Overview Remarks
for US ITER-TBM Conference Call
June 23, 2005
Mohamed Abdou
Agenda for Conference Call on ITER-TBM, June 23, 2005
(310) 794-5378
10:00 AM: Preparations for TBWG July Meeting
 Summary and Status (Abdou, 10 min)
 Questions/Issues on DDD and July TBWG Presentation (Wong/Ying, 10 min)
 Disruption Analysis Status (Ulrickson, 5 min)
 Summary of DCLL Test Plan (Morley, 10 min)
 Other Topics/Issues (Sze/Malang/others, 10 min)
 Comments/Discussion (15 min)
11:00 AM: Initiation of TBM Costing Activities
 DOE Perspective (Nardella, 10 min)
 ITER Project Office Perspective and Summary of Preparatory Meeting on Test Program
(Sauthoff, 15 min)
 Initial Costing Framework and Ground Rules (Abdou, 10 min)
 Comments/Discussion (25 min)
12:00 noon: Adjourn
2
ITER
TBWG
Summary of Main Recommendations
(Presented to ITER Preparatory Committee May 19-20,
to be included in TBWG Report conclusions)
► ITER is a unique opportunity to test breeding blankets and extremely valuable
information can be obtained
► To meet the deadline of TBMs installation in ITER since the first day of ITER H-H
operation, it is now urgent to define an appropriate “TBMs Test Program” organization, in
strict collaboration with ITER or as part of it, that should deal with the following:
i) to assess, to coordinate and to define “priorities” for test proposals,
ii) to monitor the corresponding activities performed by Parties and,
iii) to solve the interfaces issues (frame, space availability, hot cell operation, etc..).
In any case, duty and responsibilities of ITER and Parties concerning TBM Testing
Program, should be clearly and urgently defined
► All ITER Parties have declared their interest in TBM program and their intention to
deliver TBM systems (or sub-components of them) for the first day of ITER operation.
Therefore, adequate funding and staffing should be committed by Parties on TBM
program as soon as possible and on multi-annual basis.
Moreover, ITER costs associated with the TBM testing program should be recognized
and addressed by Parties .
 The Parties commitment should concern both domestic program and ITER organization.
3
ITER
TBWG
TBWG Delegation Heads pre-meeting (5/24/05)
Information on outcome of presentation of TBWG activities at the ITER Preparatory
Committee meeting of May 19-20 (Naka)
- ITER Site decision appears close (end of June?) – ITER design review by mid 2006
- IPC and Participant Team Leaders have taken note of the TBWG recommendations
- On the integration into the ITER Project: it is not possible to include the TBM Program in
ITER because, at least before starting construction, “ITER cost” cannot be increased (not
even by 1%)  TBM Program has to remain a “parallel” activity with independent budget;
- On the Party budget commitment: all PTLs recognize the importance of TBM Test Program,
however not all Parties can make full financial support commitment;
- On the need of TBM integration in ITER (frame, space availability, hot cell…):
IPC took note of the issue but refuses to take an action on this.
ITER Interim Leader noted that at the moment the 3 Test Ports are “empty”, therefore ITER
cannot start operations without (frame+TBMs) or, at least, (frame+dummy TBMs)
 It was said that these needs should keep a “marginal cost” and that they should be
discussed with the new Director General and the new organization (in particular, during the
expected design review)
 TBWG has to be ready to take action towards the new ITER management as soon as it
will be established  Proposal: TBWG presentation at IPC as Annex of TBWG Report?
4
ITER
TBWG
TBWG Delegation Heads pre-meeting (5/24/05)
Final Time schedule of the TBWG Report - Status of the DDDs documents (to be
referenced on TBWG report) and possible raised issues
If decision on site is before end of June 05, we can expect that TBWG could be active until the
end of 2005 (allowing to interact with the new “provisional” management), but TBWG report has
to be distributed by September 05 (to give sufficient documentation in support at TBWG
requests)
The TBWG report time schedule remains as it is:
1) Draft technical contributions from ITER and from Parties distributed by mid May 05,
Draft Executive Summary by mid May
(achieved)
2) Comments to be received by mid June 05, to allow draft final versions ready for next
TBWG-15 meeting (12-13 July 05)
3) Draft contribution from WSGs, from Port Masters, various introductions and conclusions
by end of June 05, ready for TBWG-15
4) During TBWG-15 approval of executive summary, all chapters, and annex by TBWG
5) After TBWG: only editorial work by TBWG secretary to produce the final document
6) Distribution to TBWG members for final check (only minor modifications can be accepted)
7) Release of the Report to ITER Management and to PTLs by the end of September
 DDDs should be given as references in the TBWG report and their draft version should be
available by the end of September (put on the server, for distribution in case of request)
5
ITER
TBWG
TBWG Delegation Heads pre-meeting (5/24/05)
Preliminary proposals on future TBWG activities (if any) to be finalized and agreed
during the next TBWG-15 meeting of 12-13 July and identification of possible further
actions in support of TBM testing program
One further TBWG meeting could be planned at the end of November 05 (TBWG-16)
 Further information required by ITER site (potential requests from presentation in TBWG-15)
 Proposal of new action (on voluntary basis, out of the present mission of TBWG):
In the framework of the WSGs, assessment of the different Parties proposals (from DEMO
viewpoint) to demonstrate that so many options are necessary (question from IPC).
In particular, for each option, one should show the technical reasons behind each option,
why other Parties options cannot be acceptable (or are less performing)
Of course, this activity implies that each of the Parties perform analyses/assessment on other
Parties proposals, therefore this implies that information is available (DDDs), especially on
DEMO blankets  Good way of starting collaboration (better than “mixed” TBM!!)
To be able to have some achievements, the assessment has to be restricted at each WSG.
It would require a much longer time to assess and compare blankets from different WSGs
 NOTE: this assessment will have to be done anyway by the next “TBWG” or by “ITER” in
order to reduce the number of options and to be sure to have the best available options
6