Notice of Final Determination on 2023 DOE Critical Materials List, 51792-51798 [2023-16611]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
51792
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 149 / Friday, August 4, 2023 / Notices
access telecommunications relay
services, please dial 7–1–1.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 7,
2023, we published the NIA in the
Federal Register (88 FR 37222). Under
the NIA, applications are due on August
8, 2023. We are extending the deadline
for transmittal of applications for
affected applicants (as defined under
Eligibility) to allow these applicants
more time—until August 16, 2023—to
prepare and submit their applications.
Eligibility: The application deadline
extension applies only to eligible
applicants under the FY 2023 FSCS
competition that are affected applicants.
An eligible applicant for this
competition is defined in the NIA. To
qualify as an affected applicant, the
applicant must have a mailing address
that is located in the federally declared
disaster area and must provide
appropriate supporting documentation,
if requested.
The applicable federally declared
disaster area under this declaration is
the area in which assistance to
individuals or public assistance has
been authorized under FEMA’s disaster
declaration for New York Severe Storms
and Flooding (DR–4723–NY), Vermont
Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides,
and Mudslides (DR–4720–VT), and
Oklahoma Severe Storms, Straight-line
Winds, and Tornadoes (DR–4721–OK).
See the disaster declarations at: https://
www.fema.gov/disaster/4723, https://
www.fema.gov/disaster/4720, and
https://www.fema.gov/disaster/4721.
Affected applicants that have already
timely submitted applications under the
FY 2023 FSCS competition may
resubmit applications on or before the
extended application deadline of
August 16, 2023, but are not required to
do so. If a new application is not
submitted, the Department will use the
application that was submitted by the
original deadline. If a new application is
submitted, the Department will consider
the application that is last submitted
and timely received by 11:59:59 p.m.,
Eastern Time, on August 16, 2023.
Any application submitted by an
affected applicant under the extended
deadline must contain evidence (e.g.,
the applicant organization mailing
address) that the applicant is located in
one of the applicable federally declared
disaster areas and, if requested, must
provide appropriate supporting
documentation.
The application period is not
extended for all applicants.
Applications from applicants that are
not affected, as defined above, will not
be accepted past the August 8, 2023,
deadline.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:51 Aug 03, 2023
Jkt 259001
Note: All information in the NIA for
this competition remains the same,
except for the extended date for the
transmittal of applications for affected
applicants and the deadline for
intergovernmental review.
Program Authority: Sections 4621–
4623 and 4625 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as
amended.
Accessible Format: On request to the
program contact person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
individuals with disabilities can obtain
this document, the NIA, and a copy of
the application package in an accessible
format. The Department will provide the
requestor with an accessible format that
may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or
text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3
file, braille, large print, audiotape, or
compact disc, or other accessible format.
Electronic Access to This Document:
The official version of this document is
the document published in the Federal
Register. You may access the official
edition of the Federal Register and the
Code of Federal Regulations at
www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can
view this document, as well as all other
documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in
text or Portable Document Format
(PDF). To use PDF you must have
Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the
Department published in the Federal
Register by using the article search
feature at www.federalregister.gov.
Specifically, through the advanced
search feature at this site, you can limit
your search to documents published by
the Department.
Adam Schott,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and
Programs, Delegated the Authority to Perform
the Functions and Duties of the Assistant
Secretary, Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2023–16704 Filed 8–3–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Notice of Final Determination on 2023
DOE Critical Materials List
Department of Energy.
Notice.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
By this notice, the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) presents
2023 DOE Critical Materials List. This
list includes critical materials for
energy, as determined by the Secretary
of Energy, acting through the
Undersecretary for Science and
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Innovation, pursuant to authority under
the Energy Act of 2020, as well as those
critical minerals on the 2022 final list
published by the Secretary of Interior,
acting through the Director of the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS). This notice
also presents the assessment that forms
the basis for the designation of critical
materials for energy. The final 2023
DOE Critical Materials List includes
certain critical materials for energy and
critical minerals as listed below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Questions may be addressed to Helena
Khazdozian, 202–586–9236,
helena.khazdozian@ee.doe.gov.
DATES: Applicable: July 28, 2023.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
7002(a)(2) of the Energy Act of 2020
defines ‘‘critical materials’’ to be: (A)
Any non-fuel mineral, element,
substance, or material that the Secretary
of Energy determines (i) has high risk
for supply chain disruption; and (ii)
serves an essential function in one or
more energy technologies, including
technologies that produce, transmit,
store, and conserve energy [referred to
here as a critical material for energy]; or
(B) a critical mineral [as designated by
the Secretary of the Interior].1 The Final
2023 DOE Critical Materials List
includes the following:
• Critical materials for energy:
aluminum, cobalt, copper*, dysprosium,
electrical steel* (grain-oriented
electrical steel, non-grain-oriented
electrical steel, and amorphous steel),
fluorine, gallium, iridium, lithium,
magnesium, natural graphite,
neodymium, nickel, platinum,
praseodymium, terbium, silicon*, and
silicon carbide*.
• Critical minerals: The Secretary of
the Interior, acting through the Director
of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS),
published a 2022 final list of critical
minerals that includes the following 50
minerals: ‘‘Aluminum, antimony,
arsenic, barite, beryllium, bismuth,
cerium, cesium, chromium, cobalt,
dysprosium, erbium, europium,
fluorspar, gadolinium, gallium,
germanium, graphite, hafnium,
holmium, indium, iridium, lanthanum,
lithium, lutetium, magnesium,
manganese, neodymium, nickel,
niobium, palladium, platinum,
praseodymium, rhodium, rubidium,
ruthenium, samarium, scandium,
tantalum, tellurium, terbium, thulium,
tin, titanium, tungsten, vanadium,
ytterbium, yttrium, zinc, and
zirconium.’’
* Indicates materials not designated as
critical minerals by the Secretary of
1 30
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
U.S.C. 1606(a)(2)
04AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 149 / Friday, August 4, 2023 / Notices
Interior. The critical materials for energy
included on the Final 2023 DOE Critical
Material List 2 are based on the
criticality assessed in the short- and
medium-term.3 A detailed description
of DOE’s methodology can be found in
the assessment.4 The materials on the
Final 2023 DOE Critical Materials List
will inform crosscutting priorities
including, but not limited to:
• Critical Materials Research,
Development, Demonstration, and
Commercial Application (RDD&CA)
Program priorities
• Eligibility for the Inflation Reduction
Act (IRA) 48C tax credit
Public Comment on the Draft Critical
Materials List
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Pursuant to authority in section
7002(a)(2) of the Energy Act of 2020, on
May 3, 2023, DOE published via the
EERE Exchange website a Notice of
Intent 5 to issue a Request for
Information (RFI) 6 on the Proposed
Determination of the Draft Critical
Materials List and Draft Critical
Materials Assessment. The RFI was
published via the EERE Exchange on
May 31, 2023. The RFI provided for a
20-day public comment period, and
closed on June 20, 2023.
DOE received 79 comments during
the comment period. Three comments
were from individuals and 76 were
submitted on behalf of organizations.
Due to time constraints, comments
received after the deadline were not
taken into consideration for this
assessment. DOE may take these
comments into consideration for future
assessments and determinations.
Additionally, DOE received some
comments that were out of scope or
otherwise not responsive to the requests
included in the RFI. DOE considered all
of the responsive comments received
before the submission deadline and
below is a summary of DOE’s responses.
The following revisions to the Draft
DOE Critical Materials List were made
based on the comments received:
2 https://www.energy.gov/cmm/what-are-criticalmaterials-and-critical-minerals.
3 Several substances listed as critical materials for
energy were also included on the U.S. Geological
Survey’s 2022 Final List of Critical Minerals. DOE’s
inclusion of these substances on its list is intended
to signal the results of its criticality assessment.
Under Section 7002(a), however, designation as a
critical mineral is sufficient to make the substance
a critical material.
4 https://www.energy.gov/cmm/critical-mineralsmaterials-program.
5 https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/
Default.aspx#FoaId6322a11b-4cb4-4ac7-96a2a6814bc5fbf9.
6 https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/
Default.aspx#FoaId82fa533b-3d3e-4b49-839d9ddf13d56f40.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:51 Aug 03, 2023
Jkt 259001
• Terbium was added to the Final
2023 DOE Critical Materials List as a
critical material for energy. Terbium
was screened and then fully assessed for
criticality based on information
provided through the comments
received. Based on that analysis, DOE
has determined that terbium meets the
definition of critical materials as
defined in the Energy Act of 2020. More
detail is provided in the Critical
Material Assessment.
The following actions were taken
based on the comments received, but
did not change the results of the Critical
Materials Assessment:
• Boron was revisited based on the
comments that in addition to
neodymium iron boron magnets, boron
is important for additional clean energy
end-uses including wind turbine blades,
boron-doped photovoltaics, and battery
coatings. DOE’s conclusion is that there
is a lack of substantiated data that
quantifies the use of boron in these
applications, including electric glass for
wind turbine blades, and thus these
applications would not drive a
significant increase in demand for
boron.
• Phosphorous was revisited based on
the comments that phosphorous
demand is expected to experience a
shortfall for use in lithium iron
phosphate (LFP) batteries,
geoconcentration of production outside
the U.S., and that agriculture is a
competing use. DOE provides further
clarification that the Critical Materials
Assessment considered high LFP
adoption scenarios, geoconcentration of
production outside the U.S., and
agriculture as a competing use in the
assessment of phosphorous. More
details can be found in the Critical
Materials Assessment report in section
4.3.15. Ultimately, phosphorous was not
assessed to be critical under the DOE
methodology.
DOE received a comment advocating
the exclusion of copper from the Final
2023 DOE Critical Materials List based
on (1) the results of the USGS
methodology 7 to determine the 2022
Final List of Critical Minerals and (2)
the potential to accelerate mining of
copper under the IRA 48C tax credit.
• Regarding point (1), it should be
noted that the methodologies employed
by the USGS and DOE have several
distinctions. While the USGS
methodology is a supply-side approach
that uses historical data to determine
criticality within the context of the U.S.
economy and national security, the DOE
methodology is forward looking—
7 https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/
ofr20211045.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
51793
incorporating global demand trajectories
based on growth scenarios for various
energy technologies, coupled with
assumptions about the material
intensity of those technologies, to
determine criticality within the context
of clean energy.
• Regarding point (2), critical
materials eligibility for the IRA 48C tax
credit is specifically for processing,
refining, or recycling of critical
materials.
DOE received a comment stating that
uranium should not be excluded from
the Final 2023 DOE Critical Materials
List based on its categorization as a fuelmineral because uranium does not meet
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) definition of a fuel,
‘‘material used to produce heat or power
by burning.’’ As noted in the RFI and
accompanying proposed assessment,
uranium was assessed for criticality
under this methodology and met the
threshold to be included on the list of
critical materials for energy. However,
section 7002(a) of the Energy Act of
2020 restricts the listing of critical
materials to ‘‘any non-fuel mineral,
element, substance, or material’’ and
therefore DOE is not designating
uranium as a critical material at this
time. DOE further responds noting the
following:
• What EPA ‘‘considers a fuel to be’’ 8
for the purpose of its risk management
programs for chemical accident
prevention is not determinative of what
is a fuel mineral, element, substance, or
material element that DOE is required to
exclude from the Critical Materials List
by section 7002(a) of the Energy Act of
2020. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary
defines fuel to include, not only a
material used to produce heat or power
by burning, but also ‘‘a material from
which atomic energy can be liberated
especially in a reactor.’’ 9 Uranium used
in commercial nuclear plants clearly
meets this definition of a fuel material.
Therefore, based on the plain meaning
of fuel, DOE concludes that uranium
used in commercial nuclear reactors is
a fuel material. Based on the Critical
Materials Assessment, which includes
only use of uranium as a fuel, DOE is
not designating uranium as a critical
material at this time.
DOE received several comments that
provided information that may have the
8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Definition of Fuel, https://www.epa.gov/rmp/
definition-fuel#:∼:text=There%20is%20no
%20regulatory%20definition,heat%20or
%20power%20by%20burning (‘‘There is no
regulatory definition of fuel; however, EPA
considers a fuel to be a material used to produce
heat or power by burning.’’).
9 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/
fuel.
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
04AUN1
51794
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 149 / Friday, August 4, 2023 / Notices
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
potential to adjust the criticality
analyses of materials already included
on the USGS Critical Minerals List.
These comments were considered but
ultimately not included in this
determination, as such minerals are by
definition already deemed to be critical
materials. However, DOE may use the
information to inform future
assessments and activities related to
critical materials for energy.
DOE received several comments
advocating for increasing the scores of
importance to energy or potential for
supply risk within the Critical Materials
Assessment for several materials on the
Draft Critical Materials List, including
copper and silicon. These comments
were not taken into account for this
assessment but may be considered to
inform future assessments and activities
at DOE.
DOE received many comments about
the scope of the assessment. The
following explanation and clarification
are provided:
• Section 7002(a)(2) of the Energy Act
of 2020 authorized the Secretary of
Energy to determine critical materials
according to the statutory definition:
Æ Any non-fuel mineral, element,
substance, or material that the Secretary
of Energy determines:
D Has high risk for supply chain
disruption; and
D Serves an essential function in one
or more energy technologies, including
technologies that produce, transmit,
store, and conserve energy; or
Æ A critical mineral [as designated by
the Secretary of the Interior].10
• DOE has interpreted energy
technologies to be ‘‘clean energy’’
technologies in alignment with the DOE
Critical Minerals and Materials Vision
and Strategy.11 The anticipated
unprecedented increase in demand for
critical minerals and materials is driven
by the global deployment of clean
energy technologies to achieve net-zero
goals by 2050. The International Energy
Agency has estimated the demand for
critical minerals and materials will
increase by 400% to 600% by 2040 to
achieve these goals.12 The specific
energy technologies 13 considered in
this assessment are described in Chapter
2 of the Critical Materials Assessment
and are aligned with the technologies
DOE assessed as part of ‘‘America’s
Strategy to Secure the Supply Chain for
a Robust Clean Energy Transition.’’
• DOE conducted the Critical
Materials Assessment to inform the
determination under section 7002(a)(2).
The methodology applied in the DOE
Critical Materials Assessment has
several unique features:
Æ It is forward looking, incorporating
global demand trajectories based on
growth scenarios for various energy
technologies, coupled with assumptions
about the material intensity of those
technologies.
Æ A limited set of engineered
materials was assessed.
• The scope of materials assessed
included a limited set of engineered
materials: electrical steel and silicon
carbide. This set of engineered materials
was selected based on two factors: (1)
the materials were found to have high
potential for supply risk in the ‘‘supply
chain deep dive’’ reports as part of
‘‘America’s Strategy to Secure the
Supply Chain for a Robust Clean Energy
Transition’’; and (2) the elements
comprising the engineered materials
(such as iron for electrical steel) were
unlikely to be found critical and thus
not indicate the risk posed to deploying
energy technologies. Prior to the passage
of the Energy Act of 2020, materials
assessed for criticality were generally
limited to an element. In practice, the
designation of a critical material as an
element does not restrict the mitigation
strategies prioritized by DOE to be
limited to the elemental form. For
example, neodymium has been found to
be critical in the past and mitigation
strategies pursued by DOE include
Material
On the
USGS list?
On the
draft DOE
list?
On the
final DOE
list?
Aluminum ..
Yes ...........
Yes ...........
Yes ...........
5
Antimony ...
Yes ...........
No ............
No ............
2
10 30
U.S.C. 1606(a)(2).
11 https://www.energy.gov/cmm/critical-minerals-
Number of
comments
received
Summary of comment(s)
DOE action
Aluminum score should increase in shortterm and medium-term due to supply risk
(low producer diversity—China) and importance to energy (more end-uses than considered in assessment).
Antimony should be on the list. Antimony
compounds used in electronics and for
fire-retardance.
No action: Aluminum is already on the USGS
and DOE lists. DOE may consider this
input for future assessments and activities.
12 https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-criticalminerals-in-clean-energy-transitions.
materials-program.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:51 Aug 03, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
unlocking new sources, developing
alternative magnets that reduce or
eliminate the use of neodymium,
improving efficiency of separation and
metallization of neodymium as well as
neodymium-based alloys and magnets,
and recycling neodymium from end-oflife magnets.
Æ Further clarification is provided on
the definition of electrical steel. For the
purposes of this assessment, electrical
steel includes grain-oriented electrical
steel, non-grain-oriented electrical steel,
and amorphous steel.
• The scope of materials analyzed
does not include materials that are used
indirectly in the manufacturing process
but do not contribute to the composition
of the components or final products. For
example, helium is used in cooling,
cleaning, and creating an inert
environment for semiconductors but it
is not a constituent material of the
semiconductor. While a disruption in
helium supply chain can impact
semiconductor production, the scope of
this assessment has not been extended
to indirect material use. DOE may
consider the examination of materials
used indirectly in manufacturing
processes in future assessments.
DOE received many comments with
recommendations to improve the
methodology applied in the Critical
Materials Assessment. DOE anticipates
updating the assessment every three
years and may evaluate these
recommendations for future
assessments. Such future assessments
will inform additional critical materials
determinations, as appropriate.
The following table summarizes a
subset of the relevant comments
received, categorized by material, and
describes DOE’s response. This does not
include comments on the improvements
for the methodology, or the scope of the
assessment which are discussed
previously.
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
No action: Antimony is already on the USGS
list and no substantial data or information
were provided.
13 Vehicles, stationary storage, hydrogen
electrolyzers, solar energy, wind energy, nuclear
energy, electric grid, solid state lighting, and
microchips.
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
04AUN1
51795
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 149 / Friday, August 4, 2023 / Notices
Material
On the
USGS list?
On the
draft DOE
list?
On the
final DOE
list?
Beryllium ...
Yes ...........
No ............
No ............
1
Boron ........
No ............
No ............
No ............
8
Bromine ....
No ............
No ............
No ............
1
Bromine should be considered for the list—
important to zinc bromide batteries.
Butyllithium
No ............
No ............
No ............
1
Butyllithium should be on the list—important
for manufacturing of ‘‘green’’ tires and
lightweight automotive interior.
Carbon
Fiber.
No ............
No ............
No ............
1
Should be assessed for wind turbine blades
Cerium ......
Yes ...........
No ............
No ............
1
Cobalt .......
Yes ...........
Yes ...........
Yes ...........
6
Copper ......
No ............
Yes ...........
Yes ...........
9
The risks associated with the overproduction
of elements like cerium are overstated in
the assessment.
Information on dependency on Democratic
Republic of Congo and China. LFP/LFMP
(lithium iron phosphate/lithium iron-manganese-phosphate) technology will reduce
cobalt dependency for batteries. Most mining and processing of cobalt occurs outside the U.S.
Copper score should increase based on importance to energy (more end-uses than
considered in assessment) and supply
risk. Copper should not be on the list because: (1) it is not on the USGS list and
(2) will incentivize mining through the IRA
48C tax credit and most copper deposits
are within 35 miles of Native American
Reservations.
Dysprosium
Yes ...........
Yes ...........
Yes ...........
1
Electrical
Steel.
No ............
Yes ...........
Yes ...........
1
Fluorine .....
No ............
Yes ...........
Yes ...........
2
Polyvinylidene fluoride
(PVDF).
No ............
No ............
No ............
1
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:51 Aug 03, 2023
Jkt 259001
Number of
comments
received
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Summary of comment(s)
DOE action
Beryllium should be on the list—important for
solar photovoltaics (PV), nuclear, electric
vehicle (EV) batteries. Data NOT provided.
Most
beryllium
is
imported
from
Kazakhstan.
Boron should be on the list and is used in
more end-uses than Neodymium Iron
Boron magnets (wind turbine blades,
boron-doped photovoltaics, battery coatings). There is increased international demand for boron.
No action: Beryllium is already on the USGS
list and no data were provided.
Add dysprosium to critical materials list because of its use in magnets.
Limitations on substitutability between nongrain oriented steels, grain oriented steels,
and amorphous steel.
Fluorine-based compounds are used in lithium-ion batteries.
Extend analysis of fluorine to include suspension grade PVDF due to complexity of
high-grade production and limited production capability and anticipated increase in
demand.
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
DOE revisited the assessment of boron.
DOE is not aware of any substantiated
data that quantifies the use of boron in
electric glass for wind turbine blades or
that the use of boron in these end-use applications is driving significant increase in
demand for boron.
No action: Zinc bromide batteries are currently an emerging battery technology with
uncertainty in future deployment.
No action: The scope of materials for this assessment does not include materials that
are used indirectly in the manufacturing
process but do not contribute to the composition of the components or final products. DOE may consider this input for future assessments and activities.
No Action. The scope of materials assessed
included a limited set of engineered materials: electrical steel and silicon carbide.
This set of engineered materials were selected based on two factors: (1) they were
found to have high potential for supply risk
in the ‘‘supply chain deep dive’’ reports as
part of ‘‘America’s Strategy to Secure the
Supply Chain for a Robust Clean Energy
Transition,’’ and (2) the elements comprising the engineered materials (such as
iron for electrical steel) were unlikely to be
found critical and thus would not indicate
the risk posed to deploying energy technologies.
No action: Cerium was not assessed for material criticality. Cerium is on the USGS
list.
No action: Cobalt is already on the USGS
list. DOE may consider this input for future
assessments and activities.
No Action. Copper is already on DOE draft
list. DOE may consider this input for future
assessment and activities. (1) The methodologies employed by the USGS and
DOE have several distinctions. While the
USGS methodology is a supply-side approach that uses historical data to determine criticality within the context of the
economy and national security, the DOE
methodology is forward looking—incorporating demand trajectories based on
growth scenarios for various energy technologies, coupled with assumptions about
the material intensity of those technologies, to determine criticality within the
context of clean energy. (2) Critical materials eligibility for the IRA 48C tax credit is
specifically for processing, refining, or recycling of critical materials.
No action: Dysprosium is already on the
USGS list and DOE draft list.
No action: Electrical steel is already on the
DOE draft list. DOE will consider this input
for future assessments and activities.
No action: Fluorine is already on the DOE
draft list.
No action: A limited set of engineered materials was assessed: electrical steel and silicon carbide. In practice, designation as a
critical material is generally limited to an
element, but does not restrict the mitigation strategies prioritized by DOE to be
limited to the elemental form.
04AUN1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
51796
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 149 / Friday, August 4, 2023 / Notices
Material
On the
USGS list?
On the
draft DOE
list?
On the
final DOE
list?
Gallium .....
Yes ...........
Yes ...........
Yes ...........
1
Gallium
Nitride.
No ............
No ............
No ............
2
Gold ..........
No ............
No ............
No ............
2
Graphite—
natural.
Graphite—
synthetic.
Yes ...........
Yes ...........
Yes ...........
2
Yes ...........
No ............
No ............
6
Helium ......
No ............
No ............
No ............
1
Iridium .......
Yes ...........
Yes ...........
Yes ...........
2
Iron ore .....
No ............
No ............
No ............
1
Lanthanum
Yes ...........
No ............
No ............
1
Lead ..........
No ............
No ............
No ............
1
Lithium ......
Yes ...........
Yes ...........
Yes ...........
5
Manganese
Yes ...........
No ............
No ............
2
Molybdenum.
No ............
No ............
No ............
1
Neodymium
Yes ...........
Yes ...........
Yes ...........
2
Nickel ........
Yes ...........
Yes ...........
Yes ...........
2
Palladium ..
Yes ...........
No ............
No ............
3
Phosphates
No ............
No ............
No ............
3
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:51 Aug 03, 2023
Jkt 259001
Number of
comments
received
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Summary of comment(s)
DOE action
Gallium’s role in off-shore magnets was not
well defined. Should be listed as critical to
solar cells and power electronics.
Gallium nitride should be on list for its use ...
No action: Gallium is already on the USGS
list and DOE draft list.
Gold should be on list due to competing
uses and potential source of critical materials as byproducts.
U.S. has no domestic natural graphite mines
Capacitors and supercapacitors are also
end-uses. No data provided. Synthetic
graphite has superior performance in EV
batteries. Has multiple applications in nuclear, molten salt reactors. Most synthetic
graphite is produced outside the U.S.
Helium, antimony, tungsten, and tin should
be on the list. Helium is important for advanced technology and energy technology.
U.S. needs to be strategic in importing iridium.
Iron ore fits the description of a critical material due to its widespread applications.
It is recommended that the DOE investigates
the components needed for rare earth elements (REE) containing steels for carbon
dioxide and hydrogen pipelines.
Lead batteries provide most back up battery
power for telecommunications industry.
International demand for lead will begin to
outpace US demand in the near term.
There is no domestic primary lead production.
Need more domestic lithium production facilities. Consider upgrading lithium as critical
in short-term in Section 3.1.2.
Manganese should be on list due to lack of
domestic capabilities, particularly for battery-grade manganese. Data not provided.
DOE should recognize the difference between bulk mined manganese used in
steel-making and high purity manganese
for batteries. China controls 95% of global
battery grade manganese processing.
Molybdenum should be the list due to its use
in high strength steels used in vehicle
lightening and energy infrastructure (wind
turbine supports).
Recommends DOE to investigate the components needed for REE-bearing steels
needed for carbon dioxide and hydrogen
pipelines. In the assessment, neodymium
should be considered critical for applications in motors.
Nickel as a copper byproduct should be seen
as a factor that reduces supply risk.
Palladium and rhodium should be on the list.
Potential substitute for platinum and iridium in fuel cells and electrolyzers.
Phosphates should be on the list.
Phosphates are a potential precursor material for LFP batteries, and the usage
competes with agricultural and food industry uses.
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
No action: Gallium nitride was considered,
but it did not meet the threshold of the
screening step of DOE methodology.
Gold is outside the scope based on the definitions of energy technologies.
No action: Graphite is already on the USGS
list and DOE draft list.
No action: Graphite (natural graphite and
synthetic graphite) is already on the USGS
list and no data were provided.
No action: The scope of materials for this assessment does not include materials that
are indirectly used in the manufacturing
process but not contributing to the composition of the components or final products. DOE may consider this input for future assessments and activities.
No action: Iridium is already on the USGS
list and DOE draft list.
Iron ore is outside the scope based on the
definitions of energy technologies.
No action: Lanthanum was considered, but it
did not meet the threshold of the screening
step of DOE methodology. Lanthanum is
on the USGS list.
No action: Lead is outside the scope based
on the definitions of energy technologies.
No action: Lithium is already on the USGS
list and DOE draft list. DOE will consider
this input for future assessments and activities.
No action: Manganese is already on the
USGS list and no data were provided.
No action: Molybdenum was not found to be
material of concern in the DOE Wind Energy Supply Chain Deep Dive. Assessment.14 DOE may consider this input for
future assessments and activities.
No action: Neodymium is already on the
USGS list and DOE draft list. DOE may
consider this input for future assessments
and activities.
No action: Nickel is already on the DOE draft
list. DOE may consider this input for future
assessments and activities.
No action: Palladium is already on the USGS
list. DOE may consider this input for future
assessments and activities.
No action: A limited set of engineered materials was assessed: electrical steel and silicon carbide. In practice, designation as a
critical material is generally limited to an
element, but does not restrict the mitigation strategies prioritized by DOE to be
limited to the elemental form.
04AUN1
51797
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 149 / Friday, August 4, 2023 / Notices
Material
On the
USGS list?
On the
draft DOE
list?
On the
final DOE
list?
Phosphorus
No ............
No ............
No ............
Platinum ....
Yes ...........
Yes ...........
Rhodium ...
Yes ...........
Silicon .......
Number of
comments
received
Summary of comment(s)
DOE action
1
Phosphorus is important for agriculture and
production is geoconcentrated outside U.S.
Phosphorus demand for lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries is expected to experience shortfall in supply. Most battery
grade phosphorus has to be imported.
Yes ...........
3
No ............
No ............
2
No ............
Yes ...........
Yes ...........
6
Silicon carbide.
No ............
Yes ...........
Yes ...........
1
Platinum supply not a risk in short-term. Propose addition of fuel cell applications to
end-use and align platinum as Tier 1. Remove electrolyzers as an end-use application and replace with ‘‘energy conservation’’ category.
Palladium and rhodium should be on the list.
Potential substitute for platinum and iridium in fuel cells and electrolyzers.
Silicon should be on the list. There are multiple uses for silicon: photovoltaic solar
cells, semiconductors, silicones, metallurgical processing. China produces over
70% of silicon.
Needed for wide band-gap semiconductors.
Demand is likely to exceed supply.
DOE revisited the assessment of phosphorous. DOE provides further clarification
that Critical Materials Assessment considered high LFP adoption scenarios,
geoconcentration of production outside the
U.S., and agriculture as a competing use
in the assessment of phosphorous. More
details can be found in the Critical Materials Assessment report in Section 4.3.15.
While phosphorous passed the initial
screen, ultimately, it was not assessed as
critical under the DOE methodology.
No action: Platinum is already on the USGS
list and DOE draft list. DOE may consider
this input for future assessments and activities.
Silicon
metal.
No ............
No ............
No ............
2
China dominates silicon metal production.
Silicon metal should be analyzed as a separate material for short- and long-term
scarcity.
Silver .........
No ............
No ............
No ............
2
Silver should be on list due to competing
uses and potential source of critical materials as byproducts.
Terbium ....
Yes ...........
No ............
Yes ...........
2
Terbium should be on the list—important for
neodymium-iron-boron (NdFeB) magnets
(equally so as dysprosium).
Tin .............
Yes ...........
No ............
No ............
1
Tin should be on the list .................................
Titanium ....
Yes ...........
No ............
No ............
1
Titanium should be on the list—important for
fuel cells and lightweighting.
Tungsten ...
Yes ...........
No ............
No ............
1
Helium, antimony, tungsten, and tin should
be on list.
Uranium ....
No ............
No ............
No ............
3
Uranium should be on list due to foreign reliance. Uranium is not a fuel and doesn’t
meet the EPA definition for fuel.
Vanadium
Yes ...........
No ............
No ............
1
Vanadium is needed for the emerging battery
technology of ‘‘flow batteries’’.
Xenon .......
No ............
No ............
No ............
1
Xenon should be considered—important for
manufacturing of energy tech.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:51 Aug 03, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
No action: Rhodium is already on the USGS
list. DOE may consider this input for future
assessments and activities.
No action: Silicon is already on the DOE
draft list. DOE may consider this input for
future assessments and activities.
No action: Silicon carbide is already on the
DOE draft list. DOE may consider this
input for future assessments and activities.
No Action. A limited set of engineered materials was assessed: electrical steel and silicon carbide. In practice, designation as a
critical material is generally limited to an
element, but does not restrict the mitigation strategies prioritized by DOE to be
limited to the elemental form.
Sliver was not found to be material of concern in the DOE Solar Photovoltaics Supply Chain Deep Dive Assessment.15 DOE
may consider this input for future assessments and activities.
Terbium was screened and assessed for
NdFeB magnets. Based on the assessment, DOE has determined that terbium is
on the Final DOE Critical Materials List as
a critical material for energy.
No action: Tin is already on the USGS list
and no substantial data or information
were provided.
No action: Titanium is already on the USGS
list. Titanium is unlikely to pass screening
due to importance for lightweighting being
primarily outside of energy end-use applications. DOE may consider this input for
future assessments and activities.
No action: Tungsten is already on the USGS
list and no substantial data or information
were provided.
No action: As described above, for the purposes of the assessment, DOE has determined that uranium used in commercial
nuclear power reactors is a fuel based on
the plain meaning of fuel.
No action: Vanadium is already on the
USGS list. DOE will consider this input for
future assessments and activities.
No action: The scope of materials for this assessment does not include materials that
are used indirectly in the manufacturing
process but not contributing to the composition of the components or final products. DOE may consider this input for future assessments and activities.
04AUN1
51798
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 149 / Friday, August 4, 2023 / Notices
Signing Authority: This document of
the Department of Energy was signed on
July 28, 2023, by Dr. Geraldine
Richmond, Undersecretary for Science
and Innovation pursuant to delegated
authority from the Secretary of Energy.
That document with the original
signature and date is maintained by
DOE. For administrative purposes only,
and in compliance with requirements of
the Office of the Federal Register, the
undersigned DOE Federal Register
Liaison Officer has been authorized to
sign and submit the document in
electronic format for publication, as an
official document of the Department of
Energy. This administrative process in
no way alters the legal effect of this
document upon publication in the
Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on July 31,
2023.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2023–16611 Filed 8–3–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Notice of Adoption of Nuclear
Regulatory Commission National
Environmental Policy Act
Documentation for the Operation of
Diablo Canyon Power Plant and
Republication as a Final DOE
Environmental Impact Statement for
Award of Credits to Pacific Gas and
Electric Company Under the Civil
Nuclear Credit Program
Grid Deployment Office,
Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of adoption of National
Environmental Policy Act
documentation.
AGENCY:
The Department of Energy
(DOE) is adopting the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
documentation (including that of the
Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), the
NRC’s predecessor agency), for
operation of the Diablo Canyon Power
Plant (DCPP) under DCPP’s operating
licenses from the NRC. DOE determined
these documents adequate to satisfy
DOE NEPA obligations related to its
award of credits to Pacific Gas and
Electric Company (PG&E), pursuant to
the Civil Nuclear Credit (CNC) Program,
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
SUMMARY:
14 https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/
2022-02/Wind%20Supply%20
Chain%20Report%20-%20Final%202.25.22.pdf.
15 https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/
2022-02/Solar%20Energy%20Supply
%20Chain%20Report%20-%20Final.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:51 Aug 03, 2023
Jkt 259001
for the continued operation of the DCPP
under DCPP’s current operating licenses
issued by the NRC. Because the actions
covered by this NRC NEPA
documentation and the proposed action
are substantially the same, DOE is
republishing and adopting those NEPA
documents as a final DOE
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
DATES: DOE will execute a Record of
Decision no sooner than 30 days
following publication by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
of its Notice of Availability of DOE’s
adoption of the NRC NEPA documents
(EPA Notice) in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Copies of this Notice of
Adoption may be obtained by contacting
Mr. Jason Anderson, Document
Manager, by mail at U.S. Department of
Energy, Idaho Operations Office, 1955
Fremont Avenue, Idaho Falls, Idaho
83415; or by email to cnc_program_
mailbox@hq.doe.gov. This Notice of
Adoption, as well as other general
information concerning the DOE NEPA
process, are available for viewing or
download at: https://www.energy.gov/
gdo/cnc-cycle-1-diablo-canyonconditional-award-nepadocumentation. For general information
on the CNC Program, visit
www.energy.gov/gdo/civil-nuclearcredit-program.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Theodore Taylor, cnc_program_
mailbox@hq.doe.gov, (202) 586–4316.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Part of the
DOE mission is to ensure America’s
security and prosperity by addressing its
energy, environmental, and nuclear
challenges through transformative
science and technology solutions. As
described at www.energy.gov/gdo/civilnuclear-credit-program, the CNC
Program was established on November
15, 2021, when President Biden signed
the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act (IIJA) (Pub. L. 117–58), also known
as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law,
into law. Section 40323 of the IIJA (42
U.S.C. 18753) provides $6 billion to
establish a program to award civil
nuclear credits. The CNC Program is a
strategic investment to help preserve the
existing U.S. commercial power reactor
fleet and save thousands of high-paying
jobs across the country.
Under the CNC Program, owners or
operators of U.S. commercial power
reactors can apply for certification to
bid on credits to support the nuclear
reactor’s continued operation. An
application must demonstrate that the
nuclear reactor is projected to close for
economic reasons and that closure will
lead to a rise in air pollutants and
carbon emissions, among other
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
conditions. An owner or operator of a
certified nuclear reactor whose bid for
credits is selected by DOE is then
eligible to receive payments from the
Federal government in the amount of
the credits awarded to the owner or
operator, provided it continues to
operate the nuclear reactor for the fouryear award period (2023 to 2026) and
subject to its satisfaction of other
specified payment terms. PG&E
submitted its application for
certification and its bid for credits under
the CNC Program on September 9, 2022.
DOE made a conditional award of
credits to PG&E on November 21, 2022.
NEPA requires Federal agencies to
evaluate the environmental impacts of
proposals for major Federal actions with
the potential to significantly affect the
quality of the human environment.
Awarding credits for continued
operation of a commercial nuclear
power reactor under the CNC Program is
subject to NEPA. Therefore, to award
credits to DCPP, an existing commercial
nuclear power plant, DOE conducted a
review of the existing NEPA
documentation for continued operation
of the reactor in accordance with the
Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) and DOE NEPA regulations, 40
CFR 1506.3 and 10 CFR 1021.200(d),
respectively. DOE also considered nonNEPA documents, such as available
licensing basis documents, the 2021
Safety Analysis Report, Federal and
State permits, site reports and
documents, and relevant public
information to satisfy its obligations
under NEPA.
Proposed Action
DOE proposes to award credits to
PG&E under the CNC Program for the
continued operation of DCPP under
DCPP’s current NRC operating licenses.
While DCPP’s current NRC operating
licenses are valid until November 2,
2024 (Unit 1) and until August 26, 2025
(Unit 2), they may remain in effect by
operation of law beyond those dates in
accordance with NRC rules and 5 U.S.C.
558(c). DOE’s review and adoption of
the NRC NEPA documents covers DOE’s
proposed action, which occurs during
the period that DCPP’s current NRC
operating licenses remain in effect. The
issuance or payment of credits awarded
to PG&E beyond the period that DCPP’s
current NRC operating licenses remain
in effect would be dependent on PG&E’s
compliance with NRC requirements
applicable to license renewal. DOE
would consider the need for further
NEPA review prior to deciding whether
to issue any credits or make any
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
04AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 149 (Friday, August 4, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51792-51798]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16611]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Notice of Final Determination on 2023 DOE Critical Materials List
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: By this notice, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) presents
2023 DOE Critical Materials List. This list includes critical materials
for energy, as determined by the Secretary of Energy, acting through
the Undersecretary for Science and Innovation, pursuant to authority
under the Energy Act of 2020, as well as those critical minerals on the
2022 final list published by the Secretary of Interior, acting through
the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This notice also
presents the assessment that forms the basis for the designation of
critical materials for energy. The final 2023 DOE Critical Materials
List includes certain critical materials for energy and critical
minerals as listed below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions may be addressed to Helena
Khazdozian, 202-586-9236, [email protected].
DATES: Applicable: July 28, 2023.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 7002(a)(2) of the Energy Act of 2020
defines ``critical materials'' to be: (A) Any non-fuel mineral,
element, substance, or material that the Secretary of Energy determines
(i) has high risk for supply chain disruption; and (ii) serves an
essential function in one or more energy technologies, including
technologies that produce, transmit, store, and conserve energy
[referred to here as a critical material for energy]; or (B) a critical
mineral [as designated by the Secretary of the Interior].\1\ The Final
2023 DOE Critical Materials List includes the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 30 U.S.C. 1606(a)(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical materials for energy: aluminum, cobalt, copper*,
dysprosium, electrical steel* (grain-oriented electrical steel, non-
grain-oriented electrical steel, and amorphous steel), fluorine,
gallium, iridium, lithium, magnesium, natural graphite, neodymium,
nickel, platinum, praseodymium, terbium, silicon*, and silicon
carbide*.
Critical minerals: The Secretary of the Interior, acting
through the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), published a
2022 final list of critical minerals that includes the following 50
minerals: ``Aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barite, beryllium, bismuth,
cerium, cesium, chromium, cobalt, dysprosium, erbium, europium,
fluorspar, gadolinium, gallium, germanium, graphite, hafnium, holmium,
indium, iridium, lanthanum, lithium, lutetium, magnesium, manganese,
neodymium, nickel, niobium, palladium, platinum, praseodymium, rhodium,
rubidium, ruthenium, samarium, scandium, tantalum, tellurium, terbium,
thulium, tin, titanium, tungsten, vanadium, ytterbium, yttrium, zinc,
and zirconium.''
* Indicates materials not designated as critical minerals by the
Secretary of
[[Page 51793]]
Interior. The critical materials for energy included on the Final 2023
DOE Critical Material List \2\ are based on the criticality assessed in
the short- and medium-term.\3\ A detailed description of DOE's
methodology can be found in the assessment.\4\ The materials on the
Final 2023 DOE Critical Materials List will inform crosscutting
priorities including, but not limited to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.energy.gov/cmm/what-are-critical-materials-and-critical-minerals.
\3\ Several substances listed as critical materials for energy
were also included on the U.S. Geological Survey's 2022 Final List
of Critical Minerals. DOE's inclusion of these substances on its
list is intended to signal the results of its criticality
assessment. Under Section 7002(a), however, designation as a
critical mineral is sufficient to make the substance a critical
material.
\4\ https://www.energy.gov/cmm/critical-minerals-materials-program.
Critical Materials Research, Development, Demonstration, and
Commercial Application (RDD&CA) Program priorities
Eligibility for the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) 48C tax
credit
Public Comment on the Draft Critical Materials List
Pursuant to authority in section 7002(a)(2) of the Energy Act of
2020, on May 3, 2023, DOE published via the EERE Exchange website a
Notice of Intent \5\ to issue a Request for Information (RFI) \6\ on
the Proposed Determination of the Draft Critical Materials List and
Draft Critical Materials Assessment. The RFI was published via the EERE
Exchange on May 31, 2023. The RFI provided for a 20-day public comment
period, and closed on June 20, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/Default.aspx#FoaId6322a11b-4cb4-4ac7-96a2-a6814bc5fbf9.
\6\ https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/Default.aspx#FoaId82fa533b-3d3e-4b49-839d-9ddf13d56f40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE received 79 comments during the comment period. Three comments
were from individuals and 76 were submitted on behalf of organizations.
Due to time constraints, comments received after the deadline were not
taken into consideration for this assessment. DOE may take these
comments into consideration for future assessments and determinations.
Additionally, DOE received some comments that were out of scope or
otherwise not responsive to the requests included in the RFI. DOE
considered all of the responsive comments received before the
submission deadline and below is a summary of DOE's responses.
The following revisions to the Draft DOE Critical Materials List
were made based on the comments received:
Terbium was added to the Final 2023 DOE Critical Materials
List as a critical material for energy. Terbium was screened and then
fully assessed for criticality based on information provided through
the comments received. Based on that analysis, DOE has determined that
terbium meets the definition of critical materials as defined in the
Energy Act of 2020. More detail is provided in the Critical Material
Assessment.
The following actions were taken based on the comments received,
but did not change the results of the Critical Materials Assessment:
Boron was revisited based on the comments that in addition
to neodymium iron boron magnets, boron is important for additional
clean energy end-uses including wind turbine blades, boron-doped
photovoltaics, and battery coatings. DOE's conclusion is that there is
a lack of substantiated data that quantifies the use of boron in these
applications, including electric glass for wind turbine blades, and
thus these applications would not drive a significant increase in
demand for boron.
Phosphorous was revisited based on the comments that
phosphorous demand is expected to experience a shortfall for use in
lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries, geoconcentration of production
outside the U.S., and that agriculture is a competing use. DOE provides
further clarification that the Critical Materials Assessment considered
high LFP adoption scenarios, geoconcentration of production outside the
U.S., and agriculture as a competing use in the assessment of
phosphorous. More details can be found in the Critical Materials
Assessment report in section 4.3.15. Ultimately, phosphorous was not
assessed to be critical under the DOE methodology.
DOE received a comment advocating the exclusion of copper from the
Final 2023 DOE Critical Materials List based on (1) the results of the
USGS methodology \7\ to determine the 2022 Final List of Critical
Minerals and (2) the potential to accelerate mining of copper under the
IRA 48C tax credit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr20211045.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding point (1), it should be noted that the
methodologies employed by the USGS and DOE have several distinctions.
While the USGS methodology is a supply-side approach that uses
historical data to determine criticality within the context of the U.S.
economy and national security, the DOE methodology is forward looking--
incorporating global demand trajectories based on growth scenarios for
various energy technologies, coupled with assumptions about the
material intensity of those technologies, to determine criticality
within the context of clean energy.
Regarding point (2), critical materials eligibility for
the IRA 48C tax credit is specifically for processing, refining, or
recycling of critical materials.
DOE received a comment stating that uranium should not be excluded
from the Final 2023 DOE Critical Materials List based on its
categorization as a fuel-mineral because uranium does not meet the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) definition of a fuel, ``material
used to produce heat or power by burning.'' As noted in the RFI and
accompanying proposed assessment, uranium was assessed for criticality
under this methodology and met the threshold to be included on the list
of critical materials for energy. However, section 7002(a) of the
Energy Act of 2020 restricts the listing of critical materials to ``any
non-fuel mineral, element, substance, or material'' and therefore DOE
is not designating uranium as a critical material at this time. DOE
further responds noting the following:
What EPA ``considers a fuel to be'' \8\ for the purpose of
its risk management programs for chemical accident prevention is not
determinative of what is a fuel mineral, element, substance, or
material element that DOE is required to exclude from the Critical
Materials List by section 7002(a) of the Energy Act of 2020. The
Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines fuel to include, not only a material
used to produce heat or power by burning, but also ``a material from
which atomic energy can be liberated especially in a reactor.'' \9\
Uranium used in commercial nuclear plants clearly meets this definition
of a fuel material. Therefore, based on the plain meaning of fuel, DOE
concludes that uranium used in commercial nuclear reactors is a fuel
material. Based on the Critical Materials Assessment, which includes
only use of uranium as a fuel, DOE is not designating uranium as a
critical material at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Definition of Fuel,
https://www.epa.gov/rmp/definition-
fuel#:~:text=There%20is%20no%20regulatory%20definition,heat%20or%20po
wer%20by%20burning (``There is no regulatory definition of fuel;
however, EPA considers a fuel to be a material used to produce heat
or power by burning.'').
\9\ https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE received several comments that provided information that may
have the
[[Page 51794]]
potential to adjust the criticality analyses of materials already
included on the USGS Critical Minerals List. These comments were
considered but ultimately not included in this determination, as such
minerals are by definition already deemed to be critical materials.
However, DOE may use the information to inform future assessments and
activities related to critical materials for energy.
DOE received several comments advocating for increasing the scores
of importance to energy or potential for supply risk within the
Critical Materials Assessment for several materials on the Draft
Critical Materials List, including copper and silicon. These comments
were not taken into account for this assessment but may be considered
to inform future assessments and activities at DOE.
DOE received many comments about the scope of the assessment. The
following explanation and clarification are provided:
Section 7002(a)(2) of the Energy Act of 2020 authorized
the Secretary of Energy to determine critical materials according to
the statutory definition:
[cir] Any non-fuel mineral, element, substance, or material that
the Secretary of Energy determines:
[ssquf] Has high risk for supply chain disruption; and
[ssquf] Serves an essential function in one or more energy
technologies, including technologies that produce, transmit, store, and
conserve energy; or
[cir] A critical mineral [as designated by the Secretary of the
Interior].\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 30 U.S.C. 1606(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has interpreted energy technologies to be ``clean
energy'' technologies in alignment with the DOE Critical Minerals and
Materials Vision and Strategy.\11\ The anticipated unprecedented
increase in demand for critical minerals and materials is driven by the
global deployment of clean energy technologies to achieve net-zero
goals by 2050. The International Energy Agency has estimated the demand
for critical minerals and materials will increase by 400% to 600% by
2040 to achieve these goals.\12\ The specific energy technologies \13\
considered in this assessment are described in Chapter 2 of the
Critical Materials Assessment and are aligned with the technologies DOE
assessed as part of ``America's Strategy to Secure the Supply Chain for
a Robust Clean Energy Transition.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ https://www.energy.gov/cmm/critical-minerals-materials-program.
\12\ https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions.
\13\ Vehicles, stationary storage, hydrogen electrolyzers, solar
energy, wind energy, nuclear energy, electric grid, solid state
lighting, and microchips.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE conducted the Critical Materials Assessment to inform
the determination under section 7002(a)(2). The methodology applied in
the DOE Critical Materials Assessment has several unique features:
[cir] It is forward looking, incorporating global demand
trajectories based on growth scenarios for various energy technologies,
coupled with assumptions about the material intensity of those
technologies.
[cir] A limited set of engineered materials was assessed.
The scope of materials assessed included a limited set of
engineered materials: electrical steel and silicon carbide. This set of
engineered materials was selected based on two factors: (1) the
materials were found to have high potential for supply risk in the
``supply chain deep dive'' reports as part of ``America's Strategy to
Secure the Supply Chain for a Robust Clean Energy Transition''; and (2)
the elements comprising the engineered materials (such as iron for
electrical steel) were unlikely to be found critical and thus not
indicate the risk posed to deploying energy technologies. Prior to the
passage of the Energy Act of 2020, materials assessed for criticality
were generally limited to an element. In practice, the designation of a
critical material as an element does not restrict the mitigation
strategies prioritized by DOE to be limited to the elemental form. For
example, neodymium has been found to be critical in the past and
mitigation strategies pursued by DOE include unlocking new sources,
developing alternative magnets that reduce or eliminate the use of
neodymium, improving efficiency of separation and metallization of
neodymium as well as neodymium-based alloys and magnets, and recycling
neodymium from end-of-life magnets.
[cir] Further clarification is provided on the definition of
electrical steel. For the purposes of this assessment, electrical steel
includes grain-oriented electrical steel, non-grain-oriented electrical
steel, and amorphous steel.
The scope of materials analyzed does not include materials
that are used indirectly in the manufacturing process but do not
contribute to the composition of the components or final products. For
example, helium is used in cooling, cleaning, and creating an inert
environment for semiconductors but it is not a constituent material of
the semiconductor. While a disruption in helium supply chain can impact
semiconductor production, the scope of this assessment has not been
extended to indirect material use. DOE may consider the examination of
materials used indirectly in manufacturing processes in future
assessments.
DOE received many comments with recommendations to improve the
methodology applied in the Critical Materials Assessment. DOE
anticipates updating the assessment every three years and may evaluate
these recommendations for future assessments. Such future assessments
will inform additional critical materials determinations, as
appropriate.
The following table summarizes a subset of the relevant comments
received, categorized by material, and describes DOE's response. This
does not include comments on the improvements for the methodology, or
the scope of the assessment which are discussed previously.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Material On the USGS list? On the draft DOE On the final DOE comments Summary of comment(s) DOE action
list? list? received
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aluminum....................... Yes.............. Yes.............. Yes.............. 5 Aluminum score should No action: Aluminum is
increase in short- already on the USGS
term and medium-term and DOE lists. DOE
due to supply risk may consider this
(low producer input for future
diversity--China) and assessments and
importance to energy activities.
(more end-uses than
considered in
assessment).
Antimony....................... Yes.............. No............... No............... 2 Antimony should be on No action: Antimony is
the list. Antimony already on the USGS
compounds used in list and no
electronics and for substantial data or
fire-retardance. information were
provided.
[[Page 51795]]
Beryllium...................... Yes.............. No............... No............... 1 Beryllium should be on No action: Beryllium
the list--important is already on the
for solar USGS list and no data
photovoltaics (PV), were provided.
nuclear, electric
vehicle (EV)
batteries. Data NOT
provided. Most
beryllium is imported
from Kazakhstan.
Boron.......................... No............... No............... No............... 8 Boron should be on the DOE revisited the
list and is used in assessment of boron.
more end-uses than DOE is not aware of
Neodymium Iron Boron any substantiated
magnets (wind turbine data that quantifies
blades, boron-doped the use of boron in
photovoltaics, electric glass for
battery coatings). wind turbine blades
There is increased or that the use of
international demand boron in these end-
for boron. use applications is
driving significant
increase in demand
for boron.
Bromine........................ No............... No............... No............... 1 Bromine should be No action: Zinc
considered for the bromide batteries are
list--important to currently an emerging
zinc bromide battery technology
batteries. with uncertainty in
future deployment.
Butyllithium................... No............... No............... No............... 1 Butyllithium should be No action: The scope
on the list-- of materials for this
important for assessment does not
manufacturing of include materials
``green'' tires and that are used
lightweight indirectly in the
automotive interior. manufacturing process
but do not contribute
to the composition of
the components or
final products. DOE
may consider this
input for future
assessments and
activities.
Carbon Fiber................... No............... No............... No............... 1 Should be assessed for No Action. The scope
wind turbine blades. of materials assessed
included a limited
set of engineered
materials: electrical
steel and silicon
carbide. This set of
engineered materials
were selected based
on two factors: (1)
they were found to
have high potential
for supply risk in
the ``supply chain
deep dive'' reports
as part of
``America's Strategy
to Secure the Supply
Chain for a Robust
Clean Energy
Transition,'' and (2)
the elements
comprising the
engineered materials
(such as iron for
electrical steel)
were unlikely to be
found critical and
thus would not
indicate the risk
posed to deploying
energy technologies.
Cerium......................... Yes.............. No............... No............... 1 The risks associated No action: Cerium was
with the not assessed for
overproduction of material criticality.
elements like cerium Cerium is on the USGS
are overstated in the list.
assessment.
Cobalt......................... Yes.............. Yes.............. Yes.............. 6 Information on No action: Cobalt is
dependency on already on the USGS
Democratic Republic list. DOE may
of Congo and China. consider this input
LFP/LFMP (lithium for future
iron phosphate/ assessments and
lithium iron- activities.
manganese-phosphate)
technology will
reduce cobalt
dependency for
batteries. Most
mining and processing
of cobalt occurs
outside the U.S.
Copper......................... No............... Yes.............. Yes.............. 9 Copper score should No Action. Copper is
increase based on already on DOE draft
importance to energy list. DOE may
(more end-uses than consider this input
considered in for future assessment
assessment) and and activities. (1)
supply risk. Copper The methodologies
should not be on the employed by the USGS
list because: (1) it and DOE have several
is not on the USGS distinctions. While
list and (2) will the USGS methodology
incentivize mining is a supply-side
through the IRA 48C approach that uses
tax credit and most historical data to
copper deposits are determine criticality
within 35 miles of within the context of
Native American the economy and
Reservations. national security,
the DOE methodology
is forward looking--
incorporating demand
trajectories based on
growth scenarios for
various energy
technologies, coupled
with assumptions
about the material
intensity of those
technologies, to
determine criticality
within the context of
clean energy. (2)
Critical materials
eligibility for the
IRA 48C tax credit is
specifically for
processing, refining,
or recycling of
critical materials.
Dysprosium..................... Yes.............. Yes.............. Yes.............. 1 Add dysprosium to No action: Dysprosium
critical materials is already on the
list because of its USGS list and DOE
use in magnets. draft list.
Electrical Steel............... No............... Yes.............. Yes.............. 1 Limitations on No action: Electrical
substitutability steel is already on
between non-grain the DOE draft list.
oriented steels, DOE will consider
grain oriented this input for future
steels, and amorphous assessments and
steel. activities.
Fluorine....................... No............... Yes.............. Yes.............. 2 Fluorine-based No action: Fluorine is
compounds are used in already on the DOE
lithium-ion batteries. draft list.
Polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF). No............... No............... No............... 1 Extend analysis of No action: A limited
fluorine to include set of engineered
suspension grade PVDF materials was
due to complexity of assessed: electrical
high-grade production steel and silicon
and limited carbide. In practice,
production capability designation as a
and anticipated critical material is
increase in demand. generally limited to
an element, but does
not restrict the
mitigation strategies
prioritized by DOE to
be limited to the
elemental form.
[[Page 51796]]
Gallium........................ Yes.............. Yes.............. Yes.............. 1 Gallium's role in off- No action: Gallium is
shore magnets was not already on the USGS
well defined. Should list and DOE draft
be listed as critical list.
to solar cells and
power electronics.
Gallium Nitride................ No............... No............... No............... 2 Gallium nitride should No action: Gallium
be on list for its nitride was
use. considered, but it
did not meet the
threshold of the
screening step of DOE
methodology.
Gold........................... No............... No............... No............... 2 Gold should be on list Gold is outside the
due to competing uses scope based on the
and potential source definitions of energy
of critical materials technologies.
as byproducts.
Graphite--natural.............. Yes.............. Yes.............. Yes.............. 2 U.S. has no domestic No action: Graphite is
natural graphite already on the USGS
mines. list and DOE draft
list.
Graphite--synthetic............ Yes.............. No............... No............... 6 Capacitors and No action: Graphite
supercapacitors are (natural graphite and
also end-uses. No synthetic graphite)
data provided. is already on the
Synthetic graphite USGS list and no data
has superior were provided.
performance in EV
batteries. Has
multiple applications
in nuclear, molten
salt reactors. Most
synthetic graphite is
produced outside the
U.S.
Helium......................... No............... No............... No............... 1 Helium, antimony, No action: The scope
tungsten, and tin of materials for this
should be on the assessment does not
list. Helium is include materials
important for that are indirectly
advanced technology used in the
and energy technology. manufacturing process
but not contributing
to the composition of
the components or
final products. DOE
may consider this
input for future
assessments and
activities.
Iridium........................ Yes.............. Yes.............. Yes.............. 2 U.S. needs to be No action: Iridium is
strategic in already on the USGS
importing iridium. list and DOE draft
list.
Iron ore....................... No............... No............... No............... 1 Iron ore fits the Iron ore is outside
description of a the scope based on
critical material due the definitions of
to its widespread energy technologies.
applications.
Lanthanum...................... Yes.............. No............... No............... 1 It is recommended that No action: Lanthanum
the DOE investigates was considered, but
the components needed it did not meet the
for rare earth threshold of the
elements (REE) screening step of DOE
containing steels for methodology.
carbon dioxide and Lanthanum is on the
hydrogen pipelines. USGS list.
Lead........................... No............... No............... No............... 1 Lead batteries provide No action: Lead is
most back up battery outside the scope
power for based on the
telecommunications definitions of energy
industry. technologies.
International demand
for lead will begin
to outpace US demand
in the near term.
There is no domestic
primary lead
production.
Lithium........................ Yes.............. Yes.............. Yes.............. 5 Need more domestic No action: Lithium is
lithium production already on the USGS
facilities. Consider list and DOE draft
upgrading lithium as list. DOE will
critical in short- consider this input
term in Section 3.1.2. for future
assessments and
activities.
Manganese...................... Yes.............. No............... No............... 2 Manganese should be on No action: Manganese
list due to lack of is already on the
domestic USGS list and no data
capabilities, were provided.
particularly for
battery-grade
manganese. Data not
provided. DOE should
recognize the
difference between
bulk mined manganese
used in steel-making
and high purity
manganese for
batteries. China
controls 95% of
global battery grade
manganese processing.
Molyb-denum.................... No............... No............... No............... 1 Molybdenum should be No action: Molybdenum
the list due to its was not found to be
use in high strength material of concern
steels used in in the DOE Wind
vehicle lightening Energy Supply Chain
and energy Deep Dive.
infrastructure (wind Assessment.\14\ DOE
turbine supports). may consider this
input for future
assessments and
activities.
Neodymium...................... Yes.............. Yes.............. Yes.............. 2 Recommends DOE to No action: Neodymium
investigate the is already on the
components needed for USGS list and DOE
REE-bearing steels draft list. DOE may
needed for carbon consider this input
dioxide and hydrogen for future
pipelines. In the assessments and
assessment, neodymium activities.
should be considered
critical for
applications in
motors.
Nickel......................... Yes.............. Yes.............. Yes.............. 2 Nickel as a copper No action: Nickel is
byproduct should be already on the DOE
seen as a factor that draft list. DOE may
reduces supply risk. consider this input
for future
assessments and
activities.
Palladium...................... Yes.............. No............... No............... 3 Palladium and rhodium No action: Palladium
should be on the is already on the
list. Potential USGS list. DOE may
substitute for consider this input
platinum and iridium for future
in fuel cells and assessments and
electrolyzers. activities.
Phosphates..................... No............... No............... No............... 3 Phosphates should be No action: A limited
on the list. set of engineered
Phosphates are a materials was
potential precursor assessed: electrical
material for LFP steel and silicon
batteries, and the carbide. In practice,
usage competes with designation as a
agricultural and food critical material is
industry uses. generally limited to
an element, but does
not restrict the
mitigation strategies
prioritized by DOE to
be limited to the
elemental form.
[[Page 51797]]
Phosphorus..................... No............... No............... No............... 1 Phosphorus is DOE revisited the
important for assessment of
agriculture and phosphorous. DOE
production is provides further
geoconcentrated clarification that
outside U.S. Critical Materials
Phosphorus demand for Assessment considered
lithium iron high LFP adoption
phosphate (LFP) scenarios,
batteries is expected geoconcentration of
to experience production outside
shortfall in supply. the U.S., and
Most battery grade agriculture as a
phosphorus has to be competing use in the
imported. assessment of
phosphorous. More
details can be found
in the Critical
Materials Assessment
report in Section
4.3.15. While
phosphorous passed
the initial screen,
ultimately, it was
not assessed as
critical under the
DOE methodology.
Platinum....................... Yes.............. Yes.............. Yes.............. 3 Platinum supply not a No action: Platinum is
risk in short-term. already on the USGS
Propose addition of list and DOE draft
fuel cell list. DOE may
applications to end- consider this input
use and align for future
platinum as Tier 1. assessments and
Remove electrolyzers activities.
as an end-use
application and
replace with ``energy
conservation''
category.
Rhodium........................ Yes.............. No............... No............... 2 Palladium and rhodium No action: Rhodium is
should be on the already on the USGS
list. Potential list. DOE may
substitute for consider this input
platinum and iridium for future
in fuel cells and assessments and
electrolyzers. activities.
Silicon........................ No............... Yes.............. Yes.............. 6 Silicon should be on No action: Silicon is
the list. There are already on the DOE
multiple uses for draft list. DOE may
silicon: photovoltaic consider this input
solar cells, for future
semiconductors, assessments and
silicones, activities.
metallurgical
processing. China
produces over 70% of
silicon.
Silicon carbide................ No............... Yes.............. Yes.............. 1 Needed for wide band- No action: Silicon
gap semiconductors. carbide is already on
Demand is likely to the DOE draft list.
exceed supply. DOE may consider this
input for future
assessments and
activities.
Silicon metal.................. No............... No............... No............... 2 China dominates No Action. A limited
silicon metal set of engineered
production. Silicon materials was
metal should be assessed: electrical
analyzed as a steel and silicon
separate material for carbide. In practice,
short- and long-term designation as a
scarcity. critical material is
generally limited to
an element, but does
not restrict the
mitigation strategies
prioritized by DOE to
be limited to the
elemental form.
Silver......................... No............... No............... No............... 2 Silver should be on Sliver was not found
list due to competing to be material of
uses and potential concern in the DOE
source of critical Solar Photovoltaics
materials as Supply Chain Deep
byproducts. Dive Assessment.\15\
DOE may consider this
input for future
assessments and
activities.
Terbium........................ Yes.............. No............... Yes.............. 2 Terbium should be on Terbium was screened
the list--important and assessed for
for neodymium-iron- NdFeB magnets. Based
boron (NdFeB) magnets on the assessment,
(equally so as DOE has determined
dysprosium). that terbium is on
the Final DOE
Critical Materials
List as a critical
material for energy.
Tin............................ Yes.............. No............... No............... 1 Tin should be on the No action: Tin is
list. already on the USGS
list and no
substantial data or
information were
provided.
Titanium....................... Yes.............. No............... No............... 1 Titanium should be on No action: Titanium is
the list--important already on the USGS
for fuel cells and list. Titanium is
lightweighting. unlikely to pass
screening due to
importance for
lightweighting being
primarily outside of
energy end-use
applications. DOE may
consider this input
for future
assessments and
activities.
Tungsten....................... Yes.............. No............... No............... 1 Helium, antimony, No action: Tungsten is
tungsten, and tin already on the USGS
should be on list. list and no
substantial data or
information were
provided.
Uranium........................ No............... No............... No............... 3 Uranium should be on No action: As
list due to foreign described above, for
reliance. Uranium is the purposes of the
not a fuel and assessment, DOE has
doesn't meet the EPA determined that
definition for fuel. uranium used in
commercial nuclear
power reactors is a
fuel based on the
plain meaning of
fuel.
Vanadium....................... Yes.............. No............... No............... 1 Vanadium is needed for No action: Vanadium is
the emerging battery already on the USGS
technology of ``flow list. DOE will
batteries''. consider this input
for future
assessments and
activities.
Xenon.......................... No............... No............... No............... 1 Xenon should be No action: The scope
considered--important of materials for this
for manufacturing of assessment does not
energy tech. include materials
that are used
indirectly in the
manufacturing process
but not contributing
to the composition of
the components or
final products. DOE
may consider this
input for future
assessments and
activities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 51798]]
Signing Authority: This document of the Department of Energy was
signed on July 28, 2023, by Dr. Geraldine Richmond, Undersecretary for
Science and Innovation pursuant to delegated authority from the
Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date
is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in
compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/Wind%20Supply%20Chain%20Report%20-%20Final%202.25.22.pdf.
\15\ https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/Solar%20Energy%20Supply%20Chain%20Report%20-%20Final.pdf.
Signed in Washington, DC, on July 31, 2023.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2023-16611 Filed 8-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
