ML20205E473

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

ML20205E473
Person / Time
Site:	05000083
Issue date:	03/29/1999
From:	Vernetson W FLORIDA, UNIV. OF, GAINESVILLE, FL
To:
Shared Package
ML20205E470	List: ML20205E464 ML20205E473
References
PROC-990329, NUDOCS 9904050189
Download: ML20205E473 (22)

Text

. .

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA TRAINING REACTOR FACILITY LICENSE NUMBER: R-56 UPDATED PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO TIIE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION TO MEET 10 CFR 50.64 REQUIREMENTS FOR UPDATING SCIIEDULING OF UFTR CONVERSION FROM IIEU TO LEU FUEL Dr. William G. Vernetson Director of Nuclear Facilities ;

l March 29,1999 f70" $0c!k o$$$foJ3

l UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA TRAINING REACTOR

! FUEL CONVERSION FROM IIIGII ENRICIIED TO LOW ENRICIIED URANI~UM FUEL INTRODUCTION

. This proposal is submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to meet the requirement 1

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 l

conversion from initial preparations following receipt of funding to support conversion to final I

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

I. Preparation for Conversion II. Conversion (assuming NRC order to convert)

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

1 i

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

This funding was considered to be certified per the letter contained in Appendix I of the 1987 proposal; this proposal was submitted to the Department of Energy and official notice of receipt of funding was' received with a letter dated November 12,1987. Because of errors in the contract description provided by DOE, the full approval for receipt offundmg was delayed until receipt of the confirming letter dated December 21,1987. Copies of both letters as well as the 1987 certification j letter are enclosed in Appendix I along with documentation showing the extension of the current 4

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 from this work were positive in this regard.

Unfortunately, equipment failures and the need to move the SPERT (SNM-1050) fuel storage facility impacted the schedule during the 1988 year so the radiographic tests were not completed until April l

1989 along with relicensing the SPERT fuel storage facility. Overall, the results of the radiographic l 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 2-

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.

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 =ests 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 l Energy was receptive to this evaluation of the two fuels and work in this area progressed well in i 1989. Unfortunately, the complexity and cost ofpotential structural (the SPERT fuel loading would weigh about 2000 pounds versus the present 50 pound core loading), shielding, fuel arrangement and i

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 J silicide fuel. The anticipated cooling system fuel arrangement and shieldmg 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 implemented and run for test cases. Therefore, UFTR 3

I conversion calculations were progressing reasonably well until the loss in August 1989 of the 1 i

graduate student performing the neutronics calculations as he decided to pursue his advanced degree i

at another university. Unfonunately, he left with much ofhis work inadequately undocumented. The l unavaihbility ofanother qualified student committed to assume this responsibility resulted in further i

delays. Nevertheless, a student project in Fall 1989 resulted in some progress in assuring neutronics l

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.

1 Several errors due to poor documentation necessitated restarting the safety analysis when the 1 l

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 i 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 neutronics methodology to be adequate and the necessary " benchmark" modeling 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 30,1901 end date per verbal communications so this work could be concluded along with basic l

l therma!-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 4

individual working on this neutronics analysis would complete his thesis work by mid-1991.

\ . .

The " benchmark" static calculations on the existing UFTR HEU core were completed and an internal

( report generated in April 1991. The individual working on the neutronics analysis completed his thesis work in May 1991 making his defense on May 10,1991 but continuing his work until May 23, 1991. After the number of fuel plates per bundle was set at 14 from the neutronics analysis, thermal hydraulics analyses were begun in August 1991. These analyses had to be completed before the entire analysis package could be 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 j 1

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

I A no-cost extension of the Department of Energy Grant DE-FG05-88ER75387 entitled

" Conversion of University of Florida Reactor to Low Enriched Uranium (LEU)" was submitted to Ms. Ann Rydalch via a letter dated April 25, 1991 with a copy supplied to Keith Brown.

l 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 effons were also in progress with the Department ofEnergy representatives in Idaho to investigate the possibility of replacing the UFTR core fuel boxes which make reloading and unloading the core difficult and tina 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 I time and progressed slowly but a decision not to change the fuel boxes was finally reached in summer 1992. Similarly efforts to review fuel drawings and to evaluate the holddown/ spreader pin in use in 5

L

each fuel box had occupied some considerable facility time in the previous year. This latter effort was then 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 calculations still remaining in the neutronics area. During that year it was expected that the DOE supplied funding support for this work would again be extended beyond April 30,1993 with the DOE project manager checking on this per a telephone request made in June 1993. A letter dated

)

August 9,1993 requesting such an extension was submitted to DOE. In a letter dated November 5, 1993, DOE indicated that the no-cost extension needed to be submitted to the Oak Ridge office; the resubmittal ofthe 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 j submission really is to the Idaho Operations Office; when informed of 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 accomplished as the funding remaining in the grant is for support of a non-permanent employee (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 remaining funds could be moved among personnel categories as necessary to allow completion of work through submittal of S AR 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 fiscal year 1996. The entire package of results was then to be assembled as a Revision to the UFTR Safety Analysis Report by October 1996. With the loss of the 6

i l

l permanent Reactor Managerin August 1996, no work was accomplished during the last year. During the last year, a visiting professor began assisting with neutronics calculations partially supported by the extended DOE grant which was much delayed. Considerable work remained for verification and conclusion of the analyses. As a result, efforts were again undertaken to extend the existing grant l l

' money to March 31,1999 to allow completion of work through submittal of SAR changes. This renewal, however, was not accomplished so all the money was used up as of March 31,1998. In addition, DOE again advised in early March 1998 that additional funding for the next phase (Phase II) of the conversion would not be available during fiscal year 1998. Nevertheless, analyses have continued throughout the year and are nearing completion. The plan now is that the entire package ofresults will be assembled as a Revision to the UFTR Safety Analysis Report by June 1999 with the

. project expected to progress as indicated in the updated Table II, though impending loss of another long-term staffmember will make this effort more difficult. In addition, DOE has indicated verbally that there is no money available for conversion in fiscal year 1999, but they do expect to support l

conversion including LEU fuel in fiscal year 2000.

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 abcw ,1 assure continuous funding throughout the remainder of the conversion process with a new grant to be required for Phase II. In addition to I

neutronic and thermal-hydraulic analysis, shielding and efiluent analyses will be documented to i 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 I of the conversion. At this point a complete set oflicensing documents for the conversion will be 7

submitted along with a conversion application for review and approval. This result is now expected by June 1999. Assuming resolution of all questions, this submittal will conclude the Phase I licensee efforts. Phase I will then conclude with the issuance by the NRC of the specific Order to Convert.

PHASE II: CONVERSION (Assuming NRC Order to Convert)

Phase 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 11 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).

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

4. Receipt of unirradiated LEU fuel.

5. Shipment 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.

8

I P

1 PHASE III: REVIEW AND VERIFICATION OF CONVERSION Phase III (Review and Verificatio i 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 will include: ,

1. Completion of startup as well as low and full power testing and related surveillances. j

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 summt.rizing HEU operational conditions and ,

l comparing these results with the predictions contained in the Safety Analysis submitted l l

to NRC at the cud of Phase I and approved as part of the Order to Conven.

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 froni 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 silicide fuel (now the selected fuel) would be designed and rnanufactured 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-hydraulics analyses are all being conducted in-house which has necessitated some external support from the PERTR nrogram at Argonne National Laboratory to assure proper code implementation at the 9

I l 1

i 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 j 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 l the submittal package is underway and is expected to progress well during spring 1999 with submittal in June 1999 supported by the visiting professor and renewed DOE grant support.

The overall flow diagram for HEU to LEU conversion of the UFTR is presented in Figure 1.

l 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 will necessitate some considerable experimental l measurement and verification efforts after this year. These items are now under consideration.

i Finally, Table II contains an updated tentative schedule (Revision 13) for the major 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 DOE summarizing the results of the conversion by June 1999. 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 schedule is also subject to variations caused by availability of replacement fuel or other items involved in required facility changes as well as variations in the level of DOE funding after the first two year period (now extended) for which j funding was received. Since DOE will provide no new conversion money during fiscal year 1998, this does not appear to be a problem. Other areas which may impact the schedule are the availability l- 10 l

7 f

1 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, especially in light ofour current ten-month shutdown) 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 i

delays in getting the extension to the DOE grant to document completion of the thermal hydraulics I 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 four years ago. At this point, reactor stafTincluding the Director are still' planning to complete the package without graduate assistant support, which has proven unreliable in supporting this project, but with visiting professor support. 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 i

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

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

The schedule will likely be most impacted, however, in the near future by the times required for 11 l

completing and documenting the safety analysis in a tubmittal package and perhaps for 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 calculaG ns are complete for both the HEU and LEU core and thermal hydraulics calcu!ations are also complete except for several relatively minor documentation points. All analyses including confa...atory calculations still in progress show the 14-plate LEU fuel bundle is acceptable for the conversion. As I a result we should be able to conclude in a few additional months making the proposed schedule for 1

first submittal realistic.

The one further drawback may be DCE funding available for the conversion. Appendix I contains the original letters ofnotification that federal government funding for UFTR conversion was available and had been received from the Department of Energy as well as the extension ietter for support through March 1997 plus the latest letter indicating funding for conversion v,ill not be av6able during fiscal year 1998. It should be noted that verbal commentaries from DOE indicate that funding for conversion will also not be available during fiscal year 1999; however, DOE does expect to supply fuel for UFTR conversion in fiscal year 2000.

12

.o Test SPERT Fuel Neutronic Analysis HEU to LEU Conversion a Develop a Prequalification Plan

• Thermal Hydraulic Analysis reparah.on for SPERT Fuel

• Shielding Analysis o Select Fuel Option

• Radioactive Analysis o Identification of Required

• Safety Analysis Preparation of Facility Changes . Tech Spec Changes Licensing Documents

, ge, ity Plan Changes

• Procedure Changes o Submittal of Application to

• Review / Approval of NRC with All Conversion Conversion Documentation Order to Convert Documentation by NRC v

6 Arrangement for Possession

• Analysis for Shipment of Discontinuation of of HEU and LEU on "" * ""

Use of HEU Fuel Interim Basis a HEU Fuel Shipment . Design / Implementation of Conversion a LEU Fuel Receipt Facility Changes Activities e LEU FuelIAading

• Fuel Load Preparations v

o Startup Testing and

. Review and Verification Surveillance Activities of HEU to LEU Conversion

%f a Review / Approval of Full Documentation Return to Service v

Submission of Final Report to NRC/ DOE Summarizing HEU Operational Conditions and Comparing with SAR Predictions Figure 1. University of Florida Training Reactor HEU to LEU Conversion Flow Diagram 13

I TABLE I University of Florida Training Reactor Key Activities for HEU-to-LEU Fuel Conversion L PHASE 1 - PREPARATION FOR CONVERSION A. Receipt of Funding from Department of Energy 1

- B. Analysis of UFTR-Specific LEU Conversion Options

1. Pretesting of Selected SPERT Fuel Pins

2. Development of a Qualification Program for SPERT Fuel Pins

3. Completion of Prequalification Testing of SPERT Fuel l

4. Evaluation of Comparative Conversion Options (SPERT Vs. Silicide) I

5. Selection of LEU Fuel Option for UFTR Conversion l

C. Safety Analysis / Licensing Studies 1 1

1. Neutronic Analysis of LEU-Fueled UFTR

2. Thermal-Hydraulic Analysis for LEU-Fueled UFTR

3. Shielding Analysis for LEU-Fueled UFTR

4. Radioactive Ellluent Analysis as Required D. Identification of Chan*- ' .te R-56 Liceng Technical Specifications, Facility, Security Documents and Procer Jnder 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 PHASE II - CONVERSION A. NRC Order to Convert l

B. Fuel-Related Activities

1. Qualification of Selected LEU Fuel

2. Final UFTR Operations with HEU Fuel

3. Shipment ofIrradiated Fuel

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

D. LEU Fuel Loading Activities

l. Completion of Preparations for Core Load

2. Loading of LEU Fuel

3. Startup Testing and Surveillance i E. Completion of Startup Documentation HL PHASE HI - REVIEW AND VERIFICATION OF CONVERSION l

A. Completion of Startup Testing and Related Surveillances B. Corapletion of Power Testing and Sur.eillances C. Determination of UFTR Operational Characteris6 s D. Return to Normal Operations E. Submission of Final Conversion Report to NRC/ DOE i

! 14 i

p j TABLE II l (Revision 13)

University of Florida Training Reactor Tentative Milestone Schedule for HEU-to-LEU Fuel Conversion i

! 4 I. Effective Date of Receipt of Funding . . . . . .. . November 1987 '

II. Date of Full Submittal to NRC of Application to Convert (including c'l necessary doc"ments) . .. . June 1999 III. Date of NRC Order to Convert .. . .. . ... January 2000 A. Date of Completion of All Plans to Convert . . . .. . September 2000 l

l B. Date of Receipt of LEU Fuel . . . . . . . .. .. ' November 2000 l

l C. Date of Completion of Any Final Tests L with HFU Fuel . . February 2001 D. Date of Removal of HEU Fuel . . April 2001 E. Date of Shipment of HEU Fuel .. ... ..... ... . July 2001 F. Date of Loading ofLEU Fuel . . ... .. .. .. September 2001 G. Date of Completion of Determination ofInitial Operational Parameters with LEU (Startup and Power Operations Testing) . . . . . . . . December 2001 H. Date of Submittal of Report to NRC/ DOE Summarizing New Operational Characteristics and Comparing with Predictions of Safety Analysis February 2002 3/99 l

\

15 )

I

1 4

APPENDIX I i

ORIGINAL LETTERS OF NOTIFICATION TIIAT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING FOR 1 UFI'R CONVERSION WAS AVAILABLE AND HAD BEEN RECEIVED FROM TIIE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AS WELL AS TIIE EXTENSION LETTER l FOR SUPPORT TIIROUGII MARCII 1997  !

PLUS TIIE LATEST LETTER INDICATING FUNDING FOR CONVERSION WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE DURING FISCAL YEAR 1998 WITII FOOTNOTE DOCUMENTING UNAVAILABILITY OF FUNDING FOR CONVERSION DURING FISCAL YEAR 2000

• 0 . U.3. 0*4P ART.Cr? '2r ::t%RGY

. Mt7F*C' or r: Mart:AL Aa2:3TMCI MOJD

. s

.no authesi,ty of Public Law 75-41 DEPARTMEN: Cr CNERDY ORGAti:1ATICMM AC"I arH3

. *e **sglslation, regulatAons and pousses appliseDie to (cito legislative program title):

ON Cr UNIVERs!*t Ar. ACTOR .

JECT T T1JE 2. I. 'JPtper "TFE FUCL CO NIPJ1cM WJ'? CCCFEPATZv5 App 2EMatrr

4. 90. $. ArmaE353rT 150.

OPIENT (Name, address, sip code, area code & telopmene ::.o.) OE=rC07-48tR73347 N006

'"T*JITY Cr TLCR DA 3RI!r;ER HALL 6. BUDEf5T PER:DD 7. PEDJECT PERIOD

NISTILLE, 7 0R::A 32611 racott 11/15/e9 TERU: 04/30/12 ryum 11/15/87 Ttotus 04/30/92

!PIEIrr FysMECf D:12CTOR (Name ar.4 telephone Me.) 10. TTFE Of JethAD C AM G. VERitTTSCN (904) 392-1404 NEW CONTT:r.:AT:CN RCTEMhL

FTEffr DUSTRESS 0971CER (Name and telephena me.)

2 3 C. MARSHALL (904) 392-1582 X REVISION SUPPLEMEttT OE Fm1TECT Crr:CER (Base, address, up code, telephoom No. ) 12. AIBC2tZ37ERED TUR DOE ET (Base, ack1 rosa, asp, telopcone Ro. )

"O BE MSIGNEO) (To 55 AsaIGNED)

. OEFARTMENT CT ENERGY U.S. OEPARTMENT Cr INERGY

-'*:MC P:E*.: . Orf!'.*t CH'.CACC TIILD orr:CZ

• 00 30V:H CASS AVENVE 9800 30*J7H CAS8 AVEff.TE NCNNE, ;t. .:::tn3 50439 A13CFTI, :LL:No:3 60439 4 :F I3r TEFE STAT: GCV'T  !!rDIAN TRIBM GOV'T HOSP;;AL TOR PBQrIT IND 7:DUM CRGAN: CATION LOCAL CCV'T X

• NIT"WTION Cf CTHER WCNTFCr:7 C P 3r CTHER (Specity)

H:QHER Et'UCAT:Ctt C M ANIZAT:CN

_~==r:m ,wD AarserR:A.:aus Dm }15. EnrzorEn :.D. nuxasm/ww Apprapnation syntml pd. CFA Nuener 87081002 (m.5tRNumber lc. FT/AFP/DC f M/A N/A l N/A I N/A l l

"'.::x:ET AMD FCIrDEMQ INFC3WEA TCNI f

".:RRENT BUDGET PERIOD INrcBrucTQR lb. CUDREM YE DCE CR:.ZGAT:QR8 WE ruths Ct4?, gated This Action 3 0 (1) This pudget Period $ 0 32E Punds ALzt.horised for Carry over 3 0 (Total of lines a.(1) and a.(3))

20E Punda Previously Obligated in thin anci 3 et. PenedS 85957 (2) Frior pudcret Periode $ 169431

E share of total Approved puesfet *$ 85957 xa ciptwr *: Shars of Total Approved Budget $ 0 (3) Froject Period to Date $ 169431 M tal Approved Budget $ 85907 (Total of lines b.(1) and b.f.7)]

""'* M Elfr:MBC'ED CMPr Or PROJECT $ 169431 as the currect estimated cost of the proje<.~.. It is not a proutse to averd nor an authenantion to expend funds in tris amount.

OCARD/NELEEPEBrf TEBMs AarD CDIEI:T:QWS mis award /agrevennt consists of this fort:t plus the followungs

. Special terms and -:enditises (if grut1 or scheerle, Teneral ;-:ovisions, special previalona (if cooperative agrreeemarti

-. Applicable program revelationa tepecifd N/A toute) / /

. Dc5 Aseistance Def;.1etions, to Crm sa re.60a, as amended, subpsets A and x staeamte) oe ctcaooorative Aarreements)

-. Applicatiary' proposal dated November 17, 1949 , X as rutaitted with caanges as negotiated ,

" I vJcMh*K2 WC PURPOSE Cr THIS AMENCMCr; IS TO TRAltirER TE:3 GRAff: TE M THE U.S. Dr7T. or EnE7sT, Inuto r: ELD orr:CE, :DMto FM L&, DAno, M THE V.S. DEPT. Cr ENERGY, Ot:CA00 r:U.D Or73,.M. ARGCetNE, ILL:NO 5. THE EFFECTIVE DATE Cr TRAnarER Z3 2/29/92.

TTDEIUCE Of RECIF:53rr AO:IrENICI 21. WT w,. & 4*'d"fA'

. u,..atur. of ,em u..d c.e.t mma1) (Date) f v:mo:N A L. SAN:w:NA i.1 - .) iDat.)

{ mass) (name)

C0tfrax: TING Crr:Crn (Title I (Titlel

. 3*. 1. 3M A*-d :

h. M -il.:

I -

e .

2 0 5 NOV 17 t9@

i l

y j

Department of Energy Ook Ridge Operations g

Post Office Box E I O- Ook Ridge, Tennessee 37831 '

g } ' pl , ' 3f *T F' November 12, 1987 W .

l l', ' l l

Mr. Dillard C. Marshall Assistant Director

( Office of Research Administration University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611

Dear Mr. Marshall:

GRANT N0. 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 l 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 c ant and e completed Fonn 00E-538, Notice of Energy RD&D Project. Flease return two copies of the DOE-538.

Sincerely, Cha rles . Cro Contracting Officer Contract Management Branch AD-423:Lyle Procurement & Contracts Division Enclosu res:

1. Grant (2 cys.)

2. Assurance of Compliance

3. DOE 538 (3 cys) i 8

e

% r--K /

• • n.n#** Celebrating the U.S. Constitution Bicentennial- 1787-1987

r ju; , l T w, #,Q d, c h ' ~ "

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

.C / OFFICIAL AWARD ACCEPTANCE DATE PRI!CED: 12/21/89 l NOTIFICATION OF ' ACCEPTANCE (NOA) FOR THE PRESIDENT QUESTIONSf PLEASE CONTACT THE UF DIVISION OF t

OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORfDA, ACTING ON BEHALF OF SPONSORED RESEARCH, AWAllD ADMINISTRATION, THE BOARD OF REGENTS . 205 GRINTER HALL,392-1582 I TITLE: ""ODn M T. DOD COV'O Af1DDADO 90 COUpt? rnqm op t p m a e q*7v n ttg y y 7

! U"A" ff "f1 mn r_ ort pit t'y, l ADMINISTRATIVE DATA (UPNo: P700l007 JELATED UPN*: AWARD DATE. Ol /tE /38 l AGENCY: fi " f i " U"' OP P H T'DC ( ofir1A) pt- 1"'m T "m n)T N C DIVISION- SSN: P ? ~ M M J 1 ') A AGENCY NO: U"- W G-AA""7 M R7 COLL- PTPA - "'1C 7 " D DD T f 'd ( *1

( TYPE: _ NEW (N) __. CONTINUATION (C) DEPT! "TI N . " A U ""C T M P "" T'1C CPT PM(' '" ('"'"

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

2. EXTENSION _ REVISED SSN-CATEGORY- RESEARCH (R) - TRAINING (T) COI i - (

_ OTHER (0) DEPTe I (PROGRAM:- __ CONTRACT (C) _ PUR. ORDER (P) HEGIS s* 210920

) __ COOP. AGREE (A) _ SPA (S) HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL **

_ MEMO OF UND (M) 1 GRANT (G) HS APPROVAL EXPIRES:

TEMP

__ GUARANTEED BY: LAB ANIMAL APPROVAL a PERM: - SUPERSEDES: RECOMBINANT DNA/RNA* BIOHAZARDS:

BUDG BEGe 11/15/07 BUDG END: 04/30/9?- PROPRIETARY / CONFIDENTIAL:_

PROJ BEG: 11/I9/07 PROJ END: 04/30/01 SUBCONTRACTOR: UF*

PROJECT PERIOD #: N70EIOO7 PRIME NAME; FUNDS RESTRICTED 3 YES - NO NO-

! _ OTHER-I HISTORV UPN*: 87C81002 FLA DEMO PROJ: II l

COST DATA APPLICABLE INDIRECT COST WILL ACCRUE TO THE UNIT (S) AS SPECIFIED ON PROPOSAL l DUAL INVOLVEMENT: IDC RETURN CODE: Y ON-CAMPUS OFF-CAMPUS ACCOUNT NO: 450812612

• ACCOUNT NO:

DIRECT AMOUNT: $ PO C09T UT \ DIRECT AMOUNT: $

• lNDIRECT AMOUNT: $

( INDIRECT AMOUNT: $

j RATE AS 00 BA$ C IWD RATE BASE TOTAL AMOUNT: $ MO COli Mi TdTAL AMOUNT: $

COST SHARING REQUIRED: $ COST SHARING REQUIRED: $

TOTI.L FUNDING OF THIS AWARD: $ 110 COS? EXT TOTAL COST SHARING OF THIS AWARD: $ -

UNRECOVERED INDIRECT COST: $

CUMULATIVE PROJECT FUNDING: $ I 6 0 A 31 00 I CFDA*? l REMARKS DEPT CONTACT- CIES M [7I y '/..-

ADDRESS- UTHORIZED UNIVERS'lTh ACCEPTANCE SIGPATURE DIVISION OF SPONSORED RESEARCH NAME: DTLLARD C. 1%RSHALL TITLE: A99ISTMIT DIRECTOR OF RPS"?tRCil DSR-6 (8/88) Processed Dy: IEIE ,r ORIGINAL: ACC OFF GREEN: DATA ENTRY RNK: FILE _ YELLOW: COLL / DEPT ._ GOLD: Pl DLUE: ACCT. NO.

R sr 'v.

fg%

1. q tg Department of Energy 205 DEC 20'89 5 1 C Idaho Or rations 0" Ice 3 .[ 785 00E Place b rs# 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 D0E. 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.

I Should you have any questions, please contact Ann Rydalch on (208) 526-9617.

Sincerely, 1 Tru A. Thorne Contract Specialist Financial Assistance Branch Enclosure i

1 a s

I g k4 Department of Energy REcayg00 ecd 7ISS;E q **

{

~

Ook Ridge Operations 3 y Post Office Box E O:

Oak Ridge Tennessee 37831

\ ar*M* f

/

December 21,19R7 Dr. William G. Vernetson Director of Nuclear Facilities College of Engineering University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611

Dear Dr. Vernetson:

)

GRANT NO. DE-FG05-88ER75387 (REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION)

In respon'se 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

..V elay in this revision reaching you.

n.'

k'g\" Pleaseluhst.11ute_the_attsbed Part II, Project Description and Reporting Requirements, for the one transmitted to Dillard Marshall on November 17., 1987, and have Mr. Marshall sign the award and return an original to us as soon as s l 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 i from the other reactor fuel conversion awards the Department of Energy has.

Since rely,

/4 A-Martha A. Lyle I

. Contract Specialist Contract Management Rranch l AD-423:Lyle Procurement and Contracts Division

Enclosure:

Part II of Grant DE-FG05-88ER75387 cc: Dillard C. Marshall, Asst. Dir.

Research Administration University of Florida 223 Grinter Hall Gainesville, FL 32G11 s

'Y, e\

• Celebrating the U.S. Constitution Bicentemuial - 1787 1987

i Department oiinergy Gerrnantown, MD 20874-1290 i

+

February 23,1998 1

Dr. William G. Vernetson University ofFlorida i 202 Nuclear Scieaces Center I Gainesville, Florida 32611-8300 i

Dear Dr. Vernetson:

i 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 ofyour reactor to low enrichment uranium fuel will not be available during Fiscal Year 1998.

Ymnvill be notified in the event these circumstances change.

.. Sincerely, l

Qo m ' uttericj e, Program Di '76r flice o Wnning and Analysis flice of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology j i

DISCUSSIONS WITH REPRESENTA TIVES OF DOE IN DECEMBER I

19981NDICA TED FUNDING FOR CONVERSION WILL ALSO NOT BE A VAILABLE .TFISCAL YEAR 1999, THOUGH NO DOCUMENTING

' LETTER HAS BEEN RECEIVED A30F DA TE OF THIS PROPOSAL.  :

I i

e S

• e _ . _ . , _ ,e.. ....,

16