ITER: Good News, Bad News

There were two major developments this week concerning the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. One was positive while the other was negative.

First, the good news. On September 22, new Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson signed, according to DOE, “a unilateral agreement extending United States’ support for international fusion collaboration” through ITER. Said DOE, “With this signature, the United States has agreed to continue participation in the ongoing process established by the Agreement for a period of one year from July 22, 1998.”

The United States has worked with the European Atomic Energy Community and the Japanese and Russian governments on ITER for eleven years. In explaining Richardson’s actions, DOE commented that “an extension of the current Agreement is needed to complete research and development of sophisticated technologies that could be used in the experimental reactor should the partners decide to build in the future.”

Congress has been decidedly cool on ITER this year. In early June, the Senate Appropriations Committee’s report on ITER described its “demise...an inevitable decision given current and anticipated budgets.” The House Appropriations Report stated, “The Committee continues to question whether the tokamak is the most promising technology,” and recommended no 1999 money for ITER, what it called ITER-Lite, or the Joint Central Team. In late July, Anne Davies, Director of DOE’s Office of Fusion Energy Sciences, told an advisory committee that her staff was attempting to “salvage” the ITER agreement which expired on July 21 when the U.S. failed to sign it. She hoped that a way could be found to “encourage appropriators to let us go ahead in some way.”

Evidently DOE found such a way, because following talks between Richardson and House Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Joseph McDade (R-PA), Richardson signed the extension agreement. DOE notes that “the agreement is not a commitment to fund or support construction of any device.”

That is the good news. The bad news came in the form of a sharply-worded press release issued by House Science Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) on the same day. The key sections of this statement, which warrant a careful reading, follow:

“I am profoundly disappointed that despite an understanding with the Department of Energy and as put forth in a July 17, 1998 letter by Under Secretary of Energy Moniz, that the Department “did not intend to sign the extension (of ITER) without Congressional concurrence,” they today went back on their word and agreed to a one-year extension of U.S.participation in the International Experimental Reactor (ITER) project. This decision is irresponsible. Both Secretary Richardson and Under Secretary Moniz were made aware on many occasions of my strong opposition to such an extension. It is disheartening that this Administration cannot keep a simple promise to the United States Congress.

“After spending more than 10 years and $1 billion, the ITER parties (U.S., Japan, Russia, and Europe) have designed a fusion device that is unaffordable. It is clear that the ITER device - as originally envisioned and specifically defined in the 1992 ITER Agreement - will not be built; the project failed and it’s time to move forward. It defies common sense that the U.S. should agree to continue to participate in a dead-end project that continues to waste the American taxpayer’s dollars.

“While I continue to support international cooperation in fusion, continued U.S. participation in ITER is unacceptable and may well prove detrimental to further cooperative efforts.

“When I assumed the position of Chairman of the House Science Committee in January of 1997, one of the core principles I established was based on the need to nurture international scientific partnerships to leverage scarce federal dollars. However, any agreement for international cooperation requires well-defined and enforceable goals from the outset.

“Without such parameters, international cooperation will not succeed. It is clear that the existing ITER EDA Agreement is not an appropriate vehicle through which international cooperation in fusion can continue, and it should not have been extended.”

Sensenbrenner is not someone who can be ignored. Stay tuned.