they see that the companies have and design another system or another form, if you will, and I don't know if it will be one form or two, to collect historical information relating to operating practices, systems failures, leak detection, this type of thing, to give us a hindsight, so to speak. Then, the third phase of this contract was to develop guidelines to be used in failure analyses so that when we go into effect with this regulation, a company or State agency or our staff would have a uniform set of guidelines to investigate a failure. This will give us information on future accidents that will all be uniform. It can all be correlated and the actual cause can be determined. In summary, you might say the contract is designed to design a means for collecting information in these three areas. Mr. MACDONALD. Mr. Brotzman. Mr. BROTZMAN. To go back, I understand you will have this report by April 8 of 1969. Mr. JENNINGS. Yes, sir. Mr. BROTZMAN. This should enable you to move forward, is that not correct? Mr. JENNINGS. I intend to have that as the prime subject for discussion at a meeting with the technical committee during the last week of April. Depending on two things, our own analysis of the TRACOR product and the committee's advice on it, we will then determine the action that we will take. Mr. BROTZMAN. I believe you testified that at this point you have no recommendations for legislative changes. Mr. JENNINGS. Yes, sir. Mr. BROTZMAN. I think the purpose of this hearing is to see, No. 1, what you are doing under a law and if you have any specific recommendations to us to consider so that we can perhaps make changes in the law, but at this time you have no recommendations to make to us. Mr. JENNINGS. I have none, no, sir. Mr. BROTZMAN. I have one more point which I think Mr. Broyhill covered Mr. BROWN. Would the gentlemen yield on that point? Let me comment on the law. As the law is now written, does the Department have the authority to set the standards and inspect, or see that they are inspected, a distribution line in a house? Mr. JENNINGS. We do have authority up to the meter box. I think that is the way it is described. We have authority up to the property line, the point where the system really enters upon the house or factory or business establishment. Mr. BROWN. Does that include the house service line? Mr. JENNINGS. It includes the distrbution lines up to the house but not within a house. Mr. BROWN. I am not sure I understand you. Mr. JENNINGS. A residence, a business establishment, a factory, whatever. Mr. BROWN. Up to the meter box that services the property, but then is that the house service line that goes up to the meter box or is it the house service line beyond that? Mr. CALDWELL. You are talking specifically of residential areas. The meter is usually located immediately inside or outside the house depending on the area. The general interpretation of the law is that 27-171-69———6 we have jurisdiction until the gas goes out of that meter on the outlet side into the customer's facilities. When we say property line, I think it could be not only at the curb but at the house, the service line from the curb into the house, or until it goes from the meter into the customer's facilities, is under our jurisdiction. Is there any authority under the legislation we now have that would assist you in preventing accidents where bulldozers dig up a gasline? Mr. JENNINGS. We have authority in that area. Mr. BROWN. How is that applied to the possibility that a bulldozer will dig up a line and break it? Mr. JENNINGS. We have authority over the operating company's protection of its line. The protection may be signal flags, a solid slab of concrete. It can be almost anything. We don't have jurisdiction over a construction company, that is, the company which might injure that line. We don't have that jurisdiction and I just don't think we would ever ask for that. I don't want to practice law here, but I just don't think this is quite within the contemplation of interstate commerce. Mr. BROWN. What about the storing of explosive materials in conjunction with gaslines or where gas service is used? Would you be able to prohibit that under the present law? Mr. JENNINGS. We would not. Mr. BROWN. I ask these questions because I am looking at this sheet and it appears that-in these 12 accidents, which have occurred since January 1968 and in two cases where there have been fatalitiesthe problem apparently has been in a service line from the street to the house. I gather from what you have told me, but I am not absolutely clear on this, that you would have had authority to have resolved or prevented that accident? Mr. JENNINGS. We would have authority over the safety standards of the gas line leading up to the meter box. Mr. BROWN. Let us take this accident where there were seven adults killed or severely hurt and children injured. You suspect the pilot light in the heater caused the explosion? Mr. JENNINGS. We have no authority over homes. Mr. BROWN. So this accident could not have been prevented? Mr. JENNINGS. Our method of accident prevention is to prevent the escape of gas from the distribution lines." Mr. BROWN. That does not include pilot lights or water heaters? Mr. JENNINGS. No, sir. Mr. BROWN. What about the accident in Richmond, Ind., where presumably 41 persons were killed where gunpowder was the main source of explosion but natural gas was within the lines in the storage area. Under the act, could you have prevented the storing of those explosives in an area where natural gas is being used? Mr. JENNINGS. Sir, natural gas is used all over the country. I just don't see how we could even contemplate the prevention of the storage of explosives and other likely hazardous materials in areas where gas is used, because gas is used everywhere. See chart on pp. 80-81. Mr. BROWN. Then that leaves us one accident where two people were killed-one in Utah and one in Nebraska. There was a broken line and you say the reported source of ignition was probably vehicle. I don't know what that means but I assume that means somebody dug up the line or ran over it or hit it. Mr. JENNINGS. I don't think that was a gas line. It may have been liquefied petroleum gas. Mr. BROWN. It says butane gas. Mr. JENNINGS. Butane gas is transported as a liquid and that is an area of concern in the liquid pipeline safety program. It is not an area of concern in the gas pipeline safety program because, although butane is a gas when used, it is a liquid during the course of transportation. Mr. BROWN. So, the Utah and Nebraska cases are not appropriate to what we are discussing? Mr. JENNINGS. It is not appropriate to the Natural Gas bill. Mr. BROWN. That leaves us one accident where six people were killed and people injured in Coshocton, Ohio, which I gather took place out in the country, and I don't fully understand that explanation. Mr. JENNINGS. That also is a liquefied petroleum accident and it is one which I covered as an area of serious concern in our liquified pipeline program. Mr. BROWN. So that is not an accident that is covered by this legislation? Mr. JENNINGS. That is correct. Mr. BROWN. We seem to have eliminated all of the fatalities on this sheet as outside this legislation, but you have no recommendations with reference to improvement of legislation? Mr. JENNINGS. That is correct. Mr. MACDONALD. Could you identify for the record what sheet. you were reading from? Mr. BROWN. This is a sheet labeled "Summary of Information Known to the National Safety Board Involving 12 Pipeline Accidents Since 1968," which was provided to me by members of my staff. (The chart referred to is on pp. 80-81.) |