Failure causes of emergency response in oil and gas pipeline accidents and social network analysis

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2025.01.1536

Abstract

Abstract:

To avoid worsening the consequences of oil and gas pipeline accidents due to emergency failures, the causes of emergency failure in 27 accidents at home and abroad were analyzed using the HFACS model. Based on the results of grounded theory(GT) statistical coding analysis, a classification model of failure causes of emergency response in oil and gas pipeline accidents was proposed. SNA was used to develop the relationship network of the causes of emergency failures in oil and gas pipeline accidents. The core-periphery, centrality, and association direction index analyses were used to identify core factors and factors with high association and strong mediating roles in the classification model of the causes of emergency failures in oil and gas pipeline accidents. The results indicated that the classification model of emergency failure causes in oil and gas pipeline accidents was divided into five levels: government and emergency department factors, operator organizational factors, operator unsafe supervision, preconditions for unsafe behavior of on-site personnel, and unsafe behavior of on-site personnel. The emergency failure causes were further divided into 16 bottom-level factors, among which there were 9 core factors: inadequate safety supervision by government and emergency departments, ineffective emergency rescue, regulations defects, insufficient supervision by pipeline operators, technical environment, and skill errors. Skill errors, regulations or procedure defects, technical environment, and insufficient supervision by operators were highly associated factors. Moreover, pipeline operators' regulation defects, procedure defects, technical environment, insufficient supervision, improper resource management, and decision-making errors were strong mediating factors.

Key words: oil and gas pipeline accident, emergency response failure causes, social network analysis(SNA), classification model, human factors analysis and classification system (HFACS) model

CLC Number:

X928.02事故处理

GONG Yunhua, ZHANG Zhe. Failure causes of emergency response in oil and gas pipeline accidents and social network analysis[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2025, 35(1): 209-215.

Figures/Tables 9

Table 1

27 accident cases

年份	国家	事故
1994	加拿大	萨斯喀彻温省FootHills公司天然气管道破裂事故
1995	加拿大	曼尼托巴省TransCanada公司天然气管道破裂事故
1996	加拿大	曼尼托巴省TransCanada公司天然气管道破裂事故
2000	加拿大	不列颠哥伦比亚省West Coast公司天然气管道破裂事故
2000	加拿大	魁北克省Gazoduc TQM公司天然气泄漏爆炸事故
2001	加拿大	阿尔伯特省Enbridge公司原油管道破裂事故
2001	加拿大	安大略省Enbridge公司原油管道破裂事故
2002	加拿大	魁北克省Trans-Northern公司成品油管道破裂事故
2002	加拿大	曼尼托巴省TransCanada天然气管道破裂事故
2004	美国	堪萨斯州Magellan公司泄漏事故
2005	加拿大	不列颠哥伦比亚省Terason公司原油管道破裂事故
2007	加拿大	不列颠哥伦比亚省Trans Mountain公司原油管道破裂事故
2007	美国	密西西比州Dixie管道公司危险液体管道破裂事故
2008	美国	宾夕法尼亚州Dominion Peoples公司天然气管道破裂事故
2009	美国	佛罗里达州GasTransport公司天然气管道破裂泄漏事故
2010	美国	密歇根州Enbridge公司危险液体管道破裂泄漏事故
2010	美国	萨伊利诺伊州Enbridge公司输油管道泄漏事故
2011	加拿大	安大略省TransCanada公司天然气管道爆炸起火事故
2011	加拿大	阿尔伯特省Plains公司NPS20管道泄漏事故
2012	加拿大	不列颠哥伦比亚省West Coast公司天然气管道破裂事故
2012	美国	西弗吉尼亚州Columbia输气公司天然气管道破裂事故
2013	中国	山东青岛“11·22”中石化东黄输油管道泄漏爆炸事故
2014	中国	辽宁大连“6·30”新大原油管道破坏泄漏事故
2016	美国	内布拉斯加州Magellan管道无水氨泄漏事故
2017	加拿大	南达科他州TransCanada公司管道破裂事故
2018	美国	得克萨斯州Atmos能源公司天然气爆炸事故
2019	美国	加利福尼亚州Pacific Gas & Electric公司管道爆炸事故

Table 1

Table 2

Fig.1

Table 3

Fig.2

Table 4

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

References 18

[1]	狄彦, 帅健, 王晓霖, 等. 油气管道事故原因分析及分类方法研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2013, 23(7): 109-115.
	DI Yan, SHUAI Jian, WANG Xiaolin, et al. Study on methods for classifying oil&gas pipeline incidents[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2013, 23(7): 109-115.
[2]	袁长峰, 张玉龙, 呼义超, 等. 基于模糊动态故障树的油气储运火灾事故应急过程致因因素评价[J]. 大连海事大学学报, 2021, 47(1): 92-100.
	YUAN Changfeng, ZHANG Yulong, HU Yichao, et al. Evaluation on causal factors in emergency processes of fire accidents for oil-gas storage and transportation based on fuzzy dynamic fault tree[J]. Journal of Dalian Maritime University, 2021, 47(1): 92-100.
[3]	YUAN Changfeng, CUI Hui, MA Siming, et al. Analysis method for causal factors in emergency processes of fire accidents for oil-gas storage and transportation based on ISM and MBN[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2019,62: DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2019.103964.
[4]	张玉龙. 油气储运火灾事故应急过程致因因素评估及预防[D]. 大连: 大连海事大学, 2021.
	ZHANG Yulong. Prevention and evaluation on causal factors in emergency processes of fire accidents for oil/gas storage and transportation[D]. Dalian: Dalian Maritime University, 2021.
[5]	崔慧. 油库区火灾应急过程事故致因因素研究[D]. 大连: 大连海事大学, 2019.
	CUI Hui. Study on cause factors in emergency process of fire accident for oil depot zone[D]. Dalian: Dalian Maritime University, 2019.
[6]	姜文士. 城镇燃气管道泄漏事故应急处置失效原因及对策探析[J]. 现代职业安全, 2022(2):24-26.
[7]	GONG Yunhua, LI Yuntao. STAMP-based causal analysis of China-Donghuang oil transportation pipeline leakage and explosion accident[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2018, 56: 402-413.
[8]	王起全. 输油管道泄漏火灾爆炸事故演化及应急疏散分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2016, 26(5):24-29.
	WANG Qiquan. Analysis of oil pipeline leak fire and explosion accident evolution and emergency evacuation[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2016, 26(5):24-29.
[9]	郑登锋, 付明福, 龚晓凤, 等. 基于情景构建的多地多场景应急演练[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2019, 29(6):171-176. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.06.028
	ZHENG Dengfeng, FU Mingfu, GONG Xiaofeng, et al. Multi-place and multi-scenario emergency exercise based on scenario-building[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2019, 29(6):171-176. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.06.028
[10]	郭立, 王钟兴, 刘铁. 基于“R-E”一体化构建油气管道突发事故应急管理体系[J]. 化工安全与环境, 2022, 35(34):2-5,9.
[11]	CHAUVINA C, LARDJANEB S, MORELA G, et al. Human and organizational factors in maritime accidents: analysis of collisions at sea using HFACS[J]. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2013, 59:26-37.
[12]	李珏, 刘焕. 基于HFACS的施工触电事故致因的关联性分析与干预对策[J]. 长沙理工大学学报:自然科学版, 2019, 16(2): 36-41,48.
	LI Jue, LIU Huan. Association of causes and intervention countermeasures of electric shock accidents based on HFACS[J]. Journal of Changsha University of Science and Technology:Natural Science, 2019, 16(2): 36-41,48.
[13]	XU Ruihua, LUO Fan, CHEN Gaoming, et al. Application of HFACS and grounded theory for identifying risk factors of air traffic controllers' unsafe acts[J]. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 2021, 86: DOI:10.1016/j.ergon.2021.103228.
[14]	KAPTAN M, SARIALIOGLU S, UGURLU O, et al. The evolution of the HFACS method used in analysis of marine accidents: a review[J]. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 2021, 86: DOI: 10.1016/j.ergon.2021.103225.
[15]	WANG Jing, FAN Yunxiao, GAO Yuan. Revising HFACS for SMEs in the chemical industry: HFACS-CSMEs[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2020, 65: DOI:10.1016/j.jlp.2020.104138.
[16]	贾旭东, 衡量. 扎根理论的“丛林”、过往与进路[J]. 科研管理, 2020, 41(5): 151-163.
	JIA Xudong, HENG Liang. The "jungle",history,and approach road of the grounded theory[J]. Science Research Management, 2020, 41(5): 151-163.
[17]	韩天园, 田顺, 吕凯光, 等. 基于文本挖掘的重特大交通事故成因网络分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(9): 150-156. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2021.09.021
	HAN Tianyuan, TIAN Shun, LYU Kaiguang, et al. Network analysis on causes for serious traffic accidents based on text mining[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(9): 150-156. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2021.09.021
[18]	李珏, 王幼芳. 基于文本挖掘的建筑施工高处坠落事故致因网络分析[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2020, 20(4): 1284-1290.
	LI Jue, WANG Youfang. Causation network analysis of the construction falling or collapsing accidents based on the text mining[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2020, 20(4): 1284-1290.

选择式编码	主轴式编码	开放式编码	频数	占比/ %
政府及应急部门因素	安全监管不到位	督促企业落实应急预案不力;未及时发现现场人员的违章	4	14.81
	相关规定有缺陷	应急法规存在缺陷;建设规划不合理;缺乏不同部门间的明确协议	3	11.11
	应急救援不力	未及时通知和疏散群众;指挥协调应急救援不力;事故风险研判失误	4	14.81
运营商组织因素	不良的组织氛围	对应急救援工作重视不够	4	14.81
	资源管理不当	应急资源配置存在缺陷	5	18.52
	组织程序规章漏洞	程序漏洞	12	44.44
	组织程序规章漏洞	制度漏洞	9	33.33
运营商不安全监督	监督不充分	缺乏应急演练/培训	5	18.52
		缺乏应急指导标准	2	7.41
		公众安全教育不足	6	22.22
		执行监督不足	4	14.81
		沟通不足	6	22.22
	监督违规	未按预案进行风险研判;未按要求进行事故报告	3	11.11
	运行计划不当	应急响应措施有效性不高;计划中应急指令不及时	6	22.22
现场人员不安全行为的前提条件	环境因素	技术环境	14	51.85
	环境因素	物理环境	4	14.81
	人员因素	操作人员知识不足	4	14.81
现场人员的不安全行为	失误	技能失误	20	74.07
	失误	决策失误	5	18.52
	违规	未实施有效警戒;抢修前未进行可燃气体检测;使用不恰当的设备;到达现场不及时;违规启动管道输送	5	18.52

因素类别及编码	具体因素及编码
政府及应急部门因素(GE)	安全监管不到位GE1、相关规定有缺陷GE2、应急救援不力GE3
运营商组织因素(PO)	不良的组织氛围PO1、资源管理不当PO2、程序漏洞PO3、制度漏洞PO4
运营商不安全监督(PS)	监督不充分PS1、监督违规PS2、运行计划不适当PS3
现场人员不安全行为的前提条件(HP)	人员因素HP1、物理环境HP2、技术环境HP3
现场人员不安全行为(HB)	技能失误HB1、决策失误HB2、违规HB3

位置	应急失效原因因素
核心	GE1、GE2、GE3、PO2、PO3、PO4、PS1、HP3、HB1
边缘	PO1、PS2、PS3、HP1、HP2、HB2、HB3