Highlights of US ITER TBM Technical Plan and Cost Estimates (and Impact of International Collaboration) Mohamed Abdou and the U.S. Team TBWG-17 Presented at ITER Test Blanket Working Group (TBWG-17) at Cadarache, France, April 4-6, 2006

Detailed TBM Planning and Costing Activity for the US TBM Program is Underway The activity was requested by DOE and initiated in August The plan and costing are being developed by technical experts from the community (from Plasma Chamber, Materials, PFC, Safety and Tritium programs). –With important support and guidance from costing and project management professionals. A very preliminary initial draft of the report was distributed “internally within the team” in early March 2006, for internal discussion and review. Revisions are underway. Expected: –Issue Report: May 2006 –“External” Review: July 2006 –“Government” Decision: Summer 2006 –This is the beginning of several steps required by the U.S. Government for “capital projects.”

Process followed for the US TBM Technical Plan and Cost Estimate (Some steps were iterative) Develop details of test plan in ITER and define “U.S. deliverables” Identify the required activities –R&D –Design –Procurement and Fabrication –Qualification and Acceptance Testing Establish WBS –Assign WBS account numbers to the activities in accordance with the management responsibility for the work and the logical sequence for performing the activities. –Complete a brief narrative description for each WBS scope and compile a WBS Dictionary including all WBS levels. –Add WBS numbers and WBS descriptions Determine R&D priorities Estimate cost for three different cases based on three different scenarios for international collaboration. These are called “high”, “baseline”, and “low”. For the “baseline” case, develop details of the cost estimate, integrated schedule, and yearly expenditures. Estimate escalation and contingencies. Perform risk assessment and establish contingency

US Selected TBM Concepts (Reference Scenario) HCCB Submodule Conceptual Design as of Jan Cutaway of US DCLL TBM Module 1.The Dual-Coolant Pb-17Li Liquid Breeder Blanket concept with self-cooled Pb-Li breeding zone and flow channel inserts (FCIs) as MHD and thermal insulator.  Innovative concept that provides “pathway” to higher outlet temperature/higher thermal efficiency while using ferritic steel.  US lead role in collaboration with other parties (most parties are interested in Pb-Li as a liquid breeder, especially EU and China).  Plan an independent TBM that will occupy half an ITER test port with corresponding ancillary equipment. 2.The Helium-Cooled Solid Breeder Blanket concept with ferritic steel structure and beryllium neutron multiplier, but without an independent TBM.  Support EU and Japan efforts using their TBM structure & ancillary equipment.  Contribute submodule test articles that focus on particular technical issues.

The scope of this current planning effort and cost estimation is based on the following assumptions and constraints: The DCLL reference scenario assumes the testing of a series of TBMs each of which will occupy an ITER vertical half-port, have dedicated ancillary equipment, and have a PbLi exit temperature limit of 470ºC. The HCCB reference scenario assumes a series of sub-modules each of which will occupy 1/3 an ITER horizontal half-port and utilize shared ancillary equipment in-cooperation with the EU or Japan. US TBM structures will be fabricated from reduced activation ferritic steel with an assumed temperature limit of 550ºC. Detailed planning and cost is for a 10-year period between now and the shipment of the TBM deliverables in 2015 for DAY ONE ITER H-H operation. The cost is the total cost for the TBM project including R&D, design, engineering, fabrication, qualification, etc., as well as the cost to interface with ITER and other parties during this period. The R&D cost includes all costs related to the Reference Scenarios that occur within the next 10-year period whether they are related to the first (Day ONE) Test Articles or subsequent test articles. Cost of the deliverables includes the cost of the First Test Article and associated equipment (see project deliverables). Assumptions and Constraints Affecting Strategy, Technical Planning, and Cost Estimations

The principal mission of the US ITER Test Blanket Module (TBM) Program is to develop, deploy and operate ITER TBM experiments that provide unique experimental data on, and operational experience with, the integrated function of US blanket and first wall components and materials in a true fusion plasma-magneto-nuclear environment. This data is essential for the: 1.validation of the scientific understanding and predictive capabilities needed to interpret and extrapolate results to subsequent burning plasma experiments, component test facilities, and ultimately energy producing systems; 2.demonstration of the principles of tritium self-sufficiency in practical systems needed to establish the feasibility of the DT fuel cycle; 3.development of the technology necessary to install breeding capabilities to supply ITER with the tritium necessary for operation in its extended phase of operation and help resolve the critical “tritium supply” issue for fusion development (US involvement in the development of this technology with ITER partners will be essential to understand and influence these partner programs). 4.first integrated experimental results on the reliability, safety, environmental impact, and efficiency of fusion energy extraction systems. Principal Mission of the US TBM Program

US Test Blanket Project Organized by Subsystem and Deliverables US TBM Project DCLL TBM Test Module He Loops PbLi Loop Tritium Processing Design Integration HCCB TBM Test Sub-module Ancillary Equipment Design Integration Predictive Capability Models and Codes Databases Data/Code Integration Project Support Administration TBWG/ITER/Parties Interface Codes and Standards / QA Safety and Licensing

Example: DCLL WBS – organized by major systems

The main deliverables in March 2015 for the DCLL include: 1.a half-port test module, 2.a primary helium flow loop, 3.a PbLi flow loop, 4.a secondary helium flow loop (and a heat exchanger for PbLi flow loop), 5.tritium processing and measuring systems all capable to meet the quantitative goals and obtain the data sets described above, and 6.predictive capability. The main deliverables for HCCB are: 1.a test sub-module that has a size of 1/3 of one-half port to be integrated with a host party’s test module, 2.associated ancillary equipment including primary helium flow conditioners, and measuring systems for helium coolant, tritium, and test sub-module performance all capable to meet the quantitative goals and obtain the data sets described above, and 3.predictive capability. Deliverables

Identified and Prioritized R&D Tasks Developed R&D requirements based on TBM technical issues –Developed system of priorities (cost/risk/benefit) –Identified potential international collaborations Summarize the main purpose of this subtask. What critical need does this R&D address? Is it more oriented towards (1) Establishing basic TBM feasibility for fusion (2) Understanding/predicting TBM performance required for design, or (3) Adding to safety and qualification database. Summarize the risks to the machine or mission if this R&D is not performed. Categorize this subtask based on the following system: –E = Essential for the qualification and successful execution of the TBM experiment, and no other party is doing it. –I = Important for the qualification and successful execution of the TBM experiment, or Essential but is definitely being done by another party. –D = Desirable but the risk is acceptable if not performed. Categorize this subtask schedule over the next 10 year period based on the following system. –B = Beginning 3-4 years. Needed immediately for preliminary design choices. –M = Middle 3-4 years. Needed in the middle of the next 10 years after initial R&D is performed (for instance for qualification or integrated effects tests). –E = Ending 3-4 years. Needed before performance of first experiments or is specific for subsequent modules.

US Plan has clearly defined yearly milestones for each R&D

High Cost Range Scenario The high cost range scenario is for an Independent US DCLL TBM and an Independent HCCB TBM; with accounting for known international collaborations. The high cost scenario is similar in scope to the current EU and Japan TBM programs and gives an indication of total project cost to pursue two blanket options with minimum risk in the sense that the US is responsible for all hardware for half-port sized TBMs for both of its selected blanket options. (Also, space not available on ITER. Practical?) Baseline Cost Range Scenario The baseline scenario is defined as an Independent US DCLL TBM accounting for known international collaboration, and a supporting international partnership on the HCCB TBM. This baseline cost scenario most closely matches the DOE guidance presented in Chapter 3.3. Lower Cost Range Scenario The lower cost range scenario is defined as a Leading international partnership on DCLL TBM and a supporting international partnership on the HCCB TBM. The low cost range scenario represents the minimum level of investment where the US will still acquire the knowledge, and develop the capabilities and skills, in the many areas necessary for fusion blanket development and fabrication in the US of components for a future CTF and fusion DEMO. There is however more risk associated with this scenario due to the level of international collaboration. Cost Range Scenarios

US ITER TBM Total Project Cost Breakdown until March 2015 Estimates as of Mar 29, 2006 WBSWBS DescriptionLow Range (k$)Baseline ($k)High Range (k$) Dual Coolant Lead Lithium (DCLL)$35,747$64, Test Module$28,284$53, WBS Administration$2, Research and Development$17,859$36, Engineering$6,338$10, Prototype Fabrication/Procurement$771$1, Prototype Assembly and Testing$102$ TBM Fabrication/Procurement$670$1, TBM Assembly and Testing$45$ Helium Flow Loops$2,412$4, Lead Lithium (PbLi) Flow Loop$2,094$3, Tritium Processing System$943$1, DCLL/ITER System Integration$2, Helium Cooled Ceramic Breeder (HCCB)$16,764 $44, Test Submodule$14,656 $39, WBS Administration$1,684 $2, Research and Development$7,377 $25, Engineering$3,900 $8, Prototype/Submodule Fab & Testing$1,385 $3, Integration and Packaging$311 $ Ancillary Equipment$813 $3, HCCB/ITER System Integration$1,295 $1, Project Support$7,881$8,785$11, Project Administration / Project Controls$2, TBWG/Parties Interface & Collaborations$2, Safety and Regulatory Support$3,581$4,485$6, Regulatory Support$840 $1, Safety Analysis and Reporting$1,356$2,260$3, Safety Design Integration$1,385 $2, US ITER-TBM Estimated Cost$60,392$89,676$119,666 Est. Escalation and Contingency$16,241$23,271$32,522 US ITER-TBM Total Project Cost$76,633$112,947$152,188

US ITER TBM Total Project Cost Summary until March 2015 Estimates as of Mar 29, 2006 WBSWBS Description Low Range (k$) Baseline ($k) High Range (k$) Dual Coolant Lead Lithium (DCLL) $35,747$64, Helium Cooled Ceramic Breeder (HCCB) $16,764 $44, Project Support$7,881$8,785$11, US ITER-TBM Estimated Cost$60,392$89,676$119,666 Est. Escalation and Contingency$16,241$23,271$32,522 US ITER-TBM Total Project Cost$76,633$112,947$152,188

Estimation as of Mar 29, 2006 Note: Includes TBM, Ancillary Loop, Tritium Systems and Design Integration R&D

Estimation as of Mar 29, 2006 Additional R&D savings may be possible in diagnostics development and test facilities Additional Hardware savings may be possible by joint design and fabrication of He and PbLi ancillary systems

Estimation as of Mar 29, 2006

Estimated yearly spending profile for US TBM Project through shipment of deliverables, March 2015 Estimation as of Mar 29, 2006

Lessons Learned from U.S. Technical Plan and Cost Estimate for ITER-TBM The largest uncertainties in developing the technical plan and cost estimate is the lack of a well-defined agreement among the Parties on the specifics of the ITER-TBM. Particular examples of uncertainties: –How much space is available to the U.S. (or to any party) in ITER test ports? –Is it practical for the U.S. to assume space is available to test two independent TBM concepts? (Is it practical for any Party to make such assumptions?) –What specific framework for international collaboration is practical to assume? “Joint Partnership” on test modules and ancillary equipment? Assigning of Tasks? “Sharing” of R&D tasks? Schedule is very tight. Phasing of tasks for the next 10 years is a challenge.

Urgent Actions Needed 1.There needs to be an agreement among the ITER parties on “Major Principles” of the ITER Test Program. e.g. assignment of port space, how many concepts per party, which concepts are actually tested jointly by several parties. TBWG is the logical entity to deal with the challenge of reaching agreement on a well defined, practical test program to which all parties agree. 2.Developing and signing of a LEGAL agreement among ITER parties on the TBM Program (either as part of ITER agreement or as an amendment). 3.Need to formalize agreement(s) among the parties into Legal Agreement(s) (multi-lateral, tri-lateral, and/or bi-lateral) on specifics of collaborations on TBM R&D, construction of test module, construction and sharing of ancillary equipment, etc.