Retrospective Risk Management Plan for Fukushima Plant Incident

This report provides a retrospective risk management plan for the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant incident. It begins with an executive summary, followed by an introduction that details the project's scope, objectives, and the information related to the plant. The report discusses communication and consultation plans, stakeholder analysis, and the establishment of internal and external contexts. It delves into risk assessment processes, including identification, analysis, and evaluation, alongside risk treatment options and effective strategies. The report concludes with a discussion of risk monitoring and closure processes, referencing key documents and appendices that include risk identification checklists, risk registers, assessment matrices, treatment tables, and FMEA analysis. The report emphasizes the importance of communication, stakeholder management, and proactive risk mitigation strategies in preventing future nuclear disasters.

RETROSPECTIVE RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE
FUKUSHIMA PLANT INCIDENT
1

Executive summary
The following report is based on the risk management plan of Fukushima Daiichi. For several
reasons the buildings were collapsed. In order to complete the risk management plan, relevant
and proper information of the nuclear plant of Fukushima Daiichi. Apart from the
information, the project objectives, scopes of the project and risk management process have
been discussed. Based on the discussion of the communication and consultation the depth,
importance and need to consultation and communication have been identified. In this section,
the internal and external stakeholders of Fukushima Daiichi and their roles, responsibilities
have also been discussed. In this report, the stakeholder analyses have been done based on
their interest and power in this nuclear project. Moreover, identification of the risks, analysis
of the evaluation and analysis method and key risks for treatment has been analysed. Apart
from that, the problem treatment options have been discussed to identify the ways Fukushima
Daiichi Could has been use to avoids this type of accidents. Besides the probable treatment,
effective treatment options also have been discussed. After that the discussion of risk
monitoring process and risk closure processes have analysed in relation to the nuclear energy
plant of Fukushima Daiichi.
2

Table of Contents
1. Introduction............................................................................................................................5
1.1Information of project (Fukushima Daiichi).........................................................................5
1.2 Scope of Project (Fukushima Daiichi and the nuclear project)............................................5
1.3 Objectives of the project......................................................................................................5
2. Plan of communication and consultation...............................................................................5
2.1 Evaluating major objectives of project................................................................................6
2. 2Analyzing stakeholders........................................................................................................7
3. Context establishment............................................................................................................8
3.1 Discussing the internal elements of project.........................................................................8
3.2 Discussing external elements of project which can affect the project.................................9
3.3 Management of risk in the context of company and undertaken project.............................9
3.4 Criteria of risk....................................................................................................................10
3.5 Fukushima Daiichii’s stakeholders....................................................................................10
3.6 Describing responsibilities and roles of stakeholders........................................................10
3.7 Discussing risk management policies of Fukushima Daiichi in the context of nuclear
project.......................................................................................................................................11
4. Process of risk assessment...................................................................................................11
4.1 Identification of risk associated with Fukushima Daiichi’s project...................................12
4.1.1 Methods of identifying risk.............................................................................................12
4.1.2 Discussing scope of risk..................................................................................................12
4.1.3 Risk register of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant..............................................12
4.2 Analyzing of risk................................................................................................................12
4.2.1 Methods of analyzing risk...............................................................................................13
4.2.2 Existing risk control methods..........................................................................................14
4.2.3 Criteria for accepting the risk associated with project....................................................15
3

4.3 Evaluation of risk...............................................................................................................15
4.3.1Method of evaluating risk................................................................................................15
4.3.2 Major risk which requires treatment in Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Project Plan.........16
5. Treatment of risk..................................................................................................................16
5.1 Options for treatment of project Fukushima Daiichi.........................................................17
5.2 Effective way for treatment of project...............................................................................19
6. Monitoring and reviewing risk.............................................................................................19
6.1 Process for monitoring the risk..........................................................................................20
6.2 Closure of risk....................................................................................................................21
Reference List..........................................................................................................................23
Appendices:..............................................................................................................................28
Appendix A: Risk identification Checklist..............................................................................28
Appendix B: Risk Register.......................................................................................................28
Appendix C: Risk Assessment Matrix.....................................................................................30
Appendix D: Risk Treatment Table.........................................................................................30
Appendix E: Risk FMEA Analysis..........................................................................................32
4

1. Introduction
The following report is prepared on risk assessment and management plan in the context of
Fukushima Daiichi’s accident case happen in 2011 in Japan. The accident that takes place in
Japan was basically an energy accident which was initiated by Tsunami and then followed by
Tohoku earthquake. In this part information related to project was discussed along with its
objectives, scope and risk management policies.
1.1Information of project (Fukushima Daiichi)
In the accident 4 buildings of the company was damaged and during investigation it was
identified that there were many reasons for that accident. The problems include structural
problem of building, earthquake and tsunami (Aoki and Rothwell, 2013). It should be noted
that it is one of the disastrous nuclear plant damage. It is opined by (Chew and Jahari, 2014),
that power cut take place in the factory due to tsunami and due to those power cut pumps cool
down the nuclear reactors which consequently led to hydrogen explosion and released
radioactive material also.
1.2 Scope of Project (Fukushima Daiichi and the nuclear project)
It is considered that nuclear energies are powerful way to protect country from various
aspects (Hindmarsh, 2013). Through this project the selected factory can apply retrospective
risk management strategies which can thus help the owners of company to keep the factory
still thriving.
1.3 Objectives of the project
 To provide different strategies to nuclear power plant to avoid side effects of external
attack
 To make companies of country strong from technical viewpoint
 To control future risk by large extent by applying internal management system
properly
2. Plan of communication and consultation
According to research conducted on the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant it has been
identified that there was lack of communication among the internal management system
which leads to disastrous effect of accident. As suggested by Galliers and Leidner(2014),
communication and consultation activities with stakeholders of company can reduce the
aggressiveness of risk to large extent and can also provides alternative ways to restart the
5

factory. From the reports of respective company it has been analyzed that along with tsunami
and tohoku, internal mismanagement is also responsible for destruction of the company
(Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, 2017).
Communication helps in flow of information within the organization and thus can help
management to take active decision in critical situation. It has been pointed out by Yoshida &
Takahashi (2012), that unit 4 and 1 of factory was totally damaged but others were safe, this
is happened due to lack of effective communication and consultation process. According to
the risk management and framework policies of Australia proper communication system and
regular consulting with higher level authorities can identify risk from prior and thus can help
in mitigation of identified risk (Hu et al 2013).
2.1 Evaluating major objectives of project
In order to mitigate the risk properly it is necessary to implement risk management strategies
properly. Hence some of the major objectives of this project are as follows-
 To ensure that company is practicing effective and efficient communication system to
communicate with stakeholders of company
 To ensure that company can get support from every member of company during crisis
period (Hong et al. 2013)
 Fukushima Daiichi was associated with nuclear project thus it is necessary to remain
updates to identify future risk
 To make the stakeholders of company aware about their roles and responsibilities
toward company during crisis period (Ho et al. 2013)
6

2. 2Analyzing stakeholders
Figure 1: Analyzing stakeholders
(Source: Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, 2017)
Region of power of interest Method of communication
Monitoring It is important for company to keep local
resident informed about their operating
activities. It has been evaluated that
Fukushima Daiichi does not provided any
information to the local resident and thus
the accident also affect the life of local
resident (Hasegawa et al. 2015). Hence it
is necessary to monitor the activities
performed by members of company to
evaluate if they are delegating their
responsibilities properly or not.
Keeping updated with recent
information
It is necessary to keep the stakeholders of
company informed about the activities to
be performed to take appropriate
7

decisions (García-Herrero et al. 2013).
The selected company properly follows
these rules.
Managing communication system
closely
In order to manage the communication
system closely the company sends e-
mails to stakeholders. In addition to these
the company also organizes quarterly
meetings to ensure proper flow of
information (Cavallo and Ireland, 2014).
Keep satisfied It is necessary to provide right
information to the shareholders of
company to keep them satisfied by
ensuring that company is maintain
transparency in their operational
activities.
Table 1: Stakeholder analysis
(Source: Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, 2017)
Hence from above information it can be said the relation between Fukushima Daichii
and its stakeholders was quite satisfactory but it fails to keep satisfied local
environment authority through the communication strategy it’s adopted. It is
suggested by Yasumuraet al (2012), that if Fukushima can maintain good relationship
with its local authority and social workers the amount of effects suffered due to
accident will be less.
3. Context establishment
It is important for establishment of internal and external context with accordance to AS/NZ
ISO 31000:2009 for risk management policies after outlining the risk criteria and roles and
responsibilities of stakeholders.
3.1 Discussing the internal elements of project
There are several internal elements which can affect positively and negatively the project
undertaken by company. However, majority of internal elements involved financial reports
prepared by company and record of activities performed by the respective company
(Managing the Fukushima Challenge, 2017). In case of Fukushima it is necessary to make
8

every member of company ware about the project undertaken by them along with its business
strategies and marketing strategies because it is an investment project and company needs to
consult with every member involved with it. As commented byEdwards et al.(2014),
management of risk should also consider the point of view of investors because it can control
the strategy of investors and sources of investment also.Figueroa (2013), claims that it is not
the sole responsibilities of management team of Fukushima for the damage happen to the
respective factory. On the other hand,Chew and Jahari (2014) argued that Japan is earthquake
prone country thus it is the responsibility of risk management team to take necessary actions
at the time of natural disastrous incident. Thus, it can be said that natural elements of project
are basically responsible for the accident happen to Fukushima Daichii Nuclear Power Plant.
3.2 Discussing external elements of project which can affect the project
In case of external factors suppliers, customers, competitive firms are considered as major
elements which have affected the project of Fukushima Daichii. Government agents and
several big companies are agent or customer of the selected company which deals in nuclear
energy product (Mismanaging Risk and the Fukushima Nuclear Crisis, 2017). But the
internal elements of project could not harm the company like internal elements. As the
selected company was one of the oldest nuclear plant of Japan it was well reputed and it also
give tough competition to its competitors in market (Funabashi and Kitazawa, 2012). Thus, it
can be said that level of risk was higher in case of internal factor as compared to external
factors.
3.3 Management of risk in the context of company and undertaken project
The main goal of risk management plan is to reduce the extent of risk which has already
occurred or to avoid the risk which can be occurring in future. The Risk Assessment Process
as discussed below stressed upon identification of risk and mitigation of those risk through
proper process. The case of Fukushima Daiichi revolves around safety and public health
issues after the nuclear plant accident (Mismanaging Risk and the Fukushima Nuclear Crisis,
2017). As mentioned by Gaillard and Mercer(2013), many people were injured during the
accident including the employees of organization. In case of this nuclear plant it was the
responsibility of government of country and higher authority of factory to allow no local
resident people within 10 Km to 20 Km of the re4spective plant.
9

3.4 Criteria of risk
The selected organization has already suffered from risk associated with the natural
calamities due to mismanagement within organization; their entire business was shut down
after the incident. As opined by Hirose (2012), in order to ensure that no such type of issues
occur in future due to risk the organization needs to analyze risk properly by applying risk
management strategies. It is observed that Fukushima Daiichi fails to apply the risk
assessment process and consequently suffered from damages (Hagmann, 2012).
3.5 Fukushima Daiichii’s stakeholders
It is important to identify external and internal stakeholders before preparation of risk
management plan. Stakeholders of Fukushima Daiichi has been identified below which can
help the company in conducting project.
External stakeholders of Fukushima
Daiichi
Internal stakeholders of Fukushima
Daiichi
Nuclear Energy Source and Association
Department
Board of Directors
Land Owner of the respective factory Management level
Local communities Staff of organization
Suppliers of company Other partners
Environmental agencies
Table 2: Stakeholders of Fukushima Daiichi
(Source: Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, 2017)
3.6 Describing responsibilities and roles of stakeholders
Position of the stakeholders Responsibility and roles
Internal audit The responsibility of this team is to verify
the internal reports prepared by accounts
department of company and implement
risk management plan (Hirose, 2012). In
case of Fukushima the internal audit team
does not delegate their responsibilities
properly.
Board directors Review of plan before approval of any
project is main responsibilities of this
10

group (Risk Management: Procedures,
Methods And Experiences, 2017).
However, in case of Fukushima Daiichi
the team should also assist risk
management team to reduce the
aggressiveness of risk.
Risk manager Identification of risk associated with
project and implementation of proper
treatment strategy. In addition to this
monitoring of risk assessment plan.
Financial manager The responsibility of financial manager of
Fukushima was to verify risk
management reports to determine the
actual cost implemented for management
of risk (Miller and Ager, 2013).
Staff of organization The staff of organization was responsible
to follow the risk management plans
implement4ed by company to avoid
harmful effects of risk.
Table 3: Roles and Responsibilities of the Stakeholders of Fukushima Daiichi
(Source: Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, 2017)
3.7 Discussing risk management policies of Fukushima Daiichi in the
context of nuclear project
The selected company has complied with Tokyo’s Energy policies, Regulatory outcome
policies, Energy free and Low carbon emission policy. As investigation conducted by
ICANPS or Investigation Committee on the Accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power
Stations reveals that the company did not follow policies which can ensure health and safety
of people residing at that area (Othman and Beydoun, 2013).
4. Process of risk assessment
In this section, different process to be followed by company for assessment of risk which are
associated with future project activities are discussed below.
11

4.1 Identification of risk associated with Fukushima Daiichi’s project
If Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant can identify the risk associated with natural
calamities then they can have beneficial effect on nuclear project undertaken. As opined by
Owen and Kemp (2013), it is necessary to identify the risk along with their effects on the
project to overcome it.
4.1.1 Methods of identifying risk
There are several methods for identification or risk which can be adopted by Fukushima
Daiichi. The respective company can adopt two risk identification methods such as
brainstorming and checklist to determine risk associated with nuclear project (Park et al.
2013). As at that time the company has no past experience regarding nuclear project it would
be beneficial if they choose checklist method to identify risk at every stage of project. On
other hand brainstorming can help the company to evaluate risk which can occur from future
events. It is suggested by Srinivasan and Rethinaraj(2013), that if the company can select in
any risk identification method which are associated with natural calamities then the risk of
Fukushima Daiichi can be easily mitigated.
4.1.2 Discussing scope of risk
The research conducted on Fukushima Daiichi reveals that the company does not followed
any standard method for preparing risk management strategies. Many loopholes were
identified such as lack of compliances with health and safety policies, environmental policies
and appropriate framework for local people. Generally, lack of application of environmental
policies can be the major reason for the accident (Tsumuneet al. 2012). As observed the
accident affect the quality of life and food due to the radiation affect on environment.
4.1.3 Risk register of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant
Risk register of company is used to fill information about identified risk along with their
mitigation process (Principles and Practices of Events Management - Planning and
Operations, 2017). Moreover,in order to ensure credibility of mitigation process the records
of risk register should be reviewed by management team of the respective company.
4.2 Analyzing of risk
In this section, several methods are discussed which can be utilized by the selected company
to identify the probabilities of risk and thus can controlled the effect of accident. In this
12

method rating criteria of risk has been used to evaluate the severity of risk and thus can
mitigate risk according to its severity.
4.2.1 Methods of analyzing risk
Risk assessment matrix has been drawn to identify risk according to their probability of
occurrence and its effect on company. For the Fukushima Daiichi case simple qualitative risk
assessment matrix can be used which have five point rating scale. The risk register of
company should be updated after analyzing likelihood and consequence of risk associated
with project (Risk Management: Procedures, Methods and Experiences, 2017).
Likelihood or
Probability
Consequences or Effect
(5)
Catastrophic
(4)
Major
(3)
Moderate
(2) Minor (1)
Insignifican
t
(1) Rare M M M L L
(2) Unlikely H M M M L
(3)Possible E H M M L
(4)Likely E H H M M
(5)Certain E E H H M
Table 4: (Qualitative) Risk assessment matrix
(Source: Created by researcher)
Describing symbols of Risk assessment matrix
Probability or
Likelihood
Description
Green (L) Indicator of low risk
Yellow (M) Indicator of medium risk
Orange (H) Indicator of higher risk
13

Red (E) Indicator of extreme risk
Risk level
(5)Certain Highest possibility of occurrence
(4)Likely High possibility
(3)Possible Chance of occurrence
(2)Unlikely Low chances of occurrence
(1)Rare Rare chances of occurrence
Consequences
(5Catastrophic Effects can leads to disaster
(4)Major Needs management level of effort to control risk
(3)Moderate Requires efforts of considerable level
(2)Minor Low level of effort will be efficient
(1)Insignificant Requires normal process for mitigation
Table 5: Description of symbols
(Source: created by researcher)
4.2.2 Existing risk control methods
The external risk control method in case of Fukushima Daiichi can be implementation of
regulations and rules delegated by TEPCO or Tokyo Electric Power Company (Managing the
Fukushima Challenge, 2017). At that time, the company tries to mitigate the risk by
nationalizing the nuclear allergy under Japanese government. In addition to these the
company has also applied emergency procedures and communication strategy but cannot
implement it properly.
14

4.2.3 Criteria for accepting the risk associated with project
The accident occurred in Fukushima Daiichi effects the environment and life of people by
large extent thus according to the risk should be accepted in which the effect on life and
environment will be minimum (Visschers and Siegrist, 2013).
Figure 2: Risk Acceptance criteria
(Source: created by researcher)
Hence from the above figure it has been showed that the impact of risk needs to be 1
or close to 2 in case of environment and human health to accept it for further
mitigation process.
4.3 Evaluation of risk
After risk identification and analysis, risk evaluation is conducted to give priorities to that
risk which has higher probability of occurrence. In case of Fukushima priorities should be
given to those risks which have higher chances according risk assessment matrix
(Wachingeret al. 2013). ALARP or As Low as Reasonably Practicable has been followed
here to evaluate the risk properly.
4.3.1Method of evaluating risk
According to the principle of ALARP identified risk will be classified as per its effect on
environment and society. This principle will classify risk in three majors are such as tolerable
region, unacceptable region and acceptable region (Cavallo and Ireland, 2014). Through this
principle the respective company can take proper step of mitigating risk after identifying with
its aggressiveness.
15

Figure 3: Principle of ALARP
(Source: Cavallo and Ireland, 2014)
From the above diagram, it can be said that the risk which has less effect will be
shown in bottom. The risk which can be tolerated by company is shown in middle and
the risk which has higher impact is shown in upper region.
4.3.2 Major risk which requires treatment in Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear
Project Plan
As mentioned earlier that the company has two major areas which requires risk treatment
such as environmental health and impact on life. In these two major areas, some elements are
included like, effect on food, radiation effect, quality of air and effect on economy. These
elements will affect both the life of people and environmental health (Hindmarsh, 2013).
5. Treatment of risk
In this part, proper treatment method for identified risk has been proposed which can be
implemented by Fukushima Daiichi to avoid the impact of incident that occurred in 2011.
The risk treatment procedures arealigned with the principle of ALARP as discussed above.
Through this plan the disastrous effect of risk can be mitigate to large extent if properly
implemented by management level of company (Aoki and Rothwell, 2013).
16
Unacceptable region
Tolerable region
Acceptable
region

5.1 Options for treatment of project Fukushima Daiichi
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant can deploy the risk treatment plan as mentioned
below to reduce the impact of accident like 2011 if further happens (Edwards et al. 2013).
Through this plan the company can reduce the effect of risk which has higher probability of
occurrence by implementing appropriate process.
Preparation of contingency plan:In case of nuclear project there is higher probability of
explosive actions. It is important for the company to prepare contingency plan to deal with
such situations if arises in future.
Implementation of technical measures: From the reports of Fukushima it has been
evaluated that unwanted cooling of machinery and equipments lead to generate radiation
explosion (Figueroa, 2013). Thus, if the company can implement technical measures which
can control the machinery and equipment or can indicate the alarming situation then the
accident can be stop easily.
Providing training to staff:The selected company has undertaken the nuclear project,
explosion of which can be very sensitive to society and environment. Therefore, in such case
it is necessary to train employee properly to handle critical situation. The employee of
Fukushima was not well-trained which create hindrances for them to deal with emergency
situation (Managing the Fukushima Challenge, 2017). Apart from that technical; training to
employee is also necessary to deal with challenging situations.
Implementation of rules and regulation: From the case of Fukushima Daiichi it has been
observed that the company risk management strategy has been failed severely because of its
poor monitoring strategy (Hirose, 2012). Hence the company should apply rules and
regulation implemented by TEPCO to reduce the effect of risk.
Risk transfer:If the company can predict risk associated with project then can transfer the
risk easily. The warnings from anti-nuclear activist were not seriously taken by the
Fukushima(Miller and Ager, 2013). If these warnings are seriously taken then there were
chances of survival after the accident.
Risk (Health
of public
and
Option for treatment Preferre
d option
Cost
analysis
of
Probabilit
y chances
of risk
Responsibl
e person
17

environment
)
treatmen
t plan
Air quality  Maintaining
condition of
machines used by
company
 Testing quality of
air affected by the
operational
activities of
company
Both Cost
benefit
analysis
is
required
4 Research
and
developmen
t department
of company
Effect of
radiation
 The suggestion of
anti-nuclear
activist should be
taken seriously
 Determining the
level of
radioactive
isotopes present in
surrounding area
of company
Both Cost
benefit
analysis
is
required
5 Board of
directors
Economic
effects
 Implementation of
rules and
regulation
prepared by
government for
nuclear power
plants
 Testifying effect
of operational
activities on
Both Cost
benefit
analysis
is
required
3 Managemen
t department
of company
18

economy of
country
Effects on
quality of
food product
 Examination of
pollution level in
surrounding area
of company
 Safe induction
Both Cost
benefit
analysis
is
required
3 Managemen
t department
of company
Table 6: Risk Treatment Plan
(Source: created by researcher)
5.2 Effective way for treatment of project
Several treatment options are available for identified risk but it would not be accurate to
mention any one treatment as the best for the incident cases like Fukushima Daiichi.
Basically, the treatment options which will be feasible and cost-effective for the company
should be selected (Othman and Beydoun, 2013). However, some time company needs to
invest more funds for management of risk properly. From the past experience of Fukushima
Daiichi it is advisable to maintain risk register and implement proper risk treatment method to
reduce the effect of risk. In order to select proper treatment strategy, the respective company
can follow the below mentioned procedures-
 Identification treatment options which can provide long-term service
 Determination of impact of treatment options selected along with its benefits and
drawback (Park et al. 2013)
 Selection of best option after comparing it with other risk treatment strategy
 Determination of accurate time for implementation of risk treatment strategy selected
 Updating risk register with the results obtained after implementation of risk treatment
plan to examine the efficiency of plan selected (Srinivasan and Rethinaraj, 2013)
6. Monitoring and reviewing risk
It is important for Fukushima to follow risk monitoring and reviewing framework to manage
the identified risk. If the company can be utilised this framework from prior then it can easily
evaluate the factors which leads to destruction. Through this framework the management
department of company can keep close eyes on the activities performed by the employee of
19

company (Galliers and Leidner, 2014). The company can opt the below mentioned steps to
monitor and review risk-
 Context establishment
 Risk identification
 Evaluation and analysing of risk identified
 Risk treatment
 Monitor and reviewing
Figure 4: Risk management framework
(Source: Managing the Fukushima Challenge, 2017)
Through this framework the companies easily identify the emerging risk along with its
probability of occurrence and its effects on organizational activities. In addition to these the
management department of company can also locate any loopholes if present in risk
management strategy deployed by company (Tsumuneet al. 2012).
6.1 Process for monitoring the risk
In order to follow the risk monitoring process properly it is important to follow the rules and
regulation set by company. Through these standards the company reviews the strategies
which require changes because risk changes according to time and due to dynamic business
environment (Visschers and Siegrist, 2013).Therefore, it is important to implement
monitoring programs on frequent basis. The selected company can follow the below
mentioned monitoring plan-
20
Context establishment
Risk identification
Evaluation and analysing of risk
identified
Risk treatment
Monitor and reviewing

Activity Frequency
level
Preparing checklist In business
days
Conducting internal inspection In business
days
Maintenance of risk register Weekly
Conducting monthly meeting with
management department of company
Once in
month
Conduction of Internal audit Quarterly
basis
Conduction of External audit Monthly
basis
Table 7: Periodic Monitoring activities
(Source: created by researcher)
The above-mentioned activities can be done by different departments of company to obtain
more accurate information. Fukushima Daiichi can implement these activities to reduce the
effect of accident happen because it will increase their risk handling capacity (García-Herrero
et al. 2013).
6.2 Closure of risk
Risk closure refers to the process of closing risk treatment if the criteria for the risk are
properly met. In order to close the risk, the criteria are mentioned below-
 Deploying risk treatment plans
 Analyzing responses received from management level after implementation of risk
treatment strategy (Hasegawa et al. 2015)
 To ensure the risk will not occur in future
It is necessary to mentioned that closure of risk without meeting these criteria could be
harmful for the organization (Hong et al.2013). The statement of risk closure should be
assessed by higher level authorities before closing the risk finally.
21

22

Reference List
Galliers, R. D., and Leidner, D. E. (Eds.). (2014). Strategic information management:
challenges
and strategies in managing information systems. Routledge.
Hindmarsh, R. (Ed.). (2013). Nuclear disaster at Fukushima Daiichi: social, political and
environmental Issues. Routledge.
Aoki, M. and Rothwell, G., 2013. A comparative institutional analysis of the Fukushima
nuclear
disaster: Lessons and policy implications. Energy Policy, 53, pp.240-247.
Chew, E. Y. T., andJahari, S. A. (2014). Destination image as a mediator between perceived
risks and revisit intention: A case of post-disaster Japan. Tourism Management, 40, pp.382-
393.
Edwards, J. R., Davey, J., and Armstrong, K. (2013).Returning to the roots of culture: A
review
and re-conceptualisation of safety culture. Safety Science, 55, pp.70-80.
Figueroa, P.M., 2013. Risk communication surrounding the Fukushima nuclear disaster: an
anthropological approach. Asia Europe Journal, 11(1), pp.53-64.
Funabashi, Y. and Kitazawa, K., 2012. Fukushima in review: A complex disaster, a
disastrous
response. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 68(2), pp.9-21.
Gaillard, J. C., and Mercer, J. (2013). From knowledge to action: Bridging gaps in disaster
risk
reduction. Progress in human geography, 37(1), pp.93-114.
Hirose, K. (2012). 2011 Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant accident: summary of
regional
radioactive deposition monitoring results. Journal of environmental radioactivity, 111, pp.13-
17.
23

Hagmann, J., 2012. Fukushima: probing the analytical and epistemological limits of risk
analysis. Journal of Risk Research, 15(7), pp.801-815.
Miller, C., and Ager, A. A. (2013).A review of recent advances in risk analysis for wildfire
management. International journal of wildland fire, 22(1), pp.1-14.
Othman, S. H., and Beydoun, G. (2013).Model-driven disaster management. Information and
Management, 50(5), pp.218-228.
Owen, J. R., and Kemp, D. (2013). Social licence and mining: A critical
perspective. Resources
Policy, 38(1), pp.29-35.
Park, J., Seager, T.P., Rao, P.S.C., Convertino, M. and Linkov, I., 2013. Integrating risk and
resilience approaches to catastrophe management in engineering systems. Risk
Analysis, 33(3),
pp.356-367.
Srinivasan, T.N. and Rethinaraj, T.G., 2013. Fukushima and thereafter: Reassessment of risks
of
nuclear power. Energy Policy, 52, pp.726-736.
Tsumune, D., Tsubono, T., Aoyama, M., and Hirose, K. (2012).Distribution of oceanic 137
Cs
from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant simulated numerically by a regional ocean
model. Journal of environmental radioactivity, 111, pp.100-108.
Visschers, V. H., andSiegrist, M. (2013). How a nuclear power plant accident influences
acceptance of nuclear power: Results of a longitudinal study before and after the Fukushima
disaster. Risk analysis, 33(2), pp.333-347.
Wachinger, G., Renn, O., Begg, C., and Kuhlicke, C. (2013).The risk perception paradox
implications for governance and communication of natural hazards. Risk analysis, 33(6),
24

pp.1049-1065.
Yasumura, S., Hosoya, M., Yamashita, S., Kamiya, K., Abe, M., Akashi, M., Kodama, K.
and
Ozasa, K., 2012. Study protocol for the Fukushima health management survey. Journal of
epidemiology, 22(5), pp.375-383.
Cavallo, A., and Ireland, V. (2014).Preparing for complex interdependent risks: a system of
systems approach to building disaster resilience. International journal of disaster risk
reduction, 9, pp.181-193. Available at
http://ira.lib.polyu.edu.hk/bitstream/10397/5990/1/Review%20of%20megaprojec
%20research 2C%20Manuscript-S3-clean.pdf
García-Herrero, S., Mariscal, M. A., Gutiérrez, J. M., and Toca-Otero, A. (2013).Bayesian
Networkanalysis of safety culture and organizational culture in a nuclear power plant. Safety
science, 53,pp.82-95.Available at
http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2018/pdfs/japan/options.pdf[Accessed on 9 August. 2017].
Hasegawa, A., Tanigawa, K., Ohtsuru, A., Yabe, H., Maeda, M., Shigemura, J., ...and
Ishikawa,
T.(2015). Health effects of radiation and other health problems in the aftermath of nuclear
accidents, with an emphasis on Fukushima. The Lancet, 386(9992), pp.479-488. Available
at
https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/44060943/Health_effects_of_radiat
on_and_other_he20160324-21053
25

1ulnx36.pdf?
AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1503478539&Sign
ture=Cr5PK%2BgUKJkmCBASJIP25GtjUtI%3D&response-content
disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DHealth_effects_of_radiation_and_other_he.pdf
[Accessed on 23rd August 2017]
Ho, J. C., Kao, S. F., Wang, J. D., Su, C. T., Lee, C. T. P., Chen, R. Y., ... and Chang, P. W.
(2013). Risk perception, trust, and factors related to a planned new nuclear power plant in
Taiwan after the 2011 Fukushima disaster. Journal of Radiological Protection, 33(4), pp.773-
776.Available at
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shu_Fen_Kao/publication/
256764131_Risk_perception_tr
st_and_factors_related_to_a_planned_new_nuclear_power_plant_in_Taiwan_after_the_2011
_F
kushima_disaster/links/545448a80cf2cf51647c2ced.pdf [Accessed on 23rd August 2017]
Hong, S., Bradshaw, C. J.,and Brook, B. W. (2013).Evaluating options for the future energy
mix
of Japan after the Fukushima nuclear crisis. Energy Policy, 56, pp.418-424. Available at
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9826/896c6238e0df99582ed1a7e2f7fe39
d9af3.df
Hu, Y., Chan, A. P., Le, Y., and Jin, R. Z. (2013). From construction megaproject
management
tocomplex project management: Bibliographic analysis. Journal of management in
engineering, 31(4), pp.75- 78Available at
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Narottam_Saha2/publication/
230762913_Evaluation_of_possible_health_risks_of_heavy_metals_by_consumption_of_foo
dstuffs_available_in_the_central_market_of_Rajshahi_City_Bangladesh/links/
26

0deec53be1be1dcd75000000/Evaluation-of-possible-health-risks-of-heavy-metals-by-
consumption-of-foodstuffs-available-in-the-central-market-of-Rajshahi-City-Bangladesh.pdf
Yoshida, N., and Takahashi, Y. (2012).Land-surface contamination by radionuclides from the
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident. Elements, 8(3), pp.201-206. Available at
http://www.elementsmagazine.org/archivearticles/e8_3/5yoshida.pdf [Accessed on 23rd
August
2017]
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, (2017) Available at
http://www.tepco.co.jp/index
j.html[Accessed on 23rd August 2017]
Managing the Fukushima Challenge, (2017) ncbi.nlm.nih.gov Available at
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4145710/ [Accessed on 23rd August 2017]
Mismanaging Risk and the Fukushimja Nuclear Crisis (2017) apjjf.org Available at:
http://apjjf.org/2012/10/12/Jeff-Kingston/3724/article.html [Accessed on 23rd August 2017]
Principles and Practices of Events Management - Planning and Operations (2017).
heacademy.ac.uk. Available at
https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/events_management.pdf[Accessed on 23rd
August
2017]
Risk Management: Procedures, Methods And Experiences (2017) gnedenko-forum.org
Available at
http://ww.gnedenkoforum.org/Journal/2010/022010/RTA_2_2010
09.pdf[Accessed on 23rd August 2017]
27

Appendices:
Appendix A: Risk identification Checklist
Serial No. Public health and safety checklist Yes/No
1. Are equipment / tools used maintained in
good condition?
Yes
2. Are first aid tools are easily available in the
organization?
Yes
3. Are safety signs / emergency contact
numbers posted on site?
Yes
4. Are workers trained for emergency plan? Yes
5. Are workers wearing their PPE (Personal
Protective Equipment)?
No
6. Does the company verify the level of
radioactive isotopes generated due to
operational actions?
Yes
7. Has preliminary tests been conducted on air
quality?
No
Appendix B: Risk Register
Risk What may
happen
How it
may
happen
Effect Rating
(Likelihood/Consequenc
es)
Risk
Leve
l
Quality of air Air pollution Not testing
the
condition
of air
quality
Health
issues
3 M
Radiation
effect
Mixture with
air
Unskilled
operator
Health
issues
2 L
Economic
effects
Loss of
communicatio
n
Limited
education
Loss of
funds
4 M
Effects on
quality of
Not reaching
the required
Pollution Adverse
health
3 M
28

food product pesticides problems
Impact on
habitat of
species
Species like
reptiles and
amphibian
loss their
habitat due to
the mixture of
hazardous
chemicals in
ground and
water
Pollution Life
threatenin
g
5 H
Local
diseases
May affect
the health of
labors. (like
getting
affected from
mosquitoes
and fungus)
Infection
from local
communitie
s
Sickness
and
threatenin
g to life
4
pH / Acidity Low pH
levels
Improper
choice of
location of
well
Issues
related to
health
5 H
Contaminatio
n of
radioactive
chemicals
with water
Contaminatio
n of
chemicals
with ground
water during
construction
or
implantation
Digging
deep for
concreting
the base of
plant (or
infiltration)
Health
issues
2 L
29

Appendix C: Risk Assessment Matrix
Likelihood or
Probability
Consequences or Effect
(5)
Catastrophic
(4)
Major
(3)
Moderate
(2) Minor (1)
Insignifican
t
(1) Rare M M M L L
(2) Unlikely H M M M L
(3) Possible E H M M L
(4) Likely E H H M M
(5) Certain E E H H M
Appendix D: Risk Treatment Table
Risk (Health of
public and
environment)
Option for
treatment
Cost
analysis of
treatment
plan
Probability
chances of
risk
Responsible
person
Quality of air Scheduled air
quality check
Normal cost,
should be
considered
as revenue
expenditure
Medium Air control operator
Radiation effect Routine
leakage
checkup
Normal cost,
should be
consideredas
revenue
expenditure
High Radioactive
operator
Effects on quality of Timely Normal cost, Medium Agriculturist
30

food product spreading
pesticides
should be
considered
as revenue
expenditure
31

Appendix E: Risk FMEA Analysis
Item Failure mode Effect S
E
V
Causes O
C
C
Current control D
E
T
R
P
N
Recommended actions Resp. R
P
N
Reduction
Quality of air  Spreading hazardous
gas
 Smoke from
chimneys
Air pollution 5  Health issues
 Environment
al impact
4  Taking safety
measures
 Installing air
control
machines
2 45 Applying for SARC
certificate
Safety officer 32 35%
Radiation
effect
 Radioactive waves
penetrating through
the human body,
animals and plants
Physical and Mental
Disability to humans
and other living beings
4  Thyroid
problem
 Damage to
body cells
and tissues
 Reduction in
cell count of
blood
lymphocyte
6  Warnings being
aired to keep
people away
from vulnerable
areas
48  Keeping self
protected from
radiation
 Making emergency
stock of necessary
things
Maintenance Head 28 32%
Economic
effects
 Resulting into huge
cost to neutralise
radiation.
 Nuclear reactors
stopped causing halt
to electricity
generation.
Economic Disability
to Government Funds
in Japan
7  Can cause a
break in
development
al works of
nation
 Unavailabilit
y of power
can slow
down daily
activities
5  Teams engaged
to neutralise the
nuclear impact
and stop
radiation flow
41  Constructing strong
guard walls
 Having autonomous
funds for nuclear
disaster
Chief Strategist 37 34%
Effects on
quality of food
product
 Many plants dying of
radiation
 Eatables getting
poisonous
Causing scarcity of
Food and other
necessary resources
5  Deaths may
be recorded
due to
starvation
 Animals are
4  Huge food
stores are being
protected from
nuclear
radiation
50  Keeping early stock
of packed foods
 Eat the food like
fruits after washing
thoroughly
Operational head 31 31%
32