Status of U. S. Planning for ITER

1. Status of U. S. Planning for ITER Ned Sauthoff Fusion Power Associates Washington, DC October 11, 2005 Exploring Magnetically-Confined Burning Plasmas in the Laboratory

2. Status at FPA 2004 (12/13/04)

3. Comparison of situations: FPA 2004 and FPA 2005 ???

4. 4 of 7 Central Solenoid Modules 15% of port-based diagnostic packages 44% of ICRH antenna + all transmission lines,RF-sources, and power supplies Start-up gyrotrons, all transmission lines and power supplies Blanket/Shield 10% Roughing pumps, standard components Cooling for divertor, vacuum vessel, … Tokamak exhaust processing system pellet injector U.S. provisional “in-kind contribution” scope Steady-state power supplies

5. Central Solenoid Activities • Domestic research and development aimed at addressing areas of risk • Jc (current density) • Jacket material • Joints • Winding

6. Typical strand layout as proposed by OST. Diameter is ~0.8 mm. Qualification of industrial suppliers of Nb3Sn strands with increased value of Jc • In FY04, the US placed contracts for the development and qualification of >100kg of superconducting strand • In FY05, testing of the products began. • In FY06, larger-volume prototypes will be procured (if MIE budget). • In FY07, initial production orders could be placed if the IO’s specifications are finalized and the procurement packaged agreed.

7. The US is addressing areas of risk in its Module 18 First Wall/Shield allocation • Qualification of the FW panel fabrication methods and to establish the NDT method for the FW panel. • EM Analysis of modules and dynamic analysis of the key. • Detailed design of blanket modules and thermal hydraulic analysis of the shield block and the total blanket system. • Analysis of erosion of the ITER first wall due to plasma impingement 10% of first-wall area 1.6m2 Module 18

8. Areas of commonality motivate an integrated approach… • In-vessel ITER systems share issues: • Shield/blanket • Ion cyclotron antenna • Electron cyclotron launcher • Diagnostic port plugs • Test blanket modules • Issues • Plasma-facing materials and structures • Surface-power handling • Forces from disruptions, … • Neutron shielding • Volume-power handling / power extraction • Commonality motivates shared integrated approaches • 3-D neutronics analyses, and integration with CAD • Thermohydraulics • Plasma-facing structures, materials and fabrication technologies

9. RWM Coils in every third port Closer RWM coils would have large stabilizing effect on n=1 • RWM coils might be located on port shield plugs inside the vacuum vessel. Port plug studies also explore opportunities for improved plasma performance by internal RWM Feedback Coils to increase ITER’s b-limit New RWM Coil Concept for ITER Baseline RWM Coils No-wall limit • Baseline RWM coils located outside TF coils

10. JET HPP and test-stand studies have suggested design modifications Tuning / Matching design 8- or 12-strapconfiguration? 16-tube source stability, or 12-tube configuration? Faraday Shield Design ITER ion cyclotron system block diagram

11. Electron Cyclotron System Configuration (24) 1 MW, 170 GHz Gyrotrons (24) DC Power Supplies (not shown) (US) work on specifications (3) 1 MW, 120 GHz Gyrotrons (US) development Transmission Lines (US) develop cooling Equatorial Launcher (3) Upper Launchers

12. Pellet Path High Field Side Pellet-Launch being developed

13. The integrated design of the ITER Tritium Plant is being developed by US, EU and KO Host KO Host EU US Central fund Centralfund Tritium Plant

14. The US is designing its 5 diagnostic port plugs and its set of instruments • Diagnostic Working Group • Completed its recommendation on packaging of diagnostic allocations • Port-based allocation was accepted by the International Team/Participant Team Leaders • Port-Plug Task Force • Developing approaches to the design and integration of port-plugs • Diagnostic Design • Specifications of the diagnostic • Integrated design of the instrument • Component selection • Integration in the Port-Plug

15. U.S. Secondees and Visiting Researchers • Magnets: • Nicolai Martovetsky (LLNL), Philip Michael (MIT) • Blanket/First Wall: • Richard Nygren (Sandia) + • Ion Cyclotron [IT Coordinators for IC]: • David Swain (ORNL), Richard Goulding (ORNL) • Diagnostic Port Plug Design: • Douglas Loesser (PPPL) • QA [Head of QA on the ITER International Team]: • W. K. Sowder (INL) • Buildings/Project Management: • Jerry Sovka

16. Outside the ITER Project,Test Blanket Modules are being planned • Two approaches are being developed by the US, via joint research with other parties: • A helium-cooled solid breeder concept with ferritic steel structure and beryllium neutron multiplier • A Dual-Coolant Pb-Li liquid breeder blanket concept with self-cooled LiPb breeding zone and flow channel inserts (FCIs) as MHD and thermal insulator

17. Comparison of situations: FPA 2004 and FPA 2005 ???

18. Innovative arrangements must be completed for the Agreement • Effective distributed project management the integrates the activities of the parties • Procurement systems, including in-kind contributions and cash; change management • Resource management, including change-management • Staffing by secondees, direct employees of the international organization, and contracts • …

19. Future evolutions of procurement allocations • The 2003 provisional Procurement Allocations will likely be refined: • To assign the 15% FLEX allocations • To improve the prospects of project success • assigning tightly-coupled packages to the same party(ies) to eliminate unnecessarily complex interfaces • balancing the pro’s and con’s of assigning a package to a single party or to several parties; assignment to a single party enables greater uniformity, whereas assignment to several parties affords redundancy that would reduce the risk related to problems encountered by a single supplier. • reducing overall project cost by eliminating unnecessary duplication; this could be achieved by reducing the number of suppliers or by increased sharing of R&D and design • assigning scopes to parties who have demonstrated capability and capacity • To accommodate new parties if one is added

20. ITER Organization Council Science and Technology Advisory Committee Management Advisory Committee Auditors Host country Director-General (DG) Staff (professionals + support staff) Supporting Services Support for Project Management, Computer Network Technical works, etc. Central Team Contracts Field Team Field Team Field Team for construction phase Domestic Agency Domestic Agency Domestic Agency Integrated roles of the ITER Organization and the Domestic Agencies must be developed

21. Comparison of situations: FPA 2004 and FPA 2005 ???

22. Project Management Structure for the US ITER Project and Program Office of Science Raymond L. Orbach, Director Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee Office of Fusion Energy Sciences N. Anne Davies, SC Associate Director Research Division John Willis, Director ITER and International DivisionMichael Roberts, Director I N T E G R A T E D P R O J E C T T E A M Erol Oktay, US Burning Plasma Physics Program Manager Gene Nardella, US Burning Plasma Technology Program Manager Warren Marton, ITER Program Manager ITER Organization DOE SC Princeton Site OfficeJerry Faul, Director Fusion Community: Laboratories, Academia, and Industry Gregory PitonakActing ITER Federal Project Director Joint Oversight Committee (Partnership Coordination) • Provides wide spectrum of supporting activities from existing efforts – e.g., DIII-D, NSTX, C-MOD, Theory, VLT, NSO • Coordinated by Burning Plasma Program (R. Fonck, leader) including Chief Scientist and Chief Technologist from Project Office as ex officio members • Interacts with Project Office through task agreements Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory/ORNL UT-BattelleORNL PUPPPL Rob Goldston, PPPL Director Rich Hawryluk, Deputy Director US ITER Project Advisory Committee (Community Inputto Project Office) Stan Milora, ORNL Fusion Director US ITER Project Office Grey boxes indicate direct ITER project activities and responsibilities. Ned SauthoffProject Manager White boxes indicate OFES program activities supporting ITER. Solid lines indicate reporting relationships. Note: This chart does not display the necessary organizational relationships with the legal, financial, and construction management offices within DOE. Dashed lines indicate coordinating relationships.

23. --------- 16,100 --------- 19,600 FY2006 President’s Budget Request ($000)Funding Profile for US ITER Project *

24. Domestic Project Management: DOE/SC Lehman Review recommendations and responses • “The Committee recommended the U.S. ITER Project proceed with CD-1 after updating the cost range and acquisition strategy, and documenting plans for value engineering.” • Cost and Schedule Recommendations of the Committee are: • Increase the cost range to reflect the number and nature of uncertainties facing the U.S. ITER project (DG selection, Agreement completion, DG review, roles and responsibilities of the ITER Organization and the Domestic Agencies) • Work with the International Team and ITER parties to establish the basis for an appropriate amount of contingency to address potential cost and schedule impacts related to activities of the International Project organization • Work to develop a comprehensive, detailed basis of estimate to support preparations for CD-2, Performance Baseline

25. Domestic Project Management: DOE/SC Lehman Review: Project responses • US ITER Project agreed to: • Work to finalize US roles, scopes, acceptance criteria, and interfaces • Reevaluate the cost range • in view of ITER project uncertainties, including uncertainty in the International ITER Project organization, roles and procedures • in magnets specifically • invoking value engineering • Work to adopt a “design/build to cost” strategy in Agreement – 6 party approval • Prioritize R&D to address key areas of risk (e.g., magnet strand and jacket) • Devise approaches to minimize risks related to commodity costs • Strive for cost-saving collaborations • Refine acquisition strategies to maximize effectiveness • Include long lead procurement needs in Critical Decision 1 package • Proceed with CD-1 after updating cost range, Acquisition Strategy, and value engineering information

26. Domestic Project Management: CD-0 ESAAB (6/05) on project uncertainties Approval is subject to the following conditions: • That the terms of the international ITER Agreement be presented for my [Deputy Secretary’s] approval as part of the Critical Decision-l process and prior to approval by the State Department; and • The Office of Engineering and Construction Management is to perform an independent review of the DOE cost of the U.S. Contributions to ITER Project prior to Critical Decision-1.

27. Critical Decision Schedule

28. US ITER Project Advisory Committee • Harold Forsen (Chair) • Project Management / Procurement: • Jay Marx (LBNL) • Jim Yeck (U Wisconsin) • Robert Iotti (CH2M-Hill) • Eugene Desaulniers (consultant) •  Universities: •  Stewart Prager (U Wisc) •  Jerry Navratil (Columbia) •  Neville Luhmann (UC Davis) • Herb Berk ( UTexas) •  Major Facilities / Labs: •  Earl Marmar (MIT) •  Ron Stambaugh (GA) •  Mike Zarnstorff •  Lee Berry (ORNL) •  Dave Hill (LLNL) •  Kathy McCarthy (INL)

29. Charges Addressed by the US ITER Project Advisory Committee 1. Assess the progress of the US ITER Project’s R&D and project planning in the context of the uncertainties of the overall ITER project, including the schedules for site selection, International Team formation, design review and completion of design. 2. Is the US ITER Project Office’s (USIPO’s) approach to the uncertainty about the roles of the USIPO and the ITER Organization appropriate? Are the US ITER procurement strategies and management techniques suitable to the unique nature of the project? 3. Is the US ITER Project approach to completing the formation of the US team and to how this team will work to meet project objectives appropriate? 4. Is the schedule of critical decisions realistic and appropriate in light of the uncertainties? 5. Are the USIPO’s plans for interacting with the US Burning Plasma Program appropriate?

30. Solicitation of Expressions of Interest • To explore interest in positions on the USIPO, the USIPO requested expressions of interest in US ITER positions: • Chief Scientist • Chief Technologist • Project Engineer • Magnet Team Leader/Support • Blanket/Shield Module Team Leader/Support • Diagnostics Team Leader/Support • ICH Team Leader/Support • ECH Team Leader/Support • Tritium Team Leader/Support • Vacuum/Fueling Team Leader/Support • Electric Power Team Leader/Support • Cooling Water Team Leader/Support • 230 responses were received by the deadline • The USIPO is using the responses in our planning of procurements • We expect to issue personnel actions and team-procurement actions later this year.

31. Comparison of situations: FPA 2004 and FPA 2005 ???

32. Management Structure for the US ITER Project and Program Office of Science Raymond L. Orbach, Director Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee Office of Fusion Energy Sciences N. Anne Davies, SC Associate Director Research Division John Willis, Director ITER and International DivisionMichael Roberts, Director I N T E G R A T E D P R O J E C T T E A M Erol Oktay, US Burning Plasma Physics Program Manager Gene Nardella, US Burning Plasma Technology Program Manager Warren Marton, ITER Program Manager ITER Organization DOE SC Princeton Site OfficeJerry Faul, Director Fusion Community: Laboratories, Academia, and Industry Gregory PitonakActing ITER Federal Project Director Joint Oversight Committee (Partnership Coordination) • Provides wide spectrum of supporting activities from existing efforts – e.g., DIII-D, NSTX, C-MOD, Theory, VLT, NSO • Coordinated by Burning Plasma Program (R. Fonck, leader) including Chief Scientist and Chief Technologist from Project Office as ex officio members • Interacts with Project Office through task agreements Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory/ORNL UT-BattelleORNL PUPPPL Rob Goldston, PPPL Director Rich Hawryluk, Deputy Director US ITER Project Advisory Committee (Community Inputto Project Office) Stan Milora, ORNL Fusion Director US ITER Project Office Grey boxes indicate direct ITER project activities and responsibilities. Ned SauthoffProject Manager White boxes indicate OFES program activities supporting ITER. Solid lines indicate reporting relationships. Note: This chart does not display the necessary organizational relationships with the legal, financial, and construction management offices within DOE. Dashed lines indicate coordinating relationships.

33. Program Management Structure for the US ITER Project and Program Office of Science Raymond L. Orbach, Director Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee Office of Fusion Energy Sciences N. Anne Davies, SC Associate Director Research Division John Willis, Director ITER and International DivisionMichael Roberts, Director I N T E G R A T E D P R O J E C T T E A M Erol Oktay, US Burning Plasma Physics Program Manager Gene Nardella, US Burning Plasma Technology Program Manager Warren Marton, ITER Program Manager ITER Organization DOE SC Princeton Site OfficeJerry Faul, Director Fusion Community: Laboratories, Academia, and Industry Gregory PitonakActing ITER Federal Project Director Joint Oversight Committee (Partnership Coordination) • Provides wide spectrum of supporting activities from existing efforts – e.g., DIII-D, NSTX, C-MOD, Theory, VLT, NSO • Coordinated by Burning Plasma Program (R. Fonck, leader) including Chief Scientist and Chief Technologist from Project Office as ex officio members • Interacts with Project Office through task agreements Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory/ORNL UT-BattelleORNL PUPPPL Rob Goldston, PPPL Director Rich Hawryluk, Deputy Director US ITER Project Advisory Committee (Community Inputto Project Office) Stan Milora, ORNL Fusion Director US ITER Project Office Grey boxes indicate direct ITER project activities and responsibilities. Ned SauthoffProject Manager White boxes indicate OFES program activities supporting ITER. Solid lines indicate reporting relationships. Note: This chart does not display the necessary organizational relationships with the legal, financial, and construction management offices within DOE. Dashed lines indicate coordinating relationships.

34. Comparison of situations: FPA 2004 and FPA 2005

35. Progress has been made between FPA2004 and FPA2005AND the processes for achievement of ITER are taking shape