Report of the 48th INMM Annual Meeting:
Is This All There Is?

By Charles Pietri
Chair, Technical Program Committee

At the 48th INMM Annual Meeting held July 8-12, 2007, at the JW Marriott Starr Pass Resort in Tucson, Arizona, we found that the weather was not that hot; the hotel, although somewhat isolated from other activities, was superb; and the papers were just as good, if not better in some instances, than at previous meetings. Total attendance was about average – 844 including companions. There were 303 papers presented including 22 posters 14 student papers; there were thirty-three student attendees. An interesting note: the 303 papers were presented by 264 people — we’ll explain later. The meeting evaluation (our Report Card) from the electronic surveys, Session Chair reports, and verbal comments at the meeting were of the usual variety, many complimentary, a few critical, and several with positive suggestions for future meetings.

Even the number of final papers submitted on time for the Proceedings of the INMM Annual Meeting showed significant improvement. (We’ll walk through some of the comments later on.) So, have we reached a plateau — or is there still more to do to improve our Annual Meeting to make it more attractive, enjoyable, and informative to the nuclear materials management community? Are we so satisfied that we can’t show some enhancements for INMM’s 50th Anniversary starting in 2008? Is this all there is? (Read on — we may have an answer for you.)

It’s not that we had a perfect meeting but that we had a generally uneventful operation or were able to make accommodations on site when difficulties arose — many of which were not evident to our attendees. It was almost like flying these days — one hopes for a great but uneventful flight. One of our most important changes was the Plenary Speaker. We were disappointed that Dennis Spurgeon, acting undersecretary of energy at the U. S. Department of Energy (DOE), was unable to be at the meeting because of last minute events requiring his presence.

However, INMM was fortunate to have Spurgeon’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fuel Cycle Management Paul Lisowski from the Office of Nuclear Energy at DOE present a most informative paper, “Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), Goals, Implementation, and Recent Progress.” It was evident to all that he thoroughly understood the meaning and impact of GNEP that focused on the need to establish an international framework for expanding nuclear power taking into consideration all concerns especially for waste disposal and weapons nonproliferation.

The latter two issues may be the major perceived impediments to public acceptance of the urgent need for a revival of nuclear energy to meet the ever — increasing needs for global energy. As is our custom, an interview with Lisowski was conducted after the Plenary Session at the JNMM Roundtable by Journal Technical Editor Dennis Mangan. Some piercing questions were posed by the attendees and some very reasonable, realistic, and forthright responses were given by Lisowski. You can read about them in the Roundtable Interview in the fall 2007 issue of the Journal of Nuclear Materials Management. As I stated previously, there seemed to be no major concerns at this meeting after resolving the Opening Plenary speaker.

There were less than usual overall paper withdrawals (thirty-four) and especially during the actual meeting (five) but we had more than expected speaker changes (forty) and several unexpected “no shows” who never contacted INMM that they would not be presenting their paper. The latter issue severely disturbs all of us, but especially our Session Chairs many of whom take pride in a well-orchestrated session. In fact, it makes INMM feel that we should not invite these people to present papers in the future if we cannot rely on them.

Some of the meeting speaker changes were caused by several overseas speakers who could not get their visas in time to attend the meeting and present their papers. On the bright side, to save the day many of these papers were presented by their U. S. co-authors, mainly from Sandia National Laboratories.

We continue to be indebted to the Registration Committee who almost flawlessly started the meeting process on Sunday afternoon. For the past several years, Glenda Ackerman had been Chair of the committee and when D. L.Whaley assumed that position this year there was not even a perception of a change in management. Of course, all of the committee members, including Whaley, are veterans of many years dealing with our attendees and with some of the unique registration tribulations.

We are further thankful for our INMM HQ staff led by Leah McCrackin, executive director, who, as I have said previously, knows everything; Lyn Maddox, conference manager, who manages the hotel activities so well you wouldn’t even know if you had a problem; Madhuri Carson, conference administrator who continues to make order out of the chaos that we sometimes create; Deb Pederson, coming back to help the team again (she must like us); Patricia Sullivan, the Journal managing editor, being everywhere help is needed to make the program function well; and especially, new INMM Administrator Jodi Metzgar, a rising star just a few months in this position but acting like she has been with us forever!

Speaking of registration, the official opening of the 48th Annual Meeting occurred on Sunday, July 8, but on the day before two important planned events happened: the INMM Executive Committee met to review and ponder issues of significance to the Institute and hopefully to the international nuclear materials management community; the attendees for the Annual Meeting of the New Brunswick Laboratory Measurement Evaluation Program assembled to review progress in the program for the past year. Again, this opportunity for organizations to meet in conjunction with the Annual Meeting not only has an economic factor but a logistics element that benefits all. We say again: the INMM Annual Meeting is where everybody is!

Sunday is an important day not only for registration purposes but for the six INMM Technical Divisions that meet in the afternoon and discuss meaningful issues and topics. I understand this year several lingering (malingering?) issues were resolved by some divisions. Attendance was generally good for most but somewhat sparser for the Packaging and Transportation members. Fortunately, Jim Larrimore, despite some personal conflicts, was able to chair the International Safeguards Division and was in top form with his unique style.

On Sunday morning, Amy Whitworth, chaired a meeting of the National Nuclear Security Administraiton MC&A Implementation Panel to address interests in that area. After that meeting, Whitworth chaired the Government and Industry Liaison Committee (GILC) meeting. At noon that day, the ANSI/INMM 5.1 Analytical Chemistry Laboratory Measurement Control Committee, an ANSI N15 subcommittee, chaired by Charles Pietri, also met to discuss the status of the draft document N15.51 Measurement Control Program—Nuclear Materials Analytical Chemistry Laboratory that is going through the balloting process for renewal. A major task for the next renewal of this standard will be to review in depth the statistical treatment with reference to the generally accepted Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM).

However, the real highlight of Sunday was the fiftieth anniversary of the International Atomic Energy Agency that was celebrated with four gigantic cakes at the afternoon coffee break. (The IAEA “officially celebrated its golden anniversary on July 29, 2007, marking the day 50 years ago when its Statute officially entered into force. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Pope Benedict XVI and others have sent anniversary messages voicing congratulations and support.”) With a few words of appreciation by Jacques Baute, director of the IAEA’s Iraq Nuclear Verification Office, representing the Director General Mohammed ElBaradei, and Jill Cooley, director of the Division of Concepts and Planning, representing Deputy Director General for Safeguards Olli Heinonen, the hundreds of attendees tried to devour the four anniversary cakes — but, alas, they failed! So, the Student Orientation session later that evening benefited from an extra treat. (We can always depend on students when it comes to food — consumption, that is.)

Exhausted from meeting colleagues, registering, attending pre-meetings, attendees were thankful to end the day by participating in the President’s Reception on Sunday evening. It was a very active evening complemented by food, beverages, and fellowship.

Not to be outdone, Mark Leek had a Student Orientation session afterwards. With all of this activity in one day it’s a wonder how we all (or most of us!) were able to get up so early the next day for the formal opening of the Annual Meeting — but, of course, we did. Again this year the exhibitors set up their exhibits on Sunday and had plenty of space to work and for the attendees to easily visit the various booths. We did run out of space and had to set up one exhibit in the outer area nearby — probably a plus for that exhibitor with so much access to the attendees.

We planned various activities such as the President’s Reception and the refreshments breaks in the Exhibit Hall to expose more of our attendees to the exhibitors’ wares. It appears to have been a successful approach. On Tuesday, July 10, the Business Meeting followed by the INMM Annual Awards Banquet took place. At the Business Meeting the INMM Sustaining Members were recognized.

For the Banquet we had a few complaints but generally everyone enjoyed the meal and presentations. (Some of the older crowd were thankful that there was not the live and loud music we had in Nashville last year. But folks, next year we’re back in Nashville for the meeting — so beware!) Resolutions of Respect for two of our deceased members were read: Greta Joy Dicus and Wayne Delmer Ruhter. The following awards were presented: Distinguished Service Award, Tom Shea and IAEA; Meritorious Service Award, Stephan Mladineo, and the Special Service Award, Shirley O. Cox.

Professor Paul Ebel returned this year by popular demand, to conduct his Speakers and Session Chairs tutorial following the Speakers Breakfast each day. This year Paul provided a brief summary of the past tutorials followed with an emphasis on the important role the Session Chair in making each session an exceptional success.

We have even noted that there has been a gradual improvement over the past few years not only in speakers’ presentations but in managing the sessions by the chairs. (Paul, they are listening.) In addition to his duties as our esteemed lecturer, Paul Ebel also coordinates the LCD PowerPoint© projection systems for the speaker presentations. He is indebted to the Technical Division Chairs and colleagues including troubleshooter Chris Hodge for their invaluable contributions. The process appears to be managed well once again with only a few instances of problems that will be resolved by next year.

Now I know you have been patiently waiting for the “Report Card” that describes how those of you who provided feedback to INMM really rate the Annual Meeting. We told you at the beginning of this report that a variety of means were used in the evaluation including the electronic survey.

The Report Card this year was better than the ratings received in previous years with some notable exceptions and the ratings were mostly very positive. If the Annual Meeting continues to improve it is because of your input that we heed (the sensible stuff only, of course) each year.

The responses we get from the electronic survey are relatively small. For example, only 28 percent of the attendees responded to the survey. In 2006 it was 29 percent, 2005 (25 percent), 2004 (31 percent), 2003 (5 percent - last year of the written survey). So, in spite of the fact that responses have improved dramatically since we moved to electronic surveys, be aware that these findings may not be typical of the entire group of participants but only those who took enough interest to respond. (We would like to think that the non-responders were sufficiently satisfied — or neutral — so that they did not feel a response was needed.)

In any case, INMM is very grateful for your comments — it’s your meeting. As in the recent past, this year the Overall Annual Meeting process was rated similar to previous years—mostly as satisfiedvery satisfied (highest rating) with the highest commendations for the Call for papers, Online Abstract Submission process, Preliminary and Final Programs, the Online Program, the Technical Program Committee The Pocket Schedule-at-a-Glance, the hard-working Onsite Registration Process and Staff, and the ever-effective and gracious INMM HQ staff had the highest ratings of the entire meeting. We had a great student turnout and the papers and their presentation were good.

Two-thirds of our attendees responding rated the Opening Plenary session as good-excellent while 44 percent of the respondees similarly rated the Closing Plenary. Unfortunately, attendance at the Closing Plenary was very low and requires INMM to take some action to improve this part of the meeting.

Most importantly, 91 percent of the responders indicated that the INMM Annual Meeting was satisfactory-very satisfactory and 96 percent said that the program met their professional needs! INMM Annual Meetings have consistently rated above 90 percent in these categories for many years. In fact, about 82 percent of the responders thought that the papers and their presentations were good-excellent with only a few individual comments to the contrary. Maybe that’s why we have such great participation each year.

The Technical Information Exchange and Logistics areas were also rated highly good-excellent (mostly good). The Hotel Accommodations and were not rated as high as in previous years as two-thirds of the responses gave a good-very good rating this year. However, nearly 90 percent rated the hotel Facilities (meeting rooms, etc.) as good-excellent.

One curious anomaly in the ratings is that although 92 percent of the attendees visited the Exhibit area, we did not have any responses (except verbal) as to their quality or value. Posters: Our Poster Session Chair Taner Uckan was so thrilled with another quality session this year that he gleefully wrote me the following report: “As a short report, the Poster Session … went well … [and] was well attended from the very beginning for the presentation of twenty-two … papers. [One] paper … from Latvia, was [a] no-show, maybe due to visa problems? The poster room size … was good and well arranged, thanks to you and Lyn [Maddox]; and also thanks to Jodi [Metzgar] for providing the list of presenters in advance. And again, the popcorn was the added attraction to this excellent poster session — thanks Lyn!”

Remember, posters are just as important and significant as oral presentations — they are just another way of presenting the information. One disappointment was the use of the Program Planner with itinerary builder since this innovation was prompted by several of our attendees last year. Those who used it found it to be helpful but only a handful did so. Hopefully, next year it will have greater popularity. For six years now INMM has actively promoted student participation.

This year the number of student attendees and papers presented were not as great as last year’s record breaker in Nashville but very commendable for a growing INMM activity. We see a lot of movement in the student area with new student chapters being formed and the high quality of the papers being presented.

Some of our more mature presenters might take a lesson from this fact. The competition for the J.D. Williams Best Student Paper Award resulted in first place going to Brandon Grogan, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, for his paper “MCNPPoliMi Simulation of Neutron Radiography Measurements for Mass Determination for a Trough of UO3”; and second place going to Shaun Clarke, Purdue University, for his paper “Multiplicity Analysis During the Photon Interrogation of Fissionable Material”. It was a bit difficult to evaluate the value of the Student Orientation/Mentorship Program and the Student Career Fair & Reception because of so very few responses. However, I did see all of the attending students paired with a mentor.

Let’s see what progress is made from these contacts. We did get a few excellent suggestions: “… make a list of students and their interests and … a Web site where INMM participants can contact students if they are interested in assisting them with their careers.” “[Hold a] student social hour to meet other colleagues — perhaps an informal standup-lunch. Perhaps a student discussion/meeting on upcoming issues in the nuclear industry to help us gain perspectives on careers” “We tried to have a student booth in the exhibit hall, but somehow lines got crossed and we were unable to have that arranged for us.” I have referred these comments to Mark Leek, INMM’s Students Activities Committee chair who, I’m sure, will give them serious consideration.

The New Member/Senior Member Reception was a well attended, successful event. New regular members and Senior Members along with new student members had the usual opportunity to meet. Students, especially, were encouraged to become involved in both their technical divisions and local regional chapters. INMM takes the time review all comments and provides responses to those significant remarks that warrant further discussion even though they may not be entirely representative of attendee sentiment.

Perhaps that’s why we continue to receive comments and helpful suggestions for improvement. In trying to provide a balanced perspective, a few selected comments, some provocative, are addressed below.

• “Well planned and executed as usual. Many very good speakers with interesting talks.” “Great hotel and services. Excellent technical program, effective layout of parallel sessions, good break location, outstanding organization.” “As a member of INMM since about 1970, I felt this was the best Annual Meeting I had attended.” “The Sherwood staff [is] outstanding.” Response: I always like to put the most favorable comments first!

• “Need more papers on proven theories, most were not proven and still more papers were looking for funding to move forward. Second, having a paper on the status of MPC&A efforts to meet a milestone is not appropriate for the INMM, in my opinion. Finally the student papers were actually better than others. Instead of lining them up on the last day, they should be given throughout or have a special session for them prior to the last day.” Response: Papers are placed in sessions according to the appropriate topical material not by organization or professional category. The bunching up of student papers on one day was just a coincidence. We’ll try to see that they are more evenly spaced, if possible.

• “Unfortunately I couldn’t get a room at the hotel and had to stay some distance away in a motel, which required me to travel in each day by taxi.” Response: INMM HQ staff makes every effort to place attendees at the meeting hotel and has been successful in almost every case if notified far enough in advance. We have a waiting list and as cancellations come in the waiting list is activated. Be sure to notify INMM HQ of your situation.

• “Hotel was too isolated …” “Although dramatic, the Tucson location was in a very inconvenient [and] isolated area requiring additional expense for car rental. These are important considerations especially for our international guests who may not have the funds that [our] U.S. colleagues may have, nor U.S. driving abilities, but who would like to go shopping, etc. during their off-hours. The meeting rooms and parking were very far from the main part of the hotel and rather inconvenient.” “As noted in the program, a car was a necessity unless you were willing to be held captive by the hotel.” “This hotel was ten times better than in Nashville.” “Although the JW Marriott was a beautiful facility, and the meeting arrangements were excellent, the parking was extremely inconvenient. ….the costs for meals and other amenities … were extremely high…. I heard these same complaints from many others.” Response: We recognized this situation and did forewarn folks. We may be able to arrange some relief for the stranded attendees by the time we revisit here again in 2009.

• “A terrific activity. I made many new contacts and one day several may even be friends.” “Did not gain much from the papers. Highlight was meeting with other individuals from other sites and countries.” Response: A “mixed bag” — but there is always something for everyone.

• “LCD projection needs some attention to assure that it is functioning as intended. A few problems occurred that were eventually resolved but could have been prevented. Response: INMM is aware of the few problems that were encountered and is developing plans to remedy them.

• Plenary sessions: The Opening Plenary session was excellent with new information applicable to an audience of wide and varying background. It was presented in a very understandable way and was a real value.” ”I thought the opening plenary was the best in years …” “The Opening and Closing Plenaries were great”. “Closing Plenary was not well attended but the WINS and the Nuclear Energy & Nonproliferation talks were good.… not the usual dry, bureaucratic messages of little importance. They addressed real and positive activities of value to me.” “Closing plenary was terrible.” “The WINS presentation in the closing session could have been more interesting if organised around topical areas throughout the week…Why not [try] organising more one- to twohour open panels devoted to specific technical topics? - with someone in charge of making minutes with conclusions. This would be highly appreciated by international participants. If the topic is of general interest and there is a good moderator, it is guaranteed success.” “…the Closing Plenary was excellent.” “Closing plenary speakers didn’t seem to be sufficiently senior enough in the nuclear industry to warrant their participation in that venue. …[that is] one reason, among others, that people are scheduling their departure from the INMM on Wednesday evening or early Thursday. …. focus on either recruiting more attractive speakers or evaluating the value of the closing plenary. …useful to sensitize plenary speakers to the international flavor of the institute. … there is clearly a U.S.-leaning bias from the speakers … we have a strong international contingent … [so INMM should] … make more of an attempt to cater to at the plenary sessions.”

Response: Plenary Sessions, especially in recent years, have been problematic for all the stated reasons and more. The individuals best suited for INMM are either not available or after committing to the meeting are called away to more important duties of their profession. INMM has been fortunate in obtaining suitable surrogates to represent these speakers but that does not resolve the basic issue. Inviting “sufficiently senior enough” speakers is easy to say but increasingly more difficult to implement. And the value of the lower level speakers may not be fully appreciated since they may not be in a position to make more comprehensive and authoritative presentations. INMM has been addressing this matter for several years without a definitive solution as yet. However, for example, for the INMM 50th Anniversary presentations, serious consideration is being given to rearranging plenary sessions into multiple sessions as well as more panel-type presentations throughout the week. In all cases, INMM would expect final papers from the speakers for publication in the Proceedings in order to maintain our historical legacy. Remember, as a great sage once said: “If it’s important enough to present at the Annual Meeting, it’s as important to preserve in the Proceeding of the INMM Annual Meeting.” (Name on request.)

• “For my particular interests (uranium enrichment and MC&A measurements) most of the papers of interest were scheduled at the same time on Tuesday, with very little of interest on Wednesday.” Response: The Technical Program Committee tries to maintain a balance with topical material, number of session per day, avoidance of subject conflict but that does not always work for we usually have more conflicting information to coordinate than we can accomplish pragmatically.

• “There were quite a few instances when the actual speaker for a paper was not the main author or was not the person listed in the program. I know that this is not your fault when people don’t show up, but I wonder if it is possible to send the programs out for print just a little bit later so that it can be minimized.” Response: INMM is in total agreement but the current publication schedule is stretched to its limit –see more detailed comments about this issue elsewhere in this report.

• “[Future INMM activities could include] expanding the technical base beyond primarily DOE work to NRC, commercial utilities, NEI initiatives. Desire to see technical session that addresses new concepts, new ideas, new approaches to industry challenges of the twenty-first century—instead of by topical technical division, group presentations with others who bring out-of-the box thinking to the core competencies represented by INMM or have a broad impact across the board.” Response: Good suggestion. INMM has already started this expansion you mentioned and continues to have multi-sponsored sessions that cross some artificial “boundaries” — we will accept all new ideas and approaches to address within our stated nuclear materials management mission.

• “It would be better if the Organizing Committee provide the participants with Internet use free of charge.” Response: As you have noticed, hotels make profit from all items for the Annual Meeting not included in our intensely negotiated hotel contract. Outrageous Internet charges are one of these items. I will recommend that we try to negotiate a no-charge or substantially reduced rate in the future hotel/meeting contracts.

• “The Banquet was probably the best in the last five years. The food was very good and the red wine was great.” “The food was cold.” “Banquet food was overcooked, and DJ kept killing the vibe with slow songs.” “Please do not allow anymore companies … to reserve so many tables that no one else can find a [seat]. This also seems to isolate people into groups [rather than] mingling and getting to know new faces.” Response: No disagreement about the seating arrangements. INMM will remember to distribute reserved seating at the banquet more evenly.

• “The conference was outstanding. Every time I have attended one of these here in the West, I have been impressed. This is the second best of the series from an informative technical viewpoint. The first in excellence for me was the 38th in Phoenix. It was absolutely invaluable for the graduate course in nuclear waste that I was teaching. The final program was an excellent publication easily accessed; however, it needed desperately the pocket program in order to effectively refer to the schedule unless you were planning on remaining in the same session.” Response: So, forgive me again! I like to end these comments on a positive note just like we began!)

So you see from some of the comments, there are a variety of perceptions about the Annual Meeting and its activities. We can’t please everyone but we try to please most. INMM plans to fix those issues and consider those suggestions that are reasonable and within our control but such differing viewpoints sometimes make it difficult to evaluate practical courses of action. The significant issues facing INMM in managing the Annual Meeting program continue to be excessive paper withdrawals, frequent speaker changes, and, to a much lesser extent this year, late and absent final paper submittals.

INMM will continue to try our best to keep paper withdrawals and speaker changes under control. We need to prepare the Final Program one month prior to the Annual Meeting in order for it to be proofed, printed and shipped to meeting. Any changes during this one-month period cannot be reflected in the Final Program and gets posted in the addendum at the meeting. Further, we have many speaker changes at the meeting that can only be noted in the daily Addenda.

Some of these issues could be avoided by greater diligence from the speakers but others (like speakers not receiving travel visas) may be more complex to resolve. INMM acknowledges the efforts of many individuals and groups who continue to make the Annual Meeting a success: the hundreds of speakers, Session Chairs, Technical Program Committee members, and especially the Technical Division Chairs and, of course, our superb INMM HQ staff. This report is a brief vignette of what happens at these Annual Meetings and does not include all individuals, groups, and events. I know from your conversations with me and your evaluations that most of you will be back next year depending mostly on funding and schedule.

You’ve told INMM how important and useful INMM Annual Meetings are — now tell your management!

Next year we return to the Nashville Convention Center and Renaissance Hotel in Nashville, Tennessee (the Music City) on July 13-17, 2008, for the 49th Annual Meeting which inaugurates the year-long 50th INMM Anniversary Celebration. Be there – you can’t miss this event! So, as I say each year, start planning for it now by completing your research, getting your subject approved by management, writing your abstract, and submitting it by February 1, 2008. Then write your paper and submit it early — certainly no later than the June 9, 2008, deadline.

Remember, for those of you who are planning to organize a special session, you need to contact me by November 15 or sooner and be prepared to attend the Technical Program Committee review meeting in March 2008. Please — no exceptions! On behalf of Nancy Jo Nicholas, INMM President, we look forward with pleasure and anticipation of your presence at the 49th Annual Meeting next year — be there!

Updated: October 25, 2007