-PM ---B2-PM
Figure B.4-5 Blewett Falls Lake Forebay water temperatures, August 18, 2009
180.0
175.0
170.0
165.0
160.0
w
0
W 155.0
150.0
145.0
140.0

/?
I

/
v

135.0
26.5 27.0 27.5 28.0 28.5 29.0 29.5 30.0 30.5 31.0 31.5
Temperature (deg Q
B1-AM B2-AM B3-AM B2-AM ---B1-PM ---B2-PM B3-PM ---B2-PM
Figure B.4-6 Blewett Falls Lake Forebay water temperatures, August 19, 2009
180.0
175.0
170.0
165.0
w 160.0
0
W 155.0
150.0
145.0
140.0

/

1 / l
Y

i

i
135.0 -
26.0 27.0
28.0 29.0 30.0
31.0
32.0 33.0
Temperature (Deg Q
B1-AM B2-AM B3-AM B2-AM ---B1-PM ---B2-PM B3-PM ---B2-PM
Figure B.4-7 Blewett Falls Lake Forebay water temperatures, August 20, 2009
180.0
175.0
170.0
165.0
w 160.0
0
W 155.0
150.0
145.0
140.0
135.0
27.0 27.5 28.0 28.5 29.0 29.5 30.0
Temperature (deg Q
30.5 31.0
I B1-PM B2-PM B3-PM B2-PM
ARCADIS
Appendix C-1
Tillery 2009 Downstream Dissolved
Oxygen Profiles
Figure C.1-1 for Tillery Development Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations
and Flows - August 1,2009
10
9
8
7
c
0
m
L
6
U _
0 L
a
5
w ?
0 .bA
4
0
0
3
2
1
0
350
300
250
c
0
u
___CM00
200
a -4-Unit 3
Unit 4
U
$CM1-1
150 3

3 CM1-2
0
CM1-3
100 -Flow
50
0
O
O
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a O o 0
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . ..
rl N M 4 ? C6 ? 00 m O ?--? N M 4 Ln l0 r 00 m o rI N M
rl i--I i-, M r-I r., r-I i--I r-I i._I N N N N
Time
Figure C.1-2 for Tillery Development Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations
and Flows - August 2,2009
9
8
7
c 6
0
41
M
L
4' L
c w
w 4,
U
c L 5
U w
CL
C ,n
w E
a M
O °-° 4
w
0
p 3
2
1
0
350
300
250
c
0
--CM00
200
CL -$--Unit 3
w Unit 4
U
-¦-CM1-1
150 0

3 CM1-2
0
CM1-3
100 -Flow
50
0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 O O 9 9 O
r_q r,4 M ?* Ln l0 n 00 M O r_q r,4 M ?* Ln l0 n 00 M O r_q r,4 M O
r_q i--I i--I r_q r_q r_q r_q r_q r_q r_q N N N N
Time
Figure C.1-3 for Tillery Development Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations
and Flows - August 6,2009
12.00
10.00
0 8.00
41
M
L
+' L
c y
4,
U _
C L
U w
CL
E 6.00
T L
0 °-°
w
0
p 4.00
2.00
0.00
5000
4500
4000
3500
c
3000 w __W_CM00
a $Unit 3
2500 ?:Unit 4

-¦-CM1-1

2000 3 -E-CM1-2
0
'? - C M 1-3
1500 -Flow
1000
500
0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O o o O
r_q r,4 M ?* Ln l0 n 00 M O r_q r,4 M ?* Ln l0 n 00 M O r_q r,4 M O
r_q i--I i--I r_q r_q r_q r_q r_q r_q r_q N N N N
Time
6.00
5.00
c 4.00
0
Mm
L
+? L
c y
w 4,
U •-
a L
U w
CL
w E 3.00
a m
0 °-°
w
E
0
0 2.00
1.00
0.00
Figure C.1-4 for Tillery Development Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations
and Flows - August 7,2009
5,000
4,500
4,000
3,500
tCM00
r-
3,000 w
Unit 3

!&-Unit 4
CL
2,500 -M-CM1-1
-W- C M 1-2
3
2,000 3
'-,CM1-3
0
LL
Flow
1,500
1,000
500
0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O o o O
r-q r,4 M ?* Ln l0 n 00 M O r-q r,4 M ?* Ln l0 n 00 M O r-q r,4 M O
r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q N N N N
Time
Figure C.1-5 for Tillery Development Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations
and Flows - August 8,2009
10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
c
0
L
6.00
w 4,
U •-
C L
V N
Q
E 5.00
T L
0 °-°
4.00
0
Vl
0
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
800
700
600
500
0 ----CM00
0
?Unit3
N
Q
Unit 4
400
U -110- CM1-1

v -fA-CM1-2
300 0 CM1-3
LL
Series9
Flow
200
100
0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 O O 9 9 O
r-q r,4 M ?* Ln l0 n 00 M O r-q r,4 M ?* Ln l0 n 00 M O r-q r,4 M O
r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q N N N N
Time
Figure C.1-6 for Tillery Development Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations
and Flows - August 9,2009
12.00
10.00
0 8.00
41
M
L
4' L
U
U •-
C L
U w
CL
E 6.00
T L
0 °-°
w
N
p 4.00
2.00
0.00
tCM00
Unit 3
Unit 4
fCM1-1
--&-C M 1-2
f C M 1-3
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O o o O
r-q r,4 M Ln l0 I, 00 M O r-q r,4 M ?* Ln l0 n 00 M O r-q r,4 M O
r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q N N N N
Time
Figure C.1-7 for Tillery Development Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations
and Flows - August 10,2009
8.00
7.00
6.00
C
0
M 5.00
L
? L
c y
4,
U _
C L
U w
CL
E 4.00
T L
0 °-°
0 3.00
0
2.00
1.00
0.00
r 8,000
J- 7,000
J- 6,000
5,000 0
a -9-CM00
CL -$--Unit 3
4,000 ?:Unit 4

-¦-CM1-1

3 -E-CM1-2
3,000 0
'? - CM1-3
-Flow
2,000
f 1,000
0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O o o O
r_q r,4 M ?* Ln l0 n 00 M O r_q r,4 M ?* Ln l0 n 00 M O r_q r,4 M O
r_q i--I i--I r_q r_q r_q r_q r_q r_q r_q N N N N
Time
Figure C.1-8 for Tillery Development Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations
and Flows - August 11,2009
9.00
8.00
7.00
0 6.00
41
L
4' L
c w
w 4,
o L 5.00
W
U
CL
C ,n
w E
a m
p 4.00
w
N
p 3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000 0
a -9-CM00
CL -$--Unit 3
8,000 Unit4
U
-11111--CM1-1

3 -M-CM1-2
6,000 o
CM1-3
-Flow
4,000
2,000
0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 O O 9 9 O
r_q r,4 M ?* Ln l0 n 00 M O r_q r,4 M ? U-) l0 n 00 M O r-I N M O
r_q i--I i--I r_q r_q r_q r_q r_q r_q r_q N N N N
Time
Figure C.1-9 for Tillery Development Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations
and Flows - August 13,2009
4,500
7.00
6.00
5,000
4,000
C
0
M
M
L
+L
c
U * 4.00
U w
CL
C ,n
w E
a M
X 9
3.00
w
E
0
0
5.00
2.00
3,500
c
31000 __W_CM00
a $Unit 3
2,500 :Unit 4
U
-¦-CM1-1

2,000 3 -&-CM1-2
0
LL - CM1-3
1,500 -Flow
- 1,000
1.00
500
0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O o o O
r_q r,4 M ?* Ln l0 n 00 M O r_q r,4 M ?* Ln l0 n 00 M O r_q r,4 M O
r_q i--I i--I r_q r_q r_q r_q r_q r_q r_q N N N N
Time
0.00
Figure C.1-10 for Tillery Development Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations
and Flows - August 14,2009
10
9
8
7
c
0
41
m
L
c y 6
w 4,
U •-
? L
V N
Q
V) 5
w E
0 °-°
4
0
Vl
0
3
2
1
0
5,000
4,500
4,000
3,500
c
3,000 U

N
Q
2,500 -11111-CM1-1

U 4-CM1-2
v CM1-3
3
2,000 •
0
Flow
LL
1,500
1,000
t 500
0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 O O 9 9 O
r-q r,4 M ?* Ln l0 n 00 M O r-q r,4 M ?* Ln l0 n 00 M O r-q r,4 M O
r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q N N N N
Time
Figure C.1-11 for Tillery Development Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations
and Flows - August 15,2009
10
9
8
7
c
0
6
41 ++
U •-
0 L
V ?
Q
5
bb M
0 M
0 °-°
°1 4
W
Vl
0
3
2
1
0
800
700
600
500
0
U
N
Vl
N
Q
-¦-CM1-1
400
v CM1-2

v C M 1-3
300 0 Flow
LL
200
100
0
O
O
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a O o 0
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . ..
rl N M 4 ? C6 ? 00 m O ?--? N M 4 Ln l0 r 00 m o ?--i N M
rl i--I i-, M r-I r., r., r., r-I r-I N N N N
Time
Figure C.1-12 for Tillery Development Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations
and Flows - August 16,2009
12
10
0 8
0
L
4' L
C ?
41 ++
U •-
0 L
V ?
Q
6
bb M
0 M
0 °-°
w
Vl
p 4
2
0
800
700
600
500
0
U
N
Vl
N
Q
-¦-CM1-1
400
v C M 1-2

v C M 1-3
300 0 Flow
LL
200
100
0
O
O
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a O o 0
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . ..
rl N M 4 ? C6 ? 00 m O ?--? N M 4 Ln l0 ? 00 m o ?--i r, M
rl i--I i-, M r-I r., r., r., r-I r-I N N N N
Time
Figure C.1-13 for Tillery Development Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations
and Flows - August 20,2009
12
10
c 8
0
41
M
L
+' L
c w
w 4,
U •-
C L
V w
Q
V) 6
w E
a m
0 °-°
w
0
W
p 4
2
0
10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
c
6,000 U

w
Q
-¦-CM1-1
5,000
v ='C M 1-2

v
3 C M 1-3
•
4,000
0
Flow
a:
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O o o O
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. ..
r-q r,4 M ?* Ln l0 n 00 M O r-q r,4 M ? U-) l0 n 00 M O r-q r,4 M O
r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q N N N N
Time
ARCADIS
Appendix C-2
Blewett Falls 2009 Downstream
Dissolved Oxygen Profiles
Figure C.2-1: Blewett Falls Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations and Flows -
August 15, 2009
7.00
6.00
5.00
C
0
M
? L
c
U * 4.00
U w
CL
C ,n
w E
a M
X "
3.00
w E
0
0
2.00
1.00
0.00
r?
i.,
j?
1 '
I
I
I
i
I
? i eyt B07 i -?
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 o O
r-I N M ? UI) l0 n 00 01 O rl N M R* UI) l0 n 00 M O rl N M O
r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I N N N N
Time
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
c
0
w
w
Q.
w
U
3
0
LL
--$--BF Unit 1
--W-BF Unit 3-4
BF Unit 6
-Flow
400
200
0
Figure C.2-2: Blewett Falls Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations and Flows -
August 16, 2009
7.00
6.00
5.00
r-
0
M
M
L
? L
U * 4.00
w
CL
c ?
w E
a m
x -
3.00
w E
0
V1
0
2.00
1.00
0.00
1,400
1,200
1,000

c
0

800
w
BF Unit 1

.Lj --W-BF Unit 3-4
600 ? BF Unit 6
0
Flow
a:
400
200
0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 o O
r-q r,4 M ?* Ln l0 n 00 M O r-q r,4 M ?* Ln l0 n 00 M O r-q r4 M O
r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q N N N N
Time
Figure C.2-3: Blewett Falls Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations and Flows -
August 17, 2009
7.00
6.00
5.00
r-
0
M
M
L
? L
U * 4.00
w
CL
c ?
w E
a m
x -
3.00
w E
0
V1
0
2.00
1.00
0.00
1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200

c
0

1,000
-4-BF Unit 1

--W-BF Unit 3-4
800
=BF Unit 6
0
Flow
LL
600
400
200
0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 o O
r-q r,4 M ?* Ln l0 n 00 M O r-q r,4 M ?* Ln l0 n 00 M O r-q r,4 M O
r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q N N N N
Time
Figure C.2-4: Blewett Falls Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations and Flows -
August 18, 2009
7.00
6.00
5.00
C
0
M
? L
c
U * 4.00
U
C ,n
tW E
>M
X -
3.00
0
0
2.00
1.00
o.oo
I I
I I I
I
? I
I ? I I
•hI
I i I I
I I I i
I I I I I
i I I I I I
I I I I
I I I I I
h1 I?1 1
Test B09-10 I Test B09-13
Test B09-9 I Test 1309-IL 21 Test B09-13a
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r-I N M ?* Ln l0 n 00 M O rl N M ?* Ul l0 n 00 M O rl N M O
r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I N N N N
Time
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
c
0
w
v
Q
w
U
3
0
LL
-4-BF Unit 1
--W-BF Unit 3-4
BF Unit 6
-Flow
400
200
0
Figure C.2-5: Blewett Falls Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations and Flows -
August 19, 2009
9.00
8.00
7.00
0 6.00
41
L
4' L
c y
w 4,
o L 5.00
U w
CL
C Vn
w E
a m
p .9 4.00
w E
0
3 3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
? I I II I I I
I I I I I I I ,:
I I I II I''? I
? I II
I 1 I i1 I
? I II I` I I
I 14` I I
II
II
I ? III I I
1 L I I I_ I.
! I II I I I
T+ I I I I I
.
.
I I 11 t
1
I II I I I
I II I I I
Test B09-15 Test B09-16 Test B09-17a
i
? I II I I
Test B09-14 Test 1309-15a Test B09-17
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500 0

w
w
Q.
-4-13F Unit 1
2,000
--W-BF Unit 3-4

? BF Unit 6
1,500 0 Flow
a:
1,000
500
0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 o O
r-q r,4 M ?* Ln l0 n 00 M O r-q r,4 M ?* Ul l0 n 00 M O r-q r,4 M O
r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q r-q N N N N
Time
Figure C.2-6: Blewett Falls Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations and Flows -
August 20, 2009
8.00
7.00
6.00
C
0
L 5.00
4' L
c y
U
U •-
C L
V N
Q
w E 4.00
a
L"M
X
O .9
0 3.00
V1
0
2.00
1.00
0.00

N
I I I I I I
Test B09-19
f i l Test B09-20
l l
I
_
Test B09-18 Test B09-19a Test B09-21
10000
9000
8000
7000

c
6000
w
N
Q
-I BF Unit 1
5000
-W-BF Unit 3-4

BF Unit 6
4000
o
-Flow
LL
3000
2000
1000
0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 O 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 O 9 9 9 O
r_q r,4 M ?* Ln l0 n 00 M O rl r,4 M ?* Ln l0 n 00 M O rl r,4 M O
r_q i--I i--I r_q r_q r_q r_q r_q r_q r_q N N N N
Time
ARCADIS
Appendix D-1
Tillery 2009 Verification Evaluation
Results Summary
Progress Energy
Table D.1-1
Tillery 2009 Verification Evaluation Results Summary
D
t T
i
l U
it Flow Air Flow L
d D
i
ti HW Elev. TW Elev. Gross Head Average DO Concentrations (mg/1)
a
e r
a n CFS CFS oa escr
p
on Ft. Ft. Ft. TYCM00 TYCM1-1 TYCM1-2 TYCM1-3
08/01/09 T09-1 Trash Gate 350 0 N/A Targeted minimum flow - 330 cfs 277.8 204.3 73.5 No Data 7.15 6.73 7.24
08/06/09 T09-2 1 3600 0 Best Eff. 40' of tarp on trash rack 277.8 204.8 73.0 4.66 4.84 6.77 6.31
40' of tarp on trash rack; 6" vacuum
08/06/09 T09-3 1 3600 26 Best Eff.
breaker open 277.9 205.7 72.2 5.37 5.23 6.12 5.77
08/06/09 T09-4 1 4500 0 Max. 40' of tarp on trash rack 278.0 205.9 72.1 4.52 4.49 5.71 5.48
40' of tarp on trash rack; forced air
08/06/09 T09-5 1 4500 27 Max.
through 6" vacuum breaker 278.0 206.0 72.1 5.12 4.98 5.34 5.15
08/07/09 T09-6 1 3600 0 Best Eff. 40' of tarp on trash rack 277.8 204.3 73.5 3.42 3.80 3.76 4.42
40' of tarp on trash rack; forced air
08/07/09 T09-7 1 3600 27 Best Eff.
through 6" vacuum breaker 277.7 205.7 72.0 4.16 4.41 5.06 4.63
40' of tarp on trash rack; 6" vacuum
08/07/09 T09-8 1 4500 39 Max.
breaker open 277.6 205.9 71.7 4.14 4.34 5.30 4.88
08/07/09 T09-9 3 3600 0 Best Eff. Normal operation 277.6 205.7 71.9 2.40 3.44 5.37 4.90
08/07/09 T09-10 3 3600 30 Best Eff. 6" vacuum breaker open 277.6 205.7 71.9 3.00 3.31 4.36 4.10
08/07/09 T09-11 3 4500 28 Max. 6" vacuum breaker open 277.6 206.0 71.7 3.15 3.40 4.32 4.01
6" vacuum breaker open; forced air
08/07/09 T09-12 3 4500 53 Max.
through 10" draft tube vent (1 Comp.) 277.7 206.1 71.6 3.96 4.22 4.71 4.03
08/08/09 T09-12a Trash Gate 600 0 N/A Targeted spawning flow - 720 cfs 277.9 203.9 74.0 5.27 7.67 8.34 8.69
08/10/09 T09
13 1 3600 0 Best Eff. 40' of tarp on trash rack 278
0 207
1 70
9 2
01 2
81 3
29 4
38
- 3 3600 0 Best Eff. Normal operation . . . . . . .
08/10/09 T09
14 1 3600 0 Best Eff. 40' of tarp on trash rack 277
9 207
1 70
8 2
69 3
04 3
52 3
33
- 3 3600 25 Best Eff. 6" vacuum breaker open . . . . . . .
40' of tarp on trash rack; 6" vacuum
08/10/09 T09-15 1 3,600 19 Best Eff. breaker open 277.9 207.4 70.4 2.79 3.69 3.71 3.28
3 3,600 25 Best Eff. 6" vacuum breaker open
40' of tarp on trash rack; 6" vacuum
1 3,600 15 Best Eff. breaker open
08/10/09 T09-16 3 3,600 22 Best Eff. 6" vacuum breaker open 277.8 208.0 69.8 3.03 3.65 3.70 3.05
4 1,728 80 9 MW Vacuum breaker open
08/11/09 T09
17 3 3600 0 Best Eff. Normal operation 277
8 205
1 72
8 2
18 2
62 3
73 5
78
- 4 4200 0 Best Eff. Normal operation . . . . . . .
6" vacuum breaker open; forced air
3 3600 79 Best Eff.
08/11/09 T09-18 through 10" draft tube vent (2 Comp.) 277.7 207.2 70.6 4.12 4.06 3.42 2.88
4 4200 0 Best Eff. Normal operation
08/11/09 T09
19 3 3600 28 Best Eff. 6" vacuum breaker open 277
7 207
6 70
1 3
13 3
25 5
02 3
89
- 4 2880 0 15 MW Vacuum breaker open . . . . . . .
D
t T
i
l U
it Flow Air Flow L
d D
i
ti HW Elev. TW Elev. Gross Head Average DO Concentrations (mg/1)
a
e r
a n CFS CFS oa escr
p
on Ft. Ft. Ft. TYCM00 TYCM1-1 TYCM1-2 TYCM1-3
1 4500 20 Max. 40' of tarp on trash rack; 6" vacuum
breaker open
08/11/09 T09-20 3 4500 72 Max. 6" vacuum breaker open; forced air
through 10" draft tube vent (2 Comp.) 277.5 208.6 68.9 3.81 3.73 3.88 3.76
4 5200 0 Max. Normal operation
08/13/09 T09
21 1 3600 0 Best Eff. 20' of tarp on trash rack 277
5 205
0 72
5 3
42 2
86 4
11 5
28
- Trash Gate 300 N/A N/A Targeted minimum flow - 330 cfs . . . . . . .

08/13/09
T09-22 1 3600 0 Best Eff. 20' of tarp on trash rack and diffusers in
operation
277.4
205.8
71.6
4.12
3.40
3.85
5.54
Trash Gate 300 N/A N/A Targeted minimum flow - 330 cfs

08/13/09
T09-23 1 3600 28 Best Eff. 20' of tarp on trash rack; 6" vacuum
breaker open
277.3
205.8
71.5
3.54
3.81
4.42
5.73
Trash Gate 300 N/A N/A Targeted minimum flow - 330 cfs
08/13/09 T09-24 1 3600 0 Best Eff. 20' of tarp on trash rack 277.3 205.8 71.5 3.17 2.79 4.06 5.36
08/13/09 T09-25 1 3600 TBD Best Eff. 20' of tarp on trash rack and diffusers in
operation
277.4
205.8
71.6
2.63
3.04
4.23
3.53
08/13/09 T09-26 1 4500 TBD Max. 20' of tarp on trash rack, diffusers in
operation and 6' vacuum breaker open
277.4
205.9
71.6
2.80
3.60
4.32
3.50
08/14/09 T09-27 1 3600 0 Best Eff. Normal operation 277.9 204.8 73.1 No Data 2.40 5.30 6.15
08/14/09 T09-28 1 4500 0 Max. Normal operation 277.9 205.9 72.1 No Data 2.36 3.51 2.91
08/15/09 T09-29 Trash Gate 550 N/A N/A Targeted spawning flow - 720 cfs 277.8 204.1 73.7 No Data 6.90 6.31 6.43
08/20/09 T09
30 2 2800 8 Best Eff. 6" vacuum breaker open 277
8 205
8 72
0 N
D
t 1
45 2
00 2
92
- 4 4250 0 Best Eff. Normal operation . . . o
a
a . . .
2 2800 2 Best Eff. 6" vacuum breaker open
08/20/09 T09-31 4 4250 0 Best Eff. Normal operation 277.6 207.3 70.3 No Data 1.41 1.80 4.32
Taintor Gate 2040 N/A N/A Gate 2 feet open
ARCADIS
Appendix D-2
Blewett Falls 2009 Verification
Evaluation Results Summary
Progress Energy
Table D.2-1
Blewett Falls 2009 Verification Evaluation Results Summary
D
t T
i
l U
it Flow Air Flow L
d D
i
ti HW Elev. TW Elev. Gross Head Average DO Concentrations
a
e r
a n CFS CFS oa escr
p
on Ft. Ft. Ft. BFUnit 1 BFUnits 3-4 BFUnit 6
08/15/09 B09-1 5 1200 0 Best Eff. Normal Operation (Minimum Flow) 177.5 125.6 51.8 3.89 4.77 4.77
08/16/09 B09-2 5 1200 60 Best Eff. New draft tube vents 177.3 125.6 51.7 4.92 5.88 5.76
08/17/09 B09-3 5 1200 0 Best Eff. Normal Operation 177.2 125.6 51.6 3.82 4.10 4.22
08/17/09 B09-4 5 1200 121 Best Eff. Vacuum breaker valves open 177.2 125.6 51.6 4.56 6.40 6.22
08/17/09 B09-5 5 1700 123 Max. Vacuum breaker valves open 177.2 125.7 51.5 5.45 6.39 6.39
08/17/09 B09-6 5 1700 0 Max. Normal Operation 177.1 125.8 51.4 4.34 4.98 4.96
08/17/09 B09-7 5 1700 73 Max. New draft tube vents 177.1 125.8 51.3 5.32 6.15 6.11
08/17/09 B09-8 5 1200 72 Best Eff. New draft tube vents 177.1 125.8 51.3 5.39 6.51 6.27
08/17/09 B09-8a 5 1200 43 Best Eff. Downstream draft tube vent only 177.0 125.7 51.3 5.20 6.54 6.49
08/18/09 B09-9 2 1200 0 Best Eff. Normal Operation 177.8 124.9 52.9 5.01 4.75 4.74
08/18/09 B09-10 2 1200 63 Best Eff. Vacuum breaker valves open 177.8 125.4 52.5 5.73 4.45 4.61
08/18/09 B09-12 2 1350 0 Max. Normal Operation 177.8 125.6 52.2 4.68 4.35 4.39
08/18/09 B09-13 2 1350 63 Max. Vacuum breaker valves open 177.7 125.7 52.0 5.87 4.49 4.75
08/18/09 B09-13a 2 1200 31 Best Eff. Downstream vacuum breaker open 177.6 125.9 51.7 5.75 4.61 4.72
1 1200 0 Best Eff. Normal Operation
08/19/09 B09-14 2 1200 0 Best Eff. Normal Operation 178.0 126.3 51.8 2.40 5.02 5.14
3 1200 0 Best Eff. Normal Operation
1 1200 63 Best Eff. Vacuum breaker valves open
08/19/09 B09-15 2 1200 63 Best Eff. Vacuum breaker valves open 177.9 126.8 51.1 4.88 6.23 5.76
3 1200 63 Best Eff. Vacuum breaker valves open
1 1200 0 Best Eff. Normal Operation
08/19/09 B09-15a 2 1200 31 Best Eff. Upstream vacuum breaker open only 177.8 126.9 50.9 2.90 6.36 5.96
3 1200 63 Best Eff. Vacuum breaker valves open
4 1200 0 Best Eff. Normal Operation
08/19/09 B09-16 5 1200 0 Best Eff. Normal Operation 177.6 126.9 50.7 3.16 4.65 6.59
6 1200 0 Best Eff. Normal Operation
4 1200 122 Best Eff. Vacuum breaker valves open
08/19/09 B09-17 5 1200 74 Best Eff. New draft tube vents 77.5 127.0 50.6 4.95 6.90 8.07
6 1200 122 Best Eff. Vacuum breaker valves open
4 1200 122 Best Eff. Vacuum breaker valves open
08/19/09 B09-17a 5 1200 74 Best Eff. New draft tube vents 177.4 127.3 50.1 5.03 7.16 8.17
6 1200 0 Best Eff. Normal Operation
D
t T
i
l U
it Flow Air Flow L
d D
i
ti HW Elev. TW Elev. Gross Head Average DO Concentrations
a
e r
a n CFS CFS oa escr
p
on Ft. Ft. Ft. BFUnit 1 BFUnits 3-4 BFUnit 6
1 1200 0 Best Eff. Normal Operation
2 1200 0 Best Eff. Normal Operation
08/20/09 B09
18 3 1200 0 Best Eff. Normal Operation 177
7 127
6 50
1 3
18 5
03 4
57
- 4 1200 0 Best Eff. Normal Operation . . . . . .
5 1200 0 Best Eff. Normal Operation
6 1200 0 Best Eff. Normal Operation
1 1200 63 Best Eff. Vacuum breaker valves open
2 1200 63 Best Eff. Vacuum breaker valves open
08/20/09 B09
19 3 1200 63 Best Eff. Vacuum breaker valves open 177
5 128
3 49
2 5
18 6
99 6
90
- 4 1200 122 Best Eff. Vacuum breaker valves open . . . . . .
5 1200 68 Best Eff. New draft tube vents
6 1200 122 Best Eff. Vacuum breaker valves open
1 1200 0 Best Eff. Normal Operation
2 1200 31 Best Eff. Upstream vacuum breaker open only
08/20/09 B09
19 3 1200 63 Best Eff. Vacuum breaker valves open 177
3 128
6 48
8 3
90 6
92 6
02
-
a 4 1200 122 Best Eff. Vacuum breaker valves open . . . . . .
5 1200 67 Best Eff. New draft tube vents
6 1200 0 Best Eff. Normal Operation
1 1350 63 Max. Vacuum breaker valves open
2 1350 63 Max. Vacuum breaker valves open
08/20/09 B09
20 3 1350 63 Max. Vacuum breaker valves open 177
2 128
8 48
4 4
89 6
58 6
87
- 4 1700 122 Max. Vacuum breaker valves open . . . . . .
5 1700 68 Max. New draft tube vents
6 1700 122 Max. Vacuum breaker valves open
1 1350 0 Max. Normal Operation
2 1350 0 Max. Normal Operation
08/20/09 B09
21 3 1350 0 Max. Normal Operation 177
1 129
0 48
1 2
99 4
49 5
77
- 4 1700 0 Max. Normal Operation . . . . . .
5 1700 0 Max. Normal Operation
6 1700 0 Max. Normal Operation
ARCADIS
Appendix E-1
Tillery 2009 Water Quality Monitor
Locations Near Powerhouse
a
0
?M
V
O
O
0
N
N
a
E
N
n
E
F U)
? N
F
U ?
a 'o
a`
w 0
w O
Y n
co =
? U
O Z
v t
d N '.w
O °o fr
Ir OO
T
Ur
> S
D 00
LL
fr
U)
N O
FFa
UUd
All

TYB2 (Mid Res.)

y s

$
q
?- ? ? Y
{t'-.
•d
.
X
' w
4 h ? 3•
?4`
?. • t
y

,
T*
/
5 r
_

F Y
{
4
{
?
Rh ?" {,
i 1
?
!"Y

? .
t t
a

f. 1 =j
? •?:: rr. ? a „r
?, .71yf

y. TYCM1

TM1`-3
e ky
?

g r ;r
I
T"
ti
??ry'?F ..
rt N. ? k
y ;
0 1,000 2,000
TTT? Feet
GRAPHIC SCALE
ARCADIS
Appendix E-2
Blewett Falls 2009 Water Quality
Monitor Locations Near Powerhouse
0 Z
aNMD
M
00
,8T
U 0 rr
0
0 00 LL
U) M
0 O
F0
UUd

e r ?,i,

..
r-
_ ?{"??, "?ryi! I ^' 1`?
' -:c
? '
?
" ,r
?
?
p
j
b
'
¢
f±
?
?
h
'
?
fR
+?. '
,?
a£ ,?
y
.
'
y
?
.. 1
7',
? ?
??i?
">r
f y?• P
?F?
??',?r?
Y
19
r?
r ?
?
?
}
?
,
#
i -k ei r ,'t
y7?p +r ?•+
?y_.
`
i.
.1
•.
M'iT?
1?l75 f',fi
?.:
'y'"
`k
4 r .f,
• ^'
' -:k 'd.?
?
4
"
r{
I
9- ?,R
J j
i ^S }
il
LL h{
r "`

}
i1 k yw?xe r `, *?f ?'h 41?sY k;g
,'k'Yd ?•' F b ? ?x 1 ?r 714 ?`?? Y:?f i ? ?? y •.??k IC P ? F'k, _
My k ti T ? S
1
?"
,?`.','
I
?
"
f ? ??
??
? •?
t
+y
,
,3 "?
? ?a
? i ? F ?
?
?
ri
? {?'
?"
'J
?
? ?F
a
? ?
* }
r
a, ?
.
n
7
1 .{t u1
141
.
s
4
?
a
ac . x
* ?roti
M z ?C
,!'
r„'t*.. A 7 . Q' W;c. wE y ? y l Il? ? .:
.? I ? r 'rk? r{ y a. ?. W
?•
? ? F? r 1. ??? a }?'?,? :
R
-
4 '? . ¢'f^
^
??
.. .ti ; ? iy Y
w r.
i
q4? It
}
-
k a?
1 a
BFB2 (LAKE) O
"ai

r
£ y
l
r
,

10,

1 ?k? 4.x ? yl 'k l ?,et y
v, I ?u>F ] Y ? k R i d q T.

Fba
{ " "iiy-,` ?t yt A %BFB2C O

v}
1
l,k 1 A
- T I, t
tl f /,? lily " Y ' I of fki ? fry f* 4R a i :? k 4 ?? ? ? d ??
1
t ]
r
a
'4
'
j r
t ,
4h
,;
?
r
.I
.-Y t ^Y If t yy+? .?. tL t I .. ,,. I.J is +i., k.{ t;i-l
e
W
y 5
'
-
k
?
r
f.{ d Iry
a O BFUnit 1
Y:
i1j R: L ., i ?' 1 Y..
11
°
Unit 31l O BFCM1A O I b .
BF
t TT
.,
y;
4
'kA•?
s I n-!
f^4
Y
(
P
U
t
6
'
T
?
-
?.;
ni
;
? BF
,
#, I'.' f
'?. .•?' •
PJ
. O BFCM1B:
I
d
° BFB2B O
B
I
rt
O BF
2A r

xI i
14
1'
F
a
?
3 r ?"
•
w
...
.
.
,,
.
..
?
+ f
$,
- s k?y'r ,J 'ky 'f.. ?i5 $Jt : 0 1 1 '. y, }r.x'., h ;
,?k}?,"- r L .1
p3 ,Iw f
$
'o
k p k^r i . Irk
r a8.}?' f r 4w '.F
?.
yRl Pxi .1a? .t ?? f,;J?+ p?+]'
} Jlr°'r'{? P. ? w.,g?
?%/1? ?[l??'N,k a3 'e
sRf
; ?
',,! yr?'?
?? ',yg.?
T
?
s "? ?
? °
`?
?`? }•
i? a?
??
° ? cam'
,
?
?
?L
1
r
? {
.
'
,
+
'
'
?
µ, d
a .? t k `Y Y 'R`• k
! 4
yi f? ! K 'Y.i? F { 'r t±a A'k iP'Al£ 1.:
4 #b?' ,? y E ? t . R :Cfi I§al?. ?._ 1!i "Ai .i-?y •?. i9' !r'P Y?.,,,"? i '.?, ???
.
`*"krftr pfl,?'?r
.
h,
r a
.
1 t` t-
k
?
r
?
?

? $
. I I
{
? ,J
1* f
'!??r,?ss Y ? J
'v ! # p
y `?
. k
y
k'r!dq'h na ! t t4 i A d '.`. Y, y r . i'??.[y. e b tij,'a 6?" K
f r1 f.` {. »..
r l 4 ° , ''r.? Pb 3S ItJ=,'YY f G': !
'
I
' d

1
+ ,r y .i
1? d ?, y r r -t 'fir ?. k7•c'?'j?Ri
* *? 1 3,r y1 y a I
M S
P
a Kp
2 '
i
$`
?'J
1
}T r??r ?i
'& K
}
1
? ?S ??`
i•
3
°1'
Y
y
?
? ? y?. }
-.
_.
4
t
1
.,,
?
f `;1
'A L
i
?
,
? f ?I t"
y ? w
L
V
p?m
?
?'?
rf
??
y
•
L
.
,
i ? a - ?
.z .. +? n .r
;.
?, .?' TY h
•. ,i,
. ?N Is.:a
°
R t>
F.. ?t
a.,

PROGRESS ENERGY
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
YADKIN-PEE DEE RIVER
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
BLEWETT FALLS DEVELOPMENT -
2009 WATER QUALITY
MONITOR LOCATIONS
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
nn? I FIGURE
ARCADIS
4
GRAPHIC SCALE
ARCADIS
Appendix F-1
Tillery 2009 Dissolved Oxygen and
Velocities with Selective Withdrawal
at Unit 1
Figure F.1-1 Lake Tillery T09-2 dissolved oxygen concentrations and velocities, August 6, 2009
Velocity (fps)
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2
285 _ --
280 .. ..

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
*7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
275 -
TRASH GATE .• )
270
---- ??-
----------------- - - - - - - - -?++
------?
:•??
265 • •

260 -?
255 V 1 V ' /

250
245 -H
OW 240 , , •
'' • •
''
235 - -
•,, - - _.-
• •
230 ' _
•'• I INTAKE TARPS
225 .
•
•
•
220
•

215 j. ••
-L41 -
- -----------------
------------
-------
•

210
-- •
• -------- --------------------------.---
205 -
200
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
B2 (mid res.) - AM B2 (Intake) -AM - - B2 (mid res.) - PM - - - B2 (Intake) - PM • • • • • Velocity
0.0 0.1
285 ---
-
280
275 -
270 --
265
260 -
255
250 -
245 -
a 240
A
235
230
225
220 ?-
215 , .
210 -
205 -
200 I "
0.0 0.5
Figure F.1-2 Lake Tillery T09-4 dissolved oxygen concentrations and velocities, August 6, 2009
Velocity (fps)
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
B2 (mid res.) - AM B2 (Intake) -AM - - B2 (mid res.) - PM - - B2 (Intake) - PM • • • • • Velocity
0.0
285
280
275
270
265
260
255
250
245
a
A 240
235
230
225
220
215
210
205
I
200
0.0
280
270
260
250
240
230
220
210
- - - - 200
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
B2 (mid res.) - AM B2 (Intake) -AM - - B2 (mid res.) - PM - - - B2 (Intake) - PM • • • • • Velocity
Figure F.1-3 Lake Tillery T09-6 dissolved oxygen concentrations, and velocities August 7, 2009
Velocity (fps)
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
0.0 0.1
285
280
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
275
270
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
265
260
255
250
i
245 ? ? --------------?
A 240
?.•
235 _ ? ., ? ?•i_ -
230 •
•
•
•
225 -?
•
220 +
215 - - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - -
•s
210
- - - - • --- •-r -------
r+ -
205
Y I Y I I Y I Y Y
280
270
260
250
240
230
220
210
200 200
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
B2 (mid res.) - AM B2 (Intake) -AM - - B2 (mid res.) - PM - - - B2 (Intake) - PM • • • • • Velocity
Figure F.1-4 Lake Tillery T09-14 dissolved oxygen concentrations and velocities, August 10, 2009
Velocity (fps)
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2
Figure F.1-5 Lake Tillery T09-27 dissolved oxygen concentrations and velocities, August 14, 2009
Velocity (fps)
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
285
280
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
275
•
270 •
•
--------- -- - - - - - -
265
••
•
260
255
250
245
a"
A 240
235
230
225
220
215
210
205
200 "
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

•

2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
B2 (mid res.) - PM B2 ( I n t a k e ) -PM • • • • • Velocity
Figure F.1-6 Lake Tillery T09-28 dissolved oxygen concentrations and velocities, August 14, 2009
Velocity (fps)
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3
285
280
---------------------
275
•
270 •
•
?? --
i
265 ?. • ?_? •
•
260
255
250
245
a"
A 240
235
230
225
220
215
210
205
200 "
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
U ? I • I
II I

•L
2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
B2 (mid res.) - PM B2 ( I n t a k e ) -PM • • • • • Velocity
ARCADIS
Appendix F-2
Tillery 2009 Dissolved Oxygen
Projections with Selective Withdrawal
at Unit 1
Tillery Development, Unit 1
Selective Withdrawal
Projection of Downstream DO from Intake Velocity and DO Profiles
Table F.2-1: T09-2
Depth DO Velocity DO x V
270 8 0.81 6.48
265 7.7 0.95 7.315
260 7.55 1.08 8.154
255 7.4 1.08 7.992
250 7.3 0.9 6.57
245 0.6 0.68 0.408
240 0.25 0.5 0.125
235 0.2 0.3 0.06
230 0.2 0.2 0.04
225 0.2 0.11 0.022
220 0.2 0.05 0.01
215 0.2 0.145 0.029
210, 0.15 0.17 0.0255
Average DO Downstream: 5.34
Table F.2-2: T09-4
Depth DO Velocity DO x V
270 7.9 1.2 9.48
265 7.7 1.31 10.087
260 7.5 1.33 9.975
255 7.4 1.28 9.472
250 7.1 1.17 8.307
245 0.5 0.91 0.455
240 0.21 0.7 0.147
235 0.2 0.36 0.072
230 0.2 0.26 0.052
225 0.2 0.25 0.05
220 0.2 0.23 0.046
215 0.2 0.16 0.032
210 0.15 0.21 0.0315
Average DO Downstream: 5.14
Table F.2-4: T09-14
Depth DO Velocity DO x V
270 9.2 1.2 11.04
265 6.2 1 6.2
260 3.1 1.25 3.875
255 1.6 1.25 2
250 0.8 0.89 0.712
245 0.6 0.72 0.432
240 0.28 0.55 0.154
235 0.2 0.34 0.068
230 0.2 0.24 0.048
225 0.2 0.21 0.042
220 0.1 0.18 0.018
215 0.1 0.13 0.013
210 0.1 0.28 0.028
Average DO Downstream: 2.99
Table F.2-5: T09-27
Depth DO Velocity DO x V
270 7.9 0.23 1.817
265 6.7 0.29 1.943
260 6.4 0.39 2.496
255 1.5 0.45 0.675
250 0.9 0.48 0.432
245 0.2 0.58 0.116
240 0.2 0.7 0.14
235 0.2 0.73 0.146
230 0.2 0.81 0.162
225 0.2 0.99 0.198
220 0.2 0.6 0.12
215 0.2 0.22 0.044
210 0.1 0.18 0.018
Average DO Downstream: 1.25
Table F.2-3: T09-6
Depth DO Velocity DO x V
270 8.2 0.95 7.79
265 8.2 0.92 7.544
260 7.95 0.93 7.3935
255 5.7 0.98 5.586
250 1.7 0.98 1.666
245 0.7 0.75 0.525
240 0.4 0.55 0.22
235 0.2 0.39 0.078
230 0.2 0.2 0.04
225 0.2 0.16 0.032
220 0.2 0.09 0.018
215 0.2 0.09 0.018
210 0.1 0.22 0.022
Average DO Downstream: 4.29
Table F.2-6: T09-28
Depth DO Velocity DO x V
270 7.9 0.41 3.239
265 6.7 0.5 3.35
260 6.4 0.6 3.84
255 1.6 0.62 0.992
250 0.9 0.73 0.657
245 0.2 0.8 0.16
240 0.2 0.87 0.174
235 0.2 0.95 0.19
230 0.2 1.12 0.224
225 0.2 1.02 0.204
220 0.2 0.68 0.136
215 0.2 0.32 0.064
210 0.1 0.23 0.023
Average DO Downstream: 1.50
ARCADIS
Appendix F-3
Tillery 2006 - 2009 Station Flow
Tillery Station Flow in May 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009
Tillery Station Flow May-06 Tillery Station Flow May-07 III 500

0 400
ZE?
v 300 ", 255
T 3 155
W 200 106
Q ?-
0 "100 54
16 0
0 0 -
x
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0 2,400 4,800 7,200 9,600 12,000 14,400 16,800
Flow Greater Than (DSF) / (CFS)
Tillery Station Flow May-08
0
0_
0
0
0
x
500 1 -'
400
300 " M 224
200 127
"100
29 14 0
110
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0 2,400 4,800 7,200 9,600 12,000 14,400 16,800
Flow Greater Than (DSF) / (CFS)
0
c
v
?u
O
w
0
0
0
0
a?
0
w
0
0
x
500
400
300
200
100
500
400
300
200
100
Tillery Station Flow May-09
Flow Greater Than (DSF) / (CFS)
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0 2,400 4,800 7,200 9,600 12,000 14,400 16,800
Flow Greater Than (DSF) / (CFS)
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0 2,400 4,800 7,200 9,600 12,000 14,400 16,800
Tillery Station Flow in June 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009
Tillery Station Flow June-06 Tillery Station Flow June-07
500
i
7
t 400
v 300
L
235
C 116
0 -3 57
0 100 - ? ? ?40 Zi-
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0 2,400 4,800 7,200 9,600 12,000 14,400 16,800
Flow Greater Than (DSF) / (CFS)
Tillery Station Flow June-08
500
t 400
a 300
;3
200 - 16T 129
108
69 40
0 100
N

500
7
t 400
v 300
Q 200 f
100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L r
7
o
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0 2,400 4,800 7,200 9,600 12,000 14,400 16,800
Flow Greater Than (DSF) / (CFS)
Tillery Station Flow June-09
500
t 400
v 300
a 200
D
o 100
L
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0 2,400 4,800 7,200 9,600 12,000 14,400 16,800
Flow Greater Than (DSF) / (CFS)
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0 2,400 4,800 7,200 9,600 12,000 14,400 16,800
Flow Greater Than (DSF) / (CFS)
Tillery Station Flow in July 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009
Tillery Station Flow July-06 Tillery Station Flow July-07
L
0
t
c
0
L
Q.
Q
0
tIn
7s
0
2
500
400
300
200
100 31 3
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0 2,400 4,800 7,200 9,600 12,000 14,400 16,800
L
0
t
c
a
L
V
0
0
2
boo
400 I''
300
200
100
0
Flow Greater Than (DS F) / (C FS)
Flow Greater Than (DSF) / (CFS)
Tillery Station Flow July-08
500
t 400
v 300
a? 200 ?, 145
102
0 100 44 26
i? 11 a
0
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0 2.400 4.800 7200 9.600 12.000 14.400 16.800
Flow Greater Than (DSF) f (CFS)
0
c
0
a
a
0
0
Tillery Station Flow July-09
500
400
300
200
100 • 25 11 0 " -0 -)U ME ME ?-7
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0 2.400 4.800 7200 9.600 12.000 14.400 16.800
Flow Greater Than (DSF) / (CFS)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0 2,400 4,800 7,200 9,600 12,000 14,400 16,800
Tillery Station Flow in August 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009
Tillery Station Flow August-06
N
0
t
0
a?
a
0
N
0
500
400
300
200
100
Tillery Station Flow August-08
500
0 400
'
i
0 300

Q. 200
115
G 77
-
0 100 m 23 21 13 8 0
1

0 0

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0 2.400 4.800 7.200 9.600 12.000 14.400 16.800
Flow Greater Than (DSF) J (CFS)
Tillery Station Flow August-07
N
0
c
0
w
a
0
0
13
73
0
500
400
300
200
100
Tillery Station Flow August-09
500 .
0 400
v 300 235
80-
200 133
0 100 }5 41 18
0
0
2
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0 2.400 4.800 7.200 9.600 12.000 14.400 16.800
Flow Greater Than (DSF) / (CFS)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0 2,400 4,800 7,200 9,600 12,000 14,400 16,800
Flow Greater Than (DSF) / (CFS)
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0 2,400 4,800 7,200 9,600 12,000 14,400 16,800
Flow Greater Than (DSF) / (CFS)
Tillery Station Flow in September 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009
Tillery Station Flow September-06
500
t 400
0 300
C3
t 200
Q.
O
v 100
i
7
O
2
Tillery Station Flow September-08
500
N
t 400
0 300
W 200
v 100 ?5._ 26 10 0 ....
0
O
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0 2,400 4,800 7,200 9,600 12,000 14,400 16,800
Flow Greater Than (DSF) / (CFS)
Tillery Station Flow September-07
500
z 400
v 300
Y
CO
n; 200
O
100
73
7
Q
2
Tillery Station Flow September-09
500
400
o 300
w 200
a
O
© 100
N
0
V
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0 2,400 4,800 7,200 9,600 12,000 14,400 16,800
Flow Greater Than (DSF) /(CFS)
Q
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0 2.400 4.800 7200 9.600 12.000 14.400 16.800
Flow Greater Than (DSF) / (CFS)
Q
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0 2.400 4.800 7200 9.600 12.000 14.400 16.800
Flow Greater Than (DSF) A (CFS)