Advertisement

The Importance of Human Error and Reliability Management in Critical Conditions and Infrastructures

  • Antonella PetrilloEmail author
  • Federico Zomparelli
Chapter
  • 863 Downloads
Part of the Springer Series in Reliability Engineering book series (RELIABILITY)

Abstract

Protection and safeguarding of critical infrastructures (such us chemical industry, oil & gas industry, nuclear industry, etc.) is an important subject of study in the contemporary society. The study of risks associated to critical infrastructure required models of good practice to investigate the complexity of processes in case of accidents. The risk management can be viewed in two ways: human error and system reliability. In other words in terms of human error it is essential to ensure the operator performance to manage a complex system or an unexpected situation. While in terms of system reliability it is essential to ensure that a system is at least as reliable as the system it is replacing. The present chapter aims to analyze the main disasters occurred in critical infrastructures related to human errors or lack of reliability of systems.

Keywords

Human error Reliability Disaster Critical infrastructures Statistic analysis 

References

  1. Alamgir M, Parvin R, Haque Khan MA (2014) Tragedy in Savar: management of victims in Enam Medical College Hospital. J Enam Med Coll 4(1):31–35Google Scholar
  2. Bertazzi PA (1991) Long-term effects of chemical disasters. Lessons and results from Seveso. Sci Total Environ 106(1–2):5–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bigley GA, Roberts KH (2001) The incident command system: high-reliability organizing for complex and volatile task environments. Acad Manag J 44(6):1281–1299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bond S (2006) Questions still unanswered in Buncefield probe. Edie Daily. Oct 2009Google Scholar
  5. Brumfiel G (2012) PRINT—FUKUSHIMA. Nature 485(7399):423–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burke MJ, Sarpy SA, Tesluk PE, Smith-Crowe K (2002) General safety performance: a test of a grounded theoretical model. Pers Psychol 55:429–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dao J (2006) 12 miners found alive 41 hours after explosion. nytimes.com. Accessed 27 May 2016
  8. De Felice F, Petrillo A, Zomparelli F (2016) A hybrid model for human error probability analysis. IFAC-PapersOnLine 49(12):1673–1678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Echavarri L et al (2013) The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident, 2013. Nuclear Energy Agency No.7161Google Scholar
  10. Eckerman I (2005) The Bhopal Saga—causes and consequences of the world’s largest industrial disaster. Universities Press, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  11. Enserink M (2010) After red mud flood, scientists try to halt wave of fear and rumors. Science 330(6003):432–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Holla K (2011) Risk assessment in accident prevention considering uncertainty and human factor influence. In: Tsvetkov P (ed) Nuclear power—control, reliability and human factors. InTech. doi:  10.5772/17228
  13. Holla K (2016) Major industrial accidents prevention in European union and in Slovak Republic context. Int J Environ Sci 1:19–27Google Scholar
  14. Hovanec M (2017) Digital factory as a prerequisite for successful application in the area of ergonomics and human factor. Theor Issues in Ergon Sci 18(1):35–45Google Scholar
  15. Jenkins DP, Salmon PM, Stanton NA, Walker GH (2010) A new approach for designing cognitive artefacts to support disaster management. Ergonomics 53(5):617–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Leyland S (2014) The great beer flood of London. In: A curious guide to London. Random House. ISBN 978-0-593-07323-0Google Scholar
  17. Schulman P, Roenn E, van Eetennnn M, de Bruijnennnn M (2004) High reliability and the management of critical infrastructures. J Conting Crisis Manag 12(1):14–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Spurgin AJ (2010) Human reliability assessment: theory and practice. Taylor and Francis Group, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Suffo M, Nebot E (2016) Proximity as an integral factor in the evaluation of the territorial risk under the European Seveso Directive: application in Andalusia (South Spain). Process Saf Environ Prot 99:137–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wallace JC (2016) Creating a safety conscious organization and workforce. Organ Dyn 45:305–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wheatley S, Sovacool B, Sornette D (2017) Of disasters and dragon kings: a statistical analysis of nuclear power incidents and accidents. Risk Anal 37(1):99–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Zhang Z, Zhang X, Xu Z, Yao H, Li G, Liu X (2015) Emergency countermeasures against marine disasters in Qingdao City on the basis of scenario analysis. Nat Hazard 75(Suppl 2):233–255Google Scholar
  23. Zhou T, Wu C, Zhang J, Zhang D (2017) Incorporating CREAM and MCS into fault tree analysis of LNG carrier spill accidents. Saf Sci 96:183–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Napoli “Parthenope”NaplesItaly
  2. 2.University of Cassino and Southern LazioCassinoItaly

Personalised recommendations