ML092650761

UNITED STATES 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS 

OFFICE OF NEW REACTORS 

WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001 

November 24, 2009 

NRC INFORMATION NOTICE 2009-28: SUMMARY OF FITNESS FOR DUTY 

 PROGRAM PERFORMANCE REPORTS 

 FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2008 

ADDRESSEES 

All holders of operating licenses for nuclear power reactors issued under Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization 

Facilities,” except those who have permanently ceased operations and have certified that fuel 

has been permanently removed from the reactor vessel. 

All holders of nuclear power plant construction permits and early site permits with a limited work 

authorization and applicants for nuclear power plant construction permits that have a limited 

work authorization under the provisions of 10 CFR Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production 

and Utilization Facilities.” 

All holders of a combined license for a nuclear power plant issued under 10 CFR Part 52, 

“Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants,” and applicants for a 

combined license that have a limited work authorization. 

All licensees who are authorized to possess, use, or transport formula quantities of strategic 

special nuclear material under the provisions of 10 CFR Part 70, “Domestic Licensing of Special 

Nuclear Material.” 

All holders of a certificate of compliance or an approved compliance plan issued under 

10 CFR Part 76, “Certification of Gaseous Diffusion Plants,” if the holder engages in activities 

involving formula quantities of strategic special nuclear material. 

All contractors and vendors (C/Vs) who implement fitness-for-duty (FFD) programs or program 

elements to the extent that the licensees and other entities listed above rely on those C/V FFD 

programs or program elements to comply with 10 CFR Part 26, “Fitness For Duty Programs.” 

PURPOSE 

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

FFD performance information obtained from licensees as detailed in their 2008 FFD program 

performance report submissions. The agency expects recipients to review the information for 

applicability to their facilities and to consider, as appropriate, corrective actions to improve their 
IN 2009-28 

Page 2 of 9 

FFD programs. Suggestions contained in this IN are not NRC requirements; therefore, no 

specific action or written response is required. 

DESCRIPTION OF CIRCUMSTANCES 

The regulations of 10 CFR Part 26, “Fitness for Duty Programs,” prescribe requirements and 

standards for the establishment, implementation, and maintenance of FFD programs. On 

March 31, 2008, the Commission published a final rule for 10 CFR Part 26 that updated FFD 

requirements and enhanced consistency with other relevant Federal rules and guidelines. This 

final rule (Volume 73 of the Federal Register, page 16966 (73 FR 16966; March 31, 2008)) 

became effective on April 30, 2008; however, licensees and other entities could defer 

implementation of the requirements related to drug and alcohol testing until March 31, 2009. 

The former rule (54 FR 24494; June 7, 1989), required licensees to submit 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). The current rule requires licensees to submit FFD 

program performance data annually before March 1 of the following year in accordance with 

10 CFR 26.727, “Fitness-for-Duty Program Performance Date.” 

In the past, the NRC summarized and analyzed the performance data and published 

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

Program Performance Reports.” Beginning with calendar year 1996 data, the NRC has 

published the summary and analysis of FFD program performance data through the NRC’s 

generic communication program. The enclosure to this IN provides FFD program performance 

data for calendar year 2008. 

This IN presents FFD program performance information for 74 licensees or other entities as 

follows: 

• 64 reactor sites. One utility aggregated the performance data for two different reactor 

sites into one performance report. Therefore, although this IN only distinguishes 

between 64 reactor sites, the actual test results address all 65 reactor sites. 

• 6 corporate FFD program offices. Some utilities with multiple reactor sites administer 

the FFD program at a location different from the reactor sites and therefore report data 

for these personnel separately. 

• 4 contractors/SSNM transporters. These four include BWX Technologies, Inc.; Institute 

of Nuclear Power Operations; Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.; and Westinghouse Electric 

Company, LLC. 

DISCUSSION 

The following summarizes information reported by licensees or other entities (hereafter, as 

licensees) on FFD program issues encountered and where appropriate the lessons learned, 

management initiatives, and corrective actions. 
IN 2009-28 

Page 3 of 9 

 • Ten licensees reported issues associated with licensee testing facilities or HHS-certified 

laboratory performance involving equipment malfunctions or potential weaknesses related to 

human error, or both. Of these, the majority of problems pertained to blind performance test 

samples. 

 • Seven licensees reported testing program policy and procedure issues. These primarily 

involved alcohol testing and illegal drug (cocaine and marijuana) use. 

 • A number of licensees elected to test for alcohol or specific drugs or both using more 

stringent cutoff levels than those established by regulation (see Sections 2.7(e) and 2.7(f) in 

Appendix A, “Guidelines for Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs,” to 10 CFR Part 26 in the 

former rule; and 10 CFR 26.133, “Cutoff Levels for Drugs and Drug Metabolites,” and 

10 CFR 26.163, “Cutoff Levels for Drugs and Drug Metabolites,” in the current rule). 

Specifically, 5 licensees lowered the alcohol cutoff, 63 licensees reduced the marijuana 

cutoff, 4 licensees reduced the cocaine cutoff, 5 licensees reduced the opiate cutoff, 

8 licensees reduced the amphetamine cutoff, and 4 licensees reduced the phencyclidine 

(PCP) cutoff. The lower cutoff levels for drugs and drug metabolites have resulted in the 

identification of illegal drug use. In addition, 7 licensees tested for additional drugs above 

those required by regulation. 

 • Five licensees reported initiatives that resulted in the identification of programmatic 

improvements or areas of weakness requiring corrective action. 

 • Three licensees reported various types of self-assessments or initiatives to improve their 

FFD programs. These actions included but were not limited to peer and external reviews. 

Two other licensees implemented new software programs to enhance the management of 

the FFD and access authorization programs. 

 • The staff noted that, for a few licensees, the program performance reports did not 

summarize management actions taken in response to identified FFD program occurrences 

or deficiencies (10 CFR 26.71(d) in the former rule and 10 CFR 26.717(b)(8) of the current 

rule). Fitness for duty programs are subject to NRC inspection. 

The following describes FFD program performance issues that occurred at licensee facilities. 

For summary purposes, this information is presented below in four categories: (1) Certified 

Laboratories, (2) Policies and Procedures, (3) Program and System Management, and (4) Other 

Program and System Management Issues. 

(1) Certified Laboratories

Overall, 10 licensees reported problems associated with laboratory performance involving 

equipment malfunctions or potential weaknesses related to human error, or both, as follows: 

 • One licensee reported a potential deficiency associated with the tamper indicating seals 

supplied by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)-certified laboratory 

for use in securing specimen containers. The licensee determined through testing that the 
IN 2009-28 

Page 4 of 9 

laboratory-supplied seal could be removed from a specimen bottle without indications of 

tampering. The licensee immediately implemented the use of a second more sensitive seal 

that was applied over the laboratory-supplied seal. A review of drug test results for 

specimen testing conducted at the laboratory over the past 2 years revealed no instances in 

which a specimen was rejected for testing because of a problem with the tamper-indicating 

seal. The laboratory was in the process of developing a new seal at the time of the FFD 

performance report submission. The licensee will conduct tests on the new seal when it 

receives it from the laboratory and will verify that the seal cannot be removed from a 

specimen bottle without the seal showing signs of tampering. 

 • One licensee reported that a contractor FFD technician included the phrase “Quality 

Assurance Blind” on the custody-and-control forms for blind performance test samples sent 

to the HHS-certified laboratory. This information distinguished the blind samples from donor 

specimens submitted for testing. The FFD technician received training on the correct 

procedures to follow for completing the custody-and-control forms for blind samples, and the 

licensee submitted new blind samples to the HHS-certified laboratory to replace those 

previously sent in error. The licensee also reviewed the custody-and-control forms for 

previous blind samples and identified no additional discrepancies. 

 • One licensee reported that the HHS-certified laboratory misplaced two specimens. An 

additional specimen was collected and tested for each donor. 

 • One licensee reported that the HHS-certified laboratory reported a false negative test result 

for a blind performance test sample containing amphetamine. Retesting of the blind sample 

at a second HHS-certified laboratory resulted in a positive test for amphetamine. The 

licensee’s performance report submission did not specify the cause of the testing error at 

the initial HHS-certified laboratory. 

 • One licensee reported that the HHS-certified laboratory reported a false negative result for a 

blind performance test sample containing PCP. The laboratory investigated and determined 

that a random mechanical instrument error resulting from a small crack in a wash nozzle line 

caused the false negative. 

 • One licensee reported that the HHS-certified laboratory reported a false negative result for a 

blind performance test sample containing PCP. The laboratory determined that the 

certifying scientist incorrectly entered the test result into the laboratory’s computer system. 

The laboratory conducted error correction training with the certifying scientist and indicated 

that all certifying scientists would receive additional training to ensure that they accurately 

entry of gas chromatography/mass spectrometry results into the laboratory’s computer 

system. 

 • One licensee reported that the HHS-certified laboratory reported an inconsistent test result 

for a blind performance test sample containing marijuana and an adulterant. The laboratory 

reported only a marijuana positive test result. The licensee’s performance report submission 

did not specify the cause of the inconsistent result from the HHS-certified laboratory. 
IN 2009-28 

Page 5 of 9 

 • One licensee reported that an FFD program audit determined that it had not met the 

quarterly blind performance test sample requirement for the former rule (i.e., 10 percent of 

specimens tested in the quarter up to 250) for the third quarter of 2008. The licensee 

submitted 33 samples when it should have submitted 35 samples. The issue was attributed 

to the licensee’s failure to apply self-checking techniques to ensure that the intended action 

was correct. Licensee staff completed refresher training and the licensee developed a 

tracking table to more accurately evaluate the number and type (i.e., positive or negative) of 

blind samples submitted for testing each quarter. A Human Performance Success Clock 

Evaluation recommended a Section Clock Reset because company administrative 

expectations were not being met. The licensee forwarded the Human Performance Success 

Clock Evaluation to the Condition Report Program Administrator for retention. 

 • Two licensees reported not meeting the quarterly blind performance test sample 

requirement for one quarter of testing. However, the licensees noted that the combined 

average for the first and second quarters was over 10 percent of the specimens submitted to 

the HHS-certified laboratory. The licensee generated condition reports, implemented 

corrective actions to prevent recurrence, and issued company-wide condition reports to 

share the event and lessons learned with other entities. 

(2) Policies and Procedures

Overall, 7 licensees reported testing program policy and procedure issues as follows: 

 • One licensee reported that an NRC security inspection report identified a Green non-cited 

violation for failure to test personnel selected for random drug and alcohol testing at the 

earliest reasonable and practical opportunity. 

 • One licensee reported that the results of a self-assessment evaluation of 200 breath alcohol 

tests determined that 1 breath test had been improperly administered. The test was 

performed with only 1 minute between breath samples. An additional 1,000 records were 

reviewed with no issues identified. 

 • One licensee reported that a confirmed positive alcohol test result was appealed and 

overturned because the specimen collector completed the custody-and-control form 

improperly. 

 • One licensee reported that the pre-access1

 alcohol test for a refueling outage short-term 

contractor was conducted in error. Positive results were obtained during initial breath 

testing but confirmatory testing was not conducted because of a communication error by the 

 

1

 Licensees and other entities shall administer drug and alcohol tests to the individuals who are 

subject to 10 CFR Part 26 under the following conditions: for pre-access, for-cause, and postevent. (10 CFR 26.31(c)). Licensees and entities are required to conduct pre-access testing as 

well as other actions (such as background, credit, and criminal history checks) to help ensure 

the honestly, integrity, and reliability of persons being considered for unescorted access to a 

licensee facility. 
IN 2009-28 

Page 6 of 9 

breath collector. The breath collector, a temporary worker hired for outage processing, was 

relieved of collection duties pending counseling and additional training. The short-term 

contractor was not granted unescorted access to the plant. 

 • One licensee reported that it determined that two licensee security officers were associated 

with illegal drugs. One security officer admitted to illegal drug use while on vacation and 

following his return to work. The second security officer was involved in an offsite event 

apparently involving the possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia; this event required 

police response. For-cause tests were completed for both security officers, and the results 

of the tests were negative. The licensee terminated both employees’ employment and 

implemented an accelerated random testing program for security officers above that 

required by 10 CFR Part 26. During this reporting period, the accelerated testing resulted in 

no positive test results. 

 • One licensee reported that a contract employee that previously had unescorted access, 

tested positive for marijuana on a pre-access test. The licensee granted the employee 

5-day reinstated access pending receipt of the pre-access drug test result. Upon receipt of 

a positive test result, the licensee suspended the employee’s unescorted access. The 

licensee reviewed the employee's work activities and did not identify any deficient work 

practices that could have impacted security- or safety-related systems/equipment. A review 

of the employee's request for unescorted access revealed no disqualifying information or 

indication of illegal drug use. The employee did not enter the protected area during the 

5-day period. The licensee subsequently revoked the employee's unescorted access. 

 • One licensee reported that a thermometer used during a urine specimen collection was past 

due for calibration. A second specimen was collected from the donor and a condition report 

was written. 

(3) Program and System Management

As described above, the current 10 CFR Part 26 rule was published and became effective 

April 30, 2008. However, licensees could defer implementation of the drug and alcohol 

provisions until March 31, 2009. As a result, for the 2008 FFD performance reporting period, 

some licensees may have implemented the amended/new requirements midway through 

calendar year 2008. Therefore, the drug and alcohol performance data presented below (e.g., 

cutoff and blood alcohol content (BAC) levels) could represent either the former or the current 

requirements depending on the actual date that the licensee implemented the current rule. The 

drug and alcohol testing requirements for the former rule are provided in 10 CFR Part 26, 

Appendix A, Sections 2.7(e) and 2.7(f). The current drug testing cutoff levels are found in 

10 CFR 26.133 and 26.163 and the confirmatory BAC percentage considered a positive test 

result is found in 10 CFR 26.103. The changes to the drug and alcohol testing cutoff level 

changes are as follows: 

 • Marijuana metabolites. Initial cutoff level was lowered from 100 nanograms per milliliter 

(ng/mL) to 50 ng/mL. 
IN 2009-28 

Page 7 of 9 

 • Opiate metabolites. Initial and confirmatory cutoff levels were increased from 300 ng/mL to 

2000 ng/mL. 

 • Confirmatory alcohol test percent BAC. The current rule provides a work status provision to 

evaluate time-at-work when determining a positive alcohol test result. (Before the current 

rule, the NRC considered only a confirmatory alcohol test result of 0.04 percent BAC or 

higher as a positive test result.) Under the current rule, a positive test result is reported for 

three situations: a confirmatory alcohol test result of 0.04 percent BAC or higher; a 

0.03 percent BAC or higher and in work status for at least 1-hour; and, a 0.02 percent BAC 

or higher and in work status for at least 2 hours. 

Alcohol Testing (BAC Cutoff Levels): 

 • One licensee reported testing at a lower BAC cutoff level (0.02 percent BAC) for pre-access 

and follow-up testing. 

 • Four licensees reported testing at BAC cutoff levels ranging from 0.011-0.039 percent to 

extrapolate BAC levels based on time between alcohol consumption and time of test. 

 • Eight licensees reported implementing the BAC cutoff levels in the current rule. 

Drug Testing (Cutoff Levels): 

 • Three licensees reported testing at the limits of detection (LOD) for all for-cause and followup tests and for suspect specimens. This testing resulted in the identification of marijuana 

and cocaine positive results. 

Note: For the drug or drug metabolites provided below, the following format is used: (Initial 

Cutoff Level/Confirmatory Cutoff Level). For example, “(50/15 ng/mL)” means that the 

initial confirmatory cutoff level is 50 ng/mL and the confirmatory cutoff level is 15 ng/mL. 

Marijuana

Sixty-three licensees reported testing at lower cutoff levels than those required by the former 

rule. The majority of these licensees had also tested at these levels in prior years. 

 • Fifty-four licensees reported testing at lower cutoff levels under the former rule and 

consistent with the cutoff levels in the current rule (50/15 ng/mL). 

 • Three of the 54 licensees reported maintaining an initial cutoff level at 100 ng/mL for 

licensee bargaining unit personnel and applied the 50/15 ng/mL cutoff levels for all other 

personnel. 

 • Four of the 54 licenses reported using a 20 ng/mL initial cutoff level and confirmatory 

cutoff level at the LOD for dilute specimens (i.e., specimens with a creatinine 

concentration of less than 20 milligrams per deciliter). 

 • Two licensees reported testing at lower cutoff levels (50/10 ng/mL). One of these 

licensees reported switching to a confirmatory cutoff level of 15 ng/mL in October 2008. 

 • Two licensees reported testing at lower cutoff levels (20/15 ng/mL). 

 • One licensee reported testing at lower cutoff levels (20/10 ng/mL). 
IN 2009-28 

Page 8 of 9 

 • Four licensees reported testing at lower cutoff levels (20/3 ng/mL). 

Cocaine

 • Four licensees reported testing at lower cutoff levels (150/60 ng/mL). 

Opiates

 • Five licensees reported testing at lower cutoff levels (300/150 ng/mL). 

Amphetamine

 • One licensee reported testing at lower cutoff levels (1000/250 ng/mL). 

 • One licensee reported testing at lower cutoff levels (1000/200 ng/mL), but only for 

amphetamine, not for methamphetamine. 

 • One licensee reported testing at lower cutoff levels (300/300 ng/mL). 

 • One licensee reported testing at lower cutoff levels (300/250 ng/mL). 

 • Four licensees reported testing at lower cutoff levels (300/100 ng/mL). 

Phencyclidine (PCP)

 • Four licensees reported testing at lower cutoff levels (20/10 ng/mL). 

Testing for Additional Drugs

 • Five licensees reported testing for barbiturates (300/300 ng/mL), benzodiazepines (300/300 

ng/mL), methadone (300/300 ng/mL), and methaqualone (300/300 ng/mL). Those tests 

resulted in one positive result. 

 • One licensee reported testing for methadone (300/200 ng/mL), but discontinued that testing 

after October 2008. 

 • One licensee reported testing for barbiturates (300/250 ng/mL) and benzodiazepines 

(300/250 ng/mL). 

(4) Other Program and System Management Issues

 • One licensee conducted an FFD self-assessment with a team of three peer evaluators from 

other licensees and two of their own employees. The assessment generated 

13 recommendations that the licensee is currently evaluating. 

 • One licensee reported four issues identified during an NRC inspection: (1) donors had 

access to a soap dispenser in the collection area; (2) the licensee failed to perform follow-up 

testing at the required procedural frequency for a person; (3) unescorted access not 

withheld for three individuals who were not covered under the behavioral observation 

program (BOP) for more than 30 days; and (4) personal/privacy information was stored in an 

unprotected network location. 
IN 2009-28 

Page 9 of 9 

 • One licensee reported that staff at the licensee testing facility participated in proficiency 

testing provided by the College of American Pathologists to ensure to the accuracy and 

integrity of the drug testing process. 

 • Two licensees implemented a new vendor-supplied database system to maintain and 

process information for the access authorization, FFD, and BOP programs. The information 

system automated and simplified processes, replaced multiple databases, and eliminated 

redundant work for licensee staff. This system incorporates and standardizes processes, 

programs, and procedures, including the annual supervisory reviews, monthly access 

control list, and the generation of the random selection lists for the FFD program. 

Efficiencies were gained by eliminating multiple data entry points and by reducing file 

maintenance activities. 

CONTACT 

This IN requires no specific action or written response. Please direct any questions about this 

matter to the technical contact listed below. 

/RA/ /RA/ 

Timothy J. McGinty, Director Daniel H. Dorman, Director 

Division of Policy and Rulemaking Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 

/RA/

Glenn Tracy, Director 

Division of Construction Inspection 

 and Operational Programs 

Office of New Reactors 

Technical Contact: Paul Harris, NSIR 

(301) 415-1169 

E-mail: fitnessforduty@nrc.gov

Enclosure: 

Summary of Fitness-for-Duty Program Performance Reports (Calendar Year 2008) 

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

http://www.nrc.gov, under Electronic Reading Room/Document Collections. 
IN 2009-28 

Page 9 of 9 

 • One licensee reported that staff at the licensee testing facility participated in proficiency 

testing provided by the College of American Pathologists to ensure to the accuracy and 

integrity of the drug testing process. 

 • Two licensees implemented a new vendor-supplied database system to maintain and 

process information for the access authorization, FFD, and BOP programs. The information 

system automated and simplified processes, replaced multiple databases, and eliminated 

redundant work for licensee staff. This system incorporates and standardizes processes, 

programs, and procedures, including the annual supervisory reviews, monthly access 

control list, and the generation of the random selection lists for the FFD program. 

Efficiencies were gained by eliminating multiple data entry points and by reducing file 

maintenance activities. 

CONTACT 

This IN requires no specific action or written response. Please direct any questions about this 

matter to the technical contact listed below. 

/RA/ /RA/

Timothy J. McGinty, Director Daniel H. Dorman, Director 

Division of Policy and Rulemaking Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 

/RA/

Glenn Tracy, Director 

Division of Construction Inspection 

 and Operational Programs 

Office of New Reactors 

Technical Contact: Paul Harris, NSIR 

(301) 415-1169 

E-mail: fitnessforduty@nrc.gov

Enclosure: 

Summary of Fitness-for-Duty Program Performance Reports (Calendar Year 2008) 

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

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

DISTRIBUTION:

DSP r/f 

ADAMS ACCESSION NUMBER: ML092650761 ME2434

OFFICE ISCP/DSP/NSIR Tech Editor DRA/RES ISCP/DSP/NSIR DSP/NSIR PGCB:DPR 

NAME P. Harris KKribes email VBarnes email C. Erlanger R. Correia DBeaulieu 

DATE 09/29/09 9/29/09 9/23/09 10/5/09 10/8/09 10/28/09 

OFFICE PGCB:DPR BC:PGCB:DPR NRO NMSS D:DPR 

NAME CHawes MMurphy GTracy(ACampbell for) DDorman TMcGinty 

DATE 11/02/09 11/12/09 11/19/09 11/23/09 11/24/09 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Enclosure 

Summary of Fitness for Duty Program Performance Reports 

(Calendar Year 2008)

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 26.717, “Fitness-for-Duty Program 

Performance Data,” (formerly 10 CFR 26.71(d)) requires licensees and other entities to, in part, 

collect, compile, retain, and submit fitness for duty program performance data. The tables and 

charts below present information for calendar year 2008 and in some cases present data over 

longer periods of time to present trends. The following is a summary description of the data 

listed in the subsequent tables. In some cases, the numerical summary values below have 

been rounded. 

Summary 

• The tables show that the industry positive test rate is low for both licensee and 

contractor/vendor populations. 

• Table 1 shows that the positive test rate for all tests conducted by the industry is 

0.65 percent. The for-cause test rate resulting from behavior observation is 11.79 percent, 

the highest industry positive test rate. 

• Table 2 illustrates a consistent pattern regarding positive test rates by work category. 

Licensee employees have the lowest positive test rates and short-term contractors have the 

highest positive test rates. This pattern has been consistent across test types and over time 

as shown in Tables 9, 10, 11, and 12. 

• Table 4 shows that marijuana is the substance most frequently detected substance in both 

licensee employee and contractor tests. For licensee employees, alcohol is the next most 

frequently detected substance while cocaine is the most frequently detected substance for 

contractors. 

• Table 5 shows a downward trend in the number of significant events for reactor operators 

and supervisors. 

• Table 7 illustrates that three substances (marijuana, cocaine, and alcohol) have accounted 

for approximately 95 percent of all substances identified in each year of industry testing from 

1990 through 2008. 

 Marijuana 47 percent of substances in 1990, 55 percent in 2008 

 Cocaine 29 percent of substances in 1990, 20 percent in 2008 

 Alcohol 19 percent of substances in 1990 and 2008 

• Table 8 shows that from 1990 through 2008 the annual random testing positive rate for 

industry has decreased from 0.37 percent to 0.23 percent. 
IN 2009-28 

Page 2 of 23 

• Table 13 presents the range of positive test rates reported by licensees in 2008, by work 

category, for pre-access and random testing. The information presented indicates that while 

the overall positive rates are low (less than 1 percent), contractors test positive at a much 

higher rate than licensee employees. 

Pre-access testing positive rates 

• Industry rate (contractors) is 0.85 percent 

(licensee sites reported positive rates from 0.0 to 2.10 percent) 

• Industry rate (licensee employees) is 0.18 percent 

(licensee sites reported positive rates from 0.0 to 1.53 percent). 

Random testing positive rates 

• Industry rate (contractors) is 0.43 percent 

(licensee sites reported positive rates from 0.0 to 2.01 percent) 

• Industry rate (licensee employees) is 0.14 percent 

(licensee sites reported positive rates from 0.0 to 0.60 percent). 

Table 1 Test Results for Each Test Category (2008) 

Test Category Number of Tests Positive Tests Percent Positive

Pre-Access 

Random 

For-Cause 

 Observed Behavior 

 Post-Accident 

Follow-Up 

Other 

87,468 

54,759 

797 

986 

5,756 

2,171 

664 

127 

94 

7 

44 

55

0.76% 

0.23% 

11.79% 

0.71% 

0.76% 

2.53% 

TOTAL* 

TOTAL without “Other” 

category

151,937

149,766

991

936

0.65%

0.62%

* Includes the “Other” test category. Although some licensees specified the nature of the tests 

included in the “Other” category (e.g., return to work), most licensees did not provide clarifying 

information. 
IN 2009-28 

Page 3 of 23 

Table 2 Test Results by Test and Work Categories (2008)

Test Category Licensee 

Employees 

Long-Term 

Contractors* 

Short-Term 

Contractors* Total 

Pre-Access 

 Number Tested 11,498 1,086 74,884 87,468

 Number Positive 21 10 633 664

 Percent Positive 0.18% 0.92% 0.85% 0.76%

Random 

 Number Tested 38,721 1,813 16,225 54,759

 Number Positive 50 2 75 127

 Percent Positive 0.14% 0.11% 0.46% 0.23%

For-Cause 

Observed Behavior 

 Number Tested 329 30 438 797

 Number Positive 22 0 72 94

 Percent Positive 6.69% 0.00% 16.44% 11.79%

Post-Accident 

 Number Tested 448 69 469 986

 Number Positive 1 0 6 7

 Percent Positive 0.22% 0.00% 1.28% 0.71%

Follow-Up 

 Number Tested 2,856 139 2,761 5,756

 Number Positive 19 0 25 44

 Percent Positive 0.67% 0.00% 0.91% 0.76%

Other 

 Number Tested 1,196 263 712 2,171

 Number Positive 9 0 47 55

 Percent Positive 0.75% 0.00% 6.60% 2.53%

TOTAL 

 Number Tested 53,048 3,400 95,489 151,937

 Number Positive 122 12 857 991

 Percent Positive 0.23% 0.35% 0.90% 0.65%

TOTAL without “Other” 

 Number Tested 51,852 3,137 94,777 149,766

 Number Positive 113 12 811 936

 Percent Positive 0.22% 0.38% 0.86% 0.62%

* Some licensees distinguished between short-term and long-term contractors, whereas others 

reported all contractors as short term. 
IN 2009-28 

Page 4 of 23 

Table 3 Test Results by Test Category (2008)

Test Category First 

6 Months 

Second 

6 Months Year 

Pre-Access 

 Number Tested 48,177 39,291 87,468

 Number Positive 394 270 664

 Percent Positive 0.82% 0.69% 0.76%

Random 

 Number Tested 27,795 26,964 54,759

 Number Positive 71 56 127

 Percent Positive 0.26% 0.21% 0.23%

For-Cause 

 Observed Behavior 

 Number Tested 450 347 797

 Number Positive 56 38 94

 Percent Positive 12.44% 10.95% 11.79%

 

 Post-Accident 

 Number Tested 526 460 986

 Number Positive 5 2 7

 Percent Positive 0.95% 0.43% 0.71%

Follow-Up 

 Number Tested 3,082 2,674 5,756

 Number Positive 20 24 44

 Percent Positive 0.65% 0.90% 0.76%

Other 

 Number Tested 1,206 965 2,171

 Number Positive 30 25 55

 Percent Positive 2.49% 2.59% 2.53%

TOTAL 

 Number Tested 81,236 70,701 151,937

 Number Positive 576 415 991

 Percent Positive 0.71% 0.59% 0.65%

TOTAL without “Other” 

 Number Tested 80,030 69,736 149,766

 Number Positive 546 390 936

 Percent Positive 0.68% 0.56% 0.62%
IN 2009-28 

Page 5 of 23 

Table 4 Confirmed Positive Test Results by Substance and by Work Category (2008) 

(All test types, including testing Refusals) 

Positive 

Test Result 

Licensee 

Employees 

Contractors 

(Long-Term/Short-Term) Total 

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Marijuana 47 32.87% 459 52.16% 506 49.46%

Cocaine 21 14.69% 163 18.52% 184 17.99%

Opiates 3 2.10% 13 1.48% 16 1.56%

Amphetamines 3 2.10% 32 3.64% 35 3.42%

Phencyclidine 1 0.70% 0 0.00% 1 0.10%

Alcohol 39 27.27% 138 15.68% 177 17.30%

Refusal to Test 29 20.28% 75 8.52% 104 10.17%

TOTAL* 143 100.00% 880 100.00% 1,023 100.00%

* The totals in this table may be higher than those reported in Tables 1, 2, and 3 because of 

instances in which an individual tested positive for more than one substance. 

Chart 1 

2008 Positive Test Results by Substance 

Licensee Employees 

Chart 2 

2008 Positive Test Results by Substance 

Contractors 

Cocaine

14.69%

Phencyclidine

0.70%

Amphetamines

2.10%

Opiates

2.10%

Marijuana

32.87%

Refusal to Test

20.28%

Alcohol

27.27%

Alcohol

15.68%

Cocaine

18.52%

Phencyclidine

0.0%

Amphetamines

3.64%

Opiates

1.48%

Marijuana

52.16%

Refusal to Test

8.52%
IN 2009-28 

Page 6 of 23 

Table 5 Significant Fitness-for-Duty (FFD) Events* 

Year Reactor 

Operators 

Licensee 

Supervisors 

Contract 

Supervisors

FFD 

Program 

Personnel

Substances 

Found 

Adulterated 

Specimen* Total 

1990 19 26 12 1 6 - 64 

1991 16 18 24 5 8 - 71 

1992 18 22 28 0 6 - 74 

1993 8 25 16 0 2 - 51 

1994 7 11 11 1 0 - 30 

1995 8 16 10 0 5 - 39 

1996 8 19 8 2 5 - 42 

1997 9 16 10 0 4 - 39 

1998 5 10 10 3 0 - 28 

1999 5 2 12 2 2 - 23 

2000 5 11 8 0 3 - 27 

2001 4 9 12 0 0 - 25 

2002 3 3 12 3 1 - 22 

2003 6 3 8 0 2 9 28 

2004 9 7 4 0 9 23 52 

2005 5 13 14 1 9 29 71 

2006 3 6 6 0 2 60 77 

2007 3 7 1 1 0 47 59 

2008 2 8 6 1 0 51 68 

* For this report, an adulterated specimen is reported if the original specimen was determined to 

be adulterated, dilute, or possessed unusually low or high temperature, specific gravity, or 

creatinine levels and if the individual either refused to provide a second specimen or the 

specimen collected under observed collection resulted in a positive test result. The staff notes 

that some inconsistencies were identified in licensee reporting of adulterated specimens. 
Table 6A Trends in Testing by Test Type 

Type of Test 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994* 1995 1996 1997 Pre-Access 

Number Tested 122,491 104,508 104,842 91,471 80,217 79,305 81,041 84,320 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 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% 25.57% 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 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% 

* Beginning in 1994, the NRC reduced the minimum annual random testing rate from 100 to 50 percent of the s† “Total” does not include results from the “Other” test category. 
Table 6B Trends in Testing by Test Type 

Type of Test 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Pre-Access 

Number Tested 68,333 63,744 73,155 72,988 76,119 79,005 79,980 Number Positive 965 720 805 757 737 648 747 Percent Positive 1.41% 1.13% 1.10% 1.04% 0.97% 0.82% 0.93% 

Random 

Number Tested 51,955 50,080 49,741 49,402 51,239 50,286 52,557 Number Positive 204 148 114 132 127 147 132 Percent Positive 0.39% 0.30% 0.23% 0.27% 0.25% 0.29% 0.25% 

For-Cause 

Number Tested 883 730 1,072 1,052 1,159 1,161 1,621 Number Positive 138 101 112 126 139 106 109 Percent Positive 15.63% 13.84% 10.45% 11.98% 11.99% 9.13% 6.72% 

Followup 

Number Tested 2,861 2,649 2,892 3,142 3,752 4,057 4,766 Number Positive 49 35 21 42 31 31 37 Percent Positive 1.71% 1.32% 0.73% 1.34% 0.83% 0.76% 0.78% 

TOTAL†* 

Number Tested 124,032 117,203 126,860 126,584 132,269 134,509 138,924 Number Positive 1,356 1,004 1,052 1,057 1,034 932 1,025 Percent Positive 1.09% 0.86% 0.83% 0.84% 0.78% 0.69% 0.74% 

† “Total” does not include results from the “Other” test category. 
IN 2009-28 

Page 9 of 23 

Chart 3 Trends in Positive Random Testing Rates* 

0.00%

0.05%

0.10%

0.15%

0.20%

0.25%

0.30%

0.35%

0.40%

0.45%

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

Positive Rate

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Positive Random Tests

Positive Rate Number of Positive Tests

* Beginning in 1994, the NRC reduced the minimum annual random testing rate from 100 to 50 

percent of the subject population. 
IN 2009-28 

Page 10 of 23 

Table 7 Trends in Substances Identified 

Year Marijuana Cocaine Alcohol Amphetamines Opiates Phencyclidine Total 

1990 1,153 706 452 69 45 8 2,433 

1991 746 549 401 31 24 11 1,762 

1992 953 470 427 31 8 4 1,893 

1993 781 369 357 51 13 5 1,576 

1994 739 344 251 54 11 1 1,400 

1995 819 374 265 61 17 7 1,543 

1996 868 352 281 53 14 2 1,570 

1997 842 336 262 49 39 0 1,528 

1998 606 269 212 46 19 1 1,153 

1999 672 273 230 40 16 2 1,233 

2000 620 251 211 50 32 1 1,165 

2001 523 225 212 50 17 2 1,029 

2002 560 228 214 47 21 3 1,073 

2003 518 228 199 64 17 0 1,026 

2004 514 247 222 60 14 1 1,058 

2005 432 246 196 59 16 2 951 

2006 446 307 206 53 14 1 1,027 

2007 386 232 189 29 22 5 863 

2008 506 184 177 35 16 1 919 
IN 2009-28 

Page 11 of 23 

Table 8 Trends in Positive Test Rates for Workers with Unescorted Access 

Year 

Random 

Testing 

For-Cause 

Testing 

Total 

(Random and 

For-Cause Testing) 

Number 

of Tests 

Percent 

Positive 

Number 

of Tests 

Percent 

Positive 

Number 

of Tests 

Percent 

Positive 

1990 148,743 0.37% 732 29.23% 149,475 0.54% 

1991 153,818 0.33% 727 22.97% 154,545 0.47% 

1992 156,730 0.29% 696 25.57% 157,426 0.44% 

1993 146,605 0.23% 751 21.70% 147,356 0.37% 

1994* 78,391 0.28% 758 16.09% 79,149 0.48% 

1995 66,791 0.27% 763 18.22% 67,554 0.50% 

1996 62,307 0.32% 848 16.27% 63,155 0.57% 

1997 60,829 0.28% 722 20.64% 61,551 0.54% 

1998 56,969 0.28% 720 13.89% 57,689 0.50% 

1999 54,457 0.26% 736 16.30% 55,193 0.50% 

2000 51,955 0.39% 883 15.63% 52,838 0.70% 

2001 50,080 0.30% 730 13.84% 50,810 0.53% 

2002 49,741 0.23% 1,072 10.45% 50,813 0.46% 

2003 49,402 0.27% 1,052 11.98% 50,454 0.56% 

2004 51,239 0.25% 1,159 11.99% 52,398 0.51% 

2005 50,286 0.29% 1,161 9.13% 51,447 0.49% 

2006 52,557 0.25% 1,621 6.72% 54,178 0.44% 

2007 51,665 0.23% 1,615 5.63% 53,280 0.39% 

2008 54,759 0.23% 1,783 5.66% 56,542 0.40% 

* In 1994, the NRC reduced the minimum annual random testing rate from 100 to 50 percent of 

the subject population. 
IN 2009-28 

Page 12 of 23 

Table 9 Trends in Positive Test Rates (All Test Types)* by Work Category 

Year 

Licensee 

Employees 

Long-Term 

Contractors 

Short-Term 

Contractors 

Number 

Positive 

Percent 

Positive 

Number 

Positive 

Percent 

Positive 

Number 

Positive 

Percent 

Positive 

1993 274 0.25% 17 0.21% 1,221 0.97% 

1994 219 0.33% 25 0.49% 1,128 1.22% 

1995 197 0.34% 14 0.40% 1,265 1.44% 

1996 244 0.43% 21 0.69% 1,247 1.42% 

1997 187 0.34% 29 0.80% 1,232 1.37% 

1998 169 0.33% 22 0.67% 931 1.25% 

1999 159 0.32% 22 0.65% 1,043 1.39% 

2000 206 0.44% 78 1.51% 1,072 1.48% 

2001 147 0.32% 22 0.64% 835 1.24% 

2002 117 0.26% 12 0.46% 923 1.18% 

2003 146 0.33% 12 0.61% 899 1.13% 

2004 123 0.27% 15 0.58% 896 1.06% 

2005 122 0.27% 19 0.78% 791 0.90% 

2006 118 0.25% 14 0.68% 893 1.00% 

2007 115 0.24% 15 0.67% 777 0.86% 

2008 113 0.22% 12 0.38% 811 0.86% 

* This includes all test categories with the exception of the “Other” test category. 
IN 2009-28 

Page 13 of 23 

Table 10 Trends in Positive Pre-Access Testing Rates by Work Category

Year 

Licensee 

Employees 

Long-Term 

Contractors 

Short-Term 

Contractors 

Number 

Positive 

Percent 

Positive 

Number 

Positive 

Percent 

Positive 

Number 

Positive 

Percent 

Positive 

1993 47 0.42% 7 0.47% 898 1.14% 

1994 49 0.48% 12 0.86% 916 1.34% 

1995 60 0.57% 7 0.61% 1,055 1.56% 

1996 94 0.95% 13 1.21% 1,025 1.46% 

1997 62 0.55% 17 1.34% 1,017 1.42% 

1998 50 0.53% 12 0.88% 760 1.30% 

1999 44 0.52% 10 0.75% 880 1.48% 

2000 51 0.67% 60 2.06% 854 1.48% 

2001 44 0.52% 16 0.98% 660 1.23% 

2002 28 0.35% 10 0.80% 767 1.20% 

2003 41 0.49% 8 1.03% 708 1.11% 

2004 35 0.46% 8 0.73% 694 1.03% 

2005 28 0.34% 12 1.56% 608 0.87% 

2006 24 0.26% 7 1.33% 716 1.02% 

2007 34 0.35% 8 1.25% 626 0.88% 

2008 21 0.18% 10 0.92% 633 0.85% 

Table 11 Trends in Positive Random Test Rates by Work Category 

Year 

Licensee 

Employees 

Long-Term 

Contractors 

Short-Term 

Contractors 

Number 

Positive 

Percent 

Positive 

Number 

Positive 

Percent 

Positive 

Number 

Positive 

Percent 

Positive 

1993 157 0.17% 7 0.11% 177 0.39% 

1994 96 0.18% 7 0.19% 120 0.54% 

1995 82 0.18% 5 0.21% 93 0.50% 

1996 94 0.21% 4 0.21% 104 0.64% 

1997 76 0.18% 6 0.27% 90 0.54% 

1998 71 0.18% 9 0.48% 77 0.52% 

1999 71 0.18% 7 0.35% 62 0.45% 

2000 116 0.32% 5 0.24% 83 0.64% 

2001 64 0.18% 4 0.24% 80 0.65% 

2002 55 0.15% 1 0.08% 58 0.45% 

2003 61 0.18% 3 0.26% 68 0.48% 

2004 51 0.15% 6 0.43% 70 0.46% 

2005 60 0.18% 5 0.33% 82 0.54% 

2006 55 0.16% 5 0.35% 72 0.44% 

2007 55 0.16% 5 0.33% 57 0.38% 

2008 50 0.14% 2 0.11% 75 0.46% 
IN 2009-28 

Page 14 of 23 

Table 12 Trends in Positive Observed Behavior Testing Rates by Work Category 

Year 

Licensee 

Employees 

Long-Term 

Contractors 

Short-Term 

Contractors 

Number 

Positive 

Percent 

Positive 

Number 

Positive 

Percent 

Positive 

Number 

Positive 

Percent 

Positive 

1993 35 15.58% 2 16.67% 126 35.29% 

1994 39 19.60% 5 35.71% 75 24.35% 

1995 35 14.89% 2 16.67% 101 30.70% 

1996 34 13.93% 4 33.33% 98 26.85% 

1997 34 16.35% 6 37.50% 104 33.88% 

1998 26 14.05% 1 11.11% 70 26.82% 

1999 29 14.29% 4 23.53% 87 30.42% 

2000 21 10.24% 12 13.48% 99 31.43% 

2001 20 9.13% 2 10.00% 77 28.84% 

2002 23 9.47% 1 12.56% 86 23.50% 

2003 22 9.48% 0 0.00% 101 25.70% 

2004 23 8.65% 0 0.00% 111 26.62% 

2005 19 6.15% 2 12.50% 84 24.28% 

2006 24 7.45% 2 9.52% 78 20.91% 

2007 15 5.14% 2 9.09% 64 15.76% 

2008 22 6.69% 0 0.00% 72 16.44% 
IN 2009-28 

Page 15 of 23 

FFD Performance Testing Results by Site 

This section presents distributional information by site for pre-access, random, and for-cause 

testing (i.e., observed behavior testing). This distributional information provides licensees with 

additional information to evaluate the performance of their FFD program against the industry 

rate. Before this 2008 report, NRC Information Notices primarily presented industry trends by 

test type and work categories and did not provide FFD program performance testing data on a 

site-specific basis.

Table 13 Industry Positive Test Results for Pre-Access, Random, and Observed 

Behavior Testing by Work Category (2008) 

Pre-Access Testing 

Work Category Industry 

% Positive 

Range of % Positive 

(by Site) 

Licensee Employees 0.18 0 - 1.53 

Contractors 0.85 0 - 2.10 

All Work Categories 0.76 N/A 

Random Testing 

Work Category Industry 

% Positive 

Range of % Positive 

(by Site) 

Licensee Employees 0.14 0 - 0.60 

Contractors 0.43 0 - 2.01 

All Work Categories 0.23 N/A 

Observed Behavior Testing 

Work Category Industry 

% Positive 

Range of % Positive 

(by Site) 

Licensee Employees 6.69 0 - 100 

Contractors 15.38 0 - 100 

All Work Categories 11.79 N/A 
IN 2009-28 

Page 16 of 23 

2008 Pre-Access Testing Positive Rates by Site 

Table 14 Distribution of Pre-Access Testing Positive Rates by Work Category by Site 

All Employees Licensee Employees Contractors 

Positive Rate 

Range (%) Sites Positive Rate Range (%) Sites Positive Rate Range (%) Sites 

0 11 0 57 0 11 

>0.0 - 0.2 1 >0.0 - 0.2 1 >0.0 - 0.25 4 

>0.2 - 0.4 8 >0.2 - 0.4 2 >0.25 - 0.5 14 

>0.4 - 0.6 12 >0.4 - 0.6 3 >0.5 - 0.75 12 

>0.6 - 0.8 11 >0.6 - 0.8 5 >0.75 - 1.0 11 

>0.8 - 1.0 14 >0.8 - 1.0 2 >1.0 - 1.25 8 

>1.0 - 1.2 8 >1.0 - 1.2 2 >1.25 - 1.5 4 

>1.2 - 1.4 3 >1.2 - 1.4 0 >1.5 - 1.75 2 

>1.4 - 1.6 4 >1.4 - 1.6 1 >1.75 - 2.0 3 

>1.6 - 1.8 1 >1.6 - 1.8 0 >2.0 - 2.25 0 

Total Sites* 73 Total Sites 73 Total Sites 72 

* Total site counts may differ because a site may not have tested one work category. 

Chart 4 Distribution of Pre-Access Testing Positive Rates (All Employees) by Site 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0

>0 - 0.2

>0.2 - 0.4

>0.4 - 0.6

>0.6 - 0.8

>0.8 - 

1

>1 - 1.2

>1.2 - 

1.4

>1.4 - 

1.6

>1.6 - 

1.8

Percent (%) Positive Rate

Number of Sites

Industry Rate: 0.76%
IN 2009-28 

Page 17 of 23 

Chart 5 Distribution of Pre-Access Testing Positive Rates (Licensee Employees) by 

Site 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0

>0 - 0.2

>0.2 - 0.4

>0.4 - 0.6

>0.6 - 0.8

>0.8 - 1

>1 - 1.2

>1.2 - 

1.4

>1.4 - 

1.6

>1.6 - 1.8

Percent (%) Positive Rate 

Number of Sites

Industry Rate: 0.18%

Chart 6 Distribution of Pre-Access Testing Positive Rates (Contractors) by Site 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0

>0 - 0.25

>0.25 - 0.5

>0.5 - 0.75

>0.75 - 1

>1 - 1.25

>1.25 - 1.5

>1.5 - 1.75

>1.75 - 2

>2 - 2.25

Percent (%) Positive Rate 

Number of Sites

Industry Rate: 0.85%
IN 2009-28 

Page 18 of 23 

2008 Random Testing Positive Rates by Site 

Table 15 Distribution of Random Testing Positive Rates by Work Category by Site 

All Employees Licensee Employees Contractors 

Positive Rate 

Range (%) Sites Positive Rate Range (%) Sites Positive Rate Range (%) Sites 

0 28 0 43 0 38 

>0.0 - 0.1 2 >0.0 - 0.1 1 >0.0 - 0.3 3 

>0.1 - 0.2 10 >0.1 - 0.2 7 >0.3 - 0.6 14 

>0.2 - 0.3 9 >0.2 - 0.3 10 >0.6 - 0.9 10 

>0.3 - 0.4 14 >0.3 - 0.4 5 >0.9 - 1.2 2 

>0.4 - 0.5 4 >0.4 - 0.5 1 >1.2 - 1.5 4 

>0.5 - 0.6 5 >0.5 - 0.6 6 >1.5 - 1.8 0 

>0.6 - 0.7 1 >0.6 - 0.7 0 >1.8 - 2.1 1 

Total Sites 73 Total Sites 73 Total Sites 72 

* Total site counts may differ because a site may not have tested one work category. 

Chart 7 Distribution of Random Testing Positive Rates (All Employees) by Site 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0

>0 - 0.1

>0.1 - 0.2

>0.2 - 0.3

>0.3 - 0.4

>0.4 - 0.5

>0.5 - 0.6

>0.6 - 0.7

Percent (%) Positive Rate

Number of Sites

Industry Rate: 0.23%
IN 2009-28 

Page 19 of 23 

Chart 8 Distribution of Random Testing Positive Rates (Licensee Employees) by Site 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0

>0 - 0.1

>0.1 - 0.2

>0.2 - 0.3

>0.3 - 0.4

>0.4 - 0.5

>0.5 - 0.6

>0.6 - 0.7

Percent (%) Positive Rate 

Number of Sites

Industry Rate: 0.14%

Chart 9 Distribution of Random Testing Positive Rates (Contractors) by Site 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0

>0 - 0.3

>0.3 - 0.6

>0.6 - 0.9

>0.9 - 

1.2

>1.2 - 1.5

>1.5 - 1.8

>1.8 - 2.1

Percent (%) Positive Rate 

Number of Sites

Industry Rate: 0.43%
IN 2009-28 

Page 20 of 23 

2008 Observed Behavior Testing Rates by Site

Table 16 Distribution of For-Cause Testing Positive Rates by Work Category by Site 

All Employees Licensee Employees Contractors 

Positive Rate 

Range (%) Sites Positive Rate Range (%) Sites Positive Rate Range (%) Sites 

0 25 0 42 0 27 

>0 - 10 8 >0 - 10 0 >0 - 10 4 

>10 - 20 12 >10 - 20 5 >10 - 20 7 

>20 - 30 6 >20 - 30 1 >20 - 30 3 

>30 - 40 11 >30 - 40 3 >30 - 40 7 

>40 - 50 2 >40 - 50 5 >40 - 50 7 

>50 - 60 1 >50 - 60 0 >50 - 60 1 

>60 - 70 2 >60 - 70 0 >60 - 70 2 

>70 - 80 0 >70 - 80 0 >70 - 80 1 

>80 - 90 0 >80 - 90 0 >80 - 90 0 

>90 - 100 1 >90 - 100 1 >90 - 100 2 

Total Sites 68 Total Sites 57 Total Sites 61 

* Total site counts may differ because a site may not have tested one work category. 

Chart 10 Distribution of Observed Behavior Testing Positive Rates (All Employees) by 

Site 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0

>0 - 10

>10 - 20

>20 - 30

>30 - 40

>40 - 50

>50 - 60

>60 - 70

>70 - 80

>80 - 90

>90 - 100

Percent (%) Positive Rate

Number of Sites

Industry Rate: 11.79%
IN 2009-28 

Page 21 of 23 

Chart 11 Distribution of Observed Behavior Testing Positive Rates (Licensee 

Employees) by Site 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0

>0 - 10

>10 - 20>20 - 30>30 - 40>40 - 50>50 - 60>60 - 70>70 - 80>80 - 90

>90 - 100

Percent (%) Positive Rate 

Number of Sites

Industry Rate: 6.69%

Chart 12 Distribution of Observed Behavior Testing Positive Rates (Contractors) by Site 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0

>0 - 10

>10 - 20>20 - 30

>30 - 40>40 - 50

>50 - 60

>60 - 70

>70 - 80

>80 - 90

>90 - 100

Percent (%) Positive Rate 

Number of Sites

Industry Rate: 15.38%
IN 2009-28 

Page 22 of 23 

2008 Distribution of Test Results by Sites and Work Category 

Summary 

Chart 13 Comparisons of Site Pre-Access Testing Positive Rates by Work Category 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0

>0 - 0.2

>0.2 - 0.4

>0.4 - 0.6

>0.6 - 0.8

>0.8 - 1

>1 - 1.2

>1.2 - 1.4

>1.4 - 1.6

>1.6 - 1.8

>1.8 - 2

>2 - 2.1

Percent (%) Positive Rate

Number of Sites

Licensee Employees Contractors

Chart 14 Comparison of Site Random Testing Positive Rates by Work Category 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0

>0 - 0.2

>0.2 - 0.4

>0.4 - 0.6

>0.6 - 0.8

>0.8 - 1

>1 - 1.2

>1.2 - 1.4

>1.4 - 1.6

>1.6 - 1.8

>1.8 - 2

>2 - 2.2

Percent (%) Positive Rate

Number of Sites

Licensee Employees Contractors
IN 2009-28 

Page 23 of 23 

Chart 15 Comparison of Site Observed Behavior Testing Positive Rates by Work 

Category 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0

>0 - 10

>10 - 20

>20 - 30

>30 - 40

>40 - 50

>50 - 60

>60 - 70

>70 - 80

>80 - 90

>90 -

100

Percent (%) Positive Rate

Number of Sites

Licensee Employees Contractors