Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
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

Operating Experience Data Analysis for Digital Instrumentation and Control System Reliability and Risk Assessment in Nuclear Power Plants

The implementation of advanced digital instrumentation and control (DI&C) systems in U.S. nuclear power plants (NPPs) can bring significant advancements in reliability, monitoring, and control capabilities. However, these systems also introduce new challenges, particularly in assessing risks such as common-cause failures (CCFs) and establishing robust reliability estimates for DI&C components. Addressing these challenges is critical for ensuring the safe and efficient operation of NPPs. Recently, Idaho National Laboratory was tasked by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to conduct a DI&C reliability study using operating experience data from the nuclear industry. The two operating experience data sources for the study are the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations’ Industry Reporting and Information System (IRIS) and the NRC’s Licensee Event Report database which is hosted at Idaho National Laboratory at https://lersearch.inl.gov/LERSearchCriteria.aspx. This report provides a comprehensive examination of DI&C systems, including their architecture, operational advantages, and associated challenges. It reviews existing industry DI&C studies and failure mode taxonomies, along with reliability data from various industries. Through a detailed analysis of these databases, the study provides insights into DI&C system performance. Considerations should be given to incorporate DI&C failure data into the NRC's Integrated Data Collection and Coding System and updating the Reliability and Availability Data System to support ongoing DI&C reliability studies. Recommendations are also provided for modeling DI&C reliability and CCF in probabilistic risk assessment, thereby supporting risk-informed decision-making and enhancing the reliability and safety of NPPs.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Updated Filter Leak Frequencies for Use in Risk Assessments

Quantitative risk assessment (QRA) is highly dependent on data, leading to more robust models as new and updated data is acquired. The Hydrogen Plus Other Alternative Fuels Risk Assessment (HyRAM+) QRA capabilities include calculations of individual risk from leaks in a gaseous hydrogen facility due to the potential effects of jet fires and explosions. Leak frequencies are acquired through statistical analysis of published data from a variety of sources and industries. The filter leak frequencies in previous versions of the HyRAM+ software are substantially greater than the leak frequencies of other components, leading to QRA results for gaseous hydrogen in which filters consistently dominate the overall risk. Data that were previously used to derive the filter leak frequencies were reevaluated for applicability and additional data points were added to update the filter leak frequencies. The new frequencies are more comparable to leak frequencies for other components.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2025

TCCSP Task 6 Risk Assessment Report

For this Risk Assessment Plan, TCCSP has conducted a site-based risk assessment that quantifies the risk of CO 2 and/or brine leakage as a result of CO 2 injection at TCCSP. The risk assessment covers project planning, construction, injection, post-injection periods and closure of TCCSP. Key technical and non-technical Project risks are identified as part of the Risk Workshop and include a thorough evaluation of related scenarios. Mitigation strategies for the identified risk scenarios are defined to develop a scientifically sound, and community acceptable CO 2 storage Project.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Large-scale Hydrogen Storage Risk Assessment

This project investigated risks involved in deploying a large-scale hydrogen storage system at the Port of Seattle (hereafter, the Port) for its on-terminal and maritime applications in an urban industrial setting. Alongside, the project attempted to address some of the barriers to risk assessment such as need for an exact system design for a systematic investigation, direct access to surrounding communities to gauge their perceptions, and an integrated software required to undertake a full-fledged risk assessment. These barriers were overcome using illustrative reference station designs, engaging with community-facing agencies through Port support, and pooling national laboratory capabilities available for risk assessments. The project identified relevant public safety risk metrics, compared various hydrogen carriers, engaged with community-facing agencies, and explored potential gaps in existing safety codes and standards. The primary impacts of this project include the development of risk assessment guidance for ports and utilities, informing them of the trade-offs in the choice of hydrogen carriers, and the ability to increase public capacity for dialog and engagement. This paves the way toward decarbonization of the Port activities, bringing about awareness around jobs in the market for risk assessments, and the need to ramp up community engagement long before any hydrogen system deployment is undertaken.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2025

Risk Assessment in a Chemical Laboratory Following an Explosive Incident Involving a Novel Diazonium Compound: Retrospective Analysis and Lessons Learned

Diazonium compounds are synthetically useful in the production of dyes and textiles, however they are highly explosive under dry conditions. Explosion prevention becomes more difficult when new diazonium compounds are synthesized, because while some syntheses include a counterion to increase their stability, this is not always a reliable method to prevent an explosive incident. Due to the uncertainty surrounding the explosiveness of different diazonium compounds, it is important to understand how to safely clean up after an incident and how to determine when it is safe to return a laboratory to typical operational use, particularly when the incident involves a novel compound where a standard does not exist for instrument calibration. Here, an explosive event is discussed involving the synthesis of 4-bromo-benzenediazonium-2-carboxylate. Following the explosive incident and 3-step cleanup, which involved a precautionary neutralization step, samples were collected from the fume hood where the incident occurred. Because the incident involved an unstable, novel compound that is not commercially available and was deemed unsafe to resynthesize for instrument calibration, we assessed the risk of further explosion by analyzing for the stable decomposition products. Mass spectrometry analysis confirmed that the residue in the fume hood contained 5-bromosalicylic acid, a decomposition product of 4-bromo-benzenediazonium-2-carboxylate. Samples were taken from multiple points in the fume hood and analyzed to estimate the spatial distribution of the decomposition product. Based on this analysis, we inferred that the primary decomposition product was far more abundant than residual energetic, indicating the energetic had been consumed or neutralized to a trace quantity where the risk of further explosion was low. Furthermore, the steps presented here─specifically, initial neutralization and then analyzing the spatial distribution of expected decomposition products to assess risk when a novel explosive material is detonated in a confined space─were our approach to assess further risk following an explosion due to a novel diazonium compound without the need for any further handling or resynthesis of the energetic. Here, we present our approach and critically analyze these steps by discussing retrospective lessons learned and alternative analytical approaches.

Computer simulations↗
DOE OSTI2025

Dynamic probabilistic risk assessment and game theory for cyber security risk analysis in nuclear power plants

Nuclear Power Plants and energy systems have become more prone to cyber-attacks with their digitalization and the increased use of smart equipment. Hence, it is important to quantify the risk associated with cyber-attacks in such systems. Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment which involves studying the evolution of a system due to random events and operator and attacker actions during a cyber-attack by employing a physics-based model of the system is a suitable framework to quantify cybersecurity risk in nuclear power plants. In addition to the plant dynamics, it is also important to model the strategies of the attackers and plant operators for an effective cybersecurity risk assessment. Game theory provides a set of necessary tools to model such strategic interactions. In this research, a framework that integrates dynamic probabilistic risk assessment with game theory for cybersecurity risk analysis in nuclear power plants is presented. The mathematical formulation is derived based on the theory of continuous event trees. We propose a game theory based action model, that utilizes physics-based rewards to define the strategies of attackers and operators at every decision epoch. As a case study, the risk associated with cyber-attacks on the digital components in the secondary side of a pressurized water reactor is studied using a reduced order model. A set of attacker actions and a set of operator actions are defined for the system. The operator and attacker interactions were modelled using simultaneous game, their action policies were computed using the concept of mixed strategy Nash equilibrium and the evolution of the system was studied.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2020

Choosing the Best Modeling Platform for Radiological Risk Assessment Models - 20468

Radiological risk assessments, in the form of performance or safety assessments, are often required under regulations or guidance for remediation of contaminated land, decommissioning of contaminated buildings or structures, and radioactive waste disposal. These risk assessments are usually supported by fate and transport models that address decay and ingrowth of radionuclides, as well as their movement through engineered systems and the natural environment. These models are often projected thousands, or more, years into the future, largely because the radioactive species change through decay and ingrowth, and hence the magnitude of the radioactive effect changes with time. There are many computer codes that are available to address this type of modeling. They range from addressing specific pathways or processes such as infiltration of water, groundwater, surface water, air, biota, diffusion and advection of water and gases, to those that try to couple all processes together to evaluate the impact of fate and transport through the entire system to places in space and time to which access is assumed. These different types of codes are sometimes separated with the monikers process-level and systems-level codes, although it is often not clear that this separation does justice to the capabilities of the many codes that are available to evaluate fate and transport of radionuclides. The focus of this paper is the latter group of modeling codes. Several systems level modeling codes exist and are used. There are differences between these codes in terms of utility, flexibility, complexity and cost. The purpose of this paper is to compare a few of these codes in the context of work currently being performed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Modeling and Data for Radiological Impact Assessments (MODARIA) II Working Group 1 (WG1). The MODARIA II WG1's main focus is how stakeholder engaged decision analysis can, or should, be applied to radiological contamination problems so that better, longstanding, sustainable, solutions are reached. However, the WG1 also recognizes the potential impact of the modeling tools that are chosen to address radiological risk, which is often a primary objective of decision making for radiological problems. Other objectives might also be important, such as constraining costs, obtaining financing, minimizing impact on ecosystems, saving cultural resources, saving jobs, farmland, environmental justice, etc., in a full decision analysis for a given radiological contamination problem, but none of these other objectives have the same types of complex modeling needs as minimize radiological dose. Consequently, a further focus of WG1 is to evaluate the potential impacts on decision making of the choice of fate and transport, and risk assessment, modeling codes that are used to support decision making. The WG1 will produce a report at the end of 2020 that will focus on an approach to effective decision making and stakeholder engagement. The report will also consider the role that performance assessment modeling should play in the decision-making process, including the impact of the choice of modeling tools or computer codes on risk-informed decision making. Several sites around the World have been made available by Member States for these model comparisons, and several modeling tools have been considered. However, the focus of this paper is on two of the sites, one in Belgium and one in Ukraine, and on three of the tools: NORMALYSA (NORM And Legacy Site Assessment); GoldSim{sup C}, and AMBER{sup C}. The final report from this working group will also cover other modeling tools, including RESRAD, and PC-Cream{sup R}. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2021

NRAP-open-IAM: A flexible open-source integrated-assessment-model for geologic carbon storage risk assessment and management

Large-scale implementation of geologic carbon storage (GCS) to help reduce atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions requires stakeholder confidence that injected CO2 will remain contained and that potential subsurface environmental risks are acceptably small and manageable. The U.S. Department of Energy’s National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP) has developed an open-source integrated assessment model (NRAP-Open-IAM) to help address questions about a potential GCS site’s ability to effectively contain injected CO 2 and protect groundwater and other overlying environmentally sensitive receptors. NRAP-Open-IAM allows a user to: (1) incorporate relevant site geologic and injection scenario data; (2) characterize important site features and events;(3) couple fast prediction models of various system components of the engineered geologic system; and (4) execute stochastic, dynamic simulation of whole GCS system performance, leakage risk assessment, and uncertainty quantification. NRAP-Open-IAM is available on GitLab (https://gitlab.com/NRAP/OpenIAM), and is accompanied by multiple application examples and detailed user and developer guides.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Task 12 PV Sustainability - Human Health Risk Assessment Methods for PV, Part 3: Module Disposal Risks

End-of-life management is important for addressing large future photovoltaic (PV) waste volumes and conserving raw materials for use in new PV modules. In regions without regulatory mandates for PV recycling, end-of-life PV modules can be disposed in accordance with general waste laws. Given the use of various metals as raw materials in semiconductor compounds and electrical contacts in commercial PV modules, some stakeholders have raised concerns regarding potential environmental impacts if PV modules are subject to improper disposal instead of being recycled or disposed in sanitary landfills, as is required in most world regions. To evaluate these concerns, screening-level risk assessment methods are developed herein that evaluate potential human health risks from groundwater and surface (air, soil, surface water) exposure pathways. The methods estimate potential impacts from disposal of end-of-life (EOL) PV modules in non-sanitary landfills under the following worst-case conditions: no leachate collection or groundwater monitoring, no liner for preventing leachate migration, uncovered waste, and lack of stormwater management. Examining worst-case conditions allows the exploration of maximum potential risk to attempt to ensure disposal does not increase health risk above regulatory thresholds. Specifically, this report presents an analysis of potential human health risks associated with non-sanitary landfill disposal for three PV technologies, focusing on release of the highest-prioritized chemical element for each: lead (Pb) in crystalline-silicon (c-Si) PV modules, cadmium (Cd) in thin film cadmium telluride (CdTe) PV modules, and selenium (Se) in thin film copper indium selenide (CIS) PV modules. The prioritization of these chemical elements for analysis is based on stakeholder interest. Because the methodology is chemical-specific, the risk assessment results for these chemicals cannot be directly generalized to other chemicals, although the risk assessment methodology can be applied to other chemicals. If the chemicals chosen are indeed the ones presenting greatest risk, then the results herein should represent the upper bound of health risk from exposure to a single constituent.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

An Evaluation of The Dynamic Physical Security Risk Assessment Methodology for Fleet-Wide Applications

The requirements for U.S. nuclear power plants to maintain a large onsite physical security force contribute to their high operational costs. The cost of maintaining the current physical security posture is approximately 10% of the overall operation and maintenance budget for commercial nuclear power plants. The goal of the Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) program’s physical security pathway is to develop tools, methods, and technologies and provide the technical basis for an optimized physical security posture. The conservatisms built into current security postures may be analyzed and minimized to reduce security costs while still ensuring adequate security and operational safety. The research performed at Idaho National Laboratory within LWRS program’s physical security pathway has successfully developed a dynamic force-on-force modeling framework using various computer simulation tools and integrating them with the dynamic assessment Event Modeling Risk Assessment using Linked Diagrams (EMRALD) tool. This integrated process for physical security analysis is named Modeling and Analysis for Safety Security using Dynamic EMRALD Framework (MASS-DEF). This document provides an update on the progress in applying the MASS-DEF process to an operating commercial nuclear power plant as well as additional industry feedback regarding use of the tool for other physical security risk-informed topics. This report is only a summary of the progress and does not contain specific modeling results as those contain sensitive security information. Previous reports described how a user could integrate their plant-specific force-on-force models with the dynamic simulation tool EMRALD, model operator actions, and integrate with probabilistic risk assessment tools, such as CAFTA (Computer Aided Fault Tree Analysis System) or SAPHIRE (Systems Analysis Programs for Hands-on Integrated Reliability Evaluations), and with thermal-hydraulic tools, such as RELAP-5 or MAAP. Previous reports applied various combinations of available simulations codes with EMRALD using generic plant models to demonstrate how to perform the analysis. This report is an update the progress of applying the dynamic computational framework to an actual nuclear facility using their security scenarios and timelines. This report also provides an update to the procedural guidance for the MASS-DEF process and an overview of the generic models available for use by utilities. This report does not contain any plant’s sensitive information and/or safeguards information. This study’s purpose was to verify that the results achieved using generic models are similar to actual plant results and refine our guidance on the use of the framework. This assessment enables further analysis, such as what-if scenarios and staff-reduction evaluation, thereby optimizing physical security at plants.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2023

An Overview of the Risk Assessment Information System

This technical memorandum (TM) presents an overview of the Risk Assessment Information System (RAIS), a collection of web-based tools designed to assist with the environmental risk assessment process. The objective of the RAIS is to be a single resource for the risk assessment process, providing guidance when planning and performing the steps: data assessment, exposure assessment, toxicity assessment, and risk characterization. The RAIS evolved as a result of the initial remediation efforts at various United States (U.S.) Department of Energy (DOE) facilities. The goal was to increase the efficiency and transparency of the human health and ecological assessments being performed by DOE’s Office of Environmental Management, Oak Ridge Operations (ORO) office by providing a repository for toxicity information, physicochemical data, risk assessment procedures, standardized risk calculation methods, and web-based tools. Since the initial launch in 1996, the RAIS has expanded its user base outside of the federal government and now has users from over 100 countries, universities, states, and local governments. What sets the RAIS apart from other risk assessment sites are the publicly available, searchable toxicity and physicochemical databases and the wide range of chemical and radionuclide risk calculation tools. The purpose of this TM is to present the RAIS tools in order of the website menus and explain how they fit in the risk assessment process. In addition, this TM describes differences between the chemical and radionuclide tools of the RAIS. Screening level equations, chronic daily intake equations, and default exposure factors used in the chemical and radionuclide calculators are included in the appendices of this TM. This TM is not intended to be a detailed guide to risk assessment or the RAIS tools. The tools on the RAIS can be used to comply with procedures from multiple agencies, including but not limited to DOE, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), and many state governments. Further information on the RAIS tools can be found in the user guides and tutorials available on the webpage.

38 RADIATION CHEMISTRY, RADIOCHEMISTRY, AND NUCLEA↗