Decisions were issued on: - Personnel Security - FOIA Appeal - Hydroelectric Appeal
Office of Hearings and Appeals
July 12, 2024
minute read time
FOIA Appeal (FIA)
FOIA Appeal; Adequacy of Search; Denied
On July 8, 2024, the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) denied a Freedom of Information (FOIA) appeal filed by Martin Pfeiffer (Appellant) from a determination letter issued by the Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). The Appellant submitted a FOIA request seeking copies of all records the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) provided to a crew involved in production of the "Oppenheimer" film. The Appellant challenged the adequacy of the NNSA's search, on the basis that LANL disclosed fewer records than it claimed to have provided to the production crew in its Summer 2023, issue of National Security Science Magazine. After reviewing the appeal, OHA found the NNSA discovered several inaccuracies in the article, and it was therefore, not a reliable indicator of the quantity of records responsive to the FOIA request. OHA also found the NNSA identified all relevant locations and custodians of responsive records, and conducted a search using terms narrowly configured to produce responsive records. Accordingly, the Appellant's appeal was denied. (OHA Case No. FIA-24-0032)
Hydroelectric Appeal (HEA)
Appeal Granted, Maintaining and Enhancing Hydroelectricity Incentives Program
On July 12, 2024, the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) issued a decision granting two appeals by Seattle City Light relating to the Maintaining and Enhancing Hydroelectricity Incentives Program (Program) authorized by Section 247 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. DOE denied two applications by Seattle City Light for incentive payments under the Program because Seattle City Light did not provide documentation establishing that the hydroelectric facility to which its applications pertained was a qualified hydroelectric facility under the Program. Seattle City Light argued that the Program guidance did not specify documentation it was required to provide to establish that its hydroelectric facility was a qualified hydroelectric facility and that it had complied with all application requirements. OHA concluded that DOE had acted arbitrarily or capriciously in denying the applications, and therefore granted the appeals. (OHA Case No. HEA-24-0080, Harmonick)
Appeal Granted, Maintaining and Enhancing Hydroelectricity Incentives Program
On July 12, 2024, the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) issued a decision granting two appeals by Seattle City Light relating to the Maintaining and Enhancing Hydroelectricity Incentives Program (Program) authorized by Section 247 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. DOE denied two applications by Seattle City Light for incentive payments under the Program because Seattle City Light did not provide documentation establishing that the hydroelectric facility to which its applications pertained was a qualified hydroelectric facility under the Program. Seattle City Light argued that the Program guidance did not specify documentation it was required to provide to establish that its hydroelectric facility was a qualified hydroelectric facility and that it had complied with all application requirements. OHA concluded that DOE had acted arbitrarily or capriciously in denying the applications, and therefore granted the appeals. (OHA Case No. HEA-24-0081, Harmonick)
Personnel Security Hearing (PSH)
On July 9, 2024, an Administrative Judge with the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Hearings and Appeals determined that the Individual's access authorization should be restored under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. In June 2023, the Individual was arrested for Assault Causing Injury to a Family Member, after consuming three beers. The Individual was subsequently evaluated by a DOE consultant psychologist, who diagnosed the Individual with Unspecified Alcohol-Related Disorder without evidence of reformation or rehabilitation. After a hearing, the Administrative Judge found that the Individual had acknowledged his maladaptive alcohol use, successfully completed an Intensive Outpatient Treatment Program (IOP), completed twenty-eight sessions of an aftercare program for alcohol treatment, and submitted sufficient evidence to establish that he abstained from alcohol consumption for nearly six months. Moreover, the DOE psychologist concluded the Individual was rehabilitated and reformed from his Unspecified Alcohol-Related Disorder. Therefore, the Administrative Judge found the Individual had mitigated the security concerns arising under Guideline G of the Adjudicative Guidelines and that DOE access authorization should be restored. (OHA Case No. PSH-24-0069, Martin)