of NRA's regulations ensuring the safety of NPPs. This dose is pertinent to the effect of all sources of releases at the site. The normalized annual radioactive releases are also indicative for the improved environmental impact parameters (for 1000 MW). While target criteria stipulated for the unit design was < 6.7 GBq/a for liquid releases, the design value for AES 92 is lower by one order - 0.11 GBq/a. Similarly, with target criteria below 33.3 TBq/a for the liquid releases, the design value for AES 92 is 2.9 TBq/a. Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) management and the Radioactive Waste (RAW) handling is an important aspect of the environmental impact assessment for the new plant. The fuel envisaged to be used for AES 92 allows for up to 50 years storage of spent fuel assemblies in a storage pool and then an additional 10 years of “dry” storage keeping. The general plan provides for SNF transportation to Russia for reprocessing. Plasma incineration of solid wastes is envisaged for high-level waste generated during plant operation, with separate processing of liquid wastes depending on radioactivity. The anticipated total amount of conditioned wastes that will require disposal is less than 50 m3 per year for one reactor unit. Controversy There is controversy over the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), which "does not contain adequate information on the seismic conditions, nor does it address beyond design basis accidents or give details of the potential impacts of decommissioning". Furthermore, following legal action by environmental groups, the authors of the original EIA confirmed, in court, that it was flawed and would require a new EIA once a designer and builder were appointed. The total cost of the project is now estimated by the operator to be around €7 billion (€4 billion for the power stations plus associated infrastructure development costs). Environmental organizations Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth (Europe), Urgewald, Bankwatch, World Information Service on Energy and the Bulgarian NGO BeleNE! oppose the plant's construction, and have expressed the following concerns: negative effect on the tourist industry and the agriculture of northern Bulgaria safety concerns over the use of nuclear technology location in a seismic active zone the expense of the project risk of terrorist attack problems with the transportation, procession and preservation of the nuclear waste complete unnecessity of further nuclear power in the first place, as better options are available. Concerns regarding the construction of the plant have