HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-02-06HEARINGTRANSCRIPT-GAF CLAIMS-MAYOR
WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I
HEARING TRANSCRIPT
FEBRUARY 6, 2014
A regularly advertised hearing on the discussion regarding action on claims for the release of
funds from the Geothermal Asset Fund and recommendations from the claims adjuster for
community approved geothermal impact mitigation projects was called to order at 11:20 a.m. in
the County of Hawai‘i, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i with
Chairman Wallace A. Ishibashi, Jr. presiding.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Wallace A. Ishibashi, Jr., Ronald Gonzales, Charles
Heaukulani, Gregory Henkel, Myles Miyasato, and Raylene Moses.
ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Stephen Ono.
ALSO PRESENT: Bobby Command (Deputy Planning Director), Molly Stebbins (Deputy
Corporation Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), William Brilhante (from 10:09
a.m. to 10:28 a.m. and from 10:58 a.m. to 12:01 p.m., Deputy Corporation Counsel for the
Planning Director), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner), Maija
Cottle (Staff Planner), and Sarah Hata-Finley (Secretary).
And approximately 12 people from the public in attendance.
CLAIMANT: OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
Discussion regarding action on claims for the release of funds from the Geothermal Asset Fund
and recommendations from the claims adjuster, for the following community approved
geothermal impact mitigation projects:
Air Quality Monitoring Equipment Purchases - $174,000
a.
New fixed and hand held air quality monitors to be purchased by Hawai‘i County Civil
Defense to improve emergency response to geothermal events and to provide community
members with hand held monitors, on a pilot basis.
Ground Water Sampling in the Kīlauea East Rift - $45,000
b.
Contract with USGS to conduct ground water sampling of existing wells and selected
warm ponds along the Lower Puna coast to test for the presence of chemicals used in the
geothermal energy process that might have mixed with ground water in the region. The
study follows up a 1994 Study by USGS and addresses a specific recommendation in the
study group’s report to conduct such studies.
Meta-Analysis of Health Effects of Low to Moderate H2S Exposure; John A Burns
c.
School of Medicine - $55,000
The study will synthesize results of available published studies on the impacts of low to
moderate exposures of H2S from geothermal and other sources globally. The report will
highlight consistent research findings using independent biostatisticians and
epidemiologist and lay the ground work for future health studies in the Puna Region.
1
EXHIBIT F
Enhanced Level 1 Environmental Site Assessment on former HGP-A brine water
d.
pond sites - $25,000
Study would collect existing environmental data and conduct soil sampling from the
former brine pond sites to analyze for the presence of any hazardous materials that may
be in the ground as a result of the early years of geothermal development.
ISHIBASHI: Ok, next agenda item. Mr. Arai.
ARAI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The next item on the agenda is a request by the Office of the
Mayor regarding four individual claims for the release of funds from the Geothermal Asset Fund
to basically implement community approved geothermal impact mitigation projects. As you may
th
recall at your last meeting of January the 9, the, the Commission considered the applicant, these
various claims, with a specific recommendation to grant, to basically, I’m sorry, approve the
hiring of a claims adjuster that will then review the individual claims offered by the Office of the
Mayor and then forward its recommendation onto the Planning Commission. While, in the
th
period between January 9 and today, we were able to retain the services of a claims adjuster,
and that adjuster, as you know, is John Mullen & Co. and four individual claims were filed by
the Office of the Mayor, and those claims, and its supporting information, was provided to all of
you prior to today’s meeting.
The claims adjuster did review each individual claim and by letter dated February 4, 2014, the
claims adjuster has made their recommendation on each and every single one of those claims.
And those claims, and I’ll just briefly make mention of it is a meta-analysis of health effects of
low and Moderate H2S exposure in the amount of $55,000. Second is ground water sampling
study in the lower East rift by the USGS in the amount of $45,000. The third claim is enhanced
Level 1 environmental assessment on the former HGP-A brine water ponds. That claim was in
the amount of $25,000. And the fourth and final claim was the acquisition of air quality
monitoring equipment by the, to be acquired by the Civil Defense Agency in the amount of
$174,000. I should note that today’s agenda does speak to the fourth claim which is on the third
page of your--oh, I’m sorry—which is on the second page of your agenda. The first claim, it
says air quality monitoring equipment purchases. It states that value or claim at $180,000. The
th
agenda had to be published immediately after your last hearing on January the 9, so it was
basically a preliminary number at that time. In the interim, when the claims were submitted, a
more defined cost estimate was provided which is why the claims adjuster recommendation and
the claim itself makes reference to $174,000, not the 180, but because the amount is lower, we’re
ok, because it falls within the scope of the agendized item.
So, briefly speaking, the claims adjuster has recommended to the Commission in accordance
with your rules of practice and procedure regarding the Geothermal Asset Fund, that the claims
are fair and proper, and the adjuster does recommend that each of those claims be granted. So,
that recommendation has been provided to all of you, and at this point, you need to deliberate
and consider the recommendations of the claims adjuster and make a motion on whether to grant
the claim or to deny it. So, with that, I stand ready to answer any questions that you may have,
and we do have representatives of the Mayor’s office in attendance should you have any specific
questions regarding these specific claims.
2
EXHIBIT F
ISHIBASHI: Thank you, Mr. Arai. Any questions for staff, Commissioners?
GONZALES: Mr. Chairman, I have a question.
ISHIBASHI: Commissioner Gonzales.
GONZALES: Daryn, do these have to be taken one at a time, or can a motion be made to accept
them all?
ARAI: We would recommend that you take them one at a time.
GONZALES: Thank you.
ISHIBASHI: Ok, thank you. Well, for the record, our geothermal development here on the
island has come a long, long way. I was the founding member of the Big Island Labor Alliance
and Hawai‘i Island Geothermal Alliance, it’s the HIGA, we used to call that. That was back in
the eighties, early eighties. We created this fund as a relocation fund to help those who believed
that they were affected by the effects of geothermal development in their neighborhood. This
fund has morphed into a bigger and probably better solution to help the community in any way
we can to help alleviate the health problems, claimed by our residents and our community here
on the Big Island. So, I just wanted to make that clear that being part of the geothermal
development here on the Island, you know, I support this. This fund, and the way it’s being
spent. So, I just wanted to put that on the record and open up the Commission for questions and
comments on their own.
Ok, moving on, we have some public testimony here. So, we’d like to call up Thomas Travis,
Katarina Culina, Laura Travis, Christopher—aw, I’m going massacre this—Christopher—
BILTOFT: Biltoft.
ISHIBASHI: Thank you. And Pua ema, ‘ena, you can come up. Raise your right hands, please?
Do you swear to affirm to tell the truth before the Windward Planning Commission over this
matter?
THOMAS TRAVIS, LAURA TRAVIS, BILTOFT, AHN: I do.
CULINA: Yes.
ISHIBASHI: Ok, thank you so much. We can start with Thomas. State your name and address
for the record please.
TRAVIS: My name is Thomas Travis. I live in lower Puna. I am—Commissioner,
Commissioner’s chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would like to speak in
support of this expenditure with one reservation. The reservation is that the report from which
the Mayor is taking actions considered a comprehensive health study as the number one priority
and that action has not been yet taken and presented to the claims adjuster. We’ll all hoping that
3
EXHIBIT F
it will be soon. The reason that’s important is that as we spend the community asset, the
geothermal asset funds, it’s important that we don’t overspend the account before we get to the
number one priority which is the health study. So, I support it with the reservation that we hope
the County is able to rapidly proceed to doing a health study. Thank you.
ISHIBASHI: Thank you. Katrina [sic]? Name, address for the record, please.
CULINA: Hi. I’m Katarina Culina. I live in lower Puna. You want the exact address?
ISHIBASHI: No, no, that’s fine.
CULINA: Ok, thanks. So, I noticed that you said that you were a part of HIGA and relocation
fund to address the concerns of people who believe that they were affected, so at—and I also
agree with Thomas Travis that the priority is a health study so we can move away from who
believe that they’re affected and actually have a study and show for thirty years--the community
throughout Puna has been waiting for this—that show that is there or is there not a reason to be
concerned about the health effects of the geothermal development. So, I would like to support
again, the, all these things are needed, monitors, ground water sampling, so this is, you know, it’s
real important to prove and show what, how has geothermal affected the environment and the
people and, as well as the culture, but right now let’s just focus on health and environment.
Thank you.
ISHIBASHI: Thank you so much, and yes, why we gotta wait this long to get the funds and use
now, you know? Should have been done long time ago, so, you know, we’re just moving in the
right direction from where we were in the beginning, from where we’re at now. Big difference.
Beginning was done real poorly. Prior to PGV coming on board was real, real bad. So, we’re
moving in the right direction so let’s get all the facts and figures out there and do it right. Thank
you.
Next, we have Laura.
TRAVIS: Yes, my name is Laura Travis, and I also live in lower Puna. And, um, I really also
support the things that are before, different things that are written on this, but I also want to just
a, say that the Adler report, one of the really probably priority recommendations was the health
study. It’s been six months since the, almost six months, since the Adler report came out and
I’m a little bit concerned about the County’s true commitment for the health study portion, so
that’s what I have to say and thank you for listening.
ISHIBASHI: Thank you, Laura. Any questions so far, Commissioners? Go ahead, Chris.
Thanks.
BILTOFT: Yes, good morning. I’m Christopher Biltoft. I live in Kapoho Vacationland and I’m
a meteorologist. I, I in general, support the allocation of funds. I do question, however, the
meta-analysis. The, whether that is a wise use of funds and time, actually, if you can spend time
and funds doing a meta-analysis, many meta-analyses have already been done. You, if you go
online, you can find them. The EPA has published acute exposure guideline levels stating the
4
EXHIBIT F
concentration time, times below which one should not expect to find ill health effects. So I just
really wonder what you hope to achieve by spending $55,000 on yet another meta-analysis. You
know, if you got plenty of time and money, that’s probably entertaining but not necessarily
beneficial. For the research is needed, but it’s in the form of a real health study, not a meta-
analysis, a rehash of what’s already been done. So, that’s what I would encourage you to do, is
put its money where its needed, and that would be a health study. Thank you very much.
ISHIBASHI: Thank you. Questions, comments, Commissioners? Pua.
AHN: Aloha, my name is Pua‘ena Ahn, Pele Defense Fund. I live here on Moku o Keawe.
What I, it would seem that I am the only practitioner here on this side of the panel so what I will
say which is always worth saying and that geothermal in and of itself with particularly within the
east rift zone is inherently sacrilegious and detrimental, but that’s it. What I will say as far as the
matter at hand, you know, it is definitely a step in the right direction; however, what I will point
out is please actually use this equipment and use it properly. Put the monitors in the right place,
don’t put ‘em too high because we all know H2S sinks. Now, you should also be putting,
thinking about where you’re going to be putting them, because you gotta worry about kū‘oko‘a
for example, Pohoiki Boat Ramp, you know, another example. Or even, oh, those are the main
ones. But what I would also say is that yes, particularly use it because, Brother Wally, you
remember Aurora and Keala when they ripped open the monitoring station and found out that
none of it was being used at all? You know, that’s a big deal, it made the papers. You know, I
just want to remind the Commission of that, that, you know, allocating all these funds is
wonderful, you know, it’s a step in the right direction, more needs to be done, of course, in the
future. However, actually use it. Please. Mahalo.
ISHIBASHI: Mahalo. You know, going out to the community during the community feedback,
that was one of the big issues, on the, on the monitoring devices and not working, you know
when—now, we’re here, the thing is over, almost two years later, now we’re getting money to
allocate to get new monitoring systems, so why so slow? But at least we’re moving. We get the
money, we’re using ‘em. So you know at least we’re moving, yeah? Comments,
Commissioners?
HENKEL: Mr. Chair.
ISHIBASHI: Go ahead, Commissioner Henkel.
HENKEL: I think you know from our last meeting and this meeting to, one of the overwhelming
desires of the community is for the comprehensive health study. What can we do to bring that
about cause it’s not part of this package.
ISHIBASHI: Staff, anybody can answer that question?
ARAI: My apologies. If the question could be repeated? My apologies.
HENKEL: In response to the consensus of the community, what can be done to bring about a
comprehensive health study because it’s not part of the package that we’ve got before us now?
5
EXHIBIT F
ARAI: I don’t, I think that question and I’m sorry I’m--it appears I’m punting, I do believe that
question has to go to the Office of the Mayor. They, they’re introducing the specific claims that
are directly linked to the recommendations that were prescribed within the geothermal health, or
public health assessment study. Now, anyway, maybe I should—we do have representatives of
the Mayor’s office here so maybe that question could be directed--
HENKEL: Well, a point of order, from the information I have, we can’t amend any of this. All
we can do is approve or disapprove the individual items on here and there isn’t anything on here
for a comprehensive health study. A, one suggestion was to get rid of the meta-analysis. If we
did that, what’s to say that, that money would be put, you know, to another use. Is that right? I
mean, you know, we can’t do anything except approve or disapprove these four things.
ARAI: Correct. Just to clarify, anyone can submit a claim and the, to utilize the funds from the
geothermal asset fund, so if someone feels that a comprehensive health study is something that
should be funded now, then the reasons, the documentations and supporting analysis, on why
that claim should be funded, can be provided and it would be considered in the same way we’ve
considered the four separate claims filed with, by the Mayor, by the Mayor’s office. So, it can be
done but it doesn’t only have to be the Office of the Mayor that submits it. It can be anyone
from the public as well.
HENKEL: Mr. Arai, you know, the problem is that this should have been done thirty years ago
because there needs to be a baseline, you know, to see how it’s affecting the health, and these are
all important things, but I feel that the comprehensive health study is above even those.
ARAI: And I can’t argue with that but also, again, what is being offered now by the Office of
the Mayor could be leading up to eventual comprehensive health study because, you know, some
of what’s being asked for is to implement various aspects of the recommendations. Things like
better monitoring, that’s the air quality monitoring. Checking to see if there’s any concerns
regarding the brine ponds at HGP-A. All of that are things that I feel could be part of a
comprehensive health study. So, anyway, I’m not necessarily the expert, and someone from the
Mayor’s office I think should probably chime in at this point, but I hope you see where I’m
going with this. You could do the broad study now but it may be still be all inclusive of all these
things that the Mayor’s office has recommended be implemented. So, I believe it’s all, anyway.
I’ll stop there.
HENKEL: I’d like to hear a response from the Mayor’s office. Thank you.
ARAI: We do have someone, if a representative from the Mayor’s office could come up, I could
turn over the podium to them.
ISHIBASHI: Ok, any questions for the testifiers, Commissioners? Ok, you may be seated.
Thank you so much for coming. And this is by no means the end of this, this funding of studies,
by no means, I know that.
So--hi, you can sit down or you guys can go up. Up to you, Jeff.
6
EXHIBIT F
KAMI: Good morning Commissioners--
ISHIBASHI: You can—
KAMI: I’m Clarysse—
ISHIBASHI: Ok—raise your right hand—
KAMI: Oh—
ISHIBASHI: --first before we start. Wait for your partner. Ok, Jeff. Do you swear and confirm
to tell the truth before the Windward Planning Commission over this matter?
MELROSE: We do.
KAMI: I do.
ISHIBASHI: Ok, thank you.
KAMI: I’m Clarysse Kami from the Mayor’s office and I just want to say a couple things and
then I’m going to hand the mike over to Jeff Melrose because he has the technical details, but I
just want to reaffirm the Mayor’s commitment to not only what’s before you today, before,
projects that are before you today, but also the health study. And in his remarks of last month, he
talked about the fact that these four pieces are just the first four pieces that we’re going to bring
before the Commission and right now, we are working on the details of getting the RFP together
for the health study. We certainly heard the community’s concerns and I guess, you know,
request for urgent action on the health study, and we’re acting on it now. Thank you.
MELROSE: I would just reaffirm what she said. I don’t think there’s ever been an intention to
slow down or not do or somehow interfere with that process. There were about seven
recommendations in the health study but then working groups report on the health issue, and so
what we did first was to pick the ones we knew we could get off quickly, that they were already
work prepared for and we could move them quickly and, frankly, to get them through this
process, which is one that really hadn’t been exercised before, the claims adjuster process. So
we’ve learned a lot in just the last thirty days in terms of how this process works and what kinds
of expectations a claims adjuster has, and I will tell you, over the last thirty days, that’s been a lot
of credit to the Planning Department for expediting that conversation, but the adjuster played a
very, I think, a fiduciary role in this conversation. They did not simply nod at what we handed
them. They actually took us apart. We spent a lot of time trying to get the right numbers and get
the details down. So we can expect that same kind of a conversation when we take in a much
larger, much more complex health study. And now we have a better feel for that. So, understand
that these four steps are the ones that we know we can expedite and move forward with. Some
of them are already moving before this process, some of what the Darryl Oliveira at Civil
Defense was doing was actually just responding to these requirements to finding money in
7
EXHIBIT F
different places to keep bringing new monitoring stuff to the table. So, not everything has had to
go right through this particular body including the asset fund.
So I would confirm that this is an on-going process. The health study is a much more complex
kind of issue because you’re looking at a number of different things, and it takes a, it’s not any
particular scientist who walks and says I do central nervous system studies or I do anxiety studies
or I do pulmonary work. And, finding that right collection or combination of people to do that,
and to do it in a way that the community understands and gets it. So doing this health study in a
community way is maybe as important as getting the good data out to begin with cause you
could bring in a bunch of white coats and send them through the community and check, make
checkboxes and take blood samples and, but that’s probably not the way this community wants
to be engaged in the study, and we’re hoping to find some momentum in that particular area so
that it can be done in a way that the community understands and gets the process and appreciates
the work that’s being done. So that’s an element of this conversation. And there’s also a
procurement element to it, which is a complex issue as well because County doesn’t often
procure major health study pieces. So, how you go through that process and do so in a way that
the advisory group really wanted us to have a process. They really wanted us to say, you know,
this is an open book. We’re not going to pick a particular person because they, we know what
they’re answers are, we know what their work has been. So, that’s a, that’s a challenge, that’s in
the report. So understand that these are complex issues that are imbedded in the complexity of
what a health study really looks like. So, that said, know that and I really welcome Clarysse’s
wisdom and insight into this process, we’re moving in this direction and have been working on
it, so please understand that it’s not, and the Mayor has his spurs imbedded in this process. Both
of us feel it, and it’s not something that is going to not happen. But the truth is it really needs to
happen right. This public money is not a small number. It’s in the well over, you know, it’s in
the upper six figures probably when you start to put this together, and the outcome is important,
and we need to make it, take that into account when we do and bring to you a, and to the claims
adjuster, a process that makes sense economically and hits the bar that we’re trying to get to,
so—and I would just add that, you know, the meta-study which has had a, you know, variety of
people talking about it here, it’s a part of a really good study. It’s the part of what a study takes.
Yes, they are bodies of information about H2S. They’re also whole series of studies that were
done from different angles and different places in Iceland and in New Zealand and all around the
country. And they all tell us something, but they’re all not the same studies. They don’t, they’re
not done the same way, they’re not sampled the same way, they’re not structured the same way,
and part of the meta study is to kind of break that down and look at ok, if you try to analyze
those studies, what do you get out of each of them, critiquing each one for what it is and isn’t.
And that will be an informative piece. We’re not waiting for the end of that to do this study, but
it will be an informative piece and a contributing piece to the overall knowledge about what we
know about the impacts of H2S, particularly, but other things related to geothermal in the
community so. With that, glad to answer more questions.
ISHIBASHI: Commissioner Henkel.
HENKEL: Thanks, Jeff. I, you know, I really appreciate the Mayor’s commitment, and I think
there’s an overall consensus that this study needs to be done, but it’s going to be incredibly
expensive. I mean the things that we’ve got before us. These items probably would cover the
8
EXHIBIT F
cost of studying how to do the comprehensive health study, much less the study itself. Where,
where do you anticipate that this money might come from? Is there any way, I mean, it’s not up
to us, but it’s probably up to the County Council. Is there any way to involve, you know, Puna
Geothermal, the people that are profiting so much off of the geothermal plant to kick in a little
more to cover the, how it impacts the people that live around their plant.
MELROSE: I really can’t, you know, comment too much about what the cost of it is. We know
it’s going to be more than what, what these smaller studies have been. These are easy to
estimate. You know what it costs to do a phase, an enhanced phase one. You know what it costs
to do water samples and the like. And until you kind of get this bigger picture, you don’t know
what that looks like. I would say that they are and have been other sources of funds out there.
The National Endowment of Health, the CDC. Others have grants, and these grants have been
deployed in, on this island for the last ten years doing vog studies for instance. There’s a ten-
year study that’s tracked children through ten years of life affected by the SO2 gases that had
been done by the school of medicine and Dr. Elizabeth Tam. And those are largely funded by
National Endowment of Health, and others, so if we get the CDC, and so as we get to the actual
pricing process of that, I would hope that we actually go outside of the County taxpayers to find
those monies. And, if we have to, to go do that to match it but the idea is to get an excellent
study that answers lot of questions and money shouldn’t be the issue. We should be able to find
those monies and how to do that, let’s figure out what the cost is and we can work from there.
HENKEL: Thanks.
ISHIBASHI: Further questions, Commissioners? What we had with Adler’s report? Was that
disseminated and—
MELROSE: I believe it’s been disseminated to all of you. You’ve all gotten a copy of it, and—
ISHIBASHI: No, to the public and—
MELROSE: --it’s been posted, it’s available, and so that’s exactly what we’re working off of.
We’re taking that report and the recommendation specifically and the meta study was required, it
was recommended. HGP-A study, the monitoring issue, and the fourth one, were all part. So,
we’re just going directly at those recommendations, and that’s what the Mayor said. He said this
report was well done, and the commitment of the people, that the Travis’s and others and others
were a part of this was not to be treated lightly, and that we are to go ahead and make that
happen as soon and as fast and as reasonably as we can do so, so.
ISHIBASHI: Thank you. Ok, Commissioners, any further questions of staff or the Mayor’s
office? Ok, seeing none. Take the first item.
ARAI: And, Mr. Chairman, just to follow up on the testimony provided by the Office of the
Mayor and in response to your question, Commissioner Henkel, the study, the comprehensive
study could look at funding from elsewhere but again, while the asset fund is not an endless pit, I
mean or endless resource, you know, there are monies in the geothermal asset fund so it still
could be reasonably looked at as a source of funding for the comprehensive health study. You
9
EXHIBIT F
know, as long as monies are available to cover the cost of the study. So I just want to make sure
that you are aware of that—that is still an option.
ISHIBASHI: Ok, Motion 7a.
MOSES: Motion to accept the recommendation of the claims adjuster and to award the claim for
Air Quality Monitoring Equipment Purchases in the amount of $174,000, as it appears fair,
reasonable, and appropriate to the description of the claim and will benefit of a majority of Puna
residents mostly directly affected by the activity permitted or not permitted by Geothermal
Resource Permit No. 2, issued by the County of Hawai‘i.
ISHIBASHI: Ok, moved by Commissioner Moses.
GONZALES: I’ll second.
ISHIBASHI: Seconded by Commissioner Gonzales. Open for discussion. Seeing none, Daryn.
ARAI: Ok, for the first motion on Claim A. Commissioner Moses?
MOSES: Aye.
ARAI: Commissioner Gonzales?
GONZALES: I believe that was Claim D that she motioned.
MOSES: Air quality? A.
GONZALES: A?
ARAI: Air quality is A. I’m referring to the agenda.
MOSES: Agenda.
GONZALES: Ok. Aye.
ARAI: Ok, Commissioner Heaukulani?
HEAUKULANI: Aye.
ARAI: Commissioner Henkel?
HENKEL: Aye.
ARAI: Commissioner Miyasato?
MIYASATO: Aye.
10
EXHIBIT F
ARAI: And Mr. Chairman?
ISHIBASHI: Aye.
ARAI: Mr. Chairman, motion carries with six aye votes.
ISHIBASHI: Ok, thank you. Commissioners, 7b.
MOSES: Motion to accept the recommendation of the claims adjuster and to award the claim for
Ground Water Sampling in the Kīlauea East Rift in the amount of $45,000, as it appears fair,
reasonable, and appropriate to the description of the claim and will benefit of a majority of Puna
residents mostly directly affected by the activity permitted or not permitted by Geothermal
Resource Permit No. 2, issued by the County of Hawai‘i.
ISHIBASHI: Moved by Commissioner Moses.
GONZALES: Second.
ISHIBASHI: Second by Commissioner Gonzales. Discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Arai.
ARAI: Commissioner Moses?
MOSES: Aye.
ARAI: Commissioner Gonzales?
GONZALES: Aye.
ARAI: Commissioner Heaukulani?
HEAUKULANI: Aye.
ARAI: Commissioner Henkel?
HENKEL: Aye.
ARAI: Commissioner Miyasato?
MIYASATO: Aye.
ARAI: And Mr. Chairman?
ISHIBASHI: Aye.
ARAI: Mr. Chairman, motion carries with six aye votes.
11
EXHIBIT F
ISHIBASHI: Ok, thank you. Commissioners, 7c.
MOSES: Motion to accept the recommendation of the claims adjuster and to award the claim for
Meta-Analysis of Health Effects of Low to Moderate H2S Exposure; John A. Burns School of
Medicine in the amount of $55,000, as it appears fair, reasonable, and appropriate to the
description of the claim and will benefit of a majority of Puna residents mostly directly affected
by the activity permitted or not permitted by Geothermal Resource Permit No. 2, issued by the
County of Hawai‘i.
ISHIBASHI: Thank you for that motion, Commissioner Moses.
GONZALES: Second.
ISHIBASHI: Seconded by Commissioner Gonzales. Questions?
HEAUKULANI: Comment please.
ISHIBASHI: Ok.
HEAUKULANI: I’m strongly in support of anything that’s going to give us hard data about this
so I don’t have any problem with the monitoring equipment. I certainly don’t have any problems
sampling of the water or seeing what’s going on with HGP-A. I have a problem and won’t
support a study of the studies of the studies. So, I’m going to be voting no on this particular
request.
ISHIBASHI: Thank you, Commissioner Heaukulani. Ok, any more comments?
HENKEL: Yeah, Mr. Chairman?
ISHIBASHI: Go ahead Commissioner Henkel.
HENKEL: I feel the same way. I, I agree with Christopher who testified that there have already
been, there’s already been enough studies done, and that this money could be spent better
elsewhere.
ISHIBASHI: Ok, any further discussion? Ok, call for the question, Mr. Arai.
ARAI: Ok, Commissioner Moses?
MOSES: Aye.
ARAI: Commissioner Gonzales?
GONZALES: Aye.
12
EXHIBIT F
ARAI: Commissioner Heaukulani?
HEAUKULANI: No.
ARAI: Commissioner Henkel?
HENKEL: No.
ARAI: Commissioner Miyasato?
MIYASATO: Aye.
ARAI: And Mr. Chairman?
ISHIBASHI: Aye.
ARAI: Mr. Chairman, motion carries with four ayes, two noes.
ISHIBASHI: Thank you. 7d.
MOSES: Motion to accept the recommendation of the claims adjuster and to award the claim for
Enhanced Level 1 Environmental Site Assessment on former HGP-A brine water pond sites in
the amount of $25,000, as it appears fair, reasonable, and appropriate to the description of the
claim and will benefit of a majority of Puna residents mostly directly affected by the activity
permitted or not permitted by Geothermal Resource Permit No. 2, issued by the County of
Hawai‘i.
ISHIBASHI: Thank you, Commissioner Moses.
GONZALES: I’ll second.
ISHIBASHI: Second again by Commissioner Gonzales. Discussion.
GONZALES: I have a comment, Mr. Chairman.
ISHIBASHI: Commissioner Gonzales.
GONZALES: I just a, I’m grateful that we all had this chance today to, you know, kind of sort
of, get the ball rolling. You know, we’ve all seen this develop right you know before us here. I
think it’s a good thing that, you know, now that we have this a—this procedure in place, we can
continue on, and you know, now we don’t have to keep going back and forth. We can get these
things before us and we can vote on ‘em and maybe do what the community wants. So, I think
it’s a good thing.
ISHIBASHI: Thank you Commissioner. More comments? And this was, this was the issue of
trying to get as much of data as we can for the questions in the community so although we may
13
EXHIBIT F
be studying the studies, it’s important that we start and do it right this time around. So, Mr. Arai,
take your vote.
ARAI: Ok, Commissioner Moses?
MOSES: Aye.
ARAI: Commissioner Gonzales?
GONZALES: Aye.
ARAI: Commissioner Heaukulani?
HEAUKULANI: Aye.
ARAI: Commissioner Henkel?
HENKEL: Aye.
ARAI: Commissioner Miyasato?
MIYASATO: Aye.
ARAI: And Mr. Chairman?
ISHIBASHI: Aye.
ARAI: Mr. Chairman, motion carries with six aye votes.
ISHIBASHI: Thank you so much. Thank you, Commissioners.
The discussion ended at 11:59 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sarah Y. Hata-Finley, Secretary
Windward Planning Commission
14
EXHIBIT F