TO: Starlite Study Team

DATE: Jan 25, 1995

FROM: L. Waganer

SUBJECT: Starlite Conference Call Minutes, Wednesday, 18 Jan 1995

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


It was noted the minutes for the 4 Jan 95 conference call had just been distributed.

More details for the next Starlite meeting at UCSD were discussed. The Engineering Group has scheduled a meeting commencing on Monday (2/13) at 9:00 am. Contact M. Tillack for more information. There will not be a Physics Group meeting on Monday. The formal Starlite meeting will begin on Tuesday morning, 2/14, and continue through noon on Wednesday, 2/15. L. Waganer will construct an agenda and B.J. Lee will be handling the meeting arrangements. F. Najmabadi took names of people who would be attending the meeting and wish a parking permit mailed to them for the first meeting day. [If you were not on the call and wish a permit, call F. Najmabadi.] After arrival, additional tickets can be obtained from the UCSD staff. They purchased the tickets for our convenience and at a lower cost than at the Information Booths. The cost will be somewhat over $7/day.

Following the Starlite meeting, the Utility Advisory Committee Meeting will be held on Thursday, 2/16 through Friday noon, 2/17. Immediately after the conference call, M. Tillack distributed the UAC meeting agenda to the EXEC Committee as requested.


Task Results:

Task 1 - L. Waganer reported some feedback from FICUS members. F. Najmabadi is to send the Mission Statement to the UAC so that they can bring comments to the mid-February meeting.

L. Waganer reported collecting inputs to the Top Level Demo Requirements and issuing a combined draft to the team. The draft list simulated the team to contribute many comments, proposed modifications, and additional requirements. D. Steiner reiterated that the requirements should not be prescriptive and should allow design freedom to achieve a suitable solution. There was discussion if we should limit the tritium release or just specify a general release. There was also a debate between a recommendation to require passive safety (viewed as a positive attribute) versus recommend passive systems (would be less restrictive if alternative passive/active solutions were be more attractive) The value of including the evacuation plan as a requirement versus a goal was also discussed.

The need to include a COE requirement was unilaterally accepted. However, the quantification of this requirement will be difficult. Some thought a definite number should be specified. Others wanted to index to values quoted by the best energy-supply competitors. Others thought this lended too much credence to the competition's projections. R. Miller proposed several techniques to display the various elements of COE. It was also suggested that a technique be defined to assess the effect of eased licensing and increased safety features. These may be quantified through the financing aspects of COE [Ron to assess]. Decommissioning costs may also have a strong influence. It was also noted we must continue to consider both the cost of the Demo and the Commercial power plant, but we must remember to keep the two costs properly accounted. For instance, the financial arrangements will be significantly different and the performance will be improved.

The next project step is to adopt the candidate requirements and quantify them. Waganer will reassemble a composite listing of the requirements. He will try to incorporate all viewpoints. After the list is distributed, quantifying values should be proposed for review. During the next CC, we will have a preliminary discussion of the quantities. At the next meeting, we will have a more in-depth discussion, culminating with a consensus on the quantified requirements.

Task 2. - R. Miller noted he is investigating enhanced methods to display and analyze the COE elements. Ron has also been working with PPPL to incorporate elements of the emerging TXP cost base in the Demo cost base.

Task 3 - T. Flynn had just released a general set of RAMI requirements to the Engr Group for review. Waganer recommended Tom highlight 1 or 2 top level requirements for RAMI to be included in the Top Level Requirement List. All other lower level RAMI requirements or goals should support those upper tier requirements. C. Wong expressed that he would appreciate specific guidance as to reliability requirements for specific plant systems. [From last CC call: Tom is work with C. Wong to establish a system diagram to establish the Demo plant reliability requirement.] Clement suggested Tom contact Peter Petersen for DIII related data. Existing power plants have exhibited a significant increase in capacity factor over the past few years. Some have consistently exceeded 100% of their rated capacity for an extended period.

Task 4. - D. Steiner reviewed the general goals and 1995 subtasks to develop top tier Safety and Licensing goals for Demo. The 1994 tasks results (progress) are being finalized and will be forwarded to Waganer. John Delooper will attend the next Starlite project meeting and update the team on his committee's progress.

L El-Guebaly has been working on the changes to incorporate a capability to do hands-on maintenance on the outside of the power core within 24 hours, similar to the requirement for the Starfire conceptual design. She continues to investigate the issues of waste disposal and recycle.

Greg Hofer reported that he and S. Herring have been looking at the design options as related to accident scenarios.

Task 5A. - T.K. Mau reported that J. Mandrekas (G. Tech) will do calculations to develop the radiative mantle data for the low aspect ratio and reverse shear options. T.K. is waiting on C. Bathke to complete the EQDSK results so he can do current drive modeling for the low aspect ratio option. Chuck is to complete his modeling this week. But he needs some engineering guidance on the low aspect ratio option to complete the system code modeling. M. Tillack and C. Bathke will meet to determine his needs and possible manpower application to yield necessary data. The main modeling difficulties are in the area of the center post and the design constraints on the magnets. The power supplies for the magnets may be considerable stretch for the state of the art. D. Steiner mentioned some of his students are investigating such a design and thus may be of some assistance.

Task 5B - D-K Sze reported some results on the thermal stress modeling of the first wall. For a 1-2 mm vanadium tubular first wall, the thermal limits would be around 3-4 MW/m2 whereas the SiC first wall would be limited to roughly 2 MW/m2.

M. Tillack reported that the Engineering Group is conducting a literature search for relevant data for the ferritic steel assessment. A major portion of the Engineering Group meeting will address this subject.

L El-Guebaly mentioned her efforts on quantifying the necessary tritium breeding ratio. This will ultimately lead to design constraints on approaches and choice of materials (i.e., beryllium neutron multiplier). There was some confusion regarding the TBR values (and assumptions) which have been resolved.

D-K also noted two upcoming, but unscheduled, workshops. One is on liquid metal diverter. The other workshop will be related to insulating coatings for liquid metal coolants and/or breeders.

L. Bromberg is continuing to investigate design options and analysis to accommodate the TF magnet out-of-plane loading conditions. Results will be available by the February meeting.

Clement Wong and Glenn Sager are analyzing the PFC physics and engineering aspects of the diverter for Demo. Specific areas of investigation are erosion, pumping, and high heat flux. He suggested that the project needs a consistent model of the diverter to properly develop an adequate design.

Clement Wong mentioned that he learned of a dispersion-strengthened copper that had demonstrated engineering properties up to 600-700deg.C as compared to the normal copper limits of 350deg.C. [Clement will follow up on this topic.]

The next conference call is scheduled for 1 February 1995. See you then.