Link to the study - European Parliament - Europa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Policy Department D: Budgetary Affairs ____________________________________________________________________________________________ The tool provides information on: the performance of the work packages, the completion of the project or program, the personnel involved, the cost calculation (derived from the personnel), other sources necessary, subcontracts, services provided, procurement, energy consumption, taxes, etc. The tool is based on Oracle’s Primavera software. This tool includes the respective module for risk management. The risk management system should be developed in close relation to the project management program. This is a new field and the operator currently has no experiences. For this reason, additional support by introducing the risk management system as well as education and training are needed. Courses are planned within the program 'Risk management'. This overall project control with that tool will be introduced step by step and experiences shall be used to optimize its application and to customize the tool for application in the decommissioning project. The control system is currently in the process to be introduced. The description on how the planning tool and the risk management system are incorporated into the decision making process will be provided to Öko-Institute. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.)? Preliminary Decommissioning plan (FDP) was elaborated by a consortium NIS/SGN/SKB in 1999 under the PHARE project. The waste management issues were not included in this plan. From 2001 to 2004 the Final Decommissioning Plan FDP was elaborated. In 2006 a cost calculation covering the time period from 2007 to 2014 was added, to be updated in 2014. From 2010 to 2011 the 'Global Decommissioning Plan' GDP was developed and the complete perspective for 2020 and 2029 was elaborated. The first financial support in 1999 was provided by European Commission for preparation the above mentioned FDP, Ignalina International Decommissioning Fund was established in 2000. Since 1995 a national decommissioning fund was established by a national decree. Since 2002, the 160
Nuclear Decommissioning: Management of Costs and Risks ____________________________________________________________________________________________ decommissioning is co-financed from both national as well as international sources. The current financial state is: EUR 2 900 million Total cost estimate for Ignalina decommissioning up to 2000-2029. EUR 1 130 million Already allocated EU financial support until 2014. The internal decision process, is currently seen as an inflexible system. The procurement must be in full compliance with all the requirements. This involves a close interaction between the decision making and planning and of the supporting organizations/funds. Having the responsibility for the decision-making and acknowledgement process split between several organizations, and in cases where additional national institutions have to be involved even more organisations, hinders the flexibility. Incompatibilities so delay decisions. The available resources must be carefully integrated into the planning that in return depends on the financial restrictions. The involvement of the three different financing institutions is difficult and it is often unclear what can be financed via IIDF IP (EU) or via the national fund must be closer specified. It is additionally asked which share costs for personnel have in the complete decommissioning process. A 'total costs scheme', as designed and updated by the operator gives an overview on the cost distribution between the several sectors. A rough estimate is that 1/3 accounts for personnel, 1/3 for utilities/resources and 1/3 for the decommissioning projects including contracted companies, but excludes costs for waste management and final storage. More detailed information on cost shares will be provided to Öko-Institute. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.)? …………………………… The reactor unit 1 was shut down in 2004, unit 2 in 2009, and the activities changed from the operation towards the decommissioning. The work force had to be reorganized, the personnel had to start decommissioning activities, for this reason, the new additional tasks regarding decommissioning activities were delivered to the training division. The first activities towards reorganization were started in 2000 – when the Decommissioning service – a separate unit – was set-up. 161
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:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
Page 159 and 160: detailed regulation, should there b
Page 161: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
Page 201: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
show all

Link to the study - European Parliament - Europa

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?