VOL. 7, NO. 2 • SPRING 2003

Continued on page 2

Energy Secretary Abraham Visits

At left, PPPL Director Rob Goldston shows the National Spherical Torus Experiment to (from left) U.S. Congressman Rush Holt, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, U.S. Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen, DOE Office of Science Director Raymond Orbach, and Princeton University 

President Shirley Tilghman. At right, Secretary Abraham addresses PPPL staff in the Gottlieb Auditorium.

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham came to PPPL on January 30 with exciting news for the entire fusion 

community: the U.S. is joining the negotiations for the 

ITER project. ITER is a major international magnetic 

fusion research project with a mission to demonstrate the 

scientific and technological feasibility of nuclear fusion 

as a source of energy.

 “Now is the time to expand our scope and embrace 

international efforts to realize the promise of fusion energy. Now it is time to take the next step on the way to 

having fusion deliver electricity to the grid. Therefore, I 

am pleased to announce that President Bush has decided 

the United States will join the international negotiations 

on ITER,” said Secretary Abraham.

 PPPL staff, filling the MBG Auditorium to capacity, 

greeted the news with enthusiasm, giving the Secretary a 

round of applause. Also in the audience were Department 

of Energy and Princeton University officials, dignitaries 

Interview with U.S. ITER Planning Officer and PPPL physicist Ned Sauthoff — Page 4

Secretary Announces U.S. to Join ITER Negotiations
 The PPPL NEWS is issued by the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, a research facility supported by the United 

States Department of Energy and managed by Princeton University. Correspondence and requests to reprint material 

should be directed to: Information Services, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, P.O. Box 451, Princeton, NJ 08543; 

telephone 609-243-2750; fax 609-243-2751; e-mail pppl_info@pppl.gov .

PPPL NEWS

Information Services Head: Anthony R. DeMeo

Editor/Writer: Patti Wieser

Photographer: Elle Starkman

Layout and Graphics: Gregory J. Czechowicz 

 and Patti Wieser

Continued from page 1

Abraham

from Japan, Germany, Spain, France, Russia, the United 

Kingdom, Italy, Canada, the European Union, and China, 

as well as U.S. Congressmen Rodney Frelinghuysen and 

Rush Holt.

 The Secretary stressed that the decision to join ITER 

does not mean a lesser role for the domestic fusion program. “It is imperative that we 

maintain and enhance our 

strong domestic research 

program — at Princeton, 

at the Universities, and at 

our other labs.”

The Way

 ITER (Latin for “the 

way”) began in the 1980s as 

a collaboration among the 

United States, the Soviet 

Union, Japan, and Europe 

with the goal of designing 

and building a fusion test 

reactor that would demonstrate the feasibility of nuclear fusion as a source of 

energy. The U.S. removed 

itself from the collaboration 

in 1998. A National Research Council panel 

concluded in 2002, 

however, that revisions 

in the ITER plan and recent 

advances in fusion science warranted rejoining the 

effort, which presently involves Canada, Europe, Japan, 

and the Russian Federation. China has recently joined the 

negotiations as well. Canada, the European Union, and 

Japan have offered sites for the projects. The selection 

will be part of the negotiation and governmental decision 

making progress.

 The U.S. proposes to provide a number of hardware 

components for ITER construction, to be involved in the 

project construction management, and to participate in the 

ITER scientific research and technology development. 

The nature and details of the U.S. participation and contributions would be determined during the negotiations. 

The U.S. share of the construction cost is expected to be 

about 10 percent of the total.

As the first step in our 

renewed commitment to 

ITER, PPPL Director Rob 

Goldston and DOE officials 

went to Russia in February to participate in 

negotiations over plans for 

the $5 billion project, which 

is scheduled to begin construction in 2006 and be 

operational by about 2014. 

Fusion research on ITER 

would last for up to 20 

years.

While at PPPL, Secretary 

Abraham also toured the 

National Spherical Torus 

Experiment and the former Tokamak Fusion 

Test Reactor (TFTR), 

where he unveiled two 

plaques — one noting 

TFTR accomplishments 

and milestones and the other an award for the safe 

decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) of the 

machine. He also talked to PPPL project heads in the 

Lobby before addressing staff in the Auditorium, where 

he lauded PPPL’s accomplishments and ability to join the 

Image of ITER above published with kind permission of ITER.

Continued on page 3

PPPL NEWS Spring 2003 Page 2
best basic science with the best management. “It [PPPL] 

is a model for all our DOE labs. Let me congratulate all 

of you on a job well done,” he told staff.

 In a follow-up note to staff, Director Goldston praised 

the announcement and the support for the domestic fuPPPL Student Named Congressional Science Fellow

Adam Rosenberg, a research assistant at PPPL, has been awarded the American Physical Society (APS) 

Congressional Science Fellowship.

 Rosenberg begins the one-year fellowship this September in Washington, D.C. He plans on receiving a Ph.D. 

from Princeton University’s Department of Astrophysical 

Sciences, Program in Plasma Physics, this summer.

 PPPL physicist David Gates, who supervised Rosenberg’s second-year theory project, said, “In the course 

of his work, Adam interacted with many scientists from 

institutions across the U.S., including the University of 

Wisconsin and Los Alamos National Laboratory, as well 

as with those at PPPL. He held his own and is now well 

established as a serious contributor to an important subfield of fusion plasma physics.” Gates went on to describe 

Rosenberg as a good communicator who is an excellent 

choice for the APS award.

 Rosenberg said his interest in science policy — which 

is driven by a strong desire to make a positive contribution 

to society — compelled him to apply for the Congressional fellowship. “I am particularly concerned with the 

expanding energy needs of the world, as it is clear to me 

that fossil fuels are in limited supply, detrimental to the 

environment, and a major source of geopolitical unrest,” 

said Rosenberg. He sought a doctorate in plasma physics studying nuclear fusion because he believes fusion 

is an attractive alternative that addresses each of these 

concerns.

 As a Congressional Fellow, he also looks forward to 

investigating and guiding policy in various other types 

of power generation, as well as in other areas of science, 

in the hope of encouraging options that lead to a cleaner, 

safer world. “I’d like to improve our nation’s energy independence and security through a variety of means. I really 

hope I can have a positive impact on science policy,” said 

Rosenberg.

 Rosenberg received a bachelor’s degree in applied and 

engineering physics in 1998 from Cornell University. Prior 

to coming to PPPL as a research assistant and Princeton 

University as a doctoral candidate in 1998, he was an intern 

at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California 

and at Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois. He is a 

coauthor of eight papers and a 1998 recipient of Princeton 

University’s Merit Prize. Rosenberg was a member of the 

Princeton delegation for Washington Fusion Day and of 

the New Jersey delegation for the APS Convocation Lobbying Day, both in 2003, and a participant in the Princeton 

University Scholars in Schools Program in 2002-2003.

 Rosenberg is a resident of Princeton. He grew up in 

Saratoga Springs, New York.

 The APS Congressional Science Fellowships were 

established to provide a public service by making available individuals with scientific knowledge and skills to 

Members of Congress, few of whom have a technical 

background. In turn, the program enables scientists to 

broaden their experience through direct involvement 

with the legislative and political processes. Following 

interviews on the Hill, Fellows choose a congressional 

office — personal or committee staff — where they wish 

to serve. 

sion program. “I was very pleased that in addition to announcing that the U.S. will join the ITER negotiations, 

the Secretary also called for a strong domestic research 

program in parallel with ITER,” he said. “The combination 

of joining our allies on ITER and enhancing research at 

home is what I believe is required for the U.S. to have 

a leadership role in the eventual commercialization of 

practical fusion energy.” 

Abraham

Continued from page 2

Adam Rosenberg

Page 3 PPPL NEWS Spring 2003
ITER Negotiations Are Underway

On January 30, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham announced that the U.S. was joining the negotiations for the construction and operation of ITER, a major international magnetic fusion research project with a mission 

to demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of nuclear fusion as a source of energy. In early March, 

Dr. N. Anne Davies, Department of Energy Associate Director of Science for Fusion Energy Sciences, named PPPL’s 

Ned Sauthoff as U.S. ITER Planning Officer. PPPL News spoke with Ned to learn about the opportunities for U.S. 

researchers, challenges facing the U.S. ITER Team, and the progress expected during the next few years as the international project makes the transition from negotiations to construction.

Edited by Anthony DeMeo

What, in your opinion, is the U.S. 

seeking to gain from its participation 

in the ITER project?

The main reason for U.S. participation in ITER is to conduct research 

on burning plasmas, according to the 

Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory 

Committee (FESAC) Burning Plasma Strategy Report issued last September. As described in that report, 

our first priority in joining ITER is to 

assure that U.S. researchers will have 

an opportunity to conduct leading research in the science and technology 

of burning plasmas.

A second but important priority is 

to advance enabling technologies 

in areas that directly support the first objective, such as 

the development of ITER diagnostics and plasma control 

systems. These plasma control areas include ion cyclotron 

heating, electron cyclotron heating and current drive, lower 

hybrid current drive, and fueling.

The next FESAC priority is in areas of fusion technology 

in which the U.S. has a strong interest and capability. At the 

moment we are pursuing magnet, as well as divertor design 

and construction. U.S. researchers see magnets and divertors as key fusion technologies in which the U.S. played a 

leading role during the ITER Engineering Design Activities. 

Consequently, the U.S. is well positioned to perform cost 

estimates and planning in those specific areas, thereby enabling possible U.S. offers of contributions in these areas.

How will the U.S. program be organized, i.e., what do you 

see as the roles for the various U.S. fusion labs? When will 

these roles be decided upon?

The organization of the U.S. ITER team will be multi-institutional and will be structured in a way that invites participation by the full U.S. fusion community. The team likely 

will have teams for specific technical 

areas in which the U.S. has strong 

roles. The U.S. team’s project managers will serve as liaisons between 

the U.S. and the international ITER 

organization.

At this point, the specific roles and 

scope for U.S. participation are still 

under discussion. Dr. N. Anne Davies, DOE’s Associate Director of 

Science for Fusion Energy Sciences, 

has asked us to set up a tentative 

organization to work in support of 

negotiations. The organization will 

evolve to address activities as they 

arise during various stages of the 

project.

Do you have a sense for the number of U.S. fusion physicists 

and engineers who will be involved in the ITER project?

The simple answer is that I hope they all will be involved. 

Fusion physicists and engineers should see ITER as an opportunity to pursue the study of burning plasmas and to advance 

fusion technology. We are attempting to assure that the U.S. 

fusion community can pursue its interests on ITER.

As a first step in this process, we are working with the University Fusion Association to hold the first U.S.-ITER Forum 

in Maryland May 8-9. The agenda has not been finalized, 

but we have invited the U.S. fusion community to state its 

interests in the areas of ITER physics and technology. This 

information will be used to formulate desired U.S. roles and 

to present possible U.S. implementations of those roles in 

the form of U.S. offers of ITER components.

We will also use this information, and the FESAC Burning 

Plasma Strategy Report, to assure that the ITER agreement 

gives the U.S. rights to participate in ITER research. It is 

important that the ITER agreement assures the U.S. access 

to the data and the device, the right to propose experiments, 

PPPL NEWS Spring 2003 Page 4

Ned Sauthoff
and a seat at the table in planning the evolution of the ITER 

facility and its research program.

As the newly named U.S. ITER Planning Officer, what is 

your first charge in moving the U.S. forward in participating in ITER negotiations?

Our first charge is to assist our negotiators in preparations for 

upcoming meetings that will involve planning for ITER management structure and processes, procurement allocations 

and systems, and the planning for project staffing. Also in 

the near term, we must determine what “in-kind” contributions the U.S. might offer initially during negotiations. 

“In-kind” contributions mean that the U.S. provides specific 

subsystems rather than cash. This will involve balancing 

the cost of contributing this hardware with programmatic 

benefits and the resulting value credited to the U.S. for the 

contribution. So we have assembled a multi-institutional 

team of experts in the areas of diagnostics, heating and 

current drive systems, magnets, and divertors. They will 

develop cost estimates for the R&D, design and fabrication 

of various subsystem contributions to ITER by U.S. industry, 

laboratories, and universities. This information will then be 

used by U.S. negotiators to identify specific U.S. offers to 

the ITER project.

How will the ITER participants arrive at a consensus on 

the value of a particular subsystem to the ITER Project?

For the past several years, the European, Japanese, and Russian parties conducted industrial cost estimation exercises for 

85 procurement packages, which constitute the main ITER 

facility. Their national cost estimates were then submitted 

to the international ITER team, which evaluated them and 

came up with a consistent cost estimate that is being used 

as a basis for negotiations; their evaluated costs estimates 

are the basis for determining the relative value of various 

systems, which is in some ways related to the amount of 

“credit” a party would earn by providing that system. The 

percentage values of the subsystems of the machine add up 

to 100 percent and are, in fact, the currency for the negotiation over in-kind contributions.

For instance, the party that provides a magnet would get 

a certain amount of credit or value. A party who provides 

components of a divertor would get credit for those specific 

values. Each party is expected to sign up to provide a particular value to the ITER Project. Parties don’t sign up for 

a certain amount of money; they sign up for a certain value. 

It must be done this way because costs to individual parties 

depend strongly on the labor rates and other conditions in 

the various countries.

For example, if labor rates in the U.S. were twice that of 

Russia, the U.S. might have to pay significantly more to 

provide a specific ITER magnet based on U.S. manufacturing 

costs than would the Russians. But shouldn’t the Russians 

get the same amount of credit for providing the magnet 

as the U.S., even though it might cost the Russians less in 

equivalent currency? Hence, the negotiation is done on the 

basis of the relative values of the components, not on the 

basis of the costs to an individual party.

We are in the process of trying to determine what it would 

cost for the U.S. to provide specific components, giving us 

an indication of how many dollars it would cost to provide a 

certain amount of value. If the U.S. were to offer 10 percent 

of ITER’s value, we would then know roughly how many 

dollars that would likely cost.

When will the various parties determine their contributions?

The ITER parties are currently submitting initial lists of 

components they are interested in providing; these will evolve 

considerably. At this point, many parties are interested in 

high-tech areas such as diagnostics, heating and current 

drive systems, and magnets and divertor components. Very 

few parties are interested in providing relatively mundane 

items. Everyone wants to put money into high-tech items, 

which match their party’s interests. Right now there are still 

holes in coverage of the machine and supporting facilities. 

All the components have not been covered. This is why the 

parties must negotiate. We must build on the shared interest 

in getting the machine built to motivate complete coverage 

of the facility’s systems.

When will negotiations begin?

Negotiations are ongoing, and U.S. participation has begun. 

For example, earlier this year, U.S. DOE and State Department officials, as well as PPPL Director Rob Goldston, 

participated in a negotiations meeting in Russia. A politicalpreparation meeting is scheduled for April in Japan and the 

negotiations preparation meeting is scheduled for May in 

Germany. The progression to a political level is a sign that 

the parties are ready to negotiate over the really important 

issues. At the upcoming political-level meeting, the terms and 

conditions for cost sharing and the selection process for the 

ITER site will be discussed by people who are empowered 

to make offers on behalf of their governments. Hopefully, 

this meeting will be the beginning of a process resulting in 

announcements by the Heads of State at the U.N. General 

Assembly meeting in September.

In what year do you envision the need for substantial budget 

increases in the U.S. fusion program as the ITER Project 

moves on toward final design and construction?

The FESAC Burning Plasma Strategy Report stated that 

U.S. participation in ITER was contingent on an increase 

Continued on page 6

Page 5 PPPL NEWS Spring 2003
in the U.S. fusion program budget. The U.S. ITER activity 

will have to be paced by the availability of money and also 

by the progress within the ITER schedule. In 2003, we have 

a very limited budget to support negotiations, mostly in the 

form of U.S. cost estimates for possible offers. In 2004 and 

2005, prior to the start of construction, we will be strongly 

participating in negotiations and preparations for construction, but our ability to participate in long lead-time procurements will depend on the level of funding.

After the start of construction, roughly in 2006, U.S. participation in ITER activities would demand a significant increase 

in the fusion budget and the magnitudes of these increases are 

indicated in the development path report recently approved 

by FESAC after being prepared by a committee chaired by 

PPPL Director Rob Goldston.

When will the site for ITER be selected?

At this point, the Russian, Japanese, European, and Canadian parties have participated in a joint assessment of 

four sites, which are in Canada, France, Japan, and Spain. 

The joint assessment of sites is on the web at www.iter.org/

jass. This report has a six-page overview and roughly 50 

pages on each of the four sites, comparing the capabilities 

of the sites regarding electric power access, cooling water 

access, seismic activity, accessibility by water for shipping 

of large components, and the like. The judgment is that all 

four sites can meet the ITER requirements, but that there 

are differences.

The site selection will be part of the overall negotiation on 

the values that the various parties will provide, as I described 

earlier. The host country will be expected to provide additional value, since it will have the ITER facility on its land 

and the ITER activities contributing to the local economy 

and high-tech infrastructure of its country. The host will 

also have to provide infrastructure and make compensations 

as determined by their site characteristics. For example, a 

seismically active site will demand that the entire test cell 

be placed on “super-springs” to isolate the ITER machine 

from the ground motions. Similarly, another site might not 

be as accessible for shipment of very large components because it does not have a port nearby. So the host party has to 

make up for these things, and this will cost the host money. 

The site selection will involve not only the site characteristics, but also the total packages that are offered by the four 

sites, as well as political considerations that may have to be 

worked out. There’s a real possibility that political process 

will result in a site selection and agreement on cost sharing 

by September.

What if things can’t be worked out in a reasonable time 

frame?

The FESAC strategy calls for an assessment in July 2004 of 

the probability that ITER will proceed in a timely fashion on 

terms and conditions agreeable to the U.S. At that time the 

U.S. will make a decision whether to continue with ITER 

or to engage in the domestic program, the Fusion Ignition 

Research Experiment (FIRE), a smaller burning plasma 

advanced tokamak whose planning is led by PPPL’s Dale 

Meade.

Assuming ITER proceeds as planned, what are some of 

the formidable scheduling challenges to be faced?

In the current plan, the license to construct the ITER facility 

will be obtained at the beginning of 2006. Looking at the 

construction schedule, there are two systems that are on the 

critical path. One is the set of superconducting magnets and 

the other is the collection of buildings; close behind are some 

parts of the vacuum vessel. Since the U.S. is not proposing 

to be the ITER host, we need not be concerned about the 

buildings. However, we would be expected to participate in 

the procurement of the superconducting magnets, which is 

the longest lead item of the ITER components. Consequently, 

we must conduct prototype studies with U.S. manufacturers 

so that, when the license is granted, U.S. vendors with the 

ability to produce the needed superconducting material for 

the magnets will have been identified and will be able to 

start production of superconducting materials and cables 

quickly. This will require the U.S. to fund industry in the 

superconducting strand area prior to facility construction. 

Such investments prior to the granting of a construction license are a risk, and the parties will have to make a judgment 

about their levels of investment prior to achievement of that 

milestone in the interest of schedule. The actual pace that 

the U.S. takes in this area is a matter of strategy and risks. 

Should we make a significant investment prior to the granting of a construction license in the interest of accelerating 

the schedule? Or should we be cautious and not make such 

investments until a licensed site is assured? All the ITER 

parties will be making such judgment calls.

What is the best way to keep up with the status of the ITER 

Project?

PPPL’s Dori Barnes is working with me to assemble a web 

site, www.iter-us.org. We intend to post ITER information 

that would be useful to the entire fusion community, not 

just individuals directly involved in ITER. The site should 

also be of interest to members of the public who follow the 

development of fusion. We expect a rudimentary web site 

to be up before the end of April. In the meantime, interested 

persons can get information on ITER at the international 

ITER web site (www.iter.org) and on the burning plasma 

program at the FIRE web site (fire.pppl.gov). 

Continued from page 5

PPPL NEWS Spring 2003 Page 6
AwardsAwardsAwardsAwardsAwards

Princeton University physics professor and University Research Board 

Chair Will Happer and PPPL Director Rob Goldston presented the PPPL 

Distinguished Research and Engineering Fellow Awards and the Kaul 

Foundation Prize for Excellence in Plasma Physics and Technology 

Development following Goldston’s State-of-the-Lab talk to staff in 

December. From left are Happer, Engineering Fellow recipient Robert Parsells, Goldston, Kaul Prize recipients Erik Perry and Ronald 

Strykowsky, and Distinguished Fellow recipient John Krommes. 

PPPL scientists Masaaki Yamada and Hantao Ji recently received 

the American Physical Society’s (APS) 2002 Award for Excellence in 

Plasma Physics Research. The award recognizes a recent outstanding 

achievement in plasma physics research. Yamada and Ji, along with 

former PPPL graduate students Troy Carter and Scott Hsu, were cited 

“for the experimental investigation of driven magnetic reconnection in a laboratory plasma.” Yamada (left) and Ji are in front of the 

Magnetic Reconnection Experiment at PPPL.

PPPL’s Stan Kaye was named a Fellow of the American Physical 

Society (APS) during the APS-Division of Plasma Physics meeting in 

November. Kaye, a principal research physicist at the Lab, was cited 

for his pioneering investigation of the characteristics of strongly 

heated plasmas confined by magnetic fields.

PPPL engineer Bob Simmons has received the first Engineering 

and Technology Management Leadership Award of the American 

Society of Mechanical Engineers in recognition of his “extraordinary 

leadership in raising the value and significance of engineering and 

technology management.”

Page 7 PPPL NEWS Spring 2003
In December, PPPL Director Rob Goldston delivered the annual State-of-the-Lab talk to staff in PPPL’s Auditorium. He discussed PPPL’s 

scientific programs, internal operations, and the future, and thanked the Lab’s line of “great supporters” in Congress, the Department of 

Energy, and the White House. The Director said the Lab is producing wonderful scientific results and concluded by thanking everyone at 

PPPL for their tremendous support. “We have a great team ...The good ship fusion sails forward,” said Goldston.

Goldston Gives State-of-the-Lab Talk 

Science on Saturday Celebrates Nineteenth Year

For the nineteenth winter, PPPL hosted the annual Science-on-Saturday lectures. This year’s series kicked off in January and concluded March 

15. Given by scientists and other professionals who are leaders in their field, the free talks were geared toward high school students, but 

open to everyone. This year’s series was co-organized by PPPL’s Ronald Hatcher, Janardhan Manickam, and James Morgan. Above left are 

members of the audience and above right are Manickam (at left) and Professor Dmitri “Mitya” Chklovskii, of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, 

who spoke about “How Evolution Engineered a Brain.”

PPPL NEWS Spring 2003 Page 8