FFD question...Help!

[ndttech16]

I've been looking at doing outages very soon, but I'm worried about an FFD issue I had August 2016 at a new nuclear construction plant. I went in to work, feeling fine, got pulled for a random drug/alcohol test, and I actually blew a 0.03. They've since permanently revoked my access there.


I know this is probably a long shot, but what are my chances of getting on the outage circuit? I just told my recruiter about the incident and he said he'd look into it. I don't have any other history...no speeding tickets, no DUIs, nothing at all on my record. I know that's not necessarily going to save me. I know it's not the same, but in October 2016, I went on an outage at a chemical plant and got access and through a background check ok.


Just thought I'd ask people who are more experienced at this than I am. I'd appreciate any feedback.  Thanks

[tagline]

I am not a subject matter expert on this. I would recommend going to a Substance Abuse Counselor and getting something in writing that you do not have a Substance Abuse Issue. You may have to pay for it out of your own pocket but will be paid back in dividends if you can get Unescorted Access for Outages. It all depends on how serious you are about getting Access. There are places that charge by a Sliding Scale and they are there to help you if you want to help yourself. I am not saying you have to go there and admit you have a problem with alcohol, go there and explain to them the same thing you wrote on here. Can't hurt to at least try that. Good luck, get over what happened to you, move forward and learn from your mistake. Best of luck to you.

[hamsamich]

In 2007 a friend of mine got a DUI, they put him on a special plan where he had to be less than the .03 (.009).  I can't remember how often they checked.....but they did keep him around even though he got a DUI.  This is 2017 so maybe things are different.

[Rennhack]

You can't work at an NRC site for 5 years.

http://bfy.tw/9HiB

https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/fitness-for-duty-programs/faqs/sanctions.html
https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/employment/drug-testing-faq.html
https://www.nukeworker.com/forum/index.php/topic,8884.0.html
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part026/part026-0075.html
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part026/part026-0031.html

Any individual who is determined to have been involved in the sale, use, or possession of illegal drugs or the consumption of alcohol within a protected area of any nuclear power plant, within a facility that is licensed to possess or use formula quantities of SSNM, within a transporter's facility or vehicle, or while performing the duties that require the individual to be subject to this subpart shall immediately have his or her authorization unfavorably terminated and denied for a minimum of 5 years from the date of the unfavorable termination of authorization.

[Rennhack]

In 2007 a friend of mine got a DUI, they put him on a special plan where he had to be less than the .03 (.009).  I can't remember how often they checked.....but they did keep him around even though he got a DUI.  This is 2017 so maybe things are different.

2008 The law changed.  Prior to that they treated alcohol different.

[hamsamich]

good info!   seemed pretty lenient for today.

[SloGlo]

I went in to work, feeling fine, got pulled for a random drug/alcohol test, and I actually blew a 0.03. They've since permanently revoked my access there.

as aye understand this... you went to work, you didn't drink at work, you blew positive.
dew eye have that rite?

yore analysis of the occurrence.... party the knight bee fore, use of mouthwash after breakfast, what?

the 0.03 yew reference... is that the b.a.l. oar a percentage of a b.a.l. eye eeee, 3% of a threshold?

[Ksheed]

You can't work at an NRC site for 5 years.

http://bfy.tw/9HiB

https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/fitness-for-duty-programs/faqs/sanctions.html
https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/employment/drug-testing-faq.html
https://www.nukeworker.com/forum/index.php/topic,8884.0.html
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part026/part026-0075.html
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part026/part026-0031.html

From your first link:

If you test positive on a fitness for duty drug or alcohol test how long are you banned from getting a red badge to another nuclear plant?
If you fail a fitness for duty drug or alcohol test, under 10 CFR Part 26.75 and in general, you will receive at a minimum a 14-day denial for a 1st occurrence, a 5-year denial for a 2nd occurrence, and a permanent denial of authorization for a 3rd occurrence for all reactor sites under that FFD program.  Additionally, Part 26 enables licensees to establish more stringent sanctions than the minimum sanctions in section 26.75.  Furthermore, during your period of denied authorization, section 73.56(h)(3) prevents any subsequent licensee from granting you access (either escorted or unescorted) to the protected area or vital area of their nuclear power plant as well, unless another licensee completes an initial unescorted access authorization process to grant you access.  The following regulations apply to your question.
§ 73.56(h)(3) states: Access denial. Licensees or applicants may not permit an individual, who is identified as having an access-denied status by another licensee subject to this section, or has an access authorization status other than favorably terminated, to enter any nuclear power plant protected area or vital area, under escort or otherwise, or take actions by electronic means that could adversely impact the licensee's or applicant's safety, security, or emergency response or their facilities, under supervision or otherwise, except upon completion of the initial unescorted access authorization process.
§ 26.75(a) states: This section defines the minimum sanctions that licensees and other entities shall impose when an individual has violated the drug and alcohol provisions of an FFD policy. A licensee or other entity may impose more stringent sanctions, except as specified in paragraph (h) of this section.
§ 26.75(e), states in part: Lacking any other evidence to indicate the use, sale, or possession of illegal drugs or consumption of alcohol on site, a confirmed positive drug or alcohol test result must be presumed to be an indication of offsite drug or alcohol use in violation of the FFD policy.
(1) The first violation of the FFD policy involving a confirmed positive drug or alcohol test result must, at a minimum, result in the immediate unfavorable termination of the individual's authorization for at least 14 days from the date of the unfavorable termination.
(2) Any subsequent confirmed positive drug or alcohol test result, including during an assessment or treatment period, must result in the denial of authorization for a minimum of 5 years from the date of denial.
§ 26.75(g) states: (g) For individuals whose authorization was denied for 5 years under paragraphs (c), (d), (e)(2), or (f) of this section, any subsequent violation of the drug and alcohol provisions of an FFD policy must immediately result in permanent denial of authorization.




Sounded like it was the OP's first occurrence of a positive test, so that should be a 14 day ban minimum. However, in my experience, licensed sites are hesitant to be the one that gives you a second chance. With the large number of available workers out there now (without a positive FFD test on their record) you'd have to be a pretty darn special snowflake (BZ BUZZWORD )for anyone to jump to give you a chance to prove yourself this close to your positive test.

Some sites (YRMV) are moving toward a position that they are not "re-mediating" any contractors. In essence, there are enough qualified workers available that they don't want to spend (waste) Access Screening/In-processing time, money, and resources to process an initial unescorted access authorization for someone who broke the rules.This is all assuming that the site that banned you follows the 14 day rule and doesn't do this "Additionally, Part 26 enables licensees to establish more stringent sanctions than the minimum sanctions in section 26.75." That should be stated on the denial letter you should be sent from the site that pulled your access. You can appeal this if you follows the rules for the process. People have successfully appealed denials in the past.

I have a few years/refuels of experience staffing contracted manpower of multiple disciplines. I was able to get a few guys with past issues processed through Access Screening, but I'd say I lost about 10% of the ones I tried to get processed. Anymore it's not worth it unless I know the individual, and believe it's worth the hassle to try to talk Access Screening into it. I wouldn't do it for someone that wasn't a reliable previous employee that had considerable site experience at the site in question.

Additionally, you regaining your access will most likely be easiest to attain at the site that pulled it. Like I had said above, most sites don't want to roll the dice on an unknown. May not be what you want to hear, but that's my experience with it. I may be wrong, you might get lucky. Either way it will be an uphill battle. Good luck.

[Rennhack]

Part 26 enables licensees to establish more stringent sanctions than the minimum sanctions in section 26.75.  Furthermore, during your period of denied authorization, section 73.56(h)(3) prevents any subsequent licensee from granting you access

5 Years

[Broncos]

Were you able to gain unescorted access at a different nuclear site?

[a09518708]

To me there seems to be some discrepancies with the initial comment. The new construction build was where I worked and we never permanently denied for testing positive. Only permanent denials were from the reg standard—subversion or subversion attempt. We did not report out any permanent denials in pads (industry info sharing database). Pads would have only shown the person was a regular denials

[a09518708]

I will add...we do have a company database where we deny access to our sites. So it is possible we chose to permanently deny this individual from working for any of our companies. This would have been an hr action rather than access/ffd