Realization of the Holtwood Expansion Project

Transcription

1 Realization of the Holtwood Expansion Project By N. Christian Porse, P.E. MBA, Site Supervisor, Peaking Power, PPL Generation, USA and Thomas L. Kahl, P.E., Senior Engineer, Kleinschmidt, USA ABSTRACT PPL Generation s Holtwood Hydroelectric station on the lower Susquehanna River in south central Pennsylvania began generating electricity in October After the last of the existing 10 turbines were placed in service in 1924 the station had a generating capacity of approximately 108 MW. Although this was one of the largest North American hydroelectric stations at that time, river flows exceed the station s 31,000 cfs hydraulic capacity 40% of the time. Since the early 1930 s numerous schemes for further site development were studied but never implemented. This paper will describe how beginning in 2004 PPL was able to optimize the site characteristics and justify the 125 MW Holtwood Expansion Project currently under construction and scheduled to begin operation in early Background and Site Conditions Figure 1 shows the overall 2004 Holtwood Project plan including the 2,400 ft long gravity ogee spillway, skimmer wall, forebay, 1910 vintage power station, fish elevator, and tailrace. The 2004 power station site plan is shown in Figure 2. Hydraulic Capacity After the last of the existing 10 Holtwood turbines were placed in service in 1924 the station had a generating capacity of approximately 102 MW, but the 31,000 cfs hydraulic capacity is annually exceeded approximately 40% of the time. In 1928 the Conowingo dam and hydroelectric station was constructed 14 river miles downstream, and in 1931 the Safe Harbor hydroelectric dam and power station was constructed approximately seven river miles upstream of Holtwood. By the middle 1980 s the capacity of these two stations had been fully developed at Conowingo to 537 MW using 85,000 cfs and Safe Harbor to 424 MW using 110,000 cfs. Holtwood s lower hydraulic capacity compared to both upstream and downstream stations meant frequent non-generation spillage at Holtwood. Adjacent Coal Generation Station In 1925 a 30 MW anthracite coal-fired steam electric generating station was constructed adjacent to the Holtwood hydroelectric station forebay. Originally this plant was supplied by coal dredged from the Susquehanna River and its cooling water was taken from the forebay and discharged back to the hydroelectric station s intake. The steam plant was expanded in 1955 with the addition of an 80 MW unit. Coal for these units was dredged from Lake Aldred (Holtwood) and Lake Clarke (Safe Harbor) until 1973 at which time all fuel was delivered by truck. By the 1990 s the steam station economics and tightening environmental regulations led to shutdown of the plant, and in 1999 PPL decommissioned and demolished the Holtwood coal station and restored that portion of the site to an undeveloped brownfield. 1

2

3

4 Fish Passage Requirements In the 1980 s a program began to restore the Susquehanna River s historic migratory anadromous fish populations, specifically American shad and river herring. The fish are spawned in the river and migrate out to the Atlantic to mature. After about five years, the mature shad return to their natal river and tributaries to spawn and continue the life cycle. In 1984 an initial upstream trap and transport operation was begun at the Conowingo station, the first dam on the Susquehanna River upstream of Chesapeake Bay. A permanent upstream fish elevator was placed in service in 1991 and operates from April to June during the upstream shad migration period. In 1997 permanent upstream fish elevators were placed in service at both the Holtwood and Safe Harbor power stations, the second and third dams upstream of Chesapeake Bay. But the number of fish passing upstream through the Holtwood fish elevator has been variable compared to the number of fish passed through the downstream Conowingo station. Analysis has shown that percent passage at Holtwood is inversely related to river flows i.e., low flows higher percent passage and higher flows lower percent passage. Therefore, it is speculated that flows in excess of the current plant hydraulic capacity that spill over the 2,400 foot long spillway tend to direct fish away from the fish elevator entrances or create downstream velocity barriers that the fish cannot negotiate. Holtwood s station hydraulic capacity of 31,500 cfs is only 40 and 64 percent of the average river flow during the primary shad upstream migrating period of April and May. FERC License The 1980 Holtwood Hydroelectric Project Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) operating license was scheduled to expire in Since 1980 changes in the site conditions including fish passage concerns and increasing public use of the site for fishing and white water activities meant that any new FERC license would undoubtedly need to incorporate substantial changes from the existing FERC license. Planning Phase Initial Comprehensive Overview In the summer of 2004, in anticipation of the 2014 FERC relicensing date and likely challenges, PPL Holtwood began a pro-active reexamination of the Project s redevelopment potential. Analysis was conducted to determine if it was economically attractive to redevelop the Holtwood site in a manner that would address likely agency concerns, regulatory requirements, and environmental issues, that would be identified in the FERC license renewal process. Another changed condition was that deregulation of the mid Atlantic power markets in the later 1990 s had altered generation revenue streams in the PJM Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) area that operates the transmission grid connecting to Holtwood. PPL recognized early in the planning process that other non-generation ancillary services, such as Area Regulation (AR), may provide significant long term revenue, and thus the financially optimum redevelopment would not necessarily maximize energy generation. 4

5 To begin addressing these objectives PPL and Kleinschmidt organized a two day on-site workshop in August of 2004 that included a cross section of PPL management, engineering, licensing, environmental, and operating personnel, as well as Kleinschmidt hydroelectric engineers, a licensing specialist, a fishery biologist, and estimators from an independent construction contractor. Prior to meeting, the participants reviewed the previous 1937, 1966, and 1981 Holtwood redevelopment studies. The workshop consisted of an initial review of all the existing and anticipated future site conditions followed by a brainstorming session that resulted in identification of nine potential new power station locations and a total of nineteen redevelopment alternatives. Discerning Key Differentiating Factors An early analysis of the redevelopment discussions and options revealed that the most significant factors between the various siting options and size sub-options were the tailwater levels, resulting turbine heads, and the tailrace excavation costs. Since the Holtwood headpond is 6,700 feet upstream from the minimum tailwater pool at Cully s Falls, it was recognized that reducing the tailrace water levels to increase the station head requires large quantities of rock excavation. The relatively small hydraulic capacity in Holtwood s tailrace causes tailrace water levels to rise 10.5 ft from zero to full station operation resulting in nearly a 17% decrease in gross head (or 25% power decrease), which is more significant than typical hydroelectric stations. Since the tailrace water elevations for different new powerhouse locations and flows substantially affected each option s generation and capacity and directly impacts long term revenues, an interim study was performed to compare the effect of various tailrace excavation schemes on station generation, capacity, revenue, and capital costs. Unlike previous studies that projected straight tailrace excavation channels, particularly at the lower portion of the existing tailrace channel, our model assumed tailrace excavations within the existing serpentine natural channels. The advantages of this approach were that it reduces the total quantity and cost of excavated rock, is more environmentally sensitive, fish friendly, and is more aesthetically attractive. Another important consideration in the hydraulic analysis was that the tailrace velocities needed to accommodate shad and river herring upstream swimming strengths. Our analysis of the existing lower tailrace downstream of the highway bridge showed extended reaches of high water velocities up to 11 feet per second (fps), that appear to produce a velocity barrier to upstream fish passage. The proposed excavations provided an upstream fish passage shelf along the west shore of the Main Tailrace that was approximately 12 ft wide, a maximum velocity of 6 fps, and nominal 3 ft depth. The Piney Channel excavation was also designed for similar conditions to provide an alternative passage zone to the spillway side entrance of the existing fish elevator. The initial screening analysis resulted in locating a new station at the downstream end of the existing forebay (Option 1) as this provided the highest revenue to tailrace excavation ratio. Additional advantages included: 5

6 Convenient and less costly new station access requiring the least site civil modifications. Presents the least exposure to the Susquehanna River s severe ice and debris conditions and offers the protection of the forebay skimmer wall. Does not reduce the effective spillway discharge length that would require additional measures to compensate for any decrease in spillway flood discharge capacity. Reuse of the former steam station transmission line right-of-way. Concentration of the combined plant discharges into the existing main tailrace should attract more fish to the tailrace and improve the upstream fish passage efficiency through the existing elevator without the need to construct another upstream fish passage facility at a different plant discharge location. Continued long term operation of the existing station, and minimal interference with existing station operation during new power station construction. Runner Type and Turbine Number Selection The two types of runners most applicable to this site are either the propeller (fixed or adjustable (i.e. Kaplan)) or mixed flow type. The propeller type units can be in either a horizontal bulb type configuration or a vertical shaft configuration. Both configurations were evaluated. Based on previous Holtwood studies and Kleinschmidt s experience, the lowest capital cost to provide the anticipated large increases in hydraulic capacity of 15,000 to 60,000 cfs for any Holtwood redevelopment would be to use the smallest number of the largest practical machines. Based on this station s head the largest practical turbines at Holtwood would have 7 to 9 meter diameter runners with approximately 15,000 cfs hydraulic discharges, resulting in about MW per unit depending on the design head. Since 15,000 cfs was the largest practical turbine size that could be cost effectively manufactured for this site and had a proven reliable service life, we focused on 15,000, 30,000, and 45,000 cfs redevelopment flow increments to simulate one, two, and three new units. Another important advantage of utilizing large slow speed (85 rpm) turbines at this site is the very high (95% to 98%) survival rate for entrained fish. The Holtwood turbines also incorporate fish friendly features such as a cylindrical runner hub, semicylindrical discharge ring to minimize blade gap, and limited wicket gate protrusion inside the lower stay ring to prevent harmful turbulence. Feasibility Study The initial evaluation of the various site options resulted in selection of Option 1 with vertical Kaplan style turbines. The plant layouts and cost estimates were based on a new two unit power station, with the two unit power station costs then pro-rated to single and three unit station alternatives. The energy analysis evaluated power stations with one to three turbines. Because of the large flows and close proximity of the forebay to the tailrace only an integral intake/power station facility was considered. Based upon the estimated costs, generation and capacity revenues, and potential advantages to fish passage efficiency, a new power station with two 15,000 cfs, nominal 65 MW turbines was 6

7 determined to be the optimum configuration. This results in a total increase of 30,000 cfs and 125 MW essentially doubling the existing station capacity. The potential effect of the total redevelopment hydraulic capacity on the effectiveness of upstream fish passage was an important consideration in this decision. Increasing the hydraulic discharge capacity through the turbines decreases the amount of spillway flows and resulting losses in fish passage effectiveness. Adding one additional new 15,000 cfs unit meant that the station s new total 45,000 cfs discharge would be exceeded 80% of the time in May (typical month with the most upstream fish movement), while adding two new units increases the station s total discharge to 60,000 cfs which is exceeded only about 23% of the time compared to 65% of the time for the existing station. Vendor budgetary water to wire equipment estimates showed minimal cost differences between vertical and horizontal turbine equipment. Also for this site there were no appreciable differences in the construction cost estimates between the larger plant with shallower horizontal turbines compared to the smaller plant with deeper vertical power station footprint. Because of the water passageway configuration the vertical turbines have a 1.5% decrease in new unit generation, but PPL selected vertical units because of the revenue potential to provide ancillary services such as motoring and spinning reserve that is not possible with horizontal turbines. Figure 3 shows the redevelopment site plan with the new power station, and Figure 4 a longitudinal power station cross section. Concept Refinement In February 2005 PPL initiated discussions about the redevelopment plan with the various resource agencies including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, Pennsylvania Game Commission, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, the Susquehanna River Basin Commission and Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Although the resource agencies were generally supportive of the proposed redevelopment, primarily for the potential for improving upstream fish passage, they also had several additional concerns. Over the next three years, PPL and Kleinschmidt worked with these agencies and various stakeholders and members of the public to conduct detailed environmental studies to understand and address a number of issues, including effects on wetlands, endangered species, cultural resources, recreation, aquatic habitat, water quality, and fish passage. These studies helped form the conceptual design and resulted in several significant site plan modifications to avoid and minimize environmental effects. Through a series of public and agency meetings and the development of a Consent Order Agreement with the PADEP that formed the basis of the 401 water quality certificate for the project and other necessary agency approvals, a final proposed redevelopment scheme and environmental enhancement and mitigation package was finalized in

8

9

10 Main Tailrace Channel Hydraulics The agencies primary upstream fish passage concern was that the new main tailrace configuration allows upstream migrating fish to readily locate the existing fish elevator and not be attracted to the new or existing turbines. To determine this tailrace topography a PPL/Kleinschmidt/Alden Labs team used a variety of conventional and advanced hydraulic analysis tools. Using GIS based topographic and bathymetric data Kleinschmidt prepared three dimensional mathematical models of the existing tailrace geometry. Then based upon one dimensional HEC-RAS analyses an initial excavation scheme was developed that produced fish passage tailrace velocities acceptable to the agencies as well as water levels that produced acceptable plant generation values. Alden Labs then refined the tailrace geometries utilizing a large comprehensive 2-D Computer Fluid Dynamic (CFD) hydraulic model of the entire tailrace and 3-D analysis in selected areas. The resulting tailrace excavation configuration resulted in the west shore near Piney Island being left as a shallow shelf that the analysis showed provides velocities in the 5 ft per second range enhancing attraction yet not deterring fish from traveling upstream to the existing fish elevator. Conversely, the main tailrace topography along the east shore of the main tailrace is deeper with steeper side slopes that produces 10 fps and higher velocities deterring fish from traveling along the east shore towards the new power station. Also, an additional tailrace fish passage channel was added in the mid tailrace reach to help direct fish from the new power station discharge towards the fish elevator. Piney Channel Flows and Hydraulics The agencies were also very interested in having a minimum flow down the Piney Channel for both upstream fish guidance and habitat improvement. Therefore, a Piney Channel excavation scheme was developed that provides suitable fish passage velocities within Piney Channel up to total river flows of 100,000 cfs. The method of providing the water for the Piney Channel minimum flow evolved during this stage of the project. The initial concept was to install gates in the deflection wall to direct water from the upper tailrace across to the Piney Channel. But the lower tailrace elevation compared to the spillway elevation was problematic. As a result different schemes of discharging over the spillway with or without a minimum flow turbine were explored but resulted in significant generation losses. A unique solution was developed by extending the discharge from Unit No. 1 in a draft tube tunnel that extends under the fishlift entranceway and the deflection wall and into Piney Channel. Although the higher Piney Channel tailwater resulted in some head loss, the total generation loss was nominal compared to other approaches. Important long term benefits of this solution are that the turbine allows accurate flow regulation for the seasonal variations in minimum flow, the existing turbine equipment is easily accessible for maintenance and operation, and based upon historic performance the turbine will provide reliable operation thereby minimizing periods of non-compliance. 10

11 Existing Fish Elevator Modifications Based upon agency comments, the existing fish elevator is being modified to provide a total alternate 570 cfs attraction flow for the three entrances, modifications to the tailrace crowder mechanism travel to reduce objectionable shadows, and changes to the spillway side Entrance C gate guides to minimize potential future damage. Whitewater Recreation The existing Piney Channel and river area below the dam is a popular whitewater recreational feature during various river flow levels. Consequently, the Piney Channel excavation modifications need to maintain or enhance the natural features. In addition, changes in spill conditions due to the new power station are being addressed by incorporating two white water boating features into the lower end of the Piney Channel excavation combined with future scheduled water releases. The features are being designed to function with the expected Unit 1 discharge flows. Bald Eagles There are two active bald eagle nests, three osprey nests and peregrine falcon located in the Holtwood project area. Although the bald eagles endangered species listing had been recently removed, these raptors are still protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Act and are a species of great interest to the agencies. Therefore, PPL and Kleinschmidt developed a graduated schedule of allowable construction activities within difference concentric radii from the nests that are compatible with the raptor s various life cycle stages from courtship and nesting in December/January through non-nesting in August to November. These were agreed to by the agencies, and subsequently incorporated into the construction bid documents. Also an eagle observation tower equipped with real time remote video observation and audio recording equipment was constructed on the eastern Lancaster shore to observe eagle nesting behavior during blasting operations. The blasting was scheduled to occur during the sensitive egg laying and nesting periods although these operations were outside the critical approach zones. Endangered Plant Species The agencies were concerned about four threatened and endangered plant species at the site, particularly American Holly trees that are prevalent throughout the project area. These concerns were mitigated by designing the site construction and permanent design to minimize or avoid disturbance to these species. In areas where avoidance was impossible, American holly trees have been removed and temporarily placed in a nursery during construction. These trees will be replanted after construction and compensatory nursery bred replacement plants will be provided as needed. Project Design In early 2006 PPL authorized Kleinschmidt to begin the Holtwood redevelopment design. 11

12 Preliminary Phase Site Data The first part of the preliminary phase began in February 2006 and consisted of gathering accurate site information details. This included: A geotechnical team of TRC (formerly Site Blauvelt) and Haley and Aldrich conducted a geotechnical investigation that included site borings, test pits, rock permeability testing, and geomorphic mapping. Combination of aerial and some confirming land surveys. Bathymetric profiles of the tailrace and forebay using side scan radar and depth finders. Water to Wire Equipment Procurement Although hydraulic turbines from various manufacturers generally share similar dimensions, the final design of a large hydraulic capacity power station depends on the final turbine dimensions and equipment details. Also since the water to wire equipment is the largest project cost, securing a firm lump sum price helps to confirm the project budget. The Holtwood turbine equipment procurement documents were solicited in March 2006 with bids received in May. The finalized contract was awarded to Voith, GmbH in September Turbine water passageway dimensions were received from Voith in late October that allowed the power station civil/structural design to begin. Skimmer Wall and Forebay The original forebay skimmer wall exhibited long term foundation deterioration and settlement. PPL decided to replace the wall and floating boom arrangement to provide long term protection for both the new and existing power stations. Because of its large watershed and extremely variable flows, the lower Susquehanna River can experience extreme ice and debris conditions. Such an example is the January 1996 ice jam that caused the failure of the Safe Harbor Hydroelectric Plant skimmer wall. Because of these conditions PPL/Kleinschmidt engaged ice engineering experts with the USCOE s Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, to prepare a site specific ice loading analysis for the Holtwood skimmer wall. PPL s operational needs, including debris removal requirements under both the existing and future FERC licenses, were considered in the new skimmer wall layout. This resulted in the new skimmer wall deck designed wide enough to accommodate mobile debris removal/handling equipment and a downstream turn around area that significantly improves heavy equipment access to facilitate existing fish elevator maintenance. Simultaneously, initial hydraulic analyses were performed to finalize the skimmer wall configuration. During the previous conceptual phase the skimmer wall headloss under the increased flow into the forebay was taken into account by lengthening the wall to increase the cross sectional flow area through the new skimmer wall. To incorporate the additional length into this site the longer conceptual skimmer was angled. However, operational problems and additional costs of an angled configuration were recognized early in the final design phase, so the design team initially performed approximate manual hydraulic analyses of different skimmer 12

13 wall configurations considering several factors including headloss into the forebay, debris/ice protection effectiveness, sluicing operation, and impact on both upstream and downstream fish passage. This preliminary analysis showed that a straight skimmer wall shorter than the initial conceptual length and positioned in the same approximate orientation as the original skimmer wall provided a more cost effective design. Kleinschmidt subsequently worked with Alden Labs to develop a 3-D CFD model of the combined skimmer wall and entire forebay. This resulted in a very large model with a general 5.5 x 2.8 ft horizontal grid resolution and grids of 2.3 x 2.8 ft for areas of interest. A vertical 1.5 ft vertical grid was used throughout the model which resulted in about 2,000,000 elements. This analysis provided a comprehensive understanding of the complex forebay flows that resulted in significant practical benefits of: Reduced the depth of forebay excavation to allow use of more cost effective barge mounted backhoe excavation Eliminated unnecessary excavation in ineffective flow regions Identified forebay and intake geometry details that would have caused flow separation and additional headloss at the intakes of both stations. Powerhouse Design After receipt of Voith s water passageway dimensions in the fall of 2006, the design of the power station geometry could be finalized taking into account equipment access and operational and maintenance requirements. The power station layout was an iterative process with several interactive on-site and virtual video meetings between PPL s management, engineering, and operating and maintenance personnel with the primary Kleinschmidt engineers and designers. Voith provided final turbine equipment support loads in early February 2007 that allowed Kleinschmidt to progress into the power station final structural design. In addition to designing the final structure to the imposed loads, extensive consideration was given to power station constructability including provisions to facilitate the power station s construction critical path. For example, the construction of the power station is linear in that the deep excavation must first be completed and then the power station constructed up from the bottom of the excavation. To speed the overall construction the power station substructure concrete was designed so that above the draft tube the straight outer substructure walls could be rapidly constructed separate from the more complicated large cast-in-place concrete semi-spiral case. This allows earlier installation of the superstructure steel frame and precast concrete exterior panels so that the mechanical and electrical installation work can begin sooner. Provisions for potential future changes were also incorporated into the power station design. For example, both turbines are equipped with turbine internal piping and connections for tailwater suppression if it becomes economically advantageous to motor the units for spinning reserve ancillary revenue. The power station structure also contains the necessary embedded piping and allocated space for installation of compressors and air receiver tanks. 13

14 License Applications The existing FERC license was set to expire in September PPL Holtwood filed an amendment with the FERC in December 2007 to extend the existing license sixteen years to Application was also made for the 401 Water Quality Certificate with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. When the project was cancelled in late 2008, all applications were retracted. In April 2009, the project was reactivated and the applications were resubmitted. The cooperation of the FERC, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, Pennsylvania Game Commission, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, the Susquehanna River Basin Commission and Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection is gratefully acknowledged, allowing this project to proceed. Construction A request for proposal was released in the summer of 2008 for all work excluding station electrical work. Just prior to awarding the construction contract in October 2008, PPL cancelled the project due to the financial market uncertainty and falling energy prices. After passage of the February 2009 American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, which included a 30% investment tax credit for qualifying hydroelectric facilities, PPL reactivated the project and it was rebid in the summer of The construction contract was awarded to Walsh Construction in October 2009 and at the time of this paper, April 2011 construction is about 1/3 complete. The project is scheduled to be completed in early Lessons Learned Based on our experience with this project we offer the following recommendations for existing hydroelectric project sites considering redevelopment. Conduct a comprehensive review of your site at the beginning of the process to account for all the current and foreseeable future conditions. For example, the change in the Holtwood site with demolition of the adjacent steam plant provided a new area for redevelopment previously unavailable. Also the increased importance of fish passage at the site offered new challenges that were not factored into the 1980 vintage FERC license and previous redevelopment studies. Hydroelectric redevelopment requires a complex consideration of numerous interdependent engineering, economic, and environmental factors. All three need to be appropriately developed in parallel without any one either leading or lagging the others. For example, the conceptual design needs to be initially developed so that agency concerns can be accurately solicited and addressed. Conversely, it s typically important not to progress the engineering design beyond the conceptual stage without first understanding the project specific environmental issues and regulatory requirements, and understanding their effect on the project s budget. The design needs to stay flexible to accommodate avoidance and minimization of potential environmental impacts. 14

15 Resolution of regulatory and NGO requirements as early as possible in the planning phase should result in the most cost effective resolutions with reduced schedule affects. Obtain solid field data of the existing conditions at the beginning of final design to avoid design rework or unexpected costs during construction. The development of new GIS and computer surveying technologies makes this easier. Accurate field data is particularly important now that 3 Dimensional CADD is the common design tool. Inputting inaccurate information into the 3D CADD site model will negate the advantages and accuracy of this powerful design tool. Determine the turbine supplier as early as possible in the final design stage. The power station is primarily a housing for the turbine equipment, and although turbines of the same type share many similarities between various manufacturers, there can be significant differences that will affect the power station s structural, mechanical, and electrical design. The Holtwood power station final design was completed in parallel with the turbine design resulting in limited rework to complete the final contractor construction documents. Incorporate constructability features into the power station design to facilitate construction and minimize the critical path. Incorporating input from a knowledgeable contractor can offer significant advantages. Early contractor input in the design phase is an advantage of the design build construction method, but this can also be incorporated with conventional design-bid-build approach. For example, for the Holtwood project PPL engaged an experienced contractor to provide constructability and costing input from the initial planning through the 60% final design phase. Authors Mr. Porse is the Site Supervisor at the Holtwood Hydroelectric Plant for PPL Generation LLC. He has been in the power generation industry for over 38 years including 27 years in hydroelectric plant operations, maintenance, environmental compliance and safety. His experience has encompassed rehabilitation of hydroturbines and due diligence for asset acquisitions. Mr. Porse has been on the Holtwood Design Team and Environmental Licensing Team since this project began in Mr. Kahl is a Senior Engineer and Project Manager with Kleinschmidt. He has been a design and construction engineer in electric power generation since 1976, with hydroelectric projects beginning in Since joining Kleinschmidt in 1985, his experience has focused on the planning, evaluation, rehabilitation and construction of hydroelectric projects. Mr. Kahl has been Kleinschmidt s Holtwood project manager since this project began in