Summary "equipment rupturing the line" as cause—Breakdown by amount of cover at rupture point Number of accidents 6 14 13 30 30 5 98 Number of accidents 2 6 Arkansas California Colorado.. Georgia.. Illinois. Indiana Iowa. Kansas. Montana___ 1 Includes 1 accident with $65,500 property damage, 1 with $63,300 property damage, and 1 with $45,000 property damage. 2 Includes 1 accident with a 12,363 barrel loss, 1 with a 6,800 barrel loss, 1 with a 6,126 barrel loss, and 1 with a 5,750 barrel loss. Includes 1 accident with a 5,460 barrel loss and 1 with a 5,847 barrel loss. • Includes 1 accident with $627,500 property damage and 1 with $54,000 property damage. • Includes 1 accident with a 41,000 barrel loss, 1 with a 5,520 barrel loss, and 1 with a 5,178 barrel loss. • Includes 1 accident with $150,500 property damage. Mr. MACDONALD. Thank you, Mr. Jennings. In your statement you talked about jurisdiction over oil and what your jurisdiction consists of. We had some problems after this bill was passed about military pipelines. I was wondering if under either of the acts you have jurisdiction for safety purposes over pipelines built by the military? Mr. JENNINGS. We have not addressed ourselves to that problem. I don't know what authority we have or what action we would take under the authority, assuming we have complete authority. Philosophically, as far as the public is concerned, the hazard is as great from pipelines operated by the military as from private pipelines operated by private companies, and the standards should be the same. Mr. MACDONALD. Do you happen to know if the Defense Department itself has safety standards that are lived up to which would anywhere near approach the standards as promulgated by the bill which we passed last year? Mr. JENNINGS. I do not yet have that information. We are meeting with the Defense Department in this area on Friday afternoon of this week, and this is one of the things we intend to discuss. Mr. MACDONALD. If you do, will you furnish the subcommittee members letters as to that status? Mr. JENNINGS. We shall do so. Mr. MACDONALD. Speaking of letters, since there was a bit of misunderstanding between the committee and Mr. Boyd, who was then Secretary of Transportation, the committee, under the signature of the chairman, sent Mr. Boyd a letter on this matter which I think originated from some trouble in Alaska. He first sent back a letter indicating that the Defense Department standards were higher and when we checked into that, or when the committee checked it, it was found not to be so. We got a second letter back from an assistant to Mr. Boyd telling us that. As of this moment, the committee has no idea about the subject. So, we would be looking forward to your answer. If you are meeting on Friday, perhaps the record could be kept open until such time as it could be furnished for the record, because I know there is a good deal of interest in it. Mr. JENNINGS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Caldwell tells me that our meeting on Friday is with the Interior Department. We are setting up a meeting later with the Defense Department. It is in the mill but it is not the Friday meeting. Mr. MACDONALD. How soon, do you suppose? Mr. JENNINGS. He has set it up. Mr. MACDONALD. We will not keep the record open then. I would like to introduce correspondence between this committee and Mr. Boyd at this point. (The correspondence referred to follows:) COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, Hon. ALAN S. BOYD, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., May 11, 1967. DEAR MR. SECRETARY: Enclosed is copy of a front-page story appearing in the Anchorage Daily Times of May 3, 1967 to the effect that the construction by the United States Army Corps of Engineers of a new petroleum pipeline from the port of Whittier to Anchorage, Alaska has been so slipshod that it threatens to pollute the Campbell Creek watershed upon which the city of Anchorage proposes to rely for its water supply. Particular reference is made to the fact that all weld joints were of very poor quality; that the pipeline has not been buried in sand as intended; and that internal stress has developed in the pipe which might cause dangerous leakage. In view of your interest in safety and pipeline construction, and the proposal which emanated from your Department in response to the Presidential message on this subject regarding safety of natural gas pipelines, as well as your authority over petroleum pipelines resulting from the transfer of this responsibility under the Interstate Commerce Act, I should welcome being informed as to whether or not legislation which has been proposed by you encompasses safety standards equally for military construction as that which is civilian. As you know, in the case of air pollution the first standards were proposed and promulgated having to do with Federal facilities, and subsequently it is intended that standards be created of general applicability. Is this same procedure true as to petroleum or natural gas pipeline safety; that is, under executive order or otherwise, is the Department of Defense or other Federal departments under an injunction to observe safety standards-an injunction which now applies even before legislation has been enacted relating to civilian natural gas pipelines? Sincerely yours, HARLEY O. STAGGERS, Chairman. Hon. ALAN S. BOYD, COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, Secretary, Department of Transportation, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., June 28, 1967. DEAR MR. SECRETARY: I wonder whether you are in a position now to answer my inquiry of May 11 in which, after referring to the problems in the construction by the United States Army Corps of Engineers of a petroleum pipeline from the port of Whittier, I asked whether the Federal departments are under an injunetion to observe safety standards irrespective of any legislation having been enacted relating to civilian oil and gas pipelines. Sincerely yours, HARLEY O. STAGGERS, Chairman. Hon. HARLEY O. STAGGERS, THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I have your recent letter concerning the controversy involving the petroleum pipeline being constructed in Alaska between Whittier and Anchorage. You have inquired whether natural gas safety legislation proposed by the Administration encompasses safety standards equally for military and civilian construction. You have also asked whether, as to petroleum and natural gas pipelines, the Department of Defense or other Federal departments are now compelled to observe safety standards not yet required by legislation with respect to civilian pipelines. First of all, with reference to the pipeline now being built through the Campbell Creek watershed in Alaska, my staff has discussed this matter with Glenn V. Gisbon, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Installations and Logistics, and also with Brig. Gen. A. P. Rollins, Jr., Director, Military Construction, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In this regard I am enclosing a copy of General Rollins' response to Representative Howard W. Pollock, along with a copy of Representative Pollock's initial correspondence. As for the broader questions of pipeline safety, under existing law the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation as defined in the Transportation of Explosives Act, 18 U.S.C. 831-835, does not extend to government-owned petroleum pipelines. Likewise, the Department of Transportation Act, P.L. 89-670, does not provide such jurisdiction. Aside from the Federal Aviation Act, there is no Federal regulation of military transportation safety activities. While the proposed Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1967 would amend 18 U.S.C. 831 to include "any entity whether privately, publicly or cooperatively owned, which gathers, transmits or distributes natural gas, manufactured gas or other flammable gas by pipelines," the Department of Defense has already made provision for incorporating industry codes, standards, and regulations into its own pipeline operations. As well, the Defense Department advises us that it has promulgated elaborate safety regulations which go beyond Federal regulations now applicable to civilian pipeline activities. Many are contained in the Military Traffic Management Regulations of January 1964, Chapter 216. In view of the Department of Defense policy with regard to transportation of explosives and other dangerous articles, and given the further fact that, to the best of our knowledge, no other Federal government agency operates petroleum pipelines on "civilian" land, the fact that there is now no requirement that Federally-owned pipelines and other transportation facilities observe safety standards not yet applicable to civilian pipelines seems to be a matter more of formal than substantive consequence. Sincerely, ALAN S. BOYD. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Brig. Gen. A. P. ROLLINS, Jr., Office of the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C. DEAR GENERAL ROLLINS: For several months I have been aware of problems connected with the construction of the petroleum pipeline from Whittier to Elmendorf Air Force Base and Fort Richardon. The pipeline is being laid for a distance of ten miles through the Campbell Creek watershed, an area reserved as a source of water for Alaska's largest city-Anchorage. The location of the pipeline was initially resisted by the Greater Anchorage Area Borough, but the present route was approved by the Borough Assembly upon representations by the Corps of Engineers that the project was vitally needed for national defense and that the pipeline would be thoroughly inspected to insure that no leakage would occur. Unfortunately, grave doubts have arisen as to the ability of the Corps to fulfill its commitment in the latter respect. As long ago as last October, allegations were made by the inspection firm, Alaska Inspection Services, Inc., that the pipeline was improperly constructed. This firm was discharged and the prime contractor requested to obtain another inspection firm. Officials of the Greater Anchorage Area Borough and the City of Anchorage have attempted and failed to obtain information from the Corps as to the validity of the accusations. I have been informed by Borough and City officials that the following conditions are thought to have occurred during construction: (1) Welding commenced four weeks before welding procedures were approved. (2) There has been no inspection of the pipe coating per specifications. (3) The pipe has not been buried in sand as intended. (4) Internal stress has developed in the pipe. This is due to welding the pipe cold without preheating of any kind. (5) Mechanical stress has occurred due to the movement of the pipe during the welding process. A review of the radiographic film by a Portland firm indicates that the film taken by Alaska Inspection Services, Inc. is of such poor quality that all weld joints represented by them must be re-inspected. Some of this film was good enough to locate defects. In this category, nearly half the welds did not meet minimum standards. After the original inspection firm was discharged, the prime contractor hired another inspection company. This firm is apparently controlled by the same holding company that controls the subcontractor actually laying the pipe and welding the joints. It seems highly irregular for a firm to, in effect, inspect its own work. Public officials have requested reports on the welds involved. They would like to see the visual inspection reports, including those from Alaska Inspection Services, Inc. and the Corps' inspections if these exist. These have not been obtained. 27-171-69——5 |