Funding Nuclear Engineering Education:

More on the Issues

I recently had several excellent comments on my March 2, 2012 blog on funding for nuclear engineering education. In that blog, I had expressed my dismay that DOE and NRC the 2013 Federal budget request had zeroed out funding for nuclear engineering education programs. I had expressed the hope that funding would be restored by Congress as it considers the budget request and had suggested that people make their views known to their Senators and Congressmen/women.

The comments went beyond what I had written. Specifically, they provided some thoughts on the issues associated with industry funding of nuclear engineering programs. All of the commenters bring expertise beyond my own to the table. Since I'm not sure all the readers of the original blog will go back and read the comments, I thought I'd highlight some of the thoughts in a new blog, and add a couple more of my own thoughts.

(Only one commenter provided his full name, so I can only give credit by name to Rod Adams, whose nuclear credentials are well known in the blogging community and beyond. Another commenter reported being a member of the Nuclear Engineering Student Delegation last year, so has been actively involved in the debate on supporting nuclear engineering education. A third commenter brought insights about INPO's activities to the discussion.)

Among the key thoughts expressed by the commenters (rephrased in my own words) are the following (but I urge you to go back to the posting for the full comments, which are expressed a bit more colorfully than the wording below):

• It is inconsistent of the Administration to take credit for supporting new nuclear power plant construction--which guarantees that we will need more skilled nuclear engineers for the foreseeable future--while at the same time cutting off the academic pipeline.

• The government believes that they have "primed the pump" enough, as enrollments have increased. The government thinks it is now industry's turn to continue the needed support, and "political demagogues" consider funding nuclear education to be a form of "corporate welfare"--even though the money goes to students and universities, not to corporations. Having funding tied to a specific industry--particularly the nuclear industry, which is not universally loved--makes it an even harder sell.

• It would be great for the nuclear industry to step up to the plate by increasing its support for nuclear engineering programs and not rely so much on the government. By and large, however, industry is under pressure to control costs and justify expenses, and it is a hard sell in the boardrooms when the goal is a rather nebulous "assuring a pipeline of trained engineers."

• One comment noted that INPO does provide substantial support to nuclear engineering students, but cited a further issue--that only about 20% of nuclear engineering graduates go to work in the nuclear power industry. This fact makes it difficult for the industry to justify providing support. (Note that this commenter pointed out that many of the other graduates go into federal government or the national labs, or into related fields, such as nuclear medicine--all of which to me would be a further argument for Federal support.)

• The same commenter noted that the situation is different when looking at the associate degree level. There is increasing support for industry for nuclear training in technical schools. However, this doesn't address the need for nuclear engineers.

• Of particular interest to me was one comment about NSF funding for students. I hadn't thought about NSF funding for a long time. As far as I know, NSF funds students in just about all other science and engineering disciples. Nuclear engineering has long been separated out to be funded by DOE and NRC (and, as the commenter notes, NNSA). The commenter notes that the reason is that NSF "doesn't have the personnel to judge the merits of the applications." I'm not sure if that is the full reason or if there are other factors, but that is not important for this discussion. What is important is that the fact that nuclear engineering is treated differently by the US government tends to lead to disparities such as we are now seeing, where the nuclear engineering support programs are treated differently than those of other disciplines.

These comments provide excellent additional perspective to what I wrote, and I thank all the commenters for taking the time to send their thoughts. All of them are strong supporters of nuclear engineering education and echoed my concern about the funding of nuclear engineering programs and the importance of support, in one way or another. I can only hope that our collective voice will be heard.

***

US Industry Response to Fukushima:

A Status Report

On October 12, 2011, Anthony Pietrangelo, Senior VP and CNO of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), made a presentation to the Washington, DC Section of the American Nuclear Society (ANS). The talk was entitled "US Industry Leadership in Response to Events at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant." I have tried to make it a practice to provide summaries of nuclear- and energy-related events in the Washington, DC area that I attended--at least when I find something worth reporting--and I want to continue that practice by providing some highlights of Tony's talk. (I should note that part of my delay in publishing this post was that I waited until the ANS Section posted the viewgraphs. This is the first chance I've had to publish my post since the viewgraphs went up.)

Tony started the meeting by noting that, even outside the concerns about Fukushima, nuclear plants in the US have faced an unusual number of natural challenges this year. He mentioned the tornadoes in the path of Browns Ferry and Surry, the flooding at Ft. Calhoun, the earthquake near North Anna, and the hurricane that swept past a number of nuclear plants.

He also provided some statistics on NEI's outreach in the aftermath of Fukushima. Among their activities were a conference call with hundreds of financial people and a hundred-fold increase in the number of hits on their website.

The bulk of his talk discussed some of the activities and plans of 3 key industry groups: NEI, the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO), and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). Key facts about the activities of these groups are highlighted in his viewgraphs.

To me, some of his most interesting comments were his relatively positive views of the response from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the public. Among his observations were the following:

• Since March 11, 2011, there have been 5 license renewals at US plants, including Vermont Yankee, Palo Verde, Prairie Island, and Hope Creek

• There have been 2 power uprates (increases in the maximum power level at which the reactor is licensed to operate)--Limerick and Point Beach

• Final Environmental Impact Statements (FEIS) have been completed on 7 new reactors in Georgie, South Carolina, Texas and Maryland

• The Final Safety Evaluation Report (FSER) has been issued for the ESBWR

• Construction-related activities are taking place at Watts Bar, Vogtle, and V.C. Summer

• Public opinion, while down somewhat, is still favorable to nuclear power.

One interesting observation he made is that the NEI has shifted the focus of its public relations efforts. Early on, they focused on safety, but more recently, had been focusing on the environment, cost, and jobs. They have now shifted back to a focus on safety.

Tony fielded a lot of questions during the Q&A session that followed his talk. I can't go into all of them, but he pointed out some of the differences in procedures and requirements for hardened vents for US BWRs versus for those in Japan. Some of the questioners were particularly concerned that the industry initiative could get ahead of the NRC and that NRC might later impose additional, or different, requirements. Tony indicated that they were working closely with the NRC and wouldn't be getting too far ahead.

Tony also noted lessons learned that have been implemented in the industry in response to past events that he thinks will serve us well in responding to the Fukushima experience. In particular, he noted that some of the equipment intended to respond to a 9/11 type event could also be used for natural disasters. He referred to the current approach as "symptom-based and event-informed," in contrast with the historic event-based approach. The symptom-based approach facilitates such actions as using "9/11 equipment" to respond to, for example, a station blackout triggered by some other type of event.

I'm sure we will be hearing much more about the industry activities in the weeks and months ahead. From what was presented at this meeting, it looks like the industry is off to a very good start.

***