Personnel Security (10 CFR Part 710)

On October 10, 2014, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he determined that the DOE should not restore an individual’s DOE access authorization.  As security concerns under Criterion F of 10 CFR Part 710, a Local Security Office (LSO) cited the individual’s failure to list some 18 collection accounts on a 2013 Questionnaire for National Security Positions and her incorrect assertion during a 2014 Personnel Security Interview that she was addressing all of her outstanding debts.  As security concerns under Criterion L of 10 CFR Part 710, the LSO cited the individual’s history of financial irresponsibility.  The Administrative Judge found that the individual had not resolved these concerns.  At the hearing, the individual offered explanations for misrepresenting her finances and asserted that she had not intended to deceive the Local Security Office.  She also established that she had recently pursued bankruptcy and had begun financial counseling.  Nevertheless, the Administrative Judge determined that the individual had not sufficiently mitigated her misrepresentations or, due to the recency of her steps toward financial responsibility, her long-term pattern of financial irresponsibility. OHA Case No. PSH-14-0071 (William M. Schwartz)

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Appeals

On October 7, 2014, OHA issued a decision denying an Appeal filed by Tri-Valley CAREs (Tri-Valley) under the FOIA of a final determination issued by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA).  Tri-Valley’s request sought “all documents containing information pertaining to the National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) Revised Plutonium Strategy and/or the Alternative Plutonium Strategy from July 11, 2012 to [November 20, 2013].”  In response to this request, NNSA released portions of one responsive document from which it redacted portions under FOIA Exemption 5.  OHA found that disclosure of the information withheld by NNSA would clearly inhibit frank and open discussions and hinder the DOE’s ability to reach sound and well-reasoned solutions.  Therefore, OHA found that the withheld information is protected from mandatory disclosure under the FOIA by the deliberate process privilege under Exemption 5.  Moreover, OHA found that NNSA has conducted a thoughtful, careful and complete review of this document and has redacted only those portions of the document which, if released, could reasonably be expected to stifle the free exchange of ideas and frank discussion of policy, or mislead the public, and has released as much of the document as possible without causing the type of harms the privilege was designed to prevent. Accordingly, OHA denied the Appeal.  OHA Case No. FIA-14-0064

On October 6, 2014, OHA issued a decision denying an Appeal filed by Southeastern Legal Foundation (Appellant) of a FOIA determination issued by the Office of Information Resources (OIR).  In the Appeal, the Appellant challenged OIR’s withholdings under FOIA Exemption 4 and the adequacy of the search conducted for responsive documents.  OHA found that OIR properly withheld the information under Exemption 4, as the information consisted of financial information specifically related to grants, and also scientific proposals and strategies to carry out those proposals.  The information was marked as proprietary by the submitting companies and OIR found that release of the information could cause substantial competitive harm by providing potential competitors with an insight into the company assets and business plans.  The Appellant challenged the search for documents because no information was released regarding three scientists whose names were previously released to the Appellant as having received grants.  When questioned, OIR stated that the retention period for grant files, including grant administrative files, is six years and three months, after the final closeout of the grant.  OHA therefore found the search to be reasonable and denied the Appeal.  OHA Case No. FIA-14-0050