Normal accident theory

Wolf, E, and E. Bemiker. Validating normal accident theory Chemical accidents, fires and explosions in petroleum refineries. www.plu.edu/ bemike/NormAcc/Validating%20NAT.doc, 1999. 

Rijpma, J.A., 1997. Complexity, tight-coupling and reliability Connecting normal accident theory and high reliability theory. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 5(1) 15-23. 

In general there was little focus on systemic accident models. However complexity has been mentioned, but no references to theory. The theory of Normal Accidents could have been explored and discussed, and may have given broader insight in causal factors behind the accidents. 

In this article we claim that this is not a random train of unfortunate circumstances . Rosness et cd (2002) place the accident according to theories on HRO (Reason 1997) and Normal Accident (Per-row 1985). Our perspective is systemic approach of innovations and how this is creating mismatches in technological systems. 

Perrow (1984), in his theory of normal accidents, argued that what he called normal accidents, disruption of the flow of complex processes, were related to potential catastrophic events. Most of these disruptions in flow would not be classified as recordable accidents. In fact, plants that present the most significant risk to workers and the public are typically high-capital, non-labor-intensive plants, likely to have very low rates of recordable accidents. 

Another important motivation for trying to understand the microscopic origins of thermophysical properties is the need for reaUstic safety and risk analysis based on the modeled evolution of hypothetical accidents. This requires, first, solid experimental information on the thermophysical properties, especially the equation of state, up to conditions as far eis practical above the temperatures and pressures of the proposed normal operation. Second, one needs a theory capable of realistically simulating the behavior of specific fluids under truly catastrophic conditions. 

---