Information Notice 2001-02, 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) | |
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 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 POSITIVE PERCENT
TESTS TESTS 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 POSITIVE PERCENT
TESTS TESTS 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
LICENSEE LONG-TERM SHORT-TERM
TEST CATEGORY EMPLOYEES CONTRACTORS 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
LICENSEE LONG-TERM SHORT-TERM
TEST CATEGORY EMPLOYEES CONTRACTORS 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
FIRST SECOND
TEST CATEGORY SIX MONTHS SIX MONTHS YEAR
Pre-Access
Number Tested 37,844 31,295 69,139 Number Positive 510 424 934 Percent Positive 1.35% 1.35% 1.35%
Random
Number Tested 28,256 26,201 54,457 Number Positive 70 70 140
Percent Positive 0.25% 0.27% 0.26%
For-Cause
Observed Behavior
Number Tested 283 223 506 Number Positive 75 45 120
Percent Positive 26.50% 20.18% 23.72%
Post-Accident
Number Tested 110 120 230
Number Positive 0 0 0
Percent Positive 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Followup
Number Tested 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 60,180 129,082 Number Positive 689 574 1,263 Percent Positive 1.00% 0.95% 0.98%
TOTAL without Other category
Number Tested 68,036 59,304 127,340
Number Positive 671 553 1,224 Percent Positive 0.99% 0.93% 0.96%
Attachment 1 Table 3B
1998 Test results by test category
FIRST SECOND
TEST CATEGORY SIX MONTHS SIX MONTHS YEAR
Pre-Access
Number Tested 35,455 33,691 69,146 Number Positive 433 389 822 Percent Positive 1.22% 1.15% 1.19%
Random
Number Tested 29,251 27,718 56,969 Number Positive 80 77 157 Percent Positive 0.27% 0.28% 0.28%
For-Cause
Observed Behavior
Number Tested 213 242 455 Number Positive 49 48 97 Percent Positive 23.00% 19.83% 21.32%
Post-Accident
Number Tested 176 89 265 Number Positive 2 1 3 Percent Positive 1.14% 1.12% 1.13%
Followup
Number Tested 1,451 1,412 2,863 Number Positive 18 25 43 Percent Positive 1.24% 1.77% 1.50%
Other
Number Tested 1,034 895 1,929 Number Positive 19 13 32 Percent Positive 1.84% 1.45% 1.66%
TOTAL
Number Tested 67,580 64,047 131,627 Number Positive 601 553 1,154 Percent Positive 0.89% 0.86% 0.88%
TOTAL without Other category
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
CONTRACTORS
LICENSEE EMPLOYEES (Long-Term/Short Term)
First Second First Second
TEST CATEGORY Six Months Six Months Year Six Months 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 0 0 0 0 0
Percent Positive 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 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% 1.11%
Other
Number Tested 316 332 648 550 544 1,094 Number Positive 2 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
CONTRACTORS
LICENSEE EMPLOYEES (Long-Term/Short Term)
First Second First Second
TEST CATEGORY Six Months Six Months Year Six Months Six Months Year
Pre-Access
Number Tested 5,141 4,281 9,422 30,314 29,410 59,724 Number Positive 25 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 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 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% 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
First Second First Second
TEST CATEGORY Six Months Six Months Year Six Months Six Months Year
Pre-Access
Number Tested 752 587 1,339 32,401 27,013 59,414 Number Positive 5 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 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 0 0 0 0 0
Percent Positive 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Followup
Number Tested 33 37 70 692 593 1,285 Number Positive 1 0 1 7 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 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 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 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
First Second First Second
TEST CATEGORY Six Months Six Months Year Six Months 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 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 0 0 2 0 2 Percent Positive 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.47% 0.00% 1.72%
Followup
Number Tested 24 17 41 560 500 1,060
Number Positive 0 0 0 9 13 22 Percent Positive 0.00% 0.00% 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 SECOND SIX TOTAL
MONTHS MONTHS
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 SECOND SIX TOTAL
MONTHS MONTHS
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 8 9 5 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 10 12 141 FFD Program Personnel 1 5 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 2 14 Substances Found 6 8 6 2 0 5 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 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 10 129 FFD Program Personnel 1 5 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 12 Substances Found 6 8 6 2 0 5 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% 0.28% 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 3,262 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% 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% 0.28% 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 3,262 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 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 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.
Attachment LIST OF RECENTLY ISSUED
NRC INFORMATION NOTICES
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Information Date of
Notice No. Subject Issuance Issued to
______________________________________________________________________________________
2001-01 The Importance of Accurate 03/26/01 All material licensees
Inventory Controls to Prevent
the Unauthorized Possession
of Radioactive Material
2000-17, Crack in Weld Area of Reactor 02/28/01 All holders of operating licenses
Supp. 2 Coolant System Hot Leg Piping for nuclear power reactors except
at V.C. Summer those who has ceased operations
and have certified that fuel has
permanently removed from
reactor vessel
2000-22 Medical Misadministrations 12/18/00 All medical use licensees
Caused by Human Errors authorized to conduct gamma
Involving Gamma Stereotactic stereotactic radiosurgery
Radiosurgery (GAMMA KNIFE) treatments
2000-21 Detached Check Valve Disc 12/15/00 All holders of OLs for nuclear
not Detected by Use of power reactors except those who
Acoustic and Magnetic have ceased operations and have
Nonintrusive Test Techniques certified that fuel has been
permanently removed from the
reactor
2000-20 Potential Loss of Redundant 12/11/2000 All holders of operating licenses
Safety Related Equipment Due or construction permits for
to Lack of a High-Energy Line nuclear power reactors
Break Barrier
2000-19 Implementation of Human Use 12/05/2000 All medical use licensees
Research Protocols Involving
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission Regulated
Materials
2000-18 Substandard Material Supplied 11/29/2000 All 10 CFR Part 50 licensees and
by Chicago Bullet Proof applicants. All category 1 fuel
Systems facilities. All 10 CFR Part 72 licensees and applicants
______________________________________________________________________________________
OL = Operating License
CP = Construction Permit