The 3.8 hours was added to the January and not Febuary OH term for WTG 11.   
The 3.8 hours was added back because the Emergency Oil Loss was interpreted 
by me to be a failure not directly due to the icing.  Icing alone shouldn't 
cause an emergency oil loss.  I Added it back in to prevent double counting 
of the turbine offlline.  If  the oil loss indication was directly due to 
icing then we should lower the MAA availability for turbine 11 in January to 
correct for 3.8 hours.   Let me know what you want us to do.  

For the future, we analysts will always assume that a failure that occurs 
during icing and that isn't reasonably due to icing alone will be treated as 
a separate (independent) failure.   Please  indicate clearly in the manual 
log that a turbine failure (or apparent failure) was directly related to 
icing or other cause if the failure  isn't obviously expected due to icing 
alone.  Breakage of anemometer cups is an example of a failure that would 
clearly be expected as a result of icing alone.




Leonard Mason
04/09/2002 09:04 AM
To: Mark V Walker/EWC/Enron@ENRON
cc: Bo Thisted/EWC/Enron@Enron, Kurt Anderson/EWC/Enron@ENRON 

Subject: OH Reference on February Monthly Report

Mark, you stated 3.8 hours was added to the OH hours of turbine #11 at the 
bottom of the OH calculations sheet. I believe this was added because the 
Emergency Oil Level Fault was not reset on that machine because of the icing 
conditions we were experiencing at the time. Is this correct?