quan
he agreed that there would be no difference. Mr, Libby asked
for a technical analysis of the flexibility of the stockpile under
these different methods,
After further discussion, the Commissioners indicated
that they had no objection to issuance of a construction permit
for the MIT reactor.
5, AEC 835/2 ~ Issuance of Construction Permits and Allocations
of SNM to Consolidated Edison and to Commonwealth Edison
Mr, Pittman reviewed the recommendations of AEC 835/2
which provided for approval of construction permits for power
reactors to be built by Censolidated Edison and Commonwealth
Edison, and for a forty-year allocation ef special nuclear material
for reactor fuel, The Commissioxers observed the total amount of
material would be allocated over a period of years rather than all
at once, and suggested that appropriate language be used to indicate
this,
The Commissioners then discussed the need to maxe a
commitment, when the license was issued, to supply the total
amount of material to be used in operation of the reactor during
the period of the cense. Mr. Libby observed that such commitments would also be necessary for fcreign reactors. Mr. Cook
pointed out that this problem was new under consideration by the
staff and that recormmendations would shortly be submitted to the
Commission, Mr. Libby sald he believed there was no other
choice than to make a commitment to supply reactor fuel to
foreign nations in the same manner as commitments are made to
supply fuel for domestic reactors,
Mr, Pittman pointed out that in order to arrive ata figure
to apply against the domestic allocation of 20,000 kilograms of
U-235, the calculations for the equivalent amount of weapons grade
material to be supplied to these reactors were based on the same
gaseous diffusion characteristics as were used for the 1955 price
schedule, Mr, Libby observed that the 1955 price schedule was
-~ 305 -