Information Notice 2001-02, Summary of Fitness-for-Duty Program Performance Reports for Calendar Years 1998 and 1999

Summary of Fitness-for-Duty Program Performance Reports for Calendar Years 1998 and 1999
	ML010250419
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/28/2001
From:	Marsh L; Operational Experience and Non-Power Reactors Branch
To:	;
References
	IN-01-002
	Download: ML010250419 (25)
	v • d • e

UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001

March 28, 2001

NRC INFORMATION NOTICE 2001-02:

SUMMARY OF FITNESS-FOR-DUTY PROGRAM

PERFORMANCE REPORTS FOR CALENDAR

YEARS 1998 AND 1999

Addressees

All holders of operating licenses for nuclear power reactors, and licensees authorized to

possess or use formula quantities of strategic special nuclear material (SSNM) or to transport

formula quantities of SSNM.

Purpose

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing this information notice (IN) to

provide lessons learned and summarize the data submitted by licensees to the NRC in their

fitness-for-duty (FFD) program performance reports for calendar years 1998 and 1999. It is

expected that recipients will review the information for applicability to their facilities and

consider actions, as appropriate. However, suggestions contained in this information notice

are not NRC requirements, therefore no specific actions or written response is required.

Description of Circumstances

Since the fitness-for-duty rule (10 CFR Part 26) was published, licensees have submitted

program performance reports to the NRC, as required by 10 CFR 26.71(d). In the past, the

NRC summarized and analyzed the data submitted by the licensees and published an annual

volume, NUREG/CR-5758, "Fitness for Duty in the Nuclear Power IndustryAnnual Summary

of Program Performance Reports." In 1998, the NRC issued IN 98-39 to convey this

information for the years 1996 and 1997. This IN provides similar information for 1998 and

1999 FFD statistics are provided in Attachment 1.

Discussion

Lessons learned, management initiatives and problems, and associated corrective actions

reported by licensees in 1998 and 1999 are summarized below.

(1) Certified Laboratories

Some licensees continue to experience problems with laboratory performance or have

identified potential weaknesses. Licensees also continue to investigate and review adulterant

detection strategies to be used by laboratories.

ÿ

A licensee assessor noted that a laboratorys quality control blind samples were

potentially identifiable. The laboratory is certified by the U.S Department of Health and

Human Services (HHS). The laboratory gives the licensee chain-of-custody forms with

preprinted numbers and bar codes. However, because the laboratorys blind samples

are not processed with the licensees chain-of-custody forms, the blind sample

specimen chain-of-custody forms are out of sequence with the rest of the samples in

the tray. The laboratory generates chain-of-custody forms for the blind samples, using

the laboratorys next sequential numbers. As an interim corrective action, the

laboratory is now mixing samples from different sources in the trays so that the non- sequential chain-of-custody forms for the blind samples will be less conspicuous. The

laboratory is trying to design a better solution.

ÿ

One licensee reviewed the potential impact of ingestion of hemp seed oil products on

tetrahydrocannabinol test results, disseminated its findings to the plant personnel, and

incorporated them into FFD training.

ÿ

One licensee used Intoxilizer 5000 to verify that over-the-counter substances such as

gum, Nyquil, Listerine, etc., do not cause false positive test results.

ÿ

One licensee laboratory reported that Klear is an effective adulterant for the marijuana

metabolite but is easily detected if the specimen is tested for nitrites. Urine Luck made

by Spectrum Laboratory is more difficult to detect but is also a less effective adulterant.

Two blind specimens were spiked with marijuana metabolite. Urine Luck was

introduced into one of the specimens. Onsite immunoassay screening found both

specimens positive for marijuana. The HHS-certified laboratory confirmed both

specimens positive, although the quantitation level for the specimen containing Urine

Luck was slightly lower (189 ng/ml versus 206 ng/ml). The laboratory did not detect the

presence of Urine Luck, not having done the additional adulterant testing it would have

done if the screening and confirmation testing were contradictory. The specimens

were retested a month later and found with quantitation levels of 163 ng/ml and

193 ng/ml, respectively. The laboratory will do more research to determine if Urine

Luck is an effective adulterant for specimens having lower levels of the marijuana

metabolite and to determine whether Multistix 10 SG effectively detects this adulterant.

ÿ

Other licensees reported they had started testing for the adulterants nitrate, pyridininium chlorochromate, and glutaraldehyde. One laboratory uses Test Sure, manufactured by SmithKline, to test for the following conditions and adulterants: pH,

specify gravity, bleach, creatinine, glutaraldehyde, nitrate, and pyridine.

ÿ

Inaccurate laboratory results for blind specimens continued to point out human error

problems, particularly the use of incorrect cutoff levels and procedural weaknesses.

The different Department of Transportation and NRC testing requirements contribute to

the use of incorrect cutoff levels, and laboratories should be alert to develop

safeguards against this error. The cause of inaccuracies at one laboratory was that the laboratory had no procedure to control parameter changes made by technologists on

the screening instrument and to verify parameter settings. The laboratory corrected the

problem by assigning passwords for the screening instrument (so that only approved

personnel could change the instrument parameters) and by requiring another qualified

technologist or supervisor to corroborate any changes before the instrument is used. In

addition, the laboratory implemented a procedure to require a special quality control test

of the instrument after instrument parameter changes, reagent changes, and calibration.

The procedure involves spiking a sample at a concentration approximately twice as high

as the highest calibrator.

ÿ

Several licensees reported that reviews of adulterant testing showed it to be useful and

cost effective.

ÿ

Two licensees reported that the number of blind specimens they submitted to the

laboratory was below the required 10% for one or more quarters of 1999. In one case, this was due to misunderstandings between the licensee and site FFD

programsadministrative responsibilities for these programs were subsequently

separated. No explanation was given for the second case.

ÿ

After establishing an onsite testing laboratory, one licensee suspended unescorted

access for personnel who tested positive for cocaine and marijuana, pending results

from the HHS-certified laboratory.

Several licensees reported working with laboratories to improve testing for specific adulterants.

Licensees continued to report problems with laboratory performance.

ÿ

At one laboratory, a technician scanned the bar code identification on the specimen

bottle lid rather than on the side of the bottle. Sample lids had been inadvertently

switched, resulting in a sample identification error. The laboratory has eliminated retest

bar codes on bottle lids to ensure that technicians scan the sides of specimen bottles.

ÿ

Several licensees reported that laboratories used incorrect cutoff levels or failed to test

for the full list of substances.

ÿ

One licensee reported two blind specimens as negative for opiates when they should

have been reported positive. The company that formulated the blind specimens said the

blind specimen batches might not have been adequately mixed before they were

prepared. In addition, the company was not performing gas chromatography/mass

spectrometry on each specimen, only on the batches. The licensee has contracted with

a new company to provide blind specimens.

(2) Random Testing

Licensees continued to report incidents in which employees who should have been included in

the random testing pool were omitted.

ÿ

A licensee reported that it has reinstated a 100% random testing rate. ÿ

Several licensees reported that workers had been improperly excluded from the drug

testing pool for extended periods. For one licensee, an employee who returned to the

site after a lengthy stint at the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) was not put

back into the random FFD testing pool because he had been hardcoded out of the

system. This licensee is reviewing the process of hardcoding individuals out of the pool.

ÿ

One licensee reported that it enhanced its quarterly repetitive task process for verifying

the integrity of the random testing pool.

ÿ

Licensees continued to improve their notification process by reducing the interval

between notifying and testing employees and/or by keeping them under continuous

observation during this time.

ÿ

One licensee analyzed the number of random screenings by day of week and the rate of

failures for each weekday during 1998 and 1999. The number of random screenings

was greatest on Monday and generally fell on each subsequent day of the week. Very

few screenings were done on Saturday or Sunday. In 1998 no positive results were

identified on Saturdays or Sundays. However, in 1999 the positive rate on these days

was very high (Saturday tests had a 12.5% positive rate and Sunday tests a 15%

positive rate). The analysis suggests potentially useful changes to the testing schedule.

Licensees continued to report incidents in which employees who should have been included in

the random testing pool database were not included.

ÿ

A licensee that did weekly quality control checks of the random pool discovered a

software program interface problem as a result of which contractors were omitted. One

weekly check showed 110 contractors to have been omitted.

ÿ

Another licensee reported that a new contract worker had not been included in the

random test pool for the first draw after being badged and starting work.

(3) Policies and Procedures

Several licensees reported having improved their FFD policies and procedures on the basis of

their experience over the years.

ÿ

Another licensee reduced its marijuana cutoff value from 100 ng/ml to 50 ng/ml.

ÿ

One licensee introduced a lower cutoff value for alcohol testing for individuals in the

followup program due to a previous positive test result for alcohol.

ÿ

One licensee reduced its testing list of drugs after finding that there had only been a

single positive for barbiturates and benzodiazepines since its program was implemented

in 1990. ÿ

One licensee changed its specimen collection procedures to include an observed

collection if the urine sample fell outside the range of 93-98 degrees Fahrenheit and an

oral temperature did not match the urine temperature.

ÿ

Some licensees have instituted a zero tolerance policy, denying an employee access

after a first positive drug test result.

ÿ

More licensees now count the detection of adulterants as a positive test result and

sanction employees accordingly.

ÿ

A licensee prepared the following policy statement on prescription marijuana and

cocaine and communicated the statement to its employees:

Certain drugs listed in the Controlled Substance Act such as

marijuana and cocaine may be legally prescribed and used in

certain states. However, federal regulations do not allow

involvement with or possession or use of these drugs with or

without a prescription by individuals assigned to [licensee name].

ÿ

Several licensees found weaknesses in their FFD records management procedures. In

two cases, the records management process was adequate but not appropriately

documented in procedures. In another case, FFD records being prepared for shipment

to another location for imaging were not stored in 1-hour fire rated cabinets, as required

in the site-established procedures. In a fourth case, a licensee found that the logbook

maintained by the FFD program did not satisfy the definition of a permanent, bound

record book.

ÿ

One licensee found that its procedures failed to specify FFD program training required

for personnel assigned to work in the FFD program.

ÿ

To enhance overall FFD at the site, one licensee now requires employees to report non- job-related injuries to a supervisor or manager before the start of work or training

activities if the injury could impair the employees ability to safely perform job

assignments. The supervisor evaluates injured employees fitness and accommodates

them as necessary.

ÿ

At one site, a computer data entry error allowed a contract worker to enter a protected

area before the worker passed a pre-access test. Appropriate FFD personnel were

trained and the access authorization process modified to prevent this from happening

again.

ÿ

One licensee introduced limits on how much time an employee may take to give a urine

specimen and how much water he may drink beforehand.

ÿ

One licensee specified that requests for retesting be made within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.

ÿ

One licensee reported that an event at another licensee's site helped it identify and

address a potential weakness at its own site. The event involved an FFD testing technician who recorded drug screen test results as negative before they were validated

by the medical review officer (MRO). As a result, access was granted to a few

individuals whose test results were later reported to be positive. To prevent this from

happening at its own site, the licensee revised its procedures so that access

authorization personnel can only accept reports that have been prepared by the MRO.

ÿ

One licensee updated its FFD procedures to include a precise formula by which to

calculate blood alcohol concentration when an employee arrives at work.

ÿ

One licensee discovered that its pre-employment testing protocol implied breathalyzer

testing irrespective of whether the candidate had yet been offered a job, leaving the

licensee vulnerable to being found in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

ÿ

One licensee initiated a standardized chain-of-custody form throughout its sites.

(4) Program and System Management

Licensees continued to report improvements in overall FFD program management.

ÿ

One licensee planed to merge FFD with Access Authorization to improve coordination

and eliminate the potential for errors. This licensee is also trying to refine FFD

performance indicators.

ÿ

A few licensees reported weaknesses in their behavioral observation programs because

of insufficient training. Others reported improvements in their behavioral observation

programs.

ÿ

FFD awareness activities continued to be reported (e.g., sending articles and

newsletters to all employees, giving to all employees refrigerator magnets with the toll

free employee assistance program telephone number).

ÿ

One licensee encouraged supervisors to complete refresher FFD training on time. The

licensee now rigorously monitors overdue supervisor FFD training, sends an action

request, and suspends unescorted access for a delinquent supervisor and for the

workers who report to the supervisor.

ÿ

At one site it was discovered that supervisors who were not badged for unescorted

access but who were required to report to the emergency operations facility did not have

appropriate FFD training. Corrective actions were implemented to track FFD training

requirements for nonbadged supervisors.

ÿ

Several licensees reported the value of canine searches in enhancing antidrug

awareness at their sites, even the searches that typically did not discover drugs. This information notice requires no specific action or written response. If you have any

questions about the information in this notice, please contact the person listed below.

/RA/

Ledyard B. Marsh, Chief

Events Assessment, Generic Communications

and Non-Power Reactors Branch

Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Technical Contact:

Garmon West, Jr., Ph.D.

301-415-1044 E-mail: fitnessforduty@nrc.gov

Attachments: 1. Fitness-for-Duty Statistics

2. List of Recently Issued NRC Information Notices

ML0102050419

ADAMS DOCUMENT TITLE:C:\\119ffd9998.wpd

Publicly Available

Non-Publicly Available

Sensitive

Non-Sensitive

OFFICE Tech Ed

RSS:DIPM

IOLB:DIPM

DIPM

NAME

PKleene*via phone

GWest*

RPRosano*

GTracy*

BBoger*

DATE

11/9/00

11/14/00

11/15/00

12/14/00

01/11/2001 OFFICE OGC

REXB

C:REXB

NAME

STreby

JTappert*

LBMarsh

DATE

01/16/2001

03/19/2001

03/28/2001

Attachment 1 Table 1A

Test results for each test category, 1999

1999

TEST CATEGORY

NUMBER OF

TESTS

POSITIVE

TESTS

PERCENT

POSITIVE

Pre-Access

69,139

934

1.35%

Random

54,457

140

0.26%

For-Cause

736

120

16.30%

Followup

3,008

30

1.00%

Other

1,742

39

2.24%

TOTAL*

129,082

1,263

0.98%

TOTAL without Other

category

127,340

1,224

0.96%

Table 1B

Test results for each test category, 1998

1998

TEST CATEGORY

NUMBER OF

TESTS

POSITIVE

TESTS

PERCENT

POSITIVE

Pre-Access

69,146

822

1.19%

Random

56,969

157

0.28%

For-Cause

720

100

13.89%

Followup

2,863

43

1.50%

Other

1,929

32

1.66%

TOTAL

131,627

1,154

0.88%

TOTAL without Other

category

129,698

1,122

0.87%

These totals have been calculated using the Other test category. This category includes results

from the periodic testing done by some reporting units during annual physicals or similar periodic

activities. Although some reporting units specified the nature of the Other tests (e.g., return to

work), most reporting units did not give this information.

Attachment 1 Table 2A

1999 Test results for each test category and work category

TEST CATEGORY

LICENSEE

EMPLOYEES

LONG-TERM

CONTRACTORS

SHORT-TERM

CONTRACTORS

TOTAL

Pre-Access

Number Tested

8,386

1,339

59,414

69,139

Number Positive

44

10

880

934

Percent Positive

0.52%

0.75%

1.48%

1.35%

Random

Number Tested

38,692

1,976

13,789

54,457

Number Positive

71

7

62

140

Percent Positive

0.18%

0.35%

0.45%

0.26%

For-Cause

Number Tested

315

25

396

736

Number Positive

29

4

87

120

Percent Positive

9.21%

16.00%

21.97%

16.30%

Followup

Number Tested

1,653

70

1,285

3,008

Number Positive

15

1

14

30

Percent Positive

0.91%

1.43%

1.09%

1.00%

Other

Number Tested

648

318

776

1,742

Number Positive

4

2

33

39

Percent Positive

0.62%

0.63%

4.25%

2.24%

TOTAL

Number Tested

49,694

3,728

75,660

129,082

Number Positive

163

24

1,076

1,263

Percent Positive

0.33%

0.64%

1.42%

0.98%

TOTAL without

Other category

Number Tested

49,046

3,410

74,884

127,340

Number Positive

159

22

1,043

1,224

Percent Positive

0.32%

0.65%

1.39%

0.96%

Attachment 1 Table 2B

1998 Test results for each test category and work category

TEST CATEGORY

LICENSEE

EMPLOYEES

LONG-TERM

CONTRACTORS

SHORT-TERM

CONTRACTORS

TOTAL

Pre-Access

Number Tested

9,422

1,368

58,356

69,146

Number Positive

50

12

760

822

Percent Positive

0.53%

0.88%

1.30%

1.19%

Random

Number Tested

40,415

1,859

14,695

56,969

Number Positive

71

9

77

157

Percent Positive

0.18%

0.48%

0.52%

0.28%

For-Cause

Number Tested

327

16

377

720

Number Positive

27

1

72

100

Percent Positive

8.26%

6.25%

19.10%

13.89%

Followup

Number Tested

1,762

41

1,060

2,863

Number Positive

21

0

22

43

Percent Positive

1.19%

0.00%

2.08%

1.50%

Other

Number Tested

752

192

985

1,929

Number Positive

6

1

25

32

Percent Positive

0.80%

0.52%

2.54%

1.66%

TOTAL

Number Tested

52,678

3,476

75,473

131,627

Number Positive

175

23

956

1,154

Percent Positive

0.33%

0.66%

1.27%

0.88%

TOTAL without

Other category

Number Tested

51,926

3,284

74,488

129,698

Number Positive

169

22

931

1,122

Percent Positive

0.33%

0.67%

1.25%

0.87%

Attachment 1 Table 3A

1999 Test results by test category

TEST CATEGORY

FIRST

SIX MONTHS

SECOND

SIX MONTHS

YEAR

Pre-Access

Number Tested

37,844

31,295

69,139

Number Positive

510

424

934

Percent Positive

1.35%

Random

Number Tested

28,256

26,201

54,457

Number Positive

70

140

Percent Positive

0.25%

1,543

1,465

3,008

Number Positive

16

14

30

Percent Positive

1.04%

0.96%

1.00%

Other

Number Tested

866

876

1,742

Number Positive

18

21

39

Percent Positive

2.08%

2.40%

2.24%

TOTAL

Number Tested

68,902

Number Tested

66,546

63,152

129,698

Number Positive

582

540

1,122

Percent Positive

0.87%

0.86%

0.87%

Attachment 1 Table 4A

1999 Test results for licensee employees and contractor personnel

LICENSEE EMPLOYEES

CONTRACTORS

(Long-Term/Short Term)

TEST CATEGORY

First

Six Months

Second

Six Months

Year

First

Six Months

Second

Six Months

Year

Pre-Access

Number Tested

4,691

3,695

8,386

33,153

27,600

60,753

Number Positive

21

23

44

489

401

890

Percent Positive

0.45%

0.62%

0.52%

1.47%

1.45%

1.46%

Random

Number Tested

20,020

18,672

38,692

8,236

7,529

15,765

Number Positive

32

39

71

38

31

69

Percent Positive

0.16%

0.21%

0.18%

0.46%

0.41%

0.44%

For-Cause

Observed Behavior

Number Tested

112

91

203

171

132

303

Number Positive

20

9

29

55

36

91

Percent Positive

17.86%

9.89%

14.29%

32.16%

27.27%

30.03%

Post-Accident

Number Tested

60

52

112

50

68

118

Number Positive

0

Percent Positive

0.00%

Followup

Number Tested

818

835

1,653

725

630

1,355

Number Positive

8

7

15

8

7

15

Percent Positive

0.98%

0.84%

0.91%

1.10%

1.11%

Other

Number Tested

316

332

648

550

544

1,094

Number Positive

2

4

16

19

35

Percent Positive

0.63%

0.60%

0.62%

2.91%

3.49%

3.20%

TOTAL

Number Tested

26,017

23,677

49,694

42,885

36,503

79,388

Number Positive

83

80

163

606

494

1,100

Percent Positive

0.32%

0.34%

0.33%

1.41%

1.35%

1.39%

TOTAL without Other

category

Number Tested

25,701

23,345

49,046

42,335

35,959

78,294

Number Positive

81

78

159

590

475

1,065

Percent Positive

0.32%

0.33%

0.32%

1.39%

1.32%

1.36%

Attachment 1 Table 4B

1998 Test results for licensee employees and contractor personnel

LICENSEE EMPLOYEES

CONTRACTORS

(Long-Term/Short Term)

TEST CATEGORY

First

Six Months

Second

Six Months

Year

First

Six Months

Second

Six Months

Year

Pre-Access

Number Tested

5,141

4,281

9,422

30,314

29,410

59,724

Number Positive

25

50

408

364

772

Percent Positive

0.49%

0.58%

0.53%

1.35%

1.24%

1.29%

Random

Number Tested

20,891

19,524

40,415

8,360

8,194

16,554

Number Positive

41

30

71

39

47

86

Percent Positive

0.20%

0.15%

0.18%

0.47%

0.57%

0.52%

For-Cause

Observed Behavior

Number Tested

95

90

185

118

152

270

Number Positive

13

26

36

35

71

Percent Positive

13.68%

14.44%

14.05%

30.51%

23.03%

26.30%

Post-Accident

Number Tested

92

50

142

84

39

123

Number Positive

0

1

2

0

2

Percent Positive

0.00%

2.00%

0.70%

2.38%

0.00%

1.63%

Followup

Number Tested

867

895

1,762

584

517

1,101

Number Positive

9

12

21

9

13

22

Percent Positive

1.04%

1.34%

1.19%

1.54%

2.51%

2.00%

Other

Number Tested

416

336

752

618

559

1,177

Number Positive

2

4

6

17

9

26

Percent Positive

0.48%

1.19%

0.80%

2.75%

1.61%

2.21%

TOTAL

Number Tested

27,502

25,176

52,678

40,078

38,871

78,949

Number Positive

90

85

175

511

468

979

Percent Positive

0.33%

0.34%

0.33%

1.28%

1.20%

1.24%

TOTAL without Other

category

Number Tested

27,086

24,840

51,926

39,460

38,312

77,772

Number Positive

88

81

169

494

459

953

Percent Positive

0.32%

0.33%

1.25%

1.20%

1.23%

Attachment 1 Table 5A

1999 Test results for long-term and short-term contractor personnel

LONG-TERM CONTRACTORS

SHORT-TERM CONTRACTORS

TEST CATEGORY

First

Six Months

Second

Six Months

Year

First

Six Months

Second

Six Months

Year

Pre-Access

Number Tested

752

587

1,339

32,401

27,013

59,414

Number Positive

5

10

484

396

880

Percent Positive

0.66%

0.85%

0.75%

1.49%

1.47%

1.48%

Random

Number Tested

947

1,029

1,976

7,289

6,500

13,789

Number Positive

3

4

7

35

27

62

Percent Positive

0.32%

0.39%

0.35%

0.48%

0.42%

0.45%

For-Cause

Observed Behavior

Number Tested

6

11

17

165

121

286

Number Positive

2

4

53

34

87

Percent Positive

33.33%

18.18%

23.53%

32.12%

28.10%

30.42%

Post-Accident

Number Tested

2

6

8

48

62

110

Number Positive

0

Percent Positive

0.00%

Followup

Number Tested

33

37

70

692

593

1,285

Number Positive

1

0

1

7

14

Percent Positive

3.03%

0.00%

1.43%

1.01%

1.18%

1.09%

Other

Number Tested

155

163

318

395

381

776

Number Positive

1

2

15

18

33

Percent Positive

0.65%

0.61%

0.63%

3.80%

4.72%

4.25%

TOTAL

Number Tested

1,895

1,833

3,728

40,990

34,670

75,660

Number Positive

12

24

594

482

1,076

Percent Positive

0.63%

0.65%

0.64%

1.45%

1.39%

1.42%

TOTAL without Other

category

Number Tested

1,740

1,670

3,410

40,595

34,289

74,884

Number Positive

11

22

579

464

1,043

Percent Positive

0.63%

0.66%

0.65%

1.43%

1.35%

1.39%

Attachment 1 Table 5B

1998 Test results for long-term and short-term contractor personnel

LONG-TERM CONTRACTORS

SHORT-TERM CONTRACTORS

TEST CATEGORY

First

Six Months

Second

Six Months

Year

First

Six Months

Second

Six Months

Year

Pre-Access

Number Tested

698

670

1,368

29,616

28,740

58,356

Number Positive

4

8

12

404

356

760

Percent Positive

0.57%

1.19%

0.88%

1.36%

1.24%

1.30%

Random

Number Tested

973

886

1,859

7,387

7,308

14,695

Number Positive

8

1

9

31

46

77

Percent Positive

0.82%

0.11%

0.48%

0.42%

0.63%

0.52%

For-Cause

Observed Behavior

Number Tested

3

6

9

115

146

261

Number Positive

1

0

1

35

70

Percent Positive

33.33%

0.00%

11.11%

30.43%

23.97%

26.82%

Post-Accident

Number Tested

3

4

7

81

35

116

Number Positive

0

2

0

2

Percent Positive

0.00%

2.47%

0.00%

1.72%

Followup

Number Tested

24

17

41

560

500

1,060

Number Positive

0

9

13

22

Percent Positive

0.00%

1.61%

2.60%

2.08%

Other

Number Tested

88

104

192

530

455

985

Number Positive

1

0

1

16

9

25

Percent Positive

1.14%

0.00%

0.52%

3.02%

1.98%

2.54%

TOTAL

Number Tested

1,789

1,687

3,476

38,289

37,184

75,473

Number Positive

14

9

23

497

459

956

Percent Positive

0.78%

0.53%

0.66%

1.30%

1.23%

1.27%

TOTAL without Other

category

Number Tested

1,701

1,583

3,284

37,759

36,729

74,488

Number Positive

13

9

22

481

450

931

Percent Positive

0.76%

0.57%

0.67%

1.27%

1.23%

1.25%

Attachment 1 Table 6A

1999 Number of confirmed positives by substance

FIRST SIX

MONTHS

SECOND SIX

MONTHS

TOTAL

SUBSTANCE

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Marijuana

345

52.19%

327

57.17%

672

54.50%

Cocaine

151

22.84%

122

21.33%

273

22.14%

Opiates

4

0.61%

12

2.10%

16

1.30%

Amphetamines

20

3.03%

20

3.50%

40

3.24%

Phencyclidine

0

0.00%

2

0.35%

2

0.16%

Alcohol

141

21.33%

89

15.56%

230

18.65%

TOTAL

661

572

1,233 Table 6B

1998 Number of confirmed positives by substance

FIRST SIX

MONTHS

SECOND SIX

MONTHS

TOTAL

SUBSTANCE

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Marijuana

327

53.34%

279

51.67%

606

52.56%

Cocaine

137

22.35%

132

24.44%

269

23.33%

Opiates

13

2.12%

6

1.11%

19

1.65%

Amphetamines

32

5.22%

14

2.59%

46

3.99%

Phencyclidine

1

0.16%

0

0.00%

1

0.09%

Alcohol

103

16.80%

109

20.19%

212

18.39%

TOTAL

613

540

1153

Attachment 1 Table 7A

1999 Confirmed positives test results by substance for licensee employees and contractors

LICENSEE EMPLOYEES

CONTRACTORS

(Long-Term/Short-Term)

SUBSTANCE

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Marijuana

65

41.67%

607

56.36%

Cocaine

39

25.00%

234

21.73%

Opiates

0

0.00%

16

1.49%

Amphetamines

3

1.92%

37

3.44%

Phencyclidine

0

0.00%

2

0.19%

Alcohol

49

31.41%

181

16.81%

TOTAL

156

1,077 Table 7B

1998 Confirmed positives test results by substance for each worker category

LICENSEE EMPLOYEES

CONTRACTORS

(Long-Term/Short-Term)

TYPE OF SUBSTANCE

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Marijuana

78

43.58%

528

54.21%

Cocaine

41

22.91%

228

23.41%

Opiates

3

1.68%

16

1.64%

Amphetamines

6

3.35%

40

4.11%

Phencyclidine

0

0.00%

1

0.10%

Alcohol

51

28.49%

161

16.53%

TOTAL

179

974

Attachment 1 Table 8A

Significant* fitness-for-duty events (1990-1999)

Type of Event

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999 Total

Reactor Operators

19

16

18

8

7

8

9

5

103

Licensee Supervisors

26

16

22

25

11

16

19

16

10

2

163

Contract Supervisors

12

24

28

16

11

10

8

10

12

141

FFD Program Personnel

1

5

0

1

0

2

0

3

2

14

Substances Found

6

8

6

2

0

5

4

0

2

38 Total

64

69

74

51

30

39

42

39

28

23

459

Subsection 73 of 10 CFR Part 26 requires reporting units to provide the NRC with information

on significant FFD events, such as events involving licensed operators and supervisors, and on

controlled substances found in the protected area of the plant.

Table 8B

Significant fitness-for-duty events (1990-1998)

Type of Event

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998 Total

Reactor Operators

19

16

18

8

7

8

9

5

98

Licensee Supervisors

26

16

22

25

11

16

19

16

10

161

Contract Supervisors

12

24

28

16

11

10

8

10

129

FFD Program Personnel

1

5

0

1

0

2

0

3

12

Substances Found

6

8

6

2

0

5

4

0

36 Total

64

69

74

51

30

39

42

39

28

436

Attachment 1 Table 9A

Trends in testing by test type (1990-1999)

Type of Test

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999 Total

Pre-Access

Number Tested

122,491

104,508

104,842

91,471

80,217

79,305

81,041

84,320

69,146

69,139

886,480

Number Positive

1,548

983

1,110

952

977

1,122

1,132

1,096

822

934

10,676

Percent Positive

1.26%

0.94%

1.06%

1.04%

1.22%

1.41%

1.40%

1.30%

1.19%

1.35%

1.20%

Random

Number Tested

148,743

153,818

156,730

146,605

78,391

66,791

62,307

60,829

56,969

54,457

985,640

Number Positive

550

510

461

341

223

180

202

172

157

140

2,936

Percent Positive

0.37%

0.33%

0.29%

0.23%

0.28%

0.27%

0.32%

0.28%

0.26%

0.30%

For-Cause

Number Tested

732

727

696

751

758

763

848

722

720

736

7,453

Number Positive

214

167

178

163

122

139

138

149

100

120

1,490

Percent Positive

29.23%

22.97%

25.57%

21.70%

16.09%

18.22%

16.27%

20.64%

13.89%

16.30%

19.99%

Followup

Number Tested

2,633

3,544

4,283

4,139

3,875

3,262

3,296

2,863

3,008

34,165

Number Positive

65

62

69

56

50

35

40

31

43

30

481

Percent Positive

2.47%

1.75%

1.61%

1.35%

1.29%

1.07%

1.23%

0.94%

1.50%

1.00%

1.41%

Other

Number Tested

3,610

3,228

4,998

2,511

2,125

2,778

2,082

1,928

1,929

1,742

26,931

Number Positive

32

22

59

36

22

55

37

36

32

39

370

Percent Positive

0.89%

0.68%

1.18%

1.43%

1.04%

1.98%

1.78%

1.87%

1.66%

2.24%

1.37%

TOTAL

Number Tested

278,209

265,825

271,549

245,477

165,366

152,899

149,540

151,095

131,627

129,082

1,940,669

Number Positive

2,409

1,744

1,877

1,548

1,394

1,531

1,549

1,484

1,154

1,263

15,953

Percent Positive

0.87%

0.66%

0.69%

0.63%

0.84%

1.00%

1.04%

0.98%

0.88%

0.98%

0.82%

TOTAL without

Other category

Number Tested

274,599

262,597

266,551

242,966

163,241

150,121

147,458

149,167

129,698

127,340

1,913,738

Number Positive

2,377

1,722

1,818

1,512

1,372

1,476

1,512

1,448

1,122

1,224

15,583

Percent Positive

0.87%

0.66%

0.68%

0.62%

0.84%

0.98%

1.03%

0.97%

0.87%

0.96%

0.81%

Attachment 1 Table 9B

Trends in testing by test type (1990-1998)

Type of Test

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998 Total

Pre-Access

Number Tested

122,491

104,508

104,842

91,471

80,217

79,305

81,041

84,320

69,146

817,341

Number Positive

1,548

983

1,110

952

977

1,122

1,132

1,096

822

9,742

Percent Positive

1.26%

0.94%

1.06%

1.04%

1.22%

1.41%

1.40%

1.30%

1.19%

Random

Number Tested

148,743

153,818

156,730

146,605

78,391

66,791

62,307

60,829

56,969

931,183

Number Positive

550

510

461

341

223

180

202

172

157

2,796

Percent Positive

0.37%

0.33%

0.29%

0.23%

0.28%

0.27%

0.32%

0.28%

0.30%

For-Cause

Number Tested

732

727

696

751

758

763

848

722

720

6,717

Number Positive

214

167

178

163

122

139

138

149

100

1,370

Percent Positive

29.23%

22.97%

25.57%

21.70%

16.09%

18.22%

16.27%

20.64%

13.89%

20.40%

Followup

Number Tested

2,633

3,544

4,283

4,139

3,875

3,262

3,296

2,863

31,157

Number Positive

65

62

69

56

50

35

40

31

43

451

Percent Positive

2.47%

1.75%

1.61%

1.35%

1.29%

1.07%

1.23%

0.94%

1.50%

1.45%

Other

Number Tested

3,610

3,228

4,998

2,511

2,125

2,778

2,082

1,928

1,929

25,189

Number Positive

32

22

59

36

22

55

37

36

32

331

Percent Positive

0.89%

0.68%

1.18%

1.43%

1.04%

1.98%

1.78%

1.87%

1.66%

1.31%

TOTAL

Number Tested

278,209

265,825

271,549

245,477

165,366

152,899

149,540

151,095

131,627

1,811,587

Number Positive

2,409

1,744

1,877

1,548

1,394

1,531

1,549

1,484

1,154

14,690

Percent Positive

0.87%

0.66%

0.69%

0.63%

0.84%

1.00%

1.04%

0.98%

0.88%

0.81%

TOTAL without

Other category

Number Tested

274,599

262,597

266,551

242,966

163,241

150,121

147,458

149,167

129,698

1,786,398

Number Positive

2,377

1,722

1,818

1,512

1,372

1,476

1,512

1,448

1,122

14,359

Percent Positive

0.87%

0.66%

0.68%

0.62%

0.84%

0.98%

1.03%

0.97%

0.87%

0.80%

Attachment 1 Table 10A

Trends in substances identified (1990-1999)

Substance

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999 Marijuana

1,153

746

953

781

739

819

868

842

606

672 Cocaine

706

549

470

369

344

374

352

336

269

273 Alcohol

452

401

427

357

251

265

281

262

212

230

Amphetamines

69

31

51

54

61

53

49

46

40

Opiates

45

24

8

13

11

17

14

39

19

16

Phencyclidine

8

11

4

5

1

7

2

0

1

2 Total*

2,433

1,762

1,893

1,576

1,400

1,543

1,570

1,528

1,153

1,233 Table 10B

Trends in substances identified (1990-1998)

Substance

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998 Marijuana

1,153

746

953

781

739

819

868

842

606 Cocaine

706

549

470

369

344

374

352

336

269 Alcohol

452

401

427

357

251

265

281

262

212

Amphetamines

69

31

51

54

61

53

49

46 Opiates

45

24

8

13

11

17

14

39

19

Phencyclidine

8

11

4

5

1

7

2

0

1 Total*

2,433

1,762

1,893

1,576

1,400

1,543

1,570

1,528

1,153

These totals do not include positives for multiple substances and other substances than those listed

above.

Attachment 1 Table 11A

Trends in positive test rates for workers with unescorted access (1990-1999)*

Positive Test Rate

1990

0.54%

1991

0.47%

1992

0.44%

1993

0.37%

1994

0.48%

1995

0.50%

1996

0.57%

1997

0.54%

1998

0.50%

1999

0.50%

Table 11B

Trends in positive test rates for workers with unescorted access (1990-1998)*

Positive Test Rate

1990

0.54%

1991

0.47%

1992

0.44%

1993

0.37%

1994

0.48%

1995

0.50%

1996

0.57%

1997

0.54%

1998

0.50%

Includes random, for-cause, and followup testing results. The random test rate was reduced from

100% to 50% in 1994.

______________________________________________________________________________________

OL = Operating License

CP = Construction Permit

Attachment LIST OF RECENTLY ISSUED

NRC INFORMATION NOTICES

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Information

Date of

Notice No.

Subject

Issuance

Issued to

______________________________________________________________________________________

2001-01

The Importance of Accurate

Inventory Controls to Prevent

the Unauthorized Possession

of Radioactive Material

03/26/01

All material licensees

2000-17, Supp. 2

Crack in Weld Area of Reactor

Coolant System Hot Leg Piping

at V.C. Summer

02/28/01

All holders of operating licenses

for nuclear power reactors except

those who has ceased operations

and have certified that fuel has

permanently removed from

reactor vessel

2000-22

Medical Misadministrations

Caused by Human Errors

Involving Gamma Stereotactic

Radiosurgery (GAMMA KNIFE)

12/18/00

All medical use licensees

authorized to conduct gamma

stereotactic radiosurgery

treatments

2000-21

Detached Check Valve Disc

not Detected by Use of

Acoustic and Magnetic

Nonintrusive Test Techniques

12/15/00

All holders of OLs for nuclear

power reactors except those who

have ceased operations and have

certified that fuel has been

permanently removed from the

reactor

2000-20

Potential Loss of Redundant

Safety Related Equipment Due

to Lack of a High-Energy Line

Break Barrier

12/11/2000

All holders of operating licenses

or construction permits for

nuclear power reactors

2000-19

Implementation of Human Use

Research Protocols Involving

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission Regulated

Materials

12/05/2000

All medical use licensees

2000-18

Substandard Material Supplied

by Chicago Bullet Proof

Systems

11/29/2000

All 10 CFR Part 50 licensees and

applicants. All category 1 fuel

facilities. All 10 CFR Part 72 licensees and applicants