(and Impact of International Collaboration)
Presented at ITER Test Blanket Working Group (TBWG-17) at
Cadarache, France, April 4-6, 2006

• The activity was requested by DOE and initiated in
August 2005.
• 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

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.
Cutaway of US DCLL TBM Module
HCCB Submodule Conceptual
Design as of Jan. 2006

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).

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.

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

1.8.1.1 Test Module
1.8.1.1.1 Administration
1.8.1.1.2 R&D
1.8.1.1.2.1
1.8.1.1.2.2
1.8.1.1.2.3
Thermofluid MHD
SiC/SiC FCI Fab and Properties
SiC/FS/PbLi Compatibility & Chemistry
1.8.1.1.2.4
1.8.1.1.2.5
1.8.1.1.2.6
1.8.1.1.2.7
1.8.1.1.2.8
1.8.1.1.2.9
1.8.1.1.2.10
FM steel fabrication development and materials properties
Helium System subcomponents analyses & tests
PbLi/H2O hydrogen production
Be joining to FS
Virtual DCLL TBM
Advanced Diagnostics
Partially Integrated mockups testing
1.8.1.1.3
Engineering
1.8.1.1.3.1
Preliminary Design and Analysis, Title I
1.8.1.1.3.2
1.8.1.1.3.3
Detailed Design, Title II
Title III
1.8.1.1.4
Prototype TBM design and fabrication
1.8.1.1.4.1 Prototype Call for tender / Contract award
1.8.1.1.4.2
1.8.1.1.4.3
Prototype Manufacturing
Design (tooling and processing)
Prototype TBM Material procurement
1.8.1.1.4.4 PrototypeTBM Fabrication, procurement and shipping
1.8.1.1.5 Prototype TBM Assembly and testing
1.8.1.1.6
TBM design and fabricaton
1.8.1.1.6.1 Call for tender / Contract award
1.8.1.1.6.2
1.8.1.1.6.3
1.8.1.1.6.4
Manufacturing design (tooling and processing)
Material procurement
Fabrication, procurement and shipping
1.8.1.1.7 Assembly, testing & Installation
1.8.1.2 Helium Flow Loops
1.8.1.2.1 Primary helium loop
1.8.1.2.1.1 Preliminary design of primary helium loop
1.8.1.2.1.2
1.8.1.2.1.3
1.8.1.2.1.4
Detailed design of primary helium loop
Fabrication/Procurement
Assembly, testing & installation
1.8.1.2.2 Intermediate helium loop
1.8.1.2.2.1
1.8.1.2.2.2
1.8.1.2.2.3
1.8.1.2.2.4
Preliminary design of intermediate helium loop
Detailed design of intermediate helium loop
Fabrication/Procurement
Assembly, testing & Installation
1.8.1.3 PbLi Flow Loop
1.8.1.3.1
Preliminary design of the PbLi loop
1.8.1.3.2
Detailed design of the PbLi loop
1.8.1.3.3
Fabrication/Procurement
1.8.1.3.4
Assembly, testing & Installation
1.8.1.4
Tritium Processing
1.8.1.4.1
Administration
1.8.1.4.2
R&D
1.8.1.4.2.1 Modeling tool development and benchmarking
1.8.1.4.2.2
1.8.1.4.2.3
1.8.1.4.2.4
1.8.1.4.3
Engineering
1.8.1.4.3.1
1.8.1.4.3.2
Tritium extraction from PbLi
Tritium extraction from He
Fate of tritium in PbLi
1.8.1.4.4
Fabrication/Procurement
1.8.1.4.5
Assembly/Installation
Detailed Design
Title III
1.8.1.5 DCLL/ITER System Integration
1.8.1.5.1 Administration
1.8.1.5.2
R&D
1.8.1.5.2.1
He and PbLi Conc. Pipe joints
1.8.1.5.2.2
VV Plug bellows design
1.8.1.5.3
TBM System Design Integration
1.8.1.5.3.1
In-Vessel System Integration
1.8.1.5.3.2
1.8.1.5.3.3
1.8.1.5.3.4
Ex-Vessel System Integration and Interface.
RH System integration
Engineering Design and analysis:
1.8.1.5.4
Fabrication, Procurement and Shipping.
1.8.1.5.5
Assembly and on site testing

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.

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 year s. 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 indicates attachement to deadline
1
1.8.1.1.2.1 Thermofluid MHD
1.8.1.1.2.1.1 Modeling Tools
1 High Hartmann number flows
2 Non-orthogonal meshes
3 Complex MHD flow and heat transfer
1.8.1.1.2.1.2 Flow Channel Insert Experiments and Modeling
1 Sic/Sic FCI test-section fabrication
2 Experiment 1 - flow development and gap flow
3 SiC/SiC FCI test-section with pressure slots and overlaps
4 Experiment 2 - pressure drop & eq, velocity profile
5
Loop upgrade - vertical magnet orientation and outer wall cooling
6 Experiment 3 - combined heat transfer effects
1.8.1.1.2.1.3 TBM Manifold Experiments and Modeling
1 LM loop modification and Non-conducting test-section
2 Non-conducting wall experiment
3 Conducting test-section fabrication
4 Conducting test-section experiment
5 Optimization test-section experiments
2006
7 1
1, initial review
2007
7 1
2, mid review
2008
7
3, PDR
1
2009
7 1
4, bid pack / MUs
2010
7
5, mod bid package

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.

US ITER TBM Total Project Cost Breakdown until March 2015
Estimates as of Mar 29, 2006
WBS
1.8.2
1.8.2.1
1.8.2.1.1
1.8.2.1.2
1.8.2.1.3
1.8.2.1.4
1.8.2.1.5
1.8.2.2
1.8.2.3
1.8.3
1.8.3.1
1.8.3.2
1.8.3.3
1.8.3.3.1
1.8.3.3.2
1.8.3.3.3
1.8.1
1.8.1.1
1.8.1.1.1
1.8.1.1.2
1.8.1.1.3
1.8.1.1.4
1.8.1.1.5
1.8.1.1.6
1.8.1.1.7
1.8.1.2
1.8.1.3
1.8.1.4
1.8.1.5
1.8
WBS Description
Dual Coolant Lead Lithium (DCLL)
Test Module
WBS Administration
Research and Development
Engineering
Prototype Fabrication/Procurement
Prototype Assembly and Testing
TBM Fabrication/Procurement
TBM Assembly and Testing
Helium Flow Loops
Lead Lithium (PbLi) Flow Loop
Tritium Processing System
DCLL/ITER System Integration
Helium Cooled Ceramic Breeder (HCCB)
Test Submodule
WBS Administration
Research and Development
Engineering
Prototype/Submodule Fab & Testing
Integration and Packaging
Ancillary Equipment
HCCB/ITER System Integration
Project Support
Project Administration / Project Controls
TBWG/Parties Interface & Collaborations
Safety and Regulatory Support
Regulatory Support
Safety Analysis and Reporting
Safety Design Integration
US ITER-TBM Estimated Cost
Est. Escalation and Contingency
US ITER-TBM Total Project Cost
Low Range (k$)
$16,764
$14,656
$1,684
$7,377
$3,900
$1,385
$311
$813
$1,295
$7,881
$2,000
$2,300
$3,581
$840
$1,356
$1,385
$35,747
$28,284
$2,500
$17,859
$6,338
$771
$102
$670
$45
$2,412
$2,094
$943
$2,014
$60,392
$16,241
$76,633
Baseline ($k)
$16,764
$14,656
$1,684
$7,377
$3,900
$1,385
$311
$813
$1,295
$8,785
$2,000
$2,300
$4,485
$840
$2,260
$1,385
$64,127
$53,031
$2,500
$36,780
$10,578
$1,540
$203
$1,340
$89
$4,021
$3,490
$1,571
$2,014
$89,676
$23,271
$112,947
High Range (k$)
$44,512
$39,412
$2,500
$25,037
$8,365
$3,460
$50
$3,159
$1,941
$11,028
$2,000
$2,300
$6,728
$1,260
$3,390
$2,078
$64,127
$53,031
$2,500
$36,780
$10,578
$1,540
$203
$1,340
$89
$4,021
$3,490
$1,571
$2,014
$119,666
$32,522
$152,188

US ITER TBM Total Project Cost Summary until March 2015
Estimates as of Mar 29, 2006
WBS
1.8.1
1.8.2
1.8.3
WBS Description
Dual Coolant Lead Lithium
(DCLL)
Helium Cooled Ceramic Breeder
(HCCB)
Project Support
Low Range
(k$)
$35,747
$16,764
$7,881
Baseline
($k)
$64,127
$16,764
$8,785
High Range
(k$)
$64,127
$44,512
$11,028
1.8
US ITER-TBM Estimated Cost $60,392 $89,676 $119,666
Est. Escalation and Contingency
US ITER-TBM Total Project Cost
$16,241
$76,633
$23,271 $32,522
$112,947 $152,188

Estimated DCLL Baseline R&D Costs until March 2015 in 2006 k$
Total is $49,129k
$10,574, 21%
$1,455, 3%
$321, 1%
$7,203, 14%
$2,718, 6%
$2,911, 6%
Estimation as of
Mar 29, 2006
$6,621, 13%
$2,768, 6%
$844, 2%
$10,688, 21%
$840, 2%
$799, 2%
$1,387, 3%
Thermofluid MHD
SiC/SiC FCI Fab
SiC/FS/PbLi Compatibility
RAFS Fab. Devel.
Helium Subcomponent Tests
PbLi/H2O Reaction
Be Joining to RAFS
Virtual TBM
TBM Diagnostics
Mockups Fac.& Testing
Design Integration
Tritium Control
Known Int. Collaborations
Note: Includes TBM, Ancillary Loop, Tritium Systems and Design
Integration R&D

Estimated DCLL Cost Savings for Known Int. Collaborations in 2006 k$
Total is $10,574
Virtual TBM , $1,065
RAFS Fab. Devel.
PbLi/H2O Reaction
Be Joining to RAFS
Virtual TBM
Be Joining to RAFS ,
$2,816
RAFS Fab. Devel. ,
$5,095
PbLi/H2O Reaction ,
$1,598
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

Estimated HCCB Baseline R&D Costs until March 2015 in 2006 k$
Total is $7,377k
$2,708, 37%
Estimation as of
Mar 29, 2006
$886, 12%
$845, 11%
$792, 11%
$178, 2%
$788, 11%
He Flow & Manifold Tests
SB Thermomechanics & T Recovery
T Control and Predictive Capability
Breeder pebble knowledge base
Diagnostics and Instrumentation
Partially Integrated Tests
In-Pile Pebble Bed Assembly Tests $1,180, 16%
"Dual-Use" costs with DCLL including RAFS fabrication development and
Integrated Test Facilities included under DCLL only

Estimated yearly spending profile for US TBM Project through shipment of deliverables, March 2015
$22,500
$20,000
$17,500
Estimation as of
Mar 29, 2006
Contingency (k$)
Escalated Cost (k$)
$15,000
$12,500
$10,000
$7,500
$5,000
$2,500
$0
FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15
Contingency (k$) $295 $1,072 $1,634 $2,157 $2,253 $1,900 $1,375 $877 $432 $123
Escalated Cost (k$) $2,454 $8,923 $13,592 $17,943 $18,749 $15,807 $11,443 $7,299 $3,597 $1,021

• 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.

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.