Personnel Security (10 CFR Part 710)

On March 23, 2016, an OHA Administrative Judge issued a decision in which he concluded that an individual’s security clearance should not be restored.  A DOE consulting psychiatrist evaluated the individual and concluded that he met the DSM 5 criteria for Unspecified Neurocognitive Disorder on the basis of observed impairments in memory and attention and variable performance on certain cognitive tests.  The DOE psychiatrist determined that this is an illness, though mild, that may cause a significant defect in the individual’s judgment or reliability and was not amenable to treatment.  The individual sought an evaluation by a clinical psychologist and neuropsychologist, who concluded that the individual suffered from Learning Disorder, a condition that is amenable to treatment and for which he was receiving treatment, but does not cause a significant defect in judgment or reliability. Both experts testified at the hearing that the symptoms of the two different diagnoses are similar; the distinction lay in the cause of the symptoms.  Both also conceded that the cause of the individual’s impairments was unknown.  Under these circumstances, the Administrative Judge found that the individual had not resolved the security concerns arising under Criterion H.  OHA Case No. PSH-15-0078 (William M. Schwartz)

Application for Exception

On March 25, 2016, OHA issued a decision denying an Application for Exception filed by Reuland Electric Co. (Reuland).  In its Application, Reuland sought exception relief from the provisions of 10 CFR Part 431, Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial and Industrial Electric Blowers, 79 Fed. Reg. 30934 (2014) (Electric Motor Efficiency Standards), effective July 28, 2014 (codified at 10 C.F.R. § 431 .25). Compliance with the Electric Motor Efficiency Standards is required as of June 1, 2016.  Reuland is a domestic manufacturer of custom electric motors and asserted that the firm would suffer a special hardship, gross inequity and unfair distribution of burdens, if forced to comply with the new efficiency standards.  The firm therefore requested that OHA grant exception relief to authorize the firm to continue to manufacture up to 1200 custom motors per year that would not be required to meet the Electric Motor Efficiency Standards.  In evaluating Reuland’s Application, however, OHA found that Reuland had failed to substantiate its claim that the firm would incur prohibitively excessive capital costs to bring its custom motor product line into compliance.  Reuland’s Application for Exception was therefore denied.  OHA Case No. EXC-15-0001