Pilorin, Ronald CDPH-DDWEM Subject: Morgan, Larry (CDPH-PS-DDWEM) Monday, November 07, 2011 4:57 PM 'yugzster@gmail.com'; Jue, Tracy (CDPH-DDWEM); Pilorin, Ronald (CDPH-DDWEM); Takeoka, Glenn (CDPH-DDWEM-EHS); Hook, Robin (CDPH-DDWEM); Walker, Leah (CDPH-DDWEM); Woods, Steve (CDPH-PS-DFDRS-RHB) Re: TI afternoon meeting ****PRIVATE**** Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Flagged From: Sent: To: Thanks for the information, it sounds like similar information Tracy provided about an earlier meeting. Larry From: gaetano taibi To: Jue, Tracy (CDPH-DDWEM); Morgan, Larry (CDPH-PS-DDWEM) Sent: Wed Nov 02 13:33:032011 Subject: 11 afternoon meeting ****PRIVATE**** Tracy/Larry, I'm listening in on the afternoon call which is basically a "chemicals" discussion. I had the phone on mute and thought the meeting hadn't started, but it had, and I didn't have the opportunity to mmounce myself. The chemical risk assessment folks were stating that the conceptual site model was flawed because they've found debris all over the island. They expressed concerns about pockets of chemical contamination outside Site 12. (This was when I joined in.) There was a short rad section. It was stated that the RHB walkover survey, along with some upcoming gamma walkover survey (that is now being planned and soon to be performed) would be used to determine where they need to investigate rad further, and that this would bound the contamination for Site 12 (rad). I stated that the RHB data could not be used to draw conclusions on nature and extent, and that a gamma walkover survey would probably not be sufficient as it would only reflect data for the top six inches (unless there is a large amount rad at depth). Also that this was not the goal of the RHB survey. Earlier in the meeting they had made several derogatory comments about EMB (joking about taking rad data out of the risk assessment because they didn't want to involve CDPH), and were surprised that I was on the line. They stated that the walkover data along with copious "trench data" that they have, they could bound the rad at Site 12. They said that data was "out there all over the place". Denise said we had received a whole bunch of data (CDs) and I probably just wasn't aware ofthis. I told them we had not received the trenching data. I was told we had received large amounts of data, but it had been looked at and my understanding was that there was no rad data, and of course reminded them that we had been asking for this data for about 2 years now. They stated that this was a Jim Sullivan action item, and that he had just stepped out of the room. They also stated that there was plenty of groundwater rad data and that rad in groundwater did not seem to be an issue for the regulators. I was kind of pushed out of the conversation by Denise and the rest of the group, and they dismissed my comments and wanted to get back on track (which I let them). Did we get this risk assessment document? Did we comment on it? I'm getting the distinct impression there is a lot more going on here than we are led to believe. Also the derogatory comments about CDPH lead me to believe DTSC is not on our side (no surprise). They are making distinct efforts to move rad data from these risk documents to keep them out of CDPH's realm. They are going to great lengths to determine nature and extent for chemical.. .not so for rad. This is disappointing to listen to. On the chemical side they are definitely a team. Not that way for CDPH and rad. Guy.