Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “RISK ASSESSMENT”

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

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

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2017

Combination of life cycle assessment, risk assessment and human biomonitoring to improve regulatory decisions and policy making for chemicals

Prior to market entry, new chemical substances are assessed for their risk to human health and the environment. Conventional risk assessment (RA) is limited in scope, i.e. it usually does not cover the entire life cycle of a substance, nor does it take into account sustainability aspects such as the amount of raw materials and energy required to produce the substance. Life cycle assessment (LCA) can provide this pivotal information to support an informed decision on the sustainability of a new substance. Unfortunately, LCA has had little regulatory application up to now. We believe that increasing the focus on combined use of LCA and life cycle-based RA could lead to improved regulatory long-term decisions for marketed chemicals. Inclusion of human biomonitoring could increase the robustness of such decisions even further. In addition, the combined use of the three methods allows a robust search for sustainable alternatives of currently marketed chemicals that have an unfavourable risk profile. - Highlights: •We recommend a framework of three approaches for a chemical safety assessment. •LCA evaluates the sustainability of chemicals in comparison to alternatives. •Human biomonitoring allows the assessment of total exposure to critical chemicals. •A case study on nanomaterials demonstrates the value of the combined approach.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2017

Characterizing Risk for Cumulative Risk Assessments: Characterizing Risk for Cumulative Risk Assessments

In assessing environmental health risks, the risk characterization step synthesizes information gathered in evaluating exposures to stressors together with dose-response relationships, characteristics of the exposed population, and external environmental conditions. This article summarizes key steps of a cumulative risk assessment (CRA) followed by a discussion of considerations for characterizing cumulative risks. Cumulative risk characterizations differ considerably from single chemical- or single source-based risk characterization. CRAs typically focus on a specific population instead of a pollutant or pollutant source and should include an evaluation of all relevant sources contributing to the exposures in the population and other factors that influence dose-response relationships. Second, CRAs may include influential environmental and population-specific conditions, involving multiple chemical and nonchemical stressors. Third, a CRA could examine multiple health effects, reflecting joint toxicity and the potential for toxicological interactions. Fourth, the complexities often necessitate simplifying methods, including judgment-based and semi-quantitative indices that collapse disparate data into numerical scores. Fifth, because of the higher dimensionality and potentially large number of interactions, information needed to quantify risk is typically incomplete, necessitating an uncertainty analysis. Three approaches that could be used for characterizing risks in a CRA are presented: the multiroute hazard index, stressor grouping by exposure and toxicity, and indices for screening multiple factors and conditions. Other key roles of the risk characterization in CRAs are also described, mainly the translational aspect of including a characterization summary for lay readers (in addition to the technical analysis), and placing the results in the context of the likely risk-based decisions.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2018

Framework for Shared Drinking Water Risk Assessment

Risk assessment plays a vital role in protecting our nation's critical infrastructure. Traditionally, such assessments have been conducted as a singular activity confined to the boarders of a particular asset or utility with little external sharing of information. In contrast other domains, e.g., disaster preparedness, cyber security, food-borne hazards, have demonstrated the benefits of sharing data, experiences and lessons learned in assessing and managing risk. Here we explore the concept of a Shared Risk Framework (SRF) in the context of critical infrastructure assessments. In this exploration, key elements of an SRF are introduced and initial instantiations demonstrated by way of three water utility assessments. Results from these three demonstrations were then combined with results from four other risk assessments developed using a different risk assessment application by a different set of analysts. Through this comparison we were able to explore potential challenges and benefits from implementation of a SRF. Challenges included both the capacity and interest of local utilities to conduct a shared risk assessment; particularly, wide scale adoption of any SRF will require a clear demonstration that such an effort supports the basic mission of the utility, adds benefit to the utility, and protects utility data from unintended access or misuse. In terms of benefits, anonymous sharing of results among utilities could provide the added benefits of recognizing and correcting bias; identifying ‘unknown, unknowns’; assisting self-assessment and benchmarking for the local utility; and providing a basis for treating shared assets and/or threats across multiple utilities.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

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

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

quantitative risk assessment, geologic carbon stor↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2019

Depth of the Biologically Active Zone in Terrestrial Habitats at the Chalk River Laboratories Site: Implications for Contaminated Site Assessment and Ecological Risk Assessment - 19272

Plants, soil invertebrates and burrowing mammals penetrate the soil layer to varying depths. As Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) assesses risks and remediates soils contaminated with radioactive and other hazardous wastes at the Chalk River Laboratories (CRL) site, a site-specific characterization of the biologically active zone is required to help to identify the relevant depth in soil for exposure assessment of ecological receptors. A defined biologically active zone is also required to determine the depth to which remedial actions should be taken to protect the environment, help prioritize locations for remediation efforts based on ecological risk and avoid unnecessary cleanup efforts. By taking advantage of the abundance of information on contaminant locations and depths, biodiversity, and hydrogeology available for the well-studied CRL site, it is possible to produce a site-specific estimation of the biologically active zone in CRL upland soils. A literature review was conducted to determine rooting and burrowing depths for vascular plants, soil invertebrates and burrowing mammals documented to be present (or potentially present) on the CRL site. This literature review was supplemented with field surveys to fill data gaps in our understanding of species composition (e.g., soil invertebrates and plant understory). Overall, we found that there was significant variability in maximum rooting/burrowing depths among plant, mammal and invertebrate species present on the CRL site. The majority of biological activity occurs in the top 0.5 m of soil. However, about 19% of burrowing or rooting receptors present at CRL may be in contact with soils up to 1 m depth, 9% of receptors present may be in contact with soils up to 2 m depth, and only about 2% of receptors may be in contact with soils up to 3 m depth. It is highly unlikely that any ecological receptor present at CRL is in direct contact with soils deeper than about 3.6 m. Further site-specific results pertaining to burrowing and rooting depths estimated for the CRL site will be presented, and these results will be compared to generic/default 'depth of biologically-active layer' guidelines recommended by various agencies. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2024

Updated Filter Leak Frequencies for Use in Risk Assessments

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

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2018

Trial Implementation of a Multihazard Risk Assessment Framework for High-Impact Low-Frequency Power Grid Events

The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory developed a risk framework for modeling high-impact, low-frequency power grid events to support risk-informed decisions. In this research article, we briefly recap the framework and demonstrate its implementation for seismic and geomagnetic hazards using a benchmark reliability test system. We describe integration of a collection of models implemented to perform hazard analysis, fragility evaluation, consequence estimation and post-event restoration. We demonstrate the value of the framework as a multi-hazard power grid risk assessment and management tool. The research will benefit transmission planners and emergency planners by improving their ability to maintain a resilient grid infrastructure against impacts from major events.

power grid, risk assessment, seismic hazard, dynam↗
DOE OSTI2018

Aggregate Exposure Pathways in Support of Risk Assessment

Over time, risk assessment has shifted from establishing relationships between exposure to a single chemical and a resulting adverse health outcome, to evaluation of multiple chemicals and disease outcomes simultaneously. As a result, there is an increasing need to better understand the complex mechanisms that influence risk of chemical and non-chemical stressors, beginning at their source and ending at a biological endpoint relevant to human or ecosystem health risk assessment. Just as the Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) framework has emerged as a means of providing insight into mechanism-based toxicity, the exposure science community has seen the recent introduction of the Aggregate Exposure Pathway (AEP) framework. AEPs aid in making exposure data applicable to the FAIR (i.e., findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable) principle, especially by (1) organizing continuous flow of disjointed exposure information;(2) identifying data gaps, to focus resources on acquiring the most relevant data; (3) optimizing use and repurposing of existing exposure data; and (4) facilitating interoperability among predictive models. Herein, we discuss integration of the AOP and AEP frameworks and how such integration can improve confidence in both traditional and cumulative risk assessment approaches.

63 RADIATION, THERMAL, AND OTHER ENVIRON. POLLUTAN↗
DOE OSTI2019

Coupling RAVEN to SAPHIRE for Performing Time Dependent Probabilistic Risk Assessment

Cost Risk Analysis Framework Tool (CRAFT) was recently developed by Idaho National Laboratory (INL) to perform economical risk analysis by combining physics, risk and cost information of components in a Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) that can be quickly deployable through the nuclear industry to evaluate the risk associated to capital projects and asset management [1]. In this framework, RAVEN is coupled with SAPHIRE to perform the time dependent risk/safety assessment of NPPs. Traditionally, the risk associated to the NPPs can be determined by classical Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) tools, such as SAPHIRE, under the assumption that all failure rates are constant over time. In some circumstances, however, the assumption is rendered invalid since that the failure rate of a component may gradually change in a systematic way, for example, because of aging and degradation. In addition, recent data analysis in [2] has suggested decreasing values of failure rates for several important components of NPPs. A PRA that includes these components should employ the time-dependent failure rates in order to accurately estimate the risk at any given time. This time-dependent PRA is achieved by the coupling between RAVEN and SAPHIRE.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2019

Coupling RAVEN to SAPHIRE for Performing Time Dependent Probabilistic Risk Assessment

Cost Risk Analysis Framework Tool (CRAFT) was recently developed by Idaho National Laboratory (INL) to perform economical risk analysis by combining physics, risk and cost information of components in a Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) that can be quickly deployable through the nuclear industry to evaluate the risk associated to capital projects and asset management [1]. In this framework, RAVEN is coupled with SAPHIRE to perform the time dependent risk/safety assessment of NPPs. Traditionally, the risk associated to the NPPs can be determined by classical Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) tools, such as SAPHIRE, under the assumption that all failure rates are constant over time. In some circumstances, however, the assumption is rendered invalid since that the failure rate of a component may gradually change in a systematic way, for example, because of aging and degradation. In addition, recent data analysis in [2] has suggested decreasing values of failure rates for several important components of NPPs. A PRA that includes these components should employ the time-dependent failure rates in order to accurately estimate the risk at any given time. This time-dependent PRA is achieved by the coupling between RAVEN and SAPHIRE.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2018

An Assessment of the National Risk Assessment Program’s CO 2 Sequestration Leakage Modeling Tools, Subtask 6.1 – NRAP Assessment Topical Report

The CarbonSAFE East Sub-Basin project team explored and assessed the carbon sequestration site characterization National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP) Toolset, developed by the National Energy Technology Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) for the NRAP. We ran the Integrated Assessment Model (IAM) tool using inputs derived from verified regional geologic data. We investigated CO 2 and brine leakage rates, and total CO 2 and brine leaked, from a hypothetical cemented injection well borehole to the nearest underground source of drinking water (USDW), identified as the St. Peter Sandstone, in a hypothetical monitoring well. The distance of the monitoring well from the injection well was varied to identify leakage variations with increasing distance from the injection well and to establish an area of review (AOR) for the project, and the effect of high and low wellbore cement permeability on model results was compared.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗