Search results

THE EXTENSIVE use of steel can be attributed to its many physical and mechanical properties and low cost when compared to other materials. It has, however, one major disadvantage in that it will corrode in many environments.

Nickel coatings NICKEL has been used for many years as a protective and decorative coating for steel. In contact with iron, nickel becomes the cathode and hence a relatively pore free coating is necessary for satisfactory protection of the steel base.

Tin coatings Tin is used extensively because of its high resistance to corrosion in a large number of environments. The greatest use is for the production of tinplate, used in the packaging industry. A low‐carbon steel, in the form of strip or sheet, is given a thin coating of tin on both sides. Two methods are used commercially for producing tinplate—hot dipping and electrolytic plating.

ALUMINIUM coated steel was first introduced as a commercial product in the mid‐nineteen thirties. Its growth and development was comparatively slow until 1950, but since then the use of aluminium coatings has rapidly expanded. There have been numerous attempts to develop quality aluminium coatings commercially, and considerable research and development is in progress. The more important processes are:

The post-Cold War period allowed the U.S. nuclear legacy of ecocide to be declassified and made public. The policy of nuclear secrecy, evident in Russia (see Mironova et al., this volume), was not merely an eastern practice. Western nuclear releases were kept equally under wraps. In England, for example, the Windscale disaster was not fully disclosed until 1987.¹ Likewise, releases from the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, in Washington State, and other U.S. nuclear sites were kept undercover until the same period. The irony was that Americans learned of many of the nuclear skeletons in their closet around the time that Russians learned of theirs (see Mironova et al., this volume). It would appear that glasnost was contagious.

Openness is critical to long-term cleanup and stewardship of former nuclear weapons manufacturing facilities. Openness is especially challenging in such facilities because a culture of secrecy has dominated them since the earliest days of nuclear weapons development. This paper describes a multi-year effort at the Hanford Site called the Hanford Openness Workshops. The Workshops were convened to address and resolve issues impeding the availability and understanding of information important to public health, the environment, and decision–making. Lessons from the workshops can improve dialogue about nuclear waste cleanup and long-term stewardship among regulators, decision makers, stakeholders, and Tribes.

The Hanford site, in Washington State, presents a large-scale test for long-term stewardship of residual radioactive and chemical contamination. Large quantities of waste and contaminated materials will remain in perpetuity near the land's surface and the Columbia River, making Hanford perhaps the most complex long-term stewardship challenge among former weapons production sites. This paper explores the scope of contamination, the Department of Energy's approach to cleanup, the likely residuals requiring long-term stewardship, and the issues that are thus raised. Expectations with respect to long-term land uses, the likely durability of institutional controls, and funding, information management, and accountability have long been influenced by mistrust and tension between local communities, regulators, tribes, and the Department of Energy (DOE). Despite positive steps by DOE such as the creation of the Office of Legacy Management, DOE's dependence upon annual appropriations, its sovereign immunity with respect to key state and local land use regulations, and recent policy pronouncements that cast doubt on the willingness to respond to unanticipated problems with additional cleanup, all leave doubt in the minds of regulators and communities that DOE can be counted upon to be both proactive and accessible once cleanup is complete.

This paper examines the production of a particular nuclear‐organizational history to illuminate the rhetorical and political practices by which stakeholders engage that history as an opportunity to perform preferred ideological narratives. Analysis utilizes data collected from the authors’ reflective participation in this process, and focuses on the tension between nuclear‐historical and ‐heritage discourses. We use the lens of critical public nuclear history studies to show how nuclear‐organizational history contributes to broader controversy over the commemoration of nuclear weapons production in post‐Cold War US culture.

The United States has been at the forefront of a global shift away from direct state funding of higher education and toward student loans, and student debt has become an issue of growing social concern. Why did student loans expand so much in the United States in the 1990s and 2000s? And how does organization theory suggest their expansion, and the growth of federal student aid more generally, might affect higher education as a field? In the 1960s and 1970s, policy actors worked to solve what was then a central problem around student loans: banks’ disinterest in lending to students. They did this so well that by 1990, a new field of financial aid policy emerged, in which all major actors had an interest in expanding loans. This, along with a favorable environment outside the field, set the stage for two decades of rapid growth. Organization theory suggests two likely consequences of this expansion of federal student loans and financial aid more generally. First, while (public) colleges have become less dependent on state governments and more dependent on tuition, the expansion of aid means colleges are simultaneously becoming more dependent on the federal government, which should make them more susceptible to federal demands for accountability. Second, the expansion of federal student aid should encourage the spread of forms and practices grounded in a logic focused on students’ financial value to the organization, such as publicly traded for-profit colleges and enrollment management practices.

Companies today face many conflicting priorities in remaining competitive. Some of the challenges include leading company staff in thinking bigger, operating in direct relationship to customers and stockholders’ needs, while staying flexible and adaptable to economic and market shifts. How does a facilities manager stay connected to the business strategy, manage more projects with less staff, and still provide responsive service, while the business environment the manager supports is changing rapidly? The manager may be faced with consolidating facilities owing to a merger or company restructuring. Consolidation presents several challenges that must be met. The manager must work with executives to align equipment deployment and facility use to merger goals and objectives. He/she must consolidate facilities management infrastructure into a cohesive unit from the different approaches of the original companies. This requires the ability simultaneously to coordinate the strategic, tactical and technical aspects of consolidation, while maintaining the seamless operation of the company. If it is a large operation, with facilities spread across a region, facilities management may have been distributed, with each location responsible for their own projects and maintenance. A major change effort such as consolidation requires a centralised facilities management structure that is tied directly into the strategy of the company. The answer for many companies in meeting these challenges is enterprise programme management (EPM). Enterprise programme management is a way of thinking, communicating and working, supported by an information system, that organises an enterprise’s resources in direct relationship to leadership’s vision, and the mission, strategy, goals and objectives that move the organisation forward. Simply put, EPM provides a 360‐degree view of an organisation’s collective efforts.