Information Notice 2006-30, Summary of Fitness-for-Duty Program Performance Reports for Calendar Year 2004 and 2005

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)
	v • d • e

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.

ML062010365

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 NSIR

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

IN 2006-30

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 76,119 737 0.97%

Random 51,239 127 0.25%

For-Cause 1,159 139 11.99%

Follow-Up 3,752 31 0.83%

Other 1,221 41 3.36%

TOTAL* 133,490 1,075 0.81%

TOTAL without

OTHER Category 132,269 1,034 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 79,005 648 0.82%

Random 50,286 147 0.29%

For-Cause 1,161 106 9.13%

Follow-Up 4,057 31 0.76%

Other 1,193 47 3.94%

TOTAL* 135,702 979 0.72%

TOTAL without

OTHER Category 134,509 932 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 LONG-TERM SHORT-TERM TOTAL

EMPLOYEES CONTRACTORS CONTRACTORS

Pre-Access

Number Tested 7,661 1,095 67,363 76,119 Number Positive 35 8 694 737 Percent Positive 0.46% 0.73% 1.03% 0.97%

Random

Number Tested 34,723 1,399 15,117 51,239 Number Positive 51 6 70 127 Percent Positive 0.15% 0.43% 0.46% 0.25%

For-Cause

Number Tested 458 46 655 1,159 Number Positive 23 1 115 139 Percent Positive 5.02% 2.17% 17.56% 11.99%

Follow-Up

Number Tested 2,058 55 1,639 3,752 Number Positive 14 0 17 31 Percent Positive 0.68% 0.00% 1.04% 0.83%

Other

Number Tested 630 117 474 1,221 Number Positive 4 0 37 41 Percent Positive 0.63% 0.00% 7.81% 3.36%

TOTAL

Number Tested 45,530 2,712 85,248 133,490

Number Positive 127 15 933 1,075 Percent Positive 0.28% 0.55% 1.09% 0.81%

TOTAL without

OTHER Category

Number Tested 44,900 2,595 84,774 132,269 Number Positive 123 15 896 1,034 Percent Positive 0.27% 0.58% 1.06% 0.78%

IN 2006-30 Table 2B

2005 Test Results for Each Test Category and Work Category

(January through December 2005)

TEST CATEGORY LICENSEE LONG-TERM SHORT-TERM TOTAL

EMPLOYEES CONTRACTORS CONTRACTORS

Pre-Access

Number Tested 8,210 767 70,028 79,005 Number Positive 28 12 608 648 Percent Positive 0.34% 1.56% 0.87% 0.82%

Random

Number Tested 33,587 1,533 15,166 50,286 Number Positive 60 5 82 147 Percent Positive 0.18% 0.33% 0.54% 0.29%

For-Cause

Number Tested 509 59 593 1,161 Number Positive 19 2 85 106 Percent Positive 3.73% 3.39% 14.33% 9.13%

Follow-Up

Number Tested 2,099 79 1,879 4,057 Number Positive 15 0 16 31 Percent Positive 0.71% 0.00% 0.85% 0.76%

Other

Number Tested 548 87 558 1,193 Number Positive 2 0 45 47 Percent Positive 0.36% 0.00% 8.06% 3.94%

TOTAL

Number Tested 44,953 2,525 88,224 135,702 Number Positive 124 19 836 979 Percent Positive 0.28% 0.75% 0.95% 0.72%

TOTAL without

OTHER Category

Number Tested 44,405 2,438 87,666 134,509 Number Positive 122 19 791 932 Percent Positive 0.27% 0.78% 0.90% 0.69%

IN 2006-30 Table 3A

2004 Test Results by Test Category

(January through December 2004)

TEST CATEGORY FIRST SECOND YEAR

SIX MONTHS SIX MONTHS

Pre-Access

Number Tested 38,390 37,729 76,119 Number Positive 381 356 737 Percent Positive 0.99% 0.94% 0.97%

Random

Number Tested 25,465 25,774 51,239 Number Positive 54 73 127 Percent Positive 0.21% 0.28% 0.25%

For-Cause

Observed Behavior

Number Tested 344 357 701 Number Positive 68 66 134 Percent Positive 19.77% 18.49% 19.12%

Post-Accident

Number Tested 211 247 458 Number Positive 2 3 5 Percent Positive 0.95% 1.21% 1.09%

Follow-Up

Number Tested 1,825 1,927 3,752 Number Positive 18 13 31 Percent Positive 0.99% 0.67% 0.83%

Other

Number Tested 681 540 1,221 Number Positive 18 23 41 Percent Positive 2.64% 4.26% 3.36%

TOTAL

Number Tested 66,916 66,574 133,490

Number Positive 541 534 1,075 Percent Positive 0.81% 0.80% 0.81%

TOTAL without

OTHER Category

Number Tested 66,235 66,034 132,269 Number Positive 523 511 1,034 Percent Positive 0.79% 0.77% 0.78%

IN 2006-30 Table 3B

2005 Test Results Test Category

(January through December 2005)

TEST CATEGORY FIRST SECOND YEAR

SIX MONTHS SIX MONTHS

Pre-Access

Number Tested 45,885 33,120 79,005 Number Positive 373 275 648 Percent Positive 0.81% 0.83% 0.82%

Random

Number Tested 28,866 23,420 50,286 Number Positive 70 77 147 Percent Positive 0.26% 0.33% 0.29%

For-Cause

Observed Behavior

Number Tested 352 319 671 Number Positive 68 37 105 Percent Positive 19.32% 11.60% 15.65%

Post-Accident

Number Tested 233 257 490

Number Positive 0 1 1 Percent Positive 0.00% 0.39% 0.20%

Follow-Up

Number Tested 2,114 1,943 4,057 Number Positive 15 16 31 Percent Positive 0.71% 0.82% 0.76%

Other

Number Tested 545 648 1,193 Number Positive 20 27 47 Percent Positive 3.67% 4.17% 3.94%

TOTAL

Number Tested 49,129 36,287 85,416 Number Positive 476 356 832 Percent Positive 0.97% 0.98% 0.97%

TOTAL without

OTHER Category

Number Tested 75,450 59,059 134,509 Number Positive 526 406 932 Percent Positive 0.70% 0.69% 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 Second Six Year First Six Second Six Year First Six Second Six Year

Months Months Months Months Months Months

Pre-Access

Number Tested 4,183 3,478 7,661 476 619 1,095 33,731 33,632 67,363 Number Positive 22 13 35 2 6 8 357 337 694 Percent Positive 0.53% 0.37% 0.46% 0.42% 0.97% 0.73% 1.06% 1.00% 1.03%

Random

Number Tested 17,613 17,110 34,723 594 805 1,399 7,258 7,859 15,117 Number Positive 24 27 51 1 5 6 29 41 70

Percent Positive 0.14% 0.16% 0.15% 0.17% 0.62% 0.43% 0.40% 0.52% 0.46%

For-Cause

Observed Behavior

Number Tested 139 127 266 7 11 18 198 219 417 Number Positive 13 10 23 0 0 0 55 56 111 Percent Positive 9.35% 7.87% 8.65% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 27.78% 25.57% 26.62%

Post-Accident 238 Number Tested 108 84 192 8 20 28 95 143 4 Number Positive 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 3 1.68%

Percent Positive 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 12.50% 0.00% 3.57% 1.05% 2.10%

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 Second Six Year First Six Second Six Year First Six Second Six Year

Months Months Months Months Months Months

Follow-Up

Number Tested 986 1,072 2,058 22 33 55 817 822 1,639 Number Positive 8 6 14 0 0 0 10 7 17 Percent Positive 0.81% 0.56% 0.68% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.22% 0.85% 1.04%

Other

Number Tested 331 299 630 76 41 117 274 200 474 Number Positive 4 0 4 0 0 0 14 23 37 Percent Positive 1.21% 0.00% 0.63% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.11% 11.50% 7.81%

TOTAL

Number Tested 23,360 22,170 45,530 1,183 1,529 2,712 42,373 42,875 85,248 Number Positive 71 56 127 4 11 15 466 467 933 Percent Positive 0.30% 0.25% 0.28% 0.34% 0.72% 0.55% 1.10% 1.09% 1.09%

TOTAL w/o OTHER

Observed Behavior

Number Tested 155 154 309 8 8 16 189 157 346 Number Positive 11 8 19 0 2 2 57 27 84 Percent Positive 7.10% 5.19% 6.15% 0.00% 25.00% 12.50% 30.16% 17.20% 24.28%

Post-Accident

Number Tested 106 94 200 20 23 43 107 140 247 Number Positive 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Percent Positive 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.71% 0.40%

Follow-Up

Number Tested 1,054 1,045 2,099 39 40 79 1,021 858 1,879 Number Positive 6 9 15 0 0 0 9 7 16 Percent Positive 0.57% 0.86% 0.71% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.88% 0.82% 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 Second Six Year First Six Second Six Year First Second Six Year

Months Months Months Months Six Months

Months

Other

Number Tested 281 267 548 36 51 87 228 330 558 Number Positive 1 1 2 0 0 0 19 26 45 Percent Positive 0.36% 0.37% 0.36% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 8.33% 7.88% 8.06%

TOTAL

Number Tested 24,320 20,633 44,953 1,260 1,265 2,525 50,415 37,809 88,224 Number Positive 67 57 124 7 12 19 472 364 836 Percent Positive 0.28% 0.28% 0.28% 0.56% 0.95% 0.75% 0.94% 0.96% 0.95%

TOTAL w/o OTHER

Information Notice 2006-30, Summary of Fitness-for-Duty Program Performance Reports for Calendar Year 2004 and 2005

Contents

ADDRESSEES

PURPOSE

DESCRIPTION OF CIRCUMSTANCES

DISCUSSION

CONTACT

Technical Contact:

Eric Skarpac, NSIR

TOTAL without

TOTAL without

Observed Behavior

TOTAL without

Observed Behavior

TOTAL without

Observed Behavior

Observed Behavior

Navigation menu

Information Notice 2006-30, Summary of Fitness-for-Duty Program Performance Reports for Calendar Year 2004 and 2005

ADDRESSEES

PURPOSE

DESCRIPTION OF CIRCUMSTANCES

DISCUSSION

CONTACT

Technical Contact:

Eric Skarpac, NSIR

TOTAL without

TOTAL without

Observed Behavior

TOTAL without

Observed Behavior

TOTAL without

Observed Behavior

Observed Behavior

Navigation menu

Search