Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Assessments”

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 235 records · Page 13
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

Colorado State University Extension Industrial Assessment Center

Since its inception in 1984, the Colorado State University Industrial Assessment Center has performed industrial assessments at more than 720 manufacturing facilities in Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. From 2017 to 2019 there was a funding gap and the IAC shutdown. In 2020 through DOE extension funding the University relaunched the IAC as an extension center in order to provide assessments to underserved areas. Under this award, the CSU Industrial Assessment Center (IAC) was rebuilt with the help of student employees and the director. The CSU team experienced difficulty as the program was in the process of being restarted right as the 2020 pandemic hit. Nonetheless, the CSU IAC was instrumental in providing energy assessments to manufacturers in Colorado and Wyoming during the period of performance of 09/2019 – 12/2022. The Department of Energy's Industrial Assessment Centers (IACs) provide a valuable service to small and medium-sized manufacturers seeking to optimize their operations. These university-based centers offer no-cost, on-site assessments conducted by engineering faculty and students, analyzing energy consumption, production processes, and waste streams. They utilize advanced data acquisition systems to record operational data, and then use the data to create assessment recommendations. These recommendations form the foundation of the comprehensive energy report. The comprehensive report delivers actionable recommendations for enhancing energy efficiency, reducing waste, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving productivity, often identifying significant cost savings. Furthermore, IACs facilitate access to implementation grants, enabling the businesses to readily adopt these improvements. This program not only strengthens individual businesses but also contributes to national goals of training the next generation of energy experts, as well as increasing industrial competitiveness and reduced environmental impact.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2020

DPSIR-ESA Vulnerability Assessment (DEVA) Framework: Synthesis, Foundational Overview, and Expert Case Studies

Land resources are central to understanding the relationship between humans and their environment. We broadly define a land resource to include all the ecological resources of climate, water, soil, landforms, flora, and fauna, and all the socioeconomic systems that interact with agriculture, forestry, and other land uses within some system boundary. Understanding the vulnerability of land resources to changes in land management or climate forcing is critical to developing sustainable land management strategies. Vulnerability assessments are complex given the multiple uses of the assessments, the multi-disciplinary nature of the problem, limited understanding, the dynamic structure of vulnerability, scale issues, and problems with identifying effective vulnerability indicators. Here, we propose a novel conceptual framework for vulnerability assessments of land resources that combines the driver– pressure–state–impact–response (DPSIR) framework adopted by the European Environment Agency to describe interactions between society and the environment, and the exposure-sensitivity-adaptive capacity (ESA) framework used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to assess impacts of climate change. The DPSIR-ESA Vulnerability Assessment (DEVA) framework operationalizes the process of assessing the vulnerability of a target system to external stressors. The DEVA framework includes the following elements: 1) Definition of the target system (Land resource), 2) Description of internal characteristics of the target system (State), 3) Description of target system vulnerability indicators (Adaptive capacity, Sensitivity), 4) Description of stressor characteristics (Drivers, Pressures), 5) Description of stressor vulnerability indicators (Exposure), 6) Description of target system response to stressors (Impacts), and 7) Description of modifications to target systems or stressors (Responses). In stating that they have “applied the DEVA framework”, analysts acknowledge that they have (a) considered the full breadth of each DEVA element, (b) have made conscious decisions to limit the scope and complexity of certain elements, and (c) can communicate both the rationale for these decisions and the impact of these decisions on the vulnerability assessment results and recommendations. The DEVA framework was refined during invited presentations and follow-up discussions from a series of Special Sessions with leading experts at two successive ASABE Annual International Meetings. Six case studies drawn from the sessions elaborate upon the DEVA framework and provide concrete examples of the key concepts. The DEVA approach gives engineers, planners, and analysts a new, flexible framework to apply a broad array of useful tools toward assessment of land resource system vulnerability.

Anandhi, Aauvadi↗
DOE OSTI2022

NRAP-Open-IAM: NRAP Open Source Integrated Assessment Model

Note: This is the last version (a2.6.1) of NRAP-Open-IAM released during NRAP Phase II in 2022. The latest version of NRAP-Open-IAM is available here: https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/phase-iii-nrap-open-iam NRAP-Open-IAM is an open-source software product that enables quantification of containment effectiveness and leakage risk at storage sites in the context of system uncertainties and variability. NRAP-Open-IAM represents the next-generation in a line of systems-based computational models developed for quantitative geological carbon storage (GCS) risk assessment. The model comprises a set of reduced-order and analytical models of various components of the GCS system, potential leakage pathways, receptors of concern including impact to groundwater resources and the atmosphere, a framework to support stochastic simulation, time stepping, uncertainty quantification, other analytical functionality for scenario and risk-performance evaluation, and a basic graphical user interface to support scenario development, data input simulation definition, and basic post-processing and results display. As the NRAP Open-IAM functionality continues to evolve, we continue to add to its capability to develop quantitative, probabilistic, and time-dependent profiles of the evolution of risk at a GCS site and evaluate the influence of uncertain parameters on uncertainty in predicted risk. It can be used to quantify the dynamics of reservoir saturation plume and pressure-affected area, for evaluation of the area of potential groundwater impact (i.e., Area of Review) and monitoring requirements to support cost and regulatory analysis, and for consideration of different post-injection site care and closure scenarios. This submission contains the current version of NRAP-Open-IAM available for evaluation and testing. To use the NRAP-Open-IAM, download the source code (https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/4c24a3da-3b40-4ffe-9892-c807ae9f8760) then open the NRAP-Open-IAM user's guide (https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/8b27335a-343c-4836-b8a3-3ad0bdc9e669) to read more about the tool. Installation instructions for Windows, Mac, and Linux can be found in the "installers" folder of the extracted NRAP-Open-IAM folder and describe setup of environment (e.g., Python libraries) needed for proper work of the tool. Test of installation can be done by running "python openiam_setup_tests.py" in the "setup" folder. The installation test also runs a test suite to see if the NRAP-Open-IAM has been installed correctly. To run the test suite separately, run "python iam_test.py" in the "test" folder. User's guide: https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/8b27335a-343c-4836-b8a3-3ad0bdc9e669 Developer's guide: https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/3bc6ee7d-609d-4eb6-80ba-fa6130ee0313 Reservoir simulation data used in some examples distributed with NRAP-Open-IAM: - Kimberlina: https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/eb62cece-61b2-4037-9b6d-32407dde2ab8 - Kimberlina (compartmentalized): https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/366f9530-3b32-4b84-affe-ab2df1d9a8b5 - FutureGen 2.0: https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/futuregen-2-0-1008-simulation-reservoir-lookup-table NRAP-Open-IAM GitLab repository: https://gitlab.com/NRAP/OpenIAM Related publications: - Bacon, D., Yonkofski, C., Brown, C., Demirkanli, D. and Whiting, J., 2019. Risk-based post injection site care and monitoring for commercial-scale carbon storage: Reevaluation of the FutureGen 2.0 site using NRAP-Open-IAM and DREAM. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 90: 102784. - Bacon, D. Demirkanli, D., and White, S., 2020. Probabilistic risk-based Area of Review (AoR) determination for a deep-saline carbon storage site. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 102: 103153. - Harp, D., Oldenburg, C., and Pawar, R., 2019. A metric for evaluating conformance robustness during geologic CO2 sequestration operations. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 85: 100-108. - Lackey, G., Vasylkivska, V., Huerta, N., King, S., and Dilmore, R., 2019. Managing well leakage risks at a geologic carbon storage site with many wells, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 88 :182-194. - Vasylkivska, V., Dilmore, R., Lackey, G., Zhang, Y., King, S., Bacon, D., Chen, B., Mansoor, K., and Harp, D., 2021. NRAP-Open-IAM: A flexible open-source integrated assessment model for geologic carbon storage risk assessment and management, Environmental Modelling & Software, 143: 105114. Presentations: - Chen, B., Harp, D., and Pawar, R., A data assimilation approach (ES-MDA) coupling with NRAP-Open-IAM for quantifying uncertainty reduction in geological CO2 sequestration. AGUFM 2019: T44A-02. - Chen, B., and Harp, D., Improving risk analysis precision for geologic CO2 sequestration by quantifying the uncertainty reduction before and after acquiring monitoring data. 14th Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 2018, pp. 21-26. - Harp, D., National Risk Assessment Partnership Task 2: Containment Assurance. No. LA-UR-19-28654, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, NM (United States), 2019. - Vasylkivska, V., King, S., Bacon, D., Harp, D., Chen, B., Mansoor, K., Onishi, T., Yang, Y., Zhang, Y., and Keating, E., NRAP-Open-IAM: An open-source integrated assessment model, poster, Mastering the Subsurface Through Technology Innovation, Partnerships and Collaboration: Carbon Storage and Oil and Natural Gas Technologies Review Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, August 13-16, 2018. - Vasylkivska, V., Lackey, G., King, S., Wentworth, A., Huerta, N., Creason, C., DiGiulio, J., Yang, Y., and Dilmore, R., Long-term risk analysis of a geologic CO2 storage project during the post-injection period, SIAM Conference on Computational Science and Engineering, Spokane, WA, February 25-March 1, 2019. - Vasylkivska, V., Overview of the NRAP-Open-IAM tool for carbon storage (beta release), 2019 Annual NRAP Tool Users Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, August 27, 2019. - Vasylkivska, V., Bacon, D., Chen, B., Dilmore, R., Harp, D., King, S., Lackey, G., Lindner, E., Liu, G., Mansoor, K. and Zhang, Y., NRAP-Open-IAM: A new, open-source code for integrated assessment of geologic carbon storage containment effectiveness and leakage risk, poster, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting 2020 (virtual meeting), December 2020. - Vasylkivska, V., NRAP open-source integrated assessment model and relevant application, oral presentation, NRAP workshop "NRAP Tools for Geologic Carbon Storage Risk-Based Decision Making" held in conjunction with Groundwater Protection Council (GWPC) 2021 Annual Forum (virtual meeting), Salt Lake City, UT, September 2021. - Vasylkivska, V., NRAP-Open-IAM: open-source integrated assessment model, digital poster/demonstration, software demonstration session, 2022 Carbon Management Project Review Meeting, August 16, 2022

AoR↗
DOE OSTI2020

Performance Assessments of Demand Flexibility from Grid-Interactive Efficient Buildings: Issues and Considerations

This SEE Action Network report explains basic concepts and fundamental considerations for assessing the actual demand flexibility performance of buildings participating in demand flexibility programs and responding to time-varying retail rates. Demand flexibility is the capability of distributed energy resources (DERs) to adjust a building’s load profile across different timescales. Assessments determine the timing, location, quantity, and quality of grid services provided. The results can be used for financial settlements and to improve performance of demand flexibility, support its consideration in resource potential studies and electricity system planning, and contribute to cost-effectiveness evaluations. While practitioners and regulators regularly find opportunities to improve performance assessments of demand-related services, to a large degree current best practices are sufficient for basic service offerings as demand flexibility is implemented today. However, advances in assessment practices will be required in a future with grid-interactive efficient buildings (GEBs) that provide continuous demand flexibility by integrating multiple DERs and flexibility modes (load shed, load shift, modulate, and generate). Example practices include using new baseline constructs—including whether baselines are even required for certain building flexibility modes or configurations, deploying more advanced metering and analytics, further developing cybersecurity standards, improving communication standards for increased interoperability, and establishing performance metrics and assessment procedures for load modulation as it is more fully defined and implemented. This report provides information on prioritizing and designing performance assessment elements for demand flexibility programs and time-varying retail rates, assessment protocols, and research and development needs. Additional research sponsored by DOE’s Building Technologies Office offers more detailed technical information on assessing performance of demand flexibility, including definition of performance metrics.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2022

Industrial Assessment Center – integration of education and practice. Final progress report

The goal of the DOE’s Industrial Assessment Center (IAC) program is twofold: first, to help US manufacturing competitiveness by providing assessments and recommendations for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) on energy efficiency, productivity, sustainability and competitiveness – including measuring the impacts of these recommendations on reducing greenhouse gas emissions; and second, to address a growing shortage of engineering professionals with applied energy and manufacturing-related skills by training a diverse cross-section of engineering students through hands-on involvement in these assessments. IUPUI has an IAC, which was established in 2011, in the Department of Mechanical and Energy Engineering, Purdue School of Engineering and Technology, IUPUI. The IAC has won the awards twice. We have built the center that has the expertise and infrastructure for quality energy assessments to manufactures and commercial building owners and aligned our current research and teaching activities to the DOE’ training mission with programs to train the next generation of industrial energy efficiency experts, with theory and hands-on experience in conducting energy assessment for small and median manufacturing enterprises. We have made recommendations that have the potential to save about $20M annually. We also initiated research projects to meet DOE priorities, specifically in the areas of smart manufacturing and cybersecurity. On the energy assessment side, the Center has provided energy assessments to 144 qualified companies, primarily located in Indiana. On the training side, the center has trained students in various programs, such as the department’s Bachelor of Science (BS) programs in Mechanical Engineering (ME) and BS in Energy Engineering (EEN), both are ABET accredited engineering programs, as well as a graduate level Energy Management and Assessment certificate program. At the present, the center has trained 95 students, 43 or them received the DOE issued certificates. Research projects were developed within the center to advance energy efficiency related technologies, which provided excellent opportunities for our trainees. The center has also been building a professional network with utilities, Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), government agencies, and manufacturing companies, to increase our client base and promote collaborations. The center received the 2019 Center of Excellence of the Year Award and three students received the “Outstanding Achievement in Energy Engineering by an IAC Student” awards in the past five years.

42 ENGINEERING↗
NASA NTRS1972

The management of technology assessment

The total problem concept of technology assessment, involving a comprehensive information management activity with an objective orientation to the assessment function is discussed. A brief overview of the technology assessment function and some past experiences are given. Fragmentation of assessment systems, optimum social subsystem for examination in particular assessments, and adequacy of assessments are studied. The magnitude of the technology assessment function and the level of support required for the effective performance of this function are also discussed. One type of institutional arrangement which might produce a close approximation to the total problem assessment approach is suggested.

Mayo, L. H.↗
NASA NTRS1978

A review of NASA-sponsored technology assessment projects

Recent technology assessment studies sponsored by NASA are reviewed, and a summary of the technical results as well as a critique of the methodologies are presented. The reviews include Assessment of Lighter-Than-Air Technology, Technology Assessment of Portable Energy RDT&P, Technology Assessment of Future Intercity Passenger Transportation Systems, and Technology Assessment of Space Disposal of Radioactive Nuclear Waste. The use of workshops has been introduced as a unique element of some of these assessments. Also included in this report is a brief synopsis of a method of quantifying opinions obtained through such group interactions. Representative of the current technology assessments, these studies cover a broad range of socio-political factors and issues in greater depth than previously considered in NASA sponsored studies. In addition to the lessons learned through the conduct of these studies, a few suggestions for improving the effectiveness of future technology assessments are provided.

Mascy, A. C.↗
NASA NTRS2003

Transition from Research to Operations: Assessing Value of Experimental Forecast Products within the NWSFO Environment

The NASA Short-term Prediction Research and Transition (SPoRT) Center seeks to accelerate the infusion of NASA Earth Science Enterprise (ESE) observations, data assimilation and modeling research into NWS forecast operations and decision-making. To meet long-term program expectations, it is not sufficient simply to give forecasters sophisticated workstations or new forecast products without fully assessing the ways in which they will be utilized. Close communication must be established between the research and operational communities so that developers have a complete understanding of user needs. In turn, forecasters must obtain a more comprehensive knowledge of the modeling and sensing tools available to them. A major goal of the SPoRT Program is to develop metrics and conduct assessment studies with NWS forecasters to evaluate the impacts and benefits of ESE experimental products on forecast skill. At a glance the task seems relatively straightforward. However, performing assessment of experimental products in an operational environment is demanding. Given the tremendous time constraints placed on NWS forecasters, it is imperative that forecaster input be obtained in a concise unobtrusive manor. Great care must also be taken to ensure that forecasters understand their participation will eventually benefit them and WFO operations in general. Two requirements of the assessment plan developed under the SPoRT activity are that it 1) Can be implemented within the WFO environment; and 2) Provide tangible results for BOTH the research and operational communities. Supplemental numerical quantitative precipitation forecasts (QPF) were chosen as the first experimental SPoRT product to be evaluated during a Pilot Assessment Program conducted 1 May 2003 within the Huntsville AL National Weather Service Forecast Office. Forecast time periods were broken up into six- hour bins ranging from zero to twenty-four hours. Data were made available for display in AWIPS on an operational basis so they could be efficiently incorporated into the forecast process. The methodology used to assess the value of experimental QPFs compared to available operational products is best described as a three-tier approach involving both forecasters and research scientists. Tier-one is a web-based survey completed by duty forecasters on the aviation and public desks. The survey compiles information on how the experimental product was used in the forecast decision making process. Up to 6 responses per twenty-four hours can be compiled during a precipitation event. Tier-two consists of an event post mortem and experimental product assessment performed daily by the NASA/NWS Liaison. Tier-three is a detailed breakdown/analysis of specific events targeted by either the NWS SO0 or SPoRT team members. The task is performed by both NWS and NASA research scientists and may be conducted once every couple of months. The findings from the Pilot Assessment Program will be reported at the meeting.

Lapenta, William M.↗
NASA NTRS2007

Nutritional Status Assessment (SMO 016E)

It has not been possible to assess nutritional status of crew members on the ISS during flight because blood and urine could not be collected during ISS missions. Postflight observations of alterations in nutritional status for several nutrients are troubling, and we require the ability to monitor the status of these nutrients during flight to determine if there is a specific impetus or timeframe for these changes. In addition to the monitoring of crew nutritional status during flight, in-flight sample collection would allow better assessment of countermeasure effectiveness. SMO 016E is also designed to expand the current medical requirement for nutritional assessment (MR016L) to include additional normative markers for assessing crew health and countermeasure effectiveness. Additional markers of bone metabolism will be measured to better monitor bone health and the effectiveness of countermeasures to prevent bone resorption. New markers of oxidative damage will be measured to better assess the type of oxidative insults that occur during space flight. The array of nutritional assessment parameters will be expanded to include parameters that will allow us to better understand changes in folate and vitamin B6 status, and related cardiovascular risk factors during and after flight. Additionally, stress hormones and hormones that affect bone and muscle metabolism will also be measured. This additional assessment will allow us to better monitor the health of crew members and make more accurate recommendations for their rehabilitation. Several nutritional assessment parameters are altered at landing, but it is not known how long these changes persist. We extended the current protocol to include an additional postflight blood and urine sample collection 30 days after landing. Data are being collected before, during, and after flight. These data will provide a complete survey of how nutritional status and related systems are affected by space flight. Analyzing the data will help us to define nutritional requirements for long-duration missions. This expanded set of measurements will also aid in the identification of nutritional countermeasures to counteract, for example, the deleterious effects of microgravity on bone and muscle and the effects of space radiation.

Smith, S. M.↗
NASA NTRS2009

Microbial Risk Assessment

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

Ott, C. M.↗
NASA NTRS2009

Designing a Better Spacecraft: Assessing Flight Operability of Human Rated Spacecraft

The design of a human rated spacecraft is a complex and costly process requiring the integrated assessment of many individual criteria. Historically, it has been difficult to include in that integrated assessment the design s full impact on the flight operations community and its costs. The unique "operability requirements" have not been well understood, nor has there been a well-defined set of criteria for assessing operability. As a result, flight operations organizations and program managers are often faced with difficult and costly operations phase implementations. In response, the Mission Operations Directorate at NASA s Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center has established a formal technique to evaluate and communicate the operational characteristics of spacecraft system designs for the Constellation Program. This process is not intended to replace or replicate other critical assessments such as risk, reliability and safety assessments. Instead, this new technique adds to the assessment toolset a means to address the concerns and potential cost drivers that are unique to the operational phase of a program and the flight operations community. This paper describes the implementation and application of this "Spacecraft Flight Operability Assessment Scale" in supporting vehicle design efforts. The six key factors of flight operability are defined, with guiding principles and goals stated for each factor. A standardized rating technique provides feedback that is useful to both the operations and program management communities. Sample assessments of legacy spacecraft, including the Space Shuttle and International Space Station systems, are provided to provide real world examples of this technique s application.

Crocker, Alan R.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Risk Assessment Overview

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

Prassinos, Peter G.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Mars Sample Return (MSR) Sample Receiving Facility (SRF) Assessment Study (MSAS)

NASA, in partnership with the European Space Agency (ESA), is seeking to return Martian geological and atmospheric samples to Earth for scientific study in the early 2030s. Due to the possibility that the samples could contain extraterrestrial life, Mars Sample Return (MSR) is classified as a Category V: Restricted Earth Return mission by the NASA Planetary Protection Office. As a result of this classification, a MSR Sample Receiving Facility (SRF) must not only provide a pristine environment to ensure samples are protected from terrestrial contamination for scientific investigations, it must also provide high-containment (biosafety level 4 [BSL-4]-equivalence) to isolate the samples from Earth’s biosphere until the samples are deemed safe for release and/or sterilized. The nominal utilization period for a SRF is anticipated to be 2-5 years and is intended to enable curation activities, biohazard assessment, select early science activities, and the rapid release of samples to the scientific community. However, to account for possible delays in schedule or the identification of extant life, this anticipated period of time must be flexible to accommodate schedule extensions and contingency plans. Due to requirements for high-level biological containment and cleanliness, a traditional receiving/curation facility cannot be utilized for MSR. Therefore, beginning in 2022, NASA Johnson Space Center is performing a MSR SRF Assessment Study (MSAS) to investigate the most optimal facility modality for a MSR SRF, as well as start to define programmatic early estimate of costs and schedules before the initial design phase begins. NASA is partnering with industry contractors (architectural and engineering firms with BSL-4 and cleanroom technology experience, as well as other contracted infrastructure and construction specialists) along with selected experts from NASA, ESA, existing U.S. BSL-4 facilities, and other U.S. government agencies, to carry out the assessment study. The MSAS should also aid in the future refinement of the science requirements (e.g., contamination control, equipment accommodations) before site-specific design would commence. As part of the MSAS, NASA is planning to assess an array of possibilities for a MSR SRF. One of the main considerations is the facility modality and whether an existing BSL-4 facility can be utilized (for some or all functions); or, if new constructure would be required, would a traditional fixed facility or a modular facility the best choice. MSAS will also investigate the ability of the modalities to accommodate two different facility capability endmembers: 1) a minimal facility focusing on biohazard assessment and curation tasks with a small footprint, and 2) an enhanced facility with additional capabilities to enable expedited processing and the completion of time-sensitive and (some) sterilization-sensitive science. The assessment is intended to generate information that will inform the selection of facility modalities for high-level conceptual design development. While the assessment study will focus on SRF requirements for accommodating curation, science, and sample safety assessment infrastructure, it will also consider an array of other factors, such as ease of access for international users, decommissioning, repurposing, future sale or lease following MSR’s use of the facility, and uncontained preparatory laboratory spaces. Upon completion of the study, the preferred modality and refined requirements would be utilized for site-specific design but will not be finalized until NASA’s completion of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.

A.D. Harrington↗
NASA NTRS2024

Safe Exploration: Sensorimotor Assessments for Early Extravehicular Activities

BACKGROUND: Artemis missions will require a new level of crew autonomy around periods of gravitational transition, where sensorimotor disturbances are at their highest. There is a need to define performance thresholds for key sensorimotor assessments that indicate when performance in early extravehicular activities (EVAs) might be impacted or unsafe. This panel presentation will discuss the development of sensorimotor assessments for determining crew preparedness of early EVAs by utilizing a novel portable sensorimotor disorientation analog and other spaceflight analogs. OVERVIEW: To define performance thresholds, a proposed set of sensorimotor assessment tasks must be validated under various spaceflight analogs. A Sensorimotor Disorientation Analog (SDA) was developed that could induce varying levels of disorientation through combined vestibular (galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS)) and proprioceptive (weighted chest, ankles, and wrists) disruptions. The SDA was first pilot tested using subjective feedback from previously flown astronauts to determine the levels of disorientation that mimic motor performance immediately (R+0) and +24 hours (R+1) postflight. A second study was performed using healthy non-astronaut ground subjects to validate the SDA levels by comparing to astronaut postflight data. The validated SDA was utilized in a third study to map performance in the proposed set of sensorimotor assessment tasks to operational tasks. The assessment tasks were defined based on lessons learned from Apollo and subject matter experts (e.g., flight surgeons) to include the following: 1) aid in progressive adaptation to the novel gravitational environment; 2) provide opportunities to develop strategies to recover from off-nominal body positions; and 3) mimic operational tasks such that crew can self-assess their potential ability to complete their missions. This presentation will conclude with a discussion on future validation studies of the proposed assessment tasks using other spaceflight analogs such as centrifugation and gravity offload systems. DISCUSSION: Exploration class missions will require crew to be able to self-assess and treat their sensorimotor dysfunction after gravity transitions, and in off-nominal situations they may be required to perform provocative, challenging tasks soon after landing. This panel presentation will discuss current and ongoing research strategies to address the sensorimotor risk on safe exploration during Artemis missions.

Sarah Moudy↗
DOE OSTI2021

Bio-project “derisking” through development of systematic methodologies and frameworks for risk assessment

One of the primary hindrances to producing a viable, sustainable domestic biomass industry for renewable biofuels, bio-products and bio-power is the lack of understanding and quantification of the risks associated with both the biomass supply chain and preprocessing and conversion technologies. Currently a consistent method for assessing, comparing, and quantifying risks in biomass supply chains does not exist, creating a major investment barrier to bioenergy projects in the U.S. The lack of a standardized approach has resulted in bioenergy stakeholders independently using inconsistent approaches and evaluation criteria, leading to unreliable and incomparable assessments of risks and financing barriers to bio-project development. Along with the challenges of inconsistent risk assessment for supply chain risk, technology specific risks based on variability in biomass properties are not fully understood and can pose significant unforeseen challenges for bioenergy projects. In many cases these properties have not yet been identified and the impacts on the proposed technology and products unquantified. This is particularly challenging for emerging preprocessing and conversion technologies. Without a firm understanding of the preprocessing/conversion technology-specific critical properties, the risk of a proposed bio-project cannot be fully evaluated. To address inconsistent risk evaluation in the biomass supply chain supporting project financing, a Biomass Supply Chain Risk Standards (BSCRS) framework was developed. The BSCRS framework includes a comprehensive list of known and perceived risks (Risk Indicators) to the supply chain developed through 100’s of interviews with bioenergy industry experts spanning from feedstock growers and suppliers to representatives from the financial sector. These risks have been organized into a manageable hierarchy of Risk Categories and Risk Factors that can be practically assessed. This BSCRS framework also provides mitigation strategies for multiple Risk Indicators from best available industry practices and research findings. Additionally, a risk quantification methodology for each Risk Factor, Risk Category, and the bio-project as a whole was developed to enable capital markets to assess feedstock risk more efficiently and more accurately. Multiple case studies representing existing bio-projects have been used to evaluate and verify the BSCRS framework and scoring methodology. To address technological risk along with the supply chain risk captured in the developed BSCRS framework, this work also focuses on development of a systematic criticality assessment tool using well-accepted, quantitative risk analysis methods to evaluate bioenergy feedstock critical properties impacting system unit operations. The proposed Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) approach uses a team of subject area experts (SAEs) for each targeted unit operation within a system. Collectively, the team will develop and use a quantitative scoring system to assess the material attributes, process parameters, and quality attributes for key unit operations that have already been identified. The FMEA process generates Risk Priority Numbers (RPNs) for the various failures and predominant causes for each material/process unit/product combination resulting in a semi-quantitative, standardized methodology for assessing technological risk and biomass properties contributing to that risk.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Special Analyses for the Hanford Integrated Disposal Facility Performance Assessment - 20102

In 2014, the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of River Protection and its contractors began to develop a performance assessment for the near-surface disposal of low-level and mixed low-level waste at the Hanford Site's Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF). The IDF is a doubly-lined landfill that was constructed between 2004 and 2006 to be the disposal facility for the vitrified low-activity waste that will be produced at the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP). IDF is also expected to receive solid secondary waste produced at the WTP and other solid wastes from site activities. The IDF has been in a preoperational state awaiting authorization from DOE and a RCRA permit modification from the State of Washington Department of Ecology to receive waste. Both the Disposal Authorization Statement and permit modification require a performance assessment demonstrating that the system of engineered and natural features will limit releases of radionuclides and hazardous chemicals from the IDF and be protective of human health and the environment. The simulated duration is 10,000 years. Based on the analyses presented in the 2017 Integrated Disposal Facility Performance Assessment, DOE issued a conditional Operating Disposal Authorization Statement for the IDF in June 2018. The long-term performance of the IDF to be protective of human health and the environment was evaluated under the requirements of DOE Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management. Computer simulations were performed to evaluate whether or not the IDF would comply with DOE requirements. In the time that has passed since the performance assessment was approved by DOE, new information has been discovered that had not been considered in the performance assessment. Since this new information has not been evaluated, the potential impact of the changes have not been taken into consideration in DoE's disposal authorization. DOE and its contractors follow a change control process to screen and, when necessary, evaluate new information that could potentially impact the conclusions of the completed performance assessment. This paper will describe the change control process and provide two examples of evaluations performed following the change control process. The first example evaluates a new waste form for liquid secondary waste that was not evaluated in the performance assessment. In the performance assessment, liquid secondary waste was assumed to be solidified with grout. A new recommendation to dispose of the liquid secondary waste after drying it to a powder was evaluated. The second example evaluates inventory implications from changes to the flow sheet that estimates the feed composition to the low-activity waste vitrification facility. The changes result in higher strontium concentrations in the vitrified waste stream. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2023

Understanding the Uncertainty in the Technical Performance Level Assessment for Wave Energy

In recent years, the design and development of wave energy converters (WECs) has been explored with intense interest, with highly varying design concepts emerging globally across both research enterprises and industry. The design space for WECs is vast - many concepts ranging in functionality, control systems, power development systems, materials, and scale have been ideated and prototyped, but WEC technology has yet to converge. One critical element of the technology trajectory that governs the speed of adoption is the performance of a WEC concept. In analogous but more-established industries (such as aerospace, and environmentally sustainable electronics design), performance assessment is a quantitative method, based on historical data, that is used as an iterative tool to improve the design of these systems early on in the design process. Though more nascent than these approaches, in wave energy R&D, WEC performance has been assessed using the Technology Performance Level (TPL) assessment, which provides designers with a quantitative score, situating a grid-scale WEC concept on a scale from 1-9 (1 being the lowest performance, and 9 being the highest, trending with the oft-used Technology Readiness Level, or TRL). The TPL assessment is designed to be used during design iteration, when a WEC concept is fully ideated, to enable designers to consider potential means of improving the downstream performance of the concept. One concern that may be slowing the adoption of TPL among WEC developers is the inherent uncertainty in the assessment, and how uncertainty in the individual questions asked as part of the assessment may contribute to perceived inaccuracies in the final score. In this work, we explore the uncertainty present in the assessment and quantify this uncertainty using both traditional mathematical operations and a Monte Carlo simulation. Results imply areas of improvement of the TPL assessment, where reducing uncertainty will be most helpful to end users, enabling both TPL practitioners and users to understand with more accuracy those design elements that can be improved to impact device performance most substantively.

techno-economic analysis↗
DOE OSTI2024

Digitalization mapping and assessment process supporting ION strategic transformation activities

The existing fleet of commercial nuclear power plants (NPPs) are an important asset in the nation’s portfolio of electrical generating resources. Their continued safe and reliable operation are critical to providing a large source of carbon-free electricity to power the nation’s economy. The United States Department of Energy’s (DOE) Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) Program develops the scientific bases, methods, and tools, for the continued safe and economical operation of the nation's commercial NPPs. The Plant Modernization Pathway within LWRS Program focuses on providing guidance to industry on the full-scale implementation of modernization solutions for NPPs that significantly reduce the technical and financial risks associated with modernization. This research is focused on helping the nuclear industry understand how to digitize and digitalize their NPPs so that they can design their modernization solutions to be scalable, sustainable, and integrated both laterally and horizontally within their organization. That is, this research creates a digital transformation in NPPs by reshaping cultural mindsets and by identifying business efficiencies. In partnership with industry, and using four previously established guiding principles for digitalization, this research supported NPP modernization through assessing readiness for digitalization as a means to achieve integrated operations for nuclear. Specifically, this research created an assessment to review an entire organization’s work processes to gather information about the digitalization health of the plant. The assessment tools were administered to plant employees, and the results were used to develop a digitalization plan. The survey assessment identified the optimal candidate processes that would most benefit from a digitalization initiative which were revealed through analytical frameworks. One analysis calculated mean digitalization health indicator scores for all endorsed activities which allowed the researchers to rank and color code the results for easy identification. Individual health indicator scores are also provided, should our industry partner wish to understand these findings according to their own organizational priorities, business considerations and desired end-state. The results were also analyzed from the perspective that organizations are comprised of different types of innovators (e.g., generators, optimizers, conceptualizers, and implementers), which differentially affects the organization’s ability to comprehend and adapt to change (i.e., opportunities to innovate). Understanding the relative composition of innovator types at an NPP allows them to gather insights into the strengths and weaknesses they have in innovating how work is performed. For the utility that partnered with this research team, the results showed that implementers make up the largest portion of respondents and conceptualizers the smallest portion. Knowing the proportion of innovator types gave this organization insights on how they can effectively implement their innovation solutions. Additionally, the results were analyzed from a technical, economic, and risk perspective to identify and quantify work reduction opportunities (WROs). Recognizing that not all cost-saving opportunities are the same, a Technical, Economic and Risk Assessment (TERA) was performed to evaluate WROs to identify areas of greatest potential and lowest risk. The key results from TERA included a digitalization opportunity score for each activity, and a calculation of potential cost savings. These two outputs formed the bases for calculating a priority index and rank for the activities/processes assessed. From the prioritization calculations, TERA can then help the utility 1) decide what digitalization priorities to invest money in implementing and then 2) calculates how much should be invested in the digitalization initiatives selected to achieve cost savings and/or an acceptable return on investment. Last, onsite interviews revealed several inefficiencies in the standard work processes that occur cross-departmentally that are due to the absence of digitized and digitalized processes. Examples of these include time spent scanning paper documents and then uploading the documents electronically, obtaining signatures, and searching for desired information. This represents a digital but not digitalized process. Over 15 opportunities to improve work processes were identified through this multi-method digitalization assessment. The various analytical assessments used (e.g., TERA, digitalization health indicator scores), as well as discussions with the utility partner, corroborated that all the opportunities identified had a strong potential to make work processes more efficient and to improve overall performance of the NPP.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗