40270 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 144 /Tuesday, July 28, 1998 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Hearings and Appeals

Notice of Issuance of Decisions and

Orders During the Week of June 1

Through June 5, 1998

During the week of June 1 through

June 5, 1998, 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, 950 L’Enfant

Plaza, SW, Washington, D.C. 20585–

0107, Monday through Friday, 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.

Date: July 20, 1998.

George B. Breznay,

Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

Decision List No. 88

Appeals

David E. Ridenour, 6/4/98, VFA–0411

David E. Ridenour (Ridenour) filed an

Appeal from a determination issued to

him by the Office of Inspector General

(OIG) of the Department of Energy

(DOE). The determination concerned

Ridenour’s request for information

pursuant to the Freedom of Information

Act (FOIA). In his Appeal, Ridenour

asserted that OIG failed to conduct an

adequate search for documents

pertaining to a 1997 complaint he had

filed with OIG. Additionally, Ridenour

asserted that OIG had improperly

withheld information pursuant to

Exemptions 5, 6 and 7(C) and that OIG

had failed to provide him with copies of

18 responsive documents (authored by

Ridenour himself) which OIG identified.

After reviewing the search that was

conducted for responsive documents,

the DOE determined that OIG had

performed an adequate search. The DOE

also held that while OIG properly

invoked Exemptions 6 and 7(C), OIG

had improperly withheld information

pursuant to Exemption 5. Additionally,

DOE held that OIG should issue a

determination regarding the 18

responsive documents it did not provide

to Ridenour. Consequently, Ridenour’s

Appeal was granted in part.

Gary S. Foster, 6/1/98, VFA–0413, VFA–

0414, VFA–0415, VFA–0416, VFA–

0417

Gary S. Foster (Foster) filed five

Appeals from five determinations issued

to him by the Oak Ridge Operations

Office (Oak Ridge) of the Department of

Energy (DOE) in response to requests

filed pursuant to the Freedom of

Information (FOIA). In his Appeals,

Foster asserted that Oak Ridge failed to

conduct an adequate search for certain

documents pertaining to beryllium

transactions between Oak Ridge and five

companies that supplied Oak Ridge

with beryllium in the past. After

reviewing the search that was

conducted for responsive documents,

the DOE determined that Oak Ridge had

performed an adequate search.

Consequently, Foster’s Appeals were

denied.

Personnel Security Hearing

Personnel Security Hearing, 6/2/98,

VSO–0186

An OHA Hearing Officer issued an

opinion recommending against

restoration of the security clearance of

an individual, which had been

suspended because the DOE had

obtained derogatory information that

fell within 10 CFR § 710.8 (f), (j), and (l).

In reaching his conclusion, the Hearing

Officer found that the individual

suffered from alcohol abuse and had a

pattern of lying about whether he drank.

The Hearing Officer concluded that the

individual is not sufficiently honest,

reliable and trustworthy within the

meaning of 10 CFR § 710.8(l) to hold an

access authorization.

Whistleblower Hearing

Carlos M. Castillo, 6/1/98, VWA–0021

Carlos M. Castillo (Castillo) filed a

complaint under the DOE’s Contractor

Employee Protection Program, 10 CFR

Part 708, contending that reprisals were

taken against him after he raised

concerns relating to health and safety to

Kiewit Construction Company (Kiewit).

These alleged reprisals included the

complainant’s wrongful termination

from employment and, after he had been

rehired, being improperly selected for a

company layoff. After a preliminary

investigation of this matter by the DOE

Office of Inspector General, Castillo and

Kiewit exercised their option for an

expedited hearing under 10 CFR § 708.9.

In considering the transcript of

testimony taken at the hearing and the

submissions of the parties, the Hearing

Officer determined that although

Castillo had made a protected disclosure

relating to health or safety, he failed to

carry his burden to show by a

preponderance of the evidence that such

disclosure was a contributing factor in

the personnel actions taken against him

by Kiewit. 10 CFR § 708.9(d).

Accordingly, in the DOE’s Initial

Agency Decision, Castillo’s request for

relief under Part 708 was denied.

Dismissals

The following submissions were dismissed.

Name Case No.

Farmers Union Oil Company ............................................................................................................................................................ RF272–94241

Karen Coleman Wiltshire .................................................................................................................................................................. VFA–0410

Stand of Amarillo, Inc ....................................................................................................................................................................... VFA–0409

[FR Doc. 98–20125 Filed 7–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P