Department of Energy
Assessmentof theITER Project
Cost Estimate
November 2002

ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe Department of Energy (DOE) Assessment of the ITER Project Cost Estimate wasconducted on November 21-25, 2002, at the request of Dr. Raymond L. Orbach, Director of the
DOE Office of Science. The purpose of this review was to assess in summary fashion the costestimate that has been prepared by the ITER Team, emphasizing reasonableness of project cost andschedule assumptions and, to the extent possible, the construction and technical management
assumptions.
The mission of ITER is to demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of fusionenergy for peaceful purposes. Fusion energy is a potential major new source of energy withattractive features of no greenhouse gas emissions, no production of long-lived radioactive products,
abundant and widely distributed sources of fuel (seawater and lithium), inherent safety features toshut down easily with no possibility of fuel meltdown, continuous mode of operation to meetdemand, and manageable waste.
Currently, the ITER project is at the stage where the final design is essentially complete,
and the R&D that provides the technical basis for the design and for hardware fabrication is alsoessentially complete. Four government “Parties”, namely, the European Union, Japan, theRussian Federation, and Canada are negotiating necessary international arrangements and terms
for proceeding with ITER construction, and they are assessing candidate construction sites atCadarache, France; Vandellos, Spain; Rokkasho, Japan; and Clarington, Canada. Decisions onthese matters by the participating governments are expected in 2003.
The Committee concluded that the ITER Team has prepared a complete cost estimatethat is based on sound management and engineering principles, and is credible as a basis forestablishing relative contributions by the Parties to the construction of ITER. The estimate is asynthesis by the ITER Team of multiple international industrial cost estimates for each of
85 procurement packages covering essentially the entire project; it includes a normalization ofmaterial and labor cost rates in various countries, and it emphasizes the value of individualcomponents relative to each other. It is not comparable to a traditional DOE construction
project cost estimate. The credibility of such a value estimate is supported by the design and
R&D results that are unusually mature for a science project facing the decision to fundconstruction.

iBecause multiple Parties would construct the ITER project, with each responsible for
procurements of in-kind hardware in its own territory with its own currency, a direct conversionof the ITER value estimate into a single currency is not particularly relevant; nevertheless, it ispossible. Converting to U.S. dollars, the total would be about $5 billion (constant 2002 dollars)
for the base estimate consisting of about $4 billion for ITER hardware, initial spares, buildings,
and installation and assembly of the hardware into the buildings plus about $1 billion for project
management and engineering support during construction, R&D during construction, andcommissioning. The U.S. considers commissioning to be part of the project period while thecurrent ITER Parties consider it to be part of the operation period.
Several of the current Parties have gone beyond the direct conversion process andprepared their own full cost estimate. European Union personnel presented the conclusions of
their cost estimate to the Committee. Their analysis indicated close agreement with the ITER
value estimate to within a few percent, although individual component costs varied by somewhat
larger percentages.
The current ITER Parties agree that the ITER value estimate is appropriate forestablishing relative contributions by the Parties to the construction of ITER. They are now
negotiating an arrangement for sharing project scope on that basis, with the understanding thateach Party would be financially responsible for their in-kind hardware contributions.
In light of the above, the Committee concluded that in the event the U.S. decides to join
the current negotiations, it should prepare, as soon as possible, its own cost estimate for a set ofprocurement packages for components the U.S. would be interested in providing. Such a costestimate should conform to current DOE project management procedures, including appropriate
contingency and escalation cost. In addition, similar cost estimates should be prepared for theother types of potential U.S. contributions to ITER for common expenses such as personnel
assigned to the Central Team and Field Team and common procurements. These latter estimatesshould also include appropriate contingency and escalation cost.
The proposed construction schedule for the project is ten years beginning withestablishment of an ITER legal entity and ending with first plasma. A critical path has been
identified, and tasks not on the critical path have been scheduled to level the spending profile.
The construction schedule seems generally reasonable; however, there is inevitable uncertainty inestimating the duration of the governmental approval process that is a prerequisite to starting theconstruction of the project.

ii

The Committee was informed of some of the options being considered by the negotiatorsfor management of the ITER construction project. These include roles for a government level
Council, Director General, various advisory groups, Central Team, Field Teams that provide
technical management of procurements in the Parties’ territories, and Domestic Agencies thataward contracts. The results of the ongoing negotiations will establish the management andorganization structure to be used for project construction. Since management will be the key to theultimate success of the project, the Committee believes that for a complex international projectsuch as ITER, a strong line-management approach will be in the best interest of the Parties.
In summary, the Committee concluded that the ITER Team has prepared a complete costestimate that is based on sound management and engineering principles, and is credible as a basis
for establishing relative contributions by the Parties to the construction of ITER. The proposedschedule developed by the ITER Team is reasonable. The management arrangements now being
negotiated are critical to the project’s success.

iii

CONTENTS
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... i
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Charge to the DOE ITER Cost Assessment Committee .................................................. 2
1.3 Membership of the Committee......................................................................................... 2
1.4 The Assessment Process................................................................................................... 2
2. ITER Design Overview ............................................................................................................. 5
2.1 Background on Fusion...................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Background on ITER Design Activities........................................................................... 5
3. ITER Cost Estimate Overview .................................................................................................. 7
3.1 Purpose and End Use........................................................................................................ 7
3.2 Estimate Classification and Characteristics ..................................................................... 8
4. Cost Estimate Assessment....................................................................................................... 11
4.1 Direct Cost Summary ..................................................................................................... 12
4.1.1 Machine Core ..................................................................................................... 12
4.1.1.1 Magnet System ....................................................................................... 12
4.1.1.2 Vacuum Vessel....................................................................................... 15
4.1.1.3 Blanket System....................................................................................... 17
4.1.1.4 Divertor .................................................................................................. 19
4.1.1.5 Machine Assembly................................................................................. 20
4.1.1.6 Cryostat .................................................................................................. 22
4.1.1.7 Thermal Shields...................................................................................... 23
4.1.1.8 Vacuum Pumping and Fueling System .................................................. 24
4.1.2 Auxiliary Systems ............................................................................................. 26
4.1.2.1 Remote Handling Equipment ................................................................. 26
4.1.2.2 Cooling Water ........................................................................................ 28
4.1.2.3 Tritium Plant .......................................................................................... 31
4.1.2.4 Cryodistribution ..................................................................................... 32
4.1.2.5 Power Supplies and Distribution............................................................ 32
4.1.2.6 Buildings ................................................................................................ 34
4.1.2.7 Waste Treatment and Storage................................................................. 36
4.1.2.8 Radiological Protection .......................................................................... 37

4.1.3 Heating and Current Drive Systems ................................................................... 38
4.1.3.1 Ion Cyclotron.......................................................................................... 38
4.1.3.2 Electron Cyclotron ................................................................................. 39
4.1.3.3 Neutral Beam.......................................................................................... 40
4.1.4 Diagnostics ......................................................................................................... 42
4.1.5 Control, Data Acquisition, and Communications .............................................. 43
4.2 Construction Management and Engineering Support .................................................... 44
4.3 Other Project Costs Summary ........................................................................................ 46
4.3.1 R&D During Construction ................................................................................. 46
4.3.2 Commissioning .................................................................................................. 46
5. Schedule and Funding Assessment ......................................................................................... 49
6. Management Approach ........................................................................................................... 51

AppendicesA. Charge Memorandum
B. Assessment Participants
C. Assessment Agenda
D. ITER Design Description
E. ITER Cost Estimate Summary
F. ITER Value Estimate and Assessment Committee Comments
G. ITER Project Summary Schedule
H. Escalation Methodology to Convert IUA to 2002 U.S. Dollars

2

1.

INTRODUCTION

1.1

Background

The mission of ITER is to demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility offusion energy for peaceful purposes. Currently, the European Union, Japan, the RussianFederation, and Canada are negotiating the arrangements and terms for construction, operation,and decommissioning of ITER for subsequent decisions by participating governments.
In his remarks to the Conference of G-8 Energy Ministers in Detroit, Michigan on May 2,
2002, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham told the audience that President Bush is interested in
the potential of ITER and has asked DOE to seriously consider American participation.
Since that time, the U.S. fusion community completed a two-week Summer Study in
July 2002 that confirmed the need for burning plasma fusion research, and that resulted in a
uniform technical assessment of the three leading proposals for a burning plasma experiment, oneof which was ITER. Building upon the results of the Summer Study, a Fusion Energy Sciences
Advisory Committee (FESAC) Panel completed a report in September 2002 that was provided aburning plasma program strategy to advance fusion energy. The Panel report was subsequently
endorsed by FESAC. ITER is an important part of the recommended strategy.
The Department of Energy (DOE) is sponsoring a study by the National Research Council
to provide a further review from the broader perspective of the larger U.S. science community ofthe burning plasma strategy of the U.S. fusion program. Interim findings are expected in
December 2002.
A FESAC Panel on the Fusion Development Path is developing a plan for starting
operation of a fusion demonstration facility in 35 years, and ITER is a key element of the plan.
An interim report will be available early in December 2002.
The results of all of these efforts, including results from the DOE Assessment of the ITER
Cost Estimate will enable DOE to respond to the President’s request for “DOE to seriously
consider American participation (in ITER).”

1

1.2

Charge to the DOE ITER Cost Assessment Committee

Because of the size of a potential U.S. investment in ITER, the importance of ITER in
advancing fusion science and the potential for ITER to serve as a model for future international
science projects, the Office of Science will need to be able to substantiate to Congress and theAdministration, that any investment in ITER is reasonable and likely to achieve expected results.
In an October 31, 2002, memorandum (Appendix A), Raymond L. Orbach, Director of the
DOE Office of Science (SC) established a review committee with the following charge:“…I request that you assemble a Review Committee to assess in summary fashion thecost estimate that has been prepared by the ITER Project Team. The assessment
should emphasize the reasonableness of the project cost and schedule assumptions
and, to the extent possible, the construction and technical management assumptions.”
The Director asked for a written review report by December 2, 2002.

1.3

Membership of the Committee

The Committee was chaired by Daniel R. Lehman, Director of SC’s Construction
Management Support Division. Its members were primarily drawn from DOE National
Laboratories, and DOE Site and Project Offices. Two advisors were chosen to assist theCommittee in their understanding of ITER technology, design, construction, and planned
operations. In addition, the Committee included observers from DOE and the White House Officeof Science and Technology Policy. The Committee participants are shown in Appendix B.

1.4

The Assessment Process

Recognizing that the U.S. is reconsidering its participation in ITER, Dr. Robert Aymar,
the leader of the ITER International Team, along with his staff, graciously offered to meet with
the Committee in November 2002. Development of a mutually agreeable agenda was carried out
with the close cooperation of Dr. Aymar. The Committee would like to express its gratitude forthe excellent cooperation and hospitality received from its ITER hosts.

2

The assessment took place November 21-25, 2002 at ITER offices located at the Max
Planck Institute of Plasma Physics in Garching, Germany. The agenda is provided in Appendix C.
The first day was largely devoted, in plenary session, to project technical overview presentations by
ITER staff members. On the second day, the Committee met and began technical, cost, andmanagement discussions with Dr. Aymar. Late in the afternoon, the team met with arepresentative of the European Fusion Development Agreement, Dr. Roberto Andreani, whorecently completed an independent estimate of ITER project costs. Discussions with Dr. Aymar
continued into the third day. The next two days focused on committee working sessions,committee deliberations, and drafting the Committee’s report. Each Committee member met with
Dr. Aymar to discuss initial findings and comments in his respective areas of expertise andassigned ITER system. The preliminary results of the assessment were discussed with Dr. Aymar.
The basis for the assessment of the ITER cost estimate involved expert opinion by thecommittee members relying on information made available by Dr. Aymar and his staff andpublished ITER documentation. The Committee considered cost factors such as maturity of project
scope definition, quality of the bases of estimates, identification of major cost drivers andsensitivities, and areas of risk and uncertainty. The Committee also considered observations andcomments from previous ITER reviews and assessments.
Four candidate sites for ITER have been proposed for consideration within the ongoing
ITER negotiations. Europe has proposed two sites—one in France and one in Spain. Japan has
proposed a site in the northern end of its main island, and Canada has proposed a site near
Toronto. The negotiators from these Parties and the Russian Federation are expected to finish
their reports on these sites by or around February 2003, at which time the participating
governments would consider the reports of the negotiators and subsequently reach a decision on
the preferred site and other key subjects such as cost sharing and selection of a director.
Subsequently, a Joint Implementing Agreement would be updated to reflect the site selection, andthe agreement would be initialed for approval by the participating governments later in 2003.

3

Intentionally Blank

4

2.

ITER DESIGN OVERVIEW

2.1

Background on Fusion

Fusion energy is a potential major new source of energy. The fusion energy process
involves the fusion of deuterium and tritium fuels to generate heat that can be used for the
production of electricity and possibly for the production of hydrogen as a fuel. The U.S. DOE
Office of Science has the lead role in the U.S. for pursuing fusion energy research.
The attractive features of a fusion power plant would be no greenhouse gas emissions, no
production of long-lived radioactive products, abundant and widely distributed sources of fuel(seawater and lithium), inherent safety features to shut down easily with no possibility of fuelmeltdown, a continuous mode of operation to meet demand, and manageable waste.
Since the late 1950’s, scientists and engineers from the U.S., Europe, Russia, and Japan(the major fusion programs) have conducted fusion research with an ultimate goal of developing
such a new source of energy. Excellent progress has been made as a result of continuously
improved fusion plasma research experiments with major advances in scientific diagnostics,
modeling, and computation. Today, fusion research is at the threshold of exploration of “burning
plasma” in which sufficient heat from the fusion reaction is retained within the plasma andsustains the reaction for long duration. Such exploration is a necessary step toward the realizationof a fusion energy source; it must be done to establish the confidence in proceeding withdemonstrations of practical fusion energy. Construction of ITER and implementation of the
ITER research program would provide for such exploration. Due to its significant performancecapability, ITER would advance the fusion energy goal in a major way.

2.2

Background on ITER Design Activities

The U.S. participated in the ITER Conceptual Design Activity with Europe, Japan, and theSoviet Union from its inception in 1986, at the recommendation of President Reagan and General
Secretary Gorbachev, until its completion in 1990. The U.S. participated in the ITER Engineering
Design Activity with Europe, Japan, and the Russian Federation from mid-1992 until mid-1998,
during which time the initial ITER design was prepared including extensive supporting R&D. In
early 1998, the U.S. participated in an ITER Special Working Group to reconsider the ITER design
with the purpose of reducing its cost and increasing its likelihood of success against modified

5scientific and technological goals—while retaining the overall programmatic objective of
demonstrating “the scientific and technological feasibility of fusion energy for peaceful purposes.”
At the formal conclusion of the Engineering Design Activity, the U.S. left the ITER activities
because of Congressional concerns that the project would not be constructed and would not work.
After the U.S. departure, the other ITER Parties continued in the direction proposed by theSpecial Working Group. The subsequent design effort was quite successful and has resulted in
the present ITER design (see Appendix D for design decriptions), which retains the overall
programmatic objective, but with some performance reduction and significantly lower cost
relative to the initial device. The redesign, coupled with theoretical and experimental advances,
has given the fusion scientific community confidence that the new ITER will meet its scientificand technological goals.

ITER Final Design

6

3.

ITER COST ESTIMATE OVERVIEW

3.1

Estimate Purpose and End Use

The purpose of the cost estimate developed by the ITER Team is to provide a consistent,
comprehensive, and realistic basis to assist the ITER Parties in determining the nature and scopeof their involvement in the construction of ITER. This estimate is not a project budget or control
estimate in the traditional cost engineering sense. The estimate is a synthesis of multiple
international cost estimates for each of 85 procurement packages covering essentially the entire
project. In addition, the ITER Team provided detailed backup information to the Parties
including physical quantities for all systems, as well as labor hours and normalized labor rates sothat the Parties could perform their own estimates. The Parties have accepted the ITER Team’s
value estimate as an appropriate mechanism for understanding, with a common basis, the natureand value of the contributions to be made by each individual Party.
The current ITER value estimate is a product of significant project efforts leading to a new
design that achieves a 50 percent reduction in the ITER value estimate of the direct capital cost of
the previous 1998 ITER design. The process for collecting cost data from industries to complete
the new valuation followed the same process that was used to develop the 1998 ITER value
estimate. Procurement packages, providing technical descriptions and standard cost categories
were sent to the Parties’ industries with specific instructions for estimating the cost and quantityof equipment, materials, tooling, and labor. The data collected from the responses were
evaluated, normalized, and converted to a common cost basis—ITER Units of Account (IUA),
where IUA = $1,000 U.S. (January 1989 value). The procurement packages were not sent to
Canada because Canada became a negotiating Party at a later date. The normalized estimates
were summarized in the ITER Technical Basis (International Atomic Energy Agency, ITER
Engineering Design Activity Documentation Series No. 24) and are provided as Attachment E.
The newly developed value estimate is supported by a large engineering design effort(approximately $500 million) that resulted in an essentially final design for ITER, and an
unusually large R&D effort (approximately $1 billion) both of which have been conducted overthe past decade. The ITER value estimate did not include contingency and escalation that would
reflect the additional cost of materials and labor based on the currently proposed construction
schedule (approximately ten years). In addition, the project has identified the value estimates ofproject management and engineering support during construction, R&D during construction, andintegrated commissioning to achieve first plasma.
7

The overall ITER management approach and specific procurement and contracting
practices have not been determined, although Dr. Aymar described the current models being
considered by the negotiators, and a Host Party has not been selected. These features as discussed
in Section 6 could have a significant impact on the cost of constructing ITER.
The project cost for ITER determined by any specific Party in their unique currency andtheir accounting practices will likely vary from the ITER valuation. Such a Party-specific costestimate would be a summation of the costs of the defined scope of work using the standards andaccepted estimating and accounting practices of the specific Party. For instance, if the U.S. were
to develop an independent estimate for the entire ITER scope, it should take the following steps:
1. Evaluate the project scope and validate the ITER assumptions making any changes
necessary (equipment, materials, labor, support costs, etc.) to meet the technicalspecifications required for a particular component required by ITER using the U.S.
methods and practices.
2. Include all support costs such as management, engineering, procurement, and otherrelevant project costs (R&D/Commissioning).
3. Establish and include contingency to address uncertainty in the estimate.
4. Escalate the total cost to reflect the increase in cost of materials and labor based on
appropriate escalation rates over the currently proposed construction schedule.
However, no ITER Party will ever be responsible for the entire project scope. Therefore,
it would be more appropriate for the U.S. to estimate only the cost for ITER components underconsideration by the U.S. using the previously described step-wise process.

3.2

Estimate Classification and Characteristics

The ITER value estimate for the direct items closely resembles a typical Class 1 costestimate as defined by the International Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering(AACE International). Class 1 estimates are based on full project definition, supported bydeterministic cost estimating methods, and are the result of significant efforts focused on costestimate preparation.
The estimate documentation associated with the procurement packages have many
elements of best practices in cost estimating: standard formats, clear bases of estimates, welldefined scopes of work, defined labor hours and rates, documented quantities, and well-defined8

descriptions of cost categories used for all cost estimates.
Several reviews by outside groups have been conducted recently. In the U.S., a committeeof the 2002 Snowmass Summer Study examined ITER’s cost estimate as part of a comparative
analysis examining the estimates of ITER, FIRE, and IGNITOR. The Snowmass committee
identified items not included in the estimate and highlighted areas of risk and uncertainty.
Overall, the Snowmass committee found the ITER estimate to be reasonable as a basis ofcomparison to facilitate international negotiations on task sharing.
In January 2001, the European Union contracted (approximately $1 million) with aconsortium of European industrial firms to develop an independent costing of ITER using European
standards and practices. After a four-month study, the estimate developed by the consortium
confirmed the ITER estimate with an overall discrepancy of a few percent for the total cost.
The Committee learned that the Russian Federation and the Japanese have also developed
independent estimates for all or a portion of the ITER valuation in their respective cost estimating
and accounting systems. The Committee was not able to obtain information about the outcomesof these efforts, due to time limitations.

9Intentionally Blank

10

4.

COST ESTIMATE ASSESSMENT

The Committee concluded that the ITER Team has prepared a complete value estimatethat is based on sound management and engineering principles, and is credible as a basis forestablishing relative contributions by the Parties to the construction of ITER. The major part ofthe value estimate is judgment by the ITER Team based on multiple international industrial costestimates for each of 85 procurement packages covering essentially the entire project; it is notcomparable to a traditional DOE construction project cost estimate. The credibility of theestimate is supported by the design and R&D results that are unusually mature for a science
project facing the decision to fund construction.
Items of cost deliberately not included in the estimate have been noted by the Committee.
These items include: transportations costs of large components from the fabricator’s closest port
to a potential site and expatriation charges for industry personnel to assist with installation. Sitespecific costs for items outside the generic design criteria, e.g., potential additional cost forseismic requirements, will be borne by the host. Detailed design and R&D for Diagnostics andHeating and Current Drive Systems are not part of the estimate and are expected to be paid by
the contributing Party as part of on-going R&D programs. As previously mentioned,
contingency and escalation have not been determined or included in the estimate.
A summary of the Committee’s assessment is provided in Table 4-1. A more detailed versionof this table addressing the major ITER systems is included as Appendix F.

11

Table 4-1.
Element of ITER Project
Value

Summary of Review Committee Assessment

kIUA1$M20022

ITER Direct Items

2,754.7

3,955.7

Construction Management andEngineering Support

477.0

685.0

Not Relevant
for ITER
Value

TBD

169.9

244.0

Not Relevant
for ITER
Value

TBD

3,401.6

4,884.7

Contingency
Other Project Costs (R&D,
Commissioning)
Escalation
ITER Value Estimate

Committee Assessment
Machine Core design essentially complete, gooddetail in estimates.
Auxiliary Systems designs are mature, many
conventional components, good est. details.
Heating and Current Drive Systems designs are
preliminary.
Diagnostics are conceptual and based on 1998
ITER Design.
CODAC estimate is reasonable based onengineering judgment.
Generally, reasonable; Physics support notincluded.
Not included as part of ITER valuation; would be
included in USDOE estimate for any component.
R&D is reasonable/ recognizes ~$1B spent.
Commissioning is reasonable, Physics support is
not included.
Not included as part of the ITER valuation; would
be included in USDOE estimate for any
component.
Credible as a basis for establishing relative
contributions.

1

ITER Units of Account (IUA) where 1 IUA = $1,000 January 1989 dollars, IUA is a common basis determined as a result of the
ITER process for normalizing estimates from different international parties.
2
kIUAs converted to $M2002 (kIUA x 1.436); see Appendix H for methodology.
3
Costs for supporting work expected to be conducted under the Parties’ ongoing programs are not included. These costs include
diagnostic development; experiment planning and analysis; plasma heating technology, etc.

4.1

Direct Cost Summary

4.1.1 Machine Core
4.1.1.1 Magnet System
This system’s cost estimate is credible, based on sound management and engineering
principles and can be used as a basis for establishing relative contributions by the Parties. ITER
superconducting magnet costing is based on a complete set of project work packages andbudgetary estimates from competent industrial vendors among the ITER Parties. It is further
supported by the successful completion of the toroidal field (TF) and central solenoid (CS)model coil facilities and tests of insert coils, representing the original ITER design, all of which
met or exceeded specified performance. ITER risk is further reduced by ongoing research by the
ITER Parties, particularly in strand development.
12

The conductor temperature margin and conduit tensile fatigue for the new ITER design
are considered marginal. This is being addressed by changes in the conductor and conductormaterials, as well as a strand development program. These measures are likely to restore design
margins, while qualifying as many Nb3Sn vendors as possible in order to avoid possible impact
on the project schedule.
System Description
The ITER magnet system consists of the TF magnet system, CS magnets, the poloidal
field (PF) system, the field error correction coils (CC), the cold structure connecting the TF, CS,
PF and CC systems, and the superconducting current feeders (FF).
The 18 TF magnets provide a toroidal flux density of 5.3 T at the 6.2-meter plasma major
radius. The maximum flux density at the TF magnets is 11.8 T and the conductor current is 68 KA.
The TF conductors are circular 1,082-strand Nb3Sn cable-in-conduit (CICC) superconductors with acentral cooling channel. They are pancake-wound in seven radial stainless steel plates. The circular
conductors are insulated from the plates by epoxy-impregnated polyimide. The TF winding pack is
enclosed by a stainless steel structural case. The TF cases are wedged at the inner leg to support
overturning loads. Overturning of the outer legs is resisted by bolted shear panels.
The CS magnet system is a vertical stack of six independently driven winding packmodules, hung in a single assembly from the top of the TF coils. The modules are preloaded incompression by tie-plates at the inner and outer diameters of the CS stack. The CS conductors
are 1,152-strand Nb3Sn CICC with a peak flux density of 13.5 T.
The PF coils, used for plasma position and shape control, are six separate solenoids,
mounted from the TF cases. The conductors are approximately 1,000-strand NbTi CICC’s in asquare, stainless steel conduit with a central cooling channel. PF mounting plates prevent
bending shear in the PF winding packs by allowing radial motion.
The 18 CCs are mounted outside the TF in three independent sets of six coils at the top,bottom, and equator of the tokamak. The CCs correct error fields due to coil asymmetries. The
CICC is a NbTi cable with approximately 300 strands, a square, stainless steel conduit, and nocentral cooling channel. The conductors carry up to 10 kA at 5 T.

13The Feeders are the 26 superconducting bus lines, feeding current to the superconducting
magnets from the cold end of the vapor-cooled leads. They include three coolant feeders for cold
structure, two instrumentation feeders, cryostat feedthroughs, and a coil terminal box outside thecryostat.
All of the superconducting coils are cooled by the forced circulation of supercriticalhelium with inlet pressures of 0.6 MPa and inlet temperatures of 4.4-4.7 K.
Scope Definition and Maturity
The system must provide a central flux density of 5.3 T, a plasma current of 15 MA, and a
volt-second swing of 314 Wb, as well as all of the plasma positioning, shaping, and field error
cancellation. The coil system has a total stored energy of approximately 50.2 GJ and the coldmass is 10,135 tonnes.
ITER98 was a highly mature design, with a complete set of drawings and supporting analysis
to submit to industry for budgetary estimates. The downsized ITER magnet system is very mature,but some parts of the coil system have changed topologically. The most significant change in themagnet system since ITER98 was that from layer-wound to a pancake-wound and segmented CS coil.
The joints changed from praying hands to clasping hands. Structurally, the CS coil is no longer
bucked against the TF coil. The necessary changes have been made on the drawings, but drawings ofjoints and breakouts were not supported by finite element analyses in the Design Description
Document (DDD). According to the Director, most of this analysis has since been completed.
Basis of Estimate
The magnet system estimate of $1,094 million is based on six work packages that weredeveloped and sent to industries in the countries of the three ITER partners. The magnet work
packages included: 1) Toroidal Field Coils and Windings, 2) Magnet Structures, 3) Poloidal
Field Coil and Correction Coils, 4) Central Solenoid Coil, 5) Feeders, and 6) Conductor. The
Feeders only received a single budgetary estimate. The other five major subsystems received fullbudgetary estimates from each of the three ITER Parties.
A summary of the six magnet work packages was reviewed. All of the components andmanufacturing steps needed to produce the magnets and deliver them to the ITER site were
included. It is noted that magnet cold testing is not planned.

14

Major Cost Drivers and Sensitivities
The magnet system cost is dominated by the superconductor, the magnet structures, andthe Toroidal Field Coil and Winding. They represent 47, 22, and 15 percent of total magnet
system cost, respectively.
Risk and Uncertainty
The superconductor is the largest source of cost and schedule uncertainty in the magnet
system. Negative schedule and cost uncertainty comes from the possibility that the design willprobably require the parallel efforts of all the Nb3Sn vendors in the world, possibly generating
noncompetitive pricing or bottlenecks. Performance uncertainty comes from strain degradationof critical properties, creating low design margins, and the requirement for low flaw sizes, due tohigh cyclic stresses.
Low design margins in superconductor critical properties and allowable conduit flaw sizes
are being addressed by re-optimization of the conductor design, qualification of high toughness
conduit material, and the development of Nb3Sn with higher critical current density. The Nb3Sn
strand development program, if successful, should restore adequate design margins. Since thehigher performance specifications cannot be met by some existing technology, ITER is attempting
to qualify enough vendors for quantity production to avoid a significant impact on schedule.
4.1.1.2 Vacuum Vessel
The vacuum vessel cost estimate is credible, based on sound management and engineering
principles and can be used as a basis for establishing relative contributions by the Parties. The
relatively minor design changes made since the estimate was compiled should not affect the cost
significantly. There is no evidence of significant technical or schedule risks that would adversely
affect the construction costs. The Committee has reviewed a summary of this package.
System Description
The vacuum vessel is a large toroidal chamber that provides both the plasma vacuum andtritium containment functions. The vessel measures almost 20 meters in diameter at the outerextent of the torus and weighs about 5,400 tonnes. It is a double-wall structure, composed of 60-

15

mm 316LN stainless steel face sheets and 40-mm poloidal ribs. The vessel is fabricated in nine
toroidal sectors. There are 18 sets of upper and equatorial ports and nine sets of lower ports foraccess. The vessel is supported from the lower port ducts. Port duct extensions connect the vessel
ports to the cryostat. Neutron shielding consisting of steel plates and water is provided between the
double walls, including ferritic material to reduce the toroidal magnetic field ripple. The vessel isprotected from radiation damage by a set of approximately 0.45-meter-thick blanket modules, suchthat the vessel field joints can be re-welded at any time during the life of the experiment. The
vessel walls and lower, outboard blanket support frames provide enough conducting material for
passive stabilization of the plasma without relying on additional copper plates or in-vessel active
control coils. The vessel is highly loaded during plasma disruption events, but has been thoroughly
analyzed and shown to safely resist all design loading conditions.
Scope Definition and Maturity
The vessel is almost completely designed, with full CAD models and supporting analysis.
The complete specification and drawings needed for a procurement package will be available in
July 2003. In addition, two full-scale, half sectors of the vessel were constructed in Japan as partof the Engineering Design Activity (EDA) R&D activities and demonstrated the feasibility of the
all manufacturing methods, tolerance requirements (+/- ten mm), and sector-to-sector assembly
welding techniques.
Basis of Estimate
The vessel fabrication estimate of approximately $330 million is a “build-to-print” estimate andis divided into two parts: the main vessel and the port assemblies. The main vessel estimate includes
the double wall torus, vessel supports, shielding between the vessel walls, integral blanket interfaces,
and instrumentation sensors. The port assemblies’ estimate includes the port duct extensions andconnecting ducts. Both estimates include manufacturing engineering. Two Parties estimated thevessel and port assemblies, while one Party estimated only the port assemblies. The estimate includes
the labor for all manufacturing and inspection operations based on known quantities such as mass of
raw material, mass of weld deposited, material removed by machining, etc.
Major Cost Drivers and Sensitivities
The vessel cost is dominated by the large amount of welding, the relatively high geometricaccuracy, and the ultra high vacuum requirements. The complexity and cost of the vessel have16

increased from the EDA design due to the incorporation of attachment features for a large number(421) of blanket/shield modules. However, attachment of the blanket modules to the vessel
eliminated an expensive, separately cooled, backplate structure that was part of the EDA design.
Risk and Uncertainty
No major risk or uncertainties are apparent. Additional R&D is proposed to fabricate asmall section of torus containing one or two typical blanket attachment interfaces to assess local
weld distortion.
4.1.1.3 Blanket System
The Blanket System fabrication cost estimate is credible, based on sound management andengineering principles, and can be used as a basis for establishing relative contributions by theParties. Some detailed design work remains to fully characterize all of the unique blanket shapes.
No major design changes have been made since the estimate was compiled and none are
expected to be made prior to release of procurement packages that would affect the cost
significantly. There is no evidence of significant technical or schedule risks that would adversely
affect the construction costs. The Committee has reviewed parts of this package.
System Description
The blanket/shield system is designed to absorb most of the fusion power (up to 700 MW)
and consists of 421 water-cooled, stainless-steel modules weighing about four tonnes each. The
modules are mounted on the plasma side of the vacuum vessel via adjustable, flexible titanium
supports. The plasma facing surface of each module is faced with four, separately cooled,independently removable panels consisting of a copper alloy heat sink and a ten-mm-thick beryllium
surface layer. Manifolds mounted to the vessel provide cooling water, and all connections are madefrom the plasma side of the modules with short bore welding tools. The modules are highly loaded
during plasma disruption events, but have been thoroughly analyzed and shown to transmit all design
loading conditions to the vacuum vessel without damage. However, the modules are also designed
for remote removal and replacement via the in-vessel remote handling system. The entire outboard
array of modules can be replaced with tritium breeding modules as an upgrade if outside sources oftritium are not available. The fully remote handling and accurate placement of similar-sized modules
has been demonstrated as part of the EDA R&D program.
Scope Definition and Maturity

17

The blanket system is fully defined, but the detailed configuration of all the various module
shapes must still be completed. The complete specification and drawings needed for a procurement
package are planned to be available coincident with overall start of project construction.
Basis of Estimate
The blanket hardware estimate of approximately $237 million is a “build-to-print”
estimate and is divided into four packages: the blanket manifolds and filler shields, the firstwall/shield modules, the port limiters, and the blanket module connections. Full or partial
estimates were provided for all four packages by all three Parties. The manifold estimate includes
the custom piping inside the vessel, as well as a few small filler blocks in gaps between modules.
The first wall and shield module package consists of the separable first wall assemblies and thelarge shield blocks and include about five percent overage or spares. Two port limiters areincluded, as well as one spare. The blanket connectors include both the mechanical and electricalconnection pieces. All the estimates include material, shop engineering, and the labor for all
manufacturing and inspection operations based on known quantities such as forming operations,mass of weld deposited, material removed by machining, etc. The estimates were based on acomposite of manufacturing methods developed during an extensive R&D program. Powder hot
isostatic pressing (HIPping), casting, and forging/drilling were all successfully prototyped for theblanket modules. Several different prototypical first wall panel fabrication methods weresuccessfully demonstrated.
Major Cost Drivers and Sensitivities
The blanket cost is dominated by the large number of blanket modules and associated firstwall panels. There is also some penalty for the complexity of the shapes required toaccommodate the neutral beam openings, resulting in a large number (31) of unique module
shapes. The first wall panel design is dictated by both the direct heating and the large disruption
loads that require division of the first wall into four panels per blanket module and a strong
attachment between the panels and the module. Two designs are currently being considered and,in principle, both could be used for the production units. The other cost driver is the beryllium
coating on the first wall. Large differences in the cost of beryllium were uncovered during theestimating process, but a median value was used in the estimate rather than the lowest value.
Risk and Uncertainty18

No major construction risks or uncertainties are apparent. The blanket modules are not on
the critical path, the design is nearly complete, and several different fabrication processes havebeen successfully developed.

19

4.1.1.4 Divertor
The Divertor System cost estimate is credible, based on sound management andengineering principles and can be used as a basis for establishing relative contributions by theParties. The detailed design work is completed but the complete specification is not prepared.
No major design changes have been made since the estimate’s compilation, nor are any expectedprior to bid that would affect the cost significantly. There is no evidence of significant technicalor schedule risks that would adversely affect the construction costs, and the technical decision on
the material choice (carbon or tungsten) of the high heat flux targets has been finalized. The
Committee has reviewed parts of this package.
System Description
The divertor system consists of 54 water-cooled, stainless-steel cassette assemblies
weighing about 12 tonnes each. Each cassette is fitted with plasma facing surfaces capable ofabsorbing very high local heat flux of more than 10 MW/m2. The cassettes are mounted on rails
at the bottom of the vacuum vessel and form a complete toroidal ring. The plasma facing
surfaces of each cassette are separately cooled and independently removable in a hot cell tofacilitate maintenance and minimize waste. The inner and outer targets are a combination oftungsten and carbon fiber composite (CFC) integrated with a copper alloy heat sink and steel
strongback in the form of “fingers” oriented in the poloidal direction. Manifolds mounted behindthe cassettes provide cooling water, and all connections are made with in-pipe welding tools. The
plasma facing components are highly loaded thermally and mechanically during plasma
disruption events, but have been thoroughly analyzed and shown to transmit all design loading
conditions through the cassettes to the vacuum vessel without damage. The divertor is designed
for remote removal and replacement several times during the operating phase. The fully remotehandling, water connections, and accurate placement of full scale cassettes have been
demonstrated as part of the EDA R&D program.
Scope Definition and Maturity
The divertor system is fully defined, and the detailed drawings and specification needed
for a procurement package will be completed prior to start of construction. Some concerns about
tritium retention in the CFC may require a switch to tungsten for the entire surface, and this issue
is the subject of ongoing R&D. In any event, both CFC and tungsten targets have been20

successfully fabricated and tested in all Parties. A full-scale partial cassette body was constructed
and integrated with the targets as part of the EDA R&D program.
Basis of Estimate
The divertor estimate of approximately $109 million is a “build-to-print” estimate and isdivided into two packages: cassette integration and testing, and plasma facing (high heat flux)
components. Full or partial estimates for both packages were provided by two Parties, while one
Party provided a full estimate only for the plasma facing components. All the estimates include
material, shop engineering, and the labor for all manufacturing and inspection operations basedon known quantities such as forming and brazing operations, mass of weld deposited, material
removed by machining, etc. The estimates were based on a composite of manufacturing methods
developed during the extensive R&D program.
Major Cost Drivers and Sensitivities
The divertor cost is dominated by the large number of high heat flux “fingers” that must
be reliably fabricated to very high quality.
Risk and Uncertainty
While there has been an extensive R&D program, there is still some concern that the
manufacturing reliability may need modifications or optimization during large-scale production
fabrication. However, the divertor modules are not on the critical path and several fabrication
processes have been successfully developed.
4.1.1.5 Machine Assembly
The Machine Assembly is a complex series of operations requiring a large number oflabor hours, as well as significant special tooling and fixtures. The cost estimate is credible,
based on sound management and engineering principles and can be used as a basis forestablishing relative contributions by the Parties. The overall planning is complete to the extent
that all operations have been identified and estimated, and detailed concepts have been developed
for all major tools. The very precise manipulation and placement of very heavy (up to 1,200
tonnes) loads will be difficult. However, there is no evidence that there is some feasibility issue
or other technical risk that can be immediately identified that would adversely affect theconstruction costs. The Committee has reviewed parts of this package.

21

22

System Description
Machine Assembly includes all operations associated with installation of the cryostat andall systems inside the cryostat, including:•

Cryostat and penetrations;•

Cryostat lid and frame for bioshield;•

Magnet system, including toroidal field coils and structures, gravity supports, poloidal
field coils and supports, central solenoid and supports, correction coils and supports,
and in-cryostat feeders;•

Vacuum vessel, including vacuum vessel ports, vacuum vessel gravity supports;•

Thermal shields, including vacuum vessel thermal shields, cryostat thermal shields,
transition thermal shields;•

In-vessel components, including divertor and blanket modules;•

In-port components, including cryopumps, diagnostics, test blanket modules, andadditional heating systems; and•All associated in-cryostat piping, instrumentation, and cabling.

The above tasks require a number of large transporters, lifting fixtures, subassembly
stands, platforms, special purpose welding, inspection and measurement tools, as well as the twolarge overhead cranes.
Scope Definition and Maturity
The assembly steps are defined in a detailed assembly plan and all the major tools andfixtures are defined at the advanced conceptual level. The fully detailed plans, drawings, andspecification needed for a procurement package will be completed about one year after start ofconstruction.
Basis of Estimate
The Machine Assembly estimate of approximately $133 million is an advanced
conceptual design estimate and is divided into two packages: assembly operations and assembly
tooling. Full estimates were provided for both packages by all three Parties. All the estimates are
based on physical quantities such as material, mass of weld deposited, number of connections,etc. and include shop engineering and the labor for all tooling manufacturing, assembly, and23

inspection operations. Detailed plans and detailed concepts for the major tooling and fixtures
were used for the estimate, but resource-loaded schedules and details of the minor tools remain to
be developed.
Major Cost Drivers and Sensitivities
The assembly cost is dominated by the large number of operations and the extensive
welding to be performed. For example, the nine vacuum vessel field assembly joints each require
four, full-poloidal welds in the 60-mm-thick facesheets. There are also many kilometers of
piping to install, weld, and inspect, as well as numerous large vacuum port connections.
Risk and Uncertainty
The primary risk of the assembly operations appears to be the manipulation and very
accurate placement of very heavy loads, including the TF/VV sub-assemblies that weigh morethan 1,000 tones each and the Central Solenoid assembly that weighs more than 1,100 tones.
4.1.1.6 Cryostat
The Cryostat cost estimate is credible, based on sound management and engineering
principles and can be used as a basis for establishing relative contributions by the Parties.
System Description
The cryostat provides the vacuum boundary required for thermal insulation, as well as asecondary containment barrier. The cryostat consists of a large, fully welded stainless steel
vacuum vessel 28 meters in diameter and 24-meters tall with a total weight of over 3,000 tonnes.
Both the lid and base are reinforced, flat structures, with the lid supported by an integrated carbon
steel framework that includes the bio-shielding and the base supported by the building.
Numerous penetrations are provided in correspondence to the vacuum vessel ports and for coilservice lines. The cryostat must be assembled on site from pre-formed subassemblies. The
vacuum vessel pressure suppression system (VVPSS) consists of a simple cylindrical tankdesigned to condense steam produced by leaks in the in-vessel components and protect thevacuum vessel from overpressure.

24

Scope Definition and Maturity
The cryostat and VVPSS are defined, and the detailed drawings and specification needed
for a procurement package will be completed about one year after start of construction.
Basis of Estimate
The cryostat estimate of approximately $109 million is a “build-to-print” estimate andincludes both the cryostat and vacuum vessel pressure suppression system in one procurement
package. Complete cost estimates were provided for this package by two Parties. The estimates
include material, shop engineering, and the labor for all manufacturing and inspection operations
based on known quantities such as forming operations, mass of weld deposited, material removed
by machining, etc.
Major Cost Drivers and Sensitivities
The cryostat cost is dominated by its large size, numerous penetrations, and the large
quantity of field welding required.
Risk and Uncertainty
No major construction risks or uncertainties were apparent. The cryostat is not on thecritical path, the design is for the most part is complete and it is of conventional construction.
4.1.1.7 Thermal Shields
The thermal shield cost estimate is credible, based on sound management and engineering
principles and can be used as a basis for establishing relative contributions by the Parties.
System Description
The thermal shield system reduces the heat load on the magnets and other structures
operating at liquid helium temperatures by providing a radiation barrier actively cooled to 80K
with helium gas. The shield is divided into several regions, including the region immediately
between the vacuum vessel and magnet system, the regions around the ports and the region
adjacent to the interior surface of the cryostat. The shields consist of stainless steel panels with a25low emissivity silver coating. Electrical breaks are provided to minimize eddy currents andresultant forces during transients. The thermal shields are almost impossible to repair in someareas, so all the panels are designed with fully redundant cooling.
Scope Definition and Maturity
The thermal shield system is fully defined, but the complete drawings and specifications
are not needed for a procurement package until after start of construction.
Basis of Estimate
The thermal shield estimate of approximately $41million is a “build-to-print” estimate in
one procurement package. Complete estimates were provided by all three Parties. All theestimates include material, shop engineering, and the labor for all manufacturing and inspection
operations based on known quantities such as forming operations, mass of weld deposited, leakchecking, etc.
Major Cost Drivers and Sensitivities
The thermal shield cost is dominated by the large number of pieces and associated helium
trace lines, as well as the required geometric complexity and tight tolerances (few mm).
Risk and Uncertainty
The primary risk for the thermal shield is a failure that causes an excessive thermalradiation load on the magnets or cold structure. This is extremely unlikely since the cooling
circuits are not constructed from tubes but from heavy extrusions and are fully inspected. In
addition, there are two circuits per shield panel for redundancy.
4.1.1.8 Vacuum Pumping and Fueling System
The Vacuum Pumping and Fueling System cost estimate is credible, based on soundmanagement and engineering principles and can be used as a basis for establishing relative
contributions by the Parties. However, some of the estimates were performed only by the JCT in
consultation with experts and not by industrial vendors.

26

System Description
The vacuum pumping system provides the necessary vacuum conditions in the vacuum
vessel for the conduct of plasma experiments. The system is comprised of a roughing system,
torus pumping system, cryostat vacuum pumping system, heating and current drive vacuum
pumping systems, guard and service vacuum pumping system, diagnostic vacuum pumping
system, and lead detection systems. The main torus pumping system uses up to ten batch-perated
cryopumps, although only six will be initially supplied. The fueling system comprises a main gas
supply system, the pellet injection system, the local gas supply system for the neutral beam
injectors and diagnostic neutral beam, and the fusion power shutdown system. Each of the twopellet injectors are centrifugal-type capable of steady state operation.
Scope Definition and Maturity
The vacuum pumping system is relatively well defined, but the detailed drawings andspecifications required for a procurement package are not needed until several years after start ofconstruction.
Basis of Estimate
The Vacuum Pumping and Fueling estimate of approximately $49 million is based on a
combination of functional and “build to print” procurement packages. The estimate is divided
among seven packages, including the non-standard cryopumps and related equipment, roughingpump sets and change-over boxes, leak detection stations, standard components, pellet injector,
gas injector valve boxes, and the glow discharge cleaning system. Full estimates were provided
for the cryopumps, roughing pump sets, and the glow discharge cleaning system by two Parties,
but the balance of the estimate was done internally by the JCT.
Major Cost Drivers and Sensitivities
The vacuum pumping and fueling system cost is dominated by the large mass flow andrequirement for steady-state capability. In addition, due to the large number of separate systems
serviced by the various vacuum and leak detection systems, there will be a significant number ofinterfaces.

27

Risk and Uncertainty
No major construction risks or uncertainties were apparent. The pumping system andfueling systems are both based on existing technology and confirmed by prototype tests.

4.1.2 Auxiliary Systems
4.1.2.1 Remote Handling Equipment
The estimate for the Remote Handling Equipment is credible, based on soundmanagement and engineering principles and can be used as a basis for establishing relative
contributions by the Parties. The current design is mature and augmented with R&D, which has
already demonstrated two full-scale prototypes for the remote handling of blanket modules anddivertor cassettes. The Committee has reviewed this package.
System Description
Due to neutron activation, the repair, inspection or maintenance of ITER in-vessel
components has to be carried out remotely. In-vessel first wall components are subject to plasmawall interaction leading to erosion. This requires regular or infrequent refurbishment, dependingon the erosion rate. Furthermore, components may need to be replaced due to unexpected failure.
This requires the introduction of common and dedicated remote handling (RH) equipment into
the vacuum vessel. Components have been classified according to the frequency with which they
are expected to require remote repair or replacement.
•

RH class 1 pertains to components requiring regular planned replacement (e.g.,
divertor cassettes, test blanket modules).

•RH class 2 applies to those that are likely to require repair or replacement (e.g.,blanket modules and diagnostics port modules).

•RH class 3 applies to components that are not expected to require maintenance orreplacement during the lifetime of ITER but would need to be replaced remotely
should they fail (e.g., vacuum vessel).

•

RH class 4 is for components that do not require remote handling.

All in-cryostat components are RH class 3, although it is expected that up to the end of ITER
operations, short-term personnel access will be feasible within the cryostat for simple repair

28

operations.
The repair of in-vessel components can, in principle, either be accomplished by in-situ
operations, or by removing the component and replacing it by a new one or re-installing thecomponent after repair or refurbishment in a hot cell. However, studies have shown that, mainly
due to access problems, in-situ repair operations are generally not feasible. The ITER strategy istherefore based on the removal of components from the vacuum vessel, and remote transfer to the
hot cell where the components will be either repaired by common and dedicated RH equipment or
replaced with new components.
Scope Definition and Maturity
The overall scope is well defined. The current status ranges from conceptual design tofull-scale prototype development and testing.
Remote handling demonstrations for the shielding blanket (RH class 1), divertor (RHclass 2), and horizontal port systems (RH class 1) have been completed. The capability toaccomplish these remote maintenance operations has been demonstrated at or nearly full-scale inrepresentative mockup simulations.
The blanket RH capabilities were demonstrated with a prototypical rail system,
manipulators, end effectors, and viewing systems. A mockup of the port arrangement and several
locations of blanket module simulators were built and used in the RH demonstrations. The remotehandling equipment demonstrated the necessary operations to release a blanket module at several
locations, remove the module to the port, bring in a new module, and re-attach the module.
The divertor RH maintenance systems were validated with a mockup of the lower port anddivertor rail system. The operations included installing and removing divertor cassettes.
Basis of Estimate
The Remote Handling Equipment estimate of $88 million is supported by the successful
development and testing of a full-scale manipulator for a blanket module and full-scale handlingequipment with rail and port mock-up for a divertor cassette. Complete estimates were provided
by two of the three Parties for all scope except for the viewing/metrology systems where there
was one full estimate and one partial estimate.

29

Major Cost Drivers and Sensitivities
The assembly and maintenance of the ITER machine will be affected from the very
beginning by the presence of in-vessel components made of, or coated with, beryllium. Becauseof the health hazards associated with beryllium dust, such components must be handled in acontrolled way, starting from the machine assembly stage, to ensure that plant workers are notexposed to unacceptable levels of beryllium. During plasma operation, the machine components
will be activated and the in-vessel components will be both activated, and contaminated withtritium. Because of the beta and gamma activation of the component bulk and surface dust
(beryllium, carbon, tungsten), and because of the presence of tritium, special handling techniques
during machine maintenance periods will also be required. Tritium and dust contamination must
therefore be confined during the transfer of components between the machine and the hot cell.
Risk and Uncertainty
The risks associated with the RH class 1 and 2 operations have been mitigated to acceptablelevels by full size demonstrations to validate the proposed RH equipment, software, and procedures.
Further studies and developments are required to verify the feasibility of the disassembly and reassembly of large components that are designated as RH class 3 (i.e., toroidal field coils andvacuum vessel segments) to a level appropriate to highly unlikely operations.
4.1.2.2 Cooling Water
The estimate for the Cooling Water System is credible, based on sound management andengineering principles and can be used as a basis for establishing relative contributions by theParties. The current design, based on conventional technology, is mature and augmented withdetailed analysis and includes well-defined interfaces. The Committee has reviewed this package.
System Description
The cooling water system (CWS) consists of the tokamak cooling water system (TCWS),
the component cooling water system (CCWS), the chilled water system (CHWS), and the heatrejection system (HRS) capable of 750 MW. The CWS has the following functions:30

Tokamak Cooling Water System•

Remove the heat deposited in the in-vessel components and VV during a plasma pulse
to the HRS by way of the WCSs, or directly to air•

Control the coolant temperature, flow rate and pressure for the in-vessel components
and VV during normal operation as required•

Remove decay heat from the in-vessel components and the VV after plasma shutdown•

Provide the ability to bake the in-vessel components and the VV•

Provide safe confinement of the radioactive inventory of the coolant•

Confine radioactive materials from the tokamak following any failure of in-vessel
component boundaries•

Measure the heat removed from the in-vessel components and VV to contribute to thedetermination of the overall fusion power balance•Control the water chemistry in the in-vessel components and VV•

Allow in-vessel components to be isolated to facilitate leak localization

Component Cooling Water System•

Remove the heat from components to the CHWS or to the HRS•

Control the coolant temperature, flow rate, and pressure for components as required•

Control the water chemistry in the components

Chilled Water System•

Provide low temperature coolant for the components•

Remove the heat from components to the heat rejection system

Heat Rejection System•

Provide heat rejection system coolant for the TCWS, CCWS and CHWS•

Remove the heat from the TCWS, CCWS and CHWS, and release it to the environment

Scope Definition and Maturity
The system requirements and definition of standard, existing components have been
established. The envisioned equipments are considered to be currently available with a well31

documented database. The system specifications and functional requirements are well understoodand defined for the procurement packages. The procuring parties must develop detailed
specifications for the system components.
Basis of Estimate
The Cooling Water estimate of $189 million is based on a design consisting of
conventional technology and equipment. Full estimates were provided by two of the three Parties
for all scope.
Major Cost Drivers and Sensitivities
The main drivers of the CWS design are cost reduction, segmentation, and standardization of
the in-vessel components, facilitation of installation and maintenance, staged procurement, andacceptable impact on the building of pressure loading following an ex-vessel coolant leak.
Risk and Uncertainty
No specific risks or uncertainties were identified. In addition to site-specific design,
further activity is desirable in the following areas to improve plant performance, to support an
operating license application, and to optimize the system design:•

Demonstration and measurement of data validating the natural convection
characteristics of VV PHTS•

Plant operation/control system design (including plant shutdown sequence after offnormal events)− Optimization of layout considering facilitation of installation and maintenance,
particularly for the upper pipe chase (including the pipe freeze method for leaklocalization)− Clarification of requirements for drying such as the maximum number of in-vessel
components to be dried concurrently, and drying duration− Clarification of counter current flow limiting correlation for the blanket moduleand divertor cassette configuration, and optimization of the system to blow-out theresidual water after gravity drainage

32

4.1.2.3 Tritium Plant
The estimate for the Tritium Plant is credible, based on sound management and engineering
principles and can be used as a basis for establishing relative contributions by the Parties. The
current design, based on well-proven technology, is mature and has been augmented with R&D
performed with a fully integrated system. The Committee has reviewed this package.
System Description
The functions of the tritium plant can be summarized as: 1) processing all tritiated gas
streams from sources within the plant to produce the gas streams for fuelling (at specified flow
rates and isotopic compositions), 2) confinement of tritium with multiple barriers (such as a
primary component, secondary enclosures and rooms), and 3) detritiation of a number of tritiumcontaining waste streams, contaminated room air, and tritiated waste water to reject the detritiatedremnants to the environment.
Scope Definition and Maturity
The scope is well defined. The design is essentially complete with layout and detail drawings.
Basis of Estimate
The Tritium Plant estimate of $53 million is based on detailed functional analyses overthe full range of anticipated parameters for the tritium fuel cycle. Full estimates were provided by
two of the three Parties for all scope.
Major Cost Drivers and Sensitivities
The main design guidelines for the tritium plant are: 1) minimization of tritium
inventories, 2) reduction of occupational exposure, 3) low generation of effluents and wastes, and
4) reduction of costs by standardization of components.
Risk and Uncertainty
None identified. The design is based upon well-proven technology to ensure highreliability and the safe handling and credible accountancy of tritium. R&D has been performed33

on a fully integrated system for 100 grams of tritium.
4.1.2.4 Cryodistribution
The estimate for the Cryodistribution system is credible, based on sound management andengineering principles and can be used as a basis for establishing relative contributions by theParties. The current design, based on mostly conventional technology, is mature and augmented
with appropriate system analyses. The Committee has reviewed this package.
System Description
The ITER cryogenic system is subdivided into three parts: 1) a 55-kilowatt liquid helium
cryogenic plant, 2) a cryogenic distribution components, and 3) a system of cryogenic lines/manifolds.
Scope Definition and Maturity
The scope is well defined. The design is mature and includes detailed system drawings.
Basis of Estimate
The Cryodistribution estimate of $128 million reflects a design that is based mostly on
conventional technology and equipment. Full estimates were provided by two of the three Parties forall scope.
Major Cost Drivers and Sensitivities
The smoothing of the pulsed heat load, maintenance of stable operation over the wide
range of plasma scenarios, as well as cost minimization by using standardized components, arethe main guidelines for the design of the ITER cryogenic system.
Risk and Uncertainty
None identified. The design is based on conventional technology.
4.1.2.5 Power Supplies and Distribution
The estimate for the Power Supplies and Distribution is credible, based on sound34

management and engineering principles and can be used as a basis for establishing relative35

contributions by the Parties. The current design, based on conventional technology, is mature andaugmented by analyses of performance characteristics and fault modes and includes R&D, which has
demonstrated operation of the high current switchers. The Committee has reviewed this package.
System Description
The pulsed and steady state power supplies consist of the following four major systems:
1) a 500 MW/400 MVar pulsed power distribution system, 2) oil power supplies, 3) AC power
distribution for the heating and current drive (H&CD) power supplies (PS), and 4) 110 MW/78
MVar steady state electric power network (SSEPN).
The pulsed power distribution system will supply ac power to the coil PS and H&CD PS,
while the SSEPN will provide AC power to different loads (mainly motors) within the plantsystems, such as the cooling water system and cryogenic plant. The coil PS and H&CD PS will
supply their corresponding loads, the magnet coils and H&CD systems, in general with DC power.
The main general functions of the pulsed power distribution system PS systems are:1) supply the ITER machine and ITER plant systems with electric power, 2) protect them in caseof electric faults, and 3) provide proper grounding of the machine and power supply components.
Scope Definition and Maturity
The scope is well defined. The design is essentially complete with system drawings
augmented with substantial analyses.
Basis of Estimate
The Power Supplies and Distribution estimate of $308 million reflects a design based on
somewhat conventional and/or well-proven technology with the possible exception of sophisticatedfault protection for the superconducting coil set. R&D has been performed on 66 and 170 kA
switchers and breakers. Full estimates were provided by two of the three Parties for the high voltage
substation/AC power distribution and AC/DC converters/reactive power compensators/harmonic
filters. All three Parties provided full estimates for the switching networks/discharge circuits/DC
distribution/instrumentation and steady state electrical power network.

36

Major Cost Drivers and Sensitivities
Intensive studies have been carried out to define extreme conditions in case of faults. For
the magnet coils, one of the most important parameters is over-voltage on the coil terminals thatcan cause an insulation breakdown and trigger a chain of other fault events.
Risk and Uncertainty
None Identified. Computer simulation studies of the entire AC/DC conversion plant,
including pulsed AC power supply, have been performed. The results show that, with the selectedparameters of the reactive power compensation and harmonic filter system, the level of reactive
power, and the content of harmonics in the reference HV grid, do not exceed specified limits.
Motor generators may be needed for energy storage and/or power factor correction
depending on the site. These are not included in the estimate, they would be provided by the host,if needed.
4.1.2.6 Buildings
The estimate for the Buildings is credible, based on sound management and engineering
principles and can be used as a basis for establishing relative contributions by the Parties. The
current design, based on known technology, is mature for the most important buildings and isaugmented by appropriate analyses (e.g., seismic). The Committee has reviewed this package.
System Description
ITER buildings house, support, protect, control access to, provide suitable environmental
conditions for, and provide services to the components, systems, and operations that are selected
to be located within them. The ITER buildings have been optimized to provide the lowest cost
design solution that adequately meets the mission requirements and the appropriate standards forthe public and workers, as well as investment protection. The ITER buildings can be grouped in
two main classes: radiologically-controlled buildings and conventional buildings.
Scope Definition and Maturity
The scope is well defined. The non site-specific design is essentially complete for the37

radiological buildings.
Basis of Estimate
The Buildings estimate of $546 million is based on “commodity rates”, a concept that waspreviously agreed to during U.S. prior participation in the EDA in 1997. The site and building
structures, except for the nuclear-related buildings, are relatively conventional in design andconstruction technology for industrial buildings. There are no site or building problems withthese buildings that require extraordinary efforts. Full estimates were provided by two of thethree Parties for all scope. Cost of the site and buildings will be borne by the host Party.
Major Cost Drivers and Sensitivities
The layout has been designed for the minimum floor area, to reduce the complexity of systeminterfaces, and to minimize the connection distances, by following these key design strategies:•

A general layout policy. To avoid the crossing of different service types, such as
electrical power, cooling water, and waste handling—clearly, the extent to which
services can be segregated decreases as they get closer to the tokamak;•

Separation of services. With the tokamak building located in the center, the site isarranged so that electrical services enter from the west, cooling systems are located on theeast, personnel-related functions are concentrated on the south, and waste management
functions are located on the north (these directions are for identification purposes only);•

Staged construction and expandability: To the maximum extent possible, thedesign of systems, buildings, and the site will be such that future additions in system
capacity are not precluded.

There will be some variability due to material, labor, and licensing costs for the selected site.
Risk and Uncertainty
No specific risks or uncertainties were identified. The design of the ITER site andbuildings is appropriate for the function.
Those buildings that are involved with the tokamak machine, those that house the systems
and the components that interact directly with the machine, and those that are required for close
support of the tokamak machine, have received the greatest degree of attention. These buildings,

38

in order of highest degree of design completion to lowest, are the: 1) Tokamak building, 2)
tritium, vacuum, fuelling and services building, 3) hot cell building, 4) low-level radwastebuilding, and 5) personnel access control building.
Other buildings that are also associated with the above, have received preliminary anddetailed design attention, but will need to be studied further, include: the Laydown, cryohalls,
assembly and RF heating building, and the Diagnostic Building. The remaining buildings havereceived only preliminary design attention.
4.1.2.7 Waste Treatment and Storage
The estimate for Waste Treatment and Storage is credible, based on sound management
and engineering principles and can be used as a basis for establishing relative contributions by theParties. The current design, based on known technology, is preliminary and is appropriate forbudgeting purposes. The Committee has not reviewed this package although it is assumed it
reflects the same level of completeness as those that were reviewed.
System Description
Sources of potential effluents (including tritium, activated dust, activated corrosion
products, etc.) have been identified, discharge pathways determined, and design features and active
discharge control systems assessed for expected end of life conditions which are assumed toinclude extensive maintenance and refurbishment in the hot cell. Conservative assumptions are
made so as not to underestimate potential effluents. Effluent pathways are controlled andmonitored through the plant exhaust, the liquid discharge pathways, and the heat rejection system.
Scope Definition and Maturity
The scope is well defined.
Basis of Estimate
The Waste Treatment and Storage estimate of $3 million (plus $7 million in deferred cost)is based on conventional and/or well-proven technology and equipment. Full estimates were
provided by one of the three Parties for all scope.

39

Major Cost Drivers and Sensitivities
The concept of “clearance” for free release of low-level radiological material is theguiding principle. Not all countries subscribe to this concept, so the applicability of thisassumption will be site-specific.
Risk and Uncertainty
No particular risks or uncertainties were identified. The design is based on conventional
and/or well-proven technology.
4.1.2.8 Radiological Protection
The estimate for Radiological Protection is credible, based on sound management andengineering principles and can be used as a basis for establishing relative contributions by theParties. The current design, based on known technology, is preliminary and appropriate forbudgeting purposes. The Committee has reviewed this package.
System Description
The radiological monitoring system for a generic site, according to present assumptions,provides the following specific functions: 1) personnel dosimetry for all radiation andcontamination hazards appropriate for the radiation zones, and 2) dedicated radiation andcontamination monitors, separate from others that are located at strategic points in the ITER
plant, and specified to remain functional during and after postulated accidents.
The latter are to provide an assessment of the conditions as part of an emergency
preparedness program. In particular, air radiation monitoring is provided in all areas where
tritium is handled, processed, or stored. The tritium monitoring system in the plant gaseous
exhaust is redundant and is designed to remain operable under accidents and loss of normal
electrical power. It provides real-time indication of tritium releases. The sensitivity of themonitors enables the detection levels of tritium in air as low as 10-6 Ci/m3.
Scope Definition and Maturity
The scope is well defined.

40Basis of Estimate
The Radiological Protection estimate of $1 million (plus $3 million in deferred costs) isbased on conventional and/or well-proven technology and equipment. Full estimates were
provided by two of the three Parties for all scope.
Major Cost Drivers and Sensitivities“As Low As Reasonably Achievable” (ALARA) is the guiding principle.
Risk and Uncertainty
None identified. The design is based on conventional and/or well-proven technology.

4.1.3 Heating and Current Drive Systems
4.1.3.1 Ion Cyclotron
The estimate for Ion Cyclotron Heating and Current Drive (H&CD) is credible, based on
sound management and engineering principles and can be used as a basis for establishing relative
contributions by the Parties. The current design is preliminary and dependent upon incomplete
R&D. The Committee has reviewed this package.
System Description
The 20 MW of power and operating frequency range of 40 to 55 MHz encompasses all theion cyclotron physics scenarios and allows operation at a 70 percent reduced toroidal field. An
extension of the frequency range from 35 to 60 MHz would be desirable for improved flexibility,
and would be possible at somewhat reduced performance.
Scope Definition and Maturity
The scope is well defined. The design is at the preliminary design stage augmented withadvanced analyses, system-level drawings and R&D.

41

Basis of Estimate
The Ion Cyclotron H&CD estimate of $46 million does not include detailed engineering
design of the launcher. R&D work is ongoing and also not included in the estimate. Fullestimates were provided by one of the three Parties for all scope.
Major Cost Drivers and Sensitivities
The design of these systems has been developed with the aim of providing: 1) a crediblehigh-level power performance associated with a high reliability, 2) modular construction andidentical interfaces wherever possible, 3) interchangeable in-vessel assemblies, 4) standardized
control systems (with an unique man-machine interface) and operation. The design is dependent
upon ongoing R&D.
Risk and Uncertainty
There is uncertainty in the development of a launcher design. A launcher design typical ofthat necessary for ITER has been developed for testing on JET.
4.1.3.2 Electron Cyclotron
The estimate for Electron Cyclotron H&CD is credible, based on sound management andengineering principles and can be used as a basis for establishing relative contributions by theParties. The current design is preliminary and dependent upon incomplete R&D. The Committee
has reviewed this package.
System Description
The nominal injection power is 20 MW at 170 GHz and 2 MW at 120 GHz (startup). The
RF power at 170 GHz is switched between the upper launcher and the equatorial launcher bychanging of waveguide connections. The RF power used for the assisted startup is transmitted bythree waveguides also used for the main H&CD. The power sources at 120 and 170 GHz are
switched during a plasma discharge.

42

Scope Definition and Maturity
The scope is well defined. The system is at the preliminary design stage and includes
advanced analyses, system-level drawings and R&D.
Basis of Estimate
The Electron Cyclotron H&CD estimate of $111 million does not include required R&D
or detailed launcher design. R&D work is ongoing. Full estimates were provided by two of thethree Parties for the equatorial launcher, upper launcher, and power supply. All three Parties
provided full estimates for the transmission line and RF Power sources and controls.
Major Cost Drivers and Sensitivities
The design of these systems has been developed with the aim of providing: 1) a crediblehigh-level power performance associated with a high reliability, 2) modular construction andidentical interfaces wherever possible, 3) interchangeable in-vessel assemblies, 4) standardized
control systems (with an unique man-machine interface) and operation. The design is dependent
upon ongoing R&D.
Risk and Uncertainty
The design is based on R&D objectives that have not yet been achieved.
4.1.3.3 Neutral Beam
The estimate for Neutral Beam H&CD is credible, based on sound management andengineering principles and can be used as a basis for establishing relative contributions by theParties. The estimate is based on the present preliminary design that is dependent upon
incomplete R&D. The Committee has not reviewed this package although it is assumed it
reflects the same level of completeness as those that were reviewed.
System Description
The neutral beam (NB) system design consists at present of two H&CD injectors and one
diagnostic neutral beam (DNB) injector. Each H&CD injector will deliver a deuterium beam of43

16.5 MW (total 33 MW), with energy of 1 MeV, and will be able to operate for long pulses (up to3,600 seconds for steady state operation). A system based on negative (D-) ions is necessary,
primarily, for better energy efficiency due to its high neutralization efficiency.
Scope Definition and Maturity
The scope is well defined. The design is at the preliminary stage. Advanced analysis,
system-level drawings and R&D have been performed.
Basis of Estimate
The Neutron Beam H&CD estimate of $138 million does not include the required R&D.
R&D work is ongoing. Full estimates were provided by two of the three Parties for the assembly
and testing, pressure/vacuum vessels/drift duct/passive magnetic shielding, active corecompensation coils, and power supply. All three Parties provided full estimates for the beamsource/high voltage bushing and beamline components.
Major Cost Drivers and Sensitivities
The size of the ion source and the required deuterium current density should not requirelarge extrapolations from the largest operational negative-ion-based NB injection systems (JT60U and LHD) in physics (plasma uniformity and negative ion current density) or in engineering(manufacturing, assembly, and maintenance).
The acceleration voltage remains the only free variable. For the H&CD injectors, higher
voltages could permit an increase of the power and the current drive efficiency. On the other
hand, higher voltages imply larger insulation distances (both in gas and vacuum) and higher beamshine-through through the plasma. Moreover, the maximum acceleration voltage of the two
existing test beds, at Naka and at Cadarache, is 1 MV in both cases. Considering ITER
dimensions, 1 MV is considered a good compromise.
Risk and Uncertainty
The design is based on R&D objectives that have not yet been achieved.

444.1.4 Diagnostics
The diagnostics valuation is based on a scaling of diagnostics planned and fully estimatedduring the EDA. It appears credible and can be used as a basis for establishing relative
contributions by the Parties. The Committee has reviewed parts of this package.
System Description
To meet the requirements for plasma and first wall measurements, an extensive diagnostic
set of about 40 individual measurement systems is required. Not all of the diagnostics will bebuilt during the machine construction phase. However, it is necessary to assess the interface,
space, and service requirements of each diagnostic that will eventually be used, and make anynecessary provisions during machine construction to avoid expensive modification costs later.
Diagnostics required at the start of DT operation and that must be addressed include:•

Magnetic Diagnostics. Vessel Wall Sensors, Divertor Magnetics, Continuous
Rogowski Coils, Diamagnetic Loops•

Neutron Diagnostics. Radial Neutron Camera, Vertical Neutron Camera, Microfission chambers, Neutron Flux Monitors, Gamma-Ray Spectrometer, Activation
System, Lost Alpha Detectors, Knock-on Tail Neutron Spectrometer•

Optical/IR(Infra-Red) Systems. Core Thomson Scattering, Edge Thomson
Scattering, X-Point Thomson Scattering, Divertor Thomson Scattering, Toroidal
Interferometer/ Polarimeter, Collective Scattering System•

Bolometric Systems. Arrays for Main Plasma, Arrays for Divertor•

Spectroscopic and Neutral Particle Analyzer Systems. H Alpha Spectroscopy,
Visible Continuum Array, Main Plasma and Divertor Impurity Monitors, X-ray
Crystal Spectrometers, Charge eXchange Recombination Spectroscopy based on
DNB, Motional Stark Effect based on heating beam, Soft X-Ray Array, Neutral
Particle Analyzers, Laser Induced Fluorescence•

Microwave Diagnostics. Electron Cyclotron Emission, Main Plasma Reflectometer,
Plasma Position Reflectometer, Divertor Reflectometer, Divertor EC absorption, Main
Plasma Microwave Scattering, Fast Wave Reflectometry•

Plasma-Facing Components and Operational Diagnostics. IR/Visible Cameras,
Thermocouples, Pressure Gauges, Residual Gas Analyzers, IR Thermography(Divertor), Langmuir Probes•

Diagnostic Neutral Beam45

Scope Definition and Maturity
The diagnostic systems are functionally well defined, but the detailed R&D, drawings andspecifications have not been completed and will be the responsibility of the Parties.
Basis of Estimate
The Diagnostic work package estimate of approximately $170 million (plus $42 million indeferred cost) is an approximate estimate of the diagnostic hardware. The estimate is grouped inten packages, including magnetic diagnostics, neutron systems, optical systems, bolometry,
spectroscopic systems, microwave systems, operational systems, standard diagnostics, diagnostic
neutral beam, and the diagnostic neutral beam power supply. Full estimates were provided by
two Parties for the diagnostic neutral beam and power supplies, and by only one Party for thebolometry and standard diagnostics. The balance of the estimate was done internally by the JCT.
The estimates were based on scaling of diagnostics from previous estimates made during the
EDA phase. The estimates include only the hardware costs. The JCT will assist in integrating
the diagnostics with shielding into, for example, a port plug. However, it is assumed that theParties taking responsibility for a given diagnostic will do the necessary design and R&D outside
the ITER construction budget.
Major Cost Drivers and Sensitivities
The diagnostic cost is dominated by the radiation flux and fluence and by the requirement
for remote handling.
Risk and Uncertainty
The primary risks are the technical uncertainty of diagnostic operation in the high radiation
environment, integration or radiation shielding, and the capability for remote maintenance.

4.1.5 Control, Data Acquisition, and Communications
The control, data acquisition, and communications (CODAC) system cost estimate is an
informed allotment since this system will not be defined in detail for five or more years. However,
the estimate appears credible compared with similar, albeit smaller, systems estimated or purchased
recently and can be used as a basis for establishing relative contributions by the Parties.

46

System Description
The CODAC system provides the integrated computer control of all the various systems,
as well as the data acquisition system. The system is structured around a supervisory control
system (SCS) and individual dedicated control subsystems. It has not been designed, but acommon architecture will be specified to define the requirements of all interfaces to the system.
It is hoped that real-time simulation can be used to optimize control of the plasma.
Scope Definition and Maturity
This CODAC system design philosophy and functions have been defined in detail, but the
specific hardware and software will not be specified until needed (perhaps not for five years) totake advantage of possible future advances in computer technology.
Basis of Estimate
The CODAC estimate of approximately $72 million is a consensus of expert opinion andis not based on a particular set of software and hardware.
Major Cost Drivers and Sensitivities
The primary cost drivers are the amount of data to be collected and complexity of processing.
Risk and Uncertainty
The cost of this system may be conservative due to rapid advances in computer technology.

4.2

Construction Management and Engineering Support

This estimate covers the management structure, consisting of a Central Team at the ITER
project site and Field Teams for each Party. Their responsibility is successful completion of the
project. The Committee concluded that the methodology to develop the cost estimate was credible,
and the estimate can be used as a basis for establishing the relative contributions of the Parties. The
estimate would be re-assessed after the actual management structure for ITER is established.

47

It is expected that the ITER project will be managed through a line organization composedof a Central Team at the ITER site, and Field Teams at the Parties’ locations. As described in theManagement section, this management organization is responsible for technical integration,business and quality management of the subcontracts, and management oversight of all ITER
activities.
The current ITER estimate provides for staffing the management organization over the lifeof the construction project as indicated by person-years (PY) in Table 4-2. The intent is that thiscovers direct project staff and not the administrative support that would be provided by the homeinstitutions of the Parties.
Table 4-2.
Organization
Central Team (at the site)
Field Teams (distributed)

Staff of Management Organization
Professional PY
840
960

Support PY
840
1920

Until the decisions are made concerning the scope to be undertaken by each of the Parties,
a further breakdown of the Field Teams cannot be made.
This estimate was developed based on overall management judgment, not from a detailedorganizational staffing plan with associated staffing by function by year. Subsequently, a detailed
analysis was prepared that generally confirmed this estimate.
Total cost of this effort is estimated to be $685 million. The cost estimates assume 150 IUA
per year for professional staff and 75 IUA per year for support staff. (When converted to 2002
dollars, this is equivalent to $216 K per year and $108 K per year, respectively). ITER management
considers that this will cover direct staff at minimum levels. While these rates may be sufficiently
high to cover some level of administrative support, the estimate does not explicitly include
administrative support (procurement, accounting, clerical, etc.) that would be subcontracted orprovided by host institutions. This is reasonable for European and Japanese laboratories, where theinstitution receives separate funding for basic staff, but may not be true for the U.S.
In total, the estimate is about 17 percent of the direct costs, which seems reasonable;
however, this would need to be re-assessed after the actual management structure is established.

48

4.3

Other Project Costs Summary

This element covers activities necessary to support the construction project. In DOE
terminology, the construction project Total Estimated Cost (TEC) plus Other Project Costs (OPC)
equals the Total Project Cost (TPC).

4.3.1 R&D During Construction
The Committee concluded that the methodology to develop the cost estimate of $115 million
for R&D during construction was credible, and the estimate can be used as a basis for establishing therelative contributions of the Parties. However, it should be noted that certain scientific activities, suchas R&D for diagnostics and plasma heating technologies are not included within this scope.
It must first be recognized that about $1 billion has been invested over the past ten years
to develop the technologies and reliability of manufacturing methods necessary to construct
ITER. This is approximately 25 percent of the direct cost of the facility. Essentially all criticalcomponents have been prototyped at a scale relevant to the current design.
The estimate provides $115 million to support any remaining fabrication development thatmight be necessary to build ITER. This was described as an informed management judgment
rather than the result of a detailed estimate. It is not believed that any further technology
development is necessary.
It should be recognized that R&D in support of plasma diagnostics and plasma heating
technologies (e.g., neutral beams, ICRH, ECRH, LH) are not included because the Parties aredeveloping these technologies as part of their domestic fusion programs.

4.3.2 Commissioning
Overall, the Committee concluded that the methodology for development of the$130 million estimate for integrated commissioning was credible, and the estimate can be used asa basis for establishing the relative contributions of the Parties. This recognizes that thiscommissioning scope is only that necessary to support the first plasma milestone, commissioningof individual supporting systems is budgeted directly in those accounts, and scientific support isprovided and budgeted by the ongoing fusion programs of the Parties.

49

The ITER plan calls for integrated commissioning of all subsystems, controls, andinterfaces between subsystems during the year prior to first plasma. These activities will qualify
the operating staff and establish the readiness for experimental research.
The operating staff in place at the end of this period is 600 people, matching their estimate
for the hydrogen operations phase of the project. This does not include the visiting scientificpersonnel who will perform theory, modeling, experimental research, etc. This is expected torequire up to 400 additional staff. It is planned that maintenance and many other support services
will be subcontracted.
The integrated commissioning phase is conducted during a one-year period at the end of
the construction project. The operations plan identifies an additional three years of hydrogen
operations in preparation for nuclear operations. It should be noted that DOE normally considers“commissioning” as a part of the project. ITER considers this integrated commissioning as partof the operations phase.

50Intentionally Blank

51

5.

SCHEDULE and FUNDING ASSESSMENT

The schedule duration of ten years for ITER construction after project start seems
generally reasonable; however, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the near-term decisions
that precede project start.
The ITER schedule from this point forward can be described in terms of four phases:
1. ITER Transition Arrangements. The period between January 2003 and the time
when the ITER legal organization is established.
2. Construction Project. The period for completion of R&D, vendor design,
construction of facilities, fabrication/assembly of components, andinstallation/commissioning (using DOE definitions).
3. Operations. This period begins with “first plasma” (i.e., operations with hydrogen—again using the DOE convention), and proceeds through the full range of D-T burning
plasma experiments and engineering experiments to meet the ITER objectives.
4. Decommissioning. Dismantling of the experiment and associated equipment,
including waste disposal.
Negotiations are currently underway among the present ITER Parties concerning site
selection, arrangements for organization and management, and many other issues that arenecessarily complex for an international undertaking of this magnitude. The timing of the key
decisions has not been established; however, there is a goal to present recommendation(s) at theG-8 Summit in June 2003. Detailed plans and funding for the ITER Transition Arrangements
phase have not been established. For these reasons, the establishment of the ITER Legal Entity
and Project Start cannot be reliably projected.
The construction phase is projected to be about ten years. This assumes that long-leadprocurements not connected to site specific safety issues can be initiated prior to receiving
regulatory approval. The schedule is paced by superconductor manufacture, followed by coilfabrication, machine assembly, and installation and commissioning. The Committee concluded
that this schedule is generally reasonable.

52

Key milestones are as follows (see also Appendix G):
1.
2.
3.
4.

Establish the ITER Legal Entity
Receive license and begin site construction
Start Tokamak AssemblyFirst plasma

Project Start
two years
six yearsten years

The sequence of non-critical path elements is designed to level the funding profile asmuch as possible. The result is that the budget outlay requirements (not escalated) from thefourth through the ninth year of the project are roughly constant for the overall project, although
not necessarily for each participant.
The Committee did not review the operations or decommissioning schedules.

53

6.

MANAGEMENT APPROACH

Negotiations between the ITER Parties will define the organization and management
structure to be used for construction. The Committee agrees with the present Leader of the ITERInternational Team, that a strong, line management approach will be in the best interests of all
Parties. The management of a Party’s work packages is also a critical element in any
management scheme under consideration.
The Director General for the ITER construction project will impact plans for executing
the project. The Director General and ITER management team must assume full technicalownership and exercise control at a very early stage of the project. Progress towards the start ofconstruction will be slow until there is an approved Director General and management approach.
The Committee discussed potential organizational arrangements with the Leader of the
ITER International Team. He described the attributes of these arrangements and it is clear that hehas given considerable thought to the organization. However, the documentation available to theCommittee did not include details on the management arrangements for the construction effort.
This is now under discussion with the existing Parties and will depend on the outcome of thenegotiations and the appointment of the Director General.
Managing ITER construction would be the responsibility of the ITER International Fusion
Energy Organization, an entity to be formed by international agreement. The Director General ofthis organization would be responsible for the successful completion of the project and would
report to a governing council formed by the various Parties to the agreement. The Director
General and this Council would provide the direct line of accountability incorporating all
participants into a single organization. The organization would include a Central Team at the
ITER site that would have overall responsibility for meeting the project objectives, establishing
the technical specifications, controlling realization, and implementing a quality assurance
program to satisfy the requirements from the licensing safety authorities of the Host Country. In
addition to the Central Team, the organization would include Field Teams located within eachParty contributing “in-kind” ITER components as “work packages”. The Central Team and theField Teams all report to the Director General. The technical scope of ITER construction isdefined in about 85 work packages. The majority of work packages are proposed to be in-kind
contributions by the ITER Parties. The successful completion of these work packages would bemanaged directly by the Field Teams under the supervision and coordination of the Central Team,
which would provide overall management. In addition, each Party would have a “Domestic
54

Agency” that is responsible to the Party for the work package contracts. Work packages notcovered in this manner would be procured by the ITER Team using direct contracts and fundedby cash contributions from all Parties. Together with the basic site infrastructure, the Host Party
would contribute all “non-transportable” ITER components.
The assignment of work packages will be the result of international negotiations currently
underway. The ITER construction work packages fall into three primary categories. The largest
category is the high technology components to be delivered to the ITER construction site by theParties (e.g., toroidal field magnets). The current estimate is that 65-75 percent of the total ITER
value estimate is in this category. The next largest category in total value includes items to becontributed by the host (e.g., site infrastructure—10-25 percent). The third category includes items
that are not assigned to individual Parties for which a centrally managed fund would be used (10-15
percent). The actual costs (not ITER value) would be shared among the ITER Parties.
The Committee offers a number of comments on ITER management given that the actual
management of the construction project will have a significant impact on the cost, schedule, andtechnical performance of the project.
Launching a large international science construction project is a formidable challenge. The
ITER Director General is obviously an extremely important position and it should be expected thatthe Director General will impact the detailed plans for ITER construction. Indeed the Director
General and the full project team will need to be established and take technical ownership at a very
early stage in the project preparation. They must have significant authority and resources if they are
to be capable of exercising control over the project. The Director General should be appointed
soon and produce a plan that describes the detailed management arrangements.
The ITER International Fusion Energy Organization must establish explicit roles andresponsibilities of the various elements of the organization, in particular, the relationship between theCentral Team on-site and the various Field Teams located in the Parties. In addition to advisory
bodies to the Council, the Director General will need to establish his/her own advisory arrangementsthat can provide independent critique, analysis, and advice. These advisory bodies would assessscientific, technical, cost, schedule, and management aspects of the construction project.
The construction of ITER would continue and extend a trend toward international
collaborative science facilities. ITER presents new management challenges. Configuration
control, progress reporting, quality assurance, and general integration activities will be difficult at55

best, and therefore require early implementation of capabilities to carry out these functions.
The extensive R&D program conducted over the last decade has resulted in a maturetechnical understanding of the various ITER components and manufacturing processes. The
mature design and supporting R&D are conducive to the industrial procurement oriented
approach contemplated for construction. This approach will work well if there are few technicalchanges during the construction period.
The staffing level estimates (perhaps not their cost) to manage the construction of thedevice (central and field teams) presented in the ITER design report appear minimal, in particularwhen one considers the need to establish an operating laboratory, and the actual level will dependon the organization established. Staffing levels may require augmentation to meet the full needsof the construction project. These costs will be shared by the Parties in accordance with theirlevel of participation in the construction and some contingency planning should be considered forthese needs.
The process used by the ITER Central Team to determine the value of the various work
packages was reasonable and produced a credible relative valuation of the different work
packages. These relative value estimates of the various work packages provide an adequate basis
for negotiations. Each Party would need to establish from these value estimates (that use
normalized standard unit costs for material and labor) the actual costs in its own currency and its
own industrial environment and contractual procedures.
Substantial R&D, engineering analysis, and design work is complete on essentially all of the
ITER work packages. This body of work is a solid technical basis for a decision to proceed withconstruction. Adjustments to the design are required for a few systems, and most systems require
additional effort to complete detailed drawings with full dimensioning. The existing ITER Team isconcentrating on completing these activities for the critical path systems as soon as possible. The
other systems will be completed by the Central Team during the construction period. It is likelythat the U.S., if it becomes a Party, will need to complete additional engineering studies andprepare work packages so that they are ready for industrial contracts. It is difficult to estimate thetotal effort required but funding plans should include resources for this work.
DOE project management practice requires explicit recognition of cost risk bycontingency budgets. The ITER valuation method does not produce a cost estimate that is inaccordance with any Party’s actual costs and does not include cost risk analysis. Cost risks to an
ITER Party fall into the following general categories:

56

57

1. Risks associated with a work package including any additional R&D, engineering, anddesign effort that may be required to prepare a domestic industrial firm not alreadyinvolved during the Engineering Design Activity for construction;
2. Risks associated with the staffing levels for managing the work packages (field teams
and procurement management) and interfacing with the ITER site organization;
3. Cost risks associated with common projects; and4. Cost risks associated with unforeseen scope.
An evaluation of the absolute cost and the cost risk in the U.S. to accomplish a given
work package would require the preparation of a detailed U.S. cost estimate for the work
package. If the U.S. were to join ITER negotiations, the U.S. would need to complete a detailed
study of work packages under consideration and complete a U.S. cost estimate before making acommitment to undertake a given work package.
The proposed organizational structure under consideration envisions significant roles andresponsibilities for the Parties. If the U.S. were to join ITER negotiations, the U.S. would need toorganize the U.S. component contributions in full recognition of the ITER management structureagreed upon in the negotiations and in a manner that is compatible (as much as possible) with thetraditional DOE approach to managing the construction of large science projects. This approach
would help to mitigate U.S. risk exposure on work packages assigned to the U.S. There is still,
however, a certain level of cost risk in the items that are not direct contributions of the U.S., suchas common items shared by the Parties and staffing at the ITER site.

58

Appendix A: Charge
October 31, 2002
MEMORANDUM TO:DANIEL R. LEHMANDIRECTORCONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT DIVISIONFROM:

DR. RAYMOND ORBACH
DIRECTOROFFICE OF SCIENCESUBJECT:

Assessment of ITER Cost Estimate

In his remarks to the Conference of G8 Energy Ministers in Detroit, Michigan on May 2, 2002, Secretary
Abraham announced that President Bush is interested in the potential of the international fusion energy
research effort known as ITER, and has asked DOE to seriously consider American participation.
Because of the size of a potential U.S. investment in ITER, the importance of ITER in advancing fusion
science and the potential for ITER to serve as a model for future international science projects, the Officeof Science will need to be able to substantiate to Congress and the Administration, that any investment in
ITER is reasonable and likely to achieve expected results.
Therefore, I request that you assemble a Review Committee to assess in summary fashion the costestimate that has been prepared by the ITER project team. The assessment should emphasize thereasonableness of project cost and schedule assumptions and, to the extent possible, the construction andtechnical management assumptions.
Recognizing that the U.S. is reconsidering its position on ITER, Robert Aymar, the project Director, alongwith his staff, has graciously offered to meet with the Review Committee in Garching, Germany in midNovember 2002.
The Office of Fusion Energy Sciences of the Office of Science will provide support to you as required forthis endeavor.
Please provide me your written review report by December 2, 2002.
cc:
J. Decker, SC-2
M. Johnson, SC-3
T. Vanek, SC-4
N. Davies, SC-50
M. Holland, OSTP
R. Aymar, ITER (Garching)

59

Appendix B
Department of Energy Assessmentof theITER Project Cost Estimate
REVIEW COMMITTEE PARTICIPANTS
Department of Energy
Daniel Lehman, DOE/SC, Chair
Stephen Meador, DOE/SC
Consultants
Michael Harrison, BNL
Brad Nelson, ORNL
Lester Price, DOE/ORO
Michael Williams, PPPLJames Yeck, DOE/CH
Advisors
Joel Schultz, MIT
Lester Waganer, Boeing
Observers
Warren Marton, DOE/SC
Michael Holland, OSTP [part-time]60Appendix C
Department of Energy Assessment of the

ITER Project Cost Estimate
DRAFT AGENDA
Thursday, November 21, 2002—ITER Building A, Room 054
8:00 am DOE Executive Session .............................................................................. Lehman
9:00 am Technical Overview Discussions ......................................... TBD—Chuyanov/Ioki
12:00 pm
Lunch
1:00 pm Technical Overview Discussions ......................................... TBD—Chuyanov/Ioki
2:30 pm Break
5:00 pm DOE Executive Session
Friday, November 22, 2002
8:00 am Cost, Schedule, and Management Discussion............................................... Aymar
10:00 am Break
12:00 pm
Lunch
1:00 pm Cost, Schedule, and Management Discussion............................................... Aymar
4:00 pm
European Union Validation of ITER Cost Estimate ................................. Andreani
5:00 pm DOE Executive Session
Saturday, November 23, 2002
8:00 am Cost, Schedule, and Management Discussion............................................... Aymar
12:00 pm
Lunch
1:00 pm Cost, Schedule, and Management Discussion............................................... Aymar
4:30 pm DOE Executive Session
6:30 pm
Adjourn
Sunday, November 24, 2002
8:00 am
Subcommittee Working Sessions and Report Writing
12:00 pm
Lunch
1:00 pm
Subcommittee Working Sessions
2:00 pm DOE Executive Session
7:30 pm
Adjourn
Monday, November 25, 2002
8:00 am
Subcommittee Working Sessions and Report Writing
12:00 pm
Lunch
6:30 pm
Adjourn61

Appendix D

Current ITER Design
ITER has been designed to provide
major advances in all of the key areas ofplasma science. It will enter new scientificresearch frontiers in all of these areas.
Because of ITER’s large size and magnetic
field, it will allow study of plasma stability andtransport in regimes unexplored by any
existing fusion research facility worldwide.
Due to the intense plasma heating by fusion
products, it will also access previously
unexplored regimes of energetic particle
physics. Because of the very strong heat andparticle fluxes emerging from ITER plasmas, itwill extend regimes of plasma-boundary
ITER Final Designinteraction well beyond previous experience.
The new regimes of plasma physics that can be
explored for long duration, and the interactions amongst the anticipated phenomena, arecharacterized together as the new regime of “burning plasma physics.”
ITER also represents a major advance in essentially all areas of fusion technology.
Plasma facing components will be pressed to previously unexplored limits in heat flux andfluence (flux over time). ITER will be a testbed for initial studies of the behavior of fusion
blanket modules. The performance of large-scale, high-field superconducting magnets will bedemonstrated. In addition, a whole class of important technologies needed for heating andfueling plasmas, as well as for driving plasma current, will be brought up to the next level ofdevelopment. All of these systems will be challenged to perform in a high duty factor (ratio ofplasma burn time to time between pulses) fusion environment. ITER will also provide a practical
test of remote maintenance technologies.
The integration of the ITER plasma science capability with technology features typical of
those envisioned for a fusion power source will provide, for the first time, an opportunity todemonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of fusion.
62

Performance Objectives
Fusion power, nominally 500 Mega Watts.
Strong internal plasma heating from alpha particles produced by the fusion reaction withgain =10, where gain is the fusion power produced within the plasma divided by the external
power added to the plasma.
Long duration pulses of fusion power, each nominally 400 seconds with a maximum
duration of 3600 seconds.
Broad experimental range for inductive and non-inductive drive of the plasma current.
Technology required in a fusion power source including superconducting magnets, highheat flux plasma facing materials, tritium fuel handling systems, diagnostics for understanding
plasma behavior.
Capability for initial testing of fusion blanket modules.

Description of Major Components of ITER Design
The following ITER design information is excerpted from the IAEA ITER documents #22
Summary of ITER Final Design Report and #24 ITER Technical Basis.
1.

Magnets

The plasma is confined and shaped by a combination of magnetic fields from three main
origins: toroidal field coils, poloidal field coils and plasma currents. Aiming in ITER at steadystate operation, all the coils are superconducting: copper coils would require too large an electric
power to be acceptable for ITER as well as for a future reactor.

63

Toroidal Field (TF) Coils
The toroidal magnetic field value on the plasma axis is 5.3T, which leads to a maximum
field on the conductor < 12 T. Because of this high field value, Nb3Sn is used as superconducting
material, cooled at 4.5K by a flow of supercritical helium at approximately
0.6 Mpa. The total magnetic energy in the toroidal field is around 40 GJ, the confinement of
which leads to significant forces on each of the 18 coils.
The coils are connected together by bolted structures, and by two compression rings madeof unidirectional glass fibres. A Toroidal Field Coil structure is shown below.

Poloidal Field (PF) Coils
The Poloidal Field Coils consist of the six modules of the central solenoid (CS) and thesix large PF coils placed outside the TF coils. Currents within these coils control the plasma
shape and position. All these axissymmetric coils use superconductors cooled by a flow of64supercritical helium at 4.5K and 0.6 Mpa. Nb3Sn is used in the CS modules whereas lessexpensive NbTi can be used in the PF coils since the maximum field value is lower than 6T.
Redundant turns are built into the trapped coils to allow for failures.
The PF coils and additional Error Field Correction Coils are shown below.
Error Field Correction Coils
The need to correct imperfections in the magnetic field symmetry, due to the imperfect
positioning of the TF, CS and PF coil currents, requires the use of “correction coils”, able toprovide a helical field of a few 10-5 times the TF value. These coils are composed of three sets ofsix saddle coils and are shown below.

Superconducting Coil Protection
The superconductor of all coils is protected against local overheating, should the coilcurrent continue to flow after a local transition from superconducting to normal conducting state
due to an off-normal local energy dump.

65

In addition, all these coils must be protected against the heat coming from theirsurroundings. Therefore, a large cryostat vessel places all the coils in a vacuum good enough tolimit convective heat transfers. Additionally a thermal shield (VVTS), cooled at about 80 K by aflow of helium, is provided between the coils and hot parts to shield against radiative heat transfer.
Superconducting Coil Cryogenic Cooling
On top of the steady state cryogenic heat load there is a significant pulsed heat load on thecoils from two separate sources: the neutron flux produced by the fusion reaction and attenuatedby the blanket and vessel shields, and eddy currents induced by any field change in the coilsuperconductor and steel cases during the operational scenario of the plasma pulse (or even moreduring a plasma disruption). Since the cryogenic plant is essentially a steady state system,
between the coils and the cryogenic plant, an energy storage is present to cushion the pulsed
loads. In effect, this energy storage is mainly provided by the large steel mass of the TF coilcases, and by the temperature variation of the liquid helium bath that cools the supercriticalhelium flow through heat exchangers.
2.

Vessel and In-Vessel Systems

Vacuum Vessel
The vacuum vessel is a component with multiple functions, namely it:•

provides a boundary consistent with the generation and maintenance of a high quality
vacuum, necessary for limiting impurity influx into the plasma;•

supports the in-vessel components and their resultant mechanical loads;•

participates in shielding against neutrons, and in removing the corresponding power
during a pulse, and moreover in removing the decay heat of all in-vessel components
in case of there being no other coolant available;•

provides a continuous conductive shell for plasma MHD with a toroidal one turnresistance of ~8µΩ;•

provides all access to the plasma through ports, for diagnostics, heating systems,
pumping, water piping, etc.;•

provides the first confinement barrier for tritium and activated dust with a very highreliability.

66

All these functions are central to the operation of ITER and thus require a very robust
mechanical design analyzed for stresses in all possible normal and off-normal conditions. The
vessel is built with two shells linked by ribs and fitted with nuclear radiation shielding material,and ferromagnetic inserts in the shadow of the TF coils to reduce the TF ripple value.
To ensure reliable water cooling, two independent loops are used. These can remove by
natural convection the decay heat from all in-vessel components (if they are not cooled directly).
Neutron Shielding
The 14 MeV neutrons, i.e., 80 percent of the fusion energy produced in the plasma,transfer energy to the water coolant, and subsequently to the environment, by colliding with thematerials present around the plasma (mostly steel and water) in the blanket modules and in thevacuum vessel. The small neutron energy, not absorbed in these two shields, is released in thecold TF coil structure, and should be absolutely minimized.
Blanket Modules
The shielding blanket is divided into two parts. The back part with a radial thickness ofaround 30 cm is a pure shield made of steel and water. The front part, the “first wall”, includes
diverse materials: one-cm thick beryllium armour protection, one-cm thick copper to diffuse theheat load as much as possible, and around ten cm of steel structure. This component will become
the most activated and tritium-contaminated in the entire ITER device. It could be in contact withthe plasma in off-normal conditions, and thus can suffer damage from the large heat locallydeposited, and may have to be repaired or possibly changed.
In order to allow a practical method of maintenance, the blanket wall is modular(approximately 420 in total) with a maximum weight of 4.0 t (and about 1.5 m2 facing theplasma) and moreover the front part of each module is divided in four-six first wall panels. Each
module is attached to the vessel by four flexible links, radially stiff but pliant against toroidal or
poloidal motions.
Blanket Maintenance
The maintenance and repair of a blanket module is performed by first removing it fromthe vessel. For this purpose, a vehicle, equipped with an end gripper, is positioned along a67

toroidal rail deployed along the vessel torus centreline. The end gripper is engineered to cut theconnection to the water pipe feeders and to unbolt the module, and to bring it to an equatorial
maintenance door. At this location it will be transferred into a cask, and subsequently to the hotcell for repair or replacement. The cask operates by docking and undocking to the ports of thevessel and of the hot cell, avoiding contamination to the environment. Similar casks are used forremoval of any equipment installed in any equatorial or upper port of the vessel, i.e., heating
launcher, diagnostics, or tritium breeding test blanket.
Divertor
The divertor shares with the blanket a similar modular philosophy and maintenanceprocedure. The cassettes (54 in total) are removed from the vessel at three lower access ports, towhich they are conveyed by a toroidal mover mounted on annular rails attached to the vessel
floor. These rails also act as the mounting point of the cassettes during operation.
Besides providing shielding of the vessel, the modular cassettes (Figure 4.2-2) support thedivertor target plates, a set of particularly high heat flux components, built with high conductivity
armour of carbon fibre composite (CFC) and tungsten.

68

In-Vessel Component Water Cooling
Each divertor cassette is separately cooled by water, with feeder pipes connecting to the
manifold outside the vessel and cryostat. Groups of two or three blanket modules are similarly
fed by separate pipes installed on the plasma side of the inner shell of the vacuum vessel. This
arrangement leads to handling a large number of small size pipes, but (e.g., by “spiking” specificcoolant channels with tracer elements) allows the identification of possible modules or cassettes
leaking water, from tests outside the cryostat, a crucial procedure to be able to rapidly localize theleaks in vacuum.
Cryogenic Pumps
Well recessed and shielded from neutrons, but inside the divertor port, are the torus
cryogenic pumps operating at 4.5 K. These have the capacity to pump hydrogenic atoms, as wellas helium by adsorption and condensation. The pumping performance can be varied and thecondensed gases can be removed by heating the pumping panels to 80 K and pumping away thegas released using a roughing pump after a shutter towards the vacuum chamber has been closed.
3.

Cryostat

The cryostat provides the vacuum environment to stop convective heat transfer to thesuperconducting magnets and cold structures, and forms the secondary confinement barrier forthe radioactive inventory inside the vacuum vessel. The cryostat is a single wall cylindrical shellwith flat top and bottom. Its diameter, 28 m is determined by the dimension of the largest
component located inside, the poloidal field coils. Its height, 24 m internal, is determined by thesize of components inside, as well as by the need to provide adequate vertical space forpenetrations through the cryostat shell.
4.

Vacuum Pumping and Fueling

Vacuum Pumping System
The vacuum pumping system provides the necessary vacuum conditions in the vacuum
vessel for the conduct of plasma experiments. The system is comprised of a roughing system,69

torus pumping system, cryostat vacuum pumping system, heating and current drive vacuum
pumping systems, guard and service vacuum pumping system, diagnostic vacuum pumping
system, and lead detection systems.
Fueling System
The fueling system comprises a main gas supply system, the pellet injection system, thelocal gas supply system for the neutral beam injectors and diagnostic neutral beam, and the fusion
power shutdown system.
5.

Remote Handling Equipment

Due to neutron activation, the repair, inspection or maintenance of ITER in-vessel
components has to be carried out remotely. In addition, in-vessel first wall components are
subject to plasma-wall interaction leading to erosion. This requires regular or infrequent
refurbishment, depending on the erosion rate. Furthermore, components may need to be replaced
due to unexpected failure. This requires the introduction of common and dedicated remotehandling equipment into the vacuum vessel. All ITER components have been designated into aremote handling category, and the required remote handling equipment will be provided within
the project scope.
6.

Cooling Water System

The cooling water system provides for the rejection of heat from a variety of ITER
systems and consists of the tokamak cooling water system, the component cooling water system,
the chilled water system, and the heat rejection system.
7.

Tritium Plant and Fuel Cycle

The tritium used in ITER will be supplied by external sources. During plasma operation,in order to generate 500 MW of total fusion power, about 0.1 g of tritium will be burnt every
100 s. However, considering the divertor/plasma-purity operational conditions that call for
maximum pumping speed and un-burnt fuel recalculation, more than 25 g of tritium will be
injected into and pumped from the vessel during the same 100 s. The tritium plans is comprisedof a variety of tritium handling and processing systems to process the pumped gases on line, toremove impurities and separate the tritium, and to store it for recycling back into the tokamak.

70

Segregation of tritium-containing equipment in separated structures, with limitation of thelocal inventory and robust confinement barriers, is appropriate for safety reasons. The storage of
D2, DT and T2 is achieved in many parallel canisters, and adsorbed on ZrCo beds, which candeliver rapidly the required flow for plasma fuelling. Their tritium content is measured bycalorimetry with around one percent accuracy.
8.

Cryoplant and Distribution

The ITER cryogenic system is subdivided into three parts: the cryoplant, thecryodistribution system and the system of cryogenic lines and manifolds. As in any large
cryogenic plant, the desire is to operate in a steady state cooling mode. Because the ITER heatload of the magnet system is largely deposited in pulses due to magnetic field variations during
the pulses and the DT neutron production, the ITER cryosystem must smooth the pulsed heat load
and maintain stable operation over a wide range of plasma operating scenarios.
9.

Power Supplies and Distribution

A wide variety of power supplies and distribution systems are incorporated into the ITER
design. They consist of the four major systems: pulsed power distribution system, coil power
supplies, heating and current drive power supplies, and steady state electric power network. The
reference design for drawing power from the local electric grid assumes the availability ofsufficient grid capacity to meet the ITER pulsed and steady power needs. In the event the gridcannot meet all of the ITER needs in real time, an alternate design provides for the use of motorgenerators to store some of the needed energy for use during the ITER experimental pulses.
10.

Tokamak and Other Buildings

The ITER buildings should provide the volumes and controlled atmosphere required for
assembly and operation. In addition, the tokamak building is important for its contribution tosafety, for the following reasons:•

A biological shield of borated concrete is provided around the cryostat to limit theradiation levels outside the pit to values insignificant for the activation of components,
even if human presence will not be allowed during plasma pulses.

71•Part of the building is essential as a further confinement barrier (even containment inthis case), forming two concrete leak tight vaults around the neutral beam injectors
and the water cooling system, or even as a third confinement barrier in the case of thetritium building (the metallic equipment inside glove boxes provide the first andsecond barriers in this case).

•

A differential pressure (Figure 4.5-1) is maintained in the different zones around thetokamak, according to the risk of being contaminated by an accidental release oftritium or activated material during operation or maintenance. In this way, theatmosphere will move only from lower to higher contamination levels. These
differential pressures are maintained by the air conditioning system. The design
arrangement of a separate cell around each vessel port access allows the atmosphere ofeach cell to be maintained through a venting system capable of detritiation andfiltering. This is especially justified during the maintenance procedure whenremoving components from the vessel occurs.

•

The concrete walls provide appropriate shielding against emission from activatedcomponents, during their automatic transport via cask from one vessel port to the hotcell (and back) through the galleries.

The very robust structure of the tokamak and tritium buildings is based on the existence ofa common stiff basemat designed to react seismic conditions. Should the actual site have much
more severe conditions than the generic site used in the design, the common basemat will be put
on isolators and the acceleration amplification suffered by the components above will bemaintained below the accepted design level.
Other principal buildings are included for hot cell and radwaste, power supplies.
Cryoplant, laboratory support, and control including laboratory/office.
11.

Miscellaneous Plant Systems

The ITER plant has a number of miscellaneous systems that are required to support theoperations of the plant. These include radiological and environmental monitoring, potable andfire protection water, sewage, steam, condensate and demineralized water, compressed air,breathing air, nitrogen, helium and other special gases and plant sampling.

72

12.

Heating and Current Drive Systems

A variety of heating and current drive systems are available to heat the plasma and thereby
enable the fusion process and to help drive a current in the plasma. Each of these systems has
unique characteristics to achieve specific objectives within the plasma. The systems are: neutralbeam injection, radio-frequency systems, electron cyclotron systems, and ion cyclotron systems.
13.

Diagnostics

Included in the scope of the project are a variety of plasma diagnostics that are needed tostart up the machine, form and control an initial plasma, and carry out an initial set of plasma
experiments. During the operations phase, additional diagnostics will be added in support ofspecific experiments to be performed.
14.

Plant Control

A highly integrated plant control and data acquisition system is necessary for the efficient
operation of the ITER device. A variety of specialized systems are included in the scope of the
project to enable ITER to achieve its objectives.

73

Appendix E: ITER Cost Estimate Summary

74

ITER Cost Estimate Summary

1

2

3

4

2

Committee Assessment

Not in ITER valuation, but would be included in USDOE estimate

370.5 Will be apportioned to Parties consistent with ITER procurement strategy

Not in ITER valuation, but would be included in USDOE estimate once construction is scheduled

244.0
114.8 Reasonable; Recognizes $1B already spent; Diagnostics R&D and Plasma Heating not included
129.2 Reasonable; Physics Support not included

4,884.7

TBD

TBD

685.0 Generally reasonable; Physics and institutional support not included

3,955.7 Sum of estimates based on ITER's 85 procurement packages

71.8 Reasonable estimate; Based on budgetary allotment

169.5 Conceptual level design definition based on 1998 design; R&D and detailed design excluded from estimate

295.4
46.2 Preliminary level design; R&D and detailed design excluded
111.3 Preliminary level design; R&D and detailed design excluded
137.9 Preliminary level design; R&D and detailed design excluded

12/4/2002

1,315.7
87.7 Design mature for divertor and blanket; prototypes demonstrated (except full cask transfer and hot cell operations)
188.8 Design essentially complete; system composed of conventional components
52.6 Design essentially complete; Well proven technology
127.7 Design essentially complete; system composed of conventional components
308.3 Design essentially complete with supporting analysis and R&D
546.1 Design essentially complete (not site-specific); Well understood construction techniques
3.0 Preliminary design
1.4 Preliminary design

2,103.5
1,094.4 Detailed design essentially complete; Conductor strand/conduit change - addressed by R&D
330.3 Detailed design essentially complete; Full-scale sector prototypes built, Good detail in estimate
237.2 Design and R&D complete for representative modules; Good detail in estimate
109.1 Design mature; successful R&D, minor changes possible - no cost impact; Good detail in estimate
133.1 Advanced conceptual level plan and tooling design for all core elements inside cryostat
108.9 Design mature; Conventional construction
41.4 Detailed design essentially complete
49.1 Design mature; Pellet injection R&D ongoing; Balance is conventional construction$M 20022

ITER Units of Account (kIUA) where 1kIUA = $1,000 (January 1989 Dollars) a common basis determined as a result of the ITER process for normalizing estimates from different international parties
kIUAs converted to $2002 (kIUA x 1.436)

258.0(Spares and Deferred Items)

1

3,401.6

Not Applicable

169.9
79.9
90.0

Total ITER Value Estimate

Escalation

Other Project Costs
R&D during construction
Integrated Commissioning

Not Applicable

477.0

CM & Engineering Support

Contingency

2,754.7

Subtotal ITER Direct Items

50.0

118.0

Diagnostics

Control, Data Acquisition, Communications

205.7
32.2
77.5
96.0

Heating and Current Drive Systems (H&CD)
Ion Cyclotron H&CD
Electron Cyclotron H&CD
Neutral Beam H&CD

1,464.8
762.1
230.0
165.2
76.0
92.7
75.8
28.8
34.2
916.2
61.1
131.5
36.6
88.9
214.7
380.3
2.1
1.0

kIUA1

Auxillary Systems
Remote Handling Equipment
Cooling Water
Tritium Plant
Cryodistribution
Power Supplies & Distribution
Buildings
Waste Treatment and Storage
Radiological Protection

ITER Direct Items
Machine Core
Magnet Systems
Vacuum Vessel
Blanket System
Divertor
Machine Assembly
Cryostat
Thermal Shields
Vacuum Pumping & Fuel System

Element of ITER Value Estimate

Appendix F ITER Value Estimate and Committee Assessment

75Appendix G ITER Schedule76

Appendix H
US Gross Domestic Product Implicit Price Level Deflators(Escalation methodology prepared as part of 2002 Snowmass Summer Study)
IPLD* = Implicit Price Level Deflator for US Gross Domestic Product
IPLD*
Quarter
IPLD*
FY
IPLD*
4
103.651999
104.691
104.12
FY99
104.282
104.513
104.83
4
105.27
2000
106.891
106.07
FY2000106.292
106.683
107.12
4
107.682001
109.42
1
108.65
FY2001108.892
109.32
3
109.92
4
109.78 extrapolat
ed data*
2002
1
110.05
FY2002 110.25
110.582
110.403110.764
111.12* Extrapolated data based on inflation rate similar to last four quarters
1.29%
Year

ITER Conversion Rate = 1.39 to convert from 1q1989$ to 2000$ (mid-point)
per ITER escalation groundrules
1.39
GDP escalation from 2000$ to 2002$ =1.033
Combined escl. from 1q1989$ to 2002$ is 1.39 x GDP escl =1.43677