You are on page 1of 7

Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 26 (2013) 38e44

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jlp

Characteristics of direct causes and human factors in major


gas explosion accidents in Chinese coal mines: Case study
spanning the years 1980e2010
Hong Chen*, Hui Qi, Qun Feng
School of Management, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou 221116, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Major accidents from gas explosions have a high rate of occurrence in Chinese coal mines. The frequency
Received 20 March 2012 of major gas explosion accidents between the years 1980e2000, and the years 2001e2010 was reviewed.
Received in revised form Case studies were also compared. The study of direct causes indicates that during the period 2001e2010
1 September 2012
the proportion of accidents caused by deliberate violation was reduced by 31.13% compared with data
Accepted 2 September 2012
from 1980 to 2000. However the proportion of accidents caused by mismanagement rose by 32.38%
during this period. Direct causes of high occurrence rate accidents include deliberate violations such as
Keywords:
illegal blasting, conducting maintenance with the power on, and mismanagement behaviors such as
Major gas explosion accidents
Direct causes
chaotic electromechanical management and chaotic ventilation management. The study of environ-
Environment characteristics mental characteristics shows that the proportion of accidents occurring in the heading faces increased by
Surface chart of accident regularities 27.18%. The study of human factors indicates that deliberate violation behaviors showed a high utility
Quadrifid graph of behavior characteristics ehigh cost factor. Mismanagement behaviors showed strong correlation with responsibility awareness
and weak correlation with technological ability.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction environment, direct causes, and human factors, in the hope of


determining some fresh findings.
Gas explosions are major coal mine accidents which occur In previous work (Chen, 2006), some conclusions were made on
suddenly and can cause great damage. Once an explosion happens, the frequency and human factors in major gas explosion accidents
the consequences can include large numbers of casualties, huge spanning the years 1980e2000. After 2000, the Chinese govern-
economic losses, as well as a disastrous negative impact on ment increased and dramatically strengthened the controls over
society. According to previous research (Chen, 2006; Wang & Li, coal mine safety by establishing an independent safety supervision
2001), during the 1980e2000 period, 4128 accidents were system. They also published a series of coal mine safety laws and
caused by gas explosions, and the related death toll was 30,754. regulations, enhanced the coal industry entry threshold, closed coal
During the 2001e2010 period, among the 1900 major coal mine mine enterprises with small scale and substandard production
accidents, 675 accidents were caused by gas explosions, conditions, and promoted industry mergers and reorganizations
accounting for 35.53%, in which the death toll was 6057, (SACMS, 2009a,b, 2010; Wang, 2005). In this paper, based on the
accounting for 44.97% (Chen, Qi, Long, & Zhang, 2012). From these environmental conditions and the causes of the accidents, the
numbers, it is evident that effective control of gas explosion frequency and characteristics of major gas explosion accidents
accidents is crucial for safe production in Chinese coal mines. occurring between 1980 and 2000 were compared with those in
There is an urgent need to find a solution to prevent gas explosion 2001e2010. Some suggestions on the prevention and control of
accidents. Generally, researchers have made important discoveries major gas explosion accidents are proposed also.
in this field (Amyotte, 2006; Amyotte & Eckhoff, 2009; Oh, Kim,
Kim, & Lee, 2001), but few of these can be directly applied to 2. Direct causes of major gas explosion accidents
the actual operations of Chinese coal mines. In this paper we try to
analyze the frequency and characteristics of gas explosion acci- The statistics of major gas explosion accidents in Chinese coal
dents in Chinese coal mines from the perspective of the mines from 1980 to 2000 showed that the key direct reasons which
caused the accidents or influenced the accident process were human
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ86 13372210769. factors or human behaviors. These included intentional violation,
E-mail address: hongchenxz@163.com (H. Chen). mismanagement and defective design, and accounted for up to

0950-4230/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2012.09.001
H. Chen et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 26 (2013) 38e44 39

97.67% of total accidents and 96.59% of major gas explosion acci- mines. To facilitate the process of finding a solution, it is meaningful
dents, which are much higher than generally thought. Deliberate to characterize further the gas explosion accidents from the view
violations are behaviors which violate the safety systems (regula- points of the environment and direct causes. It can help to find in
tions, procedures, etc.). These may cause accidents directly, such as which environment and by what kind of actions the gas explosions
smoking, blasting without checking gas and so on. Mismanagement is were triggered.
a special human factor causing fatal accidents, including false The characteristics of the environment are defined here as the
management decisions, improper production process disposal or spatial distribution of accidents determined by the location,
dereliction of duty. Examples of this are conducting live working working conditions, geological features and other factors. The
during maintenance processes, use of damaged cables, unreasonable direct cause of the accident is the material cause that directly led to
local ventilation etc. Defective design is a type of human error behavior the fatal coal mine accidents.
that can cause defects in the construction process of the shafts, mining Table 2 presents the statistical data of the environment char-
systems, ventilation systems, and electromechanical systems, etc. It is acteristics of major gas explosion accidents in the periods 1980e
a particular human factor with hysteretic and systematic characteris- 2000 and 2001e2010 periods; Table 3 shows the statistical data
tics that occurs at the beginning of the coal production time chain. For of causes of major gas explosion accidents in the corresponding two
major coal mine accidents that occurred during 2001e2010, the periods.
statistical data showed that, of the direct causes, human factors As Table 2 shows, the environment characteristics of major gas
accounted for 95.10% of all the accidents and 100% of all the major gas explosion accidents in the two periods are not radically different.
explosion accidents. For example, on 20th October 2004, a gas Most major gas explosion accidents in the two periods occurred in
explosion accident occurred in the Daping coal mine in Zhengzhou the working face, including the coal face and heading face.
city, Henan province, in which 148 miners died. The reasons However, the rate of major gas explosion accidents that occurred in
announced by the China State Administration of Coal Mine Safety the heading faces rose significantly, from 25.85% in 1980e2000 to
(SACMS) were chaotic ventilation management and improper system 53.03% in 2001e2010, increasing by 27.18%. This indicates that
design which strengthened the gas countercurrent after extruding. At greater attention should be paid to the working place of the
3 pm on 14th February 2005, a gas explosion accident occurred in the heading faces in order to prevent major gas explosion accidents in
Sunjiawan coal mine attached to Fuxin LLC in Liaoning province which underground coal mines.
left 214 miners dead. Investigation results published by SACMS According to Table 3, the causes of major gas explosion accidents in
showed that the reasons were “With the wind on the driving working the two periods were similar; however, the main causes of major gas
face stopping, workers were still repairing the protective device of explosion accidents in the past 10 years have noticeably shifted. The
temporary distributor with the power on.” At 2:30 on 11th July 2005, rate of major gas explosion accidents caused by smoking or disman-
a gas explosion accident occurred in the Shenlong coal mine in Fukang tling the cap-lamp decreased significantly, while unsafe behaviors of
city, Xinjiang province, in which 83 miners died. The reasons enterprises, such as illegal production and ordering cross-border
announced by SACMS were illegal mining, production exceeding its mining become the main contributors to the fatal accidents, reflect-
ability, commanding workers to work under abnormal gas density, ing the low efficiency of coal mine supervision in a macroscopic level.
chaotic electromechanical equipment management, insufficient safety To find the exact frequency of gas explosion accidents and take
management. All of the above gas explosion accidents were caused by proper and sufficient preventive measures, it is helpful to study the
human factors. The details are shown in Table 1. rate of the accidents which crossed two key dimensions, i.e. envi-
It can be seen from Table 1 that of the human factors that caused ronments and causes. Thus the likelihood of the accident being
major accidents (including major gas explosion accidents) in the caused by one fatal factor in a specific environment can be
past 10 years, the proportion of deliberate violation decreased by visualized.
31.13%, while the proportion of mismanagement rose by 32.38%. Let Cij denote the rate of major gas explosions occurring in
This provides an indication that coal mine enterprises’ control over environment Ai and caused by behavior or event Bj. For the gas
the workers’ unsafe behaviors did work to some extent. However, explosion accidents that occurred during the years 1980e2000,
the control over the unsafe behaviors at an administrative level there were 16 different types of environments, represented by
should be strengthened. A1eA16, and there were nine different types of causes, represented
by B1eB9. Cij which forms a matrix of 16*9. Similarly, for the gas
3. Characteristic frequency of major gas explosion accidents explosion accidents that occurred during the years 2001e2010,
based on environment characteristics and direct causes there were five different types of environments and ten different
types of causes. Cij forms a matrix of 5*10. The figures of accident
As shown in the above analysis, human factors are the key occurrence rate in the two periods are shown in Figs. 1 and 2,
factors leading to major gas explosion accidents in Chinese coal respectively.

Table 1
The human factor proportion in major gas explosion accident causes in Chinese coal mines.

Accidents

Reasons Gas explosion Total major accidents Gas explosion Total major accidents
accidents (1980e2000) (1980e2000) accidents (2001e2010) (2001e2010)
Intentional violation 227 552 32 100
Mismanagement 153 540 92 186
Defective design 16 83 8 9
Total human factors 396 1175 132 291
Total accidents 410 1203 132 306
Intentional violation rate 55.37% 45.89% 24.24% 32.68%
Mismanagement rate 37.32% 44.89% 69.70% 60.78%
Defective design rate 3.90% 6.90% 6.06% 2.94%
Human factors rate 96.59% 97.67% 100.00% 95.10%
40 H. Chen et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 26 (2013) 38e44

Table 2
Environment characteristics frequency of major gas explosion accidents in Chinese coal mines.

Environment characteristics frequency of major Environment characteristics frequency of major gas


gas explosion accidents occurring from 1980 to 2000 explosion accidents occurring from 2001 to 2010

Environment characteristics types Number of accidents Proportion Environment characteristics types Number of accidents Proportion
Gob area 15 3.66% Coal face 36 27.27%
Coal face 108 26.34% Heading face 70 53.03%
Panel 20 4.88% Construction roadway 7 5.30%
Heading face 106 25.85% Airway 2 1.52%
Level 33 8.05% Level 2 1.52%
Crossheading 27 6.59% Uphill and downhill 3 2.27%
Haulage roadway 14 3.41% Crossheading 2 1.52%
Shaft bottom 31 7.56% Other roadway 3 2.27%
Return airway 10 2.44% Shaft 3 2.27%
Heading roadway 4 0.98% Cross hole 1 0.76%
Hoist house 4 0.98% Open-off cut 1 0.76%
Water sump 7 1.71% Coal bunker 1 0.76%
Coal warehouse 3 0.73% Station 1 0.76%
Station 6 1.46% Total 132 100%
Blind roadway 7 1.71%
Others 15 3.66%
Total 410 100.00%

In Fig. 1, 1e16 on the axis of environment characteristics corre- management (electromechanical equipment with no blast resis-
spond to the gob area, coal face, panel, heading face, level, cross- tance, cable breakage), and chaotic ventilation management
heading, haulage roadway, shaft bottom, return airway, heading (chaotic ventilation design, series ventilation, turning on and off
roadway, hoist house, water sump, coal warehouse, station, blind the local fan without permission), respectively, as shown in the
roadway, and others, respectively, as shown in the first column of forth column of Table 3. The three protuberant points are located in
Table 2. Numbers 1e9 on the axis of causes correspond to illegal chaotic ventilation management (B10)/coal face (A1), illegal
blasting, smoking, dismantling the cap-lamp, conducting mainte- production (B7)/heading face (A2), and chaotic electromechanical
nance with the power on, chaotic electromechanical equipment equipment management (B9)/heading face (A2).
management (electromechanical equipment with no blast resis- Overall, through the analysis of gas explosion accidents in the
tance, cable breakage), tool strike friction sparks, spontaneous two periods, the gas explosion accidents which occurred in the
combustion, chaotic safety management (poor ventilation heading faces increased significantly, and the rate of accidents that
management, illegal construction), reckless behavior, respectively, occurred in the coal faces was still very high. The rate of accidents
as shown in the first column of Table 3. The figure includes four caused by illegal blasting, smoking, dismantling the cap-lamp in
protuberant points, i.e., illegal blasting (B1)/heading face (A4), illegal the working face decreased. Illegal production, chaotic electrome-
blasting (B1)/coal face (A2); chaotic electromechanical equipment chanical equipment management were important causes of major
management (B5)/heading face (A4), and chaotic electromechanical gas explosion accidents in the heading faces. Chaotic ventilation
equipment management (B5)/coal face (A2). management was the most important factor regarding major gas
In Fig. 2, 1e5 on the axis of environment characteristics corre- explosion accidents in the coal face.
spond to the coal face, heading face, construction roadway, shaft,
and others, respectively, which are obtained after merging similar 4. Deliberate violation and mismanagement behaviors
types of environment characteristics in the forth column of Table 2. related to gas explosion accidents
Numbers 1e10 on the axis of causes correspond to illegal blasting,
smoking, dismantling the cap-lamp, conducting maintenance with As shown in Table 1, human factors accounted for 96.59% and
the power on, not performing ‘power outages and power trans- 100% of the gas explosion accidents in the 1980e2000 and 2001e
mission’ regulations, absence on duty, illegal production, ordering 2010 periods. Therefore, it is reasonable to treat them separately
mining in cross-border area, chaotic electromechanical equipment and in more detail. Human factors related to the gas explosion

Table 3
Direct cause frequency of major gas explosion accidents in Chinese coal mines.

Cause frequency of major gas explosion accidents from 1980 to 2000 Cause frequency of major gas explosion accidents from 2001 to 2010

Types Number of accidents Proportion Types Number of accidents Proportion


Illegal blasting 128 31.22% Illegal blasting 17 12.88%
Smoking 43 10.49% Smoking 1 0.76%
Dismantling the cap-lamp 16 3.90% Dismantling the cap-lamp 1 0.76%
Conducting maintenance 42 10.24% Conducting maintenance with the power on 9 6.82%
with the power on
Chaotic electromechanical 114 27.80% Not performing “power outages 2 1.52%
equipment management and power transmission” regulations
Tool strike friction sparks 30 7.32% Absence on duty 2 1.52%
Spontaneous combustion 12 2.93% Illegal production 23 17.42%
Chaotic safety management 16 3.90% Ordering mining in cross-border area 20 15.15%
Reckless behavior 9 2.20% Chaotic electromechanical equipment management 27 20.45%
Total 410 100% Chaotic ventilation management 30 22.73%
Total 102 100.00%
H. Chen et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 26 (2013) 38e44 41

Fig. 1. Surface chart of characteristic frequency of major gas explosion accidents from
the year 1980 to 2000.
Fig. 3. Frequency of accidents caused by deliberate violation from the year 1980 to
2000.
accidents can be classified into two categories: deliberate violations
and mismanagement behaviors.
working face. In Fig. 4, 1e6 on the causes axis represent illegal
Figs. 3 and 4 show the characteristic frequency of major gas
blasting, smoking, dismantling the cap-lamp, conducting mainte-
explosion accidents from the dimensions of environment and
nance with power the on, not performing “power outages and
deliberate violation in the two periods, respectively. Fig. 5 shows
power transmission” regulations, and absence on duty, respec-
the distribution frequency of behavior utility and behavior cost
tively. Numbers 1e5 on the axis of environment characteristics
corresponding to various causes of deliberate violation.
represent the coal face, heading face, construction roadway, shaft,
In Fig. 3, 1e5 on the causes axis represent illegal blasting,
and other environments, respectively. The protuberant points in
smoking, dismantling the cap-lamp, conducting maintenance with
the curved surface are illegal blasting behavior in the heading face,
the power on, and others, respectively; 1e11 on the axis of envi-
illegal blasting behavior in the coal face and conducting mainte-
ronment characteristics represent the heading face, coal face, level,
nance with the power on in the heading face. Illegal blasting
crossheading, shaft bottom, gob area, panel, heading roadway,
behavior is an important cause in the two periods. Further analysis
haulage roadway, return airway, and others, respectively. The
showed that illegal blasting causes can be divided into: not per-
prominent protuberant point is the illegal blasting behavior in the
forming “to check the gas three times before a burst”, blasting with

Fig. 2. Surface chart of characteristic frequency of major gas explosion accidents from Fig. 4. Frequency of accidents caused by deliberate violation from the year 2001 to
the year 2001 to 2010. 2010.
42 H. Chen et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 26 (2013) 38e44

Fig. 5. Quadrifid graph of behavior utility and behavior cost of deliberate violation.

the wires exposed to the air or visible flame, blasting with multiple
buses, not to fill stemming as required, reverse blasting, multiple
blasting with one time filling, and so on. Fig. 6. Frequency of accidents caused by mismanagement from 1980 to 2000.
Fig. 5 shows a quadrifid graph of behavior utility and behavior
cost of deliberate violation. Behavior utility refers to the profits Numbers 1e14 on the environment axis characteristics represent
which can be perceived by the workers through implementing the coal face; heading face; shaft bottom; panel; level; crossheading;
violation behavior. These include psychological and physiological gob area; haulage roadway; station; airway; blind roadway; hoist
utility, economic utility and time utility. Behavior cost refers to the house; water sump; and others, respectively. The prominent
cost that can be perceived by the workers through implementing protuberant point is the chaotic electromechanical equipment
the violation behavior, including stress cost through dangerous management behavior in the working face. In Fig. 7, 1e4 on the
conditions and regulation execution cost. Based on the calculation causes axis represent illegal production; ordering mining in cross-
method (Chen, 2006), the behavior utility and cost were obtained border area; chaotic electromechanical equipment management;
through expert survey and statistical methods. In Fig. 5, the utilitye and chaotic ventilation management behaviors, respectively.
cost values for behaviors AeK are: A (3.47, 3.79, not performing “to Numbers 1e5 on the environment axis characteristics represent
check the gas three times in a burst”); B (3.12, 4.17, blasting with the coal face; heading face; construction roadway; shaft; and others,
wires exposed to the air or visible flame); C (2.79, 3.32, blasting respectively. There is no apparent fluctuation of causes in the curve,
with multiple bus); D (2.61, 3.54, not to fill stemming as regula- and illegal production, ordering mining in cross-border areas,
tions); E (1.44, 3.31, reverse blasting); F (3.03, 3.77, blasting with chaotic electromechanical equipment management, and chaotic
rock explosive); G (2.99, 2.78, a few times blasting with one time ventilation management are among the most dangerous misman-
filling); H (3.34, 4.17, smoking); I (1.21, 3.75, dismantling the cap- agement behaviors leading to fatal gas explosion accidents.
lamp); J (3.21, 3.34, conducting maintenance with the power on);
and K (3.47, 3.00, absence on duty), respectively.
Table 3 shows that during the 2001e2010 period, 17 major gas
explosion accidents were caused by illegal blasting, in which not
performing “to check the gas three times before a burst” is the main
behavior. In addition, nine major gas explosion accidents were
caused by conducting maintenance with the power on. Both
behaviors are typical high-utility, low-cost behaviors. This means
that the utility workers perceived from the deliberate violation
behaviors is obtained instantly and is cumulative, but the behavior
cost has a certain probability nature. This indicates that the
supervision and economic punishment system currently adopted
by coal mine enterprises for controlling unsafe behaviors is not
adequate for workers to perceive the cost of violation behaviors.
The workers’ violation behaviors cannot be controlled only by the
increase of economic punishment alone.
Figs. 6 and 7 show the characteristic frequency of major gas
explosion accidents from the dimensions of mismanagement and
environment characteristics in the two periods. Fig. 8 shows
distribution frequency of responsibility awareness and technolog-
ical ability corresponding to various causes of mismanagement.
In Fig. 6, 1e6 on the causes axis represent chaotic electrome-
chanical equipment management; ordering illegal blasting; tool
strike friction sparks; ordering illegal production; spontaneous
combustion; and chaotic safety management, respectively. Fig. 7. Frequency of accidents caused by mismanagement from 2001 to 2010.
H. Chen et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 26 (2013) 38e44 43

(1) The proportion of major gas explosion accidents caused by


mismanagement significantly increased, from 37.32% in the
1980e2000 period to 69.70% in the 2001e2010 period.
(2) The environment with the highest accident occurrence rate in
the two periods was the working face. The rate of major gas
explosion accidents that occurred in the heading face increased
significantly, from 25.85% in 1980e2000 period to 53% in
2001e2010 period.
(3) From the view point of direct causes, illegal blasting was the
most important cause of gas explosion accidents in deliberate
violation of human factors, while chaotic electromechanical
equipment management and chaotic ventilation management
were two prominent causes of mismanagement human factors.
Illegal production caused the biggest proportion of accidents in
the 2001e2010 period.
(4) Further studies on the correlation of deliberate violation and
Fig. 8. Quadrifid graph of responsibility awareness and technological ability. mismanagement behaviors found that not performing “to
check the gas three times in a burst” and with the power on are
deliberate violation behaviors with high accident rates. These
In the actual production in coal mines, causes of chaotic elec-
types of behaviors are located in the high costehigh utility area
tromechanical management usually include bare cable joints, cable
of the quadrifid graph of utilityecost. Chaotic electromechan-
breakage, electromechanical equipment with no blast resistance,
ical management behaviors, such as cable breakage, bare cable
joining wires and cables at will, and other mismanagement
joints, electromechanical equipment with no blast resistance,
behaviors. Causes of chaotic ventilation management usually
and chaotic ventilation management, such as turning the local
include turning the local fan on and off without permission, poorly
fan on and off without permission, and ventilating in series are
set up ventilation system, working under insufficient ventilation
common mismanagement behaviors with high accident rates.
capacity, and other mismanagement behaviors. Fig. 8 shows the
All the above deliberate violation and mismanagement
location of mismanagement behaviors in the quadrifid graph of
behaviors show characteristics of weak correlation with tech-
responsibility and technology, in which the scale represents the
nological ability and strong correlation with responsibility
degree of correlation of the managers’ mismanagement behaviors
awareness.
with their responsibility awareness and technological ability. The
values of behaviors were obtained through expert survey and the
Therefore, efforts should be made to reduce human factors in
statistical methods in previous studies (Chen, 2006). The values of
mining accidents. Some insights of this study to coal mine safety
technology-responsibility for specific behavior AeI are: A (1.03,
management are as follows:
4.47, bare cable joint); B (2.05, 4.12, cable breakage); C (1.91, 4.43,
electromechanical equipments with no blasting resistant prop-
(1) The control of unsafe behaviors in coal mine production is still
erty); D (0.35, 4.66, joining wires and cables at will); E (0.87, 4.79,
the key to preventing major gas explosion accidents.
turning on and off the local fan without permission); F (2.11, 4.50,
(2) In daily production, the heading face management should be
ventilating in series, air leakage); G (0.84, 4.59, Not evacuating
strengthened; managers should put more emphasis on control
workers in time in case of wind failure); H (2.00, 4.50, ordering
of unsafe behaviors in blasting and electromechanical main-
mining in cross-border area); and I (2.33, 4.74, illegal production),
tenance. Management behaviors, especially behaviors in
respectively.
managing wires, cables or antiknock devices and ventilation
Table 1 shows that, from 1980 to 2000, 153 gas explosion acci-
management in underground production process should be
dents were caused by mismanagement behaviors. Of these, 114
normalized and be diligently monitored and controlled.
accidents were caused by chaotic electromechanical equipment
(3) Since the supervision for deliberate violation behaviors and
management as described in Table 3, accounting for 74.5%. Table 3
related execution costs have a certain probability nature in
also collates 100 accidents caused by mismanagement behaviors
general they were not well perceived by workers. However, the
from the year 2001e2010, in which 27 accidents were caused by
behavior utility is obtained instantly and is cumulative, thus the
chaotic electromechanical equipment management and 30 acci-
behavior cost to utility ratio often remains at a low value, which
dents were caused by chaotic ventilation management. Fig. 8 shows
is detrimental for safe production in coal mines. Therefore, it is
that all the mismanagement behaviors have a strong correlation
not efficient to control workers’ deliberate violation behaviors
with responsibility awareness and weak correlation with techno-
only by supervision and enhancing punishment.
logical ability, especially for behaviors such as joining wires and
(4) Mismanagement behaviors were located in the high
cables at will and turning the local fan on and off without
responsibility-low technology areas in the quadrifid graph of
permission. The above findings reveal that the coal mine safety
responsibility and technology. This graph indicates that coal
management should not only reflect restrictions and binding force,
mine safety management should not only reflect restrictions
but also offer adequate incentives to promote managers’ willing-
and binding force, but also emphasize incentive compatibility
ness to take responsibilities.
characteristics of the system, in order to enhance managers’
willingness to take on responsibilities.
5. Conclusions and suggestion (5) Prevention of accidents caused by human factors lies in
reducing psychological contract violation between coal mine
By comparing the characteristics of major gas explosion acci- managers and the miners. According to our another study
dents that occurred from 1980 to 2000 with those in 2000e2010, (Chen, 2008), through investigating six typical coal mines,
the following correlations between the causes, environment char- interviewing 923 coal miners and managers, it was found that
acteristics, and human factors were found: psychological contract violation is the primary cause of coal
44 H. Chen et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 26 (2013) 38e44

miners’ unsafe behaviors and managers’ low responsibility Education Humanities and Social Science Project (10YJA630010,
awareness. The working environment, labor intensity, safety 11YJ630162), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central
rights, organizational care, organizational respect could not Universities (2012LWA04).
reach their expectation, and they foresaw that the factors could
not be improved in the future, which led to an incompatible
status between individual benefit and organizational benefit. References
The phenomenon indicates deficiency of organizational
Amyotte, P. R. (2006). Solid inertants and their use in dust explosion preven-
responsibility to workers, bringing severe psychological tion and mitigation. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries,
contract violation, also having a huge negative influence on 19(2), 161e173.
workers’ attitude and behavior. Thus, they usually choose to Amyotte, P. R., & Eckhoff, R. K. (2009). Dust explosion causation, prevention and
mitigation: an overview. Journal of Chemical Health and Safety, 17(1), 15e28.
strengthen the benefit cognition from unsafe behavior, and are Chen, H. (2006). Unsafe behavior study of major accidents in China coal mines. Bei-
not willing to sacrifice their own benefit for production safety. jing: Science Press.
Further, it must damage the entire results, and strengthen the Chen, H. (2008). “Behavioral fence” for major coal mine accidents prevention and
control. Beijing: Economic Science Press.
externalization of unsafe behavior cost, forming negative Chen, H., Qi, H., Long, R. Y., & Zhang, M. L. (2012). Research on 10-year tendency of
external effects. Thus, the organization will pay the accident China coal mine accidents and the characteristics of human factors. Safety
cost in the end. Therefore, for Chinese coal mines, the key to Science, 50, 745e750.
Oh, K. H., Kim, H., Kim, J. B., & Lee, S. E. (2001). A study on the obstacle-induced
reducing coal mine accidents caused by human factors lies in variation of the gas explosion characteristics. Journal of Loss Prevention in the
good cooperation between the coal mine enterprises and the Process Industries, 14(6), 597e602.
miners. They should undertake organizational responsibilities State Administration of Coal Mine Safety. (2009a). Main points of coal mine safety
in 2009. Available on-line at. <http://www.gov.cn>.
to construct positive organizationeworker relations, to reach State Administration of Coal Mine Safety. (2009b). Notice of revision opinions about
the status of “high organizational responsibilityehigh workers’ “coal mine enterprise safety production license implementation methods”.
responsibility”, and improve the behavioral safety of the Available on-line at. <http://www.gov.cn>.
State Administration of Coal Mine Safety. (2010). Main points of coal mine safety in
workers themselves.
2010. Available on-line at. <http://www.gov.cn>.
Wang, S. H. (2005). Strengthen safety management of small coal mines, try to
Acknowledgments realize stable improvement of coal mines’ safety production situation. Available
on-line at. <http://www.chinasafety.gov.cn/zhengwugongkai/2006-05/16/
content_167000.htm>.
This work was financially supported by Natural Science Foun- Wang, J. F., & Li, W. J. (2001). China’s coal mine accidents and comments of safety
dation of China Project (70671101, 71173217), China Ministry of specialists. Beijing: Coal Industry Press.

You might also like