Information Notice 2009-28, Summary of Fitness for Duty Program Performance Reports for Calendar Year 2008

Summary of Fitness for Duty Program Performance Reports for Calendar Year 2008
	ML092650761
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/24/2009
From:	Dan Dorman, Mcginty T, Tracy G; Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Office of New Reactors, Division of Policy and Rulemaking
To:	;
	Beaulieu, D P, NRR/DPR, 415-3243
References
	IN-09-028
	Download: ML092650761 (33)
	v • d • e

UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS

OFFICE OF NEW REACTORS

WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001 November 24, 2009 NRC INFORMATION NOTICE 2009-28: SUMMARY OF FITNESS FOR DUTY

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE REPORTS

FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2008

ADDRESSEES

All holders of operating licenses for nuclear power reactors issued under Title 10 of the Code of

Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization

Facilities, except those who have permanently ceased operations and have certified that fuel

has been permanently removed from the reactor vessel.

All holders of nuclear power plant construction permits and early site permits with a limited work

authorization and applicants for nuclear power plant construction permits that have a limited

work authorization under the provisions of 10 CFR Part 50, Domestic Licensing of Production

and Utilization Facilities.

All holders of a combined license for a nuclear power plant issued under 10 CFR Part 52, Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants, and applicants for a

combined license that have a limited work authorization.

All licensees who are authorized to possess, use, or transport formula quantities of strategic

special nuclear material under the provisions of 10 CFR Part 70, Domestic Licensing of Special

Nuclear Material.

All holders of a certificate of compliance or an approved compliance plan issued under

10 CFR Part 76, Certification of Gaseous Diffusion Plants, if the holder engages in activities

involving formula quantities of strategic special nuclear material.

All contractors and vendors (C/Vs) who implement fitness-for-duty (FFD) programs or program

elements to the extent that the licensees and other entities listed above rely on those C/V FFD

programs or program elements to comply with 10 CFR Part 26, Fitness For Duty Programs.

PURPOSE

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

FFD performance information obtained from licensees as detailed in their 2008 FFD program

performance report submissions. The agency expects recipients to review the information for

applicability to their facilities and to consider, as appropriate, corrective actions to improve their

FFD programs. Suggestions contained in this IN are not NRC requirements; therefore, no

specific action or written response is required.

DESCRIPTION OF CIRCUMSTANCES

The regulations of 10 CFR Part 26, Fitness for Duty Programs, prescribe requirements and

standards for the establishment, implementation, and maintenance of FFD programs. On

March 31, 2008, the Commission published a final rule for 10 CFR Part 26 that updated FFD

requirements and enhanced consistency with other relevant Federal rules and guidelines. This

final rule (Volume 73 of the Federal Register, page 16966 (73 FR 16966; March 31, 2008))

became effective on April 30, 2008; however, licensees and other entities could defer

implementation of the requirements related to drug and alcohol testing until March 31, 2009.

The former rule (54 FR 24494; June 7, 1989), required licensees to submit 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). The current rule requires licensees to submit FFD

program performance data annually before March 1 of the following year in accordance with

10 CFR 26.727, Fitness-for-Duty Program Performance Date.

In the past, the NRC summarized and analyzed the performance data and published

NUREG/CR-5758, Fitness for Duty in the Nuclear Power IndustryAnnual Summary of

Program Performance Reports. Beginning with calendar year 1996 data, the NRC has

published the summary and analysis of FFD program performance data through the NRCs

generic communication program. The enclosure to this IN provides FFD program performance

data for calendar year 2008.

This IN presents FFD program performance information for 74 licensees or other entities as

follows:

64 reactor sites. One utility aggregated the performance data for two different reactor

sites into one performance report. Therefore, although this IN only distinguishes

between 64 reactor sites, the actual test results address all 65 reactor sites.

6 corporate FFD program offices. Some utilities with multiple reactor sites administer

the FFD program at a location different from the reactor sites and therefore report data

for these personnel separately.

4 contractors/SSNM transporters. These four include BWX Technologies, Inc.; Institute

of Nuclear Power Operations; Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.; and Westinghouse Electric

Company, LLC.

DISCUSSION

The following summarizes information reported by licensees or other entities (hereafter, as

licensees) on FFD program issues encountered and where appropriate the lessons learned, management initiatives, and corrective actions.

Ten licensees reported issues associated with licensee testing facilities or HHS-certified

laboratory performance involving equipment malfunctions or potential weaknesses related to

human error, or both. Of these, the majority of problems pertained to blind performance test

samples.

Seven licensees reported testing program policy and procedure issues. These primarily

involved alcohol testing and illegal drug (cocaine and marijuana) use.

A number of licensees elected to test for alcohol or specific drugs or both using more

stringent cutoff levels than those established by regulation (see Sections 2.7(e) and 2.7(f) in

Appendix A, Guidelines for Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs, to 10 CFR Part 26 in the

former rule; and 10 CFR 26.133, Cutoff Levels for Drugs and Drug Metabolites, and

10 CFR 26.163, Cutoff Levels for Drugs and Drug Metabolites, in the current rule).

Specifically, 5 licensees lowered the alcohol cutoff, 63 licensees reduced the marijuana

cutoff, 4 licensees reduced the cocaine cutoff, 5 licensees reduced the opiate cutoff,

8 licensees reduced the amphetamine cutoff, and 4 licensees reduced the phencyclidine

(PCP) cutoff. The lower cutoff levels for drugs and drug metabolites have resulted in the

identification of illegal drug use. In addition, 7 licensees tested for additional drugs above

those required by regulation.

Five licensees reported initiatives that resulted in the identification of programmatic

improvements or areas of weakness requiring corrective action.

Three licensees reported various types of self-assessments or initiatives to improve their

FFD programs. These actions included but were not limited to peer and external reviews.

Two other licensees implemented new software programs to enhance the management of

the FFD and access authorization programs.

The staff noted that, for a few licensees, the program performance reports did not

summarize management actions taken in response to identified FFD program occurrences

or deficiencies (10 CFR 26.71(d) in the former rule and 10 CFR 26.717(b)(8) of the current

rule). Fitness for duty programs are subject to NRC inspection.

The following describes FFD program performance issues that occurred at licensee facilities.

For summary purposes, this information is presented below in four categories: (1) Certified

Laboratories, (2) Policies and Procedures, (3) Program and System Management, and (4) Other

Program and System Management Issues.

(1) Certified Laboratories

Overall, 10 licensees reported problems associated with laboratory performance involving

equipment malfunctions or potential weaknesses related to human error, or both, as follows:

One licensee reported a potential deficiency associated with the tamper indicating seals

supplied by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)-certified laboratory

for use in securing specimen containers. The licensee determined through testing that the laboratory-supplied seal could be removed from a specimen bottle without indications of

tampering. The licensee immediately implemented the use of a second more sensitive seal

that was applied over the laboratory-supplied seal. A review of drug test results for

specimen testing conducted at the laboratory over the past 2 years revealed no instances in

which a specimen was rejected for testing because of a problem with the tamper-indicating

seal. The laboratory was in the process of developing a new seal at the time of the FFD

performance report submission. The licensee will conduct tests on the new seal when it

receives it from the laboratory and will verify that the seal cannot be removed from a

specimen bottle without the seal showing signs of tampering.

One licensee reported that a contractor FFD technician included the phrase Quality

Assurance Blind on the custody-and-control forms for blind performance test samples sent

to the HHS-certified laboratory. This information distinguished the blind samples from donor

specimens submitted for testing. The FFD technician received training on the correct

procedures to follow for completing the custody-and-control forms for blind samples, and the

licensee submitted new blind samples to the HHS-certified laboratory to replace those

previously sent in error. The licensee also reviewed the custody-and-control forms for

previous blind samples and identified no additional discrepancies.

One licensee reported that the HHS-certified laboratory misplaced two specimens. An

additional specimen was collected and tested for each donor.

One licensee reported that the HHS-certified laboratory reported a false negative test result

for a blind performance test sample containing amphetamine. Retesting of the blind sample

at a second HHS-certified laboratory resulted in a positive test for amphetamine. The

licensees performance report submission did not specify the cause of the testing error at

the initial HHS-certified laboratory.

One licensee reported that the HHS-certified laboratory reported a false negative result for a

blind performance test sample containing PCP. The laboratory investigated and determined

that a random mechanical instrument error resulting from a small crack in a wash nozzle line

caused the false negative.

One licensee reported that the HHS-certified laboratory reported a false negative result for a

blind performance test sample containing PCP. The laboratory determined that the

certifying scientist incorrectly entered the test result into the laboratorys computer system.

The laboratory conducted error correction training with the certifying scientist and indicated

that all certifying scientists would receive additional training to ensure that they accurately

entry of gas chromatography/mass spectrometry results into the laboratorys computer

system.

One licensee reported that the HHS-certified laboratory reported an inconsistent test result

for a blind performance test sample containing marijuana and an adulterant. The laboratory

reported only a marijuana positive test result. The licensees performance report submission

did not specify the cause of the inconsistent result from the HHS-certified laboratory.

One licensee reported that an FFD program audit determined that it had not met the

quarterly blind performance test sample requirement for the former rule (i.e., 10 percent of

specimens tested in the quarter up to 250) for the third quarter of 2008. The licensee

submitted 33 samples when it should have submitted 35 samples. The issue was attributed

to the licensees failure to apply self-checking techniques to ensure that the intended action

was correct. Licensee staff completed refresher training and the licensee developed a

tracking table to more accurately evaluate the number and type (i.e., positive or negative) of

blind samples submitted for testing each quarter. A Human Performance Success Clock

Evaluation recommended a Section Clock Reset because company administrative

expectations were not being met. The licensee forwarded the Human Performance Success

Clock Evaluation to the Condition Report Program Administrator for retention.

Two licensees reported not meeting the quarterly blind performance test sample

requirement for one quarter of testing. However, the licensees noted that the combined

average for the first and second quarters was over 10 percent of the specimens submitted to

the HHS-certified laboratory. The licensee generated condition reports, implemented

corrective actions to prevent recurrence, and issued company-wide condition reports to

share the event and lessons learned with other entities.

(2) Policies and Procedures

Overall, 7 licensees reported testing program policy and procedure issues as follows:

One licensee reported that an NRC security inspection report identified a Green non-cited

violation for failure to test personnel selected for random drug and alcohol testing at the

earliest reasonable and practical opportunity.

One licensee reported that the results of a self-assessment evaluation of 200 breath alcohol

tests determined that 1 breath test had been improperly administered. The test was

performed with only 1 minute between breath samples. An additional 1,000 records were

reviewed with no issues identified.

One licensee reported that a confirmed positive alcohol test result was appealed and

overturned because the specimen collector completed the custody-and-control form

improperly.

One licensee reported that the pre-access1 alcohol test for a refueling outage short-term

contractor was conducted in error. Positive results were obtained during initial breath

testing but confirmatory testing was not conducted because of a communication error by the

1 Licensees and other entities shall administer drug and alcohol tests to the individuals who are

subject to 10 CFR Part 26 under the following conditions: for pre-access, for-cause, and post- event. (10 CFR 26.31(c)). Licensees and entities are required to conduct pre-access testing as

well as other actions (such as background, credit, and criminal history checks) to help ensure

the honestly, integrity, and reliability of persons being considered for unescorted access to a

licensee facility. breath collector. The breath collector, a temporary worker hired for outage processing, was

relieved of collection duties pending counseling and additional training. The short-term

contractor was not granted unescorted access to the plant.

One licensee reported that it determined that two licensee security officers were associated

with illegal drugs. One security officer admitted to illegal drug use while on vacation and

following his return to work. The second security officer was involved in an offsite event

apparently involving the possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia; this event required

police response. For-cause tests were completed for both security officers, and the results

of the tests were negative. The licensee terminated both employees employment and

implemented an accelerated random testing program for security officers above that

required by 10 CFR Part 26. During this reporting period, the accelerated testing resulted in

no positive test results.

One licensee reported that a contract employee that previously had unescorted access, tested positive for marijuana on a pre-access test. The licensee granted the employee

5-day reinstated access pending receipt of the pre-access drug test result. Upon receipt of

a positive test result, the licensee suspended the employees unescorted access. The

licensee reviewed the employee's work activities and did not identify any deficient work

practices that could have impacted security- or safety-related systems/equipment. A review

of the employee's request for unescorted access revealed no disqualifying information or

indication of illegal drug use. The employee did not enter the protected area during the

5-day period. The licensee subsequently revoked the employee's unescorted access.

One licensee reported that a thermometer used during a urine specimen collection was past

due for calibration. A second specimen was collected from the donor and a condition report

was written.

(3) Program and System Management

As described above, the current 10 CFR Part 26 rule was published and became effective

April 30, 2008. However, licensees could defer implementation of the drug and alcohol

provisions until March 31, 2009. As a result, for the 2008 FFD performance reporting period, some licensees may have implemented the amended/new requirements midway through

calendar year 2008. Therefore, the drug and alcohol performance data presented below (e.g.,

cutoff and blood alcohol content (BAC) levels) could represent either the former or the current

requirements depending on the actual date that the licensee implemented the current rule. The

drug and alcohol testing requirements for the former rule are provided in 10 CFR Part 26, Appendix A, Sections 2.7(e) and 2.7(f). The current drug testing cutoff levels are found in

10 CFR 26.133 and 26.163 and the confirmatory BAC percentage considered a positive test

result is found in 10 CFR 26.103. The changes to the drug and alcohol testing cutoff level

changes are as follows:

Marijuana metabolites. Initial cutoff level was lowered from 100 nanograms per milliliter

(ng/mL) to 50 ng/mL.

Opiate metabolites. Initial and confirmatory cutoff levels were increased from 300 ng/mL to

2000 ng/mL.

Confirmatory alcohol test percent BAC. The current rule provides a work status provision to

evaluate time-at-work when determining a positive alcohol test result. (Before the current

rule, the NRC considered only a confirmatory alcohol test result of 0.04 percent BAC or

higher as a positive test result.) Under the current rule, a positive test result is reported for

three situations: a confirmatory alcohol test result of 0.04 percent BAC or higher; a

0.03 percent BAC or higher and in work status for at least 1-hour; and, a 0.02 percent BAC

or higher and in work status for at least 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.

Alcohol Testing (BAC Cutoff Levels):

One licensee reported testing at a lower BAC cutoff level (0.02 percent BAC) for pre-access

and follow-up testing.

Four licensees reported testing at BAC cutoff levels ranging from 0.011-0.039 percent to

extrapolate BAC levels based on time between alcohol consumption and time of test.

Eight licensees reported implementing the BAC cutoff levels in the current rule.

Drug Testing (Cutoff Levels):

Three licensees reported testing at the limits of detection (LOD) for all for-cause and follow- up tests and for suspect specimens. This testing resulted in the identification of marijuana

and cocaine positive results.

Note: For the drug or drug metabolites provided below, the following format is used: (Initial

Cutoff Level/Confirmatory Cutoff Level). For example, (50/15 ng/mL) means that the

initial confirmatory cutoff level is 50 ng/mL and the confirmatory cutoff level is 15 ng/mL.

Marijuana

Sixty-three licensees reported testing at lower cutoff levels than those required by the former

rule. The majority of these licensees had also tested at these levels in prior years.

Fifty-four licensees reported testing at lower cutoff levels under the former rule and

consistent with the cutoff levels in the current rule (50/15 ng/mL).

Three of the 54 licensees reported maintaining an initial cutoff level at 100 ng/mL for

licensee bargaining unit personnel and applied the 50/15 ng/mL cutoff levels for all other

personnel.

Four of the 54 licenses reported using a 20 ng/mL initial cutoff level and confirmatory

cutoff level at the LOD for dilute specimens (i.e., specimens with a creatinine

concentration of less than 20 milligrams per deciliter).

Two licensees reported testing at lower cutoff levels (50/10 ng/mL). One of these

licensees reported switching to a confirmatory cutoff level of 15 ng/mL in October 2008.

Two licensees reported testing at lower cutoff levels (20/15 ng/mL).

One licensee reported testing at lower cutoff levels (20/10 ng/mL). * Four licensees reported testing at lower cutoff levels (20/3 ng/mL).

Cocaine

Four licensees reported testing at lower cutoff levels (150/60 ng/mL).

Opiates

Five licensees reported testing at lower cutoff levels (300/150 ng/mL).

Amphetamine

One licensee reported testing at lower cutoff levels (1000/250 ng/mL).

One licensee reported testing at lower cutoff levels (1000/200 ng/mL), but only for

amphetamine, not for methamphetamine.

One licensee reported testing at lower cutoff levels (300/300 ng/mL).

One licensee reported testing at lower cutoff levels (300/250 ng/mL).

Four licensees reported testing at lower cutoff levels (300/100 ng/mL).

Phencyclidine (PCP)

Four licensees reported testing at lower cutoff levels (20/10 ng/mL).

Testing for Additional Drugs

Five licensees reported testing for barbiturates (300/300 ng/mL), benzodiazepines (300/300

ng/mL), methadone (300/300 ng/mL), and methaqualone (300/300 ng/mL). Those tests

resulted in one positive result.

One licensee reported testing for methadone (300/200 ng/mL), but discontinued that testing

after October 2008.

One licensee reported testing for barbiturates (300/250 ng/mL) and benzodiazepines

(300/250 ng/mL).

(4) Other Program and System Management Issues

One licensee conducted an FFD self-assessment with a team of three peer evaluators from

other licensees and two of their own employees. The assessment generated

13 recommendations that the licensee is currently evaluating.

One licensee reported four issues identified during an NRC inspection: (1) donors had

access to a soap dispenser in the collection area; (2) the licensee failed to perform follow-up

testing at the required procedural frequency for a person; (3) unescorted access not

withheld for three individuals who were not covered under the behavioral observation

program (BOP) for more than 30 days; and (4) personal/privacy information was stored in an

unprotected network location.

One licensee reported that staff at the licensee testing facility participated in proficiency

testing provided by the College of American Pathologists to ensure to the accuracy and

integrity of the drug testing process.

Two licensees implemented a new vendor-supplied database system to maintain and

process information for the access authorization, FFD, and BOP programs. The information

system automated and simplified processes, replaced multiple databases, and eliminated

redundant work for licensee staff. This system incorporates and standardizes processes, programs, and procedures, including the annual supervisory reviews, monthly access

control list, and the generation of the random selection lists for the FFD program.

Efficiencies were gained by eliminating multiple data entry points and by reducing file

maintenance activities.

CONTACT

This IN requires no specific action or written response. Please direct any questions about this

matter to the technical contact listed below.

/RA/ /RA/

Timothy J. McGinty, Director Daniel H. Dorman, Director

Division of Policy and Rulemaking Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

/RA/

Glenn Tracy, Director

Division of Construction Inspection

and Operational Programs

Office of New Reactors

Technical Contact:

Paul Harris, NSIR

(301) 415-1169 E-mail: fitnessforduty@nrc.gov

Enclosure:

Summary of Fitness-for-Duty Program Performance Reports (Calendar Year 2008)

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

ML092650761 ME2434 OFFICE ISCP/DSP/NSIR Tech Editor DRA/RES ISCP/DSP/NSIR DSP/NSIR PGCB:DPR

NAME P. Harris KKribes email VBarnes email C. Erlanger R. Correia DBeaulieu

DATE 09/29/09 9/29/09 9/23/09 10/5/09 10/8/09 10/28/09 OFFICE PGCB:DPR BC:PGCB:DPR NRO NMSS D:DPR

NAME CHawes MMurphy GTracy(ACampbell for) DDorman TMcGinty

DATE 11/02/09 11/12/09 11/19/09 11/23/09 11/24/09

Summary of Fitness for Duty Program Performance Reports

(Calendar Year 2008)

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 26.717, Fitness-for-Duty Program

Performance Data, (formerly 10 CFR 26.71(d)) requires licensees and other entities to, in part, collect, compile, retain, and submit fitness for duty program performance data. The tables and

charts below present information for calendar year 2008 and in some cases present data over

longer periods of time to present trends. The following is a summary description of the data

listed in the subsequent tables. In some cases, the numerical summary values below have

been rounded.

Summary

The tables show that the industry positive test rate is low for both licensee and

contractor/vendor populations.

Table 1 shows that the positive test rate for all tests conducted by the industry is

0.65 percent. The for-cause test rate resulting from behavior observation is 11.79 percent, the highest industry positive test rate.

Table 2 illustrates a consistent pattern regarding positive test rates by work category.

Licensee employees have the lowest positive test rates and short-term contractors have the

highest positive test rates. This pattern has been consistent across test types and over time

as shown in Tables 9, 10, 11, and 12.

Table 4 shows that marijuana is the substance most frequently detected substance in both

licensee employee and contractor tests. For licensee employees, alcohol is the next most

frequently detected substance while cocaine is the most frequently detected substance for

contractors.

Table 5 shows a downward trend in the number of significant events for reactor operators

and supervisors.

Table 7 illustrates that three substances (marijuana, cocaine, and alcohol) have accounted

for approximately 95 percent of all substances identified in each year of industry testing from

1990 through 2008.

Marijuana 47 percent of substances in 1990, 55 percent in 2008 Cocaine 29 percent of substances in 1990, 20 percent in 2008 Alcohol 19 percent of substances in 1990 and 2008

Table 8 shows that from 1990 through 2008 the annual random testing positive rate for

industry has decreased from 0.37 percent to 0.23 percent. * Table 13 presents the range of positive test rates reported by licensees in 2008, by work

category, for pre-access and random testing. The information presented indicates that while

the overall positive rates are low (less than 1 percent), contractors test positive at a much

higher rate than licensee employees.

Pre-access testing positive rates

Industry rate (contractors) is 0.85 percent

(licensee sites reported positive rates from 0.0 to 2.10 percent)

Industry rate (licensee employees) is 0.18 percent

(licensee sites reported positive rates from 0.0 to 1.53 percent).

Random testing positive rates

Industry rate (contractors) is 0.43 percent

(licensee sites reported positive rates from 0.0 to 2.01 percent)

Industry rate (licensee employees) is 0.14 percent

(licensee sites reported positive rates from 0.0 to 0.60 percent).

Table 1 Test Results for Each Test Category (2008)

Test Category Number of Tests Positive Tests Percent Positive

Pre-Access 87,468 664 0.76%

Random 54,759 127 0.23%

For-Cause

Observed Behavior 797 94 11.79%

Post-Accident 986 7 0.71%

Follow-Up 5,756 44 0.76%

Other 2,171 55 2.53%

TOTAL* 151,937 991 0.65%

TOTAL without Other 149,766 936 0.62%

TOTAL without Other

Number Tested 80,030 69,736 149,766 Number Positive 546 390 936 Percent Positive 0.68% 0.56% 0.62% Table 4 Confirmed Positive Test Results by Substance and by Work Category (2008)

(All test types, including testing Refusals)

Licensee Contractors

Positive Total

Employees (Long-Term/Short-Term)

Test Result

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Marijuana 47 32.87% 459 52.16% 506 49.46%

Cocaine 21 14.69% 163 18.52% 184 17.99%

Opiates 3 2.10% 13 1.48% 16 1.56%

Amphetamines 3 2.10% 32 3.64% 35 3.42%

Phencyclidine 1 0.70% 0 0.00% 1 0.10%

Alcohol 39 27.27% 138 15.68% 177 17.30%

Refusal to Test 29 20.28% 75 8.52% 104 10.17%

TOTAL* 143 100.00% 880 100.00% 1,023 100.00%

The totals in this table may be higher than those reported in Tables 1, 2, and 3 because of

instances in which an individual tested positive for more than one substance.

Chart 1 Chart 2

2008 Positive Test Results by Substance 2008 Positive Test Results by Substance

Licensee Employees Contractors

Refusal to Test Refusal to Test

20.28% 8.52%

Alcohol

Marijuana 15.68%

32.87%

Phencyclidine

0.0%

Alcohol Marijuana

27.27% Amphetamines 52.16%

3.64%

Opiates

1.48%

Phencyclidine Cocaine

0.70% 14.69% Cocaine

Amphetamines Opiates 18.52%

2.10% 2.10% Table 5 Significant Fitness-for-Duty (FFD) Events*

FFD

Reactor Licensee Contract Substances Adulterated

Year Program Total

Operators Supervisors Supervisors Found Specimen*

Personnel

1990 19 26 12 1 6 - 64

1991 16 18 24 5 8 - 71

1992 18 22 28 0 6 - 74

1993 8 25 16 0 2 - 51

1994 7 11 11 1 0 - 30

1995 8 16 10 0 5 - 39

1996 8 19 8 2 5 - 42

1997 9 16 10 0 4 - 39

1998 5 10 10 3 0 - 28

1999 5 2 12 2 2 - 23

2000 5 11 8 0 3 - 27

2001 4 9 12 0 0 - 25

2002 3 3 12 3 1 - 22

2003 6 3 8 0 2 9 28

2004 9 7 4 0 9 23 52

2005 5 13 14 1 9 29 71

2006 3 6 6 0 2 60 77

2007 3 7 1 1 0 47 59

2008 2 8 6 1 0 51 68

For this report, an adulterated specimen is reported if the original specimen was determined to

be adulterated, dilute, or possessed unusually low or high temperature, specific gravity, or

creatinine levels and if the individual either refused to provide a second specimen or the

specimen collected under observed collection resulted in a positive test result. The staff notes

that some inconsistencies were identified in licensee reporting of adulterated specimens. Table 6A Trends in Testing by Test Type

Type of Test 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994* 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Pre-Access

Number Tested 122,491 104,508 104,842 91,471 80,217 79,305 81,041 84,320 69,146 69,139 Number Positive 1,548 983 1,110 952 977 1,122 1,132 1,096 822 934 Percent Positive 1.26% 0.94% 1.06% 1.04% 1.22% 1.41% 1.40% 1.30% 1.19% 1.35%

Random

Number Tested 148,743 153,818 156,730 146,605 78,391 66,791 62,307 60,829 56,969 54,457 Number Positive 550 510 461 341 223 180 202 172 157 140

Percent Positive 0.37% 0.33% 0.29% 0.23% 0.28% 0.27% 0.32% 0.28% 0.28% 0.26%

For-Cause

Number Tested 732 727 696 751 758 763 848 722 720 736 Number Positive 214 167 178 163 122 139 138 149 100 120

Percent Positive 29.23% 22.97% 25.57% 21.70% 16.09% 18.22% 16.27% 20.64% 13.89% 16.30%

Followup

Number Tested 2,633 3,544 4,283 4,139 3,875 3,262 3,262 3,296 2,863 3,008 Number Positive 65 62 69 56 50 35 40 31 43 30

Percent Positive 2.47% 1.75% 1.61% 1.35% 1.29% 1.07% 1.23% 0.94% 1.50% 1.00%

TOTAL

Number Tested 274,599 262,597 266,551 242,966 163,241 150,121 147,458 149,167 129,698 127,340

Number Positive 2,377 1,722 1,818 1,512 1,372 1,476 1,512 1,448 1,122 1,224 Percent Positive 0.87% 0.66% 0.68% 0.62% 0.84% 0.98% 1.03% 0.97% 0.87% 0.96%

Beginning in 1994, the NRC reduced the minimum annual random testing rate from 100 to 50 percent of the subject population.

Total does not include results from the Other test category. Table 6B Trends in Testing by Test Type

Type of Test 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Pre-Access

Number Tested 68,333 63,744 73,155 72,988 76,119 79,005 79,980 81,932 87,468 Number Positive 965 720 805 757 737 648 747 668 664 Percent Positive 1.41% 1.13% 1.10% 1.04% 0.97% 0.82% 0.93% 0.82% 0.76%

Random

Number Tested 51,955 50,080 49,741 49,402 51,239 50,286 52,557 51,665 54,759 Number Positive 204 148 114 132 127 147 132 117 127 Percent Positive 0.39% 0.30% 0.23% 0.27% 0.25% 0.29% 0.25% 0.23% 0.23%

For-Cause

Number Tested 883 730 1,072 1,052 1,159 1,161 1,621 1,615 1,783 Number Positive 138 101 112 126 139 106 109 91 101 Percent Positive 15.63% 13.84% 10.45% 11.98% 11.99% 9.13% 6.72% 5.63% 5.66%

Followup

Number Tested 2,861 2,649 2,892 3,142 3,752 4,057 4,766 4,991 5,756 Number Positive 49 35 21 42 31 31 37 31 44 Percent Positive 1.71% 1.32% 0.73% 1.34% 0.83% 0.76% 0.78% 0.62% 0.76%

TOTAL*

Number Tested 124,032 117,203 126,860 126,584 132,269 134,509 138,924 140,203 149,766 Number Positive 1,356 1,004 1,052 1,057 1,034 932 1,025 907 936 Percent Positive 1.09% 0.86% 0.83% 0.84% 0.78% 0.69% 0.74% 0.65% 0.62%

Total does not include results from the Other test category. Chart 3 Trends in Positive Random Testing Rates*

0.45% 600

0.40%

500

Positive Random Tests

0.35%

Positive Rate

0.30% 400

0.25%

300

0.20%

0.15% 200

0.10%

100

0.05%

0.00% 0

90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08

19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20

Positive Rate Number of Positive Tests

Beginning in 1994, the NRC reduced the minimum annual random testing rate from 100 to 50

percent of the subject population. Table 7 Trends in Substances Identified

Amphet- Phen- Year Marijuana Cocaine Alcohol Opiates Total

amines cyclidine

1990 1,153 706 452 69 45 8 2,433

1991 746 549 401 31 24 11 1,762

1992 953 470 427 31 8 4 1,893

1993 781 369 357 51 13 5 1,576

1994 739 344 251 54 11 1 1,400

1995 819 374 265 61 17 7 1,543

1996 868 352 281 53 14 2 1,570

1997 842 336 262 49 39 0 1,528

1998 606 269 212 46 19 1 1,153

1999 672 273 230 40 16 2 1,233

2000 620 251 211 50 32 1 1,165

2001 523 225 212 50 17 2 1,029

2002 560 228 214 47 21 3 1,073

2003 518 228 199 64 17 0 1,026

2004 514 247 222 60 14 1 1,058

2005 432 246 196 59 16 2 951

2006 446 307 206 53 14 1 1,027

2007 386 232 189 29 22 5 863

2008 506 184 177 35 16 1 919 Table 8 Trends in Positive Test Rates for Workers with Unescorted Access

Total

Random For-Cause

(Random and

Testing Testing

Year For-Cause Testing)

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

of Tests Positive of Tests Positive of Tests Positive

1990 148,743 0.37% 732 29.23% 149,475 0.54%

1991 153,818 0.33% 727 22.97% 154,545 0.47%

1992 156,730 0.29% 696 25.57% 157,426 0.44%

1993 146,605 0.23% 751 21.70% 147,356 0.37%

1994* 78,391 0.28% 758 16.09% 79,149 0.48%

1995 66,791 0.27% 763 18.22% 67,554 0.50%

1996 62,307 0.32% 848 16.27% 63,155 0.57%

1997 60,829 0.28% 722 20.64% 61,551 0.54%

1998 56,969 0.28% 720 13.89% 57,689 0.50%

1999 54,457 0.26% 736 16.30% 55,193 0.50%

2000 51,955 0.39% 883 15.63% 52,838 0.70%

2001 50,080 0.30% 730 13.84% 50,810 0.53%

2002 49,741 0.23% 1,072 10.45% 50,813 0.46%

2003 49,402 0.27% 1,052 11.98% 50,454 0.56%

2004 51,239 0.25% 1,159 11.99% 52,398 0.51%

2005 50,286 0.29% 1,161 9.13% 51,447 0.49%

2006 52,557 0.25% 1,621 6.72% 54,178 0.44%

2007 51,665 0.23% 1,615 5.63% 53,280 0.39%

2008 54,759 0.23% 1,783 5.66% 56,542 0.40%

In 1994, the NRC reduced the minimum annual random testing rate from 100 to 50 percent of

the subject population. Table 9 Trends in Positive Test Rates (All Test Types)* by Work Category

Licensee Long-Term Short-Term

Employees Contractors Contractors

Year

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive

1993 274 0.25% 17 0.21% 1,221 0.97%

1994 219 0.33% 25 0.49% 1,128 1.22%

1995 197 0.34% 14 0.40% 1,265 1.44%

1996 244 0.43% 21 0.69% 1,247 1.42%

1997 187 0.34% 29 0.80% 1,232 1.37%

1998 169 0.33% 22 0.67% 931 1.25%

1999 159 0.32% 22 0.65% 1,043 1.39%

2000 206 0.44% 78 1.51% 1,072 1.48%

2001 147 0.32% 22 0.64% 835 1.24%

2002 117 0.26% 12 0.46% 923 1.18%

2003 146 0.33% 12 0.61% 899 1.13%

2004 123 0.27% 15 0.58% 896 1.06%

2005 122 0.27% 19 0.78% 791 0.90%

2006 118 0.25% 14 0.68% 893 1.00%

2007 115 0.24% 15 0.67% 777 0.86%

2008 113 0.22% 12 0.38% 811 0.86%

This includes all test categories with the exception of the Other test category. Table 10 Trends in Positive Pre-Access Testing Rates by Work Category

Licensee Long-Term Short-Term

Employees Contractors Contractors

Year

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive

1993 47 0.42% 7 0.47% 898 1.14%

1994 49 0.48% 12 0.86% 916 1.34%

1995 60 0.57% 7 0.61% 1,055 1.56%

1996 94 0.95% 13 1.21% 1,025 1.46%

1997 62 0.55% 17 1.34% 1,017 1.42%

1998 50 0.53% 12 0.88% 760 1.30%

1999 44 0.52% 10 0.75% 880 1.48%

2000 51 0.67% 60 2.06% 854 1.48%

2001 44 0.52% 16 0.98% 660 1.23%

2002 28 0.35% 10 0.80% 767 1.20%

2003 41 0.49% 8 1.03% 708 1.11%

2004 35 0.46% 8 0.73% 694 1.03%

2005 28 0.34% 12 1.56% 608 0.87%

2006 24 0.26% 7 1.33% 716 1.02%

2007 34 0.35% 8 1.25% 626 0.88%

2008 21 0.18% 10 0.92% 633 0.85%

Table 11 Trends in Positive Random Test Rates by Work Category

Licensee Long-Term Short-Term

Employees Contractors Contractors

Year

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive

1993 157 0.17% 7 0.11% 177 0.39%

1994 96 0.18% 7 0.19% 120 0.54%

1995 82 0.18% 5 0.21% 93 0.50%

1996 94 0.21% 4 0.21% 104 0.64%

1997 76 0.18% 6 0.27% 90 0.54%

1998 71 0.18% 9 0.48% 77 0.52%

1999 71 0.18% 7 0.35% 62 0.45%

2000 116 0.32% 5 0.24% 83 0.64%

2001 64 0.18% 4 0.24% 80 0.65%

2002 55 0.15% 1 0.08% 58 0.45%

2003 61 0.18% 3 0.26% 68 0.48%

2004 51 0.15% 6 0.43% 70 0.46%

2005 60 0.18% 5 0.33% 82 0.54%

2006 55 0.16% 5 0.35% 72 0.44%

2007 55 0.16% 5 0.33% 57 0.38%

2008 50 0.14% 2 0.11% 75 0.46% Table 12 Trends in Positive Observed Behavior Testing Rates by Work Category

Licensee Long-Term Short-Term

Employees Contractors Contractors

Year

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive

1993 35 15.58% 2 16.67% 126 35.29%

1994 39 19.60% 5 35.71% 75 24.35%

1995 35 14.89% 2 16.67% 101 30.70%

1996 34 13.93% 4 33.33% 98 26.85%

1997 34 16.35% 6 37.50% 104 33.88%

1998 26 14.05% 1 11.11% 70 26.82%

1999 29 14.29% 4 23.53% 87 30.42%

2000 21 10.24% 12 13.48% 99 31.43%

2001 20 9.13% 2 10.00% 77 28.84%

2002 23 9.47% 1 12.56% 86 23.50%

2003 22 9.48% 0 0.00% 101 25.70%

2004 23 8.65% 0 0.00% 111 26.62%

2005 19 6.15% 2 12.50% 84 24.28%

2006 24 7.45% 2 9.52% 78 20.91%

2007 15 5.14% 2 9.09% 64 15.76%

2008 22 6.69% 0 0.00% 72 16.44% FFD Performance Testing Results by Site

This section presents distributional information by site for pre-access, random, and for-cause

testing (i.e., observed behavior testing). This distributional information provides licensees with

additional information to evaluate the performance of their FFD program against the industry

rate. Before this 2008 report, NRC Information Notices primarily presented industry trends by

test type and work categories and did not provide FFD program performance testing data on a

site-specific basis.

Table 13 Industry Positive Test Results for Pre-Access, Random, and Observed

Behavior Testing by Work Category (2008)

Pre-Access Testing

Industry Range of % Positive

Work Category

% Positive (by Site)

Licensee Employees 0.18 0 - 1.53 Contractors 0.85 0 - 2.10

All Work Categories 0.76 N/A

Random Testing

Industry Range of % Positive

Work Category

% Positive (by Site)

Licensee Employees 0.14 0 - 0.60

Contractors 0.43 0 - 2.01 All Work Categories 0.23 N/A

Observed Behavior Testing

Industry Range of % Positive

Work Category

% Positive (by Site)

Licensee Employees 6.69 0 - 100

Contractors 15.38 0 - 100

All Work Categories 11.79 N/A 2008 Pre-Access Testing Positive Rates by Site

Table 14 Distribution of Pre-Access Testing Positive Rates by Work Category by Site

All Employees Licensee Employees Contractors

Positive Rate Positive Rate Positive Rate

Sites Sites Sites

Range (%) Range (%) Range (%)

0 11 0 57 0 11

>0.0 - 0.2 1 >0.0 - 0.2 1 >0.0 - 0.25 4

>0.2 - 0.4 8 >0.2 - 0.4 2 >0.25 - 0.5 14

>0.4 - 0.6 12 >0.4 - 0.6 3 >0.5 - 0.75 12

>0.6 - 0.8 11 >0.6 - 0.8 5 >0.75 - 1.0 11

>0.8 - 1.0 14 >0.8 - 1.0 2 >1.0 - 1.25 8

>1.0 - 1.2 8 >1.0 - 1.2 2 >1.25 - 1.5 4

>1.2 - 1.4 3 >1.2 - 1.4 0 >1.5 - 1.75 2

>1.4 - 1.6 4 >1.4 - 1.6 1 >1.75 - 2.0 3

>1.6 - 1.8 1 >1.6 - 1.8 0 >2.0 - 2.25 0

Total Sites* 73 Total Sites 73 Total Sites 72

Total site counts may differ because a site may not have tested one work category.

Chart 4 Distribution of Pre-Access Testing Positive Rates (All Employees) by Site

16 Industry Rate: 0.76%

14

12 Number of Sites

10

8

6

4

2

0

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 -1 .2 .4 .6 .8

-0 -0 -0 -0 -1 -1 -1 -1

>0

>0 >0 >0 >0 .8 >1 >1 >1 >1

.2 .4 .6 .2 .4 .6 Percent (%) Positive Rate Chart 5 Distribution of Pre-Access Testing Positive Rates (Licensee Employees) by

Site

60

50

Number of Sites

40

Industry Rate: 0.18%

30

20

10

0

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 -1 .2 .4 .6 .8

-0 -0 -0 -0 -1 -1 -1 -1

>0 >0

>0 >0 >0 .8 >1 >1 >1 >1

.2 .4 .6 .2 .4 .6 Percent (%) Positive Rate

Chart 6 Distribution of Pre-Access Testing Positive Rates (Contractors) by Site

16

14 Industry Rate: 0.85%

12 Number of Sites

10

8

6

4

2

0

0 .2 -0 .7 -1 .2 -1 .7 -2 .2

5 .5 5 5 .5 5 5

-0 -0 >0 -1 -1 >1 -2

>0 >0 >0 .7 5 >1 >1 >1 .7 5 >2

.2 5 .5 .2 5 .5 Percent (%) Positive Rate 2008 Random Testing Positive Rates by Site

Table 15 Distribution of Random Testing Positive Rates by Work Category by Site

All Employees Licensee Employees Contractors

Positive Rate Positive Rate Positive Rate

Sites Sites Sites

Range (%) Range (%) Range (%)

0 28 0 43 0 38

>0.0 - 0.1 2 >0.0 - 0.1 1 >0.0 - 0.3 3

>0.1 - 0.2 10 >0.1 - 0.2 7 >0.3 - 0.6 14

>0.2 - 0.3 9 >0.2 - 0.3 10 >0.6 - 0.9 10

>0.3 - 0.4 14 >0.3 - 0.4 5 >0.9 - 1.2 2

>0.4 - 0.5 4 >0.4 - 0.5 1 >1.2 - 1.5 4

>0.5 - 0.6 5 >0.5 - 0.6 6 >1.5 - 1.8 0

>0.6 - 0.7 1 >0.6 - 0.7 0 >1.8 - 2.1 1 Total Sites 73 Total Sites 73 Total Sites 72

Total site counts may differ because a site may not have tested one work category.

Chart 7 Distribution of Random Testing Positive Rates (All Employees) by Site

30

25 Industry Rate: 0.23%

Number of Sites

20

15

10

5

0

0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7

-0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0

>0 >0 >0 >0 >0 >0 >0

.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 Percent (%) Positive Rate Chart 8 Distribution of Random Testing Positive Rates (Licensee Employees) by Site

50

45

40

Number of Sites

35 Industry Rate: 0.14%

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7

-0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0

>0 >0 >0 >0 >0 >0 >0

.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 Percent (%) Positive Rate

Chart 9 Distribution of Random Testing Positive Rates (Contractors) by Site

40

35

30

Number of Sites

Industry Rate: 0.43%

25

20

15

10

5

0

0 .3 .6 .9 .2 .5 .8 .1

-0 -0 -0 -1 -1 -1 -2

>0 >0 >0 >0 >1 >1 >1

.3 .6 .9 .2 .5 .8 Percent (%) Positive Rate 2008 Observed Behavior Testing Rates by Site

Table 16 Distribution of For-Cause Testing Positive Rates by Work Category by Site

All Employees Licensee Employees Contractors

Positive Rate Positive Rate Positive Rate

Sites Sites Sites

Range (%) Range (%) Range (%)

0 25 0 42 0 27

>0 - 10 8 >0 - 10 0 >0 - 10 4

>10 - 20 12 >10 - 20 5 >10 - 20 7

>20 - 30 6 >20 - 30 1 >20 - 30 3

>30 - 40 11 >30 - 40 3 >30 - 40 7

>40 - 50 2 >40 - 50 5 >40 - 50 7

>50 - 60 1 >50 - 60 0 >50 - 60 1

>60 - 70 2 >60 - 70 0 >60 - 70 2

>70 - 80 0 >70 - 80 0 >70 - 80 1

>80 - 90 0 >80 - 90 0 >80 - 90 0

>90 - 100 1 >90 - 100 1 >90 - 100 2 Total Sites 68 Total Sites 57 Total Sites 61

Total site counts may differ because a site may not have tested one work category.

Chart 10 Distribution of Observed Behavior Testing Positive Rates (All Employees) by

Site

30

25 Number of Sites

20

Industry Rate: 11.79%

15

10

5

0

0 0 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 -1

-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00

>0 >1 >2 >3 >4 >5 >6 >7 >8 >9

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Percent (%) Positive Rate Chart 11 Distribution of Observed Behavior Testing Positive Rates (Licensee

Employees) by Site

45

40

35 Number of Sites

30

Industry Rate: 6.69%

25

20

15

10

5

0

0 0 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 -1

-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00

>0 >1 >2 >3 >4 >5 >6 >7 >8 >9

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Percent (%) Positive Rate

Chart 12 Distribution of Observed Behavior Testing Positive Rates (Contractors) by Site

30

25 Number of Sites

20

Industry Rate: 15.38%

15

10

5

0

0 0 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 -1

-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00

>0 >1 >2 >3 >4 >5 >6 >7 >8 >9

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Percent (%) Positive Rate 2008 Distribution of Test Results by Sites and Work Category

Summary

Chart 13 Comparisons of Site Pre-Access Testing Positive Rates by Work Category

60

50

Licensee Employees Contractors

Number of Sites

40

30

20

10

0

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 -1 .2 .4 .6 .8 -2 .1

-0 -0 -0 -0 .8 -1 -1 -1 -1 .8 -2

>0 .2 .4 .6 >0 >1 .2 .4 .6 >1 >2

>0 >0 >0 >1 >1 >1 Percent (%) Positive Rate

Chart 14 Comparison of Site Random Testing Positive Rates by Work Category

40

35 Number of Sites

30

25 Licensee Employees Contractors

20

15

10

5

0

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 -1 .2 .4 .6 .8 -2 .2

-0 -0 -0 -0 .8 -1 -1 -1 -1 .8 -2

>0 .2 .4 .6 >0 >1 .2 .4 .6 >1 >2

>0 >0 >0 >1 >1 >1 Percent (%) Positive Rate Chart 15 Comparison of Site Observed Behavior Testing Positive Rates by Work

Information Notice 2009-28, Summary of Fitness for Duty Program Performance Reports for Calendar Year 2008

Contents

ADDRESSEES

PURPOSE

DESCRIPTION OF CIRCUMSTANCES

DISCUSSION

Testing for Additional Drugs

CONTACT

Glenn Tracy, Director

Office of New Reactors

Technical Contact:

Paul Harris, NSIR

TOTAL without Other

Work Category

Work Category

Work Category

Navigation menu

Information Notice 2009-28, Summary of Fitness for Duty Program Performance Reports for Calendar Year 2008

ADDRESSEES

PURPOSE

DESCRIPTION OF CIRCUMSTANCES

DISCUSSION

Testing for Additional Drugs

CONTACT

Glenn Tracy, Director

Office of New Reactors

Technical Contact:

Paul Harris, NSIR

TOTAL without Other

Work Category

Work Category

Work Category

Navigation menu

Search