Island Watch

Health Department Finds No Risk to Geothermal

A “Health Risk Assessment” prepared by epidemiologist Barbara Brooks for the state Department of Health concludes that the public would not experience any adverse health effects from accidental releases of hydrogen sulfide from the geothermal wells at Puna Geothermal Venture’s facility on the Big Island.

A “hazards analysis” prepared for PGV states that the maximum concentration of hydrogen sulfide to which the public could be exposed outside of the plant was 12,768 parts per billion, with a duration of no longer than one hour. Brooks cites PGV’s analysis in stating that this concentration would be experienced by people within 1,300 feet of the plant boundary Concentrations beyond that would drop off as distance increased, Brooks states, so that “residents living 4,000 feet from PGV are projected to be exposed to approximately 4,000 parts per billion H2S while residents living 20,000 feet from PGV are projected to be exposed to 1,000 ppb H2S.”

The projections used by Brooks were prepared by consultants to Puna Geothermal Venture and are included in the Emergency Response Plan submitted by PGV to the County of Hawai’i as required by PGV’s county permit. According to the Emergency Response Plan, these “worst-case” concentrations could be expected to occur if one of the plant’s 13 3/8 inch pipes became choked and the geothermal steam in it flowed horizontally into the atmosphere. In this and almost every other accident scenario described in the plan, the hydrogen sulfide concentrations are predicted to diminish with distance from the plant.

But the notion that concentrations of hazardous gases can always be expected to decrease over distance is not undisputed. Following a blowout at the plant in June 1991, the state retained an engineering firm to conduct what is called a micro-meterological analysis, whose purpose was to determine what path releases from the plant took in that incident.

The consultants for that report- Goddard & Goddard Engineering, of Lucerne, California – used computer modeling to conclude that the plant’s emissions traveled in a plume. While concentrations of gases at the boundary of the plume tended to become more dilute with passage of time (and distance), concentrations at the plume’s center remained high. The result was that people far removed from the plant site but in the path of the plume were exposed to higher concentrations of hydrogen sulfide than those who may have been closer to the plant, but upwind of the plume.

The DOH risk assessment would appear to fly in the face of the Goddard report, which found that “estimates of 10-mile impacts of H2S within the plume cloud centerline are high enough to yield observed symptoms” of hydrogen sulfide exposure. Further, worst-case impact event with the same emissions as the [June 1991] uncontrolled venting where winds were near calm or at 1.0 mph would have increased impacts an estimated four to 10 times. Under worst-case conditions, the distance to where health complaints were reported would be extended several fold.”

The DOH report does not refer to the Goddard & Goddard study, nor does it reference any of the health effects reported by residents following any of the several “unplanned” releases of geothermal steam by PGV over the last three years.

The DOH report claims that under no circumstances would the concentrations of hydrogen sulfide exceed the 12,700 parts per billion level for more than an hour. In a worst-case scenario, with concentrations that high, “this scenario can and will be controlled through closing valves to shut in the well,” the report says, relying on PGV’s assurances that this would occur.

Shutting the well almost always has disastrous and expensive consequences. Usually it results in damage to the well. For example, when a PGV well had to be shut last fall to control emissions, the well casing was so badly damaged that the well had to be abandoned.

Finally, the report notes that the population in Puna “contains a large proportion of newcomers.” The report fails to mention what this has to do with determining the health effects of exposure to hydrogen sulfide.

As Another Expert Says Shut It Down

Meanwhile, Wilson Goddard, of Goddard and Goddard Engineering, was writing the Environmental Protection Agency, urging it to close down PGV’s facility. In his letter, copies of which were sent to Vice President Albert Gore and Attorney General Janet Reno, Goddard stated: “As I have repeatedly explained over several years to Region Ix EPA, and as addressed in [Goddard and Goddard’s] review of the PGV facility’s Emergency Response Plan, well field and power plant upset scenarios result in severe significant impacts exceeding federal regulations. A major well blowout could result in evacuation out to 25 km (16 miles). There are over 16,000 people that could be affected in the Puna District.”

“The 17-year history of repeated adverse upsets associated with the HPG-A and PGV attempts to develop geothermal energy at the Puna site indicates that, in this location, development is beyond the current engineering ‘state of the art,'” Goddard wrote. He called on the EPA to convene a panel of experts on underground injection control wells from its own staff and from the geothermal industry which “should review in detail each Puna geothermal well, direct the appropriate abandonment studies, prepare abandonment plans, and supervise proper well abandonment.”

His concluding statement described the Puna District East Rift Zone as “not an appropriate setting in which to develop the Island of Hawai’i geothermal energy resources.”

It bears mentioning that Goddard is receiving no compensation for his ongoing involvement in geothermal issues in Hawai’i.

The Puna plant flow-tested well Ks-9 on April 20. The test ran longer than expected, but was otherwise uneventful. At the same rime, PGV took to court two Puna residents who had indicated they would protest the well start-up. PGV sought a temporary restraining order and a permanent injunction barring Robert Petricci and Aurora Martinovich from entering PGV’s property. Punitive damages and attorneys’ fees also are being sought in the lawsuit, filed on April 16, 1993. The TRO was denied. No date has been set for trial.

Exodus at the DOH Leaves Leadership Vacuum

Parties at the Department of Health’s environmental offices have become a frequent occurrence lately, but there is little cause to celebrate. The festivities are occasioned by the departure of high level staff from the branches that can least afford to lose them.

The most recent loss is that of Arlene Kabei, who had been in charge of the Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch. Kabei has taken a position with Region Ix of the Environmental Protection Agency. Preceding her departure from the same office was that of Carolyn Winters, who went to work for the Navy. Soon to follow, Environment Hawai’i has learned, is Ray Seid. Seid is an EPA employee who has been on loan to the state for several years.

Kabei’s office was the one into which Jack Richardson, former Democratic Party chairman, was parachuted last June. That action had a demoralizing effect on staff.

Other branches in the Health Department have suffered as well. Mark Ingoglia, with the Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response branch, left last year to take a job with the Air Force. Mary Rose Teves, with the Environmental Planning Office, moved to Wisconsin to take a job with a state agency there. In her resignation letter, Teves applauded by her co-workers as “incredibly dedicated,” “hard-working,” and competent – explained she was leaving because of the failure other super-visors to recognize and support her efforts.

Paul Aki, head of the Air Division, took early retirement. Aaron Poentis, formerly with the Clean Water Branch and Wastewater Branch, now works for the Navy.

Paul Ciesla, a wastewater engineer with the Clean Water Branch, may also be leaving soon. Ciesla has been instrumental in investigating some of the largest water pollution cases in the state, including violations at the East Honolulu wastewater treatment facility. The department’s lack of support for his efforts -including its failure to assign more staff to enforcement – has been a source of frustration to him.

As to who will replace some of the key people, no one knows. “No programs have any depth,” one person in the department told Environment Hawai’i “There’s no one ready to step up to the plate.”

A&B Permit Extended Over Community Objections

The Maui County Planning Commission has denied the request of residents to intervene in Alexander & Baldwin’s development of Makana subdivision, a 24-acre, 104 lot project planned for Maui’s North Shore, between Paia and Ho’okipa.

On April 20, 1993, the commission heard A&B’s request for an extension to its Special Management Area permit, originally granted in April 1991. In an effort to provide for public input, Planning Director Brian Miskae required A&B to notify owners of property within 500 feet of the project at least 25 days before the commission’s scheduled hearing on the time extension. At least two landowners complained that they did not receive proper notice.

When the hearing was held, the twenty or so members of the public who testified were overwhelmingly against a time extension. Concerns over drainage from the project into Kuau Bay were expressed frequently.

Difficulty in developing drainage plans was the reason A&B needed the time extension in the first place, it said. A&B claimed to be meeting with the community to work out a solution, although just who it is working with is unknown. To make sure that the community’s interests were being represented, the Blue Ocean Preservation Society requested to be granted intervener status on the permit extension – a request that the commission denied later in the day. A similar request from Robert and Virginia Karpovich, who live in the area where A&B anticipates putting in its drainage system, was also rejected.

According to Virginia Karpovich, A&B has stated that the Makana subdivision will require an eight-foot drainage outfall, but county drainage easements from the site to be developed are just five feet wide. A&B’s efforts to get adjoining landowners to sell or dedicate additional land for the drainage have been fruitless, she said.

Despite these concerns, and the overriding matter of the impact of the development on the quality of water in Kuau Bay, the Planning Commission has allowed A&B to separate its proposals for drainage from its housing project. The commission has said that the drainage problems can be addressed when A&B comes forward with a shoreline setback variance request for drainage structures.

(For background on this issue, readers may wish to consult the [url=/members_archives/archives_more.php?id=870_0_32_0_C]Island Watch Column[/url] in the July 1992 edition of Environment Hawai’i.)

Agreement on Moloka’i To End Use of Pig Snares

In the last few months, conflict has sharpened between pig hunters, on the one hand, and public and private agencies, on the other, that employ snare traps to control pig populations in protected forest areas.

At a meeting of Moloka’i residents and representatives of The Nature Conservancy of Hawai’i, the state Department of Land and Natural Resources, and the National Park Service last March, an agreement was hammered out that, in certain respects, may provide a model for resolving similar disputes elsewhere in the state.

According to some newspaper accounts, the agencies “caved in” to the hunters – a description that makes TNCH’s Alan Holt wince. What’s more, he says, that is not at all an accurate depiction of what actually happened.

Holt says rather that the Conservancy staff  “agreed to participate in a trial program to test the ability of an intensive, organized hunting effort to maintain the same protection for remote forest areas that is currently provided by snares in upper Kamakou and Pelekunu” -two Nature Conservancy preserves on Moloka’i.

In a memo to the Conservancy’s Board of Trustees, Holt said that the agreement “is restricted to Moloka’i and will not affect the Conservancy’s management programs on other islands.” He explained that the agreement was possible only because of “several special conditions.”

First, thanks to past snaring, pig populations are low enough “So that we can now afford to test other methods for a limited time without putting the forest at risk.”

Second, “work on these two preserves is now at the point where we can begin to implement additional fencing and other control methods which we have been designing while the snaring program was underway. In Kamakou, our FY94 plans already included fencing the east boundary which is expected to further limit feral animal traffic into the remote summit area where snares have been used. In Pelekunu, the system of shelters and trails established during the snaring program now provides the logistical support for testing other methods such as systematic hunting and the construction of fences.”

Finally, the Conservancy will remove the snares on the understanding that all parties concerned agree “regarding the standard of protection that must be achieved, the sharing of work and costs, and the return to snaring while we search for other alternatives if the test is unsuccessful.”

As part of the test, snares are to be removed from upper Kamakou, Pelekunu, and Pu’u Ali’i areas for a year. “This represents all of the snares” that the participating agencies have placed on Moloka’i. No later than June, Moloka’i hunters are to start their organized hunts.

In his memo, Holt stressed that the circumstances on the Conservancy’s Maui preserves are not similar enough to allow removal of the snare traps there. “Snares in Kapunakea” – a TNCH preserve on Maui – “being used to stop initial invasion of pristine areas never before damaged by pigs or human foot traffic,” he wrote; keeping pigs out “must be a controlled staff operation.” As for the Conservancy’s Waikamoi Preserve, Holt noted that it “supports several endangered birds that are especially susceptible to pig damage. We will not use these sites for experimental programs that require removal of snares beforehand.”

Citizens Intervene In Suits Over Water Use

Last August, the state Commission on Water Resource Management was named as a defendant in three lawsuits filed by Ko’olau Agricultural Company, Ltd. Ko’olau Ag filed the suits – two in circuit court and one in the state Supreme Court – to challenge the commission’s designation of an aquifer on Windward O’ahu as a water management area. The action to designate means that Ko’olau Ag and other water developers in Windward O’ahu must obtain from the commission water use permits before being allowed to proceed with their projects. Ko’olau Ag is wanting to develop three wells on land that it leases in the Punalu’u area from Bishop Estate.

In April, the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund filed motions to intervene in the two state suits on behalf of the Punalu’u Community Association and Charles Reppun, John Reppun, and George Fukumitsu, who are taro farmers.

The Legal Defense Fund was instrumental in getting the commission to designate the five Windward O’ahu aquifers in the first place. In 1989, on behalf of several farmers and community groups, it filed the original petition to designate Windward O’ahu as a Water Management Area. Designation occurred in May 1992.

Maui Airport Expansion: Good News, Bad News

Whatever one’s thoughts on the Department of Transportation’s plans to expand the runway at Kahului airport on Maui, recent events have had a good-news, bad-news quality to them.

On March 19, a judge determined that the environmental impact statement prepared for the project does not meet the terms of a prior court order. The earlier order had required preparation of a single EIS, satisfying both federal and state laws, covering all of the projects the DOT has planned in and around the airport. As a result of the March ruling by Circuit Judge John O’Connell, the DOT will probably have to rewrite the EIS.

Less than a month later, on April 16, the Maui County Council gave final approval to a bill deleting language in the county General Plan that banned any lengthening of the airport runway. A prohibition on international flights was dropped also.

OCEA Administrator Is Transferred

Roger Evans, who has been in charge of the Department of Land and Natural Resources Office of Conservation and Environmental Affairs for the last decade, has been removed from the post of administrator. The removal, which Evans is appealing, is a disciplinary action. Word has it that Evans became abusive at a meeting of DLNR division chief and had to be physically removed from the meeting room.

Evans has been reassigned to the DLNR’s Bureau of Conveyances. Ed Henry is acting administrator of the OCEA.

Brash Subdivision Gets Another Extension

Twenty-two years after Mae June and Adrian Brash first sought to consolidate and subdivide their property at Pu’u Kakea, off Honolulu’s Round Top Drive, they still haven’t managed to get the job done.

Following publication of our October 1991 report on the Brashes’ inability to comply with deadlines imposed by the Board of Land and Natural Resources, agents for the Brashes submitted plans (on October 8, 1991) showing the new lot boundaries, although no request was made for any extension of the June 15, 1991, deadline for submittal of final subdivision plans and letters of approval from appropriate city agencies. If that deadline were not met, one might reasonably expect that the December 15, 1991 deadline for commencement of construction (of new houses) and the December 15, 1993 deadline for completion all work would be rendered void also.

In [url=/members_archives/archives_more.php?id=870_0_32_0_C]July 1992[/url], Environment Hawai’i reported again on the Brash case. Following that article, in September, an agent for the Brashes, ignoring the Brashes’ failure to comply with any previous deadline, requested a one-year extension of the deadline for completion of work, to December 15, 1994.

On March 12, 1993 the Land Board approved the extension.

Volume 3, Number 11 May 1993