[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 181 (Tuesday, September 17, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48946-48948]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23735]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Issuance of Decisions and Orders; Week of January 29 Through
February 2, 1996
During the week of January 29 through February 2, 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, 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: September 4, 1996.
George B. Breznay,
Director, Office of Hearings and Appeals.
Appeal
PSI Energy, Inc., 1/30/96, VEA-0001
PSI Energy, Inc. (PSI) filed an Appeal from a determination issued
by the DOE's Office of Environmental Management (OEM). PSI claimed
that: (i) the OEM erroneously determined its liability for payment into
the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund (D&D
Fund) established under the Energy Policy Act of 1992; (ii) Indiana
state law would prohibit PSI from passing through its assessment to its
ratepayers; and (iii) the assessment of utilities for payment into the
D&D Fund was an unconstitutional taking of property. The DOE found
that: (i) the firm was properly assessed for uranium enrichment
services that it purchased from the DOE and did not sell in the
secondary market; (ii) Indiana state law would be preempted by the
federal Energy Policy Act; and (iii) while the DOE will ultimately
defer to the rulings of the federal courts, the collection of
assessments will continue while the courts are considering the
constitutionality of the relevant provisions of the Energy Policy Act.
Accordingly, PSI's Appeal was denied.
Personnel Security Hearings
Albuquerque Operations Office, 1/31/96, VSA-0020
The Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals issued an
Opinion concerning a Request for Review that was filed by the DOE's
Office of Security Affairs (OSA). In its submission, the OSA requested
that a security clearance matter be remanded to the Hearing Officer so
that the Hearing Officer could render an opinion concerning an
individual's eligibility for access authorization. In the Hearing
Officer's initial Opinion, she stated that because the individual
attended, but did
[[Page 48947]]
not participate in, his security clearance hearing, she would not
address the merits of the individual's eligibility for a clearance, but
would instead transfer the proceeding to the Manager of DOE/Albuquerque
for a final determination as to the individual's eligibility. In the
Director's Opinion, he stated that the regulations governing these
proceedings do not contemplate the transferral of a security clearance
matter to a DOE Manager under the circumstances in this case. He added
that because a hearing was held and additional testimony was received,
an evaluation by the Hearing Officer of the individual's eligibility
for access authorization was required. Accordingly, the Director
remanded the matter to the Hearing Officer for the issuance of such an
evaluation.
Rocky Flats Field Office, 1/30/96, VSO-0046
An Office of Hearings and Appeals Hearing Officer issued an opinion
against restoring the security clearance of an individual whose
clearance had been suspended because the Department had obtained
derogatory information that fell within 10 C.F.R. Sec. 710.8(f). In
reaching his conclusion, the Hearing Officer found that the individual
deliberately misrepresented, falsified, or omitted significant
information during the Personnel Security Interview.
Rocky Flats Field Office, 2/7/96, VSO-0060
An OHA Hearing Officer issued an opinion on a request for review
from an individual employed by a Rocky Flats contractor whose DOE
security clearance had been suspended. The individual's ``Q'' access
authorization was suspended after Rocky Flats security officials had
received information from Personnel Security Interviews (PSIs) with two
confidential sources about the individual's extensive marijuana use in
the five or six years immediately after he had signed a DOE Drug
Certification in 1980. At the hearing which was held in this case,
neither of the two sources would testify about the instances of
marijuana use or distribution by the individual that they had reported
in their PSIs. However, the individual himself refused to testify in
his own behalf at the hearing, and submitted no direct evidence to
contravene the derogatory information in the statements by the two
sources in their PSIs. Instead, the individual relied upon statements
made in his own PSIs with Rocky Flats security personnel, in which he
categorically denied any post-1980 marijuana use. After considering the
record in this case, the Hearing Officer concluded that the individual
had failed to meet his burden of coming forward with evidence to show
that restoring his access authorization would not endanger the common
defense and security and would be clearly consistent with the national
interest. Accordingly, the Hearing Officer recommended that the
individual's access authorization not be restored.
Implementation of Special Refund Procedures
OXY USA, Inc., 01/31/96, VEF-0030
The DOE issued a Decision and Order setting forth procedures for
the distribution of $275 million (plus interest) in alleged overcharges
remitted or to be remitted to the DOE by Occidental Petroleum
Corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary OXY USA, Inc. (OXY). The
DOE determined that these funds should be distributed in accordance
with the DOE's Modified Statement of Restitutionary Policy in Crude Oil
Cases, 51 Fed. Reg. 27899 (August 4, 1986). Accordingly, the DOE
determined that 20 percent should be reserved for Subpart V Claimants
and the remaining 80 percent should be divided equally between the
federal government and the states.
Refund Applications
Citronelle/Texas Cities Refining, Inc., et. al., 1/30/96, RF345-1, et.
al.
The DOE issued a Supplemental Order disbursing $144,204,002 from an
escrow account in connection with the 341 Tract Unit of the Citronelle
Field. The disbursements were made pursuant to a Settlement Agreement
that was approved by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas on December 6, 1995.
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.
Alaska Gold Company et al...... RC272-327 01/30/96
Atlantic Richfield Company/ RF304-13239 01/30/96
Oscar B. Chao et al.
Metromedia Co et al............ RF272-95102 01/30/96
Dismissals
The following submissions were dismissed:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name Case No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airline Snack Bar............................ RF300-19839
Albuquerque Operations Office................ VSO-0064
Anderson Super Gulf-Parkway.................. RF300-18803
Bayer & Mingolla Industries, Inc............. RF300-21419
Brink's, Inc................................. RF300-15179
Buffalo Aeronautical......................... RF300-16947
Central Telephone Co. of Florida............. RF300-14816
Charles F. Morris............................ RF300-21659
Continental Baking Co........................ RF300-21479
D.L. Stowe Trucking.......................... RF300-18841
Daniels Gulf................................. RF300-19586
Dans Rental.................................. RF300-19585
Dix Gulf..................................... RF300-19588
Ellex Transportation......................... RF300-13113
Garden Street Gulf........................... RF300-15086
Garvie Marks Gulf............................ RF300-21406
Hilltop Gulf................................. RF300-18730
Honeywell Inc................................ RF272-67216
J.D.'s Gulf.................................. RF300-13159
Jackson & Michael Gulf Service............... RF300-19659
[[Page 48948]]
John L. Sutton, Jr........................... RF300-21420
Lake & Sam Williams Gulf Dist................ RF300-13245
Lee-Hy Paving Corporation.................... RR272-137
Mart Gulf.................................... RF300-16505
Minden City Oil & Gas Co..................... RF300-19560
Murphey's Gulf & U-Haul...................... RF300-19528
Richland Operations Office................... VSO-0056
Sam's Auto Service........................... RF300-10924
Sanders Gulf................................. RF300-18795
Wade's Rent-a-Car............................ RF300-18092
Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley.......... VFA-0118
Wiley Fuel Oil............................... RF300-19541
Williams Gulf................................ RF300-18405
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-23735 Filed 9-16-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
