[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 9, 2009)]
[Pages 65162-65164]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-29325]



[IA-09-025; NRC-2009-0548]

In the Matter of Daniel Culver; Order Prohibiting Involvement in 
NRC-Licensed Activities


    Daniel Culver (Mr. Culver) was previously employed as a maintenance 
supervisor at Exelon Generating Company, LLC's (Exelon or licensee) 
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (Peach Bottom or the facility). 
Exelon holds License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56 issued by the U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50 on 
October 25, 1973, and July 2, 1974, respectively. The license 
authorizes the operation of Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 in accordance 
with the conditions specified therein. The facility is located on the 
licensee's site in Delta, Pennsylvania. Mr. Culver worked for Exelon 
from June 11, 2007, to July 29, 2008.


    In a letter dated June 5, 2009, the NRC provided Mr. Culver the 
results of an investigation initiated by the NRC Office of 
Investigations (OI). The letter informed Mr. Culver that the NRC was 
considering escalated enforcement action against him for an apparent 
violation due to his failure to provide complete and accurate 
information to Exelon when completing a Personal History Questionnaire 
(PHQ) for unescorted access to Peach Bottom. Specifically, the NRC 
determined that Mr. Culver had deliberately provided incomplete and 
inaccurate information regarding: (1) The character of his military 
service, (2) his history of conduct in the military, and (3) the nature 
of his military discharge. The NRC offered Mr. Culver a choice to 
attend a Predecisional Enforcement Conference (PEC) or to request 
Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) to resolve any disagreement over: 
(1) whether a violation occurred, and (2) the appropriate enforcement 
action. At his request, a PEC was held between Mr. Culver and the NRC 
on July 17, 2009. During the PEC, Mr. Culver presented information 
about the reasons he failed to provide certain information on the PHQ 
and why he did not believe he acted deliberately:
    (1) The character of his military service--Mr. Culver listed his US 
Navy (USN) rank as Machinist Mate 1 (MM1) on the PHQ, however, the NRC 
investigation identified that he had served as a MM2 and had been 
demoted to a MM3 prior to his discharge, as a result of a non-judicial 
punishment (NJP) related to a misconduct incident. At the PEC, Mr. 
Culver stated that listing his naval rank as MM1 was a typographical 
error, and the result of attempting to complete the PHQ and other in-
processing paperwork quickly so as to begin working.
    (2) His history of conduct in the military--Mr. Culver was subject 
to an NJP during his USN service; however, the NRC investigation 
identified that he failed to report the NJP as required on the PHQ, 
even though the PHQ specifies that all arrests, including NJPs, must be 
listed. At the PEC, Mr. Culver stated that he had read on the PHQ that 
he was required to report all arrests, but had failed to read the 
subsequent explanation of the circumstances that constitute an arrest, 
including NJP. Therefore, he failed to recognize that the NJP had to be 
disclosed. He also stated that he had received counsel in the USN that 
he did not have to disclose the NJP unless he applied for a government 
    (3) The nature of his military discharge--Mr. Culver was released 
from the USN under a ``General Discharge, Under Honorable Conditions,'' 
however, the NRC investigation identified that he listed his discharge 
type on the PHQ as ``Honorable.'' At the PEC, Mr. Culver stated that, 
in his previous experience with applying for jobs, potential employers 
asked him to only state if he had received either an Honorable or a 
Dishonorable discharge because most did not understand the distinction 
with a General discharge. Consequently, on the Exelon PHQ, he listed 
his discharge as ``Honorable,'' which he felt to be the closest fit to 
    During the PEC, Mr. Culver also discussed certain information in 
the Application for Employment with Exelon that he submitted on April 
12, 2007. Specifically, Mr. Culver provided information regarding why 
he listed a certain individual as his supervisor on the employment 
application, even though that individual was not Mr. Culver's 
supervisor at the time he submitted his application.

[[Page 65163]]


    The NRC has concluded that Mr. Culver violated 10 CFR 50.5(a)(2), 
by deliberately submitting to a licensee (Exelon) information that he 
knew to be incomplete or inaccurate in some respect material to the 
NRC. The NRC concluded that Mr. Culver's actions were deliberate in 
that his stated reasons for providing the inaccurate information did 
not comport with the evidence gathered during the OI investigation:
    (1) The character of his military service--Mr. Culver stated that 
listing his naval rank as MM1 was a typographical error; however, he 
completed the PHQ by hand. Additionally, the NRC investigation 
identified that Mr. Culver's Exelon job application and submitted 
resume also did not accurately reflect his MM3 naval rank. At the PEC, 
Mr. Culver informed the NRC that he had subsequently provided Exelon a 
corrected copy of his resume. However, based on the evidence obtained 
during the OI investigation, the NRC concluded that Exelon was provided 
no such correction.
    (2) His history of misconduct in the military--Mr. Culver stated 
that he had failed to recognize that his NJP had to be disclosed, along 
with any arrests, on the PHQ. However, the PHQ provided an explanation 
of what constituted an arrest, which included military NJP. 
Additionally, the NRC considered that Mr. Culver had served in the USN 
for more than four years and, as such, should have been aware of the 
consequences of his NJP.
    (3) The nature of his military discharge--Mr. Culver stated that he 
had listed his discharge on the PHQ as ``Honorable'' because he had 
expected that Exelon, like other previous potential employers, was only 
interested in knowing if his discharge was ``Honorable'' or 
``Dishonorable.'' However, the NRC investigation identified that the 
PHQ requested that an applicant list the ``Type of Discharge'' and did 
not limit the options to only ``Honorable'' or ``Dishonorable.'' 
Additionally, the PHQ provided additional space for the applicant to 
provide additional information ``if TYPE of Discharge is anything BUT 
`Honorable.' ''
    Additionally, the NRC has concluded that Mr. Culver provided 
incomplete information on the employment application he submitted to 
Exelon on April 12, 2007. Specifically, Mr. Culver cited his USN 
service under ``Employment History,'' and listed a particular Leading 
Petty Officer as his supervisor. However, the NRC has determined that 
this individual only temporarily acted as Leading Petty Officer while 
Mr. Culver and he served together, and that the individual was not Mr. 
Culver's supervisor at the time of his application for employment with 
Exelon. Further, when Exelon's background investigation contractor 
contacted the individual to verify Mr. Culver's service, the individual 
stated that Mr. Culver was eligible for re-enlistment and did not have 
a history of disciplinary action. However, Mr. Culver had received the 
NJP and, as a result, was not eligible to re-enlist. The NRC concludes 
that Mr. Culver provided incomplete information in his application when 
he failed to identify his current supervisor and instead listed as his 
supervisor an individual under whom he served on only an interim basis. 
This individual did not state that he was aware Mr. Culver had received 
disciplinary action that rendered him ineligible to re-enlist in the 
USN, information that should have been known to any individual in the 
USN who was actually supervising Mr. Culver.
    10 CFR 73.56(b)(1) requires, in part, that licensees establish and 
maintain an access authorization program granting individuals 
unescorted access to protected and vital areas with the objective of 
providing high assurance that individuals granted unescorted access are 
trustworthy and reliable. Mr. Culver's deliberate submittal of 
incomplete and inaccurate information regarding his military service 
impacted Exelon's ability to determine his suitability for unescorted 
access to Peach Bottom.
    As a result, I do not have the necessary assurance that Mr. Culver, 
should he engage in NRC-licensed activities under any other NRC 
license, would perform NRC-licensed activities safely and in accordance 
with NRC requirements. Therefore, the public health, safety, and 
interest require that Mr. Culver be prohibited from any involvement in 
NRC-licensed activities for a period of three years from the date of 
this Order.


    Accordingly, pursuant to sections 103, 161b, 161i, 182 and 186 of 
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's 
regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, 10 CFR 30.10, and 10 CFR 150.20, it is 
hereby ordered that:
    1. Daniel Culver is prohibited for three years from the date of 
this Order from engaging in activities licensed by the NRC. Activities 
licensed by the NRC are those activities licensees are authorized to 
conduct pursuant to a specific or general license issued by the NRC, 
including, but not limited to, those activities of Agreement State 
licensees conducted pursuant to the authority granted by 10 CFR 150.20.
    2. If Daniel Culver is currently involved with another licensee in 
NRC-licensed activities, he must immediately cease those activities, 
and inform the NRC of the name, address, and telephone number of the 
employer, and provide a copy of this order to the employer.
    3. Daniel Culver shall, within 20 days following acceptance of his 
first employment offer involving NRC-licensed activities or his 
becoming involved in NRC-licensed activities, as defined in Paragraph 
IV.1 above, provide notice to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, of the name, 
address, and telephone number of the employer or the entity where he 
is, or will be, involved in the NRC-licensed activities.
    The Director, OE, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the 
above conditions upon demonstration by Mr. Culver of good cause.


    In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Mr. Culver must, and any other 
person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this 
Order within 20 days of its issuance. In addition, Mr. Culver and any 
other person adversely affected by this Order may request a hearing on 
this Order within 20 days of its publication in the Federal Register. 
Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the 
time to answer or request a hearing. A request for extension of time 
must be directed to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, and include a statement of good cause for the 
    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a 
request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or 
other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a 
request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by 
interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), 
must be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, (72 FR 49139, 
Aug. 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit 
and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some 
cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not 
submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in

[[Page 65164]]

accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 
ten (10) days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should 
contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at 
[email protected], or by telephone at (301) 415-1677, to request 
(1) a digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its 
counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the 
E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and 
(2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a 
request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the 
participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-
issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the 
Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this 
proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic 
    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html. System requirements for accessing 
the E-Submittal server are detailed in NRC's ``Guidance for Electronic 
Submission,'' which is available on the agency's public Web site at 
http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may 
attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should 
note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software, 
and the NRC Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance in using 
unlisted software.
    If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC 
in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the 
document using the NRC's on-line, web-based submission form. In order 
to serve documents through EIE, users will be required to install a web 
browser plug-in from the NRC Web site. Further information on the web-
based submission form, including the installation of the web browser 
plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.
    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a 
docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for 
hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in 
Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance 
available on the NRC public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the 
documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be 
timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system 
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of 
a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends 
the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
E-Filing system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access 
to the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others 
who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to 
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the 
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and 
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for 
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition 
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document 
via the E-Filing system.
    A person filing electronically using the agency's adjudicatory E-
Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta-System 
Help Desk through the ``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site 
at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by e-mail at 
[email protected], or by a toll-free call at (866) 672-7640. The 
NRC Meta-System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., 
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.
    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not 
submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth 
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 
20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants 
filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the 
document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by 
first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, 
express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the 
document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having 
granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a 
participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer 
subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from 
use of E-Filing no longer exists.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
http://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp, unless excluded pursuant 
to an order of the Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants 
are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as 
social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their 
filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of 
such information. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited 
excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would 
constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to 
include copyrighted materials in their submission.
    If a person other than Mr. Culver 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 2.309(d).
    If a hearing is requested by Mr. Culver or a person whose interest 
is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating 
the time and place of any hearings. If a hearing is held, the issue to 
be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be 
sustained. 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's publication in the Federal Register without 
further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a 
hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section IV shall 
be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been 

    Dated this 1st day of December 2009.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Roy P. Zimmerman,
Director, Office of Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E9-29325 Filed 12-8-09; 8:45 am]