UF6运输货包要求及事故后果评价方法的比较

辐射防护通讯 ›› 2015, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (6): 13-16.

UF₆运输货包要求及事故后果评价方法的比较

孙树堂, 李国强, 张建岗

中国辐射防护研究院, 太原, 030006

收稿日期:2015-08-19 发布日期:2025-02-25
作者简介:孙树堂(1989- ),男, 2012年毕业于哈尔滨工程大学核工程与核技术专业,学士; 2015年毕业于中国辐射防护研究院辐射防护及环境保护专业,硕士。研究实习员。

Comparison of Requirements and Release Accident Consequence Assessment Models for UF₆ Transport Package

Sun Shutang, Li Guoqiang, Zhang Jiangang

China Institute for Radiation Protection, Taiyuan, 030006

Received:2015-08-19 Published:2025-02-25

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 根据IAEA、ISO、美国、中国等机构和国家对UF₆运输货包的要求,分析我国相关标准的不足。从设计角度对美国30B、48X和我国740 L、3 m³容器进行了对比。介绍了几种早期采用的UF₆后果评价模型及HGSYSTEM/UF₆、RASCAL4模型并基于实验数据进行了对比,结果如下:①200 m以内,HGSYSTEM/UF₆模型较精;500 m内模拟值稍大于实测值,误差较小。②对于RASCAL4,20 m以内,模拟值误差较大;100m以外,模拟值均小于实测值。

关键词: UF₆, 运输货包, 后果评价, 泄漏事故模型

Abstract: On the basis of IAEA, ISO, U.S. and China's requirements for UF₆ transport package, insufficiency of related standards in China is analyzed. From the perspective of design, comparisons of U.S. cylinder 30B, 48X and China cylinder 740 L, 3 m³ are conducted. An introduction to several models for UF₆ release accident consequence assessment is given, which include those used in early year, and more advanced HGSYSTEM/UF₆, RASCAL4.On account of experimental data, a comparison of the latter two models is carried through. It turns out that, for HGSYSTEM/UF₆, the predictions are accurate within 200 m, and smaller than measured values within 500 m. For RASCAL4, errorsare obvious within 20 m, and the predictions are smaller than measured values exceed 100 m.

Key words: UF₆, Package, Requirements, Release accident models

中图分类号:

TL93⁺2

孙树堂, 李国强, 张建岗. UF₆运输货包要求及事故后果评价方法的比较[J]. 辐射防护通讯, 2015, 35(6): 13-16.

Sun Shutang, Li Guoqiang, Zhang Jiangang. Comparison of Requirements and Release Accident Consequence Assessment Models for UF₆ Transport Package[J]. RADIATION PROTECTION BULLETIN, 2015, 35(6): 13-16.

参考文献

[1] NRC. Chemical Toxicity of Uranium Hexafluoride Compared toAcute Effects of Radiation[R]. NUREG-1391, Washington: NRC, 1991.
[2] 周济人. UF₆泄漏事故调研分析[J]. 辐射防护通讯, 1992,22(5):23.
[3] IAEA. Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material 2012 Edition[R]. IAEA Safety Standards, Specific Safety Requirements No.SSR-6, 2012.
[4] ISO. Nuclear Energy-Packaging of Uranium Hexafluoride (UF₆) for Transport[S]. ISO 7195, 2005.
[5] ANSI. Uranium Hexafluoride - Packaging For Transport[S].ANSI N14.1, 2001.
[6] NRC. Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Materials[S]. 10 CFR 71.
[7] 中华人民共和国国家标准. 放射性物质安全运输规程[S]. GB 11806—2004.
[8] 中华人民共和国核行业标准. 六氟化铀容器[S]. EJ/T 303～306-1994.
[9] 中华人民共和国核行业标准. 740 L六氟化铀容器[S]. EJ/T 350-1994.
[10] 中华人民共和国核行业标准. 3 m³六氟化铀容器[S]. EJ/T 424-1994.
[11] 中华人民共和国核行业标准. 六氟化铀容器使用规定[S]. EJ/T 307-1996.
[12] 李筱珍. 我国六氟化铀容器标准分析综述[J]. 核标准计量与质量, 2007,(2):14.
[13] NRC. Review of Models Used for Determining Consequences of UF₆ Release[R]. NUREG/CR-6481, Washington: NRC, 1997.
[14] 陈海龙. UF₆泄漏事故后果评价研究进展[J]. 辐射防护通讯, 2013,33(6):16.
[15] Hanna S R, Chang J C. Modeling Accidental Releases to The Atmosphere of A Dense Reactive Chemical(Uranium Hexafluoride)[J]. Atmosphere Environment, 1997,31(6):901.
[16] NRC. RTM-96 Response Technical Manual[R]. NUREG/BR-0150, 1996.
[17] NRC. Review of Models Used for Determining Consequences of UF₆ Release[R]. NUREG/CR-6481, Washington: NRC, 1997.
[18] Hanna S R, Chang J C, Zhang J X. Technical Documentation of HGSYSTEM/UF₆ Model[R]. K/SUB/93-XJ947, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1996.
[19] NRC. RASCAL4: Description of Models and Methods[R]. NUREG-1940,Washington: NRC, 2012.

UF₆运输货包要求及事故后果评价方法的比较

Comparison of Requirements and Release Accident Consequence Assessment Models for UF₆ Transport Package

PDF (PC)

赞

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 1

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 10