ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES & SOCIO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS Public version Legal name of Applicant: Nexter Mechanics Submitted by: Nexter Mechanics Substance: Chromium trioxide, EC 215-607-8 and CAS 1333-82-0 Use title: Use-1 Industrial use of a mixture of chromium trioxide for the hard chromium plating of military armament steels parts which are thermomechanically stressed and in contact with oxidizing gas at high temperature, so as to ensure a thermal barrier with high melting point, resistance to wear and oxidation associated with weapons as well as resistance to impact and atmospheric corrosion. Use number: 1 Analysis of Alternatives – Socio-Economic Analysis CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................................... 6 1. SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 7 2. AIMS AND SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS .................................................................................. 9 2.1. Equipments concerned and applications .......................................................................... 13 2.1.1. CAESAR ................................................................................................................................... 14 2.1.2. RAFALE .................................................................................................................................... 16 2.1.3. JAGUAR and the CT40 gun ...................................................................................................... 17 2.2. Elements of context........................................................................................................... 20 2.2.1. Focus: Maintenance in Operational Conditions (MOC) .......................................................... 21 2.3. General methodology ........................................................................................................ 22 2.3.1. Scope of the AfA ..................................................................................................................... 23 2.3.2. An argument partly based on representative examples for the French army ........................ 24 2.3.3. Actualisation ........................................................................................................................... 25 2.3.4. Confidentiality ........................................................................................................................ 26 2.4. Substitution strategy ......................................................................................................... 27 2.5. Definitions of the “applied for use” and “non-use” scenarios .......................................... 27 2.5.1. “Applied for use” scenario ...................................................................................................... 27 2.5.2. “Non-use” scenario ................................................................................................................. 27 3. “APPLIED FOR USE” SCENARIO ....................................................................................... 29 3.1. Analysis of substance function .......................................................................................... 29 3.2. Market and business trends including the use of the substance ...................................... 30 3.2.1. Annual tonnage ...................................................................................................................... 33 3.3. Remaining risks of the “applied for use” scenario ............................................................ 33 3.4. Human health impacts and monetised damage of the “applied for use” scenario .......... 33 3.4.1. Medical treatment .................................................................................................................. 34 3.4.2. Mortality and morbidity ......................................................................................................... 37 3.4.3. Synthesis of the monetised damage of the “applied for use” scenario .................................. 42 3.4.4. Complementary elements of analysis: values taking into account a 4% discount rate .......... 43 3.5. Environment and man-via-environment impacts and monetised damage of the “applied for use” scenario .......................................................................................................................... 43 3.5.1. Environment impacts and monetised damage ....................................................................... 43 3.5.2. Man-via-environment impacts and monetised damage ........................................................ 43 3.6. General conclusion on the impacts and monetised damage of the “applied for use” scenario ........................................................................................................................................ 43 4. SELECTION OF THE “NON-USE” SCENARIO ....................................................................... 44 4.1. Efforts made to identify alternatives ................................................................................ 44 4.1.1. Research and development .................................................................................................... 44 4.1.2. Data searches ......................................................................................................................... 44 4.2. Identification of known alternatives ................................................................................. 45 4.2.1. Potential alternatives already abandoned ............................................................................. 45 4.2.2. Other publicly available potential alternative process ........................................................... 46 4.2.3. Consortium as the only remaining alternative for Use-1 ........................................................ 46 4.3. Assessment of shortlisted alternatives ............................................................................. 46 4.3.1. Alternative 1 ........................................................................................................................... 47 Use-1 Nexter Mechanics 2 Analysis of Alternatives – Socio-Economic Analysis 4.3.2. The most likely “non-use” scenario ........................................................................................ 51 5. IMPACTS OF GRANTING AN AUTHORISATION ................................................................. 56 5.1. Economic impacts .............................................................................................................. 57 5.1.1. Loss of revenues, profits and orders ....................................................................................... 57 5.1.2. Lost investments ..................................................................................................................... 59 5.1.3. Contractual penalties ............................................................................................................. 60 5.2. Human health or Environmental impact ........................................................................... 61 5.3. Social impacts .................................................................................................................... 61 5.3.1. Impact on employment........................................................................................................... 61 5.3.2. Territory vulnerability ............................................................................................................. 66 5.3.3. Indirect employment .............................................................................................................. 67 5.4. Wider economic impacts ................................................................................................... 68 5.5. Distributional impacts ....................................................................................................... 68 5.5.1. Impact on operational availability of armament systems ...................................................... 70 5.5.2. Loss of investments for the French State ................................................................................ 74 5.5.3. Impact on France’s sovereignty .............................................................................................. 75 5.5.4. Impact on Nexter’s industrial partners ................................................................................... 76 5.6. Uncertainty analysis for both the “applied for use” and the “non-use” scenario ............ 77 5.6.1. “Applied for use” scenario ...................................................................................................... 77 5.6.2. “Non-use” scenario ................................................................................................................. 78 5.6.3. Synthesis ................................................................................................................................. 81 5.6.4. Conclusion............................................................................................................................... 83 5.7. General conclusion on the impacts of granting an authorisation ..................................... 83 6. CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................ 85 6.1. Comparison of the benefits and