First of all, the webcasts of the CNSC meeting of June 11 are still available on the net, so all of this is public knowledge.
There were a lot of questions by the commission members about how this happened over the period of time--the concentrations on the vessel itself, the corrosion of the vessel. The commission members asked a lot of questions. The first vessel was replaced after 20 years, so why wasn't the second one looked at in terms of a risk for that? There was a lot of discussion about that. There were a lot of questions by the commission members as to the way the inspection happened in 2000. It didn't provide a broad view.
Until AECL finishes this complete assessment of it--it was new knowledge that hadn't been available publicly before--it isn't absolutely clear how many corrosion sites there are, the depth of that corrosion, and what the answer is. So I think AECL is being fulsome now in saying that there's a problem.