Message-ID: <20938152.1075851892001.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 07:29:00 -0700 (PDT) From: byron.rance@enron.com To: dconway@altorfer.com Subject: Generator issues. Cc: larry.campbell@enron.com, james.pfeffer@enron.com, david.roensch@enron.com, rich.jolly@enron.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bcc: larry.campbell@enron.com, james.pfeffer@enron.com, david.roensch@enron.com, rich.jolly@enron.com X-From: Byron Rance X-To: "David Conway (E-mail)" @SMTP@enronXgate X-cc: Larry Campbell, James Pfeffer, David Roensch, Rich Jolly X-bcc: X-Folder: \Larry_Campbell_Nov2001_1\Notes Folders\All documents X-Origin: CAMPBELL-L X-FileName: lcampbe.nsf Dave Conway. Summarizing the issue as I can understand them. 1. Your problem. Cat will have to change the units at Station 2 to 3512 to make the driver HP for 370 kw. As I indicated we need to also make adjustment so that the emissions do not exceed that of the 3508 as presented originally on March 21. 2. My problem. The EPA will only allow the generators to emit a cumulative tonnage that works out to be 7826 running hours a year. To get the 8736 hours that I need the generation (at both stations) I will need to reduce total emissions by about 11 percent. Obviously, in the fully loaded condition were at, lower horsepower is not an option. Need some way to work these two items out to a mutually agreeable solution. Don't know the effect on your systems (ie: the cat engines) if a catalytic system is installed or if this is better then revision to the clean burn units (which if I recall just makes the hp worse). I'd also like to keep the units at 2 and 3 similar, for spare issues and other items, but would need to have a good idea what this is costing before I can approve. The other issue is that I need to resolve this within two days. I be in Phoenix tomorrow but will leave my cell phone on. 713-850-1725. Otherwise, leave a message on phone mail. Email will not be all that great. Appreciate your help. Byron