Message-ID: <20429170.1075853288868.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 03:14:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: garrick.hill@enron.com
To: dan.lyons@enron.com, richard.sanders@enron.com
Subject: Re: FW: Tenaska Failure Investigation
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Garrick Hill
X-To: Dan Lyons, Richard B Sanders
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Richard_Sanders_Oct2001\Notes Folders\Tenaska
X-Origin: Sanders-R
X-FileName: rsanders.nsf

FYI.
---------------------- Forwarded by Garrick Hill/HOU/ECT on 10/26/2000 10:13 
AM ---------------------------


Charles Ward@ENRON
10/25/2000 07:27 PM
To: Mike Mazowita/Corp/Enron@Enron
cc: Garrick Hill/HOU/ECT@ECT, "Mike Gough" <mike.gough@naes.com>, Carl 
Tricoli/Corp/Enron@Enron 
Subject: Re: FW: Tenaska Failure Investigation  

I agree on continuing to use the thin seal if row 1 blades are the root cause.

I spoke with various SWPC folks today and yesterday.  We should be receiving 
a comprehensive schedule by the end of the week with item detail and timing 
for the outage.  I mentioned that the lack of regular notification of the 
outage repair schedule was unacceptable.  We'll see.  I also mentioned that 
Brazos sent us a letter that was headed towards a "fit for usage" issue in 
the PPA and that ENA would look through any assertion to that as a SWPC 
problem.  Additionally, I mentioned that a CEO-level meeting was scheduled 
for next week to discuss the technical issues of various projects in the 
portfolio and that the SWPC situation (Tenaska and our delayed delivery) were 
item 1 on the agenda.  I also passed to SWPC that we bust the 65% before we 
bust the 80% test and that accordingly, a December finish is unacceptable.  
Fudges just a little, buit its frankly none of their business what the real 
date is.  I also reminded them that they owe me a fixed-price labor proposal 
by the end of the week.

Back  in the office on Friday.

Chuck