Link to the study - European Parliament - Europa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Policy Department D: Budgetary Affairs ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Best practices identified From the investigation of the three examples in respect to these questions it was concluded that The examples of EDF in France and EWN in Germany provide promising and successful elements for the identification of good practices in decommissioning, while the UK example provides less merits, The example of EWN shows that the establishment of a tight and strict control institution overseeing all strategic decisions of the management is advantageous and highly recommendable, The organisation to manage decommissioning has completely new tasks and requires different decision and work structures than energy production, Such a radical change in organisation needs to consider and utilize the existing experiences and knowledge to foster a state-of-the-art or good practice solution, Project and risk management have to be consequently developed and implemented consistently as new work forms to cope with the specific needs of a decommissioning project, Cost estimates are only reliable if they are based on a complete, well-planned and regularly updated calculation scheme and if escalation as well as risks are carefully considered, The workforce has to be completely re-organized and adapted to project and risk management approaches, and extensive training is necessary to perform the new tasks effectively. The same criteria were applied to the three decommissioning projects in Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovakia. In a first step, the practice and approaches in these countries were analysed by use of available sources, by interviews with responsible persons, visits to the plants and/or by numerous talks with currently or formerly responsible individuals. In a second step the identified practices and approaches were compared with the identified best practices at EDF and EWN. Results The national practices in the three recipient countries and the identified best practices were evaluated on a scale from 0 (aspect not addressed at all) to 5 (aspect addressed ideally) for each country and for the different relevant aspects. This evaluation, the degree of difference and the urgency of improvements are described in country profiles and in a table summarizing the evaluation. The largest differences between the situation in Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovakia and the identified best practice were found for the constitution of the national managing organisations and for their control. The situation in general, and with a focus on specific items, shows that responsibilities fall to several institutions in an untransparent way, there is no clarity about ultimate decision-making. It is unclear who is finally responsible for which decisions and who is effectively in charge of controlling decisions. With these diluted and dispersed responsibilities it is to be expected that the decommissioning projects will not be performed in time and within the given budget constraints 16
Nuclear Decommissioning: Management of Costs and Risks ____________________________________________________________________________________________ because neither the managing organisation nor the controlling institutions nor the fund contributors consider themselves responsible for decision-making and cost-efficient implementation. Thus it was concluded that it is essential and urgent to change and improve the managing and control structures in order to achieve an effective and transparent project organization. Proposals for new management and control structures have been developed, defining the roles and responsibilities of the EU, national organizations, Project Management Units and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The support should be organized as co-financed and co-directed projects to achieve an effective management of the decommissioning projects and to improve the self-responsibility of the affected countries. Recommendations For all the aspects listed above, recommendations were made which: Have the potential to improve the current decommissioning projects, Are applicable under the current circumstances, and Would redirect the projects closer to the identified best practices. A total of eight recommendations were derived to improve the decommissioning projects in Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovakia: Recommendation 1: Improving national control conditions The introduction of EU/member state shared projects and a joint steering of the strategic decisions of the organisation that is responsible for implementing decommissioning is recommended in order to strengthen the role of the national controlling administrator and to increase the cost effectiveness. Recommendation 2: Towards co-shared financing The EU support of the decommissioning should be re-organized as co-sharing projects. Cosharing of the costs would increase the country’s interest in con-trolling the managing organisation’s strategic decisions towards increased cost effectiveness. In the co-financed and co-directed projects both institutions financing the activity should equally control their effectiveness. The share should be defined with a fixed level, but allowing to reduce the EC’s contribution in case of projects that are only in part related to decommissioning. The fixed level should be depending from the country’s abilities, but shall not be below certain thresholds to achieve the desired goal. Recommendation 3: Improving responsibility of the managing organisation A clearer attribution of responsibilities in respect to strategic decisions is recommended. In accordance with this proposed re-organisation and under consideration of the specific conditions in this case (e.g. co-financing, shared control) a possible advanced structure of the management organisation in accordance with the identified best practice is recommended. 17
Page 3 and 4: DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL PO
Page 5 and 6: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
Page 17: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
Page 69 and 70:
Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
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:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
detailed regulation, should there b
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
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?