Fusion Energy: Definitive Cost Estimates for U.S. Contributions  
to an International Experimental Reactor and Better Coordinated  
DOE Research Are Needed (26-OCT-07, GAO-08-30). 		 
                                                                 
The United States is pursuing two paths to fusion		 
energy--magnetic and inertial. On November 21, 2006, the United  
States signed an agreement with five countries and the European  
Union to build and operate the International Thermonuclear	 
Experimental Reactor (ITER) in Cadarache, France, to demonstrate 
the feasibility of magnetic fusion energy. The United States also
built and operates facilities to pursue inertial fusion energy	 
research. This report discusses (1) U.S. contributions to ITER	 
and the challenges, if any, in managing this international fusion
program and (2) the Department of Energy's (DOE) management of	 
alternative fusion research activities, including National	 
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) initiatives. In performing
this work, GAO analyzed budget documents, briefings, and reports 
that focused on research and funding priorities for the fusion	 
program. GAO also met with officials from DOE, NNSA, and the ITER
Organization in France. 					 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-30						        
    ACCNO:   A77650						        
  TITLE:     Fusion Energy: Definitive Cost Estimates for U.S.	      
Contributions to an International Experimental Reactor and Better
Coordinated DOE Research Are Needed				 
     DATE:   10/26/2007 
  SUBJECT:   Budget outlays					 
	     Cost analysis					 
	     Energy research					 
	     Financial analysis 				 
	     Foreign governments				 
	     Fusion						 
	     Future budget projections				 
	     Human capital planning				 
	     Interagency relations				 
	     Nuclear energy					 
	     Nuclear facilities 				 
	     Nuclear reactors					 
	     Program management 				 
	     Quality assurance					 
	     Research and development				 
	     Research and development facilities		 
	     Research program management			 
	     Schedule slippages 				 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Cost estimates					 
	     Program coordination				 
	     Program costs					 
	     Program goals or objectives			 
	     International Thermonuclear Experimental		 
	     Reactor Project					 
                                                                 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-08-30

   

     * [1]Results in Brief
     * [2]Background
     * [3]The United States Will Contribute $1.12 Billion Over 9 Years

          * [4]DOE Does Not Yet Have a Definitive and Independently Validat
          * [5]The United States Will Incur Additional Costs Because ITER I
          * [6]The ITER Organization Faces Management Challenges that May L

     * [7]Lack of Coordination, Competing Funding Priorities, and Huma

          * [8]DOE and NNSA Do Not Have a Coordinated Research Program for
          * [9]Decreases in Funding for Innovative Magnetic Fusion Devices
          * [10]DOE Does Not Have a Plan to Address Future Workforce Shortag

     * [11]Conclusions
     * [12]Recommendations for Executive Action
     * [13]Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
     * [14]GAO Contact
     * [15]Staff Acknowledgments

          * [16]Order by Mail or Phone

Report to Congressional Committees

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

October 2007

FUSION ENERGY

Definitive Cost Estimates for U.S. Contributions to an International
Experimental Reactor and Better Coordinated DOE Research Are Needed

GAO-08-30

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 4
Background 7
The United States Will Contribute $1.12 Billion Over 9 Years to Help Build
ITER, but Management Challenges May Affect Timing and Cost of Construction
11
Lack of Coordination, Competing Funding Priorities, and Human Capital
Challenges May Hamper Progress in Alternative Fusion Research 18
Conclusions 26
Recommendations for Executive Action 27
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 28
Appendix I Comments from the Department of Energy 31
Appendix II GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 33

Figures

Figure 1: The Fusion Reaction 7
Figure 2: Countries Participating in ITER 10
Figure 3: U.S. Contributions to ITER for Construction 13
Figure 4: Section View of the Proposed Design for the ITER Reactor 16
Figure 5: The Z-machine Creating an X-ray Pulse to Test Materials in
Conditions of Extreme Temperature and Pressure 20

Abbreviations

DOE: Department of Energy: 
HAPL: High Average Power Laser: 
IFMIF: International Fusion Materials Irradiation Facility: 
ITER: International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor: 
NIF: National Ignition Facility: 
NNSA: National Nuclear Security Administration: 
OFES: Office of Fusion Energy Sciences: 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. The published product may be reproduced
and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO.
However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other
material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you
wish to reproduce this material separately.

United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548

October 26, 2007

The Honorable Byron Dorgan: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Pete Domenici: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Peter Visclosky: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable David Hobson: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
House of Representatives: 

On November 21, 2006, the United States signed an agreement with five
countries1 and the European Union to help build and operate the
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) in Cadarache,
France, to demonstrate the feasibility of fusion energy. The construction,
operation, and decommissioning of ITER is expected to cost about $14
billion. Fusion occurs when the nuclei of two light atoms--typically
hydrogen isotopes--collide and fuse together when heated at high
temperatures and placed under tremendous pressure. This reaction releases
a large amount of energy that some day, it is hoped, may be captured to
produce electricity. Over the last 50 years, scientists around the world
have made progress in understanding how to create the conditions for
fusion, but there are many outstanding scientific and technical issues
that must still be resolved before fusion can be used as an energy source.
As a result, the United States, along with the six parties to the
agreement, identified ITER as the critical experiment that could finally
produce more power from fusion reactions than is needed to operate the
device--the first step toward producing electricity from fusion energy.
ITER's objectives are to resolve fundamental physics issues in using
fusion as an energy source and to develop and test the technology needed
for a future fusion power plant. Construction of ITER is scheduled to
begin in 2008 and be completed in 2016, followed by 20 years of
experiments and eventual decommissioning. The ITER Organization was
established to manage the construction, operation, and decommissioning of
this facility. If ITER meets its objectives, as the last critical step
toward fusion energy, the United States and other countries will need to
design and test different fusion power plants to capture the energy and
produce electricity.

1These countries include the People's Republic of China, Japan, India, the
Republic of South Korea, and the Russian Federation.

The Department of Energy (DOE) identified ITER as the number one priority
for new research facilities because fusion power holds the promise of
reducing concerns over imported oil, rising gasoline prices, and global
warming. With decreasing fossil fuel resources and increasing awareness
that the use of fossil fuels is harming the environment, fusion is a
potentially new source of energy for meeting future energy needs. Fusion
offers many potential benefits, including no emissions of greenhouse
gases, an abundant source of fuel, no risk of the type of severe accidents
that could occur with existing nuclear power plants, no severe
consequences of a terrorist attack, and no long-lived radioactive waste.
In addition, U.S. participation in ITER allows the United States to share
the cost of building this complex and expensive fusion device while
leveraging the scientific and technological expertise of the other ITER
parties.

The United States is pursuing two paths to fusion energy--magnetic and
inertial. Magnetic fusion relies on magnetic forces to confine
electrically charged atoms, known as plasma, and sustain a fusion
reaction. ITER will be a magnetic fusion device known as a "tokamak."2
While a tokamak has been the most successful magnetic fusion device, there
is still uncertainty that it will produce fusion energy or lead to a
commercially viable fusion energy device. To reduce the risk of investing
in only one device, DOE's Office of Fusion Energy Sciences (OFES), which
is responsible for managing the U.S. fusion energy program, also funds
scientific research on alternative types of magnetic devices, primarily at
U.S. universities. Universities, such as Princeton University and the
University of Washington, are currently testing 10 other magnetic devices
with different
shapes and magnetic currents that may lead to a simpler, less costly, or
faster path to fusion energy.

2The term "tokamak" comes from a Russian acronym for a fusion device that
was developed in the former Soviet Union during the 1950s and 1960s.

In contrast, inertial fusion relies on powerful lasers to repeatedly
strike small pellets of fuel, yielding bursts of energy. The National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a separately organized agency
within DOE, is leading efforts in inertial fusion because it can be used
for defense needs, such as validating the integrity and reliability of the
U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. NNSA is building a facility--the National
Ignition Facility (NIF)--at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
that is hoped could be used to demonstrate the feasibility of inertial
fusion. Since the science applications of inertial fusion for defense and
energy needs are similar, the results of NIF experiments could validate
inertial fusion as an alternative path to fusion energy. Other facilities,
such as the Naval Research Laboratory, are testing technologies needed to
produce energy from inertial fusion.

In the conference report accompanying the fiscal year 2006 energy and
water development appropriation,3 the conferees directed GAO to review
OFES's fusion energy program, the activities of major U.S. fusion energy
research facilities that are contributing to ITER, and NNSA fusion energy
initiatives. As agreed with the committees of jurisdiction, we (1)
identified U.S. contributions to ITER and the challenges, if any, in
managing this international fusion program and (2) assessed DOE's
management of alternative fusion research activities, including NNSA
initiatives.

To address these objectives, we collected and analyzed documentation from
DOE, NNSA, the ITER Organization, the National Academy of Sciences, DOE's
national laboratories, and universities involved in fusion science. To
identify U.S. contributions to ITER and the challenges of managing this
international project, we analyzed budget documents, including OFES's
5-year budget plan, and interviewed officials from OFES, the Department of
State, and the U.S. ITER Project Office at the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. We also analyzed documents and met
with officials from the three major U.S. magnetic fusion research
facilities--located at General Atomics in San Diego, California; the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts; and the
Princeton Plasma Physics Lab in Princeton, New Jersey--and received a tour
of these facilities to understand how fusion devices are built and
operated. Furthermore, we met with officials from the ITER Organization in
Cadarache, France, and toured the ITER construction site. To assess DOE's
management of alternative fusion research activities, we interviewed
scientists from universities conducting research in alternative paths to
fusion funded by OFES and officials from the National Academy of Sciences,
and we analyzed reports from DOE's fusion energy advisory committee that
focused on funding and research priorities for the fusion program. Lastly,
to determine the status of inertial fusion and NNSA fusion initiatives, we
analyzed budget documents, briefings, and reports on inertial fusion and
met with officials from NNSA's Office of Defense Programs; NIF at the
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California; the
Laboratory for Laser Energetics at the University of Rochester in
Rochester, New York; Sandia National Laboratory in Albuquerque, New
Mexico; and the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C. We conducted
our work from December 2006 to September 2007 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.

3H.R. Rep. No. 109-275, p. 155 (Nov. 7, 2005).

Results in Brief

DOE plans to spend $1.12 billion over 9 years to help build ITER, but this
is only a preliminary estimate and may not reflect the full costs of U.S.
participation. The management challenges that the ITER Organization faces
to build ITER on time and on budget may also affect U.S. costs. With
respect to the U.S. contribution to build ITER, the largest portion, or
about 44 percent, will be used to purchase U.S.-manufactured components
and parts for ITER; the remaining portion will be used to provide cash to
the ITER Organization for equipment installation and associated
contingencies, to pay for U.S. scientists and engineers sent to the ITER
Organization, and to support ITER-related research and development at
national laboratories. However, DOE has not been able to assess the full
costs to the United States of building ITER because the ITER Organization
has not completed the project design for the reactor. According to DOE's
project management guidance, DOE cannot develop and validate a definitive
cost and schedule estimate for a project until the design is complete.
Moreover, the $1.12 billion for ITER construction does not include an
additional $1.2 billion the United States is expected to contribute to
operate and decommission the facility. With respect to management
challenges, the ITER Organization faces five key management challenges
that may affect U.S. costs. Many of these challenges stem from the
difficulty of coordinating international efforts: six countries and the
European Union are designing and building components for ITER and, as
members of the ITER Organization, must reach consensus before making
critical management decisions. The key challenges include (1) developing
quality assurance standards to test the reliability and integrity of the
components made in different countries; (2) assembling, with a high level
of precision, components and parts built in different countries; (3)
finding a new vendor if a country fails to build a component on time or
does not meet quality assurance standards; (4) developing a contingency
fund that adequately addresses cost overruns and schedule delays; and (5)
developing procedures that describe which countries will be responsible
for paying for cost overruns.

GAO has identified several challenges DOE faces in managing alternative
fusion research activities, including coordinating inertial fusion
research activities within DOE, setting funding priorities to advance both
ITER- and tokamak-related research and different magnetic fusion energy
approaches, and planning for hiring and retaining fusion scientists:

           o Coordination. Within DOE, NNSA and OFES do not effectively
           coordinate research activities to leverage scientific and
           technological advances for developing inertial fusion energy. NNSA
           provides OFES with limited access to one of its inertial fusion
           facilities to conduct inertial fusion experiments, and NNSA- and
           OFES-funded scientists share scientific information. However, NNSA
           and OFES do not have a coordinated research plan that identifies
           key scientific and technological questions or the cost, time
           frames, and detailed research and development tasks needed by each
           agency to solve those scientific and technological issues to
           further advance inertial fusion energy. In addition, DOE has not
           given NNSA and OFES clear roles in the development of inertial
           fusion energy. NNSA's program is focused on defense needs while
           OFES is exploring broad scientific issues indirectly related to
           inertial fusion energy. Without a coordinated research plan,
           progress in advancing inertial fusion may be delayed.

           o Funding priorities. Alternative magnetic fusion research
           competes for funding with ITER- and tokamak-related research.
           Since the U.S. commitment to ITER, DOE has focused more of its
           resources on ITER- and tokamak-related research. As a result,
           funding for alternative, potentially more innovative, magnetic
           fusion research activities has declined--from $26 million in
           fiscal year 2002 to $20 million in fiscal year 2007. Moreover, as
           funding for tokamak-related research has increased, the share of
           funding for these innovative research activities decreased from 19
           percent of the fusion research budget in fiscal year 2002 to 13
           percent in fiscal year 2007. University scientists involved in
           fusion research told us that this decline in funding has led to a
           decline in research opportunities for innovative concepts, and
           these concepts could lead to a simpler, less costly, or faster
           path to fusion energy. In addition, the decline in funding also
           has reduced opportunities to attract students to the fusion
           sciences and train them to fulfill future workforce needs. DOE
           officials responded that they determine the appropriate level of
           funding based on research priorities identified by DOE's fusion
           energy advisory committee4 and the current level of funding is
           sufficient to sustain the best-performing innovative magnetic
           devices. However, the last independent assessment of the balance
           of funding between tokamak-related research and alternative
           innovative concepts was in 1999 before the United States joined
           ITER and it became a priority.

           o Human capital. DOE has not developed a human capital strategy to
           address future workforce challenges. About one-third of the U.S.
           fusion energy workforce is retiring in the next 10 years and only
           a small percentage of doctoral candidates in physics are entering
           the fusion research field to meet future workforce needs. Without
           a strategy in place, DOE may face a shortage of scientists with
           critical skills and expertise at a time when demand for their
           skills will grow.

           To advance U.S. efforts to develop alternative fusion energy
           sources and to address OFES's human capital challenges, we
           recommend, among other things, that the Secretary of Energy direct
           OFES to (1) charge DOE's fusion energy advisory committee with
           independently assessing whether current funding levels between
           ITER- and tokamak-related research and innovative magnetic fusion
           research strike the right balance to meet research objectives and
           advance both areas of research, and (2) develop a strategy to
           hire, train, and retain personnel with specialized skills to meet
           future workforce needs. We also are recommending that the
           Secretary of Energy direct DOE and NNSA to develop a research plan
           to coordinate U.S. inertial fusion research activities and
           identify roles and responsibilities for each program, detailed
           research and development tasks, budget needs, and time frames for
           advancing inertial fusion energy.

           We provided DOE with a draft copy of this report for its review
           and comment. In its written comments, DOE neither agreed nor
           disagreed with our recommendations, but questioned several of our
           findings, including whether the number of PhDs will be sufficient
           to meet future workforce needs, the declining share of funding
           available for innovative magnetic fusion research activities, and
           the lack of a coordinated research plan. We believe that our
           analyses and facts as reported are correct. Specifically, data
           from DOE's fusion energy advisory committee show that not enough
           doctoral candidates in plasma physics and fusion science are
           entering the fusion research field to meet future workforce needs
           and funding for innovative magnetic fusion research activities has
           declined in the last 6 fiscal years. In addition, DOE still does
           not have a coordinated research plan to help advance inertial
           fusion energy research. DOE also provided technical comments,
           which we incorporated, as appropriate.
			  
			  Background

           Fusion is the energy source that powers the sun and stars and is a
           major source of energy for the hydrogen bomb. For more than 50
           years, the United States has been trying to control this energy
           source to produce electricity. Fusion occurs when the nuclei of
           two light atoms collide and fuse together with sufficient energy
           to overcome their natural repulsive forces. Scientists are
           currently using deuterium and tritium--hydrogen isotopes--for this
           reaction. When the nuclei of the two atoms collide, the collision
           produces helium and a large quantity of energy (see fig. 1).

           Figure 1: The Fusion Reaction

           For the fusion reaction to take place, the atoms must be heated to
           very high temperatures--about 100 million degrees centigrade, or
           10 times the temperature of the surface of the sun--and placed
           under tremendous pressure. In a hydrogen bomb, high temperatures
           are obtained by exploding a uranium or plutonium fission bomb to
           force the deuterium and tritium together in a violent manner. To
           achieve controlled fusion, the United States is pursuing two
           paths--magnetic and inertial. Magnetic fusion involves heating
           deuterium and tritium to about 100 million degrees centigrade by
           using an external source of electromagnetic energy. The deuterium
           and tritium nuclei fuse together to make helium in a very hot and
           highly charged gas-like condition called a plasma. Strong magnetic
           fields are then used to confine the plasma. Current magnetic
           devices have not been able to sustain this fusion reaction for
           more than a few seconds. For magnetic fusion to produce
           electricity, a device would need to sustain the reaction for long
           periods of time. In contrast, inertial fusion relies on intense
           lasers or particle beams to heat and compress a small, frozen
           pellet of deuterium and tritium--a few millimeters in size--that
           would yield a burst of energy. The lasers or particle beams would
           continuously heat and compress the pellets, which would simulate,
           on a very small scale, the actions of a hydrogen bomb. The goal
           for both approaches is to generate more energy than is needed to
           begin and sustain the reaction.

           ITER is an experiment to study fusion reactions in conditions
           similar to those expected in a future electricity-generating power
           plant. The goal is to be the first fusion device in the world to
           produce net power--that is, produce more power than it consumes.
           The objective is to produce 10 times more power than is needed to
           operate the device. In contrast, current nuclear power plants
           produce between 30 and 40 times more power than is needed to
           operate the plants. ITER also will test a number of key
           technologies, including the heating, control, and remote
           maintenance systems that will be needed for a fusion power
           station. If ITER is successful, it will lead to power plant design
           and testing.

           According to DOE, ITER was first proposed at the U.S.-U.S.S.R.
           Geneva summit in November 1985, when President Reagan and Soviet
           Premier Gorbachev recognized that joint activities were needed to
           diffuse the tension of the arms race during the Cold War and begin
           the Soviet Union's economic integration into the world economy.
           The goal was to share scientific and technical information in a
           program in which both sides had reached a comparable level of
           knowledge and that offered future commercial gains from developing
           fusion technology. Following this summit, the United States, the
           Soviet Union, Japan, and several European countries drafted a
           proposal to implement ITER.

           The United States temporarily withdrew from ITER in 1999 when
           Congress raised concerns that the technical basis for ITER was not
           sound, the cost was too high, and the facility was too large. In
           response to the U.S. withdrawal, the countries participating in
           ITER reduced the size of the facility and the cost of building
           ITER to about $5 billion, or one-half the cost of the original
           design. A number of scientific advances also increased U.S.
           confidence that the new ITER design would meet its scientific and
           technological goals. In January 2003, President Bush announced
           that the United States would rejoin ITER. This decision was based
           on a number of studies--from DOE's advisory committee on fusion
           energy, the National Academy of Sciences, and other groups of
           experts--that concluded the U.S. fusion program was technically
           and scientifically ready to participate in ITER and recommended
           that the United States rejoin it. In 2003, the People's Republic
           of China and the Republic of Korea also joined; and in December
           2005, India became the seventh and most recent party to join. In
           November 2006, all six countries and the European Union signed the
           ITER agreement. Figure 2 shows the countries participating in
           ITER.

4The Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee is chartered pursuant to
the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. No. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770
(1972). The committee provides independent advice on issues related to
planning, implementing, and managing the fusion energy program. DOE relies
on this advice to establish scientific and technological as well as
funding priorities. Committee members are drawn from universities,
national laboratories, and private firms involved in fusion research.

Figure 2: Countries Participating in ITER

NNSA maintains the United States' inertial fusion facilities. NIF, which
is scheduled for completion in 2009, will be the world's largest laser
facility and will be used to test inertial fusion. It is designed to
achieve the first controlled thermonuclear burn, which will release fusion
energy.5 To achieve the temperature and pressure needed for heating and
compressing the fuel to release this fusion energy, NIF has 192 laser
beams that will converge and strike frozen deuterium and tritium pellets.
No other facility has been able to achieve a controlled thermonuclear burn
because it did not have enough energy to heat and compress these targets.
For example, NIF is expected to produce 50 times more energy than the
OMEGA laser--the world's most powerful laser facility currently operating.
The OMEGA laser, at the University of Rochester, is NNSA's main inertial
fusion facility until NIF is completed. Lastly, the Z-machine, located at
Sandia National Laboratory, is an alternative approach to reaching
conditions of extreme temperature and pressure to validate sophisticated
computational models of nuclear weapon performance. Rather than using
powerful lasers, the Z-machine uses an electrical current to create a
powerful magnetic field that compresses and implodes the target. The
Z-machine releases the equivalent of 80 times the world's electrical power
output for a few billionths of a second, but only a moderate amount of
energy is actually used because it relies on generators and amplifiers to
store and magnify the energy from the electrical grid. NNSA spent about
$60 million to refurbish this machine from July 2006 to May 2007 to
increase the power output.

5NIF is 705,000 square feet, the size of three football fields side by
side, and houses a complex optical system that produces the laser beams.
NIF construction began in May 1997 and it has a total project cost of $2.3
billion. An additional $1.3 billion are needed to assemble, install, and
test the laser system.

The United States Will Contribute $1.12 Billion Over 9 Years to Help Build ITER,
but Management Challenges May Affect Timing and Cost of Construction

DOE plans to spend $1.12 billion over 9 years to help build ITER, but this
estimate neither reflects an independently validated cost based on a
completed reactor design, nor the costs to operate and decommission the
facility. The ITER Organization also faces five key management challenges
to build ITER on time and on budget that may affect U.S. costs.

DOE Does Not Yet Have a Definitive and Independently Validated Cost Estimate for
the U.S. Contribution to ITER, as DOE Guidance Directs

Based on DOE's fiscal year 2008 congressional budget request, DOE plans to
spend $1.12 billion over 9 years--from fiscal years 2006 to 2014--to help
build ITER, as figure 3 shows. Of the seven parties contributing to ITER,
the United States and five other countries--the People's Republic of
China, Japan, India, the Republic of South Korea, and the Russian
Federation--are each providing 9.1 percent of the total construction cost.
The European Union is the largest contributor--45.4 percent--because it is
building the reactor on a member country's soil and it agreed to pay for
the infrastructure costs. DOE's preliminary estimate of the U.S.
contribution includes the following:

           o $487.14 million to purchase U.S.-manufactured components and
           parts for ITER, such as superconducting cable for the magnets that
           sustain the fusion reaction and tiles for the inner wall of the
           reactor that can withstand the heat and pressure of the fusion
           reaction;

           o $203.24 million in cash to the ITER Organization to pay for
           scientists, engineers, and support personnel working for the ITER
           Organization; the assembly and installation of the components in
           France to build the reactor; quality assurance testing of U.S.
           supplied components; and contingencies;

           o $194.68 million in contingency funds to address potential
           schedule delays or increases in costs for manufacturing
           components;

           o $112.28 million for the U.S. ITER Project Office at Oak Ridge
           National Laboratory to manage the procurement, testing, assembly,
           and quality assurance of U.S.-manufactured components;

           o $102.57 million to fund research and development activities and
           complete the design work of U.S. components and parts at national
           laboratories, universities, and private industry; and

           o $22.09 million to pay the salaries of U.S. scientists and
           engineers working at the ITER Organization.

           Figure 3: U.S. Contributions to ITER for Construction

           The $1.12 billion is still a preliminary cost estimate and may not
           reflect the full costs of U.S. contributions to ITER. DOE has not
           yet developed a definitive cost and schedule estimate, as DOE
           project management guidance directs. This guidance establishes
           protocols for planning and executing large construction projects
           and directs DOE to reach a number of critical decisions before
           construction begins.6 Two of these critical decisions are (1)
           formally approving the project's definitive cost and schedule
           estimates as accurate and complete and (2) reaching agreement that
           the project's final design is sufficiently complete so that
           resources can be committed toward procurement and construction.
           The cost and schedule estimates also are subject to independent
           reviews, usually by DOE's Office of Engineering and Construction
           Management, to ensure they are accurate and complete. Even though
           DOE does not have a definitive cost estimate, in fiscal years 2006
           and 2007, DOE spent $79.3 million to establish the ITER Project
           Office and fund research and development activities to design U.S.
           components. Without a definitive cost estimate, the U.S. Congress
           has expressed concern that DOE may use funding from the domestic
           fusion research program to cover any shortfalls in funding for the
           ITER project.
			  
6DOE Order 413.3A, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of
Capital Assets, July 28, 2006.			  

           DOE has not yet reached these critical decisions because of delays
           by the countries participating in ITER in selecting a construction
           site for the reactor and in completing the reactor design. In
           December 2004, DOE reported to Congress that DOE would have a
           definitive cost and schedule estimate by March 2006. DOE's new
           goal is to have this estimate by the end of fiscal year 2008 or
           early fiscal year 2009. DOE officials told us that DOE cannot
           complete this estimate until the ITER Organization updates the
           design for the reactor, scheduled for November 2007. DOE must then
           wait for the ITER Organization to develop the design
           specifications, quality assurance procedures and tests, and
           schedule of delivery for the components and parts of the reactor
           before it can begin manufacturing. The ITER Organization will
           issue the design specifications from the end of 2007 through 2012,
           starting with basic infrastructure and components that require a
           longer time to build. In fiscal year 2008, DOE plans to begin
           procuring materials needed for the superconducting magnets, the
           tiles for the inside of the reactor, and pipes for the water
           cooling system. Even though DOE will not yet have an independently
           validated cost and schedule estimate before it begins to purchase
           these materials, DOE project management guidance provides an
           exception when materials take a long time to manufacture and may
           delay the construction schedule.
			  
			  The United States Will Incur Additional Costs Because ITER Is
			  Only the First Step Toward Developing a Fusion Energy Power Plant

           The $1.12 billion preliminary estimate does not cover the full
           costs of the ITER project. DOE estimates that it will cost the
           U.S. another $1.2 billion to help operate and run experiments on
           ITER for 20 years after construction is completed and then
           decommission the facility by removing radioactive materials and
           debris. Furthermore, ITER is only the first step in developing a
           fusion power plant, and DOE expects to build or help build
           additional facilities on the path to fusion energy.

           Following ITER's construction, DOE may participate in designing
           and contributing funds to build another fusion facility, known as
           the International Fusion Materials Irradiation Facility (IFMIF).
           This facility would be designed to develop and test
           radiation-resistant materials that could survive the extreme
           conditions inside a fusion reactor. Fusion reactions continuously
           produce neutrons, which cause materials to become radioactive and
           damage them over time. The IFMIF would produce neutrons, and one
           goal of this facility would be to place materials inside the test
           chamber to determine which would best be suited for a future
           fusion reactor. If DOE participates in IFMIF, DOE's fusion energy
           advisory committee estimated that the U.S. contribution to IFMIF
           would be about $150 million over 7 years.

           Another facility also may be needed to test technologies that
           would convert fusion power into practical energy, such as
           electricity. Neutrons from a fusion reaction will release energy
           if they collide with atoms of another material, causing the
           substance to heat. A prime candidate for this material for future
           fusion power plants is the liquid metal lithium. Lithium that is
           heated by colliding neutrons could transfer the heat to water,
           producing steam. The steam, in turn, would drive a steam turbine
           and generator, producing electricity. The purpose of a new
           facility would be to test different materials and systems for
           collecting neutrons, converting fusion energy into heat, and
           producing tritium--one of the fuels for fusion reactions. DOE's
           fusion energy advisory committee estimates that the construction
           of this facility would cost around $1.5 billion. After testing
           materials and technologies and assessing the scientific results of
           ITER and other magnetic fusion devices, DOE would then be ready to
           design a demonstration power plant that would produce electricity.
			  
			  The ITER Organization Faces Management Challenges that May Limit Its
			  Ability to Build ITER on Time and on Budget

           The ITER Organization faces several management challenges that may
           limit its ability to build ITER on time and on budget and may
           affect U.S. costs. Many of these challenges stem from the
           difficulty of coordinating the efforts of six countries and the
           European Union that are designing and building components for ITER
           and, as members of the ITER Organization, must reach consensus
           before making critical management decisions. The key management
           challenges include (1) developing quality assurance standards to
           test the reliability and integrity of the components made in
           different countries; (2) assembling, with a high level of
           precision, components and parts built in different countries; (3)
           finding a new vendor if a country fails to build a component on
           time or does not meet quality assurance standards; (4) developing
           a contingency fund that adequately addresses cost overruns and
           schedule delays; and (5) developing procedures that describe which
           countries will be responsible for paying for cost overruns.

           First, the ITER Organization has not yet developed quality
           assurance standards for manufactured parts and components. Quality
           assurance standards establish the tests each manufacturing company
           must pass before the ITER Organization can certify that a part or
           an entire component meets performance requirements, such as being
           able to withstand tremendous pressure and heat inside the reactor.
           According to DOE officials, quality assurance testing is critical
           because a failure of a poorly manufactured component or part
           during scientific experiments could shut down the reactor for a
           significant time, increase costs because of required repairs, or
           skew scientific results. The countries participating in ITER
           cannot begin manufacturing components until these quality
           assurance standards are in place. Figure 4 demonstrates the scale
           and complexity of the ITER reactor.

           Figure 4: Section View of the Proposed Design for the ITER Reactor

           Second, the ITER Organization faces the challenge of assembling
           more than 10,000 parts and components manufactured by different
           countries. For example, the ITER Organization is responsible for
           installing the tiles that line the inside of the reactor, but the
           tiles are being manufactured by all seven parties. These tiles
           must be manufactured and installed with great precision. According
           to ITER Organization officials, a millimeter difference between
           the tiles could significantly affect scientific results. However,
           countries participating in ITER construction follow two different
           building codes.7 ITER Organization officials told us they have not
           yet selected which building code countries must follow. There is a
           risk that countries unfamiliar with the required building code
           could take longer to manufacture a part under those standards or
           manufacture a part that will not fit properly with other
           manufactured parts for the same component.

           Third, the ITER Organization assumes the responsibility of finding
           a suitable vendor in another country if a country fails to build a
           component on time or does not meet quality assurance standards.
           According to ITER Organization officials, the ITER Organization
           would have to negotiate the terms of manufacturing an item under
           an expedited schedule, and the country that failed to build the
           part on time would have to provide the ITER Organization with the
           funds needed to manufacture the item. Another vendor may not be
           able to produce the part in an expedited manner and the
           construction schedule may slip. In addition, there is no clear
           guidance on how to properly compensate a vendor in another country
           for all manufacturing costs, such as start-up costs, materials,
           and labor. Any disagreement between the new vendor, the country
           paying for the manufactured part, and the ITER Organization on
           proper compensation also could delay construction and increase the
           total project cost.

           Fourth, the ITER Organization's contingency fund does not
           adequately address potential cost overruns and schedule delays.
           The ITER Organization's contingency fund is about 10 percent of
           the total cost, or about $712 million based on current estimates.
           If there are cost overruns, the ITER Organization has a
           contingency fund to pay for additional costs associated with
           procuring manufactured components that it is responsible for
           purchasing, installation of parts, research and development
           activities related to designing components, and hiring more staff.
           According to DOE officials, the ITER Organization did not
           determine this amount through a risk-based assessment. Rather, the
           contingency fund was created after India joined in 2005 as the
           most recent party to ITER. Since the project cost was already
           fixed, the countries participating in ITER decided to use the
           additional funds from India's assessment to create a contingency
           fund. According to DOE officials, some of the countries
           participating in ITER did not want to create a contingency fund
           because it was not standard practice in their project management.
           Moreover, according to DOE officials, a 10 percent contingency may
           not be adequate for a project of this cost and complexity. In
           contrast, these officials cited the Spallation Neutron Source at
           Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which produces short but intense
           pulses of neutrons that can be used to develop new materials, such
           as plastics. DOE completed the construction of this facility in
           2006. The facility had a total project cost of $1.4 billion and
           required the coordination of six DOE national laboratories. Based
           on total cost and complexity, DOE had a contingency fund of about
           20 percent of total costs. According to DOE officials, ITER is
           more technologically complex and involves greater risk because of
           the large number of manufacturers from different countries.
			  
7The two building codes are Regles de Conception et Construction -
Mecanique Rapide and the codes from the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers.

           Finally, the ITER Organization does not have procedures that
           identify who is responsible for paying for potential cost overruns
           that exceed available contingency funds and how costs should be
           shared. Construction could be further delayed if there is no
           consensus before construction begins on how to share the costs for
           cost overruns.
			  
			  Lack of Coordination, Competing Funding Priorities, and Human Capital
			  Challenges May Hamper Progress in Alternative Fusion Research

           Within DOE, NNSA and OFES do not have a coordinated research
           program for inertial fusion energy. They do not have a research
           plan that identifies key scientific and technological issues that
           must be addressed to advance inertial fusion energy and how their
           research activities would meet those goals. Without a coordination
           research plan and clear responsibility for developing inertial
           fusion energy, DOE may not see progress in developing inertial
           fusion energy as a promising alternative to magnetic fusion. In
           addition, alternative magnetic fusion research competes for
           funding with ITER- and tokamak-related research. Since the U.S.
           commitment to ITER, funding for alternative innovative magnetic
           devices has declined over the last 6 fiscal years while funding
           for tokamak-related research has increased. According to
           university scientists involved in fusion research, this decrease
           in funding has led to a decline in research opportunities for
           innovative devices. Finally, while the demand for scientists and
           engineers to run experiments at ITER and NIF is growing, OFES does
           not have a human capital strategy to address expected future
           workforce shortages; these shortages are likely to grow as a large
           part of the fusion workforce retires over the next 10 years.
			  
			  DOE and NNSA Do Not Have a Coordinated Research Program for Inertial
			  Fusion Energy

           DOE has three separately funded inertial fusion research programs:
           NNSA's inertial fusion research activities related to the nuclear
           weapons program, a High Average Power Laser Program (HAPL) to
           develop technology needed for energy for which funding is directed
           by a congressional conference committee, and OFES's inertial
           fusion research activities aimed at exploring the basic science
           for energy applications. Experiments in each of these programs
           help advance inertial fusion energy, but these experiments are not
           coordinated and each program has a separate mission and different
           scientific and technological objectives. NNSA provides OFES with
           limited access to one of its inertial fusion facilities to conduct
           inertial fusion experiments, and NNSA- and OFES- funded scientists
           share information from the results of inertial fusion experiments.
           However, there is no research plan that identifies key scientific
           and technological questions that need to be addressed to achieve
           inertial fusion energy or the cost, time frames, and detailed
           research and development tasks needed by each agency to solve
           those scientific and technological issues to further advance
           inertial fusion energy. In addition, DOE has not assigned to
           either NNSA or OFES clear roles in developing inertial fusion
           energy. NNSA is focused on stockpile stewardship, but it maintains
           the major inertial fusion facilities. OFES is responsible for
           developing paths to fusion energy, but it is focused on ITER and
           magnetic fusion. A lack of a coordinated research plan and clear
           responsibility among these programs for developing inertial fusion
           energy may delay the progress of inertial fusion energy as a
           promising alternative to magnetic fusion.

           NNSA operates the three major inertial fusion facilities in the
           United States--the National Ignition Facility (NIF) at Lawrence
           Livermore National Laboratory, the OMEGA Laser at the University
           of Rochester, and the Z-machine at Sandia National Laboratory.
           Figure 5 shows the Z-machine in operation. In fiscal year 2006,
           NNSA spent about $544 million for NIF construction, upgrades, and
           operations for the other two facilities, and to conduct inertial
           fusion research. NNSA uses these facilities primarily to
           investigate technical issues related to stockpile stewardship by
           testing the reliability and integrity of nuclear weapons and
           simulating the conditions of a thermonuclear explosion without
           detonating them.8

           Figure 5: The Z-machine Creating an X-ray Pulse to Test Materials
           in Conditions of Extreme Temperature and Pressure

           OFES's inertial fusion research activities are focused on energy
           applications. In fiscal year 2006, OFES spent $15.5 million, or
           5.5 percent of its $280.7 million budget, on these research
           activities. While OFES officials told us that inertial fusion is
           an attractive path to fusion energy and the only alternative to
           magnetic fusion, the office has limited funding for inertial
           fusion research because its priority is to support ITER and
           magnetic fusion research activities. Consequently, OFES relies
           heavily on NNSA's inertial fusion research activities and
           facilities. NNSA experiments at NIF, which will begin in 2010,
           will demonstrate the feasibility of inertial fusion energy because
           a controlled thermonuclear burn is the first step in using
           inertial fusion as a potential energy source. In addition, OFES
           funds inertial fusion energy experiments using the OMEGA laser,
           located at the University of Rochester. NNSA grants access to the
           OMEGA laser to scientists conducting nondefense work and expects
           to complete a $98.5 million upgrade to the OMEGA laser early in
           2008. This upgrade will add short-pulse, high-power lasers, which
           can, among other things, test ways to lower the total laser energy
           required to still compress and heat the target for fusion energy.
           This approach could reduce the cost of producing fusion energy.
           However, the university limits access to this facility to about 4
           weeks a year, or about 10 percent of the total operating time,
           because the priority for this facility remains stockpile
           stewardship. In addition, those 4 weeks are not reserved for
           inertial fusion energy experiments. Scientists from different
           areas of science, including astrophysics, materials science,
           biology, and chemistry, can request the use of the facility and
           compete for time on the laser. University of Rochester officials
           told us that they may be able to increase access to this facility
           for inertial fusion experiments, but OFES would have to provide
           funding. NNSA pays for the facility's operation, but OFES would
           have to fund the experiment, including the targets, which cost
           $10,000 to $15,000 each; personnel costs; and specialized
           equipment to measure the results of the experiment. NNSA also is
           planning to provide access to NIF for nondefense experiments, but
           it has not yet determined how much operating time to free up.
           According to officials at NIF, NNSA plans to free up 15 percent of
           its operating time to external users, including OFES, but its
           primary mission is for stockpile stewardship and access to the
           facility for nondefense research, such as inertial fusion energy
           experiments, will depend on NNSA first meeting its scientific
           goals.
			  
8NNSA also uses the facilities to investigate a number of other technical
issues such as determining fundamental properties of nuclear materials at
temperatures and pressures needed for nuclear weapons, estimating the
impact of a new engineering feature, or verifying the performance of
weapon design changes.

           While NIF and other NNSA facilities can demonstrate the
           fundamental science of inertial fusion, they are not designed to
           produce fusion energy efficiently and to test whether inertial
           fusion energy can be commercially viable. In addition to
           understanding the conditions necessary to heat and compress a
           frozen pellet of fuel to release fusion energy, DOE would have to
           overcome a number of technical issues before inertial fusion
           energy can be commercially viable. These issues include (1)
           designing the pellet of fuel, which consists of frozen layers of
           deuterium and tritium, to release the most amount of energy when
           it is struck by a laser; (2) developing a system that can keep the
           pellets of fuel cryogenically frozen and inject five of them every
           second with great accuracy into the target chamber; (3) designing
           a laser that can compress and heat five frozen pellets of fuel
           every second to release fusion energy; (4) testing materials
           inside the chamber wall that could withstand these repetitive
           explosions while also harvesting the neutrons needed to produce
           electricity; and (5) clearing the inside of the reactor of debris
           after each shot. According to officials from the Naval Research
           Laboratory, the lasers need to strike five frozen pellets of fuel
           a second to release a sufficient amount of fusion energy for
           electricity production.

           Since neither NNSA nor OFES were funding research to investigate
           these technical issues, beginning in 1999, congressional
           conference committees directed NNSA to allocate funding for HAPL
           to develop the technologies needed for inertial fusion energy.
           According to NNSA officials, NNSA does not request funding for
           this program in its congressional budget requests because the
           program exceeds NNSA's mission goals of developing a laser system
           to test new weapons designs and the reliability of nuclear
           weapons. NNSA officials told us that their current facilities,
           such as NIF, OMEGA, and the Z-machine, are sufficient to meet
           their needs. NIF will be able to strike a target once every 4
           hours and OMEGA once every 2 hours--far short of the 5 targets a
           second needed for fusion energy, but adequate for the stockpile
           stewardship mission.

           Congressional conference committees have directed funds for
           inertial fusion research:

           o Conference committees have directed about $25 million a year to
           two competing lasers systems that could be used for fusion power
           plants at the Naval Research Laboratory and Lawrence Livermore
           National Laboratory and for experiments to design the targets for
           inertial fusion energy at General Atomics.

           o Conference committees have directed $4 million in fiscal years
           2004 and 2005 to explore the Z-machine's ability to produce fusion
           energy for a potential power plant, as an alternative to the laser
           systems. In fiscal year 2006, Sandia National Laboratory used $2.6
           million of its internal research funding to continue this
           research. However, this research did not continue in fiscal year
           2007, and there are no plans to resume the research in fiscal year
           2008 because NNSA has not provided funding for this project.

           As another alternative to both the laser systems and the
           Z-machine, OFES is funding experiments using heavy ion beams to
           produce fusion energy at the Lawrence Berkeley National
           Laboratory. Heavy ion beams are made by a particle accelerator--a
           device that uses electrical fields to propel electrically charged
           particles at high speeds. The heavy ions, which are heavier than
           carbon atoms, collide with the targets and cause the compression
           and heat needed to release fusion energy.

           If NIF's controlled fusion experiments succeed, there is still
           uncertainty about the future of inertial fusion energy. NNSA
           officials told us that they are not responsible for funding the
           construction of additional inertial fusion facilities needed to
           demonstrate inertial fusion energy. OFES officials told us that
           they do not have the funding to build a $2 billion to $3 billion
           inertial fusion facility. In fiscal year 2008, OFES and NNSA plan
           to establish a joint program to explore high-energy density
           physics, which is aimed at understanding the behavior of matter
           under extreme pressure. OFES and NNSA plan to combine their
           funding in this area to fund basic research and share experimental
           results. While high-energy density physics explores a number of
           fundamental scientific issues related to inertial fusion energy,
           it does not address all of the scientific issues that would
           advance inertial fusion energy.
			  
			  Decreases in Funding for Innovative Magnetic Fusion Devices May
			  Delay Progress Toward a Fusion Energy Device

           Although a tokamak has been the most successful magnetic fusion
           device, it is still uncertain whether the device will lead to a
           commercially viable fusion energy device. To reduce the risk of
           investing in only one device, OFES funds scientific research on
           alternative types of magnetic devices, in addition to inertial
           fusion research activities. However, a decrease in research
           funding for these alternatives may limit DOE's ability to find a
           simpler, less costly, or faster path to fusion energy.

           Research on alternative types of magnetic devices is critical to
           the fusion energy program, according to officials from the
           National Academy of Sciences. In 2004, the National Academy of
           Sciences reported that many outstanding scientific and technical
           issues had to be resolved before an economically attractive fusion
           power plant could be designed. These innovative research
           experiments could address many issues that ITER will not be able
           to address in a cost-effective manner and lead to a simpler, less
           costly, or faster path to fusion energy. Moreover, because these
           innovative and cutting-edge research activities are primarily
           located at U.S. universities, this program attracts students to
           fusion sciences and serves as an important recruitment and
           training tool for scientists and engineers.

           Sustained funding is critical to these research activities,
           according to DOE's fusion energy advisory committee. Specifically,
           the ability to investigate critical scientific and engineering
           issues requires sufficient overall funding to build and operate
           advanced-stage experiments without eliminating the opportunity for
           new ideas and innovations resulting from smaller, more focused
           experiments. However, alternative magnetic fusion research
           competes for funding with ITER- and tokamak-related research.
           Since the U.S. commitment to ITER, DOE has focused more of its
           resources on ITER- and tokamak-related research. DOE officials
           told us that given limited resources, their priority is to fund
           ITER- and tokamak-related research. According to DOE officials,
           OFES determines the appropriate level of funding between
           tokamak-related research and innovative concepts based on
           scientific and technological priorities identified by DOE's fusion
           energy advisory committee. The level of funding is, among other
           things, tied to the complexity of the experiment and the operating
           costs of the device. Based on these assessments, DOE officials
           told us they believe the current level of funding for innovative
           magnetic devices is sufficient to sustain the best-performing
           devices.

           However, in fiscal year 2006, OFES spent about $21 million to fund
           25 small-scale experiments at 11 universities, 4 national
           laboratories, and 2 private companies to test 7 types of magnetic
           fusion devices with different shapes and magnetic currents. This
           level of funding represents a decline over the past 6 fiscal
           years--from $26 million in fiscal year 2002 to $20 million in
           fiscal year 2007. University scientists involved in innovative
           fusion research told us that this decrease in funding was not
           consistent with a 1999 DOE fusion energy science advisory
           committee study that recommended OFES increase funding for
           innovative magnetic research activities. OFES relies on this
           advisory committee to establish priorities for the fusion program
           and to provide a basis for the allocation of funding.

           However, since that report, the share of funding for innovative
           research activities has decreased even as funding for fusion
           research has increased. The share of funding has dropped from 19
           percent of the fusion research budget in fiscal year 2002 to 13
           percent in fiscal year 2007. In addition, while OFES's 5-year
           budget plan shows an increase in funding for fusion research
           activities in fiscal years 2008 through 2011, most of this funding
           will be used for ITER- and tokamak-related research activities at
           the major facilities. DOE officials also told us there are planned
           increases in funding for innovative devices, but only to maintain
           the same level of research. According to university scientists, a
           number of innovative approaches are ready to advance to the next
           stage of development that would test the feasibility of producing
           fusion energy or conduct more sophisticated experiments, but DOE
           has no plans to advance any of these approaches because it may
           require an increase in funding to conduct more sophisticated
           experiments. DOE's fusion energy advisory committee has not
           assessed the appropriate level of funding between ITER- and
           tokamak-related activities and innovative concepts since 1999,
           before the U.S. joined ITER and it became a priority.

           Scientists from a number of universities told us that this decline
           in funding has led to a decline in research opportunities for
           innovative concepts. For example, university scientists told us
           that in the last 3 years, they reduced the number of experiments
           they performed on their devices and they could not upgrade the
           devices to validate theories and computer simulations. In
           addition, the decrease in funding reduced opportunities to attract
           students to the fusion sciences and train them to fulfill future
           workforce needs.
			  
			  DOE Does Not Have a Plan to Address Future Workforce Shortages

           According to studies by DOE's fusion energy advisory committee and
           the National Academy of Sciences, the single greatest challenge
           the fusion program faces may be a rapidly aging workforce. About
           one-third of the U.S. fusion energy workforce is retiring in the
           next 10 years. In 2004, DOE's fusion energy advisory committee
           found that between 2008 and 2014, DOE would have to fill about 250
           permanent positions as scientists and technicians retire--an
           average hiring rate of 42 PhDs per year. However, this figure
           exceeds the current total PhD production rate in fusion-related
           fields. In fiscal year 2006, 33 PhDs were awarded to students in
           plasma physics and fusion science. OFES estimates that 33 and 36
           PhDs will be awarded in fiscal years 2007 and 2008 respectively.
           Furthermore, it may be difficult to retain these new PhDs in
           fusion-related fields. DOE's fusion energy advisory committee
           found that about 50 percent of PhDs in plasma science and
           engineering took positions outside their fields. Moreover, DOE
           would need to hire more PhDs to increase the number of scientists
           and engineers needed for ITER and to maintain a strong domestic
           program. The average hiring rate of 42 PhDs per year would replace
           retiring personnel, but would not increase the fusion workforce.

           OFES has taken some steps to address these challenges by
           recruiting and training fusion scientists and engineers. OFES
           established a program that identifies talented faculty members at
           universities early in their careers in plasma physics and funds
           their research activities. In 2004, OFES also established Fusion
           Science Centers at universities to conduct magnetic and inertial
           fusion research activities and stimulate the involvement and
           participation of students. Moreover, OFES has a partnership with
           the National Science Foundation, an independent federal agency
           that supports basic scientific research in many fields, including
           physics and engineering, to share their resources and fund
           research into fundamental issues in plasma science and
           engineering. OFES officials told us that they are also hiring PhDs
           in related scientific fields, such as materials science, to
           leverage their expertise in solving different types of scientific
           and technological problems encountered during fusion energy
           research and to reduce any shortfalls in hiring plasma science and
           engineering PhDs.

           Despite these initiatives, OFES still has not developed a plan to
           address the future shortage of fusion scientists and engineers and
           increase the number of PhDs working in fusion science. It has not
           implemented the recommendation from DOE's advisory committee
           report to develop a 5- to 10-year hiring plan with strategies to
           increase hiring and training of the most qualified staff. OFES
           also has not assessed whether its recruitment and outreach efforts
           are sufficient to meet future workforce needs. In 2004, OFES
           reported that its outreach and recruitment programs were
           attracting more graduate and postdoctoral students to fusion
           energy, but the report did not assess whether it was a sufficient
           number to sustain fusion research as a large number of scientists
           begin to retire and whether or how long those students remain in
           fusion-related research.
			  
			  Conclusions

           Given the size of the U.S. contribution to ITER, it is important
           to assess the full costs of participation in this scientific
           endeavor. DOE made a commitment to provide manufactured components
           and parts to ITER without a definitive cost and schedule estimate
           and a complete project design. As a result, DOE's preliminary
           $1.12 billion estimate may be subject to significant change as
           ITER's design is completed. Moreover, there is a risk that several
           management challenges facing the ITER Organization, such as
           developing quality assurance standards for manufactured components
           and assessing contingencies for cost or schedule overruns, could
           result in delays in ITER's construction, which would further
           increase costs for the United States.

           DOE could better manage alternative fusion research activities.
           DOE is not effectively coordinating OFES's and NNSA's inertial
           fusion activities to advance inertial fusion energy. Since OFES
           relies on NNSA and the HAPL Program to advance inertial fusion as
           a potential energy source, it is important that OFES coordinate
           the research activities of these three programs to explore
           inertial fusion energy applications. The lack of a research plan
           and clear mission responsibility between OFES and NNSA on which
           office has the lead in advancing inertial fusion energy research
           may delay progress in developing inertial fusion as an energy
           source in the shortest time possible. NNSA also has not determined
           how much time will be available at NIF for scientists conducting
           inertial fusion energy experiments. NNSA may significantly limit
           access to NIF if there are delays in meeting its stockpile
           stewardship objectives. Since NIF will be critical in resolving
           fundamental scientific issues, access issues could further delay
           progress for inertial fusion energy research.

           In addition, the future of alternative magnetic fusion research
           activities, which may lead to a simpler, less costly, or faster
           path to fusion energy, is uncertain. Funding for these research
           activities has steadily declined even though the fusion research
           budget has increased. A decreasing share of funding for innovative
           concepts may delay progress in resolving fundamental scientific
           issues or designing a reactor more quickly. For this reason, DOE
           needs to ensure there is a proper balance of funding between
           tokamak-related research and alternative innovative concepts to
           support U.S. obligations to ITER while continuing to explore
           different paths to fusion energy. Finally, OFES has not developed
           a strategy to hire, train, and retain the most talented staff.
           This effort is critical to meeting the growing demand for
           scientists and engineers with knowledge about fusion, especially
           as the United States participates in ITER, the NIF is completed,
           and interest increases in fusion energy as a long-term energy
           source.
			  
			  Recommendations for Executive Action

           To advance U.S. efforts to develop alternative fusion energy
           sources, we recommend that the Secretary of Energy direct

           o OFES and NNSA to develop a coordinated research plan to
           coordinate U.S. inertial fusion research activities and identify
           roles and responsibilities for each program as well as detailed
           research and development tasks, budget needs, and time frames for
           advancing inertial fusion research;

           o NNSA to guarantee access to NIF, once it becomes operational, to
           scientists conducting inertial fusion energy experiments, and work
           with DOE to determine how to share the costs, operational time,
           and results of NIF to explore inertial fusion as a viable energy
           source; and

           o OFES to charge DOE's fusion energy advisory committee with
           independently assessing whether current funding levels between
           ITER- and tokamak-related research and innovative magnetic fusion
           research strike the right balance to meet research objectives and
           advance both areas of research, and, if the current share of
           funding is not adequate, to recommend appropriate changes.

           To address OFES's human capital challenges, we recommend that the
           Secretary of Energy direct OFES to develop a strategy to hire,
           train, and retain personnel with specialized skills to meet future
           workforce needs.
			  
			  Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

           We provided DOE with a draft copy of this report for its review
           and comment. DOE provided written comments, which are reprinted in
           appendix I. In its written comments, DOE neither agreed nor
           disagreed with our recommendations, but questioned several of our
           findings. First, DOE believes that enough PhDs are being produced
           to meet future workforce needs and it points to anecdotal data
           from universities that U.S. participation in ITER is attracting
           students to fusion sciences. However, data from DOE's fusion
           energy advisory committee show that not enough doctoral candidates
           in plasma physics and fusion science are entering the fusion
           research field to meet future workforce needs. DOE would have to
           hire an average of 42 PhDs a year to fill about 250 permanent
           positions as scientists and technicians retire, but awarded 33
           PhDs in fiscal year 2006 and plans to award 33 and 36 PhDs
           respectively in fiscal years 2007 and 2008. Moreover, as we noted
           in our report, OFES has not assessed whether its recruitment and
           outreach efforts are sufficient to meet future workforce needs.
           Anecdotal evidence about student interest in fusion sciences is
           not a substitute for objective data on recruitment and retention
           rates.

           Second, DOE questioned our finding that that the share of funding
           for alternative, potentially more innovative, magnetic fusion
           research activities has declined in the last 6 fiscal years. DOE
           argued that the share of funding for non-tokamak research has not
           declined, but rather remained flat, and alternative fusion
           research activities include more than innovative magnetic
           research. We agree that alternative fusion research activities
           include more than innovative magnetic research. However, with
           respect to funding levels, our analysis of DOE's budget using
           DOE's definition of innovative magnetic fusion research shows a
           clear result. Funding for innovative magnetic fusion research
           activities has declined and this decline may delay progress in
           finding a simpler, less costly, or faster path to fusion energy.
           In its budget documents, DOE describes these research activities
           as cutting edge and the main objective of these activities is to
           explore innovative and better ways to achieve fusion energy. In
           addition, DOE has stated in its budget documents that these
           activities have been effective in attracting students to the
           fusion workforce.

           Third, DOE questions our finding that it does not have a
           coordinated research plan to advance inertial fusion energy. DOE
           noted that, in 2003, its advisory committee developed a plan that
           identified critical milestones, research and development tasks,
           and budget needs to build an inertial fusion demonstration power
           plant within 35 years. However, DOE decided not to implement this
           plan because fundamental scientific issues had not yet been
           resolved and there was no agreement between OFES and NNSA on which
           agency had the responsibility of developing inertial fusion as an
           energy source. When DOE rejected its advisory committee's plan, it
           did not develop an alternative. A plan that identifies key
           scientific and technological questions as well as the cost, time
           frames, and detailed research and development tasks would help
           OFES and NNSA better coordinate three separately funded inertial
           fusion research programs that have different scientific and
           technological objectives. Our recommendation does not involve
           increasing funding for inertial fusion research activities, but
           rather better managing the existing research activities. In
           addition, a plan would help OFES and NNSA determine which agency
           has the lead in advancing inertial fusion energy research. DOE
           also noted that OFES and NNSA plan to establish a joint program in
           fiscal year 2008 that will address fundamental scientific issues
           related to inertial fusion energy. As we recognized in our report,
           OFES's and NNSA's joint program in high-energy density physics may
           explore a number of fundamental scientific issues related to
           inertial fusion energy, but it will not address all of the
           scientific issues that would advance inertial fusion energy. A
           coordinated research plan would help identify gaps in scientific
           knowledge.

           Finally, DOE questioned our statement that the joint program would
           not address "most" of the scientific issues that would advance
           inertial fusion energy. We agree with DOE that, as currently
           designed, the joint program may address many of the scientific
           issues related to inertial fusion energy and we made the
           appropriate change to the report. However, the joint program has
           not yet been established and as a result, it is too early to tell
           if all or most of the scientific issues will be addressed.

           DOE requested that we reprint their enclosure with technical
           comments. The technical comments repeated the major points
           discussed in the general comments. As a result, we addressed the
           technical comments in our response or made changes to the report,
           as appropriate.

           We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Energy
           and interested congressional committees. We will also make copies
           available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be
           available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

           If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
           contact me at (202) 512-3841 or [email protected]. Contact points
           for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may
           be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major
           contributions to this report are listed in appendix II.

           Gene Aloise
			  Director, Natural Resources and Environment
			  
			  Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Energy
			  
Department of Energy: 
Washington, DC 20585: 

October 10, 2007: 

Mr. Gene Aloise: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Aloise: 

We have reviewed the draft Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
report entitled "Fusion Energy, Definitive Cost Estimates for U.S. 
Contributions to an International Experimental Reactor and Better 
Coordinated DOE Research Are Needed" (GAO-08-30). We have coordinated 
these comments with NNSA, and the general comments below, as well as 
the page- specific comments on the report that are enclosed, represent 
a coordinated DOE response. 

* We recognize the concern raised about the preliminary nature of the 
$1.2 billion cost estimate for the U.S. contribution to ITER project. 
Based on the ITER International Organization's projected progress, we 
believe we will have a baseline cost and schedule for the U.S. ITER 
project by late FY 08 to early FY 09. That said, however, we believe 
that the risks of this big international cooperative project are 
balanced by the financial and scientific benefits of sharing the 
project among the seven international partners. 

* In the DOE report released in November, 2003, Facilities for the 
Future of Science: A Twenty-Year Outlook, the Office of Science 
identified ITER as the highest priority facility. The other elements of 
the Fusion Energy Sciences program support the ITER project to the 
maximum extent possible to insure its success. This is consistent with 
recommendations that the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee made 
in 2005 on the priorities for the program. 

* The report makes statements about human capital challenges in the 
area of fusion sciences. As stated more fully in the attached comments, 
we believe that the annual Ph.D. production in this area is sufficient, 
and is supplemented by students in other science and engineering 
disciplines who have expressed an interest in working specifically on 
ITER-related research. 

* The report gives the erroneous impression that alternative magnetic 
fusion approaches have been disproportionately decreased in support 
over the past five years, as ITER- related research has increased. This 
error comes from considering only a subset of the research activities, 
self-defined by their advocates as the most innovative alternate 
research activities. Using the objective designations of the alternate 
magnetic approaches as discussed in the 2004 National Academies study 
of the program, the share of funding in non-tokamak experimental 
research has remained essentially flat at approximately 37% of the OFES 
funding. 

* The report makes a fundamental assumption that an explicit program to 
develop inertial fusion as an energy source exists but is not 
coordinated. This is not agreed to by the Department, and no such 
program presently exists. The joint program on HEDLP will address 
underlying scientific issues that will be relevant to future 
considerations of inertial fusion energy. The first step in motivating 
a program to develop inertial fusion as an energy source is the 
demonstration of ignition on NIF under the NNSA defense programs. 

* We disagree with the conclusion that this joint program "will not 
address most of the scientific issues that would advance inertial 
fusion energy". The joint program in HEDLP and the large NNSA program 
in inertial confinement fusion will encompass most of the science 
issues related to IFE target physics, which are the most compelling 
scientific issues underpinning the potential application of inertial 
fusion to energy at this stage of the research. 

* OFES and NNSA acknowledge the report's recommendation, "to develop a 
research plan to coordinate fusion research activities to advance 
inertial fusion energy", but reject the claim that no such plan exists. 
A detailed plan was in fact developed by FESAC in 2003, and presented 
to DOE. It was determined that it was not appropriate to allocate the 
much larger level of funding called for in this plan while underlying 
scientific issues have yet to be resolved. 

Additional page-specific comments and corrections on the draft report 
are enclosed for your consideration. The Department requests that its 
full comments including the enclosure be included in the GAO's final 
report. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Raymond J. Fonck: 

Associate Director of the Office of Science for Fusion Energy 
Sciences:  

Enclosure: 

[End of section] 

           Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

           GAO Contact			  

           Gene Aloise at (202) 512-3841 or [email protected]
			  
			  			  
			  Staff Acknowledgments

           In addition to the contact named above, Christopher Banks, Leland
           Cogliani, Omari Norman, Keith Rhodes, Carol Herrnstadt Shulman,
           and Ned Woodward made significant contributions to this report.
			  
			  GAO's Mission

           The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
           investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in
           meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve
           the performance and accountability of the federal government for
           the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds;
           evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,
           recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
           informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
           commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
           accountability, integrity, and reliability.
			  
			  Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

           The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at
           no cost is through GAO's Web site ( [17]www.gao.gov ). Each
           weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
           correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of
           newly posted products every afternoon, go to [18]www.gao.gov and
           select "E-mail Updates."
			  
			  Order by Mail or Phone

           The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies
           are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the
           Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
           Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are
           discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

           U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
           Washington, DC 20548

           To order by Phone:
			  Voice: (202) 512-6000
			  TDD: (202) 512-2537
			  Fax: (202) 512-6061
			  
			  To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

           Contact:

           Web site: [19]www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
			  E-mail: [20][email protected]
			  Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
			  
			  Congressional Relations

           Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [21][email protected] , (202)
           512-4400 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW,
           Room 7125 Washington, DC 20548
			  
			  Public Affairs

           Susan Becker, Acting Manager, [22][email protected] , (202) 512-4800
           U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
           Washington, DC 20548

(360774)

To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on [23]GAO-08-30 .

For more information, contact Gene Aloise at (202) 512-3841 or
[email protected].

Highlights of [24]GAO-08-30 , a report to congressional committees

October 2007

FUSION ENERGY

Definitive Cost Estimates for U.S. Contributions to an International
Experimental Reactor and Better Coordinated DOE Research Are Needed

The United States is pursuing two paths to fusion energy--magnetic and
inertial. On November 21, 2006, the United States signed an agreement with
five countries and the European Union to build and operate the
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) in Cadarache,
France, to demonstrate the feasibility of magnetic fusion energy. The
United States also built and operates facilities to pursue inertial fusion
energy research. This report discusses (1) U.S. contributions to ITER and
the challenges, if any, in managing this international fusion program and
(2) the Department of Energy's (DOE) management of alternative fusion
research activities, including National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA) initiatives. In performing this work, GAO analyzed budget
documents, briefings, and reports that focused on research and funding
priorities for the fusion program. GAO also met with officials from DOE,
NNSA, and the ITER Organization in France.

[25]What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends, among other things, that (1) DOE and NNSA develop a
research plan to coordinate fusion research activities to advance inertial
fusion and (2) DOE develop a strategy to hire, train, and retain staff
with the specialized skills needed to accomplish its mission. DOE neither
agreed nor disagreed with our recommendations, but questioned several of
our findings.

Over 9 years, DOE estimates it will spend $1.12 billion to help build
ITER, but this is only a preliminary estimate and may not fully reflect
the costs of U.S. participation. This preliminary estimate has not been
independently validated, as DOE guidance directs, because the reactor
design is not complete. Moreover, the $1.12 billion for ITER construction
does not include an additional $1.2 billion the United States is expected
to contribute to operate and decommission the facility. In addition, the
ITER Organization, which manages the construction and operation of ITER,
faces a number of management challenges to build ITER on time and on
budget that also may affect U.S. costs. For example, the ITER Organization
must develop quality assurance standards, test the reliability and
integrity of components built in different countries, and assemble them
with a high level of precision. Many of these challenges stem from the
difficulty of coordinating international efforts and the need for
consensus before making critical management decisions.

GAO has identified several challenges DOE faces in managing alternative
fusion research activities. First, NNSA and the Office of Fusion Energy
Sciences (OFES), which manage the inertial fusion program within DOE, have
not effectively coordinated their research activities to develop inertial
fusion as an energy source. For example, they do not have a coordinated
research plan that identifies key scientific and technological issues that
must be addressed to advance inertial fusion energy and how their research
activities would meet those goals. Second, DOE may find it difficult to
manage competing funding priorities to advance both ITER-related research
and alternative magnetic fusion approaches. DOE officials told GAO they
are focusing limited resources on ITER-related research activities. As a
result, as funding for ITER-related research has increased, the share of
funding for the most innovative alternative magnetic fusion research
activities decreased from 19 percent of the fusion research budget in
fiscal year 2002 to 13 percent in fiscal year 2007. According to DOE
officials, this level of funding is sufficient to meet research
objectives. However, university scientists involved in fusion research
told us that this decrease in funding has led to a decline in research
opportunities for innovative concepts, which could lead to a simpler, less
costly, or faster path to fusion energy, and reduced opportunities to
attract students to the fusion sciences and train them to fulfill future
workforce needs. Finally, while the demand for scientists and engineers to
run experiments at ITER and inertial fusion facilities is growing, OFES
does not have a human capital strategy to address expected future
workforce shortages. These shortages are likely to grow as a large part of
the fusion workforce retires over the next 10 years.

References

Visible links
  17. http://www.gao.gov/
  18. http://www.gao.gov/
  19. http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
  20. mailto:[email protected]
  21. mailto:[email protected]
  22. mailto:[email protected]
  23. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-30
  24. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-30
*** End of document. ***