Transcript of Record — FPC v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp.
Supreme Court brief1961
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
. TABLE OF CONTENTS AND INDEX TO JOINT APPENDIX
i -Joint
Transerip Appendix
Page Page
cxarts From TRANSCRIPT OF TESTIMONY : .
Testimony in Transcontinental Gas Vipe Line Corpo- .
ration (Docket No. G-13,143, et al.) : 1-3 . 2a-3a
Witnesses: m
1. Otto Manz (Consolidated Edison Company
‘of New York, Inc. (Con Edison) ) 122; 123, 3a-24a
yi ® : | 125-150 6
ee . = - 155-156
157-158
1168-1169 73a-10la
1170, 1178-
1179, 1182,
1183, 1186, ao
; 1192-1196 ¢
cae . 1201-1204
° ; : 1204-1205,
: 1206, 1207-
1208, 1209-
1211, 1212-
1215, 1216,
_ 1217-1219,
_ 1221, 1223,
: : 1224-1227 2
va ng : : 1228-1229
: 1229-1230
1234-1235
1235-1238
- : 1238-1241,
° 1245-1246,
1251, 1252-
1254, 1255,
1256, 1259.
° ot _ 1260, 1276
* 2.
o
;
.
Atherton Thomas (Con Edison) .
| Dé. Leonard Greenburg (Con Edison)
. Raymond H. Crowe (trenmnetinassil Gas
Pipe Line Corporetion er?
. Roger D. Stanwood (Transco)
. James V. O'Connor (Tecmesy
A Harry
L. Parlette (Long Island Lighting
Company) |
: John B. on (Public Service Electric
and Gas: Company)
_R. S. Bruns, Jr. (Transco)
ii - Table of Contents and" Index to Joint Appendix Continued
. 1309-1310
1310-1311
1316-1317
1319-1320
1326-1327
1328, 1337-
. 1338, 1340,
1340-1341
1346-1347,
1353-1354,
. 1355
208-217
220-225
227, 228- .
237,
~ 3413" 1414-
1417, 1420-
1422, 1423,
1424, 1426
1427
481-482,
485, 489-
492
602-606
616-617
1140-1141
718-720
772-773
775-776
778-783
983-984
1004, 1018
101a-10
f aii
‘
1102-11
54a-5i
Tila
-
?
Table of Contents and Index te-Joint Appendix Continued iii
statements by Counsel :
Statement of Randal! J. LeBoeuf, Counsel for Con-
solidated Edison Co. of New York, Ine.
Statement of E. M. Barrett, Counsel for Long Island
Lighting Co.
Exhibits :
Exh. 1—Doeument Entitled ‘‘Location of Fa-
cilities’’
Exh. 7—Document Entitled ‘‘ System: Delivery Ca-
pacity v. System Delivery Requirements, Sept.
_ 1, 1958 Through October 31, 1959""
Erh: 13—‘Gas Supply Data—Volume 2"? *
Exh. 13—Document Entitled “Tariff”
Exh. 29—Veleme Entitled *‘ ‘Cons Nat. Gas ‘Co. of
N.Y. Ine. Market Data’’
5 a
Exh. 26—Document Entitled “‘ Long Island Light-
ing (Company, Gas Byctem Forecasts and Statis-
ties’*
Erk. 44—Map Entitled ‘‘The Source of Maps—
Manhattan Book, City of New York, Q. OW.
Bromley & Co. Ine., New York"’ ‘
Ezh. 79—Document Entitled ‘‘ Consolidated Edison
eran New York, Inc., Annus! Gas Use &
Supply ef"’
Exh. 81—Volyme Enti <<Peamssentinentel Gas
Pipe Line Corporation, Docket Nos. G-13143, et
al., Letter Agreements Relating to Prices’’.
Exh. 83—Chart Entitled ‘‘Use of Natural Gas—
steer a Cubie Feet Daily Through December
Certified,
Transcript
121-122
1401-1403,
‘6784
6814-6816
6874
Joint
“hore
| Ba-4da
109a-110a
117a
147a
149a
152a
153a
iv Table of Contents and Index to Joint Appendix Continued
Items Incorporated by Reference
‘Item B—Tariff of Transco in Effect ‘at This Date . 6969, 6970;
be ane ee | 6976-6977 154a-1
_———“Ttem D-—Letter of July 13, 1950, Addressed to the .&
President by Mon C. Walgren 7129-7130 159a-1¢
Item E—Letter of August 21, 1950, Addressed to the : -
President by Acting Chairman Buchanan 7131-7133 160a-16
“*
‘
Pleadings and Orders .
Decision, Upon Applications for Certi ub- 10000, 10004, 164a-1%
lie Convenience e and: 900 we ;
siding Examiner
. Order ‘Denying Certificate of Public sic and 10486, 174a-1&
Necessity and Reversing in Part Initial Decision of, 10491 ; ,
Presiding Examiner, Docket No. G-13143, et al., 10493, .
Issued January 30, 1959 10494
Order Denying Applications for Rehearing, Docket 10673. 184a-
Nos. G-13143, et al., Issued March 26, 1959 10674,
’ a 10678, 10680
‘ a . : -
° ‘ Prt Geiee
ene
?
INDEX
° .
“be,
Petition for review filed by. ( ‘onsolidated Edison Company of
New York, Inc., in No. 12,908. _
Giiicesetes ie :
Dissenting opinion; Mussey, Counmiesioner... Rif AU
Petition for review tiled ath The bees of New Verk, in No.
@usions of Authorities awd ny her taei aaa
Motion for leave to intervene by National Coal’ Association,
: United Mine Workers of norenee and Fuels Research
Council, Ing., in No. 12,908... caaaes
der allowing intervention... __ -
I ited Mine Workers of America, ant’ Fuels Research
Council, Inc., in No. 12, S50... due wknd daiwa é wena ews
rder allowing intervention. - : jccneecinans
Motion for leave to intervene by National ( ‘oal Amociation,
United Mine Workers of America, and Fuels Research
Council, Inc., in No. OR, 008... 2 cee-. aFe cocegecectact
rder allowing intervention Rana ae -excennlidies ee wee ;
er making corrections in opinion ndaceeees TTTTi rt
‘lerk’'s Gertificate (omitted in printing) -....... _
ers extending time to file petitions for writs of certiorari...
ogens allowing certiorari
(1)
Proceedings in the U.S8.C.A. for the Third Cireuit:.2 27 "=>
Exhibit A—Procecdisigs before The ‘Federal Power Commis-
Mc or leave: to intervene by National Coal ‘Association, :
* Original
‘195
196
IN THE |
“Tite States Court uf ‘Appeals
For Tue — Circuit
~ Nos. 12908, 13929, 12930
Consotipatep Episoxn Company or New York, Inc., :
Petitioner —
Vv.
FeperaL Power Commission, Respondent” *
TRE Crey or New. York, Petitioner
v.
FEDERAL Power Commission, Respondent
TRANSCONTINENTAL Gas Pree Line Corporation, Petitioner
a ee |
| ~
| | Fepsrat Power Commission, Respondent
JOINT APPENDIX ON PETITIONS TO REVIEW DECISIONS ~ b.
— Gan al FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION
-—-—_-_-___-
"+
mee) |
1 ‘
’ BEFORE THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION ,
Tn the Matters of: ees |
TRANSCONTINENTAL Gas Pires Live \ Docket Nos. G-13143
Bs ane
.
Ne ae ee eee Pee ee ee ee
CorPoRATION — G-13590 -
ins » G-13745
New York State Natura Gas Docket No. G-13793
CoRPORATION . ( ,
Texas Eastern TRANSMISSION Docket No. G-13793
CorPoRATION . ee -- 9
TiaNsconTINES TAL Gas Pre Lixe.| Docket No. G-13793.-
_ CoRPORATION . - 4
_ Hearing Room FG
: Federal Power Commission :
__ eb. .GStreet;-Nerthwest--——
Washington, D. C. es ae
Monday, March 10, 1958 . a -
The above-entitled matters came on for hearing, pur- |
suant to nofice, at 10 o’clock a. m.
Before:
Francis. J. Costeuio, Presiding Bicamisicc. a
Appearances :. aad
James B. Hanepeacn, General Counsel ie WituaM N.
, Borner, 3100 Travis Street, Houston, Texas, appear- .
ing on behalf of Transcontinental Gas Pipe Lige Cor-
poration. ™
Ricnarp J. Connor and Jouy T. Muer, of Gallag:.er, , a
Connor & Boland, 821 15th Street, N- W.,. Washington, | —
D. C., appearing on behalf of Transcontinental Gas ,
Pipe Line Corporation.
2a
ee 2 ;
5 ° é
eo ® eo .-" @ e e © se © @
-Joun A. McGratu and Jerome J. McGratu, of McGrath
& McGrath, 520 Shoreham Building, Washington 5,_
D. C.; R. EB. L. Harr, Southern Building, Washington
5, D..C.; and Weiiy K. Hopkins, 900 15th Street,
_N. W., Washington ‘5, D. C., appearing on behalf of
National Coal Association; United Mine Workers of
(122)
America; Fuels Research Council, -Ine.; and Anthta- .‘
cite Institute.
* e @ e 6 * € e e e
Ranpautu J. LeBorvr, Jr., and Hatcyon G. Sxinver, of
LeBoeuf, Lamb & Leiby, 15 Broad Street, New York,
NewYork, appearing on behalf of Consolidated Edison
’ Compahy of New York, Inc.
Gene. © + * e ° Ge *-,-@ ° e"
121 =
Mr. LeBoeuf: Mr. Examiner, I might say a word before
I call my first witness.
We support these applications in eur serious need for
additional gas service part} ictal to meet the demands
of the next winter. “
As far as this program velicten to Consolidated Edison,
it involves 30,000 ‘per day of storage gas from the
Leidy and Tam Field and 50,000 Mcf per day of
X-20 gas service.
X-20 gas ‘service is a new service from Transcontinental '
and the combines«a firm commitment. for gas for resale
up to sixty days of the year, and a~firm commitment for —
gas for the remaining’ part of the year—gas Saeerere
serviee.
‘
| 3a
e ; °
(122) , 7 Vee
Now .we recognize that that gas. in the transportation
service is bought under contracts in Texas by Consolidated :
Edison to be transported by Transco from producers who :
have made a condition that that. portion of.the gas will :
not be av gilable for resale. of
We als récognize that it involves the use of that portion
of the gas as boilér fuel and if as we will point out through
our witnesses, whatever the questions that may, normally
be raised with respect to conservation views, the views of
the coal interests, that we have a unique problem in New
Yotk City with respect to Smoke control or air pollution,
dias a
.)
‘ 5
so that we are laying right before your Honor.at this’
moment the problem which may be coutroversint and -, |
which we will meet by our testimony. | 7
+ * * * * * o:. . * + 3
:
: 3
.Otto W. Manz, Jr. :
ad was called as a witness and, having been first duly sworn,
“was examined and testified as follows: ;
123
* * * PY < s ‘* * . . °
Direct Examination
By Mr. LeBoeuf:
Q. Will you pléase state your name and address? A. My
name is Otto W. Manz, Jr.
Pa My address is 4 Irving. Place, New York 3, New Taek:
Q. What is your position with Consolidated Edisor |
Company of New York, Inc.?' A. I am executive vice presi-
’ dent of Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc.,._ -
and have been continuously in the employ of the Edison
/ Company or‘its predecessors since 1925
. .
— * * > * > pee . > o
* 68
Q
(126)
125
. « . 's - a - * * « «
; oO. a
. Q. What is the scope of your testimony to be in this
proceeding? A. My testimony. will be directed to a brief
description of the gas supply problems confronting the
company, the plan the company has to meet these problems,
our progress in executing the plan and.the management’s
acasons for adopting the proposed approach. .
Another witness for the company will describe in detail
the underlying economic and physical factors.
. Q. What are the company’s plans? A. For the reasons
I will explain later, the company,
126
wishes to acquire an 180 Mmef/day increasé in gas supply
hefore the 1959-1960 heating season which will comprise
. 60 Mmef of storage service, half from Transcontinental
Gas Pipeline Corporation and half from Tennessee Gas
Transmission Company and by purchasing 120 Mmef of -
X-20 service from. Transcontinental. ’
Q. Will you please describe .what this X-20 service is
that you are seeking in this proceeding? A. This X-20
service is a new service for Transcontinental. : It is essen-
tially tlf.same contract demand service as CD-3 with Con
Edison having the option to receive either gas bought in
- the field by Transcontinental or gas which Con Edison
itself buys in the field and Transcontinental transports to
New. York. -It combines a supply of. firm resale gas for
np to sixty days in. any year with’a firm transportation
service during the balance of the year.
The sixty days’ annual supply of firm’ gas will hisses
a very valuable winter servicé to meet our’ customers’
rapidly increasing hedting loads and the firm. transporta-
tion service will become the basis of what the company
5a bo
< ,
(126) tit
hopes will be a major contribution to combat the shapers |
of air pollution in New York.
Q. How is this rate patterned? A. The rate is pat-
terned after Transcontinental’s CD rate schedule for long
term firm gas.
se
127
Under it, Transcontinental will furnish Con Edison with
gas unrestricted as to end use for as many as sixty days
in each year whenever Con Edison requests it.
Transcontinental will supply this gas from its own re-
. serves thus making it equivalent to firm CD gas both in
price and in availability for unrestricted use to meet gas
system sales.
During the rest of the year, Peeasicntnanil s X-20
service will provide Con Edison with firm transportation
capacity at a price equal to the transportation component .
of the.CD rate.
Transcontinental will use this capacity to transport to
New York gas which Con-Edison has -been able to purchase
advantageously in Texas.
Q. Are there any restrictions on the purchases of gas
which are made en Texas? A. Yes.
That is gas purchased i in Texas fs restricted by contract P
to use as a fuel.
Q. What is the effect of this restriction? A. When it is
“received in New York it will thus become a firm supply of
gas to reduce the objectionable stack emissions from elec-
tric and steam generating plants.
This flexibility of time and type of use at the option of
the Company makes the X-20 service uniquely. adapted to
the best interest of. the community we serve.
j ! 128
Q. How does the company propose to use this additional
‘gas supply? A. The company proposes to use this addi-
6a
' (129)
tional gas supply in a manner beneficial to our gas, elec-
tric and steam consumers and to the general public to meet
three specific problems. eee
Q. What is the first? A. Well, first, winter zas loads
are expected to grow. 100 Mmef/day over the next.three
" years.
Q. What is the second? A. Second, additional gas is”
_ needed to offset losses in existing supply: | :
- (a) 32 Mmef/day of the present supply from Transconti-
nental is temporary and must be replaced by next fall.
(b) The operation of the Hunts Point oil gas plant has
become. uneconomic and impractical. 51 Mmef/day are
needed to permit its retirement next year.
Q. What is the third problem you are trying to solve?
A. Third, the Company’ s mid-Manhattan generating sta-
tions require 120 Mmef per day to provide adequate smoke
control.
25 Mmef per day of this is required at Waterside all
year round.
A eas
By the substitution of oil on cold days when the gas
capacity is required for gas distribution, the other 9%
Mmef per day can be used on an interruptible basis pro-
vided the supply is assured. Thus the same pipeline ca-
pacity which is required to meet the first and second
points above will be adequate to supply the gas for smoke |
control.
Q. What are the economic results of this program, in
your opinion? A. The results of this program are favor-
able to the company. It will reduce capital expenditures
for smoke control by $17,650,000 even after spending $7,-
250,000 for alternate oil burning equipment at East River.
- Angqual operating expenses will he reduced $4,000,000 by
‘Transco’s X-20° service and $610,000 by Transco’s storage
service,
wee Oh) a | 7a
(129) ei ee ;
Together these services will add 150 Mmef of natural’
gas capacity. The company must have this capacity to
meet its gas load and the only practical way to provide it
is with an additional supply of natural gas.
Q. Mr. Manz, ‘will you describe the air pollution prob-
lem to which you earlier referred? -A. The smog condi-
tions which have occurred in several of this country’s
cities have focussed publie attention on the necessity for
controlling air pollution i in major congested areas such as
- the New York region.
Our company has been acutely aware of its responsibili-
ties. We have been under -fire for years to reduce the
smoke coming from the stacks of our generating stations
and have spent over $45 million to improve the condition
of our smoke staeks and plan to spend another $18 million
over the next five vears..
Q. Will you please elaborate? A. A large generating
’ station consumes an enormous amount of fuel. For ex-
ample, the.Company’s two plants at Waterside and East
River each burned over a million and a half tons of coal
in 1957. Such a concentration of coal consumption in any
one place will produce enormous quantities of fly ash
which are difficult to control under the best conditions.
. Smoke control is dependent.on (a) large expenditures of
money, plus (b) adequate ground space. In our newer
stations where -~we. have sufficient room to install large
capacity, modern equipment to clean the smoke, the com-
pariy is able to maintain good control of stack emissions
but it is a difficult matter at Waterside. __
Q. Why? Waterside is the second oldest plant on our
system and is the nearest thing on land to the compact
boiler plant of a battleship. Fifty years ago it had a
rated capacity of 145,500 kw of low pressure steam gen-
8a
a
.
wher ts Ona
(132)
‘erating equipment. Since then its capacity has more than
quadrupled : ;
i. 131
in the same two city blocks to 658,200 kw and in’ addition
it sent out 10 billion pounds of steam in 1957.
Q. Have there been any official requests made of the
company by city officials in regard to smoke control? A.
@The Mayor and the City’s Department of Air Pollution
Control are continuously calling us to task about the stack
emissions at Waterside..
The “Company has installed at. Waterside the most mod-
ern equipment to ‘contro! stack emissions but we have
‘been unable to completely overcome the space limitations.
As you can see from the photographs, Plates 2 through
6, the only direction Waterside can expand is, upward with“
a consequent increase in investment and operating costs.
Con Edison wants to comply with the regulations of the
“wty and the very. legitimate requests of the adjoining
epee owners but we cannot saddle our consumers with
limited costs to obtain this objective. f
Our problem is to strike a reasonable economic balance
between the cost to our, customers and the benefit to the
community.
Q. What in your opinion is the relationship of your
program to the heeds: of the community? A. The gas
supply program I outlined above is the most efficient way
the company has been able to work out to meet the re-
quirements of the community.
It will satisfy the increased gas capacity requirements
for the immediate future and at the same time will provide
the gas needed for smoke control. :
So that stack emission control may be maintained on a
year round basis: and still make this natural gus capacity
9a .
(182)
available to the gas system ig winter, the company plans
to spend’$714 million to install stand by oil burning equip-
ment at the East River Station.
Substituting -oil as a ‘fuel in cold weather will make it
‘possible to transfer 95, Mmef/day of ‘gas capacity to the
gas system on demand. |
- Farthermore the installation of gas and oil barking»
equipment will reinforce the fuel supply to both the Elec-
tric and Steam systems in the event of an interruption of
coal deliveries such as New York has had in the past be-
cause of weather and of strikes.
The company intends to‘retain 25 Mmef per day of gas
for fuel at Waterside on a year round basis under normal
operating conditions.
Of’ course, this 25 Mmef per day gas capacity would be
made available to the yas system in an emergency by sub-
gas.
Q. What is the time schedule on these proposed new
services? A. The — new supplies are acheduled to
‘become
133 ;
available over the next two years. The first fifty Mmef/
day of X-20 service is planned for this: fall. The Com-
pany must have this gas to meet next winter’s load.
It will also provide enough fuel,to correct -the worst:
stack conditions at Waterside but ‘more gas will be re-
quired to correct the East River stack . The
’ 30 Mmef/day of Tennessee Gas Tran
1960 and the company is negotiating to have the service
date advanced to the winter of 1958-1959.
Q. What would be the situation in the fail-or early
winter of 19591
10a
stituting Transco gas for the company purchased Texas “a
ssion storage -
service is expected to be available - for the winter of. 1959-
——o
a : ao (134)
In the fall or early winter of 1959, the 30 Mmef per day .
of Transcontinental storage service-and the 70 Mmef per.
day of balance of the X-20 service are scheduled to become
available .
Q. What is the present status of the Company’ 8 nego-
tiations for these additional amounts of gas or gas service?
A. The present status of the company’s negotiations for
the 180 Mmef per day we will need is agfollows: .
‘*Contracts or precedent qgrecicite which have been
executed with Transcontinental for thirty Mmef per
day of the storage service and for 85 Mmef per day of
the X-20 service. The Company has contracted for
sufficient gas in Texas to- support the Transportation
— 16 :
phase of the X-20 service. Mr. Thomas who partici-
‘Ne
pated in the negotiation of these contracts will describe
them in. more detail i in his testimony.”
The Company’ s Board of Trustees has siitetess the
_ purchase of the storage service from Tennessee. Howev er,
+ - no contracts have been executed yet Negotiations are
also in progress looking to the purchase of 35 Mmef per
“day more gas in Texas to complete the Company’s require-
ments for smoke control.
Q. Have you had any difficulties in connection with the:
operation of your gas peak shaving plants? A. Yes, we
have a major problem confronting the company and it is
the growing impracticability of continuing to operate the
high BTU oil gas peak shaving: plants.
After the introduction of natural gas we found it eco-
nomical to retire the Hunts Point Coke ovens in 1954, and
in 1957, the Pelham and Ravenswood converted water gas
plants.
_ QQ. Do you have &ny plans for the votirensesit of the
> Hunts Point and Astoria Gas plants? A. Yes. It.is highly
lla.
O
_ . to $7.50 for e Mef we made in 1957. Natural gas for .
_
originally designed to ‘produce water gas of 537 Btu per
te
(194)
important that Hunts Point and Astoria Gas plants be
‘retired as soon as alternate capacity can be provided.
Q. Why? A. The remaining equipment in these —_—
was
135
cubic foot.
When the Company changed over to natural gas distri-
bution, the » ster gas sets were converted for high Btu oil
gas operation at approximately 1000 Btu /cubic foot. ir
operation has always proved difficult. There are many
maintenance problems if, the sets are run for any length
of time and the output leaves much to be. desired on the
grounds of interchangeability with natural gas.
Gas leak calls ‘to our emergency forces always show a _
marked increase when oil gas is made. Oil gas plants are
also very expensive. Taxés and other fixed charges are
disproportionately high.
Our out of ket operating expenses pen amounted
the same use will cost ‘34.2 cents per mef under the X-20 . |
service.
Q. Do you have a trained manpower problem? re That
vis one of our most troublesome problems and it has to do
with the maintenance of trained manpower needed to op-
erate these high Btu oil gas plants. —
In 1949 the company had nearly 2,000 men working in
the gas plants.
Since that time the force has decreased steadily until
at the end of 1957 it was 117 men.
In addition some 400 gas men are reassigned in the
system
138
to positions where they can be recalled for peak shaving’
operations.
Rigeecegss, "Wad
>
2
.
pid a ei ee ote ic
a ve ¢
ee a ae ae ee 7
(137)
Sinee full operation of the Hunts Point and. Astoria
_ Stations requires.450 men, it is obvious that the operation
of the oil sets.in these plants is becoming more and more
diffeult. The complications - involv ed in transferring
trained operators’ on short. notice will in the very near
future make continued maintenance of these ors wholly
impractical.
‘The: manning of oil sets for peak shaving requires a
careful and up to date record of every man’s work loca-
tion and shift assignment so that he can be reached on
short notice at work or at home. The attrition of expéri-
enced supervisors as well as operating personnel already
requires 12 hour daily shifts when-these plants go on the
line,
Q. Does this condition affect. the proficiency of the em-
ployees? A. Well, even the most. experienced operators
tend to lose their interest and their proficiency in the work
when the plants are only operated for a few days a year.
These plants were kept constantly ready for operation
this winter, yet were operated on only eight days.
Also these men normally work on shifts in other depart-
ments’and must be relieved on an overtime basis. The
present plan envisages the retirement of the Hunts Point
plant late in 1959 and aa Company proposes to retire the.
Astoria Plant
137
whe n the necessary alternate capacity can be provided. »
_Q. Turning baek to the air pollution matter what has
the company done to.meet this problem?
Objectionable stack emissions from generating stations
_- within the city limits is a serious community problem and
the company has been working for years trying to find a
solution at a cost the public can afford.
The company installed the most modern and efficient.
13a
(137) , 4
dust collecting. equipment available at the time each new
boiler .was installed.
Present practice is to pass flue gases through both 1 me-
chanical and.electrie dust removers ‘in series. These do a
very efficient job when they are designed as.an integral
' part of a new station and where there is room to build
them large enough. ~
. Many of the boilers at the Hudson Avenue and Hell Gate
stations have been converted to use oil for fuel rather
than coal as a means of reducing stack emissions. Human
error is reduced. to a minimum by the use of television sets
which show the boiler operators the conditions of -the
stacks at all times.
. Q. What is the situation specifically at your Waterside
and East River plantst .A. The situation is difficult at
Waterside and East River where the plants were built
many years ago, in the heart of congested Manhattan. |
ms , “ye | 138 Y . \
The Waterside station when it was built 57 years ago, ©
. for example, occupied an undesirable piece of —
alongside the slaughter houses. ~ \.
In the intervening years a new city hes been built up\ :
around it. The slaughter houses have been replaced by \ ”
the new United Nations building and modern residential — \,
_apartments of Tudor City direetly across the street.
Similarly, slum clearance projects have located modern.
apartment houses tothe South and West of the East River
station.
Obviously,. it made little difference to the public at the
time these stations were built what. fuel was used-or how
it was burned. - :
Now, however, anything short of the most efficient mod-
ern methods of controlling stack emissions’ will seriously
inconvenience the publie. |
Q. What is the output of these two stations, Waterside
l4a
_ 1958.
(139)
and East River? A. These two stations produce 13 billion
pounds or 65 per cent of the steam sold by the company
in 1957, and they were expected to produce 75 per cent in
It is more desirable from the public viewpoint to pro-
duce the combined heating need of 2870 buildings at a
few efficient plants than in each individual building.
Waterside and East River also-supplied six billion kwh
' 139 | ee
or 39 per cent of the electricity generated in Company
plants.
The steam distributed from these plants is in general .
used for the. same services as the gas the Company sells,
and the annual°sendout is equivalent to the gas sent out
for the total residential heating. ;
Presently, the fuel normally used at these stations is
coal supplemented by small quantites of gas from the local
distribution system used principally for ignition purposés.
When part of the coal is replaced hy. gas and oil to re-
duce smoke as the Company proposes here 49 per cent of
the fuel will be gas, .2 per cent will be oil and coal will
still supply about half of the total fuel. |
Q. In dealing with this meeting of the smoke control
problem you. have constantly referred to the space for the
plants in congested. areas. - j .
What is the specific condition at Waterside? A. The
iN topping installation at Waterside whereby high pressure
_ turbines were superimposed on existing low pressure tur-*
bines to improve the economy of operation and to con-
"Serve space was startéd in 1937 and is one of the first large
seale projects of its kind to be attempted in this country. |
It was further complicated by the rigid space restric-
tions, ite naturally some of .the le +l have
caused us ‘operating problems. |
After years of experimentation with various methods of
15a
°
4140) a
- * 140
smoke control the Company is,convinced that it would be
necessary to rebuild two large boilers at Waterside at a cost
. of $12 million if smoke is to be held within satisfactory
limits when-coal is used as a fuel.
Furthermore, the rebuilding job would take two years for
each boiler. This high cost results from the crowded and
inadequate space conditions at this plant. ‘
Q. Aside from cost would it be feasible at this time to
rebuild these boilers? A. The company. lacks the reserves
to take this capacity off the system for four years and at
the same time to maintain electric and stenms service to
the public. ; r
The 50 Mmef per ‘day of X-20 service which Transcon-
tinental is asking: approval for in this docket will
provide enough gas 2t an economical price to alleviate the .
* worst smoke conditions at Waterside.
Q. Will you turn to plate 9 of your exhibit 22 and ex-
plain its. significance in connection with the air pollution
- problem? A. Plate 9 of our exhibit No. 22 which will be
testified to by Mr. Thomas shows the present hourly fly
ash ‘coming out of the stacks at Waterside station.
You will notice that over half of the total fly ash from the
whole station originates in Boilers 71 and 72. That is the
third column from the left on Plate 9—and
14]
they also contribute over eighty per cent of the unburned
carbon—the next column fourth from the left,—the in-
gredient which makes smoke objectionable to the housewife.
Flue gases from these boilers now pass throygh mechap-
ieal dust collectors to remove the larger particles and then
through electric precipitators to remove the smaller fly ash.
In spite of this, there is still so much residue that the
residents of Tudor City have complained to the Department .
16a
(142)
of Air Pollution Control demanding better céntrol of objec- ~
tionable stack emission. a a
The company is willing and anxious to take all reasenable
steps to reduce these stack emissions but we must find some.
way of doing this at a price our customers can afford.
- Our proposal is to fire these boilers with gas all the year
round. This plate shows that the use of gas will eliminate
both the fly ash and unburned carbon. era
Q. What would be-the’ effect of converting to gas firing
the East River boilers using Stacks"1-and 2. A. By con-
verting to gas firing the East River Boilers’ using stacks
{ and 2, the total fly ash emitted by that station can reduced
', by 58 per cent and unburned carbon by 84 per cent. ©...
_ ’ The additional 70 Mmef per day of X-20 service planned“...
for the fall of 1959 will permit the extension of the smoke "
control program to East River. , ;
'- Coupled with the installation’ of standby oil burning
142
equipment, the X-20 service will provide 95 Mmef per day of
effective capacity for the gas system. he |
Q. Mr. Manz, will you turn to the paragraphs which I
helieve are plates 2 to 6 of Exhibit 22 and I first vall_ your
attention to plate 2 which is an. aerial photograph of Man.
@. hattan Island in part, and will you describe the conditions
that are relevant to the testimony you have just given? A.. _
Well, the river to the left is the North or Hudson River, and :
. the River to the right is the East River. — 7 Aer
- On the East River halfway up the photograph with smoke
coring out of its stacks is the East River Station at 14th
Street and the East River.
_ And follow up the shore line of the East River a little
= further up in the photograph, we can find a smudge which
indicates Waterside station, and that single white line about
@ quarter of an inch tall and pencil, pencil lead thickness is
17a
(142). ce eel ens
the United Nations building at 43d Street cand the Eat
- River.
Q. What is the area type of contsruction that you | sée in
_ the taller buildings along the East River, both north and
south: of the East River plant? A. Those buildings are
housing developments, multi-family dwellings ranging from
eight:to 12 and 15 stories in height.
Q. Will you turn to — 3 of exhibit 22 and will you
143
identify the peer area that is jniaaieiil by this photo-
graph? A. Weil, this photo®raph shows the characteristics
of Mid-Manhattan: The tall-building in the center of the ©
photograph with the spire is the Chrysler Building. ~
’ To the right one ean see the United Nations Building,
' and then further to the right the. threg Stacks on our Water-
side station.
: Directly between the United Nations building and our
plant you'see the tall buildings of Tudor City.
Q. ‘And this generally describes, does it not, the conges- .
tion of important buildings in that area, both residential
and office? A. It does.
Q. Turn to plate 4. That relates to Waterside again,
does it not? -A. It does. It is a night shot photograph
- taken from across the East River, facing the West and
shows the proximity of the United Nations buildings to our
Waterside station.
Q. Turn to plate 5, will you give the approximate loca-
tion of that? A. This is another night photograph taken
along First Avenue facing south. -
The United Nations is on the left, our Wageestae—
144
plant = stacks are in'the center of the picture.
‘Q. One of the three stacks seems to be "smoking more
than the other two.
18a
2
SP Ae yee ees ee ee
- <a
(146)
Does that stack have any relationship: to your specific
testimony? A.. Yes, it does.
Q. What is that? A. That is the so-called East stack of
Waterside 2 and that is the smoke stack which ieee the
flue gases from boilers 71 and 72. ;
Q. Which are the ones which if these approvals are ob-
tained would be converted to gas service? A. That is right.’
Q. The last photograph, I believe is the plate 6 and I.
wonder what significance that has.
It shows Waterside again, of course, but what _ you.
point out with respect to that scene? A. I point out again
' this part of Manhattan is‘congested and that the building
‘is. upward and Waterside, if it is to expand at all, has to
* expand upward if at all possible.
Q. Are there other advantages to the community from
this Transco proposal on which you have not attempted
to place a dollar value? A. Yes, definitely there are other:
advantages to
"145
New York City from Transco’s proposal i in this docket and
which I have not attempted a dollar value.
For example, the reliability of both gas and electric sery-
ice will be improved. ee i
The program Transcontinental - is ‘proposing here will
essentially complete the looping of their lines from their
supply areas im Louisiana and Texas to the New York mar-
ket. or
As Transcontinental’s s witness have pointed oat’ in this
docket and previous dockets, the completion ‘of the looping
program will greatly improve New York’s assurance of
continued uninterrupted supply.
146
Q. What is your opinion as to ‘the importance of the
ae. river crossing of the Hudson River near Seventy-
198 | ‘
(146)
third Street to the community which you: :and the other gas
companies serve? A. The third crossing of the’ Hudson
. River near Seventy-Third Street which “Transcontinental
has agreed to install will provide enough additional ca-
pacity to carry the total load of the New York companies
under emergency conditions with one pipe line crossing the
Hudson River out of service. Our management regards
this additional crossing as a very important safety and
reliability factor to its customers, and- the general public
and the.metrg@politan area in New York quite aside from its:
economic advantages.
. Q. Are there other advantages in your opinion? A. As
can be seen from the map on plate 1, Con-Edison will con-
nect the new source of supply with the backbone of the
New York facilities by constructing a new pressure gas.
main across Manhattan through te Ravenwood Tunnel
under the East River. Thus the new supply will be made
directly accessible to the two Brooklyn companies and
.: Long Island, where it can be used to meet their growing
loads on an economic basis. Where the main crosses Man-
~ hattan Con-Edison will tap it to reinforce the gas distribu-
tion system and to supply the Waterside and East River
- stations. The introduction of gas at Waterside and Kast -
River stations will
147
give them another independent source of fuel which will
not be subject to interruption due to the weather or other
factors which have in the past caused interruptions to our
fuel.
What is Con Edison’s speciiie interest in ~ 8 cur-.
_ rent application? A. It is a necessary first step in the com-
* pany’s program outlined above. The capacity provided
by the X-20 service is required to meet next winter’s gas
load. It will reduce emissions at Waterside to an acceptable
20a
eee ee) wee wee Te SY PT ee) eee wt vA
(148)
le vel and will produce half the “ia savings associated
with this program. In addition, operating expenses will |
‘be reduced $1,820,000 per ygar and the savings of $610,000
per year from the storage #@rvice will also be realized.
Q. Mr. Manz, when you went into this program, did you
and the management of your company consider the objec-
tions which undoubtedly would be raised from the purchase _
of large amounts of gas for boiler fuel? A. I realize that
the purchase of large amounts of gas for use as fuel in
‘ electric generating plants often raises objections, and ave
have not gone into our program of the direct purchase of
gas in the Senthwest for this purpose without weighing
such possible objections against “the advantages which will
be-realized by our gas, electric and steam chstomers and
by the general public in the New York City Metropolitan
area. Our conclusion, for the reasons stated, is that the
benefits to the broad -publie interest
- 148
in our peculiar situation far outweight such merits as there
may be in the view of such objectors.
Q. In this process of weighing, have you considéred the
effect of your plans on the interests of the coal- producers
and workers? A. Yes, we have, I am informed that the
coal interests have participated in most of these proceedings
to show the hardships involved in the loss of their estab-
lished coal market to natural gas. The use of gas as a fuel
for smoke control purposes will not of itself be the cause
of a loss of market to the coal companies. If Transco is
not authorized to transport our Texas purchased gas, Con
_ Edison will be under great pressure to convert the East
River and Waterside plants to oil operation as an alter.
nate means of smoke control: In that event, our coal- sup-
yliers would lose the market represented by our proposed
conversion to gas in these plants. It would, therefore, seem
2la |
og
(148)
oe to them whether this loss seiddite from the sub-
stitution of gas or oil.
Q. Have you considered the conservation viewpoint which
at times has questioned the use of. natural gas for boiler
fuel? A. Yes, ve recognize that another opposition, which
‘has been called the conservationist viewpoint, wishes’ to.
preserve all natural gas for the benefit of the ultimate small
gas user. I read with interest Commissioner Connole’s
. speech = pede ne 5 ;
|. 149
reported in Public Utilities Reports on this subject. Natu-
rally, I have given careful study to his exposition for which
I have’ great respect.
However, the situation that we have at our Waterside and
East River plants, as I have already- pointed out, is such
that the only practical method of satisfactorily solving the
stack discharge problem is by substituting gas or oil in
place of coal as a fuel. ,
The convenient portability of oil, which goes with its
liguid form gives it an especial value as a fuel for many uses
and it is difficult to see, from a conservation standpoint, —
how there is anything to be gained from denying the use of
gas only to force the use of oil as a result. This seems
especially to be emphasized in view of the fact that statistics
indicate that the proved reserves of oil i in this country are
relatively less abundant than gas.
It must be borne in mind that we have in New York the.
densest population in the world. We also have adjacent to :
our Watergide Plant the international territory of _ the
_United Nations. . I submit that the need for avoidance of
smoke pollution in such an area is unique, that under the
circumstances the conservation of a wholesome atmosphere
_ should not be abandoned in favor of a fuel conservation
policy which without broader implementation than is pos- _
sible under present law may prove to be illusory.
22a
4} “ . y
ee EE ee Oe ee Eee Ce eee ee eee eee
(156)
. 150
The relief which we seek to provide from the burden of
atmospheric pollution is so clearly in the public interest
that it ought not to be denied for the sake of some future
public benefit which today can hardly be soundly evaluated.
For these reasons, it is my opinion that the broad public
interest is better served by the use of this gas in the manner zs
proposed in our plants rather than by its retention in the
ground for the theoretical exclusive use of the domestic gas
customers of some period in the future when heat and other
forma of energy may well be provided in some better man-
ner. ,
155
Mr. Jerome McGrath: Taking the Waterside plant first,
the natural gas used at that plant plus oi] would replace
coal altogether, is that correct?
The Witness: Waterside consists—Waterside station is
two city blocks, and there is Waterside 1 and Waterside 2,
and Waterside 2 is the older station where those topping»
units are.” Waterside 1 has beeh modernized more recently, :
and the boilers that serve Waterside 1 have adequate pre-
cipitation and fly ash removal equipment, so that the stack
* emissions in Waterside 1 are meeting the air pollution Com-
mission’s requirements,
156.
°
_ So that there would be no coal replaced in Waterside 1.
Waterside 2, the chief offenders are the boilers 70 and 71,
or 71 and 72 that were the last of eight boilers installed in
Waterside 2 from the.period 1937 on through 1942, I have
forgotten the exact year. And those two boilers are the
ones we want'to fix up first.
23a
(157) |
~ 157.
Mr. Jerome McGrath: As I understand your testimony,
and I wish you would correct me if I am wrong, the 50,000
Mefa day that you are seeking here under your transporta- -
tion service and under the X-20 rate from Transcontinental
would be used to convert the two boilers at Waterside num-
bers 71 and 72, and the boilers at East River, whatever their
numbers may be—
- The Witness: One to nine. :
Mr. Jerome McGrath: One to nine—as an initial step in
your, smoke abatement program, am I correct or incorrect
in that?
The Witness: You are incorrect: We would plan to con-
vert Waterside first, and the 50 Mmef per day would con-
vert all eight boilers in Waterside to gas firing.
158
Mr. Jerome McGrath: So that as far as the present pro-
ceedings are concerned, the Waterside plant is the only one
that you are concerned with in getting gas, in other words,
ws far as the instant proceedings are concerned?
The Witness: Exeept that we are putting forth our whole
program here, knowing that sooner or later we will have te
‘ take care of East River.
Mr. Jerome MecGirath:-But so far as seeking authoriza-
tion from the Federal Power Commission is concerned, and
the transportation of 50,000 Mcf per day, you are not in-
chiding any gas in there for the East River conversion, is
that correct?
The Witness: That is right.
163. .
was called as a witness and, after being first duly sworn;
was examined and testified as follows: - °
Direct Examination gat Bet
"By Mr. LeBoeuf:
Q. Mr. Thomas, will you give your name and address?
A. My name is Atherton Thomas. My address.is 4 Irving.
Place, New York 3, N. Y.
Q. What is your position with Consolidated Edison Com- _
pany? A. Tam Assistant to the Vice President, and have
heen in the employ of the company since 1924. —
. e e ° . ° . @ e |
165 :
Q. And to what does your testimony today relate? A.
My testimony relates to Exhibit No. 22 for identification.
entitled ‘* Natural Gas Requirements of Consolidated Edison
Company of New York, Ine.”’
The map, photographs and tables supporting and illus-
trating the testimony of Mr. Manz and myself are gathered
together in the exhibit as a mattér of convenience. I am
responsible for Exhibit 22 which was prepared under my
supervision and direction.
« : 168 :
Q. Will you please deseribe plate No. 7? A. Plate 7 fs
a simplified diagram of the Waterside Steam system. It
illustrates two points discussed by Mr. Manz, first, steam
generated in the individual boilers passes through high
pressure turbines into'a 200 Psi common header or piping
system, that is, 200 pounds per square inch pressure, where
25a
» .
(168) .
atta
part of it goes into the district steam distribution system,
and part of it ix used to generate electricity in the - low
pressure turbine.
Seegnd the, products of combustion pass —_ boiler
through the precipitators or dust collectors where most of
the solid matter is removed from the smoke which ‘then |
goes up the stacks in the atmosphere.
. | 169 ;
The dashed dotted line running up and down the middle
of the plants is simply to indicate that physically stack No. ©
3 is offset from stacks | and 2, that is, the three stacks are
not located in a straight line.
As brought out by Mr. Manz, the lack of space and ¢om-
pactness of construction ne expansion in any but a —
vertical di rection. .
_Q. Will -you turn to a describe. plate st A. 8 also”
‘relates to Waterside. °
It shows .in seme what more detail how the hot gases
leaving the boiler furnace first pass through primary and
secondary mechanical dust collectors where the o larger par-
ticles settle out.
After that electrostatic precipitators attract t the smaller
particles, thus preventing they _from. reaching the atmos-
phere through the stacks. —
The diagranr shows how the dust collecting system on
Waterside stacks numbered one and two.actually work.:
These precipitators remove 97.5 per cent by weight of
fly ash in stack | and 94 per cent in stack No. 2.
You will notice how much less effective the particle re-
moval is on boilers 71, and 72, where only 89 and one-half
per cent of the fly ash is taken-out of the flue gases.
That .you will notice in plate 9.
In contrast, over 98 per cent is removed from the flue
gases in the other two boilers connected to the
- Ba :
Se eS | ee
(173)
4
.170
same stack. | : ;
. The necessity to reduce the emission from boilers 71 and
72 at Waterside is the reason the company proposes to fire
these boilers with gas continuously. |
While this explanation refers only to Waterside, the
principal is the same at East River, although the physical
; arrangement is somewhat different and more complicated.
Q. Will you pleasé explain Plate 91 A. Plate 9 shows
the quantity of the fly ash that escapes through the pre-
cipitation and into the tmosphere from each stack at
Waterside and at’ Fast River. Under present conditions
when only coal is burned at Waterside, 1121 pounds of fly
ash reach the air in an average hour.
Of this 269 pounds are unburned carbon.
When gas is substituted for coal on boilers 71 and 72
ax we propose-al'the year around, the total fly ash reach-
“ing the air will be reduced by fifty per cent, and the un-
burned carbon by 81 per cent. ‘ |
- During most of 1959 it will be possible to fire all the
heilers exhausting into stacks No. 1 and 2 with gas,.there-
hy redueirf® the fly ash by 85 per cent, and the unburned
carbon by 97 per cent to-a mere 8 pounds per hours.
Similarly, when gas burning is extended to East River, —
total stack emission at that station will be reduced by 58
per cent, and unburned carbon: by 84 per cent. rs)
| 173
Q. Would you return to plate 13 and discuss the plate _
“8 little more? A. Yes, sir. :
Plate 13 shows how the company proposes to supply the .
peak day gas load shown on plate 12, ;
Lines 1 through 6 show Consolidated Edison’s present
firm supply.
Cc
27a
(173) ;
Starting next winter, the company Will have long term
contracts for a hundred per cent load factor gas amounting
to 169.3 Mmef per day, of which wauaaee supplies 143.7 .
Mmef, and Tennessee 25.6 Minef.
That is on lines 1 and 2.
The Company’s Hunts Point and _Astoria converted
oil gas en - the liquid propane air instalation
= "4
174
at Pelham, have a rated capacity of 123.3 Mmef in 1958-
1959.
When Hunts Point is retired in 1959, this daily capacity
will become 70.3 Mnicf.
That data is on line 3. |
Line 7 shows our peak day requirements at the design
temperature of zero degrees Farenheit.
The last three columns of figures in line 9 show-that the | |
company must find new supplies of at least 54.4 Mmef per
day to earry the load next winter, and at least 155.4 Mmef- —
per day by the winter of 1960-1961. |
The remainder of the table shows how the. Company pro-
‘poses to arrange for the new supplies.
_ First, lines 10, 11 and 12 show me new supplies we have
already contracted for. :
Lines 10 and 11 are the 30 Mmef per ai of storage serv-
ice, and the 50 Mmef of X-20 service for which Transco is
asking approval in this docket, and these are the same
- items that Mr. MeGrath asked Mr. Manz about.
Line 12 is the additional 35 Mmef per day of X-20 service
which Transco has already agreed to supply us next year.
_ Lines 15 and 16 show the additional purchases the com-
pany is now negotiating for namely 30 Mmef per day of
storage from Tennessee and 35 Mmef per day of X-2
service from Transco.
Q. What is the firm gas,supply in the winter of 1957-
28a
(176)
: 175 :
1958? A. The firm gas supply this winter amounts to 201.3
Minef per day, plus avhigh Btu ail peak shaving capacity of
121.3 Mmef. » * poe
The total of 322.6 Mmef provides a reserve of 27.6 Mmncf
per day over the load exposure of 295 Mmcf, ,
The company considers this an adequate reserve.
The 201.3 Mmef of gas supply comprises 169.3 Mmef
of long-term firm gas, of Which Transcontinental supplies
. 143.7 Mmef, and Tennessee 25.6 Mmef,
The other 32 Mmef is tenrporarily from. Trariscontinental,
and will be available only this Winter... '
Replacement of the temporary supply, plus the antici-
pated load growth this year, results in the need to acquire.
a minimum new supply of 54.5 Mmef per day to meet the
gas load exposure in the winter of 1958-1959. tds
This load contemplates the year around use of 25 Mmef
for establishing stack control at Waterside. ©
Q. What are the company’s plans for the winter of 1958-
1959? A: The company plans to obtain a new supply for
next winter by purchasing fifty: Mmef of X-20 service which
Transcontinental propdses to sell it in this proceeding.
“This purchase will at the same time remedy the worst
stack emissions at Waterside whieh, Mr. Manz has ex-
- plained, ae
176. 3
Wwe must do to comply with.the publie interest in a cleaner
New York.: :
Q. Has the contract for the 50 MMCF X.-20 service been
signed? A. Yes, it has been signed with Transcontinental
- and appears at section 1 of exhibit 18.
- ’ Under it, Transcontinental will supply from their own
reserves resale gas which will provide the winter needs
of the gas system. : | 3 ;
The same contracts also provide transportation for the
29a °
qm os
gas the company has bought in-‘Texas, which can be used
only for fuel in the electric and steam stations.
_ Fhe restriction as to end use was insisted on by the
producers selling the gas, and Con Edison wanted a firm
’ supply of gas for use in smoke-control, which it cannot be |
assured of with gas bought under Transco’s CD rate
schedule.
@ e -*e 8 6 . ° s es. a
| 178
Q. Will the 180 Mmef day gas supply program you have
179 .
outlined, when and if completed and duly approved, meet
Con Edison’s objectives as described by Mr. Manz? A.
Yes, sir. The gas system load requirement will then be
taken care of and the company will have about the same
_ margin of reserve in the winter of 1960-1961 as it has this
winter.
Point oil- gas plant can be retired.
e o . eo o ° a, ° e «
a / |
Q. What is the importance of the’ X-20 service to Con
Edison’s program? _ A. It is the essential component of
Con Edison’s supply program. Three separate but related
agreements have been made.
The central agreement, Section 1, Exhibit. 18, is a con- |
Transcontinental’s looping programy proposed in this doc
ket is completed. A letter of intent executed by both Tran
continental and Con Edison provides for another 35 MMef
per day. of X-20 service in the fall of 1959.
e . oe oe > . oe @ e e
e
30a
* tract for 50 MMef of X-20 service to start this fall "o
- Enough ens gas will be available to* cuit the air pollu-
tion problems at Waterside and East River, and the Hunts"
—_—— |
(184)
Q. What does the X-20 contract provide as to Transco’s
responsibility to furnish gas for resale? ,
183
A. The X-20 contract provides that Transco will be ready
at Con Edison’s request to provide the daily contract quan-
tity of CD gas on 60 days in any calendar year. The com-
pany’s engineering studies show, and we have so advised °.
Transcontinental, that. over the life of the contract, Trans-
continental would be expected to supply under this provi-
sion about 5 percent of the total gas delivered. As shown
on Plate 18, the use in any one winter can be expected to |
_ , vary widely depending on the weather. ;
However, over the life of the contract, it is estimated
that the average use will be in the order of 5 percent. This
gas, that is, the gas supplied by Transco’s own reserves, |
will cost Con Edison 34.23 cents per Mef. This is the rate -
' Con Edison is now paying Transco for long-term CD:3 gas
taken at a 100 percent annual load factor. It is made up
of a commodity charge of 25, cents, and a monthly demand
charge of $2.806 per Mef, which equals the total cost of
34.23 cents at a 100 percent. load factor. ae
The firm transportation charge which Transco makes
to Con Edison comprises a commodity charge of 14.15 cents
per Mef, and the same monthly demand charge as in the (CD
rate, $2.806 per Mef; which equals a total price of 23.38
cents at a 100 percent load factor. | |
° 184.
Make-up transportation capacity on an interruptible basis
will cost 19.5 cents per Mef.
* ° ° ee « ° * e: ° e
3la a
(186).
;
: 186
—. Q What isthe fact as to the mid-Manhattan concentra-
tion of electric and steam loads on Con Edison’s system? —
A. The mid-Manhattan area has the greatest concentra-
tion of electric and steaimoads on our system. The Water-
side and: East River stations are located in the heart of .
this area, and are major sources-ef energy for our system.
Together these plants produce 13,211,000,000 pounds of .
steam, or 65 percent of the company’s. total.steam send-out —
in 1957 6,127,000,000 kilowatt hours, or 39 pertent of the
company’s net electric generation. .
In s6 doing, they burned 3,297,000 tons of coal and 1 454
-MMef of gas in 1957. A small amount of oil was also used
for test purposes. That is, over 98 percent of the total
energy input to these plants came from coal.
187
Q. If you alee the 120 MMcf per day which the company
proposes to use for smoke control, how much coal will it .
replace?. A. 120°MMef per day will replace 1,611,000 tons
of coal annually, or forty-nine per cent of the present coal
used at the Waterside and East River station,
Mr. Jerome McGrath: What was that —
ihe Witness: 48 per cent.
By Mr. LeBoeuf:
~ Q. Over and above the physical necessity of having
adequate supply to meet the gas loads and to furnish aceu-
rate method of reducing objec ‘tionable stack emission, will
the company realize substantial financial savings from the “
‘service requested ines aie wine A. Yes, _ Sir, wry
substantial.
Q. Please explain. A. On plates 19 through 23 we show
the tionétary savings which will result from the program
as estimated. by our cost system engineering depaftment.
32a
-«
boats bic, - ce: as 5
PE ae Ov, ae ae ee ee ee oe ae
F
;
+
:
F
=e oa " .
IPT EC ee
(188)
| have reviewed the computations’ and agree with the
methods used and with the results. |
Plate 19 shows the capital savings from the program
would amount to $17,650,000 even: after: providing . seven
and a quarter million dollars for the installation of standby
oil burning equipment at East River.
Plate’ No. 20 shows that $19,650,000 of the total savings
188
on plate’ 19 are associated with the first 50. MMef per day of
X-twenty service, which Transcontinental is* asking ap-
proval. for in, this docket. .- : |
This plate 20 shows that it would’ cost $12 million to:
rebuild No..71 and No. 72 boilers at Water side. Against
this it would only cost $1,850,000 to convert eight boilers to
. gas burners. : 3,
. The extension of the high pressure main down first
_ Avenue is expected to cost $1-million, half of which is
chargeable to reénforcement of the local gas distribution
system, and the other half to the Waterside installation.
In the company’s opinion, the, X-20 gas will not only
satisfy.the need for clearing up stack conditions, but as
. these plates show, will also realize very substantial savings
in capital. eee | :
The annual operating savings from the X-20 service are
expected to amount to $4 million in 1959-60. —
That’ is on plate 21.. as
‘Iti answer: to one of the question which was raised by, | -
believe, Mr. Brunner, this $4 million saving is calculated -
assuming that the gas replaces coal.’ If it were calculated
against. burning oil at’ East River, it would be approxi-
_ mately’ another million dollars. a year saving to our
‘customers. : :
Mr. Brunner: I think I interpret your testimony cor-
33a
(188)
_reetly. In other words, if you utilize oil instead of coal,
- you would save $5 million instead of $4 million.
! 189.
The Witness: No, sir. If we utilized the gas—if we
utilized oil as against coal, it would cost us another million ~
dollars a year at East River. And our savings by utilizing
gas would then be $5 million instead of $4 million dollars a
year. ’
By Mr. LeBoeuf: : Le
Please pr . A. Plate 22 shows that $1,820,000 of
this will be kealized.in 1958-1959, when the first 50 MMef
of X-20 service becomes available. That is the amount of |
_ X-20 service under consideration in this proceeding.
« The Transcontinental storage service will produce addi-
tional annual savings of $610,000 per year. That. is on
plate 23.
Q. Please give your opinion as to the importance to
Con Edison of ‘the completion of Transcontinental’s pro-.
gram. A. Well, these monetary savings alone, irrespective
of the other advantages presented by Mr. Manz, constitute
a very persuasive reason for approving Transcontinental’s
application in this docket. . ;
But, as I have shown above, the company’s natural gas
system must have the new capacity contemplated in this
program if we are to meet our customers load. .
The cost of building a combination of oil gas plant and
Jiquid.propane air plant as an alternate ~way to provide the
needed capacity is so great that residential gas heating
would = if ens
190
be priced out of the New York market in avery short time.
The need to maintain a healthy and efficient gas service
must be added to the purely monetary savings described’
above.
&
34a
.
ee Se ee ee ne ee
(198)
Mr. Le Boeuf: That finishes the direct testimony of Mr.
-Thomas, Mr. Examiner. .
Presiding Examiner: Do you have some questions, Mr.
. Brunner?
.. Mr. Brunner: Just,one question.
Now, tell me, after what you have said here, how will
‘the public and the customer companies and the consumers
benefit if these projects go forward from your viewpoint?
And by these projects, I am thinking in terms of Trans-
continental’s project and the company project of Consoli-
dated Edison, it may be self evident from the record, but
I would like to hear it-from you. “
The Witness: From-the point of view of Con Edison, we
_first have to have this capacjty to.meet our gas loads.
Second, we have to-do something to control this smoke
pollution problem. And third,’ we have to get started on
retiring these old gas plants. ;
All of those savings are.going to mean better service to
our customers and better reliability. : .
On top of that, we have these rather huge sums of money
which are going to be saved.* Part of them, the direct sav-
ings in fuel, of course, as vou know, go to our customers in.
the ;
191
.dutomatic operation of our fuel cost: |
The rest, under the close regulation. which we have from
the New York Public Service Commission, will either result
in a’'reduction in rates to our customers eventually, or the
postponement of a rate increase which we might otherwise
have to make: ;
. 5 es _ ° * ° ° * .
a 198
. Mr. Jerome MeGrath: So that your gas cost for the gas
that would be used in the boilers would be 42.63 cents per
Mef? . , ;
«35a
og)
(198)
The Witness: For that portion alone.
Mr. Jerome McGrath: What is the average cost of coal .
in those plants per million Btu?
199
The Witness: Well, the comparative figure is that the gas
is approximately 41 cents a, million Btu, and the cost of
*
coal is about 42.6 cents a million Btu.
> *
. 2 . © _-¢ e”* * 2. * - a
“Mr, Jero ne MeGrath: Is the 41-cent figure, which is
lower than the 42.63 cents you ‘mentioned earlier, arrived at
because of the higher Btu, higher than 1,000 Btu?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
Mr. Jerome McGrath: And when you say that the Water-
side plant would use 25 MMef per day, you are speaking of
the peak day? :
- The Witness: [ am speaking of the amount of gas which
we want to reserve on a peak day for the 71 and 72 boilers.
was called as a witness and, after. being first duly sworn,
was examined and testifiéd as follows:
209 ©
Direct Examination
By Mr. Howley:
Q. Will vou kindly state your name and address? A.
My name is Leonard Greenburg. My address is 44 West
77th Street, New York City. Fees
36a
TL ==
(210)
Q. Will vou. state what at the present time is your offi-
. cial position? A. Well at the present time I am Commis- .
sioner of the Department of Air Pollution Control -of. the
_ City of New York. Originally I was appointed to.this-post
in 4952 by the then mayor of New York City, and I have
since heen reappointed ‘twice in accordance with the pro-
visions of Chapter 47 of the New York City Charter,
Section 1071 A, which sets forth the professional qualifi-
cations for this post and which I fulfill.
Q. Will you set forth, ‘please, your education and the
high points of your experience? A.-Well, I am a graduate
of the Columbia University School of Mines, Engineering
and Chemistry, in-1915, with a degree of Civil. Engineer,
and subsequently T was a student at the Yale University -
(iraduate School where I took a Ph. D. in Public Health:
_ atid subsequently in 1930 I took an M. D. at the Yale Medical
a)
School.
During the course of my professional life, I have engaged —
chiefly in public health activities of various kinds. I was
in the United States Publie Health Service for some 14
vears, -I ‘
210
was Héalth Commisioner of the City of New Haven for a
vear-and a half. I specialized; while in the Public Health
Service, in occupational disease prevention and industrial
hygiene, >And later on, for 17 years, I was.in charge of
industrial hygiene for the State of New York, and then in
. 192 T took this present position as Commissioner of Air
Pollution Control. : }
Q. Are you, in addition to being a licensed physician,
also a licensed engineer? A. Yes, I arn a licensed engineer,
professional engineer, in the State of New York. My license .
number is 17465. That was obtained in 1937. And I am a
licensed physician in the State of New York, license number
37a
» %
(210)
24875; and g liesensed physician in the State of Connecticut,
203172. . |
Q. Will you state ‘your university affiliations? A. Well,
| have had, over the past many years,’ many university
affiliations. For approximately 15 to 20 years I was on the
teaching staff at Yale, and I finally finished up there in
about 1945 as clinical professor of public health. '. Since
that time in New York City | have been on the teaching.
. staff at Columbia, and now I am on the teaching staff at
New York University, and I am Visiting Professor at the
Einstein Medical College. —
Q. Will you touch upon, Dr. Greenburg, the ‘more im-
portant-of your professional affiliations? A. Well lama .
member of the Honorary Scientific Society
211
Sigma Xi, and the hongrary public health society. I am a
diplomate of the American Board of Preventive Medicine
and Publie Health, and a diplomate of the American Board
on Occupational Medicine; and a member of the American
Medical Association. I have been. a member of the
American Society of, what was originally called, Heating
and Ventilating Engineers for about, I think about, 25 or
30 years—no less than 25 anyway. I have been a Fellow
of the American Public Health Association for many years,
and I have been on the Board of Directors of the American
Industrial Hygiene Association; 6n the Board of Directors
of the National Society for the Prevention of Blindness.
And in addition to this, T have done some work and * een
on several committees for the World Health Organization,
and at the present time I am a member of the New York
State Board of Air Pollution Control which was recently
set up by state statute.
Q. What is the general purpose of your appearance at.
this proceeding? A. Well, | appear before your Commis-
38a
.
/ .
_— = ee eee ea
(213)
tion at the direction of the Mayor of the City of New York,
the Board of Air Pollution Contro! with whom T have
discussed this problem only last week, and the people of the
City of New York, in order to urge approval of the request
how before you of the Transcontinental Pipe Line Corpora-
tion for permission to transport certain amounts
. 212
of natural gas for use within the City of New York for the
_-~Cneration of eleetric .power and steanpy by the Consoli-
dated Edison Company. ;
Now T appear: before you and present this testimony —
solely and completely in the interest of the control of air
poiitition in our city, and the urgent need for the reduction
of air pollution by the Consolidated Edison Company. |
have no other reason for being before your board.
(). What are the broad problems of air pollution? A.
Well, sir, throughout the United States the’ problem of
Community air pollation has been receiving increasing
attention during the last fen years or more. Everyone,
practically everyone, has’ heard of the smog problem of
Lox Angeles, but the fact is that Los Angeles is not by —
wny means the lone sufferer from air pollution in our
country. There are many cities which suffer from severe
- tir pollution. " Ry
~The Congress of the United States vevegulaed the impor-
tance of this problem, and the 84th Congress, in July, 1955,
Passed a law authorizing the United States Public Health
Service fo engage in air pollution control activities, and
authorized the service to spend the sum of not exceeding
£5 million per vear in pursuit of these activities. This
is set forth in Publie Law 159 of the 84th Congress.
(). What is the effect of air pollution on vour particular
&
Pi)
(213) re
aren, that is, in the City of New York! <A. I would like to
read for you another statement ‘here, sir:
As further evidence of the importance of air pollution
control to the New York City metrpolitan area, I refer you
to a very recent report dated February, 1958, just last
month, published by the Interstate Sanitation Commission,
entitled, ‘‘Smoke and Air PollutionNew York and New
Jersey”’ .
214
in whieh the following statement is set forth:
‘Pollution is an irritating nuisance for millions of ©
inhabitants of the atea and, in addition, brings about
numerous more harmful effects.
‘*Economie losses caused by air pollution in the New
York-New Jersey metropolitan area are numerous.
Pollution results in damage to buildings and structures,
painting, finishes, textiles, vehicles, clothing, and many
other items. Cleaning costs in the area are increased
to a major extent by air pollution and its effects.
‘*Health may be adversely affected, especially in per-
sons liable to asthma and certain lung impairments. At
lease a suspicion exists that air pollution may be a .
contributor to the increase in lung cancer and some
forms of heart disease. |
‘‘ Aireraft flights into and out of the New York-New
~ Jersey metropolitan area are hampered by poor visibil-
ity brought abeut by air pollution. Poilution thus in-
creases potential hazards at some of the world’s busiest
and largest airports.”’
_ This report from which I have just quoted was a report
prepared by the Interstate Sanitation Commission, and I!
regret that I did-not bring copies with me. However, I
can send them to the Commission. But this is a very recent
40a
(216)
215 -
and pretty intensive study of the problem in the New York-
New Jersey area, and we agree with the findings of this
report quite substantially. |
Q. Becoming more ‘specific, Doctor, what is the relation-
ship of the problem of air pollution to the proceeding now
being heard? A. Well, I think it should be borne in mind
that the Consolidated Edison Company is essentially ‘the
_ power and steam source for our city. In all, the company
operates ten plants and provides more than 15 biilion kilo-
watt hours of ‘electrical energy and 20 billion pounds of
steam for the use of the citizens of New York each year.
In general, we feel that the company has been- moving
on a progressive campaign of improvement. in plant
facilities and in the control of pollution from these plants.
But there are two plants which do give‘us mach concern.
Q. Which is the first of these two. plants? A. The first
of these is the Waterside plant situated at 40th Street and
First Avenue in the Borough of Manhattan.
In general, most of the boilers at this plant .are now «
removing approximately 97 to 98 per cent of the flyash
produced by the combustion of coal before the discharge
of stack gases. There are, however, two boilers, Number
‘1 and 72, which discharge their gases through a stack,
known as the East Stack, which give us considerable
concern, and :
> * 216 -
I would like to talk about those for a moment.
Boilers 71 and 72 at the Waterside Station consume
approximately 1,632,000 pounds of coal each day. Thisis ~
in the form. of pulverized coal. These boilers. contribute
642 pounds of flyash to thé stack gases each hour, an
amount equivalent to about 15,000 pounds a day.
In addition to this tremendous contribution of flvash,
these two boilers, 71 and 72, about which T am talking at
. 4la
2
(216)
&
the moment, release. approximately 42,000 pounds of,
sulphur dioxide gas to the city’s atmosphere.“
Now, this is the crux-of the problem so far as an air
pollution man sees it with reference to the’ waqernnee
plant, and, in particular, Stacks 71 and 72.
Q. What about the location of the Waterside plant on
the surrounding buildings? A. Well, this Waterside plant
is situated in one of. the most densely built-up areas of
New York.City, and probably of the world, I would think.
In. this area, there are located many of the City’s finest
office buildings, the United Nations’ buildings, Grand
Central Terminal, many of our important hotels, two of
the-very largest newspaper printing and publishing estab-
lishments in the United States, the Daily News and The
Daily Mirror, and many foreign consulates and legations.
This area is now undergoing. further very rapid develop-
ment, .
217 |
and, although it is approximately only a half square mile
in area, it, nevertheless, contains more than 66 buildings
over 18 storeys in height. |
' Tu addition, there are many large and small apartment
houses located in the immediate vicinity of this power plant.
e . § e
« . * * e * & * 6 e
/ c °
/ .
/
é / 220
a,
Q. Will you describe, Dr. Greenburg, what Exhibit 44°
for identification purports to show? A. Well, this is a
photostatie copy of Sections of the Manhattan Land Book
published-by the G. W. Bromley -& Co., Inc., which we
exhibit purely for the purpose of showing the location of
the stacks of the Waterside plant with reference to fhe
general buildings in the area and the nature of the build-up
of the total area about which I referred to previously.
42a
(aan)
You will note that the Waterside plant is right along
the-river adjoining the Franklin Roosevelt Drive, on the
right side of the plan, and the three stacks are numbered
1,2 and 3. Then you will see, directly to the north, the
United Nations’ Headquarters, and the buildings: in the
Whole ‘area. You see the Grand Central Station on the
left to. the’ north, and the buildings in the whole area,
. particularly those which are outlined with heavy’ dash
lines, which are the buildings, at the time the map was.
made and photostated, over 18 storeys or more in height. 7a
This will serve to give you a more concrete Picture of
-the layout.
For example, a couple of blocks north of the Consolidated,
221.._—_i«zj |
Edison plant, between Second and Third Avenue, you will
notice the Daily News Building, and I believe a few blocks
further north is the Daily Mirror, another one of our big
newspapers,
The new Socony-Vacuum Building, you see, is'on 42nd
Street, between Third and Lexington Avenue.
Q. Why do you stress height, Doctor? <A. | stress
_ height because the stacks of the Consolidated Edison Com-
pany are high, in’ an effort to ‘dissipate the discharges |
from the stacks, and the solid material, particularly, floats
through the air at a high level before it comes down to
street level, and gets in the windows of many of these tall
buildings: F . :
| think that the problems of air pollution are entirely
different.in a city where fhe buildings are low and widely
dispersed than in a city like New York where the buildings
are ‘close together and the effluents from many stacks
pollute the ‘atmosphere. HH :
(). What is the second of the two plants that you made
reference to before? A. Well, the other power plant which
| would like to speak about is the East River -plant.
43a r
(221) .
This -is located on 14th Street, right along Franklin
Roosevelt Drive. Here, too, the boilers are equipped with
flyash removal equipment, which removes from about
96 to 97 .
per cent of the flyash produced, but approximately half.
of the boilers succeed in removing only 90 to 95-per cent.
In other words, there are some boilers there which are
‘not doing an adequate job from our point of view, with
the result that some 42,000 pounds of flyash are emitted
each day jo the air by this one station alone, and about —
360,000 pounds of sulphur dioxide.\ And it is this that
gives us our concern.
Q. Now, will you describe the neighborhood i in es the
East River plant is located? - A. Well, as I pointed out
before, this plant is located along the East River, south
of the Waterside plant at about 14th Street.- Immediately.
north are two very large low-cost public housing develop ~
_ ments; namely, the -Lillian Wald houses, containing 16
buildings, 14 storeys in height, and the 19 Jacob Riis.
Houses, mostly 14 storeys in height.
- Tmmediately to the west of the East River plant are the* ~
‘large privately-owned middle-income houses known as
Stuyvesant Town, and here there are 35 buildings more —
than 12 storeys in height; and immediately to the north
of the Stuyvesant Town is a Peter Cooper Village com-
‘ prising 21 buildings over 15, storeys in height.
Now, in all of these buildings together, there. are some _
14,800 families, and if you assume a rough average, “whieh
prohably is not correct—but, as a rough average—
it will give you an idea of the occupancy. You assume’
three. people to an apartment, three people to a family,
44a
‘
j
4
i
.
Ae
a
e
and you come up with a figure of about 45,000 persons
living in the vicinity of the Kast River plant.
Now, in addition to this, somewhat further north but
nevertheless affected by the stack emissions are. the
buildings of the new Veterans Hospital and Bellevue
Hospital and nurses’ residence.
' This Veterans Hospital is g tremendous edifice, and the
Bellevue Hospital complex is. probably the largest .or one
of the largest hospital complexes in the United States.
This is a hospital, nurses’ home, the City Mortuary, the
(224)
©
New York University buildings, and the Rehabilitation - °
Center of Dr. Rusk, and all of these buildings together
constitute; without any question, one of the great ‘hospital
complexes of the world. And this is right in the area which
is affected by the East River plant.
Q. Is. the area that. you have just been deseribing
depicted in a map which has been prepared under your
Supervision? A. Yes, we had a map of this area also.
Yes, this is the one. >
Mr. Howley: Mr. Examiner, would you like a large copy.
of this? , ; .
Presiding Examiner: T would rather deal with the
224
small copy, please.
By Mr. Howley: . .
—Q. Have you that map before you, Doctor? A. Yes, I
have the map before me now.
Mr. Howley: May I have that marked for identification,
- Mr. Examiner?
Presiding Examiner: This is a photograph of a map
hearing at the upper right-hand corner the legend, ‘‘The |
. Source of Maps—Manhattan Land Book, City of New
York+G. W. Bromley & Co., Ine., New York,’ and a
45a
\
\
(224),
further legend which besine “sPart ot Section 3—Plate:
' 50", et Getera.’s — 4 :
‘In the lower left- hand corner there isa “legend saying,
‘‘Building Outlined are Ten Storeys ér Over—2/7/58”’.
This, document will be marked for identification Ex.
hibit 45.
(The map perenne to was ‘marked for identification as
\xhibit No. 45.) .
225
‘By Mr. Howley:
Q. Would you, Doctor, : please describe Kixhibit 45-for
Identification? “A: Well this, again, isa photostat of
Manhattan Landbook ‘made by the G. W. Bromley Com-
pany, Inc., the original map, and shows the location of the
Kast Ri “ted plant and its four stacks running alongside
of the franklin Rooseveit Drive, and the East. River, and
it shows outlined in dotted lines, dash lines, the buildings.
which are 10 stories in height or more.
I want to make it clear that these dash lines were added
_ by us and not by the’-Bromley Company.
Now along the river you will see on the right side of the
‘map the Lillian Wald Houses, the Jacob Riis Houses, and —
_ then you come to the Consolidated Edison station. And
/going a little further north you see a building of the ~
‘Department of Plants and Structures of the City of New
York, and on the left Stuyvesant Town with its many
bnildings. And alittle further north at Stuyvesant Town
you will see the Veterans Hospital outline, the Bellevue i
Nurses Home and School, ‘and then the remainder of the
* Bellevue layout is still north but not shown on the map
here. I think there is really nothing, more to add. The
map, sir, is quite self explanatory.
Q. Coming back for a- moment, aca to the Waterside
4a “OO
a
& ‘
(228) |
| plant wuat, if you know, is the reaction: of the nearby
. residents and business people? - .
- . + ° 7 je * . + .
, 227 ae &
The Witness: For many years our department and its
‘predecessor départments have received bitter complaints
. , from tenants. and office workers in the vicinity’of these
plants concerning dust, flyash, soot and sulphurous odors.
Some members of your Commission may even recall the
seriousness of this situation at the time the 41-story ©
United Nations headquarters building was under’ con-
“struction in 1950. This building is less than four blocks .
north of the Waterside plant. Mr. Trygve Lie, then
Secretary General of the United Nations, characterized the
vas and smog nuisance so had as to create, and I am
quoting now from a letter written by Mr. Trygve Lie, ‘‘a
serious and potentially dangerous condition’’, ;
Reeently Mayor Wagner received a petition from 1,855
tenants of the Tudor City buildings, a large group of
apartment houses situated north of the Waterside plant,
in which they complained about stack emissions from the
_ Waterside plant. Concerning this problem, the local pub-
| lieation, ‘Tudor, City View’? published a letter and peti-—
tion on page 8 of the November, 1957, issue, a portion of
which reads as follows:— ° a
* e * e * oa s o ‘« _ «@
2 ee ae
* The Witness: Well, may T just summarize it in a gouple
of words? | | ?
We sit in the office there in New York, and we naturally
have many complaints that come in by telephone ‘and
, some by | * 7
en
~~,
(229)
229
| telegraph, and. many by mail. And the Mayor’s office
received this petition from the Tudor City people, and it
was forwarded over to my office in due time, and we made
investigations up at Tudor City, and we weze convinced
as a result of our investigations on’ many occasions that
this area was being polluted by flyash from the Con-—
solidated Edison plant.
‘Irrespective of what anyone else said or did not say,”
‘this was our conclusion. So that we believe that there is
no question abo at it, that the people, in Tudor City, who-
ever they were or whoever made any complaints, had very
reasonable and just cause for complaint. — a
By Mr. Howley:
Q. Very well, Doctor. ,
What have you to s@y with respect to the health implica- |
tion of emissions, stack emissjons such as we are talking |
about? A. Well, i: a health field in air pollution, there is
a lot we still have to learn.’ There is no question about
this. Many of us.are trying to make investigations to learn
more’ about the health aspects of the problem. But some
information ix, emerging, and. aside from the nuisance
aspects which’ have been verified on numerous occasions
by our staff, we -believe that the health implications in-
herent in the continued exposure to mixtures of soot, fly-._
ash and sulphur dioxide gas which are continually emitted .
by these power plants, is something to be regarded with
suspicion. There is mounting evidence from many
sources that exposure to a mixture of such dust and -
sulphur dioxide ean cause marked irritation of the
respiratory tract, and obviously, an official agency .such .
as ours ean not be blind to: the health implications which
48a
ee
—"
Sa
Mave ge wre
eg whee PLIN Fo. Ob Ate
(231)
ar@inherent in this situation. And I do not think we are
blind to it, and we are trying our bést to keep abreast of
developments in this field and to.run down any leads we
_ can which may be of significance. :
Q. What action has your department taken to attempt
to abate this nujsance? A. Well, this department, our
" department, the Department of Air Pollution Control,
since it was first formed as an independent agency in "52,
yas brought continuous pressure on the Consolidated
Edison Company in the éourts and through official hearings
to have the company take steps to reduce the stack
emissions at its: generating stations. In 1953, a long.
range program of considerablg magnitude was formulated
and agreed upon, whereby the Consolidated Edison Com-
pany would remodel its plants so as to provide the most
modern mechanical and electrical precipitators for the re-
‘moval of flyash from its stack gases, The cost of’ this
program was at that time estimated to be approximately
Q. What then has Consolidated Edison done, what steps
" has the company taken, in an attempt to meet thisproblem?
A. Well, since January of °53 the company spent approx-
' imately $38,000,000 under this program, and in general we
231
_ Would say that the sompany is aware of its duty and
responsibility for air pollution control.
_ Nevertheless, the expenditure of these fun.is. will not
‘ produce an adequate rednetion of the emissions from
hoilers 71 and 72 at Waterside, nor the emissions from
the boilers at the East River plant, previously referred ~
to as embracing not only the particulate matter such as
flvash, but the huge tonnages of sulphur dioxide which are
'. émitted as a result of the combustion processes, “.
The Consolidated Edison Company has expended approx-
imately $3,600,000 for fivash control of the Waterside
%
49a
:
.
“
. (231) ; . | ¢
oe
plant, but in spite of these substantial cupeniinanes, the
easterly stack at Waterside, which serves boilers 71 and
72, continues, as pointed out earlier, to emit an excegsive
amount of soot, smoke, flyash and sulphur dioxide. Our .
engineers adyise us that this is not primarily due to the
air pollution control equipment, but is due to combustion
conditions inherent in these two boilers and that short
. of replacing them with entirely new boilers at. a cost of
approximately $12,000,000 and the expenditure of about.
four years’ time, during which they would have to be taken
out of service at least a good part of the time, there
appears to be no other practical solution for the control
of these boilers than the conversion of them to the use
‘of natural gas.
The facts herein presented eompel us to arrive at the
above cited anitaalens and, in view .of our desire that this
problem be resolved and. that these boilers be brought
under control in a8 short a time as possible, we urge your
Commission to grant to the Transcontinental Gas Pipe.
Line, Corporation permission to provide the necessary
transmission facilities’ to the Consolidated Edison Com-:
pany for. the delivery of this gas at the Waterside and
. East River stations.
Q. Now if natural gas were tised at the Waterside and
” Bast River stations, what in your opinion would ‘the effect
he upon air pollution? A. Well, our calculations indicate
that if boilers 71 and 72 were to be fired with natural gas,
while the remaining eight boilers at Waterside remain on
coal, as at present, the flyash emission to. the air from
this station would be reduced approximately 60 per cent
to some 11,500 pounds of ‘fivash, and the sulphur dioxide
‘gas would he reduced some 22 per cent to 280,000 pounds
per day. ~ ;
50a
(233)
Carrying these calculations further, if eight of the
boilers at Waterside, including 71 and 72, were to be placed
on. gas and only two boilers were to remain on coal, the
“‘flyash emission would be reduced to approximately one-
. sixth of its present value and, similarly, the sulphur~
dioxide emission would be reduced to one-half of its present
value. It is obvious, stheréfore, that in order to achieve
the maximum reduction in objectionable emissions from
this power plant, situated in
the heart of the most intensively ‘developed residential
and commercial ‘area. of Manhattan, itzis necessary to
reduce the consumption of coal to its practical minimum. -
While all of the foregoing calculations have been made
with reference to the Waterside station, nevertheless they
apply with equal force and substantially the same
numerical results to the East River plant.
Q. How, Doctor, do you determine the quality. of
sootfall?’ A. We have at 26 locations throughout the city
wherein they expose jars, ordinary glass jars of a standard
size on the roof of the building, some four feet above the
roof level, to eatch the dust, the soot which falls at these
. locations, We have 26 such’ stations which we have’ been -
following now, subsantially that: number—it varied between
22 and 26—for the iast four or five years. ‘Now the results —
of these samplings at the stations ‘nearest the power.
plant with which we are concerned show that the sootfall
in the neighborhood of these plants is higher than -other
locations in the city, . As a matter of fact, the locations
‘of the jars, as I-remember it and now I am trusting to.
memory, is in a westerly direction from these two plants,
where as a matter of fact. it would be more logical to take
samplings on the east side of the ‘plant. But, of course,
hecause of the location of the river we can not.do this very
dla
<a
(233)
well. The prevailing wind in New York is, in general,
westerly, northwest or southwest, and the sampling jars,
to be :
234
more specifically applicable to Con Edison, should be
directly to the east of the plant. So I would say that our
sootfall findings in general indicate a‘ lower degree of
sootfall deposit with reference to Con Edison than really
. exists. .
Our sootfall records indicate that in the vicinity of these
two power plants the sootfall averages range between
92 and 94 tons per square mile per month and has a
maximum. range of 142 to 149 tons per square mile per
month. And these figures compare with an average for
most of the polluted boroughs of the city—I am striking
out one very sparsely separated borough, namely, the
Borough of Richmond, Staten Island—but these. two
ficures which I have cited can be compared with the .
polluted boroughs average of, 72 tons per square mile per
month for the entire year. In other words, there is a
difference there in sootfall on the average .of approx-
imately 20 tons per square mile per month between the
jars located nearer Con Edison as compared with the
average for the nolfuted boroughs of the city.
Q. From what you haye set forth in your testimony, -
Dr. Greenburg, what conclusion have you arrived at!
A: Well, it is our firm conviction that there is no other
plan which ean he proposed which would give the citizens
of this city, of New York City, the relief they need from
the nnisance of flvash and sootfall and from exceedingly
large amounts. of sulplfar dioxide as will the conversion
of as many i Ses 2
-
hoilers as possible at hoth Waterside and ‘East River
nlants to natural gas. An important consideration, in our
2a
——_
i i eae
ETL Sele Se ket ORAS
ce
ee Be gt ee De.
(236)
thinking, is the fact that the conversion of boilers to
natural gas can be made within a 12-month period, whereas
the installation of new boilers, or of more improved flyash ,
collecting equipment, if such equipment ever becomes
available, would take a long neriod of time, something otf
the order of probably about four years. oe
Q. Has recognition of this problem been given by other
“agencies? A. I*would say yes, sir. The Federal Power
’
Commission and other governmental agencies are justly
concerned with the nation’s natural resources, and we must
‘not ovérlook the fact that the very air we breathe is per-
haps our most precious natural resource. This is not
replaceable. We live in’an envelope of air, and we can
not afford to have our atmosphere become polluted to any
vreat degree. The ingenuity of man ean find and develop
many sourees of power and many sources of food, but .
there is no substitute for the atmosphere in whieh we live
and work. Air pollution can sot continue to remain an
uncontrolled problem. Depletion of this natural resource
must he avoided at’ alt costs. >
And may T add'that with the great increases in popula-
tion which are taking place in our country today, population
increases at the rate of approximately three million
_ persons a year, the
increase in urbanization which is taking place, the increase
in the consumption. of electric power—I have forgotten
rxactly what the average figure is, I think electric power
has increased some 43 or 45 per cent in the last four or
five vears—I think under the conditions we have to realize
thet with these factors changing and the increase in in-
(dustrialization we must be exceedingly careful or ‘more
and more cities of our country will overstep the bounds
of reasonable limits of air pollution, and then when
Within § conditions turn against us on some
‘ASa
(236)
occasions, as they have in Los Angeles, we are going to
be in serious trouble. ee)
1 might also mention that when this happened in the
City of London, England, 4,000 people died in a -period.of
about two weeks. This can happen other places, and this
is something which requires ‘long-range planning, and it
is in terms of this which I, as Commissioner of+ Air
Pollution of the City of New York, am now thinking and
4rying to transmit to. your Commission. .
237
- Q. Do you have any final comment by way of summary!
_ A. We have considered this problem at great length, we
live with it each day, and a-good part of the night, and
have for a long time. And as a result, we are firmly con-
vinced that the health and, comfort of the citizens of this
city, including not only those in the immediate vicinity
of these power plants, but those further awgy as well,
requires the consent of your Commission to the trans-
portation of gas for use in these power plants. -.
If the Federal Power Commission wishes to aid the |
people of the city of New York, and at the same time
carry out the expressed intent of Congress in the reduc-
tion of air pollution, the approval of the use of gas as
_ requested in the proceedings being heard here is one of the:
most significant ways in which the Commission can make
a constructive contribution to the welfare of the. people |
-of New York City.
. .* . . . 3 a) * * a
_ Adi
. Raymond H. Crowe
Q. Now what facilities would not be necessary insofar
av certification is concerned if the Commission failed to -
approve the transportation of Consolidated Edison Com-
pany’s gas? A. It wonld not he necessary to construct
D4a
ae oe Tt ee ei)
(485)
the 7640 horse power station No. 35. It would not be
necessary to construct the: 8800 horse power station at
Station 37. It would not be necessary to construct the
7640 horse power at Station 39.
We would be able to eliminate the main lind piping at
those three proposed new stations, and also we would not
build the dwellings at those stations.
Mr. Le Boeuf: .Couldn’t hear the latter part.
The Witness: We would not build the dwellings, the
housing facilities for the personnel that might he employed
at those three stations.
We would also be able to not construct—it would not be .
necessary to construct the additional 2500 horse power
unit at our present Station 14; the 2500 horse power addi-
* tional unit at our Compressor Station 15; the 2500 horse
power additional unit at our Station 9; and the 2500 horse
_ power additional unit. at our Station 13—Station’ 3,
correetion. S
It wanld also not be necessary to construct 22.51 miles _
of 30 incl~ loop pipe line between Stations 4 and 5, Ti
would not be necessary to construct 34.53 niiles of 30-inch
pipe line between our Stations 3 and 4.
We wonld not have to construct four miles of ten-inch
lateral at'the Normanna Field; nor would we be required to
construet the meter station at the Normanna Field. o
It would not be necessary to construct 22 miles of ten-
inch line into the Sejita Field along with the meter station
at the Sejita Field.
-The cost of the facilities that would not be constructed
if we did not do it for Con Fd amounts to-$18,420,376
_ 55a
(485) | he
direct cost, with overhead and contingencies amounting
to $1,979,624, making a total of $20,400,000. - - ’ d
489
- By Mr. Brunner:
- Q. Mr, Crowe, your location of facilities in this particular
proceeding, having to do with Transco’s expanded project,
depended; did it not, on your prior location of facilities
in G-12059? A. To some extent, yes, sir.
Q. And what do you mean by that? A. Well, when I
‘have to lay a loop line I have to lay it alongside of the line -
that was already there. |
Q. Well, if you took out the’ facilities that. you say could
be taken out or would have to be taken out or not be put
' in, rather, in case ‘the Commission failed to certificate
certain facilities that you have just enumerated, would :
.
’ that mean a reallocation of ‘those facilities that would be \ |
necessary both in G-12059 and the particular proceedings
here, the 13590? A. I am not quite sure I understand
your question, Mr. Brunner, but essentially we have had
‘a long-range program and we have had additional require-
ments to serve.our ¢ustomers to get a completely looped
pipe line, and we heve followed that out
and we are at the point naw in our construction program
where the cheapest increments of. capacity can be had by
finishing out the loops, and-when you have reached that
point and you completely loop the pipe line and there is”
additional capacity ‘necessary, it can be. necessary, then
to add compression; so. as you knock off any increment
of capacity, the first thing we would attempt to do is—
the logical thing to do from the cost standpoint is—to
eet
ee ee Le re ee Ce a a ey ee Re re ape
ee Mt
J
or oe
: (491)
‘drop out compression facilities _ ‘rather than pipe - line
facilities.
Q. In other words, if you, deleted the facilities in G- 12059
which we have been discussing, there would have to: be some
_Tearrangement of compression on the line. Is that what
you are saying to me, in this particular proceeding?
Mr. Miller: Excuse me. Do you mean to serve these
volumes? |
Mr. Brunner: Yes.
Mr. Miller: Transport them in the event these lines
-were left out? > .
- Mr. Brunner:. Yes.
The Witness: If 1 understand your question, if we were
not required to serve Vepeo and we have got a certain
amount of capacity built in the loop and we use those .
~<loops for something else, we would have to refigure;
probably not have to have some of the compression that
we propose. Now which,.I can’t say.
491
By Mr. Brunner: a
Q. Is that equally true with regard to the facilities in
relation to the transportation of gas for Con Ed? “A. I
would not like to say that it is for Con Ed. T would say
for a particular increment of 50 million,- whoever the
50 million. The. first 50 million you take off, you take off
compression. :
Q. And that is What you would have to do in the event
‘Transco was not certificated to transport gas for Con-
solidated Edison? A. IT wouldn’t say we would have to do
that, but that would be our engineering Gecision, that
that would be the proper thing to do.
Q. Now if neither one of them were allowed, roe would -
. the situation be, the same? A. Neither one of which?
Q. Neither transportation requested: authorization was
| 57a
(491)
allowed for Vepeo of’ Co: ‘olidated Edison by the Com-
mission. A. £ still think we would want to put all the
oo in that we have proposed to put in and less com-—
pression. . SaaS 7
. Now it may be possible that the actual figures would.
show that you might be able to leave out a half a mile or
two miles of pipe line ‘and have a whole section of pipe line
looped: except a half mile or two miles of .pipe line. I
don’t know what the true figures would be. We would
propose to lay that two miles
ne! * 492
of pipe line 8d ou wouldn’t have to send the contractor
back at a later date to do a two-mile spread. |
~Q. Are you saying to-me then that assuming the circum-
: _ stances I just gave you with regard to Vepeo and Con Kd
transportation that you would have to-take another look
at the locdtion of the facilities and probably do some
redesigning? A. For only Vepeo and Con Ed? ¢y.°
Q. Right. A. No. I think IT have given you pretty well
‘the figures; we would probably only leave off the com-'
pression that we have talkéd about and the loops.
You will notice I’said they would not lay—if you did
not do the 50 million for Con Ed,.we would not lay .22.51
miles of 30-inch.’ Well, that isin the south end where
the gas would come in for Con Ed. Obviously if the gas
would not.come in, we would not. But beyond Station 5,
| think we would do exactly the same thing as proposed.
here as far as pipe line loops are concerned. |
602
Roger D. Stanwood
i
* Q. On the basis of that determination. that you make -
as to the competitive factor in purchasing gas, how ‘do
_.you go about purchasing gas in areas such as the offshore
cons 58a
QI
a
that is where the
ie . (603)
area where the price is considerably higher than wha. you
have been paying in other areast A. Again, it is based °
considerably of what you can afford to pay for it. And
that was one of the circumstances surrounding those
parti . contracts. oe i Ss
‘Q. When you say you take into account competitive
‘factors, just what do you take into account? A. Weil, I
‘think one in the gas transportation business has to take ap
8 is competing with other@Pels; it is
not compefing in the Eugene Island area.
As far as purchasing gas, though, which is my
responsibility, obviously there is considerable competition
for the acquisition of new reserves by all of the pipelines
to support, their given markets. ‘ |
Q. Is the competition for natural gas reserves in the °
Southwest area pretty keen today? A. It has been, for
into account the ‘on cost of gas at the market place ;.
several years, very, very sharp competition among ‘the .
buyers, yes.: if
Q. And in order to acquire new reserves, it is necessary
for your company: to compete against a number of other
pipeline companies, that is correct, isn’t it? A. That is
correct. Tae o “
Q. And it is becaming more difficult to find large blocks
of gas such as that ‘you .purchased in the Eugene-Island
area unless you pay a pretty high price, is that right?
A. I think others in my capacity have testified that in
order to attract a large reserve it is nécessary to have
a very attractive price, not simply a going price. You
have got to have a better mousetrap than the other fellow,
so to speak. 2
Now, in relation to these offshore reserves, it has been
recognized by the Conservation Department .of Louisiana,
59a
(603)
which has the proration responsibility ‘on behalf of the
Department of the Interior, that these are premium
operations. In other words, by that 1 mean that these
operators are permitted higher allowables than : those
operating wells onshore, botli for oil and for gas, because
of the excess, or extra, | won’t say excessive, but extra
costs that are involved surrounding their initial discovery, .
costs prior to discovery, and operating
? 604 ;
costs during the production phase of these facilities.
Q. Did you attempt, Mr.: Stanwood, to purchase addi-
tional gas in areas other than the offshore areat A. We
have attempted on many occasions to afford our market
customers a maximum volume of gas by which they could
firm up their maximum peak day requirements. ‘And the
history of this company in the past four. years, starting
in G-2367, has all been directed, toward that effort.
Until this year, however, when we—or the past year,
rather—when we did increase our purchase price .in
Louisiana above a previous 16 ¢ents price, we had been
unable-to attract to Transcontinental Pipe Line sufficient
new éontracts and reserves to supply our customers in the ;
- maximum quantities, as I understand it, that they were.
desirous of contracting for. :
‘We had been able to offer them, you might say, minimum
quantities of gas, and they were very patient with us in
recognizing the competitive angles, to see if we couldn't
develop addjtional volumes.
But T say, we only reached that point after we shifted
gears in this price schedule and had a competitive price
with which to offer the. producers in the south Louisiana. .
South Louisiana itself 48 the fastest growing, most prolific
was prodying area in the United States, and has been for
several years. That is why you find all of the pipelines
vay
nections «°
a .
(606)
_ seeking gas there. Even some of those that are proposing
to go as far we °
. ol
west as California are looking’ in south Louisiana for gas
supply. . . fy:
Q. That is because they can’t get it elsewhere? A. Well,
- it would be nice if we could buy it in Washington, but there
is no gas in Washington. =
Q. I mean in the drea that we are talking about now,
the Southwest; I mean ‘any other area. A. Well, I don’t
‘know how muth of the history you want to get into in
this thing, Mr. MeGrath. <¢
Q. What I am getting at, Mr. Stanwood,” is that you
were forcedéto go down into the Louisiana area and buy
this gas, offshore area, because- you couldn’t find it any-
place else, is that right? A. We could have found some
in other places which would have cost our customer com-
panigs more than our purchasing similar amounts in south
Louisiana, “ ae
Q. Well, in order to: acquire additional reserves of gas
it is necessary, is it not; for a pipeline company such as
Transcontinental to pay increasingly higher prices in ‘the
field; that is true, isn’t it? A. There are certam geo. —
craphie advantages to any given price, but they are rather
limited. So-generally there is being developed, in my. -
opinion, in south Louisiana a system of area priees, And
the 21.5 cents price which you find generally in these con-
tracts to which T am testifying here’ is
about the level of competition at the present time. There
are going to be isolated instances géographically where
kas will be able to be. contracted for at: lesser prices, as
we have done in some instances today.
. “a S . 6la
ss
an :
(606) cas
/
'. Also, there are going to be premium reserves such as
Rayne and Krotz Springs and others that are going to
command higher prices because of the Jocation and volume
of gas available for —e to the <pipeline at a
‘single source.
Q. I had intended, by my question, Mr. Stanwood, to
consider the South generally. On the whole, the trend and
the cost of gas has been upward, as has been evident for
several years that that has been the trend, that is true,
isn’t it? A. Oh, yes, because you have had a regulated
sellers’ market. ~ |
616 .
Q. Mr. Stanwood, in answer to a question by Mr. —
McGrath, you made a statement which I think I got down
fairly accurately. You said that in making purchases it
was not enough for your company to offer the going price,
you had to havé a better mousetrap. Would you explain
to me a little more fully what you meant by that? A. I
think I was using the analogy in relation’to large. or
premium packages of reserves. Any time a new pipeline
system comes into being, it has to have a large anchor
for its operation, and any time that you.are seeking
quantities of gas in the magnitude as we have been in the
past’ year or so, in the neighborhood of 200. million or so
roughly, you, can’t do it in knits and knats, you have to
have some fairly respectable reserves under contract.
As has been the case wéll established before Trans-,
continental’s participation, other pipelines have borne out
this historical experience, namely, in the Erath, in’ the
Rayne, in the Krotz Springs, and in the Bateman Lake
Fields, and several other places in Louisiana where large
sourees of reserves are available.
62a
Oe) Oe Ss tee ED
A
v
. .
.
617
Now, in the case of the offshore gas, in this docket,
(718)
_ since that is the highest’ single price that is under dis-
cussion, it is also the ‘largest dedication which Trans-
continental has had available to it since 1 have been
affiliated with the company. There is dedicated to us under
those contracts approximately 122,000 acres of leases off-
shore in Louisiana, which by comparison is approximately
20 percent more than was dedicated to Tennessee in the
CATC contract.
So I‘feel that it is appropriate for our company - in
participating: in this large. prolific area of potential
reserves to obtain its shafe of the offshore gas as well
as its sharé of the on-shore gas. |
Q. Well, I am still not entirely certain that I under-
stand what you meant. Would it be correct to interpret
‘your statement as meaning that when you are attempting -
to purchase what you consider a desirable’ package you
have to offer something more than the laat similar purchase
of a similar package? A. That has been the experience.
In this particular instance, 22 cents was the maximum
= price that Transcontinental was willing to offer even for
this large dedication and it was conditioned upon getting
the entire dedication. It also was the minimum price that
the producers were willing to accept for the sale of this
‘gas.
718
_ Harry L. Parlette |
Q. I believe at one time the Long Island Lighting Com-
pany had in mind a projectyif you want to call it that,
whereby it was going wt ol in gas in the field and have
Transco transport it, is that correct? A. That is correct.
As a matter of fact, those negotiations are currently
going on, but at this time I don’t feel free to discuss it
68a
Ze
(718)
because of the he uncertain nature of where we ¢ might Snally-
conclude the contracts. aed
A number of things are in the negotiation stage and. -
what will actually simmer gut of that J can’t say definitely
right now. .
Q. It is pending at any wie A. It is pénding, sir.
Q. And it has not been abandoned—that plan? A. That
is correct; and we have talked to Transco on the subject
of. transporting that gas for us in lieu of C.D.-3 gas if,
as and when those contracts are successfully negotiated.
.Q. Can you tell me this without divulging any company
secrets: What volume of gas did you have in mind that
Transeo might transport?
19 -
A. Twenty-five thousand per day.: .
Q. Was that for 365 days a year? . A. Yes, sir. It would
be at 100 percent annual load factor.
- Q. What would the utilization of that gas be for, boiler
fuel? A. T don’t quite understand the-nature of vour
question,
Q: Well, if you did go through with shat and 25,000 a
day- was transported. by Transeo for the Long Island
Lighting Company, to what use would Long Island put
that gas? A. That gas would be primarily predicated on
- serving firm gas load. However, due to the seasonal na-
ture-of our load, part of that gas would during the valley
period get into storage and the remaining portion get into
use as electric generating boiler fuel.
Mr. Jerome MeGrath:.Mr. Brunner, may I ‘interject
a question at that point? .
Mr. Brunner: Yes.
Mr. Jerome MeGrath: Mr. Examiner.
To make this clear, would the 25,000. Mef per day be in
lieu of the 25,000 vou are seeking from Transeo in .this ?
proceeding?
re
SS.
ener ae °
. . a
-_
~<=
? (772)
The Witness: Yes. Mr. McGrath, if you were to loek-on= _
the page of my exhibit—it_ appears on more than one page,
actually, but look at page 3, for instance.
On the bottom of that sheet, vou will see a tabulation
showing the various types of gas we @xpect to purchase and
you will notice on the fourth line down of that tabulation
(.D.-3 gas or X-21, X-21 being transportation in lieu of
. C.D.-3 in the event that we successfully consummate these
contracts. |
Mr. Jerome McGrath: So that if you are successful in
consummating these contracts, then Transeo will not sell
you any gas or any of the 25,000 Mef per day it now pro-
poses under the C.D.-3 rate. ,
The Witness: That gas which we would purchase would
he substituted for (.D..3. The reserves which Transco has
purchased against C.D.-3 would then become available to
other customers.
. a . . coin ° PY . . .
772
John B. Boniface
, Now, as I understand your statement with regard to
this ‘*go out’? phrase, the company has no plans at this
time to purchase gas from independent producers and at.
tempt to obtain some other. company to transport that gas
or utilization by your company, is that correct? A. We
have given’ it some consideration, -but at the moment, we
have no negotiations, as far as I know, no negotiations,
or no plans to do that.
Q. Now, when you used thé term **eonsider’’ just what
do you mean by the statement that ‘‘we have given it
\ consideration’? or words to that effect? A, Well, we have
heard that other companies were doing’ it, and ¥e have
wondered. whether it, would be wise ‘for us to do it. We
65a
— ae
have made some very preliminary studies, and at the
moment we have not made any approach, as far as | know,
to any”
i 773 .
producer. or any one. We have inquired of Transconti-
nental if they would be willing, but that was as far as we
went.
Q. What did they say? A. They said, in moderate quan-
tities. they could handle transportation agreements, but
they- had some problems with their mortgage, they couldn’t
take on too much transportation at any one time.
Q. And what volume did you have in mind that you asked
that they consider or some of the officials. asked that they
consider? A. We didn’t have any volume in mind. It was
too nebulous.
Q. What does the ‘‘too —_ phrase refer to, volume-
wise?
Mr. Miller: I object to any further questions aloag
this line on the ground that it is irrelevant.
The Witness: I don’t know.
Mr. Brunner: It may turn out not to be ‘hefore we are
. through.
Mr. Miller: Well, you show its relevancy, and I will
* withdraw my objection. We have no proposals to make a
transportation arrangement for Publi¢ Service in this case.
Mr. Brunner: No, but apparently they have been making
inquiries of you for utilizing their line for that purpose
from what this witness has stated.
. . . - . . .. ®. ° 2 "@- «
| 7m ©
Presiding Examiner: | certainly feel that this Commis-
sion is entitled to know about any serious thinking that
has heen done by any of these companies in connection with
gas supply as long as they have this matter, and this large
66a
. (779)
a program before them here so that they will know what.
the future holds. I don't think you can understand these
' matters in a barrel. You-have got to have some idea \of
, . 5
' + what the futu may hold.
, : ?
’ ‘If there are such arrangements as Mr. Boniface has been
discussing, or even planning, that has reached a state where
it amounts to something, I think the record shonld reflect it,
ut as he appears to indicate, it is in the nebulous stage,
that it is, perhaps, plans vou are just pursuing: something
; that won’t amount to much at this time. ; or
ae. Brunner: - Well, I hadn’t quite finished yet. If 1
can get an answer to that last question, I will go on from
- there. | | :
.
e 3
* e ° ° e * e e . . °.
* ? 1 .
'
The Witness: Mr: Examiner, perhaps just a little further
explanation of the cirdumstinces spight put the thing in
its proper. perspective, - . | |
Presiding Examiner: Well, it is up to Mr. Brunner. If
he wants that information. ae >
- Mr.. Briinner: As long as we come back to the ‘‘too
much’’, that is all right. ;
D
779.
Presiding Examiner: Can you tell him what ‘‘too much”’
means before you start off on this expedition now? a
* What you believe Transco meant When they said they
could transport not too much. ° ; 3
The Witness: I don’t remember the numbers that Mr.
._-MeGraw mentioned. I just don’t remember,
don’t want to put anything into the record hecause |
carried away the concept. that Transcontinental could not
et
oe aa 67a gn
D
(779)
supply all of their customers with all of their requirements ;
ona transportation basis.
‘I think that is sontething that Transca should put in the
record, not me. | just don’t know.
I think to put this thing in its proper perspective, we
should realize that I was talking to Clyde McGraw on the
street walking from the hotel to a meeting of the American
Yas Association in St. Louis, and we were just generally
. discussing ‘what was ahead of us, and he mentioned that
they would be interested in our buying gas under certain
‘circumstances because he felt that we could perhaps avoid
some of the, I think, some of the escalation that might be in-
eurred if they bought the.gas. It was something that he
‘thought weshduld consider. . We have not seriously con-
sidered it yet.
Now, if the Commission authorizes it, T am sure we will
very seriously consider it; but it depends on the cireum-
stance. We have no serious—have had no serious negotia-
tions
780 os
whatsoever with Transcontinental with regard -to trans-
portation. | : |
re Mr. Brunner: °
Q. Did: he inform You as to what circumstances he had
inmind? A. Well, it would be circumstances that we would
consider would be desirable to: buy transportation rather,
than buy pipe line gas, and it would,.1 think, relate itself to
the problem of buying gas, that ‘it would not escalate the
other gas that they now have. It would satisfy us that the
price was satisfactory. It put the burden of deciding on
- the price upon us, rather than upon Transcontinéntal.
Q: Now, in’your walk in connection with this eonversa-
tion, you stated that he, MeGraw, stated, they would be
willing to transport gas under certain circumstances, and
68a
?
.
‘ "eae? - | ae
>
~ | assume he meant the circumstances that he had in mind. .
All I want to know is did he advise you.as to what those
circumstances were?
Mr. Miller: May 1 have a continuing objection, ‘Your
Honor, to all tliis for the time that it seems irrelevant and
-immaterfal? ee
Presiding Examiner: Surely:
~ The Witness: I don’t remember what they were. This
Was not sufficiently’ significant in my mind even to write a
memorandum about it to our management.
By Mr. Brunner: ;
* Q. | thought vou said the management had considered it.
781
A. Well, we discussed it afterwards, but I don’t think I
made any written memorandui of it, Mr. Brunner.
Q. How did it come,to their attention, orally, or how?
“A. Well, when we Karned, that ‘certain other: customers
of Transcontinental were considering tpansportation agree- -
ments, we felt we had to consider them. This was consid-
erably after this conversation, as I reeall it, but E am not
even: too sure of that. ; a
(). [low did you learn about these other customers? A.
| don’t remember. Perhaps: from their filings
Q. Do you know the names of the other customers? A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Would you give them Ss us for the record, please.
‘\. Consolidated Edison and Long Ieland Lighting.
(). Were those the only twot’ A. Yes, sir.
(). Did the idea of transportation originate with Mr.
MeCGraw of Transco’ or with your company, or with you?
Somebody must have started’ it. A. I don’t remember,
(). All right. That is all. nore ‘i tag
Presiding Examiner: Are there any other questions ‘now °
of this witness, ; . i:
(781)
Mr. Jerome McGrath: Mr. Examiner, on this last point —
that Mr. Brunner has been inquiring about, I have a em
tion.
782
By Mr. Jerome McGrath:
Q. This gas'that you would think about or consider, let's”
say, purchasing from producers ‘and having transported,
- would that be for general resale use or for power plant
use? A. We haven't considered it that far, Mr. McGrath.
-Q. Well, you testified just a moment ago in response to
a question to Mr. Brunner that if the Commission author-
izes it—or you said you were looking at the proposals: of
the other companies, and you said if the Commission au-
thorizes it, we will consider it.
* [assume you were referring to ‘transportation? A. That
is‘correct, . :
QQ. Now, when you said if ‘the Commission authorizes it,
what specifically did. you have in mind? A. If it author-
. izes transportation gas by Transcontinental, we will be
obliged to take a.second look.
Q. In other words, if the Commission authorizes the
Transportation service proposed by Transcontinental for
Consolidated Edison, one of the few companies whose
name you mentioned, vou weuld be obliged then to consider
transportation for Public Servicet A. For future pur-
poses,
Q. For future purposes? A. For a wprly, I should
say.
Q. Well, ves. And whether that woul he for resale or
«783 |
power plants use, you have not made any determination!
A. That is correet. .
’ Q. Thank you. That is all I have.
™),
70a
ine og
| oo
Q. Now, Mr. Bruns, let’s direet our attentiou to the pro-:
posed transportation service for Consolidated: Edison Com- -—
pany of New York. Could yeu tell us how that arrange-
ment came about? A. I don’t know as I know quite what '
vou mean. You. - ;
| 984
mean who initiated it?
Q.. Well, did, you suggest to Consolidated Edison that
you would be in a position to transport natural gas for
them if they wanted to buy it down in the field? A. We
have told all of our customers if they wanted to do that,
‘we would investigate and see whether or not we could: In
limits we could do that. os
Q. You say all of your customers. You mean all of your-
customers? <A. No, I guess T don’t, because it would be
impractical to suggest, it to.some sniall G customer, we
couldn t possibly make such an arrangement. ,
* Oct gee Pe ot M,.
A. The Duke Power Company has been interested in
investigating it;-to my best knowledge they haven't come .
_ Up with any ideas or plans.
Q. Have they requested riaeeeetlaaaiel to ‘transport
natural gas for their account if they were successful? .A.
If they were successful in making some arrangement, and
that i is as far as it Has gone.
| : ‘1018 |
(). Is there any provision in rate schedule X-20 which
prohibits delivery of displaced gas during peak periods?
A: No, sir. T would not say there was.
+
71a
(1140).
1140
James V.O’Connor |
Q. (Mr. Jerome McGrath) Now, one further rate was
mentioned, and that was in. Mr, Bruns testimony, when
he referred to a negotiated rate of 19.5 cents per Mef for
make-up gas. Do you recall that? A. (Mr. James V.
@’Connor) Yes, I. remember it.
Q. And I questioned Mr. Bruns as fo how that \ was ~
rived, and he’ stated it was a negotiated. rate. A. That: is
correct.
Q. Did you have anything to do with the ites of that
rate? A. L did not.
' “Q. Have you made any study to determine whether that
rate covers the costs of rendering the service? A. If you -
assume that the service is rendered completely off-peak,
. the pricé of 19.5 cents is considerably in excess of allocated
costs. nes EL
1141
~Q. When you say, when you consider it is interruptible,
what do you mean by that? A. Well, the only costs which:
could be assigned to the make-up gas as an off-peak de-
livery would be transmission commodity costs, which ac-
cording to my allocation, Schedule No. 5—~
Q. What exhibit is that? A. Exhibit 18, Section 4Q—the
transmission commodity costs in connection with the make-
up gas to Con Ed is the first figure shown in column 5 of
Schedule 5 of Section 4 of Exhibit 18, which is 10. 97 cents:
per Mef.
Q. And may include all the variable’ costs such_as- com-
pressor fuel and the like,:is that right? A. It includes all
the variable costs and 50 percent of the fixed costs incurred
in transporting the gas from the point of receipt to the
point of delivery.
Mr. Jerome MeGrath: That j is all I have, Mr. Examiner.
° > .e . ° o * ° ° °
4 72a
Drive.
(1170)
. / 468
Otto Manz.
Q. Now, at the time of your direct testimony you touched
very briefly on the physical set-up of-the Waterside station,
and I would like to get it a little clearer’in the record & to
just what is the physical set-up ‘there. ,
As I understand it, vou have two plants, but you treat it.
as‘one, and I aim not clear just what it is. I wonder ‘if
you could explain a little more fully on the record the set-
up there. A. T believe | can. Waterside 2 station, to which
we referred in tlfese proceedings earlier, occupies a city
block. on the East River in New York between Ist Avenue
and East River and from 40th Street south to 39th Street.
- Waterside 1 is’ one block south on 39th Street. to 38th—
I should say if runs in the next block south from 39th to
38th, and also from Ist Avenue to the East River, or to
the East River
1169 ;
The older part of this station is Waterside 1, but it has
gone through a modernization program most recently than -
Waterside 2, so that Waterside 1 is uow the more modern
portion of the station, ne ;
Waterside 2 ‘underwent its modernization in the 1930's,
so now it is ‘less modern than Waterside 1.
o . . Hy i i
- 1170 -
The electric generation at Waterside during the year 1957
was 2,945,642 megawatt hours. .Also for the year 1957, the
steam send out from Waterside was 10,020,244 M. pounds
of steam.
73a 4
(1178).
. 1178
A. During 1957, the usage ‘by the electric production de-
partment in the various plants was as follows..
Astoria Station—these quantities will all be om 728.
Hell Gate, 17,789.
East River, 445. .
Sherman Creek, 834. _
Waterside, 87 d@ See.
And the total is 28, 669. And then at Hudson Avenue -
there
1179
‘was 1.5 Mmef used for ignition purposes. And that was
purchased from Brooklyn. Union.
7 fe, . . . ° . * * * e
.
1182 ©
Now, could you tell us what the SO:2 content of. the coal
is, the sulphur content of the coal used at Waterside No. ©
oe o
‘s ° * . * e e . .
_ Q. While Mr. Thomas is looking that up, I wonder if
-he could also provide you with the information as to the .
sulphur content of the oil you use at Waterside? A.. We
have that also, I believe. The sulphur content of.the coal.
used at Watersidé 2 rans about 1.75 per cent. And the
| ‘sulphur content of the oil used runs between 2.5 and 3.0.
per cent.
: .
e o . . * eo . . * .
1183
. Q.. You are using oil, however, in, the stoker fired units rT
-at Hell Gate? A. Hell Gate-and Hudson Avenue, yes, sir.
Q. And could you tell us what the sulphur content of the
The
(1193)
oil is that is used in those two installations? A. It would
run between the same limits that I gave you before.
e o 7 - 7 e-* * s * . ¢@
1186
Q. How do you account, Mr.. Manz, for the differences
in the furnaces of the fly ash collection as between boilers
71 and 72 and 61 and 62? A. Without getting into tech-
nical, or technicalities of design, which I couldn’t ‘sustain, I
must only answer that the design of 61 or 62 furnaces are
inherently better for completer combustion than those of
71 and 72. -
* * * . * ° ey * . *
(1192
- Now,.as I understand it, each dust collector has a de-
cided. efficiency when you buy it, isn’t that correct?
rey | 1193
A. Designed efficiency, yes. :
Q. In other words, the manufacturer guarantees that
this dust collector that Consolidated Edison is going tg
buy will oliect so mu¢h dust.. A. That is right..
Q. And that is the b&sis upon which you buy it, isn’t
that correct? A. Yes, one of the considerations.
Q. And when a 95 per cent efficiency is referred to, it
refers to each dust collector in and of itself, not in the
aggregate. That is true, is it not?- A. That is right.
. Q. So that when you say that the dust collectors at Water-
side, when bought, originally had an efficiency of 95 per
cent, the dust collectors in boilers 71 and 72,.when installed,
_had an- efficiency of 95 per cent. A. It is my recollection
that they did. | :
Q. Then are you saying that the dust collectors that were
installed in boilers 71 and 72 some fime after the dust
collectors that were installed in boilers 61 and 62 are now
75a
(1193) .
~ less efficient than the dust: collectors— A. No, sir, I am not
saying they are less efficient. ;
Q. Well, wherein does the problem lie, then? A. The
“ problem lies, I believe, in the fact that if the furnaces of
71 and 72 had been inherently well désigned for
1194
corhibustion as some of the other boilers, furnaces of other
boilers, that the problem would not exist.
- Q. So what you are saying now is that it is the pears
of the furtiace in the boilers 71 ands72, and not the design
or efficiency of the dust. collectors attached thereto? A.
That is right:
Q.. Well, referring to point No. 9 of Exhibit 22, you set
forth the dust emission in pounds: per hour at average
annual boiler output and under the heading ‘‘all boilers
‘burning coal, per cent of ash and — carbon re-
covered’’, you have for boilers 71 and 72, 89.5 per cent.
Do you see that? A. Yes.
Q. Now, that has nothing to do, that percentage figure,
with the amount of coal or other fuel that is burned in the
furnace.’ That relates to the efficiency of the dust col-
lectors, does it not? A. Yes.
‘Q. So that if your dust collectors had an efficiency of
95 per cent when bought, and you say that the problem is
not in the.dust collectors, but in the furnaces, then this is’
an, incorrect figure of 89.5. per cent, and should more
—properly be—well, it is an incorrect figure. A. I think
the impression that I intended to give there was that in
general the performance of the precipitators was close to
the guarantee. In many cases they were better than the
1195
guarantee+—in other cases they were not. I did not mean
to imply that—and it is a correction I would make, since
you are pursuing the efficiencies of -the — collection
:
ame eee oo
(1196)
equipment on boilers 71 and a should check those par-
* ticular ones if I can.
l_ was speaking generally for the station. It was my
_ recollection when those units were bought and installed
through the years in the late 30’s and 40’s that in general
_ those equipments. met their guarantees. © .
:- Some were above and some were below. I was not—I
cannot recall, or do not recall, the exact efficiencies for 71
and 72. | |
Q. Well, 1 don’t like to belabor this, but ther? is one
point I woul like to make clear. In response to one of
my earlier questions you agreed that when you bought the
dust colleétors from the manufacturer, you were guaranteed
a certain percentage of efficiency. “A. Which may or may
not have been attained in practice.
Q. I am sorry, I did not hear you. A. Which may or
' may not have been attained in | permanence and practice
after installation. :
- Q. Well, isn’t it a guaranteed efficiency by the mann-
facturer? A. Yes.
Q. And if it doesn’t meet up with the guarantee that the
manufacturer gives-you, don’t you have the right to re:
quire them ’ .
2
1196
_ to install new dust collection equipment that will meet the
xuarantee? A. That is a hope. You have the right, but
-you don’t alw ays get the performance.
Q: 0 you know whether the. boilers, or rather. the dust
collectors connected to boilers 71 and 72 meet the-manu-_
facturer’s standard of efficiency? A. Since you asked me
specifically, I cannet be sure, no. I cannot give it to you
at this point. |
77a
(1201) tt , 6d
Q. Is there any corregtion you wish to make in your
testimony on page 1194, the question and ‘answer at lines
* 13 to 17? A. Yes.
-Q. What is. that correction? A. The answer should have
been ‘no. ai
(‘ross-Examination
By Mr. Jerome McGrath: '
Q. Let me see if I understand that last correction, Mr.
Manz. Let me ask you: Aré you agreeing or disagree-
ing with the statement contained in the question appear- |
ing in lines 13 through 16% A. The question asked whether .
that percentage figure related to the efficiency of the dust
collectors, and I answered as though it related solely to
the efficiency of the dust collectors, and that is not true.
Q. But your answer yesterday, was yes? A. Yes, be-
cause I misunderstood.
Q. What does the number refer to, then? A. It refers
to the deficiency of the removal of all 7 s
1202
* of the ash from the coal. |
Q. Let’s get this straight, now. Let’s look, at— A
Plate 9.
Q. You have percent of ash and unburned carbon re-
covered, do you see that? A. Yes.
Q. Does that refer to the-ash that is recovered in t
pit? A. That includes that, yes, sir.
Q. Ash pit and the collectors? A. That is right. It is
the overall figure for the removal of the unburned com-
bustible in the ash:
@
° .
7Sa 4
| | _ (1203)
Q. — the’ difference between 89.5 5 pereent and 100
pereent go out the stack? A. Yes. .
Mr, Le Boeuf: “May I have that question.
The Witness: Oh, out of the stack? No, not all of this.
Ask your question again, please.
By Mr. Jerome McGrath: aa , ae
XY Let’s look at the 89.5 pereent. My question was
her the difference between 89.5 perecent and 100 per-
cent. was the amount of ash and unburned carhon that
went out the stack? A. Yes. ~ ir
Q. There was one other item you were going to look up,
1203
I believe, Mr. Manz, and that was the ‘efficiency of the
dust collectors on Boilers 71 and 72. A. Yes. ;
Q. Did you get that information? A. We have most of
it, I think.
Q. I am trying to find the place where you » anked that.
¢ Supposing you provided what information you have as
-to those collectors.
Mr. Le Boeuf: Does the witness know specifeaiiy what
question ‘You are asking?
By Mr. Jerome McGrath:
Q. I was referring to ‘the testimony appearing at page
‘1196 of the transcript, where I asked you the question:
**Do vou know whether the boilers, or rather the dust
collectors connected to Boilers 71 and 72 meet the
manufacturer’s standard of efficiency?’’
And your answer was:
**Since you asked me specifically, I seuial be are,
no, I cannot give it to you at this. point.”’
And J asked further if you Had-it in your working
papers, and you said you could get it, and I asked if you :
79
Oo
(1203)
could get that information, and vou indicated that you
would. :;
Does that clarify it for you, Mr. Manz? A. Yes, : sir.
Referring to Plate 8, the electric precipitators on
a 1204 .
- Boilers 61, 62, 71 and 72, were bought with a guaranteed
’ efficiency of 95 percent.
Q. For ,each precipitator or whatever you veal it? A.
Yes, sir, the electric precipitator.
Q. How do you account for the difference in 4 elliclensies
as between Boiler 61 and 62 and 71 and 721 A. For the
réason that because of the performance, . differences in
furnace performance, the 71 and 72 beilers have a much
higher concentration of carbon in the fly ash, and that |
reduces the efficiency of the electric precipitators. °
Q. And secondly, you stated that. because of space limi-
tations at the Waterside 2, you are not able to make an
,acceptable correction on an economic er engineeringly
feasible basis, is that yen A. Yes.
Q. Since that is the case,4Mr. Manz, why wouldn't it be ;
well so far as your company is concerned to remove boilers
71 and 72 from the system and transfer aa load over to
other . ,
: * 1205 ok
Atations connected to it? A. Because our’ load require-
_ are such that we can't do ‘that, even if it were
nomically justifiable.
Q. What load requirements would prevent you from
transferring it over to another station? A. We'have not
been able to add capacity fast enough to take care of the
load growth, provide adequate reserve against emergen-
cies, to be ‘able to do that.
,
—— -
Pn eer. nas |.
>
. (1207)
1206
‘Q. Let me get something straight. We are talking —
now only about boilers 71 and 72, those two boilers are the:
ones that are the poem, isn’t that correct? A. That is
right.
Q. Now, what peresatage of the total system load do
Boilers 71 and 72 carry? \
. .
* e 2, a * e o 7 @ °
1207
A. Somewhere in the order of 2 percent. :
Q. I believe you stated a moment ago that the system
as yeu have designed it, that is, the electric system of
. Edison, is such that it will carry the largest unit load
loss of a plant, of any given plant, that-is correct, isn’t it?
A: That is correct.
Q. Isn’t it a fact that the. inivgeet units at Waterside are
80 and 907 A. That is right.
Q. So that the way you have designed-your sy stem 1 you
could take out the 71 and 72 boilers and carry it by the
other plants in your.system?. A. The design contemplates ~
emergency outage. A plant outage such as would be re-
quired for this would have to be above or beside or beyond
the loss of the next largest unit.
Q. Are you saying, Mr. acapaag™ that the Consolidated
Edison system could not take up a 2 percent loss in system
®
' capacity by transferring the load over to other stations? | _
A. It depends on where that loss has tobe sustained, and
_ the Waterside area is very tight.
Q. What is the life expectancy of that plant? I think
you indicated in your direct testimony that it.is 50 years
old, 56, ‘something like that. A. Well, the shell ‘of the
building is that old, yes, sir, but the equipment in opera-
tion now varies from just a
Sla
*(1208). 0
; . 1208 ~—Ci‘(«i«s
few years old to perhaps 30-odd years old.
Q. What is: the life expectancy of that plant? ’A. Of |
‘the whole plant?
Q. Let’s take Waterside 2. A. The Whole plant?
Q. The whole - Waterside 2, yes. A. Under what condi-
tions, under the condition that it will be allowed to remain
a power plant indefinitely.
Q. Let me pnt it this way: You said that the Waterside
load was the fastest growing on the system, and you have
also indicated that it is in a very congested area, you |
have no way to expand; you have no area with which to
improve your facilities.
‘~ * « ae ° “@ * . +
.
. 1209
_* Q. Because ofthe fast growing ‘load on the Waterside
Station, and because of the alleged congested area and
no room for expansion in that location, that you ave going
to have to cither withdraw the station from operation or —
shift the loads over’ to other stations. A. The answer. is
still no. I will qualify it this way: The station will re-
main indefinitely, and it will carry the load for. which it is
designed.
. The increased load on the station or in the area, by an
orderly system .of load forecasting and: constriction, is —
taken off Waterside and put on other stations on what we
are now calling bulk power substations. It is a shifting
of load as it increases. But*the station will remain and
carry its designed load for an indefinite period.
: You stated in your earlier statement that the load at
years. Do I hear you correctly? A. Did I say area or
station?
Q. I thought you said station. A. Well, if I said station,
I should have said area.
82a
the Waterside station is to be increased in the next several ~
_—
2)
1210 |
Q. Well, are you saying that as the area load grows,
that it will be supplied by other stations, or by bulk.sta-.
tions or shifting of load around; is that what you are say-—
ing? A. As the load builds up ingthe Waterside area on
the Waterside station, and gets to a point where it is un- .
safe or unreliable to try to carry it t ere, plans are made
well in advance to shift some of that load to other stations, —
either existing ones or new substations which- may be
built. ; :
Q. Now, are you saying now that the loss of Boilers 71
and 72, which would be a 2 percent loss in system ca-
pacity, could not be shifted now to other stations or to
other sources of supply? A. It cannot under present
conditions. o ; a
Q. And when you say under present conditions, what are
the limitations so far as the present conditions are con-
cerned? , A. The present conditions of load growth and ~
' construction program to mect that load growth:
~~ Q. Well, ath I correct that one of the limiting factors in-
shifting the load is that you do not have the transmission
facilities from other stations into the area served by
Waterside? ;
The Witness: May I have the question again, please.
(The last question, as recorded, was read by the re-
porter.) .
\ 1211
“A. Ome of-the reasons, yes.
-By Mr. Jerome McGrath:
Q. What would be the others? A. The reasons I cited
before. j . ; ek 2
Q. Now, looking at it from a practical point of viéw, and
the overall Consolidated Edison system, are you here say-
a
—
(1211)
ing that a loss of 2 percent in system capacity by taking
Boilers 71 and 72 out ‘of service could not be made up by
other plarits in the system?»
Mr. Le Boeuf: I — he has answered that quention
twice before. [
Mr. Jerome McGrath: I want to get that clear.
ps. By Mr. Jerome McGrath:
Q. Is that what you are saying here? A. I am saying
that we cannot sustain that magnitude of loss over a con-
siderable period of time without considerable. advance
planning.
6 * * -« * ° . . o s
1212.
Q. Did you make any : studies at all, Mr. Manz, to deter-
mine whether you could alleviate this problem you have
at 71 and 72 by shifting the load over. to other stations?
‘A. The alleviation has been under consideration for years,
and many studies have been made. And the method that
you suggest obviously was not the only one under consid- |
eration.
1213
So I answered your question-by saying that so far as the
shifting of load is concerned as a remedy for stack emis-
sion at 71 and 72, is achieved by the very fact that we
don’t permit overloading of the units m the station; just -
the normal forecasting, planning of - load distribution,
achieves that.
That is why I said it that way.
Q. You are going. to be increasing your load on the
Waterside Station, aren’t vou? A. No. A station load
cannot be increased until extra capacity is added.
Q. I am'thinking of your testimony appearing at .tran-
script 138, commencing at line 19, where you state that
7 S4a
(1214)
these two stations—and I believe youowere there referring
to East River and Waterside—produced 13 billion pounds -
or 65 percent of the steam sold by the company in 1957,
and they were expected to produce 75 percent in 1958.
- That was in my testimony?
Q. Yes, at transcript 138, appearing at line’ 19, or com- |
- mencing at line 19. A. That refers to the steam load.
‘These two stations produce 13 billion pounds or 65
., pereent of the steam sold by the company in 1957, and
they were expected to produce 75 pm in 1958.”’
True, that is ‘an increase in steam load, but it does not in- °
crease the‘load on the boilers. It really means that
1214
]
_ there i is a shift of steam eeneeten from electric to steam
production. - :
Q: What you say there, you are taking some of’ the gen-
. erating capacity, let’s say, and putting it into the distribu-
tion system, is that right? A. This is a combination of
Waterside and East River figures, and most of the addi-
‘tion will probably come from East River: ’
Q. Yes, but to the-extent that there would be an increase
at Waterside which, as I gather from your last answer,
you are transferring some of the electric generation over
to the steam. A. A moderate amount,.yes, that happens all
the time. ©
Q. So that to the extent that you do reduce the electric
xeneration at Waterside. and are transferring it over to the
steam side, let’s says, you are transferring your electric
load over to some other station, aren’t you? <A. That is
not a trpnsfer i in the sense that you imply it; it happens
automatically in the operation of the plant because these
these topping units supply steam for the low pressure units
which generate electricity and also supply steam for that
portion of the steam.system which is supplied from Water-
\
85a
(1214); ion
side. And true, there are additional steam customers
added, and there again it is in the electric system. If the
steam load in the area, of W aterside is ‘increased beyond |
the _
1215
capacity of the steam system to supply it, then. the cus-
tomers will haye to-be added‘to that portion of the steam>
systein which is fed from East River. . a ~'
Q. Yes, but I am just trying to get straight your previous
answer, and that was that there would not be a further
load ‘imposed on the Waterside Station by any increase,
whatever it might be, in the steam production, but that there
would be-more steam going into the distribution, steam
distribution system, taking it away from the electyic gen-
-—~cration system; that is‘correct, isn’t it? A. That is correct,
~ in moderate amounts.
Q. Whatever the amount might be, ‘to the extent that
you take the steam away from the electric generation, you’
have to make up that electric generation by transferring
the load over to another station, don’t yout. A.
* Yes, in moderate amounts.
Q. When you say a moderate amount, would: it be in the
neighhorhgod of 2 percent? A. Probably less than that.
Q. How much? A. Under 2 percent.
Q. Between | and 2? A. TI don’t know.
1216
_Q. What are the present heights of the stacks at Water-
side? Would 450 feet sound about right to you?
a . - s ae * ® . a ® eB
The Witness: I might be off a foot or two. 474 feet.
° —- ® i °. *: ® -* a @
86a
(1218)
s |
—_ 1217
Q. Welt, since, the East Stack is the one that apparently
is giving you concern, could you increase the height of the
- East Stack without increasing the others? A. It could be
done,.certainly, physically.
‘Q. What is the height—what are the heights of the
buildings in the vicinity.
Maybe I can shorten this by asking whether the —
in the area age higher than the stacks?. A. Of course, The
United Nations’ Building is higher. than the top of our
stack.
Q. Is that ‘the only one? A. Well, I am not sure. The
Tudor City buildings across the street are approximately
the sane height as the stack, and
1218 2
the United Nations is higher, it is 542 feet. 7
Q. What would be the height of the new stacks that ‘you
said a study was made of several years ago? A. A height
of 700 feet.
Q. With a stack 700 feet corinected to Boilers 71 and 72,
you are showing emission problems .and the complaints
you have had from Tudor City and the United Nations and
‘the like would be greatly minimized, would they not? A. I
think they would.
Q. Can vou give us a figure as to the cost of constructing
the East Stack up to the’ height of about 700 feet? A. No,
. | can’t.
(). Would not a 600 feet high stack be sufficient and re-
dnee the cost considérably? A. Probably. »
(¥. Did you make any investigation in your attempt. to
alleviate this air pollution problem to construct or to: de-
paernine whether a stack of 600 feet high at 71 and 72 would
tliminate this problem? A. That is a lengthy question.
Let me have it.again. ?
ad
or : | 8la
(1218) |
Q. Let me re-phrase it. . You said you have made nu-
‘merous studies and investigations on this problem of the
emissions from the stacks at Waterside No. 2, and particu-
larly Boilers 71 and’ (72, after your studies you came up )
_with the conclusion that the only answer was to burn nat- »,
ural gas,correct? a
1219
A. That is right. .
Q. Now, my question is, did you make any study, or what
did your study—let me ask you this. Did you make any
‘studies to determine whether a scr! 600 feet high, when -.
connected to Boilers 71 and 72, ld not, whether that _
would not alleviate the si esd at you are concerned
with? A. As I said, there were many studies made, and
[ am not familiar with the details of the studies made in
New York University Wind Tunnel Laboratory, but that
problem. was studied thoroughly at that time and at New
York University Wind Tunnel Laboratory, and various®
heights of stacks were inyestigated by the use-of- models,
and wind velocity and rates of combustion. But it was ¢on-
cluded that it was not ecenomically justifiable. On top of
that, there was a-restriction on the height of our stacks
‘by an agency which I cannot name exactly but which had. to
ao with the aesthetic character of the “neighborhood sur-
rounding the United Nations’ community.
We were limited to the present height or a height not
very much greater.
7 . . > e . °@ . . .
1221
Q. Referring to your testimony, appearing, I believe,
at transcript 140, I think it begins at the bottom of 139,
you say at the last line 25 on 139, ‘‘After years of experi-
mentation with various methods of smoke control, the com- -
pany is convinced that it would be necessary to rebuild two -
48a
(1224)
large Boilers at Waterside at a cost of $12 million if smoke
is to be held within safe limits when coal is used as a fuel.”
Do you see that testimony? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Le Boeuf: What page is thatf
Mr. Jerome MeGrath: 139, going over to y
By Mr. Jerome McGrath:
Q. The two large boilers that you are there referring
to are the 71 and 72 that we have been speaking of? A.
Yes. ‘ '
. * - © > . . . . . .
. 1223
Q. Let me get your testimony of yesterday. Perhaps
the word “*purchase*’ is wrong, But you said usage. in the
stations in 1957, that‘ appears at transcript 1,178, a total
of 28,559 Mmef, plus ‘an insignificant amount at Hudson
Avenue, A. Where is it in the record?
Q. Transcript 1,178, it is 28,559 Mmef.
. . . * . e. ° . . .
| 1224
That was the amount of gas you used in 1957 at the
‘Boiler stations named? A. Yes, sir. aay
Q. Taking that volume of gas if you merely divided by
365 days, it works out to about 78,578 Mef a day, would
you accept that subject to check? A. Yes.
Q. If this air pollution problem at Waterside is so press-
ing and of such interest to your company, why didn’t you
use that.gas to the extent that it was available in Water-
_ side? A. We don’t have the facilities there now for that
usage. But associated with the problem of trying to cure
the smoke pollution problem, we are interested in getting
- the pipe line or the gas capacity to carry next winter’s
load, and the sixty day feature which ‘provides or
procures: for us the additional capacity that we need
89a
f
{1224) .
for the gas system, works .in beautifully with the use
of gas as boiler fuel at Waterside.
Q. How .long have you had air pollution problem at
Waterside? A. As an approximation, we have. had. the
problem since about 1949 or 1950, because the original in-
stallation of dust collecting, fly ash collecting « equipment
only included electric oe those boilers were in-
, Stalled in 1a, ‘the . | '
1225
\
sixties and the seventies, ae they were equipped origi-
* nally only with electric precipitators. But by the time
the United Nations was built and the character of the gen-
eral neighborhood changed, we had to seek to improve the
conditions, and so beginning im 1953 through 1955, we added
the mechanical] collectors in series with the electric pre-
cipitators in order to try to solve that problem.
Q. When did you first start purchasing natural gasdrom -
Transcontinental? A. Was it 1951? |
Q. I think that is correct. And from that time until the
present your company has had substantial volumes of Val-
ley gas available to it which was used in its boiler plants
throughout, or in various boiler plants of its system, didn’t
it? A. Yes.
Q. Did you make any effort to try and bring natural gas
down to Waterside between 1951 when it first became avail-
able, and the time that you asked Transco to transport gas
for you?’ A. There was an attempt made about that time,
I can’t recall now when it was after we, had entered into .
the early negotiations with Trangeo or before, but there
was an attempt: made té secure permission for the use of
natural gas to be used as boiler fuel in Waterside to cure —
that particular situation, and it was refused, it was the
subject of some
90a.
.
Pad algwovdea beeen
| (1227)
1226
discussion in the newspapers of the time. I-can’t recall
now what year it was. . >
Q. When you say permission, wliat do you mean, Federal :
Power Commission authority? A. I don’t Kriow whether
it was formally submitted, but the newspaper articles’ and
the memos of meetings held indicate that-somebody on the
Federal Power Commission had something to do with it,
yes, sir. ; ar .
Q. Well, did you have to get permission from the Federal
Power Ricci to-use gas in Hell Gate or Astoria?
A. No. ; ;
Q. Why would you haye to get it for use in Waterside?
A. If I recall correctly, I Aon’t think the gas had been intro-
duced into New York, and this might have been the fore-
. tunner of bringing gas into New York. | say, I am hazy on
the time. -I am just trying to answer your. first question
as to whether any attempts had been made to introduce gas
as a boiler fuel before, and I Say. there was.
Q. Let us look at your testimony of yesterday, where
you show at the Hell Gate Station in 1957 you used 17,789
Mmef of natural gas, which, worked out on a 365-day basis,
would provide you with well in excess of 25,000 Mef per
day, which I understand is -the requirements for the 71
and 72 boilers? A. That is correct.
Q. Why couldn’t you take the Hell Gate gas and put it
into Waterside?) A. It could be done, except that that
wouldn’t take care of the gas, boiler gas at Waterside, the
year round, because we wouldn't have the capacity, we .
would have to give it up during .the cold. weather.
Q. How many days during the year would there be an
interruption in the gas at Waterside, if you used the gas
that is presently going to Hell Gate? — )
Ola
_ (1228)
1228
’ he Witness: We would have to eliminate or curtail’
boiler fuel during the 1958-1959 winter season, under these
assumed conditions, 95 days.
By Mr. Jerome MeUrath:
Q. Now, based upon your 1957 operations, you would
have gas, available for the Waterside Station well in ex-
cess of 95 days, whatever it was, isn’t that true? A. Well,
1 don’t know how many days, because I have not worked
that out, and I will not sure we can answer that right off
. without some work, but the reason we have not tried to
pipe this fuel into Waterside is that we lack assurance of
a continuous os ;
1229
supply throughout the year.
Q. Wouldn’t, Mr. Manz, a clean staek for nine, ~months
out of the year be better than none at all? A. Yes.
Q. Why didn’t you. do it, if this problem is as pressing
as you say it is? A. Because I do not believe that the
Air Pollution Control Commission of the City of New
York will accept three months pollution.
* . @ ; =e + @ . ° * . @ >
Q. Are you saying here that Dr. Greenburg would not
stand still for 90 days, or whatever it might be, interrup-
tion of gas supply, but would insist on full, complete use
- of gas
1230
at 71 and 72? A. I didn’t say that, I said I did not think
he would, his Commission would tolerate those conditions
for three months, stack conditions for three months.
8 . . *. . . ° . ® .
, :
92a ;
-_
ra 8 ee
- (1285)
1234
. . By Mr. Jerome McGrath: -
Q. Yesterday, Mr. Manz, vou testified that the tests ti
determine the. amount of—that appears at transcript 1196
—to determime the stack emissions was conducted in ac-
cordance with the A.S.M.F. Code. A. Yes. :
Q. Now, let me ask you this: When you say tests, were.
more than one test conducted?’ A. Yes.
Q. Did these tests determine the size of the particles
and the effluent from each stack at Waterside?. A. | don't
remember whether the size was determined, but the emis-
sion was determined, yes.
Q. Well, isn’t it a fact, Mr. Manz, that the size of the
particles emitting from the stack is a very importent fac-
tor in air pollution? A. Yes: oe
Q. And you are saying here. that you don't. know
Whether the A.S.M.E. tests determined the size of the. par-
ticles emitting from the stack? -A.<It may have been done,
but the portion of the results which were given to me’
do not inelude that.
Q. Let me ask you: Do yow know the size of the par-
ticles that are in the effluent from the stacks at Waterside?
. 1235 -
A. No, I do not.
Q. Now, does the City of New York have a standard for
a plant such as Waterside ax to the amount of stack emis-
sion permitted? A. Yes, it has a code.
Q. What is that standard? A, This code is entitled
‘*Rules and Regulations, Including Fee Schedule, for the
Issuance of Permits and Certificates in Conformance with
Chapter 47 of the Administrative Code of the City of
New York, Effective May 15, 1954." It is put out by
‘ the Department of Ar Pollution Control.
93a
_—
(1235)
(2. What is the standard that would control the stack
emissions, say, at Waterside? A. In a table on page 7 of
that déeument, there is a section labeled 1.2: **Dust.’’
Under that section it reads
**No person shall cause, suffer, or allow to be
.
‘ °
a
1236 ;
plants, or to pass a convenient measuring point adja-
cent to the stack outlet within the City of New York or
upon waters within the jurisdiction of said city, dust
in he gases to exceed the concentrations set forth in’
the following table, sanept as noted in Paragraph B
of this rule.’*
And the table has twe ilies. The first heading is
“™Steam Generated in Pounds per Hour.’’ And the other
column is headed “Pe minds, Dust, per 1,000 Pounds of
Steam."
And on the lefthand column under “Steam Generated in —
Pounds per Hour,’ the quantities listed are 100,000 or
less, T5OO,008, 200,000. 300,000, 400,000, 500,000, 600,000
800,000, one million or mere, :
In the righthand column under ee ee per 1,000°
Pounds of Steam,** 2.2, 4.9, 1.7, 1.4, 1.2, 1.1, 1.0Napd 0,9, -
vs.
Q. That is the amount of dust that can be emitted from
= stack. Is there any control or any standard, I should
, for smoke or SO.?) A. For smoke, subdivision 1,
« Enisaion ‘is prohibited,"’ heading 1.1, ‘Dense Smoke,’’
heading, 1.1:
“Except as otherwise hevein provided, -no person
shall cause, suffer or allow dense smoke ‘to ‘be emitted
into the open air from amy fuel burning equipment
" 4a
emitted into the open air from the stack of any boiler
CO ——— .
a feet oe (1238)
1237 .
including but not limited to internal combustion en-
_gines, locomotives, marine craft, open’ fire, incinerator,
premises or Vessel within the City of New York or
upon waters within the jurisdiction of said city:
*“*Exception: When a fire box is being cleaned or a
new fire is being built in a coal boiler or furnace, then
smoke may be emitted for a period of four continuous
minutes. *’ : Le.
Q. How about dense smoke, the definition? A. I just
read it ax it is set forth herein, — . /
Q. Well, referring to’ that: regulation under the para-
graph entitled zero, ‘‘definitions,’’ on the first: page—do |
vou have it there? A. Yes, I do.
Q: Do you see ‘dense smoke’'! A: Yes.
Q. What is the definition of ‘‘dense smoke’? A, As
given here it is: . ; |
“Smoke so dense that it cannot be seen through at
the point of emission. It is equal to or of greater
opacity, density or shade then No. 3 on the standard
smoke chart: of the Department of Air Pollution
Control.’’ —-o~ :
Q). How about the restrictions of SO,, is there any stand-
urd for the emission of SO,? A. If there ix, T am not
familiar with it.
1238
(). Now, going back to the standard on dust, the table
that you read into-the record, where in that table does the -
Waterside Station fit inf?’ A. The last item, which is one
nillion pounds of steam generated per hour or more, and:
the limit is 0.8 pounds of dust per 1,000 pounds of steam.
oe e
Q. What are the stack emissions from the stacks at
* Waterside! A. Just a moment, '
95a
(1239) -
1239
| don’t have the exact date of this test, but the report |
is dated February 3, 1958, and at average annual boiler
outputs, Stack No. 2, serving Boilers 61, 62, 71 and 72 at
Waterside—I am reading this table incorrectly--71 and 72
boilers feeding into Stack No. 2 are 0.498 pounds of dust
per 1,000 pounds of steam; and 61 and 62, 0.95
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.