Pedro B. Perez, Chairman
North Carolina State University

Wade J. Richards, Chair-elect
McClellan AFB
Steve Miller, Treasurer
AFFRI
William Vernetson, Secretary
University of Florida

Directors

John A. Bernard, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Stephen E. Binney, Oregon State University
Leo M. Bobek, University of Massachusetts - Lowell
James W. Bryson, Sandia National Laboratory
Brian Dodd, International Atomic Energy Agency
Tawfik M. Raby, National Institute of Science and Technology
Junaid Razvi, General Atomics
Gary Stimmell, General Electric
Ray Tsukimura, Aerotest Operations
Bernard W. Wehring, University of Texas - Austin

DOE support of university research and training reactors also benefits nuclear engineering departments. The reactor experimental facility enhancements, power upgrades, license amendments and renewals, medical, environmental, materials and other multi-disciplinary applications require nuclear engineering involvement. DOE funds awarded to university reactors helps to support the resources necessary for establishing the much-needed multi-disciplinary infrastructure. Neutron users interact with nuclear engineering departments and reactor staff to design, construct, and produce the required research resources for academia and industry. This symbiotic collaboration benefits all national parties involved and clearly helps to meet the Department of Energy commitment to support the long-term energy research and development needs of the Nation.

TRTR recommends an immediate one-time infusion of $20 to $30 M over a two-year period for university research and training reactors to update and enhance facilities for meeting the current and projected education, research, and service requirements. Annual support should be established at the $5 M level to maintain the facilities and allow for continued upgrades. The DOE investment in existing operating university reactor facilities will be an efficient and cost effective method for improving U.S. technological competitiveness.

The TRTR funding recommendations are not new and are derived from the conclusions and recommendations of past studies performed by the National Academy of Sciences (1987) and the Department of Energy (1994) and past TRTR presentations to DOE and Congressional staffers.

The university research and training reactor community should be allowed to continue the peer review process recommended by the National Academy of Science and established by DOE and TRTR. The review process has demonstrated to be a cost effective and objective method for evaluating proposals and recommending funding levels. As a result, a priority list is not necessary and contradicts the purpose of the peer review process that can only serve to strengthen the community.

TRTR also takes this opportunity to reaffirm support for the Advanced Design Initiative Plus (ADI+) program. The revised ADI program will help to increase nuclear engineering enrollments and enhance the research capabilities of university research reactors. However, ADI+ should remain a separate program that augments the level of support introduced in this presentation.

Background

The Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology (ONEST) formed a "Blue Ribbon Panel" (Panel) to study the future of nuclear engineering programs and university research reactors. The panel functions as a subcommittee of the DOE ONEST Nuclear Engineering Research Advisory Committee (NERAC).

The Panel members primarily represent academic institutions and national laboratories. TRTR is not represented in the Panel. The Panel membership as of November 1999 was the following:

Chair: Michael Corradini, University of Wisconsin
Pete Miller, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Marvin Adams, Texas A & M
Glenn Knoll, University of Michigan
Gail de Planque, Former NRC Commissioner
Thomas Isaacs, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Kenneth Rogers, former NRC Commissioner

The panel was charged to consider the following:

• The future of nuclear engineering as a discipline (including recommendations for the future evolution of nuclear engineering departments)

• The future of U.S. university research reactors (including a process to arrive at a "Priority List" of university reactors)

• The relationship between the university and the national laboratories in the conduct of nuclear engineering research.

TRTR recognizes the Blue Ribbon Panel as a critically important advisory group to DOE. The recent loss of university reactors at the University of Virginia, University of Illinois, Georgia Tech, and the loss of the Brookhaven High Flux Beam Reactor (HFBR) continues an alarming attrition trend that must be terminated and at some point reversed if the U.S. is to improve its technological competitiveness.

TRTR is concerned about not having representation on the Panel and TRTR opposes any effort to prioritize university research reactors. The TRTR Chairman arranged with the Blue Ribbon Panel Chairman to be recognized by the Panel and submit this presentation.

TRTR and the Nuclear Engineering Department Head Organization (NEDHO) are two distinct organizations. TRTR represents all university research and training reactors including those that are not associated with nuclear engineering departments (e.g. UC-Irvine, Reed College, Worcester Polytechnic and others). TRTR promotes the utilization of university reactors and recognizes the need for facility enhancements.

TRTR has worked with DOE to establish programs and funding levels that assist the university reactors, nuclear engineering departments, and local communities. The success of the Reactor Sharing and University Reactor Instrumentation programs demonstrate the importance of the DOE-TRTR relationship.

NEDHO is primarily focused on nuclear engineering academic topics. NEDHO also works with DOE to establish nuclear engineering education and research programs. The current NEER and NERI programs reflect the DOE-NEDHO collaboration.

TRTR has supported previous studies by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS 1987) and the Department of Energy (DOE 1994) related to the role and value of university research and training reactors. These studies have independently concluded the United States needs all the university reactors in order to maintain competency in various fields of science and engineering.

The NAS-1987 study recommended, in part, an annual budget of $20 M specifically for operational support and facility upgrades of university research and training reactors. Another important recommendation was to establish a peer review mechanism to assist the designated federal agency {DOE} in making grants to universities.

The DOE-1994 study identified university research reactors as geographically distributed nuclear resources and knowledge bases for education, research and informed discussion with public issues. The study also stated the total operating costs of all university reactors were equivalent (in 1994) to the cost of operating one DOE research reactor. The DOE study identified approximately $80 M in costs associated with reactor instrumentation upgrades (Type I) and experimental facility improvements and development (Type II). The total costs identified in the survey are summarized in Table I.

The NAS and DOE studies did not help increase the funding levels and between the NAS and DOE studies the nation lost five (5) university reactors. The disturbing trend continued and an additional seven (7) university reactors to date have closed since the 1994 DOE study. Table II lists the university research reactors for the time periods corresponding to the two previous studies and the current effort by the Panel. The reactors reported as operating by the NAS study are listed on the first column along with the power level. The status of reactors during the 1994 DOE study period and the present review efforts are given by the color green if the facility is operating or by the color red if it is shutdown. The loses of Georgia Tech, SUNY Buffalo, University of Illinois and University of Virginia shows the facility closures are not limited to low power reactors.

The remaining university reactors in December 1999 numbered twenty-eight (28) operating and ranged in power from 10 MW to 5 W (Figure 1). The remaining reactors are essential contributors to the national mission they serve in education, research, and service.

The facility closures are primarily due to facility under utilization and university administration budget constraints. Universities typically provide a budget for maintaining a reactor operations and maintenance staff. Little or no funds are available for establishing a multi-disciplinary infrastructure that develops a reactor user community from the campus and local industry. Nuclear engineering departments may face a similar problem due to years of declining undergraduate enrollments. Collaboration between nuclear engineering departments and respective reactor facilities strengthen both for the challenges of the next century.

TRTR considers all remaining twenty-eight (28) university research and training reactors as critical components of the national scientific and engineering infrastructure. Nuclear engineering programs are more dynamic and healthier with an operating and utilized reactor. A reactor is always a positive asset for recruiting undergraduate and graduate students and attracting researchers from material and environmental sciences, physics, chemistry, and other departments. Past experiences at UCLA, University of Washington, Virginia Tech, and Georgia Tech showed the vulnerability of nuclear engineering departments following reactor closings.

The size of the university reactor does not necessarily indicate viability. Some small facilities are well utilized and recognized locally as contributors to the academic mission of the university. Smaller facilities often have better outreach programs and more visitors than higher power research reactors. These are important contributions since university reactor visitors are more likely to be supportive of nuclear topics following a visit to a small facility.

Almost all university reactors support curricula in neighboring community colleges and K-12 schools. Radioisotope production, half-life determination, shielding demonstrations and environmental analysis by neutron activation (NAA) are examples of activities performed at many university reactors.

The most recognizable activity involving the use of a research reactor is the 1994 Nobel Prize in Physics.

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences awarded the 1994 Nobel Prize in Physics to Prof. Bertram N. Brockhouse (McMaster) for the development of neutron spectroscopy and Prof. Clifford G. Shull (MIT) for the development of the neutron diffraction technique.

Prof. Shull was a member of the National Academy of Science Committee on University Research Reactors in the 1987 study.

University research reactors are contributing every day in supporting the university mission of education, research and industrial services. Low power facilities are mostly involved in education both academic and outreach. Higher power facilities support the mission of education and contribute to research and some services. The highest power facilities are mostly involved in research and services. The following material provides a brief description of university reactor activities and relates the activities to the power level.

Idaho State University operates a 5 W reactor and utilizes the facility for training and limited research. Education and outreach activities are the major components of the reactor utilization. However, the reactor supported a recent Ph.D. thesis involving medical applications of nuclear engineering.

Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) operates a 10 kW reactor and provides a "hands-on approach" to teaching by encouraging students in the Mechanical Engineering program to utilize the facility in courses related to instrumentation and control (I&C) systems.

The University of California at Irvine operates a 250 kW reactor and has a very successful NAA program serving the Biology, Chemistry and Geosciences departments.

One and two-megawatt (1 and 2 MW) university reactors support education, research and industrial services. The higher neutron fluence allows for broader applications including isotope production, neutron radiography and have the capability to support some neutron scattering work.

The MIT and Missouri (MURR) reactors at 5 MW and 10 MW respectively are the highest power university research reactors. The higher power facilities are appropriate for neutron scattering work, isotope production, and medical applications. The MIT reactor is recognized for the recent contributions to clinical studies involving Boron Neutron Capture Therapy (BNCT). The multi-disciplinary collaboration involved MIT, Harvard University, and the Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital. The MURR facility is internationally recognized for contributions in neutron physics, material science, isotope production, and other applications.

The Panel is encouraged to review the National Academy of Science study. The report is an excellent summary of activities supported by university research and training reactors.

University research and training reactors must establish a multi-disciplinary infrastructure in order to strengthen their position within the university. Reactor laboratories have to be equipped with the necessary instruments to attract external interest. Beam guides and instruments have to be designed and built to meet research requirements. Services such as neutron radiography and neutron activation analysis (NAA) should be established where the neutron fluence is available. Reactor staff members need to market these new or enhanced capabilities by offering seminar, technical tours and demonstrations. The first external reactor user starts the networking process.

Enhancements and upgrades are also required for reactor instrumentation. It is imperative to have the neutrons available when needed. Reactor reliability and performance improvements are required for meeting the needs of reactor users.

The resources needed to accomplish these important goals require DOE support. The reactor staffs at most universities have the capability to perform some of the design and installation work. The DOE support is needed to fund the purchase of specialized laboratory and experimental equipment.

The NAS-1987, DOE-1994, and TRTR presentations to DOE and Congressional staffers support our recommendation for a one time infusion of $20M -$30M over two years to immediately update the reactor facilities to a level that can support an initial multi-disciplinary effort. A description of the cost is provided in the replies to past and current surveys. Table III summarizes the funding assessments from the DOE 1994 study and the current survey.

DOE must also continue to support the existing University Reactor Instrumentation and Reactor Sharing Programs. These programs have assisted facilities in license renewals, education, research, extension, and outreach. Increasing the level of support to $5 M per year continues the reactor instrumentation upgrades, facility enhancements, and the building of an inter-disciplinary infrastructure.

1. Low power facilities can immediately benefit from reactor instrumentation upgrades, gamma spectroscopy hardware and software for NAA, and irradiation facility enhancements.
2. Power level increases create the possibilities for enhancing utilization. Some facilities may be upgraded in power with minimal licensing efforts. The power increase may be as simple as adding a second primary pump, heat exchanger, and cooling tower.
3. University reactor facilities without guide halls can utilize curved stacked neutron guides (SNGs) to lower the gamma contamination in a neutron beam. The effect is an increase in neutron-induced signal to background.
4. Real time neutron radiography and tomography for non-destructive testing and examination.
5. State-of-the-art Ultra Cold Neutrons (UCNs) are considered by physicist as premium particles for studying physics beyond the standard model.

A full description of upgrades from different facilities is provided in the report to congress from the DOE-1994 report.

Notes: NA means Not Available as of December 20, 1999 and NR means No Reply to survey. Total for 1994 will not match total in Table II due to reactors closing soon after the survey was completed.

TRTR considers a "Priority List" unnecessary and detrimental to the university research and training reactor community. The peer review effort in place was recommended by the National Academy of Science and implemented by DOE with the encouragement and support of TRTR. Proposals for funding under the University Reactor Instrumentation (URI) program are currently reviewed in one day by a group of TRTR members under the observation of DOE personnel.

The peer review procedure consists of dividing proposals into east and west coast groups. TRTR members from the east coast review the proposals from universities in the west coast and vice versa. The procedure is simple, cost effective and efficient. TRTR continues to endorse this successful peer review process.

TRTR encourages the Blue Ribbon Panel to endorse the current Peer Review Process and abandon any effort intended to prioritize university reactors.

The nation cannot afford another loss of a university research reactor or nuclear engineering program. The time to take action is long over due and there exists ample evidence from previous exhaustive studies to support increasing funding. The funding increase is needed to update or enhance the reactor instrumentation and experimental facilities and begins the process to reestablish the U.S. leadership in nuclear engineering, neutron science and nuclear applications.

TRTR recommends an immediate one-time infusion of $20 to $30 M over a two-year period for university research and training reactors to update and enhance facilities for meeting the current and projected education, research, and service requirements.

Annual support should be established at the $5 M level to maintain the facilities and allow for continued upgrades. The DOE investment in existing operating university reactor facilities will be an efficient and cost effective method for improving U.S. technological competitiveness.

DOE should consider the increase funding as lucrative investments in science and engineering. The university research reactors are built, licensed and have operating staffs. The major capital and licensing costs have already been expended. The increased funding allows the existing university research reactors to establish current and sometimes state of the art experimental facilities to attract multi-disciplinary users.

University Research Reactors in the United States - their Role and Value, National Academy Press 1988.

Report to Congress on the Condition and Status of University Research and Training Reactors, Department of Energy, May 1994

Letter, URR Needs, Leo M. Bobek, Chair, TRTR URR Support Committee to Mr. John Pfeiffer, Budget Examiner, OMB, September 22, 1999

Directory of Operating Research, Training, and Test Reactors in the United States of America, Fourth Edition, DOE, 1997