Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Risk consequence”

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 OSTI2024

ORNL Peer Review Summary and Recommendations for: Advanced Reactor Designs Security Analysis, Risk, and Recommendations: Risks, Consequences, and Possible Design Mitigation Approaches Associated with Select Advanced Reactors Study

The purpose of this document is to provide a summary of the peer review conducted for the "Advanced Reactor Designs Security Analysis, Risk, and Recommendations: Risks, Consequences, and Possible Design Mitigation Approaches Associated with Select Advanced Reactors" study prepared by researchers at Idaho National Laboratory (INL), Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) International Nuclear Security (INS) program team requested that ORNL perform a peer review of the study report prior to publication as a final peer check before distributing the report to a broader audience.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Advanced Reactor Designs Security Analysis, Risk, and Recommendations: Risks, Consequences, and Possible by-Design Mitigation Approaches Associated with Select Advanced Reactors

Next-generation advanced reactors (ARs) incorporate enhanced safety systems, have smaller source terms, and feature compact modular designs, which should lessen their collective risk profiles. However, to fully evaluate risk, security needs to be a part of the equation. Without taking security into consideration, safety systems and components in the new ARs may be vulnerable to sabotage. These base attributes, coupled with enhanced security features specific to AR design through sound engineering and security-by-design (SeBD), should provide developers and operators with lower inherent security risk profiles. Building security early into the AR design may remove or passively secure potential critical targets from an adversary’s reach , thereby increasing overall safety and security. An integrated approach and diverse design team that includes engineering, operations, and security experts are fundamental to building security into the design without sacrificing fundamental operational efficiencies and principles. The objective of this project was to evaluate the security and safety interfaces for five classes of reactors, identify potential security vulnerabilities of structures, systems, and components (SSC), and underscore the need to consider security alongside safety in the design o f these concepts. The five reactor classes evaluated in this project and presented in this report are molten-salt reactors (MSR), high temperature gas reactors (HTGR), sodium-fast reactors (SFR), advanced light-water reactors (ALWR), and microreactors. These designs were selected because they reflect the concepts that are closest to market deployment and have received significant resource investments from the public and private sector. This project assesses the inherent security risks posed by common classes of ARs, provides a methodology and framework to assess security along with safety, and offers an analysis of potential mitigation strategies that could be incorporated. For each AR technology, the SSCs that relate to radionuclide source safety functions are discussed to understand the SSC contribution to safety and relative importance in the protective strategy for the design. The assumptions that went into evaluating each reactor concept originated from generic publicly available nonproprietary information and should not directly be used to qualify an absolute risk profile nor to rank specific AR designs. Instead, the purpose of the analysis is to understand and compare the generic inherent security risks of different AR technologies.

98 - NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, SAFEGUARDS, AND PHYSICAL↗
DOE OSTI2019

A Review of Cybersecurity Risk and Consequences for Critical Infrastructure

This paper reviews the state of the art in risk assessment and consequences related to critical infrastructure. Different risk assessment methods are analyzed based on their goals, application domains, impacts, and consequences. This paper depicts an in-depth analysis of the existing risk assessment methods and highlights the advantages, and disadvantages associated with those methods. In addition, this paper also articulates the research challenges that are associated with developing an economically quantifiable risk assessment method or framework.

Touhiduzzaman, Md↗
DOE OSTI2023

Addressing Consequence within Operational Risk: An Approach for Understanding an Organization’s Unique Infrastructure Environment

The endeavor of tackling operational risk focused on consequences 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 landscape 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 landscape 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.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
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 OSTI2021

A Method for Evaluating and Tracking Production-Sample Test (PST) Delay Risk

This report describes a method for evaluating risk from delayed Production Sample Testing (PST), and strategies for reducing test backlogs. Risk contributions to overall risk from delayed PST include a Steady State Risk (SSR) contribution that is inherent in the qualified design and manufacturing processes, and a Non-Homogenous Production Risk (NHPR) contribution from production variation. Both definitions and evaluation techniques for these risk contributions are provided along with correlation to the standard Quality Assurance Process, QA001.2, risk ranking matrix. Methods for tracking test backlogs, and reducing backlogs are also discussed. The delayed PST evaluation method described here includes the merger of both slightly quantitative methods for tracking defect levels and the propensity for production variation with general risk management tracking tools like the likelihood vs. consequence risk ranking matrix. This merger is important because it allows more effective evaluation and communication with regards to delayed PST.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2024

Sovereign Credit Rating Processes Adapted to Critical Infrastructure Cyber Risk Assessment

United States critical infrastructure entities are increasingly targeted by motivated and capable threat actors and must be prepared to assess and treat a diverse range of cyber risks. Consequently, this necessitates some form of analytical process to evaluate risks and inform cyber security investment decisions. A potential solution for structuring cyber risk evaluation exists within the field of sovereign credit ratings – where agencies employ mature approaches that integrate quantitative and qualitative data to produce a singular value of assessment. Adapting such approaches, we present a novel criterion and methodology for measuring and communicating the likelihood element of cyber risk. The methodology is composed of three sequential phases: a quantitative baseline organized by distinct capability frames, a bounded qualitative adjustment per frame, and a greater-bounded qualitative adjustment spanning the entire process. The process culminates in publication of a cyber capability rating that communicates a critical infrastructure entity’s ability and willingness to mitigate discontinuous function due to cyberattack.

45 MILITARY TECHNOLOGY, WEAPONRY, AND NATIONAL DEF↗
DOE OSTI2020

Geothermal Sector Cybersecurity Vulnerability Assessment

A review of geothermal sector-specific cybersecurity vulnerabilities and risks (consequences) was conducted at the request of the Geothermal Technologies Office (GTO). The vulnerabilities and risks reviewed in this study have relevance to achieving the 2019 GeoVision Report (DOE GTO 2019) technological advancements and expected sector growth. The study offers areas for consideration but does not quantify the likelihood (frequency) of the consequences. This cybersecurity analysis project represents a proactive effort to identify areas to enhance cybersecurity in geothermal development and operations. It was not initiated to address any immediate threat or specific known risk. Of the eight identified vulnerabilities analyzed, the review identified reservoir data system monitoring as one that is unique to geothermal systems and may warrant further investigation to better understand risk and mitigation. A detailed analysis of the other vulnerabilities may highlight additional uniqueness relative to other industries. Further research actions are recommended to better quantify risk and enhance cybersecurity preparedness of the sector. As the geothermal industry grows, the cybersecurity strategies to be deployed will be of increasing importance to ensure resilient, reliable, and secure clean energy for years to come.

cyber-physical security↗
DOE OSTI2022

Large-scale Hydrogen Storage – Risk Assessment Seattle City Light and Port of Seattle [Abstract]

This CRADA presents the strategy that Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) and Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) will take to support Seattle City Light (SCL), and the Port of Seattle (Port) in performing a risk assessment of large-scale hydrogen storage. Risk assessment is often used to ensure that adequate measures are taken to protect workers and the public, the environment, infrastructure, and assets. A detailed risk assessment can also be used to direct funding and upgrades, to specific components and sub-systems in order to mitigate risks to the larger system. In this way risk assessments are often employed as a part of a larger risk management strategy, with the goal of minimizing the occurrence of hazards and to identify means to limit their consequences. Risk assessment is often used to engage and inform regulators, and to communicate how specific regulations are being met. However, it is important to note that the proposed work is not intended for SCL and the Port to use in order to gain regulatory acceptance for their proposed activities. The work performed as a part of this effort will be a preliminary risk assessment for early-stage component and system designs and should be considered research and development (R&D). As such, the proposed work will be performed to a quality level and design maturity consistent with R&D and is not considered appropriate for final safety analysis and regulatory compliance purposes. Previous and on-going work at SCL and the Port demonstrated the utility of deploying hydrogen systems at the Port. The deployment of hydrogen at the Port is a part of a larger vision of using hydrogen to address a range of issues for SCL and the Port. These include large-scale fueling of MD/HD vehicles, cargo-handling equipment (CHE), and harbor vessels to reduce emissions; support of adjacent LD vehicles; support of critical port operations during extreme events (i.e., resiliency); deferral of more capital- and time-intensive electrical distribution system upgrades while still supporting evolving port operations and decarbonization efforts; facilitating electrification by establishing energy storage as a grid resource, starting at strategic port locations; creation of a flexible market resource that can be used by SCL to generate revenue via arbitrage; support of planned future maritime operations that involve heavy use of hydrogen for ocean-going vessels; and future end-use applications involving natural gas pipeline hydrogen injection. Ultimately, the success of these activities is underpinned by the deployed storage capacity. Large-scale deployment of hydrogen systems will require hydrogen storage at a scale that has not been demonstrated. In addition, the ideal location for such multi-use systems is near the end user which will often necessitate deploying into urban and/or industrial areas. A detailed risk assessment using the Port as a test case is necessary to ensure the deployment of large-scale hydrogen is successful. Many technologies have been proposed for hydrogen storage; however, these technologies need to be analyzed as they apply to an actual site. The physical infrastructure and hydrogen use cases for the Port will be analyzed, and a risk assessment for compressed hydrogen, liquified hydrogen, and Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carrier (LOHC) storage will be performed. These risk assessments will be useful for understanding how each of these technologies would perform in terms of facility and public safety. The operating states of the proposed hydrogen systems at the Port will be analyzed and incorporated into the storage risk assessment. Scalability will also be analyzed to understand how future port uses would affect the overall risk assessment. Finally, using the risk assessment as a tool to inform engagement and to gain stakeholder acceptance will be explored.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2021

Assessment of Updraft Modeling Bias Using Computational Fluid Dynamics

Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) habitats may overlap with wind energy development in some regions of the US. Eagles, and similar soaring bird species, are therefore at risk of collision with wind turbines when flying through wind farms. Recently developed behavioral modeling approaches can predict the presence of eagles near turbines within the rotor-swept layer but require reliable prediction of atmospheric flowfield conditions. In particular, the vertical component of the wind speed dictates a soaring bird's ability to maintain or gain altitude, since they rely on updrafts to subsidize their flight. In this work, we investigate the atmospheric conditions around a wind farm in complex terrain and compare methods for atmospheric characterization. We use computational fluid dynamics (specifically, large-eddy simulations, or LES) to simulate the atmospheric boundary layer over a region encompassing multiple wind farms with high temporal and spatial resolution (seconds and 10's of meters, respectively). We compare traditional non-simulation-based methods of determining the orographic updraft potential based on wind direction, terrain slope and aspect, with the flowfields from LES that include both orographic updrafts alone and combined thermal and orographic updrafts. Preliminary analysis suggests that although the model captures the horizontal pattern of vertical updrafts, their magnitude can be improved with information about the surface heat flux, which is usually correlated with time of the day. Within our study region, we found that the low-fidelity model may over- or underestimate updraft potential by up to 400% at 80 m AGL, depending on local orographic features. This can result in an inaccurate representation of eagle presence and, consequently, risk. Another important finding is that flowfield time-averaging can hide important details about the flight environment, including how thermally generated flow structures within the atmospheric boundary layer (e.g., convective rolls and/or cells) may be important drivers of eagle flight.

atmospheric turbulence↗
DOE OSTI2020

Integrating field observations and process-based modeling to predict watershed water quality under environmental perturbations

Watersheds play a critical role in supplying water resources needed for human use and ecosystem health. Understanding and predicting how, when, and where changes in the quantity and quality of water resources occur under different environmental stresses including extreme events is crucial for sustainable management of water resources under a changing environment. However, few studies have attempted to quantify or identify the factors and process interactions controlling the impact of extreme events across water-shed systems. Only few large-scale studies include coordinated monitoring and modeling efforts, which limits our ability to assess the large-scale impact of extreme events on water supply and quality. Methods are lacking to propagate uncertainty in process understanding through an integrated hydro-biogeochemical model framework and evaluate its importance, thus failing to take full advantage of the information potentially available through transformative advances in characterization technologies from high-resolution mass spectrometry to airborne and satellite-based remote sensing. There are consequent risks to our nations water security and to human and ecosystem health that may become exacerbated with the increasing frequency of extreme events that is projected for the coming decades. This paper reviews the current status of watershed science for both water quantity and quality and identifies critical gaps in our current knowledge and modeling capability in addressing the emergent needs in predicting watershed hydrologic and biogeochemical responses (i.e., water quantity and quality) under natural and anthropogenic perturbations. We highlight the need to (1) understand how environmental perturbations including extreme events like floods and droughts propagate through watershed systems and assess their short- and long-term impacts on watershed biogeochemistry, water quality and their recovery pathways; (2) develop and improve a watershed water quality model that reflects the state of scientific understanding gained from observations; and (3) construct a data-model fusion system for watershed characterization, process identification, and mechanistic model parameterization. A large base of modeling, monitoring and data capabilities have been built by various federal government agencies given the relevance of water to their critical missions. An emerging need is to build an integrated national capability for watershed water availability and quality that can address water-related missions across multiple federal agencies.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

An Overview of the State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Uncertainty Assessment Accident Progression Insights

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) with Sandia National Laboratories (Sandia) have completed three uncertainty analyses (UAs) as part of the State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analyses (SOARCA) program. The SOARCA UAs included an integrated evaluation of uncertainty in accident progression, radiological release, and offsite health consequence projections. The UA for Peach Bottom, a boiling-water reactor (BWR) with a Mark I containment located in the State of Pennsylvania, analyzed the unmitigated long-term station blackout SOARCA scenario. The UA for Sequoyah, a 4-loop Westinghouse pressurized-water reactor (PWR) located in the State of Tennessee, analyzed the unmitigated short-term station blackout SOARCA scenario, with a focus on issues unique to the ice condenser containment and the potential for early containment failure due to hydrogen deflagration. The UA for Surry, a 3-loop Westinghouse PWR with a sub-atmospheric large dry containment located in the State of Virginia, analyzed the unmitigated short-term station blackout SOARCA scenario including the potential for thermally-induced steam-generator tube rupture. These three UAs are currently documented in three NUREG/CR reports. This report provides input to planned NRC documentation on the insights and findings from the SOARCA UA program. The purpose of the summary report is to provide a useful reference for regulatory applications that require the evaluation of offsite consequence risk from beyond design basis event severe accidents. This report focuses on the accident progression and source term insights developed from the MELCOR analyses. MELCOR is the NRC's best-estimate, severe accident computer code used in the SOARCA UAs. In anticipation of the SOARCA UA insights work, NRC and Sandia benchmarked the response of the Peach Bottom model to selected reference calculations from the Peach Bottom SOARCA UA. Peach Bottom was the first SOARCA UA performed and was completed in 2015 using the MELCOR 1.8.6 code. The PWR SOARCA UAs evolved the original methodology and utilized the updated MELCOR 2.2 computer code. The Peach Bottom model has been systematically updated for other NRC research efforts and has been updated to MELCOR 2.2. computer code. The findings from the new reference calculations using the updated model with the MELCOR 2.2 code are also integrated into the report. A second objective is an assessment of the applicability of the results to the other nuclear reactors in the U.S. As the key findings are reviewed, judgments are presented on the applicability of the results to other U.S. nuclear power plants. An important objective of the SOARCA program relied on high- fidelity plant-specific modeling. However, the nature of the insights and conclusions allowed judgements to be made on the applicability of the various insights to the same general classification of plant (i.e., BWR or PWR) or the entire fleet of plants. Finally, the results from the SOARCA UA accident progression calculations contain a wealth of information not previously documented in the NUREG/CRs. This report includes new but related information that can be used to benchmark past or support future regulatory decisions related to severe accidents. The new work includes a benchmark of the NUREG-1465 licensing source term definitions, the variability of key accident progression events and timing to radionuclide release, and an improved understanding of the timing and source terms from consequential steam generator tube ruptures. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Sandia authors gratefully acknowledge the significant technical and programmatic contributions from the NRC SOARCA team which are reflected throughout the report. Dr. Tina Ghosh has been involved throughout the SOARCA UAs, providing the primary managerial and technical oversight. The long lists of NRC and Sandia contributors from the SOARCA UAs are cited in the three NUREG/CRs and are also gratefully acknowledged by the small team of authors compiling the results of their efforts. Significant technical contributions, advice, and reviews were provided by Dr. Hossein Esmaili, Dr. Alfred Hathaway, and Dr. Edward Fuller (retired) of the NRC. Dr. Randal Gauntt (retired), Mr. Patrick Mattie, Mr. Joseph Jones (retired), and Dr. Doug Osborn from Sandia are recognized as the SOARCA UA managers guiding the past efforts. There is a comparable list of project managers at the NRC including Ms. Patricia Santiago, Dr. Salman Haq, and Mr. Jon Barr. Sadly, we have lost Mr. Charlie Tinkler and Mr. Robert Prato, who were important contributors to the original SOARCA project. Finally, Mr. Kyle Ross and Mr. Mark Leonard have also retired but were significant technical contributors. Mr. Kyle Ross was the technical lead on all three SOARCA UAs and the original pressurized water reactor SOARCA study. Mr. Leonard was the technical lead on the original boiling water reactor SOARCA study and a key contributor to the first Peach Bottom SOARCA UA. iv

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Use of National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) Data to Support Severe Accident Consequence Analysis at Locations Without Onsite Meteorological Data

Certain regulatory actions under 10 CFR Parts 50, 52, or the proposed part 53 require the assessment of the potential off-site consequence risks to public safety and the environment from a hypothetical severe accident. As an important part of these analyses, atmospheric transport and dispersion (ATD) modeling relies heavily on the prevailing weather patterns of a site. When considering future deployment of new reactor designs in areas where historical onsite meteorological data is not available,

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Comparison of atmospheric radionuclide dispersion models for a risk-informed consequence-driven advanced reactor licensing framework

Current nuclear facility emergency planning zones (EPZs) are based on outdated distance-based criteria, predating comprehensive dose and risk-informed frameworks. Recent advancements in simulation tools have permitted the development of site-specific, dose, and risk-based consequence-driven assessment frameworks. This study investigated the computation of advanced reactor (AR) EPZs using two atmospheric dispersion models: a straight-line Gaussian plume model (GPM) and a semi-Lagrangian Particle in Cell (PIC). Two case studies were conducted: (1) benchmarking the NRC SOARCA study for the Peach Bottom Nuclear Generating Station and (2) analyzing an advanced INL Heat Pipe Design A microreactor's end-of-cycle inventory. The dose criteria for both cases were 10 mSv at mean weather conditions and 50 mSv at 95th percentile weather conditions at 96 h post-release. Results demonstrated that GPM and PIC estimated similar mean peak dose levels for large boiling water reactors in the farfield case, placing EPZ limits beyond current regulations. For ARs with source terms remaining in the nearfield, PIC modeling without specific nearfield considerations could result in excessively high doses and inaccurate EPZ designations. PIC dispersion demonstrated an order of magnitude higher estimate of nearfield inhalation dose contribution when compared to GPM results. Furthermore, both models significantly reduced EPZ sizing within the nearfield. Thus, reductions in the AR source term may eliminate the need for a separate EPZ.

63 RADIATION, THERMAL, AND OTHER ENVIRON. POLLUTAN↗
DOE OSTI2024

Dose Consequence and Probabilistic Risk Assessment Integration into Digital Documented Safety Analysis

This is an intern poster presentation. The current reactor authorization process is complex and error prone. The development of a digital Documented Safety Analysis has been proposed to provide an automated and integrated solution to enhance the design and authorization process. The digital DSA will consist of interlinked models, analyses, and reports, all of which will be updated using automated workflows when design changes are made. This poster examines the integration of the probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) with the transient and dose consequence analyses. A PRA for a generic high temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR) has been constructed which will drive the input parameters for a transient analysis model currently being constructed. Dose consequence will be determined using the results of the transient analysis and the Radiation Safety Analysis Computer (RSAC) code. Dose consequence data will then be input back into the PRA to drive design parameters.

42 ENGINEERING↗