Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-10-04 Windward Transcript PD yagong & blas PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT OCTOBER 4, 2012 COUNCIL CHAIRPERSON DOMINIC YAGONG’S 8/2/12 A discussion on CORRESPONDENCE AND COUNCILPERSON FRED BLAS’S 8/8/12 CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING USE OF THE GEOTHERMAL ASSET FUND TO FUND A HEALTH STUDY was held at 9:08 a.m. in the County of Hawai‘i Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i, with Chairman Zendo Kern presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Zendo Kern, Dean Au, Ronald Gonzales, Wallace Ishibashi, and Raylene Moses STAFF PRESENT: Ivan Torigoe (Deputy Corporation Counsel), B. J. Leithead Todd (Planning Director), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Phyllis Fujimoto (Staff Planner), Maija Cottle (Staff Planner), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner), and Sharon Nomura (Secretary) ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Stephen Ono And 25 people from the public in attendance. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 1.Discussion regarding letter dated August 2, 2012 from Council Chairperson Dominic Yagong to Windward Planning Commission Chairperson Zendo Kern requesting information on the process for requesting use of the Geothermal Asset Fund to fund a health study as a community approved mitigation project for the Puna community to address the alleviation or attenuation of direct detrimental effects of geothermal operations permitted under Geothermal Resources Permit No. 2. 2.Discussion regarding letter dated August 8, 2012 from Councilperson Fred Blas to Windward Planning Commission Chairperson Zendo Kern requesting information on procedures for requesting use of the Geothermal Asset Fund to fund a health study for Puna to determine the possible negative impacts of geothermal power producing activities at the Puna Geothermal Venture Plant. KERN: Moving on to administrative matters, we have one and two on here. It's basically discussion regarding the letter from Chairman Yagong and, two, discussion of a letter from Councilman Blas. If it is okay with my Fellow Commissioners I'd like to lump these together because I feel that these are overall overlapping conversations about this greater topic. So if there is no objection we’re going to do that. Thank you. So what we’ll do is have a presentation from Daryn, give us some background, some history on this. And everyone has received their –? ISHIBASHI: Brother Chair? 1 EXHIBIT C KERN: Yes, Commissioner Ishibashi. ISHIBASHI: I would like to excuse myself from this discussion. I’m a supporter of geothermal and all alternative energy. But this discussion on the Asset Fund, I would like to excuse myself from participating. KERN: Okay, Commissioner Ishibashi, you are excused. ISHIBASHI: Okay KERN: Thank you very much, and you’re going to sit out there then. Thank you. So, yes, Daryn. And just to make sure, everybody, Fellow Commissioners have received the chronological kind of background report? GONZALES: Yes. KERN: Good, very good. Daryn. ARAI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I may direct your attention to the screen. We wanted to provide the Commissioners with a brief overview of the Geothermal Resource Permit No. 2, by which a condition in the permit resulted in the establishment of the Geothermal Asset Fund. First, for those of you who are not familiar, this is a map showing the Puna District in the vicinity of Leilani Estates, which is this subdivision here toward the bottom of the map, and Nanawale Estates which is shown at the top of the map. This is the road, Kapoho Road, leading down toward Kapoho and the lighthouse. Oops, oh, I'm sorry it's right here, my apologies. And the PGV project site is indicated here outlined by the heavy black line. That area comprises of roughly 500 acres; and the PGP site itself and the facility is up, occupies roughly 25 acres within the larger 500-acre project site. LEITHEAD TODD: Daryn, backup for a minute. If you look at the line going into the little area where PGV is and you go straight, straight down, the next subdivision below that, that’s Lanipuna, for the purposes of the Commission’s information, which is separate and apart from Leilani. And it, to some extent, is probably the closest subdivision. ARAI: Thank you for clarifying that, Director. This is an aerial photograph of the project site. As you can see the facility is basically occupying both properties. These black lines basically represent two legal lots of record, and that's all it represents. The PGV site, again, has various facilities occurring on both parcels, as indicated here by the aerial photo. Again, as the Director pointed out, Lanipuna Gardens is located here to the south. Back in October 3, 1989: The Planning Commission approved Geothermal Resource Permit No. 2 to allow for the establishment of the Puna Geothermal Venture facility which was proposed to generate 25 megawatts of power. That approval was subject to conditions that included a Condition No. 51 requiring PGV to provide contributions to a Geothermal Asset Fund for the purpose of geothermal impact mitigation efforts within the district of Puna. PGV provided an initial contribution of $60,000 toward the fund with an annual contribution of $50,000 thereafter. The State of Hawai‘i also made an 2 EXHIBIT C initial contribution to this fund in the amount of $250,000. All claims and community approved geothermal impact mitigation projects must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. In July of, 11, 1995, the Commission adopted its Rule No. 14 regarding the Geothermal Asset Fund. And the purpose of the Rule is to allow the Planning Commission to authorize payment from the Fund to claimant(s) whom the Commission finds has been adversely impacted by activities authorized or unauthorized by GRP No. 2. Rule No. 14 also authorizes payment for community approved geothermal impact mitigation projects within the Puna District. Claims for compensation from the Geothermal Asset Fund may be filed by any person or organization, and may include temporary relocation, medical expenses, business or economic loss and payment for adverse impacts. In July 18, 1995, theDirector approved a 5 megawatt increase in production of power at the generation, at the PGV power plant for a total 30 megawatts of power. On January 19, 2001, the Commission approved an amendment to GRP No. 2 to allow PGV to develop and operate a 60 megawatt geothermal power plant consisting of multiple power generation facilities and support equipment. Again, similar to, the amendment also contains a total of 49 conditions of approval. In April of 2010, with the establishment of the separate Windward and Leeward Planning Commissions in 2009, the, your Rules of Practice and Procedures was amended in April of 2010. Specific to the rule regarding the Geothermal Asset Fund, the amendments allowed the Windward Planning Commission only to authorize payments from the Fund for eligible claimant(s) and for community mitigation projects within the Puna District. With the adoption of your comprehensive rules the rule was renumbered from Commission Rule No. 14 to Rule No. 12 regarding the Geothermal Asset Fund. And as of this month, the Asset Fund currently maintains a balance of just over $2 million. As the Chairman mentioned, you have two letters before you. One letter from Council Chairman DominicYagong and the other from Councilman Fred Blas. As the Chairman also indicated to you, we delivered to the Commission a letter dated October 3, 2012 that provided a slightly more detailed chronology that I just recently presented, as well as a brief discussion regarding the two letters from the Councilmen. Regarding Councilman Yagong’s letter, it requests guidance on how to utilize the Fund to fund a study that was proposed through the Puna Pono Alliance. We do have some concerns and questions as to whether or not such a specific proposal would warrant compliance with the Hawai‘i Public Procurement Code in order to expend funds of that magnitude without following standard procurement procedures. The letter from Councilmember Blas was based on, he indicated that was based on petitions being circulated in the community by a citizens group from Leilani Estates Subdivision expressing the need for such a, for such a study. It didn’t offer a specific proposal but it indicated a need for such a study. The Councilman Blas letter also included a draft resolution that he intends to introduce at the Council, which if adopted would direct the Planning Commission to identify a, an entity to conduct such a health study in accordance with the State’s Procurement Laws. If adopted, the Resolution would be an 3 EXHIBIT C expression by the entire County Council regarding the request or the procurement of services for a health study in the Puna District. In light of the two letters, it basically asks the same question – What is the process in order to, for a health study to be funded by the Geothermal Asset Fund. So with that said, the Director is recommending that the Planning Commission after discussion and deliberation on the two letters direct the, direct her to investigate and assist in defining a clear process by which the protocols, methodologies and guidelines are developed for conducting a health study within the Puna District. So with that, I stand ready to answer any questions that you may have. KERN: Are there any questions for staff? ARAI: Oh -. KERN: Daryn, yes? ARAI: My apologies for interrupting. We did receive testimony that was, has been distributed to you. One is a document submitted by Robert Petricci and a second is a document by Mr. Wiesenbauer and John Tucker. Both have been distributed to you. KERN: Thank you. Any questions for staff? Seeing none, thank you, Daryn. Yes, I want to make sure that we’re clear, over here is clear; and the Commission, Commissioners are clear that, you know, we are talking about process and bringing up any questions that we have about the process, so we’re clear on what that process will be moving forward. We’re not going to be voting on doing a health study today, but really about understanding this and bringing up any questions that may come up, such as procurement. Everybody clear on that? Anybody have any questions about what the intent is? No? Okay, good. So public testimony is limited to three minutes. What I would like to do is, not part of the public testimony part but continuing on, just to getting some more information. I think it’d behoove us to have a representative from Puna Pono Alliance speak for a little bit, as well as Council Member Blas to give us a greater understanding of the intent of those letters, and maybe ask any questions so that we can further clarify. Okay. LEITHEAD TODD: Is he speaking for Dominic or you’re going to give Dominic an opportunity? KERN: Whoever wants to, either one, whoever wants to represent that, either one is fine. So, Chairman Yagong. And we’re going to limit to, just to kind of keep it across the board, equal-equal for everybody, ten minutes reasonable? YAGONG: Oh, I hope not, not that long. KERN: Okay. So, but that -. Okay, let’s just call it ten minutes across the Board for -. YAGONG: Yeah, thank you. Cause, I know you mentioned earlier -. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for allowing this, that you’re going to lump Mr. Blas and me together. Well, both of us together, that’s a pretty big lump, you know, especially on my side. Well, no, thank you for doing it. I think 4 EXHIBIT C Mr. Blas and I, and I think when you really take a look at the entire community, I think we’re all on the same page here. And I think that -. KERN: And before you continue. YAGONG: Yeah? KERN: I’m going to swear you in. YAGONG: Okay. KERN: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? YAGONG: Dominic Yagong. KERN: Just, say yes or no. YAGONG: Oh, yes. Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t hear, I didn’t hear the question. I’m sorry. KERN: Do you swear to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? YAGONG: Oh, yes, I do, I do. Thank you. KERN: Okay, give your, you’re on it. Give your name and you may -. YAGONG: Okay. Dominic Yagong, Chairman of the Hawai‘i County Council. Thank you very much for this opportunity. First of all, I just want to say that I think we really are along the same page, I mean all of us are on the same page. I think what Mr. Blas is trying to do, as well as myself, and I think members of the community, I think we're on the same page, which is to have a health study that can once and for all be a productive one that the community can look at and really determine if there is a problem. And if there is not a problem, that's great. If there is a problem, then, you know, it certainly needs to be addressed. But I think there's no conflicting deal with that. I think we’re all on the same page. I just want to let you know in regards to a letter that I sent to you folks, that came on the heels of a bill that was presented to the County Council, Bill 256, which basically changed the relocation fund to it, to be a public safety fund, which we were hoping to fund the health studies. That did pass by the County Council. However it was vetoed by the Mayor. And in the veto message that was sent down from the Mayor, basically what he said was that the ability to do health studies and, you know, public safety things like monitors and so forth, is already available or can already be used, done through the Asset Fund. And that was one of the main points. And as the Council deliberated whether they should support the bill or support the veto of Mayor Kenoi, that certainly was a very important point, that the Asset Fund is the proper fund to do the health studies and do the monitoring, and purchase the monitoring and all the safety devices that the community was asking for. So, of course, the Mayor's veto was sustained. And so based on that and based on the representation that the Asset Fund could be 5 EXHIBIT C utilized for health studies, that's when Puna Pono Alliance, a very active member of the community in regards to this issue, came forward and said okay, well if, if you, if the fund is set up to be able to do a health study, then here is our proposal for a health study. So basically that’s how it came through my office; and, you know, although as I looked at Rule 12 it was very obvious to me that it was not set up as a means to deal with the, either accepting or putting together a proposal for health studies. It was basically for mitigation purposes, people filing claims and so forth. So, but at the same time being that it was a fund identified as a means to do health studies, that's why they came forward with the, with this proposal. So, so I guess the reason I am here today is, understanding that you do need to promulgate rules and, you know, that authority does rest with you folks -. So in order for, as far as I am concerned, for a health study to move forward it’s going to be incumbent upon this body to be able to come up with those rules that everyone can, you know, certainly agree to and support. I only come with a cautious in regards to this. And I had a conversation with a gentleman outside earlier. And I said the real importance of where this Commission goes in terms of putting forth the process for the health study, it is so important to get all views of how the health study will be run by everybody in the community, those that oppose, those that support. It has got to be a very good cross-section. Because, if not, what will happen is you put forth a study or a process or even someone that administers it that either does not have the credibility or buy-in from all members of the community, both sides of the issue, you are going to end up spending a lot of time and money and end up at the same place at the very end. So, you know, I mean, so as you promulgate these rules please do so with that in mind, making sure it's important that everyone be able to be brought to the table. And I think there is a lot of folks that are identified already in the community in regards to the geothermal issue, on both sides of the issue. So I think you can very clearly be able to bring in individuals that, that have these views that I think can be very important to making sure the process is a fair and equitable one that everyone can buy in. Cause at the end, whatever the health study turns out, it’s something that we hope that will be accepted by the general community so that we can certainly move on. Because as Council Members, and then certainly as Commissioners, it is our duty, our sworn duty, to protect the health and safety of the community. And I think this health study is one of the ways that we can get there, because it can once and for all really answer a lot of questions that I think a lot of people have out there. So, with that said, if you have any questions regarding the Puna Pono’s presentation, that is really Mr. Bob Petricci that should answer that. I just wanted to give you my take as far as hopefully where we go from here. Okay. KERN: Thank you, Chairman Yagong. My Fellow Commissioners have any questions for Chairman Yagong? Seeing none, thank you. You may have a seat. So, Bob, do you still, do you want to speak -? PETRICCI: Yes, oh, yeah. KERN: On the Puna Pono Alliance? PETRICCI: Yes. Unless -. 6 EXHIBIT C KERN: Well, no, since you guys are, it’s the same letter. Let’s move with that. So you’ve got ten minutes. And before we begin, please raise your right hand. Use the microphone. Do you swear to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? PETTRICCI: Yes. KERN: And give me your name, and area in which you live, and then you may begin. PETRICCI: My name is Robert Petricci. I live in Pohoiki. I live near the geothermal power plant, since 1981, which was the HGPA original power plant. So I am a founding member of Puna Pono Alliance; and I did submit a letter to you, some testimony to you guys. Since then I hadn’t seen the Planning Director’s or the presentation from the Planning Department, so there may be some things that are, you know, have changed slightly. You know, it doesn’t seem like there were any rules in place at the time. I think that’s why we’re here. And so just some of this, we’ve been working, Puna Pono Alliance has been working on a health study for six months or so, quite a while, before Bill 256 came up. And the County Council, Dominic Yagong was, you know, we asked him to do that; and so he brought Bill 256 forward. And so then when that was -. And during that process when they killed the bill, the bill was vetoed, we were told that that was because there was another process in place, the Asset Fund, and that was the proper way to do this. So we had the proposal, we had been working on it. And so when they did that we went ahead and filed the proposal with the Asset Fund Rule at the Planning Department; and that’s how we ended up here. Because it turned out there really wasn’t a process in place to do that. And so now we’re trying to figure out how we’re supposed to do that. So, let’s see. We’ve been, it has 30 years this has been going on. We had a Department of Health do the study with the National Health Institute, then we had Dr. Legator come up from Texas University, he did a study; and nothing has been decided. We’re still here after 30 years. And, so hopefully this time we’re going to do this in a way that’s going to really answer this question so we can move on. Because it hasn’t, you know, this has been going on for a really long time. So it’s very important that all sides are satisfied. Like it has been mentioned by several people, you know, the industry side and the community side all are going to need to feel that this study is going to actually be a real study and it’s not tilted to one side or the other. So I hope that we can accomplish that. I’m just going to go through what I read here, submitted here a little bit. And Mayor Kenoi recently said the County will develop a framework for a geothermal health study that’s going to be devoid of a political agenda, and he's going to rely on Peter Adler to help the County develop guidelines for such a study. So we think that’s a promising statement, although a Puna geothermal health study is already heavy with political issues, obviously. On the one hand, we have the residents near HGPA and PGV have said for decades they’ve suffered toxic effects from geothermal emissions. A study 10 years ago by Dr. Marvin Legator, University of Texas, documented such symptoms. On the one hand, geothermal proponents say geothermal emissions are safe and cause no toxic impact at low levels - some of them even, have even attacked the Legator's study as being biased. So assuming the Windward Planning Commission is in tune with Mayor Kenoi on how geothermal health issues will be studied pursuant to guidelines developed by the County, the participation of Dr. Kilburn in such a study is essential, from our point of view, in the community, and to be considered a partner in developing the guidelines. Only within the recent years have serious medical studies of low- level exposure to hydrogen sulfide been undertaken and published. Dr. Legator was one of the 7 EXHIBIT C pioneers in that effort and he is now deceased. Dr. Kilburn, now age 81, was an associate of Dr. Legator and is still working in the realm of community low-level exposure to hydrogen sulfide. He probably has more experience in that field than anyone else. So this has been going on a long time and you know, everybody agrees that high levels of hydrogen sulfide are a real problem, real health concern. The conflict is low levels, and it is not, they’re not, nobody is saying that there is no impact from low-level exposures. What they’ve been saying for all these years is we don't know, and now that has started to change. The EPA, I'll go through this a little more. That is starting to change now because it has finally been studied. One of the reasons is people like Dr. Kilburn have not been able to get funding. You know, the low level studies haven't really been able to get the kind of fundings that are necessary to establish that. The issue reaches, and the reason for that is the issue reaches beyond Hawai‘i and Puna Geothermal concerns. H2S is one of the most ubiquitous gasses in the industry, if I pronounced that right. And it is produced by major industrial process all over the world. If the toxicity of chronic exposure to low levels of hydrogen sulfide is established, then those industrial sources fear requirements to take remediation measures at great expense. The company line on this issue has been that H2S is well known to be highly toxic at high exposures, but it is not yet known whether long-term, low-level exposure to this gas causes any health effects. For H2S fearing industries, long-term delaying tactics offer the best possible potential profit results. The desire to keep the community line, company line afloat is economically and politically motivated as it stands between industry and costly remediation requirements. However, last year, after 10 years of being delayed by industry lobbyists, the federal EPA has “determined that hydrogen sulfide can reasonably be anticipated to cause serious or irreversible chronic human health effects at relatively low doses and thus is considered to have moderately high to high chronic toxicity.” Now that's, you can confirm that in the documents, there are links to all that document that I gave you, so you can see that for yourself. The finding was published in the Federal Register, 76 FR 64027. Funds from the government, institutional and industry sources have not been readily available to researchers likely to find H2S can cause serious or irreversible chronic health effects at relatively low doses. One such person not knowing, not kowtowing to company line propaganda is Dr. Kilburn. Keeping him out of the health studied in Puna would hardly be an appropriate, an approach devoid of a political agenda. It would, in fact, to the contrary, show the community the health study is going to be echo industry’s company line and not rock the boat on the so-called “unknown health impacts of long- term, low-level exposures.” Arranging for consensus is not the point of the health study. Obtaining the best measurements for toxic exposure is the point. So, you know, that’s what we want to do. We’re trying to, it’s not about consensus. It’s about getting the best study. You know, we need this thing to be real. And suddenly, if it’s not causing any problems, that should be what PGV wants, too, right? I mean we need to establish that. If there’s no problem, let’s prove it. And let’s do it right this time, because we’ve had a lot of shots at this, and we haven’t done it yet. So Dr., we believe Dr. Kilburn is the best qualified person from the community standpoint. He cannot be said to be biased based on the fact that his previous studies have found that H2S can be anticipated to cause serious or reversible chronic human health effects at relatively low doses - the same chronic human health, the same finding last year 8 EXHIBIT C announced by the EPA. He may be considered biased from industry’s point of view because he does not repeat the company line. His methods of studying community exposure to H2S represent the state of the art (even those trying to maintain the company line on low level chronic exposure to hydrogen sulfide having no toxic impacts have adopted Dr. Kilburn’s methods.) Two minutes, okay. A genuine effort to study health impacts in Puna must include Dr. Kilburn. I see two immediate items relating to the pending health study: First, does the authority to approve and fund the study reside in the Planning Commission or the County Council? And second, does, the community must have a respected voice for organizing the study, including assured participation of Dr. Kilburn. So I think, I’m not going to be able to do this in two minutes so I’ll probably just leave it at there. If you want to call me back with questions, I’ll be happy to answer any questions that you have. KERN: Thank you very much. Are there any questions for Mr. Petricci? Seeing none, thank you. You may have a seat. Councilman Blas, I will swear you in. Do you swear to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? BLAS: Aye. KERN: And give me your name, and you may begin. BLAS: Fred Blas, Councilman for Puna. KERN: Okay, very good. You’ve got it, you’ve got it. BLAS: District 4. I really don’t want to waste your time -. KERN: Please use your microphone. BLAS: I really don’t want to waste all your time this morning. I'm here today to ask that the Planning Commission develop rules to use geothermal asset funds to fund a comprehensive health study in Puna. We need to know if there is any problems with the geothermal out there. We have, you know, complaints about it but with nothing to prove. So I don't want to go any further. That's all I'm asking, is if you guys could set up the plan; and let's get going so we can get this thing taken care of. Thank you. KERN: Thank you. Any questions for Councilman Blas? Seeing none, thank you. You may have a seat. AU: Mr. Chair? KERN: Commissioner Au. AU: I would request for PGV to come up. I have a few questions. Is that appropriate? 9 EXHIBIT C KERN: Yeah. AU: Can PGV come, come -? TORIGOE: If it’s relevant to the process. KERN: Yeah, I think it’s relevant to the process. Let’s keep on point of process. You’re both going to speak probably? REPRESENTATIVES: Yes. KERN: Yes. Would you both swear to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? REPRESENTATIVES: I do. KERN: Okay, and then give me your name before you begin speaking. KALEIKINI: Mike Kaleikini, Plant Manager at PGV. KERN: Very good. YEH: Thomas Yeh representing PGV. KERN: Okay, very good. Commissioner Au? AU: Question I have for PGV, how many employees are there right now? How many employees are there on the facility working? KALEIKINI: We have 28 fulltime employees, full time. AU: Twenty-eight fulltime employees. You know, as an employer you guys must have a process for your employees. You guys must have health studies, you guys must do things and, and, you know, because you guys are concerned for your employees. What kind of studies have you guys done and how extensive has your studies been as far as health? KALEIKINI: You know, we have to comply with industry standards for a power plant. There’s OSHA standards, there’s annual physicals that we have to abide by. It’s, I wouldn’t say it’s a study. But, you know, all of our employees need to go in, see a doctor. It’s a general physical. It also includes what’s referred to as a pulmonary function testing; and it has to do with checking your respiratory system to make sure you can work in the facility. But if you’re asking about studies, I think someone mentioned before there were studies done in 1990, the early nineties after the KSA controlled venting. And then there was another study done in ’97 with a report that came out in ’98. KERN: Commissioner Au, any more questions? 10 EXHIBIT C AU: No, that’s good. KERN: Thanks, gentlemen. Have a seat. Oh, actually is there, any other Commissioners have any questions while they’re up here? Okay, you may have a seat. It has been made aware to all of us as public knowledge that the administration has issued a joint fact finding study. If it’s okay with the Commissioners, if there’s somebody present here from the administration, I would like to hear a little more background; and I think it’s relevant to this overall conversation of a health study. Mr. Melrose, are you prepared for -? And I’ll give you the same ten minutes max. MELROSE: Good morning. KERN: Do you swear to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? MELROSE: I do KERN: Okay, give me your name and -. MELROSE: My name is Jeff Melrose. I’m on special projects in the Mayor’s office. I live in Hilo. KERN: Very good. Go ahead. MELROSE: I just want to thank, I think this conversation is a good one. And I appreciate both Councilman Yagong and Mr. Petricci’s comments. The real goal here is to come up with a study that everybody can appreciate and to buy into. And I think identifying what that study looks like is a challenge, particularly for people who are not involved in science. The science of gas studies or toxicity is, you know, is new for everybody in the room probably, and certainly for the people who are going to make decisions about that, which is this Commission. So several months ago we got into a, you know, our effort was to say, well, let’s figure how we do a study. Let’s, we know the Geothermal Asset Fund is the place to fund this process, let’s make sure we have a fundamental understanding of what works have been done elsewhere, what do we not want to repeat necessarily but what can we do in this circumstance that would address the issue. And I don’t want to say once and for all cause I don’t know that any of this ends up in a once-and-for-all circumstance. But I think it puts together a solid study that says, that helps us to get focused on health issues as they are or aren’t related to the geothermal activities in Puna. So we’ve contracted with an independent third party whose profession is to develop joint-fact finding. This is a process, it’s a way of looking at complex science issues and building policy based on a common understanding of the science first. So often in these kinds of issues one side gets its scientists and another side gets its scientists and they end up in the middle and they end up fighting, and the only people that are making money are the scientists and the attorneys in the middle of that process. So we’re trying to avoid that process. So we’ve contracted with a Core 3.0, and Peter Adler. Peter for the last 30 years has been doing, you know, complex issues, management and problem solving on a national scale. And so he will basically 11 EXHIBIT C on his own and independently identify by a series of large scoping interviews - a group of people that sizes up to him, could be a dozen, could be more, people who represent a cross section of both the community and of the science that’s necessary to be billed here -. Cause this isn’t a community contention between believe and not believe. It’s a conversation about what is good science, what is good epidemiology, what’s toxicology, how do the public health professionals address these kinds of issues; and hold that group in a conversation, a sustained conversation, for a period of three to four months in which they’re listening, they’re reviewing all of the work that has been done nationally and internationally on this topic; and also then listen to the list of community concerns, understanding what kinds of health issues are we looking at; and then come up with some guidance for this Commission particularly on what would a good, what are the priorities for new knowledge, what knowledge do we need in this circumstance as opposed to what we already have, and what kinds of studies would be useful, how would you design such a study so that it is useful. Let me give you just a couple of suggestions in this. So, anyway, that process may take up, you know, probably into February of next year. But it’s basically he’s out now already talking to community members, setting up appointments, been talking to volcanologists and toxicologists, people doing these studies around, laying a foundation for this conversation. And we’ll convene this working group, I would imagine, within the next 30 days, whenever he feels he has clarity on this. So the Administration sees this as a third-party process. We’re not involved in selecting people, we’re not going to be involved in any part of his business, and will simply receive the report from him at the end of this process. A couple of thoughts just so you understand the complexity of this, is that, you know, some forms of epidemiological studies, you know, maybe the most difficult ones are the ones where you kind of go out and self-select a group of people who are sick, and then you study them and wonder if they’re, you know, to identify their sicknesses, and then you go look at a place that’s distant and you look at their studies and you look at the clusters of illnesses that people have, and you blame it on an outcome. You blame it on something that you think is causing that. And that’s one outcome, that’s one kind of study that’s out there. And I think that we need to be really clear about what level of exposure people are experiencing and what, and then look at those illnesses based on the kinds of individual exposure that’s going on today. There’s a study underway, a three-year process that has been going on in Rotorua currently that’s been studied by Stanford University, Berkley and Otega University in New Zealand. Their focus has been on trying to, Rotorua is one of the largest geothermal-producing regions in the world, and it’s right next to a large population base. So they’ve actually gone through a detailed study for three years trying to get a handle on what is the level of exposure. They’ve interviewed some 1600 people in this process. And their report is out probably next year some time. But they’re beginning to collect their individual data. But they actually went through, and everybody that they studied, they actually put monitors on or portions of them. They monitored so you could tell was this person exposed for a day, or for, you know, 24 hours, or periodically when they went through an area for some reason or another. It just gives you a way to rank the individuals involved in the study. So methodology is important here, particularly since you’re working with very small levels of exposure, relatively, and you’re dealing with a relatively small population. So getting random studies would be your best option. But if you’re in a small place, it’s hard to do because it’s hard to get a random study and still come up with statistical certainty. So it’s a complex circumstance. We need to match our study to this location. And that, in using best science and best circumstance is an important thing. 12 EXHIBIT C One of the things to share is that, you may know that when the volcano started to erupt at Haleamaumau some time ago and we had really major vog issues, those issues were driven by sulfur dioxide, SO2; and that’s what ends up in vog. So there was a concern that there were respiratory issues and we needed to be concerned about respiratory issues in our, in our community. So they did an, there has been an 8-year study, an island-wide study, of SO2 that really was a well done community-based study; and its reports are just beginning to be finalized. One of the interesting things about that is we would have assumed that the right location where that, those respiratory issues that we were expecting, we would expect to see them in Pahala where the vog collects, or in Ocean View, or in South Kona where you see that concentration. Oddly enough, the highest level of outcome was in Hamakua upstream. Okay? That’s not to say that there isn’t impact from SO2. It’s just that there are other things that might be causing respiratory distress – molds, other kinds of activities that might have prompted that kind of experience. So these are just little lessons that come from science. But I think the point is that our challenge is to find and isolate what the problem we’re trying to solve here, and throw the study right around the outside of that. So I have copies of a project description that was written by Mr. Adler that is a, that I wanted to share with all of you. It’s out on the web, it’s available, this process. Again, Mr. Adler will be fully responsible for it. We have no on-going interaction on this process, unless he needs to be paid for his next step in the process. So -. And I do hope Mr. Petricci and others really take the opportunity to work with him. And I think that there are a lot of people out there who would appreciate the chance to, you know, voice their concerns. And I fully agree that the answer is ultimately a study that we all have to understand and buy into across the board. So we’re taking that action today. And we hope that we can provide to the Commission the kind of guidance that you’re going to need to expend the monies that you have at your, that is your kuleana to manage. So that’s our goal, just to do that. KERN: Thank you, Mr. Melrose. Are there any questions for Mr. Melrose from Commissioners? Seeing none, could you provide that to Maija or Jeff, and they can pass it out. PETRICCI: Can I use my last two minutes? I got something that’s relevant and -. KERN: I’ll give you two minutes. You’re already sworn in. Just give me your name and go for it. PETRICCI: I’m Robert Petricci. So I wanted to address the monitoring issue because it is important to the study. Without accurate monitoring we’re not going to be able to get this done. And Monday, this Monday, there was a leak at the hydrogen, at the PGV plant. They had a hose break. And I was driving by the plant and it was a quite strong smell. I could smell it. I reported it to Civil Defense, I reported it to Daryn at the Planning Department over here, and I reported to PGV, and I forget who else. Anyway, so they confirmed, or Mike can come up here and tell you this, they confirmed that they did have a leak. And, but the monitors all registered zero. Now this happened two months ago also. I, Paul in the room here and me smelled the H2S. We called, we complained. And then I came back later that day and the same thing happened. And they finally came down and did some monitoring; and up on top of a hill they got a 2 parts per billion reading. So the point being that the monitors aren’t picking this up. So you’re not going to be able to do a study because you’re not going to know. Their monitors are going to say zero. So they’re going to say we didn’t do it, there was no exposure. And so the first thing you’re going to have to do is fix this monitoring system. This has been going on for 30 13 EXHIBIT C years. I’ll give everybody the benefit of the doubt, but I’ll say it’s really hard to believe it’s accidental that you can set a monitoring system up and not pick up anything. Cause if I can smell it, those monitors are supposed to pick it up. So that’s a real problem. I just wanted to make sure you guys understand that. Otherwise we’re going to do this whole thing and it’s going to, we’re not going to get anywhere. We’re going to have to fix that monitoring. Thank you. KERN: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Petricci on that? Seeing none, thank you. You may have a seat. KALEIKINI: Mr. Chair, could I say -? KERN: Just quick? KALEIKINI: Yeah. KERN: Yeah. You’re sworn in. Just give your name and respond. I just want to, what I, before you begin, I don’t want to have this get into a back and forth on this or that. KALEIKINI: Yes, sir. I -. KERN: That’s, and that’s fine. It’s like, again, we’re going to do this, and then we’re going to move forward on testimony and process, process, process. Mr. Kaleikini, go for it. KALEIKINI: Okay. Thank you, Chairman. I just wanted to also confirm that PGV is committed to doing this health study, we’re fully committed. We’ll participate in any manner to help out the whole process; and we agree with getting folks from all sides of the issue. And I wanted to just add to what Commissioner Au asked though. I’ve been employed at PGV for going on 22 years, almost 23. And regarding the requirement to be physically fit to work there, I just wanted to say that in all of the years that I’ve been there, there has not been one employee that has been denied employment because of H2S or noise effects. I just wanted to state that. Thank you. KERN: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Kaleikini? Seeing none, thank you. Okay, what we’re going to do is move through a, we’re going to do our public testimony and then we’ll get into a greater dialogue on the process. And I’m going to call three people up at a time. There are six people. If anybody else in here would like to testify and has not signed up to testify, over at the table there, please see Sharon or Sarah to testify. So Martin Blackwell, Robert Petricci, Paul Kuykendall. Mr. Petricci, are you going to not test -? Do you feel that you’ve -? PETRICCI: If you want me to skip it I will, if -. KERN: Well, it’s up to you. As the way I see it right now, which you have done, is as a representative of Puna Pono Alliance. If you want to make testimony as a member of the public, you can have three minutes. PETRICCI: Yeah, I would like to speak -. 14 EXHIBIT C KERN: Come on up. Okay. I’ll get you gentlemen, Mr. Petricci you don’t need to cause you’ve already been sworn in. But these gentlemen, please raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: Yes. I do. KERN: Okay, very good. So we’ll start with Mr. Blackwell; and before you begin, you have three minutes, give me your name and area in which you live, and then you may begin. BLACKWELL: Aloha. My name is Martin Blackwell. I live in the Kapoho area. My name is Martin Blackwell, owner of Optimum Stress Management and Optimum Resource Management. Mahalo for my opportunity to offer my support to my ohana. “Whoever optimizes the connection between human resources and natural resources, optimizes the health and sustainability of themselves and their ohana.” In order to have optimal resource management, we would have to be an expert at optimizing the awareness stress response. We would have to understand that our stress responses whole job is to manage the environmental resources that surround us 24/7 that may be a threat or an asset at any given moment. How many of our leaders or large resource developers actually have this deep awareness of the stress response and how it affects every decision that a human makes? Our stress response is responsible for having enough discomfort to trigger the awareness of a potential threat in an ever-changing environment. Because of “Change…the Unchanging Truth” that is always present, we have a continuously changing emotional sensory baseline to track it. We are all easily blinded by our quest for total comfort and at risk of over-reacting the discomfort, making potentially terrible long-term decisions, not in the best interest of community, while focusing on short-term or selfish comfort. I came here to offer myself as a resource and to create unity, but I must be willing to risk alienating others because of triggering that very discomfort by being willing to require everyone to look in the mirror at their own motives and stress response related to their position on this issue, or any issue. Those of you who are concerned about geothermal and having your families displaced, are you willing to be displaced on behalf of the common good if it turns out that after a thorough in depth cost-benefit analysis geothermal is ultimately a good risk overall; or will you just act defensively to your stress response to avoid the stress of “Change” and giving up living where you love to live so far? Those of you who are pro-geothermal and get some kind of financial benefit from it for you and/or your families either directly or indirectly as it makes you money or allies or makes you look good like you are supposedly “helping community” by creating jobs, etc., are you willing to abandon it if it is not a good risk and feel the discomfort of those losses and potentially have your career or financial well- being challenged and “Change”? 15 EXHIBIT C If we do not say yes, we are not part of the solution; we are part of the problem. We are behaving without awareness and at risk of acting like self-servicing comfort addicts merely acting as the blind leading the blind, like a moth into the light. Any leaders who do not support intensive and potentially time consuming environmental studies and permitting processes are acting as unaware leaders that are not following your oath to lead and protect the community. When dealing with a form of energy that is so potentially powerful by its very nature of involving fragile geological processes and highly explosive gases and chemical runoff, any investor or protector should be willing to go to any expense to protect reckless unaware devastation to the earth and the ohana. Until we have a deep awareness of our own awareness stress response and can easily describe all the benefits and risks involved in comfort and discomfort, we are an unaware leader or developer that needs to immediately -. KERN: Mr. Blackwell, sorry, -. BLACKWELL: Educate themselves -. KERN: That three, three minutes is up. I have to cut you off. Everybody is just exactly the same. I do apologize. BLACKWELL: Deep mahalo and gratitude. “United we Stand…Divided we Fall.” KERN: Thank you. Any questions for the testifier? GONZALES: Question. KERN: Yes, Commissioner Gonzales. GONZALES: Mr. Blackwell, how long have you lived in Puna? BLACKWELL: I’ve been there seven years. GONZALES: Thank you. KERN: Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you. Mr. Petricci, you’ve got three minutes. Just fyi, I’m going to hold this up when you’ve got a minute left, and then -. PETRICCI: Okay, I don’t think it’s going to take three minutes, but I do appreciate it. KERN: And anybody else who is going to testify have three minutes, I will cut you off, no offense. So -. PETRICCI: Okay. So two things, in the document I -. 16 EXHIBIT C KERN: Give me your name. PETRICCI: Oh, I’m sorry. Robert Petricci. In the document I submitted there is a link to a research done by Dr., and articles done by Dr. Kilburn. There’s 208 results there. I just wanted to make sure you guys are aware of that so you can see the credentials that Dr. Kilburn has. And the one other thing is that, you know, when they talk about workers, healthy workers at the plant, the OSHA Standards, it’s quite different than what we have in the community. We have very high asthma rates in the community already. So we have babies, elderly, people that are sick. So what affects a healthy worker is quite different than what might affect somebody that has a respiratory problem. So, you know, it’s a quite different thing. And I do believe that there are actually some workers from PGV that we’re aware of that were affected by H2S and that have been paid settlements from PGV. So if that comes up later, then we can probably produce that information. But that’s all I have to say. KERN: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Petricci? Seeing none, thank you. Mr. Kuykendall, is it? Kuykendall, is that right? KUYKENDALL: Yes, Kuykendall. Thank you. KERN: Okay, very good. So give me your name, and area in which you live, and you may begin. And, again, I’ll hold up this when you’ve got a minute left. KUYKENDALL: My name is Paul Kuykendall. I live on Pohoiki Road about a mile from the PGV plant. I appreciate the Commission. And you have, you have an important job here because if you make a decision regarding the health study that results in a health study that all sides can look at and say, you know, this is data we can use, it could be an opportunity for healing for the entire community. And that is my deepest hope, that whatever the outcome, whatever the data that it comes out, that we can have some healing. And part of that healing is going to be, since you’re focusing on process today I want to talk about process. We asked for some help in getting the health study. We made the request to the Commission. After that the Mayor came up with this process of his. And what I’m noticing is his office paid Peter Adler to start this study group. I’m not sure but it seems to me that Peter Adler is going to decide who is going to be on the study group. And then the study group is going to come out with some recommendations to the Planning Commission. So already before the process is begun, it seems like the community has been pushed to the side because we, no, no health study was proposed until Puna Pono Alliance came forward and asked for a health study. So all I can say right now, I’m concerned; and I’m still holding to that hope that you’re going to be an impartial judge and find a health study, whatever, whatever form it takes, that can be a form of healing for our community. And part of that is every step of the way making sure that we have the information we need, including monitoring. What I see is for the last 30 years there hasn’t been enough monitoring so we have the data to go forward; and that’s true on the noise issue as well. It’s amazing to me that there’s so little data and yet there are houses within a mile of that plant and people are affected every day, not only by drilling noise when they’re drilling but also by the noise from the turbines. So thank you for your consideration, and I appreciate you. You have a difficult job here and I wish you well and doing it well. KERN: Thank you. Any questions for the testifier? 17 EXHIBIT C GONZALES: Yeah. KERN: Commissioner Gonzales. GONZALES: Same question, Mr. Kuykendall. How long you’ve lived in Pohoiki? KUYKENDALL: I’ve lived in Pohoiki, I moved on to my property, it was about year and a half, two years ago. GONZALES: Where were you before that? Were you somewhere else in the area? KUYKENDALL: I was in Waawaa in Puna before that. GONZALES: Very good, thank you. KERN: Thank you. You may have a seat. Okay, calling up Suzanne Wakelin, and I apologize if I mess up your names, Thomas Travis and Petra Wiesenbauer. Is it Wakelin? WAKELIN: Wakelin. KERN: Okay. I’ll get you all three to raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: I do. KERN: Okay, very good. So before you begin, I need your name and area in which you live, and then your three minutes will begin. And we’ll start with the -. GONZALES: Mr. Chair? KERN: Yes, Commissioner Gonzales. GONZALES: Would it be okay if you guys just tell me how long you’ve lived there, so I don’t have to ask everybody individually. KERN: Give us your name, area in which you live, and how long you’ve lived there; and then I’ll start your timing. And we’ll start with Ms. Wakelin. WAKELIN: Aloha. My name is Suzanne Wakelin. I’m a resident of Pohoiki; and I’ve lived there around a year and a half. I have a PhD in Physics. I worked as an engineer for 20 years before I moved here. I’m a member of Puna Pono Alliance and I am here representing myself as a member of the public. I have a couple of questions. One of the things that I’ve been looking at is the geothermal resource permit. And in the letter for the GRP-2 amendment there’s some statements about the Asset Fund; and I have a question about that. So I’ll just read a line here. “The fund is a major opportunity and the Planning Department plans to hold further discussions with the affected community about its 18 EXHIBIT C use.” Now this was written in 2001. I’m wondering if there have been any meetings discussed, discussing this with the community, or is this is the first one? KERN: You can pose that question and we could potentially answer it afterwards -. WAKELIN: Okay. KERN: But it’s not really a back-and-forth at this point. WAKELIN: Okay. So, also in that GRP it speaks about protection of noise by berms that could potentially be paid for by the Asset Fund. So there’s some lines in that permit that said that the Asset Fund could be used to mitigate noise. Now we know that noise is an issue that has been coming up a lot in the community. I’m concerned because obviously if a, if somebody recommends that they make some berms, which may or may not change the noise issue, then the money in the Asset Fund could be used for that, and then it’s not available for other things. So that also brings me to the question that I have around other projects, because clearly health study is important here. We are in agreement that we need a health study; and there are other projects also that need to be addressed. I do want to reiterate and stress the need for proper monitoring. Monitoring is something that has not been addressed properly, even though in the permits it clearly defines that there are situations that need to be complied with, but it’s not really addressing the problem. So that’s something that we need to take care of, and that is both for hydrogen sulfide and for noise. I think that’s all for now. Thank you. KERN: Thank you. Madam Director? LEITHEAD TODD: I shouldn’t say that, I haven’t had conversations with the community. But I do know that under the prior administration, the administrative assistant Andy Levin had had some conversations with the community and had led to some conversations with me at that point because I was in a prior capacity the Deputy Corporation Counsel assigned to the Planning Department. But those conversations were actually geared more towards community benefits, and not so much the Asset Fund per se, but it was more targeted at the Royalty Fund. And to some extent those conversations ended up with the amendments that were made by the County Council to the Royalty Fund to create community benefits. Cause what was going on was that people in the community were seeing that the money was sitting there and, you know, it wasn’t being utilized for anything. And so from my understanding from Andy Levin was that there was community interest in utilizing those funds to benefit projects in the community. And those were the only conversations that I’m aware of in, and I’d say, the last ten years that have occurred over the use of the funds. And it resulted in that amendment where some of that money in the Royalty Fund, not the Asset Fund but the Royalty Fund, was utilized for things like your transfer station and repaving of certain roads, improvements in the parks. And that was my understanding from conversations with Mr. Levin, was to some extent initiated by the community coming to the administration. And that may have ended up percolating to the County Council, cause I don’t know exactly the background of that amendment. But that’s the extent of the discussions that I’m aware of. WAKELIN: Thank you. May I respond with another question? KERN: May you what? 19 EXHIBIT C WAKELIN: May I have another question? It was responding to that. KERN: I’d like to, the first question that you asked prior, could you repeat that. WAKELIN: So my first question was about the meetings which you’ve addressed. Thank you. And then I was, I was wondering about the permit that says that there’s a scope for paying for noise mitigation from the Asset Fund. That’s my other question. How do you deal with multiple needs from this? It seems like $2,000,000 is a lot of money; but a good health study is going to cost, you know, if you have a comprehensive study, it’s actually going to be more costly, I think, than the original proposal that we made. KERN: That’s very possible. What I’d like to do is table the noise conversation for us. When we get into conversations, I think it goes into that process; and I can, we can bring that up at that point in time. WAKELIN: Okay. KERN: And maybe I’ll request the Department to address that. WAKELIN: All right. So my other question actually is around the noise issue. So if you’d like I can wait for that. KERN: Please, yeah. WAKELIN: Okay. KERN: I’ll bring that up at another time. WAKELIN: Okay. KERN: Thank you. Okay. Any questions for the testifier? Seeing none, thank you. Mr. Travis, name and area in which you live, and per Commissioner Gonzales, how long you’ve lived there? TRAVIS: My name is Tom Travis. I live in lower Puna in Kapoho on Papaya Farms Road. I’ve owned property there with the intention to retire for about three years, and have lived there for about one. I think I understand that the question that has been asked the Planning Commission is by what process may the County Council authorize a health study. I think that’s the question that was asked by the agenda item. And I also understand the Chairman’s clear desire to stay out of the issue but rather answer that question specifically. And so I have just two things that I want to be sure I understand when I leave here today. And that is what does the Mayor’s study have to do with the process by which the County Council would authorize a health study; and if -? The second question is, is how much does the Mayor’s health, joint fact-finding effort to provide guidance to the Planning Commission on what a proper health study would be, how much did that cost and how was it funded? Thank you. 20 EXHIBIT C KERN: Thank you. Madam Director, you want to address this? LEITHEAD TODD: The request is actually not so much how the County Council authorizes a study, but it’s directed to the Planning Commission as to how the Asset Fund can be utilized. TRAVIS: I understand. LEITHEAD TODD: And so that, you know, is being looked at. As to Mr. Adler’s study, to some extent I was involved in conversations before that contract was signed. And, you know, the concerns that I had over going down the road is I have possibly, you know, because of my legal background, I had concerns over procurement; and in order to procure a study you kind of have to know what it is you’re procuring. In other words, you don’t necessarily hire somebody and say, oh, go and study this issue, without knowing what it is you’re hiring them to do. TRAVIS: Asking that question is very important. LEITHEAD TODD: Yeah. And so that was why I thought that, you know, the administration’s move to utilize money that’s not in the Asset Fund but came out of the R&D Department to start that investigation was, it lined up with the concerns that I had over procurement. Because typically when you want to do some type of a study, you have a number of ways of doing it. One, you can determine here’s the parameters and then you put up, this is what I want studied and I want this, this, this and this included in the study, and then you can either go to a list of professionals that are qualified to do that study, and go take them from that list. Or you do something that’s called like a request for proposals. And in a request for proposals you outline what it is you want the study to cover. And it could be things like, other circumstance like let’s say we’re going to design a transfer station, and you tell people the size of the transfer station, what components you want in the transfer station. And then you ask people to respond to that proposal and tell you what you would do. Or sometime back when we were looking at waste to energy, you also do a request for proposal and you say, hey, this is what we want you to do, this is how many tons we’re going to process, and we want electricity to be an output, so give us your proposal on what you could build and how it would fit what we’re looking for. But you have a request for a proposal that outlines all the things that you want. And then people submit a proposal saying I can do this, this and this; and here’s the team that I would put together to do it, and here’s the credentials of the team. And I thought that what you needed to know is what you’re going to study and what kinds of set of things you have to include in that study before you can determine who you’re going to hire. And so I liked the idea of kick-starting that process. Because obviously in order for us to use the Asset Fund it would have taken much longer to go and hire somebody like Dr. Adler to go and do that. It’s my understanding, and one of the things that I like is that Dr. Adler is contacting people on both sides of the issue. When I talked to Mr. Petricci today, he said he’d gotten a phone call from Dr. Adler. So I’m very happy that, I’m staying away from that process, but I’m happy to hear from Mr. Petricci that Dr. Adler is doing what I had hoped he would do, which was to get a cross-section of the communities and particularly to pay attention to those people who have had specific concerns about potential health impacts of PGV. Because ultimately I don’t want the Commission, the County, the Council to go down a road where we hire somebody to do a study and then the study comes in and it gets attacked by other, you know, members of the community. I would like to go into a process where 21 EXHIBIT C we’ve got some buy-in from both people who are opposed to geothermal, people who are supportive of geothermal, people who think that there are health impacts, people who don’t think that there are health impacts, so that we can come to some type of agreement on what a study should look like. And that, that’s what we should -. Because otherwise we’re just throwing money away if we come up with hiring somebody and people aren’t going to agree on the methodology or people aren’t going to be supportive. Do I expect 100 percent support for anything or 100 percent agreement on something that comes out? No. What I’d like to have is as broad a consensus on what we do. And obviously I don’t ultimately make the decision. I’m just going end up making a recommendation, which is how normally everything that is on the agenda comes up before the Commission. I make a recommendation. Sometimes they listen to my recommendation, sometimes they don’t; and that’s because you get an independent group of people and they do their homework. And I know from my past experience with the Commission that everything that’s submitted to them, they read and they pay attention to it. So I know that, you know, the stuff that Mr. Petricci has given them, that they will go and take a look at that, and they will be well informed before they have to make a decision. I think right now we’re basically talking about process, and how do you set up a study, and how do you, you know, what do you do and what does it have to include. And today I don’t have that answer. I’m hoping that what we get from Dr. Adler is a recommendation that does have community buy-in and that would come up with a proposal that both the Commission as well as the community could approve of. KERN: Thank you, Madam Director. Any questions for Mr. Travis, Fellow Commissioners? Thank you. Ms. Wiesenbauer, name, area in which you live, how long you’ve lived there, you may begin. WIESENBAUER: Okay. Good morning, Commission. My name is Petra Wiesenbauer. I live in Leilani Estates, and I have lived there for the last 14 years. I’m a member of the PUNA Neighborhood Group, and that group was formed in the wake of the legislation of Bill 256. We’re a group that actually oppose the bill. And our main content or discontent with the bill was the creation of the one- mile buffer zone before any scientific study was done that could prove that this step was necessary. And so as a group our intention is to help provide factual information, engage the people in discussion and constructively move forward. The forward movement is what we really focus on. There is for us no sense in staying stuck in the past and what had happened 20 some years ago. There is for us very much misinformation and also myths out there, and people are kind of, from our point of view, holding on to some of these things. And we feel that this is not helping any of us. We are, even though, people have said that we’re not supporting, you know, the health of our community, but we are very much in support of the health studies, and see it as a way to once and for all put things to rest. If there are problems in this area where we live, we’re the first ones who would like to know about it, and then see what can be done to move forward. The blame game for us does not help, you know, anybody. Only if we work together we can change for the better. People in our group are in support of the geothermal development as a means of generating less expensive and renewable energy. Of course, you know, health and safety is the biggest priority, and this must be, you know, a big portion of planning development in the future. But we feel that with State regulation and close collaboration between State and County agencies, community groups and efforts, and the industry, this is completely doable. We as a group would like to share with you our concerns about the request that has been made to Mr. Yagong in his capacity as the County Council Chair by the Puna Pono Alliance requesting funds to pay for a health study conducted by Dr. Kilburn. 22 EXHIBIT C Although we have only limited information about Dr. Kilburn’s credentials, we would like to express our sincere -. KERN: Thank you, Mrs. Wiesenbauer. WIESENBAUER: Okay. KERN: Thank you. Any questions for the testifier? Seeing none, thank you. You all may have a seat. We have two more people signed up to testify. If there is anybody else out there that would like to testify, please do sign up now. Calling up Richard Jones and Dominic Yagong. Good morning. JONES: Good morning. KERN: Let’s see. Dominic has been sworn in. Mr. Jones, could you please raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? JONES: Yes, I do. KERN: Okay. So you’re going to have three minutes. Give me your name, area in which you live, and how long you’ve live there, per the request of Commissioner Gonzales. And then you’ll have, your three minutes will begin. JONES: Sure. My name is Richard Jones. I live about, oh, maybe 2,025 feet from the plant. I’ve been living there for 30 years. That’s all, that’s it? KERN: That’s it. Your three minutes, begin. JONES: Okay. Yeah, I just want to say basically, I mean, I’m not real happy with the whole thing. But as far as the health issue, and noise and all that stuff, I’d just like to say that, one thing, that really ORMAT or PGV, whatever they call themselves now, they really don’t care about the people around there. They’re only here for the money and the cheaper they can produce it. They don’t care about the people’s health, they don’t care about noise, any impacts. It’s all about the money. That’s the bottom line. They can give you all their, all their stories about how expense it is going to cost them to do things, but really the bottom line, they don’t care about the people that live around there at all. That’s really about all I’ve got to say. Thank you. KERN: Thank you, Mr. Jones. Are there any questions for the testifier? Seeing none, thank you. You may have seat or hang out till we’re done. I’m going to call up Luana Jones. And name, how long, where you live, how long you’ve lived there. Just give me your name and you may begin. YAGONG: Dominic Yagong. I live in Honokaa. GONZALES: I know where you live. YAGONG: Yes, for many years. 23 EXHIBIT C KERN: Okay, your three minutes begins now. YAGONG: Thank you. You know, I’m just listening to the discussion and it sounds to me that with this working group headed by Mr. Adler, it sounds to me that the process is -. And by the way he did contact me, He emailed me, he wanted to speak with me as well. So he has done that. But it sounds to me like the process is he’s going to do his due diligence and determine who he speaks to and so forth; and then he’s going to be making a recommendation to the Planning Director, which in turn makes a recommendation to the board in terms of how they go about conducting this health study. I just want to make a recommendation in relation to the, what I mentioned earlier, cause you mentioned this might be a process. I think Mr. Melrose said to me maybe February or so. My recommendation is this, before such time that Mr. Adler makes a recommendation, cause once that recommendation is made it pretty much says this is what I think should take place. I strongly recommend that Mr. Adler, before he makes his recommendation to the Director, that he either, maybe do both, go out to the community and express what his finding is, especially out in Puna. So the people will have an opportunity to hear what this gentleman who has been paid for by taxpayers’s money is going to recommend to the Director, so that at the same time the people can vet it,or maybe even make recommendation to make the recommendation even better to the Director. I think that should be done. No. 2, I think he should also come to the Hawai‘i County Council, which I will not be a part of come December. But I think it will be a good opportunity for him to come forward not for action by the Council but as a communication where he can come forward and say here, these are the recommendations that are going to be made in terms of the health study that will be proposed to the Windward Planning Commission. That way it is done in a public setting where people, just like now, will be able to come forward and hear exactly what is going to be proposed, even before it is being proposed. That way by the time it gets to you guys you’ve vetted out a lot of the problems. Because, if not, when it comes to you folks, I’ll tell you this room is going to be pretty packed with people. But if you can iron out those problems ahead of time it will help make the process better, you get better community buy-in, and I think you’ll have a better process. Cause like I said, in the end, if there’s no buy-in, no credibility, then we’re just going to repeat this whole process again. So that’s just a recommendation, sir. KERN: Thank you, Mr. Yagong. Makes sense, I appreciate it. Any questions for Mr. Yagong, Commissioners? Seeing none -. Okay, Ms. Jones. Ms. Jones, give me your name, area in which you live, how long you’ve lived there, and then you’ll have three minutes. JONES: Good morning. KERN: And, actually, I’ve got to swear you in. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? JONES: I do. KERN: Okay, very good. JONES: Aloha. I guess I’m here to lend support to -. 24 EXHIBIT C KERN: Name -? JONES: Oh, Luana Jones. KERN: Where you live? JONES: Pohoiki Road, top of the road. KERN: Okay. JONES: Across the street from geothermal. KERN: And how long have you lived there? JONES: Thirty years. KERN: Okay, your three minutes begins now. JONES: Okay, I’ve been through the process, and I remember what you just said recently, for the last, probably 15 years, back and forth, but no progress, you know. And Mike mentioned yesterday we did a hearing, I mean a noise study, but that was related to the mitigation proposal that we put before the County for a berm around the plant to kind of mitigate the impacts. Anyway, as far as the health study, I didn’t really realize how many common ailments the people around there have until I attended one meeting of the weekly meetings at Leilani. And just generally they include, you know, lot of phlegm and metal taste in your mouth in the morning. People have had cists. You know, almost everyone can talk about cists removed from their bodies; and I don’t know what else. But I’m thinking where is the Department of Health in all of this? You know, does anybody care? It has been 20 years. People have died. And Peter Adler, I’m wondering where he came from. Cause he was a mediator in mediation. I don’t know that he’s a physician. I didn’t know that. But as far as I know he was the mediator. And, lastly, I guess, you know, does it matter who pays for it - the State, the County, the developer, the Asset Fund, the Department of Health. You know, people are hurting and it needs to be investigated sooner than later. So thank you. KERN: Thank you, Mrs. Jones. Any questions for the testifier? Thank you very much. JONES: Thank you. KERN: Have a seat. Anybody else would like to testify? HEDTKE: I would. KERN: Please fill out one of these yellow forms over there at the table, and then we’ll get you up here. 25 EXHIBIT C PETRICCI: Oh, we get to ask questions, you said? KERN: No, not at this time. It doesn’t really, generally it doesn’t work like that. It’s not so much back and forth. When you come up to do your testimony, there’s an opportunity if a Commissioner has a question that they can go back and forth. Or potentially you can pose a question and then if a Commissioner or the Director is inclined to answer it, they do; and most of the times we do. Then again this is still really going to be moving to defining that process and getting more clarity on that. Jane, is that Hedtke? HEDTKE: Hedtke, H-e-d-t-k-e, yes. KERN: Hedtke, okay, very good. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? HEDTKE: I do. KERN: Okay, and then all we need is your name, area in which you live, how long you’ve lived there and -. , HEDTKE: Jane Hedtke. I live, I’ve lived in Kapoho, Old RailroadHelekamahina, for 30 years. KERN: Okay. And your three minutes will begin right now. HEDTKE: Okay. When I looked at what health studies have been done, I was a mediation participant. I went through the whole thing with Peter Adler, would not recommend him at all. Also, I have a lot, but I can only go into the short thing. I believe that the rules that you’re using to take money out of this fund don’t exist. I believe the rules that the Planning Director was allowed to promulgate to take money out of this fund possibly didn’t follow Chapter 91 procedures. The other thing I want to say, I have a list of the studies that were done. That’s all, that’s it for our area. Nothing site specific. Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, we had Puna Community Survey in 1983, we’ve had a ’72 environmental assessment unsigned, we had Puna Community Survey by SMS, Dr. Jeannette Sherman testified for the hydrogen sulfide standard. So there has been very little site specific health studies done in this area. Bruce Anderson came out with one. It has a picture of the geothermal venting on the front. He didn’t find any impact. That was in 1982. There are no site specific health studies. I’ve looked at them all. That’s it. We have to have something current, something done correctly. And I think the community has a right to have what doctor they want, as well as you choosing the doctor. And I think that Mr. Billy Kenoi doesn’t understand. He’s been, he’s told oh, well, there have been health studies done. That’s why I’m showing you there hasn’t. So we really need to have it. And people are saying, oh, it’s something else, it’s something else. It isn’t something else. This is 30 years of this. I don’t live close enough to be impacted by it, but I got involved because I live near a scientific observation hole a half a mile away from me, a potential site. Since they have, since they have now declared the whole State a subzone, who’s going to be able to make any plans for their future? This is not a clean technology, folks. I went on a junket to California. It is nothing like here, nothing. Our resource is dirty, hot, corrosive, it’s brand new lava, nothing like anywhere in the world. And I want you to consider that. Look at the record. It is huge. And I have a 26 EXHIBIT C lot of it; and I’m assembling the record right now for the last 30 years to see what the heck is going on here. What the heck is going on here? Why are you folks, not you in particular, the government -? They’ve had four different changes for that Asset Fund, the names have changed four or five times in the last -. When I mediated that, that was only, only for relocation temporary and permanent. Look what happened? It got changed by administrations -. KERN: Thank you, Mrs. Hedtke. HEDTKE: And I’m done. KERN: Thank you. Any questions for Ms. Hedtke? Seeing none, thank you. Anybody else wanting to testify? COLLINS: Yes, sir. KERN: Over on the table, fill out the yellow form, and then you’ll get three minutes. And if there’s any, this will be the last call, ding, ding, ding. Anybody else would like to testify, please fill out the yellow form over here on the table and we’ll get you up here. Thank you. Mr. Collins, please raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? COLLINS: I do. KERN: Okay, then please use your microphone. Give me your name, area in which you live, and how long you’re lived there. COLLINS: Charles Collins. I live in, my family’s home is in Nanawale, and about 30 years. KERN: Okay. Your three minutes begins now. COLLINS: I did substitute teaching here on the Big Island for, you know, couple of decades. And recently some of the kids have brought this material that, you know, we’ve identified on the periodic table as OZ. And the source of it is supposedly, you know, come from the geothermal. And OZ, it’s kind of unique stuff. Like moisture from the atmosphere forms on it and things like that. But it’s a hazardous material. Actually a chemist will tell you you’re supposed to have a vapor hood and, you know, protective gloves, and things like that. And so, you know, that’s just heresy, and I don’t know where it came from. But I’ve just been advising the kids to tell their friends, yes, it’s interesting stuff and everything but don’t handle it, and the vapors are, you know, really bad. And then the other thing is, you know, scrubbers. Like the problem with geothermal is the, my understanding is the H2S emissions, hydrogen sulfide which is, you know, deadly, deadly poison to human beings, but H2S also comes out of the volcano. However, like in the oil fields in California they put scrubbers on the vent. And, you know, there are here in Hawai‘i in the volcanic vents under the ocean there’s actually critters that live there that metabolize H2S and fixed nitrogen. And I was thinking that if we had, you know, culture pressure vessel that that could serve as a scrubber for the geothermal and, you know, greatly reduce the health hazard. Thank you, sir. 27 EXHIBIT C KERN: Thank you, Mr. Collins. Are there any questions for the testifiers? Seeing none, thank you. You may have a seat. Okay, we are done with the public testimony portion of this meeting. I’m going to call for a ten-minute recess, so we’ll reconvene in ten minutes. RECESSED – The Chair called a short recess at 11:31 a.m. RECONVENED - The meeting reconvened at 11:48 a.m. KERN: The meeting is reconvened. Okay, so now it’s time for us to have a discussion, dialogue on this process, and coming up with a motion to move forward basically to get, to allow us to have a clearer understanding of this process. Are there any questions from Commissioners on what we’re doing here? GONZALES: Yeah. KERN: Commissioner Gonzales. GONZALES: Just to be clear, we’re here today to figure a course, a way for them to request the funds, right? That’s all we’re doing? KERN: More or less. I mean Rule 12 right now kind of talks about that but it’s somewhat unclear exactly. It could be kind of interpreted in a few different ways. So I think now is the time for us to, to make a list of concerns that we have, just like a few a few of the things that I have is procurement, claims adjuster -. GONZALES: Right. KERN: That we identify claims adjuster, what does the claims adjuster look like for something like this. GONZALES: Sounds like Rule 12 is a good place to start then. KERN: Yeah, because that’s really what the letters are requesting, is how does somebody get at, you know, or somebody or a group get access to the fund to do a health study. GONZALES: Very good. Thank you. Commissioner Au? AU: I move to discuss Rule 12. KERN: I don’t think we -. AU: We don’t need a motion? KERN: I don’t think, at this point I don’t think we need a motion to discuss it. It’s a little bit different because it’s not like, we’re not in the middle of an application per se. This is more of an administrative matter. So we can just kind of dialogue about that; and then maybe move towards a motion that’s 28 EXHIBIT C more specific. And, for example, in the background report there’s a recommendation, you’ve seen that part? AU: Yes. KERN: You know, so we’re moving in that general direction. But I personally have a few more questions about that. So -. AU: Okay, so can we go into discussion? KERN: Yeah. AU: Okay. KERN: Commissioner Au. AU: You know one thing that, one thing that comes to my mind through this whole, you know, as we’ve listened to testimony, and something that our Planning Director said, I would like to see an RFP, a request for a proposal for this health study. And I don’t read anything in Rule 12, well, first of all, Rule 12 doesn’t say anything about a health study, and I guess that’s what we’re going to discuss, we’re discussing to have a health study. And if we do this health study I want it to go out to, in an RFP. KERN: Okay. So that’s in line with the procurement. I think what we need is a, at some point here, so I don’t know, we’ll make a list. Maybe Daryn could you take note of some of the various things that we’re bringing up, such as the procurement process. I think we need a legal opinion on the procurement process, because it doesn’t specifically say in Rule 12 that there is or not or that is or is not necessary. GONZALES: Now -. KERN: Commissioner Gonzales, yes. GONZALES: Okay, so if we’re looking at 12-7, would not kind of be where a place you go? I mean this isn’t a claim, it’s more of a request. I mean is that something we could just reword and they could just follow that as a guideline? KERN: It could be. I think that’s a good, good -. GONZALES: Cause if you look at look at 12-7(b) (1), I mean you take it, like Puna Pono they could on their behalf, they could make a claim or request for funds for a study, if what I’m reading -. KERN: Yeah, 12-6(a)? GONZALES: I’d say 12-7(b)(1). 29 EXHIBIT C KERN: Filing of claims, each claim shall include the following information: (1) Name of claimant(s)? GONZALES: Yeah. And if you just went through all eight of those steps, that would kind of seem like a way to -. KERN: Correct, I think that follows 12-6, yeah? GONZALES: Uh huh. KERN: So, example, 12-6(a) Claims for community approved mitigation projects shall address blah, blah, blah, blah. Right? GONZALES: Right. KERN: I mean so that is, so that’s there. I mean I think that’s, again, we need to get a clear interpretation of that. GONZALES: Right. Is that a claim? I mean are they filing a claim or are they just making a request for funds; and if so, can we use Rule 12 to do that? KERN: Correct. Okay. And then if that is the case, it goes to a claims adjuster, which is the first thing when I read Rule 12 in relation to the health study, it’s like how does the claims adjuster fit into a health study. This is, you know, this is different. So I think we need to define or request a definition of what a claims adjuster would look like for that. Cause I always think insurance when I think of a claims adjuster, and this is different. Would you agree? GONZALES: I agree. And, again, if we look at 12-5 it kind of outlines how they would come up with a claims adjuster, by going through the requirements of the State Procurement Code. KERN: And so, well, it defines that, what does a claims adjuster actually look like. What’s the criteria for that, does they, are they a doctor, are they specialized in mediation, are they an attorney, you know -? GONZALES: Don’t know. KERN: And then I don’t know if it makes sense or not. But potentially, you know, a way to identify mitigation measures, I mean it’s kind of right now just a way -. I feel it’s open if somebody has a claim, makes a claim, boom. GONZALES: Well, these would be, this would be the rule they followed if they had a claim. KERN: Correct. GONZALES: So I guess my question is is asking for these funds for a study, is that a claim? Is that, I mean is it-? 30 EXHIBIT C KERN: And I think that’s where I’d want a legal opinion on it, cause I don’t know. GONZALES: Is there a lawyer in the house? KERN: Well, maybe here in a minute we could call for an executive session to go into some of this in greater detail to get some legal advice. AU: Can we -? KERN: Commissioner Au. AU: Can the claims adjuster be like a hearings officer? KERN: Well, yeah, when I first read it, I mean, I kind of interpreted, I went over to think that that, they could kind of be the same, in a way. But, again, I mean, I think it would be up to us to define what that claims adjuster would look like. And maybe that’s something that we can ask in executive session as well. So, Madam Director, you know on the recommendation here for the Director to assist in defining a clear process by which protocols, methodologies, guidelines are developed for conducting a health study, do you feel that that is appropriate for us to do? I mean does that not kind of almost start making too fine strokes for the way that Rule 12 looks, or could you give me some, some background on that? LEITHEAD TODD: When we were putting this together, to the extent, I viewed this as consistent with a mitigation project in the sense that the problem has been that people can’t file claims for mitigation because they can’t prove that what they’re suffering from is caused by geothermal. And so in order to be able to compensate people for specific claims you need to have some kind of basis for paying that claim out. And I felt that given what has been coming from the community that this was an appropriate fund to pay for such a study because it becomes the basis for which you can determine whether people have been impacted and whether their claims for compensation are legitimate. So I thought there were some issues with the claims adjuster per se. Because I think when we started off down this road and these rules were originally adopted, we thought people were going to come in, they’re going to, you know, present a claim. You know, the claims adjuster evaluates whether the size of the claim is appropriate, do they have their receipts for their doctor’s visits, do they have the receipt if they had to evacuate and stayed at a hotel. The reality has been that there have been virtually no claims made under this for years. And the difficulty has been that people can’t make or cause a link between what they’re experiencing and geothermal because they don’t have the science to back it up. Many people are convinced that in fact their health concerns are directly related to PGV, but they don’t have the studies to support that. So it has been a tremendous issue, I think, in the community. And it has also been to a certain extent divisive in the community because there are some people who don’t believe that people’s health complaints are created by PGV. We looked at, for me there was also some practical realities. And I don’t know that people are discussing this, but the other fund what was originally called the Royalty and Relocation Fund and then became the Community Benefits Fund, and then now it has been changed back, I guess, to that -- the primary purpose of that fund is really relocation. And I have so many current claims in the office 31 EXHIBIT C that the money in that fund will not be available to pay for a health study for several years. And that’s because, we currently have about 2.1 million. And based on the number of applications that I have for relocation and because -. The relocation fund doesn’t say that you have to prove that you’ve been impacted, it just says that you have to have a desire to be relocated; and then there’s a preference under our rules for those properties purchased or permitted prior to 1989 and for, there’s a preference for people within one mile. Well, all of the requests that I have without exception are within one mile of the PGV. None of them is pre-1989. And since the rules just have a preference for pre-1989, the ones that are coming in qualify for that preference of being within one mile. But we calculated them out at 130 percent; and basically, you know, based on 130 percent of value at the time that people applied, we estimate that the purchase price would be in the neighborhood of about 4.5, 4.8 million dollars. There’s currently about 2.1 million available in the fund. Revenues come in at the rate of about $700,000 a year. So you do the math and you can see that it’s several years out before you’d have anything available. And that’s assuming that there’s no more additional claims for, filed with us for relocation. So that if you want to fund a health study this really is the only source that’s available today. And yet it addresses, I think, what a lot of people in the community are saying, both pro and anti geothermal, is that site specific, that some kind of health study that, you know, you could look at, and that there’s community buy-in. So the question is, is, you know, was this appropriate? I thought this was an appropriate fund. And the process though is an issue, because I don’t know that the claims adjuster -. And we didn’t really define what a claims adjuster is either, you know. And part of it is because when you draft rules, you weren’t necessarily anticipating all the different nuances of proposals that come before you. So that’s one of the things that may or may not need to be adjusted. You may need to look at whether you need a definition of a claims adjuster, you may need to look at whether this was something that is not necessarily a claims adjuster but, you know, something that the Commission itself makes a determination on and that they -. It’s just like when we went through the RFP on the waste to energy, it went to the County Council, and at a public hearing the County Council voted on whether they would approve that contract or not. And it gave people an opportunity to come forward and say whether they supported that contract being awarded. And so, you know, that may be the process that you want. But I think at this point we really need to examine the process more than anything else. And raising the questions about what can or cannot be done and what the process ought to be is probably where we’re at right now. KERN: Yeah, my hope is that at the end of, I mean not today, but very soon here that we have that clear process and all the questions are answered. That’s why write down the questions and let’s bring those out, so we can get clarification on those from procurement to the claims adjuster, identifying what that actually looks like, and anything else that we really need to look at. And so what I’d like to do is actually see if we could go into an executive session, get a little bit of a legal opinion and then maybe walk our way through that process. Here’s a claim, what do we do? So we can bring up the questions. You know what I mean? Can we get a motion to move into executive session? AU: Mr. Chair, I move to go into executive session. GONZALES: Second. LEITHEAD TODD: Uh -. 32 EXHIBIT C TORIGOE: The Director has something to say. KERN: Madam Director. LEITHEAD TODD: I was just going to say I think Mr. Torigoe will advise you that you need to state why you want to go into executive session. TORIGOE: Yeah, from what I’m hearing you want to go into executive session to consult with legal counsel, get some legal advice regarding some of the issues and potential liabilities regarding this, this item. KERN: Exactly. AU: Yes, I move to get legal advice and -. KERN: And there’s a second on that for the legal advice from -? GONZALES: Second. KERN: Yeah. All those in favor aye? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. KERN: Aye. Oppose? None. Okay, we’re going to go into executive session. Everybody has got to leave the room for a minute, and then we’ll call you back in. This shouldn’t take very long. Thank you. EXECUTIVE SESSION – The Commission went into executive session at 12:08 p.m. The Commission came out of executive session a 12:34 p.m. by a motion made by Commissioner Au, seconded by Commissioner Moses, and unanimously carried by a voice vote of all Commissioners in attendance. KERN: Welcome back, everybody. Okay, after seeking some legal guidance on some of the routes that we can take and authority that we have, I think it makes sense to get a motion out there, and we can continue any discussion on that. I’d like to see a motion to request the Director to provide recommendations as to whether and how the Planning Commission might receive and evaluate requests to fund community approved health studies, health study, including but not limited to: 1. Analysis of how procurement laws apply or not to funding of health studies. 2.What agency would do the procurement, if required? 3.Is a health study a mitigation measure? 4.Is a request for funding of health study a “claim”? 5.Is it appropriate to hire a “claims adjuster” for such claims? 6.What qualifications are appropriate for a claims adjuster? 33 EXHIBIT C 7.What recommendation, what amendments to Planning Commission Rule 12, or county code might be appropriate? 8.What is the Planning Commission’s role, if any, in obtaining/procuring an impartial, comprehensive geothermal impact health study, as opposed to merely evaluating claims/requests and determining whether to fund them? And I would request that that motion be made and that the information come back by the next Planning Commission meeting. AU: So move. GONZALES: Second. KERN: Okay, moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Commissioner Au? AU: Yeah. You know, I think it’s, with all the community here expressing their concerns, I think it’s important that we, we move along and we require to get these answers by, by the next meeting. KERN: Any other discussion? Yeah, I agree. I think the answers need to come out quick, I think, for the sake of perception of how we’re doing this meeting. This is a process. I think it’s very, very important, very important; and many people have said this, that this needs to be done right. It really does. I think that the questions here will get us to that clearer process and we’ll be able to move forward in a progressive comprehensive manner that will hopefully work for everybody. But, again, I would request that we do have the information by the next meeting. And we could agendize it for the next meeting, and at that point have the clarity on exactly what to do; and then we’ll know and we’ll be ready. And if need be we can, once we understand what that claims adjuster looks like potentially, you know, put out a request for a claims adjuster. Because obviously the health studies are coming forward. What that exactly looks like I think will be determined over the next few months. But I think it makes it sense to get that in motion so that we’re not, okay, here’s a request for a health study, now we need a claims adjuster, obtaining a claims adjuster is going to take another four months. Let’s get this moving so we can get it done. Any other discussion? And we can, I can print this out for the exact, exact motion. No other discussion? Seeing none, let’s take the vote. ARAI: Commissioner Au? AU: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Gonzales? GONZALES: Aye. 34 EXHIBIT C ARAI: Commissioner Ishibashi? KERN: He’s -. ARAI: Oh, I’m sorry, that’s my -. I apologize. Commissioner Moses? MOSES: Aye. ARAI: And Mr. Chairman? KERN: Aye. ARAI: Mr. Chairman, motion to continue carries with four aye votes. KERN: Thank you. And so this will be agendized for our next meeting, with the answers. Yes, yes, yeah, we’re good. Okay, so that’s it on this conversation right now. We hope to have answers next meeting and a clearer process. PETRICCI: Can we get a copy of that list, of that motion? ARAI: When you provide it to us, it can be made a part of that letter. So we can provide that, a copy to Mr. Petricci and Council Members. PETRICCI: Thank you. KERN: Absolutely, yeah, absolutely. The discussion ended at 12:48 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 35 EXHIBIT C