[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 201 (Wednesday, October 16, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53915-53916]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-26422]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Hearings and Appeals


Notice of Issuance of Decisions and Orders During the Week of 
April 15 Through April 19, 1996

    During the week of April 15 through April 19, 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.
    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: October 7, 1996.
George B. Breznay,
Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

Decision List No. 968

Personnel Securing Hearings

Headquarters, 4/18/96, VSO-0075

    A Hearing Officer from the Office of Hearings and Appeals issued an 
Opinion regarding the eligibility of an individual for access 
authorization under the provisions of 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The Hearing 
Officer found that: (i) The individual submitted several altered 
documents to the U.S. Army and provided false information to the DOE in 
a Personnel Security Interview; (ii) the acts of the individual tend to 
show that the individual is not honest, reliable, or trustworthy; (iii) 
the DOE's security concerns regarding these behaviors were not overcome 
by evidence mitigating the derogatory information underlying the DOE's 
charges. Accordingly, the Hearing Officer found that the individual's 
access authorization should not be restored.

Oak Ridge Operations Office, 4/15/96, VSO-0065

    A Hearing Officer recommended that access authorization not be 
restored to an employee whose access was suspended due to evidence of 
marijuana use. The Hearing Officer found that the employee had not 
presented sufficient evidence of rehabilitation to mitigate valid 
security concerns.

Supplemental Order

Howard W. Spaletta, 4/19/96, VWX-0004

    In Howard W. Spaletta, 24 DOE 87,511 (1995), a Hearing Officer 
found that Mr. Spaletta has been retaliated against in violation of the 
DOE's Contractor Employee Protection Program, 10 C.F.R. Part 708. This 
supplemental determination awarded Mr. Spaletta $12,321 in back pay, 
interest, attorney's fees, and other expenses.

Refund Application

Atlantic Richfield Company/Little America Refining Company, 4/15/96, 
RF304-9095

    Little America Refining Company (LARCO) sought a refund in the 
Atlantic Richfield Company Subpart V Special Refund Proceeding based 
upon purchases of 1.333 billion gallons of ARCO products. During much 
of the refund period, LARCO had received ``Delta/Beacon'' exception 
relief from the Oil Entitlement Program. The DOE noted that Delta/
Beacon exception relief generally insulated the recipient from the 
affects of any overcharges, since any overcharges the firm may have 
experienced would have been compensated for by greater Delta/Beacon 
relief. Accordingly, the DOE found that LARCO could not have been 
injured by any overcharges for those periods for which LARCO received 
entitlement exception relief, and a refund is inappropriate.
    Moreover, the DOE determined that LARCO is ineligible for any 
refund, because its settlement of a private law suit against ARCO 
resolved all claims involving the petroleum price and allocation laws 
and regulations. The DOE found that the settlement constituted full 
compensation for any ARCO overcharges that LARCO may have experienced 
and that a refund would result in double compensation at the expense of 
other injured parties. Consequently, the DOE determined that LARCO is 
not eligible to receive any Subpart V refund from the ARCO consent 
order funds. Furthermore, even if the effects of the settlement and 
receipt of Delta/Beacon exception relief were discounted, LARCO was at 
a competitive disadvantage with respect to only about 15 percent of the 
ARCO products it purchased, as its other ARCO purchases were priced 
below the prevailing market prices. Accordingly, LARCO's Application 
for Refund was denied.

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.

COOLEY FARMS ET AL...................  RK272-0126...........    04/15/96
CRUDE OIL SUPPLE REF DIST............  RB272-00072..........    04/18/96
DALE OLSEN ET AL.....................  RK272-00008..........    04/16/96
GULF OIL CORPORATION/PINEY GROVE       RF300-13196..........    04/15/96
 HARDWARE ET AL.                                                        
                                                                        


[[Page 53916]]

[FR Doc. 96-26422 Filed 10-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P