Link to the study - European Parliament - Europa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Policy Department D: Budgetary Affairs ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 1. INTRODUCTION AND TASKS As part of the process of their EU accession Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovakia committed to shutdown some specific nuclear reactor units in their countries. The EU committed to support the accessing countries in resolving the burden and challenges of the shutdown of these reactor units, including support in restructuring the energy sectors concerned and in decommissioning and dismantling. In order to make the support practicable three specific international decommissioning support funds (IDSF) were established, which are administered by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). These IDSFs are replenished by contributions, the EU being the main donor. Three decommissioning support funds were initiated and a considerable amount of donor money has been spent. The European Commission, as a major donor, contributed its part to the funds. The EBRD took over the role of ensuring that the money was spent for the designated tasks. In 2011, the European Court of Auditors assessed the effectiveness of the EU funded programmes 1999-2010 and identified several serious deficiencies (ECoA 2011). Following the report the Budgetary Control Committee of the European Parliament, in charge of scrutiny of EU expenditure, decided to commission Öko-Institute with an independent assessment of the decommissioning process. The assessment’s remit was to identify best practices in decommissioning nuclear reactors in Europe, to compare these with the practices in the three countries and to derive recommendations from this comparison. We hereby present the report of our findings. The report is structured as follows: Chapter 2 sets out key characteristics of the decommissioning of nuclear reactors in Europe and the technical, economical and organisational aspects that play a role in those projects. Chapter 3 outlines current practices in France, the UK and Germany and examines best practices in detail using the example of Energiewerke Nord GmbH (EWN) in Greifswald/Germany. Chapter 4 describes and evaluates practices in Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovakia. Chapter 5 provides an overview of the evaluation results, displays those results in the form of country profiles and presents the conclusions and recommendations of this study. The preparation of this study was only possible with the assistance and close support of numerous organisations. We would like to thank for their support: By answering our questions, Providing supporting documents and background information, Giving us the opportunity to discuss our issues in a very open and frank manner, Opening doors so that we could visit facilities, Providing excellent framework conditions for all this. 30
Nuclear Decommissioning: Management of Costs and Risks ____________________________________________________________________________________________ We thank the following organisations for their kind support: Energiewerke Nord EWN GmbH, Germany, The Federal Ministry of Finance (BMF), Germany, The Ministry for Energy and Economy (MEE), Bulgaria, Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant (INPP), Lithuania, Jadrová a vyraďovacia spoločnosť, a.s. (JAVYS), Slovakia, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), UK, Directorate General for Energy (DG ENER), Luxemburg. We also thank various persons who have provided assistance in reviewing content, readability and language correctness. 31
Page 3 and 4: DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL PO
Page 5 and 6: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
Page 31: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
Page 83 and 84:
Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?