1
-25-
Committee found itself in essential agreement with the policy statement,
Proposed particularly Section h, page 2.
It did not wish to comment as yet on the
tiseproposed implementation of that policy (pages 4 and 5),
rnanBe®
.
There was a
vergence of opinion on Section 5, page 3, which implies a policy against
commitment to purchase weapon grade plutonium, ~ All but three members were
in agreement with Section 5, and against commitment to buy plutonium.
-Dr. Wigner and Dr. von Neumann favored such commitment, as an incentive
to private entry into the power field.
Dr. Libby supported the statement
in general, but felt that there exist some commitments in specific cases,
which must not be forgotten.
It was agreed to say that the Committee was
favorably impressed by the outline of legislative changes given by Mr.
Dean, except for some doubts on the question of lease vs sale, and except
for the divergence of opinion on commitments to purchase plutonium,
(Appendix B, item 1)
The Chairman next asked Mr, Murphree if he wished to report on the
Meeting meeting of the Subcommittee on Reactors, Materials and Production held the
of Committee preceding evening. Mr. Murphree said that the meeting had dealt with
on Reactors,
Materi- chemical processing costs at the Idaho plant.
als and
Produc- plant.
tion.
Chemi~
cal
Pro=
This is a very expensive
Low throughput is an element in its high cost.
Mr. Murphreee
emphasized that high burnup is necessary to reduce chemical processing
costs of power reactors, which are a big part of the total power cost.
The ~
3¢seing
Costs
Subcormittee felt that the major factor in the power program must be radical
improvements over what is now known.
Dr. Libby was critical of what has
been done and said that private industry should be encouraged to work out
better chemical processing, with its ow money.
He also thought the
egy ae,
Commission should push hard on the sep3ration of plutonium isotopes.
-
.
p
os
oo
~
g.
¥