StingRAY WEC Risk Register
Risk Registers for major subsystems of the StingRAY WEC completed in compliance with the DOE Risk Management Framework developed by NREL.
16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗
SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “Risk Register”
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.
Next Generation RivGen Power System: Risk Register
Risk Register for the RivGen power system, optimized for performance, durability and survivability, in Microsoft Excel format.
16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗
StingRAY Updated WEC Risk Registers
Updated Risk Registers for major subsystems of the StingRAY WEC completed according to the methodology described in compliance with the DOE Risk Management Framework developed by NREL.
16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗
Updated LANL Institutional Risk Heat Map and Risk Register
A heat map, risk register, and risk definitions are included for LANL institutional risk factors.
29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
Development and application of an environmental risk register for marine energy device and project developers
The marine energy industry is steadily advancing as more devices are deployed worldwide. However, several challenges and barriers remain, such as lingering uncertainty regarding the potential environmental effects of marine energy devices on marine animals, habitats, and ecosystems. Concerns have led to difficulty navigating permitting and consenting processes and receiving authorization to deploy devices in the marine environment, including extended timelines and costs. Based on existing risk registers, a novel marine energy environmental risk register was created to help the marine energy industry move beyond these barriers. This risk register aims to aid marine energy device and project developers identify and assess potential environmental risks early in device design or project planning, document and track potential environmental interactions, prioritize risks and determine risk responses, and make decisions throughout device or project development. It can also be used as a tool to assist in communicating with regulators and advisors during permitting processes and to inform stakeholder and community engagement efforts. This paper details the methods and process to develop a risk register specific to environmental effects of marine energy and describes two use cases (one for wave energy and another for tidal energy) to highlight example results. Due to the tool's novelty, the paper showcases its application for the marine energy industry and acknowledges limitations and possible future improvements. Overall, the environmental risk register shows promise to support marine energy developers when identifying, tracking, and addressing potential environmental risks and to help successfully navigate permitting and deploy marine energy devices responsibly.
Environmental effects↗
Risk Management Plan and Risk Register for Design Low-Power Wave Energy Converter for Non-Grid Applications
Risk Registers for major subsystems completed according to the methodology described in the Risk Management Plan [DE-EE0008627 D1.2 Risk Management Plan PD v1.1 07-19-2019.pdf], also included here.
16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗
PacWave South SeaRAY k2 Risk Registers
The SeaRAY is a deployable power system for maritime sensors, monitoring equipment, communications, unmanned underwater vehicles, and other similar payloads. This project is to design, deliver, and test a prototype low-power WEC that lowers the total cost of ownership and provides robust, new capabilities for customers in the maritime environment. Failure Modes, Effects, and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) is conducted to systematically identify all potential failure modes and their effects on the system, and to analyze the criticality of each risk based on the likelihood of the event and the severity of the impact. Actions may then be recommended to mitigate the criticality of a risk, either by reducing the likelihood of the risk or the severity of its impact. Risk assessment is executed iteratively as an integral part of the design process. By incorporating risk assessment early in the development cycle, mitigation of risk can be achieved cost effectively. The actions recommended to mitigate risk may be subsequently executed, and as the design progresses the risk assessment is reviewed and revised. Review of the risk assessment is integrated into structured design reviews, ensuring that critical risks are comprehended and that the Project will not progress to e.g. fabrication while intolerable risks remain. The risk assessment process results in the population and maintenance of Risk Registers (RRs). Each major system (and as needed, subsystem) will have a distinct RR. This allows each system or subsystem to be assessed individually, rendering the RRs to a manageable size for review.
16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗
StingRAY Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis: WEC Risk Registers
Analysis method to systematically identify all potential failure modes and their effects on the Stingray WEC system. This analysis is incorporated early in the development cycle such that the mitigation of the identified failure modes can be achieved cost effectively and efficiently. The FMECA can begin once there is enough detail to functions and failure modes of a given system, and its interfaces with other systems. The FMECA occurs coincidently with the design process and is an iterative process which allows for design changes to overcome deficiencies in the analysis.Risk Registers for major subsystems completed according to the methodology described in "Failure Mode Effects and Criticality Analysis Risk Reduction Program Plan.pdf" document below, in compliance with the DOE Risk Management Framework developed by NREL.
16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗
Development of a Risk Register for an Integrated Carbon Capture and Storage Project
Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (SECARB): Update
Aarnes, Jorg↗
Assessing Risk and Driving Risk Mitigation for First-of-a-Kind Advanced Reactors
Planning and decision making amidst programmatic and technological risks represent significant challenges for projects. This presentation addresses the four step risk-assessment process needed to determine clear path forward to mature needed technology and design, license, and construct advanced nuclear power plants, which have never been built before, including Small Modular Reactors. This four step process has been carefully applied to the Next Generation Nuclear Plant. STEP 1 - Risk Identification Risks are identified, collected, and categorized as technical risks, programmatic risks, and project risks, each of which result in cost and schedule impacts if realized. These include risks arising from the use of technologies not previously demonstrated in a relevant application. These risks include normal and accident scenarios which the SMR could experience including events that cause the disablement of engineered safety features (typically documented in Phenomena Identification Ranking Tables (PIRT) as produced with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission) and design needs which must be addressed to further detail the design. Product - Project Risk Register contained in a database with sorting, presentation, rollup, risk work off functionality similar to the NGNP Risk Management System . STEP 2 - Risk Quantification The risks contained in the risk register are then scored for probability of occurrence and severity of consequence, if realized. Here the scoring methodology is established and the basis for the scoring is well documented. Product - Quantified project risk register with documented basis for scoring. STEP 3 - Risk Handling Strategy Risks are mitigated by applying a systematic approach to maturing the technology through Research and Development, modeling, test, and design. A Technology Readiness Assessment is performed to determine baseline Technology Readiness Levels (TRL). Tasks needed to mature the technology are developed and documented in a roadmap. Product - Risk Handling Strategy. STEP 4 - Residual Risk Work off The risk handling strategy is entered into the Project Risk Allocation Tool (PRAT) to analyze each task for its ability to reduce risk. The result is risk-informed task prioritization. The risk handling strategy is captured in the Risk Management System, a relational database that provides conventional database utility, including data maintenance, archiving, configuration control, and query ability. The tool's Hierarchy Tree allows visualization and analyses of complex relationships between risks, risk mitigation tasks, design needs, and PIRTs. Product - Project Risk Allocation Tool and Risk Management System which depict project plan to reduce risk and current progress in doing so.
21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
Enterprise Risks for Scientific Software in the Post Exascale Era
The Department of Energy’s Office of Science’s Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) Office hosts three high performance computing Facilities and one high performance networking Facility. ASCR’s Facilities Division and these four Facilities established a joint working group to address the most severe threats to the software capabilities that can prevent the Facilities from supporting a diverse array of mission critical scientific research carried out by thousands of researchers from national labs, academia, and industry. This report outlines the risk categories, threat matrix calculations, and number of risks in each of the categories along with the threat levels. Two categories—programming environment/tools and system software—account for 13 out of the 20 risks encountered in the risk register. A significant risk to ASCR’s software ecosystem also arises from the possible loss of personnel and expertise past the end of the exascale computing project. The working group recommends that the software enterprise risks are reevaluated regularly, and are considered in future decision making regarding system acquisition, knowledge sharing, partnership development, and strategic planning
97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
Quantitative Risk Management - Risk Informed Decision Making on High-Risk Waste Remediation Projects - 19022
For every $1 billion invested in projects, $97 million is wasted due to poor project performance. That means 9.7% of money spent on projects is wasted due to poor risk and uncertainty management. High-risk projects, similar to those in waste remediation, have the most to lose. A solid quantitative risk management program is one of the keys to increasing the likelihood that a project will succeed. A quantitative risk program solves two major problems that challenge the effective management of risk and uncertainty: 1. Risks arise at all levels of an organization; however, not all organizational levels have an effective way to identify and resolve them. This can lead to risks that, even if identified, are not reported. 2. Decision-makers are often forced to operate solely on intuition when implementing mitigation strategies, not fully understanding the effects that certain decisions have on the program's cost and schedule. A quantitative risk program uses a risk register and builds it into the project/program integrated schedule to assess the impact of these risks, typically at the 80% confidence contingency level for specific milestones and/or project completion. Implementing a quantitative risk program drives a forward-thinking, proactive mentality to problem solving into all levels of the organization. A healthy risk program for regular reporting and communication ensures that all members of an organization are thinking about risks and using their communication channels to resolve them. It gives a method of communication and incentive for all levels in the organization and helps to ensure that risks will be reported and resolved. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) has developed tools and methods that provide a level of realism for analyzing different scenarios and estimating contingency that does not exist in the standard industry risk tool kit. These tools and methods provide decision-makers with actionable, quantitatively based information to guide their decision making. The first tool is a probabilistic branching risk model for mitigation strategies. Current quantitative risk analysis tools in the industry simulate two cases: fully mitigated and un-mitigated. In the fully mitigated case, the user assumes that every planned mitigation activity is successful. In the un-mitigated case, the user assumes that none are successful. The truth lies between these two extremes. The PNNL team has developed a probabilistic risk model for mitigation scenarios that includes a probability that a mitigation activity will succeed and a probability that a mitigation action will be funded. These probabilities are elicited from subject matter experts and ensure that the contingency calculations at the specified confidence are approaching reality. The second tool developed at PNNL is the Risk Box, which is a tool that integrates with different scenarios in the risk register. For example, say the user is faced with two different and mutually exclusive mitigation actions to reduce a risk. The Risk Box methodology performs the contingency calculations and then displays them on a time-phased graph that shows how each scenario reduces the risk contingency needed on the project/program. This graph then provides quantitative information to show decision-makers which mitigation action provides the greatest reduction (cost and schedule) in risk contingency for the program. Implementing these and other tools within a structured risk program increases the likelihood that a project will come in on schedule and budget, ensures that all personnel are proactively thinking about problems and resolutions, creates communication channels for all members to submit and resolve potential problems, produces a prioritized list of risk rankings to focus leadership on issues that may cause the biggest problems, and implements processes that drive updates to the risk program as the risk profile changes. PNNL has been developing these methods and using them on projects for over 20 years. They have been successfully applied on waste management projects, high-tech research and development projects, and construction projects, and they continue to be used on a number of U.S. Department of Energy projects today. (authors)
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
CalWave Design for PacWave - Preliminary Design Phase - Risk Management Plan
The project objectives for CalWave's deployment at PacWave are distinguished by the Preliminary Design Phase and the Detailed Design Phase. During the Preliminary Design Phase, the Risk Register was established to identify risks and mitigation strategies. The Risk Management Plan assesses potential risks of CalWave's technology and accompanying processes and describes the risk mitigation strategies for the project.
16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗
NGNP Risk Management Database: A Model for Managing Risk
The Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) Risk Management System (RMS) is a database used to maintain the project risk register. The RMS also maps risk reduction activities to specific identified risks. Further functionality of the RMS includes mapping reactor suppliers Design Data Needs (DDNs) to risk reduction tasks and mapping Phenomena Identification Ranking Table (PIRTs) to associated risks. This document outlines the basic instructions on how to use the RMS. This document constitutes Revision 1 of the NGNP Risk Management Database: A Model for Managing Risk. It incorporates the latest enhancements to the RMS. The enhancements include six new custom views of risk data - Impact/Consequence, Tasks by Project Phase, Tasks by Status, Tasks by Project Phase/Status, Tasks by Impact/WBS, and Tasks by Phase/Impact/WBS.
42 ENGINEERING↗
Managing Marine Energy Risks for Project Success
This presentation reviews recommended practices for marine energy risk management based on NLR's recent risk management framework publication (https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy24osti/90212.pdf). This presentation will include a demonstration of risk management processes and techniques that everyone in the marine energy industry can use to successfully meet their project objectives. This presentation will include a description of methods to identify and manage risks that are specific to marine energy, while demonstrating this through tools such as risk registers, failure modes effects and criticality analysis (FMECA), and more tools that are currently being developed. The goal of this presentation is for the participants to have knowledge and access to tools to help them manage the risks specific to their marine energy projects.
13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
Integrated Cost and Schedule using Monte Carlo Simulation of a CPM Model - 12419
This discussion of the recommended practice (RP) 57R-09 of AACE International defines the integrated analysis of schedule and cost risk to estimate the appropriate level of cost and schedule contingency reserve on projects. The main contribution of this RP is to include the impact of schedule risk on cost risk and hence on the need for cost contingency reserves. Additional benefits include the prioritizing of the risks to cost, some of which are risks to schedule, so that risk mitigation may be conducted in a cost-effective way, scatter diagrams of time-cost pairs for developing joint targets of time and cost, and probabilistic cash flow which shows cash flow at different levels of certainty. Integrating cost and schedule risk into one analysis based on the project schedule loaded with costed resources from the cost estimate provides both: (1) more accurate cost estimates than if the schedule risk were ignored or incorporated only partially, and (2) illustrates the importance of schedule risk to cost risk when the durations of activities using labor-type (time-dependent) resources are risky. Many activities such as detailed engineering, construction or software development are mainly conducted by people who need to be paid even if their work takes longer than scheduled. Level-of-effort resources, such as the project management team, are extreme examples of time-dependent resources, since if the project duration exceeds its planned duration the cost of these resources will increase over their budgeted amount. The integrated cost-schedule risk analysis is based on: - A high quality CPM schedule with logic tight enough so that it will provide the correct dates and critical paths during simulation automatically without manual intervention. - A contingency-free estimate of project costs that is loaded on the activities of the schedule. - Resolves inconsistencies between cost estimate and schedule that often creep into those documents as project execution proceeds. - Good-quality risk data that are usually collected in risk interviews of the project team, management and others knowledgeable in the risk of the project. The risks from the risk register are used as the basis of the risk data in the risk driver method. The risk driver method is based in the fundamental principle that identifiable risks drive overall cost and schedule risk. - A Monte Carlo simulation software program that can simulate schedule risk, burn WM2012 rate risk and time-independent resource risk. The results include the standard histograms and cumulative distributions of possible cost and time results for the project. However, by simulating both cost and time simultaneously we can collect the cost-time pairs of results and hence show the scatter diagram ('football chart') that indicates the joint probability of finishing on time and on budget. Also, we can derive the probabilistic cash flow for comparison with the time-phased project budget. Finally the risks to schedule completion and to cost can be prioritized, say at the P-80 level of confidence, to help focus the risk mitigation efforts. If the cost and schedule estimates including contingency reserves are not acceptable to the project stakeholders the project team should conduct risk mitigation workshops and studies, deciding which risk mitigation actions to take, and re-run the Monte Carlo simulation to determine the possible improvement to the project's objectives. Finally, it is recommended that the contingency reserves of cost and of time, calculated at a level that represents an acceptable degree of certainty and uncertainty for the project stakeholders, be added as a resource-loaded activity to the project schedule for strategic planning purposes. The risk analysis described in this paper is correct only for the current plan, represented by the schedule. The project contingency reserve of time and cost that are the main results of this analysis apply if that plan is to be followed. Of course project managers have the option of re-planning and re-scheduling in the face of new facts, in part by mitigating risk. This analysis identifies the high-priority risks to cost and to schedule, which assist the project manager in planning further risk mitigation. Some project managers reject the results and argue that they cannot possibly be so late or so overrun. Those project managers may be wasting an opportunity to mitigate risk and get a more favorable outcome. (authors)
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
2023 Risk Management Plan and Register for Low-Power WEC for Non-Grid Applications
This is an updated risk management plan and risk register for the design, build and test of a novel, remote, low-power wave energy converter (WEC) for non-grid applications. This Columbia Power Technologies project seeks to develop a prototype low-power WEC that lowers the total cost of ownership and provides robust, new capabilities for customers in the maritime environment. The testing location for this prototype is the U.S. Navy Wave Energy Test Site (WETS) in Kaneohe Bay, O'ahu, Hawai'i. Detailed in the Risk Management Plan document is a Failure Modes, Effects, and Criticality Analysis (FMEC) that systematically identifies all potential failure modes and their effects on the system. Risk registers for major subsystems were completed according to the methodology described in the Risk Management Plan and are also included here.
16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗
Risk Model for EM Decision Support Toolsets
The Government Office of Accountability (GAO) has published several reports identifying the need for the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Environmental Management (EM) to address mounting costs for DoE's cleanup program. DOEEM could greatly benefit from independent decision tool-sets/models that would allow them to evaluate options and inform business decision at the enterprise level considering site-specific life cycle costs and system plans. Program goals: Develop a tool-set that enables EM to independently evaluate alternatives, assess outcomes from different contracting strategies, and inform critical decisions for the enterprise. Project goals: Adaption of a Risk Model for integration with complimentary tool-sets for project level decision making. Operational Events: Discrete event model that evaluates operational variables (e.g. capacity, throughput, maintenance constraints) and identify bottlenecks. Identifying and Bounding Project Risk: Identify risks that impact confidence in meeting goals (e.g. production). Life cycle Cost: Evaluate impacts of staffing levels, inventory, and capital investments on life cycle costs. Methods and approach: Monte Carlo Analysis is being executed to generate results: Input derives from Risk Register Data; Tied to Projected and Target Schedules; Incorporates float duration within the model. Assumes associated risk mitigation actions being completed within a timeline of five fiscal years. Metrics include: Confidence in Meeting Production Goal; Confidence in Safety Standards; Confidence in Continuous Operation; Other Metrics can be added as appropriate regarding specific site needs. The adapted risk model can be used as a stand alone decision tool or can be integrated complementary tool-sets (i.e. process and cost models) for project-specific decisions. These support tool-sets can then be integrated with others for site- and complex- level evaluations. Future work includes designing an adaptable and modular framework that would allow integration of multiple tool-sets for holistic and/or targeted evaluation of alternative strategies for decision making that could lead to risk and cost reduction across the enterprise.
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗