WAKE UP PEOPLE–First dummy fuel assembly removed from reactor

Published: May 26, 2012 00:00 IST

First dummy fuel assembly removed from reactor

Staff Reporter, The Hindu

The first of the 163 dummy fuel assemblies in the first reactor of Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project (KKNPP) for the ‘hot run’ was removed on Friday evening following extensive inspections done on the internal components of the Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV).

Though the RPV was opened last Monday, after the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) allowed the KKNPP to do so based on the data submitted by it, the dummy fuel assemblies were not removed immediately. Instead, scientists of Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL), its Russian technical partner Atomstroyexports and experts from Croatia and Germany inspected the health of the internal components of the RPV for a few days.

“Since all internal components are functioning really well after the ‘hot run’ and are found to be in extremely good condition, we started removing the dummy fuel assemblies. The first assembly was removed around 4.30 p.m. on Friday,” Site Director, KKNPP, R.S. Sundar told The Hindu over the phone.

The removal of dummy fuel assemblies is expected to last the next five to six days. Once it is completed, mandatory inspection by the Croatian and the German experts will continue using non-destructive techniques to collect some more data.

All the data collected during this phase will be submitted to the AERB again so that the reactor will be ready for enriched uranium fuel loading.

Even as the AERB is scrutinising the post hot-run data, the KKNPP will clean the reactor and keep it ready for fuel loading. Once it gets the green signal from the AERB, the fuel loading will be taken up, Mr. Sundar said.

Related articles

• Croatian experts to inspect KKNPP next week (thehindu.com)
• Kudankulam reactor just a step away from attaining criticality (thehindu.com)

Green Tribunal rejects plea against Jaitapur Nuclear project

May 25, 2012 03:43 PM

The Tribunal dismissed the plea of Janahit Seva Samiti saying the petition was filed after a delay of 294 days

New Delhi: The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has refused to entertain a petition challenging the environment clearance (EC) granted to 9,900MW Jaitapur Nuclear Power Park in Maharashtra‘s Ratnagiri district in West India on the ground that the plea was time barred, reports PTI.

The Tribunal dismissed the plea of Janahit Seva Samiti, an NGO,challenging the 26 November 2010 EC granted by Indian Ministry of
Environment and Forest (MoEF) to the project, saying the petition wasfiled after a delay of 294 days on 17 September 2011 and hence was”grossly barred by time”.

As per the NGT Act, a plea can be filed within 30 days of passing of an order sought to be challenged and the Tribunal, to its
satisfaction, can condone a further delay of 60 days.

“As stated earlier, this Tribunal being a statutory authority is bound by the provisions of the statute and cannot traverse beyond provisions of the NGT Act. Under Section-16 (relating to appellate jurisdiction of NGT) there is clear bar not to entertain appeal filed beyond 60 days,” a bench headed by Tribunal’s Acting Chairperson Justice AS Naidu said.

“Though this Tribunal is liberal in condoning the delay, as and when it finds sufficient reasons and is not super-technical, but then being
a statutory tribunal it cannot ignore the period stipulated in the statute.

“In view of the discussions made above, we are not inclined to condone the delay and dismiss this petition.

Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed,” it added.

The plea was filed by Maharashtra-based NGO Janahit Seva Samiti contending that “project is likely to cause hazard to the environment
as well as ecology”.

The NGO had pleaded that the NGT Act came into force from 18 October 2010, but the Tribunal started functioning only from June 2011, and it (NGO) took all “effective and diligent steps to file the appeal as early as possible”.

The plea was “strongly opposed” by MoEF, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd and Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, contending that delay could not be condoned as they have “substantially gone ahead with the project”, incurred huge expenses and “any hindrance at this stage would cause great prejudice”.

The bench noted that as the Tribunal started functioning only from June 2011, the Supreme Court had in a judgement extended the period for filing an appeal by 60 days commencing from 30 May 2011 and “thus the last date for filing an appeal was extended till 30 July 2011”.

“The appellant (NGO) failed to avail the opportunity granted by the Supreme Court and did not file the appeal within extended period too.

“The appeal was filed only in the month of September 2011. Thus, the same is grossly barred by time,” the bench said.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE- 250,000 URLS takeN down by Google EVERY WEEK #Censorship

Image via CrunchBase

Image via CrunchBase

CONTACT

Fight for the Future

Tiffiniy Cheng

Holmes Wilson

press@fightforthefuture.org

            (614) 465-6371      

            (508) 474-5248      

May 24, 2012

Internet Freedom Group Fight for the Future Responds to Google’s Transparency Report

Google’s latest transparency report reveals that copyright holders are taking down over 250,000 URL‘s*, more than the total for all of 2009.

Even more troubling, these numbers include cases where companies abused copyright to silence legitimate speech: criticism of their products, for example.

In 2011, Greenpeace uploaded a video to YouTubecriticizing Nestle for its unfriendly environmental practices. Nestle lobbied to have the video removed on grounds of copyright infringement.

” rel=”nofollow” target=”_blank”>http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-20000805-36.html%5D

“Copyright law is insanely out of date– it’s even illegal for kids to lip sync pop songs on Youtube.” said Fight for the Future’s Holmes Wilson, “Worse, we know there are many cases where companies have abused copyright law to silence legitimate criticism and political speech.”

“Beastie Boy Adam Yauch (MCA) got sued days after his death for a sample he used decades ago,” said Wilson,  “Today’s young artists are more likely to live in fear of copyright law than think they will benefit from it– and these are the people copyright was intended to support.”

Examples of copyright holders overstepping their ownership online include cases like Brian Kamer, whose video was taken from YouTube, shown on The Jay Leno Show without his permission, and subsequently removed from YouTube with a copyright claim from Jay Leno’s parent company NBC Universal.

Kamer’s open letter to Jay Leno is currently going viral:

Dear Jay Leno,

First off, my intention is not to fight you on this. You have more cars than I have dollars, and so I know I don’t stand a chance legally, and on top of that, I don’t really understand how legal stuff works. But the truth is you kind of fucked up my shit and I need to talk to you about it.

In 2007 my good friend Travis Irvine was running for mayor of his home town, Bexley, Ohio. He asked for help making him a funny campaign commercial. So together, me and my pal Travis composed, performed and recorded an original campaign jingle onto my four track (we did, not you). Then, I directed and shot a silly music video for that song featuring Travis strolling about his town, looking patriotic, friendly and mayoral. Remember that video?

I think you might, because in 2009 Travis called me about it. He was in a frenzy and needed to know if I’d seen your show that night, which of course I had not. You see, Travis had received a call from a high school friend who claimed to have seen Travis on The Jay Leno Show. So the next day, we both watched your show on the internet, and sure enough our video was in a piece at the end. I remember it was at the end because I had to watch the whole show to find it and boy that is a long show, it felt like I was watching forever. How long was your show, like three hours? During the bit you played five stupid local campaign commercials and one of those commercials was the video I was telling you about earlier. After you played our video on national television, you said something like, “I love that song!” as the audience cheered in approval. So thank you for that. It was nice of you.

Anyway, it was a good laugh for Travis and I, but we forgot all about it a few weeks later. End of story, right? Apparently not, Mr. Leno.

I’ll have you know that I was searching for our said video on YouTube, and it turns out that the video has been blocked. Blocked by you! Isn’t that fucked up?

Your company NBC just up and blocked our video and claimed that we are copyright infringers! But we are not! We made it! And this is the video that you said you loved! Now, if you try to watch our video (and again this is the video that had nothing to do with you until you used it in your show without asking) on YouTube it’s just a big black sign that basically says, “the makers of this video stole this video from NBC, so you can’t watch it!” Jay, what in the hell is going on here?

Read more here