# Transcript of Record — FPC v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386409_0318%3A01 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Transcript of Record - **Published:** January 1, 1961 - **Citation:** 365 U.S. 1 ## 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 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 * > 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 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 - . 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! * 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? 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 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 . ~ - 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? .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? 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.the standard of comparison, a 325-mesh screen passes material of 44 microns in size and smaller. | | - Q. Can you give us an estimate as to what would come ont of the outlet side. of the collector rather than the inlet side? A. | discussed -that matter with our technical people who made these tests, Mr. McGrath, and they advised 108. Fa (1316) me that the percentage distribution will be approximately the same on the outlet side as the inlet side, the difference would be in the volume of particles coming out. - Q.. Now, is this after the electrostatic precipitator?: A. _ No, this is the inlet to both mechanical and a: 1317 7 electrostatic. Q. After the eectyestitie precipitator, after the dust passes through that, what would be the size of the particles emitting from the stack? A. I have no test on that. “~ , 4319 Q. Isn’t it a fact, Mr. Thomas, that any atility, as you say, will emit dust, but-when you have the equipment on there, the particles will be so fine that the emissions from the stack would be carried away by the wind from the — area of the plant? A. That is one of the factors, Mr. ee But 1320 your statks have to be, among other things, your~stacks have to be far enough above the surrounding buildings for the wind to be effective. Q. Are you stating here now that with-a 474-foot stack, as Mr. Manz testified to this morning, that the particles of smoke are falling right next door to the Tudor ‘City area? A. I didn’t think I made that statement. Q. That is what you-are stating now, is it not? A. Some of them will. : 8 What percentage? A. I have no idea. 1326 _ Q. Mr. Thomas, if Edison should use natural gas in 1040 : (1337) . «1327 | _ ' Waterside no. 2, as it proposes, what would be the dis- placement of coal, tonnage-wise, could you tell us? A. Mr. McGrath, with the 50,000 Mmef, of X-20 service— Q. Mmef? A. 50 Mmef—of X-20 service, which is the *subject of this docket, approximately 640,000 tons of coal. ' would be displaced at Waterside No. 2. 1328 Q. Yes. But carrying your projections, as your exhibits reflect them, to 1960 and 1961, and if your program was to go through as you propose, your gas department would ‘be using—excuse me—your electric department, in the boiler fuel use, would be using more gas than your gas _ department? A. Primarily in the smoke control. Q. Yes, but that is the case, is it not? A. That is the case. * * - of ° @. * a, war 1337 Q. I see. Now, you spoke: about complaints yesterday: _ from people. Just what was the magnitude of those com- ' plaints. Was it,- say, one or two individuals, or just what did you mean to convey by your testimony with reference ‘o your use of the term ‘‘complaints from ‘people?’’ A. Well, Mr. Brunner, I didn’t have too much data on that yesterday. It seemed to us so obvious that Con Edison wouldn't have spent $43 million to take care of smoke conditions if we had not been thoroughly convinced we had a-problem. I did do a little: checking on it overnight. | find that our tests, as Mr. McGrath described them, vary - from a call on the customer to extensive tests such-as we ran at the United Nations for two months in a row, where’ we kept men on all day shifts testing eight hours a day. There were some twenty tests which are of sufficient 105a (1337) importance to have our, trained technicians and erlyineers go to the customers’ premises, collect samples of the dust, - * and take them over to our chemical laboratories for analy- sis, where miscroscopic amination showed flue ash, which _ was identical in , ’ 1338 | character with that emitted from the Waterside stacks. ° . . oe ° ° °: e . . 1340 Couldn’t the gas now being used in Hell Gate be trans- ferred to the boilers for use as a fuel at Waterside? a s . ° ; s e ; oe o J e The Witness: There are several reasons why that has not been done, Mr. Brunner. By Mr. Brunner: Q. Well, I think first of .all the question was could that be done? e . Presiding Examiner: As a physical operation? 1341 Mr. Brunner: Yes. | The Witness: Physically, but it would not satisfy our smoke problem. ; Mr. Brunner: All right. » By Mr. Brunner: 4). Do you care to supplement that statement? A. Yes. I think if you would perhaps look at revised plate 11—| believe that is Exhibit 79, you will:see that on line’ 12, under the year 1959, there is only 12,036 Mmef of gas, interruptible gas, available for boiler fuel. And if you remember the figures I gave-Mr. McGrath yesterday showed Gat we would need 16,770,000 Mcf in Waterside in 1959 106a (1346) for these purposes. So we would not have enough inter ruptible gas available on an annual basis. ae Again, we would not have enough gas available for ap- - | proximately 100 days every year to take care of the smoke conditions. And. third, that amount of kas; we feel, can far better be used in the future for storage than to be trans- ferred to the Waterside plant; . ‘ We would prefer to reserve that use for future storage. Q. Do you know whetlier Consolidated Edison has giade “any plans in the last ten years—-let’s say the last eight Years, because vou only go hack to 1950—to tramsfer some of the electric load from Waterside No, 2 to some of the "new units being installed at Astoria and Arthur Kill and ° other stations? A. Well, | am not a planning engineer, ! can’t speak in. detail on it. But my understanding of What the Edison Company is doing in regard to Waterside and the new stations is that ax fast ax the load grows, it ix picked up on the new stations. The load on Waterside itself does not vary greatly. The new stations are only ° going in fast enough to take the load growth. . Q). Then as | understand it, your answer to my inquiry ais no, they have made no plans, ; ~ Would you go back and read my qwstion, please. (The question heginning at line | ahove, as recorded; was read by’ the. reporter.) : A. T don't believe we have been able to transfer any ~ubstantial load from Waterside. By Mr. Brunner: (). The answer is no to my. question, vou have made no plans, to the hest of vour knowledge? A. To the hest of ny Knowledge. ’ ; ; Mr. Le Boeuf: I think the diffieulty is the. word ‘*plans."* 107a (1347) 1947 You ean be stadying but not carrying them out. ° . . . , e . *. * ° ‘1353 Presiding Examiner: Mr. Thomas, | know this is in the record, probably in a number of places, and you may not be the one to answer it and your counsel may say it is a legal question, But what is your understanding of the reason in the producer contracts with Consolidated Edison that there is a-prohibition against the “use of wis gas for sale for ultimate public consumption rather than boiler fuel use? The Witness: Well, I can tell you what they told me and why we consented to it. They said that is the only way they would sell it to us. ia’. Presiding Examiner: | realize that; it is in the ‘con- tracts. But do you knowwhy they don’t want you to_use that gas for any other purpose than boiler fuel? The Witness: | have the feeling that they were allergic te proceedings before the Federal Power Commission. . 1354 Presiding Examiner: That-is vour understanding of the reasems? | The Witness: That is my understanding: that es do not want to be under regulation and the necessity of long proceedings before the Cominission. a. . > 3 . im ° @ ° % o - 7. ; > , ae . &» - 1355 Q. But Boilers 71 and 72 are the only ones that exceed the standard of the City of New York code or whatever it ix that¢we are referring to, that we were referring to vesterday, the” eight-tenths* pounds’ per 1,000: pounds of 108a_ ~ (1402). steam? A. Our technical people advise me that none of the hoilers at Waterside exceed the standard. * 1401 Mr. Barrett: Before we ‘get into Dr. Greenburg’s cross, | wonder if I could take a minute or two. , I have a request to make of the staff which I hope they Will give serious consideration to. Tam unaware of what procedural steps may. be taken. in this proceeding to ae- evlerate final determination. 2. lam not going to conjecture what Your Honor or the Commission will do as to these steps, but I do have this problem. | : a We have contracted with Transeo fer additional gas, As Mr. Parlette testified, we have already sold a base heating load in this incremental gas supply. oo. ee OF course, we wil! support any motion that may he made ty accelerate a final decision. But we are concerned that “uch decision may conie too late for service: next winter. | think the record is complete as to the dates by which construction must be started io meet the services date, so T will not enlarge on that. Le, One of the more important. aspects in any proceeding lwfore this Commission, and one Which we respect, although perhaps we nay not always agree with, is the opinion of the 1402 “taff as to the nerits of the application. In some cases, the staff presents a direet case, ang the participants then know what the staff's position is, But when the staff does not present & case, the partici-- juints may never know what the staff's position is until the final brief is filed, and that may be some weeks away in this proceeding. . , 10s (1402) My company would appreciate it if the staff would take under advisement the possibility of stating for the record; before the hearing is closed their position with respect t the various proposals presented here, at least insofar as the Leidy storage is concerned, and the additional CD and. G-rate sales to the existing customers of Transco. I inake this request because if we know that the staff is opposing the additional ‘sales to the CD and Gi customers of Transco, that is, the éxisting customérs, our company may want to turn around and take some other steps to get the gas for next winter. It is only a little over six months before we may need the delivery of the gas which we*are seeking in this. pro- ceeding. Obviously if the staff’s position is known next week rather than a month from now, when their brief mev he filed, we will then have much more time to move around if necessary. And at, this stage every day is vital. [ don’t want to put the staff on the spot, I don’t want 1403. ~ them to make any commitments, or rush them into making any decision, but if by any chance they will let us know be- fore the hearing is closed what their position will be on: certain phases of this: application, | and my eompany would greatly appreciate it if they would state if’ for the record. e 1413 Dr. ihe Greeabyty / By Mr. Brunner: Q. DreGreenburg, have you yourself made any , studies with regard to physical damage; if any, to the structures ‘resulting from the stack emissions from the Consolidated Edison plants that we have uncer discussion here? A. Well, our staff has made observations in the field, yes. I haven't myself, no. : 110a a & gs (1415) . Q’ Do you have supplenicital reports available here at the present time resulting from those studies? A. I don’t think so, no. | | | 1414 Q. Then you can't say at this time from the informa- tion that you have that the fly ash emission. from the Consolidated Edison plants has had any detrimental effect on the health of the citizens of New York in that area in ‘which the plants are located, is that correct? A. No, ex- cept my general medical opinion that the presence of so mugh fly ash along with sulphur dioxide is detrimental to the health. This is my expert opinion in ‘this area of. knowledge. Q. But not from any studies. Not from any studies made inthe area? A. That is correct. -Q. Now, is that equally true with regard to any physical damages to structures in the area resulting from the fly ash emission and smoke or smog in the area in which Con- - solidated Edison plants are located?’ A. No, as I said hefore, the opinion as to damage to structures is based on work that was done by my staff. 1415 (). In the area here under consideration? A. Well, all over various areas in the City, including this area, ves, SIP. R : rh (Q. And what was the result of that study? A. Well, in general what we have found is-this. When pollution is emitted from a stack, the pollution tends to travel in what we call a plume. Now, if the area is uncluttered with buildings, this plume travels a certain distance, and is dissipated in the atfhosphere, and the solids in general fall out on the ground. This is a usual phenomenon. . [ia ° a (1415) On the other hand, if the stack is more or tess surrounded by tall buildings, then prior to its dissipation, the stack cor tents enter these adjoining building, or deposit right on. -the adjoining buildings. Now, this is what happened in this particular area that we have been discussing. ° . Q: Well, what has been the physical effect upon the struc-. tures that you have ir mind? .A. Well, we prepared, I be- lieve, a report on this subject. Let’s see if T ean find it. We prepared a report on this particular problem in general en- titled ‘‘Corrosion Aspects of Air Pollution’’, by myself -and - Dr. Jacobs, who is head of my research laboratory, and: this was presented at the Northeast meeting of the National Association of Corrosion . 1416 Engineers on May 10, 1955, as a part-of a symposium. And | believe it was published in the American Paint Journal. Now, in this particular paper, we reviewed: the subject of corrosion, and we speak about the effects of various materials in the atmosphere in polluted atmospheres. And we speak about the tremendous output of sulphur dioxide in New York City, and the content of sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere in New York. , And we presented, I believe, tables which -show the amount of sulphur dioxide in the air and its radiations. The tables are at-the rear of this manuscript. And I would he glad to give you this if you are interested in seeing . it. : ; im Q. What I am interested in, Dr. Greenburg, is whether or not you have any figures here or are able to express an opinion. with regard to the physical damage of the struc- tures in the area in which the Consolidated Edison plants are located that are the subject of discussion in this pro- fycdine here? A. Let me see now. As far as T can see, 1l2a Vo, cag ee (1416) é none of this manuscript relates xpecifically to this area, Mr. . Brunner. % Q. Can you give me an opinion, or can you give me any “information as to the dollar damages, if any, to the struc- tures in the area in which the Waterside plant is located as a result of this air pollution that we have had Cd ; : 1417 = under discussion? A. 1 don’t think I- could give you a figure that I would consider very reliable, Mr. Brunner. . Mr. Brunner: Would you read my question back, please? (The last question, as recorded, was: read .by the re- yu rter. ) ‘ . if Mr. Brunner: That is fine. Thank you very much, sir.’ That is all. : 1420 By Mr. Howley: Q.. Dr. Greenburg, there was testimony here yesterday afternoon either by Mr. Manz or Mr. Thomas, I am not sure Which one it was, who testified to a seale of permissible unounts of dust which appear in your rules and regula- tions. Do yeu recall that testimony? Were you present when that took place? A. Yes, sir, | a (). Is that one’ of: the tests with respect to air pollution in the Cit¥ of New York? ; > 2 ® ° * e * ° ° * ° : 1421 A. Yes, sir, it is. (). Are there others? A. Yes, sir. (). Would you describe the others? A. Yes, sir. With reference to installations such as the one under considera- 113a 1 (1421) tion here at ‘this hearing, the department has at least three approaches. . | One is the requirement that sources may not emit cer- tain Aypes of smoke for certain periods of time of in ex- cess of certain periods of time, which we eall a‘prohibition on emission of smoke. THat is one. And I can read that, if you would like me to. “The second is a general clause ¢ on the emission “of _ ticulate matter. And I think it is very important, and with your permission, I would like to read this. This is Section 1.3 in our rules. And the ew heading is 1422 ‘‘Particuiate and Other Matter.’’ Section 1.3.1 says: ‘*No person shall cause, suffer or. allow to be emitted © into the open air from any fuel or refuse burning equip- ‘ment, internal combustion. engine, locomotive, vehicle, . incinerator, open fire, floating equipment, premis::, in- dustrial process, or from any other source within the city of New York, or upon waters within the jurisdic- tion of said city, any air contaminant, harmful or objec- _tionable substance, including, but not limited to, smoke, soot, fly ash, dust, fuels; gases, vapors, nuisance odors, that may be a detriment to the property of others or that may be a nuisance to any person not-being therein or thereupon engaged. When the Commissioner shall declare a nuisance as above defined to exist, it shall be deemed to have been created, and may be summarily abated by the Commissioner or his duly authorized — agent.”’ , This is the general nuisance clause in, our ‘rules and ‘regulations. @ Q. And this clause that: you just quoted has. nothing to do with spe ‘ifie ineasurements, is that correct? A. No, this doesn’t require anything more than the opinion of the Lita eae ee oe ar” . fall jars on this: tenni (1426) Comunissioner based on observations by him or kis assist- ants as to what .is taking place. : ‘ : . * - ) * . °* .* .@ * . ; +1423 Q.. Very well. 1 will ask you very directly. In your opinion, .Doctor, do you regard that precipitation in that neighborhood as directly attributable. to the Waterside plant? A. I do. : “' « ° d o -@ «/ . * * * . | oe 1424 By Mr, Jerome McGrath : ‘ Q. Is there any particular stack at Waterside that you say this precipitation is coming from?: A. The Depart- ment-of ‘Air Pollution Control, my department, finds fault with a number of Consolidated Edison Company installa- _tions, and we have reason to believe that the Waterside stack, the Waterside ‘stacks, are all putting out at times more pollution than. they should: But we think, based on _ records in our department that the. stack that serves Boilers'71.and 72, I betieve, is the greatest offender. If I ain correct, it was 71 and 72. We believe that this was the stack that polluted the tenis court to which reference was made earlier in the ‘day. - 1426 | might say, in connection with the question ‘you asked immediately before about the output of this area, we did a study for eight: months on the tennis court about which there was some diseyssion today. And we put some soot \s court to collect the material that was deposited there. And the report which J got from our laboratory showed that the deposit in those soot fall jars ll5a (1426) amounted to what was 180 tons per square mile, whereas the _ average for the ¢ity as a whole is something of the order of «~ ? 20 to 75, something in that generaL nature P ate , Moreover, we took this material from hye soot fall jars and examined it-under the microscope and made photo- graphs of it, and we. found that this was the material that was emerging from the stack of the Consolidated Edison. This is what we did specifically in that particular case. . * o * * . ° . . /* v ° . 1427 Mr. Brunner: How do you relate the soot fall that you have just referred to; to the Waterside plant? “The Witness: This was close up to the Waterside plant, and this was the large particles which. would ‘settle out directly from the stack. You see, when you have a stream of pollution coming from a stack, you have a statistical - assortment of ‘particles of many different sizes. - There are particles there that may be half a micron in size, rang- ing up to particles of 10 and 15 and 20 microns. Now, the heavier particles deposit néarer .the stack, aearer the point of source, and the lighter particles drift _ off in the distance and deposit at some distance away, , or if the wind is strong enough, they may be swept away in the wind. a 6a S : ps0. uP 17039 ae q ae —— y a — } es . py PO or > 2 y >. = - | gar ay en So ee Fe Py S ae ag —_ a = = a = eo? Za . = ——s - an Se x oS! - aa > 7 ~ i we ee “ . G- r ’ ogg += 800m -20°006 ra 650 wm - 20°00. owes . ’ zi. | As ~ 00m -20 008 Sa°wT f , | ed 4 y ZX Le - 180 m-0"00s sa er : a . : ary oi of, Gc - cep m -1 08's surer . S ¢ hs /- 98S -w 000 weer [ SEL, ‘ a onsame 7. - 100m -6" 00s Beer eee- -6" 006 375 wT Se 100 a - 0 s oFeT SN wen, 6 - BSO ml -" 005 Se°uT ’ — y 7] ® - (COm-@ 00s Ser is Ms- 080 wm -8°ODe Fut. i ee Thea | | = 1080 we -O78C'@D « 4iswT - : ‘ ° = 00m -anveocnrer > - 080 mi -6" O05 oe wg | = 080 w -ancon « aswt ~_ -onxe oe | ‘| bd -« @ -Orettds seswr i? = ~ Q ‘ » - °90 wm -9685°00 « Set . . Geecaleneragengall | ee = ae Fay Vi soso me -serron «mw? q ai i . = J : TNs | | | vy Py por - ——e «aamua «case asd ‘ | ieee (cee tot ns 2} a ae. oe at 24404 OO s Sa wT eeu 3°00 ss" wt a er 733 & -36°OO « 400° aT | te ms 70 ro To up s0 8 ur ssa Tome ceret ] - | wr 67°30 me eens ue ro ur roe | [ur rose to wr reac ¢ i eeenndllienttiicemmnetl —_——— * . ee we 154059 MP 1628 95 (ae 1722.98 By hy . am were . | 6 Coopen-ersseune ea ers | 7-C.am vers fs -:oree- we ssemee > am ums [7 -ccsm ums oan mts | — 80.000" «no e+ ~ 000 @«° 20 Bre i 200 One | 2.000 ee |. “200 On | 200 One | 5.00 ere . 4 zs ‘ a. i ee wr ueeee 7 ee wpize726. . MPIS26 4 M Piai3 2: uP iaoo Ss MPIse3sE ; P1674 75 \ Be (sae | Gee Poe on ‘+ C.eme Scvaee vets } ‘ . ; eesteee ty soe s . . 4 SS | ae = thee P 10,000 © “* «J iToosen, exsst we p24 : | ‘ eataty ade ‘J Comptyononcne Jairk ff 2ecoerr we 120607 rao 9 ne | ah le , ; ‘ | ; e . in---—- - - - — ! es oe : . x 006: 3'ud « 408 wT em Bi + 408° wt Perey | os To uP 94099 uP 1940 99 TO uP 1907 97 ree -t'08 .eos Th 1096 wm -38°00 « 408° @T Lid wer, Lar wees mese . fu > isesen we wr sa0 ae oo “ ; . : . . . ° = WH SS . ~ . MOO . ~~ N YN ‘ wN z \ SX WWNTCeEeF6Fe QQ CK QQ MAAN “P1722 36 ; | FP T - * e- Camm UMTS ERO OF MPE Vine ae wo 9. * ‘3.600 One. epunattas é | = : , ows PAGE NO pee a ww x o | D.F SYLVA N JA s \ NEW ‘f ORK Ps SS } — eee a / \ — f NS a cmos | f maarosee Sear \ ke | ceenemeeris| Lesa sen h Lars ste aI f \ Nc*E W ! = - \ Se Ceurzaeete ——t&GENO— : Cowen? . ei oO we @® rtenaton stanow \N . : i : “air . eerie o * eemperaanetts, Ch CET CUPED @ « ncorreenta SxOusnt wETE® station (0) CUBTOMER OWNED Cr nana METER arc (CC som woos woOeT #627 50 TO MUOSON A1VER of | =S==- ——ncaes Sr ee emmecmuses PROPOSED PACA TES COCKE eines eqpeewees FACA/THES PROPOSED DOCRET 6-' 3890 1900 CONSTAUC ON O0060% FACKITES PROPOSED COCHET 6-708 ud Vi Vhi \\ iy \\ , N > ; TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINE CORP 4 ; ri Cres CRINGE OEP ART IOENT HOUSTON. TEXAS BS rN if \QcaTiOn OF EXISTING ame pRoroess Vy ; - | | me aS 117a Sie. Wd Chon ar] OT v\ Te 17 30-3800 2 408 wT e23m-30°00 «Heat (3.99 @ -36° 00 « eee et Na N a cae & or eos ree sere) [errrecr rou reeee} nr recor ee cm xS \N Ie —=_ 6-925 %» Iou & System Delivery Capacity _ System Daily Delivery Capacity SyStem Daily Delivery Capacity into Zone g System Daiiy Delivery Capacity into Zones ] and ad (Line 2-lese Line 2) . : System Monthly Delivery Capacity System Monthiy Delivery Capacity fmto Zone 3 Syetem Monthly Delivery Capacity into Zonea 1 and 2 + (Line 5 lesa Line 6) i bag System Delivery Requirements (by monthe ) Zone 3 Firm Sales for Ressle excluding ay Ficm Transportation Available for LTF or other uge Leidy Requirementa (a) Base’ Storage Volumes from Southwest ~ (>) Top Storage Volumes Provided by Customers Interruptible Sales and Transportetion Total Deliveries into Zone 3 (Line 10, ll, 12, 14 and 16) Unused Capacity into Zone 3 shee for E Gas Sales (Line 6 lesa Line 17) Zones 1 and 2 Firm Sales for Resale. Firm Direct Sales Available for LIF or other use - Interruptible Sales and Transportation - * Total Deliveries into Zones 1 and 2 (Lines 20, 21, 22 and 23) Total System Delivery Requirements (Lines 17, 18 and 2h) Unused System Capacity Available only in Zones 1 and 2 (Line 7 less Line 24) -Total Line 25 amd 26 o s . 1958 .° = October - November December Sues Feorusery’ March ric May (2) (3). res (5): '« (6) 7) (2) (3) , 725 yx 735 OO 3,262,900 1,177,0 1,161, 00C fbi, 1,172,000 1,162,000 4 157,000 780 70 TIC , 900 935,000 a 345, LU SD yA IDs WV © O00 935 , COC 930 , 0. 145,000 145 ,00 227 , 000 232,00 231,00¢ 23i, 232,000 227., 006 227 ,000 —, - i 27553307 8,55), 3h, 337, 10% “3,7 ,o01 OK. ; P 5,187,900 34, 337,100 355329 , O00 27, BOS , 00 690,905 27,629, 3% 55,60 7, 008 , 300 2t.,201,0 28 {702 , OU 27 ,629, 30° SCHEDULED PURCHASES VS SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS ANNUAL WITHDRAWALS JANUARY 1, 1958 TO JANUARY 1, 1979 . (All Volumes in MMef @ 14.73 Psia) - ie Available . sine To Transco . . ae No. Field Name - Beller 11-58 1958 1959 1960 1961 —s_-1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 ay -—w? @ _* & —~) ® © (7) (8) (9) ~- (10) (i) @)si‘i«“w A) (15) (16) 22 Subtotal Firm Purchases * Ran 6,760,466 329,500 384,055 387,150 885,147 395,148 385,147 385,148 385,148 385,148 385,148 385,148 385,148 383,989 23. Spot Gas — . 16480 19,208 19,358 += 19,257 = 19,257 19,257 19,257 19,257 - 19,257 19,257 19257 19257 19,199 24 * Total Purchases 346,070 403,258 406,508 404,404 404,405 404,405 404,405 404,405 404,005 9 404,405 404,405 404,405 403,188 25 . Total System Requirements 346,070 © 408,258 406,508 404,004 404,405 404,405 404,405 404,005 404,405 404,405 404,405 404,405 409,188 26 Deficiency ; . : » « —%, ; ° . @ 119a aos) 2 ey ee er S Total Gas | ni ; 1-158 to. Gas as of - 1967 1968 8 8=_- 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 =. 1974 | 1975 = - 1976 1977 1978 1-1-79 1-1-79 (13) (44), (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (8B) (28) +, (RAY (88) (26) 385,148 ° 385,148 385,148 383,989 350,947 319,528 291,176 261,156 225,432 165,473 97,607 74,263 6,736,697 23,769 "19,257 19,257 = 19,257 19,199 17,547 «15,976 14,550 = 13,058 11,272 8,274 4,880 3716 . 336,835 404,405 404,405 404,405 403,188 368,494 335,504 305,735 274,214 236,704 173,747 102,487 77,979 ‘7,073,532 404,405 404,405 404,405 403,188 396,937 396,756 396,756 396,756 396,504 395,281 395,011 395,623 8,368,292 “28,443 61,252 91,021 122,542 221,534 202,524 317,644 1,294,760 159,800 Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation ' FPC Docket Nos. G-13143 et al Exhibit 18 » Section 4 ' Atvocation oF Cost or Service Year 1960 5362 TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINE CORPORATION - TasLe or ConTeNntTs : Cost or Service anp ALLocaTION ‘THEREOF Year 1960 . “Schedule — Description 1 Comparison of Allocated Cost of Service with . Revenues + 2 Sumimary of Allocated Cost of Service ¥& 3 Allocation of Cost of Gas Purchased for Sales, Purchased Gas Expenses, and Production and Gathering. Costs Allocation of Transmission Demand Costs Allocation of Transmission Commodity Costs Allocation of Distribution Costs Cost of Service by Functions and Classification Thereof. . yoo * 3 l2la CWO @AIOAwW Fw e J 27 Notes: TRANSCONTINENTAL ‘GAS PIPE LINE ( a COMPARISON-OF ALLOCATED COST OF SERVICE WITH REVENUES ~ Rate Schedule Ua) Sales for Resale Total Sales for-Resale Direct Sales --Zone 2 * Zone l Total Direct Sales Totel Sales Transportation X-1 = Se ‘Total Storage . “3 26 «Total ; ~~ .° Purchased Gas « Production and $.529,210 ° Schedule 3 ‘ Note: (a) Includes Rate Schedule S-2 volumes of 11,993,700 Mcf. ? y . Putas Costs TG -$ 2,050,857 1 Sade Sul, 2,611,216 ? 64, 307- “12,130 e *. . * . ce Transmission Coss Pi. mand vommncity o te ADD Ce) $ 20,557, 35C $ $.,397,37 & 239,008 » 500,445 o9l, 404 42,237 “9 aa , ~ IS9cf 4,434 1,29: eo M1, 25 1,3 42>, 10( : »Q7,19C O9,93 1, hey -. | 100,23 . “ id . . . © » ! $017 $31 32h i4o, 340 901, 450 ©) ane cS me 145, 340 » > 7 ’ 500 2,793,999 @ |} ” a) >, + a7} sso i% [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386409_0318%3A01. Public record. Not legal advice.