The risk assessment outlines potential exposure scenarios. The consultant who would have done this indicated the parameters they would have used for a commercial assessment. They looked at all age groups except an infant under the age of six months. They assumed that the person would have been on site for approximately eight hours a day. Just to give you the comparison, if we had done a residential scenario, it would have been 24 hours a day.
They looked at presence five days a week versus seven, which you would have had in a residential assessment. They looked at 52 weeks a year, but they did annotate that it was to be precautionary, recognizing that the site is frozen for a number of months during the year. Nonetheless, they defaulted to the 52 weeks to have the precautionary period. Then it was looking at contact per day, so they had water contact per day and dermal exposure per day.
These are the types of scenarios that are used to guide. Then, for a risk assessment, they look at the environment and the risks to human health. They'll look at the type, amount and location of the contamination, the presence of people or wildlife that may visit the site, the roots of exposure, and then the physical environmental characteristics of the site, and they'll look at receptors for that exposure to happen and how it can be transmitted.
This would be something that we would redo with the communities and with the involvement of the nations. I think that it's really important for us to better understand if these scenarios were sufficient. Did we sufficiently take into account their interactions with the site? Community foods were considered, but it's important for them to advise—