CMM XXXXXXXXXX: Risk and Resilience EngineeringAssessment 3 – Report Overall requirements Due...

Question

CMM XXXXXXXXXX: Risk and Resilience Engineering
Assessment 3 – Report
    Overall requirements
    Due date
    SUNDAY 27th SEPTEMBER XXXXXXXXXX:59 PM
    Length
    2500 words +/- 10%
    Format
    Word document
    Weighting
    40%
    Submission
    via Turnitin in assessment details of the Unit Blackboard
    Referencing
    Harvard
***READ THESE INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY***
Assignment Brief
Based on the Fukushima Nuclear disaster case study, you are to write a report, identifying atleast 3 risks which led the incident, risk level, mitigation strategy and the Resilience Engineering concepts for risk mitigation. In the report, you are required to use the both Risk and Resilience Engineering concepts from the unit theory to substantiate the case that you are developing. In your ru
ic, the Response to assignment topic and Grasp of unit theory will be assessed based on these components (Risk Identification, Risk Mitigation, and Resilience Engineering).
You are the team leader for the risk management team on the project. You will structure the body of the report to achieve the best possible communication with the reader. Your intended audience is senior executives and other external senior stakeholders relating to safety and risk management.
Inclusions
The report also needs to include:
· SCU Cover-sheet: This is the cover-sheet that SCU requires all students to place on the front of all Assignments.
· Title-page: The title-page is the page that all authors put on the reports and submissions that they write as professionals.
· Contains a Title, e.g. “Risk management report on Fukushima Nuclear Disaster.”
· Contains the name of the author, i.e. you. Contains the File Name and Version number of the report,
· Includes the date the report was completed
· Header & Footer:
· The Header must contain:
· your name and your student number.
· The footer must contain
· the Unit number, i.e. CMM92001
· the page number (Page numbering commences after the title-page),
· your full name and your student number (first name, second name, student number).
· You must save your Word document as your first name last name and student number. For example, Fred_Smith_12345.
· Academic References: For the purposes of this report, you will need to provide Academic References that connect to Risk Management and Resilience Engineering. Failure to provide a minimum of 6 references will incur a max 40% mark of this portion of the assignment.
Content of the Report
HINT: This is an Engineering Management Unit.
Your report should
· Outline or describe what were the most significant risks on the project (atleast 3 risks)
· Categorize the Risks (Safety, Performance, Environment)
· Sub Categorize the Risks (Very High, High, Medium, Low)
· Outline what mitigations strategies were put in place
· Did the mitigation strategies in place respond to the root cause of the risk?
· What elements of Resilience Engineering was not applied in this case study?
· How Resilience Engineering strategies can help mitigate the identified risk in a similar project?
Sample Structure
· Coversheet
· Title Page
· Executive Summary
· Table of Contents
· Introduction
· Background
· Identified risks
· Mitigation strategies
· Using Resilience Engineering strategies to mitigate the identified risks in this specific case
· Discussion
· Conclusion
MORE HINTS:
· If we find you copying information without appropriate referencing you will be refe
ed for Academic Misconduct
· The assignment structure is in a report format as per the SCU Report Guide. Additionally, the intention of this assignment is to give you some flexibility in developing your own Risk Report format taking into consideration the information already provided. It is up to you as the “Engineering Manager” to determine the co
ect format given the industry you are working in.
· Follow the Ru
ic carefully. HINT: The way you structure your report will determine the marks you receive in the Structure Section of the Marking Ru
ic
· Categorize and prioritize the risks identified from the case study. Use Risk identification tools to Discuss your mitigation decisions, use academic and industry referencing as much as possible. Don’t just run with the bare minimum on the number of academic references per the marking ru
ic. The more references you use both direct and in-text will result in a higher quality report and higher marks, overall.
    Indicators
    Weight
    Excellent
85-100%
    Very Good
75-84%
    Good
65-74%
    Satisfactory
50-64%
    Unsatisfactory
0-49%
    Structure, response to assigned topic, understanding of relevant literature, theory: (about 75% of total mark for the assignment)
    Structure:
    15%
    The Assignment was very comprehensive and had an excellent structure that clearly conveyed the information following a clear and valid storyline.
    The Assignment was comprehensive and had very good structure with some e
ors.
    The Assignment had good structure and appropriate content but with some e
ors
    The Assignment consisted of suitable information, had generally suitable structure although some aspects could have been improved.
    The Assignment did not have suitable structure and information.
    Response to assigned topic:
    30%
    The Assignment responded directly to the topic and to every separate part of the topic in an exceptionally balanced manner with no i
elevant material. (Should contain both Risk and Resilience Engineering concepts)
    The Assignment responded directly to the topic and to every separate part of the topic in a balanced manner with minimal i
elevant material. (Should contain both Risk and Resilience Engineering concepts)
    The Assignment responded directly to the topic and to every separate part of the topic in a reasonably balanced manner, perhaps with a small amount of i
elevant material and some issues (Should contain both Risk and Resilience Engineering concepts)
    Overall the Assignment responded directly to the topic but with some digressions and i
elevancies. Some aspects of the topic were not developed properly, and some less important aspects may have been overlooked (Should contain both Risk and Resilience Engineering concepts).
    Taken as a whole, the assignment did not respond adequately to the topic. Important aspects were overlooked and/or much of the material was i
elevant.
    Grasp of core unit theory:
    30%
    The Assignment demonstrated deep, accurate understanding of unit principles and concepts (Should contain both Risk and Resilience Engineering concepts) at a very high level of sophistication.
Ability to develop innovate solution with resilience
    Demonstrated deep, accurate understanding of unit principles and concepts (Should contain both Risk and Resilience Engineering concepts).
    Demonstrated accurate understanding of unit principles and concepts (Should contain both Risk and Resilience Engineering concepts), although a little superficial or flawed in places
    A sound grasps of unit principles and concepts (Should contain both Risk and Resilience Engineering concepts), perhaps one-dimensional and superficial in places and perhaps some misconceptions.
    One or more important unit concepts or principles seriously misunderstood, or no relevant theoretical framework established.
    Academic Referencing
    Comprehensive List of Academic Journals (need to meet both criteria)
    5%
    The assignment was supported with appropriate peer-reviewed academic journals (10 minimum) and other quality sources. Reference list comprehensive and had no e
ors.
    The assignment was supported with appropriate peer-reviewed academic journals (8 minimum) and other quality sources. Reference list comprehensive with no omissions but some minor e
ors.
    The assignment was supported with appropriate peer-reviewed academic journals (7 minimum) and other quality sources. Reference list had one or two omissions and/or significant e
ors.
    The assignment was supported with appropriate peer-reviewed academic journals (6 minimum). Reference list had more than two omissions and/or significant e
ors (but a small number).
    The assignment was not supported by the minimum amount of appropriate peer-reviewed academic journals. (40% max for the entire assignment) Reference list had numerous e
ors and/or omission
    In-text referencing:
    5%
    Harvard referencing system used with 100% accuracy.
    Harvard referencing system used with a high level of accuracy.
    Harvard or referencing used co
ectly although with some e
ors
    Harvard referencing used co
ectly although with some significant e
ors.
    No referencing or many serious e
ors in using Harvard referencing.
    Other technical matters (about 25% of total mark for the assignment) - Assignments must be in Font 12, 1.5 Spacing, and Times New Roman
    English expression:
    15%
    Spelling, syntax and grammar are completely co
ect.
    Spelling, syntax and grammar generally co
ect although there were two or three minor e
ors.
    Spelling, syntax and grammar generally co
ect although there were more than three minor e
ors.
    Spelling, syntax and grammar acceptable but there were frequent minor or serious e
ors.
    An unacceptably high number of minor and/or numerous serious e
ors in spelling, syntax and/or grammar.

cmm92001-2020-2assignment-31-vzp55lic.docx capture-w4y2d5h4.png

Sarabjeet · Accepted Answer

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,

CMM XXXXXXXXXX: Risk and Resilience Engineering Assessment 3 – Report Overall requirements Due date SUNDAY 27th SEPTEMBER XXXXXXXXXX:59 PM Length 2500 words +/- 10% Format Word document Weighting 40%...

Solution

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

Submit New Assignment