The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission assessed the ACR in 2005. Two problems were identified—positive reactivity, which was compensated for by using enriched uranium, and a design problem. In the text, we read that, as a result of these two problems, the negative reactivity objectives established by AECL were not attained.
Changes were supposed to be made, to the design among other things. As you were saying earlier, it is a complex issue. As members, we don't have university degrees in nuclear energy. Earlier, I asked the minister whether we could compare the MAPLE reactor to the ACR reactor, but I found his answer more confusing than enlightening. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission finds that the ACR has positive reactivity problems and design problems, something that would run counter to the objectives set by AECL.