ML20151T816

Order Determining That Requirements of Remand on Aslab to Consider Alternative Options for Addl Backup Medical Svcs for Onsite Contaminated Injured Persons Met.Served on 860205

ML20151T816
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	02/04/1986
From:	Cole R, Harbour J, Hoyt H Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
References
CON-#186-994 81-465-07-OL, 81-465-7-OL, ALAB-819, LBP-86-3, OL, NUDOCS 8602100370
Download: ML20151T816 (8)

Text

\h.

./' '

j s

LBP-86-3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  :-

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 9 4 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 6

,_ . Loc m r.o BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGES: .

e FEB -51986* 'a I Helen F. Hoyt, Chairperson p -

Dr. Richard F. Cole Dr. Jerry Harbour b staanwac MaQ

/

)

Docket Nos. 50-352-OL SEWED FEB 5 198

.In' the Matter of )

) 50-353-0L PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY )

) '

ASLBP No.

81-465-07 OL (Limerick Generating Station, )

Units 1 and 2) ) February 4, 1986

)

FIFTH PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION (On Remand from Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board to Consider Alternative Options for Additional Backup Medical Services for Onsite Contaminated Injured Persons)

I. IN'RODUCTION This Fifth Partial Initial Decision (PID) issued by this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Licensing Board" or " Board") is in response to a reversal and remandl from the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (ASLAB) contained in Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-819, 22 NRC 681, 715 n. 47 (1985). The remand required further proceedings to consider alternative options for additional backup medical services for onsite contaminated I The Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board reversed and remanded in part this Board's 1984 Second Partial Initial Decision (LBP-84-31,20NRC44).

$$2iggg[Q $$$$hg2 G

. h302_

\

2 injured persons. The issue of whether Licensee's onsite emergency plans

~ '

provided adequate arrangements for medical services for contaminated injured individuals had been raised by intervenor Limerick Ecology Action, Inc. (LEA) in its Contention VIII-12(a) admitted by the Board on June 17, 1983.

In accordance with the ASLAB remand requirement of further action consistent with its ALAB-819, the Board issued an Order establishing.

procedures for resolution of the remanded issue o,n October 28, 1985.

The Board also required in its Order, that the ,19 hospitals referred in its Second PID and by the ASLAB,2 be plotted on a map of the area with the distances of each hospital from the Limerick Generating Station noted.

Licensee's Proposal for 9esolution of Remanded Issue Regarding Licensee's Medical Arrangements for Contaminated Injured Onsite Personnel was submitted on November 18, 1985. The Licensee represented that it had pursued available options with regard to a second backup.

hospital for onsite personnel who might be contaminated and injured in event of an accident at Limerick. As a result of its review of area hospitals, Licensee determined that the Montgomery Hospital in Norristown, Pennsylvania is its choice. -Licensee also cited an affidavit submitted by Dr. Linneman in connection with a contention raised by the inmates at the State Correctional Institute at Graterford 2

ALAB-819 at 713.

3' s

3 in which the Montgomery Hospital had been evaluated as suitable for

~

treating" radiation exposure cases as well as radioactively contaminated and_in'jured persons. Attached to the proposal was a map of.the area showing 20 hospitals (including Pottstown Memorial Medical Center) and the distance from the Limerick Generating Station. In addition, a copy of an agreement with Montgomery Hospital was attached in which the Hospital stated its agreement to provide hospital treatment for victims.

LEA Response to Licensee's Proposal for Resolution of Remanded Issue Regarding Licensee's Medical Arrangements for Contaminated Injured Onsite Personnel dated November 27, 1985 opposed th.e Licensee's proposal and requested an opportunity to conduct discovery and to participate in an adjudicatory hearing.

In Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Coments on Licensee's Proposal to Use Montgomery Hospital as a Backup Facility to Treat Contaminated Injured Onsite Personnel dated December 2,1985, the Comonwealth concluded that the Licensee's submissions established Montgomery Hospital as an appropriate facility, outside the EPZ and suitable for treatment of contaminated injured onsite personnel.

NRC Staff Response to Licensee's Proposal for Resolution of Remanded Issue Regarding Licensee's Medical Arrangements for Contaminated Injured Onsite Personnel dated December 12, 1985 reviewed the issues in the ALAB-819 remand, the Licensee's proposal, the Comonwealth of Pennsylvania's response and the LEA objections to the Licensee's proposed resolution and coments. The Staff concluded that the Board should grant LEA's request for a hearing on whether the backup

T 4

arrangements made by the Licensee for treatment of contaminated injured onsitepArsonne'lareadequate,orinthealternativetreatthe Applicant's Proposed Resolution of November 18, 1985 as a motion for summary disposition of the remanded issue.

.0n December 19, 1985 the Board conducted a telephone conference call with the four parties 3 (Tr. 21090-2116) in which the parties were provided with an opportunity to state concerns. The parties agreed to attempt to meet the terms of the ALAB-819 remand ,by stipulation among the interested parties. ,

By letter to counsel for LEA, Charles Elliott, a copy of Decontamination and Treatment of the Radioactively Contaminated Patient at Montgomery Hospittl, Procedure No. M 1-18 Revision 0 (December 1985) was served on the parties by Licensee.

By letter dated January 17, 1986, NRC Staff transmitted a 4

stipulation reached by the parties in which it was agreed that there was "a. lack of controversy" in regard to LEA's contention remaining after

1. Licensee entered into an agreement with Montgomery Hospital, Norristown, Pennsylvania for the hospital to provide hospital treatment 3

Troy B. Conner, Jr./ Robert M. Rader for Philadelphia Electric Co.;

Charles W. Elliott for LEA: Zori G. Ferkin for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and Joseph Rutberg/ Stephen L. Levin for NRC Staff.

4 Charles W. Elliott (1/14/86); Zori G. Ferkin for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1/16/86); Troy B. Conner, Jr. for Licensee (1/17/86) and Joseph Rutberg for NRC Staff (1/17/86).

i L_

'\

t 5

for Limerick Generating Station onsite contaminated injured persons, and for Philadelphia Electric Co. to provide specialized training equipment, and procedures for treatment of contaminated injured persons;

2. Licensee's counsel provided intervenor LEA's counsel with the draft procedures, a list of specialized equipment for use at Montgomery Hospital and a plan of instruction for the hospital emergency department physicians and nurses;

3. LEA counsel conferred with Montgomery Ho, spital administrator who confirmed that the Montgomery Hospital and, Licensee are in the process of implementing the provisions of the agreement reached by Montgomery Hospital and Licensee on November 15, 1985;

4. LEA finds that there are now arrangements for a reasonable option addressed to the concerns raised by LEA Contention VIII-12(a);

and

5. LEA's concerns stated by its Contention VIII-12(a) are no longer in controversy between LEA and the Licensee.

II. Findings of Fact LEA Contention VIII-12(a) as filed by the intervenor on June 17, 1983 states as follows:

The on-site plans fail to demonstrate that adequate arrangements have been made, or will be made, for medical services for contaminated injured individuals on-site, as required by 10 CFR 9 50.47(b)(2) and (12), in that:

(a) While medical services and facilities are described in sections 5.3.2.1 - 5.3.2.5 of the Plan, it has not been demonstrated that these

i t

6 services and facilities are adequate for the potential

,_ number of persons contaminated by the spectrum of credible accident scenarios for which planning is required, including some coremelt sequences (see NUREG-0396). The plans contain an agreement with Pottstown_ Memorial Hospital, a facility only two miles from the site, to provide emergency treatment to contaminated patients. In a general emergency, the hospital will be required to evacuate its own patients, which will preclude acceptance and treatment of radiation victims coming from the site. The status of medical support from the Hospital of University of Pennsylvania is unclear as well (see contention VIII-9(b),above). These are the only two hospitals listed in the Plan as available for medical services to on-site contaminatdd victinfs. See NUREG-0654, Criteria B.9 and L.1. ,

The Board finds:

1. Adequate arrangements have been made for designated Montgomery Hospital for treatment of contaminated injured onsite persons as required by 10 CFR 'l 50.47(b) by an agreement entered into by Montgomery Hospital, Norristown,. Pennsylvania on November 15, 1985 and reaffirmed by Vincent S. Boyer, Senior Vice President, Philadelphia Electric Co.,

in an Affidavit dated January 2,1986. See also Tr. 21110-21111.

2. The Montgomery Hospital, Norristown, Pennsylvania (Montgomery County) is located 14.5 miles from the Limerick Generating Station, just outside the EPZ (Map and Hospitals Listed in Risk County Plans Licensee's Proposal for Resolution of Remanded Issue, November 15, 1985 and Tr. 21094), and hence, not subject to evacuation.

3. Licensee has provided Decontamination and Treatment of the Radioactively Contaminated Patient at Montgomery Hospital, Procedure No.

M1-18 Revision 0 (December 1985), which establishes the basic procedures, a list of medical supplies and equipment and a training

i s

7 outline for the handling and treatment of radioactively contaminated and injuredIndividealswhomaybeadmittedbyMontgomeryHospital. (Letter with attachment, Licensee to Charles Elliott, Esq. dated December 23, 1985.) See also Stipulation, p. 2.

4. LEA Counsel Elliott has conferred with Montgomery Hospital and confinns that Montgomery Hospital and Licensee are in the process of implementing the provisions of the November 15, 1985 agreement reaffirmed by Licensee's Senior Vice President Boyer in an Affidavit dated January 2, 1986. (See also Stipulation o,f the parties accepted by LEA's Elliott on January 14,1986.)

III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW In reaching this decision, the Board has considered all pleadings filed by the parties; the conference call with the four interested parties on December 18, 1985; and the Stipulation entered into by the interested parties. Based on a review of that record, the foregoing Findings of Fact which are supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence, the Board with respect to the issue in controversy remanded to the Board by ASLAB in ALAB-819, reaches the following conclusion pursuant to 10 CFR $ 2.760a:

The Licensee's onsite emergency plans demonstrate that adequate arrangements have been made for medical services for onsite contaminated injured individuals and that the plans meet the requirement of 10 CFR 5 50.47(b)(2) and (12) as well as the Criteria of NUREG-0654 B.9 and L.1 and provide reasonable assurance that adequate medical arrangements for

i s

s 8

contaminated injured individuals onsite can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.

IV. ORDER In accordance with the provisions of the ASLAB in ALAB-819, the ,

i-requirements of that remand have been met and the Board by this Order transmits its Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law to the ASLAB for further action as deemed appropriate. , ,

IT IS S0 ORDERED. ,

THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING ARD v! M . id.

Helen F. ioyt, Chairperson /)

V ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

, wb[ '

Richard F. Cole ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Jw/- (be14 Jerrf Harbp0r '

ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE l

l Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 4th day of February, 1986.

1 i

f I . _ . - . - _ . _ - . - _