|
|
Enron Mail |
_______________________________________________________________
This message and any attachments are intended for the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to others; also please notify the sender by replying to this message, and then delete it from your system. Thank you. _______________________________________________________________ We appreciate your assistance in providing the responses to the environmental questions regarding Gleason and the SPCC issue referenced on the draft schedules. The following questions are still outstanding, however, from October 23 and October 25 despite your indication that the responses to at least the October 23 questions would be available last week. Given the fast approaching bid deadline and the importance of the responses to our due diligence review, we would appreciate receiving the responses as quickly as possible. For your convenience, the following is the list of our outstanding questions: Questions for All Facilities 1. What are the limitations on the number of hours that each facility can operate and what is the source of those limitations? 2. We understand that there are tentative expansion plans for each facility. Were these future expansion plans disclosed to the regulating agencies at the time that the air permits were applied for, particularly at those facilities which did not undergo PSD review? 3. Which facilities are required to perform continuous emissions monitoring pursuant to its air permits? For those facilities performing CEM, please provide the last two years of data. 4. Are the facilities FERC jurisdictional for environmental impact statement purposes pursuant to 18 C.F.R. Part 380? We noticed that the only facility with information about this issue was the pipeline at Lincoln, although the information seemed to suggest that only the pipeline was subject to the EIS process. See 2.02.12.G. Was the rest of the Lincoln facility subject to the EIS process? What was the outcome of the EIS process for the pipeline? 5. What is Enron's understanding of the process required to transfer the environmental permits for each facility in connection with the proposed transaction? For example, the 1995 stormwater permit for LV Cogen appears to be triggered by a change in control of the facility. See 6.02.03 at page 16. Do other permits have similar provisions? 6. Will any environmental property transfer or comparable statutes (e.g. the Illinois Responsible Property Transfer Act) be triggered by the proposed transaction? 7. We have reviewed the United States Environmental Protection Agency comments for the air permit at LV Cogen II, as discussed below. Did U.S. EPA provide any additional comments on the air permits for LV Cogen II or any other facility? Lincoln Facility 1. Does the Lincoln facility have an air operating permit from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency? If so, please provide a copy. If not, please explain status. 2. Were any wetlands impacted by the construction of the facility and, if so, what permits were obtained? Will any wetlands be impacted by future expansion plans? ENSR's conclusion on this issue seemed unclear, particularly with respect to the 30 acre parcel. See 02.03.09C. Wheatland Facility 1. We understand that the Wheatland facility may seek a NPDES permit to discharge wastewater directly to the White River. How is this wastewater currently managed? Why is the facility considering changing the management method to direct discharge under a NPDES permit? If there are associated cost savings with a NPDES permit, what are they estimated to be? We understand that the source of the water that is discharged is a pond associated with mining operations. Who is the owner of the pond? Are any water extraction permits needed to remove water from this pond and, if so, have they been obtained? We also understand that sampling was recently performed of the water. Please provide copies of this analysis and any associated documentation. LV Cogen 1. The Industrial User Discharge Permit on Dealbench appears to have expired on July 1, 2000. See 6.02.02. Was it renewed? If so, please provide copy. 2. The stormwater discharge permit for LV Cogen appears to be expired. See 06.02.03. Was it renewed? If so, please provide copy. 3. Does Sunco hold any environmental permits in its own name? If so, please provide copies. LV Cogen II 1. EPA contends in its March 23, 1998 and March 24, 2000 letters that BACT for LV Cogen II was SCONOx and/or XONON. See 06.01.09.1. How was this issue resolved? Can LV Cogen II meet the 2 ppm NOx limit in the draft operating permit with the technology that has been proposed? See 06.01.15. 2. It appears that the State of Nevada has contended that certain equipment replacement should have undergone new source review in their June 13, 2000 memo. See 16.03.6. How was this resolved? What is EPA's view on this issue? Schedules for LV Cogen I and II 1. Schedule 4.1(i) references an annual audit of the CEM system in May 2000. Is this audit on Dealbench and/or can we get a copy of it? 2. Please provide a copy and/or reference to a Dealbench document for the Phase I referenced on Schedule 4.1(n). 3. Please provide copies and/or references to Dealbench documents for the items listed as 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 on Schedule 4.1(u). [Note that we have reviewed the 1995 storm water permit, but did not see an indication that it is automatically renewed. Is this reflected elsewhere?]
|