October 23, 1997

A panel formed to provide input to FESAC on this subject, under the chairmanship of Dr. Hermann Grunder, reported to FESAC on October 20. A summary of their report was provided in FPN97-27.

In a letter dated October 23 to DOE Director of Energy Research Martha Krebs, FESAC chair John Sheffield, of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, told Krebs that "The FESAC endorses the strategic plan of the Grunder Panel and makes comments on it below." Sheffield also noted the recent report of the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). Their fusion recommendations were summarized in FPN97-26.

Sheffield told Krebs:

"The FESAC would like to emphasize the significance of ITER's impact over the past decade. By working collaboratively, the ITER partners (European Union, Japan, Russia, and the U.S.) have benefited immensely through cost sharing and program focus. It is desirable to continue this process of international collaboration, as the Grunder Panel stated: 'If a decision to construct ITER were being sought today, this Panel would recommend U. S. participation at an appropriate level.' Similarly, PCAST recommended that if 'any of the parties states its intention to offer a site for ITER in the next year or two, the US should be prepared to continue to maximize its participation in ITER.'"

Sheffield also told Krebs:

"In response to the charge regarding the criteria for a decision on the level and nature of U.S. participation in the ITER construction, FESAC supports the central recommendation of the Grunder Panel: 'In concert with our international partners, a burning plasma facility should be built at the earliest possible time.' This recommendation should have priority as our vital interest in entering ITER negotiations. In the context of a Fusion Energy Sciences budget totaling $250 million, we believe that an appropriate FY1999 funding level for the activities which are in direct support of the central recommendation is approximately 20% of that total."

Sheffield said, "The FESAC agrees with the Grunder Panel recommendation that the content and balance of the ITER activities should be restructured during the transition phase. The baseline design is well advanced, much of the dedicated R&D in support of it will be completed by the end of the EDA, and site-specific work does not involve a U.S. site. FESAC therefore accepts the Grunder Panel suggestion that U.S. participation in ITER's joint work on the baseline design proceed at a lower level during the transition phase."

Sheffield further wrote, "The FESAC concurs with the Grunder Panel recommendation that the fusion energy technology effort be restructured to support the energy objective of the program more broadly. Much of the U.S. fusion technology effort has been subsumed under ITER during the past five years. It has also largely been of a dual use nature, to meet the needs of ITER and those of the general U.S. fusion program. The FESAC agrees that this dual use aspect should be the focus, and the U.S. industry involvement in fusion technology should continue."

Sheffield continued, "In the spirit of the Grunder Panel's suggestion 'that the US explore with our [international] colleagues the possibility for increased collaboration in JET [and] JT-60U,' FESAC recommends a vigorous experimental program aimed at burning plasma physics issues as well as the physics basis for possible cost reduction through plasma optimization. Such a program should take advantage of domestic devices such as DIII-D and C-Mod and the U.S. fusion theory program, in addition to international experimental collaboration."

Sheffield concluded, "Finally, to act on the central recommendation of the Grunder Panel, and consistent with the PCAST recommendation, FESAC considers it critically important that DOE enter future international negotiations with a high level, long-range commitment to support a 'next step facility aimed at a mutually agreed upon set of scientific objectives,' as stated by PCAST."

For more information, contact: Stephen O. Dean