A series of panels have completed reviews of various European Commission programs, including fission and fusion. The reviews focused on the years 1995 through 1999. The assessments have been submitted to the European Commission, which is reviewing the reports and expected to issue comments in the September time frame. Copies of the reports are available on the Princeton FIRE site (//fire.pppl.gov). The fusion review was conducted by an Assessment Board chaired by A. Airaghi, Senior Vice President, Finmeccanica and Vice Chairman of the Italian Federation of Electromechanical, Electronics, Telecom and Informatics Industries (ANIE). Other members of the Board were Prof. H. Conde (Uppsala University), Prof. C. Matos Ferreira (Centre for Plasma Physics, Instituto Superior Tecnico, Lisbon), Dr. Ing Newi (CONSULECTRA, Germany), Dr. P-H Rebut (former Director of JET and ITER), and Prof. A. Stoneham (University College, London). Dr. J. Berry (AEA Technology, Brussels) was Rapporteur. The Board met 9 times during the period 28 September 1999 to 30 April 2000.

The Board stated that "The long-term objective of the European Fusion Programme is to embrace all research activities undertaken in the Member States (plus Associated countries) aimed at harnessing fusion, and to enable the joint creation of prototype reactors for power production to meet the needs of society." They said "During the past 5 years, activities to establish the scientific and technological base for the Next Step, a machine demonstrating a burning plasma under reactor conditions, have been a major focus of the programme." The Board recommended that "The European Fusion Programme should continue to be reactor oriented and the construction of the Next Step should be started in the Sixth Framework Programme (2002 -2006)."

The Board said that "During the last 5 years, the Programme has produced a wealth of high quality results in line with its objectives. The major European activity at JET and in the ITER project has brought world visibility and has established Europe in the leading role in fusion activities world-wide." They said, "The JET Programme has met all the objectives defined in the 1978 Council Decision and those of subsequent extensions and has exceeded original expectations; JET remains the most relevant machine for supporting reactor-oriented fusion research world-wide and currently the only tokamak capable of D-T operation." They recommended that during the next two years the "limited investment in JET should be allowed to exploit the full value of the machine. This will also enable the fusion community to further prepare for the operation of the Next Step."

The Board said, "The programme has contributed to the development of a strong and competent scientific, technological and industrial community." They said, "European industry has grown in competence together with the fusion programme and can provide all the manufacturing and technical support required by the programme." They said, "Europe now has by itself all the required technical, engineering and industrial capabilities to proceed to the Next Step and take the fusion programme forward."

The Board said, "Large, long-term R&D projects require strong and constant sponsorship and high profile and competent leadership." They commented that "The US withdrawal from ITER (1998) and the financial crisis in the Russian Federation has led to the requirement to redesign a lower cost New-ITER with less ambitious objectives." They recommended that the European Union should, within the next 2 years, "actively seek a European site for the New-ITER, since this is the best option from a European viewpoint . . . establish the extent to which Japan would support the construction of New-ITER outside Japan (and) examine in detail the recent interesting expression of interest received from the Canadian Consortium."

The Board recommended that "In the same 2 year period, due to the uncertainty over the outcome of the international negotiations, Europe should study an alternative to New-ITER, which would be suitable to be pursued by Europe alone. For example, a copper magnet machine which would still achieve the required objective of demonstrating a burning plasma under reactor conditions even if this would delay the integration of the superconducting technologies."

The Board also noted "A Materials Research Programme is necessary to develop the high performance, low activation materials for machines after the Next Step." They recommended "that international discussions on a 14 MeV neutron source Materials Testing Facility or alternative testing solutions are brought to a decision on a timescale consistent with reactor development." The Board projected the timescale for operation of a Demo fusion power plant as 30 years "after decision on Next Step."