Document 1
Ref. Ares(2011)1374235 - 19/12/2011
Article 4(1)(b)
SPNR/CLEAR/11 12 Oxx Rev. 00
Document record
Rev.
Date
N. of pages
Comments
Status l1J
Access. <2
l
00
First Issue
Final
B
Note:
(1) Either Draft or Final
(2) The accessibility of the report is defined according to the following definitions:
A Open literature: Accessible without restriction
B. Restricted: Accessible to people involved in the concerned contract activities (further distribution under the responsibility of the
official recipients)
C. Confidential: The distribution is limited to a recipient list. Each copy is marked and identified on the distribution list. No further
distribution is authorized.
Document Distribution List
a) Designated Recipients
Name
Affiliation
N. of copies
Beneficiary
EC/TREN.H.1
by email
EC/TREN.H. l
by email
EC/TREN.H. l
by email
EC/TREN.H. l
by email
EC/TREN .H. I
by email
Article 4(1)(b)
b) Copies
Name
Affiliation
N. of copies
EC/JRC-IET
1
EC/JRC-IET
1
EC/JRC-IET
1
EC/JRC-IET
1
EC/JRC
1
EC/JRC-IET
1
Page 2 of 7
SPNR/CLEAR/11 12 0xx Rev. 00
Table of Content
Table of Content ........................................................................................................................ 3
Background ............................................................................................................................... 4
1 General issues .................................................................................................................... 4
2 Site specific issues ............................................................................................................. 4
3 Radiological protection and radiological consequences ...................................................... 4
4 Emergency planning and preparedness .............................................................................. 5
5 Design specific issues ........................................................................................................ 6
5.1
Aircraft crashes ............................................................................................................ 6
5.2
Post-Fukushima issues ................................................................................................ 6
6 Availability of qualified and experienced staff ...................................................................... 7
7 Regulatory context .............................................................................................................. 7
8 References ......................................................................................................................... 7
Page 3 of 7
SPNR/CLEAR/11 12 0xx Rev. 00
Background
The present report gives a preliminary list of questions on the basis of the Environmental Impact
Assessment [l] for a new Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) in Belarus.
This document aims at supporting the assessment coordinated by DG ENER.
1 General issues
QI: The Espoo convention (Article 2, General provisions, clause No 3) states:
"The Party of
origin shall ensure that in accordance with the provisions of this Convention an
environmental impact assessment is undertaken prior to a decision to authorize or
undertake a proposed activity listed in Appendix I that is likely to cause a significant
adverse transboundary impact." This requirement of Espoo convention does not seem to
be met, because procedure of discussions on EIA at the moment (2011 12 01) is not
finished (many comments raised by countries of the region are not yet answered), however,
the President of the Republic of Belarus signed a Decree No. 2418 from 15.09.2011 on the
location and design Nuclear Power Plant in Belarus.
2 Site specific issues
Q2: Could you please clarify what were the main significant factors and acceptance criteria
considered that eventually lead to selection of Ostrovec site for NPP construction,
compared to the other sites mentioned?
Art.4(1)(a) first indent
3 Radiological protection and radiological consequences
Q4: Would you please clarify whether the radiological criteria used in the national standards
NRB 2000 and OSP 2002 are consistent with the International Commission on
Radiological Protection (ICRP) standard currently in force?
Q5: Selection of a set of initial data for the assessment of the potential migration of
radionuclides' to the territory of countries concerned does not seem adequately
Page 4 of 7
Document Outline