This Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) #DTPH56-09-BAA-000001 seeks white papers on individual projects and consolidated Research and Development (R&D) programs addressing the pipeline safety program areas described below.
Researchers should visit http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/matrix/ to review all related research. The merit review panels will not evaluate any white paper that duplicates current or recent research efforts.
In 2005 and again in 2007 Congress acted to create additional and significantly larger demand for ethanol in motor fuel based not on environmental imperatives, but on national security: the perceived potential of alternative fuels to displace imported petroleum. Ethanol blending with motor fuel is currently mandated by the federal government as a partial substitute for gasoline. Increased ethanol use in the nation's vehicle fleet is a primary strategy of the Energy and Independence Security Act (EISA) of 2007, which includes a Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) calling for annual incremental increases in delivered biofuels (rising from about 7 billion gallons in 2007 to 36 billion gallons by 2022). EISA's renewable fuel requirements supplanted less ambitious requirements enacted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. These legislative enactments provided a powerful signal to private industry and the public of strong executive branch and congressional policy agreement on a commitment to federal activism in expanding the use of all alternative fuels.
To make alternative fuels widely available they must be produced in sufficient quantities and must be transported from production centers to areas of use. Energy transmission pipelines are the lowest cost method to transport alternative fuels once sufficient quantities are consolidated near pipeline entry point, therefore the economics of pipeline transportation is justified. This is much the same as the transportation requirements for petroleum products and natural gas. Entry and expansion of pipelines into alternative fuels transportation will change the evolution of their usage and direct where infrastructure investments are made.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) is the primary federal regulatory agency responsible for ensuring the safe, reliable and environmentally sound transportation of energy products by pipeline.
This authority enables PHMSA to address issues related to the transportation of alternative fuels in pipelines. The stage appears set to develop significant momentum to review asset compatibility, regulatory requirements and the market drivers for many alternative fuels. Partnerships between PHMSA, the pipeline industry, other Federal and State agencies and the emergency first responder community are rapidly addressing infrastructure challenges and removing the technical and regulatory barriers for transportation of some alternative fuels. These initiatives are critical for enabling alternative fuel usage to grow nationwide and reach government production targets.
PHMSA is issuing this research solicitation in response to further address ethanol gaps identified at a recent workshop and to begin addressing a variety of other alternative fuels having limited focus to date.
The Safe & Reliable Ethanol Transportation & Storage Technical Road Mapping Workshop was held in Dublin, Ohio on October 25 and 26, 2007. PHMSA participated with the support of various stakeholders such as the Department of Defense, the Association of Oil Pipe Lines (AOPL), the American Petroleum Institute (API) and Pipeline Research Council International (PRCI).
The workshop resulted in a common understanding of current research efforts, a listing of key challenges facing government and industry, and a compilation of potential research areas whose exploration will assist with meeting these challenges and should therefore be considered in the development of new research and development applications.
Not all ethanol topics identified at the Workshop may fit within PHMSA's mission and may not be represented in this solicitation. Only topics described in this BAA and further described at the workshop will be accepted. Further details on the solicited research topics resulting from the workshop proceedings and technical report-out presentations are available at http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/rd/mtg_102507.htm.
In addition, this BAA will address Biodiesel, Biogas, and Hydrogen challenges for movement in pipelines.
Please visit http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/AlternativeFuels.htm for more information on alternative fuels.
Researchers should visit http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/matrix/ to review all related PHMSA- sponsored research addressing ethanol. Use the search feature and key word "ethanol" to sort for these projects. Do not propose research that duplicates these efforts. PHMSA may contact the researcher if more information is needed on the project and if applicable, suggest a partnership in the proposed effort. Any white paper submitted that duplicates current or recent efforts will be considered non-responsive and not evaluated.
With slow strain rate (SSR) tests, Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) has been observed for E20 through E95, but not for E10. Although there is only one published data point for E10, in a recent presentation to API, several additional proprietary data points for E10 and one for E15 (all with no SCC) were reported. Especially in view of the severe nature of the SSR test as compared with service conditions, this is compelling evidence that transportation of E10 by pipeline should pose no threat of SCC. Nevertheless, skeptics may want more data.
From an economic standpoint, it may be desirable to transport richer blends than E10. There is considerable interest in E20, E30, and E95. If E95 is transported between batches of gasoline, the transported mixture will contain all compositions including those between E30 and E95.
Some pipeline companies might prefer to surround the ethanol batch with something other than gasoline – for example, jet fuel. The effect of those other products has not been investigated.
Although the SSR tests show that SCC is possible in blends between E20 and E95, the SSR test imposes stress and strain conditions that are much more severe than those experienced by an operating pipeline. The SSR test is useful as a rapid screening tool for environments. A different test or alternative analysis techniques for the SSR test are needed for a more realistic evaluation of environmental conditions, or a reliable correlation needs to be developed to relate the results of SSR tests to performance under realistic pipeline conditions.
Suggested Research:
To fully understand SCC of steel in ethanol, it is necessary to consider crack initiation, growth of short cracks, and growth of large cracks. In addition, it would be useful to have a rapid screening test to determine if a given blend is or is not capable of causing SCC under the most severe possible operating conditions. It may be necessary to employ several different tests to meet all of those requirements.
Most of the ethanol SCC experiments to date have used the slow strain rate (SSR) test. That was a reasonable choice because the SSR test provides a relatively rapid and inexpensive way to screen environments. However, the SSR test utilizes stress and strain conditions that are much more severe than those experienced by an operating pipeline to obtain crack initiation in a short period. Therefore, this method may produce unrealistically conservative results. It also may not be appropriate for evaluating the susceptibility of steel because the imposed strain in the SSR test overrides the steel's resistance to creep and the effects of residual stresses that might be produced with surface treatments. While the SSR test may be retained as a rapid screening tool for most pipeline operating environments, a range of tests are needed for a more realistic evaluation of environmental conditions and steel susceptibility.
Notched tension or pre-cracked compact tension specimens subjected to small fluctuating loads superimposed on a mean load would be useful for measuring crack growth rates and for developing threshold fracture-toughness data for ethanol SCC. However, a fracture-mechanics analysis is not valid for very short cracks and not useful for studying initiation. Traditional fracture mechanics will predict impossibly high stresses for initiation and for growth of very small cracks. Furthermore, it also is not useful for evaluating the effects of surface treatments. Therefore, other kinds of specimens, such as a tapered tensile specimen, also should be considered.
While fracture mechanics tests should be considered for laboratory experiments directed at providing all of the causes or mechanism of SCC, they are not often of benefit for quick, quality assurance testing due to their complexity and sophistication of analyses. Therefore, a simpler and more rapid test for quality assurance is also desirable.
Furthermore, it is desirable to have published standards for each type of test to ensure that different testing labs produce data that are compatible and comparable.
Suggested Research:
Even with the severe SSR test, SCC has never been produced in the laboratory when oxygen is eliminated from the system. In fact, this is the only approach that has consistently prevented SCC. In principle, it might be possible to keep oxygen from ever getting into the ethanol during production and transport. There are several possible ways (sparging with nitrogen, vacuum treatment, reacting with steel wool, adding an oxygen scavenger, etc.) to remove oxygen before the ethanol is put into the pipeline. There must also be certainty that there is no source of oxygen in the pipeline and that oxygen is not re-introduced during pumping or related handling in facilities terminals.
Control of oxygen also is important in the production and transport of methanol and ammonia. It is possible that some of the approaches that have been developed for those industries might be modified and adapted for ethanol.
Suggested Research:
A number of inhibitors have been used to mitigate general corrosion and pitting corrosion of steel exposed to Fuel Grade Ethanol (FGE), but, at 1000 parts per million (PPM), they have not been able to prevent SCC in SSR tests. However, other chemicals – hydrazine and Di-Ethanol Amine (DEA) in particular, have been successful at either preventing SCC or substantially reducing its severity. It is unknown whether higher concentrations of corrosion inhibitors will be successful or if they would be successful in the less aggressive scenario of real pipeline operations.
Inhibition can be accomplished by several mechanisms, each of which has certain limitations. For example, some inhibitors form a passive film on the surface of the metal. An insufficient concentration could lead to a localized breakdown of the passive film that might result in SCC or severe pitting compared to less serious uniform corrosion in the absence of the inhibitor. Other inhibitors may shift the potential for SCC out of the critical range, but sources of stray current such as galvanic coupling to another metal or to corroded steel might shift the potential back. It is noteworthy that DEA inhibits SCC without shifting the potential, while Octel DCI-11 shifts the potential but does not inhibit SCC.
Suggested Research:
Although SCC of carbon steel is the primary concern with transport and storage of ethanol, the effect of ethanol on other metals and alloys that are in current pipeline and storage systems or might be used in future systems should also be considered. Apparently, pitting has been experienced with aluminum floaters.
Suggested Research:
Research to date has made significant progress at pointing toward possible ways to manage the problem, but there are still many aspects of the phenomenon that are not understood. A more thorough understanding of the factors that cause ethanol SCC may suggest better ways to manage the problem. Additionally, understanding these factors could provide a higher level of assurance that proposed solutions will, in fact, be successful in the long term.
There are large, unexplained differences in the propensity to produce SCC from different samples of ethanol from the field. It is not known how or if these differences are related to impurity levels or processing history. Different samples of ethanol also have large differences in corrosion potential. Evidence strongly suggests that the corrosion potential is an important factor; SCC has not been observed at potentials more negative than –200 mV (Ag/AgCl), but it does not always occur at more positive potentials.
Limited investigations of steel susceptibility and a review of field SCC failures have not revealed large differences in cracking susceptibility of various steel grades and compositions. These investigations were limited to relatively old ferrite-pearlite steels and were done with slow strain rate (SSR) tests, which can mask some of the critical effects. It is important to know whether modern, low-carbon steels exhibit any different levels of susceptibility. Furthermore, the effect of yield strength of steel on SCC is currently unknown because of the limited range of steel grades tested. Specifically, the effect of using high-strength grades (e.g., X100) is not known.
Incidents of ethanol SCC discovered in the field to date are associated with high residual and/or applied stresses. Internal pressures have been very low. Pipelines that transport ethanol are expected to operate at relatively high internal pressures, which will cause hoop stresses that may approach 72 % of the specified minimum yield strength. It is not known whether stresses of that level are sufficient to cause SCC. It also is not known whether fluctuations of the stress have an effect, as they do for external SCC. Field experience for ethanol SCC in facilities suggests this may be the case in tank roof plates and springs and tank bottom plates.
Suggested Research:
Discussions with stakeholder groups indicate biodiesel may be moved in pipelines at B5 to B20 concentrations with a limited possibility of movement in it purest form B100. Proposed research should keep this in mind when connecting the context of biodiesel systems with any potential integrity threats for biodiesel pipelines.
Interest levels in biodiesel vary across the nation and seem highest in the states producing the feedstocks and refining the fuel. Biodiesel currently has very limited movement if any by pipeline. However just like ethanol, biodiesel may pose some unique technical challenges for pipelines. PHMSA is interested with the integrity impacts that biodiesel may cause with metallic and non-metallic pipelines. Because most biodiesel production feeds local or regional end users within a state, the focus is more on gathering systems versus transmission pipelines.
Quality assurance and control issues are not a focus of this solicitation topic area and are best determined with batch testing by operators for their specific system. Any white paper submitted that duplicates current or recent efforts will be considered non-responsive and not evaluated.
Do corrosion inhibitors perform the same with biodiesel blends as in traditional hazardous liquid pipelines? What are the impacts of conductivity or corrosivity? Does biodiesel reduce or eliminate the need for conductivity additives?
Suggested Research:
As seen with ethanol pipeline systems in Brazil, does the introduction of biodiesel create integrity threats for seals, flanges, elastomers and meters? Besides mainline pipe, several metallic and non-metallic materials are used in a pipeline system and may be adversely affected from biodiesel pipeline transportation.
Suggested Research:
Researchers should visit http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/matrix/ to review all related research addressing biogas. Use the search feature and key word "biogas" to sort for these projects. The researcher may be contacted if more information is needed on the project and if applicable, suggest a partnership in your proposed effort. Any white paper submitted that duplicates current or recent efforts will be considered non-responsive and not evaluated.
Biogas is still a relatively new fuel for pipeline transportation and there are many sources that can now sustain higher volumes of biogas production. Urban and rural areas both have production and may be connected in the near future by a pipeline gathering network. PHMSA is interested in the integrity impacts that biogas may cause with metallic and non-metallic pipelines. Because most Biogas feeds local or regional end users within a state, the focus is more on gathering systems and not transmission pipelines.
Suggested Research:
PHMSA plays an important role in enabling the transition to a "hydrogen economy" and has been regulating pure hydrogen gas pipelines since 1970 via 49 CFR Part 192. There are approximately 700 miles of existing hydrogen pipelines under our regulation. Hydrogen pipelines were included as part of the integrity management requirements in 2003 to bolster the awareness of threats to safety and the continuity of service for these lines.
In view of sizable hydrogen investments being made by government and industry, it is prudent for PHMSA to support activities to ensure that hydrogen is transported safely. The PHMSA hydrogen-related expenditures, particularly for research and development (R&D), are expected to be small relative to those made by other organizations, both government and private. Given that PHMSA is responsible for ensuring pipeline safety, its work is likely to be a key factor in the successful and timely commercialization of hydrogen as an energy carrier. The results of R&D funded by others will provide most of the inputs for establishing the codes and standards that PHMSA uses as the basis for its regulations.
As the "hydrogen economy" moves from concept to reality and the public depends on hydrogen availability to meet significant power and/or transportation energy demands, the ability to safely and reliably transport and store larger quantities will become increasingly important. Currently, existing hydrogen pipelines mostly serve industrial demand and hydrogen is transported at constant, relatively low pressure. Confidence in the design, materials of construction, and performance of hydrogen pipelines should remain consistent regardless of the number of miles of pipeline. Given the public's stake in the uninterrupted movement of commodities throughout the nation, the ability of the hydrogen infrastructure to withstand natural disasters and accidents is a major PHMSA interest area.
In 2006 the U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) funded a study on hydrogen infrastructure safety assessment and research results gap analysis. The report is available online at: http://www.rita.dot.gov/publications/hydrogen_infrastructure_safety_analysis/ . Not all gaps identified in the RITA report fit within PHMSA's mission and may not be represented in this solicitation. Only topics in this BAA will be accepted. Additional information on hydrogen related gaps and challenges facing Pipeline Safety visit the Stakeholder Communications page at: http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/hydrogen.htm?nocache=9376 .
Suggested Research: Develop an individual project or consolidated program to support the following research, development and testing of current materials, engineering designs and systems and evaluation activities required to support industry consensus standards for the transport of hydrogen by pipeline:
This hydrogen research should be coordinated with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers since they are crafting a new piping standard addressed in these areas..
PHMSA is seeking white papers on individual projects and consolidated R&D programs addressing the pipeline safety program areas presented in this solicitation. PHMSA is focused on three specific results.
The research team members should include where applicable, technology developers, trade organizations, service providers, pipeline operators and, if appropriate, standards development organizations. In addition, other Federal and state stakeholder involvement should be sought when they could be affected. These measures raise confidence that proposed research will achieve desired benefits/results and assist the merit review panel in evaluating submissions. White papers should identify what benefit/result the research will have and who is partnering on the project to achieve the desired aim.
A consolidated R&D program white paper from a team's lead organization should identify opportunities for integrated R&D that will involve contributions from several organizations whose combined expertise will contribute greater efficiency and effectiveness to R&D in the proposed program areas. Double submissions will not be accepted; you must choose a path of individual or consolidated as your white paper type. Merit review panels will determine at the proposal phase, if consolidated programs should be broken into individual projects. You may not submit individual projects both as an individual project and part of a consolidated program at the white paper phase.
PHMSA believes measuring research results and impacts are paramount to the future sustainability of its Pipeline Safety R&D Program. Researchers must assist and keep this goal in mind when developing white papers and proposals. The following bullets are recommended guidelines in proposing a project.
To gain a historical perspective of PHMSA's Pipeline Safety R&D goals, strategy and descriptions of all awarded research, visit the PHMSA Pipeline Safety R&D Program webpage at: http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/rd/index.htm .
A response to this solicitation must clearly identify the ultimate goals of the proposed program or project. Responses could contribute technology or knowledge to organizations that supply technology in the field or to organizations seeking to develop or update industry consensus standards.
If a white paper reaches the full proposal stage, the full proposal must include cost sharing contributions of at least fifty percent of the proposed project's cost to be considered.
Each white paper must include the following contact information: point of contact, organization name and complete street address, organization DUNS number, organization Tax Identification Number (TIN), telephone number, fax number, and email address.
White papers are not to exceed five (5) pages (not including a title page). The information the merit review panel will use to evaluate white papers, must be contained within the 5 pages using 1 inch margins all around and 12 point Arial or Times New Roman font. If desired, white papers can have attachments, appendices and backup materials, as back-up information for reviewers. This must not exceed a total of fifteen (15) pages (not including a title page).
The DOT/PHMSA procurement office will consider all applications exceeding the core 5 or with attachments, 15 page limitation as non-responsive. Non responsive applications will not be provided to the merit review panel.
The aging workforce poses major challenges for government and the pipeline industry. Most agree that workforce planning now can minimize this future challenge. Therefore, the PHMSA Pipeline Safety R&D Program would like to encourage applicants to:
PHMSA views this effort as an opportunity for students to gain experience, understand how their engineering discipline is relevant and perhaps find employment by researchers, the pipeline industry or the government. Researchers may identify the engineering and technical disciplines that are relevant to the project scope, identify the portions of the project scope that are good learning opportunities for students and coordinate with local colleges or universities to identify candidate students and schedule their involvement in the project scope timeline.
PHMSA sees several benefits to such participation:
PHMSA does not expect offerors to extensively address this participation at the white paper stage if the offeror chooses to participate. But, offerors should be aware of the expected details and options in advance of a proposal submission if a white paper is found acceptable to compete further. After the white paper review, PHMSA will again encourage those offerors selected for full proposals of the options for carrying out such a program:
The following options will be encouraged at the Request for Full Proposal stage:
Option 1: Researchers may propose a graduate student as part of the project team. This is already occurring on a very limited frequency. The merit review panel will evaluate the graduate student in the same manner as other project team members. A chapter about relationships or agreements with local colleges or universities may be included with description of the engineering or technical disciplines relevant to the project scope. Some focus should be made on how the selected graduate student is aligned with the scope and how he/she will assist critical scope items under the supervision of the research contractor staff.
Option 2: Researchers may include an appendix section addressing any relationship or agreement with local colleges or universities. It should describe the engineering or technical disciplines relevant to the project scope and how students can be mentored by witnessing scope items such as lab tests, analytical work, field work or demonstrations. PHMSA will not consider these proposals differently or have any review criteria evaluating Option 2. Researchers will insert a cost item in the "Other Items" section of the Accounting & Milestones Table and entitle it as "Student Mentoring." Other billable items already listed in this section include Peer Review and Public Paper costs.
An interested party must address the selection criteria by providing sufficient information and by keeping the entire paper within the five (5) page limit. Specifics on the selection criteria are as follows:
All evaluation factors are of equal importance.
A technical merit review panel will only review white papers that address solicited topics in this solicitation and meet document guidelines. An offeror providing a white paper deemed worthy of further consideration and meeting the criteria of this solicitation will be notified with possible suggestions for change in scope and detailed guidelines for submitting a full proposal for either individual or consolidated proposals but not both. The merit review panel will again evaluate the proposal against the same review criteria.
A proposal must include cost sharing contribution of at least fifty percent (50%) of the proposed project's total cost to be considered. A white paper only needs to include a "ballpark" cost estimate including work force and cost share breakdown. A full proposal must include detailed cost sharing contribution documentation including cost analysis and certified letters of commitment from project or program participants. Cost sharing contributions can include cash and third party in-kind in accordance with 2 CFR 215 (OMB CIRCULAR A-110), Section 215.23-Cost Sharing or Matching. To qualify as acceptable cost sharing contributions must meet the following criteria; 1) Are verifiable from the recipient's records, 2) Are not included as contributions for any other federally-assisted project or program, 3) Are necessary and reasonable for proper and efficient accomplishment of project or program objectives, 4) Are allowable under the applicable cost principles, 5) Are not paid by the Federal Government under another award, except where authorized by Federal statute to be used for cost sharing or matching, 6) Are provided for in the approved budget when required by the Federal awarding agency, and 7) Conform to other provisions of this Circular, as applicable.
This FedBizOpps notice constitutes the solicitation as contemplated by FAR 6.102(d)(2). A formal Request for Proposal (RFP) or other type of solicitation regarding this announcement will not be issued.
The procedures for submitting a white paper is as follows: 1) only electronic submissions will be accepted; and, 2) prior to submitting a White Paper, each organization must first complete (electronically) a Registration Form http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/matrix/RfpInfo21.rdm .
Additional instructions regarding the preparation and electronic submission of the White Papers along with individual questions and answers are available on the website identified above. White Papers must be uploaded by 5:00 P.M. EST, November 14, 2008. Submitted white papers remain the property of PHMSA.
Upon receipt of appropriations, PHMSA anticipates making multiple awards for individual and consolidated research projects. It is expected that total funding for awards resulting from this BAA will not exceed $3,000,000.
Any questions are to be directed to the PHMSA Office of Contracts and Procurement as listed in this solicitation PHMSA encourages the widest participation, particularly involvement with universities and other academic institutions, as well as with individuals, corporations, non-profit organizations, small and small disadvantaged businesses, and State or local governments or other entities.
| Research |
| Home Page |
| Library |
| R&D Home Page |
| Alt Fuels |
| Solicitation Q&A |
| Registration |
| General |
| Questions and Comments |
| PHMSA Communications |
| Context |
| Print-Friendly |
| Log In... |