UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001

February 6, 2003

NRC INFORMATION NOTICE 2003-04: SUMMARY OF FITNESS-FOR-DUTY PROGRAM

PERFORMANCE REPORTS FOR CALENDAR

YEAR 2000

Addressees

All holders of operating licensees for nuclear power reactors, except those who have

permanently ceased operations and have certified that fuel has been permanently removed

from the reactor vessel.

Purpose

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

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

for calendar year 2000. It is expected that recipients will review the information for applicability

to their facilities and consider, as appropriate, corrective actions to improve the performance of

their FFD programs in the future. However, this IN should not be construed as representing

NRC requirements, and therefore no specific actions or written responses are required. 

Description of Circumstances

Since the fitness-for-duty rule (10 CFR Part 26) was published in 1989 and amended in 1992,

licensees have submitted FFD program performance reports to the NRC, as required by 

10 CFR 26.71(d). In the past, the NRC 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.” In 2001, the NRC

issued IN 2001-02 to convey this information for the years 1998 and 1999. This IN provides

similar information for 2000. Statistics are provided in Attachment 1.

Discussion

Lessons learned, management initiatives and problems, and associated corrective actions

reported by licensees in 2000 are summarized below.

(1) Certified Laboratories

Several licensees continue to experience problems with laboratory performance. For

example, the determination of blind performance specimens caused test discrepancies

at two different laboratories. 

ML030350473
IN 2003-04

Page 2 of 7

• A licensee reported that one donor specimen tested at the laboratory confirmed

positive. The Laboratory Forensic Testing Director was provided with the onsite

screening information on this specimen. It was reported as a negative test since it

was just under the positive threshold. The Director concluded the overall accuracy

of the onsite specimen program is acceptable under current instrument accuracy

standards. The onsite immunoassay test instrument was calibrated according to the

manufacturer’s recommendations. The negative test result may have been due to

variability of reagents and/or differences in onsite and laboratory test equipment or

procedures. Statistically, specimens that are at the threshold level may screen both

above and below the cutoff if testing is repeated. In this instance, the Medical

Review Officer (MRO) determined the specimen donor to be in violation of the FFD

program and unescorted access was denied.

• One licensee shipped a blind performance sample to the U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services (HHS)-certified laboratory, and the sample tested negative for

tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). This sample should have tested positive. The

laboratory rechecked the process and found no discrepancies. Further testing

verified the specimen contained THC. The sample in the FFD office was then

shipped to another HHS-certified laboratory for testing and the results turned up

negative. On further investigation, it was determined that the blind specimen, which

was within 2 weeks of its expiration date, had deteriorated below the confirmatory

level before being tested. The condition was documented and corrective action

taken.

• A licensee reported that a certified laboratory was unable to test an onsite dilute

specimen because the specimen label was not legible. The licensee collected a

second specimen, and the results turned up negative. The laboratory rejected the

specimen because the tamper-resistant seal was not on the container. The nurse

failed to follow proper chain of custody procedures when collecting the specimen

after the previously diluted specimen. A third specimen was collected, and the

results were negative. The laboratory was unable to test a blood specimen that was

requested after a positive alcohol test. The donor identification on the specimen

container did not match the chain of custody form. The MRO determined that

collection of another specimen was not necessary, and the positive alcohol finding

stood. The licensee noted that blind performance testing was conducted at a rate of

10 percent. Ninety-two specimens were submitted and all test results were correct.

• One licensee reported at least 85 percent of the specimens which were determined

to be presumptively positive as a result of preliminary onsite screening for marijuana

and cocaine were also reported as positive by the HHS-certified laboratory.

• One licensee reported that meetings are conducted with laboratory, collection site,

MRO, Employee Assistance Program (EAP), and psychological assessment staff,

and this has proven to assure consistent and effective implementation of the FFD

program.
IN 2003-04

Page 3 of 7

• One licensee reported that a total of 450 blind proficiency specimens were

processed for the reporting period, calendar year 2000, and there were no false

negatives and no false positives. 

• One licensee reported that blind specimens submitted to the HHS-certified

laboratory generally yielded the results expected.

• One licensee reported a potential performance test discrepancy in that two blind

performance specimens that were spiked with amphetamine/methamphetamine

were reported as negative by the HHS-certified laboratory. However, during further

investigation, it was discovered that the blind performance specimens had

unexpectedly deteriorated.

• One licensee reported that quality assurance (QA) personnel audit portions of the

FFD program as part of the Continuous Assessment Process. Based on the audits,

the following four deficiencies were identified: HHS laboratory personnel

qualifications; HHS laboratory opiate testing procedures; collection procedures when

FFD personnel are tested; and the testing frequency of personnel in a followup

testing program. Immediate corrective actions were taken.

• One licensee reported that the HHS-certified contract laboratory used to analyze

testing samples inadvertently raised the cutoff level for opiate metabolites. The

results from the tested samples were negative at the NRC cutoff levels. An

investigation performed in accordance with the Corrective Action Program revealed

that the laboratory had an inadequate program for performing, monitoring, and

evaluating changes made to a customer’s account. Corrective actions to prevent

recurrence taken by the contract laboratory included developing and implementing a

formalized account change process that verifies and validates such changes.

• One licensee reported several problems with the handling and testing of specimens;

pre-access test leaked, specimens shipped by air were lost for 12 days, and one

specimen tested positive for adulterants. Appropriate corrective action was taken in

these cases, which shows that special care must be taken in collecting specimens

before transporting them to the HHS-certified laboratory.

• One licensee reported that an individual from an HHS-certified laboratory deviated

from established testing procedures, resulting in a random specimen being

discarded that was needed pending legal resolution of an administrative action. 

Personnel associated with the laboratory and administration of the FFD program

were made aware of this incident, and further actions to prevent recurrence were

established. The test was considered as being incomplete and was readministered

as soon as possible on another random test day.
IN 2003-04

Page 4 of 7

(2) Random Testing

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

selection process.

• One licensee reported that a contractor employee had a seizure during alcohol

testing. It was determined at the local hospital that the seizure was related to

alcohol withdrawal. The MRO requested a complete physical, including a liver

enzyme test. The test results were negative. The individual is enrolled in a medical

treatment rehabilitation program.

• One licensee reported that management performed a comparison between the

number of tests given and the number of positive results obtained during the

performance period for calendar 2000. The positive test results were up 25% for the

same period. Part of this increase was attributed to the employee screening efforts

of the cleaning contractor. The increase in the number of pre-access and random

tests performed during the same performance period was a result of the steam

generator replacement outage. 

• One licensee reported several problems with the random drug and alcohol selection

process due to an improperly reset computer code. These errors have been

corrected through revising the Specimen Collection Protocol for Drug and Alcohol

Screening which was implemented. At one facility, the licensee enhanced the

Repetitive Task Process by which the integrity of the random pool is verified on a

quarterly basis. This process ensures that all employees are eligible for random

selection.

(3) Policies and Procedures

Several licensees reported initiatives to improve their FFD program policies and

procedures.

• One licensee reported that no adulterated samples were found, though four

abnormal integrity checks were noted. All tests were negative on the repeat testing

of these samples taken. 

• One licensee reported distributing several site communications during a six month

period which addressed various aspects of the Continual Behavioral Observation

Program in an effort to strengthen site personnel’s knowledge of the program

requirements. A reference card was distributed to site supervision addressing CallIn situations and Continual Behavior Observation Techniques. Additionally, a Drug

Education Guide was distributed to site supervisors providing information on;

physical symptoms, dangers, and slang terms for various illegal drugs.
IN 2003-04

Page 5 of 7

• One licensee stated that during the reporting period, the contractor population was

higher than usual due to a steam generator replacement. It was noted that three

cases were reported of employees using a family member’s medication, resulting in

positive test results. A QA audit identified the deviation from FFD requirements

where the MRO did not recognize an incorrect screening cutoff level. This was later

determined to be an isolated problem that did not impact on any presumptive tests. 

This problem was reported to the NRC. The licensee also reported two drug and

alcohol tests were ruled null and void by the MRO for specimens received at the

offsite laboratory. One had a damaged container, and one had a broken seal. 

However, subsequent tests produced negative results.

• One licensee reported that one site implemented the use of ChemStix4 strips to test

for elevated nitrite levels with subsequent confirmation using Mask 87 strips. If a

positive reaction is obtained, the results are confirmed with a Mask 87 strip. The

licensee reported that this practice was found to be time saving and cost effective,

and helped ensure less embarrassment on an individual’s part by decreasing the

false positive nitrite results. 

• One licensee reported the lower cutoff level for marijuana resulted in no additional

confirmed positive tests. There was one discrepant test result during the reporting

period from the backup laboratory. A false negative was reported for amphetamines

on a blind performance test specimen. An investigation was initiated and

determined that a reagent product was being used (EMIT II Plus) by the laboratory

for the testing of amphetamines. As part of the initial validation of these new

reagents, the reagents were capable of distinguishing positive specimens from

negative specimens for both methamphetamine and amphetamine at the cutoff

concentration. When a new lot of these reagents was received, it was validated only

for methamphetamine. The investigation concluded that although there was no

problem with the sensitivity to methamphetamine, there was a significant change in

the response to amphetamine. As a corrective action the laboratory has returned to

using the reagents that have previously proven to be satisfactorily responsive to both

drugs.

• One licensee reported that two incidents of urine adulteration were identified. The

licensee continues to research and implement the most effective method to detect

FFD testing subversion. During an audit, two program deficiencies were identified. 

One was inadequate toilet bluing within the screening trailer. It was also noted that

one refrigerator used to store specimens did not have a lock on the door. Both

deficiencies were immediately corrected.

• One licensee reported that a sealed package containing leafy material was found

inside the protected area on the roadway. It was sent to the Division of Forensic

Sciences in the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI). The GBI reported that the

leafy material tested positive for marijuana. Even though the substance was not in

the direct possession of an individual upon discovery, the NRC was notified because

someone had to have possessed the material to get it in the protected area. 

Management had those individuals in the protected area during the timeframe of the

discovery incident placed in a smaller but separate pool for random drug screening.
IN 2003-04

Page 6 of 7

• One licensee reported that it was initiating a number of self-assessment reviews on

a variety of topics, including cutoff levels for opiates, training of supervisors on

handheld intoxilizers, and quality control (QC) testing. The results of these reviews

will be used to make revisions to evaluate and improve FFD programs.

• One licensee reported that its onsite screening uses a process that requires all

“nonnegative” tests be sent to a contracted HHS-certified laboratory for both

screening and confirmatory testing. To monitor the accuracy and increase the

integrity of the laboratory, this utility has participated in proficiency testing provided

by the College of American Pathologists (CAP).

• One licensee distributed information to the Industrial Safety Action Team regarding

the dangers of over-the-counter antihistamines. The licensee also conducted an

analysis of the FFD program performance data for the first half of 2000 and revised

its FFD procedures to incorporate the recommendations.

• One licensee mailed a pamphlet describing the available Employee Assistance

Program (EAP) to the homes of all employees. The purpose of this mailing was to

remind employees of the services offered to employees and eligible family members. 

An EAP training session was initiated for all supervisors and managers to help them

be more comfortable referring employees to the EAP and use this program as a

possible resolution for future problems that might arise. Classes have been and are

still being conducted and, to date, the feedback has been positive.

• One licensee reported that during the performance period, random sweeps were

made by drug sniffing canine teams and plant personnel were interviewed to

determine whether illicit drugs and alcohol were being used at the facilities. In this

regard, QA personnel conducted audits using the following aspects of the FFD

program: chemical testing, sample collection, collection site readiness, breath

alcohol testing, onsite screening of specimens, and presumptive positive specimens. 

The only problem identified during this period was the improper maintenance of an

FFD procedures manual. The problem has been corrected.

• One licensee reported that based upon the positive test results, marijuana is the

drug of preference, with cocaine second. 

(4) Program and System Management

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

management.

• A licensee reported that the annual FFD audit identified an aggressive selfassessment schedule as one of the main contributors to the program’s success. 

During the audit, a review of the assessment reports revealed that several elements

contributed to the success. They are: (1) attention to evaluating performance

against established requirements; (2) identifying deficiencies; (3) corrective actions

taken; (4) a sound followup process; and (5) awareness and self-assessment

against industry experience data.
IN 2003-04

Page 7 of 7

• One licensee’s FFD program was revised to address actions to be taken relative to

legal hemp products. Although ingestion of hemp/hemp oil food products is not

prohibited by company policy, THC test results above the cutoff limits will be

reported by the MRO as confirmed positive for THC, and appropriate sanctions will

be imposed as provided by regulation and the FFD Program.

• A licensee’s canine program continues to remind plant personnel of the licensee’s

commitment to maintain a drug-free work environment. The canine unit provides

antidrug presentations to local schools and other community organizations. The

canine unit is also made available to local law enforcement agencies upon request.

The NRC expects addressees to evaluate the above information for applicability to licensed

activities. However, this IN does not require any specific action or written response. If you

have any questions about this notice, please contact one of the technical contacts listed below

or the appropriate project manager in the NRC’s Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR).

/RA/

William D. Beckner, Program Director

Operating Reactor Improvements Program

Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

Technical Contacts: Garmon West, Jr., Ph.D., NSIR Robert Caldwell, NRR

301-415-0211 301-415-1243

E-mail: fitnessforduty@nrc.gov E-mail: rkc1@nrc.gov

Attachments: 1. Fitness-for-Duty Statistics

2. List of Recently Issued NRC Information Notices
Attachment 1

IN 2003-04

Page 1 of 11

Table 1 - 2000 Test Results For Each Test Category

Test Category Number of Tests Positive Tests Percent Positive

Pre-Access 68,333 965 1.41%

Random 51,955 204 0.39%

For-Cause 883 138 15.66%

Followup 2,861 49 1.71%

Other 1,681 41 2.44%

Total * 125,713 1,397 1.11%

Total without

Other category

124,032 1,356 1.09%

* These totals were calculated using the 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 2003-04

Page 2 of 11

Table 2 - 2000 Test Results For Each Test Category And Work Category

Test Category Licensee

Employees

Long-Term

Contractors

Short-Term

Contractors

Total

Pre-Access

Number Tested 7,613 2,917 57,803 68,333

Number Positive 51 60 854 965

Percent Positive 0.67% 2.06% 1.48% 1.41%

Random

Number Tested 36,784 2,105 13,066 51,955

Number Positive 116 5 83 204

Percent Positive 0.32% 0.24% 0.64% 0.39%

For-Cause

Number Tested 355 96 432 883

Number Positive 21 12 105 138

Percent Positive 5.92% 12.50% 24.24% 15.66%

Followup

Number Tested 1,633 38 1,190 2,861

Number Positive 18 1 30 49

Percent Positive 1.10% 2.63% 2.52% 1.71%

Other

Number Tested 586 284 811 1,681

Number Positive 5 2 34 41

Percent Positive 0.85% 0.70% 4.19% 2.44%

Total

Number Tested 46,971 5,440 73,302 125,713

Number Positive 211 80 1,106 1,397

Percent Positive 0.45% 1.47% 1.51% 1.11%

Total without Other

Category

Number Tested 46,385 5,156 72,491 124,032

Number Positive 206 78 1,072 1,356

Percent Positive 0.44% 1.51% 1.48% 1.09%
IN 2003-04

Page 3 of 11

Table 3 - 2000 Test Results By Test Category

 Test Category First 6 Months Second 6 Months Year

Pre-Access

Number Tested 32,896 34,437 68,633

Number Positive 402 563 965

Percent Positive 1.22% 1.59% 1.41%

Random

Number Tested 26,669 25,286 51,955

Number Positive 131 73 204

Percent Positive 0.49% 0.29% 0.39%

For-Cause

Observed Behavior

Number Tested 353 256 609

Number Positive 68 64 132

Percent Positive 19.26% 25.00% 21.67%

Post-Accident

Number Tested 156 118 274

Number Positive 2 4 6

Percent Positive 1.28% 3.39% 2.19%

Follow-Up

Number Tested 1,499 1,362 2,861

Number Positive 23 24 49

Percent Positive 1.67% 1.76% 1.71%

Other

Number Tested 888 793 1,681

Number Positive 23 18 41

Percent Positive 2.59% 2.27% 2.44%

Total

Number Tested 62,461 63,252 125,713

Number Positive 651 746 1,397

Percent Positive 1.04% 1.18% 1.11%

Total w/o Other 

 category

Number Tested 61,573 62,459 124,032

Number Positive 628 728 1,356

Percent Positive 1.02% 1.17% 1.09%
IN 2003-04

Page 4 of 11

Table 4 - 2000 Test Results For Licensee Employees And Contractor Personnel

Licensee Employees Long-Term Contractors Short-Term Contractors

First Second Year First Second Year First Second Year

Test Category 6 Months 6 Months 6 Months 6 Months 6 Months 6 Months

Pre-Access

 Number Tested 4,235 3,378 7,613 2,561 356 2,917 26,100 31,703 57,803

 Number Positive 30 21 51 57 3 60 315 539 854

 Percent Positive 0.71% 0.62% 0.67% 2.23% 0.84% 2.06% 1.215 1.70% 1.48%

Random

 Number Tested 18,790 17,994 36,784 1,412 693 2,105 6,467 6,599 13,066

 Number Positive 94 22 116 3 2 5 34 49 83

 Percent Positive 0.50% 0.12% 0.32% 0.21% 0.29% 0.24% 0.53% 0.74% 0.64%

For-Cause

Observed Behavior

 Number Tested 103 102 205 84 5 89 166 149 115

 Number Positive 11 10 21 12 0 12 45 54 99

 Percent Positive 10.68% 9.8% 10.24% 14.29% 0.00% 13.48% 27.11% 36.24% 31.43%

Post-Accident

 Number Tested 72 80 152 4 3 7 80 35 115

 Number Positive 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 6

 Percent Positive 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.5% 11.43% 5.22%

Followup

 Number Tested 849 784 1,633 29 9 38 621 569 1,190

 Number Positive 13 5 18 1 0 1 11 19 30

 Percent Positive 1.53% 0.64% 1.10% 3.45% 0.00% 0.70% 5.07% 3.51% 4.19%

Other

 Number Tested 354 232 586 179 105 284 355 456 811

 Number Positive 3 2 5 2 0 2 18 16 34

 Percent Positive 0.85% 0.86% 0.85% 1.12% 0.00% .70% 5.07% 3.51% 4.19%

Total

 Number Tested 24,403 22,570 46,973 4,269 1,171 5,440 33,789 39,511 73,300

 Number Positive 151 60 211 75 5 80 425 681 1,106

 Percent Positive 0.62% 0.27% 0.45% 1.76% 0.43% 1.47% 1.26% 1.72% 1.51%

Total w/o Other

category

 Number Tested 24,049 22,338 46,387 4,090 1,066 5,156 33,434 39,055 72,489

 Number Positive 148 58 206 73 5 78 407 665 1,072

 Percent Positive 0.62% 0.26% 0.44% 1.78% 0.47% 1.51% 1.22% 1.70% 1.48%
IN 2003-04

Page 5 of 11

Table 5 - 2000 Number Of Confirmed Positives By Substance

 First 6 Months Second 6 Months Total

Type of Substance Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

 

Marijuana 311 58.24% 309 48.74% 620 53.08%

Cocaine 100 18.73% 151 23.82% 251 21.49%

Opiates 11 2.06% 21 3.31% 32 2.74%

Amphetamines 18 3.37% 32 5.05% 50 4.28%

Phencyclidine 0 0.00% 4 0.63% 4 0.34%

Alcohol 94 17.60% 117 18.45% 211 18.07%

Total 534 634 1,168
IN 2003-04

Page 6 of 11

Table 6 - 2000 Confirmed Positive Test Results By Substance And Work Category

Licensee Employees Contractors

(Long-Term/Short-Term)

Type of

Substance

Number Percent Number Percent

 

Marijuana 56 43.08% 564 54.28%

Cocaine 23 17.69% 228 21.94%

Opiates 3 2.31% 29 2.79%

Amphetamines 4 3.08% 47 4.52%

Phencyclidine 0 0.00% 4 0.38%

Alcohol 44 33.85% 167 16.07%

Total 130 1,039
IN 2003-04

Page 7 of 11

Table 7 - 2000 Confirmed Positives Test Results By Substance

For Each Worker Category

(January through December 2000)

Licensee Employees Contractors

(Long-Term/Short-Term)

Type of Substance Number Percent Number Percent

 

Marijuana 78 43.58% 528 54.21%

Cocaine 41 21.91% 228 23.41%

Opiates 3 1.68% 16 1.64%

Amphetamines 6 3.35% 40 4.11%

Phencyclidine 0 0.00% 1 0.10%

Alcohol 51 28.49% 161 16.53%

Total 179 974
IN 2003-04

Page 8 of 11

Table 8 - Significant Fitness-For-Duty Events (1990-2000)

Type of Event 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Total

Reactor Operators 19 16 18 8 7 8 8 9 5 5 5 108

Licensee Supervisors 26 16 22 25 11 16 19 16 10 2 11 174

Contract Supervisors 12 24 28 16 11 10 8 10 10 12 8 149

FFD Program

Personnel

1 5 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 2 0 14

Substances Found 6 8 6 2 0 5 5 4 0 2 3 41

Total 64 69 74 51 30 39 42 39 28 23 27 486
IN 2003-04

Page 9 of 11

Table 9 - Trends in testing by test type (1990-2000)

Type of Test 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 T

Pre-Access

 Number Tested 122,491 104,508 104,842 91,471 80,217 79,305 81,041 84,320 69,146 69,139 68,333 9

 Number Positive 1,548 983 1,110 952 977 1,122 1,132 1,096 822 934 965 1

 Percent Positive 1.26% 0.94% 1.06% 1.04% 1.22% 1.41% 1.40% 1.30% 1.19% 1.35% 1.41% 1

Random

 Number Tested 148,743 153,818 156,730 146,605 78,391 66,791 62,307 60,829 56,969 54,457 51,955 1

 Number Positive 550 510 461 341 223 180 202 172 157 140 204 3

 Percent Positive 0.37% 0.33% 0.29% 0.23% 0.28% 027% 0.32% 0.28% 0.28% 0.26% 0.39% 0

For-Cause

 Number Tested 732 727 696 751 758 763 848 722 720 736 883 8

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

 Percent Positive 29.23% 22.97% 25.57% 21.70% 16.09% 18.22% 16.27% 20.64% 13.89% 16.30% 15.67% 1

Followup

 Number Tested 2,633 3,544 4,283 4,139 3,875 3,262 3,262 3,296 2,863 3,008 2,861 3

 Number Positive 65 62 69 56 50 35 40 31 43 30 49 5

 Percent Positive 2.47% 1.75% 1.61% 1.35% 1.29% 1.07% 1.23% 0.94% 1.50% 1.00% 1.71% 1

TOTAL*

 Number Tested 274,599 262,597 266,551 242,966 163,241 150,121 147,458 149,167 129,698 127,340 124,032 2

 Number Positive 2,377 1,722 1,818 1,512 1,372 1,476 1,512 1,448 1,122 1,224 1,356 1

 Percent Positive 0.87% 0.66% 0.68% 0.62% 0.84% 0.98% 1.03% 0.97% 0.87% 0.96% 1.09% 0

* Does not include test results from the “Other” test category. 
IN 2003-04

Page 10 of 11

Table 10 - Trends in substances identified (1990-2000)

Substance 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Marijuana 1,153 746 953 781 739 819 868 842 606 672 620

Cocaine 706 549 470 369 344 374 352 336 269 273 251

Alcohol 452 401 427 357 251 265 281 262 212 230 211

Amphetamines 69 31 31 51 54 61 53 49 46 40 50

Opiates 45 24 8 13 11 17 14 39 19 16 32

Phencyclidine 8 11 4 5 1 7 2 0 1 2 1

Total* 2,433 1,762 1,893 11,576 1,400 1,543 1,570 1,528 1,153 1,233 1,168

* 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 2003-04

Page 11 of 11

Table 11 - Trends In Positive Test Rates For Workers

With Unescorted Access (1990-2000)

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%