DOT protocols have specific requirements that collection sites must meet,  including procedures to (1) prevent unauthorized access to the urine  collection site; (2) prevent the tested employee or anyone else from  gaining unauthorized access to the collection materials/supplies;   (3) ensure that the tested employee does not have access to items that  could be used to adulterate or dilute the specimen such as soap,  disinfectants, cleaning supplies, and water; and (4) ensure that the tested  employee is under the supervision of a collector or appropriate site  personnel at all times when permitted into the site. The collection sites must follow  DOT protocols and their role is to collect the urine specimen, while the  laboratories must be certified by HHS and their role is to perform the drug  testing of the specimen. An invalid test results  when a drug screening lab identifies an unidentified adulterant, substitute,  or abnormal physical characteristic in the specimen that prevents the lab  from obtaining a valid test result. Most Collection Sites Failed to Comply with All DOT Protocols

In our tests of the selected 24 urine collection sites in four major  geographic areas throughout the United States, we determined that 22 of  the 24 sites showed varying degrees of failure in complying with the  protocols that we tested. While all urine collection sites followed DOT  protocols by asking our undercover investigators to provide identification,  we successfully used bogus driver’s licenses to gain access to all 24 sites— demonstrating that a drug user could send someone else to take a drug  test in their place. Twenty-two of the 24 tested collection sites failed to comply with many of  the remaining DOT protocols we tested. A tested employee could have  used this spray to dilute or adulterate his or her specimen. Commercially Available Products Can Defeat Drug Tests at Selected Sites

We determined that drug-masking products were widely available for  purchase over the Internet and used this method to purchase adulterants  and synthetic urine for our tests. As discussed above, we submitted  specimens containing adulterants at four of the collection sites and at  another four sites we used synthetic urine without being caught by site  collectors, demonstrating that these products could easily be brought in  and used during a test. In every case that investigators used adulterants or  substitutes during the drug test, the drug-masking products went  undetected during lab testing, lab validation, and MRO review of the labs’  results. Companies that sell drug-masking products can access this information  and update their products to prevent them from being detected by the  laboratory. Products to Defeat Drug Tests Are Widely Available

In performing Internet searches, we found drug-masking products that the  public can easily obtain and that are marketed as products that can be  used to pass urine drug tests. We  used these types of Web sites to purchase drug-masking products for our  testing of selected urine collection sites. DOT did not adopt this update in their  regulations------so currently drug testing laboratories are only authorized,  not required, to perform validity testing for all DOT required commercial  motor carrier drug tests. According to SAMHSA, approximately 400  different products are available to defeat urine drug tests. SAMHSA is required to provide information to laboratories on how  to test the validity of the urine specimen and publicly provide detailed  information on lab testing procedures. These posters are  intended to help collectors follow the appropriate protocols while  conducting drug tests under the DOT drug screening program.
Why GAO Did This Study

To help prevent accidents resulting from drug use by individuals in safety-sensitive positions, the Department of Transportation (DOT) requires motor carriers to conduct drug testing of their employees. These drug tests involve collecting a urine specimen from employees. To ensure the integrity of the urine specimen and the collection process, DOT regulations provide numerous protocols that outline collection procedures and identify controls to prevent employees from defeating a drug test. Recent media accounts indicate that some sites performing DOT drug test collections may not be adhering to the collection protocols. Moreover, given the different techniques a drug user may employ in an attempt to defeat a drug test, it is possible that a commercial truck driver could defeat a drug test by diluting, substituting, or adulterating a urine specimen in order to obtain a passing result. GAO was asked to perform an undercover operation to determine whether (1) urine collectors followed DOT protocols at selected collection sites and (2) commercially available products could be used to defeat drug tests. To perform this undercover operation, GAO created two fictitious trucking companies and produced bogus driver's licenses. GAO investigators then posed as truck drivers to test 24 collection sites throughout the United States. GAO briefed DOT officials on its results and they agreed with the findings.

What GAO Found

DOT's drug testing program is vulnerable to manipulation by drug users, especially given the wide availability of products designed to defeat drug tests. While all urine collection sites followed DOT protocols by asking GAO undercover investigators to provide identification, investigators successfully used bogus driver's licenses to gain access to all 24 sites--demonstrating that a drug user could send someone to take a drug test in their place using fake identification. In addition, 22 of the 24 selected urine collection sites did not adequately follow the remaining protocols GAO tested. For example, 75 percent of the urine collection sites GAO tested failed to restrict access to items that could be used to adulterate or dilute the specimen, meaning that running water, soap, or air freshener was available in the bathroom during the test. The table below provides information about the high failure of selected protocols for the 24 collection sites tested. GAO also found that drug masking products such as adulterants, dilutants, and substitutes were widely available on the Internet. After purchasing drug masking products from Web sites, GAO investigators used adulterants at four of the collection sites and substitute synthetic urine at another four sites without being caught by site collectors--demonstrating that these products could easily be brought into a collection site and used during a test. Even in one case where a collection site followed all DOT collection protocols regarding administration of the test, investigators were still able to substitute synthetic urine for their sample. Every drug masking product went undetected by the drug screening labs. Provided the adulterant GAO used would be able to mask drug use as advertised, a drug user would likely be able to use the substances GAO tested to obtain a passing result on his or her test. According to officials GAO interviewed at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), companies that make drug-masking products are aware of government test standards and devise products that prevent laboratories from detecting them. SAMHSA is required to provide information to laboratories on how to test the validity of the urine specimens, publicly providing detailed information on lab testing procedures on its Web site.