Public Record Service

Energy and permitting policy, read from the public record.

Register entry No. 0012Report91 FR 20420

DOE publishes three DPA plans of action for nuclear fuel consortium, with 60-day reports on uranium permitting and recycling

Three Office of Nuclear Energy notices, published August 10, print the plans that define what consortium members may do jointly under the Defense Production Act antitrust defense, with 60-day reports from a uranium permitting lane to a recycled-fuel offtake program.

Entered by
Public Record Service
Date
Sources
11 cited

Summary

Six reports, each due “within 60 days,” are the core of three documents the Department of Energy published in the Federal Register on August 10, 2026 [1, 2, 3]. They are the final plans of action for the three committees of DOE’s Nuclear Fuel Cycle Consortium, organized under section 708 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 4558) and DOE’s rules at 10 CFR part 821 [1]. Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Theodore Garrish signed the plans on July 28, and each notice says the plan was approved by the Secretary of Energy after consultation with the Attorney General and the chairman of the Federal Trade Commission [1, 2, 3].

What the record shows

A plan of action is the document that sets out what consortium members may actually do together. When this site covered the final voluntary agreement in July, that agreement said specific obligations would appear “only” in individual plans, and none had been published [5]. The August notices fill that gap.

Material Sufficiency Committee (91 FR 51477, Docket DOE-HQ-2026-1024). Its mission, under the label “Operation Nuclear Warp Speed,” is producing “enough nuclear material domestically to sustain existing and projected domestic reactor fleet operations independent of geopolitical supply disruption” [1]. It has two 60-day deliverables:

  • A report on “establishing a defense-priority permitting lane for designated national security uranium projects,” which could include projects delivering domestically mined, milled and converted unobligated U3O8 or UF6 “before 2033” [1]. The committee will also “explore” general permits, permit-by-rule and “elimination of non-statutory administrative delays” [1].
  • A conversion and enrichment gap assessment, prepared with the Nuclear Energy Institute and “their associated independent third party,” covering both low-enriched uranium (under 10 percent) and HALEU (10 to 19.75 percent) [1]. Its demand-side survey is to estimate what reactors would need to reach a “Moonshot of 400GW by 2050” beyond any company’s business plan [1]. The plan says a follow-on survey “using the EIA” may be considered [1].

The plan names enCore Energy, Energy Fuels, DISA, IsoEnergy and Laramide Resources/NuFuels as having indicated they will help write the permitting report [1]. Eleven companies, among them Anfield Energy, Cameco Resources, General Atomics, Strata Energy, Uranium Energy Corporation and Ur-Energy, are listed as able to provide uranium data for the lane and to take part in “DPA-prioritized programs aimed at stocking the Strategic Uranium Reserve” [1].

Market-Integrated Fuel Utilization Committee (91 FR 51474, Docket DOE-HQ-2026-0695). Labeled “Fast Forward Nuclear Dominance,” it covers fabrication and deconversion, recycling and reprocessing, and reactors [2]. One 60-day report is a “quantitative roadmap for federal value-based compensation” that would pay industry for “reducing federal final-disposition liabilities” through recycling [2]. It may outline an “Advanced Fuel Availability Program,” modeled on the HALEU Availability Program, using “fixed-price offtake agreements” [2]. The committee is to recommend a funding mechanism, “including potential utilization of Nuclear Waste Fund accrued interest or congressional appropriations” [2]. A second report would design a “coordinated demand-aggregation mechanism” for reactor components, including whether pooled purchasing is feasible and what safeguards would “minimize negative impacts on competition” [2].

Human Mobilization Committee (91 FR 51480, Docket DOE-HQ-2026-0694). Under the label “Americans Power Nuclear,” its workforce subcommittee is charged with a plan “to double the nuclear fuel cycle workforce” [3]. Within 60 days it owes a workforce “Capacity Snapshot and Preliminary Demand Outlook” projecting needs over 5 to 10 years, followed “by the end of 2026” by a gap and strategic options report [3]. A separate 60-day supply chain vulnerability assessment is to identify “sole sources, single points of failure, and foreign-sourcing risks” [3]. Constellation and Oklo are listed as reviewers and 3M as a contributor on the workforce report [3].

All three plans carry identical terms on conduct. A DOJ or FTC representative “must be in attendance” at committee meetings, a federal representative must attend all substantive working-group meetings, and every meeting is to be “recorded with transcripts on Microsoft Teams” [1, 2, 3]. Members who attend fewer than 75 percent of scheduled meetings, or fail to deliver on time, risk losing voting rights [1, 2, 3]. Each plan lists in-kind labor and materials from participants as the only resources required [1, 2, 3].

Where it sits in the process

When did the DOE fuel consortium plans take effect?

The Justice Department’s Antitrust Division found on April 17, 2026, that the purposes of the plans “may not reasonably be achieved” through plans with less anticompetitive effect, the finding 50 U.S.C. 4558(f)(1)(B) requires [4]. The notice, published April 23, said the plans “may become effective following the publication of this notice” [4]. The August notices state that members drafted the plans from January to March, a closed Steering Committee reviewed them on March 26, and they were “finalized in advance of” the consortium’s April 23 public meeting [1]. DOE had noticed that meeting as a chance to “provide commentary on approved Plans of Action” [7].

DOE then published the final voluntary agreement on July 6 [5] and, on July 17, adopted its August 2025 interim rule creating 10 CFR part 821 as final “without change,” effective that day [6]. A July 31 notice listed closed weekly meetings in June of Committee 3, the Reactors Subcommittee and recycling and workforce working groups [8].

What comes next for the 60-day reports?

The plans set the reports as the next milestone and authorize “follow-on actions,” including “the development of subsequent POAs,” before “the final Steering Committee meeting of 2026” [1, 2, 3]. A new or modified plan would need its own Justice Department finding before taking effect [4, 5]. None of the August notices opens a comment period [1, 2, 3].

What the record does not show

  • The 60-day start date. No plan says when the clock began [1, 2, 3]. Measured from the April finding, it would have run out in June; measured from August 10, it runs into October. The record does not choose.
  • A finished text. The Material Sufficiency plan, as printed, contains placeholder lines such as “Identify companies that mandatory response to survey is needed: [List of companies TBC]” [1]. It refers to a “mandatory” survey without citing any authority to compel responses [1].
  • The permitting lane’s legal basis. The plan asks for a report on a lane; it does not say which agencies’ permits it would cover or what statute would support it [1].
  • The Strategic Uranium Reserve. The plan mentions programs to stock it but gives no size, budget or procurement terms [1].
  • Money for recycling. Use of Nuclear Waste Fund interest is listed as an option to evaluate, not a decision, and the plan identifies no appropriation [2].
  • Most participants. Several working groups read “Companies to be identified” [2, 3]. American Nuclear Society reporting in April put membership at 90 companies, but no roster appears in the docket [10].
  • UFIRM. The April Justice Department notice listed a “Uranium Fuel Infrastructure Resilience Mechanism” among the phases the plans would address [4]. None of the three August plans uses the term [1, 2, 3].

Positions on the record

DOE and DOJ. When the plans were cleared in April, Garrish tied the consortium’s timing to nuclear energy growth and said he looked forward to “rapid progress on near term goals” for domestic fuel supply [9]. Acting Assistant Attorney General Omeed A. Assefi called the Defense Production Act “a powerful tool for addressing issues related to our nation’s defense and preparedness programs” and said the department would monitor implementation with the FTC and DOE [9]. ANS reported that DOE described the “Nuclear Dominance—3 by 33” campaign as running through 60-day sprints toward 2033 [10]. Energy Intelligence reported the day after the April meeting that the consortium was weighing a “defense-priority permitting lane” and “procurement for a US strategic uranium reserve” [11].

Commenters on competition. The plans themselves drew no public comment process, but the earlier docket did. Ziqin (Joseph) Ding asked DOE to keep the antitrust safe harbor “tightly cabined” to “pro-competitive” and “resilience-enhancing conduct,” to avoid a privileged status for large entities, and to bar exchanges of price, bid, output or customer-allocation information by default [5]. DOE answered that Justice Department and FTC involvement “throughout” would address those concerns [5]. In the July final rule, DOE described comments on the interim procedures as “generally supportive” [6].

The plans’ own antitrust sections put the burden on participants: the defense covers only conduct “specified in, or was within the scope of” a plan and taken “under the active supervision of DOE,” and it is lost if the action was “taken for the purpose of violating the antitrust laws” [1, 2, 3]. Whether the demand-aggregation report recommends pooled purchasing, and how the Justice Department would review it, is left to the next round of plans [2, 4].

Reading-room questions

Questions readers bring to this record, answered from the documents cited below.

What did DOE publish about the nuclear fuel DPA consortium on August 10, 2026?
The final text of three plans of action, one each for the Material Sufficiency, Market-Integrated Fuel Utilization and Human Mobilization committees, at 91 FR 51477, 51474 and 51480 [1, 2, 3]. Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Theodore Garrish signed all three on July 28 [1, 2, 3].
Is DOE creating a fast-track permitting lane for uranium mines?
Not yet. The Material Sufficiency plan only commits the committee to a report examining a 'defense-priority permitting lane' for designated national security uranium projects, due within 60 days [1]. Any lane would need separate action; the plan itself changes no permitting rule [1].
Which companies are in the DOE uranium permitting working group?
The plan lists enCore Energy, Energy Fuels, DISA, IsoEnergy and Laramide Resources/NuFuels as having indicated they will help prepare the permitting report, with others 'to be determined' [1]. Eleven companies, including Cameco Resources, Uranium Energy Corporation and Ur-Energy, are listed as offering uranium data [1].
Does the plan of action give consortium members antitrust immunity?
It gives a statutory defense under DPA section 708(j), not blanket immunity [1]. The participant must show the action was within the plan and taken under DOE's 'active supervision,' and the defense ends when the plan terminates [1, 2, 3].
Can I comment on the DOE nuclear fuel plans of action?
The August 10 notices do not request comments [1, 2, 3]. The Justice Department made its required finding on the plans in April, which allowed them to take effect after that notice was published [4].

Note on sourcing

The August 10 notices are notices of availability, not rules: they open no comment period and propose no regulatory text. The plans say their reports are due 'within 60 days' without naming a start date, so the due dates cannot be fixed from the record. The Material Sufficiency plan, as printed, still contains unfilled bracketed entries such as '[List of companies TBC]'. Company names are those the plans list as having 'indicated' a commitment or as reviewers and contributors; no full membership roster has been published, and the figure of 90 member companies is the American Nuclear Society's April reporting of a DOE statement. The Energy Intelligence account of the April meeting is drawn from that article's opening; this report does not draw on the rest of it. None of the companies named in the plans had commented publicly on them as of publication.

Sources

  1. Plan of Action Under the Defense Production Act (Material Sufficiency Committee), 91 FR 51477 (FR Doc. 2026-16226), Docket DOE-HQ-2026-1024Federal Register (Department of Energy), August 10, 2026 · federalregister.gov
  2. Plan of Action Under the Defense Production Act (Market-Integrated Fuel Utilization Committee), 91 FR 51474 (FR Doc. 2026-16225), Docket DOE-HQ-2026-0695Federal Register (Department of Energy), August 10, 2026 · federalregister.gov
  3. Plan of Action Under the Defense Production Act (Human Mobilization Committee), 91 FR 51480 (FR Doc. 2026-16224), Docket DOE-HQ-2026-0694Federal Register (Department of Energy), August 10, 2026 · federalregister.gov
  4. Notice Pursuant to the Defense Production Act of 1950 (review of plans of action), 91 FR 21850 (FR Doc. 2026-07900)Federal Register (Department of Justice, Antitrust Division), April 23, 2026 · federalregister.gov
  5. Implementing Voluntary Agreements Under the Defense Production Act, notice of availability (final voluntary agreement), 91 FR 40991 (FR Doc. 2026-13486)Federal Register (Department of Energy), July 6, 2026 · federalregister.gov
  6. Implementing Voluntary Agreements Under the Defense Production Act, final rule, 91 FR 44729 (FR Doc. 2026-14461), RIN 1901-AB73Federal Register (Department of Energy), July 17, 2026 · federalregister.gov
  7. Defense Production Act Consortium; notice of open meeting, 91 FR 20420 (FR Doc. 2026-07403)Federal Register (Department of Energy), April 16, 2026 · federalregister.gov
  8. Notice of Closed Meetings To Implement Voluntary Agreements and Related Plans of Action Under the Defense Production Act, 91 FR 48381 (FR Doc. 2026-15527)Federal Register (Department of Energy), July 31, 2026 · federalregister.gov
  9. Antitrust Division Approves Department of Energy Defense Production Act Consortium's Updated Voluntary Agreement and Plans of Action (Press Release 26-393)U.S. Department of Justice, April 23, 2026 · justice.gov
  10. DOE consortium begins new initiative aimed at growing fuel cycleAmerican Nuclear Society (Nuclear News), April 28, 2026 · ans.org
  11. US Eyes Faster Uranium Permitting, Uranium Strategic Reserve ProcurementEnergy Intelligence, April 24, 2026 · energyintel.com

Subject headings

Cross-references

Other register entries filed under the same subject headings.

  1. No. 0004 · Report · 4 shared headingsDOE publishes final Nuclear Fuel Cycle Consortium agreement under Defense Production Act section 708, 91 FR 40991
  2. No. 0023 · Report · 1 shared headingDOE asks for input on foreign grid-equipment limits under E.O. 14421, 91 FR 57322
  3. No. 0021 · Report · 1 shared headingDOE stays federal-building fossil fuel rule a third time, to March 1, 2027, 91 FR 56371