Link to the study - European Parliament - Europa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Policy Department D: Budgetary Affairs ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Government recognized that 'it may also be more appropriate to delay particular operations to benefit from new or developing technologies or from further development of existing best practice, or to take advantage of radioactive decay.' The best solution should be determined on a case-by-case basis (UK Government 2004). At Sellafield a deferred decommissioning strategy for the nuclear power plants was chosen. According to the Decommissioning plan (NDA 2011b) the Calder Hall site will enter a 'care and maintenance phase' in 2024 and Windscale Pile 1 and 2 in 2030. Between 2105 and 2115 the Calder Hall site should be finally cleared. The final site clearance is planned for 2120. The care and maintenance phase means that the reactors buildings will be made 'safe and secure and placed under a routine surveillance schedule' until the final stage of decommissioning will start after approx. 70 to 80 years. This deferred decommissioning as well as the continuous decommissioning both had been shown by the Strategic Environmental Assessment to offer long-term environmental benefits, as NDA explains in its decommissioning strategy (NDA 2011c). However, NDA acknowledged in the same paper that the continuous decommissioning potentially provides the greatest benefit. Nevertheless, NDA chose the deferred option arguing that a care and maintenance phase will take advantage of the natural radioactive decay of the nuclear materials and to allow the establishment of disposal facilities prior to the clearance phase. 3.3.2. Organisation structure of the decommissioning At Sellafield, the company Sellafield Ltd is the responsible Site License Company that manages and operates the decommissioning in Sellafield. NDA`s responsibility is to oversee Sellafield Ltd. After a 2 year phase of completion, Nuclear Management Partners (NMP) was chosen on 11 th July, 2008, as a new Parent Body for Sellafield Ltd. The Nuclear Managements Partners Ltd was especially created to bid for the Sellafield PBO competition. It is a consortium of the companies URS of the US, the British AMEC, and AREVA of France. The initial contract is for five years, with extension options to 17 years (NDA 2008). Every five years the process will be reviewed (NDA 2011b). The NDA and NMP entered into a contractual arrangement via a Parent Body Agreement, and the NDA and Sellafield Ltd agreed a Deed of Variation to the existing Management & Operations Contract to take account of the new Parent Body arrangements. The roles and responsibility as well as the finance flows in 2011 and 2012 are shown in Figure 17. 72
Nuclear Decommissioning: Management of Costs and Risks ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Figure 17: The roles and responsibilities as well as financial flows in 2011-2012 Source: (NAO 2012) 3.3.3. Project management According to the House of Commons failures in the project management at Sellafield caused delays and cost increase (House of Commons 2013). The concerns about the earlier management team at Sellafield were the main reason for appointing the Nuclear Management Partners as the new Parent Body Organisation. For example great amounts of money were spent on building a plant to treat waste, but then it emerged that the facility, due to its design, could not deal with the waste safely (NAO 2012). In 2010, Sellafield Ltd changed its approval processes in order to ensure that construction would not start until design requirements and the underpinning technology reaches an appropriate level of development. A readiness board has to review the proposals (NAO 2012). Performance in Sellafield has been improved after the appointment of Nuclear Management Partners, mainly because NMP has deployed staff short- or long-term as secondees from its parent companies 73
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: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
Page 73: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
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?