Personnel Security (10 CFR Part 710)

On May 29, 2015, an Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he determined that an individual’s access authorization should be restored. In reaching this determination, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had resolved security concerns with his personal conduct. The concerns centered upon the individual having been arrested for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) and Child Abuse, and having a temporary Order of Protection filed against him by his ex-wife during the period 2012-2014. Additionally, the individual had a history of DWI’s and other domestic incidents before 2001.  Regarding the Child Abuse arrest, the Administrative Judge found on the basis of a report from the local child protective agency that there was no basis for concluding the individual had inappropriately disciplined his daughter.  The Administrative Judge also determined that the request for the Order of Protection was without merit based upon evidence that the individual’s ex-wife had, in fact, physically abused the individual.  With regard to the recent DWI, the Administrative Judge found that the arrest was an isolated incident of bad judgment given the testimony of the individual’s Employee Assistance Counselor, a report from a DOE-consultant psychologist, and the fact that his prior DWI arrest occurred in February 2000. Consequently, the Administrative Judge found that the individual’s security clearance should be restored.   OHA Case No. PSH-15-0014 (Richard Cronin)

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Appeal

On May 26, 2015, OHA issued a decision denying an FOIA appeal (Appeal) of a determination issued by the DOE’s Bonneville Power Administration (BPA).  The Appellant appealed BPA’s decision to withhold information pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 5 and 6, and he contested the adequacy of search for responsive records.  The BPA withheld information in the released documents pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege, stating that it contained “discussions with the legal department regarding various issues surrounding the contract with the Warm Springs Tribe,” which OHA agreed with when it reviewed the redacted information.  However, the BPA acknowledged that some of the information in the released documents was redacted even though it already released the same exact information in its partial response without any redactions, and thus, as to those redactions in particular, OHA remanded the appeal.  The BPA also released mobile phone numbers on several pages of the released documents pursuant to Exemption 6, and OHA agreed that the phone numbers should remain redacted as there is a significant privacy interest in that information.  Finally, the BPA explained how it tried to locate responsive documents, specifically, by searching through several electronic files and hard copies, which OHA found was adequate. Therefore, OHA denied the Appeal in part and remanded it in part. OHA Case No. FIA-15-0025 

Contractor Employee Protection Program (10 CFR Part 708)

On May 29, 2015, OHA granted an Appeal involving a complaint filed by Robert J. Schumacher (Schumacher) against Bechtel National, Inc. (Bechtel), a DOE prime contractor that coordinates the construction of DOE’s Hanford Site’s Waste Treatment Plant, under the DOE’s Contractor Employee Protection Program and its governing regulations set forth at 10 CFR Part 708.  Schumacher’s complaint was dismissed by an OHA investigator because he did not file his complaint within the 90-day regulatory deadline which elapsed on July 13, 2014. Schumacher claimed that he was informed by the DOE Employee Concerns (ECP) Manager that he had until September 2, 2014, to file his complaint.  OHA determined that the OHA investigator correctly found that Schumacher’s complaint was untimely.  However, during the pendency of the Appeal, the ECP Manager, in an E-mail, confirmed that he had informed Schumacher that he had until September 2, 2014, to file his complaint and that Schumacher had filed his complaint in good faith. In light of the ECP Manager’s E-mail, OHA found that the ECP Manager would have found that Schumacher had a “good reason” to file his complaint under 10 CFR § 708.14 and would have accepted the complaint despite its tardiness. Consequently, OHA granted Schumacher’s Appeal and remanded his complaint for further processing. OHA Case No. WBA-15-0001