ML071590308

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001

July 19, 2007

NRC INFORMATION NOTICE 2007-24: SUMMARY OF FITNESS-FOR-DUTY PROGRAM

 PERFORMANCE REPORTS FOR CALENDAR

 YEAR 2006

ADDRESSEES

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

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

PURPOSE

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

the lessons learned by licensees as detailed in their 2006 fitness-for-duty (FFD) program

performance reports. 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 IN are not NRC requirements and, therefore, no specific actions or written response 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 agency 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.” Currently, this information is now being published through the

NRC’s generic communication program. The enclosure to this IN provides similar FFD program

performance data information for 2006.

DISCUSSION

The following four categories contain a summarization of problems and lessons learned,

management initiatives and the associated corrective actions taken by licensees in 2006:

(1) Certified Laboratories

Some licensees continue to experience problems with laboratory performance involving

equipment malfunctions and have identified potential weaknesses related to human

error.
IN 2007-24

Page 2 of 5

Several examples are provided below:

• One licensee reported that its medical review officer (MRO) identified a

discrepancy with the primary laboratory’s certifying scientist’s notation on the

Federal drug testing custody and control form (CCF) and the clinical laboratory

report result. The certifying scientist recorded the specimen result on the

Federal drug testing CCF as dilute, but the clinical laboratory report result was

negative. Further examination determined that the specimen was negative and

that the certifying scientist had made an administrative error when recording the

result on the CCF. As a result, the certifying scientist was counseled regarding

the accuracy of reported results.

• One licensee reported that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

(HHS)-certified laboratory failed to submit monthly reports within 14 days of the

end of the month. The laboratory had sent the results to the wrong plant

because two plants were on the same account. As a result, the plants are now

on separate accounts and maintain their own past and current reports.

• A second licensee reported a similar issue with a monthly statistical summary. 

The HHS-certified laboratory did not forward the monthly statistical summary to

the licensee as required. Upon discovery, the laboratory was contacted and the

monthly statistical summary was immediately faxed to the licensee’s site. The

licensee entered the incident into its corrective action program. The laboratory

provided a written corrective action to ensure future compliance.

• One licensee reported that the HHS-certified laboratory conducted a random test

using more stringent preemployment levels, resulting in a positive test result. 

The licensee instructed the laboratory to rerun the test, which subsequently

came back negative. The laboratory implemented a retraining effort to prevent

such an incident from happening in the future. The licensee’s tests now require

a signature when certified by the laboratory to verify the proper test protocol was

utilized.

(2) Random Testing

No licensees reported problems related to the random drug and alcohol selection

process.

(3) Policies and Procedures

Some licensees reported issues involving their program policies and procedures. These

often included initiatives to help overcome current weaknesses, such as those described

below:

• One licensee reported that an employee received a positive test result during a

followup test (alcohol), which was then confirmed. The employee was offered a

blood test, which was done. The laboratory found that the specimen was not

sealed, and the MRO reported the result as a positive based on breath tests. 

Upon appeal, the internal management review board ruled the test fatally flawed

and the results were removed from the record.
IN 2007-24

Page 3 of 5

• One licensee reported that a sample was collected by a supplemental employee

in training and the collector section of the CCF was not completed. Another

sample was collected, and the trainer was instructed to independently review all

CCFs before they are sealed by the trainee.

• One licensee reported that an employee returned to work after a positive

(alcohol) FFD test, but had not been placed in the FFD followup testing program

as required by procedure. Upon discovery, the individual was immediately

placed into the followup testing program.

• One licensee indicated that a donor did not date and initial a specimen bottle. 

The specimen was discarded and another collection performed. The licensee

determined that the root cause for this issue was the collector’s failure to use

human performance tools.

• One licensee reported that a plant submitted two blind samples to the

HHS-certified laboratory during the second quarter, instead of the required four

samples. The mistake resulted from a lack of communication during a personnel

changeover, combined with inadequate procedural controls. To compensate for

the mistake, the plant sent six blind samples the next quarter. In response, the

licensee revised the blind sample submission program and created a new

implementation procedure.

• One licensee reported that a temporary outage worker fractured his right middle

finger while moving equipment on a cart. The initial determination was that the

injury was caused by an error in judgment, but a chemical test was not

completed. Three days later, the event was reviewed and a for-cause chemical

test was administered. The issue was entered into the plant’s corrective action

program.

• In a similar incident, one licensee reported that an employee was injured, but

was not immediately tested. Instead, the employee was tested several hours

later. The supervisor was retrained.

• One licensee revised an FFD procedure to reinforce compliance with for-cause

testing as discussed in Regulatory Information Summary 2005-28, “Scope of

For-Cause Fitness-For-Duty Testing Required by 10 CFR 26.24(a)(3),” issued

November 2005.

• One licensee reported that contraband (marijuana and paraphernalia) was

discovered in a contract employee’s vehicle in the owner-controlled area. The

contract employee’s work was nonsafety sensitive.

• One licensee self-identified an improper administration of an FFD drug test

result. A nonnegative drug test result, which was below regulatory confirmation

cutoff levels, was inadequately reviewed. As a result, the nonnegative drug

result was entered as a negative result into the site access authorization system. 
IN 2007-24

Page 4 of 5

The licensee entered this incident into its corrective action program. The

investigation identified the cause for this inadequate review as improper use of

human performance tools to ensure proper implementation of the established

process.

(4) Program and System Management

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

management, as demonstrated by the following examples:

• Fourteen licensees reported more restrictive cutoff levels for marijuana.

• Three licensees reported testing for marijuana at a more restrictive cutoff level

(20 nanograms per milliliter).

• Two licensees reported more restrictive cutoff levels for amphetamines.

• One licensee reported testing more restrictive cutoff levels for opiates.

• One licensee reported testing for barbiturates and benzodiazepines in addition to

the required drug testing.

• One licensee reported testing for methamphetamine in addition to required drug

testing. This testing yielded two positive results.

• One licensee reported testing for barbiturates, benzodiazepine, methadone, and

propoxyphene in addition to required drug testing. This testing resulted in one

positive test result for benzodiazepine. 

• One licensee reported more restrictive cutoff levels for alcohol because of the

range of extrapolation.

• One licensee reported implementing the FFD evaluation form. The FFD

evaluation process provides a consistent method to evaluate personnel who are

involved in plant events, accidents, near misses, or who exhibit aberrant

behavior. During the reporting period, the licensee continued to provide

education and guidance to site supervision in the use of this process.

• One licensee reported changing its policy to rescreen specimens with creatinine

levels less than 20 milligrams per deciliter.
IN 2007-24

Page 5 of 5

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 TQuay for/ 

Michael J. Case, Director

Division of Policy and Rulemaking

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Technical Contact: Timothy McCune, NSIR

(301) 415-6474

Email: fitnessforduty@nrc.gov

Enclosure: 

Summary of Fitness-for-Duty Program Performance Reports for 2006

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

http://www.nrc.gov under Electronic Reading Room/Document Collections.
IN 2007-24

Page 5 of 5

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 TQuay for/

Michael J. Case, Director

Division of Policy and Rulemaking

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Technical Contact: Timothy McCune, NSIR

(301) 415-6474

Email: fitnessforduty@nrc.gov

Enclosure: 

Summary of Fitness-for-Duty Program Performance Reports for 2006

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

http://www.nrc.gov under Electronic Reading Room/Document Collections.

DISTRIBUTION:

IN File

DSO r/f

ADAMS ACCESSION NUMBER: ML071590308

OFFICE NSIR/DSO/LPSB Tech Editor NSIR/DSO/LPSB NSIR/DSO/LPSB

NAME JCurry/CCollins HChang, via email TMcCune GWest

DATE 07/02/2007 6/30/2007 07/03/2007 07/03/2007

OFFICE DD:NSIR/DSO D:NSIR/DSO NSIR LA:PGCB

NAME RWay DDorman (RWay for) RZimmerman CHawes

DATE 07/05/07 07/05/2007 07/10/2007 07/11/2007

OFFICE PGCB BC:PGCB D:DPR

NAME JRobinson MMurphy MCase

DATE 07/16/2007 07/18/2007 07/19/2007

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Enclosure

IN 2007-24

Page 1 of 12

Summary of Fitness-For-Duty Program Performance Reports for 2006

Since the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published its fitness-for-duty (FFD) rule

(Title 10, Part 26, “Fitness for Duty Programs,” of the Code of Federal Regulations

(10 CFR Part 26)), licensees have submitted program performance reports to the agency as

required by 10 CFR 26.71(d). In the past, the NRC published a summary and analysis of

calendar year data submitted by the licensees in an annual volume of NUREG/CR-5758,

“Fitness for Duty in the Nuclear Power Industry—Annual Summary of Program Performance

Reports.” The tables below provide the information for calendar year 2006 and summarize data

from 1990 to 2005. 

Table 1

2006 Test Results for Each Test Category

TEST CATEGORY NUMBER OF TESTS POSITIVE TESTS PERCENT POSITIVE

Pre-Access

Random

For-Cause

Followup

Other

79,980

52,557

1,621

4,766

1,305

747

132

109

37

66

0.93

0.25

6.72

0.78

5.06

TOTAL*

TOTAL without

OTHER Category

140,229

138,924

979

932

0.72

0.69

*These totals include test results from the “Other” test category. This category encompasses

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 provide this information.
IN 2007-24

Page 2 of 12

Table 2

Test Results for Each Test Category and Work Category

(January through December 2006)

TEST CATEGORY LICENSEE

EMPLOYEES

LONG-TERM

CONTRACTORS

SHORT-TERM 

CONTRACTORS

TOTAL

Pre-Access

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

9,336

24

0.26

528

7

1.33

70,116

716

1.02

79,980

747

0.93

Random

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

34,818

55

0.16

1,437

5

0.35

16,302

72

0.44

52,557

132

0.25

For-Cause

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

701

25

3.57

45

2

4.44

875

82

9.37

1,621

109

6.72

Followup

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

2,364

14

0.59

57

0

0.00

2,345

23

0.98

4,766

37

0.78

Other

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

714

9

1.26

58

1

1.72

533

56

10.51

1,305

66

5.06

TOTAL

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

47,933

127

0.26

2,125

15

0.71

90,171

949

1.05

140,229

1,091

0.78

TOTAL without

OTHER Category

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

47,219

118

0.25

2,067

14

0.68

89,638

893

1.00

138,924

1,025

0.74
IN 2007-24

Page 3 of 12

Table 3

2006 Test Results by Test Category

(January through December 2006)

TEST CATEGORY FIRST

SIX MONTHS

SECOND

SIX MONTHS YEAR

Pre-Access

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

39,977

344

0.86

40,003

403

1.01

79,980

747

0.93

Random

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

26,811

60

0.22

25,746

72

0.28

52,557

132

0.25

For-Cause

Observed Behavior

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

Postaccident

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

372

45

12.10

471

3

0.64

344

59

17.15

434

2

0.46

716

104

14.53

905

5

0.55

Followup

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

2,391

22

0.92

2,375

15

0.63

4,766

37

0.78

Other

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

604

38

6.29

701

28

3.99

1,305

66

5.06

TOTAL

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

70,626

512

0.72

69,603

579

0.83

140,229

1,091

0.78

TOTAL without

OTHER Category

Number Tested

Number Positive

Percent Positive

70,022

474

0.68

68,902

551

0.80

138,924

1,025

0.74
Table 4

2006 Test Results for Licensee Employees and Contractor Personnel

(January through December 2006)

TEST CATEGORY

LICENSEE EMPLOYEES LONG-TERM CONTRACTORS SHORT-TERM 

First Six

Months

Second Six

Months

Year First Six

Months

Second Six

Months

Year First Six Months Se

Pre-AccessNumber TestedNumber PositivePercent Positive

5,338

10

0.19

3,998

14

0.35

9,336

24

0.26

233

4

1.72

295

3

1.02

528

7

1.33

34,406

330

0.96

RandomNumber TestedNumber PositivePercent Positive

17,780

26

0.15

17,038

29

0.17

34,818

55

0.16

701

3

0.43

736

2

0.27

1,437

5

0.35

8,330

31

0.37

For-CauseObserved BehaviorNumber TestedNumber PositivePercent PositivePost accidentNumber TestedNumber PositivePercent Positive

145

6

4.14

215

0

0.00

177

18

10.17

164

1

0.61

322

24

7.45

379

1

0.26

10

0

0.00

10

0

0.00

11

2

18.18

14

0

0.00

21

2

9.52

24

0

0.00

217

39

17.97

246

3

1.22

FollowupNumber TestedNumber PositivePercent Positive

1,156

8

0.69

1,208

6

0.50

2,364

14

0.59

41

0

0.00

16

0

0.00

57

0

0.00

1,194

14

1.17
Table 4

2006 Test Results for Licensee Employees and Contractor Personnel, Continued

(January through December 2006)

TEST CATEGORY

LICENSEE EMPLOYEES LONG-TERM CONTRACTORS SHORT-TERM 

First Six

Months

Second Six

Months

Year First Six

Months

Second Six

Months

Year First Six Months Se

OtherNumber TestedNumber PositivePercent Positive

341

6

1.76

373

3

0.80

714

9

1.26

32

0

0.00

26

1

3.85

58

1

1.72

231

32

13.85

TOTALNumber TestedNumber PositivePercent Positive

24,975

56

0.22

22,958

71

0.31

47,933

127

0.26

1,027

7

0.68

1,098

8

0.73

2,125

15

0.71

44,624

449

1.01

TOTAL withoutOTHER CategoryNumber TestedNumber PositivePercent Positive

24,634

50

0.20

22,585

68

0.30

47,219

118

0.25

995

7

0.70

1,072

7

0.65

2,067

14

0.68

44,393

417

0.94
IN 2007-24

Page 6 of 12

Table 5

2006 Number of Confirmed Positives by Substance

(January through December 2006)

TYPE OF

SUBSTANCE

FIRST SIX 

MONTHS

SECOND SIX

MONTHS TOTAL

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Marijuana 232 48.13 214 39.27 446 43.43

Cocaine 119 24.69 188 34.50 307 29.89

Opiates 5 1.04 9 1.65 14 1.36

Amphetamines 24 4.98 29 5.32 53 5.16

Phencyclidine 0 0.00 1 0.18 1 0.10

Alcohol 102 21.16 104 19.08 206 20.06

TOTAL 482 100 545 100 1027 100
IN 2007-24

Page 7 of 12

Table 6

2006 Confirmed Positive Test Results by Substance and Work Category

(January through December 2006)

TYPE OF

SUBSTANCE

LICENSEE EMPLOYEES CONTRACTORS

(Long-Term/Short-Term) 

Number Percent Number Percent

Marijuana 32 26.23 414 45.75

Cocaine 27 22.13 280 30.94

Opiates 2 1.64 12 1.33

Amphetamines 7 5.74 46 5.08

Phencyclidine 0 0.00 1 0.11

Alcohol 54 44.26 152 16.80

TOTAL 122 100 905 100
Table 7

Significant Fitness-for-Duty Events (1990–2006)

Type of Event 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 

Reactor Operators 19 16 18 8 7 8 8 9 Licensee Supervisors 26 18 22 25 11 16 19 16 Contract Supervisors 12 24 28 16 11 10 8 10 FFD Program Personnel 15001020

Substances Found 68620554

Adulterated Specimen Total 64 71 74 51 30 39 42 39 

Table 7

Significant Fitness-for-Duty Events (1990–2006), Continued

Type of Event 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total

Reactor Operators 5 4 3 6 9 5 3 35Licensee Supervisors 11 9 3 3 7 13 6 52Contract Supervisors 8 12 12 8 4 14 6 64FFD Program Personnel 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 4Substances Found 3 0 1 2 9 9 2 26Adulterated Specimen 9 23 29 60 121Total 27 25 22 28 52 71 77 302
Table 8

Trends in Testing by Test Type (1990–2006)

Type of Test 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 19

Pre-Access Number Tested 122,491 104,508 104,842 91,471 80,217 79,305 81,041 84,320 6

 Number Positive 1,548 983 1,110 952 977 1,122 1,132 1,096  Percent Positive 1.26 0.94 1.06 1.04 1.22 1.41 1.40 1.30 Random Number Tested 148,743 153,818 156,730 146,605 78,391 66,791 62,307 60,829 5 Number Positive 550 510 461 341 223 180 202 172  Percent Positive 0.37 0.33 0.29 0.23 0.28 0.27 0.32 0.28 For-Cause Number Tested 732 727 696 751 758 763 848 722  Number Positive 214 167 178 163 122 139 138 149  Percent Positive 29.23 22.97 25.27 21.70 16.09 18.22 16.27 20.64 Followup Number Tested 2,633 3,544 4,283 4,139 3,875 3,262 3,262 3,296  Number Positive 65 62 69 56 50 35 40 31  Percent Positive 2.47 1.75 1.61 1.35 1.29 1.07 1.23 0.94 TOTAL* Number Tested 274,599 262,597 266,551 242,966 163,241 150,121 147,458 149,167 12 Number Positive 2,377 1,722 1,818 1,512 1,372 1,476 1,512 1,448  Percent Positive 0.87 0.66 0.68 0.62 0.84 0.98 1.03 0.97 

*Does not include test results from the “Other” test category. 
Table 8

Trends in Testing by Test Type (2000–2006), Continued

Type of Test 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

Pre-Access Number Tested 68,333 63,744 73,155 72,988 76,119 79,005  Number Positive 965 720 805 757 737 648  Percent Positive 1.41 1.13 1.10 1.04 0.97 0.82 

Random Number Tested 51,955 50,080 49,741 49,402 51,239 50,286 

 Number Positive 204 148 114 132 127 147 

 Percent Positive 0.39 0.30 0.23 0.27 0.25 0.29 

For-Cause Number Tested 883 730 1,072 1,052 1,159 1,161 

 Number Positive 138 101 112 126 139 106 

 Percent Positive 15.67 13.84 10.45 11.98 11.99 9.13 

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

 Number Positive 49 35 21 42 31 31  Percent Positive 1.71 1.32 0.73 1.34 0.83 0.76 

TOTAL* Number Tested 124,032 118,730 128,321 127,785 132,269 134,509 

 Number Positive 1,356 1,036 1,091 1,094 1,034 932 

 Percent Positive 1.09 1,004 0.85 0.86 0.78 0.69 

*Does not include test results from the “Other” test category. 
IN 2007-24

Page 11 of 12

Table 9

Trends in Substances Identified (1990–2006)

Substance 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Marijuana 1153 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

Amphetami

nes

69 31 31 51 54 61 53 49 46 40

Opiates 45 24 8 13 11 17 14 39 19 16

Phencyclidi

ne

8 11 4 5 1 7 2 0 1 2

Total* 2433 1762 1893 1576 1400 1,543 1570 1528 1153 1233

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

and for substances other than those listed above.

Table 9

Trends in Substances Identified (1990–2006), Continued

Substance 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Marijuana 620 523 560 518 514 432 446

Cocaine 251 225 228 228 247 246 307

Alcohol 211 212 214 199 222 196 206

Amphetamines 50 50 47 64 60 59 53

Opiates 32 17 21 17 14 16 14

Phencyclidine 1 2 3 0 1 2 1

Total* 1168 1029 1069 1026 1056 951 1027

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

and for substances other than those listed above.
IN 2007-24

Page 12 of 12

Table 10

Trends in Positive Test Rates for Workers with Unescorted Access (1990–2006)*

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

2006 0.44

*Includes random, for-cause testing results. The

reduction in random test rate from 100 percent to 50

percent has been in effect since 1994.