Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Risk”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

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

At least 253 records · Page 14
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2015

Evidence Report: Risk of Acute and Late Central Nervous System Effects from Radiation Exposure

Possible acute and late risks to the central nervous system (CNS) from galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and solar particle events (SPE) are a documented concern for human exploration of space. Acute CNS risks include: altered cognitive function, reduced motor function, and behavioral changes, all of which may affect performance and human health. Late CNS risks include neurological disorders such as Alzheimer's disease (AD), dementia and premature aging. Although detrimental CNS changes are observed in humans treated with high-dose radiation (e.g., gamma rays and protons) for cancer and are supported by experimental evidence showing neurocognitive and behavioral effects in animal models, the significance of these results on the morbidity to astronauts has not been elucidated. There is a lack of human epidemiology data on which to base CNS risk estimates; therefore, risk projection based on scaling to human data, as done for cancer risk, is not possible for CNS risks. Research specific to the spaceflight environment using animal and cell models must be compiled to quantify the magnitude of CNS changes in order to estimate this risk and to establish validity of the current permissible exposure limits (PELs). In addition, the impact of radiation exposure in combination with individual sensitivity or other space flight factors, as well as assessment of the need for biological/pharmaceutical countermeasures, will be considered after further definition of CNS risk occurs.

Nelson, Gregory A.↗
NASA NTRS2015

Risk of Adverse Cognitive or Behavioral Conditions and Psychiatric Disorders

The NASA commitment to human space flight includes continuing to fly astronauts on the ISS until it is decommissioned as well as possibly returning astronauts to the moon or having astronauts venture to an asteroid or Mars. As missions leave low Earth orbit and explore deeper space, BHP supports and conducts research to enable a risk posture that considers the risk of adverse cognitive or behavioral conditions and psychiatric disorders “acceptable given mitigations,” for pre-, in, and post-flight.The Human System Risk Board (HSRB) determines the risk of various mission scenarios using a likelihood (per person per year) by consequences matrix examining those risks across two categories—long term health and operational (within mission). Colors from a stoplight signal are used by HSRB and quickly provide a means of assessing overall perceived risk for a particular mission scenario. Risk associated with the current six month missions on the ISS are classified as “accepted with monitoring” while planetary missions, such as a mission to Mars, are recognized to be a “red” risk that requires mitigation to ensure mission success.Currently, the HSRB deems that the risk of adverse cognitive or behavioral conditions and psychiatric outcomes requires mitigation for planetary missions owing to long duration isolation and radiation exposure (see Table 1). While limited research evidence exists from spaceflight, it is well known anecdotally that the shift from the two week shuttle missions to the six month ISS missions renders the psychological stressors of space as more salient over longer duration missions. Shuttle astronauts were expected just to tolerate any stressors that arose during their mission and were successful at doing so (Whitmire et al, 2013). While it is possible to deal with stressors such as social isolation and to live with incompatible crewmembers for two weeks on shuttle, “ignoring it” is much less likely to be a successful coping mechanism on station. For the longer missions of the ISS, astronauts require a larger, more robust set of coping skills and more psychological support. Evidence of this are the number of BHP’s Operational Psychology (Op Psy) staff who have been awarded silver Snoopys by long duration astronauts†, in the statements of praise for the Op Psy and Family Support Office teams, and in the written and oral statements from flown astronauts regarding difficulty of longer missions and how much Op Psy helped.

Slack, Kelley J.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Characterization of Evidence for Human System Risk Assessment

Understanding the kinds of evidence available and using the best evidence to answer a question is critical to evidenced-based decision-making, and it requires synthesis of evidence from a variety of sources. Categorization of human system risks in spaceflight, in particular, focuses on how well the integration and interpretation of all available evidence informs the risk statement that describes the relationship between spaceflight hazards and an outcome of interest. A mature understanding and categorization of these risks requires: 1) sufficient characterization of risk, 2) sufficient knowledge to determine an acceptable level of risk (i.e., a standard), 3) development of mitigations to meet the acceptable level of risk, and 4) identification of factors affecting generalizability of the evidence to different design reference missions. In the medical research community, evidence is often ranked by increasing confidence in findings gleaned from observational and experimental research (e.g., "levels of evidence"). However, an approach based solely on aspects of experimental design is problematic in assessing human system risks for spaceflight. For spaceflight, the unique challenges and opportunities include: (1) The independent variables in most evidence are the hazards of spaceflight, such as space radiation or low gravity, which cannot be entirely duplicated in terrestrial (Earth-based) analogs, (2) Evidence is drawn from multiple sources including medical and mission operations, Lifetime Surveillance of Astronaut Health (LSAH), spaceflight research (LSDA), and relevant environmental & terrestrial databases, (3) Risk metrics based primarily on LSAH data are typically derived from available prevalence or incidence data, which may limit rigorous interpretation, (4) The timeframe for obtaining adequate spaceflight sample size (n) is very long, given the small population, (5) Randomized controlled trials are unattainable in spaceflight, (6) Collection of personal and environmental data on the astronaut population may create opportunities for advanced analytics and human-environment modeling that goes beyond that achieved in isolated experimental designs; and (7) Translation of relevant research to operations is a complex, transdisciplinary enterprise in which the approach must apply across the physical, biological, behavioral, and social sciences. The approach to synthesizing evidence must address both source and fidelity of data, and reflect the most general attributes of quality of evidence in science and engineering: reliability and validity. The authors are developing a two-factor approach which includes the various kinds of evidence required to understand risks and for the integrated interpretation of all evidence that is essential to develop standards and countermeasures. A unified framework for aggregating and assessing different kinds of evidence provides a consistent, traceable, evidence-based decision-making process to translate research to operations in an environment where engineers, scientists, physicians, and managers all engage in analyzing the trade space of vehicle design, standards, requirements and solutions for spaceflight.

Steinberg, S. L.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Humans vs Hardware: The Unique World of NASA Human System Risk Assessment

Understanding spaceflight risks to crew health and performance is a crucial aspect of preparing for exploration missions in the future. The research activities of the Human Research Program (HRP) provide substantial evidence to support most risk reduction work. The Human System Risk Board (HSRB), acting on behalf of the Office of Chief Health and Medical Officer (OCHMO), assesses these risks and assigns likelihood and consequence ratings to track progress. Unfortunately, many traditional approaches in risk assessment such as those used in the engineering aspects of spaceflight are difficult to apply to human system risks. This presentation discusses the unique aspects of risk assessment from the human system risk perspective and how these limitations are accommodated and addressed in order to ensure that reasonable inputs are provided to support the OCHMO's overall risk posture for manned exploration missions.

Anton, W.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Evidence Report: Risk of Acute and Late Central Nervous System Effects from Radiation Exposure

Possible acute and late risks to the central nervous system (CNS) from galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and solar particle events (SPE) are concerns for human exploration of space. Acute CNS risks may include: altered cognitive function, reduced motor function, and behavioral changes, all of which may affect performance and human health. Late CNS risks may include neurological disorders such as Alzheimer's disease (AD), dementia and premature aging. Although detrimental CNS changes are observed in humans treated with high-dose radiation (e.g., gamma rays and 9 protons) for cancer and are supported by experimental evidence showing neurocognitive and behavioral effects in animal models, the significance of these results on the morbidity to astronauts has not been elucidated. There is a lack of human epidemiology data on which to base CNS risk estimates; therefore, risk projection based on scaling to human data, as done for cancer risk, is not possible for CNS risks. Research specific to the spaceflight environment using animal and cell models must be compiled to quantify the magnitude of CNS changes in order to estimate this risk and to establish validity of the current permissible exposure limits (PELs). In addition, the impact of radiation exposure in combination with individual sensitivity or other space flight factors, as well as assessment of the need for biological/pharmaceutical countermeasures, will be considered after further definition of CNS risk occurs.

Nelson, Gregory A.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Pitfalls and Precautions When Using Predicted Failure Data for Quantitative Analysis of Safety Risk for Human Rated Launch Vehicles

Launch vehicle reliability analysis is largely dependent upon using predicted failure rates from data sources such as MIL-HDBK-217F. Reliability prediction methodologies based on component data do not take into account risks attributable to manufacturing, assembly, and process controls. These sources often dominate component level reliability or risk of failure probability. While consequences of failure is often understood in assessing risk, using predicted values in a risk model to estimate the probability of occurrence will likely underestimate the risk. Managers and decision makers often use the probability of occurrence in determining whether to accept the risk or require a design modification. Due to the absence of system level test and operational data inherent in aerospace applications, the actual risk threshold for acceptance may not be appropriately characterized for decision making purposes. This paper will establish a method and approach to identify the pitfalls and precautions of accepting risk based solely upon predicted failure data. This approach will provide a set of guidelines that may be useful to arrive at a more realistic quantification of risk prior to acceptance by a program.

Hatfield, Glen S.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Prediction of Calcium Oxalate Stone Risk with Interventions

Introduction Mitigations intended to reduce bone mineral loss in-flight also influence the level of renal stone risk to astronauts. Extending a recent study completed by our group [1], we investigate the likely influence of combined fluid intake and Ca excretion mitigation strategies. Methods A computational biochemistry model representing CaOx crystal precipitation, growth, and agglomeration [2] is combined with a probabilistic analysis to predict the in-flight CaOx renal stone incidence risk ratio (IRR) relative to pre-flight values using 1517 astronaut 24-hour urine chemistries. The output of this simulation is used to assess the combined impact of controlling fluid intake and Ca excretion on maintaining IRR < 1.2 for > 95% of the population, a threshold determined from initial analysis of the model output compared to referent populations [1]. Results and Conclusions Figure 1 illustrates the simulated in-flight astronaut population (n=40000) with CaOx IRR > 1.2. The red lines indicate the known clinical risk boundary of each factor, and the white box is considered the area of high combined clinical risk. The simulation and identified risk threshold conform well to the expected clinical risk boundaries. The results, assuming insensible water losses equal or exceed 0.7 L/day, imply mitigations achieve risks similar to pre-flight levels when either Ca < 150 mg/day or fluid volume intake > 3.2 L/day individually, or combined Ca < 200 and fluid volume intake > 2.5 L/day. We continue to investigate similar compounded effects and look to apprise engineering trades by informing relative risk changes during mission design. References [1] D. A. Goodenow-Messman, S. A. Gokoglu, M. Kassemi, and J. Myers, Jerry G., “Characterization of Astronaut CaOx Renal Stone Incidence Rates to Quantify In-flight and Post-flight Relative Risk,” npj Microgravity, in review, 2021. [2] M. Kassemi and D. Thompson, “Prediction of renal crystalline size distributions in space using a PBE analytic model. 1. Effect of microgravity-induced biochemical alterations,” Am. J. Physiol. Physiol., vol. 311, no. 3, pp. F520–F530, Sep. 2016, doi: 10.1152/ajprenal.00401.2015.

Debra A Goodenow↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Approach to Quantitative Risk Assessment for Combined Spaceflight Hazards: Evaluating the Impact of Short Sleep Durations on Space Crew Cardiovascular Health

Astronauts embarking on long-duration missions will be exposed to multiple spaceflight hazards including radiation, isolation and confinement, distance from Earth, hostile closed environments, and altered gravity. These hazards pose health risks to the crew in-mission and postflight, including risks to cardiovascular health. For radiation, quantitative risk models have been developed that are based on large-scale epidemiological evidence from exposed terrestrial populations, which are extrapolated to account for the difference in radiological effectiveness between ground-based and in-flight exposures. •Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are multifactorial, therefore multiple risk factors can influence disease risk estimates. •Astronauts with spaceflight experience is a very small population. •To overcome limitations of cohort, population data from presumed equivalent stressors on Earth can be used to quantitatively assess possible risks. •Sleep disruption and short sleep duration are known consequences of spaceflight and are also established risk factors for cardiovascular disease on earth (Pateletal.,2020). •Coronary Heart Disease (CHD), Myocardial Infarction (MI), and stroke are negative health effects due to short sleep durations and sleep disruptions (Yinetal.,2017); (Cappuccio et al., 2010). •A combined CVD risk model including spaceflight stressor such as sleep, stress, radiation, etc.) will provide more precise estimate of risks.

Spaceflight Hazards↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Assessing the Influence of Decompression Sickness on Medical Risk for Artemis

As NASA begins to shift its focus from LEO missions to the Moon and beyond, our understanding of the risk associated with human spaceflight is challenged by mission profiles and objectives far different from preceding missions. For Artemis, one of these aspects is surface Extra Vehicular Activity (EVA) tempo, in which the crew will perform 3 to 4 surface EVA’s in quick succession. The crew health and performance risk associated with EVA Decompression Sickness (DCS) and its associated countermeasures, is an important consideration for Artemis missions given this new and unprecedented EVA frequency. Successfully completing Artemis mission objectives relies heavily on the crew being able to perform and complete these EVAs. This analysis quantifies how medical risk changes when accounting for the expected increase in DCS risk due to the increase in EVA frequency. If there is an occurrence of DCS during a mission, appropriate downtime needs to be accounted for. Treatment for DCS requires crewmember to stop the current EVA and return to the habitat. This impacts the current EVA the crew is performing, could potentially delay the next EVA, and increases the chance of the crewmember being unable to perform future EVAs. Capturing the downtime and impact of that downtime based on the number of DCS occurrences allows us to better understand how the risk associated with DCS affects the overall medical risk and completion of missions that have more frequent EVA tempo. There are preventative strategies and mitigation countermeasures to decrease the chance of DCS occurring such as different prebreathe protocols, variable suit pressure, and vehicle pressure settings. Modeling the medical risk with and without different DCS countermeasures enables quantitative comparisons of risk reduction associated with each DCS countermeasure. We present results on how these countermeasures affect medical risks and quantify changes in the medical kit contents with respect to the countermeasures implemented within Artemis-class missions.

Clara Gasiewski↗
DOE OSTI2024

Risk Considerations of Transitioning CO2-EOR Field to CO2 storage Field: Case Study

In the United States (U.S.), carbon dioxide (CO2) injection wells at EOR sites are currently regulated as Class II wells under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Underground Injection Control (UIC) program while dedicated geological CO2 storage (GCS) wells are considered Class VI wells. A CO2-EOR facility considering a transitioning from tertiary oil recovery to injecting CO2 for the primary purpose of long-term storage is required to obtain a Class VI permit where this transition poses an increased risk to underground sources of drinking water. This study considers how transitioning operations from CO2-EOR to storage can impact reservoir plume and pressure transient in the storage envelope, and how these changes could impact area of review and potential unwanted fluid migration. We developed a case study to assess subsurface response and leakage risks associated with a representative, hypothetical operation in a carbonate reservoir. This reservoir transitions from tertiary hydrocarbon recovery to dedicated GCS. Reservoir simulations were run for a set of credible CO2-EOR scenarios to estimate distributions of fluids phases and pressures throughout the model domain after CO2 flooding as well as forecasting the behavior of the reservoir after the transition to a dedicated storage phase. The evolutions from all simulated scenarios were used as the basis for leakage risk quantification using the National Risk Assessment Partnership’s Open-Source Integrated Assessment Model (NRAP-Open-IAM) with a novel reduced-order model to estimate time-dependent leakage of CO2, brine, and hydrocarbon fluids through potentially leaky wells. Results include a description of reservoir response, an estimate of the areal extent that could potentially be impacted by leakage to underground sources of drinking water, and estimates of the magnitude of potential leakage. Considerations for dedicated storage injection well selection, injectivity, and injection scheme performance and potential leakage risk are presented, with implications for risk assessment of well transition discussed. This study presents a risk-based workflow for the Class II to Class VI well transition. Integrating credible numerical simulation of viable CO2-EOR to dedicated CO2 storage with quantitative risk assessment tools, such as the NRAP-Open-IAM, will provide a valuable means to devise operational scenarios and inform decision-making related to storage benefit, leakage risk, and liability. Presented at the SPE/AAPG/SEG Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage Conference in Houston, TX, March 11-13, 2024.

Liu, Guoxiang↗
DOE OSTI2024

Implementing an Objectives-Driven, Risk-Informed, and Case-Assured Approach to Safety and Mission Success at NASA

NASA is developing a “Standard for Assurance of Space Flight Safety and Mission Success” that implements an objectives-driven, risk-informed, and case-assured approach to safety and mission success (S&MS) for NASA space flight programs and projects. The standard aligns with the philosophy of risk leadership that has recently been established in NASA policy to assure acceptable levels of flight crew safety and mission success risk. It is consistent with existing NASA risk management requirements and is compatible with NASA program management and systems engineering requirements. The methodology described in the standard is presented in terms of an S&MS assurance framework that is designed to allow substantial flexibility in the specific means by which programs and projects achieve acceptable mission S&MS risk. Such flexibility is necessary to accommodate the increasingly broad range of acquisition strategies employed by NASA, including commercial transportation services, as well as to accommodate the increasingly rapid evolution of space flight-related technologies and practices. A key feature of the S&MS assurance framework is the specification of S&MS success criteria for each life-cycle review (LCR). The S&MS assurance case is structured around these criteria, the satisfaction of which indicates that the program/project is adhering to the S&MS risk posture. This enables the evolving S&MS assurance case to be used as a fundamental program/project submittal at each LCR, where its inherent structure of argument, supported by evidence, directly supports the evaluation of the program/project with respect to the S&MS success criteria, and by extension, the S&MS risk posture. As such, the S&MS assurance case is integral to program/project systems engineering, risk management, and S&MS oversight activities, and provides the principal basis for S&MS risk acceptance by the Decision Authority throughout the program/project life cycle.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2024

Aviation security screening optimizer for risk and throughput (ASSORT)

The increasing number of air travelers each year presents a challenge as many airports are near their capacity in terms of resources and space for passenger screening. Fortunately, advancements in technologies like next-generation millimeter wave scanning offer solutions to ease this strain. The focus remains on managing risk while enhancing the passenger experience for the traveling public. The risk model presented in this paper known as the Aviation Security Screening Optimizer for Risk and Throughput (ASSORT) is designed to assess risk-based approaches for passenger screening and checkpoint operations. Additionally, ASSORT is exploring various traveler categories — general, trusted, and trusted-plus — along with different checkpoint screening Concept of Operations tailored to each traveler type. For instance, travelers with a higher trust level may experience fewer screening technologies, resulting in quicker processing times at the checkpoint. The output of ASSORT provides a risk score for predefined threat scenarios, as well as the overall risk to the checkpoint, aircraft, and airport by traveler type. In conclusion, benefits of using this tool include assessing the trade-offs between the overall risk associated with checkpoints and the throughput rate of passengers screened. We show for example the impact that different passenger volumes at the checkpoint can have on risk.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
NASA NTRS2011

Risk Balance: A Key Tool for Mission Operations Assurance

The Mission Operations Assurance (MOA) discipline actively participates as a project member to achieve their common objective of full mission success while also providing an independent risk assessment to the Project Manager and Office of Safety and Mission Success staff. The cornerstone element of MOA is the independent assessment of the risks the project faces in executing its mission. Especially as the project approaches critical mission events, it becomes imperative to clearly identify and assess the risks the project faces. Quite often there are competing options for the project to select from in deciding how to execute the event. An example includes choices between proven but aging hardware components and unused but unproven components. Timing of the event with respect to visual or telecommunications visibility can be a consideration in the case of Earth reentry or hazardous maneuver events. It is in such situations that MOA is called upon for a risk balance assessment or risk trade study to support their recommendation to the Project Manager for a specific option to select. In the following paragraphs we consider two such assessments, one for the Stardust capsule Earth return and the other for the choice of telecommunications system configuration for the EPOXI flyby of the comet Hartley 2. We discuss the development of the trade space for each project's scenario and characterize the risks of each possible option. The risk characterization we consider includes a determination of the severity or consequence of each risk if realized and the likelihood of its occurrence. We then examine the assessment process to arrive at a MOA recommendation. Finally we review each flight project's decision process and the outcome of their decisions.

operations↗
NASA NTRS2020

Climate change reshapes the drivers of false spring risk across European trees

(1) Temperate forests are shaped by late spring freezes after budburst—false springs—which may shift with climate change. Research to date has generated conflicting results, potentially because few studies focus on the multiple underlying drivers of false spring risk. (2) Here, we assessed the effects of mean spring temperature, distance from the coast, elevation and the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) using PEP725 leafout data for six tree species across 11648 sites in Europe, to determine which were the strongest predictors of false spring risk and how these predictors shifted with climate change. (3) All predictors influenced false spring risk before recent warming, but their effects have shifted in both magnitude and direction with warming. These shifts have potentially magnified the variation in false spring risk among species with an increase in risk for early‐leafout species (i.e., Aesculus hippocastanum , Alnus glutinosa , Betula pendula ) versus a decline or no change in risk among late‐leafout species (i.e., Fagus sylvatica , Fraxinus excelsior , Quercus robur ). (4) Our results show how climate change has reshaped the drivers of false spring risk, complicating forecasts of future false springs, and potentially reshaping plant community dynamics given uneven shifts in risk across species.

false spring↗
NASA NTRS2022

Systemic Risk

Systemic risk is the name given to impacts that spread within and across systems and sectors (e.g. ecosystems, health, infrastructure and the food sector) via the movements of people, goods, capital and information within and across boundaries (e.g. regions, countries and continents). The spread of these impacts can lead to potentially existential consequences and system collapse across a range of time horizons. Globalization contributes to systemic risk affecting people worldwide. The impacts of climate change or COVID-19 show how the challenges of addressing systemic risk go beyond conventional risk management and governance. Critical system interdependencies, amplified by underlying vulnerabilities, highlight that there is a growing need to better understand cascading impacts, systemic risks and the possible political (governance) and societal responses. This includes improving our understanding of the root causes of systemic risk, both biophysical and socio-economic, and related information needs. Addressing contemporary challenges 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.

systemic risk↗
DOE OSTI2024

Human Health Risk Assessment for Improper Landfill Disposal of End-of-Life CdTe Modules

The present work is a continuation of the 2020 IEA PVPS Task 12 Human Health Risk Assessment Methods for PV Part 3: Module Disposal Risks. The 2020 report performed a human health risk assessment (HHRA) for disposal of a cadmium telluride (CdTe) PV module in an unlined landfill, focusing solely on risks from cadmium. This study extends the 2020 HHRA on CdTe PV, analyzing eleven constituent elements: Cd, Se, Te, Cu, Si, Cr(III), Mo, Sn, Zn, Ni, and Al. The present HHRA was performed through two methods: utilization of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS V.4.0) on eight exposure pathways for cancer risk and non-cancer hazards; and comparison of exposure point concentrations to federal standards for groundwater, surface water, air, and soil exposure pathways. Cancer risks and non-cancer hazards posed by elemental leaching through all evaluated exposure pathways, using both methods, were found to be several orders of magnitude below USEPA health-protective thresholds. Cadmium exhibited both the highest risks and lowest uncertainty considering data availability on chemical content, leachate, and federal screening levels.

CdTe↗
DOE OSTI2024

Addressing Consequence within Operational Risk (O.T. Gagnon III) 9-18-2024

Addressing Consequence within Operational Risk: Why threats and security are just not that important! When dealing with cyber or physical risk within any critical infrastructure (CI) environment, don’t concern yourself with vulnerabilities and threats, at least not at first! Also, don’t be overly fixated on “securing the systems” within the organization. The endeavor of tackling operational risk focused on consequences in any critical infrastructure environment to include the complex Aviation ecosystem is challenging even for the most resourced entity but can be advanced though a simplified approach: identifying, binning, and prioritizing the infrastructure environment. While no two entities within a single element of the 16 critical infrastructure sectors are exactly alike when it comes to risk, there is a basic process to move toward a greater understanding of operational risk through becoming more informed about the infrastructure environment in which the entity exists. The process starts with bringing internal and external stakeholders and subject matter experts together to analyze key areas such as Information Technology (IT) and Operational Technology (OT) components and points of convergence, analyzing internal and external cyber and physical dependencies, accounting for explosive growth in devices and wireless technology, and leveraging the contributions of people inside and outside the operational environment. Attaining a common understanding of the infrastructure environment as part of addressing consequences within operational risk is not easy to do or resource light, but the process outlined provides the framework to further any entity’s efforts in this space. When it comes to cyber risks, before an organization can consider vulnerabilities within and threats to its operations, it must first have a solid understanding of the consequences existing inside its infrastructure environment. Idaho National Lab’s Consequence-Driven, Cyber-Informed Engineering is offered as an example of this approach to effective and efficient cyber risk mitigation.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Quantifying Investment Risk: Analysis of the Purchase Decision of a Nuclear Power Plant (Presentation)

Cost overruns are an ill-fated part of the deployment history of nuclear power plants (NPPs) in the United States, and yet studies increasingly show the important role nuclear technologies must play in decarbonizing the U.S. economy. Paradoxically, then, a key piece of a coherent decarbonization strategy depends on attracting investor action to a purchase where historical cost overruns have been sizable. To address this challenge, this study aims to develop a financial model that quantifies the risk of cost overruns in the decision-making process for purchasing advanced reactor concepts. Using the concept of value at risk (VaR), the model is built to evaluate financial risk nuclear construction with the aim to identify risk mitigation strategies. The objective is to identify strategies to mitigate cost-risk challenges and assess the potential reduction in investor risk exposure. This paper presents the initial development and preliminary verification of the financial risk analysis model. The development of this model involved a comprehensive approach to estimating financial risk over the operating life of NPP that stems from construction uncertainties. By utilizing net present value (NPV) with discounted cash flows, the model captures the complex interconnections of project costs, construction timelines, revenue, and uncertainties. Verifying the model involved testing historical data from previous reactor construction projects against the construction project of Vogtle 3 and 4. This paper’s results present the comparison of the preconstruction cost overrun prediction with the current cost estimates from a nearly complete Vogtle 3 and 4.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗