HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0710.002 2010-2012 Page 1 of 2
Murashige, Laura
P/AWF`C
From: Christopher Biltoft[biltoftc @yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 8:28 AM
To: counciltestimony @co.hawaii.hi.us
Subject: Fw: Bi11256
--- On Mon, 5/14/12, Christopher Biltoft <biltoftc@ahoo.com>wrote:
-
N C)
.r,
From: Christopher Biltoft<biltoftc @yahoo.com>
Subject: Fw: Bi11256
To: counciltestimony @co.hi.us
Date: Monday, May 14, 2012, 10:13 PM .'
w
-Aloha Hawaii County Council Members:
I am submitting testimony in support of Bill No. 256 that would create a
Geothermal Relocation and Public Safety Program. Although not perfect, this
Bill corrects an error made several years ago that redirected funds towards
"community benefits." While we all appreciate having new facilities and
improved roads in Puna, it is unwise to create these new facilities and road
improvements using funds needed for public safety.
I recently attended a county Council meeting in Pahoa where views concerning
Puna Geothermal Venture were voiced. Nowhere was there any information on
public safety and environmental studies that must accompany the construction
and operation of a facility such as Puna Geothermal Venture. A web search also
produced no evidence of these studies being done, or at least being made
publicly available. In the absence of compelling documentation demonstrating
the safety of the Puna Geothermal Venture operation, and in the absence of a
hazard notification and evacuation plan, the public can only speculate on what
the hazards might exist at the geothermal site. Those with vivid imaginations
and/or prone to hysteria now have a free reign to develop their own disaster
scenarios. The large number of attendees at the Pahoa meeting and attendee
support for the Pele Defense Fund shows that public alarm concerning the Puna
Geothermal Venture is rising and may ultimately endanger the entire geothermal
program, particularly when accompanied by talk of greatly expanding the scope
of operations. This situation, which closely resembles the public debate over
"fracking," on the mainland, is poised to spiral out of control. All those in favor
of responsibly exploiting our geothermal resources must pay attention to public
safety and the accompanying public perception issue.
Growing public unease with Puna Geothermal Venture appears to be a
consequence of poor public communication and planning decisions made years
ago to circumvent environmental/public safety concerns and to lock the public
out of any National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) analysis and evaluation Comm. No. --110. Z
Ref.To: G
Ref. Date 1 6 2
5/15/2012
Page 2 of 2
process. Puna Geothermal Venture is clearly way behind the curve and has a lot
of work to do in order to make the public comfortable with their operations. Bill
256, which would direct funding towards a viable public safety program, could
help get Puna Geothermal Venture back on the road towards public acceptance.
Updating the timeline for purchase of affected properties would also help calm
general public unease with Puna Geothermal Venture.
Please note that there are some very specific steps needed to make informed
decisions and create an acceptable image for Puna Geothermal Venture. First, it
is necessary to determine whether or not credible dangers exist and a safety
buffer zone is needed. Then establish, based on credible scientific information,
buffer zone dimensions. If a buffer zone is needed, the next step would be to
create this buffer zone, and develop a hazard notification and evacuation plan for
impacted residents. A third step would be to begin purchasing affected properties
around the geothermal plant where the hazard exceeds a scientifically defined
threshold.
Beginning with the first step towards informed decision-making, it is necessary
to identify a "Maximum Credible Event" scenario that might include something
like an earthquake induced shear of a well casing. The quantities of hazardous
materials released during this scenario would define a "source term" that could
be used in an atmospheric dispersion model to develop a toxic plume map.
Exposure thresholds for materials like hydrogen sulfide and ammonia are readily
available. The combination of toxic plume mapping coupled with defined
exposure thresholds can be used to define "probability of exceedance" maps that
would show decision-makers and the public where the best scientific estimate of
any toxic hazard lie. A similar methodology can be used to address toxic plumes
that might impact ground water. This information would best inform safety
buffer zone decision-making. In other words,public safety would be best
addressed using informed decision-making based on the best available scientific
evidence rather than an arbitrary one mile radius. Such modeling results would
certainly allow public health officials and the public make better decisions about
their property and, equally important, it would show that the County is making a
serious effort to help the public understand the true nature of hazards (if any)
associated with Puna Geothermal Venture. Bill No. 256 provides needed focus
on this public safety issue.
As a Puna resident and meteorologist with more than 25 years experience in air
quality-related issues, I would be pleased to assist the Council and public health
officials develop an improved science-based decision-making process for Puna
Geothermal Venture.
Christopher A. Biltoft
biltoftc @yahoo.com
14-5001 Hoolai Street
Pahoa, HI 96778
(801) 364 5729
5/15/2012