Statement of Contribution for Group Project

(Final Exam)
Submitted by: Lotivio, Angel N.
Year and Section: EE – 5C
Questions:

In no less than 600 words (total), what were your specific contributions to the project, how did
your contribution complement the contribution of your peers? And how did your peers contribute
to the project/case?
For this project, our group had a concurrence to have tasks assigned to everyone and as well as
specific tasks for each member. These are as follows:
Task for each member:
• In charge of organizing and synthesis of case facts.
• In charge of presenting the case facts in the actual presentation.
• Contributed in the organization and aesthetic of the case slide.
• Helped in the ideation of the contexts guide for the case questions.
• In charge of presenting the generated solution for the action plan in the actual presentation.
• Contributed in the organization and aesthetic of the case slide.
• Helped in the ideation of the contexts guide for the case questions.
• In charge of presenting the diagnosis of the case in the actual presentation.
• Contributed in the organization and aesthetic of the case slide.
• Helped in the ideation of the contexts guide for the case questions.
• In charge of the technical presentation.
• Contributed in the organization and aesthetic of the case slide.
• Oversees team's progress
• In charge of answering case question #3 and synthesis of case background.
• In charge of presenting team's recommendations to the case in the actual presentation.
• In charge of creating the case slide template and finalization of output.
• Assisted in the organization and synthesis of case facts
• Helped in the ideation of the contexts guide for the case questions.
• In charge of presenting the pitch for the case in the actual presentation.

Lotivio, Angel N.
EE 5C December 28, 2022
• Contributed in the organization and aesthetic of the case slide.
• Helped in the ideation of the contexts guide for the case questions.
To provide details on my individual contribution on the project, here are my specific
contributions:

• Contributed in the organization and aesthetic of the case slide.

 On the other hand, organizing and aesthetic of the case slide is quite difficult, because it
employs new methods of organizational inquiry that focus on workplace capacities for
aesthetic knowledge and the organizational action connected with it.

 In charge in answering case questions 3

What sector greatly impacted the severity of the economic declination of Japan during the
Fukushima Daiichi Accident? How did it affect the other industries in the country?
 The sector greatly impacted the severity of the economic declination of Japan
Fukushima Daiichi Accident was the energy sector mostly affected industry
resulting to notable ripple effects to other industries mentioned above.

 According from a report of Asian Development Bank Institute entitled, "Impact of

Fukushima Nuclear Disaster on Oil-Consuming Sectors of Japan," the country
had substituted to fossil fuels at that time and became more dependent on the
import and consumption of non-renewable energy.
 Their findings show that the absolute value of elasticity of oil consumption was
reduced after the disaster due to an increased dependency on oil consumption,
endangering energy security in the country.

 The researchers suggested that Japan must diversify and increase its energy
supply resources.
 However, renewable energy projects are mainly considered risky and agencies are
reluctant to fund such projects. Therefore, the institution shared had an innovative
approach that has been applied in some countries in Asia.

 Japan experienced its most powerful earthquake on March 11, 2011, which jolted
the nation for six minutes. The earthquake and the subsequent tsunami left
villages all throughout the country in ruins and claimed the lives of 19,729
individuals (with 2559 still unaccounted for). However, due to inadequate sea
defenses, the backup generators at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, which were
intended to pump cooling water through the reactor, were destroyed by the 15-
meter tsunami. Reactors close to the earthquake, including those operating at
Fukushima Daiichi, shut down as intended. The outcome was that over the course
of the next three days, the cores of units 1-3 mostly melted, and many hydrogen
explosions in units 1, 2, and 3 were caused by the hydrogen buildup caused by the
Lotivio, Angel N.
EE 5C December 28, 2022
 reaction of the hot fuel cladding with water. Since then, attempts have been made
to decommission the damaged reactor buildings (together with units 5 and 6,
which were also shut down following the disaster), a process that will take 30–40
years.
And how did your peers contribute to the project/case?
 My peers contribute to the project/case when we first began brainstorming regarding the
case study, none of us very sure about how to proceed, we knew that for this to work,
everyone would need to take their role within the group, but the problem was finding
what those roles/tasks should be. As we were in a very small group, everyone’s full input
was needed throughout the process as we realized early on that if this did not happen than
there would be a large proportion of the group not taking part.
In no less than 500 words, what is your key learning’s from case?

It was obvious from a design standpoint that it was a mistake to put the backup generators
in the basement because the tsunami inundated them. This could have been avoided if they had
been put higher up, as is the case at other Japanese power plants. The sea walls at Fukushima
Daiichi were also insufficient; historical data indicates that previous tsunamis may have been
higher than the sea walls that were in place at the time of the accident. In response to the
accident, governments, regulators, and nuclear operators all over the world conducted "stress
tests" on their plants to determine how they could reduce the likelihood that similar accidents
would occur. Units already in place have been made extremely resistant to external extremes.
These systems have been included into new reactor designs, and emergency response guidelines
now reflect the lessons that were learnt from the incident. Additionally, there have been efforts
made on a global scale to transition to a more organized and comprehensive approach to safety,
with more efficient coordination between regulatory agencies, the government, and industry. The
significance of cultural factors in organizational and safety cultures has also received increased
attention. There has also been much discussion about the choice to evacuate and then relocate
individuals after the catastrophe. More than 2300 deaths indirectly related to the disaster have
been acknowledged. Vulnerable patients died almost immediately as a result of the excessively
hurried evacuations. In 2017, Waddington and colleagues conducted a research that examined
long-term evacuations and came to the conclusion that "...after the Fukushima Daiichi accident,
no relocation was justified on scientific and economic grounds." The steps made by the Japanese
government should be seen in the context of the fact that there was a lot of ambiguity in the early
stages of the accident, which is something that must be acknowledged. It is crucial that
authorities adopt an all-hazards strategy when dealing with potential public health and safety
issues, regardless of the circumstance. The effects of measures taken to counteract a situation
shouldn't be worse than the effects of the initial events. It is vital that people are permitted to
return home considerably sooner than they were after the Fukushima Daiichi accident,
evacuations are kept as a last resort, and consideration is given to the very real risks involved
with them.

Lotivio, Angel N.
EE 5C December 28, 2022