Risk Assessment of Wave Energy Converter At Kuantan Port, Pahang

e-mail: ? Harvesting energy from ocean waves remains an untapped resource, and it is considered a new methodology in renewable energy, especially in Malaysia. This research is based on a project at Kuantan Port that used Wave Energy Converter (WEC) as a platform to generate energy from waves and convert it into electricity. The purpose of this research is to conduct a risk assessment before the execution of the project by referring to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 31000 and Risk Management Guidelines: Companion to AS/NZS 4360:2004. It started from risk identification and planned a mitigation way to reduce the grade of risk. These mitigations will be monitored throughout the project to avoid any accidents or harm during construction and installation in the future. The assessment will be using a qualitative analysis method that will gather all the possible risks that impact the project and propose the actions to Risk Assessment of Wave Energy Converter At Kuantan Port, Pahang

Harvesting energy from ocean waves remains an untapped resource, and it is considered a new methodology in renewable energy, especially in Malaysia. This research is based on a project at Kuantan Port that used Wave Energy Converter (WEC) as a platform to generate energy from waves and convert it into electricity. The purpose of this research is to conduct a risk assessment before the execution of the project by referring to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 31000 and Risk Management Guidelines: Companion to AS/NZS 4360:2004. It started from risk identification and planned a mitigation way to reduce the grade of risk. These mitigations will be monitored throughout the project to avoid any accidents or harm during construction and installation in the future. The assessment will be using a qualitative analysis method that will gather all the possible risks that impact the project and propose the actions to

INTRODUCTION
Renewable energy has emerged to become an integral option to replace traditional options, fossilized fuel. Ocean waves have been proved to evolve as a marine renewable energy source, and harvesting energy remains an untapped resource. It is still considered a new methodology in renewable energy, especially in Malaysia. It is estimated that harvesting energy from waves can supply approximately 1 and 1.5 times the world's consumption. However, most of this resource is currently technically unreachable or located remotely from the human community, and only 10% to 25% of electricity may be realistically generated from it (Ferro, 2006).
The marine renewable energy industry is about 10-15 years behind the wind renewable energy industry. The technology is still considered new, and there would be many obstacles within it, such as its predictability, manufacturability, installability, operability, survivability, reliability, and affordability (Mueller & Wallace, 2008 mitigate the risk. The assessment will also consider the likelihood, seriousness, and weightage to determine the risk level. The risk assessment is divided into six clusters: project management, hydrography, mechanical, electrical, civil, and safety and security. After analysis, each cluster has given their feedback on the risk assessment and their cluster-s risk grade. This research has found that the risk grade is at grade C, which needs the risk assessment of this project to reduce the likelihood, seriousness, and required mitigation actions. Eventually, after the mitigation plan is applied to each risk, the grade of risk is reduced to N.  be described as the chance of something happening that will impact the objectives and often specified in terms of an event or circumstance and the consequences that may result from it (AS/ NZS4360, 2004).
Risk assessment and analysis are applied as a vital decision support tool to predict all the uncertainties, anticipate the probable outcome, and establish guided mitigating procedures (Okoro et al., 2017). It can be commenced with variable degrees of detail and complexity, reliant on the purpose of the analysis, the availability and dependability of the information, and the resources existing. Analysis methods can be qualitative, quantitative, or combined, depending on the situations and planned use (BSI, 2018). Therefore, an adequate risk assessment is required to mitigate the risks that emerge from the uncertainties. The risk assessment flow consists of identifying risks, as well as analyzing, evaluating, and mitigating them.
This research is based on UPNM's project at Kuantan Port that has used Wave Energy Converter (WEC) as a platform to harvest energy from ocean waves and convert it into electricity. A risk assessment is conducted before the project's execution and will act as initial risk identification. It is then to be mitigated and then compared before and after the mitigation. The risk assessment is divided into six clusters: project management, hydrography, mechanical, electrical, civil, and security and safety. However, there have been limitations to this research. Considering the risk assessment is conducted before the project's execution, and the list of the risks is through brainstorming sessions between the team, there are maybe risks that are not listed and are not expected to happen. The newer risks will be updated and registered in the future.

METHODOLOGY
The qualitative analysis utilizes words to represent the potential outcome's Seriousness and the Likelihood that the outcome will occur. It may be used as a preliminary measure to identify risks that require a more thorough analysis. The analysis is suitable for decisions or where the numerical data or resources are inadequate for a quantitative analysis (AS/NZS4360, 2004).
The qualitative analysis assessment method is crucial to decide the significance of risks and identify which ones need to be treated before other risks. It relies on some computational and graphical tools (Keshk et al., 2018).
Using qualitative analysis allows for identifying the risk's priority, provides for the determination of areas of more considerable risk in a short time and without more significant expenditures, and the analysis is comparatively easy and inexpensive (Sung, 2015). Meanwhile, the drawback of using qualitative analysis is that it does not allow for allocating likelihoods and results by using numerical methods. The cost-benefit analysis is more difficult during the selection of mitigations (Sung, 2015).
A matrix of Seriousness and Likelihood can define the risk to decide the grading for each risk that will provide a ranking of the project risk exposure at the time of the assessment.
The term likelihood refers to the probability of something happening, whether defined, measured, or decided objectively or subjectively, qualitatively or quantitatively, or defined using general terms or mathematics (Standard, 2014). Seriousness is a term of the consequence of an event that will be affecting goals, can lead to a range of Seriousness, can be sure or unsure, and can have positive or negative effects on the plans. It can be expressed qualitatively or quantitatively, and initial consequences can heighten through knock-on effects (Standard, 2014).
For this research, the Likelihood and Seriousness rating for each risk is shown in Table 1 and  A rating of the risk rating is determined by the combination matrix of the rating level for Likelihood and Seriousness rating. The combination matrix is shown in Table 3.
Grading of the risk is identified by the combination of rating for Likelihood and Seriousness. The grade is rated from Grade A, B, C, D, and N. The grade is then weighted as numerical values to ease determining the grade for the project's overall risks and the mitigation actions that need to be taken. The weightage values are rated from 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1, respectively. The grade of the risk is shown in Table 4 To be noted -no action is needed unless grading increases over time 1

RESULT AND ANALYSIS
For this research, there are six clusters involved in the project: Project Management Team, Hydrography Team, Mechanical Team, Electrical Team, Civil Team, and Security and Safety Team. Each cluster is assigned to one leader and a team consisting of five team members.
For the risk assessment, each team leader and their members are needed to determine the risks for their respective team, assess the impact of the risks to the project, give grading to the risks before mitigation is performed, determine the mitigation actions that need to be done to contain the risks, and give back the rating of grading of the risks after mitigation steps have occurred. The total grading of the project risks for each cluster is determined from the total grade average. Some of the risks from each cluster are shown in the tables below.   Project grade for each team before mitigation. Table 12.
Project grade for each team after mitigation.
The project grade of risk can be determined from and after the mitigation action occurs from the risks obtained from each cluster or team above. The summary of the project grade is shown in the tables below.

No.
Risk Group Grade The maximum grade of the risk before mitigation is allocated at grade 5, which represents mitigation actions, to reduce the Likelihood and Seriousness, to be identified and implemented as soon as the project commences as a priority. A benchmark of 2.5 is allocated after mitigation, half of the maximum grade of the risk. A set of a graph from before and after each group's mitigation action is shown in the figures below.

DISCUSSION
From the data obtained in the results and analysis, this research can concur that the risk is tolerable even before mitigation actions occur. Each team leader and their team members had given their feedback alongside the mitigation actions that need to be done to curb the risks.
By the project management team, the average project risk is graded at 2.8, which refers to Table 4, which is weighted at Grade C. It states that the mitigation actions decrease the Likelihood and Seriousness. It needs to be identified and its cost evaluated for possible action if funds permit. After mitigation action has been taken, the average project risk is graded at 1.2, and it is weighted at Grade N. It shows that no action is needed unless grading should increase over time.
For the hydrography team, the average project risk is graded at 2.2, as shown in Table 4, which is weighted at Grade D. It states that no action is needed unless grading is increasing over time. After mitigation action has been taken, the average project risk is graded at 1.0, and it is weighted at Grade N. It shows that no action is needed unless grading should increase over time.
By the mechanical team, the average project risk is graded at 3.6, as shown in Table 4, which is weighted at Grade B. It states that it needs to decrease the Likelihood and Seriousness to be identified, and appropriate actions need to be implemented during project execution. After mitigation action has been taken, the average project risk is graded at 1.4, and it is weighted at Grade N. It shows that no action is needed unless grading should increase over time.
By the electrical team, the average project risk is graded at 4.0, the highest amount of risk. As shown in Table 4, it is weighted at Grade B. It states that it needs to decrease the Likelihood and Seriousness, be identified, and appropriate actions need to be implemented during project execution. After mitigation action has been taken, the average project risk is graded at 1.0, and it is weighted at Grade N. It shows that no action is needed unless grading should increase over time.
By the Civil team, the average project risk is graded at 2.8, as shown in Table 4, which is weighted at Grade C. It states that the mitigation actions decrease the Likelihood and Seriousness, it needs to be identified and evaluated in terms of cost for possible action if funds permit. After mitigation action has been taken, the average project risk is graded at 1.0, and it is weighted at Grade N. It shows that no action is needed unless grading should increase over time.
Lastly, by Safety and Security Team, the average project risk is graded at 3.6, as shown in Table 4, which is weighted at Grade B. It states that it needs to decrease the Likelihood and Seriousness to be identified, and appropriate actions need to be implemented during project execution. After mitigation action has been taken, the average project risk is graded at 1.2, and it is weighted at Grade N. It shows that no action is needed unless grading should increase over time.
From the total project risk of the overall team, this project is graded at 3.17, which is shown Table 4. It is weighted at Grade C. It states that the mitigation actions decrease the Likelihood and Seriousness. It needs to be identified and evaluated in terms of cost for possible action if funds permit. After the mitigation action has been taken, the overall average project risk is graded at 1.13. It is weighted at Grade N. It shows that no action is needed unless grading should increase over time.

CONCLUSION
Risk assessment has proven as a necessity before executing this project. It has given a general presumption of the possible risks, and necessary action must be taken to control the risks. From the risk assessment, the project's total risk grade before mitigation is 3.17 at Grade C. The project's entire risk grade after mitigation is 1.13, which is at Grade N. The required allowable grade for the project should be less than 2.5, half of the maximum Grade A weighting at 5. In conclusion, this project is recommended to be carried out within Grade N of risk. All the mitigation procedures will be complied with, and no action is needed unless grading should increase over time.