When we were considering the model we propose, we did look at some other facilities. Gord was actually able to go down to visit Oak Ridge recently.
One of the models we looked at, the Canadian Neutron Beam Centre at Chalk River,was actually on a smaller scale. It is an exception to Chalk River as a whole. The Canadian Neutron Beam Centre is operated by the National Research Council as opposed to AECL, so understandably it has a different mission. Its mission is to be a national science facility.
The model there is roughly 60% in direct support from the National Research Council and 40% revenue. That revenue comes from two streams. One is from industry, because industry pays cost-recovery fees for access to the neutron beams to get information about the industrial components they need for their businesses. It could be an airplane turbine. It could be steel that's going to be used in bridges. The Challenger space shuttle is a famous example. They sent a piece of that to Chalk River for analysis.
In addition to revenue from industry for proprietary research, there is academic research. NSERC pays a significant portion, as well, to maintain the facility in a state of readiness for access by scientists from universities all across Canada. External sources, such as universities and industry and other government research programs, use 80% of the beam time.
Scaling that up to Chalk River, we think that the 60:40 model is probably still reasonable. There would be a heavy weight toward the industrial side of that revenue. As an example, a representative of AREVA testified at this committee not too long ago. I remember him saying that they spent $1.2 billion last year alone on research and development. The nuclear research and development market is a big area. Opening the lab to business from other industries, besides the current CANDU business of AECL, could certainly generate a lot of revenue.