United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406

Fax: 610/337-5241

Internet: dps@nrc.gov or nas@nrc.gov

I-99-64 August 3, 1999

Contact: Diane Screnci (610/337-5330) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan (610/337-5331)

NRC PROPOSES $55,000 FINE FOR OPERATOR OF SEABROOK PLANT

FOR VIOLATION INVOLVING DISCRIMINATION; CONTRACTOR, FOREMAN CITED

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a

$55,000 fine against the operator of the Seabrook nuclear power

plant for discrimination involving an electrician who raised

safety concerns at the Seabrook, N.H., facility. Discrimination

against workers raising safety concerns is a violation of NRC

requirements.

Although the discriminatory action was taken by an

acting supervisor working for a contracting firm, plant operator

North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation (NAESCo), as the holder

of the NRC operating license, is responsible for ensuring

employees and contractors adhere to NRC requirements. Therefore,

NAESCo is the object of the proposed civil penalty.

The NRC also has cited the contracting firm, Williams

Power Company (WPC), for discriminating against the worker who

raised safety concerns. In addition, the acting supervisor, a

Williams Power foreman, was cited for “engaging in deliberate

misconduct” that caused NAESCo to be in violation of NRC

requirements by discriminating against the electrician.

On January 7, 1998, the electrician, who was employed by

Williams Power, raised a concern regarding a wiring discrepancy

in the control building air-conditioning system’s control panel.

Specifically, the electrician identified two electrical

conductors in the panel which terminated in a configuration

opposite that shown in applicable design documents. The worker

initially told his foreman of the concern. Later the same day,
he brought it to the attention of a NAESCo quality control (QC)

inspector.

Subsequently, on January 16, 1998, the foreman told the

electrician he had been laid off.

An investigation by the NRC’s Office of Investigations

was launched on January 29, 1998. The NRC gathered additional

information during a predecisional enforcement conference held

this past June 2nd.

While legitimate reasons supporting the layoff may

exist, the NRC staff determined the action was at least partially

motivated by the worker raising a safety concern, which is

considered a protected activity. Specifically, the agency has

concluded that the foreman selected the electrician for furlough,

at least in part, “in retaliation for the manner in which he

raised the wiring discrepancy, i.e., by bringing it to the

attention of the QC inspector,” NRC Region I Administrator Hubert

J. Miller wrote to NAESCo in a letter notifying it of the

enforcement action.

NRC staff learned that NAESCo took several proactive

steps in response to the layoff, including recommending that

Williams Power reinstate the electrician shortly after he lost

his job, which the company did; informing supervisory and craft

employees about the event; improving the quality of documentation

supporting personnel actions; and reinforcing its commitment to a

safety-conscious work environment to the entire workforce at

Seabrook. If not for the company’s corrective actions, the

penalty would have been larger.

The utility, Williams Power and the foreman have 30 days

to contest this enforcement action.

#