Panel Peer Review of PHMSA Pipeline Safety Research Projects: 2006

R&D Menu


 The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s (PHMSA) Pipeline Safety Research & Development Program held its first structured peer review on February 7-9, 2006. Mandates by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST) govern these reviews and are keeping PHMSA “Green” with research data quality. Conducting peer reviews via teleconference and the internet worked well with panelists and researchers and facilitated attendance from all U.S. time zones, Canada and the United Kingdom.

The peer review is building on an already strong and systematic evaluation process developed by PHMSA’s Pipeline Safety R&D Program and recently certified by the Government Accountability Office. The panelists for the peer review consisted of nine government and industry experts. Four of the nine panelists are active government representatives from the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Minerals Management Service. The remaining five panelists are retired government and industry personnel who have active roles as peers for the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and other standard developing organizations. Thirty-one active research projects were peer reviewed by expert panelists using twenty-four evaluation criteria. These criteria were grouped within the following six evaluation categories:

  1. Is the project relevant to the mission of PHMSA’s Office of Pipeline Safety?
  2. Is the project well designed?
  3. Is the project well managed?
  4. What is the approach taken to technology transfer?
  5. Is the project well coordinated with other closely related programs?
  6. Is the project producing high quality results?

The rating scale possibilities were "Ineffective," "Moderately Effective," "Effective," or "Very Effective." During the February review, the average research project rating was “Very Effective” for each of the above six evaluation categories. There were a wide range of scores and ratings in the sub-criteria within the evaluation categories. Even with this range, project averages kept within the “Effective” to “Very Effective” rating. Additional details are available in Section 7 of this report. PHMSA is satisfied with the process performed for conducting these reviews as well as the findings and recommendations provided by the peer review panelists. PHMSA accepts the findings and recommendations summarized in the report. The official PHMSA response memorandum is found in Appendix A. These reviews are planned annually with active research projects and will occur in the second quarter of each fiscal year.

Rating Scale
Very Effective3.9 to 5.0 (29 Projects)
Effective2.6 to 3.8 (2 Projects)
Moderately Effective1.3 to 2.5 (0 Projects)
Ineffective0.0 to 1.2 (0 Projects)
Average Program Score4.239

Program Averages - Review Categories and Sub-Criteria
Review Categories and Sub-Criteria Score Rating
1. Is the project relevant to the mission of the PHMSA’s Office of Pipeline Safety? 4.5 Very Effective
  1.1. Does the project have the potential for enhancing pipeline safety or protecting the environment? 4.6 Very Effective
  1.2. Does the project support rulemaking, statutory requirements, inspection activities, or stakeholder recommendations? 4.4 Very Effective
  1.3. Does the project address a technology gap or consensus standard or general knowledge? 4.4 Very Effective
2. Is the project well designed? 4.4 Very Effective
  2.1. How sound is the technical approach? 4.4 Very Effective
  2.2. Does the project have appropriate objectives and milestones? 4.4 Very Effective
  2.3. Are the deliverables well defined? 4.4 Very Effective
  2.4. Is the scope of work clear, limited, and well defined? 4.3 Very Effective
  2.5. Are the capabilities of the project team appropriate to the work? 4.8 Very Effective
  2.6. Has the project a well designed plan for transferring results to end users? 4.2 Very Effective
3. Is the project well managed? 4.2 Very Effective
  3.1. Does the project have an up-to-date work plan? 4.3 Very Effective
  3.2. Is the project making progress toward the project and OPS goals? 4.2 Very Effective
  3.3. Is the project being managed on budget and schedule? 4.0 Very Effective
4. What is the approach taken to technology transfer? 4.1 Very Effective
  4.1. Is there a plan for dissemination of results, including publications, reporting, and patents? 4.0 Very Effective
  4.2. Has a plan been developed for the applications of the results or technologies? 4.1 Very Effective
  4.3. Have efforts been made to protect the intellectual property in a manner that allows for the greatest public impact? 4.2 Very Effective
  4.4. For results that may include marketable products and technologies, have commercialization plans been established? 4.2 Very Effective
5. Is the project well coordinated with other closely related programs? 3.9 Very Effective
  5.1. Does the project build on, or make use of, related or prior work? 4.4 Very Effective
  5.2. Is the work of the project being communicated to other related research efforts? 3.6 Effective
  5.3. Has consideration been given to possible future work? 4.0 Very Effective
  5.4. Is the project coordinated with related projects or programs in PHMSA, industry, or other government agencies? 3.5 Effective
6. Is the project producing high quality results? 4.4 Very Effective
  6.1. Are the intended results supported by the work performed during the project? 4.3 Very Effective
  6.2. Are the intended results consistent with scientific knowledge and/or engineering principles? 4.6 Very Effective
  6.3. Is the quality (and quantity) of intended results appropriate for the resources expended? 4.4 Very Effective
  6.4. Are the intended results presented in such a manner as to be useful for application or decision making? 4.3 Very Effective
Average Category Score and Rating: 4.2 Very Effective

Project Rankings
Project Rank Contract Project Title Score Rating
128 1 DTRS56-03-T-0008 A Comprehensive Update in the Evaluation of Pipelines Weld Defects 4.7 Very Effective
176 2 DTPH56-05-T-0001 Understanding Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) Signals from Mechanical Damage in Pipelines 4.6 Very Effective
141 3 DTRS56-04-T-0001 Nonlinear Harmonic-based Mechanical Damage Severity Criteria for Delayed Failures in Pipelines 4.5 Very Effective
154 3 DTRS56-05-T-0001 Innovative Welding Processes for Small to Medium Diameter Gas Transmission Pipelines 4.5 Very Effective
163 3 DTRS56-05-T-0003 Model Modules to Assist Assessing and Controlling Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) 4.5 Very Effective
104 4 DTRS56-02-T-0001 Application of Remote-Field Eddy Current Testing to Inspection of Unpiggable Pipelines 4.4 More than Effective
152 4 DTRS56-04-T-0011 Optimizing Weld Integrity for X80 and X100 Linepipe 4.4 More than Effective
164 4 DTRS56-05-T-0003 Integrity Management for Wrinklebends and Buckles 4.4 More than Effective
165 4 DTRS56-05-T-0003 A New Approach to Control Running Fracture in Pipelines 4.4 More than Effective
167 4 DTRS56-05-T-0005 Development of ICDA for Liquid Petroleum Pipelines 4.4 More than Effective
127 5 DTRS56-03-T-0007 First Major Improvements to the Two-curve Fracture Arrest Model 4.3 More than Effective
144 5 DTRS56-04-T-0010 Evaluation of Hydrogen Cracking in Weld Metal Deposited using Cellulosic Electrodes 4.3 More than Effective
150 5 DTRS56-04-T-0005 Modeling and Assessing a Spectrum of Accidental Fires and Risks in a LNG Facility 4.3 More than Effective
153 5 DTRS56-04-T-0012 Hazardous Liquids Airborne Lidar Observation Study (HALOS) 4.3 More than Effective
168 5 DTRS56-05-T-0004 Evaluation and Validation of Aboveground Techniques for Coating Condition Assessment 4.3 More than Effective
179 5 DTPH56-05-T-0006 Pipeline Assessment and Repair Manual 4.3 More than Effective
146 6 DTRS56-04-T-0009 Mechanical Damage at Welds 4.2 More than Effective
159 6 DTRS56-05-T-0002 Design, Construction and Demonstration of a Robotic Platform for the Inspection of Unpiggable Pipelines Under Live Conditions 4.2 More than Effective
169 6 DTPH56-05-T-0004 Use of Unmanned Air Vehicle (UAV) for Pipeline Surveillance to Improve Safety and Lower Cost 4.2 More than Effective
172 6 DTPH56-05-T-0003 Behavior of Corroded Pipelines Under Cyclic Pressure 4.2 More than Effective
174 6 DTPH56-05-T-0003 Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipe Under Secondary (Biaxial) Loading 4.2 More than Effective
131 7 DTRS56-03-T-0010 Alternate Welding Processes for In-service Welding 4.1 More than Effective
161 7 DTRS56-05-T-0002 Validation and Enhancement of Long-Range Guided Wave Ultrasonic Testing: A key technology for Direct Assessment of buried pipelines 4.1 More than Effective
170 7 DTPH56-05-T-0004 Use of Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (UUAV) for Pipeline Surveillance to Improve Safety and Lower Cost 4.1 More than Effective
173 7 DTPH56-05-T-0003 Assessment of Older Corroded Pipelines with Reduced Toughness and Ductility 4.1 More than Effective
160 8 DTRS56-05-T-0002 Design, Construction and testing of a segmented MFL sensor for use in the inspection of unpiggable pipelines 4.0 More than Effective
162 8 DTRS56-05-T-0003 Applying External Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA) to Difficult to Inspect Areas 4.0 More than Effective
171 8 DTPH56-05-T-0003 Corrosion Assessment Guidance for Higher Strength Pipelines 4.0 More than Effective
178 8 DTPH56-05-T-0005 Cathodic Protection Current Mapping In-Line Inspection Technology 4.0 More than Effective
145 9 DTRS56-04-T-0003 Human Factors Analysis of Pipeline Monitoring and Control Operations 3.9 More than Effective
148 10 DTRS56-04-T-0008 Stage 2 Phased Array Wheel Probe for In-Line Inspection 3.6 More than Effective