Yes. This is trying to tie the way nuclear facilities are built and maintained. There should never be any assumption by the operator, because of a limited liability, that anything changes in the way it builds or operates a facility. Now, the operators will say that this is the case. This is trying to internalize an externalized cost.
We have given a false limit to the insurance that's available. We have said we're going to cap it. We never want this to create the unintended consequence that an operator is able to say, “Well, it's only $650 million; therefore, it affects the way we do our operations.” This is only in the case that negligence is proven—not suspected, but proven out, in either the tribunal or a court.
We're saying that if negligence went on, and particularly if it was known, as we get into these inquiries—and we can sometimes trace back and find out where the negligence occurred—the liability limit shouldn't be afforded a group like that. It shouldn't be afforded an organization that performed negligently that it get the special $650-million-limit privilege We think that's wrong.
So it's only in the case where it's proven, to add further stringency to the way the providers do their business and the way the employees go about doing their work, so that they know that if they're negligent, if they screw up and cause an accident and cause all this damage, the $650-million limit is not going to be there for them, that it's going to be much higher.