ANSI/ANS-8.23-1997: nuclear criticality accident emergency planning and response.
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
American National Standard ANSUANS-8.23 was developed to expand upon the basic emergency response guidance given in American National Standard, 'Administrative Practices for Nuclear Criticality Safety' ANSI/ANS-8.19-1996 (Ref. 1). This standard provides guidance for minimizing risks to personnel during emergency response to a nuclear criticality accident outside reactors. This standard is intended to apply to those facilities for which a criticality accident alarm system, as specified in American National Standard, 'Criticality Accident Alarm System', ANSI/ANS-8.3-1997 (Ref. 2) is in use. The Working Group was established in 1990, with Norman L. Pruvost as chairman. The Working Group had up to twenty-three members representing a broad range of the nuclear industry, and has included members from Canada, Japan and the United Kingdom. The initial edition of ANSI/ANS-8.23 was approved by the American National Standards Institute on December 30, 1997. It provides guidance for the following topics: (1) Management and technical staff responsibilities; (2) Evaluation of a potential criticality accident; (3) Emergency plan provisions; (4) Evacuation; (5) Re-entry, rescue and stabilization; and (6) Classroom training, exercises and evacuation drills. This guidance is not for generic emergency planning issues, but is specific to nuclear criticality accidents. For example, it assumes that an Emergency Plan is already established at facilities that implement the standard. During the development of the initial edition of ANSI/ANS-8.23, each Working Group member evaluated potential use of the standard at a facility with which the member was familiar. This revealed areas where a facility could have difficulty complying with the standard. These reviews helped identify and eliminate many potential problems and ambiguities with the guidance. The Working Group has received very limited feedback from the user community since the first edition of the standard was published. Suggestions for improvements to increase the usefulness of this standard are being solicited. The Working Group currently has ten members and is drafting a revision of ANSI/ANS-8.23. The focus of this effort is to include additional technical guidance on the following topics: (1) Recommendations for radiation monitoring instruments that may be used during an emergency response to a criticality accident; (2) Recommended resources for a criticality safety specialist during an emergency response to a criticality accident; (3) An example showing how to construct an emergency exercise for a fissile material processing facility. This includes: (a) Estimating the fission source term based on a credible accident scenario; (b) Estimating doses to nearby personnel; (c) Estimating doses to rescuers; (d) A discussion of evacuation and rescue considerations; (e) A review of dosimetry and medical response issues; and (f) Recommendations for the conduct of drills and exercises. This additional guidance will be contained in appendices to the revised standard. In addition, the revised standard will include a reference to an extensive bibliography of resources for emergency planning. The first revision of ANSI/ANS-8.23 should be provided to ANS-8 for ballot by the fall of 2004.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle