/ Tete (Crap i~DLUTTL ~20— breeder and homogeneous reactors: The dollar figures are based on Laboratory recommendations and are not yet Reactor Division recommendations.’ There was some discussion on the intent to go ahead with the Questions homogeneous reactor, | Dr. Hafstad indicated that its support would concous. continue on a plateau until a solution of the corrosion problem looked Reactor promising. Dr. Rabi inquired whether the HR approach has any real: advantage over more easily engineered designs, and whether one could oay at present that this was a wise path to pursue, that the answers were not yet known. Dr. Wigner eormented The homogeneous reactor is a breeder, whereas the PWR is a consumer, The homogeneous reactor has the advantage of higher specific power (thus higher power per unit fuel investment) , but its breeding is not as sure as withthe fast breeder. _ Also, the corrosion may not be licked, Dr, Wigner asked about coordination of the Argonne fast breeder work. : with Dow-Detroit Edison, and about plans for the’ Brookhaven Liguia notal fuel reactor. Dr. Hafstad indicated that the ANL and DDE groups are interacting more and their thinking is converging. The present aid not seem an opportunetime to push the BNL reactor, relative to ANL and. oR s but greater support would be appropriate when it began to Look good. Interest in it was increasing. Mr. Murphree also inquired about the real advantages of the Questions homogeneous reactor. — it was said that chemical processingmight be coneous easier and need to be less frequent, that significant savings in the. Reactor chemical costs might be attained, ‘If everything worked out according to the ORNL paper, studies, 5 mill power might be achieved. group will Look at the papergiudiss. An independent a