Office of the Historian

79. National Security Study Memorandum 2091

Washington, September 5, 1974.

TO

  • The Secretary of Defense
  • The Director, Office of Management and Budget
  • The Deputy Secretary of State
  • The Director of Central Intelligence
  • The Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission
  • The Executive Director, Council on International Economic Policy

SUBJECT

  • Policy on the Development of Future Uranium Enrichment Capacity

The President has directed that the issues associated with a shift to private ownership of part of our future uranium enrichment capacity be reexamined. The study should consider but not be limited to the following:

What is the outlook for private sector assumption of the enrichment business with present and prospective technologies?

What are the prospects for adequate production resources being developed to meet the long-term projected increasing demand for uranium enrichment facilities?

What governmental actions (and associated costs) would be required to facilitate private entry and to ensure future supply?

What would be the implications of private control of enrichment for U.S. foreign policy, trade and energy policies, domestic and international nuclear safeguards, and nonproliferation?

What are the costs and implications of the U.S. governmental commitments to worldwide supply, assurance of timely availability, and nondiscriminatory access? How can it be ensured that the private sector would meet and sustain such commitments, and what would be the foreign policy implications if these commitments were not met?

What are the prospects and implications (for example, for trade benefits and proliferation) if private activity were to result in business arrangements abroad through which enriching technology becomes subject to transfer, sale or licensing?

[Page 262]

Can satisfactory oversight of private industry be established and adequate mechanisms developed to facilitate the planning and long-range actions necessary to maintain the appropriate U.S. stockpile of enriched uranium?

What are the organizational alternatives to private assumption of enriching services? (Each alternative should include discussion of its legislative, cost, and budget implications, probable congressional and utility reaction, and impact on the nuclear industry.)

Based on the above analysis and other relevant factors, the study should outline the policy options open to the President and their advantages and disadvantages.

This study should be carried out by an ad hoc group comprised of representatives of the addressees and the NSC staff and chaired by the representative of the Atomic Energy Commission. The study should be conducted on a close-hold basis. It should be forwarded to the President for his consideration no later than October 1, 1974.

Henry A. Kissinger

  1. Summary: President Ford directed an interagency group, consisting of representatives from the Department of Defense, Department of State, Office of Management and Budget, Central Intelligence Agency, Atomic Energy Commission, and the Council on International Economic Policy, to study the issues associated with a “shift to private ownership of part of our future uranium enrichment capacity.”

    Source: Ford Library, National Security Council, Institutional Files—NSSMs, Box 49, Originals–NSSM 207 to NSSM 227. Confidential. Copies were sent to Simon, Dent, Seidman, Sawhill, and Brown. An attached September 6 memorandum from Davis indicated that Iklé was to be added as an addressee of NSSM 209.

    ↩