[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