Larson reported 2019 that the United States has more nuclear power reactors than any country worldwide. The 98 operable nuclear generating units provide approximately 20% of the electrical generation in the United States. Uranium is the fundamental element used to fuel nuclear power production. The front-end of the nuclear fuel cycle comprises the industrial stages starting with uranium extraction from the earth and ending with power production in a nuclear reactor.
Congressional interest in the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle is associated with many factors, including:
1) domestic uranium production and supply,
2) concerns about increasing reliance on uranium imports, and
3) the economic viability of U.S. nuclear power reactors.
Historically, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), a predecessor federal agency to the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), promoted uranium production in the United States through federal procurement contracts between 1947 and 1971. The majority of domestic uranium concentrate production prior to 1971 supported the development of nuclear weapons and naval propulsion reactors. After 1971, uranium mill operators produced uranium concentrate primarily for use in commercial nuclear power reactors.
By the late 1980s, nuclear utilities and reactor operators in the United States purchased more uranium from foreign suppliers than domestic producers. By 2017, 93% of the uranium purchased by U.S. nuclear utilities and reactor operators originated in a foreign country. Nuclear utilities and reactor operators diversify uranium supplies among multiple domestic and foreign sources, intending to minimize fuel costs. For example, a nuclear utility in the United States may purchase uranium concentrate that has been mined and milled in Australia, converted in France, enriched in Germany, and fabricated into fuel in the United States.
Examination of the current status of the front-end of the nuclear fuel cycle highlights broad policy questions about the federal government’s role in sustaining or promoting nuclear fuel production in the United States. This report describes the front-end of the nuclear fuel cycle and the global
uranium marketplace, analyzes domestic sources and imports of various types of uranium materials involved in the fuel cycle, and provides a discussion about the current issues.
Concerns of Nuclear Utilities and Reactor Operators and Suppliers
Representatives from nuclear utilities and reactor operators, industry trade groups, think tanks, converters, enrichers, and foreign governments opposed the trade actions on uranium imports proposed by the petitioners.88 Nuclear utilities and reactor operators asserted that quotas on uranium imports may increase fuel costs, causing financially vulnerable nuclear reactors to shut down earlier than currently planned. The Ad Hoc Utilities Group (AHUG), collectively representing U.S. nuclear generators,89 asserted, “Imports assure the security of nuclear fuel supply and the reliability of the electric grid. Nuclear generators source from a diverse set of suppliers at all stages of the nuclear fuel cycle with the majority of supply coming from the U.S.
and our allies in Canada, Australia, and Western Europe.” 90
Operators of U.S. conversion and enrichment facilities in the United States publicly expressed concern with uranium import quotas.91 Malcolm Critchley, the marketing agent for ConverDyn, stated that quotas “would undoubtedly cause suppliers to divert uranium [from Honeywell].... to other locations outside of the United States if the supplier did not have a known domestic customer at the time of import.”
U.S. uranium enrichers shared these concerns. Melissa Mann, the president of Urenco USA—the only uranium enrichment operation in the United States—noted that with the ceased operations at Honeywell and the Department of Energy termination of its barter program, “there is currently no
source of natural UF6 in the United States.”92
Urenco receives deliveries of UF6 from Cameco’s Port Hope facility in Canada and Orano’s Comhurex II in France. She cautioned, “Should remedies in the uranium Section 232 investigation be imposed that disrupt deliveries of UF6 to [New Mexico], operation of the facility—and the $5 billion investment in the plant—could be jeopardized,” and “the lack of feed material to enrich would also jeopardize delivery of low enriched uranium to fuel fabricators, putting at risk utility reactor reload schedules and reactor operations.” 93
Some utilities have dismissed claims about the dependence on foreign-sourced uranium and vulnerability to supply chain disruptions. For example, Dominion Energy noted that concerns with foreign supply disruptions were exaggerated because “in the past five years, our only delays or interruptions in nuclear fuel component deliveries have been from U.S. based fuel cycle suppliers.”
Domestic Uranium Production Viability
The financial viability in the short term and long term for domestic uranium producers—uranium miners and millers—in the United States remains uncertain. Domestic uranium production experienced a sharp decline during the early 1980s, and has remained at comparatively low levels over the past 25 years. Recently, global demand for uranium has been depressed due to a number of factors, including the continued shutdown of most Japanese nuclear power reactors following the Fukushima Daiichi accident. 97
In 2018, domestic uranium concentrate production was 1.5 million pounds, down approximately 40% from 2017, and at the lowest annual production levels since 1950.98 U.S. uranium producers have dealt with poor market conditions by decreasing production and imposing employment layoffs. 99 Domestic uranium producers have reportedly engaged in purchasing uranium concentrate on the market at lower spot market prices to fill delivery obligations at relatively higher contract prices.100 States have proposed legislation intended to provide some financial relief for domestic uranium producers.101
Nuclear Power Viability
U.S. nuclear power plants face economic issues and a general uncertainty over their long-term economic viability.102 Of the 98 operating nuclear reactors, 12 are scheduled to shut down, prior to license expiration, by 2025.103 The Plant Vogtle nuclear expansion project in Georgia, currently the only new construction of nuclear power reactors in the United States, is reportedly billions of dollars over budget and years behind schedule.104 A 2018 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists asserts that roughly one-third of nuclear power plants are unprofitable and modest changes in costs may have profound impacts on other nuclear power plants’ economic viability. 105
Back End of Fuel Cycle
The back end of the nuclear fuel cycle comprises the storage of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) after it is discharged from a nuclear reactor; however, issues associated with SNF storage and disposal are not discussed in this report. This report does not discuss potential environmental, public health,
and proliferation issues associated with the front-end of the nuclear fuel cycle.
Original working URL: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R45753.pdf
Managed & Built by I2M Consulting, LLC | © 2010-
