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

From kanterella
Revision as of 19:57, 17 February 2018 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Summary of Fitness for Duty Program Performance Reports for Calendar Year 2008
ML092650761
Person / Time
Issue date: 11/24/2009
Revision: 0
From: Dorman D H, McGinty T J, Tracy G M
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Office of New Reactors, Division of Policy and Rulemaking
To:
Beaulieu, D P, NRR/DPR, 415-3243
References
IN-09-028
Download: ML092650761 (33)
v • d • e


ML092650761 November 24, 2009 NRC INFORMATION NOTICE 2009-28: SUMMARY OF FITNESS FOR DUTY PROGRAM PERFORMANCE REPORTS FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2008

ADDRESSEES

All holders of operating licenses for nuclear power reactors issued under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," except those who have permanently ceased operations and have certified that fuel has been permanently removed from the reactor vesse All holders of nuclear power plant construction permits and early site permits with a limited work authorization and applicants for nuclear power plant construction permits that have a limited work authorization under the provisions of 10 CFR Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities." All holders of a combined license for a nuclear power plant issued under 10 CFR Part 52, "Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants," and applicants for a combined license that have a limited work authorizatio All licensees who are authorized to possess, use, or transport formula quantities of strategic special nuclear material under the provisions of 10 CFR Part 70, "Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material."

All holders of a certificate of compliance or an approved compliance plan issued under 10 CFR Part 76, "Certification of Gaseous Diffusion Plants," if the holder engages in activities involving formula quantities of strategic special nuclear materia All contractors and vendors (C/Vs) who implement fitness-for-duty (FFD) programs or program elements to the extent that the licensees and other entities listed above rely on those C/V FFD programs or program elements to comply with 10 CFR Part 26, "Fitness For Duty Programs."

PURPOSE

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing this Information Notice (IN) to report FFD performance information obtained from licensees as detailed in their 2008 FFD program performance report submission The agency expects recipients to review the information for applicability to their facilities and to consider, as appropriate, corrective actions to improve their FFD program Suggestions contained in this IN are not NRC requirements; therefore, no specific action or written response is require DESCRIPTION OF CIRCUMSTANCES The regulations of 10 CFR Part 26, "Fitness for Duty Programs," prescribe requirements and standards for the establishment, implementation, and maintenance of FFD program On March 31, 2008, the Commission published a final rule for 10 CFR Part 26 that updated FFD requirements and enhanced consistency with other relevant Federal rules and guideline This final rule (Volume 73 of the Federal Register, page 16966 (73 FR 16966; March 31, 2008)) became effective on April 30, 2008; however, licensees and other entities could defer implementation of the requirements related to drug and alcohol testing until March 31, 200 The former rule (54 FR 24494; June 7, 1989), required licensees to submit their FFD program performance reports to the NRC within 60 days of the end of each 6-month reporting period (January - June and July - December). The current rule requires licensees to submit FFD program performance data annually before March 1 of the following year in accordance with 10 CFR 26.727, "Fitness-for-Duty Program Performance Date." In the past, the NRC summarized and analyzed the performance data and published NUREG/CR-5758, "Fitness for Duty in the Nuclear Power Industry-Annual Summary of Program Performance Reports." Beginning with calendar year 1996 data, the NRC has published the summary and analysis of FFD program performance data through the NRC's generic communication progra The enclosure to this IN provides FFD program performance data for calendar year 200 This IN presents FFD program performance information for 74 licensees or other entities as follows:

  • 64 reactor site One utility aggregated the performance data for two different reactor sites into one performance repor Therefore, although this IN only distinguishes between 64 reactor sites, the actual test results address all 65 reactor sites.
  • 6 corporate FFD program office Some utilities with multiple reactor sites administer the FFD program at a location different from the reactor sites and therefore report data for these personnel separately.
  • 4 contractors/SSNM transporter These four include BWX Technologies, Inc.; Institute of Nuclear Power Operations; Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.; and Westinghouse Electric Company, LL DISCUSSION The following summarizes information reported by licensees or other entities (hereafter, as licensees) on FFD program issues encountered and where appropriate the lessons learned, management initiatives, and corrective action
  • Ten licensees reported issues associated with licensee testing facilities or HHS-certified laboratory performance involving equipment malfunctions or potential weaknesses related to human error, or bot Of these, the majority of problems pertained to blind performance test sample
  • Seven licensees reported testing program policy and procedure issue These primarily involved alcohol testing and illegal drug (cocaine and marijuana) us
  • A number of licensees elected to test for alcohol or specific drugs or both using more stringent cutoff levels than those established by regulation (see Sections 2.7(e) and 2.7(f) in Appendix A, "Guidelines for Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs," to 10 CFR Part 26 in the former rule; and 10 CFR 26.133, "Cutoff Levels for Drugs and Drug Metabolites," and 10 CFR 26.163, "Cutoff Levels for Drugs and Drug Metabolites," in the current rule). Specifically, 5 licensees lowered the alcohol cutoff, 63 licensees reduced the marijuana cutoff, 4 licensees reduced the cocaine cutoff, 5 licensees reduced the opiate cutoff, 8 licensees reduced the amphetamine cutoff, and 4 licensees reduced the phencyclidine (PCP) cutof The lower cutoff levels for drugs and drug metabolites have resulted in the identification of illegal drug us In addition, 7 licensees tested for additional drugs above those required by regulatio
  • Five licensees reported initiatives that resulted in the identification of programmatic improvements or areas of weakness requiring corrective actio
  • Three licensees reported various types of self-assessments or initiatives to improve their FFD program These actions included but were not limited to peer and external review Two other licensees implemented new software programs to enhance the management of the FFD and access authorization program
  • The staff noted that, for a few licensees, the program performance reports did not summarize management actions taken in response to identified FFD program occurrences or deficiencies (10 CFR 26.71(d) in the former rule and 10 CFR 26.717(b)(8) of the current rule). Fitness for duty programs are subject to NRC inspectio The following describes FFD program performance issues that occurred at licensee facilitie For summary purposes, this information is presented below in four categories: (1) Certified Laboratories, (2) Policies and Procedures, (3) Program and System Management, and (4) Other Program and System Management Issue (1) Certified Laboratories Overall, 10 licensees reported problems associated with laboratory performance involving equipment malfunctions or potential weaknesses related to human error, or both, as follows:
  • One licensee reported a potential deficiency associated with the tamper indicating seals supplied by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)-certified laboratory for use in securing specimen container The licensee determined through testing that the laboratory-supplied seal could be removed from a specimen bottle without indications of tamperin The licensee immediately implemented the use of a second more sensitive seal that was applied over the laboratory-supplied sea A review of drug test results for specimen testing conducted at the laboratory over the past 2 years revealed no instances in which a specimen was rejected for testing because of a problem with the tamper-indicating sea The laboratory was in the process of developing a new seal at the time of the FFD performance report submissio The licensee will conduct tests on the new seal when it receives it from the laboratory and will verify that the seal cannot be removed from a specimen bottle without the seal showing signs of tamperin
  • One licensee reported that a contractor FFD technician included the phrase "Quality Assurance Blind" on the custody-and-control forms for blind performance test samples sent to the HHS-certified laborator This information distinguished the blind samples from donor specimens submitted for testin The FFD technician received training on the correct procedures to follow for completing the custody-and-control forms for blind samples, and the licensee submitted new blind samples to the HHS-certified laboratory to replace those previously sent in erro The licensee also reviewed the custody-and-control forms for previous blind samples and identified no additional discrepancie
  • One licensee reported that the HHS-certified laboratory misplaced two specimen An additional specimen was collected and tested for each dono
  • One licensee reported that the HHS-certified laboratory reported a false negative test result for a blind performance test sample containing amphetamin Retesting of the blind sample at a second HHS-certified laboratory resulted in a positive test for amphetamin The licensee's performance report submission did not specify the cause of the testing error at the initial HHS-certified laborator
  • One licensee reported that the HHS-certified laboratory reported a false negative result for a blind performance test sample containing PC The laboratory investigated and determined that a random mechanical instrument error resulting from a small crack in a wash nozzle line caused the false negativ
  • One licensee reported that the HHS-certified laboratory reported a false negative result for a blind performance test sample containing PC The laboratory determined that the certifying scientist incorrectly entered the test result into the laboratory's computer syste The laboratory conducted error correction training with the certifying scientist and indicated that all certifying scientists would receive additional training to ensure that they accurately entry of gas chromatography/mass spectrometry results into the laboratory's computer syste
  • One licensee reported that the HHS-certified laboratory reported an inconsistent test result for a blind performance test sample containing marijuana and an adulteran The laboratory reported only a marijuana positive test resul The licensee's performance report submission did not specify the cause of the inconsistent result from the HHS-certified laborator
  • One licensee reported that an FFD program audit determined that it had not met the quarterly blind performance test sample requirement for the former rule (i.e., 10 percent of specimens tested in the quarter up to 250) for the third quarter of 200 The licensee submitted 33 samples when it should have submitted 35 sample The issue was attributed to the licensee's failure to apply self-checking techniques to ensure that the intended action was correc Licensee staff completed refresher training and the licensee developed a tracking table to more accurately evaluate the number and type (i.e., positive or negative) of blind samples submitted for testing each quarte A Human Performance Success Clock Evaluation recommended a Section Clock Reset because company administrative expectations were not being me The licensee forwarded the Human Performance Success Clock Evaluation to the Condition Report Program Administrator for retentio
  • Two licensees reported not meeting the quarterly blind performance test sample requirement for one quarter of testin However, the licensees noted that the combined average for the first and second quarters was over 10 percent of the specimens submitted to the HHS-certified laborator The licensee generated condition reports, implemented corrective actions to prevent recurrence, and issued company-wide condition reports to share the event and lessons learned with other entitie (2) Policies and Procedures Overall, 7 licensees reported testing program policy and procedure issues as follows:
  • One licensee reported that an NRC security inspection report identified a Green non-cited violation for failure to test personnel selected for random drug and alcohol testing at the earliest reasonable and practical opportunit
  • One licensee reported that the results of a self-assessment evaluation of 200 breath alcohol tests determined that 1 breath test had been improperly administere The test was performed with only 1 minute between breath sample An additional 1,000 records were reviewed with no issues identifie
  • One licensee reported that a confirmed positive alcohol test result was appealed and overturned because the specimen collector completed the custody-and-control form improperl
  • One licensee reported that the pre-access1 alcohol test for a refueling outage short-term contractor was conducted in erro Positive results were obtained during initial breath testing but confirmatory testing was not conducted because of a communication error by the 1 Licensees and other entities shall administer drug and alcohol tests to the individuals who are subject to 10 CFR Part 26 under the following conditions: for pre-access, for-cause, and post-event. (10 CFR 26.31(c)). Licensees and entities are required to conduct pre-access testing as well as other actions (such as background, credit, and criminal history checks) to help ensure the honestly, integrity, and reliability of persons being considered for unescorted access to a licensee facilit breath collecto The breath collector, a temporary worker hired for outage processing, was relieved of collection duties pending counseling and additional trainin The short-term contractor was not granted unescorted access to the plan
  • One licensee reported that it determined that two licensee security officers were associated with illegal drug One security officer admitted to illegal drug use while on vacation and following his return to wor The second security officer was involved in an offsite event apparently involving the possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia; this event required police respons For-cause tests were completed for both security officers, and the results of the tests were negativ The licensee terminated both employees' employment and implemented an accelerated random testing program for security officers above that required by 10 CFR Part 2 During this reporting period, the accelerated testing resulted in no positive test result
  • One licensee reported that a contract employee that previously had unescorted access, tested positive for marijuana on a pre-access tes The licensee granted the employee 5-day reinstated access pending receipt of the pre-access drug test resul Upon receipt of a positive test result, the licensee suspended the employee's unescorted acces The licensee reviewed the employee's work activities and did not identify any deficient work practices that could have impacted security- or safety-related systems/equipmen A review of the employee's request for unescorted access revealed no disqualifying information or indication of illegal drug us The employee did not enter the protected area during the 5-day perio The licensee subsequently revoked the employee's unescorted acces
  • One licensee reported that a thermometer used during a urine specimen collection was past due for calibratio A second specimen was collected from the donor and a condition report was writte (3) Program and System Management As described above, the current 10 CFR Part 26 rule was published and became effective April 30, 200 However, licensees could defer implementation of the drug and alcohol provisions until March 31, 200 As a result, for the 2008 FFD performance reporting period, some licensees may have implemented the amended/new requirements midway through calendar year 200 Therefore, the drug and alcohol performance data presented below (e.g., cutoff and blood alcohol content (BAC) levels) could represent either the former or the current requirements depending on the actual date that the licensee implemented the current rul The drug and alcohol testing requirements for the former rule are provided in 10 CFR Part 26, Appendix A, Sections 2.7(e) and 2.7(f). The current drug testing cutoff levels are found in 10 CFR 26.133 and 26.163 and the confirmatory BAC percentage considered a positive test result is found in 10 CFR 26.10 The changes to the drug and alcohol testing cutoff level changes are as follows:
  • Marijuana metabolite Initial cutoff level was lowered from 100 nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL) to 50 ng/m
  • Opiate metabolite Initial and confirmatory cutoff levels were increased from 300 ng/mL to 2000 ng/m
  • Confirmatory alcohol test percent BA The current rule provides a work status provision to evaluate time-at-work when determining a positive alcohol test resul (Before the current rule, the NRC considered only a confirmatory alcohol test result of 0.04 percent BAC or higher as a positive test result.) Under the current rule, a positive test result is reported for three situations: a confirmatory alcohol test result of 0.04 percent BAC or higher; a 0.03 percent BAC or higher and in work status for at least 1-hour; and, a 0.02 percent BAC or higher and in work status for at least 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> Alcohol Testing (BAC Cutoff Levels):
  • One licensee reported testing at a lower BAC cutoff level (0.02 percent BAC) for pre-access and follow-up testin
  • Four licensees reported testing at BAC cutoff levels ranging from 0.011-0.039 percent to extrapolate BAC levels based on time between alcohol consumption and time of tes
  • Eight licensees reported implementing the BAC cutoff levels in the current rul Drug Testing (Cutoff Levels):
  • Three licensees reported testing at the limits of detection (LOD) for all for-cause and follow-up tests and for suspect specimen This testing resulted in the identification of marijuana and cocaine positive result Note: For the drug or drug metabolites provided below, the following format is used: (Initial Cutoff Level/Confirmatory Cutoff Level). For example, "(50/15 ng/mL)" means that the initial confirmatory cutoff level is 50 ng/mL and the confirmatory cutoff level is 15 ng/m Marijuana Sixty-three licensees reported testing at lower cutoff levels than those required by the former rul The majority of these licensees had also tested at these levels in prior year
  • Fifty-four licensees reported testing at lower cutoff levels under the former rule and consistent with the cutoff levels in the current rule (50/15 ng/mL).
  • Three of the 54 licensees reported maintaining an initial cutoff level at 100 ng/mL for licensee bargaining unit personnel and applied the 50/15 ng/mL cutoff levels for all other personne
  • Four of the 54 licenses reported using a 20 ng/mL initial cutoff level and confirmatory cutoff level at the LOD for dilute specimens (i.e., specimens with a creatinine concentration of less than 20 milligrams per deciliter).
  • Two licensees reported testing at lower cutoff levels (50/10 ng/mL). One of these licensees reported switching to a confirmatory cutoff level of 15 ng/mL in October 200
  • Two licensees reported testing at lower cutoff levels (20/15 ng/mL).
  • One licensee reported testing at lower cutoff levels (20/10 ng/mL).
  • Four licensees reported testing at lower cutoff levels (20/3 ng/mL). Cocaine
  • Four licensees reported testing at lower cutoff levels (150/60 ng/mL). Opiates
  • Five licensees reported testing at lower cutoff levels (300/150 ng/mL). Amphetamine
  • One licensee reported testing at lower cutoff levels (1000/250 ng/mL).
  • One licensee reported testing at lower cutoff levels (1000/200 ng/mL), but only for amphetamine, not for methamphetamin
  • One licensee reported testing at lower cutoff levels (300/300 ng/mL).
  • One licensee reported testing at lower cutoff levels (300/250 ng/mL).
  • Four licensees reported testing at lower cutoff levels (300/100 ng/mL). Phencyclidine (PCP)
  • Four licensees reported testing at lower cutoff levels (20/10 ng/mL). Testing for Additional Drugs
  • Five licensees reported testing for barbiturates (300/300 ng/mL), benzodiazepines (300/300 ng/mL), methadone (300/300 ng/mL), and methaqualone (300/300 ng/mL). Those tests resulted in one positive resul
  • One licensee reported testing for methadone (300/200 ng/mL), but discontinued that testing after October 200
  • One licensee reported testing for barbiturates (300/250 ng/mL) and benzodiazepines (300/250 ng/mL).

(4) Other Program and System Management Issues

  • One licensee conducted an FFD self-assessment with a team of three peer evaluators from other licensees and two of their own employee The assessment generated 13 recommendations that the licensee is currently evaluatin
  • One licensee reported four issues identified during an NRC inspection: (1) donors had access to a soap dispenser in the collection area; (2) the licensee failed to perform follow-up testing at the required procedural frequency for a person; (3) unescorted access not withheld for three individuals who were not covered under the behavioral observation program (BOP) for more than 30 days; and (4) personal/privacy information was stored in an unprotected network locatio
  • One licensee reported that staff at the licensee testing facility participated in proficiency testing provided by the College of American Pathologists to ensure to the accuracy and integrity of the drug testing proces
  • Two licensees implemented a new vendor-supplied database system to maintain and process information for the access authorization, FFD, and BOP program The information system automated and simplified processes, replaced multiple databases, and eliminated redundant work for licensee staf This system incorporates and standardizes processes, programs, and procedures, including the annual supervisory reviews, monthly access control list, and the generation of the random selection lists for the FFD progra Efficiencies were gained by eliminating multiple data entry points and by reducing file maintenance activitie

CONTACT

This IN requires no specific action or written respons Please direct any questions about this matter to the technical contact listed belo /RA/ /RA/ Timothy J. McGinty, Director Daniel H. Dorman, Director Division of Policy and Rulemaking Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards /RA/

Glenn Tracy, Director Division of Construction Inspection and Operational Programs Office of New Reactors

Technical Contact:

Paul Harris, NSIR (301) 415-1169 E-mail: fitnessforduty@nrc.gov

Enclosure:

Summary of Fitness-for-Duty Program Performance Reports (Calendar Year 2008) Note: NRC generic communications may be found on the NRC public Web site, http://www.nrc.gov, under Electronic Reading Room/Document Collection

  • One licensee reported that staff at the licensee testing facility participated in proficiency testing provided by the College of American Pathologists to ensure to the accuracy and integrity of the drug testing proces
  • Two licensees implemented a new vendor-supplied database system to maintain and process information for the access authorization, FFD, and BOP program The information system automated and simplified processes, replaced multiple databases, and eliminated redundant work for licensee staf This system incorporates and standardizes processes, programs, and procedures, including the annual supervisory reviews, monthly access control list, and the generation of the random selection lists for the FFD progra Efficiencies were gained by eliminating multiple data entry points and by reducing file maintenance activitie

CONTACT

This IN requires no specific action or written respons Please direct any questions about this matter to the technical contact listed belo /RA/ /RA/ Timothy J. McGinty, Director Daniel H. Dorman, Director Division of Policy and Rulemaking Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards /RA/

Glenn Tracy, Director Division of Construction Inspection and Operational Programs Office of New Reactors

Technical Contact:

Paul Harris, NSIR (301) 415-1169 E-mail: fitnessforduty@nrc.gov

Enclosure:

Summary of Fitness-for-Duty Program Performance Reports (Calendar Year 2008) Note: NRC generic communications may be found on the NRC public Web site, http://www.nrc.gov, under Electronic Reading Room/Document Collection DISTRIBUTION: DSP r/f ADAMS ACCESSION NUMBER: ML092650761 ME2434 OFFICE ISCP/DSP/NSIRTech Editor DRA/RES ISCP/DSP/NSIR DSP/NSIR PGCB:DPR NAME P. Harris KKribes email VBarnes email C. Erlanger R. Correia DBeaulieu DATE 09/29/09 9/29/09 9/23/09 10/5/09 10/8/09 10/28/09 OFFICE PGCB:DPR BC:PGCB:DPR NRO NMSS D:DPR NAME CHawes MMurphy GTracy(ACampbell for) DDorman TMcGinty DATE 11/02/09 11/12/09 11/19/09 11/23/09 11/24/09 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY Enclosure Summary of Fitness for Duty Program Performance Reports (Calendar Year 2008)

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 26.717, "Fitness-for-Duty Program Performance Data," (formerly 10 CFR 26.71(d)) requires licensees and other entities to, in part, collect, compile, retain, and submit fitness for duty program performance dat The tables and charts below present information for calendar year 2008 and in some cases present data over longer periods of time to present trend The following is a summary description of the data listed in the subsequent table In some cases, the numerical summary values below have been rounde Summary

  • The tables show that the industry positive test rate is low for both licensee and contractor/vendor population
  • Table 1 shows that the positive test rate for all tests conducted by the industry is 0.65 percen The for-cause test rate resulting from behavior observation is 11.79 percent, the highest industry positive test rat
  • Table 2 illustrates a consistent pattern regarding positive test rates by work categor Licensee employees have the lowest positive test rates and short-term contractors have the highest positive test rate This pattern has been consistent across test types and over time as shown in Tables 9, 10, 11, and 1
  • Table 4 shows that marijuana is the substance most frequently detected substance in both licensee employee and contractor test For licensee employees, alcohol is the next most frequently detected substance while cocaine is the most frequently detected substance for contractor
  • Table 5 shows a downward trend in the number of significant events for reactor operators and supervisor
  • Table 7 illustrates that three substances (marijuana, cocaine, and alcohol) have accounted for approximately 95 percent of all substances identified in each year of industry testing from 1990 through 200 Marijuana 47 percent of substances in 1990, 55 percent in 2008 Cocaine 29 percent of substances in 1990, 20 percent in 2008 Alcohol 19 percent of substances in 1990 and 2008
  • Table 8 shows that from 1990 through 2008 the annual random testing positive rate for industry has decreased from 0.37 percent to 0.23 percen
  • Table 13 presents the range of positive test rates reported by licensees in 2008, by work category, for pre-access and random testin The information presented indicates that while the overall positive rates are low (less than 1 percent), contractors test positive at a much higher rate than licensee employee Pre-access testing positive rates
  • Industry rate (contractors) is 0.85 percent (licensee sites reported positive rates from 0.0 to 2.10 percent)
  • Industry rate (licensee employees) is 0.18 percent (licensee sites reported positive rates from 0.0 to 1.53 percent). Random testing positive rates
  • Industry rate (contractors) is 0.43 percent (licensee sites reported positive rates from 0.0 to 2.01 percent)
  • Industry rate (licensee employees) is 0.14 percent (licensee sites reported positive rates from 0.0 to 0.60 percent).

Table 1 Test Results for Each Test Category (2008) Test Category Number of TestsPositive TestsPercent PositivePre-Access Random For-Cause Observed Behavior Post-Accident Follow-Up Other 87,468 54,759 797 986 5,756 2,171 664 127 94 7 44 55 0.76% 0.23% 11.79% 0.71% 0.76% 2.53% TOTAL* TOTAL without "Other" category 151,937 149,766 991 936 0.65% 0.62%

  • Includes the "Other" test categor Although some licensees specified the nature of the tests included in the "Other" category (e.g., return to work), most licensees did not provide clarifying informatio Table 2 Test Results by Test and Work Categories (2008) Test Category Licensee Employees Long-Term Contractors* Short-Term Contractors* Total Pre-Access Number Tested 11,4981,08674,884 87,468 Number Positive 2110633 664 Percent Positive 0.18%0.92%0.85% 0.76%Random Number Tested 38,7211,81316,225 54,759 Number Positive 50275 127 Percent Positive 0.14%0.11%0.46% 0.23%For-Cause Observed Behavior Number Tested 32930438 797 Number Positive 22072 94 Percent Positive 6.69%0.00%16.44% 11.79% Post-Accident Number Tested 44869469 986 Number Positive 106 7 Percent Positive 0.22%0.00%1.28% 0.71%Follow-Up Number Tested 2,8561392,761 5,756 Number Positive 19025 44 Percent Positive 0.67%0.00%0.91% 0.76%Other Number Tested 1,196263712 2,171 Number Positive 9047 55 Percent Positive 0.75%0.00%6.60% 2.53%TOTAL Number Tested 53,0483,40095,489 151,937 Number Positive 12212857 991 Percent Positive 0.23%0.35%0.90% 0.65%TOTAL without "Other" Number Tested 51,8523,13794,777 149,766 Number Positive 11312811 936 Percent Positive 0.22%0.38%0.86% 0.62%
  • Some licensees distinguished between short-term and long-term contractors, whereas others reported all contractors as short ter Table 3 Test Results by Test Category (2008) Test Category First 6 Months Second 6 Months Year Pre-Access Number Tested 48,17739,29187,468 Number Positive 394270664 Percent Positive 0.82%0.69%0.76%Random Number Tested 27,79526,96454,759 Number Positive 7156127 Percent Positive 0.26%0.21%0.23%For-Cause Observed Behavior Number Tested 450347797 Number Positive 563894 Percent Positive 12.44%10.95%11.79% Post-Accident Number Tested 526460986 Number Positive 527 Percent Positive 0.95%0.43%0.71%Follow-Up Number Tested 3,0822,6745,756 Number Positive 202444 Percent Positive 0.65%0.90%0.76%Other Number Tested 1,2069652,171 Number Positive 302555 Percent Positive 2.49%2.59%2.53%TOTAL Number Tested 81,23670,701151,937 Number Positive 576415991 Percent Positive 0.71%0.59%0.65%TOTAL without "Other" Number Tested 80,03069,736149,766 Number Positive 546390936 Percent Positive 0.68%0.56%0.62% Table 4 Confirmed Positive Test Results by Substance and by Work Category (2008) (All test types, including testing Refusals) Positive Test Result Licensee Employees Contractors (Long-Term/Short-Term) Total Number PercentNumberPercentNumber PercentMarijuana 47 32.87%45952.16%506 49.46%Cocaine 21 14.69%16318.52%184 17.99%Opiates 3 2.10%131.48%16 1.56%Amphetamines 3 2.10%323.64%35 3.42%Phencyclidine 1 0.70%00.00%1 0.10%Alcohol 39 27.27%13815.68%177 17.30%Refusal to Test 29 20.28%758.52%104 10.17%TOTAL* 143 100.00%880100.00%1,023 100.00%
  • The totals in this table may be higher than those reported in Tables 1, 2, and 3 because of instances in which an individual tested positive for more than one substanc Chart 1 2008 Positive Test Results by Substance Licensee Employees Chart 2 2008 Positive Test Results by Substance Contractors Cocaine14.69%Phencyclidine0.70%Amphetamines2.10%Opiates2.10%Marijuana32.87%Refusal to Test20.28%Alcohol27.27%Alcohol15.68%Cocaine18.52%Phencyclidine0.0%Amphetamines3.64%Opiates1.48%Marijuana52.16%Refusal to Test8.52% Table 5 Significant Fitness-for-Duty (FFD) Events* Year Reactor Operators Licensee Supervisors Contract SupervisorsFFD Program PersonnelSubstances Found Adulterated Specimen* Total 1990 19 26 12 1 6 - 64 1991 16 18 24 5 8 - 71 1992 18 22 28 0 6 - 74 1993 8 25 16 0 2 - 51 1994 7 11 11 1 0 - 30 1995 8 16 10 0 5 - 39 1996 8 19 8 2 5 - 42 1997 9 16 10 0 4 - 39 1998 5 10 10 3 0 - 28 1999 5 2 12 2 2 - 23 2000 5 11 8 0 3 - 27 2001 4 9 12 0 0 - 25 2002 3 3 12 3 1 - 22 2003 6 3 8 0 2 9 28 2004 9 7 4 0 9 23 52 2005 5 13 14 1 9 29 71 2006 3 6 6 0 2 60 77 2007 3 7 1 1 0 47 59 2008 2 8 6 1 0 51 68
  • For this report, an adulterated specimen is reported if the original specimen was determined to be adulterated, dilute, or possessed unusually low or high temperature, specific gravity, or creatinine levels and if the individual either refused to provide a second specimen or the specimen collected under observed collection resulted in a positive test resul The staff notes that some inconsistencies were identified in licensee reporting of adulterated specimen Table 6A Trends in Testing by Test Type Type of Test 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994* 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Pre-Access Number Tested 122,491 104,508104,84291,47180,21779,305 81,04184,32069,14669,139Number Positive 1,548 9831,1109529771,122 1,1321,096822934Percent Positive 1.26% 0.94%1.06%1.04%1.22%1.41% 1.40%1.30%1.19%1.35%Random Number Tested 148,743 153,818156,730146,60578,39166,791 62,30760,82956,96954,457Number Positive 550 510461341223180 202172157140Percent Positive 0.37% 0.33%0.29%0.23%0.28%0.27% 0.32%0.28%0.28%0.26%For-Cause Number Tested 732 727696751758763 848722720736Number Positive 214 167178163122139 138149100120Percent Positive 29.23% 22.97%25.57%21.70%16.09%18.22% 16.27%20.64%13.89%16.30%Followup Number Tested 2,633 3,5444,2834,1393,8753,262 3,2623,2962,8633,008Number Positive 65 6269565035 40314330Percent Positive 2.47% 1.75%1.61%1.35%1.29%1.07% 1.23%0.94%1.50%1.00%TOTALf Number Tested 274,599 262,597266,551242,966163,241150,121 147,458149,167129,698127,340Number Positive 2,377 1,7221,8181,5121,3721,476 1,5121,4481,1221,224Percent Positive 0.87% 0.66%0.68%0.62%0.84%0.98% 1.03%0.97%0.87%0.96%
  • Beginning in 1994, the NRC reduced the minimum annual random testing rate from 100 to 50 percent of the subject population. f "Total" does not include results from the "Other" test categor Table 6B Trends in Testing by Test Type Type of Test 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Pre-Access Number Tested 68,333 63,74473,15572,98876,119 79,00579,98081,93287,468Number Positive 965 720805757737 648747668664Percent Positive 1.41% 1.13%1.10%1.04%0.97% 0.82%0.93%0.82%0.76%Random Number Tested 51,955 50,08049,74149,40251,239 50,28652,55751,66554,759Number Positive 204 148114132127 147132117127Percent Positive 0.39% 0.30%0.23%0.27%0.25% 0.29%0.25%0.23%0.23%For-Cause Number Tested 883 7301,0721,0521,159 1,1611,6211,6151,783Number Positive 138 101112126139 10610991101Percent Positive 15.63% 13.84%10.45%11.98%11.99% 9.13%6.72%5.63%5.66%Followup Number Tested 2,861 2,6492,8923,1423,752 4,0574,7664,9915,756Number Positive 49 35214231 31373144Percent Positive 1.71% 1.32%0.73%1.34%0.83% 0.76%0.78%0.62%0.76%TOTALf* Number Tested 124,032 117,203 126,860126,584132,269 134,509138,924140,203149,766Number Positive 1,356 1,0041,0521,0571,034 9321,025907936Percent Positive 1.09% 0.86%0.83%0.84%0.78% 0.69%0.74%0.65%0.62% f "Total" does not include results from the "Other" test categor Chart 3 Trends in Positive Random Testing Rates* 0.00%0.05%0.10%0.15%0.20%0.25%0.30%0.35%0.40%0.45%1990199219941996199820002002200420062008Positive Rate0100200300400500 600Positive Random TestsPositive RateNumber of Positive Tests
  • Beginning in 1994, the NRC reduced the minimum annual random testing rate from 100 to 50 percent of the subject populatio Table 7 Trends in Substances Identified Year Marijuana Cocaine Alcohol Amphet-amines Opiates Phen- cyclidine Total 1990 1,153 706 452 69 45 8 2,433 1991 746 549 401 31 24 11 1,762 1992 953 470 427 31 8 4 1,893 1993 781 369 357 51 13 5 1,576 1994 739 344 251 54 11 1 1,400 1995 819 374 265 61 17 7 1,543 1996 868 352 281 53 14 2 1,570 1997 842 336 262 49 39 0 1,528 1998 606 269 212 46 19 1 1,153 1999 672 273 230 40 16 2 1,233 2000 620 251 211 50 32 1 1,165 2001 523 225 212 50 17 2 1,029 2002 560 228 214 47 21 3 1,073 2003 518 228 199 64 17 0 1,026 2004 514 247 222 60 14 1 1,058 2005 432 246 196 59 16 2 951 2006 446 307 206 53 14 1 1,027 2007 386 232 189 29 22 5 863 2008 506 184 177 35 16 1 919 Table 8 Trends in Positive Test Rates for Workers with Unescorted Access Year Random Testing For-Cause Testing Total (Random and For-Cause Testing) Number of Tests Percent Positive Number of Tests Percent Positive Number of Tests Percent Positive 1990 148,743 0.37% 73229.23% 149,475 0.54% 1991 153,818 0.33% 72722.97% 154,545 0.47% 1992 156,730 0.29% 69625.57% 157,426 0.44% 1993 146,605 0.23% 75121.70% 147,356 0.37% 1994* 78,391 0.28% 75816.09% 79,149 0.48% 1995 66,791 0.27% 76318.22% 67,554 0.50% 1996 62,307 0.32% 84816.27% 63,155 0.57% 1997 60,829 0.28% 72220.64% 61,551 0.54% 1998 56,969 0.28% 72013.89% 57,689 0.50% 1999 54,457 0.26% 73616.30% 55,193 0.50% 2000 51,955 0.39% 88315.63% 52,838 0.70% 2001 50,080 0.30% 73013.84% 50,810 0.53% 2002 49,741 0.23% 1,07210.45% 50,813 0.46% 2003 49,402 0.27% 1,05211.98% 50,454 0.56% 2004 51,239 0.25% 1,15911.99% 52,398 0.51% 2005 50,286 0.29% 1,1619.13% 51,447 0.49% 2006 52,557 0.25% 1,6216.72% 54,178 0.44% 2007 51,665 0.23% 1,6155.63% 53,280 0.39% 2008 54,759 0.23% 1,7835.66% 56,542 0.40%
  • In 1994, the NRC reduced the minimum annual random testing rate from 100 to 50 percent of the subject populatio Table 9 Trends in Positive Test Rates (All Test Types)* by Work Category Year Licensee Employees Long-Term Contractors Short-Term Contractors Number Positive Percent Positive Number Positive Percent Positive Number Positive Percent Positive 1993 274 0.25% 17 0.21% 1,221 0.97% 1994 219 0.33% 25 0.49% 1,128 1.22% 1995 197 0.34% 14 0.40% 1,265 1.44% 1996 244 0.43% 21 0.69% 1,247 1.42% 1997 187 0.34% 29 0.80% 1,232 1.37% 1998 169 0.33% 22 0.67% 931 1.25% 1999 159 0.32% 22 0.65% 1,043 1.39% 2000 206 0.44% 78 1.51% 1,072 1.48% 2001 147 0.32% 22 0.64% 835 1.24% 2002 117 0.26% 12 0.46% 923 1.18% 2003 146 0.33% 12 0.61% 899 1.13% 2004 123 0.27% 15 0.58% 896 1.06% 2005 122 0.27% 19 0.78% 791 0.90% 2006 118 0.25% 14 0.68% 893 1.00% 2007 115 0.24% 15 0.67% 777 0.86% 2008 113 0.22% 12 0.38% 811 0.86%
  • This includes all test categories with the exception of the "Other" test categor Table 10 Trends in Positive Pre-Access Testing Rates by Work Category Year Licensee Employees Long-Term Contractors Short-Term Contractors Number Positive Percent Positive Number Positive Percent Positive Number Positive Percent Positive 1993 47 0.42% 7 0.47% 898 1.14% 1994 49 0.48% 12 0.86% 916 1.34% 1995 60 0.57% 7 0.61% 1,055 1.56% 1996 94 0.95% 13 1.21% 1,025 1.46% 1997 62 0.55% 17 1.34% 1,017 1.42% 1998 50 0.53% 12 0.88% 760 1.30% 1999 44 0.52% 10 0.75% 880 1.48% 2000 51 0.67% 60 2.06% 854 1.48% 2001 44 0.52% 16 0.98% 660 1.23% 2002 28 0.35% 10 0.80% 767 1.20% 2003 41 0.49% 8 1.03% 708 1.11% 2004 35 0.46% 8 0.73% 694 1.03% 2005 28 0.34% 12 1.56% 608 0.87% 2006 24 0.26% 7 1.33% 716 1.02% 2007 34 0.35% 8 1.25% 626 0.88% 2008 21 0.18% 10 0.92% 633 0.85% Table 11 Trends in Positive Random Test Rates by Work Category Year Licensee Employees Long-Term Contractors Short-Term Contractors Number Positive Percent Positive Number Positive Percent Positive Number Positive Percent Positive 1993 157 0.17% 7 0.11% 177 0.39% 1994 96 0.18% 7 0.19% 120 0.54% 1995 82 0.18% 5 0.21% 93 0.50% 1996 94 0.21% 4 0.21% 104 0.64% 1997 76 0.18% 6 0.27% 90 0.54% 1998 71 0.18% 9 0.48% 77 0.52% 1999 71 0.18% 7 0.35% 62 0.45% 2000 116 0.32% 5 0.24% 83 0.64% 2001 64 0.18% 4 0.24% 80 0.65% 2002 55 0.15% 1 0.08% 58 0.45% 2003 61 0.18% 3 0.26% 68 0.48% 2004 51 0.15% 6 0.43% 70 0.46% 2005 60 0.18% 5 0.33% 82 0.54% 2006 55 0.16% 5 0.35% 72 0.44% 2007 55 0.16% 5 0.33% 57 0.38% 2008 50 0.14% 2 0.11% 75 0.46% Table 12 Trends in Positive Observed Behavior Testing Rates by Work Category Year Licensee Employees Long-Term Contractors Short-Term Contractors Number Positive Percent Positive Number Positive Percent Positive Number Positive Percent Positive 1993 35 15.58% 2 16.67% 126 35.29% 1994 39 19.60% 5 35.71% 75 24.35% 1995 35 14.89% 2 16.67% 101 30.70% 1996 34 13.93% 4 33.33% 98 26.85% 1997 34 16.35% 6 37.50% 104 33.88% 1998 26 14.05% 1 11.11% 70 26.82% 1999 29 14.29% 4 23.53% 87 30.42% 2000 21 10.24% 12 13.48% 99 31.43% 2001 20 9.13% 2 10.00% 77 28.84% 2002 23 9.47% 1 12.56% 86 23.50% 2003 22 9.48% 0 0.00% 101 25.70% 2004 23 8.65% 0 0.00% 111 26.62% 2005 19 6.15% 2 12.50% 84 24.28% 2006 24 7.45% 2 9.52% 78 20.91% 2007 15 5.14% 2 9.09% 64 15.76% 2008 22 6.69% 0 0.00% 72 16.44% FFD Performance Testing Results by Site This section presents distributional information by site for pre-access, random, and for-cause testing (i.e., observed behavior testing). This distributional information provides licensees with additional information to evaluate the performance of their FFD program against the industry rat Before this 2008 report, NRC Information Notices primarily presented industry trends by test type and work categories and did not provide FFD program performance testing data on a site-specific basi Table 13 Industry Positive Test Results for Pre-Access, Random, and Observed Behavior Testing by Work Category (2008) Pre-Access Testing Work Category Industry % Positive Range of % Positive (by Site) Licensee Employees 0.18 0 - 1.53 Contractors 0.85 0 - 2.10 All Work Categories0.76 N/A Random Testing Work Category Industry % Positive Range of % Positive (by Site) Licensee Employees 0.14 0 - 0.60 Contractors 0.43 0 - 2.01 All Work Categories0.23 N/A Observed Behavior Testing Work Category Industry % Positive Range of % Positive (by Site) Licensee Employees 6.69 0 - 100 Contractors 15.38 0 - 100 All Work Categories11.79 N/A 2008 Pre-Access Testing Positive Rates by Site Table 14 Distribution of Pre-Access Testing Positive Rates by Work Category by Site All Employees Licensee Employees Contractors Positive Rate Range (%) Sites Positive Rate Range (%) Sites Positive Rate Range (%) Sites 0 11 0 57 0 11 >0.0 - 0.2 1 >0.0 - 0.2 1 >0.0 - 0.25 4 >0.2 - 0.4 8 >0.2 - 0.4 2 >0.25 - 0.5 14 >0.4 - 0.6 12 >0.4 - 0.6 3 >0.5 - 0.75 12 >0.6 - 0.8 11 >0.6 - 0.8 5 >0.75 - 1.0 11 >0.8 - 1.0 14 >0.8 - 1.0 2 >1.0 - 1.25 8 >1.0 - 1.2 8 >1.0 - 1.2 2 >1.25 - 1.5 4 >1.2 - 1.4 3 >1.2 - 1.4 0 >1.5 - 1.75 2 >1.4 - 1.6 4 >1.4 - 1.6 1 >1.75 - 2.0 3 >1.6 - 1.8 1 >1.6 - 1.8 0 >2.0 - 2.25 0 Total Sites* 73 Total Sites73 Total Sites 72
  • Total site counts may differ because a site may not have tested one work categor Chart 4 Distribution of Pre-Access Testing Positive Rates (All Employees) by Site 024 68101214 160>0 - 0.2>0.2 - 0.4>0.4 - 0.6>0.6 - 0.8>0.8 - 1>1 - 1.2>1.2 - 1.4>1.4 - 1.6>1.6 - 1.8Percent (%) Positive RateNumber of SitesIndustry Rate: 0.76% Chart 5 Distribution of Pre-Access Testing Positive Rates (Licensee Employees) by Site 01020 304050 600>0 - 0.2>0.2 - 0.4>0.4 - 0.6>0.6 - 0.8>0.8 - 1>1 - 1.2>1.2 - 1.4>1.4 - 1.6>1.6 - 1.8Percent (%) Positive Rate Number of SitesIndustry Rate: 0.18% Chart 6 Distribution of Pre-Access Testing Positive Rates (Contractors) by Site 02468101214 160>0 - 0.25>0.25 - 0.5>0.5 - 0.75>0.75 - 1>1 - 1.25>1.25 - 1.5>1.5 - 1.75>1.75 - 2>2 - 2.25Percent (%) Positive Rate Number of SitesIndustry Rate: 0.85% 2008 Random Testing Positive Rates by Site Table 15 Distribution of Random Testing Positive Rates by Work Category by Site All Employees Licensee Employees Contractors Positive Rate Range (%) Sites Positive Rate Range (%) Sites Positive Rate Range (%) Sites 0 28 0 43 0 38 >0.0 - 0.1 2 >0.0 - 0.1 1 >0.0 - 0.3 3 >0.1 - 0.2 10 >0.1 - 0.2 7 >0.3 - 0.6 14 >0.2 - 0.3 9 >0.2 - 0.3 10 >0.6 - 0.9 10 >0.3 - 0.4 14 >0.3 - 0.4 5 >0.9 - 1.2 2 >0.4 - 0.5 4 >0.4 - 0.5 1 >1.2 - 1.5 4 >0.5 - 0.6 5 >0.5 - 0.6 6 >1.5 - 1.8 0 >0.6 - 0.7 1 >0.6 - 0.7 0 >1.8 - 2.1 1 Total Sites 73 Total Sites73 Total Sites 72
  • Total site counts may differ because a site may not have tested one work categor Chart 7 Distribution of Random Testing Positive Rates (All Employees) by Site 0510152025300>0 - 0.1>0.1 - 0.2>0.2 - 0.3>0.3 - 0.4>0.4 - 0.5>0.5 - 0.6>0.6 - 0.7Percent (%) Positive RateNumber of SitesIndustry Rate: 0.23% Chart 8 Distribution of Random Testing Positive Rates (Licensee Employees) by Site 051015202530354045500>0 - 0.1>0.1 - 0.2>0.2 - 0.3>0.3 - 0.4>0.4 - 0.5>0.5 - 0.6>0.6 - 0.7Percent (%) Positive Rate Number of SitesIndustry Rate: 0.14% Chart 9 Distribution of Random Testing Positive Rates (Contractors) by Site 05101520253035400>0 - 0.3>0.3 - 0.6>0.6 - 0.9>0.9 - 1.2>1.2 - 1.5>1.5 - 1.8>1.8 - 2.1Percent (%) Positive Rate Number of SitesIndustry Rate: 0.43% 2008 Observed Behavior Testing Rates by Site Table 16 Distribution of For-Cause Testing Positive Rates by Work Category by Site All Employees Licensee Employees Contractors Positive Rate Range (%) Sites Positive Rate Range (%) Sites Positive Rate Range (%) Sites 0 25 0 42 0 27 >0 - 10 8 >0 - 10 0 >0 - 10 4 >10 - 20 12 >10 - 20 5 >10 - 20 7 >20 - 30 6 >20 - 30 1 >20 - 30 3 >30 - 40 11 >30 - 40 3 >30 - 40 7 >40 - 50 2 >40 - 50 5 >40 - 50 7 >50 - 60 1 >50 - 60 0 >50 - 60 1 >60 - 70 2 >60 - 70 0 >60 - 70 2 >70 - 80 0 >70 - 80 0 >70 - 80 1 >80 - 90 0 >80 - 90 0 >80 - 90 0 >90 - 100 1 >90 - 100 1 >90 - 100 2 Total Sites 68 Total Sites57 Total Sites 61
  • Total site counts may differ because a site may not have tested one work categor Chart 10 Distribution of Observed Behavior Testing Positive Rates (All Employees) by Site 0510152025 300>0 - 10>10 - 20>20 - 30>30 - 40>40 - 50>50 - 60>60 - 70>70 - 80>80 - 90>90 - 100Percent (%) Positive RateNumber of SitesIndustry Rate: 11.79% Chart 11 Distribution of Observed Behavior Testing Positive Rates (Licensee Employees) by Site 051015 202530 3540450>0 - 10>10 - 20>20 - 30>30 - 40>40 - 50>50 - 60>60 - 70>70 - 80>80 - 90>90 - 100Percent (%) Positive Rate Number of SitesIndustry Rate: 6.69% Chart 12 Distribution of Observed Behavior Testing Positive Rates (Contractors) by Site 0510152025300>0 - 10>10 - 20>20 - 30>30 - 40>40 - 50>50 - 60>60 - 70>70 - 80>80 - 90>90 - 100Percent (%) Positive Rate Number of SitesIndustry Rate: 15.38% 2008 Distribution of Test Results by Sites and Work Category Summary Chart 13 Comparisons of Site Pre-Access Testing Positive Rates by Work Category 01020304050600>0 - 0.2>0.2 - 0.4>0.4 - 0.6>0.6 - 0.8>0.8 - 1>1 - 1.2>1.2 - 1.4>1.4 - 1.6>1.6 - 1.8>1.8 - 2>2 - 2.1Percent (%) Positive RateNumber of SitesLicensee EmployeesContractors Chart 14 Comparison of Site Random Testing Positive Rates by Work Category 051015 20253035 400>0 - 0.2>0.2 - 0.4>0.4 - 0.6>0.6 - 0.8>0.8 - 1>1 - 1.2>1.2 - 1.4>1.4 - 1.6>1.6 - 1.8>1.8 - 2>2 - 2.2Percent (%) Positive RateNumber of SitesLicensee EmployeesContractors Chart 15 Comparison of Site Observed Behavior Testing Positive Rates by Work Category 05101520 25303540450>0 - 10>10 - 20>20 - 30>30 - 40>40 - 50>50 - 60>60 - 70>70 - 80>80 - 90>90 - 100Percent (%) Positive RateNumber of SitesLicensee EmployeesContractors


Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=Information_Notice_2009-28,_Summary_of_Fitness_for_Duty_Program_Performance_Reports_for_Calendar_Year_2008&oldid=294934"