Link to the study - European Parliament - Europa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Policy Department D: Budgetary Affairs ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ANNEX 2 - MEETING AGENDA FOR BULGARIA, LITHUANIA AND SLOVAKIA The following meeting agenda resp. questionnaire was sent to the member states. Meeting agenda Main task of the meeting Öko-Institute – as research and consultancy institution in the field of nuclear engineering - was commissioned by the Budgetary Control Committee of the European Parliament (EP) with a study analysing the management of costs and risks in the decommissioning of nuclear power plants (see attached file 'Intro Letter Study on Nuclear decommissioning Öko'). The management of several of those projects in other EU member states shall be compared with the management in the decommissioning of costs and risks in Bulgaria, Slovakia and Lithuania and recommendations shall be made that have the potential to improve that management, to reduce future costs and to avoid technical and economic risks. Meeting agenda The main method to understand your approach to manage the decommissioning project is by identifying any publications and by interviewing you as a responsible person. The interview shall discuss all relevant aspects within two or three hours time. If it seems appropriate, additional experts might participate in the meeting. In this interview we would like to discuss the following issues with you: The conceptual planning within the project: The overall plan of the project, it’s major packages, it’s serial flow, etc. The identified decision breakpoints in that plan (technical, regulatory and financial dependencies, decision base, etc.) The time planning in that concept (What were the major set-backs in the time plans so far? What measures were taken to remove obstacles? Etc.) The financial planning within the project: How and on which knowledge/estimate base are financial plans set up and updated? How is, from the view of the operator, the decision process organized (internal and external process, structure of checks, approvals, past experiences with the decision process)? Which experiences were made with financial risks (What were the reasons for serious underestimates in the past? What influences your cost structure mostly (personnel costs, external cost factors, etc.)? (Continued) 144
Nuclear Decommissioning: Management of Costs and Risks ____________________________________________________________________________________________ (Continued) The personnel and competence management/responsibilities (personnel planning) How was the personnel made familiar with the new task of decommissioning (training, task communication, etc.)? Which continuous measures has been introduced and set up (training on the job, internal and external courses, etc.), which measures proved to be advantageous/disadvantageous? Has the personnel majorly adopted their changed tasks (acceptance of the new targets, job satisfaction, self-complacency, expert excellence)? Do you see or encounter difficulties between internal and external workforce (with consultants, with construction companies, on competencies, etc.)? Administrational aspects Was it necessary to majorly change the internal administrational structure to adapt it to the new task? Did you encounter frictions in that change process? Are major administrational changes ahead to improve the structures? Technical aspects Which safety status has the facility reached? What has to be done technically to reduce safety risks further? Which technical challenges were encountered so far in the project? How did those influence costs and time frame? Have lessons been learned by technical challenges so far? Which technical challenges do you see currently and in the near future? How are you preparing for those? Waste management aspects Waste management is a necessary prerequisite for a smooth decommissioning. Do you have enough means to store, treat and dispose the wastes from decommissioning internally or externally? Did missing waste management means delay or obstruct your technical or regulatory timeframe? If you see current or future difficulties with your long-term waste management, what will be the measures you see as promising to answer to that expectations? (Continued) 145
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:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
Page 145: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
Page 159 and 160: detailed regulation, should there b
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201:
show all

Link to the study - European Parliament - Europa

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?