Report of the 46th INMM Annual Meeting:
If Not INMM – Then, Who?

By Charles Pietri
Chair, INMM Technical Program Committee

That’s the question Charles Curtis, president of Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), posed to the participants of the 46th INMM Annual Meeting at the JW Marriott Desert Ridge Hotel and Resort in Phoenix, from July 10-14, 2005. Curtis, this year’s plenary speaker, had just challenged the INMM to consider a potential institutional model for promulgating best practices for nuclear materials security by building an operational capacity within INMM to provide such best practices support globally on a full-time basis! It was an astounding challenge to INMM and the meeting participants—and it caught most of us by surprise.

But, yes, what other organization except INMM—the world’s premier professional forum for the exchange of technical information, policy matters, and new ideas and initiatives in the international nuclear safeguards community—could be successful in such a venture! Plans are in the works by the Fellows Committee to address this challenge and provide the INMM Executive Committee with recommendations.

(And you all thought INMM was really challenged by the imaginary scorpion scare in Phoenix two years ago followed by the trauma in 2004 when 43 papers were cancelled a day before the meeting! We handled those superbly. Charlie Curtis and NTI have outdone those trials and I’m sure INMM will meet this test once again.)

At the conclusion of the Opening Plenary Session, a luncheon interview of Curtis, was conducted at the INMM Roundtable by our Journal’s Technical Editor Dennis Mangan. A lively discussion about several topics including INMM’s potential role in global best practices followed. A transcript of the Roundtable and Curtis’ speech are published in the fall issue of the Journal. (Download a PDF of the speech now. The speech will also be found in the Proceedings of the INMM 46th Annual Meeting.)

As a fitting finale to Curtis’ visit with INMM he was awarded an Honorary INMM Membership for his interest and work in the nuclear materials management and nonproliferation areas. He was especially pleased with this honor.

Moving on to meeting details, we note that there were no significant (or even noticeable) concerns at this meeting. (Remember the wholesale withdrawal last year of 43 papers due to one facility’s administrative issues and, a few years earlier, the last minute withdrawal of papers from some of our overseas colleagues for similar reasons?)

We hear that the 46th Annual Meeting was a success to add to our list of successes. Some innovations this year such as greater student participation in terms of attendance and presentation of papers and the widespread and nearly flawless use of PowerPoint LCD projection for presentations – more about these events later. We even recruited the Marriott’s conference manager Edith Ambrester to display our new INMM podium banners – did you notice them?

And how would we ever survive much less thrive without Glenda Ackerman and her well-tuned Registration Committee.

The INMM headquarters staff consisted of Leah McCrackin, our executive director, now a veteran with two annual meetings to her credit; Lyn Maddox, our meetings and exhibition manager (a.k.a. Ms. Fixit, who works her magic with the hotel staff and facilities to keep us happy); Madhuri Carson, our cool conference administrator who always knows what’s going on; Patricia Sullivan, the Journal managing editor, helping to keep order and sanity in preparing for the meeting; and our new administrator Kesha Bunting (a novice when the meeting began but an expert in her area after a few days)—worked diligently (many times behind the scene) to keep the program rolling and helped to correct the few issues that arose. (We won’t tell you about those!)

There were 816 total attendees including 102 companions; 287 papers presented including 20 posters (a total of 33 abstracts were submitted with 50 withdrawals or a net 287 papers available for presentations), and 41 sessions. (For comparison, in 2004 we had 848 total attendees including eighty-four companions, 289 papers including 13 posters, and 49 sessions.)

Sunday afternoon is the long-established time for the six INMM Technical Divisions to meet and discuss issues and topics of importance with colleagues that are not ordinarily able to meet in such a forum – another advantage of the INMM Annual Meeting where the most knowledgeable professionals in the nuclear materials management community are assembled. All meetings were well-attended and, from what I hear, much useful work accomplished.

The exhibitors at our meeting deserve a lot of recognition for the way they spend a few days of their lives setting up displays and meeting with interested individuals who gain some insight into the practical applications and the innovative technology available for use. We try to plan events, such as the President’s Reception and coffee breaks, in locations that give visibility to the exhibits and an opportunity for the meeting attendees to meet with these exhibitors. This year there was plenty of space for the exhibits and for the attendees to easily roam the various booths.

INMM Annual Meetings are outstanding opportunities to meet colleagues and friends in the nuclear materials management community. The President’s Reception on Sunday, July 10, provided such an occasion in an informal manner. And, despite what a few folks said, almost unlimited food and beverages were available.

The Awards Banquet took place on July 12, the food was better than most institutional dinners and the awards were worth mentioning. Ronald C. Cherry received the Distinguished Service Award. Furthermore, for her long and dedicated service to INMM (and for her influence on keeping her husband, Ed, focused on success), Jerry Johnson was awarded the Special Service Award. (Jerry, as humble as she could be, accepted the award in bare feet!)

But however enjoyable the banquet was for many it is always sad to hear of the passing of some of our colleagues. Resolutions of Respect for six of our deceased members were read: Carl G. Ahlberg, James Russell Griggs, Lewis Hansen, Edward Kerr, James W. Lee and Lewis Calvin (Cal) Solem.

For the third year, and in continued response to our speakers’ comments, Paul Ebel conducted a Speakers and Session Chairs Tutorial following the Speakers Breakfast each day. Participant ratings for this event continued to be in the “good-excellent” range. (Ebel wished that a few of the speakers this year had heard or adhered to his suggestions on how to keep their presentation to within twenty minutes.) The topic this year was "Encouraging Questions"—bringing his pointed instructions to the audience adequately laced with his usual humorous delivery. Wait until next year – I think he is planning a short review of the previous sessions with some exciting new material. (The pony grows older each year!)

After several years of informally using LCD PowerPoint© projection systems for speaker presentations, INMM formally endorsed and managed their use at this Annual Meeting. I felt comfortable that Ebel, in his other role as LCD projection coordinator, could successfully manage the solicitation of equipment, arrange for their setup, oversee the loading of presentations on each computer by session and monitor the process throughout the meeting.

Needless to say the entire process was nearly flawless – the very few instances of concern were immediately remedied by a cadre of projection managers and others assigned to each session. INMM, and Ebel especially, express their gratitude to the Technical Division chairs and their colleagues for taking on the projection task and making it work successfully. They found projection managers, hustled to find projectors, ensured the presentations were loaded on the computers by session on time, and generally provided oversight of the technical sessions. 

The projection managers who volunteered (a few under duress!) deserve recognition for their contribution. The speakers did a fine job in cooperating to get their presentations loaded and ready for use. We all felt that the LCD projection process at the INMM Annual Meeting went far smoother than we could ever have imagined.

The Report Card for the INMM 46th Annual Meeting this year was similar to the ratings received in previous years with some notable exceptions that were mostly very positive. We value our participants’ comments and try to address all the concerns and issues that arise at the Annual Meeting. That’s why, when INMM is in a position to control the meeting process, our meetings steadily improve year by year; unfortunately, sometimes what we should or need to do to make the meeting more effective and enjoyable is not always within our ability.

We even listen to the more trivial comments – it pleases us at times that folks don’t find more serious matters to bring forth. We must be doing some things right. These days the comments have much more substance than five years ago when some of the responses focused on “not having food at the coffee breaks.” (However, we did have some delightful coffee breaks this year though the efforts of our sponsors.)

Now for the ratings. We don’t get a very large response either through the electronic survey or verbally at the meeting – this year it was 25 percent (versus 31 percent last year) and 28 percent in 2003 but only 5 percent before we started the electronic evaluation system.

This year the Overall Annual Meeting process was rated similar to last year’s — mostly as good-excellent with excellent commendations for the Online Abstract and Final Paper Submission process, Preliminary and Final Programs, the Online Program, the Pocket Schedule-at-a-Glance (highest rating!), the Registration Process, Audiovisuals (LCD Projection), Technical Program Committee and our hard working and highly effective INMM HQ Staff.

The Opening Plenary session was highly commended; however, although we did get some good comments on the Closing Plenary session we received a generally mixed review. Before we make any harsh criticisms, it must be appreciated that soliciting plenary speakers appropriate for the varied INMM audience is a most arduous task for us. INMM asks your assistance in identifying specific speakers and topics you would like to propose.

Merely suggesting names and themes is not helpful; you must be in a position to make meaningful contact with potential speakers on behalf of INMM. Please let us hear from you. The Technical Information Exchange, Logistics and Exhibits areas were also rated highly good-excellent (mostly good). The Hotel and Facilities were rated the highest of all the meeting elements (66-75 percent rated them excellent.)

Once again, regardless of any other factors, greater than 95 percent of the respondents indicated that the INMM Annual Meeting met their needs and expectations!

INMM continues to receive good meeting evaluations from those attendees who took the time to respond. Ordinarily, we would summarize these responses here but the evaluations were in excess of 300 individual comments. We plan to address all of these comments during the coming season but take the opportunity at this time to provide some selected responses that appear to be representative:

• Loved the idea of the Speakers’ Breakfast.

• Some speaker’s presentation materials were not prepared in accordance with the Speakers Manual; some speakers did not follow the rule to make their presentation in 20 minutes.

• Some session chairs did not repeat the question from floor so that the question could be understood.

• Some speakers still are just reading their material, do not speak to audience and spoke too fast not realizing that English is not the native language of many of the participants from other countries.

• Everything went very well. Keep up the good work each year.

• Since my main interest is waste management, I was surprised and disappointed about the low number of waste disposition attendees/papers. So, I intend to work with Ed Johnson to stimulate more interest from this portion of the waste management community.

• This was among the best organized professional meetings, with the strongest content, I've attended.

• In the pocket schedule-at-a-glance please add the name of the day on each page (corner); it could be even better if it were tabbed, morning and afternoon sessions, for each day.

• Good — the hotel is excellent but the climate is horrific. No more meetings where the temperature is above 100 degrees Fahrenheit!

• Wonderful meeting! Great range of topics and information (technical, political, etc.) Great resort selection!

• This was absolutely the best conference I have ever been to. Thank you for your efforts to get students involved. My only critical comment would be regarding food. College students on a $40 a day per-diem could not really afford the expensive meals at the hotel ($6 for a glass of juice). The first day the hotel offered a $17 all-you-can-eat lunch buffet but they stopped it because of a lack of interest.

• The student mentoring program at the Annual Meeting was absolutely fantastic, however organizing it entirely at the Student Orientation Meeting should be re-thought.

• LCD PowerPoint projection: It is an important and welcomed improvement; we have to thank the projection managers who were very helpful and dedicated. However, presenters need to be coached on "slide" preparation. Too many slides were so crowded with words that only the presenter could read them!

• It would be nice to have a greater selection of room sizes for presentations. The very large rooms overwhelmed many less well-attended sessions. Some session rooms were too small for the number of persons wishing to attend while at the same time larger rooms were not well occupied.

• Meeting during July in places that are the hottest in the country does allow for great rates on hotels but it does not allow the attendees many options for things to do when there are no sessions of interest.

• My only real complaint would be directed to the session chairs. The majority I saw lacked many fundamental social graces.

• A lot of papers were withdrawn. Disappointed.

Among the “problems” INMM had this year were paper withdrawals, speaker changes, and final paper submittals. I won’t belabor the continuing issue of withdrawal of papers and changes in speakers this year only to say that we still have that problem and it is disturbing not only to the Technical Program Committee who worked so diligently to put together a superb program but especially to our attendees.

It’s only your cooperation in making such changes early enough, at least one month before the Annual Meeting, that will solve the problem. Another sore spot is the submittal of final papers—INMM policy is that authors submit these papers four weeks before the Annual Meeting so that HQ staff can prepare for their prompt publication in the Proceedings of the Annual Meeting. INMM recognizes there are a few (but very few!) legitimate reasons for authors not submitting their papers on time.

The infamous Delinquent Final Papers Blacklist, although disturbing to the offenders, seems to be at least one way to attract attention to this serious matter. INMM looks forward with joy to the day when we can abandon that practice. Again, these negligent authors will now have to be judged for their participation as speakers in future INMM Annual Meetings. INMM continues to recognize all of you who cooperated so well to make the meeting a success and provide a history of the event through the Proceedings.

One of the highlights this year was abundant membership and student activities. The annual New Member/Senior Member Reception on Monday evening was hosted by the Membership Committee Chair Scott Vance and the Executive Committee. Once again the reception was very well attended with about 100 people present.

Approximately half of these attendees were either members who joined within the previous year or newly elected senior members of the Institute. In addition, several of the attendees were student members, a group that was heavily represented at this year's meeting.

In addition to the opportunity for the executive officers and other leaders within the Institute to meet the new members and congratulate the new senior members, the reception served as an opportunity for INMM President Cathy Key to welcome these new members into the Institute, with some sage counsel from Student Activities Chair Mark Leek, to the new student members and a few words of wisdom from long-time active INMM member Dennis Mangan.

Leek and the Student Activities Committee sponsored three activities, two of which were new this year.  The traditional student orientation featured presentations by each of the Technical Division chairs, who provided substantive overviews of their divisions, the type of education needed for a career in this area and where the jobs are located. 

A special feature was a presentation by the Texas A&M Student Chapter officers on how the chapter was formed and their ongoing activities.  The two new activities build directly on INMM’s initiative to increase student participation at the Annual Meeting and increase student membership. 

The Executive Committee provided financial support used to bring three international students to the conference, support some domestic student travel and purchase a block of hotel rooms for student use. These efforts increased student participation threefold over last year's conference.

To enhance the experience of students at the conference two new activities were introduced. Students assembled as a group on Sunday evening to meet each other prior to the Annual Meeting and subsequently were matched one-on-one with an INMM mentor.  Student and mentors met periodically to discuss how the meeting was going, address any questions, and meet other members.  By all accounts students found the mentor program extremely worthwhile.  

We look forward to our student population growing in future years as additional student chapters are established and opportunities for student involvement in the meetings are increased. From the students' perspective, several indicated that they were overwhelmed with the accessibility of leadership at the meeting, and one indicated that he had never felt as comfortable at another professional meeting that he had been attending for years as he did at this year's INMM meeting. There is a high level of enthusiasm on the part of these new student members and those who commented on the meeting indicated that it had served to fuel this enthusiasm even more.

INMM continues to promote student participation in the Institute by, among other incentives, encouraging students to present the results of their research at the Annual Meeting. This is the fourth year of such an initiative and seventeen papers were in competition for the J. D. Williams Student Paper Award. Many of our colleagues are responsible for making this student initiative a success including Yvonne Ferris, Nancy Jo Nicholas, Mark Leek and about a dozen others too numerous to mention.

This year there were two recipients of the student award this year: David Burk, Texas A&M University, and Ross Radel, University of Wisconsin. Burk presented “Forward Model Calculations for Determining Isotopic Compositions of Materials Used in a Radiological Dispersal Device.” Radel offered “Detection of Highly Enriched Uranium Using a Pulsed Inertial Electrostatic Confinement D-D Fusion Device.”

Three speakers covered varied areas of interest during the closing plenary session, led by Government-Industry Relations Committee Chair Amy Whitworth and the GILC.

The topics were “U.S./Russia Nuclear Security Cooperation,” by Glenn Podonsky, director, Office of Security and Safety Performance Assurance, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE); “DOE’s Steps Toward Materials Consolidation,” by Meggen Watt, Secretary of Energy Senior Advisor for National Security, DOE; and, “The Terrorist Threat to the United States,” by Adam Angst, FBI special agent. There was lively interest in these presentations but Angst’s talk hit home personally with his portrayal of the potential terrorist threat affecting all of us.

Meeting attendees have told me personally that this 46th Annual Meeting was very valuable to them and others have validated those sentiments in their formal evaluations. We seem to have reached a plateau in how much better we can make this event but we continue to try. The “we” is all of us but most of all the hundreds of dedicated speakers who prepare and present papers with the latest and most significant information regarding nuclear materials management, the session chairs who manage the sessions, the Technical Program Committee that laboriously puts the program together, and the INMM HQ staff that effectively administers these activities. Thanks to all.

Now, you should note that next year’s meeting is at the Nashville Convention Center/Renaissance Hotel, Nashville, Tenn., July 16-20, 2006. Begin now to plan for it. This meeting offers opportunities to organize or chair a session (or both), present a paper or poster, be an exhibitor or sponsor or just attend. And if you can, encourage students to participate. Whatever your choice, don’t wait until the last minute. Complete your research, get your subject approved by management, write your abstract and submit it by Feb. 1, 2006, and write your paper and submit it early. Make it easy on yourself. So, come, fly with the eagles! (or crawl with the turtles).

Updated: October 1, 2007

Updated: October 1, 2007