ML20081E234

Intervenors Opposition to Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition Re Advanced Life Support Patient Issue.* Motion Should Be Denied Based on Matl Facts in Dispute Re Number of Patients & Location.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20081E234
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	07/31/1990
From:	Shannon J, Traficonte J MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20081E239	List: ML20081E234 ML20081E240 ML20081E243 ML20081E247 ML20081E251
References
CON-#390-10688 ALAB-924, LBP-90-12, OL, NUDOCS 9008070260
Download: ML20081E234 (12)

Text

p s {$ 5+

'o- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETED ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before the Administrative Judgest '90 AU3 -1 P4 :09 Ivan W. Smith, Chairman 'l ' " ~ ' " ': i N Dr. Richard F. Cole ' '

Kenneth A. McCollom

)

In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL

) 50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY )

l OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, EI bL. )

)

July 31, 1990 (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) )

}

l INTERVENORS OPPOSITION TO LICENSEE'S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION WITH RESPEQI TO "THE ALS PATIENTS ISSUE" In ALAB-924, 30 NRC 331 (1989), the Appeal Board remanded to the Licensing Beard the issue of whether the time necessary to prepare and load advanced life support (ALS) patients into ambulances has been adequately taken int 7 account in the development of evacuation time estimates (ETEs) for the ,

l i emergency planning zone (EPZ) for Seabrook Station. ALAB-924 l f-at 351. In LDP-90-12, 31 NRC -(May 3, 1990), and LDP-90-20, 31 NRC _(June 27, 1990), this Licensing Board i

identified the sub-issues to be resolved with respect to ALS patients as the following:

(1) How long does it take to ef ficiently prepare an ALS ,

I patient for transportation? .

I i

9000070,760 900731 '

PDR ATOCK 05000443 h

io -

(2) Would preparation of patients at an earlier initiating condition, gigt, declaration of an alert, or at an order to evacuate, be medically appropriate?

(3) How many ALS patients are there in the EPZ? Where are the ALS patients? Only at Exeter and Portsmouth Hospitals?

L (4) Would uncertainties in the times available to prepare ALS patients for evacuation produce ETEs that are too inaccurate to be useful in the selection of protective action options?

In response to this Licensing Board's directive the Licensees filed a Motion for Summary Disposition on the ALS Patient Issue along with supporting affidavits. The Massachusetts Attorney General and the New England coalition on Nuclear Pollution hereby oppose that Motion and for the reasons I

supplied below request that the Licensing Board deny the motion.

INTRODUCTiUN The standard by which a motion for summary disposition is judged-is found at 10 CFR 52.749(d). Under that standard the moving party is entitled to summary disposition only if there is a showing that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a decision as a matter of law. The Licensees in this instance are not entitled ?.o summary disposition on the AIS issue because there are genuine issues as to material facts in dispute and they are not

~2-I

l otherwise entitled to a decision as a matter of law.

Specifically, there are genuine issues as to how many ALS )

l patients there are in the EPZ, how long it will take to prepare l and load the ALS patients into ambulances, and the impact of )

those uncertainties on the colection of protective action options.

As a preliminary matter, it should be observed that ETLs for Seabrook Station are calculated on a regional basis. This Board in LDP-89-32, 30 NRC 375, at 402 (1989) stated that; "In f act, the ETEs presented in the SPMC are for the entire 1 region under study, including both Massachusetts and New Hampshiro areas, . . . that NUREG-0654 calls for integrated omorgoney planning betwoon contiguous political jurisdictions (NUREG-0654, at 19, 23-24)."

The testimony of Joan Pilot that led to the Appeal Board romand of the ALS issue ir equally applicable to ALS patients in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Thorofore, the issue of ETEs for ALS patients must address ALS patients in Massachusetts communities as well as those in Now Hampshire.

DISCUSSION The Licenscos' conclusion that there are only 35 AIE patients in the EPZ, totally ignores the number of ALS patients l

who would be at Amosbury Hospital and Anna Jaques Hospital.

I L

\

• Th3 offid2vito cf B; tty Coh;n cnd Allen Des RoJicrs frca Amesbury and Anna Jaques hospitals respectively establish that both of those Massachusetts hospitals also have ALS patients in residence.

Similarly, the Licenscos have failed to establish how long it would take to ef ficiently preparo an ALS patient for transportation. The affidavits of Botsy Cohen, Allan Dos Rosiers, and Stanley Plodzik all show that the amount of time that it would take to prepare and load an ALS patient would vary widely depending upon the time of the day that an evacuation occurs. If an evacuation takes place during night hours, the reduced staffing personnel at thn hospital will significantly impact on how long it takes to prepare and load an ALS patient.

The increased amounts of time to preparo and load ALS patients during evenings and wookonds range from forty-five minutos in the caso of Portsmouth Regional Hospital to nearly an hour and a half in the case of Amesbury Hospital.

Furthermore, the affidavits of Betsy Cohen and Allan Dos Rosiers indicate that although electivo surgery is not performed on wockends the lessor number of ALS patients attributable to that non-performance would not significantly impact the increased estimated times.

( The development of ETEs for the transit dependent population including ALS patients is described in the NHRERP,

! Vol. 8 starting at 11-1. Thoso ETE calculations assumo a l

loading time of 0.67 hours7.75463e-4 days <br />0.0186 hours <br />1.107804e-4 weeks <br />2.54935e-5 months <br />, or approximately forty minutos, for persons who will be transported by emergency medical vehicles, j i

l I

(Vol. 8 at 11-22) That cicarly is substantially less than the 1

amount of time that the hospital personnel who have provided i affidavits calculate it will take to prepare and load ALS ,

j patients during evening and night shif ts even assuming that some of the preparation is done in advance of the arrival of ambulances.

The Licensees argue that any uncertainties in AIS patient ETEs resulting from longer loading timos make little difference because they do not impact on protective action options for ALS patients. Their argument on this point has three prongs, i

First, they argue that protectivo action decisions for AIS patients will be made without regard to ETEs citing to the af fidivits of John Donds and Anthony Callendrollo. Secondly, they contend that the ETEs for ALS patients are within or close enough to the ETEs for the general population so that PARS for ALS patients would not vary from that for the general population. Finally, they argue that ETEs really do not make any difference to protectivo action options since to the extent that ALS patients could not be evacuated as quickly as the general population, they would be following the only other protective option and sheltering. Licensocs' Motion at 4-5.

None of these arguements withstand scrutiny.

As to their first argument, the Licensees confuse the fact that physicians, or other medical personnol, will continue to I

have final judgment as to whether ALS patients should be moved with whether ETEs aro useful tools to be employed in making protectivo action decisions for ALS patients. While clearly L

l

F ,

t physicians will continue to exercise independent judgment as to the care of their patients, that does not mean that accurate ETEs should not be developed for ALS patients. If a physician l I

believes that moving a critically ill ALS patient will possibly I l

harm him, then certainly the physician will not allow the patient to be moved regardless of any risk of radiological exposure. However, if an ALS patient is less critical such as a woman in active labor or a post-operative patient might be, and the doctor sees no overwhelming danger associated with evacuation, then ETEs are useful in assessing an appropriate protective action. The utility of ETEs for ALS patients are inversely proportional to the risk posed by simply moving such patients. If there is a great risk associated with moving an I

ALS patient, they may of little utility. However, if there is a relatively small risk in moving the patient, they are useful in the same way as they are for the general population.

The second position asserted by the Licensees, i.e., that the ETEs for ALS patients are encompassed by the ETEs for the general population, is at best premature. Since the figures l used for preparation and loading timos for ALS patients did not account for the longer times that would occur during evening i

and night shifts, it is at this point impossible to assess 1 whether the ALS ETEs are encompassed by those for the general population. It certainly appears that in some scenarios where there are short ETEs for the general population the ETEs for the ALS patients may be considerably longer than those of the general population. The NRC's Staff's own expert in this area, l j

l J

E ,

l Thomas Urbanik, conditioned his opinion on the ALS ETEs on the assumption that the preparation and moving times provided by the Licensees were accurate. Thorofore, the present posture of the evidence on this issue demonstratos that there is a dispute as to a material fact.

Finally, as Robert Goble states in his affidavit:

Although uncertaintion are always present in developing ETEs reasonable and attainable accuracy in the estimates will produce results which can make a difference in a choice of PAR across a broad spectrum of accident situations.

The chird prong of the Licensco's argument falls because contrary to the position postulated by the Licensees there are accident scenarios where the choice of an appropriate PAR for ALS patients will be impacted by the length of ALS patient ETEs in contradistinction from those for the general public. The Licenscos argument is subtly rooted in their persistent predeliction for evacuation as a PAR. They argue that even if Als patiento can not be evacuated within the same timo frame as the general population, it is of little consequence becauso while they are waiting to ovacuate, they are sheltering. This facile tautology ignoros the doso consequences attendant to any scenario in which delay in ovacuation will result in the loading and evacuating of ALS patients in the midst of a plume, thus maximizing exposure. Particularly whero one choice is tho enhanced sholtoring afforded by hospital construction sheltering (at least until after plume passage), will in some scenarios enhance doso savings. The sheltering factors of hospital construction is significantly greater than that of the beach housing factors used for the general population in determining protective action recommendations. If that is considered in conjunction with the longer ETEs of ALS patients, protection actions that maximize dose savings for ALS patients  ;

will differ from those of the general public over a broad spectrum of accident sce narios. Robert Goble Aff't.

CONCLUSION Therefore, since there are material facts in dispute as to the number of ALS patients in the EPZ, where they are located, the amount of time that it will take to prepare and load them, and the utility of ETEs for A1S patients in formulating and implementing protective action options, the Licensees motion for summary disposition should be denied.

Respectfully submitted, COMMONWEALTl! OF MASSACHUSETTS JAMES M. SHANNON, ATTORNEY GENERAL

/Y 161n Trafi' conte dhief, Nuc1 car Safety Unit Imslie Greer Assistant Attorney General Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place I Doston, MA 02108 I (617) 727-2200 l DATED: July 31, 1990 1928n 1

• \

o STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH IT IS CONTENDED THAT THERE EXISTS A i GENUINE ISSUE TO BE HEARD  !

1. It is contested that a prudent planning basis for the I ALS patient consus at the timo of an omorgency would be a total of 35 ALS patients in the entire EPZ (22 at Exotor Hospital and 13 at Portsmouth Regional Hospital).

2. It is contested that this number of 35 would occur  !

during the day on wook days.

3. It is contested that at Exotor Hospital the average pre.paration timo for an ALS patient is 115 minutos, 70 minutos of t:hich can be accomplished prior to ambulanco arrival, leaving a final preparation and loading tir.o of 45 minutes.

Avorago preparation timo at hospitals varios widely doponding upon the shift staffing levels.

4. It is contested that in the caso of Po; tsmouth Regional Hospital, the average preparation timo for an ALS patient is 45 minutos, lo minutos of which can be accomplished prior to ambulanco arrival, leaving a final preparation and loading time of 35 minutes.

5. It is contested that the omorgency management plan of Portsmouth Regional Hospital will in fact ensure sufficient 24-hour staff for omorgency conditions as may exist during a radiological omorgency.

6. It is contestod that ETEs for ALS patients are of little utility in dotormining appropriate PARS for such patients.

?

• 7 While emergency plans for hospitals provide that patients considered too critical for transport should be considered candidates for sheltering rather than evacuation, it is contested that that provision means that PARS for ALS patients will be made without reference to ETEs. The emergency management plan for Exotor Hospital also providos sheltering or evacuation will be recommended depending upon the projected radiological doses. Exeter Hospital Emergency Plan at page 7 attached to Affidavit of .Tohn Bonds.

i t

t UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Lotht;to NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION USNhC  !

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 30 ALG -1 P4 :09 Before the Administrative Judgest i

Ivan W. Smith, Chairman (n {E N SLCMtt.sv l "0CXl hN1 A M ilvict l Dr. Richard F. Cole bk ANa Kenneth A. McCollom

)

) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL In the Matter of ) 50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY )

OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, EI AL. ) -

, )

July 31, 1990 (Scabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) )

-)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John Traficonte, hereby certify that on July 31, 1990, I made cervice of the within INTERVENORS' OPPOSITION TO LICENSEE'S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION WITH RESPECT TO "THE ALS PATIENT'S ISSUE" by Federal Express as indicated by (*), by hand as indicated by (**),

cnd by first class mail to:

• Ivan W. Smith, Cha'irman *Kenneth A. McCollom 1107 W. Knapp St.

Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Stillwater, OK 74075 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• Docketing and Service East West Towers Building U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Commission Washington, DC 20555 ,

Paul McEachern, Esq.

• Dr. Richard F. Cole Shaines & McEachern Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 25 Maplewood Avenue U.S. Nucicar Regulatory Commission East West Towers Building P. O. Box 360 4350 East West Highway Portsmouth, NH 03801 Dethesda, MD 20814 l

l

o:

? ,.

• Robert R. Pierce, Esq. ** Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.1/ i Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Katherine Selleck, Esq. ,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ropos & Gray l East West Towers Building one International Place 4350 East West Highway Boston, MA 02110 Bethesda, MD 20814 H. Joseph Flynn, Esq. *Mitzi A. Young, Esq.

Edwin J. Reis, Esq.

Assistant General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of General Counsel Commission Federal Emergency Management Agency office of the conoral Counsel -

500 C Street, S.W. 15th Floor Washington, DC 20472 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852  ;

Atomic Safety & Licensing Robert A. Backus, Esq.  ;

Appeal Board Backus, Moyer & Solomon U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 116 Lowell Street Commission P.O. Box 516 '

Washington, DC 20555 Manchester, NH 03106 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Jano Doughty ,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Washington, DC 20555 5 Market Street '

Portsmouth, NH 03801 Charles P. Graham, Esq. Barbara St. Andre, Esq.

Murphy & Graham Kopolman & Paige, P.C.

33 Low Stroot 77 Franklin Street Newburyport, MA 01950 Boston, MA 02110 Judith H. Mizner, Esq. R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esq.

79 State Stroet Lagoulis, Hill-Whilton 2nd Floor & Rotondi Newburyport, MA 01950 79 State Street Newburyport, MA 01950 Diane Curran, Esq. Ashod N. Amirlan, Esq.

Harmon, Curran, & Towsley 145 South Main Street Suite 430 P.O. Box 38 2001 S Stroot, N.W. Bradford, MA 01835 Washington, DC 20008 Sonator Gordon J. Humphrey Senator Gordon J. Humphroy U.S. Sonate One Eagle Square, Suito 507 Washington, DC 20510 Concord, NH 03301 l

_ (Attn: Tom Burack) (Attn: Herb Boynton)

L 1/ Hand delivery was mado on August 1, 1990 by 10:00am l

1' l

[" .

s John P. Arnold, Attorney General Phillip Ahrens, Esq.

Office of the Attorney General Assistant Attorney General 25 Capitol Street Department of the Attorney Concord, NM 03301 General

! Augusta, ME 04333 Jack Dolan George Iverson, Director Federal Emergency Management N.H. Office of Emergency Agency Management Region 1 State llouse Office Park South J.W. McCormack Post Office & 107 Pleasant Street Courthouse Buildir..f, Room 442 Concord, NH 03301 Boston, MA 02109 COMMONWEALTil OF MASSACHUSETTS JAMES M. SRANNON ATTORNEY GENERAL WL hn Trafibonte

,bsistant Attorney General l

Chief, Nuclear Safety Unit Department of the Attorney General j One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108-1698 (617) 727-2200 DATED: July 31, 1990 l

l 1

i i

i

- .