Verslag: F4E-meeting over ITER Diagnostic Port Plug Integration

Op 1 maart 2011 vond bij F4E in Barcelona een bijeenkomst plaats over ITER Diagnostic Port Plug Integration. Het onderstaande verslag (in het Engels) geeft de belangrijkste uitkomsten van de meeting weer.

Participants

Fabian Seyvet     F4E, Technical Responsible Officer for the Port plug Integration tender
Mehdi Daval     F4E, Business Intelligence Officer for the Port plug Integration tender
Cock Heemskerk     HIT / ITER-NL
Alfred Hogenbirk     NRG / ITER-NL
Peter Verhoeff     TNO / ITER-NL

Toon Verhoeven FOM / ITER-NL / ILO

Meetings

F4E, diagnostic port plug integration
Discussion with Christian Ingesson
Lunch meeting with Jarl Buskop
Meeting at F4E

Some highlights

- The meeting was very interesting, useful and pleasant.

- The most important aspects of this work:

1) integration of diagnostic systems into ports

2) design work in a nuclear environment

3) underlying scientific/technical analyses

- The work will be executed under a Framework contract. The contract will have a scope of 4 years, with probably an extension of 3+ years to provide support during the building/assembly phase. The tender is expected to come out in 1 or 2 months. The upcoming information meeting will be held only after the tender is released. Team forming discussions are recommended to be held before the tender is issued.

- If your company or research institute is interested in participating in this contract then the moment to act is now ! In case you are not going for the position of prime contractor you should look at the mapping for companies that you can contact to team up with: https://industryportal.f4e.europa.eu/Lists/News/AllItems.aspx (18/02/2011)

- F4E will investigate whether the rules allow smaller players with a relatively unique and rare key capability (such as remote handling or fusion neutronics) to bid as part of more than one team. At this moment F4E anticipates that it is allowed that sub-contractors can participate in bids of more than one prime contractor, provided that a sub-contractor does not give exclusive rights to one of these primes. This has to be checked by F4E with their legal department. If allowed, they will explicitly state this in the tender conditions.

- Institutes and associations are not excluded from bidding, in fact F4E believes that the larger ones (CEA, CCFE, KIT) may be well equipped to do so.

- The consortium winning this contract will not be excluded from bidding on successor contracts like testbeds or component manufacturing.

- The work has to be performed on one, single location for all the port plugs. Division upper/equatorial/divertor plugs over different locations is not allowed.

- The tender will be evaluated on quality and price, the common 60-40 ratio may be shift for this contract towards more emphasis on quality.

- F4E was happily surprised by the large efforts already executed -on a voluntary base- by the ITER-NL teams on important aspects related to the port plugs.

- The new F4E organizational structure was briefly touched upon. The bottom line is that the structure will remain largely intact although function titles will change (e.g.: TRO will be PO (project officer)).

- It becomes clear that substantial differences exist between the views of IO and F4E regarding design issues.

- As mentioned before: A very important meeting is scheduled on all the F4E Remote Handling procurement packages on April 14, 2011, in Barcelona. Please inform Toon Verhoeven in case you are planning to attend the meeting.

The work

(summarized from the F4E presentation (29/09/2010)

The work is about integration of diagnostic systems into the ports, the port interspace, and into the port cell.
Emphasis is put on the large scale of the contract activities. The scope of the contract is 21 diagnostics ports. Work on these ports often has to be done in parallel. The contractor has to be able to provide sufficient manpower.
A major part includes the design for manufacture of specific components and sub-assemblies: port plug structures, shielding modules (and supports for the diagnostic instruments), port interspace and port cell supporting structures, and cables and feedthroughs
The mechanical and structural design activities have a strong nuclear and nuclear safety component (apply the RCC-MR code, neutronics analyses, vacuum and tritium boundaries). On the other hand there is a strong Systems integration / systems engineering aspect:

Manage and control interfaces and design changes with ALL diagnostics designers (IO, EU and other DAs), Tokamak components plant systems and Remote Handling (RH)
Implement and maintain a risk description and mitigation plan
Establish and maintain a compliance matrix that represents the current assessment of the design of EU diagnostic port plugs with respect to all applicable requirements
Perform analysis, simulation & modelling to make sure the integrated designs meet all applicable requirements: Neutronics, Electromagnetic, Mechanical, Electrical, Thermal, thermo-hydraulics and thermo-mechanical, Vacuum analysis (and welding techniques), Draining and drying studies, Remote-Handling, 3D virtual assembly and diagnostic components maintenance models, Fusion diagnostics consultancy services
Centralize design documentation to be maintained throughout the design phase
Prepare detailed manufacturing cost estimates for the EU port plugs according to the latest designs, liaise with European industries as needed
Perform and maintain reliability and maintainability analysis (RAMI), including Fault tree analysis and Failure mode and effects analysis
Propose and perform prototype testing on standard components and elements (e.g. welds, alignment test, hydraulics & assembly mock-up, etc.)

The DPI team is expected to identify, list, clarify, discuss and negotiate ill defined requirements with IO. Example: The radiation level in the port cell after shutdown has to be budgeted and allocated to upper, equatorial and lower level contributions.
The DPI team is expected to make recommendations on standardization to save costs, and where needed to implement standards, by prototyping and testing. Components and interfaces that are candidates for standardization include e.g. windows, shutter actuation, bulk cooling, controlled component cooling and conditioning, cleaning. It is emphasized that cost savings are a key issue, which implies that similar activities should be carried out in one location and not spread around over subcontractors.
The tender will be evaluated on quality and price, the often-used 60-40 ratio may be shift for this contract towards more emphasis on quality.
Emphasis was put by ITER-NL on the fact that the Integration skills are needed from several labs and industries and that there is a similarity with ‘aerospace programmes’. It concerns engineering and design of nuclear structures in nuclear environments. It is regarded as an industrial type of design, with QA, design flow breakdown, including verification, maintenance, prototyping, qualification/validation. The supplier will also provide the required test hardware.
The design should be related to the structure, not to all individual diagnostics. Yet there should be adequate access in the team/consortium to nuclear expertise.
Where interfaces are concerned that go beyond one DA, it will be ITER IO responsibility, not F4Es.
In the US, a similar (but smaller scale) integration design activity was launched.
The contract will be in the form of a Framework Contract, the reason mentioned for this is that the inputs are yet ill-defined. By this type of contract, F4E intends to save cost.
The contract will have a duration of 4 years, due to F4E rules. After this period, there will be a moderately sized prolongation for suppliers to provide support in next phases .
It is envisaged to have a centralized team, that is in charge for all port plugs. Structural work on port plugs is part of this integration task, in this way all other port plugs can benefit from this activity.
Assembly of essential diagnostic port plugs is envisaged for mid 2016.
The Framework Contract for the Integration activity is decoupled from the CDR (Conceptual Design Review) procedures at ITER-IO.
F4E mentions that ITER IO intends to impose a general port plug design.

ITER-NL Presentation

Advanced Optical Diagnostics – CXRS and LIDAR by ITER-NL and (Dutch) Industry, Peter Verhoeff

Questions raised in this presentation:

Please can you be more specific on the Port Integration call – expectations, acceptable bidders, financial situation, tendering procedure
Is CXRS consortium a suitable candidate in the eyes of F4E
Does F4E see legal or other barriers with the approach of ITER-NL (in the CXRS consortium)?
Is a call for the CXRS CDR still planned for October 2011?
What will be the level of this call: conceptual or detailed design? Supporting analyses and measurements? Interfacing and responsibility? Remote handling included?
Two UPP configurations exist next to each other – will the baseline concept be prescribed by F4E?
Current DNB does not allow continuous measurements – are improvements foreseen?
Do we have to use ‘generic designs or procedures’?
How can we obtain more specific I/F information and whose responsibility will the interfaces be?

Answers to the questions on sheets 36 and 37:

A generic port plug design is expected as a result, the contractor must make recommendations here for;
All interfaces are the responsibility of the design integration team;
For CXRS related questions contact the Responsible Officer for the Diagnostics, Glenn Counsel;
One leader (prime) and sub-contractors is an envisaged and acceptable structure. F4E envisages a mix of large industrial organizations and associate parties but also consortia of associations with the required expertise and competences can bid;
Selection will be based on the capability of the team to cover all individual portplugs, the availability of enough manpower in the required expertise fields a.o. CAD, neutronics, design, RH, system engineering, etc and lowest cost;
The activities have not yet been cost estimated by F4E, two indications may be given: 1. a financial envelope or 2. a ppy scheme;
The average hourly rate will be a key element in the tender assessment.

The ITER-NL presentation ‘Dutch industrial activities in the field of fusion: ITER-NL’ was handed over to F4E (see later on).

HIT presentation

‘Capabilities at the ITER-NL Remote Handling Study Centre’ by Cock Heemskerk

Answers to questions linked to this presentation:

Some explanation was given on the lower port plugs (4 and 16) in terms of integration tasks;
Explanation was given on complementary R&D programmes;

NRG presentation

‘Neutronics Issues’ by Alfred Hogenbirk

Answers to questions linked to this presentation :

Since there are many port plugs, lots of interactions and optimizations are foreseen requiring a firm management of requirements of suppliers;
Partnerships are not preferred, F4E wants to see contractual relationships between parties – not all consortia are ‘well organized’;
F4E explicitly mentions that this presentation is a good example indicating that for some specialist tasks higher than average hourly rates may be applicable;

General questions and F4E remarks:

If you want to be involved, start looking for partners now. The best way is to look in the mapping and –as a next step- contact the ITER ILO network (via Toon Verhoeven);
F4E intends to state in the tender documentation that subcontractors can connect to more than one team (statement after legal check by F4E);
Soon after the opening of the call, there will be a general meeting at F4E;
A lot of bidders are expected;
EADS was mentioned as potential partner/prime organization – F4E has contacts with Pierre Rubinot and Christian Anglade;
F4E asks if we have thought about an estimate of the contract amount. On the spot we made the following assumptions: - 30 persons on average x 150 kEUR/year x 4 year x 1,2 (20% other costs) = order 20 MEUR. The figures were not disputed.

Discussion with Christian Ingesson (formerly at FOM Rijnhuizen)

After the meeting we briefly spoke to Christian Ingesson who is responsible for port-plug based diagnostics.

CDR’s (e.g. for CXRS) are the business of ITER IO, at this moment there is no agreement with F4E on contents and required result. F4E wants the CDR to include ‘confidence given on critical technology e.g. by prototyping’, ITER IO is of a different opinion. This involves a major risk for F4E since they consider contracting on this basis as writing ‘blank cheques’;
The diagnostic upper port plugs are not essential for first plasma. CXRS is not required for safe operation and will most likely only be needed in Phase 2;
As an interim solution for first plasma, the in-vessel viewing system (visible and IR) will be a suitable candidate according to F4E: For ITER-NL this may mean investigating possibilities to team with the endoscope team (change in strategy?)

Lunch meeting with Jarl Buskop (formerly at FOM Rijnhuizen)

We had lunch with Jarl Buskop, who is presently involved in cryo technology and procurements.

Jarl is happy to talk to Dutch companies outside ‘formal meetings’ about the scope of the procurements in his field.
F4E experiences relatively many problems with industry – companies are less ready to do investments in technology but prefer full coverage from F4E. Because of the better economic situation, there is less priority for ITER.