contents

Institutional Constancy Guides NMT's Future Part 1

by Bruce Matthews, NMT Division Director

The recommendations in this editorial are mine; they do not represent the opinion of Los Alamos National Laboratory, the University of California, the Department of Energy, or the U. S. Government.

In the rush to meet today's challenges, it is easy to forget that we are establishing the future directions of nuclear materials technologies for generations to come. Our activities now will affect future tasks and capabilities in nuclear materials just as the activities of Glenn Seaborg and other scientists fifty years ago have affected our tasks and capabilities. Given the urgency of their mission, it is doubtful that the plutonium pioneers stopped to think about impacts of their actions on the future. We, on the other hand, not only have that luxury, we have the obligation to look to the future. Political scientist Todd LaPorte reminded us of this responsibility in his editorial, "LANL Faces Institutional Challenges in its Nuclear Future," published in the Fall 1997 Actinide Research Quarterly. Planning for the long-term future is an awesome obligation to which NMT and the Lab have paid insufficient attention, primarily because we are not expected to predict our impacts on the future; we are not funded to make such predictions, nor are we held accountable for them. In my opinion, this is not a valid excuse for neglecting one of our most important responsibilities, so I thought I would record my thoughts on how we are preparing for future impacts and how today's actions might appear in 2010.

LaPorte introduced us to the importance of "institutional constancy," which in my terms means providing the elements of a sustaining foundation to enable scientists and engineers to manage nuclear materials regardless of political, social, and institutional changes affecting that mission. The basis for that mission is simple: the high-energy content, long half-life, and radioactive properties of plutonium simply cannot be ignored; the limited-term applications and goals may change, but the mission to manage plutonium will outlive us all. The maintenance of institutional constancy is made all the more difficult by the vagaries of the political, social, and institutional world that constantly challenge the basis of our need for an unchanging foundation. Who of us humble scientists and engineers could have predicted-much less influenced-events such as the end of the Cold War, the sudden shutdown of Rocky Flats, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), commitments in the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START) treaties, Presidential directives on spent fuel recycling, International Atomic Energy Agency inspection of weapons materials, creation of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Department of Energy openness initiatives, annual budget cycles, and changes in political leaders. Yet all of these have profound influence on our day-to-day activities and technologies. More importantly, who of us can predict with any accuracy the next event that will impact our mission? All the more reason for maintaining some sort of constancy. But what is this thing that social scientists call "institutional constancy"? It is "the faithful adherence to an organization's mission and its operational imperatives in the face of institutional changes," as LaPorte suggests. What does it require? In addition to "steadfast political will," LaPorte urges persistent attention to establishing an infrastructure of constancy, several elements of which include the following:

Sounds impressive, but the lofty words need to be translated into actions that ensure institutional constancy. In terms of NMT Division, I believe that our constancy-assuring capabilities and activities include

1. Skilled people,

2. Excellence in actinde science,

3. Safe and compliant operations,

4. Solid record of delivery, and

5. Stakeholder involvement.

The remainder of this editorial, Part 1, will address where we should be with respect to institutional constancy in 2010 from the standpoint of these five elements.

Looking Back from 2010

OK it's 2010: the CTBT has been ratified, START II has been signed, external regulation has replaced DOE, the University of California contract has been renewed, and I'm retired in Hawaii-what kind of legacy did we leave? What does the NMT Division of the future look like?

Skilled people: A new generation of scientists and engineers is running NMT Division. The knowledge of the previous generations is passed on though formal mentoring programs. Universities are graduating actinide scientists, nuclear facility engineers, and trained nuclear material handlers. The NMT workforce is highly qualified, skilled, compensated, and diverse.

Excellence in actinide science: The Seaborg Institute is an internationally recognized center for excellence in actinide science. Numerous publications from NMT Division clearly demonstrate our profound knowledge in the fundamental properties and behavior of actinide metals, solutions, compounds, and ceramics. Plutonium manufacturing practices are based on fundamental metallurgy principles, advances in actinide molecular science have defined new separation and waste minimization technologies, alloy theory has defined the aging mechanisms of plutonium, and performance of mixed-oxide fuels is predictable from first principles.

Safe and compliant operations: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has licensed TA-55, the Nuclear Materials Storage Facility is operational, construction of a new nuclear chemistry and materials building is nearing completion, external auditors accept NMT's self-assessments to find and correct operational deficiencies, and NMT's safety record exceeds the best in class. Waste minimization has become an integral part of all ongoing and potential activities in the plutonium facility.

Solid record of delivery: All project commitments are met on-schedule and in-budget. Today's projects in surveillance, manufacturing, dismantlement, disposition, residue stabilization and nuclear materials storage programs are at steady-state. New programs have started in fuels for space and terrestrial nuclear energy, accelerator transmutation of wastes, stabilization and storage of residues at facilities in the Former Soviet Union, decontamination and environmental restoration of weapons complex sites, modeling of actinide materials in storage sites, and advanced reprocessing of spent fuels.

Stakeholder involvement: Local stakeholders-and by this I mean the public, particularly the Northern New Mexico public-are involved in helping to define NMT practices and missions. A process for developing mutual understanding of diverse opinions is established. Communications are frequent and positive, and the consensus opinion of both local and national stakeholders is supportive of NMT's management of nuclear materials.

In the next issue of Actinide Research Quarterly I will take a critical look at where NMT Division is in terms of the five elements of institutional constancy as we continue on our way to meeting the vision I have outlined for 2010.

NMT | LANL | DOE
Phone Book | Search | Help/Info

L O S  A L A M O S  N A T I O N A L   L A B O R A T O R Y
Operated by the University of California for the US Department of Energy

Questions? - Copyright © UC 1996 - Disclaimer 26 June 1996