ML19326B102
| ML19326B102 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 03/12/1975 |
| From: | WKYC-TV, CLEVELAND, OH |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19326B101 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003060906 | |
| Download: ML19326B102 (9) | |
Text
-
g WK YC-TV
~
.. - ~ ~ ~ -
..u
~
1.%..~: 5 ??3ET. Ci.E YEi. WD ;.MM
- i s - rm *
- .:..: ~...\\ :
u.
s N I am we athk jO Yh
.;'.~'.~L..
What follows is a synopsis of the Dags Ikasse Nuclear _ Power Plant story as compiled by an NBC Investigative Unit headed by reporter Kevin Boyle. It is the result of a three month im-estigation. Information cited as fact has been substantiated through that Investigation.
-Toledo Edison Company, the licensee for the Davis Besse project
-Bechtel Engineering, Prima y Contractor
-Bagwell Coatings Inc., a sub-contractor
-Mr. Charles II. Ridgdell Project Manager, Bagwell Coatings
-Mr. Mark Vining, former Quality Control Engineer for Bagwell
-Mr. Doyle Honeycutt, Chief Investigator, Chtcago District Nuclear Itegulatory Commission (formerly A. E. C. )
-Mr. Lowell Roe, Vice-President, Construction Operattons. Toledo Edison Power Company *
-Mr. Donald P. Tekkc11 Public Information Marager, Toledo Edison Power Company *
-Mr. Jan Straama, Public Information Officer, N. R. C.
- I
- These gentlemen ware among those who participated in the "Cleveinnd Connect!.>n" program dealing with Davis Besse on February 23, 1975.
l l
8oosoeo906
The Davis Besse Nuclear Power Plant Story:
Synoosis 1.
-The coating at issue is:
a teflon-like, epoxy material which is applied to the interior of the nuclear containment building.
There is about a 130,000 square foot area to be covered <
The coating is one of the materials involved in the project vital enough that the A.E.C. (now the N.R.C.) included it in its list of " Critical" materials.
2.
-The coating is not as critical as some of the other materials and procedures on that list, but it is vital enough that the A.E.C. deemed it ' critical', requiring it to be manufactured, shipped, stored, tested, applied, and retested under the most stringent standards.
3.
-The purpose of the coating is steel containment vessel from rust and/primarily to protect the or corrosion.
It's
' teflon-like' quality also facilitates efficient de-contamination of the inner surfaces of the containment building in the event of radiation leaking into the vessel, and the activation of the Emergency Cooling System.
To a minor degree, the coating also inhibits the passage of some radiation through itself.
4.
-Among the stringent requirements made of the coatings and their a,pplication:
that it be a " pinhole free surface", which binds to the surface it's applied to with an adhesive force of 500 lbs. per sq. inch.
5.
-Among the things which can happen, if the coating or its application is defective, is that if a r,ailure goes undetected over an extended period of time (years) the steel containment vessel could ' rust' through allowing (in the case of an accident) radiation to escape directly into the atmosphere.
Also, we're told, short of that, if the coating was defective and the Emergency Cooling System were put in operation, in the case of an accident, the intense heat, and waterflow of such a situation, could possibly cause the coating to peel from its surfaces and block up the Cooling System.
In either eventuality, a considerable disaster could occur
-Therefore, we re-emphasize the precautions we pointed.
out in paragraph 2. above.
Under A.E.C. regulations pertaining to materials and procedures on their "Q List", Toledo Edison (TECO) is primarily responsible to see that those regulations and safeguards are met.
TECO, Bechtel, and Bagwell are all required to conduct their own Quality Control checks, ins They're even supposed to check the ' checkers'pections, and audits.
Precise records of all tests, audits and Quality Control reports =ust be made, compiled and maintained under the strictest control.
. The Quality control Inspectors must have autonomy and authority:
they must be totally independent of those persons whose work they're checking.
-Vining says that during the course of his inspections, he found numerous violations in Bagwell's coating and its application.
-Vining says he reported (10-14 reports) these discrepancie to Project Manager Ridgdell, even though by A.E.C. regs he should not have been required to report to him at all.
-Vining says at first his reports were ignored, disregarded or 'sluffed-off'.
-Vining says when he persisted in citing more violations, hc was told by Ridgdell to ' turn the other cheek' and ' don't go opening any cans of worns'.
Vining also contends that one night at his home, Ridgdell intimated a bribe by saying, ' play along with me, Mark, and I'll put noney in your pocket'.
These alleged statements, or their meanings are, of course unsubstantiated and open to interpretation.
t
-Vining says that finally, Ridgdell made one last attempt t@
discoura,ge him from filing discrepancy reports, and failing, handed Vining his separation pay, firing hin.
-Ridgdell contends Vining was fired for being unreliable, for excessive absenteeism, and for "taking off from work to go play tennis with his wife."
-The Ohio State Department of Employ =cnt Services investiga8 Vining's dismissal, and ruled that it was without just cause.
found that Vining was doing the job required of him, and that hisThey attendance record was good.
-Following his dismissal, Vining' forwarded his charges to the A.E.C. office in Chicago.
As a result, A.E.C. officials held a surprise investigation on the Davis Besse site.
(But somehow Bagwell offici~als discovered the planned inspection beforehand.)
-As a result of that investigation, the A.E.C. cited TECO and Bagwell for violating 10 of the 18 points on their safety criteria.
Among the violations:
a)
Quality Control did not (ave the independent authority it was required to; b)
TECO had failed to conduct the safety checks for quality control audit it was required to;
. c) 90% of Bagwell codings were applied with total disregard for, and in violation of, A.E.C.
regulations; d) and that Ridgdell HAD DESTROYED Quality Control reports.
-As a result of the A.E.C.'s finding Bagwell was ordered to discontinue this work, in critical areas o,f construction.
-Ridgdell admits destroying the reports.
However, he explains that he only destroyed the original copies, because they were illegible.
He says they were replaced with typewritten copies.
HE DENIES VINING FILED ANY DISCREPANCY REPORTS.
-Vining has no copies of those reports to prove otherwise.
HOWEVER, he has notations in the personal diary he carried, noting the dates he filed reports, and his encounters with Ridgdell.
He also has a '
sent to Mobil Oil Co., questioning a batch of th@
coatings they nad nanufactured.
And, of course, Vining's coming forward, lends some credibility to his allegations.
-The A.E.C., when questioned by NBC News about these facts, attenpted to de-enphasize the=.
They shrugged off their citations against TECO and Eagwell, as just being technicalities over paperwork and procedures, mostly.
They said they were satisfied that the coatings in questio) were actually up to standard.
-And so the key to whether Vining was misled, outright lying, or whether there indeed had been an intentional cover-up of danaerous deficiencies and serious malfeasance was to be found in whether or not the coating was actually up to standard.
-If the coating was defective, the fact would strongly support Vining's allegations.
If it were flawless as TECO, Eechtel and Bagwell (A.E.C.) clain, then Vining would have been in error.
To determine this, a NBC News crew visited the Davis Besse site accompanied by Vining.
Vining, Boyle and the film crew climbed a ladder 22 stores to inspect the areas where Vining clained there l
were discrepancies.
Project Manager, Ridgdell contends that nothind less than the destructive force of a sand blaster or a jack hanner 1 would be required to renove the coatings.
The coatings are required to adhere that strongly and yet, as we have dccunented on our film, certain areas of the coating on the containment wall and other surfaces inside the structure, easily chipped with a pen knife and in some cases we chipped it off with our finger nails.
1.
, An'd so the coating in some areas is defective.
This does
.mean that most of the coating is not up to standard; it simply indicates that some of it is defective.
It seems to indicate that -
Vining reported those discrepancies to Ridgdell and the A.E.C. and that Bagwell, Bechtel, TECO and A.E.C.
Inspectors all failed to fig discrepancies which we located in a matter of ninutes.
It appears that Ridgdell and Bagwell knew of the defects and instead of repairing, instituted a cover-up.
If Bechtel, TECO, and the A.E.Cc were not told of the defects, they were at least seriously neglige-in running their own tests and audits.
90% of the coating involvee has been applied in violations of A.E.C. regulations.
At this point, no steps have been taken that we are aware of, to recove and reapply the coatings properly.
Bagwell will shortly be permitted to resume work on the site as the N.R.C. says it is now satisfied with the revisions made in that cocpany's quality control procedures.
Toledo Edison tries to de-emphasize the importance of the coating and the decisions we have outlined by sa are not an intrinsic part of the plant's operation. ying that they They have stated that a failure of the coating poses no threat to public safety.
In response, we refer to paragraph 5. above.
In a statemet to the A.E.C., Toledo Edison said that Bagwell coating did not have' the expertise or the experience for the application of these coatings.
And yet they contracted Bagwell to do this critical work and according to the A.E.C. were negligent in nonitoring and auditing Bagwell.
In fact, the A.E.C. has stated that Toledo Edison has been negligent in neeting its quality control requirements in generci.
There is a real question here about Toledo Edison's overall quality control procedures and whether or not they are neeting the required safety standards.
The N.R.C. states that as the completion of the plant drawg their testing will intensify.
There is some question as to
- nearer, how effective future testing will be in lieu of its past ineffectiveness.
At this time, there is still no full tine N.R.C.
inspection staff assigned to the Davis Besse site.
The quality of the construction on this site has been entrusted solely to the judgment on their own. companies involved in that construction and they are allow Serious doubt has been nade as to whether or not this responsibility is too great to leave up to private industry operating with near autonomy when the safety of the public at large is at stake.
,-v.
_ _ _ ~ -
~~-
'ITE.
Evts Besse Nacicar Power M A ctcTy m o
D
~ ~ ~
O Syconsts t
-I 3
0 o
1.
-The costing at issue is: a teflon-like, epony material which is applied to the interior of the nnelear containment building._ There is about _
1130,000 scuare foot arca to be covered. The coating is one of the materials 2 * = m.,= a 2a Qm. T 4 x w.C ~~. ;. h,,
a==:i M.2.,% a x -
it in its list of " Critical" nu.terials.
2.
-The coating is not as critical as some of the other veterials and procedures on.that list but it is vital enough that the A.E. C. deemed it ' crit-ical', requiring it to be *mnufactured, shipped, stored, tested, applied, and retested under the most stringent s5*rds.
3.
-The purpose of the coating is primarily to protect the steel con-tai-ent vessel from rcst and/or corrosion. It's ' teflon-like' cuality also fa-cilitates efficient de-coe ination of the inner surfaces of the containment building in the event of radiation leaking into the vessel, and the activation of the Emergency Cooling System. To a minor degrec, the coating also inhibits the passage of some radiation through itself.
4.
-Among the stringent requirements made of the coatings and their application: that it be a "pichole free surface", which binds to the surface it's applied to with an adhesive force c.f 600 lbs. per sq. inch.
5.
-Among the thin s which can happen, if the coating or its applica-tion is defective, is that if a failure goes undetected over an extended period of time (years) the steel containment vessel could 'rcst' through allowing (in the case of an accident) rediation to escape directly into the atmosphere. Also, we're told, short of that, if the coating was dcicetive and the Emergency Cooling System were put in operation, in the case of an accident, the intense heat, and waterflow of such a sitm. tion, could possibly cause the coating to peel from its surfaces and block up the Cooling System.
In either eventuality, a considerable disaster could occur.
-Therefore, we re-em@nsine the precautions we pointed out in paragraph 2, above. Under A.E. C. regulations pertaining to materials and procedures on their "Q List", Toledo Edison (TECO) is primarily responsible to sec ht those regulations and safeguards are met. TECO, Ecchtcl, and Bcg-well are all required to cor. duct their own Q2ality Control checks, inspections, and audits. They're eve:. supposed to check the ' checkers'.
Precise record.s of all fesh, audib and Qua!!ty Control reports.,
.. ~
...a
_(
9-r-
9 ca T
'O '9 I
~2-I n
T'1
\\
gua c c_
uv a w The Q.ality Control Inspectors must have autonomy and authority:
they must be totally independest of those persons whose work they're check +g.
-Vining _S.ays._th&Ldm-ing_th.q_no.nrAc_pthia_inspectionsde. fo und.
nn::erous violations in Hagwell's coating and its application.
-Vining says he reported (10-14 reports) these discrepancies to Project Alanager Ridadell. even though hv A. E. C rmhhWot have been requir-M to report to him at all.
-Vining says at first his reports were ignored, disregarded, or
'sluffed-off',
-Vining says when he persisted in citing more v olations, he was told 2
by Ridgdell to ' turn the other cheek' and ' don't go opening any cans of wortus'.
Vining also contends that one night at his home, Ridgdell intimated a bribe by saying, ' play along with me, Afark, and I'll put money in your pocket'.
These alleged statements, or their meanings are, of course, unsubstantiated and open to interpretation.
-V i-i7 says that fim11. Ridgdell made one last attempt to dis-7 courage him from filing discrepancy reports, and failing bnraed Vining his separation pay, firing him.
-Ridgdell contends Vining was fired for being unreliable, for ex-cessive absenteeism, and for "t:0:ing off frorn work to go play tennix with his w if e. "
-The Ohio State Department of Employment Services investigated Vini,o's dismissal, and ruled that it was without just cause. They found that Vining was doing the job reqcired of him, and that his attendance record was good.
-Following his dismissal, Vinb f
3 o4 w orded his ch=- gos to the A.E. C.
office in Chicago. As a result, A. E. C. officinin held a surprise inves-igation on the Davis Besse site. (But somehow Bagwell officials discovered the planned inspection beforehand.)_
-As a result of that investigation, the A. E. C. cited TECO and Bag-well for violati.ng 10 of the 18 points on their sa.fety criteria, Among the violations: a) Quality Control did not have the Lederendent
m m.._,,
~
\\
m@!
0
~~
- D
= _ _ _.
~
p --
[
w6 cJ annlied with total disrcra.rd for, strA in violation of. A. E.h.,WF T s '
n
!rhulftnoda Lasi that Ridgdeu CAD DESTROYMD Qua.lity Control reports.
" ' ~ '
-A s a result of the A.E. C. 's finding, Bagwell was ordered to dis-
.-..__._..~,.,s.___-
cor;tinuett:is work, in~critichtl areadof c'onstruction.
~~
-Bid-ddall ar'mila_<htttoying_the reports. However, he explabs that he only desticyed ~the crisimi copics, biciuse UiEfWere 11Hgi'cle. He
_says_they_ xze.ne_2.eplaced with typewritten _ copies.
st; DENIES VINING FILKD ANY DISCREPANCY REPORTS.
-Vining has no copies of those reports to prove otherwisc. HOWEVER, he has notations in the personal diary he carried, noting the dates he filed reports, and his encounters with Ridgdell. Ec also has a Ictter sent to Mobil Oil Co..
questioning a batch of the coatings they had manufactured. A'nd, of course.
Vini g's co:ning forward, lands some credibility to his allege.tions.
-The A. E. C., when questioned by NBC News about these facts, attempted to de-ernphasize them. They shrugged off their citations against TECO and Eagwell, as Jr.2t being technicalities over paperwork and proce-dures, mostly.
They said they were satisfied that the coatings in question were ac-tually up to star.dard.
-And so the key to whether Vbing was misled, outright lying, or whether there indeed had been an intentional cover-up of dangerous deficiencias and serious Inalfeasance was to be found in whether or not the coating was actually up to standard.
-If the coating was defective, the fact would strongly supnort Vining's allegations. I.f it were flawless as TECO, Bechtel and Eagwell (A.E. C.) claim, then Vining would have been in error. To determine this, a NEC News crew visited the Davis Besse site accompanied by Vining. Vining, licyle and the film crew climbed a ladder 22 stories to inspect the areas where Vi,ing claimed there were discrepancies. Project Manager, Ridgdell contends that nothing less Fmn the dest.ructive force of a sand blaster or a jack hammer would be re-quired to remove the coatings. The coatings arc required to adhere that strongly a - A y e t. as we have documented on ottr film, certain areas of the cor. ting on the g c :.," ent wall and o'" " c "* ^ * " i"-id o *b e'*ucture, casily chipped with a
-/
,o-
~
~
~
~~
And so the coating in some arcas is defn.ti, e. This does not mean
- he...pt c^ thentin;; z.a-up to etanda. J. '. simply indicates 0 2some cf it is defective. It seems to indicate that Vining reported those discrepancies to Rid;dcu =M the A. E. C. ard that Bagwen, Bechtel, TECO and A. E. C. Inspectors 2II I20.ed 30 ficd discrepancies which we located in a ~__atter of minutes. It appears that Ridgdell and Eagwell knew of the defects and instead of repairing. tnstituted a cov ar-up. If Bechtel, TECO, ar.d the A. E.C. were not told of the defects they warehet sericedy -= fig ="t 6 - "~i"; Nb c = n t@-a"d q"dits SOTe of
- R m% h.a.d im ZLypum L v.ulahvus of A; B. C. regn1EtiEGi.=M-this point, no steps have been taken that we are aware of, to remove and re-apply the coatings properly, Sagwell will shortly be permitted to resume work on the site as the N.R.C. says it is now satisfied with the revisions
- e in that company's quality control procedures. Toledo Edison tries to de-empha-size the Nportance of the coating and the decisions we have outlined by saying that they are not an intri sic part of the plant 2s operation. They have stated that a failure of the coating poses no threat to public safety, in response, we refer to paragraph 5, above, In a statement to the A. E. C., Toledo Edison said that Bagwen coating did not have the expertise or the enperience for the application of these coatings. And yet they contracted Eagwen to do this critical work wi according to the A.E.C, were negligent in monitoring and auditing Bagwell.
In fact, the A.E. C. has stated that Toledo Edison has been negligent in meeting its qunlity control requirements in general.
There is a real question here about Toledo Edison's overan quality control procedures and whether or not ther are meeting the required safety stmiards.
The N.R.C. states that as the completion of the plant draws nearer, their testing will intensify. There is some question as to how effective future testing will be in lieu of its past ineffectiveness. At thiitime, there is still no full time N.11.C inspectica sin.fr a_,algned to the Dars Besse site. The quality of the construction on this site has been entrusted solely to the companies in-volved in that construction and they are allowed to pass judgement on their own.
Serious doubt has been made as to whether or not this responsibility is too great to leave up to private industry operating with near autonomy when the safety of the public at large is at stake.
O D
D oa O
T 0
.I_,_a o
-s I