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 40 Licensing processes prior to stage 1 in Slovakia 117 FIGURE 41 Process for achieving the license for stage I in Slovakia 118 FIGURE 42 Cost structure by activity and by phase 120 FIGURE 43 The overall costs divided according to the financial resources and taking into account the expenses being still not covered 121 FIGURE 44 The time development of the total costs 122 FIGURE 45 Overall visualization of evaluations results 135 14
Nuclear Decommissioning: Management of Costs and Risks ____________________________________________________________________________________________ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background During the process of accession to the European Union, Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovakia committed to shut down several older reactors. As an act of solidarity the EU and a number of donor countries committed their assistance to cover parts of the necessary decommissioning costs, for which previously none or only insufficient funds had been collected and were not available when needed. In 2011, several years after the shutdown of the reactors, during which predominantly the EU had provided considerable support, the European Court of Auditors assessed the effectiveness of the financed activities and identified several serious deficiencies. Following the report, the Budgetary Control Committee of the European Parliament, which examines implementation of the EU budget, decided to assign Öko-Institute with an independent assessment of the decommissioning process. The tasks of the assessment were to identify best practices in decommissioning nuclear reactors in Europe, to compare these with the practices in the three (former accession) countries and to derive recommendations from this comparison. Aim The investigation to identify best practices in Europe was structured as follows: 1. An Europe-wide inventory identified 88 reactors in a shutdown and decommissioning state. They cover a large variety of reactor types, ages, operating years and power outputs. 2. Three countries - France, Germany and the UK – dominate the overall decommissioning projects by number, types and operational age, so that the identification of best practices is focused on these three countries. 3. From these countries, the examples of EDF in France, Sellafield Ltd. in the UK and EWN in Germany were selected for a more detailed analysis, because these were promising to yield representative state-of-the-art approaches for identification of best practices. The investigation of the three selected examples concentrated on the following questions: How is the organisation that manages the decommissioning constituted? How closely and effectively is the control over the organisation that manages the decommissioning designed and applied? How is project and risk management practiced in the managing organisation? How, and with which experiences, are the regulatory bodies approached by the managing organizations? How, and with which results, are cost estimates for decommissioning performed? How is the decommissioning knowledge and experience of the existing workforce at the sites used and which measures are taken to transfer as much experience as possible to the decommissioning phase? 15
- Page 3 and 4: DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL PO
- Page 5 and 6: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 7 and 8: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 9 and 10: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 11 and 12: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 13 and 14: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 15: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 19 and 20: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 21 and 22: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 23 and 24: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 25 and 26: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 27 and 28: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 29 and 30: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 31 and 32: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 33 and 34: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 35 and 36: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 37 and 38: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 39 and 40: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 41 and 42: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 43 and 44: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 45 and 46: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 47 and 48: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 49 and 50: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 51 and 52: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 53 and 54: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 55 and 56: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 57 and 58: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 59 and 60: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 61 and 62: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 63 and 64: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 65 and 66: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
Policy Department D: Budgetary Affairs<br />
____________________________________________________________________________________________<br />
FIGURE 40<br />
Licensing processes prior <strong>to</strong> stage 1 in Slovakia 117<br />
FIGURE 41<br />
Process for achieving <strong>the</strong> license for stage I in Slovakia 118<br />
FIGURE 42<br />
Cost structure by activity and by phase 120<br />
FIGURE 43<br />
The overall costs divided according <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> financial resources and taking in<strong>to</strong> account <strong>the</strong> expenses<br />
being still not covered 121<br />
FIGURE 44<br />
The time development of <strong>the</strong> <strong>to</strong>tal costs 122<br />
FIGURE 45<br />
Overall visualization of evaluations results 135<br />
14
Change language