EDF_REGISTRATION_DOCUMENT_2017

6.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Income Statement

key progress reviews with the ASN, included in a formal safety procedure ■ specific to dismantling operations; an internal authorisation procedure for the operator, independent of operational ■ personnel and audited by the ASN, allowing some specific work to be started ahead of the authorised safety procedure; finally, once these operations are complete, declassification of the facility to ■ remove it from the legal regime governing basic nuclear facilities. The decommissioning scenario adopted by EDF complies with France’s Environmental Code, which requires as short a period as possible to elapse between final shutdown and dismantling in economically acceptable conditions and in compliance with the principles laid down in Article L. 1333-1 of the Public Health Code (radioprotection) and section II of Article L. 110-1 of the Environmental Code (protection of the environment). The intended end-state is industrial use: the sites will be restored to their original condition and will be reusable for industrial facilities. The ongoing operations concern plants that were constructed and operated before the current nuclear fleet (“first-generation” plants), and the Superphenix plant and Irradiated Materials Workshop at Chinon. These operations cover four different technologies: a heavy water reactor (Brennilis), a sodium-cooled fast-neutron

reactor (the Superphenix at Creys-Malville), natural uranium graphite gas-cooled (UNGG) reactors (at Chinon, Saint Laurent and Bugey) and a pressurised water reactor (PWR at Chooz). Each of them is a first for EDF, and apart from the PWR, they concern reactor technologies for which there is little or no international experience. They therefore require development of new methods and technologies that are riskier than technologies for which feedback already exists. Decommissioning of the Chooz PWR is benefiting from past experience (essentially in the US and limited), but the reactor has the specificity of being located in a cave, making this a unique operation, generating experience that is not immediately transposable and involves specific risks. The experience gained from dismantling the Chooz PWR will make the studies and estimates of future decommissioning of the nuclear fleet currently in operation (“second-generation” plants) as robust as possible. But so far, neither EDF nor any other operator has begun a decommissioning programme on a scale comparable to the current PWR fleet, and as a result the estimates include both opportunities and risks, especially the risks associated with the scale effect. The decommissioning provisions cover future decommissioning expenses as described above (excluding the cost of removing and storing waste, which is covered by the provisions for long-term waste management).

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

Discount effect

Other movements

31/12/2016

Increases

Decreases

31/12/2017

(in millions of euros)

Provisions for decommissioning nuclear plants in operation Provisions for decommissioning permanently shut-down nuclear plants DECOMMISSIONING PROVISIONS FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

10,899

2

(13)

461

267

11,616

3,223

-

(118)

197

2

3,304

14,122

2

(131)

658

269

14,920

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.

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).

362

EDF I Reference Document 2017