Thank you.
The toxicologist on Tuesday disagreed that the consultant had appropriately taken the uses into consideration. I'll quote from her testimony:
The main technical inaccuracy identified in my review of the risk assessment conducted by the third-party consultants—which would have limited its usefulness in managing health risks and determining remedial objectives, which was the stated intent—is that the consultant incorrectly classified the site as commercial use, effectively limiting the assessment of human exposure, which is inaccurate given the reliance of community members on Big Dock for their traditional way of life.
In other words, what the toxicologist is saying is that there are different standards, and understandably so, for a commercial dock versus a place where people swim, fish and even drink the water.
Is it your evidence that an assessment has accurately taken this in? Do you disagree with the toxicologist that this has been held to the same standard as a recreational area or an area where fishing and swimming go on?