United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Protecting People and the Environment

Information Notice No. 98-39: Summary of Fitness-For-Duty Program Performance Reports for Calendar Years 1996 and 1997

UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001

October 30, 1998

Information Notice No. 98-39: SUMMARY OF FITNESS-FOR-DUTY PROGRAM PERFORMANCE REPORTS FOR CALENDAR YEARS 1996 AND 1997

Addressees

All holders of operating licenses for nuclear power reactors.

Purpose

This information notice is intended to present a summary and analysis of the data submitted by licensees in their Fitness-for-Duty (FFD) Program Performance Reports for Calendar Years 1996 and 1997.

Background

Since the inception of the Fitness-for-Duty Rule (10 CFR Part 26), licensees have submitted program performance reports to the NRC as required by 10 CFR 26.71(d). In the past, the NRC has summarized and analyzed the data submitted by the licensees and published an annual volume, NUREG/CR-5758, "Fitness for Duty in the Nuclear Power Industry — Annual Summary of Program Performance Reports CY (XX)."

This information notice presents, for 1996 and 1997, similar information to that supplied in the past in NUREG/CR-5758. Attachment 1 presents tables of Fitness-for-Duty statistics for these years.

Discussion

Some of the lessons learned and management initiatives reported by licensees for 1996 and 1997 are discussed in the material that follows.

(1)  Certified Laboratories

Several utilities reported problems involving blind samples and certified laboratories:

  • Most unsatisfactory testing results are caused by inadequate laboratory procedures, clerical mistakes, errors by laboratory technicians, and poor quality control during formulation of blind samples.

  • One laboratory failed to provide consistently accurate results in testing blind samples during the preliminary phase of contract negotiation.

  • Several licensees reported false negative results because the seal on the container lid had adsorbed the THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) from the specimen, reducing the THC concentration in the sample to below the cutoff level.

  • False negatives also resulted because the blind samples had aged to the point that the spiking chemicals had begun to break down and, therefore, did not register a positive result.

  • False negatives resulted when the laboratory was not properly informed about the specific chemicals or concentration levels for which the samples were to be tested.

  • A false negative was reported because the blind sample had been spiked with oxazepam rather than with the nordiazepam for which the laboratory tested.

  • Some licensees have adopted a more stringent cutoff level of 50 nanograms per milliliter (ng/ml) rather than the former cutoff level of 100 ng/ml for a positive marijuana test result. But one utility reported a false negative result because the laboratory that had prepared the blind sample spiked it at the 50-ng/ml level rather than at the 100-ng/ml level designated by the utility.

(2)  Random Testing

Incidents continue to be reported that employees are improperly notified in advance of random testing and that some employees fail to report promptly for testing when properly notified.

Several utilities reported that some employees who should have been included in the random testing pool database had not been included:

  • People were omitted from the pool, sometimes due to failure to monitor the database as people come and go, or due to failure to re-enter people after an absence.

  • An employee had not been reentered into the database after that employee returned from a 30-day absence (employee's badge had not been used for 30 days).

  • The computer program software being used to manage both the FFD test data and the random testing pool database did not retain the test data associated with those people who had been recently removed from the database during the reporting period.

  • A computer program used for managing the random testing pool database randomly and inappropriately deleted individuals from the database.

  • A software error made during a program upgrade process resulted in a random testing rate less than 50 percent when the sampling procedure was switched from composite sampling to simple sampling.

  • Flaws in computer programming omitted some categories of workers from the testing pool.

In one case, during a software upgrade, a change to the program made by security personnel in transferring data from the security database to the Fitness-for-Duty database left two categories of workers (nearly 150 people) out of the random testing pool.

(3)  Policies and Procedures

Several utilities reported taking initiatives to improve their FFD programs by eliminating unnecessary and redundant procedures in some areas but improving procedures in other areas:

  • Procedural errors occurred at several sites, including failure to follow documented procedures intended to ensure that the chain-of-custody process protected the integrity of samples. In one case, a box of samples was lost and had to be re-collected after a courier set the box on the ground while he unlocked his car and then drove away, leaving the box in the parking lot. In another case, a new agency hired to collect specimens did not complete the chain-of-custody forms accurately.

  • At another site, FFD administrators used employee work schedules to determine if a person was available for testing, instead of contacting the employee's supervisor. As a result, one individual was not tested even though he was, in fact, at work that day.

  • One licensee modified its procedures when an independent review noted that a person who was notified to provide a "for-cause" specimen was not escorted.

  • A utility improved its Medical Review Officer (MRO) review procedures so that, when an originally negative drug screen determination was reversed by a second MRO, the MROs were instructed to seek and document consensus before making a final classification.

  • An employee who reports having been arrested for substance abuse would have to submit to a for-cause drug test and would be referred for evaluation by the mental health professional of the employee assistance program.

  • On occasion, an individual who has been randomly selected to provide a specimen for testing may be excused from providing that specimen. A utility reports that it uses a computer program to identify trends and abuses of such excuses.

  • A 100 percent testing policy was adopted by a utility after noting what was considered to be a significant increase in the number of positive random test results. In this instance, a licensed reactor operator and two supervisors tested positive. The new policy also required all employees to have additional training in behavioral observation and in the employee assistance program.

  • The medical use of marijuana has been approved in certain jurisdictions. A utility has told its employees that such approval will have no effect on the utility's Fitness-for-Duty program, and this position has been incorporated in the general employee training program.

(4)  Program and Systems Management

  • One utility reported a failure to perform required background checks and psychological evaluations of some personnel who were involved in the administration of the Fitness-for-Duty program. The implementing procedures had not specified which positions were subject to these investigations.

  • Appropriate training in behavioral observation techniques is required by 10 CFR 26.22 for managers and supervisors. More than one utility reported having individuals on site who had not received the required current training.

  • Management vigilance over FFD program assumptions enabled one licensee to discover that a change in the plastic material from which specimen containers were manufactured allowed tamper-proof seals to be peeled off without leaving evidence of tampering; the new plastic had a slicker surface.

This information notice requires no specific action or written response. If you have any questions about the information in this notice, please contact the technical contact listed below or the Regional Administrator of the appropriate Regional Office of the NRC.

  /s/'d by

Jack W. Roe, Acting Director
Division of Reactor Program Management
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Technical Contact: Loren L. Bush, Jr., NRR
301-415-2944
E-mail: llb@nrc.gov
Attachments: 1. Fitness-for-Duty Statistics
2. List of Recently Issued NRC Information Notices

(NUDOCS Accession Number 9810270210)

ATTACHMENT 1

Test results for each test category, 1996 and 1997

TEST CATEGORY 1996 1997
NUMBER OF TESTS POSITIVE TESTS PERCENT POSITIVE NUMBER OF TESTS POSITIVE TESTS PERCENT POSITIVE
Pre-Access 81,041 1,132 1.40% 84,320 1,096 1.30%
Random 62,307 202 0.32% 60,829 172 0.28%
For-Cause 848 138 16.27% 722 149 20.64%
Follow-Up 3,262 40 1.23% 3,296 31 0.94%
TOTAL 147,458 1,512 1.03% 149,167 1,448 0.97%

1996 Test result for each test category and work category
(January through December 1996)

TEST CATEGORY LICENSEE EMPLOYEES LONG-TERM CONTRACTORS SHORT-TERM CONTRACTORS TOTAL
Pre-Access  
    Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
9,901
94
0.95%
1,075
13
1.21%
70,065
1,025
1.46%
81,041
1,132
1.40%
Random  
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
44,183
94
0.21%
1,916
4
0.21%
16,208
104
0.64%
62,307
202
0.32%
For-Cause  
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
368
35
9.51%
15
4
26.67%
465
99
21.29%
848
138
16.27%
Follow-Up  
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
1,935
21
1.09%
33
0
0.00%
1,294
19
1.47%
3,262
40
1.23%
TOTAL*  
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
56,387
244
0.43%
3,039
21
0.69%
88,032
1,247
1.42%
147,458
1,512
1.03%

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


1996 Test results by NUMARC form test category
(January through December 1996)

TEST CATEGORY FIRST
SIX MONTHS
SECOND
SIX MONTHS
YEAR
Pre-Access  
    Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
40,188
531
1.32%
40,853
601
1.47%
81,041
1,132
1.40%
Random  
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
31,790
95
0.30%
30,517
107
0.35%
62,307
202
0.32%
For-Cause
Observed Behavior
 
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
313
61
19.49%
308
75
24.35%
621
136
21.90%
Post-Accident  
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
149
0
0.00%
78
2
2.56%
227
2
0.88%
Follow-Up  
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
1,695
20
1.18%
1,567
20
1.28%
3,262
40
1.23%
TOTAL*  
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
1,047
14
1.34%
1,035
23
2.22%
2,082
37
1.78%
TOTAL without OTHER category  
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
74,135
707
0.95%
73,323
805
1.10%
147,458
1,512
1.03%

* These totals have been calculated using the category "Other," however, this category has been purposely omitted from calculations for the totals and percentages throughout the body of this report.


1996 Test results for licensee employees and contractor personnel
(January through December 1996)

TEST CATEGORY LICENSEE EMPLOYEES CONTRACTORS
(Long-Term/Short Term)
First
Six Months
Second
Six Months
Year First
Six Months
Second
Six Months
Year
Pre-Access  
    Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
5,167
40
0.77%
4,734
54
1.14%
9,901
94
0.95%
35,021
491
1.40%
36,119
547
1.51%
71,140
1,038
1.46%
Random  
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
22,872
47
0.21%
21,311
47
0.22%
44,183
94
0.21%
8,918
48
0.54%
9,206
60
0.65%
18,124
108
0.60%
For-Cause
Observed Behavior
 
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
135
15
11.11%
109
19
17.43%
244
34
13.93%
178
46
25.84%
199
56
28.14%
377
102
27.06%
Post-Accident  
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
84
0
0.00%
40
1
2.50%
124
1
0.81%
65
0
0.00%
38
1
2.63%
103
1
0.97%
Follow-Up  
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
956
8
0.84%
979
13
1.33%
1,935
21
1.09%
739
12
1.62%
588
7
1.19%
1,327
19
1.43%
Other  
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
587
3
0.51%
414
4
0.97%
1,001
7
0.70%
460
11
2.39%
621
19
3.06%
1,081
30
2.78%
TOTAL*  
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
29,801
113
0.38%
27,587
138
0.50%
57,388
251
0.44%
45,381
608
1.34%
46,771
690
1.48%
92,152
1,298
1.41%
TOTAL without OTHER category  
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
29,214
110
0.38%
27,173
134
0.49%
56,387
244
0.43%
44,921
597
1.33%
46,150
671
1.45%
91,071
1,268
1.39%

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


1996 Test results for long-term and short-term contractor personnel
(January through December 1996)

TEST CATEGORY LONG-TERM CONTRACTORS SHORT-TERM CONTRACTORS
First
Six Months
Second
Six Months
Year First
Six Months
Second
Six Months
Year
Pre-Access  
    Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
515
5
0.97%
560
8
1.43%
1,075
13
1.21%
34,506
486
1.41%
35,559
539
1.52%
70,065
1,025
1.46%
Random  
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
927
2
0.22%
989
2
0.20%
1,916
4
0.21%
7,991
46
0.58%
8,217
58
0.71%
16,208
104
0.64%
For-Cause
Observed Behavior
 
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
7
3
42.86%
5
1
20.00%
12
4
33.33%
171
43
25.15%
194
55
28.35%
365
98
26.85%
Post-Accident  
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
3
0
0.00%
0
0
N/A
3
0
0.00%
62
0
0.00%
38
1
2.63%
100
1
1.00%
Follow-Up  
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
11
0
0.00%
22
0
0.00%
33
0
0.00%
728
12
1.65%
566
7
1.24%
1,294
19
1.47%
Other  
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
20
0
0.00%
81
2
2.47%
101
2
1.98%
440
11
2.50%
540
17
3.15%
980
28
2.86%
TOTAL*  
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
1,483
10
0.67%
1,657
13
0.78%
3,140
23
0.73%
43,898
598
1.36%
45,114
677
1.50%
89,012
1,275
1.43%
TOTAL without OTHER category  
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
1,463
10
0.68%
1,576
11
0.70%
3,039
21
0.69%
43,458
587
1.35%
44,574
660
1.48%
88,032
1,247
1.42%

* These totals have been calculated using the category "Other," however, this category has been purposely omitted from calculations for the totals and percentages throughout the body of this report.


1996 Number of confirmed positives by substance
(January through December 1996)

TYPE OF SUBSTANCE FIRST SIX MONTHS SECOND SIX MONTHS TOTAL
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Marijuana 417 57.12% 451 53.69% 868 55.29%
Cocaine 160 21.92% 192 22.86% 352 22.42%
Opiates 7 0.96% 7 0.83% 14 0.89%
Amphetami 18 2.47% 35 4.17% 53 3.38%
Phencyclidi 2 0.27% 0 0.00% 2 0.13%
Alcohol 126 17.26% 155 18.45% 281 17.90%
TOTAL* 730   840   1570  

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


1996 Confirmed positives test results by substance for each worker category
(January through December 1996)

TYPE OF SUBSTANCE LICENSEE EMPLOYEES CONTRACTORS
(Long-Term/Short-Term)
Number Percent Number Percent
Marijuana 117 46.80% 751 56.89%
Cocaine 61 24.40% 291 22.05%
Opiates 2 0.80% 12 0.91%
Amphetamines 6 2.40% 47 3.56%
Phencyclidine 0 0.00% 2 0.15%
Alcohol 64 25.60% 217 16.44%
TOTAL* 250   1320  

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


1997 Test result for each test category and work category
(January through December 1997)
TEST CATEGORY LICENSEE EMPLOYEES LONG-TERM CONTRACTORS SHORT-TERM CONTRACTORS TOTAL
Pre-Access  
    Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
11,195
62
0.55%
1,269
17
1.34%
71,856
1,017
1.42%
84,320
1,096
1.30%
Random  
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
42,011
76
0.18%
2,231
6
0.27%
16,587
90
0.54%
60,829
172
0.28%
For-Cause  
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
315
35
11.11%
23
6
26.09%
384
108
28.13%
722
149
20.64%
Follow-Up  
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
1,881
14
0.74%
86
0
0.00%
1,329
17
1.28%
3,296
31
0.94%
TOTAL*  
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
55,402
187
0.34%
3,609
29
0.80%
90,156
1,232
1.37%
149,167
1,448
0.97%

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


1997 Test results by NUMARC form test category
(January through December 1997)

TEST CATEGORY FIRST
SIX MONTHS
SECOND
SIX MONTHS
YEAR
Pre-Access  
    Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
46,759
617
1.32%
37,561
479
1.28%
84,320
1,096
1.30%
Random  
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
31,697
99
0.31%
29,132
73
0.25%
60,829
172
0.28%
For-Cause
Observed Behavior
 
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
301
80
26.58%
230
64
27.83%
531
144
27.12%
Post-Accident  
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
117
2
1.71%
74
3
4.05%
191
5
2.62%
Follow-Up  
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
1,798
21
1.17%
1,498
10
0.67%
3,296
31
0.94%
TOTAL*  
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
81,617
844
1.03%
69,478
640
0.92%
151,095
1,484
0.98%
TOTAL without OTHER category  
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
80,672
819
1.02%
68,495
629
0.92%
149,167
1,448
0.97%

* These totals have been calculated using the category "Other," however, this category has been purposely omitted from calculations for the totals and percentages throughout the body of this report.


1997 Test results for licensee employees and contractor personnel
(January through December 1997)

TEST CATEGORY LICENSEE EMPLOYEES CONTRACTORS
(Long-Term/Short Term)
First
Six Months
Second
Six Months
Year First
Six Months
Second
Six Months
Year
Pre-Access  
    Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
6,290
30
0.48%
4,905
32
0.65%
11,195
62
0.55%
40,469
587
1.45%
32,656
447
1.37%
73,125
1,034
1.41%
Random  
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
21,642
45
0.21%
20,369
31
0.15%
42,011
76
0.18%
10,055
54
0.54%
8,763
42
0.48%
18,818
96
0.51%
For-Cause
Observed Behavior
 
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
116
14
12.07%
92
20
21.74%
208
34
16.35%
185
66
35.68%
138
44
31.88%
323
110
34.06%
Post-Accident  
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
58
0
0.00%
49
1
2.04%
107
1
0.93%
59
2
3.39%
25
2
8.00%
84
4
4.76%
Follow-Up  
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
960
7
0.73%
921
7
0.76%
1,881
14
0.74%
838
14
1.67%
577
3
0.52%
1,415
17
1.20%
Other  
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
403
4
0.99%
428
4
0.93%
831
8
0.96%
542
21
3.87%
555
7
1.26%
1,097
28
2.55%
TOTAL*  
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
29,469
100
0.34%
26,764
95
0.35%
56,233
195
0.96%
52,148
744
1.43%
42,714
545
1.28%
94,862
1,289
1.36%
TOTAL without OTHER category  
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
29,066
96
0.33%
26,336
92
0.35%
55,402
187
0.34%
51,606
723
1.40%
42,159
538
1.28%
93,765
1,261
1.34%

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


1997 Test results for long-term and short-term contractor personnel
(January through December 1997)

TEST CATEGORY LONG-TERM CONTRACTORS SHORT-TERM CONTRACTORS
First
Six Months
Second
Six Months
Year First
Six Months
Second
Six Months
Year
Pre-Access  
    Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
677
5
0.74%
592
12
2.03%
1,269
17
1.34%
39,792
582
1.46%
32,064
435
1.36%
71,856
1,017
1.42%
Random  
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
1,133
4
0.35%
1,098
2
0.18%
2,231
6
0.27%
8,922
50
0.56%
7,665
40
0.52%
16,587
90
0.54%
For-Cause
Observed Behavior
 
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
9
4
44.44%
7
2
28.57%
16
6
37.50%
176
62
35.23%
131
42
32.06%
307
104
33.88%
Post-Accident  
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
7
0
0.00%
0
0
N/A
7
0
0.00%
52
2
3.85%
25
2
8.00%
77
4
5.19%
Follow-Up  
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
24
0
0.00%
62
0
0.00%
86
0
0.00%
814
14
1.72%
515
3
0.58%
1,329
17
1.28%
Other  
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
18
1
5.56%
51
0
0.00%
69
1
1.45%
524
20
3.82%
504
7
1.39%
1,028
27
2.63%
TOTAL*  
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
1,868
14
0.75%
1,810
16
0.88%
3,678
30
0.82%
50,280
730
1.45%
40,904
529
1.29%
91,184
1,259
1.38%
TOTAL without OTHER category  
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
1,850
13
0.70%
1,759
16
0.91%
3,609
29
0.80%
49,756
710
1.43%
40,400
522
1.29%
90,156
1,232
1.37%

* These totals have been calculated using the category "Other," however, this category has been purposely omitted from calculations for the totals and percentages throughout the body of this report.


1997 Number of confirmed positives by substance
(January through December 1997)

TYPE OF SUBSTANCE FIRST SIX MONTHS SECOND SIX MONTHS TOTAL
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Marijuana 487 55.28% 355 54.87% 842 55.10%
Cocaine 180 20.43% 156 24.11% 336 21.99%
Opiates 28 3.18% 11 1.70% 39 2.55%
Amphetami 32 3.63% 17 2.63% 49 3.21%
Phencyclidi 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Alcohol 154 17.48% 108 16.69% 262 17.15%
TOTAL* 881   647   1528  

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


1997 Confirmed positives test results by substance for each worker category
(January through December 1997)

TYPE OF SUBSTANCE LICENSEE EMPLOYEES CONTRACTORS
(Long-Term/Short-Term)
Number Percent Number Percent
Marijuana 90 42.06% 752 57.23%
Cocaine 39 18.22% 297 22.60%
Opiates 23 10.75% 16 1.22%
Amphetamines 8 3.74% 41 3.12%
Phencyclidine 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Alcohol 54 25.23% 208 15.83%
TOTAL* 214   1314  

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


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

Type of Event 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Total
Reactor Operators 19 16 18 8 7 8 8 9 93
Licensee Supervisors 26 16 22 25 11 16 19 16 151
Contract Supervisors 12 24 28 16 11 10 8 10 119
FFD Program Personnel 1 5     1   2   9
Substances Found 6 8 6 2   5 5 4 36
Total 64 69 74 51 30 39 42 39 408

Trends in testing by test type (1990-1997)

Type of Test 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Total
Pre-Access  
     Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
122,491
1,548
1.26%
104,508
983
0.94%
104,842
1,110
1.06%
91,471
952
1.04%
80,217
977
1.22%
79,305
1,122
1.41%
81,041
1,132
1.40%
84,320
1,096
1.30%
748,195
8,920
1.19%
Random  
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
148,743
550
0.37%
153,818
510
0.33%
156,730
461
0.29%
146,605
341
0.23%
78,391
223
0.28%
66,791
180
0.27%
62,307
202
0.32%
60,829
172
0.28%
874,214
2,639
0.30%
For-Cause  
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
732
214
29.23%
727
167
22.97%
696
178
25.57%
751
163
21.70%
758
122
16.09%
763
139
18.22%
848
138
16.27%
722
149
20.64%
5,997
1,270
21.18%
Follow-Up  
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
2,633
65
2.47%
3,544
62
1.75%
4,283
69
1.61%
4,139
56
1.35%
3,875
50
1.29%
3,262
35
1.07%
3,262
40
1.23%
3,296
31
0.94%
28,294
408
1.44%
TOTAL  
  Number Tested
Number Positive
Percent Positive
274,599
2,377
0.87%
262.597
1,722
0.66%
266,551
1,818
0.68%
242,966
1,512
0.62%
163,241
1,372
0.84%
150,121
1,476
0.98%
147,458
1,512
1.03%
149,167
1,448
0.97%
1,656,700
13,237
0.80%

Trends in substances identified (1990-1997)

Substance 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Marijuana 1,153 746 953 781 739 819 868 842
Cocaine 706 549 470 369 344 374 352 336
Alcohol 452 401 427 357 251 265 281 262
Amphetamines 69 31 31 51 54 61 53 49
Opiates 45 24 8 13 11 17 14 39
Phencyclidine 8 11 4 5 1 7 2 0
Total* 2,433 1,762 1,893 1,576 1,400 1,543 1,570 1,528

* These totals do not equal the total number of positives for each year due to positives for multiple substances and other substances than those listed above.


Trends in positive test rates for workers with unescorted access (1990-1997)*

  Positive Test Rate

1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997

0.54%
0.47%
0.44%
0.37%
0.48%
0.50%
0.57%
0.54%

* Includes random, for-cause, and follow-up testing results. The reduction in random test rate from 100% to 50% has been in effect since 1994.G


Reporting unit contacts by NRC region
REGION I REGION II REGION III REGION IV
Beaver Valley
Eugene P. Edwards
(412) 393-5238

Calvert Cliffs
F. Bruce Martenis
(410) 234-6162

FitzPatrick
Carol A. Soucy
(315) 349-6412

Ginna
Lynn I. Hauck
(716) 771-2232

Haddam Neck
Gordon Hallberg
(860) 665-3384

Indian Point 1 & 2
J. Mark Drexel
(914) 271-7418

Indian Point 3
Dale Plumer
(914) 788-2195

Limerick
David M. Sarley
(215) 841-5703

Bellefonte
Becky Stanfield
(423) 751-8822

Browns Ferry
Becky Stanfield
(423) 751-8822

Brunswick
Fred Underwood
(919) 546-6180

Catawba
Sheila Lowry-Minor
(803) 831-3881

Crystal River
Margaret L. Moore, MD
(352) 563-4355

Farley
Elizabeth McDougal
(205) 992-5707

Harris
Fred Underwood
(919) 546-6180

Hatch
Dianne A. Coley
(205) 992-7231

Big Rock Point
J.A. Smith
(517) 788-7072

Braidwood
Judith C. Papaleo
(630) 663-6565

Byron
Judith C. Papaleo
(630) 663-6565

Clinton
Gary S. Kephart
(217) 935-8881

Cook
Kathleen Burkett
(616) 466-3335

Davis Besse
J.L. Freels
(419) 321-8466

Dresden
Judith C. Papaleo
(630) 663-6565

Duane Arnold
Diane Engelhardt
(319) 851-7280

Arkansas Nuclear One
Kenneth D. Jeffrey
(501) 858-7846

Callaway
Patricia Davis
(573) 676-4300

Comanche Peak
James E. Brown
(254) 897-8912

Cooper
Jannette Harrington
(402) 825-5429

Diablo Canyon
William F. Ryan
(805) 545-3329

Fort Calhoun
Colleen L. Burke
(402) 636-3028

Grand Gulf
Donna Williams
(601) 437-2481

Palo Verde
Mary Maddix
(602) 393-2464

Maine Yankee
H.E. Torberg, Jr.
(207) 882-5319

Millstone
Gordon R. Hollberg
(860) 665-3384

Nine Mile Point
Beth Menikheim
(315) 349-4410

Oyster Creek
J. Troebliger
(717) 948-8188

Peach Bottom
David M. Sarley
(215) 841-5703

Pilgrim
Paul Keefe, MD
(617) 424-2372

Salem/Hope Creek
Ronald J. Mack
(609) 339-5600

Seabrook
Bruce R. Seymour
(603) 773-7012

Susquehanna
Lisa M. Yupco
(717) 542-3201

Three Mile Island
J. Troebliger
(717) 948-8188

Vermont Yankee
Greg Morgan
(802) 258-5800

Yankee-Rowe
Peter J. Windle
(508) 568-2280

McGuire
Deana A. DeLoach
(704) 875-5781

North Anna
W.R. Runner, Jr.
(804) 273-2735

Oconee
Pauline D. Beatty
(864) 885-3317

Robinson
Fred Underwood
(919) 546-6180

Sequoyah
Becky Stanfield
(423) 751-8822

St. Lucie
Arthur Cummings
(561) 467-7008

Summer
Harry O'Quinn
(803) 345-4153

Surry
W.R. Runner, Jr.
(804) 273-2735

Turkey Point
James E. Denton
(305) 246-7171

Vogtle
Vince Agro
(205) 992-5094

Watts Bar
Becky Stanfield
(423) 751-8822

Fermi
Joseph H. Korte
(734) 586-1095

Kewaunee
Richard P. Pulec
(920) 388-8376

LaSalle
Judith C. Papaleo
(630) 663-6565

Monticello
Anne M. Gutsch
(612) 330-7999

Palisades
J.A. Smith
(517) 788-7072

Perry
Joseph R. Slike
(440) 280-5850

Point Beach
B.K. Kopetsky
(920) 755-6588

Prairie Island
Anne M. Gutsch
(612) 330-7999

Quad Cities
Judith C. Papaleo
(630) 663-6565

Zion
Judith C. Papaleo
(630) 663-6565

River Bend
Claudia Parker
(504) 381-3655

San Onofre
S.L. Blue
(714) 368-2482

South Texas
Lisa H. Matula
(512) 972-7444

Trojan
Manuel D. Gatlin
(503) 556-6429

WNP-2
D.W. Martin
(509) 377-8628

Waterford
Dee R. Childress
(504) 739-6308

Wolf Creek
Gary D. Burchart
(316) 364-8831

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, January 08, 2014