Federal Register: December 21, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 246)
DOCID: FR Doc 00-32555
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
ACTION: Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.:
DOCUMENT ACTION: Notice of availability of plan and request for public comment.
Risk-Informed Regulation Implementation Plan
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 Riskinformed Regulation Implementation Plan (RIRIP) provides guidance and describes the staff's plans for applying criteria to select regulatory requirements and practices to riskinform, 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 riskinformed regulatory policy to internal and external stakeholders. The public is invited to provide feedback on the agency's plans and progress toward implementing riskinformed regulatory initiatives.
Risk-informed regulation implementation plan,
This notice serves as a request for public comment on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's RiskInformed Regulatory Implementation Plan (SECY000213) 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 riskinform 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 riskinformed regulation about right, or is to fast or too slow?
5. Are there concerns about the agency's ability to maintain safety while implementing riskinformed regulation? If so, describe the concerns and, if possible, their basis.
6. How can riskinformed 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 riskinformed 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 riskinformed regulation be enhanced?
10. What communication activities would be desired to describe riskinformed regulation? What other interactions would be useful to provide input to, and understanding of, riskinformed 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: T10E50, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 205550001, email: firstname.lastname@example.org. [[Page 80474]]
Dated this 13th day of December 2000.
Thomas L. King,
Director, Division of Risk Analysis and Applications, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.
[FR Doc. 0032555 Filed 122000; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 759001M