- THE FUTURE OF UNIVERSITY NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING PROGRAMS

[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

THE FUTURE OF UNIVERSITY NUCLEAR
SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING PROGRAMS

=======================================================================

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

__________

JUNE 10, 2003

__________

Serial No. 108-12

__________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

87-545 WASHINGTON : 2004
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800, DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas RALPH M. HALL, Texas
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania BART GORDON, Tennessee
DANA ROHRABACHER, California JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JOE BARTON, Texas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
KEN CALVERT, California LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
NICK SMITH, Michigan NICK LAMPSON, Texas
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan MARK UDALL, Colorado
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota DAVID WU, Oregon
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR., MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
Washington CHRIS BELL, Texas
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri ZOE LOFGREN, California
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois BRAD SHERMAN, California
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia JIM MATHESON, Utah
ROB BISHOP, Utah DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas VACANCY
JO BONNER, Alabama
TOM FEENEY, Florida
VACANCY
------

Subcommittee on Energy

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois, Chair
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania NICK LAMPSON, Texas
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR., DAVID WU, Oregon
Washington MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia RALPH M. HALL, Texas
JO BONNER, Alabama
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York
KEVIN CARROLL Subcommittee Staff Director
TINA M. KAARSBERG Republican Professional Staff Member
CHARLES COOKE Democratic Professional Staff Member
JENNIFER BARKER Staff Assistant

C O N T E N T S

June 10, 2003

Page
Witness List..................................................... 2

Hearing Charter.................................................. 3

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Judy Biggert, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Energy, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives. 9
Written Statement............................................ 10

Statement by Representative Nick Lampson, Minority Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 11
Written Statement............................................ 12

Prepared Statement by Representative George R. Nethercutt, Jr.,
Member, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 12

Witnesses:

Dr. Gail H. Marcus, Principal Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear
Energy, Science, and Technology, U.S. Department of Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 13
Written Statement............................................ 15
Biography.................................................... 17

Dr. Daniel M. Kammen, Professor, Energy and Resources Group,
Goldman School of Public Policy; Department of Nuclear
Engineering, University of California-Berkeley
Oral Statement............................................... 19
Written Statement............................................ 21
Biography.................................................... 31

Ms. Angelina S. Howard, Executive Vice President of Policy,
Planning, and External Affairs, Nuclear Energy Institute
Oral Statement............................................... 31
Written Statement............................................ 33
Biography.................................................... 42

Dr. James F. Stubbins, Head of the Nuclear, Plasma, and
Radiological Engineering Department, University of Illinois-
Urbana-Champaign (UIUC)
Oral Statement............................................... 42
Written Statement............................................ 44
Biography.................................................... 56
Financial Disclosure......................................... 57

Dr. David M. ``Mike'' Slaughter, Director, Center for Excellence
in Nuclear Technology, Engineering, and Research; Chair,
Nuclear Engineering Program, University of Utah, Salt Lake City
Oral Statement............................................... 58
Written Statement............................................ 60
Biography.................................................... 65

Discussion....................................................... 66

Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Dr. Gail H. Marcus, Principal Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear
Energy, Science, and Technology, U.S. Department of Energy..... 86

Dr. Daniel M. Kammen, Professor, Energy and Resources Group,
Goldman School of Public Policy; Department of Nuclear
Engineering, University of California-Berkeley................. 92

Ms. Angelina S. Howard, Executive Vice President of Policy,
Planning, and External Affairs, Nuclear Energy Institute....... 97

Dr. James F. Stubbins, Head of the Nuclear, Plasma, and
Radiological Engineering Department, University of Illinois-
Urbana-Champaign (UIUC)........................................ 102

Dr. David M. ``Mike'' Slaughter, Director, Center for Excellence
in Nuclear Technology, Engineering, and Research; Chair,
Nuclear Engineering Program, University of Utah, Salt Lake City 109

Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record

Statement of Harold L. Dodds, IBM Professor of Engineering and
Department Head, Nuclear Engineering Department, University of
Tennessee-Knoxville............................................ 114

Closing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle for Current and Advanced Energy
Production: Actinide Chemistry for Radioactive Waste Disposal,
Partitioning, and Transmutation, Washington State University,
Department of Chemistry and Nuclear Radiation Center........... 116

THE FUTURE OF UNIVERSITY NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING PROGRAMS

----------

TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2003

House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy,
Committee on Science,
Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Judy
Biggert [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

hearing charter

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The Future of University Nuclear

Science and Engineering Programs

tuesday, june 10, 2002
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building

On Tuesday, June 10, 2003, the Energy Subcommittee of the House
Science Committee will hold a hearing to examine the future of
university nuclear science and engineering programs, and how those
programs might affect the future of the nuclear power industry in the
United States. This hearing builds upon H.R. 238, the Energy Research,
Development, Demonstration, and Commercial Application Act of 2003,
which the Science Committee unanimously approved on April 2, 2003. The
bill would authorize increased funding to the Department of Energy
(DOE) for several university-based programs targeted at nuclear science
and engineering. The structure and funding levels included in the bill
generally follow the May 2000 recommendations of the Nuclear Energy
Research Advisory Committee (NERAC), an outside advisory committee to
the Secretary of Energy. H.R. 238 was subsequently incorporated into
the omnibus House energy bill H.R. 6, which passed the House and now
awaits action in the Senate. Any differences with the Senate energy
bill will need to be resolved in conference.
It is the Administration's stated policy to encourage the expansion
of nuclear energy in the United States. Despite this, many of DOE's
university nuclear science programs continue to receive the same
funding levels that they have for the last several years, even as other
portions of the nuclear R&D budget have doubled. The Administration's
most recent budget request for university programs is shown in Table 1.
In this hearing, the subcommittee will focus on DOE's support for
university nuclear science and engineering programs, and the role they
play in sustaining the U.S. nuclear power industry or allowing it to
expand. It will explore the following questions:

1. LHow can we best meet the workforce needs of the future?

2. LHow should university nuclear research evolve to ensure its
vitality? How, if at all, should the federal research and
development programs be modified to support these changes?

3. LHow do we determine the right level of support for
university nuclear programs, including infrastructure such as
university research reactors?

Nuclear Industry Overview

With an installed capacity of 98.1 gigawatts, nuclear power now
provides 20 percent of the electricity generated in the United States.
Thirty-one states, most in the Eastern half of the United States, are
home to nuclear power plants, with five states--New Jersey, Vermont,
New Hampshire, South Carolina and New York--producing the largest
percentage of their electricity from nuclear power, according to the
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). The Energy Information Administration
forecasts that nuclear generating capacity will increase slightly by
2025, to 99.6 gigawatts, due to nuclear life extensions and uprating of
existing plants. However, with the May 2001 announcement that the U.S.
Federal Government will ``support the expansion of nuclear energy in
the United States as a major component of our national energy policy,''
\1\ some observers now project a far larger increase in nuclear power.
For example, if nuclear energy were to remain 20 percent of U.S.
electricity production, nuclear generation capacity would have to
increase by more than 60 gigawatts by 2020.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Energy Policy, Report of the President's National
Energy Policy Development Group, May 2001, pp. 5-17.
\2\ Based on EIA demand forecasts for U.S. electricity in AEO 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE University Nuclear Energy Programs

DOE is the sole federal sponsor of university nuclear programs that
support the university nuclear engineering programs and research
reactors shown in Figure 1 below. Funding for programs of particular
relevance to this hearing are shown in Table 1 and described below.
These programs were authorized by the Committee on Science and are now
included in H.R. 6, the omnibus energy legislation that passed the
House on April 11, 2003.

The Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI) features a
competitive, investigator-initiated, peer-reviewed selection process to
fund innovative nuclear energy-related research. Modeled after
successful research programs, such as those conducted by the National
Science Foundation and DOE's Office of Science, the NERI program
solicits proposals from the U.S. scientific and engineering community
for research at universities, national laboratories, and industry.
About one third of NERI's funding goes to university researchers.
University Programs in nuclear science and engineering (identified
in the DOE budget as the University Reactor Fuel Assistance Support
[URFAS] Program) include:

LFellowships: Funds for undergraduate scholarships and graduate
scholarships have been shown to help increase student
enrollments in nuclear engineering and related programs. DOE
fellowship funding in this program has remained constant for
six years. The fiscal year 2004 request would support about 25
graduate students at research universities.

LThe Nuclear Engineering and Education Research Program (NEER)
was re-funded in fiscal 1998. In 1993, funding for this broad-
based university science grants program had ceased. Since its
renewal, NEER has been a major source of research funding for
the academic nuclear science and engineering community. These
research grants cover areas of basic nuclear science and
engineering research and augment the more application-oriented
programs funded through NERI. The NEER program has been funded
for the past five years at $5 million, supporting one out of
every ten competitive proposals in a given year.

LInnovations in Nuclear Infrastructure and Engineering (INIE):
In 2002, the DOE initiated the INIE program to support regional
university research reactor (URR) centers. Seven regional URR
consortia, distributed across the country, were selected
through an independent peer-review panel for funding. In fiscal
year 2002, DOE provided funding for four consortia. The fiscal
year 2003 funding did not increase enough to initiate funding
for the remaining three URRs. One of these, the University of
Michigan, will shut down and decommission its reactor in July
2003.

Issues

People: One of the most important questions in considering the
appropriate size of DOE's university programs is how many nuclear
scientists and engineers are needed. Clearly, the answer depends in
large measure on the expected size of the nuclear power industry, which
currently employs about 2,000 nuclear engineers. If the industry
expects to grow, the demand for nuclear engineers might be expected to
grow, too. According to data compiled by the Oak Ridge Institute for
Science and Education (ORISE), the number of graduates in the field
declined steadily throughout the 1990s. Also, the number of university
programs that train students in this area have declined from 87 in 1990
to 37 in 2001. Furthermore, the American Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS) recently reported that in the next five
years the U.S. nuclear power industry could lose as many as 30 percent
of its nuclear engineers to retirement.
On the other hand, the ability to predict how many employees the
industry will need is complicated by a number of factors. First, the
number of engineers needed to run a nuclear power plant has declined. A
survey conducted last March by an industry consultant found that
utilities intend to replace only about half of all departing employees,
making up for the rest by applying new technology, improving processes,
etc. Finally, there is disagreement about how much the industry will
grow.
Also complicating easy predictions of workforce demand is the
tendency of a large portion of graduating nuclear engineers to find
employment outside the nuclear power industry (some, for example, work
for the military while others work in related careers like health
physics). Conversely, not all employees of the industry have nuclear
engineering degrees. Nor do they require one, as graduates with other
technical degrees have successfully made careers in the nuclear
industry. In fact, a recent report by NEI suggests that the future
needs of the nuclear industry could be met by such a shift in career
choice of a mere 0.25 to 0.35 percent of all graduates with other
technical degrees.
Other questions regarding the future nuclear power workforce
involve who will compose it. If the U.S. universities cannot meet the
demand for skilled graduates, the industry may be forced to turn to
foreign students, which could raise concerns about security. Also, the
overwhelming number of nuclear engineers in the workforce today is
white and male. It is unclear how the culture of the industry will need
to change if more women enter the field and how those changes will
affect the industry.
Finally, another important question any evaluation of DOE's
university programs raises is who should bear the responsibility for
workforce training--the government, the industry, or some combination
of the two.

Ideas: The health of the nuclear research enterprise can be measured by
the number and quality of new ideas in the field. Fewer students and
graduates can mean fewer new ideas and ways to cope with important
issues such as waste disposal and nuclear proliferation. For example,
there are currently only two university professors that have published
papers on the use of nuclear energy for producing hydrogen. How the
U.S. encourages more effort in such innovative new areas could have
important implications for the success of government initiatives, such
as the making the transition to a hydrogen economy. A number of
questions remain to be answered: In what ways can the government most
economically encourage new ideas and research? What role is there for
matching funding requirements, whether from states, industry, or the
academic community? How do we determine the right level of government
support for these efforts?

Tools: The nuclear research and education community needs the tools--
the facilities and equipment--necessary to carry out its work. How many
facilities universities need to train students and conduct research is
unclear. One the one hand, the number of university research reactors
declined from 64 research reactors in the 1960s, to 27 in 2002 (see
Figure 1 for the current locations of university reactors). On the
other hand, many of the remaining reactors operate well below capacity.
Universities continue to contemplate reactor shutdowns for a variety of
reasons, not the least of which is low utilization by the university
community. Low utilization, however, could result from several causes:
antiquated equipment that has outlived its usefulness, a lack of
resources for utilization, or simply a decline in demand generally.
Some experts have even questioned the importance of university reactors
to training the nuclear workforce of tomorrow, pointing out that
numerous successful and well respected nuclear engineering programs do
not have an on-campus reactor, and some campuses have a reactor but no
nuclear engineering program. Again, a number of questions remain
unanswered: What is the right number and distribution of research
reactors? Is the research enterprise best served, as it was in the
past, by many small reactors, each owned by an individual university;
or by a few larger facilities shared by a number of institutions? If
the latter, how will smaller colleges and universities fare? Would a
shared approach lead to a more rational distribution of infrastructure
and promote new ideas, or could it reduce the diversity of ideas that
otherwise might develop among independent research groups? How does DOE
decide what the right nuclear research infrastructure should be? How
does DOE then ensure that these programs will lead to such
infrastructure?

Witnesses

The following witnesses have been confirmed for the hearing:

Dr. Gail H. Marcus is the Principal Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear
Energy, Science and Technology at the Department of Energy. Dr. Marcus
served as President of the American Nuclear Society (ANS) in 2001-2002.
Dr. Marcus is a former member of the 1990 National Research Council
Committee on the Future Needs of Nuclear Engineering Education. Dr.
Marcus also worked at U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the
Congressional Research Service. She also is the first woman to earn a
doctorate in nuclear engineering in the United States.

Dr. Daniel M. Kammen holds multiple appointments at the University of
California, Berkeley. He is a professor in the Energy and Resources
Group, the Goldman School of Public Policy, and in the Department of
Nuclear Engineering. He is also the founding director of the Renewable
and Appropriate Energy Laboratory. A physicist by training, his work is
focused on the scientific and policy issues relating to energy systems,
with a particular focus on renewable energy technologies. Kammen served
on the Generation IV Roadmap NERAC Subcommittee (GRNS) from 2000-2002
for the U.S. Department of Energy.

Ms. Angelina Howard is the Nuclear Energy Institute's Executive Vice
President of Policy, Planning and External Affairs with responsibility
for nuclear workforce issues. Before joining NEI, Ms. Howard was with
the Atlanta-based Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO). Before
joining INPO in 1980, Ms. Howard was employed by Duke Power Company.
She has completed the Reactor Technology Program for Utility Executives
sponsored by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the National
Academy for Nuclear Training. She also is a member of the Clemson
University Research Foundation Board.

Dr. James F. Stubbins is head of the Nuclear, Plasma, and Radiological
Engineering Department at the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, Illinois (UIUC), where he has been a faculty member since
1980--and is the current Chair of the Nuclear Engineering Department
Heads Organization (NEDHO). He also is a member of the ANS workforce
committee and the DOE Nuclear Engineering (NE) University Working
Group. Dr. Stubbins has maintained associations as a Faculty Appointee
at Associated Western Universities, with Battelle Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory in Richland, WA; is a Faculty Appointee at the
Division of Educational Programs, Argonne National Laboratory; is an
Affiliate of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and is a Visiting
Scientist with Oak Ridge National Lab.

Dr. David M. ``Mike'' Slaughter of the University of Utah is Chair of
the Nuclear Engineering Program and Director of the Center for
Excellence in Nuclear Technology, Engineering, and Research (CENTER).
He also is the 2001-2002 Chair of the National Organization of the
Test, Research, and Training Reactors (TRTR).

Questions for the Witnesses

The witnesses have been asked to address the following questions in
their testimony.
Questions for Dr. Marcus

LWhat kind and how large a role in producing the
Nation's energy does DOE expect the nuclear power industry to
play in the future?

LWhat kind of a workforce, how robust a research
enterprise and what kind and how many university research
facilities will be necessary to support such an industry? What
are DOE's projections for society's nuclear workforce and
research needs beyond those directly related to nuclear power?

LTo what extent will DOE's university nuclear science
and engineering programs, as currently configured, ensure the
Nation has the necessary workforce and nuclear research base to
maintain nuclear power and provide for society's other nuclear
needs? What metrics should policy-makers use to determine
whether the DOE programs are on target to achieve their goals--
especially in the next ten years?
Questions for Dr. Kammen

LWhat kind and how large a role in producing the
Nation's energy do you expect the nuclear power industry to
play in the future?

LWhat kinds of innovations or other changes in the
industry, in university programs, and in federal nuclear
research policy do you believe are necessary if industry is
successfully to play that role?
Questions for Ms. Howard

LWhat kind and how large a role in producing the
Nation's energy does NEI expect the nuclear power industry to
play in the future? How does this projection differ from that
of the Energy Information Administration?

LWhat are the current trends in the number, age, and
skills of the nuclear workforce and in the number and
availability of university research reactors, and what
implications, if any, do these trends hold for the industries
ability to achieve the goals that NEI expects?

LHow likely are DOE's university nuclear science and
engineering programs, as currently configured, to ensure the
industry has the necessary workforce and nuclear research base?
What changes to these programs, if any, are needed? Other than
these programs, what actions should policy-makers take to
ensure that an adequate workforce is available?

LWhat steps does industry plan to take to ensure it
has the workforce it needs in the future?
Questions for Dr. Stubbins

LWhat were the most important recommendations the
Nuclear Engineering Department Heads Organization (NEDHO)
recently made regarding DOE's university nuclear science and
engineering programs? What are the implications for the health
of university nuclear science and engineering programs and for
the nuclear power industry if DOE were to fall short of
implementing those recommendations?

LTo what extent is the existing university nuclear
infrastructure, including nuclear research reactors, sufficient
to maintain a vibrant nuclear research enterprise the United
States? To what extent is it sufficient to provide the
workforce training and research opportunities necessary to
sustain the nuclear power industry and provide for other
societal needs into the future?

LTo what extent does the quality of a university's
nuclear science and engineering program depend upon the
university having a nuclear reactor? To what extent can the
national laboratories and industry support university programs?
Questions for Dr. Slaughter

LTo what extent do you believe DOE uses the right
criteria in determining whether to support university research
reactors? What changes to DOE's university nuclear science and
engineering programs, if any, do you believe are needed?

LTo what extent does the quality of a university's
nuclear science and engineering program depend upon the
university having a nuclear reactor?
Chairman Biggert. I now call the Subcommittee on Energy to
order.
I want to welcome everyone to the hearing on--of the Energy
Subcommittee of the House Science Committee entitled ``The
Future of University Nuclear Science and Engineering
Programs.''
Nuclear science and engineering in the United States is a
50-year success story that has been written by some of the
brightest minds the world has ever known. America has been
truly blessed as the world leader in this area.
But even as there is renewed interest in nuclear energy as
one of the solutions to our nation's energy problems, there has
been a growing concern that fewer Americans are entering the
nuclear science and engineering field and even fewer
institutions are left with the capacity to train them. In fact,
at about the same time that nuclear generation of electricity
hit an all-time high, the supply of four-year trained nuclear
scientists hit a 35-year low.
These statistics tell only the beginning of the story,
however. The American Association for the Advancement of
Science recently warned that ``experts are predicting that up
to 30 percent of current nuclear engineering workforce could
retire within the next five years.'' And today, there are only
27 universities that operate reactor--research reactors, less
than half the number that there were in 1980, and a majority of
which will be relicensed in the next five years, a lengthy
process that most universities can not afford.
That is why I introduced legislation in the 107th Congress
to strengthen university nuclear science and engineering
programs at the DOE and ensure an adequate supply of educated
personnel. Four of the key provisions from this bill were
updated and incorporated into the comprehensive energy bill,
H.R. 6, approved by the House in early April, including: number
one, financial support for the operation, maintenance, and
improvement of expensive, yet essential, university nuclear
research reactors; two, resources for the professional
development of faculty in the field of nuclear science and
engineering; three, incentives for students to enter the field
and opportunities for education and training through
fellowships and interaction with national laboratory staff; and
four, general research funds for students, faculty, and
national laboratory staff.
The DOE is the only federal agency that supports these
critical university programs, and the limited support it does
provide often forms the core, pardon the pun, of these
programs. While the budget has increased during the course of
the last several years, the Department's fiscal year 2004
budget request of just $18.5 million represents flat funding
compared to fiscal year 2003 funding levels for these vital
programs.
And now, more than ever, nuclear scientists and engineers
are needed for much more than simply operating nuclear power
plants. Trained at American universities and national labs,
these specialists are needed: to help design, safely dispose,
and monitor nuclear waste, both civilian and military; to
create radio isotopes for the thousands of medical procedures
performed every day; to operate and safely maintain our
existing supply of fission reactors and nuclear power plants;
to help stem the proliferation of nuclear weapons and respond
to any future nuclear crisis worldwide; to design, operate, and
monitor current and future Naval reactors; and to teach the
next generation of nuclear scientists.
The good news is that universities' enrollments are showing
some signs of rebounding. Two universities have actually
established new programs in nuclear engineering. But not so
much has changed as to eliminate the uncertainty of future
demand for nuclear scientists and engineers or the predicted
gap between supply and demand. Universities continue to
question the need for nuclear science and engineering programs
as they confront challenges, fiscal and otherwise, associated
with maintaining research reactors. And additional security
requirements mandated for university research reactors, in the
wake of September 11, 2001, have increased costs, just as many
cash-strapped states are cutting university budgets.
How this story ends and what role DOE programs will play,
remains to be seen. If we, as a nation, are to continue to rely
on nuclear energy for 20 percent of our electricity, and that
number reaches 50 percent in my home state of Illinois, then we
must focus on the people, ideas, and tools necessary to provide
an adequate supply of trained and educated personnel. That is
what we are here to explore today, and I want to thank the
witnesses for their contributions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Biggert follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Judy Biggert
I want to welcome everyone to this hearing of the Energy
Subcommittee of the House Science Committee, entitled ``The Future of
University Nuclear Science and Engineering Programs.''
Nuclear science and engineering in the United States is a 50-year
success story that has been written by some of the brightest minds the
world has ever known. America has truly been blessed as the world
leader in this area.
But even as there is renewed interest in nuclear energy as one of
the solutions to our nation's energy problems, there has been a growing
concern that fewer Americans are entering the nuclear science and
engineering field, and even fewer institutions are left with the
capability to train them. In fact, at about the same time that nuclear
generation of electricity hit an all time high, the supply of four-year
trained nuclear scientists hit a 35-year low.
These statistics tell only the beginning of the story, however. The
American Association for the Advancement of Science recently warned
that ``experts are predicting that up to 30 percent of the current
nuclear engineering workforce could retire within the next five
years.'' And today, there are only 27 universities that operate
research reactors--less than half the number there were in 1980--and a
majority of which will have to be relicensed in the next five years, a
lengthy process that most universities cannot afford.
That's why I introduced legislation in the 107th Congress to
strengthen university nuclear science and engineering programs at the
DOE and ensure an adequate supply of educated personnel. Four of the
key provisions from this bill were updated and incorporated into the
comprehensive energy bill, H.R. 6, approved by the House in early
April, including:

1. LFinancial support for the operation, maintenance, and
improvement of expensive--yet essential--university nuclear
research reactors;

2. LResources for the professional development of faculty in
the field of nuclear science and engineering;

3. LIncentives for students to enter the field, and
opportunities for education and training through fellowships
and interaction with national laboratory staff; and

4. LGeneral research funds for students, faculty, and national
laboratory staff.

The DOE is the only federal agency that supports these critical
university programs, and the limited support it does provide often
forms the core--pardon the pun--of these programs. The Department's
fiscal year 2004 budget request of just $18.5 million represents flat
funding compared to fiscal year 2003 funding levels for these vital
programs.
And now, more than ever, nuclear scientists and engineers are
needed for much more than simply operating nuclear power plants.
Trained at American universities and national laboratories, these
specialists are needed:

LTo help design, safely dispose and monitor nuclear
waste, both civilian and military;

LTo develop radio isotopes for the thousands of
medical procedures performed every day;

LTo operate and safely maintain our existing supply of
fission reactors and nuclear power plants;

LTo help stem the proliferation of nuclear weapons,
and respond to any future nuclear crisis worldwide;

LTo design, operate and monitor current and future
Naval reactors; and

LTo teach the next generation of nuclear scientists.

The good news is that university enrollments are showing some signs
of rebounding. Two universities have actually established new programs
in nuclear engineering. But not so much has changed as to eliminate the
uncertainty of future demand for nuclear scientists and engineers, or
the predicted gap between supply and demand. Universities continue to
question the need for nuclear science and engineering programs as they
confront challenges--financial and otherwise--associated with
maintaining research reactors. And additional security requirements
mandated for university research reactors in the wake of September
11th, 2001 have increased costs--just as many cash-strapped states are
cutting university budgets.
How this story ends, and what role DOE programs will play, remains
to be seen. If we, as a nation, are to continue to rely on nuclear
energy for 20 percent of our electricity--and that number reaches 50
percent in my home state of Illinois--then we must focus on the people,
ideas, and tools necessary to provide an adequate supply of trained and
educated personnel. That's what we are here to explore today.

Chairman Biggert. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Lampson, the
Ranking Minority Member of the Energy Subcommittee, for an
opening statement.
Mr. Lampson. I thank the Chairwoman, Judy Biggert, for
calling this hearing and for recognizing me. And I look forward
to the testimony that is coming today.
The Department of Energy's university science programs are,
indeed, an important part of the nuclear power industry of the
United States. The energy in my area is much produced--my area
of Southeast Texas is produced largely by a company called
Entergy, who is very much into nuclear generation of power here
in the United States. And even my own cousin is commander of a
nuclear submarine. So he has gotten some of that training about
which we will be talking today.
I am anxious to hear from our witnesses today on how they
believe the Department of Energy should best utilize these
university nuclear science and engineering programs, especially
in the light of the Bush Administration's announcement in 2001
of plans to expand the use of nuclear energy in the United
States. I realize the importance of strong, university-based
science and engineering programs in our country. We need to
increase the number of U.S. students studying and receiving
Associates or Bachelors degrees in establishing--in established
or emerging fields within science, mathematics, engineering,
and technology.
The DOE's university nuclear energy programs are an
important part of this effort, and I am pleased that this
committee included language to strengthen these programs in
H.R. 6, the House energy bill. And I have seen firsthand in
Texas how important these undergraduate and graduate
scholarships and fellowships are nationally. Texas A&M and the
University of Texas have both seen--have both been important
partners in the DOE nuclear energy program.
So I thank you all for joining. I look forward to hearing
your testimony and asking you a couple of questions when you
are through.
Thank you, Ms. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lampson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Nick Lampson
1 would like to thank Chairwoman Judy Biggert for calling this
hearing today. The Department of Energy's university science programs
are an important component of the nuclear power industry in the United
States.
I am anxious to hear from our witnesses today on how they believe
the Department of Energy should best utilize these university nuclear
science and engineering programs, especially in light of the Bush
Administration's announcement in 2001 of plans to expand the use of
nuclear energy in the United States.
I realize the importance of strong university-based science and
engineering programs in the United States. We need to increase the
number of U.S. students studying and receiving Associate's or
Bachelor's degrees in established or emerging fields within science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology.
The DOE's University Nuclear Energy programs are an important part
of this effort. I am pleased that this committee included language to
strengthen these programs in H.R. 6, the House energy bill.
I have seen first-hand in Texas how important these undergraduate
and graduate scholarships and fellowships are nationally. Texas A&M and
the University of Texas have both been important partners in the DOE
nuclear energy program.
Thank you all again for joining us today and I look forward to your
testimony.

Chairman Biggert. Thank you. If there is no objection, all
additional opening statements submitted by the Subcommittee
Members will be added to the record. Without objection, so
ordered.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nethercutt follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative George R. Nethercutt, Jr.
I would like to thank the Chairwoman for calling this important
hearing on the future of nuclear research at our nation's universities.
I am a strong supporter of university research, and specifically
nuclear fission research. It is imperative that we continue programs to
ensure the long-term safety, technology and workforce needs. A
University in my district, Washington State University, has an
excellent program researching Actinide chemistry for radioactive waste
disposal. I submit the attached white paper for the record on the WSU's
program to highlight the good work they are doing.
Note: The attachment is printed in Appendix 2, p. 116.

Chairman Biggert. At this time, I would like to introduce
our distinguished panel of witnesses. I also want to thank them
for sharing their time and talent with us today so that we
might better understand the potential workforce shortage and
what is being done and needs to be done to address it.
Dr. Gail Marcus is the Principal Deputy Director of the
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology at the
Department of Energy. Dr. Marcus, who is the first woman to
earn a doctorate in nuclear engineering in the United States,
will describe DOE's university programs.
Second, we have Dr. Daniel Kammen, who holds multiple
appointments at the University of California at Berkeley. He is
a professor in The Energy and Resources group, the Goldman
School of Public Policy, and in the Department of Nuclear
Engineering. Dr. Kammen will make recommendations for changes
in DOE's university programs to encourage greater innovation
and thus increase their attractiveness to students.
Ms. Angelina S. Howard is Executive Vice President of
Policy, Planning, and External Affairs at the Nuclear Energy
Institute and has primary responsibility for nuclear workforce
issues. She is highlighted by the bells that you have just
heard. Ms. Howard will discuss industry's workforce needs and
how DOE's university programs can help address them.
Dr. James Stubbins, excuse me, is Head of the Nuclear,
Plasma, and Radiological Engineering Department at the
University of Illinois at--or--this says--at Champaign-Urbana
is the way I say it. I don't know. This says Urbana-Champaign.
Maybe there is a story to that. And past Chair of the Nuclear
Engineering Department Heads Organization, NEDHO. Dr. Stubbins
will present NEDHO's recommendations and survey many new
developments that make this hearing timely.
Dr. David M. ``Mike'' Slaughter is Director of the
Engineering--the Center for Excellence in Nuclear Technology,
Engineering, and Research and Chair of the Nuclear Engineering
Program at the University of Utah. He is also a past Chair of
the National Organization of the Test Research and Training
Reactors and will discuss the broad range of social needs
addressed by the university reactors.
As our witnesses know, spoken testimony is limited to five
minutes each after which the Members of the Subcommittee will
have five minutes each to ask questions after all of the panel
has presented their testimony. So we will begin with Dr.
Marcus.

STATEMENT OF DR. GAIL H. MARCUS, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Dr. Marcus. Thank you very much, Chairman Biggert, Mr.
Lampson, Members of the Committee.
I am very pleased to be here today to discuss university
nuclear science and engineering programs and DOE's role in
maintaining the university nuclear infrastructure. But first,
as my bio indicates, I am also past President of the American
Nuclear Society. And with my ANS hat on for just one moment,
and with your indulgence, I would like to introduce some very
special members of the audience.
May I ask the WISE (Washington Internship for Student
Engineering) students and their Professor, Jim Dennison, to
please stand up for a moment? These students are participating
in a policy internship program for engineering students
supported by engineering societies, including the ANS. I would
also ask the ANS students--Jennifer Cole of the University of
Tennessee, and Laura Beth Bienhoff of Kansas State University--
to please raise your hands. Thank you. It is for students like
these that we are holding this hearing today, and I am very
pleased that they were able to join us.
I want to begin by observing that, at least since the late
1980's, that I am aware of, there has been concern about
university nuclear infrastructure. I was a member of the
National Research Council Committee that produced the 1990
report on this issue. I don't believe much changed as a result
of that report, largely because there have been no new orders
for nuclear power plants. So I have to ask: Why are we
discussing this issue yet again today? Is this deja vu all over
again?
I believe that this time things are different. We are in a
new environment. For the first time in a very long time,
utilities are giving very serious consideration to building new
nuclear power plants in the U.S. As you said, Chairman Biggert,
there are also a lot of other interesting trends and
initiatives: consideration of nuclear power for hydrogen
production, continuing and growing demand for radioisotopes for
medicine and other applications, and interest in developing the
next generation of advanced nuclear power plants. As activity
in all of these areas increases, so has the interest in nuclear
engineering training among students at universities. Even so,
demand for trained and qualified nuclear engineers continues to
outpace enrollments.
As you indicated, partly as a result of the improved
prospects, enrollments are turning around at many universities.
For the first time in about 30 years, we have two new nuclear
programs at universities: the University of South Carolina, and
South Carolina State University.
Yet other programs and facilities do remain at risk.
As you know, the DOE university nuclear program supports
universities in a variety of ways, and you know these well. In
the interest of time, I will focus mainly on our newest
initiative--the Innovations in Nuclear Infrastructure and
Education, or INIE, program. This program was established just
last year, to encourage partnerships between universities,
national laboratories, and industry to share facilities and
expand academic and research opportunities. It is designed
specifically to help maintain the nuclear infrastructure that
you spoke about, Chairman Biggert.
I am very pleased to be able to announce today that DOE is
funding two additional INIE consortia above and beyond the four
funded last year. The two new grants are for the University of
Missouri consortium and the Southeast consortium, led by North
Carolina State University. This will bring to six the total
number of consortia supported and these will encompass 23
universities and a number of other organizations. Only a few
university nuclear programs are now not affiliated with one of
the six INIE consortia, and these are going to be encouraged to
affiliate. Therefore, we hope to have most of the programs
under this partnership program, and consequently, to realize
the maximum benefit from our academic resources.
The last point I would like to make is that university
support is well integrated into all of our R&D programs, and we
plan to make that even more the case in the future. Building on
the successes we have had in involving universities and
students in programs such as NERI (Nuclear Energy Research
Initiative) and AFCI (Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative), I am
pleased to announce that we intend to pursue a new strategy for
our R&D funding in the future. We anticipate that we will
devote a fixed percentage of our total R&D funds, likely
between five and ten percent, to universities. This will be a
win/win, both for the universities, by providing more funding
support for them, and for DOE, by tapping the creativity and
expertise of the university community for all of our research
programs.
In summary, we believe there are continuing needs in the
nuclear industry for the unique training provided by nuclear
engineering programs at the universities and that these needs
will increase if new nuclear power plants are ordered, and some
of the other expansions of nuclear applications are realized.
As I noted at the outset, there are some signs of improvement
in the university nuclear programs in recent years, but
problems do remain, and therefore the programs that we operate
need continuing attention and support. I commend the Committee
for holding a hearing in this important area, and thank you for
the opportunity to describe DOE's programs and plans.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Marcus follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gail H. Marcus
Chairman Biggert and Members of the Subcommittee, it is a pleasure
to be here to discuss the current readiness of university nuclear
programs to meet the anticipated workforce needs of the nuclear
industry and the Department of Energy's role in maintaining and
improving the university infrastructure.
Concern over the health of the nuclear academic infrastructure is
not new. As long ago as the late 1980s, the National Research Council
conducted a study entitled ``U.S. Nuclear Engineering Education: Status
and Prospects'' (published 1990). I was a member of the Committee on
Nuclear Engineering Education that conducted that study. By that time,
all of the trends we are discussing today were apparent: enrollments in
nuclear departments and programs were declining, nuclear departments
were being converted to programs under other engineering disciplines,
research reactors were being shut down. The study foresaw potential
shortages of nuclear engineers, both for existing government and
industry activities, and for an anticipated renewal of interest in
nuclear power. Despite the study, not much changed, and enrollments,
numbers of departments, and numbers of university research reactors
continued to decline.
The predicted industry crisis from this declining academic trend
failed to materialize, largely because other factors mitigated against
new nuclear power plant orders. Today, however, we have the greatest
prospects in several decades for the renewed construction of nuclear
power plants. Power generators are actively considering the business
case for new nuclear power plants. Furthermore, the world nuclear
community is looking beyond the next nuclear power plants, and
beginning to formulate plans to conduct research on Generation IV
nuclear technologies that can help meet global energy demands in the
future.
All these activities will need growing numbers of highly trained
nuclear professionals. While the nuclear industry has always employed
scientists and engineers from a broad range of disciplines, and will
continue to do so, the National Research Council study found that there
is a need for personnel with specialized nuclear training. In
particular, the study highlighted the importance of the broad
interdisciplinary knowledge in physics, mathematics and engineering
processes that characterizes the training of nuclear professionals.
There is also a need for personnel with the hands-on reactor experience
that can be gained from research and training reactors.
With that in mind, I am pleased to report that today, we seem to
have turned a corner in the academic community. Enrollments are on the
upswing, two new nuclear engineering programs have opened their doors,
and concerted efforts are underway in the Department to maintain and
strengthen the remaining nuclear academic infrastructure. University
nuclear departments have broadened their offerings, and some of their
growth is helping to meet an increasing demand for personnel in non-
power nuclear applications.
While the picture looks much better today, it is too soon to
declare victory. Not only do some university nuclear programs remain at
risk, but even more important, the growing prospects for construction
of new nuclear power plants in the United States suggests that the need
for trained nuclear engineers will continue to grow.
I would like to take this opportunity to outline for you some of
the Department's programs aimed at helping address the needs for a
growing nuclear workforce in the future. I will cover both our direct
university-related support and our research programs which have
supported a number of students.
As you know, our university support is multifaceted. It includes
scholarships, fellowships, research grants for universities, provision
of fuel for university research reactors and funding for upgrades of
university reactors. We also support reactor sharing, a matching grant
program, university partnerships between majority and minority
institutions, an international student exchange program, summer
internships, and workshops for middle and high school teachers. In
addition, university nuclear programs supply the needs of the non-power
portion of the nuclear industry--such as the health physicists and the
nuclear medical professionals--and we provide support in some of these
areas as well.

Innovations in Nuclear Infrastructure and Education

I would like to focus first on our newest program, Innovations in
Nuclear Infrastructure and Education (INIE), because we believe this
program will provide critical support to help integrate nuclear
research facilities and educational programs in a way that enhances
both. This program, established in FY 2002, encourages strategic
partnerships between universities, the DOE national laboratories, and
U.S. industry. The partnerships result in a sharing of facilities and
an expansion of academic and research opportunities for the students.
With the award last week to the Missouri consortium and the Southeast
consortium (led by North Carolina State), there are currently six
consortia of institutions in INIE. In total, these comprise 23
universities and a number of national laboratories, utilities, and
other research organizations. Only a few universities with nuclear
programs are not affiliated with one of the consortia, and these
remaining universities are being encouraged to affiliate.

University Partnerships

I would also like to highlight our university partnerships, which
have played a significant role in the first establishment of a new
nuclear program in about three decades. South Carolina State University
is the first Historically Black College or University (HBCU) to offer a
degree in nuclear engineering. Their degree is offered in collaboration
with the University of Wisconsin under a partnership initiated and
sponsored by the DOE. Current DOE support for their nuclear program
includes funding for two junior faculty and scholarships for 12 to 14
students. The University of South Carolina also started a nuclear
engineering graduate program in 2002, and currently has 15 students
beginning their graduate programs, and plans to double in size this
year.
Another element I would like to emphasize is that we partner with,
and involve, many organizations in implementing our programs. I have
already mentioned the university-research institute-national laboratory
partnerships encouraged by our INIE program. I should also note that
many of our other academic programs also engage various elements of the
nuclear community. For example, we support student internships at
national laboratories and international student exchanges with several
countries. We also operate a matching grant program with industry. We
have about 35 private sponsors each year, and more offers by industry
than we have been able to match with our funding. This program not only
demonstrates the strong industry support for the university programs,
but it also multiplies the effectiveness of our funding. And finally,
as Past President of the American Nuclear Society, I am particularly
proud to point out that the American Nuclear Society, with support from
the Department, has conducted a number of workshops for high school and
middle school teachers. These workshops help train teachers to allow
them to provide accurate information on nuclear technology to middle
and high school students, and to help attract technically-minded
students to the study of nuclear engineering.
In addition to these programs, which are explicitly designed to
benefit the university community, I would like to point out that a
number of our other programs also provide significant benefit to
academic institutions. In particular, I want to emphasize some of our
research support, because research has proven to be one of the most
effective mechanisms to attract talented students to the field. While
the university programs are vital, from a student's point of view, they
are largely structural. To be sure, they keep research reactors going
and they provide scholarships and fellowships, which are all good
things, but there is no substitute for the opportunity to engage in
exciting, cutting-edge research.
Our Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI) has proven to be a
particularly effective recruiting tool in this regard. Although we do
have research programs geared specifically to universities, in
particular, the Nuclear Engineering Education Research (NEER) grant
program, the NERI program has added significantly to the support we
provide to the academic community. The NERI program was designed as a
broad-based research program to conduct exploratory research on
advanced reactor and fuel-cycle concepts. The program is open to all
researchers, including universities, industry, and national
laboratories. It was not a tool targeted specifically or exclusively at
the university community. Nevertheless, the academic community has won
a significant share of the NERI awards (approximately one third of all
funding between 1999 and 2002), and the latest figures available show
that these awards have involved over 250 students (71 BS, 131 MS, and
65 Ph.D.). Furthermore, a great majority of the NERI grants involve
collaborations among multiple institutions, both U.S. and foreign (the
foreign institutions are not supported financially by DOE). Therefore,
students working on NERI-funded projects often have the opportunity to
work with top researchers in industry, the national laboratories and
foreign countries in completing their theses.
Our growing recognition of the value of involving students in the
advanced research we support has caused us to build support for
students directly into our newer programs. Perhaps the best example is
the student support element of our Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative
(AFCI). AFCI, as you know, is looking at options for partitioning and
transmutation of spent nuclear fuel in order to reduce the burden on a
repository and recycle useful elements of the fuel. The AFCI program
has supported student and faculty research at several universities
through laboratory funded research; since FY 2001 the Program has
supported approximately 115 students. In addition, we have in the past
awarded fellowships for master's degree students in science and
engineering, and in the future, we hope to develop a fellowship program
for doctoral candidates.
This approach is part of a new strategy to provide funding for
university nuclear engineering programs. In the future, we are planning
to devote a percentage of the research funds from all our programs to
be implemented by universities. Doing so will increase the level of
experience of students entering the workforce, make more funding
available to the universities, and allow the creativity and energy of
the university community to be applied to our programs. In addition to
AFCI, we anticipate we will operate in this mode for our Generation IV
effort and many of our other research endeavors.
Therefore, one must look beyond our University programs alone for a
true measure of our support of universities, and for a true measure of
the extent to which we contribute to university vitality.
We believe these programs and others, which I did not describe in
detail, form a solid foundation for a strong university infrastructure
to support nuclear workforce needs. However, some concerns remain. One
important university research reactor--at Cornell University--was
recently shut down, while another--at the University of Michigan--plans
to cease operating this summer. These decisions were made despite the
evidence that nuclear power was experiencing a renaissance and despite
offers of assistance from the Department. Several more university
research reactors and academic programs are still at risk. While
acknowledging the revival of the industry, university administrators
are under severe fiscal pressures, and the historical weakness of
student enrollments and under-utilization of campus reactors make
nuclear programs and facilities an inviting target for economizing.
In the long-term, it is apparent that the viability of university
nuclear engineering departments is tied to the success of industry in
deploying new nuclear power plants in this country. New nuclear
construction will increase demand for nuclear engineers and interest in
the study of nuclear engineering. As a result, programs in trouble
today will likely experience growth and revitalization. It will be
vital to maintain the remaining research reactors and to sustain a
strong base of academic programs to meet the expected needs for trained
personnel to support the design, construction and operation of nuclear
power plants and to conduct research on future generations of nuclear
technology. A vital academic nuclear infrastructure will also be able
to meet the needs of the non-power nuclear community.
In conclusion, we are at a real crossroads for nuclear engineering
education. There are a number of signs of revitalization in our
academic programs, and the Department of Energy sponsors a strong and
diverse program, both through its university funding and through its
general research support, which should help assure that these positive
trends continue.

Biography for Gail H. Marcus
Dr. Gail H. Marcus serves as Principal Deputy Director, Office of
Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology. In this capacity, she assists
William D. Magwood, IV, Director, Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and
Technology in providing technical leadership for DOE's nuclear energy
programs and facilities, including the development of next-generation
nuclear power plants and advanced nuclear fuel cycle technologies, and
the production and distribution of isotopes required for medical
treatment, diagnosis and research. In addition, she assists in
overseeing the operation of DOE test and research reactors, and of
various DOE research, environmental and facility management activities.
Dr. Marcus came to DOE from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC). She had been at NRC since 1985, serving in a variety of
positions including Deputy Executive Director of the Advisory Committee
on Reactor Safeguards/Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste; Director of
Project Directorate III-3, providing regulatory oversight of seven
nuclear power plants in the Midwest; and Director of the Advanced
Reactors Project Directorate, where she was responsible for technical
reviews of advanced reactor designs.
She served as technical assistant to Commissioner Kenneth Rogers at
the NRC for over four years, providing advice and recommendations on a
broad range of technical and policy issues of interest to the
Commission. From this position she was detailed for five months to
Japan's Ministry of International Trade and Industry, where she was
NRC's first assignee to Japan, studying Japan's licensing of the
Advanced Boiling Water Reactor.
From 1998-1999, Dr. Marcus spent a year in Japan serving as
Visiting Professor in the Research Laboratory for Nuclear Reactors,
Tokyo Institute of Technology. She conducted research on comparative
nuclear regulatory policy in Japan and the United States.
Prior to her service at NRC, Dr. Marcus was Assistant Chief of the
Science Policy Research Division at the Congressional Research Service
(1980-1985). In this position, she was responsible for policy analysis
in support of Congress covering all fields of science and technology,
and played a lead role in broad issues of energy policy and in the
development of policies for risk assessment and management.
Dr. Marcus served as President of the American Nuclear Society
(ANS) in 2001-2002. She also serves on the Board of Directors of the
Washington Internships for Students of Engineering (WISE), and on the
American Management Association R&D Council. She is a Fellow of the ANS
and of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Dr. Marcus is a former member of the National Research Council
Committee on the Future Needs of Nuclear Engineering Education. She
served three terms on the MIT Corporation Visiting Committee for the
Nuclear Engineering Department. She has authored numerous technical
papers and publications. Her research interests have included nuclear
regulatory policy, energy technology and policy, risk assessment and
management, international nuclear policy, and advanced nuclear
technologies.
Dr. Marcus has an S.B. and S.M. in Physics, and an Sc.D. in Nuclear
Engineering from MIT. She is the first woman to earn a doctorate in
nuclear engineering in the United States.

Chairman Biggert. Thank you, Dr. Marcus. And thank you for
introducing the students to us. I can't help but notice how
many young women there are that are involved in these programs.
And I think this is--you know, as--we see more and more women
entering into this field, and it is very gratifying. I know
when I go out to speak to schools of children of all ages, I am
always encouraging them that, you know, the fields of
scientists and engineering and mathematics are very important
and that we need more young women to take advantage of the
opportunity. And I think it is working. So thank you very much
and also for you young men. I know that that is a very
important field for you. I don't want to be--have any
partisanship between men and women here, but I am gratified to
see that they are here, so thank you very much. Thank you all
for coming.
Dr. Kammen, if you would like to present.

STATEMENT OF DR. DANIEL M. KAMMEN, PROFESSOR, ENERGY AND
RESOURCES GROUP, GOLDMAN SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY, AND
DEPARTMENT OF NUCLEAR ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-
BERKELEY

Dr. Kammen. Well, I, too, would like to applaud the WISE\1\
students here. My wife, actually, a Nigerian immigrant, did a
WISE program, and is now a pediatric radiologist, so it
branches off in a number of interesting and important ways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Washington Internship for Student Engineering
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairperson Biggert, I would like to thank you for letting
me appear before you. Again, I had the pleasure to testify
before you in a field hearing when you and Congresswoman
Woolsey held a very interesting hearing on fuel cells and on
renewable energy.
The United States, today, faces a significant number of
technological, environmental, and strategic issues related to
our energy future. And the critical role that nuclear could or
might or will play in that, and currently does play, I am
delighted to see we are talking about that, because I have--I
see too little discussion about the integrating aspects of our
energy policy and our energy future overall.
The questions that--before us today are not just about the
training of students, but they are also the mix of fossil fuels
and nuclear renewables, energy efficiency, and which of these
measures the United States plans to support. Most of these
questions have not received as much attention as one might
think, despite the current interest, the revived interest, I
would say, in energy issues. So I am very concerned about us
looking more broadly at these energy questions as the hearing
progresses.
I direct the Renewable Energy Lab at UC-Berkeley, and our
focus is on a mix of energy sources. We do scientific,
technical, economic, and policy work on looking at how energy
systems can work together in harmony and not compete for what
are often seen as a small pool of resources. And as you
mentioned in your opening statement, nuclear fission provides
1/5 of U.S. electricity at the present. At the same time, it is
certainly the most controversial form of power production in
the country.
The future for nuclear power could be anything from a
dominant energy supply, as it is in Illinois with 50 percent of
the power, to a technology, which faces elimination if certain
other groups had their way. That tremendous range of
possibilities, from conceivably zero to 50/60 percent of power,
means that the role of university training is critical, because
to answer those questions would require an expanded amount of
research into how these technologies work together and what we
are likely to do about that.
In my estimation, and I would take it up in the questioning
period, the 20 percent share that nuclear power has now is
likely to be the level it stays at for some time for a whole
variety of reasons that I do detail in the written testimony.
While Dr. Marcus provides an excellent review of the
innovative programs currently underway and Dr. Slaughter and
Stubbins make compelling cases for addressing the shortages of
trained professionals in certain areas, I would like to focus
the Committee's attention a little bit on the degree to which I
am more concerned about the lack of new innovative approaches
than I am directly about the number of programs, per se. And I
think that is probably the bottom line for me, I think, through
this process.
The Generation IV process, of which I was on the Gen IV
subcommittee, the oversight--one of the oversight committees,
is an example of this. In my view, the Gen IV committee did an
excellent job of thinking through near-term R&D issues, the
kind of Generation III+ plans that we are--we were operating
today, but it didn't do the job that I actually thought the
Generation IV process was about, and that was to really think
more long-term about how we would manage the R&D program for
plans that we would commission conceivably 2030 and 2040 and
beyond. And it is in this area that, again, I do have concerns
more about quality than about quantity of programs and of
emerging nuclear professionals.
Work in hydrogen is an example of this sort of concern.
Nuclear power plants that produce--that could produce hydrogen
may, in fact, be very different in style and structure,
operating temperature regimes than plants we operate today. And
yet work on nuclear-generated hydrogen is an active area of
research, but one researcher in the United States accounts for
almost all--half of all of the papers in this field over the
past five years. This is a testament to this individual's
tremendous intellectual capacity and work, but it is also a
warning sign. This individual at Oak Ridge, Tennessee also
comments regularly that that is a dangerous situation on a
variety of levels.
Engineering programs in nuclear power, in my view, need to
take on this challenge and find ways to innovate more at the
expense, potentially, of generating more overall programs. Some
of the ways that one might do that are to look at the ABET, the
accreditation process for undergraduates, and find ways at the
graduate level to support more diverse energy education for
future nuclear engineers. I detail a few mechanisms, like
encouraging students to have Master's Degrees in more than one
field of engineering. And I also, since I serve on the faculty
of nuclear engineering at Berkeley, am stunned by the degree to
which an elective course for a nuclear engineering student is
often Advanced Calculus as opposed to finding ways to diversify
the education so that the range of issues that they will face
as nuclear professionals are covered in their training. And I
can think of a variety of mechanisms, and I detail them in the
testimony: exchange programs with universities, exchange
programs overseas.
But the bottom line message is that I don't think that the
amount of cross-disciplinary training that future nuclear
engineers receive is up to the task. I certainly also feel that
hydrogen is a critical area where we are not supporting as much
research, not only in nuclear, but in the other technologies
that could produce hydrogen that may work in concert with
nuclear hydrogen production. Solar, other technologies may, in
fact, be compliments of a broader system.
And finally, there are some issues in the nuclear industry
where many nuclear operators also have coal-fired power plants
in their portfolio. That means that the motivations for these
operators may be mixed. So for example, a system for carbon
trading may be very beneficial to nuclear power, but it may
also compete with other sides of the business of these same
companies. So there is a variety of issues here that we need to
address, the bottom line being the interdisciplinary nature of
the training that I think the next generation of nuclear
engineers need to get, to a larger degree than they have today.
Thank you very much for your time and attention.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Kammen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Daniel M. Kammen

United States: Facing a Defining Moment of Energy Choices

Chairperson Biggert, Members of the Subcommittee on Energy, and
other invited guests, thank you for this opportunity to appear before
you today to provide testimony on the university capacity to educate
and innovate to meet the challenges of nuclear energy capacity. I am a
professor in the Energy and Resources Group, the Goldman School of
Public Policy, and the Department of Nuclear Engineering at the
University of California, Berkeley. I am also the founding director the
Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory. From 2000-2002 I served on
the Subcommittee for Generation IV Technology Planning of the Nuclear
Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC). This subcommittee, also
referred to as Generation IV Roadmap NERAC Subcommittee (GRNS), was
formed in October 2000 to provide advice to the Director, Office of
Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology of the U.S. Department of Energy
on the development of the Generation IV Roadmap. GRNS was also tasked
with developing the technology goals for Generation IV nuclear energy
systems. The Generation IV documents can be accessed at: http://gen-
iv.ne.doe.gov/. I am the co-author of Should We Risk It?, an
instructional text on technical, social, and policy aspects of risk
management. I serve as a board member of The Utility Reform Network
(TURN). I am Fellow of the American Physical Society, and have served
on American Academy of Arts and Sciences Committee on the Social
Impacts of Technology (Section X).
The United States faces a significant number of technological,
economic, environmental, and strategic issues and options surrounding
the future evolution of our energy infrastructure. These questions
include the mix of fossil-fuel, nuclear, renewable energy, and energy
efficiency measures that the U.S. will support, the degree of
environmental damage that we will implicitly or explicitly permit to
take place as a result of our energy choices, the overall role of
innovation and global energy leadership that the U.S. will assume, and
our commitment to a transition to a more sustainable and socially
desirable energy infrastructure. Most of these questions have not been
addressed in a significant way, even with the increased attention that
energy issues have recently commanded at the state, federal, and
international levels.
The role of nuclear energy in the current and future mix of energy
technologies, markets, and risks is of major importance to the overall
energy strategy that we will pursue. The role of nuclear power,
specifically the impacts, economics, and risks of the full nuclear fuel
cycle, is arguably one of the most ideologically divisive energy policy
issues facing the country.
In this testimony I will address a number of critical issues that
must be addressed if we are to develop and implement a reasoned and
diverse sustainable energy strategy for the United States. In this
testimony, specifically regarding nuclear power I will comment on:

LThe current status of the U.S. nuclear energy
industry and its relationship to the rest of our energy
resource base;

LThe university capacity to manage the current and
future nuclear energy infrastructure; and,

LThe areas where federal attention is most critically
needed to evaluate and plan for our future energy
infrastructure.

Finally, I will provide a set of recommendations that I believe are
critical if nuclear energy is to be evaluated in the wider context of
national energy choices and international energy leadership on both the
technical and socioeconomic aspects of our current and envisioned
sustainable energy infrastructure.

Overview of the Nuclear Industry/University Status

The commercial nuclear industry in the United States has undergone
a roller coaster evolution over the past decade.
Signs of Decline
Many of the trends during the early 1990s were particularly
negative for the industry. A decade ago few commercial reactors
appeared headed for re-licensing, and undergraduate and graduate
enrollments were declining, and a significant number of university
programs were headed for closure. In addition, the busbar cost of
electricity generated from nuclear plants was actually climbing,
largely as the result of increased operation and maintenance (O&M)
costs. This trend was in stark contrast to that seen for virtually
every other energy technology where the costs have been declining
according to a predictable pattern. For most power systems the costs
have been seen to decline by 10 percent for each doubling of installed
capacity. Photovoltaics, biomass power plants, wind turbines, and gas
turbines, for example, have each been well studies, and follow this
relationship particularly well. This trend, known as a learning curve
is well understood, and has been used as the basis of forecasts for the
future cost declines for wide range of energy systems and other
technologies that can be mass-produced. Nuclear power plants--in
addition to their largely unresolved issues of closed, reprocessing
cycles, uncertain waste management costs, questionable federal
oversight, and strong public skepticism--are largely unique, `one-off'
facilities in the United States, and thus not expected even
theoretically to exhibit this attractive learning curve. The prospects
for nuclear power in the United States were dim. Figure 1 illustrates
the decline in enrollment by new undergraduates at three leading
nuclear engineering programs in the United States.
Enrollment decline is particularly serious for the industry, which
is already on average significantly aging, in part because university
resources as well as those from federal agencies decline with lower
enrollment levels, creating a negative feedback loop that further
reduces, innovation and resources. This problem became even more sever
as the next natural step took place: the closing or dramatic reduction
of over one-third of U.S. nuclear engineering programs between 1991 and
1998. These changes have been well described in a 2000 report on The
Future of University Nuclear Engineering Programs and University
Research & Training Reactors. This excellent analysis, known widely as
the ``Corrandini report'' found among other things that there was:

LA serious decline of nuclear science and engineering
personnel, the relevant technical facilities and the needed
institutional support for each of them;

LA growing imbalance between the supply of qualified
personnel and the demand;

LA persistent lack of effective communication with the
public, both technical and non-technical, which leads to public
opinion based on incomplete information (page 7).

Figure 1 also illustrates the dramatic importance of policy
direction and leadership to the nuclear industry. The statement by
President Clinton in his 1993 State of the Union Address that nuclear
energy will be largely removed from U.S. energy policy, coupled with
the lack of any prospects for new nuclear reactors, led to a dramatic
decline in enrollment in nuclear science and engineering departments.
By the same token, the new emphasis that nuclear power is receiving
under the current Bush administration has lead to a resurgence in the
industry that I will discuss below. In both these negative and positive
phases high-level policy leadership is clearly a vital factor in the
direction and vitality of the industry and the academic departments.
Graduate enrollment trends during this period remained more stable
(Figure 2), but this in, in fact deceptive. While overall enrollment
has not changed significantly, the composition of the graduate nuclear
engineering pool shifted during the past decade. At the University of
California, Berkeley, foreign students comprised less than 20 percent
of full-time doctoral enrollment, while in 2000 foreign students
accounted for almost 70 percent of the student population. This trend
has taken place in departments across the country to varying degrees.

In the mid-1990s the few optimists about nuclear power saw Asia as
the primary market for growth, both in terms of new plant construction
and as a region of nuclear economic viability.
Signs of Growth
Over the last several years the situation in the nuclear industry
has changed dramatically. U.S. nuclear power plants have increased
their capacity factor, defined as the percentage of time during the
year that the plant is available for electricity generation, has
increased sharply. From a low of roughly 55 percent two decades ago,
the nuclear industry implemented a range of reforms and the capacity
factor began to change. A steady improvement in the operation of
nuclear facilities was followed in the mid-1990s by an even more rapid
upsurge in plant availability. This second phase was driven by in part
by changes in the energy industry, where deregulation experiments, and
increasing concerns over the impacts of fossil-fuel based plants
expanded the market for nuclear-generated electricity.

The impact of this whole-scale change in the industry cannot be
underestimated. Over the past decade the nuclear industry in the U.S.
has added the equivalent of over 20 power plants to the national fleet
without building a new facility. In 2000 nuclear power provided 19.8
percent of total U.S. electricity, or 754 billion kilowatt hours, and
in each of the past two years the industry has set new production
records.
In addition to the dramatic change in the industry capacity factor,
nuclear power plants have gone from readily available on the market for
investors, to difficult to impossible to find available for sale. At
the same time virtually every U.S. nuclear facility either has, or is
expected to apply for re-licensing/license extension. In 2003, nearly
half of the Nation's 103 nuclear power plants have either renewed their
licenses (14 reactors), filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
for license renewal (16 reactors), or officially informed the NRC that
they expect to apply for license renewal over the next six years (20
reactors). In all, this will increase the life-span of the U.S. fleet
of nuclear reactors by roughly 20 years per plant.
The nuclear industry has received a significant boost from efforts
such as those of the Nuclear Energy Institute (www.nei.org) to portray
the industry as not only the source of low-cost electricity, but also
as carbon-free power (Figure 4, below).

The nuclear energy industry has also received arguably the most
important support from the current administration which has included
nuclear power as part of its core energy strategy.
Industry arguments for nuclear power of course also highlight the
low production cost of fission-generated electricity, currently at a
little over 2 cents per kilowatt-hour. It is in this area of economics
that the complexities of nuclear become most apparent. While pro-
nuclear analyses, such as those of the Nuclear Energy Institute, list
capital costs of 3.8-4.8 cents/kWh, nuclear opponents such as Rocky
Mountain Institute (www.rmi.org) cite costs of 8-12 cents/kWh. A
credible argument can be made for either cost calculation.
In fact, a key issue that must be addressed in evaluating nuclear
power is degree to which ideology--either for or against--drives the
analysis of cost. The differences in the costs for a variety of nuclear
energy related factors are often extreme. The NEI, for example, lists
the 20 construction times of 4-5 years possible for new nuclear power
plants, while RMI quotes the historical construction time of over 10
years per plant, and costs, including overruns of $2200-4,000/kW. NEI
cites the initially computed costs of $1550-1880/kW. In perhaps the
most egregious example, NEI quotes the cost of waste management at 0.1
cent/kWh, while RMI cites the same 0.1 cent/kWh per plant, but then
adds in 1 cent/kWh more if the cost of Yucca mountain facility is
included in the cost. Similarly, NEI quotes 0.05-0.1 cent/kWh for the
decommissioning cost (a fee paid into the decommissioning fund) while
RMI quotes a cost of 0.4-1.0 cent/kWh for decommissioning when the
California nuclear bailout (AB1890) is included in the cost. These
differences reflect an important disconnect between the nuclear energy
industry and much of the rest of the national energy infrastructure.
If I were to guess, nuclear power is likely to continue to provide
roughly 20 percent of our electricity for many years to come. This is
based on the continuing tension between the pro- and anti-nuclear
energy lobbies. The current level represents an uneasy truce where
current facilities continue to operate, with the potential for some new
plants there, but unlikely to greatly exceed those that must be retired
due to age or other factors. A significant increase in nuclear plants
is in my view both unlikely due to opposition, and unnecessary in light
of the growing number of low-carbon alternatives, that include energy
efficiency, biomass, wind, and solar energy. A wealth of models exists,
of course, that collectively are used to forecast anything from a
complete elimination of the industry, to a dramatic expansion of our
nuclear fleet. Experts who pretend to have a more precise forecast than
this are not being realistic: the extent of our nuclear future is a
consequence of policy, not an economic forecasting.

University Capacity for Nuclear Energy Training and Innovation

There is a great deal of concern within the nuclear industry and
the academic community over the decline in the number of nuclear
engineering programs and research reactors in the United States (see,
e.g., the Corrandini report; footnote 3). A recent GAO analysis,
however, estimated that the number of nuclear engineering graduates
would be sufficient to meet the personnel demands of even a ``high
growth'' scenario (with the U.S. nuclear fleet growing to 110 plants
by 2020) for an expansion of nuclear power such as that advocated by
the Nuclear Energy Institute. While the GAO is quick to caution that
this calculation is fraught with uncertainties, in particular over the
number of nuclear engineering graduates that find employment in other
fields, it is consistent with my own estimates and those of several
colleagues. The current set of graduate nuclear science and engineering
programs in the U.S. is more than capable of producing 50-70 new
graduates per year, which would be more than enough to sustain this
industry.
In light of this rough calculation, efforts to create more nuclear
engineering departments are, in my view, misguided. A smaller number of
departments that are strong in research and teaching will serve the
country better than a larger number of diluted, weaker, ones. In fact,
nuclear engineering departments already suffer from an important
weakness: nuclear science and engineering is not, on average,
attracting the best students. There are some outstanding students, to
be sure, but even with the recent upturn in the industry enrollments
are flat, at best. The current wave of plant re-licensing, while
important to the industry, does not provide the excitement to draw in
the best students. In fact, nuclear engineering programs are losing
students to electrical and computer science departments.
In every field the surest way to attract the best students is to be
innovative, daring, and relevant. Nuclear engineering programs, while
staffed with many excellent individuals, are not at the cutting edge.
New vision is needed. In my service on the Department of Energy's GRNS
Committee in the Generation IV process I was greatly disturbed to
discover that the roadmap process was not overflowing with individuals
excitedly discussing new reactor ideas, ways to dramatically reduce the
waste stream, and ideas for how to integrate nuclear energy training
more fully into the wider energy infrastructure. The Generation IV
mandate was to develop a process for a truly innovative research and
development process for the next generation of nuclear plants. Instead,
it was a very well managed, analytically sound, evaluation of a range
of relatively near-term extensions of current plant designs. This is
not a criticism of the individuals, many of whom are outstanding, but
it is a strong recommendation that the ways that nuclear energy systems
are conceived and researched needs an overhaul.
In an important example, the Gen IV discussions of hydrogen
production by nuclear power plants was painfully limited and
conventional. Over the past five years half of the papers in the field
of nuclear hydrogen, a field that could revolutionize both the nuclear
energy industry and potentially the U.S. energy system overall, were
authored or co-authored by one individual. This researcher, Charles
Forsberg of Oak Ridge National Laboratories, is outstanding and has
made major contributions. However, at the point in history when
hydrogen is now on the threshold of potentially becoming a major energy
carrier for both stationary and vehicle applications, the lack of a
diverse research base on the critical issues of nuclear hydrogen
production is startling.
Each of these concerns with the university capacity for nuclear
science and technology training largely reflects the overly insular
nature of many departments and programs. Engineering programs generally
are infamous for packing the schedules of their students so that they
have little opportunity to diversify their education. The ABER 2000
accreditation process is thankfully imposing conditions of departments
that force them to not only offer a wider range or courses themselves,
but to broaden the training of students with courses in other
engineering and non-engineering areas. This is absolutely critical to
prevent ``in-breeding'' and to challenge students and faculty to thin
in new, innovative ways. Graduate students in nuclear engineering
departments very much need this more diverse education. A number of
mechanisms exist to support this broader energy education, including:

LEncourage students to obtain Master's degrees in a
different discipline than their intended Ph.D. field (for
example through fellowships or support for added time and
flexibility in graduate school)

LDevelop a curriculum in ``energy engineering'' that
schools could consider, and adopt in sum or in part to provide
nuclear engineering students and even post-doctoral fellows
with a broader energy systems and even energy economics and
policy perspective

LDevelop university exchange programs, particularly
with overseas departments where very different teaching styles
exist, and where the nuclear energy industry is very different
from that in the U.S.

An important first step would be to convene a group of U.S. and
foreign nuclear energy experts, along with scholars, practitioners, and
policy makers from other energy sub-fields to develop a more
comprehensive suite of mechanisms that could be implemented to
diversify and to add excitement and innovation to the field.

The Federal Role

The Federal Government plays the pivotal role in the encouragement
of innovation in the energy sector. Not only are federal funds
critical, but as my work and that of others has demonstrated, private
funds generally follow areas of public sector support. One particularly
useful metric--although certainly not the only measure--of the
relationship between funding and innovation is based on patents. Total
public sector funding and the number of patents, across all
disciplines, in the United States have both increased steadily over at
least the past three decades (Figure 5).S6602

The situation depicted here, with steadily increasing trends for
funding and results (patents) is not as rosy when energy R&D alone is
considered. In that case the same close correlation exists, but the
funding pattern has been one of decreasing resources (Figure 6A).
Figure 6A shows energy funding levels (symbol: ) and patents held by
the national laboratories (symbol: ). The situation need not
be as bleak as it seems. During the 1980s a number of changes in U.S.
patent law permitted the national laboratories to engage in patent
partnerships with the private sector. This increased both the interest
in developing patents, and increased the interest by the private sector
in pursuing patents on energy technologies. The squares () in
figure 6 show that overall patents in the energy sector derived from
public sector funds increased.

Figure 6B reveals the crucial truth: patent levels in the nuclear
field have declined, but not only that, public-private partnerships
have not developed significantly in the nuclear field in the United
States. This is a particularly important message for federal policy.
Novel approaches are needed to encourage new and innovative modes of
research, teaching, and industrial innovation in the nuclear energy
field. To spur innovation in nuclear science a concerted effort would
be needed to increase the types and levels of cooperation by
universities and industries in areas that depart significantly from the
current ``Generation III'' and equally, away from the ``Generation IV''
nuclear power plans. Similar conclusions were reached by M. Granger
Morgan, head of the Engineering and Public Policy Program at Carnegie
Mellon University, in his evaluation of the organization and sociology
of the U.S. nuclear power industry.
A second important issue that this committee should consider is the
degree of federal support for nuclear fission relative to other
nations. Funding levels in the U.S. are significantly lower than in
both Japan and France. Far from recommending higher public sector
funding, what is arguably a more successful strategy would be to
increase the private sector support for nuclear R&D and student
training fellowships. Importantly, this is precisely the sort of
expanded public-private partnership that has been relatively successful
in the energy sector generally (Figure 6B) but is largely lacking in
nuclear science and engineering.

This emphasis on industry resources used to support and expanded
nuclear program, under careful public sector management, has been
echoed by a variety of nuclear engineering faculty members:

LI believe that if you were to survey nuclear engineering
department heads, most would select a national policy to
support new nuclear construction, over a policy to increase
direct financial support to nuclear engineering departments. A
firm commitment by the Federal Government, to create incentives
sufficient to ensure the construction of a modest number of new
nuclear plants, with the incentives reduced for subsequent
plants, would be the best thing that could possibly be done for
nuclear engineering education and revitalization of the
national work force for nuclear science and technology.

Professor Per Peterson,
Chair,
Department of Nuclear
Engineering,
University of
California, Berkeley

Recommendations

Cross-disciplinary training is critical in the energy field, and is
particularly critical for the nuclear power sector, which should be
more fully integrated into energy planning and evaluation across a wide
range of energy technologies and systems. Nuclear science and
engineering departments should be supported and encouraged to provide a
more widely interdisciplinary training at both the undergraduate and
graduate levels.
The economics of nuclear power provide a telling example of it
being managed as a ``technology apart'' instead of engaging in a more
consistently comparable evaluation of energy options and issues as part
of a true national energy policy.
Hydrogen is a particularly important promising future energy
carrier. The potential for nuclear power plants to play an important
role in a hydrogen future exists, but far more research needs to be
conducted on this relationship.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Charles Forsberg, Bill Kastenberg, and Per
Peterson for their input on the issues of the relationship of
university programs and the U.S. nuclear energy industry. Greg Nemet,
doctoral student in the Energy and Resources Group provided invaluable
research assistance in the preparation of this testimony. E-mail:
[email protected]

Biography for Daniel M. Kammen
Daniel M. Kammen received his undergraduate education in physics
from Cornell University 1984. He received his Masters (1986) and
Doctorate (1988) degrees in physics, from Harvard University. He was a
Bantrell & Weizmann Postdoctoral Fellow at the California Institute of
Technology, and then a lecturer in the Department of Physics at Harvard
University. From 1992-1998 Kammen was on the faculty of the Woodrow
Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton
University, where he was Chair of the Science, Technology and
Environmental Policy Program. Kammen is now Professor of Energy and
Society in the Energy and Resources Group (ERG), and in the Department
of Nuclear Engineering at the University of California, Berkeley. At
Berkeley Kammen is the founding director of the Renewable and
Appropriate Energy Laboratory (http://socrates.berkeley.edu/rael), and
is campus representative to the University of California Energy
Institute. He has been a Lecturer in Physics and Natural Science at the
University of Nairobi.
Kammen's research centers on the science, engineering, economics
and policy aspects of energy management, and dissemination of renewable
energy systems. He also works on the health and environmental impacts
of energy generation and use; rural resource management, including
issues of gender and ethnicity; international R&D policy, climate
change; and energy forecasting and risk analysis. He is the author of
over 140 journal publications, a book on environmental, technological,
and health risks (Should We Risk It? Princeton University Press, 1999)
and numerous reports on renewable energy and development. Kammen
received the 1993 21st Century Earth Award and is a Fellow of the
American Physical Society. He is a Permanent Fellow of the African
Academy of Sciences. He appears frequently in the media as a
commentator on energy and environmental issues.
For information of any of these activities, see http://
socrates.berkeley.edu/dkammen.

Chairman Biggert. Thank you, Dr. Kammen.
Ms. Howard.

STATEMENT OF MS. ANGELINA S. HOWARD, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
OF POLICY, PLANNING, AND EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NUCLEAR ENERGY
INSTITUTE

Ms. Howard. I believe we are putting some slides up. Here
we go.
Chairwoman Biggert, Ranking Member Lampson, and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, I am Angie Howard,
Executive Vice President of the Nuclear Energy Institute, which
is the Washington, DC-based policy institute for the nuclear
energy industry.
[Slide.]
America's 103 nuclear power plants are the safest, most
efficient, and reliable in the world, and are the largest
source of emission-free electricity in the United States. Last
year, our nuclear plants reached record levels for safety,
efficiency, and electricity production. Sixteen reactors have
received renewed operating licenses, and will expect--and we
expect the vast majority of the remaining reactors in our
country will extend their lives from 40 years to 60 years. In
fact, the workers who will operate the Quad Cities plant in
Illinois or the Comanche Peak in Texas are not even in the
workforce yet. And to meet future electricity demand and
protect the environment, new nuclear power plants will be
needed in the future. In fact, the industry has a program in
order to achieve and maintain the 20 percent of electricity
that we have today in this country generated from nuclear
energy. We will need to add 50,000 megawatts of new nuclear
generation by 2020 in order to just maintain the 20 percent
non-emitting generation that we enjoy today.
So we feel that it is essential for Congress to adopt
policies that will foster the vital training and research
infrastructure of the nuclear technology sector. Today, I would
like to touch on the staffing crisis that we are seeing in the
industry, how federal funded programs are critical to meeting
the staffing needs, including nuclear engineering, health
physics, and other engineering disciplines, and also the
federal support for skilled craft and technician training,
which is vital to the industry.
[Slide.]
A study conducted by the NEI last--two years ago indicates
a need for 90,000 new workers in the industry between 2002 and
2011 and 26,000 in just the power sector alone. A key part of
this slide shows that not only does the power sector need a
significant number of individuals in the coming years, there
will be great competition for the available pool of workers. We
expect to see the first wave of retirements in the next three
to five years, but far more in the 7- to 10-year range. In a
report on the issues facing the Department of Energy, the
General Accounting Office concluded that the shortage of
technical staff at DOE could reach crisis proportions within
the next 10 years. And also, in addressing the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, the GAO found that 33 percent of the
Commission's technical professionals will be eligible for
retirement by the end of 2005, again threatening the agency's
ability to achieve its missions.
[Slide.]
Workers--unfortunately, the supply of workers for key areas
of nuclear technologies will decrease in the next decade, as
shown in this slide. And most effected will be in the health
physics and nuclear engineering. The number of four-year
programs across our nation to train future nuclear scientists
has declined to approximately 25, a 50 percent reduction since
1970 and this year, as the Chairwoman said, 27 operating
research and training reactors, more than a 50 percent decline
since 1980.
The industry supports H.R. 6, which includes Chairwoman
Biggert's legislation. This legislation will fully fund the
university programs by increasing funding for student
recruitment, teaching facilities, fuel, and other reactor
equipment, and instructors to educate a new generation of
American nuclear specialists. We hope to see these provisions
in the final legislation that should pass both Houses of
Congress. NEI encourages the Committee to consider, also, a new
$2 million program within the Office of Nuclear Energy to
support universities that have undergraduate and graduate
programs in health physics.
[Slide.]
We also need support for technical training programs and
skilled craft. As you can see from this slide, the need for
technical and craft personnel is the third most vital for the
industry. And the industry supports the implementation of a
program to support technician and craft training within the
context of the energy bill now being considered in the Senate.
This bill sets aside $20 million each year through fiscal year
2008 to train skilled personnel. This funding will supplement
the aggressive workforce programs conducted by organized labor
and supplement the industry's activities.
And the industry continues to support this vital and--these
vital issues. Scholarships and fellowship programs at the rate
of about $1 million a year are awarded annually by the
industry. And plus we have in place programs to help retain--
attract and retain young professionals to the industry.
We urge you to continue to support Chairwoman Biggert's
legislation contained in H.R. 6 and the investments in the DOE
university programs. To maintain our nation's position as the
international leader in nuclear technology, it is vital that
these start to turn around.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Howard follows:]
Prepared Statement of Angelina S. Howard
Chairman Biggert, Ranking Member Lampson and distinguished Members
of the Subcommittee, I am Angie Howard, Executive Vice President of the
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). NEI is the Washington, D.C.-based
policy organization for the nuclear energy industry.
NEI's 270 corporate and other members are engaged in the beneficial
use of nuclear technologies. They represent a broad spectrum of
interests, including every U.S. energy company that operates a nuclear
power plant. NEI's membership also includes nuclear fuel cycle
companies, suppliers, engineering and consulting firms, national
research laboratories, manufacturers of radiopharmaceuticals, labor
unions, law firms and 57 universities.
America's 103 nuclear power plants are the safest, most efficient
and reliable in the world. Nuclear energy is the largest source of
emission-free electricity generation in the United States. Nuclear
power plants in 31 states provide electricity for one of every five
homes and businesses in the Nation, and the industry again last year
reached record levels for efficiency and electricity production.

The first illustration shows how much more electricity has been
produced by our nuclear plants over the past five years through greater
efficiency--increased electricity output from our existing nuclear
reactors. From 1998 to 2002, the increases in efficiency were
equivalent to adding 13 1,000-megawatt power plants to our nation's
electricity grid.
Last year's record performance capped the best decade in the
industry's history. Even with growth in overall energy demand and
production, America's nuclear power plants have kept pace and, as our
nation's second largest source of electricity, continue to provide
approximately 20 percent of the Nation's electricity.
The growth in nuclear power production avoided the environmental
disruptions and impacts that would have occurred if new electric
generation had to be brought on line to meet our country's electricity
needs. The lack of new nuclear construction since the 1980s often is
identified as a sign of industry stagnation, when in fact, expanded
operation of existing facilities has actually been the environmentally
preferable alternative for making additional electricity.

As you can see from my next illustration, nuclear power plant
capacity increases and operating efficiencies continue. Plant uprates,
improved maintenance and reduced outage times will contribute to even
higher operating efficiency and additional electricity output from
existing power plants. But these increases are finite, limited to the
maximum capacity of each reactor. What can we expect from our current
operating fleet as far as lifetime service is concerned?

In the 1990s, we began the process of extending the operating
licenses of our nuclear reactors for an additional 20 years, to a total
of 60 years. Congress selected the original 40-year license period
because it was a typical amortization period for an electric power
plant. Congress also allowed for license renewal. As this illustration
shows, 16 reactors have renewed operating licenses. We expect the vast
majority of plants to extend their operating licenses beyond the
initial 40-year period. The people who will operate and maintain these
plants toward the end of the licenses are not even in the work force
yet.
We should expect total electric output from nuclear plants to
continue to increase along with increases in productivity and
additional plant uprates. But to meet future demands of an electricity-
hungry digital economy, especially when environmental requirements
limit some options, several electric companies are beginning to examine
the market for new nuclear power plants. Demand for electricity is
expected to grow by 40 percent by 2020, according to the Department of
Energy. In order to maintain at least one-third of our total
electricity production from emission-free sources, the industry has set
an ambitious goal for the future: building 50,000 megawatts of new
nuclear energy production by 2020, and gaining another 10,000 megawatts
of capacity by making today's plants even more efficient.
Already, the industry is working in a private-public partnership
with the Department of Energy. DOE's Nuclear Power 2010 initiative has
as its goal to help the first of those new nuclear plants begin
operation by the end of this decade. But it is essential that Congress
adopt policies that foster the further development of this vital part
of our nation's energy mix--including support to the vital training and
research infrastructure of the sector.
My testimony today will address three key points:

1. LThe nuclear industry is facing a looming staffing crisis.

2. LFederally funded university programs are critical to
meeting staffing needs in several critical areas, including
nuclear engineering, health physics and various engineering
disciplines.

3. LFederal support for skilled craft and technician training
also is key to meeting the need for the highly qualified work
force our industry needs to continue its high levels of
efficiency and electricity production.

Without question, nuclear energy in the United States is
experiencing a renaissance. We see clear signs that this renaissance is
gaining new recognition in Congress--through bipartisan legislation
introduced this year in the House and Senate, by the Administration in
its national energy policy and among the American public. The
renaissance is driven by the overwhelming need to maintain our diverse
mix of energy generation and to meet the ambitious energy and
environmental requirements of the future.
The industry is entering a new phase--one of developing new plants
incorporating new, advanced reactor technologies that could be used
uniformly across the Nation to meet increasing electricity demand. As
we enter this dynamic new era, it is critical that we do so on the safe
foundation that only a strong federal research and development base can
provide.

Looming Workforce Crisis

Last year, NEI conducted a major study on the staffing needs of the
nuclear industry, which includes plant operations, plant outages,
government personnel and government contractors, front- and back-end
fuel cycle, engineering design, services and construction, and
universities. Although the study did not take into account the
possibility for new plant construction and operation, it indicates a
need for 90,000 new workers in our industry from 2002 to 2011.

A more recent study of staffing for the nuclear power sector alone
indicates that many plants are facing significant attrition in such
areas as maintenance, engineering, operations, safety and radiation
protection. Most of the attrition in the nuclear power sector will be
due to retirement. We expect to see the first wave of retirements in
the next three to five years, but a far more significant number of
retirements seven to 10 years from now.
Data show that the need for nuclear engineers and health physicists
will outstrip supply.
A recent study conducted by the Health Physics Society\1\ concluded
that a critical shortage exists in the supply of qualified radiation
protection professionals throughout a broad spectrum of activities,
including nuclear power production. The society also concluded that the
current imbalance between supply and demand will significantly worsen
in the near-term after which it will become completely untenable. The
present demand for radiation protection professionals is approximately
130 percent of supply, and over the next five years demand will
outstrip supply by 160 percent. The Nuclear Energy Institute study\2\
concluded that the demand will be 210 percent of supply in 10 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Human Capital Crisis in Radiation Safety; Position Statement
of the Health Physics Society,'' August 2001.
\2\ ``Nuclear Pipeline Analysis,'' Nuclear Energy Institute.
December 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A shortage of radiation protection professionals has also been
identified as a major strategic issue by the Institute of Nuclear Power
Operations (INPO) \3\ and several power producers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``A Strategic Look at the Future of Radiological Protection,''
Proceedings of the 2001 Radiation Protection Manager's Workshop,
Institute of Nuclear Power Operations. September, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another area where we project a critical shortage is in nuclear
engineering. According to NEI's study, demand for nuclear engineers
will be about 150 percent of supply over the next 10 years.
To give you some figures, DOE reports that the number of nuclear
engineering Bachelor of Science enrollments declined from 1,400 in 1993
to about 500 in 1998. Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education
found that total U.S. undergraduate nuclear engineering degrees
decreased by 20 percent in 2000 and masters by 6 percent.\4\ Although
some universities are seeing a stabilization or slight upturn in
nuclear engineering enrollments, we still must address this shortfall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``Nuclear Pipeline Analysis,'' Nuclear Energy Institute.
December 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Government Accounting Office (GAO) has prepared a series of
reports analyzing the looming crisis in human capital and its effects
on key government agencies, designating the issue of human capital as a
government-wide high-risk area.\5\ In a report on the issues facing the
Department of Energy,\6\ the GAO concluded that the shortage of
technical staff at DOE will reach crisis proportions within the next 10
years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ GAO-01-357T, ``Human Capital: Meeting the Governmentwide High-
Risk Challenge,'' Statement of David M. Walker, Comptroller General of
the United States, in testimony before the U. S. Senate. February 1,
2001.
\6\ GAO-01-246, ``Major Management Challenges and Performance
Risks: Department of Energy,'' Government Accounting Office. January,
2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a report on the issues facing the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission,\7\ the GAO concluded that 33 percent of the technical
professionals will be eligible for retirement by the end of 2005. In a
further analysis of the NRC's human capital issues, the GAO also
concluded that the NRC's ability to maintain the skills needed to
achieve its mission is threatened by the decline in university
enrollments in nuclear engineering and other fields related to nuclear
safety.\8\ In response to this, the NRC has already initiated an
aggressive recruiting campaign and has instituted a practice of hiring
non-nuclear-educated personnel and providing customized training
programs in nuclear technology. This is a laudable stop-gap measure,
but it will not resolve the problem over the long-term.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ GAO-01-259, ``Major Management Challenges and Performance
Risks; Nuclear Regulatory Commission,'' Government Accounting Office.
January, 2001.
\8\ GAO-01-241, ``Major Management Challenges and Performance
Risks; A Governmentwide Perspective,'' Government Accounting Office.
January, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the advent of advanced medical techniques, competition between
the medical community and nuclear industry for nuclear engineers and
health physics degreed personnel has also increased. The government--
including the Department of Homeland Security--also will be competing
for this same labor pool.

Need for DOE University Programs

As our industry matures, so does our workforce. Our dramatic
improvements in productivity and efficiency are due in large part to
our highly skilled and excellently trained employees.

This training comes primarily from two sources: Universities and
accredited industry training (through INPO). With the looming waves of
retirement throughout the nuclear technologies sector, it will be vital
that the new employees coming into the industry are highly skilled upon
entrance and the best and brightest our nation has to offer. For
example, new nuclear engineers will be needed to replace retiring staff
in the commercial sector, as well as faculty members at leading
educational institutions.
Unfortunately, the pipeline for key areas of nuclear technologies
will continue to go unfilled in this decade as identified in this
illustration.
With nuclear plant relicensing and plans for new plants, demand for
highly educated and trained professionals will continue. The only
program that provides Federal Government support for educating and
training our nuclear energy science, technology and engineering
knowledge base is DOE's University Support Program. This program
supports vital research and educational programs in nuclear science at
the Nation's colleges and universities.
The number of four-year programs across our nation to train future
nuclear scientists has declined to approximately 25--a 50 percent
reduction since about 1970. Current state budget shortfalls are
exacerbating the closure rate. Universities across the United States
cannot afford to maintain their small research reactors, forcing their
closure at an alarming rate. This year there are only 28 operating
research and training reactors, more than a 50 percent decline since
1980. Two-thirds of the nuclear science and engineering faculty are
over age 45, with little ability to draw new and young talent to
replace them.
NEI recommends $26.5 million for DOE's University Support Program
for fiscal year 2004 to stop the disintegration of this valuable
infrastructure. To maintain our nation's position as the international
leader in nuclear technology, it is vital that the trends mentioned
here be reversed and that our nation's best and brightest technical
minds be attracted to the nuclear technologies. We support H.R. 6,
which includes Chairman Biggert's legislation, H.R. 2126. This
legislation will fully fund university programs by increasing funding
for student recruitment, teaching facilities, fuel and other reactor
equipment, and instructors to educate a new generation of American
nuclear specialists. We hope to see these provisions in final
legislation that passes both houses of Congress.
NEI encourages the Committee to consider a new $2 million program
within the Office of Nuclear Energy to support universities that have
undergraduate and graduate programs in health physics. The industry's
most recent survey of human resources revealed that health physics
professionals are declining in numbers and the need will become acute
in the next few years, when many will retire. This critical resource
will be necessary to support the industry, government programs at DOE
sites and national laboratories, NRC activities and homeland security
programs.
For more than 20 years, the industry has had a program to support
higher education.
To foster the training of engineers, the nuclear industry funds
several educational assistance programs through the National Academy
for Nuclear Training. The National Academy Educational Assistance
Program supports U.S. nuclear engineering education, encourages
students to consider careers in the nuclear energy industry, and
supports students who would be likely candidates for employment in the
industry after graduation. Each year, the program awards $560,000 in
graduate fellowships and $375,000 in undergraduate scholarships. Since
1980, the industry has provided more than $19 million to support some
3,400 students.

Need for Skilled Craft and Technician Training Programs

One area that is not currently supported by the Federal Government
to any great degree is technical and skilled craft training programs.
The industry supports the implementation of such a program within the
context of the energy bill now being considered in the Senate. The bill
sets aside $20 million each year through fiscal year 2008 to train
skilled technical personnel. This funding will supplement the
aggressive work force programs conducted by organized labor and the
industry.

As you can see from this illustration, the need for this type of
personnel is the third most vital for the industry. The legislation
does the Nation a great service by recognizing and addressing vital
personnel and training needs for the energy sector. In so doing,
Congress is cultivating the vital talent and skill needed to power our
homes, our cities, our economy and our future.
I commend the Science Committee for its foresight in addressing
secondary school technical education last year. It is important to
foster science and math education for young children, because they
ultimately will fill college classrooms in technical fields. In
particular, I want to thank Rep. Ehlers for working to secure
appropriations for the National Science Foundation. The law that was
passed, Public Law 107-368, includes many exciting provisions that
support science and math education. And although the focus in the past
has been on advanced education, Section 9 authorizes grants to
institutions of higher learning, or eligible nonprofit organizations,
to establish math and science education partnership programs to improve
secondary school instruction. It also emphasizes training master
teachers and encouraging girls to pursue studies in science, math,
engineering and technology. This is exciting and far-sighted
legislation that further supports America's need for technically
trained professionals.
In conclusion:

1. LThe nuclear industry is facing a looming staffing crisis.

2. LFederally funded university programs are critical to
meeting staffing needs in several critical areas, including
nuclear engineering, health physics and other engineering
disciplines.

3. LFederal support for skilled craft and technician training
is key to meeting the need for the highly qualified work force
our industry needs to continue its high levels of efficiency
and electricity production.

There are critical steps to be taken in cultivating the next
generation of nuclear professionals to advance the use of proven and
vital nuclear technologies, including nuclear power plants. These
plants are and will continue to be a vital part of our nation's energy
mix--and the only large source of emission-free electricity that is
readily expandable. I ask for your continued support in the effort to
ensure an adequate supply of highly qualified technical professionals
for nuclear energy and other beneficial uses of nuclear technologies.
Thank you.

Biography for Angelina S. Howard
Angie Howard is Executive Vice President of Member Relations and
External Affairs for the Nuclear Energy Institute. Ms. Howard, who
joined NEI in 1996, has also been responsible for the organization's
Industry Communications activities.
Before joining NEI, Ms. Howard was Vice President and Director of
Industry Relations and Information Services for the Atlanta-based
Institute of Nuclear Power Operations. She also was involved in the
formation of the World Association of Nuclear Operators and the
development of communications activities for the WANO-Atlanta Center,
which is co-located with INPO. Before joining INPO in 1980, Ms. Howard
was employed by Duke Power Company from 1969 to 1980.
Ms. Howard received a Bachelor's degree from Clemson University,
and is a graduate of the Advanced Management Program at the Harvard
University Graduate School of Business. She has completed the Reactor
Technology Program for Utility Executives sponsored by the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the National Academy for
Nuclear Training. Ms. Howard is an accredited member of the Public
Relations Society of America and is a member of the American Nuclear
Society. She also is a member of the Clemson University Research
Foundation Board.

Chairman Biggert. Thank you, Ms. Howard.
Dr. Stubbins.

STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES F. STUBBINS, HEAD OF THE NUCLEAR,
PLASMA, AND RADIOLOGICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, UNIVERSITY OF
ILLINOIS-URBANA-CHAMPAIGN (UIUC)

Dr. Stubbins. Chairwoman Biggert, Mr. Lampson, and Members
of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide your
Committee with some information and perspectives about the
future of university nuclear science and engineering programs.
This topic is of central concern to the Nuclear Engineering
Department Heads Organization, NEDHO, which I chaired until
last week. This organization includes Heads and Chairs of all
of the nuclear engineering departments in the U.S. and broadly
represents our common interests to see the nuclear engineering
discipline flourish at universities.
I am also speaking for my personal interest as Head of the
Department of Nuclear, Plasma, and Radiological Engineering at
the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. It is the
single department of nuclear engineering in the State of
Illinois, the most highly nuclear state in the U.S. and the
home of the first manmade nuclear reactor.
The timing of this hearing is particularly opportune since
there are several forces interacting currently to focus
attention on the need to support and grow university programs
in nuclear science and engineering, and some of those you have
already heard. These forces included several recent positive
developments to expand the use of nuclear technology for
advanced nuclear energy systems, nuclear medicine, nuclear
fusion, and to deal directly with the lingering issues of
nuclear waste management, and national and international
security. In fact, the many current positive activities are too
numerous to mention in this short time.
These positive trends have refocused the national outlook
on important and broad role of nuclear technology and
techniques can play in meeting our societal needs. The role of
government has been critical in shaping and supporting many of
these positive trends.
These positive dynamics, however, are balanced by several
concerns, which present major challenges to further development
of nuclear power and technology. These include: as you have
seen, an aging workforce; pressures on nuclear academic
programs and university research reactors, pressures that are
increasing now in times of tight university budgets; lingering
public perceptions about nuclear power, nuclear waste, and
international nuclear security; and difficulties in the
emergence of a competitive nuclear utility industry through
deregulation.
In fact, both the positive and challenges--positive aspects
and challenges have been helpful in attracting a new generation
of students to study nuclear science and engineering. These
students are buoyed by the positive trends in the nuclear
industry and are willing to accept the challenges that lie
ahead. These students see meaningful and rewarding future in
the nuclear engineering profession due to the expanding and
long-term opportunities that the field now offers. This is a
real turnaround from the low-enthusiasm enrollments of the
1990's, a difficult period not only for the nuclear industry,
but also for university degree programs and university research
reactors. This period saw the continued decline of several
nuclear engineering departments and academic programs and the
loss of university-based research reactors. This decline is
still underway despite the current upward enrollment trends and
increased research support for nuclear engineering programs.
Two of the most recent serious concerns were the impending
closure of the Ford Nuclear Reactor at the University of
Michigan, the reactor that I used for my undergraduate Nuclear
Engineering Degree program days, and the moves to terminate my
department at the University of Illinois and change its status
to a program, or to disperse the faculty and program
altogether. It is important to note that these are major issues
at two of the largest and best science and engineering
universities in the country and will have broad, negative, and
lasting impact.
There are currently 17 ABET accredited Bachelor of Science
Degree programs in Nuclear Engineering and one accredited
Master of Science program. This number is in decline in recent
years and be--and can be contrasted to the 295 BS Degree
programs in Electrical Engineering and the 250 BS Degree
programs in Mechanical Engineering in the U.S. It should be
noted that the Nuclear Engineering Degree programs are--require
excellent math and science skills and attract the very best
students. These programs reside in the best science and
engineering universities in the country. Nevertheless, at least
two of the existing BS programs are under severe pressure and
may not survive. These are the program at Maryland--the
University of Maryland, and my program at the University of
Illinois, as mentioned above.
The situation for university research reactors is no
better. The current number of university research reactors is
27, down from a high of 65. Furthermore, the losses have not
been orderly. Several of the largest, most well maintained
reactors have closed due to local university pressures. My
reactor at the University of Illinois is among this group. We
closed in 1998 due to a local administrative decision not to
re-license one of the top reactors in the country, our Advanced
TRIGA Reactor, the last research reactor in the State of
Illinois. Several of the best reactors have been shut down due
to local pressures rather than some view to national needs.
Now the DOE recognizes the need to better support these
national assets and instituted a few directed studies, which
led to the development of the Innovations in Nuclear
Infrastructure and Education, the INIE program, last year. This
program, which is only partially funded, has provided support
to several university reactor consortia with significant
national lab and industry participation. It has encouraged
enhanced cooperation among university nuclear programs and will
lead to much broader use and support of the small fleet of
remaining university research reactors.
The DOE has taken several other critical steps to direct
support--to directly support university degree programs,
including the Nuclear Engineering Education Research, NEER,
Program, the DOE-Industry Matching Grant Program, and several
fellowship and scholarship programs, though none of these are
yet supported at full funding levels.
These efforts are critical for supporting nuclear programs,
but challenges remain. For almost all university programs,
resources are based on undergraduate enrollments. The decade of
low undergraduate enrollments in the 1990's has compromised the
position of many nuclear engineering departments that we have
seen. We need to continue to address the undergraduate
enrollment issue for a number of reasons. The most important is
the need to cultivate a highly-qualified, well-educated group
of nuclear engineers to meet national manpower requirements.
This should also help stabilize the still shaky status of many
of the university Bachelor of Science Degree programs.
In conclusion, the government has played the key role in
defining and supporting nuclear development in the U.S., an
area which, in many aspects, the U.S. continues to lead.
Nuclear engineering education infrastructure in the U.S. has
maintained its international leadership role. The U.S.
universities are still the best place in the world to learn
nuclear science and engineering. This educational leadership
must be maintained as the necessary means for keeping all of
the other sectors in the U.S. nuclear portfolio vital and
vibrant.
Several possible steps have been taken to support and grow
the university nuclear education and nuclear reactor
infrastructure. Further steps are necessary. These include:
steps which----
Chairman Biggert. Dr. Stubbins, if you could conclude, and
we will----
Dr. Stubbins. Yes.
Chairman Biggert. I am sure we will get to a lot of this in
the questions.
Dr. Stubbins. Okay. These steps include: full funding to 33
million for nuclear university programs; full funding for the
INIE program; enhanced interaction between the labs and
universities and industry; and continued support of the
development of a new reactor system in the U.S.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Stubbins follows:]
Prepared Statement of James F. Stubbins
Chairwoman Biggert, Mr. Lampson and Members of the Committee, thank
you for the opportunity to provide your committee with some information
and perspectives about The Future of University Nuclear Science and
Engineering Programs. This topic is the central concern of the Nuclear
Engineering Department Heads Organization (NEDHO), which I chaired
until last week. This organization includes the Heads and Chairs of all
of the nuclear engineering departments in the U.S., and broadly
represents our common interests to see the nuclear engineering
discipline flourish at universities. I am also speaking from my
personal interests as the Head of the Department of Nuclear, Plasma and
Radiological Engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana
Champaign. It is the single department of nuclear engineering in
Illinois, the most highly nuclear state in the U.S., and the home of
the first man-made reactor.
The timing of this hearing is particularly opportune since there
are several forces interacting currently to focus attention on the need
to support and grow university programs in nuclear science and
engineering. These forces include several recent positive developments:

LThe regrouping of nuclear power utilities under
deregulation to provide a strong and sustainable nuclear power
generation infrastructure;

Lnuclear plant license extensions--several nuclear
plants have or will apply for extension of up to 20 years in
their operating license;

Lpower up-rates of several existing nuclear power
reactors to increase overall nuclear generated electricity;

Lnew nuclear power reactor designs--both abroad and at
home, new and future generations of nuclear plants are under
active development. The long-term focus of the Generation IV
(Gen IV) reactors is headed toward new, more efficient, more
passively safe, and secure reactors;

Lnew waste-efficient and proliferation-resistant
nuclear fuel cycles--developments are underway to support
``high burn-up'' fuels and the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative
(AFCI) to develop new fuels and fuel cycles which reduce waste
and deter the build up of undesirable side products;

Lcontinuing and growing interest in nuclear fusion--
the U.S. is now committed to a burning plasma experiment and is
negotiating to rejoin ITER (one of the options for a burning
plasma experiment);

Lnuclear medicine--nuclear diagnostic techniques,
radioisotopes, and a variety of nuclear-based imaging
modalities are in increasing use to provide safe, effective
medical procedures;

Lmovement forward with management of current nuclear
waste at Yucca Mountain--the license process for Yucca Mountain
is underway following the recommendation by the President and
the assent of Congress last year;

Lpositive steps toward new civilian nuclear plant
construction--the DOE and others are supporting an initiative
for new nuclear plant construction in the ``2010'' Program. A
few utilities have started inquiries for site approval as a
first step toward new construction;

LBroad-based research initiatives for improving and
advancing nuclear power facilities and operation for example
through the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI) and the
international version, INERI;

Lincreased awareness of the impact of carbon-
containing emissions--the growing public awareness of the role
nuclear power can play in reducing carbon-containing and other
environmentally unfriendly gases;

Lnational and international security--the growing need
for enhanced national and international security through the
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and a broad
range of activities to monitor and uncover dangerous nuclear
agents;

Lspace nuclear power--the development of a nuclear
power base for manned missions to Mars and beyond where
nuclear-based propulsion is the only way to provide sufficient
continuous power to keep flight times short and mission goals
manageable;

Land the emergence of a balanced National Energy
Policy--a balance approach to the development of a variety of
energy resources in which nuclear power plays a central and
long-term role. In addition, the trend toward a hydrogen-based
fuel economy will certainly include nuclear power generation.

These positive trends have refocused the national outlook on the
important and broad role nuclear technology and techniques can play in
meeting our societal needs. The role of government has been critical in
shaping and supporting many of these positive trends.
These positive dynamics are balance by several concerns which
present major challenges to further development of nuclear power and
technology. These include:

Lan aging nuclear workforce;

Lpressures on nuclear academic programs and university
research reactors, pressures that are increasing now in times
of tight university budgets;

Llingering public perception of nuclear power, nuclear
waste and international nuclear security;

Land difficulties in the emergence of a competitive
nuclear utility industry through deregulation.

In fact, both the positive aspects and the challenges have been
helpful in bringing a new generation of students to study nuclear
science and engineering. These students are buoyed by the positive
trends in the nuclear industry and are willing to accept the challenges
that lie ahead. These students see a meaningful and rewarding future in
the nuclear engineering profession due to the expanding and long-term
opportunities that the field now offers. This is a real turn around
from the low enthusiasm and enrollments of the 1990's, a difficult
period not only for the nuclear industry, but also for university
degree programs and university reactors. This period saw the continued
decline of several nuclear engineering departments and academic
programs, and the loss of several critical university-based teaching,
research and training reactors. This decline is still underway despite
the current upward enrollment trends and increased research support for
nuclear engineering programs. Two of the most recent serious concerns
are the impending closing of the Ford Nuclear Reactor at the University
of Michigan (the reactor I used in my undergraduate studies in Nuclear
Engineering) and the moves to terminate my department at the University
of Illinois and change its status to a program, or to disperse the
faculty and program altogether. I will return to these points later,
but it is important to note that these are major issues at two of the
largest and best science and engineering universities in the country,
and will have broad, negative impact.
There are currently 17 ABET accredited BS degrees in Nuclear
Engineering, and one accredited MS degree program. This number has
declined in recent years and can be contrasted to 295 BS degree
programs in Electrical Engineering and 250 BS degree programs in
Mechanical Engineering. Table 1 shows an indication of the engineering
BS degree types at the top ten graduate colleges of engineering. Note
that Nuclear Engineering is a prominent degree program at many top
institutions. Nevertheless, at least two of the existing BS programs
are under severe pressure and may not survive. These are the program at
the University of Maryland and my program at the University of
Illinois, as mentioned above. Several features of nuclear engineering
educational programs are noteworthy and indicate the need for specific,
focused attention to the well being of the discipline:

LNuclear engineering is a unique discipline--it is not
a sub-discipline of other traditional engineering fields,
making it difficult to impossible to flourish as sub-discipline
in another department.

LMany nuclear engineering programs which were merged
into other engineering departments have dwindled or are
completely gone.

LThe nuclear discipline is new--the first reactor was
assembled in Chicago just over 60 years ago, and many nuclear
engineering programs were formed staring in the late 1950's to
early 1960's to educate a new generation of students for a
variety of nuclear applications.

LNuclear is ``high tech''--the discipline requires
strong math, science and technical skills so nuclear
engineering programs are found at the best universities and
attract the best students, students who, on graduation, attract
the best salaries in the short- and long-term and who have the
highest average passing scores on the professional engineering
exams.

LNuclear programs are under pressure due to the low
enrollments during the 1990's and needs to redistribute
resources to other academic areas. This is exacerbated by
current, severe university budget pressures.

LThe resurgence of the nuclear engineering profession
has prompted the formation of new programs and departments--the
most recent are BS programs at South Carolina State and at the
U.S. Military Academy, and MS programs at the University of
South Carolina and at the University of Nevada at Los Vegas.
The development of new programs requires extensive new
resources to be successful. Thus these programs should be seen
as complementary to the existing programs, and serve to further
emphasize the value of the existing nuclear degree programs.

The situation for university research reactors is no better. The
current number of university research reactors (URR) is 27, down from a
high of 65. Furthermore, the losses of have not been orderly. Several
of the largest, most well maintained reactors have closed due to local
university pressures. My reactor at the University of Illinois is among
this group. We closed in 1998 due to a local administrative decision
not to relicense one of the top few reactors in the country, our
Advanced TRIGA Reactor, the last research reactor in the State of
Illinois. Nor have these closures been systematically planned since
several of the best reactors have been shut down due to local
pressures, rather than some view to national needs. The DOE recognized
the need to better support these national assets and instituted a few
directed studies which led to the development of the in Innovations in
Nuclear Infrastructures and Education (INIE) Program last year. This
program is aimed at providing the support base to maintain a national
university research reactor program with coordination between
participating universities, national laboratories and industry. In a
highly competitive process, four reactor consortia were funded last
year, and two more consortia will be added this year. This effort came
too late to help reactors which closed in the 1990's, including mine,
and could not influence more recent closures at Cornell and an
impending closure at the University of Michigan. Other reactors,
including some in existing consortia, are still at risk. Table 2
provides an indication of which of the current largest university
research reactors are included in INIE consortia. (My reactor is in
SAFSTOR, but its prominent position on the list indicates the magnitude
of its loss to our program.) The INIE program, as the Table only
partially indicates, has led to wide partnering between universities to
share reactors, reactor technology and reactor resources. Partnering on
this scale has not been seen before, and has broad benefits for sharing
teaching and outreach resources which can only strengthen the nuclear
discipline in general, while also supporting a diminished, but
necessary, fleet of university reactors.
The DOE has taken several other critical steps to directly support
university degree programs, including the Nuclear Engineering Education
Research (NEER) Program, the DOE-Industry Matching Grant Program, and
several Fellowship and Scholarship programs. These are in addition to
university participation in other, broader research programs supported
by DOE-NE and other DOE offices. Dr. Marcus will describe these in much
more detail in her testimony, so I will not delineate them further
here. These programs have been critical to the well being of university
program. They have been offered on a competitive basis with highly
focused peer review processes to determine and award only the very best
proposals. Both the resources and the competitive nature of the award
process have strengthened university degree programs. These programs
have also been important in developing and strengthening ties between
research programs at universities, national labs and with the nuclear
industry. Nevertheless, these programs remain under-supported. For
example, more than half of the NEER grant applications are worthy of
funding. In a good year, less than 20 percent will receive funding, and
this year less than 10 percent of the new grant applications were
funded. In addition, only one new DOE-NE Fellowship will be awarded
this year.
These efforts are critical for supporting nuclear programs, but
challenges remain. For almost all university programs, resources are
based on undergraduate enrollments. The decade of low undergraduate
enrollments in the 1990's has compromised the position of many nuclear
engineering departments. We need to continue to address the
undergraduate enrollment issues for a number of reasons--the most
important are the need to cultivate a highly-qualified and well-
educated group of nuclear engineers to meet national manpower
requirements. Increases in undergraduate student enrollments to meet
this need will also restore the strength of the departments at
universities. These manpower requirements are widespread--at national
labs, at utilities, at nuclear vendors, and at nuclear utilities. The
time line to the biggest impact differs between industry sectors, but
it is clear that the future well-being of the industry rest entirely on
attracting and educating new students. Even in sectors where the
manpower needs are further in the future, for example, the nuclear
utilities, they will need an extremely well educated workforce to
provide them the edge they need for the competitive markets they are
entering, and to maintain secure and safe operation. In the nuclear
defense sector, international security issues demand a highly educated
and highly dedicated workforce to replace the currently aging experts.
The success in every sector of the nuclear enterprise will depend on
the quality and education of the people they hire. This underlines the
continuing, acute need to support the nuclear education infrastructure
in the U.S.
In this regard, my situation at the University of Illinois is
instructive, and foreboding. My Department is under pressure to be
merged with another department or to be dispersed altogether. This is
despite strong increases in research funding and moderate, but steady
increases in undergraduate student numbers, and very high national
ranking and reputation. This problem is exacerbated by the faculty age
distribution--we, too, have a major issue with an aging work forces,
common to many university nuclear programs. The average age of my
faculty is over 56 years, with three of the nine faculty members at age
70 or more. The older faculty members represent a wealth of knowledge
in the nuclear field dating back nearly to the beginning. In fact, one
of these faculty members is the first Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering
awarded in the U.S. Nevertheless, my Dean is looking to redistributing
resources in the College of Engineering and, in the process, to merge
or disband my Department. This problem is related almost solely to our
low undergraduate enrollment numbers. At a time when we should be
building for the future with the rest of the country, we are fighting
for existence. This is particularly alarming for us. We are the only
nuclear engineering department in the State of Illinois, a state with
11 operating nuclear power reactors (and associated spent fuel),
Argonne National Laboratory, and other nuclear facilities. Illinois
residents have paid more than $2.4 billion into the federal Nuclear
Waste Fund. Our program has contributed widely to the state and
national nuclear infrastructure that supports nuclear power, technology
and national security. It is hard to accept that a State with such a
large stake in nuclear power and technology cannot support a Department
of Nuclear Engineering and the necessary ten to twelve faculty members.
This picture may be extreme compared to situations elsewhere where
undergraduate enrollments have climbed more quickly than ours, but it
is a warning about how fragile the nuclear engineering educational
infrastructure remains in the U.S., particularly in times of tight
state and university budgets. Action is required to support and
maintain these valuable programs.
In conclusion, the government has played the key role in defining
and supporting nuclear development in the U.S., an area which, in many
aspects, the U.S. continues to lead. The globalization of much of the
nuclear reactor design and support activities leaves the U.S. as a
major player, at least. In other areas, which directly impact national
and international security (both in defense and energy self-
sufficiency), and in areas of advanced nuclear systems design, in
nuclear fusion, in nuclear medicine, and in nuclear space applications,
the U.S. maintains, and must protect, its leadership role. The nuclear
educational infrastructure in the U.S. has maintained its international
leadership role: the U.S. universities are still the best place in the
world to learn nuclear science and engineering. This educational
leadership must be maintained as THE necessary means for keeping all of
the other sectors in the U.S. nuclear portfolio vital and vibrant.
Several positives steps have been taken to support and grow the
university nuclear education and nuclear reactor infrastructure.
Further steps are necessary. These include:

LSteps which lead to supporting the NERAC
recommendation of a funding level of $33M for nuclear
university programs;

LFull and continuous funding for the INIE program to
support university research reactors;

LSupport for enhanced interactions (intellectual and
financial) among universities, national laboratories, and
industry;

LBetter national liaison with universities to
underline the national, as well as local, importance of a
strong nuclear education and reactor infrastructure,
particularly to protect and enhance existing programs, and to
provide opportunities for new programs; and

LContinued support of efforts to establish a new
nuclear plant order in the U.S.--this is seen almost
universally as a national commitment to nuclear power and is
likely to attract many new students to the discipline.

Thank you for your attention and interest.

Answers to Specific Questions (in addition to comments in the body of
the Statement)

NEDHO has supported a request for increasing funds in the DOE-NE
support for University Nuclear Science and Engineering Programs,
designated in the DOE-NE budget as University Reactor Fuel Assistance
Support (URFAS). We support a funding level of $26.5 for FY04, an
increase from $18.5M, with priorities given to, in order, increase INIE
to nearly full funding ($11M from 6.5M), increase NEER ($8M from $5M),
and increase Fellowships ($1.9M from $1.5M). These increases will
support the necessary growth of the university programs. In the longer-
term, we support the recommendations of NERAC (Nuclear Energy Research
Advisory Committee to DOE-NE) to increase URFAS to reach a level of
$33M, with appropriate increases in several categories including those
mentioned above. Without these resources, several programs would come
under severe risk of merger or closure. Stability of research and
infrastructure support, through DOE and others, remains a critical
issue in the health of U.S. nuclear engineering programs. One only
needs to reflect on the dire situation in the mid-1990's when the
university support was zero, to see the lasting impact of funding
shortfalls and instability of support.
A specific justification of the requested increases for FY04 are
included here as an appendix.

We feel that the nuclear infrastructure needs to grow to meet the
increasing and lasting need for nuclear-educated professionals.
However, first we need to commit to supporting the current number of
excellent nuclear science and engineering educational programs, many of
which are still struggling for resources in an increasing competitive
atmosphere in under-funded university programs. This includes a
commitment to replace aging faculty to maintain the important
collective knowledge that will soon be gone. We also support the
development of new programs, there are some recent examples, since the
workforce issue will not diminish. Finally, almost all nuclear programs
are increasingly using distance education techniques to reach wider
audiences more quickly and efficiently. This technology can also be
used to capture the wisdom of the more senior university faculty before
they leave the system completely. In order to accomplish all of this,
we require the substantial and continued support of the government.

There are several aspects to maintaining high quality educational
programs, and facilities, including university research reactors, are
an important part of the picture. As indicated above, nuclear programs
are found at the leading science and engineering universities. This is
due in no small part to the high degree of science and mathematical
skills required of student of the discipline. Our degree programs are
able to maintain high academic standards in the absence of a reactor,
but clearly reactor experience can be a defining event for student
development. In the past year, the founding of the INIE program will
provide for wider research reactor experience for students at
universities without reactors (as well as many in other disciplines and
other educational levels). We think this will have a very positive
effect on maintaining the quality of nuclear engineering education.
While remote access to reactor technology is helpful, the INIE, and
earlier the ``Reactor Sharing'' Program, provide a mechanism for visits
and research experiences on an existing reactor. National labs and
industry have been supportive of reactor experiences for students when
practicable. There are relatively few national lab reactors, and access
to industry based power reactors is difficult. The nuclear industry has
participated broadly in making their reactor simulators available for
educational purposes. In addition, there is significant partnering with
national labs and industry in the INIE program (as well as NERI, etc.)
which support more expansive use of valuable reactor facilities.
National lab and industry interaction and support of university
nuclear programs is critical in a very broad sense. There are many
long-standing interactions of this sort which have resulted in graduate
student experiences at national labs, and a variety of internships for
undergraduate students at utilities and at national labs. In the
research area, many of the most successful exchanges are done on an
individual basis. Cooperative research through NERI, AFCI and
partnerships within INIE have also been important in enhancing
university-national lab-industry interactions. We support further
considerations now underway at DOE-NE to provide better and more
plentiful means of participating intellectually and financially in
funded research at national labs, and with industry where appropriate.
We feel that many of the current national nuclear initiatives will not
succeed without strong university-national lab-industry cooperation.

Appendix

FY04 Funding Request for the University Nuclear Science and Engineering
Programs

James F. Stubbins, John C. Lee, Andrew C. Klein, and Michael L.
Corradini

Nuclear Engineering Department Heads Organization

The FY04 Department of Energy funding for the University
Reactor Fuel Assistance Support (URFAS) Program is inadequate
to meet our nation's critical need for university-based nuclear
education and research. The URFAS Program is the primary source
of funding for the university nuclear science and engineering
(NSE) educational programs and university research reactors
(URRs). This testimony presents the unanimous position of both
the Nuclear Engineering Department Heads Organization (NEDHO)
and the National Organization of the Test, Research, and
Training Reactors (TRTR).

Key Issues and the Request

The U.S. has become keenly aware of the importance of
secure and affordable energy supply for the present and future
well-being of the Nation. Nuclear energy can play a crucial
role in stabilizing and reducing energy prices, and in meeting
the energy needs of the country by the production of
electricity as well as hydrogen for transportation. This has
been emphasized in recent Congressional bills and in speeches
by Secretary Abraham and President Bush. Significant concerns
have been raised, however, regarding the maintenance of the
workforce required to retain our nation's nuclear energy
option. Grossly inadequate student enrollments in NSE programs,
despite modest improvements over the past few years, and
imminent threats to continued operation of URRs are primary
concerns that need to be addressed immediately.
Despite these escalating problems, the FY04 DOE request of
$18.5M remains flat at the FY03 appropriation and is
significantly below the $33M recommended in the Energy
Research, Development, Demonstration, and Commercial
Application Act of 2003, H.R. 238. In light of the severe
budgetary constraints anticipated for FY04, we respectfully
request:
The House and Senate Energy and Water Appropriations
Subcommittees appropriate for FY04 $26.5M for the University
Reactor Fuel Assistance Support Program within DOE's Office of
Nuclear Energy Science and Technology Programs.
This represents a modest increase of $8.0M from the FY03
appropriation and is required to prevent further declines in
the URRs and university NSE programs. A detailed breakdown for
the FY04 funding request for the university NSE programs is
given in Table I below.

NEDHO and TRTR unanimously agree that the FY04 funding request
should be, in order of priorities: (1) Innovations in Nuclear
Infrastructure and Engineering (INIE) program increase of $4.5M to a
total of $11.0M, (2) Nuclear Engineering Education Research (NEER)
program increase of $3.0M to $8.0M, and (3) fellowship and scholarship
program increase of $0.5M to $1.9M.

Justification for the Request

The Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC) to the
Secretary of Energy discussed in a recent report\1\ the importance of
academic NSE programs in meeting the infrastructure and workforce
requirements for sustained nuclear technology development related to
(a) current and future generations of nuclear power plants, (b)
radiation sciences with industrial, medical, and biotechnology
applications, (c) national security and weapons nonproliferation
programs, and (d) nuclear propulsion in the U.S. Navy. This NERAC
report highlights the near-crisis status of the country's NSE programs,
noting that over the past two decades the number of academic nuclear
engineering programs has halved to the current total of only 25, with a
similar decrease in the number of URRs from 65 to 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ M.L. Corradini, et al., ``The Future of University Nuclear
Engineering Programs and University Research and Training Reactors,''
Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee, U.S. Department of Energy
(2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of the decision by Cornell University in 2001 to
decommission its campus reactor and the imminent risk to the URRs at
the University of Michigan and Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
DOE initiated in 2002 the INIE program to support regional URR centers.
Seven regional URR consortia, distributed across the country, were
selected through an independent peer review panel for funding. Due to
the limited FY02 INIE appropriation of $5.5M, DOE was able to provide
funding only for four consortia, with the three additional consortia to
receive INIE grants as additional funding becomes available. In the
FY03 omnibus appropriations bill, the INIE funding is increased only by
$1M to a total of $6.5M, despite a funding request of $8.5M in the
Senate appropriations bill. With this limited INIE FY03 appropriation,
DOE would be unable to initiate funding for the remaining three URRs
selected, but not funded to date. Without increased INIE funding the
University of Michigan will shut down and decommission its reactor due
to inadequate external financial support. The current INIE
appropriation provides only partial funding even for the four URR
consortia already funded. Our requested FY04 INIE funding of $11M
provides the minimum support required to initiate funding for the three
remaining consortia and sustain a total of seven URR regional centers
distributed across the country. The lead institutions for the seven URR
centers selected for funding are as follows:

1. LMassachusetts Institute of Technology

2. LPennsylvania State University

3. LOregon State University and University of California, Davis

4. LTexas A&M University

5. LUniversity of Missouri, Columbia

6. LUniversity of Michigan

7. LNorth Carolina State University

The seven consortia involve participation by at least 15 other
universities and several national laboratories. Because these URRs
belong to the group of best-utilized facilities, and are associated
with the top nuclear engineering departments in the country, a
premature demise of any of these leading URRs would be a major blow to
the Nation's nuclear energy program and the loss of valuable national
scientific research and training resources. This loss would be tragic
particularly as the Nation begins to actively consider expanding
nuclear electricity generating capacity to meet the increasing energy
demand for the Nation. Because contributions of nuclear scientists and
engineers extend well beyond traditional nuclear power, including
national defense, homeland security, medical applications of radiation
science, and industrial applications, the shortage of technically
trained nuclear professionals is even more critical.
A recent NEDHO study\2\ indicates that the annual demand for
nuclear engineers is expected to exceed the supply by 400 in the
immediate future. This shortage of nuclear engineers is due primarily
to the retirement of the first generation of engineers engaged in the
development, construction and operation of current generation of 105
nuclear power plants operating in the country. This shortage has
resulted in a very tight job market for employers seeking nuclear
engineers and a number of utilities are investigating programs to train
non-nuclear engineers to work in the nuclear fields. With a number of
U.S. utility companies establishing plans to order new nuclear power
plants in the very near future, however, the demand for nuclear
engineers will grow and the Nation's ability to expand nuclear
electricity generating capacity may likely be limited by the trained
workforce, not by the financial resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ G.S. Was and W.R. Martin, Eds., ``Manpower Supply and Demand in
the Nuclear Industry,'' Nuclear Engineering Department Heads
Organization (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the urgent funding increase for the INIE program
discussed above, we offer comments on various budget categories for the
proposed university NSE funding:

LThe NEER program, since its inception in the current
form in FY98, has been a major source of research funding for
the entire academic NSE community and has contributed
significantly to our ability to attract quality graduate
students into research programs. These research grants cover
areas of basic nuclear science and engineering research and
synergistically augment much more application-oriented programs
funded through the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI).
The NEER funding has been flat for the past five years at
$5.0M, supporting only one out of every ten competitive
proposals in a given year. Thus, the proposed increase of the
NEER funding from $5.0M to $8.0M is very much needed, although
still insufficient to fund many of the research proposals that
are highly evaluated but not supported due to limited funding.
The NEER grants have been and will continue to support research
programs not only in nuclear science and engineering but also
in related fields of health physics and radiation safety. An
increased FY04 appropriation for the NEER program will be
especially necessary for this purpose.

LFunds for undergraduate scholarships and graduate
scholarships are essential in our effort to increase student
enrollments in nuclear engineering and related programs.
Although the DOE fellowship funding has been highly valuable,
the funding level has remained flat for the six years and
woefully inadequate. To simply illustrate the inadequacy of
$1.4M fellowship support in the FY04 DOE request, we note that
it requires up to $55,000 per year to support a graduate
student at many research universities.

LThe other academic programs for a total of $1.3M
include the DOE/Industry Matching Grants, which leverage the
DOE funding for broad-based support from the nuclear industry
for the university NSE and URR programs. Many schools use the
Matching Grants to augment the DOE fellowship funding for
undergraduate scholarships and graduate student research
support. The remainder of the $1.3M funding will support a
modest program in radiochemistry and facilitate closer
collaborations in research and instructional programs between
DOE national laboratories and academic institutions. The
funding will also promote community outreach effort including
the training of high school teachers in nuclear science and
technology.

LThe remaining $4.3M funding for the URRs cover the
costs for (1) supply of fresh reactor fuel and shipment of
irradiated fuel, (2) refurbishment and upgrade of
instrumentation primarily for URRs not included in the INIE
consortia, and (3) providing URR access to researchers at
universities without a campus reactor.

LUniversity research reactors provide essential
support both for instructional and research programs on 26
university campuses. These campus reactors offer programs in
(a) incore irradiations for materials science study, isotope
production in medical and industrial applications, neutron
activation analysis in manufacturing and environmental
applications, and nuclear wasteform study, (b) neutron beam
port applications for neutron scattering as a materials
diagnostic tool, neutron radiography as a nondestructive
testing tool, semiconductor processing, characterization of
materials in nuclear and non-nuclear applications, and boron
neutron capture therapy, (c) reactor control study involving
digital instrumentation and control for advanced reactors as
well as for the current generation of nuclear power plants, (d)
neutron and reactor physics studies offering research in
medical imaging, radiation detectors for homeland security,
nuclear fuel development, and advanced reactor design and
safety features. In addition, each URR serves as a magnet for
recruiting students and is a focal point for community
outreach.

Summary of the Request

We respectfully request that Congress provides in the FY04 budget
$26.5M for operations and research support for university research
reactors and research and student support of the nuclear science and
engineering departments. This amount will fund the seven INIE regional
reactor centers and strengthen academic programs in nuclear science and
engineering. This funding level is required to guarantee the Nation
secure energy sources for the future and enhance the scientific,
medical, and industrial applications of radiation science and
technology for the Nation.
Biography for James F. Stubbins
Dr. James F. Stubbins is a Professor and Head of the Nuclear,
Plasma, and Radiological Engineering Department at the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Illinois (UIUC), where he has been a
faculty member since 1980. His previous positions include Guest
Scientist, Institute for Materials and Solid-State Research,
Forschungszentrum (Research Center), Karlsruhe, Germany (1976-1977);
Research Associate, Department of Metallurgy and Science of Materials,
University of Oxford, Oxford, England (1977-1978); and Materials
Engineer, Principal Investigator--Gas Cooled Reactor Materials Program,
Energy Systems Programs Department, General Electric Co., Schenectady,
NY (1978-1980).
He has extensive research and teaching experience related to issues
surrounding the production, transport, and interactions of radiation
with matter, irradiation damage and effects in materials, mechanical
properties, high temperature corrosion, and electron microscopy.
Dr. Stubbins has enjoyed long-standing professional relationships
with a number of national labs. He has maintained associations as a
Faculty Appointee, Associated Western Universities (AWU) with Battelle
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA; a Faculty
Appointee, Division of Educational Programs, Argonne National
Laboratory; an Affiliate, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and a
Visiting Scientist with Oak Ridge National Lab. He has a long-standing
Visiting Scientist appointment in the Materials Science Department at
the Riso National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark. He has written more
than 75 technical articles and publications, and more than 40
conference proceeding.
Dr. Stubbins serves on several national boards and committees, such
as Member of Department of Energy (DOE), Nuclear Engineering (NE)
University Working Group, Program Reviewer DOE, and Program Advisory
Committee Pacific Northwest National Lab (PNNL). He served as an ex-
officio member of the Fusion Energy Scientific Advisory Committee
(FESAC). He serves as chair of Materials Science and Technology
Division, American Nuclear Society and is the immediate past Chair of
the Fusion Energy Division, American Nuclear Society. He is also the
current Chair of the Nuclear Engineering Department Heads Organization
(NEDHO).
Dr. Stubbins earned his BS Degree in Nuclear Engineering at the
University of Michigan, his MS degree in Nuclear Engineering and Ph.D.
degree in Materials Science both from the University of Cincinnati.

Chairman Biggert. Thank you.
And Dr. Slaughter.

STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID M. ``MIKE'' SLAUGHTER, DIRECTOR, CENTER
FOR EXCELLENCE IN NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND
RESEARCH, CHAIR, NUCLEAR ENGINEERING PROGRAM, UNIVERSITY OF
UTAH, SALT LAKE CITY

Dr. Slaughter. Chairwoman Biggert, Mr. Lampson, and the
other Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me for
this testimony.
We see growth and a need for different education research
paradigms. During the decline over the past several decades of
student enrollments in nuclear engineering and radiation
science programs, many universities chose not to replace
faculty who left, which has created a shortfall of qualified
faculty at a time when student enrollments are increasing. In
addition, infrastructure neglect has occurred during the past
few decades due to a number of complex issues, which include
restricted budgets, increased cost of operation, the necessary
diversion of resource to meet increased regulatory demands, and
faculty turnover that may have resulted in the change to
program--changes to program directions.
These factors leave many colleges and universities ill-
equipped to impart basic skills, interdisciplinary courses,
industrial training, and relevant research needed to better
serve the industrial and government sectors. Most research
reactors were initially constructed for nuclear engineering and
radiological science research and education. They were, and
still remain, available for teaching, reactor design, core
physics, nuclear safety, and radiological protection and
support research in reactor physics, cross section
measurements, and reactor component development.
Today's research reactors enjoy a broader academic and
research mission that encompass a wide variety of disciplines:
energy, medical, radiopharmaceuticals, physical science,
engineering, and material sciences. As a result of these
evolving and broadening missions, no one university is able to
provide a comprehensive nuclear science engineering experience.
And no one reactor program can provide the entire capabilities
that education, research, and the industrial community demand.
Does an individual university have to own and operate a
nuclear reactor to have a successful nuclear science and
engineering program? Of course not. Does a university need
reasonable access to such facilities? Yes, most likely,
although it also depends on the institutional choices and
directions, such as technical focus of an institution's
departments, faculty, strategic plan, and the community needs.
Are university nuclear reactors and the related highly
specialized infrastructure required to maintain a vibrant
nuclear research enterprise in the United States? Absolutely.
While it is not known exactly how many university reactors are
needed to fill the broad mission, it is clear from the demand
that the current numbers may not be enough, although current
numbers must suffice. One thing is certain: New research
reactors will not be constructed on university campuses in the
near future, in part due to the prohibitive costs associated
with construction, the necessary and extensive compliance with
regulatory restrictions, safety and security issues, and a
general, although erroneous, negative public perception.
The most cost-effective and practical long-term strategy to
maintaining the existing research reactors by strategic funding
initiatives and an encouraged reactor program and university
administrations to think beyond their institutional boundaries.
We need to avoid duplication and share resources, when
possible, with our counterparts at other educational
institutions, in industry, and at government facilities.
We see research reactor education research activities
expanding. Large companies and corporations that have
historically maintained well-funded research and development
components are now downsizing in order to better cope with
competition. As an alternative to such onsite research
facilities, many corporations are refreshing their links with
universities that have reactor programs to help maintain an
aggressive stance in technology development. Additionally,
small companies without financial resources or reserves to
support technology groups often seek to develop new products by
teaming with universities to ensure their own competitiveness.
Reactors at universities have been successful in assisting
a significant number of industrial clients in improving
existing and creating new niche technologies. Most of the
research reactors at universities maintain a strong and
creative mix of faculty, staff, and students. Funds provided by
industry heavily impact the development and movement of
technologies, not to mention graduate students, who are the
inventors of these technologies, into the mainstream of the
industrial community.
We have seen a need for additional, stable funding from
university, industry, and government. Engineering students are
expensive to educate, with nuclear engineers and radiation
scientists the most costly of this group. The high cost is due
to the sensitive, unique, and highly regulative equipment that
is required. If those greater educational costs can not be
carried by state funding or by students themselves, such costs
then must be covered by governmental grants and contracts with
the industrial sector in resource-sharing strategies.
The health and vitality of an academic infrastructure in
nuclear engineering reaches--depends on federal support, the
same as any other vibrant science and engineering discipline.
While new funds must be made available that will adequately
support the delivery of educational research missions, the
effective administration of appropriate funds for distribution
by the DOE needs equal attention. The key recommendations from
the respective Corradini and Long Reports to Nuclear Energy
Research Advisory Committee, NERAC, blue-ribbon panel suggests
the most important role for the Department of Energy/Nuclear
Energy, DOE/NE, is to assure significant numbers of nuclear
science/engineering education programs and to maintain an
effective research infrastructure.
Currently, the U.S. DOE has three priorities in the
following order of importance, as provided: licensing issues
for Yucca Mountain; transportation; and research and science.
It is not clear how these DOE priorities will impact DOE/NE
appropriations for nuclear education and research activities in
2003 and 2004 or in the future. The present DOE/NE
administration, unfortunately, may be forced to reprogram
critically important funds over to other areas of the DOE
budget if significant budget cuts are undertaken. To protect,
or buffer, vital program funds from reprogram, congressional
appropriation bills should be well defined on disbursement and
should clearly indicate what limits and justifications will be
allowed for reprogramming.
The educational and research infrastructure needs to be
funded at the $15 million-level recommended by the May 2000
Corradini Report to NERAC while increasing the current grant
programs: Fuel Assistance, Reactor Sharing, and Instrumentation
Upgrade. The current INIE program also needs to be revamped so
it more closely resembles the April 2001 Long Report to NERAC,
which recommended both regional research reactor consortia and
regional education and training consortia.
It was presented in the Long Report, the INIE program was
discussed at--as--excuse me, as was presented----
Chairman Biggert. Dr. Slaughter, if you could conclude.
Thank you.
Dr. Slaughter. It--in brief, equitable distribution of the
new and existing DOE/NE funds is required for a healthy,
effective, and fair delivery of federal support. Guidelines
should be effectively presented at the time the solicitation is
issued by the DOE, with an explanation of how funds are to be
used and an outline of the reasonable performance criteria. It
should be stated whether or not termination of fundings might
occur if certain performance criteria are not met.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Slaughter follows:]
Prepared Statement of David M. Slaughter

Developing New Paradigms to Improve Educational Experiences and Support
Unique Infrastructure in Nuclear Engineering and Nuclear-Related
Disciplines

New Paradigms

We in the academic community feel the classic and cyclic directive
to: 1) generate as many graduates as possible; 2) publish the results
of research in a timely manner; and 3) locate new sources of revenue
through research contracts. It is mainly through Masters and Doctoral
candidates that such research goals are pursued and met in the course
of the students' education and their increasing proficiency. A sharp
increase has occurred in student enrollments in most nuclear
engineering programs (NEPs). Thus, faculty in nuclear engineering are
even more highly motivated to encourage undergraduates to enroll in
nuclear engineering courses and programs, and to continue to
enthusiastically foster graduates in these programs. At times, it seems
that typical NEP directors and faculty are struggling with the number
of students we are able to graduate than uniting the quality and
relevancy of their educational experience to contemporary industrial
and commercial domains. We strongly believe it is time to establish
better methods for resource sharing, information exchange, and general
cooperation between universities and viable businesses in the nuclear
engineering and radiation science industries as well as governmental
agencies in the field.
During the decline over the past several decades of student
enrollments in nuclear engineering and radiation science programs, many
universities chose not replace faculty who left, which has created a
shortfall of qualified faculty at a time when student enrollments are
back on the rise. In addition, infrastructure neglect has occurred
during the past few decades due to a number of complex issues, which
include restricted budgets, increased costs of operation, the necessary
diversion of resources to meet increased regulatory demands, and
faculty turnover that may have resulted in changes to program
directions. All of these factors and others combined with recent rapid
technological and economic changes in nuclear engineering and radiation
science leave many colleges and universities ill-equipped to impart the
basic skills, interdisciplinary courses, industrial training, and
modern and relevant research needed to better serve the industrial and
government sectors. Universities should foster excellence and provide
equal opportunity in the areas of Nuclear Engineering education,
research, and public service. In order for us to succeed now and in the
future, we must employ newly adopted educational paradigms that require
continuous evaluation and advancement. Rigorous university reactor
programs should:

LDeliver a ``back-to-basics'' educational program that
encourages sound fundamentals, adapts new research and service
strategies, and facilitates creative thinking.

LDevelop performance-based and team-oriented faculty
with diverse abilities and experiences, along with a credible
background, who work together to deliver a broad and integrated
laboratory experience with what is learned in the classroom.

LIncorporate innovative and legal budget strategies
that tap into governmental, industrial, and other non-
traditional sources to support educational activities and
research combined with traditional federal and state funding.

LFoster an environment that provides good advising,
frequent interaction, and practical and applied experiences for
students that emphasize capability, mastery, self-motivation,
and creativity in academic and research endeavors.

LPromote multi-tasking and multi-disciplinary
experiences.

University Research Reactors (URRs) advance both research and
education activities. University facilities have state-of-the-art
experimental resources distributed within an appropriate educational
environment, and students, especially at the graduate level, have
access and opportunities for hands-on experiences using contemporary
equipment. New concepts that require multiple trials are evaluated in a
context where time pressures are not as competitively prohibitive,
unlike research reactors available at national laboratories. Because of
the university setting, activities at URRs are usually cross-
disciplinary and use neutron science as a focal point. Results are most
successful when faculty from several departments, educational
institutions, and industry are able to input into the required
experimental program outcomes, design, and implementation.
Most URRs were initially constructed for nuclear engineering and
radiological science research and education. They were and still remain
available for teaching reactor design, core physics, nuclear safety,
and radiological protection, and support research in reactor physics,
cross-section measurements, and reactor component development. Today's
URRs (100 kW or higher) enjoy broad academic and research missions that
encompass a wide variety of disciplines: energy, medical, radio
pharmaceuticals, physical sciences, engineering, and material sciences.
As a result of these evolving and broadening missions, no one
university is able to provide a comprehensive nuclear science and
engineering experience, and no one reactor program can provide the
entire capabilities that education, research, and the industrial
community demand.
Does an individual university have to own and operate a nuclear
reactor to have a successful nuclear science and engineering program?
Of course not. Does a university need reasonable access to such
facilities? Yes, most likely, although it also depends on institutional
choices and directions, such as the technical focus of a given
institution's departments and faculty, strategic plan, and community
needs. Are university nuclear reactors and the related highly
specialized infrastructure required to maintain a vibrant nuclear
research enterprise in the United States? Absolutely! While it is not
known exactly how many university reactors are needed to fulfill the
broad mission that these facilities serve, along with the ever-changing
needs of government and industry, it is clear from demand that the
current number may not be enough, although current numbers must
suffice. One thing is certain: New research reactors will probably not
be constructed on university campuses in the near future, in part due
to prohibitive costs associated with construction, the necessary and
extensive compliance with regulatory restrictions, safety and security
issues and activities, and a general, although erroneous, public
perception of danger that needs to be overcome because it is not
warranted.
Some may cite the current low research/service activity at a few
reactor facilities as proof that the United States already has an
abundance of neutrons and the current levels aren't fully being
utilized. As a professor of nuclear engineering and scientist, I could,
in turn, argue that today's measured outcome actually represents the
result of institutional, government, and industry neglect of programs.
The most cost-effective and practical long-term strategy is to maintain
existing URRs by strategic funding initiatives and to encourage reactor
programs and university administrations to think beyond their own
institutional boundaries. We need to avoid duplication and share
resources whenever possible with our counterparts at other educational
institutions, in industry, and at government facilities.
In present-day URR programs, faculty and students are involved in
relevant technology advancement and research collaboration with
industry and government to better understand practical and real-world
issues. As an example, at the University of Utah's reactor program
contains an NRC-licensed 100kW Modified TRIGA Mark I nuclear reactor
with no operational beam ports except for vertical access through the
pool. It is compact; we have limited space to conduct research. But it
is versatile and well designed, containing radiochemistry, radiation
detection, dosimetry, and computational capabilities. Our laboratory
performs the duel function of research and education. Faculty,
students, and our reactor participate with industrial and governmental
agencies to solve unique challenges.

LWe do not build the missiles that stand in the
defense of this country, yet we test electronic components to
assure they perform as designed under adverse conditions.

LWe do not manufacture turbine blades, munitions, or
detonators, yet we ensure their performance by developing
increasingly advanced inspection techniques that use neutron,
gamma, and x-ray radiography.

LWe do not manufacture small remote nuclear power
plants, yet we are in the process of designing a more advanced
fuel that may one day be used in such a plant.

LWe do not commercially dispose of radionuclides, yet
we assist in understanding how radionuclides are transported
through the environment (in both natural and human-engineered
systems).

LWe did not expose the Mayak workers who operated
Russia's first weapons-grade plutonium manufacturing plant in
the 1940s to radiation, yet we use dose reconstruction tools
and modern techniques to better understand the long-term health
impact of radiation exposure on living beings.

LWe do not dig up archaeological artifacts or
participate in art creation, yet we use non-destructive testing
to explore where human eyes and hands cannot reach and verify
the authenticity and integrity of priceless historic artifacts
and artwork.

Expanding Roles for URRs

Large companies and corporations that have historically maintained
well-funded and fruitful Research and Development (R&D) components are
now downsizing in order to better cope with amplified competition and a
bear market. The benefits of an in-house R&D are often eclipsed in a
grim economic climate, and thus they tend to be a target for
elimination of risk and reduced costs. As an alternative to such on-
site research facilities, many corporations are refreshing their links
with universities that have reactor programs to help maintain an
aggressive stance in technology development. Additionally, small
companies without the financial resources or reserves to support
technology groups often seek to develop new products by teaming with
universities to ensure their own competitiveness. In the face of their
own budget cuts, universities are serendipitously capitalizing on these
industry trends to diversify and strengthen their funding sources, and
are turning to the private sector to participate in developing
technologies that assist the private sector in boosting a community's
economy.
Since universities are playing a larger role in technology
development for businesses, we as educators are requiring that these
businesses assist us in the education of their future employees.
Potential employers seek students who have industrial experience as
part of their academic program. Such experience gives the employer
another way in which to measure the candidate's ability to successfully
apply skills learned in the classroom and the university laboratory to
the working world.
Reactors at universities have been successful in assisting a
significant number of industrial clients in improving existing and
creating new niche technologies. Most of the URRs at universities
maintain a strong and creative mix of faculty, staff, and students.
Funds provided by industry heavily impact the development and
comprehensive movement of technologies-not to mention graduate
students, who are the respective inventors of these technologies-into
the mainstream industrial community.

Funding from University, Industry, and Government

Engineering students are expensive college students to educate,
with nuclear engineers and radiation scientists the most costly of this
aspiring group. The high cost is due to the sensitive, unique, and
highly regulated equipment (i.e., nuclear reactors) required for use
during students' educational tenure. If those greater educational costs
cannot be carried by state funding or by students themselves, such
costs then must be covered by both governmental grants and contracts
with the industrial sector in resource-sharing strategies. Such
collaboration enhances our ability to overcome the outstanding burden
of educational costs, and provides internship and cooperative programs
that allow students to explore and implement creative research
innovations in an actual work environment. The benefits for industrial
partners are that these cooperative research efforts provide relatively
inexpensive access to bright minds and cutting-edge expertise in these
fields and a conduit to future employees for the specific needs of
their businesses. To make the most of all available resources, Nuclear
Reactor programs such as ours must responsibly share resources with
other academic programs in these fields as well as the industrial
sector and with Federal and State governments in order to ensure the
broadest and best training possible for students in nuclear engineering
and radiation science.
The health and vitality of the academic infrastructure in nuclear
engineering and radiation science depends on federal support, the same
as any other vibrant science and engineering discipline. Historically,
federal agencies have left the matter of research funding in nuclear
engineering and radiation science to the Department of Energy (DOE);
hence, programs like ours are discouraged from seeking funding from the
National Science Foundation (NSF) or from other federal agencies.
Nevertheless, the scarcity of funding available from the DOE and other
beleaguered federal agencies has made it increasingly difficult for
academic programs in these fields to provide and maintain top-quality
professional training to students. Such training is essential for the
future managers and leaders of these important and rapidly expanding
technical spheres because the industrial sector requires expertly
trained engineers and researchers to maintain growth, innovation, and a
competitive edge regardless of economic factors and tenuous support.
The URR federal funding mechanisms that currently exist include:

LFuel Assistance to URRs. These funds cover the entire
fuel cycle (front and back end). It is essential for the
continued uninterrupted operation of URRs (especially reactors
>1 MW) that these funds remain distinct from other nuclear
engineering appropriations. If these funds were merged with
other programs, the possibility of their being diverted to
another program would exist. Prolonged interruptions of these
funds would force premature closure of selected URRs.

LReactor Sharing. These funds are awarded on a peer-
reviewed basis to URRs. They were originally obtained from the
surplus in the fuel assistance budget (if any in a given year)
and were provided to allow universities that lacked a URR to
purchase services from a host URR. More recently, this program
has become independent of the fuel assistance budget and a
portion of the budget (35 percent of the awarded funds) now may
be spent on the host university to reimburse it for real costs
associated with off-campus users.

LUniversity Reactor Instrument Upgrade. Funds from
this program are awarded on a peer-reviewed basis to URRs. The
funding was designed to allot specific funds to help maintain
critical reactor safety and operations infrastructure.

Research URRs (100 kW and higher) offset their operating costs by
charging users for neutrons. This revenue does not cover all
operational needs. Faculty research grants typically provide little
funding for reactor support. I do not advocate allowing university
reactors that are currently subsidized with a combination of State,
federal funds, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) cost waivers to
compete directly with their U.S. commercial counterparts. However, for
areas where no U.S. commercial competitors exist for the product
produced, university participation in delivering nuclear-related
technologies should be allowed, and considered a community and
industrial service.
While new funds must be created and made available that will
adequately support the delivery of educational and research missions,
the effective administration of appropriated funds for distribution by
the DOE needs equal attention. The key recommendations from the
respective Corradini and Long reports to the Nuclear Energy Research
Advisory Committee (NERAC) blue-ribbon panel suggest that the most
important role for the Department of Energy/Nuclear Energy (DOE/NE) is
to assure a sufficient number of nuclear science/engineering education
programs and to maintain an effective research infrastructure.
Currently, the U.S. DOE has three priorities in the following order
of importance: 1) licensing issues for Yucca Mountain; 2)
transportation; and 3) research and science. It is not clear how these
DOE priorities will impact DOE/NE appropriations for nuclear education
and research activities in 2003-2004 or in the future. No clear
consensus is apparent among different DOE administrators regarding the
value of nuclear R&D and the necessity and level required for funding
URRs. The present DOE/NE administration unfortunately may be forced to
reprogram critically important funds over to other areas of the DOE
budget if significant budget cuts are undertaken. To protect or buffer
vital program funds from reprogramming, congressional appropriation
bills should be well defined on disbursement and should clearly
indicate what limits and justifications will be allowed for
reprogramming.
The educational and research infrastructure needs to be funded at
the $15 million-level recommended in the May 2000 Corradini Report to
NERAC while increasing the current grant programs (Fuel Assistance,
Reactor Sharing and Instrument Upgrade). The current INIE program also
needs to be revamped so it more closely resembles the April 2001 Long
Report to NERAC, which recommended both regional research reactor
consortia and regional education and training consortia.
As was presented in the Long Report, the INIE program was discussed
at a DOE/NE-sponsored meeting held in Chicago, Illinois. Participants
included university administrators, reactor directors, DOE/NE
representatives, and others. The solicitation that was issued shortly
afterward was confusing, incomplete, and contrary to recommendations
contained in the Long report. In addition, the request did not reflect
the understanding of university reactor directors and their
administrations obtained at the Chicago meeting. The relatively short
time frame to respond to the solicitation did not allow for extensive
explanations and corrective actions. This inadvertentently
disenfranchised a significant number of our URR constituencies. What
opportunities still exist for reactors associated with those
unsuccessful INIE proposals is unclear.
In brief, equitable distribution of new and existing DOE/NE funds
is required for a healthy, effective, and fair delivery of federal
support. Guidelines should be effectively presented at the time the
solicitation is issued by the DOE, with an explanation of how funds are
to be used and an outline of reasonable performance criteria. It should
be stated whether or not termination of funding might occur if certain
performance criteria are not met.
University administrations that do not see value in maintaining
their reactor for either education and/or research should not be
considered for DOE/NE financial programs. Federal funds would be better
spent in support of nuclear reactor programs at institutions that
perceive the education and research infrastructure as critical to the
delivery of their institution's mission. For example, a stable
education/research nuclear reactor (>100 kW) program should derive
funding from university, industry, and government sources. Like a
three-legged stool, if any one of the financial legs is eliminated, the
reactor program fails to effectively serve its full purpose.
Educational facilities (such as University Research Reactors or
URRs) are coming under increased scrutiny by the NRC in terms of
security issues. Significant URR program funds along with general
university resources are being tapped to address these new security
obligations, yet limited funding has been made available from the DOE/
NE to assist URRs in transition. Sufficient funds also should be
provided to purchase new fuel for URRs as well as timely and
appropriate removal when the fuel is spent.

In Summary

Present-day URR programs involve faculty and students in the
development and advancement of relevant technology along with research
collaboration with industry and government to better understand
practical, real-world issues. Historically, URRs received federal
assistance that shared costs associated with fuel, reactor sharing
(host and receiver), and instrument upgrades. However, such funding
only covers a portion of URR operating costs. Federal and State sources
of funding can fluctuate dramatically depending on the economic climate
and trends in agencies that sponsor research and education.
If the United States is going to remain competitive in nuclear
power and nuclear-related technologies in the scientific and industrial
world communities, a continued and dedicated investment nationwide in
its URRs is vital. URRs need to be funded at the $15 million-level
recommended in the May 2000 Corradini Report to NERAC, and current INIE
programs revamped to ensure an adequate number and diversity of
operational facilities nationwide. On its part, the DOE can assist most
by showing continuous support of priorities that are in alignment with
and fulfill the intentions of congressional appropriations bills by how
equitably allocations are delivered.

Biography for David M. Slaughter
Dr. David M. Slaughter is currently the director of the Center for
Excellence in Nuclear Technology, Engineering, & Research (the
``CENTER'') at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, Utah, and has
been the director of the CENTER for the past 10 years. He is the
Reactor Administrator of the University's 100 kW TRIGA Nuclear Reactor
and holds a Senior Reactor Operator's license. Dr. Slaughter chairs the
Nuclear Engineering Program and is the graduate advisor. He holds
faculty appointments in three departments within the College of
Engineering: Civil and Environmental Engineering, Mechanical
Engineering, and Chemical and Fuels Engineering. For three years, he
led the Environmental Radiation Toxicology Laboratory at the University
of Utah School of Medicine as its director. Dr. Slaughter has extensive
experience in nuclear engineering, radioenvironmental sciences,
radioassays, radiotoxicology, chemical engineering and radiation and
materials interactions, and is familiar with environmental monitoring,
dose reconstruction, and nuclear forensics techniques and analyses. He
has participated in regulatory matters with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Dr. Slaughter
has either been the Principal Investigator or a Co-PI for over 50
contracts for government-sponsored research, has published over 20
journal articles, presented 30 technical papers at conferences, and
authored 35 technical reports. He has supervised more than 15 Ph.D. and
Masters graduate students, and has had more than 15 undergraduates
perform research projects under his direction. He has been an
enthusiastic and rigorous supervisory committee member for 25 students
in a variety of engineering and science disciplines. Dr. Slaughter
received his Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering from the University of Utah
in December 1986.
A selected list of recent publications is appended to this short
biography.

Selected Recent Journals Publications/Presentations:

Choe, Dong-Ok, Brenda N. Shelkey, Justin L. Wilde, Heidi A. Walk, and
David M. Slaughter, ``Calculated Organ Doses for Mayak
production Association Central Hall Using ICRP and MCNP,''
Health Physics Journal, Vol. 84, No. 3, March 2003.
Slaughter, David M., Dong-Ok Choe, Melinda P. Krahenbuhl, Scott C.
Miller, Evgenii Vasilenko, Michail Gorelov, ``Reconstruction of
Individual External Exposure Doses to the Mayak Production
Association Workers: External Doses 2000,'' Submitted to Health
Physics Journal, 2003.
Krahenbuhl M.P., Slaughter D.M., Wilde Bess J.D., Miller S.C.,
Khokhryakov V.F., Suslova K.G., Vostrotin V.V., Romonov S.A.,
Menshikh Z.S., Kudryavtseva T.I., ``The historical and current
application of the FIB-1 model to assess organ dose,'' Health
Physics 82(4):445-454, 2002.
Choe, D.O., B.N. Shelkey, D.M. Slaughter, ``An Investigation Comparing
the Criticality of Stored DOE Waste Using MCNP with Previously
Published Results Obtained with KENO,'' HPS Joint Midyear
meeting, Anaheim, CA, Feb. 2001
Khokhryakov V.F., Suslova K.G., Aladova E.E., Vasilenko E., Miller
S.C., Slaughter D.M., Krahenbuhl M.P., ``Development of an
Improved Dosimetry System for the Workers at the Mayak
Production Association,'' Health Physics, Vol. 79, No. 1, 2000.
Choe, D.O., D.M. Slaughter, and K.D. Weaver, ``Utilizing Distinct
Neutron Spectra and a System of Equations to Differentiate
Competing Reactions in Activation Analysis,'' Journal of
Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, Volume 244, No. 3, 2000.
Krahenbuhl M.P., Wilde J.L., Slaughter D.M., ``Using Plutonium
Excretion Data to Predict Dose from Chronic and Acute
Exposures,'' Rad. Prot. Dos., Vol. 87, No. 3, 2000, 179-185.
Alexandrova O.N., E.K. Vasilenko, M.P. Krahenbuhl, D.M. Slaughter,
``The Statistical Analysis of Occupational Radiation Dose
Caused by Professional Exposure to External Gamma Radiation,''
International Data Analysis Conference, Innsbruck, Austria,
Sept. 2000.
Choe, D.O., M.P. Krahenbuhl, and D.M. Slaughter, ``Dose Reconstruction
from Pu Exposure Using Fission Track Analysis (FTA) with Two
Neutron Energy Spectra,'' Workshop on Standards,
Intercomparison and Performance Evaluations of Low-Level
Radionuclides by Mass Spectrometry and Atom Counting.
Gaitherburg, Maryland, 1999.
Krahenbuhl M.P., and D.M. Slaughter, ``Improving Process Methodology
for Measuring Plutonium Burden in Human Urine Using Fission
Track Analysis,'' Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear
Chemistry, Volume 230, No. 1-2, 1998.

Discussion

Chairman Biggert. Thank you, Dr. Slaughter. You can all
rest assured that all of your written testimony will be
included in the record. And so--and we will probably get to a
lot of it in the question period, which is now.
We will now have--the Members of the Committee will have
time to ask their questions within a five-minute period, also,
so we have to adhere to that time. So I now recognize myself
for five minutes.
And this is a question for the panel. Both Dr. Marcus and
Dr. Kammen, in their testimony, stress the importance of
cutting-edge research as a tool to drive the best of talent to
the field of nuclear engineering. But Dr. Kammen points out
that while most university programs are good, they are not
truly innovative and do not attract the best students. So does
the government have its priorities wrong? Should the government
shift more of its resources into university research programs,
like NERI or--and that has been cut in half by--the funding has
been cut in half in the DOE's request for fiscal year 2004
instead of subsidizing the regulatory permitting process for
nuclear plants? Would anyone like to start on that question?
Dr. Marcus.
Dr. Marcus. Let me start by saying I think both tailored
funding for university programs and funding for universities
through R&D programs are needed. As I mentioned in my
testimony, we hope to increase the funding through the latter
mechanism.
While the NERI program may be reduced over prior year
appropriation, what we see ahead are some larger programs
arising out of the Generation IV activities. As such, I
anticipate there would be a substantial amount of R&D funding
and a substantial amount applied to universities.
Chairman Biggert. Thank you.
Dr. Kammen.
Dr. Kammen. I just wanted to clarify one of the points that
you started with, but I agree with your--with the sentiment.
And that was that I--what I did not mean to say was that the
programs we have are not sufficiently innovative. I believe in
the--many of the traditional areas, neutronics, heat transfer,
they are doing a very impressive job. But in thinking about the
longer-term future of the programs, that is where I see the
disconnection between where we are training students and where
we need to think about very different potential plants down the
line.
So that is just the--let me just say one thing with the
funding levels, and I would agree with Dr. Marcus on the need
for some increased direct university support. In my testimony,
I provided a graph that showed funding--federal funding levels
in the United States, Japan, the UK. And it is dramatic that
the United States, with the--this very large nuclear fleet, has
a very low federal funding level relative to Japan, certainly,
which actually has a nuclear energy R&D budget larger than,
essentially, our entire energy R&D budget. I would argue that,
in fact, if you look at the importance of energy to national
affairs, that increasing that number overall is one of the best
things we could do.
But the other feature of it is that if you look at the
amount of collaborative work between nuclear engineering
companies and federal support programs, often at universities,
what we have seen in many fields of energy work is an increase
in these collaborative programs, linking, for example, the
National Energy Lab with a number of private companies. And we
have not seen that same level of increase of collaborative R&D,
and I measured that in the testimony in terms of patents, in
the nuclear area for a variety of reasons. So I would say it is
not just a question of increased federal funding, which is the
easy answer on some level, but that it is finding those ways to
induce more industry money to support these programs that are
now stressed.
Chairman Biggert. Ms. Howard.
Ms. Howard. Yes, if I may, please. To address and to pick
up on what Dr. Kammen has said, as well as to your question on
funding for R&D or funding for new plants, I think it is very
important that we do have an infrastructure that will support a
new generation of nuclear energy from the standpoint of
providing energy to a direct generation of hydrogen or for the
continuing non-emitting source of electricity production. And
in order to do some of that, and also then to stimulate some of
the collaborative research that Dr. Kammen has suggested, I
think that it is an appropriate role for the initial few new
nuclear units to come on line for government to provide some
type of loan or loan guarantee, that would be repaid, perhaps
from a loan guarantee standpoint, not even needing to be
involving any federal funds, to start the program over again.
And I think that is just one of the issues that, in fact, will
be debated this afternoon in the Senate chambers on the energy
bill.
So it is necessary as we re-look at a new generation of
nuclear units to supply our vital energy for our economy going
forward that we stimulate that. That, in turn, will stimulate
the industry to move forward, make those necessary investments,
and work through the universities and collaborative research
through the Electric Power Research Institute and others to
provide the overall type of environment that would encourage
new students to come into the program as well.
Chairman Biggert. Well, I see that my time is up, so I will
hopefully have an opportunity to come back to it.
And with that, I would recognize the Ranking Member, Mr.
Lampson, for five minutes.
Mr. Lampson. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Let me start with a question that my daughters would
probably want me to ask first, both of whom are graduates of
Texas A&M University. And I will ask it of Dr. Kammen. You
cited that Texas A&M was a notable exception to the nationwide
trend of declining nuclear engineering programs. How and why
was the program at A&M in Texas able to expand so rapidly at a
time when other nuclear programs were shrinking?
Dr. Kammen. I--that is, I believe, the first graph in my
written testimony. And I watched the program at A&M with, sort
of, delight, because I really thought that they took on this
issue in the right way. The issues of declining enrollment, in
my opinion, are not things to be met through programs designed
to support more enrollment through just simply applying more
funds.
In my opinion, you would get increased enrollment by having
exciting programs. And what A&M did was to focus on the
traditional areas but also look very hard at hydrogen, which is
interesting to many students across the board: those who plan
to go into nuclear engineering and those who want a very, very
solid technical basis to think about new--hydrogen that might
come from biological production, from wind, from solar. And I
really think that that is the right approach. You do not
guarantee a place of a certain number of spots, but you make
the program cutting-edge and innovative. And I think that A&M
did a dramatically quick, as you pointed out, job of getting on
the map by saying, ``We are going to take on a broader mission
in nuclear engineering.'' So that is how I think they did it so
quickly.
Mr. Lampson. Is this being recognized by other
universities, and are they trying to emulate it? Are they
trying to do things that are going to attract the students in?
Dr. Kammen. Well, I think that we should also have Dr.
Stubbins talk about it. But my view on this one is that A&M
is--went from, essentially, off of the charts to certainly one
of the programs knocking at the door to be in the top five with
Berkeley, MIT, Wisconsin, Michigan, etcetera. So I think that
they were able to make that jump very quickly by specifically
taking on that exciting mandate.
Mr. Lampson. A comment, Dr. Stubbins?
Dr. Stubbins. Yes, let me make a couple comments. I would
agree that Texas A&M has been very proactive in developing
programs. I am not sure how much of it is related to hydrogen.
I think, in fact, they have spent a lot of money attracting
students to the nuclear industry, in general, for a wide
variety of things. My program, as another example where we have
broadened our focus from nuclear power to other areas, as the
title of my department indicates, we are a nuclear, plasma, and
radiological engineering program. And many departments have
done this, have broadened themselves in a very wide way to
cover many of the basic areas that nuclear processes, nuclear
reactions, and radiation can contribute substantially to.
I would also agree that there are many things in the
cutting edge that most university programs are involved with,
but this national vision of an energy policy and something in
the future, I think, is an important attraction to students.
Many of the most attractive things that students look at have,
in the past 10 years, been small technology related things. If
we are going to build a new series of reactors, public and
government-based, those kinds of things are something that one
person can contribute to substantially but cannot influence the
overall outcome. So the government needs to support those kinds
of activities, and this will attract students back in----
Mr. Lampson. Well----
Dr. Stubbins [continuing]. To keep us at the cutting edge.
Mr. Lampson. To some extent--I wanted to make a comment
earlier about the students who are here. I am not proud just to
see you here because you are involved with studies in this
particular. I am proud to see that you draw a connection
between the studies that you are involved with and government
and learn to play a role in it and be active in what is
happening within our government, because the--whether it is the
policy that we are making or whether it is the regulation that
is going to be--that will be effecting you or encouraging
programs and projects.
But I remember once that Norman Vincent Peale said once
that ``if you want to know what we will look like in 20 years,
tell me what we are thinking today.'' What are we doing, as a
nation, to educate the public about the safety of nuclear
reactors? I mean, if we do not get support from the public of
this country, if there are not people that are--if we are going
to get--to quit carrying the signs around and protesting doing
this, then we are not going to win the support to make the
programs that you are talking about happen. So what are we
doing? And I would like for at least Dr. Marcus and Dr. Kammen
to comment on that. And I have got to be quiet, because time is
almost up.
Dr. Marcus. Angie Howard might be the best person to answer
this question in detail.
Mr. Lampson. Well, please.
Dr. Marcus First, though, let me say briefly that my
understanding is that the public is largely in favor of nuclear
power and growing more favorable toward nuclear power. I think
that recent events and growing concerns about global warming
have contributed to that trend. But NEI operates specific
programs to educate the public, so let me turn to Ms. Howard to
respond to this.
Ms. Howard. Thank you, Dr. Marcus.
The public, from a public opinion polling standpoint, does
support future nuclear, supports new nuclear----
Mr. Lampson. To what extent?
Ms. Howard. The neighborhood of 65 percent will support new
nuclear being--nuclear being continued to be used for our
future energy sources, as one of the future energy sources. And
when they learned that 20 percent of our nation's electricity
is generated by nuclear without emitting greenhouse gases or
other controlled pollutants, that support goes up into the
neighborhood of 70 to 75 percent.
What we have is a perception gap, though. When you ask them
what their neighbors think, they think it is probably about 25
percent support nuclear. The same thing when we have polled
some Members of Congress or their staff. It is sort of the same
type of thing. I think what you find is that our public and our
country do not support new industrial facilities being built in
their neighborhoods. And that is where you get a dichotomy of
between what do I support from a policy standpoint and what do
I want that is generated in my backyard.
But we are trying to do a lot of public education work,
both from a standpoint of media interactions, advertising, and
web-based activities. We are also looking to work in our
schools, both for the K through 12, particularly the secondary
education activities, to encourage students to go into science
and technology and also then to be able to attract it to these
technical degrees. Because from an infrastructure standpoint,
not just a nuclear energy standpoint but an overall
infrastructure standpoint, we need students coming into these
disciplines. But from a public communication standpoint, the
industry is working hard to try to get those messages out.
Mr. Lampson. Maybe we can hear more of that when it comes
back around.
Chairman Biggert. This is a quick follow-up. Dr. Marcus,
what is DOE doing to broaden the programs, such has been
suggested at the University of Illinois and Texas A&M that Dr.
Stubbins and Dr. Kammen talked about?
Dr. Marcus. Thank you for letting me comment, because I had
wanted to get back to that.
We are broadening our programs in a number of ways, but
particularly by collaborations among different groups. Probably
almost all of our programs now are encouraging more than one
organization to be involved. That alone broadens perspective
and brings in other viewpoints. For instance, the INIE program
includes collaborations with national laboratories and
industrial research organizations. A majority of the grants
under the NERI program involve collaborators from multiple
organizations, often teaming universities, national
laboratories, and industrial research organizations. You can go
right down the line on all of our programs. We are trying to
broaden our activities rather than narrow them, so I think we
are moving very much in the direction that the other witnesses
have mentioned.
Chairman Biggert. Thank you. And now our physicist of the
panel and former nuclear physicist teacher has been waiting
patiently, so I would yield five minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan, Dr. Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And I would love
to ask some physics questions, but I will not. I will talk to
the panel about that later.
But I do want to point out, first of all, I thank the--
thank you for holding this hearing. It is a very important
issue. I have been fighting for years to maintain the funding
for the nuclear reactor at the University of Michigan, without
a great deal of success, frankly. There is just not a lot of
public support.
But we have to continue the education efforts for the
reasons you outlined in your opening statement, and one
additional one, and that is, most of the world is using much
more nuclear energy. We have a great opportunity for a major
export business here, but if we are not training the nuclear
engineers, we are going to say goodbye to all of the
opportunities for export industry in nuclear power. So that is
yet another reason to do this.
The nuclear power has fallen on bad times, and there are a
lot of reasons for that. I think it will come back for reasons
I do not want to use up my time on. But one major factor I will
mention is the price and the cost of fossil fuel energy is
going to go up dramatically. I just received last Friday
notification from my gas company as to what my gas bill is
going to be next year, what we pay on a monthly basis: 22
percent increase. Now I understand why, because we are--there
are a lot of reasons, but a big one is that we are using a lot
of the natural gas for--to produce electricity, which I think
is horrible.
Natural gas is, simply, too good to burn. It is a beautiful
feed stock for the petrochemical industry. It is great for home
heating, and so forth, and nuclear energy would do the job much
better.
My question is specifically to Dr. Marcus. You talked about
the efforts DOE has been making to involve nuclear engineering
departments throughout the country and the regional university
research reactor consortia. And then you also expressed concern
about the closing of two university research reactors at
Cornell and Michigan. If DOE is supporting this regionalization
effort, does it imply that you believe a smaller number of
reactors would suffice? And why is the DOE concerned? Did you
mention those two reactors for a reason? What role do you see
the reactors playing in the educational programs? And are you
advocating just regionalizing this or are you advocating that
those departments that are strong, we make certain that they
continue to be strong?
Dr. Marcus. Let me respond to your questions with a couple
of points. I mentioned Cornell and the University of Michigan
because they are two very large reactors that are closed or are
about to close. Cornell just closed last year, I believe, and
University of Michigan will close next month. So they are the
most recent closures. They occurred just when we saw the
enrollments increasing. We saw the interest turning up, and we
truly thought that the time was no longer right for closures.
That is the reason I mentioned those two reactors.
We do see the INIE program promoting regional groupings of
reactors. We do not at all see them, if I understand your
question, as necessarily leading to closures of facilities that
are now not in the INIE program. First, reactors at
unaffiliated universities are not necessarily at risk. In
addition, the existing consortia may well incorporate some of
the unaffiliated programs in the future.
Mr. Ehlers. Let me ask the university personnel here. How
important is it to maintain a reactor in the university
campuses where you have nuclear engineering programs, for two
reasons: one, for research; and secondly, for training of
students? Do you believe that it is essential or it is
something you can get along without?
Dr. Kammen.
Dr. Kammen. Well, certainly at--Berkeley is in an unusual
spot, because we also have a strong fusion program that is
linked with the national labs. And students pick and choose
between the programs based on some of those features. There is
no question, though, that in terms of the--some of the staffing
levels that Ms. Howard talked about with the support issues,
that having access to a facility is critical.
So I am not as clear that having it on campus is the thing
as long as there is a very strong relationship to get students
placed, because there is certainly no substitute for actual
reactor time. We bring our students from Nuclear Engineering at
Berkeley down to Diablo Canyon where we do a very intensive
course where they do a series of scram drills. They do a whole
variety of real management issues. They go back to the
classroom and they do more on the theory of heat transfer and
neutronics, and they go back down again to Diablo Canyon.
So there are a variety of ways you can do that, but there
is no question that access to real facilities much more so
than, say, the book-based and a lot of remote stuff is very
critical to supporting that long-term.
Mr. Ehlers. Dr. Stubbins and then Dr. Slaughter.
Dr. Stubbins. No, I would agree that they are critical for
programs. I think some of the growth, including the ones at
Texas A&M, where there are two actual research reactors, have
been critical in reestablishing the undergraduate enrollments.
This is an exciting area for undergraduate students. We lost
our reactor three or four years ago, and I think this has
impeded our growth of undergraduate enrollment. We do not see
it as the critical thing to keep the department alive, but
access certainly is important. And we are one of the INIE
participants. We are one of the group in the big ten
consortium, so we do have access, and this has provided us an
avenue that we did not have a year ago.
Mr. Ehlers. Dr. Slaughter.
Dr. Slaughter. Well, I think the--having reactors on
campuses and involving the research is extremely important. It
does give the--their hands-on experience where they are not
going to be able to get it from the book. There is also an
ability for multi-disciplinary type of operations in a time-
reflective way in educational institutions that are not really
there at national labs where you can take time on national lab
reactors. I think universities provide that unique opportunity.
But I also caution that university reactors can only
survive at a university if, in fact, you have full support of
their academic administrations. That is extremely key, because
then you will find those administrative--those reactor
facilities fighting their own administration. So I think one of
the things we have to also do is not only fund university
reactors, but we also have to make sure that university
administrations are friendly to these type of experimental
facilities. But I see them extremely important, and they really
are urgent and needed for educational and research.
Mr. Ehlers. I see my time has evaporated, and I yield back.
Chairman Biggert. Thank you.
We will next have as our participant is Dr. Bartlett from
Maryland, who is also in this field. He is a physiologist and
an inventor, so I know he knows a lot about innovation. So Dr.
Bartlett is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much.
Several of you have mentioned the need for increased
federal dollars. There are some things that only the Federal
Government can support, and we need to be supporting those
things. But many other activities, including yours, might be
better supported by the private sector.
I would just like to note that there is no such thing as
the ``federal dollar.'' Every dollar we spend either comes from
the paycheck of some hardworking American or increasingly we
are borrowing it from our children and our grandchildren. In a
very real sense, you can not tax a business, because that
simply becomes a--part of the cost of doing business, and they
pass that cost on to their consumers. So in reality, either we
pay for it, as working Americans, or we pass that debt on, for
which I am very sorry, to our children and our grandchildren.
So I think that we might all be better off if we left more of
the money in the private sector so that you could then get the
money directly from the people in the private sector, rather
than through a government, which can be very arbitrary and
capricious. And you should not have to come on bended knee to
get your money from the government.
I am concerned, for two reasons, with the decrease in
enrollment and funding in our nuclear programs. One is that
basic research, obviously, is hurt. I do not have the foggiest
idea what societal payoffs for basic research may be in the
future, but I do know that history tells us that whenever we
have had adequate basic research that there have been societal
payoffs and that I am sure that that will be true in the
future. So I have no idea of what societal benefits we will not
have, because we do not have adequate support of basic research
today.
But I am also very concerned because of the engineering
decrease. As you know, we have only two percent of the known
reserves of oil in the world. We use 25 percent of the world's
oil. We import 57 percent of what we use. In the last Congress,
I had the privilege of chairing this subcommittee, and one of
the first things we wanted to do is to determine the dimensions
to the problems. We held hearings on the availability of oil.
General agreement across the spectrum, roughly 1,000
gigabarrels of known reserves. Now we will find more, but we
shall also like to use more, and we will be lucky, I think, if
the more we would like to use is matched by the more we find.
So all you need to do is to divide roughly 80 million
barrels a day, 20 for us, 60 for all of the rest of the world.
One person out of 22 uses 25 percent of all of the world's oil.
Divide that 80 million barrels a day into 1,000 gigabarrels.
That is one trillion barrels. You come up with about 40 years
of known reserves. Now we will find more, but we would sure
like to use more, and I think that the more we would like to
use, it will probably exceed the more that we are going to
find.
Who do you think ought to have the responsibility of
looking down the road? Very difficult for government to do
that. We--it is hard for us to see beyond our next election. It
is very tough for industry to do that. They have great
difficulty seeing beyond the next quota report or the next
Board of Directors meeting. Who needs to be looking down the
road?
Today--as you drive tonight, as you have mentioned, every
fifth house and every fifth business would be dark if it were
not for nuclear. And since our fossil fuels are not
inexhaustible, who, in your judgment, should be looking down
the road and making the kind of decisions that we need to make
today so that we are not going to come to grief tomorrow?
Dr. Kammen.
Dr. Kammen. Well, I have to admit, I love the question,
because the calculation that you have preceded is exactly what
our energy society course for beginning grad students aims to
get the students to work on it. That is the perspective that I
am pleased to hear.
In my view, and I have worked on a range of energy
technologies and policy at the federal and national level, the
critical mechanism that, I think, echoes what you are saying is
we need to make the process of using energy wisely and
innovating to find new energy supplies in the best interest of
business. I--we need to align the best interest
--the interest of business with our--of our society. And
right now, I would argue that our fossil fuel policy is one
that has the interest of business misaligned with that of
civilians, meaning that we are interested in low-cost energy
now but none of the long-term planning that you have described.
There are a variety of mechanisms, however, that can be
used to help industry align those interests more along the
national directions that you are mentioning. I mentioned
briefly in my comments mechanism for carbon trading. If we
truly value the environment and we truly believe in global
warming, as does now the majority of scientists agree,
mechanisms to allow businesses to profit from making these wise
energy decisions make sense. Carbon trading would be one way to
do that, as would be renewables portfolio standards, as would
be a variety of mechanisms to allow us to use our fossil fuels
more wisely. I am a great fan of fossil fuels, but I also agree
with Congressman Ehlers that they are too valuable to burn in
applications where we have other technologies.
Those are the sorts of things that we could do to make that
sort of alignment one where businesses saw the types of
policies that you described in their best interest. And right
now, I believe we are sending mixed signals, at best, to
companies as to how to make those decisions.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much. And I hope we will have
a second round that we can come back for further discussion.
Thank you.
Chairman Biggert. Thank you.
Mr. Bonner from Alabama.
Mr. Bonner. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am one of 54 new
Members of Congress, and yet I worked on the Hill for 18 years.
And so I come to this seat predisposed to being a supporter of
nuclear energy.
But Ms. Howard, I would like to ask you a question
specifically, because I have also had an opportunity, during my
years as a Chief of Staff to my predecessor, to travel on two
NEI trips to Yucca Mountain and to see what the industry is
doing to take the lead in the development of Yucca. My
question, though, is based on the figures in your testimony, if
the nuclear energy industry sold 780 billion kilowatt hours
last year, and assuming the very conservative estimate of two
cents of revenue per kilowatt hour, the industry, as a whole,
has earned over $15 billion in revenue. But the industry's
share funding for education in this area has amounted to just
$19 million since 1980, a tenth of a percent of revenue in the
year 2002 alone. So expressing my strong advocacy for nuclear
energy, but coming from an area where fiscal conservatism is
something that we practice as well as preach, I would wonder is
the industry contributing its fair share to nuclear education?
Ms. Howard. Thank you for your question, and I was not
trying to be comprehensive in the testimony. I was giving one
example of a concerted effort on some fellowships. The industry
itself is doing quite a bit more across the board on--by
individuals. Many companies and Southern Nuclear in your
service territory is a prime example of a tremendous presence
on campus, internship programs that they sponsor, like many of
our companies do, as well as a strong advocacy program for the
university programs. Auburn University gets a tremendous amount
of resource from that particular company as well. So there is a
broad base there and as well as the suppliers.
I think where our gross revenue is an important measure, it
is not the measure, though, that is currently the measure of
industry performance, and particularly utility performance. And
unfortunately, that is earnings per share. And if we look at
some of those earnings per shares from a down market over the
last few years, the industry has had some significant financial
impact across the board. But if we can have government policies
to address the other question that encourage the longer-term
investment and capital infrastructure, then I think you will
see the industry stepping up to the plate for new nuclear, for
new clean coal technologies, and other long-term, energy-
intensive, and capital-intensive activities.
Mr. Bonner. Would you care to propose a ratio of federal
support to that of industry?
Ms. Howard. I would be glad to give some thought to that
and respond back to you, certainly. Yes.
Mr. Bonner. Madam Chair, if I could ask one final question,
and this is for the entire panel. I think the Administration
deserves great credit for pushing forward with Yucca Mountain.
And I think the actions of Congress in recent months certainly
send a positive signal. But in the event this facility is
blocked by some court or some other proceeding, what is plan B?
What would plan B be if you looked into your proverbial crystal
balls and came up with an alternative, given the discussions
that we have had today?
And that is open to any of the academics or others.
Dr. Stubbins. Let me start. I am not sure there is an easy
alternative, but there are--there is a major initiative
underway to look at alternate fuel cycles and ways of burning
fuels, burning waste in innovative ways that would reduce the
waste burden. This is, of course, something looking into the
future, but if there has to be a plan B, maybe it is something
that we could do retrospectively. And there is a lot of
activity nationally, internationally in this area. The U.S. is
not the only problem--the only country with waste issues--
nuclear waste issues. So there is a lot of innovative thinking
about how to take care of nuclear waste and reduce its burden
overall, which could be applied to existing waste.
Mr. Bonner. Madam Chair, thank you.
Chairman Biggert. Thank you.
I am just listening to the bells to see if we are going to
have a vote. All right. We are not.
A number of you--I think we will begin a second round. If
we can move quickly and answer quickly, then we will be in good
shape.
A number of you testified to the fact that existing
university research reactors remain underutilized. And will
programs like INIE maximize utilization of these reactors, or
will more reactors need to shut down to maximize the use of
those that remain? Dr. Slaughter, could you give us an insight
on that?
Dr. Slaughter. I--actually, I am concerned. The fact is
that when people indicate that there is an under-utilization--
and part of the reason for, I believe, under-utilization is
that for the last two decades, we have been in a survival mode,
and we have lost a considerable amount of faculty, students--or
faculty and staff on this. And it is--goes back to the idea of
being creative. Think of yourselves, for example. I use this as
if you were doing your job completely without your staffs. The
multitasking that you do, and now have budget cuts go across
the line in a heavily regulated environment and see how well
utilized you are in the completion of tasks.
Unfortunately, what we need to see actually is not a
reduction in reactors, but an increase in creative people
utilizing them. That means we are going to see an increase in
faculty. That means we are going to see an increase of
technical staff. And then I believe you will see a surge in new
creative ideas that, in fact, will deliver the B part of that,
aspects of ``if we can not get Yucca Mountain.'' Or we will
have, certainly, other solutions and, more importantly, new
technologies in the other areas in which these reactors
perform.
Thank you.
Chairman Biggert. I think you have given us a great visual
picture of--comparing our staff and--thank you for that. We
will remember that.
Dr. Stubbins.
Dr. Stubbins. Yes, let me say a word about this, which I
think impacts on some of the issues that Mr. Bartlett and Mr.
Bonner raised. I think there does need to be a national focus
on these things. One of the major difficulties that we, as
universities, have is that a lot of the decisions are made
based on local pressures. There is an effort, but I think a
small relative effort to look at a national picture when we
decide whether this reactor should close or whether this
program should go away. These are done based on pressures that
have to do with where the other university--local university
issues have to apply resources.
And so I think having a national view--and I would include
what NEI has done in terms of giving a national focus to the
nuclear utilities, and certainly what DOE has done through the
INIE program and many other programs to provide a better
connected national infrastructure to look at the future of
nuclear engineering, nuclear reactors has been a very critical
thing to keep our universities focused on the bigger picture.
Chairman Biggert. Thank you.
Anyone else? Dr. Marcus.
Dr. Marcus. I would just agree with both Dr. Slaughter and
Dr. Stubbins.
I see a number of trends coming together that will, I
think, improve the utilization of the reactors. The INIE
program is one. I think the anticipated increased research
programs are another. A good fraction of funding in those
programs will be directed to the universities and will involve
the university faculty, students, and facilities. While I can
not predict what every university administration will do--as
Dr. Stubbins said, there is still a problem at some schools--I
see a lot of promising activities underway today to address the
issue.
Chairman Biggert. Just another one quick question for Dr.
Stubbins. In your testimony, it was unfortunately kind of a
gloomy scenario for university nuclear engineering in Illinois,
and it is--nuclear is so important, to what extent do you think
that Illinois companies might partner with the state programs
like yours to a greater degree?
Dr. Stubbins. Well, we have been getting support from
Exelon, which is the big nuclear utility in Illinois. And also
on--nationally, the Argon National Lab is there, and we have
had a tremendous amount of interaction over the years, both
ways, including supplying people for Argon and for Exelon. So I
think there is a strong sentiment for supporting the program at
Illinois. I think it is difficult for these external forces to
put enough pressure locally on my university administration, to
me.
Chairman Biggert. Well, assuming that Congress was able to
fund the university nuclear science and engineering programs at
the levels recommended here today, would that be enough to
sustain the Illinois program or are there other pressures
that----
Dr. Stubbins. There are still other pressures. The
University of Illinois programs have been growing--expanding.
The number of students are up. The research support is up. We
lost our reactor, but we are now part of one of the INIE
programs. We are a major partner in one of the INIE programs,
and this has been very supportive. So I, quite honestly, do not
understand the point of view of my administration vis-a-vis the
current positive trends in the industry in our local situation.
Chairman Biggert. Thank you.
Mr. Lampson, you are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Lampson. Thank you.
I think it is important to note in my own mind a comment
that we heard a few minutes back that--about putting private
money in. Obviously we want private dollars involved in all
aspects of our lives, but I have always been taught that
community does what we, as individuals, can not do. And so I
hope that the government would continue to look for ways to
fund programs like this and make them happy, because if
individuals either will not or cannot, and it appears to be,
for the collective good of all of us, to me, that is what our
government is all about. And I do not mind spending money when
it is well spent in those regards.
I was also considering the cost of--when we were talking
about a couple cents per kilowatt-hour, the cost of generating
electricity from fission-generated--from fission generation. In
relation to other fuels, can you give me some comments? And Dr.
Kammen particularly, on page six of your testimony, there is
one paragraph that was somewhat confusing to me where you talk
about electricity being at two cents per kilowatt-hour, but
then you go down and say that the Nuclear Energy Institute
lists power cost at 3.8 to 4.8. The Rocky Mountain Institute
cites cost of eight to 12 cents per kilowatt-hour. And also
throw in some kind of a comment about the cost of protecting,
not just this, but also access to fossil fuels.
Dr. Kammen. Well, I apologize that the paragraph was
confusing. This may mean that I did not do my academic job as
clearly as I should have. What I tried to raise in that
paragraph, in contrasting the cost figures presented by the
Nuclear Energy Institute and by the Rocky Mountain Institute,
an anti-nuclear organization, I mean let us be clear on who is
what, is that the cost of nuclear power, in my opinion, is much
more determined by ideology than it is by straight financial
energy economics that I would practice in my course.
I do not say that--what I mean by that is that the things
that you include in the cost are taken very differently by
different sectors of the community. If Yucca Mountain, for
example, is not put in the cost, which is a valid calculation,
then you get the numbers that NEI listed. But as we heard
before from Congressman Ehlers, those monies that come from the
Federal Government come from somewhere. If you include the cost
of Yucca Mountain, and critically, for example, in California,
the very large bailout for some unfortunate nuclear investments
that were made in California previously, then you get these
much higher numbers.
So while everyone can claim that their number--2 cents,
2.13 cents is the generating cost, not necessarily the sales
cost, but the generating cost for nuclear, that is a valid
statement. But you can also get people to tell you a very
different one. And in my opinion, all of this leads back to
your question in the first round, and that is: what is the
perception of nuclear power? Where your ideology is dictates
which of these economics that you choose to highlight. And I
guess I am much less optimistic than Ms. Howard is about the
public perception of nuclear power. I believe that the public
gets used to things. And I am an author of a book on risks
where I document some of this. But the public gets used to
things. And we get used to 20 percent of our power from
nuclear. Those plants have not had a major accident recently,
therefore that is taken as part of our given.
But talking about expanding those facilities, either
increasing the power at those plants or new plants, I believe
that the public perception, certainly in my State of
California, which admittedly is far from Washington right now,
shall we say, certainly indicates that new construction is not
likely to be part of what would be--would prove concerning my
part of the country. So the answer to your question, which I
hope is not too roundabout, is that I really do not think that
the--you are not going to get agreement on the cost of these
technologies. But what you will get, I believe, is an
opportunity to more fully integrate nuclear into the overall
energy planning.
If we really did sit down and have this national nuclear
energy policy debate where we looked at what the cost of fuel
production--of energy production at the--I mean, right--
immediate production, plus the life cycle cost across clean
coal, oil, gas, nuclear, solar, wind, biomass, then I think we
could get to what you are getting at, and that is we could
discover where those dollars are going to spend. But right now,
the energy debate is largely disparate arguments from the
different technology sectors. So that is my concern in
answering your question.
Ms. Howard. May I make just one clarification?
Mr. Lampson. Go ahead.
Ms. Howard. The cost for Yucca Mountain is contributed--the
utilities through the cost of nuclear energy at a kilowatt hour
or generation, and so roughly $700 million a year are going
into the Federal Government through the nuclear waste fund.
There is roughly now close to $20 billion in that fund, about
seven of which have been spent on Yucca Mountain. So I would
like to point out that that is a part of the operating and
maintenance cost of the existing nuclear fleet today. And so
the money has been contributed. It is--we hope will be--the
waste fund will be addressed as we go forward so the corporates
of that waste fund can be spent on Yucca Mountain as the intent
was when the electricity customers paid that in through their
rates.
Mr. Lampson. I want to thank the panel and the Chairwoman
for an interesting hearing.
Chairman Biggert. Thank you.
Dr. Bartlett of Maryland is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much.
I would just like to note that maybe one of the reasons the
private sector does not have more money to help you is because
we take too much from them. You know, we do not--the town
dollars when they come into our Congress. As a matter of fact,
we shrink them, because we have got a big bureaucracy that has
to be fed down here.
The nuclear activities in our country--universities have
been decreasing over a number of years. I remember when I first
came here about a decade ago, I was--voted with a minority,
unfortunately, to keep the super-conducting super collider in
Texas open. I was concerned for two reasons. One, we
desperately need something that captures the imagination of our
people, inspires our young people to go into careers in
science, math, and engineering. I hope that might do that.
Further, I thought that it was very exciting that the particles
we produce with energy are roughly ten times of those we
produce other places might provide, just the missing
information that Steven Hawking needs to complete his
mathematical synthesis of the mysteries of the universe. And I
thought how exciting that maybe he may have the best mind in a
millennium trapped in a body that will not endure forever. And
I thought it might be exciting if we could do that, but alas,
he did not.
I would just like to come back to the energy power. I am
opposed to drilling into Lake Michigan and off the coast of
Florida, not for any environmental reasons. I have been to Anne
Noire. I--that may be, to some, a pristine wilderness. It
looked more like a wasteland to me, but my concern is that if
we have only two percent of the known reserves of oil in the
world, I am having trouble understanding how it is to our
national security and benefit to rush around and pump that. I
asked the Vice President, ``If you could pump that oil
tomorrow, what will you do the day after tomorrow?'' And the--
and his response was, ``Roscoe, as long as I can remember, they
have been telling me there are 30 years of oil left in the
world.'' What that means is, I think, that he generally
believes that there is a whole bunch of oil out there. It is
kind of a cosmic hide and go seek. God knew how profligate we
would be in our use of energy, so he hid a lot of oil out there
and our only challenge is to go find it.
But the reality, as I mentioned, is that the best estimate
is that there is about 1,000 gigabarrels remaining. That is not
forever. That will not last forever. And our use of fossil
fuels is so enormous that we are going to have to be very
clever if we are going to find enough energy from other
sources, and nuclear, obviously, is one of those. How--where do
we go from here? I do not see us as a society really
understanding that there is a problem out there or doing
anything meaningful to address that problem.
I am 77 years old, and I will not live forever, and I want
to pass on to my children and my grandkids a country better
than when I came here. And in terms of energy, we are not about
to do that unless something changes. How do we educate and how
do we make it change?
Dr. Kammen.
Dr. Kammen. Well, I certainly agree with that completely,
on a whole variety of levels. I mean, one of the statements
about our use of oil is not that in the very short-term we are
running out of oil. We are running out in long-term, but what
we are running out of in the short-term is atmosphere. We are
running out of places to put the waste products, and it does
not make sense, on a whole variety of levels, to continue on
this sort of path, which seems to be wasteful locally and
wasteful in the long-term.
I hope that--well, let me start--one of the mechanisms that
seems to be what you are talking about and that is what would
wake up this process. In American history, that item that has
woken us up regularly, unfortunately, has been crises.
Americans often talk about the ``sleeping giant'' approach to
all variety of problems. We began that with the Japanese
bombing of war--of Pearl Harbor as an example. The scientific
community right now believes that that current ``sleeping
giant'' is climate change. And that climate change has been
debated, and it is easy to take sides, because we do not have
glaciers melting in our backyard, although now we, in fact, do.
The issue is what level of crisis environmentally or
through some Middle East or politically is enough to wake us up
to develop this broader energy policy and not so large that we
are killed off in the process. And so along your lines, I hope
for a small crisis, but not a large one. Now that is a pretty--
as a physicist, that is a dangerous thing to be hoping for,
just enough but not too much of a problem. But I have not seen,
with all of the various energy things going on in the world, us
taking the steps that you describe as so important, and I agree
with, with the crises that I already think have been big
enough.
Ms. Howard. Well, I just might say that what I think we
need to have is the statesmen decision like--and involving a
consortium of business and non-governmental organizations as
well as government to come together and put aside some of the
special interests. We seem to be run by special interests and
wait for the crisis to happen. And perhaps this has to start
over a long-term generational process with the education in the
schools and addressing the curriculums that educate our young
people and then bring that forth through a national policy on
energy and economic coordination. Our economy runs on
available, affordable, and environmentally available and
environmentally compatible energy. And so we do need to make
some very difficult decisions, and it has to be communicated as
a statesmen level as a national policy and that be driven by
looking at all of our energy sources.
I do not think there is a debate about should we have
fossil energy or should we have nuclear or should we have
renewables or should we have conservation and efficiencies. We
need them all, absolutely, and it has to be the kind of
national policy but also the economic policies that reward the
tough long-term decisions.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for a good
hearing.
Chairman Biggert. Thank you.
And just in time is Dr. Ehlers, if you have any--another
question.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you. I am sorry I am bouncing between two
Committees that are going on simultaneously.
The two general questions--well, actually one general and
one specific. First of all, do you think any corporation is
likely to invest $2 billion or more in the nuclear power plant
today, given the uncertainties of nuclear power? We will just
go down the line on that.
Dr. Marcus.
Dr. Marcus. I think a lot more active consideration is
being given to building new reactors than there has been in the
past. Senator Domenici has introduced some legislation that we
are looking at with great interest. Ms. Howard can probably
comment on that legislation in more detail. I don't think a
decision on a new plant is going to be made next week or next
month, but it appears that the prospects are more positive than
they have been in the past.
Dr. Kammen. I would argue that, in fact, I do not think it
is likely right now. I think we just had an experiment with
Exelon and they went through a thought process and were
intimately involved with DOE in thinking about the near-term
deployment plan. And for a variety of reasons, they pulled out.
So I would argue that right now, without a change, I do not
think it is likely.
Ms. Howard. It depends on what you mean by ``right now.''
There are three companies that are investing in early site
permitting to test the new energy policy on early site
approval. There are three companies who have design
certifications approved and ready to go with the nuclear
regulatory commission. There are additional companies that are
going forward with design certification, investing hundreds of
millions of dollars into--both from a standpoint of the utility
site work as well as the design certification.
Will some assurances that the--will--combined operating--
construction permit and operating license can go forward as has
been approved by the 1992 Energy Policy Act. I think you will
see these same companies being willing to invest their money.
At this stage, we would like to see a government partnership on
some of the early units going forward, a sharing of some of
that investment risk to be assured that the policies in place
can actually be implemented. And then after that, if that is
successful, I seek--think you will see those same companies and
others coming forward to build a new generation of reactors in
this country.
Mr. Ehlers. Dr. Stubbins.
Dr. Stubbins. I think it is likely. There are some
impediments, and I think the gas cold reactor issue is one that
is kind of off the map because of its very advanced technology.
The next step probably will be a reactor like the ones that we
are currently building around the world, other places, that is
consistent with the current fleet.
But I think the other real impediment is that the nuclear
utility industry has two problems. First of all, they really
have not made the transition yet to be completely competitive.
They need to align themselves better to do that. The market
will become very competitive, I think. And part of the
difficulty is that since they have consolidated in some ways,
they are competing, in a sense, against themselves to build a
new plant. They have existing plants that operate well where
they are increasing capacity. And so building a new plant is
not, maybe the nearest-term thing they are thinking about, but
I agree that in the short-term, there will be a new order.
Mr. Ehlers. Dr. Slaughter.
Dr. Slaughter. I think the question here is--I think there
are technology issues, but I think those can be overcome. I
think what the critical question will be if a company will put
some kind of financials of that nature to this is where will
they site it, and will the community support it. I think the
fact is that is the key question. And that has to be answered.
Mr. Ehlers. I think another question is now with
deregulation, they do not have an assured customer base. And
can they--will they be able to sell the electricity at a price
commensurate with the cost of the reactor? And that is another
issue to face.
One last quick one. Dr. Kammen, you were the first to
mention using reactors to produce hydrogen. What process is
that, and how do you expect it to compete with preparing
hydrogen from fossil fuels?
Dr. Kammen. Is--I think the main issue here is actually the
amount of research that we need to do. The temperature regime
in which hydrogen is most efficiently produced from nuclear
reactors is actually somewhat different than what we operate
reactors at today. That might--that does not need to be the
case in the future necessarily. But it does mean that if you
want to think about a future reactor that is an electricity-
only machine or a hydrogen-only machine or a hybrid machine
that would do both in a, sort of, more free wheeling market
where you produce electricity one day and hydrogen the next,
that with the exception of this research of Dr. Forrestburg at
Oak Ridge, we have very little long-term thinking about that.
And so I actually think before an answer can be given to that
very good question, we need to diversify the advanced
innovative research activities in this area, because I do think
it is very much understudied right now.
Mr. Ehlers. Well, the other factor is you have to--when you
compare costs, you have to decide whether you are going to
sequester the carbon from the fossil fuel process or not----
Dr. Slaughter. Correct.
Mr. Ehlers [continuing]. Because that can make a huge
difference in the cost of hydrogen using fossil fuels.
Dr. Slaughter. That is right. And this is exactly why I am
most interested in these carbon taxes and ways to think about
those economics that would favor this sort of fossil fuel
conserving, environment conserving process.
Mr. Ehlers. All right. I note my time has expired, but it
is up to the----
Dr. Kammen. Let me make a quick--one more comment. I think
one of the issues is that I think the Department of Energy has
been looking at this fairly carefully. One of the NERI programs
that just finished has looked at carbon cycles
--or hydrogen cycles. There are 200-plus cycles. And there
are some that are very workable with nuclear power that would
be much more efficient than electrolysis, which you could do by
generating electricity in any one of these means, and would be
a--have possibly the added bonus that they could be used as
hybrid plants. But this is under very active consideration. It
is also one of the things that DOE is looking forward at in
terms of developing a new reactor, at least a new experimental
test reactor.
Mr. Ehlers. And Dr. Marcus, last word.
Dr. Marcus. I had wanted to note that the Department is
looking at some advanced reactor designs that would be higher
temperature and thus more conducive to hydrogen production,
which was mentioned earlier. Some of these designs are part of
the Generation IV program that was described previously as
being pursued with international partnership. Ultimately, there
will also be strong participation from industry. The question
of industry involvement was mentioned previously, including the
problems that may arise when the government selects
technologies. We hope to avoid those problems by involving
industry in making sure that the result will be a product
industry will want when it is developed.
Mr. Ehlers. Generation Y may build Generation IV reactors.
Dr. Marcus. I will keep that in mind. Thank you.
Chairman Biggert. Before we bring this hearing to a close,
I want to thank our panelists for testifying before the
Subcommittee for their excellent testimony and their insight.
And I would also like to thank the students that are here for
attending the hearing and staying through the whole thing. So I
appreciate it.
If there is no objection, the record will remain open for
additional statements from Members and for answers to any
follow-up questions the Subcommittee may ask of the panelists.
Without objection, so ordered.
The hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix 1:

----------

Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Gail H. Marcus, Principal Deputy Director, Office of
Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology, U.S. Department of
Energy

Questions submitted by the Majority

Q1. LWhat percentage of the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative's (AFCI)
funding has gone to universities in fiscal years 2001 and 2002? How
will the nature of the university research funded by the new
mechanism--the fixed 5 to 10 percent of all nuclear R&D funding that
you announced at the hearing--differ from the university research
conducted under the Nuclear Engineering Research Initiative (NERI)?

A1. The AFCI program dedicated 11.7 percent of its FY 2001 budget to
university directed research programs and fellowships ($3.98 million
out of $34 million). In FY 2002, AFCI dedicated 14 percent of its
budget to university programs ($7.1 million out of $50 million). The
majority of these funds supported the University of Nevada at Las Vegas
and the Idaho Accelerator Center at Idaho State University in
Congressionally directed research. The funds also supported ten Masters
Degree student fellowships and over one hundred students in national
laboratory directed research at nine universities.
The new mechanism being developed for funding university research
results from the refocusing of our program from general research to
research specifically related to the advanced reactor system concepts
which have now been identified for international collaborative research
through the Generation IV International Forum. We would expect the
total funding available to universities under the anticipated research
projects to be greater than the funding that was available under the
NERI program. In addition, since this research will be tied to
significant on-going programs, universities participating in research
related to these reactor designs will be able to work with a larger
national and international research community.

Q2. LAt the hearing, Ms. Howard of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)
testified that the nuclear industry's goal is to increase its share of
the electricity market to one third. At the hearing, Dr. Kammen
suggested instead that it was likely to maintain a 20 percent share,
while the Energy Information Administration (EIA) has projected that
industry capacity is likely to expand by less than one percent.

Q2a. LHow does DOE project the future size of the nuclear power
industry when designing its programs, and how do its methods differ
from those of NEI and EIA?

A2a. The Department of Energy has not made projections on the expected
size of the commercial nuclear power industry. The design of our
programs is based on optimizing current nuclear power generating
capability and on enabling an increase in total nuclear generating
capability through the construction and operation of new nuclear power
plants in the future. Therefore, the programs of the Department may
alter the premises behind some of the projections of the future size of
the nuclear power industry by removing barriers and opening new
possibilities.

Q2b. LHow do you ensure that DOE's programs are best able to cope with
the uncertainty in such projections, which historically have been quite
large?

A2b. As DOE programs relating to nuclear capacity optimization in the
United States are not based specifically on projections, the large
uncertainties in projections have not impacted their need or direction.

Q2c. LGiven the long lead times that are required to build nuclear
plants, what are your estimates of the most likely and the most
optimistic number of new nuclear power plants that could be operating
or under construction by 2011?

A2c. It is possible that an order for a new nuclear power plant could
be placed around the year 2005. New orders are based on evaluations of
the energy market by the power generation industry, and therefore will
depend on a variety of economic factors. It is impossible, at this
point in time, to make a valid projection regarding the number of new
plants that might be built over the next decade.

Q3. LIn Ms. Howard's testimony, she stated that the nuclear industry
would require 90,000 new workers over the next 10 years.

Q3a. LWhat is your best estimate for the total number of new nuclear
workers (including replacements for retirees) needed in the next 10
years? How many of those would be nuclear engineers?

A3a. DOE participated in that NEI Task Force and has no reason to
disagree with the conclusions. The Task Force estimated that about 800
nuclear engineers would be required over the period 2002-2011.

Q3b. LIn developing your estimate, how many commercial reactors do you
assume will be running in 2013? How many would be needed to employ
90,000?

A3b. The assumption was that the 103 plants operating today would
continue to operate and no new plants were projected.

Q3c. LHow large is the current nuclear workforce, including all workers
from maintenance workers to engineers? What fraction of the current
workforce is nuclear engineers?

A3c. Citing again the NEI Task Force in which DOE participated, the
aggregate estimate of the total number of workers in the entire
industry, including the national laboratories, industry and
universities, is 90,000. The NEI study did not collect data on the
current number of nuclear engineers in the workforce.

Q3d. LWhat is the uncertainty associated with your estimated total
number of workers needed?

A3d. This study was based on direct solicitation of data from the
industry, and is therefore considered to have a high degree of
certainty.

Q3e. LWhat are the key determinants of the demand for nuclear engineers
and other nuclear workers?

A3e. The key determinants of the demand for nuclear engineers and other
nuclear workers are the state of the nuclear infrastructure in the
country (for example, number of nuclear power plants) and the
demographics of the existing workforce.

Q3f. LHow large do you believe DOE's university programs must become
(and how quickly) to allow the Nation to produce the new graduates you
estimate are needed?

A3f. While there is no exact correlation between the size of DOE's
University Programs and the number of nuclear engineering graduates,
the program is clearly having a positive impact as more nuclear
engineers are graduating from the Nation's universities today than a
decade ago. Additional funding would enable the Department to fund more
Nuclear Engineering Education Research, more fellowships and
scholarships, and to better meet the projected contractual needs of the
Innovations in Nuclear Infrastructure and Education initiative. Even if
the number of graduates remains fairly constant, maintaining current
educational levels requires new faculty to replace those retiring,
improved equipment, modernized research reactors and challenging
research.

Q4. LA number of studies suggest that the number of nuclear workers per
power plant is declining. What is the average number of college-trained
(at each level) personnel employed at a typical reactor today and how
many do you expect a typical reactor to employ in 2013?

A4. The Department does not maintain this kind of data or make these
kinds of projections.

Q5. LIn the 1990, the American Society for Electrical Engineering
(ASEE) released a study entitled, ``Manpower Supply and Demand in the
Nuclear Industry,'' that found that 35004500 ``BS and MS graduates''
would be required by the nuclear power industry and that the workforce
``supply'' would fall short of that number by 400 nuclear engineers by
2000 and 2001. Did the predicted shortfall occur and, if so, how was
the shortage handled?

A5. It is difficult to measure such shortfalls directly, as shortages
of personnel are often filled, albeit with greater difficulty, by
engineers from other disciplines. However, anecdotal evidence, such as
continuing increases in salary levels for nuclear engineers, and
numbers of job offers per graduate, suggest that the demand for nuclear
engineers has continued to exceed the supply. The Nuclear Energy
Institute's Nuclear Industry Staffing Pipeline Survey (December 2001)
indicates that there is a shortfall that is essentially being handled
by retraining. When employers cannot recruit sufficient numbers of
degreed nuclear engineers, they hire engineers from other disciplines
and train them in the nuclear applications that are needed for a
particular job. However, retraining has its limitations in those
instances when highly specialized nuclear engineering expertise is
needed.

Q6. LYour testimony implies a bright future for nuclear power, yet EIA
and others argue that the current state-of-the-art nuclear plant is as
much as 20 percent too expensive to complete with fossil-fueled plant.
Given that the first new plants of any new or innovated design are
likely to be more expensive, what is the per kilowatt capital cost of a
new nuclear plant? How does this translate into levelized cost per
kilowatt-hour? When do you see the price of nuclear plants being
competitive, and how do DOE's programs contribute to the decline? What
role do the DOE university programs play in these cost reductions?

A6. There are wide variations in the estimates of construction costs
for new plants to be built in the United States. Industry estimates for
new nuclear plants range between $1,100 and $1,400 per kilowatt. These
estimates are significantly lower than EIA projections and represent
the latest industry experience abroad. The cost of the first nuclear
plant is about 25 percent above what is economical in today's
deregulated market. A significant portion of this above market cost is
related to regulatory risk surrounding the construction and
commissioning of a new plant, first of a kind engineering cost and
learning how to build plants efficiently, but after such issues are
addressed for the first few plants, subsequent plants should be more
economical.
Projected electricity generation costs for new nuclear plants
costing between $1,100 to $1,400 per kilowatt-electric translate to a
levelized cost of 3.6 to 4.3 cents per kilowatt-hour. This levelized
cost range includes capital, operating and financing costs.
Under the Department's Nuclear Power 2010 initiative, DOE matches
industry investments over the next several years to address first of a
kind technology costs and demonstrate key regulatory processes designed
to make new plants more efficient, effective and predictable. The
Department is currently working with three U.S. nuclear generating
companies to obtain permits for sites at which new plants could be
built. Additionally, this year the Department will issue a solicitation
seeking industry participation in projects to develop and implement
plans to license and build new plants.
Currently, efforts aimed at cost reduction for new nuclear power
plants do not involve technological research, and therefore, the DOE
university program is not involved in this area.

Q7. LWhat evidence, if any, do you have that university programs
contribute to increasing nuclear capacity factors and other increases
in industry productivity? How can this construction be measured?

A7. As funding for University Programs increased in the late 1990s and
early 2000s enrollments increased in a similar fashion. The effect of
our University Programs on capacity factors or productivity is
difficult to measure since it is impossible to isolate their impact
from the many other factors impacting these two variables, but the
skill level of the workforce certainly contributes to the ability to
develop new methods and technologies to improve productivity.

Questions submitted by the Minority

Q1. LHow does DOE project the future size of the nuclear power industry
when designing its programs and how do its methods differ from those of
NEI?

A1. The Department of Energy has not made projections on the expected
size of the commercial nuclear power industry. The design of our
programs is based on optimizing current nuclear power generating
capability and on enabling an increase in total nuclear generating
capability through the construction and operation of new nuclear power
plants in the future. Therefore, the programs of the Department may
alter the premises behind some of the projections of the future size of
the nuclear power industry by removing barriers and opening new
possibilities.

Q2. LWe've been hearing about impending shortages in the nuclear
workforce for a while. In your written testimony you concede that the
nuclear workforce shortage predicted in the late 1980s failed to
materialize in the 1990s. In 1999, a study by the American Society for
Electrical Engineering also predicted a shortage of 400 nuclear
engineers by 2000 or 2001. This time, however, you seem to be arguing,
there really will be a shortage and that the situation is even more
dire than in the early `90s. Is this a correct interpretation, is a
shortage more likely now and if so why?

A2. The main reason that a shortage of trained nuclear engineers is
more likely now than it was a decade or so ago is that the nuclear
workforce is older and there are insufficient numbers of trained
nuclear engineers graduating from our colleges to replace retirees on a
one-for-one basis. The earlier predictions of shortages may not have
come to pass in part because some nuclear personnel may have deferred
their retirements. But, as we learned in the Nuclear Energy Institute
report completed in the year 2000, Nuclear Education and Training:
Cause for Concern, industry, government, universities and national
laboratories are all confronting this unbalanced manpower demographic
and the number of graduating nuclear engineering students is just now
beginning to increase. While manpower retirement extensions of current
personnel are unlikely to occur in large numbers as they have in the
recent past, increasing numbers of graduates, retraining of engineers
from other disciplines, and other public-private sector initiatives
such as our university partnership program with minority serving
instructions should help mitigate the shortage.

Q3. LIn your written testimony you highlight new DOE efforts with the
first Historical Black College or University (HBCU) to offer a degree
in nuclear engineering. To what degree are minorities and women under
represented in the workforce? As the first woman doctorate in the field
of nuclear engineering, how do you believe greater workforce diversity
might affect the future vitality of the nuclear engineering field? What
policy changes you would recommend for universities, laboratories,
industry and government to increase diversity?

A3. The Department has not done a study to quantify the degree of
under-representation of women and minorities in the nuclear engineering
workforce. However, numerous reports on engineering in general indicate
that this under-representation exists, and there is no evidence to
suggest that nuclear engineering differs significantly from other
engineering disciplines in this regard. Greater workforce diversity
will be critical to meeting future demands for nuclear-trained
professionals, and therefore, to the ultimate vitality of the field.
The government, universities, laboratories and industry already
recognize the potential workforce deficiencies, and have established
programs and policies designed to help address the problems. For
example, DOE is working with universities and industry to help increase
minority and female enrollments. In 2000, we began our University
Partnership program. It is designed to match a nuclear engineering
school with a Minority Serving Institution (MSI). To date, we have four
partnerships involving five minority and four nuclear engineering
schools. Student interest and enrollment in this program is high and
will yield new minority and women nuclear engineers in the near future
to help meet the Nation's nuclear manpower requirements. Further,
Exelon Corporation provided significant funding to South Carolina State
University (SCSU) under the Department's matching grant program. SCSU
is the first historically black college to begin a nuclear engineering
degree program. Such policies need to be continued, and, where
possible, increased, to help expand the pool of nuclear engineering
students.

Q4. LDr. Kammen suggests that the current production rate of 500-700
new nuclear engineers over ten years is sufficient for the nuclear
power industry while Ms. Howard's testimony suggests we need 90,000 new
workers over the coming decade, of which it seems that over 20,000
would go to the power industry. Do each of you agree with these
estimates? If not, what do each of you think is the right number of
nuclear engineering graduates the Nation will need? Do you have a sense
of how many commercial reactors would be required to employ your
estimated number of future employees?

A4. The NEI study, in which DOE was a participant, stated that 800
nuclear engineers would be needed from 2002-2011. Dr. Kammen's upper
range is not far removed from the NEI projection. The NEI projection
was based on the Nation having 103 operating nuclear power plants. In
addition, it is important to note that additional demands for nuclear
manpower will derive from government, universities and national
laboratories where a significant percentage of the current workforce is
already at or past average retirement age.

Q5. LYou discuss the efforts DOE has been making to involve nuclear
engineering departments throughout the country in the regional
university research reactor consortia. Then, on page 4 of your
testimony, you express ``concern'' about the closing of two university
research reactors--one at Cornell and one at Michigan. If DOE supports
the regionalization effort, it implies that a smaller number of
reactors could suffice. Why is DOE concerned about these particular
reactors? Who will decide and what criteria will be used to select the
surviving regional reactors? What is DOE's role in this selection
process? You mentioned that those few universities with nuclear
programs not affiliated with any consortia, ``are being encouraged to
affiliate.'' Is DOE trying to reduce the number of research reactors,
or just trying to get all the programs to work as affiliates?

A5. Both the Michigan and Cornell reactors represented strengths in the
U.S. nuclear engineering community that cannot be replaced. DOE is not
involved in a selection process to determine which nuclear reactors
continue to operate. That is decided by each university. DOE, over the
past decade, has improved its programs, such as reactor upgrades and
reactor sharing, and this has helped the reactors to better serve
students and faculty researchers. Based upon reports of the Nuclear
Energy Research Advisory Committee, a regional reactor consortium was
determined to be the best way to ensure that these reactors, and their
associated nuclear engineering programs, could best serve their
constituent population. The more affiliation, the better the
cooperation among the universities and their national laboratory,
utility industry and private sector partners. Becoming affiliated with
Innovations in Nuclear Infrastructure and Education not only
strengthens each individual reactor program, it strengthens the nuclear
reactor community as a whole.

Q6. LWhat fraction of the total cost of educating a nuclear engineer
does DOE provide? Does DOE have a model of the cost of educating a
nuclear engineer (i.e., student stipend, faculty, nuclear reactor and
equipment, and overhead) and the sources of the funds provided to cover
costs (i.e., student tuition, DOE, university support, industry
support)?

A6. DOE does not have a model for the cost of educating a student in
nuclear engineering. There are many options to support the cost of
educating a nuclear engineer. DOE has a fellowship program for graduate
students, and a scholarship program for undergraduates. The fellowship
program provides full tuition and a monthly stipend plus a one-time
summer practicum at a national laboratory with full stipend. Fellowship
costs range between $30,000 and $45,000 per student per year, depending
on the university the student is attending. The scholarships are for a
flat $2,000 per year to help cover tuition. This amount is usually
adequate since most nuclear engineering programs are located at state
universities where the tuition is relatively modest. Both of these
awards are highly competitive and there are many more applicants than
there are funds to pay for them. Other organizations outside the
government also offer assistance to students. In addition, the
universities have the flexibility within the DOE-funded matching grant
initiative to provide funds to students in the form of fellowships and
scholarships. DOE also provides summer internships for students at
DOE's national laboratories. Those students are paid for their travel
expenses and receive a stipend. Therefore, most students, especially
graduate students, can receive financial assistance to enable them to
become nuclear engineers. Financial aid is very much a recruiting tool
used by the universities to entice students to study nuclear
engineering and science.

Q7. LThe NNSA recently announced a $9M award in its Stewardship Science
Academic Alliances program to, in part, involve the universities in
stockpile stewardship, train scientists, and promote scientific
interactions between universities and laboratories. To what extent will
this funding help satisfy the demand for nuclear engineers? Are there
other DOE, DOD, or government programs to help support the education
and training of nuclear engineers?

A7. There are several programs that provide funding that supports the
training of nuclear engineers. These all can help contribute to meeting
the demand for nuclear engineers. However, each is designed with
specific objectives in mind, so they cannot readily directly substitute
for each other. The NNSA Stewardship Science Academic Alliances program
provides research grants relevant to stockpile stewardship. In
addition, the Office of Naval Reactors has a fellowship program for
nuclear engineers that is modeled, primarily, on the Office of Nuclear
Energy fellowship program. Naval Reactors started its program about two
years ago. It has some specific requirements that NE programs do not
have, including one that obligates the student to a certain number of
years in their program at one of the Naval Reactors laboratories--
Bettis or Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory.
According to NASA's Project Prometheus, its nuclear systems program
to develop advanced radioisotope and fission power technologies for
space exploration is in the process of establishing a comprehensive
education program that will include a university component to
strengthen the pipeline of engineers in relevant disciplines of nuclear
and aerospace engineering.

Q8. LThe DOE FY2004 Congressional Budget Request (DOE/ME-0018)
indicates that the NERI budget for FY 2004 is $7.4M down from $17.5M in
FY 2003 and $22.0M in FY 2002. In view of this trend and the putative
value of the program in your written testimony, what plans are there to
reverse this trend or establish a follow-on program?

A8. The reductions in the NERI program represent the programmatic re-
focusing of the program from general research to research specifically
related to the advanced reactor system concepts which have now been
identified for international collaborative research through the
Generation IV International Forum. We would expect the total funding
available to universities under the anticipated research projects to be
greater than the funding that was available under the NERI program. In
addition, since this research will be tied to significant on-going
programs, universities participating in research related to these
reactor designs will be able to work with a larger national and
international research community.

Q9. LHow should the government determine how many research reactors the
country needs, if the idea of regional reactors is to save money and
eliminate duplication?

A9. The government should not make the determination of how many
research reactors are needed; this is a decision that must be made by
the universities themselves. DOE's Innovations in Nuclear
Infrastructure and Education (INIE) is a competitive program designed
to improve the use and availability of regionally located reactors for
research by a wider audience of students and faculty and is not
designed to limit or reduce the overall number of university research
or training reactors. Ultimately, if a university does not believe its
reactor benefits the students and faculty or that its liabilities
exceed its usefulness, then it can decide to shut it down.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Daniel M. Kammen, Professor, Energy and Resources Group,
Goldman School of Public Policy; Department of Nuclear
Engineering, University of California-Berkeley

Questions submitted by the Majority

Q1. LMs. Howard from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) testified at
the hearing that the nuclear industry will require 90,000 new workers
over the next 10 years.

Q1a. LWhat is your best estimate for the total numbers of new nuclear
workers (including replacements for retirees) needed in the next 10
years? How many of these would be nuclear engineers?

A1a. As described below, my estimate for the number of new engineers
needed is under 1,000. At present 20 percent of nuclear engineering
graduates enter the commercial nuclear energy work force. If this
attrition factor is applied, my estimate would rise to closer to 5,000.
The estimate provided by Ms. Howard of the NEI is a vision of
50,000 MW of new nuclear capacity by 2020, and 10,000 of additional
capacity through the enhancement of operations at existing plants. The
50,000 MW of new capacity can be roughly translated to be 50 new
reactors over the next 15 years. The 10,000 MW of additional capacity
is possible, but will be challenging because the capacity factor of the
U.S. reactor fleet is already very high (over 90 percent), so these
gains would likely have to come from core upgrades, which would require
new certification.
In my view, the probability of building 50 new reactors over the
next 10-15 years is low. Industry plans for these new reactors are
largely dependent on efforts by the Near Term Deployment Study that
took place from 2000-2002 as part of the Generation IV (Gen IV)
process. Those plans were dealt a significant setback when Excelon
Corporation cancelled their Pebble Bed Reactor program. Other designs
are, of course, possible, and the DOE is working hard to streamline the
certification and approval process for new plants. There have been some
significant advances in PBMR technology (larger core sizes and higher
potential efficiencies), and the recent inclusion of very large
(estimated $13 billion) loan guarantees for the nuclear industry in the
recent U.S. Senate Energy Bill.
Even taking these changes into account, I do not consider the
construction of the new plants in the NEI plans to be likely. There may
be some construction of new/replacement reactors at current nuclear
power plants, but my best estimates place these new facilities at a
level that would sustain, but not significantly increase the U.S.
nuclear fleet beyond its current level of 103 reactors.
In this scenario, the total number of new nuclear workers (new
workers + retirement replacements) over the next decade is essentially
only the retirement replacement number. Thus, assuming a retirement
rate of three percent/year, 50-60 new engineers are needed each year,
or under 1,000 over the next decade. This is very far from the 90,000
in the NEI forecast. Even if some number of new reactors are built, I
would not consider it to be more than 5-10, for which the current
production rate of engineers is likely to be sufficient. My estimates
here are, in fact, below the number of nuclear engineers that are
currently produced at the undergraduate and graduate levels (345 in
2003). Even with the current yield of only 20 percent of nuclear
graduates taking jobs in the commercial nuclear power sector, the
current rate of graduates appears to be sufficient to meet the needs of
the industry.
Note: One important issue not addressed directly by this question
is that as the training of these engineers may likely need to change,
which would require some significant new types of training for the
engineers that are produced.

Q1b. LIn developing your estimate, how many commercial reactors do you
assume will be running by 2013? How many would be needed to employ
90,000?

A1b. As discussed above, my belief is that in the next decade there
will not be a net increase in the number of commercial reactors.
Current reactors employ roughly 20 engineers per reactor. With the
general employee/plant engineer ratio at 20:1 (which is meant to
roughly include both on-site employees and those at nuclear parts
fabrication and storage facilities), to employ 90,000 new workers would
require over 200 new power plants. This is not even faintly realistic
or warranted.

Q1c. LHow large is the current nuclear workforce, including all workers
from maintenance workers to engineers? What fraction of the current
workforce are nuclear engineers?

A1c. The current workforce supports roughly 100 reactors, with almost
20 nuclear engineers/plant and roughly 10 employees/engineer, the total
workforce is roughly 2,000 engineers, and 20,000 workers total, in all
upstream and downstream jobs.

Q1d. LWhat is the uncertainty associated with your estimated total
number of workers needed?

A1d. Clearly the largest uncertainly is in the number of new plants. At
20 engineers per plant, and roughly 20 x (10 to 20) = 200-400 total
workers per plant, this uncertainty can be significant.

Q1e. LWhat are the key determinants of the demand for nuclear engineers
and other nuclear workers?

A1e. The key determinants are the types of nuclear plants that might be
built. New, advanced, designs, will require significantly more
engineers compared to the potential construction of additional numbers
of current generation plants.

Q1f. LHow large do you believe DOE's university programs must become
(and how quickly) to allow the Nation to produce the new graduates you
estimate are needed?

A1f. In my view, no increase in the total number of graduates is
needed. What may be needed, however, is a significant alteration in the
type of training that the next generation of nuclear engineers receive.

Q2. LA number of studies suggest that the number of nuclear workers per
plant is declining. What is the average number of college trained (at
each level) personnel employed at a typical reactor today and how many
do you expect a typical reactor to employ in 2013?

A2. The number of workers per plant is declining for this current
generation of nuclear plants. By 2013 I do not expect a new generation
of plants to be deployed, so the current number of engineers per
reactor, 16-18, is a good guide for plants by 2013. When Gen IV or
other advanced designs are introduced, this number will likely change.

Q3. LWhat factors determine the size of university departments and
programs? To what extent do you consider the future demand for
graduates by the industry in determining the appropriate number of
students to enroll and graduate at your university's programs?

A3. Industry demand per se is not an immediate driver of the number of
students we enroll and graduate in the Department of Nuclear
Engineering at the University of California, Berkeley. This is true
because as one of the top nuclear engineering programs, there is a
larger demand for UC-Berkeley graduates than would be the case if the
industry hired from each program proportionally. As a result, federal
grants and student awards are a larger, or at least more immediate,
determinant of the size of our program. Note that only 20 percent of
graduates from nuclear engineering programs go into the commercial
nuclear energy field. This is both a testament to the quality and rigor
of the training in nuclear engineering, and a strong warning that
employment in commercial power production from nuclear reactors is not
likely to be the overwhelming driver of university program size.

Q4. LIn our opinion, to what extent should nuclear engineering be
forced to compete with other disciplines for funding through the
National Science Foundation or other multi-discipline funding agencies,
rather than be allowed to rely on programs dedicated solely to nuclear
disciplines?

A4. This is a critical question, and gets to the very heart of the way
that we operate our nuclear power industry in the United States. At
present nuclear power is managed as a discipline apart from the rest of
the energy sector. The Price Anderson act, the Yucca Mountain
repository (and the process that lead to it), and the recent push for
massive loan guarantees for the industry are all examples of this
special status that nuclear power enjoys. Paradoxical as it may seem,
in my view, this treatment has not served the development of nuclear
power well. The industry has become insular, isolated from important
discussions and forces that can spur true innovation (as opposed to
incrementalism, or what has been called `technological involution' ).
It is important for each technology to have a fairly secure core
funding and support network, such as already exist for nuclear power
within the Department of Energy, and within engineering directorates in
the NSF. It would be far more productive for the nuclear energy
industry, and for energy field generally, to get more cross-technology
discussions and exchanges. This can only be accomplished by placing all
technologies on a more even playing field.

Q5. LYour written testimony ends with a quote from the head of your
nuclear engineering department saying that most department heads
believe that the best approach to reinvigorating nuclear engineering
education--even over providing direct funding for universities--would
be for the government to commit to create ``incentives'' to build a
small number of additional commercial nuclear plants, allowing those
incentives to decrease over time.

Q5a. LWhat are the incentives these department heads have in mind?

A5a. The incentives of special interest to my colleagues include the
loan guarantees that are included in the Senate Energy bill. Other
incentives that have been discussed include a variety of mechanisms to
encourage or facilitate the commercial construction of even small
additional reactors at existing nuclear facilities.

Q5b. LDo you think that their analysis is correct? How would expansion
in the number of plants increase the vitality of nuclear research? For
example, how could it fix the problem you describe in your testimony
that half of the scientific papers published on the production of
hydrogen from nuclear energy are written by a single researcher?

A5b. There is no question that the construction of even a small
number--even one--of new reactors in the U.S. would send a powerful
signal to the industry. Without the opportunity for new facilities and
new reactor designs to be moved from theory to practice it is difficult
to maintain interest in any technological field.
The problem of the lack of researchers in areas like the connection
between nuclear power and hydrogen--as discussed in my testimony--is
one that requires two related approaches. First, construction of even a
small number of new reactors would alter the industry in fundamental
ways--bringing new purpose and vitality to many areas of investigation.
The specific problem of nuclear hydrogen is one that related back to my
response to Question #4. If nuclear power is more fully connected to
the wider set of energy issues and infrastructure, then discussions
between different disciplines--between the nuclear and the renewables
community over the best ways to produce hydrogen for example--can bring
new forces of innovation and investigation to the entire energy field.
This sort of debate, discussion, and cross-fertilization of ideas has
been retarded by the balkanization of energy research. One mechanism to
begin this integration is to encourage or require life-cycle cost
benefit, and risk/benefit analyses for all energy technologies, and to
make federal decisions on energy systems cognizant of these results.

Q5c. LHow would you prevent rent-seeking behavior, where recipients
seek to perpetuate subsidies rather than allow them to decrease?

A5c. Several approaches exist:

i) LPolicies that specifically mandate a sunset are difficult
to circumvent;

ii) LOpen competition across technologies (as advocated above)
reduce the opportunity for the special status and rent-seeking
behavior that you highlight. Nuclear energy has arguably
already been the recipient of significant resources that have
already led to significant patronage and rent-seeking.

Q5d. LWhat is the appropriate industry share for these incentives
initially?

A5d. The nuclear energy industry is already the recipient of massive
financial and political subsidies, and despite this has contributed
relatively little in direct support for university research.
Congressman Bartlett made this point very clearly during the June 10
hearing. If the construction of a new nuclear power facility were to
take place, the nuclear power industry would benefit immeasurably. As a
result, the industry should contribute significantly, in fact should
arguably lead the development of these new facilities.

Questions submitted by the Minority

Q1. LAs director of a university program, how do you determine the
appropriate number of students to enroll and to graduate? To what
extent do you consider the future demand for graduates by the nuclear
power industry? How do you determine what the demand will be? What
methodology would you suggest to identify the required number of
university reactors, where they should be located, and the appropriate
level of federal support?

A1. Industry demand per se is not an immediate driver of the number of
students we enroll and graduate in the Department of Nuclear
Engineering at the University of California, Berkeley. This is true
because as one of the top nuclear engineering programs, there is a
larger demand for UC-Berkeley graduates than would be the case if the
industry hired from each program proportionally, as a result, federal
grants and student awards are a larger, or at least more immediate,
determinant of the size of our program. Note that only 20 percent of
graduates from nuclear engineering programs go into the commercial
nuclear energy field. This is both a testament to the quality and rigor
of the training in nuclear engineering, and a strong warning that
employment in commercial power production from nuclear reactors is not
likely to be the overwhelming driver of university program size.
Analysis of future demand can be accomplished by the sort of
scaling factors that can be determined from the current industry, such
as nuclear engineers/reactor, and total employees/engineer.
The number of research reactors needs to be sufficiently large so
that all graduates who have a reasonable chance of working in the
industry are well trained in actual operation of nuclear facilities.
The location of these facilities is far less important than the amount
of hands-on time that each student can be afforded through the
university consortia that have developed around the existing research
reactors.

Q2. LIn your testimony you cite a colleague as saying that department
saying that most department heads believe that the best approach to
reinvigorating nuclear engineering education--even over providing
direct funding for universities--would be for the government to commit
to create ``incentives'' to build a small number of additional
commercial nuclear plants. What kind of incentives do you think these
department heads have in mind? How will adding a few plants this way
increase the demand for nuclear engineers, if, according to the GAO
report you cite in your testimony, the current number of annual nuclear
engineering graduates could probably meet the demand of an even of an
expanded nuclear power industry? How will the expansion in the number
of plants increase the vitality of nuclear research? For example, how
could it fix the problem you describe in your testimony that half of
the scientific papers published on the production of hydrogen from
nuclear energy are written by a single researcher?

A2. The incentives that my colleagues envision include the loan
guarantees that are included in the Senate Energy bill. Other
incentives that have been discussed include a variety of mechanisms to
encourage or facilitate the commercial construction of even small
additional reactors at existing nuclear facilities.
There is no question that the construction of even a small number--
even one--new reactor in the U.S. would send a more powerful signal to
the industry than would any amount of continued `business as usual'
research. Without the opportunity for new facilities and new reactor
designs, it is difficult to maintain interest in any technological
field.
The problem of the lack of researchers in areas like the connection
between nuclear power and hydrogen--as discussed in my testimony--is
one that requires two related approaches. First, construction of even a
small number of new reactors would alter the industry in fundamental
ways--bringing new purpose and vitality to many areas of investigation.
The specific problem of nuclear hydrogen is one that related back to my
response to Question #4. If nuclear power is more fully connected to
the wider set of energy issues and infrastructure, then discussions
between different disciplines--between the nuclear and the renewables
community over the best ways to produce hydrogen for example--can bring
new forces of innovation and investigation to the entire energy field.
This sort of debate, discussion, and cross-fertilization of ideas has
been retarded by the balkanization of energy research.
Several approaches exist:

LPolicies that specifically mandate a sunset are
difficult to circumvent;

LOpen competition across technologies (as advocated
above) reduce the opportunity for the special status and rent-
seeking behavior that you highlight. Nuclear energy has
arguably already been the recipient of significant resources
that have already led to this dynamic.

The nuclear energy industry is already the recipient of massive
financial and political subsidies, and despite this has contributed
relatively little in direct support for university research.
Congressman Bartlett made this point very clearly during the June 10
hearing. If the construction of a new nuclear power facility were to
take place, the nuclear power industry would benefit immeasurably. As a
result, the industry should contribute significantly, in fact should
arguably lead the development of these new facilities.

Q3. LIn Figure 1 of your testimony, Texas A&M shows a dramatic increase
in enrollment, nearly quadrupling in five years while other university
programs showed little or no growth. Can you tell us more about what
happened at A&M? Is this growth just a blip, or can it be sustained?
Are there lessons that should be applied to other programs?

A3. The Texas A&M story is important in several respects. The
university made a commitment to grow the department, and did so with a
long-term plan that involved new research areas in traditional (e.g.,
neutronics, heat transfer, waste management) and in new areas (e.g.,
hydrogen production, nuclear energy security). This diversity provides
the A&M department with significant funding options, and security
against down turns in specific disciplines. The growth of the A&M
program is certainly not a `blip', nor is it a growth we can expect
many other programs to follow. University programs arguably already
over-produce nuclear engineers, and competition for federal funds is
fierce. What A&M has done is to build a top-ranked department, and done
so in a way that should provide stability in their program for many
years.
The most important lesson for other departments is that non-
traditional areas of nuclear and more generally energy systems
engineering can become core areas of a vibrant nuclear engineering
program.

Q4. LIn view of the potential terrorist threat to the safety of
university nuclear reactors, how can the security of those reactor be
assured? What would be the costs of security measures? What degree of
these costs should be borne by the Federal Government? Are there any
legislative measures that Congress should take to assure university
reactor security?

A4. I do not consider myself an expert on the management of university
reactors, so will defer to Professors Stubbins and Slaughter on this
question.

Q5. LHow should the government determine how many research reactors the
country needs, if the idea of regional reactors is to save money and
eliminate duplication?

A5. The number of research reactors needs to be sufficiently large so
that all graduates who have a reasonable chance of working in the
industry are well trained in actual operation of nuclear facilities.
The location of these facilities is far less important than the amount
of hands-on time that each student can be afforded through the
university consortia that have developed around the existing research
reactors.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Angelina S. Howard, Executive Vice President of Policy,
Planning, and External Affairs, Nuclear Energy Institute

Questions submitted by the Majority

Q1. LAt the hearing you promised to provide for the record NEI's
estimate of the proper ratio of federal to industry support for
university nuclear science and engineering education programs. In
general, what does the nuclear industry view as its role in assuring an
adequate supply of nuclear science and engineering graduates?

A1. NEI does not feel it is appropriate to make an estimate of a
correct ratio of industry vs. government funding for university
programs. The nuclear industry provides a substantial amount of funding
for education programs, from roughly one million dollars per year in
scholarships and fellowships provide by the Institute of Nuclear Power
Operators through their National Academy Program to myriad paid summer
internship and cooperative education programs, scholarships, grants and
fellowships offered by individual private firms. In addition to funds
which directly support students at universities, industry also funds
research studies through the Electric Power Research Institute.
In the past, where industry participates in matching programs,
government often does not contribute their promised share. For example,
in the 1990s the industry agreed to support a fifty-fifty cost sharing
program with the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy for the Advanced Light
Water Reactor Program. The industry shouldered nearly seventy percent
of the funding when reduced appropriations threatened the success of
the program.
Another example of this, specific to education programs, is the
Government Industry Matching Grants Program. Although this program is
based on a fifty-fifty cost share model, for FY03 industry is expected
to contribute $1.2 million, while government will only contribute
$800,000 due to another appropriations shortfall.
Finally, we feel that as a future employer of nuclear engineers,
the nuclear industry is already filling a very appropriate role:
reaching out through deans and college placement personnel to ensure
that students have viable job opportunities upon graduation.

Q2. LIn your testimony, you stated that the nuclear industry would
require 90,000 new workers over the next 10 years.

A2. In my testimony, I made several statements about the future need
for workers in the nuclear industry. In 2001, NEI conducted a
comprehensive study on the future need for workers in the nuclear
industry called the Nuclear Workforce Pipeline Study. The nuclear
industry referred to in this study is broadly defined as the nuclear
components of power operations; plant refueling and maintenance
outages; government; the national labs; government contractors;
universities; front and back end fuel cycle; and engineering, design,
services and construction firms.

a) LDoes this figure include all workers, from maintenance
workers to engineers? How many engineers, including nuclear
engineers, are included in the total figure?

LThe Nuclear Workforce Pipeline Study looked at all workers
in the nuclear industry and the 90,000 new workers discussed
included 13 categories of nuclear specific workers representing
the vast majority of workers in the industry.

b) LIn developing your estimate, how many commercial reactors
do you assume will be running in 2013?

LIn developing these estimates, we used a ``business as
usual'' scenario. This assumed that over the ten years, 2001-
2011, the 103 operating reactors would continue to operate and
there would be no new plant construction.

c) LHow many workers would the industry require over the next
decade in the ``business as usual'' scenario--if the number of
commercial reactors did not increase?

LThe study used a ``business as usual'' assumption of 103
operating reactors that would require 90,000 new nuclear
workers over the study period.

d) LWhat is the uncertainty associated with your estimated
total number of workers needed?

LThe study was produced from direct industry input
describing their projected needs for new employees. There was a
high level of industry response to the survey and thus we have
a high degree of confidence in the study findings.

e) LWhat are the key determinants of the demand for nuclear
engineers and other nuclear workers?

LThe key determinants of worker demand in the study were
retirements and attrition to other industries. There were a
small number of new workers required due to new job creation.

f) LHow large do you believe DOE's university programs must
become (and how quickly) to allow the Nation to produce the new
graduates you estimate are needed?

LWe believe that DOE is on the right track in supporting
university programs as evidenced by the improvement in
enrollment during the past two years. We suggest that DOE
University Programs be funded at the $26.5 million dollar
level. Further, we recommend that DOE follow the guidance
provided by the analysis and conclusions of the of The Future
of University Nuclear Engineering Programs and University
Research & Training Reactors, authored by Dr. Michael Corridini
et. al. provided to the DOE Secretary's Nuclear Energy Research
Advisory Committee.

Q3. LHow would you respond to the assertion by Dr. Kammen that the
industry would likely require no more engineers than universities are
currently expected to produce? How do you believe DOE should design its
programs to best cope with the inherent difficulty in predicting future
workforce demand and the large differences in such predictions offered
by the industry?

A3. We are not familiar with the data upon which Dr. Kammen has based
his assertion regarding nuclear engineers. In fact, the data from our
2001 study and other evidence we are familiar with contradicts the
testimony submitted by Dr. Kammen. One could of course assume that only
nuclear power plants will require nuclear engineers in the future and
plant refueling and maintenance outages; government; the national labs;
government contractors; universities; front and back end fuel cycle;
and engineering, design, services and construction firms would no
longer have such a requirement. We know, however, from our research and
experience in the industry, that these organizations will continue
their operations in the future and as such, require employees to
replace retirees and others leaving the industry.
Dr. Kammen may have been referring to the total numbers of
engineers of all disciplines graduating from engineering programs. If
this was his assumption, than of course there will be enough
engineering graduates to meet the nuclear industries need. However,
many other industries will need new engineers to replace their retiring
or departing workforce. From our analysis, we will need to increase the
share of engineers hired into the nuclear industry form the current
level of two percent to six percent (a substantial increase.)

Q4. LA number of studies suggest that the number of nuclear workers per
plant is declining. What is the average number of college trained (at
each level) personnel employed at a typical reactor today and how many
do you expect a typical reactor to employ in 2013?

A4. It is true that the number of workers at nuclear power plants has
declined since the mid-1990s. Since 1996, we have seen a 15 percent
reduction in staffing headcounts; however we do not expect to see
future reductions in staff at rates we observed in the mid-1990s.
Staffing levels in 2001 and 2002 remained relatively stable.
NEI does not keep statistics on the numbers of college trained
workers at the sites since there may be no correlation between the
degree an individual holds and their employment at a plant, e.g., an
individual with a Master's Degree in English Literature may work in
Personnel. There are however, positions which require a specific
degree, such as a systems engineer or reactor core designer. Further,
many of the firms who support plant operations or national labs require
specific degrees to fill their positions.

Q5. LIn 1990, the American Society for Electrical Engineering (ASEE)
released a study entitled Manpower Supply and Demand in the Nuclear
Industry, that found that 3500-4500 BS and MS graduates would be
required by the nuclear power industry, and that the workforce supply
would fall short of that number by 400 nuclear engineers by 2000 and
2001. Did the predicted shortfall occur and, if so, how was the
shortage handled?

A5. While we are not familiar with the assumptions of the ASEE study
with regard to new plant construction, the number of operating plants
and other factors that could affect demand for nuclear engineers, we
have noticed a number of factors which could serve to clarify this
issue. We have been informed by members of the university community
that many of their nuclear engineering graduates have two or three firm
job offers in hand upon graduation. This anecdotal evidence serves to
support the issue of shortage. Your fourth question noted that the
staffing levels have fallen on the plant level. Since the mid-1990s
plant staffing was reduced by roughly 15 percent. While we do expect
some decreases in plant staffing levels in the future, we do not expect
to see equivalent staffing level decreases in the next few years.
This 15 percent staffing decrease could more than account for
reducing the supply shortage in the ASEE report. Additionally, many of
our member companies have invested in programs to train non-nuclear
engineers for employment at nuclear power plants. Finally, our 2001
report indicates that the power sector of the nuclear industry is not
expected to see significant attrition due to retirement until the
second half of the study period (2001-2011) and beyond.

Q6. LWhat are the primary reasons that nuclear capacity factors and
generation have increased over the past decade? What impact did
electric industry restructuring and other economic factors have on
motivating these improvements? To what extent are these improvements
related to changes in management focus?

A6. The nuclear power industry has enjoyed improving performance, while
maintaining an excellent safety record for over a decade due to a
number of factors. Since 1990, capacity improvements have added the
equivalent of 24 new 1000 megawatt generating plants without building a
single new unit. The factors that have lead to this improved
performance include, but are not limited to a decrease in the time that
units are off-line for refueling outages, better management, more
effective predictive and preventative maintenance, and improved on-line
maintenance programs. Generally, the industry has sought to optimize
performance with the recognition that there is a positive correlation
between safety and reliability. This positive correlation translates to
greater capacity factors and an improved bottom line.

Q7. LWhat metrics should Congress use to determine whether DOE is doing
the right things to ensure that sufficient nuclear professionals are
available to meet the needs of the U.S. nuclear power industry in the
coming decade?

A7. NEI shares this concern. As such, we are currently working on
updating our 2001 survey and would welcome the opportunity to share our
results and recommendations with this committee. In addition, we
support the analysis and conclusions of The Future of University
Nuclear Engineering Programs and University Research & Training
Reactors, authored by Dr. Michael Corridini et. al. provided to the DOE
Secretary's Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee.

Questions submitted by the Minority

Q1. LIn your testimony, you state that NEI's goal is for nuclear power
to increase its share to one third of all electricity produced in the
U.S. This projection differs greatly from that of the Energy
Information Administration, which essentially projects no growth in
capacity. How do you account for these differences?

A1. The main factor which accounts for the differences in projections
is the assumed capital costs for new plant construction. NEI feels that
the EIA cost estimates grossly over estimate capital costs. If EIA were
to use reasonable cost estimates as a basis for their forecasts
(estimates supported by current technological and design improvements),
the forecast would indicate substantial new capacity in nuclear. NEI is
constructively engaging EIA on this issue and we hope that by working
together, inaccuracies in the EIA model can be corrected.

Q2. LWhy do natural market forces, like starting salaries and
employment incentives, appear to be ineffectual in satisfying the
demand/supply for nuclear engineers? What changes would be required to
have market forces be the dominant mechanism controlling the supply of
nuclear engineers?

A2. The median salary for nuclear engineers, according to the Bureau of
Labor Statistics is $79,360 per year in 2000. This is the highest
median salary of the 14 engineering specialties that BLS studied in its
2002-2003 occupational outlook handbook. Further industry surveys have
found that compensation in the nuclear industry is very competitive
with other industries such as IT.
We believe that market forces alone are not enough to drive
students into careers in nuclear engineering. We believe that three
factors are affecting student selection of nuclear engineering as a
field of study. The first factor is the perception of nuclear
engineering as a dying field. With role models like ``Homer Simpson''
and an industry that has not constructed a new plant since the 1980s,
prospective students may not see that there are indeed very lucrative
employment opportunities in the industry.
Second, due to the rigorous academic nature of a nuclear
engineering degree, many students who consider such a major may not
have the basic math and science background to fulfill their academic
pursuit. Many studies have indicated that student interest in science
technology, engineering and math has dropped steadily since the mid-
1980s.
Finally, the lack of funding available in the form of research
grants may also deter some students from pursuing this field. Many
students who have a thesis or research requirement as a component of
their degree, seek fields in which they can work on a funded research
projects as a research assistant. While exposing the student to the
leading edge in their chosen field, this also helps them pay for their
education and related expenses. Further, it may form the foundation of
a Master's Degree or Ph.D. thesis. NEI commends DOE on their plan to
use universities to conduct a portion of their R&D.

Q3. LHow should the government determine how many research reactors the
country needs, if the idea of regional reactors is to save money and
eliminate duplication?

A3. NEI is supportive of DOE's program called Innovations in Nuclear
Infrastructure and Education or INIE. The program was established last
year and it encourages partnerships between universities, national
laboratories, and industry to share facilities. As this program
progresses, there will be ample opportunity to determine how many
research reactors are needed. In addition, with the advance in bio-
medical applications for reactors, the question of the required number
of research reactors may be broader than the energy sector.
NEI urges this committee to take a careful and deliberate approach
to determining the optimal number of operating test reactors. We are
particularly concerned that if this committee is too aggressive in
reducing the number of operating test reactors through a decrease in
program funding or other mechanism, it may be impossible to restart an
existing facility or to site a new reactor due to regulatory
requirements, infrastructure or negative community perception.

Q4. LUsing the figures you gave in your testimony, if the nuclear
industry sold 780 billion kilowatt-hours last year (and we assume a
very conservative estimate of two cents of revenue per kilowatt-hour)
the industry as a whole earned over $15 billion in revenue. But
industry share of funding for education amounted to just $19 million
since 1980--a tenth of a percent of your revenue in 2002 alone. As a
strong advocate for nuclear energy, is industry contributing its fair
share to nuclear education? Why has it not contributed more? What do
you think is the proper ratio of federal support to that of industry?

A4. In response to this question, I'd like to make two points. First,
that total revenues should not be used in this type of analysis. They
do not take into account the costs of doing business, such as plant
operation, fuel, capital and user fees. The business of owning and
operating a nuclear power plant is capital and resource intensive. In
addition, it may be impossible to calculate the exact revenue generated
by a plant since they are often owned and or operated by a firm which
has vast holdings and may not account for revenue on a per unit basis.
Second, I would like to reiterate my answer to the first question
from the majority. NEI does not feel it is appropriate to make an
estimate of a correct ratio of industry vs. government funding for
university programs. We have found in the past that where industry
participates in matching programs, government often does not contribute
their promised share. The commercial nuclear industry does provide a
substantial amount of funding to nuclear engineering university
programs as detailed previously.
Additionally, power plant operators are not the only employer of
nuclear engineers. A large number of nuclear engineers are employed by
government at the Department of Energy, Department of Defense, the
National Aviation and Space Administration, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, and through the National Laboratories. We have been
informed by several Nuclear Engineering Department Heads that in recent
years their students are most often recruited into the National Labs
and government. It would seem unfair for industry to be on the hook for
funding university nuclear engineering programs if a preponderance of
current grads are being hired by government.
This is not to say that commercial components of the nuclear
industry do not have a strong demand for nuclear engineering grads,
just that the most pressing needs are in other segments of the nuclear
industry. This is consistent with the overall findings of our 2001
study.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by James F. Stubbins, Head of the Nuclear, Plasma, and
Radiological Engineering Department, University of Illinois-
Urbana-Champaign (UIUC)

Questions submitted by the Majority

Q1. LWhat do you see as the most effective uses of federal funds to
develop and sustain an adequate nuclear engineering workforce?

A1. The use of federally supported programs is critical to the future
of the nuclear engineering workforce. The current efforts are aimed in
the right direction. These efforts are primarily focused on providing
research funds, through competitive proposal processes, to advance the
fields of nuclear science and engineering. While this funding effort is
directed primarily at research and development activities, these
activities provide a mechanism not only to create new knowledge and
technology, but also to educate and develop new generations of nuclear
engineers. This funding is critically important in several venues which
include funding to competitive programs at universities, national
laboratories, and industry. These sectors have found ways to increase
cooperative programs to maximize their impact on maintaining a robust
nuclear workforce.
Federal funding to universities to support nuclear science and
engineering programs has grown steadily in the past several years from
non-existent levels in the mid-1990s. The increases in the DOE-NE
university programs budget have been aimed primarily at graduate level
research and support of the facilities (i.e., university research
reactor) infrastructure. Universities have also participated widely in
competitive research support from various other programs in the DOE-NE
portfolio (i.e., NERI, AAA now AFCI), the DOE-Office of Science through
Basic Energy Science programs and the Office of Fusion Energy Science,
other DOE directed efforts, and through cooperative research programs
with national laboratories. These efforts need to grow beyond current
levels to be an effective force in rebuilding the nuclear workforce in
the U.S.

Q2. LMs. Howard from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) testified at
the hearing that the nuclear industry would require 90,000 new workers
over the next 10 years.

Q2a. LWhat is your best estimate for the total numbers of new nuclear
workers (including replacements for retirees) needed in the next 10
years? How many of those would be nuclear engineers?

A2a. My estimate for total new nuclear workers would be close to those
projected by Ms. Howard from the NEI surveys. This number reflects the
total numbers of people who will be needed to replace all retiring or
departing nuclear plant and nuclear power industry workers. I would
estimate that only about 10 percent of this number would be degreed
nuclear engineers since many of the current plant personnel are
technical staff or technicians, but not BS degreed engineers. The
number should become much higher than 10 percent as utilities
transition to a somewhat smaller, but better educated workforce. This
will require strong nuclear engineering degree programs.

Q2b. LIn developing your estimate, how many commercial reactors do you
assume will be running 2013? How many would be needed to employ 90,000?

A2b. I would estimate that there would be between 90 and 100 commercial
reactors running in the U.S. in 2013 from the existing fleet of
currently operating reactors. I would also estimate that there will be
new plant construction underway in the timeframe of the next 10 years,
but that any new plant would, at best, be just beginning operation in a
10-year timeframe. Nevertheless, new engineering, including nuclear
engineering, expertise will be required for plant design and
construction.

Q2c. LHow large is the current nuclear workforce, including all workers
from maintenance workers to engineers? What fraction of the current
workforce are nuclear engineers?

A2c. The workforce associated with nuclear power generation can be
roughly estimated from the numbers of units, about 100, and the average
staff per unit, about 750. This would suggest that about 75,000 people
directly associate with nuclear power plants. In addition, there are a
number of people associated with nuclear fuel management, nuclear fuel
production, nuclear operations and maintenance, and a variety of other
nuclear power-related services that would add about 10,000 to the
numbers. There are a number of other nuclear-related workers at
national laboratories and a variety of industries in the health, food
irradiation, plasma processing, non-destructive testing, etc., fields
that would add several thousands more to the total numbers. Of this
large group, which would easily range above 100,000, only about 10
percent would be nuclear engineering professionals. This relatively
small fraction, however is the driving force behind all of the rest of
the activities. The current workforce has the additional problem that
many of the most highly skilled and experienced technical people are in
the late stages of their careers and replacing the knowledge base is
even more challenging than the raw headcounts would indicate.

Q2d. LWhat is the uncertainty associated with your estimated total
number of workers needed?

A2d. There is a relatively large uncertainty for the numbers of workers
needed on the upside, and relatively small uncertainties on the
downside. With the reliance on the currently existing nuclear energy
infrastructure, we will need a large number of new nuclear-educated
workers to replace those currently in the workforce, thus it is
unlikely that we will need many fewer new people than those projected
in current studies. On the other hand, new innovations in nuclear
technology, particularly to support several current national
initiatives such as the move toward a hydrogen economy, nuclear based
deep space exploration, the development of nuclear fusion, the
development of advanced fission reactor designs, advances in nuclear
medicine, and nuclear arms and security issues, could result in a
significant increase, above the current estimates, in the numbers of
nuclear engineers we will need.

Q2e. LWhat are the key determinants of the demand for nuclear engineers
and other nuclear workers?

A2e. Nuclear energy and nuclear science and engineering are ``high
tech'' fields and require a highly educated workforce. The nuclear
power industry has held a key role in defining the numbers of nuclear
engineers in the workforce. The nuclear power industry will continue to
need significant numbers of nuclear engineers. Other nuclear-related
fields in national defense, security, fusion, medicine, accelerator
applications, etc. will need significant new nuclear engineers.

Q2f. LHow large do you believe DOE's university programs must become
(and how quickly) to allow the Nation to produce the new graduates you
estimate are needed?

A2f. Studies by the DOE-NE Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee
(NERAC), supported by interactions with representatives from all
universities, indicate that a funding level of at least $33M per year
is necessary to maintain and build a strong nuclear engineering
educational infrastructure in the U.S. This number includes funds for
expanded research at universities, expanded use of existing university
research reactors, new initiatives to support nuclear engineering
faculty and students.
These funds could be used right away. This is necessary to stem the
decline in nuclear engineering programs which has already seen a number
of nuclear engineering degree programs and university research reactors
vanish over the past twenty years.

Q3. LA number of studies suggest that the number of nuclear workers per
plant is declining. What is the average number of college trained (at
each level) personnel employed at a typical reactor today and how many
do you expect a typical reactor to employ in 2013?

A3. For some time, U.S. utilities have looked toward the European model
for reactor operations management where similar size plants are run
with about 500 workers compared to about 800 per plant in the U.S. This
decline in personnel would result in a major cost savings. It should be
noted, however, that the ability to run a plant with fewer workers is
highly dependent on having extremely well trained and experienced
personnel. So while the number of workers per plant may decline, the
need for better-educated personnel becomes increasingly important.
This, in fact, provides more incentive for maintaining a healthy group
of nuclear engineering degree programs at universities.
Cutbacks in personnel numbers without sufficient emphasis on
experience and skills could be disastrous. If cutbacks in reactor
operating staff are accompanied by less oversight and a smaller
commitment to maintenance and safety, plant operations could be
severely compromised. This again argues for a strong nuclear education
program and the need for well-educated staff.

Q4. LWhat factors determine the size of university departments and
programs? To what extent do you consider the future demand for
graduates by the industry in determining the appropriate number of
students to enroll and graduate at your university's programs?

A4. In most cases, the faculty size in a given university nuclear
engineering program is determined by undergraduate enrollment numbers,
usually about 5 to 10 undergraduate students per faculty member. The
undergraduate enrollments are controlled by the college of university
and by student interest. The undergraduate enrollments are usually out
of the control of the department, other than through information and
incentive programs. The faculty numbers, in turn, determine the size of
the graduate program since the numbers of graduate students are
determined directly by the research funding and other departmental
resources. For a program our size, we would expect to have about 30 or
more students graduate with BS degrees each year. Our program is
typical of many, so the total numbers of BS nuclear engineers would
range upward from about 500 graduating each year.

Q5. LYou suggest that nuclear engineering be treated more as a
discipline, like chemical engineering. In your opinion, to what extent
should nuclear engineering be forced to compete with other disciplines
through the National Science Foundation or other multi-discipline
funding agencies, rather than be allowed to rely on programs dedicated
directly to nuclear disciplines?

A5. Nuclear engineering is a unique discipline, based on uses and
applications of nuclear processes such as nuclear fission, nuclear
fusion, nuclear magnetic resonance, nuclear spallation, radiation
transport, etc. This is comparable to chemical engineering which is
based on the use and application of chemical processes.
The nuclear engineering community feels that funding opportunities
should be made available through NSF and other federal funding avenues.
We see this not so much as a competition with other disciplines, but
rather as establishing a meaningful presence for nuclear-related
activities in those agencies. For example, NSF has a number of
divisions each of which is responsible for funding a specific
discipline. It would be appropriate to add a division which covers
nuclear engineering. [The attached Appendix includes a draft position
statement from the Nuclear Engineering Department Heads Organization
(NEDHO) and the National Organization of Test, Research and Training
Reactors (TRTR) regarding the development of a nuclear radiation and
sciences effort at the National Science Foundation.]
We should also note that some nuclear-related funding is already
covered through federal agencies other than DOE. For example, NSF and
the Department of Commerce (through NIST) fund neutron scattering work
associated with materials characterization, in addition to similar
efforts funded through DOE. NIH has programs in the nuclear medicine
area. These types of programs are important to expanding and broadening
the nuclear field.

Questions submitted by the Minority

Q1. LAs director of a university program, how do you determine the
appropriate number of students to enroll and graduate? To what extent
do you consider the future demand for graduates by the nuclear power
industry? How do you determine what the demand will be? What
methodology would you suggest to identify the required number of
university reactors, where they should be located and the appropriate
level of Federal Government support?

A1. University programs will need to produce perhaps several hundreds
of BS graduates per year in nuclear engineering to meet current and
future needs. These needs are based not only on the nuclear power
industry, but also on other nuclear-related fields in security,
defense, advanced systems, medicine, fusion where graduates are needed.
It is hard to determine the exact numbers, but they should be two to
four times the current enrollments to start to meet our national needs.
This is based only on the continuation of nuclear power efforts at
current levels. At the undergraduate level, the numbers of students
that enroll in nuclear engineering is due to student selection, and is
not directly controlled by the various nuclear engineering departments.
BS students will select nuclear engineering based on their perceptions
about the challenges and career opportunities the field will provide.
Roughly half of the BS students will eventually end up in the nuclear
power industry. The other half will pursue of the career paths in
related areas and many will attend graduate school to pursue advanced
degrees.

Q2. LDr. Kammen suggests that the current production rate of 500-700
new nuclear engineers over ten years is sufficient for the nuclear
power industry while Ms. Howard's testimony suggest we need 90,000 new
workers of the coming decade, of which over 20,000 would go to the
power industry. Do you agree with these estimates? If not, what do you
think is the right number of nuclear engineering graduates the Nation
will need? Do you have a sense of how many commercial reactors would be
required to employ your estimated number of future employees?

A2. First let me clarify the large differences in the numbers projected
by Ms. Howard and Dr. Kammen. The need for a large number of well
educated and trained nuclear workers by Ms. Howard includes a large
number of technicians and technically trained staff who don't
necessarily need to be degreed nuclear engineers. The rather low number
indicated by Dr. Kammen is from a scenario which would de-emphasize
nuclear power in the U.S. and reduce the numbers of operating nuclear
plants. We are already producing nuclear engineers at the rate Dr.
Kammen suggests and this is clearly insufficient to support a variety
of needs, particularly those in the nuclear power arena.
Nuclear engineering is a high tech field but educates engineers
much more broadly as engineers than is typically perceived. It turns
out that nuclear engineers are equal to many types of engineering jobs,
and have the added bonus that they understand radiation transport,
nuclear criticality and several other areas that are not covered by
other engineering disciplines. This means that nuclear engineers, if
there were sufficient numbers available, could take on many of the
positions that are currently held by other engineering disciplines (EE,
ME, . . .) with the added advantage that they could also cover all of
the nuclear aspects. This means that the nuclear engineering workforce
should expand to provide even better coverage of nuclear power
operations.

Q3. LYou suggest that nuclear engineering be treated more as a
discipline, like chemical engineering. Why should nuclear engineering
have funding programs dedicated to it? Should nuclear science and
engineering compete with other disciplines for funding from NSF and
other funding agencies?

A3. I have answered this question in the response to the majority
questions #5, and respectfully request that you refer to that response.

Q4. LIn view of the potential terrorist threat to the safety of
university nuclear reactors, how can the security of those reactors be
assured? What would be the costs of security measures? What degree of
these costs should be borne by the Federal Government? Are there any
legislative measures that Congress should take to assure university
reactor security?

A4. Nuclear reactors at universities are secure. They may provide
attractive targets for terrorists, but they could cause much less real
harm than many other civilian targets. Campuses, in concert with NRC
guidelines, have stepped up security measures for university research
reactors following 9-11. The costs include, one-time cost items, such
as more secure perimeters and monitoring devices, and continuing items
such as more security personnel. It is not clear to me to what extent
the Federal Government should cover these costs, though they may
substantial. It is my opinion that the oversight and guidelines
provided by the NRC for university research reactor security are
sufficient, thus no new legislation is necessary or needed.

Q5. LHow should the government determine how many research reactors the
country needs, if the idea of regional reactors is to save money and
eliminate duplication?

A5. University research reactors are multi-functional facilities. They
perform important roles for teaching, research and applied radiation
services. In their capacity as research facilities, they can be
regionally located and shared by a variety of users. Specialty research
facilities can be located at individual facilities, and shared by the
appropriate research communities. Researchers from other locations
would travel to the facilities for extended periods to utilize specific
experimental facilities and capabilities.
In their other functions, the concept or regional reactors is more
difficult to justify. As teaching tools, it is important that students
have access to reactor facilities without detracting from other
necessary academic pursuits. In this sense, regional reactors are not
nearly as effective as reactors located where there are strong nuclear
oriented academic programs, or academic programs that rely strongly on
reactor facilities (i.e., radiochemistry, nuclear medicine, nuclear
biomedical research, etc.). This argues for more university research
reactors than are currently available. Reactors would be co-located
with the appropriate educational programs and be equipped to handle
their teaching, outreach and service functions. More specialized
equipment would be added as appropriate to serve various research
needs, and to avoid duplication for more advanced, research level
facilities.

Appendix

A Draft Position Statement regarding

NSF Support for Nuclear Science and Engineering

(May 2003)
Nuclear Engineering Department Heads Organization (NEDHO)
National Organization of Test, Research, and Training Reactors (TRTR)

Research in Nuclear and Radiation Science

The NEDHO and TRTR recognize an urgent need for support from the
National Science Foundation for the fields of nuclear and radiation
science (NRS), outside the nuclear engineering areas traditionally
focused on nuclear energy research and development. Over the past
decade, nuclear science and engineering (NSE) departments in U.S.
universities have significantly broadened and diversified their
instructional and research programs into various NRS fields, covering
scientific, medical, and industrial applications of ionizing radiation.
Thus, NSF support of basic NRS programs will significantly enhance the
ability of the academic NSE programs and university research reactors
(URRs) to contribute to the society.
For more than two decades, NSF has taken the position that support
for the NSE programs is the responsibility of the Department of Energy.
The DOE support of the NSE programs through the Office of Nuclear
Energy, Science and Technology has, however, been limited primarily to
the support of nuclear engineering research, student fellowships, and
the Innovations in Nuclear Infrastructure and Engineering (INIE)
program initiated in 2002, which will provide limited facility upgrade
and operating support for a few URRs. The NSF response of 23 May 2001
to Senator C. Bond focuses mainly on the student fellowship programs
available as part of the nuclear physics program, and does not address
the important need for NSF funding to support and promote basic NRS
research. In light of the broadened scope of the NSE programs and URRs
in recent years and the importance of NRS research programs to the
Nation, NEDHO and TRTR request that NSF initiate a separate program to
fund NRS research activities in broad disciplines including
engineering, physics, chemistry, geology, and environmental sciences.
We request an initial funding level of $20M/year for the Nuclear and
Radiation Science Program in the Division of Chemical and Transport
Systems, Directorate for Engineering. In light of the modest funding
level, we further request that the NRS Program be restricted to the
research and instructional activities of U.S. academic institutions.
There are many programs within the National Science Foundation that
would benefit from the application of radiation either as a diagnostic
tool or for material modification processes. Achieving full benefits of
these applications will require significant research in NRS, which we
believe is best addressed via a focused program within NSF. A focused
NRS Program would provide for much better coordination of research
activities across various science and engineering disciplines that
would benefit from this core research.

Potential NRS Areas for NSF Support

The focus of NRS programs lies in the study of mechanisms of
interaction of ionizing radiation of various types with matter and in
scientific applications of radiation. In addition to the enhanced
applications of ionizing radiation in physical sciences and
engineering, there has been increased interest in recent years in
applying radiation science to medical diagnosis and therapy and to
radiation safety. There is an urgent need identified for the
development of accurate and efficient surveillance systems and assaying
devices for special nuclear material in homeland security.
The core of NRS can be subdivided into several sub-topics.
Radiation transport analysis and simulation is necessary to design and
interpret results from diagnostic tools, detection devices, and
material modification processes. Modeling of radiation transport still
represents a very challenging computational problem where the merging
of computer science, applied mathematics and physics is very much
needed. A focused program within NSF would build upon the substantial
investments that the Department of Energy is making in developing
radiation transport modeling capabilities in support of national
defense.
Instrumentation development is of great importance in support of
developing diagnostic tools and material modification processes. With
the rapid development of advanced materials for non-nuclear
applications, there has been demonstrated a great potential for spin-
offs in the development of radiation detection instruments, which would
play an important role in homeland security. In conjunction with
instrumentation development is the required research on signal
processing from both a hardware and software viewpoint.
None of the above activities would be possible without research on
enhanced radiation sources. There are substantial opportunities in
developing radiation sources of the desired type, intensity, energy,
coherence and polarity, customized to the specific diagnostic tool or
material modification process. In addition, specialized radiation
sources are required to support fundamental nuclear research, such as
is possible with ultra-cold neutron sources.
Finally, it is readily recognized that engineers and scientists
trained in NRS will be required to support a number of key scientific
programs, including the Spallation Neutron Source under construction at
Oak Ridge. In this regard, training of graduate students in neutron
scattering, neutron activation analysis, neutron radiography, and
related fields would make effective use of URRs and should be
considered as an integral part of the NRS program.
Thus, the proposed NRS Program would provide natural and
synergistic collaboration with a number of existing NSF Divisions:

LRadiation transport analysis: Bioengineering and
Environmental Systems, Atmospheric Sciences, Astronomical
Sciences, Environmental Biology, Mathematical Sciences, and
Physics.

LRadiation detection and diagnostics: Astronomical
Sciences, Materials Research, and Physics.

LAdvanced radiation sources and URRs: Materials
Research, Earth Sciences, Ocean Sciences, Design, Manufacture,
and Industrial Innovation, Environmental Biology, and Physics.

In the following sections of this white paper are presented
specific areas of research that would benefit from a core research
program focused on nuclear and radiation science.

1. LRadiation Transport Analysis

(a) LRadiation Transport Computational Methods

LStarting from the Manhattan Project, obtaining
accurate solutions to radiation transport equation has been a
challenge.

LFast and accurate methods are important especially
for real-time transport analysis for clinical applications and
the design of the future generation of nuclear power plants.

(b) LHealth Effects of Ionizing Radiation

LLinear No-Threshold regulations rely on data of
Japanese bomb survivors and radiation accident victims, and may
entail waste of financial resources.

LFurther study will be necessary to determine if
repair mechanisms inherent in biological cells could provide a
threshold for deleterious effects of ionizing radiation.

2. Radiation Detection and Diagnostics

(a) LRadiation Detection and Measurements

LFundamental to safe and effective uses of ionizing
radiation for medical, scientific, and industrial applications
is the ability to identify minute quantities of radiation.

LDevelopment of miniaturized, robust radiation
detectors would contribute significantly to medical therapy,
space physics, and astrophysics as well as homeland security.

(b) LRadiation Imaging and Therapy

LSignificant enhancements are necessary in imaging
tools and associated software for accurate delivery of
radiation doses, to make full use of portable radiation
detectors.

LAlternate radiation treatment modalities, including
proton beam, neutron capture, and heavy ion therapies, offer
large potential benefits.

LProtection of the public and radiation workers from
deleterious effects of radiation requires further study to
accurately determine internal and external radiation doses.

LAdvanced radiation facilities rendering minimum doses
to patients and operators should implement risk-based control
and regulation of radiological procedures.

(d) LNon-destructive Testing

LNeutron activation analysis (NAA) identifies trace
quantities of impurities or special-purpose materials in
scientific, industrial, and environmental applications.

LPrompt gamma (PG) NAA enhances discrimination against
background and identifies light elements, for medical,
industrial, and homeland security applications.

3. LAdvanced Radiation Sources and University Research Reactors

(a) LAr/Ar Geochronology

LMeasurement of ³⁹Ar, produced through
neutron irradiation of ³⁹K, and of ⁴⁰Ar,
formed through natural decay of ⁴⁰K, yields the age
of geological samples.

LThe technique enables geologists to study volcanic
eruptions, geological faults, glacial and ocean plate
movements, and oil and gas deposits dating back a billion
years.

(b) LRadiochemical and Tracer Study

LURRs have active programs to produce radioisotope
tracers for scientific, medical and industrial applications.

LSignificant funding will be required to develop fully
functional radioisotope production facilities at select URRs
for clinical trials of radiopharmaceuticals.

LNeutron powder diffraction instruments and cold
neutron sources at URRs offer significant potential in
condensed matter physics and materials science.

LSuch facilities offer opportunities to perform
campus-based research in material structure studies and train
undergraduate and graduate students in multiple disciplines.

(d) LBoron Neutron Capture Therapy

LNeutron beams at URRs have been used in clinical
trials to study the efficacy of boron neutron capture therapy
for the treatment of brain tumors.

LSignificant research will be required to determine
the proper modalities of this cancer therapy, including the
utilization of epithermal neutrons.

(e) LNeutron Radiography and Radioscopy

LNeutron radiography uses a beam of neutrons to image
light materials, particularly hydrogenous fluids, contained
within metallic structures.

LSignificant research will be required to obtain
quantitative imaging capability for neutron radiography,
especially for real-time applications.

(f) LPositron Beam

LPositrons are produced by neutron capture and
subsequent photon annihilations, and used as sensitive probes
to investigate the structure and defects in heavy materials.

LLow-energy positrons are easily trapped in vacancy-
type defects of atomic dimensions, providing accurate
information on the near-surface structure.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by David M. ``Mike'' Slaughter, Director, Center for
Excellence in Nuclear Technology, Engineering, and Research;
Chair, Nuclear Engineering Program, University of Utah, Salt
Lake City

Introduction

The statements herein respond to individual questions, both
Majority and Minority, received from Congress, and are intended to
provide a more comprehensive and integrated understanding of issues
that surround those questions. Each section identifies in brackets the
specific questions that are addressed by the response.

University Role in Education/Technology Creation [Majority 2, 3, 4;
Minority 1, 2]:

A public-supported university operates on a limited budget from its
state legislature. Upper level administrators at universities and
colleges are challenged by the reality that their educational
institution must deliver a quality educational experience with limited
resources. No single institution can offer every academic and
professional program. Thus, university stakeholders focus support on
programs that best enhance the success of the students, faculty,
academic institution, State, and industries within their geographic
area.
Local, national, and international needs, as well as our nation's
chosen role in the international community, influence the number of
nuclear engineering and University Research Reactor (URR) programs that
exist in the United States. The continuation and maintenance of
existing technology is closely tied to the number of students who
enroll in Nuclear Engineering or other nuclear-related disciplines,
successfully graduate with a Bachelor of Science degree, and
immediately enter the workforce. It is the students who go on to
graduate school to earn Master of Science (MS) and Doctor of Philosophy
(Ph.D.) degrees that become the creators of innovative future
technologies. They are also the engineers and scientists who teach at
universities, perform basic and applied research at national
laboratories, operate and manage nuclear facilities, enter government
service, and start up and lead commercial businesses. It takes a
minimum of 8 to 10 years to develop an advanced degree nuclear engineer
and scientist. Yet our current education and research infrastructure at
universities is grossly lacking for this latter group when you consider
the importance and extent of their roles.
If we desire only to maintain current U.S. nuclear technologies as
a nation and with respect to our international community (running in
place, if you will), then we must now encourage and optimize the use of
limited education resources for students who choose to enter the
workforce with a BS degree in nuclear engineering or in a nuclear-
related field. Such support is felt broadly across all engineering and
science programs. The academic laboratory and research facilities and
the educational curriculum associated with nuclear engineering and
research reactor programs are also used by students earning other
engineering and science degrees. However, the choice to simply maintain
technologies comes at a high price: It means that the United States
would and could no longer be a world leader in technological
advancements and such role would fall on other nations to provide
guidance and breakthroughs for future technologies. The United States
would not reap the full economic benefit of new technologies. In
addition, our nation would clearly be hampered in its ability to
improve all aspects of the fuel cycle (fuel manufacture, power
generation, fuel recycle/disposal) associated with nuclear power
applications. It would soon be beyond our capability to design the next
generation of nuclear power technology that will require advanced fuels
for remote locations (such as for exploration of the ocean floor and
space travel).
From an energy perspective only, this may not be perceived as a
major concern if the United States chooses to significantly reduce or
eliminate the generation of electricity via nuclear power. However, the
technical understanding and development capabilities of the U.S. would
be reduced in many other strategically important applications: nuclear
weapons, nuclear medicine, radiopharmaceuticals, material science,
radiation detection and protection, nuclear material diagnostics, and
neutron transport--to name just a few in nuclear-related fields. The
truth is the impact would be felt on downstream industries in energy,
transportation, environment and national resources, and future
industries that we cannot conceive of because they have not yet come
into being.
Our graduate-degree recipients are most likely to advance our
national understanding and capabilities. An investment now in programs
for these graduate students allows the United States to continue to
play a predominate role in the international community. Their sustained
role as nuclear technology creators and leaders assures a secure and
technologically balanced future for the United States, in spite of
dramatic global shifts in political, social, and economic arenas.
At the University of Utah, we restrict admission in the Nuclear
Engineering Program to a maximum of 12 graduate students at any given
time who are pursuing either an MS or Ph.D. Our educational program
consists of an intensive and broad study of nuclear phenomena and
engineering. The restriction on the number of students allowed into the
graduate program ensures sufficient time for students and faculty to
interact on a variety of levels, allows students to gain access and
utilize limited yet extremely sophisticated equipment and resources,
and provides a quality educational experience overall. University of
Utah MS and Ph.D. candidates are required to participate in academic
classes and laboratories, research reactor operations, and compliance
activities associated with our Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
regulatory program; to serve on multi-disciplinary national and
international research teams with industrial/government partners; and,
of course, to pursue their independent research in partial fulfillment
of their degree.
The conclusions of Dr. Kammen and Ms. Howard concerning projected
numbers of required trained nuclear workers over the next ten years
significantly differ because of their critically different
perspectives. This is not a surprise given that these colleagues have
opposing views regarding the future of the nuclear power industry. In
my opinion as a nuclear engineering professional and scientist, the
conservative figure of ``500-700'' that Dr. Kammen estimates is
indicative of a profoundly declining industry rather than one that is
attempting to maintain its technical expertise. Ms. Howard's estimate
of ``20,000'' represents a significant growth that does not reflect the
current political/social limitations that will temper that forecast.
Unfortunately, both estimates at opposite ends of the spectrum not only
arise from greatly diverse perspectives, but also incorporate widely
differing uncertainties. It is not how many we educate that is the core
question, but what our engineers and scientists will do with their
education that determines our future needs.

Technical Alliances and INIE [Majority 5, 6; Minority 4]:

Developing special education and technical alliances allows
curriculum and special research facilities to be shared by a number of
university nuclear engineering and research reactor programs, and the
idea of equitably sharing resources is both positive and practical. If
properly implemented, the potential benefits for education and research
are far greater than the sum of technical accomplishments achieved by
individual and separate institutions.
Partnership with other educational and research programs
potentially results in an integration of expensive instrumentation
along with the complex activities required for experimental studies
(for example, using BNCT and neutron diffractometers or creating
radiopharmaceuticals), and enlarges creativity within the available
pool of experienced faculty and graduate students. Proper teaming of
equipment and investigators is essential to avoid duplication or
excessive overlap of tasks and program elements.
The Innovations in Nuclear Infrastructure Education (INIE) program
was not conceived or intended to include all university research
reactor programs. It was designed with competitive solicitation in
mind, based on finite resources, as are all our other funding
opportunities. INIE enabled the development of innovative educational
and research tools to be used in university programs, which allowed
university faculty and students with industry involvement to evolve our
educational infrastructure to a new level. In the beginning, the
program was structured to fund innovative and regionalized education/
research/facility concepts in the field of nuclear engineering and
research reactor programs. Proposed INIE Centers that had made an
initial unsuccessful attempt could refine their innovative concepts for
later submission as additional funds became available. The INIE program
was not an entitlement nor did it seek a preconceived number of INIE
Centers.
While participating INIE Centers are required to track their
progress toward proposal goal(s), it is not clear in practice that INIE
funds will be reduced or eliminated when a center's progress is deemed
insufficient or unsatisfactory. By choice, a number of universities
that had research reactor programs did not participate in the program
or did not follow-through with a proposal. Unfortunately, in addition,
some promising proposals were ill-fated due to confusing changes in the
solicitation requirements. Ultimately, this process--not the INIE
program itself--resembled no other Request for Proposal (RFP) that
participants had ever been involved in. The evolution of the INIE
Centers program heavily underscores how much implementation, positively
or negatively, impacts the actual delivery of an innovative program far
beyond its original conception.
Lead universities may find it difficult in the current economic
climate to embrace other research reactor programs into their own
existing facilities without sufficient seed funds to make the
transition. A reallocation of the current level of funds may endanger
the ability of INIE Centers to effectively fulfill existing grant
obligations. If other university research reactor programs are assigned
without an increase in financial support, affected INIE Centers should
be allowed to amend their grant objectives and schedules to accommodate
the burden.
Reprogramming dollars and shifting solicitation parameters after
proposals have already been approved for funding have grave
consequences on the short- and long-term financial stability of
research reactor programs, most of which are already operating on
extremely lean resources and staff to vie competitively for
solicitations. As a program administrator and scientist, I work tightly
within the given restrictions when I am fully aware of the available
funds and the process in which I will be judged. I ensure that our
budget is appropriate for the proposed tasks and the proposal closely
matches the solicitation so that our program is more often successful
in gaining approval and awards. We obviously cannot and do not submit
for every possible Request For Proposal (RFP); for example, the
University of Utah has not submitted a proposal for a NERI grant as it
is not applicable, at least to our program. Other nuclear engineering
departments and programs may have faculty and/or an infrastructure more
capable or more attuned to contribute effectively to that grant's
objectives. When awarded funding is suddenly reduced or solicitation
parameters altered post-submission, or changes occur in the review
process and merit criteria, the award/submission ratio also drops, and
the result is higher risk to the program attempting to secure financial
strength and constancy.

NRC Security Obligations [Majority 0; Minority 3]:

The University of Utah has always taken its security obligations
seriously; we have an Emergency Plan and Security Plan that cover any
existing risks, just as all other universities with research reactors
do. Research reactors at most universities pose a far lower risk in
reality than is perhaps perceived by a community at large, in main part
because the public lacks understanding of the differences between
reactors and their purposes and any potential risks. Nevertheless, in
the post-9/11 environment, existing Security Plans at universities
underwent extensive review with revisions as necessary, security
measures were fine-tuned, monitoring facilities were expanded, and
increased personnel training was implemented. The University of Utah
and other universities with research reactors are concerned that the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) may require additional security
measures that provide no substantially increased security benefit (such
as when a legitimate risk factor is reduced or eliminated). Costs
associated with existing new security requirements, along with
potential new requirements, ultimately will be borne by the university
and its research reactor program unless Congress appropriates
sufficient funds to upgrade facilities to properly implement new
security measures required by the NRC.

Available University Reactors and Funding Paradigm [Majority 1;
Minority 1, 4, 5]:

The determination of the number of research reactor facilities in
the United States should never fall solely on our Federal Government,
in part due to the nature and complexity of the facilities themselves.
The small and finite number of university research reactors currently
operating in the United States vary in power and possess diverse
technical capabilities--capabilities that are best assessed by the
nuclear engineers and scientists who comprise teaching faculty at our
universities. Universities have knowledge of various research efforts,
trends, and advances; are aware of where students are enrolling and
focusing their studies; and support the directions their faculty are
taking in programs to ensure not only well trained graduates but
graduates who have fostered their imaginations and have vision.
Universities perceive research reactors as fundamental resources to be
cultivated over time, decade after decade, so that they will be readily
available to stimulate future minds and, ultimately, solutions.
Finally, universities already seek input from both industry and
government in estimating national need. In addition to self-regulation
by universities, the NRC regulates licenses and monitors the vitality
of university research reactors. Thus, the current system combines a
diverse cross-section of different research and teaching interests with
practical perspective derived from industry and government and has
built-in federal NRC safeguards. Universities remain the best
organizations to gauge current and future needs.
Federal resources are limited and shrinking. The challenge is to
use these valuable and finite financial resources to ensure that
educational and research capabilities at universities across the Nation
are not inadvertently lost. Federal funds should be used to offset
costs associated with NRC regulatory activities, to maintain state-of-
the-art instrumentation for research reactor operation, and to promote
more effective use of facilities. Federal matching programs to
universities that encourage industry involvement with students in
university research reactor programs have a three-fold effect: Such
funds stimulate U.S. industry in developing new nuclear applications
and technologies, allow access to cutting-edge research and development
from universities, and reciprocally provide students superior hands-on
educational experiences in real-world industries, contributing to their
future success.
Although instrumentation and reactor-sharing programs currently
exist, they are funded at conservatively low levels. Support needs to
be increased to $1M each. An innovative industrial matching program
could mirror and expand the existing structure of university matching
fund grants available to many nuclear engineering departments or
programs. The DOE would provide a financial match when an industry
donates funds for unrestricted use in maintaining and advancing the
research reactor capabilities, up to a specified limit (for example,
$50,000). Thus, a $50,000 donation from industry would result in a
$50,000 match from the DOE. If the donation was of a lesser amount, say
$5,000 from the industrial contributor, then the DOE obligation would
only be for that amount. An industry matching funds program would
provide an incentive for industry to participate in developing and
enhancing educational and research facilities.
Funds are needed from the DOE (approximately $10M) for universities
with research reactors to reimburse costs associated with complex
activities that comply with NRC regulations. Such reimbursement lowers
the costs of operation of university research reactors to levels
competitive with the operational costs of other educational,
engineering, and science laboratories. It also allows education and
research costs to be reimbursed at equivalent levels. Federal agencies
have had no hindrance in compensating direct costs due to activities on
grants and cooperative agreements. However, the costs associated with
NRC regulatory activities are independent of specific educational and
research tasks, and are required to be performed regardless of value as
an educational or research task. Currently, the costs associated with
NRC activities are not accounted for in negotiated and accepted
institutional Facilities and Administration (F&A) overhead rates.
Universities should continue to cover the costs associated with
performing educational lecture and laboratory classes, faculty, and
teaching assistants. When appropriate, governmental agencies (such as
DOE, NIH, NSF, DOD, etc.) that outsource research opportunities (for
example, NERI, NEER, and INIE) to universities with research reactors
should cover allowable direct costs (use of facilities, supplies,
graduate students and faculty). The INIE program should be refocused,
and its scope and cost scaled to its original intent to develop
curriculum and special research facilities for regional use. In no
circumstance should federal funds displace university and industry
contributions.
Industries should be encouraged to fairly compensate universities
for technology development, service activities, and use of university
resources (both research reactors and brainpower). A matching funds
program for industries would provide an alternative source of funding
that advances university research and educational capabilities.
Industry participation, with its focus and perspective on cost
effectiveness, timeliness, and ergonomic design, enhances university
programs and provides greater educational breadth and depth for
students.
Appendix 2:

----------

Additional Material for the Record

Statement of Harold L. Dodds
Ph.D., P.E., IBM Professor of Engineering and Department Head, Nuclear
Engineering Department, University of Tennessee-Knoxville

Introduction

Chairman Biggert, Mr. Lampson, and Members of the Subcommittee, it
is indeed an honor and a pleasure to provide written testimony on the
capability of university nuclear engineering programs to produce
graduates to help meet energy, environmental, economic, human health,
and security needs of the United States. My initial comments will
address the importance of nuclear energy and nuclear technology to
society, and the current status of nuclear engineering workforce supply
and demand in the United States. I will then describe what The
University of Tennessee Nuclear Engineering Department is doing to
affect the supply side of the nuclear engineering workforce issue
while, at the same time, maintaining high quality standards for its
graduates. Finally, I will conclude with some suggestions on what the
Federal Government should be doing, in my opinion, to address the
nuclear workforce issue.

Importance of Nuclear Energy and Technology

Nuclear generated electricity constitutes 20 percent of the total
amount of electricity generated in the United States and is currently
our least expensive major source of electricity according to the
Utility Data Institute. It is also the most environmentally benign of
the major energy sources in that it produces essentially no air
pollution including no greenhouse gases that can lead to global climate
change. Coupled with hydrogen production for transportation and other
end-use energy needs, nuclear energy has the potential to be the
``savior of our planet'' from an environmental point of view. Further,
major improvements in human health have been made possible by nuclear
technology via improved diagnostic and therapeutic medical procedures,
and by making food safer for human consumption. Also, many commercial
industries rely on nuclear techniques for monitoring and quality
control in manufacturing and for increased productivity (e.g., nuclear
instruments are used in oil well logging). Finally, and most
importantly, nuclear energy has the potential to greatly reduce and
eventually eliminate our dependence on foreign energy sources (e.g.,
foreign oil), which is vitally important to the energy and economic
security of our nation. In short, nuclear energy and technology is a
commodity-type resource that has become indispensable to our standard
of living and our way of life, and therefore must be sustained.

Role of University Nuclear Engineering Programs

Nuclear engineering and health physics programs at universities in
the United States have the responsibility and the commitment to supply
graduates who satisfy workforce needs in these strategically important
nuclear areas. Up to now the workforce supply has, for the most part,
met demand thanks to support from the United States Department of
Energy (DOE) Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, which
has provided critically needed financial support for student
scholarships, fellowships, and infrastructure improvements in
university nuclear engineering programs. Similar financial support has
also been provided by several nuclear power utilities. The financial
support provided by DOE and nuclear utilities is responsible for many
students entering the nuclear engineering field, which is the main
precursor that enables workforce supply to meet demand. However, the
current ``graying'' of the nuclear workforce in the United States
(i.e., 30 percent can retire within five years) indicates there will be
a shortage of nuclear engineering graduates in the near future. An
increased level of financial support from DOE and the commercial
nuclear industry for additional scholarships, fellowships, and
infrastructure improvements would help to mitigate the shortage. Even
greater DOE support as recommended by the May 2000 NERAC report
(Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee), also called the Corradini
report, would be an even better approach to mitigate the shortage.

University of Tennessee Nuclear Engineering Distance Education Programs

To address the impending shortage and also to respond to the needs
of a significant segment of society, the University of Tennessee
Nuclear Engineering (UTNE) Department has implemented four new distance
education programs, which are delivered live and interactive over the
INTERNET in real time to the student's computer. These four programs
are the Master of Science Degree in Nuclear Engineering; a Graduate
Certificate in Maintenance and Reliability Engineering; a Graduate
Certificate in Nuclear Criticality Safety; and a Colloquium Program
that is free and open to the public as well as to students and faculty.
The Colloquium Program consists of weekly presentations by experts from
industry, academia, and government laboratories, and is a major
outreach activity for our department. The Colloquium presentations are
also archived on our website for posterity (see http://
www.engr.utk.edu/nuclear/colloquia/. UTNE is the only nuclear
engineering program in the United States with a weekly Colloquium
Program that is delivered live and interactive over the INTERNET (i.e.,
webcast).
These four new distance programs augment the traditional model of
students coming to campus to pursue an education with a new paradigm
that ``takes the university to the students.'' Thus, students who want
to study nuclear engineering, but do not live or work close to a
university with a nuclear engineering program, can pursue their
educational goals from their home or office (or on the side of a
mountain in Nepal) provided they have a computer connected to the
INTERNET (for the student vacationing in Nepal, his laptop was
connected to the INTERNET via satellite). In other words, UTNE distance
education programs have opened the door of nuclear engineering
education to a huge market of people who would otherwise pursue a
different educational objective because of convenience, or pursue no
educational objective at all. To illustrate, our distance programs have
led to an almost 50 percent increase in UTNE graduate enrollment over
the past two years with distance students from New York to Brazil and
from Chicago to Birmingham, Alabama. The increase in our graduate
enrollment combined with the increase in our undergraduate enrollment
due to aggressive undergraduate recruiting has resulted in UTNE
becoming the second largest nuclear engineering program in the United
States based on total student enrollment.
More importantly, the quality of our distance programs is the same
as our local on-campus programs in that the distance students take the
same courses simultaneously with local students. Concurrent course
delivery is accomplished by using a big-screen, touch sensitive Smart
Board in the local classroom, which permits the same information to be
presented to local students (both audio and video) that is presented to
distance students via the INTERNET. Distance students can ask questions
vocally in real time just like local students, and vocal answers by the
instructor are available to both local and distance students in real
time. In addition, distance students can collaborate on projects with
local students and make presentations that are available to all
students, both local and distance, and to the instructor in real time.
Although the quality of our distance programs has not been compromised
relative to our local on-campus programs, attending class in person is
still probably the first choice of most people. But this first choice
is not an option for many who have families and hold full-time jobs
(e.g., employees at remote nuclear power plants and other remote
locations). Thus, UTNE distance education programs enhance the supply
side of the nuclear engineering workforce by providing the only
alternative available to many people.

Conclusions and Recommendations

While increased financial support from DOE as indicated above is
certainly a move in the right direction in addressing the nuclear
workforce issue, what is needed even more is strong leadership from the
highest levels of government to advocate and promote nuclear energy and
technology. Government advocacy should be accompanied by meaningful
actions such as loan guarantees to industry, and/or partnership with
industry, for construction of a first-of-a-kind, next generation
nuclear power plant. More importantly, recent polls (conducted after 9/
11) indicate that two-thirds of the American public support the
expanded use of nuclear power. However, many of our government leaders
still consider the ``nuclear'' word as something to be avoided
politically (e.g., President Bush did not mention nuclear power in his
2003 State of the Union Address). It appears that our leaders either do
not know about the recent polls or do not believe their results.
In summary, it is time for our government leaders to join with the
American public in endorsing the expansion of nuclear energy and
technology in the United States so that its many benefits to the
environment, human health, national security, and our economy can be
realized.

Professor Dodds is Head of the Department of Nuclear Engineering,
The University of Tennessee in Knoxville, Tennessee, where he has been
a faculty member since 1976. He has served as a consultant with several
government laboratories and industrial organizations including the Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, Electric Power Research Institute, Exxon
Research and Engineering Company, Technology for Energy Corporation,
Schlumberger-Doll Research Corporation, U.S. Department of Energy,
Argonne National Laboratory, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, EG&G-
Rocky Flats Plant, Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland, CANDUOwners
Group, Cameco Corporation, and the Dupont Company. He is a member of
the DOE Nuclear Engineering University Working Group and a Fellow of
the American Nuclear Society.