Message-ID: <17482132.1075851882115.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 03:38:00 -0700 (PDT) From: j.fields@argentinc.com To: lcampbe@enron.com Subject: FW: RE: Engines and GF Status Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Jon Fields X-To: "'lcampbe@enron.com'" X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \Larry_Campbell_Nov2001_1\Notes Folders\All documents X-Origin: CAMPBELL-L X-FileName: lcampbe.nsf -----Original Message----- From: Duncan Stewart [SMTP:DSTEWART@tnrcc.state.tx.us] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 1:09 PM To: jfields@argentinc.com Subject: RE: RE: Engines and GF Status Jon, Here's the latest comment from Jim: don't see why a test before the change and after the change using the same analyzer would not demonstrate no increase in emissions. DFS >>> Jon Fields 08/29/00 08:38AM >>> Duncan, Ok. We'll test an engine. This project involves 5 identical engines. We want to test just one - will you accept that? Will you accept portable analyzer test results? These analyzers have been certified by the state of New Mexico to be plus/minus 3% from full trailer tests. Thanks, Jon -----Original Message----- From: Duncan Stewart [SMTP:DSTEWART@tnrcc.state.tx.us] Sent: Monday, August 28, 2000 2:59 PM To: jfields@argentinc.com Cc: Jim Linville; James Randall Subject: Fwd: RE: Engines and GF Status FYI >>> Jim Linville 08/28/00 02:21PM >>> IF there is no increase in emissions, this is probably not a modification and the Grandfathered status would remain. They would need to demonstrate that there is no change. This could require testing before and after the change. >>> Duncan Stewart 08/28/00 01:43PM >>> What say you all?