EDF / 2018 Reference document

6.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Balance sheet

The preliminary dismantling plan and the priority areas for the fourth periodic review of Fessenheim (RP4) were sent to the ASN in July 2018, with the objective of filing the dismantling and RP4 documents in mid-2020.

The Consolidated Preliminary Plan (Avant-projet consolidé or APC) is currently being finalised, with studies expanding on the Summary Preliminary Plan (Avant-projet sommaire or APS), derisking, etc.

Details of changes in decommissioning provisions for nuclear power plants are as follows:

Other changes (2)

Increases

Decreases Utilisation

2017

Operating Financial (1)

2018

(in millions of euros)

Provisions for decommissioning of nuclear plants in operation Provisions for decommissioning of shut-down nuclear plants

11,616

-

482 270

(17)

399 12,480

3,304

52

(121)

-

3,505

TOTAL PROVISIONS FOR NUCLEAR PLANT DECOMMISSIONING

14,920

52

752

(138)

399 15,985

Cost of unwinding the discount and effects of changes in the net discount rate for provisions without related assets. (1) These are changes of estimate with a corresponding adjustment to property, plant and equipment (see note 1.15.1) or reclassifications of provisions. (2)

For nuclear power plants currently in operation (PWR pressurized water reactor plants with 900MW, 1,300MW and N4 reactors) Until 2013, provisions were estimated based on a 1991 study by the French Ministry of Trade and Industry, which set an estimated benchmark cost for decommissioning expressed in €/MW, confirming the assumptions defined in 1979 by the PEON commission. These estimates had been confirmed from 2009 by a detailed study of decommissioning costs conducted by EDF at the representative site of Dampierre (four 900MW units), and its results were corroborated by an intercomparison with the study carried out by consultants La Guardia, based mainly on the Maine Yankee reactor in the US. In 2014 the Dampierre study was reviewed by EDF to make sure that the previous calculations were still valid in view of recent developments and experience, both internationally and internally. For this revision, the decommissioning provisions for plants in operation were based on costs resulting from the Dampierre study, in order to incorporate best estimates and feedback from inside and outside France. This change of estimate had no significant impact on the level of provisions at 31 December 2014. Between June 2014 and July 2015, an audit of dismantling costs for EDF’s nuclear fleet currently in operation was conducted by specialised consulting firms, at the request of the French Department for Energy and Climate (Direction générale de l’énergie et du climat or DGEC). On 15 January 2016 the DGEC published a summary of the audit report. It stated that although estimating the cost of decommissioning nuclear reactors is a demanding exercise due to relatively limited past experience, the prospects of changes in techniques, and the distant timing of the expenditure, overall, the audit confirmed EDF’s estimate of decommissioning costs for its nuclear fleet currently in operation. The DGEC also made a number of recommendations to EDF following this audit. In 2016, EDF revised the decommissioning estimate, in order to incorporate the audit recommendations and past experience gained from dismantling operations for first-generation reactors (particularly Chooz A). A detailed analytical approach was used to revise this estimate, identifying all costs for the engineering, construction work, operation and waste processing involved in future decommissioning of reactors currently in operation. This led to figures based on detailed timetables for plant decommissioning. The approach adopted made it possible to explore more thoroughly the assessment of costs specific to the initial units of each series, estimated for each series based on transposition coefficients applied to the baseline costs for the initial 900MW unit, and the series and mutualisation effects, as these costs and effects are inherent to the fleet’s size and configuration.

The natures of the principal mutualisation and series effects used to arrive at the estimate are explained below. There are several types of mutualisation effects: some of them relate to the fact that several reactors may share common ■ buildings and facilities on the same site, and these buildings and facilities will not have to be decommissioned twice. Structurally, decommissioning a pair of reactors on the same site costs less than decommissioning two standalone reactors on two different sites. In France, unlike other countries, there are no single reactors but sites with two or four, and in one case six reactors; certain costs are no higher when 2 or 4 reactors are decommissioned on the ■ same site. This is usually the case for surveillance costs and cost of maintaining safe operating conditions on the site; waste processing in centralised facilities (for example for dismantling major ■ components) costs less than having several waste processing facilities at the decommissioning location. Series effects are mainly of two types: first, in a fleet using the same technology, many of the studies do not need to be ■ repeated each time; second, in a fleet using the same technology, robots and tooling can be largely ■ reused from one site to another. Such series effects are comparable in nature to the effects observed during construction of the fleet, in terms of studies or component manufacturing plants. For example, for the 900MW fleet, a series effect of approximately 20% is expected between the first-of-kind reactor with 2 units and an average 2-unit reactor. Series and mutualisation effects in particular explain why it is not appropriate simply to compare the average decommissioning cost per reactor between the French fleet and other countries’ nuclear fleets. The figures only marginally reflect changes in productivity and the learning effect. The external audit of the decommissioning cost for the fleet currently in operation, ordered by the DGEC, considered that the learning effect incorporated into the estimate was conservative. For reasons of prudence, the estimate also includes an assessment of risks, contingencies and uncertainties. EDF considers that the work done to revise the estimate answers the recommendations issued after the audit. The approach adopted and its results have been presented to the administrative authority and gave rise to further questions and discussion. EDF is also continuing to support its analyses through an international comparison, making it sure it takes into consideration a number of factors that could distort direct comparisons, for example differences in the scope concerned by costs estimate, or national and regulatory contexts.

472

EDF I Reference Document 2018