Human reliability analysis of emergency behaviors for hazardous chemical accidents in chemical industry parks

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2025.02.1078

Abstract

Abstract:

To explore human error in complex emergency rescue scenarios for hazardous chemical accidents in chemical industry parks and improve human reliability in emergency rescue actions, a comprehensive analysis method was established to quantitatively evaluate the human reliability of emergency rescue for hazardous chemical accidents. Firstly, based on the laws, regulations and standards related to the emergency rescue of hazardous chemical accidents, 20 emergency behaviors in chemical industry parks were summarized and extracted. Secondly, cognitive reliability and error analysis method(CREAM) was introduced to determine the probability of human error. Analytic hierarchy process(AHP) and entropy weight method were combined to quantify the severity of errors in emergency behaviors. Finally, from the perspectives of possibility and severity, the weak aspects of emergency behaviors in chemical industry parks were explored, and the strategies for enhancing emergency rescue capabilities in chemical industry parks were discussed. The practical application of the method was verified with the example of N chemical industry park. The results show that 20 emergency behaviors were divided into 3 clusters. There are 4 emergency behaviors identified that needed to be prioritized for improvement in the petrochemical zone: risk assessment, fire-fighting, initial disposal of enterprises and rescue of people in distress. For these emergency behaviors, it was proposed that N chemical industry park should focus on optimizing the accident information transmission mechanism, improving decision-making and command effectiveness, and strengthening rapid response and disaster identification capabilities, so as to provide countermeasures and suggestions for improving its emergency rescue capability.

Key words: chemical industry parks, hazardous chemical accident, emergency behavior, human reliability, emergency rescue capability, human error

CLC Number:

X928.5化学物质致因事故

WANG Dongdong, YANG Angbin, WANG Zhihao, ZHAO Jingrong, DONG Guoyu, TONG Ruipeng. Human reliability analysis of emergency behaviors for hazardous chemical accidents in chemical industry parks[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2025, 35(2): 21-27.

Figures/Tables 9

Table 1

Organizational structure of emergency behaviors in chemical industry parks

应急救援任务	应急人员	应急行为	具体任务
事故初期处置	事故单位应急人员	启动应急预案	事故单位立即启动应急预案,组织成立现场指挥部,制定救援方案,统一指挥实施
		企业初期处置	根据事故现场情况划分警戒隔离区,抢救、撤离遇险人员,实施现场处置措施
		事故信息上报	事故单位在开展自救的同时,应按照有关规定向当地政府部门报告
应急指挥	应急指挥人员	成立应急指挥部	政府部门接到事故报告后,应立即启动相关预案,赶赴事故现场,成立应急指挥部
		风险研判	基于现有事故信息,应急指挥部对警情做出准确判断,并提出相应的响应级别建议
		综合协调	应急指挥部根据现场指挥部提供的情况指导应急救援行动,调集有关资源、下达应急疏散指令
		协同联动单位	外部救援力量根据事故单位的需求和应急指挥部的协调安排合力开展救援
		信息发布	事故信息由应急指挥部统一对外发布,信息发布应及时、准确、客观、全面
警戒疏散	警戒疏散人员	警戒隔离	在警戒隔离区边界设警示标志,设专人负责警戒,严禁无关人员进入
		道路交通管制	对通往事故现场的道路实行交通管制,严禁无关车辆进入
		人员紧急疏散	应急指挥部根据现场指挥部疏散人员的请求,决定并发布疏散指令
现场处置	现场处置人员	控制泄漏源	在生产、储存等过程中发生泄漏,应根据生产和事故情况,及时采取控制措施
		控制泄漏物质	降低气体泄漏物的浓度或燃爆危害,收集、阻挡或转移液体泄漏物
		控制生产系统	生产部门监控装置工艺变化情况,调整应急状态下的生产方案,确保生产平衡
		遇险人员救护	救援人员应携带救生器材迅速进入现场,转移遇险受困人员
		消防灭火	根据危化品的性质、火灾大小采用相应的方法控制火源并扑灭火灾
		侦检与反馈	动态监测可燃、有毒有害危化品的浓度、扩散和环境污染情况,及时上报监测信息
现场恢复	现场恢复人员	洗消	在危险区与安全区交界处设立洗消站,使用洗消药剂对染毒人员和装备进行洗消
		现场清理	彻底清除事故现场各处残留的有毒有害气体,对泄漏液体、固体应统一收集处理,彻底清洗污染地面
		环境修复	若空气、水源、土壤出现污染,应及时采取相应处置措施

Table 1

Table 2

Fig.1

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Fig.2

Fig.3

References 16

[1]	MEN Jinkun, JIANG Peng, ZHENG Song, et al. A multi-objective emergency rescue facilities location model for catastrophic interlocking chemical accidents in chemical parks[J]. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2019, 21(11):4749-4761.
[2]	ZENG Chunyang, HU Qianlin. 2018 petroleum & chemical industry development report[J]. Chinese Journal of Chemical Engineering, 2019, 27(10):2606-2614. doi: 10.1016/j.cjche.2019.08.003
[3]	王冬冬, 郝竹君, 王黎珣, 等. 危险化学品事故应急救援信息实时采集与需求分析研究[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2023, 19(增2):122-129.
	WANG Dongdong, HAO Zhujun, WANG Lixun, et al. Research on real-time collection and demand analysis of emergency rescue information for hazardous chemicals accidents[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2023, 19(S2):122-129.
[4]	胡玉. 发电企业人因失误分析及其预防控制措施研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(增2):19-25.
	HU Yu. Human error analysis and pre-control measures of power generation enterprises[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(S2):19-25. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.S2.0122
[5]	ZHOU Jianfeng, RENIERS G, COZZANI V. A Petri-net approach for firefighting force allocation analysis of fire emergency response with backups[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2023, 229: DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2022.108847.
[6]	WANG Dongdong, YANG Guoliang, HAN Jixiang, et al. Quantitative assessment of human error of emergency behavior for hazardous chemical spills in chemical parks[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2024, 189(9):930-949.
[7]	鲁义, 伍江乐, 邵淑珍, 等. 基于贝叶斯网络的危化品道路运输事故推理模型[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(3): 174-182. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.03.024
	LU Yi, WU Jiangle, SHAO Shuzhen, et al. Prediction model for road transport accidents of hazardous chemicals based on Bayesian network[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(3):174-182. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.03.024
[8]	曾小红, 毕海普, 司鹄. 化工园区泄漏事故安全风险评估模式研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2011, 21(2):165-170.
	ZENG Xiaohong, BI Haipu, SI Hu. Research on risk assessment model of leakage accidents in chemical industrial park[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2011, 21(2):165-170.
[9]	WENG Jinxian, GAN Xiafan, ZHANG Zheyu. A quantitative risk assessment model for evaluating hazmat transportation accident risk[J]. Safety Science, 2021, 137: DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105198.
[10]	IKWAN F, SANDERS D, HASSAN M. Safety evaluation of leak in a storage tank using fault tree analysis and risk matrix analysis[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2021, 73: DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2021.104597.
[11]	ZHANG Di, MAO Zhanli, GONG Meiling, et al. Study on optimization of shelter locations and evacuation routes of gas leakage accidents in chemical industrial park[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2023, 177:556-567.
[12]	TSAI S F, HUANG Anchi, SHU Chimin. Integrated self-assessment module for fire rescue safety in a chemical plant:a case study[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2018, 51:137-149.
[13]	杨国梁, 魏利军, 多英全, 等. 化工园区安全韧性内涵及量化理论模型研究[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2023, 19(7):5-10.
	YANG Guoliang, WEI Lijun, DUO Yingquan, et al. Research on safety resilience connotation and quantitative theoretical model of chemical industry parks[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2023, 19(7):5-10.
[14]	岳文静, 袁必和, 苏姝燕, 等. 基于综合赋权-秩和比法的化工园区韧性评估[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(增1):58-63.
	YUE Wenjing, YUAN Bihe, SU Shuyan, et al. Resilience assessment of chemical industry parks based on comprehensive weighting-RSR method[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(S1):58-63. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.S1.2454
[15]	HOLLNAGEL E. Cognitive reliability and error analysis method (CREAM)[M]. Oxford: Elsevier, 1998:151-189.
[16]	PEI Huining, GONG Hao, BAI Zhonghang, et al. A human factor reliability analysis method for maritime transport based on an improved CREAM model and group decision-making[J]. Ocean Engineering, 2024, 293: DOI: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2024.116664.

功能行为	代码	人因失误模式	基本失效概率
辨识	O1	目标观察错误	0.001
	O2	识别错误	0.07
	O3	未进行观察	0.07
分析	I1	诊断错误	0.2
	I2	决策错误	0.01
	I3	延迟解释	0.01
计划	D1	优先权错误	0.01
计划	D2	不适当的计划	0.01
执行	E1	动作方式错误	0.003
	E2	动作时间错误	0.003
	E3	动作目标错误	0.000 5
	E4	动作顺序错误	0.003
	E5	动作疏漏	0.03

应急行为及编号	人因失误模式	基本值
启动应急预案C111	动作时间错误E2	0.003
企业初期处置C112	动作方式错误E1	0.003
事故信息上报C113	动作遗漏E5	0.030
成立应急指挥部C121	动作时间错误E2	0.003
风险研判C122	诊断失败I1	0.200
综合协调C123	综合协调I1	0.010
协同联动单位C124	动作遗漏E5	0.003
信息发布C125	动作方式错误E1	0.003
警戒隔离C211	动作时间错误E2	0.030
道路交通管制C212	动作方式错误E1	0.003
人员紧急疏散C213	动作方式错误E1	0.003
控制泄漏源C221	计划不充分D2	0.003
控制泄漏物质C222	动作方式错误E1	0.003
控制生产系统C223	动作时间错误E2	0.010
遇险人员救护C224	错误辨识O2	0.003
消防灭火C225	动作方式错误E1	0.003
侦检与反馈C226	动作遗漏E5	0.070
洗消C311	未进行观察O3	0.003
现场清理C312	动作时间错误E2	0.030
环境修复C313	未进行观察O3	0.070

绩效因子	水平	预期影响
化工园区应急组织完善性	有效	不显著
应急环境	优越	改进
应急平台完善性	支持	改进
应急准备完善性	可接受	不显著
应急目标特性	低于	改进
应急救援可用时间	暂时不充分	不显著
应急人员身心状态	良好	不显著
培训和经验的充分性	经验有限	不显著
应急协同效率	非常有效	改进

行为编号	基本概率	修正系数	修正后概率
C111	0.003	0.2	0.000 6
C112	0.003	0.2	0.000 6
C113	0.030	0.2	0.006 0
C121	0.003	0.2	0.000 6
C122	0.200	0.4	0.080 0
C123	0.010	0.4	0.004 0
C124	0.003	0.2	0.000 6
C125	0.003	0.2	0.000 6
C211	0.030	0.2	0.006 0
C212	0.003	0.2	0.000 6
C213	0.003	0.2	0.000 6
C221	0.003	0.5	0.001 5
C222	0.003	0.2	0.000 6
C223	0.010	0.2	0.002 0
C224	0.003	0.2	0.000 6
C225	0.003	0.2	0.000 6
C226	0.070	0.2	0.014 0
C311	0.003	0.2	0.000 6
C312	0.030	0.2	0.006 0
C313	0.070	0.2	0.014 0

行为编号	失误严重度	应急行为	失误严重度
C111	0.083 8	C213	0.087 8
C112	0.149 1	C221	0.074 0
C113	0.017 8	C222	0.027 8
C121	0.012 8	C223	0.027 8
C122	0.033 9	C224	0.166 4
C123	0.031 3	C225	0.138 8
C124	0.004 3	C226	0.011 2
C125	0.001 2	C311	0.030 7
C211	0.030 4	C312	0.009 7
C212	0.030 4	C313	0.030 7