Summary of Findings

Summary of Findings

The Master Item Table which appears below lists each of the Key Areas assessed. A number of Key Areas were divided into sub areas. The Key Areas were also divided into three groupsPipeline (continuous transport), Transport (discrete transport), and Crosscut (areas which affect both pipeline and transport). The Crosscut group largely dealt with material and environmental issues, such as embrittlement, strength and fatigue, pressure and temperature, etc.

A total of 86 Key and Sub Areas items were assessed. This number fluctuated somewhat as the effort progressed as new items were identified or eliminated and existing items were subdivided or consolidated. Of the 86 items, 8 are Crosscut, 47 Pipeline, and 31 Transport.

In terms of criticality, 64 items are assessed High, 21 Medium, and 1 Low. These are divided across the groups as shown in Figure 4. All of the Crosscut items are assessed as High, largely because material and environmental issues potentially impact a number of transportation technologies. Several Low items were dropped from the analysis at an early stage as their combination of Low criticality and level of progress yielded low scores which did not warrant further effort.

In terms of progress, 37 Key Areas have progress assessments of Not Addressed, 47 Addressed, Not Adequately, and 2 Addressed, Monitoring. These are divided across the groups as shown in Figure 5. Most of the Crosscut items have progress assessments of Addressed, Not Adequately as there are a number of material and environmental efforts underway but most are in their early stages or are just getting underway. The Pipeline group is more evenly divided between Not Addressed and Addressed, Not Adequately while Transport has fewer Not Addressed compared to Addressed, Not Adequately.

The distribution of scoresthe product of the weights of criticality and progressis shown in Figure 6. There are 29 scores of 40, 8 scores of 24, and 33 scores of 20. A score of 40 represents a combination of High criticality and progress of Not Addressed. A score of 24 represents a combination of Medium criticality and progress of Not Addressed. A score of 20 represents a combination of High criticality and progress of Addressed, Not Adequately.

The Pipeline group has the highest number of 40 scores, also representing the largest Key Area count for the scores both within the Pipeline and overall. The Crosscut group is mostly 20 scores, reflecting the progress assessment distribution for those items. For Transport, nearly half the items have 20 scores (High criticality and progress of Addressed, Not Adequately) as these items tend to be areas where applicable safety practices could be adapted to new transport technologies.

In terms of timeframe, 62 Key Areas have assessments of 0 to 5 years and 24 of 5 to 15 years. These are divided across the groups as shown in Figure 7. All the Crosscut items are short term while 60% to 80% of the Pipeline and Transport items, respectively, are short term. Most short term needs are either because the technologies are currently or shortly being deployed or because there is a long lead-time anticipated for development of safety practices for the item.

Examining the combination of score and timeframe, the distribution of items appears in Figure 8. There are 20 items in the short term with scores of 40, 3 items with scores of 24, and 29 items with scores of 20. The short term items with scores of 40 appear in Table 1, those with scores of 24 appear in Table 2, and those with scores of 20 appear in Table 3.

The average score within each group are approximately equal, with the average for Crosscut at 25, Pipeline at 27, and Transport at 23.

Specific recommendations are found in each Key Area Item Assessment. The Master Item Table below identifies each item with its criticality and progress assessments.