Information Notice 1991-10, Summary of Semiannual Program Performance Reports on Fithess-For-Duty (FFD) in the Nuclear Industry
{{#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
the types of workers found to be abusing drugs, and the region drugs, plant is located. The report contains other information and lessons in which the
that may be useful to assess FFD programs and to improve and refine these learned
programs.
This information' notice requires n'o'spe'cific action or written response.
you have any questions about the information contained in this notice, If
contact the technical contact listed below or the appropriate NRR project please
manager.
Charles E. Rossl, D rector
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
I. .
~ S - A
. . i .
Attachment 1 F- IN 91-10 z K>W February 12, 1991 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 I
-1 " ua- Jpig
i.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OnJune 7,1989, theNRC published a rule reported here are considered preliminary be- in the Federal Register (10 CFR Part 26, Fitness- cause a six- month period isnot long enough for
for-Duty Programs) requiring that each licensee all sites tohave acomparablerange ofexperiences
authorized to operate or construct a nuclear (for example, not all sites have had an outage)
powerreactorimplementafirhess-for-duty(FFD) and because interpretations of reporting re- program for all personnel having unescorted qti'remenrsivariedbFy utility. Since such differ- access to the protected area of the plant. This ences may have a substantial impact on the
rule became effective on July 7, 1989, with an percentage of positive test results, regional dif- implementation date of January 3, 1990. A ferences should be interpreted with caution.
central element of the required FFD program is Preliminary results indicate that Region
the drug and alcohol testing program. This re- IV had the lowest overall percentage ofpositive
port summarizes the 84 semi-annual reports on tests (.67%); while other regions had percent- FFDprogramperformanceprovidedtotheNRC ages of about 1 percent. Marijuana accounted
by 54 utilities as required by 10 CFR Part 26. for the largest percentage of positive test results
During the period January 3 to June 30, in all regions except Region I, where cocaine
1990, licensees reported chattheyhad conducted was responsible for the highest percentage.
137,953 tests for illegal drugs and alcohol. Of Positive test results for cocaine differed dra- these tests, 1,313 (0.95%) were positive. matically across regions, accounting for only
Amajorityofthepositive test results (875) 14.8 percent of all positive tests in Region V
were obtained through pre-access testing. Of compared to 37.9 percent in Region I.Region V
tests conducted on workers having access to the had a higher percentage of positive test results
protected area, there were 299 positive tests for amphetamines (8.0%) than other regions.
from random testing, 90 positive tests from for- Many licensees provided detailed accounts
cause testing, and 11 positive tests from periodic oflessons learned during the reporting period. A
and other categories of testing. Follow-up test- brief summary of lessons learned is presented in
ing of workers resulted in 38 positive tests. For- Section V of this report and a complete compi- cause testing resulted in the highest percentage - lation is provided in Appendix C.
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
TABLE OF.CONTENTS
Page * INTRODUCnION I
Section 1: Overall test results 2 Section 2: Test results by worker category 4 Section 3: -Tu=tesultsyd catgory - 6 Section 4: Test results by region 9 Section S: Lessons learned 10 Appendix A: Technical backound 11 Appendix B: Supporting data 15 Appendix C: Compilation of lessons learned reported by licensees 19 List of Tables
Table 1: Definitionsof test categories 2 Table 2: Test results by test category 2 Table 3: Test results by test category and worker category 4 Table 4: Test results for additional drugs 7 Table Al: List of utilities submitting reports for sites and corporate offices. 12 Table A2: Maximum screeningandconfirmationlevelsrequiredby 10CFR 14 Part 26 Table Bl: Test results by NUMARC form test category 15 Table B1: Test resultsby NUMARCIorm testcategoryby licensee employ- 15 ees and contractor personnel.
Table B3: Test results by NUMARC form test category by long-term and 16 short-term contractor personnel.
Table B4: Test results for additional drugs 17 Table ES: Positive test results by region and by substance 18
List of Figures
Figure 1: Comparison of test categories 3 Figure 2: Percent of positive tests in each test category 3 Figure 3: Comparison of test category percentages by worker category 5 Figure 4: Comparison of test outcomes by worker category S
Figure 5: Confirmed positives by drug category 6 Figure 6: Confirmed positives for marijuana by screening level 7 Figure 7: Confirmedposidvesbydrugcaregories includingenodiaepinles 7 and Barbiturates
Figure 8: Confirmed positives: Regions INV 9 Figure 9: Confirmed positives by drug categories: Regions i-V 9 Figure Al: Oeographic location of NRC Regions INV 14
INTRODUCTION
Since the late 1970s, the U.S. Nuclear This report has been compiled to summa- Regulatory Commission (NRC) has been con- rize industry experience to date. It is based on
cerned with the potential impact on the health the semi-annual program performance reports
and safety ofthe public offitness-for-duty (FF1)) covering the period from January 3 to june 30, problems among personnel with unescorted 1990, and contains information on positive test
access to protected areas In commercial nuclear results by category of test, category of drug, power plants. As the nationwide epidemic of category of worker found to be abusing drugs, drug abuse grew, it became apparent that the and region. The information contained in this
-nuclear power industry was not immune to its -report comes -from -all current power reactor
effects. In response, and with the cooperation licensees.Fifty-fourutilitiessubmitted84reports, and support of the industry, the NRC published representing 75 nuclear power plant sites and 9 a rule onJune 7, 1989, inthe FederalRegister (10 corporate offices. In all cases, the results pertain
CFR Part 26, Fitness-for-Duty Programs), re- to confirmed positive test results. A detailed de- quiring each licensee authorized to operate or scription of the technical background for the
construct a nuclear power reactor to implement FF1) program performance reports isprovided in
a -FFD program for all personnel having Appendix A. Of particular use to the industry is
unescorted access to the protected area of the the compilation of lessons learned provided by
plant. This rule became effective on July 7, licensees (Appendix C).
1989, with an implementation date of January Several observations are in order. First, 3,1990.Theruleestablishedbroadrequirements overall positive test rates appear to be quite low; for the control of FFD problems stemming from however, these rates continue to represent a
illegal drug use, alcohol' abuse, abuse of legal substantial number of nuclear workers or ap- drugs, andanyothermentalorphysicalproblems plicants identified as having drug or alcohol
that could impair performance or that in other problems. Thus, while the NRC and industry
ways raised questions about the reliability and may have reason to be encouraged by these
trustworthiness of employees or their ability to results, additional progress canbe made. Second, safely and competently perform their duties. while reporting appears to have been fairly
A central element of the required FF1) complete and systematic, there are a few points
program isthe drug testingprogram. This element where clarification is needed. Appendix A of
is designed to both deter and detect the use of this report provides this clarification.
illegal drugs and the misuse ofalcohol and other The NRC welcomes suggestions concern- legal drugs. Because of the importance of this ing the contentof this report. Comments should
element, the NRC has required that power be forwarded to: reactor licensees provide semi-annual reports Mr. Loren Bush
on the results of their drug testing programs. Chief of Program Development and
These reports are to provide the NRC with Review Section
information on 'the effectiveness of individual Division of Reactor Inspection and
programs and of the programs as a whole in Safeguards
minimizing the impact of drugs and alcohol on U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
the plaints. The reports are also of use to the Room 9D24 industry -as it attempts to improve and refine -Washington, D.C. 20555 FFD programs. The NRC anticipates publishing- these reports periodically.
7 1
Q
I 11 SECTION 1: OVER.ALL TEST RESULTS
Table 2 This section contains information on drug and Test Results by Test Category
alcoholtesdngresulforeahcategoryoftestrequiredby
10 CFR Part 26. The test results are reported in five Number of Positive Percent
categories: pre-access, random, for-cause, follow-up, and Tests Tests Positive
other. The definitions of these categories are given in
Table 1. Pre-Access 61,066 875 1.43%
The numberoftes performed and the-number of
positive tests results are reported in Table 2. A total of Random 73,577 299. 0.41%
137,953 tests were reported in 84 FFD program perfor- mance reports provided by 54 utilities (75 sites and 9 For-Cause 356 90 25.28% corporate headquarters). The overall positive rate was
slightly less than 1 percent (0.95%) across all categories Follow-Up 1105 38 3.44%
-of tests. Although this percentage may seem small, in
absolute numbers 1,313 workers or applicants tested Other 1849 11 0.60%
positive for drugs and/or alcohol. Pre-access testing
identified 875 applicants or workers as having positive TOTAL 137,953 1313 0.95%
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 (875; 66.6%) followedby random (299; 22.8%) and for- tests and 90 were found positive based on for-cause tests. cause testing (90; 6.9%).
Figure 1 provides a graphic representation of the Figure 2shows the percentage ofconfirmed positive
numbers in Table 2. Random and pre-access testing tests for each category of test. The percentage for each
resulted in similar numbers of tests (61,066 and 73,577, category was calculated by summing the number of posi- respectively) and, when combined, these two types of test tive tests in each test category and dividing it by the total
accounted for the overwhelming majority of tests per- number of tests conducted in that category. For-cause
formed (134,643 tests; 97.60% of all tests reported). testing resulted in the highest percentage ofpositive tests
Comparing the number ofpositive test results, pre-access (253%). This Isan expected result, since for-cause tests
testing accounted for the majority of all positive 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 isabusing 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 hilOCFR Part26aidoaeamiau cf
dw FFDpefovmna= 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 wermcomb as'tiry.For a/Udicuofdilcaq 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
Pre-Access 1.43%
tests were included in this category; however, there were .P
no positive test results from the 21 post-accident tests
reported; see Appendix B, Table Bi.) Unfortunately, no Random 0.41%
Information Isavailable 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 20i..28%
camnnotbe determinedt.OCtepre-access tests, 1.4 percent For-Cause
were posltive, 0.4 percent of the random tests were post- S
tve. Follow-Up C3."4%
Summary of Major Findings . -
0 Drug and/or alcohol use ln violation of 10 CFR Part Other G0.6096
26 was confirmed in about 1percent of the tests. I
- Most of the positive tests were among workers who 0 5 10 15 20 25 never attained access to the protected area. None- PERCENT
theless, nearly 400 workers with access tested posi.
tive across the industry In the six-month period. Figure 2
. Percent of Positive Tests in Each
Test Category -
875 Pre-Access .1. .. M Mm------. .. l61,066
2QQ
.. Random __- ------- 73,577
90
For-Cause MI3 56
-
- Number of Positives
38 K Number of Tests
Follow-Up -- 1105
11 . ............ ..
Other 1849
,i
i, 1313 - 137,953 - TOTAL Mi I i I
I II I. _I II
I I I I I
0 250 S00 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 50,000 75 FREQUENCY
q-
- Figure I
Comparison of Test Categories - --
3 -
SECTION 2: TEST RESULTS BYWORKER had about half of their tests In each category. For-cause
CATEGORY testing, follow-up testing, and other testing together
account for only about 4 percent of the tests taken by
This section examines test results for three catego- licensee employees and about 1percent of the tests taken
ties of workers: licensee employees, long-term contrac- by contractor personnel.
tors, and short-ter contractors Thebasisforthedistinc- Figure 4 compares positive rest results for licensee
don among workers isprovided in Appendix A. employees, long-term contractor and short-term contrac
Porlicensee employes, the majorityoftests (50,402) torpersonnel. In all est categories except follow-up tets, were a result of the-random-testing-program, while for --the -percentages -of positive test results were higher for
short-term contractors, the majority of tests (41,613) short-term contractor personnel than for either licensee
were a resAt of pre-access testing (see Table 3). Long- or long term contractor personnel.
term contractor personnel experienced about the same In pre-access testing, short-term contractors tested
numberofpre-access andrandom tests (3,741 and4,193, positive about 40 percent more often than did workers in
respectively). These differences indicate that licensee eitheroftheothercategories (1.56%ofallpremaccess tests
employees (and, toa lesserextent, long-term contractors) performed on short-term contractorpersonnel were posi- usually experience one pre-access test and then remain tive, compared to 1.17% for licensee employees and
under a random testing program. In contrast, short-term 1.15% for long-term contractor.). Because of the large
contractor personnel may experience many pre-access number of pre-access tests experienced by short-term
tests ra numberofsites, butspend less time than licensee contractors and the percentage of positive test results
employees or long-term contractors undera random test- obtained, positive pre-access test results from short-term
ing program. Figure 3 shows these differences in per- contractors accounted for almosthalf (648) ofall positive
centages. For licensee employees, 23 percent of all tests test results (see Table 3).
were pre-access and 73 percent were random; for short- Random testing also produced different percent- term contractors, the proportions are reversed, with 68 ages ofpositive results across categories ofworkers. Short- percent of tests in the pre-access category and 31 percent term contractor. had more than twice the percentage of
in the random category. Long-term contractorpersonnel 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 PRE-ACCESS
as many random tests as did short-term contractors, the
two categories of workers had similar numbers of positive Lim.seeEpye. 1.17%
test results (126 for short-term contractors compared to Long Trm Contmcz 1.15% 153 for licensee employees).
The re similarities between the percentages of Sh= Term Cmtracz=s 1.56% posidve results from for-cause testingforlicensee employ- RANDOM
ces and long-term-contractors-4n each group, about 22 percent tested positive. A higher percentage of short- LieseEmployee
term contractors, about 30 percent, had positive test Leg.TcnzamCzon p0.48% results from for-cause tests.
Follow-up testing was used primarily for licensee s£-TmC==etx 0,66% employees (n-916 tests), less often for short-term con- tractors (n=185 tests), and almost never for long-term FOR-CAUSE
contractor personnel (nE4 tests). LiceEmpbye F9 29.98%
Positive results for follow-up testing were close to 4 t-, 23.0896 percent for licensee employees, and slightly above 1 Lng-Term Cntac
percent for short-term contractors. Of the four follow-up I-EE"SE M P'M29.739i
Sh=-Tem Cm=tnacr
tests conductedonlong-term contractor personnel, none
were positive (See Figure 4).
FOLLOW-UPI
In all, there were 229 confirmedpositive test results
among licensee employees (not Including pre-access or Licensee Emplyee 3.93% follow-up tests) and 184 referrals to Employee Assistance
tLreTaMCon0ros
Programs. Seventy-eight licensee employees had their
access restored during the six-month period from January ShontTerm Ccnazem
3 toJune 30, 1990.
"Other" tests were conducted for various reasons, OTHER
preventing a meaningful Interpretation of these test Fe- Lkcsee Emp 0.40% suits.
LcMg.TerMCaces 0.009 Summary of Major Findings Short-Termbczt m 1.82%
- Positive test rates were higher for pre-access testing . I I I I I I //l I I
than for random testing, and were highest of all for 0 1 2 3 4 s 20 25 30
for-cause testing. . PERCENT
' Licensee employees and long-term contractor per- Figure 4 I
sonnel had about the same positive test rate. Short- term contractor personnel had considerably higher Comparison of Test Outcomes by
positive test rates for both random and pre-access Worker Category
testing.,
73% 73%
Licensee Employees ............. Hs.....
E...e.........
47% 52%
lag-FerznCorntzactors _l ::::k::;.::.s s:::k:::.[ 100%
Sh r-em C nrcos....... :.. ... .. ..
.. . ..-. .. . .
lPRE-AOCCSS QRANDOM UIR.CAUSE lURlLOW.UP OTrHER
Figure 3 Comparison of Test Category Percentages by Worker Category
- :g ... . .
SECTION 3: TEST. RESULTS BY DRUG in one positive test but more than one substance is
CATEGORY detected.
Figure5showsthepercentageofpositivetestresults
The FFD rule (10 CFR Part 26) requires that the for each category of drug and for alcohol specified in 10
number of confirmed positive test results also be reported CFR Part 26. Of the total confirmed positive tests by
by drug category. Parr A of this section examines the substance (n 1,341 confirmed positive test results), the
number of confirmed positive results for each of the six majority (51. 8 3%) were positive for marijuana. Cocaine
substances specified by the rule: marijuana, cocaine, opi- was next, with 26.40 percent of the total confirmed
ates, amphetamines, phencyclidine, and alcohol. Part B --positive tests, followed -by alcohol (1536%). Opiates, ofthissectionreportstheresultsfrom testsusingscreening amphetamines, and phencyclidines together accounted
levels lower than those required by 10 CFR 26. Part C for less than 7 percent of all positive drug tests.
reports the results of testing for additional drugs. The variations in reporting noted above may mean
The information presented here is reported as if ali that the absolute numberxipositive test results reported
programpeformancereports used the same interpretation in each drug category ishigh. This isparticularly likely in
of the reporting requirements Unfortunately, reporting the case of amphetamines and opiates, since positive
instructions for substances were interpreted in different results for these substances are often ruled by the MRO to
ways. In some cases, only positive results that were conr have been caused by other, legal substances. However, fired by the Medical Review Officer (MRO) were in- the positive results for amphetamines and opiates repre- cluded. In other cases, all results that were confirmed sent fairly small shares of all positive results (2.2% and
positive by CC/MS screening were included. Some sites 4.0%, respectively), so this data collecdon problem should
that routinely do tests on two aliquors from each sample not have a substantial impact on the ratio between the
reported two positive test results; others counted both 'as various substances being detected in tests.
oneposidveresultsincetheycomefromthesamesample. In other words, regardless of the actual number of
positive test results, for the panel of d ugs specified by 10
Part A: Positive test results by drug CFR Part 26, one would expect that marijuana would
category account for about half of the positive results; cocaine for
over a quarter, alcohol for about 15 percent; and amphet- This section includes only positive test results for amines, opiates, and phencyclidines for about 6.5 per- thefivedrugs specified in l0CFR Part26andforalcohol. cent.
The total number of confirmed positive test results for
substances isexpected to differ from the total number of Part B: Lower Screening Levels
confirmed positive results by test category. This differ- ence occurs because refusals to take tests are not included The fitness-for-duty rule (10 CFR Part 26) provides
in the reports on substances In addition, positive tests for flexibility by allowing licensees to use lower cutoff levels
drugs not specified in 10 CFR Part 26 arenot included in than those specified in the NIDA guidelines provided In
thlssection.Finally,poly-drugusebyan individual results 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
theNRClevelof100naogramspermlllliter(ng/mI);27 Alcohol 15.36%i I Marijuana 51.83% used 50 ngfnl; and 11 used 20 ng/ml for initial screening.
n-206 Figure 6 compares the rate of positive tests found using
Opiates 3.88% these different cutoff levels for marijuana. These rates
n-52\ were calculated by summing the number of positive test
results for marijuana for each cutoff level and dividing
Amphetamne
2.24%~ themby the numberoftestsusing thatcutoffcaegory. A
n-30 / shown in Figure 6, licensees using lower cutoff levels had
a higher percentage of positive test results: at 20 ng/ml, ienc-yclidin
0.31% n-4 about 8 testsoutof l ,000were positive; at 50 zng/ml, about
ICocainy 26.40% 5 tests outof 1,000 were positive; and at 100 ng/ml, about
n-354 4 tests out of 1,000 were positive.
Although some licensees used lower cutoff levels
for other substances, no reportable differences in the
Figure 5 percentage of positive test results were Identified. Levels
Confirmed Positives by used for cocaine did not differ for Initial screening (all
Drug Category licensees used 300 ngfmI) and two licensees reported
6
4 lists the number of licensees testing for each additional
drug, the total number oftests perfored byll licensees
20 ng testing for each additional drug, the number of positive
(11 4censees) 0.84% test results, and the percentage of positive test results.
There were no positive test results for three of the drugs;
50 ng 0.53% methaqualone, methadone, tnd inethamphetamines.
(27 Licensees) There were a total of 24 positive test results for barbitu- rates, 28 for bemzodiazepines, and 4 for propzyphrine.
- 100ng -The -most common additional drugs tested were
(46 UcnA es)
benzodiazepines and barbiturates. Figure 7 reports on the
1 test outcomes for the 32 licensees testingforboth of these
I .5 additional drugs. It provides the percentages of positive
PERCENT POSITIVE aestsforthepanel ofdrugs included in lOCFR Part26, and
for benzodiazepine and barbiturates. For these 32 sites, FIgure 6 benzodiazepines and barbiturates accounted for 3.86 per- Confirmed Positives for centand 3.17 percentofposidve tests, respectively.Thls
Marijuana by Screen Level
Barbiturars 3.17% Benzodiazepines 3.86%
using alowerlevel (50or 100 ng/ml) forconflrmation. A Amphetamines 3.72%j 4 few licensees (11) used lower confirmation levels for 1 E. Marijuna 44.49% opiates. Amphetamines were creened at 300 ngWml by Alcohol 13.91% 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 Phencyclidine
in 10 CFR Part 26.) 0.14%
I Cocaine 24.93%
Part C: Additional Drugs (n-726)
Thirty-nine sites reported testing for a broader Figure 7 - -
panel of drugs than the five specified in the rule. All 39 Confirmed Positives by
sites testing for additional drugs tested for benrzodiaz- Drug Category Including
epines; 32 tested for barbiturates, 19 tested for
methaqualone, 10 tested for methadone, 2 tested for Benzodiazepines and Barbiturates
methamphetamines,and4 testedforpropzyphrine.Table
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 0.91%
- Recn I
summarized for each of the NRC administrative regions.
(Regions are identified in Appendix A.) Region IV sites 0.94% reported the lowest percentage of positive test results . Region
(0.67%), while Region III had the highest (1.16%) (see
Figure 8). Since the rate of positive test results may ..Region III
_l 1.1696 change as all-licensees cxperiencescheduled-outages, these differences represent preliminary findings.
Thepercentageofallposltive testresultsaccounted Region IV 0.67% forby aparticulardrugvariedby region. Figure 9 sumra- rizes these data by region for each drug. Marijuana ac- 0.96% counted for the highest percentage of positive test results RegioiV
In'egionlll (62%), themajorityofposltivetestresults In . .
I
.5I
I
Regions 11 and lV (54% In each), and less than halfof all . 1 15 positive test results in Regions I and V (37% and 41%). PERCENT POSnIVE
The highest percentage of positive results from cocaine
was in Region 1 (38%), and the lowest percentage in
Region V (15%). Figure 8 In general, opiates and amphetamines represented Confirmed Positives: Regions I-V
a substantially smaller percentage of positive tests than
did marijuana and cocaine. Region V was 'an exception; here, opiates and amphetamines together accounted for the lowest, at 8 percent.
17 percent of all positive test results. As noted earlier, these differences may reflect' differcnces in reporting Summary of Major Findings
practices across regions. Positive tests for phencyclidine
were only reported In Regions I, II,and III.
- The pattern offindings varied from region to region.
Thepercentagesofall positive testresults accounted
- RegionlV had thelwestoveral testrate andRegion
for by alcohol varied substantially across regions. Region III had the highest.
IV had the highest percentage, at 26 percent; Region V,
37% 38% 3%296* 19% * Regionl I
54% 27% 5%** 12% 2%
Region 11
62% 20% 1%** 16% *
Region 111
549 17% *3%* 26%
Region IV
41% 15% 9% 8%
- 8% 19%
Region V -X3 ME///////
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 ' 70 80 90 100
e LOSd 1% PERCENT
0MarIqnW Ccaine QOpiats U1Apheme UPhwdine DAcoil SAddidoalDngs
Figure 9 Confirmed Positives by Drug Category: Regions IWV
9
J
SECTION 5: LESSONS LEARNED - addition of a collection facility at corporate
offices for those with Infrequent access to pro.
As part of the FFD program performance report. eected areas
many licensees reported on lessons learned during the
Initial Implementation of the FFM program. Below is a - off-site testing ofFFD personneL-
brief listing of some of the problems noted and solutions
suggested In thse reports. This is not intended as a fuil Several licensees noted the need for complete procedures
summary of the reports, and many additional and useful andreportedadditional proceduresdhthadbeenwritten.
suggestions are found in-the fiull compiladondf reported V&A..-. .4-.-I--j -
4A SUWpport the FFD program ad- lessons learned that is provided in Appendix C
-
dressed
V
I
. call-in protocol
Many licensees reported problems with HHS-ceied
labs. Some solutions IncludedcL test sample collection and handling
using a large and flexible lab laboratory
l monitoring
Improvement of the procedures to ensure that - maintenance of site facility Instrumentation.
unsatisfactory lab performance Isreported
Implemeneadonofaprocedure eocerdfyascien- Various aspects ofFFD program managementwere raised
tist review of discrepancies between test results by the licensees. Specific issues addressed were:
iIncreased monitoring oflaboratoryperformance - the difficulties of providing program manage- and testing criteria. ment oversight from a corporate office and the
requirement for on-site management
Many licensees noted difficulties In ensuring a random the necessity for procedures for MRO reviews
and unannounced random testing program at a 100 per- and reports and the requirement to involve the
cent rate. Several Improvements were noted: MRO in policy decisions
- testing on the backshift the availability requirements of the FFD man- ager.
modifications to the random selection process
computer enhancements
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 rulespeclfies that the data
- Addidional detail on the definitions of cate4ories reported shall include:
used in the report
- Other relevant information (eg. the substoinces re-
- random testing rate
qulredby 10 CFR Part 26).
- drugs tested and cutoff levels, including results of
tests usinglowercutofflevelsandtestsforotherdrugs
- workforce populations tested
- numbers oftests and resultsby 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) CCOMPANY/PLANT(S)
I
1 .. Alabama Power 18 GPU Nuclear Corporation 37 Public Service Gas &Electric
Parley 1 & 2 Three Mile Island I Hope Creek 1
2 Arizona Public Service Oyster Creek 1 Salem 1 & 2 Palo Verde 1, 2,3 Corporate Office 38 Public Service of New Hampshire
3 Arkansas 19 Gulf States Utilities Seabrook 1 Arkansas Nuclear One I & 2 River Bend 1 39 Rodcester Gas & Electric
4 Baltimore Ga & Electric 20 Houston Light & Power Ginna
Calvert Cliffs 1 & 2 South Texas 1 & 2 40 Sacramento Municipal Utility
5 Boston Edison 21 mllinois Power Rancho Seco 1 Pilgrim Clinton 1 41 South Carolina Electric &Gas
6 Carolina Power & Light 22 Indiana & Michigan Electric Summer 1 Robinson 2 Cook 1 & 2 42 Southern California Edison
Brunswick I & 2 23 Iowa Electric San Onofre 1, 2, & 3 Shearon Harris Duane Arnold 43 Systems Energy Resources
Corporate Office
24 Long Island Lighting Grand Gulf 1 & 2 7 Cleveland Elec. Illum. Shoreham
Perry 1 &2 44 Tennessee Valley Authority
25 Louisiana Power & Light (Entergy) Bellafonte 1&2 8 Commonwealth Edison Waterford 3 BrownsFerry 1. 2. &3 Byron 1 & 2 Sequoyah I & 2
26 Maine Yankee Atomic Power
Braidwood 1 & 2 Watt Bar 1 & 2 Maine Yankee
Zion 1 & 2 Dresden2&3 27 Nebraska Public Power District 45 Texas Utility Elec. (C Electric)
Quad Cities 1 & 2 Cooper Station Comanchee Peak 1 & 2 Lasalle 1 & 2 28 Niagara Mohawk Power 46 Toledo Edison
Corporate Office Nine Mile Point 1 & 2 Davis Besse 1 9 Colorado (Public Service) 29 Northeast Utilities 47 Union Electric
Fort S Vrain Haddam Nock Callaway 1 10 Consolidated Edison Millstone 1 &3 48 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power
Indian Point 1 & 2 Corporate Office Vermont Yankee 1 11 Consumers Power 30 Northern States Power 49 Virginia Electri & Power
Palisades Monticello North Anna 1 & 2 Big Rock Point Prairie Island 1 & 2 Surry 1 & 2 Corporate Corporate Office Innsirook (Corporate) 12 Detroit Edison 31 Omaha Public Power District 50 Washington Public Power Supply
Fermi 2 Fort Calhoun WNP-1 & 2 13 Duke Power 32 Pacifc Ga & Electric 51 Wisconsin Electric Power
McGuire 1 & 2 DiabloCanyon I & 2 Point Beach 1 & 2 Oconee 1, 2, &3 33 PennsylvanIa Power & Light 52 Wisconsin Public Service
Catawba & 2 Susquehanna 1 & 2 Kewaunee
Corporate Ofice
34 Philadelphia Electric 53 Wolf Creek Nuclear
14 Duquesne Light Limerick I & 2 WofCreek 1 Beaver Valley 1 &2 Peach Bottom 2 & 3 54 Yankee Atomic Electric
15 Florida Power & Light Corporate Office Yankee-Rowe I
Turkey Polnt3 &4 35 Portland General Electric
St. Lucie 1 & 2 Ttqan
16 Florida Power Corporation 36 Power Authority, New York
Crystal River 3 Indian Point 3 17 GeorgIa Power Fitzpatrick
Hatch 1 & 2 Vogrle &2 I. __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
12
K) tmm
Testing Categories category. In one case, a licensee reported Including a
specific number of blind test results in the "Othe?'
The following testing categories were included in category-these were omitted prior to data analysis.
the analyses presented in this report. These definitions In most cases, however, there are no specifics regard- are nased on the definitions given in 26.3 of10 cFR and Ing what isincluded in the aOtherl category.
on explanations of the FFD performance data in the form
provided to licensees by NUMARC Tables Bl, B2,and B3 present the numberoftests, numberpositive, and average percent positive for each of
Pre-access -
-the test categories requested on the NUMARC form.
This categorycombines resultsfromnpre-employment
-ad pre-badging tests. The pre-employment testing Worker Categories
category slimited to those persons seeking employ- ment in the nuclear power portion of the company. Results for three categories of workers were re-
*Thepre-badgingcategory rferstocurentemployees quested in the NUMARC forms. The following catego-.
applying for positions in the company that require ties were used:
unescorted access to the protected area. These cat- cgories are combined in the body of this report. Licensee employees
Because some licensees combined pre-employment Licensee employees work for the utility and are
and pre-badging test results and reported them to- covered by the fitness-for-duty nrle. This category
gether under pre-employment, a clear comparison of includes both nuclear power plant workers and also
the positive rates for the two different tests is not corporate or support staff. Companies were asked to
possible. report the results for corporate or support staff sepa- rately. Only nine companies reported separate cor- Random Tests porate results. On average, there were 1,184 licensee
Random testing refers to a system of unannounced employees included in each report.
and unpredictable drug testing administered to a
group in a statistically random manner so that all Long. and short-term contractors
persons within that group have an equal probability The division of contractor personnel into long- and
of selection. short-term categories is optional for licensees. The
explanation in theNUMARCform suggests that any
For-cause contactorwodcingforsix months orlessbeconsidered
For-cause resting is performed based on behavioral short-term. Licensees who did not divide contractors
observation programs or on credible information into short- and long-term were Instructed to report
that an individual isabusing drugs or alcohol. Also test results for all contractors under the short-term
Included in this category is post-accident testing, category and to record ON/A! in the long-term cat- administered because of the occurrence of specific egory. This means that some long-term contractor
events (erg., accidents resulting in injuries). test sults my be reported under the short-term
contractor category; however, no short-term con- tractor results should be recorded under the long- Follow-up Testing term category. Because plants varied in their defini- Follow-up testing refers to chemical testing at tions of long- and short-term contractors, any com- unannounced intervals to ensure that an employee is parisons between rates of positive test results for the
maintaining abstinence from the abuse of drugs or twogrupsshoudbeviewedwithcaution.Onavae, alcchol. there were 305 long term contractorsand654short- term contractors included in each report.
Oher Tables B2 and B3 present the number of tests, Thiscategoryincludestesultsfrormthepeiodictesting number positives, and average percent positive by each
conducted by some licensees coincident with annual testcategory included in the NUMARCformfor licensee
-physicals or similar periodic events. Results reported employees arid all contractor employees (B2) and for
in the NUMARC forms 0Other' category are also long- and short-term contractors (B3) separately.
Included. Instructions accompanying the form do
not define what testing should be included in this
.13
r j
J
Drug Categories.
Table A2 Substances included In 10 CFR Part 26 Maximum Screening and
The nrle requires testing for five drugs and alcohol. Confirmation Levels Required by
Table A2 shows the maximum screening levels and con- 10 CFR Part 26 fismation levels required by the nale.
Plants are permitted to set cutoff levels lower than Screening Confirmation
those specified in the NIDA guidelines. Many licensees Drug Level Level
chose to do so for at least one category of drug, -as
Indicated by their reports. However, several plant using 'Marijuana 100 15 lowercutofflevels failed torecord thenumberofpositive Cocaine 300 -150 test results for both NIDA guidelines and their own cutoff Opiates 300 300 levels. For this report, the test result reports for lower -Phencyclidine 25 25 cutofflevels are assumed to apply to all categories of tests. Amphetamines 1,000 500 However, one plant noted that it used lower cutoff levels Alcchol 0.04% BAC 0.04% BAC
for certain categories of testing (eg., pre-access). Infor- mation of this type was not provided by other licensees.
Addlitional Drugs Regions
Many plants also tested for drugs other than the six
(five illegal and alcohol) categories required by the rule. The country is divided into five regions, corre- Information on the number ofsires testingforother drugs sponding with NRC administrative regions as shown in
is presented in Table B4.-This informadon Iscategorized FigureAl.TableA6 indicates thenumberofsites in each
by region. The table indicates that the additional drugs region that report testingfor additional drugs. Table A7 most often tested for were barbiturates and benzodiaz- shows the results of testing for alcohol, marijuana, co- epines. 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: Table B2 Test Results By NUMARC Form Test Test Results By NUMARC Form
Category Test Category By Licensee
Vanuary through June, 1990) Employees and Contractor
Personnel
TEST NUMBER January through June, 1990)
CATEGORIES
TE5TING UCENSEE CONTRACTOR
PRE-EMPLOYMENT CATEGORIES EMPLOYEES (Lcng-term
Number Tested 15,507 Shottrm)
Number Positive 181
Average Percent Positive 1.17 PE-EMEPLOYMENT
Number Tested 6,446 9.061 PRE-BADGING Number Positive 64 117 Number Tested 45,559 Avenge Percent Positive .99 1.29
Number Positive 694
Average Percent Positive 1.52 PRE-BADGING
Number Tested - 9,266 36,293 PERIODIC Number Positive 120 574 Number Tested 1,278 Average Percent Positive 1.30 1.58
Number Positive 3
Average Percent Positive 0.23 PERIODIC
Number Tested 1,099 179 FOR)CAUSE Number Positive 2 I
Number Tested 335 Average Percent Positive .18 -0.56
Number Positive 90
Average Percent Positive 26.87 O)R-CAUSE
Number Tested 167 168 POST-ACCIDENT Number Positive 40 50 Number Tested 21 Average Percent Positive 23.95 29.76
Number Positive 0
Average Percent Positive 0 POST-ACCIDENT
NumberTested 15 6' RANDOM Number Positive 0 0 Number Tested 73.577 Average Percent Positive 0 ,0
Number Positive 299
Average Percent Positive 0.41 RANDOM
NumberTested O5,4 23,175 FOLLOW-UP Number Positive 153 146 Number Tested 1,105 Averge Percent Positive -0.30 - 0.63
Number Positive 38
Average Percent Positive 3.44 F0LLODW-UP
Number Tested 916 189 OTHER Number Positive 36 - 2 NumberTested 571 Average Percent Positive 3.93 IfK
Number Positive 8
Average Percent Positive . 1.40 OTHER
Number Tested 415 156 TOTAL Number Positive 4 4 Number Tested 137,953 Avenage Percent Positive .96 2.56
Number Positive 1,313
Average Percent Positive 0.95 TOTAL
Number Tested 65,726 69,227 Number Positive 419 894 Avenge Percent Positive 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
CATEGORIES CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR
PRE-EMPLOYMENT
NumberTested 334 8,?27 Number Positive 3 114 Average Percent Positive .90 131 PRE-BADGING
Number Tested 3,407 _ 32,886 Number Positive 40 534 Average Percent Positive 1.17 1.62 PERIODIC
Number Tested 57 122 Number Positive 0 1 Average Percent Positive 0 0.82 FOR-CAUSE
NumberTested 26 142 Number Positive 6 . 44 Average Percent Positive 23.08 30.99 POST-ACCIDENT
NumberTested 6
Number Positive 0
Average Percent Positive 0
RANDOM
NumberTested 4,193 18,982
Number Positive 20 126
Average Percent Positive 0.48 0.66
POLLOW-UP
NumberTested 4 185
Number Positive 0 2
Average Percent Positive 0 108
OTHER
NumberTested 6 - 150 Number Positive 0 - 4
Average Percent Positive 0 2.67
TOTAL
NumberTested 8,027 61,200
Number Positive 69 825
Average Percent Positive 0.86, 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 aoedposke rcubsfor specic substaae are not expec to be the sano.
18
APPENDIX C catification by DHHS must be supplemented by close
monitoring of laboratory performance.
Compilation of Lessons Learned New procedures have been developed to imple- Reported by Licensees ment Part 26 and these procedures have been revised to
further enhance the program.
In general, the information provided on lessons Additional measures we're taken to improve the
learned varied among licensees. Few of the licensees had security at the collection! testing facility located at the
specifically identified sections on lessons learned Some Palo Verde Site.
licensees Indirectly referred to lessons learned when de- - -.-Personneklchanges have been made in the program
scribing their management Initiatives. Some licensees administrationtoachieveclosertupervisionofthecollec- saidthattheyhadbeenauditedandwere intheprocessof tion and testing area and to increase the level of regula- correcting identified weaknesses, but did not mention tory/compliance experience within the group.
what these weaknesses were. Of the 54 licensees, 30 did I .Tceannual requalifica.ion trainingforsupervisors
not have any information on lessons learned. in behavioral observation has been'placed on the Palo
As much as possible, lessons learned information Verde computer-based training system. This will help to
was taken directly from the NUMARC forms submitted ensureconsistentapplicationofthetrainingrequirements.
by the licensees. In some cases, lessons learned informa- A collection facility has been established In Phoe- don was combined with other information and was ex- nix to accommodate personnel at corporate offices. This
tracted. will facilitate testing of those individuals who have infie- quent access to the protected area.
ARIZONA PUBUC SERVICE COMPANY Qiain-of-custody forms with bar coding will b
A quality assurance audit during early implementa- added to the program within the next eight to ten weeks.
don of the program identified deficiencies Inconnection Thiswillhelpreduce thepotentialforhumanerrorindata
with the off-site laboratory. To correct these deficiencies, entry at the lab.
actions were taken to select a new off-site laboratory. Arizona Public Service isplanningtoprovideianew
However, problems with the reporting methods of this brochurewhich will again informourpersonnel aboutour
laboratory occurred, so additional action was taken to Employee Assistance and Fitness-for-Duty Programs.
select another laboratory.
Arizona Public Service had originally specified 300 ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE (ENTERGY
nglml as the screeningcutofflevelfor methampetamines. OPERATIONS)
Nichols advised us that it could not adopt that level Our initial six months into this program has given
because it uses a new monoclonal reagent specifically rise to certain observations: 1. For this area, THC and
designedtodetectmethamphetaminesandmanufactured alcohol are by far the drugs ofpreference 2. All instances
tocalibrate to the DHHS screeningcutoffof l000 nglml. ofpresumptivepositivetests boramphetamineshavebeen
Both the manufacturer and Nichols studied the problem attributed to prescnrbd and over-the-counter anorectics
and suggested that we could revise our cutoff level to and cold preparations. There has been no indication of
1,000 ngWml without compromising the effectiveness of abuse of this class ofdrug and, furthermort, the pattern of
the program. Since the reagent contains two antibodies, use seems to be seasonal (Spring) in nature.
one to detect methamphetamines at 1,000 ngfml and one
to detect amphetamines at 300 ngfml, we now specify CAROLINA POWER & UGHT
those two screening cutoff levels. Approximately 38% of the average number of em- Arizona Public Service learned that an 'off-site ployces with unescorted access were randomly tested
laboratory had erroneously reported that two specimens resulting in no violadons. The conclusion is that the
weepositiveformarijuana.lhe Medical Review Officer program's goals and objectives are being achieved.
discovered this when requesting results from the lab and Carolina Power & Light has one pool from which
finding that two pecimens had levels less than 15 ngWml its workers are selected for random testing. The weekly
(the specified cutoff level for confirmatory tests) buthad testing rate is 2%of the corporate pool and year-to-date
been reported as positives. Arizona Public Service has have tested 2,331 workers while the average number
advised those two individuals who tested positive that available for testing was 4,254 zesulting ina year-to-date
their tests were negative and that their records had been :tate of 54.8%.
No conclusions can be drawn fiom the EAP utiliza- Arizona Public Servicehas learned that it isimpera- tion data based upon year-to-date Informaton.
tive to contract with an experienced laboratory that is The employees in violation of the FFD prgram
largeenough and flexibleenough tohandle special needs. were referred to the EAP, Thbe company's policy is to
We are also convinced that etliance on a laboratory's
-
- I 19
v
(2) terminate employment orwt permanently deny the con- mometers were purchased which register down to 80.0 tractor access based upon a confirmed illegil drug test degrees F.
Also, the company does offer rehabilitation for the first Two ofour personnel were trained as instructors on
offenseforaconfirmedalcoholviolation;therefore,ofthe the intoxilyzer Instrument. During this training, deficien- three employees referred to the EAP, only one had their cies were noted in our routine maintenance and care of
unescorted access reinstated. All contractors in violation these instruments. A monitored program was imple- of the FFD program were permanently denied access. mented to routinely rotate our Intoxilyzers out of service
Contractors are not provided company EAP services. for maintenance and cleaning. This Isall documented in
permanent log books.
DUKE POWER COMPANY An individual came to the medical facility to be
McGuire Nuclear Station tested. He insisted on recording the entire procedure on
A change was implemented in the badging and a tape recorder.This was allowed. We subsequendydeter- access procedure which would help ensure that access Is mined that it is illegal .zo tape record someone without
not made at another Duke station when a badge has been their permission by Pennsylvania State Law. The collec- placed on FFD hold. donste is no longertograntpermission to tape record the
Catawba Nuclear Station collection procedure.
The company realized that workers were able to
determine when night testing would take place because FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT
they could see when the lights were on in the Medical The random selection was changed from a daily to
Facility. Since that time the company has kept these weekly process to increase the personnel selected/tested
lights on all the time so that workers are not able to tell ratio and to facilitate testing across all shifts and days of
when testing will take place. week. The number of weekly random tests was scheduled
to reach 100% in eleven months
DUQUESNE UGHT COMPANY
The random generating computer program was FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION
pullinglistswith severalrepeatnamesfromapreviouslist Random testing was not truly random in that dur- To respond to this problem, a new computer program has ing certain shifts the company did not collect specimens
been formulated, and its progress isbeing monitored. thereby establishing predictable periods during which
There iscurrently no method in place to check on workers would not be tested.
our day-to-day progress in attempting to reach a random FPC revised its FFD program to perform testing
test number equal to 100% of the badged work force by during backshifts and will continue to evaluate the pro- year's end. A new software program can be formulated to gram to ensure tharrandom drug testing Is performed
help us track our daily progress. This software can also during all shifts.
help us monitor the progress of our blind proficiency Reporting requirement deficiency. FPC needs to
testing and our follow-up testing to ensure compliance dAetermlne what testing results qualify as Nunsatisfactory
with 10 CFR Part 26. performance testing results for proper reporting.
10 CFR Part 26 requires that the MRO contact the FPC has since made some determination of what
licensee within ten days ofa presumptive positive screen- should be listed and reported as unsatisfactory laboratory
ing test by the laboratory. The MRO was required to performance.
adjudicate each positive and was not always able to do so Employees expressed a perception that a self-refer- within ten days since the certified copy of the chain-of- ral to the EAP would result in automatic termination.
custody form verifying die positive test was not always FPCs policy already clarifies current practice for
available. Arrangements have since been made to over- self-referrals This will be re-communicated to employees
night express mail the chain cf-custodyform totheMRO in the annual FF1 training.
each day. In doing so, we are able to circumvent both the
US. post office and the company mail syst. GPU NUCLEAR
The FFD manager was not always immediately GPU Nuclear divided its population to be tested at
available to attend to situations in which her input was each site between employees of the GPU system compa- mandated. A list was published of the FFD managers nies as one group and all other as another group. The
program representatives. These individuals are all well- number to be tested in each group varies depending upon
versed in the FFD prgam One of these individuals is the size of the subsets of the population on site during the
now available at all times. week, such that the testing rate would reflect the weekly
If a specimen I colder than 90.5 degrees F, this is averageofthesubsetpopulation.However, the Parsippany
reason to suspect that it Isadulterated. Our thernometer licensee employees with unescorted access were ran- only registered to 95 degrees F. In response, new ther- domly tested at a test rate less than I00% cf the popula-
la:
K) don during this reporting period. 4) a revision to the Shoreham Fitness-for-Duty Alcohol
The shortfall of the Parsippany licensee employees and Dnrg Screening procedure was initiated.
wras causedby individuals being unavailable for testingfor
valid rasons (eg.vacationday, sickday, noton site, etc.). MAINE YANKEE
Therefore, the generated list was not large enough so The home"or hotel numbers should be included on
allow for the exceptions to random testing and still contractorpre-access andrandomxforms tofacilitatecon- maintain a testing rate ofd100%. tact by the Medical Review Officers in the event of a
OPU isin the process of completing the necessary presumptive positive test.
modifications-to the random-selection systemin orderto - Mat open communiicbtibns with employees is the
correct dtse anomalies which occurred in the selection key to succssful implementation.
process as described above. The modifications should be.. Some workers,-for various reasons, take up-o three
completed by September 1, 1990. The testing program hours to produce the required specimen.
anticipates achieving a statistical testing rateof 100% for *Program Implementation and maintenance Isex- the entire year. tremely expensive, and requires ongoing review and
modification.
GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY
During the first six months of the FFD Program, NEW YORK POWER AUTHORITY
RBS experienced five unsatisfactory blind performance Indian Point
test results. Two were due to human error at GSU's As a result of low creatinine levels, It became
contract laboratory, one due to indeterminate reasons, necessary to involve the Medical Review Officer in policy
and two involved the possible deterioration of contami- decisions. The Physician provided guidelines to assist
nants in the BPT specimen. GSU has directed the BPT collection site personnel in determining the need to
specimen supplier to: repeat the screen as a result of low creatinine.
I.EnsuretheBPTspecimencontaminantlevel isat An aggressive attitude towards initial training of
least 20% above the established initial cutoff level. employees and contractors was taken. Personnel were
- 2. Provide three gas chromatography/mass spec- trained as supervisors or escorts. Upon evaluation, it was
trometry (GCIMS) certifications on all positive batches. determined that noformal methodhad been developed to
TwooftheseGOCMScertificatdonsaretubeperformedby identify recently promoted personnel who would then
independent laboratories and the other by the supplier. requireaddidonal tining.lmmediate programmadcstcps
The average of the three GCAMS tests shall be the were taken to correct this weakness.
certified contaminant level of the BPf specimen. Analysis of the random testing data compiled for
this report showed that the number of personnel tested
THE LIGHT COMPANY (HOUSTON during the six-month reporting interval fell short of the
LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY) expected 50%. Upon review, the program director real- It was determined that there was a need to increase ized that the statistical base he had been monitoring was
employee awareness with regard to heavy alcohol con- on ' the number of pisonnel selected for sampling as
sumption during off-duty hours and the impact of the opposed to the actual number of personnel that had been
lowered positive alcohol level from 0.10 to 0.40% BAC tested. To meet the annual requirement of 100%, the test
This was accomplished by an information program for percentage has been increased.
employees and by presentations made during department Fitzpatrick
staff meetings. The report for a blind test specim sent to the
dnrgjalcohol testing laboratory on March 22, 1990, was
LONG ISLAND UGHTING COMPANY not received by Fitzpatrick personnel as ofMay 29, 1990.
One program weakness was discovered during this Upon investigation it was discovered that the Medical
reporting period. The Shoreham Fitness-for-Duty Alco- Review Officer was still awaiting lab results of the blind
holandDnigScreeningProceduredidnotrequirealcohol test specimen. Further investigation revealed that the
testing duringpr-access screening. Actions taken in this druglalcohol testing laboratory had misplaced the blind
case were: 1) persons who did not receive the alcohol test sample. The sample was later located by the labora- screening were identified and either had the screening tory. The MRO was informed that in the future he should
performed or else had their badges pulled; 2) Emergency notify Fitzpatrick personnel within five days if no re- Planning verified that no unbadged personnel had been sponse has been received from the laboratory on a blind
added to the EOFftSCon-call list;3) the internal check- test specimen.
lists used by Emergency Planning and Screening and -An Invesdgadon was conducted in order to deter- Badging were revised to ensure that the requirement for mine the reason for the misplacement of the blind test
alcohol testing during pre-access screening was met; and specimen. It was discovered that the courier of the drug/
21
I A
I 11 alcohol testing laboratory contracted by the Fitzpatrick studies.
plant was removing test samples from sealed transport Computer enhancements to random selection pro- boxes. and transferring them to larger containers. cess to ensure process equitability.
Fitzpatrick personnel informed the laboratory that this The development and Implementation of a volun- procedure isunacceptable since it can cause test samples tary alcohol screening process to better meet the intent of
to be misplaced. The laboratory courier now transports 10 CFR Part 26.
the test samples in their original scaled transport boxes. The purchase and use of non-alcohol hand wipes In
A test sample which tested positive for cocaine was the screening lanes to ensure the hygiene of the screening
not declared a confirmed-positive by the Medical Review technician and eliminating any possible chain-of-cus- Officer since the individual who provided the sample tody concerns by allowing the screening technician to
denied drug use and requested the aliqut of the original remain stationary during the process.
sample and split sample to be tested. The MRO'decided The development of a form to be used by the
to maintain the individuals site access while awaiting -Medical Review Officer for reporting any results other
subsequent test results, citing legal reasons. The results of than routine negatives.
subsequent tests confirmed the positive result. The MRO Changes were made to the bathroom structure in
decided, as a result of this Incident, that in the future an response to low temperature problems, to include the
individual's site access will be denied based on the posi- posting of signs specifically requesting specimens be re- tive result of the first drug/alcohol test performed. turned to the collector as soon as possible, and the
If an individual is unable to void a 60 milliliter addition of foam pads on toilet tank covers in an attempt
sample initially, the Individual shall be detained in visual to alleviate temperature loss by conduction.
contact with the collection site person until the indi- The prefabrication of blood alcohol kits to better
vidual is able to void another specimen which, when expedite confirmatory testing. These kits include blood
combined with the first one, equals at least 60 milliliters tubes, chain-of-custody forms, medical technician in- This procedure was put into effect when two test samples strucions, and chain-ofcustody bags, alongwith a master
bythesameindividualonthesamedayproducedconflict.. checlistfor implementation ofconfirmatory blood alco- Ing test results. Since these samples did not contain the hol testing.
appropriateamountofliquid, the testswere ruled indeter- The posting of signs inside the screening facility
minate. explaining that readings below 0.003% BAC during the
initial breath alcohol test should be considered zero. This
NEW HAMPSHIRE YANKEE was done to alleviate any concerns by station personnel
Specifically developed plexiglass specimen holders on the technical capabilities of the evidential breath
were placed into use to more rapidly identify minimum testing devices used in the screening lanes.
collection size for compliance with 10 CFR Part 26 concerning a minimum of 60 ml of urine collected for PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT
laboratory analysis. COMPANY
Development of a batch and non-batch reporting Tracking supervisors, especially contractor super- system in conjunction with SmithKline Beecham Clin visors, is difficult due to the dynamic nature of our work
cal Laboratory, for use during outage situations. force. We will be sending lisas of all badged personnel to
Implementation ofa graphic and analytical studies cost center managers on a quarterly basis for the Identifi- for systematic data evaluation. cation of any new supervisors and to ensure that training
I endficadonofthelackof6-monoacetylmouphlne Is given, if not already received. Once identified as a
sting by contract laboratory and subsequent implemen- - supervisor, Individuals are entered into our Personnel
tation by contracted laboratory to comply with 10 CFR Qualifications System through which annual retraining
Part 26. can be tracked by computer.
Installadonofafacsimile machine toassistinbetter Incorporated FFD program management responsi- communicationbetween the licensee, the medical review bilitielntoa new, on-site position which reports directly
officer, and the contract laboratory. to the superintendent of the plant. This strengthens
The purchase of an evidential grade breath testing overall program management and reduces the number of
device for use upon activation of Emergency Operations persons receiving confidential information.
Facility.
The purchase ofa third IVAC temperature measur- PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
ing device as a back-up for units currently in use and for
use during plant shut-downs. AnauditoftheFFDprogrampduced twoprimary
Computer enhancements to add additional report- areas of concern
Ing capabilities for use during statistical and analytical Tho procedure to ensure that employees have not
consumed alcohol within five hours of reporting for
22
nonscheduledworchadnotbeenadequatdyimplemented PSE&O strongly believes that a FFD program can- in some cases. Further emphasis will be placed on the not be functionally practiced as only a drug and alcohol
Importance of call-in procedures to supervisors with call- detecdton/deterrcnce program. The leve ofdecisionmak- In responsibilities. ing involves more than just review of drug and alcohol
Collectioncenterlnstrumentcalibationechniques results. Medical Review Officer (MRO) involvement is
and PoE' stringent acceptability rangres for measuring essential and critical to a properly functioning FFD pro- PH and specific gravity for specimen integrity checks gram. PSE&G mentions this since the DOT isconsider- need to be reevaluated. POE will develop and implement ing the removal of the MRO review requirement for all
specific operatingprocedures with improved Instrument. 4est-results. - - - calibration methodologies and revised specimen integrity
check parameters. ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
The contractlaboratory incorrecdyreportedablind As a result of an FFD audit RG&E discovered that, specimen as negative. On the same day, the laboratory whlle the contractor had submitted the required FFD
was informed of the incident of false negative reporting certification documents, two employees had not taken
and was requested to investigate the circumstances and to the alcohol test. Although RG&E had not pre-approved
review all quality control data associaied with confirma- the contractor's FFD program, the prm-badge drug tests
tory testing of that particular specimen. The laboratory were conducted by a HHS-certified laboratory and were
ascertained that the sample was in fact positive. A review negative.
of this situation found that the false negative report was Upon investigation, RG&E has determined that
a result of an administrative error at the laboratory. POE there were no adverse results ofthis error as both contrac- has required the following actions to be taken at the tor employees worked in a crew environment and were
laboratory to prevent reoccurrence of this situation:
- The procedure for certifying scientist review of test continuously underdirctbehaviorobsenradonbyRG&E
employees.
results will be modified to check for discrepancies To prevent this situation from occurring in the
between records. All certifying scientists will be future, RG&E will require contractors to identify both
informed and instructed on this change. - the date and the laboratories conducting the drug and
- An additional review step will be included for all alcohol tests on the FF Dprogram certification documents.
specimens that Initially screenpositvebutforwhich
the confirmatory GCMS response iszro.This review SOUTHERN CAUFORNIA EDISON
will be performed by either the scientific director or COMPANY
one of the toxicology supervisors. Some administrative difficulties were encountered
In the re-sorting ftheblind specimens due to-the-pacb.
PUBUC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS aging methods of BDA-supplied positive and negative
COMPANY samples. These difficulties involved some chain-of-cus- PSE&O recommends that the NRC consider re- tody discrepancies which have now been corrected and
moving opiates from the panel of drugs to be tested. We reconciled. At no time was program testing adversely
have found that testing for opiates significantly delays affected since the problems were strictly limited to the
pm-access processing, and significantly undermines the blind sample process. All blind sample pre-screen results
programacceptanceandcredibllity.M-A-Misonlypresent and NIDA-certified lab results are now in agreement.
for a very short period of time, and there iswidespread use Additionally, internal administrative procedures have
ofopiate cough suppressants and analgesics. The present been strengthened and a kit packaging change has been
requirement thatdemands expensive G00/S confirma- instituted by the vendor to preclude further problems in
tion to supposedly rule out heroin abuses is aeremely this area of the program.
expensive due to the type oftesdngrequiredfordetecton.
In the five years of testing by PSE&O at Its nuclear SYSTEMS ENERGY RESOURCES
facilities, there have been no detected cases of heroin At the onset of testing, several presumptive posi.
abuse. In addition to the problem with cough suppressant tive specimens sent by GGNS to the HHS-certified
and analgesics, widespread consumption of food contain- confirmation laboratory were detrmined to be negative
ing poppy seeds and the common knowledge that poppy at the confirmation laboratory on their initial test. Oca- seeds may result In a positive drug test result Sake it sionally,apresumptivepositivexspeimenatGONSwould
almost impossible to declare a positive per the rule. A be sent to the confirmation laboratory for analysis only to
significant amount of expense can be eliminated by re- be negative on their initial test. This led to the assump- moving opiates from the panel of drugs tested in areas of don that these inaccuracies were due to differences In the
the country andlor states where heroin abuse does not type of drug analysis equipment used at GONS and the
appear to be common. confirmation laboratory.
23
/I K)
CONS's drug analysis equipment utilizes EPIA work was in progress to restore normal power. The FFD
technology while the confirmation laboratoiy was using program person waited nearly six hours while service
theEMIT technology. Careful analysis of the two systems personnel attempted unsuccessfilly to restore normal
by the confirmation laboratory and representatives for power, before activating the temporary power.
Abbott Laboratories disclosed that there are differences Since this occurrence, FFD program personnel sub- between the two system that could account for the ject to being called out to activate the temporary power
variances in results. It has been determined that the supply have been instructed to activate the power supply
Abbott drug assays utilizing EPIA are more sensitive and within a two-hour time frame.
more susceptible to react to certain drug analogues of the - -The UnionElectric Companyhas discontinued on- opiateandamphetamineclass, suchassubstancesfound site testing of FFD program personnel. This action was
mosdy inover-the-countermedicationsTheFitness-for- taken to avoid situations in which FED personnel might
Duty Program management is pleased with the overall see a presumptive test that belongs to them and worry
performance of the Abbott equipment and contractually unnecessarily about the results.
specified that the confirmation laboratory use the same
type of equipment. VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER COMPANY
This eliminated the variances that were occurring The quality assurance department conducted a
between theon-sitelaboratoryand theoff-sitelaboratory. three-month assessment of the FFD program Including a
GGNS has contracts with two confirmation laboratories review of the FED procedures. The resulting changes to
for redundancy purposes. This system should minimize the procedures require individuals responding to an emer- dependence on one laboratoryin the case that there isan -gency call-out toperform a self-assessmentof theirfitness
event (iLe., decertification, unsatisfactory blind perfor- for duty based on criteria issued to each responder. The
mance specimen testresult, etc.) that limits the confirma- FFD procedures now dearly convey the assessment pro- tion laboratory performance. cess and the means by which responders should reportfor
duty during an emergency.
TU ELECTRIC Also, as a result of a quality assurance audit during
FFDManagementsubmittedblindsamplecontain- the second quarter, proper on-site test facility air condi- en with seals that had been tampered with along with tioning isbeing provided for the test equipment's operat- normal daily collections. The medical staff were not as ing parameters.
conscientious as expected In noting the tampered speci- mens. Corrective action was taken with medical labora- WISCONSIN PUBUC SERVICE
tory management. CORPORATION
A random computer program-was writtentoselece
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY thedayandshiftforeawhrandomtestdate.Implementa- A FFD program person was called outon a weekend tion began In May of 1990. Prior to that date, this
to activate temporary power to Our cooling storage units selection was administratively controlled.
forspecimens. Uponarrival, thepersonwas informedthat
The following companies did not provide information on lessons learned (N=30)s
Alabama Power Company Northern States Power Company
Baltimore Gas & Electric Omaha Public Power District
Boston Edison Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Commonwealth Edison Company Philadelphia Electric Company
Consolidated Edison Company of New York Public Service Company of Colorado
Consumers Power Company Sacramento Municipal Utility District
Detroit Edison South Carolina Electric & Gas Company
Entergy Operations, Inc. (Louisiana) Tennessee Valley Authority
Georgia Power Company Toledo Edison
Illinois Power Company Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation
Indiana Michigan Power Company Washington Public Power Supply System
Iowa Electric Light & Power Company Wisconsin Electric
Nebraska Public Power District Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Yankee Atomic Electric Company
Northeast Utilities
24
Vi Attachment 2 S s- '- o IN 91-10
February 12, 1991 LIST OF RECENTLY ISSUED
1 I I NRC INFORMATION NOTICES
Information Date of
Notice No. - Subject IIssuance? Issued to
91-09 Counterfeiting of Crane Valves 02/5/91 All holders of OLs or
CPs for nuclear power
reactors.
91-08 Medical Examinations for 02/5/91 All holders of OLs or
Licensed Operators CPs for nuclear power, test and research
reactors.
90-77, Inadvertent Removal of Fuel 02/4/91 All holders of OLs or
Supp. 1 .Assemblies from the Reactor Core CPs for pressurized- water reactors (PWRs).
91-07 Maintenance Deficiency Assoc- 02/4/91 All holders of OLs or
iated with General Electric CPs for nuclear power
Horizontal Custom 8000 reactors.
Induction Motors
91-06 Lock-up of Emergency Diesel 01/31/91 All holders of OLs or
Generator and Load Sequencer CPs for nuclear power
Control Circuits Preventing reactors.
Restart of Tripped Emergency
Diesel Generator
91-05 Intergranular Stress Corrosion 01/30/91 All holders of OLs or
Cracking in Pressurized Water CPs for pressurized
Reactor Safety Injection water reactors (PWRs).
Accumulator Nozzles
91-04 Reactor Scram Following Control 01/28/91 All holders of OLs or
Rod Withdrawal Associated with CPs for nuclear power
Low Power Turbine Testing reactors.
91-03 Management of Wastes Contaminated 01/07/91 All medical licensees.
with Radioactive Materials ("Red
Bag' Waste and Ordinary Trash)
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 :01/30/91 :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 1l9xx 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 :LBu' : ":cb qM'n :PMcKee : :CHBerlinger
DATE /9i : 1( '/30/91 : / /91 : ,/7491 : / /91 OFC :DOEA:NRR : : NAME :CERossi : : : : DATE : / /91 : : :
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Document Name: INFORMATION NOTICE 91XX}}