ML20091C045

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

ML20091C045
Person / Time
Site:	05000083
Issue date:	03/26/1992
From:	Vernetson W FLORIDA, UNIV. OF, GAINESVILLE, FL
To:
Shared Package
ML20091C042	List: ML20091C040 ML20091C045
References
NUDOCS 9204030026
Download: ML20091C045 (21)

Text

__ - - - - - - - - - - - -

r,

'l UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA TRAINING REACTOR

l. LICENSE NUMilER: R-56 I

I UPDATED PROPOSAL SUllMITfED TO l Tile NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION TO MEET 10 CFR 50.64 REQUIREMENTS l FOR UPDATING SCIIEDULING OF UFfR CONVERSION FROM IIEU TO LEU FUEL I

I

'I

)I Rp[rP i )::

.l y a. .m q I Dr. Williant G. Vernetson l Director of Nuclear Fa:ilities 8

l March 26,1992 DEPARTMENT OF NUCLEAR ENGINEERING SCIENCES I College of Engineering i University of Florida

! Gainesville

!  ?,BAA88EI$58Ehg3

I .

I

) UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA TRAINING REAcroit LIC'.NSE NUMILER: R 56 I

I I

.F UPDATED PROPOSAL SUllMITFED TO Tile NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION l TO MEET 10 CFR 50.64 REQUIREMFNTS FOR UPDATING SCllEDULING OF UlTR CONVERSION FROM IfEU TO LEU FUEL I

I I

Dr. William G. Vernetson Director of Nuclear Facilities I

I March 26,1992 I

I .

UNIVEllSI'IY OF FLoltIDA TitAINING REACTOlt FUEL CONVERSION FROM lilGli ENillCilED TO LOW ENltlC11ED UllANIUM FUEL

~

INTRODUCrlON

-I This proposal is submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to meet the l requirement that the licensee for the University of Florida Training Reactor (UFFR), as a licensee of a non-power reactor authorized to possess and use high enriched ur Mum L

I (IIEU) fuel sh".ll develop and submit a proposal to replace all IIEU fuel possessed tmdet l the R 56 license with available low enriched uranium (LEU) .'ael acceptable to the Nuclear k

g Regulatory Commission on a schedule determined pursuant to 10 CFR 50.64 Paragraph (c) ,

t 3

(2). This proposal addrer,ses the overall process of conversion from initial preparations following receipt of funding to support conversion to final verification, testing, and summary reporting on the converted UFTR. Three primary phases have been identified for control i and administration of the overall process of conversion as follows:

1. Preparation for Conversion.

_g II. Conversion (assuming NRC order to convert).

111. Review and Verification of Conversion.

Table 1 contains a listing of key activities involved in each phase of the conversion from l receipt of funding for conversion from the Department of Energy (DOE) to final submittal of summary reports to DOE and NRC on the conversion.

i.

PIIASE 1: PREPARATION FOR CONVERSION Phase I commenced with receipt of funding for conversion from DOE to cover Phase 1 only. This funding was considered to be cectified per the letter contained in Appendix 1

_I I 2

I l of the 1987 proposal; this proposal was submitted to the Department of Energy and official notice of i:ceipt of funding was received v.ith 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 1 along with documentation showing the catension of the current DOE grant to support Phase I work which has been delayed beyond the original two year grant period.

Initial efforts in the process to convest the UFFR from use of high enriched to low g

enriched fuel (IIEU 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 l SNM-1050 could be qualified for use in the UFfR. 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 1983 year so l the radiographic tests were not completed until April,1989 along with re.icensing i the SPERT fuel storage facility. Overall, ihe 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 identifyir,g any modifications in existing reactor systems riecessitated by use of the new fuel.

Several previously unconsidered potential complications noted in late 1988 were g investigated in 1989. This effort vcas directed to maintaining and/or improving the UFTR neutronics characteristics while minimizing the overall cost of UFTR conversion. The only 1

two fuels that have been considered are the existing SPERT UO3 stainless steel clad fuel I

3

I presently under the SNM 1050 license and the newly developed silicide fuel available through the RERTR program at Argonne National Laboratory, t I The first choice had been to use the already existing SPERT fuel for which a number of neutronics and the; mal hydraulics analyses are in existence. This would be the cheaper fuelif acceptable since it is already manufactured. However, even after completion of the picqualification program for the qualification tests used to assure the SPERT fuel can meet UITR requirements without compromising safety, it was vecessary to assure this SPERT g 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 neutroniet per 1

g 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

l of potential structural (the SPERT fuel loading wouid weigh about 2000 pouads versus the I present 50 pound core loading), shielding fuel arrangement and cooling system changes l necessitutcd by use of the SPERT fuel resulted in a milestone decision in August,1989 not to atilize th: 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 g space in the UlTR 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 l necessary reactor systems changes, safety analysis were being performed for the selected LEU fuel conversion and associated syr. tem changes. Implementation of the neutronics I codes to be used was underway during 1989 and several codes had been implemented and I

I 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 lculations 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 g qualified student comrnitted to assume this responsibility has resulted in further delays.

Nevertheless, a student project in Fall,1989 resulted in some progress in assuring neutronics I 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 4

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.

l Several enors due to poor documenta*. ion necessitated restarting the safety analysis when the student began work on it in early 1990. Although he spent a period at Argonne I 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 m use of the codes

]

in house. Unfortunately several formatting and other flaws in the implem:nted codes used _

for the n :utronics analysis also slowed progress in 1990. These were cleared up as part of the work on assuring proper code methodology during 1990.

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 I existing core was nearly complete. Only scoping calculations had been completed foi the I.EU core with the number of fuel plates per bundle nct yet set when the 1991 proposal required by 10 CFR 50.64(c)(2) wa submitted. It was expected that DOE-supplied funding support of this work would be extended beyond the April 30,1991 en1 date per verbal y

I

~

- J communications so this work could be c,r.cluded along with basic thermal hydraulic imalyses

_' to conclude the required IIEU to-IIU umversion safety analyses. Unfortunately this grant

was not officially extended until hiarch.1992. It was also expected that the individ'.tal a working en this neutrorics analysis would complete his thesis wmk by mid 1991. Tne "ber.chmark" static calculations on the existing UlTR IICU core were completed and an g

internal report generated in April,1991. The individur.1 working on the neutronics analysis I completed his thesis work in hiay.1991 making his defense on May 10,1991 but continuing ,

l his work until May 23,1991. After the number of fuel plates per bur.d!e we.s set at 14 from

[ the neutronics araiysis , thermal hydranhes analyses were begun August,1991 and will have o I to be completed before the package can be assembled for submission to NRC in mid 1992.

A graduate assistant has nearly concluded working on the thermal hydraulics area as the 14 plate fuel bundle arrangement has been selected for the conversion. Tbc Ltck of official grant extension has made the fiaancial support of this effort mere difficuit but a draft report of this thermal hydraulics work has been produced.

A no cost extension of the Dcpartment of Energy Gram 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 l 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 have also l been in progress with the Department of Erergy 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. DO12 representatives have even visited the UFTR facility I

L I

I and observed operations as well as reviewed drawings. This unexpected work effort has occupied much time and is progressing slowly but a decision on how to handle the fuel boxes should be reached by mid May,1992.

At this time, work is progressing to incorporate all the analysis completed to date into a single FSAR update to include the Technical Specifications. Some kinetics calculations remain in the neutronics area and the final report on thermal hydraulics is in i

dn progress. Th:s work is proceeding slowly but is expected to progress more quickly after the end of the spring semester in May,1992. Nev:nheless, the emire package of results will g

then be assembled as a Revision to the UFTR Safety Analysis Report by August,1992 with I the project then expected to progress as indicated in the updated Table 11.

l As indicated, previous delays had necessitated an extension in the initial DOE grant which had been received as documented in Appendix 1 with another extension requested I and verbelly agreed to pick up from April,1991 to April,1992 requested as indicated above.

Another funding extension is being sequested to run forward from April 30,1992 to assure continuous funding throughout the remainder of the conversion process with a new grant to be required for Phase II. In addition to neuttonic and thermal-hydraulic analysis, shielding and effluent analyses will be documented to identify any changes in procedures, security plan, technical specifications or other license documents that must be considered g

as part of conversion. These should be minimal. This submittal will also contain I documentation duailing the vhrious tests and surveillances planned as part of the l conversion. At this point a complete set oflicensing documents for the conversion will be submitted (Jong with a conversion application for teview and appioval. This result is now I expected by August,1992. Assuming resolution of all questions, this submittal will conclude 7

I

I I the Phase Ilicensee efforts. Phase I will then conclude with the issuance by the NRC of the l specific Order to Convert.

3 I PIIASE II. CONVERSION (Assuming NRC Order ta Convert)

Phase 11 (Conversion) will begin with receipt of the NRC Order directing the conversion and any necessary changes to the license, facility and/or procedures per 10 CFR 50.64(c)(3). This second phase is not yet funded by the existmg DOE grant for which an extension will be 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 g

will then invoh*e a number of key activitics aimed ultimately at having LEU fuel replace HEU iuel at the UfTR facility to include:

i 1. Shutdosm core decay for reveral weeks followed by core unloading and shipment of irradiated IIEU fu -

,- l

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

-(

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.

_g

4. Receipt of unirradiated LEU fuel.

5. Shipment of irradiated HEU fuel.

6. Documentation of all changes.

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

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

I I 8

1

~

I l I

1

^

1 PIIASE III: REVIEW AND VERIFICATION OF CONVERSION l Phase Ill (Review and Verification of Conversion) will consist of a series of activities designed to wrify the quality of the conversion process to include both the physical I implementation of the LEU fuel and the documentation of the implementation. Activities in Phase III will include:

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. Retun to normal operations.

6. Submission of Final Report to NRC/ DOE 6mmarizing IIEU operational conditions and comparing these results with ine predictions contained in the Safety Analysis submitted to NRC at the eM of Phase I and approved as part of

the Order to Convert.

lI

SUMMARY

CONCLUSIONS

I As noted earlier, a relatively detailed list of the various elements that must be l obtained, produced or otherwise generated as required throughout the three phases of the UFfR conversion from IIEU 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 silicide fuel,(now the selected fuel) would be desiped and .

manufact'ared outside the administrative control of the UFfR 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-hydraulics analyses are I

I 9

I I 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 is now progressing though with delays due to SPERT fuel inspection delays, graduate studen, changes and inability to identify qualified graduate students to work on the project for their thesis work up until the last two years when progress on the use of the neutronics methodology was delayed by several code inconsistencies and lack of documentation which hate now been corrected. The effort to generate the submittal package has begun md is g espected to progress more rapidly during May with submittal in August,1992.

The overall flow diagram for llEU to LEU conversion of the UFTR is presented in I Figure 1. Key stages in the three phases, as well as key input items at the various stages, l are indicated at each stage. Neverthcless, there is still some uncertainty in the exact plan of events in Phase 11 such as whether LEU fuel will be accepted on site prior to shipping I IIEU fuel off site. These itenu are now tuder condderation.

f Finally, Table 11 contains an updated tentative schedule (Revision 6) for the major milestone events in the UFTR conversion process commencing with the notification of receip; of funding effective in November,1987 and concluding with submittal of a final report to NRC and DOE summarizing the results of the conversion by December,1994.

It should be 10ted that this schedule is tentative and, as required by 10 CFR 50.64, will be g

updated yearly. There has been considerable schedule slippage dur4g the past few years.

The schedule is also sti: ject 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 fur. ding after the first two year period (now extended) for which funding has been received. Other I le

,I I areas which may impact the schedule are the availability of a shipping cask especially g forirradiated 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 probably require a fuel cask wrsus a 6M I c.ontainer though this may depend on the cooling period) and final usage of the UFTR with l IIEU fuel to provide a basis for comparison of changes in operating characteristics or to meet education, research and service commitments. Within these constrainta and conditions, I the schedule in Table 11 is one which the licensee is committed to meeting and which the l licensee considers relatively realistic based upon expected resources. and recent progress with neutronics calculations.

Although niuch of the detail of the conversion process has depended upon the final selection of fuel types, this selection is now finalized; therefore, the infortnation, especially i

the tentative schedule in Table Il provided in this updated proposal, shows that the LEU conversion at the UI'IR has progressed during this year although significant delays have occurred during the year again due to requirements to obtain a student assistant to perform g the tl.eimal hydraulics calculations now nearing conclusion. In the meantime we have an individual worldng on the submittal package. The key decisions remaining will involve

" I identification nr.d evaluation of system changes required by the conversion, especially e l concerning utili2.ation 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 4 of 'UFIR 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 submittel package and perhaps for manufacure of the LEU fuel. The schedule presented in Table I

IIis considered to be re ilistie and should be attainable now that the neutronics methodology

g has been proven acceptable, static neutronics calculatioris are complete for both the IIEU and I_EU core and thermal hydraulics calculations are proceeding well to analyze the l

i selected 14 plate fuel bundles in the LEU core. Tbc associated thermal hydraulles l calculations will follow the selection of the LEU core desir,n and should be able to be concluded !a a few additional months making the proposed schedule for fust subinittal I realistic.

I I

I i .

I I

I  :

I I

I

I 12

TEST SPERT FUEL llEU to LEU NEUTRONIC ANALYSIS DEVELOP A PREQUALIFICATION CONVERSION THERMAL HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS PLAN FOR SPERT FUEL TREPARATION SPIELDING ANALYSIS SELECT FUEL OFTION RADICAcr1VE EFFLUENT ANALYSIS I e PREPARATION OF SAFE 7'Y ANALYSIS IIDENTIFICATIONOF REQUIRED FACILITf LICENSING DOCUMENTS TEC11 SPEC CRANGES CRANGES SECURITY PLAN CHANGES PROCEDURE C11ANGEJ

't SUBMITTAL OF APPLICATION ORDER TO CONVER'1 REVIEW / APPROVAL OF TO NRC VITH ALL CONVERSION CONVERSION Doct.ENTAT10N DOCUMENTATION BY NRC r

ARRANGEMENT FOR POSSESSION DISCONTINUATION OF ANALYSIS FOR SilIPMENT OF 0F lieu AND LEU ON INTERIM USE Of lieu FUEL IRRADIATED FUEL I BASIS If 11EU FUEL SRIPMENT CONVERSION DESICN/ IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES OF FACILITY CHANGLS ILEU"UELRECEIPT LEU FUEL LOADING FUEL LOAD PREPARATIONS II STARTUP TESTING AND PIVIEU AND VERIFICATION SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES OF 11EU TO LEU CONVE'tSION

'I REVIEV/ APPROVAL RETURN TO SERVICE IOFFULLDOCUMENTATION il SUEMISSION OF FINAL RF. PORT TO NRC/ DOE I SUMMARIZING HEU OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS AND COMPARING WITH SAR PP2 DICTIONS I Figure 1. University of Florida Training Reactor HEU to LEU Conversion Flow Diagram 13

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

TAllLE F University of Flodda Tralzing Re.ctor Key Arthitles for llEU to. LEU Fuel Contersion I. P11ASE I . PREPARATION FOR CONVERSION A. Receipt of Funding from Department of Energy

, D. Analyds of UFTR-Specific LEU Conversion Options

1. Fretestmg of Selected SPERT Fuel Pins

2. Dew!opment of a Ot Alification Frecram for SPdRT Fuel Piru,

3. Completion of Pre-Qustificatica Testing of Spert Fuel I 4. Evaluat!on of Comparatin Conversion Options (SPERT VS, SILICIDE)

5. Selection of LEU Fuel Optian for UFTR Conversion C. Safety Analysis /1.icensing Studies

1. Neutronic Analysis of LEU-Fueled UFTR

2. 'Ibermal.llydraulie Analyds for LEU. Fueled UFTR I 3. Shielding Analysis for LEU Fueled UFTA

4. Radioactive hffluent Analysis as Required D. Identification of Changes in the R 56 license, Tec.hnical Specifications, Facility, Security Documents and Procedures Under the Scope of 10 CFR 60.64(c)(3) as Necessitated by Fuel Conversion E. Preparation el Full Submittal to NRC to Support Conversion including all Supporting Documents II. PilASE II CO.WERSION A. NRC Order to Convert B. Fuel Rola:ed Activities

1. Qualification of Selected LEU Fuel

'-g 2. Fmal UFTR Oper tions with lieu Fuel 3 3. thipment ofIrradiated Fuel

4. Receipt of LEU Fuel C; implementation of Required Chrga in R-56 License per item ID.

D. LEU Fuel Loading Activities

1. Crmpletiou of Preparations for Core Load

., loadmg of LEU Fuel 1- 3. Startup Testing and Survei' lance E. Completion of Startup Documentation j 111. PilASE 111. REVIEW AND VERIFICATION OF CON)fRSION A. Completion of Startup Testing and Related Surveillances l IL Completon of Power Testing and Surveillances

! C. Deterraination of UFTR Operational Characteristics D. Return to Normal Operations E. Sub.nission of Fmal ConverMon Report to NRC/ DOE

!I l

14 v --i- - - -- =

I I TABLEIf I (Revision 6) l University of Florida Training Henctor lentathe Milestone Schedule for IIEU to LEU Fuel Conversion Effective Date of Receipt of Funding November,1987 I.

II. Date of Full Submittal to NRC of Applicat!on to Convert (including all necessary document;) August,1992 November,1992 111. Date of NRC Order to Convert A. Date of Completion of All Plans to Convert July,1993

~B. Date of Receipt of LEU Fuel September,1993 C. Date of Cornpletion of Any Final Tests With December,1993 IIEU Fuel g

D. Date of Removal of HEU Fuel Februar'j,1994 I E. Date of Shipment of HEU Fue.1 May,1994 July,1994 l F. Date of Loading of LEU Fuel G. Date of Completion of Determination ofInitial l Operational Parameters With LEU (Startup and Power Operations Testing)

October,1994 H. Date of Submittal of Report to NRC/ DOE Summarizing New Operational Characteristics and Comparing With Predictions of Safety I Analysis December,1994 I

I I 3/92 I 15

I

'I I

I I

I

'I I APPENDIX 1 LTTEllS OF NOTIFICATION TilAT FEDEllAL GOVEltNEMENT FUNDING FOlt g UFTR CONVERSION IS AVAILAllLE AND liAS IlEEN RECEIVED FROM TIIE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGV I

'I I

I I

I Lg E

ll u _

I l 1 g

.**g Department of Energy 2 0 5 HOV 1 '7 6 y

o.s rag. opwatone f M Poet CWface Boa E

• Ook Rdge, Tsanrwrasee 37831 f u; I- November 12,19R7 ,

Mr. Dillard C. Marshall Assistant Director I Office of Research Administer. tion University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611

Dear Mr. Marshall:

GRANT NO. DE-FG05-8BER75387 - AMENDMENT NO. A000 Enclosed are two copies of the subject grant document which have bee 1 signed on behalf of the Department of Energy.

If this document is satisf actory, please have the two enclosed cooies 51gned by the proper of ficial on benalf of your organization and return one fully I executed copy to this office.

retention.

The remaining fully executed copy is for your In addition, please have executed the enclosed Assurante 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 D0E-538, Notice of Energy RO&D Project. Please return two I copies of the 00E-538.

Since rely ,

f0 Crimn(n Yf l

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

Enclosures:

1. Grant (2 cp .)

I 2. Assurance of Compliance

3. 00E 538 (3 cys)

I I /M, I R$'v./

1. I

• • • ......' Celebrar nz the I S Conwswmr Ihcentennwl - 1787 1987

lI ,

REcgip-p dg Department of Energy 27 ISSf

• • o.= n.dp c'ocatioru ,

• Post Office Boa E

' Oak Ridge. Tennessee 37831 Decembe r ?1,14R7 I Dr. William G. Vernetson Director of Nuclear Facilities College of Engineering University of Florida I Gainesville, FL 32611

Dear Dr. Vernetson:

I GRANT NO. DE-FG05-88ER753h', (REVISED PROJECT OCSCRIPTION)

In response to telephone convtrsations with you and with Keith Brown at the I Argonne, enclosed is a revised project description for your grant Department of Energy to cover cost of the conversion f rom HEU to LEU fuel in from University of Florida's training reactor. I apologize for the confusion and delay in this revision reaching you.

5-

/ Ple ep;pM ti tutg f.fie_.atJa c nad P a rt 11 1 Project Description and Reporting 12, 1987, I ~Recuiremens,. f or the one transmit:en to Diliarc Marshall and have Mr. Marshall sign the award and return an original to us as soon as on Novemoer possible. You will not be able to draw down any money f rom Letter of Credit on this aware, until the original copy is returned to us.

Thank you for calling our attention to the f act that your award is dif ferent f rom the other reactor fuel conversion awards the Department of Energy has.

Since rely ,

b f(/il L

• Ma rtha A. l.yle Contract Specialist Contract Management vanch AD 422:Lyle i roci'rement and Contr acts Division

Enclosure:

Dart 11 of Grant DE-FG05-88ER75387 cc: Dillard C. Ma rshall , Asst, Dir.

Research Administration I University of Florida 223 Grinter Hall Gainesville, FL 32611 n..

1 I $

,. }$ y, -n-

- a r v_--<- ~-_

lI l 2 fj 1

f Department of Energy Idaho Operations Office 785 DOE Place I

4 Idaho Falls. Idaho 83402 December 19, 1989 I

Mr. Dillard C. Marshall University of Florida 223 Grinter Hall I. Gainesville, Florida 36211

SUBJECT:

Grant No. DE-FG07-88ER75307

Dear Mr. Marshall:

We are enclosing three copies of the subject grant which have been signed on behal f of 00E. Please have all three copies signed by an authorized official and return two fully executed copies to this of fice within two weeks from the date of this letter. The third fully executed I copy is for your retention.

Should you have any questions, olease contact Ann Rydalch an I

(208) 526-9617.

Sincerely, I pafd/ fee Tru A. Thorne Contract Specialist Financial Assistance Branch ~

Enclosure I

I .

I .

I I

I

~ - - - - - ____ - __ _ _ _ _ _ _

I --

a d

UNIVEPSITY OF FLORIDA OFFICIAL AWARD ACCEP TANCE DATE PRI!JTED: 12/21/89 L /

QUt'STIONS PLE.ASE CONTACT THE UF Divi $lc

• I'fCADON'*HE UNIVEHSITY OF $LOHIDA. ACTING ON BEHALF OF OF ACCEPTANCE INCA) FOR %E PAESIDENT SPONSCRED RESEARCH. AWARO 205 GRINTER HALL 3921$82 AOMINISTRe At:

SOARDOrHEGENT*a E.

IcoposAL ron -Ov'T SUPPORT TO COXER COST OF UPTR CONVERSION ennM uen m . m enri AD MINISTR ATIVE D ATA 01/05/88 I,_87081032__ _

nEtATEo UpN,'

' D 03,3.] p t..

AWARD DATE VEPlWISON W G Ncy. 0 9 D E P'" OF EE_1GV 216-44-9124 aoN . -

ssu:_

CO- ETES ENG IM E ER EG Ncv No: __ DE "GD E- 8 8 FR7 E 3 87 CONTINUADON (C; DEPT.__NG O EAR EUCIMEUDC EM@T DE: NEW 90 CO * -~

SUPPLEMENTAL IS) - -

I1.*E GO RY-RENEWAL LR) l mENsiON

• d RESE. ARCH (P.)

__ aEviSeu

_ TRAININQ (7) ssN:

COU DEPT. ___

_ OT1'EH (0) ..

HEGIS *:

210920 __

PUR. ORDER (P)

CONmACT !C) _

IGRAM; SPA (S) HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAt. **_

COOP. AGREE ( A) HS APPROVAL EXPtRES; ME.MO OF OND (M) 1 GRANT (G) ,

LAP ANIMAL APDROVAL st ALOHA 7.ARDS; P: GUARANTEED m . ._ RECOMBINANT DNA/RNA-I'M _ SUPERSEDES:

I1/ 15/87 BUDO END:

04/10/01 PnOP9tETARY/ CONF 10ENTIAt - -

_DG DEG. SUBCONTRACTOR: UF-u BEG; 11/15 187 DROJ END: O S.[.SO./.3 PAIME NAME -

87081002 lMECT

NOS AESTTitCTED PERIODd YEL * ** _ 40 N O ._

_ cTwn: J N

r T:Ry uPN,.

M 08100?,,,_ vt;oEyapne,n COST D ATA RED ON POTOSAL AFD'.0ABt,E :f40:Pr.01 COTT RL ACCRLE TO *) E JNITIEi 4 IPEC:

DC RE* URN CODE _

'I

' DUAL INVCLVEMENT.

O F F.C A M PUS 1

%.CAMPUG ACCOUNT NO 4 b 0 012 t 12 -)

COUNT NO: _ DIAECT AVOUNT. 5 L.

110s. COST EXT . . '

IaEOT AuOuaT: ~0- _

INDIRECT AMOUNT: 5

.OIRECT AMOUNT: S ""' "

"' "^^'-"'"~~~ TOTAL AVOUNT: $

NO COST EXT I.'TAL OST SHARING REQUIRED: $ .

AMOUNT: $ _ NO COST EXT COST SHARtNG REQUIRi.0: S TOTAL FUNDING OF THt$ AWARD; S -

I TOTAL COST SHARING OF THIS AWARD. S --

UNRECOVERED INDIRECi COST $

CUMut,.ATIVE PROsECT FUNDING $

109'433 00 I

Cf D A

• L. REMARKS I

l E2Cb A

E oT CONTA"' ""'" " ' = ' " " " ' " ' " ' ' ' ~ ' = = " "~""""'"'

DivistON CF SPONSOAED RE2EARCH I = " ___ N3,n D!LLARD C MA RSH ALL ASS!3T M1* DIRECTOP OF R E S E AEC_'j

. + . J I # "'I N

• >- a . n , .

. r g,,g .. . .;sm 6 v 2.c - Na P ~

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - ' - - - - - __m .,

L3, t r7 ASMtf! ';f !'It WI i

'm/r3C3 Of F1IWK1M. A.9 91FfHvCB /JOAD ,

1 ane

.c . vtkee s t ry e t Nbit e Le e 14 41 be t A&Mtri C F (rtmot 7&2AHtt.At:CIO.'. ACT __

• 181141stion, segwnstaena assa psaasee og94&r.aste to tstte 4egastat19e progtte titlet t

.. CF JN17tE41*Y At>C709

~

i 2;T TT*MA i 2. ;315TEMtM'r' TT F1 4 GRMt COCFtPATTV3 MMtPttNT

?'.'Ek CDM7LFJlCM iS. Netstupswf Iss.

94. UttrKaisFf M.

-Lin.me, ou t . . . . it,c.4e, .re. eere i t.ieren. to. q  : .f m .. txtis:1  ! mt.

'"ns!T'r CF f tCMCA FEF.TCV il, pyrkrLCT FtA100

"?TtA ttA12. l6.503177 FEF.! 11/11/18 TT3tVi $4/10/93 ! FKmt 11/ttf g7 'ntRog 04/30/13

• ! .' L2. 71.310A 13611 }

7F1 T PseM1CT ST1.SCTQt (Basse Arad telephobe Me.) [10. TTF8 UF AHkAD M 0, YpJrtT3cN 1904) 333. hts 8  !

RENTMAL

- Ftw C'O'TT!17.!AT10:8

? 3EJsINEAS vr71 CIA (3ame tend te1ophoe.e nio. I I

• ' O. VA8'4AL*, '9C41 192 1982 [ X Kgv1910N Stftt Ltr.g.1T

t cf crTIC 1 (R&aeos seiteet. . tap code, telephone Pe.) l1L. ADC2'2 Kit 31D FUm IC 37 (Mame, swiseco, tape teleptone Me. )

Agggotr;D)  ; tTs it ust'.trtoi

tFARTy2N'; CF I

TTR3Y l 04.1CFAPTTf7 CF thTk3T cir:Asc rit u errzt

Ao rrtu errrer

• !O scrm cms Avt?r/t ttti 8Wnt aAs3 AvttfVE 6G439 AJOCFA't. ILLI!aC13 40439

• O . 21.'.17C13 2;ErsrrTTat rom nem

T m co m  :=1M Tuiu ow T mme w:ntu.

CMca#11A!!CN

CTxta tspecary)

I omtR ;cittper:T P tr 14c c 001'* X tttTT Vilm Cf utontt trucArtcut emaats TAT .ON ,,.

ila. EMF 14TY1 1.D. fruMaavtra sp3 AsfD AFFMFRIATICM3 CATA kttGrietaemayount ib. t 4

• masent ic. rT/AFTAC d. OFA mannet I l*C41CC2 j *t/A i M/A N/A l gA h nro FtarcI2ve 17transo:2Cet . . _ .

• .:RRZft? Etrairr l'tR. ICD TartimoLTitti iti. CJa/IATITS Ut:t esLit.AT7 Ops

= -

0

0 as obligated TMs Action S DI (1s Tu s suonet Fe t tend 6 Aktt.hcrised f or Carry cmet 1 Cl (Tetal ef itnee a,(11 and s.(311 6 16 p 4 3 ,

3 haans Frrvaewely CMigeted in than tudvet Period 4 tif Hl (2' Freet pu.stfet Portoes ro et Total Approved suavet t et1D{ 6 169411 uent shers et Tetal Approved smanget S 4 4 t al Fre2*et Pet-tod to Date Ta -

. Apprew.4 tu+pt $ titty t'retal of 11 ass b.(!) and b.(st)

TTE tavuoesza cost Dr Pto.rscT S isD431 Se carrect cettanted east et Las projec't. It le not a pvoise to averd riot an authottsatson to espeM tweae to tMe avant.

< u,. m ? T Mo c = >e.e

"?;s everd/sgreement usassists of t.Me fers plus t'. s fellewsage pectal terme sad omnditiema fit granti t,t oct.edu,10, ipnaret provistees, special preensions gf_neeperettre epween.c) ltja ej f f

. L1C4.Me prtgram regittsttatui impecifyl t/A og .sttaapetetive Aareemente)

Assistanc-e nequlations,10 CFR fors=404, as spesAed. SMbperte A and x sit.erester with creges as snogogu. tee Applis.st4e.sv' proposal dated Nevenber 11, 1989 , X to SV.tmittatt

~ PVR)0SE Cr 3:1 MEN!tDi IS TU *WJt!Ft1 TE15 QFAtfT FRCM TME V.6. C5 Pi . O' ENEMY , ;UAno r1r.:.0 e373c2, gAno rAl,44, gtuo ,

P at '.*.8. 017T. Of ENEAGT, CKICAGO Fir 1D CFFICle A7M401. 11.1INCIS. TML tTPECT:YE DAT: C/ TRAA8rTR 15 1/29/9 4.

TTIDB2,CC CF Att:71tN'r ACCEF'AtCE 21. 80#JOED FT v' e?..nS 1h

&/ w.av /

E ___

Ja m(' m.J a

m, > io.te, n,. eto,e or -ee. o.mt mmu , uste, i .t Y284*M2A L SM.WIRA

.I (%ame\

C;1tT3ACT M Qf F10% A (Ittane )

1 I ~

(Title) 4 i

fTitle)

1. C .  :,1 i i ': .*

._. . - - ---------_-_ - -_-