Mr. Mitehell said he did not believe there would be any difference, since, as a practical matter, the same amount of material would be allocated and, in time of military need, it would not be any more feasible to shut down a government plant than a private plant. there would be no difference. Mr. Murray said he agreed that 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 - ‘Tssuance of Construction Permits and Allocations of SNM to Consolidate? Edison and to Commonwealth Edison (pp. 19-42) Mr. Pittman reviewed the recommendations of AEC 835/2 which provided for aprroval of construction permits for power reactors to be built by Consoii.ated Edison and Commonweelth Edison, and for « forty-y.. tion of special nuclear material for reactor fuel. lioca- The Commissioners observed the total amount of material would be allocated over a per.ni of years rather than all at once, and suggested that appropriate language be used to indicate this. The Commissioners then discussed the need to make 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 license. Mr. Libby observed that such commitments would also be necessary for foreign reactors. Mr. Cook pointed out that this problem was now under consideration by the staff and that recommendations would shortly be submitted to the Commission. Mr. Libby said 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.