Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Technical Risk Assessment”

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 127 records · Page 7
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1991

Space radiation health program plan

The Space Radiation Health Program intends to establish the scientific basis for the radiation protection of humans engaged in the exploration of space, with particular emphasis on the establishment of a firm knowledge base to support cancer risk assessment for future planetary exploration. This document sets forth the technical and management components involved in the implementation of the Space Radiation Health Program, which is a major part of the Life Sciences Division (LSD) effort in the Office of Space Science and Applications (OSSA) at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). For the purpose of implementing this program, the Life Sciences Division supports scientific research into the fundamental mechanisms of radiation effects on living systems and the interaction of radiation with cells, tissues, and organs, and the development of instruments and processes for measuring radiation and its effects. The Life Sciences Division supports researchers at universities, NASA field centers, non-profit research institutes and national laboratories; establishes interagency agreements for cooperative use and development of facilities; and conducts a space-based research program using available and future spaceflight vehicles.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1991

Knowledge-based decision support for Space Station assembly sequence planning

A complete Personal Analysis Assistant (PAA) for Space Station Freedom (SSF) assembly sequence planning consists of three software components: the system infrastructure, intra-flight value added, and inter-flight value added. The system infrastructure is the substrate on which software elements providing inter-flight and intra-flight value-added functionality are built. It provides the capability for building representations of assembly sequence plans and specification of constraints and analysis options. Intra-flight value-added provides functionality that will, given the manifest for each flight, define cargo elements, place them in the National Space Transportation System (NSTS) cargo bay, compute performance measure values, and identify violated constraints. Inter-flight value-added provides functionality that will, given major milestone dates and capability requirements, determine the number and dates of required flights and develop a manifest for each flight. The current project is Phase 1 of a projected two phase program and delivers the system infrastructure. Intra- and inter-flight value-added were to be developed in Phase 2, which has not been funded. Based on experience derived from hundreds of projects conducted over the past seven years, ISX developed an Intelligent Systems Engineering (ISE) methodology that combines the methods of systems engineering and knowledge engineering to meet the special systems development requirements posed by intelligent systems, systems that blend artificial intelligence and other advanced technologies with more conventional computing technologies. The ISE methodology defines a phased program process that begins with an application assessment designed to provide a preliminary determination of the relative technical risks and payoffs associated with a potential application, and then moves through requirements analysis, system design, and development.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2011

L-Band Digital Aeronautical Communications System Engineering - Initial Safety and Security Risk Assessment and Mitigation

This document is being provided as part of ITT's NASA Glenn Research Center Aerospace Communication Systems Technical Support (ACSTS) contract NNC05CA85C, Task 7: "New ATM Requirements--Future Communications, C-Band and L-Band Communications Standard Development." ITT has completed a safety hazard analysis providing a preliminary safety assessment for the proposed L-band (960 to 1164 MHz) terrestrial en route communications system. The assessment was performed following the guidelines outlined in the Federal Aviation Administration Safety Risk Management Guidance for System Acquisitions document. The safety analysis did not identify any hazards with an unacceptable risk, though a number of hazards with a medium risk were documented. This effort represents a preliminary safety hazard analysis and notes the triggers for risk reassessment. A detailed safety hazards analysis is recommended as a follow-on activity to assess particular components of the L-band communication system after the technology is chosen and system rollout timing is determined. The security risk analysis resulted in identifying main security threats to the proposed system as well as noting additional threats recommended for a future security analysis conducted at a later stage in the system development process. The document discusses various security controls, including those suggested in the COCR Version 2.0.

Zelkin, Natalie↗
DOE OSTI2024

Description of FY25 Theory and Simulation Performance Target: Development of an integrated modeling framework for fusion reactor design and assessment

The urgency to deliver fusion power is growing now more than ever, with increasing pressure for both public programs and private companies to meet milestones timelines and overcome significant remaining technical challenges to ensure growth of a nascent fusion industry in time to meet rapidly growing clean energy demands. With incredible advancements in computation and years of investment in fusion model development and validation, integrated modeling is poised to fill a key role in accelerating the timeline to a fusion pilot plant (FPP). Future fusion pilot plants will operate in regimes far beyond current experience, and device design will rely on physics-based prediction and extrapolation. Many concepts will also rely on simulation to assess safety (shielding, tritium management, materials activation and lifetimes), economics and scalability before the decision to build. Importantly, integrated simulation can be used to reveal and solve the complexities of system integration that may otherwise not be apparent in physical components or models developed in isolation. New experimental test facilities that produce relevant conditions to validate and resolve key technical challenges for various subsystems (materials, blankets, fuel cycle, etc.) have been repeatedly called for by the fusion community but are not yet realized. Integrated modeling has an important role in identifying realistic load conditions (thermal, electromagnetic, plasma, neutron and photon loads, etc.) and defining the components and experiments for these test facilities in order to ensure meaningful validation that sufficiently reduces modeling uncertainties and technical risk for the full integrated reactor. The Fusion REactor Design and Assessment (FREDA) SciDAC project is building a component-based integrated modeling framework & data structure to enable self-consistent, multi-fidelity, iterative optimization workflows for the fusion reactor design process. FREDA aims to shorten the time to viable designs by providing a set of flexible workflows to support the various stages of the design process using an integrated model hierarchy, ranging from the simple analytic descriptions to the highest fidelity, theory-based plasma and engineering modeling developed by the fusion and fission communities. These tools are expected to be needed for timely support of FPP design in the milestone program and in the FIRE collaboratives. The plasma simulation backbone of FREDA is IPS-FASTRAN with newly developed coupled Core-Edge Pedestal-SOL (CESOL) workflows, which is being extended to the far-SOL region up to the plasma facing components. FREDA incorporates the FERMI engineering modeling suite and will enable self-consistent evaluation of the thermal shields, limiters, blanket, magnets, and other surrounding structures with predictions of temperatures, erosion, dpa, activation, tritium generation and transport, creep, corrosion, material degradation, etc. Parametric generation of 3D CAD enables rapid iteration of component geometry in response to plasma and loading specifications.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Computational Tools and Workflows for Quantitative Risk Assessment and Decision Support for Geologic Carbon Storage Sites: Progress and Insights from the U.S. DOE’s National Risk Assessment Partnership

The 2005 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on CCS raised the profile of CO2 capture and storage (CCS) as an important technology for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. CCS is now recognized as a key component of most climate change mitigation scenarios. Since publication of that report the international research, development, and deployment (RD&D) community has advanced key technical aspects, clarified regulatory requirements, explored value chain and infrastructure solutions, and developed incentive paradigms to enable and promote large-scale deployment of CCS. These efforts have included research to better characterize geologic storage resources, to improve injection performance and storage efficiency, to assess and manage subsurface environmental risks, and to advance monitoring technologies to assure system conformance. These efforts have helped to build confidence in the viability of geologic carbon storage (GCS), but stakeholder concerns about long-term risks and liability associated with GCS remain a hurdle to broad acceptance and large-scale deployment of CCS. Since 2010, the U.S. DOE’s National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP) – a research collaboration between five contributing national laboratories – has worked to establish and demonstrate methods and tools to quantify and manage the subsurface environmental risks associated with GCS, amidst uncertainty. This work supports the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management Carbon Transport and Storage Program’s goal of advancing safe and secure commercial-scale GCS deployment. To address the technical challenge of simulating the physical response of the GCS site to large-scale CO2 injection, NRAP has adopted an approach that relies on coupling computationally efficient reduced-order and/or data-driven proxy models of important system components (i.e., storage reservoir, sealing caprock, leakage pathways, intermediate formations, overlying groundwater aquifers, and the atmosphere) in integrated assessment framework. That integrated model of the physical system is complemented with fit-for purpose functionality to support site characterization and risk-related decisions. The recently released NRAP Phase II toolset includes the Open-Source Integrated Assessment Model (NRAP-Open-IAM) for evaluation of trends in leakage risk and potential impact, tools to support monitoring design optimization (Designs for Risk Evaluation and Management – DREAM v3.0 and Passive Seismic Monitoring Tool - PSMT), and tools for state of stress evaluation (State-of-Stress Analysis Tool - SOSAT) and forecasting induced seismicity risk. The NRAP team has also released a pair of reports describing conceptual workflows to incorporate physics-based, quantitative risk assessment into many of the design, planning, operation, and closure decisions for GCS projects. An online catalogue highlights published studies where these tools and methods are demonstrated. In this presentation, the utility of these products to assess risks and address key stakeholder questions will be highlighted through examples, and related insights about the safety and security of geologic carbon storage in qualified storage sites will be discussed. The prospect of rapid, large-scale deployment of GCS technology to aggressively reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions requires careful consideration of interference between multiple commercial-scale storage projects within a basin. Going forward, NRAP is expanding and adapting site-scale risk quantification tools and methods to enable assessment of risks and inform management decisions for basin-scale deployment. Increasingly, this work will leverage next-generation approaches for surrogate modelling, fast prediction, and advanced visualization enabled by machine learning and artificial intelligence to promote virtual learning, scenario evaluation, and augment risk-based decision making.

quantitative risk assessment, geologic carbon stor↗
DOE OSTI2026

Guideline for Characterizing and Evaluating a Candidate Project Site for Solar Thermal Applications

This document presents a structured procedure for characterizing and evaluating candidate project sites for concentrating solar power (CSP) and solar heat for industrial processes (SHIP) applications. The objective is to provide project developers, researchers, and other stakeholders with a consistent, technology-agnostic framework for early-stage site assessment, enabling informed decision-making prior to significant investment in project development. Site selection is a critical factor in project success or failure for both CSP and SHIP projects. Key factors such as solar resource availability, land characteristics, environmental and regulatory constraints, infrastructure availability, and community context are determined by the choice of project site and can materially impact project performance, cost, schedule, and overall viability. This procedure is designed to systematically evaluate these factors, identify potential fatal flaws, and prioritize the most favorable candidate sites for further development. The process begins with rapid screening-level evaluation, using publicly available data to assess solar resource, land availability and suitability, zoning and land-use compatibility, and exclusion zones such as protected lands or sensitive habitats. Sites that meet the minimum screening criteria advance to a more detailed characterization. Subsequent sections of this report provide guidance for a next-level assessment of the most important technical and environmental parameters, including: 1) Solar resource quality, variability, and uncertainty using multiyear datasets and, where appropriate, on-site measurement campaigns; 2) Meteorological conditions such as wind, temperature, extreme weather events, and soiling impacts; 3) Land characteristics including slope, shading, and geotechnical conditions; and 4) Environmental and regulatory considerations, including permitting processes, endangered species, cultural resources, and visual impacts. The procedure also addresses infrastructure and integration considerations, including: 1) Grid interconnection requirements for CSP power generation projects; 2) Electrical and operational integration for SHIP facilities; 3) Water availability, quality, and permitting constraints, which are particularly critical for CSP in arid regions; and 4) Site access, construction logistics, and availability of workforce and supporting services. Recognizing the importance of social and economic context, the procedure includes evaluation of community engagement factors, such as stakeholder sentiment, proximity to sensitive visual receptors, workforce development opportunities, and local economic incentives. The outputs of these assessments are synthesized in a cost and risk evaluation, translating site characteristics into expected impacts on capital cost, operating cost, schedule, and technical risk. This is complemented by screening-level performance modeling, including 8760 simulations and long-term projections, to quantify expected energy or thermal output, assess variability thereof, and support comparison between candidate sites. Finally, the procedure provides high-level guidance on a structured go/no-go decision framework, categorizing sites based on identified risks and constraints, and outlining a clear path forward to feasibility studies and front-end engineering design for viable projects. By standardizing the site characterization process across both CSP and SHIP applications, this guideline aims to: 1) Improve consistency and transparency in early-stage project evaluation; 2) Reduce development risk and avoid investment in nonviable project sites; 3) Support collaboration between developers, researchers, and public agencies; and 4) Accelerate successful deployment of concentrating solar technologies for both power generation and industrial process heat.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Field Insights: Strengthening Digital Assurance Through On-Site Network Monitoring

The accelerating deployment of digital energy infrastructure, ranging from inverter-based resources (IBRs), battery energy storage systems (BESS), to advanced grid control platforms, has brought unprecedented visibility, flexibility, and efficiency to the electric grid. However, this digital transformation also introduces new cybersecurity challenges, particularly in the form of supply chain risks and operational blind spots at the grid edge. Over the past year, the Department of Energy’s Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response (CESER), through its Rapid Risk Assessment initiative, along with the Grid Deployment Office (GDO), through its Technical Assistance for Digital Assurance (TADA) initiative, have supported a series of on-site network engagements led by Idaho National Laboratory (INL). These engagements, conducted in partnership with asset owners across the country, have focused on identifying real-world vulnerabilities and misconfigurations in operational environments, many of which are not detectable through remote assessments or traditional compliance audits. The goal of this report is to distill key findings and lessons learned during network hunt engagements from INL’s fiscal year (FY) 2024 - 2025. It is intended to help asset owners—regardless of their participation in the program—better understand the evolving threat landscape and adopt practical measures to secure their digital energy infrastructure.

24 - POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
NASA NTRS1996

A Risk Assessment Model for Reduced Aircraft Separation: A Quantitative Method to Evaluate the Safety of Free Flight

As new technologies and procedures are introduced into the National Airspace System, whether they are intended to improve efficiency, capacity, or safety level, the quantification of potential changes in safety levels is of vital concern. Applications of technology can improve safety levels and allow the reduction of separation standards. An excellent example is the Precision Runway Monitor (PRM). By taking advantage of the surveillance and display advances of PRM, airports can run instrument parallel approaches to runways separated by 3400 feet with the same level of safety as parallel approaches to runways separated by 4300 feet using the standard technology. Despite a wealth of information from flight operations and testing programs, there is no readily quantifiable relationship between numerical safety levels and the separation standards that apply to aircraft on final approach. This paper presents a modeling approach to quantify the risk associated with reducing separation on final approach. Reducing aircraft separation, both laterally and longitudinally, has been the goal of several aviation R&D programs over the past several years. Many of these programs have focused on technological solutions to improve navigation accuracy, surveillance accuracy, aircraft situational awareness, controller situational awareness, and other technical and operational factors that are vital to maintaining flight safety. The risk assessment model relates different types of potential aircraft accidents and incidents and their contribution to overall accident risk. The framework links accident risks to a hierarchy of failsafe mechanisms characterized by procedures and interventions. The model will be used to assess the overall level of safety associated with reducing separation standards and the introduction of new technology and procedures, as envisaged under the Free Flight concept. The model framework can be applied to various aircraft scenarios, including parallel and in-trail approaches. This research was performed under contract to NASA and in cooperation with the FAA's Safety Division (ASY).

Cassell, Rick↗
NASA NTRS1979

Millimeter wave satellite concepts. Volume 2: Technical report

Identification of technologies for millimeter satellite communication systems, and assessment of the relative risks of these technologies, were accomplished through subsystem modeling and link optimization for both point-to-point and broadcast applications. The results, in terms of annual cost per channel to the user from a commercial view point, are described.

Hilsen, N. B.↗
NASA NTRS2022

How NASA decided Webb was ready: Inside the risk assessment

Every do-it-yourselfer knows how hard it can be to declare a project complete. Will another turn of the bolt or brushstroke make things better or worse? That was roughly the choice NASA faced a year before the Dec. 25 launch of the James Webb Space Telescope. Would more testing close more technical risks in the nearly $10 billion project or create new ones? In the end, NASA decided against more testing. NASA’s Jesse Leitner and Tupper Hyde describe the assessment they performed.

JWST↗
DOE OSTI2022

Integrated Fire Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) Modeling in Support of Operational Efficiency (Final Report)

To improve the realism of Fire PRA associated with fire progression and damage modeling or manual suppression, previous research by the Socio-Technical Risk Analysis (SoTeRiA) Research Laboratory at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign focused on the development of an Integrated PRA (I-PRA) methodological framework for fire risk analysis in NPPs.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Government Personnel Participation in Suborbital Space Flight

In 2020, NASA issued a Request for Information (RFI) from potential sources for Suborbital Crew (SubC) space transportation services. NASA recognizes the advancement of the commercial suborbital space flight industry and is currently working to develop suborbital transportation for Government personnel that could fly on commercially available suborbital vehicles and determine a systems qualification approach for flight risk acceptance. Prior examples of risk assessment such as the purchase of Soyuz missions serve as a foundation for how the US Government’s best technical experts can partner with a successfully flying industry provider to understand risks. More recently, NASA, the FAA, and industry have successfully demonstrated that a company-owned operation with government oversight can successfully launch Government Astronauts safely. This paper explores the challenges and opportunities presented with the use of suborbital vehicles by Government personnel and how industry might leverage the Government’s efforts to maximize the success of the suborbital space industry.

Risk Management↗
DOE OSTI2025

Grid Architecture Mapping to Understand Transformation (GAMUT): Concept Definition

The electric power system is undergoing significant transformation driven by changes in the generation mix, increasing reliance on information and communication technologies, evolving customer expectations, and a dynamic cyber-physical environment. To address these challenges, substantial investments will be made over the next decade to create a flexible, affordable, secure, reliable, and resilient electric system. In response, the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Electricity is developing knowledge management tools aimed at systematically documenting technology pilots and demonstration projects. This initiative seeks to improve understanding of operating contexts, planning steps, and integration requirements for innovative grid technologies. The Department of Energy project leverages Grid Architecture principles to collect and organize insights into the interdependencies, requirements, and capabilities of various grid solutions. By employing a systematic approach, the project aims to perform a feasibility study for the development of a software tool that will support stakeholders, including regulators, transmission and distribution system operators, distributed energy resources aggregators, and technology providers. By offering a systematic, software-based framework to document technologies, understand their benefits and impacts, and inform deployment strategies, the proposed Grid Architecture Mapping to Understand Transformation (GAMUT) Tool is intended to reduce costs, enhance decision-making, and facilitate scaling and effective deployment of new technologies. The feasibility study will evaluate the technical and financial viability of the GAMUT Tool, identifying stakeholder needs and assessing risks and mitigation strategies. Ultimately, the GAMUT team aims to develop an initial minimal viable product, followed by staged improvements, to aid in the modernization of the electric grid, contributing to a more sustainable and resilient energy future.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
NASA NTRS1999

Chemical Hygiene Program

The Chemical Management Team is responsible for ensuring compliance with the OSHA Laboratory Standard. The program at Lewis Research Center (LeRC) evolved over many years to include training, developing Standard Operating Procedures (SOPS) for each laboratory process, coordinating with other safety and health organizations and teams at the Center, and issuing an SOP binder. The Chemical Hygiene Policy was first established for the Center. The Chemical Hygiene Plan was established and reviewed by technical, laboratory and management for viability and applicability to the Center. A risk assessment was conducted for each laboratory. The laboratories were prioritized by order of risk, higher risk taking priority. A Chemical Management Team staff member interviewed the lead researcher for each laboratory process to gather the information needed to develop the SOP for the process. A binder containing the Chemical Hygiene Plan, the SOP, a map of the laboratory identifying the personal protective equipment and best egress, and glove guides, as well as other guides for safety and health. Each laboratory process has been captured in the form of an SOP. The chemicals used in the procedure have been identified and the information is used to reduce the number of chemicals in the lab. The Chemical Hygiene Plan binder is used as a training tool for new employees. LeRC is in compliance with the OSHA Standard. The program was designed to comply with the OSHA standard. In the process, we have been able to assess the usage of chemicals in the laboratories, as well as reduce or relocate the chemicals being stored in the laboratory. Our researchers are trained on the hazards of the materials they work with and have a better understanding of the hazards of the process and what is needed to prevent any incident. From the SOP process, we have been able to reduce our chemical inventory, determine and implement better hygiene procedures and equipment in the laboratories, and provide specific training to our employees. As a result of this program, we are adding labeling to the laboratories for emergency responders and initiating a certified chemical user program.

Mayor, Antoinette C.↗
NASA NTRS2006

The X-43 Fin Actuation System Problem - Reliability in Shades of Gray

Following the loss of the first X-43 during launch, the mishap investigation board indicated the Fin Actuator System (FAS) needed to have a larger torque margin. To supply this added torque, a second actuator was added. The consequences of what seemed to be a simple modification would trouble the X-43 program. Because of the second actuator, a new computer board was required. This proved to be subject to electronic noise. This resulted in the actuator latch up in ground tests of the FAS for the second launch. Such a latch up would cause the Pegasus booster to fail, as the FAS was a single string system. The problem was corrected and the second flight was successful. The same modifications were added to the FAS for flight three. When the FAS underwent ground tests, it also latched up. The failure indicated that each computer board had a different tolerance to electronic noise. The problem with the FAS was corrected. Subsequently, another failure occurred, raising questions about the design, and the probability of failure for the X-43 Mach 10 flight. This was not simply a technical issue, but illuminated the difficulties facing both managers and engineers in assessing risk, design requirements, and probabilities in cutting edge aerospace projects.

Peebles, Curtis↗
NASA NTRS2017

Uncertainty Estimation Cheat Sheet for Probabilistic Risk Assessment

Quantitative results for aerospace engineering problems are influenced by many sources of uncertainty. Uncertainty analysis aims to make a technical contribution to decision-making through the quantification of uncertainties in the relevant variables as well as through the propagation of these uncertainties up to the result. Uncertainty can be thought of as a measure of the 'goodness' of a result and is typically represented as statistical dispersion. This paper will explain common measures of centrality and dispersion; and-with examples-will provide guidelines for how they may be estimated to ensure effective technical contributions to decision-making.

Britton, Paul↗
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↗