# Presentation: 187374

## report of theBurning Plasma Program Advisory Committee

**S.C.  Prager **
**November, 2003**

## BP PAC Mission

**planning and direction of U.S. burning plasma activities**
**all aspects of U.S. burning plasma activities including ITER, FIRE, and supporting physics and technology. **
**achieving effective US participation in a burning plasma experiment through a community-based organization of fusion scientists from multiple institutions.**

- advise on

- Near term focus is on ITER

## Burning Plasma PAC Membership

**Mohamed Abdou****	****(UCLA)**
**Réjean Boivin****	****(GA)**
**Harold Forsen****	****(Bechtel, Ret.)**
**Jeffrey Freidberg****	****(MIT)**
**Richard Hawryluk****	****(PPPL)**
**E. Bickford Hooper****	****(LLNL)**
**Stan Milora****	****(ORNL)**
**Gerry Navratil****	****(Columbia)**
**Stewart Prager ****	****(U. Wis.) (Chair)**
**Tony Taylor****	****(General Atomic)**
**George Tynan****	****(UCSD)**
**Michael Ulrickson****	****Sandia National Lab**
**James Van Dam****	****(UTex)**

## Activities to Date

**Identified levels of programmatic interest in procurement packages**
**Ranked criteria for US interest in procurement packages**
**Proposed management guidelines for a burning plasma program**

## Levels of Programmatic Interest

_**Levels of Programmatic Interest**_

**Diagnostics**** ****	****	****mostly high**
**Magnet systems**** ****	****mostly medium and high**
**IC H & CD**** ****	****	****high and medium**
**EC H & CD****	****	****mostly high**
**Control/data acq**** ****	****medium/high**
**Divertor****	****	****	****medium and high ****	**** **
**Tritium plant****	****	****medium ****	**
**Vacuum pump/fuel****	****mostly low, pellet high**
**Remote handling****	****mostly low, some medium**
**Cryostat****	****	****low**
**Vacuum vessel****	****	****low**
**Power supply****	****	****low**
**Blanket system****	****	****mostly low**
**NBI****	****	****	****none**
**Machine assembly****	****none**
**Buildings****	****	****none**

## Criteria for Procurement Packages

**1. US research positioning**
- Priority: 	High
- Metric: 	Extent to which activity positions the US for key 				science/technology roles in ITER
- Comment: 	recommend that the ITER project adopt a policy in which future 		research participation of an ITER party does *not* depend on the 		type (as opposed to the level) of contribution to the 			construction activity.  Even so, there might remain a de facto
- 			linkage.

**2. ITER-value per dollar**
- Priority:	High
- Metric:	ITER value/(US cost of full scope of R&D + design + fab + 		contingency
- Comment:	The contingency should incorporate the degree of risk.

## 3. Relative strength or leverage of US contribution to ITER

- Priority:	High/Medium
- Metric:	High relative strength to meet critical need of ITER project
- Comment:	Example of high relative strength: divertor cassettes 		(in which the US already invested substantial R & D);			superconducting strand (for which the world supply is 			limited).

**4. Contributions to US fusion program**
- Priority:	Medium
- Metric:	Enhancement of US capability for activity both in ITER 			and outside ITER

## 6. Development of US fusion workforce

- Priority:	Low
- Metric:	Extent to which activity builds a suitable US fusion 		science and technology work force.

**5. Enhancement of fusion-relevant capability of US   **
**    ****industry**
- Priority:	Medium/Low
- Metric:	Extent activity increases industrial capability in fusion areas

## The US Burning Plasma Management Structure

**A BPX is different than past experiments**
**	****Past:****      conception,  design, planning, project representation, ****	****	****      execution mainly in one institution**
**	****BPX:****      transcends the interests and responsibility of any individual ****	****      institution**

***Need an organizational structure that***
**vests the broad US fusion community with strong participation in and guidance of the US burning plasma program**
**provides strong centralized management of BPX construction**

## US Burning Plasma Program Organization

_**US Burning Plasma Program Organization**_

- Department of Energy

- Burning Plasma Coordinating Committee

- Base burning plasma activities

- US ITER

- US ITER  Project Board

- NSO PAC

- FIRE

## The Burning Plasma Coordinating Committee

- Identify key issues and priorities for US burning plasma research
- Coordinate US burning plasma activities
- Construct a strategy and regularly update plans for BP research
- Represent US BP effort within and beyond fusion community
- Prepare US fusion community for scientific and technological participation in ITER
- Facilitate US participation in the Int’l Tokamak Physics Activity

- Oversee all three burning plasma activities
- (ITER construction and R&D, FIRE, base program)

## BPCC Appointments

**Chair appointed biennially by OFES**
**Fourteen members **
**	****	****six selected by Chair (in consultation with OFES and fusion ****	****	****program leaders)**
**	****	**
**	****	****six elected by BP program institutions**
**	****	****two ex-officio (US ITER project director and deputy director)**

## The ITER Project Board

- Provides programmatic and management advice to US ITER project
- Appointed by the senior administrator of host institution,
- 	in consultation with DOE and the BPCC

##       US ITER Project Organization

**      **_**US ITER Project Organization**_

- US ITER Project Manager

- Host Institution

- WBS Manager

- WBS Manager

- fabrication

- R & D

*      **Tech management*

- Procurement department

- WBS Manager

*Fig 2*

- Department of Energy

- US ITER Project Board

## The US ITER Project Manager

- Provides cost/schedule control, technical oversight and management, single point inteface to international ITER team, project representation to govt and other communities
- Not employee of a funding agency
- Will reside, with support team, at host institution
- Not necessarily employees of host institution
- Functions as a national officer, reporting programmatically to DOE project manager
- Appointed by senior administrator of host institution,
- 	in consultation with DOE and and the Project Board

## The Host Institution

*Purpose:*
- Responsible for implementing US ITER construction activity
- Process all major procurements
*Requirements:*
- Experience in integrated program management
- Strong commitment of its management to the ITER project
- Preferably, experience with management of large science projects
*Selection process:*
- Should be a fair and open process
- DOE should establish selection criteria (including cost effective management)

## Work Breakdown Structure Managers

- Will manage individual technical activities
- Distributed nationally
- Responsible for technical management of procurement and R&D
- Procurement and staffing processes should be fair and open

## Upon initiation of the proposed management plan,
the current BP PAC will be terminated

**the current BP PAC will be terminated**

## Burning Plasma PAC Charter: Scope

- preparation of cost-estimates for ITER contributions ...and other technical and programmatic inputs for the U.S. ITER Negotiators
- organizational structures...during both construction and research phases
- activities supporting U.S. participation in the ITER Project and Program
- FIRE design and construction activities (recognizing the existence of the NSO PAC to provide more focused advice to FIRE)
- activities supporting FIRE design and construction
- activities supporting future U.S. research on ITER and/or FIRE (possible IGNITOR collaborations may also be considered)