Update: Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee Meeting and Report

In mid-April, the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (FESAC) met to review the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) Detailed Design Report. At this meeting, and in a report now available at http://wwwofe.er.doe/gov/ the committee gave the Department of Energy a green light to proceed, perhaps accompanied by an occasional flashing yellow light.

The committee meet in response to a charge issued last fall by Office of Energy Research Director Martha Krebs. The committee, according to its chair, John Sheffield, was to “provide its view of the adequacy of the DDR [Detailed Design Review] as a part of the basis for a United States decision to enter negotiations with other interested parties regarding the terms and conditions for the construction, operation, exploitation and decommissioning of ITER.” A panel established by, and reporting to FESAC, was chaired by Robert W. Conn to review the DDR.

During two days of public meetings, the committee openly discussed the reports of nine sub-panels who worked over six weeks to review various elements of the DDR. The panel’s report was organized to answer five questions posed by Krebs. Selections from these questions, and the panel’s responses, follow:

“Question 1: Are the ITER physics basis, technology base, and engineering design sound?” Response: “The Panel has not identified from this experience-base any insurmountable obstacles in its plasma engineering and electro-mechanical engineering that would prevent ITER from achieving its objectives. However, there are specific areas that require further attention, priority R&D, and resolution. Our overall assessment is that the ITER engineering design represented in the DDR is a sound basis for the project and for the DOE to enter negotiations with the Parties regarding construction.”

“Question 2: Is ITER likely to meet its performance objectives as agreed upon by the four Parties...? [ European Union, Japan, the Russian Federation, U.S.]”? Response: “ITER is clearly of the scope and scale required to explore extended-pulse, self-heated fusion plasma physics. However, in assessing ITER’s anticipated performance, it is important to do so in the context of ITER as a scientific experiment.... As such, predictions for its performance cannot be made precise, given the experimental nature and goals of the ITER program.”

“Question 3: Do the design and operating plans adequately address environment, safety, and health concerns?” Response: “ITER is a large and complex device which will use tritium as a fuel and produce energetic neutrons as an output. Careful tracking and control of the tritium inventory will be required and in this connection, removal of tritium from the first wall of the vessel remains an outstanding issue.” “The safety aspects of the design and analysis are adequate for this stage of the project.”

“Question 4: Are the proposed cost estimates and schedules for the construction project and subsequent operations, exploitation and decommissioning credible, and are they consistent with the procurement methods and staffing arrangements recommended by the ITER director?” Response: “Overall, the Panel judges the cost estimate to be reasonable and sound for this stage of the project. The Panel does note that the plan is a success-oriented one, in that there is little or no budget or time allotted to accommodate unforeseen problems that may arise. An efficient management structure and procurement system, taking maximum advantage of industrial competition in bidding, is required during construction to meet the aggressive cost and schedule goals of the project.”

“Question 5: Are there any cost effective opportunities for pursuing modest extensions of the current design features in order to enhance operational flexibility and increase scientific and technological productivity of ITER?”Response: The committee was unable to respond to this question because of time pressures.

The report’s Executive Summary concludes:

“In closing, the Panel would like to reaffirm the importance of the key elements of ITER’s mission -- burning plasma physics, steady-state operation,and technology testing. The Panel has great confidence that ITER will be able to make crucial contributions in each of these areas. While we have identified some important technical issues, we have confidence that the ITER team will be able to resolve these issues before the Final Design Report.... The achievement of ITER’s mission will be a major milestone in the development of a safe,economic, and sustainable energy source for the future.”

Other sections of the report state:

“Commitments by the parties to proceed to construction and a decision on selection of the construction site are scheduled for the 1998 time frame.”

“With respect to the international context, it is clear that full partnership in the form of the U.S. providing 25% of the ITER construction cost is unlikely, given the present level of funding for fusion energy research in the United States. A more likely scenario is that we will participate in a more limited way that depends on our available funding, though this clearly depends on unfinished negotiations with the other parties.”

“Overall, the level of development of the relevant technologies is sufficient for proceeding with ITER. Further R&D is needed in some cases, but there is sufficient time to do the R&D needed to demonstrate a particular level of capability, provided it is given sufficient priority.”

“Achieving long pulse ignition cannot be assured but remains a reasonable possibility.”

"...ITER will have two operational phases, the Basic Performance Phase (BPP) and the Enhanced Performance Phase (EPP), each lasting about ten years.”

“The cost for the ITER construction phase are estimated to range between $8 B and $10 B in 1995 $.”

In summarizing his panel’s work to the Fusion Energy Science Advisory Committee, Chairman Robert W. Conn concluded, “There’s no way you can review a project like this and not expect to find issues.”