ML20149F268
| ML20149F268 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 01/11/1988 |
| From: | Herzberg D DARTMOUTH-HITCHCOCK MEDICAL CENTER, HANOVER, NH |
| To: | Backus R AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| OL-I-SAPL-006A, OL-I-SAPL-6A, NUDOCS 8802120137 | |
| Download: ML20149F268 (6) | |
Text
'!
, g6
</V3lc/LJt/- O l- '
I,/'//lgf' MMV
_T - S /)k-bk MARY HITCHCOCK MEMORIAL HOSPITAL A CCmcCre'd Cl CO*h%KfCNCCk MedCol Center bMSf E' JFJE
'88 FEB -2 A9 :51 some reacmpe,e om4 0FFICE & SL v a i m 00CMEUrm ). WitvlCf' December 11, 1987 BRANCH Robert A. Backus 116 Lowel! St.
Manchester NH 03105
Dear Mr. Backus:
I am writing in reference to a letter from James Varnum, PreMdent of Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hospital in Hanover, NH, to Dr. WMiam Wallace dated October 28,1985. The letter is in reference to the capacities of Mary Hitchcock Hospital for handling victims of accidents in which there has been a release of radioactivity. A portion of that letter was read Nov. 4, by New Hampshire Asst.
Attorney General Dana Bisbee into the record of the proceedings of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hearings, relating to the emergency evacuation plans for Seabrock nuclect power plant. Because only a part of the letter was read, and because the original letter from which the information was obtained was also not referrenced appropriately, I am concerned that the Board has been offerred an inaccurate picture of the capability of our hospital to deal.vith radiation
)
emergencies. Further, it would appear from the excerpted portion of the letter that Mr. Varnum's statement of our hospital policy and my statement to the Board while under oath on Nov. 3, are in disagreement. That is not so.
Three groups of individuals to be attended to at the hospital are noted in the letter and discussed by Mr. Bisbee. These include patients with aplastic anemia, i
contaminated patients needing some medical attentioc, but not having aplastic anemia, and the large numbers of victims who would be associated with an emergency of catcstrophic proportions. The comments made about each of these groups of individuals in that letter from Oct. 28,1985, were excerpted from an earlier letter j
of Mr. Varnum's to D' Wallace, dated Oct. 31, 1983.
Both letters state that up to five patients with aplastic anemia could be i
accommodated by the hospital. The original letter points out that this assumption is i
based on the treatment of patients having aplastic anemia as part of another clinical problem, acute leukemia, not aplastic anemia secondary to e' cessive radiation x
exposure, in other words, the treatment of patients with aplastic anemia and our
- capacity for doing that, is not related to ou, capability for handling radiation accidents; rather, it is a reflection of our capacity for handling a specific life. threatening illness, whatever its cause might be. Certainly the treatment of a patient with aplastic anemia, who has also sufferred severe radioactive contamination, would be more difficult, i
8802120137 880111 PDR ADOCK 05000443 h
h O
PDR i j M,M x
- a 1
?o, 5
a *
- ?
- I i
f_'
s O.
Both letters refer to our ability to handle five contaminated patients who need some degree of medical attention but have not developed aplastic anemia. This is the number of patients cited by the hospital and in my testimony before the Board, as the number of contaminated patients that could be handled on an emergency basis.
Up to that number, it !s our mutual opinion that we could deliver medical care of the same quality as would be given to any emergency patient arriving at the hospital.
The third situation discussed is a catastrophic emergency. The letter of Oct. 28,1985 notes that "....as stated in our 1983 response....we could accommodate perhaps two hundred patients." The 1985 letter was a much shortened version of the original letter to Dr. Wallace's office, and abbreviating that original statement resulted in the deletion of a critical portion of the hospital's stated The original letter read as follows: "If we are faced with a major capabilities.
disaster waich justified discontinuation of many of our other services, we could accommodate perhaps two hundred patients." This obviously puts our ability to accommodate two hundred patients in a very different light, and is no different from my stated opinion at the hearing that the hospital would of course attempt to handle to the best of its ability any number of people that showed up at our facility in the event of a large-scale disaster.
Finally, in both letters, Mr. Varnum offers to give additional help upon request and notes that we would gladly participate with the state in planning a co-ordinated response to radiologic emergencies. No such efforts have been requested of us.
The position of Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hospital regarding its capabilities for dealing with radiologic emergencies must be clear both to the state of New Hampshire and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. We can handle up to five injured and contaminated patients in an emergency, and still deliver the same quality of medical care as is given to any sick or injured person arriving at the hospital.
In the event of a disaster involving very large numbers of people, we would deliver the highest possible level of medical care'to as many people as possible. As stated previously, we would be pleased to work with the state of New Hampshire in the further development of radiologic emergency planning.
Both Mr. Varnum and our Radiation Safety Of, er, Dr. Alex Filiminov have reviewed the above statement and agree with the hosphal capabilities as I have described them.
I would appreciate your conveying my comments to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, and I will send a copy of this letter to Dr. Wallace.
Copies of Mr. Varnum's letters are attached.
Sincerely, b
st Donald L. Herzberg, AD Director, Div. of Nuclear Medicine Mary Hitchcock Mem. Hosp.
~
UHIBITS SAPL e eA, 88, eC, ema >
UN11ED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
===========_========================_===========_=======================
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO:
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
50-443-OL
)
50-444-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al
)
OFF-SITE
)
EMERGFJJGY (SEABROOK STATION, UNITS 1 and 2 )
PLANNS$
.b
$O
$h?
A Sh zwlC I
L>
N Fi-t
..e EVIDENTIARY HEARING ih n A
$ ;d r
p W
.C$
(h 4
LOCATION:
PAGES:
CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE DATE:
January 11, 12, 13, 1988
=======================================================================
Heritage Reporting Corporation Q(licial Reporters 1200 L Strut. N.W.
Washmston. D.C. 2000$
t 202) 628-4888
_