SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “risk”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 199 records · Page 11

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2024

NASA Risk Management Handbook: Version 2.0, Part 2

The purpose of this handbook is to provide an in-depth reference for the practice of risk management in NASA, updating the guidance offered in its original version, NASA/SP-2011-3422 (November 2011), and closely aligning the updated guidance with the current NASA Procedural Requirements for Agency Risk Management, NPR 8000.4, and the parent NASA Policy Directive for NASA Governance and Strategic Management, NPD 1000.0 (January 2020). NPD 1000.0 introduces with emphasis the concept of “Risk Leadership,” making it a fundamental tenet and pillar of the risk management culture that it advocates for the Agency. NPR 8000.4 applies this concept and establishes Risk Management (RM) requirements for the Agency as an integrated enterprise, as well as the RM requirements for portfolio elements within the enterprise. Such elements include the various programs and projects that contribute to the Agency’s objectives and the various institutional activities carried out by entities that contribute to mission support. The present version of the handbook also emphasizes the integration of risk management processes across activity and project life cycles and their coordination and interaction with day-to-day programmatic and organizational functions. Areas of application of risk assessment and management that were not covered with specific guidance in the preceding version are addressed in this version with in-depth examples. The handbook is structured into two parts, whose chapters are in turn organized in a sequential order intended to facilitate a gradual and progressive introduction of the reader to risk management principles and practices. Part 1 of the handbook is dedicated to the introduction of the basic foundations of the NASA integrated risk management framework, the related fundamental risk concepts, the description of the risk management and decision processes that are to be implemented within the framework, the discussion of the risk assessment techniques that should be utilized in support of such processes, and the management and organizational interactions and interfaces that should be enabled to implement an effective integration of risk management activities within the Agency. Part 2 provides self-contained, end-to-end examples of application of the processes and techniques introduced in Part 1, in the context of both programmatic (i.e., project and/or mission related) and institutional activities.

Risk Leadership↗

DOE OSTI2021

Recommended Practices for Managing Induced Seismicity Risk Associated with Geologic Carbon Storage

The geologic storage of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) is one method to help reduce or eliminate atmospheric CO 2 emissions. The sequestered CO 2 is originally captured from the atmosphere or from a stationary industrial source and subsequently injected into a deep subsurface porous rock formation. To facilitate the successful deployment of field scale carbon storage projects, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is developing tools and protocols for defensible, science-based frameworks to quantify and mitigate risks associated with the long-term storage of CO 2 . This protocol specifically addresses the risk of induced seismicity due to injection in a geologic carbon storage (GCS) site. This integrated and risk-based protocol is a product of the U.S. DOE Fossil Energy’s National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP), a multi-year collaborative research effort of Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). These recommended practices describe a set of 7 steps to evaluate, manage, communicate, and mitigate the risk of induced seismicity at GCS sites. The base methodology of the recommended practices follows a framework similar to the Protocol for Addressing Induced Seismicity Associated with Enhanced Geothermal Systems (Majer et al., 2012), developed for the Geothermal Technology Office of the U.S. DOE. These recommended practices present a framework to systematically assess the induced seismicity risk and quantify the associated uncertainties. These recommendations are based on current research and are sufficiently general to allow for modification and application to a variety of different types of sites. The substance of the recommended practices contained herein includes both technical and non-technical issues, and covers all operational stages of the GCS project lifecycle. They start at the preliminary risk assessment phase, continue through site assessment and characterization, include best practice communication and seismic monitoring plan methodologies, discuss the evaluation and mitigation of seismic hazard and risk, and closes with an exploration of operational management plans, which conclude when the induced seismicity risk abates back to background level. The focus of these recommendations is on actively managing the risks associated with induced seismicity by developing an actionable risk management plan that starts at the project proposal stage and continues through site closure through an iterative assessment and improvement process. The audience of this document is expected to include all interested stakeholders (e.g., operators, project developers, regulators, and the general public) and is expressly written to be accessible to this broad range of partners. This document is intended to disseminate knowledge gained through recent advances in the science of induced seismicity hazard and risk assessments, to provide updates based on recent experience gained by similar corollary injection-induced seismicity cases, and most importantly to establish a uniform framework to carry out a successful induced seismicity risk management plan for carbon storage projects in the future. These recommendations do not directly address any domestic or international regulations or standards. A complementary NRAP report makes recommendations for the assessment and management of environmental subsurface risks associated with unwanted fluid migration at GCS sites (Thomas et al., 2021) and should be referred to in order to address those additional GCS site risks.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2021

Recommended Practices for Managing Induced Seismicity Risk Associated with Geologic Carbon Storage

The geologic storage of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) is one method to help reduce or eliminate atmospheric CO 2 emissions. The sequestered CO 2 is originally captured from the atmosphere or from a stationary industrial source and subsequently injected into a deep subsurface porous rock formation. To facilitate the successful deployment of field scale carbon storage projects, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is developing tools and protocols for defensible, science-based frameworks to quantify and mitigate risks associated with the long-term storage of CO 2 . This protocol specifically addresses the risk of induced seismicity due to injection in a geologic carbon storage (GCS) site. This integrated and risk-based protocol is a product of the U.S. DOE Fossil Energy’s National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP), a multi-year collaborative research effort of Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). These recommended practices describe a set of 7 steps to evaluate, manage, communicate, and mitigate the risk of induced seismicity at GCS sites. The base methodology of the recommended practices follows a framework similar to the $\textit{Protocol for Addressing Induced Seismicity Associated with Enhanced Geothermal Systems}$ (Majer et al., 2012), developed for the Geothermal Technology Office of the U.S. DOE. These recommended practices present a framework to systematically assess the induced seismicity risk and quantify the associated uncertainties. These recommendations are based on current research and are sufficiently general to allow for modification and application to a variety of different types of sites. The substance of the recommended practices contained herein includes both technical and non-technical issues, and covers all operational stages of the GCS project lifecycle. They start at the preliminary risk assessment phase, continue through site assessment and characterization, include best practice communication and seismic monitoring plan methodologies, discuss the evaluation and mitigation of seismic hazard and risk, and closes with an exploration of operational management plans, which conclude when the induced seismicity risk abates back to background level. The focus of these recommendations is on actively managing the risks associated with induced seismicity by developing an actionable risk management plan that starts at the project proposal stage and continues through site closure through an iterative assessment and improvement process. The audience of this document is expected to include all interested stakeholders (e.g., operators, project developers, regulators, and the general public) and is expressly written to be accessible to this broad range of partners. This document is intended to disseminate knowledge gained through recent advances in the science of induced seismicity hazard and risk assessments, to provide updates based on recent experience gained by similar corollary injection-induced seismicity cases, and most importantly to establish a uniform framework to carry out a successful induced seismicity risk management plan for carbon storage projects in the future. These recommendations do not directly address any domestic or international regulations or standards. A complementary NRAP report makes recommendations for the assessment and management of environmental subsurface risks associated with unwanted fluid migration at GCS sites (Thomas et al., 2021) and should be referred to in order to address those additional GCS site risks

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

NASA NTRS1999

Continuous Risk Management: An Overview

Software risk management is important because it helps avoid disasters, rework, and overkill, but more importantly because it stimulates win-win situations. The objectives of software risk management are to identify, address, and eliminate software risk items before they become threats to success or major sources of rework. In general, good project managers are also good managers of risk. It makes good business sense for all software development projects to incorporate risk management as part of project management. The Software Assurance Technology Center (SATC) at NASA GSFC has been tasked with the responsibility for developing and teaching a systems level course for risk management that provides information on how to implement risk management. The course was developed in conjunction with the Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie Mellon University, then tailored to the NASA systems community. This is an introductory tutorial to continuous risk management based on this course. The rational for continuous risk management and how it is incorporated into project management are discussed. The risk management structure of six functions is discussed in sufficient depth for managers to understand what is involved in risk management and how it is implemented. These functions include: (1) Identify the risks in a specific format; (2) Analyze the risk probability, impact/severity, and timeframe; (3) Plan the approach; (4) Track the risk through data compilation and analysis; (5) Control and monitor the risk; (6) Communicate and document the process and decisions.

Rosenberg, Linda↗

NASA NTRS2004

Risk Management Implementation Tool

Continuous Risk Management (CM) is a software engineering practice with processes, methods, and tools for managing risk in a project. It provides a controlled environment for practical decision making, in order to assess continually what could go wrong, determine which risk are important to deal with, implement strategies to deal with those risk and assure the measure effectiveness of the implemented strategies. Continuous Risk Management provides many training workshops and courses to teach the staff how to implement risk management to their various experiments and projects. The steps of the CRM process are identification, analysis, planning, tracking, and control. These steps and the various methods and tools that go along with them, identification, and dealing with risk is clear-cut. The office that I worked in was the Risk Management Office (RMO). The RMO at NASA works hard to uphold NASA s mission of exploration and advancement of scientific knowledge and technology by defining and reducing program risk. The RMO is one of the divisions that fall under the Safety and Assurance Directorate (SAAD). I worked under Cynthia Calhoun, Flight Software Systems Engineer. My task was to develop a help screen for the Continuous Risk Management Implementation Tool (RMIT). The Risk Management Implementation Tool will be used by many NASA managers to identify, analyze, track, control, and communicate risks in their programs and projects. The RMIT will provide a means for NASA to continuously assess risks. The goals and purposes for this tool is to provide a simple means to manage risks, be used by program and project managers throughout NASA for managing risk, and to take an aggressive approach to advertise and advocate the use of RMIT at each NASA center.

Wright, Shayla L.↗

NASA NTRS2005

Communicating Risk to Program Managers

Program Managers (PM) can protect program resources and improve chances of success by anticipating, understanding and managing risks. Understanding the range of potential risks helps one to avoid or manage the risks. A PM must choose which risks to accept to reduce fire fighting, must meet the expectations of stakeholders consistently, and avoid falling into costly "black holes" that may open. A good risk management process provides the PM more confidence to seize opportunities save money, meet schedule, even improve relationships with people important to the program. Evidence of managing risk and sound internal controls can mean better support from superiors for the program by building a trust and reputation from being on top of issues. Risk managers have an obligation to provide the PM with the best information possible to allow the benefits to be realized (Small Business Consortium, 2004). The Institute for Chartered Accountants in England and Wales sees very important benefits for companies in providing better information about what they do to assess and manage key business risks. Such information will: a) provide practical forward-looking information; b) reduce the cost of capital; c) encourage better risk management; and d) improve accountability for stewardship, investor protection and the usefulness of financial reporting. We are particularly convinced that enhanced risk reporting will help listed companies obtain capital at the lowest possible cost (The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England &Wales, June 2002). Risk managers can take a significant role in quantifying the success of their department and communicating those figures to executive (program) management levels while pushing for a broader risk management role. Overall, risk managers must show that risk management work matters in the most crucial place-the bottom line- as they prove risk management can be a profit center (Sullivan, 2004).

Shivers, C. Herbert↗

NASA NTRS2011

Risk Assessment Overview

Risk assessment is used in many industries to identify and manage risks. Initially developed for use on aeronautical and nuclear systems, risk assessment has been applied to transportation, chemical, computer, financial, and security systems among others. It is used to gain an understanding of the weaknesses or vulnerabilities in a system so modification can be made to increase operability, efficiency, and safety and to reduce failure and down-time. Risk assessment results are primary inputs to risk-informed decision making; where risk information including uncertainty is used along with other pertinent information to assist management in the decision-making process. Therefore, to be useful, a risk assessment must be directed at specific objectives. As the world embraces the globalization of trade and manufacturing, understanding the associated risk become important to decision making. Applying risk assessment techniques to a global system of development, manufacturing, and transportation can provide insight into how the system can fail, the likelihood of system failure and the consequences of system failure. The risk assessment can identify those elements that contribute most to risk and identify measures to prevent and mitigate failures, disruptions, and damaging outcomes. In addition, risk associated with public and environment impact can be identified. The risk insights gained can be applied to making decisions concerning suitable development and manufacturing locations, supply chains, and transportation strategies. While risk assessment has been mostly applied to mechanical and electrical systems, the concepts and techniques can be applied across other systems and activities. This paper provides a basic overview of the development of a risk assessment.

Prassinos, Peter G.↗

NASA NTRS2015

Addressing Human System Risks to Future Space Exploration

NASA is contemplating future human exploration missions to destinations beyond low Earth orbit, including the Moon, deep-space asteroids, and Mars. While we have learned much about protecting crew health and performance during orbital space flight over the past half-century, the challenges of these future missions far exceed those within our current experience base. To ensure success in these missions, we have developed a Human System Risk Board (HSRB) to identify, quantify, and develop mitigation plans for the extraordinary risks associated with each potential mission scenario. The HSRB comprises research, technology, and operations experts in medicine, physiology, psychology, human factors, radiation, toxicology, microbiology, pharmacology, and food sciences. Methods: Owing to the wide range of potential mission characteristics, we first identified the hazards to human health and performance common to all exploration missions: altered gravity, isolation/confinement, increased radiation, distance from Earth, and hostile/closed environment. Each hazard leads to a set of risks to crew health and/or performance. For example the radiation hazard leads to risks of acute radiation syndrome, central nervous system dysfunction, soft tissue degeneration, and carcinogenesis. Some of these risks (e.g., acute radiation syndrome) could affect crew health or performance during the mission, while others (e.g., carcinogenesis) would more likely affect the crewmember well after the mission ends. We next defined a set of design reference missions (DRM) that would span the range of exploration missions currently under consideration. In addition to standard (6-month) and long-duration (1-year) missions in low Earth orbit (LEO), these DRM include deep space sortie missions of 1 month duration, lunar orbital and landing missions of 1 year duration, deep space journey and asteroid landing missions of 1 year duration, and Mars orbital and landing missions of 3 years duration. We then assessed the likelihood and consequences of each risk against each DRM, using three levels of likelihood (Low: less than or equal to 0.1%; Medium: 0.1%–1.0%; High: greater than or equal to 1.0%) and four levels of consequence ranging from Very Low (temporary or insignificant) to High (death, loss of mission, or significant reduction to length or quality of life). Quantitative evidence from clinical, operational, and research sources were used whenever available. Qualitative evidence was used when quantitative evidence was unavailable. Expert opinion was used whenever insufficient evidence was available. Results: A set of 30 risks emerged that will require further mitigation efforts before being accepted by the Agency. The likelihood by consequence risk assessment process provided a means of prioritizing among the risks identified. For each of the high priority risks, a plan was developed to perform research, technology, or standards development thought necessary to provide suitable reduction of likelihood or consequence to allow agency acceptance. Conclusion: The HSRB process has successfully identified a complete set of risks to human space travelers on planned exploration missions based on the best evidence available today. Risk mitigation plans have been established for the highest priority risks. Each risk will be reassessed annually to track the progress of our risk mitigation efforts.

Paloski, W. H.↗

DOE OSTI2020

Risk to Ecological Resources on Burial Waste Sites on the Hanford Site, Washington - 20248

The US and other nations have a large nuclear and chemical waste remediation task remaining from World War II, the Cold War, and industrial activities. The US Department of Energy (DOE) has the largest task in the U.S., with Hanford (Washington State) being the most contaminated site, with the longest and most costly cleanup program projected to extend to the end of the century. One of the greatest remediation problems at Hanford are the burial waste facilities, some of which are inside the 200 Areas on the Central Plateau, while others are outside the 200 Areas. These areas are associated with waste sites, pipes, and contaminated trenches, posing technical cleanup challenges to meet DoE's remediation goals, including protection of human health and the environment commensurate with Tri- Party Agreement and current regulatory requirements. In this paper we select one of the legacy waste sites (the BC Cribs and Trenches) as a case study to explore how risk to ecological resources varies during and as a consequence of remediation on sites primarily considered legacy waste sites. We used the risk methodology developed by the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP) during the Hanford Site-wide Risk Review. The CRESP methodology included evaluating the risk to receptors, including human health, the Columbia River, groundwater, and ecological and cultural resources. The risk evaluation process for ecological receptors included defining the boundaries of each evaluation unit (EU) to be remediated, definition of a suitable buffer area that might be affected, and consideration of the known resource value based on field work. This information, coupled with known remediation options or strategies, allowed us to develop a risk rating for ecological resources. Site risks were evaluated on a scale of 'not discernible' to 'very high' risk. Consideration of the risks at the buried waste sites was complicated by uncertainties in remediation methods and the degree of restoration that would occur as part of the remediation process. We use the BC Cribs and Trenches as a case study to explore why the risks are low currently but increase during remediation. The current 'not discernible to low' risk rating is due to the lack of high quality ecological resources on the BC Cribs and Trenches EU, except for edge areas (with some state-listed species). During remediation the risks increase to 'medium', mainly due to high quality resources on adjacent buffer lands, which could be disrupted during active remediation. Medium and high quality resources on the edge of the site are continuous with higher quality native shrub-steppe habitat on the buffer. Ecological resources on some of the areas surrounding the 200 East and West Areas are some of the highest quality shrub-steppe areas on the Hanford Site, and risk to these resources could be prevented by planning before and during remediation to minimize disruption. For example, lay down areas for the BC Cribs and Trenches can be minimized by careful planning. Heavy truck and other vehicular traffic can be minimized. Spread of the noxious weeds now on some of the site can be prevented, and the spread of invasive species into the site (particularly near undisturbed shrub-steppe habitat) can be reduced. Further, the areas around and between the 200 East and West Areas have been largely undisturbed and can serve as a source of seeds and propagules for any revegetation that occurs as part of the remediation process. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2020

Host phylogeny matters: Examining sources of variation in infection risk by blood parasites across a tropical montane bird community in India

Abstract Background Identifying patterns and drivers of infection risk among host communities is crucial to elucidate disease dynamics and predict infectious disease risk in wildlife populations. Blood parasites of the genera Plasmodium and Haemoproteus are a diverse group of vector-borne protozoan parasites that affect bird populations globally. Despite their widespread distribution and exceptional diversity, factors underlying haemosporidian infection risk in wild bird communities remain poorly understood. While some studies have examined variation in avian haemosporidian risk, researchers have primarily focused on host ecological traits without considering host phylogenetic relationships. In this study, we employ a phylogenetically informed approach to examine the association between host ecological traits and haemosporidian infection risk in endemic bird communities in the Western Ghats Sky Islands. Methods We used parasite sequence data based on partial mitochondrial cytochrome b gene, that was amplified from genomic DNA extracted from 1177 birds (28 species) across the Western Ghats to assess infection of birds with haemosporidian parasites. We employed a Bayesian phylogenetic mixed effect modelling approach to test whether haemosporidian infection risk was affected by seven species-specific and four individual-level ecological predictors. We also examined the effect of host phylogenetic relationships on the observed patterns of variation in haemosporidian infection risk by estimating phylogenetic signal. Results Our study shows that host ecological traits and host phylogeny differentially influence infection risk by Plasmodium (generalist parasite) and Haemoproteus (specialist parasite). For Plasmodium , we found that sociality, sexual dimorphism and foraging strata were important ecological predictors. For Haemoproteus , patterns of infection risk among host species were associated with sociality, species elevation and individual body condition. Interestingly, variance in infection risk explained by host phylogeny was higher for Haemoproteus parasites compared to Plasmodium . Conclusions Our study highlights that while host ecological traits promoting parasite exposure and host susceptibility are important determinants of infection risk, host phylogeny also contributes substantially to predicting patterns of haemosporidian infection risk in multi-host communities. Importantly, infection risk is driven by joint contributions of host ecology and host phylogeny and studying these effects together could increase our ability to better understand the drivers of infection risk and predict future disease threats. Graphical abstract

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2021

Numerical Simulations of Geologic Storage Reservoir Management to Support Risk Mitigation Evaluation

This report provides a detailed description of a set of numerical simulations that represent reservoir behavior over time in response to different operational decision scenarios for detection of potential leakage and reduction or avoidance of leakage impact at a hypothetical geological carbon storage (GCS) site. These simulations serve as the basis for a series of GCS leakage risk forecasts that are to be developed using the National Risk Assessment Partnership’s Open-Source Integrated Assessment Model (NRAP-Open-IAM), and a demonstration of a simple decision support workflow for evaluation of mitigation strategies based on results of those system model forecasts. This risk assessment and decision support study is forthcoming. Four injection scenarios were considered: a constant rate carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) injection case (base case), a case with CO 2 injection rate adjustment, a case with early termination of injection operations, and a case with brine extraction. CO 2 injection operations were controlled to ensure that the pressure transient remains below the defined manageable reservoir fracture pressure, with consideration shown to hypothetical locations within the modeled spatial domain where the overburden was weaker and lower transient pressure increases were allowable. Additionally, a brine extraction alternative was considered as a reservoir management and risk mitigation option to reduce reservoir pressure, steer the plume away from any hypothetical geohazard such as fault as needed, and enhance storage capacity. Such operational actions contribute to risk management overtime. This study explores the potential utility of reservoir management for risk reduction at GCS sites. This study shows that the injection design may modify the time to CO 2 breakthrough at a legacy well; in particular, these results show that brine extraction can add value for mitigating risk both by delaying leakage and reducing pressure build-up. For the scenario considered, both pressure plots and pressure distributions demonstrate that pressure build-up was decreased by 3% with brine extraction. Additionally, extraction of brine afforded enhancement of CO 2 storage capacity by 5% compared to the base case. These findings suggest that brine extraction has substantial potential to steer the risk-related reservoir effects away from known geohazards (e.g., faults and legacy wells) by conducting pressure transient effects and CO 2 plume movement toward the production well. Injection rate adjustment scenarios considered in this study show potential value for managing both reservoir pressure transients and CO 2 plume behavior. Operational actions for reducing injection and/or early termination of injection (as compared to the base case), however, require careful design; tailoring both the extent and timing of injection rate adjustment over the injection and post-injection operational period must be thoroughly planned to balance maximizing storage and minimizing subsurface environmental risk. The study also gives preliminary consideration to the effectiveness that monitoring strategy may play in providing useful information to inform reservoir management decisions for risk reduction. Two types of monitoring were considered: 1) pressure build-up or pressure transient; and 2) potential leakage detection from a CO 2 mass or plume. Four hypothetical legacy wells, two plugged and two abandoned, were placed in the model domain. Monitoring along these wells was measured over time in individual stacked reservoir formations and shale formations to support risk mitigation decisions, especially operational decisions that assisted in risk reduction. These simulations will serve as the basis for a series of GCS leakage risk forecasts that are to be developed using NRAP’s Open-IAM, and demonstration of a simple decision support workflow for comparative assessment of mitigation alternatives based on results of those system model forecasts. This risk assessment and decision support study is forthcoming.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2021

Cyber-Physical Risks for Advanced Reactors

Cybersecurity for industrial control systems is an important consideration that advance reactor designers will need to consider. How cyber risk is managed is the subject of on-going research and debate in the nuclear industry. This report seeks to identify potential cyber risks for advance reactors. Identified risks are divided into absorbed risk and licensee managed risk to clearly show how cyber risks for advance reactors can potentially be transferred. Absorbed risks are risks that originate external to the licensee but may unknowingly propagate into the plant. Insights include (1) the need for unification of safety, physical security, and cybersecurity risk assessment frameworks to ensure optimal coordination of risk, (2) a quantitative risk assessment methodology in conjunction with qualitative assessments may be useful in efficiently and sufficiently managing cyber risks, and (3) cyber risk management techniques should align with a risked informed regulatory framework for advance reactors.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2022

Large-scale Hydrogen Storage – Risk Assessment Seattle City Light and Port of Seattle [Abstract]

This CRADA presents the strategy that Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) and Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) will take to support Seattle City Light (SCL), and the Port of Seattle (Port) in performing a risk assessment of large-scale hydrogen storage. Risk assessment is often used to ensure that adequate measures are taken to protect workers and the public, the environment, infrastructure, and assets. A detailed risk assessment can also be used to direct funding and upgrades, to specific components and sub-systems in order to mitigate risks to the larger system. In this way risk assessments are often employed as a part of a larger risk management strategy, with the goal of minimizing the occurrence of hazards and to identify means to limit their consequences. Risk assessment is often used to engage and inform regulators, and to communicate how specific regulations are being met. However, it is important to note that the proposed work is not intended for SCL and the Port to use in order to gain regulatory acceptance for their proposed activities. The work performed as a part of this effort will be a preliminary risk assessment for early-stage component and system designs and should be considered research and development (R&D). As such, the proposed work will be performed to a quality level and design maturity consistent with R&D and is not considered appropriate for final safety analysis and regulatory compliance purposes. Previous and on-going work at SCL and the Port demonstrated the utility of deploying hydrogen systems at the Port. The deployment of hydrogen at the Port is a part of a larger vision of using hydrogen to address a range of issues for SCL and the Port. These include large-scale fueling of MD/HD vehicles, cargo-handling equipment (CHE), and harbor vessels to reduce emissions; support of adjacent LD vehicles; support of critical port operations during extreme events (i.e., resiliency); deferral of more capital- and time-intensive electrical distribution system upgrades while still supporting evolving port operations and decarbonization efforts; facilitating electrification by establishing energy storage as a grid resource, starting at strategic port locations; creation of a flexible market resource that can be used by SCL to generate revenue via arbitrage; support of planned future maritime operations that involve heavy use of hydrogen for ocean-going vessels; and future end-use applications involving natural gas pipeline hydrogen injection. Ultimately, the success of these activities is underpinned by the deployed storage capacity. Large-scale deployment of hydrogen systems will require hydrogen storage at a scale that has not been demonstrated. In addition, the ideal location for such multi-use systems is near the end user which will often necessitate deploying into urban and/or industrial areas. A detailed risk assessment using the Port as a test case is necessary to ensure the deployment of large-scale hydrogen is successful. Many technologies have been proposed for hydrogen storage; however, these technologies need to be analyzed as they apply to an actual site. The physical infrastructure and hydrogen use cases for the Port will be analyzed, and a risk assessment for compressed hydrogen, liquified hydrogen, and Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carrier (LOHC) storage will be performed. These risk assessments will be useful for understanding how each of these technologies would perform in terms of facility and public safety. The operating states of the proposed hydrogen systems at the Port will be analyzed and incorporated into the storage risk assessment. Scalability will also be analyzed to understand how future port uses would affect the overall risk assessment. Finally, using the risk assessment as a tool to inform engagement and to gain stakeholder acceptance will be explored.

08 HYDROGEN↗

DOE OSTI2025

Risk Assessment Considerations for Underground Hydrogen Storage in Depleted Gas Reservoirs

Underground hydrogen storage (UHS) in depleted reservoirs presents a promising solution for large-scale energy storage as hydrogen demand grows. As the UHS industry emerges, robust risk assessments are critical to ensuring safe operation of the storage facilities and minimizing the risk of accidents. This work explores risk assessment protocols for underground natural gas storage (UGS) in depleted reservoirs and identifies key considerations for repurposing these facilities for UHS. By examining the differences in physical and chemical properties between hydrogen and natural gas, this work highlights new and modified hazards that merits a reevaluation of traditional natural gas risk assessment practices. This investigation synthesizes insights from previous literature reviews and interviews with UGS industry experts and operators to identify key areas for adapting risk assessment methodologies for hydrogen. The insights gleaned from expert interviews indicate that existing risk assessment standards are non-prescriptive, leading to diverse company-specific risk assessment methodologies requiring substantial additions to become practical. Due to a lack of concrete risk assessment requirements, experience, and relevant data, this uncertainty is expected to be magnified considerably when considering hydrogen. This study identifies several areas for potential modification of existing risk assessment practices that could be considered by those developing standards or performing risk assessments for UHS. Specifically, risk assessments may be improved by including risks unique to hydrogen in existing standards, changing the magnitude of different risk factors in existing risk assessment protocols, and improving methods of data collection and communication across the industry to address large areas of uncertainty.

08 HYDROGEN↗

DOE OSTI2025

Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fuel Cell Electric Bus Hydrogen Storage and Refueling Facility

It is necessary to understand the safety implications and risk mitigation options for fuel cell electric bus fleet deployment, especially for related facilities responsible for operations such as production, storage, compression, and dispensing of hydrogen for use by the buses. In this report, we present a quantitative risk assessment for a potential fuel cell electric bus fleet that was motivated by efforts to improve resilience at the Portland International Airport but can be applicable to a range of hydrogen case studies and use cases. We estimated risk for a facility that produces, stores, compresses, and dispenses hydrogen for the fleet of buses, with a focus on individual risk to people in terms of annual frequency of fatality. We considered the frequency of hydrogen leaks that could result in harmful physical outcomes like jet fires or explosions, and the consequences of those outcomes for people. We created customized fault trees to calculate the frequencies of different sizes of leaks and event sequence diagrams to calculate ignition probabilities for the various leak sizes. We also leveraged the HyRAM+ toolkit to use these inputs to calculate overall risk for the facility, which we separated into one section responsible for producing, storing, and compressing hydrogen, and one section responsible for dispensing the hydrogen to the buses. We found that the dispensing area seemed to have a higher risk than the production/storage/compression area of the facility, largely because of the inclusion of a component with a high leak frequency (the heat exchanger used to cool the hydrogen before entering the vehicle, to prevent overheating and expansion of hydrogen in the onboard tank). For the example production and refueling facility we evaluated and the data we used for the analysis, the leak frequency had a larger impact on the risk differences between the two sections on the facility, compared to the physical outcome consequence, which was slightly different due to the varying fuel conditions, but not substantially different. Actions can be taken to prevent these hazards (e.g., lowering leak frequencies in system components) or to mitigate the consequences if they do occur (e.g., installing barriers to protect people if ignition events occur). The choice of which actions to take depends not only on safety considerations but also on space, time, staffing, feasibility, and financial constraints. Therefore, the quantitative risk assessment approach can help understand relative risk contributions from different components, leak sizes, consequences, and human actions, to prioritize risk reduction strategies and balance these parameters. The outcomes of this report may be useful for a variety of stakeholders working in the hydrogen, transportation, vehicle, and aviation sector, including those responsible for aspects like facility design, operations, and regulations. There is not a single value of risk that determines whether a hypothetical system is “safe” or not. The insights about risk mitigations may be leveraged, and the quantitative risk assessment approach can be applied to other case studies to understand risk priorities and contributions specific to different FCEB and hydrogen facility uses.

08 HYDROGEN↗

NASA NTRS2009

Microbial Risk Assessment

Historically, microbiological spaceflight requirements have been established in a subjective manner based upon expert opinion of both environmental and clinical monitoring results and the incidence of disease. The limited amount of data, especially from long-duration missions, has created very conservative requirements based primarily on the concentration of microorganisms. Periodic reevaluations of new data from later missions have allowed some relaxation of these stringent requirements. However, the requirements remain very conservative and subjective in nature, and the risk of crew illness due to infectious microorganisms is not well defined. The use of modeling techniques for microbial risk has been applied in the food and potable water industries and has exceptional potential for spaceflight applications. From a productivity standpoint, this type of modeling can (1) decrease unnecessary costs and resource usage and (2) prevent inadequate or inappropriate data for health assessment. In addition, a quantitative model has several advantages for risk management and communication. By identifying the variable components of the model and the knowledge associated with each component, this type of modeling can: (1) Systematically identify and close knowledge gaps, (2) Systematically identify acceptable and unacceptable risks, (3) Improve communication with stakeholders as to the reasons for resource use, and (4) Facilitate external scientific approval of the NASA requirements. The modeling of microbial risk involves the evaluation of several key factors including hazard identification, crew exposure assessment, dose-response assessment, and risk characterization. Many of these factors are similar to conditions found on Earth; however, the spaceflight environment is very specialized as the inhabitants live in a small, semi-closed environment that is often dependent on regenerative life support systems. To further complicate modeling efforts, microbial dose-response characteristics may be affected by a potentially dysfunctional crew immune system during a mission. In addition, microbial virulence has been shown to change under certain conditions during spaceflight, further complicating dose-response characterization. An initial study of the applicability of microbial risk assessment techniques was performed using Crew Health Care System (CHeCS) operational data from the International Space Station potable water systems. The risk of infection from potable water was selected as the flight systems and microbial ecology are well defined. This initial study confirmed the feasibility of using microbial risk assessment modeling for spaceflight systems. While no immediate threat was detected, the study identified several medically significant microorganisms that could pose a health risk if uncontrolled. The study also identified several specific knowledge gaps in making a risk assessment and noted that filling these knowledge gaps is essential as the risk estimates may change by orders of magnitude depending on the answers. The current phase of the microbial risk assessment studies focuses on the dose-response relationship of specific infectious agents, focusing on Salmonella enterica Typhimurium, Pseudomonas spp., and Escherichia coli, as their evaluation will provide a better baseline for determining the overall hazard characterization. The organisms were chosen as they either have been isolated on spacecraft or have an identified route of infection during a mission. The characterization will utilize dose-response models selected either from the peer-reviewed literature and/or by using statistical approaches. Development of these modeling and risk assessment techniques will help to optimize flight requirements and to protect the safety, health, and performance of the crew.

Ott, C. M.↗

NASA NTRS2002

Uncertainties in Estimates of the Risks of Late Effects from Space Radiation

The health risks faced by astronauts from space radiation include cancer, cataracts, hereditary effects, and non-cancer morbidity and mortality risks related to the diseases of the old age. Methods used to project risks in low-Earth orbit are of questionable merit for exploration missions because of the limited radiobiology data and knowledge of galactic cosmic ray (GCR) heavy ions, which causes estimates of the risk of late effects to be highly uncertain. Risk projections involve a product of many biological and physical factors, each of which has a differential range of uncertainty due to lack of data and knowledge. Within the linear-additivity model, we use Monte-Carlo sampling from subjective uncertainty distributions in each factor to obtain a Maximum Likelihood estimate of the overall uncertainty in risk projections. The resulting methodology is applied to several human space exploration mission scenarios including ISS, lunar station, deep space outpost, and Mar's missions of duration of 360, 660, and 1000 days. The major results are the quantification of the uncertainties in current risk estimates, the identification of factors that dominate risk projection uncertainties, and the development of a method to quantify candidate approaches to reduce uncertainties or mitigate risks. The large uncertainties in GCR risk projections lead to probability distributions of risk that mask any potential risk reduction using the "optimization" of shielding materials or configurations. In contrast, the design of shielding optimization approaches for solar particle events and trapped protons can be made at this time, and promising technologies can be shown to have merit using our approach. The methods used also make it possible to express risk management objectives in terms of quantitative objective's, i.e., the number of days in space without exceeding a given risk level within well defined confidence limits.

Cucinotta, F. A.↗

NASA NTRS2011

Sensitivity Analysis of Median Lifetime on Radiation Risks Estimates for Cancer and Circulatory Disease amongst Never-Smokers

Radiation risks are estimated in a competing risk formalism where age or time after exposure estimates of increased risks for cancer and circulatory diseases are folded with a probability to survive to a given age. The survival function, also called the life-table, changes with calendar year, gender, smoking status and other demographic variables. An outstanding problem in risk estimation is the method of risk transfer between exposed populations and a second population where risks are to be estimated. Approaches used to transfer risks are based on: 1) Multiplicative risk transfer models -proportional to background disease rates. 2) Additive risk transfer model -risks independent of background rates. In addition, a Mixture model is often considered where the multiplicative and additive transfer assumptions are given weighted contributions. We studied the influence of the survival probability on the risk of exposure induced cancer and circulatory disease morbidity and mortality in the Multiplicative transfer model and the Mixture model. Risks for never-smokers (NS) compared to the average U.S. population are estimated to be reduced between 30% and 60% dependent on model assumptions. Lung cancer is the major contributor to the reduction for NS, with additional contributions from circulatory diseases and cancers of the stomach, liver, bladder, oral cavity, esophagus, colon, a portion of the solid cancer remainder, and leukemia. Greater improvements in risk estimates for NS s are possible, and would be dependent on improved understanding of risk transfer models, and elucidating the role of space radiation on the various stages of disease formation (e.g. initiation, promotion, and progression).

Chappell, Lori J.↗