committee's $15 allocation. Murray then followed up the next day, meeting with Clinton Anderson, noting that Strauss appeared to be ignoring the McMullough concerns and had obviously decided to grant a construction license already. After meeting with Murray, Anderson had James T. Ramey telephone the AEC and request a copy of the McMullough report. Harold Vance, Kenneth Fields, Melvin Price and AEC general counsel discussed the request. Vance was particularly concerned with the way this single report, among many within the AEC on the topic, had been introduced and thus appeared to Joint Committee as if it was the only such report. He went on to suggest that they clarify the role of the Safeguards Committee and the larger group of committees within the AEC. Price instead stated his opinion that "this is why documents like this ought to be privileged." They decided to ignore the request. Anderson followed with a formal letter on 9 July, and after further internal debate, Strauss decided to declare it "administratively confidential" and responded on 13 July that they would release it only on the condition that it be treated as confidential information. The Joint Committee refused, stating they "could not receive the report under these conditions." On 16 July, Anderson sent another demand to the AEC, which they once again refused, with Strauss stating simply there will be "no public answer". Final approval While this was all taking place, Price's Division of Civilian Application (DCA) was making its own review of the design. Their review letter touched on every point raised by the Safeguards Committee. For instance, in reply to the concern that there was not enough information available to allow operation at the proposed site, the DCA agreed, but then stated their opinion that such information would be forthcoming before the operational license would be considered. When considering the issue of meltdowns that might breach confinement, they once again agreed with the Safeguards Committee that there was not enough information available to draw a conclusion, but then stated simply that they felt that the suggested building would hold the "maximum credible accident in this reactor." The AEC met on 1 August to consider the application. Price presented the DCA's case, stating that they agreed with the Safeguards Committee on what the concerns were, but that there were "differences of opinion with respect to this project that relate to the degree of optimism