Information Notice 1998-39, Summary of Fitness-for-Duty Program Performance Reports for Calendar Years 1996 and 1997
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001
October 30, 1998
NRC INFORMATION NOTICE NO. 98-39: SUMMARY OF FITNESS-FOR-DUTY PROGRAM
PERFORMANCE REPORTS FOR CALENDAR
YEARS 1996 AND 1997
Addressees
All holders of operating licenses for nuclear power reactors.
Purpose
This information notice is Intended to present a summary and analysis of the data submitted by
licensees in their Fitness-for-Duty (FFD) Program Performance Reports for Calendar Years
1996 and 1997.
Background
Since the inception of the Fitness-for-Duty Rule (10 CFR Part 26), licensees have submitted
program performance reports to the NRC as required by 10 CFR 26.71 (d). In the past, the
NRC has summarized and analyzed the data submitted by the licensees and published an
annual volume, NUREG/CR-5758, Fitness for Duty In the Nuclear Power Industry -
Annual
Summary of Program Performance Reports CY (XX)."
This information notice presents, for 1996 and 1997, similar information to that supplied in the
past in NUREG/CR-5758. Attachment 1 presents tables of Fitness-for-Duty statistics for these
years.
Discussion
Some of-the lessons learned and management initiatives reported by licensees for 1996 and
1997 are discussed in the material that follows.
(1) Certified Laboratories
Several utilities reported problems Involving blind samples and certified laboratories:
Most unsatisfactory testing results are caused by Inadequate laboratory procedures, clerical
mistakes, errors by laboratory technicians, and poor quality control during formulation of
blind samples.
9810ogIOlS83
513 en
~~Ail!
_
U'
~IN 98-39 October x, 1998 *
One laboratory failed to provide consistently accurate results in testing blind
samples during the preliminary phase of contract negotiation.
Several licensees reported false negative results because the seal on the container lid had
adsorbed the THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) from the specimen, reducing the THC
concentration in the sample to below the cutoff level.
False negatives also resulted because the blind samples had aged to the point that the
spiking chemicals had begun to break down and, therefore, did not register a positive result.
False negatives resulted when the laboratory was not properly informed about the specific
chemicals or concentration levels for which the samples were to be tested.
- A false negative was reported because the blind sample had been spiked with
oxazepam rather than with the nordiazepam for which the laboratory tested.
- Some licensees have adopted a more stringent cutoff level of 50 nanograms per milliliter
(ng/ml) rather than the former cutoff level of 100 ngfml for a positive marijuana test result.
But one utility reported a false negative result because the laboratory that had prepared the
blind sample spiked it at the 50-ng/ml level rather than at the 1 00-ng/ml level designated by
the utility.
(2) Random Teting
Incidents continue to be reported that employees are improperly notified In advance of random
testing and that some employees fall to report promptly for testing when properly notified.
Several utilities reported that some employees who should have been included In the random
testing pool database had not been included:
- People were omitted from the pool, sometimes due to failure to monitor the database as
people come and go, or due to failure to re-enter people after an absence.
- An employee had not been reentered into the database after that employee
returned from a 30-day absence (employee's badge had not been used for 30 days).
- The computer program software being used to manage both the FFD test data and the
random testing pool database did not retain the test data associated with those people who
had been recently removed from the database during the reporting period.
A computer program used for managing the random testing pool database
randomly and inappropriately deleted Individuals from the database.
- A software error made during a program upgrade process resulted In a random testing rate
less than 50 percent when the sampling procedure was switched from composite sampling
to simple sampling.
s
y
x
IN 98-39 October 30, 1998 Flaws in computer programming omitted some categories of workers from the testing pool.
In one case, during a software upgrade, a change to the program made by security
personnel in transferring data from the security database to the Fitness-for-Duty database
left two categories of workers (nearly 150 people) out of the random testing pool.
(3) Policies and Procedures
Several utilities reported taking initiatives to improve their FFD programs by eliminating
unnecessary and redundant procedures in some areas but improving procedures In other
areas:
Procedural errors occurred at several sites, including failure to follow documented
procedures intended to ensure that the chain-of-custody process protected the integrity of
samples. In one case, a box of samples was lost and had to be re-collected after a courier
set the box on the ground while he unlocked his car and then drove away, leaving the box in
the parking lot. In another case, a new agency hired to collect specimens did not complete
the chain-of-custody forms accurately.
At another site, FFD administrators used employee work schedules to determine If a person
was available for testing, Instead of contacting the employee's supervisor. As a result, one
individual was not tested even though he was, In fact, at work that day.
One licensee modified Its procedures when an Independent review noted that a person who
was notified to provide a sfor-causew specimen was not escorted.
A utility improved its Medical Review Officer (MRO) review procedures so that, when an
originally negative drug screen determination was reversed by a second MRO, the MROs
were instructed to seek and document consensus before making a final classification.
An employee who reports having been arrested for substance abuse would have to submit
to a for-cause drug test and would be referred for evaluation by the mental health
professional of the employee assistance program.
On occasion, an individual who has been randomly selected to provide a specimen for
testing may be excused from providing that specimen. A utility reports that It uses a
computer program to Identify trends and abuses of such excuses.
A 100 percent testing policy was adopted by a utility after noting what was considered to be
a significant increase in the number of positive random test results. In this Instance, a
licensed reactor operator and two supervisors tested positive. The new policy also required
all employees to have additional training In behavioral observation and In the employee
assistance program.
- The medical use of marijuana has been approved In certain jurisdictions. A utility has told
Its employees that such approval will have no effect on the utility's Fitness-for-Duty
program, and this position has been Incorporated In the general employee training program.
tJ
XIN
98-39 October 30, 1998 (4) Program and Systems Management
One utility reported a failure to perform required background checks and psychological
evaluations of some personnel who were Involved In the administration of the
Fitness-for-Duty program. The implementing procedures had not specified which positions
were subject to these investigations.
- Appropriate training in behavioral observation techniques is required by 10 CFR 26.22 for
managers and supervisors. More than one utility reported having individuals on site who
had not received the required current training.
Management vigilance over FFD program assumptions enabled one licensee to discover
that a change in the plastic material from which specimen containers were manufactured
allowed tamper-proof seals to be peeled off without leaving evidence of tampering; the new
plastic had a slicker surface.
This information notice requires no specific action or written response. If you have any
questions about the Information in this notice, please contact the technical contact listed below
or the Regional Administrator of the appropriate Regional Office of the NRC.
144ck W. Roe, Acting Director
ision of Reactor Program Management
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Technical Contact:
Loren L. Bush, Jr., NRR
301-415-2944 E-mail: llb~nrc.gov
Attachments:
1. Fitness-for-Duty Statistics
2. List of Recently Issued NRC Information Notices
I
us
Attachment 1
IN 98-39 October 30, 1998 Test results for each test category, 1996 and 1997
1996
1997 if
TEST
CATEGORY
NUMBER
POSITIVE
OF TESTS
TESTS
PERCENT
POSITIVE
NUMBER
OF TESTS
POSITIVE
PERCENT
TESTS
POSITIVE
Pre-Access
81,041
1,132
1.40%
84,320
1,096
1.30%
Random
62,307
202
0.32%
60,829
172
0.28%
For-Cause
848
138
16.27%
722
149
20.64%
Follow-Up
3,262
40
1.23%
3,296
31
0.94%
TOTAL
147,458
1,512
1.03%
149,167
1,448
0.97%
1996 Test result for each test category and work category
(January through December 1996)
LICENSEE
EMPLOYEES
LONG-TERM
CONTRACTORS
SHORT-TERM
CONTRACTORS
TEST CATEGORY
TOTAL
Pre-Access
Number Tested
9,901
1,075
70,065
81,041 Number Positive
94
13
1,025
1,132 Percent Positive
0.95%
1.21%
1.46%
1.40%
Random
Number Tested
44,183
1,916
16,208
62,307 Number Positive
94
4
104
202 Percent Positive
0.21%
0.21%
0.64%
0.32%
For-Cause
Number Tested
368
15
465
848 Number Positive
35
4
99
138 Percent Positive
9.51%
26.67%
21.29%
16.27%
Follow-Up
Number Tested
1,935
33
1,294
3,262 Number Positive
21
0
19
40
Percent Positive
1.09%
0.00%
1.47%
1.23%
TOTAL"
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
56,387
244
0.43%
3,039
21
0.69%
88,032
1,247
1.42%
147458
1,512
1.03%
- Test results in the Othcr test category arc not included.
KI
NJ
Attachment 1
IN 98-39 October 30, 1998 1996 Test results by NUMARC form test category
(January through December 1996)
FIRST
SIX MONTHS
SECOND
SIX MONTHS
TEST CATEGORY
YEAR
Pre-Access
Number Tested
40,188
40,853
81,041 Number Positive
531
601
1,132 Percent Positive
1.32%
1.47%
1A0%
Random
Number Tested
31,790
30,517
62,307 Number Positive
95
107
202 Percent Positive
0.30%
0.35%
0.32%
For-Cause
Observed Behavior
Number Tested
313
308
621 Number Positive
61
75
136 Percent Positive
19A9%
24.35%
21.90%
Post-Accident
Number Tested
149
78
227 Number Positive
0
2
2 Percent Positive
0.00%
2.56%
0.88%
FoRow-Up
Number Tested
1,695
1,567
3,262 Number Positive
20
20
40
Percent Positive
1.18%
1.28%
1.23%
TOTAL*
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
1,047
14
1.34%
1,035
23
2.22%
2,082
37
1.78%
- These totals have been calculated using the category Oxter," however, this category has been purposely omitted from calculations for the
totals and percentages throughout the body of this reporL
v2
Attachment 1
IN 98-39 October 30, 1998 1996 Test results for licensee employees and contractor personnel
(January through December 1996)
CONTRACTORS
(Long-Term/Short Term)
LICENSEE EMPLOYEES
.
.
.
TEST CATEGORY
First
Six Months
Second
Six Months
First
Six Months
Second
Six Months
.
.
Year
Year
Pre-Access
Number Tested
5,167
4,734
9,901
35,021
36,119
71,140
Number Positive
40
54
94
491
547
1,038 Percent Positive
0.77%
1.14%
0.95%
1.40%
1.51%
1.46%
Random
Number Tested
22,872
21,311
44,183
8,918
9,206
18,124 Number Positive
47
47
94
48
60
108 Percent Positive
0.21%
0.22%
0.21%
0.54%
0.65%
0.60%
For-Cause
Observed Behavior
Number Tested
135
109
244
178
199
377 Number Positive
15
19
34
46
56
102 Percent Positive
11.11%
17A3%
13.93%
25.84%
28.14%
27.06%
Post-Accident
Number Tested
84
40
124
65
38
103 Number Positive
0
1
1
0
1
1 Percent Positive
0.00%
2.50%
0.81%
0.00%
2.63%
0.97%
Follow-Up
Number Tested
956
979
1,935
739
588
1,327 Number Positive
8
13
21
12
7
19 Percent Positive
0.84%
1.33%
1.09%
1.62%
1.19%
1.43%
Other
Number Tested
587
414
1,001
460
621
1,081 Number Positive
3
4
7
11
19
30
Percent Positive
0.51%
0.97%
0.70%
2.39%
3.06%
2.78%
TOTAL*
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
29,801
113
0.38%
27,587
138
0.50%
57,388
251 OA4%
45,381
608
1.34%
46,771
690
1A8%
92,152
1,298
1.41%
- Thcse totals have been calculated using the category
Oier."
"J
Attachment 1
IN 98-39 October 30, 1998 1996 Test results for-long-term and short-term contractor personnel
(January through December 1996)
LONG-TERM CONTRACTORS
SHORT-TERM CONTRACTORS
r
I.
First
Second
Six Months I Six Months
TEST CATEGORY
Year
First
Six Months
Second
Six Months
Year
Pre-Access
Number Tested
515
560
1,075
34,506
35,559
70,065 Number Positive
5
8
13
486
539
1,025 Percent Positive
0.97%
1.A3%
1.21%
lA1%
1.52%
1.46%
Random
Number Tested
927
989
1,916
7,991
8,217
16,208 Number Positive
2
2
4
46
58
104 Percent Positive
0.22%
0.20%
0.21%
0.58%
0.71%
0.64%
For-Cause
Observed Behavior
Number Tested
7
5
12
171
194
365 Number Positive
3
1
4
43
55
98 Percent Positive
42.86%
20.00%
33.33%
25.15%
28.35%
26.85%
Post-Accident
Number Tested
3
0
3
62
38
100
Number Positive
0
0
0
0
1
1 Percent Positive
0.00%
N/A
0.00%/0
0.00%
2.63%
1.00%
Follow-Up
Number Tested
11
22
33
728
566
1,294 Number Positive
0
0
0
12
7
19 Percent Positive
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.65%
1.24%
IA7%
Other
Number Tested
20
81
101
440
540
980
Number Positive
0
2
2
11
17
28 Percent Positive
0.00%
2.47%
1.98%
2.50%
3.15%
2.86%
TOTAL*
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
1,483
10
0.67h16
1,657
13
0.78%
3,140
23
0.73%
43,898
598
1.36%
45,114
677
1.50%
89,012
1,275
1.43%
0 Thcse totals have been calculated using the category 'Other,' however, this category has been purposely omitted from calculations for the
totals and percentages throughout the body of this report
Attachment 1
IN 98-39 October 30, 1998 1996 Number of confirmed positives by substance
(January through December 1996)
FIRST SIX MONTHS PECOND SIX MONTHSI
TOTAL
TYPE OF SUBSTANCE
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Marijuana
417
57.12%
451
53.69%
868
55.29%
Cocaine
160
21.92%
192
22.86%
352
22.42%
Opiates
7
0.96%
7
0.83%
14
0.89%
Amphetamines
18
2.47%
35
4.17%
53
3.38%
Phencyclidine
2
0.27%
0
0.00%
2
0.13%
Alcohol
126
17.26%
155
18.45%
281
17.90%
TOTAL*
730
840
1570
These numbers include positive test results from the "Other" test category.
1996 Confirmed positives test results by substance for each worker category
(January through December 1996)
CONTRACTORS
LICENSEE EMPLOYEES
(Long-Term/Short-Term)
TYPE OF SUBSTANCE
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Marijuana
117
46.80%
751
56.89%
Cocaine
61
24.40%
291
22.05%
Opiates
2
0.80%
12
0.91%
Amphetamines
6
2.40%
47
3.56%
Phencyclidine
0
0.00%
2
0.15%
Alcohol
64
25.60%
217
16.44%
TOTAL*
250
1320
e These numbers include positive test results from the "Other" test category.
Attachment 1
IN 98-39 October 30, 1998 1997 Test result for each test category and work category
(January through December 1997)
LICENSEE
EMPLOYEES
LONG-TERM
CONTRACTORS
SHORT-TERM
CONTRACTORS
TEST CATEGORY
TOTAL
Pre-Access
Number Tested
11,195
1,269
71,856
84,320
Number Positive
62
17
1,017
1,096 Percent Positive
0.55%
1.34%
1.42%
1.30%
Random
Number Tested
42,011
2,231
16,587
60,829 Number Positive
76
6
90
172 Percent Positive
0.18%
0.27%
0.54%
0.28%
For-Cause
Number Tested
315
23
384
722 Number Positive
35
6
108
149 Percent Positive
11.11%
26.09%
28.13%
20.64%
Follow-Up
Number Tested
1,881
86
1,329
3,296
.Number Positive
14
0
17
31 Percent Positive
0.74%
0.00%
1.28%
0.94%
TOTAL*
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
55,402
187
0.34%
3,609
29
0.80%
90,156
1,232
1.37%
149,167
1,448
0.97%
- Test results in the 'Other test categoty are not included.
I
NJ
Attachment I
IN 98-39 October 30, 1998 1997 Test results by NUMARC form test category
(January through December 1997)
FIRST
SIX MONTHS
SECOND
SIX MONTHS
TEST CATEGORY
YEAR
Pre-Access
Number Tested
46,759
37,561
84,320
Number Positive
617
479
1,096 Percent Positive
1.32%
1.28%
1.30%
Random
Number Tested
31,697
29,132
60,829 Number Positive
99
73
172 Percent Positive
0.31%
0.25%
0.28%
For-Cause
Observed Behavior
Number Tested
301
230
531 Number Positive
80
64
144 Percent Positive
26.58%
27.83%
27.12%
Post-Accident
Number Tested
117
74
191 Number Positive
2
3
5 Percent Positive
1.71%
4.05%
2.62%
Follow-Up
Number Tested
1,798
1,498
3,296 Number Positive
21
10
31 Percent Positive
1.17%
0.67%
0.94%
TOTAL*
Number Tested
Number Positive
Pekcent Positive
81,617
844
1.03%
69,478
640
0.92%
151,095
1,484
0.98%
- These totals have been calculated using the category Other,' however, this category has been purposely omitted from
calculations for the totals and percentages throughout the body of this report
\\J-'
Attachment I
IN 98-39 October 30, 1998 1997 Test results for licensee employees and contractor personnel
(January through December 1997)
. CONTRACTORS
(Long-Term/Short Term)
LICENSEE EMPLOYEES
First
Six Months
Second
Six Months
First
Six Months
Second
Sli Months
TEST CATEGORY
Year
Year
Pre-Access
Number Tested
6,290
4,905
11,195
40,469
32,656
73,125 Number Positive
30
32
62
587
447
1,034 Percent Positive
0.48%
0.65%
0.55%
1.45%
1.37%
1.A1%
Random
Number Tested
21,642
20,369
42,011
10,055
8,763
18,818 Number Positive
45
31
76
54
42
96 Percent Positive
0.21%
0.15%
0.18%
0.54%
0.48%
0.5 1%
For-Cause
Observed Behavior
Number Tested
116
92
208
185
138
323 Number Positive
14
20
34
66
44
110
Percent Positive
12.07%
21.74%
16.35%
35.68%
31.88%
34.06%
Post-Accident
Number Tested
58
49
107
59
25
84 Number Positive
0
1
1
2
2
4 Percent Positive
0.00%/0
2.04%
0.93%
3.39%
8.00%
4.76%
Follow-Up
Number Tested
960
921
1,881
838
577
1,415 Number Positive
7
7
14
14
3
17 Percent Positive
0.73%
0.76%
0.74%
1.67%
0.52%
1.20%
Other
Number Tested
403
428
831
542
555
1,097 Number Positive
4
4
8
21
7
28 Percent Positive
0.99%
0.93%
0.96%
3.87%
1.26%
2.55%
TOTAL*
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
29,469
100
034%
26,764
95
035%
56,233
195
0.96%
52,148
744
1.43%
42,714
545
1.28%
94,862
1,289
136%
0 These totals have been calculated using the category 'Other.'
J-. . Attachment 1 IN 98-39 October 30, 1998 1997 Test results for long-term and short-term contractor personnel
(January through December 1997)
LONG-TERM CONTRACTORS
SHORT-TERM CONTRACTORS
I
V
Y
T
First
Six Months
Second
Six Months
First
Six Months
Second
Six Months
TEST CATEGORY
Year
Year
Pre-Access
Number Tested
677
592
1,269
39,792
32,064
71,856 Number Positive
5
12
17
582
435
1,017 Percent Positive
0.74%
2.03%
1.34%
1 A6%
1.36%
1.A2%
Random
Number Tested
1,133
1,098
2,231
8,922
7,665
16,587 Number Positive
4
2
6
50
40
90
Percent Positive
0.35%
0.18%
0.27%
0.56%
0.52%
0.54%
For-Cause
Observed Behavior
Number Tested
9
7
16
176
131
307 Number Positive
4
2
6
62
42
104 Percent Positive
44.44%
28.57%
37.50%
35.23%
32.06%
33.88%
Post-Accident
Number Tested
7
0
7
52
25
77 Number Positive
0
0
0
2
2
4 Percent Positive
0.00%
N/A
0.00%
3.85%
8.00%
5.19%
Follow-Up
Number Tested
24
62
86
814
515
1,329 Number Positive
0
0
0
14
3
17 Percent Positive
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.72%
0.58%
1.28%
Other
Number Tested
18
51
69
524
504
1,028 Number Positive
1
0
1
20
7
27 Percent Positive
5.56%
0.00%
1A5%
3.82%
1.39%
2.63%
TOTAL*
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
1,868
14
0.75%
1,810
16
0.88%
3,678
30
0.82%
50,280
730
1A4S%
40,904
529
1.29%
91,184
1,259
1.38%
- These totals have been calculated using the category 'Other," however, this category has been purposely omitted from
calculations for the totals and percentages throughout the body of this report
Attachment 1
IN 98-39 October 30, 1998 1997 Number of confirmed positives by substance
(January through December 1997)
FIRST SIX MONTHS PECOND SIX MONTHS
TOTAL
Y
t
I
I*
I
TYPE OF SUBSTANCE
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Marijuana
487
55.28%
355
54.87% j
842
55.10%
Cocaine
180
20.43%
156
24.11%
336
21.99%
Opiates
28
3.18%
11
1.70%
39
2.55%
Amphetamines
32
3.63%
17
2.63%
49
3.21%
Phencyclidine
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
Alcohol
154
17.48%
108
16.69%
262
17.15%
TOTAL*
881
647
1528
- These numbers include positive test results from the "Other" test category.
1997 Confirmed positives test results by substance for each worker category
(January through December 1997)
CONTRACTORS
LICENSEE EMPLOYEES
(Long-Term/Short-Term)
TYPE OF SUBSTANCE
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Marijuana
90
42.06%
752
57.23%
Cocaine
39
18.22%
297
22.60%
Opiates
23
10.75%
16
1.22%
Amphetamines
8
3.74%
41
3.12%
Phencyclidine
0
0.00%
0
0.00%/a
Alcohol
54
25.23%
208
15.83%
I
-
.
TOTAL*
214
1314 These numbers include positive test results from the "Other" test category.
.- Attachment 1 IN 98-39 October 30, 1998 Significant fitness-for-duty events (1990-1997)
Tvve of Event
1990 1 1991 1 1992
1993 1 1994 1 1995
1996 1 1997 Total
Reactor Operators
19
16
18
8
7
8
8
9
93 Licensee Supervisors
26
16
22
25
11
16
19
16
151 Contract Supervisors
12
24
28
16
11
10
8
10
119 FFD Program Personnel
1
5
1
2
9 Substances Found
6
8
6
2
5
5
4
36 Total
64
69
74
51
30
39
42
39
408 Trends in testing by test type (1990-1997)
Type of-Test
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997 Total
Pre-Access
Number Tested
122,491
104,508
104,842
91,471
80,217
79,305
81,041
84,320
748,195 Number Positive
1,548
983
1,110
952
977
1,122
1,132
1,096
8,920
Percent Positive
1.26%
0.94%
1.06%
1.04%
1.22%
1.41%
1.40%
1.30%
1.19%
Random
Number Tested
148,743
153,818
156,730
146,605
78,391
66,791
62,307
60,829
874,214 Number Positive
550
510
461
341
223
180
202
172
2,639 Percent Positive
0.37%
0.33%
0.29%
0.23%
0.28%
0.27%
0.32%
0.28%
0.30%
For-Cause
Number Tested
732
727
696
751
758
763
848
722
5,997 Number Positive
214
167
178
163
122
139
138
149
1,270
Percent Positive 29.23%
22.97%
25.57%
21.70%
16.09%
18.22% 16.27%
20.64%
21.18%
Follow-Up
Number Tested
2,633
3,544
4,283
4,139
3,875
3,262
3,262
3,296
28,294 Number Positive
65
62
69
56
50
35
40.
31
408 Percent Positive
2.47%
1.75%
1.61%
1.35%
1.29%
1.07%
1.23%
0.94%
1.44%
TOTAL
Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
274,599
2,377
0.87%
262.597
1,722
0.66%
266,551
1,818
0.68%
242,966
1,512
0.62%
163,241
1,372
0.84%
150,121
1,476
0.98%
147,458
1,512
1.03%
149,167
1,448
0.97%
1,656,700
13,237
0.80%
'VJ X
Attachment 1
IN 98-39 October 30, 1998 Trends in substances identified (1990-1997)
Substance
l 1990 l 1991 l 1992 l 1993 l 1994 1 1995 1 1996 l 1997 Marijuana
1,153
746
953
781
739
819
868
842 Cocaine
706
549
470
369
344
374
352
336 Alcohol
452
401
427
357
251
265
281
262 Amphetamines
69
31
31
51
54
61
53
49 Opiates
45
24
8
13
11
17
14
39 Phencyclldine
8
11
4
5
1
7
2
,
0
Total*
2,433
1,762
1,893
1,576
1,400
1,543
1,570
1,528
- These totals do not equal the total number of positives for each year due to positives for multiple substances and
other substances than those listed above.
Trends In positive test rates for workers with unescorted access (1 990-1997)*
Positive Test Rate
1990
0.54%
1991
0.47%
1992
0.44%
1993
0.37%
1994
0.48%
1995
0.50%
1996
0.57%
1997
0.54%
- Includes random, for-cause, and follow-up testing results. The reduction in random test rate
from 100% to 50% has been in effect since 1994.G
II
/- Attachment 1 IN 98-39 October 30, 1998 Reporting unit contacts by NRC region
REGION I
REGION II
REGION
_
II
REGION IV
Beaver Valley
Bellefonte
Big Rock Point
Arkansas Nuclear One
Eugene P. Edwards
Becky Stanfield
J.A. Smith
Kenneth D. Jeffrey
(412) 393-5238
(423) 751-8822
(517) 788-7072
(501) 858-7846 Calvert Cliffs
Browns Ferry
Braidwood
Callaway
F. Bruce Martenis
Becky Stanfield
Judith C. Papaleo
Patricia Davis
(410) 234-6162
(423) 751-8822
(630) 663-6565
(573) 676-4300
FitzPatrick
Brunswick
Byron
Comanche Peak
Carol A. Soucy
Fred Underwood
Judith C. Papaleo
James E. Brown
(315) 349-6412
(919) 546-6180
(630) 663-6565
(254) 897-8912 Ginna
Catawba
Clinton
Cooper
Lynn I. Hauck
Shelia Lowry-Minor
Gary S. Kephart
Jannette Harrington
(716) 771-2232
(803) 831-3881
(217) 935-8881
(402) 825-5429 Haddam Neck
Crystal River
Cook
Diablo Canyon
Gordon Hallberg
Margaret L. Moore, MD
Kathleen Burkett
William F. Ryan
(860) 665-3384
(352) 563-4355
(616) 466-3335
(805) 545-3329 Indian Point I & 2 Farley
Davis Besse
Fort Calhoun
J. Mark Drexel
Elizabeth McDougal
J.L. Freels
Colleen L. Burke
(914) 271-7418
(205) 992-5707
(419) 321-8466
(402) 636-3028 Indian Point 3 Harris
Dresden
Grand Gulf
Dale Plumer
Fred Underwood
Judith C. Papaleo
Donna Williams
(914) 788-2195
(919) 546-6180
(630)663-6565
(601) 437-2481 Limerick
Hatch
Duane Arnold
Palo Verde
David M. Sarley
Dianne A. Coley
Diane Engelhardt
Mary Maddix
(215) 841-5703
(205) 992-7231
(319) 851-7280
(602) 393-2464
.,
'
-
Attachment 1
IN 98-39 October30, 1998 Reporting unit contacts by NRC region
REGION I
REGION If
REGION IiI
REGION IV
Maine Yankee
H.E. Torberg, Jr.
(207) 882-5319 Millstone
Gordon R. Hollberg
(860) 665-3384
Nine Mile Point
Beth Menikheim
(315) 349-4410
Oyster Creek
J. Troebliger
(717) 948-8188
Peach Bottom
David M. Sarley
(215) 841-5703 Pilgrim
Paul Keefe, MD
(617)424-2372 Salem/Hope Creek
Ronald J. Mack
(609) 339-5600
Seabrook
Bruce R. Seymour
(603) 773-7012 Susquehanna
Lisa M. Yupco
(717) 542-3201
Three MJle Island
J. Troebliger
(717) 948-818
Vermont Yankee
Greg Morgan
(802) 258-5800
Yankee-Rowe
Peter J. Windle
(508) 568-2280
McGuire
Deana A. DeLoach
(704) 875-5781 North Anna
W.R. Runner, Jr.
(804)273-2735 Oconee
Pauline D. Beatty
(864) 885-3317 Robinson
Fred Underwood
(919) 546-8180
Sequoyah
Becky Stanfield
(423) 751-822 St. Lucie
Arthur Cummings
(561) 467-7008 Summer
Harry OQuinn
(803) 345-4153 Surry
W.R. Runner, Jr.
(804) 273-2735
Turkey Point
James E. Denton
(305) 246-7171 Vogtle
Vince Agro
(205) 992-5094 Watts Bar
Becky Stanfield
(423) 751-8822 Fermi
Joseph H. Korte
(734) 586-1095 Kewaunee
Richard P. Pulec
(920) 386-8376 LaSalle
Judith C. Papaleo
(630) 6634565 Monticello
Anne M. Gutsch
(612) 330-7999 Palisades
JA Smith
(517) 7887072 Perry
Joseph R. Slike
(440) 280-5850
Point Beach
B.K. Kopetsky
(920) 755-6588
Prairie Island
Anne M. Gutsch
(612) 330-7999 Quad Cities
Judith C. Papaleo
(630) 663-6565 Zon
Judith C. Papaleo
(630) 663-6565 River Bend
Claudia Parker
(504) 381-3655 San Onofre
S.L. Blue
(714) 368-2482 South Texas
Lisa H. Matula
(512) 972-7444 Trojan
Manuel D. Gatlin
(503) 556-6429 WNP-2 D.W. Martin
(509) 377-8628
-
L
Attachment 2
October 30, 1998 LIST OF RECENTLY ISSUED
NRC INFORMATION NOTICES
Information
Date of
Notice No.
Subject
Issuance
Issued to
98-38 Metal-Clad Circuit Breaker
10/15/98
All holders of operating licenses
Maintenance Issued Identified
By NRC Inspections
for nuclear power reactors.
98-37
98-36
Eligibility of Operator License
Applicants
Inadequate or Poorly Controlled
Non-Safety-Related Maintenance
Activities Unnecessarily Challenged
Safety Systems
Threat Assessments and
Consideration of Heightened
Physical Protection Measures
NRC Configuration Control
Errors
10/01/98
9/18/98
9/4/98
8/28/98
All holders of operating licenses
for nuclear power reactors, except those who have
permanently ceased operations
and have certified that fuel has
been permanently removed from
the reactor vessel.
All holders of operating licenses
for nuclear power reactors
All U.S. NRC fuel cycle facilities
power and non-power reactor
licensees (Safeguard issues, not
for public disclosure.)
All holders of Operating licenses
for nuclear power reactors, except
for those who have ceased
operations and have certified that
fuel has been permanently
removed from the reactor vessel
98-35
98-34 OL = Operating License
CP = Construction Permit
IN 98-39 October30, 1998 (4) Program and Systems Management
One utility reported a failure to perform required background checks and psychological
evaluations of some personnel who were involved in the administration of the
Fitness-for-Duty program. The implementing procedures had not specified which positions
were subject to these investigations.
Appropriate training in behavioral observation techniques is required by 10 CFR 26.22 for
managers and supervisors. More than one utility reported having individuals on site who
had not received the required current training.
Management vigilance over FFD program assumptions enabled one licensee to discover
that a change in the plastic material from which specimen containers were manufactured
allowed tamper-proof seals to be peeled off without leaving evidence of tampering; the new
plastic had a slicker surface.
.
This information notice requires no specific action or written response. If you have any
questions about the information in this notice, please contact the technical contact listed below
or the Regional Administrator of the appropriate Regional Office of the NRC.
Original signed by
Jack W. Roe, Acting Director
Division of Reactor Program Management
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Technical Contact:
Loren L. Bush, Jr., NRR
301-415-2944 E-mail: llbenrc.gov
Attachments:
1. Fitness-for-Duty Statistics
ri/A
2. List of Recently Issued NRC Information Notices Ae'd /(J
Ad
- See previous concurrence
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\RAB1\\MA0514.IN
To receive a copy of this document, indicate In the box C=Copy w/o attachment/enclosure E=Copy with attachment/enclosure N = No copy
OFFICE
PECB:DRPM I
(A)C:PSGB
C:PECB:DRPM
l
NAME
RBenedict*
RRosano*
Jstoe
z
lDATE
j10/15/98
10/15/98 j 10/20/98 Mm
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
"
f l C) %J
IN 98-xx
October xx, 1998 The medical use of marijuana has been approved in certain jurisdictions. A utility has told
its employees that such approval will have no effect on the utility's Fitness-for-Duty
program, and this position has been incorporated in the general employee training program.
(4) Program and Systems Management
- One utility reported a failure to perform required background checks and psychological
evaluations of some personnel who were involved in the administration of the
Fitness-for-Duty program. The implementing procedures had not specified which positions
were subject to these investigations.
- Appropriate training in behavioral observation techniques is required by 10 CFR 26.22 for
managers and supervisors. More than one utility reported having individuals on site who
had not received the required current training.
Management vigilance over FFD program assumptions enabled one licensee to discover
that a change in the plastic material from which specimen containers were made allowed
tamper-proof seals to be peeled off without leaving evidence of tampering; the new plastic
had a slicker surface.
This information notice requires no specific action or written response. If you have any
questions about the information In this notice, please contact the technical contact listed below
or the Regional Administrator of the appropriate Regional Office of the NRC.
Jack W. Roe, Acting Director
Division of Reactor Program Management
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Technical Contact:
Loren L. Bush, Jr., NRR
301-41 5-2944 E-mail: llb@nrc.gov
Attachments:
1. Fitness-for-Duty Statistics
2. List of Recently Issued NRC Information Notices
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\RAB1\\MA0514.IN
To receive a copy of this document, Indicate in the box C=Copy wlo attachmentlenclosure E=Copy with attachment/enclosure N = No copy
OFFICE
PECB:DRPM l
(A)C:PS
I
- PECB:DRPM
C
NAME
RBenedict Fb3 RRosanot'0
-.
JStolz
JRoe
DATE
1IO/1198
' 1 9q
98
8 I /98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
)