[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 2, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51444-51446]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-25182]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Hearings and Appeals


Notice of Issuance of Decisions and Orders; Week of March 11 
Through March 15, 1996

    During the week of March 11 through March 15, 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, 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: September 24, 1996.
George B. Breznay,
Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

Decision List No. 963

Appeals

Helen Ruth Sutton-Pank, 3/11/96, VFA-0130

    Helen Ruth Sutton-Pank (Sutton-Pank) filed an Appeal from a 
determination issued to her by the Albuquerque Operations Office (DOE/
AL) of the Department of Energy (DOE). In her Appeal, Sutton-Pank 
asserted that DOE/AL improperly failed to provide her with medical 
records in the possession of Lockheed/Martin, the contractor operating 
Sandia National Laboratories, which she had requested pursuant to the 
FOIA. The DOE determined that the Lockheed/Martin

[[Page 51445]]

records were not agency records within the meaning of the FOIA and 
Sutton-Pank's Appeal was denied.

James E. Minter, 3/12/96, VFA-0132

    James E. Minter filed an Appeal from a determination issued to him 
on January 9, 1996, by the Albuquerque Operations Office (Albuquerque) 
in response to a request for information Mr. Minter submitted under the 
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In that determination, Albuquerque 
stated that it could not find the information Mr. Minter requested, 
copies of statements or reports by Ray Parrett, Chief of the 
Transportation Safety Division at Oak Ridge Operations Office. Mr. 
Parrett recalled having taken the notes Mr. Minter was requesting, but 
the notes could not be located, Mr. Parrett having since retired. We 
determined that Albuquerque followed procedures which were reasonably 
calculated to uncover the information sought by Mr. Minter. Therefore, 
the Appeal was denied.

James H. Stebbings, 3/11/96, VFA-0123

    James H. Stebbings (Appellant) filed an Appeal from a determination 
issued by the Department of Energy's Argonne Group in response to a 
request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The DOE had 
forwarded the Appellant's request for documents relating to radiation 
level testing of human subjects who had been in Eastern Europe during 
the time of the Chernobyl nuclear incident to the Chicago Operations 
Office (COO), which in turn forwarded the request to the Argonne Group. 
The Argonne Group determined that no responsive documents existed at 
that location. The Appellant challenged the adequacy of the Argonne 
Group search, citing three responsive documents he had discovered in a 
commonly accessed internal Argonne bibliography. In the course of 
investigating the search, the Argonne Group decided that it would 
continue searching for documents. Further, although the Appellant had 
mentioned in his request that responsive documents might be found at 
Brookhaven National Laboratory (Brookhaven), COO failed to forward the 
response to that location. Therefore, the DOE granted the Appeal and 
remanded the matter to COO, in order that the request be forwarded to 
Brookhaven, and to the Argonne Group.

Janis C. Garrett, 3/11/96, VFA-0131

    The DOE's Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) issued a 
determination denying a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Appeal filed 
by Janis C. Garrett (Garrett). Garrett appealed the adequacy of a 
search conducted by the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA). OHA 
found that the search was adequate.

Personnel Security Hearings

Albuquerque Operations Office, 3/11/96, VSO-0073

    Under the provisions set forth in 10 C.F.R. Part 710, the 
Department of Energy, Albuquerque Operations Office (DOE/AL) denied an 
individual's request for an access authorization (``Q'' level security 
clearance), based upon derogatory information received by the DOE/AL 
which revealed illegal conduct and financial irregularities on the part 
of the individual. Following a personnel security interview and 
evaluation by a DOE consultant psychiatrist, DOE/AL denied the 
individual an access authorization under disqualifying criteria set 
forth in: (1) 10 C.F.R. Sec. 710.8(h), that the individual has ``[a]n 
illness or mental condition of a nature which, in the opinion of a 
board-certified psychiatrist . . . causes, or may cause, a significant 
defect in judgment or reliability,'' and (2) 10 C.F.R. Sec. 710.8(1), 
that the individual has ``[e]ngaged in [] unusual conduct or is subject 
to circumstances which tend to show that the individual is not honest, 
reliable, or trustworthy . . . .'' Following a hearing convened at the 
request of the individual, the Office of Hearings and Appeals Hearing 
Officer found in the Opinion that there was substantial evidence to 
support the diagnosis rendered by the DOE consultant psychiatrist that 
the individual has a mental disorder, Antisocial Personality Disorder, 
which has caused and may continue to cause a significant defect in his 
judgment and reliability. In addition, the Hearing Officer found that 
the individual had in a number of incidents demonstrated behavior which 
tended to show that he was not honest, reliable or trustworthy. 
Accordingly, the Hearing Officer concluded in the Opinion that the 
individual should not be granted an access authorization.

Pittsburgh Naval Reactors Office, 3/15/96, VSO-0069

    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. The Hearing Officer found that 
the circumstances surrounding the late filing of the individual's tax 
returns do not require the revocation of the individual's security 
clearance. The Hearing Officer found that the individual's failure to 
file these tax returns on time was not motivated by a desire to break 
the law or for personal gain as both the federal and the state 
government owed her money. The Hearing Officer determined that the 
individual was an honest person who had problems organizing her 
financial records and was rehabilitated because the overdue tax returns 
had been filed and steps had been taken to ensure that future tax 
returns would be filed on time. Thus, the Hearing Officer concluded 
that the individual had not engaged in conduct which tends to show that 
she is not honest, reliable or trustworthy. 10 C.F.R. Sec. 710.8(1). 
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.

Implementation of Special Refund Procedures

Brio Petroleum Inc., VEF-0017; Merit Petroleum Co., VEF-0018; 
Transcontinential Energy Corp., VEF-0020; UTEX Oil Company, 3/14/96, 
VEF-0021.

    The DOE issued a Decision and Order implementing procedures for the 
distribution of $420,922.73 plus accrued interest in alleged 
overcharges obtained from Brio Petroleum Inc., Merit Petroleum Company, 
Transcontinental Energy Corporation and Utex Oil Company. These funds 
were remitted by each firm to the DOE to settle possible pricing 
violations with respect to sales of crude oil. The DOE has determined 
that these monies will be distributed in accordance with the DOE's 
Modified Statement of Restitutionary Policy Concerning Crude Oil 
Overcharges. Under that policy, 20% will be divided among injured 
purchasers of refined products, 40% to the federal government, and 40% 
among the states.

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.

BEL-RAY COMPANY, INC.....................................  RF272-77250                                  03/12/96
CITRONELLE/SUNLAND REFINING CORP. ET AL..................  RF345-27                                     03/11/96

[[Page 51446]]

                                                                                                                
CRUDE OIL SUPPLE REF DIST................................  RB272-0068                                   03/12/96
DOROTHY BARBEN ET AL.....................................  RK272-1107                                   03/14/96
EARL OVERMOE ET AL.......................................  RK272-02900                                  03/12/96
EVELYN WURDEMAN ET AL....................................  RK272-2065                                   03/14/96
GULF OIL CORPORATION/C.B. HUGHES ET AL...................  RF300-16893                                  03/12/96
GULF OIL CORPORATION/HICKS & RAPELYE GULF ET AL..........  RF300-19604                                  03/14/96
LONE STAR INDUSTRIES ET AL...............................  RK272-2669                                   03/14/96
TMBR/SHARP DRILLING, INC. ET AL..........................  RK272-2621                                   03/11/96
                                                                                                                

Dismissals

    The following submissions were dismissed:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Name                               Case No.        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHLHORN GROCERY & SERVICE STATION............  RF300-16262              
BOB'S GULF...................................  RF300-13249              
C&C COLA.....................................  RF272-78276              
GIL TAYLOR GULF..............................  RF300-16368              
IGERT, INC...................................  RF300-16721              
KOBI GULF....................................  RF300-20245              
RESTON'S GULF SERVICE CENTER.................  RF300-16449              
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 96-25182 Filed 10-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P