The only thing I can say about the technical risk is that the predecessor project to the MAPLE was a MAPLE X reactor. AECL terminated that program in the early nineties, and indeed, that sort of precipitated a bit the actions leading to the MAPLE.
Now with respect to the regulatory reference in the Auditor General's 1998 report, I wasn't engaged in the file at that time. I understand there were regulatory decisions taken to the effect that the operators for the MAPLE reactor had to have the same type of training as the operators for power reactors. That required a certain amount of expenditure to get the people trained to operate the reactors and to get the more qualified people engaged. That's my understanding of the history.