Summary of Fitness for Duty Program Performance Reports for Calendar Year 2011 Purpose The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) provides the following fitness-for-duty (FFD) program performance summary to inform interested stakeholders on the drug and alcohol (D&A) testing performance of the commercial nuclear industry for Calendar Year (CY) 2011. Licensees and other affected entities submitted the information presented in this report as required by Section 26.717 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 26, "Fitness for Duty Programs," (Part 26). Background Contents Section Page Purpose 1 Background 1 Uses 2 Public Comment 2 Licensees and Affected Entities 2 Description of Circumstances 3 Executive Summary 4 Reporting of FFD Performance Information 6 Detailed Data Analysis 8 Index of Tables and Charts 20 Evaluation of E-Reported Data 35 Testing Refusal 47 On June 7, 1989, the NRC issued regulations to require licensees authorized to construct or operate nuclear power reactors to provide reasonable assurance that plant personnel are reliable, trustworthy, and not under the influence of any substance, legal or illegal, or mentally or physically impaired from any cause, which in any way affects their ability to safely and competently perform their duties. These regulations required licensees to establish D&A Disclaimer The information in this report is provided as a public service, is solely for informational purposes, and is not, nor should be deemed as, an official NRC position, opinion, guidance, or "a written interpretation by the General Counsel" under 10 CFR 26.7, "Interpretations," on any matter to which the information may relate. The opinions, representations, positions, interpretations, best practices, or recommendations that may be expressed by the NRC technical staff in this document are solely their own and do not necessarily represent those of the NRC. Accordingly, the fact that the information was obtained through the NRC technical staff will not have a precedential effect in any legal or regulatory proceeding. Stakeholders should take care in reaching conclusions based on individual interpretations of the illustrated or tabulated data, because the report may not provide siteor event-specific information to help inform a conclusion. FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Page 1 testing programs and report the results of these tests to the NRC. On March 31, 2008, the NRC amended these requirements to, in part, strengthen the D&A testing requirement and broaden the scope of D&A testing to other NRC licensees (e.g., owner operators of uranium fuel fabrication facilities) and to persons who perform safety- or security significant activities within the protected areas of these sites. Following issuance of the 2008 Final Rule, the NRC staff coordinated with representatives from affected licensees and other entities (heretofore "the industry") to implement an electronic reporting method to simplify the reporting of FFD data to the NRC and enable the reporting of voluntary information to aid in the evaluation of D&A testing performance. This report summarizes both hard copy and electronically reported FFD data. Uses Licensees and other affected entities may review the information contained in this report to make process improvements and/or take corrective actions, as appropriate, to enhance the effectiveness of its FFD program. Suggestions contained in this report are not NRC requirements and no specific action or written response is required. This report also serves to inform members of the public on the commercial nuclear power industry's FFD performance in detecting and deterring illicit drug use and alcohol misuse at licensed facilities. This use is consistent with the Commission's Operational Excellence objective1 to appropriately inform and involve stakeholders in the regulatory process. The NRC staff uses this report to inform the inspection preparation process conducted pursuant to NRC Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 2201, "Security Inspection Program for Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors," IMC 2681, "Physical Protection and Transport of SNM and Irradiated Fuel Inspection of Fuel Facilities," and IMC 2504, "Construction Inspection Program - Inspection of Construction and Operational Programs." Public Comment The NRC welcomes comments on this report, which may be provided in written form through the NRC FFD Web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/fitness-for-duty-programs/contact-us.html. Written comments may also be sent to the NRC at the following address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Melissa Ralph, Security Specialist Mail Stop: T4F25M Washington, DC 20555-0001 Licensees and Affected Entities Part 26 prescribes requirements and standards for the establishment, implementation, and maintenance of FFD programs. These requirements apply to the licensees and other affected entities listed below: 1 See NUREG-1614, Vol. 5, "Strategic Plan, Fiscal Years 2008-2013," NRC, February 2012 (Updated). FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Page 2 o holders of operating licenses for nuclear power reactors and licensees authorized to possess, use, or transport formula quantities of strategic special nuclear material (SSNM) o current and potential applicants for a combined operating license, manufacturing license, standard design certification, or standard design approval for a nuclear power plant (NPP) under the provisions of 10 CFR Part 52, "Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants" o applicants for NPP construction permits and operating licenses under the provisions of 10 CFR Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities" o contractors/vendors (C/Vs) that implement FFD programs or program elements to the extent that the licensees and other affected entities implement C/V FFD programs or program elements In CY 2011, the NRC received FFD program performance information from a total of 76 licensees and other affected entities listed below: o 64 operating reactor sites o 2 reactor construction sites (V. C. Summer Units 2 and 3; Vogtle Units 3 and 4) o 1 formerly operating reactor site (Zion2) o 6 corporate FFD program offices (i.e., includes some utilities with multiple reactor sites that administer their FFD programs at locations other than the reactor sites and, therefore, report data for these administrative FFD personnel separately) o 3 C/Vs and SSNM transporters (Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Operations Group; Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO); Nuclear Fuel Services (NFS), Inc.) Description of Circumstances On March 31, 2008, the Commission published a final rule for Part 26 in the Federal Register (FR) that updated FFD requirements and enhanced consistency with other relevant Federal rules and guidelines. This final rule (73 FR 16966) became effective on April 30, 2008; however, the NRC allowed licensees and other affected entities to defer implementation of the requirements related to D&A testing until March 31, 2009. Beginning in CY 2010, all licensees and other entities reported FFD performance information required by 10 CFR 26.717, "Fitness-for-Duty Program Performance Data." The FFD program performance reports of affected licensees and other entities are available to the public through the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. Prior year reports summarizing the FFD program performance of the industry can be viewed on the NRC's FFD 2 The Zion facility is in SAFSTOR. SAFESTOR is a method of decommissioning in which a nuclear facility is placed and maintained in a condition that allows the facility to be safely stored and subsequently decontaminated (deferred decontamination) to levels that permit release for unrestricted use. FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Page 3 Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/fitness-for-duty-programs/ performance-reports.html. In CY 2011, affected licensees and other entities either submitted a hardcopy performance report or used the NRC's FFD electronic performance reporting system to meet the annual information reporting requirement in 10 CFR 26.717. The FFD electronic performance reporting system is described on page 6 of this report. Executive Summary In CY 2011, 80 percent of affected facilities (61 of 76) used the FFD electronic performance reporting (e-reporting) system. By comparison, in CY 2010, 69 percent of facilities (51 of 74) used the system. Use of the voluntary e-reporting system is the result of industry effort to improve the information collected on FFD program performance. Support of the e-reporting system includes training personnel in use of the system, developing and updating procedures to collect data and use the e-reporting system, developing internal documentation processes to facilitate use of a paperless reporting system, participating in NRC Webinars on the e-reporting system, and working with the NRC staff to provide feedback and recommendations for system improvements (e.g., e-reporting form changes). The detailed observations beginning on page 8 of this report are possible only because of the NRC-industry initiative to electronically report FFD performance information. The NRC continues to work with The Executive Summary industry representatives to enable use of the e-reporting summarizes the test results and system by all affected entities. reports submitted by licensees In CY 2011, the industry conducted 178,586 D&A tests, resulting in an industry positive rate of 0.58 percent for illicit drug use, alcohol misuse, and testing refusals. By employment category, C/Vs tested positive at a rate of 0.73 percent and licensee employees at a rate of 0.23 percent; this 3-to-1 ratio has been consistent since 1993 and demonstrates the existence of two distinct populations of substance users. and other entities. The section, "Detailed Data Analysis" (page 8), contains detailed information on testing, results associated site- and event-specific descriptions, and data presentations in graphical and tabular formats. The total number of tests conducted in CY 2011 is the largest since 1993. In comparison to CY 2010, pre-access tests increased by 8 percent (7,305), random tests by 6 percent (3,770), for-cause3 tests by 56 percent (307), and followup tests by 10 percent (645). Marijuana4, alcohol, and cocaine5 continued to be the abuse substances of choice (Table 1) and accounted for 90 percent of positive test results in CY 2011. Marijuana and alcohol positive rates have increased since NRC-required testing began in 1990, cocaine positives have decreased during the same time period. 3 While the term "for cause" is not hyphenated in Part 26, hyphens have been added in this report for clarity and grammatical accuracy. 4 Part 26 tests for marijuana metabolites for initial testing and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol-9-caboxylic acid (THCOOC) for confirmatory testing. 5 Part 26 tests for cocaine metabolites for initial testing and the cocaine metabolite benzoylecgonine for confirmatory testing. FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Page 4 Table 1 Abuse Substances of Choice Substance 1990 2011 Percent Change Marijuana 47% 52% + 5% Alcohol 19% 26% + 7% Cocaine 29% 12% - 17% 95% 90% - Total A significant observation in CY 2011 was the increasing share of amphetamine6 positive results. In CY 2011, amphetamines accounted for 7.56 percent of all positive test results, up from 5.28 percent in CY 2010, and 3.62 percent in CY 2009. Amphetamines were detected in each test category in CY 2011. As for positive testing rates by test category, pre-access testing continued to account for a large percentage of positive results (69 percent of all positive test results in CY 2011). This trend is consistent with previous years. The random testing positive rate for the industry was 0.31 percent. This is the same rate experienced in CY 2010. It is important to note the variability in the random testing positive rate for the industry during the past 20 years; the rate has ranged from 0.23 percent to 0.39 percent (Chart 3). In CY 2011, the for-cause testing positive rate for the industry was 8.53 percent (i.e., approximately 1 in every 12 persons tested positive for an illicit drug or alcohol). This is consistent with the CY 2010 rate and is the lowest for-cause positive testing rate since the NRC initiated testing in 1990. The marked decrease in for-cause positive testing rates (Chart 7) can be partially attributed to the increased number of for-cause tests with negative results. From CY 2010 to CY 2011, the number of for-cause tests conducted increased by 56 percent (549 to 856). Two facilities, in particular, conducted significantly more for-cause tests in CY 2011. Joseph M. Farley conducted 188 for-cause tests in CY 2011, compared to 32 for-cause tests in CY 2010. E.I. Hatch conducted 174 for-cause tests in CY 2011, compared to 20 for-cause tests in CY 2010. Additionally, data collected from e-reporting (i.e., single positive test forms (SPTFs)) demonstrated that some facilities have incorrectly reported testing associated with subversion attempts as for-cause testing, which has likely increased the positive rates of for-cause testing. The NRC staff has provided guidance to the industry to improve the reporting of FFD performance information. Regarding for-cause testing, the NRC staff acknowledges that human performance assessments are intrinsically very difficult and recognizes the uncertainty in assessing human behavior, noting that behavior can either be qualitatively assessed (such as by observation or information review) or quantitatively assessed (such as by expert analysis of drug or alcohol test results). The NRC staff notes that to achieve an effective for-cause testing program, the for-cause positive testing rate should not be: 6 Part 26 tests for amphetamines on initial testing and amphetamines and methamphetamines for confirmatory testing. FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Page 5 o too low to result in the possibility of individual harassment or an adverse impact on the work environment (e.g., testing of individuals that do not exhibit signs of impairment or where credible information has not been received on current substance abuse), nor; o too high, such that random and post-event tests are overly relied upon to identify persons unfit for duty, resulting in a reduction in the defense in depth afforded by the NRC's FFD requirements. In all test categories, C/Vs continue to test positive at a much higher rate than licensee employees, as indicated in Charts 4, 5, and 7. C/V positive testing rates appear to be converging with the lower positive testing rates for licensee employees. The FFD performance data on D&A testing cutoff levels indicate the following: o Sixty-nine (69) of 76 facilities reported implementing the NRC's optional drug testing policy to conduct "limit-of-detection"7 (LOD) testing of "dilute"8 specimens. o Ten (10) of the 76 facilities used more stringent cutoff levels for drugs, such as marijuana and cocaine, or expanded their drug testing panels to include other controlled substances, including barbiturates, benzodiazepines, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, methadone, oxycodone, and propoxyphene. Licensees and other entities reported eight events associated with licensee testing facilities (LTFs) or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)-certified laboratories (laboratories). These events involved equipment malfunctions, human errors, and issues associated with blind performance test samples (BPTS). Six of the eight events were associated with BPTSs. Licensees and other entities also reported 37 events requiring a 24-hour event report to the NRC Operations Center under 10 CFR 26.719(b), as a result of individual employee violations of the FFD program (see Section 3). Twenty-four (24) of these events were associated with supervisors testing positive for an illicit drug or alcohol or otherwise subverting the FFD process (i.e., encouraging an employee to avoid testing, possessing a controlled substance); two events involved NRC-licensed operators. Reporting of FFD Performance Information The submission of annual FFD program performance reports is mandatory. These reports inform the NRC and the public of the commercial power reactor industry's FFD performance and demonstrate the industry's commitment to public health and safety and the common defense and security. The industry further demonstrates this commitment by exceeding the reporting requirements in the regulation and providing detailed descriptions of FFD-related events and issues affecting its programs. The industry also voluntarily uses the e-reporting system, which the NRC developed in coordination with the industry to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 26.11, 7 8 "Limit of detection" is the lowest concentration of an analyte that a laboratory analytical procedure can reliably detect (see 10 CFR 26.5, "Definitions"). The LOD is dependent on specimen preparation, test equipment, procedures, and technician expertise. "Dilute," as used in this sentence, is a laboratory determination based on the creatinine and specific gravity (SG) concentrations that are lower than expected for human urine (see 10 CFR 26.5). FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Page 6 "Communications," and 10 CFR 26.717. This openness and transparency contributes to the common goal of enhancing safety and security by sharing lessons learned and implementing corrective actions. These outcomes help provide reasonable assurance that persons who perform safety- or security-significant activities, or have unescorted access to certain NRC-licensed facilities, information, or material, are fit for duty. The section, "Evaluation of E-Reported Data," reflects the quality of data and data evaluation that results from e-reporting. The FFD electronic forms (e-forms) used by licensees and other entities subject to Part 26 to report FFD performance data to the NRC are publicly available at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/fitness-for-duty-programs/ submit-ffd-reports.html. These e-forms use the Adobe Systems Incorporated (Adobe(R)) information technology architecture.9 In the NRC's "Summary of Fitness for Duty Program Performance Reports for CY 2009," available at the Web site listed above, the staff discussed the background of e-reporting. The "Summary of Fitness for Duty Program Performance Reports for CY 2010," available at the same Web site, summarizes FFD e-reporting improvements and observations that occurred in CY 2010. The following section in this report provides an overview of any changes and observations that occurred in CY 2011. o CY 2011 marked the third year FFD e-reporting was available. Use of e-reporting has steadily increased from the first year the system was available (CY 2009). Table 2 displays the strong support and use of the system in CY 2011, with 80 percent of facilities participating. Table 2 E-reporting System Use (CYs 2009-2011) Calendar Year 2009 Number Tests 46,162 111,248 141,234 290 684 918 Percent of Facilities Using System 25% 69% 80% Number of Facilities Using System 19 51 61 Number Positive 2010 2011 o The NRC updated the Annual Reporting Form (ARF) and SPTF based on feedback provided by licensees and other entities and revised the embedded instructions and logic architecture within the forms to simplify their use and reduce reporting errors. o Significant improvements to the e-reporting forms for CY 2011 included: o 9 The Subversion Attempts section of the SPTF was updated to include clearer checkbox options to characterize donor actions and improve the quality of information provided. (R) Additional information about Adobe and its permissions and trademark guidelines is available at http://www.adobe.com/misc/agreement.html. FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Page 7 o The question "What 26.103 BAC level was exceeded" was added to the SPTF to collect information on the particular blood alcohol concentration (BAC)10 level that was exceeded. o The NRC added a laboratory testing section to the ARF to collect information on LTF use, the HHS-certified laboratory(ies) used by the licensee or other entity, and the BPTS supplier. Detailed Data Analysis Table 3 Index of Detailed Data Analysis and Descriptions Section Title Page(s) 1 Detailed Data Analysis Summary 8-10 2 Certified Laboratories 11-14 3 Reportable Events 4 Program and System Management 16-17 5 Other Program and System Management Issues 17-19 6 Tables and Charts, including Index (all data--e-reported and hardcopy) 19-35 7 Evaluation of E-Reported Data 35-46 8 Testing Refusals 47-49 15 Section 1 Detailed Data Analysis Summary The following is a detailed summary of CY 2011 testing information contained in this report11. The referenced tables can be consulted for additional information. o The industry performed a total of 178,586 D&A tests. The total number of tests performed has steadily increased each year since 2003. (Table 10) o Approximately 69 percent of all positive test results occurred at pre-access testing (i.e., a significant percentage of illicit drug use and alcohol misuse is identified before a licensee ever allows a person unescorted access to an NRC-licensed facility). o The industry positive rate for all tests conducted remained low at 0.60 percent. The industry positive rate has steadily declined since 2000 (a high of 1.09 percent). (Table 10) 10 BAC is the mass of alcohol in a volume blood. As detailed in 10 CFR 26.103, a confirmed alcohol positive test is determined when an individual's BAC is equal to or greater than the 26.103 time-dependent BAC limits. 11 In SECY 04 0191, "Withholding Sensitive Unclassified Information Concerning Nuclear Power Reactors from Public Disclosure," issued October 2004, the NRC described guidance for designating sensitive unclassified non-Safeguards Information relating to nuclear power reactors. The NRC applied this guidance to information in this report, in part, to prevent persons from subverting the effectiveness of the D&A testing provisions in Part 26. FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Page 8 o The industry positive rate for random tests in CY 2011 was 0.31 percent. The random testing positive rate has remained low since required testing began in 1990 (fluctuating between a low of 0.23 percent as recently as 2008 and a high of 0.39 percent in 2000). (Table 10 and Table A-2) o For-cause testing accounted for the highest industry positive test rate at 8.53 percent (Table 6), which is expected, because this test type is only conducted when signs of impairment are observed or information about illicit drug use or alcohol misuse is received. Data collected from e-reporting have indicated that some licensees and other entities have incorrectly reported tests associated with subversion attempts; this suggests that year-to-year trend analysis may not be entirely precise. However, the uniformity of data collected on for-cause testing positives is improving, based on increased use of the e-reporting system by licensees and other entities and the quality of information provided in SPTFs. (Table 7 and Chart 7) o The industry positive rates for each employment category for all tests performed remained low. (Table 7) o o Licensee employees: 0.23 percent C/Vs: 0.77 percent o C/Vs continued to have higher positive test rates than licensee employees. This pattern is consistent across testing years and for each test type. Since 1993, C/Vs have had an overall positive test rate that is, on average, 3.7 times greater than that of licensee employees. (Charts 5, 6, and 7; Tables A-4, A-5, and A-6) o Table 12 presents the range of positive tests reported by facilities in CY 2011 by employment category for pre-access and random testing. The information indicates that the industry positive rates are low (less than 1 percent) for pre-access and random testing, but the range of percent positive per site is rather large (see below). Again, we see C/Vs testing positive at a much higher rate than licensee employees. Pre-access testing positive rates: o Licensee employees: 0.26 percent The positive-rate range12 for the industry was from 0 to 1.76 percent. o C/Vs: 0.77 percent The positive-rate range for the industry was from 0 to 2.52 percent. Random testing positive rates: o 12 Licensee employees: 0.16 percent The positive-rate range for the industry was from 0 to 0.77 percent. The positive-rate range is across all facilities and indicates the lowest and the highest positive rates reported in CY 2011. These values do not directly correlate to performance. FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Page 9 o o C/Vs: 0.54 percent The positive-rate range for the industry was from 0 to 2.11 percent. Marijuana, alcohol, and cocaine accounted for a significant percentage of positive test results in each employment category. (Table 8) o o o Licensee employees: marijuana, 24 percent; alcohol, 54 percent; cocaine, 9 percent C/Vs: marijuana, 50 percent; alcohol, 19 percent; cocaine, 12 percent Three substances (marijuana, alcohol, and cocaine) continued to account for more than 90 percent of substances identified in each testing year. (Table 11) o o o Marijuana, 47 percent of substances in 1990; 52 percent in 2011 Alcohol, 19 percent of substances in 1990; 26 percent in 2011 Cocaine, 29 percent of substances in 1990; 12 percent in 2011 FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Page 10 Section 2 Certified Laboratories This section summarizes reports of laboratory testing performance issues discovered in drug performance testing at LTFs and HHS-certified laboratories. The issues may involve errors in technique, methodologies, quality control, or urine specimen processing. Typically, LTFs or laboratories self-identify the errors that could adversely affect test integrity. To meet the reporting requirement of 10 CFR 26.719(c), the licensee or other entity submits a report to the NRC (called a "30-day report") describing the issue and corrective actions taken or planned. If applicable, the ADAMS accession number (ML) of the 30-day report is referenced in Table 4. Ten of twelve errors reported in CY 2011 documented issues associated with BPTS preparation or laboratory testing of BPTSs. Table 4 Laboratory Testing Performance Issues13 Facility Diablo Canyon Issue Performance Issue Summary Cause(s) of Issue BPTS: insufficient number submitted An insufficient number of adulterated BPTSs were submitted to the HHS-certified laboratory in CYs 2010 and 2011. The FFD program performance report did not describe the cause of the issue. Corrective Action 2. The licensee developed and implemented a checklist to improve tracking of BPTSs. ML12060A199 (letter: 2/24/12) Duane Arnold BPTS: incorrect result A BPTS formulated by Elsohly Laboratories did not yield expected results. 1. Two adulterated BPTSs were submitted during the third quarter of CY 2011 to compensate for the earlier shortage. The FFD program performance report did not describe the cause of the issue. A replacement BPTS was submitted in the same quarter and expected results were received from the laboratory. ML12059A153 (letter: 2/28/12) 13 The "Cause(s) of Issue" and "Corrective Actions" are determined by the affected licensee or entity; this report does not evaluate the effectiveness or accuracy of these licensee determinations. FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Page 11 Facility Limerick Issue LTF testing Performance Issue Summary The 8-hour time limit for an analytical run of specimen testing required by 10 CFR 26.137(b)(2)(i) was exceeded. Cause(s) of Issue Corrective Action A newly trained technician performed the testing. 2. Required all LTF technicians to read and sign a document detailing the 8-hour time limit for an analytical run. Fifteen (15) specimens were initialized before the 8-hour time limit expired; however, the testing process was not completed for several of the specimens until after the 8-hour time limit had expired. Testing of the last specimen was completed 57 minutes over the 8-hour limit. 3. Revised LTF procedures to include additional guidance on running samples when the 8-hour time limit for an analytical run will be exceeded. 4. Planned to review and revise training materials, as needed, to ensure that the 8-hour time limit for an analytical run was appropriately detailed. ML112201465 (letter: 08/08/11) Palo Verde BPTS: Incorrect result BPTS formulated as "adulterated" by Professional Toxicology Services HHS-certified laboratory reported "invalid" result HHS-certified laboratory pH testing equipment defaults to an "invalid" result when a test result falls outside the normal range, and it is the responsibility of the certifying scientist to interpret the test result. ML11269A027 (letter: 09/15/11) LTF testing After calibrating two reagents (amphetamines and THC-50), the LTF technician only ran the 25 percent below control test and failed to run the 25 percent above control test as required by 10 CFR 26.137(e)(6)(ii). The technician stated that he/she understood the requirement and made a mistake. No adverse trends in unsatisfactory performance of the LTF's quality control tests had been previously identified. The HHS-certified laboratory developed a reference guide for certifying scientists to use to characterize specimens identified as "invalid." The correct pH value was reported as 1.10, but the certifying scientist failed to interpret the result correctly. ML111590887 (letter: 06/08/11) Peach Bottom 1. Removed the technician from duties and performed retraining. FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 During the investigation, a second issue was discovered. The two reagents placed in service by the same technician were not labeled according to the LTF procedure. 1. The technician was immediately removed from duties until further training was completed. 2. Peach Bottom re-collected samples from the seven individuals in-processed on the date of the testing issue. 3. LTF technicians are now required to forward all calibration paperwork to the LTF supervising technician for review until decided otherwise. It is routine for the LTF supervisor to review the work of the technicians. Page 12 Facility Prairie Island Issue BPTS: incorrect result Performance Issue Summary BPTS was formulated as dilute negative by Elsohly Laboratories. HHS-certified laboratory (Medtox) reported a negative result. ML12017A090 (letter: 01/13/12; BPTS result received 10/5/11) TVA BPTS: incorrect results Cause(s) of Issue Corrective Action The likely cause was the variable sample handling/ testing technique for specific gravity testing used by the laboratory technician. The investigation concluded that the laboratory technician that performed the specimen testing needed additional training. BPTS was formulated as positive for propoxyphene and norpropoxyphene. False negative resulted because the drug concentrations in the BPTS were too close to the initial drug test cutoff level. HHS-certified laboratory (Clinical Reference Laboratory) reported a negative result. The investigation also identified an issue with TVA's internal process of preparing BPTSs for submission to the laboratory (i.e., a freezing and the subsequent thawing, mixing, and handling process). ML110610738 (letter: 02/25/11) TVA BPTS: incorrect results BPTS was formulated as positive for cocaine. HHS-certified laboratory (Clinical Reference Laboratory) reported a negative result. ML110610738 (letter: 02/25/11; BTPS result received on 12/10/10 ) The HHS-certified laboratory did not process the licensee's request to investigate the test result error in a timely manner and the laboratory discarded the negative specimen. The false negative likely resulted because the drug concentration in the BPTS was too close to the initial drug test cutoff level. The failure also was likely the result of the specimen handling practices identified with the BPTS positive for propoxyphene also described in the same 30-day report. TVA BPTS: incorrect result The HHS-certified laboratory reviewed the specimen handling and testing procedures with technologists using J57 refractometers and performed competency assessments. BPTS was formulated as positive for morphine, codeine, and 6-acetylmorphine (6-AM). HHS-certified laboratory (Clinical Reference Laboratory) reported a negative result. ML11186A864 (letter: 07/01/11) FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 The BPTS batch that was incorrectly prepared and was the cause of inaccurate test results described in TVA's 30-day report to the NRC, dated 02/25/11, was not discarded. Licensee revised its methods of preparing BPTSs. 1. The HHS-certified laboratory implemented a corrective action regarding processing of retests. When a request is received for a split sample retest that cannot be immediately processed, the specimen will be transferred to short-term storage so it will not be discarded. 2. Licensee revised its methods of preparing BPTSs. 1. Previously frozen BPTSs were discarded and new BPTSs ordered. 2. BPTS preparation procedures were revised to add steps to be taken when a potential compromise of specimens is identified via unexpected blind specimen results, including handling of any remaining samples. Page 13 Facility TVA Issue BPTS: incorrect result Performance Issue Summary Cause(s) of Issue An inconsistent BPTS test result was received in March 2010 but TVA did not report it to the NRC. The licensee identified this error when investigating the incident involving TVA's 30-day report to the NRC dated 07/01/11. The investigation of the inaccurate test result confirmed that TVA's BPTS preparation process was likely the cause of the false negative result, as described in TVA's 30-day report to the NRC dated 02/25/11. BPTS was formulated as positive for morphine, codeine, and 6-AM. HHScertified laboratory (Clinical Reference Laboratory) reported a negative result. Corrective Action TVA had a historical practice of processing multiple BPTSs simultaneously. 1. Trained the new employee on BPTS preparation process. 2. Revised the BPTS processing procedure to require the blind specimen package be completed before initiation of the next specimen package for testing. The cause was the performance of BPTS preparation by a new employee who was still in training. ML11251A161 (letter: 09/02/11) TVA BPTS: incorrect result BPTS was formulated as positive for codeine, morphine, and 6-AM. HHS-certified laboratory (Clinical Reference Laboratory) reported a negative result. ML11272A037 (letter: 09/26/11) Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 BPTS: insufficient number submitted Licensee inadvertently sent two adulterated specimens and no substituted specimens in the third quarter of CY 2011. The HHS-certified laboratory determined that the identification number printed on the chromatogram did not match the number provided by the bar code reader. The sample had been switched with another sample in the batch. Human error at the laboratory resulted in the sample being incorrectly placed in the sequence for gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) testing. The FFD program performance report did not describe the cause of the issue. 1. Conducted benchmarking of alternative HHS-certified laboratories. 2. Increased the number of BPTSs submitted to Clinical Reference Laboratory for an extended period of time or until such time as another primary laboratory is selected. 3. Provided the information to TVA quality assurance for consideration in future audits. The FFD program performance report did not describe any corrective actions taken. ML12065A181 (letter: 2/21/12) FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Page 14 Section 3 Reportable Events Licensees or other entities reported 37 FFD-related events involving individual employee violations to the NRC Operations Center under 10 CFR 26.719, "Reporting Requirements," (i.e., 24-hour event reports). Information presented in this table was supplemented from FFD program performance reports (e.g., SPTFs, ARFs, and 30-day reports). Table 5 Reportable Events due to Individual Employee Violations Test Type Pre-Access Facility E.I. Hatch Arkansas Nuclear One Braidwood Byron Columbia Fermi 2 Fort Calhoun Prairie Island Salem/Hope Creek Sequoyah St. Lucie Surry Watts Bar Cooper Crystal River San Onofre Surry Vogtle Units 1 and 2 Nine Mile Point Point Beach Surry V.C. Summer Unit 1 Vogtle Units 3 and 4 Employment Type C/V C/V Licensee Employee Licensee Employee C/V Licensee Employee Licensee Employee Licensee Employee C/V C/V Licensee Employee Licensee Employee C/V C/V C/V Licensee Employee Licensee Employee Licensee Employee C/V Licensee Employee C/V Licensee Employee Licensee Employee Licensee Employee Licensee Employee Licensee Employee C/V C/V C/V Licensee Employee C/V Labor Category Supervisor Supervisor Supervisor Supervisor Supervisor Licensed Operator FFD Program Personnel Supervisor Supervisor Supervisor Supervisor FFD Program Personnel Supervisor Supervisor Technician Supervisor Supervisor Supervisor Supervisor Security Supervisor Supervisor Supervisor Supervisor Security Security Construction Manager Supervisor Supervisor Licensed Operator Supervisor Babcock & Wilcox Not specified Not specified Fort Calhoun C/V Not specified Joseph M. Farley C/V Supervisor Kewaunee Not specified Nonsupervisory McGuire Not specified Not specified Watts Bar Not specified Supervisor Grand Gulf Random Kewaunee LaSalle Monticello Oconee For Cause Followup N/A PA N/A Substance Alcohol Amphetamines Marijuana Alcohol Refusal to Test Cocaine Alcohol Cocaine Alcohol Cocaine Marijuana Alcohol Alcohol Alcohol Alcohol Alcohol Alcohol Amphetamines Alcohol Alcohol Marijuana Alcohol Alcohol Alcohol Alcohol Alcohol Alcohol Alcohol Alcohol Benzodiazepines Alcohol Possession of alcohol in PA Self-reported use of illegal substance Subversion Possession of prescription drug in PA Failed to meet FFD criteria Possession of controlled substance with intent to distribute Protected area. See 10 CFR 26.5 for the definition of a PA. Not applicable. FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Revision: original Page 15 Section 4 Program and System Management The drug testing cutoff levels are provided in 10 CFR 26.133 and 26.163, both entitled, "Cutoff Levels for Drugs and Drug Metabolites." The confirmatory BAC percentage considered a positive test result is provided in 10 CFR 26.103, "Determining a Confirmed Positive Test Result for Alcohol." Some licensees or other entities elected to use lower drug testing cutoff levels during the reporting period, as authorized by 10 CFR 26.31(d). The current rule also includes time-dependent alcohol cutoff levels and does not allow licensees or other entities to lower the cutoffs when conducting NRC-required alcohol tests or applying NRC-required sanctions under 10 CFR 26.75, "Sanctions"; however, for followup testing, licensees and other entities are required to determine whether the affected individual has abstained14 from D&A use. Furthermore, some licensees or other entities have established "corporate" or "employment" D&A limits to screen applicants before employment or for use during followup testing. The lowering of D&A cutoff levels, LOD testing, or testing for additional substances are powerful means to identify illicit D&A use and enhance deterrence. Alcohol Testing In CY 2011, two facilities apparently used lower BAC cutoff levels than permitted by rule. Drug Testing (lowering drug cutoff levels, LOD testing, and testing for additional substances) Lowering Drug Cutoffs In CY 2011, four facilities used lower marijuana cutoff levels and two facilities used lower opiate15 cutoff levels. LOD Testing, 10 CFR 26.163(a)(2) In CY 2011, 90 percent of facilities (69 of 76) reported implementing the optional testing policy to conduct LOD testing, as permitted by 10 CFR 26.163(a)(2). The NRC staff notes that there may be a data discrepancy in the total number of licensees and other reported as implementing an LOD Testing policy for CYs 2009 and 2010. Due to changes to the ARF e-report for CY 2011, information on LOD Testing is now collected in a more consistent and reliable manner. LOD testing is a powerful method to identify illicit drug use in instances where an individual may be attempting to subvert the testing process through urine specimen dilution. Although many legitimate reasons may cause a donor to provide a urine specimen with a dilute validity test result, specimen dilution is a method that individuals may use to subvert the testing process by consuming large quantities of fluid prior to providing a specimen to decrease the concentration of drug(s)/drug metabolite(s) in their specimen. As a result, the concentration of a drug 14 As described in 10 CFR 26.31(c)(4), a followup test verifies an individual's continued abstinence from substance abuse. This type of testing, required by 10 CFR 26.69, "Authorization with Potentially Disqualifying Fitness-for-Duty Information," is one of several criteria that licensees are required to use to determine whether to grant or maintain authorization. 15 Part 26 tests for opiate metabolites on initial testing and tests for morphine, codeine, and 6-AM (a positive indicator of heroin use) for opiate confirmatory testing. FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Revision: original Page 16 may be below the Part 26 cutoffs for the drug or drug metabolite--this would give a false negative drug test result and could be adverse to safety and security. However, if a specimen has been determined to be dilute and LOD testing is conducted, the ability to detect illicit drug use is markedly improved, because the LOD testing technique uses the lowest concentration of the target analyte that can be reliably detected. This concentration level is typically significantly lower than the cutoff level. A dilute positive test result would be a strong indicator that the individual may have attempted to subvert the test. Although not required, the majority of licensees and other entities have implemented an LOD testing policy. This demonstrates a strong commitment to identifying illicit drug use, which, in turn, increases the likelihood that authorized personnel are fit for duty and that persons determined to be unfit for duty are subject to the sanctions and actions prescribed in 10 CFR 26.75, "Sanctions," and 10 CFR 26.77, "Management Actions Regarding Possible Impairment," respectively, and are afforded employee assistance, if applicable. Testing for Additional Substances, 10 CFR 26.31(d)(1)(i) Licensees and other entities may consult with local law enforcement authorities, hospitals, and drug counseling services to determine whether the local workforce is using drugs that are not included in the drug testing panel specified by NRC regulations. If so, licensees and other entities may add drugs to their drug testing panels and establish cutoff levels for these additional substances, based on established forensic toxicology science and review. Licensees and other entities are not required to test for additional drugs or drug metabolites; however, a number did voluntarily reach out to their communities to inform their programs. In CY 2011, six facilities tested for additional drugs or drug metabolites. The additional substances included barbiturates, benzodiazepines, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, methadone, oxycodone, and propoxyphene. Section 5 Other Program and System Management Issues16 o o 16 Three facilities (Beaver Valley, Davis-Besse, and Perry) included FFD procedure updates to explain that the ingestion of certain food groups may have an adverse effect on the accuracy of the drug testing results. Cooper reported four management actions. First, security procedures were updated to enhance the random testing program (e.g., the updates increased the frequency of generating random select lists and included guidance on how to generate and verify the accuracy of the random testing pool). Second, Cooper increased the frequency that BPTSs are to be submitted to the laboratory for testing. Third, Cooper completed refresher training with access authorization staff that included first-line supervisor training and MARC (Managers Action Response Checklist) training. Fourth, the licensee included FFD communications as part of the site's monthly newsletter. In this section, the NRC staff used the descriptive terminology provided by the licensee in its report; however, in some cases, the staff clarified the description to aid understanding. FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Revision: original Page 17 o Dominion Corporate and Kewaunee revised the prescription drug portion of the FFD procedure to enhance self-reporting (i.e., allowing personnel to report prescription drugs to FFD program personnel without disclosing the specific medication). Proposals to expand the standard drug testing panel also were made to local unions in response to a prescription drug incident at the Kewaunee plant pertaining to use of prescription drugs inside the PA. o Fermi 2 reported that a self-assessment identified four deficiencies. None of the deficiencies were determined by the licensee to have violated 10 CFR Part 26 requirements. The deficiencies were: (1) supervisor observation report not completed as required, (2) random pool database not maintained as required, (3) collection procedure possibly conflicted with 10 CFR Part 26, and (4) individual selected for random test not tested within 30 days. These deficiencies were entered into the licensee's Corrective Action Program (CAP) for resolution. o Fort Calhoun reported enhancing collector training to address a number of collector errors that had occurred. The licensee reported that while the errors did not result in any tests being cancelled, the number of the errors was noteworthy. A new initial collector training program was developed and all collectors were required to complete the training. Semiannual competencies and monthly communications also were created. o Indian Point reported that an internal audit identified two deficiencies. First, the time a supervisor/designee notified a donor to proceed for random testing was not consistently recorded. The electronic fleet form was modified to provide a specific space to record the notification time and training was conducted on the requirements to track and document the time of notification. Second, while random tests were conducted throughout the 24-hour workday, the distribution of the tests could indicate a perceived weakness in the randomness of the random testing program. Coordinators are now utilizing shift-work schedules to identify a donor's testing availability to ensure that all shifts are targeted for random collections. o Palo Verde reported that it developed a briefing item for urine specimen collectors that included a tool to display various urine colorations and explanations about what the colors could mean. o Salem/Hope Creek reported that it had concerns that the positive random rate at the facility was higher than the industry average. It increased the random testing rate by 25 percent above the NRC-minimum testing rate of 50 percent to a minimum of 62.5 percent. The facility positive rate dropped from 0.40 percent in December 2010 to 0.23 percent in December 2011. o Southern Nuclear Company (SNC) Corporate reported two problems with the SNC random pool. Weekly quality control checks for the FFD random testing pool identified one problem. The second problem was a logic/coding error in the random selection generator that was discovered by the SNC's FFD database vendor. Both instances were evaluated, investigated, and reported to the NRC in a 24-hour report. SNC made apparent cause determinations and documented each in its CAP. FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Revision: original Page 18 o St. Lucie reported that six specimens were lost in transit between the collection location and the laboratory. The specimens were re-collected and all were returned with negative results. o Susquehanna reported two programmatic deficiencies. First, the vendor contract with the Employee Assistance Program to provide counseling and treatment for self referrals did not require appropriate reporting to the licensee as required by Part 26. The licensee obtained an agreement from the vendor to report appropriate information until the contract could be amended. Second, the medical review officer (who was also a substance abuse expert) was not included in the random drug testing program or the behavior observation program. The deficiency had existed since December of the previous year and was identified during a routine audit. An event report was made to the NRC for each deficiency (Event Notification (EN) nos. 47221 and 47234). o Vogtle Units 3 and 4 reported conducting two FFD program audits, one by Shaw Quality Assurance (Shaw) and one by SNC. Shaw and SNC identified several deficiencies primarily related to Shaw FFD procedures. The deficiencies were addressed with corrective actions managed through the CAPs. Of particular note, Shaw implemented corrective actions to improve its procedures for Subpart C requirements for granting access (e.g., self-disclosure and suitable inquiry reviews). o Vogtle Units 3 and 4 reported that the Employee Plant Access Control Tracking (EmPACT) software used to generate random testing selection lists had a logic flaw in the number generator. The flaw did not permit multiple selections of individuals during a single iteration of the random pool selection. Immediate corrective actions were taken, which included running the random pool daily until the software logic was corrected and tested. Corrective actions were managed through the CAP. EmPACT is currently being redesigned and updated. The new version, EmPACT 3.0 is intended to provide easier retrieval of FFD and access data and will have greater search and reporting capabilities. EmPACT 3.0 will convert many processes that are currently being managed manually to an electronic data-entry process for FFD and access authorization. SNC considered this a significant programmatic issue and submitted a 30-day report to the NRC on November 9, 2011. o Vogtle Units 3 and 4 reported an FFD program vulnerability that resulted in contractor personnel being granted unescorted access to the Vogtle Units 3 and 4 construction site without meeting all the requirements of the FFD program. An event report was made to the NRC (EN 46558). o Wolf Creek reported that it reverted to split specimen collections in October 2011 to improve consistency with U.S. Department of Transportation collections and to strengthen the appeal process when an individual requests a retest. Section 6 Tables and Charts The significant regulatory changes that affected FFD performance data were as follows: o In 1994, the NRC reduced the minimum annual random testing rate from 100 percent to 50 percent of the subject population. FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Revision: original Page 19 o In 2009, the NRC's final rule on FFD became fully effective, changing the reporting requirements for licensees and other entities. Index of Tables and Charts Table (T) Chart (C) Index of Tables and Charts Page Summary Tables T-1 Abuse Substances of Choice 5 T-2 E-reporting System Use (CYs 2009-2011) 7 T-3 Index of Detailed Data Analysis and Descriptions 8 T-4 Laboratory Testing Performance Issues 11 T-5 Reportable Events due to Individual Employee Violations 15 Generic Industry Performance Data and Trends (All data reported--paper and electronically-reported data) T-6 Test Results by Test Category 22 T-7 Test Results by Test and Employment Categories 22 Positive Test Results by Substance and Employment Category 23 T-9 Significant Fitness-for-Duty Events* 24 T-10 Trends in Testing by Test Type 25 C-3 Trends in Positive Random Testing Rates* 26 T-11 Trends in Substances* Identified 27 C-4 Trends in Positive Test Rates (All Test Types)* by Employment Category 28 C-5 Trends in Positive Pre-Access Testing Rates by Employment Category* 28 C-6 Trends in Positive Random Test Rates by Employment Category* 29 C-7 Trends in Positive For-Cause Testing Rates by Employment Category* 29 T-8, C-1, C-2 FFD Performance Testing Results by Positive Rate Ranges and Number of Sites Industry Positive Test Results for Pre-Access, Random, and For Cause Testing by Employment Category 30 T-13, C-8 Distribution of Pre-Access Testing Positive Rate Ranges by Employment Category and Number of Sites 31 T-14, C-9 Distribution of Random Testing Positive Rate Ranges by Employment Category and Number of Sites 32 T-15, C-10 Distribution of For Cause Testing Positive Rate Ranges by Employment Category and Number of Sites 33 T-12 FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Revision: original Page 20 Table (T) Chart (C) Index of Tables and Charts Page Electronically-Reported FFD Performance Data (Tables and charts do not include data from hardcopy reports) (Electronic Information Exchange T-16 Test Results for Each Test Category C-11 C-12 Licensee Employees, Positive Results by Substance and Reason for Test (EIE l ) Contractors/Vendors, Substances Detected (including Testing Refusals) by Reason for Test (EIE results) C-13 Contractors/Vendors, Pre-Access Positive Results by Substance C-14 Contractors/Vendors, Positive Results by Substance and Reason for Test (EIE results) T-17, C-15 Licensee Employees, Percentage of Positive Tests by Substance and Reason for Test T-18, C-16 Contractors/Vendors, Percentage of Positive Results by Substance and Reason for Test (EIE results) 35 36 37 38 38 39, 40 41 42 C-17 Positive Results by Substance and Employment Category C-18 Positive Results by Labor Category C-19 Positive Results by Substance* by Labor Category for Top Four Labor Categories 44 C-20 Positive Results by Substance* by Labor Category for Remaining Six Labor Categories (EIE results) 44 C-21 Individual Pie Charts Displaying Test Results for Top Four Labor Categories 45 C-22 Individual Pie Charts Displaying Test Results for Remaining Six Labor Categories 46 C-23 Summary of Testing Refusals by Reason for Test and Refusal Category C-24 Summary of Testing Refusals by Labor Category* and Refusal Category (EIE results) 43 Res lts) (EIE 48 (EIE 48 C-25 Testing Refusals by Reason for Test and Employment Category (EIE results) 49 C-26 Testing Refusals by Labor Category* and Employment Category (EIE results) 49 Appendix A (Tables contain historical information) T-A-1 Significant Fitness-for-Duty Events 56 T-A-2 Trends in Testing by Test Type 57 T-A-3 Trends in Positive Test Rates by Employment Category 58 T-A-4 Trends in Positive Pre-Access Testing Rates by Employment Category 59 T-A-5 Trends in Positive Random Test Rates by Employment Category 60 T-A-6 Trends in Positive For Cause Testing Rates by Employment Category 61 FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Revision: original Page 21 Table 6 Test Results by Test Category Test Category* Number Tested Pre-Access Number Tested Positive Percent Positive 103,848 741 0.71% 65,778 202 0.31% For Cause 856 73 8.53% Post-Event 802 7 0.87% 7,302 57 0.78% 178,586 1080 0.60% Random Followup Total * "Test Category" corresponds to the conditions requiring testing listed in 10 CFR 26.31(c). Table 7 Test Results by Test and Employment Categories Test Category Licensee Employees Number Number Percent Tested Positive Positive Number Tested C/Vs Number Positive Percent Positive Pre-Access 10,729 28 0.26% 93,119 713 0.77% Random 39,817 63 0.16% 25,961 139 0.54% For Cause 350 22 6.29% 506 51 10.08% Post-Event 333 3 0.90% 469 4 0.85% 4,328 46 1.06% 124,383 953 0.77% Followup 2,974 Total 11 54,203 127 FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Revision: original 0.37% 0.23% Page 22 Table 8 Positive Test Results by Substance and Employment Category (All Test Types, including Testing Refusals) Positive Test Result Marijuana Alcohol Cocaine Refusal to Test* Amphetamines Opiates Phencyclidine ? Other Total + Licensee Employees Number 31 70 12 6 8 2 0 1 130 Percent 23.85% 53.85% 9.23% 4.62% 6.15% 1.54% 0.00% 0.77% 100.00% C/Vs Number Total Percent 499 192 115 92 77 16 3 1 995 Number 50.15% 19.30% 11.56% 9.25% 7.74% 1.61% 0.30% 0.10% 100.00% Percent 530 262 127 98 85 18 3 2 1,125 47.11% 23.29% 11.29% 8.71% 7.56% 1.60% 0.27% 0.18% 100.00% * This category includes adulterated and substituted specimen validity test results and refusal-to-test actions (only those events where a specimen was not provided). Charts 23 through 26 present additional information on a subset of testing refusals (i.e., subversion attempts where the initial specimen was out of temperature range and the second specimen, collected under direct observation, tested positive). Table 8 does include positive test results in this table for each of these events. ? In CY 2011, six facilities tested for drugs in addition to the NRC-minimum testing panel. Two tests yielded positive results (one for benzodiazepines and one for methadone). + The totals in this table may be higher than those reported in Tables 6 and 7, where individuals tested positive for more than one substance. Chart 1 2011 Positive Test Results by Substance Licensee Employees Cocaine 9.23% Refusal to Test 4.62% Chart 2 2011 Positive Test Results by Substance Contractors/Vendors Alcohol 19.30% Cocaine 11.56% Refusal to Test 9.25% Alcohol 53.85% Amphetamines 6.15% Amphetamines 7.74% Opiates 1.54% Marijuana 23.85% Other 0.77% Marijuana 50.15% Opiates 1.61% Phencyclidine 0.30% Other 0.10% FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Revision: original Page 23 Table 9 Significant Fitness-for-Duty Events* Year Reactor Operators Licensee Supervisors C/V Supervisors FFD Program Personnel Substances Found Total 2002 3 3 12 3 1 22 2003 6 3 8 0 2 19 2004 9 7 4 0 9 29 2005 5 13 14 1 9 42 2006 3 6 6 0 2 17 2007 3 7 1 1 0 12 2008 2 8 6 1 0 17 2009 1 5 4 1 2 13 2010 4 7 3 2 3 19 2 10 14 2 3 31 2011 ? * Table 9 presents 24-hour reportable events per section (?) 26.719(b). Refer to Table A-1 in the report appendix for data from 1990 through 2001. ? An additional six 24-hour reports were made in CY 2011, but insufficient information was provided by the licensee or other entity to categorize the event in Table 4. Although those six occurrences are not presented in Table 4, descriptions of all 37 reportable events are presented in Table 5 of this report. FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Revision: original Page 24 Table 10 Trends in Testing by Test Type * Type of Test Pre-Access 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Number Tested Number Positive Percent Positive Random Number Tested Number Positive Percent Positive For Cause Number Tested Number Positive Percent Positive Post-Event 68,333 965 1.41% 63,744 720 1.13% 73,155 805 1.10% 72,988 757 1.04% 76,119 737 0.97% 79,005 648 0.82% 79,980 747 0.93% 81,932 668 0.82% 87,468 664 0.76% 95,878 677 0.71% 96,543 677 0.70% 103,848 741 0.71% 51,955 204 0.39% 50,080 148 0.30% 49,741 114 0.23% 49,402 132 0.27% 51,239 127 0.25% 50,286 147 0.29% 52,557 132 0.25% 51,665 117 0.23% 54,759 127 0.23% 60,877 154 0.25% 62,008 191 0.31% 65,778 202 0.31% 609 132 21.67% 506 99 19.57% 617 110 17.83% 637 123 19.31% 701 134 19.12% 671 105 15.65% 716 104 14.53% 720 81 11.25% 797 94 11.79% 547 108 19.74% 549 47 8.56% 856 73 8.53% 274 6 2.19% 224 2 0.89% 455 2 0.44% 415 3 0.72% 458 5 1.09% 490 1 0.20% 905 5 0.55% 895 10 1.12% 986 7 0.71% 893 1 0.11% 884 6 0.68% 802 7 0.87% 2,861 49 1.71% 2,649 35 1.32% 2,892 21 0.73% 3,142 42 1.34% 3,752 31 0.83% 4,057 31 0.76% 4,766 37 0.78% 4,991 31 0.62% 5,756 44 0.76% 6,252 53 0.85% 6,657 60 0.90% 7,302 57 0.78% 124,032 1,356 1.09% 117,203 1,004 0.86% 126,860 1,052 0.83% 126,584 1,057 0.84% 132,269 1,034 0.78% 134,509 932 0.69% 138,924 1,025 0.74% 140,203 907 0.65% 149,766 936 0.62% 164,447 993 0.60% 166,641 981 0.59% 178,586 1080 0.60% Number Tested Number Positive Percent Positive Followup Number Tested Number Positive Percent Positive TOTAL Number Tested Number Positive Percent Positive * 2010 2011 On March 31, 2009, the NRC required all licensees and affected entities to implement the March 31, 2008, final rule. Refer to Table A-2 in the report appendix for data from 1990 through 1999. FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Revision: original Page 25 Chart 3 Trends in Positive Random Testing Rates* 0.45% 600 0.40% 500 Positive Rate 0.30% 400 0.25% 300 0.20% 0.15% 200 0.10% Positive Random Tests 0.35% 100 0.05% 0.00% 0 Positive Rate * Number of Positive Tests Beginning in 1994, the NRC reduced the minimum annual random testing rate from 100 percent to 50 percent of the subject population. FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Revision: original Page 26 Table 11 Trends in Substances* Identified Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 * Marijuana 1,153 746 953 781 739 819 868 842 606 672 620 523 560 518 514 432 446 386 506 500 534 530 Cocaine 706 549 470 369 344 374 352 336 269 273 251 225 228 228 247 246 307 232 184 157 125 127 Alcohol Amphetamines 452 401 427 357 251 265 281 262 212 230 211 212 214 199 222 196 206 189 177 261 222 262 69 31 31 51 54 61 53 49 46 40 50 50 47 64 60 59 53 29 35 38 54 85 Opiates 45 24 8 13 11 17 14 39 19 16 32 17 21 17 14 16 14 22 16 10 15 18 Phencyclidine 8 11 4 5 1 7 2 0 1 2 1 2 3 0 1 2 1 5 1 1 1 3 Total 2,433 1,762 1,893 1,576 1,400 1,543 1,570 1,528 1,153 1,233 1,165 1,029 1,073 1,026 1,058 951 1,027 863 919 967 951 1,025 Table 11 only includes positive test results for the substances that licensees and other entities are required to test for per 10 CFR 26.31(d). FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Revision: original Page 27 Chart 4 Trends in Positive Test Rates (All Test Types)* by Employment Category 1.60% Percent Positive 1.40% 1.20% 1.00% 0.80% 0.60% 0.40% 0.20% 0.00% Licensee Employees * Contractor /Vendors Chart 4 includes all test categories except the "Other" category. Refer to Table A-3 in the report appendix for the data used to create this chart. Chart 5 Trends in Positive Pre-Access Testing Rates by Employment Category* 1.60% 1.40% Percent Positive 1.20% 1.00% 0.80% 0.60% 0.40% 0.20% 0.00% Licensee Employees * Contractor /Vendors Refer to Table A-4 in the report appendix for the data used to create this chart. FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Revision: original Page 28 Chart 6 Trends in Positive Random Test Rates by Employment Category* 0.70% 0.60% Percent Positive 0.50% 0.40% 0.30% 0.20% 0.10% 0.00% Licensee Employees * Contractor /Vendors Refer to Table A-5 in the report appendix for the data used to create this chart. Chart 7 Trends in Positive For-Cause Testing Rates by Employment Category* 40% 35% Percent Positive 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Licensee Employees * Contractor /Vendors Refer to Table A-6 in the report appendix for the data used to create this chart. The peak in 2009 was probably due to the initial use electronic reporting. FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Revision: original Page 29 FFD Performance Testing Results by Positive Rate Ranges and Number of Sites This section presents distributional information by site for pre-access, random, and for-cause testing to provide licensees and other entities with additional information to evaluate their FFD program performance against the industry rate. Table 12 Industry Positive Test Results for Pre-Access, Random, and For Cause Testing by Employment Category Employment Category Licensee Employees Contractors/Vendors Employment Category Licensee Employees Contractors/Vendors Employment Category Licensee Employees Contractors/Vendors Pre-Access Testing Industry % Positive 0.26 0.77 Range of % Positive (by Site) 0-1.76 0-2.52 Random Testing Industry % Positive 0.16 0.54 Range of % Positive (by Site) 0-0.77 0-2.11 For Cause Testing Industry % Positive 6.29 10.08 Range of % Positive (by Site) 0-100 0-100 FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Revision: original Page 30 Table 13 Distribution of Pre-Access Testing Positive Rate Ranges by Employment Category and Number of Sites Positive Rate Range (%) 0 >0-0.5 >0.5-1 >1-1.5 >1.5-2 >2-2.5 >2.5-3 Total Sites* * Licensee Employees 57 5 10 2 2 0 0 76 Contractors/Vendors 8 17 33 8 6 2 1 75 Total site counts may differ if a site did not test any individuals in an employment category. Chart 8 Comparison of Pre-Access Testing Positive Rate Ranges by Employment Category and Number of Sites 60 50 Number of Sites Licensee Employees Contractors 40 30 20 10 0 Percent (%) Positive Rate FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Revision: original Page 31 Table 14 Distribution of Random Testing Positive Rate Ranges by Employment Category and Number of Sites Positive Rate Range (%) 0 >0-0.25 >0.25-0.5 >0.5-0.75 >0.75-1.0 >1.0-1.25 >1.25-1.5 >1.5-1.75 >1.75-2.0 >2.0-2.25 Total Sites* * Licensee Employees 35 21 17 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 76 Contractors/Vendors 25 5 19 5 9 4 4 3 1 1 76 Total site counts may differ if a site did not test any individuals in an employment category. Chart 9 Comparison of Random Testing Positive Rate Ranges by Employment Category and Number of Sites 40 Number of Sites 35 30 Licensee Employees Contractors 25 20 15 10 5 0 Percent (%) Positive Rate FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Revision: original Page 32 Table 15 Distribution of For Cause Testing Positive Rate Ranges by Employment Category and Number of Sites Positive Rate Range (%) 0 >0-10 >10-20 >20-30 >30-40 >40-50 >50-60 >60-70 >70-80 >80-90 >90-100 Total Sites* * Licensee Employees 39 1 1 4 5 5 0 0 0 0 1 56 Contractors/Vendors 30 7 6 6 1 6 0 0 0 0 4 60 Total site counts may differ if a site did not test any individuals in an employment category. FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Revision: original Page 33 Chart 10 Comparison of Site For-Cause Testing Positive Rate Ranges by Employment Category and Number of Sites 45 40 35 Licensee Employees Contractors Number of Sites 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Percent (%) Positive Rate FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Revision: original Page 34 Section 7 Evaluation of E-Reported Data This section provides a more detailed analysis of FFD program performance data provided by licensees and other entities that chose to use the voluntary e-reporting system. As full industry use of the e-reporting system is implemented, trends analyses across years will be possible and new exhibits will be included to further enhance the communication of FFD program performance. The FFD e-reporting system for D&A consists of two reporting forms: an ARF and an SPTF. Both forms must be used to satisfy the 10 CFR 26.717 reporting requirement. o Annual Reporting Form--An e-form used to report information on an annual basis. The information reported is analogous to that which industry has historically provided in hardcopy paper reports; however, the ARF significantly improves the clarity, consistency, and accuracy of information reported. o Single Positive Test Form--An e-form used to report information on a positive test result or subversion attempt (e.g., refusal to test, adulterated or substituted specimen test results). One SPTF is submitted for each positive result or subversion attempt. Information provided in the SPTFs allows the NRC to conduct a more sophisticated analysis of FFD policy violations and enables the industry to target corrective actions at specific areas of concern (e.g., pre-access testing or testing of certain substances). Table 16 Test Results for Each Test Category (Electronic Information Exchange (EIE) results) Test Category Number of Tests Positive Tests Percent Positive Pre-Access 82,858 632 0.76% Random 50,889 162 0.32% For Cause 770 66 8.57% Post-Event 662 7 1.06% 6,055 51 0.84% 141,234 918 0.65% Followup TOTAL Observations on Table 16 o Licensees and other entities using the e-reporting system reported information on 141,234 D&A tests. The e-reported data covers a significant percentage (approximately 79 percent) of the 178,586 total D&A tests conducted by industry in CY 2011. (Table 6) o The analysis includes 918 positive results, including testing refusals. The data cover 85 percent of the 1,080 total positives and testing refusal results in CY 2011. (Table 6) o Reporting summary: o In CY 2009, 25 percent of industry e-reported (13 licensees and other entities with 19 facilities). o In CY 2010, 69 percent of industry e-reported (20 licensees and other entities with 51 facilities). o In CY 2011, 80 percent of industry e-reported (25 licensees and other entities with 61 facilities). FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Revision: original Page 35 Chart 11 Licensee Employees, Positive Results by Substance and Reason for Test (EIE results) Followup Post-Event For Cause Random Pre-Access 0 Alcohol 10 Marijuana 20 Cocaine Refusal 30 Amphetamines 40 50 Opiates 60 Benzodiazepines Observations on Chart 11 o The number of positive results (110), including testing refusals, for licensee employees was lower than for C/Vs (852). (Chart 12) o Six substances were detected (alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines, opiates, and benzodiazepines). o alcohol (60--detected in all testing categories and the predominant substance in random, for-cause, and followup testing o marijuana (26)--detected in pre-access, random, and post-event testing o cocaine (10--detected in pre-access, random, for-cause, and followup testing o amphetamines (7)--detected in pre-access, random, and for-cause testing o opiates (1)--only detected in followup testing o benzodiazepines (1) --only detected in followup testing o Testing refusals were reported for pre-access, random, and for-cause testing. o Of the five test categories, post-event testing resulted in the fewest positive test results. o For licensee employees, random tests accounted for the largest number of positive test results (46 percent); for comparison, pre-access tests for C/Vs accounted for the majority of positive test results. (Chart 12) FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Revision: original Page 36 Chart 12 Contractors/Vendors, Substances Detected (including Testing Refusals) by Reason for Test (EIE results) Followup Post-Event For Cause Random Pre-Access 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Observations on Chart 12 o Testing of C/Vs yielded 852 positive test results, including testing refusals. This is significantly higher than the number of positive test results for licensee employees (110). (Chart 11) o Approximately 75 percent of positive test results occurred during pre-access testing (635). o A smaller number of positive results were reported for random (118), for-cause (47), post-event (5), and followup (47) testing. [See next page for substance breakout by reason for test] FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Revision: original Page 37 The breakout of substances for C/Vs by the reason for the test is divided into two separate charts (Charts 13 and 14), because the vast majority of positive test results are associated with pre-access testing (as seen in Chart 12). To improve the clarity of this illustration, pre-access testing results are reported separately. Chart 13 Contractors/Vendors, Pre-Access Positive Results by Substance (EIE results) PCP Amphetamines Marijuana Alcohol Cocaine Refusal Opiates 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Observations on Chart 13 o Eighty-two percent of the pre-access testing positives were associated with three substances: marijuana (359), alcohol (92), and cocaine (69). o A smaller number of positive tests were reported for amphetamines (43), opiates (9), testing refusals (60), and PCP (3). Chart 14 Contractors/Vendors, Positive Results by Substance and Reason for Test (EIE results)* Followup Post-Event For Cause Random 0 20 Marijuana * 40 Alcohol Cocaine 60 Refusal 80 Amphetamines 100 120 Opiates Chart 14 includes all test categories, except for "Pre-Access" testing. (Chart 13) Observations on Chart 14 o Tests detected five substances (marijuana, alcohol, cocaine, amphetamines, and opiates). o marijuana (62) and alcohol (71)--predominant substances in each testing category, except for post-event testing o cocaine (33)--detected in random, for-cause, and followup testing (also detected in pre-access testing, Chart 13) o amphetamines (25)--detected in random, for-cause, post-event, and followup testing (also detected in pre-access testing, Chart 13) o As with licensee employees, alcohol was the most detected substance in for-cause and followup testing for C/Vs. o Testing refusals were reported for random, for-cause, and followup testing (also pre-acces testing, Chart 13). FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Revision: original Page 38 Tablesa 17 and 18 and associated Charts 15 and 16 highlight the percentage of positive results associated with each substance by reason for test and employment category. The charts provide an easy way to identify the relative percentage of positive results by substance for each category. Table 17 Licensee Employees, Percentage of Positive Tests by Substance and Reason for Test (EIE results) Substance Reason for Test Pre-Access Random For Cause Post-Event Followup 16% Alcohol 61% 81% 33% 70% Marijuana 52% 22% 0% 67% 0% Cocaine 12% 10% 5% 0% 10% Refusal to Test 8% 4% 5% 0% 0% Amphetamines 12% 4% 10% 0% 0% Opiates Benzodiazepines Total* * 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 0% 100% (Total = 25) 0% 100% (Total = 51) 0% 100% (Total = 21) 0% 100% (Total = 3) 10% 100% (Total = 10) "Total" represents the number of occurrences. FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Revision: original Page 39 Chart 15 Benzodiazepines 100% Amphetamines 90% Refusal Cocaine Opiates 80% 70% Marijuana Test Results 60% 50% Alcohol 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Pre-Access Random For Cause Post-Event Followup Reason for Test * Chart 15 includes all test categories except the "Other" category. No tests were reported for the "Other" category in CY 2011. Observations on Chart 15 o Marijuana and alcohol accounted for at least 68 percent (and up to 100 percent) of positive test results, regardless of the reason for test. o Marijuana comprised 67 percent of the post-event positive tests. o Alcohol constituted 81 percent of the for-cause positive tests. o There were reports of testing refusals for pre-access, random, and for-cause tests. FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Revision: original Page 40 Table 18 Contractors/Vendors, Percentage of Positive Results by Substance and Reason for Test* (EIE results) Substance Reason for Test Pre-Access Random For Cause Post-event Followup Marijuana Alcohol Cocaine Amphetamines 57% 14% 11% 7% 33% 24% 19% 14% 26% 55% 6% 2% 20% 0% 0% 20% 21% 36% 17% 13% Opiates 1% 0% 0% 60% 2% Refusal to Test 9% 10% 11% 0% 11% PCP 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% (Total = 635) (Total = 118) (Total = 47) (Total = 5) (Total = 47) * Table 18 includes all test categories except the "Other" category. No tests were reported for the "Other" category in CY 2011. Total Chart 16 100% 90% Cocaine 80% Test Results 70% Alcohol 60% 50% Amphetamines 40% 30% Marijuana Opiates 20% 10% Refusal 0% Pre-Access Random For Cause Post-Event Followup Reason for Test Observations on Chart 16 o Marijuana accounted for 57 percent of the pre-access positive tests. o Opiates accounted for 60 percent of the post-event positive tests (note: two of three tests were positive for heroin (identified by the heroin metabolite 6-AM). o Testing refusals were reported for pre-access, random, for-cause, and followup testing FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Revision: original Page 41 Chart 17 Positive Results by Substance and Employment Category (EIE results) Benzodiazepines PCP Opiates Amphetamines Refusal to Test Cocaine Alcohol Marijuana 0 100 Contractor/Vendor 200 300 400 500 Licensee Employee Observations on Chart 17 o C/Vs accounted for the large majority of substances detected and testing refusals, including: o 94 percent of marijuana positives, o 91 percent of cocaine positives, and o 73 percent of alcohol positives. o Alcohol was the most detected substance in licensee employees. FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Revision: original Page 42 Chart 18 Positive Results by Labor Category (EIE results) Engineering 22 Supervisor 11 Other 172 Security 37 HP/RP 24 Licensed Operator 2 Non-Licensed Operator 5 FFD Prgm Personnel 1 Maintenance (Craft) 682 QA/QC 6 Observations on Chart 18 o Positive results associated with the "Maintenance (Craft)" (682) and "Other" (172) labor categories comprised 89 percent of all reported violations (854 of 962 positive results). The top four labor categories (Maintenance (Craft), Other, Security, and HP/RP) accounted for 95 percent (915 of 962) of the total positive results. o Refer to Chart 21 for additional detail on the specific substances identified for each labor category. FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Revision: original Page 43 Chart 19 Positive Results by Substance* by Labor Category for Top Four Labor Categories (EIE results) PCP Opiates Amphetamines Refusal to Test Cocaine Alcohol Marijuana 0 50 100 150 Maintenance (Craft) * 200 250 Other 300 Security 350 400 450 HP/RP Chart 19 includes only substances for which positive tests were reported. Chart 20 Positive Results by Substance* by Labor Category for Remaining Six Labor Categories (EIE results) Benzodiazepines Amphetamines Refusal to Test Cocaine Marijuana Alcohol 0 Engineering * 5 Supervisor 10 Licensed Operator 15 Non-Licensed Operator 20 25 FFD Program Personnel 30 QA/QC Chart 20 includes only substances for which positive tests were reported. Observations on Charts 19 and 20 o The "Maintenance (Craft)" labor category contributed the largest number of positive test results for each substance identified. This category accounted for 71 percent (682 of 962) of all positive test results in CY 2011 (Chart 19). o For the top four labor categories (maintenance (craft), other, security, and HP/RP), marijuana was the most commonly identified substance, accounting for 48 percent (435 of 915) of all positive test results. (Chart 19) o For the remaining six labor categories (engineering, supervisor, licensed operator, nonlicensed operator, FFD program personnel, and quality assusrance/quality control (QA/QC)), alcohol positives made up 62 percent (29 of 37) of the total positive test results. FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Revision: original Page 44 Chart 21 Individual Pie Charts Displaying Test Results for Top Four Labor Categories (EIE results) Results - Maintenance (Craft) Alcohol 135 Cocaine 86 Results - Other Employees Refusal to Test 70 Alcohol 40 Cocaine 16 Refusal to Test 11 Amphetamines 14 Amphetamines 54 Opiates 11 PCP 2 Marijuana 324 Results - HP/RP Employees Results - Security Employees Alcohol 12 Marijuana 13 Cocaine 4 Opiates 1 PCP 1 Marijuana 89 Refusal to Test 4 Amphetamines 2 Opiates 2 Alcohol 7 Cocaine 4 Amphetamines 4 Marijuana 9 Observation on Chart 21 o Two labor categories (maintenance (craft) and other) accounted for 89 percent of positive test results. The substance use patterns are similar for both labor categories (i.e., the proportions of substances detected were fairly consistent). FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Revision: original Page 45 Chart 22 Individual Pie Charts Displaying Test Results for Remaining Six Labor Categories (EIE results) Results - Engineering Employees Alcohol 12 Marijuana 9 Results - Supervisor Employees Refusal to Test 1 Alcohol 8 Amphetamines 1 Refusal to Test 1 Results - Non-Licensed Operators Alcohol 5 Marijuana 1 Results - QA/QC Employees Alcohol 3 Cocaine 1 Marijuana 2 Results - FFD Program Personnel Alcohol 1 Results - Licensed Operators Other (Benzodiazepines) 1 Cocaine 1 Observations on Chart 22 Alcohol positives constituted 62 percent (29 of 37) of the positive tests for the the remaining six labor categories. Except for the "Licensed Operators" category, alcohol was detected during testing of each category, ranging from 50 to 100 percent of positives reported. FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Revision: original Page 46 Section 8 Testing Refusals This report presents information on testing refusals in two categories and reflects the information in Charts 23 through 26. The two categories are as follows: Category 1--Refusal to test, subversion attempt confirmed by specimen test result. These determinations include the circumstances listed below: o adulterated or substituted specimens validity test results (i.e., laboratory test results in 10 CFR 26.161, "Cutoff Levels for Validity Testing") o an out-of-temperature-range specimen on the initial collection followed by an immediate second collection under direction observation, where the initial specimen tests negative and the second specimen tests positive (the majority of testing refusals where a specimen was provided) Category 2--Refusal to test, no specimen provided. These determinations include the circumstances listed below: o refusal to cooperate with the testing process (e.g., donor refuses to provide a specimen) o identification during the collection process of materials to subvert the testing process (e.g., heating pack and clean urine in a bag, adulterant to add to a specimen) o donor admits to attempting to adulterate, substitute, or otherwise alter the specimen Charts 23 and 24 provide information on CY 2011 testing refusals by reason for test and by labor category, respectively. FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Revision: original Page 47 Chart 23 Summary of Testing Refusals by Reason for Test and Refusal Category (EIE Results) Post-Event Followup For Cause Random Pre-Access 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Subversion Attempt Confirmed - Specimen Testing 70 80 90 100 No Specimen Provided Observations on Chart 23 o The total number of refusals based on no specimen being provided (84) was greater than the total number of testing refusals confirmed through specimen testing (47). o The large majority (73 percent) of testing refusals occurred during pre-access testing. Chart 24 Summary of Testing Refusals by Labor Category* and Refusal Category (EIE results) Supervisor Engineering Security Other Maintenance (Craft) 0 20 40 60 Subversion Attempt Confirmed - Specimen Testing * 80 100 120 No Specimen Provided Chart 24 includes only those labor categories for which testing refusals were reported. Observations on Chart 24 o The total number of refusals to provide a specimen (84) was greater than the total number of testing refusals confirmed through specimen testing (47). o Most testing refusals are associated with the "Maintenance (Craft)" labor category (81 percent), followed by the "Other" labor category (13 percent). FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Revision: original Page 48 Charts 25 and 26 illustrate the relative contribution of licensee employees and C/Vs to the refusal-to-test counts for each reason-for-test and labor category. Chart 25 Testing Refusals by Reason for Test and Employment Category (EIE results) Followup Post-Event For Cause Random Pre-Access 0 10 20 30 40 50 Contractor/Vendor 60 70 80 90 100 Licensee Employee Observations on Chart 25 o C/Vs were responsible for 95 percent of all testing refusals, including 98 percent of the testing refusals during pre-access testing and 100 percent of the testing refusals during followup testing. o Licensee employees constituted 100 percent of testing refusals during post-event testing. o The large majority (73 percent) of testing refusals occurred during pre-access testing. Chart 26 Testing Refusals by Labor Category* and Employment Category (EIE results) Supervisor Engineering Security Other Maintenance (Craft) 0 5 10 15 20 Contractor Vendors * 25 30 35 40 Licensee Employees Chart 26 includes only the labor categories for which testing refusals were reported. Observations on Chart 26 o C/Vs were responsible for 95 percent of all testing refusals, including 98 percent of the testing refusals in the "Maintenance (Craft)" labor category. o Licensee employees accounted for 100 percent of refusals in the "Engineering" labor category. o Most testing refusals were associated with the "Maintenance (Craft)" labor category (81 percent), followed by the "Other" labor category (13 percent). FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Revision: original Page 49 Table of Changes This table highlights changes made to the tables in this report compared to the NRC staff's CY 2010 report. Report CY 2010 results Table/ Chart No. Table a Table b Table/ Chart Title Abuse Substances of Choice Index of Detailed Data Analysis and Descriptions CY 2011 results Changes Made Table/ Chart No. Table 1 Table 3 Table/ Chart Title Abuse Substances of Choice Index of Detailed Data Analysis and Descriptions Table d Reportable Events due to Positive Test Results Table 5 Reportable Events due to Individual Employee Violations Table 1 Test Results for Each Test Category Table 6 Test Results for Test Category Table 2 Test Results by Test and Employment Category Table 7 Test Results by Test and Employment Categories FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Revision: original o Updated the table to include a total row and an additional column to present the percentage change in positive rate by substance from 1990 to 2011. o Renumbered the table o Updated the title to reflect the comprehensiveness of the table, which includes reportable events due to possession of substances and program subversions, in addition to positive test results. o Updated the title to be consistent with other table titles. o Revised the column titles to improve consistency among the columns. o Revised the row title spellings of ForCause, Post-event, and Follow-up to "For Cause," "Post-Event," and "Followup" to be consistent with the spellings in ?26.31(c)(2). o Removed the rows for "Other" and "TOTAL, without Other" Category, because tests are no longer reported for the "Other" category. o Reformatted the presentation of information. o Updated the title to improve grammar. o Deleted total row as the information was duplicative with Table 1. o Revised the row title spellings of ForCause, Post-event, and Follow-up to "For Cause," "Post-Event," and "Followup" to be consistent with the spellings in ?26.31(c)(2). o Removed the rows for "Other" and "TOTAL (minus Other)," because tests are no longer reported for the "Other" category. Page 50 Report CY 2010 results Table/ Chart No. CY 2011 results Changes Made Table/ Chart Title Table 8 Positive Test Results by Substance and Employment Category (All Test Types, including Testing Refusals) Significant Fitness-forDuty Events (1990-2001) Table 9 Table 4 Positive Test Results by Substance and by Employment Category (All Test Types, including Testing Refusals) Table/ Chart No. Table A-1 Table 3 Table/ Chart Title Significant Fitness-forDuty Events (2002-2011) Significant Fitness-forDuty Events (1990-2010) Table 5a Trends in Testing by Test Type (1990-1999) Table A-2 Trends in Testing by Test Type (1990-1999) Table 5b Trends in Testing by Test Type (2000-2010) Table 10 Trends in Testing by Test Type (2000-2011) Table 7 Trends in Positive Test Rates (All Test Types) by Employment Category (1993-2010) Table 8 Trends in Positive Pre-Access Testing Rates by Employment Category (1993-2010) Table A-3 Table A-4 Trends in Positive Test Rates (All Test Types) by Employment Category (1993-2011) Trends in Positive Pre-Access Testing Rates by Employment Category (1993-2011) FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Revision: original o Added a row for "Other" drugs because positive tests were reported for drugs in addition to the NRC-required testing panel. o Removed the word "by" to improve consistency with other chart titles. o Deleted the column "Adulterated specimen." The information reflected in the column was not a reportable event per 10 CFR 26.719, the information on testing refusals is more accurately reflected in Table 7, and e-reporting data provides more precise information on refusal types. Because of the variability in the data collected and reported in this field, it was removed from the report, as trending was not possible. o Moved historical data (1990 to 2001) to Appendix A as Table A-1. o Revised the row title spellings of ForCause, Post-event, and Follow-up to "For Cause," "Post-Event," and "Followup" to be consistent with the spellings in ?26.31(c)(2). o Moved this historical data to Appendix A as Table A-2. o Revised the row title spellings of ForCause, Post-event, and Follow-up to "For Cause," "Post-Event," and "Followup" to be consistent with the spellings in ?26.31(c)(2). o Moved tabular results to the Appendix (Table A-3) and retained the graphical display of the information in the body of the report. The reader can refer to the Appendix if the underlying data is needed for additional evaluation. o Moved tabular results to the Appendix (Table A--) and retained the graphical display of the information in the body of the report. The reader can refer to the Appendix if the underlying data is needed for additional evaluation. Page 51 Report CY 2010 results Table/ Chart No. Table/ Chart Title CY 2011 results Changes Made Table/ Chart No. Table/ Chart Title o Moved tabular results to the Appendix (Table A-5) and retained the graphical display of the information in the body of the report. The reader can refer to the Appendix if the underlying data is needed for additional evaluation. o Moved tabular results to the Appendix (Table A-6) and retained the graphical display of the information in the body of the report. The reader can refer to the Appendix if the underlying data is needed for additional evaluation. o Revised the spelling of For-Cause to "For Cause" in the title to be consistent with the spelling in ?26.31(c)(2). Table 9 Trends in Positive Random Test Rates by Employment Category (1993-2010 Table A-5 Trends in Positive Random Test Rates by Employment Category (1993-2011) Table 10 Trends in Positive ForCause Testing Rates by Employment Category (1993-2010) Table A-6 Trends in Positive For Cause Testing Rates by Employment Category (1993-2011) Table 11 Industry Positive Test Results for Pre-Access, Random, and For-Cause Testing by Employment Category Table 12 Industry Positive Test Results for Pre-Access, Random, and For Cause Testing by Employment Category o Renumbered table o Revised the spelling of For-Cause to "For Cause" in the title and row heading to be consistent with the spelling in ?26.31(c)(2). Table 12 Distribution of Pre-Access Testing Positive Rate Ranges by Employment Category and Number of Sites Table 13 Distribution of Pre-Access Testing Positive Rate Ranges by Employment Category and Number of Sites o Renumbered table Table 13 Distribution of Random Testing Positive Rate Ranges by Employment Category and Number of Sites Table 14 Distribution of Random Testing Positive Rate Ranges by Employment Category and Number of Sites o Renumbered table Table 14 Distribution of ForCause Testing Positive Rate Ranges by Employment Category and Number of Sites Table 15 Distribution of For Cause Testing Positive Rate Ranges by Employment Category and Number of Sites o Renumbered table o Revised the spelling of For-Cause to "For Cause" in the title to be consistent with the spelling in ?26.31(c)(2). Test Results for Each Test Category (Electronic Information Exchange (EIE) results) o Renumbered table o Revised the row title spellings of For-Cause, Post-event, and Follow-up to "For Cause," "Post-Event," and "Followup" to be consistent with the spellings in ?26.31(c)(2). o Removed the row for "Other," because tests are no longer reported for the "Other" category. Table 15 Test Results for Each Test Category (Electronic Information Exchange (EIE) results) Table 16 FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Revision: original Page 52 Report CY 2010 results Table/ Chart No. Table/ Chart Title Table 16 Licensee Employees, Percentage of Positive Tests by Substance and Reason for Test* (EIE results) Table 17 Contractors/Vendors, Percentage of Positive Results by Substance and Reason for Test (EIE results) Chart 7 Trends in Positive ForCause Testing Rates by Employment Category (1993-2010) Chart 10 Comparison of Site ForCause Testing Positive Rate Ranges by Employment Category and Number of Sites Chart 17 Positive Results by Substance and Work Category (EIE results) Chart 22 Individual Pie Charts Displaying Test Results for Remaining Six Labor Categories (EIE results) Chart 23 Summary of Testing Refusals by Reason-forTest and Subversion Category (EIE Results) Chart 24 Summary of Testing Refusals by Labor Category and Subversion Category (EIE results) CY 2011 results Changes Made Table/ Chart No. Table/ Chart Title Table 17 Licensee Employees, Percentage of Positive Tests by Substance and Reason for Test* (EIE results) o Renumbered the table Table 18 Contractors/Vendors, Percentage of Positive Results by Substance and Reason for Test (EIE results) o Renumbered the table Chart 7 Trends in Positive For Cause Testing Rates by Employment Category (1993-2011) o Revised the spelling of For-Cause to "For Cause" in the title to be consistent with the spelling in ?26.31(c)(2). Chart 10 Comparison of For Cause Testing Positive Rate Ranges by Employment Category and Number of Sites o Removed the word "Site" to be consistent with other histogram charts. o Revised the spelling of For-Cause to "For Cause" in the title to be consistent with the spelling in ?26.31(c)(2). Chart 17 Positive Results by Substance and Employment Category (EIE results) o Revised Work Category to "Employment Category" in title to improve consistency in report terminology. Chart 22 Individual Pie Charts Displaying Test Results for Remaining Six Labor Categories (EIE results) Chart 23 Summary of Testing Refusals by Reason for Test and Refusal Category (EIE Results) o Revised title of pie chart, Results-- FFD Program Personnel Employees, to "Results--FFD Program Personnel" to eliminate redundancy and improve chart formatting. o Revised spelling of Reason-for-Test to "Reason for Test" in title of chart to be consistent with the spelling in ?26.31(c)(2). o Revised "Subversion" to "Refusal" in title to improve consistency with section discussion text. Chart 24 Summary of Testing Refusals by Labor Category* and Refusal Category (EIE results) FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Revision: original o Revised "Subversion" to "Refusal" in title to improve consistency with section discussion text. Page 53 Report CY 2010 results Table/ Chart No. CY 2011 results Changes Made Table/ Chart No. Table/ Chart Title Chart 25 Subversion Attempts by Reason-for-Test and Work Category (EIE results) Chart 26 Subversion Attempts by Labor Category and Work Category (EIE results) Table/ Chart Title Chart 25 Testing Refusals by Reason for Test and Employment Category (EIE results) Chart 26 Testing Refusals by Labor Category and Employment Category (EIE results) o Revised "Subversion Attempts" to "Testing Refusals" in title to improve consistency with the section discussion text. o Revised spelling of "Reason-for-Test" to "Reason for Test" in title to be consistent with the spelling in ?26.31(c)(2). o Revised "Work Category" to "Employment Category" in title to improve consistency in report terminology. o Revised "Subversion Attempts" to "Testing Refusals" in title to improve consistency with the section discussion text. o Revised "Work Category" to "Employment Category" in title to improve consistency in report terminology. The following table presents information on new tables and charts included in the 2011 report. The presentation of each table or chart is consistent with the order of appearance in the report. New Tables and Charts New Tables and Charts--2011 Table/ Chart Title Table 2 E-reporting System Use (CYs 2009--2011) Table 4 Laboratory Testing Errors and Unsatisfactory Performance FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Revision: original Description Table that presents time series data on the use of the e-reporting system Table that describes the 30-day events and other reports related to laboratory errors Page 54 Appendix A Historical Information FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Revision: original Page 55 Table A-1* Significant Fitness-for-Duty Events (1990-2001) Year Licensee Supervisors C/V Supervisors FFD Program Personnel Substances Found Total 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 * Reactor Operators 19 16 18 8 7 8 8 9 5 5 5 4 26 18 22 25 11 16 19 16 10 2 11 9 12 24 28 16 11 10 8 10 10 12 8 12 1 5 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 2 0 0 6 8 6 2 0 5 5 4 0 2 3 0 64 71 74 51 30 39 42 39 28 23 27 25 Table A-1 presents 24-hour reportable events per ?26.719. FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Revision: original Page 56 Table A-2 Trends in Testing by Test Type (1990-1999) Type of Test Pre-Access 1990 1991 1992 Number Tested Number Positive Percent Positive Random Number Tested Number Positive Percent Positive For Cause Number Tested Number Positive Percent Positive Post-Event 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% 69,146 822 1.19% 69,139 934 1.35% 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% 56,969 157 0.28% 54,457 140 0.26% 664 212 31.93% 572 167 29.20% 552 175 31.70% 599 163 27.21% 521 119 22.84% 576 138 23.96% 621 136 21.90% 531 144 27.12% 455 97 21.32% 506 120 23.72% Number Tested 68 155 144 152 237 187 227 191 Number Positive 2 0 3 0 3 1 2 5 Percent Positive 2.94% 0.00% 2.08% 0.00% 1.27% 0.53% 0.88% 2.62% 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 percent to 50 percent of the subject population. 265 3 1.13% 230 0 0.00% 2,863 43 1.50% 3,008 30 1.00% 129,698 1,122 0.87% 127,340 1,224 0.96% FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Revision: original 1993 1994* 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Page 57 Table A-3 Trends in Positive Test Rates (All Test Types)* by Employment Category (1993-2011) Licensee Employees Year Total Tests Number Positive Contractors/Vendors Percent Positive Total Tests Number Positive Percent Positive 1993 109,375 274 0.25% 133,591 1,238 0.93% 1994 65,850 219 0.33% 97,391 1,153 1.18% 1995 58,801 197 0.34% 91,320 1,279 1.40% 1996 56,387 244 0.43% 91,071 1,268 1.39% 1997 55,402 187 0.34% 93,765 1,261 1.34% 1998 51,926 169 0.33% 77,772 953 1.23% 1999 49,046 159 0.32% 78,294 1,065 1.36% 2000 46,385 206 0.44% 77,647 1,150 1.48% 2001 46,466 147 0.32% 70,737 857 1.21% 2002 45,905 117 0.25% 81,095 935 1.15% 2003 44,892 146 0.33% 81,692 911 1.12% 2004 44,900 123 0.27% 87,369 911 1.04% 2005 44,405 122 0.27% 90,104 810 0.90% 2006 47,219 118 0.25% 91,705 907 0.99% 2007 47,974 115 0.24% 92,229 792 0.86% 2008 51,852 113 0.22% 97,914 823 0.84% 2009 54,845 153 0.28% 109,602 840 0.77% 2010 53,287 119 0.22% 113,354 862 0.76% 54,203 127 0.23% 124,383 Table A-3 includes all test categories except the "Other" category. 953 0.77% 2011 * FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Revision: original Page 58 Table A-4 Trends in Positive Pre-Access Testing Rates by Employment Category (1993-2011) Year Total Tests Licensee Employees Number Percent Positive Positive Total Tests Contractors/Vendors Number Positive Percent Positive 1993 11,119 47 0.42% 80,352 905 1.13% 1994 10,254 49 0.48% 69,963 928 1.33% 1995 10,534 60 0.57% 68,771 1,062 1.54% 1996 9,901 94 0.95% 71,140 1,038 1.46% 1997 11,195 62 0.55% 73,125 1,034 1.41% 1998 9,422 50 0.53% 59,724 772 1.29% 1999 8,386 44 0.52% 60,753 890 1.46% 2000 7,613 51 0.67% 60,720 914 1.51% 2001 8,442 44 0.52% 55,302 676 1.22% 2002 8,050 28 0.35% 65,138 777 1.19% 2003 8,309 41 0.49% 64,679 716 1.11% 2004 7,661 35 0.46% 68,458 702 1.03% 2005 8,210 28 0.34% 70,795 620 0.88% 2006 9,336 24 0.26% 70,644 723 1.02% 2007 9,783 34 0.35% 72,149 634 0.88% 2008 11,498 21 0.18% 75,970 643 0.85% 2009 10,619 41 0.39% 85,259 636 0.75% 2010 10,312 21 0.20% 86,231 656 0.76% 2011 10,729 28 0.26% 93,119 713 0.77% FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Revision: original Page 59 Table A-5 Trends in Positive Random Test Rates by Employment Category (1993-2011) Year Total Tests 1993 95,103 Licensee Employees Number Percent Positive Positive 157 0.17% Total Tests Contractors/Vendors Number Positive 51,502 Percent Positive 184 0.36% 1994* 52,493 96 0.18% 25,898 127 0.49% 1995 45,815 82 0.18% 20,976 98 0.47% 1996 44,183 94 0.21% 18,124 108 0.60% 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 * 42,011 76 0.18% 18,818 96 40,415 71 0.18% 16,554 86 38,692 71 0.18% 15,765 69 36,784 116 0.32% 15,171 88 36,048 64 0.18% 14,032 84 35,608 55 0.15% 14,240 59 34,202 61 0.18% 15,200 71 34,723 51 0.15% 16,516 76 33,587 60 0.18% 16,699 87 34,818 55 0.16% 17,739 77 34,984 55 0.16% 16,681 62 36,721 50 0.14% 18,038 77 40,682 67 0.16% 20,195 87 39,588 69 0.17% 22,420 122 39,817 63 0.16% 25,961 139 Beginning in 1994, the NRC reduced the minimum annual random testing rate from 100 percent to 50 percent of the subject population. FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Revision: original 0.51% 0.52% 0.44% 0.58% 0.60% 0.41% 0.47% 0.46% 0.52% 0.43% 0.37% 0.43% 0.43% 0.54% 0.54% Page 60 Table A-6 Trends in Positive For Cause Testing Rates by Employment Category (1993-2011) Year Licensee Employees Number Positive Total Tests Percent Positive Total Tests Contractors/Vendors Number Percent Positive Positive 1993 230 35 15.22% 369 1994 199 39 19.60% 322 80 24.84% 1995 235 35 14.89% 341 103 30.21% 1996 244 34 13.93% 377 102 27.06% 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 208 185 203 205 219 243 232 266 309 322 292 329 232 214 350 34 26 29 21 20 23 22 23 19 24 15 22 28 11 22 16.35% 14.05% 14.29% 10.24% 9.13% 9.47% 9.48% 8.65% 6.15% 7.45% 5.14% 6.69% 12.07% 5.14% 6.29% 323 270 303 404 287 374 405 435 362 394 428 468 315 335 506 110 71 91 111 79 87 101 111 86 80 66 72 80 36 51 34.06% 26.30% 30.03% 27.48% 27.53% 23.26% 24.94% 25.52% 23.76% 20.30% 15.42% 15.38% 25.40% 10.75% 10.08% FFD Program Performance Report for CY 2011 Revision: original 128 34.69% Page 61