Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5516/NET.03.2011.078

THE FUKUSHIMA DISASTER - SYSTEMIC FAILURES AS THE LACK OF RESILIENCE  

Hollnagel, Erik (University of Southern Denmark)
Fujita, Yushi (Technova Incorporation)
Publication Information
Nuclear Engineering and Technology / v.45, no.1, 2013 , pp. 13-20 More about this Journal
Abstract
This paper looks at the Fukushima disaster from the perspective of resilience engineering, which replaces a search for causes with an understanding of how the system failed in its performance. Referring to the four resilience abilities of responding, monitoring, learning, and anticipating, the paper focuses on how inadequate engineering anticipation or risk assessment during the design, in combination with inadequate response capabilities, precipitated the disaster. One lesson is that systems such as nuclear power plants are complicated, not only in how they function during everyday or exceptional conditions, but also during their whole life cycle. System functions are intrinsically coupled synchronically and diachronically in ways that may affect the ability to respond to extreme conditions.
Keywords
Fukushima Disaster; Systemic Failure; Resilience Engineering; Risk Assessment; Requisite Imagination; Functional Resonance Analysis Method;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Sundstrom, G. A. & Hollnagel, E. (Eds). Governance and control of financial systems: A resilience engineering perspective. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate (2011).
2 Hollnagel, E., Woods, D. D. & Leveson, N. (Eds.) Resilience engineering: Concepts and precepts. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate (2006).
3 Hollnagel, E., Paries, J., Woods, D. D. & Wreathall, J. (Eds.) Resilience engineering in practice: A guidebook. Farnham, UK: Ashgate (2011).
4 Hollnagel, E. FRAM: The functional resonance analysis method for modelling complex socio-technical systems. Farnham, UK: Ashgate (2012).
5 Lundberg, J., Rollenhagen, C. & Hollnagel, E. What-youlook- for-is-what-you-find - the consequences of underlying accident models in eight accident investigation manuals. Safety Science, 47(10), 1297-1311 (2009).   DOI   ScienceOn
6 Weick, K. E. & Sutcliffe K. M. Managing the unexpected. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass (2001).
7 Hollnagel, E., Nemeth, C. P. & Dekker, S. (Eds). Remaining sensitive to the possibility of failure. Resilience Engineering Perspectives, 1, Ashgate, Aldershot, UK (2008)
8 Westrum, R. A typology of Resilience Situations. In Hollnagel, E., Woods, D. D. & Leveson, N. (Eds.), Resilience Engineering: Concepts and Precepts (pp. 55-65). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate (2006).
9 Merton, R. The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action, American Sociological Review, 1, 894-904 (1936).   DOI
10 Hollnagel, E. The ETTO Principle: Efficiency-Thoroughness Trade-Off: Why things that go right sometimes go wrong. Ashgate, Aldershot UK (2009).
11 Dougherty, E. M. Jr. Human Reliability Analysis-where shouldst thou turn? Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 29, 283-299 (1990).   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Meijer, C. H., Callaghan, V. C. & Hollnagel, E. Improved man-machine system design for nuclear power plants. Proceedings of the ANS/ASME Conference on Design. Construction Operation of Nuclear Power Plants. Portland, Oregon. August 5-8 (1984).