From: Hutch Neilson
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 10:22
PM
To: Hutch Neilson; Bradley E. Nelson; Jim Lyon; Lawrence E. Dudek;
Mike Williams; Michael C. Zarnstorff; Phil Heitzenroeder; Wayne T. Reiersen;
Ronald L. Strykowsky; Mike Cole
Subject: Summary of NCSX SIT Meeting
of 7/24/06
Summary of NCSX
System Integration Team (SIT) Meeting of Monday, July 24,
2006
1. Safety items: NCSX response to recent
ISM review
Wayne presented
project responses to the issues identified by the recent ISM re-verification
review. Highlights:
- Identify PPE and other
hazard controls as “safety notes” in manufacturing procedures, and have the
JHA refer to them. Revise our procedures and JHAs accordingly. Action:
Larry.
- Add a signature page to
the JHA to facilitate legible signoff. Review all NCSX manufacturing
facility JHAs for completeness. Action: Larry.
- Incorporate safety
controls for hydrostatic and pneumatic testing procedure ENG-014 into
appropriate NCSX procedures, e.g. As safety notes. Action: Chrzanowski.
- The Lab response should
complain about nit-picking of round-off approximations in the relief valve
settings in issue CF4-5, Action: Wayne
- We have created a new
autoclave access procedure to document safeing requirements, including LOTO
checklist, to permit access. Also un-safeing requirements.
- Take credit for “toolbox”
meeting on LOTO and confined space in Issue CF4-7. Action: Wayne
- Provide NCSX response as
input to Lab response via ES&H Div. Action:
Wayne
2. Coil
Testing
Wayne summarized
conclusions from recently completed cold testing of C1
coil.
- Cryostat cooling
performance fell short. Some changes will have to be made in the design of
the stellarator cryostat cooling system. More cooling tests may be needed.
If so, we would probably use the CTF and C1 coil, but without energizing the
coil.
- Coil cooldown performance
between pulses confirmed our modeling.
- Deflectometer
measurements were in agreement with structural modeling calculations.
- Strain gauge data are not
understood. For this reason, we were not able to compare structural model
calculations with local stresses, an important goal of the testing. A
concern exists that we might not be able to determine the structural limits
of the stellarator, if we have not validated our model and are unable to
make reliable strain gauge measurements.
- It was determined that a
technical peer review of the results was needed before we could decide
whether or not additional testing is required. We will hold a peer
review once we have finished our investigation of the strain gauge data,
probably mid-August. Responsibility:
Wayne.
4. Response to DOE request for
cost and schedule analysis
- A recent DOE letter
expresses concerns about project contingency utilization trends and scope
reductions. It requests a set of analyses by Sept. 15, including cost control
measures, an ETC and risk-based contingency update, and estimate of upgrade
costs to support the research program.
- A project plan for
providing the requested analyses was issued and
discussed.
4. Next SIT Meeting: August
7
Summary by:
Hutch Neilson