ML20101L349

Updated Proposal Submitted to NRC to Meet 10CFR50.64 Requirements for Updating Scheduling of Uftr Conversion from HEU to LEU Fuel

ML20101L349
Person / Time
Site:	05000083
Issue date:	03/27/1996
From:	Vernetson W FLORIDA, UNIV. OF, GAINESVILLE, FL
To:
Shared Package
ML20013A200	List: ML20101L345 ML20101L349
References
NUDOCS 9604030424
Download: ML20101L349 (20)

Text

i i

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA TRAINING REACTOR LICENSE NUMBER: R-56 I

l UPDATED PROPOSAL S'UBMITTED TO THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION TO MEET 10 CFR 50.64 REQUIREhENTS FOR UPDATING SCHEDULING OF UFTR CONVERSION FROM HEU TO LEU FUEL i

Dr. William G. Vernetson Director of Nuclear Facilities March 27,1996 PDR D 05 0 083 p PDR

,.- l l UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA TRAINING REACTOR ,

FUEL CONVERSION FROM HIGH ENRICHED '

l 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 Florida Training Reactor (UFTR), as a licensee of a non-power reactor authorized to possess and use high er.riched uranium (HEU) fuel shall develop and submit 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, l and summary reporting on the converted UFTR. Three primary phases have been identified j for control and administration of the overall process of conversion as follows:

I. Preparation for Conversion.

II. Conversion (assuming NRC order to convert).

III. 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.

1

- .. - - - _- _ -- . - _=

1 ,. . .

PHASE I: PREPARATION FOR CONVERSION Phase I commenced with receipt of funding for conversion from DOE to cover l

Phase I only. This funding was considered to be cenified per the letter contained in Appendix I of the 1987 proposal; this proposal was submitted to the Department of Energy and official notice of receipt of funding was received 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 l l

along with documentation showing the extension of the current DOE grant to support 1

Phase I work which has been delayed beyond the original 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 i

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 i'

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 i

were positive showing that the constition 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 j modifications in existing reactor systems necessitated by use of the new fuel.

l l

{

2

l Several previously unconsidered potential complications noted in late 1988 were investigated in 1989. 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 2. stainless steel clad fuel i ,

1 presently under the SNM-1050 license and the newly developed silicide fuel available I through the RERTR program at Argonne National Laboratory.

The first choice had been to use the already existing SPERT fuel for which a number of neutronics and thermal-hydraulics analyses are in existence. This would be 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 SPERT fuel could be used without requiring costly modifications which could outweigh the low 1

initial cost of SPERT fuel (no manufacturing costs) and have impact on core neutronics per I earlier analyses. The Department of Energy was receptive to this evaluation of the two fuels and work in this area progressed wellin 1989. Unfortunately, the complexity and cost of potential structural (the SPERT fuel loading would weigh about 2000 pounds versus the present 50 pound core loading), shielding, fuel arrangement and cooling system changes necessitated by use of the SPERT fuel resulted in a milestone decision in August,1989 not to utilize the SPERT fuel for conversion but rather to utilize the standard plate-type silicide fuel. The anticipate cooling system fuel arrangement and shielding changes potentially  !

I 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 had been cited for two violations in this area in 1989. I 3

v .. .

l .. .

In parallel with selection of the plate type silicide LEU fuel and identification of necessary reactor systems changes, safety analysis were being performed for the selected LEU fuel conversion and associated system changes. Implementation of the neutronics codes to be used was underway during 1989 and several codes had been implemented and run for test cases. Therefore, UFTR conversion calculations were progressing reasonably well until the loss in August,1989 of the graduate student performing the neutronics calculations as he decided to pursue his advanced degree at another university.

Unfortunately, he left with ' much of his work inadequately undocumented. The i

i unavailability of ano her qualified student committed to assume this responsibility resulted in further delays. Nevertheless, a student project in Fall,1989 resulted in some progress in assuring neutronics methodology would be adequate though many calculations had to be updated and repeated due to errors in and poor documentation of the previous work. It was hoped that this individual would remain on the project for his thesis work. This retention effort was successful and the neutronics analyses were able to move forward in 1990.

Several errors due to poor documentation necessitated restarting the safety analysis when the student began work on it in early 1990. Although he spent a period at Argonne National Laboratory working with the RERTR group to receive training in the use of the codes, it still required some time for the student to become proficient in use of the codes in-house. Unfortunately several formatting and other flaws in the implemented codes used for the neutronics analysis also slowed progress in 1990. These were cleared up as part of the work on assuring proper code methodology during 1990. l

\ l l Early in 1991 a student thesis project had resulted in good progress in assuring the neutronics methodology to be adequate and the necessary " benchmark" modelling of the 4

1 I

l existing core was nearly complete. Only scoping calculations had been completed for the LEU core with the number of fuel plates per bundle not yet set when the 1991 proposal l

required by 10 CFR 50.64(c)(2) was submitted. It was expected that DOE-supplied funding support of this work would be extended beyond the April 30, 1991 end date per verbal communications so this work could be concluded along with basic thermal-bydraulic analyses to conclude the required HEU-to-LEU conversion safety analyses. Unfortunately this grant was not officially extended until March,1992. It was also expected that the individual I working on this neutronics analysis would complete his thesis work by mid-1991.

The " benchmark" static calculations on the existing UFTR HEU core were completed and l an internal report generated in April,1991. The individual working on the neutronics analysis completed his thesis work in May,1991 making his defense on May 10,1991 but continuing his work until May 23,1991. After the number of fuel plates per bundle was set at 14 from the neutronics analysis, thermal hydraulics analyses were begun in August, 1991. These analyses had to be completed before the entire analysis package could be l

assembled for submission to NRC. A graduate assistant had nearly concluded working on l l

the thermal hydraulics area as the 14 plate fuel bundle arrangement had been selected for l the conversion in March,1992. The lack of official grant extension made the financial j support of this effort more difficult but a draft report of this thermal hydraulics work was l

produced in June,1992 with the final report essentially completed during the 1994-95 fiscal year.

l A no-cost extension of the Department of Energy Grant DE-FG05-88ER75387 entitled " Conversion of University of Florida Reactor to Low Enriched uranium (LEU)" was submitted to Ms. Ann Rydalch via a letter dated April 25, 1991 with a copy supplied to 5

- r l .

l '.

I Keith Brown. The extension was. agreed to be until April 30,1992. Unfortunately, no i further information had been received on the no-cost extension until March,1992 making l some plans and efforts difficult to implement. In addition, time consuming efforts were also in progress with the Department of Energy representatives in Idaho to investigate the possibility of replacing the UFTR core fuel boxes which make reloading and unloading the <

core difficult and time consuming. DOE representatives even visited the UFTR facility and 1

observed operations as well as reviewed drawings as several days were spent in discussions of how best to proceed in 1992. This unexpected work effort occupied much time and progressed slowly but a decision not to change the fuel boxes was finally reached in summer,1992. Similarly efforts to review fuel drawings and to evaluate the l

holddown/ spreader pin in use in each fuel box had occupied some considerable facility time '

in the previous year. This latter effort is now essentially complete with the official fuel drawings in draft form from DOE at the UFTR facility and ready to be reviewed when the i

grant would be officially extended in April,1995.  !

During the 1994 year, work to incorporate all the analysis completed to date into a single FSAR update to include the Technical Specifications progressed very slowly with some kinetics calculations still remaining in the neutronics area. During that year it was t

expected that the DOE supplied funding support for this work would again be extended beyond April 30,1993 with the DOE project manager checking on this per a telephone request made in June,1993. A letter dated August 9,1993 requesting such an extension was submitted to DOE. In a letter dated November 5,1993, DOE indicated that the no-cost extension needed to be submitted to the Oak Ridge office; the resubmittal of the extension request to the Oak Ridge Operations Office was accomplished via a letter dated 1

1 6

I December 15,1993. During January,1994,the Oak Ridge office indicated that the proper 1

l submission really is to the Idaho Operations Office; when informed of this, the project i l

manager was to check, but the grant was not extended as needed until November,1994.

This work was expected to be completed by June,1994. However, little work was )

1 accomplished as the funding remaining in the grant is for support of a non-permanent employee (student) who has still not been identified. In April,1995, DOE officially extended the grant with its remaining support to a March 31,1996 ending date; since little work was accomplished in this period due to personnel unavailability, we are in the process i

of getting the funding extended further and the support funding category changed to allow 1

1 completion of work through submittal of SAR changes. This change will require several months. However, DOE has also advised in mid-March that additional funding for the next phase (Phase II) of the conversion willnot be available during fiscal year 1996. The entire I

package of results willthen be assembled as a Revision to the UFTR Safety Analysis Report by October,1996 with the project then expected to progress as indicated in the updated Table II.

i As indicated, previous delays have necessitated several extensions in the initial DOE grant which had been received as documented in Appendix I with another extension requested and verbally agreed to, to pick up from April,1993 as indicated above to assure continuous funding throughout the remainder of the conversion process with a new grant to be required for Phase II. In addition to neutronic and thermal-hydraulic analysis, shielding and effluent analyses will be documented to identify any changes in procedures (few expected), security plan, technical specifications or other license documents that must be considered as part of conversion. These should be minimal. This submittal will also 7

1 i  :

contain documentation detailing the various tests and surveillances planned as part of the conversion. At this point a complete set oflicensing documents for the conversion willbe submitted along with a conversion application for review and approval. This result is now expected by October, 1996. Assuming resolution of all questions, this submittal will i conclude the Phase Ilicensee efforts. Phase I will then conclude with the issuance by the NRC of the specific Order to Convert.

PHASE H: CONVERSION (Assuming NRC Order to Convert)

Phase II (Conversion) will begin with receipt of the NRC Order directing the  :

i conversion and any necessary changes to the license, facility and/or procedures per 10 CFR 50.64(c)(3). This second phase was not yet funded by the existing DOE grant for which an extension has been requested and willinclude all final tests conducted with the HEU fuel j

! to serve primarily as the basis for later comparison with similar tests with LEU fuel.

Phase II will then involve a number of key activities aimed ultimately at having LEU fuel l l

replace HEU fuel at the UFTR facility to include:

1. Shutdown core decay for several weeks followed by core unloading and shipment i ofirradiated HEU fuel.

2. Qualification of the selected LEU fuel (as applicable).

l

3. Implementation of required facility changes necessitated for use of LEU fuel; this may involve some changes related to having both HEU and LEU fuel on site simultaneously for a brief time.

4. Receipt of unirradiated LEU fuel.

5. Shipment of irradiated HEU fuel.

6. Documentation of all changes. l l

8

7. Completion of all requirements for core loading with LEU fuel followed by loading of the LEU fuel and startup testing to low power.

8. Documentation and record organization for the LEU fuel implementation.

PHASE III: REVIEW AND VERIFICATION OF CONVERSION Phase III (Review and Verification of Conversion) willconsist of a series of activities 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 III 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. Return 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.

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 Tr*

• I. The current plan 9

i l

• l

, I continues to be to generate as much of the req'u ired safety analysis and design workin-house i

as possible. Only items such as silicide fuel (now the selected fuel) would be designed and I manufactured outside the administrative control of the UFTR licensee. At this point, I without having identified all required changes, it is not possible to delineate exactly what  ;

other external support may be needed. The neutronics and thermal-hydraulics analyses are all being 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. Work has progressed slowly with delays due to SPERT fuel inspection delays, graduate student changes and ,

l inability to identify qualified graduate students to work on the project for their thesis work up until the previous two years when progress on the use of the neutronics methodology was I delayed by several code inconsistencies and lack of documentation which have now been corrected. The effort to generate the submittal package is underway and is expected to progress well during summer,1996 with submittal in October,1996.

l 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. Nevertheless, there is still some uncertainty in the exact plan of events in Phase II such as whether LEU fuel will be accepted on site prior to shipping HEU fuel off site. Another concern is the physical fit of the fuel in the fuel boxes which willnecessitate some considerable experimental measurement and verification efforts after this year. These items are now under consideration.

Finally, Table II contains an updated tentative schedule (Revision 10) for the major milestone events in the UFTR conversion process commencing with the notification of 10

• l l ,

1 receipt of funding effective in November,1987 and concluding with submittal of a final '

i report to NRC and DOE summarizing the results of the conversion byJune,1997. It should l

be noted that this schedule is tentative and, as required by 10 CFR 50.64,will be updated l l 1 l yearly. There has been considerable schedule slippage during the past few years. The )

schedule is also cubject to variations caused by availability of replacement fuel 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. Since DOE will provide no new conversion money during fiscal year 1996, this does not appear 1

to be a problem. 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-Days energy generation per year so it will almost certainly require a fuel cask versus a 6M container though this may depend on the cooling period) 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 II is one which the licensee is committed to meeting and which the licensee considers relatively realistic based upon l expected resources and recent progress with neutronics calculations. j 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 l 1

the tentative schedule in Table II provided in this updated proposal, shows that the LEU {

conversion at the UFTR has progressed up until this past year with significant delays occurring during the year again due to delays in getting the extension to the DOE grant to i document completion of the thermal hydraulics calculations and to work with the 11

l Department of Energy, EG&G Idaho on fuel review and checks for insertion into the core.

As previously indicated, we lost the individual working on the submittal package two years

.' ago. At this point, reactor staff including the Director are still planning to complete the

] package without graduate assistant support which has proven unreliable in supporting this i project. The key decisions remaining willinvolve identification and evaluation of system i

! changes required by the conversion, especially concerning utilization of the existing fuel  ;

i -

j boxes, shipment .of used fuel and delivery of new fuel as well as development and  !

implementation of a test program for both the HEU and LEU cores some of this

] uncertainty is also involved with the possibility of DOE replacement of UFTR fuel boxes.

f The schedule willlikely be most impacted, however, in the near future by the times required

for completing and documenting the safety analysis in a submittal package and perhaps for a

! manufacture of the LEU fuel. The schedule presented in Table II is considered to be realistic and should be attainable now that the neutronics methodology has been proven acceptable, neutronics calculations are complete .for both the HEU and LEU core and

' thermal hydraulics calculations are also complete except for several relatively minor documentation points. All analyses show the 14 plate LEU fuel bundle is acceptable for the conversion. As a result we should be able to conclude in a few additional months making the proposed schedule for first submittal realistic assuming DOE extension of their grant.

The one further drawback may be DOE funding available for the conversion.

Appendix I contains the original letters of notification that federal government funding for UFTR conversion was available and had been received from the Department of Energy as well as the extension letter for support through March,1996 plus the latest letter indicating funding for conversion will not be available during fiscal year 1996.

12

TEST SPE$T FUEL REU to LEU NEUTRONIC ANALYSIS DEVELOP A PREQUALIFICATION CONVERSION THERMAL HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS l PLAN FOR SPERT FUEL PREPARATION SHIELDING ANALYSIS SELECT FUEL OPTION RAD 10ACIIVE EFFLUENT ANALYSIS lI

, IDENTIFICATION OF PREPARATION OF SAFETY ANALYSIS REQUIRED FACILITY LICENSING DOCUMENTS TECH SPEC CHANGES CHANGES SECURITY PLAN CHANGES PROCEDURE CRANGES i

ir

SUBMITTAL OF APPLICATION ~ ORDER TO CONVERT REVIEW / APPROVAL OF TO NRC WITH ALL CONVERSION CONVERSION DOCUMENTATION DOCUMENTATION BY NRC 4

1 if ARRANGEMENT FOR POSSESSION DISCONTINUATION OF ANALYSIS FOR SHIPMENT OF 0F HEU AND LEU ON INTERIM USE OF HEU FUEL IRRADIATED FUEL BASIS r

W t

EEU FUEL SHIPMENT CONVERSION DESIGN / IMPLEMENTATION i LEU FUEL RECEIPT ACTIVITIES OF FACILITY CHANGES LEU FUEI; LOADING FUEL LOAD PREPARATIONS If STARTUP TESTING AND- REVIEW AND VERIFICATION ~

SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES OF HEU TO LEU CONVERSION if

. REVIEW / APPROVAL RETURN TO SERVICE l OF FULL DOCUMENTATION If SUBMISSION OF FINAL REPORT TO NRC/ DOE ,

SUMMARIZING EEU OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS i AND COMPARING WITH SAR PREDICTIONS Figure 1. University of Florida Training Reactor HEU to LEU Conversion Flow Diagram 4

13

TABLE I University of Florida Training Reactor Key Activities for HEU-to-LEU Fuel Conversion L PHASE I - PREPARATION FOR CONVERSION A. Receipt of Funding from Department of Energy B. Analysis of UFTR-Specific LEU Conversion Options

1. Pretesting of Selected SPERT Fuel Pins

2. Development of a Qualification Program for SPERT Fuel Pins

3. Completion of Prequalification 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 of LEU-Fueled UFTR

2. 'Ibermal-Hydraulic Analysis for LEU-Fueled UFTR ,

3. Shielding Analysis for LEU-Fueled UFTR )

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 l

E. Preparation of Full Submittal to NRC to Support Conversion including all Supporting Documents H. PHASE H - CONVERSION A. NRC Order to Convert B. Fuel-Related Activities

1. Qualification of Selected LEU Fuel

2. Final UFTR Operations with HEU Fuel

3. Shipment ofIrradiated Fuel

4. Receipt of LEU Fuel C. Implementation of Required Changes in R-56 License per Item ID.

D. LEU Fuel Loading Activities I

1. Completion of Preparations for Core lead

2. Loading of LEU Fuel

3. Startup Testing and Surveillance E. Completion of Startup Documentation III. PHASEIII - REVIEW AND VERIFICATION OF CONVERSION A. Cornpletion of Startup Testing and Related Surveillances B. Completion of Power Testing and Surveillances C. Determination of UFTR Operational Characteristics l D. Return to Normal Operations 14 l

l TABLE II l

(Revision 10)

University of Florida Training Reactor l Tentative Milestone Schedule for HEU to LEU Fuel Conversion l I. Effective Date of Receipt of Funding -

November,1987 II. Date of Full Submittal to NRC of Application to Convert (including all necessary documents) October,1996 III. Date of NRC Order to Convert January,1997 A. Date of Completion of All Plans to Convert September,1997 B. Date of Receipt of LEU Fuel November,1997

! C. Date of Completion of Any Final Tests With l HEU Fuel February,1998 i

D. Date of Removal of HEU Fuel April,1998 E. Date of Shipment of HEU Fuel July,1998 F. Date ofImading of LEU Fuel September, 1998 G. Date of Completion of Determination ofInitial Operational Parameters With LEU (Startup and Power Operations Testing) December,1998 H. Date of Submittal of Report to NRC/ DOE Summarizing New Operational Characteristics and Comparing With Predictions of Safety Analysis February,1999 l

1 3/96 t 16

i i I

l J l l

l I

APPENDIX I

! ORIGINAL LETTERS OF NOTIFICATION THAT l FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING FOR

! UFTR CONVERSION WAS AVAILABLE AND HAD BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE l DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY l

i AS WELL AS THE EXTENSION LETTER l t FOR SUPPORT THROUGH MARCH,1996  !

i i

l j PLUS THE LATEST LETTER INDICATING l FUNDING FOR CONVERSION

WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE DURING FISCAL YEAR 1996 4

l l

i

' ~ ' ' - ~ ' -- ---

P 1400.1 V.3. LteARiiEWW W :tD&l *

-4.3

• !soTICs or rtRAscIA2. AssisTMCI Mesan  % s and e t!ie authesity of FuD11c law 95-91 CEPAATMENT Cr EftE30T CRGAff!LAT:0RAZ. ACT

,et te legislation, regulattene and policies applicable ts (cits legislative program titis):

cFs: s or uwrnma: v atAC en

2. :wratsoper TTys sacarCT TITta COCFEBATzvE MRKEMENT I'J ft'EL CONVEFJ1 Cit X GENrt

4. .95:Et3EERT .W. S. J8EDE3EIET 353.

E-rc01 4sER73381 Moce sC:FI23rF (Itame, address, sip code, area code a teleynene no.)

mtIvtRSITY OF FLORIDA

6. sucesT FER:90 7. FEL7mCT FERIOD , , ,  !

(33 GRI!F."ER MAL . Fassts 11/13/0119part 04/30/93' '

lA:NESVII.13. TLCR 3A 32611 FEC383 11/13/09 TEstut 34/10/92 i

tsc:FIsser Fuuk75C2 DIRECTOR (Name 4ad telegheen No.) 10. TTF5 QF Josh 2D rI *.u M G. VEsuf5Tsost (904) 392-1400 ColtTINupcIost RENstat.

NEW ,

l RSCIFTWer auB23MBE OFFICER (Beas and telephone me.) l bl*.I.ARD C. MAASMAIJ., (904) 393-1382 x REY stcN SUFFLEMEIt?

DCE FRELTECT OFF2GR (Base, address. sap code, telephase No.) 12. AEsEZIEESTERED FUE DOE ET (Itame, assagens, sip, telopmene les.)

!TS 5E A881GiftU) ("O SE ASSIGItEC) l

'J.3. OtFARTMENT OF CEE30Y U.S. EFART"Efff CF DfERGY I CH:CAno rzEtm eFr:CE Ca:Cze r:E:o err:CE 9800 SOUTH CASS AVEIP.*E 9800 SOUTH CASS AVENUE ARGottNE, ILL:;': DIS 50439 ARecnME,1:11:30 : 3 60439

, 25C2FTEurf TEFE

NDIAll TR25AL GOV'T HOSF:TAL FOR 780FTT 2:EDZYI VAL STATE GCV'T ORGAllIZATIOtt X OfST: VI:388 0F CTMER :IcitFROFIT C F 5F CTMER (speciff)

LOCAL GCV'T H 0MER EDUCAT:Cet CaGAltI3AT:ces

. AccDuurrI3s0 Auto AFFROFRZATICNE DNEh f15. EDIFEDTER I.D. MUMBER/553 ld. CFA Nummer ' M081002

4. Appropriation Syahel {b.En2munspor {c. FT/ arf /cc f wx l * \ un Im l

. sucGET NED FUNDIsus :EFosserzm l

k. CassFIJG"YE ECE UELIGAE30W

a. CUnself EUDIET PERZOD ZWUIsutr2EE (1) 221s sudget Feriod $ 0

,1 DDE Ftands CIbligated Sis Acties $ 0 ll 208 F%ames Autaarised for Canary Deer $ 0 (Total of linee a.(1) and e.(33) l) ICE Funds Previously ch11 gated in this sudget Periods 45951 (2) Frier sudget Feriode 3 169431 il ces shars of Total Approved sedges s 45051 b) macipient share es Total sopreeed andvet $ o (si Freject Feriod to Date s 1s94n 81 Tesal Approved nudget $ es9:1 (Tesat et lines b.(1) and b.f all

7. TOInt, Ery291RRED Cnef GF FED 23Cf $ 189431 mis is the currest estimated esos et tame project. It is not a promise to sword nor an autherisaties to espeed funds in tAis aasme.

J.A 6 TWp3ANDCUNRFEIGN

tLis nearWsTroemast sensists of this fossa plus the followings .

l

a. Special tesus and senditiera fif grant) eT esdnethale, general previsions, special previsions (if esseeration seveement)

b. 3pplicable progras requistions (esessarl N/A g //

e. Dos Assistance moguistions, le CFR Partwee, as asseded, subparts A and x storaste) er etcasserstive AeTeamental

d. App 11estion/ proposal dated trovember 17, 1949 , X Es stamatted with a v as negotiated

9. REMhaEs TMS FURSCSE CP THIS AMENOMEart la 19 2AltBFER TE18 GRAllT FM;M TIEE V.S. DEFr. Cr ENERGY, 33AalO rIELD OFF3CEe ISAMO FALLB,19450, TO THE V.S. DEPT. OF ElfE307, CH:CAa0 FIEIm 0FFICE, ARGCIQts, ILL&lsoIs. THE ErrECTIVE DATS OF TRAmsFER 33 2/29/92.

K. ITZDE14CE OF ABCZFIEUPr ACG FEhlR3 21. WE

,<* che2d *h (signature of Authorised necipient ogficial) (Datel

[

v:so xzA L. sNtactA (signature) (natet (maann (name)

Ceter ACT:No err:CTR (Title) (Title)

• ~ 131 ; 'II FA W6E : t 1 25, W 32.:

i I':

l 1

2 0 5 H0V 1719@

l Department of Energy 1

, 3 0.=R w .-  !

. Post Omes Bou E ~ '

1. Ook Ridge. Temessee 37831 }' y; i i*'*- * ' ' '

l November 12, 1987 .

i.{ - ,

l l Mr. Dillard C. Marshall l Assistant Director l Office of Research Administration -

University of Florida l

Gainesville, FL 32611

Dear Mr. Marshall:

GRANT NO. DE-FG05-88ER75387 - AMENDMENT NO. A000 l

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 return 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 Fonn 00E-538, Notice of Energy RD&D Project. Please retunt two copies of the 00E-538.

l Sincerely, k

Charles D. Crow .

Contracting Of ficer Contract Management Branch AD-423:Lyle Procurement & Contracts Division

Enclosures:

1. Grant (2 cys.) -

2. Assurance of Compliance

3. DOE 538 (3 cys)

~

t

\ ^$ 4s 2 7/

• %d Celebrating the U.S. Constitution Bicentennial - 1787 1987