On October 17, 2014, Martin Becker appealed a September 25, 2014, determination that he received from the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Information Resources (OIR), the DOE office responsible for processing requests at DOE Headquarters. In that determination, OIR responded to a June 10, 2014, request for documents that Mr. Becker filed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, as implemented by the DOE in 10 C.F.R.
Tom Clements (the Appellant) appealed a FOIA determination that the DOE’s Savannah River Operations Office (DOE-SR) issued to him regarding his August 2014 Freedom of Information Act request. DOE-SR issued a determination releasing one of two requested documents in its entirety, and withholding the second requested document on the grounds that it was not an “agency record” subject to disclosure under the FOIA. On appeal, OHA found that DOE-SR properly denied the Appellant’s FOIA request because the document at issue not an agency record for purposes of the FOIA. In addition, contract be
On October 7, 2014, The Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) denied 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 under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), fro
On October 6, 2014, the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) denied a Freedom of Information Act Appeal (FOIA) filed by Southeastern Legal Foundation (Appellant) of a determination issued by the Office of Information Resources (OIR). In the Appeal, the Appellant challenged OIR’s withholdings under 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
On September 29, 2014, the Appellant filed a request with Richland for “[a]ll certified payroll records for Intermech Inc. covering all work performed . . . [and] [c]opies of employee time sheets in support of the referenced certified payroll reports” for work performed under Contract No. 36883 Release 19, the Realignment of Extraction Wells ME51 and ME52, at the Hanford Nuclear Site. Request Letter dated September 29, 2014, from Anna L.
On September 29, 2014, the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) issued a decision denying an appeal (Appeal) from a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) determination issued by the Department of Energy’s Office of Inspector General (OIG).
On September 19, 2014, the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) issued a decision denying an Appeal from a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) determination issued by the Office of Information Resources (OIR). The Appellant, Tim Hadley, appealed a determination by OIR on his re-submitted FOIA Request after it was previously remanded by OHA on August 11, 2014.
On August 10, 2014, the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) issued a Decision and Order concerning a Freedom of Information Act Appeal (FOIA) filed by Tim Hadley (Appellant) of a determination issued by the DOE Office of Information Resources (OIR). In his Appeal, the Appellant challenged OIR’s withholdings under Exemptions 4 and 6. OHA found that OIR properly withheld personnel contact and financial information under Exemption 4, but with the possible exception of vendor-related information, which was remanded to OIR for a determination of whether the latte
On July 31, 2014, the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) issued a decision remanding an Appeal from a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) determination issued by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). The Appellant, Ted Sickinger, appealed BPA’s decision to withhold documents responsive to two parts of his FOIA Request in their entirety pursuant to Exemption 6. As BPA did not specify the privacy concerns at issue and how they would be compromised by release of the information, OHA concluded that the justifications in BPA’s Determination Letter were conclusory and insufficient. Acco
In May 2008, Tri-Valley CAREs submitted a revised FOIA request to the DOE for a document titled “B368 Select Agent Risk and Threat Assessment,” dated July 14, 2005. Jan. 14, 2011, Determination Letter from Carolyn Becknell, FOIA Officer, NNSA, to Appellant. The responsive document was released to Tri-Valley CAREs after information was redacted under Exemptions 1, 2, and 6. Id. NNSA described the information withheld pursuant to Exemption 2 as “High 2” information, i.e., information where “disclosure significantly risks circumvention of agency regulations or statutes.” See Crooker v.