|
|
Enron Mail |
Larry, your ears are good! I just heard the same news. I sent some
data on emissions on the RB211on 1/31 resending the e-mails attchments. In orfer to capture the emissions credits for shutting down the existing units, we need to get the current emissions and the last 2 years of operating data and talk to the state about netting the results for the permit. REMEMBER: for the first 6 months, we are asking to leave the old units operational to use for emergency purposes during transition outages......NOT BOTH AT THE SAME TIME. aRNOLD Larry Campbell 01/30/2001 11:24 PM To: Arnold L Eisenstein/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT cc: William Kendrick/OTS/Enron@Enron, David Ayers/GCO/Enron@ENRON, John Shafer/OTS/Enron@Enron, Rich Jolly/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Butch Russell/ET&S/Enron@Enron, Earl Chanley/ET&S/Enron@Enron Subject: Re: TW Expansion emissions Arnold, I feel the major permitting issue will be if we add NOx or CO emissions greater than PSD levels (40 tons per year) at the facility. However, if we were to remove one or more of the existing recip units at each compressor station or reduce operating hours on one or more recip units to allow the emissions from the turbine to be included with the facility, this should be more than enough of a facility reduction that the turbine emissions would pose no problem. To add the turbine emissions without taking away existing emissions from the facility will more that likely kick us into PSD. This is a very time consuming and extremely expensive option and would more than likely cause us to do extensive modeling and retrofit emissions control technology on any emissions source which is at the facility. Because we operate both 2 cycle lean burn and 4 cycle rich burns on the system, our emissions control technology options can be limited and could increase additional manpower in the operation of the control technologies. I would also like to bring up a potential problem that probably has not be addressed and that is the issue of emissions impacting the Grand Canyon. I have been contacted by the state of Arizona several years ago concerning questions about modeling our emissions and the problems the state is encountering with emissiosn sources impacting a Class 1 sentive area. The Grand Canyon is in this classification. I dont know how or to what extent our present emissions might impact the Canyon, however, due to the relative proximity and prevailing wind directions toward the Canyon from a couple of our stations, I wouldnt be surprised if airshed concerns become an issue. As a planning tool, I would allow 4-6 months for non PSD permitting and 12-18 months for permitting PSD facilities. Again understand that these time estimates might be too conservative. Another issue is that we will be dealing with two different air agencies. The State of Arizona and the Navajo Nation EPA. As is the present case, all major permitting for facilities on the Navajo Resevation has in the past gone through Region IX EPA with descretion from the NNEPA.. As you may or may not know, stations 3 and 4 are on the Reservation. I have left a call with Bill Kendrick to determine if I should initiate data gathering for the permit application submittal or if someone else is to do the permitting. When I hear from him, Ill let you know what he says. In any event you are right, we should probably discuss this further..... To: Larry Campbell/ET&S/Enron@ENRON cc: William Kendrick/OTS/Enron@Enron, David Ayers/GCO/Enron@ENRON Subject: TW Expansion emissions Options are presented to add a Mars to each of the existing stations (Option 2) PSD Permit Base (Option 1) is to replace the existing (offset) and install a new RB211 (iso 38,000 HP) NO PSD permit This is a start. Let's talk Arnold 713-646-7380 "John J. Mcilvoy" <john.mcilvoy@rolls-royceesi.com< on 01/29/2001 03:26:21 PM Please respond to john.march@rolls-royceesi.com To: Arnold Eisenstein <Arnold.L.Eisenstein@enron.com< cc: John March <jamarch@cooper-energy-services.com<, Kelly Doup <kedoup@cooper-energy-services.com< Subject: Enron-Transwestern Emissions Arnold Attached is the Coberra 6562 DLE emissions for the Transwestern project. We have only provided data at 100 % base load because this produces the highest levels of emissions between 70 and 100% power. The CO vppm does not increase until the power dropped below 70% load. I hope you find this data satisfactory. If you need any additional information, please let me know. John McIlvoy - Enron Transwestern Emissions.xls Larry Campbell@ENRON 02/09/2001 03:27 PM To: Arnold L Eisenstein/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Earl Chanley/ET&S/Enron@Enron cc: Rich Jolly/ET&S/Enron@Enron, John Shafer/OTS/Enron@Enron, William Kendrick/OTS/Enron@Enron Subject: TW Mainline Expansion Earl Arnold, I have heard through the grapevine that Stan has approved the abondonment of the existing recips and installation of a turbine to replace the recips at each of the C/S in Arizona. Is this true? If so, I would greatly appreciate the engine manufacturers emissions and performance data for the turbines air permit application. I will also need the turbine noise data for the the environmental F-1 report to be submitted to the FERC. I had also heard that the plan was to submit the FERC application by March 1. The faster I receive this information, ther faster I can get started. Your help in a turbine manufacturer contact would be very helpful.
|