Yes, there have been some questions in response to this event. Would we have to re-engineer much of our equipment and plant, and would that then add to the cost of it?
While it's not a final outcome in terms of all of the causal factors in Japan, our view would be that our plants are designed to meet what we would consider to be credible design-basis faults. Once we have carried out the review we've been asked to do with the regulator, it will be our job to confirm that the design basis is sound.
We are pretty confident that will be the case. I still expect there'll be a number of lessons learned, but I don't expect them necessarily to be capital-intensive lessons. I expect they will be lessons about how you manage a multiple event, because obviously this is a site with four units, all together. So if you have an event in one, then it actually can escalate to all four. And obviously in Ontario we do have units.
For my own plant, of course, many parallels have been drawn because we actually do have six operational units, much like the plant at Fukushima. When we return our other two units to service shortly, we will have the largest power plant in the world in one place, in Ontario.
So I think there will be lessons about how our emergency management system copes with all of this generation in one place, and whether our plans are adequate to address that. But I think it is already clear to me that there will not be major plant requirements.
For example, if you think about the Fukushima plant, to make it more tsunami-proof, if I can say that, it would simply have been a matter of repositioning some of the equipment at a higher level. It wouldn't have been about purchasing more equipment. So some of those things would obviously be taken into the design for a new build.