Engineering Papers⌕ Search

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.

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

At least 91 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
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↗
DOE OSTI2023

PacWave South SeaRAY k2 Risk Registers

The SeaRAY is a deployable power system for maritime sensors, monitoring equipment, communications, unmanned underwater vehicles, and other similar payloads. This project is to design, deliver, and test a prototype low-power WEC that lowers the total cost of ownership and provides robust, new capabilities for customers in the maritime environment. Failure Modes, Effects, and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) is conducted to systematically identify all potential failure modes and their effects on the system, and to analyze the criticality of each risk based on the likelihood of the event and the severity of the impact. Actions may then be recommended to mitigate the criticality of a risk, either by reducing the likelihood of the risk or the severity of its impact. Risk assessment is executed iteratively as an integral part of the design process. By incorporating risk assessment early in the development cycle, mitigation of risk can be achieved cost effectively. The actions recommended to mitigate risk may be subsequently executed, and as the design progresses the risk assessment is reviewed and revised. Review of the risk assessment is integrated into structured design reviews, ensuring that critical risks are comprehended and that the Project will not progress to e.g. fabrication while intolerable risks remain. The risk assessment process results in the population and maintenance of Risk Registers (RRs). Each major system (and as needed, subsystem) will have a distinct RR. This allows each system or subsystem to be assessed individually, rendering the RRs to a manageable size for review.

16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗
DOE OSTI2024

Marine Energy Technology Development Risk Management Framework

Over the past decades, the global marine energy industry has suffered a number of serious technological and commercial setbacks. To help reduce the risks of industry failures and advance the development of new technologies, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) developed a Marine Energy Risk Management Framework in 2015, with this revision published in 2024. This risk management framework shall be utilized on all DOE Water Power Technologies Office (WPTO) projects that require system testing in the open water. By addressing uncertainties, the Marine Energy Risk Management Framework increases the likelihood of successful development of marine energy converter technology. It covers projects of any technology readiness level technology performance level (TPL) and all risk types (e.g. technological risk, regulatory risk, commercial risk) over the development cycle. This risk framework is not a substitute for other risk management procedures that may be required for marine operations, such as installations at sea, hoisting and rigging, safe diver operations, and other safety requirements. This risk framework is intended to meet DOE's risk management expectations for marine energy technology research and development efforts from WPTO. It also provides an overview of other relevant risk management tools and documentation.

16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗
DOE OSTI2024

The Meaning of Risk for Safety, Security, and Safeguards in the Design of Advanced Nuclear Reactors

What is the meaning of risk as it applies to the design of advanced reactors in the disciplines of safety, security, and safeguards? How can we find common terminology for the concept of risk and how can we find interfaces between these disciplines? These are important questions that should be explored in order that they may be applied in an integrated manner for the most effective and efficient design approaches. Eliminating or minimizing risks is a key design driver that motivates and informs the development of nuclear reactors. For safety, risk is well understood and applied in Probabilistic Risk Assessments. For security, the risk-based concepts of vulnerability assessments and vital areas are all considered in designing security systems. For safeguards, the concept of risk is not formally defined, as it relates to the design and operation of nuclear reactors. International nuclear safeguards seek to reduce the risk of proliferation in the nuclear fuel cycle and as such the concept of risk does exist. Therefore, the current understanding of the “3S’ approach, which seeks to find the interfaces and conflicts between safety, security, and safeguards requires a thorough understanding of the role that the reduction of risk plays in all three disciplines. The intersection of risk for safety and security is now being developed as there is a strong correlation between reactor design and operations and their vulnerability to sabotage. The intersection of risk for security and safeguards has to date chiefly been focused on the nuclear material control and accounting systems, which are relied on by both the operator (State) and the IAEA. This paper explores the concept of risk in each of the three disciplines, how they interact, potential conflicts and interfaces , how these might be addressed and leveraged, and a notional framework for how this could be achieved.

Kovacic, Donald N↗
DOE OSTI2020

Risk to ecological resources following remediation can be due mainly to increased resource value of successful restoration: A case study from the Department of Energy's Hanford Site

Several nations are faced with the need to remediate large contaminated sites following World War II, the Cold War, and abandoned industrial sites, and to return them to productive land uses. In the United States, the Department of Energy (DOE) has the largest cleanup challenge, and its Hanford Site in the state of Washington has the most extensive and most expensive cleanup task. Ideally, the risk to ecological resources on remediation sites is evaluated before, during, and after remediation, and the risk from, or damage to, ecological resources from contaminants should be lower following remediation. In this paper, we report the risk to ecological resources before, during, and as a consequence of remediation on contaminated units requiring cleanup, and then examine the causes for changes in risk by evaluating 56 cleanup evaluation units (EUs) at the Hanford Site. In this case, remediation includes a restoration phase. In general, the risk to ecological and eco-cultural resources is currently not discernible or low at most contaminated units, increases during remediation, and decreases thereafter. Remediation often causes physical disruption to ecosystems as it reduces the risk from exposure to contaminants. Most new remediation projects at the Hanford Site include ecological restoration. Ecological restoration results in the potential for the presence of higher quality resources after remediation than currently exists on these contaminated lands and facilities. Although counter-intuitive, our evaluation of the risk to ecological resources following remediation indicated that a significant percentage of units (61%) will be at increased risk in the post-remediation period. This increased risk is due to DOE's successful remediation and restoration that results in a higher percent of native vegetation and higher ecological value on the sites in the post-remediation period than before. These newly-created resources can then be at risk from post-remediation activities. Risks to these new higher quality resources include the potential for spread of invasive species and of noxious grasses used in previous cleanup actions, disruption of ecosystems (including those with state or federally listed species and unique ecosystems), compaction of soil, use of pesticides to control invasive species, and the eventual need for continued monitoring activities. Thus, by greatly improving the existing habitat and health of eco-receptors, and maintaining habitat corridors between high quality habitats, the ecological resources in the post-remediated units are at risk unless care is taken to protect them. Many of the negative effects of both remediation and future monitoring (or other future land uses) can be avoided by planning and management early in the remediation process. We suggest DOE and other agencies convene a panel of managers, remediation scientists, regulators, environmental and ecological scientists, Native Americans, economists, and the public to develop a generic list of performance metrics for the restoration phase of remediation, including evaluation of success, which could be applied across the DOE complex.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Simple Acceptance Decisions and Acceptance Risk

Acceptance risk may be estimated using cumulative probability distribution functions applied to populations of measurands and test measurement values. “Simple acceptance” is a decision rule that sets the acceptance range of a test result equal to the tolerance range specification. While acceptance risk is comprised of both consumer risk and producer risk, this paper compares the effects of simple acceptance decision rules and guardbanding decision rules on consumer risk. Consumer risk is also known as the probability of false acceptance. The terms describe the risk of accepting test results as passing when the actual values exceed specification limits. False acceptance is only possible when the true value of a measurand is out of tolerance and the test result indicates that the measurand is within tolerance. Metrologists generally have some information about the test uncertainty regarding a specific acceptance test result. Along with a general lack of knowledge regarding the measurand population parameters, the complicated interplay between risk, dispersion, and central values generally prevents calibration laboratories from fully characterizing acceptance probabilities. Organizations that model the measurand populations can reduce consumer risk by avoiding certification of items whose measurand populations are not well centered. The models in this paper present a recurring trend: guardbanding reduces nonnegligible risks of false acceptance when compared to simple acceptance. However, guardbanding is not the most effective means of acceptance risk mitigation. Systematic characterization of measurand populations can provide the information a calibration laboratory needs to reliably control acceptance risk.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2023

Comparison and multi-model inference of excess risks models for radiation-related solid cancer

In assessments of detrimental health risks from exposures to ionising radiation, many forms of risk to dose–response models are available in the literature. The usual practice is to base risk assessment on one specific model and ignore model uncertainty. The analysis illustrated here considers model uncertainty for the outcome all solid cancer incidence, when modelled as a function of colon organ dose, using the most recent publicly available data from the Life Span Study on atomic bomb survivors of Japan. Seven recent publications reporting all solid cancer risk models currently deemed plausible by the scientific community have been included in a model averaging procedure so that the main conclusions do not depend on just one type of model. The models have been estimated with different baselines and presented for males and females at various attained ages and ages at exposure, to obtain specially computed model-averaged Excess Relative Risks (ERR) and Excess Absolute Risks (EAR). Monte Carlo simulated estimation of uncertainty on excess risks was accounted for by applying realisations including correlations in the risk model parameters. Three models were found to weight the model-averaged risks most strongly depending on the baseline and information criteria used for the weighting. Fitting all excess risk models with the same baseline, one model dominates for both information criteria considered in this study. Based on the analysis presented here, it is generally recommended to take model uncertainty into account in future risk analyses.

63 RADIATION, THERMAL, AND OTHER ENVIRON. POLLUTAN↗
DOE OSTI2022

Dynamic risk assessment for geologic CO 2 sequestration

At a geologic CO 2 sequestration (GCS) site, geologic uncertainty usually leads to large uncertainty in the predictions of properties that influence metrics for leakage risk assessment, such as CO 2 saturations and pressures in potentially leaky wellbores, CO 2 /brine leakage rates, and leakage consequences such as changes in drinking water quality in groundwater aquifers. The large uncertainty in these risk-related system properties and risk metrics can lead to over-conservative risk management decisions to ensure safe operations of GCS sites. The objective of this work is to develop a novel approach based on dynamic risk assessment to effectively reduce the uncertainty in the predicted risk-related system properties and risk metrics. We demonstrate our framework for dynamic risk assessment on two case studies: a 3D synthetic example and a synthetic field example based on the Rock Springs Uplift (RSU) storage site in Wyoming, USA. Results show that the U.S. National Risk Assessment Partnership’s Open Source Integrated Assessment Model (NRAP-Open-IAM) coupled with a conformance evaluation can be used to effectively quantify and reduce the uncertainty in the predictions of risk-related system properties and risk metrics in GCS.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

CO 2 Pipeline risk assessment and comparison for the midcontinent United States

For this work, a comprehensive quantitative risk assessment for the construction and operation of CO 2 transportation networks considered for the Midcontinent United States was conducted. The results showed risks associated with CO 2 pipelines were significantly less than those of other pipeline types. The assessment used four conceptual pipelines of different lengths to discuss risks operators may see. The assessment evaluated the risk associated with construction and operation using data from the US Occupational Safety Health Administration to determine the risk of injury or death for pipeline workers and data from the US Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration for CO 2 , natural gas distribution, natural gas transmission/gathering, and non-CO 2 hazardous liquid pipelines to develop quantitative likelihood and severity values leading to risk values. The data for the assessment covered incidents from 2010 to 2017 for CO 2 pipelines. The average risk for construction and 30 years of operation for four CO 2 pipeline configurations ranging between 79 and 1,546 miles in length was found. The construction and operational risk averaged between $\$1,400,521$ (approximately $\$0.02$/tonne of CO 2 ) for the shorter pipeline (79 miles) and $\$27,481,939$ (approximately $\$0.10$/tonne of CO 2 ) for a longer pipeline (1,546 miles). The largest risks of fatality for CO 2 pipelines comes from vehicle transport. The largest operational risk to the pipeline was due to leakage. Public pipeline opposition is also a significant risk; it was not quantified but is addressed.

03 NATURAL GAS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Development of Dry Cask Risk Tools

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has repeatedly expressed a desire to increase the use of risk in its decision-making. The Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) Policy Statement published in 1995 formalized the Commission’s commitment to risk-informed regulation through the expanded use of PRA. While a great deal of work has been done to incorporate risk insights into the regulatory framework for at-power nuclear reactors. Far less progress has been made to risk inform the dry-casks and nuclear waste transportation areas of the nuclear fuel cycle. INL was tasked with incorporating the information from the two completed dry cask PRAs as well as any additional available information into a tool that helps the NRC use those insights to identify levels of risk at various stages in the nuclear waste cycle. The first task was to address the License Amendment Request (LAR) Process for Dry Cask storage, the second task is for the incorporate transportation into the tool, and the third and final task will be incorporate any additional regulatory applications for dry cask storage. This report covers the first task of the tool and will eventually incorporate the remaining two tasks may be completed in the future and built off the model described here. Task 1 specifically asked to incorporate the risk insights into the process for determining and prioritizing review of license amendment changes related to storage applications by outlining a resource allocation strategy and defining recommendations of for the depth and breadth of the LAR review. It was requested that the tool be similar in design to the SDP notebooks/worksheets and contain quantitative, qualitative, or semi-quantitative approaches to assessing the risk of the change. The final tool that was selected by INL to be developed was a flowchart and associated rationale document that allows the reviewer to quickly assess potential LAR changes and their associated risks as well as the rationale behind the risk categorization. This risk categorization will lead to specific actionable recommendations to expect from a change of that specific category. This allows for a more consistent review process as well as improving the overall efficiency of the review itself.

98 NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, SAFEGUARDS, AND PHYSICAL P↗
DOE OSTI2020

Risk Importance Ranking of Fire Data Parameters to Enhance Fire PRA Model Realism

Fire is historically and analytically a significant contributor to nuclear power plant risk. The level of fire risk and the methods, tools and data for modeling this risk is highly debated by experts. One area of debate is the input data used in fire modeling and how to deal with this data’s high uncertainty. This report outlines initial work performed for determining the key parameters causing this uncertainty and how it propagates into nuclear power plant models. This research paves the way for the development of methods to reduce fire data uncertainty used in modeling. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has mandated that nuclear power plants perform fire risk modeling. However, there are several issues with the current risk modeling implementation that affect the results. Approved modeling methods can be overly conservative and often do not match plant experience. Also, the data used in the modeling can have high uncertainties and is influenced by expert judgement. To evaluate input data uncertainty, researchers performed an initial review of several fire experiments done at Sandia National Laboratories. Uncertainties for fire data can come from many sources, such as experiment design constraints, environmental conditions, or other plant-specific aspects. There are many different significant and insignificant parameters driving the uncertainty. Additionally, the uncertainty of the different input data used in the fire modeling could have a significant or insignificant effect on the entire plant risk. A four-step methodology was developed to perform Integrated Probabilistic Risk Assessment Importance Ranking. A demonstration case using these steps was set up and three of the four steps were completed in fiscal year (FY) 2019 and the fourth step done FY 2020. These steps are: 1. The qualitative analysis of potential sources was conducted with the following items identified for the demonstration. • Maximum heat release rate • Time to maximum heat release rate • Duration of max heat release rate • Time to decay • Thermal conductivity of concrete • Specific heat of concrete • Density of concrete • Cable jacket thickness 2. A quantitative characterization of dominant sources of uncertainty was performed. A list of distributions and determined values of the dominant sources is shown in Appendix A. 3. A quantitative screening of the potential sources of uncertainty using Morris Elementary Effects Analysis was completed. An experimental model using the physics-based fire modeling tool Fire Dynamics Simulator was developed and coupled with the Risk Analysis Virtual Environment. The Morris analysis identified at least two parameters that can be eliminated as significant contributors (specific heat of concrete and cable jacket thickness). 4. Global importance measure (Global IM) analysis to generate a comprehensive ranking based on their influence on the plant risk. In this research, a moment-independent Global IM is used since it can address (a) uncertainty in the input parameters of the fire model, (b) uncertainty in the risk outputs, and (c) non-linearity and interactions among input parameters in the fire model, more accurately than the correlation-based and variance-based global methods. The observations from the research showed that, depending on the initial and boundary conditions of the fire scenarios, fire-induced damage could have a very small probability and could be dominated by the tail of the uncertainty distribution; hence, the accuracy of the correlation-based and variance-based methods is questionable. The moment-independent Global IM analysis in this research provides a better understanding of how experimental uncertainty data affects industry’s plant models and where improvements in that data will have the largest benefit for improving fire modeling accuracy in causing core damage. Among the five unscreened parameters obtained from the Morris EE analysis, the Global IM analysis results for the case study indicated that max heat release rate and fire location are the most important parameters. The report also outlines benefits of using a unified computational platform that integrates the underlying simulations (e.g., a fire progression model), quantitative screening (using the Morris EE method), and the Global IM analysis. A unified platform can (i) facilitate the ranking of input parameters considering multiple key fire scenarios simultaneously, rather than considering one scenario at a time, (ii) contribute to more explicit and accurate treatment of dependencies at multiple levels of Fire PRA, (iii) facilitate the sampling-based uncertainty quantification for Fire PRA, and (iv) help generating both “industry-wide” and "plant-specific" ranking of uncertainty sources in Fire PRA. Future research should be done to include additional parameters such as detection/suppression or cable fire spread. Adding a PRA software such as SAPHIRE to the RAVEN platform would help with plant model integration and improve treatment of fire-induced dependency. The I-PRA risk importance ranking methodology offered in this report can provide valuable information for efficiently (a) enhancing the realism of Fire PRA for existing plants and (b) supporting the development of Dynamic Fire PRA for advanced reactors and new plants.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2023

Summary of Technical Peer Review on the Risk Assessment Framework proposed in Report INL/RPT-22-68656 for Digital Instrumentation and Control Systems

This report summarizes the peer review activities initiated by Idaho National Laboratory (INL) during fiscal year (FY) 2023 for the evaluation and improvement of the methodology developed under the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) Program, Risk Informed Systems Analysis (RISA) Pathway, digital instrumentation and control (DI&C) risk assessment project. In FY 2019, the RISA Pathway initiated a project to develop a risk assessment strategy for delivering a technical basis to support effective and secure DI&C technologies for digital upgrades/designs. A framework was proposed for this strategy, which aims to (1) provide a best-estimate, risk-informed capability to quantitatively and accurately estimate the risk impact of plant modernization, considering the introduction of high safety-significant safety-related (HSSSR) DI&C systems, (2) support and supplement existing risk-informed DI&C design guides by providing quantitative risk information and evidence, (3) offer a capability of design architecture evaluation of various DI&C systems, (4) assure the long-term safety and reliability of HSSSR DI&C systems, and (5) reduce uncertainty in costs and support integration of DI&C systems in the plant. The R&D efforts of this project from FY 2019 through FY 2022 were focused on methodology improvement and demonstration of the proposed framework for the risk assessment and design optimization of safety-critical DI&C systems. Collaborations with the nuclear industry have been initiated to support the reliability and risk assessment of their DI&C systems by using the proposed framework. In FY 2023, the framework has reached to a point for a technical peer review and obtain stakeholder feedback. This peer review activity includes coordination of the reviews performed by a group of industry stakeholders, documentation of the peer review suggestions, providing resolutions and responses to the peer review comments. The objective of this technical peer review is to obtain representative feedback on the proposed framework to improve the technical qualities of its methodology and readiness for deployment to the industry. Feedback may identify potential areas for improvement and further development. The Subject Matter experts were invited to review the latest project report documenting the methodology developed in the project and provide evaluations of the technical qualities of the proposed framework and relevant methods. The reviewed project report is “An Integrated Framework for Risk Assessment of High Safety-significant Safety-related Digital Instrumentation and Control Systems in Nuclear Power Plants: Methodology and Demonstration” INL/RPT-22-68656 (short as “INL/RPT-22-68656” in this report). This peer review report documents the technical questions provided for technical peer review and introduces the technical peer reviewers from the stakeholders including nuclear utilities, regulators, and universities. Comments from technical peer reviewers and the resolutions and responses to these comments are outlined. Insights and lessons learned from the technical peer review are summarized in conclusions and future work. The primary audience of this report are DI&C designers, engineers, and probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) practitioners. This includes stakeholders, such as the nuclear utilities and regulators who consider the deployment and upgrade of DI&C systems, DI&C software developers and reviewers, and cybersecurity specialists.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Integrated Issues and Risk Management: A Theoretical Framework Overview

The contractor requirements document for DOE O 226.1B, Implementation of Department of Energy Oversight Policy, requires DOE/NNSA contractors to establish an assurance system that includes, among other things, “Rigorous, risk-informed, and credible self-assessment and feedback and improvement activities. Assessment programs must be risk-informed, formally described and documented, and appropriately cover potentially high consequence activities” and “Contains an issues management process that is capable of categorizing the significance of findings based on risk and priority and other appropriate factors….” However, the term “risk-informed” is not defined in this or any other DOE order, and no formal guidance on how to integrate the two concepts currently exists. The Risk Management Guide for Defense Programs released by NA-18, Office of Systems Engineering and Integration (SE&I), states it is “a framework and general guidance to program office personnel on the effective management of program risks and issues”, however it then defines issues as “events with 100% likelihood of affecting program objectives” and states “unless specified otherwise, the term “risk” will also serve to represent issues for the remainder of this plan,” severally limiting its ability to provide adequate guidance on this topic. Outside of DOE scope, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (U.S. NRC) imposes similar requirements. ASME NQA-1-2015 Requirement 16 states “Conditions adverse to quality shall be identified promptly and corrected as soon as practicable. In the case of a significant condition adverse to quality, the cause of the condition shall be determined, and corrective action taken to preclude recurrence. The identification, cause, and corrective action for significant conditions adverse to quality shall be documented and reported to appropriate levels of management. Completion of corrective actions shall be verified”. The purpose of this document is to provide a best-in-class framework for an integrated risk and issues management process. This process would provide a robust feedback loop between risk management and issues management to: Enhance risk identification and characterization, use risk handling principles to improve corrective action planning, and ensure regulatory compliance.

96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗