265 



Although the United States had built its uranium enrichment plants 

 to produce nuclear materials for weapons, these facilities have become 

 an important economic asset for the United States and for its nuclear 

 foreign policy. Because of these facilities, the United States has been 

 able to offer long-term commitments to supply enriched uranium for 

 nuclear power plants in Europe. For the next few years, these plants 

 have sufficient capacity to do so. But within this decade, decisions 

 must be made that will decide the future competitive standing of the 

 United States in the enriched-uranium market. Some related issues 

 include the following : 326 



Will the United States, for reasons of economic and foreign 

 policy, seek to preserve its position as the world's leading supplier 

 of enriched uranium and enrichment services ? 



What measures should the United States consider if other na- 

 tions, singly or in concert, attempt to break the long-standing U.S. 

 enrichment monopoly by building their own enrichment facility ? 

 Is the further development of gas centrifuge technology in 

 Europe likely to lead to a technological surprise for the United 

 States, should the economic and technological feasibility of this 

 technology be demonstrated ? 



What measures can or should the United States consider to 

 discourage further development of the gas centrifuge ? 



What diplomatic options are open to the United States should 

 the Soviet Union seriously enter the world enriched-uranium 

 market ? 



Since supplying enrichment services requires the use of large 

 amounts of electricity which, in the United States, comes from 

 coal-burning powerplants, and considering present air pollution 

 problems of the United States and the environmental impacts 

 of mining coal, do the foreign policy benefits of supplying en- 

 richment services to foreign customers balance the energy and 

 environmental costs to America ? 



328 As this case study went to press, two events underscored the possibilities for change 

 in the role of the AEC in furnishing enrichment services for foreign and domestic customers. 

 On December 6, 1972, the AEC gave notice of a temporary suspension of new contracts for 

 enrichment services except for (1) firm quantity type contracts under negotiation on that 

 date, (2) contracts which have been submitted to customers for execution, and (3) new 

 short-term contracts to provide firm quantities of enriching services needed by domestic 

 and 'foreign customers to cover near-term requirements. The Commission imposed this 

 temporary suspension to permit time to complete its review of alternative methods of 

 contracting and to establish ". . . such modified method as will provide greater assurance 

 that the needed enrichment capacity at the Commission's plants will be available on a 

 timely basis. . . ." Another reason was to provide further assurance of ". . . augmenta- 

 tion of available enriching capacity in the 1980's and beyond by private resources." Cf. 

 Federal Register, voL 37, December 8, 1972, pp. 26145-26146. 



The second event was an AEC announcement of December 6, 1972 which stated that it 

 is not the intention of the Commission to construct new enrichment plants to meet growing 

 requirements since it believes that the private sector can undertake to provide the required 

 capacity on a timely basis. The AEC, however, will remain in a position to furnish enrich- 

 ment services to the private sector to the extent of its available capacity. To stimulate the 

 requisite private effort, the AEC announced proposed modifications to its regulations which 

 would make the government's enrichment technology available. (Cf. Federal Register, 

 vol. 37, December 9, 1972, pp. 26345-26348.) At a press conference, AEC Chairman Schles- 

 singer said that If industry does hot do the job, the government must do it. He also said 

 that a vigorous industry could maintain the "clear" U.S. advantage in exporting nuclear 

 power technology and by the 1980's might produce $3.5 billion a year in foreign sales 

 compared With $900 million In 1972. (Cf. Washington Post, December 9. 1972, p. A-3.) 



