Summary of NCSX System Integration Team (SIT) Meeting of Tuesday, January 3, 2006

1.    Risks

• Reaching closure on VV design issues. Brad recommended a set of R&D activities intended to expedite resolution of a number of VV design issues. The recommendations were discussed and dispositioned as follows.
  
  • Attachment of the flexible H/C tubes to the vacuum vessel.  The NSTX center stack shell mockup, left over from the NSTX project, will be used to prototype tube attachment methods and measure the heat transfer performance, the key unknown for finalizing the design. Set up is already in progress and first results are expected by 1/13. Action: Goranson proceed as planned.
  • Installation and performance of the boots that seal the gaps between the VV ports and the MC shell.  The proposal is to use a section of the Rohwedder PVVS, including the port, with the port protruding through a hole in some sort of washtub-like mockup of the MC shell, a boot sealing the gap, and pourable insulation filling up the washtub. Issues to be addressed are: cost of fabricating and installing the boot, performance of the boot in in terms of holding in the insulation, and perhaps insulating material behavior under installation, operation, and removal. The basic objective is to come up with a practical and affordable boot design.  Action: Brad produce a work plan with schedule and resource requirements and provide to Ron. This is new work that will require contingency.
  • Performance of the heating tapes in controlling the temperature along the ports.  The proposal is to include heating tapes on the Rohwedder port in the set-up described in the preceding bullet, along with I&C needed to test temperature control. The objective is to demonstrate that such an arrangement can maintain a near linear temperature gradient along the port and 150 C temperature at the flange with the vessel at 350 C. Concerns raised in the discussion were: does DIII-D experience provide sufficient confidence without additional tests? Can we mock up the real situation adequately to provide a relevant test? How costly and time-consuming will it be to do an adequate mockup and do the benefits outweigh the costs?  Action: Brad contact DIII-D (e.g. Paul Anderson) to get more information about their experience. Establish the minimum requirements for a relevant test.
    
• Updated plan for addressing MCWF delivery schedule risks. (Phil)
  
  • Jan. 4-6 (current week):  Technical requirements review at Major Tool. Can we benefit the delivery schedule by relaxing low-value/high-cost requirements (e.g., tolerances)?  Phil will arrange teleconference participation in closeout meetings or debriefing later in the week, as he thinks appropriate.  Use SIT teleconference number: 1-877-653-7764, code 361326#.
  • Week of Jan. 9: Implementation of a strategy and plan, including direction to EIO, for improving MCWF delivery schedule. Responsibility: Hutch
  • Week of Jan. 16:  Meeting with EIO at PPPL Jan. 16 to review schedule improvements resulting from technical changes, and discuss initiatives to improve schedule. Meeting at Major Tool later in the week (tentatively Jan. 17), if it appears useful, to continue the discussion of schedule improvement.  Phil to arrange
  • Weeks of Jan. 23 and Jan. 30:  Brief DOE-PSO (Pitonak and Makiel) on status of MCWF schedule and improvement initiatives, as part of preparation for the FY06-1Q quarterly review planned for the week of Feb. 6. Continue to work the MCWF improvement plan with EIO. Update Lehman Review recommendations log. Dry runs for quarterly presentations, probably by Hutch and Ron.
  • Week of Feb. 6: FY06-1Q quarterly review for OFES.  Report substantial progress on MCWF get-well plan, along with updates on MC winding schedule and TF sourcing, as requested at November Lehman review.
    

2.    FY-06 Planning Changes

• The financial flexibility exists to pull work scope forward from FY-07 to FY-06. Also, expected delays in VVSA and MCWF deliveries require some re-planning and provide additional pull-forward opportunities. Key work scopes were discussed.
  
  • TF Coils (WBS 13):  A competitive procurement action for the TF coil assemblies (coils assembled to wedge supports) has been initiated. Kalish is the job manager. Some design deliverables need to be finished up in order for the RFP to be issued by Feb. 1. Goal is to award by 4/15/06.  Information meeting for interested suppliers is scheduled for Jan. 10.
  • PF Coils (WBS 13):  Complete the design during Feb-May, 2006.  Award by October, 2006.  Kalish is the job manager. Availability of designer support is an issue. Wayne will work the staffing issues.
  • Trim Coils (WBS 13):  Complete the design during June-Sept., 2006. Award in FY-07. Kalish is the job manager. Physics is responsible for establishing the requirements in time to support the design effort. Mike Z. is responsible. Availability of designer support is an issue. Wayne will work the staffing issues.
  • Structures (WBS 15) and CS support structure (WBS 13): Complete the design in parallel with the PF design, during Feb.-May, 2006. Award by October, 2006.  Candidates for job manager (Dahlgren) and designer support (Messineo) were discussed.  Wayne will work the staffing issues.
  • Cryostat (WBS 17):  A study has been conducted to determine whether to continue with the existing design concept or move to a new concept. Wayne reported that the recommendation is to stay with the existing concept, though work is needed to address its problems. A presentation will be scheduled during the week of Jan. 9 to explain this decision and the planned solutions. Wayne will schedule the presentation, coordinating with Mike Z.’s calendar. The plan is to complete an “advanced preliminary design” by March, the basic goal being to re-establish a viable model of the cryostat that is properly integrated with the rest of the stellarator core. Gettelfinger is the job manager. Candidates for designer support (Messineo) were discussed.  Wayne will work the staffing issues.
  • Field period assembly (WBS 18), power systems (WBS 4), base structure (WBS 17), and shield wall (WBS 7) work were also discussed.  Wayne is working these plans with the WBS managers.
    
• Responsibility: Wayne ensure that updated work plans are submitted to Ron. Wayne and Ron incorporate plans into FY-06 schedule.
  

3.    Project Control (Ron)

• December job status meeting will be Friday, January 6, at 8:00-12:00.
  

4.  Next SIT Meeting: Jan. 9.

Summary by:
Hutch Neilson