Доклад "Проектный менеджмент и экология: системные связи и

»
5021 – 23
2010
, 1400 – 1800 ,
23
. 429
:
IPMA
.,
, CPM , PMP
/IPMA, PMI
:
1
1.
2.
3.
4.
:
2
,(
. óikos -
,
),
,
,
,
.(
(
),
)
,
.(
)
–
,
,
(PMI,
–
(
);
),
(DIN 69901,
);
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
:
3
IPMA International Project Excellence Award
IPMA
International Project Excellence Award
:
4
4
IPMA International Project Excellence Award
2009
Well Modernisation Program.
Member of OMV Group (
)
Petrom EP,
Beijing T3 Airport Expansion Project.
Ltd China, Siemens Industry Sector - Mobility Division (
Siemens
)
2008
Lomellina 2 Project
Foster Wheeler Italiana SpA (
)
2007
Technological Revamping Project of 150,000 t/a Acetic Acid
Jiangsu Sopo (Group) Co. Ltd., China
2006
TDN REWE IP-VPN 2
T-Systems International (
)
Shenzou 6-Manned Spaceship
Chinese Academy of Space Technology (
)
2006
:
5
PMI 2007: FLUOR & n Fernald Feed Materials Production Center
FLUOR closed a cold war nuclear facility in less time and with less money than anyone
thought possible - but first the company had to gain the trust of the community.
It was an unwelcome reminder of a time long since passed—and residents weren’t happy about
having it in their backyard.
Located in a rural area northwest of Cincinnati, Ohio, USA, the Fernald Feed Materials
Production Center had delivered high-grade uranium metal products to the U.S. military
throughout the Cold War. Long shrouded in secrecy, even from community members, the facility
ceased production in 1989. It was the end of one era—and the beginning of another.
Three years later, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) hired Dallas, Texas, USA-based Fluor
Corp. to launch one of the largest environmental cleanup operations in the country’s
history.
When Fluor took over, the site had suffered widespread contamination, primarily through soil
and groundwater pathways. With extensive news coverage prompting attention from both
regulators and the public, the company was operating in a contentious social and political
environment.
Given the stakes, the cleanup project could have easily succumbed to turf battles and warring
priorities between the DOE and Fluor. But they showed a dogged willingness to work together
and embrace enormous change.
:
6
The site contained 31 MILLION POUNDS of nuclear product.
A BIG MESS
The scope of the Fernald project was massive—and downright dangerous.
The site contained:
1. Two concrete silos with 8,900 cubic yards of radium-bearing sludge
2. One concrete silo holding 5,100 cubic yards of cold metal oxides
3. Six waste pits containing more than 1 million tons of low-level radioactive waste
4. 6 million cubic feet of containerized low-level waste
5. 174,912 gallons of low-level liquid mixed waste
6. 31 million pounds of nuclear product
7. 224 process-related and administrative structures
8. 400 acres of contaminated soil
9. 225-acre plume of contamination in an underground aquifer.
During its production years, Fernald was closed off to both the public and
regulators. Not surprisingly, those 37 years of secrecy resulted in an angry and
suspicious attitude from the surrounding community and the press.
:
7
TIME LINE
December 1992 - The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) awards Fluor Corp. the first
environmental remediation contract of the Fernald Feed Materials Production Center
outside of Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
1993 - Aware of public hostility toward the project, Fluor launches a “public participation
strategy” to engage local stakeholders.
1994 - A safety program is initiated.
2000 - DOE awards Fluor a reworked contract aimed at closing the site in 2010.
2003 - Fluor accelerates the project’s target completion date to December 2006.
2006 - The last of the contaminated materials to move offsite are shipped out.
The on-site disposal facility is completed.
The site is certified as meeting regulatory mandated cleanup levels.
2007 - A public ceremony is held to introduce the Fernald Preserve, a 1,050
10 years Fluor Fernald construction crew went without a lost workday injury - equal
to more than 10 million safe work hours.
In 2006, Fluor closed the project
12 years earlier and
$7.8 billion
below initial estimates.
:
8
IPMA 2009: Software development for the IT system of the payments and
intervention agency for agriculture and IACS
SIVECO ROMANIA S.A.
Starting with 2007, Romania benefits from EU funds for agriculture under the form of direct
area payments. The direct payments represent the support granted by the European Union
to the farmers in Romania under the conditions farmers are eligible and submit an area aid
request.
An essential condition the Romanian government had to fulfill in order to be able to absorb
EU funds for direct payments was the creation of a system to ensure the administration and
strict control of the farmers’ aid requests. This is the Integrated Administration and Control
System (IACS), while its creation, implementation and management is the responsibility of
the Payments and Intervention Agency for Agriculture (APIA).
The development, implementation and finalizing by set deadlines of the integrated
administration and control system for agriculture (IACS) in Romania by the realization of the
IT components was a major stage in the process of Romania’s accession to the European
Union.
In 2007, Romania was allotted 440 Mln Euro worth of funds for granting direct payments
per hectare, but the funds management according to EU regulations conditioned this. The
Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) are subordinated to APIA and
manage the subsidies granted to farmers under the form of direct payments per hectare.
Payments and Intervention Agency for Agriculture (APIA) is the institution responsible with
the management of these funds and with the implementation of the aid measures for
farmers.
:
9
Unlike the other EU countries, Romania had only one year for the implementation and setting
up of the IT system for APIA, which was a real challenge. Compared to other accession
states where it took 3 to 4 years, in Romania the IT IACS system was developed and
implemented in a very short period of time (a year and few months). Bulgaria launched the
action in 2005, while Poland had 3 years to do it.
Except for Romania and Bulgaria, these systems were realized prior to the integration of
respective countries into the UE;
Each EU member state is obliged to develop its own IACS system; the companies producing
these systems are not allowed to sell it or give it away (even free of charge) to other EU
member states;
The solution developed by the consortium
SIVECO Romania – ABG SPIN Poland is a
very complex IT based system: as long as
the system was developed, new updated
and improved versions were produced,
according to the beneficiary’s requirements
and based on newly emerged regulations
and legislation.
For every country, the size of the agricultural
area, numbers of farmers, degrees of
division of the territory (to mention just a few
factors to be taken into account) differ very
much. Obviously, these requirements reflect
in the different complexity that the
management of situations implies.
:
10
……
:
11
.
.
.
:
.
:
12
:
13
PDCA
)
:
14
1
ISO
IPMA
PMI
Prince
,
*
GAPPS
,
,
,
?
:
*
,
,
R0,
"
"
:
15
1
,
,
,
,
,
-
,
,
,
,
,
(
,
)
,
)
IPMA
PMI
:
16
5 9
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
N.
,
.
:
17
:
.
.
,
.
.
:
18
:
19
2010
:
20
E-Mail: [email protected]
:
21