Subject: Re: Corporate Watch article
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 08:49:00 -0700 (PDT)

Steve,

 I contacted Cheryl Dawson the environmental manager at Enron Methanol 
regarding the Corporate Watch article.  As you can see below in Cheryl's 
response the emissions reported to EPA under the Toxic Release Inventory 
(TRI) rules  have decreased significantly since the 1997 report developed by 
Environmental Defense.  Additionally, Cheryl related to me that Enron 
Methanol was a participant in Clean Texas 200, an effort to reduce the amount 
of waste being generated annually by 50% by the year 2000.  Enron Methanol 
did achieve this goal, and has gone from a large quantity waste generator to 
a conditionally exempt small quantity generator.  This is due to the 
beneficial use by the Enron  MTBE plant of the mixed alcohol by -product from 
the Methanol plant.  In 1998 , MTBE plant began using the mixed alcohols in 
their process stream.  That is certainly a success story and is reflected in 
the reduced n-butyl alcohol TRI entry seen in Cheryl's note below.

---------------------- Forwarded by Michael Terraso/OTS/Enron on 08/01/2000 
01:49 PM ---------------------------

Cheryl Dawson
08/01/2000 01:32 PM
To: Michael Terraso/OTS/Enron@ENRON
cc:  

Subject: Re: Corporate Watch article  

Yes, I have seen the Defense Fund's propaganda.  Here is the breakdown:
(all shown in pounds)      1997       1998             1999

methanol (air releases)     173352   179519                89616    
methanol (disposal off-site)     87351      57191     2742             

ammonia (air releases)        2720        2720    2720 
ammonia (treated off-site)       5168                       4788    4788 

formaldehyde (air releases only)     98300      81380   69984

n-butyl alcohol (off-site disposal only)  155266           945          42

The numbers the Scorecard used in the "1997 TRI Pollution Release Sorted by 
Health Effect" section are various combinations of methanol + formaldehyde + 
ammonia.  Unfortunately they've not said anything that isn't true.  It is all 
in presentation and effective combination.  We have done much better this 
year in comparison but for the methanol and formaldehyde the release amounts 
are reduced due in part to better calculation methods and a different AP-42 
for formaldehyde.  And, by the way, the formaldehyde is strictly from the 
combustion of natural gas in the engines.  We will, of course, have to 
address the engines for NOx but I don't know that the retrofit will affect 
the formaldehyde.  Anyway, hope this helps.  We are getting better and 
certainly are aware and doing what we can.