Rand,
         I concur with Steve's question relative to whether there are any
unacceptable provisions in the draft, "draft" permit or the need for any
modifications.   I also agree with Steve that we should anticipate an
administrative challenge to the permit by   Coconut Creek or other such
municipality.    In light of such a potential challenge, please contact me
to discuss any weaknesses in the proposed permit.
         Thanks !  Kerri         

-----Original Message-----
From: Krimsky, Steven [mailto:Steven.Krimsky@ENRON.com]
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 6:34 PM
To: "Edelstein, Rand" <REdelstein@ensr.com>@ENRON; dkelle2@enron.com;
barshk@gtlaw.com
Cc: Mann, Kay; kabainc@bellsouth.net; orshefskyd@gtlaw.com;
bkeith@keith-associates.com; Jacoby, Ben; Grube, Raimund
Subject: RE: Draft Notice of Intent, Draft Permit and Notice - Deerfield
B each ERP


The discharge into Independence Lake might be challenged by Indy
Bay/Waterways/etc. - the existing agreement only allows ~2/3 of the
property to drain to the lake.  I agree with your assessment of
sufficiency/standing, however, Coconut Creek has been and most likely
will continue to be relentless in their pursuit to delay the project.

Are there any recommended changes to the draft?  

Please keep the team apprised when the 30-day clock starts.

Thanks,
Steve

>  -----Original Message-----
> From: 	"Edelstein, Rand" <REdelstein@ensr.com>@ENRON
> [mailto:IMCEANOTES-+22Edelstein+2C+20Rand+22+20+3CREdelstein+40ensr+2E
> com+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com] 
> Sent:	Monday, August 20, 2001 3:54 PM
> To:	Krimsky, Steven; dkelle2@enron.com; barshk@gtlaw.com
> Cc:	Mann, Kay; kabainc@bellsouth.net; orshefskyd@gtlaw.com;
> bkeith@keith-associates.com; Jacoby, Ben; Grube, Raimund
> Subject:	RE: Draft Notice of Intent, Draft Permit and Notice -
> Deerfield B	each ERP
> 
> Steve
> 
> the document we have received is a draft "draft" provided for our
> review
> prior to FDEP officially sending us the "draft" for public notice.  So
> we
> have not officially received it and the 30-day clock has not yet
> started.
> FDEP is reviewing the draft internally and may issue it to us as soon
> as
> this week but likely no later than next week.  The opposition may has
> difficulty meeting the sufficiency requirement if they file for
> hearing
> against this permit, in other words if a petition is filed then FDEP
> may not
> find it sufficient and may dismiss it accordingly without an
> administrative
> hearing.  The ERP is more difficult (than the air permit) for a
> petitioner
> to show that they may be an affected party with sufficient cause to
> petition
> against the permit issuance.  Based on these considerations, the ERP
> may not
> be successfully challenged by petition for an administrative hearing.
> 
> There is no wetland dredge and fill activity required at the Deerfield
> Beach
> site, so a permit from the U.S. Army Corps is not required for the
> development of this site.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Rand
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven.Krimsky@enron.com [mailto:Steven.Krimsky@enron.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 4:03 PM
> To: Edelstein, Rand; dkelle2@enron.com; barshk@gtlaw.com
> Cc: Kay.Mann@enron.com; kabainc@bellsouth.net; orshefskyd@gtlaw.com;
> bkeith@keith-associates.com; Ben.Jacoby@enron.com;
> Raimund.Grube@enron.com
> Subject: RE: Draft Notice of Intent, Draft Permit and Notice -
> Deerfield
> Beach ERP
> 
> 
> Good stuff...
> 
> A few comments:
> ?    The Notice of Intent requires the issuance of public notice
> within 30
> days of receipt of this intent.  When did we officially receive this?
> Given the administrative hearing for the air permit, we will want to
> issue
> public notice at the opportune time.
>    ? What newspaper(s) do you recommend for the public notice?  What
>      newspaper(s) do the DEP recommend?
>    ? Does the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers require a separate permit
> as
>      mentioned on page 2 of the Permit?  If so, what does this entail?
>    ? Can we accept the General & Specific Conditions delineated in the
>      Permit?
> 
> Kerri- it appears we need to issue public notice before mid September,
> when
> do you recommend we do so given the DOAH proceedings?
> 
> Given the track record, its fair to assume this permit will be
> contested
> and most likely will require an administrative hearing.
> 
> Regards,
> Steve
> 
>     -----Original Message-----
>    From:   "Edelstein, Rand" <REdelstein@ensr.com>@ENRON
> 
> [mailto:IMCEANOTES-+22Edelstein+2C+20Rand+22+20+3CREdelstein+40ensr+2E
> com+3E
> +40ENRON@ENRON.com]
> 
> 
>    Sent:   Friday, August 17, 2001 3:43 PM
>    To:     Krimsky, Steven; 'Kellermeyer, Dave'
>    Subject:  FW: Draft Notice of Intent, Draft Permit and Notice -
>              Deerfield b  each
> 
>    Steve and Dave
> 
>    I just received this.
> 
>    Sincerely,
> 
>    Rand
> 
>    >  -----Original Message-----
>    > From:      Jagnarine, Indarjit
>    > [mailto:Indarjit.Jagnarine@dep.state.fl.us]
>    > Sent:      Friday, August 17, 2001 4:41 PM
>    > To:   Edelstein, Rand
>    > Subject:   Draft Notice of Intent, Draft Permit and Notice -
> Deerfield
>    > beach
>    >
>    >  <<Untitled Attachment>>  <<INTENT.doc>>  <<NOTICE.doc>>
>    <<permit.doc>>
> 
> 
>  
> **********************************************************************
>    The information contained in this communication is confidential and
>    privileged proprietary information intended only for the individual
>    or entity to whom it is addressed.  Any unauthorized use,
> distribution,
>    copying or disclosure of this communication is prohibited.
>    If you have received this communication in error, please contact
> the
>    sender immediately.
> 
>    It is our policy that e-mails are intended for and should be used
> for
>    business purposes only.
> 
>    This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept
> by
>    MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
> 
>    ENSR
>    www.ensr.com
>    postmaster@ensr.com
>  
> **********************************************************************
> 
>    To:
>    Subject:
>    Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 16:43:40 -0400
>    MIME-Version: 1.0
>    X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
>    Content-Type: multipart/mixed;   boundary="
>    ----_=_NextPart_002_01C1275D.4B84F5F2"
> 
>    Rand,
>    Attached is three draft documents. Please review the attached
> drafts and
>    provide any comments/recommendations. I hope you don't mind.
> 
>     Thanks
>    *******************************************************************
>    Indarjit Jagnarine, P.E.III
>    DEP Southeast District
>    P.O.Box 15425
>    West Palm Beach, Florida 33416
>    tel. 561.681.6640
>    fax: 561.681.6780
>    e-mail: Indarjit.Jagnarine@dep.state.fl.us
>    ******************************************************************
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     - tech.gif << File: tech.gif >>
>     - INTENT.doc << File: INTENT.doc >>
>     - NOTICE.doc << File: NOTICE.doc >>
>     - permit.doc << File: permit.doc >>
> 
> 
> 
> **********************************************************************
> 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.
> **********************************************************************


_______________________________________________________________ 
The information contained in this transmission may contain 
privileged and confidential information.  It is intended only 
for the use of the person(s) named above. If you are not the 
intended recipient,  you are hereby notified that any review, 
dissemination, distribution or duplication of this 
communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the 
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email 
and destroy all copies of the original message. 

To reply to our email administrator directly, please send an 
email to postmaster@gtlaw.com.