我国商用厨房火灾危险分析及对策研究

烹饪操作特点及食用油燃烧特性决定了商用厨房火灾呈现的特定危害规律,因此必须采用专门规范和技术加以防治。针对我国商用厨房消防安全现状,分析其火灾危险特点,探讨商用厨房消防监管的不足,在研究商用厨房灭火技术发展的基础上,提出加强商用厨房消防安全和健全商用厨房法规体系的对策及建议,建议从主动灭火和被动防火两方面,完善现有的灭火系统和厨具设备消防安全规范,加强商用厨房本质型消防安全,为通风系统和排油烟系统等火灾高发区域的消防安全提供了新手段。     

强“波特假说”存在产业异质性吗?——基于产业碳密集程度细分的视角

强"波特假说"认为严格而恰当的环境规制政策将使企业的生产效率呈现先降后升的趋势,为验证强"波特假说"及其产业异质性,首先建立产业碳密集指数,将工业部门36个细分行业划分为高碳密集产业、中碳密集产业和低碳密集产业;接着运用方向性距离函数测算2003—2014年细分行业的绿色全要素生产率,基于系统"GMM"估计方法验证三个细分行业的环境规制强度对绿色全要素生产率的影响。研究结果显示:第一,样本期间内,高碳密集产业的环境规制强度远远高于中低碳密集产业,这表明高碳密集产业一直是产业节能减排的重点对象,而碳排放情况较为严重的中碳密集产业则为"被遗忘的角落";第二,强"波特假说"在工业部门内存在产业异质性,高碳密集产业和中碳密集产业的环境规制强度与绿色全要素生产率呈"U"型关系,而在低碳密集产业中两者则呈倒"U"型关系;第三,相对于高碳密集产业,中碳密集产业因环境规制强度较容易跨越"U"型拐点而具有较大的减排空间,低碳密集产业在达到"U"型拐点之前,环境规制为其绿色全要素生产率提升的动力。本文研究结论蕴含如下的政策建议:根据产业的碳密集程度实施针对性的环境规制政策,持续加强中碳密集产业的环境规制力度,适度加强低碳密集产业的环境规制强度,高碳密集产业需根据不同阶段的经济水平设计具有针对性的环境规制政策,逐渐将三类产业的"遵循成本"效应转化为"创新补偿"效应,实现经济增长和环境保护的双赢。     

天堂河河道治理工程水质改善预测分析

河道治理工程重在改善河道的水质,以恢复河流生态系统。本文以北京市大兴区天堂河河道治理工程为例,介绍了河道治理工程环境影响评价中的水质改善预测分析,首先分析生态需水量和供氧量是否满足河流生态需水要求,后又利用地面水环评助手软件预测了河流水质,预测分析了天堂河水质目标的可达性,旨在为以后的河道治理类工程环境影响评价提供参考。     

基于伤害监测的产品安全监管模式研究

鉴于缺陷产品给消费者造成的人身伤害日渐增多,通过分析产品伤害流行病学的模型,提出采用不同的干预措施,包括预警、召回、完善标准和法律等手段,及时消除由缺陷产品引起的各种伤害,而这有赖于对大量的缺陷信息的收集和分析。国外一些发达国家建立的产品伤害监测系统,通过样本医院收集由产品缺陷导致的伤害事故,被证明是一种有效的信息收集手段。为此,我国有关部门开始着手建立产品伤害监测系统的前期研究工作,并进行试点研究,取得大量一手资料。建议借鉴国外的成功经验,尽快建立适合我国国情的产品伤害监测系统,并开展有关重点产品的伤害监测活动。     

外力作用下管道内表面缺陷处裂纹扩展研究

为提高油气管道安全风险评估的准确性,以含内表面缺陷管道为研究对象,利用ABAQUS软件线弹性及弹塑性分析不同尺寸缺陷对裂纹萌生特征的影响;采用扩展有限元法,建立管道3点弯曲模型与全尺寸静载物理试验,并非线性拟合裂纹扩展尺寸,研究内表面缺陷处裂纹扩展情况.研究结果表明:内表面缺陷中心处极易萌生裂纹,随着缺陷尺寸的增大,裂...     

克拉玛依市核技术应用单位安全监管中应注意的几个问题

克拉玛依市的核技术应用逐渐增多,带给人们在工作、生活等方面快捷和高效的同时,随之也带来了潜在的辐射安全隐患,辐射风险由此增加。本文探讨了在辐射环境管理中监管执法面临的实际问题和解决问题的思路。强调了监管的重要性。     

ECONOMIC POLICIES FOR REGULATING AGRICULTURAL DRAINAGE WATER1

ABSTRACT: Agricultural drainage water is a major source of environmental pollution in many areas. This paper reviews the literature on the economics of nonpoint-source pollution and applies it to the regulation of agricultural drainage water. Four types of regulatory policies are considered. The empirical analysis is carried out for cotton production in the San Joaquin Valley of California. Variable inputs are the quantity of water applied and the type of irrigation system. All four policies can achieve economic efficiency under the conditions assumed here, but the policies differ in terms of the distributional impacts and administrative requirements.     

THE REGULATED RIPARIAN VERSION OF THE ASCE MODEL WATER CODE: THE THIRD WAY TO ALLOCATE WATER1

ABSTRACT: Lawyers, engineers, and hydrologists are accustomed to thinking of water law as falling into one of two incompatible models: riparian rights (under which water is allocated by courts according to the relative reasonableness of the competing uses) and appropriative rights (under which water is allocated according to the temporal priority of the competing uses, largely by the action of the water users themselves but perfected by the issuance of an administrative permit). Usually unnoticed is the existence of a third approach, which I have dubbed “regulated riparianism.” Under regulated riparianism, water is allocated by water permits issued after an administrative determination of the reasonableness of the proposed use before the use is commenced. This system, now in place in about half of the states east of Kansas City (plus Hawaii), thus is fundamentally different from either the traditional ripanan rights that it replaces or the appropriative rights found in western states.     

Regulatory context for cumulative impact research

Wetlands protection has become a topic of increased public attention and support, and regulation of wetlands loss under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act has received high priority within the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Despite this, the nation is continuing to experience serious wetlands losses. This situation reflects the contentious nature of wetlands protection; it involves fundamental conflicts between environmental and development interests. Better information is needed to support regulatory decision making, including information on cumulative impacts. Currently, consideration of cumulative impacts, although required by various federal regulations, is limited. One reason is that most regulatory decisions are made on a permit-specific, site-specific basis, whereas cumulative impacts must be assessed on a broader, regional scale. In addition, scientific information and methods necessary to support cumulative impact assessment have been lacking. An anticipatory, planning-oriented framework to complement the existing site-specific permit review program is needed to support more effective consideration of cumulative impacts; such an effort is beginning to emerge. In addition, EPA is supporting research to provide better information on cumulative effects. It is recommended that the EPA program place initial emphasis on synthesis and analysis of existing information, on maximizing its use in decision making, and on information transfer. Recommended approaches include correlation of historic wetlands losses with loss of wetlands function and values, regional case studies, and development of indices of cumulative impact for use in permit review.Formerly Director, Office of Federal Activities, US Environmental Protection Agency