Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the SB 2094 EALs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Environmental advocates press for public petition rights on state contamination thresholds; DOH urges flexibility for emergencies
Summary
Testimony at the Feb. 12 joint AEN hearing on SB 2094 pushed for transparent, science‑based environmental action levels and a community petition process after the Red Hill water crisis; Department of Health said it documents its scientific rationale (appendix 9) but warned that mandatory public‑hearing timelines could slow emergency response.
Environmental and health safety were central at the Feb. 12 joint Agriculture and Environment Committee hearing on SB 2094, a bill that would require state agencies to establish environmental action levels (EALs), publish scientific justification for them, and allow residents to petition for modifications.
Melody Adoha, testifying for the Environmental Caucus of the Democratic Party of Hawaii, said SB 2094 is necessary to restore public trust after the Red Hill incident. "When standards fail to reflect science, it is our community to bear the harm," she said, arguing that benzene and other contaminants pose risks at levels lower than current thresholds and that EAL changes have occurred without adequate notice or justification.
Dr. John Jacob, Hawaii State toxicologist with the Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response Office, told the committee the Department of Health develops EALs using toxicological and hydrogeological models and noted the scientific rationale is published in appendix 9 of the department's guidance. He said the department routinely seeks peer review and is open to public comment and outreach, but cautioned that a mandatory 30‑day public‑hearing requirement could impede timely action during emergencies. "If there's an emergency ... time is of the essence," Dr. Jacob said, noting Hawaii's testing limitations (many samples are shipped off‑island) and that delays could allow contaminants to spread and complicate remediation.
On whether the department supports the bill as written, Dr. Jacob said the department favors retaining flexibility that permits rapid response; he proposed outreach options such as a subscription mailing list or a public portal to notify the public when significant changes are made to EALs and to accept comments. When asked about the IT or staffing resources needed to operate such a portal, Dr. Jacob said he would need to consult DOH IT staff and did not have an immediate answer.
The committee recorded 5 written supporters and no opponents for SB 2094 at the hearing. Chairs said decision making on SB 2094 would be rolled to a Feb. 17 time‑certain to continue resolving the balance between public transparency and emergency response flexibility.
What happens next: SB 2094 will return to committee on Feb. 17 for further decision making; DOH offered to work with staff on notification mechanisms but did not commit to resource or timeline specifics at the hearing.
