Overview

This action provides an approach for considering if combining potential resilience-enhancing solutions could provide broader, more comprehensive resilience solutions that provide the site with additional benefits compared to single solutions. This action is intended to review the previously brainstormed solutions and identify where combinations might make sense for the site. Analyses of solution set feasibility, costs, or how well they meet site priorities will be conducted in the Solution Prioritization module.

In-Depth

This action is intended to further characterize resilience solutions brainstormed in Solution Development Action 2 and to help the resilience planning team understand if these solutions might provide additional benefits from combination into a solution set. Solution sets might represent broader, more comprehensive resilience solutions that provide the site with additional benefits compared to single solutions. A team may choose to group solutions for analysis for a number of reasons (e.g., potential cost savings due to bundling, more comprehensive solutions, potential to have more substantial impacts on risk reduction). For example, adding a microgrid that would provide redundant power across all critical loads, or developing a site policy that would require all redundant systems to have documented and exercised testing programs and would reduce risk to all critical loads through one action.

Solution sets should be documented in the Solution Development Action 3 worksheet. Note that combining solutions into solution sets is not required to continue with the TRN process but a team may find minimal risk reductions when modeling risk reduction potential in the Solution Prioritization module when examining stand-alone solutions with greater risk reduction resulting from solution sets that address multiple risk factors. The resilience planning team should consider whether there are solutions that should be evaluated independently due to factors such as the urgency of addressing gaps related to a particular critical load.

Avoid Mutual Exclusivity

When developing solution sets, take care to avoid combining mutually exclusive solutions into solution sets. For example, developing or improving a redundant system with automated start-up is an alternative to doing the same for a system with manual start-up with procedures and training. There is no need to analyze those two competing solutions together because, ultimately, they would not both be selected.

Solution Sets That Holistically Address Vulnerability

There may be several areas in which a critical load has vulnerability; however, simply remedying one small aspect may not provide substantial resilience benefits and may fail to significantly reduce risk. While solutions may be developed to address each of the vulnerability categories, consider combining those solutions into a solution set that provides a fully functional redundant system. For example, if installing a backup generator on a critical load, be sure to also include O&M procedures and staff training on use of the system in the solution design. Refer to the vulnerability questions in Risk Assessment Action 4 worksheet to identify solutions that could be grouped to holistically address vulnerability.

Accelerated Mission Restoration

Solutions may also reduce consequence of the loss of a critical load by accelerating mission restoration before the critical load itself is restored. Consider if any solutions that accelerate mission restoration can be applied site-wide, across multiple critical loads, or if the cost and scope of the individual solution is such that it needs to be considered individually in the prioritization process. For example, if a mutual-aid agreement could reduce the mission restoration time across the entire site, it would make more sense for that solution to be considered rather than to implement multiple mutual-aid agreements for each critical load.