Dr. Marcus' Room No. 10

10. NRC's Principles of Good Regulation
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 to
the 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. 10

On October 7, 2010, NRC Commissioner Kristine
Svinicki addressed the Japanese Regulatory Information Conference and spoke about the NRC's
Principles of Good Regulation. Following that
presentation, JANUS asked me if I could do an
essay for the Marcus Room on the background of
the Principles of Good Regulation. I am particularly delighted to do this, because I had a role in
the formulation of the Principles.

Background
The Principles of Good Regulation were developed and published by the US Nuclear Regulatory
Commission about 20 years ago. At the time, I
worked for Commissioner Kenneth C. Rogers. It
was Commissioner Rogers who first came up with
the idea that NRC needed to identify the key principles that staff should follow in performing theirwork.
As I recall, the concept first evolved from a discussion we had at an office staff meeting. At thetime, NRC seemed to be everybody’s favorite
whipping boy. Industry thought NRC acted too
slowly, imposed unnecessarily restrictive requirements, and changed them arbitrarily. Public interest groups thought NRC was “in bed” with industry and ignored them. Internally, some staff
and managers thought that independence meant
isolation. Before I went to work for Commissioner
Rogers, I actually had an NRC supervisor who toldme I should not be seen talking to people from industry when I went to American Nuclear Society
meetings!
While there are some people who would still
make some of these same complaints about the
NRC today, most would agree the situation is much
improved. NRC interacts with stakeholders withwidely differing views, risk is considered in developing regulations, and NRC routinely wins highmarks for its openness and transparency. I thinkmost people would agree that the Principles ofGood Regulation have played a role in the evolution of the way the NRC works.
I happened to be talking to Commissioner Rogers
just a few days ago, as I set out to write this essay,
and he reminded me that, when he raised the ideaof the Principles of Good Regulation, he did not
believe he was inventing something new. Rather,
he was hoping to synthesize the principles that hebelieved were largely already in effect, but which
never had been examined and articulated in theway that he had in mind, and which therefore weresometimes not followed as well as they should have
been.

2

Commissioner Rogers assigned me to take thelead in developing the Principles. The job required
working with the other Commissioners, their staffs,
and key senior managers to collect and synthesize
their views. It should not surprise anyone that thistook several rounds of drafts and negotiations.
There were all kinds of balances to be struck. People had a lot of ideas of what the key principles
should be, but we didn’t want too many, we didn’t
want too much overlap, and we wanted to be surethey were all high level. We worried about the order of the Principles. We wanted to explain each of
the Principles in order to assure there was no room
for misunderstanding, but we wanted a paper thatwas brief overall. We envisioned it as a one-page
document―or a poster.

The Five Principles
I was very proud of the product that we ultimately came up with. It was about 400 words long.
It did fit nicely on a page, and NRC did makeposters that were distributed widely within theCommission and elsewhere. And it represented thecollective views of the leadership of the NRC. Thus,
when I refer below to what “we” thought, I mean
not just Commissioner Rogers or his staff, but theentire leadership of the NRC.
In the end, we settled on five key Principles:
Independence
Openness
Efficiency
Clarity
Reliability
Looking at each of these, it may be helpful to recall our thinking:Independence：NRC was called an “independentagency.” NRC staff had long been taught theyshould be independent. But we wondered if everyone understood the same way what that meant. It
was clear that an independent person should produce objective and unbiased work. But we felt we
had to address explicitly how one could work withothers, and still maintain independence. We
wanted to dispel the idea that an independent
person should work in a vacuum. Rather, an independent person should interact with all factions,should collect all facts, and should understand all
viewpoints in order to form an opinion that would
stand up to critique and review.
Openness：The NRC is required by law to provide
an opportunity for the public to participate in theregulatory process, so one might think that the
Principle of openness shouldn’t even need to be
Copyright © JAPAN NUS CO., LTD. All Rights Reserved

Dr. Marcus' Room No. 10

stated. While most of us took seriously our role as“civil servants,” there were some in the Commission who may have viewed the need to interact
with the public as a distraction from their “realwork.” We felt that openness with the public
therefore ought to be a fundamental Principle, andthat it ought to include listening to the public aswell as informing them of what we were doing.

Efficiency：Some people think that government isinherently inefficient. We did not think that was
the case, nor did we think it should be. In this regard, I was very interested to hear from my JANUS contact that she spoke to someone from Japanese industry who said that efficiency was important for companies, but in his opinion, not very
important for the government. I respectfully disagree. In the first place, being efficient, to me, isanother mandate of being a good public servant.
Government officials must use taxpayer money
efficiently and effectively. In the second place, if
government is inefficient, it also costs the licensees
money. Delays in regulatory action or regulations
that are disproportionate to their reduction of risk
all cost money.
Therefore, we explicitly stated that regulatory
activities should be consistent with the degree ofrisk reduction they achieve. Furthermore, since“time is money” in the business world, we said that
regulatory decisions should be made without undue delay. Here, I note the delicate balance we hadto achieve. We wanted to convey the sense that theaction should be as fast as possible, but it should
not be done carelessly. Data needs to be gathered
and assessed, and if you are serious about seeking
the views of stakeholders, that takes time.

Clarity：This is another Principle that some felt
should not need to be stated. Of course, we should
be clear. Yet, government documents are often
written in very difficult language, with many obscure abbreviations and references that only an
insider would be likely to know. Therefore, we decided it was worth saying that they should be
written in a way that is readily understood. Furthermore, some felt that “clarity” was really asomewhat broader Principle. Therefore, we included language in the explanation of this Principle that the regulations themselves should be coherent, logical and practical, and that the regulations should be consistent with broad NRC goals
and objectives.
Reliability ： This Principle, as I recall, wasadopted somewhat late in the drafting process, andwas included to reflect a variety of different, but
related, points that were raised as we discussed3

the drafts. Perhaps the most important of thesepoints was that the licensees kept noting the difficulty of being responsive to NRC in an environment of constantly changing regulation. What investments should they make if NRC might change
its rules in a year? Therefore, perhaps the key
point of this Principle was to establish that regulation should be as stable as possible. Again, we
could not make such a statement without a modifier. Stability did not mean immutability. Ultimately, we said that regulations should not be“unjustifiably” in a state of transition. That meantthat a change should have to result in significant
risk reduction.
Reliability also had other implications that we
felt needed to be stated. A regulation would not be
reliable if was not based on the best knowledge
available, and if it did not take into account all
ramifications. All NRC actions should be consistent
with the rules and should be administered as
promptly and fairly as possible.

Other Considerations
Some might believe that the NRC should adhere
to other principles as well. Effectiveness, practicality, and fairness are just a few other characteristics that come to mind. All of these were considered, but in the end, they were viewed as being
closely related to one of the final five Principles
selected. Therefore, instead of having many more
overlapping principles, we settled on the five andmade sure the other characteristics were at leastmentioned explicitly in the explanation of the five
Principles. Thus, you can find all these characteristics and more in the explanations of the Principles of Good Regulation.

The Principles of Good Regulation Today
It has been interesting for me to watch the evolution of the Principles of Good Regulation. As I
noted, most of the concepts in the Principles were
not really new to the NRC. However, the very existence of such a document, and the explanationsin the document, helped assure that everyone understood the standards of performance the sameway.
When the Principles were first adopted at NRC,
posters were printed and distributed. Initially, thePrinciples were mentioned in talks by the Commissioners and senior managers. On more than one
occasion, I heard the Principles reiterated by industry as well, and I believe some companies evenadopted the same―or similar―Principles. However,as time went on, I saw fewer posters and heard thePrinciples mentioned less often. While I think they
did become part of NRC culture, which after all,
Copyright © JAPAN NUS CO., LTD. All Rights Reserved

Dr. Marcus' Room No. 10

was the most important outcome, I sometimes
wondered how many people really knew the Principles existed.
Thus, I have been delighted, in the last year or so,to hear the Principles of Good Regulation again
being mentioned prominently by NRC Commissioners and others. To my pleasure, two of the new
Commissioners, Commissioner Svinicki and Commissioner Ostendorff, have been particularly activein discussing the Principles of Good Regulation in
their speeches and other pronouncements.
Of course, I will be the first to say that the existence of Principles does not make an agency perfect. There have been many times in the past 20
years when NRC did not adhere fully to the Principles, and I am sure there will be times in the future when they will not adhere fully to the Principles.

Nevertheless, they are an aspirational goal that I
believe has helped make the NRC a better agency
and a better regulator. They have stood the test oftime and seem to be even more vital today thanthey were 20 years ago. Therefore, I am very proudthat I had a role in their formation, and I was very
pleased that JANUS offered me this chance todiscuss them in the Marcus Room.
I welcome comments on this essay.
My e-mail address is: ghmarcus alum.mit.edu.
（ An image charactor is used intentionally for@-sign. Please cut the image and put a keystroke@-sign.)November 2010

*****

4

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

Dr. Marcus' Room No. 10

Principles of Good Regulation
From NRC Website（http：//www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/values.html#principles）
As a responsible regulator with a very important safety and security mission, our values guide us inmaintaining certain principles in the way we carry out our regulatory activities. These principles focus us
on ensuring safety and security while appropriately balancing the interests of the NRC's stakeholders,
including the public and licensees. The principles are:Independence:

Openness:

Efficiency:

5Nothing but the highest possible standards of ethical performance and professionalism should influence regulation. However, independence does not imply isolation. All available facts
and opinions must be sought openly from licensees and otherinterested members of the public. The many and possibly conflicting public interests involved must be considered. Final decisions must be based on objective, unbiased assessments of all
information, and must be documented with reasons explicitly
stated.
Nuclear regulation is the public's business, and it must betransacted publicly and candidly. The public must be informed
about and have the opportunity to participate in the regulatory
processes as required by law. Open channels of communicationmust be maintained with Congress, other government agencies,
licensees, and the public, as well as with the international nuclear community.
The American taxpayer, the rate-paying consumer, and licensees
are all entitled to the best possible management and administration of regulatory activities. The highest technical andmanagerial competence is required, and must be a constantagency goal. NRC must establish means to evaluate and continually upgrade its regulatory capabilities. Regulatory activities should be consistent with the degree of risk reduction they
achieve. Where several effective alternatives are available, theoption which minimizes the use of resources should be adopted.
Regulatory decisions should be made without undue delay.

Clarity:

Regulations should be coherent, logical, and practical. There
should be a clear nexus between regulations and agency goals
and objectives whether explicitly or implicitly stated. Agency
positions should be readily understood and easily applied.

Reliability:

Regulations should be based on the best available knowledge
from research and operational experience. Systems interactions,
technological uncertainties, and the diversity of licensees andregulatory activities must all be taken into account so that risks
are maintained at an acceptably low level. Once established,regulation should be perceived to be reliable and not unjustifiably in a state of transition. Regulatory actions should always
be fully consistent with written regulations and should be
promptly, fairly, and decisively administered so as to lend stability to the nuclear operational and planning processes.

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