2014-01-09 Windward Exh B - Items 5 & 6

Home

do this. It’s not that hard. And our group did write an RFP. And I understand there are issues, and I don’t think anybody is doing this on purpose or anything like that. The point is, let’s just do the study already. And we have a lot of information, we’ve submitted a proposal, the Adler group has an RFP, you know, we can help. We are ready to go. We don’t really understand why this can’t be figured out. As far as the John Burns School of Medicine, we asked them to write a proposal for a health study. Instead, they wrote themselves a contract for $50,000 for a meta-study, another study of a study. So now that raises a red flag for me with John Burns School of Medicine. And that’s really all I’ve got to say. Thank you very much. GONZALES: Thank you. We’ve got four more: Christopher Biltoft, Andrea Rosanoff, LaRee Hiltner and Elisabeth Green. Could you all raise your right hands, please. Do you swear to tell the truth before the Windward Planning Commission today? TESTIFIERS: I do. GONZALES: Thank you. Do you want to start on this end? All right. BILTOFT: Good morning. I’m Christopher Biltoft. I live in Kapoho Vacation Land, and I’m a retired meteorologist with air quality experience. And I’m kind of here, I’m trying to help the process. And one of the things I see is that we need some terminology, some definitions of terminology, for example, what you are calling monitors are actually samplers, and I would encourage everyone to try to use correct terminology when you are describing pieces of equipment. And I actually, I’ve made some copies of definitions of terms. If anybody is interested on the Planning Commission, I’ll be pleased that you have a copy of that. There are also the definition of monitor and monitoring system and so forth. The second thing I’d like to say is that purchasing a bunch of samplers is not solving the monitoring problem, okay? You can buy a bunch of samplers, but samplers are essentially bricks and they have about the same value as a brick. What is valuable is the data. The data that come out of the samplers, if the data are handled properly and archived and used in a model to change the data into information, that is what’s valuable. Information is valuable. Waiving a sampler around and loosing the data has little or no value, okay? So I don’t want to get into a lot of technical stuff, but again, I would like to have the opportunity to help with the process so that we do this right this time. We’ve been doing it wrong for several decades now. Let’s take the opportunity to do it right, okay? The second thing, comment, I’d like to make has to do with the meta-study, the health meta-study. I would just like to reinforce what the others have said. Meta-studies have been done. EPA has an extensive meta-study, which was used to develop acute exposure guideline levels. We should be using those acute exposure guideline levels. We do not need another meta-study. That’s basically, if there is plenty of time and money to hand out a little gift to the John Burns School of Medicine, that’s one thing, but I don’t think that’s the situation here; we have limited time, we have limited money. Spend the time and the money on a real health study, and establishing a real monitoring program and not waste the time and the money on something that is of marginal value at best. That’s all I have to say. GONZALES: Thank you. HILTNER: I’m LaRee Gashwiler (formerly), and I’m on the Health Study Group. And my background is civil and environmental engineering, along with electronics; so I’m one of the monitoring experts for this panel, health study panel. I worked for the last almost 33 years for the State of Oregon, Oregon OSHA, taking care of the monitoring equipment used by the health and 14 EXHIBIT B