[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 44 (Thursday, March 6, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10268-10270]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5516]


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


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Notice of Issuance of Decisions and Orders by the Office of 
Hearings and Appeals; Week of February 3 Through February 7, 1997

    During the week of February 3 through February 7, 1997, 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: February 25, 1997.
George B. Breznay,
Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

Decision List No. 19

Week of February 3 Through February 7, 1997

Personnel Security Hearings
Personnel Security Hearing, 2/3/97 VSO-0106,

    An OHA Hearing Officer issued an Opinion regarding the eligibility 
of an individual to maintain access authorization under the provisions 
of 10 C.F.R. Part 710. After considering the testimony presented at the 
hearing and the record, the Hearing Officer found that the individual 
habitually used alcohol to excess and had mental conditions (alcohol 
abuse and alcohol dependency) that cause or may cause a significant 
defect in judgment or reliability. These findings were based on the 
individual's two charges of Driving Under the Influence (DUI), his 
pattern of alcohol consumption despite the negative impact it had on 
his life and the fact that such consumption violated the terms of his 
probation, and the diagnoses of two mental health professionals, 
including one selected by the individual himself. The Hearing Officer 
found the Individual was not rehabilitated or reformed from his 
habitually excessive use of alcohol. The Hearing Officer also found 
that there was a security concern resulting from other alcohol 
consumption-related behavior that tended to show that the individual 
was not honest, reliable or trustworthy. However, the Hearing Officer 
found that the security concerns raised by other mental conditions 
diagnosed by the DOE psychiatrist were mitigated by the passage of time 
and a more current diagnosis in which another mental health 
professional expressed his opinion that such mental conditions were not 
present. Therefore, the Hearing Officer found that those concerns had 
been mitigated. Nevertheless, because of the security concerns based on 
his alcohol-related charges, the Hearing Officer recommended that the 
individual's access authorization not be restored.

Personnel Security Hearing, 2/3/97, VSO-0113

    An OHA Hearing Officer issued an Opinion regarding the eligibility 
of an individual to maintain access authorization under the provisions 
of 10 C.F.R. Part 710. After considering the testimony presented at the 
hearing and the record, the Hearing Officer found that the individual 
habitually used alcohol to excess. This finding was based on the 
individual's two charges of Driving Under the Influence (DUI), the high 
amount of alcohol that the individual consumed and his belief that he 
had a drinking problem. Although the individual had attended a three 
month counseling program, he continued to drink. The Hearing Officer 
found the Individual was not rehabilitated or reformed from his 
habitually excessive use of alcohol. The Hearing Officer also found the 
Individual, due to his two DUI arrests, two assault charges, two 
domestic violence charges, two telephone harassment charges, and his 
unreformed drinking habitually to excess to have engaged in unusual 
conduct or to have been subject to circumstances which tend to show 
that he was not honest, reliable, or trustworthy; or which furnished 
reason to believe that he may be subject to pressure, coercion, 
exploitation, or duress which may cause him to act contrary to the best 
interests of the national security. Accordingly, the Hearing Officer 
recommended that the individual's access authorization not be restored.

Personnel Security Hearing, 2/7/97, VSO-0118

    A Hearing Officer found that an individual had not successfully 
mitigated security concerns arising from his provision of false 
information to the DOE and a pattern of criminal and other conduct that 
tended to show that the

[[Page 10269]]

individual was not honest, reliable, and trustworthy. Accordingly, the 
Hearing Officer recommended in the Opinion that the individual's access 
authorization not be restored.
Whistleblower Proceeding
Charles Barry DeLoach, 2/5/97, VWA-0014

    Charles Barry DeLoach (DeLoach), a former employee of a Department 
of Energy (DOE) contractor, Westinghouse Savannah River Company (WSRC), 
filed a request for a hearing under the DOE's Contractor Employee 
Protection Program, 10 C.F.R., Part 708. DeLoach claimed that he was 
terminated from his job as a result of his raising issues with his 
superiors regarding various health and safety issues. WSRC claimed 
DeLoach was fired for stealing approximately $50,000 of DOE equipment. 
A hearing was held in which DeLoach and witnesses for WSRC testified 
before an Office of Hearings and Appeals Hearing Officer. On the basis 
of the testimony and other evidence in the record, the Hearing Officer 
concluded that DeLoach proved by a preponderance of the evidence that 
he had made disclosures protected by Part 708. However, the Hearing 
Officer further concluded that WSRC had proved by clear and convincing 
evidence that it would have taken this action even in the absence of 
DeLoach's disclosures. The Hearing Officer therefore determined that 
DeLoach was not entitled to any relief under 10 C.F.R. Part 708.
Implementation of Special Refund Procedures
Houma Oil Co., Jedco, Inc., 2/7/97, VEF-0023, VEF-0024

    The DOE issued a Decision and Order establishing procedures for the 
distribution of funds obtained from Houma Oil Company and Jedco, Inc. 
These funds were remitted by each firm to the DOE to settle pricing 
violations with respect to sales of motor gasoline. The Decision sets 
forth procedures for customers who claim they were injured by motor 
gasoline purchases from Houma Oil during the period May 1, 1979 through 
April 30, 1980 or from Jedco, Inc. between November 1, 1973 and March 
31, 1974. Any funds remaining after meritorious claims are paid will be 
used for indirect restitution through the states in accordance with the 
Petroleum Overcharge Distribution and Restitution Act of 1986.

Refund Applications

Anchor Gasoline Corporation/Mid Continent Systems, Inc., Seago 
Enterprises, Inc., Atlantic Richfield Company/Seago Enterprises, Inc., 
2/4/97, RF346-18, RF346-48, RF304-15507

    Both Seago Enterprises, Inc., and Mid Continent Systems, Inc., 
filed competing Applications for Refund in the Anchor special refund 
proceeding for the same purchases. The Anchor purchases had been made 
by Seago. However, the DOE found that Seago had merged into Mid 
Continent, and consequently, the right to the Anchor refund belonged to 
Mid Continent, not to the former owner of Seago. Accordingly, the 
application filed by Mid Continent was granted and that filed by Seago 
was denied. For these same reasons, the DOE rescinded a refund 
previously granted to Seago in the ARCO special refund proceeding.

Pan Ocean Shipping Co., Ltd., 2/4/97, RG272-381

    The Department of Energy (DOE) issued a Decision and Order (D&O) 
granting an Application for Refund that was filed by Pan Ocean Shipping 
Co., Ltd. (Pan Ocean) in the crude oil refund proceeding. In the 
Decision, the OHA approved Pan Ocean's estimation methodology, which 
was based on their ships'' average daily fuel consumption, the number 
of days that their voyages lasted, and the petroleum product purchasing 
patterns of their vessels. Pan Ocean was granted a refund of $184,469.

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.

                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                
AJO TRADING CORPORATION....................................  RJ272-35                                     2/4/97
BLUFF CREST, INC...........................................  RJ272-36                                ...........
ALTAIR AIRLINES, INC.......................................  RG272-620                                    2/7/97
NORTHERN COOPERATIVE, INC. ET AL...........................  RG272-640                                    2/7/97
RUDYARD COOPERATIVE COMPANY................................  RG272-658                                    2/4/97
                                                                                                                

Dismissals

    The following submissions were dismissed.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Name                               Case No.        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENERGY MARKET & POLICY ANALYSIS, INC.........  VFA-0259                 
ENSERCH CORPORATION..........................  RG272-00495              
FARMERS UNION COOPERATIVE CO.................  RG272-00584              
KUMM FARM INC................................  RF272-89420              
L. KRUPP CONSTRUCTION CO., INC...............  RG272-00855              
LANKIN FARMERS GRAIN CO......................  RG272-00770              
LYNNEDALE PLANTING CO., INC..................  RF272-89268              
MIK COOP TRUCKING ASSN.......................  RG272-00896              
NERSTRAND FARMERS MERC. & ELEV. CO...........  RG272-00664              
NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY...................  RF272-89009              
THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY..............  RF272-87979              
WEST SHORE CONSTRUCTION......................  RG272-00789              
XEROX CORPORATION............................  RF272-93346              
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 10270]]

[FR Doc. 97-5516 Filed 3-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P