|
<br />that scope and to develop the pieces, lots of back and forth, lots of good ideas. Really appreciate
<br />their input, and they made it a better RFP, guaranteed. So, that’s, that’s the history of that.
<br />
<br />MIYASATO: Any further questions?
<br />
<br />HEAUKULANI: Oh, I have lots. I’ll just throw this out to the panel. I’d like your thoughts
<br />about some of the testimony we’ve heard this afternoon that this might be premature given the
<br />recent uncontrolled discharge to whoever wants to pick up the ball.
<br />
<br />MADDOCK: You know, I had the opportunity to listen to all the testimony, and I think
<br />obviously this changes, a bit of what we’ve looked at, but when you look at the study, and what’s
<br />written in here, we were looking for someone to come in and do a study that looks at both
<br />cumulative low level exposure plus peak exposure. You know, we were thinking mostly about
<br />th
<br />the ’91 blowout, but obviously anyone that did the study would include the August 7. It is
<br />written in here that any additional work that’s done, on monitoring that’s done, on air flow,
<br />would have to be included in their study, so ongoing work. I know there’s been a long delay in
<br />getting the studies, probably you know twenty, thirty years too late, you know, and there will
<br />continue to be as long as the plant is open probably events. And, I think by delaying, I’m not
<br />sure what you add, and you get a lag that goes longer and longer, so that the more recency you
<br />have in the study to, when there was an event, the easier it will be to check the health effects, so I
<br />don’t see a benefit scientifically from delaying the study.
<br />
<br />HEAUKULANI: What about the idea of investigating the possibility of bringing in CDC and/or
<br />EPA to give us an idea of what we’re looking at here before we fund the study?
<br />
<br />DAYTON: Thank you for the question. I was just talking to Bob Petricci before this, before
<br />coming up here, and that suggestion of their involvement—the first I heard of it was today, and I
<br />haven’t spoken with the Mayor about it, but I’m pretty confident that he would welcome their
<br />involvement, their research, their inquiry if that’s something that they intend to do, if that’s
<br />something the community feels is appropriate. I’m not sure, I’ll defer to Jay I guess as to how
<br />that might inform this particular study, but their involvement would be welcome, I’m sure.
<br />
<br />MADDOCK: Sure of it, if the CDC was to come out, they would be looking specifically at the
<br />th
<br />August 7 blowout, and then looking at the peak exposure and effect on health which is very
<br />different than the long-term, low level, accumulative exposure which includes the heavy metals
<br />and some of the other issues, I think. They would actually complement each other and obviously
<br />if the CDC came out, that would be a benefit to the community.
<br />
<br />HEAUKULANI: Okay, and forgive me for my lack of experience in this, but how does this
<br />process work? We’re putting out this RFP. Do we get any time along the process to watch how
<br />it’s being shaped or whose, whose gonna respond to it? How does it work? How do we—I’m
<br />trying to make sure that we get value for the amount of money you’re asking us to invest into
<br />this.
<br />
<br />DAYTON: Jeff, on process, that’s you, yeah?
<br />
<br />24
<br />EXHIBIT F
<br />
<br />
<br />
|