Results for “risk” | Engineering Papers

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↗

NASA NTRS2014

2013 Space Radiation Standing Review Panel Status Review for: The Risk of Acute and Late Central Nervous System Effects from Radiation Exposure, The Risk of Acute Radiation Syndromes Due to Solar Particle Events (SPEs), The Risk Of Degenerative Tissue Or Other Health Effects From Radiation Exposure, and The Risk of Radiation Carcinogenesis

The Space Radiation Standing Review Panel (from here on referred to as the SRP) was impressed with the strong research program presented by the scientists and staff associated with NASA's Space Radiation Program Element and National Space Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI). The presentations given on-site and the reports of ongoing research that were provided in advance indicated the potential Risk of Acute and Late Central Nervous System Effects from Radiation Exposure (CNS) and were extensively discussed by the SRP. This new data leads the SRP to recommend that a higher priority should be placed on research designed to identify and understand these risks at the mechanistic level. To support this effort the SRP feels that a shift of emphasis from Acute Radiation Syndromes (ARS) and carcinogenesis to CNS-related endpoints is justified at this point. However, these research efforts need to focus on mechanisms, should follow pace with advances in the field of CNS in general and should consider the specific comments and suggestions made by the SRP as outlined below. The SRP further recommends that the Space Radiation Program Element continue with its efforts to fill the vacant positions (Element Scientist, CNS Risk Discipline Lead) as soon as possible. The SRP also strongly recommends that NASA should continue the NASA Space Radiation Summer School. In addition to these broad recommendations, there are specific comments/recommendations noted for each risk, described in detail below.

Source record↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Human Systems Risk Network - A Ranking Analysis of Risks

INTRODUCTION The Human Systems Risk Board (HSRB) is responsible for understanding, managing, and mitigating the risks associated with spaceflight. For a particular mission, the HSRB assigns each human system risk a rating on a 5x5 grid assessing its likelihood and consequence, which is ultimately used to compare and rank the risks. The HSRB approaches risk management by primarily establishing the context of each human system risk individually with the understanding that mitigating one risk might affect the likelihood, consequence, and mitigation approaches of another. To support this effort the HSRB, subject matter experts, and risk custodian teams created directed acyclic graphs (DAG), often called a causal graph, for the twenty-nine risks. In this presentation, we propose a new ranking algorithm for the risks which includes the downstream influence of each risk according to the information in the DAGs and provide an application of graph theoretic tools. METHODS In 2014, Mindock and Klaus proposed a taxonomy for human system risk influences which we have adopted to categorize the nodes in each DAG. Analyzing the nodes that correspond to the risks in this taxonomy allows us to analyze and understand how each risk influences the others. We construct an auxiliary network, which we call the Primary Risk Network (PRN), where the nodes are the twenty-nine space flight risks and, a directed edge connects Risk A to Risk B if Risk A has some influence on the likelihood or consequence of Risk B as described in the DAGS. We perform a variety of graph theoretic ranking methods on the nodes (or risks) in the PRN, including Katz centrality. RESULTS We rank the nodes in the PRN using the Katz centrality score. The ten risks with the highest score are pictured in Figure 1, colored (light to dark) according to their score. We analyze other centrality measures like betweenness centrality, eigenvector centrality, and the Estrada index, and provide the meaning of the corresponding rankings in terms of the risks. Future work includes analyzing the other categories in the taxonomy defined by Mindock and Klaus [1]. For example, we are interested in analyzing the nodes that are labeled as countermeasures or capabilities and perform similar analysis to measure their effect on certain medical conditions.

dag↗

NASA NTRS2022

Directed Acyclic Graphs: A Tool for Understanding the NASA Human Spaceflight System Risks - Human System Risk Board

For over a decade, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has tracked and configuration-managed approximately 30 risks to astronaut health and performance that occur before, during and after spaceflight. The Human System Risk Board (HSRB), a Health and Medical Technical Authority (HMTA) Board at NASA Johnson Space Center, is the entity responsible for identifying, assessing, analyzing, and monitoring the official understanding of the risk or risk posture for each of the Human System Risks and determining – based on evaluation of the available evidence – when that risk posture changes. The ultimate purpose of tracking and researching these risks is to find ways to reduce the risk that astronaut crews face during spaceflight. Historically, research, development and operations relevant to one risk have been conducted in isolation from other risks; these individual risk ‘silos’ enabled initial characterization of each specific risk. In spaceflight however, the impact of exposure to risk for astronaut crews is cumulative, and not independent of exposures or other risks, as all the adverse effects of the spaceflight environment begin at launch, continue throughout the duration of the mission and in some cases across the lifetime of the crews. In January of 2020, the HSRB at NASA embarked on a pilot project designed to assess the potential value of causal diagramming as a tool to facilitate understanding of these cumulative and interdependent effects as applied within Human System Risk management. This process uses directed acyclic graphs as a means of formalizing a shared mental model of the causal flow of risk among Risk Board stakeholders. Initially this model was to improve communication among those stakeholders, but the potential value exceeds communication alone. The causal diagrams are formulated as directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) to function as a type of knowledge graph for reference for the board and its stakeholders. This document is a sister document to NASA/TM 20220006812 Directed Acyclic Graph Guidance Documentation (1). In that document, the basic guidance for creating and standardizing directed acyclic graphs as tools for cross-risk analysis is provided. This document contains the initial configuration managed DAGs that were created as a result of applying those principles. These initial versions were accepted by the HSRB in January of 2022. Each of the Human System Risks are represented by a DAG that has been reviewed by the larger Human Health and Performance community at NASA including life scientists, physical scientists, physicians, nurses, pharmacists, exercise specialists and more. These results show the starting point for Human System Risk DAGs as shared mental models and communication aids across the boundaries of the various expertise needed to understand and mitigate the human risks in spaceflight. Because they are a starting point, each of these DAGs can be expected to change over time as new or refined evidence becomes available. The process for updating these DAGs can be found in the JSC-66705 Human System Risk Management Plan (2) that is publicly available on the NASA Technical Reports Server.

Erik L. Antonsen↗

NASA NTRS2011

Shuttle Risk Progression: Use of the Shuttle Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) to Show Reliability Growth

It is important to the Space Shuttle Program (SSP), as well as future manned spaceflight programs, to understand the early mission risk and progression of risk as the program gains insights into the integrated vehicle through flight. The risk progression is important to the SSP as part of the documentation of lessons learned. The risk progression is important to future programs to understand reliability growth and the first flight risk. This analysis uses the knowledge gained from 30 years of operational flights and the current Shuttle PRA to calculate the risk of Loss of Crew and Vehicle (LOCV) at significant milestones beginning with the first flight. Key flights were evaluated based upon historical events and significant re-designs. The results indicated that the Shuttle risk tends to follow a step function as opposed to following a traditional reliability growth pattern where risk exponentially improves with each flight. In addition, it shows that risk can increase due to trading safety margin for increased performance or due to external events. Due to the risk drivers not being addressed, the risk did not improve appreciably during the first 25 flights. It was only after significant events occurred such as Challenger and Columbia, where the risk drivers were apparent, that risk was significantly improved. In addition, this paper will show that the SSP has reduced the risk of LOCV by almost an order of magnitude. It is easy to look back afte r 30 years and point to risks that are now obvious, however; the key is to use this knowledge to benefit other programs which are in their infancy stages. One lesson learned from the SSP is understanding risk drivers are essential in order to considerably reduce risk. This will enable the new program to focus time and resources on identifying and reducing the significant risks. A comprehensive PRA, similar to that of the Shuttle PRA, is an effective tool quantifying risk drivers if support from all of the stakeholders is given.

Hamlin, Teri L.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Systemic Risk From the Perspective of Climate, Environmental and Disaster Risk Science and Practice

Understanding and managing systemic risk is more important than ever due to our immense global connectivity (e.g., between sectors, such as food-health-water-energy, countries and continents, down to individuals). Despite the fact that the notion of systemic risk is several decades old, the term is used in diverse ways across different disciplines (e.g., financial systems, medicine, earth system sciences, disaster risk research and climate science). Triggered by the repercussions of the global financial crisis of the late 2000s, and more recently the COVID-19 pandemic, which are clear realization of systemic risk, the perception of systemic risk has often been focused on global and catastrophic or even existential risks. Systemic risk, however, can be seen as a feature of systems at all possible scales (e.g., global, national, regional, local) with system boundaries varying depending on the context. Addressing current societal challenges, such as climate change, in terms of systemic risk requires integrating different systems perspectives and fostering system thinking, while implementing key intergovernmental agendas, such as the Paris Agreement, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and the Sustainable Development Goals. Based on insights gained and knowledge collected from an expert workshop, literature review and expert elicitation, we give an integrated perspective of climate, environmental and disaster risk science and practice on systemic risk as summarized in a Briefing Note to the International Science Council. We provide an overview of concepts of systemic risk that have evolved over time and identify commonalities across terminologies and perspectives associated with systemic risk used in different contexts. Key attributes of systemic risk are outlined without prescribing a single definition, and information and data requirements are discussed that are essential for a better and more actionable understanding of the systemic nature of risk. Finally, the opportunities to connect research and policy for addressing systemic risk are highlighted.

systemic risk↗

NASA NTRS2017

Cross-Cutting Risk Framework: Mining Data for Common Risks Across the Portfolio

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) defines risk management as an integrated framework, combining risk-informed decision making and continuous risk management to foster forward-thinking and decision making from an integrated risk perspective. Therefore, decision makers must have access to risks outside of their own project to gain the knowledge that provides the integrated risk perspective. Through the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) Flight Projects Directorate (FPD) Business Change Initiative (BCI), risks were integrated into one repository to facilitate access to risk data between projects. With the centralized repository, communications between the FPD, project managers, and risk managers improved and GSFC created the cross-cutting risk framework (CCRF) team. The creation of the consolidated risk repository, in parallel with the initiation of monthly FPD risk managers and risk governance board meetings, are now providing a complete risk management picture spanning the entire directorate. This paper will describe the challenges, methodologies, tools, and techniques used to develop the CCRF, and the lessons learned as the team collectively worked to identify risks that FPD programs projects had in common, both past and present.

risk-informed decision making↗

DOE OSTI2024

Risk Analysis for Remote Operation of Microreactors

Microreactors are a subset of advanced nuclear reactors that can be factory fabricated, transportable, and self-regulating. They have the potential to be used in microgrids, rural and remote areas, or emergency response applications, replacing fossil fuel sources like diesel generators and enabling sustainable energy generation. In order to make microreactor operation cost-effective, it is likely that remote communications will be needed to reduce the number of personnel required to be on site. While remote operation of energy generation and other industrial control systems is common in other industries, it is not yet adopted in the nuclear community and has many perceived and actual risks. In this paper, the severity of the risks introduced by remote operations for microreactors are explored. The primary changes in the operations involve the addition of a remote communications network and a certification system for data and controls. These changes lend themselves to considerations of cyber risks, whether unintentional or adversarial, but the assessment considers not just cyber risks introduced, but also how physical and human factors-based risks will impact the remote operations system and change the overall risk profile. This initial assessment indicates that there are standard cyber and mitigation measures that can be put in place so the risk of doing remote operations does not dramatically increase compared to local operations. This evaluation is a critical step in the process of evaluating if remote operations of microreactors is a suitable solution to meet future sustainable grid needs

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗

NASA NTRS2005

Managing Space Radiation Risks On Lunar and Mars Missions: Risk Assessment and Mitigation

Radiation-induced health risks are a primary concern for human exploration outside the Earth's magnetosphere, and require improved approaches to risk estimation and tools for mitigation including shielding and biological countermeasures. Solar proton events are the major concern for short-term lunar missions (<60 d), and for long-term missions (>60 d) such as Mars exploration, the exposures to the high energy and charge (HZE) ions that make-up the galactic cosmic rays are the major concern. Health risks from radiation exposure are chronic risks including carcinogenesis and degenerative tissue risks, central nervous system effects, and acute risk such as radiation sickness or early lethality. The current estimate is that a more than four-fold uncertainty exists in the projection of lifetime mortality risk from cosmic rays, which severely limits analysis of possible benefits of shielding or biological countermeasure designs. Uncertainties in risk projections are largely due to insufficient knowledge of HZE ion radiobiology, which has led NASA to develop a unique probabilistic approach to radiation protection. We review NASA's approach to radiation risk assessment including its impact on astronaut dose limits and application of the ALARA (As Low as Reasonably Achievable) principle. The recently opened NASA Space Radiation Laboratory (NSRL) provides the capability to simulate the cosmic rays in controlled ground-based experiments with biological and shielding models. We discuss how research at NSRL will lead to reductions in the uncertainties in risk projection models. In developing mission designs, the reduction of health risks and mission constraints including costs are competing concerns that need to be addressed through optimization procedures. Mitigating the risks from space radiation is a multi-factorial problem involving individual factors (age, gender, genetic makeup, and exposure history), operational factors (planetary destination, mission length, and period in the solar cycle), and shielding characteristics (materials, mass, and topology). We review optimization metrics for radiation protection including scenarios that integrate biophysics models of radiation risks, operational variables, and shielding design tools needed to assess exploration mission designs. We discuss the application of a crosscutting metric, based on probabilistic risk assessment, to lunar and Mars mission trade studies including the assessment of multi-factorial problems and the potential benefits of new radiation health research strategies or mitigation technologies.

Cucinotta, F. A.↗

NASA NTRS2005

Managing Space Radiation Risks on Lunar and Mars Missions: Risk Assessment and Mitigation

Radiation-induced health risks are a primary concern for human exploration outside the Earth's magnetosphere, and require improved approaches to risk estimation and tools for mitigation including shielding and biological countermeasures. Solar proton events are the major concern for short-term lunar missions (<60 d), and for long-term missions (>60 d) such as Mars exploration, the exposures to the high energy and charge (HZE) ions that make-up the galactic cosmic rays are the major concern. Health risks from radiation exposure are chronic risks including carcinogenesis and degenerative tissue risks, central nervous system effects, and acute risk such as radiation sickness or early lethality. The current estimate is that a more than four-fold uncertainty exists in the projection of lifetime mortality risk from cosmic rays, which severely limits analysis of possible benefits of shielding or biological countermeasure designs. Uncertainties in risk projections are largely due to insufficient knowledge of HZE ion radiobiology, which has led NASA to develop a unique probabilistic approach to radiation protection. We review NASA's approach to radiation risk assessment including its impact on astronaut dose limits and application of the ALARA (As Low as Reasonably Achievable) principle. The recently opened NASA Space Radiation Laboratory (NSRL) provides the capability to simulate the cosmic rays in controlled ground-based experiments with biological and shielding models. We discuss how research at NSRL will lead to reductions in the uncertainties in risk projection models. In developing mission designs, the reduction of health risks and mission constraints including costs are competing concerns that need to be addressed through optimization procedures. Mitigating the risks from space radiation is a multi-factorial problem involving individual factors (age, gender, genetic makeup, and exposure history), operational factors (planetary destination, mission length, and period in the solar cycle), and shielding characteristics (materials, mass, and topology). We review optimization metrics for radiation protection including scenarios that integrate biophysics models of radiation risks, operational variables, and shielding design tools needed to assess exploration mission designs. We discuss the application of a crosscutting metric, based on probabilistic risk assessment, to lunar and Mars mission trade studies including the assessment of multi-factorial problems and the potential benefits of new radiation health research strategies or mitigation technologies.

Cucinotta, F. A.↗

NASA NTRS2006

Exploration Health Risks: Probabilistic Risk Assessment

Maintenance of human health on long-duration exploration missions is a primary challenge to mission designers. Indeed, human health risks are currently the largest risk contributors to the risks of evacuation or loss of the crew on long-duration International Space Station missions. We describe a quantitative assessment of the relative probabilities of occurrence of the individual risks to human safety and efficiency during space flight to augment qualitative assessments used in this field to date. Quantitative probabilistic risk assessments will allow program managers to focus resources on those human health risks most likely to occur with undesirable consequences. Truly quantitative assessments are common, even expected, in the engineering and actuarial spheres, but that capability is just emerging in some arenas of life sciences research, such as identifying and minimize the hazards to astronauts during future space exploration missions. Our expectation is that these results can be used to inform NASA mission design trade studies in the near future with the objective of preventing the higher among the human health risks. We identify and discuss statistical techniques to provide this risk quantification based on relevant sets of astronaut biomedical data from short and long duration space flights as well as relevant analog populations. We outline critical assumptions made in the calculations and discuss the rationale for these. Our efforts to date have focussed on quantifying the probabilities of medical risks that are qualitatively perceived as relatively high risks of radiation sickness, cardiac dysrhythmias, medically significant renal stone formation due to increased calcium mobilization, decompression sickness as a result of EVA (extravehicular activity), and bone fracture due to loss of bone mineral density. We present these quantitative probabilities in order-of-magnitude comparison format so that relative risk can be gauged. We address the effects of conservative and nonconservative assumptions on the probability results. We discuss the methods necessary to assess mission risks once exploration mission scenarios are characterized. Preliminary efforts have produced results that are commensurate with earlier qualitative estimates of risk probabilities in this and other operational contexts, indicating that our approach may be usefully applied in support of the development of human health and performance standards for long-duration space exploration missions. This approach will also enable mission-specific probabilistic risk assessments for space exploration missions.

Rhatigan, Jennifer↗

NASA NTRS2006

Managing Space Radiation Risks on Lunar and Mars Missions: Risk Assessment and Mitigation

Radiation-induced health risks are a primary concern for human exploration outside the Earth's magnetosphere, and require improved approaches to risk estimation and tools for mitigation including shielding and biological countermeasures. Solar proton events are the major concern for short-term lunar missions (<60 d), and for long-term missions (>60 d) such as Mars exploration, the exposures to the high energy and charge (HZE) ions that make-up the galactic cosmic rays are the major concern. Health risks from radiation exposure are chronic risks including carcinogenesis and degenerative tissue risks, central nervous system effects, and acute risk such as radiation sickness or early lethality. The current estimate is that a more than four-fold uncertainty exists in the projection of lifetime mortality risk from cosmic rays, which severely limits analysis of possible benefits of shielding or biological countermeasure designs. Uncertainties in risk projections are largely due to insufficient knowledge of HZE ion radiobiology, which has led NASA to develop a unique probabilistic approach to radiation protection. We review NASA's approach to radiation risk assessment including its impact on astronaut dose limits and application of the ALARA (As Low as Reasonably Achievable) principle. The recently opened NASA Space Radiation Laboratory (NSRL) provides the capability to simulate the cosmic rays in controlled ground-based experiments with biological and shielding models. We discuss how research at NSRL will lead to reductions in the uncertainties in risk projection models. In developing mission designs, the reduction of health risks and mission constraints including costs are competing concerns that need to be addressed through optimization procedures. Mitigating the risks from space radiation is a multi-factorial problem involving individual factors (age, gender, genetic makeup, and exposure history), operational factors (planetary destination, mission length, and period in the solar cycle), and shielding characteristics (materials, mass, and topology). We review optimization metrics for radiation protection including scenarios that integrate biophysics models of radiation risks, operational variables, and shielding design tools needed to assess exploration mission designs. We discuss the application of a crosscutting metric, based on probabilistic risk assessment, to lunar and Mars mission trade studies including the assessment of multi-factorial problems and the potential benefits of new radiation health research strategies or mitigation technologies.

Cucinotta, F. A.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Ensemble Cancer Risk Model for Astronaut Risk Assessment

A new approach to NASA space radiation risk modeling has successfully extended the current NASA probabilistic cancer risk model to an ensemble framework able to consider sub-model parameter uncertainty (e.g. uncertainty in a radiation quality parameter) as well as model-form uncertainty associated with differing theoretical or empirical formalisms (e.g. combined dose-rate and radiation quality effects). Ensemble methodologies are already widely used in weather prediction, modeling of infectious disease outbreaks, and certain terrestrial radiation protection applications to better understand how uncertainty may influence risk decision-making. Applying ensemble methodologies to space radiation risk projections offers the potential to efficiently incorporate emerging research results, allow for the incorporation of future (including international) models, improve uncertainty quantification for underlying sub-models developed against sparse experimental data, and reduce the impact of subjective bias on risk projections. Moreover, risk forecasting across an ensemble of multiple predictive models can provide stakeholders additional information on risk acceptance if current health/medical standards cannot be met or the level of knowledge doesn’t permit a specific risk or exposure limit to be developed for future space exploration missions. In this work, ensemble risk projections implementing multiple sub-models of radiation quality, dose and dose-rate effectiveness factors, excess risk, and latency as ensemble members are presented. Initial consensus methods for ensemble model weights and correlations to account for individual model bias are discussed. In these analyses, the ensemble forecast compares well to results from NASA's current operational cancer risk projection model used to assess permissible exposure limits and permissible mission durations for astronauts. However, a large range of projected risk values are obtained at the upper 95th confidence level where models must extrapolate beyond available biological data sets; closer agreement is seen at the median + one sigma due to the inherent similarities in available models. Future work, including the addition of new models and methods for statistical correlation between predictive members are discussed to define alternate ways of thinking about risk and ‘acceptable’ uncertainty with respect to NASA’s current permissible exposure limits.

Lisa C Simonsen↗

NASA NTRS1995

Risk cross sections and their application to risk estimation in the galactic cosmic-ray environment

Radiation risk cross sections (i.e. risks per particle fluence) are discussed in the context of estimating the risk of radiation-induced cancer on long-term space flights from the galactic cosmic radiation outside the confines of the earth's magnetic field. Such quantities are useful for handling effects not seen after low-LET radiation. Since appropriate cross-section functions for cancer induction for each particle species are not yet available, the conventional quality factor is used as an approximation to obtain numerical results for risks of excess cancer mortality. Risks are obtained for seven of the most radiosensitive organs as determined by the ICRP [stomach, colon, lung, bone marrow (BFO), bladder, esophagus and breast], beneath 10 g/cm2 aluminum shielding at solar minimum. Spectra are obtained for excess relative risk for each cancer per LET interval by calculating the average fluence-LET spectrum for the organ and converting to risk by multiplying by a factor proportional to R gamma L Q(L) before integrating over L, the unrestricted LET. Here R gamma is the risk coefficient for low-LET radiation (excess relative mortality per Sv) for the particular organ in question. The total risks of excess cancer mortality obtained are 1.3 and 1.1% to female and male crew, respectively, for a 1-year exposure at solar minimum. Uncertainties in these values are estimated to range between factors of 4 and 15 and are dominated by the biological uncertainties in the risk coefficients for low-LET radiation and in the LET (or energy) dependence of the risk cross sections (as approximated by the quality factor). The direct substitution of appropriate risk cross sections will eventually circumvent entirely the need to calculate, measure or use absorbed dose, equivalent dose and quality factor for such a high-energy charged-particle environment.

NASA Discipline Radiation Health↗

DOE OSTI2020

An Improved Risk Priority Measure for the Management of Project Risk

Monte Carlo-based project risk models are essential tools in project risk management, particularly for large, complex projects in which it is difficult to glean intuitively the importance of individual risks to the overall project. Conventional correlation-based methods for measuring the importance of contributing risks in such models are argued here to be both statistically flawed and unintuitive in the importance metrics they produce. Drawing on and adapting methods more traditionally associated with engineering risk models, Risk Reduction Worth (RRW) is introduced as an importance measure. RRW is shown to be statistically robust and provide an easily interpretable, quantitative measure of the importance of a risk to the overall performance of a project; specifically, measuring the extent to which removal of a risk would improve confidence in project outcomes. To ensure practicality of the method, an approach is described in which RRWs can be produced for all contributing risks based on a single Monte Carlo sample. This is demonstrated through application to a large, complex project risk model from which intuitive risk importance insights provide a robust, transparent basis for the allocation of risk management resources.

Risk↗

NASA NTRS2021

Perceptions of Climate Risk and Use of Climate Risk Information by Natural Resource Conservation Stakeholders Participating in ADVANCE Projects in Asia and Latin America

Integrating climate risk information into resilience-building activities in the field is important to ensure that adaptation is based on the best available science. Despite this, many challenges exist when developing, communicating, and incorporating climate risk information. There are limited resources on how stakeholders perceive risks, use risk information, and what barriers exist to limit knowledge integration. This paper seeks to define the following: 1) What do conservation stakeholders consider to be the most significant climate risks they face now and possibly in the future? 2) What have been the most significant barriers to their using climate risk information? 3) What sources and types of knowledge would be most useful for these managers to overcome these barriers? A survey was conducted among stakeholders (n = 224) associated with World Wildlife Fund projects in tropical and subtropical countries. A very high proportion of stakeholders used climate risk information and yet faced integration-related challenges, which included too much uncertainty and the lack of a relevant scale for planning. The main factors preventing the use of climate risk information in decision-making were unavailability of climate risk information, no or limited financial or human resources available to respond, lack of organizational mandate or support, and no or limited institutional incentives. Comparing perceived current and future risks revealed a decline in concern for some future climate hazards. Survey respondents identified scientific reports, climate scientists, and online sources as the most useful information sources of climate risk information, while (i) maps and illustrations; (ii) scenarios format; and (iii) data tables, graphs, and charts were identified as user-friendly formats.

Climate risk↗

DOE OSTI2023

Risk Ratio and Risk Difference Estimation in Case-cohort Studies

Background: In case-cohort studies with binary outcomes, ordinary logistic regression analyses have been widely used because of their computational simplicity. However, the resultant odds ratio estimates cannot be interpreted as relative risk measures unless the event rate is low. The risk ratio and risk difference are more favorable outcome measures that are directly interpreted as effect measures without the rare disease assumption. Methods: We provide pseudo-Poisson and pseudo-normal linear regression methods for estimating risk ratios and risk differences in analyses of case-cohort studies. These multivariate regression models are fitted by weighting the inverses of sampling probabilities. Also, the precisions of the risk ratio and risk difference estimators can be improved using auxiliary variable information, specifically by adapting the calibrated or estimated weights, which are readily measured on all samples from the whole cohort. Finally, we provide computational code in R (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) that can easily perform these methods. Results: Through numerical analyses of artificially simulated data and the National Wilms Tumor Study data, accurate risk ratio and risk difference estimates were obtained using the pseudo-Poisson and pseudo-normal linear regression methods. Also, using the auxiliary variable information from the whole cohort, precisions of these estimators were markedly improved. Conclusion: The ordinary logistic regression analyses may provide uninterpretable effect measure estimates, and the risk ratio and risk difference estimation methods are effective alternative approaches for case-cohort studies. These methods are especially recommended under situations in which the event rate is not low.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

High Value Risk Targets in Human System Risk

The Human System Risk Board (HSRB) has the overall responsibility for tracking the evolution of the top ~30 human system risks that it has identified to be associated with human spaceflight. The Board is also charged with maintaining a consistent, integrated process to mitigate those risks, and developing evidence-based risk posture recommendations. Each Risk Custodian Team (RCT) identifies High Value Risk Mitigation Targets (HVRMT) that have the highest likelihood or greatest impact in reducing their risk. These typically include areas where there are major gaps in knowledge or capability; or other targets that promise to yield returns worthy of investments in time, money and other resources by stakeholders interested in reducing Human System Risk. As part of the review of each risk the Board members consider and discuss the HVRMT statements, which are then approved by the Board Chair. High Value Risk Mitigation Targets can include research activities funded by the Human Research Program, but often involve recommending standards, monitoring, or other operational goals to reduce risk. This presentation will discuss common themes and highlights of the approved HVRTs to inform IWS attendees and the wider research community.

D M Buckland↗