Se
ees
c. Proposed a meeting between representatives of AEC,
MLC, DOD and Army.
6, In its memorandum accompanying the DOD letter, the MLC
asked what would be the impact on weapons material production
if AEC production facilities were diverted to producing cobalt
for a cobalt facility.
7. A reply to the DOD is being staffed through the AEC, and
will embody the following points:
a. Cobalt could be furnished at a unit
$0.625 per curie
price of
(AEC out-of-pocket costs) while
the radiation program 1s developmental; thereafter,
at a rate of $2.80 per curie.
b. Funds appropriated for the FIR cannot be used
to provide any gamma source other than a reactor,
c. AEC is willing to participate in a meeting with
MLC, DOD, and Army representatives.
8, A separate reply to the MLC 1s being staffed through the
AEC and will advise the MLC that the cost of cobalt, in terms of
Weapons materials, would be 10 kg of plutonium or 120 em of tritium
initially, with annual replenishment costing 2.5 kg of plutonium
or 30 gem of tritium.
9. Meanwhile, AEC is continuing limited R&D toward the
refinement of a conceptual design of the FIR into a preliminary
design.
Discussion
10, From time to time since the initiation of the FIR project.
Suggestions have been made -- some within AEC,
some within DOD --
concerning the possibility of a gamma source other than a reactor.
The suitability of spent fuel elements, gross fission products,
and long-lived isotopes has been examined repeatedly (Ref.
AEC 719/13).
It has been determined that neither spery. fuel
-3-