ML20033G615
| ML20033G615 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000083 |
| Issue date: | 03/27/1990 |
| From: | Vernetson W FLORIDA, UNIV. OF, GAINESVILLE, FL |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20033G612 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9004100402 | |
| Download: ML20033G615 (19) | |
Text
!
g UNIVERSITY OF PLORIDA TRAINING REACTOR 1I LICENSE NUMBER: R-56 I
II UPDATED PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO I
THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION TO MEET 10 CPR 50.64 REQUIREMENTS I
POR UPDATING SCHEDULING OF UPTR CONVERSION PROM HEU TO LEU FUEL
- } Y >
d
.t.
Dr. William
. Vernetson Director of Nuclear Pacilities March 27,1990 DEPARTMENT OF NUCLEAR ENGINEERING SCIENCES College of Engineering Univenity of Florida
"'"'"'II' gg41ggg8$$%8sj{gs
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA TRAINING REACTOR F
UCENSE NUMBER: R 56 I
I I
I UPDATED PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
TO MEET 10 CFR 50.64 REQUIREMENTS FOR UPDATING SCHEDULING OF UFTR CONVERSION FROM HEU TO LEU FUEL l
l l
l Dr. William G. Vernetson Director of Nuclear Facilities I
I March 27,1990 l
s UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA TRAINING REACTOR FUEL CONVERSION
(
FF.OM HIGH ENRICHED TO LOW ENRICHED URANIUM FUEL
(
INTRODUCTION This proposal is submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to meet the
[
requirement that the licensee for the University of Fiorida Training Reactor (UFTR), as a
(
licensee of a non power reactor authorized to possess and use high enriched uranium (HEU) fuel shall develop and subrnit a proposal to replace all HEU fuel possessed under the R 56 license with available low enriched uranium (LEU) fuel acceptable to the Nuclear
[
Regulatory Commission on a schedule determined pursuant to 10 CFR 50.64 Paragraph (c) (2).
This proposal addresses the overall process of conversion from initial preparations following receipt of funding to support conversion to final verification, testing, and summary reporting on the converted UFTR. Three primary phases have been identified for control and administration of the overall process of conversion as follows:
1.
Preparation for Conversion, ll.
Conversion (assuming NRC order to convert).
Ill.
Review and Verification of Conversion.
Table I contains a listing of key activities involved in each phase of the conversion from receipt of funding for conversion from the Department of Energy (DOE) to final submittal of summary reports to DOE and NRC on the conversion.
PHASE 1:
PREPARATION FOR CONVERSION Phase I commenced with receipt of funding for conversion from DOE to cover Phase I only. This funding was considered to be certified per the letter contained in Appendix 1 of the 1987 proposal; this proposal was submitted to the Department of 2
s J
Energy and official notice of receipt of funding was rooelved with a letter dated November 12,1987. Because of errors in the contract description provided by DOE, the full approval
[
for receipt of funding was delayed until receipt of the confirming letter dated December 21,1987. Copies of both letters as well as the 1987 certification letter are enclosed in
[
Appendix I along with documentation showing the extension of the current DOE grant to
[
support Phase I work which has been delayed beyond the original two year grant period, initial efforts in the process to convert the UFTR from use of high enriched to low enriched fuel (HEU LEU) consisted of preliminary tests and an evaluation to determine
(
whether the SPERT type fuel available to the R 56 licensee but currently under license SNM 1050 could be qualified for use in the UFTR. Visual and radiographic test results to date were positive in this regard, Unfortunately, equipment failures and the need to move the SPERT (SNM 1050) fuel storage facility impacted the schedule during the 1988 year so the radiographic tests were not completed until April,1989 along with relicensing the SPERT fuel storage facility. Overall, the results of the radiographic tests of the SPERT fuel were positive showing that the condition of the fuel was such that its integrity was assured. Phase I then continued with activities to justify a fuel selection, either SPERT or silicide, based upon results of prequalification testing of existing SPERT fuel) and identifying any modifications in existing reactor systems necessitated by use of the new fuel.
Several previously unconsidered potential complications noted during the previous year have been investigated during the past year. This effort was directed to maintaining and/or improving the UFTR neutronics characteristics while minimizing the overall cost of UFTR conversion. The only two fuels that have been considered are the existing SPERT UO, stainless steel' clad fuel presently under the SNM 1050 license and the newly 3
4 developed silicido fuel to be available through the RERTR program at Argonne National Laboratory.
{
The first choice had bom to use the already existing SPERT fuel for which a number of neutronics and thermal hydraulics analyses are in existence. This is the cheaper fuel if acceptable since it is already manufactured.
However, even after
(
completion of the prequalification program for the qualification tests used to assure the SPERT fuel can meet UFTR requirements without compromising safety, it was necessary
{
to assure this use could be made without requiring costly modifications which could
(
outweigh the low initial cost of SPERT fuel (no manufacturing costs) and have impact on core neutronics per earlier analyses. The Department of Energy has been receptive to l
this evaluation of the two fuels and work in this area has progressed well during this year.
Unfortunately, the complexity and cost of potential structural (the SPERT fuel loading ivould weigh about 2000 pounds versus the present 50 pound core loading) and shielding changes necessitated by use of the SPERT fuel resulted in a milestone decision in mid-year 1989 not to utilize the SPERT fuel for conversion but rather to utilize the standard plate type silicide fuel. The anticipated shielding changes potentially necessitated by use of the SPERT fuel were especially strong factors in the decision since space in the UFTR facility is already limited and the facility was cited for two violations in this area in 1989, in parallel with selection of the plate type silicide LEU fuel and identification of necessary reactor systems changes, a safety analysis is being performed for the selected LEU fuel conversion and associated system changes. Implementation of the neutronics codes to be used has been underway during the past year and is now nearly complete.
UFTR conversion calculations were progressing well until the loss in August,1989 of the graduate student performing the neutronics calculations as he decided to pursue the 4
-..h
doctoral degree at another university. The unavailability of another quaWied student committed to assume this responsibility has resulted in further delays. Nevertheless, a
(
student project in Fall,1989 continuing to the present has resulted in some progress in assuring neutronics methodology is adequate though many calculations are being
[
updated and repeated, it is hoped that this individual will remain on the project for his
[
thesis work; if this retention effort is successful, the analyses will be able to move forward as projected in this proposal. Delays here have necessitated an extension in the initial
{
DOE grant which has been received as documented in Appendix 1.
In addition to neutronic and thermal-hydraulic analysis, shielding and effluent analyses will be documented to identify any changes in procedures, security plan, technical specifications or other license documents that must be considered as part of conversion. This submittal will also contain documents detailing the various tests and surveillances planned as part of the conversion. At t.his point a complete set of licensing documents for the conversion will be submitted along with a conversion application for review and approval, Assuming resolution of all questions, this submittal will conclude the Phase I licensee efforts Phase I will then conclude with the issuance by the NRC of the specific Order to Convert.
PHASE II. CONVERSION (Assuming NRC Order to Convert)
Phase 11 (Conversion) will begin with receipt of the NRC Order directing the conversion and any necessary changes to the license, facility and/or procedures per 10 CFR 50.64(c)(3). This second phase is not yet' funded by the existing DOE grant for which an extension will be requested and will include all final tests conducted with the HEU fuel to serve primarity as the basis for later comparison with similar tests with LEU fuel. Phase ll will then involve a number of key activities aimed ultimately at having LEU 5
l
N f
(
fuel replaos HEU fuel at the UFTR facility to include:
r L
1.
Shutdown oore decay for several weeks followed by shipment of irradiated HEU fuel.
(
2.
Quellfication of the selected LEU fuel (as applicable).
(
3.
Implementation of required facility changes necessitated for use of LEU fuel.
(
4 Rooelpt of unirradiated LEU fuel.
5.
Documentation of all changes.
{
6.
Completion of all requirements for oore loading with LEU fuel followed by loading of the LEU fuel and startup testing to low power.
{
7.
Documentation and record organization for the LEU fuel implementation.
{
PHASE lil: REVIEW AND VERIFICATION OF CONVERSION Phase ill (Review and Verification of Conversion) will consist of a series of activities j
designed to verify the quality of the conversion process to include both the physical implementation of the LEU fuel and the documentation of the implementation. Activities in Phase ill willinclude:
1.
Completion of startup as well as power testing and related surveillances.
2.
Verification and evaluation of UFTR operational characteristics.
3.
Review of conversion plan and data for consistency.
4.
Approval for return of UFTR to normal operations.
5.
Retum to normal operations.
6.
Submission of Final Report to NRC/ DOE summarizing HEU operational conditions and comparing these results with the predictions contained in the Safety Analysis submitted to NRC at the end of Phase I and approved as part of the Order to Convert.
l 6
j l
s t
5
(
SUMMARY
CONCLUSIONS
(
As noted earlier, a relatively detailed list of the various elements that must be
(
obtained, produced or otherwise generated as required throughout the three phases of the UFTR conversion from HEU to LEU fuel is presented in Table 1. The current plan
[
continues to be to generate as much of the required safety analysis and design work in.
[
house as possible. Only items such as silicide fuel,(now the selected fuel) would be designed and manufactured outside the administrative control of the UFTR licensee. At this point, without having identified all required changes, it is not possible to delineste exactly what other external support may be needed. The neutronics and thermal-hydraulics analyses are all planned to be conducted in house which has necessitated
{
some external support from the RERTR program at Argonne National Laboratory to assure proper code implementation at the University of Florida to carry out the required safety analysis. Code implementation is now progressing though with delays due to graduate student changes and inability to identify qualified graduate students to work on the project for their thesis work.
The overall flow diagram for HEU to LEU conversion of the UFTR is presented in
{
Figure 1 Key stages in the three phases, as well as key input items at the various stages, are indicated at each stage.
Finally, Table ll contains an updated tentative schedule (Revision 4) for the major milestone events in the UFTR conversion process commencing with the notification of receipt of funding effective in December,1987 and concluding with submittal of a final report to NRC and DOE summarizing the results of the conversion by August,1993, it should be noted that this schedule is tentative and, as required by 10 CFR 50.64, will be 7
k i
updated joarty. There has been considerable schedule slippage during the past two years. The schedule is also sub}ect to variations caused by availabliity of replacement fuel
[
(plate type or silicide) or other items involved in required facility changes as well as variations in the level of DOE funding after the first two year period (now extended) for which funding has been received. Other areas which may impact the schedule are the
[
availability of a shipping cask especially for irradiated HEU fuel (we are currently using our HEU fuel at a rate of about 1.5 MW Daya per year so it will probably requlr9 a cask versus
{
a 6M container) and final usage of the UFTR with HEU fuel to provide a basis for comparison of changes in operating characteristics or to meet education, research and service commitments. Within these constraints and conditions, the schedule in Table ll is one which the licensee is committed to meeting and which the licensee considers relatively realistic based upon expected resources.
Although much of the detail of the conversion process has depended upon the final selection of fuel types, this selection is now finalized; therefore, the information, especially the tentative schedule in Table ll provided in this updated proposal, shows that the LEU conversion at the UFTR has progressed during this year although significant delays occurred during the year due to requirements to complete testing of the SPERT fuel and to maintain graduate student support for the safety analyses.
The key decisions remaining will involve identification and evaluation of system changes required by the conversion and assurance of the neutronics methodology. The schedule will be most impacted, however, by the times required for performing and documenting the safety analysis and perhaps for manufacture of the LEU fuel. The schedule presented in Table 11 is considered to be realistic and should be attainable now that considerable preliminary work has been completed provided qualified graduate student support remains available.
(
8
~
TEST SPERT PUEL NEU to LEU NEUTRONIC ANALY318 DEVELOP A PREQUALIFICATION CONVERSION TMERNAL NYDRAULIC ANALYSIS FLAN FOR SPERT FUEL PMPARATION SNIELDING ANALYSIS
{
SELECT FUEL OFTION RADICACTIVE EFFLUENT ANALYSIS o
IDENTIFICATION OF PREPARATION OF SAFETY ANALYSIS M QUIRED FACILITT LICENSING DOCUMENTS TECE SPEC CRANGES
[
CMANGES SECURITY PLAN CMANGES I
PR03DUM CEANGE8 1r SUBNITTAL OF APPLICATION ORDER TO CONVERT MVIEW/AFPROVAL OF TO NRC WITH ALL CONVERSION CONVERSION DOCUMENTATION DOCUMENTATION BY NRC 1r ARRANGEMENT FOR POSSESSION DISCONTINUATION OF ANALYSIS FOR SHIPMENT OF 0F EEU AND LEU ON INTERIN USE OF REU FUEL IRRADIATED FUEL BASIS if REU FUEL SNIPMEAT CONVERSION DESIGN /INPLEMENTATION LEU FUEL RECEIPT ACTIVITIES OF FACILITY CHANCES ILEUFUELLOADING FUEL LOAD PREPARATIONS If 8tARTUF TESTING AND REVIEW AND VERIFICATION SUkVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES OF EEU TO LEU CONVERSION I f REVIEW /APra0 VAL RETURN M SERVICE OF FULL DOCUMENTATI0W I f SUBN18810N OF FINAL REPORT TO WRC/ DOE SU196ARIEING EEU OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS AND COMPARING WITN SAR PREDICTIONS Pisure 1.
University of Florida Training Reactor NEU to LEU Conversion Flow Diagram 9
TABLE I University of Florida Training Reactor Key Activities for REU to LEU Fuel Conversion 1.
FRASE I - PREFARATION FOR CONVERSION A.
Receipt of Funding f rom Department of Energy S.
Analysis of UFTR-Specific LEU conversion options r
1.
Protesting of Selected SPERT Fuel Pins L
2.
Development of a Qualification Program for SPERT Fuel Fine 3.
Completion of Pre-Qualification Testing of SPERT Fuel 4.
Evaluation of Comparative Conversion Options (SPERT VS. SILICIDE)
(
5.
Selection of LEU Fuel Option for UFTR Conversion C.
Safety Analysis / Licensing Studies 1.
Neutronic Analysis for LEU-Fueled UFTR 2.
Thermal-Hydraulic Analysis for LEU-Fueled UFTR
(
3.
Shielding Analysis for LEU-Fueled UFTR L
4 Radioactive Effluent Analysis as Required D.
Identification'of Changes in the R-56 License Technical Specifications.
(
Facility, Security Documents and Procedures Under the Scope of 10 CFR 60.64(c)(3) as Necessitated by Fuel Conversion
[-
E.
Preparation of Full Submittal to NRC to Support Conversion Including All Supporting Documents II.
FEASE II - CONVERSION A.
NRC Order to Convert
(
B.
Fuel-Related Activities 1.
Qualification of Selected LEU Fuel
[
2.
Final UFTR Operations with MEU Fuel 3.
Shipment of Irradiated Fuel 4.
Receipt of LEU Fuel C.
Implementation of Required Changes in R-56 LJ eense per Ites ID.
D.
LEU Fuel Loading Activities 1.
Completion of Freparations for Core Load 2.
Loading of LEU Fuel
{
3.
Startup Testing and Surveillance E.
Completion of Startup Documentation
(
III.
PEASE III - REVIEW AND VERIFICATION OF CONVERSION A.
Completion of Startup Testing and Related Surveillances
(*
3.
Completion of Power Testing and Surveillances C.
Determination of UFTR Operational Characteristics D.
Return to Normal Operations E.
Submission of Final Conversion Report to NRC/ DOE 10
TABLE ll (Revision 4) i University of Florida Training Reactor Tentative Milestone Schedule j
for HEU to LEU Fuel Conversion l
l.
Effective Date of Rooeipt of Funding November,1987 II.
Date of Full Submittal to NRC of Application to l
Convert (including all necessary documents)
April,1991 Ill.
Date of NRC Order to Convert August,1991 A.
Date of Completion of All Plans to Convert March,1992 B.
Date of Receipt of LEU Fuel May,1992 C.
Date of Completion of Any Final Tests With HEU Fuel July,1992 D.
Date of Removal of HEU Fuel September,1992 E.
Date of Shipment of HEU Fuel December,1992 F.
Date of Loading of LEU Fuel February,1993 G.
Date of Completion of Determination of initial l
Operational Parameters With LEU (Startup and Power Operations Testing)
April,1993 H.
Date of Submittal of Report to NRC/ DOE I
Summarizing New Operational Characteristics and Comparing With Predictions of Safety Analysis August,1993 I
l l
l 11 3/90 j
~
(
[
(
{
(
APPENDIX I
(
LETTERS OF NOTIFICATION THAT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING FOR UFTR CONVERSION IS AVAILABLE AND
(
HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
(
{
{
l
(
..-wiu
~Y
?;.
Department of Energy
'7 s.
Washington, D.C. 20545
(
g, NOV 21 19M
(,
v..
4
(
Dr. William G. Vernetson Nuclear Facilities Division University of T1orida
{.
Gainesville, TL 32611
Dear Dr. Vernetson:
This letter is to inform you that funding is available during TY-87 through the U.S. Department of Energy to initiate the conversion of your i
reactor from HEU to LEU fuel. It is requested, therefore, that you l
submit a proposal, including a detailed cost estimate, to accomplish the safety analysis phase of the conversion.
The proposal should not include costs for the new fuel, spent fuel cask rental, or fuel shipping since these tasks are being handled by others.
]
You are also reminded that technical assistance for safety documentation review and analysis is available through the RERTR program at the Argonne National 1,aboratory. Your proposal should be coordinated with and reflect the degree of support to be provided by RERTR/ANL.
We would like to receive your proposal by January 15, 1987.
Please direct it to Mr. Richard E. Stephens, Director Division of University and Industry Programs Of fice of Tield Operations Management Office of Energy Research U.S. Department of Energy Washington, D.C 20585 If you have any questions, please call me or Kaith Brown on 301-353-3995.
Sincerely yours,
.4,',:.., / i.., U.. n,,2 Harold H. Young Division of University & Industry Programs Office of Field Operations Management Office of Energy Research l
cc: R. Stephens, ER-44 A. Trave 111, RERTR/ANL
_J
t 0 5 MOV 17 W Department of Energy o., -
t p.m osase e e ook Reps. Temessee 3?e31
}'!'; i
- s**'.'"'
(
m-November 12,19R7
j (
l Mr. Dillarti C. Marshall i
Assistant Director l
Office of Research Administration University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611
Dear Mr. Marshall:
{
GRANT NO. DE FG05-88ER75387 - AMENDMENT NO. A000 Enclosed are two copies of the subject grant document which have been signed on
{
behalf of the Department of Energy.
If this document is satisfactory, please have the two enclosed copies signed by the proper official on behalf of your organization and retum one fully executed copy to this office.
The remaining fully executed copy is for your retention.
In addition, please have executed the enclosed Assurance of compliance -
Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs, and return the signed original to this office together with the executed copy of the grant and a completed Fom DOE-538, Notice of Energy RD&D Project.
Please return two copies of the DOE-538.
Sincerely, C
e's D C Contracting Officer Contract Management Branch AD-423:Lyle Procurement & Contracts Division Enclosurts:
- 1. Grant (2 cys.)
- 2. Assurance of Compliance
- 3. DOE 538 (3 cys) c.,..
?
s
- o..
nt.e an.,)y "O ofc27 su'
% 0e. -
Poet Omeo con i Ook Rege, Tomessee 37 31 December 21,19R7
(
Dr. William G. Vernetson Director of Nuclear Facilities College of Engineering
(
University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611
Dear Dr. Vernetson:
[
GRANT NO. DE-FG05-88ER75387 (REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION)
(
In response to telephone conversations with you and with Keith Brown at Argonne, enclosed is a revised project description for your grant from the Department of Energy to cover cost of the conversion from HEU to LEU fuel in
{
University of Florida's training reactor.
I apnlogize for the confusion and
& delay in this revision reaching you.
f
Please tuhttitutg t.ha attached Part 11. Project Description and Reporting i
'Requiremen;s, for the one transmitted to Dillard Marsha)1 on Novembtr 12, 1987, and have Mr. Marshall sign the award and return an original to us as soon as i
possible.
You will not be able to draw down any money from Letter of Credit on this award until the original copy is returned to us.
hank you for calling our attention to the fact that your award is different from the other reactor fuel conversion awards the Department of Energy has.
Since rely, Ah Martha A. Lyle Contract Specialist Contract Management Rranch AD-423:Lyle Procurement and Contracts Division
Enclosure:
Part II of Grant DE-FG05-88ER75387 cc: Dillard C. Marshall, Asst. Dir.
Research Administration University of Florida 223 Grinter Hall Gainesville, FL 32611 wI
' E=V c,i..,,,,,,i,,,,1,, v. s. c,,,,,,,,,,,i,,,,,,w,,,,,,,,ioi
,,4 7.,,s,
C: 1^.st of Energy s
M E20W wehe opw twas ottu.
M
[
ns not piece w e he reise, w e he n aca December 19, 1989
(
Mr. Dillard C. Marshall University of Florida
(
223 Grinter Hall Gainesville, Florida 36211
SUBJECT:
Grant No. DE FG07-88ER75387
[
Dear Mr. Marshall
(
We are enclosing three copies of the subject grant which have been signed on behalf of 00E.
Please have all three copies signed by an authorized official and return two fully executed copies to this office
{
within two weeks from the date of this letter.
The third fully executed copy is for your retention.
[
Should you have any questions, please contact Ann Rydalch on I
(208) 526 9617.
Sincerely, Tru A. Thorne Contract Specialist Financial Assistance Branch Enciosure l
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
[
sAmesvtLLE. mett r
L THE DM$loN of $PoN5ont0 hlEf.AACH 2D Grinter he omee of its wee Preseeni kw hoseeren 806/
(
December 21, 1989
(
(
Ms. Trudy A. Thorne contract specialist Financial Assistance Branch
(
Department-of Energy Idaho operations office 785 DOE Place T.daho Talls, Idaho 83402
(
RE:
Grant No.:
DE-r007-88ER753'87, Amendment WM002 Principal Investigator:
Dr. William G. Vernetson
(
Dear Ms. Thorne:
Enclosed are two copies of the above referenced amendment which I have officially signed for the University of Florida.
If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to l
contact us, sincerely, f/k Dillard C. Marshall Assistant Director of Research DCM/ar Enclosure S
90966 IMPiovutest oppoatuisity assiauet'vl ACfl0N I**Lovte
s OFF6CIAL AWARD ACCEPTANCE DATE PRINTED: 12/21/89 nr CAnow or ACCEPTANCE INCA) FOR THE PRESIDENT ODESDONS
- PLEA &E CONTACT THE OF OfvistCN THE UNrvERstiv or florida. ACTiwo oN DEHALF OF spowsoRED RESEARCH. MuhMD ADMINISTRAT1C' tos ORINTER MALL 3et.iset wE soAno or Rect NTS PROPohL FOR COV'T SUPPORT TO COVER COST OF UFTR CONVERSION E
renu urti to f.rti rti rt.
ADMINISTRATIVE DATA 01/0$/88 87881002 RELATED UPw ei AWARD DATE.
2:
U S DEPT OF ENFRcY 8 F 0 4 8 I p,i.
VERNETSON W G CENCY:_
ssy:
216-44-9124 pslOw.
EMdTMERRTWC
(.;
DE-PC8 5-8 8 ER7 53 B7 Coin. ETEE ptNCY NO:
'YPE:
NEW (N)
CONT 1NUATION (C)
DEPT. NUEL MD EMcTMEERTMC EcTENeff RE NEWAL (R)
SUPPLEMENTAL (5)
CO Pt-2 ExTtNSioN revised ssN:
TEGORY:
U RESEARCH (R)
TRAININ0 (T)
COL' '
oTHER (o)
DEPT:
210020 IoGRAM:
CONTRACT (C)
PUR. ORDER (P)
HEGIS **
COOP. AGREE (A)
SPA (S)
HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL et MEMO OF UND (M) 1 GRANT (Q)
HS APPROVAL EXPIRES:
GUARANTTED BY LAB ANIMAL, APPROVAL *:
IMP:
RM:
$UPERGE DES:
RECOMttNANT DNA/RNA' BIOHAZARD $:
04/30/91 PROPRIETARY / CONFIDENT 1A' '
ludo og3 11/15/87 8000 END:
OJ BE3 11/1E/07 PROJ END:
04/30/91 SUBCONTRACTOR:
UF-OJECT PERIOD *:
87001002 PRIME NAME:
NDS CESTRICTED 3 YES NO NO-OTHER-07001002 FLA DEMO PROJ:
N RY UPNat COST D ATA APPLICABLE INDIRECT COST WILL ACCRUE TO THE UNIT (S) AS SPECIFIE0 ON PROPOSAL DUAL INVOLVEMENT:
IDC RETURN CODE:
Y
>N CAMPUS OFF CAMPUS 450812612 ACCOUNT NO:
COUNT NO:
ECT AMOUNT: $
NO COST EXT DIRECT AMOUNT: $
IRECT AMOUNT:$
"O*
INDIRECT AMOUNT: $
ATE 45.88 Bast MTD RATE BASE hTAL AMOUNT:$ NO COST EXT TOTAL Auousy g B)ST SHARING REQUIRED: $
COST SHARING REQUIRED: $
TOTAL FUNDINO OF THIS AWARD: $
NO COST EXT TOTAL COST SHARING OF THIS AWARD: S I
UNRECOVEREDINDtRECT COST $
CUMULATTVE PROJECT FUNDING. s 169.431.00 REMARKS PT CONTACT-EIES ANM NA P*--'~~
ORES $-
AUTHORtZED UNIVERSITY ACCEPTANCE $1GNATURE DIVISION OF SPONSORED RESEARCH NAME: DILLARD C.
MARSHALL I
nTLE:, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH MWR
.R 6(0/1181 p,,,c,,,,, g,
H6GlHAL ACC orr CREEH DATA ENTRY PINK: Fit.E YELLOW COLL. DEPT COLD PI RLUE: ACCT. NO
....... _