Link to the study - European Parliament - Europa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Policy Department D: Budgetary Affairs ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Figure 34: Possible structure of a joint control over the decommissioning part of the managing organisation Source: Authors The EC was selected in this proposal as the steering organisation because: The controller should be on the same decision level as the national administrator of the organisation; The task has a considerable political component, for which a technical or financial institution (such as e.g. EBRD) would not be appropriate; Both contributors of funds should be on the same decision level and should represent their interest; The proportions in which certain projects are financed have to be decided on the same level and by the same institutions, the controlling institution should be directly involved in the strategic decisions and take responsibility. Such a change to the current regime would also increase the role and importance of the managing organisation because all strategic decisions have to be prepared, while operational decisions are the sole responsibility of the managing organisation. 4.3.4. Recommendations The introduction of EU/member state shared projects and a joint steering of the strategic decisions of the organisation that is responsible for implementing decommissioning is recommended in order to strengthen the role of the national controlling administrator and to increase the cost effectiveness. The EU support of the decommissioning should be re-organized as co-sharing projects. Co-sharing of the costs would increase the country’s interest in controlling the managing organisation’s strategic decisions towards increased cost effectiveness. In the co-financed and co-directed projects both institutions financing the activity should equally control their effectiveness. The share should be defined with a fixed level, but allowing to lower the EC’s contribution in case of projects that are only in part related to decommissioning. The fixed level should be depending from the country’s abilities, but shall not be below certain thresholds to achieve the desired goal. 106
Nuclear Decommissioning: Management of Costs and Risks ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 4.4. THE MANAGEMENT ORGANISATIONS FOR DECOMMISSIONING IN BULGARIA, LITHUANIA AND SLOVAKIA 4.4.1. Establishment of national organisations Bulgaria In the first years prior to and after shutdown, up to the end of 2002, the operating organisation of the nuclear power plants was also responsible for preparing and implementing decommissioning. But considering that two further reactors remained in operation, no substantial changes to the organisation were made regarding this new task. Even the creation of the state-owned organisation DP RAO in 2004, which is responsible for waste management issues, did not change this setting. Only at the end of 2008 (SE RAW 2013) was the responsibility for decommissioning the first two units transferred to this institution. One of its divisions, the Decommissioning Directorate, is currently in charge of decommissioning Kozloduy nuclear power plant Unit 1 and 2. Between 2009 and 2010 twenty persons at DP RAO prepared the license application for the decommissioning of the two units, which was granted on October 18, 2010. Also in this year (2010) around 100 employees changed from the unit’s operation division to DP RAO and the dismantling work of the generator started in June 2011, after nine years in shutdown mode. In December 2012 responsibilities for Units 3 and 4 were transferred to DP RAO, so that DP RAO is now responsible for all decommissioning activities in Bulgaria. Lithuania At Ignalina, the organisation responsible for decommissioning was founded in 2000 as a subdivision of the operating organisation of the power plant (INPP 2013a). Following the shutdown of Unit 2 in 2009 the organisation structure was further streamlined to decommissioning. The current structure of the upper management level of INPP is displayed in Figure 35. Figure 35: Upper level management structure at INPP Source: Excerpted from INPP 2013c As can be seen in Figure 35, the structure does not include a project management unit explicitly coordinating project management activities. Such a unit was formerly externally established as a separate unit called Project Management Unit (PMU), but these project management activities are now integrated in the Decommissioning Department of INPP (Tractebel 2013). 107
Page 3 and 4:
DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL PO
Page 5 and 6:
Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
Page 107: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
Page 159 and 160:
detailed regulation, should there b
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201:
show all

Link to the study - European Parliament - Europa

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?