---------------------- Forwarded by David W Delainey/HOU/ECT on 05/15/2000 
06:24 PM ---------------------------
   
	
	
	From:  Mitch Robinson @ ENRON                           05/15/2000 06:03 PM
	

To: John Normand/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc: Gavin Gaul/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Bob 
Greene/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Kevin M Presto/HOU/ECT@ECT, David 
W Delainey/HOU/ECT@ECT, Mark Dobler/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, 
Larry L Izzo/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT 
Subject: Peaker Schedules

From Mike Miller and Mitch Robinson

John -

After today's conference call regarding the peakers and after today's failed 
attempt to commercially dispatch two of the units at the Lincoln facility, we 
see the following action items that need immediate resolution in order to get 
the peakers back on schedule:

Lincoln:
1.  Discussion with GE at sufficiently high level to determine whether any GE 
units at any sites have ever made <9 ppm NOx with CO <25 ppm (M. Dobler has 
initiated this discussion with Michelle April of GE).
2.  A detailed plan of attack from GE to get the units within guarantee 
emission limits.
3.  Resolution of the HMI sluggish response issue complete with a plan of 
attack.  The units can be run, but are clearly not ready for commercial 
operation with the sluggish HMI.

Wheatland:
1.  A plan of attack from Westinghouse to correct the fuel valves (and/or 
nozzles) on units 1 and 2.  Currently, the units can not be run reliably at 
base load.
2.  Plan of attack and schedule to correct the vibrations on 1 & 2.
3.  A response from Westinghouse and PCD to get dedicated TD and controls 
support (this comment also applies to Gleason); sharing Rutledge and PCD 
controls personnel is proving inadequate.
4.  Frequent technical questions for Westinghouse are taking extended time to 
get answers.  A dedicated EE&CC or NEPCO representative in the Orlando office 
would help facilitate getting rapid answers (applies to Gleason also).

Gleason:
1.  A detailed schedule and plan of attack is needed for the compressor blade 
modifications on units 1&2.
2.  An on-site EE&CC representative is required to bird-dog the compressor 
blade seals modification.
3.  Verification from Westinghouse that the 12 day modification will not slip 
into 3 weeks is required (see item 1).
4.  Verification that the IGV's have been fully corrected is required.
5.  A response from Westinghouse and PCD to get dedicated TD and controls 
support (this comment also applies to Wheatland); sharing Rutledge and PCD 
controls personnel is proving inadequate.
6.  Frequent technical questions for Westinghouse are taking extended time to 
get answers.  A dedicated EE&CC or NEPCO representative in the Orlando office 
would help facilitate getting rapid answers (applies to Wheatland also).

Mitch Robinson & Mike Miller