ML20065B806

Forwards Updated Proposal to Meet Requirements of 10CFR50.64(c)(2) for Updating Scheduling of Univ of Fl Training Reactor Conversion from HEU to LEU Fuel

ML20065B806
Person / Time
Site:	05000083
Issue date:	03/28/1994
From:	Vernetson W FLORIDA, UNIV. OF, GAINESVILLE, FL
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 9404040142
Download: ML20065B806 (24)

Text

. > . . . .. . . . . -

j* ,/ i s

^.

')h' s UNIVERSITY.OFFLORIDA Nuclear Reactor Facility -202 Nucl' ear Science Center -

Nuclear Engineering Sciences Department Gainesville, FL 32611-2055 -

.(904) 3'12 1429 -

Fax 392-3380' March 28,1994 t

. Updated Proposal to -

Meet Requirements of 10 CFR 50.64(c)(2) -

Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Nuclear Regulatory Commission -

Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: University of Florida Training Reactor (UFTR) .;

Facility License: R-56; Docket No. 50-83

Dear Sir:

Enclosed is an updated proposal intended to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.64(c)(2). Except for scheduling, this proposal is 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. . 'Ihe 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 moved, under the SNM-1050 license, and then various license changes approved prior to initiation of the qualification work which was lengthy and subject to several '

equipment (X-ray machine) failures. The noralestructive testing of the SPERT fuel was completed .

successfully 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 ode '

methodology for safety analyses was being implemented and tested in parallel.

rs -. .

9404040142 940328 PDR -ADOCK 05000083v .

P PDR I l

~n. __.

y!l P%D#sy

o er o ..

Letter to Director, NRC March 28,1994 Page 2 Unfortunately, the decision by the graduate student performing this work to leave the 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 existing HEU core demonstrating acceptability of the static neutronics methodology to model 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 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 essentially completed as work has been underway in this past year to prepare the safety analysis report package required for the NRC. Delays have been involved this year because of the inability to get the existing grant support extended to allow project completion up to SAR submittal.

We have also been working closely with the Department of Energy in Idaho to assure fuel availability in a timely manner and to make decisions on utilization of the existing fuel boxes. The final design review on the fuel is in progress and questions about holddown devices have been cleared up by DOE. 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 to NRC by August,1994 with the project progressing as predicted in the attached updated proposal.

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

Sincerely, 0$ A y N .

William G. Vernetson Director of Nuclear Facilities WGV/dms Attachment Copies: D. Simpkins Reactor Safety Review Subcommittee Sworn and subscribed this M day of March,1994.

i NM1m b,Ndacn 3/M /Pi Notar Public ' Date '

mtory Pdlic,steo et Nhfa My Comminion trpires Mer6 22,1995

,m.m. 5,,, e- w m. ns.

b

)

I UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA TRAINING REACTOR l

.l l

l LICENSE NUMBER: R-56 UPDATED PROPOSAL SUBMEITED TO TIIE NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION TO SEET 10 CFR 50.64 REQUIREMENTS FOR UPDATING SCIIEDULING OF UFFR CONVERSION '

FROM IIEU TO LEU FUEL ,

Dr. William G.Vernetson Director of Nuclear Facilities

' March 28,1994

.x.

4 0

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA TRAINING REACTOR FUEL CONVERSION FROM IIIGII ENRICIIED TO LOW ENRICIIED 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 enriched 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, and summary I

reporting on the converted UFTR. Three primary phases have been identified for control and administration of the overall process of conversion as follows:

L 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 7,

of summary reports to DOE and NRC on the conversion.

PIIASEI: PREPARATIONFOR 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 I of the 1987 proposal; this proposal was submitted to the Department of Energy and official 2

]

l u.

r; 4

^ . .

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 along with documentation showing the 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 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 radiegraphic 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 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 UO2 , stainless steel clad fuel presently under the SNM-1050 license and the newly developed silicide fuel available through the RERTR program at Argonne National Laboratory.

3

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 initial cost of SPERT 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 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 anticipated cooling system fuel arrangement and 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 had been 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, 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 imhlemented 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'.

4 i

- I

4 Unfortunately, he left with much of his work inadequately undocumented. The unavailability of another qualified student committed to assume this responsibility resulted in further delays. Nevertheless, a student project in Fall,1989 resulted in some progress in asstring 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 firws 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 resu'ted in good progress in assuring the -

neutronics methodology to be adequate and the necessary " benchmark" modelling of the -

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 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-hydraulic 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 working on this neutronics analysis would complete his thesis work by mid-1991. The 5

" benchmark" static calculations on the existing UFTR HEU core were completed and an internal report generated in Apil,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 assembled for j L submission to NRC. A graduate assistant had nearly concluded working on the thermal l l l l hydraulics area as the 14 plate fuel bundle arrangement had been selected for the conversion in March,1992. The lack of official grant extension made the financial support of this effort more difficult but a draft report of this thermal hydraulics work was produced l in June,1992 with the final report now essentially cornpleted during this past year.

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 ,

I submitted to Ms. Ann Rydalch via a letter dated April 25, 1991 with a copy supplied to Keith Brown. The extension was agreed to be until April 30, 1992. Unfortunately, no

)

further information had been received on the no-cost extension until March,1992 making -!

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 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 slowlybut a decision not to change the fuel boxes was fmally reached in summer, 1992. Similarly efforts to review fuel drawings and to evaluate the holddown/ spreader pin 6

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 is officially extended.

During this past year, work to incorporate all the analysis completed to date into a ,

single FSAR update to include the Technical Specifications has progressed very slowly with some kinetics calculations still remaining in the neutronics area. During this past year it was ,

expected that the DOE supplied funhing 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 nxost '

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 this, the project manager was to check but to date, the grant has still not been extended as needed. This work is expected to be completed by June,1994. The entire package of results willthen be assembled as a-Revision to the UFTR Safety Analysis Report by August,1994 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, 7

l I

1 l

, \

shielding and effluent analyses will be documented to identify any changes in procedures -

(few expected), security plan, technical specifications or other license dccuments that must be considered as part of conversion. These should be minimal. This submittal will also contain documentation detailing the various tests and surveillances pl nned 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 August,1994. Assuming resolution of all questions, this submittal willconclude the Phase Ilicensee efforts. Phase I willthen conclude with the issuance by the NRC of the specific Order to Convert.

PHASE II: CONVERSION (Assuming NRC Order to Convert) i Phase II (Conversion) will begin with receipt of the NRC Order directing th; 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 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 ofirradiated HEU fuel.

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

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.

8 i

5. Shipment ofirradiated HEU fuel.

6. Documentation of all changes.

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 or 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 Table L The current plan 9

= -.-

continues to be to generate as much of the required safety analysis and design workin-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 delineate exactly what other external support may be needed. The neutronics and thermal-hydraulias analyses are all being conducted in-house which has necessitated some external support from the RERTR program at Argonne National Laberatory 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 the previous two years when progress on the use of the neutronics methodology was 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 rapidly during summer,1994 with submittal in August,1994.

The overall flow diagram for HEU to LEU conversion of the UITR 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 7) for the major 1

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- l 4

10

)

1 report to NRC and DOE summarizing the results of the conversion byJune,1996. It should  !

be noted that this 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 l

i schedule is also subject to variations caused by availability of replacement fuel or other l 1

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 l 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 expected resources. and recent progress with neutronics calculations.

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 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 last year.

At this point, reactor staffincluding the Director are still planning to complete the package 11

.__.w

without graduate assistant support which has proven unreliable in supporting this project.

The key decisions remaining willinvolve 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 involved with the possibility of DOE replacement of UFTR fuel boxes. 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 manufacture of the LEU fuel. The schedule presented in Table IIis 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.

i l

l i

l 12

i l

TEST SPERT FUEL HEU to LEU NEUTRONIC ANALYSIS .)'

DEVELOP A PREQUALIFICATION CONVERSION THERMAL HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS PLAN FOR SPERT FUEL PREPARATION SHIELDING ANALYSIS SELECT FUEL OPTION RADIOACTIVE EFFLUENT ANALYSIS <

l u

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

't i

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

'f ARRANGEMENT FOR POSSESSION DISCONTINUATION OF ANALYSIS FOR SHIPMENT OF OF HEU AND LEU ON INTERIM USE OF HEU FUEL IRRADIATED FUEL BASIS if HEU FUEL SHIPMENT CONVERSION DESIGN / IMPLEMENTATION LEU FUEL RECEIPT ACTIVITIES OF FACILITY CHANGES LEU FUEL LOADING FUEL LOAD PREPARATIONS If STARTUP TESTING AND REVIEW AND VERIFICATION SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES OF HEU TO LEU CONVERSION *

'I .

REVIEW / APPROVAL RETURN TO SERVICE 0F FULL DOCUMENTATION If SUBMISSION OF FINAL REPORT TO NRC/ DOE ,

SUMMARIZING HEU 0PERATIONAL~ CONDITIONS  ;

AND COMPARING WITH SAR PREDICTIONS-I Figure 1. University of Florida Training Reactor HEU to LEU Conversion Flow Diagram

'% j 13

-l 1

TABLE I 1

l University of Florida Training Reactor Key Activities forIIEU-to-LEUFuel Conversion L PIIASE I - PREPARATIONFOR 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 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 of LEU-Fueled UFIR

2. Thermal-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 E. Preparation of Full Submittal to NRC to Support Conversion Including all Supporting Documents IL PIIASE II - CONVERSION A. NRC Order to Convert B. Fuel-Related Activities

1. Qualification of Selected LEU Fuel

2. Final UFTR Operations with HEU Fue!

3. Shipment ofIrradiated Fuel

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

1. Completion of Preparations for Core load

2. Loading of LEU Fuel

3. Startup Testing and Surveillance E. Completion of Startup Documentation Ill PIIASE III - REVIEWAND VERIFICATIONOF CONVERSION A. Completion of Startup Testing and Related Surveillances B. Completion of Power Testing and Surveillances j C. Determmation of UFIR Operabonal Charactensucs  !

D. Return to Normal Operations l E. Submission of Final Conversion Report to NRC/ DOE ),

14

TABLE II (Revision 8)

University of Florida Training Reactor Tentative Milestone Schedule for HEU to LEU Fuel Conversion I. Effective Date of Receipt of Funding November, .1987 -

IL Date of Full Submittal to NRC of Application to Convert (including all necessary documents) August,1994 IIL Date of NRC Order to Convert November,1994 A. Date of Completion of All Plans to Convert July,1995-B. Date of Receipt of LEU Fuel September,1995 C. Date of Completion of Any Final Tests With HEU Fuel December,1995 D. Date of Removal of HEU Fuel February,1996 E. Date of Shipment of HEU Fuel May,1996 F. Date of Loading of LEU Fuel July,1996 G. Date of Completion of Determination ofInitial Operational Parameters With LEU (Startup and Power Operations Testing) October,1996 H. Date of Submittal of Report to NRC/ DOE Summarizing New Operational Characteristics and Comparing With Predictions of Safety Analysis December,1996 i

U 3/94 1

l 15 i

w

.l j

l APPENDIX I i

LETTERS OF NOTIFICATION THAT i FEDERAL GOVERNEMENT FUNDING FOR UFfR CONVERSION IS AVAILABLE AND HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE -

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

~

t

V.J . CEP AJC':*.E:rt Or 33I3GY 7 1400.1 NCFrIC3 07 FIMARCIAL AAZISTMC:B AMPJ,D (I-4.1 7 . -

ane sr tM swthesity of Fustic tae 35-91 caPAJt;eENT Cr rNrmor C2cutIZAT:cMAL ACT 3ect to le11 elation, regulattens and Foaisie, applicacle te (site legislative program title):

vtR31CM Gr UNIVC1817Y Ar.AC"'"l2 rynJECT TTTLa 2. 233rI2WtENr Tr75 X G3MT CCCFt3ATZ75 AGREEMENT LEV TVEL CO*N D3ICM -

3. MaspeswT m.

4. :3rT3taMarr :s2.

OE-rQ37-46E175347 McGt RECFIENF (Naeo, address, sip code, ares code & teleynene no.)

UNIVCSITY CF F1CRICA 7. FM17ECT PERIOD

6. StXIRET PERICD , , ,

223 G22!rt:R MALL facets 11/13/89 T52Us 34/30/12 rNCMs 11/13/87 THRus 04/30/12 QAINIsv LLE, 7 .;MOA 32611 RECIPIEler FN1.ECT 7 CIRECCR (Name and telephone me.) 10. TT75 CF J0GJtD WII/L:ht G. VERsTTscN (904) 392-1408 CCMTTNUATICN RENEMAL MIW RSCIFIENT SUBIRESs Of71CER (Base and telephone me.)

x 3.EV:33CN SUFFLEMENT 0:1.1ARD C. 9JJKAL*. !904) 35 b1382

. CCE FM17ECT OFFICZR (Itae, 361rees, say code, telephone 30.) 12. ADC3rISTZ3XD FCR DOE 51 (Name. address, say, telepoone No.)

(TC SE ASS!aNIDI (TO 3E A251CNED)

U.J. OCPART m f! CF CTERG't U.S. EFAFTfZNT CF EMI13Y CM:CAGO FIELD OFFICE CHICMC f! ELD CFFICE 9400 Say:H CASS AVENVE 9400 SCCT)t CASS AVENUE ARGCNNE, 11123C33 50439 A30CNNE, ILL:TCIS SO439

. RECIFII:rT T271 rQR FRCrIT 1.vCI71WAL STAT: CCN"T INDIAN TRIBAL GCV'T HCSFITM.

CRCANIEATICN CTHER NCNFFCTIT C F SF CTMZR (specify)

'ACM. CCV'T X ..umV*:CN C7 HIGHER EDUCAT:CN CRCAW.AT:CN

. Acm rrIm Ago AFF3cFRIAT UNE DCA f15.EMFZ#rER3.D. NUMBER /SSN id. CFA Nummer 87081002

a. Appropriation syebel (b.5aADuncer lc.rT/AFP/DC f N/A l N/A { N/A l N/A l

i. = c.rT == ru==Im :xFC C. l

a. C=ENT === FEuCD - b. C .mvE mE uz. mmc =

(1) This sudget Festtid 5 0 L) Cet rumis Cteligated ':his Action S 0 Il Dot Funds Ai.ttacrised for Carry over $ 0 (Total of lines 6 (1) and s.(3)]

85957 (2) Frict Dudget Periods 5 159431

1) Det Fuods Previously obligated in this nudget Period $

tl DETJ 2 hare of Total Approved sadget *$ 43957 (3) Frsject Period to Date $ 1894J1

5) Rac.ipient share of Total Approved padget $ S

8) Total Approved Budget $ 55957j (Total of 31aes b (1) and b.(21l 7, TC:AL EST33C'ID CDWT OF FoorsCT $ 169431 bis is Oe currect estimated cost of the project. It is not a promise to award nor an authorisatica to expend funds in this ametart.

4. AMARWMBEDWHrf TERMB ARD CDIEET20NS )

ThLa award / agreement sensists of this forse plus the fsLiewings  ;)  !

a. rpecial terms and ==Htises (if great) er schedule, general provimiens, special previsions (if eeeperative (Aste) as-

/ / )

b. Applicable progres requistions (spesify) N/A or C(casserative Agreements)

a. Dcs Assistance negulations, la CFR surt-40s, a.s a=aaded, rubparts A and x stornatal

d. Application,/preposal dated teovember 17, 1349 , X as sutmitted with canagee as negotiated

.9. 31 MARE 3 TME PUR.9CSE CF Tit:3 AP2NEMDT I4 TO TRAMETER TE23 GRANT r?Q( TKK U.S. DEFY. OF ENE7GY, IWJto FIELD Cr7%C3, ICAMO FALLS, ;DAAO, l 10 TME U.S. CEPT. CF DIRGT, CXICAOC FIELD CFFICE, ARGCENE, ILI.INDIS. TME ErrECT v5 CATS CF TRANSFER 38 2/39/92. l

30. ErzDupCE OF ascryIEwr AcCxF macs 21. . rr

%w. & c?-M Th l taignature of Autherised sacapient ottietail (cate

[

VIs42nzA L. sucw:xA (signature) (nates (mann) (name CCNTET.30 CrFICER (Title) (Title)

?/ I N r ~)13Ii 'II 3OI te6E : M 25, 92 i!3.2

~

[~ .i

~\

2 0 5 NOV 171987-Department of Energy _

1 os. w. oo 1E Post Of5ce Boa E .

,# Ook Ridge, Tennessee 37831 }' q , ^ s-

• i" November 12,19R7 ~ i. - .

r Mr. Dillard C. Marshall Assistant Di rector Office of Research A1 ministration University of Flori6a 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 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 original to this office together with the executed copy of- the' grant and a completed Fonn 00E-538, Notice of Energy RD&D Proj ect.- Please return two copies of the 00E-538.

Since rely ,

Cha rles . . C row .

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

Enclosures:

1. Grant .(2 cys.).

2. Assurance of Compliance

3. 00E 538 (3.cys)

\-

M 4' - .

A.%#b==I./

1. Celebrating the U.S. Constitution Bicentennial - 1787 1987'

s 4

Department Of Ener y 0 OEC27193f y

Oak Ridge Operations ,

7 # Post Office Box E 4rm*

d Oak Ridge. Tennessee 37831 December 21, 1987 Or. William G. Vernetson Di rector of Nuclear Facilities College of Engineering University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611

Dear Dr. Vernetson:

GRANT NO. OE-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 f rom HEU to LEU fuel in University of Florida's training reactor. I apologize for the confusion and

& delay in this revision reaching you.

Please <Luhstitute.lha attached Pa rt Ill Project Description and Reporting D l' ' Requiremen;s,. for the one transmittea to Oillard Marshall on November- 12, 1987, and have Mr. Marshall sign the award and return an original to us as soon as 1 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 f rom the other reactor fuel conversion awards the Department of Energy has.

Since rely ,

L 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 '!

l University of Florida 223 Grinter Hall Gainesville, FL 32611 l l

l

,s* A*/sc %

/r e%

% g!/

u l

• %d' Celebrarirra the U.S. Ccmsrotuuric>rn Riceruternrotal - l787-1937 _

t

+ .

Department of Energy. gg idaho Operations Office

. 785 00E Place Idaho Falls, Idaho 83402 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.

(208) 526-9617.

Sincerely, Tru A. Thorne Contract Specialist Financial Assistance Branch-Enclosure 9

d w -

. .+ <

- 6 '? UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA C / Y OFFICIAL AWARD ACCEPTANCE DATE PRINTED: 12/21/89 QUESTIONS

• PLEASE CONTACT THE UF OtVtSIC*

SPONSCRED RESEARCH, AWARO ADMINISTRAT C JOT 1FICATION OF ACCEPTANCE (NOA) FOR THE PRES 10ENT e

)F THE UNIVERSTTY OF FLORIDA. ACUNG ON BEHALF OF 205 GRINTER HALL. 392 1582

.HE BOARD OF REGENTS nTLE: PROPOSAL FOR GOV'T SUPPORT TO COVER COST OF UFTR CONVERSION opnM RFn TO 7. FTT FMFT.

ADMINISTRATIVE DATA AWARD OATE. 01/05/88

puo. 87081002 RELATED UPNs

( PO48) p.i . VERNETSON WG AGENCY: _G S DEP'" OF ENERGY 216-44-9124 SSN.

a:vtSto w CO's- ETUS - DICTMEERTNG AGENCY NO: UE""OOS-88EE75387 CONTINUATION (C) CEPT._ NUCLFAR MiGTNEERTMG MCTEMcFM' TYPE: _ NEW(N) CO PP

- RENEWAL (R) SUPPLEMENTAL !Si - -

REviSEo SSN.

l EXTENSION CC-

TRAINING (T)

CATEGORY: 1 RESEARCH(R)

DEPT-OTHER (0)

HEGIS ,, 210920 PUR. ORDER (P)

PROGRAM: _ CONTRACT (C) _

SPA (S) HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL **

- COOP. AGREE (A) 55 GRANT (G) HS APPROVAL EXPIRER-

_ MEMO OF UND (M)

LAB ANIMAL APPROVAL s:

TEMP: GUARANTEED BY: B!OHAZAROS:

RECCMBINANT DNA/RNA-SUPERSEDES:

PERM:

11/15/87 suoG ENO: 04/30/91 PROPRIETARY / CONFIDENT 1Ai -

BUDG BEG.

11/13/87 PROJ ENO: 04/30/91 SUBCONTRACTOR: U F-PROJ BEG prime NAue.

PROJECT PERIOo ,. 87081002 NO-FUMOS RESTRICTED 3 YES _ NO

_ Owen-87081002 . pt3 ogyo poca: N ,

HISTORY UPN,.

COST DATA APPL! CABLE ;N0! RECT COST 'MLL ACCRUE TO THE UNIT (S) AS SPECRED ON PROPOSAL 10C RETURN CODE:

Y QUAL INVCLVEMENT:

OFF-CAMPUS ON. CAMPUS ACCOUNT NO:

450812612 ACCOUNT NO:

NO COST EXT DIRECT AMOUNT: S DIRECT AMOUNT: S "0- IN0(RECT AMOUNT: S INDIRECT AMOUNT: $ BASE l

RATE RATE 45.O% SASE_ MTD l NO COST EXT TOTAL AMOUNT: $ '

TOTAL AMOUNT: $

COST SHARING REQUIRED: 5 COST SHARING REQUIRED: S NO COST EXT TOTAL FUNDING OF WIS AWARD: $

TOTAL COST SHARING OF THfS AWARD: $

UNRECOVERED INDIRECT COST: $ 169,431.00 CUMULATIVE PROJECT FUNDING; 5 CFDA a:

REMARKS

.J .

EIES /N /Y / "

OEPT CONTACT-AUTHORIZED UNIVERSITY ACCEPTANCE SIGNATURE ADORESS' DIVISION OF SPONSORED RESEARCH NAME: DILLARD C.

MARSHALL _

nTts: ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF RESEARCE Pme mo sy: MW E -

osnm usinm

- - . . > . .: n r o v pmk FILE _ YFLLCW f.h no-H f . GGLO Pr . ;tUJE ACCT, NO