# Risk-Informed Regulation Implementation Plan
**AGENCY:**
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
**ACTION:**
Notice of availability of plan and request for public comment.
**SUMMARY:**
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's 1995 policy statement on the use of probabilistic risk assessment provided the Commission's expectation on the use of risk information in its regulatory activities. The Risk-informed Regulation Implementation Plan (RIRIP) provides guidance and describes the staff's plans for applying criteria to select regulatory requirements and practices to risk-inform, risk-informing those requirements and practices, and developing the necessary data, methods, guidance, and training. The RIRIP is also intended to explain the agency's activities, philosophy, and approach to risk-informed regulatory policy to internal and external stakeholders. The public is invited to provide feedback on the agency's plans and progress toward implementing risk-informed regulatory initiatives.
**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:**
This notice serves as a request for public comment on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Risk-Informed Regulatory Implementation Plan (SECY-00-0213) that is dated October 26, 2000 (web address: *http://www.nrc.gov/RES/nrc.html* ). Written comments are requested by February 28, 2001. A workshop will be scheduled in early 2001 to discuss comments received and to provide for the exchange of information will all stakeholders regarding the staff's efforts to risk-inform its regulatory requirements and practices. The workshop agenda and other details will be provided in a forthcoming *Federal Register* notice prior to the workshop Feedback is especially requested on the following specific questions—
1. Does the RIRIP include information activities that *should not* be undertaken? If so, why not?
2. Does the RIRIP omit implementation activities that *should* be undertaken? Describe such activities and why they should be undertaken.
3. How should the NRC measure its success in implementing risk-informed regulation?
4. Is the pace for implementing risk-informed regulation about right, or is to fast or too slow?
5. Are there concerns about the agency's ability to maintain safety while implementing risk-informed regulation? If so, describe the concerns and, if possible, their basis.
6. How can risk-informed regulation increase public confidence?
7. Are the screening criteria clear and sufficient? If applied properly, would they result in identifying those activities amenable for transition to risk-informed regulation?
8. Will the implementation activities described in the RIRIP appropriately improve regulatory efficiency, effectiveness, and realism?
9. Other than requests such as this for written comment and a public workshop, how can stakeholder participation in risk-informed regulation be enhanced?
10. What communication activities would be desired to describe risk-informed regulation? What other interactions would be useful to provide input to, and understanding of, risk-informed regulation?
**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:**
Written comments may be sent to Thomas L. King, Director of the Division of Risk Analysis and Applications, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, MS: T10-E50, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, email: [email protected].
Dated this 13th day of December 2000.
Thomas L. King,
Director, Division of Risk Analysis and Applications, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.