Answer To: CMM XXXXXXXXXX: Risk and Resilience Engineering Assessment 3 – Report Overall requirements Due date...
Sarabjeet answered on Sep 25 2021
Nuclear Disaster
Nuclear Disaster
Student Name:
Unit Name:
University Name:
Date:
Executive Summary
The case study task is about the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster in Japan on March 11, 2011, which was the major nuclear disaster as the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. From this case study, safety factor awareness is the focus of industrial manufacturing and management. It improves the information in managing, handling, preventing, maintaining security aspects, and dealing with some crisis in industrial management. This research is based on the Fukushima nuclear disaster case study. You will write a report to determine at least 3 risks that led to the accident, risk levels, mitigation strategies, and the concept of resilience engineering to mitigate risks. The report uses both risk and resilience engineering concepts.
Contents
Executive Summary 2
Introduction 4
Background 4
Introduction & objectives 5
Identified risks 5
Risk 1 5
Risk 2 Fukushima Nuclear disaster risk issues 6
Risk 3: Leadership issues 6
Mitigation strategies 7
Assisting hand to the Japanese citizens 8
Using Resilience engineering strategies to mitigate the identified risks in this specific case 8
Discussion 11
Conclusion 12
References 14
Introduction
On March 11, a nuclear disaster occurred at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (FDNPP) due to the Japanese tsunami and the earthquake. This nuclear disaster was caused by nuclear melting caused by equipment failure at the FNPP, which released radioactive materials.
Background
The Great East Japan Earthquake caused a large-scale nuclear disaster on March 11, 2011, called the Fukushima Nuclear Power Disaster (Hasegawa 84). The tragedy is a series of equipment failures, the release of radioactive materials, and nuclear meltdown. During the disaster, three reactors were destroyed and the fourth reactor was blown up. The autopsy report released after the dangerous incident showed that the accident was caused by multiple reasons and consisted of multiple parties. The Tokyo Electric Power Company, which runs nuclear power plants, failed in its risk management activities (Andrianov, Kanke, Kuptsov and Murogov, 2014). Before the accident, TEPCO effectively followed the principle of simplicity and managed risks based on accidents that occurred in the nuclear reactor. The company did not consider the impact of secondary orders on risks; that is, it did not consider the impact of risks on food safety, biological health, and the overall environment. Moreover, because disasters failed to foresee disasters and were not sensitive to threat management, disasters also plunged the company into different forms of risk, such as cost-free methods to protect reactors from seawater damage and inappropriate consideration of potential risks problem (Dunn and Sainty, 2019). TEPCO has assumed all responsibilities promptly and has tried its best to minimize the negative impact through various methods. During the risk assessment and mitigation process, several new risk management strategies have been developed. The company has been committed to controlling disasters to this day.
Introduction & objectives
The Great East Japan Earthquake triggered the Fukushima Fission on March 11, 2011. The devastating earthquake was magnitude 9 (Funabashi magnitude 66). Radioactive dust has affected fisheries and agriculture, the environment, and human health. It also harms the future of global nuclear energy. The disaster affected Japan and the entire world from an economic and political perspective.
Identified risks
Risk 1
Several parties caused the Fukushima nuclear disaster. On the one hand, it was an instantaneous 9.0 magnitude earthquake on the coast of Japan. The earthquake caused the tsunami to rise, destroyed the diesel generators, flooded the emergency in the generator room, and hindered help (Fahlquist and Roeser, 2014). As a result, the reactor melted in the next few days, causing a hydrogen explosion, which led the Japanese government to order the use of seawater to cool the reactor. This resulted in permanent damage to the reactor. TEPCO engineers have noticed that this kind of disaster may have occurred a few years ago, but the company ignored the report because management thought the risk was unrealistic. Therefore, due to absurd decisions and mistakes of management alone, the disaster caused an increase in deaths and cancer cases, and at the same time damaged the global environment. TEPCO has taken some actions to combat the chaos (FUNABASHI, 2012). It established a systematic strategy, which included cooling the reactor for three months and covering the reactor to minimize radiation emissions. Next is the cleanup of the entire factory and the reduction of marine pollution. However, most of the people doubt TEPCO’s capability to finish the plan in time, as it has never faced such a challenge, as well as it has not announced how it will control the fifth and sixth reactors.
Risk 2 Fukushima Nuclear disaster risk issues
Negligence-When a black swan event occurs, subsequent second-order effects will be considered. Risk assessment: identification and measurement of risks. When the 2008 study showed that although TEPCO's management department did not take any protective measures when it was responsible for managing nuclear power plant facilities, there was still a potential tsunami risk near the nuclear power plant (HASEGAWA, 2012). The company’s management ignored the urgent need to protect nuclear power plants from inundation. The company does not want to pay control costs for threats that are unlikely to happen. Nevertheless, the fifteen-meter tsunami made the business considered. The second-level impact of the Fukushima nuclear tragedy was that the company made its decision without seeing the black swan disaster. This disaster severely damaged human life. One million people were evacuated from society, and others lost their hometowns, such as the town of Fukushima. All these people might have health issues in their lives. This means that even in future generations, the harm to human wellbeing will be a lasting impact. The Fukushima nuclear disaster caused local food safety issues. The radioactive dust from nuclear reactors polluted water and land (Hayenhjelm, 2020). Therefore, most crops and plants in these affected areas cannot be used as normal human food in the...