Professor Chesshire explained that holding the Forum, which was a joint initiative by the HSE and DTI with assistance from BNIF, was prompted by the findings of the recent OECD report "Nuclear Education and Training: Cause for Concern?" and the subsequent NII report "Education and Research in British Universities". In the universities it was a case of ageing academics, ageing facilities and no undergraduate courses with any significant nuclear content. In industry there was currently good in-house training but the age profile of trainers gave cause for concern for the future. The absence of new nuclear build and the shift in focus to decommissioning and clean up did little to militate against the already poor perception that many students had of the industry. Against this background, the purpose of the Forum was to identify pinch points in the supply of appropriately trained personnel to the industry and the remedial action needed to ease them.
Ms Leiser quoted from the OECD/NEA report, the follow up work done by HSE, and the BNIF Foresight report as the background
to the need to hold the meeting. She welcomed the wide participation, and proposed that discussion should focus clearly
on defining the problems to be resolved, and identifying options for fuller consideration. A Steering Group - involving
Government, industry and others with a part to play - could then be created quickly to develop an action plan to be
brought back to all participants by the end of the year.
Ms Leiser described how the Government saw its role in relation to the four areas defined for governments in the NEA report, namely: managing the nuclear enterprise; preserving medium and long-term energy options; sustaining international safety influence; and research into new technologies.
On the first of these, the Government was concerned to ensure safe management of nuclear power plant throughout its life; safe, cost-effective discharge of civil and defence liabilities - up to £85bn in the public sector; RN nuclear-powered fleet operations; and availability of health physics expertise for the NHS, and radiation protection advice more generally.
On long-term energy options, the UK was a participant in discussions on the EU Commission Security of Supply Green Paper; and in international research collaborations. The broad aim in each case was to keep options open world-wide to ensure secure and sustainable energy supplies, taking account of threatened climate change. Finally, she stressed the UK's crucial role (alongside the US and others) in international safety and security programmes to deal with the massive nuclear legacies from the Former Soviet Union; while ensuring effective non-proliferation controls for future new build programmes (likely to be mainly in non-OECD countries).
Turning to Government's general role as provider and enabler of education and skills development, Ms Leiser referred to opportunities set out in recent White Papers. The Government was committing considerable resource to R&D and its application, including through the Science and Innovation White Paper, and Science Year 2001/2002. The education and skills White Paper 'Opportunity for All in a World of Change' contained many proposals for new funding, networks, and centres of excellence - based to a large extent on industry/education collaboration. The various new White Paper initiatives sat alongside continuing support by DTI wearing its "competitiveness" hat, including through the Foresight programme, sector competitiveness analyses, etc. These initiatives demonstrated the need both for effective cross-government collaboration - particularly between DTI and DFEE - and for the nuclear industry to define its needs as fully as practicable and take the initiative in seeking effective collaboration.
The industry clearly had an image problem. It needed to improve communications with the public and schools; maximise the potential of the Internet; be more forward-looking and less defensive.
ETA had a NTO role offering NVQ level 2 for decommissioning contractors. The DfEE should conduct a labour market study to determine the case for expanding the scope of the NTO. Cross-industry collaboration was to be encouraged.
Encourage young people to join the industry. Encourage the industry to identify its needs
Mr Williams outlined the changes that had occurred both in the industry and the university sector over the years. The
industry had gone from being a national priority to having to survive in a deregulated energy sector. Universities were
increasingly run as businesses and with no room for under-subscribed courses there had been a decline in nuclear teaching
capability. The nuclear industry, though, would be around for many years, irrespective of any possible new build: existing
stations would operate for another thirty years or so; reprocessing would continue for the foreseeable future; the current
generation of nuclear submarines would be operational for several decades to come; decommissioning AGR and Magnox would
last until the second half of the century; and waste management would be around at least until towards the end of the
century. All needed to be managed safely, demanding high quality, technically competent personnel with nuclear specific
skills to staff the Licensees organisations, the Support companies and the Regulatory body. In addition, radiation protection
specialists would be required to cover the extensive range of endeavour.
Mr Williams said that regarding duties and responsibilities, it was the NII's responsibility to ensure that acceptable standards of nuclear safety were maintained. If the Regulator had identified a technical concern that would have nuclear safety repercussions in the future, it would have a duty to bring it to the attention of the industry. The current decline in nuclear education was a serious concern and as such was being treated by the NII in a similar way to technical issues. The UK was a signatory to the International Convention on Nuclear Safety and therefore had a responsibility to ensure that adequate technical resources would be available for the safe operation of nuclear installations. The precise details of staffing numbers were for the industry and the regulator to determine. However, licence conditions required that certain operations on licensed sites be carried out by Suitably Qualified and Experienced People (SQEPs) and hence that the licensee ensured staff were adequately trained.
The NII Survey of UK Nuclear Education had identified a decline in university provision and funding, with the main problem being at the undergraduate level. It was important that universities provided well-qualified graduates and that industry provided in-house training. Industry needed to be cogniscent of graduates' aspirations and respond through greater challenges. Recent developments at university level included the preservation of the Physics and Technology of Nuclear Reactors course at Birmingham University and BNFL support for Manchester University in the area of radiochemistry.
Problems were not just limited to the UK. An OECD Group was assessing nuclear safety competences and in the USA a Bill addressing the issue had been proposed to Congress. In Sweden an industry-university collaboration had been particularly successful in ensuring a supply of high quality, nuclear specific, technical personnel to the industry. Mr Williams concluded that a UK nuclear education strategy needed to be developed, with ownership by government and industry, and that the nuclear sector as a whole needed to make itself more attractive to young people.
Agreed with the analysis. The Centre of Excellence in radiochemistry at the University had stimulated a lot of undergraduate interest and with 93 undergraduates he was now teaching more radiochemistry at this level than ever before. BNFL funding of some £1.5M had acted as a catalyst and the EPSRC were funding some studentships. However, the EPSRC seemed unaware that this was a priority area and their funding was needed for the continued success of the centre.
There was a thriving interest in environmental studies. Had student bodies or the NUS been approached to promote this aspect?
There would be a shortage in engineering disciplines in the next 10 years. There was a need to focus resources and consider rewards for students in these disciplines. Recruitment and image were the problem, not courses.
There was a decline in both competence and in numbers. The EPSRC had supported radiation protection at both Surrey and Liverpool but more financial support was needed from industry.
There seemed to be a reluctance on the part of graduates to commit themselves to a career in the industry. Industry
should consider recruiting graduates and offer support for further study eg MSc.
Response (Williams):
Few courses had a nuclear safety content. Perhaps a role for the HSE/NII would be to provide input.
Response (Leiser):
There needed to be a balance between highly specialised courses and more basic ones. Generic skills were needed
so that there was a high degree of adaptability. The suggestion of approaching student bodies and others would be taken
forward.
Professor Clarke explained that the objective of the NRPB was to provide a national resource of professionals trained in radiological protection. To this end, the NRPB offered both professional and occupational level training, including continuous professional development. The decline in demand for NRPB courses had been arrested by introducing a modular approach. Courses were now oversubscribed. Providing information to members of the public was an important aspect of the NRPB's role. There was a range of at-a-glance leaflets, a telephone "hot line" and a website. The latter had been particularly successful with some 70,000 information downloads per month.
The NRPB sponsored a lectureship at the University of Surrey and staff delivered lectures on university courses. Generally, the NRPB did not have any trouble recruiting staff. It took on about 20 new staff each year, from across a wide range of scientific disciplines, of whom some 2 or 3 already had some radiation protection training. However, difficulties were encountered in the areas of information technology and medical statistics. Professor Clarke stated that whilst staff were lost to other employers, such as the HSE, the nuclear industry and the Department of Health, he considered that to be part of the role of the NRPB.
Were there enough competent people to meet the Ionising Radiation Regulations? HSE was researching this issue in co-operation with universities and any views from delegates were welcome.
How long were the courses and what qualifications were gained?
Answer:
The courses typically lasted about 4 or 5 days but the duration and content were geared to meet industry's
needs. The courses were examined and validated with a Certificate of Competence being issued.
Were there any engineers in the NRPB?
Answer:
Yes, there were some but there was no need for a great number. Recent recruitment figures reflected the growing
interest in other radiation issues.
Dr Squire outlined the methodology of the OECD survey and explained that there had been a less than complete response to it by virtue of both the time of the year it was issued, at the start of the summer holiday period, and the complex nature of the questionnaire. Nevertheless, the survey had revealed some worrying trends. A picture of declining numbers of students, closure, merger or dilution of courses, ageing facilities and ageing faculty members had emerged, to which the UK was no exception. The HSE/NII work had continued where the OECD report had left off and gave a detailed picture of the current status of nuclear education in the UK. In essence there were now only 32 nuclear modules on offer at the undergraduate level, half of which were optional and most of which were of only of a few hours duration. Whilst the position at the Masters level was more encouraging, some courses were under threat due to changes in funding arrangements. Already one course had been rescued through a partnership of the university, the Regulator and the industry. In spite of this gloomy picture there were some encouraging developments. The formation of research centres, such as the radiochemistry centre at the University of Manchester, offered the potential to exploit the synergy between research and teaching and stimulate the latter. One university was introducing a new Masters course with a significant nuclear content later in the year, another was contemplating a first degree course with a substantial nuclear content and the MoD courses at HMS Sultan were now available to the non-military.
Mr Haddon explained that the BNIF was the trade association of the nuclear energy sector and that there were some 70
member companies. These had recently been surveyed by questionnaire with a view to examining the nuclear sector supply
chains. Filling specialist jobs, especially in the area of radiation protection, the broadening of jobs generally and
the need for nuclear experienced people were all issues that emerged. The recruitment of nuclear specialists was achieved
by a mixture of experienced people and graduates and non-nuclear specialists who were trained in-house. However, both
strategies were under stress because of the diminishing pool of expertise. Once recruited, retaining people was not
a problem. However, because of the age profile of the industry, retaining experience in a diminishing pool as people
took retirement was. In order to be able to attract high calibre recruits, there was a need for Government and society
to respond and make science and engineering more attractive as a career option and to encourage more students to take
hard science subjects. Government, industry and universities needed to work together to produce the scientists and engineers
that the nuclear industry needs.
Mr Booth noted that with many people now retiring from the industry there was a need to recruit young people. But how
did they see their future in an industry that was contracting and consolidating and where the emphasis was on operating
existing plant and decommissioning it as it reached the end of its life, rather than on new build? A questionnaire,
which elicited a 76% response, sent to members of the Young Generation, gave some indications. Young people were attracted
by the starting salary, the intellectual challenge and the perception that the industry was inherently worthwhile. Many
of those joining the industry had prior knowledge of it through family connections or work placements. On the down side,
young people were concerned about the poor image of the industry, the lack of government backing, the absence of a long
term energy policy and the long term problems the industry faced, such as waste storage. Overall there was a positive
response regarding the future of the industry. A belief prevailed that there would be new reactor build and there was
a general perception that there was a future in decommissioning and waste management. Career opportunities and career
progression were felt to be good. However, respondents noted that the industry was competing with more attractive and
rewarding fields of endeavour, such as the IT industry. Closer links between the industry and universities and schools
were felt to be helpful in terms of image and recruitment.
Mrs Morrey observed that over the last five years the number of physics, chemistry and engineering graduates had declined.
Over the same period the percentage of women graduating in these fields had barely moved. There was a need to increase
the supply and this was being stimulated by a number of initiatives. The Higher Education Innovation Fund (which included
the hitherto HEROBC fund - Higher Education Reach Out to the Business Community) worth £140M over 3 years and available
from April 2001, was designed to encourage universities to work with industry. The academic year 2000/2001 had been
designated Science Year and companies and institutions were encouraged to involve schools, colleges and the general
public in science. Graduate Apprenticeships were improving the Higher Education responsiveness to the labour market
and Foundation Degrees were targeting higher-level skill shortages. However, Mrs Morrey emphasised, it was not the role
of Government to dictate what courses higher education institutions should run, the DfEE would always be impartial.
Mrs Morrey went on to explain the role of NTO's (National Training Organisations). These were designed to link employers
and education and training systems. They were a way of identifying current and future skills needs in a particular sector
and then promoting action. The ETA (the Electricity Training Association) was quoted as running courses in electricity
generation and decommissioning. Instead of establishing a nuclear NTO it might be better to use an existing NTO. However,
a consultation exercise was currently underway on the future and nature of NTOs.
What was the distribution of nuclear industry research contracts? How much did companies spend?
Answer (Squire):
The distribution of research contracts was given by university and department in the HSE/NII report, which
could be accessed on the HSE website. The expenditure was confidential information and was not disclosed.
The role of the INucE was to develop professional standards and provide careers information. However, there was no industry wide information on careers and it would be worthwhile for the industry to collaborate to provide some.
There had been no government policy on high level waste since the 1980s. Nirex had been dramatically reduced and consultation
was still awaited. In this context should we be concerned and should we support skills for the long-term need in this
area? The nuclear industry was driven by science and engineering, yet the public concern was with environmental issues.
The industry should consider the role that other sciences could play.
There seemed to be a survey overload. The focus was on graduate and undergraduate recruitment with little mention of continuous professional development. Industry needed to understand what NTOs could offer.
Recruitment was linked to the progressive requirements of the UKAEA. This meant that graduate recruits had real jobs to do and there was a framework for career and professional development. UKAEA's recent recruitment experience was that in 1999 there had been 300 applications of whom 25 had been recruited; in 2000 there had been 400 applications with 17 recruited; and in 2001, so far 111 applications had been received and the intention was to recruit 12 engineer graduates. The Graduate Development Scheme lasted for about four years and included performance appraisals, career development discussions and the opportunity to take post graduate courses. For engineers there was every encouragement to achieve Chartered status. The Scheme included a "nuclearisation" course as well as courses on safety and management aspects. HMS Sultan and The University of the Highlands and Islands were used to deliver some of these courses. UKAEA placed a strong emphasis on mentoring and care was taken to ensure that recruits were not left in the doldrums regarding their careers. As far as possible, posts and people were matched and continuous professional development helped meet the changing skill requirements. Within UKAEA, skills needs changed as projects developed and it was important that this was recognised and incorporated into resource planning. The modular approach to training addressed this well. Dounreay was a remote locality and perhaps because of this morale was not as high as it might be. It was recognised that a lot of students had an interest in environmental issues and good quality graduates were encouraged to join through that route.
Dr Clegg explained that BNFL had identified the skills issue prior to the OECD survey and had taken anticipatory, remedial action with the result that a number of mechanisms were in place to secure the necessary specialists that the company needed. Amongst these were the BNFL Research Fellows Scheme and the establishment of Centres of Excellence. The former had been introduced in 2000 to recruit experienced researchers, typically at the post-doctoral level or with extensive industrial R&D experience. So far there had been 60 applicants with three appointed. The Centres of Excellence had been established as a means of better managing the research portfolio by concentrating all the contracts in a specific technical area at a specific university. The Radiochemistry Centre of Excellence at Manchester University was the first to be established in 1999, followed by the Particle Science and Technology Alliance at Leeds University in 2000. An Immobilisation Centre of Excellence would be announced shortly. The concept of the centres was for them to become world class in their field and to generate a secure skill and knowledge base in the field that was of value to BNFL. At Manchester University, the BNFL commitment was £2-3M of new money over 5 years. The University was able to gear this investment by up to 400%. Researchers had access to BNFL's R&D facilities, in which £250M had recently been invested and BNFL supported new academic posts, including a new Professor of Radiochemistry. Dr Clegg noted that in all these endeavours there had been a singular lack of support from the Science Research Councils. Having recruited the specialists it needed the company then had to retain them. This was being achieved by formal succession and development planning of these roles with clear career paths and structures supported by an appropriate reward strategy.
Dr Thomson said that in the absence of any new build, recruitment was limited to staff replacement. Currently, BE took on about 25 graduates a year. A review of 400 BE graduates showed that only some 5% had a degree that mentioned nuclear. For BE nuclear specific disciplines were Health Physics, criticality/reactor kinetics, aspects of fracture mechanics and radiochemistry. The best way of meeting the company requirements in these areas was to recruit science graduates and give them additional training. Including nuclear modules in undergraduate courses was not thought to be advantageous; there were other competing requirements for teaching time, especially for accredited degrees such as engineering. With a low recruitment rate in the industry, many of those students that did pursue these modules would be lost to other industries anyway. The principal requirement was for good engineers and scientists. Ensuring the supply of these should be the main concern of Government. Making hard science interesting in schools would help here. The company was already experiencing difficulty in recruiting quality graduates in certain fields. BE felt that specific concerns about nuclear training were misplaced. At the post-graduate level, BE had no formal requirements, and would continue to recruit from the range of science and engineering disciplines. Research was commissioned from appropriate institutions, including universities, as required.
The basic feedstock in science was going into computer science and away from engineering and science.
Response (Chairman):
The Government should focus on the flow of engineers and scientists and industry should train them in the specifics.
Undergraduate courses were very crowded. In the longer term environmental engineering may be attractive.
The basket of engineers was getting smaller and smaller and the nuclear industry was competing with other industries. Higher salaries and incentives would help.
Whilst the area of radiological protection looked quite promising, the outlook for nuclear engineering was bleak. The priority should be to focus on the provision of nuclear training courses eg the modules on Manchester courses. Generators and HSE were unlikely to provide training. DTI therefore had an important role in ensuring that courses were established and more importantly, in co-ordinating requirements.
Careers were only selected at the end of courses. Providing careers advice, especially to schools, would be helpful.
DfEE was failing to get industry education links into the curriculum.
Response, Dr Jim Thomson:
There had been some success with "A Year in Industry".
Nuclear expertise was needed, in the form of a supply of suitably qualified and experienced personnel, to support the Royal Navy's 4 nuclear powered Trident submarines and its 12 nuclear powered fleet submarines. Whilst the Navy employed an Independent Nuclear Safety Assessor to maintain the same standards as the NII required for civilian nuclear power stations, the MoD was tasked to ensure that an effective accident response organisation existed. As well as Royal Navy personnel, civilian contractors and consultants were involved in a range of activities from reactor design and testing through to submarine refitting. Training was undertaken in the Nuclear Department of HMS Sultan, which offered fifty-two different courses. These were of various duration and covered all levels up to post-graduate, some being validated by the University of Surrey. Over the last four years the academic output had been 63 papers, 24 technical memoranda and consultancy papers, 4 PhDs were in progress with another four due to start and two MScs were in progress. The student population was approximately two thirds Navy and one third civilian.
then spoke about Training and Recruitment in MoD Health Physics. This was recognised as a separate discipline, with unique requirements, which served a mixed civilian/service economy. The training objectives were to ensure a good understanding of the theoretical basis for radiation protection, a working knowledge of UK legislation and an appreciation of common practices for the control of radiation exposure under normal and accident conditions. To these was added the specific knowledge of radiation protection as practised in respect of the Navy nuclear plants. A flexible approach to recruitment was taken, with training targeted to the needs of the individual, whether they were "professional" health physicists or not, but, in any event, designed to ensure the maintenance of high standards.
Dr Weaver referred to the OECD/NEA and HSE/NII reports to chart the decline of nuclear education and to emphasise the present position. In this respect the Physics and Technology of Nuclear Reactors, run by the University of Birmingham, was the only remaining masters level course specifically orientated at training people for the nuclear industry. More broadly based radiation related courses existed elsewhere, such as the University of Surrey and the University of Liverpool. Although companies provided training and made use of newer aids such as computer based learning, Dr Weaver supported the view articulated in the OECD report that it was focused on individual company needs and much was in response to regulatory requirements. In spite of good liaison between universities and the industry critical situations could occur. One example was the establishment of the radiochemistry centre at Manchester University to preserve core competence in that topic. As a result of the changes in the way the EPSRC funded MSc courses the future of the PTNR MSc had been threatened. A way forward had been found by a "Partnering Agreement" between 8 organisations including the university and the Regulator. This provided a strong direct link between the UK nuclear industry and the teaching provided. However, if industry support did not continue or sufficient use was not made of the course then it would close. The sister course in Applied Radiation Physics would close shortly and would not be replaced. Instead, waste management and decommissioning options would be added to the PTNR course and if these were successful they might be expanded to a MSc.
spoke of the modular MSc in Safety Engineering that was soon to be introduced by Lancaster University. Safety as a broad subject area was dependent upon a supply of good quality engineers. Yet the number of students of engineering at university had declined over the years and quality was compromised by reduced entry requirements such as not requiring A level maths. On graduation many decided that careers in other sectors such as law or finance offered better opportunities - particularly as many had significant debts to repay. Yet there was demand in the area of safety. There was a technological need as whole systems with embedded intelligence were increasingly being used and a sociological need as companies sought to deliver best practice and respond to increasing public and media awareness. The MSc at Lancaster would consist of four generic modules, two industry specific ones and a major individual project. The target industries were nuclear, rail and aerospace. The course would be run initially as part time and industry based with students needing to spend less than four weeks away from work. The possibilities of remote delivery, short courses and distance learning were being considered. Although Research Council support had yet to be forthcoming, there had been substantial interest from industry.
Over the last 5 years nuclear electricity production had remained fairly constant in Sweden, although this would show a decline in future, especially with the closure of one of the Barseback reactors. Sweden's energy policy, through fiscal measures, did not favour nuclear generation. A negative image of the industry prevailed both in the political arena and the media, which militated against recruitment. In the universities there were no longer any nuclear programmes at the undergraduate level. Modules in nuclear disciplines were optional during the last two years; courses with few students were expensive to run and faced closure. Against this background a Centre for Nuclear Technology had been established with support from the industry and the Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate. The purpose of the centre was to support undergraduate education, to support graduate students in their thesis work at Swedish universities and to recruit MSc students from universities into the workplace. The budget was sufficient to support 10 projects and cover administration and marketing. A new agreement with universities would be negotiated in 2001 to cover the role of the Centre, particularly in respect of joint support (the industry, universities and the Regulator) for research in key areas. A future objective was the establishment of a national graduate school in nuclear science and engineering.
It was unfortunate that NIREX and NGO's were not invited to the event (NB Nirex were not originally invited but were represented). The industry needed to listen more and be less inward looking. Government needed to ask people who did not enter the industry why they did not; and also to involve the environmental community in their thinking. The concept of new nuclear build was simply "toys for the boys"; the future of the industry lay in decommissioning, clean up and long term care and maintenance. Some of the views of the Young Generation concerning the belief in nuclear for its non safe were disturbing.
There was a need to attract people into the industry and to train them for the requirements of the industry. Government support for the industry was helpful but government had to address the general supply of technical graduates, as there was a danger of a shortfall.
It should be recognised that nuclear is a declining industry with changing competency requirements. The focus had to be on waste management and decommissioning. The industry needed to take a strategic view so that it could address its needs - amongst which would be good science and engineering graduates. It also needed to present itself as an attractive career option.
There was no generic answer - there would be different answers for different sectors of the industry. In respect of
Centres of Excellence, these may preserve assets but they would not result in a general increase in supply. If driven
to this model, there should be a requirement to disseminate information.
Response, (Chairman):
Centres of Excellence were a good way of preserving competencies but academic competition should not be lost.
The EPSRC had good contacts with academics. Industry sectors should be clearer on their views and objectives and a debate was needed with the nuclear sector to see what the priorities were. The EPSRC had funded radiometrics courses and would support MSc courses under the new arrangement of 5 years funding. However, the EPSRC had to know user needs if it was to pursue these with the DfEE; proposals had to be based on substantiated arguments.
Student debt was a problem and the industry needed to establish attractive packages - offering money up front if necessary, as was the case with science teachers.
It was not the intention that the Radiochemistry Centre became a black hole for radiochemistry. The objective was the development of a network. The university sector is now operating in a competitive environment, achievements will be judged against performance criteria.
Interactions between academics and industry were important. So far, the point had not been made that universities could act as independent centres of expertise that regulatory bodies could turn to. It would be unsatisfactory if the trend were for all the expertise to reside in licensee's organisations for education and training.
Imperial College ran a MSc course and provided facilities. Small environmental consultancies wanted people already trained, in contrast to the nuclear industry, which wanted to do education and training itself. As regards the radiochemistry debate, needs were being identified through the Royal Society of Chemistry.
The meeting had exceeded expectations and there was a remarkable degree of common understanding. Nevertheless there were some issues to be addressed. The industry seemed to be giving out the message that they could do all their own training in-house. If this were the case then the university capability would disappear and with it the ability to train the next generation of trainers who would replace those about to retire. Some of the presentations gave an insight into the harsh realities of economics. British Energy was closing its visitor's centres. There was pressure to reduce the training capability as evidenced by British Energy's announcement to close the Sizewell B simulator to universities. There was a need to explore further the areas of waste management and decommissioning. Here we were talking about the fundamentals of science and engineering with nuclear applications. Environmental expertise would also be important.
Very encouraged by what had been said and optimistic about the future. There was a need for radiological competence, particularly to handle decommissioning. The only concern from the NRPB's point of view was the need maintain its own resource. But perhaps part of the NRPB's role was to be that of trainer. There were a lot of exciting challenges ahead, in the medical field in particular, and there were opportunities for universities to get involved with research.
More optimistic following this event - given level of interest, evidence of thinking being done and some new initiatives. Hope event will lead to further constructive networking. Different issues for different sectors. For decommissioning and waste management, substantial scale of future programme was clear - challenge was to define the skills needed, and plan realistically in light of uncertainties. Indications of a problem emerging in the generating sector, in the need to retain expensive skills, with operations and revenue declining and more challenging market conditions. Regarding education, a key issue was whether there was in fact a need to promote revival of specialist nuclear undergraduate courses; the general consensus seemed to be that the primary need was to increase the pool of good engineering and physics graduates, who might specialise subsequently and as needs became better defined. Emphasised that Government would not act unilaterally to increase graduate numbers: there needed to be confidence that student demand existed; this would in turn depend on generating interest in schools. Some pump priming by government in these areas might be possible. Targeted help to address the perceived deterrent effect of student debt might also be a possibility. Meanwhile the industry needed to think about how to increase its attractiveness to new recruits, in competition with opportunities in information technology and other new sectors. This included the need to improve the "image", and be more outward-looking. The DTI would talk to NUS, NGOs and others about their perceptions of the industry. Other issues which had emerged as meriting fuller consideration included a possible industry-specific NTO; and development of competency frameworks for the industry and/or particular sectors.
Contributions made at the event had been extremely helpful. It appeared that education and skills concerns could be managed and that solutions were available. However, threads needed to be drawn together. Resources were clearly patchy and this raised the question of whether the existing balance was correct. Undergraduate courses were closing; networking by industry and others within the UK and beyond was probably necessary. The Chief Executives of BE and UKAEA had supported the establishment of a Governmental Steering Group to consider the issues raised and then take them forward. This group would probably comprise HSE, DTI, DfEE, DoH, MoD and DETR. The Group would need to produce an action plan to take work forward drawing on the input of specific working groups as necessary. Industry perspectives were essential to this work.
Any further views or comments would be welcome in writing, or by e-mail, up to 7 March. These would be included, in summary form, in the record of the meeting, which would be circulated towards the end of March or the beginning of April. It was hoped that the final report of the Steering Group, giving its conclusions for action in the areas of education, training and skills, would be issued to all delegates by around the turn of the year.
A combination of initiatives were needed to ensure a satisfactory position in the future and it was the nuclear industry which should take ownership of the necessary actions. The privatised part of the industry should not be allowed to disown longer term strategic measures in favour of short term business considerations. There was a need for the industry to recruit and retain good engineering graduates. The industry was in decline and it needed to provide attractive career prospects as it moved progressively from an operational business to one of waste management and decommissioning. The arrangements described by Colin Bayliss of UKAEA were good examples in this respect. Partnering arrangements between industry and universities had been established for many years - CASE studentships being one example. Of the newer and more strategic initiatives, the type of arrangement involving BNFL and the Universities of Manchester and Leeds seemed to be good practice and should be encouraged.
RWMAC welcomed the initiative taken by the HSE and DTI in responding to the recent OECD report, which recommended that action should be taken to ensure a supply of suitably qualified graduates for the future safe operation of the industry. A number of speakers drew attention to the fact that decommissioning and waste management was bound to become increasingly important activities. This suggested that future nuclear education and training should reflect this evolution.
Whilst the numbers of students taking A level Maths and Physics were staying more or less static, more of these students were then going to University to read Computer Science, not Engineering or Physics. If this trend continued, not only would the nuclear industry face problems, but also the whole engineering industry. (Dr Smart provided considerable evidence in support of this thesis).
As the work of Nirex involved consideration of radioactive waste management options for the very long term, there was interest in the issue of sustaining and developing an appropriate skills base in the UK over extended time scales.
Science Year was targeted at 10 -19 year olds and the topic proposed was that of radiation associated with the mobile phone industry. Through CREATE - Cultivating Real Life Environmental Awareness Through Education - students would be able to engage in a lot of hands on activity as well as computer based work. On the nuclear side a single forum (website/database) was envisaged where young people could learn about and debate environmental awareness issues.
Decommissioning expertise should be available for the foreseeable future, in order to support the industrial training of "new-blood" attracted into the industry. To retain rector build expertise, government should fund a small scale design and build research into in new nuclear generation technology. Alternatively industry should ensure that new entrants gain experience through their multinational contacts or overseas partners. Industry support far academic research and teaching initiatives was to be applauded. However, unless it resulted in open collaboration it would be seen as a selfish decision to corner the specialist market rather than be part of a strategic approach that benefited the whole industry. The problems associated with student recruitment to the hard sciences was the biggest and most serious threat to future manning in any traditional industry, let alone the nuclear industry. As all industries were recruiting from a diminishing pool, better remuneration than that of vogue industries was the only solution. Nuclear specialisms should not be retained at the undergraduate level - specialisation could take place at the post graduate level. The last of young professors in academia could be addressed by practising professionally appointed as visiting academics.
Dr David Weaver, University of Birmingham
The OECD/NEA and HSE surveys were snapshots in time. The latter should continue to be updated since the situation
in universities and in companies could change rapidly. NAILS, under the auspices of the BNIF, might have a remit to
update the document. Potential recruits to the industry depended on the supply from schools through the universities
in the technical subjects required and the willingness of the universities to provide teaching that had relevance to
the needs of the industry. Regarding the supply from schools, the situation might be a lot worse than the figures quoted
by the DfEE at the Forum. Making use of the "short works course" concept might be beneficial. Selected groups
of sixth formers could be shown round various parts of the industry. It might be good to involve the Young Generation
Network in such an activity but it would need some corporate support from participating companies. There was also a
need to raise the profile of the industry in the relevant academic departments. For the Physics Profession this could
be proposed through the Institute of Physics' standing conference of Physics professors. Another route could be
through careers officers in the universities. To encourage undergraduate students to be interested in the industry,
a wider application of bursaries should be considered.
Dr Bayliss provided a copy of the UKAEA's graduate development programme, to which he had referred during his address.
Added to the HSE website 13 June 2001