[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 42 (Friday, March 1, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8080-8081]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4790]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[IA 96-009]
Bolton, Eugene; Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed
Activities (Effective Immediately)
I
Eugene Bolton (Mr. Bolton) was employed as a Senior Nuclear
Production Technician at the New York Power Authority (NYPA)
(Licensee). Licensee is the holder of License No. DPR-64 issued by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR
Part 50. The license authorizes the operation of Indian Point 3
(facility) in accordance with the conditions specified therein. The
facility is located on the Licensee's site in Buchanan, New York.
II
On March 10, 1993, the NRC, Region I, received information from
NYPA that Mr. Bolton had attempted to substitute a ``cold'' [surrogate]
urine sample during random Fitness-for-Duty (FFD) testing required by
NRC regulations, that a subsequent witnessed sample provided by Mr.
Bolton had tested positive for marijuana, that Mr. Bolton had been
referred to the Employee Assistance Program, and his authorization for
access to the Indian Point 3 facility had been suspended. In response
to this information, NRC initiated an investigation by the Office of
Investigations (OI) of this matter. The investigation established that:
1. When called for a FFD test on March 9, 1993, Mr. Bolton
knowingly submitted a surrogate urine sample which he had collected on
a previous date and maintained for that purpose.
2. Mr. Bolton admitted that he provided surrogate urine samples in
the past when selected for FFD testing in order to avoid detection of
the presence of illegal substances.
On October 6, 1995, a Demand for Information (DFI) was issued to
Mr. Bolton based on the findings of the OI investigation. The DFI
indicated that Mr. Bolton had engaged in deliberate misconduct in
violation of 10 CFR 50.5(a)(2), in that he provided to the facility
licensee information which he knew to be inaccurate in some respect
material to the NRC. Mr. Bolton's actions also constituted a violation
of 10 CFR 50.5(a)(1) in that he deliberately provided a urine sample
that he knew to be inaccurate and which, but for detection, would have
caused the Licensee to be in violation of 10 CFR 50.9, ``Completeness
and accuracy of information.''
The DFI requested that Mr. Bolton provide a response, within 30
days from the date of the DFI, that would: (A) Identify whether he
currently is employed by any company subject to NRC regulation, and if
so, describe in what capacity; and (B) Describe why the NRC should have
confidence that Mr. Bolton will meet NRC requirements to provide
complete and accurate information to the NRC and its licensees in the
future.
The DFI further stated that, if Mr. Bolton did not respond as
specified, the NRC would proceed on the basis of available information
and could take other actions as necessary to ensure compliance with
regulatory requirements. Although a response to the DFI was due on
November 6, 1995, as of the date of this Order, Mr. Bolton has not
responded.
III
Based on the above, it appears that Mr. Bolton, an employee of the
Licensee at the time of the incident, engaged in deliberate misconduct
in violation of 10 CFR 50.5(a)(2), in that he submitted to the Licensee
information which he knew to be inaccurate in some respect material to
the NRC, and 10 CFR 50.5(a)(1), in that he deliberately provided a
urine sample that he knew to be inaccurate and which, but for
detection, would have caused the facility licensee to be in violation
of 10 CFR 50.9.
The NRC must be able to rely on its Licensees and their employees
to comply with NRC requirements, including the requirement to provide
information and maintain records that
[[Page 8081]]
are complete and accurate in all material respects. Mr. Bolton's
actions in using illegal drugs and attempting to circumvent FFD
requirements have raised serious doubt as to whether he can be relied
upon to comply with NRC requirements and to provide complete and
accurate information to the NRC and its Licensees. Although a DFI was
issued on October 6, 1995, which provided Mr. Bolton an opportunity to
describe why the NRC should have confidence that he will meet NRC
requirements to provide complete and accurate information to the NRC
and its Licensees in the future, Mr. Bolton has not responded to the
DFI.
Consequently, I lack the requisite reasonable assurance that: (1)
Mr. Bolton will conduct any NRC-licensed activities in compliance with
the Commission's requirements; and (2) that the health and safety of
the public will be protected with Mr. Bolton granted unescorted access
to NRC-licensed facilities at this time. Therefore, I find that the
public health, safety, and interest require that Mr. Bolton be
prohibited from seeking unescorted access to NRC-licensed facilities
for five years from the date of his termination of unescorted access by
NYPA on March 9, 1993. Furthermore, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find
that the significance of the misconduct described above is such that
the public health, safety, and interest require that this Order be
immediately effective.
IV
Accordingly, pursuant to sections 103, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182, and
186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's
regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR 50.5, it is hereby ordered,
effective immediately, that:
Mr. Bolton is prohibited for five years from the date of his
termination of unescorted access by NYPA on March 9, 1993, from seeking
unescorted access to facilities licensed by the NRC.
The Director, OE, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the
above conditions upon demonstration by Mr. Bolton of good cause.
V
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Mr. Bolton must, and any other
person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this
Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within 20 days of the
date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be
given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for
extension of time must be made in writing to the Director, Office of
Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555,
and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may
consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the
answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically
admit or deny each allegation or charge made in this Order and shall
set forth the matters of fact and law on which Mr. Bolton or other
person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order
should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall
be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Attn: Chief, Docketing and Service Section, Washington, DC 20555.
Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant
General Counsel for Hearings and Enforcement at the same address, to
the Regional Administrator, NRC Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of
Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406, and to Mr. Bolton if the answer or hearing
request is by a person other than Mr. Bolton. If a person other than
Mr. Bolton requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with
particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by
this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d).
If a hearing is requested by Mr. Bolton or a person whose interest
is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating
the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to
be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be
sustained.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), Mr. Bolton, or any other person
adversely affected by this Order, may, in addition to demanding a
hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding
officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the
ground that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness,
is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded
allegations, or error.
In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of
an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions
specified in Section IV above shall be final 20 days from the date of
this Order without further order or proceedings. An answer or a request
for hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this order.
Dated: February 23, 1996.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James L. Milhoan,
Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Regional
Operations, and Research.
[FR Doc. 96-4790 Filed 2-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
