Information Notice 2006-30, Summary of Fitness-for-Duty Program Performance Reports for Calendar Year 2004 and 2005
| ML062010365 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/21/2006 |
| From: | Michael Case NRC/NRR/ADRA/DPR |
| To: | |
| Skarpac E, NSIR/DSO/DDSP/LPSB 415-5361 | |
| References | |
| IN-06-030 | |
| Download: ML062010365 (28) | |
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001
December 21, 2006
NRC INFORMATION NOTICE 2006-30:
SUMMARY OF FITNESS-FOR-DUTY PROGRAM
PERFORMANCE REPORTS FOR CALENDAR
YEARS 2004 AND 2005
ADDRESSEES
All holders of operating licenses for nuclear power reactors, and licensees authorized to
possess or use or to transport formula quantities of strategic special nuclear material.
PURPOSE
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing this information notice (IN) to report
lessons learned by licensees from their fitness-for-duty (FFD) program performance reports for
2004 and 2005. The agency expects that recipients of this IN will review the information for
applicability to their reactor facilities and consider, as appropriate, taking corrective actions to
improve the future performance of their FFD programs. However, suggestions contained in this
Information Notice are not NRC requirements and, therefore, no specific actions or written
responses is required.
DESCRIPTION OF CIRCUMSTANCES
As required by Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 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 the 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 the enclosure provides similar FFD program
performance data information for 2004 and 2005.
DISCUSSION
Licensees reported the following lessons learned, management initiatives and problems, and
the associated corrective actions taken for 2004 and 2005.
(1)
Certified Laboratories
Some licensees continue to experience problems with laboratory performance involving
equipment malfunctions and have also identified potential weaknesses related to human
error.
For example, licensees reported the following for 2004:
One licensee reported that a primary laboratory erroneously returned
negative results for a specimen that was actually positive for morphine
and codeine. The primary laboratory determined a crimped reagent line
to be the most likely cause of the error. The laboratory has revised its
daily maintenance procedures to include inspection of the lines to the
reagent valves.
One licensee reported that a laboratory returned a negative result for a
sample that was actually positive. The licensee entered the issue into the
plants corrective action program. The discrepancy resulted from an
isolated, individual human error in which the extraction technician may
have failed to add the appropriate amount of urine specimen to the empty
test tube before adding the internal standard.
One licensee reported that a performance sample, spiked for both
secobarbital and phenobarbital, tested positive for only phenobarbital at
the laboratory. The laboratory reported that testing of the performance
sample showed secobarbital 1000 nanograms/milliliter (ng/ml), but the
laboratory staff inadvertently entered the data into the laboratory
computer as 100 ng/ml. The laboratory advised that it would provide
additional training to the certifying scientists on accurately entering
results.
One licensee reported that results took an inappropriate amount of time
to arrive from the laboratory. Therefore, the laboratorys responsible
person will change the requirements to release results to within 5 working
days.
One licensee reported a typographical error in the field containing the
donor identification as reported on the laboratory drug test report.
Corrected reports were issued and processed according to applicable
internal procedures.
In addition, licensees reported the following for 2005:
One licensee reported that the certifying scientist signed a certified true
copy of a chain-of-custody form with a negative test result for a
performance sample spiked with secobarbital and phenobarbital. The
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) certified laboratory
identified the error and provided a corrected chain-of-custody form
without prompting.
One licensee reported that the HHS laboratory announced negative
results for a positive blind quality assurance (QA) sample.
One licensee reported that the HHS laboratory announced negative
results for two positive blind QA samples sent in the same batch. *
One licensee reported a false negative on a blind performance test
sample containing amphetamine/methamphetamine. The error occurred
because (1) the confirmation analyst entered the original data incorrectly, and (2) the certifying scientist overlooked the error of the confirmation
analyst. Both individuals received counseling on the error and retraining.
One licensee reported that although the HHS laboratory returned no
incorrect results, Hurricane Katrina caused a disruption with its services.
(2)
Random Testing
Several licensees reported minor problems related to the random drug and alcohol
selection process.
For example, licensees reported the following for 2004:
One licensee discovered that the FFD random testing pool excluded 25 individuals. The issue was thoroughly investigated and all individuals
involved were identified, and they completed an administrative FFD test
without any disqualifying outcomes.
One licensee reported that one short-term contractor was granted
unescorted access but was not subject to random selection. The
individuals name was not entered into the random selection pool in time
for that individual to be subject to random selection. On discovery, the
individuals name was immediately entered into the random testing pool, and he was chemically tested under the other category, with negative
results. The licensee entered the problem into the corrective action
process.
One licensee reported that because a manual step was skipped, the
random testing pool excluded 18 individuals for a 4-day period. Upon
discovery, the licensee took the steps necessary to update the random
testing pool accordingly. The licensee no longer uses the manual step in
the random selection process.
One licensee reported that three workers were not entered into the
random testing pool because of a combination of overconfidence based
on previous experience, substandard performance of the task, and failure
to understand certain actions. The lessons learned from this situation
were reviewed with the appropriate staff, and relevant management
reports were developed to monitor performance in this area.
One licensee reported that a failure to perform a self-check resulted in
the incorrect coding of a pre-access FFD collection such that the worker
was not placed in the random testing pool. The error was detected and corrected before the worker was granted unescorted access. The staff
has been coached on self-checking and peer-checking techniques, including the use of validation reports during peak processing periods.
In addition, licensees reported the following for 2005:
Five licensees reported that individuals were not placed in the random
testing pool following pre-access drug and alcohol testing as intended.
Upon discovery, the licensees identified the affected individuals and
manually placed their names in the random testing pool. The affected
individuals did not know that they were not in the random FFD pool.
One licensee reported that two names were not entered into the random
testing pool in time for random selection. Upon discovery, the individuals
names were immediately entered into the random test testing pool, and
they were chemically tested under the other category, with negative
results.
One licensee reported that two chemical tests were conducted for two
long-term contractor employees who had been inadvertently terminated
from the unescorted access database and removed from the FFD
random testing pool. Upon discovery, the individuals names were
immediately entered into the random test selection pool, and they were
chemically tested under the other category, with negative results.
(3)
Policies and Procedures
Several licensees reported initiatives to improve their FFD program policies and
procedures.
For example, licensees reported the following for 2004:
Two licensees did not meet the 10 percent blind sample submittal
requirement. They are implementing corrective actions and follow-up
actions to prevent future recurrence.
One licensee reported that it listed all the for-cause tests administered
under the subcategory observed behavior, although it should have listed
the for-cause test for a particular licensee employee under the
sub-category post-accident.
One licensee reported that a supervisor did not effectively implement the
FFD for-cause testing procedure for an employee who displayed problem
behavior. The licensee entered this issue into the plants corrective
action program. The supervisor was required to review the FFD for- cause testing procedure with his manager and received counseling on
management expectations for use of the procedure. In addition, the
supervisor was required to attend and complete the initial FFD training class. The licensee distributed information about this event via email to
all supervisors and managers. In addition, the supervisors and managers
who received the email were required to review the FFD program for- cause testing procedure and confirm by return email that they had read
and understood the testing requirements.
One licensee reported that beer was found in the plant owner controlled
area, outside the protected area, during this reporting period. No
individual was in the area at the time of discovery. Five days after the
discovery of the beer, a contract worker admitted to his supervisor that
this beer was his and that he had consumed two cans of beer by himself.
Given that the individual had violated site policies regarding bringing
alcohol on site and drinking the beer on site, the licensee revoked his
unescorted access.
One licensee reported that a contract employee who did not hold
unescorted access attempted to subvert his pre-access urine specimen
test, which resulted in a positive test for illegal drugs. The contractor was
denied unescorted access to the protected area.
One licensee reported a contractor employees intentional falsification of
the chain-of-custody form during the pre-access testing process.
One licensee reported that two for-cause tests were administered on
visitors for alcohol discovered in their vehicle during a security search
prior to entering the protected area.
One licensee reported that an individual experienced a confirmed positive
test for a single substance based on medication obtained out of the
country that is not considered legal in the United States without a
prescription.
One licensee reported that four individuals were tested after alcohol was
discovered in their vehicle at the owner controlled area access control
point. All tests were negative.
One licensee reported that an employee and a contractor were tested for- cause after finding marijuana in a coin purse in the protected area.
Initially, the coin purse was thought to belong to the contractor so that
individual was tested first. However, the licensee employee admitted to
inadvertently bringing the coin purse into the protected area, stating that
it belonged to his son. The licensee employee and the contractor both
tested negative.
One licensee discovered that it had not submitted its semi-annual FFD
performance data report to the NRC. It took immediate action to
electronically submit the report to the applicable representative. In addition, licensees reported the following for 2005:
One licensee reported that follow-up testing had not been completed
when an individuals increased test frequency had not been implemented
as required by the Medical Review Officer (MRO). The apparent cause
was that the FFD program staff did not update the follow-up tracking
sheet to show the increase. To address this issue, the licensee (1) made
FFD program staff aware of the issue and (2) developed and
implemented a work instruction, including a checklist.
One licensee reported that two FFD tests were lost between the courier
and the laboratory.
One licensee reported that it sent an insufficient number of positive blind
specimens to the laboratory as required by site procedures. Although the
number of blind specimens submitted did meet regulatory requirements, the site procedural requirements were more restrictive.
One licensee did not meet the 10 percent blind sample submittal
requirement because of the large number of contractors brought in to
support the outage during the last weeks of the third quarter. A condition
report was generated and addition blind samples were sent to the
laboratory in the beginning of the fourth quarter to raise the average
above 10 percent.
One licensee reported that two individuals were tested after alcohol was
discovered in their vehicle at the entrance to the protected area.
One licensee reported that additional denials were issued for falsification
of their chain-of-custody form, and in some cases falsification of their
self-disclosure questionnaires.
One licensee reported that one contractor was asked to provide a second
sample during pre-access testing because of his behavior during the
collection. The individual started the process and then refused to
complete the second collection.
One licensee reported that a contractor discovered a can of beer that had
been inadvertently placed in his lunch-box. The individual was escorted
off site and security was notified. The individual was interviewed by the
FFD program manager, who determined that the introduction of alcohol
was not intentional.
One licensee determined that a non-supervisory, station contract
employee was incorrectly granted access to the protected area.
One licensee reported that it overstated the number of tests originally
reported as for-cause. *
One licensee reported that two steroid tests were conducted on an
individual per MRO recommendation. Both tests results were negative.
One licensee reported that during compilation of the semiannual data, it
identified that a computer error had persisted throughout 2005 and
invalidated the report. The licensee submitted a revision.
One licensee reported that United Parcel Service delivered three
packages to the plant. When a clerk in the administration building, located in the main protected area, opened the packages, the clerk
discovered that they contained unopened wine bottles. The clerk notified
plant security and removed all three packages from the plant protected
area and later removed the material from the plant site. It was
determined that all the wine bottles were unopened and no one
consumed any wine inside the plant protected area.
One licensee reported that it misrepresented a return-to-duty test for a
long-term contractor following a positive alcohol result as a follow-up test.
One licensee reported that on two occasions the Collection Site Person
failed to administer breath tests as required, as a result of inexperience.
One licensee identified instances in which unescorted access was
erroneously granted. The licensee is conducting an evaluation to
determine the cause of the error and to take corrective action.
(4)
Program and System Management
In general, most licensees continue to report improvements in their overall FFD program
and its management.
For example, licensees reported the following for 2004:
One licensee met with the laboratory, collection site, MRO, employee
assistant program, and psychological assessment personnel to ensure
consistent and effective implementation of the FFD program.
One licensee recertified collection personnel for proficiency in urine
specimen collection and breath alcohol measurement, continued cross- training with the In-Processing Center, attended quality improvement
program testing to help align access authorization and FFD programs, revised office instructions and protocols, and is implementing a new
computer program that will benefit access authorization and FFD
activities.
Ten licensees reported more restrictive cut-off levels for marijuana. *
Two licensees reported more stringent cut-off levels for alcohol.
One licensee reported more stringent cut-off levels for opiates.
Two licensees reported more stringent cut-off levels for amphetamines.
One licensee tests for two additional substances (names of substances
not listed).
One licensee reported improving the electronic database used for
initiating and approving working-hour deviation requests.
In addition, licensees reported the following for 2005:
One licensee reported more stringent cut-off levels for opiates.
Ten licensees reported more stringent cut-off levels for marijuana.
Two licensees reported more stringent cut-off levels for amphetamines.
Two licensees reported more stringent cut-off levels for alcohol.
One licensee reported testing for two additional substances (substances
not named).
Two licensees reported testing for four additionally substances
(barbiturates, benzodiazepines, methadone, and propoxyphene).
One licensee reported meeting with laboratory staff, collection site staff, MROs, employee assistance program staff, and psychological
assessment staff to assure consistent effective implementation of the
FFD program.
One licensee met with the MROs to assure consistent effective
implementation of the FFD program.
CONTACT
This information notice requires no specific action or written response. Please direct any
questions about this matter to the technical contact listed below.
/RA by Theodore Quay for/
Michael J. Case, Director
Division of Policy and Rulemaking
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Technical Contact:
Eric Skarpac, NSIR
301-415-5361 E-mail: fitnessforduty@nrc.gov
Enclosure: Tables for Fitness-for-Duty (FFD) 2004-2005 Note: NRC generic communications may be found on the NRC public Web site, http://www.nrc.gov, under Electronic Reading Room/Document Collections.
- see previous concurrence
OFFICE
NSIR/DSO/LPSB
Tech Editor
NSIR/DSO/LPSB
NSIR/DSO/LPSB
NAME
CCollins*
HChang (by email)*
TMcCune*
ESkarpac*
DATE
07/31/2006
08/08/2006
08/10/2006
08 /10/2006 OFFICE
NSIR/DSO/LPSB
DD:NSIR/DSO
D:NSIR/DSO
NAME
GWest*
RWay*
DDorman*
RZimmerman*
DATE
08 /14/2006
08/18/2006
09/01/2006
09/01/2006 OFFICE
LA:PGCB
PGCB
BC:PGCB
D:DPR
NAME
CHawes*
JRobinson
CPJackson
TQuay for MCase
DATE
09/13/2006
11 /272006
12 /15/2006
12/21/2006
Enclosure
TABLES FOR FITNESS-FOR-DUTY (FFD) 2004-2005 Table 1A
2004 Test Results for Each Test category
TEST CATEGORY
NUMBER OF TESTS
POSITIVE TESTS
PERCENT POSITIVES
Pre-Access
Random
For-Cause
Follow-Up
Other
76,119
51,239
1,159
3,752
1,221
737
127
139
31
41
0.97%
0.25%
11.99%
0.83%
3.36%
TOTAL*
TOTAL without
OTHER Category
133,490
132,269
1,075
1,034
0.81%
0.78%
- These totals were calculated using 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 1B
2005 Test Results for Each Test category
TEST CATEGORY
NUMBER OF TESTS
POSITIVE TESTS
PERCENT POSITIVES
Pre-Access
Random
For-Cause
Follow-Up
Other
79,005
50,286
1,161
4,057
1,193
648
147
106
31
47
0.82%
0.29%
9.13%
0.76%
3.94%
TOTAL*
TOTAL without
OTHER Category
135,702
134,509
979
932
0.72%
0.69%
- These totals were calculated using 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.
IN 2006-30 Table 2A
2004 Test Results for Each Test Category and Work Category
(January through December 2004)
TEST CATEGORY
LICENSEE
EMPLOYEES
LONG-TERM
CONTRACTORS
SHORT-TERM
CONTRACTORS
TOTAL
Pre-Access
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
7,661
35
0.46%
1,095
8
0.73%
67,363
694
1.03%
76,119
737
0.97%
Random
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
34,723
51
0.15%
1,399
6
0.43%
15,117
70
0.46%
51,239
127
0.25%
For-Cause
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
458
23
5.02%
46
1
2.17%
655
115
17.56%
1,159
139
11.99%
Follow-Up
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
2,058
14
0.68%
55
0
0.00%
1,639
17
1.04%
3,752
31
0.83%
Other
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
630
4
0.63%
117
0
0.00%
474
37
7.81%
1,221
41
3.36%
TOTAL
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
45,530
127
0.28%
2,712
15
0.55%
85,248
933
1.09%
133,490
1,075
0.81%
TOTAL without
OTHER Category
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
44,900
123
0.27%
2,595
15
0.58%
84,774
896
1.06%
132,269
1,034
0.78%
IN 2006-30 Table 2B
2005 Test Results for Each Test Category and Work Category
(January through December 2005)
TEST CATEGORY
LICENSEE
EMPLOYEES
LONG-TERM
CONTRACTORS
SHORT-TERM
CONTRACTORS
TOTAL
Pre-Access
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
8,210
28
0.34%
767
12
1.56%
70,028
608
0.87%
79,005
648
0.82%
Random
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
33,587
60
0.18%
1,533
5
0.33%
15,166
82
0.54%
50,286
147
0.29%
For-Cause
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
509
19
3.73%
59
2
3.39%
593
85
14.33%
1,161
106
9.13%
Follow-Up
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
2,099
15
0.71%
79
0
0.00%
1,879
16
0.85%
4,057
31
0.76%
Other
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
548
2
0.36%
87
0
0.00%
558
45
8.06%
1,193
47
3.94%
TOTAL
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
44,953
124
0.28%
2,525
19
0.75%
88,224
836
0.95%
135,702
979
0.72%
TOTAL without
OTHER Category
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
44,405
122
0.27%
2,438
19
0.78%
87,666
791
0.90%
134,509
932
0.69%
IN 2006-30 Table 3A
2004 Test Results by Test Category
(January through December 2004)
TEST CATEGORY
FIRST
SIX MONTHS
SECOND
SIX MONTHS
YEAR
Pre-Access
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
38,390
381
0.99%
37,729
356
0.94%
76,119
737
0.97%
Random
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
25,465
54
0.21%
25,774
73
0.28%
51,239
127
0.25%
For-Cause
Observed Behavior
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
Post-Accident
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
344
68
19.77%
211
2
0.95%
357
66
18.49%
247
3
1.21%
701
134
19.12%
458
5
1.09%
Follow-Up
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
1,825
18
0.99%
1,927
13
0.67%
3,752
31
0.83%
Other
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
681
18
2.64%
540
23
4.26%
1,221
41
3.36%
TOTAL
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
66,916
541
0.81%
66,574
534
0.80%
133,490
1,075
0.81%
TOTAL without
OTHER Category
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
66,235
523
0.79%
66,034
511
0.77%
132,269
1,034
0.78%
IN 2006-30 Table 3B
2005 Test Results Test Category
(January through December 2005)
TEST CATEGORY
FIRST
SIX MONTHS
SECOND
SIX MONTHS
YEAR
Pre-Access
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
45,885
373
0.81%
33,120
275
0.83%
79,005
648
0.82%
Random
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
28,866
70
0.26%
23,420
77
0.33%
50,286
147
0.29%
For-Cause
Observed Behavior
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
Post-Accident
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
352
68
19.32%
233
0
0.00%
319
37
11.60%
257
1
0.39%
671
105
15.65%
490
1
0.20%
Follow-Up
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
2,114
15
0.71%
1,943
16
0.82%
4,057
31
0.76%
Other
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
545
20
3.67%
648
27
4.17%
1,193
47
3.94%
TOTAL
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
49,129
476
0.97%
36,287
356
0.98%
85,416
832
0.97%
TOTAL without
OTHER Category
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
75,450
526
0.70%
59,059
406
0.69%
134,509
932
0.69%
IN 2006-30 Table 4A
2004 Test Results for Licensee Employees and Contractor Personnel
(January through December 2004)
Licensee Employees
Long-Term Contractors
Short-Term Contractors
TEST CATEGORY
First Six
Months
Second Six
Months
Year
First Six
Months
Second Six
Months
Year
First Six
Months
Second Six
Months
Year
Pre-Access
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
4,183
22
0.53%
3,478
13
0.37%
7,661
35
0.46%
476
2
0.42%
619
6
0.97%
1,095
8
0.73%
33,731
357
1.06%
33,632
337
1.00%
67,363
694
1.03%
Random
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
17,613
24
0.14%
17,110
27
0.16%
34,723
51
0.15%
594
1
0.17%
805
5
0.62%
1,399
6
0.43%
7,258
29
0.40%
7,859
41
0.52%
15,117
70
0.46%
For-Cause
Observed Behavior
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
Post-Accident
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
139
13
9.35%
108
0
0.00%
127
10
7.87%
84
0
0.00%
266
23
8.65%
192
0
0.00%
7
0
0.00%
8
1
12.50%
11
0
0.00%
20
0
0.00%
18
0
0.00%
28
1
3.57%
198
55
27.78%
95
1
1.05%
219
56
25.57%
143
3
2.10%
417
111
26.62%
238
4
1.68%
IN 2006-30 Table 4A
2004 Test Results for Licensee Employees and Contractor Personnel Continued
(January through December 2004)
Licensee Employees
Long-Term Contractors
Short-Term Contractors
TEST CATEGORY
First Six
Months
Second Six
Months
Year
First Six
Months
Second Six
Months
Year
First Six
Months
Second Six
Months
Year
Follow-Up
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
986
8
0.81%
1,072
6
0.56%
2,058
14
0.68%
22
0
0.00%
33
0
0.00%
55
0
0.00%
817
10
1.22%
822
7
0.85%
1,639
17
1.04%
Other
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
331
4
1.21%
299
0
0.00%
630
4
0.63%
76
0
0.00%
41
0
0.00%
117
0
0.00%
274
14
5.11%
200
23
11.50%
474
37
7.81%
TOTAL
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
23,360
71
0.30%
22,170
56
0.25%
45,530
127
0.28%
1,183
4
0.34%
1,529
11
0.72%
2,712
15
0.55%
42,373
466
1.10%
42,875
467
1.09%
85,248
933
1.09%
TOTAL w/o OTHER
Category
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
23,029
67
0.29%
21,871
56
0.26%
44,900
123
0.27%
1,107
4
0.36%
1,488
11
0.74%
2,595
15
0.58%
42,099
452
1.07%
42,675
444
1.04%
84,774
896
1.06%
IN 2006-30 Table 4B
2005 Test Results for Licensee Employees and Contractor Personnel
(January through December 2005)
Licensee Employees
Long-Term Contractors
Short-Term Contractors
TEST CATEGORY
First Six
Months
Second Six
Months
Year
First Six
Months
Second Six
Months
Year
First Six
Months
Second Six
Months
Year
Pre-Access
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
4,827
19
0.39%
3,383
9
0.27%
8,210
28
0.34%
404
5
1.24%
363
7
1.93%
767
12
1.56%
40,654
349
0.86%
29,374
259
0.88%
70,028
608
0.87%
Random
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
17,897
30
0.17%
15,690
30
0.19%
33,587
60
0.18%
753
2
0.27%
780
3
0.38%
1,533
3
0.33%
8,216
38
0.46%
6,950
44
0.63%
15,166
82
0.54%
For-Cause
Observed Behavior
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
Post-Accident
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
155
11
7.10%
106
0
0.00%
154
8
5.19%
94
0
0.00%
309
19
6.15%
200
0
0.00%
8
0
0.00%
20
0
0.00%
8
2
25.00%
23
0
0.00%
16
2
12.50%
43
0
0.00%
189
57
30.16%
107
0
0.00%
157
27
17.20%
140
1
0.71%
346
84
24.28%
247
1
0.40%
Follow-Up
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
1,054
6
0.57%
1,045
9
0.86%
2,099
15
0.71%
39
0
0.00%
40
0
0.00%
79
0
0.00%
1,021
9
0.88%
858
7
0.82%
1,879
16
0.85%
IN 2006-30 Table 4B
2005 Test Results for Licensee Employees and Contractor Personnel Continued
(January through December 2005)
Licensee Employees
Long-Term Contractors
Short-Term Contractors
TEST CATEGORY
First Six
Months
Second Six
Months
Year
First Six
Months
Second Six
Months
Year
First
Six
Months
Second Six
Months
Year
Other
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
281
1
0.36%
267
1
0.37%
548
2
0.36%
36
0
0.00%
51
0
0.00%
87
0
0.00%
228
19
8.33%
330
26
7.88%
558
45
8.06%
TOTAL
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
24,320
67
0.28%
20,633
57
0.28%
44,953
124
0.28%
1,260
7
0.56%
1,265
12
0.95%
2,525
19
0.75%
50,415
472
0.94%
37,809
364
0.96%
88,224
836
0.95%
TOTAL w/o OTHER
Category
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
24,039
66
0.27%
20,366
56
0.27%
44,405
122
0.27%
1,224
7
0.57%
1,214
12
0.99%
2,438
19
0.78%
50,187
453
0.90%
37,479
338
0.90%
87,666
791
0.90%
IN 2006-30 Table 5A
2004 Number of Confirmed Positives by Substance
(January through December 2004)
FIRST SIX MONTHS
SECOND SIX
MONTHS
TOTAL
TYPE OF
SUBSTANCE
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Marijuana
275
50.74%
239
46.32%
514
48.58%
Cocaine
115
21.22%
132
25.58%
247
23.35%
Opiates
8
1.48%
6
1.16%
14
1.32%
Amphetamines
34
6.27%
26
5.04%
60
5.67%
Phencyclidine
1
0.18%
0
0.00%
1
0.09%
Alcohol
109
20.11%
113
21.90%
222
20.98%
TOTAL
542
516
1,058 Table 5B
2005 Number of Confirmed Positives by Substance
(January through December 2005)
FIRST SIX MONTHS
SECOND SIX
MONTHS
TOTAL
TYPE OF
SUBSTANCE
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Marijuana
240
44.86%
192
46.15%
432
45.43%
Cocaine
140
26.17%
106
25.48%
246
25.87%
Opiates
7
1.31%
9
2.16%
16
1.68%
Amphetamines
40
7.48%
19
40.57%
59
6.20%
Phencyclidine
1
0.19%
1
0.24%
2
0.21%
Alcohol
107
20.00%
89
21.39%
196
20.61%
TOTAL
535
416
951
IN 2006-30 Table 6A
2004 Confirmed Positive Test Results by Substance and Work Category
(January through December 2004)
LICENSEE EMPLOYEES
CONTRACTORS
(Long-Term/Short-Term)
TYPE OF SUBSTANCE
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Marijuana
43
33.82%
471
50.81%
Cocaine
23
17.56%
224
24.16%
Opiates
3
2.29%
11
1.19%
Amphetamines
5
3.82%
55
5.93%
Phencyclidine
0
0.00%
1
0.11%
Alcohol
57
43.51%
165
17.80%
TOTAL
131
927
IN 2006-30 Table 6B
2005 Confirmed Positive Test Results by Substance and Work Category
(January through December 2005)
LICENSEE EMPLOYEES
CONTRACTORS
(Long-Term/Short-Term)
TYPE OF SUBSTANCE
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Marijuana
35
29.66%
397
47.66%
Cocaine
22
18.64%
224
26.89%
Opiates
3
2.54%
13
1.56%
Amphetamines
6
5.08%
53
6.36%
Phencyclidine
0
0.00%
2
0.24%
Alcohol
52
44.07%
144
17.29%
TOTAL
118
833
IN 2006-30 Table 7 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
18
22
25
11
16
19
16
10
2
165
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
Adulterated Specimen
0
Total
64
71
74
51
30
39
42
39
28
23
461 Significant Fitness-for-Duty Events (2000-2005) Continued
Type of Event
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005 Total
Reactor Operators
5
4
3
6
9
5
32
Licensee Supervisors
11
9
3
3
7
13
46
Contract Supervisors
8
12
12
8
4
14
58
FFD Program Personnel
0
0
3
0
0
1
4
Substances Found
3
0
1
2
9
9
24
Adulterated Specimen
9
23
29
61 Total
27
25
22
28
52
71
225
IN 2006-30 Table 8 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
888,480
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%
25.27%
21.70%
16.09%
18.22%
16.27%
20.64%
13.89%
16.30%
20.00%
IN 2006-30 Table 8 Trends in testing by test type (1990-1999) Continued
Type of Test
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999 Total
Follow-up
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%
TOTAL*
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%
- Does not include test results from the Other test category.
IN 2006-30 Table 8 Trends in testing by test type (2000-2005) Continued
Type of Test
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005 Total
Pre-Access
Number Tested
68,333
63,744
73,155
72,988
76,119
79,005
433,344
Number Positive
965
720
805
757
737
648
4,632
Percent Positive
1.41%
1.13%
1.10%
1.04%
0.97%
0.82%
1.07%
Random
Number Tested
51,955
50,080
49,741
49,402
51,239
50,286
302,703
Number Positive
204
148
114
132
127
147
871
Percent Positive
0.39%
0.30%
0.23%
0.27%
0.25%
0.29%
0.29%
For-Cause
Number Tested
883
730
1,072
1,052
1,159
1,161
6,053
Number Positive
138
101
112
126
139
106
721
Percent Positive
15.67%
13.84%
10.45%
11.98%
11.99%
9.13%
11.91%
Follow-up
Number Tested
2,861
2,649
2,892
3,142
3,752
4,057
19,314
Number Positive
49
35
21
42
31
31
209
Percent Positive
1.71%
1.32%
0.73%
1.34%
0.83%
0.76%
1.08%
TOTAL*
Number Tested
124,032
118,730
128,321
127,785
132,269
134,509
764,701 Number
Positive
1,356
1,036
1,091
1,094
1,034
932
6,538 Percent
Positive
1.09%
0.87%
0.85%
0.86%
0.78%
0.69%
0.85%
- Does not include test results from the Other test category.
IN 2006-30 Table 9 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
- 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 9 Trends in Substances Identified (2000-2005) Continued
Substance
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005 Marijuana
620
523
560
518
514
432 Cocaine
251
225
228
228
247
246 Alcohol
211
212
214
199
222
196
Amphetamines
50
50
47
64
60
59 Opiates
32
17
21
17
14
16
Phencyclidine
1
2
3
0
1
2 Total*
1,168
1,029
1,069
1,026
1,056
951
- 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.
IN 2006-30 Table 10
Trends in Positive Test Rates For Workers With Unescorted Access (1990-2005)*
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%
2004
0.51%
2005
0.49%
- Includes random, for-cause, testing results. The reduction in random
test rate from 100% to 50% has been in effect since 1994.