DOCSLIB.ORG

National Report of Hungary on the Targeted Safety Re-Assessment of Paks Nuclear Power Plant

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
National Report of Hungary on the Targeted Safety Re-Assessment of Paks Nuclear Power Plant National Report of Hungary on the Targeted Safety Re-assessment of Paks Nuclear Power Plant Compiled for the European Commission by the Hungarian Atomic Energy Authority Hungarian Atomic Energy Authority Budapest, December 29, 2011 Name, assignment Signature Date Editor: Dr. Ferenc Adorján HAEA Chief Advisor Verified by: Gyula Fichtinger DDG of HAEA Approved by: Dr. József Rónaky DG of HAEA 1 2 Contents 0. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF THE ASSESSMENT ............................... 6 0.1. Initiative ....................................................................................................................................................... 6 0.2. Structure of the report .................................................................................................................................. 7 0.3. Role of the authority in the review ............................................................................................................... 7 0.4. Legal and regulatory requirements ............................................................................................................... 8 1. GENERAL DATA ABOUT THE SITE AND NUCLEAR POWER PLANT .................................... 9 1.1. Brief description of the site characteristics ................................................................................................... 9 1.1.1. Main characteristics of the units ................................................................................................................... 10 1.1.2. Description of the systems for conduction of main safety functions ............................................................ 12 1.2. Significant differences between units ..........................................................................................................25 1.2.1. Differences between the Emergency diesel generators ................................................................................ 25 1.2.2. Status of severe accident management modifications ................................................................................. 26 1.2.3. Location of demineralised water storage tanks of Installation II .................................................................. 26 1.2.4. Recovery of essential service water system after emptying ......................................................................... 27 1.2.5. Delivery of fire water into essential service water system ............................................................................ 27 1.3. Use of PSA as part of the safety assessment ................................................................................................27 1.3.1. Scope of probabilistic safety assessments ..................................................................................................... 27 1.3.2. Results of the re-assessment ......................................................................................................................... 27 2. EARTHQUAKES ................................................................................................................................. 33 2.1. Design basis .................................................................................................................................................33 2.1.1. Earthquake against which the plant is designed ........................................................................................... 33 2.1.2. Provisions to protect the plants against the design basis earthquake .......................................................... 37 2.1.3. Compliance of the plant with its current licensing basis ............................................................................... 42 2.2. Evaluation of safety margins ........................................................................................................................43 2.2.1. Range of earthquakes leading to severe fuel damage .................................................................................. 43 2.2.2. Range of earthquakes leading to loss of containment integrity .................................................................... 48 2.2.3. Earthquake exceeding the design basis earthquake for the plant and consequent flooding exceeding design basis flood ......................................................................................................................................................... 50 2.2.4. Measures which can be envisaged to increase robustness of the plants against earthquakes .................... 50 3. FLOODING .......................................................................................................................................... 52 3.1. Design basis .................................................................................................................................................52 3.1.1. Flooding against which the plant is designed ................................................................................................ 52 3.1.2. Provisions to protect the plants against the design basis flood .................................................................... 54 3.1.3. Plant compliance with its current licensing basis .......................................................................................... 54 3.2. Evaluation of safety margins ........................................................................................................................54 3.2.1. Estimation of safety margin against flooding ................................................................................................ 54 3 3.2.2. Measures which can be envisaged to increase robustness of the plants against flooding ........................... 55 4. EXTREME WEATHER CONDITIONS ........................................................................................... 56 4.1. Design basis .................................................................................................................................................56 4.1.1. Re-assessment of weather conditions used as design basis ......................................................................... 57 4.2. Evaluation of safety margins ........................................................................................................................58 4.2.1. Estimation of safety margin against extreme weather conditions ................................................................ 58 4.2.2. Measures which can be envisaged to increase robustness of the plants against extreme weather conditions .................................................................................................................................................................... 61 5. LOSS OF ELECTRICAL POWER AND LOSS OF ULTIMATE HEAT SINK ............................. 62 5.1. Loss of electric power ..................................................................................................................................62 5.1.1. Loss of off-site power .................................................................................................................................... 62 5.1.2. Loss of off-site power and loss of the ordinary back-up AC power source ................................................... 64 5.1.3. Loss of off-site power and loss of the ordinary back-up AC power sources, and loss of permanently installed diverse back-up AC power sources ............................................................................................................... 65 5.1.4. Conclusion on the adequacy of protection against loss of electrical power ................................................. 66 5.1.5. Measures which can be envisaged to increase robustness of the plants in case of loss of electrical power 68 5.2. Loss of decay heat removal capability/ultimate heat sink ............................................................................68 5.2.1. Design provisions to prevent the loss of the primary ultimate heat sink ...................................................... 69 5.2.2. Loss of primary ultimate heat sink ................................................................................................................ 71 5.2.3. Loss of primary ultimate heat sink and alternative heat sink ........................................................................ 74 5.2.4. Conclusions on the adequacy of the protection against the loss of the ultimate heat sink .......................... 80 5.2.5. Measures which can be envisaged to increase robustness of the plants in case of loss of ultimate heat sink ........................................................................................................................................................ 82 5.3. Loss of the primary ultimate heat sink, combined with station blackout .....................................................84 5.3.1. Time of autonomy of the site before loss of normal cooling condition of the reactor core and spent fuel pool ............................................................................................................................................................. 84 5.3.2. External actions foreseen to prevent fuel degradation ................................................................................. 84 5.3.3. Measures, which can be envisaged to increase robustness of the plant in case of loss of primary ultimate heat sink, combined with station blackout .................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • PAKS II PROJECT to BOOST ECONOMIC GROWTH.Pdf
    PAKS II PROJECT TO BOOST ECONOMIC GROWTH The construction of two new units for the Paks Nuclear Power Plant is the project of the century. The project may create a significant number of jobs at a number of manufacturing and service companies, as well as in education through the required training of fresh professional graduates, thereby providing a livelihood for several tens of thousands of people. The identification of potential domestic suppliers and subcontractors has begun. Nearly 400 companies have come forward so far in order to contribute to the up to 40% proportion of domestic suppliers. More than three-quarters of the population support the already operational nuclear power plant, and the managers of the identified domestic companies unanimously support the establishment of the new units. Operating with the support of more than three-quarters of the population, the Paks Nuclear Power Plant is the most marketable electricity generator in Hungary today, accounts for more than half the electricity generated in Hungary, and helps keep the price of electricity at an affordable level. At the Paks Nuclear Power Plant, the quantity of electricity generated since its connection to the grid has recently reached 400 TWh, which corresponds to the electricity used by the whole Hungarian population over a period of 35 years. The electricity generated at the nuclear power plant is by far the cheapest in Hungary, and this will remain so with the units to be newly constructed. ‘In connection with the establishment of the new units, the Russian party has undertaken to guarantee local content of up to 40%,’ said Mrs Lászlóné Németh, Minister for National Development.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Fejezet TELEPHELY BIZTONSÁGI JELENTÉS Verziószám: 2
    II. kötet - 1. fejezet TELEPHELY BIZTONSÁGI JELENTÉS Verziószám: 2 MVM Paks II. Zrt. TELEPHELY BIZTONSÁGI JELENTÉS II. KÖTET 1. FEJEZET FÖLDRAJZI FEKVÉS, A LAKOSSÁG SZÁMA ÉS ELOSZLÁSA 2016.10.18. II. kötet - 1. fejezet TELEPHELY BIZTONSÁGI JELENTÉS Verziószám: 2 TARTALOMJEGYZÉK 1. Földrajzi fekvés, a lakosság száma és eloszlása ..................................................................... 7 1.1. A telephely elhelyezkedése, koordinátái, határai ........................................................... 8 1.1.1. A paksi telephely ismertetése ................................................................................. 8 1.1.2. Az új blokkok tervezett telephelyének lehatárolása.............................................. 11 1.1.3. A megkutatott terület lehatárolása ........................................................................ 13 1.2. A telephely leírása ........................................................................................................ 17 1.2.1. Földrajz, geomorfológia ........................................................................................ 17 1.2.2. A tágabb környezet jogszabályi védelmet élvező objektumai, különleges jellemzői ....................................................................................................................... 23 1.2.2.1. Országos jelentőségű védett természeti területek ......................................... 23 1.2.2.2. Helyi védettségű természeti területek ........................................................... 26 1.2.2.3. Natura 2000
    [Show full text]
  • 01-00C Welcome to Hungary – Paks
    12th FPGA workshop | Monday, 14 October 2019 Welcome to Hungary Gyula Mate Mach, Project supervisor Welcome to Hungary | Gyula Máté Mach The country The country 3 Monday, 14 October 2019 About the country • Hungary, in Hungarian: Magyarország [ˈmɒɟɒrorsaːɡ] is a country in Central Europe • Spanning 93,030 square kilometers (35,920 sq mi) in the Carpathian Basin • Hungary's population was 9,937,628 was in 2011 • 13 million speakers of Hungarian • Hungarian is one of 5 Most Difficult Languages in the World to Learn (Japanese, Mandarin, Hungarian, Finnish, Arabic, Polish) • Hungary's capital and largest city is Budapest 4 Monday, 14 October 2019 The origin of the country • Hungary was established in 895 by the tribes • In 1001 applying to Pope Sylvester II, Stephen received the insignia of royalty (including a part of the Holy Crown of Hungary, currently kept in the Hungarian Parliament) from the papacy 5 Monday, 14 October 2019 Memberships • United Nations since 1955 • IAEA since 1957 • World Bank since 1982 • Council of Europe since 1990 • Visegrád Group since 1991 • WTO since 1995 • NATO since 1999 • EU since 2004 • Schengen Area since 2007 6 Monday, 14 October 2019 Welcome to Hungary | Gyula Máté Mach Hungarian Nobel prize owners Nobels (13) • Philipp E. A. von Lenard (1862-1947) 1905 Physics • Robert Bárány (1876-1936) 1914 Medicine • Richard A. Zsigmondy (1865-1929) 1925 Chemistry • Albert von Szent-Györgyi (1893-1986) 1937 Medicine • George de Hevesy (1885-1966) 1943 Chemistry • Georg von Békésy (1899-1972) 1961 Medicine • Eugene P. Wigner (1902-1995) 1963 Physics • Dennis Gabor (1900-1979) 1971 Physics • John C.
    [Show full text]
  • Verifications Under the Terms of Article 35 of the Euratom Treaty
    EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR ENERGY AND TRANSPORT DIRECTORATE H - Nuclear Energy Radiation Protection TECHNICAL REPORT VERIFICATIONS UNDER THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 35 OF THE EURATOM TREATY PAKS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT HUNGARY 8 to 12 November 2004 Reference: HU-04/4 Art.35 Technical Report - HU-04/4 VERIFICATIONS UNDER THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 35 OF THE EURATOM TREATY FACILITIES: Installations for monitoring and controlling radioactive discharges and for surveillance of the environment in Hungary during normal operations of the Paks nuclear power plant site. SITE: Paks, (Hungary). DATE: 8 to 12 November 2004. REFERENCE: HU-04/4. INSPECTORS: Mr C. Gitzinger (Head of team) Mr S. Van der Stricht Mr E. Henrich (national expert on secondment – Austria) Mr Y-H. Bouget (national expert on secondment – France) Ms A. Godeanu Metz (trainee) Mr J. Jehee (trainee) DATE OF REPORT: 8 September 2005. SIGNATURES: [signed] [signed] C. Gitzinger S. Van der Stricht [signed] [signed] E. Henrich Y-H. Bouget [signed] [signed pp] A. Godeanu Metz J. Jehee (absent) Page 2 of 77 Art.35 Technical Report - HU-04/4 TABLE OF CONTENT 1. ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 6 2. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... 8 3. PREPARATION AND CONDUCT OF THE VERIFICATION............................................. 8 3.1. Preamble ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Falansztertől a Szerethető Otthonig Milyen Az Élet a Fehérvári Lakótelepeken?
    Fehérvár Háromszázmillió Juhász Illésé Ahonnan érdemes a legvirágosabb város! a kórháznak a Pro Theatro díj körbenézni! FEHÉRVÁR Közéleti hetilap 2019.10.10. A falansztertőlA HETILAP a szerethető otthonig Fotó: Kiss László 2 FEHÉRVÁR KÖZÉLET 2019.10.10. A HETILAP Fehérvár a legvirágosabb város! BÁCSKAI GERGELY „Megtisztelő számomra, hogy vá- rosunk képviseletében átvehettem Idén immár huszonhatodik alkalommal, a Virágos Magyarország verseny megújult formában hirdették meg a Virágos fődíját! Ez az eredmény kiváló szak- Magyarország környezetszépítő versenyt. A embereink, zöldprojektjeink, egész Magyar Turisztikai Ügynökség által indított közösségünk törekvésének elisme- kezdeményezés évről évre egyre sikeresebb. A rése!” – mondta Cser-Palkovics városok között ezúttal Székesfehérvár nyerte el András, Székesfehérvár polgár- a fődíjat és képviselheti hazánkat a nemzetközi mestere, miután átvette az elisme- Entente Florale Europe versenyen. rést. – „Fődíjas városként a 2020-as Entente Florale európai virágosítási A verseny idei utolsó program- versenyen Székesfehérvár képviseli jaként múlt pénteken este a majd Magyarországot. De nemcsak Szépművészeti Múzeumban volt emiatt nem dőlhetünk hátra, hiszen az országos díjátadó. Több mint távlati célokban kell gondolkozzunk! háromszázharminc település közül A jövőben is elkötelezettnek kell ma- Székesfehérvár, Orfű és Budapest radnunk a klíma és környezetvédelem V. kerülete nyerte el az idén a Virá- területén!” gos Magyarország környezetszépítő A Magyar Önkormányzati Főker- verseny fődíját, közülük Székes- tész-egyesület díját, Az év főker- fehérvár és Orfű képviselik Magyar- tésze elismerést idén Spanyárné Fotók: Bácskai Gergely országot jövőre az Európai Virágos Halász Szilvia kapta, aki 1992 Városok és Falvak Versenyén, az óta Székesfehérvár főkertésze. A A városok között Székesfehérvár kapta a verseny fődíját Entente Florale Europe megméret- kertészmérnök és környezetvédel- tetésen. mi szakmérnök a Virágos Magyar- ország alapítása óta részt vesz a versenyeken a város.
    [Show full text]
  • And the Danube River (6) – 5 and 7 Shows Localities in the Vicinity (Downstream) of the Reopened Rock Fill
    E1184 v. 2 Reduction of Nutrient Discharges Project Public Disclosure Authorized DDNP Component GEF # TF 051 289 Environmental Status Report (Environmental Assessment) Social Impact Assessment (Public Consultation) Final Report Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized VITUKI, Environmental and Water Management Research Centre VTK Innosystem Ltd Public Disclosure Authorized List of acronyms CTI County Traffic Inspectorate DEIA Detailed Environmental Impact Assessment DDNP Duna Dráva National Park DTM Digital Terrain Model Environmental Protection, Nature Conservation and Water Management EPNCWMI Inspectorate EPWMD Environmental Protection and Water Management Directorate FAVI Environmental Register of Subsurface Waters and Geological Media PHA Public Health Authority PHSCS Plant Health and Soil Conservation Station RA Recommended Alternative KAR Basic Environmental Register KÁRINFO Damage Elimination Information System KBIR Information System of Environmental Safety KÖFE Environmental Inspectorate KÖVIZIG Environmental, Nature Protection and Water Management Directorate KSH Central Bureau of Statistics KvVM Ministry for the Environment and Water Management MAHAB Hungarian Hydrological Database NGO Non-Governmental Organization NPI National Park Directorate OKIR National Environmental Information System OKKP National Environmental Damage Elimination Programme OTAR Basic Data and Object Handling System PEIA Preliminarily Environmental Impact Assessment SATIR Hydrological Data Processing, Storage and Information System SFSRD
    [Show full text]
  • The Hungarian Urban Network at the End of the Second Millenium
    CENTRE FOR REGIONAL STUDIES OF HUNGARIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES DISCUSSION PAPERS No. 27 The Hungarian Urban Network at the End of the Second Millennium by Pál BELUSZKY Series editor Zoltán GÁL Pécs 1999 Publishing of this paper is supported by the Research Fund of the Centre for Regional Studies, Hungary ISSN 0238–2008 © 1999 by Centre for Regional Studies of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences Technical editor: Ilona Csapó, Zoltán Gál Typeset by Centre for Regional Studies of HAS Printed in Hungary by Sümegi Nyomdaipari, Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Ltd., Pécs CONTENTS 1 Introduction / 7 2 A brief introduction to urban development in Hungary / 9 2.1 Roman preliminaries / 9 2.2 Urban development in the medieval Hungary (10th–15th century) / 9 2.3 “Turning back” to the East / 13 2.4 The fragile frame of bourgeois development – the Hungarian urban network in 1850–1950 / 19 2.5 The Hungarian urban network between the two World Wars / 24 2.6 An ambiguous urban boom – the Hungarian towns in the “Socialist” era / 27 2.7 Conditions for urban development after 1990 / 32 3 The contemporary urban network of Hungary / 36 3.1 Towns, urbanisation level, proportion of the urban population / 36 3.2 The hierarchy of the Hungarian towns / 43 3.3 Hinterlands of the towns / 53 3.4 Functional types of the Hungarian towns / 56 4 Urban types in Hungary / 60 4.1 Budapest / 60 4.2 Regional centres / 66 4.3 County seats / 68 4.4 Middle towns, with central functions and with industry / 69 4.5 Small towns with central functions, (mostly) with industry dominant in size
    [Show full text]
  • Florisztikai Adatok Paks Környékéről -..:::: Kitaibelia
    35 KITAIBELIA XVIII. évf. 1-2. szám pp.: 35–72. Debrecen 2013 Florisztikai adatok Paks környékér ől Menyhárth László emlékének ajánlva 1 2 VOIGT Wilfried – S OMAY László (1) H-7030 Paks, Fenyves u. 1., [email protected] (2) MTA ÖBKI, 2163 Vácrátót, Alkotmány u. 2-4., [email protected] Bevezetés Jelen dolgozat Paks környéke flórájának pontosabb megismeréséhez kíván hozzájárulni. A terület tájföldrajzilag a Közép- és Dél-Mez őföld kistájakat érinti. A vizsgált terület (1. ábra) magába foglalja Paks körül a következ ő települések területét: Dunaszentgyörgy, Tengelic (érintett résztelepülések: Alsó-, Közép- és Fels ő-Tengelic), Bikács (érintett résztelepülés: Kistápé), Vajta (Fejér m.), Cece (Fejér m.) Németkér felé eső része, Németkér (incl. Hard belterületi részközség), Alsószentiván (Fejér m.) Németkér felé es ő része, Dunaföldvár, Bölcske, Madocsa. Itt következik Dunaköml őd, amelyet bár 1980-ban közigazgatásilag Pakshoz csatoltak, célszer űségb ől (történelmi összevethet őség) külön lel őhelyként szerepel. Minden saját dunaköml ődi adat tehát egyben paksi adatnak számít. Közigazgatásilag Pakshoz tartozó, további érintett részterületek: Csámpa, Hegyes-puszta, Cseresznyés, Gyapa. Nem könnyíti a lel őhelyek pontos behatárolását- megadását az a körülmény sem, hogy a két legkülönlegesebb domborzati alakzat, a Puputeve és a Puputeve- hát löszpiramisok esetében a Németkér-Dunaföldvár községhatár pont a hátukon húzódik, ráadásul e terület egy részét 1932-ben Pakstól Németkérhez csatolták (N ÉMETH 1976; lásd 2. ábra). Magyarország domborzati
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of the Regional Food and Drink Industries
    Analysis of the regional food and drink industries Partner organization/region: Tolna County Development Agency – Tolna county, Hungary Date: 2020. Introduction: Please describe the answers as well as possible. By reading into this topic you will get a lot of information, so you can get a good overview of your region. Through dialogue with local food industries, local facts and numbers can be collected. The information requested in this list will help you to get to know your region better. These questions are intended to help you. 1. General description of the current status of the food sector in your region Take a look at your region in terms of food industry: Which branch of the food sector is the biggest/most important in your region? Tolna county has favourable agricultural capabilities, therefore it is an excellent area for producing raw materials for its food industry. Thanks to the favourable soil conditions and the modern methods of cultivation, nowadays Tolna county has outstanding wheat- and corn production rates. Its system of corn production is well-known and recognized worldwide. For a long time, the agriculture-oriented region was only known for its cattle farming and wine production in the country. Because of the county’s environmental conditions, wine grape growing, the flourmill- and baking industry and the meat-, milk-, vegetable-, and fruit processing industries have long traditions. With its animal farming, the county plays an important role in providing raw materials for the meat-, milk-, and leather industry. Some
    [Show full text]
  • Republic of Hungary NATIONAL REPORT
    Republic of Hungary NATIONAL REPORT Document prepared in the frame of the Convention on Nuclear Safety fifth report, 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. DECLARATION........................................................................................................................................ 5 2. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................... 6 3. MAJOR CHANGES SINCE SUBMISSION OF THE PREVIOUS NATIONAL REPORT............................................... 9 A. GENERAL PROVISIONS.............................................................................................................................. 11 4. GENERAL PROVISIONS........................................................................................................................... 11 5. REPORTING .......................................................................................................................................... 11 6. EXISTING NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS ..................................................................................................... 12 6.1 Paks Nuclear Power Plant............................................................................................................... 12 6.2 Spent Fuel Interim Storage Facility................................................................................................. 15 6.3 Budapest Research Reactor and Training Reactor of the Budapest University of Technology and Economics.....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Expert Statement on the Environmental Impact Study on Npp Paks Ii
    Expert Opinion on Environmental Impact Assessment Report NPP PAKS II EXPERT STATEMENT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY ON NPP PAKS II ENCO Erstellt im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft Abteilung I/6 Allgemeine Koordination von Nuklearangelegenheiten GZ BMLFUW.1.1.2/0010-I/6/2015 REPORT REP-0533 Vienna 2015 Project management Franz Meister, Umweltbundesamt Prepared/Revised by O. Velicu, ENCO T. Szikszai, ENCO Reviewed by I. Svyetlov, ENCO Approved by B. Tomic, ENCO Layout and typesetting Elisabeth Riss, Umweltbundesamt Title photograph © iStockphoto.com/imagestock For further information about the publications of the Umweltbundesamt please go to: http://www.umweltbundesamt.at/ Imprint Owner and Editor: Umweltbundesamt GmbH Spittelauer Lände 5, 1090 Vienna/Austria This publications is only available on: http://www.umweltbundesamt.at/. © Umweltbundesamt GmbH, Vienna, 2015 All Rights reserved ISBN 978-3-99004-344-8 PAKS II Environmental Impact Study – Content CONTENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................... 5 ZUSAMMENFASSUNG ........................................................................... 10 VEZETŐI ÖSSZEFOGLALÓ ................................................................... 15 1 EVALUATION OF THE SELECTED NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................ 21 2 EVALUATION OF COMPLETENESS OF INFORMATION PRESENTED IN EIS ...............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • PÉCSI BÁNYAKAPITÁNYSÁG MVM Paks II. Atomerőmű Fejlesztő Zrt. 7030 PAKS Engedélyezi, Jóváhagyja
    PÉCSI BÁNYAKAPITÁNYSÁG Jogerőre emelkedett: 7623 PÉCS, JÓZSEF ATTILA U. 5. 7602 Postafiók 61 2014.május 29-én (06-72) 314-952, 510-366 Fax: 510-367 E-mail: [email protected] MVM Paks II. Atomerőmű Fejlesztő Zrt. Iktatószám: PBK/650-2/2014 7030 PAKS Ügyintéző: Gacsályi Márta Gagarin u. 1. 3. emelet 302/B : +36-72-314-952/220 : +36-20-662-5446 : [email protected] Tárgy: A Paks környéki rétegtani és tektonikai viszonyok megismerése céljából végzendő földtani szerkezetkutatási terv jóváhagyása H ATÁROZAT A Pécsi Bányakapitányság (továbbiakban Bányakapitányság) az MVM Paks II. Atomerőmű Fejlesztő Zrt. (székhely: 7030 Paks, Gagarin u. 1. 3. emelet 302/B) (továbbiakban Engedélyes) ré- szére a Paks környéki rétegtani és tektonikai viszonyok megismerésére irányuló földtani szerkezet- kutatást engedélyezi, a földtani szerkezetkutatási tervet az alábbi megállapításokkal és feltételekkel j ó v á h a g y j a : 1. A kutatást csak a jogerősségre és végrehajthatóságra vonatkozó záradékkal ellátott terv birto- kában lehet megkezdeni. A záradékolt tervdokumentációt a tárgyi határozat jogerőre emelkedé- sét követően küldi meg a Bányakapitányság az Engedélyes részére. 2. A Tolna megyében Dunaszentgyörgy, Gerjen, Madocsa, Paks, Pusztahencse, Tengelic és Fadd, Bács-Kiskun megyében Dunapataj, Dunaszentbenedek, Foktő, Géderlak, Kalocsa, Ordas és Uszód közigazgatási területét érintő kutatási terület határvonalának sarokponti koordinátái Egységes Országos Vetületi (EOV) rendszerben: Sarokpont EOV Y EOV X 1 630030.5 124357.1 2 636442.7 127194.5 3 648353.6 134666.0 PBK/650-2/2014 - 2 - 4 639853.0 148221.1 5 637297.3 146618.4 6 637105.5 143814.1 7 634628.9 139846.2 8 632833.1 142421.3 9 627006.6 138422.0 10 624094.6 133826.6 Területe: 293,96 km2.
    [Show full text]