[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 162 (Tuesday, August 23, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-20696]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: August 23, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Issuance of Decisions and Orders Week of May 30 through June 3,
1994
During the week of May 30 through June 3, 1994, the decisions and
orders summarized below were issued with respect to appeals and
applications for other relief 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.
Appeals
Concord Oil Company, 6/1/94, LFA-0372
Concord Oil Company (Concord) filed an Appeal from a determination
issued by the Albuquerque Operations Office (Albuquerque) in response
to a request from Concord under the Freedom of Information Act. Concord
sought various contracts pertaining to work already performed or to be
performed on a Uranium Mill Tailing Remedial Action (UMTRA) project. In
considering the Appeal, the Office of Hearings and Appeals found that
an attachment to a subcontract between MK-Fergusen (MK-F) and the DOE
was not an agency record subject to the FOIA and that Exemption 4 of
the FOIA permitted the withholding of a section detailing personnel and
salary information of a MK-F contract. Accordingly, the Appeal was
denied.
Shannon & Wilson, Inc., 6/1/94, LFA-0371
Shannon & Wilson, Inc. filed an Appeal from a partial denial by the
Richland Operations Office of a Request for Information which it had
submitted under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In considering
the Appeal, the DOE found that some of the information that had
initially been withheld under Exemption 5 should have been released to
the public. The DOE found that a more selective redaction would allow
additional information to be released without revealing the identities
of individuals. The DOE further found that this result was supported by
a October 4, 1993 Memorandum for Heads of Departments and Agencies from
Attorney General Janet Reno. In addition, DOE found that Richland had
failed to conduct a public interest determination. However, the DOE
also found that some of the information requested by the Appellant
could have been withheld under Exemptions 4 and 6. Accordingly, the
Appeal was remanded to Richland for further processing.
Request for Exception
Midstream Fuel Service, Inc., 5/31/94, LEE-0083
Midstream Fuel Service, Inc. (Midstream), filed an Application for
Exception from the provisions of the Energy Information Administration
(EIA) reporting requirements in which the firm sought relief from
filing Form EIA-782B, entitled ``Resellers'/Retailers' Monthly
Petroleum Product Sales Report.'' In considering the request, the DOE
found that the firm was suffering a gross inequity due to the maternity
leave of two of the firm's employees. Accordingly, the DOE determined
that the exception request be granted in part and that Midstream should
be granted an extension of time until May 1994 in which to file the
forms due between February 1, 1994, and May 1, 1994.
Wortmann Oil Co., Inc., 6/3/94, LEE-0112
Wortmann Oil Company, Inc. (Wortmann), filed an Application for
Exception from the provisions of the Energy Information Administration
(EIA) reporting requirements in which the firm sought relief from
filing Form EIA-782B, entitled ``Resellers'/Retailers' Monthly
Petroleum Product Sales Report.'' In considering the request, the DOE
found that the firm was suffering a gross inequity due to the
protracted illness of the firm's owner. Accordingly, the DOE determined
that the exception request be granted and that Wortmann should be
permanently removed from the survey.
Protective Order
Westinghouse Hanford Company, 6/2/94, LWJ-0004
Westinghouse Hanford Company (WHC) filed a request that the OHA
issue a Protective Order concerning certain documents which the company
agreed to provide to the Government Accountability Project (GAP) and
Thad M. Guyer, counsel for Helen ``Gail'' Oglesbee, in connection with
a hearing request filed by Oglesbee under the Department of Energy's
Contractor Employee Protection Program, 10 C.F.R. Part 708. With its
request, WHC submitted a Stipulated Protective Order to which WHC, GAP
and Mr. Guyer agreed to be bound. The Order stated, inter alia, that
GAP and Mr. Guyer shall not make use of nor disclose any information in
the documents provided by WHC except for purposes related to the Part
708 proceeding, and that upon the termination of the proceeding shall
either destroy the documents or return them to WHC. The Hearing Office
reviewed the Stipulated Protective Order and concluded that it should
be issued as an Order of the Department of Energy. Accordingly, the
Order was issued pursuant to the authority given the Hearing Officer
under the Part 708 regulations to ``arrange * * * for the production of
specific documents or other physical evidence, provided a showing of
the necessity for such * * * evidence has been made to the satisfaction
of the Hearing Officer.'' 10 C.F.R. Sec. 708.9(e).
Implementation of Special Refund Procedures
N.C. Ginther Company, 5/31/94, LEF-0060
The DOE issued a Decision and Order implementing procedures for the
distribution of $144,864.85, plus accrued interest, in alleged
overcharges obtained from N.C. Ginther Company. These funds were
remitted to settle possible pricing violations in the firm's sales of
natural gas liquid (ngl) products during the period September 1, 1973
through March 31, 1977. The DOE determined that these funds will be
distributed in accordance with the Petroleum Overcharge Distribution
and Restitution Act of 1986. Accordingly, Applications for Refund will
be accepted from any party who purchased ngl products from Ginther
during the period, September 1, 1973 through March 31, 1977. The
specific information to be included in Applications for Refund is
included in the Decision.
Refund Applications
Sauvage Gas Co./Wynn Horney, 6/3/94, RF308-10
The DOE issued a Decision and Order granting an application filed
by Wynn Horney, a former owner of Springs Gas Service, Inc. (Springs),
in the (Sauvage) special refund proceeding. Springs was a reseller of
Sauvage petroleum products during the consent order period. Mr. Horney
and Sauvage each owned 50% of Springs. However, the OHA found that
Springs was operationally distinct from Sauvage and did not consider
Mr. Horney and Sauvage to be a single firm. The OHA found that Mr.
Horney alone would have borne all injury stemming from Sauvage's
alleged price overcharges. Thus, although he was only a 50% owner of
Springs, Wynn Horney was eligible to receive 100% of any refund awarded
on behalf of Springs. Mr. Horney submitted a detailed demonstration of
injury and requested a full volumetric refund based upon Springs'
purchases of 7,091,186 gallons of Sauvage propane during the consent
order period. Springs' data indicated that the firm's cumulative banked
costs were well in excess of the refund requested and the competitive
disadvantage analysis submitted by Mr. Horney clearly indicated that
Springs was injured in its purchases from Sauvage. Accordingly, the OHA
found that the applicant's injury was of sufficient magnitude to
justify an award of the entire volumetric allocation. Mr. Horney was
granted a refund of $13,204 on behalf of Springs, to which was added
$9,886 in interest for a total of $23,090. No further refunds to
identifiable purchasers of Sauvage products await disbursement.
Therefore all unclaimed funds remaining in the Sauvage escrow account
were made available for indirect restitution pursuant to the Petroleum
Overcharge Distribution and Restitution Act of 1986 contained in Title
III of Pub. L. No. 99-509.
Texaco Inc./James E. Hovis Texaco, 6/2/94, RF321-20997
The DOE issued a Decision and Order partially rescinding an
Application for Refund filed on behalf of James E. Hovis Texaco in the
Texaco Inc. special refund proceeding. The DOE found that the applicant
had been granted a refund for the entire refund period on the basis of
a Texaco schedule of purchases for a location at which he was the
operator for only a portion of the refund period (April 1976-January
1981). The DOE then received from Texaco a schedule of purchases that
corresponded to a location where the applicant was the operator
previous to being the operator at the location for which he was granted
a refund (November 1973-April 1975). However, the second schedule of
purchases showed fewer gallons of product delivered to the earlier
location than the number of gallons for which James E. Hovis Texaco was
erroneously granted. Therefore, the DOE rescinded the difference
between the refund granted to James E. Hovis Texaco and the refund that
should have been granted based upon correct gallonage information.
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.
Atlantic Richfield Company/B&D Butane RR304-68 06/01/94
Company.
Atlantic Richfield Company/Hord Oil, RF304-13547 06/03/94
Inc..
Dick Cowan's ARCO...................... RF304-13972 ...........
Devoe & Raynolds Company............... RF272-53573 06/03/94
E.M.H. of Larsen et al................. RF272-93819 06/02/94
Gulf Oil Corp./American Dusting Co., RF300-21315 05/31/94
Inc. et al..
Gulf Oil Corp./Coleman Oil Co., Inc.... RF300-5921 05/31/94
Oasis Gulf............................. RF300-21783
T & G Oil Co........................... RF300-21784
Cline St. Gulf......................... RF300-21785
Gulf Oil Corp./Griffith Oil Co., Inc... RF300-19752 06/03/94
Gulf Oil Corp./Transport Oil Station RF300-16195 06/03/94
#530.
Donald Harrison Gulf................... RF300-16324
Livermore Valley et al................. RF272-80004 06/02/94
Shell Oil Company/Salinas Valley Oil RF315-10154 06/01/94
Company.
Texaco Inc./Boris Texaco Service et al. RF321-14425 06/02/94
Texaco Inc./Garden Street Texaco et al. RF321-17253 06/02/94
Texaco Inc./Highway Administration et RF321-16892 06/02/94
al..
Texaco Inc./Stuckey's Store # 171 et RF321-16308 06/02/94
al..
Transportation, Inc.................... RF272-91664 06/01/94
Westplains Energy et al................ RF272-91555 06/02/94
Dismissals
The following submissions were dismissed:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name Case No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Danny R. Holton....................................... RR300-220
Franklin Texaco....................................... RF321-6323
G. E. Plastics........................................ RF272-91752
G. E. Plastics........................................ RF272-91686
Jap Oil Company....................................... LEE-0117
K-Tex Oil and Supply, Inc............................. RF321-14807
R&R Oil, Inc.......................................... LEE-0107
South Mississippi Electric Association................ RF321-20041
Texfi Industries, Inc................................. RF272-78402
William H. Payne...................................... LFA-0376
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20585, 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.
Dated: August 16, 1994.
George B. Breznay,
Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.
[FR Doc. 94-20696 Filed 8-22-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
