A10024, Discusses Review of RI-91-A-278 Re Various Activities at Millstone Unit 2.W/related Matl

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Discusses Review of RI-91-A-278 Re Various Activities at Millstone Unit 2.W/related Matl
ML20080K842
Person / Time
Site: Millstone Dominion icon.png
Issue date: 01/08/1992
From: Opeka J
NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO., NORTHEAST UTILITIES
To: Hehl C
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
Shared Package
ML20079Q807 List:
References
FOIA-92-162 A10024, NUDOCS 9503010347
Download: ML20080K842 (15)
v • d • e


Text

[ p1 7 gfyf

  • NORTDMIAST UTILETIES con ,,, omc.. 3. n sy .. e,n,n. conn.c,,,,,

9 g L'.**"CJ*.~".' c"~~

L tT; bhbb-- ^[

NNECTICUmW270 January 8, 1992 Docket No. 50-336 A10024 Re: Employee Concerns Mr. Charles W. Hehl, Director Division of Reactor Projects U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406

Dear Mr. Hehl:

Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2 RI-91-A-0278 We have completed our review of an identified issue concerning activities at Millstone Unit No. 2. As. requested in your transmittal letter of November 19, 1991, our response does n6t contain any personal privacy, proprietary, or safe-guards information/ The material contained in this response may be released to the public and placed in the NRC Public Document Room at your discretion. The NRC transmittal letter and our response have received controlled and limited distribution on a " eed-to-know" basis during the preparation of this response.

The response to thfs allegation was originally due on December 24, 1991. Addi-tional time in which to respond was granted in telephone conversations with the Region I Staff on December 19, 1991, and January 7, 1992.

ISSUE:

"The Unit 2 non-safety related turbine and computer battery procedures are defi-cient. The inter-cell connectors are required to be checked clean and tight, but the procedures as written fail to provide specific requirements for:

1. " Inter-cell and end-cell connecting bar bolt torque and re-torque frequency;
2. " Acceptable values for inter-cell electrical connection resistance, test method (voltage drop or resistance measurements) and test frequency; and
3. " Electrical connection bar temperature measurements during battery perfor-mance discharge test.

"The manufacturer recommends inspecting connector integrity at least four times per year. This inspection includes cleanliness, torque values and inter-cell voltage drop or resistance (IEEE Standard 450-1980 discusses inter-cell resis-tance).

9503010347 940009

%s%a m '

Hr. Charles W. Hehl A10024/Page 2 January 8, 1992 "As these specific requirements should also apply to the Unit 2 safety related station batteries (201A and 2018), those procedures may also be deficient. In particular, the specific requirements in these procedures for periodically ,

rechecking connecting bar fastener tightness and measuring electrical connection bar temperature during lpad testing were questioned."

REQUEST:

"Please provide your review of the above assertions. In particular, address if:

1. " Terminal bolt torque checks are required;
2. " Terminal resistance checks are required; and
3. " Inspection for hot spots during a test discharge are required.

"Also please provide what specific directions are given to the technicians for both the non-safety related (reference: procedure MP 2720F1) and safety related (reference: procedure MP 2720F2 and SP 2736E) batteries. .

"If the above concerns are valid, notify us of the corrective actions you have taken to prevent recurrence. Also provide us with an assessment of the safety significance of any identified deficiencies, including generic considerations."

RESPONSE

This assertion is partly valid. As discussed below, the battery is tested peri-odically for high resistance connections and hot spots, and connectors are veri-fied to be tight. However, we are considering revising the test frequency and will revise the torque criteria.

1. Terminal bolt torque: The issue of terminal bolt torque values was initially brought to our attention on October 10, 1991. Following discussions with the Millstone Unit No. 2 Engineering Department, a change which provided specific retorque values was made to Procedure SP 2736A- " Battery Pilot Cell Surveil-lance." This change to SP 2736A became effective November 7, 1991. Proce-dure MP2720F2- " Battery Terminal Inspection and Cleaning"--contains specific retorquing values to be used when batteries are disassembled for cleaning.

On November 4, 1991, the Millstone Unit No. 2 Maintenance Department requested assistance from the Millstone Unit No. 2 Engineering Department in <

evaluating the remaining procedures dealing with battery surveillance and testing to ensure these procedures are consistent in addressing torque values and torquing check frequency. The information provided by the Engineering Department will be utilized to revise the battery service test procedures prior to the next service test, currently scheduled for the next refuel out-age.

2. Terminal resistance checks: Terminal resistance checks are required and are provided for in SP2736E- " Battery Service Test"--by the measurement and recording of voltage drops across the terminals of a battery cell. Loose

^

  • ' Mr.-Charles W. Hehl [

A10024/Page 3.

January 8, 1992 battery terminals will result in a high resistance path which would be '

detected by a corresponding unacceptably high voltage drop across the connec-tions of the affected cell.. We have not detected any high cell connection voltage drops during discharge testing of the batteries.

Discussions with the' battery manufacturer have indicated that-the voltage

~

drop method of resistance checking is effective. only when the battery being monitored is being discharged at a known rate as in the discharge testing  !

surveillances. Recommendations that supplemental resistance checks be per-formed have resulted from discussions between the battery manufacturer and -

the Millstone Unit No. 2 Maintenance and Engineering departments. Millstone Unit No. 2 Maintenance will work with Millstone Unit No. 2 Engineering to establish test methods for resistance checks, frequency, and acceptance j

criteria to be incorporated into appropriate maintenance procedures prior to  !

the next battery service test. I

3. Inspection for hot spots: As hot spots are caused by high resistances during battery discharge, we consider the cell connection voltage drop measurements i made during discharge testing to be adequate and specific inspection for hot spots is not required. The combination of visual inspections of battery con-  ;

nections (done weekly under Procedure MP2720F1- " Computer and Turbine Battery '

Inspections"), retorquing, resistance checks, and cell connector voltage drops during testing, are considered sufficient to prevent " hot spots." i Specific directions for technicians performing the above practices are con- i tained in the applicable procedures.

After our review and evaluation of this issue, we find that this issue did not present any indication of a compromise of nuclear safety, nor were there any generic implications associated with the issues discussed herein. We appreciate the opportunity to respond and explain the basis of our actions. Please contact  ;

my staff if there are further questions on any of these matters.  ;

Very truly yours, NORTHEAST NVCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY  :

0zA J. F. Opda U Executive Vice President '

cc: W. J. Raymond, Senior Resident Inspector, Millstone Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 E. C. Wenzinger, Chief, Projects Branch No. 4, Division of Reactor {

i Projects  !

E. M. Kelly, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 4A  !

J. T. Shedlosky, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Millstone 4

Yl RECORD OF ALLEGATION PANEL DECISIONS SITE: .i i EM t 1 PANEL ATTENDEES:

ALLEGATION NO.: g 3 -9 d OG S Chairman - Uswac DATE: 2.IOC7 )(8 (PanelNo.h2345) Branch Chief -

PRIORITY: High Medium o Section Chief (AOC) -

9 SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE: Yes { Unkn Sr. Allecation Coord (SAC) u tem 6 tw CONCURRENCE TO CLOSEOUT DD SC OI Reoresentative -

CONFIDENTIALITY GRANTED: Yes (See Allegation Receipt Report) h (Other) be" 'd W N d IS THERE A HARASSMENT / DISCRIMINATION IF YES, ISSUE: Yes p.

1) has the individual been informed of the DOL process and the need to file a complaint within 30 days Yes No
2) has the individual filed a complaint with DOL Yes No
3) has a letter been sent to the complainant seeking Yes No any safety concerns IS A CHILLING EFFECT LETTER WARRANTED:

IF YES, HAS IT BEEN SENT Yes Yes

@No HAS THE LICENSEE RESPONDED TO THE CHILLING EFFECT LETTER: Yes No ACTION: RESP ECD ecco Er M in !C, W 25 2 M W 7044309[  !

1) i CTemm/ L/[ lonut c3wbr
2) D 6 xd m .s h d< el e ls a I. LvC LL A+, M Acime
2) d GL JJkwm a . a L le l :u w '

~A en, d s a<se - a ~ % .on.Le a-mou ..

4) l 5)

NOTES:

1

-o r

b WD'EC'W ENCLOSURE Issue 91-A-278:

De Unit 2 non-safety related turbine and computer battery procedures are deficient.

De inter-cell connectors are required to be checked clean and tight, but the procedures as written fail to provide specific requirements for:

(1) Inter-cell and end-cell connecting bar bolt torque and re-torque frequency; (2) Acceptable values for inter-cell electrical connection resistance, test method *

(voltage drop or resistance measurements) and test frequency; and i t

(3) Electrical connection bar temperature measurement during battery performance i discharge tests.

  • l The manufacturer recommends inspecting connector integrity at least four times per  !

year. This inspection includes cleanliness, torque values and inter-cell voltage drop or  !

resistance (IEEE Standard 450-1980 discusses inter-cell resistance).

As these specific requirements should also apply to the Unit 2 safety related station -

batteries (201 A and 201B), those procedures may also be deficient. In particular, the ,

specific requirements in these procedures for periodically rechecking connecting bar ,

fastener tightness and measuring electrical connection bar temperature during load  :

testing were questioned.

Request:

Please provide your review of the above assertions. In particular, address if:

)

(1) Terminal bolt torque checks are required;  :

l (2) Terminal resistance checks are required; and -

l (3) Inspection for hot spots during a test discharge are required.  !

l Enclosure Page 1 l

LI SCLOsU l

1

TJFOR.PSBut uis Also please provide what specific directions are given to the technicians for both the non-safety related (reference: procedure MP-2720F1) and safety related (reference:

procedure MP-2720F2 and SP-2736E) batteries.

If the above concerns are valid, notify us of the corrective actions you have taken to ,

prevent recurrence. Also provide us with an assessment of the safety significance of any identified deficiencies, including generic considerations.

4 I

P Enclosure Page 2 MITED UTION - N rOR J

DCC 16 '91 14:07 C&D PLY MTG P.2 dio

? DEC 13 '91 15:E4 a ,. .  ;

PRet.992 sessmanstvm.

_ enos .

2 g <Y; E"w*ee.s~w

~~ ,

g ,,,,,,

December 13, 1991 EN3-91-453 To: Don Wampole CSD (315 Fax )(215) 834-7306428-9000 Ext. 323 FROMs J M. Scheel r k MillstoneUn$taEngineering (Extension 4489) sUBJEoTt Telecon call, Dates concerning 12/10/91 0.1630Stationand Safety 12 Related

/11/9101630 Battery Refersheet (1) C&D Zneta11ation for 8tation and:Operating)

Batteries12-600 Instructions (2) C&D Stendby Battery F1 ed cell Installation and Operatlng Instkuot ons #13-500.

I called cad concerning inquiries of Naintenance for clarification of Station Battery procedures. I spoke to Don concerning the station batteries on 12 back on 12/11 to confirm or verify the/10 and he calhed mefollowing. I unformed Don we have battery cell type LcU-33.

1. Discussed with Don torque values for cell connectors.

Informed Don we a intercell connect as. to.have the stainless steel t

, hardware tree C of figure 4 2 '

reference 2. Don in ormed me f.har this would be the type connecting hardware used for our type cell. Reference 1 on f11e 33 in for tableRi11 a stone 3: batteries Aves ~ torque values ier LC-

  • retorque value, pave of 135 10'as 160(- k+erence2,foraLCR-33 in-lbs..

10 in lbs. with troe IhD-33 cell,forwhichtorque Don > verified would be oosparable to our analisations seeoifies a torque value of initial 140 in.-lbs. with a,..subsegruent-retorque value of 128 in.=1bs. . Don' verified the tolerance of (-) 0,+10 in.lbs. is neceptable for the retorque values. ,

2. Discussed wit,b. Don when the # initial'i. torque values.are to be used and when thei#retorque# values are to'used. Don informed me the initial torque is upon installation of connection or after removal.of oennection for stemning and

[nre-installation.oftheoor.n#io applicable w of connections. hen performing a maln*'n. a= = The torque retorque value check which aDpears " loosen Don informed me 12 a connection.is found should be tightened.to the #retoron: visual inspection, a value asthe connection long as there is This terminal. no visible retoroue evidence of acorresion on the post or.

is a sin mum clean connection whidh has been previous 1 table value of a torquod to an initial torque contacting value ,to remove surfaces..Zf anyairregu aritfes between corrosion are at a " loose #

--- torquedtogei connection is

~

onid be removed ~o taned, tial torque valu,e acco pared and oe vi the, .

Un"**

DEC 16 *91 g3:gi 88PV215 929 9000 306 PAGE.002

I' P.3 DEC% s$Yaj CSD PLY MTG PAG 2.eg3 l

~

i C&Doheratinginstructions is, a ain Den nformed me the retorque connection, not a torque to verify to verity init torque of the eque value.

Therefore ,a connection la not required to be loosened, . .

end then lorquad, to the retorque value during maintenance -

check. stuet verify the connection is et this minimum maintenance torque value. ,

Reference 1 recommends a maintenanoe torque performed i guarterlyi reference 2 recommends the maintenance torque Me performed semi-annually. I spoke to Don and it is -

receamended though it would thebe maintenante acceptable tofoue be berformed if perfeksed semi annually.

quarterly, Don noted the maintenance . torque should not be-performed

-immediktely after discharge test as the connectlons are -

still warm as a result of the test.

3. I informed Don the connections on the posts wh'ich utilise '

the terminal plate.are connected to the posts with -

i stainless steel hardware. The connection of the cable lug i l

to(Figure 4.2 of reference the terminal 2 bo is plate (PT-423)lt made usine a tvne 5 assembly stud and brass-;.nserted cas)t lead nuta 2 informed Don. This ls' a-bross that hardwarewe wouldwith 1:.ke a Type to C re(p, ace this type of connection bolt F:,gure 4 10 of ref. 2 stainless steel bolt and h theintercellconnections.ardware.2pgilartothatus)edon sim~

and it is ceDs recommendation Dontoverified this is change-out to acceptable the stainless steel hardware. The torque to be used for the existing connection hardware usin brass ' cast leed nuts is.1so (-)o,+g10tho brass stud

.n.lbs. with.and subsequent retorque to 125 (-)D, 10 :,n.lbs.. Don informed me the toraue to be used is based on the post

. type not the conneofing hardware typ'e as seems to be suggested in the table 3, page 11 of reference 2..

4.

Discussed with Don our existing testing. 1 informed Don we currently perform Voltage De teste of our intercell and interrow connections to veri connection integrity. This-is performed during-a ratedc .

a hours with our a6ceptance c scharsettest.of 290 emps for intercell or <sony for inter riterra of <2say for tier connections. This is in accordance with referenoe_1 and 2 3-asked Don if it is recommended that durin this test, if the voltage er e .

are out of the specifi helted and the connect on acriteriak.shouldthetest ire Den informed me t is ,

recommended the test be hal inspected.~The required act on would beconnection-and the per itam-2 above i.e.

clean, with no'oorr9sientorque to retorque tightness.if the connection is and torque to initial va,luesor remove connection and clean operatine it oorroaton appear,sinatsocordanos connection.withTest c4D a not sontinue due to the possibility of a high resistance should

~ I f

system. connection which may cause further damage to the battery s

0

{ { { l

'.(;

P.4 I gq, ip,'39g g cSD PLY t1TO. ,

p gg, ,

I e

l 5.-

Iinstallation informed Donrequire that weado not now,tnor measuremen during initial of connection resistance as, per recommended,in reference 1 and 2 and j IEEE 480. Don Inferised me it is recommended to perform this resistance cheek to verify connection inteerity.

Although no init:.a1 baseline data is available from initial battery Laste11ation Don informed me the criteria t for scooptance oer be estab11shed by performing this testing and notine those connections with resistance ,t values that exceek the average by 204.

6. Talked te Don onnoerning monitoring of connection terminal temperature duri a disor.a red thermometer. ninfornNetestsuchaswithaInfra-me this seems to something which is being used more often in the field. I asked Don'

~

what temperature values we should be looking at. He said  ;

we should aversee be connections of the looking at connoottons being monitored which andare not out 4a op speelfio temperature..With the resistance test, maintenance toraue tests,'and voltage dros tests being performed, the fesperature monitoring of the connections la just another "toola but met required. ,

7. I inquired of Don snare parts availability. I informed Don of our current draw'ing part nushers and Don verified part  ;

numbers as follows:  ;

g Intercell' connector.- PK3637 Auxiliary Intercell connector - PK2635 Terminal Plate - PT-423 Replace by PT-429 i b)L ru. M n yaseeroes my nj, m ,  !

man i

I/ d /74 -f/

h __.8/

r c o conourf.no. oan e

, ,, . .. e-c ,nn soc cosE. coa l

Q ...

2//

y-NORTIMAST UTILITIES g

  • ~

O".*u"e=c .""

vi

==

y December 16, 1991 EN2-91-456 TO: John Humphreys MP2 Maintenanca FROM: J. M. Scheeler Unit 2 Engineer ng (Extension 4459)

SUBJECT:

MP2 Station Batteries

Reference:

(1) Memo MM-91-160, John Humphreys to Ralph Bates dated November 4, 1991.

(2) Memo EN2-91-453, Jeffery Scheeler to Don Wampole, C&D Battery, dated 12/13/91 In response to reference 1, Engineering has reviewed the concerns and contacted the vendor for recommendations and clarifications. Note that the following is specific to the station safety related batteries DB1 and DB2. The recommendations or clarifications may be derived for the computer and turbine battery from below response and actions taken as deemed necessary. i l

Item la: Is it necessary to stop the Surveillance Test if the intercell or inter-tier connection voltage drops are <

out of spec? Should cleaning and re-torquing be I specified.

Response: Yes, if voltage drops are out of spec. the test should be stopped and corrective act, ion taken:

- If the connection is clean and no corrosion present, torque the connection to the appropriate retorque value.

- If the connection has evidence of corrosion, disassemble the connection, clean and re-assemble the connection and torque to the initial torque requirements.  !

Item ib: Is measuring voltage drops sufficient? Should the connections be ductored and if so, what is the acceptance criteria? Should the connection temperatures be monitored during testing?

l g'O MV 8@

gw a

}"

Response: Measuring voltage drops during the discharge is ,

sufficient to determine a satisfactory connection i integrity.. j The voltage drop test and the ductor test are both i methods to determine.the integrity of the-battery connections. The disadvantage of the voltage drop test is that it must be performed during rated discharge of the battery.

Engineering recommends a ductor test be performed  !

on a refueling basis. This will allow verification 4 of battery connections integrity without performing i a discharge of the battery.following maintenance on 4 a battery connection. l The acceptance criteria shall be established so that no individual connection resistance can exceed 'i the overall connection average resistance by .

greater than 20%.

In order to determine base line resistance values .

it is recommended the ductor test, subsequent to  !

performing a maintenance retorque, be performed i prior to the next scheduled discharge test .

Monitoring of the connection temperatures during testing has been discussed with CED and is not one i of their requirements. The preferred checks on i connection resistance, voltage drops, and maintenance torque checks, in addition to visual l inspections provide reliable indications of j connection Integrity.  !

Item 2a: Is the torque value specified in MP2720F2 correct ' cur l should the retorque value of 125 in-lbs be used?  ;

Response: This procedure is for removal and cleaning of. '

connections. If connections are removed they should ~

be torqued to initial torque values when re-assembled. The retorque value only applies to a t check performed on a previously made connection.  !

The following torque values have been verified with -

L the vendor: ,

Turbine Batterv Station Battery.

Initial Torque (in-lbs) 110 +10,(-)O 160 +10,(-)0 Retorque (in-lbs) 100 +10,(-)O 125 +10,(-)0 l

l l

.j.. . .I

\ >

l

'o Item 2b: Should retorque values be specified in other battery  !

procedures in lieu of " tight" Response: The retorque values should be.specified in the procedures in lieu of " tight" when performing a maintenance torque check. Again,'if a connection  !

has been re-assembled, the initial torque requirement should apply.

l Engineering recommends a. maintenance torque check  :

of the battery connections to the retorque values be performed on a quarterly basis.

i Item 2c: Is retorquing a check of the minimum tightness or  ;

must the connection be loosened the retorqued to the  ;

specified value?

Response: Retorquing is a maintenance torque check of the ,

connection for connection integrity. This is a ,

minimum torque, and the connection should not be loosened when performing this maintenance check. ,

a I would recommend that Maintenance and Engineering set a "

meeting in order to discuss the above items and their '

impact to existing procedures. Please contact me when l available.

cc: B. J. Duffy  !

J. W. Riley ,

R. W. Bates R. Rowe File , l i

5 i

l i

l i

i l

l 1

l

J/A-RECORD OF ALLEGATION PANEL DECISIONS b* I C PANEL ATTENDEES:

SITE:

A39I-4-p Chairman - (A/ M C, CMS ALLEGATION NO. g u v DATE: 6 AJoO 9 (._ (Panel No. @ 2 3 4 5) Branch Chief -

([e PRIORITY: High Medium h section Chief (AOci - 4 er SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE: Xes h Unkn Sr. Allecation Coord (SAC) c wie DD SC OI Representative - lif f'.m . New s c, CONCURRENCE TO CLOSEOUT CONFIDENTIALITY GRANTED: Yes @ (Otheri d 3mei%uC h2 iw '

(See Allegation Receipt Report)

IS THERE A HARASSMENT /DISCRIHINATION IF YES, ISSUE: Yes h 1 l

I) has the individual been informed of the DOL Yes No process and the need to file a complaint within 30 days Yes No

2) has the individual filed a complaint with DOL Yes No
3) has a letter been sent to the complainant seeking any safety concerns Yes No IS A CHILLING EFFECT LETTER WARRANTED: Yes No IF YES, HAS IT BEEN SENT Yes No HAS THE LICENSEE RESPONDED TO THE CHILLING EFFECT LETTER:

RESP ECD ACTION:

f

1) o$ 0. [6 4 r- 0S E tu t uk t,ti H vou 2V 6 k ZOW4d beau no i e b l. #ro u N ish S 2 n d 43o 0 p,,t e/ do we #4rike kd AS+t 4". . N e. eee c c.

2) o a ho 2c/Toh aw d 8'13-4 3)

4) )

5)

NOTES:

j f

i

-)

t f

ALUGATION RECEIIT REPORI ed: Novsaber 4, 1991 1510 Allegation No. U- ~8 Address:

Same: ,

Citv/St., Zip:

Chcne:

Ceni4dentiality:

Was it requested? No Allerer's Employer: HNECO PosittencTitle: Instrumentaticn and Control Lepartment Ieennician Facility: Millstone Unit 2 Locket No.: 50-336 Auernien sumary: I&C Department Instrument "Icop Folder" and maintenanna data base both lack infomation on a liquid radioactive effluent path flow instrument.

Numoer ci Concerns: 1 Employee receiving allegation: J. T. Shediosky Type cf regulated activity: Reactor Functional Areat s : Operations

+ tailed Ies:ription of Allegati:n: All components of a flow instrument channal are not documented within the I&C Department instrument " loop folder" and within the Production Maintenance Manasamant System (PtMS) data base. Specifically, data for a flow transmitter. 2-QID-FIT-246, associated with monitoring the effluent flow from the Condensate Polishing Facility (CPF) neutralized waste tank discharge, was found to be missing fram the applicable instrument " loop folder."

Additionally, the instrument is not entered in the PIMS compiter data base.

Inspector ~n Hote:

This sub--system prana == the liquid waste senerated during condensate daminaral-izer resin regeneration. The activity of the waste neutralization tanks, TK-10 and TK-11, is generally at or below the lower limit of detection for the '

Chemistry Department radioisotopic analysis (an vhtely 1.0E-07 microcurie per al. for Co-60 or Co-137).

t L

t

(

My RECORD OF ALLEGATION PANEL DECISIONS

$ '4. PANEL ATTENDEES:

SITE:

ALLEGATION NO.: M. -

02b Chairman -  !

DATE: AIOO9 & (Panel No. 1 2 3 4 5) Branch Chief - hu h1 PRIORITY: High h Low Seetion Chief fAOC) - dan tw SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE: Yes No Sr. AllecationCoordfSAC)bkenet4.d4e r CONCURRENCE TO CLOSEOUT: DD @ SC OI Reoresentative -

CONFIDENTIALITY GRANTED: Yes @ (Other) uw L/M k6 4 (c)

(See Allegation Receipt Report) g g F IS THERE A HARASSHENT/DISCRIhiclATION IF YES, ISSUE: Yes h

1) has the individual been informed of the DOL Yes tio process and the need to file a complaint within 30 days Yes
2) has the individual filed a complaint with DOL Yes No
3) has a letter been sent to the complainant seeking No any safety concerns Yes No IS A CHILLING EFFECT LETTER WARRANTED: Yes No IF YES, HAS IT BEEN SENT Yes No HAS THE LICENSEE RESPONDED TO THE CHILLING EFFECT LETTER:

RESP ECD ACTION:

1) Nv-W CH)4v-- MN. 2, M, 6t% H t t~d h N D4[ IOFCk a A , 6 ,mc1,- 2/ 44C u m m
2) $~2 O udY#h 3)

.4 4) 5)

NOTES:

V

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=A10024,_Discusses_Review_of_RI-91-A-278_Re_Various_Activities_at_Millstone_Unit_2.W/related_Matl&oldid=3506906"