36 / 386
RISK FACTORS
04
4.8 Other risk
4.8.3.
INDUSTRIAL RISKS RELATED TO CLIMATE CHANGE
The risk of a natural disaster as a result of climate change is identified in the
group’s business risk model. It is estimated to be of very low impact in terms of
frequency and severity. Action plans to strengthen the resilience of certain facilities
were nonetheless implemented at the industrial sites, in particular following the
supplementary safety assessments (SSA) conducted after the Fukushima accident.
These assessments factored in the latest scientific knowledge on global warming,
on the impacts on water resources and on extreme climate phenomena, using
extremely conservative assumptions.
Concerning the fight against climate change, AREVA has implemented a proactive
policy since 2000 aimed at reducing the environmental footprint of its operations,
and more specifically at acting simultaneously on the five known mechanisms
of biodiversity erosion. The main actions undertaken involve combatting climate
change, managing the risks related to changes in land use (disturbance of natural
habitat and release of CO
2
stored in the soil), managing the potential impacts
of releases and other industrial pollution, preventing the proliferation of invasive
species, and working towards the sustainable use of natural resources:
p
in 2014, the first ten-year assessment indicated a 66% reduction in greenhouse
gas emissions at constant revenue, an 89% reduction in energy consumption, a
91% reduction in water consumption, and a 48% reduction in unrecycled waste.
These reductions are consistent with our low-carbon product offering, which
is in line with customer expectations (e.g. Vattenfall, EDF, etc.). In fact, lifecycle
analysis shows that one nuclear kilowatt-hour produced by our customers
from fuel supplied by AREVA emits only four grams of CO
2
, making it the best
environmental performance in the market, all energies combined;
p
in June 2016, the change of process at the Comurhex II Malvési plant eliminated
releases of nitrous oxides (N
2
O), thus reducing the group’s greenhouse gas
emissions by nearly 20% on a full-year basis.
One of AREVA’s defining features is its development of a pioneering, competitive
position in the circular economy through its fuel cycle operations. Its industrial
tools in the back end of the cycle enable it to recycle energy recovered from the
plutonium contained in used nuclear fuel into fresh MOX fuel. Industrial know-how
on this scale is unique in the world. It significantly reduces environmental impacts
across the entire uranium lifecycle, in particular during the mining stage, which has
the biggest impact in terms of footprint.
Factoring extreme risks into the supplementary safety assessments (SSA)
represented an expense of 260million euros for studies and facility reinforcements;
reducing the environmental footprint (actions taken) represented a gain of 170million
euros per year on the group’s operating costs, mostly consisting of energy savings.
4.8.4.
HUMAN RESOURCES RISK
THE GROUP MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO FIND THE NECESSARY
EXPERTISE TO CARRY OUT ITS OPERATIONS.
In some fields, the group has to turn to outside experts when it does not have
expertise internally for the successful completion of its projects. The group cannot
guarantee that it will find the necessary skills for the successful performance of some
operations, which could have a significant negative impact on those operations and
on the group’s financial position.
The group cannot guarantee that it will be able to call up the necessary resources
for its development in due time or under satisfactory conditions.
In connection with the group’s development, reorganization or restructuring, it
continues to be likely that labor protests will disrupt its operations and impact its
financial position.
Lastly, in 2016, the group was forced to carry out a “Voluntary Departure Plan”
whose potential consequences on the availability of skills in the short and medium
terms continue to be difficult to assess at this time.
36
2016 AREVA
REFERENCE DOCUMENT