ML20137G615

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

ML20137G615
Person / Time
Site:	05000083
Issue date:	03/27/1997
From:	Vernetson W FLORIDA, UNIV. OF, GAINESVILLE, FL
To:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
References
NUDOCS 9704010448
Download: ML20137G615 (28)

Text

. .-

> e

% t d ,

W@hUNIVERSITY OFFLORIDA l l

l l

Nuclear Reactor Facility 202 Nuclear Sciences Center Department of Nuclear and Radiological Engineering g, 51,1 ]

Tel: (352)392-1429 ,

' Far (352)392 3380 j E-mail: vemet@senu.nuccngufl.edu l March 27,1997 Updated Proposal to Meet Requirements of i 10 CFR 50.64(c)(2)

Director i Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Dear Sir / Madam:

i Re: University of Florida Training Reactor (UFTR)

Facility License R-56; Docket No. 50-83 Enclosed is an updated proposal intended to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.64(c)(2).

Except for scheduling, this proposalis essentially unchanged from that originally submitted with a cover letter dated March 26,1987 and later revised as to its schedule pursuant to a request from the NRC Project Manager Theodore Michaels dated April 17,1987. This revised schedule was submitted with a cover letter dated May 14,1987. It is also essentially unchanged from the updated proposals submitted in March of subsequent years except for the revised schedule and the presence of substantive information on progress to date including the final fuel bundle design.

The updated written proposal outlines how the R-56 licensee intends to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.64 Paragraph (c)(2) to include certification that funding for conversion had been received through the Department of Energy for the first phase of the project and a tentative schedule for conversion based upon availability of replacement fuel acceptable to the Commission and upon consideration of the availability of additional funding, shipping casks, implementation of arrangements for the available financial support and allowing for commitments of reactor usage. The schedule had slipped significantly in previous years due to delays in work to qualify the SPERT fuel and due to delays in safety analysis as we awaited code implementation and availability of graduate students for the work. The delays in work with the SPERT fuel were most significant in 1988 and 1989 as the SPERT fuel had to be i moved, under the SNM-1050 license, and then various license changes approved prior to ,

9704010448 970327 PDR ADOCK 05000083 dQD 1

\IIlI!lItElhh,!!h EqualOpportunity/Afrumative ActionInstitution

4 8 Director, NRC Office of Reactor Regulation Page 2

' March 27,1997 initiation of the qualification work which was lengthy and subject to several equipment (X-ray machine) failures. The non-destructive testing of the SPERT fuel was completed successfully j by April 1989; however, shielding and other structural changes necessitated by use of the  :

SPERT fuel resulted in a decision in August 1989 to utilize plate-type silicide fuel for the conversion. With this decision made, work was then expected to progress more rapidly as the code methodology for safety analyses was being implemented and tested in parallel.

l l

Unfortunately, the decision by the graduate student performing this work to leave the i university to pursue his degree elsewhere in August 1989 necessitated essentially restarting the safety analysis when a student began work on it for his thesis in early 1990. Although he spent a week at Argonne National Laboratory working with the RERTR group to receive training in the use of the codes, it still took time for the student to become proficient in the use of the codes. Unfortunately several flaws in the implemented codes used for the neutronics analysis also slowed progress though these were cleared up in early 1991.

In April 1991, a student project concluded the benchmarking neutronics analysis on the ,

l' existing HEU core demonstrating acceptability of the static neutronics methodology to model l the existing core. Similarly a thesis project concluded in May 1991 produced the static neutronics analysis for the proposed LEU core with the number of fuel plates per bundle now set at 14. DOE-supplied funding support of this work was extended beyond April 30,1991 l but this was not accomplished until March 1992 resulting in some delays due to administrative problems. Nevertheless, the complementary basic thermal hydraulic analysis and other analysis work required to conclude the HEU to LEU safety analysis was undertaken and has been nearly completed as work had been underway in the 1993-94 year to prepare the safety analysis report package required for the NRC. Delays were then involved because of the inability to get the existing grant support extended to allow project completion up to SAR submittal. The grant support was finally extended in late November 1994, but little work was accomplished as the funding remaining in the grant is for support of a non-permanent employee (student) who had not been identified. In early April 1995, DOE advised they would extend the grant with its remaining support through March 31,1996. The same situation was repeated in 1996 for continuing the support through March 31,1997. We have learned the support funding category can be changed to allow completion of work through submittal of SAR changes. This change will require some time as we again seek to extend the grant.

We have also been working with the Department of Energy in Idaho to assure fuel availability l in a timely manner and to make decisions on utilization of the existing fuel boxes. The final i design review on the fuel is in progress and questions about holddown devices were cleared up

( by DOE in early 1995. Only a very small piece of the neutronics analysis remains to be

( completed. After this work is completed, the entire package can be assembled for submission l

! to NRC by October 1997, but with the project progressing as predicted in the enclosed updated l

l

- , [v - _ -. ,-,. - - -

1 I 1 i l

\

Director, NRC Office of Reactor Regulation i Page 3 March 27,1997 aroposal. Currently, as noted in the proposal, DOE has indicated there is no money for unversion in fiscal year 1997 (Phase II), so there is plenty of time this year to prepare the submittal to NRC in hopes that DOE will provide the conversion money in fiscal year 1998.

As explained in the enclosed proposal, we are also in the process of extending the limited funding in the existing grant to assure that the final analysis is completed for submission this year though losses of two long-term personnel including the Reactor Manager during this year will make completion more difficult.

Another area involved considerable time commitments during 1994. This was the effort to renew the SNM-1050 spent fuel license. Since DOE cannot accept this fuel for return, we have followed through on assuring it meets storage licensing requirements and maintaining it in safe storage.

If further information is needed, please advise. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely, William G. Vernetson Director of Nuclear Facilities WGV/dms ,

Enclosure  !

l Copies: D. Cronin Reactor Safety Review Subcommittee Sworn and subscribed this OPh day of March,1997.

Mbn b. ben Notary Public

. = = - g=-

i uv caemmesiOH CC #8306 EXPfES: April 17.1000 eened Thre Netsy PthAs LNulBMWWIf8

i I ,

l UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA TRAINING REACTOR 4

FACILITY LICENSE NUMBER: R-56 i

l UPDATED PROPOSAL SUBhurmD TO

{ TIE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3

TO hEET 10 CFR 50.64 REQUIREMENTS FOR l i

UPDATING SCHEDULING OF UFTR CONVERSION j

FROM HEU TO LEU FUEL i

j 4

3 Dr. William G. Vernetson Director of Nuclear Facilities March 27,1997

=

l

. 1 UNIVERStrY OF FLORIDA TRAINING REACTOR FUEL CONVERSION FROM IIIGH ENRICHED

, TO LOW ENRICHED URANIUM FUEL i l

INTRODUCTION This proposalis 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 l

non-power reactor authorized to possess and use high enriched uranium (HEU) fuel shall develop I

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 i

determined pursuant to 10 CFR 50.64 Paragraph (c)(2). This proposal addresses the overall i

pmeess of conversion from initial preparations following receipt of funding to support conversion j io nnal verification, testing, and summary reporting on the converted UFTR. Three primary i i

phases have been identified 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 pase 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

. . - . - - . - ~... .._ - - - - - _ - . - _ -- -. - . _ . _. .-

2 e 8 i

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

j only. This funding was considered to be certified per the letter contained in Appendix I of the .

l 1987 proposal; this proposal was submitted to the Department of Energy and official notice of i

receipt of funding was mceived with a letter dated November 12,1987. Because of errors in the j ,

[

4 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 ,

t 1987 certification letter are enclosed in Appendix I along with documentation showing the i

l extension of the current DOE grant to support 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 SNM-1050 could i

j be qualified for use in the UFTR. Visual and radiographic test results to date were positive in this i regard. Unfortunately, equipment failures and the need to move the SPERT (SNM-1050) fuel 1

storage facility impacted the schedule during the 1988 year so the radiographic tests were not 1

i 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 i

{ 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 F

SPERT fuel and identifying any modifications in existing reactor systems necessitated by use of the new fuel.

)

i i

- - . - - - - _ . , - - - . - - - - - . . - - - . - - - - . . . ~ . . - . . - . - .

l

. . l J

1 j Several previously unconsidered potential complications noted in late 1988 were 4

investigated in 1989. This effort was directed to maintaining and/or improving the UFTR  :

i neutmnics characteristics while minimizing the overall cost of UFTR conversion. The only two d

l fuels that have been considered are the existing SPERT UO2, stainless steel clad fuel presently i

i under the SNM-1050 license and the newly developed silicide fuel available through the RERTR i

i j program at Argonne NationalI4 oratory.

l l The first choice had been to use the already existing SPERT fuel for which a number of l

{i 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

)

i

] 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 i used without requiring costly modifications which could outweigh the low initial cost of SPERT i.

! fuel (no manufacturing costs) and have impact on core neutronics per earlier analyses. The

}

Department of Energy was receptive to this evaluation of the two fuels and work in this area progressed well in 1989. Unfortunately, the complexity and cost of potential structural (the i i l

) SPERT fuelloading 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 j 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 anticipated cooling system fuel f

j arrangement and shielding changes potentially necessitated by use of the SPERT fuel were ewially 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

3

. - ~ - _ - - - - - .

. i i

l I In pare.llel 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 i

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,  ;

I UFTR conversion calculations were progressing reasonably well until the loss in August 1989 of  ;

I 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 unavailability of another qualified student committed to assume this i responsibility resulted in further delays. Nevertheless, a student project in Fall 1989 resulted in L

l some progress in assuring neutronics methodology would be adequate though many calculations i

had to be updated and repeated due to errors in and poor documentation of the previous work. i 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 l

i Laboratory working with the RERTR group to receive training in the use of the codes, it still l 1

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.

Early in 1991 a student thesis project had resulted in good progress in assuring the i

I

neutronics methodology to be adequate and the necessary " benchmark" modelling of the existing l  ?

4

j .

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 required by j 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-hydraulic analyses to conclude the required i

i HEU-to-LEU conversion safety analyses. Unfortunately this grant was not officially extended i

until March 1992. It was also expected that the individual working on this neutronics analysis would complete his thesis work by mid-1991. The " benchmark" static calculations on the existing

UFrR HEU core were completed and an internal report generated in April 1991. The individual I

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

]

l bundle was set at 14 from the neutronics analysis, thermal hydraulics analyses were begun in i

i August 1991. These analyses had to be completed before the entire analysis package could be ,

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

thermal hydraulics area as the 14-plate fuel bundle arrangement had been selected for the  ;

i conversion in March 1992. The lack of official grant extension made the financial support of this j effort more difficult but a draft report of this thermal hydraulics work was produced in June 1992 i

, with the final report essentially completed during the 1994-95 fiscal year. I 4

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 i-l to Ms. Ann Rydalch via a letter dated April 25,1991 with a copy supplied to Keith Brown.

l The extension was agreed to be until April 30,1992. Unfortunately, no further information had 4

4 5

i L. , , , -_ - - ,_

,. s l been received on the no-cost extension until March 1992 making some plans and efforts difficult i

to implement. In addition, time consuming efforts were also in progress with the Department of i

j 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.

l l DOEig,rse.atatives even visited the UFTR facility and observed operations as well as reviewed drawings as several days were spent in discussions of how best to proceed in 1992.

i 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 i

! drawings and to evaluate the 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 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 i

1 4

.l' calculations still remaining in the neutronics area. During that year it was expected that the DOE i

i supplied funding support for this work would again be extended beyond April 30,1993 with the l

l 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 December 15,1993. During January 1994, the Oak Ridge office indicated that the proper submission really is to the Idaho Operations Office; when informed of 1

6 I

_m _. _ _ _ . _ . . . _ . _ . _ _ - _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

1-l; this, the project 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 l accomplished as the funding remaining in the grant is for support of a non-permanent employee i

1

-(student) who was not 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, the grant was again extended with the understanding that i

mmaining funds could be moved among personnel categories as necessary to allow completion of 4

j work through submittal of SAR changes. However, DOE also advised in mid-March 1996 that additional funding for the next phase (Phase II) of the conversion would not be available during l

l ' fiscal year 1996. The entire package of results was then to be assembled as a Revision to the i

UFTR Safety Analysis Report by October 1996. With the loss of the permanent Reactor Manager in August 1996, no work was accomplished during this year. As a result, efforts are again under l way to extend the existing grant money to March 31,1998 to allow completion of work through i submittal of SAR changes. However, DOE has again advised in mid-March 1997 that additional funding for the next phase (Phase II) of the conversion will not be available during fiscal year 1997. The entire package of results will be assembled as a Revision to the UFTR Safety Analysis

Report by October 1997 with the project expected to progress as indicated in the updated Table II,

though impending loss of another long-term staff member will make this effort more difficult.

1 I l As indicated, previous delays have necessitated several extensions in the initial DOE grant j which had been received as documented in Appendix I with another extension requested and i 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.

4

{ 7 i

l L .

• ^

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 contain documentation detailing the various tests and surveillances planned as part of the conversion. At this point a complete set of licensing l documents for the conversion will be submitted along with a conversion application for review and l

approval. This result is now expected by October 1997. Assuming resolution of all questions, this submittal will conclude the Phase I licensee efforts. Phase I will then conclude with the l

issuance by the NRC of the specific Order to Convert.

PHASE II: CONVERSION (Assuming NRC Order to Convert) l Phase II (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 was not yet funded by the existing DOE grant for which an extension has been requested and will include all final tests conducted with the HEU fuel 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 replace HEU fuel at the UFTR facility to include:

1. Shutdown core decay for several weeks followed by core unloading and shipment of irradiated HEU fuel.

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

I 8

a 1

{ 3. Implementation of required facility changes necessitated for use of LEU fuel; this may 3

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 ofirradiated HEU fuel.

6. Documentation of all changes.

a

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) will consist 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. 1 I

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. i 1

l 9

m _. ___ _ _ __

s .

-e *  ;

6. Submission of Final Report to NRC/ DOE summarizing HEU operational conditions l 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.

i

SUMMARY

CONCLUSIONS As noted earlier, a relatively detailed list of the various elements that must be obtained, l produced or otherwise generated as required throughout the three phases of the UFTR conversion from HEU to LEU fuel is presented in Table I. 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 -

i 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 1

not possible to delineate exactly what other external support may be needed. The neutronics and - i

.i 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 inability to identify qualified graduate students to work on the project for their thesis work up until j

the previous two years when progress on the use of the neutronics methodology was delayed by I

several code inconsistencies and lac,k of documentation which have now teen corrected. The effort to generate the submittal package is underway and is expected to progress well during summer 1997 with submittal in October 1997.

)

10

o i

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  !

i.

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.

1

Another concern is the physical fit of the fuel in the fuel boxes which will necessitate some i t

considerable experimental measurement and verification efforts after this year. These items are

now under consideration.

4 Finally, Table II contains an updated tentative schedule (Revision 11) for the major j milestone events in the UFTR conversion process commencing with the notification of receipt of funding effective in November 1987 and concluding with submittal of a final report to NRC and i

i DOE summarizing the results of the conversion by June 1998. It should be noted that this l schedule is tentative and, as required by 10 CFR 50.64, will be updated yearly. There has been considerable schedule slippage during the past few years. The schedule is also subject to i variations caused by availability of replacement fuel or other items involved in required facility i

changes as well as variations in the level of DOE funding after the first two year period (now i

. extended) for which funding has been received. Since DOE will provide no new conversion money during fiscal year 1997, this does not appear to be a problem. Other areas which may

! impact the schedule are the availability of a shipping cask especially for irradiated HEU fuel (we J

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

[j cooling period) and final usage of the UFTR with HEU fuel to provide a basis for comparison of j changes in operating characteristics or to meet education, research and service commitments.

t i

j 11

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

\

e  ;

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 expected resources and recent progress with neutronics calculations.

s 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 II provided in this updated proposal, shows that the LEU conversion I i

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 document completion of the thermal hydraulics calculations and to work with the 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 Dimetor are still planning to complete the package without graduate assistant support which has  !

proven unreliable in supporting this project. The key decisions remaining will involve

]

identification and evaluation of system changes required by the conversion, especially concerning utilization of the existing fuel 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 mvolved with the possibility of DOS replacement of UFTR fuel boxes.

'Ihe schedule will likely 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 j 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 i

calculations are complete for both the HEU and LEU core and thermal hydraulics calculations are l

12

.. . - . . _ _ _. . . _ - ~ . .. .

l also complete except for several relatively minor documentation points. All analyses show the j 14-plate LEU fuel bundle is acceptable for the conversion. As a result we should be able to j 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 originalletters 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 1997 plus the latest letter indicating funding for conversion will not be available during fiscal year 1997.

l l

l I

1 j

a 13

T'st e SPERT Fuel .

• Neutronic Analysis o Develop a Prequalification Plan

" ""

• ThermalHydraulic Analysis p ,

for SPERT Fuel e Shielding Analysis o Select Fuel Option e Radioactive Analysis ir o Identification of Required * **I I* '

Preparation of Facility Changes * # E#8 Licensing Documents

• Security Plan Changes j e Procedure Changes  !

ir o Submittal of Appliendaa to e Review /Approvalof .

. NRC with All Convers5n Order to Convert Convdon hmentadon .

Documentation by NRC l i

ir I

- o Arrangement for Possession e Analysis for Shipment of Dixonhuadon of l cf HEU and LEU on Use of HEU Fuel I" "*I l Intenm Basis l

i ir  ;

o HEU Fuel Shipment

• Design / Implementation of Convwsion o LEU Fuel Receipt FacWty Changes Activities j o LEUFuelinading e Fuel Load Preparations  ;

i i

1r 5

e'Startup Testing and Review and VeCfication i Survai11== Activities i of HEU to LEU Conversion v .

o Review /Approvalof i

. Full Documentation Return to Service t

i

?

l ir l Submission of Final Report to NRC/ DOE  ;

Summarizing HEU Operational Conditions -

and Comparing with SAR Predictions i Figure 1. University of Florida Training Reactor HEU to LEU Convenion How Diagram  ;

14 '

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

1. Protesting 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

1. Neutronic Analysis of LEU-Fueled UFTR I

2. Thermal-Hydraub Analysis for LEU-Fueled UFTR l

3. Shiekling 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  ;

i E. Preparation of Full Submittal to NRC to Support Conversion Including all Supporting Documents i IL PHASE H - CONVERSION A. NRC Onler to Convert B. Fuel-Related Activities

1. Qualification of Selected LEU Fuel

2. Final UFTR Operations v.'9 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

1. Completion of Preparations for Ca Load

2. Loading of LEU Fuel

3. Startup Testing and Surveillance E. Completion of Startup Documentation HI. PHASE HI - REVIEW AND VERIFICATION OF CONVERSION A. Compleuon of Startup Testing and Related Surveillances B. 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 15

\

O

• p TABLE II (Revision 11)

University of Florida Training Reactor Tentative Milestone Schedule 3

for HEU to LEU Fuel Conversion l l

l t

I. Effective Date of Receipt of Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November 1987 l II. Date of Full Submittal to NRC of Application to Convert (including all necessary documents) . . . . . . . . . . . October 1997 III. Date of NkC Order to Convert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January 1998 A. Date of Compledon of All Plans to Convert . . . . . . . . . September 1998 i B. Date of Receipt of LEU Fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November 1998 C. Date of Completion of Any Final Tests with HEU Fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . February 1999 D. Date of Removal of HEU Fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . April 1999 E. Date of Shipment of HEU Fuel . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . July 1999 I F. Date of Loading of LEU Fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September 1999 1 1

G. Date of Completion of Determination of Initial Operational Parameters with LEU  ;

(Startup and Power Operations Testing) . . . . . . . . . . . . December 1999 l l

H. Date of Submittal of Report to NRC/ DOE Summarizing New Operational Character-istics and Comparing with Predictions of Safety Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . February 2000 3/97 g 16 l

4 l

APPENDIX I ORIGINAL LETTERS OF NOTIFICATION TIIAT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING FOR UFTR CONVERSION WAS AVAILABLE AND l HAD BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE DEPARThENT OF ENERGY AS WELL AS TIE EXTENSION LETTER FOR SUPPORT TIIROUGII MARCII1997 PLUS TIE LATEST LETTER INDICATING FUNDING FOR CONVERSION WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE DURING FISCAL YEAR 1997

, _g ____ ___ __

.g,p for:cs or rinMrcAL Ass 12TMCI MAM

• asHE the e theTit at pud 11e :aw IS=91 cEFAATFIN" Cr ENIMT c1GM3%AT cRAL ACT et *s 1ssislation, 'regulauens and p.eLisi33 epplicanas t2 (sits 1251 sistive pen ram title):

1.3:cM Cr UNIVER.317Y llEAcTOR KArrc; T:TtN 2. :3r:1tuMm? 7775 FJ F*.*ti, c WERSICM X GRANT cocrtaATZ7E AcastMENT

4. ::isTz:starr iso. 3. MisEncer7 ao.

Z::FIZ2*T (Naam, address, s1y coes, area come & telepaene ca.) OE-rG07-4 4 t1733 8 7 NGCE t!v5RSITY Cr TLCRICA 13 cRINTER HAIJ. 6. su3 RET PER Do 7. PsEL7ECf FERIOD AIN!!v: J.E. 71.ORZ:A 32611 rzcatz 11/u/ss :2ntV 04/30/12 rstms 11/13/87 TtotDs ,,04/20/12' '

RcTFIIsPr Fac Ecf DIRECTCE (Name sad telaptione !se.) 10. TTFS Cr Josh 3D t!J. AM 4. VElutIT3CN (904) 332-1408

.TDf CONT!*rJATIcW RENticLL pc:FIsarr sus %3taas crr3cER (sans and toisphoem so.)

13.ARD c. MAasHAEJ. (904) 352-1382 x REY:31:N SUFF12MEIti

cs Pse: cec; crr2cI3L (same, address, sap ceda, telepasne se.1 12. AtM:2rtstza.ED rom :x25 sr (name, andress, asp, telepoone no.)

0 3E ASSIGNED) (To SE As5IGNEDI 1.3. :EFAR:22NT CF INE13T 'J.3. OEFARTMDrf cf ENERGY -

cx: .Nao rte 1.3 crrrcE cx:cAGo rIE:.c err:ct f a00 sovm cAss Avsmts 3800 set.-:x cAss AVEnvs Anoc:tNE, 112.*;:013 $0435 A10cNNE, :12.:::0I3 60439 AECFIENT T2FE STAT: Gev'T 2270:AN TRIBAL GCV'T HC8FITAL FCR FRCr%T I.TJ:7IOUAT.

cRCANZ:.AT:CN LOCM. GCV'T X l NIT :*JT* :t Cr CTHER McNFRCrIT C F SF CTED (5pecify) x: chem E:-JcAT:ces cacAn AT:ca Acc:urruse Auto ArracF3:AT:csts DATA .3. NLfMEER/'585

{ 15. EMF:#rEE

c. Approprtation syenel (b.1 & 2 maneper !d. CFA Numsser 87081c02 lc. rT/ATP/oc {

N/A N/A l N/A l N/A l l

pu:cET Ano rusnz2so :xrosesNrzost l

.. c:--, so T ,suo. : ro cos, p. cous,:mrt :==E osz.z.Az=o

x* Funds et 11 gated This Acties $ 0 (1) Ttia pladget Foried $ 0 t

i DDE Funds Authorised for carry over S 0 (Total of lines s.(1) and s.(3)]

l ;ct Funds Freviously otdigated la this sudget Feried$ 85957 (2) Frior pu& ret Pertoes $ 167431 I tes shars et Total Approved podget *$ t!$57 i Reciptent share os Total Jgpreved 3meget $ 0 (3) Freject Feriod to Date 8 1sr4J1 i Total Ayyreved thadget $ ents? (Total of lines b.(1) and b.(21)

. "':r:AL ErrEPutrED CDWT OF FROJ9cr $ 189431 La is the currest estimated eest er the prwject. :t is not a promise to avere nor as authertsatian to eEpend funda ta this amenet.

. Amarvaamsspamrr Tsuses Amo ccnanTzcas mis award /sfroommat sensists of this fesa plus the fe11 swings

a. special tarus and senditions (if grest) er schoea3e, general provimiens, special previaises (if a--r-rative agreemeetj

<omtep / /

b. Applicable program regulations tey=es.tr) N/A

s. Dos Assistance mogulations,10 cra Part.-40s, as assaded, subparts A and x z(craate) er escasserotive Arreenesta)

d. Applicatiendroposal dated November 17, 1345 , X as rutuaitted vita canages as negotiated

. REMhaEs TME FUkFCat CP TH:3 MENC.'1E3T 13 TU TRMtsrE3L TRI3 GRANr TECM TEE U.S. DErr. Or ENE3GY, IIWec TIE 10 CFTICE, ICMIO FALLS, ICAsc.

TO THE C.S. DEPT. CT ENI24T, cxtcMQ FIELD CrF3cI, ApocturE,12.;;cIs. TxE 2:FrECT:TE DAT3 Cr TRAmarER 35 2/29/92.

i . ITIDENcE Cr rec:FZIsPF ACCEPTMcI 21. BT (Signature of Autherised Sociplest c'gficial) (Data)

, [ 44S*M (signature) (tate)

Y:EGINIA L. SA.T.Pf*.XA

! (name)

(maan) ccNTRAc7:No crr:cTm (Title) (Title)

_ a__r__w__ _ _ * ~L'e 'M FA WPAE : II Mo is EL

2 0 5 NOV 1719@

Department of Energy Ook Ridge Operations g ,

tNhE ,

ook Ridge. Tennessee 37831 }, pl :, , 5* -

f "i"

• November 12, 1987 ij, - .

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

University of Florida Gainesvill:!, FL 32611 i

Dear Mr. Marshall:

i

. GRANT NO. DE-FG05-88ER75387 - AMENDMENT NO A000 Enclosed are two copies of the subject grant document which have been signed on i 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 retenti on.

In addition, please have executed the enclosed Assurance of Compliance -  :

Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs, and return the signed l original to this office together with the executed copy of the grant and a  !

completed Form 00E-538, Notice of Energy RD&D Project. Please return two copies of the DOE-538.

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 I

3. DOE 538 (3 cys) l 1

I i

l

/

/ rk~**.i 4?

. l

\ %eM .../

• Celebrating the U.S. Constitution Bicentennial - 1787 1987 l

1. 4 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA C

W OFFICIAL AWARD ACCEPTANCE DATE PRINTED: 12/ 21/ l '

OUEST10NS PLEASE CONTACT THE UF CIV1! '

dCT1FICATION OF ACCEPTANCE (NOAl FOR THE PRESIDENT SPONSORED RESEARCH. AWARD ADMINISTR

F "HE UNIVERSITY OF Ft.ORIDA. AC*1NG ON BEHALF OF .

205 GRINTER HALL. 392 1582

'HE SOARD OF REGENTS nTLs: ocODOSAL FOR GOV'T SUPDORT TO COVER COST OF UFTR CONVERSION conM wm mnr.m mrT.

ADMINISTRATIVE DATA AWARD DATE.

01/05/88 JPNs! 87081002 RELATED UPNet

( F 0 4 8 -) p.i . VERNETSON W G AGENCY:_U S DEP'r' OF ENERGY SSN- 216-44-9124 3:VIS10N- CC' ' .._ E T ES - ENGTNEER TNG UE-#CU S- 8 8 EE7 53 87 fGENCY NO: CONTINUATION (C) DEPT. NUCL EAR MGTNE N TWG EPMCM TYPE: _ NEW (N) CC Pf-

_ RENEWAL (R) _ SUPPLEMENTAL (S) - -

SSN:

2 EXTENSION ._. REviSEn

_. TRAINING (T) CO-

CATEGORY: E RESEARCH (R)

DEPT: l

- OTHER (0)

HEGIS ,. 210920 CONTRACT (C) _ PUR. ORDER (P)

PROGRAM: _

HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL e-

_ COOP. AGREE (A) _ SPA (S)

HS APPROVAL EXPIRES-

- MEMO OF UND (M) b GRANT (G)

LAB ANIMAL APPROVAL st GUARANTEED BY: BICHAZARC

TEMP

_

RECOMBINANT DNA/RNA-SUPERSEDES:

' AET,M: pnoppig73nyf cespioE3734, .

11/15/87 BUDG END:

04/30/91 UF-f SUDG EEG.11/15/87 PROJ END: 04/30/91 SUBCONTRACTOR: i PROJBEG: pRiuE NAuE:

, PROJECT PERIOD at 87081002 NO-

FUNOS RESTRICTED 3 YES _ NO OTHER-87081002 ptg ogMa ppo;; N

!, HtSTORY UPNat COST D ATA APPLICABLE INDIRECT COST WILL ACCRUE TO die UNIT (S)' AS SPEO Y

IOC RETURN CODE:

QUAL INVOLVEMENT:

OFF-CAMPUS

'ON-CAMPUS i ACCOUNT NO:

450812612 ACCOUNT NO:

NO COST EXT DIRECT AMOUNT: S OtRECT AMOUNT: 5 tNDIRECT AMOUNT: S

- 0 ""

' INDIRECT AMOUNT: $ RATE BASE 45 0% BASE MTU RATE TOTAL AMOUNT:S NO COST EXT l TOTAL AMOUNT: S COST SHARING REQUIRED: S COST SHARING REQUIRED: S NO COST EXT TUTAL FUNDING OF THIS AWARD: S 4

TOTAL COST SHARING OF THIS AWARD: $

j UNRECOVERED INDIRECT COST: $ 169,431.PP.

CUMULATIVE PROJECT FUN 0tNG: $

CFDAs: - REMARKS I

. :,: I ,

EIES

/ J/ ' ~

C8EPT CONTACT- huTHORIZED UNIVERSITY ACCEPTANCE SIGNATURE ADORESS- OtytSION OF SPONSCRED RESEARCH usue. DILLARD C. MARSHALL _

nyt.g; ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF RESEAf.

p,nc.m .aav MW R _

ann , ax:nm * * -v A w2*M- - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

- n '

4 Department of Energy ,

+ -

a Idaho Operations Office 205 DEC 2019 :

[ .. 785 DOE Place rJ Idaho Falls, Idaho 83402 December 19, 1989 I l

l 4 Mr. Dillard C. Marshall J University of Florida '

223 Grinter Hall Gainesville, Florida 36211 f

SUBJECT:

Grant No. DE-FG07-88EP75387 i

Dear Mr. Marshall:

We are enclosing three copies of the subject grant which have been i 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 Enclosure

~* -

,o f '.,,

i Department of Energy REcgygCDEcg7ggj yC Y g i Ook Ridge Operations g ,* y Post Office Box E

,4 j Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831 r4 7,y*

December 21, 1987 4

i Dr. William G. Vernetson Director of Nuclear Facilities College of Engineering University of Florida ~

Gainesville, FL 37.511

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 apologize for the confusion and

. P delay in this revision reaching you.

.. 1 Please substitutg_the_. attached Part III Project Description and Reporting h.# Requirements,. for the one transmitteo to Dillard Marshall on Novemoer- 12, 1987, and have Mr. Marshall sign the award and return an original to us as soon as possible. You will not be able to draw down any money from letter of Credit on is award until the original copy is returned to us.

Thank 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.

Sincerely, 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. Di r.

Research Administration University of Florida 223 Grinter Hall Gainesville, FL 32611 p* +'s,,

lr ge w" /.

1

o , .

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

~

College of Engineering 319 Weil Hall Office ofEngineering Research Gainesville, Florida 32611 Proposal and Awards Processing Telephone: (904)392-9448 FAX: (904) S46-1371 03/27/96 E-Mail: khum@engnet.ufl.edu HEHORANDUM T0: WG VERNETSON PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR FROM: KEN HUMPHLETT SU8 JECT: CLOSE0VT OF GRANT US DEPT OF ENERGY , DE-FG02 88ER75387 SAMAS N0, 4508126 In our records, this project's expiration date is 03/31/96.

Project closecut should be completed WITHIN 90 DAYS. The following reports marked 'DUE' should be submitted in accordance with the award requirements. Forms have been enclosed where applicable. If there are  !

any questions concerning the closecut reports, 31 ease contact your departamental research administrator or Janet Clitty for assistance. 1

\

FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT - DUE 3/31/96 l FINAL PATENT - DUE FORM OMB 1902 0121 4/31/96  ;

FINAL PROPERTY REPORT (S) DUE 4/31/96 l FINAL FINANCIAL REPORT (S)/ INVOICE- DUE SF 269 4/31/96 l 1

The following comments concerning closecut are noted in our files and may provide guidance: l NOTE -- TRANSFERED TO CHICAG0 (F02) 0FFICE. 3/29/92 CC: Departmental Research Administrator Division of Sponsored Research  ;

Contracts and Grants Office Property Accounting 6/Affumadve ActionInstnu6on

. , j RECEIVED MAR 0 01!

~

, _ . 1 Department of Energy

, Germantown, MD 20874-1290  :

FEB 2 81997 4

Dr. William G. Vernetson i

! University of Florida 202 Nuclear Sciences Center Gainesville, Florida 32611-8300

Dear Dr. Vernetson:

In accordance with 10 CFR Part 50.64, " Limitations on the Use of Highly Enriched Uranium in Domestic Non-Power Reactors," you are hereby notified that Federal funding for conversion of your reactor to low enrichment uranium fuel will not be available during Fiscal Year 1997.

You will be notified in the event these circumstances change.

Sincerely, NbM-William Hartman, Director Facilities Shutdown Office of Facilities Office ofNuclear Energy, Science and Technology 9

p,,nted wdh Sov lok 0" '8CYCI'd P80