TO: PULSAR Study Team DATE: Aug 23, 1994

FROM: L. Waganer

SUBJECT: STARLITE Conference Call Minutes, Wednesday, Aug 17, 1994

PARTICIPANTS (by organization): Sze, Dean, Wong, Sager, Herring, McCarthy, Bathke, Waganer, Bromberg, Kessel, Hofer, Flynn, Steiner, Najmabadi, Mau, Miller, El-Guebaly

ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES

Two of our team members just received the 1994 David Rose award for Excellence in Fusion Engineering, Kathy McCarthy and Chuck Kessel. Congratulations to you both!

The 20 July Conference Call minutes were adopted with additions noted in the Task 5B area of these minutes.

In preparation for the next STARLITE project meeting at PPPL on 14-16 Sept, Gale Stevens (Jardin's secretary) sent out hotel arrangements, directions and needed personal information. Please respond to Gale Stevens (gstevens@pppl.gov) by Friday 8/26. The Safety portion of the meeting will be scheduled for late on the 16th to accommodate D. Steiner's travel and plans. The meeting is to adjourn around 3:00 pm to expedite travel to Newark Airport.

Ron Miller is now at UCSD with a phone number of 619-534-7842. His e-mail address will remain the same. Eventually, his new fax number (619-534-7716) will be connected (Ron, please inform us when we can use that number.) Farrokh Najmabadi is typically at UCSD on Tuesdays and Wednesdays and can be reached at 619-534-7869 (his e-mail address will remain the same for the time being).

All Team Members should remember to include the new team members (Raytheon and FPA) in all forms of correspondence. Farrokh, B. Dove requested adding Steve Rossi of OFE to our general distribution list, probably on the ARIESTEAM list.

The next conference call will be on Wednesday, August 31, 11:30 CDT using the normal conference call phone number, 314-232-7776.

PULSAR REPORT STATUS

C. Bathke took my typo of 15 Sept for the due date of the Systems Analysis chapter as a good date for projected completion of the chapter (We will be expecting a review copy at the PPPL meeting.) L. Bromberg is still scanning the figures for the Magnet chapter figures - after completion next week, the disks will be sent to Najmabadi. Dai-Kai Sze has received the reviewed Reactor Engr chapter sections and he will be calling the section authors next week.

STARLITE PROJECT STATUS

Action Items:

[AI#3] C. Wong sent out MHTGR Design Specifications to STARLITE team - will add Raytheon and FPA members to mailing. He reported EPRI is in the process of mailing out the ALWR. (I just received my copy.)

[AI#4] R. Miller reported minimal activity on COE formulation due to his relocation to UCSD. Considering the high degree of interest in the DEMO requirements from the HVPNS program and other programs, we should stress the formulation of such a metric.

[AI#9] C. Wong will distribute his preliminary WBS to Raytheon. After he incorporates feedback, he will issue it to the entire team (prior to the PPPL meeting for evaluation).

Task 1 - F. Najmabadi has completed his draft of the DEMO mission and goals - it will be issued in 2-3 days for internal STARLITE review. Sam Berk of ER-OFE is leading a High Volume Plasma-based Neutron Source (HVPNS) study task to define DEMO parameters to help formulate requirements and groundrules specific to HVPNS. L. Waganer is supporting that task as a member of the STARLITE team.

Task 2. - Minimal activity due to relocation.

Task 3. - Tom Flynn reported that he has the RAMI data from the gas-cooled, advanced

cycle plants that will be reported at the next meeting. He also is formulating a methodology to extend reliability data from an experiment to that in a reactor environment. This methodology involves coefficients of damage.

Task 4. - D. Steiner reviewed the outcomes of two meetings dealing with safety and licensing. The 8/1/94 meeting at DOE (A. Davies, D. Crandall, B. Dove, et.al.) was precipitated by comments at our Utility Advisory Committee meeting. The feeling was that the preliminary results from the OFE effort to develop a safety standard for fusion facilities would guide fusion along a path similar to that taken by fission. Instead, it was felt and recommended that a new path for licensing of fusion facilities should be formulated which would only be determined by the intrinsic properties of fusion. The group recommended use of probabilistic, functional, risk-oriented approaches with minimal prescriptive solutions. An OFE "strategy paper" would be developed, mostly by industrial consortium personnel, to coordinate, guide, and confirm the activities of the fusion stakeholders (U.S. ITER HT, TPX team, DEMO team, and other fusion community institutions.).

The second meeting was held at Boston. It was the Fusion Safety Steering Committee and included a wider audience of fusion personnel including ITER and STARLITE representatives. This meeting was to offer guidance to the group developing the Fusion Safety Standard. Many of the suggestions from the Utility Advisory Committee were being seriously considered and implemented. The general approach is to start with the minimum set of requirements for the fusion facilities and try to reduce the required number and complexity of the safety systems.

S. Herring is working on the inputs to the fusion safety standard, specifically in the radiological, chemical, and magnetic areas. Steve stated that he had found minimal magnetic regulations, but there were several suggestions of other sources especially from IEEE in the area of EMF from power and transmission lines.

C. Wong reported that GA is supporting the strategy paper mentioned above. Following this, they can start on the clean sheet approach.

G. Hofer submitted his first draft of a document dealing with the NRC jurisdiction of fusion. He has started on the second paper that reviews NRC regulations and documents that may be applied to future fusion facilities.

Task 5A. - C. Kessel reported that Dave Ehst drafted and distributed a technical note outlining parameters of an advanced tokamak reactor. Addressees are encouraged to review his work and furnish comments back to Dave. If acceptable, these parameters can be used for tradeoffs and studies of this advanced physics regime. C. Bathke will commence work in this area following the SOFT meeting.

Task 5B - [From the 8/1/94 CC, it was noted we discussed selection criteria for Shield material including high efficiency in shielding and lower unit cost. A second point was that the entire cost of the ARIES FWBS system should be used in any cost comparison.]

D.K. Sze was concerned that the Ehst FW neutron wall load was too high for DEMO (5.5 MW/m2 with a peaking factor of 1.6 included). F. Najmabadi recommended the use of a 1.4 peaking factor would be more appropriate. Laila is evaluating various shielding materials for cost-effective shielding. The Engr group would like to get a costing rule of thumb for the structural (and other) materials. A credible cost estimate would require a detailed design and analysis but a reasonable starting point for a SS shield structure would be around $35/kg. Coolant options for the shield were discussed with relative advantages and disadvantages. Laila reported publishing a shield approach for the stellarator.

5C - F. Najmabadi and C. Wong are meeting 8/17 to discuss the merits of distributing the STARFIRE Commercial Fusion Plant Layout drawings to S. Rosen.

5D.- C. Wong stressed that the STARLITE team should use the developed WBS list to determine those components judged to be critical. From those components, an set of R&D needs can be formulated to prepare an R&D plan.