Pipeline Safety: Systematic Process Needed to Evaluate Outcomes of Research and Development Program
Published: 2003-06-30T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: From 1998 through 2002, a total of 1,770 pipeline accidents occurred, resulting in 100 fatalities and $621 million in property damage. The Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) within the Department of Transportation operates a research and development (R&D) program aimed at advancing the most promising technologies for ensuring the safe operation of pipelines. In fiscal year 2003, OPS received $8.7 million for its R&D program, a sevenfold increase since fiscal year 1998. In response to a directive from the House Committee on Appropriations, GAO (1) assessed OPS's distribution of funding among various areas of R&D and the alignment of this funding with its mission and goals, (2) surveyed experts to obtain their views on R&D priorities, and (3) determined how OPS evaluates R&D outcomes.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: OPS distributes its R&D budget among four main areas. For example, in fiscal year 2003, the office plans to allocate its $8.7 million budget as follows: 46 percent ($4.0 million) to developing new technologies to prevent damage to pipelines and prevent leaks; 21 percent ($1.9 million) to improving technologies for operating, controlling, and monitoring the condition of pipelines; 19 percent ($1.7 million) to improved pipeline materials, such as materials that are resistant to damage and defects; and 14 percent ($1.2 million) to efforts to improve data on the location and safety performance of pipelines. On the basis of our work, we believe that OPS's R&D funding is generally aligned with its mission and pipeline safety goals. OPS has taken a number of steps to ensure this alignment. For example, it obtained the views of a variety of experts and stakeholders in deciding on its R&D priorities and has described in various plans how its R&D efforts can lead to new and improved technologies that can help achieve its safety performance goals, such as reducing the impacts of pipeline accidents. The pipeline safety R&D priorities of the experts we surveyed are generally consistent with OPS's R&D priorities. For example, most assigned a high priority to the two areas of R&D that receive the highest amount of funding from OPS. OPS's efforts to evaluate the outcomes of its R&D have been limited. The agency has taken some preliminary steps toward developing an evaluation process for its R&D program, such as identifying possible measures of program results. Leading research organizations, the Office of Management and Budget, and GAO have identified a number of best practices for systematically evaluating the outcomes of federal R&D programs, such as setting clear R&D goals, measuring progress toward goals, and reporting periodically on evaluation results. These best practices can help OPS to determine the effectiveness of its R&D program in achieving desired outcomes, such as the development and use of new and improved technologies that can enhance pipeline safety.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Pipelines transport nearly all of the natural gas and nearly two-thirds of the  crude oil and refined oil products in the United States.  Although pipelines  have a better safety record than other modes of freight transportation, their  cargo is dangerous and leaks or ruptures can have serious consequences,  including fatalities, harm to the environment, and property damage.  For  example, pipeline ruptures in Bellingham, Washington, in 1999 and in  Carlsbad, New Mexico, in 2000 together resulted in a total of 15 deaths and  property and other damages totaling about $46 million.  Investigators have  determined that one of the probable causes of the Bellingham accident was  excavation damage and that the cause of the Carlsbad accident was severe  internal corrosion.
The Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), within the Department of  Transportation’s (DOT) Research and Special Programs Administration, is  responsible for pipeline safety regulation and research.  The agency  operates a research and development (R&D) program aimed at enhancing  the safety and reducing the potential environmental impacts of  transporting natural gas and hazardous liquids through pipelines.   Specifically, the program seeks to advance the most promising  technological solutions to problems that impede pipeline safety, such as  damage to pipelines from excavation or corrosion.  From fiscal years 2001  through 2003, the budget of OPS’s R&D program more than tripled, from  $2.8 million to $8.7 million, partly as a result of congressional interest in  achieving technological advances that can improve pipeline safety.
In House Report 107-722, which accompanied the Department of  Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for fiscal year  2003, the House Appropriations Committee raised concerns regarding the  effective management and utilization of these significant increases in  funding for the department’s pipeline safety R&D program.  The committee  directed GAO to review the effectiveness of the program.  In subsequent  discussions with staff of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury,  and Independent Agencies of the House Appropriations Committee, we  agreed to determine  (1) OPS’s distribution of funding among various areas  of pipeline safety R&D since fiscal year 2001 and the extent to which this  funding is aligned with the agency’s mission and pipeline safety goals,    (2) the views of experts on pipeline safety R&D priorities, and  (3) how OPS  evaluates the outcomes of the pipeline safety R&D it funds.
To carry out this work, we reviewed legislation and agency documents  pertaining to the R&D program and interviewed agency officials  responsible for this program.  We also interviewed key experts and  stakeholders regarding their views on R&D priorities and gaps and on  OPS’s management of its R&D program, including the alignment of the  agency’s research agenda with its mission and goals.  We identified best  practices for evaluating the outcomes of R&D through a review of relevant  literature.  In addition, we sent a questionnaire to selected experts to obtain  their views on pipeline safety R&D priorities.  We selected experts who are  informed about pipeline safety or the development of new pipeline safety  technologies, including representatives of federal and state agencies,  pipeline safety advocacy groups, industry associations, pipeline  companies, technical and consulting organizations, and research institutes.   We received responses from 49 of 55 experts we contacted, for a response  rate of 89 percent.  Our results pertaining to experts’ views on R&D  priorities represent the views of only the experts who responded to our  questionnaire and cannot be generalized to a broader population.  (See app.  II for additional details on our scope and methodology.)
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Three primary types of pipelines form a 2.2 million-mile network across the  nation.
Natural gas transmission pipelines transport natural gas over long  distances from sources to communities.
Natural gas distribution pipelines continue to transport natural gas from  transmission lines to consumers.
Hazardous liquid pipelines transport crude oil to refineries and refined  oil products, such as gasoline, to product terminals.
OPS, within DOT’s Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA),  is responsible for enhancing the safety of and reducing the potential  environmental impacts of transporting natural gas and hazardous liquids  through pipelines.  The agency primarily carries out this responsibility  through regulation, oversight, enforcement, and R&D.  OPS sets and  enforces regulations that pipeline operators must follow in designing,  constructing, maintaining, and operating pipelines.  State agencies  responsible for overseeing pipeline safety help OPS to enforce its  regulations.  In December 2000, it began implementing a new risk-based  regulatory approach, called “integrity management.”  Under this approach,  operators are required, in addition to meeting minimum safety standards,  to better protect pipeline segments where a leak or rupture could have  significant consequences, such as near highly populated areas, by  conducting new tests of these segments, completing repairs according to  specified schedules, and developing comprehensive plans for addressing  the range of risks facing these segments.  The agency’s R&D program is  aimed at advancing the most promising technologies for ensuring the safe  operations of pipelines.  For example, current R&D projects seek to  develop new and improved techniques for assessing the condition of  pipelines and detecting anomalies—such as leaks, corrosion, and damage  from excavators—that can lead to pipeline accidents.  From 1998 through  2002, a total of 1,770 pipeline accidents occurred, resulting in 100 fatalities  and $621 million in property damage.
OPS’s R&D program has undergone major changes in the last several years.   In particular, the agency has developed a new agenda for its R&D program,  using the input of key experts and stakeholders, and has received  significant increases in funding for this program.
Until 2001, most of the research funded by OPS was aimed at helping the  agency perform its regulatory function or was in response to an accident  investigation or congressional direction.  In November 2001, the agency  held an R&D planning workshop to gain the perspectives of a variety of  experts and stakeholders on areas of R&D that have the most potential  for enhancing pipeline safety.  Attendees included representatives of  federal and state agencies, research organizations, industry groups,  pipeline companies, and technical organizations that set industry safety  standards.   OPS used the R&D priorities identified in this workshop to  develop a new agenda for its R&D program, focusing on three main  areas: (1) developing new technologies for preventing damage and  detecting leaks, (2) improving technologies for operating, controlling,   and monitoring the condition of pipelines, and (3) improving pipeline  materials.  From March through December 2002, the agency issued  announcements requesting project proposals in these areas, asking that  prospective funding recipients provide at least 50 percent of the  proposed project’s cost.  As of May 2003, it had funded 10 R&D  proposals it received in response to these announcements.  In addition,  after its November 2001 R&D workshop, OPS established a Web site on  its R&D program in order to improve communications with experts,  stakeholders, and the public about its R&D agenda and activities.
OPS’s budget for its R&D program has risen more than sevenfold since  fiscal year 1998, with the most significant increases occurring since  fiscal year 2001.  Figure 1 shows the agency’s budgeted amounts for  R&D from fiscal years 1998 through 2003.  OPS’s budget for R&D rose  steadily from fiscal year 1998 to fiscal year 2001, from $1.3 million to  $2.8 million.  In fiscal year 2002, the agency received $4.8 million for its  R&D program, which was $2 million more than RSPA had requested for  the program.  Agency officials attribute this funding increase to  increased concerns for pipeline safety within Congress following the  tragic pipeline accidents in Bellingham, Washington (1999), and  Carlsbad, New Mexico (2000), which together caused 15 fatalities.  For  fiscal year 2003, RSPA requested and received about $4 million in  additional funding for the program, for a total of $8.7 million.  OPS  officials told us that this requested increase was a response to  heightened congressional interest in achieving technological solutions  to pipeline safety, as evidenced by legislative proposals that called for  increased attention to this area.   RSPA is proposing funding for OPS’s  R&D program of $9.2 million in fiscal year 2004, an increase of about  $0.5 million above the fiscal year 2003 amount.  OPS officials explained  that they intend to use most of this increase for a study, required by the  Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002, to assess the performance of  controllers who monitor pipeline operations.  Overall, agency officials  also attribute recent increases in funding for OPS’s pipeline safety R&D  program to a recognition of the challenges posed by the agency’s new  integrity management regulatory approach and the criticality of the  nation’s pipeline infrastructure, in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks  of September 11, 2001.
OPS’s pipeline safety R&D program is continuing to evolve in response to  new directives in the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 for the  planning and reporting of federal pipeline R&D efforts.  The act, which  became law in December 2002, assigned the Secretary of Transportation  responsibility for developing a 5-year plan for pipeline R&D and  transmitting the plan to Congress by December 2003, in coordination with  DOE and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.   (OPS  officials told us that the Secretary has delegated this responsibility to OPS.)
DOE operates an R&D program that is focused on developing future  technologies to improve the integrity, reliability, and security of the natural  gas infrastructure, including pipelines and storage facilities.   In  comparison with OPS’s R&D program, which focuses on the development  of quick-to-market technologies that could become available in the short  term (1-3 years) or midterm (3-5 years), DOE’s program focuses on  technologies that could become available in the midterm (3-5 years) or  longer term (5-8 years).  The National Institute of Standards and  Technology does not operate an R&D program focused on pipelines, but,  reflecting its expertise in materials research, the act assigns it a key role in  planning future pipeline R&D.
The Department of the Interior’s Minerals Management Service (MMS),  although not assigned an R&D planning role in the act, funds pipeline R&D,  including research on offshore pipeline safety.   Consequently, OPS plans to  include that agency in efforts to develop a 5-year plan for pipeline R&D.   The act requires the heads of DOT, DOE, and the National Institute of  Standards and Technology to jointly report annually to Congress, beginning  in December 2003, on the status and results of implementation of the plan.
section_title: OPS’s R&D Funding Is Aligned with Its Mission and Pipeline Safety Goals
paragraphs: Since fiscal year 2001, OPS has allocated its rising R&D funding to three  main areas of pipeline safety R&D that were identified at its 2001  workshop: (1) developing new technologies for preventing damage to  pipelines and detecting leaks, (2) improving technologies for operating,  controlling, and monitoring the condition of pipelines, and (3) improving  the performance of pipeline materials.  The agency has also allocated some  R&D funding to a fourth area, efforts to improve the agency’s mapping and  information systems.
On the basis of our work, we believe that the agency’s R&D funding is  generally aligned with its mission and pipeline safety goals.  The agency has  obtained the views of external experts and stakeholders in determining  what types of R&D are aligned with its mission of ensuring the safe,  reliable, and environmentally sound operation of the nation’s pipeline  transportation system.  The agency has also recently improved  coordination with other federal agencies that fund pipeline R&D in order to  avoid overlap between their R&D programs.  Both of these practices have  been recommended by leading organizations that conduct scientific and  engineering research.  OPS has also linked its R&D efforts with its  performance goals of reducing the impacts of pipeline incidents, including  fatalities and injuries, and reducing spills of hazardous material.   In its  plans, the agency has described how new and improved technologies  resulting from its R&D funding can help achieve these performance goals.   Finally, a number of key experts and stakeholders told us that, in their view,  the agency has chosen appropriate R&D areas to fund.
subsections: section_title: OPS Allocates Pipeline Safety R&D Funding to Four Major Areas
paragraphs: OPS allocates its R&D budget to three major areas involving the research  and development of pipeline safety technologies as well as to a fourth  area—efforts to improve the agency’s pipeline mapping and information  systems—that does not involve such research and development.  Figure 2  shows how the agency plans to distribute its fiscal year 2003 R&D budget of  $8.7 million among these areas.
OPS plans to spend the largest share of its R&D budget, 46 percent, or   $4.0 million, on the area of Damage Prevention and Leak Detection, which  includes the development of new technologies to prevent damage to  pipelines, detect pipeline defects, and quickly and accurately locate and  control pipeline leaks.  Damage to pipelines from “third parties,” such as  companies performing excavation work, is the leading cause of pipeline  failures and can lead to property damage and injuries or fatalities.
OPS plans to allocate 21 percent of its R&D budget, $1.9 million, to the area  of Enhanced Operations, Controls, and Monitoring, which includes  improvements in technologies for operating, controlling, and monitoring  the integrity of pipelines to help identify and prioritize pipeline safety  problems and solutions.
The agency intends to spend a slightly lesser amount, 19 percent of its R&D  budget, or $1.7 million, on the area of Improved Materials Performance,  which includes improvements in pipeline materials in order to extend the  integrity and lifetime of installed pipelines and their various components.
Finally, the agency plans to allocate the smallest portion of its R&D budget,  14 percent, or $1.2 million, to the area of Mapping and Information  Systems, which includes efforts to improve the collection, integration, and  analysis of data on the location and safety performance of pipelines.  These  efforts make pipeline mapping information available to federal, state, and  local officials and support pipeline inspection activities of OPS and its state  partners.
Since fiscal year 2001, OPS’s allocation of funding to each of the three main  areas of pipeline safety R&D—Damage Prevention and Leak Detection;  Enhanced Operations, Controls, and Monitoring; and Improved Materials  Performance—has risen significantly, while its allocation to Mapping and  Information Systems efforts has remained level.   The tripling of the  agency’s R&D budget—from $2.8 million in fiscal year 2001 to $8.7 million  in fiscal year 2003—has enabled it to increase funding for these three R&D  areas.   Specifically, OPS has increased funding for R&D efforts in Damage  Prevention and Leak Detection from $1.3 million in fiscal year 2001 to   $4.0 million in fiscal year 2003, an increase of over 200 percent.  The agency  has increased funding for Enhanced Operations, Controls, and Monitoring  from $309,000 in fiscal year 2001 to $1.9 million in fiscal year 2003, an  increase of more than 500 percent.  OPS started funding Improved  Materials Performance research in fiscal year 2002, increasing funding in  this area to a level of $1.7 million in fiscal year 2003.
Agency officials explained to us that they allocated funding to these three  R&D areas in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 based on the results of their 2001  R&D planning workshop.   For example, they added Improved Materials  Performance to their R&D agenda because it was identified as a priority  area at the workshop.  They have also considered other factors in deciding  how to allocate funding.  For example, the agency significantly increased  funding for R&D in the areas of Damage Prevention and Leak Detection  and Enhanced Operations, Controls, and Monitoring because of a great  need for improved performance in these areas.  OPS officials explained  that, because the agency’s new risk-based regulatory approach requires  pipeline operators to assess and mitigate risks to pipeline segments where  a leak or rupture could have significant consequences, these operators  need better tools and methods for monitoring pipelines and making  necessary repairs.  They also noted that OPS’s R&D results assist in the  creation of industry standards on the appropriate use of new technologies.   In addition, officials explained that they decided to allocate a significant  portion of their R&D budget to the area of Improved Materials Performance  because, on the basis of current information on the development of  pipeline technologies, they believed that advances in this area held much  promise for improving pipeline safety.
Finally, OPS has allocated about $1.2 million per year to the Mapping and  Information Systems area since fiscal year 2001 in order to maintain efforts  to improve these systems.  (See fig. 3.)
OPS has provided $3.0 million in funding to 10 projects related to Damage  Prevention and Leak Detection since fiscal year 2001.   Examples of funded  projects include the following:  OPS provided $0.6 million in funding to five projects focused on  improving in-line inspection techniques, including “smart pigs” and  other technologies, for detecting damage and defects in pipe walls.   Such improved techniques can help to prevent pipeline leaks or ruptures  by making possible the early detection and repair of damage and  defects.
In partnership with the U.S. Air Force, OPS provided $1.2 million in  funding to a project focused on developing an approach for detecting  pipeline leaks using an airborne laser system that measures levels of  chemicals in the atmosphere just above the earth’s surface.
OPS has provided $0.9 million in funding to six projects related to  Enhanced Pipeline Operations, Controls, and Monitoring since fiscal year  2001.   Most of this funding—$0.6 million—has been allocated to two  projects to improve alternative inspection techniques, called direct  assessment, for identifying internal and external corrosion and other  defects in pipelines that cannot accommodate smart pigs.   This is a  significant issue for natural gas pipelines.  One industry association  estimates that only about 35 percent of the total natural gas pipeline  mileage can accommodate smart pigs, which are typically used to assess  the condition of liquid pipelines.  OPS officials told us that they are  planning to fund three additional R&D projects in this area in June 2003.
As of May 2003, OPS has provided $0.1 million in funding to one project in  the area of Improved Materials Performance.  This project seeks to develop  a “smart” composite pipe that will allow for real-time monitoring of the  condition of the pipe through a remote monitoring system.  The agency  requested proposals in this area in December 2002 and expects to start  funding some of these proposals in the summer of 2003.  Among the types  of proposals that OPS has requested are proposals to develop  materials that better withstand third-party damage, corrosion, and   higher grade/strength steels; and   materials that facilitate the operation of pipelines at higher design  pressures.
Finally, of the roughly $1.2 million that OPS has allocated each year since  fiscal year 2001 to the Mapping and Information Systems area, it spent or  plans to spend    about $800,000 each year for efforts to improve the National Pipeline  Mapping System, which depicts the location of pipelines in relation to  areas that are populated or environmentally sensitive, and  about $400,000 each year for efforts to integrate information systems the  agency uses in overseeing pipeline safety in cooperation with the states.
The agency expects to continue funding this area at this level for the  foreseeable future in order to improve and update these systems  continually.  OPS officials explained that these mapping and information  systems assist OPS inspectors and state and local officials in their efforts to  oversee pipelines and protect the community and environment from  pipeline leaks or ruptures.
section_title: Expert Review and Coordination Help OPS Align Its R&D Funding with Its Mission and Goals
paragraphs: OPS’s mission is to ensure the safe, reliable, and environmentally sound  operation of the nation’s pipeline transportation system.  It has indicated in  its budget and plans that its R&D program supports this broad mission as  well as the following more specific performance goals: (1) to reduce  deaths, injuries, property damage, and economic disruptions resulting from  pipeline incidents and (2) to reduce the amount of oil and other hazardous  liquids spilled from pipelines.  The agency has described how new and  improved technologies resulting from its R&D funding can help achieve  these performance goals.  For example, the number of pipeline incidents  and the amount of hazardous material spilled could be reduced through the  use of improved technologies for detecting third-party damage, corrosion,  and defects and the use of improved pipeline materials that can better  withstand damage and corrosion.
The Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy—a joint  committee of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of  Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine—has recommended the use of  expert review to determine whether a research program is focused on the  subjects most relevant to an agency’s mission.  Under this form of review,  experts in related fields as well as potential users of the research evaluate  the relevance of research to an agency’s mission and goals and its potential  value to intended users.
OPS has used expert review to help it develop a research agenda that is  aligned with its mission and goals.  At its November 2001 R&D planning  workshop, it asked a variety of experts as well as potential users of  research to identify the types of R&D that would be most likely to enhance  pipeline safety.   Participants included representatives from federal and  state agencies with pipeline responsibilities, pipeline companies and their  associations, research groups, and technical organizations that set industry  safety standards for pipelines.   The agency subsequently used the results  of this workshop in developing its research agenda, guided by an R&D  planning panel composed of key experts from such groups.
OPS has also used peer review, a form of expert review, in deciding which  R&D proposals to fund, a practice that is recommended by the Committee  on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy.   OPS’s review panels have  included representatives from other federal agencies that conduct pipeline  R&D, industry associations, and associations of state agencies with  pipeline safety responsibilities.
The Pipeline Safety Improvement Act, enacted in December 2002, requires  that the Secretary of Transportation consult with a variety of groups in  preparing a 5-year plan for pipeline safety R&D, which must be provided to  Congress by December 2003.  In response, OPS is continuing to involve  various experts and stakeholders in its R&D planning.  Agency officials  have told us that, in preparation for developing this 5-year plan, they are in  the process of obtaining updated external views in order to reassess  research priorities.  This has involved participating in the pipeline R&D  planning efforts of industry associations and research organizations,  discussing R&D priorities with state agency officials, and reconvening their  R&D planning panel of outside experts.  In developing the plan, agency  officials also plan to consult with OPS’s two technical advisory committees.   Finally, OPS plans to hold another R&D workshop during the winter of  2003-04.
Coordination among federal agencies that conduct related research helps  to avoid duplication and ensure that each agency performs research that is  aligned with its particular mission and goals.  The Committee on Science,  Engineering, and Public Policy has recommended that agencies establish a  formal process for coordinating similar fields of research, in order to  improve collaboration, help keep important questions from being  overlooked, and avoid duplication of effort.  Since 2001, OPS has  increased efforts to coordinate pipeline R&D with DOE and the  Department of the Interior’s MMS, both of which also conduct research  related to pipelines.  This increased coordination has taken the form of  mutual participation in panels that review R&D proposals and workshops  to plan R&D activities.  According to OPS officials, officials of these  agencies have used these opportunities to communicate about their  respective pipeline R&D efforts and avoid duplication.  However, these  agencies have not had a formal mechanism in place that defines each  agency’s responsibilities for pipeline R&D.
The Pipeline Safety Improvement Act requires that the heads of DOT, DOE,  and the National Institute of Standards and Technology develop a  memorandum of understanding to formally coordinate pipeline R&D  efforts.  (Although the institute does not operate an R&D program focused  on pipelines, the act assigned it a key role in pipeline R&D based on its  expertise in materials research.)  In response, OPS, DOE, and the institute  have developed such a memorandum and are in the process of finalizing  it.  The Pipeline Safety Improvement Act also requires that DOT  coordinate with DOE and the National Institute of Standards and  Technology in developing a 5-year plan for pipeline R&D.   In response, OPS  is involving DOE and the institute, as well as MMS, in efforts to develop  such a plan.  These agencies are also considering holding joint workshops  on pipeline R&D in the future.  In addition, OPS and the National Institute  of Standards and Technology have started to participate in each others’  proposal review panels and are discussing entering into an agreement to  have the institute conduct some research on pipeline materials.
We asked a number of key experts and stakeholders for their views on the  extent to which OPS’s R&D agenda is aligned with its mission and goals.   These individuals included officials in DOE and MMS, representatives of  four industry associations, a former head of a state agency that regulates  gas pipelines, the heads of two leading pipeline R&D organizations, two  foremost technical experts in pipeline safety, and an environmentalist  active in pipeline safety.  Six of these individuals have been or are members  of OPS advisory committees or R&D planning or review panels.   They  generally told us that, in their view, the agency has chosen to fund  appropriate areas.
section_title: Experts Generally Support OPS’s R&D Priorities
paragraphs: The pipeline safety R&D priorities of the experts who completed our  questionnaire are generally consistent with OPS’s R&D priorities.   Of the  three main R&D areas that OPS is currently funding, Damage Prevention  and Leak Detection received the most scores of high or very high funding  priority; Enhanced Operations, Controls, and Monitoring received the  second highest number of such scores; and Improved Materials  Performance received the third highest number.  This ranking corresponds  to the relative levels of funding OPS has assigned to these areas, as  described in the previous section.  However, the experts’ level of support  for Improved Materials Performance was much lower than that for the  other two main R&D areas that OPS is funding.  OPS officials told us that  they are currently updating their research agenda, using the input of  experts and stakeholders, and that they will consider our questionnaire  results in this process.
To obtain the views of experts on pipeline safety R&D priorities, we asked  55 experts to complete a questionnaire indicating the funding priority they  would assign to various types of pipeline safety R&D, using categories  identified as part of OPS’s 2001 R&D planning workshop.  Table 1 provides  a description of the main categories of R&D we asked experts to prioritize.    The first three categories correspond to the main areas of R&D that OPS is  currently funding.  Although the fourth category—Arctic and Offshore  Technologies—was identified as a main area of pipeline R&D at its  workshop, OPS decided not to include it as a main area in its R&D agenda.
Agency officials told us that they made this decision because R&D related  to Arctic and Offshore Technologies was not considered to be a high  priority by participants at its workshop and because MMS funds some R&D  in this area and is the primary offshore regulator.  We did not include  Mapping and Information Systems—an area that OPS is currently funding  from its R&D budget—as a category for the experts to rate because it was  not identified as a main category of R&D at the 2001 workshop.
Figure 4 shows how the 49 experts who completed our questionnaire rated  the four categories of pipeline safety R&D.  We also asked experts to rate  specific types of R&D within each category.  (See app. I for how the experts  rated specific types of R&D within these main categories and for  information on the agency’s funding of these specific types of R&D.  See  app. II for information on our methodology for selecting experts and  obtaining their views.)
The experts who completed our questionnaire strongly supported the  Damage Prevention and Leak Detection and Enhanced Operations,  Controls, and Monitoring categories of R&D as important areas for OPS to  fund.  Ninety-two percent of the experts (45 of 49) indicated that the  Damage Prevention and Leak Detection category should receive high or  very high funding priority.  Within this category, experts assigned the most  scores of high or very high funding priority to the following types of R&D:  improvements in the ability of in-line inspection tools, such as “smart pigs,”  to detect damage and defects (39 of 49), and the development of new  technologies, such as the innovative application of ultrasonics, that can be  used for inspecting pipelines (38 of 49).  Several experts we interviewed  highlighted the need to improve methods for detecting damage to pipelines,  citing the fact that third-party damage is the leading cause of pipeline  accidents.  According to both liquid and gas pipeline associations, current  inspection tools cannot reliably detect such damage to pipelines.
Eighty percent of the experts (39 of 49) indicated that the Enhanced  Operations, Controls, and Monitoring category should receive high or very  high funding priority. Within this category, the type of R&D that received  the most scores of high or very high funding priority (37 of 49) was the  improvement of alternative inspection techniques, called direct  assessment, to identify corrosion and other defects in pipelines that cannot  accommodate in-line inspection devices known as smart pigs.   This is a  significant issue for natural gas pipelines because the majority of these  pipelines cannot currently accommodate smart pigs, which are typically  used to assess the condition of liquid pipelines.
In contrast to the experts’ views on the importance of these first two  categories, less than one-third of the experts considered the remaining two  categories of R&D, Improved Materials Performance and Arctic and  Offshore Technologies, to be a high priority for OPS to fund.  Thirty-one  percent of the experts (15 of 49) assigned scores of high or very high  funding priority to the Improved Materials Performance category, and 20  percent (10 of 49) assigned such scores to the Arctic and Offshore  Technologies category.  However, within the category of Improved  Materials Performance, about half (25 of 49) of the experts indicated that  the type of R&D aimed at developing damage- and defect-resistant  materials should receive high or very high funding priority.  Such materials  could be used in the replacement of existing pipe or in the installation of  new pipe.  One researcher we interviewed noted that such materials are  particularly important for the gas pipeline industry, which is expanding its  infrastructure in response to increased demands for natural gas.  One  industry association estimates that the natural gas industry will need to  install about 49,500 miles of transmission pipeline from 2001 through 2015  to meet increased demand in the United States.
Some differences exist in the views of experts from the following three  subgroups: (1) federal and state government and public interest  organizations, (2) pipeline industry and technical and consulting  organizations, and (3) research organizations.  As shown in table 2,  experts from all three subgroups generally gave the category of Damage  Prevention and Leak Detection the highest ranking, followed by the  category of Enhanced Operations, Controls, and Monitoring.  However,  experts from research organizations considered the categories of Improved  Materials Performance and Arctic and Offshore Technologies to be more  important for OPS to fund than did experts from the other two subgroups.   For example, 70 percent of experts from research organizations (7 of 10)  rated Improved Materials Performance as a high or very high priority  compared with 19 percent of experts from government and public interest  organizations (3 of 16) and 22 percent of experts from pipeline industry and  technical and consulting organizations (5 of 23).  In addition, 60 percent of  the researchers (6 of 10) rated Arctic and Offshore Technologies as a high  or very high priority for OPS compared with 19 percent of experts from  government and public interest organizations (3 of 16) and only 4 percent  of experts from pipeline industry and technical and consulting  organizations (1 of 23).
An OPS official told us that he believed that researchers rated the Improved  Materials Performance category more highly than other experts did  because researchers have the best and most current information about the  “state of the art” in technology development and are more aware of  opportunities in this area.  A leading expert from a pipeline research  organization noted that the foundation of pipeline R&D has been the  development of defect-resistant steels and that, as a consequence,  researchers in this area are very interested in R&D that will lead to further  improvements in the performance of pipeline materials.  He also explained  that researchers may have rated the Arctic and Offshore Technologies  category more highly than the other types of experts who completed our  questionnaire because researchers may be more aware of the need for such  R&D to support the construction of new pipelines in these areas in order to  reach new energy supplies.
section_title: OPS Lacks a Systematic Process for Evaluating R&D Outcomes
paragraphs: Although OPS has received significant increases in funding for its R&D  program in recent years, the agency has not developed a systematic  process for evaluating the effectiveness of its R&D program.  For example,  the agency tracks and disseminates information on the progress of  individual R&D projects but has not developed a process for assessing and  reporting on the results of its R&D program as a whole.  Such a process is  needed to demonstrate the program’s progress toward achieving its  objectives, such as the development and use of new technologies that can  improve pipeline safety.  OPS has taken some preliminary steps toward  developing an evaluation process for its R&D program and could benefit  from adopting identified best practices for systematically evaluating the  outcomes of federal R&D programs.  Leading research organizations, the  Office of Management and Budget, and GAO have identified a number of  such practices, including setting clear R&D goals and measuring progress  toward these goals, using expert review to evaluate the quality of research  outcomes, and reporting periodically on evaluation results.  The results of  evaluations can be used to refocus the direction of R&D programs  periodically, as necessary, to ensure that resources are most effectively  utilized.
subsections: section_title: OPS’s Efforts to Evaluate Research Outcomes Have Been Limited
paragraphs: Although OPS has funded R&D to develop pipeline safety technologies  since the mid-1990s, the agency’s efforts to evaluate the outcomes of this  R&D have been limited and have focused on individual projects.  OPS’s  R&D contracts define project goals and require research performers to  meet specific milestones for the development of a technology.  Contracts  also require research performers to report quarterly and at the end of the  project on results, including milestones achieved and patents applied for  and received.  OPS has made some efforts to disseminate the results to date  of individual R&D projects.  For example, it has started to put “success  stories” on its Web site that describe achievements in ongoing projects,  such as the development of product prototypes.  These success stories help  to communicate the results of individual projects to industry and other  interested parties.
At the program level, OPS has not yet established specific quantifiable  goals for its R&D program or a method for measuring progress toward  these goals.  OPS has indicated, in various planning documents, that its  R&D program will help achieve its performance goals of reducing the  impacts of pipeline incidents, including fatalities and injuries, and reducing  spills of hazardous material.  However, agency officials have acknowledged  that it is difficult to show the effect of the R&D program on these  performance goals.  A more immediate objective of the program, according  to agency plans, is to promote the transfer of new and improved pipeline  safety technologies to the market in the near term.
In deciding which R&D proposals to fund, OPS gives preference to those  that plan to bring a new product to market within 5 years.  In addition,  agency officials told us that OPS plans to promote the use of new  technologies by providing information to potential users and its state  partners about them and, when appropriate, by encouraging their use  through regulation.  Agency officials told us that the R&D program aims  to have 80 percent of its projects result in products on the market within 5  years.  Such an objective is specific and measurable, but OPS has not  formally established it as a goal in any plan or developed a method for  measuring progress toward achieving it.  Furthermore, since the agency  has not yet established specific goals or outcome measures for its R&D  program, it does not have a process for documenting and reporting on the  extent to which this program is achieving its goals.
OPS officials explained that they have not yet developed a process for  evaluating the outcomes of the agency’s R&D program because, prior to  2001, the program’s budget was relatively low and, since restructuring the  program in 2001, they have focused program efforts on building a process  for setting research priorities.  However, officials do recognize the need for  evaluating R&D outcomes and have taken some preliminary steps toward  developing an evaluation process for their R&D program.
OPS is considering some possible measures of the outcomes of its R&D  program as a whole, such as the number of new patents resulting from  R&D efforts.  In addition, agency officials told us that, although tracking  the transfer to the market of new pipeline safety technologies can be  challenging, OPS intends to track the use of new technologies in the future  through its process for inspecting operators’ “integrity management”  programs.  For example, OPS inspectors could document the use of new  or improved technologies by companies to evaluate the condition of their  pipelines.  Agency officials noted that the agency will develop inspection  protocols that require inspectors to collect data on the use of new  technologies after their proposed integrity management rule for natural gas  transmission pipelines is finalized.
OPS is also considering the number of documented R&D “success  stories”—summaries of the accomplishments of individual R&D projects— as a possible measure of program results.  However, in previous reviews of  R&D programs operated by other federal agencies, we have found that the  success story approach is selective and does not adequately assess  programwide performance.
In early June 2003, OPS presented a potential set of performance measures  for its R&D program to its R&D planning panel of outside experts in order  to obtain their views on these measures.  This panel includes  representatives of DOE, MMS, the National Institute of Standards and  Technology, pipeline industry associations, state agencies with pipeline  responsibilities, and a key pipeline research organization.  OPS intends to  refine its set of measures based on comments received from this panel and  to continue obtaining the views of this panel as it moves forward in  developing an evaluation process for its R&D program.
Finally, OPS officials also told us that the agency intends to obtain the  views of experts on its R&D outcomes as well as on its future R&D  priorities at its next R&D workshop, scheduled for the winter of 2003-04.   However, OPS is in the beginning stages of planning this workshop and has  not defined a process for using experts’ views to evaluate the outcomes of  its R&D program.
OPS officials told us that they are considering including information on the  effectiveness of the agency’s R&D program in the annual reports to  Congress on pipeline R&D that the agency is required to submit, starting in  December 2003.  The Pipeline Safety Improvement Act requires that DOT,  DOE, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology jointly  provide these annual reports to Congress, but does not fully specify what  types of information should be included in these reports.
section_title: Best Practices Help Agencies Systematically Evaluate Research Outcomes
paragraphs: Since OPS is in the beginning stages of developing an evaluation process  for its R&D program, it could benefit from adopting best practices for  systematically evaluating federal R&D programs.  Leading organizations  that conduct scientific and engineering research, the Office of Management  and Budget, and GAO have identified a number of these best practices.   Although the uncertain nature of research outcomes over time can make it  challenging to demonstrate the results of such R&D programs, these  practices are designed to enable agencies to systematically assess and  report on these results regularly in accordance with the Government  Performance and Results Act of 1993.  These assessments can be used to  refocus the direction of R&D programs periodically, as necessary, to ensure  that resources are most effectively utilized.  Identified best practices are  discussed in the following sections.
subsections: section_title: Setting Clear, Quantifiable Goals and Measuring Progress toward These Goals
paragraphs: We have previously reported that, to be effective, any R&D program must  be directed toward a clear, measurable goal. Such goals help ensure a  direct linkage between R&D program efforts and an agency’s overall  performance goals and mission.  Applied research programs, such as OPS’s  R&D program, are directed toward achieving specific useful outcomes,  such as the development of new technologies, which can help accomplish  agency performance goals. The Committee on Science, Engineering, and  Public Policy recommended in a 1999 report that agencies operating  applied research programs measure progress toward practical outcomes  and noted that such measurement can usually be performed annually using  milestones.
Similarly, in May 2002 the Office of Management and Budget established  investment criteria for federal R&D programs that require these programs  to clearly define goals and track progress toward these goals using  appropriate outcome measures and interim milestones.  Indicators that  have been used to measure the outcomes of R&D include the achievement  of specific targets for developing new or improved technologies and patent  applications filed and granted.  However, measuring research outcomes  can be challenging.  For example, outcomes may not occur for a number of  years and may be difficult to track.
section_title: Using Expert Review to Evaluate the Quality of Research Outcomes
paragraphs: In its 1999 report and again in 2001, the Committee on Science,  Engineering, and Public Policy recommended the use of expert review,  supplemented by quantitative methods, to evaluate research regularly.   Expert review can be a useful addition to performance measures because  of the value of the reviewers’ deep knowledge of the field.  Such review can  be performed on a somewhat longer term basis, rather than annually, and  does not require that the final impact of the research be known.   Peer  review, a form of expert review, includes an independent assessment of the  technical and scientific merit or quality of research by peers with essential  subject matter expertise and perspective equal to that of the researchers.   In 1999, we reported that some federal agencies, such as the Department of  Agriculture, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and DOE, use peer  review to help them evaluate the performance of programs and determine  whether to continue or renew research projects.
The Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy reported in 2001  on the use of expert review, including peer review, by NIH, DOE, the  National Science Foundation, the Department of Defense, and the National  Aeronautics and Space Administration to evaluate the quality of their  research programs.  These agencies used varying methods for carrying out  this review, including convening panels of experts who use defined  evaluation processes and obtaining the views of external advisory  committees.  The Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy  has also noted that expert evaluation of applied research programs requires  the input of potential users of the results of the research, since the ultimate  usability of these results is an important factor in determining the worth of  the research.  Similarly, key experts and stakeholders we interviewed noted  that the degree to which new technologies are actually used would be a  good indication of the effectiveness of OPS’s R&D program.  One industry  association representative we interviewed noted that a “constant theme”  raised by pipeline companies is the need for R&D efforts to produce new  technologies that they can actually use in operating their pipelines.
section_title: Reporting Periodically on Evaluation Results
paragraphs: Periodic reporting by applied research programs on results can help keep  key stakeholders—including oversight organizations and potential users of  new technologies—up-to-date on program accomplishments.  According to  the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, applied  research programs can usually report annually on progress in meeting  milestones.  In addition, a retrospective analysis over several years is  needed to evaluate outcomes that take more than 1 year to emerge.  The  committee also has recommended that agencies demonstrate the value of  their review processes by publicly describing them to oversight groups, the  potential users of research results, and the general public.  One expert we  interviewed stressed the importance of periodic public reporting by OPS on  research goals and outcomes and on the method for evaluating outcomes,  in order to disseminate research results and build support for its R&D  program.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: OPS has made significant progress in establishing a pipeline safety  research agenda that is aligned with its mission and goals and that  incorporates the views of experts and stakeholders.  However, without a  systematic process for evaluating the outcomes of its R&D program, the  agency is not able to demonstrate that it is effectively using its increased  resources for R&D to foster new and improved technologies that can  enhance pipeline safety.  Identified best practices for evaluating federal  R&D programs—including setting clear quantifiable R&D goals and  measuring progress toward these goals, using expert review to evaluate the  quality of research outcomes, and reporting periodically on evaluation  results—can guide OPS as it moves forward in developing an evaluation  process for its program.  By following such practices, the agency can help  ensure that it develops a systematic evaluation process that will enable it to  determine and demonstrate the results of its investment in pipeline safety  R&D.  OPS could use such an evaluation process to periodically refocus the  direction of its program in order to make the most effective use of  resources.
Furthermore, although the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act’s requirement  for annual reports on pipeline R&D, starting in December 2003, does not  specify in detail what information should be included in these reports, this  requirement provides an opportunity for the agency to keep Congress  informed about the results of evaluations of its R&D program.  In addition,  such reporting, along with other communication methods already in use by  the agency, can keep other interested parties—including the pipeline  industry, state pipeline safety agencies, pipeline safety advocates, and  researchers—up-to-date on the program’s progress in advancing the most  promising pipeline safety technologies.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To improve OPS’s ability to demonstrate the effectiveness of its R&D  program and make the most effective use of program funds, we  recommend that the Secretary of Transportation direct OPS to  develop a systematic process for evaluating the outcomes of its R&D  program that incorporates identified best practices and  include in the annual reports to Congress, which are required by the  Pipeline Safety Improvement Act, information on the results of R&D  evaluations.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided DOT with a draft of this report for review and comment.  DOT  officials, including OPS’s Director of Program Development, provided oral  comments on the draft on June 13, 2003.  The officials generally agreed  with the report’s findings and conclusions.   They emphasized that they are  starting to develop a framework for evaluating the effectiveness of their  pipeline safety R&D program and that they intend to finalize this  framework by December 2003 by documenting it in the 5-year plan and first  annual report on pipeline R&D that DOT is required to submit to Congress,  jointly with DOE and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.   They also noted that they agree with and intend to implement our  recommendations and provided some technical clarifications, which we  have incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Transportation, the  Administrator of RSPA, RSPA’s Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety,  the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and appropriate  congressional committees.  We will make copies available to others upon  request.  In addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO  Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-2834 or guerrerop@gao.gov.  Individuals making key  contributions to this report are listed in appendix III.
section_title: Experts’ Views on R&D Priorities and OPS’s R&D Funding, by Type of R&D
paragraphs: We asked selected experts to review the following descriptions of specific  types of pipeline safety research and development (R&D) and assign a  funding priority to each, based on its importance in achieving the Office of  Pipeline Safety’s (OPS) mission of ensuring the safe, reliable, and  environmentally sound operation of the nation’s pipeline transportation  system.  Experts used the following scale: 1=little or no funding, 2=some  funding priority, 3=moderate funding priority, 4=high funding priority, and  5=very high funding priority.  Experts could also indicate that they did not  know or had no basis to judge the funding priority for a particular type of  R&D.  The following table shows, for each type of R&D, the number of  experts who assigned it a high or very high funding priority and OPS’s  current and planned allocation of funding to it.  A total of 49 experts  completed our questionnaire.
Allocated $592,500 to five projects in November  2002 for periods of 9 to 24 months.
Allocated $500,000 to one project in November  2002 for a period of 24 months.
Allocated $182,000 to one project in April 2001 for  period of 12 months.  Requested proposals in  March 2002 but did not fund any of those received.   Requested additional proposals in December 2002  and plans to make funding decisions in July 2003.
Requested proposals in December 2002 and plans  to make funding decisions in July 2003.
Allocated $534,521 to two projects in July 2002 for  periods of 23 to 24 months.
Requested proposals in March 2002 but did not  fund any of those received.  Requested additional  proposals in December 2002 and plans to make  funding decisions in July 2003.
OPS’s current and planned allocation of funding  to this type of R&D  Requested proposals in March 2002 but did not  fund any of those received.  Requested additional  proposals in December 2002 and plans to make  funding decisions in July 2003.
Requested proposals in March 2002 but did not  fund any of those received.  Requested additional  proposals in December 2002 and plans to make  funding decisions in July 2003.
Allocated $600,000 to one project in April 2001 for a  period of 12 months.  Allocated an additional  $600,000 to this project in April 2002 for an  additional 12 months.  Plans to allocate an  additional $600,000 to this project in May 2003 for  an additional 12 months.
Allocated $572,000 to two projects in January 2003  for periods of 12 to 26 months.
Allocated $297,000 to one project in January 2003  for a period of 26 months.
Allocated $275,000 to one project in January 2003  for a period of 12 months.
Allocated $675,281 to four projects in May and July  2002 for periods of 12 to 24 months.
Allocated $97,737 to three projects in May 2002 for  a period of 12 months.  Allocated $70,000 to an  additional project in January 2003 for a period of 24  months.  Requested additional proposals in  December 2002 and plans to make funding  decisions in July 2003.
Requested proposals in December 2002 and plans  to make funding decisions in July 2003.
Requested proposals in June 2002 but did not fund  any of those received.  Requested additional  proposals in December 2002 and plans to make  funding decisions in July 2003.
Requested proposals in December 2002 and plans  to make funding decisions in July 2003.
Requested proposals in December 2002 and plans  to make funding decisions in July 2003.
Requested proposals in December 2002 and plans  to make funding decisions in July 2003.
Requested proposals in December 2002 and plans  to make funding decisions in July 2003.
Requested proposals in December 2002 and plans  to make funding decisions in July 2003.
Allocated $98,680 to one project in November 2002  for a period of 6 months.  Requested additional  proposals in December 2002 and plans to make  funding decisions in July 2003.
Requested proposals in December 2002 and plans  to make funding decisions in July 2003.
Allocated $7,781 to one project in May 2002 for a  period of 12 months.
Allocated $50,000 to one project in May 2001 for a  period of 12 months.
Allocated $59,955 to one project in May 2002 for a  period of 12 months.
Requested proposals in December 2002 and plans  to make funding decisions in July 2003.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To perform our work, we reviewed Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS)  documentation on its research and development (R&D) funding and  analyzed this information to identify trends; reviewed pertinent legislation  and agency documents pertaining to the R&D program; and interviewed  OPS officials regarding their R&D funding, agenda-setting processes, and  processes for evaluating the outcomes of their R&D program.  We also  interviewed key experts and stakeholders concerning OPS’s management  of its R&D program, including the alignment of the agency’s research  agenda with its mission and goals, and their views on R&D priorities and  gaps.  These individuals included officials of the Department of Energy  (DOE) and the Department of the Interior’s Minerals Management Service  (MMS) who are responsible for pipeline R&D; representatives of pipeline  industry associations and leading pipeline research organizations; and  several key experts in pipeline safety.  Also, we identified best practices for  evaluating the outcomes of federal R&D through a review of relevant  literature and compared the agency’s processes with these practices.
To determine the views of experts on pipeline safety R&D priorities, we  sought to identify experts considered to be very knowledgeable about the  development of new pipeline safety technologies or pipeline safety issues.   To identify appropriate experts, we obtained recommendations on  individuals to contact from key organizations, contacted those individuals,  and obtained further recommendations from them on additional  individuals to contact.  We identified initial individuals to contact through  prior work on pipeline safety issues or through recommendations from  OPS.  These initial contacts included officials in DOE and MMS,  representatives of four industry associations, a former head of a state  agency that regulates gas pipelines, the heads of two leading pipeline R&D  organizations, two technical experts in pipeline safety, and an  environmentalist active in pipeline safety.  Six of these individuals have  been or are members of OPS advisory committees or R&D planning or  review panels.  We obtained recommendations from these individuals on  experts who could provide us with views on pipeline safety R&D priorities.
We based our final selection of experts on the criteria of knowledge,  balance, and independence.  We considered indications of their extent of  knowledge of pipeline safety R&D, as evidenced by the number of times  they had been recommended, their participation in OPS’s R&D planning  and review activities, or other relevant factors.  We included individuals  from a variety of groups in order to achieve a balanced representation of  experts, including some who are relatively independent of OPS and the  pipeline industry.  We included individuals from federal and state agencies,  pipeline safety advocacy groups, industry associations, pipeline  companies, technical and consulting organizations, and research  organizations.  We also provided our list of identified experts to the  National Academy of Sciences and OPS for their review and comment.
We contacted 55 individuals whom we had identified as appropriate  experts for our review and asked them to complete a questionnaire  indicating their views on pipeline safety R&D priorities.  Forty-nine  individuals responded, for an 89 percent response rate.  Our results  pertaining to experts’ views on R&D priorities represent the views of only  the experts who responded to our questionnaire.  In a number of cases,  these individuals collaborated with others in their organizations in  completing their questionnaires.   Listed below are the organizational  affiliations of experts who completed our questionnaire.
Government and Public Interest Organizations Federal Agencies   Federal Energy Regulatory Commission  Minerals Management Service, Department of the Interior  National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce  National Transportation Safety Board  Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy State Agencies and Associations  National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives  National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners  New York State Department of Public Service  Railroad Commission of Texas  Virginia State Corporation Commission  Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission Pipeline Safety Advocacy Groups  Common Ground Alliance  Cook Inlet Keeper  Safe Bellingham Pipeline Industry and Technical/Consulting Organizations Industry Associations  American Gas Association  American Petroleum Institute  Association of Oil Pipelines  Interstate Natural Gas Association of America  Pipeline Companies  BP Pipelines, North America  ConocoPhillips   CMS Panhandle Companies  Duke Energy  El Paso Corporation  Enbridge Pipelines  Enron  Explorer Pipeline Company  ExxonMobil Pipeline Company  KeySpan Energy  Peoples Energy  Technical/Consulting Organizations  Accufacts, Inc.   Batten and Associates, Inc.   Duckworth Pipeline Integrity Services, Inc.   HSB Solomon  Kiefner and Associates, Inc.
National Association of Corrosion Engineers Advantica, Inc.  Battelle  CFER Technologies   Edison Welding Institute  Gas Technology Institute  Ohio State University, Fontana Corrosion Center  Pipeline Research Council International, Inc.   Southwest Research Institute  Texas A&M University, Department of Mechanical Engineering  University of Florida, Department of Chemical Engineering In the questionnaire, we asked respondents to review descriptions of  various main categories of pipeline safety R&D as well as specific types of  R&D within these main categories and indicate what funding priority they  would assign to each.  (See table 1 for descriptions of the main R&D  categories.  See app. I for descriptions of the types of R&D within these  main categories.)   We based the R&D categories and descriptions on  materials prepared as part of an R&D planning workshop held by OPS in  2001, in which a variety of experts and stakeholders participated; on  announcements the agency subsequently issued soliciting proposals for  R&D in various areas; and on other OPS documents related to pipeline  safety R&D.
We compiled the scores obtained from the questionnaires to produce a  ranking of R&D priorities representing the views of the experts who  completed our survey.  We also analyzed our results to determine whether  any differences existed in the responses of experts from the three  subgroups:  government and public interest organizations, industry and  technical and consulting organizations, and research organizations.  In  addition, we identified organizations that had bid on R&D funding from  OPS in fiscal year 2002 and conducted a separate analysis of the responses  of experts from these organizations to determine how they compared with  those of other experts who completed our questionnaire.  Seven of the  experts who completed our questionnaire are from organizations that had  bid on OPS R&D funding within this time frame.
We conducted our work from January 2003 through June 2003 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to those named above, Sharon Dyer, Etana Finkler, Judy  Guilliams-Tapia, Brandon Haller, Bert Japikse, Nancy Kingsbury, Donna  Leiss, Gary Stofko, Ron Stouffer, and Stacey Thompson made key  contributions to this report.
section_title: GAO’s Mission
paragraphs: The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of  Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities  and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal  government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds;  evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,  recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed  oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government  is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
section_title: Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
paragraphs: The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is  through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full- text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older  products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents  using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,  including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and  correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site  daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail  this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily  E-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading.
subsections: section_title: Order by Mail or Phone
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
section_title: Public Affairs