Information Notice 2005-18, Summary of Fitness-For-Duty Program Performance Reports for Calendar Years 2001, 2002 and 2003

Summary of Fitness-For-Duty Program Performance Reports for Calendar Years 2001, 2002 and 2003
	ML051640539
Person / Time
Issue date:	07/15/2005
From:	Hiland P; NRC/NRR/DIPM/IROB
To:	;
	McCune, Timothy DNS ,415-6474
References
	TAC MC7572 IN-05-018
	Download: ML051640539 (29)
	v • d • e

UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001

July 15, 2005

NRC INFORMATION NOTICE 2005-18:

SUMMARY OF FITNESS-FOR-DUTY PROGRAM

PERFORMANCE REPORTS FOR CALENDAR

YEARS 2001, 2002 AND 2003

ADDRESSEES

All holders of 10 CFR Part 50 operating licenses for nuclear power reactors, except those who

have permanently ceased operation and have certified that the fuel has been permanently

removed from the reactor vessel.

PURPOSE

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

on lessons learned by licensees from their fitness-for-duty (FFD) program performance reports

for calendar years 2001, 2002 and 2003. It is expected that recipients of this IN will review the

information for applicability to their reactor facilities and consider, as appropriate, the corrective

actions taken to improve the future performance of their FFD programs. However, this IN

should not be construed as representing NRC requirements, and therefore no specific actions

or written responses are required.

DESCRIPTION OF CIRCUMSTANCES

As required by 10 CFR 26.71(d), NRC licensees have submitted their FFD program

performance reports to the NRC within 60 days of the end of each 6-month reporting period

(January - June and July - December). In the past, the NRC summarized and analyzed this

performance data and published an annual volume, NUREG/CR-5758, Fitness for Duty in the

Nuclear Power IndustryAnnual Summary of Program Performance Reports. The IN in

Attachment 1, provides similar FFD program performance data information for the years 2001,

2002 and 2003.

DISCUSSION

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

taken reported by licensees for the years 2001, 2002, and 2003 are summarized below.

(1)

Certified Laboratories

Some licensees continue to experience problems with laboratory performance of

equipment malfunctioning and have also identified potential weaknesses in human error.

For example:

For the year 2001:

One laboratory, determined that blind performance specimens caused test

discrepancies.

In accordance with 10 CFR 26 Appendix A, paragraph 2.8, one licensee

submitted a letter to the NRC detailing the unsatisfactory performance of a

certified testing laboratory.

For the year 2002:

One licensee reported that on February 16, 2002, a certified testing laboratory

reported an unsatisfactory positive blind performance urine test sample

containing amphetamine and methamphetamine. This event was investigated by

the laboratory and corrective action was taken. The event was reported to the

NRC as required by 10 CFR Part 26, Appendix A, Subpart 2.8(e)(4).

One licensee reported an inaccurate laboratory result for a blind specimen that

was reported as negative. The cause of the inaccuracy was due to the sample

being inadvertently diluted. The licensee entered the inconsistency into the

corrective action program for evaluation and statistical trending.

For the year 2003:

Two licensees reported a discrepancy in recording blind sample test results

because of a laboratory technicians human error in not following procedures.

The problem was corrected by revising the procedures.

One licensee reported that a laboratorys courier van carrying samples of

specimen to the lab was stolen and the FFD specimen was lost. All samples of

specimen were recollected within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days 0.00333 hours 1.984127e-5 weeks 4.566e-6 months of the notification and all samples

tested negative.

One licensee reported a discrepancy with the blind sample specimens processed

because the laboratory equipment was not within quality control standards.

Corrective action was taken immediately.

One licensee reported that a blind sample specimen for amphetamines that was

spiked was submitted to a certified laboratory, and the results reported were

negative. It was discovered that the age of the blind sample specimen caused

the level of the amphetamines to degrade below the required positive cutoff level. (2)

Random Testing

Several licensees reported minor problems related to the random drug and alcohol

selection process.

For the year 2001:

One licensee performed an audit and reported problems with the random drug

screening software in which several individuals were omitted from the drug

testing pool for three days. A root cause analysis revealed that the individuals

missing were not included in the file exported from the Security Database to the

random drug screening software from which individuals are selected for random

drug screening.

One licensee reported that a contract employee tested positive for opiates

because that individual used a prescription drug prescribed to another person.

The employee was referred to the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) and was

denied access to the facility for 14 days. After reassessment, the case was

completed and it was determined the individual did not have a dependency issue.

The employee returned to work and was placed into the follow-up program.

One licensee discovered deficiencies in the reporting software used to compile

the FFD report. The number of random tests reported for the period was found

to be in error.

One licensee reported one false negative result for the blind performance

specimens. Notification was sent to the NRC of this unsatisfactory performance.

One licensee reported that several workers had been improperly excluded from

the random drug testing pool for extended periods, because of software upgrade

interface problems.

For the year 2002:

One licensee increased the random drug testing rate in order to enhance the

random drug sampling program. This was based on a study that was conducted

by a certified laboratory.

One licensee identified a program weakness in its laboratory screening because

of an error concerning a low rate of For Cause tests. Corrective action was

taken to ensure that verification of the test results was properly completed prior

to a specimen being destroyed.

For the year 2003:

One licensee reported that a software change affected the FFD tracking program

and caused several individuals to be excluded from the random drug test pool. (3)

Policies and Procedures

Several licensees reported initiatives to improve their FFD program policies and

procedures.

For the year 2001:

During a routine audit, one licensee found weaknesses in their FFD supervisor

training program. It was discovered that three supervisors did not requalify in

Supervisor FFD and Behavior Observation Programs as required within the

nominal 12 month period.

One licensee implemented state-of-the-art equipment to enhance its FFD

process for measurement of specimen specific gravity. The results provided a

digital display versus a collectors visual determination of the specific gravity

reading.

One licensee updated its FFD procedures to reflect revised wording in the chain- of-custody form.

One licensee reported an event to the NRC in which there was a positive alcohol

test in the followup program due to refusal by a contractor supervisor to complete

the testing.

One licensee reported that an employee, who tested positive for illegal drugs

during pre-employment testing was denied access to the protected area.

One licensee reported that three confirmed positive results and two incidents of

adulterated samples were identified during pre-employment testing for the short- term contractor population. The licensee also reported in the For-Cause FFD

testing program for the long-term contractor population, one confirmed positive

sample was detected for two substances.

One licensee tested three individuals For-Cause, after they reported a

substance abuse related arrest. Subsequently, they were referred to EAP for an

assessment.

One licensee reported an adulterated sample for a contractor employee during

random testing, resulting in denial of unescorted access to the facility.

One licensee eliminated its policy of administering a second breath alcohol test

when the first test is negative.

One licensee reported two positive chemical test results. For the year 2002:

One licensee reported that during a routine search for contraband via an x-ray

machine, Security personnel discovered a small-unopened bottle of alcohol in an

individuals computer case. Investigation revealed no intent to bring the alcohol

into the protected area. Security confiscated the item. The issue was placed into

the Corrective Action System.

One licensee reported that a positive test result was not coded properly in the

database, causing the test result not to appear on the report of positives used to

compile statistics for the six-month performance summary report. The licensee

identified the error during the self-assessment period of the FFD program.

Corrective action was taken to revise the code in the database.

One licensee reported that the contract FFD collector instructed a donor to

provide a smaller urine specimen than the 60 ml called for in 10 CFR Part 26.

However, the smaller specimen did not compromise the accuracy of the test

results.

One licensee found a weakness in the FFD program, which gave an individual

unescorted access to the protected area without a drug and alcohol test being

completed. The licensee found that the access authorization staff did not

conduct a thorough review of the individuals access authorization file prior to

approval for unescorted access. Appropriate FFD personnel were given written

instruction as a reminder to thoroughly review all access files before granting

approval.

For the year 2003:

One licensee reported the granting of unescorted access prior to receiving a

negative drug test screen result. This was the result of data entry human error.

The procedure was revised and corrective action was taken.

One licensee reported a weakness in the notification process to employees

reporting for a FFD test. The procedures were revised and corrective action was

taken.

One licensee reported that the blind specimens were not submitted in

accordance with 10 CFR Part 26 for two additional drugs. Corrective action was

taken to track the submission of blind samples to ensure that no drug is

excluded.

One licensee reported nine incidents whereby contractors attempted to subvert

the random drug testing process through adulteration with a synthetic urine

product called Minuteman. These contractor personnel were denied

unescorted access to the protected area for failure to cooperate, falsification of

their chain-of-custody form, and in some cases falsification of their self-disclosure

questionnaire. *

One licensee reported a deficiency in the FFD program meeting the reporting

requirements in 10 CFR 26.73 (a)(1) within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months . The licensee revised and

added more detail to their procedures.

One licensee reported that an individual was randomly tested for FFD and their

blood alcohol content was found to be above the limit. The Medical Review

Officer (MRO) suggested that the individual be relieved of work duty and referred

to the EAP. The substance abuse professional in EAP did not find this

individuals alcohol consumption to be problematic. The individual returned to

work after the pre-access test was completed, and the results were negative.

(4)

Program and System Management

In general, most licensees continue to report improvements in their overall FFD program

management.

For the year 2001:

One licensee planned FFD supervisory training for incoming contractor personnel

during refueling and outage, and development of a common FFD program for its

nuclear sites.

One licensees canine program continues to remind plant personnel of the

licensees commitment to maintain a drug-free work environment. The canine

unit provides anti-drug presentations to local schools and other community

organizations. The canine unit is also made available upon request to local law

enforcement agencies.

One licensee re-emphasized during general employee training, the significance

of the sanctions associated with ingestion of hemp products and the

requirements. The instructor accentuates importance of FFD prior to entering the

workplace and not just in the protected area.

One licensee planned to create an electronic link between the Access

Authorization, FFD, and Emergency Response Organization to improve

coordination and eliminate the potential communication errors.

One licensee planned FFD supervisory training due to several supervisors

exceeding the site requalification requirement. Corrective actions were taken

(1) to develop a common FFD program for its nuclear sites, (2) increasing

efficiencies in the data gathering process and (3) provide clearer delineation of

short-term, long-term and licensee employees were made.

One licensee reported administration of For-Cause testing resulting from a

security officer discovering an open container of alcohol in an employees

vehicle. The test results were negative. *

To enhance the overall FFD program at the site, one licensee met with the

laboratory, collection site, MROs, EAP staff and psychological assessment

personnel to assure consistent and effective implementation of the FFD program.

The licensees canine program continues to remind plant personnel of the

licensees commitment to maintain a drug-free work environment.

For the year 2002:

One licensee planned to merge two FFD programs and implement new

programmatic changes at their site.

One licensee discovered during a self-assessment of the FFD program that the

blind submittal rate did not meet the 10 CFR Part 26 requirements. Corrective

actions were taken to evaluate the appropriate number of blind samples to be

submitted.

One licensee reported that it initiated communications to re-emphasize the FFD

program requirements for overtime, in order to ensure fitness for duty suitability

prior to authorizing overtime hours.

Two licensees made FFD program modifications to their procedures in order to

eliminate procedural inefficiencies and to maximize the efficiency of the FFD

program.

One licensee updated its internal website to enhance the FFD program with user- friendly forms and guidance for supervisors.

One licensee sent written notification regarding an operating experience of there

being gift baskets containing prohibited substance delivered to site. The licensee

provided FFD awareness information prohibiting alcohol on company property for

all site personnel.

One licensee found that its employees were not familiar with the For-Cause

testing protocol and requirements. The licensee implemented corrective actions

by supplying additional information to the employees.

For the year 2003:

Two licensees presented at a FFD workshop to industry peers and FFD staff

concerning the use of adulteration products such as synthetic urine.

One licensee received notification from a pharmacy concerning a medication

called Protonix, that can cause a false positive urine screen test for marijuana

on a FFD test. All medical personnel reviewed the notification from the

pharmacy for future reference.

CONTACT

This information notice requires no specific action or written response. Please direct any

questions about this matter to the technical contact listed below.

/Mary Jane Ross-Lee for/

Patrick L. Hiland, Chief

Reactor Operations Branch

Division of Inspection Program Management

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Technical Contact:

Timothy McCune, NSIR

301-415-6474 E-mail: fitnessforduty@nrc.gov

Attachment: Fitness-for-Duty Statistics

Note: NRC generic communications may be found on the NRC public Web site, http://www.nrc.gov, under Electronic Reading Room/Document Collections.

ML051640539 OFFICE

NSIR/DNS/LPSS

NSIR/DNS/NSPP

NSIR/DNS

NAME

CCollins

TMcCune

GWest

VOrdaz

DDorman

DATE

06/23/2005

06/24/2005

07/07/2005

07/11/2005

07/12/2005 OFFICE

NRR/DIPM/IROB

SC:OES:IROB:DIPM

C:IROB:DIPM

NAME

EBenner

MJRoss-Lee

PLHiland (MJRoss-Lee for)

DATE

07/13/2005

07/15/2005

Attachment Table 1A

2001 Test Results For Each Test Category

TEST CATEGORY

NUMBER OF

TESTS

2001

POSITIVE TESTS

PERCENT POSITIVE

Pre-Access

63,744

720

1.13%

Random

50,080

148

0.30%

For-Cause

730

101

13.84%

Followup

2,649

35

1.32%

Other

1,527

32

2.10%

TOTAL *

118,730

1,036

0.87%

TOTAL without

OTHER Category

117,203

1,004

0.86%

Table 1B

2002 Test Results For Each Test Category

TEST CATEGORY

NUMBER OF

TESTS

2002

POSITIVE TESTS

PERCENT POSITIVE

Pre-Access

73,188

805

1.10%

Random

49,848

114

0.23%

For-Cause

1,072

112

10.45%

Followup

2,892

21

0.73%

Other

1,462

39

2.67%

TOTAL *

128,462

1,091

0.85%

TOTAL without

OTHER Category

127,000

1,052

0.83%

These totals were 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. Table 1C

2003 Test Results For Each Test Category

TEST CATEGORY

NUMBER OF

TESTS

2003

POSITIVE TESTS

PERCENT POSITIVE

Pre-Access

72,988

757

1.04%

Random

49,402

132

0.27%

For-Cause

1,052

126

11.98%

Followup

3,142

42

1.34%

Other

1,201

37

3.08%

TOTAL *

127,785

1,094

0.86%

TOTAL without

OTHER Category

126,584

1,057

0.84%

These totals were 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. Table 2A

2001 Test Results For Each Test Category And Work Category

Test Category

Licensee

Employees

Long-Term

Contractors

Short-Term

Contractors

Total

Pre-Access

Number Tested

8,442

1,641

53,661

63,744

Number Positive

44

16

660

720

Percent Positive

0.52%

0.98%

1.23%

1.13%

Random

Number Tested

36,048

1,697

12,335

50,080

Number Positive

64

4

80

148

Percent Positive

0.18%

0.24%

0.65%

0.30%

For-Cause

Number Tested

326

33

371

730

Number Positive

20

2

79

101

Percent Positive

6.13%

6.06%

21.29%

13.84%

Followup

Number Tested

1,650

70

931

2,649

Number Positive

19

0

16

35

Percent Positive

1.15%

0.00%

1.72%

1.32%

Other

Number Tested

586

305

636

1,527

Number Positive

4

1

27

32

Percent Positive

0.68%

0.33%

4.25%

2.10%

TOTAL

Number Tested

47,052

3,744

67,298

118,730

Number Positive

151

23

835

1,036

Percent Positive

0.32%

0.61%

1.27%

0.87%

TOTAL without

OTHER Category

Number Tested

46,466

3,439

67,298

117,203

Number Positive

147

22

835

1,004

Percent Positive

0.32%

0.64%

1.24%

0.86% Table 2B

2002 Test Results For Each Test Category And Work Category

Test Category

Licensee

Employees

Long-Term

Contractors

Short-Term

Contractors

Total

Pre-Access

Number Tested

8,050

1,257

63,881

73,188

Number Positive

28

10

767

805

Percent Positive

0.35%

0.80%

1.20%

1.10%

Random

Number Tested

35,608

1,298

12,942

49,848

Number Positive

55

1

58

114

Percent Positive

0.15%

0.08%

0.45%

0.23%

For-Cause

Number Tested

458

22

592

1,072

Number Positive

23

1

88

112

Percent Positive

5.02%

4.55%

14.86%

10.45%

Followup

Number Tested

1,789

33

1,070

2,892

Number Positive

11

0

10

21

Percent Positive

0.61%

0.00%

0.93%

0.73%

Other

Number Tested

618

137

706

1,462

Number Positive

6

0

33

39

Percent Positive

0.97%

0.00%

4.67%

2.67%

TOTAL

Number Tested

46,524

2,747

79,191

128,462

Number Positive

123

12

956

1,091

Percent Positive

0.26%

0.44%

1.21%

0.85%

TOTAL without

OTHER Category

Number Tested

45,905

2,610

78,485

127,000

Number Positive

117

12

923

1,052

Percent Positive

0.26%

0.46%

1.18%

0.83% Table 2C

2003 Test Results For Each Test Category And Work Category

Test Category

Licensee

Employees

Long-Term

Contractors

Short-Term

Contractors

Total

Pre-Access

Number Tested

8,309

779

63,900

72,988

Number Positive

41

8

708

757

Percent Positive

0.49%

1.03%

1.11%

1.04%

Random

Number Tested

34,202

1,133

14,067

49,402

Number Positive

61

3

68

132

Percent Positive

0.18%

0.26%

0.48%

0.27%

For-Cause

Number Tested

439

29

584

1,052

Number Positive

23

0

103

126

Percent Positive

5.24%

0.00%

17.64%

11.98%

Followup

Number Tested

1,942

26

1,174

3,142

Number Positive

21

1

20

42

Percent Positive

1.08%

3.85%

1.70%

1.34%

Other

Number Tested

545

59

597

1,201

Number Positive

1

0

36

37

Percent Positive

0.18%

0.00%

6.03%

3.08%

TOTAL

Number Tested

45,437

2,026

80,322

127,785

Number Positive

147

12

935

1,094

Percent Positive

0.32%

0.59%

1.16%

0.86%

TOTAL without

OTHER Category

Number Tested

44,892

1,967

79,725

126,584

Number Positive

146

12

899

1,057

Percent Positive

0.33%

0.61%

1.13%

0.84% Table 3A

2001 Test Results By Test Category

TEST CATEGORY

FIRST

SIX MONTHS

SECOND

SIX MONTHS

YEAR

Pre-Access

Number Tested

33,857

29,887

63,744

0.94%

0.79%

0.87%

TOTAL without

OTHER Category

Number Tested

61,283

55,920

117,203

Number Positive

564

440

1,004

Percent Positive

0.92%

0.79%

0.86% Table 3B

2002 Test Results By Test Category

TEST CATEGORY

FIRST

SIX MONTHS

SECOND

SIX MONTHS

YEAR

Pre-Access

Number Tested

39,277

33,911

73,188

0.97%

0.72%

0.85%

TOTAL without

OTHER Category

Number Tested

66,696

60,304

127,000

Number Positive

632

420

1,052

Percent Positive

0.95%

0.70%

0.83% Table 3C

2003 Test Results By Test Category

TEST CATEGORY

FIRST

SIX MONTHS

SECOND

SIX MONTHS

YEAR

Pre-Access

Number Tested

37,996

34,992

72,988

0.94%

0.76%

0.86%

TOTAL without

OTHER Category

Number Tested

65,219

61,365

126,584

Number Positive

603

454

1,057

Percent Positive

0.92%

0.74%

0.84% Table 4A

2001 Test Results For Licensee Employees And Contractor Personnel

LICENSEE

EMPLOYEES

LONG-TERM

CONTRACTORS

SHORT-TERM

CONTRACTORS

TEST

FIRST

SECOND

FIRST

SECOND

FIRST

SECOND

Observed Behavior

Number Tested

96

123

219

9

11

20

121

146

267 Number Positive

11

9

20

1

2

41

36

77 Percent Positive

11.46%

7.32%

9.13%

11.11%

9.09%

10.00%

33.88%

24.66%

28.84%

Post-Accident

Number Tested

59

48

107

7

6

13

50

54

104 Number Positive

0

2

0

2 Percent Positive

0.00%

4.00%

0.00%

1.92%

Followup

Number Tested

790

860

1,650

34

68

557

374

931 Number Positive

10

9

19

0

12

4

16 Percent Positive

1.27%

1.05%

1.15%

0.00%

2.15%

1.07%

1.72%

Other

Number Tested

296

290

586

171

134

305

356

280

636 Number Positive

3

1

4

1

0

1

18

9

27 Percent Positive

1.01%

0.34%

0.68%

0.58%

0.00%

0.33%

5.06%

3.21%

4.25%

TOTAL

Number Tested

24,135

22,917

47,052

2,153

1,591

3,744

35,818

32,116

67,934 Number Positive

86

65

151

18

5

23

482

380

862 Percent Positive

0.36%

0.28%

0.32%

0.84%

0.31%

0.61%

1.35%

1.18%

1.27%

TOTAL without

OTHER Category

Number Tested

23,839

22,627

46,466

1,982

1,457

3,439

35,462

31,836

67,298 Number Positive

83

64

147

17

5

22

464

371

835 Percent Positive

0.35%

0.28%

0.32%

0.86%

0.34%

0.83%

1.31%

1.17%

1.24% Table 4B

2002 Test Results For Licensee Employees And Contractor Personnel

LICENSEE

EMPLOYEES

LONG-TERM

CONTRACTORS

SHORT-TERM

CONTRACTORS

TEST

FIRST

SECOND

FIRST

SECOND

FIRST

SECOND

Observed Behavior

Number Tested

138

105

243

6

2

8

192

174

366 Number Positive

12

11

23

1

0

1

55

31

86 Percent Positive

8.70%

10.48%

9.47%

16.67%

0.00%

12.56%

28.65%

17.82%

23.50%

Post-Accident

Number Tested

79

136

215

7

14

105

121

226 Number Positive

0

2

0

2 Percent Positive

0.00%

1.90%

0.00%

0.88%

Followup

Number Tested

869

920

1,789

10

23

33

606

464

1,070

Number Positive

6

5

11

0

6

4

10

Percent Positive

0.69%

0.54%

0.61%

0.00%

0.99%

0.86%

0.93%

Other

Number Tested

328

291

619

110

27

137

397

309

706 Number Positive

3

6

0

20

13

33 Percent Positive

0.91%

1.03%

0.97%

0.00%

5.04%

4021%

4.67%

TOTAL

Number Tested

24,153

22,371

46,524

1,588

1,159

2,747

41,790

37,401

79,191 Number Positive

68

55

123

8

4

12

579

377

956 Percent Positive

0.28%

0.25%

0.26%

0.50%

0.35%

0.44%

1.39%

1.01%

1.21%

TOTAL without

OTHER Category

Number Tested

23,825

22,080

45,905

1,478

1,132

2,610

41,393

37,092

78,485 Number Positive

65

52

117

8

4

12

559

364

923 Percent Positive

0.27%

0.24%

0.25%

0.54%

0.35%

0.46%

1.35%

0.98%

1.18% Table 4C

2003 Test Results For Licensee Employees And Contractor Personnel

LICENSEE

EMPLOYEES

LONG-TERM

CONTRACTORS

SHORT-TERM

CONTRACTORS

TEST

FIRST

SECOND

FIRST

SECOND

FIRST

SECOND

Observed Behavior

Number Tested

124

108

232

6

12

229

164

393 Number Positive

13

9

22

0

55

46

101 Percent Positive

10.48%

8.33%

9.48%

0.00%

24.02%

28.05%

25.70%

Post-Accident

Number Tested

111

96

207

9

8

17

107

84

191 Number Positive

1

0

1

0

2

0

2 Percent Positive

0.90%

0.00%

0.48%

0.00%

1.87%

0.00%

1.05%

Followup

Number Tested

948

994

1,942

8

18

26

621

553

1,174 Number Positive

9

12

21

1

0

1

14

6

20

Percent Positive

0.95%

1.21%

1.08%

12.50%

0.00%

3.85%

2.25%

1.08%

1.70%

Other

Number Tested

273

272

545

30

29

59

377

220

597 Number Positive

0

1

0

18

36 Percent Positive

0.00%

0.37%

0.18%

0.00%

4.77%

8.18%

6.03%

TOTAL

Number Tested

23,169

22,268

45,437

1,055

971

2,026

41,675

38,647

80,322 Number Positive

85

62

147

8

4

12

528

407

935 Percent Positive

0.37%

0.28%

0.32%

0.76%

0.41%

0.59%

1.27%

1.05%

1.16%

TOTAL without

OTHER Category

Number Tested

22,896

21,996

44,892

1,025

942

1,967

41,298

38,427

79,725 Number Positive

85

61

146

8

4

12

510

389

899 Percent Positive

0.37%

0.28%

0.33%

0.78%

0.42%

0.61%

1.23%

1.01%

1.13% Table 5A

2001 Number Of Confirmed Positives By Substance

FIRST

SIX MONTHS

SECOND

SIX MONTHS

TOTAL

TYPE OF

SUBSTANCE

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Marijuana

300

50.85%

219

50.85%

519

50.73%

Cocaine

121

20.51%

102

23.56%

223

21.80%

Opiates

7

1.19%

10

2.31%

17

1.66%

Amphetamines

35

5.93%

15

3.46%

50

4.89%

Phencyclidine

1

0.17%

1

0.23%

2

0.20%

Alcohol

126

21.36%

86

19.86%

212

20.72%

TOTAL

590

433

1,023 Table 5B

2002 Number Of Confirmed Positives By Substance

FIRST

SIX MONTHS

SECOND

SIX MONTHS

TOTAL

TYPE OF

SUBSTANCE

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Marijuana

334

53.27%

228

51.01%

562

52.33%

Cocaine

126

20.10%

102

22.82%

228

21.23%

Opiates

14

2.23%

7

1.57%

21

1.96%

Amphetamines

29

4.63%

17

3.80%

46

4.28%

Phencyclidine

3

0.48%

0

0.00%

3

0.28%

Alcohol

121

19.30%

93

20.81%

214

19.93%

TOTAL

627

447

1,074 Table 5C

2003 Number Of Confirmed Positives By Substance

FIRST

SIX MONTHS

SECOND

SIX MONTHS

TOTAL

TYPE OF

SUBSTANCE

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Marijuana

291

50.35%

231

50.22%

522

50.29%

Cocaine

130

22.49%

103

22.39%

233

22.45%

Opiates

10

1.73%

7

1.52%

17

1.64%

Amphetamines

32

5.54%

32

6.96%

64

6.17%

Phencyclidine

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

Alcohol

115

19.90%

87

18.91%

202

19.46%

TOTAL

578

460

1,038 Table 6A

2001 Confirmed Positive Test Results By Substance And Work Category

LICENSEE

EMPLOYEES

CONTRACTORS

(Long-Term/Short-Term)

TYPE OF

SUBSTANCE

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Marijuana

56

38.10%

463

52.85%

Cocaine

24

16.33%

199

22.72%

Opiates

0

0.00%

17

1.94%

Amphetamines

12

8.16%

38

4.34%

Phencyclidine

0

0.00%

2

0.23%

Alcohol

55

37.41%

157

17.92%

TOTAL

147

876 Table 6B

2002 Confirmed Positive Test Results By Substance And Work Category

LICENSEE

EMPLOYEES

CONTRACTORS

(Long-Term/Short-Term)

TYPE OF

SUBSTANCE

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Marijuana

47

38.52%

515

54.10%

Cocaine

16

13.11%

212

22.27%

Opiates

1

0.82%

20

2.10%

Amphetamines

1

0.82%

45

4.73%

Phencyclidine

0

0.00%

3

0.32%

Alcohol

57

46.72%

157

16.49%

TOTAL

122

952 Table 6C

2003 Confirmed Positive Test Results By Substance And Work Category

LICENSEE

EMPLOYEES

CONTRACTORS

(Long-Term/Short-Term)

TYPE OF

SUBSTANCE

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Marijuana

50

35.97%

472

52.50%

Cocaine

25

17.99%

208

23.14%

Opiates

5

3.60%

12

1.33%

Amphetamines

11

7.91%

53

5.90%

Phencyclidine

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

Alcohol

48

34.53%

154

17.13%

TOTAL

139

899 Table 7A

2001 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

55

37.93%

468

52.94%

Cocaine

24

16.55%

201

22.74%

Opiates

0

0.00%

17

1.92%

Amphetamines

12

8.28%

38

4.30%

Phencyclidine

0

0.00%

2

0.23%

Alcohol

54

37.24%

158

17.87%

TOTAL*

145

884

These numbers include tests results for the Other test category.

Table 7B

2002 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

47

38.22%

515

54.10%

Cocaine

16

13.11%

212

22.27%

Opiates

1

0.82%

20

2.10%

Amphetamines

1

0.82%

45

4.73%

Phencyclidine

0

0.00%

3

0.32%

Alcohol

57

46.72%

157

16.49%

TOTAL*

122

952

These numbers include tests results for the Other test category. Table 7C

2003 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

50

36.97%

468

52.76%

Cocaine

25

17.99%

203

22.89%

Opiates

5

3.60%

12

1.35%

Amphetamines

11

7.91%

53

5.98%

Phencyclidine

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

Alcohol

48

34.53%

151

17.02%

TOTAL*

139

887

These numbers include tests results for the Other test category. Table 8 - Significant Fitness-For-Duty Events (1990-2003)

Type of Event

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003 Total

Reactor Operators

19

16

18

8

7

8

9

5

4

3

6

121

Licensee Supervisors

26

18

22

25

11

16

19

16

10

2

11

9

3

191

Contract Supervisors

12

24

28

16

11

10

8

10

12

8

12

8

181 FFD Program

Personnel

1

5

0

1

0

2

0

3

2

0

3

0

17

Substances Found

6

8

6

2

0

5

4

0

2

3

0

1

2

44 Adulterated

Specimen

9

9 Total

64

69

74

51

30

39

42

39

28

23

27

25

22

28

563

Reactor Operators- this category refers to licensee reactor operators and to any person licensed under 10 CFR Part 55. Table 9 - Trends in testing by test type (1990 - 2003)

Type of Test

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003 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

68,333

63,744

73,188

72,988

1,164,7

00

Number Positive

1,548

983

1,110

952

977

1,122

1,132

1,096

822

934

965

720

805

757

13,923 Percent Positive

1.26%

0.94%

1.06%

1.04%

1.22%

1.41%

1.40%

1.30%

1.19%

1.35%

1.41%

1.13%

1.10%

1.04%

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

51,955

50,080

49,848

49,402

1,186,8

18 Number Positive

550

510

461

341

223

180

202

172

157

140

204

148

114

132

3,534 Percent Positive

0.37%

0.33%

0.29%

0.23%

0.28%

0.27%

0.32%

0.28%

0.26%

0.39%

0.30%

0.23%

0.27%

0.30%

For-Cause

Number Tested

732

727

696

751

758

763

848

722

720

736

883

730

1,072

1,052

11,190

Number Positive

214

167

178

163

122

139

138

149

100

120

138

101

112

126

1,967 Percent Positive

29.23%

22.97%

25.27%

21.70%

16.09%

18.22%

16.27%

20.64%

13.89%

16.30%

15.67%

13.84%

10.45%

11.98%

17.58%

Followup

Number Tested

2,633

3,544

4,283

4,139

3,875

3,262

3,296

2,863

3,008

2,861

2,649

2,892

3,142

45,709 Number Positive

65

62

69

56

50

35

40

31

43

30

49

35

21

42

628 Percent Positive

2.47%

1.75%

1.61%

1.35%

1.29%

1.07%

1.23%

0.94%

1.50%

1.00%

1.71%

1.32%

0.73%

1.34%

1.37%

TOTAL*

Number Tested

274,599

262,597

266,551

242,966

163,241

150,12

147,458

149,167

129,698

127,340

124,032

117,203

127,000

126,584

2,439,5

37 Number Positive

2,377

1,722

1,818

1,512

1,372

1,476

1,512

1,448

1,122

1,224

1,356

1,004

1,052

1,057

20,530

Percent Positive

0.87%

0.66%

0.68%

0.62%

0.84%

0.98%

1.03%

0.97%

0.87%

0.96%

1.09%

0.86%

0.83%

0.84%

0.82%

Does not include test results from the Other test category. Table 10 - Trends in substances identified (1990-2003)

Substance

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003 Marijuana

1,153

746

953

781

739

819

868

842

606

672

620

523

562

518 Cocaine

706

549

470

369

344

374

352

336

269

273

251

225

228

228 Alcohol

452

401

427

357

251

265

281

262

212

230

211

212

214

199

Amphetamines

69

31

51

54

61

53

49

46

40

50

46

64 Opiates

45

24

8

13

11

17

14

39

19

16

32

17

21

17

Phencyclidine

8

11

4

5

1

7

2

0

1

2

1

2

3

0

Total*

2,433

1,762

1,893

1,576

1,400

1,543

1,570

1,528

1,153

1,233

1,168

1,029

1,074

1,026

These totals do not equal the total number of positives for each year because some positives were for multiple substances and for other

substances than those listed above. Table 11 Trends In Positive Test Rates For Workers With Unescorted Access (1990 - 2003)

Year

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%

2000

0.70%

2001

0.53%

2002

0.46%

2003

0.56%

Includes random, for-cause, and follow-up testing results. The reduction in

random test rate from 100% to 50% has been in effect since 1994.