UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001

December 21, 2006

NRC INFORMATION NOTICE 2006-30: SUMMARY OF FITNESS-FOR-DUTY PROGRAM

PERFORMANCE REPORTS FOR CALENDAR

YEARS 2004 AND 2005

ADDRESSEES

All holders of operating licenses for nuclear power reactors, and licensees authorized to

possess or use or to transport formula quantities of strategic special nuclear material.

PURPOSE

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing this information notice (IN) to report

lessons learned by licensees from their fitness-for-duty (FFD) program performance reports for

2004 and 2005. The agency expects that recipients of this IN will review the information for

applicability to their reactor facilities and consider, as appropriate, taking corrective actions to

improve the future performance of their FFD programs. However, suggestions contained in this

Information Notice are not NRC requirements and, therefore, no specific actions or written

responses is required.

DESCRIPTION OF CIRCUMSTANCES

As required by Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 26.71(d), NRC

licensees have submitted 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). In the past, the

NRC summarized and analyzed the performance data and published an annual volume,

NUREG/CR-5758, “Fitness for Duty in the Nuclear Power Industry—Annual Summary of

Program Performance Reports.” The IN in the enclosure provides similar FFD program

performance data information for 2004 and 2005.

DISCUSSION

Licensees reported the following lessons learned, management initiatives and problems, and

the associated corrective actions taken for 2004 and 2005.

(1) Certified Laboratories

Some licensees continue to experience problems with laboratory performance involving

equipment malfunctions and have also identified potential weaknesses related to human

error.

ML062010365
IN 2006-30

Page 2 of 9

For example, licensees reported the following for 2004:

• One licensee reported that a primary laboratory erroneously returned

negative results for a specimen that was actually positive for morphine

and codeine. The primary laboratory determined a crimped reagent line

to be the most likely cause of the error. The laboratory has revised its

daily maintenance procedures to include inspection of the lines to the

reagent valves.

• One licensee reported that a laboratory returned a negative result for a

sample that was actually positive. The licensee entered the issue into the

plant’s corrective action program. The discrepancy resulted from an

isolated, individual human error in which the extraction technician may

have failed to add the appropriate amount of urine specimen to the empty

test tube before adding the internal standard.

• One licensee reported that a performance sample, spiked for both

secobarbital and phenobarbital, tested positive for only phenobarbital at

the laboratory. The laboratory reported that testing of the performance

sample showed secobarbital 1000 nanograms/milliliter (ng/ml), but the

laboratory staff inadvertently entered the data into the laboratory

computer as 100 ng/ml. The laboratory advised that it would provide

additional training to the certifying scientists on accurately entering

results.

• One licensee reported that results took an inappropriate amount of time

to arrive from the laboratory. Therefore, the laboratory’s responsible

person will change the requirements to release results to within 5 working

days.

• One licensee reported a typographical error in the field containing the

donor identification as reported on the laboratory drug test report. 

Corrected reports were issued and processed according to applicable

internal procedures.

In addition, licensees reported the following for 2005:

• One licensee reported that the certifying scientist signed a certified true

copy of a chain-of-custody form with a negative test result for a

performance sample spiked with secobarbital and phenobarbital. The

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) certified laboratory

identified the error and provided a corrected chain-of-custody form

without prompting.

• One licensee reported that the HHS laboratory announced negative

results for a positive blind quality assurance (QA) sample.

• One licensee reported that the HHS laboratory announced negative

results for two positive blind QA samples sent in the same batch.
IN 2006-30

Page 3 of 9

• One licensee reported a false negative on a blind performance test

sample containing amphetamine/methamphetamine. The error occurred

because (1) the confirmation analyst entered the original data incorrectly,

and (2) the certifying scientist overlooked the error of the confirmation

analyst. Both individuals received counseling on the error and retraining.

• One licensee reported that although the HHS laboratory returned no

incorrect results, Hurricane Katrina caused a disruption with its services.

(2) Random Testing

Several licensees reported minor problems related to the random drug and alcohol

selection process.

For example, licensees reported the following for 2004:

• One licensee discovered that the FFD random testing pool excluded 25

individuals. The issue was thoroughly investigated and all individuals

involved were identified, and they completed an administrative FFD test

without any disqualifying outcomes.

• One licensee reported that one short-term contractor was granted

unescorted access but was not subject to random selection. The

individual’s name was not entered into the random selection pool in time

for that individual to be subject to random selection. On discovery, the

individual’s name was immediately entered into the random testing pool,

and he was chemically tested under the “other” category, with negative

results. The licensee entered the problem into the corrective action

process.

• One licensee reported that because a manual step was skipped, the

random testing pool excluded 18 individuals for a 4-day period. Upon

discovery, the licensee took the steps necessary to update the random

testing pool accordingly. The licensee no longer uses the manual step in

the random selection process. 

• One licensee reported that three workers were not entered into the

random testing pool because of a combination of overconfidence based

on previous experience, substandard performance of the task, and failure

to understand certain actions. The lessons learned from this situation 

were reviewed with the appropriate staff, and relevant management 

reports were developed to monitor performance in this area.

• One licensee reported that a failure to perform a self-check resulted in

the incorrect coding of a pre-access FFD collection such that the worker

was not placed in the random testing pool. The error was detected and 
IN 2006-30

Page 4 of 9

corrected before the worker was granted unescorted access. The staff

has been coached on self-checking and peer-checking techniques,

including the use of validation reports during peak processing periods.

In addition, licensees reported the following for 2005:

• Five licensees reported that individuals were not placed in the random

testing pool following pre-access drug and alcohol testing as intended. 

Upon discovery, the licensees identified the affected individuals and

manually placed their names in the random testing pool. The affected

individuals did not know that they were not in the random FFD pool.

• One licensee reported that two names were not entered into the random

testing pool in time for random selection. Upon discovery, the individuals’

names were immediately entered into the random test testing pool, and

they were chemically tested under the “other” category, with negative

results.

• One licensee reported that two chemical tests were conducted for two

long-term contractor employees who had been inadvertently terminated

from the unescorted access database and removed from the FFD

random testing pool. Upon discovery, the individuals’ names were

immediately entered into the random test selection pool, and they were

chemically tested under the “other” category, with negative results.

(3) Policies and Procedures

Several licensees reported initiatives to improve their FFD program policies and

procedures.

For example, licensees reported the following for 2004:

• Two licensees did not meet the 10 percent blind sample submittal

requirement. They are implementing corrective actions and follow-up

actions to prevent future recurrence.

• One licensee reported that it listed all the for-cause tests administered

under the subcategory “observed behavior,” although it should have listed

the for-cause test for a particular licensee employee under the 

sub-category “post-accident.”

• One licensee reported that a supervisor did not effectively implement the

FFD for-cause testing procedure for an employee who displayed problem

behavior. The licensee entered this issue into the plant’s corrective

action program. The supervisor was required to review the FFD forcause testing procedure with his manager and received counseling on

management expectations for use of the procedure. In addition, the 

supervisor was required to attend and complete the initial FFD training 
IN 2006-30

Page 5 of 9

class. The licensee distributed information about this event via email to

all supervisors and managers. In addition, the supervisors and managers

who received the email were required to review the FFD program forcause testing procedure and confirm by return email that they had read

and understood the testing requirements.

• One licensee reported that beer was found in the plant owner controlled

area, outside the protected area, during this reporting period. No

individual was in the area at the time of discovery. Five days after the

discovery of the beer, a contract worker admitted to his supervisor that

this beer was his and that he had consumed two cans of beer by himself. 

Given that the individual had violated site policies regarding bringing

alcohol on site and drinking the beer on site, the licensee revoked his

unescorted access.

• One licensee reported that a contract employee who did not hold

unescorted access attempted to subvert his pre-access urine specimen

test, which resulted in a positive test for illegal drugs. The contractor was

denied unescorted access to the protected area.

• One licensee reported a contractor employee’s intentional falsification of

the chain-of-custody form during the pre-access testing process.

• One licensee reported that two for-cause tests were administered on

visitors for alcohol discovered in their vehicle during a security search

prior to entering the protected area.

• One licensee reported that an individual experienced a confirmed positive

test for a single substance based on medication obtained out of the

country that is not considered legal in the United States without a

prescription.

• One licensee reported that four individuals were tested after alcohol was

discovered in their vehicle at the owner controlled area access control

point. All tests were negative.

• One licensee reported that an employee and a contractor were tested forcause after finding marijuana in a coin purse in the protected area. 

Initially, the coin purse was thought to belong to the contractor so that

individual was tested first. However, the licensee employee admitted to

inadvertently bringing the coin purse into the protected area, stating that

it belonged to his son. The licensee employee and the contractor both

tested negative.

• One licensee discovered that it had not submitted its semi-annual FFD

performance data report to the NRC. It took immediate action to

electronically submit the report to the applicable representative.
IN 2006-30

Page 6 of 9

In addition, licensees reported the following for 2005:

• One licensee reported that follow-up testing had not been completed

when an individual’s increased test frequency had not been implemented

as required by the Medical Review Officer (MRO). The apparent cause

was that the FFD program staff did not update the follow-up tracking

sheet to show the increase. To address this issue, the licensee (1) made

FFD program staff aware of the issue and (2) developed and

implemented a work instruction, including a checklist.

• One licensee reported that two FFD tests were lost between the courier

and the laboratory.

• One licensee reported that it sent an insufficient number of positive blind

specimens to the laboratory as required by site procedures. Although the

number of blind specimens submitted did meet regulatory requirements,

the site procedural requirements were more restrictive.

• One licensee did not meet the 10 percent blind sample submittal

requirement because of the large number of contractors brought in to

support the outage during the last weeks of the third quarter. A condition

report was generated and addition blind samples were sent to the

laboratory in the beginning of the fourth quarter to raise the average

above 10 percent.

• One licensee reported that two individuals were tested after alcohol was

discovered in their vehicle at the entrance to the protected area.

• One licensee reported that additional denials were issued for falsification

of their chain-of-custody form, and in some cases falsification of their

self-disclosure questionnaires.

• One licensee reported that one contractor was asked to provide a second

sample during pre-access testing because of his behavior during the 

collection. The individual started the process and then refused to

complete the second collection.

• One licensee reported that a contractor discovered a can of beer that had

been inadvertently placed in his lunch-box. The individual was escorted

off site and security was notified. The individual was interviewed by the

FFD program manager, who determined that the introduction of alcohol

was not intentional.

• One licensee determined that a non-supervisory, station contract

employee was incorrectly granted access to the protected area.

• One licensee reported that it overstated the number of tests originally

reported as for-cause.
IN 2006-30

Page 7 of 9

• One licensee reported that two steroid tests were conducted on an

individual per MRO recommendation. Both tests results were negative.

• One licensee reported that during compilation of the semiannual data, it

identified that a computer error had persisted throughout 2005 and

invalidated the report. The licensee submitted a revision.

• One licensee reported that United Parcel Service delivered three

packages to the plant. When a clerk in the administration building,

located in the main protected area, opened the packages, the clerk

discovered that they contained unopened wine bottles. The clerk notified

plant security and removed all three packages from the plant protected

area and later removed the material from the plant site. It was

determined that all the wine bottles were unopened and no one

consumed any wine inside the plant protected area.

• One licensee reported that it misrepresented a return-to-duty test for a

long-term contractor following a positive alcohol result as a follow-up test.

• One licensee reported that on two occasions the Collection Site Person

failed to administer breath tests as required, as a result of inexperience. 

• One licensee identified instances in which unescorted access was

erroneously granted. The licensee is conducting an evaluation to

determine the cause of the error and to take corrective action.

(4) Program and System Management

In general, most licensees continue to report improvements in their overall FFD program

and its management.

For example, licensees reported the following for 2004:

• One licensee met with the laboratory, collection site, MRO, employee

assistant program, and psychological assessment personnel to ensure

consistent and effective implementation of the FFD program.

• One licensee recertified collection personnel for proficiency in urine

specimen collection and breath alcohol measurement, continued crosstraining with the In-Processing Center, attended quality improvement

program testing to help align access authorization and FFD programs,

revised office instructions and protocols, and is implementing a new

computer program that will benefit access authorization and FFD

activities.

• Ten licensees reported more restrictive cut-off levels for marijuana.
IN 2006-30

Page 8 of 9

• Two licensees reported more stringent cut-off levels for alcohol.

• One licensee reported more stringent cut-off levels for opiates.

• Two licensees reported more stringent cut-off levels for amphetamines.

• One licensee tests for two additional substances (names of substances

not listed).

• One licensee reported improving the electronic database used for

initiating and approving working-hour deviation requests.

In addition, licensees reported the following for 2005:

• One licensee reported more stringent cut-off levels for opiates.

• Ten licensees reported more stringent cut-off levels for marijuana.

• Two licensees reported more stringent cut-off levels for amphetamines.

• Two licensees reported more stringent cut-off levels for alcohol.

• One licensee reported testing for two additional substances (substances

not named).

• Two licensees reported testing for four additionally substances 

(barbiturates, benzodiazepines, methadone, and propoxyphene).

• One licensee reported meeting with laboratory staff, collection site staff,

MROs, employee assistance program staff, and psychological

assessment staff to assure consistent effective implementation of the

FFD program.

• One licensee met with the MROs to assure consistent effective

implementation of the FFD program.
IN 2006-30

Page 9 of 9

CONTACT

This information notice requires no specific action or written response. Please direct any

questions about this matter to the technical contact listed below.

/RA by Theodore Quay for/

Michael J. Case, Director

Division of Policy and Rulemaking

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Technical Contact: Eric Skarpac, NSIR

301-415-5361

E-mail: fitnessforduty@nrc.gov

Enclosure: Tables for Fitness-for-Duty (FFD) 2004–2005

Note: NRC generic communications may be found on the NRC public Web site,

http://www.nrc.gov, under Electronic Reading Room/Document Collections.
IN 2006-30

Enclosure

TABLES FOR FITNESS-FOR-DUTY (FFD) 2004-2005

Table 1A

2004 Test Results for Each Test category

TEST CATEGORY NUMBER OF TESTS POSITIVE TESTS PERCENT POSITIVES

Pre-Access

Random

For-Cause

Follow-Up

Other

76,119

51,239

1,159

3,752

1,221

737

127

139

31

41

0.97%

0.25%

11.99%

0.83%

3.36%

TOTAL*

TOTAL without

OTHER Category

133,490

132,269

1,075

1,034

0.81%

0.78%

*These totals were calculated using “Other” test category. This category includes results from

the periodic testing done by some reporting units during annual physicals or similar periodic

activities. Although some reporting units specified the nature of the “Other” tests (e.g., return to

work), most reporting units did not give this information.

Table 1B

2005 Test Results for Each Test category

TEST CATEGORY NUMBER OF TESTS POSITIVE TESTS PERCENT POSITIVES

Pre-Access

Random

For-Cause

Follow-Up

Other

79,005

50,286

1,161

4,057

1,193

648

147

106

31

47

0.82%

0.29%

9.13%

0.76%

3.94%

TOTAL*

TOTAL without

OTHER Category

135,702

134,509

979

932

0.72%

0.69%

 *These totals were calculated using “Other” test category. This category includes results from

the periodic testing done by some reporting units during annual physicals or similar periodic

activities. Although some reporting units specified the nature of the “Other” tests (e.g., return to

work), most reporting units did not give this information.
IN 2006-30

Enclosure

Page 2 of 18

Table 2A

2004 Test Results for Each Test Category and Work Category

(January through December 2004)

TEST CATEGORY LICENSEE

EMPLOYEES

LONG-TERM

CONTRACTORS

SHORT-TERM

CONTRACTORS

TOTAL

Pre-Access

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

7,661

35

0.46%

1,095

8

0.73%

67,363

694

1.03%

76,119

737

0.97%

Random

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

34,723

51

0.15%

1,399

6

0.43%

15,117

70

0.46%

51,239

127

0.25%

For-Cause

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

458

23

5.02%

46

1

2.17%

655

115

17.56%

1,159

139

11.99%

Follow-Up

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

2,058

14

0.68%

55

0

0.00%

1,639

17

1.04%

3,752

31

0.83%

Other

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

630

4

0.63%

117

0

0.00%

474

37

7.81%

1,221

41

3.36%

TOTAL

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

45,530

127

0.28%

2,712

15

0.55%

85,248

933

1.09%

133,490

1,075

0.81%

TOTAL without

OTHER Category

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

44,900

123

0.27%

2,595

15

0.58%

84,774

896

1.06%

132,269

1,034

0.78%
IN 2006-30

Enclosure

Page 3 of 18

Table 2B

2005 Test Results for Each Test Category and Work Category

(January through December 2005)

TEST CATEGORY LICENSEE

EMPLOYEES

LONG-TERM

CONTRACTORS

SHORT-TERM

CONTRACTORS

TOTAL

Pre-Access

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

8,210

28

0.34%

767

12

1.56%

70,028

608

0.87%

79,005

648

0.82%

Random

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

33,587

60

0.18%

1,533

5

0.33%

15,166

82

0.54%

50,286

147

0.29%

For-Cause

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

509

19

3.73%

59

2

3.39%

593

85

14.33%

1,161

106

9.13%

Follow-Up

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

2,099

15

0.71%

79

0

0.00%

1,879

16

0.85%

4,057

31

0.76%

Other

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

548

2

0.36%

87

0

0.00%

558

45

8.06%

1,193

47

3.94%

TOTAL

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

44,953

124

0.28%

2,525

19

0.75%

88,224

836

0.95%

135,702

979

0.72%

TOTAL without

OTHER Category

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

44,405

122

0.27%

2,438

19

0.78%

87,666

791

0.90%

134,509

932

0.69%
IN 2006-30

Enclosure

Page 4 of 18

Table 3A

2004 Test Results by Test Category

(January through December 2004)

TEST CATEGORY FIRST

SIX MONTHS

SECOND

SIX MONTHS

YEAR

Pre-Access

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

38,390

381

0.99%

37,729

356

0.94%

76,119

737

0.97%

Random

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

25,465

54

0.21%

25,774

73

0.28%

51,239

127

0.25%

For-Cause

Observed Behavior

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

Post-Accident

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

344

68

19.77%

211

2

0.95%

357

66

18.49%

247

3

1.21%

701

134

19.12%

458

5

1.09%

Follow-Up

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

1,825

18

0.99%

1,927

13

0.67%

3,752

31

0.83%

Other

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

681

18

2.64%

540

23

4.26%

1,221

41

3.36%

TOTAL

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

66,916

541

0.81%

66,574

534

0.80%

133,490

1,075

0.81%

TOTAL without

OTHER Category

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

66,235

523

0.79%

66,034

511

0.77%

132,269

1,034

0.78%
IN 2006-30

Enclosure

Page 5 of 18

Table 3B

2005 Test Results Test Category

(January through December 2005)

TEST CATEGORY FIRST

SIX MONTHS

SECOND

SIX MONTHS

YEAR

Pre-Access

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

45,885

373

0.81%

33,120

275

0.83%

79,005

648

0.82%

Random

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

28,866

70

0.26%

23,420

77

0.33%

50,286

147

0.29%

For-Cause

Observed Behavior

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

Post-Accident

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

352

68

19.32%

233

0

0.00%

319

37

11.60%

257

1

0.39%

671

105

15.65%

490

1

0.20%

Follow-Up

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

2,114

15

0.71%

1,943

16

0.82%

4,057

31

0.76%

Other

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

545

20

3.67%

648

27

4.17%

1,193

47

3.94%

TOTAL

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

49,129

476

0.97%

36,287

356

0.98%

85,416

832

0.97%

TOTAL without

OTHER Category

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

75,450

526

0.70%

59,059

406

0.69%

134,509

932

0.69%
IN 2006-30

Enclosure

Page 6 of 18

Table 4A

2004 Test Results for Licensee Employees and Contractor Personnel

(January through December 2004)

Licensee Employees Long-Term

Contractors

Short-Term

Contractors

TEST CATEGORY First Six

Months

Second Six

Months

Year First Six

Months

Second Six

Months

Year First Six

Months

S

Pre-Access

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

4,183

22

0.53%

3,478

13

0.37%

7,661

35

0.46%

476

2

0.42%

619

6

0.97%

1,095

8

0.73%

33,731

357

1.06%

Random

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

17,613

24

0.14%

17,110

27

0.16%

34,723

51

0.15%

594

1

0.17%

805

5

0.62%

1,399

6

0.43%

7,258

29

0.40%

For-Cause

Observed Behavior

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

Post-Accident

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

139

13

9.35%

108

0

0.00%

127

10

7.87%

84

0

0.00%

266

23

8.65%

192

0

0.00%

7

0

0.00%

8

1

12.50%

11

0

0.00%

20

0

0.00%

18

0

0.00%

28

1

3.57%

198

55

27.78%

95

1

1.05%
IN 2006-30

Enclosure

Page 7 of 18

Table 4A

2004 Test Results for Licensee Employees and Contractor Personnel Continued

(January through December 2004)

Licensee Employees Long-Term Contractors Short-Term Contractors

TEST CATEGORY First Six

Months

Second Six

Months

Year First Six

Months

Second Six

Months

Year First Six

Months

Second Six

Months

Year

Follow-Up

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

986

8

0.81%

1,072

6

0.56%

2,058

14

0.68%

22

0

0.00%

33

0

0.00%

55

0

0.00%

817

10

1.22%

822

7

0.85%

1,639

17

1.04%

Other

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

331

4

1.21%

299

0

0.00%

630

4

0.63%

76

0

0.00%

41

0

0.00%

117

0

0.00%

274

14

5.11%

200

23

11.50%

474

37

7.81%

TOTAL

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

23,360

71

0.30%

22,170

56

0.25%

45,530

127

0.28%

1,183

4

0.34%

1,529

11

0.72%

2,712

15

0.55%

42,373

466

1.10%

42,875

467

1.09%

85,248

933

1.09%

TOTAL w/o OTHER

Category

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

23,029

67

0.29%

21,871

56

0.26%

44,900

123

0.27%

1,107

4

0.36%

1,488

11

0.74%

2,595

15

0.58%

42,099

452

1.07%

42,675

444

1.04%

84,774

896

1.06%
IN 2006-30

Enclosure

Page 8 of 18

Table 4B

2005 Test Results for Licensee Employees and Contractor Personnel

(January through December 2005)

Licensee Employees Long-Term Contractors Short-Term Contractors

TEST CATEGORY First Six

Months

Second Six

Months

Year First Six

Months

Second Six

Months

Year First Six

Months

Second Six

Months

Year

Pre-Access

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

4,827

19

0.39%

3,383

9

0.27%

8,210

28

0.34%

404

5

1.24%

363

7

1.93%

767

12

1.56%

40,654

349

0.86%

29,374

259

0.88%

70,028

608

0.87%

Random

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

17,897

30

0.17%

15,690

30

0.19%

33,587

60

0.18%

753

2

0.27%

780

3

0.38%

1,533

3

0.33%

8,216

38

0.46%

6,950

44

0.63%

15,166

82

0.54%

For-Cause

Observed Behavior

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

Post-Accident

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

155

11

7.10%

106

0

0.00%

154

8

5.19%

94

0

0.00%

309

19

6.15%

200

0

0.00%

8

0

0.00%

20

0

0.00%

8

2

25.00%

23

0

0.00%

16

2

12.50%

43

0

0.00%

189

57

30.16%

107

0

0.00%

157

27

17.20%

140

1

0.71%

346

84

24.28%

247

1

0.40%

Follow-Up

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

1,054

6

0.57%

1,045

9

0.86%

2,099

15

0.71%

39

0

0.00%

40

0

0.00%

79

0

0.00%

1,021

9

0.88%

858

7

0.82%

1,879

16

0.85%
IN 2006-30

Enclosure

Page 9 of 18

Table 4B

2005 Test Results for Licensee Employees and Contractor Personnel Continued

(January through December 2005)

Licensee Employees Long-Term Contractors Short-Term Contractors

TEST CATEGORY First Six

Months

Second Six

Months

Year First Six

Months

Second Six

Months

Year First

Six

Months

Second Six

Months

Year

Other

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

281

1

0.36%

267

1

0.37%

548

2

0.36%

36

0

0.00%

51

0

0.00%

87

0

0.00%

228

19

8.33%

330

26

7.88%

558

45

8.06%

TOTAL

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

24,320

67

0.28%

20,633

57

0.28%

44,953

124

0.28%

1,260

7

0.56%

1,265

12

0.95%

2,525

19

0.75%

50,415

472

0.94%

37,809

364

0.96%

88,224

836

0.95%

TOTAL w/o OTHER

Category

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

24,039

66

0.27%

20,366

56

0.27%

44,405

122

0.27%

1,224

7

0.57%

1,214

12

0.99%

2,438

19

0.78%

50,187

453

0.90%

37,479

338

0.90%

87,666

791

0.90%
IN 2006-30

Enclosure

Page 10 of 18

Table 5A

2004 Number of Confirmed Positives by Substance

(January through December 2004)

FIRST SIX MONTHS SECOND SIX

MONTHS

TOTAL

TYPE OF

SUBSTANCE

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Marijuana 275 50.74% 239 46.32% 514 48.58%

Cocaine 115 21.22% 132 25.58% 247 23.35%

Opiates 8 1.48% 6 1.16% 14 1.32%

Amphetamines 34 6.27% 26 5.04% 60 5.67%

Phencyclidine 1 0.18% 0 0.00% 1 0.09%

Alcohol 109 20.11% 113 21.90% 222 20.98%

TOTAL 542 516 1,058

Table 5B

2005 Number of Confirmed Positives by Substance

(January through December 2005)

FIRST SIX MONTHS SECOND SIX

MONTHS

TOTAL

TYPE OF

SUBSTANCE

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Marijuana 240 44.86% 192 46.15% 432 45.43%

Cocaine 140 26.17% 106 25.48% 246 25.87%

Opiates 7 1.31% 9 2.16% 16 1.68%

Amphetamines 40 7.48% 19 40.57% 59 6.20%

Phencyclidine 1 0.19% 1 0.24% 2 0.21%

Alcohol 107 20.00% 89 21.39% 196 20.61%

TOTAL 535 416 951
IN 2006-30

Enclosure

Page 11 of 18

Table 6A

2004 Confirmed Positive Test Results by Substance and Work Category

(January through December 2004)

LICENSEE EMPLOYEES CONTRACTORS

(Long-Term/Short-Term)

TYPE OF SUBSTANCE Number Percent Number Percent

Marijuana 43 33.82% 471 50.81%

Cocaine 23 17.56% 224 24.16%

Opiates 3 2.29% 11 1.19%

Amphetamines 5 3.82% 55 5.93%

Phencyclidine 0 0.00% 1 0.11%

Alcohol 57 43.51% 165 17.80%

TOTAL 131 927
IN 2006-30

Enclosure

Page 12 of 18

Table 6B

2005 Confirmed Positive Test Results by Substance and Work Category

(January through December 2005)

LICENSEE EMPLOYEES CONTRACTORS

(Long-Term/Short-Term)

TYPE OF SUBSTANCE Number Percent Number Percent

Marijuana 35 29.66% 397 47.66%

Cocaine 22 18.64% 224 26.89%

Opiates 3 2.54% 13 1.56%

Amphetamines 6 5.08% 53 6.36%

Phencyclidine 0 0.00% 2 0.24%

Alcohol 52 44.07% 144 17.29%

TOTAL 118 833
IN 2006-30

Enclosure

Page 13 of 18

Table 7

Significant Fitness-for-Duty Events (1990-1999)

Type of Event 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total

Reactor Operators 19 16 18 8 7 8 8 9 5 5 103

Licensee Supervisors 26 18 22 25 11 16 19 16 10 2 165

Contract Supervisors 12 24 28 16 11 10 8 10 10 12 141

FFD Program Personnel 1 5 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 2 14

Substances Found 6 8 6 2 0 5 5 4 0 2 38

Adulterated Specimen 0

Total 64 71 74 51 30 39 42 39 28 23 461

Significant Fitness-for-Duty Events (2000-2005) Continued

Type of Event 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total

Reactor Operators 5 4 3 6 9 5 32

Licensee Supervisors 11 9 3 3 7 13 46

Contract Supervisors 8 12 12 8 4 14 58

FFD Program Personnel 0 0 3 0 0 1 4

Substances Found 3 0 1 2 9 9 24

Adulterated Specimen 9 23 29 61

Total 27 25 22 28 52 71 225
IN 2006-30

Enclosure

Page 14 of 18

Table 8

Trends in testing by test type (1990-1999)

Type of Test 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total

Pre-Access

Number Tested 122,491 104,508 104,842 91,471 8 0,217 79,305 81,041 8 4,320 69,146 6 9,139 888,480

Number Positive 1,548 983 1,110 952 977 1,122 1,132 1,096 822 934 10,676

Percent Positive 1.26% 0.94% 1.06% 1.04% 1.22% 1.41% 1.40% 1.30% 1.19% 1.35% 1.20%

Random

Number Tested 148,743 153,818 156,730 146,605 7 8,391 66,791 62,307 6 0,829 56,969 5 4,457 985,640

Number Positive 550 510 461 341 223 180 202 172 157 140 2,936

Percent Positive 0.37% 0.33% 0.29% 0.23% 0.28% 0.27% 0.32% 0.28% 0.28% 0.26% 0.30%

For-Cause

Number Tested 732 727 696 751 758 763 848 722 720 736 7,453

Number Positive 214 167 178 163 122 139 138 149 100 120 1,490

Percent Positive 29.23% 22.97% 25.27% 21.70% 16.09% 18.22% 16.27% 20.64% 13.89% 16.30% 20.00%
IN 2006-30

Enclosure

Page 15 of 18

Table 8

Trends in testing by test type (1990-1999) Continued

Type of Test 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total

Follow-up

Number Tested 2,633 3,544 4,283 4,139 3,875 3,262 3,262 3,296 2,863 3,008 34,165

Number Positive 65 62 69 56 50 35 40 31 43 30 481

Percent Positive 2.47% 1.75% 1.61% 1.35% 1.29% 1.07% 1.23% 0.94% 1.50% 1.00% 1.41%

TOTAL*

Number Tested 274,599 262,597 266,551 242,966 163,241 150,121 147,458 149,167 129,698 127,340 1,913,738

Number Positive 2,377 1,722 1,818 1,512 1,372 1,476 1,512 1,448 1,122 1,224 15,583

Percent Positive 0.87% 0.66% 0.68% 0.62% 0.84% 0.98% 1.03% 0.97% 0.87% 0.96% 0.81%

* Does not include test results from the “Other” test category.
IN 2006-30

Enclosure

Page 16 of 18

Table 8

Trends in testing by test type (2000-2005) Continued

Type of Test 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total

Pre-Access

Number Tested 6 8,333 63,744 7 3,155 72,988 7 6,119 79,005 433,344

Number Positive 965 720 805 757 737 648 4,632

Percent Positive 1.41% 1.13% 1.10% 1.04% 0.97% 0.82% 1.07%

Random

Number Tested 5 1,955 50,080 4 9,741 49,402 5 1,239 50,286 302,703

Number Positive 204 148 114 132 127 147 871

Percent Positive 0.39% 0.30% 0.23% 0.27% 0.25% 0.29% 0.29%

For-Cause

Number Tested 883 730 1,072 1,052 1,159 1,161 6,053

Number Positive 138 101 112 126 139 106 721

Percent Positive 15.67% 13.84% 10.45% 11.98% 11.99% 9.13% 11.91%

Follow-up

Number Tested 2,861 2,649 2,892 3,142 3,752 4,057 19,314

Number Positive 49 35 21 42 31 31 209

Percent Positive 1.71% 1.32% 0.73% 1.34% 0.83% 0.76% 1.08%

TOTAL*

Number Tested 124,032 118,730 128,321 127,785 132,269 134,509 764,701

Number

Positive

1,356 1,036 1,091 1,094 1,034 932 6,538

Percent

Positive

1.09% 0.87% 0.85% 0.86% 0.78% 0.69% 0.85%

* Does not include test results from the “Other” test category.
IN 2006-30

Enclosure

Page 17 of 18

Table 9

Trends in Substances Identified (1990-1999)

Substance 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Marijuana 1,153 746 953 781 739 819 868 842 606 672

Cocaine 706 549 470 369 344 374 352 336 269 273

Alcohol 452 401 427 357 251 265 281 262 212 230

Amphetamines 69 31 31 51 54 61 53 49 46 40

Opiates 45 24 8 13 11 17 14 39 19 16

Phencyclidine 8 11 4 5 1 7 2 0 1 2

Total* 2,433 1,762 1,893 1,576 1,400 1,543 1,570 1,528 1,153 1,233

* These totals do not equal the total number of positives for each year because some positives

were for multiple substances and for other substances than those listed above.

Table 9

Trends in Substances Identified (2000-2005) Continued

Substance 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Marijuana 620 523 560 518 514 432

Cocaine 251 225 228 228 247 246

Alcohol 211 212 214 199 222 196

Amphetamines 50 50 47 64 60 59

Opiates 32 17 21 17 14 16

Phencyclidine 1 2 3 0 1 2

Total* 1,168 1,029 1,069 1,026 1,056 951

* These totals do not equal the total number of positives for each year because some positives

were for multiple substances and for other substances than those listed above.
IN 2006-30

Enclosure

Page 18 of 18

Table 10

Trends in Positive Test Rates For Workers With Unescorted Access (1990-2005)*

Year 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%

1998 0.50%

1999 0.50%

2000 0.70%

2001 0.53%

2002 0.46%

2003 0.56%

2004 0.51%

2005 0.49%

* Includes random, for-cause, testing results. The reduction in random 

 test rate from 100% to 50% has been in effect since 1994.