20030147 Ver 0_Report_20110113 (32)

9,?,'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 - 2010 Draft Tube Venting, Minimum Flow
Tests, and Engineering Evaluations
Imagine the result
December 2010
ARCADIS
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project FERC
Project No. 2206
Raleigh, North Carolina
Phase IV - 2010 Draft Tube
Venting, Minimum Flow Tests,
and Engineering Evaluations
Prepared for:
Progress Energy
Prepared by:
ARCADIS of New York, Inc.
6723 Towpath Road
P.O. Box 66
Syracuse
New York 13214-0066
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]
Our Ref.:
CT0053349
Date:
December 2010
This document is intended only for the use
of the individual or entity for which it was
prepared and may contain information that
is privileged, confidential and exempt from
disclosure under applicable law. Any
dissemination, distribution or copying of
this document is strictly prohibited.
ARCADIS
Glossary of Terms
Executive Summary
1. Introduction
1.1 Background: 2009 and Previous Evaluations
1.2 Tillery Development: Facility Description, 2009 Evaluation Methods,
Results and Recommendations
1.2.1 Tillery Development - Facility Description
1.2.2 Tillery Development: 2009 - Evaluation Methods
1.2.3 Tillery Development 2009 Results and Recommendations
1.2.3.1 Tillery Development 2009 Results
1.2.3.2 Tillery Development 2009 Recommendations
1.3 Blewett Falls Development: Facility Description and 2009 Evaluation
Methods, Results and Recommendations
1.3.1 Blewett Falls Development - Facility Description
1.3.2 Blewett Falls Development 2009 Evaluation Methods
1.3.3 Blewett Falls Development 2009 Results and Recommendations
1.3.3.1 Blewett Falls Development 2009 Results
1.3.3.2 Blewett Falls Development 2009 Recommendations
2. 2010 Work Plan
2.1 Research Conducted for Development of 2010 Work Plans
2.2 Tillery Development - 2010 Work Plan
2.2.1 Tillery Development Dissolved Oxygen Monitors and Locations
2.3 Blewett Falls - 2010 Work Plan
2.3.1 Blewett Falls Development Dissolved Oxygen Monitors
3. 2010 Field Verification Evaluation Methods
3.1 Equipment Used
3.1.1 Tillery Development
3.1.2 Blewett Falls Development
1
2
7
8
8
8
9
10
10
12
13
13
14
15
15
15
17
17
19
21
22
23
26
26
26
26
Table of Contents
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc
ARCADIS
3.2 Evaluation Methods
3.2.1 Tillery Development
3.2.1.1 Aeration through Upper Draft Tube 6 inch Vacuum
Breaker Vents and Lower Draft Tube 10 inch Vents
3.2.2 Blewett Falls Development
3.2.2.1 Aeration through Vacuum Breaker Vents
3.2.2.2 Air Flow Monitoring
4. Discussion of Field Evaluation Results
4.1 Tillery Development
4.1.1 Aeration through Upper 6 inch Vacuum Breaker Vents and Lower
10 inch Draft Tube Vents
4.1.2 Baffle Plate Assemblies
4.1.3 Minimum and Spawning Flows through Crest Gate
4.2 Blewett Falls Development
4.2.1 Aeration through Draft Tube Vents and Vacuum Breakers
4.2.2 Minimum Flow Utilizing Units 3 or 4
4.2.3 Impacts to Units 3 and 4 Generation Due to Draft Tube Venting
Operation
5. Conclusions
5.1 Tillery Development
5.1.1 Compliance Monitoring Location
5.1.2 Alternate Operating Scenarios
5.1.3 Conclusions
5.2 Blewett Development
5.2.1 Compliance Monitoring Location
5.2.2 Performance of Draft Tube Vents
5.2.3 Alternate Operating Scenarios
5.2.4 Conclusions
6. References
27
27
28
30
30
30
31
31
32
35
36
37
38
41
42
44
44
44
44
46
47
47
48
49
50
52
Table of Contents
G:\DiOWOMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc
ARCADIS
Tables
Table 1 Tillery Development Turbine - Generator Equipment
Table 2 Blewett Falls Development Turbine - Generator Equipment
Table 3 Tillery Water Quality Monitor Location Descriptions
Table 4 Blewett Falls Water Quality Monitor Location Descriptions
Table 5 Tillery Development Verification Evaluation Equipment
Table 6 Blewett Falls Development Verification Evaluation Equipment
Table 7 Tillery Tailwater Elevation Range for Operation of One or More
Units
Figures
Figure 1 Cross Section Profile of the Tillery Powerhouse
Figure 2 Cross Section of the Blewett Falls Powerhouse
Figure 3 Tillery 2010 Water Quality Monitor Locations Near Powerhouse
Figure 4 Blewett Falls 2010 Water Quality Monitor Locations Near
Powerhouse
Figure 5 Tillery 6 inch Draft Tube Vent Baffle Plate - Unit 1
Figure 6 Tillery 6 inch Draft Tube Vent Baffle Plate - Units 2 and 3
Figure 7 Tillery 10 inch Draft Tube Vent Baffle Plate - Units 2 and 3
Figure 8 Tillery Unit 4 Draft Tube Air Intake System
Appendices
A-1 Tillery 2010 Verification Evaluations Schedule
A-2 Blewett Falls 2010 Verification Evaluations Schedule
B-1 Tillery 2010 Verification Evaluation Results Summary
B-2 Blewett Falls 2010 Verification Evaluation Results Summary
C-1 Tillery 2010 Intake and Mid-Reservoir Daily Dissolved Oxygen Profiles
9
14
21
24
26
27
32
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
Table of Contents
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc
ARCADIS
C-2 Tillery 2010 Intake and Mid-Reservoir Daily Temperature Profiles
C-3 Blewett Falls 2010 Reservoir and Intake Channel Daily Dissolved Oxygen
Profiles
C-4 Blewett Falls 2010 Reservoir Intake Channel Daily Temperature Profiles
D-1 Tillery 2010 Downstream Dissolved Oxygen Profiles
D-2 Blewett Falls 2010 Downstream Dissolved Oxygen Profiles
E-1 Tillery 2010 Air Flow vs Tailwater Elevation - All Units
E-2 Tillery 2010 Percent Air Flow vs Tailwater Elevation - All Units
E-3 Tillery 2010 Vented and Non-Vented DO Readings -The Proposed Units
1,2,3
E-4 Tillery 2010 DO Readings at the Proposed Compliance Location Under
Different Unit Operation Scenarios/Times of Day
F-1 Blewett Falls 2010 Draft Tube Air Flow and Associated Power Losses
F-2 Blewett Falls 2010 DO Concentrations at Buoy Line for Various Evaluation
Trials
F-3 Blewett Falls 2010 Tailrace DO Concentrations 400 feet Downstream of
Buoy Line
F-4 Blewett Falls 2010 Tailrace DO Contours Between Buoy Line and 400 feet
Downstream of Buoy Line
Table of Contents
G:\DiOWOMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc iv
ARCADIS
Glossary of Terms
cf - cubic foot/feet
CFD - Computational Fluid Dynamics
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
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
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc
ARCADIS
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, the section of river below Tillery Dam to Rocky River remains 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 shown that Project releases during current license
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 generally 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 water quality
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
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 2
ARCADIS
review and comment. During the 2010 verification trials, DO concentration,
temperature, pH and conductivity levels were also recorded.
The monitoring program referenced above measured DO concentrations that were
below state water quality standards generally between May and September, with the
lowest concentrations occurring in late July and August during the period of greatest
thermal stratification. The 2010 DO verification trials at the Project were conducted
between July 31st and August 13th 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 2010 report provides a summary of the 2009 evaluation trials, the work plan,
methodology, results, and the conclusions associated with the 2010 trials. Intensive
field verification trials were conducted at each Development during a two week period
in August, 2010. The report also summarizes the technologies that will be employed at
each hydroelectric plant to meet the state DO water quality standards.
The overall objective of the 2010 verification trials was to further evaluate the
effectiveness of passive aeration, provide information for determining optimal operating
scenarios, and determine potential compliance monitoring locations.
Methods Evaluated in 2010
At the Tillery Development, the following methods were evaluated:
• Minimum flows provided through the crest gate adjacent to the powerhouse.
• Passive aeration through the 6-inch vacuum breakers on Units 1, 2, and 3 with
alternative design baffle plates placed over the vacuum breaker piping where it
enters the draft tube.
• Passive aeration through the 10-inch draft tube vents of Units 2 and 3 with the
addition of baffle plates placed over the vent piping where it enters the draft tube.
At the Blewett Falls Development, the following methods were evaluated:
• Minimum flows through Units 3 and 4
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc
ARCADIS
• Passive aeration through new draft tube vents installed on Units 3 and 4.
• Passive aeration through the existing vacuum breakers on Units 1, 2 and 6.
• Passive aeration through the existing draft tube vents installed on Unit 5 during
2009.
Conclusions Determined from 2010 Evaluations
As a result of the 2010 verification trials, the following conclusions were determined:
Tillery Development:
• DO monitoring location TYCM1-2 (center of river at the Highway 731 Bridge)
provides the most representative indication of DO concentrations for the majority of
the operating scenarios. This location is the proposed DO compliance monitoring
location contingent upon approval by the N.C. Division of Water Quality.
• During the 2010 trials, both the daily average state standard DO of 5.0 mg/I and
the instantaneous DO of 4.0 mg/I were maintained during a 24 hour minimum flow
release from 12:00 PM on July 31, 2010 through 12:00 PM on August 1, 2010..
• For Units 1, 2 and 3, the addition of baffle plates or the modification to the baffle
plate design improved the magnitude of the air flow through the vacuum breakers.
However, the improved air flow did not provide any consistent and measurable
increases in DO uptake when compared to the 2009 results.
• The baffle plate design utilized on Unit 1 provides approximately 10% greater air
flow than the design used on Unit 3.
• Addition of baffle plates to the 10-inch draft tube vents did not create air flow
through these vents.
• For single unit operation, Unit 2 provided the greatest DO uptake at the proposed
compliance location. The maximum DO measurement occurred with Unit 2 at
minimum load.
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 4
ARCADIS
• For two unit operation, Unit 1 at best efficiency and Unit 4 at 9 to 10 MW load with
the vacuum breaker open provided the greatest DO uptake at the compliance
monitoring location.
• DO levels with three and four units operating are less than DO levels with one or
two units operating.
• When operating Units 1, 2 and 3, the addition of Unit 4 with the vacuum breaker
open (9-10 MW load) does not increase the DO at the compliance monitoring
location.
• Passive aeration will not solely achieve the required DO compliance levels under
all conditions.
• To achieve compliance with the state DO water quality standards with power plant
operations, a reservoir oxygen diffuser system will be installed and operated in
conjunction with passive venting on Units 1, 2, and 3.
Blewett Falls Development:
• The proposed DO compliance monitoring locations will be sited between the
tailrace buoy line (between buoys 5 and 6) and a location approximately 400 feet
downstream from the buoy line and 150 to 175 feet from the west shoreline. Final
siting of the DO compliance location is contingent upon approval by the N.C.
Division of Water Quality. Compliance was achieved at these two locations during
the 2010 trials for the majority of the operating scenarios.
• The new draft tube vent systems for Units 3 and 4 provide air flow in excess of
design conditions.
• During the minimum flow tests both the instantaneous and daily average DO
compliance standards were met at the center buoy line location during both the 24-
hour test with Unit 3 and the 24-hour test with Unit 4.
• The maximum DO uptake achieved under various operating scenarios was 2.0
mg/I. This increase was accomplished with a minimum starting DO of 4.6 mg/I.
This is less than the target increase of 2.6 mg/I, which is projected for the worst
case scenario.
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 5
ARCADIS
• For a DO uptake of 2.0 mg/I the power loss for Unit 4 operating independently was
27% and the power loss when operating Units 1, 3, 4 and 6 was 15%.
• For a DO uptake of 2.0 mg/I or less, the power loss varied between 500 kW and
1200 kW for each incremental increase of 1 mg/I under most operating scenarios.
When operating four units and not venting with Units 3 and 4, the power loss
increases to 2000 kW/mg/I.
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 6
ARCADIS
1. 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 (NCDENR 2010).
The sections of the Pee Dee River from Tillery Dam to Blewett Falls Lake are classified
by the NCDWQ as Class WS-IV,B, WS-V,B and WS-IV,B&CA 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 2010). 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
(NCDENR 2008). 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
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc
ARCADIS
River Project. Section 2.3 of the Comprehensive Settlement Agreement specifically
addressed water quality issues, including dissolved oxygen. In May 2007, Progress
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: 2009 and 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. During the 2006 through 2008 timeframe, initial field
evaluations of potential DO enhancement measures at each Development were
conducted. The results of the 2006 through 2008 evaluations are summarized in the
Phase IV - 2009 report (ARCADIS 2010). Building on the previous evaluations,
additional DO enhancement measures were evaluated in 2009 at each Development.
A brief discussion of the 2009 evaluation program at the Tillery and Blewett Falls
Developments is provided below.
1.2 Tillery Development: Facility Description, 2009 Evaluation Methods, Results and
Recommendations
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
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc
ARCADIS
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
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 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 23.0 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
1.2.2 Tillery Development: 2009 - Evaluation Methods
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) aeration through the
use of fine bubble air diffusers located at the trashracks for one of the Units; and (7)
minimum flow tests through the existing dam crest gate. 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. Various combinations of methodologies were used at varying turbine
G:\DiOWOMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
ARCADIS Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
operation levels. In addition, minimum and spawning flow evaluations were conducted Yadkin-Pee Dee River
over approximate 24 hour periods to evaluate DO levels under these conditions. Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
1.2.3 Tillery Development 2009 Results and Recommendations
1.2.3.1 Tillery Development 2009 Results
• Minimum and spawning flows alone through the crest 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 crest 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.
• 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. The greatest increase occurred at the higher tailwater
elevations. 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 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 proposed 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
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 10
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
ARCADIS Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
operating at the 9 MW load point, was approximately 80 cfs with this type of Yadkin-Pee Dee River
aeration. In 2009, Unit 4 was only evaluated in combination with other units so no Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
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 aeration 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
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. 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, this potential compliance option was not pursued further.
• 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
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 11
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
ARCADIS Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
compliance monitoring location at the NC Highway 731 Bridge were below the Yadkin-Pee Dee River
daily average state standard (5.0 mg/1). During this evaluation the maximum Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
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 was not pursued further.
1.2.3.2 Tillery Development 2009 Recommendations
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 was determined to be
needed to meet the state standards. In addition, the operating sequence of the Units
should be evaluated to optimize the recommended methods of DO enhancement at
Tillery. The implementation of the following methods during 2010 was recommended.
Vacuum Breaker Passive Aeration. Passive aeration through the 6-inch vacuum
breakers on Units 1-3 was 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 will be pursued to potentially allow for more efficient
DO uptake than the 0.4 to 0.8 mg/I observed during the 2009 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
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/1. It was 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 was suggested for evaluation since the compressors
provide air at much higher pressures than needed and the compressor 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
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 12
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
ARCADIS Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
vacuum breaker closes resulting in no air uptake. During the periods of time when Yadkin-Pee Dee River
reservoir stratification is highest, operating Unit 4 at the 9 MW load level is expected to Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
optimize the level of DO concentration increase.
DO Compliance Monitoring Location. It was recommended that the compliance
monitoring location be located at mid-river at the NC Highway 731 Bridge.
1.3 Blewett Falls Development: Facility Description and 2009 Evaluation Methods,
Results and Recommendations
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:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 13
ARCADIS
Table 2
Blewett Falls Development Turbine - Generator Equipment
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 2009 Evaluation Methods
• Passive aeration through new, temporary 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.
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
G:\DiOWOMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 14
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
ARCADIS Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
1.3.3 Blewett Falls Development 2009 Results and Recommendations Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
1.3.3.1 Blewett Falls Development 2009 Results
• New temporary 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/I 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 DO water quality standards during these
evaluations.
• For passive aeration through existing and modified vacuum breaker vents, DO
concentration increased between 1.4 and 2.3 mg/I 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.
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 DO water quality 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.
1.3.3.2 Blewett Falls Development 2009 Recommendations
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 water quality standards during the 2009 verification trials. It was
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 15
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
ARCADIS Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
recommended that the primary source of DO enhancement to be used is the Yadkin-Pee Dee River
installation of draft tube vents as discussed below. Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
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. It was determined that
the draft tube air inlets need to 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 will be installed to allow for control of this passive aeration method.
Vacuum Breakers. Passive aeration through the vacuum breaker vents was
determined to be able to 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 DO uptake through the vacuum breaker
lines. It was recommended that the installed gate valves remain in place for potential
future use as back up aeration measure.
Proposed DO Compliance Monitoring Location. It was 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 was 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 was generally anticipated to follow the reverse pattern of first units on,
last off.
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 16
ARCADIS
2. 2010 Work Plan
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 2010 the evaluations would focus improving
and optimizing the passive aeration method of DO enhancement and evaluating
additional technologies to meet the state DO water quality standards at the Tillery
Plant.
2.1 Research Conducted for Development of 2010 Work Plans
In early 2010, after submittal of the final report on the 2009 evaluations, Progress
Energy requested that ARCADIS develop a Feasibility Review of the various
methodologies utilized or proposed to date in an effort to determine the methodologies
that would have the best chance of providing the most effective DO enhancement at
the Tillery Development during periods of high stratification conditions in the reservoir.
The Feasibility Review, completed in March 2010 (ARCADIS 2010a), evaluated the
DO uptake capabilities and the cost effectiveness of several formerly applied
methodologies at the Tillery Development. These included: (1) passive aeration
through the existing 6 inch draft tube vents at the top of the draft tubes for Units 1, 2,
and 3 including the potential addition of a second 6 inch draft tube vent in the upper
draft tube area; (2) forced aeration blowers that would provide sufficient air flow volume
to the lower 10 inch draft tube vents in Units 1, 2 and 3 to meet DO uptake
requirements; (3) operation of Unit 4 at the 9 MW load point (approximately 1/3 gate
opening) during the entire DO stratification period potentially requiring a de-rating of
the Unit during that period; and (4) assessing the feasibility of installing a submerged,
flexible curtain weir in the Tillery intake area that would allow for selective withdrawal of
typically higher DO concentration water from the top of the water column.
The Feasibility Review of the potential installation of a high volume air blower system
at the Tillery Development revealed that while this type of system would be able to
meet DO uptake requirements, it would be very expensive to install, operate and
maintain. In addition, due to the high amount of forced air required and the limited
amount of space available for this system, a single blower system would be required
for each Unit not affording any redundancy in the system. Due to these findings, this
type of system was dropped from further consideration.
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 17
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
ARCADIS Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
Based on the positive results achieved with the use of tarps on the trashracks to allow Yadkin-Pee Dee River
for selective withdrawal of water from the upper portion of the water column during the Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
2009 evaluations, Progress Energy and ARCADIS conducted additional research into
existing applications of flexible, submerged curtain weir systems (ARCADIS 2010b). It
was determined that there is one of these type systems in use, but for a different
purpose. A similar type submerged curtain weir system is being used for enhancing the
uptake of colder reservoir water in the western US. This system floats on the reservoir
surface and draws water from the area between the reservoir bottom and the bottom of
the curtain, allowing colder reservoir water to discharge through the turbines to the
river below the powerhouse for enhancing the fishery below the powerhouse. No
specific application of this type of system for DO enhancement, where the top of the
curtain weir is submerged below the water surface was identified through this research
effort.
Since the submerged, flexible curtain weir-type system showed promise to be effective
at meeting DO uptake requirements at the Tillery Development, ARCADIS assisted
Progress Energy with contacting two potential flexible curtain weir
fabrication/installation consultants to allow for further assessment of this methodology.
Gunderboom Inc. and Spilldam Inc. were contacted and asked to provide preliminary
evaluations of a submerged, curtain weir at the Tillery Development. Each consultant
provided a preliminary design and an associated cost estimate. Based on these
preliminary evaluations and the overall engineering capabilities of each consultant, it
was determined to pursue this concept further with Gunderboom. In addition, to allow
for a detailed analysis of the complex flow patterns and flow velocities associated with
this type of system, it was determined that a hydraulic modeling consultant should be
engaged to evaluate various potential curtain weir layouts to determine the most
effective positioning of the curtain weir. To provide this analysis, ARCADIS contracted
with Alden Research Labs, Inc. Alden then developed a Computational Fluid
Dynamics (CFD) model of the Tillery intake area to allow the evaluation of various
submerged curtain weir layouts. (Alden Research Laboratory, 2010) Gunderboom
provided input to weir configuration layout and associated fabrication and installation
costs (Gunderbroom 2010).
Based on the results of the modeling evaluations, it was determined that the flexible,
submerged curtain weir system would be effective for DO enhancement, however, due
to high installation and annual maintenance costs and the current lack of evidence of
successful applications of this technology for DO enhancement purposes, it was
dropped from further consideration.
G:\DiOWOMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 18
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
ARCADIS Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
Progress Energy also conducted additional research to determine the feasibility and Yadkin-Pee Dee River
cost for installing a direct oxygen diffuser system in the Tillery Development Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
impoundment (Mobley et al. 2010c). This type of methodology has been installed in
several hydro plant reservoirs and has shown good results with increasing the uptake
of DO in turbine discharge waters. To evaluate this methodology further, Progress
contracted with Mobley Engineering, Inc. (Norris, TN) to provide preliminary system
sizing, layout, potential effectiveness relative to the stratification conditions
experienced in the Tillery reservoir and costs . This evaluation showed that a reservoir
based dissolved oxygen diffuser system is a technically feasible approach, to meet
downstream state DO water quality standards. Similar systems have been
successfully installed at various hydro plants across the U.S. to meet dissolved oxygen
requirements. This type of diffuser system will be used to meet DO concentration
requirements under severe impoundment stratification conditions in conjunction with
draft tube venting at Tillery. Construction planning of the oxygen diffuser system is
underway at the time of preparation of this report.
At Blewett Falls, the 2009 trial evaluation showed good DO uptake through use of the
draft tube vents, therefore, no additional feasibility studies for alternate technologies
were conducted following the 2009 evaluations. In order to further enhance the
operation of the draft tube vents, ARCADIS designed a new air intake system for the
draft tubes. The new system involved deploying permanent draft tube vent piping and
new motor-operated butterfly valves with automatic controls on both draft tubes for
Units 3 and 4. The new butterfly valves for each system were connected to the
powerhouse control room to allow either automatic or manual control of the amount of
air into the draft tubes based on DO concentration in the tailrace. Under automatic
control, the DO set point is compared to a downstream DO measurement and valve
position is controlled to maintain downstream DO at or above the selected set point.
Progress Energy has completed installation of all new draft tube vents at the Blewett
Falls Plant during 2010. The installed system will undergo trial operation during 2011.
Based on the results of the 2009 evaluations and the feasibility review process
conducted in early 2010, the following 2010 work plans for the Tillery and Blewett Falls
Developments were developed.
2.2 Tillery Development -2010 Work Plan
The 2010 DO enhancement evaluations for the Tillery Development focused on
passive aeration through the 6 inch upper draft tube vacuum breakers utilizing a new
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 19
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
ARCADIS Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
baffle plate design for Units 1, 2 and 3; and passive aeration through a new 10 inch Yadkin-Pee Dee River
baffle plate on the lower draft tube vent on Units 2 and 3. Evaluations were performed Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
at best efficiency, maximum and minimum load points for Units 1, 2 & 3. Unit 4 was
operated in a vented mode in the 9 to 10 MW load range in conjunction with the
operation of other units. In addition, a minimum flow (approximately 330 cfs)
evaluation was conducted over an approximate 24 hour period through use of the
newly installed crest gate to evaluate DO levels under these conditions. Evaluation of
spawning flows (725 cfs) were also attempted through the newly installed gate but
excessive splashing over the wall and onto the Unit 4 generator deck caused this
evaluation to be cancelled. Progress Energy is installing an extension to the diversion
wall between Unit 4 and the trash sluice to prevent future overwash effects.
Progress Energy and ARCADIS developed separate modified baffle plate designs for
the 6 inch draft tube vents on Units 1, 2 and 3 as well as a new baffle plate for the
lower 10 inch draft tube vent on Units 2 and 3 at the Tillery Development. The Unit 1
baffle plate design was placed over the 6-inch vacuum breaker piping where it enters
the draft tube. The baffle plated was placed at a 15° angle to the vertical position in an
effort to match anticipated swirl in the draft tube (Figure 5). A similar, but
approximately 6-inch wider baffle plate design was used for the 6-inch vacuum
breakers for Units 2 and 3. (Figure 6) For the 10-inch draft tube vents on Units 2 and 3,
a similar, but larger, baffle plate design was installed (Figure 7).
The goals for the 2010 evaluations at the Tillery Development were to: (1) compare the
new upper draft tube 6 inch baffle plate designs on Units 1, 2 and 3 to see which
design provides the greatest DO uptake; (2) evaluate the effectiveness of the 10 inch
baffle plates on the lower draft tube vents on Units 2 and 3; (3) determine the best
combination of units and associated operating levels to use to provide the highest
amount of DO uptake with the lowest corresponding power loss under varying DO
uptake requirement needs.
The Tillery 2010 Verification Trials Schedule (Appendix A-1) provides a list of each of
the trials conducted at the Tillery Development during the July 31 through August 6,
2010 evaluation period. The schedule provides the date, day of the week, trial number,
time duration of the trial, the generating units involved, the unit load (minimum, best
efficiency or maximum gate position), the total water flow in cfs for the trial, and a
description of the evaluation methods being used for the trial.
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 20
ARCADIS
2.2.1 Tillery Development Dissolved Oxygen Monitors and Locations
At the Tillery Development, two stations were used in the upstream reservoir and
intake forebay areas to develop full depth discrete profiles of DO concentrations at
these locations. Downstream of the draft tube discharge areas, one continuous DO
recording monitor was placed in front of the unit discharge tunnels depending on which
unit was being evaluated. Three continuous 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 continuous monitor was placed
downstream at the confluence of the Pee Dee and Rocky Rivers, and one continuous
monitor was placed 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 2010 evaluation work.
Table 3
Tillery Water Quality Monitoring Location Descriptions
Monitor
Identification Location Monitor Type Description
TYB2 Mid reservoir Discrete vertical water Mid reservoir,
quality sampling approximately 1,250 ft.
upstream of dam
TYB2A Intake Discrete vertical water Approximately 200 ft.
quality sampling upstream of intake
structure
TYCM00 Discharge tunnels Continuous water Just downstream of
quality sampling draft tube discharge
tunnel in front of Unit 3
TYCM Discharge tunnels Continuous water Just downstream of
(Real Time quality sampling draft tube discharge
Telemetry) tunnel in front of Unit 1
(8/2/10) and then in
front of Unit 2 draft tube
discharge tunnel (8/3 -
8/6/10)
TYCM1-1 East side of river at Continuous water In vicinity of eastern
NC Hwy. 731 quality sampling bridge piers; bridge
Bridge located approximately
2,250 ft. downstream of
powerhouse
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 21
ARCADIS
Monitor
Identification Location Monitor Type Description
TYCM1-2 Center of river at Continuous water In vicinity of center
NC Hwy. 731 quality sampling bridge piers; bridge
Bridge located approximately
2,250 ft. downstream of
powerhouse
TYCM1-3 West side of river at Continuous water In vicinity of western
NC Hwy. 731 quality sampling bridge piers; bridge
Bridge located approximately
2,250 ft. downstream of
powerhouse
TYCM2 Near center of river Continuous water Approximately 3.8 miles
above confluence quality sampling downstream of
with Rocky River powerhouse
TYCM2A Near east side of Continuous water Approximately 6.5 miles
river below quality sampling downstream of
confluence with powerhouse
Rocky River
Appendices C-1 and C-2 provide the graphical profiles of DO concentrations and water
temperatures, respectively, at the mid-reservoir and intake areas in Lake Tillery.
Appendix D-1 provides the DO concentration profiles at the unit discharge areas and at
the Highway 731 Bridge, where the proposed compliance monitoring location will be
located. Figure 3 shows the locations of the DO monitors in the vicinity of the Tillery
Development powerhouse and dam.
2.3 Blewett Falls -2010 Work Plan
The 2010 DO enhancement evaluations for the Blewett Falls Development focused on:
(1) verification of the performance of the newly installed draft tube venting systems on
Units 3 and 4; (2) evaluation of the automated controls on the Units 3 and 4 draft tube
vents for regulating downstream DO levels; (3) evaluation of alternative operating
scenarios to obtain information for determining the plant operational schemes which
maximize DO uptake, while minimizing power loss. Evaluations were performed under
best efficiency and maximum load conditions. In addition, minimum flow tests were
performed for 24 hour periods, alternately utilizing Units 3 and 4 to evaluate single unit
generation in providing the recommended minimum flow of 1,200 cfs, in the next FERC
license term.
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 22
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
ARCADIS Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
The goals for the 2010 evaluations at Blewett Falls were: (1) verify the operation of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River
new draft tube vent systems for Units 3 and 4; (2) determine the best combination of Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
units to operate under varying DO concentration conditions to meet DO requirements;
(3) determine the best DO uptake and least generation loss by operating a single unit
or several units together; and (4) determine the most representative location(s) for the
DO compliance monitor in the tailrace channel area.
2.3.1 Blewett Falls Development Dissolved Oxygen Monitors
At the Blewett Falls Development, three continuous monitors were placed in the
forebay intake channel near the powerhouse at three different depths; three monitors
were respectively placed at the east, center and west sides of the tailrace channel
along a buoy line approximately 300 feet below the powerhouse; one monitor was
placed below the dam in the main river channel; three monitors were placed
approximately 0.5 miles downstream of the powerhouse located on the eastern,
western and center of the river; and one monitor was placed approximately 1.5 miles
downstream of the powerhouse in the center of the river. Additionally, discrete DO and
temperature profiles were taken twice daily during testing at the mid reservoir (132) and
intake (BFB2) locations. Table 4 provides additional information on the deployment of
the monitors for the Blewett Falls 2010 evaluation work.
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 23
ARCADIS
Table 4
Blewett Falls Water Quality Monitoring Location Descriptions
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
BFB2 (Intake Forebay Intake Continuous water quality Approximately 125 ft. upstream
Bottom) sampling/Discrete vertical of intake structure at 6 m depth
water quality sampling
BFB2 (Intake Forebay Intake Continuous water quality Approximately 125 ft. upstream
Mid Depth) sampling/Discrete vertical of intake structure at 3 m depth
water quality sampling
BFB2 (Intake Forebay Intake Continuous water quality Approximately 125 ft. upstream
Surface) sampling/Discrete vertical of intake structure at 1 m depth
water quality sampling
BFB2 (Lake) Lake above the Discrete vertical water Approximately 1,000 ft. above
dam quality sampling center of dam
Buoy line Along buoy line Continuous water quality Approximately 400 ft. below
East Bank across tailrace sampling Unit draft tube discharge area
area at east side of tailrace channel
BFCM1 Along buoy line Continuous water quality Approximately 300 ft. below
across tailrace sampling Units 3-4 draft tube discharge
area area in center of tailrace
channel
Buoy line Along buoy line Continuous water quality Approximately 250 ft. below
West Bank) across tailrace sampling Unit draft tube discharge area
area at west side of tailrace channel
BFCMO Below dam Continuous water quality Approximately 1,200 ft. below
(Dam) 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
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 24
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
ARCADIS Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
Appendices C-3 and C-4 provide the graphical profiles of DO concentrations and water Yadkin-Pee Dee River
temperatures, respectively, at the mid-reservoir and intake areas at the Blewett Falls Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
Development. Appendix D-2 provides the DO concentration profiles at the unit
discharge areas and at the buoy line where the one potential compliance monitoring
location would be located. Figure 4 shows the locations of the DO monitors in the
vicinity of the Blewett Falls Development powerhouse.
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 25
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
ARCADIS Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
3. 2010 Field Verification Evaluation Methods Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
3.1 Equipment Used
3.1.1 Tillery Development
Table 5 provides a list of equipment used for the 2010 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 and YSI 650 Multi-Parameter 9
Monitors (discrete vertical reservoir profiles)
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
Modified 6 inch Units 1,2 and See Figures 5 and 6 3
Baffle plate 3
assemblies
10 inch Baffle Units 2 and 3 See Figure 7 2
Plate
Air flow meter Units 1-4 Dwyer Series 477 Handheld Digital 1
Manometer
Air flow meter Units 1-4 Dwyer Series 471 Digital Thermo 1
Anemometer
Pitot Tube 1 Dwyer Series 160 Stainless Steel Pitot Tube 1
3.1.2 Blewett Falls Development
Table 6 provides a list of the equipment used for the 2010 verification evaluations at
the Blewett Falls Development.
Some of the monitoring equipment was re-deployed from the Tillery Development
verification evaluations which preceded the evaluations at the Blewett Falls
Development.
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 26
ARCADIS
Table 6
Blewett Falls Development Verification Evaluation Equipment
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
Item Used for Description Quantity
Unit No.
All Unit YSI 600 XLM and YSI 650 Multi-
Water Quality Monitor trials Parameter (discrete vertical reservoir 12
profiles)
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
Steel plate with 450 baffle fabricated
Baffle plate assemblies Units 5 for installation in the draft tube above 2
4 inch draft tube vent pipe outlets
Pipe, fittings, butterfly Units 3 and New draft tube air intake systems 2
valves and controls 4 (systems)
Hose and fitting for Unit 5 4 inch vacuum service-rated hose 2
draft tube vents and fittings.
Pitot Tube Units 1 - 6 Dwyer Series 160 Stainless Steel Pitot 1
Tube
Air flow meter Units 1-6 Dwyer Series 477 Handheld Digital 1
Manometer

Air flow meter
Units 1-6 Dwyer Series 471 Digital Thermo
1
Anemometer
3.2 Evaluation Methods
3.2.1 Tillery Development
The 2010 evaluations at the Tillery Development were designed to expand upon the
results obtained from the studies performed in 2009 and previous years. The specific
evaluations are described below. These trials involved the evaluation of various
combinations of operating units utilizing passive aeration, to determine which
combination of units, as well as which baffle plate design, can be most effectively used
to achieve the state water quality DO standards under conditions of strong reservoir
stratification conditions.
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 27
ARCADIS
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
3.2.1.1 Aeration through Upper Draft Tube 6 inch Vacuum Breaker Vents and Lower Draft Tube Yadkin-Pee Dee River
10 inch Vents Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
Passive aeration through the upper draft tube vacuum breakers and the lower 10 inch
draft tube vents refers to the ability of either the vacuum breaker valve or the draft tube
vent to draw air into the draft tube by passive means through the vacuum breaker or
vent 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.
Passive aeration through the 6-inch vacuum breaker piping was evaluated for Units 1,
2 and 3 separately and in conjunction with other operating scenarios. On Units 1, 2
and 3, new-design baffle plate assemblies were installed at the 6 inch vent openings in
the draft tubes of each unit. These baffle plate designs were derived from the similar
baffle plate design used during the 2009 evaluations. The baffle plates used on Units 2
and 3 were identical. The Units 2 and 3 baffle plates were approximately 6 inches
wider that the baffle plate used on Unit 1. For Unit 4, the 8 inch vacuum breaker was
evaluated under passive aeration conditions, with no baffle plate assembly in place.
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 only opens when the unit is operating at
10 MW or less. During the 2009 evaluations, the 10 inch lower draft tube vents were
evaluated under both passive aeration conditions and forced aeration conditions.
Under passive aeration conditions during the 2009 evaluations, very little air uptake
was observed from the 10 inch lower vents. To determine whether passive aeration
through the lower 10 inch draft tube vents could be enhanced, a new-design baffle
plate assembly was installed on the lower 10 inch draft tube vents on Units 2 and 3.
3.2.1.1.1 Baffle Plate Assemblies
For the 6 inch vacuum breakers, a steel baffle plate assembly, consisting of a 26 inch
wide by 15 1/2 inch high steel plate bent to the radius of the draft tube was bolted to
the steel draft tube liner wall covering the 6 inch draft tube vacuum breaker vent pipe
outlet on Unit 1. The steel base plate was fitted with curved sections of pipe cut from a
6 inch Schedule 40 - 90° elbows as the baffle plate to help enlarge the zone of low
pressure at that point to allow for increased passive aeration into the draft tube (Figure
5). The Unit 1 baffle plate was oriented at 15° from the vertical axis to try to match the
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 28
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
ARCADIS Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
swirl effect of the water flow discharging from the Unit runner. For Units 2 and 3 a Yadkin-Pee Dee River
similarly designed baffle plate assembly was fabricated and installed. The base plate Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
for the Unit 2 and 3 assemblies was 26 inches wide and 17 1/2 inches high. (See Figure
6) During all the evaluation proceedings, only passive aeration was used on the Units
1, 2 and 3 vacuum breaker vents.
For the 10 inch lower draft tube vents for Units 2 and 3, the steel baffle plate assembly
consisted of a 30 inch wide by 18 inch high steel plate bent to the radius of the draft
tube and bolted to the steel draft tube liner wall covering the 10-inch lower draft tube
vent pipe outlet on Units 2 and 3. This baffle plate was vertically aligned with the draft
tube vent pipe (See Figure 7).
3.2.1.1.2 Air Flow Monitoring
The air flow volume was recorded through use of either a digital anemometer (Dwyer
Series 471 Thermo Anemometer) for lower air velocities or a digital manometer (Dwyer
Series 477 Handheld Digital Manometer) for higher air velocities. A pitot tube assembly
(Dwyer Series 160) was used in conjunction with the manometer to record air
pressures. The air flow measurement devices were inserted into the vacuum breaker
or draft tube vent piping. The meter measures air velocity, using a thermal
anemometer and converted the air velocity to a volumetric flow rate (cubic feet per
minute) using the pipe diameter entered into the instrument. The digital manometer
utilized pitot tube pressure readings to determine air flow velocities for the higher air
flow situations. 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.
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. The DO evaluations
at the Tillery Development were conducted from July 31, 2010 through August 6, 2010.
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
testing was done under best efficiency, maximum and minimum load conditions. In
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 29
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
ARCADIS Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
addition to Unit tests, a separate 24-hour test of the minimum flow (330 cfs) was Yadkin-Pee Dee River
conducted. The minimum flow release was made through the newly installed crest gate Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
located adjacent to the powerhouse. Release was made from the reservoir surface
waters. The spring spawning minimum flow (725 cfs) evaluation could not be
completed due to the use of the crest gate which caused excessive over wash onto the
Unit 4 generator deck and sump area. Modifications to the wall between the crest gate
and Unit 4 have been made by Progress Energy to contain all crest gate flow within the
sluiceway.
Table B.1-1 in Appendix B-1 provides a summary of the results of the 2010 evaluations
at the Tillery Development.
3.2.2 Blewett Falls Development
The 2010 evaluations at the Blewett Falls Development focused on passive aeration
methods utilizing the existing vacuum breakers on Units 1, 2 and 6; the new draft tube
vent piping and butterfly valves for each draft tube on Units 3 and 4; and the use of a
temporary draft tube vent air intake pipe with butterfly valve on the downstream draft
tube vent for Unit 5. To enhance passive aeration air flow at Units 1 and 2, the
replacement 3-inch gate valves (installed for the 2009 evaluations) were utilized. Unit 6
utilized the existing 4 inch gate valves on the vacuum breakers.
3.2.2.1 Aeration through Vacuum Breaker Vents
For the evaluations involving the vacuum breaker vents on Units 1, 2 and 6, straight
sections of pipe for flow measurement were added to each unit. Passive aeration was
used for all vacuum breaker evaluations at the Blewett Falls Development.
3.2.2.2 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 so the digital manometer system with pitot tube
assembly was used to record air flow volumes.
Table B.2-1 in Appendix B-2 provides a summary of the results of the 2010 evaluations
at the Blewett Falls Development.
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 30
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
ARCADIS Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
4. Discussion of Field Evaluation Results Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
4.1 Tillery Development
Table B.1-1 in Appendix B-1 provides a summary of the 2010 DO evaluations at the
Tillery Development. The table provides the: (1) trial 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) turbine set load point (i.e., best
efficiency, maximum load or minimum gate setting ); (7) evaluation method
description; (8) headwater and tailwater elevations with gross head at the time of the
trial; and (9) the average DO monitor readings at the various sonde locations 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 at the NC Highway 731 Bridge. The average DO concentrations
at the center and western DO monitors and the discrete real time measurements from
the eastern DO monitor at the NC Highway 731 Bridge, as well as the monitors at the
Unit discharge points, are also shown in Table B.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 recorded at the center and
west sides of the river under the majority of the operating scenarios. This spatial
difference in recorded DO concentrations was consistent with results from studies
conducted in previous years (Devine Tarbell and Associates, April 2007; Devine
Tarbell and Associates, June 2008; and HDR/DTA, June 2009). When Unit 4 was
operated within the range where the vacuum breaker was able to open, the DO
concentration levels on the western side of the river were higher than at the mid-river
location.
The 2010 results again 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 Plant discharge and the NC
Highway 731 Bridge is minimal. It appears that based on flow patterns between the
Tillery Plant 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.
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 31
ARCADIS
4.1.1 Aeration through Upper 6 inch Vacuum Breaker Vents and Lower 10 inch Draft Tube
Vents
Passive aeration methods were utilized for the 2010 evaluations at the Tillery
Development. Re-designed baffle plates were utilized on the 6 inch vacuum breaker
vents in the upper draft tube area for Units 1, 2 and 3. The re-designed plates were
refinements to the baffle plate design used on the 6 inch vacuum breaker vents during
the 2009 evaluations. Unit 1 had one new baffle plate design, and Units 2 and 3 shared
a different new baffle plate design. In addition, a new baffle plate was developed and
used on the lower 10 inch draft tube vents for Units 2 and 3. See Figures 5, 6 and 7 for
details of these baffle plate designs.
The 6 inch vacuum breaker vents on Units 1, 2 and 3 at Tillery are capable of drawing
outside air into the draft tube at the best efficiency, maximum and minimum load
points. As also determined during the 2009 evaluations, between the best efficiency
point and maximum load point, there is little difference in the amount of air drawn
through the vacuum breakers. At the minimum load point, Units 1 and 3 typically draw
in significantly less air than at the best efficiency or maximum load points.
A significant factor affecting the amount of air drawn into the units is the tailwater
elevation during operation. Figures E.1-1, E.1-2, E.1-3 and E.1-4 (Appendix E-1) show
the effects of tailwater elevation on the amount of air (in cfs) that is drawn into the Units
under best, maximum and minimum load points. The points shown in the graphical
presentations in these figures reflect the operation of one or more units and the
resulting tailwater elevation level and air uptake amounts. For these graphs, the
relationship between the range in tailwater elevation and the number of units in
operation is provided in Table 7 below.
Table 7
Tillery Tailwater Elevation Range for Operation of One or More Units
Number Of Units in Operation Tailwater Elevation Range (USGS)
One 205.28 - 205.91
Two 206.64 - 207.29
Three 207.87 - 208.25
Four 208.20 - 208.99
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 32
ARCADIS
Referring to the Appendix E-1 graphs and the Table B.1-1 (Appendix B-1) air flow
amounts for Unit 1, operation at the best efficiency point caused the amount of air flow
under increasing tailwater elevations to range from 39 cfs with one unit in operation to
28 cfs with four units in operation. Similarly, air flow for Unit 1 at the maximum load
point resulted in an air flow of 36 cfs for one Unit in operation to 30 cfs with four Units in
operation. Under minimum load conditions, air flow dropped off significantly for Unit 1,
ranging from 25 cfs with one unit in operation to 7 cfs with four units in operation.
Unit 3 showed similar results to Unit 1 under varying loading conditions and number of
units in operation. At best efficiency, Unit 3 air flow varied from 37 cfs with one unit in
operation to 28 cfs with four units in operation. At maximum gate, Unit 3 air flow varied
from 33 cfs with two units in operation to 26 cfs for three units in operation. Under
minimum load conditions, air flow dropped off significantly ranging from 10 cfs for one
unit in operation to 0 cfs with four units in operation.
Unit 2, being the smallest capacity unit at Tillery, exhibited similar air flow
characteristics under all loading conditions. With one unit in operation, air flow ranged
from 23 cfs to 27 cfs. With four units in operation, air flow ranged from 0 cfs to 3 cfs.
The Unit 4 vacuum breaker operates through use of a cam controlled system. The
vacuum breaker typically opens when the unit load is less than 10 MW. When the cam
system opens the vacuum breaker, the air flow for Unit 4 is substantially higher
compared to the other units. Because Unit 4 is designed to operate at higher tailwater
elevations, another unit has to be in operation before Unit 4 can commence operation.
As shown in Appendix E-1 and Table B.1-1, when two or more units are in operation,
the air flow for Unit 4, operating at the 9 to 10 MW load point, ranges from 107 cfs to
127 cfs. When Unit 4 is operated at best efficiency or maximum load points, the
vacuum breaker is closed by the cam system affording no air flow.
Figures E.2-1, E.2-2, E.2-3, and E.2-4 and Table B.1-1 provide an indication of air flow
through the 6 inch vacuum breaker vents as a percent of water flow under varying
combinations of unit operation and associated tailwater elevation changes. For Units 1
and 3, the best efficiency operating point provided the highest amount of air flow under
single or multiple unit operation ranging from 0.8% to 1.1 % for both Units 1 and 3. At
maximum gate, Unit 1 showed an air flow ranging from 0.8% at single unit operation to
0.65% for multiple unit operation. Unit 3, under maximum flow conditions, showed air
flows ranging from 0.58% to 0.78%. At minimum load, Unit 1 showed air flow at 1.05%
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 33
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
ARCADIS Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
at single unit operation and 0.3% at multiple unit operation. Unit 3 showed a range of Yadkin-Pee Dee River
0.4% for single unit operation to 0% at multiple unit operation. Unit 2 showed the Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
highest amount of air flow under minimum gate conditions for single unit flow ranging
from 1.4% to 0.05% at multiple unit flow. At best efficiency conditions, Unit 2 showed
air flow at 0.95% for single unit operation ranging to 0% at multiple unit operation.
Under maximum load conditions, Unit 2 showed an air flow of 0.5% at single Unit flow
and 0.05% at multiple unit operation. For Unit 4, operating in the 9-10 MW range is
necessary to allow the vacuum breaker valve to open and with a minimum of Unit 4
plus one other unit in operation, the air flow ranged from 5.9% to 6.75% for 2 Unit flow
to 5.85% to 6.95% for 4 Units in operation.
Figures E.3-1 and E.3-2 provide a comparison of DO concentration readings for Units
1, 2 and 3 as measured at the turbine discharge point and the compliance location
point at the Highway 731 Bridge. Figure E.3-1 compares the proposed DO
concentrations for each unit in the unvented and vented mode of operation utilizing the
6 inch upper draft tube vents for the vented condition. Figure E.3-2 provides the
relative increase in DO concentration for each unit going from the unvented to the
vented mode of operation. As shown in Figure E.3-1, the DO concentration increased
for each unit when going from the unvented to the vented mode of operation. The DO
concentration level at the proposed compliance location was typically higher than at the
unit discharge location whether each unit was in the unvented or vented mode of
operation. For Unit 1, a 0.7 mg/I increase as measured at the unit discharge area when
going from an unvented to a vented mode of operation was comparable to the 0.66
mg/I increase recorded at the compliance location. For Unit 3, a 0.88 mg/I increase as
measured at the unit discharge area was also comparable to the 0.76 mg/I increase
recorded at the proposed compliance location. For the smaller capacity Unit 2, the
increase in DO concentration at the unit discharge area when going from the unvented
to the vented mode of operation, was 0.44 mg/I, which was 0.44 to 0.32 mg/I lower
than for Units 1 or 3 respectively. At the proposed compliance location, Unit 2 showed
the highest increase in DO concentration, 0.99 mg/I. as compared to the Unit 1 and
Unit 3 readings at that location.
Assuming 100% of the oxygen added during passive aeration is dissolved,
approximately 3.5 cubic feet (cf) 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 vented and non-vented modes of operation for Units 1, 2 and 3, it
was determined that the increase in DO concentration was approximately 16 to 31 % of
the theoretical values when the units were operated at best efficiency and air flow
ranged from 27 to 39 cfs. With Units 1 and 3 at best efficiency, air flow of 36 to 39 cfs
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 34
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
ARCADIS Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
through the vacuum breaker increased the DO concentration approximately 0.70 to Yadkin-Pee Dee River
0.88 mg/I at the draft tube discharge location (23% to 31 % of theoretical). For Unit 2, Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
an air flow of 27 cfs at best efficiency produced an increase in DO concentration of
0.44 mg/I (16% of theoretical).
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. At maximum load
conditions, Units 1 and 3 operated between 20.4 MW and 21.2 MW with the draft tube
vacuum breaker valves open. Typical full gate operation is 21 MW; therefore, load loss
is estimated to be less than 1 MW per unit during passive aeration.
4.1.2 Baffle Plate Assemblies
As discussed above, new design baffle plates were installed on the upper 6 inch
vacuum breaker vent on Units 1, 2 and 3. In addition, new 10 inch lower draft tube vent
baffle plates were installed on Units 2 and 3 to determine if baffle plates could increase
the flow of air by the unit. As also noted above, different design baffle plates were
installed on the upper vacuum breaker vents on Units 1 and 3.
Trials T10-7 and T10-8 were conducted to compare the performance of the Unit 1 and
Unit 3 upper baffle plates. These trials were performed with both units at best efficiency
(Trial T10-7) and then both units at maximum load (Trial T10-8). For both of these
trials, the vacuum breaker vents were in the open position. For Trial T10-7, Unit 1
showed an air flow of 36 cfs of air while Unit 3 showed an air flow of 33 cfs. Similarly
for Trial T10-8, the Unit 1 air flow was 32 cfs while the Unit 3 air flow was 29 cfs. Based
on this comparison, the Unit 1 baffle plate design appears able to increase air flow by
approximately 10% above the Unit 3 design.
To determine the effect with operating the 10 inch lower draft tube vents with baffle
plates, Unit 3 was operated at best efficiency and minimum load points with both the
upper 6 inch vacuum breaker valves and the lower 10 inch draft tube valves open. Trial
T10-18 (Unit 3 at best efficiency) showed air flow of 36 cfs through the upper 6 inch
vacuum breaker vent and 0.7 cfs through the lower 10 inch draft tube vent. Trial T10-
19 (Unit 3 at minimum load) showed air flow of 10 cfs through the upper 6 inch vacuum
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 35
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
ARCADIS Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
breaker vent and 0.7 cfs through the lower 10 inch draft tube vent. In addition Unit 2 Yadkin-Pee Dee River
was operated at minimum load, best efficiency and maximum load with both the upper Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
6 inch vacuum breaker valve and the lower 10 inch draft tube vent open. Trials T10-11
(Unit 2 at best efficiency), T10-12 (Unit 2 at minimum load) and T10-13 (Unit 2 at
maximum load) recorded air flow amounts of 27 cfs, 26 cfs, and 24 cfs, respectively
through the upper 6 inch vacuum breaker valve and 0.5 cfs for each Trial through the
lower 10 inch draft tube vent. Trial T10-14 involved Units 2 and 3 operating
concurrently at best efficiency with both the upper 6 inch vacuum breaker valves and
lower 10 inch draft tube valves open. The air flow recorded for the upper 6 inch
vacuum breaker valve was 10 cfs for Unit 2 and 38 cfs for Unit 3. The lower 10 inch
draft tube vent for Unit 2 showed 0 cfs air flow and the lower 10 inch draft tube vent for
Unit 3 showed an air flow of 1.1 cfs.
Based on these trial results, air flow uptake from the lower 10 inch draft tube vents with
a baffle plate installed was minimal.
Figure E.4-1 provides a presentation of the effects of operating one or more units in
various configurations and the effect of these unit operation scenarios on the DO
concentrations at the proposed mid-channel compliance location at the Highway 731
Bridge. The figure also indicates the time of day associated with these various
operating scenarios. During the 2010 evaluations, during the 9 AM to 11 AM period,
operation of Units 2 and 4 together or single operation of Unit 2 or 3 showed
compliance with the state instantaneous DO concentration requirement of 4.0 mg/I.
During the noon to 2 PM period, single operation of Units 1, 2 or 3 also met the state
instantaneous DO requirement. Operation of Units 1 and 3 met the state instantaneous
DO requirement during the 3 PM to 5 PM time period.
4.1.3 Minimum and Spawning Flows through Crest Gate
Prior to the start of the 2010 field evaluations at the Tillery Development, Progress
Energy installed a new crest gate in the existing trash sluice located adjacent to Unit 4.
The new crest gate was used for determining the effect of a 330 cfs minimum flow on
downstream DO concentration levels. It was also intended to evaluate higher spawning
flows (725 cfs) through the new crest gate, but excessive over wash onto the adjacent
Unit 4 generator deck and sump cancelled this evaluation. Progress Energy is
modifying the wall between the crest gate sluiceway and Unit 4 to prevent over wash at
higher flows.
G:\DiOWOMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 36
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
ARCADIS Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
Trial T10-1 evaluated the effects of releasing the targeted minimum flow of 330 cfs Yadkin-Pee Dee River
over a 24-hour period on July 31st and August 1st. During this time period flow was Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
estimated to be 367 cfs as documented at the NC Highway 731 Bridge. This flow
estimate included dam leakage and inflow from Clark Creek. No units were in
operation during this time period so there was no release of low DO concentration
water associated with unit operation during this evaluation period. The average DO
concentrations at the continuously recording monitors at the NC Highway 731 Bridge
ranged from 6.79 mg/I at the center monitor to 6.95 mg/I at the western monitor. Over
this 24 hour period, DO concentration readings remained above the daily average state
standard of 5.0 mg/I as well as above the instantaneous state standard of 4.0 mg/I. The
minimum DO concentration reading recorded during this 24 hour period was 4.43 mg/I
and the maximum DO concentration reading recorded was 11.98 mg/I at the center
monitor.
This reflects the release of relatively high DO level water from the reservoir surface
waters through the crest gate. Also, the algae photosynthesis which occurs during the
daytime hours drives the DO concentration to levels higher than those found in the
upper elevations of the reservoir. The photosynthesis is the main driving force behind
the higher values. During the 2010 evaluations, the DO concentration level at
approximately 3 feet below the surface of the impoundment (the general depth range
where water is drawn into the crest gate), ranged from a low of 6.8 mg/I the day after
the minimum flow trial to a high of 9.1 mg/I the day prior to the minimum flow trial..
During the 2007 through 2009 evaluations, the DO concentration at 3 feet below the
surface of the impoundment ranged from a low of 4.3 mg/I in 2008 to a high of 10.5
mg/I in 2009. Less favorable conditions for DO compliance during minimum flow
releases have been experienced in prior years as compared to the conditions present
during the 2010 minimum flow trials. However, the daily average state standard of 5.0
mg/I was achieved during each of the previous minimum flow trials in 2007, 2008, and
2009. The instantaneous state standard of 4.0 mg/I was also achieved during the 2008
and 2009 minimum flow trials. During the 2007 minimum flow trials, DO levels did drop
below 4.0 mg/I, however, for the minimum flow trials in 2007 the flow was only 227 cfs
(target flow is 330 cfs) and discharge was through both the trash gate and a tainter
gate. When the flow was increased to 536 cfs in 2007, the instantaneous DO standard
was achieved.
4.2 Blewett Falls Development
Table B.2-1 (Appendix B-2) provides a summary of the results of the 2010 evaluation
efforts at the Blewett Falls Development. The table provides the: (1) trial date; (2) trial
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 37
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
ARCADIS Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
identification number; (3) unit(s) being evaluated for the trial; (4) water flow in cfs Yadkin-Pee Dee River
through the turbine; (5) air flow in cfs through the various aeration points; (6) turbine Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
load point (either best efficiency or maximum flow) and the actual load (KW) on the
turbines during the trial; (7) evaluation method description; (8) the headwater, tailwater
and gross head at the time of the trial; and (9) average DO monitor readings over the
duration of the evaluations. The average DO reading at the three DO monitors along
the buoy line below the powerhouse is also shown in the table.
4.2.1 Aeration through Draft Tube Vents and Vacuum Breakers
The Blewett Falls Development 2010 evaluations focused on passive aeration through
the draft tube vents and vacuum breakers. Prior to the start of the evaluation trials, a
new draft tube venting system was installed on Units 3 and 4. Since there are two draft
tubes per unit, the piping from each draft tube was connected to a common vertical air
intake pipe with an attached butterfly valve assembly (Figure 8). The butterfly valve
assemblies were electrically connected to the Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) in
the control room so the valves could be operated automatically. The PLC was linked
by radio telemetry to the DO sonde located at the tailrace buoy line and automatically
adjusted the butterfly valve position to meet the DO set point which would typically be
set at 5.0 mg/I. During the 2010 trials DO levels above 5.0 mg/I were occurring in the
tailrace without venting, therefore, the DO set point was increased during several of the
trials to test the automatic control scheme. The butterfly valves could also be operated
manually to allow the valve position to be changed for different trial conditions or
override the automatic set point value. For Units 1, 2, 5 and 6, the existing vacuum
breaker vent valves were utilized during the 2010 evaluations.
For Unit 3, with the butterfly valve in the 10% open position, the air flow was
approximately 1 cfs with the unit at either the best efficiency or maximum load point.
With the butterfly valve set at the 51 % open position, the air flow was approximately
122 cfs with the unit at the best efficiency load point and 148 cfs at the maximum load
point. With the butterfly valve set at the 100% open position, the air flow was
approximately 196 cfs at the best efficiency load point and 224 cfs at the maximum
load point. For these trials (Trials 1310-9 through 1310-14) involving only Unit 3, the
average DO concentration measured within the plume of the unit discharge (radio
telemetry monitor) ranged from 5.64 mg/I to 6.77 mg/I, with the higher readings
associated with the 100% open position on the butterfly valve.
For Unit 4, with the butterfly valve in the 11 % open position the air flow was
approximately 13 cfs at the best efficiency load point. With the butterfly valve in the 9%
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 38
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
ARCADIS Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
open position, the air flow was approximately 16 cfs with the unit at the maximum load Yadkin-Pee Dee River
point. With the butterfly valve in the 51 % open position, the air flow at the best Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
efficiency load point was 138 cfs and at the maximum load point was 164 cfs. With the
butterfly valve set at the 100% open position, the air flow at the best efficiency load
point was 192 cfs and at the maximum load point was 201 cfs. For Trials B10-3
through B10-8 involving only Unit 4, the average DO concentration measured within
the plume of the unit discharge (Telemetry Monitor) ranged from 5.09 mg/I to 6.85 mg/I,
with the higher readings associated with the 100% open position on the butterfly
valves.
For the 2010 evaluations, the new draft tube vent piping systems on Units 3 and 4
were also evaluated to confirm that the installed draft tube venting systems met the
design air flow and vacuum pressure requirements. The design point for the systems
was to achieve 150 cfs air flow with the valves in the 72% open position. The design
process also utilized a draft tube vacuum of 8 inch Hg or 108 inch H2O to calculate the
design flow. The actual draft tube vacuum observed during the evaluations was 140
inch H2O which produced air flows greater than the design air flow of 150 cfs. Under
the greater draft tube vacuum, the design flow of 150 cfs occurs with the butterfly
valves in the 45% to 55% open position.
Figure F.1-1 (Appendix F-1) provides a graphical presentation of the draft tube vent air
flow for Units 3 and 4 under best efficiency and maximum load conditions under
varying butterfly valve opening positions. Figure F.1-2 (Appendix F-1) provides a
comparison of DO concentration increase with increasing air flow venting with Units 3
and 4. Figure F.1-2 shows that Unit 4 tended to provide somewhat better increases in
DO concentration levels compared to Unit 3.
Figures F.1-3 and F.1-4 (Appendix F-1) provide a comparison of increasing power loss
associated with increasing air flow for Units 3 and 4. Units 3 and 4 show comparable
power loss at the different air flow levels.
Figure F.1-5 (Appendix F-1) provides a comparison of DO concentration increase with
draft tube venting to percentage power loss for Units 3 and 4. Unit 3, operating at either
best efficiency or maximum gate position, showed a smaller increase in DO
concentration at comparable power losses when compared to Unit 4 at the same
operating levels.
Figure F.1-6 (Appendix F-1) provides a comparison of DO concentration increase with
draft tube venting when multiple units are operated under varying air flow venting
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 39
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
ARCADIS Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
conditions. Under these conditions, Units 1, 3, 4 and 6 when operated together with Yadkin-Pee Dee River
only Units 3 and 4 vented, provided the greatest increase in DO concentration but also Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
nearly the highest power loss. When Units 2, 3, 4 and 5 were operated with only Units
3 and 4 vented, the power loss was nearly the lowest with a modest increase in DO
concentration observed.
Figures F.1-7 and F.1-8 (Appendix F-1) provide a comparison of DO concentration
increase (mg/1) with power loss per unit change in DO concentration (KW/mg/I) for
Units 3 and 4 and multiple Units, respectively. Figure F.1-7 shows that the lowest unit
power losses per increase in DO concentration levels occurred with Unit 4 at either
best or maximum gate position. Figure F.1-8 shows that when Units 1,3,4,and 6 are
operated with only Units 3 and 4 vented there are somewhat higher unit power losses
per mg/I of DO concentration increase but also higher DO concentration level
increases. When Units 2,3,4, and 5 are operated with all units vented, a lower unit
power loss per mg/I of DO concentration increase is observed as compared to the DO
concentration level increase with operation of Units 3,4,5 and 6 and only Units 2 and 4
vented.
Figure F.1-9 (Appendix F-1) shows the unit power loss per unit change in DO
concentration (KW/mg/I) for Units 3 and 4 when operated at 51 % gate opening and
100% gate opening. Unit 4 shows a lower power loss per unit DO concentration
increase at best efficiency or maximum load than Unit 3 at these same operating
points.
In summary, Figures F.1-1 through F.1-9 how the general trend of increasing DO
concentration levels with increasing amounts of air flow into the draft tubes of the units
as well as an increase in power loss with increasing draft tube air flow levels.
After Units 3 and 4 were evaluated separately, additional evaluation trials were
conducted with various combinations of units draft tube vent, vacuum breaker opening,
and Unit loading conditions. For nearly all of these evaluations, the average DO
concentrations recorded at the tailrace buoy line center location (Monitor BFCM1)
exceeded the state daily average DO concentration requirement of 5.0 mg/1. For trials
or portions of trials that involved evaluations with no passive air flow being provided,
the average DO concentrations measured at the tailrace buoy line center location were
above the state instantaneous DO concentration requirement of 4.0 mg/1.
To spatially evaluate the DO concentrations in the Blewett Falls tailrace, Progress
Energy developed DO concentration profiles from the tailrace buoy line to a point
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 40
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
ARCADIS Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
approximately 400 feet downstream of the buoy line, near the tailrace confluence with Yadkin-Pee Dee River
the Pee Dee River. These profiles were developed by use of a boat with a DO monitor Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
set at a constant depth and with GPS locations being recorded at each collected data
point. Temperature and DO measurements were collected every 5 seconds with the
GPS location.
Boat traverses were conducted between the eastern and western shorelines of the
tailrace channel during most of the trials. Figure F.2-1 (Appendix F-2) shows the
various profiles developed for each trial at the buoy line location. Figure F.3 -1
(Appendix F-3) shows the various profiles developed for each trial near the confluence
with the Pee Dee River. These profiles provide the ability to identify potential
representative locations in the tailrace for the compliance monitor. The vertical lines
shown on Figures F.2 -1 and F.3-1 depict locations where the DO concentrations
typically exceeded 5.0 mg/I during the 2010 evaluations.
In addition to the DO concentration profiles at the buoy line and the area 400 feet
downstream of the buoy line, Progress Energy also conducted DO concentration
traverses between the buoy line and the area 400 feet downstream of the buoy line.
These profiles were developed into contour maps of DO concentration levels and are
shown in Appendix F-4. In the legend at the bottom of each profile, the trial number,
unit setting, total flow for the trial and a description of the units involved in the trial are
shown.
Table B.2-1 provides a summary of the 2010 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, as well
as the "Radio Telemetry" monitor that was moved around along the buoy line for
several of the trials.
4.2.2 Minimum Flow Utilizing Units 3 or 4
For the 2010 verification trials, Units 3 and 4 were designated as the units for the
minimum flow (1,200 cfs) trials. Unit 3 was utilized for the minimum flow over a 24-
hour period on August 7, 2010 (0800 hrs.) through August 8, 2010 (0700 hrs.). For this
trial (Trial B10-1 a), the new draft tube vents were operated in auto control which
allowed the butterfly valve to adjust its opening point if necessary to meet the DO daily
average requirement (5.0 mg/1) as measured at the buoy line center DO monitor
(BFCM1). During this trial period the DO concentration level averaged 5.5 mg/1, with a
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 41
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
ARCADIS Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
minimum instantaneous DO concentration of 4.47 mg/1, as measured at the center Yadkin-Pee Dee River
monitor location. The butterfly valves were not open during the minimum flow tests. Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
Unit 4 was utilized for the minimum flow over a 24-hour period on August 8, 2010
(0800 hrs.) through August 9, 2010 (0700 hrs.). For this trial (Trial B10-2b), the new
draft tube vents were operated in auto control which allowed the butterfly valve to
adjust its opening point to meet the DO requirement (5.0 mg/1) as measured at the
buoy line center DO monitor (BFCM1). During this trial period, the DO concentration
level averaged 5.06 mg/I and the minimum instantaneous DO concentration was 4.40
mg/I as measured at the center monitor location.
4.2.3 Impacts to Units 3 and 4 Generation Due to Draft Tube Venting Operation
The use of the new draft tube venting systems for Units 3 and 4 to add air into the draft
tubes has an impact on each unit's generating capability. With the butterfly valve in the
30% open position, the generation loss was approximately 250 KW for Unit 3 and 450
KW for Unit 4. With the butterfly valve in the 40% open position, the generation loss
was approximately 600 KW for Units 3 and Unit 4. With the butterfly valve in the 50%
open position, the generation loss was approximately 750 KW for Units 3 and 4. With
the butterfly valve in the 100% open position, the generation loss is approximately
1,200 KW for Units 3 and 4. Figure F.1-2 (Appendix F-1) provides a graphical
representation of the generation losses associated with operation of the butterfly valves
for Units 3 and 4.
During the 2010 evaluations, Units 1, 2, 5, and 6 were operated in combination with
other units. Passive aeration was achieved for these units by operation of the vacuum
breaker vents. For Unit 2, with the downstream vacuum breaker 100% open and the
unit operating at best efficiency, the generation loss was approximately 250 KW. With
the downstream vacuum breaker open 50% and the unit operating at best efficiency,
the generation loss for Unit 2 was approximately 150 KW. With Unit 2 operating at
maximum load and the downstream vacuum breaker open 100%, the generation loss
was approximately 100 KW.
For Unit 1 with both vacuum breakers open 100% and the unit operating at best
efficiency, the generation loss was approximately 425 KW. For Unit 5, operating at best
efficiency with both vacuum breakers in the 100% open position, the generation loss
was approximately 300 KW. For Unit 5, operating at best efficiency with the
downstream vacuum breaker open 100%, the generation loss was approximately 300
KW. For Unit 5 operating at maximum load with both vacuum breakers open 100%, the
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 42
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
ARCADIS Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
generation loss was approximately 350 KW. For Unit 6, operating at best efficiency Yadkin-Pee Dee River
with both vacuum breakers open 100%, the generation loss was approximately 850 Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
KW.
When the units were operated singly or in combination with other units and passive
aeration was utilized, the average DO concentration readings at the mid-channel DO
monitor (BFCM1) exceeded the state daily average DO requirement of 5.0 mg/I.
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 43
ARCADIS
5. Conclusions
5.1 Tillery Development
5.1.1 Compliance Monitoring Location
From the DO monitoring locations used during the 2010 trials, Monitor TYCM1-2
(center location at the NC Highway 731 Bridge) provided the most representative
location of DO concentration for all of the potential operating scenarios. This location
receives the majority of the flow when Units 1 through 4 are operating and also
receives some of the high DO concentration water when the crest gate is used for
minimum flow. DO concentrations are higher at the west monitoring location (TYCM1-
3) only under the condition when all four units are operating and Unit 4 is in the vented
mode. 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, algae photosynthesis
and respiration affect the DO concentration readings at the proposed compliance
monitoring location. The DO concentration readings at the proposed monitoring
location typically exceed the DO concentration readings at the discharge of the
operating unit (TYCM00), with the greatest difference occurring at the lower discharge
flows and tailwater elevations and during the early afternoon hours. This reflects the
impact of the algae photosynthesis, the length of time for the discharge flow to reach
the compliance monitoring location, and possibly mixing and turbulence which may be
greater at low tailwater elevations.
5.1.2 Alternate Operating Scenarios
One of the operating scenarios evaluated was single unit operation. Units 1, 2 and 3
were all operated independently at minimum load, best efficiency and maximum load.
Unit 4 was not tested under single unit operation. Under single unit operation, Unit 1
draws somewhat more air through the vacuum breaker than Units 2 and 3 at both best
efficiency and maximum load. At best efficiency, the air flow for Units 2 and 3 is
approximately 1.0% of the water flow through those units. The Unit 1 air flow is closer
to 1.1% of the water flow. As compared to 2009 (with comparable tailwater elevations),
Unit 1 air flow increased from 28 cfs to 38 cfs, Unit 2 increased from 8 cfs to 27 cfs,
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
G:\DiOWOMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 44
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
ARCADIS Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
and Unit 3 increased from 30 cfs to 36 cfs. Both Units 1 and 2 did not have baffle Yadkin-Pee Dee River
plates in 2009 and Unit 3 had an alternate baffle plate design in 2009. At maximum Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
load the air flow decreased slightly for all three units.
With respect to air flow through the vacuum breakers, the addition of baffle plates to
Units 1 and 2 improved the air flow significantly. The change in baffle plate design on
Unit 3 also provided an increase in air flow.
Baffle plates were also added to the 10-inch draft tube vents on Units 2 and 3. Air flow
measurements were taken with the vent valves open, however, no significant air flow
was observed.
To make a comparison between the effectiveness of the different baffle plate designs
on Units 1 and 3, the two units were operated together. Under both best efficiency and
maximum load conditions, the air flow was greater on Unit 1. At best efficiency, the
measured air flows were 36 cfs on Unit 1 and 33 cfs on Unit 3. At maximum load the
air flows were 32 cfs for Unit 1 and 29 cfs for Unit 3. Assuming that the two units are
identical, the baffle plate design on Unit 1 provides approximately 10% greater air flow.
When operating at best efficiency, Units 1 and 3 had greater DO uptake at the
immediate discharge from the units. However, when measured at the proposed
compliance location, Unit 2 provided the greatest DO uptake at best efficiency (0.99
mg/1).
All three units were also operated at minimum load. Minimum load operation was not
performed during previous trials and the intent was to determine if the percent of air
flow to water flow could be increased at minimum load and if such an increase would
improve the DO uptake. The air flow dropped for Unit 1, but it still was approximately
1.0% of water flow. On Unit 3 the air flow dropped to approximately 0.4% of water flow
at minimum load. For Unit 2, the air flow was the same as the air flow at best efficiency
and maximum load, therefore, increasing the air flow percentage to 1.5% of water flow.
While these changes in air flow did show significant impact on DO uptake at the
discharge of each unit, the DO measured at the proposed compliance monitoring
location was greater than under any other operating scenarios. The highest DO
measurements at the proposed compliance location occurred with Unit 2 operating at
minimum load.
Trials were also performed with combinations of 2, 3 and 4 units operating. As more
units are operated the tailwater elevation rises and the air flow through the vacuum
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 45
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
ARCADIS Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
breakers on Units 1, 2 and 3 is reduced. When Units 1 and 3 are operated at best Yadkin-Pee Dee River
efficiency or maximum load, the air flow is reduced between 20 and 25% when going Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
from one unit to 4 units operating. For Unit 2, the air flow goes to zero with 4 units
operating. At minimum load, the air flow drops to zero for all three units when four
units are operated. Unit 4 is not impacted by the change in tailwater elevation and
maintains an air flow of 105 to 130 cfs or an air flow percentage 5.8% to 7.0% with the
vacuum breaker open.
When operating multiple units, the DO at the proposed compliance location is higher
when operating two units than when operating three or four units. The highest
measured DO under multiple unit operation occurred when operating Units 1 and 4.
The operation of Units 2 and 4 together provided the second highest DO levels when
operating multiple units.
When Units 1, 2 and 3 were operated, the DO at the proposed compliance monitoring
location was below 3.0 mg/1. When Unit 4 was started and all four units operated, the
DO at the proposed compliance monitoring location remained below 3.0 mg/1, but the
DO increased at Monitor TYCM1-3, which is located to the west of the proposed
compliance monitoring location. With all units operating, the high DO water from Unit 4
appeared to stay to the west of the compliance monitoring location and did not mix with
the flow from Units 1, 2 and 3.
5.1.3 Conclusions
The conclusions discussed above are summarized as follows:
• DO monitoring location TYCM1-2 provides the most representative indication of
DO concentration for the majority of the operating scenarios. This location is the
proposed DO compliance monitoring location contingent upon approval of the N.C.
Division of Water Quality.
• During the 2010 trials, the instantaneous (4.0 mg/1) and daily average (5.0 mg/1)
state DO standards were maintained during minimum flow release.
• For Units 1, 2 and 3, the addition of baffle plates or the modification to the baffle
plate design improved the magnitude of the air flow through the vacuum breakers.
However, the improved air flow did not provide any consistent and measurable
increases in DO uptake when compared to the 2009 results.
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 46
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
ARCADIS Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
• The baffle plate design utilized on Unit 1 provides approximately 10% greater air Yadkin-Pee Dee River
flow than the design used on Unit 3 Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
• Addition of baffle plates to the 10-inch draft tube vents did not create air flow
through these vents.
• For single unit operation, Unit 2 provided the greatest DO uptake at the proposed
compliance location. The maximum DO measurement occurring with Unit 2 at
minimum load.
• For two unit operation, Unit 1 at best efficiency and Unit 4 at the 9 to 10 MW load
setting with the vacuum breaker open provided the greatest DO uptake at the
compliance monitoring location.
• DO levels with three and four units operating are less than DO levels with one or
two units operating due to less air uptake with the higher tailwater elevations.
• When operating Units 1, 2 and 3, the addition of Unit 4 with the vacuum breaker
open does not increase the DO at the compliance monitoring location due to the
westerly flow pattern of the Unit 4 discharge.
• Passive aeration will not solely achieve required DO compliance levels under all
operating and environmental conditions.
• To achieve compliance with state DO water quality standards with power plant
operations, a reservoir oxygen diffuser system will be installed and operated in
conjunction with passive venting on Units 1, 2, and 3.
5.2 Blewett Development
5.2.1 Compliance Monitoring Location
During the verification trials at Blewett Falls, Progress Energy developed DO maps for
the Blewett Fall tailrace between the buoy line and the confluence with the Pee Dee
River, approximately 400 feet downstream of the buoy line. Using the results of the
DO mapping, two potential compliance monitoring locations have been identified. One
location is at the buoy line and the second location is 400 feet downstream of the buoy
line. At the buoy line the proposed location is between the 5th and 6th buoy, near the
location where the telemetry unit was placed after trial B10-14. The second proposed
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 47
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
ARCADIS Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
location is 400 feet downstream of the buoy line, approximately 150 to 175 feet from Yadkin-Pee Dee River
the west shoreline. Due to the method used for obtaining the DO concentrations for Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
the maps, it is estimated that the accuracy of the actual locations of the changes in DO
concentration may be ±50 feet. During the 2010 trials, the compliance DO level of 5.0
mg/I was achieved at each proposed location while venting one or more draft tubes,
with the exception of the operation of Unit 4 with the valve only 10% open.
During the minimum flow tests, only the buoy line location had DO monitoring and both
the instantaneous and daily average state DO water quality standards were met during
both the 24-hour test with Unit 3 and the 24-hour test with Unit 4. As recorded at the
center buoy location (BFCM1), which is close to the potential compliance monitoring
location, the daily average and instantaneous minimum DO concentrations were 5.50
mg/I and 4.47 mg/I with Unit 3 at minimum flow and 5.06 mg/I and 4.40 mg/I with Unit 4
at minimum flow.
5.2.2 Performance of Draft Tube Vents
The new draft tube vent systems were installed on Units 3 and 4 prior to the verification
trials. Based on the results of the 2009 trials, it was determined that the new draft tube
vents for Units 3 and 4 should be designed to provide 9,000 cfm (150 cfs) with the
butterfly valve 65° open (72% open). The draft tube vent systems were evaluated for
each unit, and air flow measurements were taken at different valve positions. For
some of the trials, the butterfly valves on the draft tube vents were allowed to operate
in automatic mode, seeking a pre-set level of DO concentration as measured at the
buoy line telemetry monitor. Figure F.1-1 provides the results of the flow tests. With
the butterfly valves approximately 72% open, the air flow was between 175 and 200
cfs. With the addition of in-line noise silencers, the air flow will be reduced slightly, but
the additional loss has been calculated and the required air flow will still be achieved.
Under worst case conditions, it has been estimated that the minimum DO levels could
be 2.4 mg/I and a DO uptake of 2.6 mg/I would be required. With the butterfly valves
fully open, the maximum DO uptake for Unit 4 was approximately 2.0 mg/I. For Unit 3
the maximum DO uptake was 1.3 mg/I. It has not been determined why the DO uptake
for Unit 3 is less than the DO uptake for Unit 4; however, it is possible that the
telemetry unit for DO measurement at the Unit 3 discharge was not accurately aligned
with the Unit 3 discharge plume. A DO uptake of 2.0 mg/I was also achieved with four
units operating. Although the DO uptake could not be determined from the data
available with six units operating, the actual DO levels achieved with six units operating
were essentially equivalent to the measured DO concentrations with four units
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 48
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
ARCADIS Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
operating. During the 2010 trials the minimum DO level measured at the telemetry Yadkin-Pee Dee River
location at the buoy line was 4.6 mg/I without venting. Without low DO levels, it is Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
difficult to confirm if the maximum increase of 2.6 mg/I would be achieved with the air
flows available. However, the oxygen transfer rate (OTR) is directly proportional to the
oxygen deficit (DO in water at saturation minus actual DO in water) and at 29.5 °C the
saturation DO is 7.6 mg/I. Using this proportional relationship, the OTR with a starting
DO of 2.4 mg/I would be 1.7 times greater than the OTR with a starting DO of 4.6 mg/I.
With the greater transfer rate at lower DO levels, it is projected that the achievable DO
uptake when the starting DO concentration is at 2.4 mg/I will be adequate to meet the
required daily average DO of 5.0 mg/I. It should also be noted that even with a 2.0
mg/I rise in DO concentration and a 2.4 mg/I deficit, the state DO water quality
standard of 4.0 mg/I will be met under this condition.
5.2.3 Alternate Operating Scenarios
Several different operating scenarios were included in the verification trials in order to
provide information which can be used to optimize the plant operation to achieve the
required DO levels while minimizing the generation loss. As more air is allowed into
the draft tube to increase the downstream DO levels, the power loss increases. For
Units 3 and 4, the power loss ranged between 200 kW and 1200 kW when the draft
tube vent valves were placed between 30% and 100% open. For Unit 3, the power
loss was between 20% and 30% for a DO uptake of approximately 1.2 to 1.3 mg/I. For
Unit 4, the power loss was between 17% and 27% for a DO uptake of 1.5 to 2.0 mg/I.
When Units 3 and 4 were operated together, a 1.0 mg/I DO uptake was achieved with
a power loss of 10% (See Figure F.1-5). With multiple units operating, the percentage
of power loss was generally lower than for single unit operation for the equivalent DO
uptake. When operating Units 1, 3, 4 and 6, a DO uptake of approximately 2 mg/I was
achieved with a power loss of approximately 15%. This was achieved without venting
on Units 1 and 6. In general, it can be concluded that with multiple units operating,
there is a greater ability to optimize the venting scheme and the overall percentage of
power loss can be minimized.
For either single unit operation or multiple unit operation, the additional power loss for
an incremental change in DO, increases at higher levels of DO uptake. As conditions
require greater DO uptake, each incremental increase in DO will result in a greater loss
in power. When operating Units 3 or 4, the power loss ranged between 500 kW and
900 kW for a 1 mg/I increase in DO. With four units operating and Units 3 and 4
vented, the power loss ranged between 500 kW and 1200 kW for a 1 mg/I increase in
DO. When four units were operated and only the two outside units were vented, the
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 49
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
ARCADIS Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
overall power loss increased to over 2000kW for a 1 mg/I increase in DO. When Yadkin-Pee Dee River
operating between one and four units, for each 1 mg/I increase in DO, the power loss Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
will be between 500 kW and 1200 kW, with the higher power loss occurring at the
higher levels of DO uptake.
5.2.4 Conclusions
The conclusions discussed above are summarized as follows:
• Potential compliance monitoring locations are at the buoy line between buoys 5
and 6 and at a location approximately 400 feet downstream from the buoy line and
150 to 175 feet from the west shoreline. Compliance was achieved at these
locations during the 2010 trials. The final selected compliance monitoring location
will be contingent upon approval of the N.C. Division of Water Quality/
• The new draft tube vent systems for Units 3 and 4 provide air flow in excess of
design conditions. Both units had the newly installed draft tube vents operating
during these tests.
• During the minimum flow tests both the instantaneous and daily average DO
compliance standards were met at the center buoy line location during both the 24-
hour test with Unit 3 and the 24-hour test with Unit 4. Both units had the newly
installed draft tube vents operating during these tests.
• The maximum DO uptake achieved under various operating scenarios was 2.0
mg/I. This increase was accomplished with a minimum starting DO of 4.6 mg/I.
This is less than the target increase of 2.6 mg/I, which is projected for the worst
case scenario with a starting DO of 2.4 mg/I and a state DO daily average
requirement of 5.0 mg/I. However, due to the greater oxygen transfer rate (OTR)
at lower DO concentrations, it is projected that target increase of 2.6 mg/I will be
achieved when required. It should also be noted that with a 2.0 mg/I increase and
a starting DO concentration of 2.4 mg/I, the state instantaneous standard of 4.0
mg/I will be met.
• For a DO uptake of 2.0 mg/I the power loss for Unit 4 operating independently was
27% and the power loss when operating Units 1, 3, 4 and 6 was 15%.
• For a DO uptake of 2.0 mg/I or less, the power loss varied between 500 kW and
1200 kW for each incremental increase of 1 mg/I under most operating scenarios.
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 50
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
ARCADIS Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
When operating four units and not venting with Units 3 and 4, the power loss Yadkin-Pee Dee River
increases to 2000 kW/mg/I. Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
• Progress Energy has completed installation of new draft tube vents on all units
during 2010. Trial testing of the entire venting system on all units will be
conducted during 2011.
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 51
ARCADIS
6. References
2008. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Division of
Water Quality. Basinwide Water Quality Plans. Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basinwide Water
Quality Plan. Third Edition, 2008. North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, North Carolina.
2010. North Carolina Division of Water Quality. Basinwide Information Management
System. Waterbody Reports (including Stream Classifications). Yadkin River Basin.
[Online] http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/basinsandwaterbodies/hydroYadkin.pdf.
(Accessed on November 23, 2010).
2010. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. N. C.
Division of Water Quality. The N. C. Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters
List. NC 2010 Integrated Report (Online). Accessed on November 23, 2010.
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.
Yadkin-Pee Dee River Hydroelectric Project. FERC Project No. 2206. Dissolved
Oxygen Enhancement Methods for the Tillery and Blewett Falls Hydroelectric
Developments. Phase IV- 2009: Baffle Plates, Aeration Ring, Partial Trashrack
Blockage and Air Diffuser Deployment. ARCADIS. January 2010.
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 52
Dissolved Oxygen
Enhancement Field
ARCADIS Verification Methods
for the Tillery and
Blewett Falls
Hydroelectric
Developments
Comprehensive Settlement Agreement for the Relicensing of the Yadkin-Pee Dee Yadkin-Pee Dee River
River Project. FERC Project No. 2206. Electronic filing. James H. Hancock, Jr., Hydroelectric Project No.
2206
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
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.
ALDEN Research Laboratory, Inc., Letter Report for Numeric Modeling of the Tillery
Hydroelectric Plant, June 2010.
Gunderboom, Inc., Summary Report on Tillery Dam Submerged Weir Conceptual
Design, June 2010.
ARCADIS U.S., Inc., 2010a Tillery Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement Program -
Feasibility Review, March 15, 2010
ARCADIS U.S. Inc., 2010b Yadkin, Pee Dee Hydroelectric Project. Tillery
Hydroelectric Plant. Flexible Curtain Weir Concept to Increase Tailwaters Dissolved
Oxygen Concentrations May 27, 2010.
G:000\COMMON\Progress Energy\10 Final Reports and Presentations\DO\2231 01 1 487_Enhancement Eval Report FINAL.doc 53
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
(T
(T
FIGURE 2
,._. ?.,.,..... r....rl.,.t nn ncrr I nv'ruP RT FWT'.TT FALL S POWERHOUSE
TyCp'?cw aSSe u0n
Thru Powe&ousa WAh
5GKE 7rt FEET
(T
0)
Q
0
0
0
N
N
N
a
X
O
0
N
Q
d E
F U)

a
U
a o
a`
U
o
w o
Y n
m=
? U
o Z
v
aO?
7 r
tr
>o?
°0
>m?
U)
N 0
F0
UUd
?Ay. 4 I
SEE, If
Tve.

a ' w 4

l , PROGRESS ENERGY
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
YADKIN-PEE DEE RIVER
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
TILLERY DEVELOPMENT -
2010 WATER QUALITY
K >` ` MONITOR LOCATIONS

r? ARCADIS I FIGURE
3
?r t
'Y
57
0 Z
M
00
,8T
U` 0 Im
0
0 0
?m
O
0
FFa
UUd

'??pi?k
?
}
tl?
?
r t "'af
{? it I 1f 9 • l ?,1- J. L4 A ?`.n j Sa
+a9' ? -? X
a
r
'
'
CC
®
i
-.
.f?
T A
b jr.;.L fit, ?i''Yt •3.` r? 5f'°* J3 ._ r0.'

?1 a yr N ?j .? ? 4 ?x f y
?
'
`'
?'7
s
?1?
v i t ? ",p•?'. Y ai :I „d' ?
?`
7 •5?
r + P +,
- k

f _
.... ? W • ? ili ?;
• L.•r ?r ??,!?f` 5 f?n.. ti? w ,rr??,. ?,? s ,t5?-r M } ? ? .:'? :' "??? ;fd? a,
I.J
' Vim, °da iiY'e ?J
i 1
`t!}
`
I
S
141
>f l
" j
M
S
??
}
?yj?
1
r
t
,
l?
5.
r r+
O BFB2 (LAKE)
k i f
?
?,w
LL
r
y y L ?w. ,p ? # I +r?ri ?
f RI
N
N
k. 4?
,;
,Lk , x. F1
r??; 'Fit{! 6?FA ? ? a r ! ff

t _
CMOUD,. c
31
1317
?
l
` x'
Yf
7
p,rr
-.
pp
?? X'-' f?7'. ?`` ?? ? 1R ?? ? one; ,'L
i IN
.?y?y?'?; 4?? - ?? .?' ? ,h9? ?. ,??
1. S?q?{ = 4 q •` •"" ?
've
r

119.
Q Buoyline. East
Iv.
*?:r M
rFF `* BF (Telem O BFery) O BFCM1 CM1A s : ?` 4.
d
r
?
BFCM1B O 4+
.., rYa Yr.e faJ?ya..R .Q?BuoylinekVest *%
.
,
,
u BFB2 (INTAKE) O =ifs
k! r t * df * ,'r#I, ?BFCM1C
L
.
i
i
'
,,' { ?,. is { ?_1e lr..? ?4 r "?#' %?*_?+ '? "`?? ,?` -
v
E?"' f ?
7 i F .
'I?r
? ?'J
? ?."'? •r,
?:?,JI ??•pf ? }.e'a'r' f r?.?
Z ?qB. I
; F ri 1
"rp+4 i
4. ??
? F ?? .
"
l
F
'
'
;
{
{
I{{ !a I f ? 4 J'. S [ g .,ru'} - yg r, tll? '. F' ^. r{ ,.?

iaq,JYY }v *1 k !? K d dk + r]J9 S # ?e 1, IC, f:..:
r
. 3 ,+ r r y.*w
y "tal +
t
r
NJti ?y? Y %y 'T y "..7 y
'r fe , ?Fy
r'1
?.
S4 o
d
{

yL
r i yf
.41 :.I..
'G'F 'I 1
21.
Y
t r Giy $$?`3
n°k ?r k t'Yi,? W 9 a '.PIS}
'
.
X`
. 7
'
'. 94 ??4 1k' I
ry!F
fid. 3 }
, 3 ! ! SS2".rf?,J1. r`
• , 4¢ }FT? i' 6{?2 " ! r ?"+t '"+' h6f? '``a4 ill ,,ql.+??' , jY

0 -G
Rl.
r } k 'X? 1 ! tlkti # ?F .' ; r ?r 2 ,e ? %, 4! R15 '&'' !
y, 4' •2 !°'Ik 1 - *r?'r?.i° ; f ie'' S?-• ?L ?' r $ °- -?- ,y..:.
-
"
{
•
.
..
'
?n n
'S__ i5' EL 5!t

PROGRESS ENERGY
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
YADKIN-PEE DEE RIVER
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
BLEWETT FALLS DEVELOPMENT -
2010 WATER QUALITY
MONITOR LOCATIONS
0 1,000 2,000
Feet P, { ARCADIS I FIGURE
4
GRAPHIC SCALE A
58
- +
_ 7"
R32° •? \\\
?f
?? ? l 11 g"
i
37.
15'
10 10
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
?'0 DIA
THRU HOLE
(5 PLACES) 1 118°
w 2'-2-
6" SCH 40 ELBOW
R7'-B"
14.62° /
B" 3.31
oQ 0.280" 65" O.D. 6.06" I.D.
PL.
_ III
NOTE:
FABRICATE FROM 4C' A36 CARBON STEEL PLATE
UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.
?. ?..i v.
PROGRESSENERGY
TILLERY RY HYDRO DEVELOPMENT
w 6? a D.O. ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
ms
TILLERY BAFFLE PLATE TILLERY 6" BAFFLE PLATE
UNIT 1
° 0 3" 6"
Fic Re
a
SCALE: 3"=1'-0° ARCADIS
Cn
2'-2"
n
FOR SECTION
OF ELBOW,
SEE DETAIL 1
J" O DIA
THRU HOLE
(5 PLACES)
R31" ?% AO
[V
in
f-IN
m
5'
A
?I
8 n 1 1 N
al
R7'-B"
(ROLL PLATE)
PLAN
66"0
SECTION A-A
3.31"
7.260"
TILLERY BAFFLE PLATE
o s" r
SCALE: 1 1/2"=l'-O"
DETAIL 1
NOTE
FABRICATE FROM %"
A36 CARBON STEEL
PLATE UNLESS
NOTED OTHERWISE.
?- 9"--?
118'
6" SCH 40 ELBOW
65" O V / 6 06" I.D.
01)
O

'0 DIA THRU
HOLE (5 PLACES) 30.00"
B
0
°
N
FOR SECTION OF

ELBOW, SEE DETAIL 1

BEND PLATE TO
MATCH
CURVATURE OF ?I
EXISTING WALL

?
p ? I I
00" (TYP.)
EXISTING CONCRETE
RADIUS = 150.63"
a
r
o °
o °.
A EXISTING CONCRETE
RADIUS = 161.41"
BEND PLATE TO
MATCH CURVATURE
OF EXISTING WALL
B *+
PLAN
16.00"
10" SCH 40 ELBOW
NOTE:
30.00" FABRICATE FROM
V A36 CARBON
BEND PLATE TO 7.00" 16.00" 7.00" STEEL PLATE
MATCH CURVATURE RADIUS 00 UNLESS NOTED
VARIES,
0.280" ? \ 0 OTHERWISE.
OF EXISTING WALL V
SEE PLAN OO
IEW
DETAIL 1
5/16" PL
10.75"
SECTION A-A
TILLERY BAFFLE PLATE
0 6" 1
SCALE: 1 1/2"=l'-O"

Figure 8
Blewett Falls - Unit 4 Draft Tube Air Intake System
M
Now- IDIOM.

r?
1114
0
62
ARCADIS
Appendix A-1
Tillery 2010 Verification Evaluations
Schedule
Progress Energy
2010 Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement Methods Verification
Tillery Hydro Verification Trials Schedule
29-Oct-10
Date Day Test No. Time Unit # Load Flow (cfs) Description
As scheduled Install DO monitoring equipment in Project lakes
07/26-29/10 Mon-Thurs N/A throughout the day N/A N/A N/A and river tailwaters.

Install Units 2 and 3 baffle plates and remove
07/29-31/10 Thurs-Sat N/A As scheduled 2 & 3 Off-Line No flow Unit 3 draft cone ring.

Determine base flow in river with no power plant
7/29/2010 Thurs. N/A 0700-1200 N/A N/A Base flow operations or minimum flow releases

07/31/10 Sat. N/A 0600 N/A N/A 330 Set crest gate for 330 cfs minimum flow.
Validate flow release with field measurement.
7/31 -8/1 Sat- Sun. T10-1 0800 Sat - 1200 Sun N/A N/A 330 Crest ate minimum flow (approximate 28 hr

08/02/10 Mon. N/A 0700 N/A N/A N/A Close crest ate and start Unit 1
08/02/10 Mon. T10-2 0700 - 0830 1 Best Efficiency 3600 Unit 1: Normal Operation with 6" vacuum
breaker vent closed
08/02/10 Mon. N/A 830 1 Best Efficient 3600 Unit 1: Open 6" vacuum breaker valve
08/02/10 Mon. T10-3 0830 - 1000 1 Best Efficiency 3600 Unit 1: Natural aeration through 6" vacuum
breaker with new baffle plate design
08/02/10 Mon. N/A 1000 1 Transition Transition Unit 1: Increase unit operating point to maximum
load
08/02/10 Mon. T10-4 1000-1130 1 Max 4500 Unit 1: Natural aeration through 6" vacuum
breaker with new baffle plate design
08/02/10 Mon. N/A 1130 1 Transition Transition Unit 1: Decrease unit operating point to
minimum load 2400 cfs
08/02/10 Mon. T10-5 1130-1300 1 Min 2400 Unit 1: Natural aeration through 6" vacuum
breaker with new baffle plate design
08/02/10 Mon. N/A 1300 1 & 3 Transition Transition Unit 1: Close 6" vaccum vent and reduce load to
Best Efficiency of 3600 cfs. Start up Unit 3 and
bring to Best Efficient of 3600 cfs
08/02/10 Mon. T10-6 1300 - 1430 1 & 3 Best Efficiency 7200 Units 1 & 3: Normal operation
08/02/10 Mon. N/A 1430 1 & 3 Best Efficient 7200 Units 1 & 3: Open 6" vacuum breaker valves
08/02/10 Mon. T10-7 1430 - 1600 1 & 3 Best Efficiency 7200 Units 1 & 3: Natural aeration through 6" vacuum
breaker with baffle plates (comparison of baffle
plate performance)
08/02/10 Mon. N/A 1600 1 & 3 Transition Transition Units 1 & 3: Increase unit operating point to
maximum load
08/02/10 Mon. T10-8 1600 - 1730 1 & 3 Max 9100 Units 1 & 3: Natural aeration through 6" vacuum
breaker with baffle plates (comparison of baffle
plate performance)

08/03/10 Tues T10-9 0700 - 0830 2 Best Efficiency 2800 Unit 2: Normal Operation with 6" vacuum
breaker vent closed
08/03/10 Tues N/A 830 2 Best Efficient 2800 Unit 2: Open 6" vacuum breaker valve
08/03/10 Tues T10-10 0830 - 1000 2 Best Efficiency 2800 Unit 2: Natural aeration through 6" vacuum
breaker with new baffle plate design
08/03/10 Tues N/A 1000 2 Best Efficient 2800 Unit 2: Open valve for 10" draft tube vent
08/03/10 Tues T10-11 1000-1130 2 Best Efficiency 2800 Unit 2: Natural aeration both through 6" vacuum
breaker and 10" draft tube vent with new baffle
plate design
08/03/10 Tues N/A 1130 2 Transition Transition Unit 2: Decrease unit operating point to
minimum load 1900 cfs
08/03/10 Tues T10-12 1130-1300 2 Min 1900 Unit 2: Natural aeration both through 6" vacuum
breaker and 10" draft tube vent with new baffle
plate design
08/03/10 Tues N/A 1300 2 Transition Transition Unit 2: Increase unit operating point to maximum
load
08/03/10 Tues T10-13 1300 - 1430 2 Max 3700 Unit 2: Natural aeration both through 6" vacuum
breaker and 10" draft tube vent with new baffle
plate design
08/03/10 Tues N/A 1430 2 & 3 Transition Transition Unit 2: Decrease load to best eficiency. Unit 3:
Start unit, increase load to best efficiency, open
valves for 6" vacuum breaker and 10" draft tube
vent.
08/03/10 Tues T10-14
1450 - 1600
2 & 3
Best Efficiency
6400
Units 2 & 3: Natural aeration through 6" vacuum
I I breaker and 10" draft tube vent
Date Day Test No. Time Unit # Load Flow (cfs) Description
08/03/10 Tues N/A 1600 2 & 3 Best Efficiency 6400 Units 2 & 3: Close 6" vacuum breaker and 10"
draft tube vent valves
08/03/10 Tues T10-15 1600-1715 2 & 3 Best Efficiency 6400 Units 2 & 3: Normal operation

08/04/10 Wed. T10-16 0700 - 0830 3 Best Efficiency 3600 Unit 3: Normal Operation with 6" vacuum
breaker vent closed
08/04/10 Wed. N/A 830 3 Best Efficient 3600 Unit 3: Open 6" vacuum breaker valve
08/04/10 Wed. T10-17 0830 - 1000 3 Best Efficiency 3600 Unit 3: Natural aeration through 6" vacuum
breaker with new baffle plate design
08/04/10 Wed. N/A 1000 3 Best Efficient 3600 Unit 3: Open valve for 10" draft tube vent
08/04/10 Wed. T10-18 1000-1130 3 Best Efficiency 3600 Unit 3: Natural aeration through both 6" vacuum
breaker and 10" draft tube vent with new baffle
plate design
08/04/10 Wed. N/A 1130 3 Transition Transition Unit 3: Decrease unit operating point to
minimum load 2400 cfs
08/04/10 Wed. T10-19 1130-1300 3 Min 2400 Unit 3: Natural aeration through both 6" vacuum
breaker and 10" draft tube vent with new baffle
plate design
08/04/10 Wed. N/A 1300 1, 2, & 3 Transition Transition Unit 3: Close 6" vacuum vent, 10" draft tube
vent and increase load to Best Efficiency. Start
u Units 1 and 2 and bring to Best Efficiency..
08/04/10 Wed. T10-20 1300 - 1430 1, 2, & 3 Best Efficiency 6700 Units 1, 2 & 3: Normal operation
08/04/10 Wed. N/A 1430 1, 2, & 3 Best Efficiency 6700 Units 1: Open 6" vacuum breaker valve. Units 2
and 3: Open 6" vacuum breaker and 10" draft
tube vent valves.
08/04/10 Wed. T10-21 1430 - 1600 1, 2, & 3 Best Efficiency 6700 Unit 1: Natural aeration through 6" vacuum
breaker. Units 2 and 3: Natural aeration through
both 6" vacuum breaker and 10" draft tube vent.
08/04/10 Wed. N/A 1600 1, 2, & 3 Transition Transition Units 1, 2, & 3: Increase unit operating point to
maximum load
08/04/10 Wed. T10-22 1600 - 1730 1, 2, & 3 Max 12700 Unit 1: Natural aeration through 6" vacuum
breaker. Units 2 and 3: Natural aeration through
both 6" vacuum breaker and 10" draft tube vent.
(comparison of baffle late performance)

08/05/10 Thur. N/A 0700 - 0800 2 & 4 N/A N/A Unit 2: Start unit and set at best efficiency; Unit
4: Make necessary adjustments to vacuum
breaker setting.
08/05/10 Thur. T10-23 0800 - 0930 2 & 4 Unit 2: Best Eff TBD Unit 2: Natural aeration through 6" vacuum
Unit 4: 10 MW breaker; Unit 4: Operate unit at 10 MW with
vacumm breaker open.
08/05/10 Thur. N/A 0930 1,2,3 & 4 Transition Transition Unit 1: Start Unit, set at Min. load (13 MW) and
open 6" vacuum breaker; Unit 2: Reduce to Min.
load (10 MW) and keep 6" vacuum breaker
open; Unit 3: Start Unit, set at Min. load (13
MW) and open 6" vacuum breaker; Unit 4:
Maintain load at 10 MW with vacuum breaker
08/05/10 Thur. T10-24 0930 - 1100 1,2,3 & 4 Unit 1: 13 MW TBD Units 1, 2 and 3: Natural aeration through 6"
Unit 2: 10 MW vacuum breaker. Unit 4: 10 MW with vacuum
Unit 3:13 MW breaker open.
Unit 4: 10 MW
08/05/10 Thur. N/A 1100 1,2,3 & 4 Transition Transition Units 1, 2 and 3: Increase to best efficiency.
Unit 4: Reduce to 9 MW with vacuum breaker
08/05/10 Thur. T10-25 1100-1230 1,2,3 & 4 Units 1, 2 & 3: TBD Units 1, 2 and 3: Natural aeration through 6"
Best vacuum breaker. Unit 4: Vacuum breaker open.
Efficiency.
08/05/10 Thur. N/A 1230 1,2,3 & 4 Transition Transition Units 1, 2 and 3: Maintain load at best efficiency
and close 6" vacuum breakers. Unit 4: Increase
load to 15 MW with vacuum breaker closed.
08/05/10 Thur. T10-26 1230 - 1400 1,2,3 & 4 Units 1, 2 & 3: TBD Units 1, 2, and 3: Normal operation. Unit 4:
Best Vacuum breaker closed.
Efficiency.

08/06/10 Fri T10-27 0800 - 0930 1 & 4 Best Efficiency 7800 Units 1 and 4: Normal operation
08/06/10 Fri N/A 0930 1 & 4 Transition Transition Unit 1: Open 6" vacuum braeker. Unit 4:
Reduce load to 9 MW vacuum breaker opens)
08/06/10 Fri T10-28 0930 - 1100 1 & 4 Unit 1: Best Unit 1: 3600 Unit 1: Natural aeration through 6" vacuum
Efficiency; Unit 4: 1728 breaker with new baffle plate design; Unit 4: 9
Unit 4:9 MW MW with vacuum breaker open
ARCADIS
Appendix A-2
Blewett Falls 2010 Verification
Evaluations Schedule
Progress Energy
2010 Dissolved Oxygen Enhancement Methods Verification
Blewett Hydro Verification Trials Schedule
9/22/2010 (Rev. 12)
Date Day Test No. Time Unit # Load Flow (cfs) Description
8/7/10 Sat. N/A 0700 3 Minimum Flow 1200 Unit 3: Start unit and establish load for
1200 cfs. Manual butterfly valve closed
8/7/10 Sat. B10-1 0700 - 0800 3 Minimum Flow 1200 Unit 3: Minimum flow, normal operation
8/7/10 Sat. N/A 0800 3 Minimum Flow 1200 Unit 3: Minimum flow, open manual
butterfly valve and allow control valve to
open to reach required DO level
8/7 - 8/8/10 Sat.-Sun. B10-1a 0800 Sat. - 0700 Sun. 3 Minimum Flow 1200 Unit 3: Minimum flow with new draft tube
vents in auto control.
8/8/10 Sun. N/A 0700 4 Minimum Flow 1200 Unit 3: Shut down unit. Unit 4: Start unit
and establish load for 1200 cfs. Manual
butterfly valve closed
8/8/10 Sun. B10-2a 0700 - 0800 4 Minimum Flow 1200 Unit 4: Minimum flow, normal operation
8/8/10 Sun. N/A 800 4 Minimum Flow 1200 Unit 4: Minimum flow, open manual
butterfly valve and allow control valve to
open to reach required DO level
8/8 - 8/9/10 Sun.-Mon B10-2b 800 Sun. - 0700 Mon. 4 Minimum Flow 1200 Unit 4: Minimum flow with new draft tube
vents in auto control.

8/9/10 Mon. B10-3a 0700 - 0800 4 Best Efficiency 1250 Unit 4: Draft tube vent butterfly valve
closed with no venting. Control test.
8/9/10 Mon. B10-3 0800 - 0900 4 Best Efficiency 1250 Unit 4: Draft tube vent butterfly valve set at
10% open
8/9/10 Mon. N/A 0900 4 Best Efficiency 1250 Unit 4: Adjust draft tube vent butterfly
valve to 50%.
8/9/10 Mon. B10-4 0900 - 1000 4 Best Efficiency 1250 Unit 4: Draft tube vent butterfly valve set at
50% open.
8/9/10 Mon. N/A 1000 4 Best Efficiency 1250 Unit 4: Adjust draft tube vent butterfly
valve to 100%.
8/9/10 Mon. B10-5 1000-1100 4 Best Efficiency 1250 Unit 4: Draft tube vent butterfly valve set at
100% open.
8/9/10 Mon. N/A 1100 4 Transition Transition Unit 4: Increase to maximum load and
keep draft tube vent valve at 100% open.
8/9/10 Mon. B10-6 1100-1200 4 Max 1700 Unit 4: Draft tube vent butterfly valve set at
100% open.
8/9/10 Mon. N/A 1200 4 Max 1700 Unit 4: Adjust draft tube vent butterfly
valve to 50%.
8/9/10 Mon. B10-7 1200 - 1300 4 Max 1700 Unit 4: Draft tube vent butterfly valve set at
50% open.
8/9/10 Mon. N/A 1300 4 Max 1700 Unit 4: Adjust draft tube vent butterfly
valve to 10%.
8/9/10 Mon. B10-8 1300 - 1400 4 Max 1700 Unit 4: Draft tube vent butterfly valve set at
10% open

8/10/10 Tues B10-9a 0700 - 0800 3 Best Efficiency 1200 Unit 3: Draft tube vent butterfly valve
closed with no venting. Control test.
8/10/10 Tues B10-9 0800 - 0900 3 Best Efficiency 1200 Unit 3: Draft tube vent butterfly valve set at
10% open
8/10/10 Tues N/A 0900 3 Best Efficiency 1200 Unit 3: Adjust draft tube vent butterfly
valve to 50%.
8/10/10 Tues B10-10 0900 - 1000 3 Best Efficiency 1200 Unit 3: Draft tube vent butterfly valve set at
50% open.
8/10/10 Tues N/A 1000 3 Best Efficiency 1200 Unit 3: Adjust draft tube vent butterfly
valve to 100%.
8/10/10 Tues B10-11 1000-1100 3 Best Efficiency 1200 Unit 3: Draft tube vent butterfly valve set at
100% open.
8/10/10 Tues N/A 1100 3 Transition Transition Unit 3: Increase to maximum load and
keep draft tube vent valve at 100% open.
8/10/10 Tues B10-12 1100-1200 3 Max 1350 Unit 3: Draft tube vent butterfly valve set at
100% open.
8/10/10 Tues N/A 1200 3 Max 1350 Unit 3: Adjust draft tube vent butterfly
valve to 50%.
8/10/10 Tues B10-13 1200 - 1300 3 Max 1350 Unit 3: Draft tube vent butterfly valve set at
50% open.
Date Day Test No. Time Unit # Load Flow (cfs) Description
8/10/10 Tues N/A 1300 3 Max 1350 Unit 3: Adjust draft tube vent butterfly
valve to 10%.
8/10/10 Tues B10-14 1300 - 1400 3 Max 1350 Unit 3: Draft tube vent butterfly valve set at
10% open

8/11/10 Weds. N/A 0900 3 & 4 Best Efficiency 2450 Units 3 & 4: Start units
8/11/10 Weds. B10-15 0900 - 1000 3 & 4 Best Efficiency 2450 Units 3 & 4: Normal operation (unvented)
8/11/10 Weds. N/A 1000 3 & 4 Best Efficiency 2450 Units 3 & 4: Maintain normal unvented
mode of operation (vents closed).
8/11/10 Weds. B10-16 1000-1100 3 & 4 Best Efficiency 2450 Units 3 & 4: Draft tube vents closed
(unvented) for 30 minutes then air flow
control in manual at 30% open for 30
minutes.
8/11/10 Weds. N/A 1100 3 & 4 Transition Transition Units 3 & 4: Increase to maximum load
8/11/10 Weds. B10-17 1100-1200 3 & 4 Max 3050 Units 3 & 4: Draft tube vents open at 30%
and air flow control in manual for 30
minutes; then close vents for 30 minutes
of unvented operation.
8/11/10 Weds. N/A 1200 1, 3 & 4 Best Efficiency 3650 Unit 1: Start unit, draft tube vents closed;
Units 3 & 4: Reduce load to best efficiency
8/11/10 Weds. B10-18 1200 - 1300 1, 3 & 4 Best Efficiency 3650 Unit 1: Normal operation; Units 3 and 4:
Draft tube vents in manual at closed
position (unvented) for 30 minutes; then
manually open vents at 30% for 30
8/11/10 Weds. N/A 1300 1, 3, 4 & 6 Best Efficiency 4900 Unit 6: Start unit, vacuum breaker valves
closed
8/11/10 Weds. B10-19 1300 - 1400 1, 3, 4 & 6 Best Efficiency 4900 Unit 1: Normal operation; Units 3 and 4:
Draft tube vents open and air flow in
manual at 30% for 30 minutes; then close
vents (unvented) for 30 minutes; Unit 6:
Normal operation
8/11/10 Weds. N/A 1400 2, 3, 4 & 5 Best Efficiency 4900 Unit 1: Shut down; Unit 2: Start up with
vacuum breaker valves closed; Unit 5:
Start up with vacuum breaker valves
closed; Unit 6: Shut down
8/11/10 Weds. B10-20 1400 - 1500 2, 3, 4 & 5 Best Efficiency 4900 Unit 2: Normal operation; Units 3 & 4: Draft
tube vents closed (unvented) for 30
minutes; then open vents and air flow
control in manual at 30% for 30 minutes;
Unit 5: Normal operation
8/11/10 Weds. N/A 1500 2, 3, 4 & 5 Best Efficiency 4900 Units 2 & 5: Open downstream vacuum
breaker valves to full open position
8/11/10 Weds. B10-21 1500 - 1600 2, 3, 4 & 5 Best Efficiency 4900 Unit 2: Downstream vacuum breaker valve
fully open; Units 3 and 4: Draft tube vents
open and air flow control in manual for
30% for 30 minutes; then close vents
(unvented) for 30 minutes; Unit 5:
downstream vacuum breaker valve fully
open
8/11/10 Weds. N/A 1600 2, 3, 4 & 5 Best Efficiency 4900 Units 3 & 4: Continue operation with draft
tube vents closed (unvented).
8/11/10 Weds. B10-22 1600 - 1700 2, 3, 4 & 5 Best Efficiency 4900 Unit 2: Normal operation; Unit 3: Normal
operation; Unit 4: Normal operation; Unit
5: Normal operation

8/12/10 Thurs N/A 900 1, 3, 4 & 6 Best Efficiency 4900 Units 1, 3, 4 & 6: Start units
8/12/10 Thurs B10-23 0900 - 1000 1, 3, 4 & 6 Best Efficiency 4900 Units 1, 3, 4 & 6: Normal operation
(unvented)
8/12/10 Thurs N/A 1000 1, 3, 4 & 6 Best Efficiency 4900 Units 3 & 4: Open manual butterfly valve
and allow control valve to reach required
DO level.
8/12/10 Thurs B10-24 1000-1100 1, 3, 4 & 6 Best Efficiency 4900 Unit 1: Normal operation; Units 3 and 4:
Draft tube vents open and air flow control
in auto; Unit 6: Normal operation
8/12/10 Thurs N/A 1100 1, 3, 4 & 6 Best Efficiency 4900 Units 1 & 6: Open both vacuum breaker
valves
Date Day Test No. Time Unit # Load Flow (cfs) Description
8/12/10 Thurs B10-25 1100-1200 1, 3, 4 & 6 Best Efficiency 4900 Unit 1: Both vacuum breaker valves open;
Units 3 and 4: Draft tube vents open and
air flow control in auto; Unit 6: both
vacuum breaker valves open.
8/12/10 Thurs N/A 1200 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 Best Efficiency 7350 Units 1 & 6: Close vacuum breaker valves;
Units 2 & 5: Start Units; Units 3 & 4:
Maintain operation with valves in auto
8/12/10 Thurs B10-26 1200 - 1300 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 Best Efficiency 7350 Units 1, 2, 5, & 6: Normal operation
(unvented). Units 3 & 4: Draft tube vents
open and air flow control in auto.
8/12/10 Thurs N/A 1300 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 Best Efficiency 7350 Units 2 & 5: Open downstream vacuum
breaker valves 50%
8/12/10 Thurs B10-27 1300 - 1400 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 Best Efficiency 7350 Units 1 & 6: vacuum breaker valves
closed; Units 2 & 5: Downstream vacuum
breaker valve 50% open; Units 3 & 4: Draft
tube vents open and air flow control in
auto.
8/12/10 Thurs N/A 1400 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 Transition Transition All Units: Increase to maximum load.
Units 2 & 5: Open downstream vacuum
breaker valves 100%
8/12/10 Thurs B10-28 1400 - 1500 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 Max 9150 Units 1 & 6: vacuum breaker valves
closed; Units 2 & 5: Downstream vacuum
breaker valve open; Units 3 & 4: Draft tube
vents open and air flow control in auto.
8/12/10 Thurs N/A 1500 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 Max 9150 All Units: Close valves
8/12/10 Thurs B10-29 1500 - 1600 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 Max 9150 Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6: Normal operation
(unvented)

0813/10 Fri. TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Any other follow-up tests identified during
course of testing. Demobilize on-site
equipment (including DO sondes in river).
Note: Noise level measurements for trials B10-9 through B10-17
ARCADIS
Appendix B-1
Tillery 2010 Verification Evaluation
Results Summary
Table B.1-1
Tillery 2010 Verification Evaluation Results Summary
D
t T
i
l U
it Flow Air Flow Load D
i
ti HW Elev. TW Elev. Gross Head Average DO Concentrations
a
e r
a n CFS CFS Set Actual (MW) escr
p
on Ft. Ft. Ft. TYCM1-1 TYCM1-2 TYCM1-3 Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4
7/31 -8/2 T10-1 N/A 367 N/A N/A N/A Crest Gate - Minimum Flow 277.40 203.60 73.80 No Data * 6.76 7.06
08/02/10 T10-2 1 3600 0 Best Eff. 19.8 Normal Operation 277.57 205.59 71.99 No Data * 3.04 2.67 2.64
08/02/10 T10-3 1 3600 39 Best Eff. 19.7 6" Draft Tube Vent open w/baffle plate 277.50 205.72 71.78 No Data * 3.70 3.34 3.34
08/02/10 T10-4 1 4500 36 Max. Load 21.2 6" Draft Tube Vent open w/baffle plate 277.45 205.91 71.54 3.63 4.06 3.60 3.50
08/02/10 T10-5 1 2400 25 Min. Load 13.0 6" Draft Tube Vent open w/baffle plate 277.40 205.50 71.90 3.60 4.74 4.28 3.19
08/02/10 T10
6 1 3600 0 Best Eff. 19.7 Normal Operation 277
41 206
64 70
77 3
00 3
49 3
13 2
58 2
82
-
3
3600
0
Best Eff.
19.8
Normal Operation . . . . . . . - . -
08/02/10 T10
7 1 3600 36 Best Eff. 19.8 6" Draft Tube Vent open w/baffle plate 277
48 207
09 70
39 3
10 4
05 4
01 3
23 3
46
-
3
3600
33
Best Eff.
19.9
6" Draft Tube Vent open w/baffle plate . . . . . . . - . -
08/02/10 T10
8 1 4500 32 Max. Load 20.8 6" Draft Tube Vent open w/baffle plate 277
67 207
29 70
38 3
50 4
11 3
77 3
56 3
45
-
3
4500
29
Max. Load
21.2
6" Draft Tube Vent open w/baffle plate . . . . . . . - . -
08/03/10 T10-9 2 2800 0 Best Eff. 15.3 Normal Operation 277.94 205.28 72.66 No Data 3.14 2.93 - 2.43 - -
08/03/10 T10-10 2 2800 27 Best Eff. 15.2 6" Draft Tube Vent open w/baffle plate 277.87 205.29 72.58 3.13 4.13 3.76 - 2.87
08/03/10 T10
11 2 2800 27 Best Eff 15
3 6" Draft Tube Vent open w/baffle plate 277
79 205
31 72
48 No Data 4
69 4
14 2
87
-
0.5 . .
10" Draft Tube Vent open w/baffle plate . . . . . - . - -
08/03/10 T10
12 2 1900 26 Min
Load 10
9 6" Draft Tube Vent open w/baffle plate 277
86 205
07 72
79 4
05 5
31 4
74 2
86
-
0.5 . .
10" Draft Tube Vent open w/baffle plate . . . . . . - . - -
08/03/10 T10
13 2 3700 24 Max
Load 18
3 6" Draft Tube Vent open w/baffle plate 277
96 205
53 72
43 3
85 4
75 4
11 2
71
-
0.5 . .
10" Draft Tube Vent open w/baffle plate . . . . . . - . - -
2 2800 10 Best Eff 16
1 6" Draft Tube Vent open w/baffle plate
08/03/10 T10
14 0.0 . . 10" Draft Tube Vent open w/baffle plate 278
12 206
83 71
29 3
35 3
47 3
16 2
61 2
88
-
3
3600
38
Best Eff
20
0
6" Draft Tube Vent open w/baffle plate . . . . . . - . . -
1.1 . . 10" Draft Tube Vent open w/baffle plate
08/03/10 T10
15 2 2800 0 Best Eff. 16.2 Normal Operation 278
13 206
80 71
33 3
10 2
99 2
83 2
54 2
31
-
3
3600
0
Best Eff.
19.9
Normal Operation . . . . . . - . . -
08/04/10 T10-16 3 3600 0 Best Eff. 19.7 Normal Operation 277.78 205.57 72.21 1.90 2.63 2.45 - - 1.66 -
08/04/10 T10-17 3 3600 36 Best Eff. 19.8 6" Draft Tube Vent open w/baffle plate 277.76 205.73 72.03 2.55 3.39 3.09 - - 2.54 -
08/04/10 T10
18 3 3600 36 Best Eff 19
9 6" Draft Tube Vent open w/baffle plate 277
76 205
73 72
03 2
80 4
11 3
57 2
30
-
0.7 . .
10" Draft Tube Vent open w/baffle plate . . . . . . - - . -
08/04/10 T10
19 3 2400 10 Min
Load 11 6" Draft Tube Vent open w/baffle plate 277
77 205
21 72
56 2
65 4
96 4
20 1
94
-
0.7 .
10" Draft Tube Vent open w/baffle plate . . . . . . - - . -
1 3600 0 Best Eff. 19.7 Normal Operation
08/04/10 T10-20 2 2800 0 Best Eff. 15.3 Normal Operation 277.74 207.87 69.87 1.85 2.58 2.16 - 1.71 1.69 -
3 3600 0 Best Eff. 19.7 Normal Operation
1 3600 33 Best Eff. 19.7 6" Draft Tube Vent open w/baffle plate
08/04/10 T10-21 2 2800 1 Best Eff. 15.3 6" Draft Tube Vent open w/baffle plate 277.70 207.90 69.80 2.45 2.78 2.87 - 1.83 2.47 -
3 3600 33 Best Eff. 19.7 6" Draft Tube Vent open w/baffle plate
1 4500 30 Max. Load 20.4 6" Draft Tube Vent open w/baffle plate
08/04/10 T10-22 2 3700 3 Max. Load 17.8 6" Draft Tube Vent open w/baffle plate 277.64 208.25 69.39 1.85 2.91 2.68 - 2.27 2.23 -
3 4500 26 Max. Load 20.8 6" Draft Tube Vent open w/baffle plate
08/05/10 T10
23 2 2800 18 Best Eff. 15.4 6" Draft Tube Vent open w/baffle plate 277
84 206
46 71
38 1
60 4
73 4
08 1
24 4
13
- 4 108 10 MW 10.5 Vacuum Breaker open . . . . . . - . - .
1 2400 7 13 MW 13.7 6" Draft Tube Vent open w/baffle plate
08/05/10 T10
24 2 1900 1 10 MW 10.8 6" Draft Tube Vent open w/baffle plate 277
59 208
20 69
39 1
80 2
79 4
09 1
21 3
83
- 3 2400 0 13 MW 13.8 6" Draft Tube Vent open w/baffle plate . . . . . . - . - .
4 107 10 MW 10.5 Vacuum Breaker open
1 3600 28 Best Eff. 19.7 6" Draft Tube Vent open w/baffle plate
08/05/10 T10
25 2 2800 0 Best Eff. 15.3 6" Draft Tube Vent open w/baffle plate 277
48 208
66 68
82 2
10 2
54 4
30 1
41 4
17
- 3 3600 28 Best Eff. 19.7 6" Draft Tube Vent open w/baffle plate . . . . . . - . - .
4 127 10 MW 9.3 Vacuum Breaker open
Date Trial Unit Flow Air Flow Load Descri
tion HW Elev. TW Elev. Gross Head Average DO Concentrations
CFS CFS Set Actual (MW) p Ft. Ft. Ft. TYCM1-1 TYCM1-2 TYCM1-3 Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4
1 3600 0 Best Eff. Normal Operation
08/05/10 T10
26 2 2800 0 Best Eff. Normal Operation 277
30 208
99 0
00 2
20 2
09 1
73 1
40 1
12
- 3 3600 0 Best Eff. Normal Operation . . . . . . - . - .
4 0 15 MW Normal Operation
08/06/10 T10
27 1 3600 0 Best Eff. 19.7 Normal Operation 277
85 207
29 0
00 2
29 2
54 2
25 No Data No Data No Data No Data
- 4 4200 0 Best Eff. 23.8 Normal Operation . . . . . .
08/06/10 T10
28 1 3600 36 Best Eff. 19.9 6" Draft Tube Vent open w/baffle plate 277
74 206
72 0
00 3
14 5
24 4
99 No Data No Data No Data No Data
- 4 123 9 MW 9.5 Vacuum Breaker open . . . . . .
No data were available due to instrument failure
ARCADIS
Appendix B-2
Blewett Falls 2010 Verification
Evaluation Results Summary
Progress Energy
Table B.2-1
Blewett Falls 2010 Verification Evaluation Results Summary
Date Trial Unit Flow Air Flow Load Descri
tion HW Elev. TW Elev. Gross Head Average DO Concentrations (mg/1)
CFS CFS Set Actual (kW) p Ft. Ft. Ft. BFCM1 Buoy West Buoy East Telemetry
08/07/10 B10-1 3 1200 0 Best Eff. Normal Operation (Minimum Flow) 0.00 5.17 5.08 6.08 5.24
8/7 - 8/8 B10-1a 3 1200 0 Best Eff. Normal Operation (Minimum Flow) 0.00 5.50 5.45 7.05 6.14
08/08/10 B10-2a 4 1200 0 Min. Flow Normal Operation (Minimum Flow) 0.00 5.20 4.63 5.96 5.27
8/8 - 8/9 B10-2b 4 1200 0 Min. Flow Normal Operation (Minimum Flow) 0.00 5.06 4.65 4.98 5.23
08/09/10 B10-3a 4 1250 0 Best Eff. 4200 Normal Operation 177.88 125.53 52.35 4.68 4.40 4.64 4.83
08/09/10 B10-3 4 1250 13 Best Eff. 4200 BF Valve 11 % Open 177.88 125.56 52.32 4.88 4.61 4.98 5.09
08/09/10 B10-4 4 1250 138 Best Eff. 3500 BF Valve 51 % Open 177.87 125.55 52.32 5.88 5.38 6.23 6.27
08/09/10 B10-5 4 1250 192 Best Eff. 3050 BF Valve at 100% Open 177.82 125.51 52.31 6.38 6.01 6.52 6.85
08/09/10 B10-6 4 1700 201 Max. 3850 BF Valve at 100% Open 177.82 125.51 52.31 6.53 6.46 7.15 6.77
08/09/10 B10-7 4 1700 164 Max. 4500 BF Valve 51 % Open 177.79 125.75 52.04 6.26 6.14 6.84 6.47
08/09/10 B10-8 4 1700 16 Max. 5200 BF Valve 9% Open 177.78 125.82 51.96 5.22 5.62 5.75 5.39
08/10/10 B10-9a 3 1200 0 Best Eff. 3900 Normal Operation 177.94 125.19 52.75 4.91 4.99 5.80 5.49
08/10/10 B10-9 3 1200 1 Best Eff. 3950 BF Valve 10% Open 177.95 125.34 52.62 5.08 5.12 6.01 5.64
08/10/10 B10-10 3 1200 122 Best Eff. 3100 BF Valve 51 % Open 177.96 125.48 52.48 5.36 5.49 7.31 6.71
08/10/10 B10-11 3 1200 196 Best Eff. 2750 BF Valve at 100% Open 177.95 125.45 52.50 5.56 5.97 7.61 6.77
08/10/10 B10-12 3 1350 224 Max. 3200 BF Valve at 100% Open 177.93 125.56 52.37 5.56 5.87 7.72 6.71
08/10/10 B10-13 3 1350 148 Max. 3600 BF Valve 51 % Open 177.93 125.56 52.37 5.42 5.84 7.21 6.40
08/10/10 B10-14 3 1350 1 Max. 4200 BF Valve 10% Open 177.91 125.61 52.30 5.15 5.70 6.33 5.78
08/11/10 B10
15 3 1200 0 Best Eff. 3850 Normal Operation 177.82 126.24 51.58 4
59 4
93 4
69 4
74
- 4 1250 0 Best Eff. 4500 Normal Operation 177.82 126.24 51.58 . . . .
3 1200 0 Best Eff. 3850 BFV Closed (30 min.) 177.82 126.24 51.58 4
49 4
90 3
95 4
50
08/11/10 B10
16 4 1250 0 Best Eff. 4500 BFV Closed (30 min.) 177.82 126.24 51.58 . . . .
- 3 1200 59 Best Eff. 3550 BFV at 30% (30 min.) 177.82 126.24 51.58 5
63 5
59 4
80 5
54
4 1250 83 Best Eff. 4000 BFV at 30% (30 min.) 177.82 126.24 51.58 . . . .
3 1350 60 Max. BFV at 30% (30 min.) 177.74 126.52 51.22 5
62 5
89 4
68 5
48
08/11/10 B10
17 4 1700 83 Max. BFV at 30% (30 min.) 177.74 126.52 51.22 . . . .
- 3 1350 0 Max. 4250 BFV Closed (30 min.) 177.74 126.52 51.22 5
21 5
81 3
63 4
99
4 1700 0 Max. 5200 BFV Closed (30 min.) 177.74 126.52 51.22 . . . .
1 1200 0 Best Eff. 3800 Normal Operation 177.64 126.92 50.72
3 1200 0 Best Eff. 3800 BFV Closed (30 min.) 177.64 126.92 50.72 5.20 6.28 3.28 4.60
08/11/10 B10
18 4 1250 0 Best Eff. 4400 BFV Closed (30 min.) 177.64 126.92 50.72
- 1 1200 0 Best Eff. 3800 Normal Operation 177.64 126.92 50.72
3 1200 65 Best Eff. 3550 BFV at 30% (30 min.) 177.64 126.92 50.72 6.01 6.98 3.42 5.51
4 1250 86 Best Eff. 4000 BFV at 30% (30 min.) 177.64 126.92 50.72
Date Trial Unit Flow Air Flow Load Descri
tion HW Elev. TW Elev. Gross Head Average DO Concentrations (mg/1)
CFS CFS Set Actual (kW) p Ft. Ft. Ft. BFCM1 Buoy West Buoy East Telemetry
1 1200 0 Best Eff. 3700 Normal Operation 177.54 127.56 49.98
3 1200 65 Best Eff. 3500 BFV at 30% (30 min.) 177.54 127.56 49.98 6
13 7
24 4
19 5
80
4 1250 86 Best Eff. 3900 BFV at 30% (30 min.) 177.54 127.56 49.98 . . . .
08/11/10 B10
19 6 1250 0 Best Eff. 4300 Normal Operation 177.54 127.56 49.98
- 1 1200 0 Best Eff. 3700 Normal Operation 177.54 127.56 49.98
3 1200 0 Best Eff. 3700 BFV Closed (30 min.) 177.54 127.56 49.98 5
38 7
22 3
59 4
92
4 1250 0 Best Eff. 4300 BFV Closed (30 min.) 177.54 127.56 49.98 . . . .
6 1250 0 Best Eff. 4300 Normal Operation 177.54 127.56 49.98
2 1200 0 Best Eff. 3700 Normal Operation 177.44 127.56 49.88
3 1200 0 Best Eff. 3700 BFV Closed (30 min.) 177.44 127.56 49.88 5
28 7
41 3
80 4
74
4 1250 0 Best Eff. 4300 BFV Closed (30 min.) 177.44 127.56 49.88 . . . .
08/11/10 B10
20 5 1250 0 Best Eff. 4300 Normal Operation 177.44 127.56 49.88
- 2 1200 0 Best Eff. 3700 Normal Operation 177.41 127.56 49.85
3 1200 65 Best Eff. 3500 BFV at 30% (30 min.) 177.41 127.56 49.85 6
37 7
58 4
54 5
88
4 1250 86 Best Eff. 3900 BFV at 30% (30 min.) 177.41 127.56 49.85 . . . .
5 1250 0 Best Eff. 4300 Normal Operation 177.41 127.56 49.85
2 1200 29 Best Eff. 3450 One VB Vent Open (downstream) 177.27 127.58 49.69
3 1200 67 Best Eff. 3500 BFV at 30% (30 min.) 177.27 127.58 49.69 6
35 7
89 5
03 6
13
4 1250 83 Best Eff. 3900 BFV at 30% (30 min.) 177.27 127.58 49.69 . . . .
08/11/10 B10
21 5 1250 61 Best Eff. 4000 Both DT Vents Open 177.27 127.58 49.69
- 2 1200 29 Best Eff. 3450 One VB Vent Open (downstream) 177.27 127.58 49.69
3 1200 0 Best Eff. 3700 BFV Closed (30 min.) 177.27 127.58 49.69 6
11 7
54 4
84 5
53
4 1250 0 Best Eff. 4300 BFV Closed (30 min.) 177.27 127.58 49.69 . . . .
5 1250 61 Best Eff. 4000 Both DT Vents Open 177.27 127.58 49.69
2 1200 0 Best Eff. 3700 Normal Operation 177.27 127.58 49.69
08/11/10 B10
22 3 1200 0 Best Eff. 3700 Normal Operation 177.27 127.58 49.69 5
84 7
53 4
32 5
86
- 4 1250 0 Best Eff. 4300 Normal Operation 177.27 127.58 49.69 . . . .
5 1250 0 Best Eff. 4300 Normal Operation 177.27 127.58 49.69
1 1200 0 Best Eff. 3800 Normal Operation 178.00 127.30 50.70
08/12/10 B10
23 3 1200 0 Best Eff. 3775 Normal Operation 178.00 127.30 50.70 4
78 5
97 4
63 4
68
- 4 1250 0 Best Eff. 4350 Normal Operation 178.00 127.30 50.70 . . . .
6 1250 0 Best Eff. 4350 Normal Operation 178.00 127.30 50.70
1 1200 0 Best Eff. 3800 Normal Operation 177.94 127.39 50.55
3 1200 195 Best Eff. BFV in Auto (70%). Set point at 6.3 177.94 127.39 50.55 6
27 4
80 5
33 6
62
4 1250 200 Best Eff. BFV in Auto (80%). Set point at 6.3 177.94 127.39 50.55 . . . .
6 1250 0 Best Eff. 4350 Normal Operation 177.94 127.39 50.55
1 1200 0 Best Eff. 3800 Normal Operation 177.94 127.39 50.55
3 1200 - Best Eff. 2825 BFV in Auto (60%). Set point at 6.3 177.94 127.39 50.55 6
32 5
28 4
25 6
71
4 1250 - Best Eff. 3250 BFV in Auto (60%). Set point at 6.3 177.94 127.39 50.55 . . . .
08/12/10 B10
24 6 1250 0 Best Eff. 4350 Normal Operation 177.94 127.39 50.55
- 1 1200 0 Best Eff. 3800 Normal Operation 177.92 127.42 50.50
3 1200 - Best Eff. 2975 BFV in Auto (50%). Set point at 6.3 177.92 127.42 50.50 6
02 5
15 3
90 6
11
4 1250 - Best Eff. 3500 BFV in Auto (50%). Set point at 6.3 177.92 127.42 50.50 . . . .
6 1250 0 Best Eff. 4350 Normal Operation 177.92 127.42 50.50
1 1200 0 Best Eff. 3800 Normal Operation 177.92 127.49 50.43
3 1200 102 Best Eff. 3175 BFV in Auto (40%). Set point at 6.3 177.92 127.49 50.43 5
77 5
92 3
75 5
92
4 1250 120 Best Eff. 3700 BFV in Auto (40%). Set point at 6.3 177.92 127.49 50.43 . . . .
6 1250 0 Best Eff. 4350 Normal Operation 177.92 127.49 50.43
Date Trial Unit Flow Air Flow Load Descri
tion HW Elev. TW Elev. Gross Head Average DO Concentrations (mg/1)
CFS CFS Set Actual (kW) p Ft. Ft. Ft. BFCM1 Buoy West Buoy East Telemetry
1 1200 68 Best Eff. 3375 Both VB Valves Open 177.85 127.48 50.37
08/12/10 B10-25 3 1200 111 Best Eff. 3150 BFV in Auto (40%). Set point at 6.3 177.85 127.48 50.37 5
86 6
88 5
38 5
89
4 1250 123 Best Eff. 3650 BFV in Auto (40%). Set point at 6.3 177.85 127.48 50.37 . . . .
6 1250 134 Best Eff. 3450 Both VB Valves Open 177.85 127.48 50.37
1 1200 0 Best Eff. 3625 Normal Operation 177.82 128.01 49.81
2 1200 0 Best Eff. 3650 Normal Operation 177.82 128.01 49.81
3 1200 99 Best Eff. - BFV in Auto (40%). Set point at 6.3 177.82 128.01 49.81 5
56 6
43 3
59 5
79
4 1250 113 Best Eff. - BFV in Auto (40%). Set point at 6.3 177.82 128.01 49.81 . . . .
5 1250 0 Best Eff. 4200 Normal Operation 177.82 128.01 49.81
08/12/10 B10
26 6 1250 0 Best Eff. 4300 Normal Operation 177.82 128.01 49.81
- 1 1200 0 Best Eff. 3625 Normal Operation 177.70 128.01 49.69
2 1200 0 Best Eff. 3650 Normal Operation 177.70 128.01 49.69
3 1200 - Best Eff. 3350 BFV in Auto (30%). Set point at 6.3 177.70 128.01 49.69 5
77 6
22 4
12 6
03
4 1250 - Best Eff. 3750 BFV in Auto (30%). Set point at 6.3 177.70 128.01 49.69 . . . .
5 1250 0 Best Eff. 4200 Normal Operation 177.70 128.01 49.69
6 1250 0 Best Eff. 4300 Normal Operation 177.70 128.01 49.69
1 1200 0 Best Eff. 3625 Normal Operation 177.58 128.54 49.04
2 1200 15 Best Eff. 3550 One VB Vent Open 50% (downstream) 177.58 128.54 49.04
08/12/10 B10
27 3 1200 - Best Eff. 3525 BFV in Auto (19%). Set point at 6.3 177.58 128.54 49.04 5
66 6
73 4
91 5
79
- 4 1250 - Best Eff. 4050 BFV in Auto (15%). Set point at 6.3 177.58 128.54 49.04 . . . .
5 1250 38 Best Eff. 4000 One DT Vents Open (downstream DT) 177.58 128.54 49.04
6 1250 0 Best Eff. 4250 Normal Operation 177.58 128.54 49.04
1 1350 0 Max. 3725 Normal Operation 177.22 128.89 48.33
2 1350 29 Max. 3675 One VB Vent Open (downstream) 177.22 128.89 48.33
08/12/10 B10
28 3 1350 0 Max. 3800 BFV in Auto (Closed). Set point at 6.3 177.22 128.89 48.33 6
16 7
34 5
79 6
19
- 4 1700 0 Max. 4800 BFV in Auto (Closed). Set point at 6.3 177.22 128.89 48.33 . . . .
5 1700 62 Max. 4350 Both DT Vents Open (downstream DT) 177.22 128.89 48.33
6 1700 0 Max. 4800 Normal Operation 177.22 128.89 48.33
1 1350 0 Max. 3675 Normal Operation 177.09 129.02 6.16
2 1350 0 Max. 3775 Normal Operation 177.09 129.02 48.07
08/12/10 B10
29 3 1350 0 Max. 3750 Normal Operation 177.09 129.02 48.07 6
36 7
77 5
40 6
46
- 4 1700 0 Max. 4750 Normal Operation 177.09 129.02 48.07 . . . .
5 1700 0 Max. 4700 Normal Operation 177.09 129.02 48.07
6 1700 0 Max. 4750 Normal Operation 177.09 129.02 48.07
Notes:
BFV - Butterfly Valve
DT - Draft Tube
VB - Vacuun Breaker
ARCADIS
Appendix C-1
Tillery 2010 Intake and Mid-Reservoir
Daily Dissolved Oxygen Profiles
285
280
275
270
265
260
255
250
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
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
B2 (Resevoir) - PM 132A (Intake) - PM
Figue C.1-1 Lake Tillery Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations, July 30, 2010
285
280
275
270
265
260
255
250
245
0
240
w
235
230
225
220
215
210
205
200
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
132 (Resevoir) - AM 132A (Intake) - AM B2 (Resevoir) - PM 132A (Intake) - PM
Figue C.1-2 Lake Tillery Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations, August 2, 2010
285
280
275
270
265
260
255
250
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
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
132 (Resevoir) - AM 132A (Intake) - AM B2 (Resevoir) - PM 132A (Intake) - PM
Figue C.1-3 Lake Tillery Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations, August 3, 2010
285
280
275
270
265
260
255
250
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
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
132 (Resevoir) - AM 132A (Intake) - AM B2 (Resevoir) - PM 132A (Intake) - PM
Figue C.1-4 Lake Tillery Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations, August 4, 2010
285
280
275
270
265
260
255
250
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 (mg/L)
B2 (Resevoir) - PM 132A (Intake) - PM
Figue C.1-5 Lake Tillery Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations, August 5, 2010
ARCADIS
Appendix C-2
Tillery 2010 Intake and Mid-Reservoir
Daily Temperature Profiles
Figure C.2-1 Lake Tillery Water Temperatures, July 30, 2010
285
280
275
270
265
260
255
250
245
0
240
w
235
230
225
220
215
210
205
200
24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
Temperature (deg Q
B2 (Resevoir) - PM 132A (Intake) - PM
Figure C.2-2 Lake Tillery Water Temperatures, August 2, 2010
285
280
275
270
265
260
255
250
245
0
240
w
235
230
225
220
215
210
205
200
24
Temperature (deg Q
B2 (Resevoir) - AM 132A (Intake) - AM B2 (Resevoir) - PM 132A (Intake) - PM
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Figure C.2-3 Lake Tillery Water Temperatures, August 3, 2010
285
280
275
270
265
260
255
250
245
0
240
w
235
230
225
220
215
210
205
200
24
Temperature (deg Q
B2 (Resevoir) - AM 132A (Intake) - AM B2 (Resevoir) - PM 132A (Intake) - PM
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Figure C.2-4 Lake Tillery Water Temperatures, August 4, 2010
285
280
275
270
265
260
255
250
245
0
240
w
235
230
225
220
215
210
205
200
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Temperature (deg Q
132 (Resevoir) - AM 132A (Intake) - AM B2 (Resevoir) - PM 132A (Intake) - PM
Figure C.2-5 Lake Tillery Water Temperatures, August 5, 2010
285
280
275
270
265
260
255
250
245
0
240
w
235
230
225
220
215
210
205
200
25
26 27 28 29 30 31
Temperature (deg Q
B2 (Resevoir) - PM 132A (Intake) - PM
ARCADIS
Appendix C-3
Blewett Falls 2010 Reservoir and
Intake Channel Daily Dissolved
Oxygen Profiles
Figue C.3-1 Blewett Falls Resevoir/Intake Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations, August 6, 2010
180
178
176
174
172
170
168
166
164
w 162
° 160
w 158
156
154
152
150
148
146
144
142
140
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
BFB2 (Intake - Spm)
6 6.5 7 7.5 8
Figue C.3-2 Blewett Falls Resevoir/Intake Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations, August 7, 2010
180
178
176
174
172
170
168
166
164
w 162
° 160
w 158
156
154
152
150
148
146
144
142
140
3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
B2 (Resevoir) - AM BFB2 (Intake - 8am) 1317132 (Intake - 5pm)
Figue C.3-3 Blewett Falls Resevoir/Intake Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations, August 8, 2010
180
178
176
174
172
170
168
166
164
w 162
° 160
w 158
156
154
152
150
148
146
144
142
140
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
B2 (Resevoir) - AM BFB2 (Intake - 8am) 1317132 (Intake - 5pm)
Figue C.3-4 Blewett Falls Resevoir/Intake Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations, August 9, 2010
180
178
176
174
172
170
168
166
164
w 162
° 160
w 158
156
154
152
150
148
146
144
142
140
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
B2 (Resevoir) - AM BFB2 (Intake - 8am) 1317132 (Intake - 5pm)
Figue C.3-5 Blewett Falls Resevoir/Intake Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations, August 10, 2010
180
178
176
174
172
170
168
166
164
w 162
° 160
M 158
156
154
152
150
148
146
144
142
140
1.5
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
B2 (Resevoir) - AM BFB2 (Intake - 8am) 1317132 (Intake - 5pm)
Figue C.3-6 Blewett Falls Resevoir/Intake Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations, August 11, 2010
180
178
176
174
172
170
168
166
164
w 162
° 160
M 158
156
154
152
150
148
146
144
142
140
1.5
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
B2 (Resevoir) - AM BFB2 (Intake - 8am) 1317132 (Intake - 5pm)
Figue C.3-7 Blewett Falls Resevoir/Intake Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations, August 12, 2010
180
178
176
174
172
170
168
166
164
w 162
° 160
w 158
156
154
152
150
148
146
144
142
140
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
B2 (Resevoir) - AM BFB2 (Intake - 8am) 1317132 (Intake - 5pm)
Figue C.3-8 Blewett Falls Resevoir/Intake Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations, August 13, 2010
180
178
176
174
172
170
168
166
164
w 162
° 160
M 158
156
154
152
150
148
146
144
142
140
1.5
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
BFB2 (Intake - 7:45am)
ARCADIS
Appendix C-4
Blewett Falls 2010 Reservoir Intake
Channel Daily Temperature Profiles
Figure C.4-1 Blewett Falls Resevoir/Intake Water Temperatures, August 6, 2010
180
175
170
165
w
° 160
w
155
150
145
140
Temperature (deg Q
BFB 2 (Intake)
29.3 29.4 29.5 29.6 29.7 29.8 29.9 30.0
Figure C.4-2 Blewett Falls Resevoir/Intake Water Temperatures, August 7, 2010
180
175
170
165
w
° 160
w
155
150
145
140
Temperature (deg Q
B2 (Resevoir) - AM BFB 2 (Intake)
29.0 29.5 30.0 30.5
Figure C.4-3 Blewett Falls Resevoir/Intake Water Temperatures, August 8, 2010
180
175
170
165
w
° 160
w
155
150
145
140
Temperature (deg Q
B2 (Resevoir) - AM BFB2 (Intake)
28.5 29.0 29.5 30.0 30.5 31.0 31.5
Figure C.4-4 Blewett Falls Resevoir/Intake Water Temperatures, August 9, 2010
180
175
170
165
w
° 160
w
155
150
145
140
Temperature (deg Q
B2 (Resevoir) - AM BFB2 (Intake)
28.5 29.0 29.5 30.0
Figure C.4-5 Blewett Falls Resevoir/Intake Water Temperatures, August 10, 2010
180
175
170
165
w
° 160
w
155
150
145
140
Temperature (deg Q
B2 (Resevoir) - AM BFB2 (Intake)
28.0 28.5 29.0 29.5 30.0 30.5
Figure C.4-6 Blewett Falls Resevoir/Intake Water Temperatures, August 11, 2010
180
175
170
165
w
° 160
w
155
150
145
140
Temperature (deg Q
B2 (Resevoir) - AM BFB2 (Intake)
28.5 29.0 29.5 30.0 30.5
Figure C.4-7 Blewett Falls Resevoir/Intake Water Temperatures, August 12, 2010
180
175
170
165
w
° 160
w
155
150
145
140
Temperature (deg Q
B2 (Resevoir) - AM BFB2 (Intake)
28.5 29.0 29.5 30.0 30.5 31.0
Figure C.4-8 Blewett Falls Resevoir/Intake Water Temperatures, August 13, 2010
180
175
170
165
w
° 160
w
155
150
145
140
Temperature (deg Q
BFB2 (Intake)
29.5 30.0 30.5 31.0 31.5
ARCADIS
Appendix D-1
Tillery 2010 Downstream Dissolved
Oxygen Profiles
Figure D.1-1 for Tillery Development Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations
and Flows - July 31,2010
12
10
c g
0
41
M
L
4' L
U
U _
C L
U w
CL
C V) 6
w E
a M
X L
O °-°
w E
0
p 4
2
0
350
300
250
c
0
200
CL --&-TYCM1-2
tTYCM1-3
U
150 TYCM2
3 fTYCM2A
0
LL -Flow
100 Note: The first 15
minutes of
dissolved oxygen
data is not included
50 for each test.
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 01 O rl 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 D.1-2 for Tillery Development Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations
and Flows - August 1,2010
12
10
c g
0
41
M
L
4' L
c y
4,
U _
C L
w
CL
V) 6
w E
a M
X L
O °-°
w E
0
N
p 4
2
0
350
300
250
c
0
? TYC M 1-2
200
CL --+-TYCM1-3
TYCM2
U
150 0 fTYCM2A

3 Telemetry
0
'? - - test 10-1
100 Flow
Note: The first 15
minutes of
dissolved oxygen
50 data is not included
for each test.
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 01 O rl 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 D.1-3 for Tillery Development Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations
and Flows - August 2,2010
9000
7
6
10000
8000
r-
0
5
7000
M
M
L
+? L
c y
*= U 4
c L
w
CL
c ?
w E
a M
X L
O °-°
- 3
w E
0
0
2
1

6000 c
w
--&-TYCM1-2
CL tTYCM1-3
5000 i?k TYCM2
U
fTYCM2A

4000 3 Telemetry
0
Draft Tubes
3000 Flow
Note: The first 15
2000 minutes of
dissolved oxygen
data is not included
1000 for each test.
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 r-q r,4 M ?* Ln l0 n 00 m O rl N 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
0
Figure D.1-4 for Tillery Development Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations
and Flows - August 3,2010
9
8
7
c 6
0
41
M
L
4' L
c y
4,
U o L 5
w
CL
c ?
w E
a M
X L
O °-° 4
w E
0
p 3
2
1
0
7000
6000
5000

c
0
?TYCM1-2
4000
CL tTYCM1-3
TYCM2
U
fTYCM2A
3000 0

3 Telemetry
0
Draft Tubes
Flow
2000
Note: The first 15
minutes of
1000 dissolved oxygen
data is not included
for each test.
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 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 D.1-5 for Tillery Development Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations
and Flows - August 4,2010
7
6
5
r-
0
M
M
L
? L
c y
*= U 4
c L
w
CL
c ?
w E
a M
X L
O °-°
- 3
w E
0
0
2
1
0
14000
12000
10000

c
0
?TYCM1-2
8000
CL tTYCM1-3
kTYCM2
U
0 fTYCM2A
6000

3 Telemetry
0
Draft Tubes
Flow
4000
Note: The first 15
minutes of
2000 dissolved oxygen
data is not included
for each test.
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 rl N 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 D.1-6 for Tillery Development Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations
and Flows - August 5,2010
6
5
c 4
0
L
? L
c y
4,
U •-
C L
w
CL
v) 3
w E
a M
X L
O °-°
w E
0
0 2
1
0
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
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 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
-411--TYC M 1-2
--+-TYCM1-3
0
w --*--TYCM2
CL fTYCM2A
Telemetry
U
Draft Tubes
U
3 -Total Flow
0
LL -Flow (Unit 1)
Flow (Unit 2)
Flow (Unit 3)
Flow (Unit 4)
Note: The first 15
minutes of
dissolved oxygen
data is not included
for each test.
Figure D.1-7 for Tillery Development Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations
and Flows - August 6,2010
7
6
5
C
0
M
M
L
? L
*= U 4
c L
U w
CL
C ,n
w E
a M
X L
O °-°
- 3
w E
0
V1
0
2
1
0
9000
8000
7000
6000

c
0

5000 -TYCM2

fTYCM2A
w
Telemetry
4000
-Total Flow
o
Flow (Unit 1)

3000 LL
Flow (Unit 4)
Note: The first 15
2000 minutes of
dissolved oxygen
data is not included
1000 for each test.
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 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 D-2
Blewett Falls 2010 Downstream
Dissolved Oxygen Profiles
Figure D.2-1: Blewett Falls Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations and Flows -
August 7, 2010
9.00
8.00
7.00
0 6.00
41
M
L
4' L
U
o 7 5.00
W
U
CL
C Vn
w E
a m
p .9 4.00
w E
0
a 3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
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 r_q r_q r_q r_q r_q r_q r_q r_q r_q N N N N
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
c
0
V1
CL tBFCM1
-m-- Buoy West
42
U
Buoy East
U
3 Telemetry
0
LL -Flow (Unit 3)
Note: Telemetry
data does not
include the first 15
minutes of
dissolved oxygen
data for each test.
Time
Figure D.2-2: Blewett Falls Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations and Flows -
August 8, 2009
9.00
8.00
7.00
0 6.00
41
M
L
4' L
c y
w 4,
o L 5.00
U w
CL
C Vn
w E
a m
p .9 4.00
0
Vl
a 3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
1,400
1,200
1,000
c
0
800 -+--BFCM1
w
CL
West
w
Buoy East
600 ? Telemetry
o Flow (Unit 3)
LL
Flow (Unit 4)
400
Note: Telemetry
data does not
include the first 15
200 minutes of
dissolved oxygen
data for each test.
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 r-q r,4 M ?* Ln l0 n 00 01 O rl 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 D.2-3: Blewett Falls Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations and Flows -
August 9, 2009
9.00
8.00
7.00
0 6.00
41
L
4' L
c y
U 4,
L 5.00
U w
CL
C vn
w E
a m
0 .9 4.00
w E
0
a 3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
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 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 I I I?
I I I I
I I
l
r
I I I I I
1 1 1 1 1 1
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I
t
t
t
o
o
o
t o m I co
I
Test B10-2B
I i n 14 14 1

a 1 1 1 1 1 1
I -:t I 1 00
6 6 0 6
1 co 1 o
1
co
co
I
I
I
N
N
v
I I I I I I I I

1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
c
0
w
1,000
fl.
tBFCM1
41
v
-m-- Buoy West

800 U
Buoy East

3 Telemetry
0
600 LL Flow (Unit 4)
400 Note: Telemetry
data does not
include the first 15
200 minutes of
dissolved oxygen
data for each test.
+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 'PIP 'PIP 'PIP 'PIP 'PIP 0 0 C PCP C PCP C PCP C PCP 'PIP 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
Figure D.2-4: Blewett Falls Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations and Flows -
August 10, 2009
9.00
8.00
7.00
0 6.00
41
L
4' L
c y
U 4,
L 5.00
U w
CL
C Vn
w E
a m
0 .9 4.00
w E
0
a 3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000 0
w
CL tBFCM1
800 -m-- Buoy West
U
Buoy East

r Telemetry
600 0
'? Flow (Unit 3)
400
Note: Telemetry
data does not
200 include the first 15
minutes of
dissolved oxygen
data for each test.
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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r-q r,4 M ?* Ln l0 n 00 M O r-q r,4 M ?* Ln l0 n 00 01 O -1 N 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
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 I
I I
I
I ®
I I I I I I I I
I I
I I I
f I
I I I
I I
I I
I
I I I
1 1
I I
I I 1
I
I 1
I
I 1
I
I 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I I ?, I M
t t t
o o o
I l o I m I m

1 1
~ I
1
4 I
1 I
1
I I I
t t co t o
co co

I I I
I N
I
I
I
I
I
Figure D.2-5: Blewett Falls Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations and Flows -
August 11, 2009
9.00
I I I I 5,000

8
00 I I I I I I I I I
I I I F I I I
4,500
. I I I I I ? I „ t BFCM1
t
Buoy West

7
00 I I I I I I I 4,000
-4
. I I I I I I I I --A-- Buoy East
-a Telemetry
3,500

6
00 Total Flow
0
.
L • • • • • Flow (Unit 1)
L 3,000 Flow (Unit 2)
U
5
00
L
.
0
0 a I I I CL Flow (Unit 3)

E M I I I= 2,500 Flow (Unit 4)
9 4
00 I I I I 1 I I I
.
0 . ? . Flow (Unit 5)
E I I I I I I 21000 3 Flow (Unit 6)
N I I I I I I I I 0
N
3
00 LL
.
0 I I 1 1 I I I I
1,500 Note: Telemetry
data does not
2
00 include dissolved
. I
d
f
0
1,000 oxygen
ata
or
-
Ln r- oo 0
, O N N 15 minutes for
I O O O 0 0
0 0 0 o tests B10-15 and
1
00
. m m m m m co m m 500 B10-22 and 0-15

I
~ a?
~ a?
~ N
~ and 45-60 minutes
~ ~ ~ ~ for tests B10-16
0
00 I 0
. through B10-21.
O O
9 9 O
9 O
9 O
9 O O
9 9 O O O O O O O O O O O O
9 9 O 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 O
O O
9 O
9 O O
9 O
r-I N M ? * L n l 0 r , 00 m O rI N M ?* Ln l0 r, 00 m
r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I O r
N I
N N
N M O
N
Time
Figure D.2-6: Blewett Falls Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations and Flows -
August 12, 2009
9.00
N Ln 9,000

8
00 N
. m m m

~ a?
~ 1
1 = 8,000
BFCM1
7
00
. I I I I } Buoy West
7,000 --dr-- Buoy East
6
00 I Telemetry
0
. I
6,000 Total Flow
41 L
w

+1 I o

-Flow (Unit 1)
U
5
00 1
L
.
U a I I I 5,000 Flow (Unit 2)
41

E
w M I I I I ?
• • • • • Flow (Unit 3)
cc
p 4
00 00
I 1 N
I
. Flow (Unit 4)
o
r 4 000 '
' - Flow (Unit 5)
0 +
06 o
3
00 o LL Flow (Unit 6)
. N r-I I 3,000
m
I I I
Note: Telemetry
2
00 1 data does not
. I I I 2,000
include dissolved
N oxygen data for 0-
1
00
15 minutes for tests
. 1,000
N B10-23, B10-26.
B10-28, and B10-29;
0
00 I I I I 1 I 0 and 0-15 and 45-60
.
minutes for tests
O O
0 0 O
0 O
0 O
0 O O
0 0 O O O O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O
0 o O
O O
o O
0 O O
0 o

r-I N
M
L
n l
0 I
, 00 M O _q N M ? Sri io r, 0
0 M
O c
-I
N
M O B10-24 B10-25 and
rI i--I i--I i--I i--I i--I r-I r-I r -I r -I N N N N
B10-26.
Time
ARCADIS
Appendix E-1
Tiller 2010 Air Flow vs Tailwater
Elevation -All Units
45
40
35
30
w
25
3
0
LL 20
a
1s
10
5
0
0
Lq
Zt
0
N
Figure E.1-1: Tillery, Unit 1
Air Flow vs. Tailwater Elevation

0
ui
0 0
Sri
0 0
?D
0 0
?D
0 0
r"
0 0
r"
0 0
00
0 0
00
0 0
m
0 0
m
0
Tailwater Elevation (Feet)
Min. Best Eff. ?Max
Figure E.1-2: Tillery, Unit 2
Air Flow vs. Tailwater Elevation
35
30
25
w
m 20
3
0
LL 15
a
10
5
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L, o Lq o Lq o L, o Lq o L,
Zt Ln ui ?D ?D r, r, 00 00 m m
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N N N N N N
Tailwater Elevation (Feet)
Min. Best Eff. ? Max.
Figure E.1-3: Tillery, Unit 3
Air Flow vs. Tailwater Elevation
40
35
30
25
V
f6
3 20
0
LL
a 15
10
5
0
0
Lq
Zt
0
N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ui Sri ?D ?D r, r, 00
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tailwater Elevation (Feet)
Min. Best Eff, a Max.
130
125
120
m
3
0
LL
115
a
110
105
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Zt ui Sri ?D ?D r, r, 00
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tailwater Elevation (Feet)
9to10MW
0
Lq
W
0
N
0
Lq
W
0
N
0
0
0
N
0
Lq
m
0
N
0
m m
0 0
Figure E.1-4: Tillery Unit 4
Air Flow vs. Tailwater Elevation
ARCADIS
Appendix E-2
Tillery 2010 Percent Air Flow vs
Tailwater Elevation - All Units
Figure E.2-1: Tillery Unit 1
Percent Air Flow vs. Tailwater Elevation
1.40% r
1.20%
c 1.00%
LL
d
i+
0.80%
0
0.60%
3
0
LL 0.40%
a
0.20%
0.00%
0
a
0
N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o Ln o Ln o Ln o
vi vi ?o ?o r, r, oo
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tailwater Elevation (Feet)
Min. Best Eff. ? Max.
0 0 0
in o n
oo m m
0 0 0
1.60%
1.40%
3 1.20%
0
LL
`w 1.00%
N
0 0.80%
0
3 0.60%
0
LL
Q 0.40%
0.20%
0.00%
0
a
0
N
Figure E.2-2: Tillery Unit 2
Percent Air Flow vs. Tailwater Elevation
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o in o in o in o in o in
vi vi ?o ?o r" r" co co m m
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tailwater Elevation (feet)
Min. Best Eff. ® Max.
Figure E.2-3: Tillery Unit 3
Percent Air Flow vs. Tailwater Elevation
1.20%

1
00% ¦
.
3 ¦
0
0
80%
`w .
m
0
60%
0 .

0 0
40%
LL .
a
0
20%
.
0.00%
O
o
O o O o O o O
o
O
Lf1
?t
O
N O
Ln
O
N Lf1 O Lf1 O Lf1 O Lf1
Ln Lo Lo r` r` 00 00
O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N O
01
O
N Lf1
01
O
N
Tailwater Elevation (feet)
Min. BestEff. ®Max.
Figure E.2-4: Tillery Unit 4
Percent Air Flow vs. Tailwater Elevation
7.20%
7
00%
. ¦
c 6
80%
LL . ¦
d
6
60%
.
0
6.40%
3
0
6.20%
a
6.00%

5.80%
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0
Ln
a
0
N o
Ln
0
N Ln o Ln o Ln o Ln
Ln Lo Lo r; r; oo oo
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N N o
of
0
N Ln
of
0
N
Tailwater Elevation (feet)
9-10 MW
ARCADIS
Appendix E-3
Tillery 2010 Vented and Non-Vented
DO Readings - Units 1, 2, 3
Figure E.3-1: Tillery
Vented and Non-Vented DO
4.5
4
4.13
3.5 3.34 3.7
ova 3 2.87 3.39
E 2.64 3.04 3.14
C 2.43 2.54
2.5
2.63
x
O
v 2 1.66
1.5
0
1
0.5
0
Unit 1: Non- Unit 1: 6" DT Unit 2: Non- Unit 2: 6" DT Unit 3: Non- Unit 3: 6" DT
Vented Vent Vented Vent Vented Vent
Unit Discharge Compliance Location
Figure E.3-2: Tillery
Increase in DO - 6" DraftTube Vent
1.2
1
0.8
c
v
oa
0 0.6
v
v
0
N 0.4
0
0.2
0 V
i

Unit 0.99
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3
Discharge
Unit Discharge Compliance Location
ARCADIS
Appendix E-4
Tillery 2010 DO Readings at the
ProposedCompliance Location Under
Different Unit Operation Scenarios/Times
of Day
6.00
b\A
E 5.00
C
0
M
V
? 4.00
oa
c
0
c 3.00
0
0
V
m 2.00
Q
E
0
V
M 1.00
0
0
0.00
9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00
Time of Day
? Unit 1 ¦ Unit 2 Unit 3 X Units 1 & 3 X Units 2 & 3 Units 2 & 4 Units 1, 2 & 3 All Units
Figure E.4-1: Tillery
Proposed Compliance Location DO
ARCADIS
Appendix F-1
Blewett Falls 2010 Draft Tube Air
Flow and Associated Power Losses
Figure F.1-1: Blewett Falls, Units 3 & 4
Draft Tube Vent Air Flow
250
200
w 150
V
3
0
LL
a 100
50
0
0%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Valve Position (Percent Open)
Unit 3 - Best Eff. Unit 3 - Max. Load ? Unit 4- Best Eff. • Unit 4 - Max Load
Figure F.1-2: Blewett Falls, Units 3 & 4
DO Improvement with Venting
3
2.5
5 2
E
v
m 1.5
v
V
0 1
0
0.5
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Air Flow (cfs)
Unit 3 - Best Eff. Unit 3 - Max. Load ? Unit 4 - Best Eff. 0 Unit 4 - Max. Load
1400
1200
1000
Y
N 800
N
O
J
3 600
O
Q.
Figure F.1-3: Blewett Falls, Units 3 & 4
Power Loss Due to Draft Tube Vents (Air Flow)
400
200
Air Flow (cfs)
Unit 3 Unit 4
Figure F.1-4: Blewett Falls, Units 3 & 4
Power Loss Due to Draft Tube Vents (Valve
Position)
1400
1200
_ 1000
Y
800
N
O
J
`w 600
3
0
a
400
200
0
0%
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
Valve Position (Percent Open)
Unit 3 Unit 4
Figure F.1-5: Blewett Falls, Unit 3 & 4
DO Increase with Percent Power Loss
35%
30%
N 25%
00
J
3 20%
0
0.
c 15%
v
V
v
0 10%
5°%
0%
Unit 3-Best Eff. Unit 4-Best Eff. Unit 3-Max. Load Unit 4-Max. Load ¦Units 3&4-Best Eff.
Figure F.1-6: Blewett Falls
DO Increase with Percent Power Loss
18%
16%
14%
J 12%
3 10%
0
0.
8%
v
6%
v
0.
4%
2°%
0%
0.5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
DO Increase with Draft Tube Venting (mg/1)
0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3
DO Increase with Draft Tube Venting (mg/1)
Units 2,3,4&5-Only 3&4 Vented Units 1,3,4&6-Only Units 3&4 Vented
Units 2,3,4&5-All Units Vented Units 2,3,4&5-Only 2&5 Vented
Units 1,3,4&6-All Units Vented
Figure F.1-7: Blewett Falls, Units 3 & 4
DO Increase with Unit Power Loss
1000
900
bA
E
3 800
¦
0
700
C 600
m
-C
500
Q
N
400
`w
3
a 300
200
0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3
DO Increase with Draft Tube Venting (mg/1)
L
Unit 3 -Best Eff. Unit 4-Best Eff. Unit 3-Max Load Unit 4-Max. Load ¦ Units 3&4-Best Eff.
Figure F.1-8: Blewett Falls
DO Increase with Unit Power Loss (4 Units)
2500
"'
2000
Y
0
0
C 1500
W
by
¦
C m ¦
-C
1000
CL
0 • ¦
O
J 500 ¦
`w
3
O
CL
0
0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3
DO Increase with Draft Tube Venting (mg/1)
Units 2,3,4&5-Only 3&4 Vented Units 1,3,4&6-Only 3&4 Vented Units 2,3,4&5-All Units Vented
Units 2,3,4&5-Only 2&5 Vented Units 1,3,4&6-All Units Vented
Figure F.1-9: Blewett Falls, Units 3 & 4
Power Loss for Increase in DO
1000
900
E 800
700
O
600
c
c 500
s
m
v
400
`w
CL
0 300
0
3 200
0
0.
100
I Valve 51% Open Valve 100% Open
Unit 3-Best Eff Unit 3-Max Load Unit 4-Best Eff Unit 4-Max Load
ARCADIS
Appendix F- 2
Blewett Falls 2010 DO
Concentrations at Buoy Line for
Various Evaluation Trials
Figure F.2-1: Blewett Falls
Dissolved Oxygen Concentration at Buoy Line
C
d
O
t

N

1 N
N

J
o
m
B2

3

U

m
B4

S
B10-3

B10-4
B10-5
B10-6
B10-7
B10-8

B10-9
B10-10
B10-11
B10-12
B10-13
B10-14
B10-16
B10-17
B10-18
B10-19
B10-20
B10-21
B10-21
B10-24
B10-25
B10-26
B10-27
B10-28

N ?
O ?
m N N
W 0
y t
E J
Eo o m
F [0 m W
B6 B7 BB -.- ..-.-.-Buoy Line
Unit 4: Best Eff.-BFV 10% Open
Unit 4: Best Eff.-BFV 50% Open
Unit 4: Best Eff.-BFV 100% Open
Unit 4: Max. Load-BFV 100% Open
Unit 4: Max. Load-BFV 50% Open
Unit 4: Max. Load-BFV 10% Open
Unit 3: Best Eff.-BFV 10% Open
Unit 3: Best Eff.-BFV 50% Open
Unit 3: Best Eff.-BFV 100% Open
Unit 3: Max. Load-BFV 100% Open
Unit 3: Max. Load-BFV 50% Open
Unit 3: Max. Load-BFV 10% Open
Units 3&4: Best Eff.-BFVs 30% Open
Units 3&4: Max. Load-BFVs 30% Open
Unit 1: Best Eff.-NV: Units 3&4: Best Eff.-BFVs 30%
40%
Open; Units 3&4: Best Eff.-BFVs 15-20% Open
units es .- units es .- pen;
Units 3&4: Best Eff.-BFVs Closed
DO Concentration
at Buoy Line (mg/1)
- - 4.0 to 4.5
4.5 to 5.0
5.0 to 5.5
5.5 to 6.0
6.0 to 6.5
->6.5
Key:
BFV - Butterfly Valve
NV - Non-vented
VB - Vacuum Breaker
DSVB - Down Stream
Vacuum Breaker
Proposed Compliance Monitoring Location
ARCADIS
Appendix F-3
Blewett Falls 2010 Tailrace DO
Concentrations 400 feet Downstream
of Buoy Line
Figure F.3-1: Blewett Falls
Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations 400' Downstream of Buoy Line
`o
s

?

LL
o
o
B10-4
B10-5
B10-6
B10-7

B10-8

B10-9
B10-10
B10-11
B10-12
B10-13

B10-14
B10-16
B10-17
B10-18
B10-19
B10-20
B10-21
B10-21
B10-24
B10-25
B10-26
B10-27
B10-28

Distance from West Shore

0 0 0
0 0 0
N M V
`o
s

W
Unit 4: Best Eff.-BFV 50% Open
Unit 4: Best Eff.-BFV 100% Open
Unit 4: Max. Load-BFV 100% Open
Unit 4: Max. Load-BFV 50% Open
Unit 4: Max. Load-BFV 10% Open

Unit 3: Best Eff.-BFV 10% Open
Unit 3: Best Eff.-BFV 50% Open
Unit 3: Best Eff.-BFV 100% Open
Unit 3: Max. Load-BFV 100% Open
Unit 3: Max. Load-BFV 50% Open
Unit 3: Max. Load-BFV 10% Open
Units 3&4: Best Eff.-BFVs 30% Open

Units 3&4: Max. Load-BFVs 30% Open

Unit 1: Best Eff.-NV; Units 3&4: Best Eff.-BFVs 30% Open
Units es Eff.-NV, Units es .- s Mu/b
Open
Units best EtIAV, Units es .- s o
Open
Units es ztl.-U8Vb pen; Units es s
30 % Open
units es .- pen; Units es .- s
Closed
units es Units es .- s 80%-
40% Open
Units es .- o s pen; Units es
BFVs 40% Open
Units best EtIAV, Units es .- s -
40 % Open
units 1 &6: es .- Units 2&b best zt1.-USV7T7/b-_
Open, Units 3&4: Best Eff.-BFVs 15-20% Open
Units best EtIAV, Units es Etl.-USVB pen;
Units 3&4: Best Eff.-BFVs Closed

Dissolved Oxygen Concentration at Buoy Line (mg/1) \ Proposed Compliance Key:
-4.0 to 4.5 - 5.5 to 6.0 Monitoring Location BFV - Butterfly Valve
-4.5 to 5.0 6.0 to 6.5 NV - Non-vented
- 5.0 to 5.5 - _>65 VB - Vacuum Breaker
DSVB - Down Stream Vacuum Breaker
ARCADIS
Appendix F-4
Blewett Falls 2010 Tailrace DO
Contours Between Buoy Line and
400 feet Downstream of Buoy Line

N
B1fl-3 Beset Efficiency 1250 Unit 4: Draft tube vent butterfly valve set at 10% open - r r Fees
N,• + ? •] _, a rI 1P] 150 200
S
Unit d: Draft tulle vent 5uileeFh• :a!:•e sei at Stl: tipen• Fee[
610•4 Best E}fkirn:y L750 25 100 15o m?00
ti
N
Unit 4, Draft tube vent butterfly valve set at 100% open- Feel
R - C 610-5 Best ifficiency 1250 n ?5 So ?? 50 ;Go
S

Unit 4: Draft tube vent butterfly valve set at 1003f: oper. Feet
N: - i- 810-6 Max 1700 0 _s 5o ran ?s0 Ina
ti
}
{~ ! -
AV!
4 -
Ilk

Dissolved
Oxygen
tmg[L)
_ ,4.0
4.0 - 4.5
_ 4-5 - 5.0
5.0 - 5.5
5.5-6.0
6.0-6.5
- }6.5

ti
Lima k: Draft €ube vent butterfly va;ve set at 57open. Feet
W - [ 610-7 Max 1700 ? 25 50 100 s? Ioo
S
r Unit d: Ad ju s''. draft lu he yenl b utt erfly valve l p lq°L. Feel
N 9] 8 nax 170ti U ?5 5 TCV 15v ,a9
Yti
w
Und 3: [haft L, be a-rit bl --yrfIV -.1-S?i of I(I ppan Feet
Bas:2tfoer:cy i2oo e 5 su tub Im. ?aa
ti
Dissolved
Oxygen
(mg1L)
- -4.0
4.0-4.5
- 4.5-5.0
5.0-5.5
5.5-6.0
® 6.0-6.5
_ > 6-5

_l
t
MR.
i'
A
w
Unit 3: Draft tu5e vent butterfly awe set at 5955, open. - _ Fcei
B1a• La Best Eff"science lzaa n 55 50 .GO Sa ?GG
ti
Dissolved
Oxygen
tmg[L)
_ ,4.0
4.0 - 4.5
_ 4-5 - 5.0
5.0 - 5.5
5.5-6.0
6.0-6.5
- }6.5

Unit 3? Draft tube vent buttertky valve set at 10054 open. Feed
Bic-11 Best Efficiency 12c0 a 25 5n iro i5o 200
ti
Dissolved
Oxygen
Smg[L)
_ ,4.0
4.0 - 4.5
_ 45-5.0
5.0 - 5.5
5.5-6.0
6.0-6.5
- }6.5

Feet
Unit 3: Draft tube vent butterfIv valve set at 100% open.
11' fJ 610-12 !N ax 13Sfl o ?5 SG IlJO 150 ?a0
S
Dissolved
Oxygen
Smg[L)
_ ,4.0
4.0 - 4.5
_ 45-5.0
5.0 - 5.5
5.5-6.0
6.0-6.5
- }6.5

_l
,l
N
hR,n Unit 3: Dratt tube vent butterfly v0ve set at 56" open. Fgct
11 B,u•13 3 5? Q 59 I.79 150 24
ti
Unit 3: Draft tube vent butterfly valve set at 10% open Feet
Il [ 610-14 Max 1350 ? 21 5? 190 15!] 270
ti
N
uni 9 $ 4: ?rah :up= vpnrs iIn Sed [unv-ed) 1 r 3n Feet
N 6i[]-16 se;l E li enCp 74W rmnu:es then air !la•.v WnirOI in u2riual A Mll$ Open fm ] a Inn 15.3 ?nn
iC rn i II u: e,.
S
,r
7
AA A?w
I
ti
Units i Fx Draft cub=_ --s open z. i?M and air f!?w
?ncral in man?,al'or s6 rrinc[es? Ihar <lase veres °cr 3U Fee[
11' (_ 91-1'! h9ax 3r5f] °? e ;;5 So 177 15e 75
r.!ru:as Of unventea ager
ti
unii 1: N[ rmalnpPr2T 0n; VnIT 53 anq a; praR IIIL'e VenIS
n -nnal al rlq;rd rchino fun''enl erll+pr 36 minllres; Feel
?a - r
BLLb 18 9es[c+fkirrnv 3650 I!hen ll ?e p,.11v ?oell dells a: 30u fo130 minutes •7 ?5 SCI lco ISG C],J
ti

N
5
urnt 1: No nma.I opera'-; Lrn,ts 3 and 4: Draft tube vents
oper. and air sle w m. manual at 3QSti far 33 rtrnutes; .her
Blo-19 3es: B icrecq• asn•; dose vens ILr vente G? `?r 30 mi,-es; Lnr-, 6. Varnal
.pp rat icr
Fec[
$0 100 157 100
ti
Lni; 2- Nprrnal operatior: Vrits3& prat tLbe Venti
dpaed ?unvenredj fpr 30 m..i nut ea; iher. open vents and Faet
5N, 2C Best EVieien:y 49a0 _ 50 fpr? 153 _Or
air llpw control irrn er ual a: 30!'< for ?C rniruses: Lrlt 5
NO,Mal opera:ion
5
}
{a~ ! -
AV!
N,,{, mss-
r .
Dissolved
Oxygen
tmg[L)
_ ,4.0
4.0 - 4.5
_ 4-5 - 5.0
5.0 - 5.5
5.5-6.0
6.0-6.5
- }6.5

llnr4 2: Dovrnscream vacwm breaker valve `dly open;
Uri Is 3 and 4- Draft wbe vents open and air fFDw mural Fnc[
57 '197 I.`.0 '77
RIO-7.1 2.est crtiDenc]• gyy^(5 in manual+or?D"r.. For 3a mir-u.es,:h_ dose vents 0 4
? unver ced}fyr K ri?i nut a,: 11 ni: 5: ffownstream varuL m
breaker a- i11, open
ti
_ Unit 2: Downstream vacuum breaker valve fu l lyo pen; Feet
11 - B10-21 best E i?iency 59co Units 3&4: Draft tube vents closed; Unit 5: Downstream n 25 50 1.70 11,10 20.7
vacuum breaker valve fully open.
ti
N
Luii 1: Normal operdaan; unit=_ 3' and d Deaf: ;u6e veu:_
Fee[
open and eh [I.,, r_•n[rol in a?:u: Lvii: G: Nora,
1? 31 •2a 6er.Ef'•i:ier.r .il =41]ii 7 _L 50 0 I5•3 ]00
rnNr:i,m?
ti
ti
U n,1 1: porh vacuum Brea ker yo lives ),'n' Unity A: and 4
B10.15 Best Efficiency ay?ti Dial: aih= •.•enrs vnen and air llvw r^n;rnl in au: n; uni;
nosh vanmm bre.akef valves open
Feet
0 _5 50 100 15.7 -co
41 'JR!
r'
Dissolved
Oxygen
tmg[L)
_ ,4.0
4.0 - 4.5
_ 4-5 - 5.0
5.0 - 5.5
5.5-6.0
6.0-6.5
- }6.5
N
r units 1. 'a. 5. & n: NnrmaI npera,i..n [nn, - niedI U,;
310-7F 6esi Elfirien-y 7;,0 & ?r n=i lithe v?nls np.=n Tnd nit ?1_ r,nl,,l in
ti
Fees
•] _? 1.00 159 200
N
Unw ] G -,- hreauer valves clr3se Units 2 P, 5:
Fec[
; n i li IF,
CJn•.vnslr pam ?a niurn pr=ak=r valve 5[i?, ope r LJ
??• F BIO-27 ?if; nru'y 735i a• Cl rd fi LuLe vkWS Dpen and d,i llp• '.an".rol irl au LO. S0 100 15n "^,00
S
w
_ L'ni's1&s; vacuumh rake'v c ;lin32 5: a
PGwnstream vacuum, hre akr valve ve o P.,pen; ; Lni;s 3 6 L: Feet
N' 31-3-2,9 nax eso Draft :u 6e vents open and au Sow eontr al,n au:o. u 10•a 207
ti