PETROLEUM PIPELINE SAFETY

Y GOVERNMENT

.ln g/+ Storage

89 -1 2- H E A R IN G

BEFO RE T H E

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION 

AND AERO NAUTICS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIV ES

EIGH TY -N IN TH CONG RESS

F IR S T SESS IO N

ON

H.R. 5041

A B IL L TO M ODIF Y T II E D E F IN IT IO N OF T H E T ER M “C A R R IE R ” 

FO R T H E PU RPO SE OF ANY FE D E R A L LA W D IR EC TIN G TH E 

IN TER STA TE CO MMER CE CO M MISSION TO FO RM ULA TE CER ­

TAIN REGULA TIO NS

U.S. GO VE RN MEN T PR IN TIN G O FFIC E 

49-781 W AS HI NG TO N : 1965
COMMITTEE ON INTE RSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE

OR EN HARRIS , A rk an sa s, C hair m an

V£ n

HA RLE Y O. STAG GE RS , W es t V ir gi nia

W ALT ER RO GE RS , Tex as

SA MUE L N. FRIE D EL, M ar yl an d

TO IiB ER T H. MAC DON ALD, M as sa ch use tts

JO H N JA RM AN , Ok lah om a

LE O W. O’BRIE N, New Yo rk

JO H N E. MOSS, Cal ifor ni a

JO H N D. DI NG EL L, Michiga n

PAUL G. RO GE RS , Flo ri da

HO RA CE R. KOR NEG AY, N or th C ar ol in a

LIO N EL VAN DEER LI N, C al if orn ia

J. J. PIC K LE , Te xa s

FR E D B. ROO NEY , Pen nsy lv an ia

JO H N M. MU RP HY , New Y ork

DAV ID E . SA TTERFIE LD II I, V irgi ni a

D A N IE L J . RONAN, Il lin oi s

J . OL IV A HU OT , New H am psh ire

JA M ES A. MACKAY, Geo rgia

JO H N J. GI LL IG AN , Ohio

CHA RLE S P. FA RN SL EY , Ken tu ck y

JO H N BELL WILLIAM S, Missis sip pi

W IL LIA M L. SP RIN GER , Il linois 

J. ART HUR YO UN GE R, C al if orn ia 

SA MUE L L. DEV IN E, Oh io 

AN CHER NEL SE N, M in ne so ta 

HAST IN GS K E IT H , M as sa ch us et ts 

W IL LA RD S. CU RT IN , Pen ns yl va ni a 

GL EN N CU NN INGH AM , Neb ra sk a 

JA M ES T. BR OY HI LL , N ort h Ca rolin a 

JA M ES HA RV EY , M ichiga n 

TIM L EE CA RT ER , K en tu ck y 

HO WAR D H. CALLAW AY , Ge orgia

W. E. Wil li am so n, C le rk

Ken net h J . P ain te r, A s s is ta n t C le rk

Andrew Steve nson

K ur t B orch ardt

P r o fe ssio n a l S ta ff

J am es M. Men ge r, J r. 

W il liam J. Dixon

Subcommittee on Transportation and Aeronautics

HA RL EY O. ST AG GE RS , W es t V irgi ni a, C h a ir m a n

SA M U EU N t F R IE D E L , M ar yl an d 

JO H N JARM Afc; Okl ah om a 

J . Jjr Pl C K L E, Tex as > \

DA NT EL J. RON AN, Il linois 

JO H N BELL W IL LI AM S,. Mississ ippi

h

M i

H l

SA MUE L L. DEVIN E, Oh io 

GL EN N CU NN INGH AM , Neb rask a 

HO WAR D H. CA LLAW AY , Ge orgia

I I

<7
C O N T E N T S

Pace

Text of H.R. 5041___________________________________ 1

Report of—

Bureau of the Budge t_________________________________________ 1

Federal Power Commission____________________________________ 3

Inter sta te Commerce Commission______________________________ 2

Justice De partm ent___________________________________________ 2

Statem ent of—

Bridwell, Hon. Lowell K., Deputy Under Secretary for Transporta ­

tion, Depar tment of Commerce______________________________ 6

Corcoran, James, Congressional Liaison Officer, Inter sta te Commerce

Commission_______________________________________________ 3

Durand, J. D., general counsel, Association of Oil Pipe Lines_______ 17

Fair, Harry G., president, Phillips Pipe Line Co__________________ 17

Helm brecht, Arthu r J., executive vice president, Buckeye Pipe Line

Co------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17

Horner, J. A., president, Shell Pipe Line Corp____________________ 17

Lyon, Gen. Arch, Dep uty Director, Office of Emergency Tra nsp ortation, Depar tment of Commerce______________________________ 6

Milstead, Ben, Chief, Engineering Branch, Motor Carriers, Inters tate

Commerce Commission_____________________________________ 3

Squire, Harris G., vice president, traffic, Service Pipe Line Co______ 17

Wagner, R. L., president, Great Lakes Pipe Line Co______________ 17

Webb, Hon. Charles A., Chairman, Inter sta te Commerce Commission. 3 

Additional information submitted for the record by—

Association of Oil Pipe Lines:

Legislative history of S. 1491 and H.R. 5629 (85th Cong.) and

S. 1806 (86th Cong.)____________________________________ 33

Letter from J. D. Du ran d_________________________________ 33

Depar tment of Commerce: Report on Mov ement of Dangerous Cargoes, a n interagen cy stud y coordinated by Office of the Under Secretar y for Transporta tion , September 30, 1963_________________ 6

Service Pipe Line Co., letter from WT. S. Peeler___________________ 26

Southeastern Pennsylvania Landowners Association, statem ent of

Edw ard W. Jam es__________________________________________ 34

in

■

PETROLEUM PIPELINE SAFETY

TUESDAY, MAY 18, 1965

H ous e o f R e pr esen ta tiv es,

S u b c o m m it t e e on T ransp o rta tio n

a n d A er o n a u tic s of t iie Co m m it t e e

on I n ter sta te a n d F oreig n C om m er c e,

'Washington^ D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 2123, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Harley O. Staggers (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. S ta gg er s. The subcommittee will come to order.

The Subcommittee on Transportation and Aeronautics is meeting 

this morning to conduct hearings on II.R. 5041, a bill introduced by 

our colleague, Mr. Jarm an, of Oklahoma, for the purpose of authorizing the Interstate Commerce Commission in its issuance of regulations 

for the safe transportation of explosives and other dangerous articles 

for carriers engaged in interstate or foreign commerce, to exercise 

authority over, and issue regulations in this connection involving 

common carriers engaged in the transportation of oil.

It appears th at in a revision several years ago of the Commission’s 

authority and responsibility for the safety regulation of common carriers, pipelines inadvertently were omitted from the statute. The purpose of the hearings this morning is to determine the need for and 

character of such authority that should be placed on the statute books.

(II.R . 5041, and the reports thereon, follow:)

[I I.R . 504 1, 89 th Con g., 1st se ss .]

A B IL L TO mod ify th e de fini tio n of th e te rm “ carr ie r” fo r th e pu rp os e of an y Fed er al la w 

dir ec ti ng th e In te rs ta te Co mm erc e Co mmiss ion to fo rm ula te ce rt ain re gu la tion s

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States

of America in Congress assembled, That, for the purpose of any Federal law 

directing the Interstate Commerce Commission to formulate regulations for the 

safe transportation within the United States of explosives and other dangerous 

articles, the term “carrier” as used in such laws includes a pipeline as th at term 

is used in the Inte rsta te Commerce Act, as amended.

E xec uti ve Of fic e of t h e P res id en t,

B u rea u of t h e B udge t,

Washington, D.C. May 18, 1965.

lio n . Oren H arris ,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman : This is in reply to your request for the views of the 

Bureau of the Budget on II.R. 5041, a hill to modify the definition of the term 

“carrier” for the purpose of any Federal law directing the Inte rsta te Commerce 

Commission to formulate certain regulations.

The Department of Justice, in its report to your committee on this measure, 

recommends that it be amended to apply specifically to certain sections of title 

18 of the United States Code.

1
2 PETROLEUM PIP ELINE SAFETY

The Burea u of the Budget would have no objection to enactm ent of the 

proposed legislation if amended in the manner recommended by the Department.

Sincerely yours,

Phil lip S. Hughes,

Assistant Director for Legislative Reference.

U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of the Deputy Attorney General,

Washington, D.C. May 18, 1965. Hon. Oren Harris,

Chairman, Committee on Inter state and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman: This is in response to your requ est for the views of the 

Departm ent of Justice concerning H.R. 5041, a bill to modify the definition of 

the term “carrier” for the purpose of any Fed eral law directing the Interst ate 

Commerce Commission to fo rmulate certain regulations.

The bill would provide th at for the purp ose of any Federal law which directs 

tiie Interstate Commerce Commission to formulate regulations for the safe tr an sportation of explosives and other dangerous articles, the term “ca rrier” shall 

include a pipeline.

While the Departmen t of Jus tice has no objection to the purpose of the subject 

measure, we believe t ha t its application should be made more definite. Chapter 

3,9 of title 18, United States Code, provides th at the In terstate Commerce Commission sha ll regu late the safe tr anspo rtation by c arrie r of dangerous materials. 

However, section 831 of chapter 39 expressly excludes “pipelines” from the definition of the term “car rie r” as used in th at chapte r. Accordingly, on the assumption that H.R. 5041 is intended to make the pipelines which are subject to the 

Commission's regulatory autho rity und er the Interstate Commerce Act also 

subject to its regulatory autho rity und er section 834 of title 18, we recommend 

that the bill amend section 831 to include “pipelines,” as the term is used in the 

Interstate Commerce Act, within the definition of a “carr ier.”

The Bureau of the Budget has advised th at there is no objection to the subm ission of th is report from the standpo int of the administration’s program .

Sincerely,

Ramsey Clark, 

Deputy Attorney General.

I nterstate Commerce Commission,

Washington, D.C., March 11, 1965. Hon. Oren Harris,

Chairman, Committee on Inter state and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Chairman Harr is: Your lette r of Febru ary 19, 1965, addressed to tlie 

Chairman of the Commission, and requesting comments on a bill, H.R. 5041, introduced by Congressman Jar ma n, “To modify the definition of the te rm ‘ca rrier’ 

for the purpose of any Fed eral law directing the In terstate Commerce Commission to formulate certain regulations,” has been referred to our Committee 

on Legislation. After consideration by th at committee, I am authorized to 

subm it the following comments in its be ha lf:

The purpose of H.R. 5941 app ears to be to amend the definition of “car rie r” 

contained in section 831, title 18 of the United Sta tes Code, to give the Inter sta te 

Commerce Commission specific sta tutory autho rity and responsibility for the 

safety regu lation of all pipelines (other tha n those used for the transmission 

of wa ter and gas) operating in interstate or foreign commerce.

Although the accident experience of these pipelines does not disclose any 

pressing need for Feder al safety regulation, the proposed legislation does seem 

desirable in th at it would protect inter sta te carriers against the threat of 

conflicting safety legislation by the States, and also enable the Commission to 

cope with any safe ty hazar ds which may arise in the fu tur e by virtue of changes 

in the operation s or traffic consist of pipelines.

For these reasons we favor ena ctment of H.R. 5041.

Respectfully submitted,

Committee on Legislation, 

Charles A. Webb, Chairman,

J ohn W. Bus h,

Everett Hutchinson.
PETROLEUM PIP ELINE SAFETY 3

Federal Power Commission, 

Washington, D.C., March 12,1965.

Hon. Oren Harris,

Chairman, Committee on Inter state and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman : This is in response to your request of Febru ary 19, 

19(55, for the views of the Federal Power Commission on H.R. 5041 (J ar m an ). 

This bill proposes to modify the term “ca rrier” as used in any Fed era l law 

directing the In terstate Commerce Commission to formulate regulation s for the 

safe tra nsp ort ation within the United Sta tes of explosives and other dangerous 

articles, so a s to include “a pipeline as th at term is used in the In terstate Commerce Act, as amen ded.” As wTe shall explain, as we read H.R. 5041 it would 

not include n atur al gas pipelines subject to the jurisdiction of th e F ede ral Power 

Commission.

H.R. 5041 would modify the term “carrier” as used in the Transpo rtation of 

Explosives Act, as amended (18 U.S.C.A. 318-837, 1964 Cum. Pocket Par t) , 

which authorizes the In terstate Commerce Commission to issue regu lations 

for the safe tra nsporta tio n of explosives and other dangerous articles, including compressed gases, for carriers engaged in interst ate or foreig n commerce. 

As now defined in section 831 of the code, the term “ca rrier” excludes all pij)elines. The proposed bill would pa rtiall y remove this exclusion by redefining 

“ca rrier” to include “a pipeline as th at term is used in the In terstate Commerce Act, as amen ded.” Section 1(1) (b) of pa rt I of the In terstate Commerce 

Act (49 U.S.C.A. 1(1 ) (b )) gives the In terstate Commerce Commission reg ulatory jurisdiction over “common carriers engaged in * * * [t] he tra nsporta tio n 

of oil or oth er commodity, except wa ter and except na tural or artific ial gas, by 

pipeline, ♦ * *” in interstate commerce. It would, therefore, app ear th at na tural 

gas pipelines fall outside the class of ca rri ers affected by the proposed bill and 

th at they would not be subject to the safety regulation s of the In terstate Commerce Commission under the provisions of the Tra nsp ort ation of Explosives 

Act as modified by H.R. 5041.

In our view H.R. 5041 would not and should not affect safety regulation of 

the inter sta te na tural gas pipelines. As you know, the Fed eral Powe r Commission recently renewed its legislative recommendation to amend the Na tural Gas 

Act to authorize the Commission to prescribe safety standard s for the construction and operatio n of inter sta te na tural gas pipelines. To the extent th at 

Congress believes saf ety sta ndard s for such pipelines should be brought under 

Federal regulation we believe th at such regulation should be prescribed solely 

by the Fed eral Powe r Commission for the reason th at the Commission alread y 

has the reg ula tor responsibility and exp ertise in thi s area .

In view of the foregoing, we do not believe the Fed eral Powe r Commission 

would be affected by the proposed bill and we, therefore, offer no comments on 

its merits.

Sincerely,

J oseph C. Swidler,

Chairman.

Mr. Staggers. Our first, witness will be the Honorable Charles A. 

Webb, Chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission.

Mr. Webb?

STA TEM ENT OE HON. CHARLES A. WEBB, CHAIR MAN, INTE RS TA TE

COMMERCE COMMISSION; ACCOMPANIE D BY BEN MILSTEAD,

CH IEF , EN GI NE ER IN G BRANCH , MOTOR CA RR IERS ; AND JAM ES

CORCORAN, CONGRESSIONAL LIA ISO N OFFIC ER

Mr. Webb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to have join me 

Mr. Ben Milstead wdto is the Chief of our E ngineering Branch, Motor 

Carriers, and Mr. James Corcoran, our congressional liaison officer.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Charles A. 

Webb. I am the Chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission 

and I have served in tha t capacity since Jan uary 1 this year.

On behalf of the Commission, I want to thank you and the members 

of the committee for this opportunity to express our views on the
4 PETROLEUM PIPELINE SAFETY

bill H. R. 5041, int roduced by Con gressm an Ja rm an , to mo dify the 

definition of the ter m “c ar rier ” for the purpose of any Federal law 

di recting the In te rs ta te Commerce Com mission to form ula te certain 

reg ula tions.

Th e pur pose of H.R. 5041 appears t o be to am end the definition of 

“c ar rier ” contained in section 831, title 18 of the U ni ted State s Code, to 

give t he I nt er stat e Commerce Commission specific s ta tu to ry a utho rit y 

an d r esp onsibility fo r th e sa fety regulat ion of all pip elines (other tha n 

those used for the transm ission of wa ter and gas) op erating in in te rsta te or foreig n commerce.

As you pointed o ut in yo ur i ntro du ctor y sta teme nt, Mr. Ch air ma n, 

the Explosives and othe r Da ngero us M ate ria ls Ac t was amended 5 or 

6 years a go so as to broad en the Comm issio n's ju ris diction wi th resp ect 

to t he tran sp ortatio n of explosive s and dangero us articles.

P ri or to th at time, our juris dic tio n was lim ited essent ially to the 

tran sp or tatio n of explosives and other dangero us com mod ities by 

common c arriers.

Th e act was amended to bro ade n ou r juris diction so th at we were 

also entru ste d w ith the responsib ility fo r p riva te ca rriers as well. But 

in the process of revision, as you po int ed out, th e d efinition o f common 

ca rrie r was defined more restr ictiv ely th an it had been pr io r to the 

am end me nt, ap pa rently inad ve rte ntly, and it was at th at tim e th at 

pip elines were excluded fro m the scope of th at act.

We have been giv ing inc rea sin g att en tio n at the Com mission to the 

pro blems enc oun tere d in the mo tor an d rai l tran sp or ta tio n of explosives and othe r dangero us article s. Th e pro ble m is becoming incre asi ngly serious because we h ave as you know , m any exotic chem icals 

an d fue ls whi ch co nstitute an inc rea sing safety ha za rd on the hi gh ­

way s and on the rails. Th e experience which we ga in in those fields 

could be applie d to a considerable exte nt to the r egulation of pipelines.

Co ntinuing with my pr ep ar ed sta tem ent, we mu st say th at the 

acc ide nt experience of oil pipe lin es does n ot disclose any p ressin g need 

fo r Fe de ral safety regu lat ion but the pro pos ed leg islati on does seem 

desirable in th at it would pr otec t i nterstate ca rriers a gains t the t hr ea t 

of conflicting safety legislation by the Sta tes.

It would als o enable the Commission to cope with any saf ety ha zar ds which may arise in th e fu ture b y virtu e of chan ges in the o pe ratio ns o r if the traffic consists of pipelines.

Fo r these reasons, Mr. Ch air man , the In te rs ta te Commerce Com ­

mission fav ors the enact me nt of H. R. 5041.

Tha t concludes my pr ep ared statem ent. I would be glad to a nsw er 

an y question s th at vou m igh t have.

Air. S taggers. Th an k you , Mr. Webb. Tha t is one of the sho rtest 

an d most precise sta tem ents I hav e he ard before the comm ittee.

Do you know of any opposition to this bill?

Mr. Webb. I am not aw are of any o pposition at all, M r. Ch airma n.

Mr. Staggers. In yo ur position you sho uld know that, the re is no 

opposition .

Mr. W ebb. Yes, no rm ally we would he ar if there were any.

Mr. Staggers. An d you are fo r the bill?

Mr. W ebb. We are; yes, sir.

Mr. Staggers. Al l righ t.

Mr. Fried el?
PETROL EU M PI PE LIN E SAF ETY 5

Mr. Friedel. Mr. Webb, I will defer any questions I have. I will 

defer you to Mr. Jarman.

Mr. J arman. Mr. Webb, just two or three short questions for the 

record. Actually all tha t the bill does is restore the auth ority that 

the ICC had prior to September 6, 1960.

Mr. W ebb. Yes; that is correct.

Air. J arman. Would not the bill bring about more consistency in 

the regulation of safety of interstate carriers subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC?

Mr. Webb. Tha t is correct. It would make our safety jurisdiction 

uniform and complete for all carriers except water carriers and they 

are regulated, I believe, by the Coast Guard.

Mr. J arman. And this legislation which places the jurisdiction of 

oil pipeline safety matters under the ICC would not preempt the field 

to the extent tha t a State could not pass safety regulations if it chose 

to do so?

All I am saying is tha t the States would still be able to pass safety 

legislation and regulations, if circumstances required?

Mr. Webb. Yes. I assume th at there might still be an area left for 

the operation of State laws and regulations as we find in the motor 

carrier field but it would preclude any conflicting legislation by the 

States and I should think it would relieve the carriers of attempting 

to comply with a multiplicity of State rules and regulations.

Mr. J arman. Thank you very much, Mr. Webb, for an excellent 

statement.

Mr. Webb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Staggers. Mr. Friedel?

Mr. F riedel. Mr. Webb, in your statement here you sa y:

The prop os ed le gi sl at io n does see m des ir ab le in th a t it wou ld pro te ct in te rst ate carr ie rs ag ain st th e th re a t of c on fli cting sa fe ty le gis la tion by th e Sta te s.

Would you elaborate on that a little bit, where the conflict is?

Mr. Webb. I am not aware of any conflicting safety legislation by 

the States at the present time. I understand tha t the industry fears 

tha t possibility because of the withdrawal of Federal safety legislation in this area in 1960.

Mr. Friedel. What I referred to, if you drive from Baltimore to 

Philadelph ia, we have the harbor tunnel in Baltimore and carriers 

are prohibited from c arrying certain chemicals through the tunnel.

l)oes this in any way affect the harbor tunnel regulations.

Air. Webb. No, this would have no effect on this whatever, Congressman Friedel. It relates only to pipelines.

Air. F riedel. Than k you very much.

Air. Staggers. Than k you, Air. Chairman, for coming up before us 

and presenting your views. I think tha t we understand very, very 

well.

Thank you again for your consideration.

Air. Webb. Thank you, Air. Chairman.

Air. Staggers. Our next witness will be Air. Lowell K. Bridwell, 

Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Transportation.

You may identify yourself for the record and present your state-
6 PE TROLEU M PIP E L IN E SA FE TY

STATEMENT OF HON. LOWELL K. BRIDWELL, DEPUTY UNDER

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORTATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; ACCOMPANIED BY GEN. ARCH LYON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Bridwell. Thank you. I am Lowell K. Bridwell, Deputy 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Transportation. I have with me 

Gen. Arch Lyon who is a Deputy Director of our Office of Emergency 

Transportation. General Lyon headed a task group which made a 

study of the movement of dangerous cargoes in 1963 and submitted a 

report which in part led to the legislation now before the subcommittee.

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to read a prepared statement.

One of the important considerations brought to bear on tran sportation in the Nation is that it should adequately provide for the safety 

as well as the general well-being of the Nation. In this respect, the 

Department of Commerce is particula rly desirous of removing gaps 

and inconsistencies in the uniform pattern of attention which should 

be given to this area under the national transportation policy promulgated by the Congress.

In the spring of 1963, the Department of Commerce undertook a 

study on the adequacy of existing statutes regarding the interstate 

movement of dangerous cargoes. The results of the interagency study 

appeared tha t fall in a publication titled “Report on Movement of 

Dangerous Cargoes.”

Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit a copy of th at report for the 

record.

Mr. Staggers. That may be inserted in the record at this point.

(Document referred to follows:)

Report on Movement of Dangerou s Cargoes—An I nterag enc y Study Coordinated by Off ice of th e Under Secretary of Comm erce for T ra nsp ortation, Septemb er 30 ,196 3

I

BACKGROUND

On M ar ch 23, 1961, th e ba rg e "Wyc liem 112 be long ing to th e W yan dot te T ra n sport ati on Co. sa nk in th e M ississip pi R iv er ap pro xim at el y 7 m ile s so ut hw es t of 

Natch ez . The ba rg e co nt ai ne d 2,200 ,000 po un ds of liq ue fie d ch lo ri ne ga s in fo ur 

pr es su ri ze d ca rg o tank s.

Dee p co nc ern en su ed be ca us e of th e lik elihoo d th a t ru st an d co rros ion wo uld 

ca us e th e pr es su rize d ta nks lyin g in th e bo tto m of th e ri ver to give way an d dis ­

se m in at e th e de ad ly gas ov er an a re a po pu la te d by mor e th an 80.00 0 peo ple. 

The pa ss ag e of tim e in cr ea se d th e ur ge nc y fo r reco ve ry an d dis po sition of th e 

ta n k s ; b u t re sp on sibi lity re m ai ne d unc le ar. The Pre si den t, ac ting und er dis as ­

te r au th o ri ty , di re ct ed th e D ir ec to r of Em erge nc y P la nnin g to ta k e ac tio n. 

Fo llo win g an in te ra ge nc y mee tin g on Se ptem be r 6, 1962, th e U.S . Arm y Co rps 

of E ng in ee rs w as give n th e ta sk of reco ve ring an d di sp os ing of th e ch lorine 

ta nk s. E xpendit ure of em erge nc y d is aste r fu nds w as ap pr ov ed fo r th is purpose. T he American Red Cr oss , th e Office of Civil Defen se, th e Pub lic H ea lth 

Servi ce, an d loca l ag en cies w er e ale rt ed to effe ct im m ed ia te ev ac ua tion of t h re a ten ed ar ea s, to pr ov id e pu bl ic h ealt h service s, an d to ta k e oth er appro pri at e 

m ea su re s sh ou ld m isha p oc cu r duri ng th e att em pt to remov e th e da ng er . Th e 

reco ve ry op er at io n w as co nd uc ted w ithout in ci de nt in Nov em be r 196 2; th e 

hazard w as co mplete ly el im in at ed and th e dan ger w as pas t. Emer ge nc y fu nd s 

in th e am ount of ap pro xi m at el y $3 mill io n w er e sp en t in th e oper at io n an d th e 

G ov er nm en t has filed a su it in F edera l co urt s fo r th e reco ve ry of th is sum .

On M ar ch 6, 1963, th e D irec to r of th e Office of Em erge nc y Pla nnin g in a le tt er 

to th e Sec re ta ry of Co mm erc e st ate d th e ne ed fo r a st udy to det er m in e w het her
PETROLEUM PIP ELINE SAFETY 7

prop er st at ut ory au th or ity ex ist s assig nin g to specific agencies the res po nsibility 

to control the movem ent of hig hly da ng erou s com moditi es on navig able w at er ­

wa ys an d pub lic hig hw ays . He sug gested th at th e Se creta ry of Commerce 

sho uld direct and co ordin ate such a stu dy, with pa rtic ip at io n by th e int erested 

de pa rtm en ts an d agencies, and pr ep are an y nee ded leg islati on fo r int rodu ction 

befor e Congress. (L etter, anne x A. )

On Ap ril 3, 19G3, the Se cretary of Com merce advis ed the Dire cto r th at the 

Dep artm en t of Com merce is the ap pr op riat e age ncy to con duc t and coordin ate 

such a stu dy an d th at he accordingly ma de an ap pr op riat e assignm ent. < Lett er, 

annex B.)

II

CONDUCT OF TII E STUDY

Re sponsibility fo r the stu dy wa s ass ign ed to th e Office of the Un der Se creta ry 

fo r Tra ns po rtatio n and a task gro up consisting of Brig. Gen. A. W. Lyon < < Iffice 

of Emergenc y Tra ns po rtat io n) , Dr. Danie l II. Mate r (Office of the Un der Secreta ry ), a nd Mr. R ob ert M. O’Mahoney (Office of th e G enera l C ounsel) was 

for me d to d ire ct an d co ordin ate th e i nteragency effort.

An initi al, ex ploratory me eting wa s hel d May 7. A second inter agency meeting wa s held on Ju ne 27. Follow up dis cussi ons we re hel d with in an d with the 

age nci es pr im arily involved.

Pro blem ar ea s we re iso lated and dis cusse d in conside rab le detai l. It was 

agreed th at ce rtain legisla tiv e gaps and ina dequ acies do in fa ct exist. In some 

cas es corre cti ve leg islati on alread y ha s been dr aw n up b y th e agency concerned.1

Th e specific find ings ar e se t fo rth in th e “C onc lusions’’ sec tion of th is rep ort . 

Recom menda tions for the corre cti on of inad equa cie s fou nd to ex ist and the identity of the age ncy best fitted to ass um e actio n res po nsibility in each case appe ar 

in par t IV. Ex cept as othe rw ise noted all pa rtic ip at in g age ncies concur fully 

in the conclusions and recommendations. Those indica ted as havin g followu p 

respon sib ilitie s ha ve ack now ledg ed an d accepted them.

pa rtic ip an ts in the stud y inc luded tho se Fe de ra l age nci es which have dir ect 

or indirect respon sib ilitie s or concern in th e problem . A list of the se agencies 

an d ro ster of th e individu als represen tin g them is pro vid ed at annex C. Recognitio n is give n to the fu ll me asu re of coo perat ion an d assis tan ce extend ed by 

each, with ou t whose advic e an d supp ort tliis stu dy could not hav e been sa tis ­

factor ily completed.

III

CONCLUS ION S

1. It wa s th e gene ral conse nsu s th at ex istin g leg islati on adeq uatel y pro vides 

Fe de ra l sa fety regu latio n au th or ity ove r in te rs ta te movem ent of da ng erou s ca rgoes by rail, hig hw ay, ai r an d ocean shipp ing bu t no t by inland waterway or 

pipelin e. It wa s als o agreed th at th er e is no provisio n in Fe deral st at ut or y law 

fo r recovery by the Go vernm ent of cos ts incu rred in th e reco very and rem ova l 

of dangerous cargoe s fro m navig able water way s as in the case of the Wyc hctn

112 incident.

2. Safet y reg ulation of ca rr ie rs by inland water way is a responsib ility of the 

U.S. Coast G uard ; 2

 sa fety regu latio n of shipp ers by inland waterway is a re ­

spo nsi bility of th e In te rs ta te Com merce Commission. Howev er, the au th or ity o f 

the Coast Gu ard to es tablish stan da rd s, to ins pect vess els, and to license a nd c ertifica te op erating perso nnel does no t exten d to die sel-driven tow boats. Documen tat ion for th is con clusion is give n at an ne x D. Legis lation is needed to close 

this gap.

3. No Fe de ral age ncy now ha s au th or ity fo r sa fety regu lat ion of pipelin es.

(«) Under title 18, c ha pt er 39. sections 831-835 of the United St ates Code entit led “E xplosives an d Other Da ngero us Ar tic les ,” the In te rs ta te Commerc e 

Comm ission is charged with th e du ty of form ulati ng , admini ste rin g, an d enforcing regu lat ion s to pro vid e fo r the safe tran sp or ta tion withi n the Un ite d St ates 

of explosives an d othe r da ng erou s artic les , win ch “sh all be binding upon all ca rrier s engage d in in te rs ta te or foreig n com merce which tran sp or t exp los ive s or 

othe r dangerous artic le s by lan d, and upon all shippe rs makin g shipm ents of

1

 O ne such pr op os al is H.R . 942, 88 th Cong., a bill to re quir e in sp ec tio n an d ce rt ific ation of towbo ats.

- 33 U.S.C. 151 to 2 32 ; 4 6 CFR 146.
8 PE TROLEU M P IP E L IN E SA FE TY

ex plos ives or oth er da ng er ou s art ic le s via an y c a rr ie r en ga ge d in in te rs ta te or 

fo re ig n co mmerce by la nd o r w ate r. ”

(b ) P ri o r to a revi sion of th is ac t, ap pr ov ed Sep tem be r 6, 1000, th is la ng ua ge 

w as in te rp re te d to includ e comm on ca rr ie rs by pi pe line (t h e act pri or to th a t 

re vi sion ha vi ng ap pl ic at io n to comm on carr ie rs on ly, and sh ip per s by com mo n 

c a rr ie r) . The 1960 am en dm en t ex te nd ed th e pr ov isio ns of th e a ct to carr ie rs 

wh o w er e no t com mon carr ie rs , in ad dit io n to comm on carr ie rs . A “c a rr ie r” is 

defin ed as “a ny pe rson en ga ge d in th e tr an sp o rt ati o n of pa ss en ger s or pr op er ty , 

by land , oth er th an pipe lin es * * T he r ea so n fo r th is ex clus ion of pi pe lin es is 

no t kn ow n. No ot he r pr ov ision w as th en mad e or now exis ts fo r re gu la tion of 

tr an sp o rt ati o n of d an ge ro us co mmod ities, or oth er sa fe ty re gula tion, of p ipelines.

(c ) T he F edera l Po w er Co mm iss ion , w hi ch has ge ne ra l re gula to ry auth ori ty 

fo r n a tu ra l ga s pipe lin es hut no ne re gard in g th eir sa fe ty re gula tion, po in te d ou t 

in it s 1962 A nn ua l Rep or t to Con gr es s th e lack of su ch as si gnm en t of re sp on sibility w ith re sp ec t to n a tu ra l ga s pi pe line s. 3

 P ert in en t ex tr a c t of th is re port is 

att ach ed a t an ne x E.

4. The Corps of En gine er s, D epart m ent of th e Ar my , is ch ar ged w ith th e re ­

sp on si bility fo r th e remov al of h azard s to nav ig at io n w ithin th e n av ig ab le w ate rw ay s of th e U ni ted Sta te s. 4

 It has no sta tu to ry au th o ri ty or re sp on sibi lity 

ho w ev er fo r th e remov al of oth er ty pes of h azard s th a t m ay oc cu r—su ch as 

th e c hl or in e ta nks which p osed n o im pe di m en t to ri ver tra ffi c h u t w hi ch p re se nt ed 

a th re a t to th e liv es an d sa fe ty of th ousa nds of ci tize ns re si dent in th e vi cinity . 

It seem s on ly re as on ab le and pro pe r th a t th e ro le of th e Corps of Eng in ee rs be 

ex te nd ed to incl ud e th e re m ov al of h azard s to pu bl ic healt h and sa fe ty or fo r 

th e su pe rv isio n of su ch re m ov al if per fo rm ed by ot he rs .

5. T her e sh ou ld also ba sta tu to ry re quir em ent th a t, up on a fin ding by th e 

Sur ge on G en er al of th e Pub lic H ealt h Se rvice, ca rg oe s lo st or ab an do ne d by a 

carr ie r or ow ne r w ithin th e nav ig ab le w at erw ays of th e U ni te d S ta te s co nst itute 

a pote nti al h azard to pu blic healt h an d sa fe ty ,5

 th e c a rr ie r or ow ne r be re qu ired 

to re co ve r and pro pe rly disp os e of sa m e a t it s ow n ex pe ns e. If it sh ou ld fa il 

to do so w ithin a re as on ab le tim e, th e Gov ernm en t, th ro ugh th e Cor ps of E ngi ne er s, wou ld eff ect th e reco ve ry an d di sp os al, th e co sts th er eo f to be reco ve re d 

to the G ov er nm en t f ro m t he c a rr ie r or ow ne r.

6. T her e w as c on side ra bl e di sc us sion regard in g t he vali dit y a nd eff icac y of pla cing li m it ato ns up on th e q uanti ty of give n da ng er ou s co mm od iti es which m ig ht 

be tr an sp o rt ed in a sing le tr a n sp o rt ve hicle or in te g ra te d gr oup of ve hicles. 

Opinion vari ed f ro m su ppo rt of s tr ic t lim it ati ons to v ir tu all y no m ax im um s oth er 

th an th os e re su ltin g fr om S ta te hig hw ay siz e and w ei gh t re st ri cti ons, (on th e 

pr em ise th a t da ng er from a re la ti vely sm al l quanti ty in tr a n sp o rt is not sig nifican tly le ss th a n from a la rg er q u an ti ty of th e sa m e ite m whi ch it is pr ac tica ble 

an d la w fu l to tr ansp ort , w ith th e ad ded fa cto r th at, p art ic u la rl y as to hi gh w ay 

mov em en ts, re str ic ti on of lo ad s w ill ne ce ss ar ily re su lt in m ultip li cit y of in divi du al ve hicle mov em en t and in cr ea se s th e nu m er ic al ch an ce s of co llisio n or 

o v ert u rn ). Th e ta sk gr ou p feels th a t th is is a te ch ni ca l m att er th a t has no t 

be en ad eq ua te ly re vi ew ed in re ce nt y ears and th a t a co m pr eh en sive st udy w ou ld 

he in or de r. As no ted , th is i s es pe ci al ly t he c ase in in la nd w ate rw ays na vi ga tion . 

Su ch a st udy sh ou ld co ns id er al l m anner of dan ger ous ca rg oe s includ ing, but 

no t lim it ed to, ex plosives, fla mmab les, ch em icals , ga se s and r adio acti ve m at er ia ls . 

I t sh ou ld co ns id er th e hazard s of mov em en t of th es e co mm od iti es by al l m ea ns; 

i.e., ra il high way , ai r, in la nd w at erw ay, lake , and oc ea n sh ip pi ng . The ch aracte ri sti cs of pipe lin es and pi pe line op er at io n a re su ch th a t quan ti ty lim it ati ons 

on mov em en ts wo uld no t be pr ac tica bl e. Pip el in es th ere fo re sh ou ld no t be in ­

clud ed in su ch a stud y. The st udy m ig ht well be co nd uc ted by th e resp ec tive 

ag en ci es ha vi ng appro pri ate ju ri sd ic ti on ov er th e vari ous m o d es; i.e., th e In te rsta te Co mmerce Co mm iss ion fo r ra il an d hig hw ay ; th e Fed er al A vi at io n Agenc y 

fo r a i r ; and th e U.S. C oa st G uar d fo r in la nd w at er w ay , la ke an d oc ean sh ip ­

pin g. E ac h wou ld co or di na te and ex ch an ge in fo rm at io n w ith th e oth er so th a t 

re su ltin g re gula tions wou ld ha ve some de gr ee of co ns istenc y.

3

 16 U.S .C. 824— IS C FR 151.

4

 W reck S ta tu te o f 1899. 33 U.S .C. 409 . 414 , an d 415.

5

 I t m ig ht be de si ra bl e to mak e th is le gis la tion mo re ex te ns iv e to co ve r all w at er po llutio n. in cl udin g th a t haz ar do us to fish an d wild lif e, or cr ea ti ng co m m un ity prob lems or 

nu isan ce s of oth er va ri et ie s. Ho we ve r, th e co m m itt ee fe el s th a t it sh ou ld de al only w ith 

th e su bje ct as sign ed . W at er po llut io n ca n com e from m an y so ur ce s of whi ch tr a n sp o rta ­

tio n is but on e—(and a re la ti vel y m in or one. Sp ills, leak ag es , du mping , or oth er di ss em in ati ons of po ssible poll uta nts are a tt ri b u ta b le to man y ca us es an d m ay ha ve a wide ra ng e of 

efFects. We ha ve th er ef ore le ft th is ve ry br oa d su bj ec t to oth er s fo r se para te tr eatm en t on 

it s own m er its.
PETROLEUM PIP ELINE SAFETY 9

In its age ncy rev iew of the forego ing p rop osa l fo r an exten siv e stu dy of qu an ­

tity lim ita tio ns an d related factors in the movem ent of da ng erou s cargoe s, th e 

In te rs ta te Com merce Commission subm itted the fo llo win g:

"T he In te rs ta te Commerc e Com mission and its start' oft en ha ve conside red 

proposa ls to re st rict qu an tit ie s of dangerous com modities in a single vehicle, ca r, 

or trai n. A numb er of major accid ents inv olving dang erou s com modities du ring 

the la st 15 ye ar s have invo lved qu an tit ie s which would rea sonably be conside red 

small, with in the acc epted stan da rd s of pr ac tic ab ili ty in tra ns po rt. In fac t, th e 

two most ca tastro ph ic cas es of rec ent ye ar s have invo lved motor veh icles tr an spo rting relatively lim ited qu an tit ies. Qua ntity r estri ctions, ar bitra ri ly fixed, may 

well resu lt in inc rea sed ha za rd because of the add ed numb er of veh icle s requ ire d 

to t ra ns po rt a given q ua ntity , and the conse quent inc rease d exposur e to accid ent s. 

The Com mission, in th e lig ht of exp erienc e, co ntinu all y rev iew s the need to 

modify i ts r egula tio ns, inc lud ing p roposal s to re st rict qu an tit ie s of c er tain item s. 

The Commission has th e nec ess ary st at ut or y au th or ity to ac t in th is resp ect. It 

has con sidere d it unwise to prescribe a ge ne ral re strict io n altho ug h it has imposed such restrictio ns as to pa rtic ul ar com modities in railw ay express serv ice. 

Fo r the foregoing reasons no su ch stu dy is nee ded w ith respect to ra il o r hig hw ay 

tra ns po rtatio n.

"F or thi s reason , th e stu dy should lie u nd ertake n with res pect to inlan d w at er ­

ways only, and shou ld con sid er all m an ne r of dangerous cargo es mov ing via inland 

waterway s.”

Th e Fe de ra l Av iation Agency, wh ile willing to pa rtic ip at e in such a stu dy as 

prop osed , fee ls th at th ei rs is a spe cia l pro ble m re la ted to th e en tire field of ai r 

saf ety . Problem s and sit ua tio ns ar e me t as the y ar ise an d rega rdless of the ou tcome of a stu dy or position s take n by othe r agencies, the FAA m us t ac t on its 

own au th or ity in all m at te rs affect ing air tra ns po rtat io n.

7. Dis cus sions also brou gh t out th at ma ny dang erou s and ha za rd ou s car goes 

move in tr ast at e and ar e no t subje ct to Fe de ra l control or regulat ion . The ha zar ds to life an d prop erty ar e ju st as r ea l as fo r movem ents in te rs tate . Th e laws 

of the res pecti ve St ates v ary widely in th e deg ree o f contr ol imposed fr on ^iiid ^ t

effective to very lax. Some ar e outda ted , rec ogn izin g ne ith er im proA jjj *m et*|j i|| 

of ha nd lin g no r the new ha za rd s of new pro ducts. It ap pe ars ob vi ou M «a t Stare* 

law s and regu latio ns sho uld also be give n a ca refu l review an d/ jjr am in atio n. 

To this end it is ap pr op riat e th at efforts be ma de to effect a uiwjyrm solution 

of thi s problem by th e r esp ectiv e S tat es. 1 £

In ar rivi ng at th is finding we ar e no t un aw ar e of th e efforts have been 

made and ar e continu ing —with th e su pp or t and ur gin g of man Attw ernm en tafo 

indu str y, civic, and pr iv at e gro ups ha ving con cern fo r th e ha za nf iti nv ol ve d rttthe tran sp or ta tion of dangerous cargo es—to ob tai n mo re unifo rm in e ff ic a c io u s 

law s and regu latio ns respectin g th is type of traffic with in th e va nf fi j^ State s^ 

The intention he re is to give rec ognition to th e pro blem an d to give swfW w fa ffi?

impetus to corre cti ve action.

IV

RECOM MEN DAT ION S

It is recommende d th a t:

1. The au th or ity an d respon sib ility of the U.S. Coast Gu ard for the ins pection 

of vess els an d th e licens ing and certific ating of o pe ratin g per son nel (i.e.. m as ters 

and mates) sho uld be ext ended to apply to all tow ing ves sels (beyon d ce rtai n 

minim um s) rega rd less of the me ans of pro pulsion or wh ere employed. Th e 

U.S. Co ast Gu ard will propos e legis lat ion to th is effect. (Annex F.)

2. Th e In te rs ta te Com merce Com mission sho uld be give n specific st at uto ry

au th or ity and respon sib ility fo r the sa fe ty regu latio n of all pipelines op er at ­

ing in in te rs ta te an d/o r for eig n commerce (o th er th an water pip elines and gas 

pip eli ne s). (A nne x G .)

3. ® The Fe de ra l Po we r Commission sho uld be give n specific st at uto ry au th or ity 

and respon sib ility fo r the safety regu latio n of gas pipelines op eratin g in in te rstat e or foreign commerce. The Fed er al Po we r Commission will seek legisla ­

tion to th is end. (Annex H .)

4. The au th or ity an d res po nsibility of th e U.S. Arm y Corps of En gin eers fo r 

th e rem oval of “haz ards to na viga tio n” sho uld includ e res ponsibility , af te r 

consult ati on with th e Surgeo n Ge neral of th e Pu bli c Health Serv ice, for th e 

rem ova l or fo r the supervi sio n of th e rem oval of ‘‘haz ar ds to life , he alth an d

6

 Th e De pa rtm en t of the In te rior does no t con cur in recom me ndations 2 and 3 as here 

stat ed and makes an al te rn at e rec ommenda tion which is show n a t annex K.
10 PETROLEUM PIP EL INE SAFETY

property” in navigable waterways of the United States. The Corps of Engineers will sponsor this legislation. (Annex L.)

5. It is recommended tha t legislation be considered which would extend the 

Government’s statutory right of recovery of costs incurred in wreck or hazard; 

removal. The Corps of Engineers will prepare and propose appropriate legislation. (Annex I.)

G. It is recommended tha t an administrative review and evaluation be made 

of the adequacy and suitability of existing Federal laws and regulations with 

respect to quantities of dangerous cargoes now permitted to move within a 

single ship, barge, or other vessel operating on inland waterways, such study 

to be made by the U.S. Coast Guard. (Annex F.)

7. It is recommended tha t the States be encouraged to seek greater uniformity and effectiveness of legislation and regulations governing the intrastate 

movement of dangerous cargoes. It was the consensus of the interagency group 

that the several States should review and strengthen their statutes. It is suggested that the Council on State Governments be requested to develop and foster 

uniform statutes in consonance with Federal statutes governing such movements. A letter has been prepared for the signature of the Director of the 

Office of Emergency Planning asking tha t the council sponsor such action. 

(Annex J.)

Annex A

Executive Office of the President,

Office of Emergency Planning, 

Washington, D.C., March 6, 1063. Hon. Luther H. Hodges,

Secretary of Commerce, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Secretary: Recently the Federal Government disposed of a very 

serious problem tha t resulted from the sinking of the chlorine barge Wychem 113, in the Mississippi River approximately 7 miles southwest of Natchez, Miss. 

At the*Yime of the casualty the barge was loaded with 2,200,000 pounds of 

liquefied chlorine gas in four pressure-vessel cargo tanks.

The sunken barge and cargo became an item of concern to the White House 

and to the Office of Emergency Planning because it had all of the elements 

of a health hazard of major disaster proportions if the chlorine gas had escaped 

from the tanks. It was estimated that release of the cargo would have endangered the lives and health of 80,000 residents of the area. I discussed the 

entire incident with the President, and he agreed tha t the extreme dimensions 

of the promqm necessitated immediate action by the Federal Government.

Representatives of the White House, Bureau of the Budget, Department of 

.TustRi?,.,Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Corps of Engineers, 

hnd Coast Guard met in my office last September to determine who had the resi>onsibility to take action. As a result of our discussion, it appeared tha t a 

legislative void existed. There was serious doubt whether the responsibility 

for action could be identified with any specific department or agency. It was 

also recognized th at consideration might properly be given to legislation for the 

control of traffic on the navigable waterways and public highways involving 

highly dangerous commodities, and thus avoid similar incidents in the future.

Because of the immediate need for Federal action, however, the President determined under the authority of Public Law 875, 81st Congress, as amended, th at 

a potential hazard to health and safety in the vicinity of the liquid chlorine on 

the sunken barge threatened to be of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant disaster assistance by the Federal Government. In the meantime, under 

the direction of the Office of Emergency Planning, the Corps of Engineers assumed primary responsibility for the salvage operation to remove the liquid 

chlorine and initiated operations.

The hazard was removed safely and successfully at a cost of approximately 

$3 million to the Federal Government. The Justice Department has filed a suit 

in admiralty in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, 

Baton Rouge Division, for damages and other relief.

There still remains, however, an apparent need for legislation assigning 

authority for such operations to a specific agency or agencies, and, of equal importance, for the control of traffic of highly dangerous commodities on navigable 

waterways and public highways in order to avoid future accidents. Within the 

past few months alone, there have been many incidents of explosions, fires, and
PETROLEUM PIP ELINE SAFETY 11

oth er cata stro phe s as the result of damage to fuel and chemical carri ers in 

int ers tat e commerce. A b rief description of several such accidents follow :

1. On F ebrua ry 22, 1963, in Norphlet, Ark., the e ntire town of 700 people was 

evacuated while firemen put out a lire which resulted from a tra in- tru ck collision. The lire thr eatene d to blow up a boxcar of ammonia nitra te, but was 

successfully extinguished.

2. On December 16, 1962, in Sacramento, Calif., a tan k truck containing 8,750 

gallons of gasoline exploded and burned. There was one death and app roximately $135,000 in property damage. Fifty people were evac uated from nea rby 

apartme nt houses and homes.

3. On November 30, 1962, in Essex Junction, Vt., a tan k truck carrying 6,100 

gallons of vinyl aceta te rolled over and cau ght lire. Eleven j>ersons were 

injured.

4. On February 15, 1962, in Belchertown, Mass., a sem itra iler carrying 4,000 

gallons of asphalt ran off the highway. The tru ck’s gasoline tan ks ruptu red 

and the gasoline, in burning, ignited th e aspha lt. One death resulted.

In view of the major responsibilities of your Department in the tra ns po rta ­

tion area, I feel th at the Dep artm ent of Commerce should dire ct and coordinate 

a study, in which th e intere sted dep artm ents and agencies would partici pate, and 

pre par e any needed legislation for introdu ctio n in this session of Congress.

I would app reciate yo ur reaction to this proposal and will be av ailable to meet 

with you and offer all possible assista nce concerning any problem th at may 

arise in th is connection.

Best personal regards.

Sincerely,

Edwakd A. McDermott.

Annex B

April 3, 1963. Hon. E dward A. McDermott,

Director, Office of Emergency Planning,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. McDermott : With furth er reference to your letter of March 6 in 

the matt er of tra nsporta tio n of dangerous materials, I agree with you th at the 

Departme nt of Commerce is the proper agency to make the proposed study.

I have accordingly asked the Under Secreta ry for Transpo rtation to assign 

the tas k to a tra nsp ort ation specialist of his staff for the necessary study, 

research, and recommendations. My General Counsel will provide legal assistance and coordination will be effected with other Fed eral agencies concerned.

We will keep your office informed of significant progress and will provide you 

with o ur final recommendations when they have been arriv ed upon.

Sincerely yours,

Luther II. Hodges, 

Secretary of Commerce.

Annex C

I nteragency Meeting—I nterstate Movement of Dangerous Cargoes

ROSTER OF PA RT ICIPAN TS

Office of the Pr es id en t:

Office of Emergency Pl an ning :

Mr. Robert Y. Phillips, Dire ctor, Government Readiness Office.

Mr. Charles Kendall, General Counsel.

Mr. Paul Revelle, Chief, T ran spo rtation Division.

Bureau of the Bud ge t: Mr. Donlad D. Kummerfeld, Legislative Analyst, 

Office of Legislative Reference.

Atomic Energy Com mission:

Mr. Joseph Scinto, Office of Gen eral Counsel.

Mr. Ed Patterson, Division of Operational Safety.

Lt. Adam Mehn, D ivision of Operational Safety.

U.S. Coast Gua rd :

Capt. Charles P. Murphy, Ass ista nt Chief, Office of Merchant Marine 

Safety.

Capt. George C. Steinman, A ssistant Chief, Merchan t Marine T echnical 

Division.
12 PE TROLEU M P IP E L IN E SA FE TY

I nteragency Meetin g—I nte rst ate Move men t of Dange rous Cargoes—Con.

roster of pa rt ic ipan ts—c on tinu ed

U.S. Coa st G uar d— Co ntinue d

Cm dr. E ri c G. Gru nd y, M er ch an t M ar in e Tec hn ical D ivisi on .

Cap t. Jo e L. Il or ne , Le gal Divis ion .

Cap t. Geo rge It. Re yn old s, Ch ief , P o rt s Sec ur ity an d Law Enfo rc em en t 

Divisi on .

Ci vil A er on au tics B o ard : Mr. B ern ard Do yle , B ure au of Saf et y.

U.S. Arm y Corps of E n g in eers :

Mr. E. II. Do mi nick , Ch ief, M isce lla ne ou s Civil B ra nch , O pe ra tions D ivisio n, Ci vil W or ks D irec to ra te .

Mr. J. J. Lan khors t, A ss is ta nt G en er al Cou ns el fo r L itig at io n.

Mr. L es te r Ed elman , A ss is ta nt G en er al Cou nsel fo r Leg isla tio n.

U.S. Ar my, Chi ef of T ra n sp o rt a ti o n :

Mr. R us se ll A rm en trou t, Office of th e C hi ef of T ra nsp ort ati on.

Mr. Jo hn Hercz og h, Saf et y Officer.

G en er al Se rv ices A d m in is tr ati o n : Mr. S. E. M ul lik in, Ch ief , Pro ce dure s an d 

R eg ul at io ns fo r T ra nsp ort ati on and Com m un ications .

In te rs ta te Co mm erc e Com m issi on :

Mr. E rn est G. Cox, Ch ief, Se cti on of M ot or C arr ie r Saf et y.

Mr. V. E. Il anin ger, Ch ief , Exp lo sive s B ra nc h, B ure au of Saf et y an d 

Servi ce.

D epar tm en t of th e In te rio r: Mr. Rob er t D ay , Office of th e Ser et ar y.

Post Otlie D e p a rt m e n t: Mr. E arl Ellis, B u re au of O pe ra tion s.

D ef en se Traff ic M an ag em en t S erv ic e:

Mr. C. T. Ma yo, G en er al C ou nsel.

Lt . Col. S. F. B ax te r, Ch ief , F re ig h t O pe ra tion s.

Mr . Leo nar d P. Hy ne s, F re ig h t O per at io ns Divisi on .

D ep art m ent of C om m er ce :

Brig . Gen. A. W. Ly on, Office of Em er ge nc y T ra nsp ort ati on.

Dr. D an ie l II. M at er , T ra nsp ort ati on E co no mist.

Mr. R ober t M. O ’Mah on ey, Office o f t he G en er al C ounse l.

M ar itim e A d m in is tr ati o n : Mr. K en ne th B urn s, Office of G en er al Co un sel. 

D epar tm en t of Ju sti c e : Mr. Tho m as F. Mc Go vern, A ttor ne y, A dm ir al ty an d 

Shipp in g Se cti on .

F edera l M ar itim e Com m issi on : Mr. A lle n Daw so n, B ure au of Dom estic 

Reg ul at io ns .

D epar tm en t of H ea lth, Edu ca tion , an d W elf are :

Mr. A. Ja m es Th om as, Chief, P la nnin g Division, H ealth M ob iliza tio n, 

Office of th e Su rgeo n G en eral.

Mr. R ay Cha pm an , Fo od and D ru g A dm in is tr at io n.

Mr. Sid ne y Ed elm an , G en er al Co un sel.

B ure au of Pub lic R oad s:

Mr. N or m an E. To wson, D ivision of D ef en se P la ns an d Ope ra tio ns .

Mr. L. Pavl in sk i, Office of Hig hw ay Sa fe ty .

F edera l A vi atio n Age nc y: Mr. Leo n Ja nky, Fli ghts S ta ndard Se rvice.

F edera l Pow er Com miss ion: Mr. M urr ay Fin e, Civil an d D efen se Pla nnin g 

Officer.

N at io na l A er on au tics an d Sp ac e A dm in is tr ati on: Mr. Ja m es C. McCollom , 

D irec to r, T ra nsp ort ati on an d Lo gistics.

Ten ne ss e Valley A u th o ri ty : Mr. L. J. Van Mol, G en er al M an ag er .

Ann ex D

Sub m itte d by U.S . C oa st G ua rd

Doc umentat ion for Con clusion 2 in Sect ion II I

The appl ic at io n of man y law s re quir in g in sp ec tion an d ce rtific at io n of ve ssels 

ad m in is te re d by th e Coa st G ua rd is comp lex . T his ap plica tion de pe nd s up on 

co nd itio ns and ci rc um st an ce s whi ch of te n vary ex tens iv el y. In effect, th is 

re su lt s in a se le ct iv e ap pl ic at io n of a spe cif ic la w to a cl as s or ty pe of vessel in 

th e co mmercial m er ch an t m ar in e. A la w may ap ply be ca us e of th e metho d of 

pr op ul sion us ed by a vessel (s te am , mot or , sa il, or no n- se lf- pr op elled) ; or by a
PETROLEUM PIPELINE SAFETY 13

vessel’s len gth an d/o r gro ss ton na ge ; or by type of ac tiv ity in which a vessel 

is engage d (passeng er vessel, tank vessel, na ut ical schoolship, car go or mis cellaneou s vessel) ; or by typ e of cargo a vessel ca rrie s (in flamm able or comb ustible liqu ids, dang erou s cargoes, etc.) ; or by categ ory of w ater s on which a 

vessel op erate s (sea going, coa stwise, Great Lak es, inland, etc .) ; or by tyi>e of 

voyage in which a vessel is engaged (int er na tion al voyage, Great Lakes’ voyage, 

coa stw ise voyage, etc .) ; or by a com bin ation of the se fac tor s.

Fo r tow ing ves sels the inspec tion an d certific ati on law s specifically appli cable 

thereto ar e in tit le 46 (S hipp ing), Un ite d State s Code, sec tions 31)1 (ll .S. 4417) 

an d 405 (lt .S. 4427), fo r tho se tow ing vessels propelled by steam, an d in section 

367 (a ct of Ju ne 20, 1936), for tho se seagoing tow ing vess els of 300 gross ton s 

an d over propelled in whole or in part by intern al- comb ustio n eng ine s (diese ldriven tu gs ). Depen ding on cir cu ms tan ces in ind ivi du al cases, othe r law s may 

app ly with res pect to licensing of officers, manning , hours of lab or pe rm itted, 

loadlines, marine eng ine ering require me nts , etc.

One decision has b een hand ed down by th e Supre me C ourt of th e Un ited St ate s. 

In Ke lle y, Director, et al v. Washin gto n (de cid ed November 8, 1937) (302 

U.S. 1), th e Co urt ruled on th e righ t of th e Sta te of Wa shi ngton to requ ire 

inspection of the hu lls and ma chine ry of mo tor-drive n tow ing vessels. The 

Co urt held th at tug bo ats plying navig able w at er s of th e Un ited St ates ar e sub ­

je ct to regu latio n by Congres s un de r th e com merce clause . Th ere is no express 

provision in Fe de ral law s and regu latio ns for ins pection of hull and ma chi nery, 

of mo tor-drive n tug s. Th e Co urt als o ruled th at a Sta te could requ ire inspec ­

tions in th e in te re st of saf ety , bu t warne d th a t: “If, how ever, the St ate goes 

fu rther an d at tem pt s to imp ose par ticu la r st an da rd s as to stru ctur e, design, 

equip me nt and ope ration , which in th e judg men t of its au th or iti es may be desir ab le bu t which pass beyond wha t is pla inl y es sential to safety an d se aw or thiness, th e State may encounter th e principle th a t such req uir em ents, if impo sed 

a t all, mus t be thr ou gh the action of Con gres s, which can estab lis h a unifo rm 

ru le.”

This decision which affirm ed th at Congr ess did no t int en d to requ ire inspectio n of mo tor -drive n tow ing ves sels is th e only decision of the Supre me Co urt 

cov erin g th is point.

A more recent c ou rt decision (1960) in this field wa s th at of th e U.S. D istric t 

Co urt for the Eas te rn Distric t of Pe nn sylva nia in th e cas e of Cha rles McD evitt

v. Donald C. Gunn, Ho wa rd T. Lon g and Willi am A. Ma yberry (182 F. Supp. 

335). In th is case, the co urt ruled th at McDevitt, holde r of Co ast Gu ard -issue d 

lice nse as mas ter an d first class pilot, wa s ac tin g on the au th or ity of his licens e 

wh ile pilot ing the mo tor-drive n tug Atla nt ic No. 5 on inlan d wate rs. In his 

opinion, th e jud ge stated th a t: “S ection 405 of title 46, Un ite d St ates Code, 

requ ire s th at any p erson ser vin g as m as te r of a tug be licensed by th e U.S. Co ast 

Gua rd.” Afte r inse rti ng the lang uage of th a t stat ut e, th e Ju dg e fu rt her 

st at ed : “The st atu te in cle ar and unam big uous lang uage applies to eve ry officer 

of eve ry tug boat, tow ing bo at and fr ei gh t boa t. Th e st at ute ad m its no exc eptio n.” He also decla red th at sec tions 222 and 224 of tit le 46 requ ire d a comple me nt of licensed office rs. He sta te d : “P lain tif f ap pa rently conte nds th at 

the tug Atlan tic No. 5 is a diesel-powered vessel and therefore is not su bjec t to 

th e same laws as ar e steam-powered vessels * * *. Tho se st at ute s (tit le J/6,

United St at es Code, section s J/05, 222, and 22}) requ ire eve ry tug to be inspecte d 

an d requ ire he r officers to be lice nse d by th e Co ast Gu ard .” [I ta lic wo rding 

inserte d fo r c larit y.]

The McD evitt case wa s app ealed, but th e ap pe al wa s sub sequently with dr aw n.

Anne x E

Extract From 1962 Annual Report, F ederal Power Comm issio n

11. Sa fety re gu la tio ns : Amend sec tion 7 by th e ad ditio n of a new sub sec tion 

au thorizing the Com mission to prescribe sa fety reg ula tio ns with respect to the 

constru cti on an d op erati on of in te rs ta te na tu ra l gas pipe lines.

While the in du stry in general is doing a good job in this res pect, th e lack of 

an y Fe de ra l regu lat ion , an d the sc attered an d nonunif orm Sta te reg ula tio n, 

cannot be con sid ere d en tir ely sa tis factor y. Hi gh-pres sure in te rs ta te pip elines 

necessa rily presen t ele me nts of ha za rd an d at le as t in th e abs enc e of ad eq ua te 

an d unifo rm St ate laws every pr ac tic ab le ste p sho uld be take n by th e Fed er al 

Gover nm ent to pr ot ec t the pub lic fro m in he re nt dan gers.
14 PETROLEUM PIP ELINE SAFETY

Annex F

Treasury Depar tm en t,

U.S. Coast Guard, 

W as hi ng to n, D.C ., August ID, 1963.

S ubje ct : R ep ort on in te rs ta te mov em en t of da nge ro us ca rgoe s.

Br ig. Gen. A. W . Lyo n,

D ep ut y D irec to r fo r D efen se Co ordina tio n, Office o f Em er ge nc y Tra ns po rtat io n,

U.S . D ep art m en t of Co mm erc e, W as hi ng to n, D.C.

Dear Genera l Lyon : As r eq ue st ed in you r le tt er of A ug us t 1, th e re vi se d d ra ft

of th e R ep or t on In te rs ta te Mo veme nt of D an ge ro us Cargo es has be en review ed 

and th e fo llo wing co mmen ts are offered.

Leg isla tion fo r to w bo at in sp ec tio n and re gula tion (p ar. 2 of sec. I l l an d 

par . 1 of sec. IV ) : The Coa st G ua rd ac kn ow ledg es th a t it h as pr op os ed le gi sl ation to ex te nd pre se nt auth ori ty an d re sp on sibi lity fo r th e insp ec tio n and cert ific ation of m ot or towing vessels of ov er 15 gr os s to ns whi ch oper at e on in la nd 

w ate rs a nd f or th e licen sing o f cert ain of t h e ir o per at in g p er so nn el. T his le gi sl ation is ne ce ss ar y be ca us e 46 U.S.C. 367, 391, an d 405, as in te rp re te d by th e Su ­

pr em e Cou rt, pr es en tly ex em pt, by om iss ion, al l in la nd m ot or tow in g ve ssels from 

in sp ec tio n an d ce rtificatio n. F u rt h e r deta il s a re g iven in th e en clos ur e.

Re view of da ng er ou s ca rg o size lim it ati ons fo r in la nd w ate rs (par . 6 of sec. 

IV ) : Th e C oa st G ua rd ac ce pts re sp on sibi lity fo r re vi ew in g it s co ntr ols ov er 

q uanti ti es of d an ge ro us c argo es m ov ing on na vi ga bl e w ate rs of th e U ni te d Sta te s.

The mission of you r stud y gr ou p is fe lt to be of g re at im po rtan ce in ass uri ng 

ad eq uat e and effecti ve re gu la tion of in te rs ta te tr ansp ort ati on of da ng er ou s 

ca rgoe s. The C oa st G ua rd ap pre ci at es h av in g had th e opport unity to par ti cip ate . 

Sin ce re ly yo urs,

D. McG . Morr ison,

Vice A dm ir al, U. S. Co ast Gu ard, A ct in g C om man da nt.

Ann ex G

I nterstate Comm erce Com m is si on,

Off ic e of th e Cha ir m an, 

W as hi ng to n, D.C., A ugust ~, 1963.

Brig . Gen . A. W. L yon,

D ep uty D irec to r fo r D efen se Co or dina tio n, Office of Em er ge nc y Tra ns po rtat io n,

D ep art m en t o f Co mm erc e, W as hi ng to n, D.C.

Dear Genera l Lyon : We su gg es t th a t th e prop os ed d ra ft be re vi se d in ce rt ai n

resp ec ts, p art ic u la rl y as it s re la te s to th e re sp on sibi lity an d pr op os ed ac tio ns 

whi ch wou ld affect th e In te rs ta te Co mm erc e Co mm ission . You ha ve re qu es ted 

th a t we sp ec ifi ca lly ac kn ow led ge th e in dic at ed sp on so rshi p of le gi sl at io n to giv e 

th is Co mmiss ion sta tu to ry ju ri sd ic ti on as to cert ain pipe lin es . I am not ab le to 

co mmit th e Co mm iss ion to th e exte nt th e d ra ft co nt em pl at es unti l a spe cific pr opo sa l ha s be en c on side re d by th e Leg is la tive Com mittee of th e Co mm iss ion . How ­

ev er, th e mo dif ied la ng ua ge pr op os ed her ei n fo r re co m men da tio n N o . 2 wi ll, I 

believe, c le arly indic at e ou r w ill in gn es s to con side r th is p rob lem .

Since re ly y ou rs,

Laurenc e K. Wal ra tii, Cha irm an .

Ann ex I

H ead quarters, Depa rtme nt of th e Arm y,

Off ice of th e C h ie f of E ng inee rs,

W as hi ng to n, D.C., A ugust 6,1 96 3.

Br ig. G en er al A. W. L yon, U.S. Army ,

D ep ut y D ir ec to r fo r D ef en se Co or dina tio n, Office of Em er ge nc y Tra ns po rtat io n,

D ep ar tm en t of Co mm erc e, W as hi ng to n, D.C.

Dear Genera l Lyon : I re fe r to your le tt er of A ug us t 1, 1963, En clos in g a

revi se d d ra ft of th e Rep or t on In te rs ta te Movem ent of D an ge ro us Ca rgoe s. 

P ara g ra p h s 4 an d 5 of p a rt I I I an d para g ra p h s 4 an d 5 of p a rt IV ha ve been

no ted part ic ula rl y.

Th e Chief of Eng in ee rs ac kn ow ledg es th e re sp on sibi lity plac ed up on him in 

th e re port fo r sp on so rin g co rr ec tive le gi sl at io n to cl ari fy an d br oa den ex is ting 

la w to in cl ud e th e remov al of hazard ous ca rg o an d im po se up on th e ow ne rs or
PETROLEUM PIP ELINE SAFETY 15

underw ri te rs of th e ve ssels or ca rg oe s co nc erne d th e re sp on si bi lity fo r pay in g 

th e c os t of such remov al.

Sinc er ely yo ur s,

Robert J. Kas pe r,

Colonel, Corps of Engineers,

Deputy Director of Civil Works.

Ann ex J

Mr. Brevard Cri iie ie ld ,

Exe cutive Director,

Council of Sta te Governments,

Chicago, J II.

Dear Mr. Cr ii ie ie l d : T hi s office has re ce nt ly ca us ed to be under ta ken a st udy 

o f Fed er al sta tu to ry au th o ri ty an d re sp onsi bility fo r th e sa fe ty co nt ro l and re gul at io n of th e mov em en t i n i n te rs ta te and f ore ig n commerce of dan ge ro us c argo es . 

Thi s st udy w as d ir ec te d w ith a vie w to a ss uri ng a m ea su re o f co nt ro l to min im ize 

th e pro ba bi lities of ac ci de nt an d th e ri sk s of co ns eq ue nt da m ag e of life, hea lth, 

and pr op er ty .

The r esu ltin g r ep o rt in p a rt s ta te s :

“D iscu ss io ns also bro ught out th a t m an y da nger ous an d hazar dous ca rg oe s 

move in tr a sta te an d are no t su bj ec t to F edera l co nt ro l or re gula tion. The hazard s to life an d pro per ty a re j u s t as re al as fo r mov em en ts i n te rs ta te . The la w s 

of th e re sp ec tive S ta te s var y widely in th e de gr ee of co nt ro l im po sed from high ly 

effecti ve to ve ry la x. Som e ar e out dat ed , reco gn izing neit her im pr ov ed m et ho ds 

of ha ndling no r new h azard s of ne w pr od uc ts. I t ap jiea rs ob viou s th a t S ta te 

la w s an d re gul at io ns sh ou ld also be give n a ca re fu l review an d e xam in at io n. To 

th is en d it is appro pri ate th a t ef fo rts be m ad e to eff ect a un ifor m so lu tion of th is 

prob lem by th e re sp ec tive Sta te s.

“I n arr iv in g a t th is fin din g we are not unaw are of th e ef fo rts th a t ha ve be en 

mad e an d are co nt in ui ng —w ith th e su pport an d ur gi ng of m an y go ve rn m en ta l, 

in du st ry , civ ic an d pri v ate g ro up s hav in g co nc ern fo r th e h azard s invo lved in th e 

tr an sp o rt ati o n of d an ge ro us ca rgoe s—to o bta in m or e uni fo rm a nd effic aciou s l aw s 

and re gula tions re sp ec ting th is ty pe of tra ffi c w ithin th e var io us Sta te s. The 

in te ntion her e is to give re co gn iti on to th e prob lem and to give su pport an d 

im pe tus to co rr ec tive ac tio n.

“I t is reco mmen de d th a t th e S ta te s be en co ur ag ed to seek g re ate r unif orm ity 

an d ef fe ctiv en es s of legi slatio n an d re gula tions go ve rn in g th e in tr a sta te mo vemen t of da ng er ou s ca rg oe s. It w as th e co ns en su s of th e in te ra gen cy gr ou p th a t 

th e se ve ra l S ta te s sh ou ld review an d st re ngth en th eir st atu te s. It is su gg es ted 

tha t, th e Co un cil of S ta te Gov er nm en ts be re qu es te d to deve lop an d f ost er uni fo rm 

sta tu te s go ve rn in g su ch mov em ents. A le tt er has b een pre par ed f or th e si gnatu re 

of th e D ir ecto r of th e Office of Em erge nc y P la nnin g as kin g th a t th e co un cil sp on ­

so r su ch ac tion .”

I co nc ur th a t th e sta tu te s an d re gula tions of th e va riou s S ta te s co nc erni ng 

th e co ntr ol an d re gula tion of da nger ous ca rg oe s mo ving in tr a sta te sh ou ld be 

re vi ew ed an d ac tion ta ken to m ak e th em mor e effecti ve an d mor e co ns is te nt w ith 

ea ch ot he r. I also co nc ur th a t th e Co un cil of S ta te G ov er nm en ts sh ou ld be th e 

appro pri ate b ody t o ta k e th e le ad a nd to c oor di na te su ch a ctio n.

The st af fs of th e re sp ec tive Fed er al ag en cies w ill he plea se d to pr ov id e ad vice 

an d in fo rm at io n up on re qu es t.

I re al iz e th a t th ere is a co nt in ui ng ef fo rt alon g th is lin e and th a t mu ch pro gress ha s alr eady be en ac co mplish ed . An in te ns ific at io n of th e effort in th e 

in te re st of pub lic s afe ty m ay n ev er th el es s pr ov e b enefi cia l.

I wo uld appre ci at e yo ur view s co nc er ni ng th e undert akin g of such a review 

an d pe riod ic a dv ice of p ro gr es s made.

A n n ex K

U.S. Depar tm en t of th e I nterior,

Offic e of t h e Sec re ta ry ,

Washington, D.C., Augu st 21, 1963.

Dear Genera l I.yon : We ur ge th a t th e tw o re co m m en da tion s nu m be re d 2 an d 

3 be de leted an d th a t th e follo wing reco m m en da tion be in se rted in lie u of th e m :

“2. It is rec om men de d th at th e B ure au of th e Bud ge t fu rth e r ex pl or e w ith 

th e In te rs ta te Co mm erc e Co mm ission , th e F edera l Pow er Com miss ion an d oth ers
16 PETROLEU M PIP ELIN E SAFETY

th e po ssible ne ed fo r sa fe ty re gu la tion of pi pe lin es by th e Fed er al Gov ernm en t, 

de te rm in e which ag ency or ag en cies sh ou ld ad m in is te r an y sa fe ty re gul at io n of 

pi pe lin es which may be w ar ra nte d, an d if it is de te rm in ed th a t Federa l sta tu ­

to ry au th o ri ty fo r such re gu la tion sh ou ld he soug ht, arr an g e fo r th e p re p ara ­

tio n, in te ra ge nc y clea ra nc e, an d su bm ission of le gi sl at iv e pr op os al s fo r such 

au th o ri ty .”

Our re as on s fo r pr op os ing th e abov e-q uo ted r ec om m en da tion a re—

(1 ) T he in te ra ge nc y grou p, wh ose del ib er at io ns hav e prov id ed th e ba sis 

fo r th e re port on in te rs ta te mov em en t of dan ge ro us ca rgoe s, has not stud ied 

th e ne ed fo r sa fe ty re gul at io n of pipe lin es, an d th ere fo re it do es not ha ve 

a ba sis fo r such firm reco m m en da tio ns as th os e now in th e d ra ft re p o rt ; an d

(2 ) The B ur ea u of th e Bud ge t is th e ag en cy to co ord in at e th e p re p ara ­

tio n an d cl ea ra nc e of an y legi slat iv e pr op os als which may he w arr an te d an d 

to de term in e, or recom me nd, th e re la te d org an iz at io nal as si gn m en t of fu nc ­

tio ns.

On e of th e qu es tion s wh ich th e B ure au of th e Bud ge t shou ld de cid e, as su m in g 

th e es ta blish m en t of a nee d fo r Fed er al sa fe ty re gu la tion of p ipelines , is w he th er 

th e fu nc tion sh ou ld he pe rfor m ed w ith re sp ec t to al l ty pe s of pi pe line s co nv eying 

haz ar dous su bs ta nc es , ra th er th an ju st cert ain ty pe s of su ch pipe lin es , by th e 

ag en cy which pr es en tly has si m il ar re gula to ry au th o ri ty ov er la nd tr a n sp o rt a ­

tion o f d an ge ro us c argo es (i.e., th e In te rs ta te Com me rce C om m ission ).

R obert E. Day,

St af f A ssistant {Defe nse A ct iv it ie s) .

Mr. Bridwell. One of the seven reco mm end atio ns which it contained was th at with the exception of w ate r and gas pip elines , the In ­

terstate Com merce Commission sho uld be given specific stat ut or y au ­

th or ity fo r the safety regula tion of all pipelin es op erating in int ersta te 

an d/o r f ore ign commerce.

Pri or to 1960, the Commission possessed the autho rity to ma ke re gu ­

lation s on the safet y of pip eline opera tio ns un de r the Ex plo siv es and 

Other D anger ous M ate ria ls Act (18 IT.S.C. 831). However , when the 

act was revised prim arily to incorporate the safet y aspects of movements occasioned by comm ercial ap pli catio ns of radioa ctivity , the 

juris diction of the Commission ove r t he safe ty reg ulati on of p ipeline s 

was omitted.

Th e need fo r the res tor ati on of this au thor ity has been recognized 

by the int era gency stu dy alr eady referre d to above. The In tersta te 

Com merce Comm ission has expressed its agreem ent with this resto ration in additio n to its agreem ent throug h its representatio n on the 

intera gency stu dy. The pipelin e indu str y itself has expressed its 

awaren ess of the need, and has recommended th at the pre vio us reg ulatory au th or ity be reins tit uted.

I t the refore seems th at those group s most cognizan t of the con ditions 

of pipeline c arria ge are joined t og ethe r to restore Fe deral safety r egulat ion over this i mp ortan t mode of t ran sportat ion.

The De partm ent of Commerce is pleased to note t his ap pa rent un animi ty of concern in the un ifo rm reg ula tio n of ca rrier safety by the 

Fe de ral Government. Tt is h ighly im po rta nt tha t this bill be en acted. 

En actm ent of TT.B. 5041 would be an othe r step in the perfe cti on of a 

rat ional, unified tra ns po rta tio n policy, and it has the end orsement of 

the De pa rtm en t of Commerce.

Mr. Staggers. Th an k you.

Do you know of any op position to t his ?

Mr. Bridwell. No, s ir, Mr. Ch air ma n. Du rin g the course of pr epa rin g o ur comments on this I specific ally inqu ired as to wh eth er there 

was opposition and to the best of my knowledge the re is none.

Mr. Staggers. In yo ur intera gency stu dy, were most of the in te rested agencies con tacted in the st ud y ?
PE TROLEU M P IP E L IN E SA FE TY 1 7

Mr. Bridwell. Yes, sir. The study lists the various agencies that 

participated in or contributed to the study.

Mr. Staggers. Mr. Friedel.

Mr. F riedel. No questions. I just want to compliment you on your 

very fine brief statement.

Mr. Bridwell. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Staggers. Mr. Jarman.

Mr. J arman. Mr. Bridwell, I will join in tribute to you on a precise 

and positive statement.

I think the one question I would ask would he: Does not the interagency study in chapter II I headed “Conclusions” bring out that the 

reason for this exclusion of pipelines is not known?

Mr. Bridwell. Yes, sir. At the time the interagency task group 

undertook this study it attem pts to determine why the omission of this 

form of carriage from the 1960 legislation. The legislative history 

was reviewed; the Interstate Commerce Commission was contacted; 

and we have correspondence in our files on this. We have simply been 

unable to find any reason for the omission or any indication tha t it was 

deliberately deleted.

In other words, to the best of our knowledge, it was an inadvertent 

omission.

Mr. J arman. Does not chapter IV, where the study sets out recommendations—the recommendation is made that the ICC should be 

given the specific statutory authority that it had prior to 1960?

Mr. Bridwell. Yes, sir. The recommendations go to a number of 

different subjects which was left to each program or regulatory agency 

as the case may be, to follow through with the appropriate legislation.

The recommendation you refer to was a recommendation which the 

ICC has acted upon and results in the legislation now before you.

Mr. J arman. And this study was approved by 22 separate Federal 

Government agencies, as I understand it.

Mr. Bridwell. Yes, sir; that is correct, and of course the Bureau 

of the Budget and the White House.

Mr. J arman. Thank you very much.

Mr. Staggers. Thank you, Mr. Bridwell, for your statement.

Mr. Bridwell. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Staggers. Our next witness will be Mr. J . I). Durand, general 

counsel of the Association of Oil Pipe Lines, and the gentlemen who 

are associated with him. You may bring them to the table if you 

would.

Identify yourself and also give your statement for the record.

STATEMENTS OF J. D. DURAND, GENERAL COUNSEL, ASSOCIATION

OF OIL PIP E LINES: ARTHUR J. HELMBRECHT, EXECUTIVE VICE

PRESIDENT, BUCKEYE PI PE LINE CO.; J. A. HORNER, PRESIDENT,

SHELL PI PE LIN E CORP.; R. L. WAGNER, PRESIDENT, GREAT

LAKES PI PE LINE CO.; HARR Y G. FAIR, PRESIDENT, PH ILL IPS

PI PE LINE CO.; AND HAR RIS G. SQUIRE, VICE PRESIDENT,

TRAFFIC, SERVICE PI PE LINE CO.

Mr. Durand. I am J. D. Durand, general counsel of the Association 

of Oil Pipe Lines, which is composed of substantially all of the inter-
18 PE TROLEU M PIP E L IN E SA FE TY

state common carrier oil pipelines subject to economic regulation by 

the Interstate Commerce Commission.

With me today at the table are the following executives of member 

companies of the Association of Oil Pipe Lines: On my immediate 

right Mr. A. J. Helmbrecht, executive vice president of the Buckeye 

Pipe Line Co., New York, N.Y.

Next to Mr. Helmbrecht, on his right, is Mr. K. L. Wagner, president of Great Lakes Pipe Line (k)., Kansas City, Mo.

On my immediate left, is Mr. Harry G. Fair, president, Phillips 

Pipe Line Co., Bartlesville, Okla. I might add, Mr. Chairman, that 

Mr. Fa ir is chairman on the Association of Oil Pip e Lines, and Mr. 

Wagner is vice chairman of the Association of Oil P ipe Lines.

Continuing, on Mr. Fair’s left is Mr. J. A. Horner, president of 

Shell Pipe Line Corp., Houston, Tex. Air. Horner is a member of 

our executive committee.

Fina lly on the extreme left is Mr. H arris G. Squire, vice president, 

traffic, Service Pipe Line Co., Tulsa, Okla.

We are aware of the fact that the committee indicated pleasure with 

the brief statements that have been made by the Government witnesses 

and we will certainly attempt to keep our statements as brief as 

possible to conserve the time of the committee.

I think that since my statement is so short, Mr. Chairman, it would 

save time if I merely read it, rather than attem pt to summarize it for 

the committee.

Mr. Staggers. You may do that. We saved time on the other 

witnesses and we can afford it.

Mr. Durand. Thank you, sir.

The association, the membership of which is attached to the statement which is before you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of your 

subcommittee, appears before you today in support of H.R. 5041, 

which would vest in Ihe Interstate Commerce Commission jurisdiction 

to prescribe safety regulations for the oil pipelines now subject to its 

economic jurisdiction.

Since the oil pipeline industry has not appeared before this committee for some time, I believe it would be helpful to the committee 

for me to summarize very briefly salient facts about the industry.

The interstate oil pipelines are common carriers of crude oil and 

petroleum products and have been subject to economic regulation by 

the Interstate Commerce Commission since 1906. They are not in the 

business of buying and selling oil, but merely transport it as common 

carriers, in competition with each other and with other modes of 

transportation.

The industry has developed on sound, private enterprise principles, 

without Government subsidy, and with adequate Federal economic 

regulation, into an interconnecting network of transport systems 

capable of serving all the important oil producing and refining areas 

of the Nation.

The interstate common carrier oil pipelines are subject to part I 

of the Interstate Commerce Act. In accordance with these requirements, tariffs must be filed with the Commission before transportation begins, and the rates and charges provided in the tariffs must be 

just and reasonable. Strict observance by the carrie r with tariff pro ­

visions is required.
PE TROLEU M PIP E L IN E SA FE TY 19

'l'lie carrier must provide transportation upon reasonable request 

therefor by shippers, and may not grant unreasonable preference to 

any shipper or unduly discriminate among shippers.

Furthermore, the carriers are required to establish reasonable 

through rates with other pipeline carriers, and are forbidden to pool 

traffic, service, or earnings with another carrier except with the specific 

approval of the Interstate Commerce Commission.

Finally, the pipeline carriers are required to keep their accounts 

and records in conformity with the uniform system prescribed by the 

Commission, and they are required to file such periodic reports as the 

Commission requires.

The common c arrier interstate oil pipeline network today consists 

of 157,000 miles of crude and petroleum products lines, serving every 

State in the Union except Hawaii. There are two principal classes of 

oil pipelines: crude lines, which trans port oil from the oil wells to the 

refineries; and products lines, which transport light petroleum products, such as gasoline, jet fuel, diesel fuel, and heating oil, from the 

refineries to distribution terminals.

As common carriers these oil pipeline companies carry crude oil 

and petroleum products tendered to them by the shipping public in 

accordance with the tariffs on file with the Interstate Commerce 

Commission.

The importance of the oil pipelines in the Nation's transportation 

system is evident from the fact that they are now the principal petroleum carriers in this country, moving 75 percent of all of the crude 

oil delivered to refineries and 45 percent of the light petroleum prod ­

ucts leaving refineries.

While the oil pipelines are specialists in tra nsportation, so great is 

the volume of crude oil and petroleum products which they transport, 

tha t they account for a substantial portion of the total intercity movement of goods, by all kinds of transportation, whether public or 

private.

The Interstate Commerce Commission publishes annually figures 

showing the ton-miles of intercity traffic in goods (freight, cargo, 

express, mail et cetera) moved by the various forms of («) public 

transportation (railroads, motor carriers, water carriers, air carriers 

and pipelines) and, (fr) private carriers on highways, waterways, and 

airways. Of this great volume of goods moving in intercity traffic, 

the pipelines carry slightly over 17 percent. That is 17 percent of 

the entire intercity movement of commodities.

I believe it is clear from the foregoing tha t the interstate common 

carrier oil pipelines are a well-established and important segment 

of our national transportation system. They are subject to economic 

regulation by the Interstate Commerce Commission and that regulation has been sound and adequate, and has assisted in the creation 

of an important transportation network.

As other witnesses will testify today, the safety record of the oil 

pipelines has been, and is, outstanding. However, in view of the 

interstate nature of their operations, the oil pipelines firmly believe 

tha t if there is to be safety regulation of the industry by a governmental body, Federal regulation would produce the uniformity and 

consistency which would be in the public interest.
20 PETROLEUM PIP ELINE SAFETY

This would be in accord with the basic concepts approved by Congress in the Interstate Commerce Act, the Federal Aviation Act, and 

the various merchant marine acts.

Mr. Arthu r Ilelmbrecht, and the other witnesses who follow, will 

speak in more detail regarding this point. However, in summary, 

let me say that the interstate common carrier oil pipeline industry 

unanimously supports H.K. 5041.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to answer any questions that 

the committee may have.

Mr. Staggers. Thank you for a brief statement, also.

I)o you know of any opposition to this bill ?

Mr. Durand. No, si r; we do not.

Mr. Staggers. The pipeline industry is in accord because you are 

here in force testifying for it.

Mr. Durand. Yes, sir. In addition to the five company executives 

who are here with me today, the 76 members of the Association of 

Oil Pipe Lines are unanimously for the legislation. Our membership 

consists of 76 of the common carrier interstate oil pipelines, and, they 

are all in favor of this legislation.

Mr. Staggers. Now answer this : There has been no difficulty so far 

arisen in the Transportation Act because of lack of the statute, has 

there?

Mr. Durand. I think other witnesses may want to speak to tha t 

more in detail, Mr. Chairman. There has been difficulty in tha t there 

have been occasions where we have had conflicting State requirements 

which impede the construction of pipelines. For that reason we 

think the uniform Federal regulation would be better.

Mr. Staggers. I perhaps would agree with you on that. I was just 

trying to find the reason for the legislation. I can see th at if there are 

conflicting State regulations that perhaps the proposed legislation 

would be hindered and hold up. There usually has to be a reason 

for any legislation and I did not think we would anticipate any 

trouble unless some had arisen somewhere.

Mr. Durand. I am anticipating the statement of Mr. ITelmbrecht, 

and perhaps I should tu rn the microphone over to him. I think the 

reason there have been proposals for State legislation and in some 

cases actual legislation passed by States and ordinances by counties 

and townships, is the fact that at present there is a vacuum at the 

Federal level, and it is felt there is need for regulation.

1 t hink if there were Federal regulation, even if it did not preempt 

the field, the States and the localities would say, “Well, there is a 

Federal standard, we are content.”

I would suggest Mr. Helmbrechat speak fur ther to that, Mr. Chairman, if you wish, because that is the thrust of his testimony.

Mr. Staggers. We will come back to that.

Do you have any questions, Mr. Friedel ?

Mr. F riedel. Mr. Durand, I want to compliment you on your history of pipelines and their safety.

On page 3 you mention “As common carriers these oil pipeline 

companies carry crude oil and petroleum products.” Does that include natural gas?

Mr. Durand. No, sir. The pipelines which are members of the 

Association of Oil Pipe Lines are exclusively engaged in the transportation of crude oil and of petroleum products, not natural gas.
PETROLEUM PIPELINE SAFETY 21

Mr. Friedel. Not natural gas ?

Mr. Durand. No, sir.

Mr. Friedel. That is all.

Mr. Staggers. Mr. Jarman.

Mr. J arman. In line with Mr. Friedel's question, Mr. Chairman, 

I might mention that the committee has received a letter from the 

Federal Power Commission dated March 12, 1965, and signed by 

Chairman Joseph C. Swidler. In the letter the Chairman makes 

clear that the bill before us does not in any way affect the FP C’s 

jurisdiction ove rgas pipelines and concludes by saying:

In view of the foregoing, we do not believe the Fed era l Powe r Commission 

would be affected by the proposed bill and we therefore offer no comments on 

its merits.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps at this point Chairman Swidler's letter 

might be inserted in the record.

Mr. Staggers. Without objection, it will be inserted at this point.

(The letter referred to appears on p. 3.)

Mr. J arman. I would simply like to echo what my colleagues have 

said, Mr. Durand. I think you have made an excellent statement.

Mr. Durand. Thank you.

Mr. Staggers. Mr. Pickle?

Mr. P ickle. Have any States passed safety legislation in this field ?

Mr. Durand. Yes, sir; there have been S tate statutes on pipelines.

Mr. Pickle. Can you tell me how many ?

Mr. Durand. May I defer to Mr. Helmbrecht on that, Mr. Pickle, 

because tha t will be the burden of his testimony and he will cover 

tha t ?

Mr. P ickle. Tha t will be fine. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Staggers. Thank you very kindly.

I notice next on your list is Mr. J. A. Ilorne r, chairman of Shell 

Pipe Line Corp.

Mr. Durand. If it is satisfactory to the chairman, I would suggest 

tha t we hear next from Mr. Ar thur J. Helmbrecht, executive vice 

president of Buckeye Pipe Line, who will make our principal 

statement.

Mr. Staggers. Do you have a prepared statement, Mr. Helmbrecht ?

Mr. Helmbrecht. Yes, I have.

Mr. Staggers. Mr. Ilelmbrecht, you may proceed.

Mr. Helmbrecht. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, and committee members, I am executive vice president of the Buckeye Pipe Line Co., which has its offices a t 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York City.

Buckeye operates approximately 5,000 miles of both crude oil pipelines and products lines. It transports all of the crude oil refined in 

Detroit, Toledo, and Cleveland, Ohio, area, and a large pa rt of the 

crude oil refined in the Buffalo, N.Y., area.

Buckeye’s refined product lines serve numerous terminals in Illinois, 

Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey.

I have been employed by Buckeye for over 29 years. My responsibilities include the day-by-day operations of the pipeline and the management responsibility for design, construction, and maintenance.

I am a member of the subcommittee of the American Standards 

Association, curre ntly updating the standard for oil transportation 

piping.
22 PETROLEUM PIPELINE SAFETY

I am pleased to appear before the committee today in support of 

IT.R. 5041. The oil pipeline industry has grown from a small number 

of isolated, small-diameter lines to a national network of pipeline 

systems which are now the prime movers of petroleum and light petroleum products in this country.

The first, operationally successful oil pipeline was a short, 2-inchdiameter line laid in 1865 from an oilfield in western Pennsylvania to 

a station on the Oil Creek Railroad. From this small beginning, the 

oil pipeline industry is this year celebrating its 100th anniversary.

Since then the line pipe diameters have been increased to as much as 

36 inches, and some pipeline companies operate over 10,000 miles of 

line crossing many State boundaries. Now, the pipelines are the p rincipal petroleum carriers, moving 75 percent of crude oil from wells to 

the refineries and 45 percent of the light petroleum products from the 

refiners to points of ultimate distribution.

During these 100 years, there has developed a vast amount of knowhow in respect to the economics, operation, and safety in the oil pipeline industry. The oil pipeline industry today represents the most 

efficient, most economical, and the safest method of tra nsporting crude 

oil and petroleum products.

From anoth er standpoint, the oil pipeline industry has h ad a long 

period of experience. It has been subject to economic regulation by 

the In terstate Commerce Commission since 1906, making the industry 

second only to the railroads in this respect.

In all these years a great amount of attention has been given to the 

safety factor in the construction and operation of the oil pipelines, in 

order to insure against injury to members of the public as well as employees, destruction of property, and loss of shippers’ crude oil and 

petroleum products. As a result of these years of experience, there 

is a deep conviction in the industry tha t an unsafe pipeline is the most 

uneconomical pipeline, and, conversely, the safest possible line is the 

least costly in the long run.

The oil pipeline industry is justly proud of its safety record. In 

support of this statement, reference is made to an investigation conducted by the Interstate Commerce Commission entitled “In the 

Matter of Regulation for Transportation of Explosives and Other 

Dangerous Articles,” which resulted in three surveys of the oil pipeline 

industry over a period of 10 years, for the purpose of ascertaining 

whether there existed a need for regulation for promoting safety in the 

transporta tion of petroleum and its products by pipeline.

On December 12, 1942, the Commission circulated a repo rt by its 

Bureau of Service, from which I quote :

Responses to questionnaires circ ulated by us in 1940 app ear to fully suppo rt 

recommendations made herein th at no regulations should now be established, 

but th at pipeline service should be kept under observation and when the need 

for regulations becomes more pressing it may be prom ptly met by appropriate 

action. Such regulation s would reflect in large mea sure the high stan dar ds 

already set by the petroleum ind ustry as a valuable contribution to the work.

At the present time, neither the Interstate Commerce Commission 

nor any other Federal agency has any authority or obligation to 

regulate oil pipelines in the field of safety.

When title 18 of the United States Code, sections 831-835, entitled 

“Explosives and Combustibles.” was amended September 6, 1960, the 

Interstate Commerce Commission’s safety jurisdiction over petroleum
PETROLEUM PIPELINE SAFETY 23

pipeline tr ansp ortation was eliminated, thus creating a complete void 

at the Federal level.

The reason for the exclusion of the pipelines is not known. Certainly the oil pipeline industry made no effort to be excluded. If 

questioned at the time of the enactment of the amendment, the oil 

pipeline industry would have vigorously urged the retention of the 

Commission’s jurisdiction in the field of safety regulations for oil pipeline transportation.

Regardless of the oil pipeline industry’s present and historically 

fine record in the field of safety, we fully support II.R. 5041, and 

recommend its passage. We are very glad to join with the Interstate 

Commerce Commission in support of this legislation.

Also we fully endorse the recommendation, on this subject, of the 

interagency study coordinated by the Office of the Under Secretary of 

Commerce for Transportation, in the report titled “Report on Movement of Dangerous Cargoes,” dated September 30, 1963.

This report, which was approved by 22 Federal agencies, contained 

the following recommendation:

The Interstate Commerce Commission should be given specific autho rity and 

respo nsibility for the safety regu lation of all pipelines operating in int ersta te 

an d/or foreig n commerce (other tha n wa ter pipelines and gas pipelin es).

As pointed out, there presently is no Federal agency which has 

authority for safety regulations of oil pipe lines. This has left the 

field wide open to conflicting safety regulations by State, county, and 

local governments.

We strongly feel that if there is to be safety regulation of oil pipelines by a governmental body, it should be at the Federal level, and 

by the Inte rstate Commerce Commission. In this way, the regulations would be u niform throughout all of the States and more easily 

complied with by the industry and more easily enforced.

Also we feel that the vesting of this regulatory power in the I nterstate Commerce Commission would be of grea t service to the public 

generally. Members of the public are entitled to know that oil pipelines are constructed and operated under proper codes dealing with 

all safety factors.

As stated, the industry’s safety record is outstanding, but the average citizens are unaware of this and are sometimes apprehensive when 

new lines are being constructed on property owned by them or near 

where they live.

This situation has created a strong compulsion on the p art of many 

State and local authorities to set up their own and separate safety 

regulations.

We believe tha t most of this apprehension would disappear if the 

public became aware that all oil pipelines are constructed and operated 

under a code of safety regulations set up and enforced by the Commission, uniformly throughout the country.

In conclusion, let me say again that safety is a byword in the oil 

pipeline industry. We would welcome sound, reasonable, uniform, 

safety regulations by the Interstate Commerce Commission.

Mr. Chairman, tha t concludes my statement, and I would be happy 

to elaborate on any of the previously given answers or answer any 

ot her questions that may arise.

Mr. Staggers. I would like to go back to Mr. Durand for one 

moment.
24 PE TROLEU M P IP E L IN E SA FE TY

Is each of the ge ntle men go ing to give a statem ent ?

Mr. Durand. Each of the remaining gen tlem en has a sh ort sta tement, Mr. Ch airma n.

Mr. Staggers. I believe it might be wise if we h ea rd th e res t o f these 

gen tlem en unless you would like to ask yo ur que stio ns now.

I believe it m igh t be wise if you we nt on an d let each give his s tatement and then we will que stio n each individu al at th e end.

Mr. Durand. All righ t.

Mr. Staggers. Would you tel l us the n ext witness who is to tes tify ?

Mr. Durand. Yes. Mr. H om er w ill be the n ex t to tes tif y.

Mr. S taggers. All rig ht . Mr. Horne r, you may proceed.

Mr. ITorner. Mr. Ch air man and mem bers of the com mittee, I am 

J. A. ITorner, preside nt of the Shell Pi pe Line Corp., Ho uston, Tex.

Shell Pi pe Line Co rp., own s in whole or jo intly with o the rs and o pe rates 6,051 mile s of oil pipe lin es; 2,083 miles are wh at we call field 

ga th er in g lines and 3,900 miles are cross-cou ntry tru nk lin es. These 

lines a re located in t he S tat es of Louis ian a, Tex as, N ew Mexico, Ok lahom a, Missouri, No rth Da kota, Ill inois, an d Montan a.

In addit ion to the abo ve-mentio ned line, which we own in whole or 

in p ar t, we also o per ate for ot he r companies 1,827 miles o f oil pip elines 

located in the State s of T exa s, New Mexico, Uta h, A riz on a, Colorado, 

Ca lif ornia, Mo ntana, and W yoming.

A fter caref ul conside ration we have concluded th at ena ctm ent of 

IL L. 5041 would be in the bes t int ere sts of the oil pipe lin e indu str y 

and of the genera l pub lic.

The oil pip eline in du stry is pred om inan tly in tersta te and we feel 

th at regu latio n by the Fe de ral Go vernme nt would be mu ch more ef ­

fective an d more efficient th an th e va rie ty of local regu latio ns which 

are poss ible unde r ex isting law.

Great s trides have been m ade in rec ent y ears in metallurgy, inspectio n technique s, and in systems to co mbat corro sion . A single unif orm 

code o f safety ap plying "the ap pr op riat e sta nd ards of con struction and 

op eration to oil pip elines t hat will be possible un de r th is bill will enable ou r com panies to con tinue the splen did safet y rec ord th at has 

been establ ished by the indu stry an d ins ure prote cti on fo r the public.

We stron gly sup po rt th e bill.

Th an k you.

Mr. Staggers. Tha nk you, M r. I lo rn er .

Who will be your next w itness ?

Mr. Durand. Mr. Wag ne r will be the next witness.

Mr. Staggers. All right.

Mr. W ag ne r, you may pro ceed. Do you hav e a p repa red stat em ent ?

Mr AV agner. Yes.

Mr. Staggers. You may proceed.

Mr. W agner. Mr. Ch airm an an d mem bers of the com mittee, I am 

IL L. W ag ne r, pres ide nt of Great Lakes Pipe L ine Co., in K an sas C ity, 

Mo., which was incorporate d in De law are in 1930, and owns and 

opera tes a common c ar rier petr ole um products pip eline system in Il li ­

nois, Iowa , Kansa s, Minneso ta, Mis sou ri, Nebra ska , Nor th Da kota, 

Oklah om a, So uth Da kota, and Wisco nsin, whi ch tran sp or ts var iou s 

grades of gasoline and distillates.

In 1964 a total of 110,045,424 ba rrels of p roducts were accepted fo r 

tran sp or ta tion over the system, con sisting of 73,670,397 ba rre ls of 

gasolin e (in clu din g aviat ion gas oline and je t fuel) an d 36,375,027
PETROLEUM PIP ELINE SAFETY 25

barrels of distillates (including kerosene, diesel fuel, and propane). 

The system has 6,228 miles of pipeline.

Products are received into the company’s system from connected 

refineries and connected pipelines at points of entry located in Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Minnesota, ancl move northward 

and eastward on such lines. Seventeen refineries are directly connected to the system in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Minnesota, and 15 

other ship products originating in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas 

throu gh 8 connecting pipelines to the company’s system.

Deliveries from the company’s system are made in Illinois, Iowa, 

Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, 

South Dakota, and Wisconsin at 20 company-owned terminals, and to 

25 shipper-operated terminals, 3 refineries, and 5 connected receiving pipelines.

Terminal tankage at the 20 company-owned terminals totals 456 

tanks with a gross capacity of 12,002,900 barrels. In addition, there 

are 39 line tanks at pump stations with a gross capacity of 1,139,300 

barrels and 4 line tanks at connecting pipeline interchanges with a 

gross capacity of 100,000 barrels.

The products transported by the system include 10 grades of gasoline, 4 of fuel oil, 3 of jet fuel, 2 of aviation gasoline, and 1 each of 

propane, kerosene, and diesel fuel. Six semirefined products are also 

transported.

The brief description of the extent and nature of our business reveals many of the built-in complexities in the operation of an interstate 

common carrier petroleum products pipeline company.

Operating in 10 States subjects us to 10 independent and different 

governmental jurisdictions. Actually, the number is much larger as 

within the State s are innumerable local governing units, counties, 

townships, municipalities, drainage districts and rural fire protection 

districts, to name several.

At last count we were dealing with approximately 1,900 such units, 

but the number changes frequently as new units are added, and occasionally one is disbanded. Should these units issue their own safety 

regulations, with different and possibly contradictory concepts of the 

protection needed, the confusion can be easily imagined.

To avert this possibility and to maintain high safety standards, it 

is necessary th at regulations be promulgated and administered by a 

central agency whose members are thoroughly familiar with the p etroleum pipeline industry. And only a central authority can provide 

the uniformity of regulation necessary in an interstate operation.

Restoring to the Interstate Commerce Commission jurisdiction over 

pipeline safety regulations is not only logical, it is essential if the industry is to retain and carry forward its outstanding safety record.

Thank you.

Mr. Staggers. Thank you, Mr. Wagner.

Who is your next witness?

Mr. Durand. Mr. Harry Fa ir is our next witness, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Staggers. Mr. Fa ir, you may proceed.

Mr. F air. Gentlemen, I am H arry G. Fair , president of the Ph illips Pipe Line Co. from Bartlesville. Okla. We own and operate 6,400 

miles of oil pipelines made up of 3,700 miles of crude oil gath ering 

and trunklines and 2,700 miles of products pipelines. In 1961 we 

transporte d 210 million barrels of oil.
26 PETROLEUM PIP EL INE SAFETY

Phillips Pipe Line Co. employs 800 people. Our latest Interstate 

Commerce Commission valuation is $108 million and our pipelines operate in a total of nine States.

In addition to these operations we also operate terminals served by 

others in 30 additional States and we participate through stock ownership in 6 other pipeline companies.

We have carefully considered the legislation th at is before this committee. It is our opinion H.R. 5041, which would place the regulation 

of safety in the Interstate Commerce Commission of the Federal Government, would result in a much more desirable situation than having 

a hodgepodge of rules and regulations which would be promulgated 

if such safety regulations were left to the various States and municipalities.

Although the oil pipeline industry has an excellent record of safety 

over its many years of operation, of the two choices of safety regulation certainly H.R. 5041 would better protect the public and be much 

preferable for the pipeline industry.

Thank you.

Mr. S taggers. Mr. Durand, your next witness ?

Mr. Durand. Yes. Our next and final witness is Mr. Harris 

Squire, Service Pipe Line Co.

Mr. Squire. Mr. Chairman, I am vice president of traffic of Service 

Pipe Line, Tulsa, Okla. I do not have a prepared statement but with 

the chairman’s permission, I would like to submit and make a part 

of the record a letter from W. S. Peeler, president of the Service Pipe 

Line, addressed to the chairman of the committee.

Mr. Staggers. Tha t may be done.

(Letter referred to follows:)

Service Pipe L ine Co.

Tulsa, Okla., May l.'i, 1965.

Hon. Harley O. Staggers,

Chairman, Transportation and Aeronautics Subcommittee, In terstate and Foreign

Commerce Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

My Dear Mr. Staggers : On behalf of Service Pipe Line Co., Tulsa, Okla., I

would app rec iate consideration of the following info rmation and views in connection with the hearing s on H.R. 5041, Tuesday, May 18, 1905.

Service is a wholly owned subs idiary of Sta nda rd Oil Co. (Ind iana ). Service’s sole business is the transporta tio n of crude petroleum by pipeline as a 

common c arr ier. Service’s system consists of 14,500 miles of pipe in 15 Sta tes : 

New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Wyoming, Nebraska, Colorado, North 

Dakota, Arkansas, Louisiana , Illinois, Missouri, Indiana, Utah, and Iowa. We 

operate in or through 243 counties or parishes. We serve directly or through 

connecting c arrie rs a tota l of 56 refineries. On the average, we delivered 914,000 

barrels a d ay in 1964.

We have reviewed the interagency study entitled, “A Rep ort on the Movement of Dangerous Cargoes,” Septem ber 30, 1963, coordinated by the Office of 

the Under Secretary of Commerce for Trans portation and approved by 22 separa te Fed eral governmental agencies. Page 6 of thi s stud y recommends th a t:

“The Interstate Commerce Commission should be given specific statutory 

authority and responsibility for the saf ety regulation of all pipelines operating 

in inter sta te an d/or foreig n commerce (other tha n wa ter pipelines and gas 

pipelin es).”

We supp ort this recommendation and legislation th at would revest safety 

jurisdiction over petroleum pipelines in the Interstate Commerce Commission. 

Title 18 of the United States Code, sections 831-835, inclusive, entitled, “Explosives and Combustibles,” was amended September 6. 1960, by P ublic Law 87-710 

(74 Stat. 808), eliminating the In terstate Commerce Commission’s safety jur isdiction over petroleum pipeline transp ortation. The act applies to all other 

carriers engaged in the tran sportation, of passengers or property by land as a
PETROLEUM PIPELINE SAFETY 27

common, contract, or private carrier or freig ht forwarder as those terms are 

used in the Intersta te Commerce Act.

In supporting the present proposal, we do not suggest tha t the oil pipeline 

industry is not adequately discharging its obligation to protect the public in 

the operation of its cross-country lines. Safety in operations has always been 

a matter of paramount importance to oil pipelines. We are and have been for 

many years engaged in a continuing study leading to the adoption of codes for 

safety in the construction and operation of oil pipelines. These studies have 

been made through the coordination of such professional groups as the American 

Society for Testing and Materials and American Standards Association.

We recognize tha t the primary obligation will always rest upon the oil pipeline owners to properly construct and operate the ir lines for the maximum 

protection to employees and the public. In view, however, of the many jurisd ictions through which interstate oil pipelines operate, we thin k that governmental 

prescription of safety standards should, insofar as possible, be in one agency 

in order to obtain maximum uniformity.

Yours very truly,

W. S. Peeler.

Mr. Squire. Just briefly I will say that Service Pipe Line is a wholly owned subsidiary of Standard Oil of Indiana . We operate approximately 15,000 miles of pipeline, transporting approximately 1 million 

barrels a day of crude oil as a common carrier to 56 different refineries.

We are subject as a common carrier to the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission.

My testimony in regard to H.R. 5041 would be generally in accord 

with tha t that has previously been given by the preceding five gentlemen.

If there are any questions, I would be glad to answer.

Mr. Staggers. Thank you.

Does that complete your list of witnesses?

Mr. Durand. Yes, sir; tha t completes our presentation.

Mr. Staggers. Mr. Durand, we appreciate the fact that you came 

and give us the benefit of your views. Our interest is to find out why 

you are here. You are here, as I gather it, because of your own selfinterest, that is the reason you came in behalf of any legislation, and 

your interest is this, and correct me if I am wrong: that you have experienced some difficulties with local authorities durin g the past 5 

years and you are participating no longer unless the vacuum is taken 

up by some Federal agency.

Now, am I correct in this statement ? I would like for you or some 

of your organization to answer this.

Mr. Durand. I would be very happy to answer that, Air. Cha irman. You are absolutely correct in your statement. There is a 

vacuum at the present time at the Federal level insofar as safety regulation is concerned. As a result of this vacuum, there is a feeling on 

the part of many States and localities that they need to regulate in 

the safety area. They do not have the expertise to do this, the I nterstate Commerce Commission does.

If the Interstate Commerce Commission were given the authority 

to regulate in the safety field, I think that the various States and 

municipalities and townships and water districts would take cognizance of t ha t regulation and that the people would feel assured that 

the construction and operation of the pipelines is under Federal control and regulation and there would not be the pressure that there now 

is for State and local regulation.

Since the pipelines are an interstate system, it is obvious, we think, 

tha t as other interstate systems are regulated—the railroads, the motor
28 PE TROLEU M P IP E L IN E SA FE TY

carriers, the airlines—so the pipelines should be regulated safetywise 

at the Federal level.

Tha t is a long-winded answer to say, Mr. Chairman, that you summarized the situation very well.

Mr. Staggers. Well, thank you. This is certainly a peculiar circumstance in that we have a statement here of the industry coming in 

asking for legislation to put them on regulation. Most of the time 

it is those who are resisting any kind of regulation, with the argument 

that it is interfering with their business and private enterprise.

So I say t hat I am tryin g to get behind the legislation to see why 

you are supporting it. You have not had any serious safety difficulties in the last 5 years as I get from the testimony of all of you. This 

is correct?

Mr. Durand. That is correct, sir. The accident record of the oil 

pipeline industry has been excellent.

Mr. Staggers. And the reason you have not had difficulties is because th at regulation was inadvertently left off when these new regulations were made in 1959.

Mr. Durand. We have researched the problem and we have talked 

to people in the Government. We do not know why we were omitted. 

We did not ask to be omitted.

Mr. Staggers. Well, this is a new twist to legislation in that we 

have a segment of industry coming in asking to be included in the 

legislation.

Thank you all.

Mr. Friedel, do you have any questions?

Mr. Friedel. Mr. Chairman, 1 just want to make a statement. 

Many times before the committee we hear tha t a particu lar bill is 

noncontroversial and then as we go into it it really busts wide open, 

but this is one time I can say that I have never seen such uniformity. 

Everybody is in favor of the bill and it is very gratifying.

Than k you.

Mr. Staggers. Mr. Devine.

Mr. Devine. Mr. Chairman, I, like you, am somewhat surprised, 

perhaps speechless, at the grea t free enterprise system coming to the 

Federal Government asking to be regulated and asking for Federal 

control.

I was going to ask any of you, have you had any major or minor 

safety disasters in the operation of the oil pipelines in the last 30 

years? What gives rise to this need for regulation?

Mr. Durand. The safety record is excellent, Mr. Devine. I know 

of no majo r catastrophes in the oil pipeline industry, but there is a 

feeling in the States and in the counties and townships tha t the oil 

pipelines are a relatively unknown transportation system. They are 

aware tha t high-octane gasoline, for example, moves through these 

lines under considerable pressure and they know that there is no overall regulatory authority.

Mr. Devine. Are you talking about the private property owners?

Mr. Durand. Private property owners and people living near the 

pipeline, yes.

Air. Devine. They are concerned because this is near their property 

and it might explode ?

Air. Dcjrand. Tha t is correct.
PETROLEUM PIP ELINE SAFETY 29

Mr. Devine. You say they also know that there is no regulation.

Mr. Durand. There is regulation in the sense tha t the industry 

working with the American S tandards Association and other technical 

groups has agreed on certain standards of construction, for example, 

how deep the pipe should be buried and how thick the steel pipe 

should be.

So there are industry codes of construction which are excellent but 

this probably is not known by the people of the town throug h which 

the pipeline goes.

Mr. Devine. Tell me this: Are there any specific States that have 

legislation pending that would affect your industry right now?

Mr. Ditrand. Mr. Helmbrecht can speak to that, Mr. Devine.

Mr. Helmbrecht. Yes. I would not say tha t I am aware of all 

of the possible pending legislation but, specifically, Pennsylvania has 

a pending legislation which would require a pipeline being built in 

Pennsylvania to get the approval of the planning commission of every 

county through which it was proposed to be built.

Now the powers given to these planning commissions are rather 

broad and it is very difficult to read the proposed legislation and 

gage just how far those powers would go, but they seem to be broad 

enough to encompass all phases of design, operation, construction, and 

so forth.

Air. Devine. Are there others to your knowledge?

Mr. Helmbrecht. I know of no others pending a t the moment other 

than this one in Pennsylvania. There are two States which already 

have regulation which was passed several years ago, namely, Connecticut and Michigan. There may also lie other's of which I am 

not aware.

Mr. Devine. Do you feel, then, if Mr. Ja rman's bill was enacted that 

it would preempt the States from legislating in this area ?

Mr. Helmbrecht. I do not think it would preem pt the field. I 

think it would permit the States or the other political entities to have 

their own regulation if they so chose. However, if we close this vacuum which now exists, I think the tendency would be for them to either 

rely on the Federal safety regulations or to adopt regulations which 

were identical to the Federal.

Mr. Devine. They would adopt uniform standards ?

Mr. Helmbrecht. Yes; I think it would go a great deal toward 

making the standards uniform even if they were in addition to the 

Federal level, adopted on State or county levels.

Mr. Devine. Pet me say this: T feel by virtue of the commerce 

clause of the Constitution coupled with the interpretation by the 

Supreme Court of the commerce clause, tha t it certainly would be 

within the jurisdiction of the Congress to enact legislation in the oil 

pipeline industry because you clearly are in interstate commerce.

But I am just wondering whether this legislation would solve the 

problem that you hope it will. The States, still under the 10th amendment, would have the right to enact additional safety regulations on 

the operation or the depth of the pipe, or size, and things of that 

nature.

It may be that Federal regulations will he supplemented by State 

regulations in th is area.
30 PETROLEUM PIPELINE SAFETY

Mr. Helmbrecht. We realize that does not foreclose tha t kind of 

thing, but we feel strongly tha t it would tend to make it uniform and 

this would be very desirable in our view.

Mr. Devine. Thank you.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Staggers. Mr. Jarm an ?

Mr. J arman. Mr. Durand, am I correct in understanding that the 

oil pipeline industry was not consulted about the 1960 amendment 

that excluded it from the coverage under the act? If it had been, 

would it not have supported retention of this authority by the ICC?

Mr. Durand. Tha t is correct, Mr. Jarman.

Mr. J arman. As a matter of fact, is it not true tha t in June of 

1962 the Association of Oil Pipe Dines unanimously adopted a position that the pipelines should be included as a carrier subject to the 

Explosives and Combustibles Act?

Mr. Durand. That is correct.

Mr. J arman. Mr. Chairman, the only other questions I would have 

would he of Mr. Helmbrecht.

What has been the recent trend in pipeline growth and development and what are your thoughts for the future in this area, and then 

specifically how does th at have a bearing on the bill before us?

Mr. Helmbrecut. Yes; Mr. Jarm an.

The recent trend in pipelining insofar as crude oil pipelines are 

concerned, has been directed largely to improving the efficiency, increasing the capacity, upgrading the quality of the existing pipelines. 

The country is fairly well laced with crude oil pipelines from points 

of crude oil production to refining centers.

The great growth in recent years past and, in my opinion, in the 

future, will continue to be in the area of products pipelining where 

pipelines are and have been recently built to new consuming areas. 

As the population grows in the country, and shifts, it will probably 

continue to be necessary to extend new pipelines from existing refining centers to new or growing population centers.

I think tha t this indicates tha t the pipeline industry is a growing 

industry and will continue to have construction in the future and 

will continue to face the kinds of problems th at this legislation will 

tend to mitigate.

Mr. J arman. Thank you very much.

Mr. Staggers. Mr. Pickle ?

Air. Pickle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Previously I had asked one of you gentlemen the number of States 

tha t had passed safety regulations in this field. How many States 

already have safety regulation?

Mr. Durand. I don’t have a complete listing with me, Air. Pickle. 

If you desire, I would be happy to get it and supply it for the 

record.

Air. Pickle. Air. Helmbrecht, you say many of the States passed. 

ITow many is many ?

Air. Helmbrecht. I said I believe two of the States have, Connecticut and Alichigan.

Air. P ickle. Connecticut and Alichigan and one is pending.

Air. Helmbrecht. One is pending. Also New’ Jersey for 4 or 5 

consecutive years has had a bill up, which never w’as passed, but it 

was raised each year.
PETROLEUM PIP ELINE SAFETY 31

Mr. P ickle. I do not know whether the word exactly was “many,” 

hut as I understood it you said many of the States were passing or 

had passed legislation in this field. If many is only three, it does not 

represent any predominant number of States, does it?

I wonder it Mr. Horn er would tell me whether Texas has such a 

regulation passed?

Mr. Horner. No, Congressman Pickle, not specifically. There may 

lie some general statutes tha t m ight apply, but they have never been 

applied. As you know, in Texas we have, you might say, split juri sdiction. We operate a lot of intrastate lines in connection which are 

subject to the jurisdictions of the railroad commission and we do 

file plans with the railroad commission, but as far as any detailed 

safety regulations, they do not exist.

There is another form of regulation of course, to which we are subjected and tha t is in the highway department on highway crossings 

and the like.

We abide by the specification so there are various forms of regulation which would not be usurped in any way by the overall codes we 

are speaking of here, but in Texas currently we have no detailed code 

of pipeline construction practices or operating procedures.

Mr. P ickle. Than k you. One of the questions I wanted to ask was 

as to the language which has been used throughout the hearings this 

morning and tha t is th at pipelines are interstate in character.

Now we do have intrastate lines in Texas.

Mr. Horner. Yes.

Mr. Pickle. I assume that none of you are intending by this bill 

to extend to the ICC any extension of intrastate jurisdiction.

Mr. Durand. Th at is correct. The ICC would have jurisdiction 

under this bill of interstate common carrier pipelines only.

Mr. P ickle. Than k you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Durand. May I say one thin g more to Congressman Pickle 

about the States where legislation has been adopted?

I do not know that we have the entire list in this group. I am sure 

we can get the information from our membership, which consists of 

76 companies from all parts of the country. I think we could make a 

longer list than the actual States listed here th is morning.

But an even longer list would be States in which legislation to impose safety regulation was introduced but was not passed by the State 

legislatures. This list continues to grow every year as there are more 

and more pipelines and the public becomes more aware of them and 

there is a vacuum at the Federal level. You have more and more pressure at the State level to adopt safety codes. So you have to look at 

two lists, really, Congressman: States that have passed safety laws; 

and States tha t are considering them. The latter would be quite a 

list.

Mr. P ickle. I can understand why there would be a temptation by 

the States to get into this field because someone thinks the line should 

be so regulated. I do not suppose you can speak for States as such, 

but do you know of any individual States who oppose this legislation, 

tha t is the regulatory bodies within a State?

Mr. Durand. We do not know, sir.

Mr. Pickle. Thank you.

Mr. Staggers. Mr. Durand, I have listened to the testimony of all 

you gentlemen and I am sure that you are all leaders in your industry
32 PE TROLEU M PIP E L IN E SA FE TY

eminently qualified to testify. I am puzzled just a little bit by tbe 

statement “inadvertently dropped” in the I960 legislation.

The reason now that you are here is because in 1957 Senator 

Smathers introduced a bill, S. 149, which passed the U.S. Senate. 

Chairman Harris introduced a bill which was IT.B. 5629 which was 

considered by this committee and the pipelines were included in either 

one of those bills and no pipeline industry is before this committee or 

Senate to oppose the passage.

Yet, it was inadvertently dropped in 1960. It appears to me that it 

is a little complex. I am not doubting your motive, understand. I 

believe that your last statement probably means this more than anything else, that there have been several bills introduced, and th at there 

is at this time a vacuum. But this word “inadvertently dropped in 

I960” I believe comes a little late because in 1957 it was in neither one 

of the bills and no segment of your industry appeared to oppose either 

one of the bills.

But problems have developed, I see, and have brou ght this more 

clearly to mind.

Now, do you have any comment?

Mr. Durand. Mr. Chairman, I am not acquainted with the two bills, 

one bv Senator Smathers and one by Chairman Harris that you refer 

to. Were they in the area of safety regulation?

Mr. Staggers. I have the bills here, the bills prelim inary to the one 

that was finally passed and became law in 1960. These bills did not become law, they were only considered in the House side. As T say, 

neither one of these bills dealt with the area of safety regulation on 

pipelines. There was an excellent opportunity then to appear and say 

tha t your industry did not want regulation. I can see th at problems 

have developed since that time which is what brought you here this 

morning.

Mr. Durand. I do not remember the consideration that the industry 

gave to those bills. Tha t antedates my tenure with the association. I 

do know that with regard to the 1960 amendment we were not aware 

that it was being considered until the bill had actually reached its final 

stages and it was too late for us to appear.

I found nothing in our files, in my research fo r th is hearing, which 

indicates that we knew of the earlier bills or considered them.

Mr. Staggers. Perfectly all right. I was puzzled a little bit by it 

because of the fact tha t today the ICC and the Department of Commerce both have appeared in support of this legislation which you 

consider important to you and your industry.

I wish to thank all of you for coming to appear before our committee. You are an important part of our economy in the country and certainly this bill will be considered and we will take it up in executive 

session.

Thank you so very, very much for your contribution to the hearing.

Mr. Durand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. May I ask one question 

of the Chair?

Mr. Staggers. Surely.

Mr. Durand. We will go back and take another look at our records 

regarding those earlier bills. If we find material tha t would be helpful 

to the committee, may we have the Chair’s permission to submit it to 

you after the conclusion of this hearing and within a reasonable time?

Mr. Staggers. Surely.
PETROLEUM PIP ELINE SAFETY 33

I might say the record will lie kept open fo r 10 days for any insertion. 1 think you have made your case very well, we have no 

doubt about that. I was trying to get a clear explanation of your 

point of view. That is the reason for my questions because 1 have always felt tha t anyone who appears here has some interest in the matter.

We are just trying, and I can see 1 believe that it is your anticipation 

of trouble tha t leads you to appear now.

Thank you all very kindly for coming.

Mr. Durand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Staggers. That concludes our hearing on the bill. We will 

adjourn into executive session.

(The following letter was later received from Mr. Durand:)

Association of Oil Pipe Lin es ,

IVasAiwfirfow, D.C., M ay 26,1965. Hon. H arley O. Staggers,

Cha irman, Tran sportatio n and A eronautic s Sub comm ittee,

Co mm itte e on In te rs ta te and Foreign C ommerce,

Ho use of Re presen tat ive s, Wa shington , D.C.

Hear Mr. Staggers : You will rec all th at on May 18, 1965, ne ar th e end of th e 

he aring before the Tr an sp or tatio n and Aeron au tic s Subcomm ittee, on H.R . 5041, 

which would rev est in the In te rs ta te Com merce Com miss ion sa fety ju risd ictio n 

over oil pipelin es, you called ou r at tent io n to seve ral ea rlie r bills which would 

have ha d th e effec t of dep riv ing the Com mission of suc h ju rsidictio n. You in ­

qu ire d wh eth er, in th e lig ht of the se bills , th e exclu sio n of the oil pipelines from 

ICC sa fety jurisd ictio n by the 1960 re vision of the Tra ns po rtat io n of Explo sives 

Act, wa s rea lly in ad ve rte nt.

We h ave r esearche d these e ar lie r bill s : S. 1491 and H.R. 5629 (85tli Co ng.), a nd 

S. 1806 ( 86th Cong.) which became the Septe mb er 6, 1960, rev ision of the Tra ns ­

po rta tio n of Explo sives Act, and I am attach in g a me mo ran dum wh ich reflects 

the r esults of ou r research. It is clea r th at in recom mending these th re e bills to 

Cong ress, th e ICC ha d two princ ipal purpo ses in mind : (a ) to am end th e T ra nspo rta tio n of Ex plo siv es Act to ma ke th at ac t applica ble to co nt ra ct and pr iv at e 

mo tor car rier s, as w ell as com mon ca rrie rs, and (ft) to inc lud e specifically un de r 

th a t ac t radioa ctive m at er ia ls and etiologic ag en ts (live ba ct er ia an d vi ru se s) .

In pro posing such an ext ensio n of its juris diction, th e Com mission wa s no t 

concerned w ith oil pipelines. Oil p ipelines do no t tr an sp or t radioa ctive m at er ia ls 

or etiologic agents. Presum ab ly the Commission wa s un aw are th at by exclu din g 

oil pipelines from th e def inition of ca rrie r, in these bills, it was term in atin g th e 

sole basis of its ju risd ic tio n to prescribe sa fety regu latio ns fo r pipelines.

Sim ilarly, the files of th is associa tio n do not indica te th at th e oil pip eline 

indu stry related the ann ounced p urpose of the se b ills w ith th e elim ination of the 

Com miss ion’s sa fety jurisd ic tio n over suc h pipelin es. Conse que ntly, th e association took no in te re st in th e conside rat ion l»y Con gress of these bills.

In view of th e rec ord , we believe it is fa ir to sa y th at th e elim ination of th e 

Com mission ’s sa fety ju risd ic tio n ove r oil pipelines , by th e Septe mb er 6, 1960, 

revisio ns in th e Tra ns po rtat io n of Explo sives Act, was tr uly in ad ve rte nt . 

Sincere ly,

J. D. Durand.

Legislative H istory of S. 1491 and H.R . 5629 ( 85th Cong.) and S. 1806 

(86th Cong.)

S. 1491 an d H.R . 5629 were bil ls sim ila r to S. 1806 (86 th Cong.) which became 

the 1960 am endm ent to Explo sives and Comb ustibles Act, title 18, ch ap ter 39, 

section s 831-835, of th e Un ite d St ates Code.

Roth S. 1491 and H.R . 5629 ha d as th ei r purpose to amend sections 831-835 

of ch ap ter 39, title 18 of th e Code to broade n the juris diction of th e ICC over 

the tran sp or ta tio n of exp los ive s and comb ustibles to includ e spe cifically: (a ) 

radio activ e materials an d etio logic ag en ts (live ba ct er ia and vir uses) and (b) 

co ntract an d pr ivate mo tor ca rriers, as well as common ca rrie rs (whic h pr ev iously came un de r t he a c t) .

Th e term “car ri er ” was defined in both S. 1491 and H.R . 5629 as me ani ng 

“an y per son engaged in th e tran sp or ta tion of passe ngers an d prop erty, by lan d, 

othe r than pipelin es * * *.” [I ta lic add ed.]
34 PETROLEUM PIP EL INE SAFETY

S. 1491 was introduced in the Senate on March 5 (legislative day, March 2) 

1957, by Sen ator Magnuson, by request. It was pa rt of the legislative program 

of the In terstate Commerce Commission, for th at year. It was referred to 

the Senate Commerce Committee and hea rings were held on it and a number of 

other bills on March 20-21, 1957. The following witnesses testified on S. 1491: 

Owen Clarke, Chairman, In terstate Commerce Commission; Jim Hood, president, American Sho rt Line Railro ad Association; John V. Lawrence, managing 

director, American Trucking Associations, and Charles O. Por ter, member of 

Congress, Fo urth District, Oregon.

Statem ents were filed by D. L. Boland, general counsel, National Paint, Varnish, and Lacquer Associatio n; C. H. Mayhood, National Chem ists Association, 

and John V. Lawrence.

S. 1491 was reported to the Senate by Senator Smatliers on May 2, 1957 

(Senate Rep ort No. 281), and it passed the Senate May 9, 1957. On May 10, 

1957 it was referred to the House Committee on In terstate and Foreign 

Commerce. The record does not show th at the House Commerce Committee took 

any action on this bill.

The House companion bill to S. 1491 was II.R. 5629. It was intro duce d by 

Chairman Har ris on March 6, 1957, and referred to the Committee on Inter sta te 

and Foreign Commerce. The record does not indicate t ha t the House Commerce 

Committee took any action on II.It. 5629.

The association does n ot know why the definition of “ca rri er” in S. 1491 and 

H.R. 5629 excludes pipelines. The Interstate Commerce Commission is unable 

to supply this information.

In proposing an extension of its jurisdiction to con tract and private motor 

carriers and to radioactive or etiologic materials, the Commission, of course, 

was not concerned with pipelines. Pipe lines do not tra nsport radioactiv e or 

etiologic materials. Presumably the Commission was una ware th at by excluding pipelines from the definition of “carri er,” for the transporta tio n of those 

commodities, it was termin atin g the sole basis of its jurisdiction to prescribe 

safety regulation s for pipelines. While this cann ot be dem onstrated with certainty , it is our belief th at it is correct.

A search has been made of the files and records of the Association of Oil Pipe 

Lines. They do not indicate that the association rela ted the elimination of 

safe ty jurisdiction over oil pipelines w ith the announced purpose of the proposed 

legislation or took any intere st in the considera tion by Congress of S. 1491. 

Consequently, the association did not tak e any pa rt in the Senate hearings on 

thi s bill.

S. 1806, 86th C-ongress, is the bill which became the Septem ber 6, 1960, revision of the Explosives and Combustibles Act. Like S. 1491 and H.R. 5629 (85th 

Cong.) it was recommended by the Interstate Commerce Commission. The 

Commission st ate d:

“The attached dr aft bill (S. 1806) would amend the Feder al statutes, commonly known as the Transpo rtation of Explosives Act, so as to include specifically radioactive materi als and etiologic ag en ts; would make the act applicable 

to c ontract and private c arrie rs as well as to common ca rr ie rs ; and would delete 

the word “knowingly” from present section 835 and sub stitut e therefor a more 

effective s tan dard of proof.”

S. 1806 is substan tially sim ilar to the two earlier bills. It con tain s the same 

definition of “ca rrier” and, thus, excludes pipelines from such definition. Presumably the same reason which caused the Commission not to include pipelines 

in S. 1491 and H.R. 5629, led the Commission to the same conclusion with respect to S. 1806.

Our files do not indicate any inter est by the association in S. 1806, presumably 

because the association, like the Commission, did not realize th at it would have 

the effect of termin atin g the sole bas is of the Commission’s safety regulatory 

autho rity over th e pipelines.

(The following statement was submitted for the record) :

Statement of E dward W. J ames. P.E., on Behalf of Southeastern

Pennsylvania Landowners Association

We wish to go on record aga inst the passage of H.R. 5041 in its present form 

as introduced by Mr. Jarm an.

(1) The matt er of safety regulation s for the construction and operation of 

interstate prod ucts pipelines is tak ing on vital importance as the size and num-
PETROLEUM PIP ELINE SAFETY 35

ber of lines increase. Today pipe diameters of 3G inches and flow rates of 28,000 

gallons per minute of high octane gasoline are in use. The gasoline in such a 

pipeline on an average pro perty would run an autom obile for 5 years.

(2) Any code, to be a safe ty code, must have t hree at trib ute s:

(a) Adequate techn ical provisions based on fu nda mental engineering and 

agreed to by all competent engineers.

(b) Mandatory sta tus by law.

(c) Adequate policing by an independ ent agency represen ting the public 

whom th e code pu rpo rts to protect.

(3) Sta te agencies have taken cognizance of this situation by prom ulgating 

and adm inistering safe ty regulations for i nterstate pipelines (fo r example, Sta te 

Fire Marsh als’ Office and P.U.C. in Connecticut; P.U.C. in Pen nsy lvania). It certain ly seems app rop riate th at Sta te autho rities who are fam ilia r with local conditions and the desires of their citizens should have this responsibility, so long 

as the Commerce clause is not violated.

(4) H.R. 5041 would res ult in Fed eral preem ption in the are a of interst ate 

pipeline safety for products lines.

(5) H.R. 5041 would not res ult in the .detailed technical provisions necessary

to an effective safety code. /

(6) H.R. 5041 would not res ult in an agency with the police power necessary 

to an effective safe ty code, but only jurisdiction i h t\e case of complaints brought 

in a partic ular situ ation .

(7) Public protection und er the act as, amended-t>y H.R. 5041 would not be

acceptable, and serves the economic inte res ts of th6x

 petroleum ind ust ry fa r better tha n it serves the public, upon whom it places the burden of protecting itse lf 

in an a rea requiring technical knowledge. * /

We strongly urge th at either (1) prod ucts pipeline safety be lef t to the individual States for the promulgation of codes and adm inistration, or (2) products pipeline safety be se t forth in detailed provisions under the In terstate Commerce Act, togethe r with the necessary au tho rity to require approval of design, 

construction, and ope ration as a condition of operation.

(Whereupon, a t 11:15 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned to proceed 

into executive session.)

o