Index | Site Map | FAQ | Facility Info | Reading Rm | New | Help | Glossary | Contact Us

UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001

October 30, 1998

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.
  
  
• 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 ng/ml 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 100-ng/ml level designated by the utility.

(2)  Random Testing

Incidents continue to be reported that employees are improperly notified in advance of random testing and that some employees fail 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.
  
  
• 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 "for-cause" 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.

(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.

ATTACHMENT 1

Test results for each test category, 1996 and 1997

* Test results in the "Other" test category are not included.

* 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.

* These totals have been calculated using the category "Other."

* 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.

* These numbers include positive test results from the "Other" test category.

* These numbers include positive test results from the "Other" test category.

* Test results in the "Other" test category are not included.

* 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.

* These totals have been calculated using the category "Other."

* 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.

* These numbers include positive test results from the "Other" test category.

These numbers include positive test results from the "Other" test category.

* 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.

* 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