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 WorkITER team, USIPO and VLT continuing R&D and design US focus on risk mitigation Diagnostic Working Group active International SituationDevelopment 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

Status at FPA 2004 (12/13/04) Technical WorkITER team, USIPO and VLT continuing R&D and design US focus on risk mitigation Diagnostic Working Group active International SituationDevelopment 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 Link to the U.S. physics research community weak 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 –J c (current density) –Jacket material –Joints –Winding

Typical strand layout as proposed by OST. Diameter is ~0.8 mm. Qualification of industrial suppliers of Nb 3 Sn strands with increased value of J c 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 1.6m 2

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 coils No-wall limit 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 Tuning / Matching design Faraday Shield Design 8- or 12-strap configuration? 16-tube source stability, or 12-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 US EU KO Host 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

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 Link to the U.S. physics research community weak U.S. Burning Plasma Organization established and beginning to function ???

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 Team Council Science and Technology Advisory Committee Management Advisory Committee Director-General (DG) Auditors Staff (professionals + support staff) Domestic Agency Domestic Agency Domestic Agency Contracts for construction phase Host country

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 Link to the U.S. physics research community weak U.S. Burning Plasma Organization established and beginning to function ???

ITER and International Division Michael 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 Technology Program Manager Research Division John 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 Input to 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 Pitonak Acting ITER Federal Project Director DOE SC Princeton Site Office Jerry Faul, Director Ned Sauthoff Project Manager US ITER Project Office Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory/ORNL Rob Goldston, PPPL Director Rich Hawryluk, Deputy Director INTEGRATEDPROJECTTEAMINTEGRATEDPROJECTTEAM Stan Milora, ORNL Fusion Director Joint Oversight Committee (Partnership Coordination) UT-Battelle ORNL PU PPPL ITER Organization Project

Fiscal Year Total Estimated Costs (TEC) Other Project Costs (OPC) Total Project Costs (TPC) ,0003,50049, ,00016,000146, ,00018,800200, ,00016,500207, ,00010,300199, ,0009,300160, ,0006,200126, ,0003,40032,400 Total1,038,00084,0001,122,000 * FY2006 President’s Budget Request ($000) Funding Profile for US ITER Project , ,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-0Approve Mission Need2005 CD-1Approve Preliminary Baseline Range 2006 CD-2Approve Performance Baseline 2007 CD-3Approve Start of Construction 2007 CD-4Approve 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.

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 Link to the U.S. physics research community weak U.S. Burning Plasma Organization established and beginning to function ???

ITER and International Division Michael 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 Technology Program Manager Research Division John 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 Input to 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 Pitonak Acting ITER Federal Project Director DOE SC Princeton Site Office Jerry Faul, Director Ned Sauthoff Project Manager US ITER Project Office Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory/ORNL Rob Goldston, PPPL Director Rich Hawryluk, Deputy Director INTEGRATEDPROJECTTEAMINTEGRATEDPROJECTTEAM Stan Milora, ORNL Fusion Director Joint Oversight Committee (Partnership Coordination) UT-Battelle ORNL PU PPPL ITER Organization

ITER and International Division Michael 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 Technology Program Manager Research Division John 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 Input to 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 Pitonak Acting ITER Federal Project Director DOE SC Princeton Site Office Jerry Faul, Director Ned Sauthoff Project Manager US ITER Project Office Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory/ORNL Rob Goldston, PPPL Director Rich Hawryluk, Deputy Director INTEGRATEDPROJECTTEAMINTEGRATEDPROJECTTEAM Stan Milora, ORNL Fusion Director Joint Oversight Committee (Partnership Coordination) UT-Battelle ORNL PU PPPL ITER Organization Program

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 Link to the U.S. physics research community weak U.S. Burning Plasma Organization established and beginning to function

Progress has been made between FPA2004 and FPA2005 AND the processes for achievement of ITER are taking shape 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 Link to the U.S. physics research community weak U.S. Burning Plasma Organization established and beginning to function