TO: Starlite Study Team DATE: Jan 9, 1995; Rev A 18 Jan 95

FROM: L. Waganer Rev A; Task 5A, Bathke, not Kessel

SUBJECT: Starlite Conference Call Minutes, Wednesday, 4 Jan 1995

PARTICIPANTS (by organization): Sze, Billone, Dean, Wong, Sager, Herring, McCarthy, Bathke, Waganer, Bromberg, Jardin, Hofer, Flynn, Miller, Najmabadi, Mau, Tillack, Santarius

ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES

The minutes for the 7-9 Starlite meeting minutes were adopted with no changes.

The date and time for next Starlite meeting at UCSD were discussed. It was decided that the formal Starlite meeting would begin on Tuesday morning, 2/14, and continue through noon on Wednesday, 2/15. The Engineering and Physics Groups can schedule their special purpose meetings as required on Monday (2/13). Arrangements will handled by those groups. Following the Starlite meeting, the Utility Advisory Committee Meeting will be held on Thursday, 2/16 through Friday noon, 2/17.

Action Items - F. Najmabadi and L. Waganer are to update the project Action Item list to make it more timely and relevant.

Starlite PROJECT STATUS

Task Results:

Task 1 - L. Waganer reported sending the revised Mission Statement to the FICUS members with feedback by 1/31/95. F. Najmabadi is to send the Mission Statement to the UAC so that they can bring comments to the mid-February meeting. The floor was opened to the team for comments and suggested changes to the Statement. S. Dean thought the Foreword was unnecessary. His impression was that it downgraded prior endeavors to define a fusion demo. Steve is to send supporting documentation on prior demo definitions and recommended specific changes to Najmabadi.

The team was to formulate a draft list of top level requirements for Demo. It is still unclear what constitutes a "top level requirement". It should be directly traceable to the Mission Statements. It should be not be prescriptive. That is, it should define what is to be done, not how it is to be done, (e.g., Demo should meet certain waste criteria, not that it should be built with certain materials). At present we are just identifying candidates. The next step is to adopt the candidates and then quantify them. If a number is assigned, it is intended to be a firm requirement to be used in the following conceptual phase of Demo. However, if it is unachievable, or it causes extreme hardship on another part of the design, it is negotiable. D-K Sze formulated five top level requirements and will forward them to L. Waganer for documentation. Safety requirements have been forwarded to D. Steiner, who will transmit the combined list to Waganer. Other contributors can sent candidates to Waganer who will issue a composite list for consideration and discussion at the next CC. [Note for Les: Include traceability of the requirement back to a Mission Statement]

Task 2. - R. Miller mentioned the December EPRI Journal had an excellent article on high level requirements for the design of a next generation electrical power production facility.

Task 3 - T. Flynn reported recent data for Capacity Factor (related to Availability) for all US power plants. The average for all plants was > 70% with many plants achieving > 85% for long periods of time. The generally accepted goal for the next generation of advanced nuclear reactor is <= 85%. (This is consistent with the data Miller reported.) Tom also noted that TFTR had evaluated the reliability of their systems performance during their DD phase. The TFTR project felt many components and subsystems could be reused in TPX with expected high reliability results. (Tom will distribute the data to the team.) He is working with C. Wong to establish a system diagram to be used to establish the Demo plant reliability requirement.

Task 4. - S. Herring reported that a set of goals and/or requirements is being developed for both normal and off-normal operations. It will be sent out for review this week. C. Wong reported that F. Silady is starting with the premises that the public should not be "disturbed" by a fusion power plant and the workers should entail no greater risk than with any other power plant. As a design goal, the Demo should be designed to put the safety risk in the ALARA category, given the guideline of "for a reasonable cost". In response to T. Flynn 's question, the team affirmed that Demo would demonstrate load following and partial load operation.

Task 5A. - Task 5A. - S. Jardin stated that progress is be made on physics tasks.

Some engineering support is needed on the low-aspect ratio concept. F. Najmabadi will assign some support from the Engineering Group and contact I. Cook to see if we can obtain relevant engineering data. T.K. Mau and C. Bathke are coordinating efforts between equilibrium code and the ray-tracing code. Kessel and Ehst are also working on the reverse shear modeling. T.K. is soliciting help on the modeling of the radiative mantle.

Task 5B - D-K Sze mentioned work has commenced on the thermal stress modeling of the first wall. The results are highly dependent upon the chosen geometry, thus a tubular first wall design was chosen for evaluation. Mechanical and thermal stresses will be evaluated given axi-symmetric thermal loading. Tillack, Blanchard, and someone from MDA will be working on this topic.

D-K mentioned his investigation of quantifying the necessary tritium breeding ratio with the goal of ultimately determining if beryllium is necessary as a neutron multiplier when used in conjunction with neutron-transparent first wall and blanket materials.

C. Wong and G. Sager explained the issues associated with selection of PFC materials. Long-term normal operation, transients, and off-normal events need to be accommodated. Quantifying the requirements are difficult as they are design- and material-specific.

L. Bromberg addressed the magnet design to accommodate the out-of-plane loading conditions. He is retrying to use ANSYS to model the design options to find a more cost-effect design. Results are to be available by the February meeting.

The next conference call is scheduled for 18 January 1995. Be talking to you then. Les W.