COM 0931.014 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

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.