[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 178 (Thursday, September 12, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48149-48150]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23357]



[[Page 48149]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Notice of Issuance of Decisions and Orders During the Week of 
December 11 Through December 15, 1995

    During the week of December 11 through December 15, 1995, 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, DC 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: August 29, 1996.
Richard W. Dugan,
Acting Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

Appeals

Butler, Vines and Babb, P.L.L.C., 12/13/95, VFA-0098

    Butler, Vines and Babb, P.L.C. filed an Appeal from a determination 
issued to it on November 2, 1995 by the Freedom of Information Act 
Officer (FOIA Officer) of the Oak Ridge Operations Office of the 
Department of Energy (DOE). In that determination, the FOIA Officer 
stated that no responsive documents could be found pursuant to a 
Freedom of Information Act request. Specifically, the FOIA Officer 
stated that there were no documents relating to Armstrong Contracting 
and Supply's sale of asbestos-containing material for use at the Oak 
Ridge Reservation or pertaining to contracts governing performance by 
Armstrong Contracting and Supply at Oak Ridge from 1958 through 1975. 
In considering the Appeal, the DOE discovered that there is a 
reasonable possibility that responsive documents may exist at a 
repository in Atlanta and remanded the case for a search of that 
repository.

Linda P. Yeatts, 12/13/95, VFA-0101

    Linda P. Yeatts filed an Appeal of a determination issued by the 
DOE's Oak Ridge Operations Office under the Freedom of Information Act. 
The appellant contended that the Operations Office had not conducted an 
adequate search. After considering the matter, the DOE determined that 
the Operations Office had conducted a reasonable search for responsive 
documents. Accordingly, the Appeal was denied.

U.S. Ecology, 12/13/95, VFA-0099

    U.S. Ecology, Inc. filed an Appeal from a partial denial by the 
Richland Operations Office of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE/RL) of 
a Request for Information which the organization had submitted under 
the Freedom of Information Act (the FOIA). In considering the Appeal, 
the DOE found that one of the documents requested by U.S. Ecology 
related to an on-going procurement at DOE/RL and was properly labeled 
source selection information by DOE/RL. Because release of source 
selection information is prohibited by the Procurement Integrity Act, 
the document was properly withheld from disclosure to the requester 
under Exemption 3 of the FOIA. Accordingly, the Appeal was denied.

Personnel Security Hearings

Oak Ridge Operations Office, 12/13/95, VSA-0029

    An individual whose access authorization was suspended filed a 
request for review of a DOE Hearing Officer's recommendation against 
restoring the authorization. The individual's access authorization had 
been suspended by the Department of Energy's (DOE) Oak Ridge Operations 
Office (Oak Ridge) upon its receipt of derogatory information 
indicating that the individual had been or was a user of alcohol 
habitually to excess, or that he had been diagnosed by a board-
certified psychiatrist, or other licensed physician or a licensed 
clinical psychologist as alcohol dependent or as suffering from alcohol 
abuse. In his request for review, the individual claimed that he had 
been successfully rehabilitated from alcohol dependence. The Director 
of the Office of Hearings and Appeals found that: (i) The individual 
had not established that he had been sufficiently rehabilitated from 
alcohol dependence; and (ii) the nexus established between the behavior 
of the individual and the risk to the national security easily met the 
standard set forth by the federal courts. Accordingly, the Director 
found that the individual's access authorization should not be 
restored.

Rocky Flats Field Office, 12/13/95, VSA-0032

    An individual whose request for access authorization was denied 
filed a request for review of a DOE Hearing Officer's recommendation 
against granting the authorization. The individual's request for access 
authorization had been denied by the Department of Energy's (DOE) Rocky 
Flats Field Office upon its receipt of derogatory information 
indicating that the individual had an illness or mental condition of a 
nature which causes or may cause a significant defect in judgment or 
reliability.
    Upon review, the individual claimed that she did not have any 
illness or mental condition of the aforementioned type, and vigorously 
evaded any serious discussion of the derogatory information at the 
hearing. The Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals found that 
the individual had not established that she did not suffer from an 
illness or mental condition causing a significant defect in judgment or 
reliability, and that her request for access authorization should not 
be granted.

Request for Exception

F.L. Baker Dist., Inc., 12/13/95, VEE-0010

    F.L. Baker Dist., Inc. (Baker) 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 gross inequity or serious hardship. 
Therefore, the DOE denied Baker's Application for Exception.

Refund Applications

Perry Gas Processors, Inc./State of Washington, 12/13/95, RQ183-597

    The DOE issued a Decision and Order granting a second-stage refund 
application filed by the State of Washington. Washington requested that 
all remaining funds allocated to its Federally-Recognized Indian Tribes 
in the Perry Gas Processors special refund proceeding be used to fund 
the installation of a computer network. As of November 30, 1995, the 
allocation totaled $2,755 ($675 in principal and $2,080 in interest), 
but the allocation will be slightly higher at the time of disbursement. 
The network, to be used by the Western Washington Indian Employment and 
Training Program, will allow the Indian Tribes to track energy usage in 
tribal facilities. The DOE found that the computer network would 
produce timely restitutionary benefits to injured consumers of refined 
petroleum products. Accordingly, Washington's second-stage refund 
application was granted.

[[Page 48150]]

Marine Corps Exchange 0231 Marine Corps Exchange Service, 12/13/95, 
RF272-67557, RF272-70220

    The DOE issued a Decision and Order denying refunds to Marine Corps 
Exchange 0231 and Marine Corps Exchange Service, (collectively ``the 
Exchange'') in the crude oil overcharge refund proceeding conducted 
under 10 C.F.R. Part 205, Subpart V. The Exchange applied for a refund 
for petroleum products it sold through retail gasoline stations on 
Marine Corps bases. In denying a refund, the DOE found that the 
Exchange was retailer of these products and was required to submit a 
detailed demonstration of injury from crude oil overcharges. Instead of 
submitting such a demonstration, the Exchange argued that (1) It 
suffered reduced profits because of the overcharges; (2) its prices 
were set lower than other gasoline retail outlets; and (3) the Exchange 
is similar to a cooperative because the refund would be shared with 
local Marine Corps recreation and morale support funds. The DOE 
rejected all three arguments based on its findings in earlier cases. 
Since the Exchange failed to submit a demonstration of injury, the DOE 
denied its Application for Refund.

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 Reference Room of the Office of Hearings and Appeals.

Crude Oil Supple Ref Dist................................  RB272-00060                                  12/13/95
Crude Oil Supplemental Refund Distribution...............  RB272-00054                                  12/13/95
Crude Oil Supplemental Refund Distribution...............  RB272-00035                                  12/13/95
E & R Trucking Co., Inc. et al...........................  RF272-77434                                  12/13/95
Electric Energy, Inc.....................................  RF272-65878                                  12/13/95
Enron Corp./Geiger Bottled Gas Company...................  RF340-0170                                   12/13/95
Southern States Utilities, Inc...........................  RF340-0202                             ..............
Flasher Farmers Union Oil Co.............................  RR272-0199                                   12/13/95
George R. Brown Lease Service............................  RF272-78648                                  12/13/95
Phoenix Industries, Inc. et al...........................  RF272-92015                                  12/11/95
Ranger Fuel Corporation..................................  RF272-77226                                  12/13/95
Jewell Ridge Coal Corporation............................  RF272-77227                            ..............
Virginia Chemicals, Inc..................................  RF272-77387                                  12/13/95
                                                                                                                

Dismissals

    The following submissions were dismissed:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Name                               Case No.        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Birchwood Air Service........................  RF272-98027              
On Site Fuel Oil Co., Inc....................  RF300-16898              
State of Wyoming.............................  RF272-95217              
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 96-23357 Filed 9-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P