Used Nuclear Fuel Management Options

Used Nuclear Fuel Management Options Main challenges and AREVA overall positioning November 15, 2016 Isabelle Morlaes, AREVA, Sales Back-End Dpt. SVP France & New Business Development AREVA Proprietary <AREVA> All rights reserved

Overview of New AREVA Recycling La Hague and Melox: the only facilities in the world to operate at a large, industrial scale Proven experience for the design and operation of industrial nuclear cycle sites Logistics Only industrial player providing all logistics solutions of the fuel cycle including interim storage, waste management, Dismantling Breakdown of 2015 revenue by operations Mining Front End Back End Other 35 % 26 % 38 % 1 %% Renowned expertise in engineering, project management and operations in highly radioactive areas Unique know-how used for AREVA s industrial sites (La Hague ) and for its customers (French and export) UNF Management Options IAEA November 2016 p.3 / AREVA Proprietary <AREVA> All rights reserved

Agenda 1 Main challenges of Used Nuclear Fuel Management Options 2 Value of UNF management options 3 Generic Decisional Framework for utilities on UNFmanagement options 4 AREVA positioning 5 Conclusions UNF Management Options IAEA November 2016 p.4 / AREVA Proprietary <AREVA> All rights reserved

Used nuclear fuel management options Sustainability criteria The main objective in managing and disposing of radioactive waste is to protect people and the environment A used nuclear fuel management option is sustainable if it Covers all the steps of used fuel management until final disposal, in accordance with an acceptable, practical plan Proves to be feasible with an acceptable impact level on the health and on the environment Includes a realistic and balanced financing plan Does not impose undue burdens on future generations Worldwide consensus for UNF & HLW disposal is deepmined, geologic repository, with a safe & acceptable route ~2025 >2050 http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-waste-management.aspx UNF Management Options IAEA November 2016 p.5 / AREVA Proprietary <AREVA> All rights reserved

Nuclear utilities are facing major challenges Used Fuel Management Challenges Significant inventories Lack of (or major delay in developing) final disposal path Industrial interim systems not capable of bridging the gap until FD Uncertainty over used fuels LT behavior Ageing used fuel is no longer self protected Reactors operations & life extension Reactors shut-down New reactors Main issues & risks for nuclear utilities Saturation of reactors pools and constraints on operations Safety demonstration Security and non proliferation issues Pool unloading for phase out Damaged fuels Difficulty to get new license At each phase of power plant lifecycle, Utilities need to avoid saturation and safely manage interim storage Risks reduction: a short term priority UNF Management Options IAEA November 2016 p.6 / AREVA Proprietary <AREVA> All rights reserved

Two Main Options for Used Fuel Management Nuclear Power Plants as well as RTR Closed cycle Transport Transport Transport Transport Open cycle Total Fuel Cycle Costs are comparable in both scenarios Direct disposal Recycling UNF Management Options IAEA November 2016 p.7 / AREVA Proprietary <AREVA> All rights reserved

A proven industrial experience in used fuel recycling over 40 years Existing treatment capacities in France consisting in 2 plants : La Hague 1,700 thm/year capacity Melox A proven industrial performance thm 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 Average Burn Up (GWd/tHM) 30 UP3 UP2-800 UP2-400 5000 20 0 1976198019841988199219962000200420082012 8 000+ MOX FAs 7 200+ ERU FAs loaded in LWR (end 2012) 45 32 176 thm reprocessed UNF (end 2015) MOX ERU 195 thm /year capacity ~2 600 thm manufactured MOX FA Achieving similar performance level than Uox fuel Recycling is a fully available and industrially robust solution UNF Management Options IAEA November 2016 p.10 / AREVA Proprietary <AREVA> All rights reserved

Closed Cycle noticeable feature: Waste management Compaction of structural pieces (hulls and end-pieces) Encapsulation of Fission Products & Minor Actinides Cementation of waste arising from operation in specifically designed matrices Universal compacted residues Canister (UC-C) Universal vitrified residues Canister (UC-V/U) Both the glass matrix and compacted waste are conditioned in Universal canisters : a standardized waste form suitable for transport, storage and final disposal Vitrified HLW containment is a stable, homogeneous, and durable glass matrix with a long-term predictable behaviour Reduced radiotoxicity : UC-V contains 33% less actinides than UNF No criticality risk / No proliferation risk : The fissile materials inventory is divided by a factor of 1 million in case of UC-V storage Thermal load decreases by 60% between 60 and 100 years of interim storage for UC-V vs. 40% for UNF HLW specifications accepted by 10 International Safety Authorities UNF Management Options IAEA November 2016 p.11 / AREVA Proprietary <AREVA> All rights reserved

Benefits of Closed Fuel Cycle Reduction of waste and final disposal footprint AREVA is continuously improving its processes and technologies to reduce the amount of primary and secondary waste to segregate the waste at the source, further reducing expensive treatment and disposal For the same electricity production, reduction of the HLW disposal zone by a factor of 4 for the French case (source ANDRA) Open Cycle Closed Cycle Thanks to used fuel reprocessing and vitrification, HLW interim storage is made easier, compact and well accepted until the final repository is available UNF Management Options IAEA November 2016 p.12 / AREVA Proprietary <AREVA> All rights reserved No criticality risk / no proliferation risk No safeguards required Easier conception & licensing Costs and technical uncertainties significantly reduced

Recycling : an operational solution Safe, responsible, sustainable and non proliferating Closed cycle 96% recyclable material MOX ERU Transport Treatment / Recycling Industrial operations 2003 2023 2043 2063 2083 2103 Demonstrated safe Long term storage Absence of constraints for time, footprint and safeguards Final waste disposal Optimisation of footprint (/3), volume (/4) and radiotoxicity (/10) No safeguards No proliferation risk ( Pu mines ) No safety risk (stable vitrified wastes) Open cycle Transport Intermediate storage Constraints for space, time and safeguards Issues with fuel integrity for extended dry storage period Fuel not self protecting Better public acceptance? Extended period storage Potential reconditioning prior transportation Repacking into final disposal canisters Encapsulation Under design phase Cost estimates for encapsulation have doubled over the past decade Final waste disposal Technical & economical uncertainties No disposal in operation, nor in construction: Most of projects in pre siting phase High occurrence of delays Uncertainties over site and design UNF Management Options IAEA November 2016 p.13 / AREVA Proprietary <AREVA> All rights reserved

Inter site transfers Nuclear Power Plant 2 1 3 On-site wet or dry storage Centralized wet or dry storage Reprocessing Plant Or Direct Disposal Site Interim management of Used Fuel Assemblies Whatever the strategy decided upon, there will be a time gap between generation of used fuel in reactor and final disposal of ultimate waste Countries considering interim storage must take into account a number of key decision making criteria Long term interim storage Footprint Fuel Characteristics Visual protection Interface constraints Protection against man-made attacks /accidents Protection against natural disasters Life-cycle cost Ease of retrieval Expandability Fabrication lead time Transfer rate Decommissioning Technology maturity Dose rate Fuel management Back-end integration Compatibility of Solution Implementation time Economic value Flexibility Public acceptance & Safety Dry or wet Solution need to store different Fuel types Fast-track requirements definition Short system implementation schedule Low system cost: total cost of storage solution is a top priority Optimized cash flow profile: differed investment is considered advantageous Small footprint: due to site constraints, available storage surface is limited Integration with the National Back-End policy (open or closed cycle) High level of accidental damage protection: e.g., floods, winds, seismic events and man-made attacks / accidents Enhanced radiological protection: dose rate at storage site limit Visual protection UNF Management Options IAEA November 2016 p.15 / AREVA Proprietary <AREVA> All rights reserved

Generic Decisional Framework for utilities on UNF-management In principle : financial provisions must be taken in the short term to ensure the long term responsibilities and liabilities ( waste producer pays no undue burdens on future generations ) Expenses relating to UNF-management operations from licensing till final disposal being covered by this Provision Fund There are only a few decisional points during UNF-management period to decide among options E.g., duration of interim pool storage (at or away-from-reactor), and thus delay other options at least 20 years, duration of next (dry) interim storage period Pros and cons may depend on national context and strategy Cost / Risk optimized UNF management allows to ensure minimal cost uncertainty exposure UNF Management Options IAEA November 2016 p.16 / AREVA Proprietary <AREVA> All rights reserved

Sustainable Solutions for an optimized, long-term and responsible management of used fuel RECYCLING & HLW STORAGE INTERIM OPTIONS FOR USED FUEL DRY STORAGE WET STORAGE RECYCLING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS Sustainable Cycle Solutions, mitigating risks & enhancing customer value A smart mix of proven and evolving technologies tailored to stakeholders priorities and constraints UNF Management Options IAEA November 2016 p.18 / AREVA Proprietary <AREVA> All rights reserved

AREVA and the Nuclear Fuel Cycle in France 8000 t Nat U 1075 thmuox Main Goals of Recycling in France Managing waste Waste reduction (volume, heat load, radiotoxicity decrease) Safe & secure ultimate waste without plutonium Minimise size and constraints of the geological repository Saving uranium resources 125 thmmox Preparing the future Nuclear material accessible for GEN(IV) reactor Energy Independence 1200tHM UNF Requirement Pu from processing = Pu recycled AREVA actor of the French system : Front end, Back end and Logistics UNF Management Options IAEA November 2016 p.19 / AREVA Proprietary <AREVA> All rights reserved

International positioning of AREVA International recommendations (2001 Joint Convention on Safety of Used Fuel Management and on Safety of Radioactive Waste Management) Each country has the right to reprocess their spent fuels abroad Each country has the right to return the waste arising from reprocessing to the country of origin A country willing to receive radioactive waste and materials is obliged to have the necessary regulatory structure to receive and manage them in compliance with the international regulations French legal & regulatory framework - General principles An Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) is Mandatory for a reprocessing contract enforcement Storage in France is prohibited Foreign waste Waste from reprocessing of foreign spent fuel Return to foreign owners of the imported mass and activity, excepted Valuable materials (i.e. recycled uranium and plutonium) Effluents Waste originating from the facilities AREVA promotes the recycling option for France and foreign countries UNF Management Options IAEA November 2016 p.20 / AREVA Proprietary <AREVA> All rights reserved

Expanding capabilities of existing plants Vitrification of a wider range of product (UMo ) Cold Crucible Melter vitrification technology Going forward And preparing the future Recycling additional types of fuels - TCP project Research reactor fuels MOX fuels from LWR and FR Special material Vitrification cell, La Hague Scenario studies to explore options for development of the back end of the fuel cycle: Step by step fast reactors deployment TCP project, in R1 facility, La Hague Plutonium multi-recycling waste reduction and natural resources management GEN(IV) - ASTRID project led by CEA Multi-recycling in LWR? ASTRID Reactor AREVA is expanding the capabilities of the existing plants and preparing Pu multi-recycling scenarios with EDF & CEA UNF Management Options IAEA November 2016 p.21 / AREVA Proprietary <AREVA> All rights reserved

Conclusions An open cycle keeps a high level of uncertainty over time Issues with fuel integrity for extended dry storage period Potential encapsulation and repackaging Delays in final disposal project A recycling strategy as implemented in France enables to Limit used fuel inventories built-up on reactors sites Safely condition ultimate residues (especially with deep geological disposal in mind) Access the untapped energy potential in used fuel assemblies AREVA: Actor of the French UNF management system today and tomorrow, with a large industrial experience Treatment and recycling Interim storage (wet and dry) Transport and other logistics services AREVA develops customized UNF management solutions for standard and specific used fuels worldwide, depending on national specificities and strategy Potential multi-clients schemes to optimize synergies on both economical and public acceptance angles UNF Management Options IAEA November 2016 p.23 / AREVA Proprietary <AREVA> All rights reserved

Any reproduction, alteration, transmission to any third party or publication in whole or in part of this document and/or its content is prohibited unless AREVA has provided its prior and written consent. This document and any information it contains shall not be used for any other purpose than the one for which they were provided. Legal action may be taken against any infringer and/or any person breaching the aforementioned obligations. UNF Management Options IAEA November 2016 p.25 / AREVA Proprietary <AREVA> All rights reserved