|
|
Enron Mail |
Great, Jerry. I take it then that simultaneous operation of the new and old
is a physical impossibility. Can we take this to the next step then, to carefully walk through the netting calculations (Shudeish & Prabhat are doing this) to minimize the total emissions that can occur ("potential to emit") at any one time. The way I read the existing permits, however, is that allowable (and unenforceable bec of grandfathering?) emissions are NOx is 1428 tpy and CO is 429 tpy at each station, which may mean that we can not characterize these as "minor" sources. If the netting calculation is such that we can avoid New Source Review (I believe this to be the case bec there is planned to be a new reduction), we can do the 401.01(5) construction activities and try to get a fast-track permit approval. I still do not whether, as a technical matter, the applications could qualify as "minor" revisions under R18-2-319.A, which mean, 1. Do not violate any applicable requirement 2. Do not involve substantive changes to existing monitoring, reporting, or record-keeping requirements in the permit 3. Do not require or change a case-by-case determination of an emission limitation or other standard, or a source-specific determination of ambient impacts, or a visibility or increment analysis 4. Do not seek to establish or change a permit condition for which there is no corresponding underlying applicable requirement and that the source has assumed in order to avoid an applicable requirement to which the source would otherwise be subject. The terms and conditions include: a. A federally enforceable emissions cap that the source would assume to avoid classification as a modification under any provision of Title I of the Clean Air Act; and b. An alternative emisssions limit approved under regulations promulgated under CAA sec 112(i)(5) 5. Are not modifications under and provision of Title I of the CAA 6. Are not changes in fuels not represented in the permit application or provided for in the permit 7. The increase in the source's potential to emit is not significant (40 tpy NOx, etc) [not applicable to TWP bec net reduction] 8. Are not required to processed as a significant revision under R18-2-320 (refers to signif change in existing monitoring terms or relaxation of reporting/recordkeeping or "does not qualify as a minor permit revision....") If someone could make a hard analysis of the foregoing, that might provide us additional strength. Van Wolf <<< <Jerry.D.Martin@enron.com< 9/26/2001 1:24:56 PM <<< Van, the 3 old units and 1 new unit at each station cannot run simultaneously. There is only so much gas in the line leading to each station, and there is a limit to the discharge pressure. If we tried to start the new unit with the old units running, the suction pressure would decrease significantly, and the discharge pressure would increase, automatically shutting down all units rather quickly. Even if it was physically possible, we would be literally "spinning our wheels" with no benefit - burning fuel with no increase in throughput. I'll be happy to explain this to Ms. Wrona tomorrow. Thanks, Jerry -----Original Message----- From: "Van Wolf" <vwolf@swlaw.com<@ENRON [mailto:IMCEANOTES-+22Van+20Wolf+22+20+3Cvwolf+40swlaw+2Ecom+3E+40ENRON@ENRON. com] Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 2:07 PM To: Eisenstein, Arnold L.; Pribble, Dan; Martin, Jerry D.; Shafer, John; Campbell, Larry; Soldano, Louis; Melton, Richard ; Jensen, Ruth; Kendrick, William; shead@ensr.com Subject: Red Rock/ADEQ: Nancy Wrona meeting I just met with Steve Burr, ADEQ Special Counsel, to discuss options and develop a strategy to rush the permit issuance schedule and/or allow significant construction to begin before actual issuance of the permit. He will attend the meeting tomorrow by teleconf because he thinks it would help if both of us attended as there are legal issues. He spoke with Prabhat yesterday, and both he and Prabhat believe this is a good project that should go forward expeditiously, but ADEQ must stick with its rules and policy interpretations. Nonetheless, there appears to be a way to re-interpret the application possibly to be a "minor" revision. The key will be assure that, during the construction period and the transition period, as well as operating procedures, all of the equipment that could operate at the same time does not have the "potential to emit" contaminants in excess of 250 tons per year (tpy). For the meeting with Nancy, someone, I assume it will be Larry, will need to be acutely familiar with the details of the permits revisions applications to be able to walk this through with Prabhat & Shudeish. I can review this as well, in order to discuss it with Steve, but we will need to make sure we have our technical ducks all lined up. In that sense, the appropriate person should please review the Ariz air rules at R18-2-319.A (minor revision to Class I source permit) and R18-2-401, definition of "major source" esp subsec c (to avoid "new source review"). Let me know if I need to fax these to anyone, but they may also be on the ADEQ website (www.adeq.state.az.us). For policy reasons, ADEQ needs to limit pre-permit construction because otherwise it would be subject to political pressure from sources with sunk capital costs. For TWP's purposes, the key is to keep the total "potential to emit" at each station below 250 tpy to avoid New Source Review. [I am out of my legal "depth" here and need technical assistance; the permit applications seem to indicate an increase in NOx and CO as well as a decrease in the same section (see sec 2.2 on Netting)as well as being subject to New Source Review (sec 3.2); there may some language in the applications that is somewhat misleading; the netting calculation is going to be important). The concern will be whether the old reciprocating compressors and the new turbine can all operate at the same time so as to result in significantly excess emissions. Are there operating (end enforceable) restrictions that would prohinbit operation of equipment that would cause emissions in excess of what currently allowed? If the permit revisions can be recharacterized as "minor," either there are no restrictions on immediate commencement of all contruction (only seven days notice required) or the allowable construction is that set forth in Ariz law at ARS 49-401.01(5), which would allow "installation of building supports and foundations, laying of underground pipework and construction of permanent storage structures." It appears that site-deliveries could occur, but I am not sure about tie-ins. I am somewhat skeptical that we can get a complete "minor" revision approach because I think this is a "major" source and the emissions limitations are significant. We may, with the netting, be able to avoid NSR and get 401.01(5) construction, but we will need technical analysis to be creative as to how the revisions set up the equipment changes and, in particular, whether we can screw down the operating procedures and transition to limit the "potential to emit." Thus, it will also be important to try to get a faster permit review/approval schedule. We agreed that TWP's "negotiating period" will be quick. EPA needs a 45-day review, but can we get submittals to EPA now (these revisions are essentially the same as for Stations #3 & #$, which EPA is about to approve) and get a faster indication of "no objections" from EPA? I sense Burr wants to help us come up with creative solutions, and I believe this will be Nancy's intent as well. Please let me know what further I can do from this end to prepare for tomorrow's meeting. I will have the conference room ready for a pre-meeting strategy session. Van Wolf The information contained in this electronic mail message is confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may be privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone (602-382-6000), and delete the original message. Thank you. G. Van Velsor Wolf Jr. Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. One Arizona Center Phoenix , Arizona 85004-2202 602.382.6201 (direct) 602.382.6000 (main number) 602.382.6070 (fax) vwolf@swlaw.com ********************************************************************** This e-mail is the property of Enron Corp. and/or its relevant affiliate and may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient (s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender or reply to Enron Corp. at enron.messaging.administration@enron.com and delete all copies of the message. This e-mail (and any attachments hereto) are not intended to be an offer (or an acceptance) and do not create or evidence a binding and enforceable contract between Enron Corp. (or any of its affiliates) and the intended recipient or any other party, and may not be relied on by anyone as the basis of a contract by estoppel or otherwise. Thank you. **********************************************************************
|