New York Nuclear Power Plant Avoids Commission Citation for Background Check Mishap

By Michael Klazema on 12/6/2013

The three-unit Indian Point nuclear power plant based in Buchanan, New York narrowly avoided a run-in with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission over a discrepancy between an employee’s company file and their background check. According to a report published recently by the Hudson Valley Reporter, the Indian Point power plant requires workers to disclose their full law-related personal history. While the EEOC dictates that employers can only turn away applicants on the basis of actual criminal convictions, it appears that the Indian Point power plant has also been taking the arrest histories of its employees into account in making some company decisions.

It isn’t clear whether or not the power plant maintains a policy of rejecting employees on the basis of an arrest record. However, the Hudson Valley Reporter did make it seem as if the Indian Point power plant—and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as a whole—views arrests as part of an employee’s criminal history.

The background check discrepancy took place when three Indian Point employees were applying for clearance to enter the James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Station. The Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Station is another New York power plant, located in the town of Scriba. Normally, Indian Point employees would have no reason to enter that particular plant, but after an outage took place at Fitzpatrick last year, it required additional support staff to rectify the problem. Indian Point received the distress call, and its employees sprang into action to help.

To gain clearance into the power plant, the Indian Point workers had to disclose the entirety of their criminal-related history, including arrests, on an authorization form. That information was then to be confirmed via background check in order to determine whether or not the Nuclear Regulatory Commission could authorize the Indian Point support staff as “trustworthy” and “reliable” enough to earn “unescorted access” to nuclear facilities.

This week, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission found that the authorization forms had been falsified by Indian Point’s security coordinator. As it turns out, the owner of the Indian Point power plant caught the falsification last year, finding that one of the support staff workers had been authorized for duty at the Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Station despite the fact that his or her criminal history report did not quite match up with a corresponding FBI background check.

That particular employee had an arrest they had failed to report on the authorization papers, which came up on an FBI criminal history check. While it appears that the power plant does observe EEOC guidelines, and wouldn’t have rejected the employee or limited his or her work due to the one arrest instance, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission does dictate that the plant’s security coordinator hold follow-up meetings with any employees whose background checks show discrepancies with their paperwork. The follow-up meeting is meant to clear up any questions of reliability, after which the security coordinator can authorize the employee.

However, that follow-up meeting never took place in this case, meaning that the real offense is against the security coordinator. Since the owner of Indian Point plant realized their security coordinator’s offense last year—and fired him for falsifying authorization documents—the power plant won’t face any fines or citations from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. No reports indicate what happened to the employee with the arrest history, however, begging the question of how the EEOC might view the practices of the Indian Power Plant and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.


Tag Cloud
Recent Posts

Latest News

  • March 22 Countrywide, states and local municipalities have committed to ban the box legislation, seeking to equalize opportunities in the job market for those with criminal histories.
  • March 22

    Thinking about becoming a firefighter? Here are some of the background check requirements you might face.

  • March 20

    Four Department of Commerce employees are out after their background checks resulted in security clearance denials. All four had worked high-ranking positions for months despite incomplete background checks.

  • March 15 As more states legalize the recreational use of cannabis, they contend with the emergence of new industries surrounding marijuana cultivation and production. 
  • March 14 In most cases, it is easy to determine where an issue might show up on a pre-employment background check. Citations for traffic violations or reckless driving charges will appear on a motor vehicle record check. Verdicts in a civil court case will show on a civil court background check. And criminal convictions—from petty theft to violent felonies—show up on criminal background checks.
  • March 13 How many years back do employment background checks go? This question can have multiple different answers depending on the situation.
  • March 13 A new bill in Florida would require landlords of apartment complexes to present tenants with verifications of employee background checks to give them peace of mind the people working in and around their homes are trustworthy.
  • March 08 Police officers working with the University of Texas at Arlington recently arrested a man who had avoided police capture on a warrant out of Oregon for nearly two decades. The man, whose real name is Daniel Charles Ray Hanson, spent those 17 years using a variety of fake names and identification documents to move around the country, often engaging with educational institutions under false pretenses. Police say Hanson regularly went by at least three different aliases. He sports a rap sheet that stretches back to an arson conviction in 1995. 
  • March 07

    The Future of EEOC Guidance in Texas Is Up in the Air

    The EEOC issued guidance in 2012 warning employers about the dangers of enforcing categorical policies to bar candidates with criminal histories. That guidance is not enforceable in Texas thanks to a recent court ruling.

  • March 05 Vermont is the latest state to restrict employers’ access to and use of social media accounts of employees and applicants.