Personnel Security (10 CFR Part 710)

On May 25, 2016, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he determined that an individual’s DOE access authorization should be restored.  The local security office had alleged that the individual’s history of three alcohol-related arrests, and an opinion by a DOE psychiatrist that he suffered from Alcohol Abuse/Alcohol Use Disorder, raised concerns about the individual’s eligibility to maintain a security clearance.  At the hearing, the individual showed that he had been abstinent from alcohol for over a year, and had become active in Alcoholics Anonymous.  On the basis of this information, the DOE psychiatrist opined during his testimony that the individual’s prognosis is now favorable.  Accordingly, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had resolved the security concerns raised by his use of alcohol.  OHA Case No. PSH-16-0010 (Steven L. Fine)

On May 26, 2016, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which she determined that an individual’s access authorization should not be restored.  In reaching this determination, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had not resolved the security concerns arising from his unpaid federal and state taxes.  The local security office determined the individual had not filed his 2010-2014 taxes.  At the hearing, the individual did not dispute this finding but testified that he had filed his 2015 taxes on time.  However, as of the date of the hearing, the individual still had not filed either his federal or state tax returns for 2010-2014, although those returns had been completed.  Therefore, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had not resolved the Criterion L security concerns with regard to his reliability and trustworthiness.  OHA Case No. PSH-16-0013 (Janet R. H. Fishman)

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Appeals

On May 25, 2016, OHA denied a FOIA Appeal filed by Mr. Bill Streifer (Appellant) from a determination issued to him by the Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI). The Appellant’s FOIA request sought records that would explain why OSTI’s online databases contain bibliographic records on Dr. Fritz Hansgirg’s patents regarding hydrogen production but not on Dr. Hansgirg’s patents concerning heavy water production. In its determination, OSTI informed the Appellant that it could find no responsive records. In the Appeal, the Appellant challenged the adequacy of OSTI’s search. OHA, however, found it unlikely that any responsive documents exist and determined that the search OSTI conducted was therefore adequate. Accordingly, OHA denied the Appeal. OHA Case No. FIA-16-0029 

On May 27, 2016, OHA granted in part a FOIA Appeal filed by GlidePath Power LLC (Appellant) from a determination issued to it by the Golden Field Office (GFO). The Appellant’s FOIA request sought an application and other documents related to a DOE grant award to Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd). The GFO released 254 pages in response to the Appellant’s FOIA request but withheld portions of those documents under Exemptions 3, 4 and 6 of the FOIA. In the Appeal, the Appellant challenged the GFO’s redactions under Exemption 4 only. OHA found that GFO had properly withheld almost all of the information under Exemption 4 because it consisted of confidential business information that, if released, would be likely to cause substantial competitive harm to ComEd and its business partners. However, OHA found that a small amount of information redacted under Exemption 4 was not Exemption 4 material. Accordingly, OHA remanded the matter to the GFO so that it could determine whether any additional material could be released.  OHA Case No. FIA-16-0030