status of u. s. planning for iter

Status of U. S. Planning for ITER

Exploring Magnetically-Confined Burning Plasmas in the Laboratory

Ned Sauthoff

Fusion Power Associates

Washington, DC

October 11, 2005

Status at FPA 2004 (12/13/04)

Technical Work • ITER team, USIPO and VLT continuing R&D and design

• US focus on risk mitigation• Diagnostic Working Group

active

International Situation • Development of international arrangements stalled since 12/20/03

U.S. Domestic Situation on Fabrication

• US arrangements beginning• US ITER Project Office (USIPO)

established 7/04• US ITER Project Advisory

Committee named

U.S. Domestic Situation on Research

• Link to the U.S. physics research community weak

Comparison of situations: FPA 2004 and FPA 2005

FPA 2004 (12/13/04) FPA 2005 (10/11/05)

• ITER team and USIPO continuing R&D and design

• US focus on risk mitigation

• Diagnostic Working Group active

• First round of strand qualifications nearly complete

• Working groups in Diagnostics/Port-Plugs, First Wall, ICH, Tritium, …

• Preparing for arrival of DG for technical decision-making

• Development of international arrangements stalled since 12/20/03

• Site selected

• NSSG and N meetings resumed

• US arrangements beginning

• US ITER Project Office (USIPO) established 7/04

• US ITER Project Advisory Committee named

• Development of US estimates and plans

• First Lehman Review 3/05

• US ITER Project Advisory Committee met and issued recommendations


• U.S. Burning Plasma Organization established and beginning to function

???

U.S. provisional “in-kind contribution” scope

44% of ICRH antenna + all transmission lines,RF-sources, and power supplies

Start-up gyrotrons, all transmission lines and power supplies

15% of port-based diagnostic packages

4 of 7 Central Solenoid Modules

Steady-state power supplies

Cooling for divertor, vacuum vessel, …

Blanket/Shield 10%

pellet injector Tokamak exhaust processing system

Roughing pumps, standard components

Central Solenoid Activities

• Domestic research and development aimed at addressing areas of risk– Jc (current density)

– Jacket material– Joints– Winding

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.

The US is addressing areas of risk in its Module 18 First Wall/Shield allocation

Module 18

– 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

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

New RWM Coil Concept for ITER

• Baseline RWM coils located outside TF coilsNo-walllimit

Closer RWM coils would have large

stabilizing effect on n=1

RWM Coils in every third port

• RWM coils might be located on port shield plugs inside the vacuum vessel.

Baseline RWM Coils

Port plug studies also explore opportunities for improved plasma performance by internal RWM Feedback Coils to

increase ITER’s -limit

JET HPP and test-stand studies have suggested design modifications

ITER ion cyclotron system block diagram

HV DCSupplies

RF Sources Transmission Lines/Decoupler/Tuning

Eight-strapantenna

Tuning / Matching design

Faraday Shield Design

8- or 12-strapconfiguration?

16-tube source stability, or12-tube configuration?

(24) 1 MW, 170 GHz Gyrotrons

(3) 1 MW, 120 GHz Gyrotrons (US)

Transmission Lines (US)

Equatorial Launcher

(3) Upper Launchers

(24) DC Power Supplies (not shown) (US)

Electron Cyclotron System Configuration

development

work on specifications

develop cooling

Pellet Path

High Field Side Pellet-Launch being developed

The integrated design of the ITER Tritium Plant is being developed by US, EU and KO

Tritium Plant

Tokamak

VacuumTokamak Exhaust

Processing

Isotope Separation

System

Storage and Delivery

Fueling

Atmosphere Detritiation

Water Detritiation

Automated Control System

Analytical System

Q2

WaterMethaneInerts

Q2

WaterMethaneInerts

Q2

Tritium-free water, methane, inerts

D, TD, TDTH

Air

Effluent

H2O

US

EU

KOHost

Host

Central fund

Central fund

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

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

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


FPA 2004 (12/13/04) FPA 2005 (10/11/05)








• Site selected










???

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

• …

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

Integrated roles of the ITER Organization and the Domestic Agencies must be developed

Supporting Services

Support for Project Management, Computer Network Technical works, etc.

ITER Organization

Central Team

Field TeamField Team Field Team

Council

Science andTechnology

Advisory Committee

ManagementAdvisory

Committee

Director-General(DG)

Auditors

Staff (professionals + support staff)

DomesticAgency

DomesticAgency

DomesticAgency

Contracts

for construction phase

Host country


FPA 2004 (12/13/04) FPA 2005 (10/11/05)








• Site selected










???

ITER and International DivisionMichael Roberts, Director

Warren Marton, ITER Program Manager

N. Anne Davies, SC Associate Director

Office of Fusion Energy Sciences

Management Structure for the US ITER Project and Program

Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory

Committee

• 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

Raymond L. Orbach, Director

Office of Science

Fusion Community: Laboratories, Academia, and Industry

Erol Oktay, US Burning Plasma Physics Program Manager

Gene Nardella, US Burning Plasma TechnologyProgram Manager

Research DivisionJohn Willis, Director

Grey boxes indicate direct ITER project activities and responsibilities.

White boxes indicate OFES program activities supporting ITER.

US ITER Project Advisory

Committee(Community Inputto Project Office)

Solid lines indicate reporting relationships.

Dashed lines indicate coordinating relationships. Note: This chart does not display the necessary organizational relationships with the legal, financial, and construction management offices within DOE.

Gregory PitonakActing ITER Federal Project Director

DOE SC Princeton Site OfficeJerry Faul, Director

Ned SauthoffProject Manager

US ITER Project Office

Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory/ORNL

Rob Goldston, PPPL DirectorRich Hawryluk, Deputy Director

INTEGRATED

PROJECT

TEAM

Stan Milora, ORNL Fusion Director

Joint Oversight Committee

(Partnership Coordination)

UT-BattelleORNL

PUPPPL

ITE

R O

rgan

izat

ionProject

Fiscal YearTotal

Estimated Costs (TEC)

Other Project

Costs (OPC)

Total Project

Costs (TPC)

2006 46,000 3,500 49,500

2007 130,000 16,000 146,000

2008 182,000 18,800 200,800

2009 191,000 16,500 207,500

2010 189,000 10,300 199,300

2011 151,000 9,300 160,300

2012 120,000 6,200 126,200

2013 29,000 3,400 32,400

Total 1,038,000 84,000 1,122,000

*

FY2006 President’s Budget Request ($000)Funding Profile for US ITER Project

--------- 16,100 --------- 19,600

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

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

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.

Critical Decision Schedule

CD-0 Approve Mission Need 2005

CD-1 Approve Preliminary Baseline Range

2006

CD-2 Approve Performance Baseline

2007

CD-3 Approve Start of Construction

2007

CD-4 Approve Start of Operations or Project Closeout

2013

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)

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?

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.


FPA 2004 (12/13/04) FPA 2005 (10/11/05)








• Site selected









• U.S. Burning Plasma Organization established and beginning to function???







Committee





Office of Science

















INTEGRATED

PROJECT

TEAM




UT-BattelleORNL

PUPPPL

ITE

R O

rgan

izat

ion







Committee





Office of Science

















INTEGRATED

PROJECT

TEAM




UT-BattelleORNL

PUPPPL

ITE

R O

rgan

izat

ion

Program


FPA 2004 (12/13/04) FPA 2005 (10/11/05)








• Site selected










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

FPA 2004 (12/13/04) FPA 2005 (10/11/05)








• Site selected










status of u. s. planning for iter

Documents