Message-ID: <17932511.1075845881483.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 09:57:00 -0800 (PST)
From: michael.nanny@enron.com
Subject: Re: FCE Test Procedure
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Michael D Nanny
X-To: Stephen Plauche@ENRON
X-cc: Kay Mann@ENRON, Heather Kroll@ECT, Scott Healy@ECT
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Kay_Mann_June2001_2\Notes Folders\Fuel cells
X-Origin: MANN-K
X-FileName: kmann.nsf

Stephen,

The comments in Blue as we discussed requires additional clarification.  The 
far field distance is that from the proposed sites to the nearest residence.

Mike Nanny

---------------------- Forwarded by Michael D Nanny/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on 
11/03/2000 05:55 PM ---------------------------


Anthony Butler on 11/03/2000 12:51:15 PM
To: Larry Leib/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Michael D 
Nanny/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Gary 
Bush/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc:  
Subject: Re: FCE Test Procedure  

Mike:

Attached is the modified guidelines we would like FCE to use.

As explained in my previous e-mail, I have revamped the entire document to 
reflect the understanding reached during our conference call.  We have also 
tried to specify some additional things throughout the document.

I believe this is a complete and much better organize set of fuel cell 
performance evaluation guidelines.  Hopefully FCE can agree and clear the 
remaining issues which are summarized below (in blue)...

Request FCEand Developoer to do the following before guideline is complete:

A)  Clearly define differences between base load and max guarantee output.  
Guideline currently uses both of these terms as the same loading condition.
B)  FCE must review the items for which plant performance shall be corrected 
for.  I have a feeling that not enough attention was given to this subject in 
their latest review.
C)  Enron to define  far field noise measurement locations
D) FCE to confirm inclusion of items bracketed in list of auxiliaries to be 
accounted for

Larry:  I included a note in the text of the document addressing the reasons 
for removing the catalyst efficiency correction from the list of corrections 
to be used for unit output power and efficiency.

Regards,

Tony Butler





Larry Leib@ENRON
11/03/2000 12:25 PM
To: Anthony Butler/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc:  

Subject: FCE Test Procedure

Tony,

I like much the reformatting job.  We should send with the following:

Identify that we have removed recently added reference to catalyst efficiency 
from list of conditions for which acceptance test performance corrections 
apply.  FCE should provide justification if required for Warrantee Compliance 
Test (as BOP system).

Request FCEand Developoer to do the following before guideline is complete:

A)  Clearly define differences between base load and max guarantee output.  
Guideline currently uses both of these terms as the same loading condition.
B)  FCE must review the items for which plant performance shall be corrected 
for.  I have a feeling that not enough attention was given to this subject in 
their latest review.
C)  Enron to define  far field noise measurement locations
D) FCE to confirm inclusion of items bracketed in list of auxiliaries to be 
accounted for

Add what else you need to say and forward to Mike.

Thanks,

Larry