[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 180 (Monday, September 16, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48679-48680]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23630]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Hearings and Appeals
Notice of Issuance of Decisions and Orders During the Week of
November 20 Through November 24, 1995
During the week of November 20 through November 24, 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 30, 1996.
Richard W. Dugan,
Acting Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.
Personnel Security Hearings
Oakland Operations Office, 11/22/95, VSO-0039
An Office of Hearings and Appeals Hearing Officer issued an opinion
concerning the continued eligibility of an individual for access
authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710, ``Criteria and Procedures for
Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter or Special
Nuclear Material.'' After holding a hearing and carefully considering
all the evidence in the record in view of the standards set forth in
Part 710, the Hearing Officer found that the individual had not
intentionally overcharged the government for lodging expenses in
connection with his official travel to Washington, DC from the Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). Rather, the Hearing Officer found
that while the individual may not have complied with the LLNL travel
regulations in his vouchering of the Washington apartment, his actions
were the result of mistake or misunderstanding. In addition, the
individual had approval from his supervisor to recover the full cost of
the apartment even though it was not used for some portions of most
months. Thus, the Hearing Officer concluded that the individual had not
``[e]ngaged in unusual conduct * * * which tend to show that the
individual is not honest, reliable or trustworthy, or * * * may be
subject to pressure, coercion or duress which may cause the individual
to act contrary to the best interest of the national security.'' 10
C.F.R. Sec. 710.8(l). In addition, the Hearing Officer could not find
that the individual had forged or altered documents in support of his
travel claims because the DOE Counsel was unable to produce the
originals of those documents at the hearing. However, the Hearing
Officer noted that such information that was in the record on the
subject strongly indicated that the individual had not altered or
forged documents. Finally, the Hearing Officer found that the
individual had not knowingly submitted invalid documents in support of
his lodging costs. Thus, the Hearing Officer again found that the
individual's actions were not contrary to the standard of 10 C.F.R.
Sec. 710.8(l). Accordingly, the Hearing Officer found that restoration
of the access authorization would not be contrary to the national
interest or endanger the common defense and security and recommended
restoration of the access authorization.
Richland Operations Office, 11/20/95, VSO-0037
An OHA Hearing Officer issued an opinion on a request for review
from an individual employed by a Hanford contractor whose DOE security
clearance had been suspended. The individual's ``Q'' access
authorization was suspended after Richland security officials concluded
that she had provided false or misleading information to the DOE about
her arrest for driving while intoxicated (DWI) in
[[Page 48680]]
September 1993. At the hearing which was held in this case, the
individual conceded that she failed to report her September 1993 DWI
arrest to DOE security officials within the time required. However, the
individual submitted evidence of unusual circumstances, which she
contended mitigated the seriousness of her delay in reporting the
arrest to Richland security personnel. She also showed that she had
remembered to report it before DOE learned about the arrest from
another source. In addition, the individual introduced evidence which
showed that she had not given DOE security officials a false or
misleading account of her arrest, even though her version of events
differed in some minor respects from that given in the arresting police
officer's report. After considering the record in this case, the
Hearing Officer concluded that the individual had met her burden of
coming forward with evidence to show that restoring her access
authorization would not endanger the common defense and security and
would be clearly consistent with the national interest. Accordingly,
the Hearing Officer recommended that the individual's access
authorization should be restored.
Richland Operations Office, 11/22/95, VSO-0044
A Hearing Officer issued an Opinion regarding the eligibility of an
individual to maintain a level ``L'' access authorization under the
provisions of 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The DOE Personnel Security Division
alleged that the individual ``[d]eliberately misrepresented, falsified,
or omitted significant information'' from a Personnel Security
Questionnaire, a Questionnaire for Sensitive Positions and a Personnel
Security Interview. Furthermore, the DOE Personnel Security Division
alleged that the individual ``[e]ngaged in * * * unusual conduct or 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 September 20,
1995, an evidentiary hearing was convened at which twelve witnesses
testified. After carefully examining the record of the proceeding, the
Hearing Officer determined that the individual deliberately withheld
relevant information, or provided false information to the DOE
repeatedly over the course of 16 years. Furthermore, the Hearing
Officer found that several recent and significant incidents also raised
serious doubts concerning the individual's honesty and reliability.
Accordingly, the Hearing Officer recommended that the individual's
access authorization not be restored.
Refund Applications
Aluminum Company of America, 11/22/95, RR272-95
The Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa) applied for a crude oil
overcharge refund based on purchases of 181,799,790 gallons of green
petroleum coke from crude oil refineries and 104,157,498 gallons of
calcined petroleum coke. The DOE denied Alcoa's request for refunds of
calcined petroleum coke purchased from crude oil refiners. The DOE
found that the refiners who calcined green petroleum coke were the end-
users of the green petroleum coke. The DOE therefore concluded that
Alcoa was not injured by its purchases of calcined petroleum coke from
crude oil refiners. However, the DOE granted the firm's request for a
refund based on its purchases of green petroleum coke, finding that
this was an eligible product because Alcoa purchased this coke from
crude oil refineries. Accordingly, the firm was granted a refund of
$290,880 based on those purchases.
Amerbelle Corporation, 11/22/95, RR272-00194
The DOE issued a Decision and Order concerning a Motion for
Reconsideration submitted in the Subpart V crude oil refund proceeding
by the Amerbelle Corporation. Amerbelle Corporation claimed that it did
not receive the check issued to it in the Crude Oil Supplemental Refund
Distribution 18 DOE para. 85,878 (1989). Amerbelle requested that the
DOE reissue the check. Because the period during which Treasury
maintains records and is able to trace the check had expired, we could
not determine whether the check was cashed. Without a factual basis to
believe that a check was not cashed, the DOE has determined that it
will not reissue a check. Accordingly, the DOE denied Amerbelle's
Motion for Reconsideration.
State Escrow Distribution, 11/22/95, RF302-17
The Office of Hearings and Appeals ordered the DOE's Office of the
Controller to distribute $15,400,000 to the State Governments. The use
of the funds by the States is governed by the Stripper Well Settlement
Agreement.
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. REFUND DIST............................ RB272-58 11/20/95
EMPIRE MENHADEN COMPANY, INC. ET AL...................... RF272-77233 11/20/95
HAWKS NURSERY CO. ET AL.................................. RK272-1305 11/20/95
JUNE STEPHENITCH ET AL................................... RK272-594 11/20/95
ROY FIGI ET AL........................................... RK272-1432 11/20/95
SOUTH TOMS RIVER BOROUGH HALL ET AL...................... RK272-2465 11/20/95
SUNRISE TRANSPORTATION, INC.............................. RF272-83153 11/22/95
TRIMOUNT BITUMINOUS PRODUCTS............................. RF272-77605 11/20/95
WAYNE WARD ET AL......................................... RK272-42 11/20/95
WEATHERBEE FARMS, INC. ET AL............................. RK272-76 11/20/95
Dismissals
The following submissions were dismissed:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name Case No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MINUTEMAN AVIATION........................... RF272-98013
PHILIP P. KALODNER........................... VSG-0002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-23630 Filed 9-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P