ML20217M658
| ML20217M658 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000083 |
| Issue date: | 03/27/1998 |
| From: | Vernetson W FLORIDA, UNIV. OF, GAINESVILLE, FL |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20217M652 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9804080157 | |
| Download: ML20217M658 (24) | |
Text
.. ..
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA TRAINING REACTOR FACILITY LICENSE NUMBER: R-56 UPDATED PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO TIE NUCLEAR REGULATORY. COMMISSION TO hEET 10 CFR 50.64 REQUIREMENTS FOR UPDATING SCIEDULING OF UFTR CONVERSION FROM IEU TO LEU FUEL 1
Dr. William G. Vernetson Director of Nuclear Facilities March 27,1998 POO#$0$$do!oS$osa P PDR
a l
l UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA TRAINING REACTOR FUEL CONVERSION FROM IIIGII ENRICIIE'D TO LOW ENRICIIED URANIlmi FUEL 1
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 ;
i non-power reactor authorized to possess and use high enriched uranium (HEU) fuel shall develop I
and submit a proposal to replace all HEU fuel possessed under the R-56 license with available low enriched uranium (LEU) fuel acceptable to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on a schedule l 1
1 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 reporting on the converted UFTR. Three primary phases have been identified for control and administration of the overall process of conversion as follows:
- 1. Preparation for Conversion II. Conversion (assuming NRC order to convert)
III. Review and Verification of Conversion l
Table I contains a listing of key activities involved in each pase of the conversion from receipt of funding for conversion from the Department of Energy (DOE) to final submittal of summary reports to DOE and NRC on the conversion.
i i
t
[. .
l -
l :.
- PHASE I: PREPARATION FOR CONVERSION l.
- Phase I commenced with receipt of funding for conversion from DOE to cover Phase I i
only. This funding was considered to be certified per the letter contained in Appendix I of the l
1987 proposal; this proposal was submitted to the Department of Energy and official notice of 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 l receipt of the confirming letter dated December 21,1987. Copies of both letters as well as the l 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.
i l 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 l regard. - Unfortunately, equipment failures and the need to move the SPERT (SNM-1050) fuel l
storage facility impacted the schedule during the 1988 year so the radiographic tests were not completed until April 1989 along with relicensing the SPERT fuel storage facility. Overall, the results of the radiographic tests of the SPERT fuel 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.
p 2
?
Several previously uncansideret stential 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.
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 fuelif 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 l Department of Energy was receptive to this evaluation of the two fuels and work in this area l
- progressed well in 1989. Unfortunately, the complexity and cost of potential structural (the l SPERT fuelloading would weigh about 2000 pounds versus the present 50 pound core loading),
shielding, fuel arrangement and cooling system changes necessitated by use of the SPERT fuel l
resulted in a milestone decision in August 1989 not to utilize the SPERT fuel for conversion but l
l 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 l 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.
l 3
)
l In parallel with selection of the plate-type silicide LEU fuel and identification of necessary reactor systems changes, safety analysis were being performed for the selected LEU fuel conversion and associated system changes. Implementation of the neutronics codes to be used was underway during 1989 and several codes had been implemer.ted and run for test cases. Therefore, UFTR conversion calculations were progressing reasonably well until the loss in August 1989 of the graduate student performing the neutronics calculations as he decided to pursue his advanced degree at another university. Unfortunately, he left with much of his work inadequately undocumented. The 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 assuring neutronics methodology would be adequate though many calculations
)
had to be updated and repeated due to errors in and poor documentation of the previous work.
J It was hoped that this individual would remain on the project for his thesis work. This retention effort was successful and the neutronics analyses were able to move forward in 1990.
Several errors due to poor documentation necessitated restarting the safety analysis when the student began work on it in early 1990. Although he spent a period at Argonne National Laboratory working with the RERTR group to receive training in the use of the codes, it still required some time for the student to become proficient in use of the codes in-house.
Unfortunately several formatting and other flaws in the implemented codes used for the neutronics analysis also slowed progress in 1990. %ese were cleared up as part of the work on assuring l proper code methodology during 1990.
l I
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 existing i
4 l
l t
l core was nearly complete. Only scoping calculations had been completed for the LEU core with j i
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 l
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 " 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 j 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 ,
1 assembled for -submission to NRC. A graduate assistant had nearly concluded working on the thermal hydraulics area as the 14-plate fuel bundle arrangement had been selected for the 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 in June 1992 with the final report essentially completed during the 1994-95 fiscal 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 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 5
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 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 each fuel box had occupied some considerable facility time in the previous year. This latter effort is now essentially complete with the official fuel drawings in draft form from DOE at the UFTR facility and ready to be reviewed when the grant would be officially extended in April 1995.
During the 1994 year, work to incorporate all the analysis completed to date into a single FSAR update to include the Technical Specifications progressed very slowly with some kinetics 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 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 6
l
9
, 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 SAR changes. However, DOE also advised in mid-March 1996 that additional funding for the next phase (Phase II) of the conversion would not be available during -
fiscal year 1996. The entire package of results was then to be assembled as a Revision to the 1
UFTR Safety Analysis Report by October 1996. With the loss of the permanent Reactor Manager in August 1996, no work was accomplished during the last year. During~ this year, a visiting -
professor has begun assisting with neutronics calculations partially supported by the extended DOE grant which was much delayed. Considerble work remains for verification and conclusion of the analyses. As a result, efforts are again under way to extend the existing grant money to-March 31,1999 to allow completion of work through submittal of SAR changes. However, DOE has again advised in early March 1998 that additional funding for the next phase (Phase II) of the conversion will not be available during fiscal year 1998. The entire package of results will be assembled as a Revision to the UFTR Safety Analysis Report by October 1998 with the project .
1 expected to progress as indicated in the updated Table II, though impending loss of another long- l 1
term staff member will make this effort more difficult.
1 7
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 l throughout the remainder of the conversion process with a new grant to be required for Phase II.
In addition to neutronic and thermal-hydraulic analysis, shielding and effluer.t analyses will be documented to identify any changes in procedures (few expected), security plan, technical
- i
-f
- specifications or other license documents that must be con
- ;idered as part of conversion. These should be minimal. 'Ihis submittal will also contain documentation detailing the various tests and surveillances planned as part of the conversion. At this point a complete set of licensing L documents for the conversion will be submitted along with a conversion application for review and i'
approval. This result is now expected by October 1998. Assuming resolution of all questions, I
i this submittal will conclude the Phase I licensee efforts. Phase I will then conclude with the. 1 issuance by the NRC of the specific Order to Convert.
E PHASE II: CONVERSION : (Assuming NRC Order to Convest)
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 i
! requested and will include all final tests conducted with the HEU fuel to serve primarily as the 1
basis for later comparison with similar tests with LEU fuel. Phase II will then involve a number ;
I of key activities aimed ultimately at having LEU fuel replace HEU fuel at the UFTR facility to t.- . include: !
l 8 -
l
4
- l. Shutdown core decay for several weeks followed by core unloading and shipment of irradiated HEU fuel.
- 2. Qualification of the selected LEU fuel (as spplicable).
- 3. Implementadon of required facility changes necessitated for use of LEU fuel; this may involve some changes related to having both HPU and LEU fuel on site simultaneously for a brief time.
- 4. Receipt of unitradiated 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.
Documentation and record organization for the LEU fuel implementation.
PIIASE III: REVIEW AND VERIFICATION OF CONVERSION Phase III (Review and Verification of Conversion) will consist of a series of activities designed to verify the quality of the conversion process to include both the physical implementation of the LEU fuel and the documentation of the implementation. Activities in Phase III willinclude:
- 1. Completion of startup as well as power testing and related surveillances.
- 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.
9 t
~
t
- l
- 5. Return to normal operations.
- 6. Submission of Final Report to NRC/ DOE summarizing HEU operational conditions and comparing these results with the predictions contained in the Safety Analysis submitted to NRC at the end of Phase I and approved as part of the Order to Convert.
SUMMARY
CONCLUSIONS As noted earlier, a relatively detailed list of the various elements that must be obtained, produced or otherwise generated as required throughout the three phases of the UFTk conversion from HEU to LEU fuel is presented in Table I. The current plan continu:s 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 manufactured outside the administrative control of the UFFR licensee. At this point, without having identified all required changes, it is .
J not possible to delineate exactly what other external support may be needed. The neutronics and thermal-hydraulics analyses are all being conducted in-house which has necessitated some external; support from the RERTR program at Argonne National Laboratory to assure proper code implementation at the University of Florida to carry out the required safety analysis. Work has progressed slowly with delays due to SPERT fuel inspection delays, graduate student changes and
-1 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 well during i 1
I 10
summer 1998 with submittalin October 1998 supported by the visiting professor and renewed DOE grant support.-
l The overall flow diagram for HEU to LEU conversion of the UFTR is presented in Figure 1. : Key stages in the three phases, as well as key input items at the various stages, are
! mdicated at each stage. Nevertheless, there is still some uncertainty in the exact plan of events I
' in Phase H such as whether LEU fuel will be accepted on site prior to shipping HEU fuel off site.
(-
l Another concern is the physical fit of the fuel in the fuel boxes which will necessitate some considerable experimental measurement and verification efforts after this year. : These items are now under consideration.
l Finally, Table II contains an updated tentative schedule (Revision 11) 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 i 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 funding has been received. Since DOE will provide no new conversion j money during fiscal year 1998, this does not appear to be a problem. Other areas which may l impact the schedule are the availability of a shipping cask especially for irradiated HEU fuel (we are curmntly 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 i
11 l
4 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 condit!ons, 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 three years ago. At this point, reactor staff including the l Director am 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, emektly concerning utilization of the existing fuel boxes, shipment of used fuel and l 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 will likely be most impacted, however, in the
- near future by the times required for completing and documenting the safety analysis in a submittal package and perhaps for manufacture of the LEU fuel. The schedule presented in Table II is 12
4
- 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 though confirmatory calculations are continuing. As a result we should be able to conclude in a few additional months making the proposed schedule for 5rst submittal realistic ,
s assuming DOE extension of their grant.
De one further drawback may be DOE funding available for the conversion. Appendix I j contains the original letters of notification that federal government funding for UFTR conversion was available and had been received from the Department of Energy as well as the extension letter.
for support through March 1997 plus the latest letter indicating funding for conversion will not be available during fiscal year 1998.
t 13
\
o Test SPERT Fu:1 . o Neutronic Analysis o Developa Prequalification Plan nmsion
- ThermalHydraulic Analysis ,
for SPERT Fuel eParabon
- Shielding Analysis )
o Select Fuel Option
- Radioactive Analysis
" t o Identification of Required
- Safety Analysis Preparation of {
Facility Changes
- Tech Spec Changes Licensing Documents
- Security Plan Changes
- Procedure Changes v
o Submittal of Application to e Review /Approvalof
- NRC with All Conversion Conversion Documentation Order to Convert Documentation by NRC o Arrangement for Possession
- Analysis for Shipment of Discon nation of cf HEU and LEU on Irradiated Fuel Um of HEU Fuel Interim Basis u
o HEU Fuel Shipment
- Design / Implementation of Conversion o LEU Fuel Receipt Facility Changes Activities o LEU Fuel Loading
- Fuel Load Preparations v
o Startup Testing and Review and Verification Surveillance Activities of HEU to LEU Conversion V
o Review /Approvalof Full Documentation Return to Service u
Submission of Final Report to NRC/ DOE Summarizing HEU Operational Conditions :
and Comparing with SAR Predictions Figure 1. University of Morida Training Reactor HEU to LEU Conversion Flow Diagram 14
, . TABLE I-University of Florida Training Reactor Key Activities for HEU-to-LEU Fuel Conversion 3
L PHASEI - PREPARATION FOR CONVERSION A. Receipt of Funding from Depadment of Energy
. B. Analysis of UFTR-Specific LEU Conversion Options
- 1. Protesting of Selected SPERT Fuel Pins
- 2. Development of a Qualification Program for SPERT Fuel Pins
- 3. Completion of Prequalification Testing of SPERT Fuel
, 4. ' Evaluation of Comparative Conversion Options (SPERT Vs. Silicide)
- 5. Selection of LEU Fuel Option for UFTR Conversion C. Safety Analysis / Licensing Studies
- 1. Neutronic Analysis of LEU-Fueled UFTR
- 2. Thermal-Hydraulic Analysis for LEU-Fueled UFTR 3.' Shiekling Analysis for LEU-Fueled UFTR
- 4. Radioactive Effluent Analysis as Required D. klentification of Changes in tim R-56 License, Technical Specifications, Facility, Secunty 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 H. PHASE H - CONVERSION A. NRC Order to Convert B. Fuel-Related Activities
- 1. Qualification of Selected LEU Fuel
- 2. - Final UFTR Operations with HEU Fuel
- 3. Shipment ofIrradiated Fuel-p- 4. Receipt of LEU Fuel C. Implementation of Required Changes in R-56 License per Item ID.
D. LEU Fuel Loading Activities
- 1. Completion of Preparations for Core Load
- 2. Loading of LEU Fuel
- 3. Stantup Testing and Surveillance E. Completion of Startup Documentation HL - PHASE HI - REVIEW AND VERIFICATION OF CONVERSION-A. . Completion of Startup Testing and Related Surveillances B. Completion of Power Testing and Surveillances C. Determmation of UFTR Operational Characteristics D. Retarn to Norrnal Operations E. Subaussion of Final Conversion Report to NRC/ DOE 15
l TABLE II (Revision 12)
University of Florida Training Reactor-l Tentative Milestone Schedule -
for HEU-to-LEU Fuel Conversion L
l
[. L Effective Date of Receipt of Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November 1987 L II. Date of Full Submittal to NRC of Application to Convert (including all necessary documents) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . October 1998 III. Date of NRC Order to Convert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January 1999 l
l- A. Date of Completion of All Plans to Convert . . . . . . . . . . . . September 1999 B. Date of Receipt of LEU Fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November 1999 C. .Date of Completion of Any Final Tests with HEU Fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . February 2000 .
D. Date of Removal of HEU Fuel . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - April 2000 i
E. Dste of Shipment of HEU Fuel . . , . . . . . . . . . . ._ , . . . . . July 2000 F. Date of Loading of LEU Fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September 2000' G. Date of Completion of Determination ofInitial
[ Operational Parameters with LEU (Startup and
- Power Operations Testing) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . December 2000 -
H. Date of Submittal of Report to NRC/ DOE l l
Summarizing New Operational Characteristics l and Comparing with Predictions of Safety. Analysis . . . . . . . . February 2001 i
i l
1 3/98 16 L
4
'\
APPENDIX I' ORIGINAL LETTERS OF NOTIFICATION TIIAT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING FOR UFTR CONVERSION WAS AVAILABLE AND IIAD BEEN RECEIVED FROM TIIE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AS WELL AS TIIE EXTENSION LE' ITER FOR SUPPORT TIIROUGII MARCII1997 PLUS TIIE LATEST LETTER INDICATING FUNDING FOR CONVERSION WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE DURING FISCAL YEAR 1998
+
I4(0.1 ,
&O* ,*
i*.* str:Icz or rInAscAL AsstsTMa Amman - *. s ,,
and goutheslty er publie 14e 35-M DsFAAcaz2f Cr ENERot CRGAN3*.AT QRAL ACT t to 1611814tless, requistgens and polizies appiisab&o 43 (cite Asgialet19e program titis):
- N cf UNI
- 4. ::sstunusurr .1o. S. m eestBuurr m .
IFIENT (Nemo, address, say code, area code & teleynene me.) 35-r007. 46t175387 Je10s rTas!TT Cr F1cREDA GRINTS MALL 6. SUMBET FER290 7. Fushfac7 FERZOO , , ,
NESVILLE. rLORIDA 32611 F3Cpts 11/13/09 TERUs 04/30/92 ruusts 11/15/87 Tttluft 04/30/93' '
l:F2nse FsuMBC2 DERBCTta (Base and telegatese se.) 10. TTF5 cr JBERD
, List 4. VE3Wr57308t (904) 392-1404 NEW CONT 23UNr!OIf RElf5tEL
- FIssrr aussmuse orrtCza (sese and totsyases me.)
ARD C. NAASHMJ. (904) 392-1382 x 3Ev:33cet , SUFFLEMEltT is FnskTECT orr!CEE (Base, addasse, say code, teleghese No.) 12. AEBEINISTERED FOR EE3E BE (Neme enktrees, eip, telopmene No.)
l'O 35 ASSIOltED) (To SE ASSEGNED)
,8. :EFAktMENT or ENERST U.3. DEFAltT*23rr er EltnsY -
c Jeo FIEta orrICE otscuno rzELo orr:CE B00 SOUtti CASS AVENUE 9800 SOU:H CASS AVENUE ROC 33fE, ILL::: DIS 60439 AkeomIE, LL:28033 60439 ECFIENT TTTE STATE CCV'T INDIAll TAZEAL GOV'T HosFITAL FOR FROrZT 33fDE733UAE.
DRGAatIEAT: Cat 14CM, GCV'T x m...w.. Cit Or O!MER *INFmorIT C F SF 0 MER (specify)
M 0HER E W CAT M CASAltZtAT:Cet w--- ano ArFaoFaa:Ar2cus anza j1s. spursarum :.s. muMassvsse L. Aqipropriation synnel {b. 512 DLatper lc. FT/AFF/DC !d. CFA maner' l 87C41003 va I= I= I= l o r => -. 2m - l
- n. CtmRRET WDGFr FER200 ZWimMNEZW b. CIERNAr:TE 3E35 05LIGN DDE Flands'ch119eted This Astica $ 0 (1) This piadget Foried 4 0 DDE Fumets Anstnerised for Carry over S 0 (Total of liase a.(1) and a.(3))
DDE Fede Provisuely chligated in this stadf ot Period $ 83957 (3) Frier sudget Periods 4 15p431 com mara es Total Approves sedvet 's ases?
Ite11pient amore of Total appresed pianget $ e (3) Freject Forted to mate 8 159431 Total Appresed mindfot $ ents? (Total et lines b.(1) and b.(3)]
"' OEHL ErrEpWEED CEure Or FaskisCr 8 189431 .
I is the enstreat estimated east of the pseject. Et is met a proates ta suost nor an authorisatian to espeed funds in this assert.
mamsvammesmer sameE ans CassurEcus This seasWafseement osasists of this foss plus the fellesing: .
- a. spostal teens and senditieme (if grant) er sessedale, generet previsions, special previaimes tif esseerettsu - - t
- b. applicable program regulatisme (svesLar) N/A jgjm ,eej / /
- e. nos Assistanse mogulations, is cra Fa:Tedes, as amended, subparts A and x stormatet er c(Cosserative Aeroemastel
- d. Appliestieroposal dated Itesember 17, 1949 , X as rubmitted with ansages es negotiated mapasms TttE PURPOSE OF tit:5 AMENCMENT 18 TO TRAMBFER TER8 GEMer rpmR TME V.S. DEFT. Or EstE30T, InAme rtEze Orr3CE, ZaMID FALLB,' :Dh80, To Tele U.S. DEFT. Or ENEa07, a2 Case FZEta Orr3CE, AmecenIE, ILLZ3sozz. TME ErrECT TE DATS Or TRANSFER 18 2/29/98.
rTzassics or asCzFraer Acuzrsmuta 21. 3r v3 J & 4-26-fA ut tm ., uuiertsed .to.t oerte.21 ( =te ,
f YZILGINEA L. SANERf1EA
(.ig re, i=t.)
(neae) (stame)
ContraAcT:so orr:ctR (Title) (Title)
2 0 5 NOV 171987
. Department of Energy ce=R c w . %
3 Poet Office Sox E *
- Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831 }* p; *
- s* "'."
- i ". -
November 12, 1987 IJ - . .
g.; . .
Mr. Dillard C. Marshall Assistant Director Office of Research Administration -
University of Florida Gaine'sville, 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 retention.
In addition, please have executed the enclosed Assurance of Compliance -
Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs, and return the signed original to this office together with the executed copy of the grant and a completed Fonn DOE-538, Notice of Energy RD&D Project. Please return two copies of the DOE-538.
Sincerely,
. O C a rl es D.' Crow .
Contracting Officer Contract Management Branch AD-423:Lyle Procurement & Contracts Division
Enclosures:
- 1. Grant (2 cys.) .
- 2. Assurance of Compliance
- 3. DOE 538 (3 cys) ex - _ , . - . , , . , -_
~
- d UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA C bV-
- OFFICIAL AWAf40 ACCEPTANCE DATE PRINTED: 12/ 21/
I CUESTIONS PLE.ASE CONTACT THE UF DIV1!
TIFICATION OF ACCEPTANCE (NOAl FOR THE PRESIDENT SPONSORED RESEARCH. AWARD ADMINISTM, THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA. ACTING ON BEHALF OF . 205 GRINTER HALL.3921582 E BOARD OF REGENTS u 990 PORAL FOR GOV'T SUPDORT TO COVER COST OF UFTR CONVERSION conM n m mn r, m m vT, ADMINISTRATIVE DATA AwARDoATw. 01/05/88 w,: 87081002 RELATED ups.:
( F 0 4 8 ) p.t . VERNETSON W G LENCY: U S DEPP OF ENERG'? 216-44-9124 SSN.
vtSION-DE- PG0 5- 88 FF7 5't 87 Cott. ETES - ENGTNEFRTNG LENCY NO:
CONTINUA 110N (C) OEPTs NUMEAR EMCTME N TNG. SN W EF
'P2: NEW (N)
SUPPLEMENTAL (S) CO PI'
- RENEWAL (R) _ - -
REviSEO SSN-2 EXTENSION _
TRAINING (T) CC*
LTEGORY: E RESEARCH(R) _
DEPT-
_ OTHER(0) HEGIS ,. 210920
_ CONTRACT (C) _ PUR. ORDER (P)
ROGRAM:
SPA (S) HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL a-
_ COOP. AGREE (A) _
1 GRANT (G) HS APPROVAL EXPIRES:
_ MEMO OF UND (M)
LAB ANIMAL APPROVAL **
EMP: _ GUARANTEED BY: RECOMBINANT DNA/RNA-BICHAZARC ERM: _ SUPERSEDES: 04/30/91 uDG sEG. 11/15/87 BUDG END: PROPRIETARY /CONFIDENTV8 -
UF-11/15/87 FROJ END: 04/30/91 SUBCONTRACTOR:
ROJ CEG: pRiuE NAur.
ROJECT PERIOD ,. 87081002 NO-uNDS RESTRICTED 3 YES _ NO OTHER-87081002 FLA DEMO PROJ:
N .
ifSTORY UPNs:
COST D ATA ..-
APPUCABLE INDIRECT COST 'MU. ACCRUE TO THE UNIT (S) AS SPEC 1 PIED ON PRO IOC RETURN CODE:
Y DUAL INVOLVEMENT:
OFF. CAMPUS 2N-CAMPUS LCCOUNT NO:
450812612 ACCOUNT NO:
NO COST EXT DIRECT AMOUNT: S 3tRECT AMOUNT: 5 "0" INDIRECT AMOUNT: S NDIRECT AMOUNT:5 BASE RATE 4 ATE 45.0% BASE _ MTD rOTAL AMOUNT: $ NO COST EXT TOTAL AMOUNT: S COST SHARING REQUIRED: S F. CST SHARING REQUIRED: S NO COST EXT TOTAL FUNDING OF THIS AWARD: $
TOTAL COST SHARING OF THIS AWARD: $
UNRECOVERED INDIRECT COST: S 169,431.00 CUMULATIVE PROJECT FUNDtNG: $
CFDAs' , REMARKS
- 5: '
Y # ~'"
EEPT CONTACT-S AUTHORtZED UNIVERShTY ACCEPTANCE SIGNATURE ADDRESS-DIVISION OF SPONSORED RESEARCH usuE: DILLARD C. MARSHALL nTLE: ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF RESLAF.
gumsos ge: MWR -
. 1
- - Department of Energy l w , Idaho Operations Office 205 DEC 2019 1 785 DOE Place Idaho Falls, Idaho 83402 December 19, 1989 Mr. Dillard C. Marshall University of Florida 223 Grinter Hall Gainesville, F15rida 36211
SUBJECT:
Grant No. DE-FG07-88ER75387 Oear Mr. Marshall: l We are enclosYng 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. 1 Should you have any questions, please contact Ann Rydalch on (208) 526-9617..
Sincerely, Tru A. Thorne Contract Specialist '
. Financial Assistance Branch Enclosure .
9 e #
1
S.
1 ,
Department of Ener y ODEC2yggj
- Oak Ridge Operations W I 4
- Post Office Box E 8 Oak Ridge. Tennessee 37831 December 21,19R7 Dr. William G. Vernetson Director of Nuclear Facilities College of Engineering University of Florida ~
Gainesville, FL 37.611
Dear Dr. Vernetson:
GRANT NO. DE-FG05-88ER75387 (REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION)
In response to telephone conversations with you and with Keith Brown at Argonne, enclosed is. a revised project description for your grant from the Department of Energy to cover cost of the conversion from HEU to LEU fuel in University of Florida's training reactor. I apologize for the confusion and
, P delay in this revision reaching you.
o -*'# Please substitugbttached Part II's Project Description and Reporting h, ~
Requirements,. for the one transmitteo to Dillard Marshall on Novem' oer- 12, 1987, and have Mr. Marshall sign the award and return an original to us as soon as possible. You will not be able to draw down any money from letter of Credit on is award until the original copy is returned to us.
Thank you for calling our attention to the fact that your award is different from the other reactor fuel conversion awards the Department of Energy has.
Sincerely, -
V 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. Dir.
Research Administration University of Florida 223 Grinter Hall Gainesville, FL 32611 nr,
\
4
. Department of Energy Germantown, MD 20874-1290 February 23,1998 l
Dr. William G. Vernetson University ofFlorida l 202 Nuclear Sciences Center i Gainesville, Florida 32611-8300
Dear Dr. Vernetson:
In accordance with 10 CFR Part 50.64, " Limitations on the Use of Highly Enriched Uranium in Domestic Non-Power Reactors," you are hereby notified that j Federal funding for conversion ofyour reactor to low enrichment uranium fuel will '
not be availabla during Fiscal Year 1998.
You will be ncGried in the event these circumstances change.
l Sincerely, l I
l 1
( _ '
om tieri e, Program Di r ce or ning and Analysis i flice ofNuclear Energy, Science and Technology s
Printed with soy ink on recycled paper