Announcement for community workshops on

Strategic directions for U.S. magnetic fusion researchWorkshop 1: July 24-28, 2017 in Madison, WI
Workshop 2: Tentatively December 11-15, 2017 in Austin, TX
I. Overview
This document is an announcement for two magnetic fusion community workshops to enablecommunity presentation and discussion focused on the recent charge to the National Academiesof Sciences (NAS), Engineering, and Medicine (http://sites.nationalacademies.org/BPA/BPA_177107).
The NAS Committee has been charged to prepare an interim report and a final report focused on
the importance of burning plasmas in the future of U.S. fusion energy development, along withconsideration of the scientific and engineering challenges and opportunities on the path toward
fusion energy, and possible scenarios to achieve that goal. Specifically, the committee will
prepare an interim report that will:I1. Describe and assess the current status of U.S. research that supports burning plasma
science, including current and planned participation in international activities, anddescribe international research activities broadly.
I2. Assess the importance of U.S. burning plasma research to the development of fusionenergy as well as to plasma science and other science and engineering disciplines.
The committee will also prepare a final report, building on the interim report, which will:
F1. Consider the scientific and engineering challenges and opportunities associated withadvancing magnetic confinement fusion as an energy source, including the scientific andtechnical developments since the 2004 NAS study on burning plasma research.
F2. In two separate scenarios in which, after 2018, (1) the United States is a partner in ITER,and (2) the United States is not a partner in ITER: provide guidance on a long-term
strategic plan (covering the next several decades) for a national program of burning
plasma science and technology research which includes supporting capabilities andwhich may include participation in international activities, given the U.S. strategicinterest in realizing economical fusion energy in the long term.
It is anticipated that the U.S. Burning Plasma Organization, the Virtual Laboratory forTechnology, and the broader fusion research community within the U.S. combined with previous
recent community reports will assist the NAS study in providing information for charge question
I1 and for identifying developments since 2004 in charge question F1. The primary purpose of
the fusion community workshops is to foster community discussion on NAS strategic charge
questions I2 and F2 and identify key opportunities relevant to charge question F1.
The fusion community workshops have two overarching goals:
1. Provide an open forum to hear community views on strategic charge questions I2 and F2and opportunities in charge F1, and to provide community feedback on these views.
2. Identify key elements of a long-term U.S. fusion strategic plan (both with and without theU.S as a partner in ITER) including both domestic and international research, andidentify points of community consensus on the most critical key elements of that plan.

II. Factors for Assessing Proposed Strategic Elements
Specifically noted in the NAS charge is the assumption that economical fusion energy within thenext several decades is a U.S. strategic interest. Further, the NAS committee has been asked toconsider several factors in preparing their reports, and therefore the U.S. fusion community
workshops should consider these factors in proposing key strategic plan elements:
1. Elements of a strategic plan for U.S. burning plasma research that ensure the U.S.
maintains a leadership role in this field.
2. The current level of participation by U.S. scientists in international activities as well as
what role international collaboration should play over the next 20 years.
3. The health of domestic fusion research sectors: universities, national labs, and industry
4. How unanticipated events or innovations may necessitate mid-course re-directions
The workshop program committee has also highlighted the importance of identifying scientificand engineering opportunities associated with advancing magnetic confinement fusion as anenergy source and therefore includes an additional 5th factor for consideration and assessment:
5. Key scientific and engineering opportunities for advancing magnetic confinement fusion
as an energy source
Lastly, in addition to addressing the NAS charge questions and considerations above, it is also
recognized that there is significant U.S. fusion community interest in maintaining a strategic
vision for fusion that adapts to advances in the field. Thus, the community workshops will also
consider ideas on how to foster effective and timely community-based strategic planning for theU.S. fusion program that enhances cooperation with DOE and builds on key strategic elements.
III. Workshop Deliverables
Workshop 1: Building on charge question I2, this workshop will “assess the importance of U.S.
burning plasma research to the development of fusion energy as well as to plasma science andother science and engineering disciplines”. Key examples of present U.S. burning plasma
research importance will be identified, and relative weaknesses and potential growth areas for theU.S. program will also be considered. In response to charge question F1, this workshop will also
address broader opportunities for advancing magnetic confinement fusion as an energy source.
This workshop will also begin to address charge question F2, but emphasis will be placed on
charges I2 and F1.
Brief presentations by the community are requested which (a) assess the importance of U.S.
burning plasma research to the development of fusion energy as well as to plasma science andother science and engineering disciplines, (b) propose key strategic elements for the U.S. fusion
program, and (c) begin to consider these elements in the context of the whether the US is / is nota partner in ITER. Presentations are requested to explicitly discuss how the proposed strategic
elements address the 5 factors listed above.

Major deliverables for Workshop 1 include:
1. An open forum to hear community views on strategic elements, and provide community
feedback on these views.
2. A preliminary discussion and documentation led by the workshop program committee ofthe degree to which community-proposed elements address the 5 factors listed above.
3. Identification of potential points of consensus and also areas in which future discussionswould be needed in resolving future directions.
Workshop 2: Building on the generation and discussion of key strategic elements and possible
points of consensus from Workshop 1, Workshop 2 will primarily consider proposed key
strategic elements in the context of the two scenarios of charge question F2: (1) the United States
is a partner in ITER, and (2) the United States is not a partner in ITER.
In addition, the organization and effectiveness of these community workshops will be assessedby the community, and ideas for how to foster more frequent, community-based strategicplanning that partners effectively with DOE will be explicitly solicited and discussed.
Major deliverables for Workshop 2 include:
1. An open forum to hear community views on strategic elements, and provide community
feedback on these views.
2. Discussion and documentation led by the workshop program committee of proposed
strategic elements for scenarios in which the US is / is not a partner in ITER
3. A community assessment of the workshop process and ideas for future workshops
4. A document summarizing the workshop process and high-level outcome
IV. Community Input
Meeting Timing: The first and second NAS meetings incorporating public input are tentatively
scheduled to be in May/June and August/September timeframes, respectively - exact dates TBA.
The timing of the first fusion community workshop (July) was chosen to provide input to thesecond NAS meeting. The timing of the second community workshop (December) was chosen
to provide time to assess and incorporate the NAS interim report (due October 31, 2017) in thesecond workshop discussions and to provide input to a later third and/or fourth NAS meeting.
Input Format: Community input will be solicited in the form of 2 page whitepapers briefly
summarizing a proposed strategic element and how this element is impacted by the 5 factors
noted in Section II.
A whitepaper template is attached to this announcement, and submission instructions will bemade available in the near-term.
Whitepapers will be due 11:59PM Eastern June 26, 2017.
Community input will also be sought in the form of brief presentations at the workshop(s). It is
expected the whitepapers will be used by the Program Committee to select and/or consolidate
strategic elements or topics for oral presentation.

Website: The workshop website is: https://sites.google.com/site/usmfrstrategicdirections andalso here: www.usmfrsd.org
If you have any questions, please contact the meeting co-chairs: David Maurer, Jon Menard, andMickey Wade: maurer@physics.auburn.edu, jmenard@pppl.gov, wade@fusion.gat.com
V. Workshop Agenda
Workshop agenda(s) will be formulated based on community interest, whitepaper content, andprogram committee input.
VI. Travel Funding and Registration
These workshops are community-led and not directly sponsored by FES. However, FES has
indicated that workshop participants funded by grants, cooperative agreements, and national labs
have the discretion to use available funding to travel to the workshops provided that theworkshop is related to ongoing work and no contract deliverables are jeopardized by the travel.
Workshop attendance should be treated as analogous to attending an annual APS-DPP meeting.
It is expected a registration fee will charged to pay for meeting space and logistical support.

VII. Program Committee
Program Committee Membership for U.S. Fusion Community Workshops
NameAffiliation

E-mail Address

Workshop Co-chairs
David Maurer

Auburn University

maurer@physics.auburn.edu

Jonathan Menard

Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

jmenard@pppl.gov

Mickey Wade

General Atomics

wade@fusion.gat.com

Program Committee Members
Jean Paul Allain

University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign

allain@illinois.edu

John CanikOak Ridge National Laboratory

canikjm@ornl.gov

Troy Carter

University of California - Los Angeles

tcarter@physics.ucla.edu

Cami Collins

General Atomics

collinscs@fusion.gat.com

Fatima Ebrahimi

Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

febrahim@pppl.gov

David Gates

Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

dgates@pppl.gov

Martin Greenwald

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

g@psfc.mit.edu

David Hatch

University of Texas - Austin

Nathan Howard

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

drhatch@austin.utexas.edu
nthoward@psfc.mit.edu

Scott Hsu

Los Alamos National Laboratory

scotthsu@lanl.gov

Ilon Joseph

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

joseph5@llnl.gov

Deyong Liu

University of California - Irvine

deyongl@uci.edu

Saskia Mordijck

The College of William and Marysmordijck@wm.edu

Tobin Munsat

University of Colorado - Boulder

tobin.munsat@colorado.edu

Gerald Navratil

Columbia University

gan2@columbia.edu

David Newman

University of Alaska - Fairbanks

denewman@alaska.edu

John Sarff

University of Wisconsin - Madison

jssarff@wisc.edu

Oliver Schmitz

University of Wisconsin - Madisonoschmitz@wisc.edu

Uri Shumlak

University of Washington

shumlak@uw.edu

Wayne Solomon

General Atomics

solomon@fusion.gat.com

Francesca Turco

Columbia University

ft2215@columbia.edu

Francois Waelbroeck

University of Texas - Austin

flw@mail.utexas.edu

Steven Zinkle

University of Tennessee - Knoxvilleszinkle@utk.edu