Dr. Marcus' Room No. 12

12. U.S. Organizations Active on Nuclear Issues(Part II: National Research Council, Think Tanks,
Anti-Nuclear Groups, and Blue Ribbon Commission)
Gail H. Marcus, Consultant, USA

Profile (January 2008)
Dr. Gail H. Marcus is presently an independent consultant on nuclear power technology and policy.
She recently completed a three-year term as Deputy Director-General of the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency(NEA) in Paris. In this position, she was responsible for the program of work and budget for the agency.
From 1999 through 2004, Dr. Marcus served as Principal Deputy Director of the Office of Nuclear Energy,
Science and Technology. There she provided technical leadership for DOE’s nuclear energy programs
and facilities, including the development of next-generation nuclear power systems. Other responsibilities included production and distribution of isotopes for medical treatment, diagnosis andresearch, and oversight of DOE test and research reactors and related facilities and activities.
From 1998-1999, Dr. Marcus spent a year in Japan as Visiting Professor in the Research Laboratory
for Nuclear Reactors, Tokyo Institute of Technology. She conducted research on comparative nuclear
regulatory policy in Japan and the United States.
Previously, Dr. Marcus had been in the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). She served in a varietyof positions including Deputy Executive Director of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards/Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste; Director of Project Directorate III-3, providing
regulatory oversight of seven nuclear power plants in the Midwest; and Director of the Advanced
Reactors Project Directorate, where she was responsible for technical reviews of advanced reactor
designs.
She also served as technical assistant to Commissioner Kenneth Rogers at the NRC for over four years,
providing advice and recommendations on a broad range of technical and policy issues of interest tothe Commission. From this position she was detailed for five months to Japan’s Ministry of International Trade and Industry, where she was NRC’s first assignee to Japan, studying Japan’s
licensing of the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor.
Prior to her service at NRC, Dr. Marcus was Assistant Chief of the Science Policy Research Divisionat the Congressional Research Service (1980-1985). In this position, she was responsible for policy
analysis in support of Congress covering all fields of science and technology, and played a lead rolein policy analysis and development for energy, nuclear power, and risk assessment and management.

Organization:
From 2001-2002, Dr. Marcus served as President of the American Nuclear Society (ANS), an 11,000 member
professional society. She is a Fellow of the ANS and of the American Association for the Advancementof Science (AAAS). She is a former member of the National Research Council Committee on the Future
Needs of Nuclear Engineering Education, and served three terms on the MIT Corporation Visiting
Committee for the Nuclear Engineering Department. She is just completing a term as the elected Chairof the Engineering Section of AAAS.
Publication:
Dr. Marcus has authored numerous technical papers and publications. Her research interests include
nuclear regulatory policy, energy technology and policy, risk assessment and management, international nuclear policy, and advanced nuclear technologies.
Education:
Dr. Marcus has an S.B. and S.M. in Physics, and an Sc.D. in Nuclear Engineering from MIT. She is thefirst woman to earn a doctorate in nuclear engineering in the United States.

1

Copyright © JAPAN NUS CO., LTD. All Rights Reserved

Dr. Marcus' Room No. 12

This essay is the last essay for this series from
the Marcus Room. It is a continuation of the previous essay on organizations in the United Statesthat participate significantly in the dialogue on
nuclear power. The previous essay covered some of
the largest and most well known of these organizations, including U.S. government agencies, majorindustry organizations (the NEI, INPO and EPRI),
and professional societies, including the ANS. In
this essay, I will cover other types of organizations
that have a role in the nuclear dialogue. These include the National Research Council, a number of“think tanks,” a couple of the more influential, national anti-nuclear organizations, and a specialgroup chartered by the President that is currentlyactive.

A Congressionally-Chartered Private Organization
Perhaps the most important organization I will
cover in this essay is the National Research Council. (The abbreviation, NRC, is identical to that of
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which can
result in some confusion, but the two organizations
are totally separate.) The NRC functions under theauspices of the National Academy of Sciences(NAS), the National Academy of Engineering(NAE), and the Institute of Medicine (IOM). Allfour entities are part of a private, nonprofit institution that provides science, technology and healthpolicy advice to the U.S. government under a congressional charter signed by President Abraham
Lincoln that was originally granted to the NAS in
1863.
The mission of the NRC is to improve government
decision-making and public policy, increase public
education and understanding, and promote theacquisition and dissemination of knowledge inmatters involving science, engineering, technology,and health. The NRC does not receive direct federal appropriations for its work. Instead, individual projects are funded by federal agencies, foundations, other governmental and private sources, andthe institution’s endowment. The work is madepossible by Academy members and other scientists
and engineers who volunteer their time withoutcompensation to serve on committees and participate in activities. The core services involve collecting, analyzing, and sharing information andknowledge. The independence of the institution,
combined with its ability to convene experts, allows
it to be responsive to requests in many areas. Likesome of the organizations mentioned in the previous essay, its work is not exclusively nuclear, but it
has covered many nuclear issues. I personally wasa member of a panel a number of years ago thatexamined nuclear engineering education. While I
2was at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, theCommission requested the Council to conduct a
study for them (which naturally became known as
NRC-squared!). Their current projects listingshows that a review of DOE’s nuclear energy R&D
program is presently underway.

“Think Tanks”
The category of “think tanks” is a bit fuzzy. Thinktanks are generally considered to be organizations
that conduct research and analysis in policy areas,such as social, political, economic, science, technology, industrial, or military policy. In the UnitedStates,
suchinstitutions
aregenerallynot-for-profit organizations. Because it is the“home” of the key policy makers in the UnitedStates, Washington, D.C. is also the home of anumber of the most well-known and respected
think tanks, including the Brookings Institution,Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,
Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, American
Enterprise Institute, and Center for Strategic andInternational Studies (CSIS). There are some influential think tanks outside the Washington area
as well, for example, the Hoover Institution. And
there are think tanks that work in related areas,such as the Institute for Science and International
Security (ISIS) which, in analyzing nuclear proliferation issues, covers fissile material stockpiles
and controls.
All of these organizations address many policy
areas, nuclear among them. Their work includes
hosting seminars, publishing position papers, andengaging in other activities to promote dialogue on
important public policy issues. Although some ofthese organizations characterize themselves as
neutral politically, and some have shifted in theirpolitical leanings over time, several do haveself-declared political leanings, or have acquired areputation for favoring one side of the political
spectrum or another. For example, although theBrookings Institution includes staff and Board
members from both major political parties, it isoften characterized as liberal leaning. Heritage
Foundation and the American Enterprise Instituteare considered conservative politically, and theCato Institute currently characterizes itself as libertarian. The others are less associated with specific party interests. Naturally, those organizations
whose positions align closely with those of one ofthe major political parties tend to have more influence over national policy when their party is inpower.
Although all of these organizations have addressed nuclear issues, the question from a reader
that sparked this essay and the last one was a re-Copyright © JAPAN NUS CO., LTD. All Rights Reserved

Dr. Marcus' Room No. 12

sult of a blog I did reporting on a seminar programof the CSIS. While all the groups have seminars
open to the public, the ones that I’ve had occasion
to attend and report on recently are those of theCSIS.

Anti-nuclear groups
First, I am compelled to tackle the designation“anti-nuclear.” It is a convenient shorthand forcharacterizing groups, but it tends to oversimplify
the positions of some of these organizations. For
example, perhaps the best known of these groups is
the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). The UCS
characterizes itself as “the leading science-based
nonprofit working for a healthy environment and asafer world. UCS combines independent scientificresearch and citizen action to develop innovative,
practical solutions and to secure responsible
changes in government policy, corporate practices,and consumer choices.” In the nuclear area, theUCS says it monitors and works “to improve thesafety and security provisions at existing nuclear
power plants and the performance of the industry’s
oversight body--the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; assess the safety, security and nuclear
weapons proliferation risks of new reactors; andanalyze the pros and cons of increasing nuclear
power as a means of reducing global warming. We
write reports, file formal petitions to the NRC, testify before Congress, and provide technical assistance to groups of citizens living near nuclear
plants.” They do not say their mission is to shut
down reactors or to prevent more from being built,
and when the UCS examines highly technical operational issues, they generally identify both flaws
and fixes. Nevertheless, most of the broader reports of the UCS seem to come to the conclusionthat nuclear power is not needed or is too expensive.
On the other hand, a somewhat less well known
national organization that operates in the national
arena, the Institute for Energy and Environmental
Research (IEER) has a banner for one its programs
on its website reading “carbon-free and nuclear-free.” Most recently, given the growing interestin small modular reactors (SMRs) among nuclear
professionals, policy makers and the public, theIEER published a study claiming that SMRs did
not address safety, waste or cost concerns associated with nuclear power. I also covered that reportin a blog.
There are other declared national anti-nuclear
groups as well. I highlighted UCS here because of
its prominence, and IEER because it is a lesser-known one whose reports I have mentioned inmy blog. However, others that readers may have3

heard of include Greenpeace USA, Nuclear Control
Institute (NCI) (no website at time of this writing),
Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS),and Beyond Nuclear. In addition, there are a larger
number of groups that have a regional focus andexist primarily to oppose an existing nuclear power
plant or to prevent the building of a new one. Again,
this may be an overly broad generalization. I am
not personally familiar with every such organization, and some may truly operate more as watchdogs to assure that high standards are met. However, most are not shy about stating objectives toshut nuclear plants down in their regions. A few
examples, picked at random, are:
San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace: “a non-profitorganization concerned with the local dangers involving the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant,
and with the dangers of nuclear power, weapons
and waste on national and global levels.”
Snake River Alliance: “serves as Idaho's nuclear
watchdog and Idaho's advocate for renewable andnuclear-free energy.”
Nuclear Free Vermont: “a grassroots,
all-volunteer association of citizens committed toclosing the Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee power reactor in Vernon, Vermont when its license expires in 2012.”
A good list of anti-nuclear organizations, regionaland national, appears on the Wikipedia site on anti-nuclear groups in the United States.

Blue Ribbon Commission
The final group I’d like to cover in this essay is
the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear
Future. This group differs from all the others inthese two essays in a number of ways. Most importantly, it is a temporary entity. It was established early in 2010 by DOE at the direction of thePresident, and its work is scheduled to last only 24months. This Commission was established when
the Department of Energy filed a motion to withdraw its application to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission to build a high-level nuclear waste
repository at Yucca Mountain, and was intended to
identify alternatives to replace that approach. The
Commission consists of 15 prominent experts withknowledge and expertise on the topics expected tobe addressed by the Commission, or representatives of entities relevant to the study, including
research facilities, academic and policy-centeredinstitutions, industry, labor organizations, environmental organizations, and others. Their mission is to conduct a comprehensive review of policies for managing the back end of the nuclear fuelCopyright © JAPAN NUS CO., LTD. All Rights Reserved

Dr. Marcus' Room No. 12cycle, including all alternatives for the storage,processing, and disposal of civilian and defense
used nuclear fuel, high-level waste, and materials
derived from nuclear activities. Specifically, theCommission will provide advice, evaluate alternatives, and make recommendations to the U.S. government for a new plan to address these issues. Todate, they have held a number of public meetings
to gather information and viewpoints, and haveheard testimony from many experts on nuclear
issues, a number of them from the other organizations I have mentioned in this essay and the previous one.

Although the series is finished, I will still welcomecomments on this essay or on past essays. My
e-mail address isghmarcus alum.mit.edu.
（ An image charactor is used intentionally for@-sign. Please cut the image and put a keystroke@-sign.)May 2011**
This essay concludes my second series of essays
from the Marcus Room. As before, I have enjoyedthis opportunity to share some thoughts and ideas
about nuclear power. At the request of JANUS andthe readers of the essays, I have spent a number ofthe essays in this series providing some background information on the NRC and on other U.S.
organizations that I hoped would be of interest anduse to my readers in Japan and elsewhere. I havebeen pleased to hear some feedback that people
have found my essays useful. At present, I do notknow what the future holds for the Marcus Room,
but I have maintained close professional and personal associations with many Japanese colleagues
over the years and expect to continue to do so in
the future, so when the Marcus Room is dark, I will
still keep in touch in other ways.
In the meantime, I wish to thank JANUS for
giving me this second opportunity to prepare essays for their website, and to my readers for taking
the time to read my essays, and in some cases, toprovide their reactions to them.
**4

Copyright © JAPAN NUS CO., LTD. All Rights Reserved