HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0744.006 2022-2024 P /Fc
Res.t10-21{
G.v r"t y LE t1i
Y HAM
20211 R -Li Ali 11: 2
Aloha Kakou. My name is Paul Kuykendall. I'm a farmer that lives on
lower Pohoiki Road. I'm a co-founder of the Waihu 0 Puna Makai
Watershed Coalition. Our kuleana is to malama the watershed and the
nearshore waters of Puna. I'm testifying in support of Resolution 443-24 to
fund a USGS study of the lower Puna watershed.
We don't have rivers in lower Puna , other than rivers of lava, but we have a
fresh water lens that sits on top of seawater just under the surface of the
ground. This freshwater lens, which sits just below very porous rock, supplies
water for our homes and farms through private wells and eventually flows to
the shore, where it fills ponds and flows into the near-shore ocean.
environment. This freshwater and the nutrients it carries feeds the endemic
opae 'ula shrimp that live in ponds and fish that live in the near-shore reefs.
When geothermal steam or brine are released at or near the surface mauka of
lower Puna either intentionally or accidentally , the heavy metals and other
contaminants seep into the ground and flow directly into our freshwater lens,
negatively affecting people, plants, animals and fish.
There are two incidents in Puna's history of geothermal development that
concern us about contamination of our watershed. The first incident was the
HGP-A geothermal well, drilled in 1976. The first geothermal plant in Puna,
HGP-A was presented as a strictly experimental, 6-month project. This is
significant, because the EIS for the project identified mercury, among other heavy
metals, as a major toxin in the geothermal brine that would be open-vented from
the well into the air and onto the ground in unlined ponds. The EIS stated that
since it was only a 6 month test, the load on the environment would be
acceptable. The "Environmental Assessment of the Hawaii Geothermal Project
Well Flow Test Program," published in November 1976, states:
Heavy metals, notably mercury, are also evolved in an aerosol state
from geothermal fluids. Mercury tends to accumulate over long periods
of time in plants and can be concentrated in higher levels of the food
chain. (my emphasis) Nevertheless, no significant accumulation is IIrr'',, ff
Comm. No. '1"`'�. (0
Ref. To:
Ref. pate ,.NA ® 5 2024
expected during the six-month well test. " (my emphasis).
The so-called six-month test went on open-venting geothermal toxins, which
included heavy metals, for eight years. In 1982, despite commitments to the
public that the test would be experimental, a three-megawatt commercial
power plant went on line, run by HELCO. No community meetings were held
explaining the change and no permits were issued by the county. The
geothermal power plant continued for a total of eight years and was shut
down in 1989. During its operation, HGP-A dumped the toxic geothermal
brine into unlined ponds that fouled the air, land and seeped into
groundwater. Due to the toxins in the geothermal brine, the site eventually
became an EPA superfund site. This was Puna's first experience of
geothermal power production.
The second experience was the 1991 Puna Geothermal Venture Drilling well
blow out at well KS-8. Mayor Lorraine Inouye declared a state of emergency.
Hawaii County commissioned Goddard & Goddard Engineering to study the
impact. The study found:
• Local H2S concentrations were elevated above health significance
levels and correlated with health complaints.
• Regional H2S transport of the KS8 venting plume cloud was
documented by visual sightings, regional and local wind assessments,
and the chronology and position of health complaints extending
beyond 10 miles (16 km).
• Estimates of emissions, other air toxics, and impacts are known to be
of significant public health concern.
During the blow out, geothermal brine and steam flowed uncontrolled for 31
hours. This brine seeped into the ground. This was bad enough, but it
turned out that the contamination was worse than we thought. A USGS
study in 1994 stated,
"Although the uncontrolled steam discharge at the KS 8 wellhead lasted for
only 31 hours, temperature measurements indicate that steam continued to
leak upward past the 13-inch casing shoe at 2,128 ft until the well was finally
quenched and plugged several months later. (my emphasis)" This indicates
the well was contaminating soil and groundwater months.
HGPA and the 1991 well blowout are two reasons we are concerned about
geothermal contamination of our freshwater resource.
In 2013, the Adler Report, commissioned by Hawaii County , recommended
USGS study whether the wells, ponds and the watershed in lower Puna
showed any signs of geothermal contamination.
In 2015, that study was conducted by USGS, but did not provide sufficient
evidence to unequivocally indicate or rule out adverse effects from
geothermal energy production. Unfortunately, it was unable to fulfill some of
its objectives such as testing water wells down-gradient from PGV and
testing off-shore springs. The study recommended that future studies
"focus on the hot groundwater wells,... and on offshore vents of warm
water, using underwater sampling techniques as necessary"
In December, 2020, the Waihu 0 Puna Watershed Coalition wrote a letter
to Mayor Roth requesting a follow up study. Since then, we have been
working with the community and Ashley to develop a more comprehensive
study, which will include additional testing sites and additional tests for
contaminants.
The study this resolution describes will include consultations with
community members regarding water sample sites and allow them to
accompany USGS field teams for the sample collection to foster
observational learning, build local knowledge in scientific methods, and
foster community understanding and trust in the study's methodologies.
The study will help establish baseline water quality data and inform plans
for regular water quality monitoring in future years.
Mahalo to the council for considering this resolution and mahalo to Ashley
for working with the community to develop this proposal. We appreciate this.
opportunity to turn questions about our watershed quality into answers
about the current state of our wells, ponds and near shore waters. These
answers will guide future actions to protect our most precious resources in
lower Puna—our water, our people and our `Aina.
Aloha,
Paul Kuykendall
Waihu 0 Puna Watershed Coalition