Information Notice 2007-24, Summary of Fitness-for-Duty Program Performance Reports for Calendar Year 2006
| ML071590308 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/19/2007 |
| From: | Michael Case NRC/NRR/ADRA/DPR |
| To: | |
| McCune, Tim NSIR/DSO/DDSP/LPSB 415-6474 | |
| References | |
| IN-07-024 | |
| Download: ML071590308 (28) | |
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001 July 19, 2007 NRC INFORMATION NOTICE 2007-24: SUMMARY OF FITNESS-FOR-DUTY PROGRAM
PERFORMANCE REPORTS FOR CALENDAR
YEAR 2006
ADDRESSEES
All holders of operating licenses for nuclear power reactors and licensees authorized to
possess, use, or transport formula quantities of strategic special nuclear material.
PURPOSE
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing this information notice (IN) to report
the lessons learned by licensees as detailed in their 2006 fitness-for-duty (FFD) program
performance reports. 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 IN are not NRC requirements and, therefore, no specific actions or written response 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 agency 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. Currently, this information is now being published through the
NRCs generic communication program. The enclosure to this IN provides similar FFD program
performance data information for 2006.
DISCUSSION
The following four categories contain a summarization of problems and lessons learned, management initiatives and the associated corrective actions taken by licensees in 2006:
(1) Certified Laboratories
Some licensees continue to experience problems with laboratory performance involving
equipment malfunctions and have identified potential weaknesses related to human
error.
Several examples are provided below:
- One licensee reported that its medical review officer (MRO) identified a
discrepancy with the primary laboratorys certifying scientists notation on the
Federal drug testing custody and control form (CCF) and the clinical laboratory
report result. The certifying scientist recorded the specimen result on the
Federal drug testing CCF as dilute, but the clinical laboratory report result was
negative. Further examination determined that the specimen was negative and
that the certifying scientist had made an administrative error when recording the
result on the CCF. As a result, the certifying scientist was counseled regarding
the accuracy of reported results.
- One licensee reported that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS)-certified laboratory failed to submit monthly reports within 14 days of the
end of the month. The laboratory had sent the results to the wrong plant
because two plants were on the same account. As a result, the plants are now
on separate accounts and maintain their own past and current reports.
- A second licensee reported a similar issue with a monthly statistical summary.
The HHS-certified laboratory did not forward the monthly statistical summary to
the licensee as required. Upon discovery, the laboratory was contacted and the
monthly statistical summary was immediately faxed to the licensees site. The
licensee entered the incident into its corrective action program. The laboratory
provided a written corrective action to ensure future compliance.
- One licensee reported that the HHS-certified laboratory conducted a random test
using more stringent preemployment levels, resulting in a positive test result.
The licensee instructed the laboratory to rerun the test, which subsequently
came back negative. The laboratory implemented a retraining effort to prevent
such an incident from happening in the future. The licensees tests now require
a signature when certified by the laboratory to verify the proper test protocol was
utilized.
(2) Random Testing
No licensees reported problems related to the random drug and alcohol selection
process.
(3) Policies and Procedures
Some licensees reported issues involving their program policies and procedures. These
often included initiatives to help overcome current weaknesses, such as those described
below:
- One licensee reported that an employee received a positive test result during a
followup test (alcohol), which was then confirmed. The employee was offered a
blood test, which was done. The laboratory found that the specimen was not
sealed, and the MRO reported the result as a positive based on breath tests.
Upon appeal, the internal management review board ruled the test fatally flawed
and the results were removed from the record.
- One licensee reported that a sample was collected by a supplemental employee
in training and the collector section of the CCF was not completed. Another
sample was collected, and the trainer was instructed to independently review all
CCFs before they are sealed by the trainee.
- One licensee reported that an employee returned to work after a positive
(alcohol) FFD test, but had not been placed in the FFD followup testing program
as required by procedure. Upon discovery, the individual was immediately
placed into the followup testing program.
- One licensee indicated that a donor did not date and initial a specimen bottle.
The specimen was discarded and another collection performed. The licensee
determined that the root cause for this issue was the collectors failure to use
human performance tools.
- One licensee reported that a plant submitted two blind samples to the
HHS-certified laboratory during the second quarter, instead of the required four
samples. The mistake resulted from a lack of communication during a personnel
changeover, combined with inadequate procedural controls. To compensate for
the mistake, the plant sent six blind samples the next quarter. In response, the
licensee revised the blind sample submission program and created a new
implementation procedure.
- One licensee reported that a temporary outage worker fractured his right middle
finger while moving equipment on a cart. The initial determination was that the
injury was caused by an error in judgment, but a chemical test was not
completed. Three days later, the event was reviewed and a for-cause chemical
test was administered. The issue was entered into the plants corrective action
program.
- In a similar incident, one licensee reported that an employee was injured, but
was not immediately tested. Instead, the employee was tested several hours
later. The supervisor was retrained.
- One licensee revised an FFD procedure to reinforce compliance with for-cause
testing as discussed in Regulatory Information Summary 2005-28, Scope of
For-Cause Fitness-For-Duty Testing Required by 10 CFR 26.24(a)(3), issued
November 2005.
- One licensee reported that contraband (marijuana and paraphernalia) was
discovered in a contract employees vehicle in the owner-controlled area. The
contract employees work was nonsafety sensitive.
- One licensee self-identified an improper administration of an FFD drug test
result. A nonnegative drug test result, which was below regulatory confirmation
cutoff levels, was inadequately reviewed. As a result, the nonnegative drug
result was entered as a negative result into the site access authorization system. The licensee entered this incident into its corrective action program. The
investigation identified the cause for this inadequate review as improper use of
human performance tools to ensure proper implementation of the established
process.
(4) Program and System Management
In general, most licensees continue to report improvements in their overall FFD program
management, as demonstrated by the following examples:
- Fourteen licensees reported more restrictive cutoff levels for marijuana.
- Three licensees reported testing for marijuana at a more restrictive cutoff level
(20 nanograms per milliliter).
- Two licensees reported more restrictive cutoff levels for amphetamines.
- One licensee reported testing more restrictive cutoff levels for opiates.
- One licensee reported testing for barbiturates and benzodiazepines in addition to
the required drug testing.
- One licensee reported testing for methamphetamine in addition to required drug
testing. This testing yielded two positive results.
- One licensee reported testing for barbiturates, benzodiazepine, methadone, and
propoxyphene in addition to required drug testing. This testing resulted in one
positive test result for benzodiazepine.
- One licensee reported more restrictive cutoff levels for alcohol because of the
range of extrapolation.
evaluation process provides a consistent method to evaluate personnel who are
involved in plant events, accidents, near misses, or who exhibit aberrant
behavior. During the reporting period, the licensee continued to provide
education and guidance to site supervision in the use of this process.
- One licensee reported changing its policy to rescreen specimens with creatinine
levels less than 20 milligrams per deciliter.
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 TQuay for/
Michael J. Case, Director
Division of Policy and Rulemaking
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Technical Contact:
Timothy McCune, NSIR
(301) 415-6474 Email: fitnessforduty@nrc.gov
Enclosure:
Summary of Fitness-for-Duty Program Performance Reports for 2006 Note: NRC generic communications may be found on the NRC public Web site at
http://www.nrc.gov under Electronic Reading Room/Document Collections.
ML071590308 OFFICE NSIR/DSO/LPSB Tech Editor NSIR/DSO/LPSB NSIR/DSO/LPSB
NAME JCurry/CCollins HChang, via email TMcCune GWest
DATE 07/02/2007 6/30/2007 07/03/2007 07/03/2007 OFFICE DD:NSIR/DSO D:NSIR/DSO NSIR LA:PGCB
NAME RWay DDorman (RWay for) RZimmerman CHawes
DATE 07/05/07 07/05/2007 07/10/2007 07/11/2007 OFFICE PGCB BC:PGCB D:DPR
NAME JRobinson MMurphy MCase
DATE 07/16/2007 07/18/2007 07/19/2007 Summary of Fitness-For-Duty Program Performance Reports for 2006 Since the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published its fitness-for-duty (FFD) rule
(Title 10, Part 26, Fitness for Duty Programs, of the Code of Federal Regulations
(10 CFR Part 26)), licensees have submitted program performance reports to the agency as
required by 10 CFR 26.71(d). In the past, the NRC published a summary and analysis of
calendar year data submitted by the licensees in an annual volume of NUREG/CR-5758, Fitness for Duty in the Nuclear Power IndustryAnnual Summary of Program Performance
Reports. The tables below provide the information for calendar year 2006 and summarize data
from 1990 to 2005.
Table 1
2006 Test Results for Each Test Category
TEST CATEGORY NUMBER OF TESTS POSITIVE TESTS PERCENT POSITIVE
Pre-Access 79,980 747 0.93 Random 52,557 132 0.25 For-Cause 1,621 109 6.72 Followup 4,766 37 0.78 Other 1,305 66 5.06 TOTAL* 140,229 979 0.72 TOTAL without
OTHER Category 138,924 932 0.69
- These totals include test results from the Other test category. This category encompasses
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 provide this information. Table 2 Test Results for Each Test Category and Work Category
(January through December 2006)
TEST CATEGORY LICENSEE LONG-TERM SHORT-TERM TOTAL
EMPLOYEES CONTRACTORS CONTRACTORS
Pre-Access
Number Tested 9,336 528 70,116 79,980
Number Positive 24 7 716 747 Percent Positive 0.26 1.33 1.02 0.93 Random
Number Tested 34,818 1,437 16,302 52,557 Number Positive 55 5 72 132 Percent Positive 0.16 0.35 0.44 0.25 For-Cause
Number Tested 701 45 875 1,621 Number Positive 25 2 82 109 Percent Positive 3.57 4.44 9.37 6.72 Followup
Number Tested 2,364 57 2,345 4,766 Number Positive 14 0 23 37 Percent Positive 0.59 0.00 0.98 0.78 Other
Number Tested 714 58 533 1,305 Number Positive 9 1 56 66 Percent Positive 1.26 1.72 10.51 5.06 TOTAL
Number Tested 47,933 2,125 90,171 140,229 Number Positive 127 15 949 1,091 Percent Positive 0.26 0.71 1.05 0.78
TOTAL without
OTHER Category
Number Tested 47,219 2,067 89,638 138,924 Number Positive 118 14 893 1,025 Percent Positive 0.25 0.68 1.00 0.74 Table 3
2006 Test Results by Test Category
(January through December 2006)
FIRST SECOND
TEST CATEGORY YEAR
SIX MONTHS SIX MONTHS
Pre-Access
Number Tested 39,977 40,003 79,980
Number Positive 344 403 747 Percent Positive 0.86 1.01 0.93 Random
Number Tested 26,811 25,746 52,557 Number Positive 60 72 132 Percent Positive 0.22 0.28 0.25 For-Cause
Observed Behavior
Number Tested 372 344 716 Number Positive 45 59 104 Percent Positive 12.10 17.15 14.53
Postaccident
Number Tested 471 434 905 Number Positive 3 2 5 Percent Positive 0.64 0.46 0.55 Followup
Number Tested 2,391 2,375 4,766 Number Positive 22 15 37 Percent Positive 0.92 0.63 0.78 Other
Number Tested 604 701 1,305 Number Positive 38 28 66 Percent Positive 6.29 3.99 5.06 TOTAL
Number Tested 70,626 69,603 140,229 Number Positive 512 579 1,091 Percent Positive 0.72 0.83 0.78
TOTAL without
OTHER Category
Number Tested 70,022 68,902 138,924 Number Positive 474 551 1,025 Percent Positive 0.68 0.80 0.74 Table 4
2006 Test Results for Licensee Employees and Contractor Personnel
(January through December 2006)
LICENSEE EMPLOYEES LONG-TERM CONTRACTORS SHORT-TERM CONTRACTORS
TEST CATEGORY First Six
First Six Second Six First Six Second Six Second Six
Year Year Year
Months Months Months Months Months Months
Pre-Access
Number Tested 5,338 3,998 9,336 233 295 528 34,406 35,710 70,116 Number Positive 10 14 24 4 3 7 330 386 716 Percent Positive 0.19 0.35 0.26 1.72 1.02 1.33 0.96 1.08 1.02 Random
Number Tested 17,780 17,038 34,818 701 736 1,437 8,330 7,972 16,302 Number Positive 26 29 55 3 2 5 31 41 72 Percent Positive 0.15 0.17 0.16 0.43 0.27 0.35 0.37 0.51 0.44 For-Cause
Observed Behavior
Number Tested 145 177 322 10 11 21 217 156 373 Number Positive 6 18 24 0 2 2 39 39 78 Percent Positive 4.14 10.17 7.45 0.00 18.18 9.52 17.97 25.00 20.91
Post accident
Number Tested 215 164 379 10 14 24 246 256 502 Number Positive 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 1 4 Percent Positive 0.00 0.61 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.22 0.39 0.80
Followup
Number Tested 1,156 1,208 2,364 41 16 57 1,194 1,151 2,345 Number Positive 8 6 14 0 0 0 14 9 23 Percent Positive 0.69 0.50 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.17 0.78 0.98 Table 4
2006 Test Results for Licensee Employees and Contractor Personnel, Continued
(January through December 2006)
LICENSEE EMPLOYEES LONG-TERM CONTRACTORS SHORT-TERM CONTRACTORS
TEST CATEGORY First Six
First Six Second Six First Six Second Six Second Six
Year Year Year
Months Months Months Months Months Months
Other
Number Tested 341 373 714 32 26 58 231 302 533 Number Positive 6 3 9 0 1 1 32 24 56 Percent Positive 1.76 0.80 1.26 0.00 3.85 1.72 13.85 7.95 10.51 TOTAL
Number Tested 24,975 22,958 47,933 1,027 1,098 2,125 44,624 45,547 90,171 Number Positive 56 71 127 7 8 15 449 500 949 Percent Positive 0.22 0.31 0.26 0.68 0.73 0.71 1.01 1.10 1.05
TOTAL without
OTHER Category
Number Tested 24,634 22,585 47,219 995 1,072 2,067 44,393 45,245 89,638 Number Positive 50 68 118 7 7 14 417 476 893 Percent Positive 0.20 0.30 0.25 0.70 0.65 0.68 0.94 1.05 1.00 Table 5
2006 Number of Confirmed Positives by Substance
(January through December 2006)
FIRST SIX SECOND SIX
TYPE OF TOTAL
MONTHS MONTHS
SUBSTANCE
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Marijuana 232 48.13 214 39.27 446 43.43 Cocaine 119 24.69 188 34.50 307 29.89 Opiates 5 1.04 9 1.65 14 1.36 Amphetamines 24 4.98 29 5.32 53 5.16 Phencyclidine 0 0.00 1 0.18 1 0.10
Alcohol 102 21.16 104 19.08 206 20.06 TOTAL 482 100 545 100 1027 100 Table 6
2006 Confirmed Positive Test Results by Substance and Work Category
(January through December 2006)
CONTRACTORS
TYPE OF LICENSEE EMPLOYEES
(Long-Term/Short-Term)
SUBSTANCE
Number Percent Number Percent
Marijuana 32 26.23 414 45.75 Cocaine 27 22.13 280 30.94 Opiates 2 1.64 12 1.33 Amphetamines 7 5.74 46 5.08 Phencyclidine 0 0.00 1 0.11 Alcohol 54 44.26 152 16.80
TOTAL 122 100 905 100 Table 7 Significant Fitness-for-Duty Events (1990-2006)
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 Table 7 Significant Fitness-for-Duty Events (1990-2006), Continued
Type of Event 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total
Reactor Operators 5 4 3 6 9 5 3 35 Licensee Supervisors 11 9 3 3 7 13 6 52 Contract Supervisors 8 12 12 8 4 14 6 64 FFD Program Personnel 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 4 Substances Found 3 0 1 2 9 9 2 26 Adulterated Specimen 9 23 29 60 121 Total 27 25 22 28 52 71 77 302 Table 8 Trends in Testing by Test Type (1990-2006)
Type of Test 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total
Pre-Access
Number Tested 122,491 104,508 104,842 91,471 80,217 79,305 81,041 84,320 69,146 69,139 886,480
Number Positive 1,548 983 1,110 952 977 1,122 1,132 1,096 822 934 10,676 Percent Positive 1.26 0.94 1.06 1.04 1.22 1.41 1.40 1.30 1.19 1.35 1.20
Random
Number Tested 148,743 153,818 156,730 146,605 78,391 66,791 62,307 60,829 56,969 54,457 985,640
Number Positive 550 510 461 341 223 180 202 172 157 140 2,936 Percent Positive 0.37 0.33 0.29 0.23 0.28 0.27 0.32 0.28 0.28 0.26 0.30
For-Cause
Number Tested 732 727 696 751 758 763 848 722 720 736 7,453 Number Positive 214 167 178 163 122 139 138 149 100 120 1,490
Percent Positive 29.23 22.97 25.27 21.70 16.09 18.22 16.27 20.64 13.89 16.30 20.00
Followup
Number Tested 2,633 3,544 4,283 4,139 3,875 3,262 3,262 3,296 2,863 3,008 34,165 Number Positive 65 62 69 56 50 35 40 31 43 30 481 Percent Positive 2.47 1.75 1.61 1.35 1.29 1.07 1.23 0.94 1.50 1.00 1.41 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. Table 8 Trends in Testing by Test Type (2000-2006), Continued
Type of Test 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total
Pre-Access
Number Tested 68,333 63,744 73,155 72,988 76,119 79,005 79,980 513,324 Number Positive 965 720 805 757 737 648 747 5,379 Percent Positive 1.41 1.13 1.10 1.04 0.97 0.82 0.93 1.05 Random
Number Tested 51,955 50,080 49,741 49,402 51,239 50,286 52,557 355,260
Number Positive 204 148 114 132 127 147 132 1,003 Percent Positive 0.39 0.30 0.23 0.27 0.25 0.29 0.25 0.28 For-Cause
Number Tested 883 730 1,072 1,052 1,159 1,161 1,621 7,674 Number Positive 138 101 112 126 139 106 109 830
Percent Positive 15.67 13.84 10.45 11.98 11.99 9.13 6.72 10.82 Followup
Number Tested 2,861 2,649 2,892 3,142 3,752 4,057 4,766 24,080
Number Positive 49 35 21 42 31 31 37 209 Percent Positive 1.71 1.32 0.73 1.34 0.83 0.76 0.78 1.02 TOTAL*
Number Tested 124,032 118,730 128,321 127,785 132,269 134,509 138,924 903,625 Number Positive 1,356 1,036 1,091 1,094 1,034 932 1,025 7,563 Percent Positive 1.09 1,004 0.85 0.86 0.78 0.69 0.74 0.84
- Does not include test results from the Other test category. Table 9 Trends in Substances Identified (1990-2006)
Substance 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Marijuana 1153 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
Amphetami 69 31 31 51 54 61 53 49 46 40
nes
Opiates 45 24 8 13 11 17 14 39 19 16 Phencyclidi 8 11 4 5 1 7 2 0 1 2 ne
Total* 2433 1762 1893 1576 1400 1,543 1570 1528 1153 1233
- These totals do not equal the total number of positives for each year because some positives were for multiple substances
and for substances other than those listed above.
Table 9 Trends in Substances Identified (1990-2006), Continued
Substance 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Marijuana 620 523 560 518 514 432 446 Cocaine 251 225 228 228 247 246 307 Alcohol 211 212 214 199 222 196 206 Amphetamines 50 50 47 64 60 59 53 Opiates 32 17 21 17 14 16 14 Phencyclidine 1 2 3 0 1 2 1 Total* 1168 1029 1069 1026 1056 951 1027
- These totals do not equal the total number of positives for each year because some positives were for multiple substances
and for substances other than those listed above. Table 10
Trends in Positive Test Rates for Workers with Unescorted Access (1990-2006)*
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
2006 0.44
- Includes random, for-cause testing results. The
reduction in random test rate from 100 percent to 50
percent has been in effect since 1994.