[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 24, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50015-50017]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24392]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Notice of Issuance of Decisions and Orders From the Week of May
20 Through May 24, 1996
During the week of May 20 through May 24, 1996, the decisions and
orders summarized below were issued with respect to appeals,
applications, petitions, or other requests filed with the Office of
Hearings and Appeals of the Department of Energy. The following summary
also contains a list of submissions that were dismissed by the Office
of Hearings and Appeals.
Copies of the full text of these decisions and orders are available
in the Public Reference Room of the Office of Hearings and Appeals,
Room 1E-234, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, D.C. 20585-0107, Monday through Friday, between the hours
of 1:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m., except federal holidays. They are also
available in Energy Management: Federal Energy Guidelines, a
commercially published loose leaf reporter system. Some decisions and
orders are available on the Office of Hearings and Appeals World Wide
Web site at http://www.oha.doe.gov.
Dated: September 16, 1996.
George B. Breznay,
Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.
Decision List No. 973
Appeals
Arline Jolles Lotman, 5/23/96, VFA-0156
Arline Jolles Lotman (Lotman) filed an Appeal from a determination
issued to her by the DOE's Albuquerque Operations Office (AO). In her
Appeal, Lotman asserted that the AO did not conduct an adequate search
for radiation exposure records she had requested pursuant to the FOIA.
The DOE determined that the AO had conducted an adequate search for
records and Lotman's Appeal was denied.
Chey Temple, 5/20/96, VFA-0154
Chey Temple filed an Appeal from a denial by the DOE's Richland
Operations Office (DOE/RL) of a Request for Information which he had
submitted under the Privacy Act. In considering the Appeal, the DOE
found that the document requested, his Personnel Security file,
contained some information that did not identify the source of the
material and thus was not exempt from withholding under Exemption 6 of
the FOIA. The Appeal was remanded to DOE/RL for release for all non-
identifying portions of the requested material or a new determination
adequately justifying continued non-disclosure of this information.
Accordingly, the Appeal was granted in part and denied in part.
Industrial Constructors Corporation, 5/23/96, VFA-0144
Industrial Constructors Corporation (ICC) filed an Appeal from a
determination issued to it by the DOE's Albuquerque Operations Office
(AO). In its Appeal, ICC asserted that the AO improperly withheld
portions of documents which it had received pursuant to the FOIA. The
DOE determined that while most of the materials had been properly
withheld under Exemption 4 of the FOIA, other portions had been
improperly withheld under that exemption. Consequently the DOE granted
ICC's Appeal in part and remanded this matter to the AO to release
portions of the improperly withheld materials or to issue a new
determination regarding those materials.
Personnel Security Hearings
Albuquerque Operations Office, 5/23/96; VSO-0077
A Hearing Officer issued an Opinion regarding the eligibility of an
individual to maintain an access authorization under the provisions of
10 CFR Part 710. The DOE Personnel Security Division alleged that the
individual ``[t]rafficked in, sold, transferred, possessed, used, or
experimented with a drug or other substance listed in the Schedule of
Controlled Substances established pursuant to Section 202 of the
Controlled Substances Act of 1970'' and ``[e]ngaged in * * * unusual
conduct or
[[Page 50016]]
is subject to circumstances which tend to show that the individual is
not honest, reliable, or trustworthy; or which furnishes reason to
believe that the individual may be subject to pressure, coercion,
exploitation, or duress which may cause the individual to act contrary
to the best interests of the national security.'' On April 2, 1996, the
parties convened for an evidentiary hearing in which eight witnesses
testified. After carefully examining the record of the proceeding, the
Hearing Officer determined that the individual used an illegal drug and
engaged in conduct demonstrating that he is not honest, reliable or
trustworthy within the meaning of 10 CFR Sec. 710.8(k) and 710.8(l).
Accordingly, the Hearing Officer recommended that the individual's
access authorization not be restored.
Nevada Operations Office, 5/23/96, VSA-0049
An individual whose access authorization was suspended filed a
Request for Review of a DOE Hearing Officer's recommendation against
restoration of the access authorization. The individual's access
authorization was suspended by the DOE's Albuquerque Operations Office
upon its receipt of derogatory information indicating that the
individual had made a false statement on a report given to the DOE
concerning several arrests for driving under the influence of alcohol
(DUI). The DOE also claimed that the individual suffered from alcohol
dependence. The Hearing Officer found that the individual did make a
false statement in the report, but that he had been rehabilitated from
alcohol dependence. In a request for review, the individual submitted
some additional documentary information regarding whether he had made a
false statement in connection with the reporting of the DUI. The Office
of Safeguards and Security filed a response objecting to the Hearing
Officer's finding that the individual was rehabilitated. In his
Opinion, the Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals found that
the documentary evidence submitted by the individual did not establish
that the individual had not made a false report to the DOE. The
Director further found that in making the determination that the
individual was rehabilitated from alcohol dependence, the Hearing
Officer had failed to take into account expert testimony to the effect
that the period of abstinence by the individual was too short to make
any long term predictions or prognosis regarding risk of relapse.
However, the Director stated that a new finding on this issue was not
necessary since he would not in any event recommend that the individual
access authorization be restored.
Request for Exception
Heller & Sons, Inc., 5/23/96, VEE-0016
Heller & Sons, Inc. filed an Application for Exception from the
Energy Information Administration (EIA) requirement that it file Form
EIA-782B, the ``Resellers'/Retailers' Monthly Petroleum Product Sales
Report.'' In considering this request, the DOE found that the firm was
not suffering any gross inequity or serious hardship. Accordingly, the
DOE issued a Decision and Order determining that the exception request
be denied.
Refund Applications
Parker Refrigerated Service, Inc., 5/21/96, RF272-97316
The DOE issued a Decision and Order granting an Application for
Refund filed on behalf of Parker Refrigerated Service, Inc., by Wilson
Keller & Associates, in the Subpart V crude oil refund proceeding. The
DOE determined that because the firm was in bankruptcy, the refund
should be sent to the Trustee of the bankruptcy proceeding. The refund
granted to Parker was $18,446.
Tesoro Petroleum Corporation/Texaco Inc., et al. , 5/23/96, RF326-74,
et al.
Eight firms sought refunds in the Tesoro Petroleum Corporation
special refund proceeding. Each of these eight firms was a small
refiner that had received ``Delta/Beacon'' exception relief from the
Oil Entitlements Program, or was affiliated with such a small refiner.
The DOE noted that Delta/Beacon exception relief generally operated to
insulate the recipient from the effects of any overcharges. As a
result, firms would generally not be entitled to refunds for periods in
which they received exception relief. However, the DOE found that it
would impose an inordinate burden on the agency to determine the effect
of exception relief upon an applicant's right to a refund where the
refund sought was small. Consequently, for purposes of administrative
efficiency, the DOE found that it would not consider the effect of
exception relief where, as here, the applicants were relying upon a
presumption of injury. The DOE stated that it would continue to
consider the receipt of exception relief when evaluating applications
that abandon the presumption of injury to seek a larger refund.
Accordingly, the refund applications were approved.
The 341 Tract Unit of the Citronelle Field/Consumers Power Company,
Inc., 5/23/96, RF345-2
The DOE issued a Decision and Order, granting a refund application
filed by Consumers Power Company in The 341 Tract Unit of the
Citronelle Field refund proceeding. The DOE determined that the
applicant's refund should be based on the proportionate impact of the
Citronelle exception relief on the applicant's November 1980
entitlements position. The DOE applied that standard and determined
that the applicant should receive a refund of $68,650. Accordingly, the
application was granted in part.
The 341 Tract Unit of the Citronelle Field/Pennzoil Products Company,
et al., 5/23/96, RF345-44 et al.
The DOE issued a Supplemental Order disbursing $15,905 to Pennzoil
Products Company from an escrow account in connection with The 341
Tract Unit of the Citronelle Field. Pennzoil Products Company received
a refund as a non-litigant refiner. The disbursement was made pursuant
to a Settlement Agreement that was approved by the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas on December 6, 1995.
The 341 Tract Unit of the Citronelle Field/Texas City Refining, Inc. et
al., 5/23/96, RF345-1, et al.
The DOE issued a Supplemental Order disbursing $196,906 from an
escrow account in connection with The 341 Tract Unit of the Citronelle
Field. The disbursements were made pursuant to a Settlement Agreement
that was approved by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas on December 6, 1995.
Wheless Drilling Company, 5/21/96, RR272-138
The DOE issued a Decision and Order granting a Motion for
Reconsideration filed by Wheless Drilling Company in the Subpart V
crude oil refund proceeding. Wheless had failed to submit documents
verifying its gallonage claim in its original application, and it was
dismissed. However, since Wheless has submitted those documents and
good cause for its delay in submitting this material, it was granted a
refund. The refund granted to Wheless in this Decision was $42,277.
Refund Applications
The Office of Hearings and Appeals issued the following Decisions
and Orders concerning refund applications, which are not summarized.
Copies of the full texts of the Decisions and Orders are available in
the Public
[[Page 50017]]
Reference Room of the Office of Hearings and Appeals.
ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY/M.J. ROEDER DISTRIB., INC. ET RF304-14142 05/23/96
AL.
CHAMPAIGN LANDMARK, INC.................................. RF272-97121 05/23/96
CHICO DAIRY COMPANY...................................... RF272-97257 05/20/96
CITRONELLE/NATIONAL COOPERATIVE REFINERY ASSOC. ET AL.... RF345-33 05/23/96
FARMERS COOPERATIVE ELEVATOR ET AL....................... RF272-94143 05/23/96
FIRST NATIONAL SUPERMARKETS, INC......................... RF272-98808 05/21/96
ROADRUNNER TRUCKING, INC................................. RF272-98942 ..............
FRED A. DENENKAMP ET AL.................................. RK272-2470 05/20/96
GENERAL FREIGHT SYSTEMS.................................. RF272-90239 05/21/96
VERMONT MARBLE CO........................................ RF272-98189 ..............
GULF OIL CORPORATION/BLACK-PURSLEY HEATING OIL CO. ET AL. RF300-15231 05/23/96
GULF OIL CORPORATION/C.M. BULLOCK GULF................... RR300-0271 05/20/96
GULF OIL CORPORATION/LOESCH'S DOWNTOWN GULF.............. RF300-21833 05/20/96
GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY............................ RK272-03557 05/21/96
HUNTSVILLE HOSPITAL ET AL................................ RK272-00830 05/20/96
INTERNATIONAL DETECTIVE SERVICE ET AL.................... RF272-85643 05/23/96
Dismissals
The following submissions were dismissed:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name Case No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY................ RF272-74601
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-24392 Filed 9-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P