Information Notice 2009-28, Summary of Fitness for Duty Program Performance Reports for Calendar Year 2008: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| issue date = 11/24/2009 | | issue date = 11/24/2009 | ||
| title = Summary of Fitness for Duty Program Performance Reports for Calendar Year 2008 | | title = Summary of Fitness for Duty Program Performance Reports for Calendar Year 2008 | ||
| author name = Dorman D | | author name = Dorman D, Mcginty T, Tracy G | ||
| author affiliation = NRC/NMSS, NRC/NRO, NRC/NRR/DPR | | author affiliation = NRC/NMSS, NRC/NRO, NRC/NRR/DPR | ||
| addressee name = | | addressee name = | ||
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| document type = License-Fitness for Duty (FFD) Performance Report, NRC Information Notice | | document type = License-Fitness for Duty (FFD) Performance Report, NRC Information Notice | ||
| page count = 33 | | page count = 33 | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{#Wiki_filter: | {{#Wiki_filter: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== | ==ADDRESSEES== | ||
All holders of operating licenses for nuclear power reactors issued under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, | 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== | ==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 | The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing this Information Notice (IN) to report | ||
* 64 reactor | |||
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 hours. | |||
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). | * Two licensees reported testing at lower cutoff levels (20/15 ng/mL). | ||
* One licensee reported testing at lower cutoff levels (20/10 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). | ||
* 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 | Cocaine | ||
* Five licensees reported testing at lower cutoff levels (300/150 ng/mL). Amphetamine | |||
* 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 (1000/250 ng/mL). | ||
* One licensee reported testing at lower cutoff levels (1000/200 ng/mL), but only for amphetamine, not for | |||
* 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 (300/300 ng/mL). | ||
* One licensee reported testing at lower cutoff levels (300/250 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 | * Four licensees reported testing at lower cutoff levels (300/100 ng/mL). | ||
* 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 | |||
* One licensee reported testing for methadone (300/200 ng/mL), but discontinued that testing after October | Phencyclidine (PCP) | ||
* One licensee reported testing for barbiturates (300/250 ng/mL) and benzodiazepines (300/250 ng/mL). | |||
* 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 | (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 | |||
* 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 | * One licensee conducted an FFD self-assessment with a team of three peer evaluators from | ||
* 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 | |||
* Two licensees implemented a new vendor-supplied database system to maintain and process information for the access authorization, FFD, and BOP | 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== | ==CONTACT== | ||
This IN requires no specific action or written | This IN requires no specific action or written response. Please direct any questions about this | ||
Glenn Tracy, Director Division of Construction Inspection and Operational Programs Office of New Reactors | |||
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:=== | ===Technical Contact:=== | ||
=== | ===Paul Harris, NSIR=== | ||
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 | (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% | |||
category | |||
* Includes the Other test category. Although some licensees specified the nature of the tests | |||
included in the Other category (e.g., return to work), most licensees did not provide clarifying | |||
information. Table 2 Test Results by Test and Work Categories (2008) | |||
Licensee Long-Term Short-Term | |||
Test Category Total | |||
Employees Contractors* Contractors* | |||
Pre-Access | |||
Number Tested 11,498 1,086 74,884 87,468 Number Positive 21 10 633 664 Percent Positive 0.18% 0.92% 0.85% 0.76% | |||
Random | |||
Number Tested 38,721 1,813 16,225 54,759 Number Positive 50 2 75 127 Percent Positive 0.14% 0.11% 0.46% 0.23% | |||
For-Cause | |||
Observed Behavior | |||
Number Tested 329 30 438 797 Number Positive 22 0 72 94 Percent Positive 6.69% 0.00% 16.44% 11.79% | |||
Post-Accident | |||
Number Tested 448 69 469 986 Number Positive 1 0 6 7 Percent Positive 0.22% 0.00% 1.28% 0.71% | |||
Follow-Up | |||
Number Tested 2,856 139 2,761 5,756 Number Positive 19 0 25 44 Percent Positive 0.67% 0.00% 0.91% 0.76% | |||
Other | |||
Number Tested 1,196 263 712 2,171 Number Positive 9 0 47 55 Percent Positive 0.75% 0.00% 6.60% 2.53% | |||
TOTAL | |||
Number Tested 53,048 3,400 95,489 151,937 Number Positive 122 12 857 991 Percent Positive 0.23% 0.35% 0.90% 0.65% | |||
TOTAL without Other | |||
Number Tested 51,852 3,137 94,777 149,766 Number Positive 113 12 811 936 Percent Positive 0.22% 0.38% 0.86% 0.62% | |||
* Some licensees distinguished between short-term and long-term contractors, whereas others | |||
reported all contractors as short term. Table 3 Test Results by Test Category (2008) | |||
First Second | |||
Test Category Year | |||
6 Months 6 Months | |||
Pre-Access | |||
Number Tested 48,177 39,291 87,468 Number Positive 394 270 664 Percent Positive 0.82% 0.69% 0.76% | |||
Random | |||
Number Tested 27,795 26,964 54,759 Number Positive 71 56 127 Percent Positive 0.26% 0.21% 0.23% | |||
For-Cause | |||
Observed Behavior | |||
Number Tested 450 347 797 Number Positive 56 38 94 Percent Positive 12.44% 10.95% 11.79% | |||
Post-Accident | |||
Number Tested 526 460 986 Number Positive 5 2 7 Percent Positive 0.95% 0.43% 0.71% | |||
Follow-Up | |||
Number Tested 3,082 2,674 5,756 Number Positive 20 24 44 Percent Positive 0.65% 0.90% 0.76% | |||
Other | |||
Number Tested 1,206 965 2,171 Number Positive 30 25 55 Percent Positive 2.49% 2.59% 2.53% | |||
TOTAL | |||
Number Tested 81,236 70,701 151,937 Number Positive 576 415 991 Percent Positive 0.71% 0.59% 0.65% | |||
===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 | |||
Category | |||
45 | |||
40 | |||
35 Number of Sites | |||
30 | |||
Licensee Employees Contractors | |||
25 | |||
20 | |||
15 | |||
10 | |||
5 | |||
0 | |||
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 | |||
-1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 -1 | |||
>0 0 | |||
>1 | |||
0 | |||
>2 | |||
0 | |||
>3 | |||
0 | |||
>4 | |||
0 | |||
>5 >6 | |||
0 0 | |||
>7 | |||
0 | |||
>8 0 | |||
>9 Percent (%) Positive Rate}} | |||
{{Information notice-Nav}} | {{Information notice-Nav}} |
Latest revision as of 03:05, 14 November 2019
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) | |
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%
category
- Includes the Other test category. Although some licensees specified the nature of the tests
included in the Other category (e.g., return to work), most licensees did not provide clarifying
information. Table 2 Test Results by Test and Work Categories (2008)
Licensee Long-Term Short-Term
Test Category Total
Employees Contractors* Contractors*
Pre-Access
Number Tested 11,498 1,086 74,884 87,468 Number Positive 21 10 633 664 Percent Positive 0.18% 0.92% 0.85% 0.76%
Random
Number Tested 38,721 1,813 16,225 54,759 Number Positive 50 2 75 127 Percent Positive 0.14% 0.11% 0.46% 0.23%
For-Cause
Observed Behavior
Number Tested 329 30 438 797 Number Positive 22 0 72 94 Percent Positive 6.69% 0.00% 16.44% 11.79%
Post-Accident
Number Tested 448 69 469 986 Number Positive 1 0 6 7 Percent Positive 0.22% 0.00% 1.28% 0.71%
Follow-Up
Number Tested 2,856 139 2,761 5,756 Number Positive 19 0 25 44 Percent Positive 0.67% 0.00% 0.91% 0.76%
Other
Number Tested 1,196 263 712 2,171 Number Positive 9 0 47 55 Percent Positive 0.75% 0.00% 6.60% 2.53%
TOTAL
Number Tested 53,048 3,400 95,489 151,937 Number Positive 122 12 857 991 Percent Positive 0.23% 0.35% 0.90% 0.65%
TOTAL without Other
Number Tested 51,852 3,137 94,777 149,766 Number Positive 113 12 811 936 Percent Positive 0.22% 0.38% 0.86% 0.62%
- Some licensees distinguished between short-term and long-term contractors, whereas others
reported all contractors as short term. Table 3 Test Results by Test Category (2008)
First Second
Test Category Year
6 Months 6 Months
Pre-Access
Number Tested 48,177 39,291 87,468 Number Positive 394 270 664 Percent Positive 0.82% 0.69% 0.76%
Random
Number Tested 27,795 26,964 54,759 Number Positive 71 56 127 Percent Positive 0.26% 0.21% 0.23%
For-Cause
Observed Behavior
Number Tested 450 347 797 Number Positive 56 38 94 Percent Positive 12.44% 10.95% 11.79%
Post-Accident
Number Tested 526 460 986 Number Positive 5 2 7 Percent Positive 0.95% 0.43% 0.71%
Follow-Up
Number Tested 3,082 2,674 5,756 Number Positive 20 24 44 Percent Positive 0.65% 0.90% 0.76%
Other
Number Tested 1,206 965 2,171 Number Positive 30 25 55 Percent Positive 2.49% 2.59% 2.53%
TOTAL
Number Tested 81,236 70,701 151,937 Number Positive 576 415 991 Percent Positive 0.71% 0.59% 0.65%
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*
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
Category
45
40
35 Number of Sites
30
Licensee Employees Contractors
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
-1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 -1
>0 0
>1
0
>2
0
>3
0
>4
0
>5 >6
0 0
>7
0
>8 0
>9 Percent (%) Positive Rate