ML18192A431

Supplemental Testimony for the NRC Staff by John A. Patterson on Contention 2A

ML18192A431
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	07/21/1977
From:	Patterson J US Dept of Energy, Energy Research & Development Admin (ERDA)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
Download: ML18192A431 (84)

Text

, ~

I m > ~>wPs >a g -sr'-P7 R00lg 0g6

~~~ 0~~ CERT'>7, Pyggg I

0 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the iMatter of PACIFIC GAS PND ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Po~

er Plant, Unit Nos.

1 and 2)

Docket Nos.

50-275 O.L.

50-323 O.L.

I i

i

~

)

SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY FOR THE NRC STAFF BY JOHN A.

PATTERSON

~

ON CONTENTION 2A

N f

i~ l,

~

C.

t N

'Q John A. Patterson Division of Hucleax'uel Cycle and P=oduction U. S'. Energy Reseaxch and Development Administration In this statement I wi11 review infoxmation availaole to the

~ergy Research and Dev'elopment Administration (ERDA) on the domestic urania resource situation and the out3.ook for development ox additional domestic supp'.es,. availabil'ty of foreign u=anium, and the relationship ox uranium supply to planned nuclear genex'ating capacity.

Analysis of uranium xesources and their availability has been carried out by the govenment since the late 1940s.

The work was carried out for many years by the Atomic Enex'gy Commission.

The activity was made part of the Enexgy Reseaxch and Develop-ment Administration (~A) when, the agency was cxeated in early 1975.

U. S. Resource Position To establish some basic concepts, a review of resourc concepts

~ and nomenclature would be worthwhile.

Figzre 1 is a chaxt of resource categories based on varying geologic knowledge and on varying economic availability.

Resources designated as ore reserves have the hi'ghest assurance regarding their magnitude and economic availability.

Estimates of reserves are based

I ~ ~

~

I'j on detailed sampling data, primarily from gamma xay logs of I

drill holes.

ERDA obtains basic data from industry from its ezpI.oration effort and estimates the reserves in individual

'deposits.

In. estimating ore reserves, detailed studies of feasible mining, transportation, and milling techniques

and, costs axe made.

Consistent engineering,

geologic, and economic criteria axe employed.

The methods used are the result of over 25 years effnxt in uranium resou ce evaluation..

r

.Resources that do not meet the stringent requirements of reserves are classed as potential resou ces.

For its study of resources, ERDA subdivides potential resources into three categories:

probable, possible, and speculative.1/

Probable resources axe those contained within favorable

txends, largely delineated by drilling, within productive uranium districts (i.e., districts having more than, 10 tons U308 product ion and reserves ).

Quantitative estimates of poten.tial resources axe made by considering the extent of the identified favorable areas and by comparing certain geolo'gic characteristics with those associated wi;th known oxe deposits.

1/

GJO-ill(76) Hational Uranium Resource Evaluation Pre-liminary Report, Grand Junction Office, E'.U)A, June 1976.

1

i l

Possible potential resources are outside of identified mineral trends but are in geologic provinces and formations that have been productive.

Speculative resources are those estimated to occur in foxmations or geologic provinces which have not been productive but which, based on the evaluation of available geologic 'data, are considered to be favorable for the occurrence of uranium deposits.

The reliability of the estimates of potential uranium resources differs fox'ach of the three potential classes.

The reliabil'ty of probable potential estimates is greatest in view of the more complete information, a

'result of the extensive exploration and development in the major uranium districts.

T.t is least for speculative potential for axeas with no significant uranium deposits, for which favorability is detexmined, from available knowledge on the characteristics of the geologic envt'r'onment.

Since any evaluation of resources is dependent upon the availability of infoxmation, the estimates themselves

are, to a large degree, a score card on the state of development of information.

Thus appraisal of United States uranium x'esources is heavily dependent upon the completeness of exploration efforts and the availability of. subsurface geologic data.

Since the geology of the United States as it: relates to mineral deposits can never be completely

I i

j'

\\

~I I

h'

~ '.,':.)

llI L

~ ~

C'

~

known in detail, it will not be possible to produce a truely complete appraisal of domestic uranium resources.

Given the natura and cuxx'ent status of ERDA estimates,

however, so fax

~

as an overall appxaisal of the United States is concerned, it is more likely that the total resouxces eventually will prove larger than px'esent estimates than that they will be less.

The key question may be the timeliness with which resou ces are identified, developed and produced.

Conceptually, a resource, whethex u anium ox'ther minexal commodity, would initially be in the potential category.

Development of additional data and clarification of px'oduction techniques and economics is required until the point is x'cached that specif.c ore deposits are delineated and understood to a degree that they can be categorized as reserves.

I

~ >OlI I I

'I ~

'i

'.'lLI,j r hl

~ \\

h I

Il

~ l'I Qel can expect that there willbe a dynamic balance between anticipated ma kets and prices 'and the extent to which ez-'loration and reserve delineation will be done.

There is no economic incentive for industry to expand reserves, the additional uranium will not be needed for many yeaxs

ahead, especially if the long-texm maxket outlook is uncextain.

This has been so for uranium.

The mining companies axe concen-trating on maxkets fox the next, 5 to 15 years.

The utilities and government axe concerned with the outlook for the next

'0 to 40 years.

Conversion of the presently estimated

t

Q potential resources into ore reserves will take many years and will cost several billion dollars. It would be difficult to economically justify accelerating such an effort to delineate,o e reserve levels equal to lifetime xequixements of all planned reactors covering some 30-40 yeaxs in the future simply to satisfy planners.

I I

I

~

I I

~

Ci Q

Supply assurance th-ough continued timely additions to resexves and maintenance of a resource base adequate to support production demands, coupled with carefully developed information on potential resources is considered to be adequate and a more realistic and economic approach.

The conversion of potential resources to ore reserves and expansion of pxoduction facilities can be accomplished when needed as markets eland and production is needed.

The vertical dimension in H.gure 1 relates to the impact of increasing production costs on. resource availability.

Highex prices axe needed to produce ores of lower quality and those with more difficult mining or. milling characteristics.

Such

reserves, though well delineated, are not. available if prices are too low'.

The domestic uranium industry has, over most of its lifetime, been concerned with discovery'nd production of uranium at costs in the

$8-$ 10/lb; range ox less.

Average prices for

P

\\

t

<g

~,

~ ~ ~

~

." I

~ v..';l I

I r

Q p

uranium deliveries in 1975 axe reported t:o be

$ 10.50 per pound of U308.

Xa view of the economic acceptability of.higher 2/

cost uranium in react:ors, resouxce estimates by ERDA in recent.

- years have included resources that ~ould be available at

$ 15

'nd

$30 production cuto. f costs;+

However, because of the lesser experience with $ 15 and

$ 30 resouxces, they are not as fully delineat:ed or as well understood as the

$ 10 xesouxces.

I At cost. levels above

$30 per pound, there has been little effort at appraisal of resources ox in exploration.

'Therefoxe, these resources are poorly ~own at present and quantitative estimates axe not possible'(with the exception of the Chattanooga shale to be discussed later).

Such=resources are Known to ezist, and efforts are under way to. appraise them.

I I

Xn Figxx'e 2 axe t:abulated ERDA estimates of domestic uranium resources following t:he conceptua1 arrangement: of Figure 1.

These estimates reflect the results of the. pxel~ary phase V

1 1

I

't

! 0 2/

ERDA 76-46, Survey of U. S. Uranium Marketing Activity, April 1976.

• Cutoff costs are axbitraxy" reference costs used. for resouxce evaluation that consider operating and future capital expen-ditures for mining, transporting and processing the ores.

These costs are used to determine the quality limits of material to be included in a resouxce estimate.

Cutof-

. cost:s should not be confused with prices which are determined by total cost, profit, and. market place considerations.

~

~

~

,I,

~,

'I

\\

~ 'I

~ ~

~

I I

I

. I l

~

4 i

I I

j

~

~

~

~ '\\

S I

~

I a

', I I

I I,

';. I

'I

~

I

.4:qr s f

~

~

U M7W Q3 of the ERDA Hational Uran'um Resouxce Evaluation (NURE) program.

I The resources estimates in the preliminary phase of the NURE

'xogram..tota3.ed 3.7 million tons up to a production cost of

$30.

Of this 640,000 tons are S.n the oxe reserve category.

An addf.tional estimated 140,000 tons S.s attributed to byproduct, material thxough the year 2000.

3:n this eva3.uation program, the nation has been divided S.nto study areas as shown in dvigu e 3. Por comparison,,

the major known uranium areas in the U. Ssuch as the Colorado Plateau, gyoming Basins and Texas Gu3.f Coastal PlaS.n, are shown in Figure 4.

The geographic distribution of estimated potentia3. resources is shown in Pi~e 5.

On3y limited data are available for'uch of the country and estimates fox'hese ar'eas wil3. be laxgely in the speculative

category, or unassessed, for some time.

The pxel~axy phase of the RZZ program has identS.fied additional areas with geologic chaxacterS.sties favorable fox the occurrence of

~ uranium deposits, but fox which data was inadequate fox evaluatS.on of potential resources.

The location of areas with estimated potential resou ces and other favorable areas is shown in Pkmxre 6.

The HURE program will develop considerable

.'dditional basic information, in the next several years, which

.I 0 3/

GJO 111(76} HatS.onal Uran'um Resource Evaluation Preliminary

Report, Grand Junction Office, ERDA, June 1976.

~ ~

4 1 ~"

~

'I will lead t:o a.'more compxehensive, in-depth evaluaticn of the U. S. Long-term resource.

outlook.

G Attainable production Leve3s The domestic industry currently has a production'apacity of.

'around 16,000 tons U308 per yeaz.-.

Plans have been reported to expand capaci,ty to 24,000 tons per yeax, by 1978. Iadustry g/

plans to spend

$ 237 million in 1976 and

$ 265 million in 1977

~ ',

l I

j

~

I

~

~

i+I

( ~

."c

)

C.

,-..rg:,

-<<V )

'L i

I I'I; a

on new mining and mi ling capaci,ty, compared to

$ 146 mi3.lion 5/

spent. in 1975-.

Study of attainable production capabili,ty from currently stimated

)LS U. S.

oxe reserves and px'obable potential

~

resources indicates &at production 1eve3.s ox 50,000 to 60,000

.tons U308 per year can be achieved with aggressive resource deralopment and exploitation.

awhile the 1evel may be achievable by use of dcmestic

$ ~D ore reserves and prooable resources

alone, development and utilization ox

$ 15 possible and specula-tive categories and use of $30 ore reserves and potential resoux'ces would provide added assurance that the Leve3.s could be attained and sust:ained.

Canside~g these resources and that same hngorted u-anium will add to supplies, it is'onsidered realistic. to plan on the basis that a 60,000 tons.per year supply

~

~

is achievable from currently estimated resouxces.

Such a g

~

~

P level could be reached by the early 1990s. It shou1d be noted that these production levels account for mining and w'llkng losses and indicate 0308 avaf1able for use as nuclear fuel.

4./GJO 108(75) Uranium Indus~ Seminar, Octo'oer

1975, Grand Junction Office, EBDA, Page 170,172.

'5 j EHDA Release 76-119>> "~mA Suxvey Endicates EKRe in Spending for Uranium Hieing, K~llin Facilit'es, Apx'il 26, 1976.

~

~

~

~

t Uranium Resource Availabilit rt I!

!l a..'

I

~

~

E I

.G 0

As indicated earlier, ADA projects

$30 ore reserves in the amount of 780,000 tons U308 and probabTe potential resources in the amount of 1,060,000 tons U308 for a tota1 of 1,840,000 tons U308.

Se Figure 2.

Evaluation of long-term fuel conmitments on the basis of ore reserves and probable potential resources is considered a prudent course for planning; and, as can be seen from the testimony of Harry

~

f ~

E. P. Krug, Jr.,

such resources are adequate to supply the planned population of 236 reactors over their lifetime.

The analyses by Mr. Krug demonstrat s that the uranium resourc s that I have discussed will support substantially more than the 236 reactors presently planned.

The lifetime co~~

tment would be less than half of currently estimated

$30 domestic resources, including the possible and specu1ative categories.'

would like now to briefly address the availability of estimated uranium resources considering recoveries in mining and ore processing.

0 In regard to estimates of U.S. uranium resourc s, these estimates represent the quantity of uranium estimated to be minable expressed as tons U308 in ore in the ground.

As pointed out in this testimony the estimates are a reflection of the information" available to ERDA at the time of the estimate and thus are dependent on the extant of exploration work that has been per ormed.

In view of the considerations involved in preparing the resource estimates and the uranium supply outlook, no

1 I

ac/ustment for losses is warranted.

II C

~

.C I

n

~

~ i~

G U. S. mining practice results in recovery of high percentages of the uranium contained in a deposit.

ERDA resource estimation procedures consider the capabilities and requirements of mining systens in use so that the estimates are a realistic appraisal of what is minable.

Since deposits frequently are not fully delineated before Bey are developed, it is not unusual for considerably more uranium to be recovered frcm deposits than were included in ore reserves before such deposits were 4

put into production.

Mining company practice seeks to recover as much oT the contained mineral content as possible before abandoning a mine.

Higher uranium prices provide a strong incentive for such practice.

In the processing of uranian ores, recoveries generally are over 90~.

In 1975 C-mill recovery averaged about 93.5 percent.

Higher recoveries are usually possible if economically justified.

Also there are additional resources. which will be available beyond the currently estimates

$30 reserves, byproduct, and probable potential resources.

The lifetime uranium needs of the sustainable level of capacity noted would require only about hali of the

$30 resources including possible and speculative potential resource categories now estimated for the U.S.

'Aith development of additional information on U. S. resources, it is considered likely that the future estimates of resources.

in'.the. U.S. will be even larger than now estimated.

The ERDA National Uranium Resource Evaluation program and industry exploration will expand the data available on U.S; resources leading to a more complete

/

evaluation.

Additional uranium supplies will be available from foreign

sources, and, if needed through utilization of higher than

$30 cost s

iI e I 'I, resources.

In vie<> of these factors, it is not considered meaningful to make adjust-

. ments to reserve and. resource estimates for possible future losses frcm

. mining and milling.

~

~ G Prospects for E~andine U. S.

Su@el The long-range (th-ouah the zest of the century and beyond) supply outlook wi13. be largely influenced by the extent to which the present resou-ce position is modified in the decades ahead.

There are three pr~cipal means by which the supply position can change.

First, through tha identification oZ additional resources in, the less than

$30/lb category;

second17, through utilization of already identified hiQez cost resources; and thi d, tnrough utilization or foreign ruan un"'suoplies.

These means will be examined separately.

I l

Domestic

$30 Resources An evaluation oz the potential Zoz deve3.oping additional domestic

$30 uranium esouzces beyond those now es~ated involves the following considerations:

Q 1

Experts.ence generally has been that minezaI. resources ultimately prove la ge than can be estimated at any time.

Me are limited by what occurs in nature but a3.so, and perhaps more so, by the degree of ouz knowledge.

Development of information on unknown oz poorly e~3.ored

j I

C,k G

~

~ :

areas is likely to iac ease the estimate of resources.

As previ.ously noted, thexe is nationwide assessmeat.

of the U. S. uranium positioa.

The

~i effort is scheduled to produce a nationwide In-depth assessment ia 1981.

~ ~

I G

'Comparing the U. S. uranium resouxce position 10 yeaxs ago with today's can illustx'ate the point.

En 1966,

$ 10 ore reserves were estimated to be.195,000 tons U308.

Potential resources then estimated, which correspond to r

the current "probable" potential category plus a portion of the "possible" category, were 325,000 tons U308.

Since then 134,000 toas of U308 have beea produced.

The present estimates axe 270,000.tons of reserves aad %0,000 tons of probable potential.

Thus in the 10 years ovex'20,000 toas were add d to these categories of resources.

During the

period, the value of the dollar has declined to about 607,'f its 1966 value.

Since inflation increases

costs, moving some osterial to higher cost categories, the 1976 resource estimates would, have been higher measured ia 1966 dollars.

I

~ '

'.. I 1

II I

Q 2.

Expansion of resources will depend oa the level of effort expended.

Increased e~loration activity can be e~ected to improve the resource position.

Exploration success per unit of effort has been less in recent years, but inflation, has exaggerated the reduction since increasingly higher gx'ade ores must be found at a given cost,to offset

l

~ t inflation.

In addition, there has been a txead towaxd deeper drilling, which increases the effort required.

Exploration results in l975 show improved discovexy rates.

Industry investmeat activities wi,ll be influenced by nuclear power growth and acceptance, uranium demand,,

and price movements.

As is the case of other raw materials com-modities, increasing demands and higher prices should lead to increased efforts by industxy to eland supplies.

3.

Known U. S. uranium resources axe in a few comparatively I

small areas as shown in Figure 4.

The comparatively small geographic areas of the mining districts within these areas suggests that significant undiscovered districts can be overlooked.

4.

Domestic ux'anium resources ia saadstoae deposits make up ovex'57. of known U. S. low-cost resources.

The bu33c of resources in other parts of the world are in other types of geologic environments.

A listing of significant types of uranium deposits is shown in Figure 7'.

The possibility exists for identification of additional types of deposits in the U. S.

Industry Ezoloration Activity The major responsibility for discovering new uranium deposits needed in the years ahead is with private industry, The

I

~

J 1

l,

V I

footage drilled in search for uranium deposits in the U.

S'.

for the 1ast sevex'al years is shown in Figure 8.

Xn the pex'iod 1967-69, a sharp increase in e~loration occurx'ed.

Exploration decreased in the eax'ly 1970s due to softening in the ux'aaium market as a consequence oz the slippage in uranium demands.

Xn 1973, utili.ties contracted fox 52,000 tons of U308, a far greater px'ocurement effort than had 6/

been previously seen, firming prices aad rekindling exploration interest.

As a result, e~loration began to increase again.

Q)

As shown in Figzre 8, expenditures, for land acquisition, drilling and related activities reached a peak oz about

$59 million in 1969, dropped to

$ 32, million ia 1972 but increased to an all time high oz

$ 122 million in 1975.

Plans to ezpend

$ 156 mills.oa ia 1976 and

$ 168 million ia 1977 have been reported to ERDA-Although expenditures ax'e increasing,': he footage 7/

drilled pex'ollar oz expenditure has been decreasing because of highex-costs and a t end toward deeper drilling.

The results oz drilling are shown at the bottom of Figure 8

in terms of annual additions to ore reserves.

Tt should be noted that inflation during this period has been high, therefore, the discovery rate measux'ed in terms of $8 6/

PASH-1196(74),

Survey of the U. S. Uranium Marketing Activity, USAEC, April 1974.

7/" GJO-103(76)

Ux'anium Ezploratioa Expenditures in 1975 aad Plans for 1976-77, Grand Junction Ofzice, ERDA, April 976.

~ 1

~

~ ~

~

'I k'

t ~

I C' x'esexves added in 1975 is aot direct1y comparable to those added in 1969 and 1970.

The 1969

$ 8 reserves axe comparable in. 1975 to reserves at a cost of around

$ 15 per pound.

The additions of $ 10,

$ 15 aad

$30 reserves ia the 1972-1975 period are also. shown in Pigxxe 8.

The additions to

$30 reserves

.'"I :

'I

']

Ij ~

I

';;l

""~:;.I

.'II

,I

'C

~

~ Zwgi':

1'g' increased substantially in 1975 even through aot all the data from industry was available aad a number ox additional, deposits ax'e known to have been discovered.

Ezpeaditures for uran'um ezploratioa have aot been large in comparison to the expenditures in other phases of nuclear power.

For example, the cost of a typical lax'ge reactor alone. (over

$800 milU.on) will be substantially 1arger than the total of $520 million spent in uranium exploration (including land acquisitions,. drilling and related activities)

T in the entire coun~ over-the period 1966 thxough 1975.

Technolo Develonmeat Improved technology has in the. past provided a means for expanding available resources of minerals.

There have been a number of developments in uranium that are improving the supply situatioa and others are Likely to be developed in

'the years ahead.

Of current interest is the use of ia situ leaching methods where the e~action of the uranium is accomplished.by pumping leach solutions down drill holes, thxough the ore zone, and back to the surface. for treatment.

Such plants axe operating in Texas and, othexs are planned.

!G

lii

~ ~

~

=16-

~ 'I ~

~

~ 4' I

1 V,

.,r r

I

.qv II 1

~",""'"I

, ~

I

~...

I I

Q G

An additional development is the improved process for recovery of uranium from phosphor"c acid.

A plant is starting operation in Florida, and several others are planned.

If all the phos-phoric acid currently produced in the large p3.ants in Florida were treated, about 3,000 tons U308 per year 'could be recovered.

Production may reach this level by the early 1980s, and future increased wil3. follow as phosphoric acid production expands.

Government Uranium Resouxc~ Activities In view of the need to understand better the long-range prospects for expanc'.ed domestic uranium supply for reactor development strategy and planning and to assure adequate uranium supplies to fuel nuclear power growth, the ERDA is carrying out programs to assess more completely domestic resources and to improve techno3.ogy for discovery, assessment, and produ'ction of these resources.

The basic elements in the ERDA resource program are illustrated in Fi~~e 9.

Starting in. the upper left hand coxnex of the diagram, knowledge on known uranium occur-ences will be augmented by gathering and generating new data by use of surface, aerial, subsurface and remote sensing techniques.

This will allow improved estimates in known areas and identification of other'reas Q

where known types and postulated new types of deposits may est.

This wi3.1 increase knowledge on uranium occurrences in the United States, improve estimates of the resource

l

~UCLkS~

~

~ 'Q G

position, and ezpand and solidify the base of nuclear fuel supplies.

Information is routinely made available to industry for development of their ezploration and mining programs.

Industry efforts will generate additional data which will also be used by ERDA in continuing resource

'studies.

An important part of this strategy is research and development to improve the technology involved in uranium discovexy, assessment, mining and milling.

ERDA uranium raw materials budgets to carry out this program axe increasing.

Tn FY 1976, ezpendi,tures will be axound

$ 14 million.

Xn fiscal year 1977

$27 million has been requested.

Two activities underway to generate new data'ystematically are the aerial radiometric reconnaissance program and the national hydrogeochem'cal survey.

Features of the airborne program are highlighted in Fk~e 10.

This program will involve some 870,000 line miles of aerial surveys flown on an average line spaci.ng of five miles utilizing gamma, ray spectrometric techniques.

Data generated are being made publicly available upon the completion of individual projects.

~

I I

The hydrogeochemical suxvey features axe listed in Fibre 11.

This wi.ll be a systematic national suxvey of the uranium and associated t-ace element content of surface and underground

waters, being carried. out by ERDA laboratories.

Data generated will provide a means of identification of areas of favorability

~

~

particularly when coupled wf.th other available data.

~

C The ERDA programs involve a continuing review ox the uranium I

resouxce situation, analysis of the activities and success of industry and their xelation to the desirable resouxce. 1evels needed in the years ahead to assure adeauate uranium suppli.es to meet the country's needs.

The program is geaxed to providing information to government and industry so tR t sound decisions can be made on energy polic'v.

l I

4 ~C

.(

~l Hi

-Cost: Resouxces As previously noted, an alternative to identification of additional low>>cost resources f.s the utilization of higher cost resources.

The highest cutoff cost category included in ERDA resources, fn Firn> e 2, f.s

$30/lb. U308, This level was selected, a few years ago as an upper range of what might be of interest for utilization in light water reactors over the next decade ox'ore.

J

'5 ~ /' I 4 ~ P)

~

~

I

.) I y ~

l

'1 I

P I

~ The increased price of of.l and coal in the last few years has increased the cost of uranium economically acceptable in light 7

water reactors.

This results from the xelatfve f.nsensitfvf.ty of nuclear electxf.c power costs to increases in uranium prices.

The cost of fuel is only a fractio'n or". the cost of power from a nuclear plant.

In tuxn, the cost of aatural uranium is only a fraction of the fuel cost; enrichment, fabrication, xepxocessing

f I

~

~'19-and carrying charges making up the balance.

As a result, large increases in uranium prices result in compaxatively small increases in power costs.

This Xs an important advantage for nuclear power and provides additional assurance that uranium supplies will be adequate.

I j

~ I

'j

~I Knowledge of U. S. resources in the above

$ 30 category is meager 1argely because of the lack of past economic interest.

There has been virtually no indus~ activity to seaxch for or develop such resources, Prospects for discovery of higher

- cost resources in the U. S., including those types of deposits I

known elsewhere in the world, such as those listed in Figare T,

are considered promising at this stage of U. S. exploration.

The magnitude of such resources is, however', uncertain.

The ERDA assessment program will also consider these types of resources.

~

I Thex'e are,. in addition, 1arge very low grade deposits which have been studied in some detail in the past.

These include the phosphates which are of current interest as byproduct and shales which are a potential "backup" foxm of supply, if needed.

The Chattanooga shale in Tennessee is of particulax'ntm est because of its large si2,'e.

This deposit was eztensive1y drilled, sampled, and studied in the 1950s.

The higher grade part of the Chattanooga shale has a uranium content of about 60-80 ppm. jt contains in ezcess of 5,000,000 tons I

~

~

ill

~

~ C

~

C

~

II

(

I

)

~

j 6

of U308 that may be producible at a cost of $ 100 or more per pound of U308.

%bile additional work developing pxoduction technology will be neede'd, it is of interest that plans have been announced to exploit a similar but considerably higher grade deposit (300 ppm) in Sweden.

The mining and milling technology has been developed and. the deposits axe economic.

A plant of 20,000 tons of oxe per day capacity is planned.

Similaz'z'oduction technology could be used for the Chattanooga shale at higher prices.

As an example, if shale were mined to fuel a 1,150 MNe reactor, assuming recycle of'ranium but not plutonium and a

0.3%%u enrichment tail, about 12,600 tons of shale would have to be processed each day, or with uranium and plutonium recycle and 0.207. enrichment tai,ls, about 8,500 tons per day.

An average of about 11,300 tons of coal would need to be burned each day if 8,700 btu/lb. coal were used.

~

~ j 0

Utilization oz the very low-grade resources such as Chattanooga shale would, of course, i,nvolve m'ning and processing very much larger quantities of oxe than is cur-ently mined to produce the same amount of uranium.

From an environmental.

as well as fxom an economic point oz view, identification and uti~ation oz additional higher grade ores should. be pxezerable.

Eowever, the shales axe available if their use should become necessary.

I

~

W

~ ~

~

~

~

~

I r

~

~

~ ~

+

~

I II

, ~

'I

~i

~~

Porei

n. Uranium In October 1974, the AEC announced its plan for allowing enrichment of foreign uxanium intended. for use in domestic reactors.

The plan would allow 10'f an enrichment s/

customex's feed to be of foreign origin in 1977..

The allowable pexc;entage would incx'ease in subsequent yeax's as shown in Figure 12".

In 1984, there would be no restriction on use of foreign uranium.

Foreign uranium, therefore, will I'e an additional souxce of uranium to meet domestic needs.

Duxing 1975, 1~100 tons of foreign urani~ were delivered to U. S. buyers and 44,000 tons of foreign uranium were under cont:ract at the beginning of 1976 for delivery to V. S.

customers through 1990.9/

~

~

I g

1I Resources of foreign countries, up to the

$30/lb. category, are t:abulated in Figure'13::.

The "reasonably assux'ed" category corresponds closely t:o the domestic ore resexve cat:egory and the "estimated additional" category corresponds to the domestic pxobable potential.

As will be noted in the table, foreign resoux'ces are'argely cont:ained in five countries:

Australia,

Canada, South Africa, South Vest Africa and Sweden. All except

~

~

Py 1

I Q

8'/ USAEC Press Release Ho. T-517, October 25, 1974.

9/

ERDA 76-46, Suxvey of U. S. Uranium Marketing Activity, April 1976.

l'

1

~

~

<<22>>

'r

~.

rr~~

i ~'

Sweden and. to some extent Canada will be essentially uranium exporting countries as their own needs will be comparatively small.

The Swedish uranium is contained in low-grade shale as previously noted and is not likely to be available for export: in significant quantities.

~

~

11 Pq

'r. I

,1(

1

~ s

~ ~

4 p

Foreign uranium demand, principally for the countries of western Europe and Japan, is projected to grow even more rapidly than in the United States.

EBDA projections indicate cumulative non-Communist foreign requirements th ough the year 2000 could be 2,100,000 to 2,800,000 tons of U308 with annual demand in 1980 of 45,000 tons and in 1990 of 90,000 to 120,000 tons {at 0.3 tails and with recycle).

Existing foreign production capacity is about 20,000 tons per year.

Considering the magnitude of known foreign uranium resources and production expansion plans, foreign capability could be increased to over 50,000 tons per year'n the early 1980s.

Although foreign resources are large, there are limitations on attainable production levels from Canadian, Swedish and South A&ican resources, and continued growth of foreign production capability willrequire enlargement of the foreign resource base or, use of higher cost resources.

The prospects for expansion of foreign uranium supplies from a geologic point of view are good.

The experience in Australia

l' I

~ ~

I I ~

~

~

h'3 l

4 a

e 4

G 4

where large new resources were identified in just a few years effort is an example.

The absence of substantial known resources in South America and in many ~ican and Asiatic countries as seen in Pi~e 14,emphasizes the lack of ex-ploration effort that has been done in these areas.

There

are, however, politica3. limitations on the degree to which exploration will be accomplished in such places and the degree ta which u anium supplies can be e~oxted.

Hationalistic poU.cies'towards resources has made access to supplies difficult in recent yeaxs.

The improvement of world prices and markets should assist in opening up new areas to uranium exploration.

However, s ince uranium demand will be low in many countries, material should be 'avai.lable in the world market place in time to make a useful contribution to Con cl vs ion In conclusion, ERDA assessment of uranium resources indicates that'urrently estimated

$30 ore reserves and probable potential resources consist of 1,840,000 tons U>0 with total currently estimated

$20 domestic resour es of 3.7 million tons.

Further expansion of U. S.

rQ

,C uranium supplies is possible by discovery of new low-cast

'esources, ut9.lizatian of higher cost resources, or imgortatian of foreign uranium.

ERMA programs are designed ta improve

.understanding of cux-ent resources and to aid in identification of new resources,. serg ta assure that uranium supplies will be available when needed.

j i

> ~

~

~

I

~ I 1i

~.t 0

Q prices have Qxcreased to leve3.s that make exploration and production economically attractive.

Industry e~loration and develop nt activities are increasing.

Foreign uranium supplies wi11 be avalable to augment domestic resources.'here is a bigh probability that additional inte~diate cost resources can also be identified and there are known domestic hi~~

cost resources which could be used iS needed.

I Federal Enera Resources Council Stud A report entitled "Uranium Reserves, Resources, and Production,".

June 15, 1.976, was prepared by the Federal Ener~ Resources Council with pa ticipation by Council on Environmental

~lity, Department of Commerce, Department of the Interior (U. S. Geological Survey), En~~onmental P otection Agency, Energy Research and. Development Administration,

=ede aL Energy Adsnnistratian.

The report cancludes

~

5 I ~

'I

'Together, the No categories of probable resources and reserves, including by-product, amount to 1.84 million tons of uranium oxide.

These are the highest reliability portion of total United States resources and serve as a prudent resource base for planning nuclear powerpl ant constructi on programs."

Qi The conclusion of the Energy Resources Council study is consistent with the findings of ERQA.

A copy of the study is provided as Attachment 1

to this testimony.

7

'li

ERDA URANIlM RESOURCE CATEGORIES CUTOFF ORE COST RESERVES PROBABLE URE POTENTIAL POSSIBLE SPECULATIVE ULTBfATE POTENTIAL (Known Districts-Identified Trends)

(Productive Provinces, in Pro-ddctive Formations)

(New Provinces or

~

New Formations)

$ 8

$ 10

$ 15

$30

~

HIGllER COST 0

DECREASING KNOWLEDGE AND ASSURANCE Figure

).

f I

5

~

~

U. S.

URAHDM RESOURCES January 1,

1976

3-8 Tons U 0

~ ~

,55 4/lb. V308 Cutoff Cost Reserves 270,000 Probable 440,000 215 OOO 655,000

$15-30 Increment..5

$ 30 210 000 405 000 i0,000 1,0600000 555-15 5

• 15 555

~<30,000

'Potential Possible 420,000 255 000 675,OOO 595 000 1,270,000 it<5,000 145 000 290~000 300 000 590,000 275,000 775 000 2,0500000 1 510 000 3,560,000 By Product 1975-2OOO '40,000 780,000 1,060,000 1,270 000 590,000 140 OOO 3,700,000 a/ By-product of phosphate and copper production.

Figure 2 e ~

~

~

r',

'5,,

'I

't

~

I

~

.PACIFIC COAST AND

"":":~IERRA NEVADA 0

ROCKIES ROCKIES SOUTHERN

~W CANADIAN SHIELD I

NYOMING BASINS COLUMBIA COIORADO AND PLATEAUS o

SOUTHER

-g~ s

~

~

~

~

4 I:

g

~.

.'I.~.

BAS IN AND RANG PLATE

.L..

GREAT PL A INS APP LACHJI HIGHt ANDS CENTRAL r-LOWLANDS'.A

~ ~

tq ALASI(A C 0ASTAL PLAI

~ r

~

~

~

3

.I I r I'

~

I<...

3 ltf I

Fjguxa 3

l. ~

\\

~

~

~

C.',

5

/

~,

~, s tt ~ +

~

t ~ \\'

0:

PRINCIPAL U.S. URANIUM AREAS SPOKANE g 5

55 k ~

.I,

, ~

5 WYOMING BASINS oia o COLORADO PLATEAU POWOER RIVER BASIN BLACK IIILLS 4'br Og BASIN

~

'Sl IIALEY

~GAS lllLLS I CROOKS GAP p

)FRONT RANGE

. ~

5

~

~

r INO. g r

bVASH URAVAN MINERAL BELT I

t' I

'5.I

5/

~

GRANTS MINEAAL BELT

,r

• t ~

GEOLOGIC PROVINCE URANIUMAMA Figure 4 TEXAS COASTAL PLAIN,r I

r Pr w I KAANES rr LIVEOAK

~

'-t5.

~

~

~ I

~

~

'h

~,-.,3TENTIAt UBANlUMBEG JBCES BY I

~

P

~

REQlOM (430)lb;",0,)

0

~ I

~

J I',

~

~

h 10,000 42,000 66,000 0

18,000 ias,oaa 235,000 105,000 27,000 62,000

$9,000 433,00 632,000 103,000 313, 00 04,000 31,000 44,noa 30.'no a 12,000 20,000 67,000 3I,000 0

0 0

0 71,000 0

77,000 h

1 t

C. ~

'I ~

'h

e

~

~ '

~

~

~ g 7 ~

l l

100,000 120,aoo 31,000

~

~

'l,000.

~'RANDTOTALS PROBABLE 1,0G0,000 TQf48 U3QQ POSSI BLE 1,"70,000 TONS Ug08 SPECULA'nVE

'riOO,'00O TONS u3OO F'fpill ('

~

~

~

~,

h

~

h 1

~

~

~

~ '

y

~

~.r' 7

7 Ah r

~

0 o.

NATIONALURANIUMRESOURCE EVALUATION PBELlMINARYPOTENTIAL.ANDFAVORABLEAREAS.

~ ~

~

0

. r-I

~,

tl' L

7 ~

t7 7 ~

>> ~ ~

~,

,4 ~

7 9

Q iv)'W.,~,

\\

~

5 0

.y r Jl7

~ !Q

"'4)

Pj%

I'l7.

"',!.'.Ai:-',.

~;~fj,tA Q

g,Ã'p(g k@ jl7)<

I

('

r

~.'-; i 7

~

~

Ll ~

s fit

i. p W77 ga' H5 PROBABLE, POSSIBLE AND SPECuLATIVE POTENTlAL AREAS gg OTHER ABEAS WITH FAVORABLE GEOLOGY -.

7 Figure 6 0

~

~

l

~

f

Ulv'. 'i'i DEPOSITS TYPE AVERAGE MPOSIT.GRADES PPi~l

~SIZE RANGE UNITED STATES

~

~

FOREIGN VEIN

. 1~000-25,000 1,000-40,.000 SANDSTONE 500-5,000 '00-50,000 CALCRETE QUARTZ<<PEBBLE CO'vGLO:)ERATE

. 1 000-3,000

. F00-1,500 1,000-50,000 10,000-200,000 ESSIVE VEIN-LIKE 3,000-25,000 10,000-250,000 SASKATCHEWAN,.

CANADA~..'LLIGATOR

RIVER, AUSTRALIA

COLORADO, GREAT BEAR LAKE, WASHINGTON I

CANADA; SllINKOLOBHE~ ZAIRE' FRANCE COLORADO PLATEAU

NIGER, GABON UYO>1ING, TEXAS

'RGENTINA 2

YI'.ELIRRIE, AUSTRALIA r

2 ELLIOT LAKE, CANADA; MI'D)ATERSRAND, SOUTH '.

AFRICA ALASKITE SYEtfITE PHOSPHATE ROCK 300-400 100-400 6O-2OO -,

75,000-X50,000 10,000-50,000 0.5-2;o HILLIom 2

FLORIDA, IDAHO

ROSSING, SOUTH HEST AFRICA ILBIAUSSAQ, GREENLAND NORT11 AFRICA SHALE

, 50-300 1-5 HILLION

~ '.

S.E.

UNITED STATES RANSTAD, SUEDE'

~

~4I ~

Figure 7

~

I

l

~.

~ h

~

~

o Q,

J a

~

1

~)

160 120 U.S. EXPLORATION ACTIVITY.AND PLANS I///l/

~l I

)00 60 OJ 0

ACTUAL PLANNED

~

~

60

~40 EXPENDITURES

<<U g.

<<'I <<

~ I

.C I.,<<,

J ~

A

~ ~

40 0

~30

-20

. -10 20 1966 ADOlTIONS TO RESERVES 1970 Figure 8' 1972 S30 S16 S10 SG DBILIING 1974 1976 80 coo 70 ~".',-:

60 ~0 60 I-40 g 30 ill

'I I

20 O.

10 ".

4<<

~

~

~

~

I

'l l '

~

I r

~

~

~

s I

I I

~

~

~

I i 'o

~

~

'I I

~ I

~

I I 'l l

~

I I

el

~

I l

~ I

~

I I

I I

~

I

~

~

ll I

~ I

~

~

~

I

~

~

'I I

~ I

~

I II I

~

I

~i

~

l 1

1

~

~

\\ ~i

~

EBQA AERIAL RADIOLMTRIC RECONNAISSANCE PROGRAM e

o O.

r

~

g ~

~

~

~

'OAL - COMPLETE AIRBORNE'RADXOMETRIC SURVEY OF U.S.,

INCLUDING ALASKA, ON HIDE"SPACED FLIGHT LINES, BY 1-1-&0, TO AID XN IDENTIFYING FAVORABLE AREAS..

~

~

PROGRAM--MINIMUMTOTAL FLIGHT LXNE MINES--CONTERMINOUS. U.S., 760,000; ALASKA, 110,000 FLIGHT LINE SPACING--1-12 MILES:

AVERAGE 5 MILES ALTITUD¹-200-800 Fl;ET ABOVE GROUND LEVEL, OPTXMOM 400 FEET SYSTEMS-'COMPUTERIZED klIGkl-SENSITIVITYGAMMA-RAY SPECTROMETRXC AND MAGNETIC DETECTORS HOUNTED IN FIXED"HING AND ROTARY-LANG AIRCRAFT OPERATED BY PRIVATE FXRHS..

OUTPUT--RADXOiilBTRIC EQUIVALENT OF URANIUM, THORIUM,'ND POTASSIUM, AHD MAGNETIC.

CjlARACTERISTXCS OF ENCLOSING ROCK, STATISTICALLY EVALUATED BY GEOLOGIC UNITS DATA HANDLING PUBLICATION--OPEN FILI'. UPON COMPLETION OF BACH SURVEY St~)I1IARIZED DATA.BANK"-LOS ALAMOS SCIENTIFXC LABORATORY

~ ~

TENTATIVE 8CllEDULE FISCAL YEAR 1974-76 1977 1978 1979 LINE MILES 151,000 W 7,000 362,000 210'00 870,000

~

~

~ 4

\\' '.

i

~ ~

FIGURE 10;

~ ~ ~

(

~ I I I

. ~

I I'rl C

0 o

Q HYDROGEOCIIEMXCAL AND STREAM SEDIMENT RI;CONNAISSANCE PROGRAM l

. QQAI, A SYSTEMATIC DETERMINATION OF TllE DXSTRIBUTION OF URANIUM AND ASSOCIATED TRACE ELEMENTS IN SURFACE AND UNDERGROUND WATERS AND.IN STREAM SEDIMENTS XN THE U.ST ~

INCLUDING ALASI<A TO IDENTIFY AREAS FAVORABLE POR Ul'ANIUM MIN]ERAL OCCURRENCES PARTICIPA1'1TS:

ERDA.LABORATORIES OPERATIl'1G PARAMETERS:

POSHIlll.l SEHPLt," SPACING 10 SQ, HK, (WXDl AHL'A) -

1./2 SQ, HI. (DETAILED DHPL'HDING ON GL'OLOGI llOMOGENEXTY OP AREA.

AHALYSIS FIELD CONCENTRATION OF ELEMENTS FROM WATER; HEASUREMENT OF CONDUCTIVITY AND pll; DETERMINATION OF SPECIFIC ELEMENTS'ATA TREATMENT -

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS.

'DATA INTERPRITATION -

RELATE ANOMAl.Y DATA TO GLOLOCIC ENVIRONMEQTS ~

OUTPUT AREAS OP PAVOINBILITY OPEN-PILING OP MAPS AND DATA; NATIONAL DATA'ANK.

TENTATIVE SCllEDUl.E;

~ g f

~

e

(

.e,;-,'.

~

~

I I~,

FISCAL YEAR -

1975 1976 1977-1979 LITERATURE SEARCH AND LIHITED R&D ~

PILOT STUDIES; STATISTICAL'ETHODS DEVELOPMENTS STAFPING; PROCEDURE DEVELOPMENT.

LAl'CE-SCALE SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE SAMPLING; Dh'1'A ANAI.YSIS, INTERPRETATION, AND REPORTING l.'IGURE 1),

4

'I

(

r

'4

• ~

~

~

t

a,a ga a

~

a

~

~

y aC.

~

~

~

~

h

~

~

isa a ~'+

'lP I

/

a

~ ~

Q

. ALLIABLE FORZIGH i~NIVi'i E~iKZi"HHEHT FEED (DOMESTIC EitD USE)

Tons U308

/

~

P 6

~ a

~ P

. ~ '

~

~

a

.,"-',a, l a

v a

~

a t

a4 Schedule.e of Percentage of Feed. Allo~'ed to be For i,.n Calendar Years

~ - 1974 1973 1976

~

~

1977 1978 ra 207o 307 1980 407.

I ~ >

198l 1982 801.

1983 198m Ho Restriction J

a a aa g;s 0

1 Q

a

~,

FIGURE 12 v ~

~ aI:..,':.'.:.,.:.;.': ','"-':". '. "': '-'=-",.':-: ' ','.---....'.....'."...-.-.;

~.......

P

l

~

~

I N

l

fl(.

.I y.<

'P.

.,:r'f

<a!

+.C r

))

':f r

I<'

+

~r' r

I g...

),i

~

~

g v <j<

~ tj'

~ ~,r e

d<

f( ~,

Cu:

= ~

~ I

~

~

~

,I I~

7 1

~ ~

Australia

.:='S & SW.Africa Canada Niger Prance

~

Algeria

~ '- Gabon Spain Argentina Other Total (Rounded)

(~j

'x'KIGN RESOURCES

.Thousand.Tons U30~

Reasonably Estimated Assured Additional

~15 Lb U300 430

-242 189 52 48 36 26 13 121) 56-1,100 104 8

394 26 33 6

11 V

p 20 26 630 ':

~

I j

.I

~ '<

5

~

~

l,~s

~ <L 7

~'l Figure 13

~30 Lb O~O

,.l..

Australia 430 104 Sweden 390 S & SM Africa

~

359 96 Canada 225 887 I'rance 71 52 Niger 65 39

)

~ 'lgeria 36 Spain 30 55 Argentina 272(

50 Other 150 110 Tonal (Rounded)

',700 1<390

~ e 1/

Xncludes Brazil, Central African Republic, Germany, India, Japan, Mexico, Portugal,

~

Turkey, Yugoslavia and Zaire.

2/

<Xncludes, in addition to 1/, Denmark, Finland, Xtaly, Korea and the United, Kingdom, JUN 2 '- 876

~ i I

~

=

~

,N'

'-r, '.

~

~

~

~ ~

~>,

~

-, woeLD'R~NluM ~EsouRcEs REASONABLY ASSURED RESERVES Q $16 PER POUND U,O, l55 ~

I'

~

15 I

,I, I JJl

~ t

".i"

~ "~

J t 1

~"--5

~J

~

~

I I

~

~ l

~

~

"g@q gf

~

~

SHORT TONS 0 aO I.,

Imlg 1,aoo - 1o,oao 10,009 - 60,000 50,000: 10D,000 1ao,oo0-2ao,aoo

'0a.aoo

- 30o,aao,

'g 3oo,aoo no MonE i.

).

~

~ ~,

~

~

~

Ij 4

~

~

~

~

~EXCLUDES PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CHINA, USSR AND ASSOCIATED STATES OF EASTERN EUROPE P1 I~II> n 1/I

I J,

I

~

~

e 1

~C

- I'

~

"1 J

I

~

~

I

~

~ 1' 1

j V

I I I lip P

G (W

John A. Patterson 1

1 Nr. Patterson is Chief, Supply Evaluation Branch in the Division of Huclear Puel Cycle and Production, Energy Research and Development Administration, washington, D. C.

He joined the Atomic Energy Commission, Division of Raw Materials, in 1952 at Grand Junction, Colorado.

Initially was involved with ezploxation activities as Project Chiez, subsequently was involved with estimating and evaluating U. S. uranium reserves and potential resouxces as Chiez.,

Ore Reserves Branch.

In 1967 moved to Vashington, D.

C as Assistant to the Director, Division oz Raw Materials where in addition to working on domestic uranium resource and supply studies, also became involved in studies involving uranium requirements, procurement, marketing and prices, and foreign supply and demand.

Member~ of the jo'nt OECD Hucleax Energy Agency and International Atomic Energy Agency Vioxking Party on Uranium Resources, evaluating and reporting on world uranium resources and px'oduction capability.

Member of the Huclear Convextex's and Fuel Cycle Group of the Hational Research Council Committee on Hucleax and Alternate Energy Systems.

Participant in Hucleax Task Group of the Hational Petroleum Council U. S. Energy Outlook Study - 1970-1972.

Contributor to world Energy Conzexence "Suxvey of Energy Resources, 1974."

He is the authox oz a number of papers on uranium resource evaluation and supply and demand.

Befoxe join'ng AEC,'Mr. Patterson was engaged in oil ezploxa>>

tion in Nyomino and Utah for Geotechnical Corporation, gold mining in Alaska fox'. S. Smelting Re ining and Mining

Company, and gold and diamond exploration in Guyana.

Nr, Patterson earned a Bachelor of metallurgical engineering from Rensselaer Palytechnic Institute

{1947) and a M.S. in mining engineering zrcm the Univexsity of Utah (1949).

He is a Member of the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers.

1 1 ~

t t

~

I PUBLISHED PAPERS BY JOHN A. PATTERSON r

~h',

~I I

1

~,

II r

I Q

('

Estimation of ore reserves:

Uranium Tnstitute of America, Grand Junction,

Colorado, Januaxy 27, 1959 Domestic uranium reserves:

National Western Mining Conference and Exhibition, Denver,

Colorado, Febxuary 8, 1963 Application of automatic data processing techniques to uranium ore re'serve estimation and analysis:

Quarterly of the Coloxado School of Mines, international Symposium Applications of Statistics, Operations

Research, and Computers in the Mineral industry - Part B, v. 59, no. 4, pages 859-886, October 1964 Charact:er of the United States uranium resources:

Tnternational Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Uranium Exploration Geology, 1970 I

Outlook for nucleax'el:

IEEZ-A~i Joint Power Generation

'Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, September 27-30, 1970 Uranium supply and nucleax power; Conference of the Public UtilityBuyers'roup, Atlanta, Georgia, March 8, 1971 Nuclear power and uranium:

Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Annual Meeting, Corpus Chxisti, Texas, October 13, 1972 Uranium mar<eting activities:

Atomic industrial Forum Uranium

Seminar, Oak Brook, illinois, March 27, 1973 Outlook for uranium:

17th Minerals Symposium American Tnstitute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers,

Casper, Wyoming, Hay 11, 1974 Foreign production capability and supply:

Uranium industry

Seminar, Grand Junction,

Colorado, GJ0-108(74),

Paxt ii, pages 63>>71, October 22-23, 1970 U. S. uranium sales and commitments:

Uranium industry Sem'nar, Grand Junction,

Colorado, GJ0-108(74),

Part i, pages 38-52, October 22-23, 1974.

U. S. uranium situat:ion, Atomic Tndustxial Forum Fuel Cycle Conference

'75, Atlanta, Geo gia, March 20, 1975

~

+'4 )3 f

i l

I f

. ~

I V

~

I I

L Uranium market activities:

Uranium Industry Seminar, Grand

Junction, Colorado, October 7, 1975 Foreign resources and production capability:

Uranium Industry

Seminar, Grand Junction,

Colorado, October 8, 1975 Uranium requirements and supply outlook; Uranium Enrichment Coherence, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, november 1975 Uranium supply developments:

Atomic Industria1. Forum, Fuel Cycle Conrerence, Phoenix, Arizona, March 22, 1976 C>>

.C 1

I l

~,

~

t '1

rgb