“Science and Diplomacy: Negotiating the ITER International Agreement”

1. “Science and Diplomacy: Negotiating the ITER International Agreement” Presentation to the AAAS – TWAS Course on Science and Diplomacy June 10, 2014 Raymond L. Orbach Cockrell Family Regents Chair in Engineering The University of Texas at Austin orbach@austin.utexas.edu http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2012/ international-fusion-energy-cooperation

2. Our Sun

3. Some Facts About Our Sun • The Sun formed about 4.567 billion years ago from the gravitational collapse of a region within a large molecular cloud. • Most of the matter gathered in the center, while the rest flattened into an orbiting disk that would become the Solar System. • The central mass became increasingly hot and dense, eventually initiating thermonuclear fusion in its core.

4. What Is Fusion and What Does It Do? • The sun generates its energy by nuclear fusion of hydrogen nuclei into helium. • In its core, the Sun fuses about 620 million metric tons of hydrogen each second. • The process of fusion in the Sun is known as the proton-proton chain. The Sun starts with protons, and though a series of steps, turns them into helium. • Because the total mass of helium is less than the mass of the protons that went into it, this fusion releases energy [E=Mc2].

5. How Does the Sun Do It? • Two pairs of protons fuse, forming two deuterons [A deuteron has one proton and one neutron, and is an isotope of hydrogen]. • Each deuteron fuses with an additional proton to form helium-3 [helium-3, or He3, has two protons and one neutron]. • Two He3 nuclei fuse to create beryllium-6 [beryllium-6, or Be6, has four protons and two neutrons] • Be6 is unstable and disintegrates into two protons and a helium-4 [helium-4, or He4, has two protons and two neutrons. It is helium as we know it, and is very stable.] • The reaction also releases two neutrinos, two positrons and gamma rays.

6. What’s the Problem? Why Can’t We Do it? Note the positive charge on the hydrogen isotopes. Like charges repel (coulomb repulsion) requiring nuclei to move so rapidly for fusion that they overcome the coulomb repulsion. This translates to temperatures greater than 200,000,000oC. The simplest and least energetic fusion process involves a deuterium and tritium, both isotopes of hydrogen:

7. How to Contain the Furnace: Magnetic fields via the “Tokamak”

8. International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor: aka ITER

9. Fusion is Not Fission • There is no extrinsic radioactive material • The neutron released in the fusion process strikes Li in the “blanket” inside the tokomak, creating tritium and helium. The tritium fuses with the deuterium in the burning plasma, providing helium and a neutron that strikes Li in the blanket inside the tokomak, creating tritium and …. • The produced energy heats a liquid to vapor to drive a turbine generator to produce electricity • The stuff out the “tailpipe” is helium (and that escapes from the earth’s gravity) and electricity • If there is a problem, you just turn the machine off (like turning off your stove) and the process stops • There is enough deuterium in a body of water the size of lake Erie to provide all of the energy the earth requires for 10,000 years

10. How Did ITER Start? • After Geneva Superpower Summit 1985, President Reagan stated: “As a potential way of dealing with the energy needs of the world of the future, we have…advocated international cooperation to explore the feasibility of developing fusion energy.” • After the standoff over nuclear disarmament at the Reykjavik Summit 1986, the concept of a fusion experimental research facility was agreed upon. • 1988, start of the ITER Conceptual Design Activity • 1998, U.S. finishes commitment, leaves ITER

11. What Happened Next? • The House of Representatives passes “Securing America’s Future Energy Act of 2001, requiring DOE’s Office of Science to take a number of actions exploring a burning plasma experiment. • As Director of the Office of Science, I commissioned a study and workshop in Snowmass, Colorado, in 2002 for the purpose of “…examination of the proposed burning plasma experimental designs.” I then asked the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee and the National Academy of Sciences to evaluate the Snowmass workshop report. • September, 2002: the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee supports the entry of the U.S. into the ITER negotiations • December, 2002: the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences endorses the ITER effort “…as a necessary next step in the U.S. fusion energy research program.”

12. President George W. Bush: January 30, 2003: “The results of ITER will advance the effort to produce clean, safe, renewable, and commercially available energy by the middle of this century. Commercialization of fusion has the potential to dramatically improve America’s energy security while significantly reducing air pollution and emissions of greenhouse gases…We welcome the opportunity to work with our [ITER] partners to make fusion energy a reality.”

13. And at the Office of Science, working with its Advisory Committees, I prioritized 28 large scale scientific facilities across disciplinary lines to produce:

14. And the First Priority Among the 28:

15. So the U.S. rejoined ITER in 2003 • As soon as the U.S. joined the E.U., Russian Federation and Japan, China and South Korea submitted applications to join, followed by India in subsequent years. • I was chosen to head the U.S. negotiating team, assisted by my deputy, Mr. Todd Harding, and a top State Department attorney familiar with international law, Ms. Melanie Khanna. • Together we presented the U.S. perspective on all of the ITER issues (and there were many!)

16. The First Stumbling Block:Where Would ITER Be Built? • From the U.S. point of view, there were four sites, ordered by my preference as follows: • The Darlington site (Canada, on Lake Ontario) • Nuclear licensed site, where commercial tritium is produced • The Spanish site (near Barcelona, on the coast) • Nuclear licensed site, with shut-down de-activated nuclear reactor • The Japanese site (in Rokkasho-mura, northern Honshu, on the coast) • Unused port with direct access to sea • The French site (Cadarache, in Provence) • Nuclear licensed site, 100 km from a port, over Provence roads

17. Where would ITER Be Built?The Decision • From the U.S. point of view, there were four sites, ordered by my preference as follows: • The Darlington site (Canada, on Lake Ontario) • The Canadians refused to put any money on the table • The Spanish site (near Barcelona, on the coast) • The E.U. chose the French site • The Japanese site (in Rokkasho-mura, northern Honshu, on the coast) • The E.U. and Japan negotiated the “Broader Agreement” making cost concessions to Japan • The French site (Cadarache, in Provence) • The largest coils have to be made on-site, requiring construction of a factory. The roads have to be widened to get the other construction components to the site. The tritium to start the process has to be flown to a French military base close by the site.

18. Now the “Hard Part”: Negotiations over the first truly international large scale scientific facility • There was no agreement on legal and policy structures that would be appropriate for creating and sustaining a major (expensive) international facility and experiment. • The partners had diverse political and legal systems: • The European Union • Japan • The Russian Federation • The United States • China • South Korea • India

19. The Stumbling Blocks: • What form would the parties’ funding commitments take? • Complicated by the significant uncertainty surrounding the total cost of ITER • Difficult for any government to make firm legal pledges to fund an uncertain amount of money over many decades • How to apportion each party’s share ? • Necessary that each party have a high level of confidence that each of the other parties would remain committed financially • Given the magnitude and unprecedented nature of the project, liability was an issue

20. The Stumbling Blocks: (continued) • U.S.: what form (treaty or executive agreement) an agreement of this type should take? • Treaties require the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate that have proven fatal for: • Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1971 • Convention Against all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 1980 • American Convention on Human Rights, 1978 • U.S.: Normally, agreements with fixed funding commitments cannot be concluded as executive agreements without congressional involvement • Sought to include explicit caveat: “subject to the availability of appropriated funds.”

21. The Stumbling Blocks: (continued) • E.U. called for very clear, legally binding, funding commitment through a treaty • U.S. considered the E.U.’s proposed liability, withdrawal, and dispute settlement provisions unacceptable • The Breakthrough: • The Energy Policy Act of 2005 explicitly authorized U.S. participation in ITER in accordance with certain requirements: • No Federal funds could be expended upon ITER until the final agreement was submitted to Congress, and 120 days elapsed thereafter • This meant that the agreement would be concluded as a congressional-executive agreement. • Congress would review the Agreement whether or not it was submitted to the Senate for Advice and Consent • If Congress did not object, and instead funded participation, it would amount to an implicit congressional blessing • The Congressional authorization provided the U.S. negotiators with additional flexibility—they could now drop the insistence that the financial obligations portion of the agreement be made “subject to the availability of appropriated funds”

22. The Stumbling Blocks: (continued) • The U.S. still opposed the strong formulations the E.U. favored for funding, withdrawal, liability, and dispute settlement • The Compromise: The entire set of issues was handled as a package: • The resources of the ITER Organization “shall be” as referred to in separate documents laying out financial contributions and in-kind contributions. The amounts could be updated in the future by unanimous consent of the ITER Council • Parties other than the host party could withdraw after a period of ten years (the anticipated construction period), but withdrawal would not affect the withdrawing party’s agreed share of the construction costs • Should compensation costs for damages arising from non-contractual liability exceed the amounts available to the organization in the annual budget for operations and/or insurance, the members “shall consult, through the Council, so that the ITER Organization can compensate…by seeking to increase the overall budget by unanimous decision of the Council…” • The U.S. kept out legally binding dispute settlement, but all agreed that any party could request mediation and that, in such a case, a mediation meeting would be convened within thirty days.

23. The Stumbling Blocks: (continued) • Privileges and Immunities: Most parties were prepared to convey privileges and immunities to staff of the ITER Organization that went beyond the U.S. International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA) • The other parties concluded the agreement without any mention of the U.S. The U.S. specified in a separate political declaration that it would implement the privileges and immunities in the ITER Agreement consistent with the IOIA • The Voting Structure: The Council had a wide range of responsibilities, including final approval of the staff and any changes to the overall cost sharing • Would the matters all need to be decided by consensus? • Could they be voted, and would the votes be weighted by contribution? • Weight the votes by contribution • Designate certain matters for decision by the Council as ones that would require unanimity • If a resort to voting, no decision could be taken if either the majority of the members (four out of seven) or members providing over fifty percent of the contributions were against

24. Innovative Solutions • The ITER agreement was initialed by the heads of delegation in Brussels on May 24, 2006 • The final signing by all seven parties took place in the Élysée Palace in Paris on November 21, 2006 • President Bush signed the Executive Order on November 19, 2007 designating the ITER International Fusion Energy Organization as a Public International Organization • For the United States: • The ability to conclude the agreement consistent with U.S. law (including the IOIA) without entering into any open-ended, uncertain financial or other liabilities • Conclusion of the ITER Agreement as a congressional-executive agreement is an important precedent for similar future international scientific (and other) projects

25. The Signing

26. Remaining Challenges • Management • Key staff were chosen partly along political lines with less than competent managers. This led to poor design decisions and construction delays • Cost • The ITER design was not complete, resulting in delays, increasing costs • Poor project management has augmented cost (recent cost estimates for the U.S. contribution, 9.1% of the total, now reach $3.9B, about double the last DOE estimate) • Scientific • The shape of the burning plasma • The remaining instabilities (edge localized modes) • Requirements for additional coils and instrumentation

27. Nevertheless, ITER represents the first truly international large scale scientific project in the history of the world. Its ultimate promise is environmentally benign, unlimited energy for our world. `