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 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 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 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 and 16: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
- Page 17: 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
- Page 67 and 68: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
Nuclear Decommissioning: Management of Costs and Risks<br />
____________________________________________________________________________________________<br />
because nei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> managing organisation nor <strong>the</strong> controlling institutions nor <strong>the</strong> fund contribu<strong>to</strong>rs<br />
consider <strong>the</strong>mselves responsible for decision-making and cost-efficient implementation.<br />
Thus it was concluded that it is essential and urgent <strong>to</strong> change and improve <strong>the</strong> managing and<br />
control structures in order <strong>to</strong> achieve an effective and transparent project organization. Proposals for<br />
new management and control structures have been developed, defining <strong>the</strong> roles and<br />
responsibilities of <strong>the</strong> EU, national organizations, Project Management Units and <strong>European</strong> Bank for<br />
Reconstruction and Development. The support should be organized as co-financed and co-directed<br />
projects <strong>to</strong> achieve an effective management of <strong>the</strong> decommissioning projects and <strong>to</strong> improve <strong>the</strong><br />
self-responsibility of <strong>the</strong> affected countries.<br />
Recommendations<br />
For all <strong>the</strong> aspects listed above, recommendations were made which:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Have <strong>the</strong> potential <strong>to</strong> improve <strong>the</strong> current decommissioning projects,<br />
Are applicable under <strong>the</strong> current circumstances, and<br />
Would redirect <strong>the</strong> projects closer <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> identified best practices.<br />
A <strong>to</strong>tal of eight recommendations were derived <strong>to</strong> improve <strong>the</strong> decommissioning projects in Bulgaria,<br />
Lithuania and Slovakia:<br />
<br />
Recommendation 1: Improving national control conditions<br />
The introduction of EU/member state shared projects and a joint steering of <strong>the</strong> strategic<br />
decisions of <strong>the</strong> organisation that is responsible for implementing decommissioning is<br />
recommended in order <strong>to</strong> streng<strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> role of <strong>the</strong> national controlling administra<strong>to</strong>r and <strong>to</strong><br />
increase <strong>the</strong> cost effectiveness.<br />
<br />
Recommendation 2: Towards co-shared financing<br />
The EU support of <strong>the</strong> decommissioning should be re-organized as co-sharing projects. Cosharing<br />
of <strong>the</strong> costs would increase <strong>the</strong> country’s interest in con-trolling <strong>the</strong> managing<br />
organisation’s strategic decisions <strong>to</strong>wards increased cost effectiveness. In <strong>the</strong> co-financed and<br />
co-directed projects both institutions financing <strong>the</strong> activity should equally control <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
effectiveness. The share should be defined with a fixed level, but allowing <strong>to</strong> reduce <strong>the</strong> EC’s<br />
contribution in case of projects that are only in part related <strong>to</strong> decommissioning. The fixed<br />
level should be depending from <strong>the</strong> country’s abilities, but shall not be below certain<br />
thresholds <strong>to</strong> achieve <strong>the</strong> desired goal.<br />
<br />
Recommendation 3: Improving responsibility of <strong>the</strong> managing organisation<br />
A clearer attribution of responsibilities in respect <strong>to</strong> strategic decisions is recommended. In<br />
accordance with this proposed re-organisation and under consideration of <strong>the</strong> specific<br />
conditions in this case (e.g. co-financing, shared control) a possible advanced structure of <strong>the</strong><br />
management organisation in accordance with <strong>the</strong> identified best practice is recommended.<br />
17