[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