showing faulty wrapping, and he said to make sure it was marked as to date, time, and location.

We reminded him that we had already done this before he had seen the photographs. We mailed the photographs.

Marshall Taylor said a report would be made available to us in about 14 days. Fourteen days later Dorothy called Joseph Caldwell and asked for the report.

Joseph Caldwell told Dorothy we didn't deserve a report, and that the only thing we would receive is a statement that an investigation was made.

In this phone conversation, Dorothy noticed an extremely different attitude. We wanted more than ever to see the report. We felt they were hiding something.

At this point, we began contacting as many State and Federal representatives as we could, to get as much help as we possibly could, to get a copy of this report.

There wasn't a politician that could get the report for us. It was finally released in February of 1971, after we contacted Reuben Robertson at the Center for Study of Responsive Law.

Reuben Robertson called us and said that Joseph Caldwell said there was no investigative report made, just a summary of conversations made with various parties, and it was the Baker's word against the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, and we assumed the Oklahoma Corporation Commission was telling the truth.

Joseph Caldwell told a reporter for the Tulsa World, and Dorothy, that we had turned down a hearing before the Oklahoma Corporation Commission. This was a big lie. Dorothy told him we had not turned down a hearing.

Joseph Caldwell said, "You should have answered Chairman Nesbitt's letter of December 5, 1970."

Dorothy reminded Mr. Caldwell that he had told her quite clearly on December 8, 1970, that we did not have to write a letter, that he would handle it himself with Chairman Nesbitt, and there would be a thorough investigation made, there would be no need for a State investigation or hearing.

Dorothy and I knew at this time we were getting the grand runaround and we resented it, particularly when Mr. Caldwell told Dorothy on January 22, 1971, that it was now too late for us to have a hearing before the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, since we had not filed our complaint.

We received a copy of Mr. Caldwell's report, and we found it grossly in error. It was not accurate as to the dates, all the facts are missing, and none of the charges are presented. In the 6-hour interview with Taylor, he took down all dates, correct facts, and basic charges in the complaint.

As to the photo we sent, Mr. Caldwell acknowledged that the wrapping appeared to be faulty but said there was no way to tell where that section of pipe was.

The marking on the photo reads "No. 3, 11-30-70, 2:30 p.m., facing northwest toward river, approximately 1,000 feet east of Caney River. Pine was put in crossing."

We can prove that Mr. Caldwell was lying when he said our photo was unmarked. Mr. Caldwell has given us the super runaround.

Dorothy and I felt we wasted 2 months trying to obtain the results of an investigation that never took place.

At this point we felt that the Federal Safety Board was working for the interests of the pipeline companies, rather than for their designated responsibility of protecting the public.

Several days later we got a letter from Mr. Caldwell stating that we should take any additional complaints to the Oklahoma Commission. It was apparent that the tactic being used was to discourage and confuse us. But we were more determined.

Marshall Taylor did not physically or visually inspect this pipeline, as they had already buried their mistakes.

When we were informed there was no investigation, we demanded a hearing before the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, with the assistance of our attorney, Gerald Camins.

There were 3 weeks of testimony spread out over a period of 4 months. It started in April of 1971 and ended in July.

We had no hearing sessions in June as Chairman Nesbitt and the other two commissioners closed the safety hearings to take a month's vacation, even though a trial examiner conducted the hearings.

We were offered the services of a commission attorney. We declined as we were told by this same attorney that he would not only represent us during the hearing, but also the State corporation commission. He would also defend the commissioners' decision regardless of who they ruled for.

Dorothy and I wanted an attorney that would represent us personally rather than having a conflict of interest.

In a letter to Reuben Robertson at the center, Mr. Caldwell states that "We have no information that indicates that the State is placing the entire burden of proof on the citizens. The burden of proof that a pipeline is safe is for the companies to demonstrate."

We have news for Mr. Caldwell. The Oklahoma Corporation Commission has placed the entire burden of proof on us. This unbelievable burden was placed on us when they refused to send an inspector to inspect the line when it was uncovered and when we requested it. This burden of proof has cost us over $21,000 to date and the cost is still mounting.

We have taped all of the hearings, and when we receive a transcript, we proof it with the tapes. We have found many errors in the transcripts. The court reporters also used a tape recorder. They have checked back and changed all the errors we found.

But, now we have been advised by letter to our attorney that in order to get a correction on a transcript, we must apply for a special hearing before the commission. This will be an additional expense and burden to us, and it certainly is uncalled for when the court reporters have their tapes to verify any changes requested.

The $21,000 does not represent any part of the additional expenses we are out for maintaining another home. We were forced from our home due to the hazard of this faulty pipeline. We have not had the use of our home since December of 1970. Dorothy and I have sold our cattle at a loss.

We had to mortgage our farm, and have sold other assets at a loss to get funds to continue fighting this injustice.

We have made five requests during the hearing to shut the line down. or substantially reduce the amount of pressure until a final decision is received. Our four requests were turned down, and the last one, which was made in July, has not been answered yet.

We asked the Oklahoma commission to uncover the line so we could prove our charges, but Public Service Co. of Oklahoma wanted us to post a quarter of a million dollar bond, plus pay all of the expenses for uncovering the line. This we could not afford.

At the hearing we presented witnesses and evidence to faulty wrapping, failure to properly cushion rock in ditches so as not to damage the coating or the pipe, failure to bury the pipe at required depths, misalinement of longitudinal seam when field bends were made, and the most damaging of all-the X-rays.

We hired an expert to examine the X-rays and he found approximately 2,000 welds that are not within the minimum Federal and State safety code. The commission brought from out of State a completely impartial expert to examine a sampling of the film our expert rejected as not being within the code.

The Oklahoma commission's independent expert found more extensive defects in his examination, whereas our expert tended to be more conservative.

When Mr. Caldwell was informed by us of the tremendous amount of weld defect, he told Dorothy the code only required the company to X-ray 15 percent, and if it had 15 percent good welds, that they were still within the code. This is absolutely ridiculous and outrageous.

No place in this code does it state that a company can have 85 percent of its welds defective, as long as they can produce 15 percent acceptable welds.

When Mr. Chastain, the State inspector for the safety board, testified, he said he was contacted by Senator McSpadden and he told him that he would check out our complaint, but he was told by his superior, Maurice Meyers, not to go any farther than the west bank of the Caney River.

We live on the east side of the Caney River, also, the section of pipe that was to go into the river crossing was on the east side of the Caney River.

We have just this week written the commission demanding that the commission conduct a hearing to investigate fraudulent statements Public Service Co.'s witnesses have made.

In the meantime, we are deprived of our home, while the company is not deprived of the use of its gas line. This pipeline is like a bomb with an unknown timing device. It can explode at any time.

I ask you, would you ask your family to live next to such a hazard, and put up with the mental strain of wondering if this is the day it will explode?

On our property alone there are 29 defective welds as shown on the X-rays, and the most important X-rays we are concerned about, seven X-rays, are missing for some unexplained reason. Our concern is because they are in sequence to some of the more glaring defects observed by our expert.

The company and Joseph Caldwell's defense is that the hydrostatic test is a cure-all, even for defective welding. If this is so, why were

there 1,019 explosions on natural gas lines alone that caused death, injury, or property damage in 1970?

I have worked hard for many years to provide my family with the security of a home. In a matter of months I have lost most of my assets and will be in debt for many years to come, through no fault of my own, but this has come about because of the lack of responsibility the industry and the Federal and State Safety Boards have shown.

Perhaps you cannot help me and my family at this time, but I ask you, please do everything you can so this will never happen to another American citizen.

Thank you.

Senator HARTKE. I don't have any questions. I did want your testimony in the record before we called upon the next witness. Maybe we will have some information for you at that time.1

Mr. BAKER. Thank you, Senator.

Senator HARTKE. Mr. Robert L. Lawrence, counsel of Transok Pipe Line Co.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. LAWRENCE, GENERAL COUNSEL,

TRANSOK PIPE LINE CO.

Mr. LAWRENCE. Mr. Chairman, Transok Pipe Line Co. is a gas transmission company which supplies natural gas for boiler fuel to Public Service Co. of Oklahoma, an electric utility serving about 315,000 customers in Oklahoma.

We have built and are now operating 445 miles of 5LX transmission pipeline since 1955. All of it has been constructed since 1955.

We have a safety record of 100 percent freedom from accidents that are the concern of this committee, and I might add, our own concern. We share your committee's concern over safety standards for the construction and operation of pipelines. That is why we have not been content just to meet the minimum standards of the Federal Pipeline. Safety Code, which was adopted and is enforced by the State of Oklahoma. On the contrary, we have exceeded the code in almost every in

stance.

The Bakers' home is located in a rural area in Oklahoma, and the code permits less exacting construction specifications and quality tests than in densely populated areas, such as here in Washington.

Across the Baker property, we built the line and hydrostatically tested it as if it were built through the heart of this city.

I might add here, in this area the code requires a hydrostatic test of 1.1 times the maximum operating pressure. On the Baker property, the test pressure was 1.66 times the maximum operating pressure.

This section of the pipeline which has a maximum design pressure of 1,300 pounds, was tested to 1,351 pounds above the minimum yield. I might also add that in cities in class 4 locations, the test requirement is only 1.4 times the maximum operating pressure.

If it is your committee's judgment, based on the mass of testimony you have heard in the past from expert metallurgists, engineers, and others, that stricter safety standards are called for, we are not here to protest them, but to endorse them.

The safety of the public, of our customers, and of our own employees is of vital importance to us.

the

1 The documents submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Baker relating to their case committee files.

are in

You have heard Mrs. Baker's statements.

Mr. and Mrs. Baker made similar statements and presented testimony to the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, our regulatory agency, in a hearing that extended over several months.

We presented expert witnesses in rebuttal to each and every point, their criticism of welding, pipe wrapping, ditch filling, and hydrostatic tests.

At five different times during the hearing, the Bakers asked the commission either to shut down the line, require that it be dug up, or that the pressure be reduced. On each of these five occasions, the motion was denied, apparently based upon the commission's analysis of testimony to that point.

The transcript of that hearing is still being prepared and no decision has been announced. It would be a breach of professional ethics for me to comment further on the evidence presented at that hearing, or to speculate as to the probable decision.

Initial contact with Mr. and Mrs. Baker was on July 15, 1970. This contact was by a right-of-way agent for the purpose of negotiating an easement for the proposed pipeline.

Negotiations for an easement extended over a period of 2 months, all of which time the Bakers were represented by counsel. During this time, various alternatives were explored, including moving the location of the pipeline further away from the Baker home.

Transok was agreeable to this relocation, but the Bakers would not agree to execute an easement for a reasonable price, at any location suggested.

Finally, in order not to impede the construction of the pipeline, it was determined that it would be necessary for Transok to exercise its right of eminent domain, and a condemnation action was commenced September 24, 1970, condemning an easement for the pipeline in its present location.

It should be pointed out that the pipeline as located is approximately a city block distant from the Baker home and that most of us who live in cities have high-pressure gas pipelines as close, or closer, to our homes than this pipeline is to the Baker home.

I might also add that this pipeline goes closer than 230 feet to other homes along its route. The people who own these homes, every one of them, signed an easement granting the right to put it there. If the Bakers moved from their home, as they allege, on December 14, 1970, such move could only have been made as a result of totally unfounded fears. This is particularly evident since, at the time of the alleged move, no gas was in the pipeline on or adjacent to the Baker property.

The Office of Pipeline Safety of the Department of Transportation and the pipeline safety engineer of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission investigated the Baker's complaints and found them to be without merit.

The representative of the Office of Pipeline Safety concluded, after his investigation, that the entire matter was a result of animosity caused by the condemnation.

I might add that the Bakers admitted that themselves.

Senator HARTKE. Mr. Lawrence, to what standard was that pipeline built?