Panel Peer Review of PHMSA Pipeline Safety Research Projects: 2012

R&D Menu


 The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s (PHMSA) Pipeline Safety Research and Development (R&D) Program is holding annual structured peer reviews of active research projects since 2006 in accordance with mandates by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST) to maintain research data quality. PHMSA holds these reviews virtually via teleconference and the Internet saving time and resources. This execution is also working well with panelists, researchers, Agreement Officers’ Technical Representatives and project co-sponsors. Most impressively, the PHMSA approach facilitates attendance from all U.S. time zones, Canada and Europe.

The annual peer review continues to build on an already strong and systematic evaluation process developed by PHMSA’s Pipeline Safety R&D Program and certified by the Government Accountability Office. The 2012 peer review panel consisted of six government and academic experts. One panelist represented the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, one panelist was a retired government representative from the National Institute of Standards and Technology with the remaining panelists representing independent experts, academics and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

Fifteen active research projects were peer reviewed by expert panelists using 13 evaluation criteria. These criteria were grouped within the following five evaluation categories:

  1. Project relevance to the PHMSA mission.
  2. Project management.
  3. Approach taken for transferring results to end users.
  4. Project coordination with other closely related programs.
  5. Quality of project results.

The rating scale possibilities were "Ineffective," "Effective," “More than Effective” or "Very Effective." During the April 2012 review, the average program rating between all the evaluation categories was “More than Effective.” For this year, 7 projects were rated “Very Effective” with 8 projects ranked as “More than Effective.” The average sub-criteria scoring were also rated very high and underpin these findings. The majority of peered projects and the overall program rating is down from the “Very Effective” average seen since 2006 to “More than Effective.” The program attributes this lower rating to lower scoring seen in the Project Management category. The majority of peered projects were renegotiated (to replace some funding sources with PHMSA funds) since the CY 2011 reviews by order of OST and caused a noticeable impact to project timelines and milestone achievement. Additional details are available in Section 7 and Tables 4, 5 and in Appendix C of the report.

Rating Scale
Very Effective4.5 to 5.0 (7 Projects)
More than Effective3.0 to 4.4 (8 Projects)
Effective1.9 to 2.9 (0 Projects)
Ineffective0.0 to 1.8 (0 Projects)
Average Program Score4.4

Program Averages - Review Categories and Sub-Criteria
Review Categories and Sub-Criteria Score Rating
1. Project relevance to PHMSA mission. 4.6 Very Effective
  1.1. How well does the project illustrate its relevance for enhancing pipeline safety and or protecting the environment? 4.7 Very Effective
  1.2. How well does the project describe its relevance to research program goals (technology, consensus standard or produce general knowledge)? 4.4 More than Effective
2. Project Management. 4.2 More than Effective
  2.1. How well is the project making progress toward the work scope objectives? 4.4 More than Effective
  2.2. How well is the project being managed (on budget and schedule)? 4.0 More than Effective
3. Approach taken for transferring results to end users. 4.3 More than Effective
  3.1. Is there a plan for dissemination of results, including publications, and reporting? 4.4 More than Effective
  3.2. How much end user involvement is incorporated into the work scope? 4.2 More than Effective
  3.3. For results that may include marketable products and technologies, are commercialization or U.S. Patent plans established? 4.4 More than Effective
4. Project coordination with other related programs. 4.5 Very Effective
  4.1. Does the project build on, or make use of, related or prior work? 4.9 Very Effective
  4.2. Is the work of the project being communicated to other related research efforts? 4.5 Very Effective
  4.3. Has consideration been given to possible future work? 4.1 More than Effective
5. Quality of project results. 4.5 Very Effective
  5.1. Are the intended results supported by the work performed during the project? 4.6 Very Effective
  5.2. Are the intended results consistent with scientific knowledge and/or engineering principles? 4.5 Very Effective
  5.3. Are the intended results presented in such a manner as to be useful for identified end users? 4.4 More than Effective
Average Category Score and Rating: 4.4 More than Effective

Project Rankings
Project Rank Contract Project Title Score Rating
294 1 DTPH56-09-T-000005 Performance Evaluation of High-Strength Steel Pipelines for High-Pressure Gaseous Hydrogen Transportation 4.9 Very Effective
323 1 DTPH56-10-T-000001 Cost-Effective Techniques for Weld Property Measurement and Technologies for Improving Weld Hydrogen Embrittlement and Intergranular Stress Corrosion Cracking Resistance for Alternative Fuel Pipelines 4.9 Very Effective
353 2 DTPH56-10-T-000008 Completion of Development of Robotics Systems for Inspecting Unpiggable Transmission Pipelines 4.8 Very Effective
354 2 DTPH56-10-T-000009 Meandering Winding Magnetometer Array Characterization of Mechanical Damage and Corrosion 4.8 Very Effective
355 3 DTPH56-10-T-000010 Development of a Model to Accurately Predict the Conditions of Carrier Pipe within Casings Based on Conditions at the Casing Ends 4.7 Very Effective
361 3 DTPH56-10-T-000016 Realistic Strain Capacity Models for Pipeline Construction and Maintenance 4.7 Very Effective
362 4 DTPH56-10-T-000017 Fuelfinder: Remote Leak Detector for Liquid Hydrocarbons 4.6 Very Effective
364 5 DTPH56-10-T-000019 Advanced Development of PipeGuard Proactive Pipeline Damage Prevention System 4.2 More than Effective
366 5 DTPH56-10-T-000021 Advanced Learning Algorithms for the Proactive Infrasonic Pipeline Evaluation Network (PIGPEN) Pipeline Encroachment Warning System 4.2 More than Effective
363 6 DTPH56-10-T-000018 Odorant Effectiveness 4.1 More than Effective
367 6 DTPH56-10-T-000022 Development and Field Testing of a Highly Sensitive Mercaptans Instrument 4.1 More than Effective
321 7 DTPH56-10-T-000003 Feasibility of Chemical Inhibition of Ethanol SCC 4.0 More than Effective
390 7 DTPH56-11-T-000003L Comprehensive Study to Understand Longitudinal Electric Resistance Welded (ERW) Seam Failures 4.0 More than Effective
295 8 DTPH56-09-T-000003 New Design and Construction Techniques for Transportation of Ethanol and Ethanol/Gasoline Blends in New Pipelines 3.9 More than Effective
359 8 DTPH56-10-T-000014 Selection of Pipe Repair Methods 3.9 More than Effective