[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