Session III: Utilisation of Research Reactors EDUCATION AND TRAINING IN NUCLEAR ENERGY: STATE OF ART, NEEDS AND FUTURE STRATEGIES

During the past three decades the interest of students in nuclear energy decreased due to the fact that especially in Europe and the US no new nuclear power plants were ordered and many industrialised countries even voted for a nuclear phase out program such as Germany, Italy, or Sweden. This trend was immediately reflected in the university enrolment and students turned to other areas such informatics, robotics, nano-technology etc. Nuclear education and training possibilities were drastically reduced as research reactors were shut down and university curricula were reduced. Today as a nuclear renaissance is obvious, this lack of students in the nuclear field during the past two decades overlaps with the fact that many senior staff members reach their age of retirement both in research centres, nuclear power plants and academia. Therefore the nuclear industry desperately needs qualified graduates in the nuclear field. To reverse this trend since several years many national and international organisations were established or added new programs to their existing structure to support these efforts such as the IAEA, OECD, ENENAssociation, the World Nuclear University, the German Kompetenzverbund, Asian ANENT, Belgium BNEN, British NTEC to name a few. In addition common academic curricula were established to facilitate mutual recognition and mobility of professors and students (Bologna Agreement). In parallel in many countries new university chairs in the nuclear field were filled with young professors. In addition a few new powerful research reactors were commissioned (FRM-2, OPAL) or are under construction (JHR) and planning (PALLAS). This paper describes the present international state of nuclear education, training and analyse the future needs of industry and research. 1. Background About three decades ago, the development of nuclear power technology was hit by some severe local and global accidents. For example, the reactor fire at Browns Ferry, Alabama, in 1975 or the core meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979. Then the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 initiated a further decline trend especially in industrialized countries. Most of the ordered nuclear plants were cancelled. Worldwide, about 34 reactors in 2007 are listed to be under construction mainly in Asia and Russia. Japan and France, with large nuclear programs, heavily subsidize their plants, France uses a single design and built their plants mainly to ensure some minimum strategic energy independence [1]. It is now difficult to repeat the investment and construction ratios as compared to 1980s because today the nuclear industry and utilities have more challenges than in the past. Today this sector needs to deal primarily with waste management and decommissioning expenses that far outweigh estimates of the past. In particular, it has to face the problems of rapid loss of competence and lack of manufacturing infrastructure. One of the biggest challenges is the supply of qualified people, including craft labour, technicians, engineers and scientists, to support both construction and operation of nuclear facilities. Today, nuclear technology is widespread and multidisciplinary and it needs to be continued because of its vital role in our daily lives. It has been recognized globally that the advancement of this technology along with all its associated benefits has been threatened due to the declining number of university programs. The declination in the development of nuclear technology, unfortunately, mainly happened due to its safety concerns. This decreased the level of public acceptance up to critical limits which turned the situation into the lack of industry interests, governmental strategies for nuclear technology research and infrastructure. These factors have drastically declined the enrolments in university-based nuclear engineering programs which, in turn, have led to the closure of many of these programs [2]. 2. Academic challenges Most of the countries have now fewer comprehensive, high-quality nuclear technology programmes at universities than before. The universities ability to attract top-quality students to those programmes, meet future staffing requirements of the nuclear industry and conduct leading-edge research in nuclear topics has become seriously compromised. Followings are the main concern [3]. 1. The decreasing number and the dilution of nuclear programmes at university levels. 2. The decreasing number of students taking nuclear subjects. 3. The lack of young faculty members to replace ageing and retiring faculty members. 4. Ageing research facilities, which are being closed and not replaced. 5. The significant fraction of nuclear graduates not entering the nuclear industry. The importance of nuclear knowledge, its preservation and enhancement has been recognized globally [1]. To sustain all peaceful activities regarding utilization of nuclear technology, the qualified nuclear human resources are required. The most crucial element is the demand for graduates and highly qualified personals as these are essentials for; (1) operation of existing facilities (2) capacity building (3) innovation and R&D These demands are usually satisfied by the higher educational institutions; the universities and associated institutes. The universities as well as other integrated institutions can not work in isolation. For nuclear higher education, the closely interacting partners with the universities are nuclear industries and related training institutes. The functioning of all these entities is guided by the need of the economic stability and growth thrust. Due to an economics driven operation the policy from the Governments plays an important role as well. From country to country the interaction of government’s policies may vary to universities, industries and training institutes, but it has a major role to play in the demand of human resources and hence on the nuclear higher education trends. 3. Future Strategies 1. The severe imbalance between demand and supply, requires an efficient Human Resource Development (HRD) system to assure the continuity over time in the needed capacities, skills and knowledge. This HRD system is important to establish and maintain a pool of manpower variously trained in different nuclear-related skills and educated in nuclear relevant fields. 2. The education and training institutions are workforce supplier to industry and other R&D organizations. Their mutual cooperation may raise the performance level. 3. The governments are responsible for its strategic energy planning. They can support the public awareness of nuclear education, manpower and infrastructure. This would definitely increase the input to academia from public and input to industries from academia. The industries, by maintaining the quality of product, can attract the student careers effectively toward academia. 4. Funding is considered an important component to produce a sustainable workforce supply. Both government and industry have important role in funding support toward activities of nuclear knowledge management and its preservation. The access to national laboratories and industrial facilities for students is required to improve the situation. 5. The top quality curricula can produce good quality of nuclear workforce. 6. The effective implementation of nuclear safety knowledge is not only important for the safety of plant personnel and the general public but also in improving public perception which play fundamental role in sustainment of nuclear technology. 4. Networking Networking is a useful tool to exchange experts, information and facilities. Networking of educational institutions has been recognized widely as a key strategy for capacity building and better use of available educational resources. In the field of NKM the networking has become an important element of nuclear education and training and shaping its character. By practice, its benefits have been acknowledged, and networks are being established on all levels i.e. national, regional and global levels. The networking might even become more important in the future, both in terms of numbers and cooperation intensity [4]. The following national and international networks are playing active role in promotion of nuclear technology by their various kinds of activities. The details of these networks (objectives, members, achievements and their national/international activities) can be seen under their given web links. 4.1 International Educational Networks • Asian Network for Higher Education in Nuclear Technology (ANENT), http://www.anentiaea.org/anent/index.jsp • European Nuclear Education Network (ENEN), http://www.enen-assoc.org/ • World Nuclear University (WNU), www.world-nuclear-university.org/ 4.2 National Educational Networks • Belgium Nuclear higher Education Network (BNEN), Belgium, www.sckcen.be/bnen • Consorzio Interuniversitario per la Ricerca Tecnologica Nucleare (CIRTEN), Italy, http://www.enen-assoc.org/en/about/enen-membership/effective-member/cirten.html • Nuclear Technology Education Consortium (NTEC), UK, http://www.ntec.ac.uk/ • University Network of Excellence in Nuclear Engineering (UNENE), Canada, www.unene.ca/ 5. Selected country surveys on the present situation and outlook 5.1 Canada To establish a sustainable supply of qualified nuclear engineers and scientists to meet the current and future needs of the Canadian industry, the UNENE network was launched [6]. For this task, industry is invests significant funds in selected universities and contributes in-kind to enable the universities to acquire and retain the highest quality of teaching and research professoriate. The enrolments in and the number of qualified personnel from the full-time Masters, Doctoral and Post-Doctoral programs have exceeded the targets set for 2005 with the exception of a slight shortfall in the Masters program. The Phase 1 operation of UNENE planned output of High Qualified Personnel (HQP) is shown in Fig. 1.The decreasing nature of the both curves will indeed be compensated with the start of Phase 2. Fig 1: Enrolment of research student (left), HQP trained in the first phase of UNENE (right) [6] 5.2 France France produces, almost half (45%) of the nuclear electricity in the EU27 and drives about 80% of its nuclear energy because of long standing policy based on energy security. More than 4200 engineers have been graduated since 1955 and this trend is shown in Fig. 2 [7, 8]. The nuclear workforce situation is not better in France. About 40% of the national utility EDF’s current staff in reactor operation and maintenance will retire by 2015. Starting in 2008, the utility will try to hire 500 engineers annually. Reactor builder AREVA has already hired 1600 engineers in 2008 and 2009 in Germany alone. It is obvious that the biggest share of the hired staff are not trained nuclear engineers or other nuclear scientists. The CEA affiliated national Institute for Nuclear Sciences and Techniques (INSTN) has only generated about 50 nuclear graduates per year. EDF has called upon the institute to double the number over the coming years [1]. Fig 2: Trends of nuclear graduates (1955-2008) in France [8] 5.3 Germany According to a 2004 analysis of the nuclear education and workforce development in the country, the situation continues to erode rapidly. employment is expected to decline in the nuclear sector including the reactor building and maintenance industry by about 10% to 6 250 jobs in 2010, these include still 1,670 hires. The number of academic institutions teaching nuclear related matters declined from 22 in 2000 to 10 in 2005 and only five in 2010, however a few new chairs in the nuclear field have been filled recently. While 46 students obtained their diploma in 1993, they were zero in 1998. In fact, between the end of 1997 and the end of 2002 only two students successfully finished their nuclear studies. In total about 50 students from other options continue to attend lectures in nuclear matters. It is clear that Germany will face a dramatic shortage of trained staff, both in industry, utilities, research or public safety and radiation protection authorities [9]. 5.4 UK The decline in UK public fission and R&D funding is provided in Fig.3 which reflects the status history of nuclear education in UK. The following skills survey and reports were performed on this issue [10]. • HSE/NII education & research in UK universities (2002) • DTI nuclear skills group (2002) • Nuclear Task Force (Ruffles, 2003) • COGENT Nuclear employers survey (200) • NDA Health Physics Resources in UK Industry (Rankine, 2007) Fig 3: Decline in UK public fission funding [10] The BNFL Energy Unit advised to the government and research councils to keep the nuclear option open. Therefore strategic needs are now recognised and new funds have been made available for nuclear education & research [5]. The UK has just launched a nuclear industry oriented National Skills Academy that is intended to improve the standard of industry training, increase productivity and tackle skills shortages across the UK. The nuclear training activities in the UK are coordinated by the NTEC directed by the University of Manchester. 5.5 USA Between 1962 to 1980 the USA was enjoying a peak in nuclear technology with 64 university research reactors, 50 nuclear engineering programs and 1800 plus students,. The incidents like TMI and Chernobyl as well as rising financial cost resulted into loss of public support, cancellation of orders, decline in nuclear engineering enrolment and shutdown of research reactors as shown in Fig.4 [2]. Serious considerations by DOE were addressed to these decline problems. Further the NERAC ad hoc panel considered seriously the educational situation related to the future of nuclear science and engineering [2]. Such efforts revive several programs, as reflected by Fig.5 [1]. Fig 4: Nuclear engineering enrolments (left) and decline of research reactor (right) [2] Fig 5. Trends of nuclear engineering graduates in USA 2000-2008 [1] Acknowledgement Grateful help of my PhD student Mr. Rustam Khan in collecting this data is highly appreciated. 6. References 1. “The world nuclear industry status report 2009” by Mycle Schneider, Steve Thomas, Antony Froggatt, Doug Koplow. http://www.nirs.org/neconomics/weltstatusbericht0908.pdf 2. The Future of university nuclear engineering program and research reactors by Michael L. Corradini, et al. http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/finalblue.pdf 3. OECD publication 2000 ‘Nuclear Education and Training: Cause for Concern? OECD / NEA, ISBN 92-64-18521-6. 4. The role of networking for nuclear education, by P. Gowin, Y. Yanev, IAEA-CN-123/05/O/08 5. A consortium of UK universities and other institutions providing postgraduate education in Nuclear Science & Technology, Date, ‘Nuclear Technology Education Consortium NTEC’, http://www.ntec.ac.uk/ 6. University Network of Excellence in Nuclear Engineering http://www.unene.ca/ 7. “Nuclear Power in France”, beyond the myth by Mycle Schneide, Commissioned by the Greens-EFA Group in the European Parliament 2008. http://www.greensefa.org/cms/topics/dokbin/258/[email protected] 8. Nuclear Engineering education in EU27, Dr. Joseph Safieh, Dec. 2007, Pisa. Italy. 9. Nuclear Competence Building, OECD 2004, NEA no. 5288. http://www.nea.fr/html/ndd/reports/2004/nea5288-competence-building.pdf 10. Status of nuclear higher education in UK, by Jon Billowes, http://www.enenassoc.org/data/document/iaea-vienna-uk.pdf UTILIZATION OF SLOVENIAN TRIGA MARK II REACTOR L. SNOJ, B. SMODIŠ Reactor Infrastructure Centre, Jožef Stefan Institute Jamova cesta 39, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia