- About NRC           - The Commission
      - Statutory Authority
      - Strategic Plan
      - Budget &  Performance
      - Organization & Functions
      - Locations
      - History
      - Values
      - Policymaking
      - Radiation Protection
      - Fire Protection
      - How We Regulate
      - Grants
      - Civil Rights
      -     
    - NuclearReactors           - Operating Reactor Locations
      - Reactor Quick Links
      - Power Reactors
      - Research and Test Reactors
      - Operating Reactors
      - Operator Licensing
      - New Reactors
      - Operator Licensing for New Reactors
      - Reactor Safety Research
      - Advisory Comm (ACRS)
      - Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities
      -     
    - NuclearMaterials           - Fuel Cycle Facility Locations
      - Uranium Recovery Locations
      - Materials Quick Links
      - Special Nuclear Material
      - Source Material
      - Byproduct Material
      - Med, Academic & Ind Uses
      - Source Materials Facilities
      - Uranium Recovery
      - Fuel Cycle Facilities
      - Materials Transportation
      - Materials Research
      - Advisory Comm (ACMUI)
      - Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities
      - Materials Environmental Reviews
      -     
    - RadioactiveWaste           - Waste Quick Links
      - Low-Level Waste
      - Waste Incidental to Reprocessing
      - Incidental Waste Criteria
      - High-Level Waste
      - Uranium Mill Tailings
      - LLW Disposal
      - HLW Disposal
      - Spent Fuel Storage
      - Spent Fuel Transport
      - Waste Research
      -     
    - NuclearSecurity           - Security Spotlight
      - NRC Responsibilities
      - Domestic Safeguards
      - Radioactive Material Security
      - Facility Protection
      - Nuclear Material Control
      - International Safeguards
      - Information Security
      - Emergency Preparedness
      - &;   
    - Public Meetings& Involvement           - Public Meeting Schedule
      - Commission	    Schedule
      - Conferences & Symposia
      - Documents for Comment
      - Brochures & Fact Sheets
      - Involving Stakeholders
      - Info Quality Guidelines
      - Rulemaking Process
      - Licensing
      - Enforcement
      - Hearing Process
      - Hearing Applications
      -     

**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**

----

**1996 Test result for each test category and work category**

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

----

**1996 Test results by NUMARC form test category**

* 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.

----

**1996 Test results for licensee employees and contractor personnel**

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

----

**1996 Test results for long-term and short-term contractor personnel**

* 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.

----

**1996 Number of confirmed positives by substance**

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

----

**1996 Confirmed positives test results by substance for each worker category**

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

----

**1997 Test result for each test category and work category**

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

----

**1997 Test results by NUMARC form test category**

* 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.

----

**1997 Test results for licensee employees and contractor personnel**

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

----

**1997 Test results for long-term and short-term contractor personnel**

* 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.

----

**1997 Number of confirmed positives by substance**

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

----

**1997 Confirmed positives test results by substance for each worker category**

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

----

**Significant fitness-for-duty events (1990-1997)**

----

**Trends in testing by test type (1990-1997)**

----

**Trends in substances identified (1990-1997)**

* 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

----