Link to the study - European Parliament - Europa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Policy Department D: Budgetary Affairs ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Part of the staff is still involved into operational activities. Simultaneously the decommissioning work occurred and required an adaption to the new skills by personnel. A general safety policy was established in 2010 where the strategy of the decommissioning works is described. The training programs were modified towards decommissioning works and the composition of the work force was adapted. The training of dismantling staff is partly carried out by internal forces and partly executed by external forces. The training for the staff in the training centres involves both 'hardware' - technical as well as soft skills training. The adaptation to the decommissioning task also involved psychological aspects. The first decommissioning activities started in 2001. The reorganization occurred only later in 2010-2011. The first phase can be characterized as a 'frustration period', among the staff but as well among the whole region around Ignalina being economically and socially strongly depending from the nuclear power plants. The task of decommissioning had to be established over this period. Meanwhile, the work force and the region accepted the decommissioning as their prime task. Another factor is that decommissioning requires a very different organization structure and job understanding than in the operational phase. The original top down hierarchy of the operation phase, more driven by handbooks, guidelines and well-established routine work, has to be exchanged by a more project-oriented approach, non-routine work governs the process and problem-solving capabilities are required instead. The adaption process is still under development and new and old structures still exist, but are more and more exchanged. About 5 000 people were employed in the time of the operation. Currently, about 2 000 employees are involved into the decommissioning – with about 95 % the same personnel. New experts are employed if they are needed. Safety culture indicators – quantitative and qualitative – had already been developed and implemented in the operation phase and are now adapted for the decommissioning phase. The long continuity behind those indicators is seen as a clear advantage. A regularly bench marking of the safety culture takes place. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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? 162
Nuclear Decommissioning: Management of Costs and Risks ____________________________________________________________________________________________ …………………………… The new structure has been established over the past 13 years when the decommissioning unit was integrated. The change of the organization and the incorporation of the decision making process into the decommissioning work is seen as a long process. Many decisions are discussed before the decision is finally made; in other cases the top down approach is used. The original “handling according to hand book” within the operation has been adapted towards the decision finding process within the decommissioning. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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? …………………………………………. The radioactive waste management is incorporated into the legal framework and binding. The implementation of the radioactive waste management is – of course – confronted with several difficulties that have to be addressed. The radioactive waste management strategy is still under development and has to be continuously adapted. Pool storage facilities have been operated already during the time of the operation. Defueling of the reactor to the storage pool has been completed in unit 1 and is currently on-going in unit 2. In parallel, the project to take the new interim dry storage in operation is in the implementation phase. The construction of the new storage facilities is delayed. The interim storage of all fuel in the reactors and the pools should be finished until 2016 according to the current planning. It is further planned that the storage for the medium radioactive wastes should be constructed on site. Free Release facility and buffer storage for low level radioactive wastes have been constructed on site, Non-radioactive and low-radioactive equipment such as central heating facility, turbines, etc. now can be decommissioned. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Regulatory aspects Have you encountered difficulties caused by regulatory action so far in your project (major delays, necessary re-planning caused by regulation, difficulties in finding common understanding)? If so: what were the reasons for that in your view (incompetence, unwillingness, misunderstandings, etc.) Are the different roles of you as the operator and the regulatory body clear for you (does the regulatory body remain in its own role, would you expect more assistance, etc.)? 163
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:
Page 113 and 114: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
Page 159 and 160: detailed regulation, should there b
Page 163: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
Page 201: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
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?