Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council - Report on the use of financial resources earmarked for the decommissioning of nuclear power plants
Date: 2004-10-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU financing, decommissioning of power stations, electrical industry, financial management, report, restriction on competition

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 26.10.2004 
COM(2004) 719 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION  
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

Report on the use of financial resources earmarked for the decommissioning  
of nuclear power plants 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
1. 

BACKGROUND 

During  the  discussions  on  Directive  2003/54/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity, which was adopted on 
26 June  2003,1  Parliament  wondered  whether  mismanagement  of  financial  resources 
earmarked for the decommissioning of nuclear plants and management of their waste might 
not lead to distortions of competition. 

The Commission emphasised how important financing for decommissioning was in the context of 
the internal market in electricity. However, it indicated that the issue needed to be addressed using 
the  appropriate  Community  instruments  and  not  via  the  Directive  on  common  rules  for  the 
internal  market  in  electricity.  The  Commission  considered  the  Euratom  Treaty  to  be  an 
appropriate framework in this respect. Adoption of the Directive concerning common rules for the 
internal  market  in  electricity  was  thus  secured  by  adding  two  statements  signalling  the  political 
commitment  of  the  Community  institutions  to  healthy  competition  on  the  internal  market  in 
electricity.  

Interinstitutional statement 

“The  European  Parliament,  the  Council  and  the  Commission  underline  the  need  for  Member 
States  to  ensure  that  adequate  financial  resources  for  decommissioning  and  waste  management 
activities, which are audited in Member States, are actually available for the purpose for which 
they have been established and are managed in a transparent way, thus avoiding obstacles to fair 
competition in the energy market.” 

Commission statement 

“The Commission notes the importance of ensuring that funds established for the purpose of 
decommissioning  and  waste  management  activities,  which  relate  to  the  objectives  of  the 
Euratom Treaty, are managed in a transparent way, and used only for the said purpose. 

In this context, it intends, within the scope of its responsibilities of the Euratom Treaty to publish 
an  annual  report  on  the  use  of  decommissioning  and  waste  management  funds.  It  shall  pay 
particular attention to ensuring the full application of the relevant provisions of Community law.” 

Decommissioning is a technically complex operation requiring considerable funding. The amount 
needed to rehabilitate the site of a nuclear plant is currently estimated to be around 10 to 15% of 
the initial investment cost for each reactor to be decommissioned. Even though they will not be 
used until decommissioning, the sums involved are so large that as soon as a nuclear installation’s 
productive life begins the operator has to factor in not just the technological, social and economic 
components of production costs but also the financial viability of the project as a whole, including 
the installation’s decommissioning. The chosen management strategy will determine the scale of 
the investment. 

Whatever means nuclear operators select for setting aside resources, that these sums should be 
commercially  managed  is  not  in  itself  open  to  criticism.  However,  it  is  not  easy  to  draw  a 
dividing line between “normal” management of these resources and practices which may lead 
to distortions of competition on the internal market in electricity. The question may thus be 

1 

OJ L 16, 23.1.2004, p. 74. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
legitimately raised as to what types of investment can be envisaged. It would not appear right, 
for  instance,  for  it  to  be  possible  to  use  such  resources  for  equity  participation  between 
competing undertakings. 

Aware  of  the  potential  distortions  of  competition  on  the  internal  market  in  electricity,  the 
Commission stressed in its 2002 communication “Nuclear Safety in the European Union” that 
specific  regulations  should  apply  to  the  creation,  calculation  and  management  of  financial 
resources  earmarked  for  decommissioning  so  as  to  ensure  that  they  were  not  used  for  other 
purposes. The proposal for a directive setting out the basic obligations and general principles 
for  the  safety  of  nuclear  installations,  which  the  Commission  adopted  on  30 January  2003, 
translated this mechanism into legally binding terms. 

This report fulfils the Commission’s undertaking, delivered when the Directive on the internal 
market in electricity was adopted, to publish a report on the use of resources earmarked for 
the decommissioning of nuclear power plants. 

2. 

METHODOLOGY 

With  a  view  to  drafting  this  first  report,  on  28 April  2004  the  Commission  sent  the  14 
Member States and accession countries which have nuclear plants a letter asking for details of 
how financial resources earmarked for decommissioning were used. The following countries 
were  contacted:  Belgium,  the  Czech  Republic,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  Hungary,  Italy, 
Lithuania, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. 

The  Commission  sent  these  States  the  information  it  held  on  the  use  of  the  said  financial 
resources and asked them to confirm that it was accurate. It also asked them to supply it with 
any relevant additional information. In particular, it asked them to provide information on the 
chosen  mode  of  management,  the  way  their  governments  ensure  that  resources  match 
requirements, and an estimate of decommissioning costs. 

With  one  exception  (Italy),  all  the  above  States  responded  to  the  Commission’s  requests.  It 
should be noted that while the Member States duly cooperated with the Commission, most of 
them went no further than confirming, or making slight corrections to, the information sent to 
them by the Commission. The exercise failed to provide the Commission with any additional 
information  giving  a  clearer  picture  of  the  use  made  of  financial  resources  earmarked  for 
decommissioning. 

3. 

RESULTS 

The information sent by the Member States reveals widely differing situations, in terms both 
of decommissioning strategies and of the mode of management chosen for financial resources. 
The table in annex summarises the information sent by the Member States listed above. 

3.1  Decommissioning strategies 

(a) Immediate decommissioning 

Six Member States have opted to decommission nuclear plants as soon as they are shut down. 
They  are  Finland,  Germany,  Italy,  Lithuania,  Slovenia  and  Spain.  This  option  requires 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
provision  to  be  made  for  substantial  financial  resources  to  be  available  as  soon  as 
decommissioning work starts.  

It  should  be  noted  that  Lithuania  is  in  a  rather  special  situation  in  that  the  two  units  at  the 
Ignalina plant are due to close early as a result of commitments entered into during the  EU 
accession negotiations. Lithuania has undertaken to close Unit 1 of the Ignalina nuclear plant 
before 2005 and Unit 2 by no later than 31 December 2009. These closure commitments were 
included in Protocol No 4 to the Act of Accession, which entered into force on 1 May 2004. 
In view of the situation it has inherited from the past and the proximity of the closure date, 
Lithuania was unable to deal with this situation by itself. Accordingly, a special international 
fund for the decommissioning of the Ignalina plant, administered by the European Bank for 
Reconstruction  and  Development  (EBRD),  was  set  up  in  2001.  The  European  Union  is  the 
main contributor to the fund. In addition, the Union, recognising the exceptional nature of this 
closure and in an act of solidarity towards Lithuania, agreed to include Community financing 
in the 2007-2013 financial perspective. It should be noted here that on 29 September 2004 the 
Commission adopted a proposal for a regulation to implement this financing. 

(b) Deferred decommissioning 

Four  Member  States  have  opted  for  a  strategy  of  deferred  decommissioning.  They  are  the 
Czech Republic, Hungary, the Netherlands and Slovakia. This strategy does not require sums 
as large as those needed  for immediate decommissioning to be made available as soon as a 
plant is shut down. Installations are in fact cocooned for several years to allow radioactivity 
levels  to  decrease.  It  is  essential,  however,  to  ensure  that  the  chosen  mode  of  management 
guarantees  that  the  financial  resources  will  be  fully  available  and  adequate  when  the  time 
comes. 

The Bohunice VI plant in Slovakia is also covered by an early closure commitment negotiated 
as part of the enlargement process. Units 1 and 2 of the plant are to be closed by no later than 
31 December  2006  and  31 December  2008,  respectively.  The  consequences  of  this  early 
closure  have  been  treated  in  the  same  spirit  as  for  Lithuania.  An  international  fund 
administered  by  the  EBRD  has  been  set  up  and  the  Union  has  again  agreed  to  include 
Community  financing  in  the  2007-2013  financial  perspective.  On  29 September  2004  the 
Commission adopted a proposal for a regulation to implement this financing. 

Four Member States have not yet opted for a definitive decommissioning strategy. They are 
Belgium, France, Sweden and the United Kingdom. 

3.2 Management of financial resources 

(a) External management 

Ten  Member  States  have  chosen  the  option  of  external  management,  i.e.  separate  from  the 
accounts  of  the  nuclear  operator.  They  are  the  Czech  Republic,  Finland,  Hungary,  Italy, 
Lithuania, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden. 

This  is  the  mode  of  management  offering  the  greatest  transparency  and,  probably,  the  best 
guarantee as to the ultimate use of financial resources, particularly in the event of the operator 
going bankrupt.  

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
(b) Internal management 

In  France  and  Germany,  financial  resources  earmarked  for  decommissioning  are  entered  in 
the accounts of the electricity producers in the form of provisions. This mode of management 
allows very flexible use to be made of resources. It means that the same entity, in this instance 
the nuclear operator, has both financial and technical responsibility. 

However, it does not offer the same transparency as external management. A priori it does not 
ensure that the resources will be available when the time comes or that they will not be used 
for purposes other than those for which they were created. Technically, the options for using 
these  resources  are  vast  and  could  possibly  give  rise  to  anti-competitive  practices  on  the 
internal market in electricity. 

(c) Other modes of management 

Belgium  has  found  an  original  solution.  Until  2003  the  financial  resources  were  held  in  the 
accounts  of  the  nuclear  operator.  Since  the  Law  of  11 April  2003  was  enacted,2  these 
resources have been held in the accounts of the nuclear operator in the form of provisions in 
which  the  State  holds  a  “golden  share”  enabling  it  to  enter  a  veto  if  it  considers  that  the 
management of the resources is liable to compromise their security. 

In the United Kingdom, the nuclear operators are in different situations. In the case of BNFL, 
the  financial  resources  remain  in  the  internal  accounts  but  are  managed  in  a  particular  way 
which  departs  from  the  company’s  general  investment  policy.  The  British  Government  is 
planning for them to be transferred shortly to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.3 The 
situation at British Energy is more complex on account of the company’s restructuring. A new 
fund is due to be set up to which the State would contribute. However, the British authorities 
have  still  to  authorise  this  arrangement.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  it  has  already  been 
approved at Community level. 

4. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The decommissioning of nuclear plants is set to become an increasingly important issue in the 
years ahead. It is a fair assumption that 50 to 60 of the 155 reactors currently operating in the 
enlarged European Union will need to be decommissioned by 2025. 

The financing of decommissioning is a complex issue which may be approached from various 
angles.  The  main  purpose  of  dedicating  financial  resources  to  decommissioning  is  to  make 
sure  that  it  will  be  possible  to  carry  out  the  decommissioning  work  when  the  time  comes, 
while  ensuring  a  high  level  of  nuclear  safety.  If  it  were  not  possible  to  decommission  an 
installation under the right conditions for lack of adequate financial resources there could be 
significant  consequences.  That  is  why,  in  its  proposal  for  a  directive  setting  out  the  basic 
obligations and general principles for nuclear safety, the Commission chose to deal with this 
issue  within  the  framework  of  Chapter 3  of  the  Euratom  Treaty  on  health  and  safety. 
Measures  relating  to  the  financing  of  decommissioning  need  to  be  assessed  in  accordance 

2 

3 

Law on provisions created for the decommissioning of nuclear plants and for management of irradiated 
fissile materials from those plants. 
Public body charged with formulating the United Kingdom’s decommissioning strategy.   
The NDA should be operational by 1 April 2005. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
with the Euratom Treaty; however, to the extent that they are not necessary for or go beyond 
the  objectives  of  the  Euratom  Treaty,  or  distort  or  threaten  to  distort  competition  on  the 
common market, they need to be assessed in accordance with the EC Treaty. 

The  Commission  believes  it  would  be  useful  to  obtain  more  information  from  the  Member 
States  so  as  to  be  able  to  reach  a  more  informed  verdict  on  the  way  decommissioning  is 
actually being financed in the enlarged Union. Given the variety of situations in the Member 
States, an effort needs to be made to obtain more detailed information giving a clearer picture 
of  such  key  factors  as  the  way  decommissioning  costs  are  calculated,  the  adequacy  of  the 
assembled resources, the guarantee that resources will be available when the time comes, and 
the way they are managed. 

These  differences  between  Member  States  are  largely  explained  by  historical  factors 
stemming  from  the  economic  context  which  preceded  the  creation  of  the  internal  market  in 
electricity. The latter has brought an increased need for transparency and harmonisation in the 
management  of  these  financial  resources.  More  detailed  and  better  structured  information 
therefore needs to be obtained from the Member States. The contacts established with a view 
to compiling this first report will thus be pursued with a view to introducing a methodology 
for making meaningful comparisons between the various Member States. 

This essential groundwork should in the long term result in harmonisation of the methods of 
financing  decommissioning  in  the  European  Union.  The  Union  should  in  fact  ensure  that 
resources, once set aside, are managed in accordance with Community law. As the law stands, 
the  Commission  may  intervene  in  specific  instances  to  check  particular  situations.  Such 
intervention is thus reactive, not proactive. 

The  Commission  believes  it  is  essential  to  determine  the  most  appropriate  measures  for 
ensuring  both  that  financial  resources  set  aside  to  meet  the  requirements  of  nuclear  plant 
decommissioning  will  actually  be  available  once  the  time  comes,  so  that  decommissioning 
work may be carried out to a high level of nuclear safety, and that the resources are managed 
with full transparency. 

To that end, and until the Council adopts legally binding instruments in the field of nuclear 
safety  and  management  of  radioactive  waste,  the  Commission  intends,  on  the  basis  of  the 
Euratom Treaty, to present a recommendation in 2005 asking the Member States to take the 
necessary measures to ensure that: 

–  financial resources are set aside during the operating period of nuclear power plants with a 

view to maintaining a high level of nuclear safety during decommissioning work; 

–  the  resources  set  aside  are  available  and  sufficient 

to  cover 

the  cost  of 

the 

decommissioning work when the time comes; 

–  these resources are used for the purpose for which they have been set aside and that they 

are managed with complete transparency. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 

SUMMARY BY MEMBER STATE 

ESTIMATED 
NEEDS 
(Future  or  total)
(ie 
and 
past 
future) 

1 Billion € 

COUNTRY 

OF 

MODE 
FUND 
MANAGEMENT 

POSSIBLE  USE 
OF FUNDS 

LITHUANIA 

Centralised 
(blocked) 
State 
Fund  independent 
from 
plant 
operator 

fund: 
National 
Decommissioning 
and 
radwaste 
management 
related 
social 
consequences 

including 

IIDSF: 
decommissioning 
consequential 
+ 
measures  of  early 
closure.  

SLOVAKIA 

Centralised 
(blocked) 
State 
Fund  independent 
from operator 

Decommissioning, 
spent 
and 
fuel 
radwaste 
management  and 
related 
disposal 
costs. 

3.6 Billion € 

AMOUNT 
PRESENTLY 
AVAILABLE IN 
THE FUND 

OF 

SOURCES 
FUND 
CONTRIBUTION 

REMARKS 

€ 
69  Million 
in 
(2004) 
National 
Fund 
(11-14  Million  € 
annual 
contributions) 

IIDSF:285M 
€ 
(1999  prices)  for 
2004-2006 
period. 

State Fund (active 
since 
1995) 
317,94  M  €  as  of 
31.03.2004:  

IBDSF:  90  M  € 
(2004-2006) 

National Fund: 6 % 
of 
IgnalinaNPP 
revenues. 

IIDSF:  EC  +  other 
donors, 

Contributions 
nuclear 

a) 
from 
operators 

b)  Grants 
State budget 

from 

c) 
imposed 
Nuclear Regulator 

Penalties 
by 

d) 
Interest 
Fund deposits. 

from 

Also 
contributions 
from 
International 
Ignalina 
Decommissioning 
Support 
Fund 
(IIDSF). 

Late  established 
Fund 
National 
and 
annual 
contributions to it 
are  insufficient  to 
meet liabilities. 

Also 
contributions 
from 
International 
Bohunice 
Decommissioning 
Support 
Fund 
(IBDSF)  due  to 
the  consequences 
early 
of 
closure.of  units  1 
and 2. 

SWEDEN 

FINLAND 

Nuclear  Waste 
Fund (managed by 
the 
State) 
independent  from 
operator 

Decommissioning, 
spent 
and 
fuel 
radwaste 
management  and 
disposal 
related 
costs. 

Nuclear 

State 
Waste 
Management Fund 
holds  and  manage 
funds  independent 
from operator 

Decommissioning, 
spent 
and 
fuel 
radwaste 
management  and 
disposal 
related 
costs. 

Contributors 
are 
entitled  to  borrow 
money  from 
the 
fund 
against 
securities  

Decommissioning, 
spent 
and 
fuel 
radwaste 
management  and 
disposal 
related 
costs 

SPAIN 

company 
State 
ENRESA 
holds 
and  manage  fund 
independent  from 
operators 

EN 

63  Billion  SEK 
(2003  price  level, 
13 
billions 
already spent) 

29  billion  SEK 
(beginning 
of 
2003) 

price 
Electricity 
from nuclear origin 

1.3  Billion 
(2004) 
liabilities) 

€ 
(future 

€ 

1.3  Billion 
(2004) 
(to 
cover 
future liabilities) 

all 

Contributions  from 
operators 
nuclear 
interest 
plus 
the 
generated  by 
fund 

Total  11.5  Billion 
€ (2004 value)  

1.73  Billion  € 
(31/12/2003) 

Electricity price 

Decommissioning 
of  NPPs  only:
2.3  Billions  € 
(2004 value)  

7 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Decommissioning 
and  disposal  of 
and 
radwaste 
spent  fuel 
is  a 
joint 
responsibility 
in 
equal  shares  of 
Slovenia 
and 
Croatia 

All nuclear plants 
already 
permanently  shut 
down  and  in  the 
process 
of 
decommissioning 

SLOVENIA 

External.  

Managed  by 
specific agency 

a 

1.2 Billion € 

Decommissioning, 
and 
fuel 
spent 
radwaste 
management  and 
disposal 
related 
costs 

Slovenian  Fund 
104  Million  € 
(end 
2003)
Croatia shall form 
its 
own 
decommissioning 
fund 

the 

on 

Levy 
produced 
electricity 

2.6  Billion 
€ 
(2002)  for  power 
reactors  plus  630 
Million  €  (2002) 
for 
cycle 
fuel 
research plants. 

860  Million  € 
(1999) 
for 
decommissioning 
only 

1550  Million  € 
(1999) 
for 
disposal  of  spent 
fuel 
high 
and 
level waste 

€ 
1.4  Billion 
(2003) 
for 
decommissioning  

~60 Millions €  

Levy  on  the  price 
of  electricity  added 
resources 
to 
the 
accumulated 
by 
ENEL  and  already 
transferred 
the 
fund 

to 

Electricity price 

Electricity 
price, 
contributions  from 
radwaste  producers 
and  State  central 
budget 

ITALY 

External.  

CZECH 
REPUBLIC 

HUNGARY 

a 
Managed  by 
State 
owned 
company:  SOGIN 
responsible 
also 
dismantling 
for 
works 

Dedicated Nuclear 
(NA) 
Account 
the 
managed  by 
Ministry 
of 
Finance. 
Verification 
of 
cost  estimates  and 
of 
withdrawal 
funds 
the 
from 
NA  monitored  by 
State organisation: 
RAWRA 
independent  from 
operators  

Central  Nuclear 
Financial  Fund  in 
dedicated 
a 
Treasury  account, 
managed  by 
the 
Hungarian Atomic 
Energy  Authority 
independent  from 
A 
operators. 
Agency 
Public 
(PURAM) 
is 
responsible for the 
&  WM 
D 
activities 

NETHERLANDS  Funds  for  waste 

management 
transferred  under 
2002 agreement to 
the  State  together 
with  ownership  of 
responsible 
company 
COVRA. 

Operators  have  to 
financial 
make 
for 
provisions 
decommissioning 
requirements 

Decommissioning, 
spent 
and 
fuel 
radwaste 
management  and 
disposal 
related 
costs 

Decommissioning, 
spent 
and 
fuel 
radwaste 
management  and 
disposal 
related 
costs 

Decommissioning, 
spent 
and 
fuel 
radwaste 
management  and 
disposal 
related 
costs 

+ 

€ 
1.7  Billion 
(2003)  for  waste 
management 
including disposal 

180  Millions  € 
(present value) for 
fuel 
spent 
management  and 
decommissioning 
of  Dodewaard.
145Million  €  for 
of 
dismantling 
Borssele 
1270 Million 
€ 
for COVRA fund  

120  Million  € 
(Dec.  2001) 
in 
Borssele fund 

Contribution  from 
operators 
nuclear 
radwaste 
and 
producers 

Dodewaard  fund 
under review 

Dodewaard out of 
operation 
since 
1997. 
Borssele expected 
to  be  shut  down 
in 2013 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Electricity price. 

shifts 
Recent 
a 
towards 
of 
management 
the 
fund  more 
independent  from 
operators.  

Nuclear  operators 
and  Government 
contributions 
(historic  spent  fuel 
liabilities) 

shifts 
Recent 
a 
towards 
management 
of 
the  funds  more 
independent  from 
operators. 

higher 
Slightly 
of 
than 
investment costs. 

12% 

Decommissioning 
costs. 

nuclear 

The 
provision 
company  can  lend 
up  to  75%  of  the 
total amount to the 
nuclear  operators 
at 
industrial 
interest rates. 

the  end  of 
past 
have 
transferred 
the  Nuclear 

By 
all 
2003 
provisions 
been 
to 
Provision 
Company. 

Nuclear  operators 
pay  each  year  a 
contribution 
to 
cover  at  the  end 
industrial 
of 
operation  (i.e.  at 
least 40 years) the 
discounted 
dismantling costs. 

BE’s 
estimated 
nuclear  liabilities 
(as  of  31.03.2003 
discounted  at  3% 
per annum): £ 3.3 
for 
Billion 
contracted 
spent 
fuel liabilities and 
£  1.0  Billion  for 
uncontracted 
spent 
liabilities. 

fuel 

NDA’s  estimated 
total undiscounted 
future expenditure 
on 
discharging 
nuclear  liabilities 
:  ~£  50  Billion  ( 
~80%  BNFL  and 
UKAEA 
20% 
liability share) 

£ 

contributes 
BE 
18 
around 
per 
Million 
annum 
the 
NGDF,  which  as 
of 
31.03.2003 
amounts  to  £  334 
Million.  

to 

£ 

Under  proposed 
BE’s 
restructuring  plan 
, 
BE  would 
contribute  to  the 
NLF: 
20 
Million a year for 
the 
BE 
15 
reactors(  adjusted 
for 
inflation);  £ 
275  Million  of 
new  bonds;  £ 
150,000 
per 
tonne/  U  loaded 
into  Sizewell  B; 
and  65%  of  BE’s 
free cash flow. 

BELGIUM 

UNITED 
KINGDOM 

Before  the  law  of 
2003: 
April 
Provisions  within 
the  books  of  the 
electricity 
producers 
internal) 

(i.e. 

After 
11.04.2003:Funds 
in 
Nuclear 
Provision 
(in 
Company 
which 
the  State 
has a golden share 
giving  the  right  to 
veto) 

There  are 
main 
operators: 
(private) 
BNFL 
UKAEA 
sector). 

three 
nuclear 
BE 
and 
and 
(public 

is  not  a 
common 
for 

There 
single 
regime 
funding.  

Internal 
BNFL: 
not 
segregated 
fund but a Nuclear 
Liabilities 
Investment 
Portofolio 
earmarked for that 
purpose. 

Internal 

BE: 
independent 
Nuclear 
Generation 
Decommissioning 
Fund (NGDF). 

Under 
new 
a 
scheme  presently 
under discussion a 
Nuclear 
Decommissioning 
Authority(NDA) 
would 
be 
responsible 
for 
the 
securing 
discharge  of  all 
public 
sector 
liabilities  on  civil 
public  sector  sites 
(i.e.  owned  by 
BNFL 
and 
UKAEA). 

Under 
a  BE’s 
restructuring  plan, 
EC 
pending 
approval, 
the 
NGDF  would  be 
subsumed  within 
Nuclear 
new 
Liabilities 
Fund 
(NLF).  

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
 
GERMANY 

Internal. 
Contingency 
reserves 
operator’s 
accounts  and  tax 
deductible.  

in 

No  constraints  on 
the  allocation  of 
except 
reserves 
the 
care 
due 
principle. 

25  Billion 
€ 
(decommissioning 
costs  only)  not 
including research 
reactors and those 
inherited from the 
former GDR. 

FRANCE 

Not separated  

Internal 
operator. 

to 

the 

EDF 
fully 
is 
responsible  for  its 
management. 

These  provisions 
are tax deductible. 

used 

to 
addition 
In 
decommissioning 
provisioned 
the 
have 
amounts 
been 
to 
the 
reduce 
company debt and 
to  invest  in  new 
assets  and  to  fund 
dedicated 
assets 
(bonds & equity)  

Decommissioning 
cost  estimated  at 
258.86  €  (1998) 
per  installed  Kw. 
Decommissioning 
cost equal to 15% 
construction  costs 
and  discounted  at 
3%. 

are 
Provision 
calculated  for  40 
years 
operation 
and  regularly  re-
evaluated. 

Total  provision  at 
the  end  of  2003 
for 
NPP’s 
decommissioning 
: 9.4 Billion €. 

End  of  fuel  cycle 
13.9 
provision: 
Billion  € 
(i.e. 
10.2  Billion  €  for 
reprocessing  and 
3.7  Billion  €  for 
disposal  of  waste 
fuel) 

In tax balance sheet 
for 
funds 
decommissioning 
in 
accumulated 
equal 
instalments 
over  25  years  and 
discounted at 5.5%. 

Radioactive  waste 
management  funds 
in 
constituted 
the 
proportion 
generated  radwaste 
and discounted also 
at 5.5% 

to 

Provisions 
operator’s 
accounts. 

the 
in 
(EDF) 

EN 

10 

   EN