Information Notice 1991-10, Summary of Semiannual Program Performance Reports on Fithess-For-Duty (FFD) in the Nuclear Industry

Summary of Semiannual Program Performance Reports on Fithess-For-Duty (FFD) in the Nuclear Industry
	ML031190658
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley, Millstone, Hatch, Monticello, Calvert Cliffs, Dresden, Davis Besse, Peach Bottom, Browns Ferry, Salem, Oconee, Mcguire, Nine Mile Point, Palisades, Palo Verde, Perry, Indian Point, Fermi, Kewaunee, Catawba, Harris, Wolf Creek, Saint Lucie, Point Beach, Oyster Creek, Watts Bar, Hope Creek, Grand Gulf, Cooper, Sequoyah, Byron, Pilgrim, Arkansas Nuclear, Braidwood, Susquehanna, Summer, Prairie Island, Columbia, Seabrook, Brunswick, Surry, Limerick, North Anna, Turkey Point, River Bend, Vermont Yankee, Crystal River, Haddam Neck, Ginna, Diablo Canyon, Callaway, Vogtle, Waterford, Duane Arnold, Farley, Robinson, Clinton, South Texas, San Onofre, Cook, Comanche Peak, Yankee Rowe, Maine Yankee, Quad Cities, Humboldt Bay, La Crosse, Big Rock Point, Rancho Seco, Zion, Midland, Bellefonte, Fort Calhoun, FitzPatrick, McGuire, LaSalle, Fort Saint Vrain, Shoreham, Satsop, Trojan, Atlantic Nuclear Power Plant, Crane
Issue date:	02/12/1991
From:	Rossi C; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	;
References
	IN-91-010, NUDOCS 9102060106
	Download: ML031190658 (33)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555

February 12, 1991- NRC INFORMATION NOTICE NO. 91-10:. SUMMARY OF SEMIANNUAL PROGRAM PERFORMANCE

- > REPORTS ON F7ITNESS-FOR-DUTY (FFD) IN-THE

NUCLEAR INDUSTRY

Addressees

All holders of operating licenses or construction permits for nuclear power

reactors.

Purpose

This information notice is intended to inform licensees of the results of the

industry's experience with drug and alcohol testing, as required by Part 26 of

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 26), "Fitness-for-Duty

Programs," for all personnel having unescorted access to the protected area of

the plant during the first six months of 1990. The attached report, *Fitness

for Duty in the Nuclear Power Industry," of January, 1991, presents a summary

of 84 semiannual program performance reports provided by 54 utilities repre- senting 75 nuclear power plant sites and 9 corporate offices. It is expected

that recipients will review the information for applicability to their facili- ties and consider actions, as appropriate. However, suggestions contained in

this information notice do not constitute NRC requirements; therefore, no

specific action or written response is required.

Description of Circumstances

Drug and alcohol testing programs are a central element of the FFD program

required by 10 CFR Part 26. Because of the importance of this element, semi- annual reports from licensees on the performance of their drug and alcohol

testing programs have been required by 10 CFR Part 26. The NRC compiled the

enclosed report to summarize the Industry's experience from January 3 to

June 30, 1990. The information contained in the attached report comes from all

current power reactor licensees. In all cases, the reported results pertain to

confirmed positive test results that were verified by the Medical Review

Officer.

Discussion: From January 3 to June 30, 1990, licensees reported that they had conducted

137,953 tests for illegal drugs and alcohol. Of these tests, 1,313(0.95%) yielded positive results. The attached report provides information pertaining

,/

' 9102060106 l

ol

-- ' POK -11E

Oh{ce.. 91-olo

Al0Z

\\ tI

IN 91-10 February 12, 1991 to positive test results categorized by the type of tests, the type of drugs, the types of workers found to be abusing drugs, and the region in which the

plant is located. The report contains other information and lessons learned

that may be useful to assess FFD programs and to improve and refine these

programs.

This information' notice requires n'o'spe'cific action or written response. If

you have any questions about the information contained in this notice, please

contact the technical contact listed below or the appropriate NRR project

manager.

Charles E. Rossl, D rector

Division of Operational Events Assessment

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Technical Contact:

Loren

(301) Bush, NRR

492-0944 Attachments: 1. Fitness for Duty in the Nuclear Power

Industry - Summary of Semi-annual

Program Performance Reports, January, 1991

2. List of Recently Issued NRC Information Notices

I.

.

i

S

~ - A

F-

Attachment 1

IN 91-10

February 12, 1991

z

K>W

FITNESS FOR

DUTY IN THE

NUCLEAR

POWER

INDUSTRY

SUMMARY OF SEMI-ANNUAL PROGRAM

PERFORMANCE REPORTS

(ANUARY 3 THROUGH JUE 30, 1990) N. Durbin

S. Murphy

T. Fleming

J.Olson

January, 1991

Prepared for

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Bartlle Human Affain Research Centers

Pacific Northwest LAoratory

_2 S

_1111111 - 1 " ua- Jpig

I

i.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

OnJune 7,1989, theNRC published a rule

in the Federal Register (10 CFR Part 26, Fitness- for-Duty Programs) requiring that each licensee

authorized to operate or construct a nuclear

powerreactorimplementafirhess-for-duty(FFD) program for all personnel having unescorted

access to the protected area of the plant. This

rule became effective on July 7, 1989, with an

implementation date of January 3, 1990. A

central element of the required FFD program is

the drug and alcohol testing program. This re- port summarizes the 84 semi-annual reports on

FFDprogramperformanceprovidedtotheNRC

by 54 utilities as required by 10 CFR Part 26.

During the period January 3 to June 30, 1990, licensees reported chattheyhad conducted

137,953 tests for illegal drugs and alcohol. Of

these tests, 1,313 (0.95%) were positive.

Amajorityofthepositive test results (875) were obtained through pre-access testing. Of

tests conducted on workers having access to the

protected area, there were 299 positive tests

from random testing, 90 positive tests from for- cause testing, and 11 positive tests from periodic

and other categories of testing. Follow-up test- ing of workers resulted in 38 positive tests. For- cause testing resulted in the highest percentage

of positive tests; over 25 percent of for-cause

tests were positive. This compares to positive

test results in under 1.5 percent of pre-access

tests and under 0.5 percent of random tests.

Positive test results also varied by category

of worker. Overall, short-term contractor per- sonnel had the highest rates of positive tests

(1.35%). Licensee and long-term contractor

personnel had lower rates of positive test results

(.61% and .86%, respectively).

Of all drugs tested, marijuana was respon- sible for the majority of positive test results, followed by cocaine and alcohol.

-

Positive test results and categories of drugs

identified varied by region. Regional variations

reported here are considered preliminary be- cause a six- month period is not long enough for

all sites tohave acomparablerange ofexperiences

(for example, not all sites have had an outage) and because interpretations of reporting re- qti'remenrsivariedbFy utility. Since such differ- ences may have a substantial impact on the

percentage of positive test results, regional dif- ferences should be interpreted with caution.

Preliminary results indicate that Region

IV had the lowest overall percentage of positive

tests (.67%); while other regions had percent- ages of about 1 percent. Marijuana accounted

for the largest percentage of positive test results

in all regions except Region I, where cocaine

was responsible for the highest percentage.

Positive test results for cocaine differed dra- matically across regions, accounting for only

14.8 percent of all positive tests in Region V

compared to 37.9 percent in Region I. Region V

had a higher percentage of positive test results

for amphetamines (8.0%) than other regions.

Many licensees provided detailed accounts

of lessons learned during the reporting period. A

brief summary of lessons learned is presented in

Section V of this report and a complete compi- - lation is provided in Appendix C.

TABLE OF.CONTENTS

INTRODUCnION

Section 1:

Overall test results

Section 2:

Test results by worker category

Section 3: -Tu=tesultsyd

catgory

Section 4:

Test results by region

Section S:

Lessons learned

Appendix A:

Technical backound

Appendix B:

Supporting data

Appendix C:

Compilation of lessons learned reported by licensees

Page * I

2 4 - 6 9 10 11 15 19

List of Tables

Table 1:

Definitionsof test categories

Table 2:

Test results by test category

Table 3:

Test results by test category and worker category

Table 4:

Test results for additional drugs

Table Al: List of utilities submitting reports for sites and corporate offices.

Table A2: Maximum screeningandconfirmationlevelsrequiredby 10CFR

Part 26 Table Bl:

Test results by NUMARC form test category

Table B1: Test resultsby NUMARCIorm testcategoryby licensee employ- ees and contractor personnel.

Table B3: Test results by NUMARC form test category by long-term and

short-term contractor personnel.

Table B4:

Test results for additional drugs

Table ES:

Positive test results by region and by substance

List of Figures

Figure 1:

Comparison of test categories

Figure 2:

Percent of positive tests in each test category

Figure 3: Comparison of test category percentages by worker category

Figure 4:

Comparison of test outcomes by worker category

Figure 5:

Confirmed positives by drug category

Figure 6:

Confirmed positives for marijuana by screening level

Figure 7: Confirmedposidvesbydrugcaregories includingenodiaepinles

and Barbiturates

Figure 8: Confirmed positives: Regions INV

Figure 9: Confirmed positives by drug categories: Regions i-V

Figure Al:

Oeographic location of NRC Regions INV

2 2 4 7 12 14 15 15 16 17 18 3 3 5 S

6 7 7 9 9 14

INTRODUCTION

Since the late 1970s, the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) has been con- cerned with the potential impact on the health

and safety ofthe public offitness-for-duty (FF1)) problems among personnel with unescorted

access to protected areas In commercial nuclear

power plants. As the nationwide epidemic of

drug abuse grew, it became apparent that the

-nuclear power industry was not immune to its

effects. In response, and with the cooperation

and support of the industry, the NRC published

a rule onJune 7, 1989, inthe Federal Register (10 CFR Part 26, Fitness-for-Duty Programs), re- quiring each licensee authorized to operate or

construct a nuclear power reactor to implement

a -FFD program for all personnel having

unescorted access to the protected area of the

plant. This rule became effective on July 7, 1989, with an implementation date of January

3,1990.Theruleestablishedbroadrequirements

for the control of FFD problems stemming from

illegal drug use, alcohol' abuse, abuse of legal

drugs, andanyothermentalorphysicalproblems

that could impair performance or that in other

ways raised questions about the reliability and

trustworthiness of employees or their ability to

safely and competently perform their duties.

A central element of the required FF1) program isthe drug testingprogram. This element

is designed to both deter and detect the use of

illegal drugs and the misuse of alcohol and other

legal drugs. Because of the importance of this

element, the NRC has required that power

reactor licensees provide semi-annual reports

on the results of their drug testing programs.

These reports are to provide the NRC with

information on 'the effectiveness of individual

programs and of the programs as a whole in

minimizing the impact of drugs and alcohol on

the plaints. The reports are also of use to the

industry -as it attempts to improve and refine

FFD programs. The NRC anticipates publishing- these reports periodically.

This report has been compiled to summa- rize industry experience to date. It is based on

the semi-annual program performance reports

covering the period from January 3 to june 30, 1990, and contains information on positive test

results by category of test, category of drug, category of worker found to be abusing drugs, and region. The information contained in this

-report comes -from -all current power reactor

licensees.Fifty-fourutilitiessubmitted84reports, representing 75 nuclear power plant sites and 9 corporate offices. In all cases, the results pertain

to confirmed positive test results. A detailed de- scription of the technical background for the

FF1) program performance reports is provided in

Appendix A. Of particular use to the industry is

the compilation of lessons learned provided by

licensees (Appendix C).

Several observations are in order. First, overall positive test rates appear to be quite low; however, these rates continue to represent a

substantial number of nuclear workers or ap- plicants identified as having drug or alcohol

problems. Thus, while the NRC and industry

may have reason to be encouraged by these

results, additional progress canbe made. Second, while reporting appears to have been fairly

complete and systematic, there are a few points

where clarification is needed. Appendix A of

this report provides this clarification.

The NRC welcomes suggestions concern- ing the contentof this report. Comments should

be forwarded to:

Mr. Loren Bush

Chief of Program Development and

Review Section

Division of Reactor Inspection and

Safeguards

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Room 9D24 -Washington, D.C. 20555 7 1

Q

I

11 SECTION 1: OVER.ALL TEST RESULTS

This section contains information on drug and

alcoholtesdngresulforeahcategoryoftestrequiredby

10 CFR Part 26. The test results are reported in five

categories: pre-access, random, for-cause, follow-up, and

other. The definitions of these categories are given in

Table 1.

The numberoftes performed and the-number of

positive tests results are reported in Table 2. A total of

137,953 tests were reported in 84 FFD program perfor- mance reports provided by 54 utilities (75 sites and 9 corporate headquarters). The overall positive rate was

slightly less than 1 percent (0.95%) across all categories

-of tests. Although this percentage may seem small, in

absolute numbers 1,313 workers or applicants tested

positive for drugs and/or alcohol. Pre-access testing

identified 875 applicants or workers as having positive

test results. Of those workers who had unescorted access

to the protected area, 299 were identified as having

positive test results for drugs or alcohol based on random

tests and 90 were found positive based on for-cause tests.

Figure 1 provides a graphic representation of the

numbers in Table 2. Random and pre-access testing

resulted in similar numbers of tests (61,066 and 73,577, respectively) and, when combined, these two types of test

accounted for the overwhelming majority of tests per- formed (134,643 tests; 97.60% of all tests reported).

Comparing the number ofpositive test results, pre-access

testing accounted for the majority of all positive tests, Table 2

Test Results by Test Category

Number of

Positive

Percent

Tests

Positive

Pre-Access

61,066 875 1.43% Random

73,577 299.

0.41% For-Cause

356 90 25.28% Follow-Up

1105 38 3.44% Other

1849 11 0.60% TOTAL

137,953 1313 0.95% (875; 66.6%) followedby random (299; 22.8%) and for- cause testing (90; 6.9%).

Figure 2 shows the percentage ofconfirmed positive

tests for each category of test. The percentage for each

category was calculated by summing the number of posi- tive tests in each test category and dividing it by the total

number of tests conducted in that category. For-cause

testing resulted in the highest percentage of positive tests

(253%). This Is an expected result, since for-cause tests

are based on referral by a supervisor trained In behavioral

Table 1

Definitions of Test Categories

PRE-ACCESS This category combines results from pre-employment and pre-badging tests.

RANDOM

Random testing refers to a system of unannounced and unpredictable drug testing administered in a

statistically random manner to a group so that all persons within that group have an equal probability

of selection.

FOR-CAUSE

The 'for-cause testing category includes the results of tests based on behavioral observation programs, based on credible information that an individual is abusing drugs or alcohol, or based on a reasonable

suspicion that drugs or alcohol may have been involved In a specific event (Le., post-accident).

FOLLOW-UP

Follow-up testing refers to chemical testing at unannounced intervals to ensure that an employee is

maintaining abstinence from the abuse of drugs or alcohol.

OTHER

- -. The'other restingcaregoryisusedforall typesofdrugandakloholtestingreportedbylicansees thatwere .

notspecificallyrequiredbytherule. Insomecases,thebasisfortestingwasunclear;thereforeasdiscussed

in Appendix A, these results should be interpreted with care.

7edjbdzioua badon did4~bg

Sccdcui 26.3 hi lOCFR Part26aidoaeamiau

cf

dw FFD pefovmna= dXa in f

jfam

tU licn=se by NUMARC. hl om ca, mezarb frm dw

apofifonwr mbtiedk

to mhr din exes wwed bt the n&. Caro

of tafitnat cwd nIo

CFR 26 wer mcomb

as'tiry. For a/Udicuof dil caq

ardsorozu f a d

cAdori

vepoxW, se Anerdi A. Te

&Ekxowldand4 Apsr& B: SApmft Dat

2

K>J

observation techniques oron credible information indi- cating inappropriate drug and alcohol use. (Post-accident

tests were included in this category; however, there were

no positive test results from the 21 post-accident tests

reported; see Appendix B, Table Bi.) Unfortunately, no

Information Is available regarding the type of drugs that

resulted in positive for-cause tests; hence, the ability of

supervisors to detect the use of specific drugs and alcohol

camnnotbe determinedt.OCtepre-access tests, 1.4 percent

were posltive, 0.4 percent of the random tests were post- tve.

Summary of Major Findings

0 Drug and/or alcohol use ln violation of 10 CFR Part

26 was confirmed in about 1 percent of the tests.

Most of the positive tests were among workers who

never attained access to the protected area. None- theless, nearly 400 workers with access tested posi.

tive across the industry In the six-month period.

Pre-Access

1.43% .P

Random

For-Cause

S

Follow-Up

Other

0.41% 20i.

C3."4% G0.6096 .28% . - I

0 5 10 15 PERCENT

20 25 Figure 2 .Percent of Positive Tests in Each

Test Category

- 875 .1 . .. M M m -- ----.

..

Pre-Access

.. Random

For-Cause

Follow-Up

Other

- TOTAL

l61,066 2QQ

__-

73,577 90 MI3 56 38 -- 1105 1 1 .

............

..

,i

i , 1313 1849 -

Number of Positives

K Number of Tests

- 137,953 _ I

II

50,000 75 i I i I

M

I.

I

0 250 S00 750 1000 I

II

1250 1500 1750 FREQUENCY

2000 q- -Figure I

Comparison of Test Categories

- -- 3 -

SECTION 2: TEST RESULTS BYWORKER

Figure 4 compares positive rest results for licensee

employees, long-term contractor and short-term contrac

torpersonnel. In all est categories except follow-up tets, --the -percentages -of positive test results were higher for

short-term contractor personnel than for either licensee

or long term contractor personnel.

In pre-access testing, short-term contractors tested

positive about 40 percent more often than did workers in

eitheroftheothercategories (1.56%ofallpremaccess tests

performed on short-term contractorpersonnel were posi- tive, compared to 1.17% for licensee employees and

1.15% for long-term contractor.). Because of the large

number of pre-access tests experienced by short-term

contractors and the percentage of positive test results

obtained, positive pre-access test results from short-term

contractors accounted for almosthalf (648) ofall positive

test results (see Table 3).

Random testing also produced different percent- ages ofpositive results across categories ofworkers. Short- term contractor. had more than twice the percentage of

positive test results found among licensee employees

Table 3

Test Results by Test Category and Worker Category

TYPEOFTEST

LICENSEE

LONG-TERM

SHORT-TERM

TOTAL

PERCENT

EMPLOYEES

CONrRACrORS

OONTRACMORS

PRE-ACCESS

NumberTested

15,712 3,741 41,613 61,066 Number Positive

184 43 648 875 1.43% RANDOM

NumberTested

50,402 4,193 18,982 73,577 Number Positive

153 20 126 299 0.41% FOR-CAUSE

NumberTested

182 26 148 356 Number Positive

40 6 44 90 2528% FOLLOW-UP

NumberTested

916 4 185 1105 Number Positive

36 0 2 38 3.44% OTHER

NumberTested

1,514 63 272 1849 Number Positive

6 0 5 11 0.60% TOTAL

NumberTested

68,726 8,027 61,200 137,953 Number Positive

419 69 825 1313 0.95% 4

(0.66% and 030%, respetivcly; see Figure 4). Hence, although licensee

ployces expericd

ore

dtan twice

as many random tests as did short-term contractors, the

two categories of workers had similar numbers of positive

test results (126 for short-term contractors compared to

153 for licensee employees).

The re similarities between the percentages of

posidve results from for-cause testingforlicensee employ- ces and long-term-contractors-4n each group, about 22 percent tested positive. A higher percentage of short- term contractors, about 30 percent, had positive test

results from for-cause tests.

Follow-up testing was used primarily for licensee

employees (n-916 tests), less often for short-term con- tractors (n=185 tests), and almost never for long-term

contractor personnel (nE4 tests).

Positive results for follow-up testing were close to 4 percent for licensee employees, and slightly above 1 percent for short-term contractors. Of the four follow-up

tests conductedonlong-term contractor personnel, none

were positive (See Figure 4).

In all, there were 229 confirmedpositive test results

among licensee employees (not Including pre-access or

follow-up tests) and 184 referrals to Employee Assistance

Programs. Seventy-eight licensee employees had their

access restored during the six-month period from January

3 toJune 30, 1990.

"Other" tests were conducted for various reasons, preventing a meaningful Interpretation of these test Fe- suits.

Summary of Major Findings

Positive test rates were higher for pre-access testing

than for random testing, and were highest of all for

for-cause testing.

' Licensee employees and long-term contractor per- sonnel had about the same positive test rate. Short- term contractor personnel had considerably higher

positive test rates for both random and pre-access

testing., PRE-ACCESS

Lim.seeEpye.

1.17% Long Trm Contmcz

1.15% Sh= Term Cmtracz=s

1.56% RANDOM

LieseEmployee

Leg.TcnzamCzon p0.48% s£-TmC==etx

0,66% FOR-CAUSE

LiceEmpbye

Lng-Term Cntac

Sh=-Tem Cm=tnacr

FOLLOW-UPI

Licensee Emplyee

tLreTaMCon0ros

ShontTerm Ccnazem

OTHER

F9 29.98% t-, 23.0896 P'M29.739i

I -E E"S E M

3.93% Lkcsee Emp

0.40%

LcMg.TerMCaces 0.009

Short-Term bczt

m

1.82% .

I I I I I I //l I I

0 1 2 3 4 s

20 25 30 .

PERCENT

Figure 4 I

Comparison of Test Outcomes by

Worker Category

73% 73% Licensee Employees

Hs.....

.............

E...e.........

47% 52% lag-FerznCorntzactors

_l

k::;.::.s

s:::k:::.[

100% Sh r-em C nrcos.......

..

... .. ..

.. . ..-.

.. . .

lPRE-AOCCSS Q RANDOM

UIR.CAUSE

lURlLOW.UP

OTrHER

Figure 3 Comparison of Test Category Percentages by Worker Category

- :g

... . .

SECTION 3: TEST. RESULTS BY DRUG

The information presented here is reported as if ali

programpeformancereports used the same interpretation

of the reporting requirements Unfortunately, reporting

instructions for substances were interpreted in different

ways. In some cases, only positive results that were conr

fired by the Medical Review Officer (MRO) were in- cluded. In other cases, all results that were confirmed

positive by CC/MS screening were included. Some sites

that routinely do tests on two aliquors from each sample

reported two positive test results; others counted both 'as

oneposidveresultsincetheycomefromthesamesample.

Part A: Positive test results by drug

This section includes only positive test results for

thefivedrugs specified in l0CFR Part26andforalcohol.

The total number of confirmed positive test results for

substances is expected to differ from the total number of

confirmed positive results by test category. This differ- ence occurs because refusals to take tests are not included

in the reports on substances In addition, positive tests for

drugs not specified in 10 CFR Part 26 are not included in

thlssection.Finally,poly-drugusebyan individual results

in one positive test but more than one substance is

detected.

Figure5showsthepercentageofpositivetestresults

for each category of drug and for alcohol specified in 10 CFR Part 26. Of the total confirmed positive tests by

substance (n 1,341 confirmed positive test results), the

majority (51.83%) were positive for marijuana. Cocaine

was next, with 26.40 percent of the total confirmed

--positive tests, followed -by alcohol (1536%). Opiates, amphetamines, and phencyclidines together accounted

for less than 7 percent of all positive drug tests.

The variations in reporting noted above may mean

that the absolute numberxipositive test results reported

in each drug category is high. This is particularly likely in

the case of amphetamines and opiates, since positive

results for these substances are often ruled by the MRO to

have been caused by other, legal substances. However, the positive results for amphetamines and opiates repre- sent fairly small shares of all positive results (2.2% and

4.0%, respectively), so this data collecdon problem should

not have a substantial impact on the ratio between the

various substances being detected in tests.

In other words, regardless of the actual number of

positive test results, for the panel of d ugs specified by 10

CFR Part 26, one would expect that marijuana would

account for about half of the positive results; cocaine for

over a quarter, alcohol for about 15 percent; and amphet- amines, opiates, and phencyclidines for about 6.5 per- cent.

Part B: Lower Screening Levels

The fitness-for-duty rule (10 CFR Part 26) provides

flexibility by allowing licensees to use lower cutoff levels

than those specified in the NIDA guidelines provided In

10 CFR Part 26. Although only a few licensees used lower

cutofflevels for cocaine and opiates, many licensees used

lower levels for initial screening tests for marijuana.

Thirty-eight of the 84 sites used levels lower than

theNRClevelof 100naogramspermlllliter(ng/mI);27 used 50 ngfnl; and 11 used 20 ng/ml for initial screening.

Figure 6 compares the rate of positive tests found using

these different cutoff levels for marijuana. These rates

were calculated by summing the number of positive test

results for marijuana for each cutoff level and dividing

themby the numberoftestsusing thatcutoffcaegory. A

shown in Figure 6, licensees using lower cutoff levels had

a higher percentage of positive test results: at 20 ng/ml, about 8 tests outof l ,000 were positive; at 50 zng/ml, about

5 tests outof 1,000 were positive; and at 100 ng/ml, about

4 tests out of 1,000 were positive.

Although some licensees used lower cutoff levels

for other substances, no reportable differences in the

percentage of positive test results were Identified. Levels

used for cocaine did not differ for Initial screening (all

licensees used 300 ngfmI) and two licensees reported

Alcohol 15.36%i

n-206 I Marijuana 51.83% Opiates 3.88% n-52\\ Amphetamne

2.24% ~ n-30 / ienc-yclidin

0.31% n-4 ICocainy 26.40% n-354 Figure 5

Confirmed Positives by

Drug Category

6

20 ng

(11 4censees) 50 ng

(27 Licensees) - 100ng

(46 UcnA

es) 0.53% 0.84% 4 lists the number of licensees testing for each additional

drug, the total number oftests perfored byll licensees

testing for each additional drug, the number of positive

test results, and the percentage of positive test results.

There were no positive test results for three of the drugs; methaqualone, methadone, tnd inethamphetamines.

There were a total of 24 positive test results for barbitu- rates, 28 for bemzodiazepines, and 4 for propzyphrine.

-The -most common additional drugs tested were

benzodiazepines and barbiturates. Figure 7 reports on the

test outcomes for the 32 licensees testingforboth of these

additional drugs. It provides the percentages of positive

aestsforthepanel ofdrugs included in lOCFR Part26, and

for benzodiazepine and barbiturates. For these 32 sites, benzodiazepines and barbiturates accounted for 3.86 per- centand 3.17 percentofposidve tests, respectively.Thls

I

.5

PERCENT POSITIVE

1 FIgure 6

Confirmed Positives for

Marijuana by Screen Level

using alowerlevel (50or 100 ng/ml) forconflrmation. A

few licensees (11) used lower confirmation levels for

opiates. Amphetamines were creened at 300 ngWml by

five sites and confirmed at levels of 300 nglml and below

atfour sites, compared to the maximum levels of 1000 ng/ ml and 500 ng/ml specified by 10 CFR Part 26. (See

Appendix Afora summaryofthescreninglevels specified

in 10 CFR Part 26.) Part C: Additional Drugs

Thirty-nine sites reported testing for a broader

panel of drugs than the five specified in the rule. All 39 sites testing for additional drugs tested for benrzodiaz- epines; 32 tested for barbiturates, 19 tested for

methaqualone, 10 tested for methadone, 2 tested for

methamphetamines,and4 testedforpropzyphrine.Table

Barbiturars 3.17% Amphetamines 3.72%j

4 1 E.

Benzodiazepines 3.86% Marijuna 44.49% Alcohol 13.91%

Phencyclidine

0.14% I Cocaine 24.93% (n-726) Figure 7 - -

Confirmed Positives by

Drug Category Including

Benzodiazepines and Barbiturates

Table 4

Test Results for Additional Drugs

Number of

Percent

Licensees

Tests Performed

Positives

Positive

Barbiturates

32 62,286 24 0.04% Benzodiazepines

39 73,061 28 0.04% Propzyphrine

4 7,752 4 0.05% Methdone

10 19,709 0 0.00% Methaqualone

19 32,846 0 0.00% Methamphetamines

2 5,473 0 0.00% 7

v

0 is a percentage comparable to amphetamines, and sub

stantially higher than phencyclidine.

Summary of Major Findings

Madjuana was

fond to be the major drug of abuse, accountingfor over 50 percent of all positive rests.

Cocaine and alcohol also accounted for significant

proportions (about 25% and 15%) of all positive

tests.

Using lower screening cutoff levels for marijuana

than were required (20 nglml vs. 100 nglml) more

han doubled the confirmed positive test rame.

Among the sites testingforadditional drugs, barbitu- rates and benzodiazepines were the drugs most fre- quently added to the panel. These drugs accounted

for small but significant percentages of confirmed

positives for those sites that included them.

8

SECTION 4: TEST RESULTS BY REGION

In this section, Information on testing programs is

summarized for each of the NRC administrative regions.

(Regions are identified in Appendix A.) Region IV sites

reported the lowest percentage of positive test results

(0.67%), while Region III had the highest (1.16%) (see

Figure 8). Since the rate of positive test results may

change as all-licensees cxperiencescheduled-outages, these differences represent preliminary findings.

Thepercentageofallposltive testresultsaccounted

forby aparticulardrugvariedby region. Figure 9 sumra- rizes these data by region for each drug. Marijuana ac- counted for the highest percentage of positive test results

In'egionlll (62%), themajorityofposltivetestresults In

Regions 11 and lV (54% In each), and less than halfof all

positive test results in Regions I and V (37% and 41%).

The highest percentage of positive results from cocaine

was in Region 1 (38%), and the lowest percentage in

Region V (15%).

In general, opiates and amphetamines represented

a substantially smaller percentage of positive tests than

did marijuana and cocaine. Region V was 'an exception; here, opiates and amphetamines together accounted for

17 percent of all positive test results. As noted earlier, these differences may reflect' differcnces in reporting

practices across regions. Positive tests for phencyclidine

were only reported In Regions I, II, and III.

Thepercentagesofall positive testresults accounted

for by alcohol varied substantially across regions. Region

IV had the highest percentage, at 26 percent; Region V, - Recn I

.

Region

..Region III

Region IV

RegioiV

0.91% 0.94% _l

1.1696 0.67% 0.96% .

.

I

.

.5 1

PERCENT POSnIVE

15 Figure 8 Confirmed Positives: Regions I-V

the lowest, at 8 percent.

Summary of Major Findings

The pattern offindings varied from region to region.

RegionlV had the lwestoveral testrate andRegion

III had the highest.

Regionl I

Region 11 Region 111 Region IV

Region V

37% 38% 3%296* 19%

54% 27% 5%** 12% 2% 62% 20% 1%** 16%

549 17%

3%*

26% 41% 15% 9% 8%

8%

19% -X3 ME/////// 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 ' 70 PERCENT

80 90 100 e LOSd

1% 0MarIqnW

Ccaine

QOpiats U1 Apheme

U Phwdine DAcoil SAddidoalDngs

Figure 9 Confirmed Positives by Drug Category: Regions IWV

9

J

SECTION 5: LESSONS LEARNED

As part of the FFD program performance report.

many licensees reported on lessons learned during the

Initial Implementation of the FFM program. Below is a

brief listing of some of the problems noted and solutions

suggested In thse reports. This is not intended as a fuil

summary of the reports, and many additional and useful

suggestions are found in-the fiull compiladondf reported

lessons learned that is provided in Appendix C

Many licensees reported problems with HHS-ceied

labs. Some solutions IncludedcL

using a large and flexible lab

Improvement of the procedures to ensure that

unsatisfactory lab performance Is reported

Implemeneadonofaprocedure eocerdfyascien- tist review of discrepancies between test results

i Increased monitoring of laboratoryperformance

and testing criteria.

Many licensees noted difficulties In ensuring a random

and unannounced random testing program at a 100 per- cent rate. Several Improvements were noted: - testing on the backshift

modifications to the random selection process

computer enhancements

- addition of a collection facility at corporate

offices for those with Infrequent access to pro.

eected areas

- off-site testing ofFFD personneL- Several licensees noted the need for complete procedures

andreportedadditional proceduresdhthadbeenwritten.

V&A..-.

.4-.-I--j

- - V

4A

dressed

.

call-in protocol

ISUWpport the FFD program ad- test sample collection and handling

l laboratory monitoring

- maintenance of site facility Instrumentation.

Various aspects ofFFD program managementwere raised

by the licensees. Specific issues addressed were: - the difficulties of providing program manage- ment oversight from a corporate office and the

requirement for on-site management

the necessity for procedures for MRO reviews

and reports and the requirement to involve the

MRO in policy decisions

the availability requirements of the FFD man- ager.

In a number of licensee reports, Issues regarding the

collection facility and on-site testing were raised. Fre- quently, inappropriate test sample collection materials

were used initially. Licensees responded by

- providing Improved pacdaging of material

- changing procedures for handling test samples

- developing procedures for test sample collec- tion.

ConcerreardingFF1Dtrainigrequirements werecited

in several instances- These concerns Includedi

annual requalification trainingforsupervisors in

behavioral observation

- the requirementforadditional trainingofsuper- visors and escorts

- training of contract supervisors.

Several licensees noted difficulties with assuring that all

personnel covered by 1OCFR Part 26 are testedunderthe

random testing program. Licensees responses included- 10

APPENDIX A

.

Data Source

Technical

Background

The data for this study are drawn from the semi- annual reports on FF1) program performance that were

This section includes: - submitted inaccordancewith 1O CFR Part26 by all NRC

licensees authorized to operate or construct a nuclear

0 A description of the data used as the basis of the

power reactor; Eighty-four forms were received from 54 report

utilities-75 from sites and 9 from corporate offices (see

A list of the utilites and dtes providing data forthis -- TableAl ). Te form used was a sandardized data collec- tionformdevelopedbyNUMARCtofulfillPart26.71(d)

of the rule. Thlis part of the rule speclfies that the data

Addidional detail on the definitions of cate4ories

reported shall include: used in the report

Other relevant information (eg. the substo

qulredby 10 CFR Part 26).

inces re-

random testing rate

drugs tested and cutoff levels, including results of

tests usinglowercutofflevelsandtestsforotherdrugs

workforce populations tested

numbers oftests and results by populadon and type of

test (i e, pre-badging, random, for-cause, etc.)

substances Idendfied

summary of management actions

a list of events reported

The number of positive tests for overall results of

testing and the number of tests identifying specific sub- stances are not expected to be equal. A total 'of 1,313 positive test results were reported and a total of 1,397 substances were identified. Tbere ar several reasons for

this difference:

A refusal to testis documented as aposidveresultbut

does not identify a substance.

Poly-substanceabuseiscountedasonepostidvcresultt

but results in the identification of more than one

substance (a positive test for both marijuana and

alcohol would be counted as two substances for

acample).

LIcensees interpreted reporting instructions for spe- cific drugs in different ways. In some cases, only

positive results that were confilrmed by the Medical

ReviewOfficer(MRO)wereIncluded Inothercases, all results that were confirmed positive by GO/MS

screening were included.

Some sites that routinely do tests on two aliquots

fromcach sample reporedonepositive testresultbut

two positive tests for the substance identified, others

counted both as one positive result, since they come

from the same sample.

11

Table

Al

Table Al

List of Utilities Submitting Reports for Sites and Corporate Offices

COMPANY/PLANT(S) - CMPANYRPLANT(S) C COMPANY/PLANT(S) 1 .. Alabama Power

Parley 1 & 2 2

Arizona Public Service

Palo Verde 1, 2,3 3 Arkansas

Arkansas Nuclear One I & 2 4 Baltimore Ga & Electric

Calvert Cliffs 1 & 2 5

Boston Edison

Pilgrim

6 Carolina Power & Light

Robinson 2 Brunswick I & 2

Shearon Harris

Corporate Office

7 Cleveland Elec. Illum.

Perry 1 &2 8

Commonwealth Edison

Byron 1 & 2 Braidwood 1 & 2 Zion 1 & 2 Dresden2&3 Quad Cities 1 & 2 Lasalle 1 & 2

Corporate Office

9 Colorado (Public Service)

Fort S Vrain

10 Consolidated Edison

Indian Point 1 & 2 11

Consumers Power

Palisades

Big Rock Point

Corporate

12 Detroit Edison

Fermi 2 13 Duke Power

McGuire 1 & 2 Oconee 1, 2, &3 Catawba & 2

Corporate Ofice

14 Duquesne Light

Beaver Valley 1 &2 15 Florida Power & Light

Turkey Polnt3 &4 St. Lucie 1 & 2 16 Florida Power Corporation

Crystal River 3

17 GeorgIa Power

Hatch 1 & 2 Vogrle &2 18 GPU Nuclear Corporation

Three Mile Island I

Oyster Creek 1

Corporate Office

19 Gulf States Utilities

River Bend 1

20 Houston Light & Power

South Texas 1 & 2 21 mllinois Power

Clinton 1 22 Indiana & Michigan Electric

Cook 1 & 2 23

Iowa Electric

Duane Arnold

24 Long Island Lighting

Shoreham

25 Louisiana Power & Light (Entergy) Waterford 3 26 Maine Yankee Atomic Power

Maine Yankee

27 Nebraska Public Power District

Cooper Station

28 Niagara Mohawk Power

Nine Mile Point 1 & 2 29 Northeast Utilities

Haddam Nock

Millstone 1 &3

Corporate Office

30 Northern States Power

Monticello

Prairie Island 1 & 2

Corporate Office

31 Omaha Public Power District

Fort Calhoun

32 Pacifc Ga & Electric

Diablo Canyon I & 2 33 PennsylvanIa Power & Light

Susquehanna 1 & 2 34 Philadelphia Electric

Limerick I & 2 Peach Bottom 2 & 3

Corporate Office

35 Portland General Electric

Ttqan

36 Power Authority, New York

Indian Point 3

Fitzpatrick

I

37 Public Service Gas &Electric

Hope Creek 1

Salem 1 & 2 38 Public Service of New Hampshire

Seabrook 1 39 Rodcester Gas & Electric

Ginna

40 Sacramento Municipal Utility

Rancho Seco 1

41 South Carolina Electric &Gas

Summer 1 42 Southern California Edison

San Onofre 1, 2, & 3 43 Systems Energy Resources

Grand Gulf 1 & 2 44 Tennessee Valley Authority

Bellafonte 1&2 BrownsFerry 1. 2. &3 Sequoyah I & 2 Watt Bar 1 & 2 45 Texas Utility Elec. (C Electric) Comanchee Peak 1 & 2 46 Toledo Edison

Davis Besse 1

47 Union Electric

Callaway 1 48 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power

Vermont Yankee 1

49 Virginia Electri & Power

North Anna 1 & 2 Surry 1 & 2 Innsirook (Corporate) 50 Washington Public Power Supply

WNP-1 & 2 51 Wisconsin Electric Power

Point Beach 1 & 2 52 Wisconsin Public Service

Kewaunee

53 Wolf Creek Nuclear

WofCreek 1 54 Yankee Atomic Electric

Yankee-Rowe I

I.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 12

K) tmm

Testing Categories

The following testing categories were included in

the analyses presented in this report. These definitions

are

nased on the definitions given in 26.3 of 10 cFR and

on explanations of the FFD performance data in the form

provided to licensees by NUMARC

Pre-access

- This categorycombines resultsfromnpre-employment

-ad pre-badging tests. The pre-employment testing

category slimited to those persons seeking employ- ment in the nuclear power portion of the company.

Thepre-badgingcategory rferstocurentemployees

applying for positions in the company that require

unescorted access to the protected area. These cat- cgories are combined in the body of this report.

Because some licensees combined pre-employment

and pre-badging test results and reported them to- gether under pre-employment, a clear comparison of

the positive rates for the two different tests is not

possible.

Random Tests

Random testing refers to a system of unannounced

and unpredictable drug testing administered to a

group in a statistically random manner so that all

persons within that group have an equal probability

of selection.

category. In one case, a licensee reported Including a

specific number of blind test results in the "Othe?' category-these were omitted prior to data analysis.

In most cases, however, there are no specifics regard- Ing what is included in the aOtherl category.

Tables Bl, B2,and B3 present the numberoftests, numberpositive, and average percent positive for each of

-the test categories requested on the NUMARC form.

Worker Categories

Results for three categories of workers were re- quested in the NUMARC forms. The following catego-.

ties were used:

Licensee employees

Licensee employees work for the utility and are

covered by the fitness-for-duty nrle. This category

includes both nuclear power plant workers and also

corporate or support staff. Companies were asked to

report the results for corporate or support staff sepa- rately. Only nine companies reported separate cor- porate results. On average, there were 1,184 licensee

employees included in each report.

Long. and short-term contractors

The division of contractor personnel into long- and

short-term categories is optional for licensees. The

explanation in theNUMARCform suggests that any

contactorwodcingforsix months orlessbeconsidered

short-term. Licensees who did not divide contractors

into short- and long-term were Instructed to report

test results for all contractors under the short-term

category and to record ON/A! in the long-term cat- egory. This means that some long-term contractor

test

sults my be reported under the short-term

contractor category; however, no short-term con- tractor results should be recorded under the long- term category. Because plants varied in their defini- tions of long- and short-term contractors, any com- parisons between rates of positive test results for the

twogrupsshoudbeviewedwithcaution.Onavae, there were 305 long term contractorsand654short- term contractors included in each report.

For-cause

For-cause resting is performed based on behavioral

observation programs or on credible information

that an individual is abusing drugs or alcohol. Also

Included in this category is post-accident testing, administered because of the occurrence of specific

events (erg., accidents resulting in injuries).

Follow-up Testing

Follow-up testing refers to chemical testing at

unannounced intervals to ensure that an employee is

maintaining abstinence from the abuse of drugs or

alcchol.

Oher

Thiscategoryincludestesultsfrormthepeiodictesting

conducted by some licensees coincident with annual

-physicals or similar periodic events. Results reported

in the NUMARC forms 0Other' category are also

Included. Instructions accompanying the form do

not define what testing should be included in this

Tables B2 and B3 present the number of tests, number positives, and average percent positive by each

testcategory included in the NUMARCformfor licensee

employees arid all contractor employees (B2) and for

long- and short-term contractors (B3) separately.

.13

r

j

J

Drug Categories.

Substances included In 10 CFR Part 26

The nrle requires testing for five drugs and alcohol.

Table A2 shows the maximum screening levels and con- fismation levels required by the nale.

Plants are permitted to set cutoff levels lower than

those specified in the NIDA guidelines. Many licensees

chose to do so for at least one category of drug, -as

Indicated by their reports. However, several plant using

lowercutofflevels failed torecord thenumberofpositive

test results for both NIDA guidelines and their own cutoff

levels. For this report, the test result reports for lower

cutofflevels are assumed to apply to all categories of tests.

However, one plant noted that it used lower cutoff levels

for certain categories of testing (eg., pre-access). Infor- mation of this type was not provided by other licensees.

Table A2

Maximum Screening and

Confirmation Levels Required by

10 CFR Part 26 Screening

Confirmation

Drug

Level

'Marijuana

100 15 Cocaine

300 -150 Opiates

300 300 -Phencyclidine

25 25 Amphetamines

1,000 500 Alcchol

0.04% BAC

Addlitional Drugs

Many plants also tested for drugs other than the six

(five illegal and alcohol) categories required by the rule.

Information on the number ofsires testingforother drugs

is presented in Table B4.-This informadon Is categorized

by region. The table indicates that the additional drugs

most often tested for were barbiturates and benzodiaz- epines.

Regions

The country is divided into five regions, corre- sponding with NRC administrative regions as shown in

FigureAl.TableA6 indicates thenumberofsites in each

region that report testingfor additional drugs. Table A7 shows the results of testing for alcohol, marijuana, co- caine, amphetamines, opiates, and phencyclidine.

REGION I

I.E

11 NfJM

-DE

REGION II

NOTE Alaska and Hawai re Included

in Reglon V

Figure Al

Geographic Location of NRC Regions I-V

14

K> APPENDIX B

Supporting Data

Table Bi:

Test Results By NUMARC Form Test

Test Results By NUMARC Form

Test Category By Licensee

Employees and Contractor

Personnel

15,507 181 1.17 45,559 694 1.52 1,278 3 0.23 335 90 26.87 21 0 0 73.577 299 0.41 1,105 38 3.44 571 8 .

1.40 137,953 1,313 0.95 PE-EMEPLOYMENT

Number Tested

Number Positive

Avenge Percent Positive

PRE-BADGING

Number Tested

-

Number Positive

.18 -0.56 167 168 40 50 23.95 29.76 15 6' 0 0 0 ,0 O5,4 23,175 153 146 -0.30 - 0.63 916 189 36 - 2 3.93 IfK

415 156 4 4 .96 2.56 65,726 69,227 419 894 0.61 1.29 15

2) m

e

Tcble B3

Test Results By NUMARC Form

Test Category By Long-term and

Short-term Contractor Personnel

11 10 3 4 4 32 Number of Tots Performed

- 13,789 23,193 - -4,646 46,227.

14,431 - - 62,286 Number of Posidves

2 5 2 0 15 24 Percent Posltive

02 .02 .04 0 .10 .04

BENZODIAZEPINES

Number ofLicensees Testing

11 10 10 4 4 39 NumberofTeots Performed

13,789 23,193 15,421 6,227 14,431 73,061 Number of Positives

1 5 0 0 22 28 Percent Positive

.01 .02 0 0 .15 .04

PROPZYPHRINE

Number of Lcensees Testing

3 0 0 0 1 4 Number of Tests Performed

3,121 0 0 0 4,631 7.752 Number of Positives

0 0 0 0 4 4 Percent Positive

0 0 0 0 .09 05 ETHADONE

Number of Licensees Testing

5 1 1 1 2 10 Number of Tests Performed

6,821 3,274 1,386 1,055 7,173 19,709 Numberof Positives

0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Positive

0 0 0 0 0 0

METHAQUALONE

Number of Licensees Testing

7 7 1 2 2 19 Number of Tests Performed

6,812 15,534 1,386 3,136 5,978 32,846 Number of Positives

0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Positive

0 0 0 0 0 0

METHAMPHETAMINES

Numberof LcenseesTesting

0 0 0 1 1 2 Number of Tests Performed

0 0 0 1,651 3,822 5,473 Number of Positives

0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Positive

0 0 0 0 0 0 Toal Number of Positives

3 10 2 0 52 56 17

Tabte B5

Positive Test Results By Region and By Substance

REGION I

REGION H

REGION III

REGION IV

REGION V

(n=24) (n-23) (n-22) (n=9) (n-6) Total Tests

35,273 44,591 27,798 13,352 16,948 Total Positive

321 -417 323 -90 -- - 162 Positive

.91% .94% 1.16% .67% .96%

Confirmed Positives by Drug

Marijuana

123 226 206 49 91 Cocaine

127 114 65 15 33 Opiates

9 20 3 0 20 Amphetamine

6 2 1 3 18 Phencyclidine

2 1 1 0 0 Acohdol

65 45 54 24 18 Total Reported* 332 408 330 91 180

Tolpadsmw t reul and tod aoed poske rcubs for specic substaae are not expec

to be the sano.

18

APPENDIX C

Compilation of Lessons Learned

Reported by Licensees

In general, the information provided on lessons

learned varied among licensees. Few of the licensees had

specifically identified sections on lessons learned Some

licensees Indirectly referred to lessons learned when de- scribing their management Initiatives. Some licensees

saidthattheyhadbeenauditedandwere intheprocessof

correcting identified weaknesses, but did not mention

what these weaknesses were. Of the 54 licensees, 30 did

not have any information on lessons learned.

As much as possible, lessons learned information

was taken directly from the NUMARC forms submitted

by the licensees. In some cases, lessons learned informa- don was combined with other information and was ex- tracted.

ARIZONA PUBUC SERVICE COMPANY

A quality assurance audit during early implementa- don of the program identified deficiencies In connection

with the off-site laboratory. To correct these deficiencies, actions were taken to select a new off-site laboratory.

However, problems with the reporting methods of this

laboratory occurred, so additional action was taken to

select another laboratory.

Arizona Public Service had originally specified 300

nglml as the screeningcutofflevelfor methampetamines.

Nichols advised us that it could not adopt that level

because it uses a new monoclonal reagent specifically

designedtodetectmethamphetaminesandmanufactured

tocalibrate to the DHHS screeningcutoffof l000 nglml.

Both the manufacturer and Nichols studied the problem

and suggested that we could revise our cutoff level to

1,000 ngWml without compromising the effectiveness of

the program. Since the reagent contains two antibodies, one to detect methamphetamines at 1,000 ngfml and one

to detect amphetamines at 300 ngfml, we now specify

those two screening cutoff levels.

Arizona Public Service learned that an 'off-site

laboratory had erroneously reported that two specimens

weepositiveformarijuana.lhe Medical Review Officer

discovered this when requesting results from the lab and

finding that two pecimens had levels less than 15 ngWml

(the specified cutoff level for confirmatory tests) but had

been reported as positives. Arizona Public Service has

advised those two individuals who tested positive that

their tests were negative and that their records had been

Arizona Public Servicehas learned that it is impera- tive to contract with an experienced laboratory that is

largeenough and flexible enough tohandle special needs.

We are also convinced that etliance on a laboratory's

catification by DHHS must be supplemented by close

monitoring of laboratory performance.

New procedures have been developed to imple- ment Part 26 and these procedures have been revised to

further enhance the program.

Additional measures we're taken to improve the

security at the collection! testing facility located at the

Palo Verde Site.

- -.-Personneklchanges have been made in the program

administrationtoachieveclosertupervisionofthecollec- tion and testing area and to increase the level of regula- tory/compliance experience within the group.

I

.Tceannual requalifica.ion trainingforsupervisors

in behavioral observation has been'placed on the Palo

Verde computer-based training system. This will help to

ensureconsistentapplicationofthetrainingrequirements.

A collection facility has been established In Phoe- nix to accommodate personnel at corporate offices. This

will facilitate testing of those individuals who have infie- quent access to the protected area.

Qiain-of-custody forms with bar coding will b

added to the program within the next eight to ten weeks.

Thiswillhelpreduce thepotentialforhumanerrorindata

entry at the lab.

Arizona Public Service isplanningtoprovideianew

brochurewhich will again informourpersonnel aboutour

Employee Assistance and Fitness-for-Duty Programs.

ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE (ENTERGY

OPERATIONS)

Our initial six months into this program has given

rise to certain observations: 1. For this area, THC and

alcohol are by far the drugs ofpreference 2. All instances

ofpresumptivepositivetests boramphetamineshavebeen

attributed to prescnrbd and over-the-counter anorectics

and cold preparations. There has been no indication of

abuse of this class of drug and, furthermort, the pattern of

use seems to be seasonal (Spring) in nature.

CAROLINA POWER & UGHT

Approximately 38% of the average number of em- ployces with unescorted access were randomly tested

resulting in no violadons. The conclusion is that the

program's goals and objectives are being achieved.

Carolina Power & Light has one pool from which

its workers are selected for random testing. The weekly

testing rate is 2% of the corporate pool and year-to-date

have tested 2,331 workers while the average number

available for testing was 4,254 zesulting in a year-to-date

tate of 54.8%.

No conclusions can be drawn fiom the EAP utiliza- tion data based upon year-to-date Informaton.

The employees in violation of the FFD prgram

were referred to the EAP, Thbe company's policy is to

-

I

19

v

(2) terminate employment orwt permanently deny the con- tractor access based upon a confirmed illegil drug test

Also, the company does offer rehabilitation for the first

offenseforaconfirmedalcoholviolation;therefore,ofthe

three employees referred to the EAP, only one had their

unescorted access reinstated. All contractors in violation

of the FFD program were permanently denied access.

Contractors are not provided company EAP services.

DUKE POWER COMPANY

McGuire Nuclear Station

A change was implemented in the badging and

access procedure which would help ensure that access Is

not made at another Duke station when a badge has been

placed on FFD hold.

Catawba Nuclear Station

The company realized that workers were able to

determine when night testing would take place because

they could see when the lights were on in the Medical

Facility. Since that time the company has kept these

lights on all the time so that workers are not able to tell

when testing will take place.

DUQUESNE UGHT COMPANY

The random generating computer program was

pullinglistswith severalrepeatnamesfromapreviouslist

To respond to this problem, a new computer program has

been formulated, and its progress is being monitored.

There is currently no method in place to check on

our day-to-day progress in attempting to reach a random

test number equal to 100% of the badged work force by

year's end. A new software program can be formulated to

help us track our daily progress. This software can also

help us monitor the progress of our blind proficiency

testing and our follow-up testing to ensure compliance

with 10 CFR Part 26.

10 CFR Part 26 requires that the MRO contact the

licensee within ten days ofa presumptive positive screen- ing test by the laboratory. The MRO was required to

adjudicate each positive and was not always able to do so

within ten days since the certified copy of the chain-of- custody form verifying die positive test was not always

available. Arrangements have since been made to over- night express mail the chain cf-custodyform totheMRO

each day. In doing so, we are able to circumvent both the

US. post office and the company mail syst.

The FFD manager was not always immediately

available to attend to situations in which her input was

mandated. A list was published of the FFD managers

program representatives. These individuals are all well- versed in the FFD prgam One of these individuals is

now available at all times.

If a specimen I colder than 90.5 degrees F, this is

reason to suspect that it Is adulterated. Our thernometer

only registered to 95 degrees F. In response, new ther- mometers were purchased which register down to 80.0 degrees F.

Two of our personnel were trained as instructors on

the intoxilyzer Instrument. During this training, deficien- cies were noted in our routine maintenance and care of

these instruments. A monitored program was imple- mented to routinely rotate our Intoxilyzers out of service

for maintenance and cleaning. This Is all documented in

permanent log books.

An individual came to the medical facility to be

tested. He insisted on recording the entire procedure on

a tape recorder.This was allowed. We subsequendydeter- mined that it is illegal .zo tape record someone without

their permission by Pennsylvania State Law. The collec- donste is no longertograntpermission to tape record the

collection procedure.

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT

The random selection was changed from a daily to

weekly process to increase the personnel selected/tested

ratio and to facilitate testing across all shifts and days of

week. The number of weekly random tests was scheduled

to reach 100% in eleven months

FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION

Random testing was not truly random in that dur- ing certain shifts the company did not collect specimens

thereby establishing predictable periods during which

workers would not be tested.

FPC revised its FFD program to perform testing

during backshifts and will continue to evaluate the pro- gram to ensure tharrandom drug testing Is performed

during all shifts.

Reporting requirement deficiency. FPC needs to

dAetermlne what testing results qualify as Nunsatisfactory

performance testing results for proper reporting.

FPC has since made some determination of what

should be listed and reported as unsatisfactory laboratory

performance.

Employees expressed a perception that a self-refer- ral to the EAP would result in automatic termination.

FPCs policy already clarifies current practice for

self-referrals

This will be re-communicated to employees

in the annual FF1 training.

GPU NUCLEAR

GPU Nuclear divided its population to be tested at

each site between employees of the GPU system compa- nies as one group and all other as another group. The

number to be tested in each group varies depending upon

the size of the subsets of the population on site during the

week, such that the testing rate would reflect the weekly

averageofthesubsetpopulation.However, the Parsippany

licensee employees with unescorted access were ran- domly tested at a test rate less than I00% cf the popula-

la: K) don during this reporting period.

The shortfall of the Parsippany licensee employees

w ras causedby individuals being unavailable for testingfor

valid rasons (eg. vacationday, sickday, noton site, etc.).

Therefore, the generated list was not large enough so

allow for the exceptions to random testing and still

maintain a testing rate ofd

100%.

OPU is in the process of completing the necessary

modifications-to the random-selection systemin orderto

correct dtse anomalies which occurred in the selection

process as described above. The modifications should be..

completed by September 1, 1990. The testing program

anticipates achieving a statistical testing rateof 100% for

the entire year.

GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY

During the first six months of the FFD Program, RBS experienced five unsatisfactory blind performance

test results. Two were due to human error at GSU's

contract laboratory, one due to indeterminate reasons, and two involved the possible deterioration of contami- nants in the BPT specimen. GSU has directed the BPT

specimen supplier to:

I.EnsuretheBPTspecimencontaminantlevel isat

least 20% above the established initial cutoff level.

2. Provide three gas chromatography/mass spec- trometry (GCIMS) certifications on all positive batches.

TwooftheseGOCMScertificatdonsaretubeperformedby

independent laboratories and the other by the supplier.

The average of the three GCAMS tests shall be the

certified contaminant level of the BPf specimen.

THE LIGHT COMPANY (HOUSTON

LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY)

It was determined that there was a need to increase

employee awareness with regard to heavy alcohol con- sumption during off-duty hours and the impact of the

lowered positive alcohol level from 0.10 to 0.40% BAC

This was accomplished by an information program for

employees and by presentations made during department

staff meetings.

LONG ISLAND UGHTING COMPANY

One program weakness was discovered during this

reporting period. The Shoreham Fitness-for-Duty Alco- holandDnigScreeningProceduredidnotrequirealcohol

testing duringpr-access screening. Actions taken in this

case were: 1) persons who did not receive the alcohol

screening were identified and either had the screening

performed or else had their badges pulled; 2) Emergency

Planning verified that no unbadged personnel had been

added to the EOFftSCon-call list;3) the internal check- lists used by Emergency Planning and Screening and

Badging were revised to ensure that the requirement for

alcohol testing during pre-access screening was met; and

4) a revision to the Shoreham Fitness-for-Duty Alcohol

and Dnrg Screening procedure was initiated.

MAINE YANKEE

The home"or hotel numbers should be included on

contractorpre-access andrandomxforms tofacilitatecon- tact by the Medical Review Officers in the event of a

presumptive positive test.

-

Mat open communiicbtibns with employees is the

key to succssful implementation.

Some workers,-for various reasons, take up-o three

hours to produce the required specimen.

Program Implementation and maintenance Is ex- tremely expensive, and requires ongoing review and

modification.

NEW YORK POWER AUTHORITY

Indian Point

As a result of low creatinine levels, It became

necessary to involve the Medical Review Officer in policy

decisions. The Physician provided guidelines to assist

collection site personnel in determining the need to

repeat the screen as a result of low creatinine.

An aggressive attitude towards initial training of

employees and contractors was taken. Personnel were

trained as supervisors or escorts. Upon evaluation, it was

determined that noformal methodhad been developed to

identify recently promoted personnel who would then

requireaddidonal tining.lmmediate programmadcstcps

were taken to correct this weakness.

Analysis of the random testing data compiled for

this report showed that the number of personnel tested

during the six-month reporting interval fell short of the

expected 50%. Upon review, the program director real- ized that the statistical base he had been monitoring was

on ' the number of pisonnel selected for sampling as

opposed to the actual number of personnel that had been

tested. To meet the annual requirement of 100%, the test

percentage has been increased.

Fitzpatrick

The report for a blind test specim

sent to the

dnrgjalcohol testing laboratory on March 22, 1990, was

not received by Fitzpatrick personnel as ofMay 29, 1990.

Upon investigation it was discovered that the Medical

Review Officer was still awaiting lab results of the blind

test specimen. Further investigation revealed that the

druglalcohol testing laboratory had misplaced the blind

test sample. The sample was later located by the labora- tory. The MRO was informed that in the future he should

notify Fitzpatrick personnel within five days if no re- sponse has been received from the laboratory on a blind

test specimen.

-An Invesdgadon was conducted in order to deter- mine the reason for the misplacement of the blind test

specimen. It was discovered that the courier of the drug/ 21

I

A

I

11 alcohol testing laboratory contracted by the Fitzpatrick

plant was removing test samples from sealed transport

boxes. and transferring them to larger containers.

Fitzpatrick personnel informed the laboratory that this

procedure is unacceptable since it can cause test samples

to be misplaced. The laboratory courier now transports

the test samples in their original scaled transport boxes.

A test sample which tested positive for cocaine was

not declared a confirmed-positive by the Medical Review

Officer since the individual who provided the sample

denied drug use and requested the aliqut of the original

sample and split sample to be tested. The MRO'decided

to maintain the individuals site access while awaiting

subsequent test results, citing legal reasons. The results of

subsequent tests confirmed the positive result. The MRO

decided, as a result of this Incident, that in the future an

individual's site access will be denied based on the posi- tive result of the first drug/alcohol test performed.

If an individual is unable to void a 60 milliliter

sample initially, the Individual shall be detained in visual

contact with the collection site person until the indi- vidual is able to void another specimen which, when

combined with the first one, equals at least 60 milliliters

This procedure was put into effect when two test samples

bythesameindividualonthesamedayproducedconflict..

Ing test results. Since these samples did not contain the

appropriateamountofliquid, the testswere ruled indeter- minate.

NEW HAMPSHIRE YANKEE

Specifically developed plexiglass specimen holders

were placed into use to more rapidly identify minimum

collection size for compliance with 10 CFR Part 26 concerning a minimum of 60 ml of urine collected for

laboratory analysis.

Development of a batch and non-batch reporting

system in conjunction with SmithKline Beecham Clin

cal Laboratory, for use during outage situations.

Implementation ofa graphic and analytical studies

for systematic data evaluation.

I endficadonofthelackof6-monoacetylmouphlne

sting by contract laboratory and subsequent implemen- tation by contracted laboratory to comply with 10 CFR

Part 26.

Installadonofafacsimile machine toassistinbetter

communicationbetween the licensee, the medical review

officer, and the contract laboratory.

The purchase of an evidential grade breath testing

device for use upon activation of Emergency Operations

Facility.

The purchase ofa third IVAC temperature measur- ing device as a back-up for units currently in use and for

use during plant shut-downs.

Computer enhancements to add additional report- Ing capabilities for use during statistical and analytical

studies.

Computer enhancements to random selection pro- cess to ensure process equitability.

The development and Implementation of a volun- tary alcohol screening process to better meet the intent of

10 CFR Part 26.

The purchase and use of non-alcohol hand wipes In

the screening lanes to ensure the hygiene of the screening

technician and eliminating any possible chain-of-cus- tody concerns by allowing the screening technician to

remain stationary during the process.

The development of a form to be used by the

-Medical Review Officer for reporting any results other

than routine negatives.

Changes were made to the bathroom structure in

response to low temperature problems, to include the

posting of signs specifically requesting specimens be re- turned to the collector as soon as possible, and the

addition of foam pads on toilet tank covers in an attempt

to alleviate temperature loss by conduction.

The prefabrication of blood alcohol kits to better

expedite confirmatory testing. These kits include blood

tubes, chain-of-custody forms, medical technician in- strucions, and chain-ofcustody bags, alongwith a master

checlistfor implementation ofconfirmatory blood alco- hol testing.

The posting of signs inside the screening facility

explaining that readings below 0.003% BAC during the

initial breath alcohol test should be considered zero. This

was done to alleviate any concerns by station personnel

on the technical capabilities of the evidential breath

testing devices used in the screening lanes.

PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT

COMPANY

Tracking supervisors, especially contractor super- visors, is difficult due to the dynamic nature of our work

force. We will be sending lisas of all badged personnel to

cost center managers on a quarterly basis for the Identifi- cation of any new supervisors and to ensure that training

Is given, if not already received. Once identified as a

- supervisor, Individuals are entered into our Personnel

Qualifications System through which annual retraining

can be tracked by computer.

Incorporated FFD program management responsi- bilitielntoa new, on-site position which reports directly

to the superintendent of the plant. This strengthens

overall program management and reduces the number of

persons receiving confidential information.

PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY

AnauditoftheFFDprogrampduced twoprimary

areas of concern

Tho procedure to ensure that employees have not

consumed alcohol within five hours of reporting for

22

nonscheduledworchadnotbeenadequatdyimplemented

in some cases. Further emphasis will be placed on the

Importance of call-in procedures to supervisors with call- In responsibilities.

Collectioncenterlnstrumentcalibationechniques

and PoE' stringent acceptability rangres for measuring

PH and specific gravity for specimen integrity checks

need to be reevaluated. POE will develop and implement

specific operatingprocedures with improved Instrument.

calibration methodologies and revised specimen integrity

check parameters.

The contractlaboratory incorrecdyreportedablind

specimen as negative. On the same day, the laboratory

was informed of the incident of false negative reporting

and was requested to investigate the circumstances and to

review all quality control data associaied with confirma- tory testing of that particular specimen. The laboratory

ascertained that the sample was in fact positive. A review

of this situation found that the false negative report was

a result of an administrative error at the laboratory. POE

has required the following actions to be taken at the

laboratory to prevent reoccurrence of this situation:

The procedure for certifying scientist review of test

results will be modified to check for discrepancies

between records. All certifying scientists will be

informed and instructed on this change.

-

An additional review step will be included for all

specimens that Initially screenpositvebutforwhich

the confirmatory GCMS response is zro.This review

will be performed by either the scientific director or

one of the toxicology supervisors.

PUBUC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS

COMPANY

PSE&O recommends that the NRC consider re- moving opiates from the panel of drugs to be tested. We

have found that testing for opiates significantly delays

pm-access processing, and significantly undermines the

programacceptanceandcredibllity.M-A-Misonlypresent

for a very short period of time, and there is widespread use

ofopiate cough suppressants and analgesics. The present

requirement thatdemands expensive G00/S confirma- tion to supposedly rule out heroin abuses is aeremely

expensive due to the type oftesdngrequiredfordetecton.

In the five years of testing by PSE&O at Its nuclear

facilities, there have been no detected cases of heroin

abuse. In addition to the problem with cough suppressant

and analgesics, widespread consumption of food contain- ing poppy seeds and the common knowledge that poppy

seeds may result In a positive drug test result Sake it

almost impossible to declare a positive per the rule. A

significant amount of expense can be eliminated by re- moving opiates from the panel of drugs tested in areas of

the country andlor states where heroin abuse does not

appear to be common.

PSE&O strongly believes that a FFD program can- not be functionally practiced as only a drug and alcohol

detecdton/deterrcnce program. The leve ofdecisionmak- ing involves more than just review of drug and alcohol

results. Medical Review Officer (MRO) involvement is

essential and critical to a properly functioning FFD pro- gram. PSE&G mentions this since the DOT is consider- ing the removal of the MRO review requirement for all

4est-results.

- - - ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY

As a result of an FFD audit RG&E discovered that, whlle the contractor had submitted the required FFD

certification documents, two employees had not taken

the alcohol test. Although RG&E had not pre-approved

the contractor's FFD program, the prm-badge drug tests

were conducted by a HHS-certified laboratory and were

negative.

Upon investigation, RG&E has determined that

there were no adverse results of this error as both contrac- tor employees worked in a crew environment and were

continuously underdirctbehaviorobsenradonbyRG&E

employees.

To prevent this situation from occurring in the

future, RG&E will require contractors to identify both

the date and the laboratories conducting the drug and

alcohol tests on the FF Dprogram certification documents.

SOUTHERN CAUFORNIA EDISON

COMPANY

Some administrative difficulties were encountered

In the re-sorting ftheblind specimens due to-the-pacb.

aging methods of BDA-supplied positive and negative

samples. These difficulties involved some chain-of-cus- tody discrepancies which have now been corrected and

reconciled. At no time was program testing adversely

affected since the problems were strictly limited to the

blind sample process. All blind sample pre-screen results

and NIDA-certified lab results are now in agreement.

Additionally, internal administrative procedures have

been strengthened and a kit packaging change has been

instituted by the vendor to preclude further problems in

this area of the program.

SYSTEMS ENERGY RESOURCES

At the onset of testing, several presumptive posi.

tive specimens sent by GGNS to the HHS-certified

confirmation laboratory were detrmined to be negative

at the confirmation laboratory on their initial test. Oca- sionally,apresumptive positivexspeimenatGONSwould

be sent to the confirmation laboratory for analysis only to

be negative on their initial test. This led to the assump- don that these inaccuracies were due to differences In the

type of drug analysis equipment used at GONS and the

confirmation laboratory.

23

/ I

K) CONS's drug analysis equipment utilizes EPIA

technology while the confirmation laboratoiy was using

theEMIT technology. Careful analysis of the two systems

by the confirmation laboratory and representatives for

Abbott Laboratories disclosed that there are differences

between the two system that could account for the

variances in results. It has been determined that the

Abbott drug assays utilizing EPIA are more sensitive and

more susceptible to react to certain drug analogues of the

opiateandamphetamineclass, suchassubstancesfound

mosdy inover-the-countermedicationsTheFitness-for-

Duty Program management is pleased with the overall

performance of the Abbott equipment and contractually

specified that the confirmation laboratory use the same

type of equipment.

This eliminated the variances that were occurring

between theon-sitelaboratoryand theoff-sitelaboratory.

GGNS has contracts with two confirmation laboratories

for redundancy purposes. This system should minimize

dependence on one laboratoryin the case that there is an

event (iLe., decertification, unsatisfactory blind perfor- mance specimen testresult, etc.) that limits the confirma- tion laboratory performance.

TU ELECTRIC

FFDManagementsubmittedblindsamplecontain- en with seals that had been tampered with along with

normal daily collections. The medical staff were not as

conscientious as expected In noting the tampered speci- mens. Corrective action was taken with medical labora- tory management.

UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY

A FFD program person was called outon a weekend

to activate temporary power to Our cooling storage units

forspecimens. Upon arrival, thepersonwas informedthat

work was in progress to restore normal power. The FFD

program person waited nearly six hours while service

personnel attempted unsuccessfilly to restore normal

power, before activating the temporary power.

Since this occurrence, FFD program personnel sub- ject to being called out to activate the temporary power

supply have been instructed to activate the power supply

within a two-hour time frame.

- -The UnionElectric Companyhas discontinued on- site testing of FFD program personnel. This action was

taken to avoid situations in which FED personnel might

see a presumptive test that belongs to them and worry

unnecessarily about the results.

VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER COMPANY

The quality assurance department conducted a

three-month assessment of the FFD program Including a

review of the FED procedures. The resulting changes to

the procedures require individuals responding to an emer- -gency call-out toperform a self-assessmentof theirfitness

for duty based on criteria issued to each responder. The

FFD procedures now dearly convey the assessment pro- cess and the means by which responders should reportfor

duty during an emergency.

Also, as a result of a quality assurance audit during

the second quarter, proper on-site test facility air condi- tioning is being provided for the test equipment's operat- ing parameters.

WISCONSIN PUBUC SERVICE

CORPORATION

A random computer program-was writtentoselece

thedayandshiftforeawhrandomtestdate.Implementa- tion began In May of 1990. Prior to that date, this

selection was administratively controlled.

The following companies did not provide information on lessons learned (N=30)s

Alabama Power Company

Baltimore Gas & Electric

Boston Edison

Commonwealth Edison Company

Consolidated Edison Company of New York

Consumers Power Company

Detroit Edison

Entergy Operations, Inc. (Louisiana)

Georgia Power Company

Illinois Power Company

Indiana Michigan Power Company

Iowa Electric Light & Power Company

Nebraska Public Power District

Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation

Northeast Utilities

Northern States Power Company

Omaha Public Power District

Pacific Gas & Electric Company

Philadelphia Electric Company

Public Service Company of Colorado

Sacramento Municipal Utility District

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company

Tennessee Valley Authority

Toledo Edison

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation

Washington Public Power Supply System

Wisconsin Electric

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation

Yankee Atomic Electric Company

24

S

s - o

'-

Vi Attachment 2

IN 91-10

February 12, 1991 LIST OF RECENTLY ISSUED

1 I I NRC INFORMATION NOTICES

Information

Date of

Notice No.

- Subject

I Issuance?

Issued to

91-09 91-08

Counterfeiting of Crane Valves

Medical Examinations for

Licensed Operators

02/5/91 02/5/91

All holders of OLs or

CPs for nuclear power

reactors.

All holders of OLs or

CPs for nuclear power, test and research

reactors.

90-77, Supp. 1 91-07 91-06 91-05 91-04 91-03

Inadvertent Removal of Fuel

.Assemblies from the Reactor Core

Maintenance Deficiency Assoc- iated with General Electric

Horizontal Custom 8000

Induction Motors

Lock-up of Emergency Diesel

Generator and Load Sequencer

Control Circuits Preventing

Restart of Tripped Emergency

Diesel Generator

Intergranular Stress Corrosion

Cracking in Pressurized Water

Reactor Safety Injection

Accumulator Nozzles

Reactor Scram Following Control

Rod Withdrawal Associated with

Low Power Turbine Testing

Management of Wastes Contaminated

with Radioactive Materials ("Red

Bag' Waste and Ordinary Trash) 02/4/91 02/4/91 01/31/91 01/30/91 01/28/91 01/07/91

All holders of OLs or

CPs for pressurized- water reactors (PWRs).

All holders of OLs or

CPs for nuclear power

reactors.

All holders of OLs or

CPs for nuclear power

reactors.

All holders of OLs or

CPs for pressurized

water reactors (PWRs).

All holders of OLs or

CPs for nuclear power

reactors.

All medical licensees.

OL = Operating License

CP = Construction Permit

IN 91-10 February 12, 1991 to positive test results categorized by the type of tests, the type of drugs, the types of workers found to be abusing drugs, and the region in which the

plant is located. The report contains other information and lessons learned

that may be useful to assess FFD programs and to improve and refine these

programs.

This information notice requires no specific action or written response. If

you have any questions about the information contained in this notice, please

contact the technical contact listed below or the appropriate NRR project

manager.

Original SignMd Iy

Chades E Rofss

Charles E. Rossi, Director

Division of Operational Events Assessment

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Technical Contact:

Loren Bush, NRR

(301) 492-0944 Attachments: 1. Fitness for Duty in the Nuclear Power

Industry - Summary of Semi-annual

Program Performance Reports, January, 1991

2. List of Recently Issued NRC Information Notices

SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES

OFC

RSGB:NRR

RSGB:NRR

TECH EDITOR :*RSGB:NRR

D:DRIS:NRR

OGCB:NRR

______ _------------- ______________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ NAME

EMcPeek:cb

LBush

PMcKee

BKGrimes

CHBerlinger

______:---------- - ________________

______________- ______________ _________ ____-__ DATE :01/30/91

01/30/91

01/31/91

01/30/91

02/01/91 OFC

DOEA:NRR

NAME

DATE :'V6/9: -FICIAL

RECORD COPY

Document Name: IN 91-10

IN 91-XX

, l9xx to positive test results categorized by the type of tests, the type of drugs, the types of workers found to be abusing drugs, and the region in which the

plant is located. The report contains other information and lessons learned

that may be useful to assess FFD programs and to improve and refine these

programs.

This information notice requires no specific action or written response. If

you have any questions about the information contained in this notice, please

contact the technical contact listed below.co*L e&

Charles E. Rossi, Director

Division of Operational Events Assessment

W =Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Technical Contact:

Loren Bush, NRR

(301) 492-0944 Attachments: 1. Fitness-for-Duty in the Nuclear Power

Industry - Summary of Semiannual

Program Reports

C --- 2.

List of Recently Issued NRC Information Notices

Distribution: RS-G r/f

DRIS r/f

EMcPeek

LBush

PMcKee

BGrimes

CHBerlinger

CERossi

SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE

OFC

RSGB:NRRV

RSGB:NRR *

TECH EDITOR*

RSG NI

D:DRIS:NRRIc

OGCB:NRR

:---------------- :----- ci---- -------------- -,+p

:-------------- :------------.

NAME :EMcPeek:cb

LBush ' &

BKGrimes

CHBerlinger

DATE :1 /30/91 .1 /30/ 1 . 1/3091

'a,15J/91

1/30/91

.I//

/91 OFC

DOEA:NRR

7

----

--------------

__-----------------__ ------------ NAME :CERossi 94f11

DATE : / /91

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

Document Name:

INFORMATION NOTICE 91XX

- ^ IN 91-XX

January

1 l9xx to positive test results categorized by the type of tests, the type of drugs, the types of workers found to be abusing drugs, and by the region. The report

contains other information and lessons learned that may be useful in assessing

FFD programs and in efforts to improve and refine these programs.

This information notice requires no specific action or written response. If

you have any questions about the information contained in this notice, please

contact the technical contact listed below.

Charles E. Rossi, Director

Division of Operational Events Assessment

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Technical Contact:

Loren Bush, NRR

(301) 492-0944 Attachments: 1. Fitness-for-Duty in the Nuclear Power

Industry - Summary of Semiannual

Program Reports

2. List of Recently Issued NRC Information Notices

Distribution: RSGB r/f

DRIS r/f

EMcPeek

LBush

PMcKee

BGrimes

CHBerlinger

CERossi

OFC

RSGB:NRR

RSG :NRR

TECH EDITOR

RSGB:NRR

D:D

OGCB:NRR

7*--------

--{

-

------------

---__

__ __-:--X--__-__-____ NAME

":cb

LBu'

qM'n :PMcKee

CHBerlinger

DATE

1( /9i

'/30/91

/

/91

,/7491

/ /91 OFC

DOEA:NRR

NAME :CERossi

DATE : / /91

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

Document Name: INFORMATION NOTICE 91XX}}