Despite your contentions, there are concerns. Did you consider any alternative solutions as part of the project assessment process? We are aware, and you have confirmed this, that your role is to issue licenses. I have read your report, which is liberally peppered with arguments submitted by Bruce Power. You failed to mention the issue of plutonium. As a result, some people are contending that the shipment may exceed permitted limits. Your poor and scanty presentation undermines the message. You held two cursory public meetings. In addition, you failed to consider alternative solutions.
Is this due to shortcomings in the legislation? Should there not be an alternative solution? It appears to me that your role stops at assessing whether the project is dangerous and whether it can be authorized. However, it seems to me that you could have attempted to develop a plan B. Did you have a plan B?