两种核设施威胁(危险)分类方法的比较与讨论  

COMPARISON AND DISCUSSION OF TWO TYPES OF THREAT(HAZARD) CATEGORIZATION METHODS FOR NUCLEAR FACILITIES

作　　者：汤荣耀[1] 徐潇潇[1] 张建岗[1] 赵兵[1] 

机构地区：[1]中国辐射防护研究院,太原030006

出　　处：《辐射防护》2008年第5期317-322,328,共7页Radiation Protection

摘　　要：本文对国际原子能机构(IAEA)和美国能源部(DOE)提出的核设施分类方法进行了对比研究,认为两种分类方法本质上是一致的,但各有其特点。IAEA分类标准全面,核设施放射性物质分类阈值与危险放射源活度D值相关联,采用了辐射生物效应研究成果,分类体系的科学性较强,但分类目的偏重于应急管理,因此某些分类准则不完全适用于核设施的安全监管。DOE的分类标准操作性强,适合以安全监管为目的的分类,缺点是计算放射性存量分类阈所用参数陈旧,3类设施的放射性存量分类阈因种种原因有一定的局限性。在制定我国核设施分类标准时,应撷取两种分类方法的长处,明确分类标准的应用方向,制定符合国情的核设施分类标准。The emergency threat categorization method issued by IAEA and hazard categorization standards of DOE for nuclear facilities are compared and discussed in this paper. The research shows the two types of categorization methods for nuclear facility are similar, though each has its own speciality. The categorization method issued by IAEA is quite complete and scientifically sound. The thresholds of radioactive material are correlated with the quantity of dangerous source, and the most recent radiobiological effect research result is adopted in setting the thresholds. As the main purpose emphasises emergency management, some of the categorization criteria can not fit for safety surveillance of nuclear facility. The categorization method of DOE is more operational, and it fits for safety surveillance. The disadvantage is that the quantity threshold of radioac- tive material need to be updated because the parameters used in calculation is outdated, and also the threshold of Category 3 is somewhat disputable for many reasons. We should take advantage of beth methods and adjust the standards according to the application purpose while establishing the categorization standards on nuclear facilities in China.

关 键 词：核设施 分类 威胁 危险 安全监管 应急 

分 类 号：TL7[核科学技术—辐射防护及环境保护]