Research on acceptable criteria for individual and societal risks of urban gas pipeline

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.10.2157

Abstract

Abstract:

In respond to the higher requirement for clean energy put forward by the 14^th Five-Year plan, the risk acceptable criteria of urban gas pipeline were studied from the perspective of life risk, in order to make the safety management level of urban gas pipeline can meet the needs of development. The accident data of 2012-2021 were counted by combining average individual risk (AIR) method with ALARP criterion, and the risk acceptable criteria of the previous five-year cycle were used for analysis and comparison. The reference value of the risk acceptable criteria of the next five-year cycle was predicted by adopting the risk acceptable criteria of the previous five-year cycle, and the reference value of the acceptable criteria of individual risk from 2022 to 2026 was obtained. According to the five-year cycle prediction method discussed in the individual risk acceptable criteria study, the F-N curve method was used to calculate the number of deaths per accident and annual pipeline length from 2017 to 2021, and the societal risk acceptable criteria was determined. The study shows that the risk level of 1.017 13×10^-7 is the boundary of the unacceptable risk area and ALARP area, and the risk level of 2.034 27×10^-7 is the boundary of ALARP area and acceptable risk area. In the societal risk study, the intolerable line and the negligible line are determined, and the risk region is determined according to the ALARP criterion.

Key words: urban gas pipeline, individual risk, societal risk, acceptable criteria, as low as reasonable practicable (ALARP) criterion

ZHANG Peng, XIAO Bowen, SONG Wenqi, LIU Wei. Research on acceptable criteria for individual and societal risks of urban gas pipeline[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(10): 1-7.

Figures/Tables 10

Fig.1

Tab.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Tab.2

Tab.3

Tab.4

Tab.5

Tab.6

Equations for intolerable line and negligible line

极限风险曲线	表达式
最大可接受	$l g F = 1.2781 l g x - 4.1558$
可忽略	$l g F = 1.2781 l g x - 4.7254$

Tab.6

Fig.4

References 27

[1]	中华人民共和国国家发展和改革委员会. 关于印发《“十四五”现代能源体系规划》的通知[EB/OL]. [2022-03-22]. https://www.ndrc.gov.cn/xwdt/tzgg/202203/t20220322_1320017.html?code=&state=123.
[2]	中华人民共和国住房和城乡建设部. 2021年城乡建设统计年鉴[EB/OL]. [2022-10-12]. https://www.mohurd.gov.cn/gongkai/fdzdgknr/sjfb/tjxx/jstjnj/index.html.
[3]	李超, 邓小宝, 史运涛, 等. 社区户内燃气泄漏动态预警模型[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(3):90-97. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.03.012
	LI Chao, DENG Xiaobao, SHI Yuntao, et al. Dynamic early warning model of household gas leakage in communities[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(3):90-97. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.03.012
[4]	王秋红, 王力文, 蒋军成, 等. 城镇地埋天然气管道泄漏诱发气云爆炸仿真[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(9):75-82. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2021.09.011
	WANG Qiuhong, WANG Liwen, JIANG Juncheng, et al. Simulation study on gas explosion induced by gas leakage of urban buried gas pipelines[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(9):75-82. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2021.09.011
[5]	赵新伟, 李鹤林, 罗金恒, 等. 油气管道完整性管理技术及其进展[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2006, 16(1):129-135.
	ZHAO Xinwei, LI Helin, LUO Jinheng, et al. Managerial technique for integrity of oil and gas pipeline and its progress[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2006, 16(1):129-135.
[6]	陈利琼. 在役油气长输管线定量风险技术研究[D]. 成都: 西南石油学院, 2004.
	CHEN Liqiong. Study on quantitative risk assessment for the long-distance oil/gas pipelines in service[D]. Chengdu: Southwest Petroleum University, 2004.
[7]	赵新伟, 张华, 罗金恒. 油气管道可接受风险准则研究[J]. 油气储运, 2016, 35(1):1-6.
	ZHAO Xinwei, ZHANG Hua, LUO Jinheng. Risk acceptance criteria for oil and gas pipelines[J]. Oil & Gas Storage and Transportation, 2016, 35(1):1-6.
[8]	STARR C. Social benefit versus technological risk[J]. Science, 1969, 165(3899):1232-1238. pmid: 5803536
[9]	Health and Safety Executive. Tolerability of risk from nuclear power stations[J]. Fire Safety Journal, 1988, 13(2/3):227-229. doi: 10.1016/0379-7112(88)90020-3
[10]	李漾, 周昌玉, 张伯君. 石油化工行业可接受风险水平研究[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2007, 7(6):116-119.
	LI Yang, ZHOU Changyu, ZHANG Bojun. Study on acceptable level of risk in petrochemical industry[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2007, 7 (6):116-119.
[11]	肖义, 郭生练, 熊立华, 等. 大坝安全评价的可接受风险研究与评述[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2005, 5(3):90-94.
	XIAO Yi, GUO Shenglian, XIONG Lihua, et al. Research review on acceptable risk level for dam safety assessment[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2005, 5(3):90-94.
[12]	段欣, 罗云, 曾珠, 等. 特种设备社会风险及可接受准则分析[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2014, 14(2):102-106.
	DUAN Xin, LUO Yun, ZENG Zhu, et al. Analysis of social risk and acceptable criteria of special equipment[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2014, 14(2):102-106.
[13]	于汐, 薄景山, 唐彦东. 重大岩土工程可接受风险标准研究[J]. 自然灾害学报, 2018, 27(3):56-67.
	YU Xi, BO Jingshan, TANG Yandong. Study on risk acceptance criteria of major geotechnical project[J]. Journal of Natural Disasters, 2018, 27(3):56-67.
[14]	王浩. 天然气管道生命风险可接受性定量研究[D]. 成都: 西南石油大学, 2017.
	WANG Hao. Quantitative research on risk acceptance of gas pipeline[D]. Chengdu: Southwest Petroleum University, 2017.
[15]	姚安林, 周立国, 汪龙, 等. 天然气长输管道地区等级升级管理与风险评价[J]. 天然气工业, 2017, 37(1):124-130.
	YAO Anlin, ZHOU Liguo, WANG Long, et al. Management of and risk evaluation on long-distance gas pipelines related to regional level upgrading[J]. Natural Gas Industry, 2017, 37(1):124-130.
[16]	张鹏, 秦国晋, 王艺环. 城市燃气事故生命损失风险可接受标准研究[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2018, 14(8):181-186.
	ZHANG Peng, QIN Guojin, WANG Yihuan. Study on acceptable criteria for life loss risk of urban gas accidents[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2018, 14(8):181-186.
[17]	段正肖, 辛保泉, 谭钦文, 等. 1种城市燃气管道风险评估模型及其应用研究[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2020, 16(2):117-123.
	DUAN Zhengxiao, XIN Baoquan, TAN Qinwen, et al. A risk assessment model of urban gas pipeline and it's application enlightenment[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2020, 16(2):117-123.
[18]	Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974[J]. Managerial Law, 1974, 17(3):247-363. doi: 10.1108/eb022382
[19]	侯晓犇. 基于定量风险的天然气管道最优维护决策模型与方法研究[D]. 成都: 西南石油大学, 2010.
	HOU Xiaoben. Master dissertation research of natural gas pipeline optimal maintenance strategy models and methods based on quantitative risk[D]. Chengdu: Southwest Petroleum University, 2010.
[20]	马玉宏, 谢礼立. 我国社会可接受地震人员死亡率的研究[J]. 自然灾害学报, 2001, 10(3):56-63.
	MA Yuhong, XIE Lili. Research on social acceptable earthquake mortality in China[J]. Journal of Natural Disasters, 2001, 10(3):56-63.
[21]	燃气爆炸. 2021年全国燃气爆炸事故数据分析报告[EB/OL]. [2022-02-19]. https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/6mmBqpUiJtR6ZjJXh0F4hA.
[22]	张舒, 李夏林, 吴超, 等. 我国煤矿可接受风险标准研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2015, 25(1):158-164.
	ZHANG Shu, LI Xialin, WU Chao, et al. Study on acceptable risk criteria of coal industry in China[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2015, 25(1):158-164.
[23]	KONTOVAS C A. Formal safety assessment critical review and future role[J]. Marine Technology, 2009, 46(1):45-49.
[24]	杨燕鹏, 罗云, 曾珠, 等. 压力管道社会风险可接受准则研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2014, 24(9):128-133.
	YANG Yanpeng, LUO Yun, ZENG Zhu, et al. Research on acceptable criteria of pressure pipeline social risk[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2014, 24(9):128-133.
[25]	JONKMAN S N, VAN GELDER P H A J M, VRIJLING J K. An overview of quantitative risk measures for loss of life and economic damage[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2003, 99(1):1-30. pmid: 12686021
[26]	GONG Yunhua, NIU Zeyu, BAI Tianyao. Societal risk acceptance criteria for gas distribution pipelines based on incident data from the United States[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2020, 63:DOI:10.1016/j.jlp.2019.104002.
[27]	PEI Jingjing, WANG Guantao, LUO Sida, et al. Societal risk acceptance criteria for pressure pipelines in China[J]. Safety Science, 2018, 109:20-26. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2018.05.006

年份	死亡人数	城镇风险受体人数/万	个人死亡率/10^-7
2012	219	42 225.09	5.186 49
2013	152	43 319.24	3.508 83
2014	164	44 526.13	3.683 23
2015	155	46 000.27	3.369 55
2016	127	47 712.33	2.661 79
2017	104	49 139.09	2.116 44
2018	80	51 156.69	1.563 82
2019	78	52 412.64	1.488 19
2020	82	53 745.97	1.525 70
2021	76	55 300.26	1.374 32

A_i	2017年	2018年	2019年	2020年	2021年
A₀	891	768	692	501	374
A₁	41	27	22	35	16
A₂	9	10	1	7	5
A₃	4	5	1	3	2
A₄	1	2	2	1	0
A₅	1	2	1	0	1
A₆	0	0	0	0	1
A₇	1	0	0	0	0
A₈	2	0	1	0	1
A₉	0	0	1	0	0
A₁₀	0	0	0	0	0
A₁₁	0	0	0	0	0
A₁₂	0	0	0	0	0
A₁₃	0	0	0	0	0
A₁₄	0	0	0	0	0
A₁₅	0	0	1	0	0
A₁₆	0	0	0	0	0
A₁₇	0	0	0	0	0
A₁₈	0	0	0	0	0
A₁₉	0	0	0	0	0
A₂₀	0	0	0	1	0
A₂₁	0	0	0	0	0
A₂₂	0	0	0	0	0
A₂₃	0	0	0	0	0
A₂₄	0	0	0	0	0
A₂₅	0	0	0	0	1

累计频率F_i	2017年	2018年	2019年	2020年	2021年
F₁	0.920 437	0.642 458	0.383 142	0.543 981	0.286 929
F₂	0.280 811	0.265 363	0.102 171	0.138 889	0.116 897
F₃	0.140 406	0.125 698	0.089 400	0.057 870	0.063 762
F₄	0.078 003	0.055 866	0.076 628	0.023 148	0.042 508
F₅	0.062 402	0.027 933	0.051 086	0.011 574	0.042 508
F₆	0.046 802	0	0.038 314	0.011 574	0.031 881
F₇	0.046 802	0	0.038 314	0.011 574	0.021 254
F₈	0.031 201	0	0.038 314	0.011 574	0.021 254
F₉	0	0	0.025 543	0.011 574	0.010 627
F₁₀	0	0	0.012 771	0.011 574	0.010 627
F₁₁	0	0	0.012 771	0.011 574	0.010 627
F₁₂	0	0	0.012 771	0.011 574	0.010 627
F₁₃	0	0	0.012 771	0.011 574	0.010 627
F₁₄	0	0	0.012 771	0.011 574	0.010 627
F₁₅	0	0	0.012 771	0.011 574	0.010 627
F₁₆	0	0	0	0.011 574	0.010 627
F₁₇	0	0	0	0.011 574	0.010 627
F₁₈	0	0	0	0.011 574	0.010 627
F₁₉	0	0	0	0.011 574	0.010 627
F₂₀	0	0	0	0.011 574	0.010 627
F₂₁	0	0	0	0	0.010 627
F₂₂	0	0	0	0	0.010 627
F₂₃	0	0	0	0	0.010 627
F₂₄	0	0	0	0	0.010 627
F₂₅	0	0	0	0	0.010 627

B		决定系数R²	均方比值	剩余方差s²	标准估算的误差S
常数	-0.459 1	0.865 7	457.840 8	0.038 1	0.195 3
lgx	-1.297 2	0.865 7	457.840 8	0.038 1	0.195 3

B		R²	均方比值	s²	S
常数	-0.440 6	0.921 1	735.024 3	0.021 1	0.145 32
lgx	-1.278 1	0.921 1	735.024 3	0.021 1	0.145 32