|
|
Enron Mail |
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?
|