Background Civilian Marksmanship Program In 1903, the War Department under President Theodore Roosevelt established the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice, today known as CMP, with the general purpose of promoting the development of marksmanship skills and preparing individuals in the event that they were called upon to serve in the military. For the next several decades, the Army managed and operated CMP. In 1990, we reported that CMP was of limited value to military preparedness because, among other things, CMP’s objectives and goals were not linked to Army mobilization and training plans and program-trained personnel were not tracked. The NDAA for Fiscal Year 1996 moved CMP out of the Army and established CMP as a federally chartered, nonprofit corporation. The act also required the Secretary of the Army to transfer all firearms, ammunition, and funds from sales previously under the control of the Army program to CMP. The governing statutes for CMP and Army support of CMP activities are generally found in chapter 407 of Title 36, U.S. Code. Among other things, these provisions provide for the organization, governance structure, and functions of CMP. These functions include instructing U.S. citizens in marksmanship, promoting practice and safety in the use of firearms, and conducting competitions. For purposes of training and competition, CMP may issue or loan certain rifles, ammunition, repair parts, and other supplies necessary for activities related to CMP to affiliated organizations that provide firearms training to youth, the Boy Scouts of America, 4-H Clubs, Future Farmers of America, and other youth-oriented organizations. CMP is required to give priority to activities that benefit firearms safety, training, and competition for youth and that reach as many youth participants as possible. As one of its functions, CMP conducts rifle and handgun marksmanship competitions such as the annual National Matches. The National Matches is open to members of the armed forces, the National Guard, the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps, and rifle clubs, among other entities, as well as to civilians. Additionally, CMP may sell certain surplus rifles and M1911 handguns to affiliated organizations that provide training in the use of firearms, such as gun clubs. Finally, CMP is authorized to sell to U.S. citizens who are members of affiliated gun clubs, at fair market value, surplus .22 caliber rimfire rifles, .30 caliber rifles, and .45 caliber M1911/M1911A1 handguns, as well as ammunition, repair parts, and other supplies necessary for target practice. Agreements between the Army and CMP and the Role of the Army The Army and CMP have entered into various agreements governing their relationship. An MOU from 2016 currently delineates Army and CMP responsibilities for, among other things, the transfer of surplus firearms and associated parts and ammunition. Appendixes to the MOU identify approximately 170 surplus rifles and handguns that may be transferred to CMP. These surplus firearms include the M1 Garand .30 caliber rifle and other rifles, such as the 1903 Springfield and 1917 Enfield. See figure 1 for a photograph of a surplus M1 .30 caliber rifle packed for shipment. The Army provides a variety of support to CMP, including identifying and reserving certain surplus firearms, ammunition, and parts. At CMP’s request, the Army can transfer these firearms, ammunition, and parts to CMP under procedures established in the MOU. TACOM is the executive agent for small arms. Per the MOU between the Army and CMP, TACOM provides various forms of support to CMP, including facilitating transfers of surplus firearms from U.S. sources and recovery of firearms from foreign countries before transfer to CMP. For surplus firearms transfers within the United States, CMP reimburses the Army for the cost of preparation and transportation, including for the Army’s standard depot operations costs. The costs of the recovery of firearms, ammunition, and parts from foreign countries are treated as incremental direct costs of Army logistical support, and are also to be reimbursed by CMP. The MOU contains further provisions related to Army and CMP responsibilities and procedures, such as provisions regarding Army support for competitions and the Small Arms Firing School, and CMP’s role in the Army’s Ceremonial Rifle Program. The MOU also contains procedures and responsibilities related to funding. Finally, the MOU specifies certain management internal controls to be undertaken by CMP, including those related to the sale of firearms and the accountability of transferred materiel. CMP’s implementation and management of these controls is to be assessed and documented in an audit report to the Army required by the agreement. To implement the transfer of surplus M1911 handguns, parts, and accessories, the Army and CMP entered into a Memorandum of Agreement in January 2018, and the Army began transferring the surplus M1911 handguns to CMP the same month. The Memorandum of Agreement establishes procedures and requirements for the Army and CMP additional to those in the 2016 MOU. Among other things, it requires CMP to provide the Army with transaction data for all surplus handguns received and sold on a quarterly basis, including the number transferred to CMP, the number sold, a listing of the serial numbers for handguns sold, and any information CMP has regarding crimes committed with a purchased M1911 handgun. The Memorandum of Agreement further required CMP to take certain actions with respect to security and accountability procedures for surplus M1911 handgun processing and storage. See figure 2 for a photograph of surplus M1911 handguns. Federal Requirements for Selling Firearms Chapter 407 of Title 36, U.S. Code authorizes CMP to sell firearms to individuals who (1) are U.S. citizens, (2) are legally of age, and (3) are members of CMP-affiliated gun clubs. CMP’s sales of surplus firearms are generally subject to applicable federal, state, and local law. For example, the minimum age to purchase a rifle from a federal firearms licensee (FFL) is 18, while the minimum age to purchase a M1911 handgun from an FFL is 21. Additionally, CMP must establish procedures to obtain a criminal records check with federal and state law enforcement agencies. Certain federal requirements and restrictions related to the sale of firearms are contained in section 922 of Title 18, U.S. Code. Among other things, section 922 prohibits selling or otherwise disposing of firearms to certain prohibited persons. Generally, only FFLs may engage in the business of dealing in firearms. Additionally, FFLs generally may not sell firearms directly to out-of-state customers other than another FFL. However, these restrictions do not apply to CMP for the sale of surplus .22 caliber rimfire and .30 caliber rifles. Specifically, CMP may sell these rifles without operating as an FFL and ship these rifles directly to customers around the country, unless prohibited by that customer’s state or local law. With respect to the sale of the surplus M1911 handguns, CMP must obtain a license and operate as an FFL. The Army and CMP Have Established Procedures for the Transfer and Sale of Surplus Firearms The Army and CMP Have Procedures to Address Requirements for the Transfer of Surplus Firearms The MOU between the Army and CMP delineates a number of responsibilities for both organizations regarding the transfer of surplus firearms. Furthermore, we found that both organizations have established procedures to carry out these responsibilities. Appendixes to the MOU list approximately 170 firearms that the Army has identified as surplus to its needs. If any of the surplus firearms described in the MOU are identified by the Army in a domestic location, the Army reserves those firearms for transfer to CMP pending a formal written request from CMP for the transfer of the surplus firearms in question. For example, in fiscal year 2017 the Army identified and reserved for transfer to CMP more than 1,000 surplus rifles that various Department of Defense museums found to be surplus to their needs. Under the MOU, once TACOM informs CMP it has reserved surplus firearms that may be transferred, CMP can submit a transfer request for the surplus firearms in writing to TACOM. CMP’s written request must acknowledge that the requested materiel is on the list of firearms approved for transfer; certify that CMP will provide all security, oversight, and accountability—as required by law—of the materiel; and describe how CMP will use the requested materiel. TACOM facilitates the transfer of surplus firearms to CMP as required by the MOU. In some instances, the Army directly ships surplus firearms within the United States to CMP. In other instances, TACOM relies on the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) to ship the surplus firearms to CMP. If DLA transfers the surplus firearms, the firearms are either shipped directly to CMP or to the DLA facilities located in Anniston, Alabama, where they are released to CMP. Under the MOU, CMP reimburses the Army for certain costs associated with transportation, supply depot operations, and administrative support. Both CMP and DLA officials told us that surplus firearms located at DLA’s facilities in Anniston, Alabama, did not incur shipping cost to the Army because CMP arranges the transfer from the DLA facilities directly to CMP’s facilities also located in Anniston, Alabama. For example, according to TACOM and CMP officials the Army did not incur any transportation costs for transferring 8,000 surplus M1911 handguns to CMP in January 2018. According to an Army official, this was because CMP transported 6,736 M1911 handguns from the DLA facility, an additional 1,242 M1911 handguns from the Center of Military History Museum Support Center, and 22 M1911 handguns from TACOM facilities—all located in Anniston, Alabama—back to its own facility in Anniston for storage. In addition to firearms from domestic locations, the Secretary of the Army may also recover certain surplus firearms furnished to foreign countries on a grant basis under the Foreign Assistance Act and transfer them to CMP. If the Secretary of the Army decides to transfer surplus firearms from a foreign country, TACOM and the Office of the Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of the Army works with the State Department, Office of Defense Cooperation, representatives located in the respective foreign country to recover and facilitate the transfer and shipment of surplus firearms from these recipients to CMP. For example, according to Army officials, CMP received approximately 100,000 surplus M1 rifles in fiscal year 2018; more than 13,000 surplus M1 rifles were recovered and transferred from Turkey in addition to nearly 87,000 surplus M1 rifles from the Philippines. After CMP receives the surplus firearms, the MOU requires CMP to perform all accounting procedures required by the Army for inventory control, including compiling the surplus firearms’ serial numbers. According to CMP officials, CMP uses a commercial point of sale system to track inventory and performs an audit of firearms stored at its facilities annually. For example, according to CMP officials, to count and verify the inventory of incoming shipments of surplus firearms, CMP staff open and inspect each box of surplus firearms upon receipt of the firearms in their facilities in Anniston, Alabama. CMP staff then inventory each firearm by matching the unique serial number found on the receiver of each firearm to the manifest included with the shipment. CMP then enters these firearms into its inventory using each firearm’s unique serial number. After shipping firearms to CMP, the MOU requires TACOM to update the Army’s Unique Item Tracking database for tracking the firearms, which it does by serial number. By statute, title to a transferred firearm does not vest with CMP until immediately before CMP delivers the firearm to an eligible purchaser. CMP Uses Sales Procedures and Federal Background Checks to Address Requirements Related to the Sale of Surplus Firearms CMP primarily uses sales procedures and the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to address requirements related to the sale of surplus firearms. See figure 3 below for a description of several of the processes used by CMP to address the requirements related to the sale of surplus firearms. While various federal statutes and provisions from the agreements between the Army and CMP apply to selling both the surplus rifles and the surplus handguns, there are some differences. For example: Because section 40733 of Title 36, U.S. Code, exempts CMP from certain federal firearms requirements and restrictions, CMP can ship surplus rifles directly to a customer’s home, unless that would conflict with state or local laws applicable where the firearm is being shipped. In contrast, CMP must operate as an FFL for selling surplus M1911 handguns and will ship purchased handguns to an FFL, such as a certified gun shop, in the customer’s state. The local FFL repeats the background check before turning over the firearm to the customer. The MOU limits CMP’s sale of surplus rifles to eight per customer per calendar year, while the Memorandum of Agreement limits CMP’s sale of M1911 handguns to one per customer while it is in effect. The minimum age to purchase any rifle from CMP, including surplus rifles, is 18 while the minimum age for purchasing handguns, including surplus handguns, is 21. CMP is required to ship the surplus handguns with a security device such as a trigger lock, which it is not required to do for the sale of surplus rifles. CMP uses sales procedures to address federal requirements and agreements with the Army. According to CMP officials, the sales procedures, specifically the application to purchase the surplus firearms that customers are required to complete and have notarized, address some of the federal requirements and agreements between the Army and CMP for the sale of surplus firearms. According to CMP, customers are required to mail the original completed application package, including copies of substantiating documentation and notarization, to CMP in order to apply to purchase a surplus firearm. The application includes a form requiring potential customers to certify that they do not fall within any of the categories of individuals prohibited from being sold or receiving a firearm. The form must be signed and notarized, and specifically lists the prohibited categories, as well as certain CMP-unique categories. As part of the form, potential customers must also certify that by receipt or possession of the firearm they will not be in violation of any state law or published ordnance applicable where they reside. Additionally, applicants must provide proof of the following: Citizenship and age: Applicants must include a copy of a U.S. birth certificate; passport; proof of naturalization; a military identification card for certain ranks (active duty, reserve component, National Guard, or retired); or any official government document that shows that an individual was born in the United States or that otherwise identifies U.S. citizenship. According to the application procedures, a copy of a driver’s license is proof of age, but not of citizenship. Membership in CMP-affiliated organization: Applicants are required to provide a copy of their current membership card or another proof of membership in a CMP-affiliated organization. According to CMP, this requirement can also be satisfied by providing proof of membership in one of the federally chartered veterans’ organizations such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars or American Legion; proof of either current or retired military service; or proof of current or retired status in a law enforcement department, agency, or association. Marksmanship or other firearms-related activity: Applicants are required to show proof of participation in a marksmanship-related activity or otherwise show familiarity with the safe handling of firearms and range procedures. According to CMP, this can be accomplished by providing documentation of current or past military or law enforcement service, participation in a shooting competition, completion of a marksmanship clinic that included live-fire training, a concealed carry license, or a FFL license, among other things. Proof of license, permit, or firearms owner identification card: If the state or locality where the applicant resides requires a license, permit, firearms owner identification card, or other documentation, applicants are also required to include a photocopy of such a document with the application for purchase of the surplus firearm. Federal Firearms Licensee: Applicants purchasing surplus rifles who reside in states or localities where shipments must be made to an FFL and applicants purchasing surplus M1911 handguns must provide a copy of the license for the FFL that will be receiving the shipped firearm. According to CMP officials, CMP staff verifies the completeness of the application, including all required documentation while entering applicants’ information into CMP’s commercial point of sale and inventory system. According to CMP officials this involves staff entering the customer’s data into the point of sale and inventory system and verifying the customer’s name, address, proof of age, proof of citizenship, and membership in a CMP-affiliated organization, among other data. CMP uses a separate version of the same commercial point of sale and inventory system to enter and verify customers’ information for the purchase of surplus M1911 handguns. According to CMP officials this is due in part to the requirement to operate as an FFL in order to sell the surplus M1911 handguns. According to CMP, in addition to meeting additional record-keeping requirements required of FFLs, using two different systems helps CMP ensure it addresses certain sales requirements included in the agreements it has with the Army. For example, according to CMP officials, this helps them address the Memorandum of Understanding and Memorandum of Agreement provisions regarding the maximum number of sales of each type of firearm per customer. During our site visits to CMP’s southern headquarters in Anniston, Alabama in August 2018 and November 2018 we observed CMP officials processing applications from the public to purchase surplus firearms to better understand how CMP addressed certain federal requirements and agreements between the Army and CMP. Specifically, we observed 11 transactions from the receipt of an order through processing and packaging for shipment. Six of these transactions involved rifles and five involved handguns. The 11 transactions we observed were consistent with the sales procedures we identified above. For example, in all cases, we saw CMP staff verify and update customer information from the application packet for existing customers of surplus rifles and input customer information from the application packet for new customers of both the surplus rifles as well as the surplus handguns. We also observed that CMP staff could not move forward with the sale without entering and verifying the information supplied in the application. In one instance, we observed a CMP employee entering an application for the purchase of a surplus rifle that had not been notarized and signed. CMP employees stopped the process for this application and informed us the applicant would be contacted directly and requested to provide the required notarization in order for CMP to proceed with the sale. In another instance, CMP staff demonstrated what would occur if information pertaining to the documentation required to demonstrate membership in a CMP-affiliated gun club was not entered. We saw that CMP employees could not continue to the next screen without entering these data. CMP addresses various other federal requirements for the sale of firearms via background checks. Once the application procedures we described above are completed, CMP staff then enter the prospective customer’s information into the system used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to perform background checks. CMP intends this National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to address certain federal requirements for the sale of firearms that we identified above. For example, the NICS background check analyzes various databases to determine whether a prospective customer falls into any of the categories of persons prohibited from being sold or receiving a firearm. The prohibitions involve sale to or receipt by a prospective customer who is under indictment for or has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year; is a fugitive from justice; or has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, among other things. The NICS background check also searches databases to identify a prospective customer who has been discharged from the U.S. Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions, was a U.S. citizen but has since renounced his or her citizenship, or is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance. Additionally, CMP uses the NICS background check to confirm the applicant is of the minimum age necessary to purchase either a rifle or a handgun. Specifically, CMP uses the NICS background checks to ensure the applicant is at least 18 in order to purchase a surplus rifle or a minimum of 21 in order to purchase a surplus handgun. If an age is entered into NICS that is younger than the minimum age required for purchasing a firearm, the system will not continue performing the background check and will notify CMP staff that the buyer is not old enough to purchase the firearm(s). During our site visits to CMP’s southern headquarters in Anniston, Alabama in August 2018 and November 2018 we observed CMP employees performing the NICS background checks for 10 of 11 transactions, and we observed that the employees were unable to proceed with the background check without certain required information. Specifically, CMP employees demonstrated the result of a change to the birthdate while processing the sale of a surplus M1911 handgun so that the customer would be under 21 years of age. This resulted in the NICS system automatically not allowing the background check to proceed. TACOM Oversees the Charges and Reimbursements Funded by CMP for the Transfer of Surplus Firearms. As previously discussed, the MOU requires (1) CMP to reimburse the Army for certain costs associated with the transfer of firearms to CMP, and (2) TACOM to account for the funds reimbursed by CMP. Specifically, CMP is responsible for assuming or reimbursing TACOM for certain costs associated with transportation, standard depot operations, and administrative support. According to Army officials, these administrative support costs include TACOM’s annual cost of one full-time equivalent position to help administer the identification and shipment of surplus firearms to CMP. The MOU also requires TACOM to provide CMP with semi-annual reports identifying the reimbursable costs the Army incurred for any firearms transfers. According to TACOM and CMP officials, TACOM has met this requirement since at least fiscal year 2012 by providing briefings at CMP’s biannual Board of Director’s meetings. CMP reimburses TACOM by depositing funds into a TACOM-managed reimbursement account. TACOM uses the funds in this account to pay the costs associated with transferring firearms to CMP. According to the MOU, TACOM is also responsible for maintaining accountability of funds provided by CMP in support of certain transportation, supply depot operations, and administrative support. The MOU further provides that administrative funding will be evaluated at the end of each fiscal year. For fiscal years 2008 through 2015, TACOM did not have complete information on the reimbursable costs incurred by the Army and on the amounts CMP reimbursed the Army for those costs. This is because, according to TACOM officials, information on transactions involving the reimbursement account prior to fiscal year 2016 was maintained under a different accounting system and could no longer be accessed. According to TACOM officials, TACOM began using a new financial system in fiscal year 2016 to track the information used to maintain accountability including, among other things, the Army’s reimbursable costs and CMP’s payments for those costs. For fiscal years 2016 and 2017, TACOM officials provided us with examples of the documentation from the current system demonstrating that in addition to tracking CMP’s reimbursement payments TACOM tracks reimbursable costs for transportation, standard depot operations, and administrative support using five specific categories of information: travel, labor, commercial transportation, intra- Army purchases, and contract service. For example, these documents showed that CMP reimbursed the Army for a total of $5 million in fiscal year 2017. Sale of Surplus Firearms Has Been the Primary Source of CMP’s Revenue; Although Associated Profits Could Not Be Determined, Estimated Future Revenue Could Fund Operations for Several Years CMP’s primary source of revenue from fiscal years 2008 through 2017 was the sale of surplus firearms. During this time frame, according to CMP’s internal financial documents, CMP generated $196.8 million in revenue from the sales of surplus Army rifles. However, the profit that CMP realized from these sales could not be determined. CMP’s internal financial documents show that CMP incurred $84.7 million in costs for those sales, but CMP’s methodology for calculating costs associated with the transfer and sale of surplus rifles did not account for depreciation and administrative expenses. CMP officials anticipate generating additional revenue from the future sale of surplus M1911 handguns and surplus rifles that CMP currently has available to sell. We estimate these sales could generate as much as $104.9 million, or enough to fund CMP’s operations for several more years. CMP’s Primary Source of Revenue Has Been from the Sale of Surplus Army Rifles Based on our analysis of CMP’s IRS filings and the corporation’s internal financial documents, we identified four primary sources of revenue, of which the sale of surplus Army rifles accounted for the largest share. Sale of surplus Army rifles. According to CMP’s internal financial documents, CMP generated $196.8 million in revenue from the sale of surplus Army rifles during fiscal years 2008 through 2017. The vast majority of these firearms were M1 rifles (see app. II for additional details on the specific types of rifles CMP sold during that time frame). Although the number of surplus rifles CMP sold varied from year to year, as shown in figure 4, except for fiscal years 2012 and 2013, the number of rifles sold has trended downward from fiscal years 2008 through 2017. Sale of ammunition and memorabilia. CMP purchases bulk quantities of commercially available ammunition at a discounted rate due to the size of the order, and then sells this ammunition to its affiliated groups. CMP also sells memorabilia such as T-shirts and hats. According to CMP’s fiscal years 2008 through 2017 internal financial documents, the sale of ammunition and memorabilia was CMP’s second largest source of revenue and generated $76.4 million. Figure 5 shows boxes of commercially purchased ammunition stored in CMP’s warehouse in Anniston, Alabama. Investment account income. CMP officials told us that CMP established an investment account to ensure it had the financial resources to continue to meet its mission should the transfer of surplus firearms from the Army cease. According to CMP’s fiscal years 2008 through 2017 IRS filings, CMP reported earning $49.8 million in interest and dividend income from the corporation’s investment account. As seen in figure 6, CMP’s investment account grew by approximately $88 million, from $100.3 million at the end of fiscal year 2008 to $188.6 million by the end of fiscal year 2017. Although CMP’s investment account grew over this 10-year period, in some years CMP made net deposits into the account, and in other years CMP had net withdrawals from the account. For example, CMP’s net deposits from fiscal years 2008 through 2013 were $73.5 million. However, CMP had net withdrawals of $21.5 million from fiscal years 2014 through 2017. CMP officials stated that they used withdrawals from the investment account in those years to expand marksmanship- related programs and to finance construction of the Talladega Marksmanship Park, completed in 2015, shown in figure 7. Marksmanship-related programs. CMP charges fees for individuals to participate in its marksmanship-related programs such as training programs, matches, youth camps, and competitions. According to CMP’s fiscal years 2008 through 2017 IRS filings, CMP generated approximately $9.2 million in revenue from these fees. CMP’s IRS filings for those years also indicate that CMP’s expenses associated with CMP’s marksmanship programs exceeded revenue by approximately $85.8 million. According to CMP officials, CMP heavily subsidizes participation fees for both matches and youth camps to help make the corporation’s programs as accessible as possible, and revenue generated from the sale of surplus firearms covered any program deficits. Figure 8 shows competitors during the National Matches event we observed in July 2018. Other revenue. According to CMP’s fiscal years 2008 through 2017 internal financial documents, CMP also generated some additional revenue from a variety of other sources. For example, CMP’s Talladega Marksmanship Park has generated over $1.5 million in revenue from range rental and match fees, among other things. Profits from the Sale of Surplus Firearms Could Not Be Determined CMP reported an overall profit of $125.9 million on its IRS filings for fiscal years 2008 through 2017, but this amount includes all categories of revenue and expense for business operations, not only those categories specific to surplus rifle sales. We were therefore unable to use CMP’s IRS filings to determine CMP’s profits from the sale of surplus rifles. The amount of profit specific to surplus rifle sales also could not be determined from CMP’s internal financial documents. CMP’s internal financial documents showed $84.7 million in expenses to sell surplus rifles in fiscal years 2008 through 2017, including costs associated with labor, shipping, and other expenses to prepare the surplus firearms for sale. This is less than the $196.8 million CMP’s internal financial documents show CMP generated in revenue from the sale of surplus Army rifles during fiscal years 2008 through 2017. However, in its internal financial documents, the methodology CMP used to calculate the expenses to sell surplus Army rifles did not include all of CMP’s expenses for these sales. Specifically, the methodology CMP used did not account for depreciation and administrative expenses. CMP did not begin selling surplus M1911 handguns until November 2018, and therefore had just begun generating revenue from these sales at the time of our report. CMP’s internal financial documents reported some costs associated with the surplus M1911 handguns. For example, in fiscal year 2018, in response to an Army requirement, CMP spent approximately $0.7 million upgrading a facility used to house CMP’s M1911 handgun operations. CMP also reported expenses specific to the M1911 handguns of just over $8,000 in fiscal year 2017. CMP Could Generate Millions of Dollars in Future Revenue from the Projected Sale of M1911 Handguns and Surplus Rifles According to CMP officials, CMP anticipates selling most, if not all, of the M1911 handguns because there has been a higher demand for the surplus M1911 handguns than the quantity available to CMP for sale. For example, CMP officials reported that they received more than 19,000 orders for the 8,000 surplus M1911 handguns transferred from the Army in January 2018. How much CMP will sell each surplus handgun for depends on the quality, or grade, of the handguns as determined by CMP. Specifically, CMP officials told us CMP will sell service grade surplus M1911 handguns for $1,050, field grade handguns for $950, and rack grade handguns for $850 each. CMP officials reported that as of December 2018, CMP had sold 632 service grade surplus M1911 handguns for $1,050 each, which generated $663,600 in revenue. Further, CMP officials told us they had determined that 145 of the surplus M1911 handguns were in unsellable condition. As a result, as of December 2018, 7,223 surplus M1911 handguns remained from the original 8,000 CMP received from the Army. If CMP sold all of the remaining handguns, we estimate that CMP could generate from $6.14 million to $7.58 million in additional revenue, depending on the grade of each surplus M1911 handgun sold. As of December 2018, CMP officials told us they expected to complete the processing and sale of the surplus M1911 handguns in the spring of 2019. We estimate that by the time these sales are completed CMP could generate total revenue of from $6.8 million to $8.2 million from the sale of surplus M1911 handguns. CMP may also be able to continue to generate revenue from surplus rifles that are currently available for sale. Based on CMP’s reported sales of 304,233 surplus rifles from fiscal years 2008 through 2017 and revenue generated from these sales of $196.8 million, we determined the average sale of these surplus rifles to be approximately $650 per rifle. According to CMP, as of August 16, 2018 it had approximately 148,714 sellable surplus rifles. Based on our calculation of the average sales price of $650 per surplus rifle, we estimate CMP could generate approximately $96.7 million in revenue from selling surplus rifles currently available for sale. Combined with the potential revenue from the sale of M1911 handguns, we estimated CMP could generate from $103.5 million to $104.9 million from the future sale of surplus firearms. Given CMP’s fiscal year 2017 expenses of $15.8 million, and assuming a similar level of future annual expenses, we estimate CMP could fund a similar level of operations for several more years from the sale of all of the surplus firearms it currently has available for sale. Further, as discussed earlier, CMP has other sources of revenue. As of September 30, 2017, CMP reported having cash of $3.6 million and an investment account that was valued at $188.6 million, for a total of $192.2 million. This could also allow CMP to continue operations for several additional years if it did not receive any additional transfers of surplus firearms. CMP and the Five Selected Corporations Have Similarities in Aspects of Their Business Operations, but Differ in Their Relationship with Members In addition to CMP, we examined five other federally chartered corporations–the U.S. Naval Sea Cadet Corps, the Civil Air Patrol, Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, Future Farmers of America, and the Boy Scouts of America–that have a similar focus on the development, education, or training of youth. Four of the six corporations, including CMP, have received federal funding or resources, and each of the six corporations is governed by some form of a board of directors. However, CMP’s relationship with members, which CMP officials refer to as “affiliated groups” (e.g., gun clubs throughout the United States), differs from the other five corporations we selected for comparison. Organizational mission. All five of the other federally chartered corporations we examined have a focus on the development, education, or training of youth. The Naval Sea Cadet Corps identifies itself as a national youth leadership development organization that promotes interest and skill in naval disciplines while instilling strong moral character and life skills through leadership and technical programs modeled after the Navy’s professional development system. The Civil Air Patrol’s mission statement includes the development of youth and promotion of air, space, and cyber power. Further, the Civil Air Patrol identified that it promotes aviation and related fields through aerospace/science technology engineering and math education and by helping shape future leaders through its cadet program. Big Brothers Big Sisters of America’s overall mission includes providing children facing adversity with strong and enduring, professionally supported relationships that change their lives for the better, including helping children to achieve educational success. Future Farmers of America’s mission statement involves making a positive difference in the lives of students by developing their potential for premier leadership, personal growth and career success through agricultural education. The Boy Scouts of America identified that its goal is to train youth in responsible citizenship, character development, and self-reliance through participation in a wide range of outdoor activities, and educational programs, among other things. Federal funding or resources. CMP, the Naval Sea Cadet Corps, the Civil Air Patrol, and Big Brother Big Sisters of America received some form of federal funding or resources during fiscal years 2015 through 2017. CMP is the only one of these four corporations that relies on the transfer and sale of federally donated surplus firearms for the majority of its revenue. According to officials from the corporations, the Naval Sea Cadet Corps and the Civil Air Patrol rely on federal appropriations and federal grants from the Navy and the Air Force, respectively. For example, according to officials from the Naval Sea Cadet Corps, the corporation received approximately $5.1 million in federal grants from the Navy from fiscal years 2015 through 2017. Civil Air Patrol officials stated that federal funds were the largest source of revenue. According to officials from Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, the corporation received approximately $3.8 million in federal grants from the Department of Labor and $8.2 million in federal grants from the Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention from fiscal years 2015 through 2017. Officials from Big Brothers Big Sisters of America told us that these grants were the corporation’s largest source of funding. Officials at both Future Farmers of America and the Boy Scouts of America told us they raise funds through membership dues and merchandise sales, among other things, but do not receive any federal funding or resources. Organizational structure. The leadership structure of CMP and the five selected federally chartered corporations was similar. That is, officials from CMP and the five selected corporations told us that each corporation has a board of directors or board of governors that may or may not have term limits. For example, CMP’s Board of Directors includes 11 board members with repeatable 2-year term limits, for which the Chairman of the Board also serves as the Chief Executive Officer. According to Boy Scouts of America officials, the corporation’s National Council’s Board of Directors is elected through a nominating process and has no fixed term limits. The Board of Directors in turn elects representatives to the Executive Committee and there is also an Advisory Council. The Advisory Council, according to Boy Scouts of America officials, reports to the Board of Directors and comprises both former members of the board and members who may become future directors on the board. According to officials from Future Farmers of America, that corporation has a Board of Directors of which four members are designated by the Department of Education including a designated Chairperson, and these four members serve open-ended terms. According to these officials, the remaining members of the board not designated by the Secretary of Education serve 3-year terms. The Civil Air Patrol has an 11-member Board of Governors: four are appointed by the Secretary of the Air Force; four are from its volunteer force; and three are from outside the corporation. Organizational relationships. CMP’s relationship with what it refers to as affiliated groups (e.g., gun clubs) throughout the United States, differs when compared with the five federally chartered corporations we selected for review. CMP is located in two facilities: one in Anniston, Alabama, that, according to CMP officials, primarily handles sales and operations and one in Port Clinton, Ohio, that, according to CMP officials, manages mission-related programs, such as the National Matches. CMP also sells surplus firearms to members of groups affiliated with CMP from throughout the United States. But, while CMP officials identified 5,002 affiliated clubs throughout the United States and referred to them as being “affiliated” with CMP, none of these entities are actually part of CMP. According to CMP officials, the clubs pay a small annual fee to become affiliated with CMP, which allows them to participate in CMP- sanctioned marksmanship matches and so that their members are eligible to buy surplus firearms from CMP, among other things. In contrast, according to officials from the other five selected corporations, those corporations have members or affiliates throughout the United States— meaning that these members and affiliated groups are part of the organization as a whole. For example, officials from the Boy Scouts of America told us that they divide the country into regions, then local councils, local districts, counties or communities, and then to local sponsors of individual units or troops; all members are part of the Boy Scouts of America. Similarly, Naval Sea Cadet Corps officials told us the organization is comprised of regional and local units; there is open communication between headquarters and the local units, and a standardized training program is implemented at the local level. Agency Comments, Third-Party Views, and Our Evaluation We provided copies of a draft of this report to the Secretary of the Army, the Civilian Marksmanship Program, and other interested parties for comment. The Secretary of the Army and Civilian Marksmanship Program provided technical comments, which we incorporated into this report as appropriate. We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional committees and the Secretary of the Army. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-9627 or at maurerd@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix III. Appendix I: Scope and Methodology The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 required the Army to transfer surplus M1911 handguns to the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) during fiscal years 2018 and 2019, including no fewer than 8,000 in fiscal year 2018 and no more than 10,000 in any fiscal year. The act also included a provision for us to review certain matters related to CMP. This report (1) examines the Army’s and CMP’s procedures to address requirements governing the transfer and sale of firearms; (2) examines CMP’s primary sources of revenue, costs and profits, and estimated future revenue associated with the sale of surplus firearms; and (3) compares certain aspects of CMP’s business operations with those of five selected youth-focused, federally chartered nonprofit corporations The scope of our review focused primarily on fiscal years 2008 through 2017. We compiled 10 years of the sale of surplus rifles from fiscal years 2008 through 2017 to understand the numbers of surplus rifles transferred as well as the revenue, costs, and profits associated with the sale of surplus rifles. To identify the requirements governing the transfer and sale of surplus firearms, we reviewed applicable federal statutes including relevant provisions from chapter 407 of Title 36, and section 922 of Title 18, U.S. Code, as well as agreements between the Army and CMP such as the 2016 Memorandum of Understanding and the 2018 Memorandum of Agreement. We also reviewed transfer and sales procedures from fiscal years 2018 and 2019 to provide a current status regarding CMP’s sale of surplus M1911 handguns, which CMP began selling in November 2018. To identify procedures put in place by the Army to address the requirements governing the transfer of firearms, we reviewed documentation of reimbursements CMP made to the Tank-automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM), the organization within the Army responsible for facilitating the transfer of surplus firearms to CMP as well as for managing the related reimbursement account. Our review of the procedures associated with the reimbursement account included obtaining cash collection vouchers submitted to the Army by CMP and TACOM briefings presented at CMP’s biannual Board of Director’s meetings. Further, we interviewed TACOM and Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) officials to gain an understanding of how reimbursable costs are identified and requested from CMP. We also compared multiple source documents related to transfers. To understand how TACOM identifies and reports costs associated with the transfer of surplus firearms, we reviewed documentation related to reimbursement for labor, transportation, and standard depot operation costs associated with the transfer of firearms from the Army to CMP. To identify procedures put in place by CMP to address the requirements governing the transfer and sale of firearms, we conducted site visits to CMP’s northern and southern headquarters in Port Clinton, Ohio and Anniston, Alabama, and observed the inventory and sales processes for rifles and handguns. During our site visits to CMP’s southern headquarters in Anniston, Alabama, in August 2018 and November 2018 we observed 11 examples of firearm transactions and compared the procedures with various federal requirements and the agreements between the Army and CMP. We also reviewed documentation of sale order forms, and of CMP’s sales operating system processing an order in order to identify how CMP enters and confirms certain information related to sales. In addition, we interviewed CMP officials to obtain further clarification on the organization’s sales processes. To determine CMP’s primary sources of revenue, as well as the costs and profits associated with the sale of surplus rifles, we reviewed financial information provided by CMP. Our review included an analysis of CMP’s IRS filings and internal financial documents for fiscal years 2008 through 2017. We used CMP’s IRS filings to provide information on revenue generated from overall sales, investments, and programs, as well as on the growth of CMP’s investment account. We relied on the internal financial documents for a more granular account of the revenue CMP generated specifically from the sale of surplus rifles as well as commercially purchased ammunition and memorabilia. CMP officials provided us with a methodology for determining which data within the organization’s internal financial documents are revenue and expenses specific to the sale of surplus rifles. We assessed the reliability of the data by interviewing CMP officials to gain an understanding of how CMP’s IRS filings and internal financial documents are produced and found it sufficiently reliable for our purposes. To assess the reliability of the surplus firearms transfer data provided by TACOM we spoke with TACOM officials for clarification and further explanation of the data provided, including firearm nomenclature and identification codes. The additional information TACOM provided allowed us to identify 17 different types of .22 or .30 caliber surplus rifles that could be grouped together based on make, model, and/or caliber. TACOM officials confirmed our groupings for the types of firearms transferred from fiscal years 2008 through 2017, and we used the results of our analysis to summarize the number and types of surplus rifles transferred to CMP during this time frame. We found the data to be sufficiently reliable for our purposes. To determine potential future revenue associated with the sale of surplus M1911 handguns we obtained current sales price information from CMP, and used this information to project a range of potential future revenue based on the number of surplus rifles and handguns CMP currently has on hand. Specifically, to determine the range of potential revenue for the sale of surplus handguns, we asked CMP to provide information on the sales prices for each of the three grades of preordered M1911 handguns. CMP reported that it had sold 632 surplus M1911 handguns as of December 13, 2018 and further that it had identified another 145 surplus handguns as unsellable. To determine the number of surplus handguns remaining to be sold, we subtracted both the 632 surplus handguns CMP reported as sold and the 145 surplus handguns CMP had determined to be unsellable from the total of 8,000 surplus M1911 handguns the Army originally transferred to CMP. To calculate the range of potential revenue from the remaining 7,223 surplus M1911 handguns, we then multiplied the 7,223 remaining surplus handguns by the lowest and the highest sales prices, $850 and $1,050 respectively. This gave us a range of revenue from the future sales of from $6.14 million to $7.58 million. We then added the known $663,600 in revenue from the sale of the 632 service grade handguns CMP identified to our low and high end calculations to determine the range of future revenue of from $6.8 million to $8.2 million from the sale of surplus M1911 handguns. To determine potential future revenue associated with the sale of surplus rifles, we reviewed inventory and sales data provided by CMP and used this information to estimate potential future revenue based on the average price of the surplus rifles CMP has sold from fiscal years 2008 through 2017. Based on CMPs reported sales of 304,233 surplus rifles from fiscal years 2008 through 2017 and revenue generated from these sales of $196.8 million, we determined the average sale of these surplus rifles to be approximately $650 per rifle. According to CMP, as of August 16, 2018, it had 228,791 rifles on hand, of which CMP identified 148,714 as being in sellable condition. We then multiplied the number of rifles available for sale as of August 2018 by $650, assuming the average sales price would remain the same going forward, to obtain the potential future revenue from the sale of surplus rifles. We then added the range of potential surplus M1911 handgun sales to determine a potential range of CMP’s future sales of surplus firearms. Given CMP’s fiscal year 2017 expenses of $15.8 million, and assuming those expenses remained the same, CMP could fund a similar level of operations for several years from the sale of all of the surplus firearms it currently has available to sell. In order to compare CMP’s business operations with those of other federally chartered nonprofit corporations, we focused on CMP’s youth- focused mission and identified eight other youth-focused, federally chartered nonprofit corporations. Specifically, we reviewed 93 federally chartered nonprofit corporations to identify corporations that focused on the education, training, or development of youth. We developed a set of relevant questions and interviewed officials from five of the eight federally chartered nonprofit corporations we identified—the Naval Sea Cadet Corps, the Civil Air Patrol, Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, Future Farmers of America, and the Boy Scouts of America. Of the remaining three corporations, two did not respond to our requests for meetings and the third declined to meet. We posed the same questions to all the corporations’ officials we met with and compared certain aspects of CMP’s business operations with the federally chartered nonprofit corporations regarding governance, organizational structure and relationships, and funding sources. We conducted this performance audit from May 2018 to February 2019 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Appendix II: Surplus Rifles Transferred from the Army to the Civilian Marksmanship Program from Fiscal Years 2008 through 2017 The Army transferred 279,032 surplus rifles to the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) from fiscal years 2008 through 2017. The surplus rifles transfer data characterized rifles with different descriptions for nomenclatures (e.g., M1903, Mossberg M144, and M1917 Enfield) and firearm identification codes. Our analysis determined that the different nomenclatures could be combined into 17 distinct groups because many of the rifles were variants of the same type of .30 caliber rifle or carbine, or .22 caliber rimfire rifle. The 17 types of rifles we identified were grouped together based on make, model, and/or caliber. Through our analysis, we determined that the majority of rifles transferred to CMP by the Army from fiscal years 2008 through 2017 have been surplus M1 rifles. Our analyses determined that 203,644 of the 279,032 surplus rifles transferred to CMP from fiscal years 2008 through 2017 were serviceable M1 rifles. The second largest type of surplus rifles transferred during this period were drill rifles—rifles not capable of firing live or blank rounds of ammunition—although CMP received nearly four times the number of M1s as it did drill rifles. See table 1 for a description of the surplus rifles transferred to CMP by the Army from fiscal years 2008 through 2017. Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments GAO Contact Staff Acknowledgments In addition to the contact named above, Marilyn Wasleski, Assistant Director; Scott Behen, Analyst-in-Charge; Mae Jones; Richard Kusman; Amie Lesser; Rebecca Mendelsohn; Mike Shaughnessy; Mike Silver; Carter Stevens; and Roger Stoltz made key contributions to this report.


Introduction 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. 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. Front-End of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle The front-end of the nuclear fuel cycle is composed of four stages: Uranium mining and milling is the process of removing uranium ore from the earth and physically and chemically processing the ore to develop "yellowcake" uranium concentrate. Uranium conversion produces uranium hexafluoride (UF 6 ), a gaseous form of uranium, from solid uranium concentrate. Uranium enrichment separates and concentrates the fissile isotope U-235 in the gaseous UF 6 form to produce enriched uranium capable of sustaining a nuclear chain reaction in a commercial nuclear power reactor. Uranium fuel f abrication involves producing uranium oxide pellets, which are subsequently loaded into reactor-specific fuel rods and assemblies, which in turn are loaded into a nuclear power reactor. Primary Supply The nuclear fuel produced from processing newly mined uranium ore through fuel fabrication is referred to as primary supply . The stages from uranium mining through uranium fuel fabrication are described in the following sections. Stage 1: Mining and MillingâProduction of Uranium Concentrate The front-end of the nuclear fuel cycle begins with mining uranium ore from the earth, through conventional (surface mining, open pits, underground) or nonconventional, in-situ recovery (ISR) methods. The type of extraction method employed depends on geology, ore body concentration, and economics. The majority of uranium resources in the United States are located in geological deposits in the Colorado plateau, Texas gulf coast region, and Wyoming basins. The United States has a relatively low quality and quantity of uranium reserves compared to the leading uranium-producing countries. For example, the Nuclear Energy Agency and the International Atomic Energy Agency rank the United States' reasonably assured uranium resources as 12 th worldwide. Uranium milling involves physical and chemical processing of uranium ore to generate uranium concentrate (U 3 O 8 ), commonly called "yellowcake" uranium. Uranium milling operations crush and grind the mined ore, which is chemically dissolved with acid or alkaline solutions and subsequently concentrated. Milling operations produce a large quantity of waste material, termed tailings , relative to the amount of uranium concentrate produced. NRC estimates 2.4 pounds of yellowcake uranium oxide is produced from 2,000 pounds of uranium ore. The tailings, or waste material, generated by uranium milling operations prior to the 1970s were largely abandoned, exposing radioactive sand-like particles to be dispersed into the air, surface, and groundwater by natural erosion and human disturbances. The enactment of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA; P.L. 95-604 ) authorized a remedial action program for cleanup of abandoned mill tailings prior to 1978 and authorized a regulatory framework to manage tailings generated at sites operating after 1978. In the United States, ISR methods have replaced conventional mining and milling by pumping acid or alkaline solutions through an underground ore body. After uranium in the ore is dissolved in solution, it is pumped to the surface and processed to produce uranium concentrate. In the first quarter of 2019, five ISR facilities are operating in the United Statesâall in Wyomingâwith approximately 11.2 million pounds of annual production capacity, and one conventional uranium mill, located in Utah, in operation with an annual capacity of 6 million pounds of ore per day. Additionally, there are 13 million pounds of annual production capacity at 11 ISR operations permitted and licensed, partially permitted and licensed, developing, or on standby. Stage 2: ConversionâProduction of Uranium Hexafluoride Uranium concentrate is shipped to a uranium conversion facility where UF 6 is chemically produced. At room temperature, UF 6 is a solid, and it transforms to a gas at higher temperatures. UF 6 is described as "natural," as the isotopic composition has not been altered relative to the composition that exists in nature. According to the World Nuclear Association, there are six uranium conversion plants worldwide. The Honeywell plant in Metropolis, IL, is the only uranium conversion facility in the United States. It has not produced UF 6 since November 2017. Stage 3: EnrichmentâProduction of Enriched Uranium After uranium conversion, the UF 6 is feed material for uranium enrichment . Natural uranium has an isotopic composition of approximately 0.71% U-235, the fissile isotope of uranium. Civilian nuclear power fuel is generally enriched to 3%-5% U-235. Uranium enrichment in the United States was largely performed using a gaseous diffusion technology until 2013. Currently, one uranium enrichment plant, which employs gas centrifuge technology, operates in the United States. The gas centrifuge technology is described below. Inflow UF 6 gasâreferred to as the feed âenters a gas centrifuge. The centrifuge spins at high speeds and centrifugal forces drive the slightly more massive U-238 isotopes outward, while less massive U-235 isotopes concentrate near the center of the centrifuge. The process repeats many times in a cascade of centrifuges, gradually increasing the isotopic composition of U-235 from 0.71% to 3%-5%. During this process, the chemical composition remains as UF 6 , while the isotopic composition of UF 6 has been modified. The product stream is enriched uranium hexafluoride (enUF 6 ) and the waste streamâcalled the tailsâis depleted uranium (DU). The greater the difference in the isotopic composition of U-235 in the product and tails, the greater the energy requirements. Separative work units (SWUs) describe the energy required to enrich a given feed quantity to a given assay. Uranium enrichment yields a relatively higher mass of depleted uranium as the enriched uranium product. Stage 4: FabricationâProduction of Uranium Oxide, Fuel Rods, and Assemblies The final step in producing usable nuclear fuel involves fuel fabrication . At fabrication plants, enriched uranium is converted to uranium oxide (UO 2 ) powder and subsequently formed into small ceramic pellets. The pellets are loaded into cylindrical fuel rods and then combined to form fuel assemblies specific to a particular reactor. The fuel assemblies are loaded into the nuclear reactor for power production. The precise enrichment level and types of fuel rods and assemblies are specific to each reactor. Secondary Supply Secondary supplies describe uranium materials which may not have been directly processed through the front-end of the nuclear fuel cycle. Secondary supply may describe excess uranium from underfeeding during commercial enrichment, uranium materials held in commercial inventories, uranium held in the federal government's excess uranium inventory, and from the downblending of higher enriched uranium. According to DOE, secondary sources of uranium produced from reenrichment of depleted uranium and underfeeding represent the two largest sources of secondary supply in the market. A uranium market analyst estimated that all secondary supplies account for more than a quarter of total annual world uranium supply (48 million pounds U 3 O 8 equivalent) as of December 2018. The relative contribution of secondary uranium supplies may vary from year-to-year. Underfeeding Uranium enrichment inherently involves a trade-off between energy requirements and quantity of product and tails produced. Enrichment operators aim to balance these requirements as the optimal tails assay. Under certain conditions, enrichment operators elect to underfeed , which generates tails with a lower assay relative to the optimal tails assay. Underfeeding allows the enrichment operator to supply the enriched uranium product at the assay desired, produce lower quantities of tails for storage and disposal, and use relatively less feed material. The trade-off is the higher energy requirement per enriched product. The excess feed material not enriched as a result of underfeeding is considered a secondary supply. Traders and Brokers Uranium traders and brokers buy, sell, and store various types of uranium materials and have no direct operational role in producing or consuming nuclear fuel cycle material. The decision to buy, hold, and sell uranium materials is dependent on market conditions. For example, in 2014 the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs examined the activities of banks and bank holding companies in physical markets for commodities, including an examination of Goldman Sachs' involvement with buying and selling physical uranium products. Goldman Sachs described its activities in the uranium market as "buying uranium from mining companies, storing it, and providing the uranium to utilities when they wanted to process more fuel for their nuclear power plants." Goldman's physical uranium inventory valuation peaked in 2013 at $242 million, and the company planned on exiting the market by 2018 when their contracts with utilities had ended. The current status of Goldman's holdings is not publicly known, as uranium sales contracts are privately negotiated. EIA provides a list of uranium sellers to owners and operators of U.S. civilian nuclear power reactors, which may include companies involved with uranium operations at various stages of the front-end of the nuclear fuel cycle. Commercial Inventories Nuclear utilities and reactor operators stockpile inventories of various types of uranium materials. The primary reasons to maintain stockpiles are economic considerations and to insulate their operations from potential supply chain disruptions. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), total uranium inventories for owners and operators of U.S. civilian nuclear power reactors more than doubled from 2002 to 2016 ( Figure 2 ). EIA tracked inventory quantities of specific uranium materials from 2007 to 2016. During that time, owners and operators of U.S. civilian nuclear power reactors increased inventories of uranium concentrate and enriched UF 6 by the largest relative margin. As of 2016, EIA reported the total uranium inventory for U.S. utilities was 128 million pounds U 3 O 8 (eq). Excess Federal Uranium Inventory DOE maintains inventories of uranium both essential to, and excess to, national security missions. DOE maintains excess inventories of various types of uranium materials, which are sold on commercial markets to support cleanup services for former federal uranium enrichment facilities. Some have expressed concern that DOE's uranium transfers are depressing uranium prices by introducing federal uranium materials into an already oversupplied market. In 2015, the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on the Interior examined the impact of the sales of DOE's excess uranium inventory. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) raised concerns about the transparency of methodology used to determine uranium transfer quantities, and expressed legal concerns with some DOE uranium transfers from 2012 through 2013. The Secretary of Energy determines whether transfers of uranium will adversely affect the domestic production uranium industry. In FY2017, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry determined natural uranium hexafluoride transfer of up to 1,200 metric tons of uranium (MTU) per year would not cause adverse material impact on domestic uranium producers. Explanatory language in the conference report accompanying the Energy and Water, Legislative Branch, and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P.L. 115-244 , H.Rept. 115-929 ) directs DOE to end the uranium transfers and explains that $60 million above the budget request is appropriated in lieu of anticipated profits from those transfers. The DOE FY2020 budget request decreased funding requests for the Portsmouth cleanup by approximately $52 million, indicating DOE intends to resume uranium transfers in FY2020. Global Uranium Market and Fuel Supply Chains The uranium market operates with multiple industries exchanging uranium products and services through separate, nondirect, and interrelated markets. Producers, suppliers, and utilities buy, sell, store, and transfer uranium materials. For example, a contract may be established between a nuclear utility and a uranium producer for a given amount of uranium concentrate production over a certain number of years. The uranium producer generates uranium concentrate, which is shipped to a conversion facility. The utility contracts with a conversion facility to convert uranium concentrate to UF 6 . Finally, the utility may arrange a contract for uranium enrichment services. Uranium transactions occur through bilateral contractual agreements between buyers, sellers, and traders. Civilian nuclear power utilities purchase uranium through long-term multiyear contracts or through the spot market as a one-time purchase and delivery. For uranium materials delivered in 2018, roughly 84% were purchased through long-term contracts and about 16% through spot market purchases. In the United States, utilities may simultaneously arrange contracts with multiple uranium producers or suppliers for a given number of years. For example, a U.S. nuclear power utility may decide to engage with a uranium producer in Canada, a uranium conversion facility in the United States, a uranium enrichment facility in Germany, and a uranium fuel fabricator in the United States ( Figure 3 ). That same utility may arrange another contract for uranium concentrate from Australia, uranium conversion in France, uranium enrichment in the Netherlands, and uranium fuel fabrication in the United States. At the same time, the utility may also decide to acquire uranium materials from a secondary supply source or through a trader or broker. Traders or brokers may not produce uranium products or services, but they buy, sell, and store materials to utilities and other suppliers. In this way, nuclear utilities and reactor operators may seek to diversify nuclear fuel sources between primary and secondary suppliers to avoid supply disruptions. Uranium Imports and Exports The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) categorizes imports and exports by the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). ITC reports uranium imports relevant to the nuclear fuel cycle in different HTS categories and subcategories (see Table 1 ). For this report, CRS provides data from only the top five importing or exporting countries from 1992 through January 2019. Other countries may have contributed lesser amounts of uranium imports or exports over that time period, but those data were not included in this report. Analysis of Uranium Supply to U.S. Nuclear Power Reactors Since the late 1980s, U.S. nuclear utilities and reactor operators have purchased increasingly more foreign-origin uranium for reactor fuel than domestically produced uranium. Historically, the AEC, a predecessor federal agency to DOE and NRC, promoted uranium production through federal procurement contracts between 1947 and 1971. After 1971, uranium mill operators produced uranium concentrate primarily for the production of civilian nuclear energy. In 1987, about half of uranium used in domestic nuclear reactors was foreign origin; by 2018, EIA reported 93% of uranium used in domestic nuclear reactors was foreign origin. The DOE recognizes the term domestic as physical facilities operating within the United States, regardless of a foreign corporation ownership. Several domestic uranium producers, suppliers, enrichers, and utilities operating in the United States have foreign ownership or are subsidiaries of foreign corporations. On the other hand, DOE does not consider brokers and traders of already milled, converted, or enriched uranium as part of the domestic industry, as they are not associated with physical production of those materials. The term foreign is used to describe any non-U.S. based facility or material origin. The following sections describe domestic uranium sources and foreign imports associated with the front-end of the nuclear fuel cycle by year and country. Uranium materials sourced from various countries may be associated with that country's natural resources, operational fuel cycle facilities, and trade agreements with the United States. For example, Australia, one of the largest exporters of uranium concentrate to the United States, has the largest reasonably assured uranium resources worldwide, but it does not have a commercial nuclear power plant in operation. On the other hand, some overseas producers may not have the geologic resources to mine and mill uranium concentrate, but they may operate conversion or enrichment operations. Uranium Ores and Concentrates Uranium extraction worldwide has shifted away from conventional (underground or surface mining) to unconventional (ISR) methods. In 2016, ISR facilities produced about half of the annual global uranium concentrate. ISR methods are less capital-intensive operations relative to conventional mining methods, yet the uranium ore must be hosted within a geological formation suitable for extraction by ISR. Preliminary data for domestic uranium concentrate production in the United States in 2018 totaled approximately 1.5 million pounds, the lowest domestic uranium concentrate production since the early 1950s. Domestic uranium concentrate production outlook remains low for 2019. EIA estimated the first-quarter domestic production of uranium concentrate was 58,000 pounds, approximately four times lower than any reported quarter since 1996. Uranium ore and concentrates are imported into the United States from countries with considerable uranium production programs. According to the World Nuclear Association, the largest uranium-producing countries in the world in 2017 were, in order of uranium concentrate production: Kazakhstan, Canada, Australia, Namibia, Niger, Russia, Uzbekistan, China, the United States, and Ukraine. Uranium concentrate imports are presented in Table 2 and Table 3 . As a practical matter, CRS combines "uranium ore and concentrates" ( Table 2 ) and "natural uranium oxide" ( Table 3 ) as similar materials produced from uranium mining and milling. In 2018, the United States imported the largest quantities of uranium concentrate from Canada and Australia at 4.2 million kg (11 million pounds U 3 O 8 (eq)) and 1.1 million kg (2.9 million pounds U 3 O 8 (eq)), respectively. The United States does not currently have an operational uranium conversion facility to convert uranium concentrate to UF 6 . Consequently, uranium concentrate imported into the United States must be exported to a foreign country capable of conversion and enrichment services or stored in inventories. Uranium Hexafluoride The production of UF 6 is the second stage of the front-end of the nuclear fuel cycle. The United States currently has one commercial conversion facility, the Honeywell International, Inc. plant in Metropolis, IL. The facility suspended operations in 2018 due to "a worldwide oversupply of uranium hexafluoride" and is currently being maintained at a "ready-idle" status. With the Honeywell facility on standby, the United States does not have a domestic uranium conversion facility in operation. The Honeywell facility in Metropolis continues to be operated by ConverDyn Corporation as a warehouse and international trading platform for UF 6 and uranium concentrate. According to ConverDyn, 62 million pounds of UF 6 are stored at the facility as of 2018. According to the World Nuclear Association, the majority of commercial uranium conversion capacity is located in Canada, China, France, Russia, and the United States. Since 1992, the United States' largest import source of UF 6 was from Canada (137 million kg). The next highest country providing UF 6 imports to the United States over that time period was the United Kingdom (5.6 million kg) ( Table 4 ). The export trade data for UF 6 provide additional insight into the international flow of UF 6 , which is feed material for commercial uranium enrichment. The ITC has two types of export classifications, Domestic Exports and Foreign Exports . These definitions are not the same as the definitions for these terms as interpreted by DOE and described previously. Domestic exports are "goods that are grown, produced, or manufactured in the United States and commodities of foreign origin that have been changed in the United States, including changes made in a U.S. Foreign Trade Zone, from the form in which they were imported, or which have been enhanced in value by further processing or manufacturing in the United States." ( Table 5 ) Foreign Exports "(re-exports) consist of commodities of foreign origin that have previously been admitted to U.S. Foreign Trade Zones or entered the United States for consumption, including entry into a CBP [U.S. Customs and Border Protection] bonded warehouse, and which, at the time of exportation, are in substantially the same condition as when imported." ( Table 6 ) The incidence of domestic ex ports may demonstrate domestic uranium concentrate that has undergone uranium conversion in the United States prior to export. Another explanation is that the incidence of domestic ex ports may indicate foreign mined and milled uranium concentrate imported into the United States that was converted and exported. The incidence of foreign ex ports may indicate UF 6 imported into the United States that was reexported for enrichment services in a foreign country. This interpretation is consistent with the comments provided by ConverDyn, which stated that Honeywell operates as a "global trading warehouse." Since 2010, UF 6 foreign exports have totaled roughly 32 million kg to four countries: Russia, Germany, Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. Enriched Uranium Historically, the federal government operated gaseous diffusion uranium enrichment facilities at Oak Ridge, TN, Paducah, KY, and Portsmouth, OH, which supplied enriched uranium for defense purposes during World War II and the Cold War. The federal government used uranium enrichment services at these sites to produce enriched uranium for private contracts to commercial nuclear power plants after 1967. As of 2019, these enrichment sites have ceased operations and are undergoing decontamination and decommissioning managed by DOE's Office of Environmental Management. DOE's estimated program life-cycle costs for decontamination and decommissioning collectively for the three sites range from $70.8 billion to $78.3 billion. As of 2019, the Urenco gas centrifuge uranium enrichment facility near Eunice, NM, is the only operational uranium enrichment facility in the United States. The Urenco facility has the capacity to supply approximately one-third of the annual requirements for U.S. reactors. Several other domestic uranium enrichment facilities began NRC licensing, though no enrichment facilities are proceeding with construction. According to the World Nuclear Association, the majority of commercial uranium enrichment services are performed in China, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Smaller-capacity uranium enrichment plants are located in several other countries. Urenco operates uranium enrichment facilities in the United Kingdom, Germany, and the Netherlands. According to the ITC trade data, the top five countries exporting enriched UF 6 to the United States in 2018 were the Netherlands (785,046 kg), Germany (591,108 kg), Russia (547,768 kg), and the United Kingdom (461,187 kg) ( Table 7 ). Between 1993 and 2013, downblended Russian HEU supplied approximately half of the enriched uranium used in U.S. domestic reactors under the Russian HEU agreement, known as the Megatons to Megawatts program. This U.S.-Russian agreement provides for the purchase of 500 MT of downblended HEU from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons and excess stockpiles for commercial nuclear fuel in the United States. After the Megatons to Megawatts program expired in 2013, imports of enriched uranium from Russia decreased by approximately 50% ( Table 7 ). Today, the enriched uranium from Russia imported into the United States comes from mined and milled uranium concentrate, not from downblended uranium from weapons. The enriched uranium which is imported from Russia, or any other country, may have been mined and processed in various other countries, including material exported from the United States. Fuel Fabrication Three fuel fabrication facilities are located in the United States: (1) Global Nuclear Fuel Americas plant in Wilmington, NC, (2) Westinghouse Columbia Fuel Fabrication Facility in Columbia, SC, and (3) Framatome facility in Richland, WA. Fuel fabrication facilities are located in multiple countries, and may offer various services (conversion, pelletizing, rod/assembly) and capacity of those services. Uranium Purchases vs. Uranium Imports ITC data separates uranium material by the type and quantity that physically entered or exited the United States. ITC data does not estimate the amount of uranium materials purchased by utilities for a given year. ITC data does not infer the quantities of uranium materials used, stored, or processed by a nuclear utility and reactor operator. ITC data differs from the EIA data reporting, which may combine purchases by country for uranium concentrate, uranium hexafluoride, and enriched uranium as equivalents of U 3 O 8 . The EIA data indicates the country of origin of uranium purchased by U.S. nuclear utilities and reactor operators. EIA data does not necessarily indicate that those materials were directly imported into the United States as a given uranium material from that country. Comparing ITC and EIA data for the country of Kazakhstan provides some insight into the flow of uranium materials through the global nuclear fuel cycle. According to the World Nuclear Association, Kazakhstan has been the world's leading producer of uranium concentrate since 2009 and produced 21,700 tons of uranium in 2018. Between 2013 and 2017, uranium concentrate imports from Kazakhstan into the United States were 18% to 54% of the uranium purchases by U.S. nuclear utilities and reactor operators ( Figure 4 ). The difference between the uranium purchased by utilities and the uranium concentrate imported into the United States may represent some portion of the origin material which was converted, enriched, and/or stockpiled in other countries prior to being imported into the United States, in the same form or as a different uranium material. For example, a portion of Kazakhstan uranium purchased by U.S. utilities may have been produced as uranium concentrate in Kazakhstan and subsequently transported to conversion facilities in France for the production of UF 6 . After conversion, the UF 6 may have been then transported to an enrichment facility in the Netherlands for the production of enriched UF 6 . Finally, the enriched UF 6 may have been imported into the United States for fuel fabrication and ultimately used in a U.S. nuclear reactor. This comparison of the reported EIA and ITC data with uranium purchases and imports from Kazakhstan illustrates how enriched UF 6 is imported from countries such as Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands, whereas U.S. nuclear utilities and reactor operators reportedly purchased no uranium originating from those countries. Uranium purchases and imports may vary from year to year. Current Issues On January 16, 2018, two U.S. domestic uranium mining companies petitioned the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) to investigate whether uranium imports from foreign state-owned enterprises, such as those in Russia, China, and Kazakhstan, pose a threat to national security. The investigation into uranium import restrictions sparked a debate between uranium producers; uranium mine and mill operators; and nuclear utilities, reactor operators, and suppliers. Uranium producers asserted that a heavy reliance on foreign uranium constitutes a national security risk and threatens the viability of domestic uranium production. Conversely, nuclear utilities and reactor operators contended that increased fuel costs from trade restrictions would place additional financial burdens on nuclear utilities, potentially causing the premature shutdown of economically marginal nuclear power plants. Stakeholders on both sides of the debate generally agreed that the proposed quotas would increase fuel costs for nuclear utilities and increase revenues for domestic uranium mining. For example, a report sponsored by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) concluded that a 25% quota could increase fuel costs by $500 million to $800 million annually and potentially higher in the years immediately following implementation. An economic study funded by the petitioners estimated uranium mining revenues from a 25% quota would increase by $551 million to $690 million per year and would increase fuel costs by $0.41 per megawatt-hour (MWh). Another study estimated that the $0.41 per MWh increase in fuel costs for nuclear generators would translate to approximately $317 million per year. The uranium Section 232 investigation also raised policy questions about Congress's role under Section 232. Under current federal law, trade actions imposed by the President under Section 232 do not require congressional approval apart from actions related to petroleum imports. Section 232 InvestigationâUranium Imports Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (19 U.S.C. Â§1862) provides the President with the ability to impose restrictions on certain imports based on an affirmative determination by DOC that the product under investigation "is being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security." The industry petition called for the President to enact a quota, pursuant to Section 232, on uranium imports such that "25% of the average historical consumption will be reserved for newly produced U.S. uranium." On July 18, 2018, DOC began an investigation into uranium imports under Section 232. The Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) accepted public comments until September 10, 2018. The statute establishes a process and timelines for a Section 232 investigation, but does not provide a clear definition of "national security," allowing the executive branch to use a broad interpretation, and the potential scope of any investigation can be expansive. DOC submitted a report to the President on April 14, 2019. The report has not been made public. Presidential Determination According to a presidential memorandum released by the Trump Administration on July 12, 2019, DOC determined "uranium is being imported into the United States in such quantities and under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security of the United States as defined under section 232 of the Act." The President did not concur with DOC findings that "uranium imports threaten to impair the national security of the United States as defined under section 232 of the Act." However, the President expressed significant concerns regarding national security, calling for a "fuller analysis of national security considerations with respect to the entire nuclear fuel supply chain...." The memorandum established a Nuclear Fuel Working Group, cochaired by the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, which will also include representatives from other executive branch agencies. The working group will "examine the current state of domestic nuclear fuel production to reinvigorate the entire nuclear fuel supply chain," and provide a report to the President within 90 days of the memorandum. The Department of Commerce conducted a Section 232 investigation for uranium imports in 1988. The investigation was initiated at a time when U.S. utilities imported 37.5% of the actual or projected domestic uranium requirements from foreign sources for two consecutive years. No trade actions were imposed as a result of that investigation. Concerns of Uranium Producers and Local Communities Trade restrictions on uranium imports were generally supported by domestic uranium producers, national and state mining associations, and other companies associated with uranium production. Some elected officials, including the U.S. Senators from Wyoming, one of the largest uranium-producing states, supported trade actions on uranium imports. The Section 232 petition asserts that the long-term viability of the domestic uranium production industry is threatened by unfair market practices by foreign state-owned enterprises. Supporters of the petition anticipate trade quotas would provide domestic uranium producers relief by increasing the price of uranium, and subsequently increasing domestic uranium production. According to advocates of this approach, increased uranium prices and production may offer direct and indirect employment opportunities and economic stimulus to local economies. The Wyoming Mining Association (WMA) offered support to uranium import actions in its comment letter: WMA believes the petition sets forth a compelling case that the current state of the domestic uranium mining industry is not simply a result of foreign competition legitimately underpricing domestic producers. It now is clear that foreign, state-mandated and state-supported uranium production is thwarting our domestic industry's ability to compete in an oversupplied and underpriced market. One of the domestic uranium producers who submitted the Section 232 petition to DOC expressed concern with the President's determination to not take actions on uranium imports. An Energy Fuels statement also suggests that the petition "has been very successful." The company further stated, "We are very pleased to have gained the attention and action of the Administration to address the energy and national security issues raised in the petition and Department of Commerce investigation." Another U.S. uranium producer, Cameco, agreed with the President's determination to not take actions on uranium imports under Section 232. Cameco has uranium assets in the United States, Canada, and Kazakhstan. Cameco operates the largest operational uranium recovery capacity in the United States, the Smith Ranch-Highland ISR operation in Wyoming. 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. 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, 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." Operators of U.S. conversion and enrichment facilities in the United States publicly expressed concern with uranium import quotas. 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 USAâthe only uranium enrichment operation in the United Statesânoted that with the ceased operations at Honeywell and the Department of Energy termination of its barter program, "there is currently no source of natural UF 6 in the United States." Urenco receives deliveries of UF 6 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 UF 6 to [New Mexico], operation of the facilityâand the $5 billion investment in the plantâcould 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." 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." Legislation and Congressional Oversight In March 2018, the Trump Administration imposed tariffs on foreign imports of steel and aluminum pursuant to Section 232. This was the first implementation of trade actions under Section 232 since 1986. Some Members of Congress have questioned whether the Administration's use of Section 232 on steel and aluminum imports is an appropriate use of the trade statute and relies upon broad interpretations of the definition of national security. Bills have been introduced in both chambers ( H.R. 1008 and S. 365 ) in the 116 th Congress that would amend Section 232 to provide for congressional disapproval of certain trade actions with the enactment of a disapproval resolution. The uranium Section 232 investigation was discussed in a September 6, 2018, hearing by the Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies. At that hearing, Richard Ashooh, Commerce Assistant Secretary for Export Administration at BIS, suggested that the uranium investigation had prompted the agency to consider "creative ideas" outside of using import restrictions. On February 5, 2019, the House Committee on Natural Resources requested from the uranium producers that had submitted the petition to the Department of Commerce, "All documents and communications ... relating to the Department of Commerce Section 232 Investigation on uranium." Policy Considerations As a broad policy matter, Congress may consider the federal role in issues associated with the front-end of the nuclear fuel cycle. The uranium materials and service industry delivers fuel for commercial nuclear power reactors, which is largely traded and purchased under private contracts in a global marketplace. Similar to other energy markets, uranium supply is an issue on which Congress may or may not elect to intervene. As discussed previously, the United States ceased production of HEU for weapons in 1964, due to the determination of sufficient stockpiles. Fuel for nuclear naval propulsion is supplied by government HEU stockpiles, and the production of HEU for naval propulsion ended by 1992. Questions about the sufficiency of the defense uranium stockpile and future uranium requirements for defense and other purposes are beyond the scope of this report. Domestic Uranium Production Viability The financial viability in the short term and long term for domestic uranium producersâuranium miners and millersâin 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. 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. U.S. uranium producers have dealt with poor market conditions by decreasing production and imposing employment layoffs. 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. States have proposed legislation intended to provide some financial relief for domestic uranium producers. Nuclear Power Viability U.S. nuclear power plants face economic issues and a general uncertainty over their long-term economic viability. Of the 98 operating nuclear reactors, 12 are scheduled to shut down, prior to license expiration, by 2025. 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. 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. Tribes and Environmental Considerations Some Native American tribes and public interest groups in the United States opposed trade actions on uranium imports due to concerns that uranium import restrictions would promote increased domestic uranium mining and milling operations. These groups suggested the health and environmental issues associated with historical uranium mining and milling have not been adequately addressed. Persistent soil, surface and groundwater contamination associated with historical uranium mining and milling remains a concern for some communities. For example, federal, state, and tribal agencies manage environment impacts associated with historical uranium mining and milling operations that occurred on Navajo Nation lands. Given environmental impacts associated with historical domestic uranium mining and milling operations, Congress may consider examining potential long-term environmental or public health consequences of expanding domestic uranium production and the adequacy of bonding and long-term financial assurance requirements for current or future uranium production operations undergoing site reclamation and decommissioning.