Appendix H: Risk Analysis

Appendix H

DUSEL Kimballton- Risk Analysis and Uncertainty

Herbert Einstein (MIT)

1. Introduction

Management of the planning, design, construction and operation of the DUSEL must take
into account uncertainties at different levels and occurring in different phases. Examples
of sources of uncertainty are

- Political and regulatory uncertainties, including future changes

- Geology and other environmental conditions
- Construction processes
- Operational (management) processes
- Experimental technology
- Experimental errors

These uncertainties will affect the cost and time to build the laboratory, the layout and
design of underground laboratory space, the operating costs and the potential for future
expansion, as well as opportunities for research. It is absolutely essential that the
uncertainties and their effects are clearly identified and that the DUSEL management
plan includes processes that directly address uncertainties and their consequences.
Developing the structure of these processes and management plans will be a central part
of the proposed Phase 2 work.

Fortunately, the methodology for risk assessment, risk analysis and risk management is
well established, and practical applications to similarly complex projects have already
been demonstrated. As a matter of fact, several members of the project team (Einstein,
Mauldon, Imhof, Dove) have been involved in research and practical applications related
to uncertainty assessment - and to related risk analysis. The following proposal and what
will be actually done is based on this experience.

2. Development of Uncertainty (Risk) Assessment Risk Management Structure

and Processes

The basic structures and processes will be developed in Phase 2; detailed development
and applications will follow in Phase 3.

2.1 Uncertainty Identification/Assessment

A number of processes will be developed through which uncertainties will be identified.

The best example for such a process are the risk assessment/analysis workshops
conducted by the Washington State Department of Transportation for its major projects
(see Reilly et al., 2004). Similar processes have been applied for other projects such as
the Great Belt Tunnel in Denmark, a VECP for a section of the Boston CAT project and
others. The processes usually consist of assembling experts and having them identify
critical components of a project, estimate consequences of malperformance and the
associated uncertainties (probability of occurrence). The assessments are then reviewed
by an (or several) independent but technically equally knowledgeable facilitator to
remove inconsistencies and to make sure that all components have been identified and
assessed. This is then returned to the experts for review. Several rounds of this
uncertainty assessment process are usually conducted. It is also possible to conduct
detailed research and analysis for some aspects for which the experts indicate that their
knowledge is not adequate or sufficiently detailed.

Such processes will be applied to look at the different aspects of the project such as those
listed in the introduction (political and regulatory, geology, etc.). In other words,
different groups of experts will be assembled. The processes will start at the aggregate
level and then work toward the details, where adding other aspects or splitting into
several groups is possible (e.g. experts on a particle physics experiment).

The assessments of the different groups are combined by the facilitators to arrive at an
overall combined assessment of uncertainties and risks. This aspect is somewhat
different and goes beyond the experience with such processes mentioned in the
introduction. (Those projects were mostly infrastructure oriented, i.e. they include
politics, regulations, geology, construction and operation but not the experiments which
characterize the DUSEL.) This will require some technical development work.

In Phase 2 we will, therefore, create the structures for the different uncertainty
assessment processes and we will develop the structure for the overall assessment. It has
to be emphasized that the detailed development of these processes will follow at the
beginning of Phase 3 prior to their applications.

Very important in all this is the inclusion of a feedback mode through which the
processes and the data/information used in the processes will be updated as the planning,
implementation and operation of the laboratory moves along!

2.2 Risk Assessment/Analysis

The processes mentioned in 2.1 include the identification of possible malperformance (as
a matter of fact, it will be the identification of deviation from expected performance
which can be both positive and negative). The consequences are usually expressed in
terms of cost and time but can also be expressed in form of multi-attribute utilities (see
e.g. Keeney and Raiffa, 1978). They will be determined based on experience, historical
data and specific analyses (see below). The uncertainties and consequences will then be
combined in the risk assessment/analysis phase. This can be done formally (quantitative
probabilistic risk assessment) or semi-formally (characterization of risks relative to each
other). Again, this will be done starting at the aggregate level and then working toward
more details.
An example of a very successfully applied procedure of the intermediate and detailed
level are the DAT (Decision Aids for Tunnelling) (see eg. Einstein, 2004). They allow
one to assess geologic and construction uncertainties and their financial and time related
consequences. The results can be expressed in form of cost-time scattergrams (Fig. 1a, b)
or any other graphical/analytical representation. The scattergrams shown in Fig. 1b are
those for the Gotthard Base Tunnel in Switzerland, a 4 billion sfr (2.5 billion$) project.
While, so far applied mostly to tunnels, the underlying concept and methodology of the

Figure 1a. Generic Cost-Time Scattergram

Figure 1b. Cost-Time Scattergram for Gotthard Base Tunnel

- Comparison of Different Tunnel System
DAT can be applied to any networked process, i.e. the DUSEL construction and
operation.
The identification and initial development of appropriate risk assessment and analysis
tools will be a major task of the Phase 2 DUSEL work. Final development will then take
place during the initial portion of Phase 3.

2.3 Risk Management and Mitigation

With the structures, processes and tools discussed above, the DUSEL management and
the funding agencies will be provided with the complete information on the overall
uncertainties and associated financial and time related risks as well as other
(environmental e.g.) risks early in Phase 3. The identification processes discussed in
Section 2.1 will also include the identification of countermeasures, their mitigating
effects and the associated uncertainties (a countermeasure may not reduce the risk with
100% certainty). Countermeasures can be either active (reducing the initial uncertainties)
or passive (reducing the consequences) or both.

A structure, again based on established methodology and, to some extent, on practical

applications will be developed in Phase 2 which will allow one to assess the effect of
countermeasures in reducing the risks. This will in its practical implementation in Phase
3 allow the decisionmaker to examine the effect of different countermeasures. Examples
are additional exploration to reduce geologic uncertainties, requesting legal rulings
regarding regulations to reduce associated uncertainties, technical modifications of
experiments.

Since it will be impossible to remove all uncertainties prior to construction and operation
of the laboratory, it will be necessary, as has been mentioned in Section 2.1 to have a
feedback process in place. Specifically, the planning, construction and operation
components which are very uncertain will be monitored. (For instance the geology
during construction). Countermeasures for deviating performance will be planned and if
the monitored performance will indeed deviate beyond a set limit, the countermeasures
will be put in place. This process is known as updating in decision making under
uncertainty and its practical application in infrastructure implementation is known as the
observational method. The underlying concept and methodology is thus well known
and practical processes are used to quite an extent. They will have to be expanded to fit
the DUSEL and then developed in the necessary detail. Also, it will be very important to
fit this into DUSEL management processes. Again, the structure will be prepared in
Phase 2 with the details developed early in Phase 3.

3. Concluding Comments

Decision making under uncertainty is a well established process in management and it

has also been extensively used in a number of technological domains, in particular large
infrastructure construction and operation. The methodology which includes quantitative
risk assessment, - analysis and - management will be used in the DUSEL. The associated
practical processes will make it possible to consider all uncertain factors ranging from
politics and regulations to running the experiments. They will be developed starting at
the aggregate level and moving into details. This will give the funding agencies and the
DUSEL managers a complete and controllable picture regarding the uncertainties and
risks, as well as providing them with the tools to reduce and monitor the risks during
construction and operation.

Literature References

Einstein, H. H. 2004. The Decision Aids for Tunnelling (DAT) An Update,

Transportation Research Record, No. 1892, pp. 199-207.

Keeney, R.L.; Raiffa, H. 1976. Decision Analysis with Multiple Conflicting Objectives,
Wiley and Sons, N.Y.

Reilly, J.; McBride, M.;Sangrey, D.; MacDonald, D.; Brown, J. 2004. The Development
of a New Cost-Risk Estimating Procedure for Transportation Infrastructure Projects,
Civil Engineering Practice, Vo. 19, No. 1.