Information Notice 1991-10, Summary of Semiannual Program Performance Reports on Fithess-For-Duty (FFD) in the Nuclear Industry

Summary of Semiannual Program Performance Reports on Fithess-For-Duty (FFD) in the Nuclear Industry
	ML031190658
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley, Millstone, Hatch, Monticello, Calvert Cliffs, Dresden, Davis Besse, Peach Bottom, Browns Ferry, Salem, Oconee, Mcguire, Nine Mile Point, Palisades, Palo Verde, Perry, Indian Point, Fermi, Kewaunee, Catawba, Harris, Wolf Creek, Saint Lucie, Point Beach, Oyster Creek, Watts Bar, Hope Creek, Grand Gulf, Cooper, Sequoyah, Byron, Pilgrim, Arkansas Nuclear, Braidwood, Susquehanna, Summer, Prairie Island, Columbia, Seabrook, Brunswick, Surry, Limerick, North Anna, Turkey Point, River Bend, Vermont Yankee, Crystal River, Haddam Neck, Ginna, Diablo Canyon, Callaway, Vogtle, Waterford, Duane Arnold, Farley, Robinson, Clinton, South Texas, San Onofre, Cook, Comanche Peak, Yankee Rowe, Maine Yankee, Quad Cities, Humboldt Bay, La Crosse, Big Rock Point, Rancho Seco, Zion, Midland, Bellefonte, Fort Calhoun, FitzPatrick, McGuire, LaSalle, Fort Saint Vrain, Shoreham, Satsop, Trojan, Atlantic Nuclear Power Plant, Crane
Issue date:	02/12/1991
From:	Rossi C; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	;
References
	IN-91-010, NUDOCS 9102060106
	Download: ML031190658 (33)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 February 12, 1991-NRC INFORMATION

NOTICE NO. 91-10:. SUMMARY OF SEMIANNUAL

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE

-> REPORTS ON F7ITNESS-FOR-DUTY (FFD) IN-THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY

Addressees

All holders of operating

licenses or construction

permits for nuclear power reactors.

Purpose

This information

notice is intended to inform licensees

of the results of the industry's

experience

with drug and alcohol testing, as required by Part 26 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations

(10 CFR Part 26), "Fitness-for-Duty

Programs," for all personnel

having unescorted

access to the protected

area of the plant during the first six months of 1990. The attached report, *Fitness for Duty in the Nuclear Power Industry," of January, 1991, presents a summary of 84 semiannual

program performance

reports provided by 54 utilities

repre-senting 75 nuclear power plant sites and 9 corporate

offices. It is expected that recipients

will review the information

for applicability

to their facili-ties and consider actions, as appropriate.

However, suggestions

contained

in this information

notice do not constitute

NRC requirements; therefore, no specific action or written response is required.Description

of Circumstances: Drug and alcohol testing programs are a central element of the FFD program required by 10 CFR Part 26. Because of the importance

of this element, semi-annual reports from licensees

on the performance

of their drug and alcohol testing programs have been required by 10 CFR Part 26. The NRC compiled the enclosed report to summarize

the Industry's

experience

from January 3 to June 30, 1990. The information

contained

in the attached report comes from all current power reactor licensees.

In all cases, the reported results pertain to confirmed

positive test results that were verified by the Medical Review Officer.Discussion: From January 3 to June 30, 1990, licensees

reported that they had conducted 137,953 tests for illegal drugs and alcohol. Of these tests, 1,313(0.95%) yielded positive results. The attached report provides information

pertaining

,/;' 9102060106 l ol-- ' POK -11E Oh{ce.. 91-olo Al0Z\ tI

IN 91-10 February 12, 1991 to positive test results categorized

by the type of tests, the type of drugs, the types of workers found to be abusing drugs, and the region in which the plant is located. The report contains other information

and lessons learned that may be useful to assess FFD programs and to improve and refine these programs.This information' notice requires n'o'spe'cific

action or written response.

If you have any questions

about the information

contained

in this notice, please contact the technical

contact listed below or the appropriate

NRR project manager.Charles E. Rossl, D rector Division of Operational

Events Assessment

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Technical

Contact: Loren (301)Bush, NRR 492-0944 Attachments: 1. Fitness for Duty in the Nuclear Power Industry -Summary of Semi-annual

Program Performance

Reports, January, 1991 2. List of Recently Issued NRC Information

Notices I. ....i S ~ -A

F-Attachment

1 IN 91-10 February 12, 1991 z K>W FITNESS FOR DUTY IN THE NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY SUMMARY OF SEMI-ANNUAL

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE

REPORTS (ANUARY 3 THROUGH JUE 30, 1990)N. Durbin S. Murphy T. Fleming J.Olson January, 1991 Prepared for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

Bartlle Human Affain Research Centers Pacific Northwest

LAoratory_2 S _1111111-1 " ua- Jpig I

i.EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY OnJune 7,1989, theNRC published

a rule in the Federal Register (10 CFR Part 26, Fitness-for-Duty Programs) requiring

that each licensee authorized

to operate or construct

a nuclear powerreactorimplementafirhess-for-duty(FFD) program for all personnel

having unescorted

access to the protected

area of the plant. This rule became effective

on July 7, 1989, with an implementation

date of January 3, 1990. A central element of the required FFD program is the drug and alcohol testing program. This re-port summarizes

the 84 semi-annual

reports on FFDprogramperformanceprovidedtotheNRC

by 54 utilities

as required by 10 CFR Part 26.During the period January 3 to June 30, 1990, licensees

reported chattheyhad

conducted 137,953 tests for illegal drugs and alcohol. Of these tests, 1,313 (0.95%) were positive.Amajorityofthepositive

test results (875)were obtained through pre-access

testing. Of tests conducted

on workers having access to the protected

area, there were 299 positive tests from random testing, 90 positive tests from for-cause testing, and 11 positive tests from periodic and other categories

of testing. Follow-up

test-ing of workers resulted in 38 positive tests. For-cause testing resulted in the highest percentage

of positive tests; over 25 percent of for-cause tests were positive.

This compares to positive test results in under 1.5 percent of pre-access

tests and under 0.5 percent of random tests.Positive test results also varied by category of worker. Overall, short-term

contractor

per-sonnel had the highest rates of positive tests (1.35%). Licensee and long-term

contractor

personnel

had lower rates of positive test results (.61% and .86%, respectively).

Of all drugs tested, marijuana

was respon-sible for the majority of positive test results, followed by cocaine and alcohol. -Positive test results and categories

of drugs identified

varied by region. Regional variations

reported here are considered

preliminary

be-cause a six- month period is not long enough for all sites tohave acomparablerange

ofexperiences (for example, not all sites have had an outage)and because interpretations

of reporting

re-qti'remenrsivariedbFy

utility. Since such differ-ences may have a substantial

impact on the percentage

of positive test results, regional dif-ferences should be interpreted

with caution.Preliminary

results indicate that Region IV had the lowest overall percentage

of positive tests (.67%); while other regions had percent-ages of about 1 percent. Marijuana

accounted for the largest percentage

of positive test results in all regions except Region I, where cocaine was responsible

for the highest percentage.

Positive test results for cocaine differed dra-matically

across regions, accounting

for only 14.8 percent of all positive tests in Region V compared to 37.9 percent in Region I. Region V had a higher percentage

of positive test results for amphetamines

(8.0%) than other regions.Many licensees

provided detailed accounts of lessons learned during the reporting

period. A brief summary of lessons learned is presented

in Section V of this report and a complete compi--lation is provided in Appendix C.

TABLE OF.CONTENTS

INTRODUCnION

Section 1: Overall test results Section 2: Test results by worker category Section 3: -Tu=tesultsyd

catgory Section 4: Test results by region Section S: Lessons learned Appendix A: Technical

backound Appendix B: Supporting

data Appendix C: Compilation

of lessons learned reported by licensees Page *I 2 4-6 9 10 11 15 19 List of Tables Table 1: Definitionsof

test categories

Table 2: Test results by test category Table 3: Test results by test category and worker category Table 4: Test results for additional

drugs Table Al: List of utilities

submitting

reports for sites and corporate

offices.Table A2: Maximum screeningandconfirmationlevelsrequiredby

10CFR Part 26 Table Bl: Test results by NUMARC form test category Table B1: Test resultsby

NUMARCIorm

testcategoryby

licensee employ-ees and contractor

personnel.

Table B3: Test results by NUMARC form test category by long-term

and short-term

contractor

personnel.

Table B4: Test results for additional

drugs Table ES: Positive test results by region and by substance List of Figures Figure 1: Comparison

of test categories

Figure 2: Percent of positive tests in each test category Figure 3: Comparison

of test category percentages

by worker category Figure 4: Comparison

of test outcomes by worker category Figure 5: Confirmed

positives

by drug category Figure 6: Confirmed

positives

for marijuana

by screening

level Figure 7: Confirmedposidvesbydrugcaregories

includingenodiaepinles

and Barbiturates

Figure 8: Confirmed

positives: Regions INV Figure 9: Confirmed

positives

by drug categories: Regions i-V Figure Al: Oeographic

location of NRC Regions INV 2 2 4 7 12 14 15 15 16 17 18 3 3 5 S 6 7 7 9 9 14

INTRODUCTION

Since the late 1970s, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) has been con-cerned with the potential

impact on the health and safety ofthe public offitness-for-duty (FF1))problems among personnel

with unescorted

access to protected

areas In commercial

nuclear power plants. As the nationwide

epidemic of drug abuse grew, it became apparent that the-nuclear power industry was not immune to its effects. In response, and with the cooperation

and support of the industry, the NRC published a rule onJune 7, 1989, inthe Federal Register (10 CFR Part 26, Fitness-for-Duty

Programs), re-quiring each licensee authorized

to operate or construct

a nuclear power reactor to implement a -FFD program for all personnel

having unescorted

access to the protected

area of the plant. This rule became effective

on July 7, 1989, with an implementation

date of January 3,1990.Theruleestablishedbroadrequirements

for the control of FFD problems stemming from illegal drug use, alcohol' abuse, abuse of legal drugs, andanyothermentalorphysicalproblems

that could impair performance

or that in other ways raised questions

about the reliability

and trustworthiness

of employees

or their ability to safely and competently

perform their duties.A central element of the required FF1)program isthe drug testingprogram.

This element is designed to both deter and detect the use of illegal drugs and the misuse of alcohol and other legal drugs. Because of the importance

of this element, the NRC has required that power reactor licensees

provide semi-annual

reports on the results of their drug testing programs.These reports are to provide the NRC with information

on 'the effectiveness

of individual

programs and of the programs as a whole in minimizing

the impact of drugs and alcohol on the plaints. The reports are also of use to the industry -as it attempts to improve and refine FFD programs.

The NRC anticipates

publishing- these reports periodically.

This report has been compiled to summa-rize industry experience

to date. It is based on the semi-annual

program performance

reports covering the period from January 3 to june 30, 1990, and contains information

on positive test results by category of test, category of drug, category of worker found to be abusing drugs, and region. The information

contained

in this-report comes -from -all current power reactor licensees.Fifty-fourutilitiessubmitted84reports, representing

75 nuclear power plant sites and 9 corporate

offices. In all cases, the results pertain to confirmed

positive test results. A detailed de-scription

of the technical

background

for the FF1) program performance

reports is provided in Appendix A. Of particular

use to the industry is the compilation

of lessons learned provided by licensees (Appendix

C).Several observations

are in order. First, overall positive test rates appear to be quite low;however, these rates continue to represent

a substantial

number of nuclear workers or ap-plicants identified

as having drug or alcohol problems.

Thus, while the NRC and industry may have reason to be encouraged

by these results, additional

progress canbe made. Second, while reporting

appears to have been fairly complete and systematic, there are a few points where clarification

is needed. Appendix A of this report provides this clarification.

The NRC welcomes suggestions

concern-ing the contentof

this report. Comments should be forwarded

to: Mr. Loren Bush Chief of Program Development

and Review Section Division of Reactor Inspection

and Safeguards

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

Room 9D24-Washington, D.C. 20555 7 1 Q I 11 SECTION 1: OVER.ALL TEST RESULTS This section contains information

on drug and alcoholtesdngresulforeahcategoryoftestrequiredby

10 CFR Part 26. The test results are reported in five categories: pre-access, random, for-cause, follow-up, and other. The definitions

of these categories

are given in Table 1.The numberoftes

performed

and the-number

of positive tests results are reported in Table 2. A total of 137,953 tests were reported in 84 FFD program perfor-mance reports provided by 54 utilities

(75 sites and 9 corporate

headquarters).

The overall positive rate was slightly less than 1 percent (0.95%) across all categories-of tests. Although this percentage

may seem small, in absolute numbers 1,313 workers or applicants

tested positive for drugs and/or alcohol. Pre-access

testing identified

875 applicants

or workers as having positive test results. Of those workers who had unescorted

access to the protected

area, 299 were identified

as having positive test results for drugs or alcohol based on random tests and 90 were found positive based on for-cause

tests.Figure 1 provides a graphic representation

of the numbers in Table 2. Random and pre-access

testing resulted in similar numbers of tests (61,066 and 73,577, respectively) and, when combined, these two types of test accounted

for the overwhelming

majority of tests per-formed (134,643 tests; 97.60% of all tests reported).

Comparing

the number ofpositive

test results, pre-access

testing accounted

for the majority of all positive tests, Table 2 Test Results by Test Category Number of Positive Percent Tests Tests Positive Pre-Access

61,066 875 1.43%Random 73,577 299. 0.41%For-Cause

356 90 25.28%Follow-Up

1105 38 3.44%Other 1849 11 0.60%TOTAL 137,953 1313 0.95%(875; 66.6%) followedby

random (299; 22.8%) and for-cause testing (90; 6.9%).Figure 2 shows the percentage

ofconfirmed

positive tests for each category of test. The percentage

for each category was calculated

by summing the number of posi-tive tests in each test category and dividing it by the total number of tests conducted

in that category.

For-cause testing resulted in the highest percentage

of positive tests (253%). This Is an expected result, since for-cause

tests are based on referral by a supervisor

trained In behavioral

Table 1 Definitions

of Test Categories

PRE-ACCESS

This category combines results from pre-employment

and pre-badging

tests.RANDOM Random testing refers to a system of unannounced

and unpredictable

drug testing administered

in a statistically

random manner to a group so that all persons within that group have an equal probability

of selection.

FOR-CAUSE

The 'for-cause

testing category includes the results of tests based on behavioral

observation

programs, based on credible information

that an individual

is abusing drugs or alcohol, or based on a reasonable

suspicion

that drugs or alcohol may have been involved In a specific event (Le., post-accident).

FOLLOW-UP

Follow-up

testing refers to chemical testing at unannounced

intervals

to ensure that an employee is maintaining

abstinence

from the abuse of drugs or alcohol.OTHER --.The'other

restingcaregoryisusedforall

typesofdrugandakloholtestingreportedbylicansees

thatwere .notspecificallyrequiredbytherule.

Insomecases,thebasisfortestingwasunclear;thereforeasdiscussed

in Appendix A, these results should be interpreted

with care.* 7edjbdzioua

badon did4~bg Sccdcui 26.3 hi lOCFR Part26aidoaeamiau

cf dw FFD pefovmna= dXa in f jfam tU licn=se by NUMARC. hl om ca, mezarb frm dw apofifonwr

mbtiedk to mhr din exes wwed bt the n&. Caro of tafitnat cwd nIo CFR 26 wer mcomb as'tiry. For a/Udicuof

dil caq ardsorozu

f a d cAdori vepoxW, se Anerdi A. Te &Ekxowldand4 Apsr& B: SApmft Dat 2 K>J observation

techniques

oron credible information

indi-cating inappropriate

drug and alcohol use. (Post-accident

tests were included in this category; however, there were no positive test results from the 21 post-accident

tests reported; see Appendix B, Table Bi.) Unfortunately, no Information

Is available

regarding

the type of drugs that resulted in positive for-cause

tests; hence, the ability of supervisors

to detect the use of specific drugs and alcohol camnnotbe

determinedt.OCtepre-access

tests, 1.4 percent were posltive, 0.4 percent of the random tests were post-tve.Summary of Major Findings 0 Drug and/or alcohol use ln violation

of 10 CFR Part 26 was confirmed

in about 1 percent of the tests.* Most of the positive tests were among workers who never attained access to the protected

area. None-theless, nearly 400 workers with access tested posi.tive across the industry In the six-month

period.Pre-Access

1.43%.P Random For-Cause S Follow-Up Other 0.41%20i.C3."4%G0.6096.28%.-I 0 5 10 15 PERCENT 20 25 Figure 2.Percent of Positive Tests in Each Test Category -875.1 ...M M m -- ----. ..Pre-Access

.. Random For-Cause Follow-Up Other-TOTALl61,066 2QQ__- -------73,577 90 MI3 56 38--1105 1 1 .............

..,i i , 1313 1849-* Number of Positives K Number of Tests-137,953_ I II 50,000 75 i I i I I.I I I I I 0 250 S00 750 1000 I II 1250 1500 1750 FREQUENCY 2000 q--Figure I Comparison

of Test Categories

---3 - SECTION 2: TEST RESULTS BYWORKER CATEGORY This section examines test results for three catego-ties of workers: licensee employees, long-term

contrac-tors, and short-ter

contractors

Thebasisforthedistinc- don among workers is provided in Appendix A.Porlicensee

employes, the majorityoftests

(50,402)were a result of the-random-testing-program, while for short-term

contractors, the majority of tests (41,613)were a resAt of pre-access

testing (see Table 3). Long-term contractor

personnel

experienced

about the same numberofpre-access

andrandom

tests (3,741 and4,193, respectively).

These differences

indicate that licensee employees (and, toa lesserextent, long-term

contractors) usually experience

one pre-access

test and then remain under a random testing program. In contrast, short-term

contractor

personnel

may experience

many pre-access

tests ra numberofsites, butspend less time than licensee employees

or long-term

contractors

undera random test-ing program. Figure 3 shows these differences

in per-centages.

For licensee employees, 23 percent of all tests were pre-access

and 73 percent were random; for short-term contractors, the proportions

are reversed, with 68 percent of tests in the pre-access

category and 31 percent in the random category.

Long-term

contractorpersonnel

had about half of their tests In each category.

For-cause testing, follow-up

testing, and other testing together account for only about 4 percent of the tests taken by licensee employees

and about 1 percent of the tests taken by contractor

personnel.

Figure 4 compares positive rest results for licensee employees, long-term

contractor

and short-term

contrac torpersonnel.

In all est categories

except follow-up

tets,--the -percentages -of positive test results were higher for short-term

contractor

personnel

than for either licensee or long term contractor

personnel.

In pre-access

testing, short-term

contractors

tested positive about 40 percent more often than did workers in eitheroftheothercategories

(1.56%ofallpremaccess

tests performed

on short-term

contractorpersonnel

were posi-tive, compared to 1.17% for licensee employees

and 1.15% for long-term

contractor.).

Because of the large number of pre-access

tests experienced

by short-term

contractors

and the percentage

of positive test results obtained, positive pre-access

test results from short-term

contractors

accounted

for almosthalf

(648) ofall positive test results (see Table 3).Random testing also produced different

percent-ages ofpositive

results across categories

ofworkers.

Short-term contractor.

had more than twice the percentage

of positive test results found among licensee employees Table 3 Test Results by Test Category and Worker Category TYPEOFTEST

LICENSEE LONG-TERM

SHORT-TERM

TOTAL PERCENT EMPLOYEES

CONrRACrORS

OONTRACMORS

PRE-ACCESS

NumberTested

15,712 3,741 41,613 61,066 Number Positive 184 43 648 875 1.43%RANDOM NumberTested

50,402 4,193 18,982 73,577 Number Positive 153 20 126 299 0.41%FOR-CAUSE NumberTested

182 26 148 356 Number Positive 40 6 44 90 2528%FOLLOW-UP NumberTested

916 4 185 1105 Number Positive 36 0 2 38 3.44%OTHER NumberTested

1,514 63 272 1849 Number Positive 6 0 5 11 0.60%TOTAL NumberTested

68,726 8,027 61,200 137,953 Number Positive 419 69 825 1313 0.95%4 (0.66% and 030%, respetivcly; see Figure 4). Hence, although licensee ployces expericd ore dtan twice as many random tests as did short-term

contractors, the two categories

of workers had similar numbers of positive test results (126 for short-term

contractors

compared to 153 for licensee employees).

The re similarities

between the percentages

of posidve results from for-cause

testingforlicensee

employ-ces and long-term-contractors-4n

each group, about 22 percent tested positive.

A higher percentage

of short-term contractors, about 30 percent, had positive test results from for-cause

tests.Follow-up

testing was used primarily

for licensee employees (n-916 tests), less often for short-term

con-tractors (n=185 tests), and almost never for long-term contractor

personnel (nE4 tests).Positive results for follow-up

testing were close to 4 percent for licensee employees, and slightly above 1 percent for short-term

contractors.

Of the four follow-up tests conductedonlong-term

contractor

personnel, none were positive (See Figure 4).In all, there were 229 confirmedpositive

test results among licensee employees (not Including

pre-access

or follow-up

tests) and 184 referrals

to Employee Assistance

Programs.

Seventy-eight

licensee employees

had their access restored during the six-month

period from January 3 toJune 30, 1990."Other" tests were conducted

for various reasons, preventing

a meaningful

Interpretation

of these test Fe-suits.Summary of Major Findings* Positive test rates were higher for pre-access

testing than for random testing, and were highest of all for for-cause

testing.' Licensee employees

and long-term

contractor

per-sonnel had about the same positive test rate. Short-term contractor

personnel

had considerably

higher positive test rates for both random and pre-access

testing., PRE-ACCESS

Lim.seeEpye.

1.17%Long Trm Contmcz 1.15%Sh= Term Cmtracz=s

1.56%RANDOM LieseEmployee

Leg.TcnzamCzon

p0.48%s£-TmC==etx

0,66%FOR-CAUSE LiceEmpbye

Lng-Term Cntac Sh=-Tem Cm=tnacr FOLLOW-UPI

Licensee Emplyee tLreTaMCon0ros

ShontTerm

Ccnazem OTHER F9 29.98%t-, 23.0896 P'M29.739i

I -E E"S E M 3.93%Lkcsee Emp 0.40%LcMg.TerMCaces

0.009 Short-Term

bczt m 1.82%.I I I I I I //l I I 0 1 2 3 4 s 20 25 30.PERCENT Figure 4 I Comparison

of Test Outcomes by Worker Category 73% 73%Licensee Employees

Hs..... .............

E...e.........

47% 52%lag-FerznCorntzactors

_l ::::k::;.::.s

s:::k:::.[

100%Sh r-em C nrcos.......

.. ... .. .... ...-. .. ..lPRE-AOCCSS

Q RANDOM UIR.CAUSE

lURlLOW.UP

OTrHER Figure 3 Comparison

of Test Category Percentages

by Worker Category-:g ... ..

SECTION 3: TEST. RESULTS BY DRUG CATEGORY The FFD rule (10 CFR Part 26) requires that the number of confirmed

positive test results also be reported by drug category.

Parr A of this section examines the number of confirmed

positive results for each of the six substances

specified

by the rule: marijuana, cocaine, opi-ates, amphetamines, phencyclidine, and alcohol. Part B ofthissectionreportstheresultsfrom

testsusingscreening

levels lower than those required by 10 CFR 26. Part C reports the results of testing for additional

drugs.The information

presented

here is reported as if ali programpeformancereports

used the same interpretation

of the reporting

requirements

Unfortunately, reporting instructions

for substances

were interpreted

in different ways. In some cases, only positive results that were conr fired by the Medical Review Officer (MRO) were in-cluded. In other cases, all results that were confirmed positive by CC/MS screening

were included.

Some sites that routinely

do tests on two aliquors from each sample reported two positive test results; others counted both 'as oneposidveresultsincetheycomefromthesamesample.

Part A: Positive test results by drug category This section includes only positive test results for thefivedrugs

specified

in l0CFR Part26andforalcohol.

The total number of confirmed

positive test results for substances

is expected to differ from the total number of confirmed

positive results by test category.

This differ-ence occurs because refusals to take tests are not included in the reports on substances

In addition, positive tests for drugs not specified

in 10 CFR Part 26 are not included in thlssection.Finally,poly-drugusebyan

individual

results in one positive test but more than one substance

is detected.Figure5showsthepercentageofpositivetestresults

for each category of drug and for alcohol specified

in 10 CFR Part 26. Of the total confirmed

positive tests by substance (n 1,341 confirmed

positive test results), the majority (51.8 3%) were positive for marijuana.

Cocaine was next, with 26.40 percent of the total confirmed--positive tests, followed -by alcohol (1536%). Opiates, amphetamines, and phencyclidines

together accounted for less than 7 percent of all positive drug tests.The variations

in reporting

noted above may mean that the absolute numberxipositive

test results reported in each drug category is high. This is particularly

likely in the case of amphetamines

and opiates, since positive results for these substances

are often ruled by the MRO to have been caused by other, legal substances.

However, the positive results for amphetamines

and opiates repre-sent fairly small shares of all positive results (2.2% and 4.0%, respectively), so this data collecdon

problem should not have a substantial

impact on the ratio between the various substances

being detected in tests.In other words, regardless

of the actual number of positive test results, for the panel of d ugs specified

by 10 CFR Part 26, one would expect that marijuana

would account for about half of the positive results; cocaine for over a quarter, alcohol for about 15 percent; and amphet-amines, opiates, and phencyclidines

for about 6.5 per-cent.Part B: Lower Screening

Levels The fitness-for-duty

rule (10 CFR Part 26) provides flexibility

by allowing licensees

to use lower cutoff levels than those specified

in the NIDA guidelines

provided In 10 CFR Part 26. Although only a few licensees

used lower cutofflevels

for cocaine and opiates, many licensees

used lower levels for initial screening

tests for marijuana.

Thirty-eight

of the 84 sites used levels lower than theNRClevelof

100naogramspermlllliter(ng/mI);27 used 50 ngfnl; and 11 used 20 ng/ml for initial screening.

Figure 6 compares the rate of positive tests found using these different

cutoff levels for marijuana.

These rates were calculated

by summing the number of positive test results for marijuana

for each cutoff level and dividing themby the numberoftestsusing

thatcutoffcaegory.

A shown in Figure 6, licensees

using lower cutoff levels had a higher percentage

of positive test results: at 20 ng/ml, about 8 tests outof l ,000 were positive; at 50 zng/ml, about 5 tests outof 1,000 were positive; and at 100 ng/ml, about 4 tests out of 1,000 were positive.Although some licensees

used lower cutoff levels for other substances, no reportable

differences

in the percentage

of positive test results were Identified.

Levels used for cocaine did not differ for Initial screening (all licensees

used 300 ngfmI) and two licensees

reported Alcohol 15.36%i n-206 I Marijuana

51.83%Opiates 3.88%n-52\Amphetamne

2.24% ~n-30 /ienc-yclidin

0.31% n-4 ICocainy 26.40%n-354 Figure 5 Confirmed

Positives

by Drug Category 6 20 ng (11 4censees)50 ng (27 Licensees) -100ng (46 UcnA es)0.53%0.84%4 lists the number of licensees

testing for each additional

drug, the total number oftests perfored byll licensees testing for each additional

drug, the number of positive test results, and the percentage

of positive test results.There were no positive test results for three of the drugs;methaqualone, methadone, tnd inethamphetamines.

There were a total of 24 positive test results for barbitu-rates, 28 for bemzodiazepines, and 4 for propzyphrine.-The -most common additional

drugs tested were benzodiazepines

and barbiturates.

Figure 7 reports on the test outcomes for the 32 licensees

testingforboth

of these additional

drugs. It provides the percentages

of positive aestsforthepanel

ofdrugs included in lOCFR Part26, and for benzodiazepine

and barbiturates.

For these 32 sites, benzodiazepines

and barbiturates

accounted

for 3.86 per-centand 3.17 percentofposidve

tests, respectively.Thls

I.5 PERCENT POSITIVE 1 FIgure 6 Confirmed

Positives

for Marijuana

by Screen Level using alowerlevel

(50or 100 ng/ml) forconflrmation.

A few licensees

(11) used lower confirmation

levels for opiates. Amphetamines

were creened at 300 ngWml by five sites and confirmed

at levels of 300 nglml and below atfour sites, compared to the maximum levels of 1000 ng/ml and 500 ng/ml specified

by 10 CFR Part 26. (See Appendix Afora summaryofthescreninglevels

specified in 10 CFR Part 26.)Part C: Additional

Drugs Thirty-nine

sites reported testing for a broader panel of drugs than the five specified

in the rule. All 39 sites testing for additional

drugs tested for benrzodiaz- epines; 32 tested for barbiturates, 19 tested for methaqualone, 10 tested for methadone, 2 tested for methamphetamines,and4 testedforpropzyphrine.Table

Barbiturars

3.17%Amphetamines

3.72%j 4 1 E.Benzodiazepines

3.86%Marijuna 44.49%Alcohol 13.91%Phencyclidine

0.14%I Cocaine 24.93%(n-726)Figure 7 --Confirmed

Positives

by Drug Category Including Benzodiazepines

and Barbiturates

Table 4 Test Results for Additional

Drugs Number of Number of Number of Percent Licensees

Tests Performed

Positives

Positive Barbiturates

32 62,286 24 0.04%Benzodiazepines

39 73,061 28 0.04%Propzyphrine

4 7,752 4 0.05%Methdone 10 19,709 0 0.00%Methaqualone

19 32,846 0 0.00%Methamphetamines

2 5,473 0 0.00%7 v 0 is a percentage

comparable

to amphetamines, and sub stantially

higher than phencyclidine.

Summary of Major Findings* Madjuana was fond to be the major drug of abuse, accountingfor

over 50 percent of all positive rests.* Cocaine and alcohol also accounted

for significant

proportions (about 25% and 15%) of all positive tests.* Using lower screening

cutoff levels for marijuana than were required (20 nglml vs. 100 nglml) more han doubled the confirmed

positive test rame.Among the sites testingforadditional

drugs, barbitu-rates and benzodiazepines

were the drugs most fre-quently added to the panel. These drugs accounted for small but significant

percentages

of confirmed positives

for those sites that included them.8 SECTION 4: TEST RESULTS BY REGION In this section, Information

on testing programs is summarized

for each of the NRC administrative

regions.(Regions are identified

in Appendix A.) Region IV sites reported the lowest percentage

of positive test results (0.67%), while Region III had the highest (1.16%) (see Figure 8). Since the rate of positive test results may change as all-licensees

cxperiencescheduled-outages, these differences

represent

preliminary

findings.Thepercentageofallposltive

testresultsaccounted

forby aparticulardrugvariedby

region. Figure 9 sumra-rizes these data by region for each drug. Marijuana

ac-counted for the highest percentage

of positive test results In'egionlll

(62%), themajorityofposltivetestresults

In Regions 11 and lV (54% In each), and less than halfof all positive test results in Regions I and V (37% and 41%).The highest percentage

of positive results from cocaine was in Region 1 (38%), and the lowest percentage

in Region V (15%).In general, opiates and amphetamines

represented

a substantially

smaller percentage

of positive tests than did marijuana

and cocaine. Region V was 'an exception; here, opiates and amphetamines

together accounted

for 17 percent of all positive test results. As noted earlier, these differences

may reflect' differcnces

in reporting practices

across regions. Positive tests for phencyclidine

were only reported In Regions I, II, and III.Thepercentagesofall

positive testresults

accounted for by alcohol varied substantially

across regions. Region IV had the highest percentage, at 26 percent; Region V,-Recn I.Region..Region III Region IV RegioiV 0.91%0.94%_l 1.1696 0.67%0.96%..I I I..5 1 PERCENT POSnIVE 15 Figure 8 Confirmed

Positives: Regions I-V the lowest, at 8 percent.Summary of Major Findings* The pattern offindings

varied from region to region.* RegionlV had the lwestoveral

testrate andRegion III had the highest.Regionl I Region 11 Region 111 Region IV Region V 37% 38% 3%296* 19% *54% 27% 5%** 12% 2%62% 20% 1%** 16% *549 17% *3%* 26%41% 15% 9% 8%

8% 19%-X3 ME///////0 10 20 30 40 50 60 ' 70 PERCENT 80 90 100 e LOSd 1%0MarIqnW Ccaine QOpiats U1 Apheme U Phwdine DAcoil SAddidoalDngs

Figure 9 Confirmed

Positives

by Drug Category: Regions IWV 9 J SECTION 5: LESSONS LEARNED As part of the FFD program performance

report.many licensees

reported on lessons learned during the Initial Implementation

of the FFM program. Below is a brief listing of some of the problems noted and solutions suggested

In thse reports. This is not intended as a fuil summary of the reports, and many additional

and useful suggestions

are found in-the fiull compiladondf

reported lessons learned that is provided in Appendix C Many licensees

reported problems with HHS-ceied labs. Some solutions

IncludedcL

using a large and flexible lab Improvement

of the procedures

to ensure that unsatisfactory

lab performance

Is reported Implemeneadonofaprocedure

eocerdfyascien- tist review of discrepancies

between test results i Increased

monitoring

of laboratoryperformance

and testing criteria.Many licensees

noted difficulties

In ensuring a random and unannounced

random testing program at a 100 per-cent rate. Several Improvements

were noted:-testing on the backshift modifications

to the random selection

process computer enhancements

-addition of a collection

facility at corporate offices for those with Infrequent

access to pro.eected areas-off-site testing ofFFD personneL- Several licensees

noted the need for complete procedures

andreportedadditional

proceduresdhthadbeenwritten..4-.-I--j

--V 4A dressed.call-in protocol I SUW pport the FFD program ad-test sample collection

and handling l laboratory

monitoring

-maintenance

of site facility Instrumentation.

Various aspects ofFFD program managementwere

raised by the licensees.

Specific issues addressed

were:-the difficulties

of providing

program manage-ment oversight

from a corporate

office and the requirement

for on-site management

the necessity

for procedures

for MRO reviews and reports and the requirement

to involve the MRO in policy decisions the availability

requirements

of the FFD man-ager.In a number of licensee reports, Issues regarding

the collection

facility and on-site testing were raised. Fre-quently, inappropriate

test sample collection

materials were used initially.

Licensees

responded

by-providing

Improved pacdaging

of material-changing procedures

for handling test samples-developing

procedures

for test sample collec-tion.ConcerreardingFF1Dtrainigrequirements

werecited in several instances- These concerns Includedi annual requalification

trainingforsupervisors

in behavioral

observation

-the requirementforadditional

trainingofsuper- visors and escorts-training of contract supervisors.

Several licensees

noted difficulties

with assuring that all personnel

covered by 1OCFR Part 26 are testedunderthe

random testing program. Licensees

responses

included-10 APPENDIX A .Data Source Technical

Background

The data for this study are drawn from the semi-annual reports on FF1) program performance

that were This section includes: -submitted

inaccordancewith

1O CFR Part26 by all NRC licensees

authorized

to operate or construct

a nuclear 0 A description

of the data used as the basis of the power reactor; Eighty-four

forms were received from 54 report utilities-75 from sites and 9 from corporate

offices (see* A list of the utilites and dtes providing

data forthis --TableAl ). Te form used was a sandardized

data collec-tionformdevelopedbyNUMARCtofulfillPart26.71(d) of the rule. Thlis part of the rule speclfies

that the data* Addidional

detail on the definitions

of cate4ories

reported shall include: used in the report* Other relevant information (eg. the substo qulredby 10 CFR Part 26).inces re-

random testing rate* drugs tested and cutoff levels, including

results of tests usinglowercutofflevelsandtestsforotherdrugs

workforce

populations

tested* numbers oftests and results by populadon

and type of test (i e, pre-badging, random, for-cause, etc.)* substances

Idendfied* summary of management

actions* a list of events reported The number of positive tests for overall results of testing and the number of tests identifying

specific sub-stances are not expected to be equal. A total 'of 1,313 positive test results were reported and a total of 1,397 substances

were identified.

Tbere ar several reasons for this difference:

A refusal to testis documented

as aposidveresultbut

does not identify a substance.

Poly-substanceabuseiscountedasonepostidvcresultt

but results in the identification

of more than one substance (a positive test for both marijuana

and alcohol would be counted as two substances

for acample).* LIcensees

interpreted

reporting

instructions

for spe-cific drugs in different

ways. In some cases, only positive results that were confilrmed

by the Medical ReviewOfficer(MRO)wereIncluded

Inothercases, all results that were confirmed

positive by GO/MS screening

were included.* Some sites that routinely

do tests on two aliquots fromcach sample reporedonepositive

testresultbut

two positive tests for the substance

identified, others counted both as one positive result, since they come from the same sample.11 Table Al Table Al List of Utilities

Submitting

Reports for Sites and Corporate

Offices COMPANY/PLANT(S) -CMPANYRPLANT(S) C COMPANY/PLANT(S) 1 .. Alabama Power Parley 1 & 2 2 Arizona Public Service Palo Verde 1, 2,3 3 Arkansas Arkansas Nuclear One I & 2 4 Baltimore

Ga & Electric Calvert Cliffs 1 & 2 5 Boston Edison Pilgrim 6 Carolina Power & Light Robinson 2 Brunswick

I & 2 Shearon Harris Corporate

Office 7 Cleveland

Elec. Illum.Perry 1 &2 8 Commonwealth

Edison Byron 1 & 2 Braidwood

1 & 2 Zion 1 & 2 Dresden2&3 Quad Cities 1 & 2 Lasalle 1 & 2 Corporate

Office 9 Colorado (Public Service)Fort S Vrain 10 Consolidated

Edison Indian Point 1 & 2 11 Consumers

Power Palisades Big Rock Point Corporate 12 Detroit Edison Fermi 2 13 Duke Power McGuire 1 & 2 Oconee 1, 2, &3 Catawba & 2 Corporate

Ofice 14 Duquesne Light Beaver Valley 1 &2 15 Florida Power & Light Turkey Polnt3 &4 St. Lucie 1 & 2 16 Florida Power Corporation

Crystal River 3 17 GeorgIa Power Hatch 1 & 2 Vogrle &2 18 GPU Nuclear Corporation

Three Mile Island I Oyster Creek 1 Corporate

Office 19 Gulf States Utilities River Bend 1 20 Houston Light & Power South Texas 1 & 2 21 mllinois Power Clinton 1 22 Indiana & Michigan Electric Cook 1 & 2 23 Iowa Electric Duane Arnold 24 Long Island Lighting Shoreham 25 Louisiana

Power & Light (Entergy)Waterford

3 26 Maine Yankee Atomic Power Maine Yankee 27 Nebraska Public Power District Cooper Station 28 Niagara Mohawk Power Nine Mile Point 1 & 2 29 Northeast

Utilities Haddam Nock Millstone

1 &3 Corporate

Office 30 Northern States Power Monticello

Prairie Island 1 & 2 Corporate

Office 31 Omaha Public Power District Fort Calhoun 32 Pacifc Ga & Electric Diablo Canyon I & 2 33 PennsylvanIa

Power & Light Susquehanna

1 & 2 34 Philadelphia

Electric Limerick I & 2 Peach Bottom 2 & 3 Corporate

Office 35 Portland General Electric Ttqan 36 Power Authority, New York Indian Point 3 Fitzpatrick

I 37 Public Service Gas &Electric Hope Creek 1 Salem 1 & 2 38 Public Service of New Hampshire Seabrook 1 39 Rodcester

Gas & Electric Ginna 40 Sacramento

Municipal

Utility Rancho Seco 1 41 South Carolina Electric &Gas Summer 1 42 Southern California

Edison San Onofre 1, 2, & 3 43 Systems Energy Resources Grand Gulf 1 & 2 44 Tennessee

Valley Authority Bellafonte

1&2 BrownsFerry

1. 2. &3 Sequoyah I & 2 Watt Bar 1 & 2 45 Texas Utility Elec. (C Electric)Comanchee

Peak 1 & 2 46 Toledo Edison Davis Besse 1 47 Union Electric Callaway 1 48 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Vermont Yankee 1 49 Virginia Electri & Power North Anna 1 & 2 Surry 1 & 2 Innsirook (Corporate) 50 Washington

Public Power Supply WNP-1 & 2 51 Wisconsin

Electric Power Point Beach 1 & 2 52 Wisconsin

Public Service Kewaunee 53 Wolf Creek Nuclear WofCreek 1 54 Yankee Atomic Electric Yankee-Rowe

I I. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _12 K) Testing Categories

The following

testing categories

were included in the analyses presented

in this report. These definitions

are nased on the definitions

given in 26.3 of 10 cFR and on explanations

of the FFD performance

data in the form provided to licensees

by NUMARC Pre-access

-This categorycombines

resultsfromnpre-employment

-ad pre-badging

tests. The pre-employment

testing category slimited to those persons seeking employ-ment in the nuclear power portion of the company.* Thepre-badgingcategory

rferstocurentemployees

applying for positions

in the company that require unescorted

access to the protected

area. These cat-cgories are combined in the body of this report.Because some licensees

combined pre-employment

and pre-badging

test results and reported them to-gether under pre-employment, a clear comparison

of the positive rates for the two different

tests is not possible.Random Tests Random testing refers to a system of unannounced

and unpredictable

drug testing administered

to a group in a statistically

random manner so that all persons within that group have an equal probability

of selection.

category.

In one case, a licensee reported Including

a specific number of blind test results in the "Othe?'category-these

were omitted prior to data analysis.In most cases, however, there are no specifics

regard-Ing what is included in the aOtherl category.Tables Bl, B2,and B3 present the numberoftests, numberpositive, and average percent positive for each of-the test categories

requested

on the NUMARC form.Worker Categories

Results for three categories

of workers were re-quested in the NUMARC forms. The following

catego-.ties were used: Licensee employees Licensee employees

work for the utility and are covered by the fitness-for-duty

nrle. This category includes both nuclear power plant workers and also corporate

or support staff. Companies

were asked to report the results for corporate

or support staff sepa-rately. Only nine companies

reported separate cor-porate results. On average, there were 1,184 licensee employees

included in each report.Long. and short-term

contractors

The division of contractor

personnel

into long- and short-term

Confirmation

Drug Level Level'Marijuana

100 15 Cocaine 300 -150 Opiates 300 300-Phencyclidine

25 25 Amphetamines

1,000 500 Alcchol 0.04% BAC 0.04% BAC Addlitional

Drugs Many plants also tested for drugs other than the six (five illegal and alcohol) categories

required by the rule.Information

on the number ofsires testingforother

drugs is presented

in Table B4.-This informadon

Is categorized

by region. The table indicates

that the additional

drugs most often tested for were barbiturates

and benzodiaz- epines.Regions The country is divided into five regions, corre-sponding with NRC administrative

regions as shown in FigureAl.TableA6 indicates

thenumberofsites

in each region that report testingfor

additional

drugs. Table A7 shows the results of testing for alcohol, marijuana, co-caine, amphetamines, opiates, and phencyclidine.

REGION I I.E 11 NfJM-DE REGION II NOTE Alaska and Hawai re Included in Reglon V Figure Al Geographic

Location of NRC Regions I-V 14 K>APPENDIX B Supporting

Data Table Bi: Test Results By NUMARC Form Test Category Vanuary through June, 1 990)TEST NUMBER CATEGORIES

Table B2 Test Results By NUMARC Form Test Category By Licensee Employees

and Contractor

Personnel January through June, 1 990)TE5TING UCENSEE CONTRACTOR

NumberTested

Number Positive Average Percent Positive RANDOM NumberTested

Number Positive Averge Percent Positive F0LLODW-UP

Number Tested Number Positive Average Percent Positive OTHER Number Tested Number Positive Avenage Percent Positive TOTAL Number Tested Number Positive Avenge Percent Positive 6,446 9.061 64 117.99 1.29 9,266 36,293 120 574 1.30 1.58 1,099 179 2 I.18 -0.56 167 168 40 50 23.95 29.76 15 6'0 0 0 ,0 O5,4 23,175 153 146-0.30 -0.63 916 189 36 -2 3.93 IfK 415 156 4 4.96 2.56 65,726 69,227 419 894 0.61 1.29 15 2)m e Tcble B3 Test Results By NUMARC Form Test Category By Long-term

and Short-term

Contractor

Personnel January through June, 1990)TESTING LONG-TERM

SHORT-TERM

NumberTested

Number Positive Average Percent Positive PRE-BADGING

Number Tested Number Positive Average Percent Positive PERIODIC Number Tested Number Positive Average Percent Positive FOR-CAUSE NumberTested

Number Positive Average Percent Positive 334 8,?27 3 114.90 131 3,407 _40 1.17 32,886 534 1.62 57 122 0 1 0 0.82 26 6 23.08 POST-ACCIDENT

NumberTested

Number Positive Average Percent Positive 142.44 30.99 6 0 0 18,982 126 0.66 RANDOM NumberTested

Number Positive Average Percent Positive POLLOW-UP NumberTested

Number Positive Average Percent Positive OTHER NumberTested

Number Positive Average Percent Positive TOTAL NumberTested

Number Positive Average Percent Positive 4,193 20 0.48 4 185 0 2 0 108 6 -150 0 -4 0 2.67 8,027 69 0.86, 61,200 825 135 L 16 Table B4 Test Results For Additional

Drugs REGION TYPE OF DRUG I 11 III IV V TOTAL BARBIUlRATES

Number of Llcensees

Tesdng 11 10 3 4 4 32 Number of Tots Performed

-13,789 23,193 --4,646 46,227. 14,431 --62,286 Number of Posidves 2 5 2 0 15 24 Percent Posltive 02 .02 .04 0 .10 .04 BENZODIAZEPINES

Number ofLicensees

Testing 11 10 10 4 4 39 NumberofTeots

Performed

13,789 23,193 15,421 6,227 14,431 73,061 Number of Positives

1 5 0 0 22 28 Percent Positive .01 .02 0 0 .15 .04 PROPZYPHRINE

Number of Lcensees Testing 3 0 0 0 1 4 Number of Tests Performed

3,121 0 0 0 4,631 7.752 Number of Positives

0 0 0 0 4 4 Percent Positive 0 0 0 0 .09 05 ETHADONE Number of Licensees

Testing 5 1 1 1 2 10 Number of Tests Performed

6,821 3,274 1,386 1,055 7,173 19,709 Numberof Positives

0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Positive 0 0 0 0 0 0 METHAQUALONE

Number of Licensees

Testing 7 7 1 2 2 19 Number of Tests Performed

6,812 15,534 1,386 3,136 5,978 32,846 Number of Positives

0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Positive 0 0 0 0 0 0 METHAMPHETAMINES

Numberof LcenseesTesting

0 0 0 1 1 2 Number of Tests Performed

0 0 0 1,651 3,822 5,473 Number of Positives

0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Positive 0 0 0 0 0 0 Toal Number of Positives

3 10 2 0 52 56 17 Tabte B5 Positive Test Results By Region and By Substance REGION I REGION H REGION III REGION IV REGION V (n=24) (n-23) (n-22) (n=9) (n-6)Total Tests 35,273 44,591 27,798 13,352 16,948 Total Positive 321 -417 323 -90 -- -162 Positive .91% .94% 1.16% .67% .96%Confirmed

Positives

by Drug Marijuana

123 226 206 49 91 Cocaine 127 114 65 15 33 Opiates 9 20 3 0 20 Amphetamine

6 2 1 3 18 Phencyclidine

2 1 1 0 0 Acohdol 65 45 54 24 18 Total Reported* 332 408 330 91 180*Tolpadsmw

t reul and tod aoed poske rcubs for specic substaae are not expec to be the sano.18 APPENDIX C Compilation

of Lessons Learned Reported by Licensees In general, the information

provided on lessons learned varied among licensees.

Few of the licensees

had specifically

identified

sections on lessons learned Some licensees

Indirectly

referred to lessons learned when de-scribing their management

Initiatives.

Some licensees saidthattheyhadbeenauditedandwere

intheprocessof

correcting

identified

weaknesses, but did not mention what these weaknesses

were. Of the 54 licensees, 30 did not have any information

on lessons learned.As much as possible, lessons learned information

was taken directly from the NUMARC forms submitted by the licensees.

In some cases, lessons learned informa-don was combined with other information

and was ex-tracted.ARIZONA PUBUC SERVICE COMPANY A quality assurance

audit during early implementa- don of the program identified

deficiencies

In connection

with the off-site laboratory.

To correct these deficiencies, actions were taken to select a new off-site laboratory.

However, problems with the reporting

methods of this laboratory

occurred, so additional

action was taken to select another laboratory.

Arizona Public Service had originally

specified

300 nglml as the screeningcutofflevelfor

methampetamines.

Nichols advised us that it could not adopt that level because it uses a new monoclonal

reagent specifically

designedtodetectmethamphetaminesandmanufactured

tocalibrate

to the DHHS screeningcutoffof

l000 nglml.Both the manufacturer

and Nichols studied the problem and suggested

that we could revise our cutoff level to 1,000 ngWml without compromising

the effectiveness

of the program. Since the reagent contains two antibodies, one to detect methamphetamines

at 1,000 ngfml and one to detect amphetamines

at 300 ngfml, we now specify those two screening

cutoff levels.Arizona Public Service learned that an 'off-site laboratory

had erroneously

reported that two specimens weepositiveformarijuana.lhe

Medical Review Officer discovered

this when requesting

results from the lab and finding that two pecimens had levels less than 15 ngWml (the specified

cutoff level for confirmatory

tests) but had been reported as positives.

Arizona Public Service has advised those two individuals

who tested positive that their tests were negative and that their records had been Arizona Public Servicehas

learned that it is impera-tive to contract with an experienced

laboratory

that is largeenough

and flexible enough tohandle special needs.We are also convinced

that etliance on a laboratory's

catification

by DHHS must be supplemented

by close monitoring

of laboratory

performance.

New procedures

have been developed

to imple-ment Part 26 and these procedures

have been revised to further enhance the program.Additional

measures we're taken to improve the security at the collection! testing facility located at the Palo Verde Site.--.-Personneklchanges

have been made in the program administrationtoachieveclosertupervisionofthecollec- tion and testing area and to increase the level of regula-tory/compliance

experience

within the group.I .Tceannual

requalifica.ion

trainingforsupervisors

in behavioral

observation

has been'placed

on the Palo Verde computer-based

training system. This will help to ensureconsistentapplicationofthetrainingrequirements.

A collection

facility has been established

In Phoe-nix to accommodate

personnel

at corporate

offices. This will facilitate

testing of those individuals

who have infie-quent access to the protected

area.Qiain-of-custody

forms with bar coding will b added to the program within the next eight to ten weeks.Thiswillhelpreduce

thepotentialforhumanerrorindata

entry at the lab.Arizona Public Service isplanningtoprovideianew

brochurewhich

will again informourpersonnel

aboutour Employee Assistance

and Fitness-for-Duty

Programs.ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE (ENTERGY OPERATIONS) Our initial six months into this program has given rise to certain observations: 1. For this area, THC and alcohol are by far the drugs ofpreference

2. All instances ofpresumptivepositivetests

boramphetamineshavebeen

attributed

to prescnrbd

and over-the-counter

anorectics

and cold preparations.

There has been no indication

of abuse of this class of drug and, furthermort, the pattern of use seems to be seasonal (Spring) in nature.CAROLINA POWER & UGHT Approximately

38% of the average number of em-ployces with unescorted

access were randomly tested resulting

in no violadons.

The conclusion

is that the program's

goals and objectives

are being achieved.Carolina Power & Light has one pool from which its workers are selected for random testing. The weekly testing rate is 2% of the corporate

pool and year-to-date

have tested 2,331 workers while the average number available

for testing was 4,254 zesulting

in a year-to-date

tate of 54.8%.No conclusions

can be drawn fiom the EAP utiliza-tion data based upon year-to-date

Informaton.

The employees

in violation

of the FFD prgram were referred to the EAP, Thbe company's

policy is to-* I 19 v (2)terminate

employment

orwt permanently

deny the con-tractor access based upon a confirmed

illegil drug test Also, the company does offer rehabilitation

for the first offenseforaconfirmedalcoholviolation;therefore,ofthe

three employees

referred to the EAP, only one had their unescorted

access reinstated.

All contractors

in violation of the FFD program were permanently

denied access.Contractors

are not provided company EAP services.DUKE POWER COMPANY McGuire Nuclear Station A change was implemented

in the badging and access procedure

which would help ensure that access Is not made at another Duke station when a badge has been placed on FFD hold.Catawba Nuclear Station The company realized that workers were able to determine

when night testing would take place because they could see when the lights were on in the Medical Facility.

Since that time the company has kept these lights on all the time so that workers are not able to tell when testing will take place.DUQUESNE UGHT COMPANY The random generating

computer program was pullinglistswith

severalrepeatnamesfromapreviouslist

To respond to this problem, a new computer program has been formulated, and its progress is being monitored.

There is currently

no method in place to check on our day-to-day

progress in attempting

to reach a random test number equal to 100% of the badged work force by year's end. A new software program can be formulated

to help us track our daily progress.

This software can also help us monitor the progress of our blind proficiency

testing and our follow-up

testing to ensure compliance

with 10 CFR Part 26.10 CFR Part 26 requires that the MRO contact the licensee within ten days ofa presumptive

positive screen-ing test by the laboratory.

The MRO was required to adjudicate

each positive and was not always able to do so within ten days since the certified

copy of the chain-of-custody form verifying

die positive test was not always available.

Arrangements

have since been made to over-night express mail the chain cf-custodyform

totheMRO each day. In doing so, we are able to circumvent

both the US. post office and the company mail syst.The FFD manager was not always immediately

available

to attend to situations

in which her input was mandated.

A list was published

of the FFD managers program representatives.

These individuals

are all well-versed in the FFD prgam One of these individuals

is now available

at all times.If a specimen I colder than 90.5 degrees F, this is reason to suspect that it Is adulterated.

Our thernometer

only registered

to 95 degrees F. In response, new ther-mometers were purchased

which register down to 80.0 degrees F.Two of our personnel

were trained as instructors

on the intoxilyzer

Instrument.

During this training, deficien-cies were noted in our routine maintenance

and care of these instruments.

A monitored

program was imple-mented to routinely

rotate our Intoxilyzers

out of service for maintenance

and cleaning.

This Is all documented

in permanent

log books.An individual

came to the medical facility to be tested. He insisted on recording

the entire procedure

on a tape recorder.This

was allowed. We subsequendydeter- mined that it is illegal .zo tape record someone without their permission

by Pennsylvania

State Law. The collec-donste is no longertograntpermission

to tape record the collection

procedure.

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT The random selection

was changed from a daily to weekly process to increase the personnel

selected/tested

ratio and to facilitate

testing across all shifts and days of week. The number of weekly random tests was scheduled to reach 100% in eleven months FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION

Random testing was not truly random in that dur-ing certain shifts the company did not collect specimens thereby establishing

predictable

periods during which workers would not be tested.FPC revised its FFD program to perform testing during backshifts

and will continue to evaluate the pro-gram to ensure tharrandom

drug testing Is performed during all shifts.Reporting

requirement

deficiency.

FPC needs to dAetermlne

what testing results qualify as Nunsatisfactory

performance

testing results for proper reporting.

FPC has since made some determination

of what should be listed and reported as unsatisfactory

laboratory

performance.

Employees

expressed

a perception

that a self-refer- ral to the EAP would result in automatic

termination.

FPCs policy already clarifies

current practice for self-referrals

This will be re-communicated

to employees in the annual FF1 training.GPU NUCLEAR GPU Nuclear divided its population

to be tested at each site between employees

of the GPU system compa-nies as one group and all other as another group. The number to be tested in each group varies depending

upon the size of the subsets of the population

on site during the week, such that the testing rate would reflect the weekly averageofthesubsetpopulation.However, the Parsippany

licensee employees

with unescorted

access were ran-domly tested at a test rate less than I00% cf the popula- la: K)don during this reporting

period.The shortfall

of the Parsippany

licensee employees w ras causedby individuals

being unavailable

for testingfor

valid rasons (eg. vacationday, sickday, noton site, etc.).Therefore, the generated

list was not large enough so allow for the exceptions

to random testing and still maintain a testing rate ofd 100%.OPU is in the process of completing

the necessary modifications-to

the random-selection

systemin orderto correct dtse anomalies

which occurred in the selection process as described

above. The modifications

should be..completed

by September

1, 1990. The testing program anticipates

achieving

a statistical

testing rateof 100% for the entire year.GULF STATES UTILITIES

COMPANY During the first six months of the FFD Program, RBS experienced

five unsatisfactory

blind performance

test results. Two were due to human error at GSU's contract laboratory, one due to indeterminate

reasons, and two involved the possible deterioration

of contami-nants in the BPT specimen.

GSU has directed the BPT specimen supplier to: I.EnsuretheBPTspecimencontaminantlevel

isat least 20% above the established

initial cutoff level.: 2. Provide three gas chromatography/mass

spec-trometry (GCIMS) certifications

on all positive batches.TwooftheseGOCMScertificatdonsaretubeperformedby

independent

laboratories

and the other by the supplier.The average of the three GCAMS tests shall be the certified

contaminant

level of the BPf specimen.THE LIGHT COMPANY (HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY)It was determined

that there was a need to increase employee awareness

with regard to heavy alcohol con-sumption during off-duty hours and the impact of the lowered positive alcohol level from 0.10 to 0.40% BAC This was accomplished

by an information

program for employees

and by presentations

made during department

staff meetings.LONG ISLAND UGHTING COMPANY One program weakness was discovered

during this reporting

period. The Shoreham Fitness-for-Duty

Alco-holandDnigScreeningProceduredidnotrequirealcohol

testing duringpr-access

screening.

Actions taken in this case were: 1) persons who did not receive the alcohol screening

were identified

and either had the screening performed

or else had their badges pulled; 2) Emergency Planning verified that no unbadged personnel

had been added to the EOFftSCon-call

list;3) the internal check-lists used by Emergency

Planning and Screening

and Badging were revised to ensure that the requirement

for alcohol testing during pre-access

screening

was met; and 4) a revision to the Shoreham Fitness-for-Duty

Alcohol and Dnrg Screening

procedure

was initiated.

MAINE YANKEE The home"or hotel numbers should be included on contractorpre-access

andrandomxforms

tofacilitatecon- tact by the Medical Review Officers in the event of a presumptive

positive test.-Mat open communiicbtibns

with employees

is the key to succssful

implementation.

Some workers,-for

various reasons, take up-o three hours to produce the required specimen.*Program Implementation

and maintenance

Is ex-tremely expensive, and requires ongoing review and modification.

NEW YORK POWER AUTHORITY Indian Point As a result of low creatinine

levels, It became necessary

to involve the Medical Review Officer in policy decisions.

The Physician

provided guidelines

to assist collection

site personnel

in determining

the need to repeat the screen as a result of low creatinine.

An aggressive

attitude towards initial training of employees

and contractors

was taken. Personnel

were trained as supervisors

or escorts. Upon evaluation, it was determined

that noformal methodhad

been developed

to identify recently promoted personnel

who would then requireaddidonal

tining.lmmediate

programmadcstcps

were taken to correct this weakness.Analysis of the random testing data compiled for this report showed that the number of personnel

tested during the six-month

reporting

interval fell short of the expected 50%. Upon review, the program director real-ized that the statistical

base he had been monitoring

was on ' the number of pisonnel selected for sampling as opposed to the actual number of personnel

that had been tested. To meet the annual requirement

of 100%, the test percentage

has been increased.

Fitzpatrick

The report for a blind test specim sent to the dnrgjalcohol

testing laboratory

on March 22, 1990, was not received by Fitzpatrick

personnel

as ofMay 29, 1990.Upon investigation

it was discovered

that the Medical Review Officer was still awaiting lab results of the blind test specimen.

Further investigation

revealed that the druglalcohol

testing laboratory

had misplaced

the blind test sample. The sample was later located by the labora-tory. The MRO was informed that in the future he should notify Fitzpatrick

personnel

within five days if no re-sponse has been received from the laboratory

on a blind test specimen.-An Invesdgadon

was conducted

in order to deter-mine the reason for the misplacement

of the blind test specimen.

It was discovered

that the courier of the drug/21 I A I alcohol testing laboratory

contracted

by the Fitzpatrick

plant was removing test samples from sealed transport boxes. and transferring

them to larger containers.

Fitzpatrick

personnel

informed the laboratory

that this procedure

is unacceptable

since it can cause test samples to be misplaced.

The laboratory

courier now transports

the test samples in their original scaled transport

boxes.A test sample which tested positive for cocaine was not declared a confirmed-positive

by the Medical Review Officer since the individual

who provided the sample denied drug use and requested

the aliqut of the original sample and split sample to be tested. The MRO'decided

to maintain the individuals

site access while awaiting subsequent

test results, citing legal reasons. The results of subsequent

tests confirmed

the positive result. The MRO decided, as a result of this Incident, that in the future an individual's

site access will be denied based on the posi-tive result of the first drug/alcohol

test performed.

If an individual

is unable to void a 60 milliliter

sample initially, the Individual

shall be detained in visual contact with the collection

site person until the indi-vidual is able to void another specimen which, when combined with the first one, equals at least 60 milliliters

This procedure

was put into effect when two test samples bythesameindividualonthesamedayproducedconflict..

Ing test results. Since these samples did not contain the appropriateamountofliquid, the testswere

ruled indeter-minate.NEW HAMPSHIRE

YANKEE Specifically

developed

plexiglass

specimen holders were placed into use to more rapidly identify minimum collection

size for compliance

with 10 CFR Part 26 concerning

a minimum of 60 ml of urine collected

for laboratory

analysis.Development

of a batch and non-batch

reporting system in conjunction

with SmithKline

Beecham Clin cal Laboratory, for use during outage situations.

Implementation

ofa graphic and analytical

studies for systematic

data evaluation.

I endficadonofthelackof6-monoacetylmouphlne

sting by contract laboratory

and subsequent

implemen-tation by contracted

laboratory

to comply with 10 CFR Part 26.Installadonofafacsimile

machine toassistinbetter

communicationbetween

the licensee, the medical review officer, and the contract laboratory.

The purchase of an evidential

grade breath testing device for use upon activation

of Emergency

Operations

Facility.The purchase ofa third IVAC temperature

measur-ing device as a back-up for units currently

in use and for use during plant shut-downs.

Computer enhancements

to add additional

report-Ing capabilities

for use during statistical

and analytical

studies.Computer enhancements

to random selection

pro-cess to ensure process equitability.

The development

and Implementation

of a volun-tary alcohol screening

process to better meet the intent of 10 CFR Part 26.The purchase and use of non-alcohol

hand wipes In the screening

lanes to ensure the hygiene of the screening technician

and eliminating

any possible chain-of-cus- tody concerns by allowing the screening

technician

to remain stationary

during the process.The development

of a form to be used by the-Medical Review Officer for reporting

any results other than routine negatives.

Changes were made to the bathroom structure

in response to low temperature

problems, to include the posting of signs specifically

requesting

specimens

be re-turned to the collector

as soon as possible, and the addition of foam pads on toilet tank covers in an attempt to alleviate

temperature

loss by conduction.

The prefabrication

of blood alcohol kits to better expedite confirmatory

testing. These kits include blood tubes, chain-of-custody

forms, medical technician

in-strucions, and chain-ofcustody

bags, alongwith

a master checlistfor

implementation

ofconfirmatory

blood alco-hol testing.The posting of signs inside the screening

facility explaining

that readings below 0.003% BAC during the initial breath alcohol test should be considered

zero. This was done to alleviate

any concerns by station personnel on the technical

capabilities

of the evidential

breath testing devices used in the screening

lanes.PENNSYLVANIA

POWER & LIGHT COMPANY Tracking supervisors, especially

contractor

super-visors, is difficult

due to the dynamic nature of our work force. We will be sending lisas of all badged personnel

to cost center managers on a quarterly

basis for the Identifi-cation of any new supervisors

and to ensure that training Is given, if not already received.

Once identified

as a-supervisor, Individuals

are entered into our Personnel Qualifications

System through which annual retraining

can be tracked by computer.Incorporated

FFD program management

responsi-bilitielntoa

new, on-site position which reports directly to the superintendent

of the plant. This strengthens

overall program management

and reduces the number of persons receiving

confidential

information.

PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY AnauditoftheFFDprogrampduced

twoprimary

areas of concern Tho procedure

to ensure that employees

have not consumed alcohol within five hours of reporting

for 22 nonscheduledworchadnotbeenadequatdyimplemented

in some cases. Further emphasis will be placed on the Importance

of call-in procedures

to supervisors

with call-In responsibilities.

Collectioncenterlnstrumentcalibationechniques

and PoE' stringent

acceptability

rangres for measuring PH and specific gravity for specimen integrity

checks need to be reevaluated.

POE will develop and implement specific operatingprocedures

with improved Instrument.

calibration

methodologies

and revised specimen integrity check parameters.

The contractlaboratory

incorrecdyreportedablind

specimen as negative.

On the same day, the laboratory

was informed of the incident of false negative reporting and was requested

to investigate

the circumstances

and to review all quality control data associaied

with confirma-tory testing of that particular

specimen.

The laboratory

ascertained

that the sample was in fact positive.

A review of this situation

found that the false negative report was a result of an administrative

error at the laboratory.

POE has required the following

actions to be taken at the laboratory

to prevent reoccurrence

of this situation:

The procedure

for certifying

scientist

review of test results will be modified to check for discrepancies

between records. All certifying

scientists

will be informed and instructed

on this change. -* An additional

review step will be included for all specimens

that Initially

screenpositvebutforwhich

the confirmatory

GCMS response is zro.This review will be performed

by either the scientific

director or one of the toxicology

supervisors.

PUBUC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY PSE&O recommends

that the NRC consider re-moving opiates from the panel of drugs to be tested. We have found that testing for opiates significantly

delays pm-access

processing, and significantly

undermines

the programacceptanceandcredibllity.M-A-Misonlypresent

for a very short period of time, and there is widespread

use ofopiate cough suppressants

and analgesics.

The present requirement

thatdemands

expensive

G00/S confirma-tion to supposedly

rule out heroin abuses is aeremely expensive

due to the type oftesdngrequiredfordetecton.

In the five years of testing by PSE&O at Its nuclear facilities, there have been no detected cases of heroin abuse. In addition to the problem with cough suppressant

and analgesics, widespread

consumption

of food contain-ing poppy seeds and the common knowledge

that poppy seeds may result In a positive drug test result Sake it almost impossible

to declare a positive per the rule. A significant

amount of expense can be eliminated

by re-moving opiates from the panel of drugs tested in areas of the country andlor states where heroin abuse does not appear to be common.PSE&O strongly believes that a FFD program can-not be functionally

practiced

as only a drug and alcohol detecdton/deterrcnce

program. The leve ofdecisionmak- ing involves more than just review of drug and alcohol results. Medical Review Officer (MRO) involvement

is essential

and critical to a properly functioning

FFD pro-gram. PSE&G mentions this since the DOT is consider-ing the removal of the MRO review requirement

for all 4est-results.

---ROCHESTER

GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY As a result of an FFD audit RG&E discovered

that, whlle the contractor

had submitted

the required FFD certification

documents, two employees

had not taken the alcohol test. Although RG&E had not pre-approved

the contractor's

FFD program, the prm-badge

drug tests were conducted

by a HHS-certified

laboratory

and were negative.Upon investigation, RG&E has determined

that there were no adverse results of this error as both contrac-tor employees

worked in a crew environment

and were continuously

underdirctbehaviorobsenradonbyRG&E

employees.

To prevent this situation

from occurring

in the future, RG&E will require contractors

to identify both the date and the laboratories

conducting

the drug and alcohol tests on the FF Dprogram certification

documents.

SOUTHERN CAUFORNIA

EDISON COMPANY Some administrative

difficulties

were encountered

In the re-sorting

ftheblind

specimens

due to-the-pacb.

aging methods of BDA-supplied

positive and negative samples. These difficulties

involved some chain-of-cus- tody discrepancies

which have now been corrected

and reconciled.

At no time was program testing adversely affected since the problems were strictly limited to the blind sample process. All blind sample pre-screen

results and NIDA-certified

lab results are now in agreement.

Additionally, internal administrative

procedures

have been strengthened

and a kit packaging

change has been instituted

by the vendor to preclude further problems in this area of the program.SYSTEMS ENERGY RESOURCES At the onset of testing, several presumptive

posi.tive specimens

sent by GGNS to the HHS-certified

confirmation

laboratory

were detrmined

to be negative at the confirmation

laboratory

on their initial test. Oca-sionally,apresumptive

positivexspeimenatGONSwould

be sent to the confirmation

laboratory

for analysis only to be negative on their initial test. This led to the assump-don that these inaccuracies

were due to differences

In the type of drug analysis equipment

used at GONS and the confirmation

laboratory.

23 / I K)CONS's drug analysis equipment

utilizes EPIA technology

while the confirmation

laboratoiy

was using theEMIT technology.

Careful analysis of the two systems by the confirmation

laboratory

and representatives

for Abbott Laboratories

disclosed

that there are differences

between the two system that could account for the variances

in results. It has been determined

that the Abbott drug assays utilizing

EPIA are more sensitive

and more susceptible

to react to certain drug analogues

of the opiateandamphetamineclass, suchassubstancesfound

mosdy inover-the-countermedicationsTheFitness-for- Duty Program management

is pleased with the overall performance

of the Abbott equipment

and contractually

specified

that the confirmation

laboratory

use the same type of equipment.

This eliminated

the variances

that were occurring between theon-sitelaboratoryand

theoff-sitelaboratory.

GGNS has contracts

with two confirmation

laboratories

for redundancy

purposes.

This system should minimize dependence

on one laboratoryin

the case that there is an event (iLe., decertification, unsatisfactory

blind perfor-mance specimen testresult, etc.) that limits the confirma-tion laboratory

performance.

TU ELECTRIC FFDManagementsubmittedblindsamplecontain- en with seals that had been tampered with along with normal daily collections.

The medical staff were not as conscientious

as expected In noting the tampered speci-mens. Corrective

action was taken with medical labora-tory management.

UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY A FFD program person was called outon a weekend to activate temporary

power to Our cooling storage units forspecimens.

Upon arrival, thepersonwas

informedthat

work was in progress to restore normal power. The FFD program person waited nearly six hours while service personnel

attempted

unsuccessfilly

to restore normal power, before activating

the temporary

power.Since this occurrence, FFD program personnel

sub-ject to being called out to activate the temporary

power supply have been instructed

to activate the power supply within a two-hour time frame.--The UnionElectric

Companyhas

discontinued

on-site testing of FFD program personnel.

This action was taken to avoid situations

in which FED personnel

might see a presumptive

test that belongs to them and worry unnecessarily

about the results.VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER COMPANY The quality assurance

department

conducted

a three-month

assessment

of the FFD program Including

a review of the FED procedures.

The resulting

changes to the procedures

require individuals

responding

to an emer--gency call-out toperform

a self-assessmentof

theirfitness

for duty based on criteria issued to each responder.

The FFD procedures

now dearly convey the assessment

pro-cess and the means by which responders

should reportfor duty during an emergency.

Also, as a result of a quality assurance

audit during the second quarter, proper on-site test facility air condi-tioning is being provided for the test equipment's

operat-ing parameters.

WISCONSIN

PUBUC SERVICE CORPORATION

A random computer program-was

writtentoselece

thedayandshiftforeawhrandomtestdate.Implementa- tion began In May of 1990. Prior to that date, this selection

was administratively

controlled.

The following

companies

did not provide information

on lessons learned (N=30)s Alabama Power Company Baltimore

Gas & Electric Boston Edison Commonwealth

Edison Company Consolidated

Edison Company of New York Consumers

Power Company Detroit Edison Entergy Operations, Inc. (Louisiana) Georgia Power Company Illinois Power Company Indiana Michigan Power Company Iowa Electric Light & Power Company Nebraska Public Power District Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation

Northeast

Utilities Northern States Power Company Omaha Public Power District Pacific Gas & Electric Company Philadelphia

Electric Company Public Service Company of Colorado Sacramento

Municipal

Utility District South Carolina Electric & Gas Company Tennessee

Valley Authority Toledo Edison Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation

Washington

Public Power Supply System Wisconsin

Electric Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating

Corporation

Yankee Atomic Electric Company 24 S s -o '-Vi Attachment

2 IN 91-10 February 12, 1991 LIST OF RECENTLY ISSUED 1 I I NRC INFORMATION

NOTICES Information

Date of Notice No. -Subject I Issuance?

Issued to 91-09 91-08 Counterfeiting

of Crane Valves Medical Examinations

for Licensed Operators 02/5/91 02/5/91 All holders of OLs or CPs for nuclear power reactors.All holders of OLs or CPs for nuclear power, test and research reactors.90-77, Supp. 1 91-07 91-06 91-05 91-04 91-03 Inadvertent

Removal of Fuel.Assemblies

from the Reactor Core Maintenance

Deficiency

Assoc-iated with General Electric Horizontal

Custom 8000 Induction

Motors Lock-up of Emergency

Diesel Generator

and Load Sequencer Control Circuits Preventing

Restart of Tripped Emergency Diesel Generator Intergranular

Stress Corrosion Cracking in Pressurized

Water Reactor Safety Injection Accumulator

Nozzles Reactor Scram Following

Control Rod Withdrawal

Associated

with Low Power Turbine Testing Management

of Wastes Contaminated

with Radioactive

Materials

("Red Bag' Waste and Ordinary Trash)02/4/91 02/4/91 01/31/91 01/30/91 01/28/91 01/07/91 All holders of OLs or CPs for pressurized- water reactors (PWRs).All holders of OLs or CPs for nuclear power reactors.All holders of OLs or CPs for nuclear power reactors.All holders of OLs or CPs for pressurized

water reactors (PWRs).All holders of OLs or CPs for nuclear power reactors.All medical licensees.

OL = Operating

License CP = Construction

Permit

IN 91-10 February 12, 1991 to positive test results categorized

by the type of tests, the type of drugs, the types of workers found to be abusing drugs, and the region in which the plant is located. The report contains other information

and lessons learned that may be useful to assess FFD programs and to improve and refine these programs.This information

notice requires no specific action or written response.

If you have any questions

about the information

contained

in this notice, please contact the technical

contact listed below or the appropriate

NRR project manager.Original SignMd Iy Chades E Rofss Charles E. Rossi, Director Division of Operational

Events Assessment

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Technical

Contact: Loren Bush, NRR (301) 492-0944 Attachments: 1. Fitness for Duty in the Nuclear Power Industry -Summary of Semi-annual

Program Performance

Reports, January, 1991 2. List of Recently Issued NRC Information

Notices*SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES

OFC :*RSGB:NRR

RSGB:NRR

TECH EDITOR :*RSGB:NRR

D:DRIS:NRR

OGCB:NRR

______ _-------------- ______________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _NAME :EMcPeek:cb

LBush : :PMcKee :BKGrimes

CHBerlinger

______:---------- -________________

______________- ______________ _________ ____-__DATE :01/30/91

01/30/91

01/31/91

01/30/91

02/01/91 OFC :DOEA:NRR

: : NAME DATE :'V6/9:-FICIAL RECORD COPY Document Name: IN 91-10

IN 91-XX , l9xx to positive test results categorized

by the type of tests, the type of drugs, the types of workers found to be abusing drugs, and the region in which the plant is located. The report contains other information

and lessons learned that may be useful to assess FFD programs and to improve and refine these programs.This information

notice requires no specific action or written response.

If you have any questions

about the information

contained

in this notice, please contact the technical

contact listed below.co*L

e&Charles E. Rossi, Director Division of Operational

Events Assessment

W =Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Technical

Contact: Loren Bush, NRR (301) 492-0944 Attachments: 1. Fitness-for-Duty

in the Nuclear Power Industry -Summary of Semiannual

Program Reports C ---2. List of Recently Issued NRC Information

Notices Distribution: RS-G r/f DRIS r/f EMcPeek LBush PMcKee BGrimes CHBerlinger

CERossi*SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE

OFC :RSGB:NRRV

RSGB:NRR

:TECH EDITOR* :RSG NI :D:DRIS:NRRIc

OGCB:NRR------ :----------------

----- ci---- --------------

-,+p ------:--------------

------------.

NAME :EMcPeek:cb

LBush ' & : :BKGrimes

CHBerlinger

DATE :1 /30/91 .1 /30/ 1 .1/3091 :'a,15J/91 1/30/91 : .I// /91 OFC :DOEA:NRR----7 :---- ----: --------------

---------__-----------------__

NAME :CERossi 94f11 : DATE : / /91 : : : : OFFICIAL RECORD COPY Document Name: INFORMATION

NOTICE 91XX

-^IN 91-XX January 1 l9xx to positive test results categorized

by the type of tests, the type of drugs, the types of workers found to be abusing drugs, and by the region. The report contains other information

and lessons learned that may be useful in assessing FFD programs and in efforts to improve and refine these programs.This information

notice requires no specific action or written response.

If you have any questions

about the information

contained

in this notice, please contact the technical

contact listed below.Charles E. Rossi, Director Division of Operational

Events Assessment

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Technical

Contact: Loren Bush, NRR (301) 492-0944 Attachments: 1. Fitness-for-Duty

in the Nuclear Power Industry -Summary of Semiannual

Program Reports 2. List of Recently Issued NRC Information

Notices Distribution: RSGB r/f DRIS r/f EMcPeek LBush PMcKee BGrimes CHBerlinger

CERossi OFC :RSGB:NRR

RSG :NRR :TECH EDITOR :RSGB:NRR

D:D : :OGCB:NRR------- *7*--------

--{ --------------

------------

:---__ __ __-:--X--__-__-____

NAME ":cb :LBu' : qM'n :PMcKee : :CHBerlinger

DATE 1( /9i : '/30/91 : / /91 : ,/7491 : / /91 OFC :DOEA:NRR

: NAME :CERossi : : : : DATE : / /91 : : : OFFICIAL RECORD COPY Document Name: INFORMATION

NOTICE 91XX}}

Information Notice 1991-10, Summary of Semiannual Program Performance Reports on Fithess-For-Duty (FFD) in the Nuclear Industry

Contents

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE

Addressees

Purpose

Events Assessment

TABLE OF.CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

Licensee Emplyee tLreTaMCon0ros

Office 30 Northern States Power Monticello

Confirmation

Is categorized

NumberTested

NumberTested

NumberTested

In connection

Our thernometer

System through which annual retraining

Collectioncenterlnstrumentcalibationechniques

On the same day, the laboratory

The laboratory

PUBUC SERVICE CORPORATION

Events Assessment

Events Assessment

Events Assessment

Navigation menu

Information Notice 1991-10, Summary of Semiannual Program Performance Reports on Fithess-For-Duty (FFD) in the Nuclear Industry

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE

Addressees

Purpose

Events Assessment

TABLE OF.CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

Licensee Emplyee tLreTaMCon0ros

Office 30 Northern States Power Monticello

Confirmation

Is categorized

NumberTested

NumberTested

NumberTested

In connection

Our thernometer

System through which annual retraining

Collectioncenterlnstrumentcalibationechniques

On the same day, the laboratory

The laboratory

PUBUC SERVICE CORPORATION

Events Assessment

Events Assessment

Events Assessment

Navigation menu

Search