Link to the study - European Parliament - Europa
Link to the study - European Parliament - Europa Link to the study - European Parliament - Europa
Policy Department D: Budgetary Affairs ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Figure 41: Process for achieving the license for stage I in Slovakia Source: (JAVYS 2013) The listed durations were comparatively short, which lets assume that the process is well-designed and the bilateral understanding is good. On the other side, the splitting of licenses in such short periods includes the risk that the process might require longer periods than previously expected. This might be especially the case with later stages because those include work in radiologically controlled areas, the handling of materials under elevated doses, the decision over materials with higher contamination and more sophisticated waste management decisions. In short, the experiences made with the regulatory approach were good, but the staged process in the future bears risks so that caution should be included to address possible bottlenecks. 4.6.2. Comparison and evaluation of the regulatory approach In the two best practices the regulatory approach was recognized as central. The necessary permit applications require time as well as a mutual consent between the operator and the regulatory body. It has to be seen here that the relevant guiding documents, governing requirements for decommissioning and waste acceptance, still are in progress or are only recently issued. The staged processes with time-limited duration of licenses have risks that the necessary licensing of the next stage may interfere with a smooth and continuous decommissioning. That has to be accounted for in the risk assessment. All three countries describe their relationship with the regulatory body as 'good' and based on continuous discussions already in the pre-planning stage. 4.6.3. Recommendations for the regulatory approach Licensing issues should be carefully considered within the risk assessment and should not be underestimated, because failures and delays in this field can have major consequences for the 118
Nuclear Decommissioning: Management of Costs and Risks ____________________________________________________________________________________________ decommissioning process. The good practice identified so far should be continued and upgraded to match to the upcoming more sensitive worksteps. 4.7. COST ESTIMATES Cost planning is a fundamental requirement for any project. Without a transparent and as detailed as possible (at a certain project stage) cost planning it is not possible to obtain financing of a decommissioning project. And without secured financing it is not possible to perform a project. At the same time the cost planning is the basis for the cost controlling of the project. Cost planning is only reliable if it is based on: A detailed planning, identifying all steps to be made; Inventory data for masses and contamination; A thorough risk evaluation. 4.7.1. Cost estimates of the decommissioning projects Bulgaria Bulgaria performs cost estimates on the basis of (see ANNEX 3) A detailed work plan (work breakdown structure); Underlying sub-tasks on the second level; Estimated labor costs; investment costs; operating costs and incidental costs for those activities. Bulgaria applies the cost estimation standards as recommended in (NEA 2013), which are based on an explicit project management approach. 38 % of the total costs are labor costs (ANNEX 3). The most influence on changes to the cost estimates are seen with adjustments of the work schedule. The differences between previous cost estimates and the actual costs are seen as follows: 'The main reasons for the divergence in the forecast cost appraisals and the real ones are due to the changes made in the initial schedule and in the terms for implementation of the main activities, ensuring the implementation of the Decommissioning plan for Units 1-4.' (ANNEX 3, page 151) This has to be seen on the background of the delays in four projects for waste treatment facilities (ANNEX 3, page 150). The risk that further delays occur, delaying work on critical pathes, can increase costs further. This points to the already discussed weaknesses of the project management organisation (see chapters 4.5.2 and 4.5.3). 119
- Page 69 and 70: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 71 and 72: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 73 and 74: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 75 and 76: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 77 and 78: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 79 and 80: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 81 and 82: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 83 and 84: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 85 and 86: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 87 and 88: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 89 and 90: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 91 and 92: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 93 and 94: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 95 and 96: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 97 and 98: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 99 and 100: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 101 and 102: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 103 and 104: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 105 and 106: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 107 and 108: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 109 and 110: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 111 and 112: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 113 and 114: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 115 and 116: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 117 and 118: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 119: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 123 and 124: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 125 and 126: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 127 and 128: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 129 and 130: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 131 and 132: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 133 and 134: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 135 and 136: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 137 and 138: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 139 and 140: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 141 and 142: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 143 and 144: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 145 and 146: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 147 and 148: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 149 and 150: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 151 and 152: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 153 and 154: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 155 and 156: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 157 and 158: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 159 and 160: detailed regulation, should there b
- Page 161 and 162: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 163 and 164: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 165 and 166: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 167 and 168: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 169 and 170: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
Policy Department D: Budgetary Affairs<br />
____________________________________________________________________________________________<br />
Figure 41: Process for achieving <strong>the</strong> license for stage I in Slovakia<br />
Source: (JAVYS 2013)<br />
The listed durations were comparatively short, which lets assume that <strong>the</strong> process is well-designed<br />
and <strong>the</strong> bilateral understanding is good.<br />
On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r side, <strong>the</strong> splitting of licenses in such short periods includes <strong>the</strong> risk that <strong>the</strong> process<br />
might require longer periods than previously expected. This might be especially <strong>the</strong> case with later<br />
stages because those include work in radiologically controlled areas, <strong>the</strong> handling of materials under<br />
elevated doses, <strong>the</strong> decision over materials with higher contamination and more sophisticated waste<br />
management decisions.<br />
In short, <strong>the</strong> experiences made with <strong>the</strong> regula<strong>to</strong>ry approach were good, but <strong>the</strong> staged process in<br />
<strong>the</strong> future bears risks so that caution should be included <strong>to</strong> address possible bottlenecks.<br />
4.6.2. Comparison and evaluation of <strong>the</strong> regula<strong>to</strong>ry approach<br />
In <strong>the</strong> two best practices <strong>the</strong> regula<strong>to</strong>ry approach was recognized as central. The necessary permit<br />
applications require time as well as a mutual consent between <strong>the</strong> opera<strong>to</strong>r and <strong>the</strong> regula<strong>to</strong>ry body.<br />
It has <strong>to</strong> be seen here that <strong>the</strong> relevant guiding documents, governing requirements for<br />
decommissioning and waste acceptance, still are in progress or are only recently issued. The staged<br />
processes with time-limited duration of licenses have risks that <strong>the</strong> necessary licensing of <strong>the</strong> next<br />
stage may interfere with a smooth and continuous decommissioning. That has <strong>to</strong> be accounted for in<br />
<strong>the</strong> risk assessment.<br />
All three countries describe <strong>the</strong>ir relationship with <strong>the</strong> regula<strong>to</strong>ry body as 'good' and based on<br />
continuous discussions already in <strong>the</strong> pre-planning stage.<br />
4.6.3. Recommendations for <strong>the</strong> regula<strong>to</strong>ry approach<br />
Licensing issues should be carefully considered within <strong>the</strong> risk assessment and should not be<br />
underestimated, because failures and delays in this field can have major consequences for <strong>the</strong><br />
118
Change language