I think the nuclear safety regulatory methods are unduly expensive and confrontational. Nuclear systems are no more hazardous than many large industrial systems, and on the numbers, have a superior safety record to plants using hydroelectricity and fossil fuels, as well as refineries and many chemical plants. In a more traditional regulatory regime, the NRC would designate or license inspectors, inspecting firms or designated engineering representatives. U.S. legislation may not permit it, but this approach is the traditional safety regime in aviation, fire, electrical, electronic and structural design, all areas with substantial continuing needs and regulations for public safety. Similar systems with commercial regulators are used successfully in Europe to license medical devices. Abandoning these traditional regulatory methods damages nuclear innovation in a particularly expensive way that is unwarranted by facts. That is, it is poor allocation of resources to manage nuclear plants and systems in such detail and yet refuse to regulate more hazardous systems, such as hydroelectric, coal or natural gas plants, in similar ways.