HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0931.014 1996-1998
Proposed Amendment to County of Hawaii Charter
Commercial Irradiator Facilities i7
Testimony of Curtis A. Beck, P.E. t7n
Friends of Agriculture-Hawaii [411,
August 5, 1998
TESTIMONY
I am a registered mechanical Professional Engineer, State of Hawaii No. 5511,
September 20, 1983. I am not currently engaged in the design of mechanical or structural
systems. I testify today as a concerned Hilo citizen of nearly 20 years, having a scientific
and engineering background, and being familiar through my education and my experience
with mechanical systems and structures, as well as the use of radioactive materials. In the
1970's, I did graduate study in nuclear engineering at Stanford University, and worked two
years at the Hanford federal nuclear reservation in the state of Washington. I also worked
approximately 8 months at the Argonne National Laboratory, where I conducted research
into the irradiation of crystalline metals. All of this work involved the handling and use of
radioactive materials. I am a member of the American Nuclear Society since 1976.
I am convinced that a commercial irradiation facility could be constructed and operated
safely in the County of Hawaii. There is considerable experience with such plants around
the world; I understand that there are well over a hundred of these plants operating in over
40 countries. These are not "nuclear" plants any more than a dairy is a "chemical" plant.
An irradiation plant is simply a facility wherein a product, in this case fresh papayas and
other tropical fruits, are exposed to the gamma radiation from a substance called "cobalt-
60" undergoing radioactive decay with a half-life of about 5 years. No spontaneous
nuclear fission process occurs or is possible in these facilities. Meltdown of the
radioactive material is also not possible, and the use of a pool of water is primarily to
provide shielding of humans from the harmful effects of the radiation emitted by the
cobalt-60. The water in the pool would not be radioactive, and therefore poses no threat to
public water supplies.
Some persons in the Hawaii Island Community have made an issue out of their
perception that a commercial irradiation facility would not be "safe". Indeed, a
commercial irradiator would use a quantity of cobalt-60 that is about 100 times that of the
cancer treatment facility, a medical irradiator, at Hilo Medical Center. However, the
safety issues for such a facility, whether the medical irradiator at the hospital, or a larger
commercial irradiator, are essentially the same. If a medical irradiator is deemed safe
enough to be operated in the County of Hawaii, then a commercial irradiator should also
be considered "safe enough." The medical irradiator is subject to all of the same forces of
nature: threat of earthquake, storm, and lava flow. The commercial irradiator can be
Gown. Nu.__. / 3
P~~sehted C°u.~+c,~
Aef. 'Cu:_
W. Doti AM 5 1998
constructed to an equal or greater standard of safety, and would present no greater threat to
public health and safety than does the existing medical irradiator.
A commercial irradiator would be subject to a host of federal, state, and local safety
standards, including those of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the federal Department
of Transportation, the State Department of Health, the Occupational and Safety Health
Administration (OSHA), County Uniform Building Codes, as well as an array of
professional, industry, and trade standards. I am confident that the facility can be
constructed to withstand major earthquakes and hurricanes. The facility would be
incredibly strong and compact, of low profile, and constructed of high-strength reinforced
concrete. Advanced structural design techniques could be applied to the facility, such as
structural shock absorbers, to withstand large or rapid earth movements. The entire
structure would tend to move as a block rather than break up under the stresses. In fact, a
destructive natural event large enough to collapse the irradiator structure would also be so
severe as to result in the complete destruction of the city of Hilo. In such an event, the
cobalt-60 material might be buried under the concrete rubble, but still safely encapsulated
in the double-walled zircalloy and stainless steel source pins. A major lava flow, likewise,
would be devastating for the city of Hilo, but the burial of the irradiator facility by lava
would pose no health or safety threat to the community. It is even likely that the cobalt-60
source would be removed and transported out of the danger zone before the lava arrives.
It would be entirely appropriate for the Hawaii County Council to monitor and review
the progress of design and construction, as well as the operation, of a commercial
irradiator facility. There is a wealth of qualified technical, scientific, and engineering
talent within Hawaii County, which could be tapped by the Council to help it review the
plant's design and provide input from a local perspective. Such a review should be made,
not with the intent of obstructing the successful construction of an irradiator facility, but
rather to address public concerns and assure them that the plant is safe, efficient, and
economical.
About eleven years ago, a group calling itself the "East Hawaii Coalition to Stop Food
Irradiation" released a document alleging that a serious health hazard existed at the site of
the former Hawaii Developmental Irradiator between 1968 and 1980 because the soil
outside the building was contaminated by radioactive cobalt. At that time, a group of 14
engineers and other professionals, including myself, gathered to undertake extensive
research into the matter. It was concluded that there was absolutely no merit to the claims
of a health hazard. The group, calling itself the "Hawaii Island Technical Council",
released its findings to the public, including the Hawaii County Council, which was at that
time considering a proposal from the State of Hawaii to construct an irradiator facility in
Hilo. A copy of these findings is attached to this testimony. The Council at that time
ignored the findings of this group of professionals, and instead elected to succumb to the
frightening, but inaccurate scare stories being cast about by the anti-irradiator group, and
rejected the irradiator proposal.
I am hopeful that this time around, the Council will take the best interests of the people
of Hawaii Island to heart, and support this project. A commercial irradiator facility offers
the best hope for Hawaii's fruit export industry to expand and prosper. Hundreds of jobs
and millions of dollars of annual income for the County's economy are at stake. Please
keep this worthy project on track and moving forward.
Yours truly,
/I ,
Curtis A. Beck, P.E.
Attachments
3