ML20154R210
| ML20154R210 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 05/02/1985 |
| From: | Mulley G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTOR & AUDITOR (OIA) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154R138 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8603280143 | |
| Download: ML20154R210 (2) | |
Text
V.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$ TON Office of Inspector and Auditor o....i,...o......
May 2. 1985 Report of Interview Brooks Griffin, Investigator, Region IV Field Office, Office of Investigations (01), NRC, was interviewed concerning his knowledge of an inspection of paint coatings at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (SES) by Joseph L. Lipinsky, an OB Cannon and Sons Company inspector.
During the interview, Griffin prcvided the following information:
On November 10, 1983, while Griffin was at Comanche Peak SES he was asked by the Region IV OI Field Office Director Richard K. Herr to interview Lipinsky to see if L1pinsky would agree to waive his previous 0I grant of confidentiality.
The reason for the requested waiver was that information concerning Lipinsky's inspection and subsequent memorandum had been published in a newspaper. article. Because the Lipinsky matter had become public, 01 could better respond to inquiries f Lipinsky's name could be used.
Griffin interviewed Lipinsky on November 10, 1983, after work, at his hotel.
Lipinsky agreed to waive his confidentiality, and he prepared his own written waiver which he mailed to 01 at a later date.
During the interview of Lipinsky, Griffin showed Lipinsky the 01 report of inquiry prepared by Region IV OI Investigator Donald D. Driskill to document the October 13, 1983, telephone conversation between Driskill and Lipinsky.
Lipinsky read the report and stated that it accurately documented what he told Driskill during the earlier interview.
During the interview, Lipinsky told Griffin that he had been asked to come to Comanche Peak to discuss a paint coatings contract.
When he arrived at the site he was called into a room where Donald Tolson, the Comanche Peak Quality Assurance Manager, read line by line the internal memorandum Lipinsky had written to his supervisor concerning his inspection of the Comanche Peak paint coatings program then discussed why Lipinsky was wrong. Because Lipinsky was not prepared for the interview, the only reply he had for Tolson was if what Tolson was saying by way of explanation was true then there was no problem.
Additionally, because Lipinsky had not talked to many paint coatings QC inspectors nor had he been allowed to review the Texas Utilities Generating Company's (TUGCO) records to any extent, he did not have sufficient background to refute Tolson.
Lipinsky's memo to his supervisor was essentially based o'n C
the interview of one TUGC0 quality assurance inspector who told Lipinsky what he thought the problem areas were.
Lipinsky did not intend for his memorandum to become public.
He had put his findings in writing to his supervisor at OB Cannon with the thought that OB Cannon could obtain a paint coatings contract at Comanche Peak SES.
Lipinsky was concerned that the fact his internal memo became public knowledge could adversely affect his future in the nuclear industry. Because he could be associated with a leak of internal information could possibly hamper his getting future contracts.
.~,,,,,...... Apri l 25, 1985 Region IV
,,,, = 85-10
, _ Ge ulley Jr., Investigator May 2, 1985 o,,,,,,,,,
wh =mai:,=:
== :m,:,:=7:a ' :m =m=== " " ""*~
io y 8603280143 860320 PDR ADOCK 05000445 A
During the interview, Lipinsky never indicated or alleged to Griffin that he j
had been harassed or intimidated.
Lipinsky stated he was under pressure because he was unprepared to respond to questions being asked during his meeting with TUGCO.
Griffin commented that the information obtained from Lipinsky was forwarded to Region IV for a technical review.
Additionally, the entire issue of the Lipinsky inspection and subsequent memorandum was reviewed by Region IV management and the Comanche Peak Atomic Safety Licensing Board. No one has referred an allegtcion of harassment or intimidation to 0! for investigation.
I
,