Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, National Security Affairs, Volume II, Part 2

Atomic Energy files, lot 57 D 688, “Combined Policy Committee”

Minutes of the Meeting of the United States Members of the Combined Policy Committee, Washington, October 9, 1952, 2:45 p.m.¹

top secret

Washington, October 9, 1952, 2:45 p.m.

• Present:
  • Members
    • Secretary of State, Mr. Acheson
    • Secretary of Defense, Mr. Lovett
    • Chairman of Atomic Energy Commission, Mr. Dean
  • By Invitation
    • Robert LeBaron, Deputy to Secretary of Defense on Atomic Energy Matters
    • Col. Donald G. Williams, Department of Defense
    • John A. Hall, Atomic Energy Commission
  • Secretary
    • R. Gordon Arneson

I. Uranium Ore Policy

Mr. Acheson referred to a letter from Mr. Dean to the Executive Secretary, National Security Council, dated September 16, 1952, setting forth the Commission’s view that a procurement goal of 12,500 tons of uranium oxide annually should be established. (Tab A)² Mr. Acheson stated that the ore procurement policy as set forth in this memorandum was concurred in by the Department of State. Mr. Lovett stated that it had the concurrence of the Department of Defense. It was noted that the policy as set forth would be the interim goal of the AEC pending the completion of the study which the Commission representative had agreed at the April 16, 1952 meeting³ would be undertaken and that on conclusion of this study the goal would be reexamined. Mr. Dean reported that Mr. Robert Smith had been engaged by the Atomic Energy Commission to do the study and that the Commission would press forward with it as promptly as possible.

II. Report on Status of Present and Prospective Uranium Ore Production Programs

At the request of Mr. Acheson, Mr. Dean reviewed the status of procurement programs in the various countries, both present and prospective. Mr. Dean’s recital was along the general lines set forth in Tab B.⁴ The following additional points were made:

A. South Africa

Mr. Dean stated that Commissioner Glennan⁵ and Mr. Jesse Johnson⁶ were at present in South Africa on the occasion of the opening of the first uranium plant. While the present production goal is 4,000 tons annually, Mr. Dean expressed the hope that it might be possible to raise this figure to 5,000 tons annually.

B. Australia⁷

Mr. Dean alluded to certain difficulties that had arisen in connection with the draft Rum Jungle Agreement, particularly an amendment proposed by the Australians which would establish a minimum price of $11.00 per pound. The Atomic Energy Commission intended to oppose this change on the ground that it would establish highly undesirable precedents in connection with earlier agreements, particularly with Belgium, South Africa and Canada. In fact, if the $11.00 minimum concept were accepted in the Rum Jungle contract and this proviso were extended to earlier agreements it would cost the United States some $30 million. Mr. Lovett agreed that we should strongly oppose the $11.00 minimum and suggested we might ask the United Kingdom to assist in holding the line. Mr. Dean reported that the British were equally opposed and were expected to lend us full support. Mr. Dean reported that the prospects were, provided the Rum Jungle arrangements were worked out satisfactorily, that we would be getting approximately 200 tons a year from Australia by 1954, a figure which would be raised to 400 tons by 1955 and continue at about that rate for the life of the agreements.

C. Canada

Mr. Dean reported that Mr. C. D. Howe⁸ had recently been in Washington and that the Commission had gone to considerable lengths to impress Mr. Howe with the urgent need of the United States atomic energy program for increased tonnages of uranium. Mr. Howe had been shown the Fernald operation, Oak Ridge, and Savannah River. Mr. Howe was evidently impressed with the magnitude of the United States production program and had stated that he would do everything in his power to see that the Canadian contribution of ore would be increased to the maximum extent possible. Mr. Lovett reported that the Canadian Minister of Defense, Mr. Claxton,⁹ had told him recently that Mr. Howe was indeed much impressed as a result of his visit with the need to get on with increased uranium production for the benefit of the United States atomic energy program.

D. Belgian Congo

Mr. Dean reported that Commissioner Glennan and Mr. Johnson would be visiting Shinkolobwe in the course of their current trip. Deliveries of ore from the Congo had been low in the past two months. This was not, however, cause for concern inasmuch as the typical pattern seemed to be that while there was normally a fall-off in shipments in the autumn of each year the deficit was invariably made up in a rush of shipments before the end of the year. The Commission was anxious to talk with Mr. Sengier and Mr. Robilliart¹⁰ on their arrival, currently scheduled for early November, as to the possibilities of securing the renewal of the 1944 Agreement.¹¹ While it was recognized that the current agreement would run until early 1956, it was felt that it was not too soon to give consideration to the possibilities and the conditions under which an extension might be worked out. Mr. Lovett stressed that Mr. Sengier was the person to talk to on this matter and suggested that the Commission might wish to explore with Mr. Sengier the possibilities of securing a temporary extension of the agreement or even an expression of intent to do so. It was agreed that the Commission should discuss this entire problem with Sengier on his arrival.

E. Morocco¹²

Mr. Dean reported that the Commission was not too happy about the provision in the draft Moroccan Agreement which provided that France would obtain twenty percent of the output for its own program. On balance, however, the Commission felt that it should go ahead, recognizing that it was inevitable that suppliers would wish to reserve certain quantities for their own programs. He remarked in this connection that a type precedent had, in fact, been established in the Australian Radium Hill Agreement which provided that United States takings would be governed by the Australian requirement that three years’ reserve of ore should always remain in the ground to meet Australian needs. Mr. Lovett agreed that arrangements calculated to meet the requirements of the supplier nation might well be inescapable and stressed the desirability of a policy of preemptive buying which might make it necessary to accept such arrangements even though they were not ideal from our point of view.

F. Latin America

Mr. Dean said that the Atomic Energy Commission felt it would need additional help from the Department of State in getting on with certain of the negotiations in Latin America. Mr. Acheson responded that the Department would be more than glad to do so. Mr. Arneson mentioned that steps were already being taken with the Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs to see whether certain of the negotiations might be reinvigorated. With respect to the monazite negotiations with Brazil, Mr. Dean reported that the Commission felt it would be able to meet Brazilian wishes in connection with the return of small quantities of uranium found in the thorium sludges. On balance, the Commission was optimistic that negotiations could be satisfactorily concluded on monazite and thorium. With respect to uranium exploration program in Brazil, it seemed clear that the Brazilians were not prepared to take this matter up in any vigorous way until the monazite-thorium negotiations had been successfully completed. One of the difficulties in getting on with the uranium aspect of the negotiations, apart from the priority of the monazite-thorium problem, was the fact that Brazil had not organized any effective exploration program and seemed rather reluctant to accept assistance in this regard.

G. The United States

Mr. Dean reported that 800 tons were expected out of the Colorado plateau in the current year and that the return would rise to more than a thousand tons annually by 1954. Mr. LeBaron commented that in his trip through the Colorado plateau area he was struck by the shortage of drilling equipment and in general a lack of sense of urgency on the part of the people on the ground. He had the impression that with a greater amount of effort the output in this area might be increased five-fold. Mr. Dean stated that there were many details concerning the Colorado plateau operation which would have to be in hand before the Committee could make a useful judgment as to the desirability and the means whereby output could be increased. He suggested that the Commission should supply an analysis of this situation.^* As to the phosphate situation, Mr. Dean stated that the Commission has developed processes for the extraction of uranium from phosphoric acid produced in connection with commercial operations for phosphate chemicals and phosphate fertilizers. These processes have been proven by pilot plant operations and are expected to provide uranium at a reasonable cost—on the order of $15.00 to $18.00 per pound of U3O8. One full-scale plant is in production and several others are being built. Negotiations are underway for the construction of additional plants.

By-product production is limited by the amount of phosphoric acid produced in connection with commercial operations. Based upon presently operating facilities, and additional facilities which are planned by industry, available uranium production from this source is expected to be on the order of 300 tons per year by 1955 and may be increased to around 400 tons by 1958 to 1960. As to recovery of uranium from shales, the Commission considered this to be a very unlikely project. Present estimates would indicate that the cost per pound of recovered uranium would be on the order of $60.00. Research, however, was continuing on shales. The Committee shared the view of the Commission that this did not seem to be a profitable line of development.

H. Portugal¹³

Mr. Arneson reported that our Ambassador, Mr. Cannon,¹⁴ had raised with the Foreign Minister the question whether operations could be expanded and an intensive prospection program undertaken. In the absence of Salazar¹⁵ who was away on vacation, the Foreign Minister was quite noncommittal. Ambassador Cannon was expected back in the United States momentarily and opportunity would be found to discuss the problem with him further. Mr. Acheson recalled that he had discussed this problem with Mr. Salazar on the occasion of the Lisbon NATO meetings.¹⁶ He had found Salazar was not particularly anxious to accede to a program of greater exploitation of Portuguese uranium resources. He had the impression that Salazar would be content to leave the ore in the ground against the day that it might fetch a higher price. It was agreed that the problem of Portuguese negotiations should be discussed afresh with Ambassador Cannon as soon as possible to determine how best to proceed.

. . . . . . .

K. Spain¹⁷

Mr. Arneson reported that Assistant Secretary Perkins had discussed with Ambassador MacVeagh¹⁸ recently in London the question of timing of an approach to the Spaniards. The consensus of their view was the status of military negotiations and of MSA negotiations should not stand in the way of uranium negotiations and that an approach could be made whenever the Commission desired to do so.

III. Proposed Military Inspection of Chief Uranium Mining Areas of the World

Referring to his letter of August 11, 1952 (Tab D),¹⁹ Mr. Lovett said that the question here was whether any additional stimulation of the sort suggested in the letter would be useful at this time. He suggested that a collateral purpose of a military inspection would be to examine into security problems in the various areas. Mr. Dean said that he had considerable misgiving as to the efficacy of such a trip in increasing uranium production. He felt that such a trip might have an adverse effect on negotiations that were continuing, some of which were on a particularly personal basis as with Messrs. Sengier and Robilliart and quite delicate as in the case of the Australian negotiations. Mr. Lovett recalled that the original proposal had been confined to the Congo, Canada, and South Africa. With respect to the Congo, Mr. Acheson pointed out that the Belgians were most sensitive about having visitors to the Congo and that this would militate against the proposal.

Mr. Arneson reported that Ambassador Cowen,²⁰ as a result of a considerable incursion of United States officials into the Congo from other agencies, had strongly recommended recently that future trips be very carefully screened to avoid arousing the sensitivities of Belgian and Congo officials. As to Canada, Mr. Lovett felt the recent visit of Mr. Howe had accomplished the needed objectives and that there was no need for a military inspection trip to Canada at this time. Concerning the Union of South Africa, Mr. Dean said the Commission felt the Glennan–Johnson trip would serve a very useful purpose in stimulating even greater effort on the part of the South Africans, particularly on the part of the mining interests whose wholehearted cooperation was essential. Mr. Acheson stated that from the political point of view it would seem most untimely to consider any such trip to the Union of South Africa. He alluded to the difficulties the United States would have with South Africa in the forthcoming General Assembly. Mr. Lovett concluded that from the recital that Mr. Dean had given earlier it seemed apparent that events had overtaken the suggestion for a military inspection trip and in his view such a trip involved excessive risk without profit. This view was concurred in by the other members.

IV. Security in Raw Materials Producing Countries

Mr. Acheson recalled that under NSC 29²¹ the Department of State was given responsibility for coordinating plans and activities designed to improve industrial security in those facilities situated in foreign countries which were of strategic importance to the United States. He suggested that it would be useful if the Atomic Energy Commission, with its direct relations with the uranium producing countries and the mining interests involved, could prepare a report of the status of industrial security in the areas of interest to them. If such report were prepared and made available to the Department of State, arrangements could then be worked out to see what further steps needed to be taken,.… Such report would be particularly helpful if it contained the AEC views as to the need for additional security measures. Mr. Dean stated that the Commission would be glad to prepare such report and work with the Department of State in carrying the project forward. In this connection he said that the Commission was concerned about the dangers that might exist in the calcining plant in South Africa.…

R. Gordon Arneson

1. Prepared by Arneson.
2. Not printed.
3. For the minutes of the meeting of Apr. 16, see p. 885.
4. Tab B, “Report on Status of Present and Prospective Uranium Ore Production Program,” is not printed.
5. T. Keith Glennan, Member of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.
6. Jesse C. Johnson, Director of the Division of Raw Materials, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.
7. Documentation on the question of Australian uranium is located in file 843.2546 and in Atomic Energy files, lot 57 D 688, “Australia”.
8. Canadian Minister of Defence Production; also Minister of Trade and Commerce.
9. Brooke Claxton.
10. Edgar E. B. Sengier and Hermann Robilliart, ranking officials of the Union Minière du Haut Katanga.
11. Reference is to the Memorandum of Agreement between the United States, the United Kingdom, and Belgium relating to uranium, Sept. 26, 1944; for text, see Foreign Relations, 1944, vol. ii, p. 1029.
12. Documentation on the question of Moroccan uranium is in file 871.2546 and in Atomic Energy files, lot 57 D 688, “France” (also 57 D 688, “Morocco”).
13. See Tab C. [Footnote in the source text. Tab C, a memorandum dated Oct. 27, 1952, from Dean to Arneson, concerning the increase in the amount of uranium coming from the Colorado Plateau, is not printed.]
13. Documentation regarding uranium in Portugal is in file 853.2546 and in Atomic Energy files, lot 57 D 688, “Portugal”.
14. Cavendish W. Cannon.
15. Dr. Antonio de Oliveira Salazar, Premier of Portugal.
16. For documentation on the Ninth Session of the North Atlantic Council at Lisbon Feb. 20–25, 1952, see vol. v, Part 1, pp. 107 ff.
17. Documentation on Spanish uranium is in file 852.2546 and in Atomic Energy files, lot 57 D 688, “Spain”.
18. Lincoln MacVeagh, U.S. Ambassador in Spain.
19. Tab D, a letter from Lovett to Acheson concerning a possible military inspection of uranium ore sources, is not printed.
20. Myron M. Cowen, U.S. Ambassador in Belgium.
21. NSC 29, “Security of Strategically Important Industrial Operations in Foreign Countries”, Aug. 26, 1948, is not printed. (S/S–NSC files, lot 63 D 351, NSC 29 Series)