Risks Associated with Nuclear Energy Based Power Plants
The nuclear energy based power plants represent technical form of facilities to undertake generation of electricity at larger amounts using nuclear fuel and are characterized with higher capacities as well as various availability factors. Akin to any of the advanced form of technologies, there prevails the relatively smaller levels of risk affiliated with the operations concerning nuclear power plants as well as the same are realized by way of three significant accidents including the Fukushima incident (Nomura et al. 2013; Visschers and Siegrist 2013). At a broader level, the approach to risk assessments is reliant over the prevailing experiences as well as evidence. Newer set of risks arising from unknown technologies as well as smaller risks arising from highly reliable form of technologies shall be estimated through the means using risk modelling (Nomura et al. 2013; Visschers and Siegrist 2013). The same refers to the approaches wherein the expert analysts establish the mathematical form of representation concerning the physical facilities as well as the risks that are imposed towards the environment as well as human related health. With the bigger risks, the situations are simpler as the same could be statistically assessed.
The risks concerning utilization relating to nuclear energy within the nuclear power plants represents the instances for the smaller risks with fewer accidents wherein the sole limited form of consequences have actually occurred, as well as certain critical set of characteristics being highly unique (Nomura et al. 2013; Visschers and Siegrist 2013). These risks could impact the affiliated environments, materials as well as people. With respect to the time concerning realization, overall risks are divided usually to two different set of categories, shorter term (acute / immediate) as well as delayed (chronic / sub-chronic). The overall uncertainties concerning the assessed risks increase over time. The same presents significant form of issues with the certainty concerning specific predictions. The huge level of discrepancy amongst the risk perceptions as well as the associated risk concerning utilization of nuclear power shall perpetuate further post the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant (“NPP”) located at Japan. The risk management plan presented offers the risk assessment concerning nuclear power with respect to the accident at Fukushima plant at Japan as well as the same in addition implies the possible set of causes which resulted in the overlooking of the concrete hazards arising from tsunami during the risk assessments undertaken initially (Nomura et al. 2013; Visschers and Siegrist 2013). The assessments concerning relevance of Fukushima plant incident over the reliability levels of the risk assessments from that of nuclear power across the globe illustrates huge significance that warrants additional deliberations over the utilization of the nuclear power (Nomura et al. 2013; Visschers and Siegrist 2013). The same shall be undisputable that the activities shall demonstrate, as well as across certain locations improve, the safety levels of Fukushima plant shall be higher. Further, perceptions amongst the general public shall remain in being highly relevant form of challenge to optimally plan the overall future concerning energy sector.
Approach to Risk Assessment and Risk Modelling
Business entities and other organizations of various forms and categories are exposed towards factors of external as well as internal nature and the influences which shall make it indeterminate whether, at what time and to what levels over which they shall exceed or attain their respective objectives (Aven 2012; Moraru 2012; Dey 2012). The impact of these uncertainties over the objectives of the organizations can be states as risk. All of the activities concerning the organizations comprise various levels of risk. Organizations essentially manage these risks by way of anticipation, clear understanding as well as undertaking decision on the modification of the same. All throughout these processes the organizations shall communicate as well as consult amongst the stakeholders in addition to monitoring / reviewing the relevant risks as well as affiliated controls which are modifying these risks. At the outset, the Standards under AS / NZS ISO 31000 : 2009 (hereinafter referred to as Risk Standard) are used as guiding principle and framework for undertaking this risk management planning (Ferreira Rebelo et al. 2014; Ernawati and Nugroho 2012; Dey et al. 2013).
Whilst all of the organizations undertake management of risks up to certain extent, the Risk Standard defines and sets the amount of principles which are to be effectively complied prior to the risk management turning out successful (Ferreira Rebelo et al. 2014; Ernawati and Nugroho 2012; Dey et al. 2013). The Risk Standard posits that the organizations need to have the framework which shall integrate the overall processes to manage the risks within the overall levels of governance, planning / strategy, processes of reporting, management, values, culture, policies, etc. concerning the organization. The risk management could be applied over the organization at an integrated and overall level, spanning across various levels, functions and domains, in addition to the specific set of functions, activities, as well as projects. Even though the practices concerning risk management have been established gradually over time as well as within various sectors for meeting the diverse set of needs, overall adoption of the processes consistently within the comprehensive set of framework aid in ensuring that the risks are effectively, efficiently as well as coherently managed across the organization (Ferreira Rebelo et al. 2014; Ernawati and Nugroho 2012; Dey et al. 2013). The generic form of approach defined within the Risk Standard offers the various principles / guidelines to manage any of the forms concerning risks within the transparent, systematic, as well as credible framework in addition to any of the scope as well as contexts. The various relationships amongst the principles to manage the risk, overall framework within which the same take place as well as the processes of risk management defined within the Risk Standard (Ferreira Rebelo et al. 2014; Ernawati and Nugroho 2012; Dey et al. 2013).
Impact of Nuclear Energy Risks on Global Reliability Levels
In essence, the Risk Standard offers the principles as well as the generic form of guidelines over all aspects of risk management. This Risk Standard could be applied across any of the private, community, or else public form of groups, associations, enterprises, or else individuals. Hence, this Risk Standard is not limited within any specific sector / industry (Ferreira Rebelo et al. 2014; Ernawati and Nugroho 2012; Dey et al. 2013). The same could be suitably applied all through a life span of the organizations, as well as towards the much wider ranges of activities, encompassing decisions / strategies, operations, functions, processes, services / products, projects, assets, etc. The Risk Standard could be suitably applied across any form of risks, irrespective of the nature of risks, whether it leading to implications of negative or else positive nature (Brown 2012; Kirsch et al. 2013; Hopkin 2017; Georgy et al. 2013). Even though this Risk Standard offers generic form of guidelines, the same shall not be intended for promoting uniformity concerning risk management at the organizational level. The designing as well as implementation concerning planning of risk management as well as affiliated frameworks shall be required to take in consideration varying levels of the particular organization, the specific objectives, structure, context, processes, operations, projects, functions, services / products, or else the assets in addition to the specific set of employed practices (Brown 2012; Kirsch et al. 2013; Hopkin 2017; Georgy et al. 2013). It has been also intended this Risk Standard can be applied for harmonizing the processes of risk management across prevailing as well as future standards. The same offers common set of approaches as support to the standards in dealing with the specific set of risks and / or the sectors, as well as do not replace the relevant standards. This Risk Standard shall aid in the following set of advantages, (i) increases the overall likelihood concerning the attainment of objectives, (ii) having awareness over all of the varying needs to identifying and also in treating these risks overall all of the related organisation domains, (iii) improving the overall identification concerning opportunities as well as threats, (iv) complying with the relevant set of legal / regulatory form of requirements as well as the global norms, (v) improving the financial reporting, (vi) improving the overall governance, (vii) improving the confidence / trust of the stakeholder, (viii) establishing the reliable basis to decision making as well as planning the improve controls, (ix) allocating effectively and using the resources suitably for the risk treatments, (x) improving the operational level effectiveness as well as efficiencies, (xi) enhancing the safety / health performances, in addition to environmental protection, (x) improving the prevention of losses as well as management of incident, (xi) minimising the losses, (xii) improving the organisational level learning, and (xiii) improving the organisational level resilience (Brown 2012; Kirsch et al. 2013; Hopkin 2017; Georgy et al. 2013).
Risk Management Plan According to Risk Standard
The Risk Standard are intended in meeting the overall needs across the wider ranges of the stakeholders encompassing, (i) the people accountable to achieve the objectives as well as consequently making sure that the risks are managed effectively within these organization in an overall manner or within the particular areas, activities or projects, (ii) the people responsible to develop the policies of risk management within the respective organizations,
(iii) the people who shall need the evaluate of effectiveness concerning for managing risks, and, (iv) developers of the procedures, guides, standards, as well as codes for practices which at an overall level or else partly establish the ways in which risks can to be managed in the particular contexts of the standards (Brown 2012; Kirsch et al. 2013; Hopkin 2017; Georgy et al. 2013).
The various methodologies that shall be applied for undertaking risk assessment in this context are discussed as follows,
- Failure modes & effects analysis (“FMEA”) refers to the technique that is applied for identifying the ways by which the processes, systems, or else components could fail in fulfilling their respective intent of the design. FMEA essentially determines the following points, (i) all of the potential set of failure modes concerning the various elements of the systems, that is, failure modes are what have been observed in failing or else in performing the same in an incorrectly manner, (ii) the overall effects that these set of failures could have over the systems, (iii) the overall mechanisms concerning failure, as well as, (iv) the ways for avoiding the failures and / or the mitigation of the impacts concerning the failures relating to the systems (Luu et al. 2015; Peace 2013; Derry and Maheshwari 2015; Acosta Cajiao 2013). Further, FMECA shall extend the FMEA such that each of the identified fault modes are ranked as per their relative significance or else criticality. These assessments of the criticality are to the usual extent semi-quantitative / qualitative yet shall be suitably quantified by using the actual rates of failure (Luu et al. 2015; Peace 2013; Derry and Maheshwari 2015; Acosta Cajiao 2013).
- Preliminary Hazard Analysis (“PHA”) refers to the simpler and an inductive form of methodology for undertaking suitably analysis and on that has the objective for the identification of the relevant hazards as well as hazardous form of situations and also the events which could lead to the harmful outcomes for the specific set of activities, facilities, or else systems (Suter II 2016; Rausand 2013; Fenton and Neil 2012; Paustenbach 2015). The same are mostly carried out widely much earlier with respect to the development concerning the projects when there are very little amount of information over the designing details or else the procedures for operations as well as could most often form the precursor towards additional set of studies or in providing information towards the specification concerning the designing of the systems (Suter II 2016; Rausand 2013; Fenton and Neil 2012; Paustenbach 2015). It could in addition be highly useful while analysing the systems prevailing for the prioritization of the hazards as well as the risks to further analyse or else where the circumstances actually prevent the highly extensive form of techniques from being utilized (Suter II 2016; Rausand 2013; Fenton and Neil 2012; Paustenbach 2015).
- Checklists refer to the lists for the control failures, risks as well as hazards that had been suitably developed, mostly from the experience, either on account of the earlier risk assessments or else on account of the earlier failures. The checklist could be utilized for the identification of the hazards as well as risks or else in assessing the overall effectiveness concerning the controls (Schwing and Albers 2013; Liu et al. 2012; McNeil et al. 2015). These could be utilized across any of the stages over life cycle pertaining to the systems, processes, and products. These could be suitably used as an complementing element of various different techniques for risk assessment yet are mostly useful while being applied for checking that all things have been fully covered post the highly imaginative form of technique which shall identify newer set of problems have been suitably applied (Schwing and Albers 2013; Liu et al. 2012; McNeil et al. 2015).
- The assessments concerning the major losses for preventing the relevant reoccurrences are referred commonly as the Root Cause Analysis (“RCA”). The RCA lays emphasis over the asset losses on account of the varied form of different failures, whilst the loss analyses are concerned mainly to the economic / financial losses on account of the external catastrophes / factors (Joseph and Joseph 2016; Covello and Merkhoher 2013; Smith et al. 2014; Lim et al. 2012). It also attempts in identifying the original / root causes rather than dealing solely with that of symptoms that are immediately obvious. It shall be recognised that the corrective form of action shall not at all times be effective entirely as well as that the continuous form of improvements could be required. In essence RCA is applied most often over the evaluations concerning the major losses yet in addition could be utilized for analysing the losses over the highly global form for determining wherein the improvements could be undertaken (Joseph and Joseph 2016; Covello and Merkhoher 2013; Smith et al. 2014; Lim et al. 2012). RCA can be applied across various set of contexts with broader domains for application as follows, (i) safety reliant RCA are utilized towards accident investigations as well as the occupational health / safety, (ii) Failure assessments are used across the technological systems affiliated to the reliability as well as maintenance, (iii) Production reliant RCA are applied within the fields for the quality controls concerning the industrial manufacturing, (iv) Process reliant RCA are focused over the business related processes, and, (v) System reliant RCA have been developed in being the combination for the earlier domains for dealing with the complex form of systems with the applications over change management, systems assessments, and risk management (Joseph and Joseph 2016; Covello and Merkhoher 2013; Smith et al. 2014; Lim et al. 2012).
It is has been determined that the overall process concerning evolution relating to hydrogen explosion across Fukushima could be illustrated by the Fault Tree presented in Figure 2 below. As has been illustrated in Figure 2, hydrogen explosion as well as consequent meltdown had been on account of three different simultaneous set of factors –(i) loss concerning the coolants (final heat sinks), (ii) hydrogen building up within the cooling water, and, (iii) ignition (Covello and Merkhoher 2013).
At a basic level, any of the facilities / activities needs to be suitably built / operated by employing the specific ways such that they satisfy the given levels of safety objectives. The same represents the goal focussed approach wherein the goals are at first mentioned, and later the overall facilities, activities or else the items are suitably designed, established, operated/ maintained and then managed suitably (Aoki and Rothwell 2013; Huang et al. 2013). Although, two of the issues need to be addressed with respect to this goal focussed approach, (i) To what extent is the established safety will be sufficient? The same shall require the range of safety related objectives in being satisfied, and, (ii) The ways for dealing with the uncertainties? The prevailing set of risk quantifications involving significant levels of uncertainties (Aoki and Rothwell 2013; Huang et al. 2013). Some of the nations apply the numerical form of safety goals concerning Fukushima operations as well as relevant modifications. As per various studies, the approach is effectively illustrated within nuclear industries using the PSA for purposes of compliance using formal criteria yet without the similar set of success affiliated with the perception of public risk (Aoki and Rothwell 2013; Huang et al. 2013). Even though roles as well as interpretations concerning these quantitative form of guidelines differ from nation to nation. The dominant prevailing opinion concerns the fact that safety objectives need not be utilized within the regulatory frameworks concerning stricter criteria for acceptance or else non-acceptance yet needs to be suitably considered in being one of the factors at arriving with regulatory judgments (Aoki and Rothwell 2013; Huang et al. 2013).
Principles and Guidelines for Effective Risk Management
The acceptability levels concerning risks need to be the absolute or else relative form of concept as well as the same involves varied set of factors (Park et al 2013). The considerations relating to judgments shall encompass the overall certainty / severity pertaining to risk, overall reversibility relating to health effects, familiarity as well as knowledge pertaining to risks, whether these risks are accepted voluntarily or else imposed involuntarily, whether the individuals shall be compensated towards their relevant exposure concerning the risk, various advantages concerning the activities, as well as the advantages / risks over any of the alternatives. although, in way of accepting risk related objectives method all of the stake holders concerned can improve the communication as well as establish the critical central point affiliated which the optimal solutions which society shall emerge (Aoki and Rothwell 2013; Huang et al. 2013).
Conclusion:
The overall conclusion in this context could be derived in the manner that the generation of electricity represents one amongst the activities within the society which has risks of environmental as well as health related nature that are well known relatively, even in terms of probability for unlikely yet possibly form of serious events (Yamashita 2014; Prati and Zani 2013). The smaller risks for the utilization concerning nuclear power could solely be evaluated using significant level of uncertainties across both for the scenarios as well as for the impacts concerning doses over the consequences. The enhanced form of protection from that of smaller doses shall cost an enormous amount as well as the increases related risk not just for the utilization of nuclear power. Education, the overall approach to risk as well as communication could aid in being a basis towards risk management over the manner for maximizing the overall advantages concerning the society, with no conniving towards the prejudices as well as without the generation of increased level of costs as well as actuals risk (Yamashita 2014; Prati and Zani 2013). There are no lives without the risks as well as the highly significant aspect is the extent of importance concerning the relative risks, as well as to what extent the same shall cost for decreasing the same The same is the real situation wherein the risks are in itself lead to become as well as had been demonstrated in being the biggest of the risks amongst all. On the basis of the outcomes concerning the analysis of risks, the risk management complements the overall process concerning decision making for both of the industries as well as the related regulatory organization. Whenever the alternatives to decision had been determined as well as ranked through the comparison of the expected set of value in terms of losses or else benefits over the relevant risk assessments, overall risks need to be suitably considered with respect to relevant acceptability (Yamashita 2014; Prati and Zani 2013). The same is suggested in differentiating amongst the tangible as well as the intangible risks. The overall impacts concerning the accident of Fukushima in itself have never been suitably justified in being sufficiently significant for excluding the continued usage of the nuclear energy. The same shall be evident that an ultimate form of solution concerning nuclear safety is an additional improvement to the design. Although, the deficiency in terms of the safety goals, overall differences within the risk perception, methodologies, distrust as well as values shall threaten the prevention of society from attaining the optimal form of solutions concerning the risks as well as benefits.
Advantages of Implementing Risk Standard for Managing All Types of Risks
References
Acosta Cajiao, H., 2013. Regional spread of marine non-indigenous species, a pathway Modelling approach in New Zealand (Doctoral dissertation, Auckland University of Technology).
Aoki, M. and Rothwell, G., 2013. A comparative institutional analysis of the FukushimaNuclear disaster: Lessons and policy implications. Energy Policy, 53, pp.240-247.
Aven, T., 2012. Foundational issues in risk assessment and risk management. Risk Analysis, 32(10), pp.1647-1656.
Brown, E.T., 2012. Risk assessment and management in underground rock engineering an Overview. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 4(3), pp.193-204.
Covello, V.T. and Merkhoher, M.W., 2013. Risk assessment methods: approaches for Assessing health and environmental risks. Springer Science & Business Media.
Derry, C. and Maheshwari, B., 2015. Wastewater treatment by a modular, domestic-scale Reedbed system for safe horticultural irrigation. Science of the Total Environment, 537, pp.243-249.
Dey, P.K., 2012. Project risk management using multiple criteria decision-making techniqueAnd decision tree analysis: a case study of Indian oil refinery. Production Planning & Control, 23(12), pp.903-921.
Dey, P.K., Clegg, B. and Cheffi, W., 2013. Risk management in enterprise resource planning Implementation: a new risk assessment framework. Production Planning & Control, 24(1), pp.1-14.
Ernawati, T. and Nugroho, D.R., 2012, September. IT risk management framework based on ISO 31000: 2009. In System Engineering and Technology (ICSET), 2012 International Conference on (pp. 1-8). IEEE.
Fenton, N. and Neil, M., 2012. Risk assessment and decision analysis with Bayesian Networks. Crc Press.
Ferreira Rebelo, M., Santos, G. and Silva, R., 2014. A generic model for integration of Quality, environment and safety management systems. The TQM Journal, 26(2), pp.143-159.
Georgy, M., Zabel, N. and Ibrahim, M., 2013. A balanced risk treatment for construction Projects. In ISEC-7 (pp. 1653-1658). Research Publishing Services.
Hopkin, P., 2017. Fundamentals of risk management: understanding, evaluating and Implementing effective risk management. Kogan Page Publishers.
Huang, L., Zhou, Y., Han, Y., Hammitt, J.K., Bi, J. and Liu, Y., 2013. Effect of the Fukushima nuclear accident on the risk perception of residents near a nuclear power Plant in China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(49), pp.19742-19747.
Joseph, P. and Joseph, P., 2016. A case study of records management practices in historicMotor sport. Records Management Journal, 26(3), pp.314-336.
Kirsch, P., Harris, J. and Sprott, D., 2013. Vertical integration of risk management in theHunter Valley Coal Chain-application of the coal industry’s RISKGATE platform. AusIMM Bulletin, (1), p.45.
Lim, S.S., Vos, T., Flaxman, A.D., Danaei, G., Shibuya, K., Adair-Rohani, H., AlMazroa, M.A., Amann, M., Anderson, H.R., Andrews, K.G. and Aryee, M., 2012. A Comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk Factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. The lancet, 380(9859), pp.2224-2260.
Liu, H.C., Liu, L., Liu, N. and Mao, L.X., 2012. Risk evaluation in failure mode and effects Analysis with extended VIKOR method under fuzzy environment. Expert Systems With Applications, 39(17), pp.12926-12934.
Luu, C., Von Meding, J., Kanjanabootra, S. and Pham, D., 2015. A proposed flood risk Assessment method for Central Vietnam. In 5th International Conference on Building Resilience.
McNeil, A.J., Frey, R. and Embrechts, P., 2015. Quantitative risk management: Concepts, Techniques and tools. Princeton university press.
Moraru, R.I., 2012. Current trends and future developments in occupational health and safety Risk management. In Risk Management for the Future-Theory and Cases. InTech.
Nomura, S., Gilmour, S., Tsubokura, M., Yoneoka, D., Sugimoto, A., Oikawa, T., Kami, M. And Shibuya, K., 2013. Mortality risk amongst nursing home residents evacuated After the Fukushima nuclear accident: a retrospective cohort study. PloS one, 8(3), p.e60192.
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.
Paustenbach, D.J., 2015. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: Theory and Pactice. John Wiley & Sons.
Peace, C., 2013. Advice on the risk estimation matrix used by DAFF Biosecurity as part of The Import Risk Analysis process. Risk Management, 274(713), p.723.
Prati, G. and Zani, B., 2013. The effect of the Fukushima nuclear accident on risk perception, Antinuclear behavioral intentions, attitude, trust, environmental beliefs, and values. Environment and behavior, 45(6), pp.782-798.
Rausand, M., 2013. Risk assessment: theory, methods, and applications (Vol. 115). John Wiley & Sons.
Schwing, R.C. and Albers, W.A., 2013. Societal risk assessment: How safe is safe enough?. Springer.
Šimi?, Z., Mikuli?i?, V. and Vukovi?, I., 2011. Risk from nuclear power utilization after Fukushima accident. International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering Systems, 2(1), pp.25-35
Smith, K.R., Bruce, N., Balakrishnan, K., Adair-Rohani, H., Balmes, J., Chafe, Z., Dherani, M., Hosgood, H.D., Mehta, S., Pope, D. and Rehfuess, E., 2014. Millions dead: how Do we know and what does it mean? Methods used in the comparative risk Assessment of household air pollution. Annual review of public health, 35, pp.185-206.
Suter II, G.W., 2016. Ecological risk assessment. CRC press.
Visschers, V.H. and Siegrist, 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.
Yamashita, S., 2014. Tenth Warren K. Sinclair keynote address—the Fukushima nuclear
Power plant accident and comprehensive health risk management. Health physics, 106(2), pp.166-180.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
