NRIC to me looks like organization chart reshuffling. But it is true that the physical infrastructure required for prototype testing is the same whether the prototype is taxpayer funded or privately funded. The problem is that there won't be any true prototype testing under current NRC policies. The NRIC wont change that. That's why GKG proposes switching the burden of evaluating the risk of testing to the insurers. The essence of our proposal is in Part 2 of the series, not the plug for Hanford in Part 3.
Similar to NRIC s objectives at INL. But that program appears to be slow and bureaucratic, underfunded, and too risk averse.
Lorenzo,
NRIC to me looks like organization chart reshuffling. But it is true that the physical infrastructure required for prototype testing is the same whether the prototype is taxpayer funded or privately funded. The problem is that there won't be any true prototype testing under current NRC policies. The NRIC wont change that. That's why GKG proposes switching the burden of evaluating the risk of testing to the insurers. The essence of our proposal is in Part 2 of the series, not the plug for Hanford in Part 3.