First of all, we are aware of the proximity to the river. In the analysis of the site, the strategy was, again, to minimize the transport of the material. That was the strategy laid out to try to site the facility, which is done very frequently across the world with these types of sites, to have the site at the facilities so you're not transporting this material all over the place.
The decision to site it is a complex one, and not one that I am qualified to say is either the right site or the wrong site. What I can tell you is that it is part of the process by which the CNSC will review the location, and more importantly, the location is not as important as the degree at which the material is contained.
I'll give you an example, actually, at Port Granby. The radioactive material currently is sitting really right on the banks of the lake. What we're doing is simply moving it away from the lake, maybe 700 metres or something, not even a kilometre, and then it's contained.
On the issue at hand, I recognize the sensitivity around impact to water. I can assure you that AECL is equally concerned. As Claude mentioned, we are very conscious of protecting the environment. That's part of our mandate. However, we really have to rely on the expertise of a very robust regulatory process that comes in the form of CNSC to assure ourselves that there will be no impact on the river.