time at power
| 21:42 Jul 2, 2016 |
|
| English language (monolingual) [PRO] Tech/Engineering - Nuclear Eng/Sci | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Summary of reference entries provided | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Comments only |
|
| Discussion entries: 4 | |
|---|---|
Reference comments
3 hrs peer agreement (net): +5 |
| Reference: Comments only Reference information: Page 136 http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/AdditionalVolu... (your text) Later calculations used more detailed information about the **time at power** and the cooling times, and the number of fresh fuel assemblies loaded into the core in each refuelling cycle, as well as the MOX fuel composition, which were published in a 2012 JAEA report (in Japanese) [82]. [....] Footnote that directly relates to your text: "82 Each pair of units shared a common control room, i.e. Units 1 and 2, Units 3 and 4, and Units 5 and 6." Additional reading material. http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pro... In March 2011 units 1-4 of the Fukushima Daiichi plant (2719 MWe net) were seriously damaged in a major accident, and are written off to be decommissioned. Units 5&6 were basically undamaged, but are written off from January 2014 to appease public opinion. Tepco established an internal entity, the Fukushima Daiichi Decontamination & Decommissioning Engineering Company, to focus on measures for decommissioning units 1-6 and dealing with contaminated water. The company commenced operations in April 2014. Masoud, this may be an updated report which you may not have seen and may provide additional background information concerning your text. http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-... Fukushima Accident (Updated June 2016) Following a major earthquake, a 15-metre tsunami disabled the power supply and cooling of three Fukushima Daiichi reactors, causing a nuclear accident on 11 March 2011. All three cores largely melted in the first three days. The accident was rated 7 on the INES scale, due to high radioactive releases over days 4 to 6, eventually a total of some 940 PBq (I-131 eq). Four reactors were written off due to damage in the accident – 2719 MWe net. After two weeks, the three reactors (units 1-3) were stable with water addition and by July they were being cooled with recycled water from the new treatment plant. Official 'cold shutdown condition' was announced in mid-December. Apart from cooling, the basic ongoing task was to prevent release of radioactive materials, particularly in contaminated water leaked from the three units. This task became newsworthy in August 2013. There have been no deaths or cases of radiation sickness from the nuclear accident, but over 100,000 people were evacuated from their homes to ensure this. Government nervousness delays the return of many. Official figures show that there have been well over 1000 deaths from maintaining the evacuation, in contrast to little risk from radiation if early return had been allowed. Eleven reactors at four nuclear power plants in the region were operating at the time and all shut down automatically when the quake hit. Subsequent inspection showed no significant damage to any from the earthquake. The operating units which shut down were Tokyo Electric Power Company's (Tepco) Fukushima Daiichi 1, 2, 3, and Fukushima Daini 1, 2, 3, 4, Tohoku's Onagawa 1, 2, 3, and Japco's Tokai, total 9377 MWe net. Fukushima Daiichi units 4, 5 & 6 were not operating at the time, but were affected. The main problem initially centred on Fukushima Daiichi units 1-3. Unit 4 became a problem on day five. Read more ... "Events at Fukushima Daiichi 1-3 and 4" and "Inside the Fukushima Daiichi reactors" (picture here); there is a table here "Event sequence following earthquake (timing it from 14.46, 11 March), and may refer to the part about "time at power" (which Tony addressed). http://www.world-nuclear.org/focus/fukushima.aspx Comments/an observation regarding your comment: Masoud, IMO, the report is written by the IAEA technocrats with technical jargon, and I hardly think that you should question the accuracy [or better said, inaccuracies] of the report (which is highly probable --- as many of the technocrats who draft these reports are often not concerned about grammar, syntax, etc. Many of those writing the reports are in fact non-native English speakers). I say this based on my own personal experience (which was a very funny story during my many years with the UN), and I had the audacity and nerve (a lowly senior administrative assistant) to question the Head of the IMO, who was attending a technical meeting in Jamaica, concerning a technical report he had written which made no sense whatsoever. When I went to him for clarification and I asked him what he meant, after my interjecting that the report was b***s**t, he laughed, and said, "you're right, it does not make any sense whatsover". So, the moral of the story is as a translator, your job is to try to interpret as best as you can, but don't read too much into minor errors like "However...", etc. etc. (which could be just minor typos, and a document which was not proofed properly). Believe me, it happens all the time and I saw many instances of poorly redacted reports. If you are that concerned, contact your client and advise them that sections are poorly phrased which makes your understanding of the text difficult, and by extension, difficult, if not impossible, to translate properly. |
| |
