DOE Fusion Program Faces Showdown Legislation
“I am deadly serious,” warned Senator J. Bennett Johnston (D-Louisiana) about his intention to halt the DOE fusion program if the White House does not indicate its full support of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). Johnston, chairman of the appropriations subcommittee handling the Department of Energy’s budget, and chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources authorizing DOE’s programs, is in a position to make good his intention.
Johnston, in what can only be characterized as both good news and bad news for the fusion program, is forcing President Clinton and the Department of Energy to reach a decision about the federal government’s support of ITER. The senator vigorously supports the fusion program, and clearly hopes to spur the White House to a favorable decision on ITER. If Johnston’s strategy is successful, the fusion program should have a much more stable funding base. This is, however, a high stakes move in that if the White House is slow to act, Johnston will, he said, halt the program.
Saying that “it is time for us to make up our mind on magnetic fusion,” Johnston chaired a hearing yesterday of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to examine S. 646, the International Fusion Energy Act of 1993. The senator is the author of this bill, which would “redirect and refocus the Department’s magnetic fusion energy program in a way that will lead to the design, construction and operation of ITER by 2005, in cooperation with other countries, and operation of a fusion demonstration reactor by 2025.” It would “eliminate” from DOE’s budget non-ITER related research (note: this is NOT the Princeton research.) DOE would be instructed to establish ITER goals and priorities, and “establish a schedule and critical path, including milestones, and a budget” to reach the above target dates. If international agreement could not be reached on the host site for ITER, its design or related issues, or if “there is insufficient commitment to the final ITER design by U.S. industry and utilities” the DOE secretary would terminate the program.
Johnston wants the White House to focus on questions such as the U.S. share of ITER’s cost, the host site, and other issues. He made a direct reference to the economic benefits of the project, citing “real jobs and real benefits...this is the stuff of which political judgements are made.” The senator repeatedly accused the department of “drifting,” and cited the controversy surrounding the SSC program as the main impetus for his decision to force White House action.
Dr. James F. Decker, DOE, characterized S. 646 as “a constructive step,” expressing concern about the elimination of funding for innovative fusion programs (now receiving about 3% of the fusion budget) and reduction of fusion program funding to $50 million per year if the ITER program is terminated. Decker was put on the hot seat for most of the hearing, with Johnston criticizing DOE for having “no clarity of thought, no focus,” on an ITER strategy.
Joining Johnston at the hearing was Senator Bill Bradley (D-New Jersey), obviously concerned about the effect of this legislation on Princeton’s fusion program. Saying, “the bottom line is, this is a successful program,” Bradley cautioned Johnson that it would be a “very serious mistake” for Congress to force decisions. Johnston is a strong supporter of Princeton’s research.
The committee heard from other notable witnesses, including Dr. Paul-Henry Rebut, Director of ITER; Dr. Robert Hirsch, Vice President of the Electric Power Research Institute; Dr. David Overski, Senior Vice President of General Atomics; and Joseph Gavin, retired president of Grumman Aerospace Corporation. These witnesses offered various assessments of the readiness of the fusion program to take this next big step. Hirsch is critical of the benefits of the fusion program, and it appeared that some of the issues he raised might possibly have hit home with Johnston. It is clear that Johnston wants to see the fusion program funded. He spoke of his support for science, citing the benefits of basic research. Pointing to the controversies surrounding the SSC, Space Station Freedom, and LIGO, he cautioned, “unfortunately, my enthusiasm for science is not shared by Congress generally.” Later he spoke of having “to defend these budgets against the flat earth society.” He told Decker that he does not want to make another SSC type of mistake by failing to get strong U.S. and international support for ITER.
This bill, Johnston said, is addressed to the administration. The senator wants plans, schedules, and a firm decision to begin international ITER discussions. It is not really necessary to pass S. 646 for Johnston to change the U.S. fusion program. It appears that the lack of White House commitment is all that it would take for fusion program funding to be cut in the fiscal year 1994 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill. The author of this appropriations legislation: Senator J. Bennett Johnston.
