Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
APPENDIX A STATEMENT OF TASK The study committee will conduct a study of nuclear engineering education in the United States and recommend appropriate action to the sponsors of this study. The committee will perform the following tasks: o Characterize the status of nuclear engineering education in the United States. Take into account present faculty and student numbers, existing curricula, availability of research and scholarship/fellowship funds, and other factors as appropriate. 0 Estimate the supply and demand for undergraduate and graduate nuclear engineering in the United States over the near to mid-term (5 to 20 years). In so doing, take into account hiring patterns in the nuclear industry of both formally trained nuclear engineers and others trained in more traditional disciplines, such as mechanical engineering, and the ratio of advanced degree holders to baccalaureates being hired. Identify the roles, if any, of other programs in training individuals who will work in nuclear engineering, e.g., MEs, EEs, and physicists. Make this estimate for scenarios having various assumed trends in the nuclear power industry, the federal laboratories, the Navy, and the universities. 0 Address the spectrum of material that the nuclear engineering curriculum should cover and how it should relate to other allied disciplines. In so doing, consider the implications to the nuclear engineering curriculum of the perceptions that the nuclear power industries are afflicted with management deficiencies, construction problems, and ethical shortcomings. Examine the curriculums used in France, Japan, and other countries, as appropriate, for strengths that might be applicable in the United States. o Recommend appropriate actions to assure that the nation's needs for competent nuclear engineers at both the graduate and undergraduate levels are satisfied over the near and mid-term. Consider career opportunities, potential student base, research funding, and how to assure excellence in the student background in individual students. 85
APPENDIX B BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR ENGINEERING EDUCATION GREGORY R. CHOPPIN (Chairman) R. O. Lawton Distinguished Professor of Chemistry, Florida State University Gregory Choppin has been with the chemistry faculty of Florida State University since 1956, where he is now R. O. Lawton Distinguished Professor of Chemistry. He received a B.S. in chemistry from Loyola University, a Ph.D. from the University of Texas, and honorary doctorate degrees from Loyola University (New Orleans) and Chalmers University of Technology (Sweden). Dr. Choppin has served as a visiting scientist at the Centre d' etude Nucleaire Moleculaire in Belgium and the European Transuranium Institute in West Germany, and as a visiting professor at the University of Liege and the Science University of Tokyo. He is a consultant for several Department of Energy national laboratories and is a specialist in actinide and lanthanide chemistry. He serves on the editorial boards of eight scientific journals and has won national awards in nuclear chemistry, actinide separations, and chemical education. PATRICIA A. BAISDEN Group Leader, Inorganic Chemistry Group, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Patricia Baisden is group leader of the Inorganic Chemistry Group at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, conducting applied research in inorganic chemistry and radiochemistry. She received a B.S. in chemistry and a Ph.D. in physical inorganic chemistry from Florida State University, and did postdoctoral studies at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. Dr. Baisder, is a member of Phi Beta Kappa and the American Chemical Society, and has served since 1983 87
88 on the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Nuclear and Radiochemistry. Her research specialties are measurement of heavy element fission properties, solution chemistry of lanthanides and actinides, and heavy ion collisions leading to complete or incomplete fusion. WALLACE B. BEHNKE, JR. Vice Chairman of Commonwealth Edison Company (retired) and Consulting Engineer, Kiawah Island, South Carolina Wallace Behnke retired in July 1989 as Vice Chairman of Commonwealth Edison Company. He is currently a consulting engineer and is a registered professional engineer in Illinois. Mr. Behnke received the B.S. and B.S.E.E. degrees from Northwestern University. He is a director of Commonwealth Edison Company, of Duff and Phelps Selected Utilities, and of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). He is also a member of the Board of Governors of Argonne National Laboratory, the Advisory Committee for the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, the Visiting Committee for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Department of Nuclear Engineering, and the U.S.-Japan Coordinating Committee for Development of Liquid Metal/Fast Breeder Reactors. He is a member and past president of the IEEE Power Engineering Society and of the Western Society of Engineers, and member of the National Academy of Engineering and the American Nuclear Society. A Fellow of IEEE, Mr. Behnke was elected Electric Industry Man of the Year in 1984 and received the John N. Landis Medal from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers in 1989. SUE E. BERRYMAN Director, National Center on Education and Employment Teachers College, Columbia University Sue Berryman is director of the National Center on Education and Employment at Teachers College, Columbia University, where she also serves as adjunct professor in the Division of Philosophy, Social Sciences, and Education. Prior to 1986 she was a behavioral scientist at the RAND Corporation. She received a B.A. from Pomona College and a Ph.D. from The Johns Hopkins University. Dr. Berryman is a member of Phi Beta Kappa. Her research interests include education and occupational mobility, including the career mobility of women who have doctorates in economics. JOHN W. CRAWFORD 2 JR. Consultant in Nuclear Engineering John Crawford is currently a member of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. He resigned from the committee in October 1989 on receiving that appointment. While a member of the committee he was a consultant in nuclear
89 engineering. He received a B.S. degree from the United States Naval Academy and master's degrees from Massachusetts Institute of Technology both in naval construction and engineering and in physics. He served in the U.S. Department of Energy as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for-Nuclear Energy from 1979 to 1981, during which time he was chairman of the board carrying out a comprehensive assessment of the safety of DOE nuclear reactors. He previously held various technical posts at DOE and its predecessor agencies relating to nuclear energy and naval reactors. He received the DOE Exceptional Service Medal. ARTHUR E. HUMPHREY Provost Emeritus, Lehigh University Prior to serving as Provost Emeritus at Lehigh University, Arthur Humphrey was director there of the Center for Molecular Bioscience and Biotechnology and adjunct professor of Chemical Engineering. He received B.S. and M.S. degrees from the University of Idaho, the Ph.D. in chemical engineering from Columbia University, and an M.S. degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Prior to 1980 he served at the University of Pennsylvania as a professor of chemical engineering and then as dean of its College of Engineering and Applied Science. Dr. Humphrey is a member of the National Academy of Engineering and was a Fulbright lecturer at the University of Tokyo and the University of New South Wales. His research interests include enzyme engineering, media sterilization, and the kinetics of the growth of cellular organisms . WILLIAM M. JACOBI Vice President, Westinghouse Electric Corporation William Jacobi became a vice president of Westinghouse Electric Corporation in 1986, and has served in his present post as vice president and general manager of government operations since 1988. In this capacity he directs all company activities in operating government-owned facilities. He joined Westinghouse in 1955 after receiving a Ph.D. in chemical engineering from Syracuse University. Subsequently he worked on the design of naval nuclear reactors, as engineering manager of the Fast Flux Test Facility, project manager for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor, and president of the Westinghouse Hanford Company. EDWIN E. KINTNER Executive Vice President, GPU Nuclear Corporation Edwin Kintner became Executive Vice President of GPU Nuclear Corporation in 1983. He has served as chairman of the Electric Power Research Institute's Nuclear Power Divisional Committee and is presently chairman of the Utility
go Steering Committee for the Advanced Light Water Reactor Program. Prior to 1983 he directed the magnetic fusion program in the U.S. Department of Energy and its predecessor agency. He received a B.S. from the U.S. Naval Academy, and two M.S. degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one in nuclear physics, the other in marine engineering. Mr. Kintner retired from the U.S. Navy as a Captain after serving in the area of nuclear propulsion of ships. His current activities emphasize providing uniform policies and operational criteria for the safe and effective operation of utility nuclear facilities. MILTON LEVENSON Bechtel Corporation (retired), now a Consulting Engineer, Menlo Park, California Milton Levenson, currently a consulting engineer, began his work with the committee while an Executive Engineer at the Bechtel Corporation, a position he held from 1981 to 1989. He was the first director of the nuclear power division of the Electric Power Research Institute from 1973 to 1980. From 1948 to 1973 he was with Argonne National Laboratory, leaving as Associate Laboratory Director for Energy and Environment. From 1944 to 1948 he worked at what is now the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. He received the a B.S. in chemical engineering from the University of Minnesota. He is a member of the National Academy of Engineering and a past president of the American Nuclear Society, a member of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers and the winner of its Robert E. Wilson award. GAIL H. MARCUS Office of Commissioner Kenneth Rogers, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Gail Marcus is currently Technical Assistant to Commissioner Kenneth Rogers at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). She joined the NRC in 1985, where she has served in research planning, policy formulation, and regulation development and oversight. Dr. Marcus received S.B. and S.M. degrees in physics and the Sc.D. degree in nuclear engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Prior to joining NRC she served as Assistant Chief, Science Policy Research Division, Congressional Research Service, as Deputy Manager, Support Services Division, Analytic Services, and as a physicist at the U.S. Army Electronics Command in the area of radiation damage to materials and devices. She is a member of the Visiting Committee for the Nuclear Engineering Department at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and for the nuclear engineering program at the University of Lowell, and is a fellow of the American Nuclear Society.
91 WARREN F. MILLER, JR. Deputy Director, Los Alamos National Laboratory Warren Miller has served as Deputy Director of Los Alamos National Laboratory since 1986. Prior to that time he served there as Associate Director for Energy Programs and Associate Director for Physics and Mathematics. His areas of expertise include nuclear reactor physics and transport theory. He received a B.S. from the U.S. Military Academy and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in nuclear engineering from Northwestern University. Dr. Miller is a member of the nuclear engineering visiting committees of the University of California at Berkeley and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is a member of the Howard University Board of Trustees and many other educational and technical advisory committees, and is a fellow of the American Nuclear Society. ROBERT L. SEALE Head, Department of Nuclear and Energy Engineering, University of Arizona Robert Seale has served as head of the Department of Nuclear and Energy Engineering at the University of Arizona since 1969. He is a consultant to the Los Alamos National Laboratory and the Sandia National Laboratories. He received a B.S. from the University of Houston and an M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of Texas. Dr. Seale became a professor at the University of Arizona in 1961, prior to which he conducted research at General Dynamics. He is a registered professional engineer in Arizona and a member of the Education and Research Committee of Associated Western Universities. ROBERT E. UNRIG Distinguished Professor of Engineering and Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of Tennessee Robert Uhrig has been Distinguished Professor of Engineering at the University of Tennessee in the Department of Nuclear Engineering since 1986. He also works as a Distinguished Scientist at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. He received a B.S. from the University of Illinois and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from Iowa State University. Prior to 1986 Dr. Uhrig was an executive with Florida Power & Light Company and Dean of the College of Engineering at the University of Florida. He has also served as Deputy Assistant Director of Research for the U.S. Department of Defense.
APPENDIX C COMMITTEE MEETNGS AND BRIEFINGS TO THE COMMITTEE First Meeting March 17-18, 1989 National Academy of Sciences Washington, D.C. Friday, March 17. 1989 PRESENTATIONS BY STUDY COSPONSORS Walter J. Coakley Institute of Nuclear Power Operations M. J. Ohanian University of Florida (on behalf of the American Nuclear Society) Richard E. Stephens U.S. Department of Energy Relationship of this study to INPO activities and needs Relationship of this study to ANS activities and needs Relationship of this study to DOE Office of Energy Research activities PRESENTATIONS ON BEHALF OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT 0F ENERGY David M. Woodall Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Larry M. Blair Oak Ridge Associated Universities ~3 DOE nuclear engineering research support program Status of and outlook for the nuclear engineering labor markets
94 William M. Porter U.S. Department of Energy PANEL DISCUSSION SPEAKER Identifying and developing U.S. technical expertise for participating in international nuclear organizations Identification of key study issues by the above speakers F. Karl Willenbrock American Society for Engineering Education Thursday, May 18~ 1989 A Commentary on Engineering Education in the United States and Abroad Second Meeting May 18-19, 1989 National Academy of Sciences Washington, D.C. PANEL DISCUSSION ON PERSONNEL SUPPLY ISSUES K. Lee Peddicord Texas A&M University Thomas G. Williamson University of Virginia Barclay G. Jones University of Illinois (Prior chairman, past chairman, and chairman, respectively, of the Nuclear Engineering Department Heads Organization) v v PANEL DISCUSSION ON PERSONNEL DEMAND ISSUES Richard J. Slember Westinghouse Electric Corporation Robert H. Stone Bechtel Power Corporation Walter B. Loewenstein Electric Power Research Institute
95 JOINT_PANEL DISCUSSION ON STUDY-RELATED ISSUES Discussion of key study issues by members of both panels and the committee SPEAKER Richard Berendzen American University Friday, May 19. 1989 Robert L. Long GPU Nuclear Monday, July 24. 1989 Problems and Solutions in U.S. Technical Work Force Preparedness The accreditation process for U.S. engineering programs Third Meeting July 23-25, 1989 Bechtel Engineering Center, University of California Berkeley, California Kenneth C. Rogers Nuclear Regulatory Commission T. Kenneth Fowler University of California at Berkeley Projected NRC personnel needs . . . . In nuc. ear engineering Remarks and tour of the nuclear engineering laboratory Fourth Meeting September 7-8, 1989 National Academy of Sciences Washington, D.C. Fifth Meeting November 13-14, 1989 National Academy of Sciences Washington, D.C. Sixth Meeting March 8-9, 1990 National Academy of Sciences Washington, D.C.
APPENDIX D ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF DATA SOURCES The committee acknowledges the invaluable assistance of the following persons in obtaining and analyzing data for this study: Richard E. Stephens, Director, Division of University and Industry Programs, Office of Energy Research, U.S. Department of Energy; Larry M. Blair, Director, Labor and Policies Studies Program, Oak Ridge Associated Universities; William F. Naughton and Ling-Chih Liu, Commonwealth Edison Company; Alan E. Fechter, Michael Finn, and Joe G. Baker, Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel, National Academy of Sciences; June S. Chewning, Consultant; Richard Ellis, Engineering Manpower Commission, American Association of Engineering Societies; Robert Kominski and Gregory Spencer, Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau; Kathy Windier, College Entrance Examination Board; Jacqueline Briel and Chris Karelke, Educational Testing Service; Duveen Shirley, Oak Ridge Associated Universities; Vance Grant, Norman Brandt, and Dennis Carroll, National Center for Education Statistics; Ryohei Kiyose, Professor, Department of Nuclear Engineering, Tokai University, Japan; and Atsyuki Suzuki, Professor, Department of Nuclear Engineering, Tokyo University, Japan. The committee acknowledges with thanks the organizations employing nuclear engineers that responded to its employment survey: Federal Agencies U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Navy U.S. Army U.S. Air Force Defense Intelligence Agency 97
98 Defense Nuclear Agency Strategic Defense Initiative Organization Defense Manpower Data Center Institute for Defense Analysis Manufacturers Babcock and Wilcox Company Combustion Engineering General Electric Company Westinghouse Electric Company General Atomics Architect-Engineerinz Firms Bechtel Corporation Sargent & Lundy Engineers Stone & Webster Corporation Ebasco Services Center Engineering Consultants Impell Corporation Quadrex Corporation NUS Corporation EI International Nuclear Assurance Corporation Management Analysis Company Staller Corporation S. Levy Laboratories Argonne National Laboratory The committee acknowledges with thanks the following organizations for their responses to its questionnaire on skills needed by nuclear engineers: National Laboratories Argonne National Laboratory Brookhaven National Laboratory Pacific Northwest Laboratory Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Los Alamos National Laboratory Oak Ridge National Laboratory Sandia National Laboratories
99 Savannah River Laboratory Westinghouse Hanford Company Government ~- Nuclear Regulatory Commission Utilities Arizona Public Service Duke Power Company Wisconsin Electric Power Company Alabama Power Company Texas Utilities Electric Company Commonwealth Edison Company GPU Nuclear Company Vendors and __ sultants Combustion Engineering Babcock and Wilcox Westinghouse General Electric Tenera Universi~ Nuclear Engineering Department Heads Organization
APPENDIX E ASSUMPTIONS AND FORECASTING MODEL FOR ESTIMATING PROJECTED DEMAND AND EMPLOYMENT Appendix E presents the basic assumptions used for prod ecting nuclear engineering employment in the civilian nuclear power and federal government sectors. Table E- 1 lists the assumptions used for the civilian nuclear power sector. Table E-2 presents the assumptions made by the Department of Energy (DOE) in making projections. Tables E-3 and E-4 contain the DOE headquarters field, and contractor data used fox the high-growth and best-estimate scenarios, respectively. Table ~-5 contains the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO) data; only the higher numbers were used and only for the high growth estimate. In addition, the forecasting model used by the committee is described. Part of this model involves an estimate of exit rates of employment. The basis for such estimates is also described in a memorandum to committee consultant William Naughton from Larry Blair of Oak Ridge Associated Universities. TABLE E-1 Calculating Growth Scenarios for the Civilian Nuclear Power Sector ~igh-Growth Scenario For the civilian nuclear power sector, expansion rates for three periods were considered based on Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) estimates of potential contributions of nuclear power to the nation's electrical needs. Each period is assumed to build on the previous period, that is, period B builds on period A, yielding an estimated total of 66 new reactors by the year 2005. P(t) = newer of nuclear engineers emp] oyed in the civilian nuclear power sector at time t. 101
102 Period A: EPRI estimate for the year 2000, assuming 10 percent of any needed electric power plant capacity increment is nuclear To = 1995, time at which P(t) is expected to increase under this scenario T1 ~ 2000, time at which P(t) is expected to stabilize under this scenario N1- No ~ 20, number of newly committed reactors between T1 and To (one- third passive, 10, and two-thirds evolutionary Advanced Light Water Reactors [ALWRs], 10) Period B: EPRI estimate for year 2005, assuming 20 percent of needed increment is nuclear To = 2000, time at which P(t) is expected to increase under this scenario T1 = 2005 time at which P(t) is expected to stabilize under this scenario N1 - No ~ 46 number of newly committed reactors between T1 and To (one- third passive, 23, and two-thirds evolutionary ALWRs, 23) Period C: EPRI estimate for year 2010, assuming 30 percent of needed increment is nuclear To = 2005, time at which P(t) is expected to increase under this scenario T1 = 2010, time at which P(t) is expected to stabilize under this scenario N1 - No = 54 number of newly committed reactors between T1 and To (one- third passive, 27, + two-thirds evolutionary ALWRs, 27) Best-Estimate Scenario Expansion rates for two periods were considered based on EPRI's estimates of potential contributions of nuclear power to the nation's electrical needs, taking into account an estimated five-year delay in implementation. The committee's delay assumption was derived from discussions with senior electric utility executives. Again, each period below is assumed to build on the previous period, that is, Period 2 builds from Period 1 to yield an estimated total of 66 new reactors by the year 2010. Period 1: EPRI estimate for the year 2005 assuming 10 percent of needed capacity increment is nuclear To = 2000, time at which P(t) is expected to increase under this scenario T1 = 2005, time at which P(t) is expected to stabilize under this scenario N1- No ~ 20, number of newly committed reactors between T1 and To (one
103 third passive, 10, plus two-thirds evolutionary ALWRs, 10) Period 2: EPRI estimate for the year 2010, assuming 20 percent of needed increment is nuclear To = 2005, time at which P(t) is expected to increase under this scenario T1 = 2010, time at which P(t) is expected to stabilize under this scenario N1- No ~ 46, number of newly committed reactors between T' and TO (one- third passive, 23, and two-thirds evolutionary ALWRs, 23) Low-Growth Scenario The low-growth scenario assumes that the number of nuclear power units in service remains at about 115 and that any plant retirements during the period will be met by completion of the units now under construction. TABLE E-2 DOE Planning Assumptions for Estimating Nuclear Engineering Employment Best-Estimate Scenario Environmental Remediation and Waste Programs Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) initially operational 1990; subsequent operation as per planning schedule. Monitored Retrievable Storage/Terminal Repository Facility completed as per current schedules. Site remediation/waste cleanup work proceeds as per Secretary's-ten point plan. Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) will start up and operate through the period. The hot start-up of the Hanford Waste Vitrification Plant (HWVP). New Production Reactors (NPR) Heavy water NPR will be built at the Savannah River site (SRS).
104 Three existing SRS reactors will operate at increasing power levels until new SRS NPR starts up, at which point two reactors will be shut down; the third SRS reactor would not shut down until the Modular High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor (MHTGR) comes on line at Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL). MHTGR operational at INEL in 2004. Defense-Related Programs Plutonium and tritium will be produced to meet requirements of current Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Memorandum. Tritium contingency reserve will be produced, separated, and stored. Demand for naval reactors fuel continues. Hanford defense materials production missions are phased out as planned. Phase-out of Hanford chemical processing mission continues as planned in the mid to late 1990s. Nuclear Energy Programs Naval Reactor Development Program will be stable during the planning period. Development of Integral Fast Reactor/other advanced reactor technologies at INEL/Argonne National Laboratory-West and other laboratories continues. Engineering and ground tests of space reactors increase. High-Growth Scenario The high-growth scenario assumes the greatest funding for the above initiatives through the end of this decade, a resumption in 1993 of new orders for civilian nuclear power plants, and new DOE fission/fusion reactor R&D programs beyond those in the current plan. Low-Growth Scenario The low-growth scenario assumes that DOE and DOE contractor nuclear engineering employment will remain unchanged over the study period.
105 Forecasting Model The model described below is used to forecast employment at time t, E(t): E(t) ~ P(t) + G(t) (1) cPNo t < To P(t) ~ ~ P[No +~N1- No (t-To)] To < t < T1 (2 ~ T1 ~ To LPN1 t > T1 where P(t) - number of nuclear engineers employed in the private sector at time t To ~ time at which P(t) is expected to increase under each growth scenario T1 time at which P(t) is expected to stabilize under each growth scenario p e 70, the number of nuclear engineers needed in industry per committed reactor (obtained from Table 3-1, 1987 column, less fusion research, weapons development and production, DOD and DOE employees, and DOE contractors, divided by No). No = initially 115 (number of committed reactors at date of study); current number of committed reactors at time To N1- No = number of newly committed reactors, or change in reactors committed per each EPRI estimate The quantities To, T1, and N1 were derived from the committee's inquiries. Also, G(t) = where - r Go t < To Go + G1 - Go (t-To) To < t < T1 I T1 ~ To G1 t > T1 G(t) = number of nuclear engineers employed by government at time t To = time at which G(t) is expected to increase T1 = time at which G(t) is expected to stabilize
106 Co = current level of government employment (obtained from Oak Ridge Associated Universities data) G' ~ expected peak level of employment in the government reactor sector under each scenario Again, To, T1, Go and G1 were derived from the committee's inquiries. Demand at time t was then modeled by D(t): D(t) = E'(t) + X(t), (4) where E'(t) denotes the first derivative of E(t) when it exists and X(t) is an exit rate due to death, retirement, and new-graduate replacement needs. This exit rate is equal to 0.035 times E(t) and has been adjusted to avoid bias created by job switching by those who move from nuclear engineering to other fields and vice versa. Derivation of this exit rate is described next in a memorandum received from Larry Blair, Oak Ridge Associated Universities. Utilizing the above model and assumptions, P(t), G(t), B(t), E'(t), X(t), and D(t) can be derived for the growth scenarios. Tables E-6 and E-7 show results for the high-growth and best-estimate scenarios respectively. Annual job openings for new graduates are based on two factors: change in employment levels (growth or decline) and available replacement positions for jobs opened through attrition (owing to job switchers, death, retirement, and labor force exit). These job openings are expected to be filled by new entrants into the labor force (i.e., new graduates not already employed); job openings expected to be filled by job switchers and by re-entrants into the labor force have been netted out. While this approach obviously simplifies the true workings of the labor market, it is fairly straightforward and, given the data uncertainties in deriving the replacement rate and the fact that future employment estimates are used, the approach is probably as precise as necessary. The average annual job openings for any given time period t to t + a are the sum of the annual average change in employment levels, LEE + a - E`~/a, and the annual average replacement of pos itions that arise because of attrition, 0.035 * (Et + EN + a )/2, over the time period. Thus, JOj = (Et ~ a - EN )/a + [0.035 * (Et + E'+ a )/2] `5y where JO ~ the average annual number of j ob openings within the time period i ~ any one year within the time period E = the employment level for a particular year (either the first or last year of the time period)
107 t = the first year in the time period a ~ the number of years in the time period (thus t + a is the last year in the time period) 0.035 ~ the fraction that provides the number of replacement positions expected for new graduates based on attrition owing to job switchers, death retirement, and labor force exits. Change in employment between the first year in the time period and the last year in the time period is assumed to occur in equal amounts each year (i.e., the average annual employment change is used over the period). Also, the average annual number of replacement positions is based on the mean employment level for the time period (E' + Ed + a)/2, not on employment levels for each year. Tables E-6 and E-7 show the results of calculations for the functions in the forecasting model and the demand projections that result. TABLE E-3 High-Growth Estimate of DOE and DOE Contractor Employment of Nuclear Engineers, 1987-2010 DOE Sector 1987al99S200020052010 Headquarters -3323493S4361 Field -361424480609 Contractors -3,3214,1814,8886,645 Total 1,6404,0144,9545,7227,615 a Breakdown not available. TABLE E-4 Best Estimate of DOE and DOE Contractor Employment of Nuclear Engineers, 1987 - 2010 DOE Sector 1987a 1995 2000 2005 2010 Headquarters - 308 321 322 325 Field - 284 300 314 333 Contractors - 2,345 2,516 2,592 2,652 Total 1,640 2,937 3,137 3,228 3,310 a Breakdown not available.
108 TABLE E-5 Strategic Defense Initiative Organization Projections for Nuclear Engineers, 1995-2010a Year 1995 2000 2005 2010 Number 200 to 300 400 to 600 1,000 to 1,500 1,500 to 2,000 a Assuming implementation of nuclear-powered SDI space power systems SOURCE: Data from Strategic Defense Initiative Organization, letter to Robert Cohen, National Research Council, August 24, 1989, from Lieutenant General George L. Monahan, Jr., U.S.A.F.; and from Richard L. Verga, Program Manager, Space Power and Power Conditioning. TABLE E-6 Forecasting Model Results for the High-Growth Scenario Year P(t) G(t) E(t)E'(t)X(t)D(t) 1987a 8,030 3,610 11,6400407407 1995 8,030 6,284 14,314334501835 2000 9,450 7,524 16,9745325941,126 2005 12,670 9,192 21,8629787651,743 2010 16,450 11,585 28,0351,2359812,216 a Actual figures. TABLE E-7 Forecasting Model Results for the Best-Estimate Growth Scenario Year P(t) G(t) E(t) E'(t) X(t) D(t) 1987a 8,030 3,610 11,6400 407407 1995 8,030 4,907 12,937162 45361S 2000 8,030 5,107 13,13740 460500 2005 9,450 5,198 14,648302 512814 2010 12,670 S,280 17,950660 6281,288 NOTE: As a sample calculation, consider the period from 2005 to 2010. For 2010, E(t) = P(t) + G(t) = 12,670 + 5,280 = 17,950. Then E(t) = 14,648 + 660 (t - 2005). Therefore, E'(t) = 660. Then X(t + 1) - 0.035 [E(t + 1) + E(t)~/2. Let t = 2009 to obtain X(2010) = 0.035 (14,648 + 7 x 660) + 0.035 x 660 ~ 605 + 23 = 628. a Actual figures.
109 Oak Ridge Associated Universities Post Office Box 117 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 TO: PROM: DATE: M E M O R A N D U M William Naughton, Commonwealth Edison Larry M. Blair, ORAU/SEED/LPSP August 8, 1989 COPIES TO: Rich Stephens, file SUBJECT: EXIT RATES AND JOB OPENINGS FOR NEW HIRES FOR THE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR ENGINEERING EDUCATION, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUPPLY AND DEMAND TRENDS Re: Our telephone conversation of August 3, 1989. OVERVIEW Job openings are created by growth in number of positions in the field and by attrition which creates replacement needs. However, as shown on the attached schematic [Figure E-1], these job openings will not all be filled by new graduates. Many of these positions will be filled by persons who are "job switchers" (such as persons who in the past left nuclear engineering positions for positions in management, sales, computer science, different engineering, etc. and are now returning to nuclear engineering positions) and by persons who were unemployed or re-entering the labor force. Thus nuclear engineering job turnover or exit rates for a company, industry, or for the total employment field do not provide the data needed to assess the demand for new graduates. (Note that company level and single ;n~l1.ctrv 1 P`rml r clash electric utilities] exit for the total employment single industry level [such as rates have even higher rates of job switching than field of nuclear engineering because of persons leaving the specific company or industry for a nuclear engineering position in a different company or industry.) Data on job openings available to new graduates are not available from any agencies or available studies. ORAU, over the last six or seven years, has collected related data from Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics published and unpublished information, and we have developed additional data for BS/MS and PhD levels from the National Science Foundation surveys of scientists and engineers data base which we maintain for DOE. We have used these data to develop information on exit rates and percent of job openings
110 Sources of Additional Supply New Graduates in nuclear engineering Sources of Lob Openings (demand for new hires) __ Growth -- openings created by increased labor requirements l Nuclear Engineering Job Openings ~ Filled by New Graduates Filled by Other Sources IJob Switchers, I I ~ non-nuclear engineering I I |Replacement positions into nuclear ~|- labor force exit for death engineering positions and leaving labor force _ (retirement, etc.) Labor Force Re-Entrants ~ ~I- persons leaving nuclear into nuclear engineering r I engneering positions Figure E-1 Employment. Sources of Labor Supply and Job Openings in Nuclear Engineering
111 for new graduates. -It must be emphasized that while these are the best estimates we can provide, the underlying background data is not perfect for this type of analysis and has deficiencies which lead to the need for judgments and caution when applying the resulting rates to labor market analysis. INFORMATION ON NUCLEAR ENGINEERING EXIT RATES AND JOB OPENINGS FOR NEW GRADUATES Exit Rate Information Average exit rates for all engineering fields: BS/MS = 6.8% PhD = 7.2% To get turnover rates specific to nuclear engineering, several judgmental factors must be taken into consideration. First, the NSF survey data base we maintain for DOE indicates that nuclear engineers are somewhat older, on average, than all engineers and have a death + retirement rate 1/2 percentage point (0.5% point) higher than for all engineers. Thus, we add 0.5% point to the rates as shown below. Average exit rates for nuclear engineering fields corrected for higher exit rates due to higher death + retirement rates resulting from somewhat older, than average, age for nuclear engineers. BS/MS approximately = 7.3% PhD approximately = 7.7% These exit rates are still biased low because they are based on the exit rates for all engineers which do not include the job switchers who stay within engineering fields (nuclear engineering to non-nuclear engineering and the reverse of non-nuclear engineering to nuclear engineering). Based on data from NSF surveys it appears that nuclear engineers have a somewhat higher than average outflow to other engineering fields and this would further increase the exit rates. In addition, the PhD rate also is biased low because the NSF survey question for employment field does not discriminate well for people who have moved into management or other professional positions outside of engineering per se. We have not developed any data estimates for these complicating bias factors. As indicated below, we have rounded up the job openings rate for new graduates to take into consideration these factors.
112 B. REFERENCES Job Openings for New Graduates The exit rates listed above must still be adjusted for the replacement positions filled by non-new graduates. These adjustments are shown below, as based on available data. Percent of positions filled by new graduates: BS/MS ~ 47% PhD ~ 37% Applying these percentages gives these replacement rates for job openings to be filled by new graduates: Replacement Percents for Job Openings for New Graduate Nuclear Engineers (with low biases still included): BS/MS approximately = 3.4% PhD approximately ~ 2.8% As noted above there are factors in the survey data base which appear to cause these estimates to be biased low and therefore, we have simply used the rate of 3.5% for all nuclear engineers in our studies. Actual Rate Used for Replacement Needs Percent for Job Openings for New Graduate Nuclear Engineers BS/MS and PhD approximately = 3.5% Therefore demand for job openings for new graduates is equal to growth plus this replacement percent. Number Job Openings for New Graduates = Number of Growth Positions + .035 times the number of current positions (for replacement demand for new grads) Energy-Related Science and Engineering Personnel Outlook 1987, DOE/OR/00033-H1, U.S. Department of Energy, October 1987. Baker, Joe G., "Accession and Separation of Selected B.S., Technician Workers," ORAU Internal Working Paper, May 1983. M.S., and Baker, Joe G., "Occupational Mobility of Energy-Related Doctorate Scientists and Engineers," ORAU Internal Working Paper, June 1983.
113 Various published data tabulations from the NSF surveys of scientists and engineers (recent graduates, experienced worker survey, and doctorate survey). Unpublished data from the Department of Labor LMB:ajp Bureau of Labor Statistics .
F ADDITIONAL DATA ON NUCLEAR ENGINEERING SUPPLY TRENDS AND CURRICULUM This appendix presents data that may be of interest to some readers, providing a more detailed view of some subjects presented in the report. Tables F-1 to F- 20 present additional data on aspects of education that affect supply, such as degree trends, minority student trends, Scholastic Aptitude Test scores, and cohorts, while Tables F-21 and F-22 provide information on the nuclear engineering curriculum. Figure F-1 provides information concerning population trends and Figures F-2 to Fell summarize data on nuclear engineering programs and on enrollments based on the results of the committee's survey (Appendix G provides a copy of this questionnaire). TABLE F-1 Total Degrees Granted, All Fields, by Degree Level and U.Se Residency Status, 1977 and 1987 Total ~. . U. S. Residentsa Percent Percent Degree Level 1977 1987 Change 1977 1987 Change B.S. 917 ~ 900 991 ~ 260 8 ~ 0 902 ~ 186 961 ~ 9546 ~ 6 M.S. 316 ~ 602 289 ~ 341 -8 ~ 6 299 ~ 258 259 ~ 443-13 ~ 3 Ph.D. 33~126 34~033 2~7 29~379 27~446~ 6~6 a U.S. residents include U.S. citizens and resident aliens. SOURCES: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (1988, 1989~. 115
116 TABLE F-2 Number and Share of Degrees Awarded to Nonresident Aliens by Degree Level, 1977 and 1987 Percent of Total Number of Degrees AwardedDegrees Awarded Degree Level 1977 19871977 1987 B.S. 15,714 29,3061.7 3.0 M.S. 17,344 29,8985.5 10.3 Ph.D. 3,747 6,58711.3 19.4 SOURCES: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (1988, 1989~. TABLE F-3 Number and Share of Quantitative Degrees Awarded to Nonresident Aliens by Degree Level, 1977 and 1987 Number of Degrees Awarded Degree Level 1977 1987 Percent of Total Degrees Awarded 1977 1987 B.S. 4,717 9,999 5.2 6.7 M.S. 4,933 10,223 17.9 25.9 Ph.D 1,584 3,196 22.8 37.3 SOURCES: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (1980, 19899.
117 TABLE F-4 Quantitative Degrees as a Share of all Degrees Earned, by Degree Level and U.S. Residency Status, 1977 and 1987 (in percent) All Degree U.S. Resident Nonresident Alien Recipients Recipientsa Recipients _ Degree Level 1977 1987 1977 1987 1977 1987 B.S. M.S. Ph.D 9.9 8.7 21.0 15.1 13.6 25.2 9.6 7.6 18.3 14.5 11.3 19.6 30.0 28.4 42.3 a U.S. residents include U.S. citizens and resident aliens. 34.1 34.2 48.5 SOURCES: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (1980, 1989~. TABLE F-5 Number and Share of Engineering and Nuclear Engineering Degrees Awarded to Nonresident Aliens by Degree Level, 1978 and 1988 Number of Degrees Percent of Total Field and Awarded Degrees Awarded Degree Level1978 1988 1978 1988 Engineering B.S.3,094 5,763 6.7 8.1 M.S.3,579 7,278 22.1 28.4 Ph.D874 2,033 34.0 44.5 Nuclear Engineering B.S.41 21 4.8 4.3 M.S.103 87 21.2 37.5 Ph.D35 56 31.2 49.1 SOURCES: Engineering Manpower Commission (1979-1989) for total engineering, U.S. Department of Energy (1984, 1989) for nuclear englneerlng .
118 TABLE F-6 Engineering Degrees as a Share of Total Quantitative Degrees, by Degree Level and U.S. Residency Status, 1977 and 1987 (in percent) Total U.S. Residentsa Nonresident Aliens Degree Level 1977 1987 1977 1987 1977 1987 B.S. M.S. Ph.D 53.2 57.6 37.0 49.2 55.8 44.3 52.0 54.4 32.2 48.5 54.8 37.7 75.7 71.8 53.5 60.0 58.8 55.6 a U.S. residents include U.S. citizens and resident aliens. SOURCES: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (1980, 1989~. TABLE F-7 Total Degrees Granted, All Fields, by Degree Level and Gender, 1977 and 1987a 977 1987 Degree Percent Percent Level Male Female Female Male Female Female M.S./M.A. 494,424 t23,476 46 480,780 510,480 52 B.S./B.A. 167,396 149,206 47 141,264 148,077 51 Ph.D. 25,036 8,090 24 22,059 11,974 35 a Including both U.S. residents and nonresident aliens. SOURCES: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (1988, 1989)
119 TABLE F-8 Quantitative Degrees Granted by Degree Level and Gender, U.S. Residents Only, 1981 and 1987a 1981 Degree Level Male Female Percent Female Male 1987 Percent Female Female B.S. 93,817 22,358 19.2 103,38036,565 26.1 M.S. 17,964 3,612 16.7 22,8006,453 22.1 Ph.D. 4,459 501 10.1 4,544835 15.5 . a earlier data were not available. SOURCES: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (1983, 1989~. TABLE F-9 Quantitative Degrees Awarded to Women as a Share of Total Degrees Awarded to Women by Degree Level, 1977 and 1987 Quantitative Degrees as Percent of Total Degree Level 1977 1987 B.S. 3.3 7~5 M.S. 2.3 5.4 Ph.D. 6.4 8.9 SOURCES: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (1980, 1989~.
120 TABLE F-10 Quantitative Degrees Awarded to Women as a Share of Total Degrees Awarded to Women, by Degree Level, U.S. Residents Only, 1981 and 1987a Quantitative Degrees as Percent of Total Degree Level 1981 1987 B.S. 4.9 7.3 M.S. 2.5 4.6 Ph.D. 5.2 7.7 a Earlier data not available. SOURCES: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (1983, 1989~. TABLE Fell Engineering and Nuclear Engineering Degrees Granted, by Degree Level and Gender, 1978 and 1988a 1978 1988 Field and Percent Percent Degree Level Male Female FemaleMaleFemale Female Engineering B.S. 42,8113,280 7.1 60,446 10,940 1S.3 M.S. 15,388794 4.9 22,251 3,365 13.1 Ph.D. 2,52251 2.0 4,258 313 6.8 Nuclear Engineering B.S. 83528 3.2 433 S1 10.5 M.S. 4779 1.9 211 21 9.1 Ph.D. 1084 3.6 108 6 5.3 a Data include both U.S. residents and nonresident aliens. SOURCES: Engineering Manpower Commission (1979) and U.S. Department of Energy (1984, 19899.
4 I_ Go red in c) a pi a) a' be a U] At: u C) is by a o ED Cal 1 At: ED 121 a U ~ To C) so PA ~ 00 al al u V ~ ~ TIC P4 Cal ret 00 ret U ~ by Pi ~ 00 r- red C) U pi,, 0 . v 0~ ~US red ·· .. . I~ ~ t-~C} A;t =` Cal 00~ ~ UP Cal A ~ oc~ ~ · .. . ~ ~ ~D o ~r~ oo~ ~o ~ -~ O~ L~ oo- -- - c~c~ r-~ oo c~ - - - ~- ~ ~u~ ~o c~ c~ ~o ~ u~ · · · . ~ o u~ o ~ ~ 0 ~r oo u~ o ~ ~ ^ - - - - ~ ~ c~ ~u~ c ~ oo oo ~ ~o ~ oo ~ ~c~ ~ r~ ~oD oo o u~ ~ 1 1 ~ ~ ~ v o . - o . - z ~ z ~ v ~ ~ u *~ c) .~ ~ \4 ~ ~ - ~- ¢ N o , ~ u) 'o u ~Q u u ~ o u v ~ o ~ u o u z o~ u c) o u s a U .- U, s~ 0 . . - x V] o V,
122 red CO Cal red ad :^ u · - v but U C) - a) a, be :^ - C' V' a) S4 be a, a, · - U 1 At: EN - . :~ Cot UP ~0 Cal 00 0\ U ~ be C) P4 ~ 0D Cal red ~ be V a, Pa ~ red 00 0` red red V · - O V ~ · · . . UP 1 At Cal C0 ~0 -;t ~00 ~ US =~ ~ O I_ of t~ UP ~ ~ o oX ~ c~u~ oo u~ ~ r~ .4 ~ ~ r~ o ~ c~ o ~ ~ u) · · ·~ c ~ ~ ~ ~c~ ~ c~ ^ - ~ - oo ~o ~o ~ ~c~ ~ u ~o ~'~ ~ u ~ u~c~ o - - -- cr ~ ~c~ 1 1 ~ ~ ~ v o a~ o · - z ~ z ~ v ~ ~ . - ~4 z v ·m ~ .~ v .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ·,1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ · - ~ ~ ~a ¢ 00 o 00 tQ v · - u ~q · - C~ o . - u v o u C~ o . - z o . - u ,~ ~n ~ ° 5- a a) ·- cs bo · - v~ :~ . ~ c~ e~ o
123 TABLE F-14 Nuclear Engineering Degrees Granted by Degree Level, and Race and Ethnicity, 1978 and 1988 B.S. _ M.S. _ Ph.D. Racial/Ethnic Percent Percent Percent Group 1978 1988 Change 1978 1988 Change 1978 1988 Change White, Non Hispanic 808 439 -45.7 370 134 -63.8 74 53 -28.4 Black, Non Hispanic 7 5 - 28.6 5 1 - 80.0 1 2 100.0 Hispanic 4 5 25.0 4 1 -75.0 O O O American Indian O 1 NA O O O O O O Asian 3 13 333.3 4 9 125.0 2 3 50.0 . . . . SOURCES: U.S. Department of Energy (1984, 1989~.
124 TABLE F-15 Percent and Number of SAT Test-Takers Whose Mathematics Scores Met the Minimum Required to Succeed in Nuclear Engineering, By Race and Ethnicity, and Gender, 1983-1988. Number of 1988 Test-Takers Who Racial/Ethnic Group 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988Met Minimum American Indian 16 17 16 NA 16 162,008 Black 6 6 7 NA 7 87,385 Mexican American 14 14 15 NA 15 153,381 Asian American 41 44 44 NA 44 4528,576 Puerto Rican 10 12 14 NA 11 121,308 Latin American NA NA NA NA 17 183,668 White 30 31 34 NA 33 32265,838 Male 34 34 37 38 37 37200,809 Female 19 19 22 22 22 23134,448 Total 26 28 29 28 29 30335,257a NOTE: NA= notavaitable. a Includes those who failed to identify themselves as members of any racial or ethnic group . SOURCES: Educational Testing Service (1988)' College Entrance Examination Board (1983-1988) .
125 TABLE F-16 Percent and Number of SAT Test-Takers Whose Verbal Scores Met the Minimum Required to Succeed in Nuclear Engineering, by Race and Ethnicity, and Gender, 1983-1988 Number of 1988 Racial/Ethnic Test-Takers Who Group 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988Met Minimum American Indian 28 30 29 NA 28 273,301 Black 14 14 15 NA 16 1716,619 Mexican 24 25 26 NA 24 265,818 American Asian American 34 34 36 NA 36 3824,465 Puerto Rican 22 23 24 NA 20 182,087 Latin American NA NA NA NA 27 285,746 White 47 48 50 NA 48 48390,180 Male 43 47 46 45 45 45245,054 Female 41 40 42 41 41 40235,734 Total 41 42 42 43 42 42480,788a NOTE: NA = not available. a Includes those who failed to identify themselves as members of any racial or ethnic group. SOURCES: Educational Testing Service (1983-1988), College Entrance Examination Board (1983-1988~.
126 TABLE F-17 Percent of Test-Takers Who Met Minimum Quantitative and Verbal Scores of Engineering B.S. Graduates Who Took the Graduate Record Examination, U.S. Citizens Only, 1986-1987 Group Quantitative Verbal Minimum Minimum American Indian 11.5 39.1 Black 3.6 13.6 Mexican American 10.0 28.3 Asian 42.4 43.5 Puerto Rican 7.5 15.2 Other Hispanic 14.9 39.3 White 23.1 55.0 Total 22.1 51.5 SOURCE: Educational Testing Service (1988~. TABLE F-18 Trends in College-Age Cohorts as Shares of Total U.S. Population, 1980-2010 (in percent) Age Cohort Year 14- 17 18 - 24 25 - 34 1980 7.09 13.33 16.51 1985 6.17 12.00 17.51 1990 5.19 10.33 17.45 1995 5.43 9.13 15.61 2000 5.74 9.16 13.58 2010 5.29 9.76 13.06 SOURCES: Spencer (1986, 1989), U.S. Bureau of the Census ~ 1982 ~ .
127 TABLE F-19 1980-2010 Trends in Racial and Ethnic College-Age Cohorts, Cohort and Age Cohort Year 14-17 19-24 25-34 White, Non-Hispanic 1980 75.8 77.3 79.3 1985 ~ 74.3 75.2 77.2 1990 71.6 73.3 75.5 1995 70.7 71.3 73.6 2000 68.9 69.9 71.4 2010 65.8 67.2 68.3 Black, Non-Hispanic 1980 14.1 12.9 11.2 1985 14.6 14.4 12.5 1990 15.0 14.7 13.5 1995 15.3 14.9 14.2 2000 16.5 15.3 14.6 2010 17.0 16.6 15.5 Hispanics 1980 7.8 7.5 6.8 1985 8.7 8.2 7.8 1990 10.4 9.3 8.3 1995 10.7 10.6 9.2 2000 11.9 11.2 10.4 2010 13.8 13.0 12.2 Other Minorities 1980 2.3 2.3 2.8 1985 2.9 2.7 3.0 1990 3.6 3.2 3.2 1995 3.9 3.8 3.6 2000 3.4 4.2 4.1 2010 4.2 4.0 4.7 SOURCES: Spencer (1986, 1989~; U.S. Bureau of the Census (1982).
128 a) a) a, lo: o U] o Cal o a) u ¢ a) c) :- o U o :4 a' ¢ 1 O ~ ^ In o o P4 _' O u, of PI ' Go O Cal Cal ~ 1 a) ¢ So o V) a) be ¢ So U] a' a) be a) ¢ o U P4 o o En lo To Cal Cal 10 Go Us O O C~ ·n oo a~ u~ o o c~ u~ oo v ;t ~ o ~ · . . .- c~ oo oo ~ o ~ ~ ~c~ ~ ~ ~c~ -~ u~ ~ ~ oo ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ z z z z~ - ;t C~ O ~Dc~ .- oo ~ o ~oo ~- oo ~ o c~ ~ e ~ ~ C~ ~ ~ C~ O ~ ~ C~ C~ C~ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢_ Z Z Z Z U~ ~ _ _ __ C~ ,-1 ~ C~ OC~ O C~ C~C- _ _ _ __ 0~ - ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢CO Z Z Z Z V ~ ~ U = ~ . - UO :3 ~ X O~ . a o U] :^ ;t o a) 00 U] o ° 11 o z ~ o o p~ oo oo - ~ u] o o u)
129 TABLE F-21 Course Requirements for Bachelor's Degree Programs in Nuclear Engineering Required Semester_Hours Curriculum Area Minimum Average Maximum Calculus 8 12 20 Differential equations 3 4 6 Advanced mathematics 2 3 15 Introductory physics 6 9 15 Atomic and nuclear physics 0 3 6 Chemistry 3 9 14 Other basic science and mathematics 1 3 6 Computing 2 3 - Numerical methods 3 5 9 Statics 1 3 6 Dynamics 1 3 6 Fluid mechanics 2.5 3 ~ Materials 0 3 6 Materials science 2 4 13 Electrical circuits 3 3.5 9 Electronics 0 3 6 Thermodynamics 3 4 8 Heat transfer 0 3 6 Nuclear physics 2 5 7 Reactor physics 3 5 8 Fusion 0 3 4 Radiation detection 0 2.5 5 Radiation effects 0 2.5 3 Health physics 0 2.5 4 System dynamics 0 3 7 Thermal hydraulics 0 3 7 Reactor engineering 3 5 10 SOURCE: Committee survey .
130 TABLE F-22 Average Semester Hour Requirements in Basic and Engineering Sciences for Different Engineering Disciplines Curriculum Area Engineering Disciplines Mech Elec Civil Ind Aero Matls Nucl Physics Chemistry Mechanics Thermal science Electrical and electronics Nuclear science 10 6 12 12 6 o 3 2 12 10 9 7 10 8 7 6 7 11 5 5 9 28 2 3 0 9 5 11 2 2 6 3 4 5 0 0 3 6 a "Mech" ~ mechanical engineering, "Elec" = electrical engineering, "Civil" = civil engineering, "Ind" = industrial engineering, "Aero" - aerospace engineering, "Malls" = materials engineering, and "Nucl" = ~ . . nuclear englneerlug. SOURCE: Committee survey. =
131 290 - 280 270 260 g] a 1 ~250 240 220 - 86 - 85 e4 - - - - 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 200S 2010 YEAR 83 O_ typo Q Con O- 80 82 81 79 78 - 77 76 E], 1 1 1 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 200S 2010 YEAR FIGURE F-1 Past and projected trends in the total and 14-34 year old U.S population, 1980-2010 (in thousands). SOURCES- Spencer (1986 . ~ 1989), U.S. Department of Commerce (1982) .
132 4.0 3.5 3.0 He o 2.5 2.0 ~ 1.5 m z 1.0 0.5 0.0 1 1 1 6 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 12 14 16 18 CREDIT HOURS FIGURE F-2 The distribution of physics credit hours required for nuclear engineering degrees by several institutions. SOURCE: Committee survey.
1~ 6 a 3 2 1 a I i 1 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 12 14 16 18 20 22 CREDO HOURS 24 26 28 30 FICURE F-3 Ibe distribution of mathematics credit hours required for nuclear engineering degrees by several institutions. SOURCE: Committee survey
8 7 He o He o llJ En 6 5 4 3 2 1 o 134 1 1 1 1 1 4 6 8 10 12 14 CREDIT HOURS FIGURE F-4 The distribution of engineering mechanics credit hours required for nuclear engineering degrees by several institutions. SOURCE: Committee survey
135 8 7 z 6 o ~ 5 In z 4 ILL o fir ~ 3 m 2 1 o 1 .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 8 10 12 14 CREDIT HOURS J FIGURE F-5 The distribution of nuclear science credit hours required for nuclear engineering degrees by several institutions. SOURCE: Committee survey.
136 7 r 6 can id o 4 o 3 LL m id 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 6 8 10 CREDIT HOURS 12 14 16 FIGURE F-6 The distribution of materials science credit hours required for nuclear engineering degrees by several institutions. SOURCE: Committee survey .
137 4.0 3.5 is 3.0 o ~ 2.5 E CD 2.0 o ~ 1.5 m Z 1.0 0.5 o ~ 1 1 2 6 10 14 18 22 26 30 CREDIT HOURS FIGURE F-7 The distribution of humanities and social science credit hours required for nuclear engineering degrees by several institutions SOURCE: Committee survey . .
138 80 70 60 111 O 50 LD 40 m He 30 20 10 Seniors Juniors 1 1 ~S 82 84 YEAR 86 88 FIGURE F-8 Undergraduate enrollment of women in nuclear engineering for juniors and seniors, 1982 to 1988. SOURCE: Committee survey.
139 90 805 70 ~ 60 o Z 50 LL] cr ~ 40 m 30 20 10 o Seniors . . · IL Juniors 1 ~ 1 1 l'--' S 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 82 84 YEAR 86 88 FIGURE F-9 Undergraduate enrollment of foreign nationals in nuclear engineering for juniors and seniors, 1982-1988. SOURCE: Committee survey. -
140 LL o of 111 lo: LL] m 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 Z 40 301 20 10 o Masters Doctorate ~S _ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 82 84 86 88 YEAR FIGURE F-10 Graduate enrollment of women in nuclear engineering 1982 to 1988. SOURCE: Committee survey.
141 350 300 250 LL O 200 At CC m 150 100 50 o Doctorate 1 ~ e_ I ~ I Masters 1 1 ~1 1 1 82 84 YEAR 86 88 FIGURE Fell Graduate enrollment of foreign nationals, 1982 to 1988 SOURCE: Committee survey . .
APPENDIX G THE COMMITTEE'S QUESTIONNAIRE TO NUCLEAR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENTS 143
144 LETTER SENT TO NUCLEAR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENTS AND PROGRAMS Committee on Nuclear Engineering Education Dear May 2, 1989 The Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems of the National Research Council is engaged in a study of nuclear engineering education in the United States. The Statement of Task for this study and the roster of the study committee are enclosed for your information. The study is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, and the American Nuclear Society. The objectives of this study are to evaluate the present status of nuclear engineering education, to estimate future needs in that area for the next 5, 10, and 20 years, and to recommend appropriate actions that might be important to assure that the nation's needs for engineers with nuclear skills will be met. This letter is to seek your assistance in obtaining some essential information toward achieving the first of these objectives. For that purpose, a subcommittee under Professor Robert L. Seale has drawn up the enclosed questionnaire. The questionnaire was formulated because the subcommittee recognized that, although U.S. educational programs in nuclear engineering education are similar in many respects, they differ widely. We ask your patience and cooperation in responding to the questions. In so doing, please be sure to provide your personal insights and identify unique features of your program. In order to meet study schedules, please send your response by May 20, 1989 to Dr. Seale, who is Head, Department of Nuclear and Energy Engineering, University of ARizona, Tucson, Arizona 95721. If you have questions, please call him at (602) 621-2311. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Robert Cohen Senior Program Officer Enclosures as stated
145 NUCLEAR ENGINEERING PROGRAM QUESTIONNAIRE University. Department: Address: Provide a brief description of the organizational status of your program. Is your program in an independent department or is it part of a multi-discipline department? PART I: Current Profile of Nuclear Engineering Program UNDERGRADUATE Please note that much of the information requested below is in the same format as that used in the current ABET Accreditation Report that is filed prior to an accreditation visit. Hopefully this will simplify the task of preparing this information. We appreciate your help. ENGINEERING ENROLLMENT AND DEGREE DATA Undergraduate enrollment will be taken from the DOE sponsored Oak Ridge Associated Universities survey. An updated version is due out shortly. Based on present facilities and staffing levels, what annual enrollment levels could your program accommodate? What is the minimum SAT or ACT mathematics score that students need for success in your B. S. Nuclear Engineering program? What is the minimum SAT or ACT verbal score that students need for success in your B. S. Nuclear Engineering program? Where did your B.S. graduates of the last 5 years go? Employer Number Percent Graduate school Utilities National Laboratories Reactor Vendors Consultants DOE NRC DOE Contractors Military Services Other
146 GRADUATE Graduate enrollment data will be taken from the DOE sponsored Oak Ridge Associated Universities survey. An updated version is due shortly. What are the undergraduate disciplines of the students that enter your graduate program? (Base your answer on the last 5 years enrollment. % NE % ME, % EE, % CE, % ChE, , % Other Engr, % Phys, % Math, % Chem, ~ Other. Based on current facilities and staffing levels, what graduate enrollment could your program accommodate? What is the threshold GRE score of successful graduate students in your program? Where do your M.S. and Ph.D. graduates of the last 5 years go? Employer Number Percent Utilities National Laboratories Reactor Vendors Consultants DOE NRC DOE Contractors Academic Career Other What special efforts are used to recruit new students to your program? Please identify faculty or department efforts separately from those of student organizations. What student activities or organizational affiliations are there for your Nuclear Engineering students? What is the approximate Nuclear Engineering portion of the total enrollment in the College of Engineering (or equivalent unit) of your institution? %
147 NUCLEAR ENGINEERING PERSONNEL AND STUDENTS 1988-89 Academic Year Administrative Faculty (tenure track) Other Faculty (non-tenure) Student Teaching Assts Student Research Assts Technicians Office/Clerical Others Undergraduate Students Graduate Students Expenditure Category Faculty Staff (Clerical) Staff (Technician) Operations Travel Equipment Institutional Funds Gifts and Grants Grad Teaching Assts. Grad Research Assts. Head Count FT PT FTE NUCLEAR ENGINEERING EXPENDITURES Year 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 List the major facilities and laboratories available and research in your Nuclear Engineering program. Ratio to Faculty 1987-88 1988-89 for instruction What computing facilities are available in support of your program?
148 Part II: Profile of Present Faculty RESEARCH INTERESTS OF FACULTY Name Highest Rank Age Years Specialty Degree Teaching Research/Consulting Comment on the rank distribution of your faculty Comment on the age distribution of your faculty: . Comment on the strengths and weaknesses of your faculty: Identify special awards received in the last 5 years by members of your faculty: Are there deficiencies in the range of specialties covered by the faculty in your department?
149 PART III: Degree Programs UNDERGRADUATE Curriculum Elements Basic Sciences and Mathematics Mathematics: Calculus Differential Equations Advanced Engineering Math Physics: Chemistry: Introductory Physics with Calculus Atomic & Nuclear Physics Introductory Chemistry Advanced Chemistry Other Courses Computer Programming Engineering Sciences Engineering Mechanics Statics Dynamics Fluid Mechanics Materials: . Strength of Materials Metallurgy/Materials Science Thermal Sciences: Thermodynamics Heat Transfer Electricity and Magnetism Circuits Electronics Nuclear Sciences: . Nuclear Physics Radiation Interaction Reactor Physics Fusion Credit Hrs Lec/Lab Status Req/Elec
150 Curriculum Elements (cons) Applied Science and Design Radiation Detection & Instrumentation Health Physics Radiation Effects System Dynamics Thermal Hydraulics Reactor Engineering Nuclear Fuel Cycle Systems Design Other courses Comments: Credit Hrs Lec/Lab Status Req/Elec Humanities & Social Sciences Economics Communication Skills English Composition Technical Writing Special Requirements Comparison of Nuclear Engineering program with other disciplines in your institution. Indicate the required number of credit hours of each of the listed areas. Degree Program Mech Engr Elec Engr Civil Engr Indus Engr Aero Engr Matl Sci/Engr Nucl Engr Requirements in Credit Hours Mechanics Thermal Elec. & Physics Chemistry Sciences Electronics
-151 GRADUATE Advanced Degree Requirements Degree Course Units Research Thesis Average Time Beyond B. S. or Dissertation Required Beyond B. S Masters Doctorate What are the most common minors for your graduate students? order of decreasing popularity. Graduate Courses in Nuclear Engineering . List in the Course Name of CourseCore/Elective Last Number Year Masters: C/ETaught Course Name of Course Number Doctorate: Core/Elective Last Year C/E Taught
152 Part IV: Research Activities in Nuclear Engineering SUMMARY OF RESEARCH IN NUCLEAR ENGINEERING Name of Research Topic Personnel-FTE Fac. Res Comment on the trend in research. . Asst. Support Agency Support Dollars Comment on the research climate as you see it at the present time. Your successes and frustrations in seeking funding are both of interest. Please be specific as general statements convey dissatisfaction but do not really suggest solutions or alternatives. Part V: Industrial Interaction Discuss the extent of industrial interaction with your faculty including instruction, consulting, and research. Discuss the extent of industrial interaction and support of your student including scholarships, fellowships, summer employment, coop, etc.
153 Part VI: Summary Based on impressions gained from contact with your students, please identify any consistent factors or influences that may have influenced their career choice. These might include role models, advisors at any level in school, interest in a specific technology, or a personal perception of the opportunity. Be as specific as you can. Please make any comments you may wish to contribute to the deliberations of the Committee on Nuclear Engineering Education of the Energy Engineering Board of the National Research Council. Either add to this questionnaire or write a separate letter. We need and welcome your thoughts and insights. Comments:
