What exactly is SVT and why is it so important for DOT to make it mandatory? SVT is a series of procedures that drug testing laboratories are directed by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to conduct on all urine specimens to determine if the specimen has been adulterated or substituted and to determine if it is truly a specimen that could be produced naturally by an individual. Most laboratories were conducting some variation of SVT prior to this, but the new rule will now make it mandatory that every drug testing laboratory follow the DHHS Mandatory Guidelines for performing SVT on urine specimens collected under DOT requirements.
Over the years, there has also been an increase in products designed to adulterate specimens and their use has increased as individuals attempt to mask their use of illegal drugs. There are also various prosthetic devices on the market that store clean urine at body temperature and permit individuals to provide a urine specimen under direct observation without detection that the specimen is not actually emerging from the individual’s body.
Given these factors, DOT determined that provision of less privacy during directly observed collections would guard against individuals using these prosthetic devices to circumvent the collection process. To that extent, DOT directed that during a directly observed collection, the individual will be asked to raise his or her shirt, blouse, or dress/skirt, as appropriate, above the waist and to lower clothing and underpants to show that there are no prosthetic devices hidden under the clothing. It is also good to remember that a directly observed collection only happens when there is reason to suspect that the individual may have tampered with the specimen or because the individual had a previous non-negative result.
You may be asking yourself what does this have to do with an employer – or even with the Designated Employer Representative (DER)? You have to remember that the DOT program is one of deterrence rather then detection. Individuals need to be aware of the fact that under the new rule, all directly observed collections will require the individual to show the observer/collector that there are no prosthetic devices to interfere with the collection. Additionally, the requirement to conduct a directly observed collection is now mandatory for all return-to-duty and follow-up tests (prior to the new rule, it was optional based on employer’s policies). Knowledge that this requirement exists may prevent some individuals from using illegal drugs since one avenue of “cheating” on the test will no longer be available.
This means that as an employer or DER, you need to ensure that your safety-sensitive employees are aware of these changes. You do not want to have an individual go for a collection and be told that they have to partially disrobe. Not knowing that this is now a Federal requirement, some individuals may refuse to partially disrobe for the collector, which would be considered a refusal to test. Preparation and assurance that this is a legitimate requirement will go a long way to temper the unease that some individuals may have in regards to this new collection procedure.
New Refusal to Test Classification
By the way, when discovered, use of a prosthetic device will now be considered a refusal to test; so will refusal to wash hands and admission to the MRO of adulteration or substitution of the specimen.
The rule also modified some of the procedures and reports related to invalid results. These are defined as a “result reported by a laboratory for a urine specimen that contains an unidentified adulterant, contains an unidentified interfering substance, has an abnormal physical characteristic, or has an endogenous substance at an abnormal concentration that prevents the laboratory from completing testing or obtaining a valid drug test result.”
Here is something to remember:
If the first test is an invalid result and the second collection is also invalid for the same reason, the test will be cancelled. If there is a requirement for a negative, i.e., pre-employment or return-to-duty, the rule now requires a medical evaluation to determine if there is any evidence of illegal drug use.
If the second test is an invalid result for a different reason from the first test, the MRO will direct a third test (without discussing this with the individual). And yes, you as the employer will have to pay for all three tests. The rules are written to provide a balance between unreasonable requirements versus concern for public safety, and this is the best that DOT could do at the present time.
There is another change that the employer needs to be aware of: if the individual admits to the MRO to drug use during a verification interview related to an invalid result, the MRO will notify the DER, who then must take action under the Agency rules; in the highway industry, this is related to actual knowledge.
Another change that you and your DER need to be aware of is that if there are multiple collections for the same event (e.g., first specimen’s temperature is out of range, requiring a second collection under direct observation) and the first specimen is reported at negative, the MRO is now directed to “hold” this report until the results of the second specimen are reported by the laboratory. This was done to prevent employers from placing individuals into safety-sensitive duties based on the first negative and then subsequently receiving a positive result for the second directly observed collection. Of course, if the first specimen in non-negative (positive) the MRO will report this to the employer immediately.
An added item to remember, both for your policy updates and to inform your employees, is that there is no authorization for testing of a split specimen for a sample that has been reported as invalid. That’s pretty simple and easy to interpret.
And finally, DOT did not change the employer’s option related to negative results that are also dilute. As an employer you still have the option of requiring a re-collection (but not under direct observation) and the test result of record would be the result of the second test.
All of this sounds a lot more complicated than it is; however, the bottom line is – just follow the rules!
Note from previous Federal Corner: Last month the discussion centered on requirements directing employers, MROs, and Breath Alcohol Technicians to report refusals and positive results to several State licensing authorities.
As of May 2008, South Carolina initiated legislation to require similar reporting. As a recap, the following States now require some form of reporting: Arkansas, California, Oregon, North Carolina, South Carolina, New Mexico, Texas, and Washington.