Operator Licensing

Examination Standards

for Power Reactors

Draft Report for Comment

Office of New Reactors

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

NUREG-1021, Rev. 11
AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS

IN NRC PUBLICATIONS

NRC Reference Material

As of November 1999, you may electronically access 

NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at 

NRC’s Library at www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. Publicly 

released records include, to name a few, NUREG-series

publications; Federal Register notices; applicant, 

licensee, and vendor documents and correspondence; 

NRC correspondence and internal memoranda; bulletins 

and information notices; inspection and investigative 

reports; licensee event reports; and Commission papers 

and their attachments.

NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC regulations, 

and Title 10, “Energy,” in the Code of Federal Regulations

may also be purchased from one of these two sources.

1. The Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Publishing Office

Mail Stop IDCC

Washington, DC 20402-0001

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov

Telephone: (202) 512-1800

Fax: (202) 512-2104

2. The National Technical Information Service

5301 Shawnee Rd., Alexandria, VA 22312-0002

www.ntis.gov

1-800-553-6847 or, locally, (703) 605-6000

A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is

available free, to the extent of supply, upon written

request as follows:

Address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Administration

Publications Branch

Washington, DC 20555-0001

E-mail: distribution.resource@nrc.gov

Facsimile: (301) 415-2289

Some publications in the NUREG series that are posted 

at NRC’s Web site address www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/

doc-collections/nuregs are updated periodically and may 

differ from the last printed version. Although references to 

material found on a Web site bear the date the material 

was accessed, the material available on the date cited 

may subsequently be removed from the site.

Non-NRC Reference Material

Documents available from public and special technical 

libraries include all open literature items, such as books, 

journal articles, transactions, Federal Register notices, 

Federal and State legislation, and congressional reports. 

Such documents as theses, dissertations, foreign reports 

and translations, and non-NRC conference proceedings 

may be purchased from their sponsoring organization.

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a

substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are 

maintained at—

The NRC Technical Library

Two White Flint North

11545 Rockville Pike

Rockville, MD 20852-2738

These standards are available in the library for reference 

use by the public. Codes and standards are usually 

copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating 

organization or, if they are American National Standards, 

from—

American National Standards Institute

11 West 42nd Street

New York, NY 10036-8002

www.ansi.org

(212) 642-4900

Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated only in 

laws; NRC regulations; licenses, including technical specifications; or orders, not in NUREG-series publications. The 

views expressed in contractorprepared publications in this 

series are not necessarily those of the NRC.

The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and administrative reports and books prepared by the staff (NUREG–

XXXX) or agency contractors (NUREG/CR–XXXX), (2) 

proceedings of conferences (NUREG/CP–XXXX), (3) reports 

resulting from international agreements (NUREG/IA–XXXX), 

(4) brochures (NUREG/BR–XXXX), and (5) compilations of 

legal decisions and orders of the Commission and Atomic 

and Safety Licensing Boards and of Directors’ decisions 

under Section 2.206 of NRC’s regulations (NUREG–0750).

DISCLAIMER: This report was prepared as an account 

of work sponsored by an agency of the U.S. Government. 

Neither the U.S. Government nor any agency thereof, nor 

any employee, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, 

or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third 

party’s use, or the results of such use, of any information, 

apparatus, product, or process disclosed in this publication, 

or represents that its use by such third party would not 

infringe privately owned rights.
Operator Licensing

Examination Standards

for Power Reactors

Draft Report for Comment

Manuscript Completed: January 2016

Date Published: February 2016

Prepared by:

T. Kolb

M. Scheetz

Division of Construction Inspection

 and Operational Programs

Office of New Reactors

Division of Inspection and Regional Support

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

NUREG-1021, Rev. 11

COMMENTS ON DRAFT REPORT

Any interested party may submit comments on this report for consideration by the NRC staff.

Comments may be accompanied by additional relevant information or supporting data. Please 

specify the report number NUREG-1021 in your comments, and send them by the end of the 

comment period specified in the notice announcing the availability of this report.

Addresses: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Please include

Docket ID NRC-2016-0006 in the subject line of your comments. Comments submitted in writing 

or in electronic form will be posted on the NRC website and on the Federal rulemaking 

website http://www.regulations.gov.

Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for documents 

filed under Docket ID NRC-2016-0006. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol 

Gallagher at 301-415-3463 or by e-mail at Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.

Mail comments to: Scott Sloan, Chief, Operator Licensing and Training Branch

(IOLB), Division of Inspection and Regional Support, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Mail 

Stop: OWFN-07-D20, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

For any questions about the material in this report, please contact: Maurin Scheetz, Reactor

Engineer/Examiner, 301-415-2758 or by e-mail at Maurin.Scheetz@nrc.gov.

Please be aware that any comments that you submit to the NRC will be considered a public 

record and entered into the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System

(ADAMS). Do not provide information you would not want to be publicly available.

iii

ABSTRACT

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) publishes NUREG-1021, “Operator Licensing 

Examination Standards for Power Reactors,” to establish the policies, procedures, and practices 

for examining licensees and applicants for reactor operator and senior operator licenses at

power reactor facilities pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)

Part 55, “Operators’ Licenses.”

These examination standards are intended to help NRC examiners and facility licensees better

understand the processes associated with initial and requalification examinations. The

standards also ensure the equitable and consistent administration of examinations for all

applicants. “The Commission shall use the criteria in NUREG-1021, in effect 6 months before 

the examination date to prepare the written examinations required by 10 CFR 55.41 and 

10 CFR 55.43 and the operating tests required by 10 CFR 55.45. The Commission shall also 

use the criteria in NUREG-1021 to evaluate the written examinations and operating tests 

prepared by power reactor facility licensees pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section.”

The NRC issued NUREG-1021, Revision 10, in December 2014 to (1) add guidance for 

licensing of operators for new reactors; (2) add NUREG-2103, “Knowledge and Abilities Catalog 

for Nuclear Power Plant Operators: Westinghouse AP1000 Pressurized Water Reactors,” and 

NUREG 2104, “Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant Operators: Advanced 

Boiling Water Reactors” as references, (3) add the Division of Construction Inspection and 

Operational Programs, Office of New Reactors as an operator licensing program office, (4) 

change the submission dates for licensed operator materials and correspondence, and (5) 

address a number of other minor issues.

The NRC is issuing Revision 11 to (1) clarify the waiver process for 10 CFR Part 55.47, 

(2) introduce the excusal process for 10 CFR Part 55.35(b), (3) clarify the appeal and 

independent review process, (4) clarify and modify existing grading criteria for the simulator 

operating test to improve objectivity and ensure proper emphasis on operator competence; and 

(5) incorporate guidance that was previously promulgated on the NRC’s operator licensing Web 

page and approved in regional Report on Interactions (ROIs). 

The majority of the changes in Revision 11 derive from recommendations in the Operator 

Licensing Lessons Learned Review Team (LLRT) Report issued to the NRC staff in November 

2014. The review team was established to assess the issues leading to the March 18, 2014, 

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board decision overturning NRC staff’s denial of a senior reactor 

operator license for an applicant from the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant. In that decision, the 

Board highlighted the staff’s handling of several procedural issues related to the operator 

licensing examination process. The team conducted a focused review of the NRC’s processes 

for initial operator licensing and staff administrative reviews (appeals) and identified 

23 recommended improvements to the operator licensing process.
iv

PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT STATEMENT

This NUREG contains information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). These information collections were approved 

by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), approval number 3150-0018.

PUBLIC PROTECTION NOTIFICATION

The NRC may neither conduct nor sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 

request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document 

displays a currently valid OMB approval number.
v

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT............................................................................................................................... iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................xi

BACKFITTING AND ISSUE FINALITY.................................................................................... xiii

CHANGES FROM NUREG-1021, REVISION 10...................................................................... xv

ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................................. xxx

ES-1xx GENERAL

ES-101 Purpose and Format of Operator Licensing Examination Standards .......ES-101-1

A. Purpose........................................................................................ES-101-1

B. Format..........................................................................................ES-101-1

ES-102 Regulations and Publications Applicable to Operator Licensing ..............ES-102-1

A. Purpose........................................................................................ES-102-1

B. Statutes ........................................................................................ES-102-1

C. Regulations ..................................................................................ES-102-2

D. Regulatory Guides .......................................................................ES-102-5

E. NUREG-Series Reports ...............................................................ES-102-6

F. Industry Standards.......................................................................ES-102-8

ES-2xx INITIAL PRE-EXAMINATION ACTIVITIES

ES-201 Initial Operator Licensing Examination Process .......................................ES-201-1

A. Purpose........................................................................................ES-201-1

B. Background..................................................................................ES-201-1

C. Responsibilities ............................................................................ES-201-2

D. Personnel Restrictions ...............................................................ES-201-14

E. Attachments/Forms....................................................................ES-201-16

ES-202 Preparing and Reviewing Operator Licensing Applications......................ES-202-1

A. Purpose........................................................................................ES-202-1

B. Background..................................................................................ES-202-1

C. Responsibilities ............................................................................ES-202-4

D. NRC License Eligibility Guidelines.............................................ES-202-10

E. Attachments/Forms....................................................................ES-202-13

ES-203 (Deleted)

ES-204 Processing Excusals and Waivers Requested by Reactor Operator and

Senior Reactor Operator Applicants .........................................................ES-204-1

A. Purpose........................................................................................ES-204-1

B. Background..................................................................................ES-204-1

C. Responsibilities ............................................................................ES-204-1

D. Excusal/Waiver Criteria................................................................ES-204-3
vi

ES-205 Procedure for Administering the Generic Fundamentals Examination

Program ....................................................................................................ES-205-1

A. Purpose........................................................................................ES-205-1

B. Background..................................................................................ES-205-1

C. Responsibilities ............................................................................ES-205-1

D. Examination Scope and Structure ...............................................ES-205-4

E. Attachments and Forms...............................................................ES-205-5

ES-3xx INITIAL OPERATING TESTS

ES-301 Preparing Initial Operating Tests ..............................................................ES-301-1

A. Purpose........................................................................................ES-301-1

B. Background..................................................................................ES-301-1

C. Responsibilities ............................................................................ES-301-4

D. Instructions...................................................................................ES-301-5

E. Quality Reviews .........................................................................ES-301-17

F. Attachments/Forms....................................................................ES-301-19

ES-302 Administering Operating Tests to Initial License Applicants.....................ES-302-1

A. Purpose........................................................................................ES-302-1

B. Background..................................................................................ES-302-1

C. Responsibilities ............................................................................ES-302-1

D. Test Administration Instructions and Policies ..............................ES-302-2

ES-303 Documenting and Grading Initial Operating Tests....................................ES-303-1

A. Purpose........................................................................................ES-303-1

B. Background..................................................................................ES-303-1

C. Responsibilities ............................................................................ES-303-1

D. Grading and Documentation Instructions ....................................ES-303-2

E. Attachments/Forms......................................................................ES-303-9

ES-4xx INITIAL WRITTEN EXAMINATIONS

ES-401 Preparing Initial Site-Specific Written Examinations.................................ES-401-1

A. Purpose........................................................................................ES-401-1

B. Background..................................................................................ES-401-1

C. Responsibilities ............................................................................ES-401-1

D. Examination Preparation..............................................................ES-401-3

E. Quality Reviews .........................................................................ES-401-10

F. Attachments/Forms....................................................................ES-401-13

ES-401N Preparing Initial Site-Specific Written Examinations.............................. ES-401N-1

A. Purpose..................................................................................... ES-401N-1

B. Background............................................................................... ES-401N-1

C. Responsibilities ......................................................................... ES-401N-2

D. Examination Preparation........................................................... ES-401N-3

E. Quality Reviews ...................................................................... ES-401N-10

F. Attachments/Forms................................................................. ES-401N-14
vii

ES-402 Administering Initial Written Examinations................................................ES-402-1

A. Purpose........................................................................................ES-402-1

B. Background..................................................................................ES-402-1

C. Responsibilities ............................................................................ES-402-1

D. Examination Administration Instructions......................................ES-402-3

E. Post-Examination Reviews ..........................................................ES-402-6

ES-403 Grading Initial Site-Specific Written Examinations....................................ES-403-1

A. Purpose........................................................................................ES-403-1

B. Background..................................................................................ES-403-1

C. Responsibilities ............................................................................ES-403-1

D. Grading Instructions.....................................................................ES-403-2

E. Attachments/Forms......................................................................ES-403-5

ES-5xx INITIAL POST-EXAMINATION ACTIVITIES

ES-501 Initial Post-Examination Activities .............................................................ES-501-1

A. Purpose........................................................................................ES-501-1

B. Background..................................................................................ES-501-1

C. Responsibilities ............................................................................ES-501-1

D. Examination Reviews and Licensing Action ................................ES-501-3

E Examination Follow-up.................................................................ES-501-9

F NRC Record Retention ..............................................................ES-501-15

G. Attachments/Forms....................................................................ES-501-16

ES-502 Processing Requests for Informal NRC Staff Reviews and 

Adjudicatory Hearings...............................................................................ES-502-1

A. Purpose........................................................................................ES-502-1

B. Background..................................................................................ES-502-1

C. Responsibilities ............................................................................ES-502-1

D. Administrative Review Procedures ..............................................ES-502-4

ES-6xx REQUALIFICATION EXAMINATIONS

ES-601 Conducting NRC Requalification Examinations........................................ES-601-1

A. Purpose........................................................................................ES-601-1

B. Background..................................................................................ES-601-1

C. Scope ...........................................................................................ES-601-2

D. Examination Preparations............................................................ES-601-3

E. Operator and Program Evaluation Procedures............................ES-601-6

F. Unsatisfactory Operator or Program Evaluation..........................ES-601-9

G. Requalification Program Evaluation Report...............................ES-601-13

H. Individual Requalification Examination Report ..........................ES-601-14

I. Operator License Renewal Policy..............................................ES-601-15

J. Records Retention .....................................................................ES-601-15

K. Requalification Stress Feedback ...............................................ES-601-16

L. Attachments/Forms....................................................................ES-601-16
viii

ES-602 Requalification Written Examinations .......................................................ES-602-1

A. Purpose........................................................................................ES-602-1

B. Scope ...........................................................................................ES-602-1

C. Examination Development...........................................................ES-602-2

D. Examination Administration and Evaluations...............................ES-602-5

E. Attachments/Forms......................................................................ES-602-7

ES-603 Requalification Walk-Through Examinations ............................................ES-603-1

A. Purpose........................................................................................ES-603-1

B. Scope ...........................................................................................ES-603-1

C. JPM Development........................................................................ES-603-1

D. Examination Administration .........................................................ES-603-4

E. Attachments/Forms......................................................................ES-603-6

ES-604 Dynamic Simulator Requalification Examinations ....................................ES-604-1

A. Purpose........................................................................................ES-604-1

B. Scope ...........................................................................................ES-604-1

C. Examination Development...........................................................ES-604-2

D. Examination Administration .........................................................ES-604-4

E. Performance Evaluations.............................................................ES-604-6

F. Attachments/Forms......................................................................ES-604-8

ES-605 License Maintenance, License Renewal Applications, and Requests

for Administrative Reviews and Hearings .................................................ES-605-1

A. Purpose........................................................................................ES-605-1

B. Background..................................................................................ES-605-1

C. License Maintenance ...................................................................ES-605-1

D. License Renewal........................................................................ES-605-10

E. NRC-Conducted Requalification Examination Results..............ES-605-12

ES-7xx FUEL HANDLING EXAMINATIONS

ES-701 Administration of Initial Examinations for Senior Operators Limited

to Fuel Handling........................................................................................ES-701-1

A. Purpose........................................................................................ES-701-1

B. Background..................................................................................ES-701-1

C. Responsibilities ............................................................................ES-701-1

D. Written Examination Instructions .................................................ES-701-2

E. Operating Test Instructions..........................................................ES-701-4

F. Attachments/Forms......................................................................ES-701-6

ES-702 Administration of Requalification Examinations for Senior Reactor

Operators Limited to Fuel Handling ..........................................................ES-702-1

A. Purpose........................................................................................ES-702-1

B. Background..................................................................................ES-702-1

C. General Differences .....................................................................ES-702-1

D. Examination Differences ..............................................................ES-702-3

E. Attachments/Forms......................................................................ES-702-4
ix

Appendices

A Overview of Generic Examination Concepts............................................................A-1

A. Purpose...............................................................................................................A-1

B. Background.........................................................................................................A-1

C. Validity.................................................................................................................A-2

D. Reliability...........................................................................................................A-10

B Written Examination Guidelines................................................................................B-1

A. Purpose...............................................................................................................B-1

B. Background.........................................................................................................B-1

C. Question Development .......................................................................................B-3

D. Attachments/Forms...........................................................................................B-14

C Job Performance Measure Guidelines..................................................................... C-1

A. Purpose.............................................................................................................. C-1

B. Developing and Reviewing JPMs ...................................................................... C-1

C. Developing and Using Alternate Path JPMs...................................................... C-4

D. Walk-Through Evaluation Techniques............................................................... C-5

E. Attachments/Forms............................................................................................ C-6

D Simulator Testing Guidelines ................................................................................... D-1

A. Purpose.............................................................................................................. D-1

B. Integrated Scenario Development ..................................................................... D-1

C. Scenario Attributes............................................................................................. D-4

D. Critical Task Methodology................................................................................ D-13

E. Competency Descriptions ................................................................................ D-17

F. Security Considerations for Simulator Operating Tests................................... D-19

G. Attachments/Forms.......................................................................................... D-21

E Policies and Guidelines for Taking NRC Examinations...........................................E-1

A. General Guidelines .............................................................................................E-1

B. Written Examination Guidelines..........................................................................E-1

C. Generic Operating Test Guidelines.....................................................................E-3

D. Walk-Through Test Guidelines ...........................................................................E-3

E. Simulator Test Guidelines...................................................................................E-5

F Glossary......................................................................................................................F-1

xi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 55, “Operators’ 

Licenses,” (a) establish procedures and criteria for the issuance of licenses to operators and 

senior operators of utilization facilities licensed under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 

amended, or Section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and Part 50, 

Part 52, or Part 54 of this chapter, (b) provide for the terms and conditions upon which the 

Commission will issue or modify these licenses, and (c) provide for the terms and conditions to 

maintain and renew these licenses. A person must be authorized by a license issued by the 

Commission to perform the function of an operator or a senior operator as defined in Part 55.

The Commission will approve an initial application for a license pursuant to the regulations in 

Part 55 if it finds: (1) the applicant’s medical condition and general health will not adversely 

affect the performance of assigned operator job duties or cause operational errors endangering 

public health and safety; and (2) the applicant has passed the requisite written examination and 

operating test in accordance with 10 CFR 55.41 and 55.45 or 10 CFR 55.43 and 55.45. If an 

applicant’s general medical condition does not meet the minimum standards under 

10 CFR 55.33(a)(1), the Commission may approve the application and include conditions in the 

license to accommodate the medical defect. 

The Commission shall use the criteria in NUREG-1021, “Operator Licensing Examination 

Standards for Power Reactors,” in effect 6 months before the examination date to prepare the 

written examinations required by 10 CFR 55.41 and 55.43 and the operating tests required by 

10 CFR 55.45. The Commission shall also use the criteria in NUREG-1021 to evaluate the 

written examinations and operating tests prepared by power reactor facility licensees pursuant 

to 10 CFR 55.40(b). Where power reactor facility licensees have elected to prepare, proctor, 

and grade the written examinations required by 10 CFR 55.41 and 55.43 and to prepare the 

operating tests required by 10 CFR 55.45, the power reactor facility licensees shall prepare the 

required examinations and tests in accordance with the criteria in this document, NUREG-1021, 

as described above.

NRC staff developed Revision 11 following a series of public meetings with the nuclear power 

industry’s Licensed Operator Focus Group. Summaries of those meetings, which have taken 

place since the NRC published Revision 10, in December 2014, are available through the 

NRC’s operator licensing Web pages at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operatorlicensing/meetings.html and http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactor-op-lic/meetings.html.

The following table summarizes significant (but not all) changes from Revision 10. New or 

modified text is also identified with vertical bars in the margins throughout this revision of 

NUREG 1021. Refer to pages xxix through xxxii for a list of abbreviations used within this 

Executive Summary and throughout NUREG-1021.

xiii

BACKFITTING AND ISSUE FINALITY

NUREG-1021, “Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors,” establishes the 

policies, procedures, and practices for examining licensees and applicants for reactor operator 

and senior reactor operator licenses at nuclear power reactor facilities under 10 CFR Part 55, 

“Operators’ Licenses.” Revision 11 to NUREG-1021 (1) clarifies the waiver process for 10 CFR 

Part 55.35(b), (2) introduces the excusal process for 10 CFR Part 55.47, (3) clarifies the 

independent review and appeal process, (4) clarifies and modifies existing grading criteria for 

the simulator operating test to improve objectivity and ensure proper emphasis on operator 

competence; and (5) incorporates guidance that was previously promulgated on the NRC’s 

operator licensing Web page and approved in regional Report on Interactions (ROIs). 

NUREG-1021 Revision 11 does not represent “backfitting” as that term is defined in 

10 CFR 50.109 and is not inconsistent with the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR Part 52. 

Current holders of operating licenses under 10 CFR Part 50 or combined licenses under 

10 CFR Part 52 are not required to prepare the written examinations mandated by §§ 55.41 and 

55.43 and the operating tests required by § 55.45, which must be prepared using the criteria in 

NUREG-1021 in effect 6 months before the examination date.1

 Because these Part 50 and 52 

licensees are not required to prepare the §§ 55.41 and 55.43 examinations and § 55.45 test, 

changes to the criteria used to prepare the examinations and test are not imposed upon those 

licensees and thus do not meet the definition of “backfitting” in 10 CFR 50.109 nor are 

inconsistent with the finality provisions in Part 52.

Furthermore, licensees know that changes to NUREG-1021 are to be expected. The inherent 

structure of the testing regime in Part 55 involves updating NUREG-1021 to reflect lessons 

learned and ensure uniform conditions for licensing individuals applying for operator licenses. 

The language of § 55.40(a)-(b) illustrates that the NRC would make changes to NUREG-1021. 

By referencing the version of NUREG-1021 that would be “in effect 6 months before the 

examination date,” the NRC showed that it anticipated that the guidance would be revised and 

that the guidance could be revised within 6 months of the examination date. Although § 55.40 

went into effect only in 1999,2 the NRC has been publishing revisions to NUREG-1021 since 

October 1983. Because current Part 50 facility licensees have known of, and experienced, this 

regime for more than three decades, and current Part 52 facility licensees were aware of this 

regime at the time they were issued their respective licenses, their regulatory expectations 

include the possibility of changes. Thus, the policies underlying 10 CFR 50.109 and the issue 

finality provisions in Part 52, and the backfitting and issue finality provisions themselves, do not 

apply to these licensees.

Part 55 does not contain backfitting or issue finality regulations, and power reactor operator 

licensees are not protected by the backfitting provisions in 10 CFR 50.109 or the 10 CFR 

Part 52 issue finality provisions because neither 10 CFR 50.109 nor 10 CFR Part 52 applies to 

10 CFR Part 55 power reactor operator licensees.

This NUREG could be applied to applications for 10 CFR Part 50 operating licenses, 10 CFR 

Part 52 combined licenses, or 10 CFR Part 55 operator licenses. Such action would not 

constitute backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 50.109 or be otherwise inconsistent with the 

applicable issue finality provision in 10 CFR Part 52, because such applicants are not within the 

 

1 10 CFR 55.40(a)-(b).

2 “Initial Licensed Operator Examination Requirements; Final Rule,” Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 

78, April 23, 1999, pp. 19868-19878.
xiv

scope of entities protected by 10 CFR 50.109 or the relevant issue finality provisions in 10 CFR 

Part 52. The exception to this principle is a Part 52 combined license applicant that references 

an already-issued design certification or early site permit, but this exception is not applicable to

Part 55 requirements.
xv

Changes from NUREG-1021, Revision 10

Deleted specific references to item block numbers on NRC Form 398 and NRC Form 396 so that this 

form can be revised easily. Specific references were changed to generic subject related references.

ES-000

Changed title of ES-204 and ES-502.

ES-102

C.1.1 added a reference to 10 CFR 2.107(a) which applies to license application withdrawals. This 

addition corresponds to changes made in ES 402 C.1.g as recommended by OGC.

ES-201

B, added “and maintain examiner proficiency” to the reasons why the NRC would develop a facility’s 

initial operating exam. This is based on direction from Commission in the December 17, 1996 SRM for 

the NRC staff to write at least one initial operator licensing examination per calendar year in each NRC 

region.

C.1, changed use of asterisk in this section for applicability during NRC authored examinations. Added 

note that items marked with an asterisk (*) DO NOT apply to NRC authored examinations.

C.1.a, removed statement that permitted preliminary eligibility decisions. The NRC recommends that 

facility licensees discuss any applicant eligibility questions with their NRC regional office before 

commencing an initial license training class. An NRC determination on eligibility questions will not be 

provided until formal submission of a waiver request with the final (not preliminary) application. This 

change was recommended by OGC and previously included in “Interim Guidance Related to the 

Conduct of Initial Operator Licensing Examinations,” ADAMS accession number ML14107A395.

C.1.a, added guidance that licensees should be clear if they are requesting the NRC to prepare an 

entire licensing exam or if they want to conduct a “split exam.” This incorporates FAQ 201.3.

C.1.f, added guidance that specifies that the NRC will provide the written examination outlines for both 

NRC and licensee developed written examinations. This incorporates FAQ 201.4 and incorporates 

guidance to promote consistency between the regions.

C.1.g, added guidance that licensees “shall” vice “should” submit their facility approved exams to the 

regional office and they shall be submitted with a cover letter for the “initial exam submittal.” Based on 

feedback from regional office.

C.1.h, added guidance for documentation requirements for previously used NRC written exam 

questions. Submitted as part of the resolution to ROI 14-03. Also deleted the words stating “because 

they will generally undergo less rigorous review by the NRC.” 

This is based on regional feedback that all written questions submitted will be reviewed IAW Form ES401-9. 

Added words “in any way” to the second bullet to specify that a Bank question revised “in any way” 

needs to be submitted to the NRC as part of the exam submittal based feedback from regional offices.

C.1.i-l, added a new C.1.i to explain process for facility review of NRC authored examinations. Because 

of this addition, previous items i-l are changed to j-m. 

C.1.j, added that licensees shall make the simulator available to develop and validate exam material for 

NRC developed exams. Based on a recommendation from OLIT Team 5.

C.1.k, added clarification that examination comments should be reviewed with NRC and licensee over 

the phone, although it is acceptable to schedule a meeting at the NRC regional headquarters or the 

licensee site. This incorporates guidance to promote consistency between the regions.
xvi

Changes from NUREG-1021, Revision 10

C.2.c, added a bullet to ensure the NRC provides licensees with the written examination outline as early 

in the process as possible. This incorporates FAQ 201.4.

Reorganized bullets to be in chronological order and added bullet regarding review of the examination 

comments. Added bullet to discuss purpose and aspects of the onsite validation week including 

simulator availability. Revised bullet to specify that licensee provide NRC a list of simulator deficiencies 

during validation week and again at the beginning of the exam. This incorporates recommendations 

from OLIT Team 5.

Removed guidance to facility licensees to discuss potential waivers for any portions of the licensing 

exams 5 months before exam date. Added a statement that clarifies that the NRC will only make a 

waiver/excusal decisions on the applicant’s signed NRC Form 398. This is based on OGC guidance.

Added a note to the final item in the bulleted list to cover that waiver and excusal requests should be 

submitted as early in the process as possible (ideally more than 60 days of the exam) along with 

information stating verbal communications are not binding. 

Revised 5th bullet to clarify that the facility representative must approve the “initial” examination submittal 

via cover letter. Additional editorial changes to correct format.

C.2.d, broke up C.2.c and created a new C.2.d. Reorganized alphabetized list after C.2.c.

C.2.f, deleted the word “to” in the paragraph. Editorial change.

C.2.g, replaced paragraph with additional guidance on importance of the preparatory site visit. 

C.2.h and i, swapped paragraphs around to align with order of process.

C.2.h, added guidance that specifies action to be taken by NRC if exams are not ready by the time they 

were scheduled to be given. 

C.2.i added “excusal” to the discussion involving waivers and specified it is related to the retake 

examination.

C.2.k, broke an existing paragraph into a separate C.2.k. Reorganized list lettering in section C.2. 

Added “excusal” to one of the reasons an applicant would not be administered a full examination.

C.3.a, added additional guidance that a new examiner needs to attend validation week. Based on a 

recommendation from OLIT Team 5

C.3.b, added guidance that NRC personnel do not have to sign onto the licensee’s examination security 

checklist. This incorporates FAQ 201.11.

C.3.f, added guidance for NRC authored exams to be submitted to the facility for review at least 60 days 

before the exam date.

C.3.g, added guidance for the NRC to supply the licensee with the portions of the examinations that 

were developed by the NRC for review. This incorporates FAQ 201.3 and FAQ 201.4. Removed 

guidance listed here for NRC authored exams because it implied that the NRC would submit exams for 

review facility licensee to review 3 weeks before the exam date. This paragraph was modified and 

moved to C.3.f and facility-related responsibilities in this section were also added to C.1.i.

C.3.i, removed reference to questions since these should be included in the simulator scenario package.
xvii

Changes from NUREG-1021, Revision 10

C.3.j, revised guidance to specify that the facility licensee assigns crew and examiners for the simulator 

operating test and develops the schedule for JPMs and scenarios. The NRC Chief examiner will review 

the schedule and make changes if necessary. Changes should no later than two weeks before the 

operating test start date. Based on a recommendation from OLIT Team 5. 

Changed “should” to “shall” for notifying the program office if using surrogate operators contrary to the 

described conditions. Also added “if possible” at the end of the sentence in case the exam team cannot 

get in touch with the program office. The exam administration should not be delayed if the program 

office cannot be contacted. Deleted 5th paragraph regarding information that the same examiner should 

administer all portions of the exam since this practice is rarely followed. This is based on regional 

feedback.

Attachment 3, removed guidance that requires procedures and references to be “properly bound.” This 

is no longer needed because of the capability to make electronic submittals.

D.1.a, clarified that an examiner who participated in the administration of any portion of an operating test 

or a denied excusal cannot be assigned to any portion of an operating test retake for an applicant.

D.2.b., added an additional bullet as a prohibited activity to develop exam bank questions if the intent is 

to use on the next NRC exam. This incorporates FAQ 401-32.

Attachment 1, Other Considerations,2., added guidance that specifies licensees may teach license 

applicants the general attributes associated with examination development in NUREG-1021 as long as 

specific examination aspects are not disclosed. Based on feedback from public.

Attachment 4, added guidance to the Sample Corporate Notification Letter that waiver or excusal 

requests should be submitted as early in the process as possible (normally 60 days) along with 

information stating verbal communications are not binding. These requests should be a formal written 

request with the NRC providing a formal response. Updated the reference to NUREG 1021, Rev.11. 

Also, added wording stating that the NRC will provide the written examination sample plan, if applicable. 

This incorporates FAQ 201.4.

Attachment 4, updated Paperwork Reduction Act Statement.

Form ES-201-1, Examination Preparation Checklist, Item 4, added that NRC developed written exam 

sample plans sent with the corporate notification letter at the 150 day point. Item 8, changed so that 60 

day due date for proposed examinations and documentation applies to both facility licensee authored 

and NRC authored examinations. Added a new item 9 at 60 days noting that preliminary waiver/excusal 

requests are due and re-numbered the list below.

Form ES-201-2, Examination Outline Quality Checklist, added reference to ES-301 Section D.5 Specific 

Instructions for the “Simulator Operating Test” to the SIMULATOR item on the checklist. Added criteria 

in the GENERAL item to check for duplication and overlap between the current exam and the previous 

two NRC exams. Reference ROI 13-17R, ADAMS accession number ML14140A512.

ES-202

Multiple changes made across this section because the NRC has discontinued the process of 

performing informal reviews of license application denials. An applicant can request an adjudicatory 

hearing once he or she is notified that his or her application has been denied via an Application Denial 

Letter.

B, revised section to match the wording in the regulation and removed duplicate references to the 1987 

rule change and other minor editorial wording changes.

C.1.a, provided additional guidance to address excusals and deferrals and consolidated references to 

location and instructions for NRC Form 398 and 396. Revised the instructions for submitting excusals: 

the retake examination must occur within 1 year of the date that the applicant completed the original 

examination. Deleted the requirement for excusals to be requested with 1 year of the original exam. 

This is to match guidance in ES-204 for the same re-take exam process.

C.1.c, added guidance pertaining to which shift positions can get credit for reactivity manipulations and 

added an example of a reactivity manipulation. This incorporates FAQ 202.2 and 202.3.

Added requirement that manipulations must be performed in accordance with a station approved 

procedure.
xviii

Changes from NUREG-1021, Revision 10

C.1.c, deleted this line, For ROs applying for an SRO license, certification that the operator has 

successfully operated the controls of the facility as a licensed operator shall be accepted as evidence of

having completed the required manipulations based on input regional offices that this causes confusion 

since SRO Upgrade applicants are not required to fill out the block of NRC Form 398 for Significant 

Control Manipulations in accordance with the instructions for NRC Form 398.

C.1.e, provided guidance for submitting preliminary excusal requests at least 60 days before the re-take 

examination. Revised to coincide with guidance in ES-201, to submit requests as early as possible.

C.1.g, eliminated the option of an informal staff review for a license application denial and added 

information that the applicant can request an adjudicatory hearing.

C.2.a, added guidance that applies to deferrals and excusals. Removed requirement to communicate 

with OGC via telephone and/or email and added a requirement that the communication must be 

documented. How it is documented is up to the individual. Removed guidance that specifies the NRC 

will not entertain a re-application request if a hearing is in progress. The re-application process is tied to 

the denial date and not dependent upon hearing results.

C.2.d, added reference to ES-502 in addition to ES-501 for actions the region takes in the event of a 

license application denial after license examination due to training and/or experience requirements not 

being met.

D.1.a, revised RO eligibility requirements to be consistent with current NANT guidelines.

D.2.a, editorial change to move info from b. to D.2.a. (4). Also revised SRO requirements to be 

consistent wit current NANT guidelines.

D.3.a, removed requirement for an LSRO to have RNPPE and just have experience consistent with 

current NANT guidelines.

Attachment 1, removed guidance related to requesting an informal staff review for reconsideration of the 

application denial. Letter now provides guidance for requesting an adjudicatory hearing only.

ES-204

ES-204 title changed to add reference to excusals.

B, added guidance to address excusals.

C.1.a, added guidance to address excusals and to attach supporting documentation for justification. 

Added examination categories for excusals and waivers that are used on NRC Form 398 for specifying 

type of written examination and operating test waiver/excusals. 

C.1.b, added guidance to address excusals.

C.2.a, added guidance to address excusals.

C.2.b, added guidance to address excusals.

C.2.c, added guidance to address excusals.

C.2.d, added guidance to address excusals. Deleted the requirement for the program office to be on 

distribution for excusal and waiver requests since documents are in ADAMS. Reference ROI 14-04, 

ADAMS accession number ML14051A189.

C.2.e, added guidance to address excusals. Added statement regarding OGC’s direction on preliminary 

applications: The final decision on whether to grant or deny a waiver or excusal request will be 

documented on the applicant’s official (not preliminary) NRC Form 398. This decision will not be 

provided until a final application is submitted.

C.2.f, added guidance to address excusals.

C.2.h, added new item to list for acceptance of group waivers or deferrals for special situations that 

apply to more than one applicant.

D, added excusal to the heading.
xix

Changes from NUREG-1021, Revision 10

D.1.a, added guidance to address excusals and provided examples of what the licensee should submit 

as justification for an excusal of some examination requirements. Added guidance for when an excusal 

is appropriate and noted that licensees should use the SAT process to determine and conduct remedial 

training.

D.1.g, revised first paragraph to clarify that the GFE requirements are located in another section of the 

standard.

D.1.h, revised paragraph to specify that the regions are allowed to defer the reactivity manipulations until 

after the exam but cannot issue a license until they are complete. Removed wording that allowed 

issuing a cold shutdown license without performing the manipulations due to legal objection. Deleted 

references Section D.3.c of ES-501 and ES-501 because these are not applicable. Reference ROI 15-

08, ADAMS accession number ML15097A283.

D.1.j, clarified the wording with regards to how much time the Regions can defer for power plant 

experience for the RO and responsible nuclear power plant experience for the SRO. Revised to align 

with the eligibility requirements in ES-202.

D.1.k, added guidance on using GFE exams from the bank that may have flawed questions. This 

incorporates FAQ 204.1. 

ES-301

A, added the words “excusals and” in reference to title of ES-204.

B, added the word “excused” in reference to the information covered by ES-204.

B, added a note which explains that walkthroughs are commonly referred to as JPMs and the two terms 

are used interchangeably throughout this NUREG.

B.3, added that the Operating Test also implements item 9 from 10 CFR 55.45(a).

C.1.a, added “and review” proposed examination outlines to licensee responsibilities.

C.1.c. & f, Added the word “proposed” to describe the state of operating tests and outlines described in 

this list.

C.1.e. &d. swapped order of “e.” and “d.” and added a telephone review of proposed examination 

outlines and test comments as well as an option for an in person review of proposed operating test 

comments between the facility and the NRC. C.1.e. specifies that the NRC needs access to the 

simulation facility during exam development for NRC developed exams. 

D.3, revised first paragraph to specify that administrative JPMs are “generally” examined separately 

from the other portions of the operating test.

D.3.a, added the words, “or excusals” in reference to waivers and excusal information covered by ES204.

D.3.c, added requirement that all SRO Admin JPMS are written at the SRO Level. This addresses a 

regional consistency issue in which some regions required this and some did not.

D.3.i, revised the number of days the operating test must be submitted for review from 45 days to 60 

days to be consistent with ES-201.

D.5.a, added a sentence to clarify that SRO-I applicants may be placed in either the ATC or BOP 

position for evaluating plant component controls operation at new reactor facilities that use the ATC 

operator primarily for monitoring plant parameters. Reference ROI 15-02, ADAMS accession number 

ML15051A419. Clarified that SRO-U applicants may require to manipulate the controls if doing so 

prevents the use of a surrogate operator to complete the crew based on guidance from the program 

office at a Region IV Grand Gulf exam in 2014.

D.5.b, changed explanation of a significant modification for a simulator operating test to establish 

scenario overlap limitations. Reference ROI 13-17R, ADAMS accession number ML14140A512.
xx

Changes from NUREG-1021, Revision 10

D.5.d, added guidance for assigning simulator operating test scenarios to applicants to ensure that 

applicants are evaluated on a similar number of pre-identified critical tasks. Added requirement that a 

scenario must have at least 2 critical tasks. Changed the word “event” to “evolution, failure or transient” 

regarding how to credit items on the Transient and Event Checklist.

D.5.f. replaced the word substantial with verifiable regarding operator actions to be consistent 

throughout NUREG.

E.1. added that the facility management reviewer needs to be familiar with the exam contents and the 

NUREG 1021 Examination Standards in order to accurately perform this review. This is a

recommendation from a regional office.

E.2.a, added a requirement for a NRC examiner to review every JPM and Simulator Operating Test 

scenario using Form ES-301-7 and determine acceptability metrics. Reference ROI 15-23, ADAMS 

accession number ML15268A577.

E.2.b, added the word chief in front of examiner.

Attachment 2, Verifiable Action Guidelines, added statement that the concept of verifiable actions also 

applies to performance based critical steps during in-plant and control room JPMs based on a 

recommendation from an examiner to make clarify that this term applies to JPMs in addition to the 

simulator operating test. Added reference to Appendix C for JPMs.

Form ES-301-4, Simulator Scenario Quality Checklist, added criteria to qualitative attribute No. 9 to 

check that not more than 50% of the events/malfunctions repeated from the previous two NRC initial 

licensing operating exams, excluding major events. Reference ROI 13-17R, ADAMS accession number 

ML14140A512.

Form ES-301-4, Simulator Scenario Quality Checklist, added a qualitative attribute to check that CTs are 

distributed among applicants across scenarios. Added a quantitative attribute for the total number of 

critical tasks per scenario to be in a target range of 2-6.

Form ES-301-5, Transient and Event Checklist, Instruction No. 4, added “new reactor facility” to clarify 

placement of SRO-I applicants in either RO position for evaluating plant component controls operation. 

Reference ROI-15-02, ADAMS accession number ML15051A419.

Form ES-301-7, Operating Test Review Worksheet, added to explain how the NRC will determine 

operating test acceptability criteria in ES-501 E.3.a. Reference ROI 15-23, ADAMS accession number 

ML15268A577.

ES-302

D.1.d, relocated surrogate information from lower down this list to D.1.d. No changes made to content 

on surrogates. Re-ordered list from D.1.d – D.1.o.

D.1.e, incorporated guidance from ROI 09-28 to allow an examiner other than the examiner of record to 

administer an operating exam scenario to a candidate that has already met the minimum requirement for 

operating exam scenarios/events. This supports exam efficiency and minimizes the use of surrogates. 

Program office approval is required for this scenario, a requirement that is not part of ROI 09-28 but 

added as a result of feedback from regional offices. Reference ROI 09-28, ADAMS accession number 

ML092230756.

D.1.j, removed reference to a “proposed denial letter” and changed it to a notification from the NRC that 

they have failed their licensing exam in a Preliminary Results letter or a Final Denial letter to align with 

examination failure process changes in ES-501 and ES-502.

D.1.k, added language from FAQ 302.7 to explain the reason for limiting the simulator operating test to 

only one senior operator position. Reference SECY-98-266 Attachment I, Section II.

D.1 l, removed the additional set of words which were typed twice. Editorial change.

D.1.n, revised the guidance to specify the plant tour should cover, “at a minimum,” the areas where the 

test is to be given instead of “concentrate on” the areas where the test will be administered.

D.3.e, revised guidance to specify the chief examiner will ensure the simulator operator has the most up 

to date Form ES-D-1 rather than providing him or her with one.
xxi

Changes from NUREG-1021, Revision 10

D.3.f, added requirement for the chief examiner to coordinate with the facility to identify, record and 

retain simulator data recordings for important plant parameters during the simulator operating test 

scenarios. This was added based on regional feedback that simulator data is not being collected at all 

sites and to better equip NRC examiners with objective data for grading purposes.

D.3.h, made these “shall” statements for exam security purposes.

D.3.o, added guidance for examiners to discuss pre-designated critical tasks and identify post scenario 

critical tasks immediately after each simulator operating test scenario. Removed the example since 

there is no requirement that every applicant have more than one opportunity for each rating factor.

D.3.p, removed reference to a “proposed denial” and changed it to “preliminary results” to align with the 

examination failure process change in ES-501 and ES 502. 

Added a reference to D.3.f for simulator data retention requirements. Made it a requirement for the chief 

examiner to ask the simulator operator to retain copies of the same simulator materials for appeal 

purposes.

D.3.n, added language from FAQ 302.8 for classifying an emergency event at the end of a simulator 

operating test. The NRC does not require the SRO applicant to complete the emergency classification 

within the normal event classification period of time during a simulator operating test. Added reference 

to Appendix D which states that performance of an event classification does not meet the CT criteria.

ES-303

Added the term “excusal” whenever the term “waiver” is mentioned throughout text.

Changed the term “error” to “performance deficiency” for consistencies purposes throughout the text.

D.1.d, added details for grading SRO applicants in the Technical Specifications competency during 

simulator events including guidance to treat every missed TS entry as an individual performance 

deficiency.

D.1.d, clarified that there is no limit to the number of rating factors that can be assigned to a single 

performance deficiency in the grading of the simulator operating test. Justification is required.

D.2.b, added the term non-critical error to distinguish between errors associated with the failure of a CT. 

Clarified that the terms critical error, critical task error and missed CT may be used interchangeably 

when referring to an error associated with the failure of a CT.

D.2.b, revised the assignment of rating factors to non-critical errors to align with the 0 – 3 grading scale

D.2.b, changed the treatment of errors for grading RO and SRO candidates in Competency 4, 

“Communications,” so that the first error made in this competency does not reduce the RF. Two or three 

errors results in an RF of 2 and four or more errors in the Communications competency results in an RF 

of 1. The minimum score in the Communications competency is an RF of 1.

D.2.b, revised the assignment of rating factors to critical errors to align with the 0 – 3 grading scale. All 

missed CTs that are not associated with the Communications competency are counted as 3 errors. 

Missed CTs associated with the Communications competency are counted as 2 errors. Stated that 

although failing to perform a CT does not automatically result in an overall exam failure, failing one CT 

and making other non-critical errors may result in an overall exam failure.

D.3.e, deleted the term “proposed denials” and changed sentence for examiners to retain all applicable 

notes and documentation associated with operating test failures until the final denial letters are 

submitted. This aligns with the examination failure process change in ES-501 and ES 502. 

D.3.f, added guidance that it is acceptable to use a form that is equivalent to Form ES-303-2.

D.4.b, added guidance that it is acceptable to use a form that is equivalent to Form ES-303-2.
xxii

Changes from NUREG-1021, Revision 10

Form ES-303-1 SRO Simulator Operating Test Grading Details, Sub-competency 6, “Technical 

Specifications,” revised the first sub-competency and added a third sub-competency. This competency 

now consists of Recognize, Locate, and Compliance. Adjusted note on bottom of form to reflect the new 

RF score range of 0 – 3. 

Added the term “excuse” next to waive on the block part of examiner recommendations.

Form ES-303-3 RO Competency Grading Worksheet for Simulator Operating Test, All Competencies: 

revised RF score range to 0 – 3 scale, split up lines for sub-competency “not observed” weighting 

factors and added “0’s” to the end of weighting factors so that they are all written to the hundredths 

decimal place.

Form ES-303-3 RO Competency Grading Worksheet for Simulator Operating Test, Competency 2, 

“Comply with and Use Procedures, References, and Technical Specifications,” re-ordered subcompetencies and adjusted weighting factors to account for 3 rating factors to eliminate over-emphasis 

in this area.

Form ES-303-3 RO Competency Grading Worksheet for Simulator Operating Test, Competency 3, and 

“Operate Plant Component Controls”: adjusted weighting factors across sub-competencies.

Form ES-303-4 SRO Competency Grading Worksheet for Simulator Operating Test, All Competencies: 

revised RF score range to 0 – 3 scale, split up lines for sub-competency “not observed” weighting 

factors and added “0’s” to the end of weighting factors so that they are all written to the hundredths 

decimal place.

Form ES-303-4 SRO Competency Grading Worksheet for Simulator Operating Test, Competency 6, 

“Comply with and Use Technical Specifications,” split into three separate sub-competencies and 

changed weighted factors. Added a note for sub-competency (a) to assign a weighting factor of 1.0 in 

the event that Technical Specifications are not addressed by the applicant.

ES-401

B, added the words “excusals and” in reference to the title of ES-204 and changed the word “the” to “an” 

in reference to links for the CFR sections to each K/A statement.

C.1.a, added guidance that the NRC will prepare the written examination outline and that the licensees 

should be prepared to develop and review other outlines. Added by OLIT Team 5. 

C.1.d, specified that the exams and outlines should be reviewed with the licensee and chief examiner 

over the phone if possible. Added by OLIT Team 5.

C.1.e, clarified that the NRC has final approval for” all” examinations. Editorial change.

C.2.a, added guidance that both the outline and examination preparation guidance is in Section D.

D.1.a, added the word “excused” in reference to excusals and waivers covered by ES-204.

D.1.b, deleted the second paragraph that directs facility licensees to describe their written examination 

outline development process. This is no longer applicable because the NRC will now develop all written 

examination outlines. Deleted guidance that allows licensees to request to use a previous sample plan 

since the NRC is not developing all sample plans. Specified that all replacement K/As will be requested 

from the chief examiner. Revised 4th bullet to clarify that the K/A can be appropriately tested on the 

written exam rather than the operating test. Added guidance to specify that RO and SRO questions 

don’t always have to have a reference to 55.41 or 55.43. This incorporates FAQ 401-37.

D.1.d, added guidance for reviewing the outlines for of the RO and SRO-Only written exam questions 

that the SRO exam can be treated as a 100 question exam. This allows the entire SRO exam to be 

reviewed for oversampling and appropriate coverage.

D.1.e, provided guidance that when facilities review and update NRC developed written exam sample 

plans that the licensee management shall independently review prior to sending to NRC. Change 

required based on NRC providing the sample plan.
xxiii

Changes from NUREG-1021, Revision 10

D.2.b, removed references to specific sections in Appendix B since they did not match in revision 10. 

Added the term job content errors to better describe types of flaws and errors listed, added guidance 

that specifies that exam questions that are used on previous NRC exams may need to be revised if 

psychometric flaws are discovered. Incorporates FAQ 401-17.

D.2.c, added criteria that at least 50 percent of the SRO-Only written exam questions are written at the 

comprehensive/analysis level. This ensures that all portions of the written exam are written at least to 

the 50% comprehensive/analysis level. Based of feedback from regional offices.

D.2.d., added guidance that not having a K/A reference to 55.43 would not prevent the development of 

an SRO level question. Incorporates FAQ 401-35.

D.2.f, changed the word “percent” to “questions” to fix an error regarding bank question usage. Added 

what constitutes a “new” question. Incorporated guidance in FAQ 401-25.

D.2.g, additional guidance has been added to specify that references shall not give away answers to any 

part of the exam.

D.4.a, clarified that the written exam format contains one question per page on the written exam. 

Deleted reference to Appendix B for this format because it is no longer in Appendix B. Editorial.

E.2.c, clarified that after an unsatisfactory review of a sample of written examination questions, the 

licensee still must resubmit the entire written exam for NRC review.

E.2.d, added guidance that Form ES-401-9 may be transmitted electronically at the chief examiners 

discretion as long as it is password protected.

Attachment 2, removed statements in Scope statement that no longer applied to the attachment when it 

was incorporated into NUREG-1021.

Form ES-401-5, added line to sample written exam question worksheet for K/A Statement which is 

needed to ensure there is KA match during question creation and during review.

Form ES-401-6, revised step 7 to include minimum 50% criteria for SRO-Only comprehensive/analysis 

questions on the written exam and clarified what needs to be documented in the step. Based on 

feedback from regional offices.

Form ES-401-7, removed extra spaces in the instruction section. Based on feedback from public.

Form ES-401-9, changed wording from Job Content Flaws to Job Content Errors to match terms used in 

instructions on form.

ES-401N

B, added the words “excusals and” in reference to title of ES-204 and changed the word “the” to “an” in 

reference to links for the CFR sections to each K/A statement.

C.1.a, added guidance that the NRC will prepare the written examination outline and that the licensees 

should be prepared to develop and review other outlines. Added by OLIT Team 5. 

C.1.d, specified that the exams and outlines should be reviewed with the licensee and chief examiner 

over the phone if possible. Added by OLIT Team 5.

C.1.e, clarified that the NRC has final approval for” all” examinations. Editorial change.

C.2.a, added guidance that both the outline and examination preparation guidance is in Section D.

D.1.b, deleted the second paragraph that directs facility licensees to describe their written examination 

outline development process. This is no longer applicable because the NRC will now develop all written 

examination outlines. Deleted guidance that allows licensees to request to use a previous sample plan 

since the NRC is not developing all sample plans. Specified that all replacement K/As will be requested 

from the chief examiner. Revised 4th bullet to clarify that the K/A can be appropriately tested on the 

written exam rather than the operating test. Also revised guidance such that licensees need to request 

to use a previously approved written outline rather than propose using a previously approved written 

outline. Added guidance to specify that RO and SRO questions don’t always have to have a reference 

to 55.41 or 55.43. This incorporates FAQ 401-37.
xxiv

Changes from NUREG-1021, Revision 10

D.1.d, added guidance for reviewing the outlines for the RO and SRO-Only exams that the SRO exam 

can be treated as a 100 question exam. This allows the entire SRO exam to be reviewed for 

oversampling and appropriate coverage.

D.1.e, provided guidance that when facilities review and update NRC developed written exam sample 

plans that the licensee management shall independently review prior to sending to NRC. Change 

required based on NRC providing the sample plan.

D.2.b, removed references to specific sections in Appendix B since they did not match in revision 10. 

Added the term job content errors to better describe types of flaws and errors listed added guidance that 

specifies that exam questions that are used on previous NRC exams may need to be revised if 

psychometric flaws are discovered. Incorporates FAQ 401-17.

D.2.c, added criteria that at least 50 percent of the SRO-Only written exam questions are written at the 

comprehensive/analysis level. This ensures that all portions of the written exam are written at least to 

the 50% comprehensive/analysis level. Based on feedback from regional offices.

D.2.d., added guidance that not having a K/A reference to 55.43 would not prevent the development of 

an SRO level question. Incorporates FAQ 401-35.

D.2.f, changed the word “percent” to “questions” to fix an error regarding bank question usage. added 

what constitutes a “new” question. Incorporated guidance in FAQ 401-25.

D.2.g, additional guidance has been added to specify that references shall not give away answers to any 

part of the exam.

D.4.a, clarified that the exams are to have only one question per page on the written exam. Deleted 

reference to Appendix B for this format because it is no longer in Appendix B. Editorial.

E.2.c, clarified that after an unsatisfactory review of a sample of written examination questions, the 

licensee still must resubmit the entire written exam for NRC review.

E.2.d, added guidance that Form ES-401-9 may be transmitted electronically at the chief examiners 

discretion as long as it is password protected.

Attachment 2, removed statements in Scope statement that no longer applied to the attachment when it 

was incorporated into NUREG-1021.

Form ES-401N-5, added line to sample written exam question worksheet for K/A Statement which is 

needed to ensure there is KA match during question creation and during review.

Form ES-401N-6, revised step 7 to include minimum 50% criteria for SRO-Only comprehensive/analysis 

questions on the written exam and clarified what needs to be documented in the step. Comment from 

internal staff review.

Form ES-401N-7, removed extra spaces in the applicant certification section. Editorial.

Form ES-401-9N, changed wording from Job Content Flaws to Job Content Errors to match terms used 

in instructions on form

ES-402

C.1.g, added clarifying regulatory words pertaining to 10 CFR 2.107(a) which describes what the 

Commission can do when a licensee requests to withdraw a license application. Based on a 

recommendation from OGC.

C.2.b, added wording to address excusals.

D.1.a, replaced “go to the restroom” with “take a short break” to cover any special circumstances.

D.2.a, removed wording in parenthesis since no exam material will be allowed in restroom.

D.2.d, added wording to address excusals.

D.3.b, added that all applicant questions and clarifications during post-exam reviews should also be 

documented and available for review by the NRC chief examiner for resolving conflicts. This is in 

addition to the requirement that already existed to record applicant questions during the administration 

of the written exam.
xxv

Changes from NUREG-1021, Revision 10

D.4.d, revised guidance regarding time extensions for taking the written examination. Removed the 

allowance of time extensions except under uncontrollable conditions. Specified that applicants are 

responsible for ensuring they are physically capable of taking the exam in the allotted time. This was 

based on NRC staff and public feedback to remove time extensions and a suggestion from OGC to add 

a realistic time limit.

E.4. changed should to shall in the following sentence: The facility licensee shall collect all comments 

from the license applicants during exam administration and post-exam reviews and submit them to the 

NRC. This allows the NRC to receive all applicant feedback regarding a recent NRC licensing exam.

E.5, added guidance that specifies how to submit post exam comments.

E.6, added reference to 10 CFR 50.55 which specifies that all official communications related to exams 

be mailed to the regional offices. This based on guidance from OGC.

ES-403

Form ES-401-3, Added that the Facility Reviewer’s initials are not required for Item 2 if post exam 

comments are submitted. This would not be possible at the time the exam package is sent to the NRC.

ES-501

Multiple changes across this section for examination failure procedures. The term “proposed license 

denial” has been changed to terms regarding the “preliminary results” of a licensing examination failure. 

This change was made to clearly indicate when an applicant has hearing rights in accordance with the 

regulations. The NRC must provide hearing rights if it issues a “proposed license denial letter” to an 

applicant because this is a type of licensing decision. The NRC staff decided to change this process to 

allow the applicant an opportunity for an informal NRC staff review of the failed examination item(s) 

along with support material provided by the facility and/or applicant before a licensing decision is made 

by the NRC. 

If an applicant fails a licensing exam, he or she will first receive a “Preliminary Results Letter,” provided 

the opportunity to request an informal staff review. Since this letter is no longer a “proposed license 

denial,” it is not considered a licensing decision and thus does not involve adjudicatory hearing rights. 

An applicant retains the ability to request an adjudicatory hearing once he or she receives the final 

license denial letter which signifies that a licensing decision has been made by either the NRC informal 

review team or the NRC Regional office. Furthermore, the NRC has discontinued the process of 

performing informal reviews of license application denials. An applicant can request an adjudicatory 

hearing once he or she is notified that his or her application has been denied.

C.1.a, added a requirement that the facility licensee shall refrain from communicating results of the 

written examination with the NRC until the operating examination has been administered to each 

applicant. This is advice from NRC management to support a fair operating exam for each applicant. 

This applies only when the written exam occurs before the operating test.

B, added wording to support licensee’s ability to submit post exam comments related to the operating 

test. This was a recommendation by the Branch Chiefs with regard to the resolution of LLRT item 1.3.

C.1.a, bullet 4, added wording to support licensee’s ability to submit post exam comments related to the 

operating test. This was a recommendation by the Branch Chiefs with regard to the resolution of LLRT 

item 1.3.

C.1.b, changed wording from should to shall in the following sentence: The facility licensee shall include 

comments made by the license applicants who took the examination. This allows the NRC to receive all 

applicant feedback regarding a recent NRC licensing exam.

D., added guidance that allows for electronic documentation of grading changes.

D.1, revised guidance to refer to “proposed” examination changes since the NRC approves all grading 

changes.

D.2, revised guidance to specify the chief examiner should not normally perform the supervisory review 

if he or she performed the independent review, however, they are not precluded from performing the 

review.
xxvi

Changes from NUREG-1021, Revision 10

D.2.e, added guidance that specifies that if an SRO-Instant applicant requests an RO license and full 

RO exam waiver that the waiver is contingent on how the applicant performed in the simulator in the RO 

position. This aligns with information in ES-204.

D.3.d , added detailed guidance to support holding licenses in abeyance when an applicant fails a 

portion of the operating test. Guidance applies to all aspects of the examination (both the written and 

operating tests) and specifies the process for holding licenses in abeyance. The guidance also allows 

the regions to issue licenses held in abeyance if the appeal goes to a hearing as long as they determine 

that it would be highly unlikely for the results to have an impact on the licenses held in abeyance. 

Added guidance which specifies when the informal staff review and hearing 20 day clocks start and 

stop. Additionally, provided guidance that the regions should wait an additional 5 days past the end of 

the 20 day clock before taking licensing actions to account for mail to reach the region. Incorporates ROI 

15-21. Added guidance for using new sample letters IAW new Attachment 6 which allows applicants to 

waive all informal staff review and hearing rights and request the NRC to immediately issue the final 

denial. Reference ROI 15-21, ADAMS accession number ML15296A331.

D.3.h, added clarification that if any applicant takes any portion of the licensing examination and then 

withdraws the application, the applicant would receive a license denial letter.

D.3.i, revised to indicate that short-term individuals cannot make licensing decisions unless specifically 

authorized by the Regional Administrator.

E.1.b, added a requirement to send copies of failed JPMs if that portion of the operating exam is failed. 

Also added option to send the failed portions of the exam to the applicant via electronic storage device. 

Based on regional office feedback.

E.2, clarified guidance to consult regional counsel before returning or destroying any documentation 

related to an examination if there is a request for an appeal or hearing. Suggested by OGC.

E.3, added clarification that the examination report may be tailored to the specific examination given. 

For example, the exam report for a retake of the written exam does not need to include discussion of the 

operating exam. Incorporates ROI 14-18. Added clarification that the examination report does not need 

to be amended when licenses held in abeyance are issued if the initial examination report clearly states 

that licenses were held until the licensee states that all deferred requirements have been met.

E.3.a, added guidance for how the NRC will evaluate the acceptability of the submitted operating test 

material which is part of the final examination report. This guidance references new Form ES-301-7 

Operating Test Review Worksheet. Reference ROI 15-23, ADAMS accession number ML15268A577.

E.3.c, removed reference to outdated ADAMS accession number.

E.4.a, deleted portion related to an SRO applicant that took both portions of the written exam and 

passed overall but scored below an 80% on the SRO-only portion would require remediation. SRO 

applicants who take both portions of the exam only require a 70% on the SRO-only portion to pass. 

Added reference to 10 CFR 55.31(b) as recommended by OGC. Clarified second paragraph related to 

an SRO-upgrade applicant passing the licensing exam and did not participate in Requal during the 

license class. Specified that additional training may be required prior to commencing duties as an RO or 

SRO.

F.1.f,h,l, corrected previous revision which inadvertently removed italicized items. Editorial change. 

Based of feedback from regional offices.

F.1.i, added Form ES-301-7 to the list of documents to keep.

G. added new Attachment 6, “Acceptance of License Denial and Waiver of Hearing Rights.” Reference 

ROI 15-21, ADAMS accession number ML15296A331.

Attachment 5, added additional guidance for licenses held in abeyance, with details regarding the 

disposition of their license.

Attachment 6, two new sample letters have been added, one that the applicant submits to the NRC and 

one that acknowledges receipt of the request to waive informal staff review and hearing rights. 

Reference ROI 15-21, ADAMS accession number ML15296A331.
xxvii

Changes from NUREG-1021, Revision 10

Form ES-501-1, item 3, added step to ensure any facility generated operating test comments are 

reviewed prior to grading the examinations. This was a recommendation by the Branch Chiefs with 

regard to the resolution of LLRT item 1.3. Also incorporated *’s in the first 4 steps to indicate that these 

may be N/A’d if a retake exam or an exam that allows an excusal of some portion doesn’t include the 

items. Reference ROI 14-18, ADAMS accession number ML14196A466.

ES-502

Multiple changes across this section for examination failure procedures. The term “proposed license 

denial” has been changed to terms regarding the “preliminary results” of a licensing examination failure. 

This change was made to clearly indicate when an applicant has hearing rights in accordance with the 

regulations. The NRC must provide hearing rights if it issues a “proposed license denial letter” to an 

applicant because this is a type of licensing decision. The NRC staff decided to change this process to 

allow the applicant an opportunity for an informal NRC staff review of the failed examination item(s) 

along with support material provided by the facility and/or applicant before a licensing decision is made 

by the NRC. 

If an applicant fails a licensing exam, he or she will first receive a “Preliminary Results Letter,” provided 

the opportunity to request an informal staff review. Since this letter is no longer a “proposed license 

denial,” it is not considered a licensing decision and thus does not involve adjudicatory hearing rights. 

An applicant retains the ability to request an adjudicatory hearing once he or she receives the final 

license denial letter which signifies that a licensing decision has been made by either the NRC informal 

review team or the NRC Regional office. Furthermore, the NRC has discontinued the process of 

performing informal reviews of license application denials. An applicant can request an adjudicatory 

hearing once he or she is notified that his or her application has been denied.

Changed the title of ES-502 from “Processing Requests for Administrative Reviews and Hearings After 

Initial License Denial” to “Processing Requests for Informal NRC Staff Reviews and Adjudicatory 

Hearings.” This title change reflects the discontinuation of the “proposed license denial” or the “initial 

license denial” process. The NRC will not make a licensing decision until the applicant has the 

opportunity to request and receive an informal NRC staff review. 

C.1.a, removed the word “proposed” since eligibility application denials require only a final denial letter. 

C.1.b, added guidance to coincide with the use of a proposed denial letter and a final denial letter. Also 

added guidance for the option for an applicant to waive hearing rights after accepting the final denial. 

Reference ROI 15-21, ADAMS accession number ML15296A331. Changed “your” to “the applicant’s.”

C.2.b, clarified that the facility licensee should ensure that any invalid written examination questions 

should be removed from the examination bank regardless of whether or not the facility licensee 

prepared the exam.

D.2.a, added guidance related to the options for conducting an appeal review, with guidance that is 

consistent with OLMC-0500. Revised reference to complaint to reference to appeal request. OLIT 

recommendation. Also added guidance that the appeal panel can review video recordings, if applicable.

D.2.b, revised “examination failure” to “examination proposed denial.” Editorial.

D.2.c, revised “standards” to “requirements.” Editorial.

ES-604

Form ES-604-1, Simulator Scenario Review Checklist, changed Total malfunctions under quantitative 

attributes from 4-8 to 5-8 to correspond with IP 71111.11 Appendix C, which specifies a minimum of 5 

for the total number of malfunctions per scenario. Note: the IP is a review tool, not an exam 

development tool, and is not geared towards reviewing scenario sets, but instead reviewing individual 

scenarios. 

A, added a note to refer to ES-602 Attachment 1, “Guidelines for Developing and Reviewing OpenReference Examinations,” for specific guidance on writing open-reference written exam questions for 

requalification exams.
xxviii

Changes from NUREG-1021, Revision 10

ES-605

C.1.a, corrected an error in the dates for the example of a requalification program completion.

C.1.c, clarified guidance when a licensee decides to suspend going to Requal and added the most 

common examples. Specified that licensee should send the region the plan to get the person up to date 

prior to commencing licensed duties.

D.2.b, deleted the word proposed in reference to denial of a renewal application added information 

about adjudicatory hearing rights to align with the application denial process changes in ES-202.

Appendix B

A, added a reference to ES-602 Attachment 1 for specific guidance on how to develop open-reference 

written examination questions since this Appendix contains guidelines for written examination question 

development. This is chosen as an option instead of moving the material in ES-602 Attachment 1 to 

Appendix B.

Appendix C

B.3, Linked JPM critical step performance criteria to verifiable actions as defined in ES 301 Attachment 

2 with the following statement, “In general, critical steps should consist of verifiable actions.” 

Referenced verifiable actions guidelines in ES 301 Attachment 2. This change is based on regional 

office feedback to clarify that verifiable actions also apply to JPMs.

Appendix D

Converted “should” statement into “shall” throughout appendix for operating test content because the 

criteria in NUREG 1021 are required for the preparation and evaluation of written examinations and 

operating tests IAW 10 CFR 55.40.

B.1, made a correction to match this text to requirements for operating tests in 10 CFR 55.45.

B.3, sixth paragraph: Re-organized the instructions for completing Forms ES-D-2 “Required Operator 

Actions.” For CTs, changed the term measureable performance indicators to measureable performance 

standards and referenced Section D of Appendix D for more information on appropriate measurable 

performance standards.

C.1, added a new qualitative attribute, “f. Scenario Overlap” to the list. The new attribute limits the 

amount of events that can be re-used from the previous two NRC initial licensing exams and provides 

detail for how to satisfy the scenario overlap limit. The final product of all required scenarios should not 

contain more than 50% of the events (excluding the major events) from the previous two NRC initial 

licensing exams. Reference ROI 13-17R, ADAMS accession number ML14140A512.

C.2.j, Critical Tasks: added information about “new” or “post-scenario” critical tasks. Included 

information that points to section ES-301 regarding the breakdown of CTs into “EOP based” and 

“Overall.” A scenario must have at least 2 CTs.

D. Critical Task Methodology: added statement that during competency area grading, errors related to 

the performance of a critical task are treated differently than other errors. Reorganized paragraph for 

how CTs are used during initial licensing exams and requalification exams. Provided an example of 

factors to consider when determining if an expected action is a critical task. Emphasized that CTs are 

scenario specific and are not required to originate from a generic facility/vendor approved list.

D.1.b, clarified guidance for CT initiating cues.

D.1.c, changed subsection heading from Measurable Performance Indicators to Measurable 

Performance Standard. Added details for the elements of a critical task performance standard. 

Included two additional examples of performance standards for the case of an applicant not taking 

action or taking and incorrect action and applicants that take an action or fail to take an action that is 

corrected by another member of the crew.

D.1.d, clarified performance feedback requirements for all critical tasks.
xxix

Changes from NUREG-1021, Revision 10

D.2, provided a critical task example for an applicant taking a preemptive manual action when an 

automatic action is imminent as a result of an incorrect action or inaction. Recommended that exam 

developers and examiner anticipate these types of CTs prior to administering the simulator exam and 

include a statement in the scenario guide to consider actions that cause an unnecessary plant trip or 

ESFAS actuation as grounds for a CT. 

D.2, clarified guidance for use of emergency event classifications during simulator scenarios. They are 

not required to be in simulator scenarios and if included, improper classifications do not meet the CT 

criteria because they do not provide the applicant performance feedback.

E.2.f, added ability to recognize equipment inoperabilities locate appropriate specifications for 

equipment inoperabilities and correctly interpret and ensure compliance to the SRO competency 

description for Technical Specifications to match wording in ES 303-4.

Attachment 1 and 2, Added Critical Tasks to examples scenarios ES-D-1 forms and scenario outlines. 

Form ES-D-1, Added place to list Critical Tasks

Appendix E

A.4, editorial change, removed the word “the”.

B.3, revised guidance regarding time extensions for taking the written examination to remove the 

allowance of time extensions except under uncontrollable conditions. Specified that applicants are 

responsible for ensuring they are physically capable of taking the exam in the allotted time. This was 

based on NRC staff and public feedback to remove time extensions and guidance from OGC to add a 

realistic time limit. Coincides with guidance added to ES-402, D.4.d. Revised the time it takes to take 

the full SRO exam from 8 hours to 9 hours based on the individual allowances for the RO exam of 6 

hours and the SRO-Only exam of 3 hours.

B.9, removed the last sentence due to unnecessary guidance.

C.3, editorial changes to remove the words “that are” in the first sentence and revised “set points” to 

“setpoints in the fifth sentence. Additionally, removed specificity as to who an applicant can solicit 

information from, revised to no other person.

D.2, added the words “may be” since examiners are usually badged at the facility and “visitor” is a 

security distinction.

D.5, editorial word changes, removed “that” in the fourth line and change “he” to “the examiner.”

D.7, editorial change, removed the words “be able to.”

D.11, editorial change, shortened sentence to ask for questions only.

E.6, deleted the option for an examiner to act as other licensee staff since the licensee always do this.

E.9, deleted the guidance that says that the applicants will be notified of time compression after the 

scenario since this will be done prior or during the scenario.

E.11, revised the guidance that the applicant “may” be given a break following scenarios from “will” be 

given a break.

E.13, revised discussion regarding video recording to match guidance in ES-302.

E.14, editorial change, shortened sentence to ask for questions only.

Appendix F

Added terms and definitions for “defer”, “excuse” and waive.”
xxx

ABBREVIATIONS

ABWR Advanced Boiling Water Reactor

AC alternating current

ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (NRC)

ADS automatic depressurization system

AFW auxiliary feedwater

ANS American Nuclear Society

ANSI American National Standards Institute

AO auxiliary operator

AOP abnormal operating procedure

AP-1000® Westinghouse AP-1000® pressurized-water reactor

APRM average power range monitor

ARP alarm (or annunciator) response procedure

ATC at the controls (operator)

ATWS (T) anticipated transient without scram (trip)

B&W Babcock and Wilcox

BOP balance of plant (operator)

BWR boiling-water reactor

C (degrees) Celsius

CAL confirmatory action letter

CCP centrifugal charging pump

CCW component cooling water

CD-ROM compact disk, read-only memory

CE Combustion Engineering

CFPT condensate feedwater pump turbine

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CRD control rod drive

CRT criterion-referenced test

CS core spray

CT critical task

CTMT containment

CVCS chemical and volume control system

DAS dominant accident sequence

DC direct current

DCIP Division of Construction Inspection and Operational Programs (NRO)

DG diesel generator

DHR decay heat removal

DIRS Division of Inspection and Regional Support (NRR)

EAL emergency action level

E/APE emergency / abnormal plant evolution

ECA emergency contingency action (procedure)

ECCS emergency core cooling system

ECP estimated critical position

EDG emergency diesel generator
xxxi

EHC electrohydraulic control

EIE electronic information exchange

EOL end-of-life

EOP emergency operating procedure

EPIP emergency plan implementing procedure

EQB examination question bank

ES examination standard

ESF engineered safety feature F (degrees) Fahrenheit

FHE fuel handling equipment

FR Federal Register

FRP functional recovery procedure

FSAR final safety analysis report

GE (H) General Electric (Hitachi)

GFE generic fundamentals examination

GL generic letter

GUI graphical user interface

HCL higher cognitive level

HCU hydraulic control unit

HHSI high head safety injection

HP health physics

HPCI high-pressure coolant injection

HPCS high-pressure core spray

HPSI high-pressure safety injection

HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning

IC initial condition or instrumentation and control

I & C instrumentation and control

IMC Inspection Manual Chapter (NRC Inspection)

INPO Institute of Nuclear Power Operations

IP inspection procedure

IPE individual plant examination

IR importance rating

IRM intermediate range monitor

JPM job performance measure

JTA job task analysis

K/A knowledge and abilities

KSA knowledge, skills, and abilities

LAN local area network

LCO limiting condition for operation

LER licensee event report

LOCA loss-of-coolant accident

LOD level of difficulty

LOK level of knowledge

LOOP loss of offsite power

LPCI low-pressure coolant injection

LPCS low-pressure core spray

LPRM local power range monitor

LSRO senior operator limited to fuel handling

LWR light-water reactor
xxxii

MC Manual Chapter (NRC Inspection)

MCC motor control center

MDAFW (P) motor-driven AFW (pump)

MFP main feedwater pump

MIP master inspection plan

mmHg millimeter of mercury

MSIV main steam isolation valve

NANT National Academy for Nuclear Training

NEI Nuclear Energy Institute

NNAB National Nuclear Accrediting Board

NOP normal operating procedure

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NRO Office of New Reactors (NRC)

NRR Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRC)

NRT norm-referenced test

NUREG NRC technical report designation (NRC)

NWPA Nuclear Waste Policy Act (of 1982)

OE operating / operational experience

OJT on-the-job training

OLA operator licensing assistant

OLTS operator licensing tracking system

OTSG once-through steam generator

OMB Office of Management and Budget (U.S.)

PARS Publicly Available Records System

PCIS primary containment isolation system

PDR Public Document Room

PORV power-operated relief valve

PPR plant performance review

PRA probabilistic risk assessment

PSI (A) (G) pounds per square inch (absolute) (gauge)

PWR pressurized-water reactor

PZR pressurizer

QA quality assurance

QPTR quadrant power tilt ratio

RBCCW reactor building closed cooling water

RBM rod block monitor

RCA radiologically controlled area

RCIC reactor core isolation cooling

RCS reactor coolant system

RCP reactor coolant pump

RF rating factor

RFP reactor feed pump

RG Regulatory Guide (NRC)

RHR residual heat removal

RM radiation monitor

RMCS reactor manual control system

RO reactor operator

ROI report on Interaction

RNPPE responsible nuclear power plant experience

RP radiation / radiological protection
xxxiii

RPIS rod position indication system

RPM revolutions per minute

RPS reactor protection system

RPV reactor pressure vessel

RWST refueling water storage tank

S (AT) satisfactory

SAT systems approach to training, systematic approach to training

S (B) GTS standby gas treatment system

SD standard deviation

SG (TR) steam generator (tube rupture)

SI safety injection

SLC standby liquid control

SO senior operator

SME subject matter expert

SPND self-powered neutron detector

SRO (I) (U) senior reactor operator (instant) (upgrade)

SRP Standard Review Plan (NUREG-0800)

SRV safety relief valve

SSW standby service water

STA shift technical advisor

TA task analysis

TDAFW (P) turbine-driven AFW (pump)

T/F true-false (statement/question)

TMI Three Mile Island

TPA temporary plant alteration

TPE task performance evaluation

TS technical specification (or other technical requirements document)

U (NSAT) unsatisfactory

UPS uninterruptible power supply

U.S.C. United States Code

V (AC) (DC) volts AC or DC

VCT volume control tank

W Westinghouse

W/T walk-through

ES-101, Page 1 of 1

ES-101

PURPOSE AND FORMAT

OF OPERATOR LICENSING EXAMINATION STANDARDS

A. Purpose

Title 10, Part 55, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 55) requires that applicants for

reactor operator (RO) and senior reactor operator (SRO) licenses must pass both a written 

examination and an operating test (both initially and for requalification). Moreover, the

regulations mandate that the license examinations must be developed and administered in

accordance with 10 CFR 55.41 and 55.45 for ROs, or 10 CFR 55.43 and 55.45 for SROs. . As 

stated in 10 CFR 55.40(a), 

The Commission shall use the criteria in NUREG-1021, "Operator 

Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors," in effect six 

months before the examination date to prepare the written 

examinations required by §§ 55.41 and 55.43 and the operating 

tests required by § 55.45. The Commission shall also use the 

criteria in NUREG-1021 to evaluate the written examinations and 

operating tests prepared by power reactor facility licensees....

Per 10 CFR 55.40(b)(1), power reactor facility licensees may prepare, proctor, and grade the 

written examinations required by §§ 55.41 and 55.43 and may prepare the operating tests 

required by § 55.45, as long as they prepare the required examinations and tests in accordance 

with the criteria in NUREG-1021.

The “Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors” (NUREG-1021) establish 

the policies, procedures, and practices for administering the required initial and requalification 

written examinations and operating tests. These standards describe the provisions of the Atomic 

Energy Act of 1954 and the regulations on which the operator licensing program is based. They 

also ensure the equitable and consistent administration of examinations to all applicants and 

licensed operators at all facilities that are subject to the regulations.

B. Format

Each examination standard (ES) explains the policies, procedures, and practices for a particular 

aspect of the program. For ease of reference, each standard is assigned a three-digit number, 

and related standards are grouped together in the sense that standards beginning with the same 

digit apply to related aspects of the program, as follows:

ES-1xx: General

ES-2xx: Initial pre-examination activities

ES-3xx: Initial operating tests

ES-4xx: Initial written examinations

ES-5xx: Initial post-examination activities

ES-6xx: Requalification examinations

ES-7xx: Fuel handling examinations

ES-102, Page 1 of 8

ES-102

REGULATIONS AND PUBLICATIONS

APPLICABLE TO OPERATOR LICENSING

A. Purpose

This standard lists the U.S. statutes and the regulations of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) that establish the requirements for conducting operator licensing 

examinations. It also identifies the regulatory guides and NUREG-series reports that establish 

the procedures for implementing the regulations and administering the examinations, as well as 

industry standards issued by the American National Standards Institute/American Nuclear 

Society (ANSI/ANS), which may provide additional guidance.

Regulatory guides, NUREG-series reports, and industry standards do not constitute 

requirements, except as specified in Commission orders or as committed to by the facility 

licensee. NRC examiners and licensees should consult the appropriate revisions, as referenced 

in each facility’s final safety analysis report (FSAR) or approved training program. The following

paragraphs summarize the latest revisions of these documents.

B. Statutes

1. Atomic Energy Act of 1954

Section 107 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2137), as amended, states: 

The Commission shall--

(a) prescribe uniform conditions for licensing individuals as 

operators of any of the various classes of production and 

utilization facilities licensed in this chapter; 

(b) determine the qualifications of such individuals; 

(c) issue licenses to such individuals in such form as the 

Commission may prescribe; and 

(d) suspend such licenses for violations of any provision of 

this chapter or any rule or regulation issued thereunder 

whenever the Commission deems such action desirable

The Commission has noted:

Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA) (42 U.S.C. 

2239(a)) provides that in any proceeding for the granting, 

suspending, revoking, or amending of any license, the NRC shall 

grant a hearing upon the request of any person whose interest may 

be affected by the proceeding. Among the licenses issued by the 

NRC are those for operators and senior operators of nuclear 

reactors (AEA section 107, 42 U.S.C. 2137; 10 CFR Part 55).
ES-102, Page 2 of 8

Final Rule, Informal Hearing Procedures for Nuclear Reactor 

Operator Licensing Adjudications, 55 Fed. Reg. 36,801 (Sept. 7, 

1990).

2. Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982

Section 306 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10226) states in part:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is authorized and directed to 

promulgate regulations, or other appropriate Commission 

regulatory guidance, for the training and qualifications of civilian 

nuclear powerplant operators, supervisors, technicians and other 

appropriate operating personnel. Such regulations or guidance 

shall establish simulator training requirements for applicants for 

civilian nuclear powerplant operator licenses and for operator 

requalification programs; requirements governing NRC 

administration of requalification examinations; requirements for 

operating tests at civilian nuclear powerplant simulators, and 

instructional requirements for civilian nuclear powerplant licensee 

personnel training programs

3. Veteran Skills to Jobs Act

The Veteran Skills to Jobs Act (PL 112-147, July 23, 2013, 126 Stat 1138) directs each 

Federal licensing authority to consider and may accept, in the case of any individual

applying for a license, any relevant training received by such individual while serving as a 

member of the armed forces, for the purpose of satisfying the requirements for the license.

C. Regulations

1. 10 CFR Part 2, “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure”

10 CFR Part 2.107(a) states that the Commission may permit an applicant to withdraw an 

application before the issuance of a notice of hearing on such terms and conditions as it 

may prescribe, or may, on receiving a request for withdrawal of an application, deny the 

application or dismiss it with prejudice. If the application is withdrawn before issuance of a 

notice of hearing, the Commission shall dismiss the proceeding. Withdrawal of an 

application after the issuance of a notice of hearing shall be on such terms as the 

presiding officer may prescribe

2. 10 CFR Part 9, “Public Records”

Subpart A implements the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, 

concerning the availability to the public of Nuclear Regulatory Commission records for 

inspection and copying.

Subpart B implements the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, 

concerning disclosure and availability of certain Nuclear Regulatory Commission records 

maintained on individuals.
ES-102, Page 3 of 8

Subpart C implements the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 

552b, concerning the opening of Commission meetings to public observation.

Subpart D describes procedures governing the production of agency records, information, 

or testimony in response to subpoenas or demands of courts or other judicial or 

quasi-judicial authorities in State and Federal proceedings.

3. 10 CFR Part 20, “Standards for Protection against Radiation”

The regulations in 10 CFR Part 20, “Standards for Protection against Radiation,” establish 

standards for protection against radiation hazards arising from licensed activities.

4. 10 CFR Part 26, “Fitness for Duty Programs”

10 CFR Part 26 prescribes requirements and standards for the establishment, 

implementation, and maintenance of fitness-for-duty (FFD) programs. The FFD program 

is applicable to operators who will meet the criteria in 10 CFR 26.4(a). Subpart I, 

“Managing Fatigue,” provides requirements to manage and mitigate the consequences of 

worker fatigue during normal, emergency and plant outage periods. Licensed operators 

are subject to additional work hour control requirements and share responsibility for 

approving program processes such as waivers, exemptions and fatigue assessments.

Certain acts related to FFD taken by any person licensed under 10 CFR pat 55 to operate 

a power reactor must be reported to the NRC per 10 CFR 26.719(b). 

5. 10 CFR Part 50, ”Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities”

The regulations in 10 CFR 50.34(b)(8) require that the FSAR, included in an application 

for an operating license, shall include a description and plans for implementation of an 

operator requalification program. The operator requalification program must as a 

minimum, meet the requirements for those programs contained in 10 CFR § 55.59.

Conditions of Facility Licenses

10 CFR 50.54(i): The licensee may not permit the manipulation of the controls of any 

facility by anyone who is not a licensed operator or senior operator as provided in Part 55 

of this chapter.

10 CFR 50.54(i-1): Within 3 months after either the issuance of an operating license or 

the date that the Commission makes the finding under § 52.103(g) for a combined license, 

as applicable, the licensee shall have in effect an operator requalification program. The 

operator requalification program must, as a minimum, meet the requirements of § 55.59(c) 

of this chapter. The licensee may not, except as specifically authorized by the 

Commission decrease the scope of an approved operator requalification program.

10 CFR 50.54(j): Apparatus and mechanisms other than controls, the operation of which 

may affect the reactivity or power level of a reactor shall be manipulated only with the 

knowledge and consent of an operator or senior operator licensed pursuant to Part 55 of 

this chapter present at the controls.

10 CFR 50.54(k): An operator or senior operator licensed pursuant to Part 55 of this 

chapter shall be present at the controls at all times during the operation of the facility.
ES-102, Page 4 of 8

10 CFR 50.54(l): The licensee shall designate individuals to be responsible for directing 

the licensed activities of licensed operators. These individuals shall be licensed as senior 

operators pursuant to Part 55 of this chapter.

10 CFR 50.54(m)(1): A senior operator licensed pursuant to Part 55 of this chapter shall 

be present at the facility or readily available on call at all times during its operation, and 

shall be present at the facility during initial start-up and approach to power, recovery from 

an unplanned or unscheduled shut-down or significant reduction in power, and refueling, 

or as otherwise prescribed in the facility license.

10 CFR 50.54(m)(2): By January 1, 1984, licensees of nuclear power units shall meet

minimum shift staffing specified in 10 CFR 50.54(m)(2)(i)-(iv).

Change in operator or senior operator status

10 CFR 50.74: Each licensee shall notify the appropriate Regional Administrator as 

listed in appendix D to 10 CFR Part 20 within 30 days of the following in regard to a 

licensed operator or senior operator:

(a) Permanent reassignment from the position for which the licensee has certified 

the need for a licensed operator or senior operator under § 55.31(a)(3);

(b) Termination of any operator or senior operator;

(c) Permanent disability or illness as described in § 55.25.

Training and qualification of nuclear power plant personnel

10 CFR 50.120: Facility licensees are required to establish, implement, and maintain a 

training program derived from a systems approach to training. The program must provide 

for the training and qualification of various categories of nuclear power plan personnel, 

including non-licensed operators, shift supervisor, and shift technical advisor.

6. 10 CFR Part 52, “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants”

10 CFR Part 52 governs the issuance of early site permits, standard design certifications, 

combined licenses, standard design approvals, and manufacturing licenses for nuclear 

power facilities licensed under Section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

(68 Stat. 919), and Title II of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 1242).

The regulations in 10 CFR 52.79(a)(14) require an application contain a description of the 

operator training program and its implementation necessary to meet the requirements of 

10 CFR Part 55, “Operators’ Licenses.”

The regulations in 10 CFR 52.79(a)(34) require an application contain a description and 

plans for implementation of an operator requalification program. The operator 

requalification program must as a minimum, meet the requirements for those programs 

contained in 10 CFR Part 55.59, “Requalification.”

7. 10 CFR Part 55, “Operators’ Licenses”

The regulations in 10 CFR Part 55:
ES-102, Page 5 of 8

(a) Establish procedures and criteria for the issuance of licenses to operators and senior 

operators of utilization facilities licensed under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 

amended, or Section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and

Part 50, or Part 52 of this chapter,

(b) Provide for the terms and conditions upon which the Commission will issue or modify 

these licenses, and

(c) Provide for the terms and conditions to maintain and renew these licenses.

8. 10 CFR Part 73, “Physical Protection of Plants and Materials”

The regulations in 10 CFR include 10 CFR 73.55(p) which requires approval by a licensed 

senior operator for the suspension of security measures.

D. Regulatory Guides

1. Regulatory Guide 1.8, “Qualification and Training of Personnel for Nuclear Power

Plants,” Revision 3, May 2000

Section C of this regulatory guide (RG) endorses ANSI/ANS 3.1-1993, “American National 

Standard for Selection, Qualification, and Training of Personnel for Nuclear Power 

Plants,” with additions, exceptions, and clarifications.

2. Regulatory Guide 1.28, “Quality Assurance Program Criteria (Design and 

Construction),” Revision 4, June 2010

Section C of this RG endorses NQA-1-2008 and NQA-1a-2009 Addenda, “Quality 

Assurance Program Requirements for Nuclear Power Plants” with additions, and 

modifications.

3. Regulatory Guide 1.33, “Quality Assurance Program Requirements (Operation)”

Revision 3, June 2013

Section C of this RG endorses ANSI/ANS 3.2-2012, “Managerial, Administrative, and 

Quality Assurance Controls for Operational Phase of Nuclear Power Plants.”

4. Regulatory Guide 1.114, “Guidance to Operators at the Controls and to Senior 

Operators in the Control Room of a Nuclear Power Unit,” Revision 3, October 2008

This RG describes a method that the NRC staff finds acceptable for complying with the

Commission’s regulations in 10 CFR 50.54(k) and (m), which requires the presence of an 

RO at the controls of a nuclear power unit and an SRO in the control room from which the 

nuclear power unit is being operated.

5. Regulatory Guide 1.134, “Medical Evaluation of Licensed Personnel for Nuclear

Power Plants,” Revision 3, March 1998

This RG currently endorses ANSI/ANS 3.4-1996, “Medical Certification and Monitoring of

Personnel Requiring Operator Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants,” with exceptions. 
ES-102, Page 6 of 8

However, facility licensees may continue to use the 1983 version of ANSI/ANS 3.4, which 

was previously endorsed in its entirety by Revision 2 of RG 1.134, dated April 1987.

6. Regulatory Guide 1.149, “Nuclear Power Plant Simulation Facilities for Use in

Operator Training, License Examinations, and Applicant Experience 

Requirements” Revision 4, April 2011

This RG currently endorses ANSI/ANS 3.5-2009, “Nuclear Power Plant Simulators for Use 

in Operator Training and Examination” with clarifications. However, facility licensees 

may continue to use the 1985, 1993, and 1998 versions of ANSI/ANS 3.5, which were 

previously endorsed, with exceptions, by Revisions 1, 2 and 3 of RG 1.149, dated April 

1987, April 1996, and October 2001, respectively.

E. NUREG-Series Reports

1. NUREG-0660, Vol. 1, “NRC Action Plan Developed as a Result of the TMI-2 

Accident,” May 1980

Item I.A.4.2 of this document describes the guidelines for long-term simulator upgrades.

2. NUREG-0737, “Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements,” November 1980

This document clarifies the following action plan items, which are intended to upgrade the

training, licensing, education, and experience of operators on the basis of experience 

gained from the accident at Three Mile Island, Unit 2:

• Item I.A.2.1, “Immediate Upgrading of RO and SRO Training and Qualifications”

• Item I.A.2.3, “Administration of Training Programs”

• Item I.A.3.1, “Revised Scope and Criteria for Licensing Exams”

• Item II.B.4, ‘Training for Mitigating Core Damage”

3. NUREG-0800, “Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for

Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition,” July 1981

Section 13.2, “Reactor Operator Training,” describes the training and licensing of

operators and identifies information to be submitted by applicants for construction permits

and operating licenses.

4. NUREG-1122, “Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant 

Operators: Pressurized-Water Reactors,” Revision 2, Supplement 1, October 2007

This document provides the basis for developing content-valid licensing examinations for

operators at pressurized-water reactors. It contains knowledge and ability (K/A) 

statements that have been rated for their importance to ensuring that the plant is operated 

in a manner that is consistent with the health and safety of plant personnel and the public.

5. NUREG-1123, “Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant 

Operators: Boiling-Water Reactors,” Revision 2, Supplement 1, October 2007

This document provides the basis for developing content-valid licensing examinations for

operators at boiling-water reactors. It contains K/A statements that have been rated for
ES-102, Page 7 of 8

their importance to ensuring that the plant is operated in a manner that is consistent with

the health and safety of plant personnel and the public.

6. NUREG-1262, “Answers to Questions at Public Meetings Regarding 

Implementation of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 55 on Operators’

Licenses,” November 1987

This report presents questions and answers based on the transcripts of four public 

meetings (and written questions submitted after the meetings) conducted by the NRC staff 

shortly after publication of the 10 CFR Part 55 rule change in 1987. Although many of the

answers have been overtaken by events since 1987, this report remains useful in that it 

provides a historical perspective on many issues.

7. NUREG-1560, “Individual Plant Examination Program: Perspectives on Reactor 

Safety and Plant Performance,” December 1997

This report provides perspectives gained by reviewing 75 individual plant examination 

submittals pertaining to 108 nuclear power plant units. Chapter 13, “Operational 

Perspectives,” is of particular interest because it identifies a number of important human

actions that should be considered for evaluation on licensing and requalification 

examinations for pressurized- and boiling-water reactors.

8. NUREG-1600, “General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement 

Actions,” August 2013 (available in ADAMS at ML13228A199)

This report addresses the NRC’s expectations regarding compliance with 10 CFR 55.49, 

“Integrity of Examinations and Tests,” and possible enforcement actions against parties 

who are subject to that regulation (i.e., Part 55 license holders and applicants and 10 CFR 

Part 50 licensees).

9. NUREG-2103, “Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant 

Operators: Westinghouse AP1000 Pressurized-Water Reactors” Revision 0, 

October 2011

This document provides the basis for developing content-valid licensing examinations for

operators at Westinghouse AP-1000® pressurized -water reactors. It contains K/A 

statements that have been rated for their importance to ensuring that the plant is operated 

in a manner consistent with the health and safety of plant personnel and the public.

10. NUREG-2104, “Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant 

Operators: Advanced Boiling Water Reactors,” Revision 0, December 2011

This document provides the basis for developing content-valid licensing examinations for

operators at advanced boiling water reactors. It contains K/A statements that have been 

rated for their importance to ensuring that the plant is operated in a manner consistent with 

the health and safety of plant personnel and the public.
ES-102, Page 8 of 8

F. Industry Standards

1. ANSI/ANS 3.1, “American National Standard for Selection, Qualification, and

Training of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants”

This standard provides criteria for selecting and training nuclear power plant employees 

who perform a variety of functions at various levels of responsibility (e.g., managers, 

supervisors, operators, and technicians). RG 1.8, Revision 3 (May 2000) endorses the

1993 version of this standard, with additions, exceptions, and clarifications.

2. ANS 3.2 (ANSI N18.7-1976), “Administrative Controls and Quality Assurance for the

Operational Phase of Nuclear Power Plants”

This standard provides guidance and recommendations for administrative rules of

practice and related subjects and for preparing procedures and audit programs. See RG

1.33.

3. ANSI/ANS 3.4-1996, “Medical Certification and Monitoring of Personnel Requiring

Operator Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants”

This standard is the basic document covering the general health and disqualifying 

conditions applicable to license applicants and licensed personnel. Revision 3 of RG

1.134 currently endorses this standard, with exceptions, but facility licensees may

continue to use the 1983 version, which was previously endorsed in its entirety by

Revision 2 of RG 1.134.

4. ANSI/ANS 3.5-2009, “Nuclear Power Plant Simulators for Use in Operator Training”

This standard establishes the minimum functional requirements and capabilities for

nuclear power plant simulators for use in operator training. Revision 4 of RG 1.149 

endorses this standard, with clarifications. Facility licensees may continue to use the 

1985, 1993, and 1998 versions, which were previously endorsed, with exceptions, by

Revisions 1, 2, and 3 of RG 1.149.

5. NEI 11-04, “Nuclear Generation Quality Assurance Program Description”

Part V of this Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) guidance contains a description of the types 

of procedures used to govern the design, operation, and maintenance of nuclear power 

plants. It follows the guidance of Appendix A to RG 1.33 in identifying the types of activities 

that should have procedures or instructions to control the activity.
ES-201, Page 1 of 31

ES-201

INITIAL OPERATOR LICENSING EXAMINATION PROCESS

A. Purpose

This standard describes the activities that must be completed to prepare for initial operator licensing 

examinations (including written examinations and operating tests) at power reactor facilities. As 

such, this standard includes instructions for scheduling and coordinating examination development, 

assigning U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) examiners and facility personnel, 

maintaining examination security, and obtaining reference and examination materials from the 

facility licensee.

B. Background

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 55, “Operators’ Licenses,” requires that 

applicants for reactor operator (RO) and senior reactor operator (SRO) licenses must pass both a 

written examination and an operating test. 10 CFR 55.40(b) allows power reactor facility 

licensees to prepare the site-specific written examinations and operating tests, provided that 

(1) the facility licensee shall prepare the examinations and tests in accordance with the criteria 

contained here; (2) the facility licensee shall establish, implement, and maintain procedures to

control examination security and integrity; (3) an authorized representative of the facility licensee 

shall approve the examinations and tests before they are submitted to the NRC for review and 

approval; and (4) the facility licensee shall obtain NRC approval of its proposed written 

examinations and operating tests. Moreover, the regulation requires that the license 

examinations must be developed and administered in accordance with 10 CFR 55.41, “Written 

Examination: Operators,” and 10 CFR 55.45, “Operating Tests,” for ROs, or 10 CFR 55.43, 

“Written Examination: Senior Operators,” and 10 CFR 55.45 for SROs.

Facility licensees may propose alternatives to the examination criteria contained here and 

evaluate how the proposed alternatives provide an acceptable method of complying with the 

Commission’s regulations. The NRC staff will review any proposed alternatives and make a 

decision regarding their acceptability. The NRC will not approve any alternative that would 

compromise the agency’s statutory responsibility to prescribe uniform conditions for the operator 

licensing examinations.

The NRC staff will continue to prepare the examinations (or discrete portions of them, including 

the outline, written, or operating tests) upon written request by facility licensees (consistent with 

NRC staff availability) and retain the authority to develop the examinations on a case-by-case 

basis to certify new examiners and maintain examiner proficiency or if the staff loses confidence 

that a facility licensee will develop examinations upon which the NRC can base its licensing 

decisions. If the staff determines that a facility is unable to develop acceptable examinations, the 

examinations could be delayed until the NRC can schedule sufficient resources to develop and 

conduct the examinations, or until the facility licensee can develop an acceptable examination. 

Each NRC regional office also will prepare at least one examination per calendar year to certify 

new examiners, if necessary, and to maintain examiner proficiency.

The NRC will make a reasonable attempt to administer all license examinations on the dates 

requested by facility licensees. At times, however, resource limitations may compel the staff to

prioritize its examination review and development activities based on need and safety

considerations. Examinations for fewer than three applicants should be scheduled only under

extenuating circumstances, such as a shortage of licensed ROs or SROs at the facility. If a
ES-201, Page 2 of 31

facility licensee has fewer than three license applicants, the examinations may be delayed until 

more applicants are trained. Moreover, facility licensees that elect to have the NRC prepare their 

licensing examinations should keep in mind that the NRC staff requires more time to prepare than 

to review an examination and that the NRC will require greater flexibility to schedule those 

services.

In accordance with 10 CFR 55.40(a), the NRC shall use the criteria in NUREG-1021, “Operator 

Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors,” to prepare the written examinations 

required by 10 CFR 55.41 and 10 CFR 55.43 and the operating tests required by 10 CFR 55.45. 

The NRC shall also use the criteria in NUREG-1021 to evaluate the written examinations and 

operating tests prepared by power reactor facility licensees under 10 CFR 55.40(b). The NRC’s 

regional offices shall obtain approval from the NRR/NRO operator licensing program office before 

knowingly deviating from the intent of NUREG-1021. The regional offices shall obtain program 

office approval before undertaking any initiative that could undermine examination consistency 

among the regions.

Other pre-examination activities, such as submitting and reviewing license applications and

eligibility waivers and administering the generic fundamentals examination program, are

addressed in ES-202, ES-204, and ES-205. Specific instructions for developing, administering, 

and grading the written examinations and operating tests are found in ES-401 through ES-403 

and ES-301 through ES-303, respectively. Post-examination administrative activities, including 

management review of the examination results and preparation of examination reports, are 

discussed in ES-501. Cross-references to each of these standards have been provided where 

appropriate.

C. Responsibilities

Facility licensees and NRC staff should use Form ES-201-1, “Examination Preparation Checklist,”

to track the examination preparations. As noted on the form, the target due dates can be adjusted 

as necessary to accommodate a given situation. The NRC’s chief examiner will initial the items as 

they are completed and ensure that the original form is retained for the master examination file 

(refer to ES-501).

1. Facility Licensee

Note: Items identified with an asterisk (*) DO NOT apply to NRC authored examinations.

a. The facility licensee is expected to apprise its NRC regional office of changes in its 

examination requirements.

The facility licensee should respond in writing to the NRC’s annual letter soliciting

estimated operator licensing needs (including estimated numbers of applicants, 

examination dates, and the licensee’s intended level of participation in developing 

all parts of the examination). The facility licensee should also notify its NRC 

regional office if its examination requirements change significantly from those 

stated in its response. The NRC strongly encourages facility licensees to 

schedule their examinations and to discuss any applicant eligibility questions with 

their NRC regional office before commencing an initial license training class. 

Eligibility determinations will not be provided until formal submission of a waiver 

request with the final (not preliminary) application. In accordance with 10 CFR 

55.40(c), facility licensees who elect to have the NRC prepare, proctor, and grade 

any portion of their operator licensing examinations shall submit written requests 
ES-201, Page 3 of 31

(to the responsible NRC regional office) for those examinations. The licensee 

should make it very clear whether they are requesting the NRC to prepare the 

entire exam or if the exam preparation responsibilities will be split between the 

NRC and the licensee, typically called a “split exam.” A response to the NRC’s 

annual letter will satisfy this requirement.

b. In accordance with 10 CFR 55.49, licensees, facility licensees and applicants shall 

not engage in any activity that compromises the integrity of any application, test, or

examination that is required by 10 CFR Part 55. Attachment 1 to this examination 

standard summarizes several examination security and integrity considerations. 

The NRC Enforcement Policy, available on the NRC’s public website at 

http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/enforcement/enforce-pol.html, addresses 

possible enforcement actions against parties who are subject to the requirements 

in the regulation (i.e., 10 CFR Part 55 license applicants and licensees and 10 CFR 

Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,” and 10 CFR 

Part 52, “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants,” 

licensees).

c*. Pursuant to 10 CFR 55.40(b)(2), facility licensees who elect to prepare their own 

examinations shall establish, implement, and maintain procedures to control 

examination security and integrity. Attachment 1 discusses a number of 

examination security and integrity guidelines that may be appropriate for

incorporation in those procedures.

d. All facility and contractor personnel involved with an examination are subject to the

restrictions stated in Section D of this examination standard. Any questions 

regarding those restrictions should be resolved with the NRC’s chief examiner 

before granting an individual access to the licensing examination.

The facility licensee shall designate a point of contact to work with the NRC’s Chief

examiner and assign additional personnel as required to ensure that the

examinations are developed, reviewed, administered, and graded in accordance 

with the applicable examination standards. The facility licensee may use 

contractors or other outside assistance to develop the examinations, but the 

licensee bears full responsibility for the product, including conformance with the 

examination criteria and maintenance of examination security and integrity.

e. The facility contact shall submit the required reference materials, examination 

outlines, and examinations, as applicable, based on the level of facility 

participation. Form ES-201-1 specifies target due dates for the various materials; 

the actual dates may be adjusted with prior agreement from the NRC regional 

office. For the purposes of operator training and examination, the facility licensee 

may "freeze" the plant procedures at a particular revision to facilitate examination 

development. The facility licensee shall discuss this option with the NRC’s Chief

examiner in advance and refer to Attachment 2 for additional guidance on 

procedure freezes.
ES-201, Page 4 of 31

f. The examination outlines and examinations shall be prepared in accordance with

the guidelines in ES-301, ES-401, ES-401N, and ES-701, as applicable. The 

NRC staff will prepare the written examination outline for both NRC and licensee 

developed examinations. The proposed outlines and examinations shall cover all 

portions of the license examination (written, dynamic simulator, and walk-through) 

at all license levels relevant to the applicants (RO, SRO, and limited SRO) to be 

tested.

A facility supervisor or manager shall independently review the examination 

outline(s) and the proposed examination(s) before they are submitted to the NRC

regional office in accordance with Item (g), below.

In conducting this review, the facility supervisor or manager shall use Forms

ES-201-2, “Examination Outline Quality Checklist”; ES-301-3, “Operating Test 

Quality Checklist”; ES-301-4, “Simulator Scenario Quality Checklist”; and 

ES-401-6 or ES-401N-6, “Written Examination Quality Checklist.”

g*. Pursuant to 10 CFR 55.40(b)(3), an authorized representative of the facility 

licensee shall approve the required examinations and tests before they are 

submitted to the NRC regional office for review and approval. Power reactor 

facility licensees must receive Commission approval of their proposed written 

examinations and operating tests. The facility-approved initial examination(s) 

and tests shall be submitted to the NRC regional office with a cover letter signed by 

the facility representative. The materials must be complete and ready-to-use to 

facilitate a thorough review by the region.

h*. In its examination submittal to the NRC, the facility licensee (or its contractor) shall 

provide the following information for each test item proposed for use as part of the

written examination and/or the operating tests:

• State the source of each item (e.g., is the item taken directly, without changes, 

from the facility licensee’s or any other bank; is the item a modified version of a 

bank item; or is the item new?). Facility licensees are encouraged to identify 

those bank items that were used on an NRC license examination at the facility 

by indicating the examination location and year administered.

• For those items that were derived by modifying existing bank items in any way, 

note the changes that were made or submit a copy of the item from which it 

originated.

i. If the NRC staff prepared any portion of the examination, the NRC regional office 

will provide a copy of the applicable written examination(s) and operating test(s) to 

the facility reviewers after they sign the security agreement (Form ES-201-3) and 

at least 60 days before the exam date. The facility reviewers should make their 

comments directly on the examination(s), return the marked-up copies to the 

NRC’s Chief examiner, and ensure that he or she understands their comments and 

recommendations. The facility reviewers may retain a copy of the applicable 

marked-up examination(s), subject to the physical security considerations in 

Attachment 1.
ES-201, Page 5 of 31

j. The facility licensee shall make its simulation facility available, as necessary, for

NRC examiners to prepare for, validate, and administer the operating tests. The 

NRC will make reasonable efforts to minimize the impact on other training 

activities.

Before developing or administering an initial licensing examination, facility 

licensees are encouraged to review the simulator examination security 

considerations in Appendix D to NUREG-1021 for applicability to their facility. 

Because facility licensees are more familiar than NRC examiners with the unique 

capabilities, limitations, and vulnerabilities of their simulators, the NRC staff 

expects licensees to take responsibility for determining and implementing 

whatever measures might be necessary to ensure the integrity of the operating 

tests.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 55.46(c)(1)(i) and 55.46(d), facility licensees must ensure 

sufficient simulator fidelity to allow conduct of the evolutions listed in 10 CFR 

55.45(a)(1) - (13), as applicable to the design of the reference plant. In addition, 

facility licensees must make available for NRC review the results of any 

uncorrected performance deficiencies that may exist at the time of the operating 

test.

k. The facility licensee shall meet with the NRC (normally the chief examiner) to 

review and discuss all substantive comments from the quality reviews of the 

examination outlines and proposed examinations. These meetings will normally 

be conducted via telephone, but with approval from NRC regional management 

and concurrence of both parties, may be conducted in the regional office or at the 

facility..

If the NRC prepared the examination, the facility reviewers should make their 

comments and recommendations on a copy of the written examination(s) and

operating test(s) provided to them by the NRC examiner. Simple editorial 

changes that do not change the intent of the question require no justification; 

however, every substantive change (e.g., deleting a question, replacing a

distractor, or revising an answer) must be supported by approved facility reference 

material.

If the facility licensee has significant concerns with the content or difficulty of the

NRC-prepared examination, the changes that the NRC has directed the facility 

licensee to make in its proposed examination, or the general implementation of the 

requirements and guidelines in this NUREG, the facility licensee is encouraged to 

communicate those concerns to the NRC and, if appropriate, to request a meeting 

with the NRC to address the concerns. The NRC’s Chief examiner is normally the 

first point of contact for resolving any concerns regarding the examination. If the 

concerns are not resolved at that level, the facility licensee should contact NRC 

regional management and, if necessary, either the chief of the Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation (NRR) operator licensing program or the chief of the Office of 

New Reactors (NRO) operator licensing program office for resolution.

l*. If the facility licensee developed the examination, the licensee will generally make 

any necessary changes as agreed upon with the NRC; however, the NRC retains 

final authority to approve the examinations.
ES-201, Page 6 of 31

m. In accordance with ES-202, the facility licensee shall submit the license

applications along with a letter requesting that licensing examinations be

administered.

2. NRC Regional Management, Supervision, and Designees

a. The regional office shall schedule the NRC’s initial operator licensing 

examinations and shall arrange for the development, administration, and grading 

of those examinations as discussed below. The regional office shall periodically 

review each facility licensee’s examination requirements and shall negotiate with 

the facility licensee’s training representatives, as necessary, to schedule specific 

examination dates consistent with operational requirements and NRC resource 

availability. Each regional office shall plan to prepare at least one complete 

examination per calendar year.

b. Approximately 6 months before each anticipated examination date, the regional 

office should contact the facility licensee and confirm the examination date(s) and

the expected number of applicants to be examined. The regional office should 

use that information to estimate the required number of NRC examiners and to 

make preliminary work assignments.

c. The regional office should contact the facility licensee by telephone approximately

5 months before the scheduled examinations to reconfirm the expected number of 

applicants and the examination dates, and to make other preliminary 

arrangements for developing the examinations. The person who contacts the 

facility licensee shall discuss the following examination arrangements, as 

applicable, depending on the facility licensee’s level of participation in the 

examination development process:

• the examination integrity and security requirements and considerations (refer 

to Attachment 1)

• the option to request a review of the written examination or operating test 

comments in the regional office or at the licensee’s facility

– If agreed upon by regional management, the exact date of the office or 

site visit would be a mutually acceptable date and time.

• the guidance related to freezing plant procedure changes (refer to Attachment 

2)

• the need for the NRC to provide the licensee with the written examination 

outline as early in the process as possible provided security requirements are 

in place

• the requirement that an authorized representative of the facility licensee must

approve the initial examination outlines and examinations before they are

submitted to the NRC for review and approval via cover letter

• the need to have the reference materials necessary for the NRC to develop the 

examination (if applicable; refer to Attachment 3) delivered to the regional 
ES-201, Page 7 of 31

office at least 90, but preferably 120, days before the scheduled examination 

date

• the need to have the operating examination outlines delivered to the NRC 

approximately 90 days before the scheduled examination date

• the need to have the examinations and the support reference materials (refer 

to Attachment 3) delivered to the NRC regional office approximately 60 days 

before the scheduled examination date

• the guidelines for developing, administering, and grading the written 

examinations, as applicable (i.e., the effective version of ES-401 or ES-401N, 

ES-402, and ES-403, respectively)

• the guidelines for developing and administering the operating tests (i.e., the 

effective version of ES-301 and ES-302, respectively)

• dates and simulator availability for onsite validation of exam materials, to 

include at least all of the operating test components (JPMs and simulator 

scenarios). The facility licensee must make the simulator available to 

examiners for an ample amount of time during the validation visit. In addition 

to reviewing and validating proposed operating test materials, the validation 

visit may also serve to provide examiner orientation, retrieve additional 

reference material, or audit the accuracy of the license applications per ES-202

• the need to ensure simulator fidelity in accordance with 10 CFR 55.46(c)(1)(i), 

and to have the simulator and a list of uncorrected performance deficiencies 

and deviations from the reference plant available during on-site validation and 

again at the beginning of administration of the operating tests

• the option to submit some sample test items (e.g., 5 to 10 written questions, 

1 scenario, and one to two job performance measures) for preliminary NRC

review and comment (this could increase the efficiency of the examination 

review process by promoting early identification and correction of generic 

examination development concerns). NOTE: As long as changes were 

incorporated, resulting in acceptable test items, these sample test items should 

not count toward the 20 percent threshold when determining the acceptable 

quality range expected by the NRC per ES-501 E.3.a.

• the requirements (refer to 10 CFR 55.31, “How to Apply”) and guidelines (refer 

to ES-202) for submitting the license applications. The NRC’s final decision 

on whether to grant or deny a waiver or excusal request will be documented on 

the official (not preliminary) NRC form 398 submitted for any applicant. This 

decision will not be provided until a final application is submitted to the NRC.

Note: Waiver and excusal requests should be submitted as early in the 

process as possible (ideally more than 60 days before the exam via 

preliminary Form 398). For first-time re-applicants, waiver and excusal 

requests can be submitted 2 months after the first license denial. 

Guidance on processing such requests resulting from verbal inquiries by 

the licensee to the NRC is not binding.
ES-201, Page 8 of 31

d. The relevant NRC regional office may negotiate earlier due dates with the facility 

contact, but should refrain from advancing the dates if it is unlikely that the review 

will begin promptly after the material arrives in the regional office. The regional 

offices should also keep the facility contact informed of the dates by which the

region expects to provide its comments regarding the licensee’s submittals.

e. The NRC regional office shall normally issue a letter confirming the arrangements 

no later than 150 days before the examination begins. The letter should be 

addressed to the person at the highest level of corporate management who is 

responsible for plant operations (e.g., Vice President of Nuclear Operations). 

Attachment 4 is an example of such a letter; the exact wording may be modified, as

necessary to reflect the situation.

f. Approximately 5 months before the scheduled examination, the NRC regional 

office will assign the required number of examiners to develop, prepare for, and 

administer the examination as arranged with the facility licensee. The regional 

office will also designate a chief examiner to coordinate the examination project 

with the facility licensee and other examiners assigned to the examination. When

making assignments, the regional office should consider each examiner’s 

certification status, other examination commitments, possible conflicts of interest 

(as discussed in Section D of this examination standard), and general availability.

Once the facility licensee has begun preparing the examination, the regional office 

shall avoid changing the chief examiner assignment unless absolutely necessary. 

If a change is unavoidable, the responsible supervisor shall attempt to minimize 

the impact on the facility licensee.

Regional management should try to assign a sufficient number of examiners so that 

no examiner will have to administer more than four complete simulator operating 

tests per week.

g. All assigned examiners should attend onsite validation activities if possible. This 

is the most efficient and effective means for examiners to become familiar with 

examination materials and to provide the chief examiner with feedback on the 

quality of each component of the operating tests. It also serves to orient new 

examiners with the facility, or to refresh examiners who have previously visited the 

facility with site-specific details, such as plant layout and simulator operation. 

There may be circumstances, such as retake operating tests, where validation 

activities can be conducted onsite just prior to the scheduled administration date. 

This alternative to a separate validation week minimizes agency costs and the 

impact on facility licensee training activities.

For those assigned examiners who are unable to participate in onsite validation 

activities, the regional office should determine if a separate preparatory site visit is 

necessary and appropriate. When making a decision, the regional office should 

carefully weigh the costs and benefits associated with each additional trip to the 

facility. The regional office should also consider such factors as the experience of 

the assigned examiners, the quality of the facility licensee’s examinations (if 

applicable), and the status of the simulation facility (e.g., is it new or recently 

upgraded?).

h. The responsible regional supervisor will review the examination outlines and the

draft examinations and evaluate any recommended changes and corrections 
ES-201, Page 9 of 31

noted during the chief (and other) examiner’s review. (Refer to ES-301 and 

ES-401 or ES-401N for additional guidance regarding examination reviews). The 

supervisory review is not intended to be another detailed review, but rather a check 

to ensure that all applicable administrative requirements have been implemented. 

If the outlines, examinations, and recommended changes are acceptable, the 

supervisor will authorize the chief examiner to resolve any noted deficiencies with 

the author or facility contact.

If any of the facility-developed examination materials (written, walk-through, or

simulator) require substantive changes and cannot be made to conform with the 

examination standards by the time the examination is scheduled to begin, regional 

management shall consult the NRR/NRO operator licensing program office and 

make a decision whether to proceed with the facility-developed examinations or 

develop the examinations in-house. If the regional office does not have the 

resources to ensure that acceptable examinations are prepared by the scheduled 

administration date, regional management shall negotiate with the facility licensee 

to reschedule the examinations as necessary. Although it is generally easier to 

postpone the written examination and focus on the operating tests so that they can 

be administered on schedule and without affecting examinations at other facilities, 

regional management may delay either part (written examination or operating test) 

of an examination for up to 30 days to allow additional time for examination 

development or to address other scheduling concerns. It is not appropriate to 

delay one part of an NRC examination based on license applicant performance on 

another part of an NRC examination that has already been administered, or based 

on applicant performance on facility-administered audit examinations. However, 

the entire NRC examination may be delayed for other reasons (e.g., applicant 

readiness) as agreed upon by the regional office. The regional office shall consult 

the NRR/NRO operator licensing program office regarding any delay and notify the 

facility licensee in writing of the reasons for delaying the examination(s).

The responsible supervisor will also ensure that any significant deficiencies and 

problems are addressed in the examination report in accordance with ES-501.

i. Upon receiving the preliminary license applications, approximately 30 days before 

the examination date, the regional office shall review the applications in

accordance with ES-202 and evaluate waiver and excusal requests in accordance 

with ES-204. 

j. After the chief examiner has verified that the necessary changes and corrections 

have been made, the responsible supervisor will review and approve the 

examinations for administration. Before signing the applicable quality checklist 

(i.e., Form ES-301-3 and Form ES-401-6 or ES-401N-6), the supervisor must be 

satisfied that the examination is acceptable for administration.

k. After approving the final examination and license applications, including resolving 

all waiver and excusal requests, the region will prepare an examination approval 

letter (in the format of Attachment 5) and a list of applicants (Form ES-201-4). 

The letter will notify the facility licensee that the NRC has completed its review of

the license applications, confirm that both the NRC and the facility licensee agree 

that the examination meets the guidelines of NUREG-1021, and provide 

authorization to the facility licensee to administer the written examinations, if 

applicable. Form ES-201-4 will identify the approved applicants by name, docket 

number, and type of examination to be administered (e.g., SRO upgrade, 
ES-201, Page 10 of 31

SRO-only written, RO written only). All applicants listed on the form will be 

administered complete examinations (written and operating) as indicated unless 

waivers or excusals have been granted in accordance with ES-204. A copy of 

Form ES-201-4 will be distributed to all assigned examiners; however, the form will 

not be attached to the approval letter, but will be screened for release and provided 

separately to the facility licensee.

l. Approximately 7 days before the examination the responsible supervisor shall 

query the facility licensee management counterpart regarding the licensee’s views 

on the examination. The following subjects should be considered for discussion, 

and corrective measures shall be implemented when necessary:

• whether the NRC test item comments were justified and clearly explained

• the licensee’s assessment of the significant test item changes

• whether any of the examination changes are believed to render the test items 

or the examination/test as a whole unfair, and whether this concern was 

shared with the chief examiner

• whether the facility licensee requested and was permitted to defer the

correction of test item flaws that were identified as minor in nature

m. If there is an indication that an examination may have been compromised, the

responsible supervisor will take action as necessary to ensure and restore the

integrity and security of the examination process. Actions may include not giving 

the examination, making additional changes to the examination, voiding the results 

if the examination has already been given, revoking, suspending, or modifying, in 

whole or in part a license pursuant to 10 CFR 55.61(b), and possibly imposing 

enforcement action in accordance with the Enforcement Policy. The supervisor 

shall keep regional management and the NRR/NRO operator licensing program 

office informed of any concerns regarding examination integrity or security.
ES-201, Page 11 of 31

3. Assigned NRC Examiners

a. When assigned to administer operating tests for the first time at a particular facility, 

the examiner should inform the chief examiner and the responsible supervisor so 

that arrangements can be made to ensure participation in onsite validation 

activities as described in C.2.g. If the examiner is unable to attend validation, 

then the chief examiner and responsible supervisor should consider if an 

orientation trip to the facility is deemed appropriate.

b. NRC examiners monitor and ensure the integrity of the examination process, thus 

they are not expected to sign onto the licensee’s examination security checklist. If

they perceive that a compromise has occurred, caused by either licensee 

personnel or NRC personnel, they must immediately report it to the responsible 

regional supervisor so that the necessary actions can be taken to restore the 

integrity of the examination. Attachment 1 summarizes several examination 

security and integrity considerations that examiners should note when reviewing 

the procedures that the facility licensee has established pursuant to 10 CFR 

55.40(b)(2), as applicable.

c. The assigned examiners shall review and inventory the reference materials 

received from the facility licensee in response to the 150 day corporate notification 

letter. The purpose of this review is to determine if the materials are complete and 

adequate to enable the regional office to review or develop the examinations, as 

applicable. If not, the reviewer(s) shall inform the chief examiner and the 

responsible supervisor and request that the facility licensee send any additional 

materials that might be required. If necessary, an examiner may review and 

select additional reference materials during a site orientation trip (refer to Item 

C.2.g.).

d. The chief examiner will work with the assigned examiners and the designated 

facility contact, as applicable, to ensure that the examination outlines and 

examinations are developed in accordance with the applicable examination 

standards. The chief examiner should adapt the level of oversight and 

coordination based upon the experience of the individuals who are preparing the

examinations. 

e. The chief examiner will ensure that the examination outlines are independently 

reviewed using Form ES-201-2, “Examination Outline Quality Checklist,” as a

guide; if the chief examiner prepared any portion of the outline, another NRC 

examiner shall perform that part of the independent review. The NRC reviewer(s) 

will initial Column “c” of Form ES-201-2 for the specific items they reviewed. A 

thorough and timely review (i.e., within 5 working days) will minimize the potential

for significant problems with the examinations.

The chief examiner will note and review any necessary changes and forward the

outlines to the responsible supervisor for review and comment before resolving 

any deficiencies with the author or facility contact. The chief examiner will 

document his/her review/concurrence, as applicable, by signing the bottom of the 

form. If the outlines are significantly deficient, refer to Item C.2.i for additional 

guidance.

f. The chief examiner will ensure that the written examinations and operating tests 

are independently reviewed for quality in accordance with the applicable checklists 
ES-201, Page 12 of 31

(refer to ES-301 and ES-401 or ES-401N) forwarded with the examination. If the

chief examiner wrote any portion of the examination, another NRC examiner shall 

perform the independent review of that portion. The NRC reviewer(s) will initial 

Column “c” of the applicable checklist for the specific item(s) they reviewed. The 

regional office may conduct additional reviews at its discretion if resources permit.

It is especially important that facility-developed written examinations and operating 

tests be reviewed promptly because of the extra time that may be required if 

extensive changes are necessary. The written examination sampling review (as 

described in Section E of ES-401 or ES-401N) should be completed within 1 week 

after receiving the examination, and the balance of quality reviews should be 

completed within 2 weeks after the written examinations and operating tests are

received from the author or facility contact.

The chief examiner will note any necessary changes and forward the written 

examinations and operating tests to the responsible supervisor for review and 

comment before reviewing the examinations with the author or facility contact. 

The chief examiner will document his/her review/concurrence, as applicable, by

signing the bottom of each quality checklist. There are no minimum or maximum 

limits on the number or scope of changes the NRC may direct the facility licensee 

to make to its proposed examinations, provided that they are necessary to make 

the examinations conform with established acceptance criteria or to attain an 

appropriate level of examination difficulty. Chief examiners shall exercise their

experience and judgment to ensure that the levels of difficulty remain consistent 

with that expected on NRC-prepared examinations. If the examinations are 

significantly deficient, refer to Item C.2.i for additional guidance. The chief 

examiner shall document the responsible supervisor’s authorization to proceed 

with the facility review by initialing Item 11 on Form ES-201-1.

If the NRC staff authored any portion of the examination, the regional office will 

provide a copy of the applicable written examination(s), operating test(s) and 

outlines to the facility reviewers after they sign the security agreement (Form 

ES-201-3) and at least 60 days before the exam date. The facility reviewers 

should make their comments directly on the examination(s), return the marked-up 

copies to the NRC’s Chief examiner, and ensure that he or she understands their 

comments and recommendations. The facility reviewers may retain a copy of the 

applicable marked-up examination(s), subject to the physical security

considerations in Attachment 1.

If the facility reviewers have significant disagreements with the chief examiner, the 

chief examiner will inform the responsible regional supervisor so that the

disagreements can be resolved before the examinations are administered.

g. Upon supervisory approval, generally about 3 weeks before the examinations are

scheduled to be given; the chief examiner will review the written examinations and

operating tests with the facility licensee.

The chief examiner may conduct the examination review by telephone, in the

regional office, or at the facility, as appropriate to the circumstances, depending on 

the extent of the changes, and as approved by the responsible regional supervisor 

(refer to Item C.1.k).
ES-201, Page 13 of 31

h. After the examination corrections have been made, the chief examiner shall verify 

that the changes are appropriate and route the examinations and the marked-up 

drafts to the responsible supervisor for final approval.

i. As soon as possible after the responsible supervisor has approved the operating 

tests for administration, the chief examiner shall distribute copies of the scenarios

and job performance measures (JPMs) to the other assigned examiners so that 

they can familiarize themselves with those materials and be better prepared to 

probe the applicants’ deficiencies if required.

j. The designated facility contact will develop a schedule for the operating test to 

optimize efficiency of examiners and applicants, given the mix of RO and SRO 

applicants. The schedule will identify crews for the simulator scenarios and timing 

of JPMs, and will identify which examiners will evaluate which applicants. The 

NRC’s Chief examiner may elect to change the facility licensee’s proposed

schedule, including crew assignments, examiner assignments, or order of 

administration of the JPMs, with justification. However, if changes to crew

assignments are required, the chief examiner will identify these changes as early 

as possible and will generally not make changes less than 2 weeks before the

examination start date. This allows affected applicants to have some time to 

adapt to working as a crew before the take the simulator operating test. 

When assembling crews for the simulator scenarios, surrogate operators should 

be used only when they are required to complete an applicant crew. A facility 

licensee may not replace license applicants with surrogates solely because the 

applicants have performed the minimum required number of events or scenarios. 

If an applicant would be exposed to only one additional scenario above the 

minimum required, a surrogate operator should not be used in place of a license 

applicant. However, no applicant will be required to participate in more than one 

scenario above the minimum required, in which case, a surrogate operator should 

be used. If, at the discretion of the chief examiner, it is desired to use surrogate 

operators contrary to the above guidance, the operator licensing program office 

shall be consulted before implementation, if possible. 

The number of applicants on a crew shall not exceed the number of assigned 

examiners (i.e., one-on-one evaluations are mandatory), except as noted below. 

However, if the facility licensee’s technical specifications routinely require more

than two ROs to be stationed in the control room, the chief examiner may authorize 

the use of additional surrogates. Only one individual (applicant or surrogate) is 

allowed to fill a shift supervisor or manager position during the simulator operating 

test. 

If a three-person applicant crew consists entirely of SRO-upgrade applicants (who 

do not have to be evaluated on the control boards), the region may assign only two 

examiners to observe the crew. Although the applicants in the RO and

balance-of-plant positions may not be individually evaluated, they will be graded 

and held accountable for any errors that occur as a result of their action(s) or 

inaction(s). SRO-instant applicants will always be individually evaluated, 

regardless what operating position they are filling during a given scenario.

Operating tests will normally be administered on regular work days. If weekend or 

shift work is required to administer the operating tests, the chief examiner will 
ES-201, Page 14 of 31

coordinate the arrangements with the assigned examiners and the facility 

licensee.

The written examinations may be administered as soon as they and the license 

applications (including any applicable waivers) have been approved. The region

shall not allow the written examination and operating test dates to diverge by more 

than 30 days without obtaining concurrence from the NRR/NRO operator licensing 

program office.

If, as an efficiency measure, the facility licensee prepared the written examinations 

or operating tests in conjunction with another facility, the two examinations/tests 

must be administered at the same time.

If the examination schedule has to be changed on short notice, the chief examiner 

will work with his or her supervisor and the designated facility contact to

reschedule the examinations to a time when examiners are available and other

examinations are not affected.

k. If the facility licensee will administer the written examinations, the chief examiner 

shall review the ES-402 requirements (e.g., proctoring and responding to applicant 

questions) and confirm the applicant’s status on Form ES-201-4 (i.e., examination 

type and waivers) with the facility contact before the examinations are given.

D. Personnel Restrictions

It is impossible to define criteria that anticipate every possible conflict-of-interest issue. 

Supervisors must apply sound judgment to the facts of each case. If any doubt exists regarding

a particular case, the supervisor should consult with regional management and the NRR/NRO

operator licensing program office to resolve the issue.

1. NRC Examiners

a. An examiner shall not be assigned to evaluate any portion of a re-take operating 

test to an applicant if that examiner participated in either of the following for that 

same applicant:

• A failure of a previous operating test

• A denied operating test excusal 

b. If an examiner was previously employed by a facility licensee (or one of its 

contractors) and was significantly involved in training the current license 

applicants, the regional office will not assign that examiner any direct 

responsibilities for developing or administering written examinations or operating 

tests at that facility. Regional management will control other in-office examination 

activities concerning the facility, such as technical consultation and quality reviews 

of examinations.

c. If an examiner is assigned to an examination that might appear to present a conflict 

of interest, the examiner shall inform his or her immediate supervisor of the 

potential conflict. Such notifications should include the following information:
ES-201, Page 15 of 31

• the nature and extent of previous personal and professional relationships with 

the applicants

• anything that could affect the administration, performance, evaluation, or

results of the examination

• anything that could create the appearance of a conflict of interest

2. Facility Personnel

a. Although there is no specific upper limit to the number of facility personnel who

have access to the NRC licensing examination, the facility licensee shall ensure 

that access is limited on a need-to-know basis. Moreover, the facility licensee 

should limit each person’s access to only those portions of the examination for 

which the individual bears responsibility (e.g., the individuals who prepare the 

simulator scenarios may not require access to the written examinations).

b. All personnel who will receive detailed knowledge of any portion of the NRC 

licensing examination, including the examination outline, must acknowledge their

responsibilities by reading and signing Form ES-201-3, “Examination Security 

Agreement,” before they obtain detailed knowledge and again after the

examinations are complete. Prohibited activities for personnel who have signed 

Form ES-201-3 include the following examples:

• the design and administration of any classroom and simulator instruction 

(including scheduled sessions, individual coaching, and remedial training) 

specifically for the license applicants

– Simulator booth operation is acceptable if the individual does not select the 

training content or provide direct or indirect feedback. Continued 

participation in requalification training for groups including SRO upgrade 

applicants is also acceptable, as long as it is documented on Form 

ES-201-3 and is limited to areas in which the instructor has no examination 

knowledge.

• all on-the-job training, practice, coaching, and sign-offs

• the preparation, review, grading, and evaluation of periodic quizzes, 

examinations, and simulator exercises

– Individuals on the security agreement may prepare and grade the audit 

examination, subject to an NRC review for test item duplication.

• development of examination bank questions if the intent is to use them on the 

next NRC examination

– If questions are simply being developed to expand the size of the question 

bank, then they would be treated as any other bank item and subject to the 

other criteria in NUREG-1021 (e.g., repetition from the audit exam).

Supervisors and managers having knowledge of the examination content may

continue their general oversight of the training program for the license applicants, 
ES-201, Page 16 of 31

including the review of examinations, quizzes, and remedial training programs, as 

well as the counseling of applicants concerning non-technical issues. However, 

those supervisors and managers may not provide any technical guidance, training, 

or other direct feedback regarding the content of those examinations, quizzes, or 

programs in a manner that might compromise the integrity of the licensing 

examination as defined in 10 CFR 55.49.

The original security agreement forms must be submitted to the NRC’s regional

office for retention after the examinations are complete.

E. Attachments/Forms

Attachment 1 Examination Security and Integrity Considerations

Attachment 2 Guidelines for Freezing Plant Procedures

Attachment 3 Reference Material Guidelines for Initial Licensing Examinations

Attachment 4 Sample Corporate Notification Letter

Attachment 5 Sample Examination Approval Letter

Form ES-201-1 Examination Preparation Checklist

Form ES-201-2 Examination Outline Quality Checklist

Form ES-201-3 Examination Security Agreement

Form ES-201-4 List of Applicants
ES-201, Page 17 of 31

ES-201 Examination Security and Attachment 1

Integrity Considerations

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and facility licensee personnel must be attentive 

to examination security measures to ensure compliance with Title 10 of The Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR) 55.49, “Integrity of Examinations and Tests.” Moreover, pursuant to 

10 CFR 55.40(b)(2), facility licensees who elect to prepare their own examinations must 

establish, implement, and maintain procedures to control examination security and integrity. At 

the time the examination arrangements are confirmed, an NRC examiner shall review the facility 

licensee’s security procedures and brief the facility contact on the following examination security

guidelines. Although these guidelines are not regulatory requirements, the NRC staff 

encourages facility licensees to consider them when establishing their own procedures.

Physical Security Guidelines

1. The NRC expects that personnel will be aware of the facility licensee’s physical security 

measures and requirements (as documented in the facility licensee’s approved 

procedures), sign the NRC’s examination security agreement, and understand their

security responsibilities, including the limits on their interaction with the license applicants 

(as discussed in Section D.2 of ES-201), before they are given knowledge or custody of 

any examination materials.

2. The examination outlines and final examinations shall be positively and continuously 

controlled and protected as sensitive information (i.e., under lock-and-key or in the

custody of someone who has signed the security agreement). The number of copies of

outlines and examinations should be limited, and each should be uniquely identified and

controlled (e.g., with sign-out custody) at all times. Drafts, copies, and waste materials 

must also be controlled and disposed of properly.

The NRC staff recommends that facility licensees should consider implementing 

additional security measures when they are developing, storing, or printing examinations 

using a computer network to which license applicants or other persons who have not 

signed the security agreement could gain access. This should include any exam material 

that may have been stored on the simulator process computer, such as sequence of 

events data. Although the use of passwords should provide adequate security if normal 

computer security practices (e.g., selecting and changing passwords) are observed, 

special cases may need additional consideration. For example, if a trainee has extended 

access to the local area network (LAN) in his normal position, additional security 

measures might be appropriate.

3. The examination outlines, written examinations, and operating tests that are sent to the

NRC’s regional office shall be placed in a double envelope. The inner envelope shall be 

conspicuously marked “FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY” and “TO BE OPENED BY

ADDRESSEE ONLY.” Furthermore, the cover letter forwarding the examination 

materials shall state that the materials must be withheld from public disclosure until after

the examinations are complete.

The facility licensee should follow up on its examination mailing by communicating with

the NRC’s Chief examiner to ensure that the package was received.
ES-201, Page 18 of 31

ES-201 2 Attachment 1

The examination outlines and examinations shall not be transmitted via non-secure 

electronic means. However, they may be transmitted using the NRC’s internal LAN in the 

resident inspector’s office or as password protected electronic files over the Internet if the 

licensee’s word processing software provides adequate security and is compatible with 

the NRC’s, and the password is separately provided to the NRC’s Chief examiner by mail 

(not email), fax, or phone. The files do not need to be encrypted.

4. The facility licensee is expected to immediately report to the NRC’s Chief examiner any

indications or suggestions that examination security may have been compromised, even if 

the situation is identified and corrected before the examination is submitted to the NRC for 

review and approval. The NRC will evaluate such situations on a case-by-case basis and 

determine the appropriate course of action.

5. The facility licensee and the NRC should determine if examination security problems were 

noted in the past and ensure that corrective actions have been taken to preclude

recurrence.

6. The facility licensee and the chief examiner will review the simulator security 

considerations in Appendix D to ensure that the instructor station features programmer’s

tools, and external interconnections do not compromise examination integrity. The 

primary objective is to ensure that the exam material cannot be read or recorded at other 

unsecured consoles, and that examination materials are either physically secured or 

electronically protected when not in use by individuals listed on the security agreement.

Examination Bank Limitations

1. The facility licensee and chief examiner shall ensure that written examinations and 

operating tests conform to the guidelines in ES-301 and ES-401 or ES-401N regarding the 

use of items taken directly from the bank, modified items, and new items.

2. If the facility licensee has an open bank, it will not place any new or modified test items 

(written questions, job performance measures, or simulator scenarios) that will be used on 

the examination in its examination bank until after the last examination has been 

administered.

Other Considerations

1. The NRC will consider an examination to be potentially compromised if any activity occurs 

that could affect the equitable and consistent administration of the examination, 

regardless of whether the activity takes place before, during, or after the examination is

administered.

2. The license applicants should not be able to predict or narrow the possible scope or

content of the licensing examination based on the facility licensee’s examination practices 

(other than those authorized by NUREG-1021, or in writing by the NRC). In other words, 

the facility licensee staff should not provide information to the applicants or licensed 

operators regarding examination content that would allow the test takers to either 

specifically or generally "predict" what test items will, or will not, be covered on the 

examination (e.g., the staff should not specify a certain exam bank to study if there is more 
ES-201, Page 19 of 31

ES-201 3 Attachment 1

than one version of the bank, or, the staff should not make general statements such as 

“Exam B will not overlap with Exam A”). This restriction is not intended to limit licensees 

from discussing the general aspects related to an initial license examination such as 

overall examination construction described in these examination standards. Specific 

attributes of the examination content are not disclosed (e.g., how many JPM’s and/or 

scenarios come directly from the bank, how many alternate path JPM’s are on the exam, 

how many TS calls are in the scenarios, etc.).

3. Facility licensees are responsible for the integrity, security, and quality of examinations 

prepared for them by contractor personnel.
ES-201, Page 20 of 31

ES-201 Guidelines for Freezing Plant Procedures Attachment 2

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) understands that facility licensees may wish to 

train and examine their license applicants to the same version of plant procedures. At their 

discretion, facility licensees may “freeze” plant procedures to a particular revision for purposes of 

applicant training and examination development (either for facility-prepared examinations or as 

reflected in the reference materials submitted for NRC-prepared examinations). The NRC does 

not have any specific requirements related to the timing of procedure freezes, but offers the 

following general guidance and cautions:

• Clearly, the later the procedures are frozen the better, thereby limiting the disparity 

between training/testing and current plant operations. Alternatively, facility licensees 

could choose to not freeze procedures at all, but rather track any procedure changes and 

make adjustments to the training and examinations as required. However, depending on 

the nature and volume of changes, this alternative could impose a significant additional 

burden on the facility and NRC examiners to ensure that procedure revisions affecting test 

items are reconciled before exam administration. 

• Note that applicants will be exposed to the current version of the procedures when they 

spend time in the control room. Therefore, freezing procedures for the exam has the 

potential to confuse applicants, by testing them on a different version of procedures than 

they have seen. There have been cases in which such confusion contributed to 

applicants' failure on the written examination, because they based their answer on the 

wrong version of procedures. If the procedures are frozen, the applicants must be 

informed of the date of the procedure freeze, such that they have a complete 

understanding of which versions of the procedures the NRC examination is based upon. 

Note that freezing different procedures at different times would probably just add to their 

confusion. 

• Examination authors and NRC reviewers need to consider the implications of the freeze 

when they develop the examination; for example, the plausibility and correctness of a 

distractor should not hinge on a procedure change that has not yet been incorporated into 

the frozen version of the procedure. Another consideration is whether the simulator will 

support the implementation of both procedure versions - the new one for license holders 

and the old one for the applicants.

• If changes in the procedures occur after the freeze and before the licensing date, the NRC 

would expect the facility licensee to provide training to fill the gap; if the changes are 

significant, the NRC would likely request more information about the nature of such 

training and testing. In at least one instance, applicants were trained and tested on a new 

version of the emergency operating procedures (EOPs) that had not yet been 

implemented in the plant; this eliminated the need to retrain the applicants but prompted 

the NRC to delay their licensing until the new EOPs went into effect. 

The facility contact should discuss the details of and the basis for their freeze proposal with their 

NRC contact when confirming the examination arrangements as discussed in Section C.2.c of 

ES-201 of NUREG-1021. The chief examiner, in consultation with the regional operator 

licensing supervisor (and the operator licensing program office, if deemed necessary), will review 

the facility's proposal and negotiate a mutually acceptable plan and cut-off date.
ES-201, Page 21 of 31

ES-201 Reference Material Guidelines Attachment 3

For Initial Licensing Examinations

This attachment discusses the reference materials that facility licensees are expected to provide 

for each U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) initial licensing examination. The regional 

office will customize the list of reference materials, as required, to support the specific 

examination assignment. The regional office may request additional materials at a later time, if 

necessary, to ensure the accuracy and validity of the examinations.

In determining the need for reference materials, the regional office will consider the facility 

licensee’s level of participation in the examination development process. If the facility licensee 

will prepare the examinations, it may be sufficient to obtain only those references necessary to 

review and validate the items that appear on the examination, plus a set of key procedures and

other documents required to prepare for the operating tests. The regional office will duly

consider the administrative burden it places on the facility licensee and will request only those 

materials that are actually necessary for the NRC examiners to prepare for the examinations.

All reference materials provided for the license examinations should be approved, final issues and 

should be so marked; any personal, proprietary, sensitive, or safeguards information should be 

marked and submitted in a separate enclosure. If any of the material is expected to change 

before the scheduled examination date, the facility licensee should reach agreement with the 

NRC’s Chief examiner regarding changes before the examinations are administered.

The facility licensee may submit reference materials on computer diskettes (in a format that is

compatible with the NRC’s word processing software), as hard copy, or a combination, as

arranged with the NRC’s Chief examiner. If the facility licensee prepares the examinations, the

hard-copy references should normally be limited to those materials required to validate the

selected test items. All procedures and reference materials should contain appropriate indices 

or tables of contents so that they can be used efficiently; a master table of contents should be 

provided for all materials sent. Failure to provide complete and indexed reference materials may 

prompt the NRC to return the materials to the person at the highest level of corporate 

management responsible for plant operations. The returned reference materials will be 

accompanied by a cover letter explaining the deficiencies in the materials and the basis for 

postponing or canceling the examinations.

Unless otherwise instructed by the NRC’s regional office, the facility licensee is expected to

provide the following reference materials for each NRC initial licensing examination:

1. Materials used by the facility licensee to ensure operator competency

a. The following types of materials used to train applicants for initial RO and SRO 

licensing, as necessary to support examination development:

• learning objectives, student handouts, and lesson plans

• system descriptions, drawings, and diagrams of all operationally relevant 

flow paths, components, controls, and instrumentation

• material used to clarify and strengthen understanding of normal, abnormal, 

and emergency operating procedures (including Severe Accident 

Management Guidelines).
ES-201, Page 22 of 31

ES-201 2 Attachment 3

• complete, operationally useful descriptions of all safety system interactions 

and, where available, balance-of-plant system interactions under 

emergency and abnormal conditions, including consequences of 

anticipated operator errors, maintenance errors, and equipment failures, 

as well as plant-specific risk insights based on a probabilistic risk analysis 

(PRA) and individual plant examination (IPE)

These materials should be complete, comprehensive, and of sufficient detail to

support the development of accurate and valid examinations without being 

redundant.

b. Questions and answers specific to the facility training program that may be used in

the written examinations or operating tests

c. Copies of facility-generated simulator scenarios that expose the applicants to

abnormal and emergency conditions, including degraded pressure control, 

degraded heat removal capability, and containment challenges, during all modes 

of operation, including low-power conditions (A description of the scenarios used

for the training class may also be provided.)

d. All job performance measures (JPMs) used to ascertain the competence of the 

operators in performing tasks within the control room complex and outside the 

control room (i.e., local operations) as identified in the facility’s job task analysis. 

(JPMs should evaluate operator responsibilities during normal, abnormal, and 

emergency conditions and events, and during all modes of operation including 

cold shutdown, low power, and full power.)

2. Complete index of procedures (including all categories sent)

3. All administrative procedures applicable to reactor operation or safety

4. All integrated plant procedures (normal or general operating procedures)

5. All emergency procedures (emergency instructions, abnormal or special procedures)

6. Standing orders (important orders that are safety-related and may modify the regular 

procedures)

7. Surveillance procedures that are run frequently (i.e., weekly) or that can be run on the

simulator

8. Fuel handling and core loading procedures (if SRO applicants will be examined)

9. All annunciator and alarm procedures

10. Radiation protection manual (radiation control manual or procedures)

11. Emergency plan implementing procedures
ES-201, Page 23 of 31

ES-201 3 Attachment 3

12. Technical Specifications or similar technical requirements documents (and

interpretations, if available) for all units for which licenses are sought

13. System operating procedures

14. Technical data book and plant curve information used by operators, as well as the facility

precautions, limitations, and set points document

15. The following information pertaining to the simulation facility:

a. list of all initial conditions

b. list of all malfunctions with identification numbers and cause-and-effect 

information, including a concise description of the expected result or range of 

results that will occur upon initiation and an indication of which annunciators will be

actuated as a result of the malfunction

c. a description of the simulator’s failure capabilities for valves, breakers, indicators, 

and alarms

d. the range of severity of each variable malfunction (e.g., the size of a reactor 

coolant or steam leak, or the rate of a component failure such as a feed pump, 

turbine generator, or major valve)

e. a list of modeling conditions (e.g., simplifications, assumptions, and limits) and

problems that may affect the examination

f. a list of any known performance test discrepancies not yet corrected

g. a list of differences between the simulator and the reference plant’s control room

h. simulator instructor's manual

16. Any additional plant-specific material that the NRC examiners have requested to develop

examinations that meet the guidelines of these standards and the regulations
ES-201, Page 24 of 31

ES-201 Sample Corporate Notification Letter Attachment 4

(Date)

(Name, Title)

(Name of facility)

(Address)

(City, State, ZIP code)

Dear (Name):

In a telephone conversation on (date) between Mr. / Ms. (Name, Title) and Mr. / Ms. (Name, Title), 

arrangements were made for the administration of licensing examinations at (facility name) during 

the week(s) of (date).

As agreed during the telephone conversation, [your staff] [[the staff of the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC)]] will prepare the examinations based on the guidelines in 

Revision 11, of NUREG-1021, “Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors.” 

[The NRC’s regional office will discuss with your staff any changes that might be necessary before 

the examinations are administered.] [Your staff will be given the opportunity to review the 

examinations during the week of (date).]

To meet the above schedule, it will be necessary for your staff to furnish the [operating test

outlines] by (date). The NRC staff will provide the written examination outline by (date) [or, 

written examination outline is attached to this letter]. The written examinations, operating tests, 

and supporting] reference materials identified in Attachment 3 to ES-201 [will be due] by (date). 

[Pursuant to Title 10, Section 55.40(b)(3), of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR

55.40(b)(3)), an authorized representative of the facility licensee shall approve the examinations, 

and tests before they are submitted to the Commission for review and approval. All materials 

shall be complete and ready-to-use.] We request that any personal, proprietary, sensitive 

unclassified, or safeguards information in your response be contained in a separate enclosure 

and appropriately marked. Any delay in receiving the required [examination and] reference 

materials, or the submittal of inadequate or incomplete materials, may cause the examinations to

be rescheduled.

To conduct the requested written examinations and operating tests, it will be necessary for your 

staff to provide adequate space and accommodations in accordance with ES-402, and to make 

the simulation facility available on the dates noted above. In accordance with ES-302, your staff 

should retain the original simulator performance data (e.g., system pressures, temperatures, and 

levels) generated during the dynamic operating tests until the examination results are final.

Appendix E to NUREG-1021 contains a number of NRC policies and guidelines that will be in

effect while the written examinations and operating tests are being administered.

To permit timely NRC review and evaluation, your staff should submit preliminary reactor operator 

and senior reactor operator waiver or excusal requests (if any) (OMB approval number

3150-0090) at least 60 days before the first examination date. Preliminary reactor operator and 

senior reactor operator license applications (Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval 

number 3150-0090) and medical certifications (OMB approval number 3150-0024) should be 

submitted at least 30 days before the first examination date. If the applications are not received 

at least 30 days before the examination date, a postponement may be necessary. Signed 

applications certifying that all training has been completed should be submitted at least 14 days 

before the first examination date.
ES-201, Page 25 of 31

ES-201 2 Attachment 4

Although the minimum guidelines for receiving waiver or excusal requests is 30 days before the 

first examination date, the requests should be submitted as early in the process as possible. 

Guidance on processing such requests resulting from verbal inquiries by the licensee to the NRC 

is not binding. Any licensee submittals addressing this should be in the form of a written request. 

Licensee submittals should request a formal correspondence documenting their disposition.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

This letter contains information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). These information collections were approved by 

the Office of Management and Budget, approval number 3150-0018.

The burden to the public for these (voluntary/mandatory) information collections is estimated to 

average [2250] [[400]] hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, 

searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and 

reviewing the information collection. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any 

other aspect of these information collections, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to 

the FOIA, Privacy and Information Collections Branch (T-5 F53), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by Internet electronic mail to 

INFOCOLLECTS.RESOURCE@NRC.GOV; and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202, (3150-0018), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, 

DC 20503. 

Public Protection Notification

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for 

information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a 

currently valid OMB control number.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390, “Public Inspections, Exemptions, Requests for Withholding,” of 

the NRC’s “Rules of Practice,” a copy of this letter and its enclosures will be available 

electronically for public inspection in the NRC’s Public Document Room or from the Publicly 

Available Records (PARS) component of the NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the Electronic Reading Room page 

of the NRC’s public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. (Name) has been advised of the policies and 

guidelines referenced in this letter. If you have any questions regarding the NRC’s examination 

procedures and guidelines, please contact (name of regional contact) at (telephone number), or 

(name of responsible regional supervisor) at (telephone number).

Sincerely,

(Appropriate regional representative, 

Title)
ES-201, Page 26 of 31

ES-201 3 Attachment 4

Docket No.: 50-(Number) or 52-(Number)

Distribution: Public

NRC Document Control System

Regional Distribution

[ ] Include only for examinations to be prepared by the facility licensee.

[[ ]] Include only for examinations to be prepared by the NRC.
ES-201, Page 27 of 31

ES-201 Sample Examination Approval Letter Attachment 5

(Date)

(Name, Title)

(Name of facility)

(Address)

(City, State, ZIP code)

SUBJECT: OPERATOR LICENSING EXAMINATION APPROVAL

Dear (Name):

The purpose of this letter is to confirm the final arrangements for the upcoming operator licensing 

examinations at (Facility).

The NRC has completed its review of the operator license applications submitted in connection 

with this examination and separately provided a list of approved applicants to (Name, Title). 

Note that any examination waivers, excusals, and application denials have been addressed in 

separate correspondence.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has approved the subject examinations and you 

may administer the written examinations in accordance with Revision 11, of NUREG-1021, 

“Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors,” on (date). The NRC staff will 

administer the operating tests during the week of (date). This examination has undergone 

extensive review by my staff and representatives responsible for licensed operator training at your 

facility. Based on this review I have concluded that the examination meets the guidelines of 

NUREG-1021 for content, operational, and discrimination validity. By administering this 

examination, you also agree that it meets NUREG-1021 guidelines, and is appropriate for 

measuring the qualifications of licensed operator applicants at your facility. If you determine that 

this examination is not appropriate for licensing operators at your facility, do not administer the 

examination and contact me at (phone number). 

Please contact your Chief Examiner, (Name), at (phone number), if you have any questions or 

identify any errors or changes in the license level (RO or SRO) or type of examination (partial or 

complete written examination and/or operating test) specified for each applicant. 

Sincerely,

(Appropriate regional representative, 

Title)

Docket No.: 50-(Number) or

Docket No.: 52-(Number)

cc: Public

NRC Document Control System

Regional Distribution
ES-201, Page 28 of 31

ES-201 Examination Preparation Checklist Form ES-201-1

Facility: ___________________________________ Date of Examination: __________

Developed by: Written: Facility NRC // Operating Facility NRC

Target 

Date* Task Description (Reference) Chief 

Examiner’s

Initials

-180 1. Examination administration date confirmed (C.1.a; C.2.a and b)

-150 2. NRC examiners and facility contact assigned (C.1.d; C.2.f)

-150 3. Facility contact briefed on security and other requirements (C.2.c)

-150 4. NRC developed written examination outline, ES-401-1/2 or ES-401N-1/2, and ES-401-3 or 

ES-401N-3, sent to facility contact (must be on exam security agreement) (C.1.e-f, C.2.h, C.3.d 

and e)

-150 5. Corporate notification letter sent (C.2.e)

-120 6. Reference material due for NRC prepared exams, only (C.1.e; C.3.c; Attachment 3)

-120 7. Revised written examination outline due including ES-401-1/2 or ES-401N-1/2, and ES-401-3 or 

ES-401N-3 and ES-401-4 of ES-401N-4 (C.1.e and f, C.3.d)

-90 8. Operating examination outline(s) and other checklists due, including Forms ES-201-2, ES-201-3, 

ES-301-1, ES-301-2, ES-301-5, ES-D-1, as applicable (C.1.e and f; C.3.d)

-85 9. Operating examination outline(s) reviewed by NRC and feedback provided to facility licensee 

(C.2.h; C.3.e). Not applicable for NRC prepared exams.

-60 10. Proposed examination (including written, JPMs and scenarios, as applicable), supporting 

documentation (including Forms ES-301-3, ES-301-4, ES-301-5, ES-301-6, and ES-401-6, 

ES-401N-6, and any Form ES-201-2, ES-201-3, ES-301-1, or ES-301-2 updates), and reference 

materials due (C.1.e, f, g and h; C.3.d)

-60 11. Preliminary waiver/excusal requests due (C.1.m; C.2.i; ES-202)

-45 12. Written exam and operating test reviews completed. (C.3.f)

-30 13. Preliminary license applications (NRC Form 398’s) and waiver/excusal requests due (C.1.m; 

C.2.i; ES-202)

-21 14. Examination approved by NRC supervisor for facility licensee review (C.2.h; C.3.f and g) and 

-21 15. Examinations reviewed with facility licensee (C.1.j and k; C.2.g and h; C.3.g)

-14 16. Final license applications due and Form ES-201-4 prepared (C.1.m; C.2.j and k; ES-202)

-14 17. Written examinations and operating tests approved by NRC supervisor (C.2.j; C.3.h)

-7 18. Request facility licensee management feedback on the examination. (C.2 l)

-7 19. Final applications reviewed; 1 or 2 (if >10) applications audited to confirm qualifications / 

eligibility; and examination approval and excusal/waiver letters sent (C.2.k; Attachment 5; 

ES-202, C.2.f; ES-204)

-7 20. Proctoring/written exam administration guidelines reviewed with facility licensee (C.3.k)

-7 21. Approved scenarios and job performance measures distributed to NRC examiners (C.3.i)

* Target dates are based on facility-prepared examinations and the examination date identified in the corporate 

notification letter. For planning purposes and may be adjusted on a case-by-case basis in coordination with the facility 

licensee.
ES-201, Page 29 of 31

ES-201 Examination Outline Quality Checklist Form ES-201-2

Facility: Date of Examination:

Item Task Description

Initials

a b* c#

1.

W

R

I

T

T

E

N

a. Verify that the outline(s) fit(s) the appropriate model, in accordance with ES-401 or ES-401N.

b. Assess whether the outline was systematically and randomly prepared in accordance with 

Section D.1 of ES-401 or ES-401N and whether all K/A categories are appropriately sampled.

c. Assess whether the outline over-emphasizes any systems, evolutions, or generic topics.

d. Assess whether the justifications for deselected or rejected K/A statements are appropriate.

2.

S

I

M

U

L

A

T

O

R

a. Using Form ES-301-5, verify that the proposed scenario sets cover the required number of

normal evolutions, instrument and component failures, technical specifications, and major

transients.

b. Assess whether there are enough scenario sets (and spares) to test the projected number and

mix of applicants in accordance with the expected crew composition and rotation schedule 

without compromising exam integrity, and ensure that each applicant can be tested using at

least one new or significantly modified scenario, that no scenarios are duplicated from the

applicants’ audit test(s), and that scenarios will not be repeated on subsequent days.

c. To the extent possible, assess whether the outline(s) conform(s) with the qualitative and

quantitative criteria specified on Form ES-301-4, described in Appendix D and described in 

ES-301 Section D.5 Specific Instructions for the “Simulator Operating Test” (including overlap).

3.

W

A

L

K

T

H

R

O

U

G

H

a. Verify that the systems walk-through outline meets the criteria specified on Form ES-301-2:

(1) the outline(s) contain(s) the required number of control room and in-plant tasks distributed

among the safety functions as specified on the form

(2) task repetition from the last two NRC examinations is within the limits specified on the form

(3) no tasks are duplicated from the applicants’ audit test(s)

(4) the number of new or modified tasks meets or exceeds the minimums specified on the form

(5) the number of alternate path, low-power, emergency, and RCA tasks meet the criteria on

the form.

b. Verify that the administrative outline meets the criteria specified on Form ES-301-1:

(1) the tasks are distributed among the topics as specified on the form

(2) at least one task is new or significantly modified

(3) no more than one task is repeated from the last two NRC licensing examinations

c. Determine if there are enough different outlines to test the projected number and mix of

applicants and ensure that no items are duplicated on subsequent days.

4.

G

E

N

E

R

A

L

a. Assess whether plant-specific priorities (including PRA and IPE insights) are covered in the

appropriate exam sections.

b. Assess whether the 10 CFR 55.41/43 and 55.45 sampling is appropriate.

c. Ensure that K/A importance ratings (except for plant-specific priorities) are at least 2.5.

d. Check for duplication and overlap among exam sections and previous two NRC exams.

e. Check the entire exam for balance of coverage.

f. Assess whether the exam fits the appropriate job level (RO or SRO).

 Printed Name/Signature Date 

a. Author ____________________________________________________ ________

b. Facility Reviewer (*) _________________________________________________ ________

c. NRC’s Chief Examiner (#) _________________________________________________ ________

d. NRC Supervisor _________________________________________________ ________

Note: # Independent NRC reviewer initial items in Column “c”; chief examiner concurrence required.

* Not applicable for NRC-prepared examination outlines.
ES-201, Page 30 of 31

ES-201, Page 30 of 31

ES-201 Examination Security Agreement 

1. Pre-Examination

I acknowledge that I have acquired specialized knowledge about the NRC licensing examinations scheduled for the week(s) of 

date of my signature. I agree that I will not knowingly divulge any information about these examinations to any persons who hav

NRC’s Chief examiner. I understand that I am not to instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants s

these licensing examinations from this date until completion of examination administration, except as specifically noted below a

(e.g., acting as a simulator booth operator or communicator is acceptable if the individual does not select the training content o

feedback). Furthermore, I am aware of the physical security measures and requirements (as documented in the facility license

understand that violation of the conditions of this agreement may result in cancellation of the examinations and/or an enforcem

facility licensee. I will immediately report to facility management or the NRC’s Chief examiner any indications or suggestions th

have been compromised.

2. Post-Examination

To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC licensing exam

the week(s) of . From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of examination 

instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examinations, e

below and authorized by the NRC.

PRINTED NAME JOB TITLE / RESPONSIBILITY SIGNATURE (1) DATE SIGNATURE 

1.__________________ _________________________ _______________________ ______ ____________

2.__________________ _________________________ _______________________ ______ ____________

3.__________________ _________________________ _______________________ ______ ____________

4.__________________ _________________________ _______________________ ______ ____________

5.__________________ _________________________ _______________________ ______ ____________

6.__________________ _________________________ _______________________ ______ ____________

7.__________________ _________________________ _______________________ ______ ____________

8.__________________ _________________________ _______________________ ______ ____________

9.__________________ _________________________ _______________________ ______ ____________

10._________________ _________________________ _______________________ ______ ____________

11._________________ _________________________ _______________________ ______ ____________

12._________________ _________________________ _______________________ ______ ____________

13._________________ _________________________ _______________________ ______ ____________

14._________________ _________________________ _______________________ ______ ____________

15._________________ _________________________ _______________________ ______ ____________

NOTES:
ES-201, Page 31 of 31

ES-201 List of Applicants Form ES-201-4

PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION — FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Facility: Written Examination Date:

Operating Test Dates:

Applicant Name Docket 

No.

Exam 

Level

Written Operating Test

RO SRO Adm. Sys. Sim.

Instructions: For each approved applicant, enter the exam level (RO, SRO-I, or SRO-U) and an “X,”

“E,” or “W” to indicate whether each portion of the examination is to be administered, 

excused or waived.

PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION — FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ES-202, Page 1 of 15

ES-202

PREPARING AND REVIEWING OPERATOR LICENSING APPLICATIONS

A. Purpose

This standard provides instructions for facility licensees and applicants to prepare and the 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to review initial licensing applications. It also 

discusses the experience, training, education, and certification requirements, and guidelines that

an applicant should satisfy before being allowed to take an NRC reactor operator (RO), senior 

reactor operator (SRO), or limited senior reactor operator (LSRO) licensing examination.

B. Background

In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 55.31(a)(4), an applicant 

shall:

Provide evidence that the applicant has successfully completed the 

facility licensee’s requirements to be licensed as an operator or 

senior operator and of the facility licensee’s need for an operator or 

a senior operator to perform assigned duties. An authorized 

representative of the facility licensee shall certify this evidence on 

Form NRC-398. This certification must include the details of the 

applicant’s qualifications, and details on courses of instruction 

administered by the facility licensee, and describe the nature of the 

training received at the facility, and the startup and shutdown 

experience received. In lieu of these details, the Commission may 

accept certification that the applicant has successfully completed a

Commission-approved training program that is based on a systems 

approach to training (SAT) and that uses a simulation facility 

acceptable to the Commission under 10 CFR 55.45(b),

When a potential operator applies for an operator or senior operator license, her or his health 

must be sufficient to meet the minimum standards in 10 CFR 55.33(a)(1) for an unconditioned 

license, or 10 CFR 55.33(b) for a conditional license. The intent of the regulations is "to prevent 

the manipulation of the controls by an operator whose medical condition and general health would 

cause operational errors endangering public health and safety." The facility's management is 

responsible for certifying the medical suitability of an applicant for an operator's license. The 

NRC is responsible for assessing an applicant's medical fitness. When an applicant requests a 

conditional license, NRC will use a qualified medical expert to review the medical evidence 

submitted by the facility to determine if a conditional license should be issued. Final Rule, 

Operators' Licenses and Conforming Amendments, 52 Fed. Reg. 9453, 9455 (1987).1

 1 The staff's practice with respect to a notification of change in operator or senior operator status and receipt of a new 

NRC Form 396, "Certification of Medical Examination by Facility Licensee," has been to send the information to a 

qualified medical reviewer, except for minor medical changes such as glasses and hearing aids, through NRC 

Form 369A "Transmittal of NRC Form 396 for a Medical Review." The Staff instructs the medical reviewer to 

evaluate facility license condition requests and medical evidence for ANSI Standard compliance, and to indicate 

concurrence, recommendations, disqualifications, or requests for additional medical evidence. NRC Form 396A. 

The medical reviewer will respond to the NRC Staff in several ways. First, the medical reviewer might find that the 

applicant’s medical status is satisfactory for licensing with no restrictions or conditions. NRC Form 396A; see

10 CFR 55.33(a)(1) (stating the health finding for an unconditioned initial license). Second, the medical reviewer 
ES-202, Page 2 of 15

Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.8, “Qualification and Training of Personnel for Nuclear 

Power Plants,” which was published in conjunction with the 1987 rule change (Final Rule, 

Operators' Licenses and Conforming Amendments, 52 FR 9453 (1987)), provided guidance on an 

acceptable method of implementing this regulation. However, the NRC staff had reviewed2 the 

industry’s licensed operator training program experience guidelines in effect at the time of the 

1987 rule change and determined that they were equivalent to the baseline experience criteria of

RG 1.8, Revision 2. Consequently, as indicated in the statement of consideration for the 1987 

rule change, a facility licensee’s training program would be considered approved by the NRC 

when it is accredited by the National Nuclear Accrediting Board (NNAB).

On March 19, 1987, the NRC staff published Generic Letter (GL) 87-07, “Information Transmittal 

of Final Rulemaking for Revisions to Operator Licensing: 10 CFR Part 55 and Conforming 

Amendments.” Specifically, GL 87-07 informed facility licensees that they have the option to

substitute an accredited, SAT-based program in lieu of the operator training program that the

NRC staff previously approved for the given facility. The GL also indicated that facility licensees 

may implement this option upon providing written notification to the NRC and without the need for 

any staff review. In addition, the GL noted the NRC’s expectation that facility licensee’s would 

update their licensing-basis documents (e.g., their final safety analysis report (FSAR) and

technical specifications (TS)), as necessary, to conform to their accredited program status.

In November 1987, the NRC published NUREG-1262, “Answers to Questions at Public Meetings 

Regarding Implementation of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 55 on Operators’

Licenses,” which reiterated and clarified the NRC staff’s expectations regarding licensees’

compliance with 10 CFR 55.31(a), Revision 2 of RG 1.8, and accredited training programs, as

well as the need for facility licensees to update their licensing-basis documents in accordance

with 10 CFR 50.71(e). NUREG-1262 also reminded facility licensees that Revision 2 of RG 1.8 

would go into effect on March 31, 1988. In addition, this NUREG noted that facilities with 

NNAB-accredited license training programs do not need to meet the guidance in Revision 2 of RG

1.8.

RG 1.8 (Revision 2 or 3) and the guidelines for education and experience issued by the National 

Academy for Nuclear Training (NANT)3 outline acceptable methods for implementing the 

Commission’s regulations in this area. In addition, methods different from those set forth in RG 

1.8 (Revision 2 or 3) or the NANT guidelines may be acceptable if a facility licensee provides an 

adequate basis for using such methods.

 may find that the applicant's medical status is satisfactory for licensing only if additional conditions are placed upon 

the operator or senior operator. NRC Form 396A; see 10 CFR 55.33(b) (stating that if the health requirements of 

10 CFR 55.33(a)(1) are not met, the Commission may approve a license with conditions to accommodate the 

medical defect). Third, the medical reviewer may find that the identified medical condition disqualifies the operator 

or senior operator from receiving a license. NRC Form 396A; 10 CFR 55.33(a)(1). The medical reviewer 

documents the review and provides it to the NRC via NRC Form 396A.

2 The NRC staff conducted this review under the Commission’s continued endorsement of the industry’s 

accreditation process, which the Commission first conferred in its “Final Policy Statement on Training and 

Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel” (50 FR 11147), dated March 20, 1985.

3 NANT operates under the auspices of the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO). It integrates the training 

efforts of all U.S. nuclear utilities, the activities of the NNAB, and the training-related activities of INPO.
ES-202, Page 3 of 15

The staff encourages all facility licensees to review their requirements and commitments related

to RO and SRO education and experience and to update their documentation (e.g., FSAR, TS, 

and training program descriptions) to enhance consistency and minimize confusion.

When a facility licensee’s licensed operator training program description or licensing-basis 

documents contain education and experience requirements that are more restrictive than either

Revision 3 of RG 1.8 or the current NANT guidelines, the most restrictive requirements will 

continue to apply pending the initiation of action by the licensee to amend these requirements. 

Any required TS changes would be considered administrative in nature.

The “Veteran Skills to Jobs Act” requires each Federal licensing authority to consider and allows 

the authority to accept, in the case of any individual applying for a license, any relevant training 

received by such individual while serving as a member of the armed forces, for the purpose of 

satisfying the requirements for the license. RG 1.8 (Revision 2 or 3) and the guidelines for 

education and experience promulgated by the NANT recognize and credit veterans’ military 

propulsion plant and reactor experience toward meeting some of the eligibility requirements for 

RO and/or SRO training and licensing per 10 CFR 55.31.

Operator license applicants and facility licensees must provide the NRC with sufficient information 

to enable the staff to determine whether to grant or deny the applications. However, some facility 

licensees did not respond to GL 87-07 or failed to update their licensing-basis documents to 

eliminate inconsistencies and contradictions. This has made it difficult for the NRC staff to 

determine if some license applicants have successfully completed their facility licensee’s 

requirements to be licensed as an RO or SRO. Nonetheless, the fact that every facility licensee 

has voluntarily obtained and periodically renewed the accreditation of its licensed operator 

training program suggests that every facility licensee is implementing the education and 

experience guidelines endorsed by the NNAB. Specifically, the NRC staff understands that the 

current version of those guidelines is outlined in the NANT “Guidelines for Initial Training and 

Qualification of Licensed Operators,”4 which were issued in February 2010 (NANT 2010

guidelines). Unless otherwise informed by a facility licensee, the NRC staff believes that the 

education and experience guidelines described in “Guidelines for Initial Training and Qualification 

of Licensed Operators”, NANT 2010, constitute the facility licensee’s education and experience 

requirements to be licensed as an RO or SRO.

In an effort to clarify the situation, the NRC staff revised NRC Form 398, “Personal Qualifications 

Statement: Licensee,” to clarify that when a facility licensee certifies, under 10 CFR 55.31(a)(4), 

that an applicant has successfully completed a Commission-approved, SAT-based training 

program, it means that the applicant meets or exceeds the minimum education and experience 

guidelines currently outlined in NANT 2010 (and, by extension, Revision 3 of RG 1.8). Facility 

licensees can use the revised NRC Form 398 to document any exceptions or waivers that the 

applicant has taken from the baseline education and experience guidelines outlined in NANT

2010. In addition, the NRC recognizes that the only significant difference between Revision 3 of

RG 1.8 and the current accreditation guidelines relates to senior reactor operator eligibility for 

degreed personnel and the length of time associated with responsible nuclear power plant 

 4 The NRC staff has reviewed the NANT guidelines and considers them to be equivalent to the agency’s guidelines 

in Revision 3 of RG 1.8, which was published in May 2000. RG 1.8 now endorses American National Standards 

Institute/American Nuclear Society (ANSI/ANS) Standard 3.1-1993, “Selection, Qualification, and Training of 

Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants,” with certain clarifications, additions, and exceptions. It replaces Revision 2 

of RG 1.8, which was issued in conjunction with the 1987 rule change and endorsed the 1981 revision of 

ANSI/ANS 3.1.
ES-202, Page 4 of 15

experience. Applicants affected by those guidelines can use the revised NRC Form 398 to 

document the details of their experience. This will minimize the potential for misunderstanding 

and the need to seek additional information.

C. Responsibilities

The regulatory requirements associated with the license application process are detailed in 

Subpart D, “Applications,” of 10 CFR Part 55, “Operators’ Licenses,” while the medical 

requirements for license applicants and licensed operators appear in Subpart C, “Medical 

Requirements.” NRC staff and license applicant should refer to these requirements as 

necessary when preparing and reviewing license applications.

1. Applicant/Facility Licensee

a. To apply for an RO or SRO license, an applicant must submit NRC Form 398, and

NRC Form 396, “Certification of Medical Examination by Facility Licensee.” The 

application is not complete until both forms are filled out, signed by the appropriate 

personnel, and received by the NRC. Detailed instructions for completing NRC 

Form 398 and Form 396 are provided with each form. Additional instructions 

regarding waivers, deferrals, or excusals of training, experience, and examination 

requirements are provided in ES-204. NRC Forms 396 and 398 are available on

the NRC’s operator licensing Web page at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operator-licensing/licensing-process.html.

If the applicant is reapplying following a license denial, 10 CFR 55.35 applies, and 

the applicant must complete and submit a new Form 398. A new Form 396 may not 

be required as discussed below. The applicant may file the second application 

2 months after the date of the first final denial, a third application 6 months after the 

date of the second final denial, and successive applications 2 years after the date 

of each subsequent denial. Each new Form 398 shall describe the extent of the 

applicant’s additional training since the denial and shall include a certification by 

the facility licensee that the applicant is ready for reexamination

If the applicant previously passed either the written examination or the operating 

test, he or she may request to be excused from re-examination on that portion of 

the licensing examination. Such excusals are limited to the first re-application 

and the corresponding retake examination must take place within 1 year of the 

date on which the applicant completed the original examination. The NRC staff 

will also consider written examination waivers for ROs in good standing who prefer 

to take only the 25-question, SRO portion of the written examination when they 

apply to upgrade their licenses. Refer to ES-204 for a more detailed discussion of 

these and other waiver or excusal criteria. Prior to licensing, every applicant must 

have a complete medical examination that meets the guidelines in the applicable 

version of ANSI/ANS 3.4, “Medical Certification and Monitoring of Personnel 

Requiring Operator Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants,” as endorsed by RG

1.134, “Medical Evaluation of Licensed Personnel at Nuclear Power Plants.” 

Although licensed operators can go up to 24 months between medical

examinations, new license applicants are generally expected to be examined and 

certified as fit (on NRC Form 396) no more than 6 months before the anticipated 

date of licensing. However, if more than 6 months have passed since the date of 
ES-202, Page 5 of 15

an applicant’s last medical examination or fitness certification on NRC Form 396, 

the applicant/facility licensee may request a waiver of medical reexamination on

NRC Form 398 and certifying in writing in the, “Comments,” section that the

applicant has not developed any physical or mental condition that would be 

reportable under 10 CFR 55.25, “Incapacitation because of Disability or Illness.” 

The NRC staff will consider such a waiver if an applicant is reapplying for a license 

(because of withdrawing a previous application, final license denial on a previous 

application, or terminating a previous license at the same facility), or if an 

examination is delayed from its originally scheduled date. (Refer to ES-204 for 

more information on waivers.) However, if an applicant’s physical or mental 

condition has changed, or the time since the applicant’s last complete medical 

examination is expected to exceed 24 months before the licensing action is 

completed, the applicant shall be reexamined by a physician and the facility 

licensee shall recertify the applicant’s medical fitness on NRC Form 396. 

Licensed ROs or LSROs upgrading to an SRO license need not have an additional 

medical examination or waiver request, as long as their medical status as a 

licensed RO or LSRO is up to date at the time of application, including a complete 

medical examination within the past 24 months.

In accordance with Section 3.1 of ANSI/ANS 3.4-1996, “Medical Certification and 

Monitoring of Personnel Requiring Operator Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants,”

which the NRC endorsed in Revision 3 of RG 1.134, the examining physician may 

delegate portions of the medical examination to a licensed nurse practitioner or 

licensed physician’s assistant who is familiar with the ANSI/ANS 3.4-1996 and the

activities required of a nuclear power plant operator or senior operator. However, 

the physician has the ultimate responsibility for certifying that the medical 

examination was conducted in accordance with the standard and that the applicant 

meets the medical requirements. The names and license numbers of all medical 

practitioners (but not laboratory technicians) who were substantially involved in the

examination should be entered on NRC Form 396.

b. Each new applicant (except those applying for an LSRO license or an SRO 

upgrade license at the same facility) must satisfactorily complete the NRC’s 

generic fundamentals examination (GFE) section of the written operator licensing 

examination for the applicable reactor type (boiling- or pressurized-water) ) within

24 months before the date of application. Applicants who passed a GFE on the 

same reactor type more than 24 months before the date of application may request

a waiver of the GFE in accordance with ES-204. Refer to ES-205 for more 

information on the GFE program.

c. Under 10 CFR 55.31(a)(5), new applications must include the number of

significant control manipulations affecting reactivity or power level in the section 

marked, “Significant Control Manipulations.” At least five manipulations are 

required on the facility for which the license is sought or a plant-referenced 

simulator. Control manipulations performed on the plant-referenced simulator 

may be chosen from a representative sampling of the control manipulations and 

plant evolutions described in 10 CFR 55.59(c)(3)(i)(A-F), (R), (T), (W), and (X), as

applicable to the design of the plant for which the license application is submitted. 

Power changes (Items (E) and (F)) performed on the simulator must be 10 percent 

or greater in magnitude, while those on the plant may be smaller but of sufficient 

magnitude for the operator to experience appropriate feedback (i.e., clearly 
ES-202, Page 6 of 15

observable effects on the plant, which could include maintaining power constant 

while performing a dilution/boration evolution) as a result of the control 

manipulation. Every effort should be made to perform at least some of the 

manipulations on the actual plant and to diversify the reactivity and power changes 

for each applicant. Manipulations must be performed in accordance with a 

station approved procedure. RO and Instant SRO applicants may get credit for 

control manipulations in either the At-The-Controls (ATC) or Balance-of-Plant 

(BOP) position as long as the above criteria are met. Instant SRO applicants shall 

not get credit for reactivity manipulations while in a supervisory position, 

i.e., supervising another operator performing the manipulations would not be 

acceptable.

Facility licensees who propose to use a plant-referenced simulator to perform the

control manipulations required by 10 CFR 55.31(a)(5) must ensure that simulator 

fidelity has been demonstrated under 10 CFR 55.46(c).

d. Neither 10 CFR Part 55 nor Section 107 of the Atomic Energy Act requires license 

applicants to be citizens of the United States; therefore, non-citizens may apply for 

a license without having to obtain a waiver or exemption. However, all applicants 

must meet the requirements for unescorted access to a nuclear power facility 

under 10 CFR 73.56 - 57, including a criminal history check and background 

investigation.

e. As noted in ES-201, the facility licensee should submit preliminary, uncertified 

license applications and medical certifications for review by the NRC’s regional 

office at least 30 days before the examination date. Preliminary waiver/excusal 

requests should be submitted at least 60 days before the examination date or as 

early as possible to allow evaluation of the sufficiency of the justification. Failure 

to allow adequate time to review sufficiency of the justification could result in the 

waiver/excusal being denied. This will permit the NRC staff to make preliminary 

eligibility determinations, process the medical certifications, evaluate any waivers 

and obtain additional information, if necessary, while allowing the facility licensee 

to finish training the applicants before the certified applications are due.

f. The facility licensee’s senior management representative on site (i.e., an 

authorized representative of the facility licensee, such as the plant manager or site 

vice-president) must certify when an applicant has completed all of the facility 

licensee’s requirements and commitments for the desired license level (i.e.,

experience, control manipulations, training, and medical). Certification is 

documented on NRC Form 398, and submitted to the NRC’s regional office at least 

14 days before the examination date. The senior management representative 

must also sign the “Certification” section on NRC Form 396.

Under 10 CFR 55.5, “Communications,” facility licensees may submit these forms 

to the NRC by mail, in person, or, where practicable, via electronic information 

exchange (EIE) or on CD-ROM. Electronic submissions must be made in a 

manner that enables the NRC to receive, read, authenticate, distribute, and 

archive the submission, and process and retrieve it one page at a time. Detailed 

guidance on making electronic submissions can be obtained by visiting the NRC’s 

public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, calling the NRC 

Meta System Help Desk at (866) 672-7640, contacting the NRC at 
ES-202, Page 7 of 15

http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/contact-us-eie.html, or writing to the

Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555-0001. Forms that have only a single signature, such as 

NRC Form 396, may be submitted electronically using an electronic digital 

signature. However, forms with multiple signatures, such as NRC Form 398, 

must rely on handwritten optically scanned signatures, because of the limited 

digital signature capability of the EIE system. For any textual documents 

submitted in an optically scanned format, please note that Searchable Image 

(Exact) PDF is required, to preclude optical character recognition errors. When 

sending these forms via EIE, facility licensees are encouraged to follow up with a 

phone call or e-mail message to the operator licensing assistant in the regional 

office to ensure the forms are received.

The facility must also submit a written request to administer the written 

examination and operating test to the applicant. This request can be considered 

met when receiving the official signed applications (Form 398’s), usually with a 

cover letter, from the licensee for the individuals that are scheduled to take the 

initial licensing examinations.

g. When the NRC’s regional office denies a license application, the applicant need

not accept the denial. The applicant may request an adjudicatory hearing in 

accordance with 10 CFR 2.103(b)(2) within 20 days from the date of the denial 

letter. Further action will be taken in accordance with ES-502.

h. The facility licensee is expected to inform the NRC’s regional office in writing if it 

wishes to withdraw an application before the licensing process is complete.

2. NRC Regional Office

a. The NRC’s regional office shall review preliminary applications as soon as 

possible after they are received. In that way, the regional office can process the

medical certifications, evaluate and resolve any waiver/deferral/excusal requests 

in accordance with ES-204, and obtain from the facility licensee any additional 

information that might be necessary in order to support the final eligibility 

determinations.

With regard to medical certifications, the regional office shall forward the 

applicant’s NRC Form 396 and supporting medical evidence to the NRC’s contract

physician for evaluation any time the examining physician recommends that the 

NRC should issue a restricted license to the applicant, that the NRC should grant

the applicant a waiver (exception) of any requirement set forth in the applicable 

ANSI/ANS standard, or that the NRC should change an existing restriction (by 

checking any of blocks A.2 to A.10 on Form 396). If, on the date of the licensing 

examination, the NRC’s physician is still reviewing an applicant’s medical 

certification but there is no reason to expect that the physician will disqualify the 

applicant, the NRC’s regional office should allow the applicant to take the 

examination, with the understanding that the NRC will withhold the license until the 

medical certification is approved.

Before entering the applicants’ data in the operator licensing tracking system, the 

NRC’s regional office shall verify that none of the applicants’ names appear on the 
ES-202, Page 8 of 15

list of ”Escalated Enforcement Actions Issued to Individuals.” The regional office 

shall check with the appropriate contact in the Office of Enforcement to verify and 

document that the information on the subject individuals is current before using the

information on the list to deny a licensing action.

b. The regional office will verify that the applicant has successfully passed the GFE, if

required, and review the data on NRC Form 398 to ensure that it is complete.

Affirmative responses to the “Power Reactor Operator Training Program”

questions on NRC Form 398, indicate that the applicant has successfully 

completed a Commission-approved, SAT-based training program that (1) meets 

the education and experience requirements outlined by the NANT and (2) uses a 

simulation facility acceptable to the Commission under 10 CFR 55.45(b). If the 

facility licensee checks “yes” in response to these items, the licensee need not 

complete “Training,” or “Experience Details,” sections on NRC Form 398, except 

as noted below, and the regional office may accept the application without further 

review.

The regional office will verify that new applications include at least five significant

control manipulations affecting reactivity or power level in the “Significant Control 

Manipulations” item of NRC Form 398 (refer to Section C.1.c).

As noted in the instructions on NRC Form 398, certified instructors (who may not 

have the requisite responsible nuclear power plant experience (RNPPE) defined in 

RG 1.8, Revision 3) seeking an SRO license must complete the “Experience 

Details” section. Moreover, any exceptions or waivers from the education and

experience requirements outlined in the NANT guidelines must be explained in in 

the “Comments” section.

If an applicant checks “no” in response to the “Power Reactor Operator Training 

Program” questions, provides information that is not required, or indicates that 

exceptions or waivers have been taken, the regional office shall review the 

application against the specific eligibility requirements and commitments applicable 

to the facility licensee and shall refer any eligibility issues (e.g., any failure to meet 

the minimum guidelines established by the NANT or RG 1.8, Revision 3) and

questions to the NRR/NRO operator licensing program office for resolution.

If the applicant is documenting military experience “in a position” equivalent (or 

superior) to a licensed RO at a military reactor (e.g., propulsion plant watch officer, 

reactor operator, engineering officer of the watch, propulsion plant watch 

supervisor, or engineering watch supervisor), then objective quality evidence must 

be supplied to confirm the duration an applicant was “in a position” as described 

above and not just the duration of the applicants overall service time. This 

evidence need only indicate the dates that the applicant was qualified in the position 

that is being evaluated for experience.

If the applicant is reapplying after a previous examination failure and license denial, 

the regional office shall evaluate the applicant’s additional training to determine if

the facility licensee made a reasonable effort to remediate the deficiencies that

caused the applicant to fail the previous examination.
ES-202, Page 9 of 15

c. The regional office may determine (1) that the preliminary application is incomplete, 

(2) more information is necessary to make a waiver determination, or (3) the

applicant does not meet the requirements in 10 CFR 55.31, “How to Apply.” In such 

instances, the regional office will note the deficiencies and request that facility 

licensee supply additional information when it submits the final, certified license 

application (or sooner if possible).

Conversely, the regional office may determine that the preliminary application is

complete, and the applicant meets the eligibility requirements or is expected to

meet the requirements pending the receipt of additional information. In such 

instances, the regional office shall enter the applicant’s name, docket number, and 

examination requirements on the “List of Applicants” in accordance with ES-201.

d. Upon receiving the final, certified license application, the reviewer shall ensure that 

the eligibility criteria are satisfied. If so, the reviewer shall check the “meets 

requirements” block at the bottom of NRC Form 398 and shall sign and date the 

form. If necessary, the reviewer shall add the applicant’s name and other data to 

the “List of Applicants” in accordance with ES-201. The reviewer shall also 

ensure that the list accurately reflects any examination waivers that may have 

been granted in accordance with ES-204.

If the regional office determines that the applicant still does not meet the eligibility 

requirements, the regional licensing authority will (1) discuss its decision with the 

NRR/NRO operator licensing program office; (2) notify the applicant in writing that 

the application is being denied, and (3) identify the deficiencies on which the denial 

is based (Attachment 1). The responsible regional supervisor, or designee, shall 

check the “does not meet requirements” block at the bottom of Form 398, and shall 

sign and date the form. The applicant’s name shall be stricken from the “List of 

Applicants,” and the applicant shall not be permitted to take the licensing 

examination until the regional office determines that he or she meets the eligibility 

criteria.

In accordance with ES-204, the region may administer a license examination to an 

applicant who has not satisfied the applicable training or experience requirements 

at the time of the examination, but is expected to complete them shortly thereafter. 

Assuming that the applicant passes the examination, the regional office shall not 

issue the applicant’s license until the facility licensee certifies that all of the 

requirements have been completed. (Refer to ES-501 and ES-502 for additional 

guidance.)

e. During either the preparatory site visit or the examination week, the regional office 

shall audit a sample (approximately 10 percent) of the license applications 

(i.e., NRC Form 398s) to confirm that they accurately reflect the subject applicants’

qualifications. The review should focus primarily on the applicants’ experience 

and on-the-job training, including reactivity manipulations, to ensure that they 

comply with 10 CFR Part 55 and the facility’s licensing-basis documents and

licensed operator training program description. The regional office will refer 

specific eligibility questions and deficiencies to the NRR/NRO operator licensing 

program office for review before making the licensing decisions.
ES-202, Page 10 of 15

D. NRC License Eligibility Guidelines

RG 1.8, “Qualification and Training of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants,” describes a method 

that the NRC staff finds acceptable for complying with the Commission’s regulations with regard 

to the training and qualifications of nuclear power plant personnel. For the positions of shift 

supervisor, senior operator, and licensed operator, Revision 3 of RG 1.8, which was issued in 

May 2000, endorses the guidelines contained in ANSI/ANS 3.1-1993; specific clarifications, 

additions, and exceptions are noted in Section C, “Regulatory Position,” of RG 1.8. The license 

eligibility guidelines in RG 1.8, Revision 3, and ANSI/ANS 3.1-1993 are summarized below; refer 

to those documents for more detailed information.

As noted in Section B, above, the NRC has reviewed the current education and experience 

guidelines outlined in the NANT “Guidelines for Initial Training and Qualification of Licensed 

Operators,” and concluded that they are equivalent to the NRC staff guidelines in RG 1.8, 

Revision 3.

Except as specifically noted below, applicant experience and training are separate aspects of 

license eligibility. As stated in NUREG-1262, in response to Question No. 113, a person should 

meet the experience guidelines before entering the license training program. Time spent in 

training before entering the license training program may qualify as experience, but time spent in

an NRC-approved training program leading up to license eligibility should normally not be

double-counted as experience.

1. Reactor Operator

a. Experience

(1) The applicant should have a minimum of 3 years of power plant experience 

At least 6 months of experience should be on-site for which the applicant 

seeks a license and should not include any of the time spent in the control 

room as an extra person on shift.

(2) The applicant should meet at least one of the following:

a) spend at least 6 months performing plant operational duties as a 

non-licensed operator;

b) spend at least 12 months performing operational duties as a 

non-licensed operator at a comparable (BWR/PWR) facility;

c) spend at least 6 months performing operational duties as an ACTIVE 

licensed reactor operator at a comparable (BWR/PWR) facility; or

d) spend at least 24 months in a position equivalent to the reactor 

operator at a military reactor.at the nuclear power plant for which the 

license is sought.

b. Training

(1) Before being assigned RO duties, the applicant should complete at least 

3 months as an extra person on shift in training for the RO position. This

training should include all phases of day-to-day operations and should be
ES-202, Page 11 of 15

conducted under the supervision of licensed personnel. This time should 

not count toward the 1-year onsite experience specified in Item D.1(a)(1) 

above.

(2) The applicant should complete an RO training program that is established 

and maintained using a systems approach to training.

(3) The applicant must manipulate the controls of the reactor or a 

plant-referenced simulator that meets the requirements of 10 CFR 55.46(c) 

during five significant changes in reactivity or power level (refer to 10 CFR

55.31(a)(5) and Section C.1.c above). Every effort should be made to 

perform at least some of the manipulations on the actual plant and to 

diversify the reactivity and power changes for each applicant.

c. Education

The applicant should have a high school diploma or equivalent.

2. Senior Reactor Operator

a. Experience

(1) A non-licensed (i.e., instant SRO) applicant should have a minimum of

18 months of RNPPE, as defined in RG 1.8. At least 6 months of

experience should be on-site for which the applicant seeks a license and 

should not include any of the time spent in the control room as an extra 

person on shift. 

(2) Applicants for an SRO license who do not hold a bachelor’s degree in

engineering or the equivalent should have held an operator’s license and

should have been actively involved in the performance of licensed duties 

for at least 1 year at the site or a facility of the same vendor and vintage, 

1.5 years at a comparable (BWR/PWR) or non-comparable facility, or have 

at least 2 years spent in a position that is equivalent (or superior) to a 

licensed RO at a military reactor (e.g., propulsion plant watch officer, 

reactor operator, engineering officer of the watch, propulsion plant watch 

supervisor, or engineering watch supervisor). The 2 years in a position 

equivalent to a licensed RO at a military reactor should be during the time 

the individual is qualified in the position that is being evaluated for 

experience. Maintaining “active status” for an operator’s license under

10 CFR 55.53(e) is sufficient to satisfy this experience guideline.

(3) During the years of responsible nuclear power plant experience, the

applicant should participate in reactor operator activities at power levels 

greater than 20 percent for at least 6 weeks

(4) The eligibility of equipment operators, plant technicians, and non-degreed 

licensed operator instructors, who do not satisfy the strict definition of

RNPPE and might otherwise be disqualified, will be evaluated on a

case-by-case basis. The NRR/NRO operator licensing program office will

assess their experience to determine the degree of equivalence and

amount of credit to be granted.
ES-202, Page 12 of 15

b. Training

(1) Before being assigned SRO duties, the applicant should complete at least 

3 months as an extra person on shift in training for the SRO position. This 

training should include all phases of day-to-day operations and should be 

conducted under the supervision of licensed personnel. This time does 

not count toward the 6-month onsite responsible experience guideline in 

Item D.2(a)(1) above. However, any portion of the 3 months that is spent 

at or above 20 percent power may also be used to satisfy the experience 

guideline in Section D.2.a(3).

(2) If the applicant has not held an RO license at the facility for which a license 

is sought, the applicant must complete the required control manipulations 

as discussed in Section C.1.c above.

(3) The applicant should complete an SRO training program that is established 

and maintained using a systems approach to training.

c. Education

The applicant should have a high school diploma or equivalent.

3. Limited Senior Reactor Operator

a. Experience

The applicant should have 3 years of RNPPE that includes active participation in at

least one refueling outage at the site for which the license is sought or at a similar 

facility. Under 10 CFR 55.31(a)(5), the applicant must perform five significant 

control manipulations that affect reactivity (e.g., by loading or unloading fuel into, 

out of, or within the reactor vessel). Six months of experience should be at the 

site for which the LSRO license is sought or at a similar facility owned by the same 

facility licensee.

b. Training

The applicant should complete an LSRO training program that is established and

maintained using a systems approach to training.

c. Education

The applicant should have a high school diploma or equivalent.

4. Cold License Eligibility

Cold licensing is the process used prior to fuel load that provides a consistent method for 

operations personnel to acquire the knowledge and experience required for licensed 

operator duties following fuel load. Current regulatory guidance does not address the 

situation in which the plant is not operational (i.e., under construction). Cold licensing 

examinations are administered prior to fuel load and prior to completion of pre-operational 

testing and the initial startup test program as described in the FSAR. Each cold license 
ES-202, Page 13 of 15

applicant must meet the education, experience, and training guidance described in NEI 

06-13A, “Template for an Industry Training Program Description,” Revision 1. NEI 06-13A 

was accepted by the NRC on December 5, 2008 for use in combined operating license 

applications for proposed new plants.

Cold licensed operator candidates need not satisfy the RG 1.8 or NANT 2010 experience 

requirements before entering a licensed operator training program. The experience 

requirements that have not been met at the time the licensed operator examination is 

administered will be certified by the licensee as being complete prior to the individual’s 

NRC operator license being issued.

The cold licensing process will terminate after completion of the first refueling outage at

the unit for which the license is applied.

E. Attachments/Forms

Attachment 1 Sample Initial Application Denial from Region
ES-202, Page 14 of 15

ES-202 Sample Initial Application Denial Attachment 1

from Region

NRC Letterhead

(date)

(Applicant’s name)

(Street address)

(City, State, ZIP code)

Dear (Name):

This is to inform you that your application, dated (date), for a (reactor operator, senior reactor 

operator, or limited senior reactor operator) license, submitted in connection with (facility name),

is hereby denied.

(Region to discuss deficiencies and which part of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations

(10CFR) 55.31, “How to Apply,” Examination Standard ES-202, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) -approved facility training program, or Regulatory Guide 1.8 was involved.) 

When you have met the requirements, you may submit another application.

If you do not accept this denial of your application, you may, within 20 days of the date of this 

letter, request an adjudicatory hearing under 10 CFR 2.103(b)(2). Under 10 CFR 2.307(a), you 

may request an extension of the time limits if you can show good cause.

If you request an adjudicatory hearing under 10 CFR 2.103(b)(2) based on the denial contained in 

this letter, submit your request electronically through the NRC’s E-Filing system in accordance 

with the requirements of 10 CFR 2.302(a) through (g).

10 C.F.R. 2.302(a) states:

(a) Documents filed in Commission adjudicatory proceedings subject to this part shall be 

electronically transmitted through the E-Filing system, unless the Commission or 

presiding officer grants an exemption permitting an alternative filing method or unless the 

filing falls within the scope of paragraph (g)(1) of this section (i.e., information that may not 

be transmitted electronically for security or other reasons).

In addition, 10 days before the date your request for hearing is due, you must request a digital 

ID certificate from the NRC in order to access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE) system. 

The instructions for obtaining a digital certificate are found in 10 CFR 2.302(f) and on the NRC 

Web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.

Adjudicatory hearings are conducted under 10 CFR, Part 2, Subpart C. Specifically, 10 CFR 

2.309 sets forth the requirements for hearing requests and contentions. 10 CFR 2.309(f) sets 

forth the requirements for an admissible contention. Briefly, an admissible contention must: 

provide a specific statement of law or fact to be raised or controverted; provide a brief explanation 

of the basis for the contention; demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is within the 

scope of the proceeding; demonstrate that the contention is material to the findings that the NRC 

must make to support the denial of the license; provide a concise statement of the alleged facts or 

expert opinions which support your position and on which you intend to rely, together with 

references to specific resources and documents you intend to rely on; and, provide sufficient 

information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the NRC staff on a material issue of law or 
ES-202, Page 15 of 15

fact, including references to parts of the denial letter, review and analysis that you dispute and the 

reasons for each dispute.

For further details, you should refer to 10 CFR 2.309(f)(1).

If you have any questions, please contact (name) at (telephone number).

Sincerely,

(Regional branch chief or above)

Docket No. 55-(number)

cc: (Facility representative who signed the applicant’s NRC Form 398)

CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

ES-204, Page 1 of 9

ES-204

PROCESSING EXCUSALS AND WAIVERS REQUESTED BY

REACTOR OPERATOR AND SENIOR REACTOR OPERATOR APPLICANTS

A. Purpose

This standard provides guidance concerning the processing of excusals and waivers requested 

by reactor operator (RO) and senior reactor operator (SRO) license applicants at power reactor 

facilities.

B. Background

In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 55.35, “Re-applications,”

and 10 CFR 55.47, “Waiver of Examination and Test Requirements,” an applicant may request to 

be excused or waived from a written examination or an operating test. The U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) may excuse any previously passed portions of the written 

examination or operating test or waive any or all of the examination requirements if it determines 

that the applicant has presented sufficient justification. In an effort to expedite the resolution of

applicant requests, the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) (for 10 CFR Part 50 

licensees) and the Office of New Reactors (NRO) (for 10 CFR Part 52 licensees) have delegated 

the authority to grant excusals or waivers of certain operator licensing requirements to the NRC 

regional offices.

C. Responsibilities

1. Applicant/Facility Licensee

a. An applicant may request an excusal or waiver of a license requirement by 

checking the appropriate block on NRC Form 398, “Personal Qualification 

Statement: Licensee.” 

For excusals and waivers of written examination requirements, or operating 

examination requirements, the applicant should specify the applicable 

examination category(ies) to excuse or waive: 

• written exam categories: GFE, RO-level questions, SRO-only

questions, ALL

• operating test categories: Administrative Topics JPMs, Control 

Room System JPMs, In-Plant System JPMs, Simulator Operating 

Test, ALL

The applicant should also explain the basis and justification for requesting the 

excusal or waiver in the “Comments,” section of NRC Form 398 and attach any 

supporting documentation.

b. The facility licensee’s senior management representative on site must certify the

final license application, thereby substantiating the basis for the applicant’s waiver

or excusal request.
ES-204, Page 2 of 9

c. Facility licensees having units designed by the same nuclear steam supply system 

vendor and operated at approximately the same power level may request dual 

licensing for their operators. Similarly, if the units of a multiunit facility are nearly 

identical, the facility licensee may request a waiver of the examination 

requirements for the second and subsequent units.

In either case, the facility licensee must justify to the NRC that the differences 

between the units are not so significant that they could affect the operator’s ability

to operate each unit safely and competently. Further, the facility licensee must 

submit for NRC review the details of the training and certification program. The 

analysis and summary of the differences on which the applicants must be trained 

will include the following, as applicable:

• facility design and systems relevant to control room personnel

• technical specifications

• procedures (primarily abnormal and emergency operating)

• control room design and instrument location

• operational characteristics

• administrative procedures related to conduct of operations at a multiunit site 

(e.g., shift manning and response to accidents and fires)

• the expected method of rotating personnel between units and the

familiarization training to be conducted before an operator assumes 

responsibility on a new unit

2. NRC Regional Office

a. The regional office will evaluate excusal and waiver requests on a case-by-case 

basis against the excusal and waiver criteria discussed in Section D of this 

examination standard.

b. The regional office may grant excusals or waivers identified in Section D.1 without 

first obtaining concurrence from the NRR/NRO operator licensing program office.

However, waivers of experience requirements, completion of training, or 

completion of examinations not specifically identified in Section D.1 must be 

approved by NRR/NRO. The regional office should evaluate the excusal or

waiver request and forward its approval recommendation to the applicable

operator licensing program office for concurrence.

The region does not require written concurrence from NRR/NRO to deny an 

applicant’s excusal or waiver request, but it should discuss its decision with the 

operator licensing program office before informing the applicant; formal 

concurrence may be desirable in some cases.

c. If additional information is required to reach a decision on an excusal or waiver

request, the regional office shall generally request the necessary information from

the facility licensee in accordance with ES-202.
ES-204, Page 3 of 9

d. Upon deciding to grant or deny an excusal or waiver, the regional office shall 

promptly notify the applicant in writing concerning the disposition of the request, 

and provide an explanation if the request is being denied. If time is too short to 

notify the applicant in writing before the examination date, the regional office shall

notify the facility training representative by telephone concerning the disposition of 

the excusal or waiver request and provide a follow-up written response to the 

applicant. 

e. The region shall document the disposition of every excusal or waiver request, 

whether granted or denied, by completing the block designated “For NRC Use” on

the applicant’s NRC Form 398 and by entering the data in the operator licensing 

tracking system. The final decision on whether to grant or deny an excusal or

waiver request will be documented on the applicant’s final (not preliminary) NRC 

Form 398. This decision will not be provided until a final application is submitted.

f. NRC examiners assigned to a particular examination will be notified of approved

excusals or waivers by the appropriate regional supervisor and by an entry on the 

list of applicants (Form ES-201-4).

g. If the applicant is determined to be ineligible to take the licensing examination, the 

regional office shall issue a denial letter in accordance with ES-202.

h. Group waivers or deferrals can be used in cases where a group of applicants from 

the same facility require an identical waiver or deferral for a given situation (e.g., 

simulator unavailability, more than 30 days between the written and operating 

examinations, etc.). When a group waiver or deferral is approved, a copy of the 

group waiver or deferral request, the resolution of the group waiver or deferral 

request, and a list of the applicants requiring the waiver or deferral shall be 

attached to each individual’s application.

D. Excusal/Waiver Criteria

1. Excusals/Waivers Approved by the Regions

a. If an applicant failed only one portion of the site-specific initial licensing 

examination (i.e., either the written examination overall, the SRO-only section of

the written examination, the simulator operating test, the walk-through overall, or

the administrative portion of the walk-through), the region may excuse the 

applicant from re-examination for those examination areas that were passed. 

This is only applicable for the first retake examination and only if it takes place 

within 1 year of the date on which the original examination was completed. 

To evaluate the request, the region will determine if there is sufficient justification

presented for approving an excusal. Considerations include the following:

• Any request for an excusal must be made in writing and include 

documentation supporting why the request is justified. Justification can be 

presented by, but is not limited to, the following:

– A statement, documented in the “Comments,” section of NRC Form 398, 
ES-204, Page 4 of 9

affirming that the applicant was fully remediated per the licensee’s 

approved SAT- based training program;

– Documentation showing the content and scope of remediation and 

retraining efforts completed with the applicant since the first examination 

failure;

– Content of the testing and evaluations the applicant has completed since 

the first examination failure, including the applicant’s results; and

– Evidence of the applicant’s participation in the licensee’s licensed 

operator requalification training program since the first examination 

failure, including the results of any evaluations of the applicant.

• If an applicant fails a portion of the examination, but passed other portions of 

the examination, then the region may excuse the applicant from 

re-examination on the portions of the examination or test which he or she 

passed with evidence of remediation, retesting, and retraining performed per 

the systems approach to training as described above [REF: 10 CFR 50.120, 

55.4, 55.31, and 55.59].

The licensees are expected to follow their systems approach to training (SAT) 

to remediate applicants before a retake examination. An inherent 

assumption of the examination process is that the applicant is expected to 

demonstrate adequate knowledge and abilities in all portions of the 

examination at one point in time in order to receive a license (see limitations 

on the amount of time allowed between the written examination and the 

operating test discussed in ES-201, C.3.j)

• Note that an SRO-instant applicant who passed the operating test, achieved a 

score of 80 percent on the RO portion of the written examination, 76 percent 

on the SRO-only questions, and 79 percent overall would not be eligible for

an excusal from the RO portion because the overall 80-percent cut score was

not achieved. However, an SRO-upgrade applicant who passed the 

operating test, achieved a score of 80 percent on the RO portion of the written 

examination, 76 percent on the SRO-only questions, and 79 percent overall 

would be eligible for a waiver of the RO portion provided the applicant meets 

the three requirements for a waiver specified in ES-204 D.1.j. 

• An SRO-instant applicant who passed everything except the SRO-only 

portion of the written examination may apply for an RO license, and a full RO 

examination waiver, after accepting a final denial of the original SRO 

application; however, this is not considered a waiver that can be approved by 

the region and must be forwarded to NRR/NRO for approval as discussed in 

Section C.2.b. Such a waiver would be contingent upon the applicant’s 

eligibility for an RO license (refer to the training and experience guidelines in 

ES-202) and the applicant’s demonstration of control board competence 

during the simulator operating test (refer to ES-303).

b. The region may waive training requirements specified in the final safety analysis 

report (FSAR) when the FSAR authorizes waiver of those specific requirements 
ES-204, Page 5 of 9

and the applicant otherwise meets NRC requirements (e.g., waiver of some 

training requirements for applicants previously licensed at a comparable facility).

c. The medical data in support of NRC Form 396 are normally good for 6 months 

from the date of the medical examination to the date a person applies for an RO or

SRO instant license. For re-applications (e.g., following a license denial or

withdrawal of an application, or to request reinstatement of a terminated license) or 

for an examination which is delayed from its originally scheduled date, the NRC

regional office may grant waivers extending the 6-month period, provided that the

date of the original medical examination is within 24 months of the anticipated 

licensing date and “Comments,” section of NRC Form 398 certifies that the

applicant has not developed any physical or mental condition that would be

reportable under 10 CFR 55.25, “Incapacitation because of disability or illness.” 

For renewal and SRO upgrade applicants, the medical examination documented 

on NRC Form 396 is good for 2 years from the date of the medical examination.

Waivers/exceptions and license conditions/restrictions that might be requested if

an applicant does not meet the medical standards in the applicable version of

ANSI/ANS 3.4, “Medical Certification and Monitoring of Personnel Requiring 

Operator Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants,” will be coordinated with the NRC 

contract physician as discussed in ES-202.

d. Substitutions allowed by Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.8, “Qualification and Training of 

Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants,” are not considered to be waivers and, 

therefore, do not require approval. For example, substitution of related technical 

training for up to 1 year of experience for an SRO is not a waiver. However, 

training for the examination applied for may not be counted as related technical 

training.

e. If the facility licensee certifies that the applicant has successfully completed a

training program accredited by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations using an 

acceptable simulation facility, the region may waive the requirement for

10 startups on an operating reactor, which is typically required by NRC-approved 

cold license training programs. Cold license requirements will be met in 

accordance with NRC endorsed NEI 06-13A, “Template for an Industry Training 

Program Description.”

f. For those applicants who are unable to meet the requirement for 6 weeks on shift 

at greater than 20 percent power (because of extended plant shutdowns or other

extraordinary circumstances), the NRC regional office may waive this requirement 

upon application if the following criteria are satisfied:

(1) Facility training objectives for the desired licensed position have been 

developed using a properly validated job task analysis.
ES-204, Page 6 of 9

(2) The facility licensee’s training program is based on a systems approach to

training using the five elements defined in 10 CFR 55.4, “Definitions.”

(3) The facility licensee can accomplish the required training objectives for

plant operation at greater than 20 percent power using a plant-referenced

or NRC-approved simulation facility.

g. If an operator was previously licensed at a facility and reapplies for a license at the 

same facility and the same or lower license level, the regional office may, under

10 CFR 55.47, waive any or all of the requirements for a written examination and

operating test (Refer to D.1.k of this section for the GFE), if it finds that the 

applicant meets the following criteria:

(1) previously discharged his or her responsibilities competently and safely 

and is capable of continuing to do so

(2) terminated participation in the facility licensee’s requalification program 

less than 2 years (24 months) before the date of the license application

(3) successfully completed “Additional Training,” under 10 CFR 55.59(b), and 

a facility-prepared written examination and operating test, which ensure 

that the applicant is up-to-date in the licensed operator requalification 

training program (including GFE topics)

(4) will successfully complete at least 40 hours of shift functions under the 

direction of an operator or senior operator, as appropriate, and in the 

position to which the applicant will be assigned (see 10 CFR 55.53(f)) 

before being assigned to licensed duties

(5) complies with the requirements of 10 CFR 55.31, “How to Apply.”

h. If an applicant is unable to perform the five significant control manipulations 

required by 10 CFR 55.31(a)(5), the regional office may process the application, 

administer the examination, and delay licensing the applicant until the facility 

licensee certifies that the required manipulations have been completed. The 

regional office will not issue the license until the facility licensee supplies the

required evidence that the applicant has successfully completed the control

manipulations.

i. The region may authorize a facility licensee to defer completion of the following 

specific experience and training guidelines until after the licensing examination is

passed:

(1) up to 6 months of the 3 years of power plant experience for an RO or up to 

3 months of the 18 months of responsible nuclear power plant experience 

for an SRO, but not to exceed 2 months of the year of onsite experience for 

an RO and 1 month of the 6 for an SRO

(2) up to 2 months of the year actively performing duties as a licensed RO at

the facility for which an SRO upgrade license is sought

(3) up to 1 month of the 3 spent as an extra RO or SRO on-shift in training
ES-204, Page 7 of 9

The facility licensee must provide evidence that the deferred items have been 

completed before the region will issue the license (refer to ES-501).

j. If an individual is currently licensed as an RO at a facility and applies for an

SRO license at the same facility, the regional office may waive the requirement for 

the applicant to take the RO portion of the SRO written examination if the applicant 

satisfies the following requirements:

(1) Under 10 CFR 55.47(a)(1), which requires extensive actual operating 

experience within the previous 2 years, the applicant must have maintained

an active license for at least 12 of the 24 months preceding the date of 

application. This would also satisfy the SRO-upgrade eligibility criteria in 

Section D.2.a (2) of ES-202 and the similar guidelines established by the 

National Academy for Nuclear Training.

(2) Under 10 CFR 55.47(a)(2), the applicant must have discharged his or her 

responsibilities competently and safely and be capable of continuing to do 

so. As in 10 CFR 55.57, the NRC will consider the applicant’s past 

performance and certification by the facility licensee when making this 

determination.

(3) Under 10 CFR 55.47(a)(3), the applicant must have learned the operating 

procedures for and be qualified to safely and competently operate the 

facility. This requirement would be satisfied if the applicant passed his or 

her most recent requalification examination and was up-to-date in the 

facility licensee’s requalification training program at the time that he or she 

entered the upgrade training program.

Applicants who do not satisfy these requirements shall be referred to the

NRR/NRO operator licensing program office in accordance with Section C.2.b.

k. If an applicant passed the GFE more than 24 months before the date of license 

application, the regional office may waive the requirement to pass another GFE if

the applicant meets any one of the following criteria (as explained in the

“Comments,” section of NRC Form 398):

(1) The applicant terminated an RO or SRO license at a comparable (boilingor pressurized-water) facility less than 24 months before the date of 

application and was up-to-date in the requalification program at the time of 

license termination.

(2) Within the 24 months preceding the date of application, the applicant 

completed self-study or classroom instruction, as deemed necessary by

the facility licensee, and passed a prior GFE that was randomly selected 

from among those contained on the NRC’s GFE Web page and

administered, under controlled conditions, by the facility licensee. NOTE: 

Some of the past GFE exams may contain less than the original 100 or 

50 questions because of question deletions or they may contain questions 

with two correct answers. If your random exam selection does contain a 

flawed question(s), simply remove it (them) from the exam before you 

administer it, and score the exam on the basis of the revised denominator. 
ES-204, Page 8 of 9

For example, if you randomly choose the 2002 BWR exam, you will note 

that question #21 had two correct answers. Therefore, remove that 

question before administering the exam and determine each examinee’s 

grade based on a 99-point exam.

(3) Within the 24 months preceding the date of application, the applicant 

completed self-study or classroom instruction, as deemed necessary by

the facility licensee, and passed a GFE prepared by the facility licensee in 

accordance with Section D of ES-205 and administered under controlled 

conditions.

(4) The applicant has been a “full” participant in the Licensed Operator 

Requalification program, including satisfactory performance on the 

operator or senior operator annual and biennial requalification

examinations. The participation must be continuous from 24 months 

following the date of the successful completion of the GFE exam up to the 

entrance in the associated Initial License class.

2. Examination Waivers for Operators Previously Licensed at Comparable Facilities

Depending on the justification provided by the applicant and the facility licensee, 

NRR/NRO will consider examination waivers for operators who were previously licensed 

at a comparable facility. Under 10 CFR 55.47, the Commission may waive any or all 

requirements for a written examination and operating test.

3. Multiunit Examination Waivers

a. Generally, personnel will not be examined on or allowed to hold licenses for

“different units” simultaneously. For purposes of this standard, “different units”

owned or managed by a single facility licensee are defined as follows:

• units having the same vendor, but significantly different age or power level 

(e.g., Nine Mile Point Units 1 and 2)

• units having the same vendor and similar design, but different locations (e.g.,

Sequoyah and Watts Bar, Byron and Braidwood)

• units having different vendors (pressurized-water reactors only’) but located on 

the same site (e.g., Arkansas Units 1 and 2, Millstone Units 2 and 3)

NRR/NRO may authorize a limited senior reactor operator to be licensed at

multiple sites, provided that the units are manufactured by the same vendor and 

are of similar design. The applicant must pass an examination that addresses the 

differences in the designs, procedures, technical data, and administrative controls 

of the separate facilities for which the license is being sought.
ES-204, Page 9 of 9

b. With regard to the examination requirements for “identical” second or subsequent

units at the same site, NRR/NRO may waive any or all requirements for a written 

examination and operating test if the staff finds that the applicant meets the criteria 

specified in 10 CFR 55.47, as noted in Item D.2 above. If the situation warrants, 

the Commission may impose other examination requirements, such as 

NRC-administered operating tests and written examinations concerning the plant 

differences.

ES-205, Page 1 of 13

ES-205

PROCEDURE FOR ADMINISTERING 

THE GENERIC FUNDAMENTALS EXAMINATION PROGRAM

A. Purpose

This standard describes the procedures and policies pertaining to administration of the generic

fundamentals examination (GFE) section of the written operator licensing examination at power

reactor facilities. It describes how the examinations are scheduled and constructed, how to 

solicit facility licensees for applicants to take the examinations, and how to promulgate the 

examination results.

B. Background

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 55.41, “Written Examination: Operators,”

and 55.43, “Written Examination: Senior Operators,” require that the written operator licensing 

examinations for reactor operators (ROs) and senior reactor operators (SROs) must include 

questions concerning various mechanical components, principles of heat transfer, 

thermodynamics, and fluid mechanics. These regulations also require that the written 

examinations must address fundamentals of reactor theory, including the fission process, 

neutron multiplication, source effects, control rod effects, criticality indications, reactivity 

coefficients, and poison effects.

The fundamental knowledge and abilities (K/As) required of an operator do not vary significantly 

between license levels or among facilities of the same vendor type. As a result, the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) implemented the GFE program to standardize the 

fundamental examination coverage for all applicants at pressurized and boiling-water reactors 

(PWRs and BWRs). Having passed a GFE as an RO or an SRO applicant, an operator will not 

have to take another GFE unless he or she transfers to a facility of another vendor type or 

discontinues, for a period exceeding 2 years (24 months), participation in an accredited licensed 

operator requalification training program that maintains proficiency in the GFE topics. Refer to 

Section D.1.k of ES-204 for guidance regarding waivers of the GFE. The GFE program does 

not apply to limited senior reactor operator license applicants.

The GFE examinations for BWRs and PWRs are typically administered four times a year, on the 

Wednesday following the first Sunday in March, June, September, and December.

C. Responsibilities

1. Facility Licensee

a. The facility licensee must certify that all individuals who plan to take the GFE are 

enrolled in a facility-sponsored training program that will satisfy the eligibility 

requirements for an RO or SRO license. The operator licensing trainees do not need 

to complete all of the training required for licensing before they take the GFE.
ES-205, Page 2 of 13

The facility licensee may use the sample registration letter enclosed with the NRC 

notification letter (Attachment 1) or any similar format letter that contains the required 

information and certification. If the facility licensee must add or delete an individual 

after submitting its registration letter, the facility licensee should inform the Office of 

Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) or the Office of New Reactors (NRO) operator 

licensing program office of the change as specified in the examination cover letter, 

before the examinations are administered.

b. Upon receiving the examinations from the GFE contractor, the facility licensee 

shall reproduce and safeguard the examinations as described in the examination 

cover letter.

c. On the designated examination day, the facility licensee shall administer and

proctor the GFE in accordance with the instructions contained in the examination 

package.

The facility licensee will start and stop the GFE in accordance with the time zone 

map contained within the examination package. Late arrivals will be allowed to 

take the examination; however, all examinees must hand in their examinations at

the completion time designated in the proctor instructions enclosed with the

examination cover letter (refer to Section C.2.d).

d. No later than the day after the GFE is administered, the facility licensee shall 

send the following items by overnight mail to the name and address designated 

in the examination package:

• the original answer sheets 

• the signed exam cover sheets 

• the signed security statements 

2. NRR Operator Licensing Program Office and GFE Contractor

a. The NRR operator licensing program office will designate a coordinator to

oversee the GFE activities of the regional offices, the GFE contractor, and the 

facility licensees.

b. At the beginning of each calendar year, the NRC will send a notification letter 

(Attachment 1) to each facility licensee. The letter will announce the GFE 

administration dates for the entire year and inform facility licensees when the 

registration letters are due to the NRC.

c. The GFE contractor will prepare the examinations as described in Section D of

this examination standard. The examination author assigned responsibility for

developing the GFE shall submit the examinations to the NRR GFE coordinator 

and any other designated reviewers at least 20 calendar days before the

scheduled administration date. The NRR operator licensing program office will

provide comments and recommended changes to the examination author as

soon as possible. The final examinations should be ready at least 14 days 

before the GFE administration date.
ES-205, Page 3 of 13

d. The GFE contractor will assemble the approved examination packages as

described below, and mail the packages to the names and addresses designated 

by the participating facility licensees. The examinations should normally be 

mailed 1 week before the examinations are scheduled to be administered.

The examination packet will contain the following information, enclosures, and 

attachments:

• cover letter (Attachment 2 is a sample letter)

• proctor instructions

• security agreement

• single copies of appropriate exam, forms A and B

• exam time zone map

• sample answer sheet

• facility docket number sheet

• applicant docket number sheet

• appropriate number of answer sheets

• applicant answer sheet instructions

e. On the day that the GFE is administered, the NRR GFE coordinator and GFE

contractor shall be available to answer questions from facility proctors if the need 

arises.

f. Upon receiving the examination answer sheets from the facility licensees, the

GFE contractor shall score, grade, and tabulate the overall item statistics, and 

generate facility and regional grade reports for each GFE examination. The

contractor shall forward the regional and facility grade reports, including 

individual scores and copies of individual answer sheets, and corrected answer 

keys to the applicable regional office for distribution.

The GFE contractor shall develop individual item statistics on all questions used 

on the GFE examinations. Questions with acceptable statistical characteristics 

shall be moved into the “validated” GFE question bank.

The contractor will provide copies of all grade reports to the NRR GFE 

coordinator, along with the following additional items:

• exam-wide item statistics (PWR and BWR)

• analysis reports of specific items deleted or answers changed

• corrected answer keys

• original answer sheets

• original signed exam cover sheets

• signed security statements

g. The NRR operator licensing program licensing assistant will ensure that copies of 

the final master BWR and PWR examinations are placed in the NRC’s Public 

Document Room.
ES-205, Page 4 of 13

3. NRC Regional Office

a. Regional management should assign an individual to coordinate GFE 

administration in the region.

b. The NRC will issue a single notification letter each year and the regional office 

will informally remind facility licensees (by email or telephone) to submit their 

registration letters for the March, June, September, and December examinations.

c. The regional operator licensing assistant (OLA) shall assign a docket number to

each individual identified in the facility licensee’s registration letter. The OLA 

shall then forward the list of names and docket numbers for each facility to the 

GFE contractor, with a copy to the NRR GFE coordinator, no later than 20 days 

before the examination administration date.

d. The regional GFE coordinator should keep the NRR GFE coordinator informed of 

any changes in the number of applicants scheduled to take the GFE at any 

facility.

e. The regional office shall distribute the GFE examination results to their 

participating facility licensees. A sample cover letter is provided in Attachment 3 

to this examination standard.

f. The regional OLA shall update the applicants’ status (pass or fail) in the operator 

licensing tracking system and ensure that a hard copy of the GFE results is 

placed in each applicant’s docket file.

4. Industry

The industry may make arrangements to review and comment on the GFEs before they 

are administered by contacting the NRR/NRO operator licensing program office at least 

2 months before the scheduled examination date. The review will be limited to one 

instructor from each reactor vendor type (provided by the facility) that will not be 

proctoring applicants during the subject examination. These reviewers will be required 

to sign security agreements, in accordance with Section D.2.b of ES-201, before and 

after seeing the examinations. The reviewers must complete the review (including the 

new, modified, and previously validated questions, as desired) and provide feedback to 

the NRC staff within 3 working days from the date of receipt. If the NRR operator 

licensing program office does not receive the reviewers’ comments within the allotted 

time, the examinations will proceed on schedule. Otherwise, the NRR operator licensing 

program office and GFE contractor will evaluate the reviewers’ comments and make 

changes as deemed appropriate.

D. Examination Scope and Structure

Each GFE shall contain 50 questions covering the “Components” and “Theory” (including 

reactor theory and thermodynamics) sections of NUREG-1122, “Knowledge and Abilities 

Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant Operators: Pressurized-Water Reactors,” NUREG-1123, 

“Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant Operators: Boiling-Water Reactors,”

NUREG-2103, “Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant Operators:
ES-205, Page 5 of 13

Westinghouse AP-1000 Pressurized-Water Reactors,” or NUREG-2104, “Knowledge and 

Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant Operators: Advanced Boiling-Water Reactors.” The 

passing grade for the GFE is 80 percent.

The K/A topics applicable to the GFE for PWRs and BWRs have been categorized into various 

component, reactor theory, and thermodynamics groups as shown in Attachment 4 to this 

examination standard. That attachment also identifies the number of test questions required to

evaluate each topic.

The questions used on the GFE examination shall conform with the applicable construction and

style guidelines in Appendix B. The examination shall include 40 questions taken directly from 

the NRC’s GFE question bank for the applicable vendor type, 5 questions that are derived from 

existing bank questions by making one or more significant modifications, and 5 questions that 

are newly developed.

E. Attachments/Forms

Attachment 1 Sample Notification and Registration Letter

Attachment 2 Sample Examination Cover Letter

Attachment 3 Sample Results Letter

Attachment 4 GFE Test Item Distribution
ES-205, Page 6 of 13

ES-205 Sample Notification Letter Attachment 1

NRC Letterhead

(Date)

(Name, Title)

(Facility name)

(Street address)

(City, State ZIP code)

Dear (Name):

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) plans to administer the generic fundamentals 

examination (GFE) section of the written operator licensing examination on the following dates 

during this calendar year:

March ##, 201#

June ##, 201#

September ##, 201#

December ##, 201#

To register personnel to take the GFE, an authorized representative of your facility must submit 

a letter to the appropriate regional administrator with a copy addressed as follows:

Chief, Operator Licensing and Training Branch

Mail Stop O 7 E1

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC. 20555-0001

Your letter should identify the individuals who will take the examination, and it should state that

they are enrolled in a facility licensee-sponsored program leading to NRC operator or senior 

operator licensing and that they will have completed their fundamentals training by the date of 

the examination. The letter should also identify the personnel who will have access to the 

examinations before they are administered (e.g., proctors) and the address to which the

examinations are to be sent. To allow the NRC to assign docket numbers, your letter should be 

received by both the NRC regional administrator and the Chief, Operator Licensing and Training 

Branch 30 days before each desired examination date shown above. A sample registration 

letter is enclosed.

Copies of the administered GFEs and their answer keys will be available for review in the NRC’s 

Public Document Room approximately 45 days following each examination. The NRC’s GFE 

Web page (which is available at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operator-licensing/genericfundamentals-examinations.html will be updated semi-annually, approximately 60 days following 

the June and December examinations.

Sincerely,

(Appropriate regional representative)

Docket No. 50 or 52 - (Number)

Enclosure: As stated
ES-205, Page 7 of 13

ES-205 Sample Registration Letter Attachment 1

Enclosure

(Name)

Regional Administrator

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Region (Number)

(Street address)

(City, State ZIP code)

Dear (Name),

(Facility name) requests approval from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to have 

the following (number) individuals take the (BWR or PWR) generic fundamentals examination 

(GFE) section of the written operator licensing examination to be administered on (date):

Name Date of Birth Previous Docket No.

(Insert the name, date of birth, and previous Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 

CFR) Part 55 Docket Number (if applicable) for each person.)

All of the listed personnel are enrolled in the (facility name) operator licensing training program 

and will have completed the generic fundamentals portion of the program by the examination 

date.

The following personnel will have access to the examinations before they are administered:

Name Title

(Insert the name and title of each person who will have access to the examinations before they 

are administered (e.g., proctors).

Please address the examinations to the overnight mail address, as follows (note that home 

addresses are not acceptable):

Name, Title

Street address

City, State ZIP code

If you have any questions, please contact (facility contact name) at (telephone number).

Sincerely,

(Name, title)

cc:

Chief, Operator Licensing and Training Branch, NRR
ES-205, Page 8 of 13

ES-205 Sample Examination Cover Letter Attachment 2

(Date)

(Name, Title of designated addressee)

(Facility name)

(Street address)

(City, State ZIP code)

Dear (Name):

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has scheduled your facility to administer the

generic fundamentals examination (GFE) section of the NRC’s written operator licensing 

examination on (date). (Name of contractor) is authorized to support the NRC under contract in

the administration of GFE-related activities.

Note: For security reasons, please open the sealed envelope now and -check the

examination pages using the enclosed checklist. Then, immediately and no later than 

(date), contact one of the persons listed below informing (him or her) that you have 

received this package and noting any discrepancies:

(Name), (Telephone Number)

(Name), (Telephone Number)

This letter and its enclosures provide the instructions and guidelines for administering the GFE 

and returning the completed exams and related materials to (Name of contractor). Please read 

this letter now, and follow the directions in the accompanying enclosures.

Enclosure 1. Security Agreement. Please refer to the enclosed NRC Security Agreement. A

copy of this agreement must be completed by each and every exam administrator and/or 

proctor who sees or has knowledge of the GFE contents. For security reasons, the number of

persons who see or have knowledge of this exam’s contents before the exam must be limited to 

three persons who have a need to know.

The top portion of the security agreement is expected to be completed now, and the bottom 

portion immediately after the exam has been completed. Fill in the spaces for each individual’s 

name and the name of the facility for both portions, and have the individual(s) sign the form(s).

Please note: The signed security agreements must be returned to (Name of contractor) along

with the completed exam answer sheets before any scoring will be performed.

Enclosure 2. Exam Copies. Two single copies of Forms A and B of the exam are provided. 

These alternative forms are identical in content; however, for security purposes, the test item 

sequence on each form is different to reduce the possibility of an applicant copying any answers

from a nearby test answer sheet. (See the separate Proctor Instructions in Enclosure 3 for

further exam administration instructions.)
ES-205, Page 9 of 13

ES-205 2 Attachment 2

You are responsible for reproducing the number of exam copies required for the number of

individuals taking the exam. Prior to the exam, store the original copies in a locked cabinet or 

safe and reproduce the necessary number of copies only on the day immediately preceding the 

exam; in this case, copies should be made on (date). Please note that your total number of

copies should consist of one half Form A and one half Form B. After making the necessary 

number of copies, secure the original and all copies from view of unauthorized persons, storing

them in a locked cabinet or safe until the exam date.

Each individual who takes the exam must sign the security statement on the exam cover page. 

This page must be removed from the exam copy and mailed to (Name of contractor) along with 

the answer sheets and administrator/proctor security agreements.

After the exam has been given, the exam copies become public knowledge and no longer need 

security. Therefore, exam copies may subsequently be kept or disposed of as desired.

Enclosure 3. Proctor Instructions. The proctor instructions detail the guidelines for 

administering the exam. Please note that the specific instructions presented are designed to be 

adhered to and followed identically by each proctor at all facilities. This process will ensure 

uniform administration and equity of results nationwide. As noted in the Proctor Instructions, all

GFE exams will be administered at the same time in accordance with the local time zone in

which the facility is located.

Enclosure 4. Exam Answer Sheets. The appropriate number of answer sheets (extra copies

included) is enclosed for the number of applicants you identified to take the exam. All

applicants must use the original enclosed answer sheets for recording answers during the 

exam.

Summary of Items to be Returned to (Name of Contractor)

The following items must be mailed via Overnight Delivery Service to (Name of contractor)

and postmarked no later than (date).

• completed answer sheets

• applicant-signed exam cover sheets

• administrator/proctor-signed security statement(s)
ES-205, Page 10 of 13

ES-205 3 Attachment 2

Mail all of the above exam-related materials addressed as follows:

(Name)

(Name of contractor)

(Street address)

(City, State ZIP code)

For further questions regarding the specifics of this exam, please contact (Name) at (telephone

number). For questions regarding the GFE in general, please contact (Name), NRC, at 

(telephone number).

For matters regarding candidate withdrawals or cancellations, contact either (Name) or (Name)

at (telephone numbers) for specific guidance.

(Name), Chief

Operator Licensing and Training Branch 

Division of Inspection and Regional Support 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

As stated

Distribution: w/o enclosures

Director, DIRS 

Chief, Operator Licensing and Training Branch 

NRR GFE Coordinator

Project Manager

Public
ES-205, Page 11 of 13

ES-205 Sample Results Letter Attachment 3

NRC Letterhead

(Date)

(Name, Title)

(Facility name)

(Street address)

(City, State ZIP code)

Dear (Name):

On (date), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) administered the generic 

fundamentals examination (GFE) section of the written operator licensing examination to 

employees of your facility. Enclosed with this letter are copies of both forms of the examination, 

including answer keys, the grading results for your facility, and copies of the individual answer 

sheets for each of your employees. Please forward the results to the individuals along with the 

copies of their respective answer sheets. A “P” in the RESULTS column indicates that the 

individual achieved a passing grade of 80 percent or better on the GFE, while an “F” indicates 

that the individual failed the examination.

If you have any questions concerning this examination, please contact (Name of the NRR GFE 

coordinator) at (phone number).

Sincerely,

(Appropriate regional representative)

Docket No. 50 or 52 - (Number)

Enclosures:

1. Examination Form “A” and “B” with answers

2. Examination Results Summary for (Facility Name)

3. Individual Answer Sheets
ES-205, Page 12 of 13

ES-205 GFE Test Item Distribution Attachment 4

K/A Pressurized-Water Reactors

Topic

No. of 

Items

191001

191002

191003

191004

191005

191006

191007

191008

Components

Valves

Sensors and Detectors

Controllers and Positioners

Pumps

Motors and Generators

Heat Exchangers and Condensers

Demineralizers and Ion Exchangers

Breakers, Relays, and Disconnects

2

4

3

4

2

2

2

3

192001

192002

192003

192004

192005

192006

192007

192008

Reactor Theory

Neutrons

Neutron Life Cycle

Reactor Kinetics and Neutron Sources

Reactivity Coefficients

Control Rods (Full and/or Part Length)

Fission Product Poisons

Fuel Depletion and Burnable Poisons

Reactor Operational Physics

1

1

1

2

2

2

1

4

193001

193003

193004

193005

193006

193007

193008

193009

193010

Thermodynamics

Thermodynamic Units and Properties

Steam

Thermodynamic Processes

Thermodynamic Cycles

Fluid Statics and Dynamics

Heat Transfer

Thermal Hydraulics

Core Thermal Limits

Brittle Fracture and Vessel Thermal Stress

1

2

1

1

2

1

4

1

1

Total Items 50
ES-205, Page 13 of 13

ES-205 2 Attachment 4

K/A

Boiling-Water Reactors

Topic

No. of 

Items

291001

291002

291003

291004

291005

291006

291007

291008

Components

Valves

Sensors and Detectors

Controllers and Positioners

Pumps

Motors and Generators

Heat Exchangers and Condensers

Demineralizers and Ion Exchangers

Breakers, Relays and Disconnects

3

4

2

4

2

3

2

2

292001

292002

292003

292004

292005

292006

292007

292008

Reactor Theory

Neutrons

Neutron Life Cycle

Reactor Kinetics and Neutron Sources

Reactivity Coefficients

Control Rods

Fission Product Poisons

Fuel Depletion and Burnable Poisons

Reactor Operational Physics

1

1

1

2

2

2

1

4

293001

293002

293003

293004

293005

293006

293007

293008

293009

293010

Thermodynamics

Thermodynamic Units and Properties

Basic Energy Concepts

Steam

Thermodynamic Process

Thermodynamic Cycles

Fluid Statics

Heat Transfer and Heat Exchangers

Thermal Hydraulics

Core Thermal Limits

Brittle Fracture and Vessel Thermal Stress

1

0

1

1

1

2

1

3

3

1

Total Items 50

ES-301, Page 1 of 31

ES-301

PREPARING INITIAL OPERATING TESTS

A. Purpose

All applicants for reactor operator (RO) and senior reactor operator (SRO) licenses at power 

reactor facilities are required to take an operating test, unless it has been waived in accordance 

with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 55.47, “Waiver of Examination and Test 

Requirement.” (Refer to ES-204, “Processing Excusals and Waivers Requested by Reactor 

Operator and Senior Reactor Operator Applicants.”) The specific content of the operating test 

depends on the type of license for which the applicant has applied.

This standard describes the procedure for developing operating tests that meet the requirements 

of 10 CFR 55.45, including the use of reactor plant simulation facilities and the conduct of

multi-unit evaluations.

B. Background

To the extent applicable, the operating test will require the applicant to demonstrate an

understanding of, and the ability to perform, the actions necessary to accomplish a representative 

sampling of the 13 items identified in 10 CFR 55.45(a). (All 13 items do not need to be sampled 

on every operating test). In addition, the content of the operating test will be identified, in part,

from learning objectives contained in the facility licensee’s training program and information in the

final safety analysis report, system description manuals and operating procedures, the facility 

license and amendments thereto, licensee event reports, and other materials that the 

Commission requests from the facility licensee.

The structure of the operating test is dictated, in part, by 10 CFR 55.45(b). Specifically, that

requirement states that the test will be administered in a plant walk-through and in either a

simulation facility that the Commission has approved pursuant to 10 CFR 55.46(b), a

plant-referenced simulator that conforms to 10 CFR 55.46(c), or the plant, if approved by the

Commission under 10 CFR 55.46(b).

The walk-through portion of the operating test consists of two parts (“Administrative Topics” and

“Control Room/In-Plant Systems”), each of which focuses on specific knowledge and abilities 

(K/As) required for licensed operators to safely discharge their assigned duties and

responsibilities. The individual walk-through examinations are commonly referred to as Job 

Performance Measures (JPMs) and these two terms are used interchangeably throughout this 

NUREG. The second major portion of the operating test (the “Simulator Test”) is administered 

on a U.A. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved or plant-referenced simulator. 

Unless specifically excused or waived in accordance with ES-204 and documented on the “List of

Applicants” (Form ES-201-4), each license applicant must complete the entire operating test.

Each part of the operating test is briefly described below. Section D of this standard provides 

detailed instructions for developing each part. Procedures for administering and grading the

operating test are contained in ES-302, “Administering Operating Tests to Initial License

Applicants,” and ES-303, “Documenting and Grading Initial Operating Tests,” respectively.
ES-301, Page 2 of 31

1. “Administrative Topics”

This part of the walk-through operating test covers K/As that are generally associated with

administrative control of the plant. It implements items 9–12 of 10 CFR 55.45(a) and is 

divided into four administrative topics, as described below. The scope and depth of

coverage required in each topic is based on the applicant’s license level. The applicant’s 

competence in each topic is evaluated by administering job performance measures

(JPMs) and asking specific “for cause” followup questions, as necessary, based on the 

applicant’s performance (refer to ES-302).

The first topic, “Conduct of Operations,” evaluates the applicant’s knowledge of the daily

operation of the facility. The following subjects are examples of the types of information 

that could be evaluated under this topic:

• shift turnover

• shift staffing requirements

• access controls for vital/controlled plant areas

• operator responsibilities and procedure usage

• purpose, function, and controls for plant systems

• fuel handling and refueling

The second topic, “Equipment Control,” addresses the administrative requirements 

associated with managing and controlling plant systems and equipment. The following 

subjects are examples of the types of information that could be evaluated under this topic:

• surveillance testing

• pre-startup activities

• maintenance

• tagging and clearances

• temporary modification of systems

• changes to procedures and plant design

• technical specifications, including plant mode

• familiarity with and use of piping and instrument drawings 

The third topic, “Radiation Control,” evaluates the applicant’s knowledge and abilities with 

respect to radiation hazards and protection (of plant personnel and the public). The

following subjects are examples of the types of information that could be evaluated under 

this topic:

• use and function of portable radiation and contamination survey instruments and

personnel monitoring equipment

• knowledge of significant radiation hazards

• radiological safety principles and procedures

• radiation exposure limits under normal or emergency conditions

• radiation work permits

• control of radiation releases
ES-301, Page 3 of 31

The fourth topic, “Emergency Plan,” evaluates the applicant’s knowledge of the facility’s 

emergency plan, including, as appropriate, the responsibility of the RO or SRO to decide 

whether the plan should be executed and activities/duties assigned under the plan. The

following subjects are examples of the types of information that could be evaluated under 

this topic:

• lines of authority during an emergency

• operator responsibilities during an emergency

• emergency plan procedures

• emergency action levels and classifications

• emergency facilities

• emergency communications

• emergency protective action recommendations

• security event procedures (non-safeguards information)

The “Administrative Topics” are administered in a one-on-one, walk-through format in

accordance with ES-302 and graded in accordance with ES-303.

2. “Control Room/In-Plant Systems”

This part of the walk-through operating test is used to determine whether the applicant has 

an adequate knowledge of plant system design and is able to safely operate those 

systems. This part implements the requirements of items 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9 identified in

10 CFR 55.45(a) and encompasses several types of systems, including primary coolant, 

emergency coolant, decay heat removal, auxiliary, radiation monitoring, and

instrumentation and control.

This part of the walk-through focuses primarily on those systems with which licensed 

operators are most involved (i.e., those having controls and indications in the main control 

room). To a lesser extent, it also ensures that the applicant is familiar with the design and

operation of systems located outside the main control room. The applicant’s knowledge 

and abilities relative to each system are evaluated by administering JPMs and, when 

necessary, specific followup questions based on the applicant’s performance of each 

JPM.

This part of the operating test is administered in a one-on-one, walk-through format in

accordance with ES-302 and graded in accordance with ES-303.

3. “Simulator Operating Test”

This part of the operating test implements items 1-9 and 11-13 of 10 CFR 55.45(a). This 

is the most performance-based aspect of the operating test and is used to evaluate the

applicant’s ability to safely operate the plant’s systems under dynamic, integrated 

conditions.

The simulator test is administered in a team format with up to three applicants (or

surrogates) filling the RO and SRO license positions (as appropriate) on an operating 

crew. (Refer to ES-201, “Initial Operator Licensing Examination Process,” for additional 

guidance on crew composition and ES-302 for test administration instructions.) This

format enables the examiner to evaluate each applicant’s ability to function within the
ES-301, Page 4 of 31

control room team as appropriate to the assigned position, in such a way that the facility 

licensee’s procedures are adhered to and that the limitations in its license and

amendments are not violated (refer to 10 CFR 55.45(a)(13)).

Each team or crew of applicants is administered a set of scenarios designed so that the

examiners can individually evaluate each applicant on a range of competencies applicable 

to the applicant’s license level. Appendix D describes those competencies, and Forms

ES-303-3 and ES-303-4, the “Simulator Competency Grading Worksheets” for ROs and

SROs, break down each competency into a number of specific rating factors to be

considered during the grading process (refer to ES-303).

Each applicant must demonstrate proficiency on every competency applicable to his or

her license level. The only exception is that SRO Competency Number 3, “Control Board 

Operations,” is optional for SRO-upgrade applicants (i.e., SRO-upgrade applicants do not 

have to fill a position that requires control board operations; however, if they do rotate into 

such a position, they will be graded on this competency even though they may not be 

individually observed by an NRC examiner, as discussed in ES-302).

C. Responsibilities

1. Facility Licensee

The facility licensee is responsible for the following activities, as applicable, depending

upon the examination arrangements confirmed with the NRC’s regional office in

accordance with ES-201 before the scheduled examination date:

a. Prepare and review the proposed examination outlines in accordance with Section

D and submit them to the NRC’s regional office for review and approval in

accordance with ES-201.

b. Submit the reference materials necessary for the NRC regional office to prepare 

and/or review the requested examination(s) (refer to ES-201, Attachment 3).

c. Prepare and review the proposed operating tests in accordance with the

previously approved examination outline(s) and the instructions in Sections D and

E, and submit the tests to the NRC’s regional office in accordance with ES-201.

d. Review the proposed examination outlines and test comments with the chief 

examiner (and others) via telephone. If requested and coordinated, meet with the

NRC examination team in the regional office or at the facility to review the

proposed operating test comments.(refer to ES-201).

e. Make the simulation facility available, as necessary, for NRC examiners to develop 

and validate the operating tests during exam development (for NRC developed 

exams) and the onsite validation visit.

f. Revise the proposed operating test outlines and tests as applicable and as agreed

upon by the NRC regional office; however, the NRC retains final authority to 

approve the operating tests.
ES-301, Page 5 of 31

2. NRC Regional Office

The NRC regional office is responsible for the following activities:

a. Ensure the operating tests are developed in accordance with Section D.

b. Ensure the operating tests are reviewed for quality in accordance with Section E.

c. Meet with the facility licensee, when and as appropriate, to pre-review the

operating tests in accordance with ES-201.

D. Instructions

Prepare each category of the operating test in accordance with the following general guidelines 

and specific instructions:

1. General Guidelines

a. In an effort to reduce examination preparation effort, the same operating test may

be used to examine multiple applicants and simulator crews. Depending on the

number and license level of the applicants being examined, it might be possible to 

use the same set of JPMs and scenarios to examine all of the applicants if the

operating test is administered in multiple segments (e.g., single scenarios or two to 

four JPMs), each of which can be given to all of the applicants in a single day. 

The facility licensee and the NRC’s chief examiner shall discuss the options and

reach agreement on the process before developing the operating tests.

To minimize predictability and maintain test integrity, varied subjects, systems, and

operations shall be evaluated with applicants who are not being examined at the

same time, unless measures are taken to preclude interaction among the

applicants. The same JPMs and simulator scenarios shall not be repeated on

subsequent days.

Operating tests may not duplicate test items (simulator scenarios or JPMs) from

the applicants’ audit test (or tests if the applicant is retaking the examination) given

at or near the end of the license training class. Simulator events and JPMs that

are similar to those that were tested on the audit examination are permitted 

provided that the actions required to mitigate the transient or complete the task 

(e.g., using an alternative path as discussed in Appendix C) are significantly 

different from those required during the audit examination. The facility licensee 

shall identify for the NRC chief examiner those simulator events and JPMs that are 

similar to those that were tested on the audit examination.

Sufficient operating test materials shall be developed to ensure that all applicants 

can be tested with the available personnel according to the schedule agreed upon 

by the NRC’s regional office and the facility licensee (refer to ES-201).
ES-301, Page 6 of 31

b. To the extent permitted for each part of the operating test, select and modify 

testing materials (i.e., JPMs and simulator scenarios) from the facility’s 

examination banks. Every selected test item must satisfy the applicable 

qualitative and quantitative standards specified in this NUREG or be modified 

accordingly. 

c. Consider the K/As associated with normal, abnormal, and emergency tasks and

evolutions as a source of topics for use in evaluating applicant competency in each 

part of the operating test.

The K/As associated with the tasks and questions planned for the operating test 

should have importance factors of at least 2.5. Tasks with importance factors of

less than 2.5 may be used if there is a substantive reason for including them 

(e.g., a recent licensee event or a significant system modification). Failure to train 

the applicants on a particular K/A is not an acceptable basis for rejecting that K/A.

The K/As should be appropriate to the plant-specific requirements for the

applicant’s license level. Refer to the facility’s job and task analysis (if available), 

learning objectives, and other reference material to confirm that the operating test 

is correctly oriented to the facility and the applicant’s license level.

The facility licensee’s site-specific task list may be used to supplement or override, 

on a case-by-case basis, selected individual items in the NRC’s K/A catalogs. 

To maintain examination consistency, the site-specific task list shall not be used in

place of the entire K/A catalog.

d. When selecting and developing JPMs and scenarios for the operating test, ensure 

that the materials contribute to the test’s overall capacity to differentiate between 

those applicants who are competent to safely operate the plant and those who are 

not. Additionally, all of the test items should include the three facets of test validity 

(i.e., content, operational, and discrimination) discussed in Appendix A. Any test 

items that, when missed, would raise questions regarding adequate justification for 

denying the applicant’s license should not be included on the operating test.

e. SRO applicants, whether upgrade or instant, will be examined for the highest 

on-shift position for which the SRO’s license is applicable (e.g., shift supervisor), 

regardless of the position to be assigned when licensed. SRO applicants should

demonstrate their supervisory abilities and an attitude of responsibility for safe 

operation, and are expected to assume a management role during plant transients 

and upset conditions while taking the simulator operating test. The operating test 

briefing, discussed in Appendix E, ensures that the applicants are advised of this 

policy.

Differences in administrative controls and facility design will affect the SRO’s 

responsibilities; however, in general, the following guidelines should be used to

differentiate the SRO operating test from that of an RO:

• In directing licensed activities, the SRO must evaluate plant performance and

make operational judgments accordingly. SRO applicants should, therefore, 

be more knowledgeable in areas such as operating characteristics, reactor 

behavior, and instrument interpretation.
ES-301, Page 7 of 31

• In directing licensed activities, the SRO must have a broader and more

thorough knowledge of facility administrative controls and methods, including 

limitations imposed by the regulations and the facility’s technical specifications 

and their bases.

The SRO may be assigned responsibilities for auxiliary systems that are outside 

the control room (e.g., waste disposal and fuel handling systems) and are not 

normally operated by licensed operators. Because the SRO may have these

additional responsibilities, the SRO license applicant should demonstrate 

knowledge of the designs of such systems as they relate to maximum permissible 

concentrations, effluent release rates, and other radiological considerations.

f. Incorporate facility-specific and industry-generic operating experience into the

operating test whenever possible. Documentation such as licensee event 

reports, significant event reports, and service information letters are readily 

available sources of operationally oriented plant anomalies.

Evaluate the dominant accident sequences (DASs) for the facility to determine 

whether they are suitable for testing, on a sampling basis, during the dynamic 

simulator or walk-through tests. DASs are those sequences that contribute 

significantly to the frequency of core damage as determined by the facility 

licensee’s probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) or individual plant examination 

(IPE).

The PRA/IPE should also be used to identify risk-important operator actions. 

Chapter 13, “Operational Perspectives,” of NUREG-1560, “Individual Plant 

Examination Program: Perspectives on Reactor Safety and Plant Performance,”

identifies a number of important human actions that may be appropriate for 

evaluation on the operating test. In determining what actions to evaluate, do not

overlook actions that are relied upon or result in specific events being driven to low 

risk contribution. This will help identify those human actions that are assumed to 

be very reliable, but might otherwise not show up in a list of risk-dominant actions.

g. If the applicants at a facility qualify for dual or multi-unit licenses, the operating 

tests should evaluate their knowledge of the design, procedural, and operational 

differences between the units.

Divide the operating test coverage among the units and do not become predictable 

by conducting the walk-through tests on only one unit. Different applicants may

be examined on different units, or each applicant may be asked to explain or

demonstrate his or her understanding of variations in control board layouts, 

systems, instrumentation, and procedural actions between the units at the facility.

Most dual- or multi-unit stations have a simulator that is modeled after only one of

the units. Therefore, ensure that the applicants are properly tested on the

different systems, control board layouts, and any other differences between the

units during the walk-through portion of the operating test. For example, after 

administering the simulator operating test on Browns Ferry Unit 1, the control room 

systems portion of the walk-through operating test could be administered on Unit 2 

or Unit 3 or both.

h. The operating test should examine a broad range of knowledge and abilities, 

systems and components, and operations and events. The walk-through and
ES-301, Page 8 of 31

simulator tests should not be redundant, nor should they duplicate material that is 

covered on the written examination. It is particularly important that the simulator 

and control room systems walk-through be developed and reviewed as a package 

to preclude the same tasks and events from appearing on both parts of the test.

i. Every facet of the operating test, including the walk-through JPMs and simulator 

scenarios, should be planned, researched, validated, and documented to the

maximum extent possible before the test is administered.

j. Examiners who will be administering the operating tests but were not involved in

their development are expected to research and study the topics and systems to

be examined on the operating test so that they are prepared to ask whatever

performance-based followup questions might be necessary to determine whether 

the applicant is competent in those areas. As stated in 10 CFR 55.45(a), the

operating test requires the applicant to demonstrate an understanding of and the

ability to perform the actions necessary to accomplish a representative sample 

from among 13 items listed in the rule. If the applicant correctly performs a JPM 

(including both critical and noncritical steps) and demonstrates familiarity with the

administrative topic, equipment, and procedures, it is not necessary to ask any 

followup questions. However, if the applicant fails to accomplish the task 

standard for the JPM or demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding the

administrative topic, equipment, and procedures such as having difficulty locating 

information, control board indications, or controls, the examiner must be prepared 

to ask performance-based followup questions, as necessary, to clarify or confirm 

the applicant’s understanding of the administrative topic or system as it relates to 

the task that was performed.

Examination team members are strongly encouraged to meet as a group with the

chief examiner to review the examination materials after they have been approved 

for administration by the responsible supervisor. The discussions should focus 

on those test items that might require extensive cuing by the examiner and those 

that are unique to the facility and require a response different from what the

examiner might expect based on past experience.

k. Performance-based followup questions during any part of the operating test may

include a combination of open- and closed-reference items. Open-reference 

items that require applicants to apply their knowledge of the plant to postulated 

normal, abnormal, and emergency situations are preferred. Closed-reference 

items may be used to evaluate the immediate actions of emergency and other 

procedures, certain automatic actions, operating characteristics, interlocks, set

points, and routine administrative activities, as appropriate to the facility.

Refer to Attachment 1 for more guidance regarding the development and use of

open reference questions. To the extent possible, the concepts in the attachment 

should be applied to performance-based followup questions.

l. If it becomes necessary to deviate from a test outline that has been approved by

the NRC’s chief examiner in accordance with ES-201, discuss the proposed 

deviation with the chief examiner and obtain concurrence before proceeding with

the changes. Be prepared to explain why the original proposal could not be

implemented and why the proposed replacement is considered an acceptable 

substitute.
ES-301, Page 9 of 31

2. Walk-Through Guidelines

a. In order to protect the integrity and security of the examination process, the

examination author must limit how much of the examination is taken directly from

the facility’s testing materials without significant modification and how much of the

walk-through test is repeated from the last two NRC licensing examinations at the

facility. A significant modification means that at least one condition has been 

substantively changed in a manner that alters the course of action of the JPM. If 

JPMs are repeated from the past two NRC examinations, they must be randomly 

selected from all the JPMs used on the past two examinations. Refer to Forms

ES-301-1 and ES-301-2 for specific limits on JPM bank use and repetition from the 

previous two NRC examinations.

b. JPMs should include the elements identified in Appendix C (e.g., initiating and

terminating cues, critical steps, and performance criteria). The guidelines and

forms (or equivalents) in that appendix should be used when developing new JPMs. 

Facility procedures may be adapted for use as JPMs by identifying critical steps and

entering comments on how to execute particular steps.

c. The JPMs should, individually and as a group, have meaningful performance 

requirements that will provide a legitimate basis for evaluating the applicant’s 

understanding of and ability to safely operate the plant (as required by 10 CFR

55.45).

3. Specific Instructions for the “Administrative Topics” Walk-Through

Although the administrative topics are generally examined separately, it is preferable, 

whenever possible, to link, associate, or integrate them with tasks and events conducted

during the systems and simulator portions of the operating test. However, it is important 

to keep in mind that the applicant’s proficiency in the administrative topics should be 

deliberately evaluated and not inferred solely from observations made during the other 

portions of the operating test.

a. For each of the administrative topics listed below, select the required number of

subjects to be evaluated during the operating test based on the applicant’s license 

level.

Topic

Number of Subjects

RO SRO and RO 

Retakes

“Conduct of Operations” 1 (or 2) 2

“Equipment Control” 1 (or 0) 1

“Radiation Control” 1 (or 0) 1

“Emergency Plan” 1 (or 0) 1

Total 4 5

RO applicants need not be evaluated on every topic (as indicated above, 

“Equipment Control,” “Radiation Control,” or “Emergency Plan” can be omitted by

doubling-up on “Conduct of Operations”), unless the applicant is retaking only the

“Administrative Topics” (with a waiver or excusal of the systems walk-through and

simulator test pursuant to ES-204). 
ES-301, Page 10 of 31

K/As associated with each administrative topic shall be selected from Section 2 of

the applicable NRC K/A catalog for pressurized or boiling-water reactors (i.e.,

NUREG-1123, 1123, and 2103, 2104, respectively). For the “Emergency Plan” 

topic, only those K/As related to the emergency plan and implementing procedures 

[not those associated with the emergency operating procedures (EOPs)] are

applicable to this category of the operating test.

b. For each administrative subject, select a performance-based activity for which an

administrative JPM can be developed. The administrative JPMs may require the

applicant to identify and respond to one or more postulated administrative errors in

a manner similar to the alternate path methodology discussed in Appendix C.

c. In general, SROs have more administrative responsibilities than ROs, so SRO

applicants are evaluated in greater depth on the administrative topics. All SRO 

Administrative JPMs must be written at the SRO Level. RO applicants need only 

understand the mechanics and intent of the related subjects, as they relate to 

tasks at the facility.

d. The following specific guidelines should be applied when selecting or developing 

JPMs to confirm the applicant’s competence with regard to each topic:

“Conduct of Operations”

Many of these subjects can be covered within the framework of a shift turnover or

by integrating them into other discussions, as they apply, throughout the

examination. The applicant’s awareness of access controls for vital/controlled 

plant areas should be evaluated by observing his or her behavior during the

operating test. However, passive observations, in and of themselves, are 

insufficient to justify an evaluation in that subject area.

The subject of fuel handling can be covered in the control room, but attempt to

cover this subject in the fuel handling areas of the plant whenever possible. The

RO applicant should be aware of his or her duties in the control room during fuel 

handling. These duties include monitoring instrumentation and responding to 

alarms from the fuel handling area, communicating with the fuel handling and

storage facility, and operating systems from the control room in support of

(re)fueling operations. For the SRO applicant, evaluate topics such as core 

alterations, new and spent fuel storage and movement, the design of the fuel 

handling area, use of the fuel handling tools, and fuel handling casualties.

“Equipment Control”

These subjects can be evaluated within the framework of a normal maintenance 

evolution. For example, have the applicant demonstrate how he or she would

take a failed system or component out of service, initiate maintenance on the

system, and test the system before placing it back in service. During the 

maintenance evolution, have the applicant demonstrate the use of piping and 

instrument drawings and technical specifications.
ES-301, Page 11 of 31

“Radiation Control”

This topic may be covered in conjunction with the JPMs prepared for the in-plant 

systems walk-through. One possibility is to evaluate these subjects during the 

required entry into the radiologically controlled area (RCA).

The levels of knowledge expected of RO and SRO applicants in some radiation

control subjects are significantly different. The RO’s duties generally require 

knowledge of radiation worker responsibilities and operation of plant systems 

associated with liquid and gaseous waste releases. Therefore, the depth to which 

RO applicants are evaluated should be limited to their responsibilities and the

monitoring requirements before, during, and after the release. The SRO, 

however, may be involved in reviewing and approving release permits and should 

be cognizant of the requirements associated with those releases, as well as their 

potential effect on the health and safety of the public. The SRO applicants may 

be asked to simulate a planned release (e.g., liquid, gaseous, or containment 

purge) when examining these topics.

“Emergency Plan”

There are significant differences between the knowledge required of RO and SRO 

applicants in this area. RO applicants should be familiar with the emergency plan

and with their plant-specific responsibilities under the emergency plan

implementing procedures (EPIPs). By contrast, SRO applicants must

demonstrate additional knowledge based upon their responsibility to direct and

manage the implementation of the EPIPs during the initial phases of an

emergency. As a result, SRO applicants should have a more detailed 

understanding of the EPIPs, in general, and should be familiar with event 

classification procedures, protective action recommendations, and communication 

requirements and methods. As discussed in Section D.1, ensure that the test 

topic does not become predictable by always performing a different variation of the 

same activity (e.g., always testing this topic with an emergency classification). 

Instead, the test items for this topic should be varied from examination to 

examination, to include items from the bulleted list for the emergency plan from 

Section ES-301 B.1.

This topic may be evaluated by linking a JPM to a simulator transient that requires 

implementation of the emergency plan. Such a JPM can be conducted 

immediately following a simulator scenario or during the walk-through 

examination.

e. The planned administrative subjects should normally take no more than 1 hour and

1.5 hours to administer to RO and SRO applicants, respectively.

f. On Form ES-301-1, “Administrative Topics Outline,” briefly describe the specific

administrative activities selected for evaluation.
ES-301, Page 12 of 31

g. Forward the completed outline to the NRC’s chief examiner so that it is received by 

the date agreed upon with the NRC regional office at the time the examination

arrangements were confirmed; the outline is normally due approximately 90 days

before the scheduled examination date. Refer to ES-201 for additional 

instructions regarding the review and submittal of the examination outline.

The NRC’s chief examiner and responsible supervisor shall review the test outline 

coverage as soon as possible in accordance with ES-201 and forward any 

comments to the originator for resolution.

h. After the NRC’s chief examiner approves the operating test outline, prepare the

final administrative JPMs in accordance with the general operating test guidelines 

in Sections D.1 and 2 and the JPM guidelines in Appendix C.

i. When the materials are complete, review the quality of the final administrative 

walk-through test using Form ES-301-3, “Operating Test Quality Checklist.” This

review shall be performed in conjunction with the associated systems 

walk-through and the dynamic simulator operating test as noted in Sections D.4

and D.5.

Submit the entire operating test package to the designated facility reviewer or the

NRC’s chief examiner, as appropriate, for review and approval in accordance with 

Section E. The NRC’s chief examiner must receive the test approximately 60

days before the scheduled administration date, unless other arrangements have 

been made.

4. Specific Instructions for the “Control Room/In-Plant Systems” Walk-Through

This part of the operating test evaluates the applicant on systems-related K/As by having

the applicant perform selected tasks and, when necessary, based on the applicant’s 

performance, probing his or her knowledge of the task and its associated system with 

specific followup questions. The selected tasks are in addition to and shall be different 

from the events and evolutions conducted during the simulator operating test. A task that

is similar to a scenario event may be acceptable if the actions required to complete the

task are significantly different from those required in response to the scenario event.

a. Refer to Section 1.9 of the K/A catalog applicable to the type of reactor for which 

the applicant is seeking a license (i.e., NUREG-1122 or 2103 for PWRs and

NUREG-1123 or 2104 for BWRs). From the nine safety function groupings 

identified in the catalog, select the appropriate number of systems (see the table

below) to be evaluated based on the applicant’s license level. The emergency 

and abnormal plant evolutions (E/APEs) listed in Section 1.10 of the appropriate 

NUREG may also be used to evaluate the applicable safety function (as specified 

for each E/APE in the first tier of the written examination outlines attached to

ES-401, “Preparing Initial Site-Specific Written Examinations”).
ES-301, Page 13 of 31

License Level Control Room In-Plant Total

RO 8 3 11

SRO-I 7 3 10

SRO-U 2 or 3 3 or 2 5

Each of the control room systems and evolutions (and separately each of the

in-plant systems and evolutions) selected for RO and SRO-I applicants should 

evaluate a different safety function, and the same system or evolution should not 

be used to evaluate more than one safety function in each location. One of the

control room systems or evolutions must be an engineered safety feature. For

PWR operating tests, the primary and secondary systems listed under Safety

Function 4, “Heat Removal From Reactor Core,” in Section 1.9 of NUREG-1122 or 

2103 may be treated as separate safety functions (i.e., two systems, one primary 

and one secondary, may be selected from Safety Function 4).

The five systems and evolutions selected for an SRO-U applicant should evaluate 

at least five different safety functions. One of the control room systems or

evolutions must be an engineered safety feature, and the same system or

evolution should not be used to evaluate more than one safety function.

b. For each system selected for evaluation, select one task from the applicable K/A

catalog or the facility licensee’s site-specific task list for which a JPM exists or can

be developed. Review the associated simulator outline if it has already been 

prepared (refer to Section D.5), and avoid those tasks that have already been 

selected for evaluation on the dynamic simulator test.

At least one of the tasks shall be related to a shutdown or low-power1 condition, 

and four to six of the tasks for ROs and SRO-Is and two to three of the tasks for 

upgrade SROs shall require the applicant to execute alternative paths within the

facility’s operating procedures. In addition, at least one of the tasks conducted in

the plant shall evaluate the applicant’s ability to implement actions required during 

an emergency or abnormal condition, and another shall require the applicant to 

enter the RCA. This provides an excellent opportunity for the applicant to discuss 

or demonstrate the radiation control administrative subjects.

If it is not possible to develop or locate a suitable task and/or JPM for each of the

selected systems, return to Step (a), above, and select a different system or

evolution. After identifying a JPM for each system, list the JPM and its associated 

safety function number on Form ES-301-2, “Control Room/In-Plant Systems 

Outline.” Also indicate the type of JPM by entering the applicable code(s) 

identified at the bottom of the form.

c. Forward the completed walk-through test outline to the NRC’s chief examiner so

that it is received by the date agreed upon with the NRC’s regional office at the

time the examination arrangements were confirmed; the outlines are normally due

 

1 NUREG-1449, “NRC Staff Evaluation of Shutdown and Low-Power Operation,” defines “low power” to include the 

range from criticality to 5 percent power.
ES-301, Page 14 of 31

approximately 90 days before the scheduled examination date. Refer to ES-201 

for additional instructions regarding the review and submittal of examination 

outlines.

The NRC’s chief examiner and responsible supervisor shall review the test outline

in accordance with ES-201 and forward any comments to the originator for

resolution.

d. After the NRC’s chief examiner approves the operating test outline, prepare the

final JPMs in accordance with the general guidance in Sections D.1 and D.2 and

the JPM guidelines in Appendix C.

e. When the materials are complete, review the completed walk-through test for

quality using Form ES-301-3, “Operating Test Quality Checklist,” and make any 

changes that might be necessary. To minimize duplication, this review shall be 

performed in conjunction with the associated administrative topics and the

simulator operating test (refer to Sections D.3 and D.5).

Submit the entire operating test package to the designated facility reviewer or the

NRC’s chief examiner, as appropriate, for review and approval in accordance with 

Section E. The NRC’s chief examiner must receive the test approximately 60

days before the scheduled review date, unless other arrangements have been 

made.

5. Specific Instructions for the “Simulator Operating Test”

a. Based on the anticipated crew compositions, determine the number of scenarios 

and scenario sets necessary to rotate each RO and SRO-I applicant into the lead

reactor operator (i.e., the “at-the-controls”) position. For example, a crew

consisting of two ROs and one SRO-I will normally require three scenarios to

evaluate each applicant’s performance on the reactor controls; however, a

surrogate SRO will have to fill the supervisory role while the SRO-I applicant is in

the lead operator position. Additionally, the crews and scenarios will have to be 

planned so that every SRO applicant (U and I) fills the supervisory role and every 

RO applicant rotates through the balance-of-plant (BOP) position for at least one 

scenario.

However, for new reactor facility licensees that use the ATC operator primarily for 

monitoring plant parameters, the chief examiner may place the SRO-I applicants in 

either the ATC or BOP position to best evaluate the SRO-I in manipulating plant 

component controls for SRO Competency 3, “Operate Plant Component Controls” 

(ES-303-1).

SRO-U applicants are given credit for their previous RO license evaluation and

experience and are normally not required to manipulate the controls unless they 

are put at the controls to prevent the need for a surrogate to complete the crew.

It may be possible to significantly reduce the number of simulator scenario sets 

required to examine a large group of applicants by administering the same set of

scenarios on the same day to two (or more) different crews of applicants. 

However, provisions must be made to ensure that the crews remain out of contact

until all crews have completed the set of scenarios (refer to ES-302).
ES-301, Page 15 of 31

Additional or replacement scenarios should also be prepared and available while

administering the operating tests in accordance with ES-302, in case one of the

planned scenarios does not work as intended.

b. The simulator operating tests (i.e., scenario sets) will be constructed by selecting 

and modifying scenarios from existing facility licensee or NRC scenario banks and

by developing new scenarios.

To maintain test integrity, every applicant shall be tested on at least one new or 

significantly modified scenario that he or she has not had the opportunity to 

rehearse or practice. A significant modification means that at least two events or 

conditions have been replaced or significantly altered such that operators will not 

recognize them from the previous two NRC initial licensing operating exams. For 

example, if a “CCW pump trip” was used on the previous NRC operating test for 

Event 2 of a scenario, then for the new test either replace event 2 with a completely 

different event or create a different pump failure, such as a shaft shear of the CCW 

pump. The final product of all required scenarios should not contain more than 50

percent of the events (excluding the major events) from the previous two NRC 

initial licensing exams. Events found in spare scenarios will count as 

previously-used if they were made publicly available in the NRC’s records 

management system (the Agencywide Documents Access and Management 

System (ADAMS)). If a facility encounters difficulty meeting this requirement (for 

example, because of large class sizes requiring more scenarios be generated than 

normal), the facility should coordinate with the NRC chief examiner to meet the 

intent of this section to the extent possible. Additionally, any repeated major

events from the last two tests should be changed so as to alter the course of action

(within the emergency procedures) for the given scenario(s). It is expected that

all major events would be broadly sampled over the course of several exams, and 

that no major event will routinely be omitted without justification. Furthermore, 

any other scenarios that are extracted from the facility licensee’s bank must be 

altered to the degree necessary to prevent the applicants from immediately 

recognizing the scenarios based on the initial conditions or other cues.

c. The initial conditions, normal operations, malfunctions, and major transients 

should be varied among the scenarios and should include startup, low-power2

, and

full-power situations. Review the associated walk-through outline if it has already 

been prepared (refer to Section D.4), and take care not to duplicate operations that

will be tested during the systems walk-through portion of the operating test.

d. To maximize the quality and consistency of the operating tests, develop new 

scenarios in accordance with the instructions in Appendix D. Modify existing 

scenarios, as necessary, to make them conform to the qualitative and quantitative 

attributes described in that appendix and enumerated on Form ES-301-4, 

“Simulator Scenario Quality Checklist.” The quantitative attribute target ranges 

that are specified on the form are not absolute limitations; some scenarios may be 

an excellent evaluation tool, but may not fit within the ranges. A scenario that

does not fit into these ranges shall be evaluated to ensure that the level of difficulty 

is appropriate. A scenario must have at least two critical tasks. Whenever

possible, the critical tasks should be distributed so that each applicant is required 

to respond. Care should be taken when assigning scenario sets so that 

 

2 NUREG-1449, “NRC Staff Evaluation of Shutdown and Low-Power Operation,” defines “low power” to include the 

range from criticality to 5 percent power.
ES-301, Page 16 of 31

applicants are evaluated on a similar number of pre-identified critical tasks.

At a minimum, each scenario set must require each applicant to respond to the

types of evolutions, failures, technical specification (TS) evaluations, and

transients in the quantities identified for the applicant’s license level on Form

ES-301-5, “Transient and Event Checklist.” An applicant should only be given 

credit for those items that require the applicant to perform verifiable actions (refer 

to Attachment 2) that provide insight to the applicant’s competence. The required 

instrument and component failures are normally complete before starting the

major transient; those that are initiated after the major transient should be carefully 

reviewed because they may require little applicant action and provide little insight 

regarding their performance. For some plant types it may be necessary to have 

instrument and/or component failures after the major transient. This is acceptable 

provided they can be properly evaluated. With the exception of the SRO TS 

evaluations, each evolution, failure or transient should only be counted once per 

applicant; for example, a power change can be counted as a normal evolution or

as a reactivity manipulation and, similarly, a component failure that immediately 

results in a major transient counts as one or the other, but not both.

Any normal evolution, component failure, or abnormal event (other than a reactor

trip or other automatic power reduction) that requires the operator to perform a

controlled power or reactivity change will qualify as a reactivity manipulation. This

includes events such as an emergency borating, a dropped rod recovery, a

significant rod bank realignment, or a manual reactor power reduction in response 

to a secondary system upset. Such events may produce a more timely operator 

and plant response than a normal power change.

Furthermore, each scenario set must also allow the examiner to evaluate the

applicant’s performance on each competency and rating factor that is germane to 

the applicant’s license level. Use Form ES-301-6, “Competencies Checklist,” to 

verify that the competencies are adequately evaluated by entering the scenario 

and event numbers that are intended to assess each competency. To minimize 

the need to run an additional scenario if an applicant makes a single, 

uncompensated error related to a rating factor (refer to Section D.3.o of ES-302), it 

is recommended that each applicant be given multiple opportunities to

demonstrate competence in any particular area.

If the facility licensee normally operates with and is required by its technical 

specifications to have more than two ROs in the control room, the chief examiner 

may authorize the use of additional surrogates to fill out the crews. In such cases, 

take care in planning the scenarios to ensure that the additional operators do not

reduce the examiners’ ability to evaluate each applicant on the required number of

events and on every competency and rating factor.

Appendix D provides detailed instructions for completing Form ES-D-1, the

“Scenario Outline,” and Form ES-D-2, the “Required Operator Actions” that

examiners will use to administer the simulator operating tests. To minimize the

amount of rework that might be required as a result of changes in the planned 

scenario events, Form ES-D-2 should be completed after the NRC’s chief 

examiner has had the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed 

simulator operating test outlines (i.e., Form ES-D-1) in accordance with ES-201.

e. When the proposed simulator operating test outlines are complete, forward them 
ES-301, Page 17 of 31

to the NRC’s chief examiner so they are received by the date agreed upon with the

NRC’s regional office at the time the examination arrangements were confirmed; 

the outlines are normally due approximately 90 days before the scheduled 

examination date. Refer to ES-201 for additional instructions regarding the

review and submittal of the examination outlines.

The NRC’s chief examiner shall review the operating test outlines in accordance 

with ES-201, and forward any comments to the originator for resolution.

f. After the NRC’s chief examiner approves the operating test outlines, prepare the

final simulator test materials by revising Form(s) ES-D-1 as requested by the

NRC’s chief examiner and completing a detailed operator action form (ES-D-2) for 

each event. All required operator actions (e.g., opening, closing, and throttling 

valves; starting and stopping equipment; raising and lowering level, flow, and

pressure; making decisions and giving directions; acknowledging or verifying key

alarms and automatic actions) shall be documented, and critical tasks shall be 

identified. Events that do not require an operator to take one or more verifiable

actions will not count toward the minimum number of events required for each 

operator per Form ES-301-5.

g. Review the completed simulator operating test for quality using Form ES-301-4, 

“Simulator Scenario Quality Checklist,” and make any changes that might be 

necessary. This review shall be performed in conjunction with the associated

walk-through test (refer to Sections D.3 and D.4) to minimize duplication.

Submit the entire operating test package to the designated facility reviewer or the

NRC’s chief examiner, as appropriate, for review and approval in accordance with 

Section E. The NRC’s chief examiner must receive the test approximately 60

days before the scheduled administration date, unless other arrangements have 

been made.

E. Quality Reviews

1. Facility Management Review

If the operating test was prepared by the facility licensee, the preliminary outline and the

proposed test shall be independently reviewed by a supervisor or manager familiar with

both the exam contents and these Examination Standards before they are submitted to 

the NRC’s regional office for review and approval in accordance with ES-201. The

reviewer should evaluate the outline and test using the criteria on Forms ES-201-2, 

ES-301-3, and ES-301-4 and include the signed forms (for each different operating test) in

the examination package submitted to the NRC in accordance with ES-201.

2. NRC Examiner Review

a. The NRC’s chief examiner shall ensure that each operating test is independently 

reviewed for content, wording, operational validity, and level of difficulty. As a

minimum, the chief examiner shall check the items listed on Forms ES-301-3 and

ES-301-4, as applicable and determine the acceptability of the submitted 

operating test by reviewing every JPM and Simulator Operating Test scenario 

using Form ES-301-7. The examiner should keep in mind that counting the

number of scenario quantitative attributes is not always indicative of the scenario’s 

level of difficulty. Although there are no definitive minimum or maximum attribute 
ES-301, Page 18 of 31

values that can be used to identify scenarios that will not discriminate because 

they are too easy or difficult, scenarios that fall outside the target ranges specified 

on Form ES-301-4 should be carefully evaluated to ensure they are appropriate. 

Refer to Section C.3 of ES-201 for additional guidance regarding examination 

reviews.

b. Operating tests should be reviewed as soon as possible after receipt so that

supervisory approval can be obtained before the final review with the facility 

licensee, which is normally scheduled about 3 weeks before the administration 

date. It is especially important that the examiner promptly review tests prepared 

by a facility licensee because of the extra time that may be required if extensive 

changes are necessary. The chief examiner shall consolidate the comments from

other regional reviewers and submit one set of comments to the author.

c. If the facility licensee developed the operating test, the facility licensee is primarily 

responsible for technical accuracy and compliance with the restrictions concerning 

the use of examination banks. However, the chief examiner is expected to use 

his or her best judgment and take reasonable measures, including selective review 

of reference materials and past tests, to verify these attributes.

d. The chief examiner will note/review any changes that need to be made and

forward the tests to the responsible supervisor for review and comment in

accordance with Section E.3 before reviewing the examinations with the author or

facility contact. There are no minimum or maximum limits on the number or scope 

of changes the chief examiner may direct the author or facility contact to make to 

the proposed tests, provided that they are necessary to make the tests conform to

established acceptance criteria. Refer to ES-201 for additional guidance 

regarding NRC response to facility-developed examinations that are significantly 

deficient.

e. Upon supervisory approval, and generally at least 21 days before the operating 

tests are scheduled to be given, the chief examiner will review the tests with the

facility licensee in accordance with ES-201.

Tests that were developed by the NRC should be clean, properly formatted, and

“ready-to-give” before they are reviewed with the facility licensee. The regional 

office should not rely on the facility licensee to ensure that the tests are of

acceptable quality to administer.

f. After reviewing the tests with the facility licensee, the chief examiner will ensure 

that any comments and recommendations are resolved and the tests are revised 

as necessary. If the facility licensee developed the tests, it will generally be 

expected to make whatever changes the NRC recommends.

g. After the necessary changes have been made and the chief examiner is satisfied 

with the test, he or she will sign Form(s) ES-301-3 and forward the test package to

the responsible supervisor for final approval.

3. NRC Supervisory Review

a. In accordance with ES-201, the responsible supervisor shall review the operating 

tests before authorizing the chief examiner to proceed with the facility pre-review. 

The supervisory review is not intended to be another detailed review, but rather a
ES-301, Page 19 of 31

general assessment of test quality, including a review of the changes 

recommended by the chief examiner, and a check to ensure that all of the

applicable administrative requirements have been implemented.

b. The responsible supervisor should ensure that any significant deficiencies in the

original operating tests submitted by a facility licensee are evaluated in

accordance with ES-201 to determine the appropriate course of action. At a

minimum, the supervisor should ensure that they are addressed in the final 

examination report in accordance with ES-501, “Initial Post-Examination Process.”

c. Following the facility review, the responsible supervisor should again review the

tests to ensure that the concerns expressed by the facility licensee and the chief 

examiner have been appropriately addressed. The supervisor shall not sign 

Form(s) ES-301-3 until he or she is satisfied that the examination is acceptable to 

be administered.

F. Attachments/Forms

Attachment 1 Open-Reference Question Guidelines

Attachment 2 Verifiable Action Guidelines

Form ES-301-1 Administrative Topics Outline

Form ES-301-2 Control Room/In-Plant Systems Outline

Form ES-301-3 Operating Test Quality Checklist

Form ES-301-4 Simulator Scenario Quality Checklist

Form ES-301-5 Transient and Event Checklist

Form ES-301-6 Competencies Checklist

Form ES-301-7 Operating Test Review Worksheet
ES-301, Page 20 of 31

ES-301 Open-Reference Question Guidelines Attachment 1

1. The most appropriate format is the short-answer question, which requires the applicant to

compose a response rather than select from among a set of alternative responses, as is 

the case with multiple-choice, matching, and true/false questions.

2. Provide clear, explicit directions or guidelines for answering the question so that the

applicant understands what constitutes a fully correct response. Choose words carefully 

to ensure that the stipulations and requirements of the question are appropriately 

conveyed. Words such as “evaluate,” “outline,” and “explain,” can invite a lot of detail that

is not necessarily relevant.

3. Make sure that the expected response matches (and is limited to) the requirements posed 

in the question. Consider the amount of partial credit to be granted for an incomplete 

answer. For questions requiring computation, specify the degree of precision expected. 

Try to make the answer turn out to be whole numbers.

4. Avoid giving away part or all of the answer by the way the question is worded. For

example, “If the letdown line became obstructed, could borating of the plant be

accomplished shortly after a reactor trip to put the plant in cold shutdown? If so, how?”

A test-wise applicant can realize that the answer has to be yes, or else the second part of

the question would have read something like “If not, why not?”

5. Avoid what could be considered “trick” questions, in which the expected answer does not 

precisely match the question. For example, asking “How do the SI termination criteria

change following an SI re-initiation?” implies that the termination criteria will change, when 

in actuality they do not.

6. Do not use direct look-up questions that only require the applicant to recall where to find

the answer to the question. The operational orientation required of questions on the

walk-through test and the applicant’s access to reference documents, argue against the

use of questions that test recall and memorization. Any questions that do not require any 

analysis, synthesis, or application of information by the applicant should be answerable 

without the aid of reference materials. Refer to ES-602, Attachment 1, for a more 

detailed discussion of direct look-up questions.

7. Questions should also adhere to the generic item construction principles and guidelines in

Appendix B. Moreover, Form ES-602-1, “NRC Checklist for Open-Reference Test 

Items,” contains a list of questions that can be used to evaluate the suitability of the

questions for the walk-through portion of the operating test. Although the checklist was 

developed for use in evaluating requalification written examinations, all of the criteria

except 9-11, and the K/A rating on item 7 are generically applicable.
ES-301, Page 21 of 31

ES-301 Verifiable Action Guidelines Attachment 2

Verifiable Actions is a term used in NUREG-1021 in ES-301, Appendix C and Appendix D. The 

context in which the words are used has to do with evaluating operators’ competence during 

scenario events and malfunctions. The concept of verifiable actions also applies to performance 

based critical steps during in-plant and control room JPMs.

ES-301, Section D.5.d, specifies that an applicant should only be given credit for those scenario 

events that require the applicant to perform verifiable actions that provide insight to the applicant’s 

competence. This means that the applicant must perform some action and not just make a 

phone call to an operator to take some action in the field. In the instance where the applicant is 

on the phone directing an operator to take some action in the field while the applicant is observing 

control room indications is NOT performing a verifiable action, this is directing. Although it may 

provide insight as to whether the applicant understands the system, it does not provide insight for 

the examiner to be able to determine if the applicant is capable of actually operating the 

equipment/equipment controls and controlling the system response.

The credit for performing a calculation should relate directly to the competency that is being 

examined and not just give credit because a calculation was performed. In these cases it is only 

acceptable to give credit for performing a verifiable action if the applicant diagnoses a malfunction 

or event and then performs a meaningful calculation (i.e., SDM calculation or leak rate 

calculation) which can be graded by the examiner against acceptable grading criteria. The intent 

of performing a verifiable action is to actually observe the applicant perform an action, or in the 

case of a JPM in the plant, describe exactly what it takes to perform an action.

As an example, when an applicant performs a JPM in the plant, the examiner expects the 

applicant to describe how he closes a valve or repositions a switch. The examiner doesn’t just 

accept that the applicant points to a valve or switch and says “the valve is closed” or “the breaker 

is closed.” The applicant must describe how he would perform a verifiable action, such as “I am 

turning the handwheel in the clockwise direction observing the stem move inward until I feel 

resistance.” Likewise, it is important in some instances to calculate the leak rate for the primary 

coolant system to determine entry into Tech Specs or to determine a possible location for the leak 

(primary or secondary), in which case credit could be given. However, credit should not be given 

to an applicant if the only action taken is to perform a leak rate calculation based upon a 

procedure requirement or for information only. This is because the calculation did not involve 

any type of diagnosis of the malfunction or event by the applicant.

Therefore, unless the applicant actually manipulates some piece of equipment/equipment 

controls or performs a meaningful calculation which includes diagnosis of the event/malfunction, 

then the applicant should NOT be given credit for the event/malfunction.
ES-301, Page 22 of 31

ES-301 Administrative Topics Outline Form ES-301-1

Facility: _______________________________ Date of Examination: _____________

Examination Level: RO SRO Operating Test Number: __________

Administrative Topic (see Note) Type 

Code*

Describe activity to be performed

Conduct of Operations

Conduct of Operations

Equipment Control

Radiation Control

Emergency Plan

NOTE: All items (five total) are required for SROs. RO applicants require only four items unless they 

are retaking only the administrative topics (which would require all five items).

* Type Codes & Criteria: (C)ontrol room, (S)imulator, or Class(R)oom

(D)irect from bank (≤ 3 for ROs; ≤ 4 for SROs & RO retakes)

(N)ew or (M)odified from bank (≥ 1)

(P)revious 2 exams (≤ 1; randomly selected)
ES-301, Page 23 of 31

ES-301 Control Room/In-Plant Systems Outline Form ES-301-2

Facility: _____________________________ Date of Examination: _____________

Exam Level: RO SRO-I SRO-U Operating Test No.: ______________

Control Room Systems:

* 8 for RO; 7 for SRO-I; 2 or 3 for SRO-U

System / JPM Title Type Code* Safety

Function

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

g.

h.

In-Plant Systems* (3 for RO); (3 for SRO-I); (3 or 2 for SRO-U)

i.

j.

k.

* All RO and SRO-I control room (and in-plant) systems must be different and serve different safety 

functions; all five SRO-U systems must serve different safety functions; in-plant systems and functions 

may overlap those tested in the control room.

* Type Codes Criteria for RO / SRO-I / SRO-U

A)lternate path 

(C)ontrol room 

(D)irect from bank 

(E)mergency or abnormal in-plant 

(EN)gineered safety feature

(L)ow-Power / Shutdown

(N)ew or (M)odified from bank including 1(A)

(P)revious 2 exams

(R)CA 

(S)imulator

4-6 / 4-6 / 2-3

≤ 9 / ≤ 8 / ≤ 4

≥ 1 / ≥ 1 / ≥ 1

≥1 / ≥1 / ≥ 1 (control room system)

≥ 1 / ≥ 1 / ≥ 1

≥ 2 / ≥ 2 / ≥ 1

≤ 3 / ≤ 3 / ≤ 2 (randomly selected)

≥ 1 / ≥ 1 / ≥ 1
ES-301, Page 24 of 31

ES-301 Operating Test Quality Checklist Form ES-301-3

Facility: Date of Examination: Operating Test Number:

1. General Criteria Initials

a b* c#

a. The operating test conforms with the previously approved outline; changes are consistent with 

sampling requirements (e.g., 10 CFR 55.45, operational importance, safety function distribution).

b. There is no day-to-day repetition between this and other operating tests to be administered during 

this examination.

c. The operating test shall not duplicate items from the applicants’ audit test(s). (see Section D.1.a.)

d. Overlap with the written examination and between different parts of the operating test is within 

acceptable limits.

e. It appears that the operating test will differentiate between competent and less-than-competent 

applicants at the designated license level.

2. Walk-Through Criteria -- -- --

a. Each JPM includes the following, as applicable:

• initial conditions

• initiating cues

• references and tools, including associated procedures

• reasonable and validated time limits (average time allowed for completion) and specific 

designation if deemed to be time-critical by the facility licensee

• operationally important specific performance criteria that include:

– detailed expected actions with exact criteria and nomenclature

– system response and other examiner cues

– statements describing important observations to be made by the applicant

– criteria for successful completion of the task

– identification of critical steps and their associated performance standards

– restrictions on the sequence of steps, if applicable

b. Ensure that any changes from the previously approved systems and administrative walk-through 

outlines (Forms ES-301-1 and 2) have not caused the test to deviate from any of the acceptance 

criteria (e.g., item distribution, bank use, repetition from the last 2 NRC examinations) specified on

those forms and Form ES-201-2. 

3. Simulator Criteria -- -- --

The associated simulator operating tests (scenario sets) have been reviewed in accordance with Form

ES-301-4 and a copy is attached.

Printed Name / Signature Date

a. Author ______________________________________________ __ _ ______________ 

b. Facility Reviewer(*) ______________________________________________ __ _ ______________ 

c. NRC Chief Examiner (#) ______________________________________________ __ _ ______________ 

d. NRC Supervisor ______________________________________________ __ _ ______________ 

NOTE: * The facility signature is not applicable for NRC-developed tests.

 # Independent NRC reviewer initial items in Column “c”; chief examiner concurrence required.
ES-301, Page 25 of 31

ES-301 Simulator Scenario Quality Checklist Form ES-301-4

Facility: Date of Exam: Scenario Numbers: / / Operating Test No.:

QUALITATIVE ATTRIBUTES Initials

a b* c#

1. The initial conditions are realistic, in that some equipment and/or instrumentation may be out of service, 

but it does not cue the operators into expected events.

2. The scenarios consist mostly of related events.

3. Each event description consists of

• the point in the scenario when it is to be initiated

• the malfunction(s) or conditions that are entered to initiate the event

• the symptoms/cues that will be visible to the crew

• the expected operator actions (by shift position)

• the event termination point (if applicable)

4. The events are valid with regard to physics and thermodynamics.

5. Sequencing and timing of events is reasonable, and allows the examination team to obtain complete 

evaluation results commensurate with the scenario objectives.

6. If time compression techniques are used, the scenario summary clearly so indicates.

Operators have sufficient time to carry out expected activities without undue time constraints.

Cues are given.

7. The simulator modeling is not altered.

8. The scenarios have been validated. Pursuant to 10 CFR 55.46(d), any open simulator performance 

deficiencies or deviations from the referenced plant have been evaluated to ensure that functional fidelity 

is maintained while running the planned scenarios.

9. Every operator will be evaluated using at least one new or significantly modified scenario. All other 

scenarios have been altered in accordance with Section D.5 of ES-301. Not more than 50% of the 

events/malfunctions are repeated from the previous two NRC initial licensing operating exams, major 

events excluded.

No. of Non-Major Events from the last 2 exams: ____/ Total Non-Major Events: ____ = % Repeat____

10. All individual operator competencies can be evaluated, as verified using Form ES-301-6 (submit the form 

along with the simulator scenarios).

11. The scenario set provides the opportunity for each applicant to be evaluated in each of the applicable 

rating factors. (Competency Rating factors as described on forms ES-303-1 and ES-303-3.)

12. Each applicant will be significantly involved in the minimum number of transients and events specified on 

Form ES-301-5 (submit the form with the simulator scenarios).

13. Applicants are evaluated on a similar number of pre-identified CTs across scenarios.

14. The level of difficulty is appropriate to support licensing decisions for each crew position.

Target Quantitative Attributes (Per Scenario; See Section D.5.d) Actual Attributes -- -- --

1. Malfunctions after EOP entry (1-2) / /

2. Abnormal events (2-4) / /

3. Major transients (1–2) / /

4. EOPs entered/requiring substantive actions (1–2) / /

5. EOP contingencies requiring substantive actions (0-2) / /

6. EOP based Critical tasks (2–3) / /

7. Total number of Critical Tasks (2–6) / /

NOTE: * The facility signature is not applicable for NRC-developed tests.

# Independent NRC reviewer initial items in Column “c”; chief examiner concurrence required.
ES-301, Page 26 of 31

ES-301 Transient and Event Checklist Form ES-301-5

Facility: Date of Exam: Operating Test No.:

A

P

P

L

I

C

A

N

T

E

V

E

N

T

T

Y

P

E

Scenarios

1 2 3 4 T

O

T

A

L

 M

 I

 N

 I

 M

 U

 M(*)

CREW 

POSITION

CREW POSITION CREW POSITION CREW POSITION

S

R

O

A

T

C

B

O

P

S

R

O

A

T

C

B

O

P

S

R

O

A

T

C

B

O

P

S

R

O

A

T

C

B

O

P

R I U

RO

SRO-I

SRO-U

RX 1 1 0

NOR 1 1 1

I/C 4 4 2

MAJ 2 2 1

TS 0 2 2

RO

SRO-I

SRO-U

RX 1 1 0

NOR 1 1 1

I/C 4 4 2

MAJ 2 2 1

TS 0 2 2

RO

SRO-I

SRO-U

RX 1 1 0

NOR 1 1 1

I/C 4 4 2

MAJ 2 2 1

TS 0 2 2

RO

SRO-I

SRO-U

RX 1 1 0

NOR 1 1 1

I/C 4 4 2

MAJ 2 2 1

TS 0 2 2

Instructions:

1. Check the applicant level and enter the operating test number and Form ES-D-1 event numbers for each event type; TS 

are not applicable for RO applicants. ROs must serve in both the “at-the-controls” (ATC) and “balance-of-plant” (BOP) 

positions. Instant SROs (SRO-I) must serve in both the SRO and the ATC positions, including at least two instrument or 

component (I/C) malfunctions and one major transient, in the ATC position. If an SRO-I additionally serves in the BOP 

position, one I/C malfunction can be credited toward the two I/C malfunctions required for the ATC position.

2. Reactivity manipulations may be conducted under normal or controlled abnormal conditions (refer to Section D.5.d) but 

must be significant per Section C.2.a of Appendix D. (*) Reactivity and normal evolutions may be replaced with additional 

instrument or component malfunctions on a one-for-one basis.

3. Whenever practical, both instrument and component malfunctions should be included; only those that require verifiable 

actions that provide insight to the applicant’s competence count toward the minimum requirements specified for the 

applicant’s license level in the right-hand columns.

4. For new reactor facility licensees that use the ATC operator primarily for monitoring plant parameters, the chief examiner 

may place SRO-I applicants in either the ATC or BOP position to best evaluate the SRO-I in manipulating plant controls.
ES-301, Page 27 of 31

ES-301 Competencies Checklist Form ES-301-6

Instructions:

Check the applicants’ license type and enter one or more event numbers that will allow the

examiners to evaluate every applicable competency for every applicant. (This includes all rating 

factors for each competency.) (Competency Rating factors as described on forms ES-303-1 and 

ES-303-3.)

Facility: Date of Examination: Operating Test No.:

APPLICANTS

 RO

 SRO-I

 SRO-U

 RO

 SRO-I

 SRO-U

 RO

 SRO-I

 SRO-U

 RO

 SRO-I

 SRO-U

Competencies SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Interpret/Diagnose 

Events and Conditions

Comply With and

Use Procedures (1)

Operate Control

Boards (2)

Communicate

and Interact

Demonstrate 

Supervisory Ability (3)

Comply With and

Use Tech. Specs. (3)

Notes:

(1) Includes Technical Specification compliance for an RO.

(2) Optional for an SRO-U.

(3) Only applicable to SROs.
ES-301, Page 28 of 31

1 2 

Admin ADMIN Topic LOD 

JPMs & K/A (1-5) IC Critical Scope Over- Perf. 

Focus Steps (N/B) lap Std

Save initial review comments and detail subsequent comment resolution so that each exam-bound JPM is marked by a (S)atisfactory resolution on this f

• The JPM contains appropriate cues that clearly indicate when they are are to be provided to the examineer. Cues are objective and not lead

• All critical steps (elements) properly identified.

• Scope of the task is not too narrow (N) or too broad (B).

• There is not excessive overlap with other part of operating test or written examination.

• The task performance standard clearly desribes the expected outcome i.e., end state. Each performance step identifies a standard for succ

4. For column 4, Job Content Errors, check the appropriate box if the job content does not meet the following elements:

• Topics are linked to job content (e.g., not a disguised task, task required in real job).

• Task is important and has safety significance.

• A valid marked up key was provided (graph interpretation, initialed steps for hand-outs, etc).

5. Based on the reviewer’s judgment, is the JPM as written (U)nacceptable (requiring repair or replacement), in need of (E)nhancement, or (S)atisfactory

6. In column 6, provide a brief description of any (U)nacceptable or (E)nhancement rating from column 5.

Instructions for Completing this Table: Check or mark any item(s) requiring comment and explain the issue in the space provided using the guide below:

2. Determine level of difficulty (LOD) using established 1-5 rating scale. Levels 1 and 5 represent inappropriate (low or high) discriminatory level for th

column 2.

3. In column 3, Attributes, check the appropriate box when an attribute is not met:

• The initial conditions and/or initiating cue is clear to ensure the operator understands the task and how to begin.

1. Check each JPM for appropriate Admin Topic requirements (COO, EC, Rad, EP) and corresponding K/A. Mark in column 1.

Site name: Exam Date:

3. Attributes 4. Job Content

Cues Job-Link Minutia K

ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet 

ES-301, Page 28 of 31
ES-301, Page 29 of 31

ES-301

1 2 

Sim/In Plant Safety 

Function LOD 

JPMs & K/A (1-5) IC Critical Scope Over- Perf. 

Focus Steps (N/B) lap Std

• Topics are linked to job content (e.g., not a disguised task, task required in real job).

• Task is important and has safety significance.

• A valid marked up key was provided (graph interpretation, initialed steps for hand-outs, etc).

5. Based on the reviewer’s judgment, is the JPM as written (U)nacceptable (requiring repair or replacement), in need of (E)nhancement, or (S)atisfactor

• All critical steps (elements) properly identified.

• Scope of the task is not too narrow (N) or too broad (B).

• There is not excessive overlap with other part of operating test or written examination.

• The task performance standard clearly desribes the expected outcome i.e., end state. Each performance step identifies a standard for suc

4. For column 4, Job Content Errors, check the appropriate box if the job content does not meet the following elements:

6. In column 6, provide a brief description of any (U)nacceptable or (E)nhancement rating from column 5.

Save initial review comments and detail subsequent comment resolution so that each exam-bound JPM is marked by a (S)atisfactory resolution on this 

Site name: Exam Date:

3. Attributes 4. Job Content

Cues Job-Link Minutia K

Instructions for Completing this Table: Check or mark any item(s) requiring comment and explain the issue in the space provided using the guide below:

1. Check each JPM for appropriate safety function requirements and corresponding K/A. Mark in column 1.

2. Determine level of difficulty (LOD) using established 1-5 rating scale. Levels 1 and 5 represent inappropriate (low or high) discriminatory level for th

column 2.

3. In column 3, Attributes, check the appropriate box when an attribute is not met:

• The initial conditions and/or initiating cue is clear to ensure the operator understands the task and how to begin.

• The JPM contains appropriate cues that clearly indicate when they are are to be provided to the examineer. Cues are objective and not lea

ES-301, Page 29 of 31
ES-301, Page 30 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Event 

Totals Events TS Totals TS Unsat CT Total CT Unsat (2+4+6) / U/E/S

Unsat (1+3+5)

3. In column 9, explain each unsatisfactory event, TS, and CT from column 8. Editorial comments can also be added here.

4. In column 7, calculate the percentage of unsatisfactory scenario elements: [(columns 2 + 4 + 6) / (columns 1 + 3 + 5)] x 100%.

5. If the value in column 7 is > 20% then mark the scenario as (U)nsatisfactory in column 8. If column 7 <= 20% annotate with (E)nhancement or (S

Site name: Exam Date:

Instructions for Completing this Table:

Check or mark any item(s) requiring comment and explain the issue in the space provided.

1.

Save initial review comments and detail subsequent comment resolution so that each exam-bound scenario is marked by a (S)atisfactory resolution on this f

 For each simulator scenario, enter the total number of events (column 1.), Technical Specification (TS) entries/actions (column 3.), and Critical T

2. For each simulator scenario, evaluate each event, TS and CT as Satisfactory (S), Enhance (E), or Unsatisfactory (U) based on the criteria below

a. Events: each event is described on a Form ES-D-2 including all switch manipulations, pertinent alarms and verifiable actions. Event actio

BOP applicants during the scenario. All event related attributes on Form ES-301-4 are met. Enter the total number of unsatisfactory events in 

b. TS: a scenario includes at least two TS entries/actions across at least two difference events. TS entries and actions are detailed on Form 

unsatisfactory TS entries/actions in column 4.

c. CT: Check that a scenario includes at least two EOP-based CTs (if only 1 EOP-CT then 1 CT is unsat, if no EOP-CTs then 2 CTs are u

non-EOP based) is explicitly bounded on Form ES-D-2 with measurable performance standards (see Appendix D). Enter the total number of u

Scenario

#

ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet 

ES-301, Page 30 of 31
ES-301, Page 31 of 31

Total Total

Edits Sat

Admin 

JPMs -

Sim/InPlant 

JPMs

-

Scenarios -

Op Test 

Totals:

Site name: Exam Date:

OPERATING TEST TOTALS

Total Total Unsat % Unsat Explanation

• Satisfactory if Op Test Total %Unsat < = 20%

Instructions for Completing this Table

Update data for this table from previous page quality reviews and totals, then calculate percentage of total items that are unsat 

and provide an explanation in the space provided.

1. Enter the total number of items submitted for the operating test in the Total column. For example, if 9 Admin JPMs 

were submitted then enter “9” in Total Items column for ADMIN JPMS. For scenarios, enter the total number of simulator 

scenarios.

2. Enter the total number of Unsatisfactory (U) JPMS and Scenarios from the two JPM column Nol 5's and Sim Scenario 

column 8 in the previous tables. Provide an explanation in the space provided.

3. Enter totals for Enhancements € needed and Satisfactory (S) JPMs and Scenarios from the previous tables. This is 

for tracking only.

4. Total each column and enter the amounts in the Op Test Total row. 

5. Calculate the percentage of the Operating Test that is Unsatisfactory: (Op Test Total Unsat)/(Op Test Total) and place 

this value in the bolded %Unsat cell. 

Refer to ES-501 E.3.a. to rate the overall operating test as:

• TS entries/actions were determined to be incorrect in a scenario(s).

• Unsatisfactory if Op Test Total %Unsat > 20%

6. Update this table and the tables above with post-exam changes if the “as-administered” operating test required content 

changes, including:

• incorrect JPM performance standards

• incorrect Admin JPM tasks/keys • critical tasks were not correct in the scenarios (not including post-scenario critical tasks defined in Appendix 

D)

• EOP strategy was incorrect in a scenario(s)

ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet Form ES-301-7

ES-302, Page 1 of 13

ES-302

ADMINISTERING OPERATING TESTS TO INITIAL LICENSE APPLICANTS

A. Purpose

This standard describes how to administer operating tests to initial license applicants in

accordance with the requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)

55.45, “Operating Tests.” It includes policies and guidelines for administering both the walkthrough and integrated plant operations portions of the operating test. This standard presumes 

that the operating test was prepared in accordance with ES-301, “Preparing Initial Operating 

Tests.”

B. Background

As noted in ES-201, “Initial Operator Licensing Examination Process,” facility licensees will 

generally prepare proposed operating tests in accordance with ES-301 and submit them to the

responsible U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regional office for review and approval. 

Regardless of whether the facility licensee or the NRC prepared a given operating test, an NRC 

licensing examiner will independently administer and grade every test in accordance with the 

instructions contained here and in ES-303, “Documenting and Grading Initial Operating Tests.”

C. Responsibilities

1. Facility Licensee

The facility licensee is responsible for the following activities:

a. Make the plant and simulation facility available, as necessary, for validating and

administering the operating tests.

b. Safeguard the integrity and security of the operating tests in accordance with 

10 CFR 55.49 and the guidelines discussed in Attachment 1 to ES-201.

c. Provide administrative and logistics support (e.g., personnel to operate the

simulation facility, surrogate operators, copies of the approved operating test 

materials as arranged with the chief examiner) to facilitate the administration of

the operating tests in accordance with Section D.

d. Inform the NRC’s regional office in writing if an applicant withdraws from the

examination process before it is complete.
ES-302, Page 2 of 13

2. NRC Regional Office

The NRC regional office is responsible for the following activities:

a. Work with the facility contact to coordinate the operating test administration 

schedule in a manner that maximizes efficiency and maintains security. 

Normally, the operating tests should be administered within 30 days before or

after the written examinations. The regional office shall obtain concurrence from 

the NRR/NRO operator licensing program office if the examination dates diverge

by more than 30 days. (Refer to ES-201 for additional guidance regarding 

examinations that have to be rescheduled to achieve an acceptable product.)

b. Administer the operating tests in accordance with Section D.

D. Test Administration Instructions and Policies

1. General

a. Before beginning the operating test, an examiner shall brief the applicant(s) using 

Parts A, C, D, and E of Appendix E. To save time, the examiner(s) may brief the 

applicants as a group.

b. If an applicant requests to withdraw during any part of the examination process, 

the examiner shall inform the applicant that this will result in automatic license 

denial and that he or she may reapply in accordance with 10 CFR 55.35, 

“Re-applications.” The chief examiner will then ask the facility licensee to 

document the applicant’s withdrawal in a letter to the NRC’s regional 

administrator.

c. Each applicant identified on the “List of Applicants” (Form ES-201-4) shall be 

administered an operating test as indicated on the form.

d. Surrogate operators should be used only when they are necessary to complete 

an operating crew.

• A facility licensee may not replace license applicants with surrogates solely 

because the applicants have performed the minimum number of events or 

scenarios. If an applicant would be exposed to only one additional scenario 

above the minimum required, a surrogate operator should not be used in 

place of a license applicant. However, no applicant will be required to 

participate in more than one scenario above the minimum required, in which 

case, a surrogate operator should be used. If, at the discretion of the chief 

examiner, it is desired to use surrogate operators contrary to the above 

guidance, the operator licensing program office should be consulted prior to 

implementation.

• When surrogate operators are required to complete the operating crew 

(e.g., during retake tests or for a class consisting entirely of ROs), the chief 

examiner shall ensure that the surrogate operator(s) are briefed regarding the 

content of the scenario(s) and their expected actions in response to every 
ES-302, Page 3 of 13

event. The examiners must not restrict the surrogate operator’s activities to 

such an extent that the applicants being evaluated are required to assume 

responsibilities beyond the scope of their respective positions.

• The surrogate operators do not need to be licensed at the facility, but they 

must have the knowledge and abilities required to assume the full 

responsibilities of the roles they take in the operating test. Consultations with 

an STA shall be conducted in accordance with the facility licensee’s normal 

control room practice (e.g., an STA shall not be stationed in the simulator if 

they are on-call at the site). If used, the STA shall also be briefed regarding 

the content of the scenario(s) and their expected actions in response to every 

event. Surrogates and STAs should not take a proactive role in assisting or 

coaching the applicants because such interventions would hinder the 

examiners’ ability to evaluate the applicant’s competence. Examiners shall 

run additional scenarios if necessary to make a licensing decision.

e. For the administration of operating test JPMs and for purposes of test integration 

and continuity, it may be advantageous for the chief examiner to schedule the 

same examiner to administer all of an applicant’s JPMs. However, with regard to 

scheduling, it may be more efficient for the chief examiner to divide the JPMs 

among different examiners for each applicant. Either method is acceptable, as 

long as each applicant receives a complete set of JPMs, graded and 

documented in accordance with ES-303, which would include integrating the 

JPM grades if multiple examiners are used to examine a single applicant. 

For the administration of simulator scenarios, a single NRC examiner shall be 

assigned to individually evaluate the same applicant for each scenario in that 

applicant’s entire simulator operating test. The following exceptions apply:

(1) If a three-person operating crew consists entirely of senior reactor 

operator (SRO) upgrade applicants (who do not have to be evaluated 

on the control boards), the chief examiner may assign only two 

examiners to observe the crew. In addition, although applicants in the 

reactor operator (RO) and balance-of-plant positions may not be 

individually evaluated, they will be held accountable for any errors that 

occur as a result of their action(s) or inaction(s), and they will be 

graded on their ability to “operate the controls” (i.e., SRO 

Competency 3). By contrast, SRO-instant applicants will always be 

individually evaluated by an NRC examiner, regardless of what 

operating position they fill during a given scenario. 

(2) When necessary for exam efficiency or to minimize the use of 

surrogates, it is acceptable for another examiner, other than the 

examiner of record, to administer one of the scheduled scenarios 

provided that the examiner of record is present during the scenario 

administration (e.g., examining one of his other applicants); and the 

scenario is in addition to the minimum required for that applicant. This 

scenario requires NRC program office approval.

f. The examiner is expected to administer the planned operating test in accordance 

with the prepared and approved walk-through test outlines (Forms ES-301-1, 
ES-302, Page 4 of 13

“Administrative Topics Outline,” and ES-301-2, “Control Room/In-Plant Systems 

Outline”) and simulator scenarios (Forms ES-D-1, “Scenario Outline,” and

ES-D-2, “Required Operator Actions”). Examiners shall document every

significant aspect of each applicant’s performance for later evaluation, but they 

shall not use the applicant’s unplanned actions and statements to displace any 

part of the planned operating test.

Normally, examiners should substitute or replace planned operating test 

materials only if an item is determined to be invalid or impossible to perform or 

simulate because of unanticipated access restrictions, equipment failures, or 

examination security concerns.

g. Examiners may administer the same operating test (walk-through and simulator) 

to consecutive applicants and crews on the same day, but they must ensure that 

the security of the operating test is maintained. The same simulator scenarios 

and job performance measures (JPMs) shall not be repeated during subsequent 

days.

If previously agreed upon by the facility licensee, examiners may also administer 

the same operating test (walk-through and simulator) by dividing the test into

segments that can be administered to all of the applicants on the same day. This 

will minimize the amount of effort required to develop different operating tests, 

but will complicate the scheduling process.

h. The chief examiner should construct an efficient schedule to keep all members of 

the examination team as fully engaged as possible. The schedule should 

consider the efficient use of simulator time (which can often dictate an 

examination’s overall schedule), examiner availability (e.g., different travel 

schedules), and licensee support staff availability. 

i. The examiner must take sufficient notes to facilitate thorough documentation of

any and all applicant deficiencies in accordance with ES-303. The examiner 

must be able to cross-reference each comment to a specific JPM, simulator 

event, or for-cause followup question.

j. Video recording of the administration of simulator operating tests is encouraged if 

the simulator is equipped with properly functioning video and audio recording 

capability. The following guidelines apply to video recording of the simulator 

operating test:

• After initial set up/alignment of the camera(s) and audio microphone(s) by 

facility licensee personnel under observation of the chief examiner, the video 

and audio examination recordings will be made with no changes to the 

camera(s) or microphone(s) set up. The only intervention allowed will be to 

change out the recording media as necessary.

• The facility licensee will retain a copy of the video and audio recordings until 

the NRC notifies the facility licensee that the recordings are no longer 

necessary, at which time they should be erased or destroyed. Additionally, 

the facility licensee will not review the video and audio recordings unless 

approved by the NRC.
ES-302, Page 5 of 13

• The facility licensee will make the video and audio recordings available to the 

NRC for resolving/confirming examiner documentation of specific applicant

errors.

• Applicants who receive examination failure notice based on their simulator 

operating test performance (in a preliminary results or a final denial letter) will 

be provided an opportunity to review those portions of the video and audio 

recordings under facility licensee supervision that directly affect their 

simulator operating test failure decision. The facility licensee will notify the 

NRC chief examiner prior to reviewing the video and audio recordings.

k. The number of persons present during an operating test should be limited to 

ensure the integrity of the test and to minimize distractions to the applicants:

• Except for the simulation facility operators, no other member of the facility’s 

staff shall be allowed to observe an operating test without the chief 

examiner’s permission. Facility management and other personnel deemed 

necessary by the facility licensee should generally be allowed access to the 

examination (under security agreements, as appropriate), provided that the 

simulation facility can accommodate them and there is no impact on the 

applicants.

• Although the simulation facility operator will normally assume the role of the 

other personnel that the applicants direct or notify regarding plant operations, 

the chief examiner may permit other members of the facility training or 

operations staff (e.g., a shift technical advisor (STA)) to augment the 

operating shift team if necessary. In such instances, the chief examiner shall

fully brief those individuals regarding their responsibilities, reporting 

requirements, duties, and level of participation before the operating test 

begins. All participants in the testing process must also be mindful of their 

responsibilities with regard to examination integrity pursuant to 

10 CFR 55.49, “Integrity of Examinations and Tests.”

• Although the applicants will generally be expected to perform “peer checks” in 

accordance with the facility licensee’s operations and training procedures and 

practices, additional personnel may not be stationed or called upon for this 

purpose.

• If the facility licensee normally operates with and is required by its technical 

specifications to have more than two ROs in the control room, the chief 

examiner may authorize the use of additional surrogates to fill out the crews. 

In such cases, examiners must take care that the presence of additional 

operators does not dilute the examiners’ ability to evaluate each applicant 

during the required number of events and on every applicable competency 

and rating factor. Examiners shall not hesitate to run additional scenarios, as 

necessary, to ensure that every applicant has the opportunity to demonstrate 

his or her competence. 
ES-302, Page 6 of 13

• Only one individual (applicant or surrogate) is allowed to fill a senior operator

position during the simulator operating test. The NRC does not permit more 

than one person to fill the senior operator position during the simulator 

operating exam because the principal duties of the shift manager position 

(i.e., assuming the role of the emergency director, performing emergency 

classifications, and making protective action recommendations) are normally 

a part of the operating test for senior reactor operator applicants. (Reference 

SECY-98-266 Attachment I, Section II). 

• Under no circumstances will another applicant be allowed to observe an 

operating test. Operating tests are not to be used as training vehicles for 

future applicants.

• Other examiners may observe an operating test as part of their training or to 

audit the performance of the examiner(s) administering the operating test.

• The chief examiner may permit other NRC employees, such as resident 

inspectors, regional personnel, researchers, or NRC supervisors, to observe 

an operating test. Personnel who are not NRC employees (e.g., 

representatives from the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO)) may 

observe the operating tests with prior approval from the NRR/NRO operator 

licensing program office. The chief examiner will control the observer’s 

activities in accordance with guidance provided by NRR/NRO. The chief 

examiner should also give the applicants the opportunity to object to the 

presence of observers.

l. The chief examiner should confirm with the facility licensee that the simulator 

instructor’s station, programmers’ tools, and external interconnections do not

compromise operating test security while conducting examinations (refer to 

Section F of Appendix D). The primary objective is to ensure that the exam 

material cannot be read or recorded at other unsecured consoles and is either 

physically secured or electronically protected when not in use by individuals 

listed on the security agreement. Examiners should also take reasonable 

measures to ensure that any notes documenting the applicant’s performance on 

the operating test are not accessible to the facility staff. Notwithstanding the fact 

that the facility staff has signed the security agreement, such notes are 

predecisional and should not be left unattended or unsecured in the simulator or 

examination room to which the facility staff has access. 

Under 10 CFR 55.46(d), the chief examiner should confirm that any uncorrected 

simulator performance deficiencies do not interfere with the conduct of the 

planned operating tests.

n. The chief examiner should arrange for any NRC examiners who are not familiar 

with the facility to obtain a tour before they administer any operating tests. Such

tours shall not be conducted or observed by any of the applicants. In addition, 

the tours should, at a minimum, cover areas of the plant that will be used during 

the examination process, such as the control room, the simulation facility, and 

planned walk-through locations.
ES-302, Page 7 of 13

o. The chief examiner will conduct an exit briefing with the facility licensee after the

operating tests are complete. The briefing should address any generic

weaknesses noted during the operating tests, as well as any other significant 

issues (e.g., problems with the reference materials, the simulation facility, or the 

plant) that might be addressed in the examination report. The individual 

operating test results are predecisional until approved by NRC management in 

accordance with ES-501, “Initial Post-Examination Activities,” and shall not be 

shared with the facility licensee during the exit briefing.

2. Walk-Through

a. The examiner should validate any JPMs that were not previously validated by the

facility licensee or the NRC during a preparatory site visit. This is particularly 

important for complex JPMs and those that require the applicant to implement an 

alternative method directed by plant procedures.

b. To the extent possible, the examiner should have the applicant perform the

control room JPMs on the simulator, rather than asking the applicant to describe 

how he or she would accomplish the task.

If the examiner observes a discrepancy between the simulator setup and the

conditions specified in a JPM, the examiner shall stop the JPM and correct the 

situation, as necessary. If the task can be completed with different values 

(e.g., wind direction when determining a protective action recommendation 

during an emergency), the examiner shall document the differences and 

coordinate with the facility contact and the NRC chief examiner to validate the 

applicant’s response under the actual conditions.

The chief examiner is expected to coordinate the administration of the JPMs to

maximize the use of the simulator. To increase efficiency, different JPMs may be 

administered simultaneously to multiple applicants, but the examiners must 

ensure that mutual interference is minimized and test integrity is not 

compromised.

Under certain circumstances, it may be more efficient to administer some or all of 

the JPMs in “station-keeping” mode, in which the examiners remain in position at 

designated operating stations and the applicants, under escort, rotate through 

the various stations. Such arrangements would have to be agreed to by and

coordinated with the facility licensee; moreover, the guidelines in Sections D.1.d 

and D.1.f would apply.

When JPMs or followup discussions are conducted in the control room, the 

examiners shall make every effort to accommodate and not interfere with normal 

shift operations. The chief examiner should ask the facility training manager to 

notify the shift supervisor when the NRC will be conducting examination activities 

in the control room. If the number of persons or the noise level in the control 

room is excessive, the examiner should, if possible, move to a quieter location, 

modify the sequence of the JPMs, and return when the level of activity in the 

control room has abated, or ask the facility training manager to address the 

issue.
ES-302, Page 8 of 13

c. The examiner should encourage the applicants to sketch diagrams, flow paths, or 

other illustrations to aid in answering any followup questions that might be

necessary. In all cases, the examiner shall collect the supporting material 

because it provides additional documentation to support a pass or fail decision 

(refer to ES-303). To facilitate photocopying, the applicant’s drawings should be 

restricted to one side of separate sheets of 8.5-inch by 11-inch paper.

d. The examiner should encourage the applicants to use such materials as facility

forms, schedules, and procedures if they are relevant to the tasks to be

performed or the followup questions to be asked.

e. The examiner should keep in mind that the applicant’s proficiency in every 

administrative topic and each control room and in-plant system should be 

deliberately evaluated in a manner that is consistent with the operating test that

was prepared in accordance with ES-301.

f. As stated in 10 CFR 55.45(a), the operating test requires applicants to 

demonstrate an understanding of and the ability to perform the actions necessary 

to accomplish a representative sample from among 13 items listed in the rule. 

If an applicant correctly performs a JPM (including both critical and noncritical 

steps) and demonstrates familiarity with the equipment and procedures, the 

examiner should infer that the applicant has an adequate understanding of the 

system/task and should refrain from asking followup questions. However, if the 

applicant fails to accomplish the task standard for the JPM; exhibits behavior that 

demonstrates a lack of familiarity with the equipment and procedure; or is unable 

to locate information, control board indications, or controls, the examiner should

ask performance-based followup questions (as necessary) to clarify or confirm 

the applicant’s understanding of the system as it relates to the task performed. 

The examiner shall document all performance-based questions and answers for

later evaluation.

If the applicant exceeds twice the validated time estimate for any JPM (including

time-critical) because he or she has selected an incorrect procedure or operated 

the wrong equipment (despite being presented with sufficient plant feedback to 

correct the error), the examiner should stop the JPM, document the

circumstances, and proceed with the next JPM. However, if the applicant is on 

the correct path but has simply stopped making progress toward completing a 

non-time-critical JPM, the examiner should ask the applicant to describe the work 

to be done and how long it should take to complete the JPM. If the applicant 

does not then make timely progress toward completing the described actions, the 

examiner should inform the applicant that the allowed time for the JPM has 

elapsed and the applicant will be evaluated on the work completed. The 

examiner should then proceed with the next JPM.

If an applicant volunteers additional or corrected information after completing a

task, the examiner shall offer the applicant the opportunity to take whatever 

actions would be required in a similar situation in the plant. The examiner will

record any revisions to previously performed tasks or answers for consideration 

when grading the operating test in accordance with ES-303.
ES-302, Page 9 of 13

g. If an applicant requests a “peer check,” the examiner will simply acknowledge the 

applicant’s request and grade any errors in accordance with ES-303. Similarly, 

the examiner will not permit an applicant to obtain assistance from a “procedure 

reader” when performing JPMs.

h. The examiner should practice other good walk-through evaluation techniques, as

discussed in Section D of Appendix C.

3. Simulator Operating Test

a. Before administering the test(s), the examiners will validate each scenario on the

simulator to ensure that it will run as intended. Scenarios that were adapted from 

previous NRC examinations at the facility or from the facility licensee’s bank may 

not require real-time validation. At a minimum, the examiners will “dry run” those 

events that have variable inputs and questionable outcomes and discuss the 

remainder of the scenario with the facility’s simulator instructor to ensure that it 

will run as planned.

In some cases, the scenarios can be validated while the applicants are taking the

written examination. However, it may be beneficial to validate the scenarios 

during a preparatory site visit as determined by NRC regional management (refer 

to ES-201).

b. The examiners will take precautions to prevent the scenarios from being revealed 

to the applicants before the tests begin. If significant portions of the scenarios are 

dry run or otherwise reviewed with the simulator instructor(s), the chief examiner 

shall ask the instructor(s) to sign a security agreement (Form ES-201-3) to protect 

the integrity of the simulator test.

c. The examiners should revise all copies of Forms ES-D-1 and ES-D-2 to reflect 

any changes made to the scenario events or the expected operator actions as a 

result of the scenario validation runs and reviews. These revisions can be neatly 

written in ink or entered electronically so that the forms can be used in the final 

write-up of the simulator test, as discussed in ES-303.

d. The examiners should review the scenarios together and discuss the required 

procedures, technical specifications, special circumstances, and so forth, related

to the scenarios.

e. Immediately before beginning the simulator tests, the examiners should review 

the scenario events with the simulator operator and ensure he or she has a copy 

of Form ES-D-1. This review should re-familiarize the simulator operator with the

sequence of events to ensure that they will proceed as planned. This is

particularly important if the simulator operator during the test is not the same 

individual who assisted in validating the scenarios.

f. The examiners must identify important plant parameters to be monitored for each 

simulator scenario during the examiner’s on-site preparation visit. The chief 

examiner shall ask the simulator operator to record selected parameters, and if 

the facility has a standard list of recorded parameters, then this list will be 

reviewed during scenario preparation to determine if additional parameters need 
ES-302, Page 10 of 13

to be recorded. Parameter readings shall be collected at meaningful intervals, 

depending on the parameter, the nature of the event, and the capability of the 

simulation facility. The chief examiner shall retain the recordings as backup 

documentation to augment the notes taken by the examiners during the simulator 

test.

g. The examiner in charge of each scenario should arrange a suitable 

communication system with the simulator operator so that he or she can be 

prompted to insert the malfunctions without cuing the applicants. Malfunctions 

may be planned for a predetermined time or power level so that the examiners 

and the facility operator are aware of the event that is occurring or pending. 

If necessary, the examiners may use time compression to speed up the response 

of key parameters so that the scenario can proceed to the next event within a

reasonable time. Time compression is acceptable as long as it is used 

judiciously and the operators are given sufficient time to perform the tasks that

they would typically perform in real time. If the examiners intend to use time

compression, they should inform the applicants of that fact during the operating 

test briefing (refer to Section D.1.a). The examiners should also mitigate the 

potential for negative training by debriefing the applicants after any scenario in 

which time compression was used.

h. Before beginning each scenario set, the examiners shall have the simulator 

operator advance any control room strip chart recorders that may prove useful in

recreating the sequence of events. The charts shall be clearly marked with the 

date, time, and examiner’s initials so that they can be accurately matched with 

the correct operating crew. For digital control rooms that do not have strip chart 

recorders, an alternate method of recording any applicable parameters shall be 

used. (This also includes operating plant control rooms that have replaced paper 

recorders with electronic recorders.)

i. The chief examiner should ensure that the simulator operator (or examiner) 

playing the role of other plant personnel is aware of the time scale for responding 

to the applicants’ requests for information. For example, fast-time could be 

specified for auxiliary operator checks or lineups to prevent long delays in 

simulated operations, while maintenance and chemistry sample information can 

be provided with normal time delays to present the applicants with the same 

analysis problems that they will face as operators.

j. Before the simulator test begins, the examiners shall caution the simulator 

operator to provide only information that is specifically requested by the 

applicants and does not compromise the integrity of the examination. When the 

simulator operator is briefing the applicants or communicating with them on the 

telephone, the examiners should monitor the conversations to ensure that the 

information provided is appropriate and does not cue the applicants.

k. Before the simulator test begins, the facility instructor (or examiner) will provide a

shift turnover briefing. The briefing will cover present plant conditions, power

history, equipment out of service, abnormal conditions, surveillances due, and 

instructions for the shift, and the applicants will be given time to familiarize 

themselves with the plant status.
ES-302, Page 11 of 13

l. The operating team or crew (including license applicants and surrogates, if 

applicable) should perform peer checks in accordance with the facility licensee’s 

operations and training procedures and practices. NRC examiners will not 

perform this function. If an applicant begins to make an error that is corrected by 

a peer checker, the applicant will be held accountable for the consequences of 

the potential error without regard to mitigation by the crew. 

m. Each examiner should use the expected actions and behaviors listed on Form

ES-D-2 as a guide while administering the simulator tests. If an applicant 

performs as expected, the examiner may simply note in the left-hand column of

the form the time when the expected actions occurred. However, if an applicant 

does not perform as expected, the examiner should note the applicant’s actions 

(or lack thereof) next to or below the expected action and follow up with 

appropriate questions after the simulator scenario is completed (refer to Section

D.3.n).

Each examiner must determine the best way to document the applicant’s actions. 

Some examiners record a minute-by-minute account of all key plant events and

applicant actions as they occur; other examiners record only the applicant’s 

significant actions. Each individual examiner should develop his or her 

examination documentation technique. The documentation technique developed 

must provide an adequate basis for a licensing decision. In addition, the 

examiner’s notes must provide sufficient information to allow the examiner to 

confidently assess the applicant’s performance on the competencies described in 

Appendix D.

n. Examiners shall limit discussions with the applicants during the scenarios both to

maintain realism and to avoid distracting the applicants from operating the plant. 

The examiners’ questions during the scenarios should be limited to those that are 

necessary to assess the applicants’ understanding of plant conditions and the 

required operator actions. Whenever possible, the examiner shall defer

questioning the applicant until a time when the applicant is not operating or

closely monitoring the plant (preferably after the simulator has been placed in

“freeze”). 

The examiner’s followup questions or concerns can generally be addressed 

during a brief question-and-answer period after each scenario or during the 

control room systems and facility walk-through portion of the operating test if it is 

performed after the simulator test. Because the simulator operating tests for the 

initial licensing examination are conducted with only one applicant in the SRO 

position, the NRC does not require the SRO applicant to complete the 

emergency classification within the normal event classification period of time. In 

most cases, the applicant is asked to classify the event after the scenario is 

complete and the simulator is in freeze. As explained in Appendix D 

performance of an event classification does not meet the CT criteria. 

o. The examiners who administer the simulator test shall confer immediately after 

completing the scenario set to compare notes and verify that each examiner 

observed his or her applicant performing the required number of transients and

events in a manner sufficient to justify a proper evaluation of all required 
ES-302, Page 12 of 13

competencies. This discussion shall include the critical tasks during the 

scenario, including if an applicant’s action(s) or lack of action(s) resulted in a 

post-scenario critical task (see Appendix D for the methodology to evaluate if the

outcome or possible outcome of an applicant’s action or inaction meets the 

threshold of a critical task). 

These post-scenario CTs must be validated against the critical task methodology

in Appendix D Section D. This is especially important when an applicant fails to 

take an action, or takes an incorrect action, and is corrected by a member of their 

crew. As outlined in Appendix E, an applicant who is corrected will still be held 

accountable for what would have transpired if they had taken the action without 

correction. The examination team must analyze those corrected actions to 

determine if they would have resulted in an event that reaches the threshold for 

classification as a post-scenario CT.

The post-scenario discussion shall also determine if the as-run scenario 

invalidated any pre-designated critical tasks. If necessary, the examiners shall 

run an additional scenario to ensure that all required evolutions and 

competencies are covered. All scenarios will be planned and documented in 

accordance with Section D of ES-301.

The chief examiner shall ensure that the examiners’ observations are consistent 

and their findings are mutually supportive. If a performance deficiency is

“shared” by more than one applicant, both evaluating examiners should note the 

deficiency. Ideally, this cross-check should be accomplished as soon as possible 

after running the scenarios while still at the facility. The cross-check must be 

accomplished before finalizing the examination results in accordance with 

ES-303.

p. If the applicants did not perform as expected, the examiner shall ask the

simulator operator to provide copies of the logs, charts, data, and other materials 

that may be required after leaving the facility to evaluate and document the 

applicant’s performance. The examiner of record shall retain all documentation 

related to any operating test failure until the preliminary results become a final

license denial or a license is issued. Refer to D.3.f above for simulator data 

retention requirements.

The chief examiner shall also ask the simulator operator to retain copies of the

same materials until all applicants are licensed or all appeals are settled, as 

suggested in the sample corporate notification letter shown in Attachment 4 to

ES-201.

q. If the simulation facility should become inoperable and cause excessive delay of the 

operating tests, the chief examiner should discuss the situation with the facility 

licensee and the responsible regional supervisor so that management can make a 

decision regarding the conduct of the operating tests. It may be necessary to 

reschedule the simulator examinations for a later date. The simulator should be 

considered inoperable under any of the following conditions:

• The simulator exhibits a mass/energy imbalance, erratic logic, or inexplicable 

panel indications during evolution execution.
ES-302, Page 13 of 13

• The simulator exhibits unplanned and unexplained events or malfunctions 

that cause the applicants to divert from the expected responses and success 

path of the planned scenario.

• The simulator automatically goes to the “freeze” state during a scenario, or a 

“beyond simulated limits” alarm is received on the instructor’s station.

• The simulator instructor informs the examination team that a software module 

has halted or “kicked out.”

Occurrence of any of these abnormal simulator operating conditions during an

examination constitutes sufficient cause to stop the scenario. Evaluations of the 

applicant’s performance during any of these simulator malfunctions may be 

unreliable.

When the simulator has been restored to full operability, the chief examiner will

determine whether the scenario requires replacement, may be resumed in

progress, or may be restarted from the beginning. Examiners will not use the

“backtrack” function when restarting a scenario; the simulator must be in a stable 

plant condition, at a definitive procedural step, before conducting a turnover as 

discussed in Item D.3.k, above. If the scenario is going to be resumed with a test 

in progress, then the applicants should be allowed a reasonable time to refamiliarize themselves with the plant status.

ES-303, Page 1 of 19

ES-303

DOCUMENTING AND GRADING INITIAL OPERATING TESTS

A. Purpose

This standard describes the procedures for documenting all categories of the operating test, 

collating the data to arrive at a pass or fail recommendation, and reviewing the documentation to

ensure quality.

B. Background

This standard assumes that the operating test was prepared and administered in accordance with

ES-301, “Preparing Initial Operating Tests,” and ES-302, “Administering Operating Tests to Initial 

License Applicants,” respectively. The procedures contained here require the examiner to

evaluate each applicant’s performance on the operating test and make a judgment as to whether 

the applicant’s level of knowledge and understanding meet the minimum requirements to safely 

operate the facility for which the license is sought. The examiner evaluates each noted 

deficiency in light of the total breadth of knowledge and ability (K/A) demonstrated by the

applicant in that subject area.

C. Responsibilities

1. Facility Licensee

The facility licensee’s responsibilities are limited to providing the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) examiners with whatever additional reference materials and information the 

examiner might require to evaluate the applicant’s performance on the operating tests. Such 

materials might include simulator strip chart recordings or otherwise captured data that document 

plant status during the simulator scenarios, and procedures that document the expected operator 

actions.

2. NRC Examiner of Record

As soon as possible after administering the test, the examiner of record shall review, evaluate, 

and finalize each applicant’s operating test documentation in accordance with the instructions in

Section D.

If an applicant has a performance deficiency with serious safety consequences, the examiner 

may recommend an operating test failure even if the grading instructions in Section D would 

normally result in a passing grade. Conversely, if an applicant has several performance 

deficiencies with minimal or no safety consequences, the examiner may recommend that the 

applicant be granted a license even if the grading instructions in Section D would normally result 

in a failing grade. However, in either case, the examiner shall thoroughly justify and document 

the basis for the recommendation in accordance with Section D.3. The regional office shall

obtain written concurrence from the NRR/NRO operator licensing program office before 

completing the licensing action.
ES-303, Page 2 of 19

3. NRC Chief Examiner

a. The chief examiner shall arrange a meeting of the NRC’s examination team 

members after the simulator scenarios are complete. Such meetings enable the

examiners to compare notes to ensure that the documentation for applicants on

the same operating crew is consistent and mutually supportive.

b. The chief examiner shall work with the other examiners on the team to resolve any

technical questions that might arise during the grading process, and communicate 

any additional reference material requirements to the facility contact.

c. The chief examiner or a management-approved designee will review the grading 

of each operating test to verify that the examiner’s comments appropriately 

support his or her recommendation and to ensure that the operating test meets the 

requirements of ES-301. If the chief examiner or designee does not agree with 

any of the examiner’s recommendations, he or she shall confer with the examiner 

before overturning the recommendation. Such disagreements are not common 

and usually arise because an unsatisfactory grade is not adequately justified. 

It is, therefore, very important for examiners to be complete and accurate in their 

grading and documentation.

d. The chief examiner or designee shall make an independent pass or fail 

recommendation, sign the “Final Recommendation” block on Form ES-303-1, 

“Individual Examination Report,” and forward the package to the responsible 

supervisor for review in accordance with ES-501, “Initial Post-Examination 

Activities.” The supervisor must concur in any recommendation to overturn the

examiner’s results, and the specific reasons for this action must be explained on 

Form ES-303-2, “Operating Test Comments” (or equivalent).

D. Grading and Documentation Instructions

1. Review and Categorize Rough Notes and Documentation

a. Review the walk-through job performance measures (JPMs) and simulator 

scenarios that were performed and the performance-based followup questions 

that were asked. Evaluate all rough notes and documentation generated while

administering the operating test to determine the areas in which the applicant was 

deficient. If the applicant generated or used any material (such as figures, 

drawings, flowcharts, or forms) during the operating test, the material may be used 

to aid in documenting the applicant’s performance. If it contributes to an 

unsatisfactory performance evaluation, the material shall be appropriately marked 

and cross-referenced to the applicable deficiency and attached to the examination 

package for retention.

b. Verify the validity and technical accuracy of any performance-based questions that

were asked during the operating test, as well as any unexpected events or actions 

that occurred during the simulator operating test. If necessary, work through the 

chief examiner to obtain any additional reference material that might be required to 

resolve any technical questions.
ES-303, Page 3 of 19

c. On the rough notes and documentation, label or highlight every action, response, 

note, or comment that may constitute a performance deficiency.

d. Review each simulator operating test performance deficiency. Using as a guide 

the competency and rating factor descriptions in Appendix D, “Simulator Testing 

Guidelines,” and on Form ES-303-3, “RO Competency Grading Worksheet for the 

Simulator Operating Test,” or Form ES-303-4, “SRO Competency Grading 

Worksheet for the Simulator Operating Test,” code each deficiency with the

number and letter of the rating factor(s) it most accurately reflects (e.g., 4.a). 

Keep in mind that for the SRO Technical Specifications (TS) competency, every

missed TS entry represents a performance deficiency. For example, if a single 

event during a scenario has three associated TS entries, each missed TS from that

single event constitutes a separate performance deficiency, and must be treated 

this way when grading the exam in accordance with D.2.b of this section. 

Similarly, if an applicant incorrectly determines that an inoperability exists for an 

operable component, or identifies and enters a TS that does not apply, these 

represent performance deficiencies that must be graded accordingly. However, 

performance deficiencies related to recognition (RF 6.a) should not be “carried 

forward” as performance deficiencies under location (RF 6.b) or TS compliance 

(RF 6.c), unless the applicant’s deficient knowledge regarding these rating factors 

is substantiated by post-scenario questioning. Similarly, an applicant who 

recognizes that an inoperability exists, but who does not locate the correct TS (RF 

6.b) cannot have that performance deficiency “carried forward” as a performance 

deficiency under TS compliance (RF 6.c), unless the applicant’s deficient 

knowledge regarding TS compliance is substantiated by post-scenario 

questioning. 

Whenever possible, attempt to identify the cause of each performance deficiency

and code each deficiency with the applicable rating factor. One performance

deficiency that has multiple causes may be coded with multiple rating factors if the 

performance deficiency can be shown, consistent with the criteria in Section D.3.b, 

to be relevant to each of the cited rating factors. There is no limit on the number of 

rating factors that may be assigned to a single performance deficiency, provided 

there is adequate justification for each rating factor.

As stated in ES-302, it is essential that the simulator operating test documentation 

is consistent and mutually supportive for all applicants in an operating crew. 

Performance deficiencies that involved more than one applicant should be noted 

by each applicant’s evaluating examiner. If the examination team members do

not have the opportunity to discuss and compare their observations before leaving 

the site, the chief examiner shall schedule a meeting after the examiners return to 

their respective offices.

2. Evaluate the Applicant’s Performance

After categorizing and coding the rough notes, review, evaluate, and grade the applicant’s

performance, as follows:

a. The “Walk-Through”
ES-303, Page 4 of 19

On page 2 of the applicant’s Form ES-303-1, enter the titles of the JPMs examined 

during the “Administrative Topics” and “Control Room and In-Plant Systems”

portions of the walk-through test.

To determine a grade for each administrative and systems JPM listed on Form

ES-303-1, evaluate each performance deficiency highlighted in the rough notes. 

If the following criteria are met, assign a satisfactory grade by placing an “S” in the 

“Evaluation” column for that JPM; otherwise enter a “U”:

• Time-critical JPMs must be completed within the allotted time. All other JPMs 

should normally be completed within twice the validated time estimate (refer to 

Section D.2.f of ES-302). The reason for terminating any JPM shall be 

documented in accordance with Section D.3, below.

• The task standard for the JPM must be accomplished by correctly completing 

all of the critical steps. If the applicant initially missed a critical step, but later 

performed it correctly and accomplished the task standard without degrading 

the condition of the system or the plant, the applicant’s performance on that 

JPM should be graded as satisfactory. However, the applicant’s performance 

deficiency shall be documented in accordance with Section D.3, below.

• The responses to any performance-based followup questions asked pursuant 

to Section D.2.f of ES-302 must confirm that the applicant’s understanding of 

the administrative topic/system/JPM is satisfactory.

If the responses to any of the followup questions reveal that the applicant’s

understanding of the administrative topic/system/JPM is seriously deficient, 

the examiner may recommend an unsatisfactory grade for the administrative 

topic/system even though the applicant successfully completed the task 

standard for the JPM. The basis for the recommendation shall be thoroughly 

justified and documented in accordance with Section D.3, below.

Conversely, if the applicant did not accomplish the task standard and followup

questioning revealed that the failure was caused by a deficiency in the 

procedure or some other factor beyond the applicant’s control, the examiner 

may still recommend a satisfactory grade for the administrative topic/system

JPM. Once again, the basis for the recommendation shall be thoroughly 

justified and documented in accordance with Section D.3, below.

After grading the applicant’s performance on each of the administrative topics/ 

systems JPMs, determine an overall grade for the “walk-through” by calculating 

the percentage of satisfactory topic/system grades. If the applicant has an “S” on

fewer than 80 percent of the administrative topics and systems combined 

(i.e., 12/15 for RO and SRO-I applicants and 8/10 for SRO-U applicants), the 

applicant fails the “walk-through” and receives a “U” overall.

Additionally, in order to ensure minimal competence in the administrative area, 

determine a separate “Administrative Topics” grade by calculating the percentage 

of satisfactory grades for the administrative JPMs. If an SRO applicant has an “S”

on fewer than 60 percent (i.e., 3/5) or an RO applicant has an “S” on fewer than 

50 percent (2/4) of the administrative topics/JPMs, the applicant fails this portion of 

the walk-through. Retake applicants who were granted an excusal from the 
ES-303, Page 5 of 19

systems walk-through pursuant to ES-204, “Processing Excusals and Waivers 

Requested by Reactor Operator and Senior Reactor Operator Applicants,” must

achieve a satisfactory grade on at least 80 percent of the topics/JPMs (i.e., 4/5 for

RO and SRO applicants) to pass.

Document the applicant’s grades by placing an “S” or a “U” in the appropriate 

blocks in the “Operating Test Summary” on page 1 of Form ES-303-1. Enter “W”

or “E” if any part of the walk-through was waived or excused in accordance with 

ES-204. Document and justify every performance deficiency in accordance with 

Section D.3, below.

b. The “Simulator Operating Test”

Using Form ES-303-3 or ES-303-4, depending on the applicant’s license level, and

the following generic guidance, evaluate performance deficiencies during the 

simulator test to determine a grade for every applicable rating factor (RF) and

competency. Keep in mind that the simulator test is generally graded based on 

competencies rather than consequences; every performance deficiency that 

reflects on an operator’s competence is considered equal unless it is related to the

performance of a critical task (as determined in accordance with ES-301 and

Appendix D).

• If there is no basis upon which to grade a rating factor (i.e., it is “not observed”), 

circle the “0” “Weighting Factor,” enter a “RF Grade” of “N/O,” and explain in 

accordance with Section D.3, below. Depending upon which RF is “N/O,”

circle the appropriate “Weighting Factor” for each remaining RF applicable to 

that competency; the “Weighting Factors” for each competency must always 

add up to “1.” If more than one rating factor per competency or more than two 

rating factors overall are not observed, inform the NRC’s regional office 

management and consult with the NRR/NRO operator licensing program office 

to determine whether the test supports a licensing decision.

• If an applicant performs an activity related to a rating factor and has no

performance deficiencies, circle an “RF Score” of “3” for that rating factor.

For the purposes of the next two bullet points, the terms critical error, critical task 

error, and missed CT can be used interchangeably and refer to a performance 

deficiency associated with the failure of a critical task (CT). Noncritical errors are 

all other performance deficiencies not associated with the failure of a critical task.

• For noncritical errors:

– If an applicant has a single performance deficiency related to a rating 

factor, other than rating factors under the Communications 

competency, circle an “RF Score” of “2” for that rating factor. If the 

rating factor is under the Communications competency, no deduction is 

taken for the first performance deficiency.

– If an applicant has two performance deficiencies relating to a rating 

factor, other than rating factors under the Communications 

competency, circle an “RF Score” of “1” for that rating factor. If an 

applicant has a second or a third performance deficiency in a rating 
ES-303, Page 6 of 19

factor under the Communications competency, a 1-point deduction is 

taken, resulting in an “RF Score” of “2.”

– If an applicant has three or more performance deficiencies related to a 

rating factor, other than rating factors under the Communications 

competency, circle an “RF Score” of “0.” If an applicant has four or 

more performance deficiencies in a rating factor under the 

Communications competency, a 2-point deduction is taken, resulting in 

an “RF Score” of “1.” The minimum score for rating factors under

Communications is “1.”

• For critical errors:

– For all rating factors other than those under the Communications 

competency, a missed CT results in a 3-point deduction for an “RF

Score” of “0.”

– For rating factors under the Communications competency, a missed 

CT results in a 2-point deduction for an “RF score” of “1.” The 

minimum score for rating factors under Communications is “1.”

– Failing to perform one CT will not necessarily result in an automatic 

overall exam failure. However, success on every CT does not prevent 

overall exam failure if other noted deficiencies, when aggregated, 

justify a failure.

Multiply each “RF Score” by its associated “Weighting Factor” to obtain a

numerical measure (“RF Grade”) for the applicant’s performance on each rating

factor. Then sum the RF Grades to obtain a “Competency Grade” for each

competency and enter the corresponding numbers (or “N/O,” as appropriate) on 

page 3 of the RO or SRO applicant’s Form ES-303-1.

For each competency on page 3 of Form ES-303-1, sum the rating factor grades 

and enter the resulting competency grade in the designated column. (The grades 

should range between 0 and 3.)

Using the following evaluation criteria, determine whether the applicant’s overall 

performance on the simulator test is satisfactory or unsatisfactory, and document 

the grade by placing an “S” or a “U” in the “Simulator Operating Test” block of the

“Operating Test Summary” on page 1 of Form ES-303-1. Enter “W” or “E” if this

part of the operating test was waived or excused in accordance with ES-204.

• If the grade for all competencies is greater than 1.8, the applicant’s

performance is generally satisfactory.

• If the grade for Competency 4, “Communications and Crew Interactions,” is

less than or equal to 1.8 but greater than 1.0, and the individual grades for all

other competencies are 2.0 or greater, the applicant’s performance is

satisfactory.

• If the grade for Competency 4 is 1.0, or the grade for any other competency is

1.8 or less, the applicant’s performance is unsatisfactory.
ES-303, Page 7 of 19

Note that Competency 3, “Control Board Operations,” is optional for SRO upgrade 

applicants. However, if it is evaluated, it shall be factored into the applicant’s final 

grade.

Document and justify every deficiency in accordance with Section D.3, below.

3. Finalize the Documentation

a. Review and finalize the simulator scenarios that were run during the operating test.

Complete Form ES-D-1, “Scenario Outline,” by entering the applicant’s names, the

positions they occupied during the scenario, and the facility’s name on the top of 

the form. Enter on Form ES-D-1 any scenario revisions that were made during 

the test, so that each form accurately shows all of the events that actually occurred 

during each scenario. Change the event numbers, malfunction numbers, 

malfunction types, and descriptions, as necessary, to reflect the “as run”

conditions. These changes may be made using pen-and-ink or by retyping the 

scenario, provided that the final form is clear and legible. Also, the examination 

team will determine whether the as-run scenario has invalidated any 

pre-designated CTs or whether any new CTs should be designated to evaluate 

unpredicted events or actions taken by the crew during the scenario. The 

examination team will then revalidate the CTs in any affected scenario using the 

methodology presented in Appendix D.

Update each Form ES-D-2, “Required Operator Actions,” to reflect the “as run”

conditions. Discard or mark as “not used” any events that were not run, and fill

out new forms for any events that were run but not originally planned. Neatly

enter notes, comments, and additional actions in the spaces between the

expected operator actions.

The final Forms ES-D-1 and ES-D-2 must be a clear, legible, and sequential record 

of the actual events and actions that occurred during the simulator operating test. 

The forms sent to the applicant shall not contain any rough notes or irrelevant 

comments.

Any events or malfunctions that did not function as expected or were not useful in

evaluating the applicants (e.g., a surveillance test that required a long time to

perform) should be noted on the master copy of the scenarios to aid in future

scenario preparation.

b. Review the applicant’s Form ES-303-1 and the rough documentation. Justify in

detail on Form ES-303-2, “Operating Test Comments” (or equivalent), every 

knowledge or ability deficiency that contributed to a failure in any part of the 

operating test. Provide the following specific information, as applicable:

• the task administered (i.e., describe the JPM or simulator scenario and event, 

as well as the applicant’s position on the operating crew)

• the applicant’s incorrect action and an indication of whether the action was a

JPM critical step or a simulator critical task
ES-303, Page 8 of 19

• the lack of knowledge or ability that the applicant demonstrated

• the potential or actual consequences of the applicant’s incorrect action 

(particularly if the examiner recommends a failure based on a serious 

performance deficiency that would not normally result in a failing grade)

• any for-cause follow-up questions asked and the applicant’s responses

• the correct answer or action, with an appropriate facility reference (e.g., lesson 

plan, system description, procedure name and number)

• the K/A number and its importance rating (as given in NUREG-1122 

NUREG-1123, NUREG 2103 or NUREG-2104) and the facility’s learning 

objective

• the item from Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 55.45(a) 

that the applicant did not understand or was unable to perform

General statements (such as “did not know decay heat removal system”) are not

adequate.

Whenever possible, substantiate comments with printouts, strip chart recordings 

or other collected parameter data generated during the simulator operating test 

and drawings and illustrations generated by the applicant.

c. Deficiencies that do not contribute to an operating test failure shall also be

documented; however, a brief statement describing the performance deficiency

and the expected action or response is generally sufficient. Examiners should 

keep in mind that their licensing recommendation and associated documentation 

are subject to review by the NRC’s chief examiner and regional office 

management. Therefore, the documentation should contain sufficient detail so 

that the independent reviewer, responsible supervisor, and licensing official can

make a logical decision in support of the examiner’s recommendation to deny or 

issue the license.

d. As noted in Section D.2, above, deviations from the nominal grading criteria must

be explained in detail. For example, an examiner may conclude that an

applicant’s performance is acceptable despite exhibiting deficiencies that would 

normally result in an unsatisfactory grade. Conversely, an examiner may 

conclude that an applicant’s performance is unacceptable even though the 

documented deficiencies would normally result in a passing grade. In either case, 

the examiner shall document the basis for concluding that the applicant is, in fact,

(un)acceptably proficient in that area, why the nominal grading criteria might be too 

(lenient) severe, and/or how a flaw in the test item might have contributed to the 

applicant’s deficient performance. As noted in Section C.2, the regional office 

shall obtain written concurrence from the NRR/NRO operator licensing program 

office before completing the licensing action.

Any simulator rating factor that is graded as “not observed” must also be explained 

in the documentation (e.g., did the simulator malfunction, did an event not take

place as planned, or did another applicant intercede?).
ES-303, Page 9 of 19

e. Retain rough documentation until the NRC’s chief examiner and regional office 

management have reviewed the examiner’s recommendations and concurred in

the results (refer to ES-501). Examiners shall retain all applicable notes and

documentation associated with operating test failures until the final denial letters 

are submitted in accordance with ES-501. Examiners are advised that such 

notes would be subject to disclosure if requested under the Freedom of 

Information Act.

f. Cross-reference each comment on Form ES-303-2 (or equivalent) with the specific 

task, subject, or competency rating factor to which it applies on the applicant’s

Form ES-303-1. One way to do this is by entering the applicable reference from 

Form ES-303-1 (e.g., Admin-a, Systems-d, or Simulator-1.c) in the left-hand 

column of Form ES-303-2 (or equivalent), and entering the page number on which 

the comment is found in the appropriate block on Form ES-303-1.

4. Make a Final Recommendation

a. After grading and documenting the operating test, make an overall 

recommendation by checking the “Pass” or “Fail” (or “Waive” or “Excused” if the 

entire operating test was waived or excused in accordance with ES-204) block, 

and signing and dating the “Examiner Recommendations” section on the 

applicant’s Form ES-303-1. Make a “Pass” recommendation only if all summary 

blocks of the operating test contain satisfactory (“S”) grades or the letters “W” or 

“E,” indicating that the applicant was not examined in that area.

b. Assemble the operating test package (including Forms ES-303-1, ES-303-2 (or 

equivalent), ES-D-1, and ES-D-2 and all supporting documentation such as strip 

chart recordings and applicant notes and drawings) for each applicant and forward 

the package to the chief examiner for review in accordance with ES-501.

E. Attachments/Forms

Form ES-303-1, “Individual Examination Report”

Form ES-303-2, “Operating Test Comments”

Form ES-303-3, “RO Competency Grading Worksheet for the Simulator Operating Test”

Form ES-303-4, “SRO Competency Grading Worksheet for the Simulator Operating Test”
ES-303, Page 10 of 19

ES-303 Individual Examination Report Form ES-303-1

PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION — FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Individual Examination Report

Applicant’s Name Docket Number 55-

I R Examination Type (Initial or Retake) Facility Name

Reactor Operator

Facility

Description

Hot

Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) Instant Cold

SRO Upgrade BWR

SRO Limited to Fuel Handling PWR

Written Examination Summary

NRC Author/Reviewer RO/SRO/Total Exam Points ___ / ___ / ___ 

NRC Grader/Reviewer Applicant Points ___ / ___ / ___ 

Date Administered Applicant Grade (%) ___ / ___ / ___

Operating Test Summary

Administered by Date Administered

Walk-Through (Overall)

Administrative Topics

Simulator Operating Test

Examiner Recommendations

Check Blocks Pass Fail Excuse

/Waive

Signature Date

Written Examination

Operating Test

Final Recommendation

License Recommendation

Issue License Supervisor’s Signature Date

Deny License

PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION — FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
ES-303, Page 11 of 19

ES-303 2 Form ES-303-1

PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION — FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Applicant Docket Number: 55- Page of

Walk-Through Grading Details Evaluation

(S or U)

Comment Page

Number

Administrative Topics

a. 

b. 

c. 

d. 

e. 

Systems — Control Room

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

g.

h.

Systems — In-Plant

i.

j.

k.

PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION — FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
ES-303, Page 12 of 19

ES-303 3.a Form ES-303-1

PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION — FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Applicant Docket Number: 55- Page of

Reactor Operator Simulator Operating Test Grading Details

Competencies/

Rating Factors (RFs)

RF

Weights

RF

Scores

RF

Grades

Comp.

Grades

Comment 

Page No.

1. Interpretation/Diagnosis

a. Recognize and Verify 

Status

b. Interpret and Diagnose 

Conditions

c. Prioritize Response

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

2. Procedures/Tech Specs

a. Reference

b. Procedure Compliance

c. Tech Spec Entry

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

3. Operate Plant Component 

Controls

a. Locate and Manipulate

b. Understanding

c. Manual Control

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____ _____

_____

_____

_____

4. Communications

a. Provide Information

b. Receive Information

c. Carry Out Instructions

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

[Note: Enter RF weights (nominal, adjusted, or “0” if not observed (N/O)), RF scores (1, 2, 3, or 

N/O), and RF grades from Form ES-303-3 and sum to obtain Competency Grades.]

PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION — FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
ES-303, Page 13 of 19

ES-303 3.b Form ES-303-1

PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION — FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Applicant Docket Number: 55- Page of

Senior Reactor Operator Simulator Operating Test Grading Details

Competencies/

Rating Factors (RFs)

RF

Weights

RF

Scores

RF

Grades

Comp.

Grades

Comment 

Page No.

1. Interpretation/Diagnosis

a. Recognize and Attend

b. Ensure Accuracy

c. Understanding

d. Diagnose

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

____

_____

_____

_____

_____

2. Procedures

a. Reference

b. EOP Entry

c. Correct Use

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

____

_____

_____

_____

3. Operate Plant Component 

Controls

a. Locate and Manipulate

b. Understanding

c. Manual Control

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____ ____

_____

_____

_____

4. Communications

a. Clarity

b. Crew and Others Informed

c. Receive Information

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

____

_____

_____

_____

5. Directing Operations

a. Timely and Decisive Action

b. Oversight

c. Solicit Crew Feedback

d. Monitor Crew Activities

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

____

_____

_____

_____

_____

6. Technical Specifications

a. Recognize 

b. Locate 

c. Compliance

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____

____

_____

_____

_____

[Note: Enter RF weights (nominal, adjusted, or “0” if not observed (N/O)), RF scores (0, 1, 2, 3, or 

N/O), and RF grades from Form ES-303-4 and sum to obtain Competency Grades.]

PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION — FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
ES-303, Page 14 of 19

ES-303 Operating Test Comments Form ES-303-2

PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION — FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Applicant Docket Number: 55- Page of

Form ES-303-1

Cross-Reference

Comments

PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION — FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
ES-303, Page 15 of 19

ES-303 RO Competency Grading Worksheet Form ES-303-3

for the Simulator Operating Test

1. Interpret/Diagnose Events and Conditions Based on Alarms, Signals, and Readings

Rating Factors Weighting Factors RF Scores RF Grades Comp.

Grade

(a) Did the applicant RECOGNIZE and 

VERIFY off-normal trends and status? 

N/O = 0 3

_______

Nominal = 0.33 2

(b) N/O = 0.50 1

(c)N/O = 0.50 0

(b) Did the applicant correctly 

INTERPRET/DIAGNOSE plant

conditions based on control room 

indications?

N/O = 0 3

Nominal = 0.34 2

(a) N/O = 0.50 1

(c)N/O = 0.50 0

(c) Did the applicant ATTEND TO 

annunciators, alarm signals, and 

instrument readings in order of 

importance and severity?

N/O = 0 3

Nominal = 0.33 2

(a)) N/O = 0.50 1

(b)N/O = 0.50 0

2. Comply with and Use Procedures, References, and Technical Specifications

Rating Factors Weighting Factors RF Scores RF Grades Comp.

Grade

(a) Did the applicant REFER TO and/or 

VERIFY the appropriate procedure or 

reference in a timely manner?

N/O = 0 3

_______

Nominal = 0.33 2

(c) N/O = 0.50 1

(b) N/O = 0.50 0

(b) Did the applicant COMPLY WITH 

procedures (including precautions and 

limitations) and references in an accurate 

and timely manner?

N/O = 0 3

Nominal = 0.34 2

(a) N/O = 0.50 1

(c) N/O = 0.50 0

(c) Did the applicant RECOGNIZE plant 

conditions that are addressed in technical 

specifications?

N/O = 0 3

Nominal = 0.33 2

(a) N/O = 0.50 1

(b) N/O = 0.50 0
ES-303, Page 16 of 19

ES-303 2 Form ES-303-3

3. Operate Plant Component Controls

Rating Factors Weighting Factors RF Scores RF Grades Comp.

Grade

(a) Did the applicant LOCATE AND 

MANIPULATE controls in an accurate 

and timely manner?

N/O = 0 3

_______

Nominal = 0.34 2

(b) N/O = 0.50 1

(c) N/O = 0.50 0

(b) Did the applicant’s actions demonstrate 

UNDERSTANDING OF SYSTEM 

OPERATION, including set points, 

interlocks, and automatic actions?

N/O = 0 3

Nominal = 0.33 2

(a) N/O = 0.50 1

(c) N/O = 0.50 0

(c) Did the applicant demonstrate the 

ability to take MANUAL CONTROL of

automatic functions?

N/O = 0 3

Nominal = 0.33 2

(a) N/O = 0.50 1

(b) N/O = 0.50 0

4. Communicate and Interact with Other Crew Members

Rating Factors Weighting Factors RF Scores RF Grades Comp.

Grade

(a) Did the applicant PROVIDE clear and 

accurate INFORMATION on system 

status to others for the performance of

their jobs?

N/O = 0 3

_______

Nominal = 0.34 2

(b) or (c) N/O = 0.50 1

(b) Did the applicant effectively RECEIVE 

INFORMATION from others (including 

requesting, acknowledging, and 

attending to information)?

N/O = 0 3

Nominal = 0.33 2

(a) or (c) N/O = 0.50 1

(c) Did the applicant successfully CARRY

OUT THE INSTRUCTIONS of the 

supervisor?

N/O = 0 3

Nominal = 0.33 2

(a) or (b) N/O = 0.50 1
ES-303, Page 17 of 19

ES-303 SRO Competency Grading Worksheet Form ES-303-4

for the Simulator Operating Test

1. Interpret/Diagnose Events and Conditions Based on Alarms, Signals, and Readings

Rating Factors Weighting Factors RF Scores RF Grades Comp.

Grade

(a) Did the applicant RECOGNIZE AND

ATTEND TO off-normal trends and

status in order of their importance

and severity?

N/O = 0 3

_______

Nominal = 0.20 2

(b) N/O = 0.25 1

(c) or (d) N/O = 0.29 0

(b) Did the applicant ensure the

collection of CORRECT,

ACCURATE, and COMPLETE

information and reference material

on which to base diagnoses?

N/O = 0 3

Nominal = 0.20 2

(a) N/O = 0.25 1

(c) or (d) N/O = 0.28 0

(c) Did the applicant’s directives and

actions demonstrate an

UNDERSTANDING of how the

PLANT, SYSTEMS, and

COMPONENTS OPERATE AND

INTERACT (including set points,

interlocks, and automatic actions)?

N/O = 0 3

Nominal = 0.30 2

(a) or (b) N/O = 0.38 1

(d) N/O = 0.43 0

(d) Did the applicant correctly

INTERPRET/DIAGNOSE plant

conditions based on control room

indications?

N/O = 0 3

Nominal = 0.30 2

(a) or (b) N/O = 0.37 1

(c) N/O = 0.43 0

2. Comply with and Use Procedures and References

Rating Factors Weighting Factors RF Scores RF Grades Comp.

Grade

(a) Did the applicant REFER TO and/or 

VERIFY correct procedures, 

procedural steps, and references 

when appropriate?

N/O = 0 3

______

Nominal = 0.33 2

(b) N/O = 0.50 1

(c) N/O = 0.50 0

(b) Did the applicant RECOGNIZE 

AOP/EOP ENTRY CONDITIONS?

N/O = 0 3

Nominal = 0.33 2

(a) N/O = 0.50 1

(c) N/O = 0.50 0

(c) Did the applicant USE 

PROCEDURES CORRECTLY,

including following procedural steps

in correct sequence, abiding by

procedural cautions and limitations,

selecting correct paths on decision

blocks, and correctly transitioning

between procedures?

N/O = 0 3

Nominal = 0.34 2

(a) N/O = 0.50 1

(b) N/O = 0.50 0
ES-303, Page 18 of 19

ES-303 2 Form ES-303-4

3. Operate Plant Component Controls

[NOTE: This competency is optional for SRO-upgrade applicants; refer to Section D.2.b.]

Rating Factors Weighting Factors RF Scores RF Grades Comp.

Grade

(a) Did the applicant LOCATE AND 

MANIPULATE CONTROLS in an accurate 

and timely manner?

N/O = 0 3

______

Nominal = 0.34 2

(b) N/O = 0.50 1

(c) N/O = 0.50 0

(b) Did the applicant’s control manipulations 

demonstrate an UNDERSTANDING OF 

SYSTEM OPERATION, including set points, 

interlocks, and automatic actions?

N/O = 0 3

Nominal = 0.33 2

(a) N/O = 0.50 1

(c) N/O = 0.50 0

(c) Did the applicant demonstrate the ability to

take MANUAL CONTROL of automatic 

functions?

N/O = 0 3

Nominal = 0.33 2

(a) N/O = 0.50 1

(b) N/O = 0.50 0

4. Communicate and Interact with the Crew and Other Personnel

Rating Factors Weighting Factors RF Scores RF Grades Comp.

Grade

(a) Did the applicant communicate in a clear, 

easily understood manner?

N/O = 0 3

_______

Nominal = 0.40 2

(c) N/O = 0.50

1

(b) N/O = 0.67

(b) Did the applicant keep crew members and

those outside the control room informed of 

plant status? 

N/O = 0 3

Nominal = 0.40 2

(c) N/O = 0.50

1

(a) N/O = 0.67

(c) Did the applicant ENSURE RECEIPT of clear, 

easily-understood communications from crew 

and others?

N/O = 0 3

Nominal = 0.20 2

(a) or (b) N/O = 0.33 1
ES-303, Page 19 of 19

ES-303 3 Form ES-303-4

5. Direct Shift Operations

Rating Factors Weighting Factors RF Scores RF Grades Comp.

Grade

(a) Did the applicant take TIMELY AND DECISIVE 

ACTION that demonstrated appropriate 

CONCERN for the SAFETY

of the plant, staff, and public?

N/O = 0 3

_______

Nominal = 0.30 2

(c) or (d) N/O = 0.38 1

(b) N/O = 0.43 0

(b) Did the applicant remain ATTENTIVE to control 

room indications, stay in a position of 

OVERSIGHT, and provide an APPROPRIATE 

AMOUNT of DIRECTION and GUIDANCE that 

facilitated CREW PERFORMANCE?

N/O = 0 3

Nominal = 0.30 2

(c) or (d) N/O = 0.37 1

(a) N/O = 0.43 0

(c) Did the applicant SOLICIT and 

INCORPORATE FEEDBACK from the crew

to foster an effective, team-oriented approach to

problem solving and decision-making?

N/O = 0 3

Nominal = 0.20 2

(d) N/O = 0.25 1

(a) or (b) N/O = 0.29 0

(d) Did the applicant ensure that CORRECT

AND TIMELY ACTIVITIES (including 

diagnosis, procedural implementation, and

operate the control boards) were carried out BY 

THE CREW?

N/O = 0 3

Nominal = 0.20 2

(c) N/O = 0.25 1

(a) or (b) N/O = 0.28 0

6. Comply with and Use Technical Specifications (TS)

Rating Factors Weighting Factors RF Scores RF Grades Comp.

Grade

(a)* Did the applicant RECOGNIZE when 

instruments/components were inoperable and 

when conditions were covered by the TS? 

*If TS are not addressed at all by the applicant, 

this weighting factor becomes 1.0.

N/O = 0 3

_______

Nominal = 0.30 2

(b) N/O = 0.43 1

(c) N/O = 0.50 0

(b) Did the applicant demonstrate an ability to 

LOCATE the appropriate TS for the equipment 

they determined was inoperable and/or 

covered by TS?

N/O = 0 3

Nominal = 0.30 2

(a) N/O =0.43 1

(c) N/O = 0.50 0

(c) Did the applicant correctly INTERPRET and 

ensure COMPLIANCE with TS and LCO action 

statements?

N/O = 0 3

Nominal = 0.40 2

(a) N/O = 0.57 1

(b) N/) = 0.57 0

ES-401, Page 1 of 50

ES-401

PREPARING INITIAL SITE-SPECIFIC WRITTEN EXAMINATIONS

A. Purpose

This standard specifies the requirements, procedures, and guidelines for preparing site-specific 

written examinations for the initial licensing of reactor operator (RO) and senior reactor operator 

(SRO) applicants at power reactor facilities licensed under Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities.”

B. Background

The content of the written licensing examinations for ROs and SROs is dictated by Title 10, 

Sections 55.41 and 55.43, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 55.41, “Written 

Examination: Operators” and 55.43, “Written Examination: Senior Operators”), respectively. 

Each examination shall contain a representative selection of questions concerning the

knowledge, skills, and abilities (K/As) needed to perform duties at the desired license level. Both 

the RO and SRO examinations will sample the 14 items specified in 10 CFR 55.41(b), and the

SRO examination will sample the 7 additional items specified in 10 CFR 55.43(b). Given that

SRO-U (upgrade) applicants previously passed an RO licensing examination covering the topics 

specified in 10 CFR 55.41(b), they may apply for a waiver of the RO portion of the SRO written 

examination pursuant to 10 CFR 55.47. (Refer to ES-204, “Processing Excusals and 

Waivers Requested by Reactor Operator and Senior Reactor Operator Applicants.”)

The written operator licensing examination is administered in two sections, including a generic 

fundamentals examination (GFE) and a site-specific examination. The GFE covers those K/As 

that do not vary significantly among reactors of the same type (i.e., pressurized- or boiling-water) 

and is generally administered early in the license training process. (For a description of the 

program, refer to ES-205, “Procedure for Administering the Generic Fundamentals Examination 

Program.”) The instructions in this standard apply only to the site-specific examination.

Except as noted in Section D.1.b of this examination standard (ES), the “Knowledge and Abilities 

Catalog[s] for Nuclear Power Plant Operators: Pressurized- [and Boiling-] Water Reactors”

(NUREG-1122 and 1123, respectively, available in the Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS) as Accession Nos. ML072970334 and ML 13086A109) provide 

the basis for developing content-valid licensing examinations. Each K/A stem statement has 

been linked to an applicable item number in 10 CFR 55.41 and/or 55.43. Preparing the license 

examination using the appropriate K/A catalog, in conjunction with the instructions in this

NUREG-series report, will ensure that the examination includes a representative sample of the

items specified in the regulations.

C. Responsibilities

1. Facility Licensee

The facility licensee will perform the following activities, as applicable, depending upon the

examination arrangements confirmed with the NRC’s regional office in accordance with

ES-201, “Initial Operator Licensing Examination Process”, Form ES-201-1, Examination 

Preparation Checklist, before the scheduled examination date:
ES-401, Page 2 of 50

a. Review the proposed written examination outline provided by the NRC regional 

office in accordance with Section D.1, and submit the revised outline to the NRC’s

regional office for review and approval in accordance with ES-201.

b. Submit the reference materials necessary for the NRC’s regional office to prepare 

and/or validate the requested examination(s) (refer to ES-201, Attachment 3).

c. Prepare the proposed examination(s) in accordance with Sections D.2 through 

D.4, review the examination(s) in accordance with Section E, and submit the

examination(s) to the NRC’s regional office in accordance with ES-201.

d. Review the proposed examination outline(s) and written examinations with the 

chief examiner (and others as necessary) via telephone. If requested and 

coordinated, meet with the NRC examination team in the regional office or at the

facility to review the proposed examination(s) comments (refer to ES-201).

e. Revise the proposed examination outline and examination(s) as agreed upon with

the NRC’s regional office; however, the NRC retains final authority to approve the

examination.

f. Facility licensees that prepare the examination shall ensure that appropriate 

controls are implemented to keep the comprehensive audit or screening 

examination that is given at or near the end of the license training class (as well as

any practice exams and quizzes that are developed after beginning work on the

licensing examination) from compromising the integrity of the licensing 

examination. Some examples of acceptable control measures (other methods 

might also be acceptable, but will have to be reviewed and approved on a 

case-by-case basis):

• The facility licensee could prepare the audit examination using a systematic 

and random sampling process that is similar to that used to prepare the NRC’s

licensing examination as discussed in Section D.

• The facility licensee could prepare and finalize the audit examination (and any 

practice exams and quizzes) before receiving the licensing written examination 

outline from the NRC.

• The facility licensee could develop the audit (as well as any practice exams 

and quizzes) and the licensing examinations using independent examination 

teams.

• The facility licensee could certify as part of the examination submittal that there 

is no question duplication between the facility licensee’s audit and the NRC’s

licensing examinations.

2. NRC Regional Office

The NRC’s regional office will perform the following activities:

a. Ensure that the outline and examinations are prepared in accordance with Section

D.

b. Ensure that the examinations are reviewed for quality as described in Section E.

c. Meet with the facility licensee, when and as appropriate, to pre-review the

examination(s) in accordance with ES-201.
ES-401, Page 3 of 50

D. Examination Preparation

1. Develop the Outline

Develop the written examination outline in accordance with the following general 

instructions:

a. Select the appropriate examination outline model for the licensing examination 

being developed:

• For RO applicants, use only the left side of Form ES-401-1 (BWR) or ES-401-2 

(PWR), depending on the facility design.

• For SRO-I (instant) applicants, use both the RO and SRO portions of Form

ES-401-1 (BWR) or ES-401-2 (PWR), depending on the facility design.

• For SRO-U applicants, use both sides of Form ES-401-1 (BWR) or ES-401-2 

(PWR) unless the RO portion is waived in accordance with ES-204.

b. Systematically and randomly select specific K/A statements (e.g., K1.03 or A2.11) 

from NUREG-1122 (for PWRs) or NUREG-1123 (for BWRs) to complete each of the

three tiers (i.e., Tier 1, Emergency and Abnormal Plant Evolutions; Tier 2, Plant 

Systems; and Tier 3, Generic Knowledge and Abilities) of the applicable examination 

outline. To maintain examination consistency, the facility licensee’s site-specific K/A 

list shall not be used in place of the NRC’s K/A catalog. Attachment 1 provides an

example of an acceptable methodology for randomly selecting K/As within the

defined structure of the examination outline to achieve as broad a sample as

possible. Other methodologies may be used, provided that they meet the following 

criteria:

• Are reproducible and comprehensible and yield an examination outline that is free 

of bias;

• Adheres to the applicable examination model;

• Minimizes the number of K/As related to any particular system or evolution (i.e.,

every system or evolution in the group should be sampled once before selecting a

second K/A for any system or evolution; and

• Sample at the specific K/A statement level

Because the NRC’s K/A catalogs are based on generic job and task analyses and

not all facilities are the same, inapplicable or inappropriate K/A statements can be 

eliminated by (1) discarding randomly selected K/As during the outline 

development process or (2) pre-screening the entire K/A catalog to eliminate 

inappropriate K/As before beginning the random selection process. Refer to the 

remainder of this section for specific requirements and guidance regarding K/A

elimination.
ES-401, Page 4 of 50

The topics for the generic K/A category in Tiers 1 and 2 (i.e., Column “G” on Forms 

ES-401-1 and ES-401-2) shall be selected from Section 2, “Generic Knowledge 

and Abilities,” of the applicable K/A catalog.) However, only those topics that are 

relevant to the selected evolution or system shall be included; therefore, generic

K/As for Tiers 1 and 2 for both RO and SRO examinations should be randomly 

selected from the following set:

2.1.7, 2.1.19, 2.1.20, 2.1.23, 2.1.25, 2.1.27, 2.1.28, 2.1.30, 2.1.31, 2.1.32, 2.2.3, 

2.2.4, 2.2.12, 2.2.22, 2.2.25, 2.2.36, 2.2.37, 2.2.38, 2.2.39, 2.2.40, 2.2.42, 2.2.44, 

2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.3, 2.4.4, 2.4.6, 2.4.8, 2.4.9, 2.4.11, 2.4.18, 2.4.20, 2.4.21, 2.4.30, 

2.4.31, 2.4.34, 2.4.35, 2.4.41, 2.4.45, 2.4.46, 2.4.47, 2.4.49, and 2.4.50.

All other generic K/As for Tiers 1 and 2 may be eliminated before or after the 

random selection process, and examinations for single-unit licenses may also 

eliminate K/As 2.2.3 and 2.2.4.

Examination authors and reviewers should ask themselves the following questions 

to help determine whether or not any K/A statement is appropriate for testing:

• Is the subject K/A relevant (i.e., is the system, component, process, procedure,

or event installed, in use, or possible) at the subject facility?

• Is the importance rating of the K/A equal to or greater than 2.5 for the license 

level of the proposed examination, or is there a site-specific priority that 

justifies keeping the K/A if its importance rating is below 2.5?

• Is it possible to prepare a psychometrically sound question related to the 

subject K/A?

• Is it possible to prepare a question at the correct license level related to the 

subject K/A? A question at the RO level should test one (or more) of the 14 

items listed under 10 CFR 55.41(b) that the K/A is linked to, or test at a RO 

level as determined from the facility’s learning objectives. A question at the 

SRO-only level should test one (or more) of the seven items listed under 10 

CFR 55.43(b) that the K/A is linked to, or test at a level that is unique to the 

SRO job position as determined from the facility’s learning objectives. The 

fact that a particular K/A does not reference 55.41 or 55.43, does not, in and of 

itself, disqualify the K/A from testing on the RO or SRO written examination. 

• Is the subject K/A more appropriately tested on the written examination rather 

than the operating test? A K/A only associated with an “ability” is not a 

sufficient reason to reject the K/A in and of itself. The justification should 

include one or more reasons why the operating test is a better evaluation tool.

If these questions can all be answered in the affirmative, the subject K/A is 

probably appropriate for testing. The fact that a K/A does not have a 

corresponding facility learning objective, was not covered in training, or is subject 

to selection in multiple tiers, are not sufficient bases for eliminating the K/A from 

any tier of the outline.
ES-401, Page 5 of 50

Facility licensees that elect to prescreen and eliminate any K/A statements from 

the random selection process should make arrangements for their NRC regional 

office to review their screening process and results before the NRC develops the 

examination outline or they submit the revised examination outline. Any 

subsequent changes to the list of K/As from which the examination outline is 

generated would also have to be documented, justified, and reviewed by the NRC. 

All K/A statements that are eliminated after they have been randomly selected to 

fill an examination outline shall be documented on Form ES-401-4, “Record of 

Rejected K/As,” or equivalent, and replacement K/As shall be requested from the 

NRC chief examiner as needed. Form ES-401N-4 shall be submitted to the NRC 

regional office for review in conjunction with the revised outline.

Enter the K/A statement numbers, a brief description of each topic, the topics’

importance ratings for the license level of the exam (use the RO and SRO ratings 

for the RO and SRO-only portions, respectively), and the point totals (system, 

category, group, and tier) on the examination outline. The proposed point totals 

for each group and tier must match the number specified on Forms ES-401-1 and

ES-401-2, as applicable.

c. Special attention is required to ensure that the SRO examination tests at the

appropriate license level. The SRO outline (refer to the right-hand portion of

Forms ES-401-1 or -2, as applicable) shall include 25 K/A statements that relate to

the topics in 10 CFR 55.43(b).

A number of the generic K/As in Section 2 of the catalogs are specifically linked to

one or more topics specified in 10 CFR 55.43(b), and all of the Category A2, AA2, 

and EA2 K/A statements are (or, in the case of NUREG-1123, should be) similarly 

linked. Consequently, the K/As for the SRO examination will be drawn from those 

K/A categories (denoted by Columns “A2” and “G” in the SRO-only section of the

applicable examination outline) and from all K/A categories related to the fuel 

handling facilities, which are specifically identified for sampling in 10 CFR

55.43(b)(7). The fact that a K/A is linked to both 10 CFR 55.41 and 10 CFR 55.43 

does not mean that the K/A cannot be used to develop an SRO-only question, nor 

does it exclude the K/A from sampling on the RO examination. However, to be 

used on the SRO-only section of an examination, a question developed from a K/A 

linked to both 10 CFR 55.41 and 10 CFR 55.43 should test at the level of the 10 

CFR 55.43(b) item number(s) that the K/A is linked to, or test at a level that is 

unique to the SRO job position as determined from the facility’s learning 

objectives. K/A topics linked to 10 CFR 55.41(b) might also be appropriate for 

developing SRO-level questions, if the questions developed evaluate knowledge 

and abilities at a 10 CFR 55.43(b) level, or at a level that is unique to the SRO job 

position as determined from the facility’s learning objectives. Attachment 2, 

“Clarification guidance for SRO-only Questions,” provides additional guidance that 

may be used when developing SRO-only questions. Use of this guidance is not a 

requirement.

d. After completing the outline, check the selected K/As for balance of coverage 

within and across the three tiers. Ensure that every applicable K/A category is

sampled at least twice within each of the three tiers so that a valid sample will likely 

be maintained in the event that some questions are deleted as a result of

post-examination comments (except as allowed by Note 1 on Forms ES-401-1 and 
ES-401, Page 6 of 50

ES 401-2). Similarly, ensure that no emergency/abnormal plant evolution 

(E/APE), system, or K/A category is oversampled (i.e., avoid selecting more than 

two K/A topics from a given system unless they relate to plant-specific priorities). 

Make any adjustments that might be necessary by systematically and randomly 

selecting replacement K/A statements. When performing these checks, the SRO 

exam which consists of 75 RO questions and 25 SRO questions, may be

considered as a 100-question test overall and adjustments can be made to ensure 

balance of coverage and appropriate sampling. Also check the overall balance of

the entire licensing examination, including the walk-through and the dynamic 

simulator test, and make any necessary adjustments. Document and justify all 

changes on Form ES-401-4 and submit the documentation with the

completed/revised outline.

e. The NRC-developed outline will be sent to the facility for review in accordance with 

ES-201. Facility revisions and previously approved outlines shall be 

independently reviewed by a facility supervisor or manager before being submitted 

to the NRC’s regional office in accordance with ES-201. The NRC must receive 

the revised outline along with Form ES-401-4 by the date agreed upon when the

examination arrangements were confirmed (normally approximately 90 days 

before the scheduled examination date).

f. The NRC’s chief examiner will ensure that the revised outline is independently 

reviewed within 5 working days (or as otherwise agreed with the facility licensee) 

and provide comments and recommended changes, as appropriate. The NRC’s

chief examiner shall review all K/A rejections and changes to ensure they are

unbiased. The examiner shall also review and approve the site-specific item or

topic substitutions. Refer to Section C.3 of ES-201 for additional guidance 

regarding outline reviews.

2. Select and Develop Questions

a. Prepare the site-specific written operator licensing examination using a

combination of existing, modified, and new questions that match the specific K/A 

statements in the previously approved examination outline (refer to Section D.1 

and ES-201) and the criteria summarized below. Ensure that the questions 

selected for Tier 3 maintain their focus on plant-wide generic knowledge and

abilities and do not become an extension of Tier 2, “Plant Systems.”

When selecting or writing questions for K/As that test coupled knowledge or

abilities (e.g., the A.2 K/A statements in Tiers 1 and 2 and a number of generic K/A 

statements, such as 2.4.1, in Tier 3), try to test both aspects of the K/A statement. 

If that is not possible without expending an inordinate amount of resources, limit 

the scope of the question to that aspect of the K/A statement requiring the highest 

cognitive level (e.g., the (b) portion of the A.2 K/A statements) or substitute another 

randomly selected K/A. 

Any time it becomes necessary to deviate from the previously approved 

examination outline, discuss the proposed deviations with the NRC’s chief 

examiner and obtain concurrence. Also explain on Form ES-401-4 why the

original proposal could not be implemented and why the proposed replacement is 

considered an acceptable substitute.
ES-401, Page 7 of 50

b. Ensure that each question is technically accurate and free of the following 

psychometric flaws and job content errors that could diminish the validity of the

examination:

• implausible distractors

• confusing or ambiguous language

• confusing or inappropriate negatives 

• collection of true/false statements 

• backward logic 

• specific determiners 

Appendix B provides a detailed discussion and examples of questions containing

each of these and other errors. Appendices A and B contain more detailed 

instructions and guidelines for preparing and formatting content-valid 

examinations and should be referred to as necessary while preparing the

examination.

A question that has been previously used on an NRC examination at the facility 

since October 1, 1995 (i.e., a validated question), may be acceptable in its own 

right, however, it may have to be edited or replaced if it conflicts with another 

question on the examination or if necessary to meet the criteria on the written 

examination quality checklist (Form ES-401-6). Technical and psychometric

flaws that cause the question to have no or multiple correct answers would have to 

be corrected regardless of when they are identified.

c. Ensure that the questions will differentiate between competent and less-thancompetent applicants, that they are appropriate for the job level being examined, and

that they are operationally oriented when possible. Refer to Appendix A (Section C.2) 

and Appendix B (Section C.1.a and Section B of Attachment 2) for additional 

discussion of and examples to illustrate the concept of operational validity.

Establish a level of difficulty that discriminates between applicants who have and

have not mastered the required knowledge, skills, and abilities. See Appendices 

A (Section C.3) and B (Section C.1.e and Section C of Attachment 2) for further 

guidance on setting the level of difficulty for individual test questions. The

applicants should be able to complete and review the RO examination within 4

hours, and the SRO-only examination within 2 hours. (Refer to ES-402, 

“Administering Initial Written Examinations,” for actual administration time limits.)

In order to maintain examination quality and consistency, between 50 and 60 

percent of the questions on the RO examination and at least 50 percent of the

questions on the SRO-only portion of the examination shall be written at the 

comprehension/analysis level. The SRO examination, overall, could exceed 60 

percent because the K/A categories emphasized on the SRO-only examination 

are generally consistent with the higher cognitive levels. The cognitive level of

any question drawn directly from a bank will be counted at its face value. Refer to

Appendix B (Section C.1.d and Section A of Attachment 2) for further guidance 

regarding the levels of knowledge and sample questions written at each level. 

d. The 25 SRO-level questions shall evaluate the additional knowledge and abilities 

required for the higher license level in accordance with 10 CFR 55.43(b) or the

facility licensee’s learning objectives. Questions related to 10 CFR 55.41(b) 
ES-401, Page 8 of 50

topics may also be appropriate SRO-level questions if they evaluate knowledge 

and abilities at a level that is unique to the SRO job position. The fact that a 

particular K/A does not reference 55.43, does not, in and of itself, disqualify the K/A 

from testing on the SRO written examination. The SRO-only questions shall be 

consistent with the cognitive level of the approved K/A statement.

e. All test questions shall be in the multiple choice format described in Appendix B. 

Each question shall have four possible answer choices and be worth one point.

f. To avoid compromising the integrity and security of the examination and to 

enhance consistency, observe the following limits on bank use when preparing the

examination:

• Take no more than 75 percent of the questions for the examination (i.e., 56 

questions for the RO and 19 questions for the SRO-only) directly from the

facility licensee’s or any other written examination question bank without 

significant modification.

• If the bank contains more than one question that fits a specific K/A statement, 

randomly select from among the available questions unless there is an

appropriate basis for selecting a specific question (e.g., a particular question has 

a higher cognitive level, has better discrimination validity, is more operationally 

oriented, or addresses site-specific priorities).

• Write at least 10 new questions (i.e., 8 for the RO examination and 2 for the

SRO-only) at the comprehension/analysis level, as described in Appendix B.

Generally, if a question is created without reference to a bank question and 

has not been previously exposed at the facility, then it can be considered a 

“new” question.

• Select the remaining questions for the examination (nominally 11 for the RO and 4 

for the SRO-only) from the facility licensee’s or any other bank, but significantly 

modify each question by changing at least one pertinent condition in the stem and

at least one distractor. Changing the conditions in the stem such that one of the

three distractors in the original question becomes the correct answer would also 

be considered a significant modification. The intent or objective of the question 

does not necessarily have to be changed. Adding or deleting irrelevant 

information and making minor changes (e.g., the unit number, component train, or

power level when it makes no difference) would not be considered a significant 

modification to the question.

g. A technical reference, including the reference’s revision or version number (if 

applicable) and a cross-reference to the facility licensee’s examination question 

bank, if applicable, shall be noted for every question. If the facility licensee has a

learning objective applicable to the question, it should also be referenced. 

However, the absence of a learning objective does not invalidate the question, 

provided that it has an appropriate K/A and technical reference. Refer to ES-201 

for additional instructions for documenting the source of questions on

facility-written examinations.

To facilitate the review process, examination authors should consider providing a

brief explanation of why the answer is correct, and each of the distractors is
ES-401, Page 9 of 50

plausible but incorrect. This optional practice increases the efficiency of the

examination review process and promotes the detection and correction of problem 

questions before the examinations are administered.

Reference materials (such as diagrams, sketches, and portions of facility procedures) 

may be used on a selective basis as attachments to the written examination. Ensure 

that any reference material used in the examination is easy to read and clearly

marked, provides an effective and objective way for the applicant to demonstrate 

knowledge of the topic or concept, and does not give away the answers to other 

questions on the examination or improve the applicant’s chances of guessing the

correct answer by eliminating incorrect distractors. In accordance, with ES-402, the 

SRO and RO examinations must be given at the same time. Therefore, an RO 

reference shall not give away an answer to a SRO question and vice versa.

Form ES-401-5 is a sample worksheet for use in preparing the questions for the 

written examination. Facility licensees may use that or a similar form to document 

the information related to each proposed question that is submitted to the NRC for

review and approval.

3. Review and Submit the Examination

a. Review the entire examination to ensure that it satisfies the criteria on Form

ES-401-6, “Written Examination Quality Checklist.”

b. Forward the examination package, including all proposed attachments and the

completed quality checklist, to the first reviewer. Section E provides instructions 

for conducting the quality reviews.

Facility-developed examinations must be reviewed by a supervisor or manager 

before they are sent to the NRC’s regional office in accordance with ES-201. 

Facility authors shall submit their examinations for management review in time to

support their delivery to the NRC’s regional office approximately 60 days before 

the scheduled examination date.

NRC examiners shall submit their examinations to the chief examiner for review at

least one week before the scheduled pre-review by the facility licensee. (Refer to

ES-201.)

4. Assemble the Examinations

a. Format the examinations using a one-question-per-page layout by placing one

complete question on each page.

b. Use a cover sheet in the format shown in Form ES-401-7 (or 8), “Site-Specific RO 

(or SRO) Written Examination Cover Sheet,” as applicable, for all RO and SRO 

written examinations. Fill out all items in the upper section of the cover sheet, 

except the name of the applicant, when preparing the examinations.
ES-401, Page 10 of 50

E. Quality Reviews

When reviewing questions, reviewers should try to put themselves in the position of the applicants 

by attempting to answer the questions without using reference material or referring to the answer 

key. Reviewers should ensure that the conditions and requirements posed in the question are

complete and unambiguous, all necessary information is provided, all unnecessary information is

deleted, the intended answer clearly follows from what is asked in the question, and all of the

distractors are plausible.

1. Facility Management Review

If the examination was prepared by the facility licensee, it shall be independently reviewed by 

a supervisor or manager before it is submitted to the NRC’s regional office for review and

approval in accordance with ES-201. The reviewer should evaluate the examination using 

the criteria on Form ES-401-6 and include the signed form in the examination package 

submitted to the NRC. Facility licensees are responsible for ensuring that contractor

prepared examinations meet the guidelines specified here and are encouraged to verify the

origins of the questions used to construct the examination.

2. NRC Examiner Review

a. The NRC’s regional office staff shall review the examination as soon as possible 

after receipt so that supervisory approval can be obtained before the final review 

with the facility licensee, which is normally scheduled about 3 weeks before the

examination date. It is especially important for the regional office to promptly 

review examinations prepared by a facility licensee because of the extra time that

might be required if extensive changes are necessary. The chief examiner shall 

consolidate the comments from all NRC reviewers and submit one set of

comments to the author or facility contact. Refer to Section C.3 of ES-201 for

additional guidance regarding examination reviews.

b. If the NRC prepared the examination, the NRC’s chief examiner (or designated 

NRC reviewer) shall independently review every examination question using Form 

ES-401-9, “Written Examination Review Worksheet,” and review the overall written 

examination using Form ES-401-6, “Written Examination Quality Checklist.” The

facility reviewer blocks in Column “b” are not applicable for NRC-prepared

examinations.

c. If the facility licensee prepared the examination, the NRC’s chief examiner (or 

designated NRC reviewer) shall review every examination question using Form 

ES-401-9, and review the overall written examination using Form ES-401-6. 

Depending on the expected technical quality of the examination and the time 

available before the scheduled review with the facility licensee, the regional office 

staff shall independently review and verify the technical accuracy of a sample of 

the written examination questions.

At the discretion of the chief examiner / designated NRC reviewer and the 

responsible supervisor, the review of examination questions may begin by 

reviewing a sample of facility licensee submitted questions – 15 RO / SRO 

questions, and 10 SRO-only questions. If this sample review determines that > 6

RO / SRO questions or > 4 SRO-only questions are unsatisfactory per Form 

ES-401-9, then, with the approval of the responsible supervisor, the written 
ES-401, Page 11 of 50

examination may be returned to the facility licensee for re-work and correction 

without reviewing the remainder of the examination. The facility licensee will be 

expected to correct the identified unacceptable flaws and like-kind flaws that may 

exist in the remainder of the examination, and resubmit the entire written 

examination for NRC review. Alternatively, if an excess of unsatisfactory 

questions are identified during the sample review, the chief examiner / designated 

NRC reviewer, in consultation with the responsible supervisor, may continue the 

review of the entire written examination without returning the examination to the 

facility licensee, and submit all examination comments to the facility licensee at 

one time.

Regardless of whether a sample review is conducted, or the examination is 

returned to the licensee, every question that is proposed for use on the written 

examination shall be reviewed using Form ES-401-9.

d. There are no minimum or maximum limits on the number or scope of changes the

regional office may direct the author or facility contact to make to the proposed 

examinations, provided that they are necessary to make the examinations conform 

to established acceptance criteria. All unacceptable flaws identified by using 

Form ES-401-9 (including questions that do not match the intent of the approved 

K/A, have more than one implausible distractor, or are intended as SRO-only 

questions but are not at the SRO license level as discussed in Section D.2.d) shall 

be corrected by rewriting or replacing the questions before the examination is 

administered. Questions that do not match the intent of the approved K/A 

statement, but are otherwise good questions, shall nonetheless be replaced with

questions that match the K/A. Other flaws of a less serious nature (e.g., editorial 

clarifications or enhancements, single implausible distractors) should still be 

corrected before the examination is administered, but they will not be categorized 

as unacceptable for purposes of documentation in the examination report in 

accordance with Section E.3 of ES-501, “Initial Post-Examination Activities.” 

Form ES -401-9 may be provided electronically to the facility under exam security 

guidelines (i.e., password protected) at the discretion of the responsible supervisor 

or chief examiner.

e. Upon supervisory approval, generally at least 21 days before the examinations are 

scheduled to be given; the chief examiner will review the written examinations with

the facility licensee in accordance with ES-201.

When providing feedback to the facility licensee regarding unacceptable 

questions, the chief examiner shall, at a minimum, explain how the Appendix B 

psychometric quantitative and qualitative attributes are not being met. For

example, if the question is determined to have more than one implausible 

distractor, the attendant explanation shall articulate the reasons the examiner 

believes each of the faulty distractors is not credible.

Examinations that are written by the NRC shall be clean, properly formatted, and

“ready-to-administer” before they are reviewed with the facility licensee. The

region shall not rely on the facility licensee to ensure that the quality of the

examination is acceptable for administration.

f. After reviewing the examination with the facility licensee, the chief examiner will

ensure that any comments and recommendations are resolved and the

examination is revised as necessary. If the facility licensee developed the
ES-401, Page 12 of 50

examination, it will generally be expected to make whatever changes the NRC 

recommends.

g. After the necessary changes have been made and the chief examiner is satisfied 

with the examination, he or she will sign the quality checklist and forward the

examination package to the responsible supervisor for final approval. If the

examination was written by the facility licensee, the chief examiner should include 

a copy of the original submittal with the examination package.

3. NRC Supervisory Review

a. The responsible supervisor shall review all questions that are determined to have 

unacceptable flaws in accordance with Form ES-401-9 before any comments are

provided to the facility licensee. The responsible supervisor shall review the

entire examination before authorizing the chief examiner to proceed with the

facility pre-review in accordance with ES-201. The supervisory review is not 

intended to be another technical review, but rather a general assessment of

examination quality, including a review of the changes being recommended by the

chief examiner, and a check to ensure that all applicable administrative 

requirements have been implemented.

b. Based on the results of the sampling review conducted in accordance with Section

E.2.c (above), the responsible supervisor (in coordination with regional 

management and the NRR/NRO operator licensing program office, as

appropriate) will continue the examination review as follows:

• If fewer than 6 RO / SRO sampled questions and fewer than 4 SRO-only 

sampled questions contain unacceptable flaws as determined by using Form 

ES-401-9, the regional office shall review, in detail, the remainder of the 

examination using Form ES-401-9, and shall provide comments to the facility 

licensee for rework and correction.

• If 6 or more of the RO / SRO sampled questions or 4 or more of the SRO-only 

sampled questions contain unacceptable flaws as determined by using Form 

ES-401-9, the regional office may return the written examination (with 

explanatory comments) to the facility licensee for rework and correction 

without reviewing the remainder of the examination. Refer to Section C.2.h of 

ES-201 for additional guidance regarding examination delays.

Alternatively, if the responsible supervisor and the chief examiner / 

designated NRC reviewer conclude that the remainder of the examination can 

be reviewed and corrected in time for the scheduled examination date, the

regional office should continue the review using Form ES-401-9 and provide 

comments to the facility licensee for correction.

c. The responsible supervisor should ensure that any significant deficiencies in the

original examinations submitted by a facility licensee are evaluated in accordance 

with ES-201 to determine the appropriate course of action. At a minimum, the

supervisor should ensure that they are addressed in the final examination report in

accordance with ES-501.

d. Following the facility review, the responsible supervisor should again review the
ES-401, Page 13 of 50

examination to ensure that the concerns expressed by the facility licensee and the

NRC have been appropriately addressed. The supervisor shall not sign Form

ES-401-6 until he or she is satisfied that the examination is acceptable to be 

administered.

4. Facility Peer Review

As a final check of the examination’s technical accuracy, facility management 

should consider administering the examination (under security agreements) to one 

or more licensed personnel who were previously uninvolved in developing the

examination. In light of examination security concerns, the NRC discourages the

use of certain individuals (e.g., the applicants’ supervisors or coworkers) to

validate the examination. Any comments made and problems identified during

the trial administration shall be discussed with the NRC’s chief examiner and

resolved before the examination is administered to the license applicants. The

intent of the review is to identify and correct deficiencies that may affect the validity 

of the examination.

F. Attachments/Forms

Attachment 1 Example Systematic Sampling Methodology

Attachment 2 Clarification Guidance for SRO-only Questions

Form ES-401-1 BWR Examination Outline

Form ES-401-2 PWR Examination Outline

Form ES-401-3 Generic Knowledge and Abilities Outline (Tier 3)

Form ES-401-4 Record of Rejected K/As

Form ES-401-5 Sample Written Examination Question Worksheet

Form ES-401-6 Written Examination Quality Checklist

Form ES-401-7 Site-Specific RO Written Examination Cover Sheet

Form ES-401-8 Site-Specific SRO Written Examination Cover Sheet

Form ES-401-9 Written Examination Review Worksheet
ES-401, Page 14 of 50

ES-401 Example Systematic Sampling Methodology Attachment 1

The following process, which uses the BWR outline (Form ES-401-1) for illustration, may be used for

each group in Tiers 1 and 2 of the RO examination outline.

1. Review each group and delete those items (emergency/abnormal plant evolutions (E/APEs) for

Tier 1 and systems for Tier 2) that clearly do not apply to the facility for which the examination is 

being written; be prepared to explain the basis for the deletions to the NRC’s chief examiner. 

Add any operationally-important systems or E/APEs that pertain to the facility but are not 

included in the generic lists on Form ES-401-1. 

2. Sequentially number the remaining items in the group and sequentially annotate the same 

number of tokens. If we assume that 1 of the 21 E/APEs in Tier 1, Group 1 was deleted in

Step 1, there should be 20 tokens, numbered from 1 to 20.

a. Because the number of items remaining in the group (in this case 20) is the same as

the required number of points for the group specified in the right-hand column of the

examination outline, each item in the group would be sampled one time.

b. If the number of items remaining in the group is smaller than the required number of

points for the group (e.g., Tier 2, Group 1 has 23 items but requires 26 points), sample 

each item once, and determine the rest of the sample by randomly selecting and

removing tokens (in this case 3 of 23) until the required total number of points (26) is 

reached. Update Form ES-401-1 to note the selected items.

c. If the number of items remaining in the group is larger than the required number of

points for the group (e.g., Tier 1, Group 2 has 20 items but only requires 7 points), 

randomly select and remove the required number of tokens (7) and note them on Form

ES-401-1.

3. After selecting the topics to be sampled in each group as described in Step 2, count the

number of K/A categories in the group (e.g., 6 for each group in Tier 1 (i.e., K1, K2, K3, A1, A2, 

and G)) and sequentially annotate the same number of tokens (in this case 6). For each 

E/APE (and system) selected in Step 2, randomly select and remove a token and note the K/A 

category on Form ES-401-1. If the E/APE (or system) was sampled more than once in 

accordance with Step 2.a, randomly select a second K/A category. If the selected K/A 

category contain no K/A statements having an importance rating above 2.5, systematically 

select another K/A category, unless the lower importance is justified based on plant-specific 

priorities. Then replace all tokens in the container and repeat the process for every selected 

item in each group.

4. Use a similar method to randomly select from among the K/A statements under each selected 

K/A category. Describe each K/A topic in the space provided on Form ES-401-1 and enter 

the importance rating. K/As having importance ratings less than 2.5 can be used if justified 

based on plant priorities; the facility contact should be prepared to explain the basis to the

NRC’s chief examiner.

For Tier 3 (plant-wide generics) of the examination outline, randomly select K/As from Section 2 of the

NRC’s K/A catalog so that each of the four K/A categories (i.e., “Conduct of Operations,” “Equipment 

Control,” Radiation Control,” and “Emergency Procedures/Plan”) has at least two items (one Radiation

Control K/A is allowed if the Radiation Control K/A is replaced by another Tier 3 Category K/A).

Repeat Steps (1) through (4), above, to select the required number of topics for the SRO-only portion 

of the exam. With respect to Step (3), select topics from the shaded portions of the Tier 1 and 2 

outline (i.e., the “A2” and “G” K/A categories, which are linked to 10 CFR 55.43, and the fuel handling 

equipment, which is specifically identified for sampling in 10 CFR 55.43(b)(7)). For Tier 3, select 

seven K/As linked to 10 CFR 55.43; sample one of the categories only once.
ES-401, Page 15 of 50

ES-401 Clarification Guidance for SRO-only Questions Attachment 2

Purpose

The purpose of this document is to promote consistency for examiners and licensees when 

developing and reviewing Senior Reactor Operator (SRO)-only written test items.

Scope

This document provides clarifications and guidance for fulfilling the intent of 10 CFR 55.43 

pertaining to SRO-only written test items. Bracketed [ ] items reference the source of the 

guidance.

References

1. K/A catalogs (NUREG 1122 and NUREG 1123)

2. 10CFR55.43 Written examination: Senior operators.

3. 2006 Region 2 Examiner’s Workshop SRO-only topic presentation (ADAMS Accession 

Number ML062060498) 

4. Operator Licensing Feedback Web page 

(http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operator-licensing/op-licensing-files/ol-feedback.pdf) 

questions 401.29, 401.30, 401.35, 401.36, and 401.37.

Table of Contents

1. Section I: NUREG 1021, NUREG 1122, NUREG 1123 Sample Plan Requirements.

2. Section II: Some examples of the additional knowledge and abilities as they pertain to

an SRO license and the 10CFR55.43(b) topics

3. Section III: Justification for Plant-Specific Exemptions.

4. Section IV: Examples of Satisfactory SRO-only test items.

5. Section V: Examples of Unsatisfactory SRO-only test items.
ES-401, Page 16 of 50

ES-401 2 Attachment 2

I. NUREG 1021, NUREG 1122, NUREG 1123 Sample Plan Requirements

[ES-401, Section D.1.c]

SRO-only K/A statements MUST be either an:

• “A2” statement. [All emergency/abnormal “A2” catalog statements are linked to 10 

CFR 55.43(b). Plant systems “A2” statements are still valid SRO-only K/A material 

even though some do not have a 10 CFR 55.43 designator in the catalog.]

o One exception: In Tier 2, Group 2, selection does not have to be A2 provided it is 

related to fuel handling facilities and procedures per 10 CFR 55.43(b)(7).

OR

• “G” statement. [in the case of Tier 3, linked to one or more of the 10 CFR 55.43 topics] 

[OL Feedback Item 401.29]

Example below shows K/A categories for SRO-only Points
ES-401, Page 17 of 50

ES-401 3 Attachment 2

II. Examples of additional knowledge and abilities as they pertain to an SRO license 

and the 10 CFR 55.43(b) topics [ES-401, Section D.1.c]:

A. Conditions and limitations in the facility license. [10 CFR 55.43(b)(1)]

Examples of SRO exam items for this topic include:

• Reporting requirements when the maximum licensed thermal power output is 

exceeded.

• Administration of fire protection program requirements such as compensatory 

actions associated with inoperable sprinkler systems, fire doors, etc.

• The required actions for not meeting administrative controls listed in Technical 

Specification (TS) Section 5 or 6, depending on the facility (e.g., shift staffing 

requirements).

• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, if 

applicable.

• Processes for TS and FSAR changes.

Note: The analysis and selection of required actions for TS Sections 3 and 4 may be more 

appropriately listed in the following 10 CFR 55.43 topic.

B. Facility operating limitations in the TS and their bases. [10 CFR 55.43(b)(2)]

Some examples of SRO exam items for this topic include:

• Application of Required Actions (Section 3) and Surveillance Requirements (SR) 

(Section 4) in accordance with rules of application requirements (Section 1).

• Application of generic Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) requirements (LCO 

3.0.1 thru 3.0.7; SR 4.0.1 thru 4.0.4).

• Knowledge of TS bases that are required to analyze TS required actions and 

terminology.

• Same items listed above for the Technical Requirements Manual (TRM) and 

Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM).

SRO-only knowledge generally cannot be claimed for questions that can be answered 

solely based on knowledge of ≤ 1 hour action statements and the safety limits since 

Reactor Operators (ROs) are typically required to know these items.

SRO-only knowledge generally cannot be claimed for questions that can be answered 

solely based on expected RO TS knowledge. RO’s are typically expected to know the 

LCO statements and associated applicability information, i.e., the information above the 

double line separating the ACTIONS from the LCO and associated applicability 

statements (standardized TS; see example below)
ES-401, Page 18 of 50

ES-401 4 Attachment 2

Above this 

line

RO 

knowledge
ES-401, Page 19 of 50

ES-401 5 Attachment 2

Figure 1: Screening for SRO-only linked to 10 CFR 55.43(b)(2)

(Tech Specs)

Can question be answered solely by knowing ≤ 1 

hour TS/TRM Action? RO question Yes

No

Can question be answered solely by knowing the 

LCO/TRM information listed “above-the-line?”

Yes

RO question

No

Can question be answered solely by knowing the 

TS Safety Limits?

Yes RO question

No

Does the question involve one or more of the following for TS, 

TRM, or ODCM? 

• Application of Required Actions (Section 3) and Surveillance 

Requirements (Section 4) in accordance with rules of 

application requirements (Section 1)

• Application of generic LCO requirements (LCO 3.0.1 thru 

3.0.7 and SR 4.0.1 thru 4.0.4)

• Knowledge of TS bases that is required to analyze TS 

required actions and terminology

SRO-only 

question

Yes

No

Question might not be linked to 10 

CFR 55.43(b)(2) for SRO-only 
ES-401, Page 20 of 50

ES-401 6 Attachment 2

C. Facility licensee procedures required to obtain authority for design and operating 

changes in the facility. [10 CFR 55.43(b)(3)]

Some examples of SRO exam items for this topic include:

• 10 CFR 50.59 screening and evaluation processes.

• Administrative processes for temporary modifications.

• Administrative processes for disabling annunciators.

• Administrative processes for the installation of temporary instrumentation.

• Processes for changing the plant or plant procedures.

Section IV provides an example of a satisfactory SRO-only question related to this topic.

D. Radiation hazards that may arise during normal and abnormal situations, including 

maintenance activities and various contamination conditions. [10 CFR 55.43(b)(4)]

Some examples of SRO exam items for this topic include:

• Process for gaseous/liquid release approvals, i.e., release permits.

• Analysis and interpretation of radiation and activity readings as they pertain to 

selection of administrative, normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures.

• Analysis and interpretation of coolant activity, including comparison to emergency 

plan criteria and/or regulatory limits.

SRO-only knowledge should not be claimed for questions that can be answered solely

based on RO knowledge of radiological safety principles; e.g., RWP requirements, 

stay-time, DAC-hours, etc.

E. Assessment of facility conditions and selection of appropriate procedures during 

normal, abnormal, and emergency situations. [10 CFR 55.43(b)(5)]

This 10 CFR 55.43 topic involves both 1) assessing plant conditions (normal, abnormal, 

or emergency) and then 2) selecting a procedure or section of a procedure to mitigate,

recover, or with which to proceed. One area of SRO level knowledge (with respect to 

selecting a procedure) is knowledge of the content of the procedure versus knowledge 

of the procedure’s overall mitigative strategy or purpose.

The applicant’s knowledge can be evaluated at the level of 10 CFR 55.43(b)(5) by 

ensuring that the additional knowledge of the procedure’s content is required to 

correctly answer the written test item, for example:
ES-401, Page 21 of 50

ES-401 7 Attachment 2

• Knowledge of when to implement attachments and appendices, including how to 

coordinate these items with procedure steps.

• Knowledge of diagnostic steps and decision points in the emergency operating 

procedures (EOP) that involve transitions to event specific sub-procedures or 

emergency contingency procedures.

• Knowledge of administrative procedures that specify hierarchy, implementation, 

and/or coordination of plant normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures.

SRO-only knowledge should not be claimed for questions that can be answered solely

using “systems knowledge”; e.g.:

• how the system works.

• system flow path.

• component locations, etc.

SRO-only knowledge should not be claimed for questions that can be answered solely

using fundamental knowledge of:

• the basic purpose, the overall sequence of events that will occur, or the overall 

mitigative strategy of a procedure.

• any AOP entry condition.

• plant parameters that require direct entry to major EOPs; e.g., major Westinghouse 

EOPs are E0, E1, E2, E3, ECA-0.0, and Red/Orange Functional Restoration 

Procedures and major General Electric EOPs are Reactor Vessel Control, Primary 

Containment Control, Secondary Containment Control, and Radioactive Release 

Control.

• immediate operator actions of a procedure.

Section IV and V of this document provide several satisfactory and unsatisfactory 

examples of test items related to this 10 CFR 55.43(b)(5) topic.
ES-401, Page 22 of 50

ES-401 8 Attachment 2

Figure 2: Screening for SRO-only linked to 10 CFR 55.43(b)(5)

(Assessment and selection of procedures)

Can the question be answered solely by knowing 

“systems knowledge”, i.e., how the system works, 

flowpath, logic, component location? RO question Yes

No

Can the question be answered solely by knowing 

immediate operator actions? Yes

Can the question be answered solely by knowing 

entry conditions for AOPs or plant parameters that 

require direct entry to major EOPs?

Yes

No

Does the question require one or more of the following?

• Assessing plant conditions (normal, abnormal, or 

emergency) and then selecting a procedure or section of a 

procedure to mitigate, recover, or with which to proceed

• Knowledge of when to implement attachments and 

appendices, including how to coordinate these items with 

procedure steps

• Knowledge of diagnostic steps and decision points in the 

EOPs that involve transitions to event specific 

sub-procedures or emergency contingency procedures

• Knowledge of administrative procedures that specify 

hierarchy, implementation, and/or coordination of plant 

normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures

SRO-only 

question

Yes

Can the question be answered solely by knowing 

the purpose, overall sequence of events, or overall 

mitigative strategy of a procedure?

No

No

Yes

Question might not be linked to 10 

CFR 55.43(b)(5) for SRO-only

No

RO question

RO question

RO question
ES-401, Page 23 of 50

ES-401 9 Attachment 2

F. Procedures and limitations involved in initial core loading, alterations in core 

configuration, control rod programming, and determination of various internal and 

external effects on core reactivity. [10 CFR 55.43(b)(6)]

Some examples of SRO exam items for this topic include:

• Evaluating core conditions and emergency classifications based on core conditions.

• Administrative requirements associated with low power physics testing processes.

• Administrative requirements associated with refueling activities, such as approvals 

required to amend core loading sheets or administrative controls of potential dilution 

paths and/or activities.

• Administrative controls associated with the installation of neutron sources.

• Knowledge of TS bases for reactivity controls.

G. Fuel handling facilities and procedures. [10 CFR 55.43(b)(7)]

Some examples of SRO exam items for this topic include:

• Refuel floor SRO responsibilities.

• Assessment of fuel handling equipment surveillance requirement acceptance 

criteria.

• Prerequisites for vessel disassembly and reassembly.

• Decay heat assessment.

• Assessment of surveillance requirements for the refueling mode.

• Reporting requirements.

• Emergency classifications.

This does not include items that the RO may be responsible for at some sites such as 

fuel handling equipment and refueling related control room instrumentation operability 

requirements, abnormal operating procedure immediate actions, etc. For example, an 

RO is required to stop the refueling process when communication is lost between the 

control room and the refueling floor, therefore, this is a task that is both an RO and SRO 

responsibility and is not SRO-only.

III. Justification for Plant Specific Exemptions

The 25 SRO-only questions shall evaluate the additional knowledge and abilities required for 

the higher license level in accordance with 10 CFR 55.43(b). [NUREG 1021, Section 

ES-401D.2.d]

The fact that a facility licensee trains its ROs to master certain 10 CFR 55.43 knowledge, skills, 

and abilities does NOT mean that they can no longer be used as a basis for SRO-only 

questions. [Operator Licensing Feedback Web page 

(http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operator-licensing/op-licensing-files/ol-feedback.pdf) Item 

401.36]
ES-401, Page 24 of 50

ES-401 10 Attachment 2

The SRO-only test item is required to be tied to one of the 10 CFR 55.43(b) items. However, if 

a licensee desires to evaluate a knowledge/ability that is not tied to one of the 10 CFR 55.43(b) 

items, then the licensee can classify the knowledge/ability as “unique to the SRO position” 

provided that there is documented evidence that ties the knowledge/ability to the licensee’s 

SRO job position duties in accordance with the systematic approach to training (SAT).

• Justification: A question that is not tied to one of the 10 CFR 55.43(b) items can still be 

classified as “SRO-only” provided the licensee has documented evidence to prove that the 

knowledge/ability is “unique to the SRO position” at the site. An example of documented 

evidence includes:

o The question is linked to a learning objective that is specifically labeled in the lesson 

plan as being SRO-only (e.g., some licensee lesson plans have columns in the margin 

that differentiate AO, RO, and SRO learning objectives) [NUREG 1021, ES-401, 

Section D.2.d]

AND/OR

o A question is linked to a task that is labeled as an SRO-only task, and the task is NOT 

listed in the RO task list.
ES-401, Page 25 of 50

ES-401 11 Attachment 2

IV. Examples of Satisfactory SRO-only questions

Westinghouse: E07 Saturated Core Cooling

EA2.2 Ability to determine and interpret the following as they apply to the 

(Saturated Core Cooling): Adherence to appropriate procedures and operation 

within the limitations in the facility’s license and amendments. (CFR: 43.5/ 

45.13): 3.3/3.9

A Steam Generator Tube Rupture has occurred and the crew is performing actions 

contained in EOP-4.2, SGTR with Loss of Reactor Coolant - Subcooled Recovery. The 

following plant conditions currently exist:

• All Critical Safety Function (CSF) Status Trees are GREEN except:

o Core Cooling - YELLOW due to RVLIS level

o Inventory - YELLOW due to RVLIS level

• The crew has determined that the RHR Sump Level (based on RWST drawdown) is 

LESS than expected.

Which ONE (1) of the following identifies the required implementation of procedures for 

this event? 

A. Transition to EOP-4.3, SGTR w/ Loss of Reactor Coolant – Saturated Recovery. 

Implementation of the CSF Yellow Path procedures is not allowed while in EOP-4.3.

B. Remain in EOP-4.2.

Implementation of the CSF Yellow Path procedures is not allowed while in EOP-4.2.

C. Transition to EOP-4.3, SGTR w/ Loss of Reactor Coolant – Saturated Recovery.

The actions of both Yellow Path procedures must be performed.

D. Remain in EOP-4.2.

The actions of both Yellow Path procedures must be performed.

Justification: The question requires the applicant to assess plant conditions and 

to know the content of procedures in order to select a required course of action. 

Linked to 10 CFR 55.43(b)(5).
ES-401, Page 26 of 50

ES-401 12 Attachment 2

IV. Examples of Satisfactory SRO-only questions (cont’d)

EPE: 295028 High Drywell Temperature

EA2.01: Ability to determine and/or interpret the following as they apply to HIGH 

DRYWELL TEMPERATURE: Drywell temperature. (CFR: 41.10/ 43.5/ 45.13): 

4.0*/4.1*

Following a small break LOCA on Unit Two (2) the following conditions exist: 

Drywell temperature 270°F

Drywell pressure 5.0 psig

Torus pressure 2.5 psig

Torus level +5 inches

Reactor pressure 395 psig

Containment H2O2 Monitors CAC-AT-4409 & 4410 are not available at this time. 

Chemistry has been notified but they have not yet sampled the drywell.

Which ONE (1) of the following procedures provides the required actions that mitigate these 

plant conditions?

A. SEP-05, Primary Containment Purging.

B. SEP-10, Section 4, Defeating Drywell Cooler LOCA Lockout.

C. SEP-03, Suppression Pool Spray Procedure.

D. SEP-02, Drywell Spray Procedure.

Justification: The question requires the applicant to assess plant conditions and to 

know the content of procedures in order to select a required course of action. 

These procedures are not major EOPs, i.e., they are supplementary emergency 

procedures directed from within the major EOP. Linked to 10 CFR 55.43(b)(5).
ES-401, Page 27 of 50

ES-401 13 Attachment 2

IV. Examples of Satisfactory SRO-only questions (cont’d)

Generic APE: 027 Pressurizer Pressure Control System (PZR PCS) Malfunction

AA2.15: Ability to determine and interpret the following as they apply to the 

Pressurizer Pressure Control Malfunctions: Actions to be taken if PZR pressure 

instrument fails high. (CFR: 43.5/ 45.13): 3.7/4.0

Unit 1 initial conditions:

• Time = 10:00

• Reactor Power = 100%

• 1-RC-PORV-1455C (Pzr Pressure PORV) indicates open

• Both Pzr Spray Vlvs indicate open

• RCS Pressure = 2200 psig decreasing

• 1-AP-31.00 (Increasing or Decreasing RCS Pressure) initiated

Current conditions:

• Time = 10:01

• Reactor Power = 97%

• RCS Pressure = 2100 psig increasing

• Spray valve in MANUAL and closed

• 1-RC-PORV-1455C in MANUAL and closed

Based on these conditions, which ONE (1) of the following identifies (1) the pressurizer 

pressure control component that failed high and (2) the status of 1-RC-PORV-1455C 

operability in accordance with Technical Specifications?

A. 1-RC-PT-1444

PORV is OPERABLE

B. 1-RC-PT-1444

PORV is INOPERABLE

C. 1-RC-PT-1445

PORV is OPERABLE

D. 1-RC-PT-1445

PORV is INOPERABLE

Justification: The first part of the question can be answered using RO knowledge of 

systems. The second part of the question can only be answered by an SRO 

applicant if he/she knows the information in the TS bases. No reference was 

provided. This question is linked to 10 CFR 55.43(b)(5).
ES-401, Page 28 of 50

ES-401 14 Attachment 2

IV. Examples of Satisfactory SRO-only questions (cont’d)

Generic K/A G2.2.6: Knowledge of the process for making changes to procedures.

(CFR: 41.10/ 43.3/ 45.13): 3.0/3.6

The plant has developed a new surveillance test procedure with the following attributes:

• The test procedure involves a process that was NOT previously described in the FSAR

• The test procedure does NOT constitute an un-reviewed safety question

• The test procedure will require a change to Tech Specs

Which ONE (1) of the following identifies whether a license amendment is required and 

whether the surveillance test procedure can be implemented without NRC approval in 

accordance with 00056-C, 10 CFR 50.59 Screening and Evaluations?

A. License amendment is NOT required; NRC approval is NOT required

B. License amendment is NOT required; NRC approval is required

C. License amendment is required; NRC approval is NOT required

D. License amendment is required; NRC approval is required

Justification: The question is linked to one of the duties reserved for the SRO 

licensed individual, i.e., 10 CFR 55.43(b)(5) (Procedures used to obtain authority for 

design and operating changes to the facility).
ES-401, Page 29 of 50

ES-401 15 Attachment 2

V. Examples of Unsatisfactory SRO-only questions

APE: 008 Pressurizer (PZR) Vapor Space Accident (Relief Valve Stuck Open) 

AA2.22: Ability to determine and interpret the following as they apply to the 

Pressurizer Vapor Space Accident: Consequences of loss of pressure in RCS; 

methods for evaluating pressure loss. (CFR: 43.5/ 45.13): 3.8/4.2

• A pressurizer steam space LOCA has caused PPLS and SIAS actuation.

• CETs are stable at 550°F.

• RCS pressure is stable at 1300 psia.

• Pressurizer level is 20% and rising.

• HPSI flow is 390 gpm.

With no operator action and assuming temperatures remain constant, how will pressurizer 

level, pressurizer pressure, and HPSI flow respond?

A. Pressurizer level will stabilize slightly above 20%, pressure will lower and HPSI flow 

will increase.

B. Pressurizer level will rise to 100%, pressure and HPSI flow will remain constant.

C. Pressurizer level will rise to 100%, pressure will rise and HPSI flow will decrease.

D. Pressurizer level will stabilize slightly above 20%, pressure will rise and HPSI flow will 

decrease

The question stem does not link to one of the seven 10 CFR 55.43(b) statements 

even though the K/A is linked to 10 CFR 55.43(b)5. The question only tests 

assessment of plant conditions. An RO is expected to understand integrated 

system response. 
ES-401, Page 30 of 50

ES-401 16 Attachment 2

V. Examples of Unsatisfactory SRO-only questions (cont’d)

Generic K/A G2.1.7: Ability to evaluate plant performance and make operational 

judgments based on operating characteristics, reactor behavior, and instrument 

interpretation. 

(CFR: 41.5/ 43.5/ 45.12/ 45.13): 4.4/4.7

Reactor power is 29% during a reactor startup when the reactor operator trips the main 

turbine due to high vibration. Which ONE (1) of the following identifies the required 

procedures?

The SRO should now anticipate implementing procedures that will:

A. Maintain reactor power less than 29% since power will increase after the main turbine 

trip.

B. Recover from the reactor scram caused by the turbine trip.

C. Recover vessel level using the feed and condensate system.

D. Scram the reactor.

The question is asking for plant response and what to do about it, NOT selection or 

application of a procedure. An applicant can answer the question using 

integrated plant and system knowledge, i.e., knowledge that is not unique to the 

SRO. 
ES-401, Page 31 of 50

ES-401 17 Attachment 2

V. Examples of Unsatisfactory SRO-only questions (cont’d)

APE: 065 Loss of Instrument Air

AA2.06: Ability to determine and interpret the following as they apply to the Loss 

of Instrument Air: When to trip reactor if instrument air pressure is decreasing. 

(CFR: 43.5/ 45.13): 3.6*/4.2

Unit 1 is currently at 82% power. A down power is in progress to remove the 1A MFW 

pump from service. Which ONE (1) of the following plant conditions would require you to 

direct an IMMEDIATE manual trip of the reactor?

A. Instrument air pressure is currently 59 psig and lowering.

B. 1A and 1B SG levels are 75% and increasing.

C. BOTH heater drain pumps trip.

D. 4.16 KV bus 1B3 de-energizes due to an electrical fault on the bus.

The justification for this question was that the SRO is responsible for directing the 

action to trip the reactor; however, the RO is still required to know immediate 

reactor trip criteria listed in the abnormal procedure. Just because the SRO 

directs the action does not mean that the knowledge is unique to the SRO position.
ES-401, Page 32 of 50

ES-401 18 Attachment 2

V. Examples of Unsatisfactory SRO-only questions (cont’d)

K/A 007 Pressurizer Relief Tank / Quench Tank System (PRTS)

G2.2.44: Ability to interpret control room indications to verify the status and 

operation of a system, and understand how operator actions and directives affect 

plant and system conditions. (CFR: 41.5/ 43.5/ 45.12): 4.2/4.4

Given the following:

• Unit 1 is at 100% power, RCS pressure indicates 2225 psig and stable.

• 1B-F1, PRZ RELIEF TK HI PRESS alarm is received.

• PRT pressure indicates 14 psig and rising slowly.

• PRT temperature is 92°F and stable.

• PRT level is 70% and stable.

Which ONE (1) of the following describes the appropriate operator response?

A. Ensure PZR PORVs are closed, and PG and N2 to PRT are isolated.

Go to 1-AP-16, Increasing Primary Plant Leakage.

B. Ensure PZR PORVs are closed, and PG and N2 to PRT are isolated.

Vent the PRT in accordance with 1-OP-5.7, Operation of the Pressurizer Relief Tank.

C. Submit a WR. Verify PG water alignment and cool the PRT by draining and refilling in 

accordance with 1-OP-5.7.

D. Submit a WR. Cool the PRT by draining and refilling in accordance with 1-OP-5.7. 

Refer to 1-AP-16, Increasing Primary Plant Leakage.

The justification for this question was that each choice required selection of 

procedures. However, this is not SRO-only because choices also include 

responsive actions which an RO can deduce using systems knowledge; therefore, 

procedure selection is not actually required to answer the question.
ES-401, Page 33 of 50

ES-401 BWR Examination Outline Form ES-401-1

Facility: Date of Exam:

Tier Group RO K/A Category Points SRO-Only Points

K

1

K

2

K

3

K

4

K

5

K

6

A

1

A

2

A

3

A

4

G*

Total

A2 G* Total

1.

Emergency & 

Abnormal Plant 

Evolutions

1

N/A N/A

20 7

2 7 3

Tier Totals 27 10

2.

Plant

Systems

1 26 5

2 12 3

Tier Totals 38 8

3. Generic Knowledge and Abilities 

Categories

1 2 3 4 10 1 2 3 4 7

Note: 1. Ensure that at least two topics from every applicable K/A category are sampled within each tier of the RO and 

SRO-only outlines (i.e., except for one category in Tier 3 of the SRO-only outline, the “Tier Totals” in each K/A 

category shall not be less than two). (One Tier 3 Radiation Control K/A is allowed if the K/A is replaced by a K/A 

from another Tier 3 Category.)

2. The point total for each group and tier in the proposed outline must match that specified in the table. The final 

point total for each group and tier may deviate by ±1 from that specified in the table based on NRC revisions. The 

final RO exam must total 75 points and the SRO-only exam must total 25 points.

3. Systems/evolutions within each group are identified on the associated outline; systems or evolutions that do not 

apply at the facility should be deleted with justification; operationally important, site-specific systems/evolutions 

that are not included on the outline should be added. Refer to Section D.1.b of ES-401 for guidance regarding the 

elimination of inappropriate K/A statements. 

4. Select topics from as many systems and evolutions as possible; sample every system or evolution in the group 

before selecting a second topic for any system or evolution.

5. Absent a plant-specific priority, only those K/As having an importance rating (IR) of 2.5 or higher shall be selected. 

Use the RO and SRO ratings for the RO and SRO-only portions, respectively.

6. Select SRO topics for Tiers 1 and 2 from the shaded systems and K/A categories.

7. The generic (G) K/As in Tiers 1 and 2 shall be selected from Section 2 of the K/A Catalog, but the topics must be 

relevant to the applicable evolution or system. Refer to Section D.1.b of ES-401 for the applicable K/As.

8. On the following pages, enter the K/A numbers, a brief description of each topic, the topics’ importance ratings 

(IRs) for the applicable license level, and the point totals (#) for each system and category. Enter the group and 

tier totals for each category in the table above; if fuel handling equipment is sampled in a category other than 

Category A2 or G* on the SRO-only exam, enter it on the left side of Column A2 for Tier 2, Group 2 (Note #1 does 

not apply). Use duplicate pages for RO and SRO-only exams.

9. For Tier 3, select topics from Section 2 of the K/A catalog, and enter the K/A numbers, descriptions, IRs, and point 

totals (#) on Form ES-401-3. Limit SRO selections to K/As that are linked to 10 CFR 55.43.

G* Generic K/As
ES-401, Page 34 of 50

ES-401 2 Form ES-401-1

ES-401 BWR Examination Outline Form ES-401-1

Emergency and Abnormal Plant Evolutions - Tier 1/Group 1 (RO / SRO)

E/APE # / Name / Safety Function K

1

K

2

K

3

A

1

A

2

G* K/A Topic(s) IR #

295001 Partial or Complete Loss of Forced 

Core Flow Circulation / 1 & 4

295003 Partial or Complete Loss of AC / 6

295004 Partial or Total Loss of DC Pwr / 6

295005 Main Turbine Generator Trip / 3

295006 SCRAM / 1

295016 Control Room Abandonment / 7

295018 Partial or Total Loss of CCW / 8

295019 Partial or Total Loss of Inst. Air / 8

295021 Loss of Shutdown Cooling / 4

295023 Refueling Acc / 8

295024 High Drywell Pressure / 5

295025 High Reactor Pressure / 3

295026 Suppression Pool High Water 

Temp. / 5

295027 High Containment Temperature / 5

295028 High Drywell Temperature / 5

295030 Low Suppression Pool Wtr Lvl / 5

295031 Reactor Low Water Level / 2

295037 SCRAM Condition Present and

Reactor Power Above APRM Downscale or

Unknown / 1

295038 High Off-site Release Rate / 9

600000 Plant Fire On Site / 8

700000 Generator Voltage and Electric Grid 

Disturbances / 6

K/A Category Totals: Group Point Total: 20/7
ES-401, Page 35 of 50

ES-401 3 Form ES-401-1

ES-401 BWR Examination Outline Form ES-401-1

Emergency and Abnormal Plant Evolutions - Tier 1/Group 2 (RO / SRO)

E/APE # / Name / Safety Function K

1

K

2

K

3

A

1

A

2

G* K/A Topic(s) IR #

295002 Loss of Main Condenser Vac / 3

295007 High Reactor Pressure / 3

295008 High Reactor Water Level / 2

295009 Low Reactor Water Level / 2

295010 High Drywell Pressure / 5

295011 High Containment Temp / 5

295012 High Drywell Temperature / 5

295013 High Suppression Pool Temp. / 5

295014 Inadvertent Reactivity Addition / 1

295015 Incomplete SCRAM / 1

295017 High Off-site Release Rate / 9

295020 Inadvertent Cont. Isolation / 5 & 7

295022 Loss of CRD Pumps / 1

295029 High Suppression Pool Wtr Lvl / 5

295032 High Secondary Containment Area 

Temperature / 5

295033 High Secondary Containment Area 

Radiation Levels / 9

295034 Secondary Containment 

Ventilation High Radiation / 9

295035 Secondary Containment High 

Differential Pressure / 5

295036 Secondary Containment High 

Sump/Area Water Level / 5

500000 High CTMT Hydrogen Conc. / 5

K/A Category Point Totals: Group Point Total: 7/3
ES-401, Page 36 of 50

ES-401 4 Form ES-401-1

ES-401 BWR Examination Outline Form ES-401-1

Plant Systems - Tier 2/Group 1 (RO / SRO)

System # / Name K

1

K

2

K

3

K

4

K

5

K

6

A

1

A

2

A

3

A

4

G* K/A Topic(s) IR #

203000 RHR/LPCI: Injection 

Mode

205000 Shutdown Cooling

206000 HPCI

207000 Isolation (Emergency) 

Condenser

209001 LPCS

209002 HPCS

211000 SLC

212000 RPS

215003 IRM

215004 Source Range Monitor

215005 APRM / LPRM

217000 RCIC

218000 ADS

223002 PCIS/Nuclear Steam 

Supply Shutoff

239002 SRVs

259002 Reactor Water Level 

Control

261000 SGTS

262001 AC Electrical 

Distribution

262002 UPS (AC/DC)

263000 DC Electrical 

Distribution

264000 EDGs

300000 Instrument Air

400000 Component Cooling 

Water

K/A Category Point Totals: Group Point Total: 26/5
ES-401, Page 37 of 50

ES-401 5 Form ES-401-1

ES-401 BWR Examination Outline Form ES-401-1

Plant Systems - Tier 2/Group 2 (RO / SRO)

System # / Name K

1

K

2

K

3

K

4

K

5

K

6

A

1

A

2

A

3

A

4

G* K/A Topic(s) IR #

201001 CRD Hydraulic

201002 RMCS

201003 Control Rod and Drive 

Mechanism

201004 RSCS

201005 RCIS

201006 RWM

202001 Recirculation

202002 Recirculation Flow Control

204000 RWCU

214000 RPIS

215001 Traversing In-Core Probe

215002 RBM

216000 Nuclear Boiler Inst.

219000 RHR/LPCI: Torus/Pool Cooling 

Mode

223001 Primary CTMT and Aux.

226001 RHR/LPCI: CTMT Spray Mode

230000 RHR/LPCI: Torus/Pool Spray 

Mode

233000 Fuel Pool Cooling/Cleanup

234000 Fuel Handling Equipment

239001 Main and Reheat Steam

239003 MSIV Leakage Control

241000 Reactor/Turbine Pressure 

Regulator

245000 Main Turbine Gen. / Aux.

256000 Reactor Condensate

259001 Reactor Feedwater

268000 Radwaste

271000 Offgas

272000 Radiation Monitoring

286000 Fire Protection

288000 Plant Ventilation

290001 Secondary CTMT

290003 Control Room HVAC

290002 Reactor Vessel Internals

K/A Category Point Totals: Group Point Total: 12/3
ES-401, Page 38 of 50

ES-401 PWR Examination Outline Form ES-401-2

Facility: Date of Exam:

Tier Group

RO K/A Category Points SRO-Only Points

K

1

K

2

K

3

K

4

K

5

K

6

A

1

A

2

A

3

A

4

G*

Total

A2 G* Total

1.

Emergency & 

Abnormal 

Plant 

Evolutions

1

N/A N/A

18 6

2 9 4

Tier Totals 27 10

2.

Plant

Systems

1 28 5

2 10 3

Tier Totals 38 8

3. Generic Knowledge and Abilities 

Categories

1 2 3 4 10 1 2 3 4 7

Note: 1. Ensure that at least two topics from every applicable K/A category are sampled within each tier of the RO

and SRO-only outline sections (i.e., except for one category in Tier 3 of the SRO-only section, the “Tier 

Totals” in each K/A category shall not be less than two). (One Tier 3 Radiation Control K/A is allowed if the 

K/A is replaced by a K/A from another Tier 3 Category).

2. The point total for each group and tier in the proposed outline must match that specified in the table. The 

final point total for each group and tier may deviate by ±1 from that specified in the table based on NRC 

revisions. The final RO exam must total 75 points and the SRO-only exam must total 25 points.

3. Systems/evolutions within each group are identified on the outline; systems or evolutions that do not apply at 

the facility should be deleted with justification; operationally important, site-specific systems/evolutions that 

are not included on the outline should be added. Refer to Section D.1.b of ES-401 for guidance regarding 

the elimination of inappropriate K/A statements. 

4. Select topics from as many systems and evolutions as possible; sample every system or evolution in the 

group before selecting a second topic for any system or evolution.

5. Absent a plant-specific priority, only those K/As having an importance rating (IR) of 2.5 or higher shall be 

selected. Use the RO and SRO ratings for the RO and SRO-only portions, respectively.

6. Select SRO topics for Tiers 1 and 2 from the shaded systems and K/A categories.

7. The generic (G) K/As in Tiers 1 and 2 shall be selected from Section 2 of the K/A Catalog, but the topics must 

be relevant to the applicable evolution or system. Refer to Section D.1.b of ES-401 for the applicable K/As.

8. On the following pages, enter the K/A numbers, a brief description of each topic, the topics’ importance 

ratings (IRs) for the applicable license level, and the point totals (#) for each system and category. Enter 

the group and tier totals for each category in the table above; if fuel handling equipment is sampled in a 

category other than Category A2 or G* on the SRO-only exam, enter it on the left side of Column A2 for Tier 

2, Group 2 (Note #1 does not apply). Use duplicate pages for RO and SRO-only exams.

9. For Tier 3, select topics from Section 2 of the K/A catalog, and enter the K/A numbers, descriptions, IRs, and 

point totals (#) on Form ES-401-3. Limit SRO selections to K/As that are linked to 10 CFR 55.43.

G* Generic K/As
ES-401, Page 39 of 50

ES-401 2 Form ES-401-2

ES-401 PWR Examination Outline Form ES-401-2

Emergency and Abnormal Plant Evolutions - Tier 1/Group 1 (RO / SRO)

E/APE # / Name / Safety Function K

1

K

2

K

3

A

1

A

2

G* K/A Topic(s) IR #

000007 (BW/E02&E10; CE/E02) Reactor 

Trip - Stabilization - Recovery / 1

000008 Pressurizer Vapor Space 

Accident / 3

000009 Small Break LOCA / 3

000011 Large Break LOCA / 3

000015/17 RCP Malfunctions / 4

000022 Loss of Rx Coolant Makeup / 2

000025 Loss of RHR System / 4

000026 Loss of Component Cooling 

Water / 8

000027 Pressurizer Pressure Control 

System Malfunction / 3

000029 ATWS / 1

000038 Steam Gen. Tube Rupture / 3

000040 (BW/E05; CE/E05; W/E12) 

Steam Line Rupture - Excessive Heat 

Transfer / 4

000054 (CE/E06) Loss of Main 

Feedwater / 4

000055 Station Blackout / 6

000056 Loss of Off-site Power / 6

000057 Loss of Vital AC Inst. Bus / 6

000058 Loss of DC Power / 6

000062 Loss of Nuclear Svc Water / 4

000065 Loss of Instrument Air / 8

W/E04 LOCA Outside Containment / 3

W/E11 Loss of Emergency Coolant 

Recirc. / 4

BW/E04; W/E05 Inadequate Heat 

Transfer - Loss of Secondary Heat Sink / 4

000077 Generator Voltage and Electric 

Grid Disturbances / 6

K/A Category Totals: Group Point Total: 18/6
ES-401, Page 40 of 50

ES-401 3 Form ES-401-2

ES-401 PWR Examination Outline Form ES-401-2

Emergency and Abnormal Plant Evolutions - Tier 1/Group 2 (RO / SRO)

E/APE # / Name / Safety Function K

1

K

2

K

3

A

1

A

2

G* K/A Topic(s) IR #

000001 Continuous Rod Withdrawal / 1

000003 Dropped Control Rod / 1

000005 Inoperable/Stuck Control Rod / 1

000024 Emergency Boration / 1

000028 Pressurizer Level Malfunction / 2

000032 Loss of Source Range NI / 7

000033 Loss of Intermediate Range NI / 7

000036 (BW/A08) Fuel Handling Accident / 8

000037 Steam Generator Tube Leak / 3

000051 Loss of Condenser Vacuum / 4

000059 Accidental Liquid Radwaste Rel. / 9

000060 Accidental Gaseous Radwaste Rel. / 9

000061 ARM System Alarms / 7

000067 Plant Fire On-site / 8

000068 (BW/A06) Control Room Evac. / 8

000069 (W/E14) Loss of CTMT Integrity / 5

000074 (W/E06&E07) Inad. Core Cooling / 4

000076 High Reactor Coolant Activity / 9

W/EO1 & E02 Rediagnosis & SI Termination / 3

W/E13 Steam Generator Over-pressure / 4

W/E15 Containment Flooding / 5

W/E16 High Containment Radiation / 9

BW/A01 Plant Runback / 1

BW/A02&A03 Loss of NNI-X/Y / 7

BW/A04 Turbine Trip / 4

BW/A05 Emergency Diesel Actuation / 6

BW/A07 Flooding / 8

BW/E03 Inadequate Subcooling Margin / 4

BW/E08; W/E03 LOCA Cooldown - Depress. / 4

BW/E09; CE/A13; W/E09&E10 Natural Circ. / 4

BW/E13&E14 EOP Rules and Enclosures

CE/A11; W/E08 RCS Overcooling - PTS / 4

CE/A16 Excess RCS Leakage / 2

CE/E09 Functional Recovery 

K/A Category Point Totals: Group Point Total: 9/4
ES-401, Page 41 of 50

ES-401 4 Form ES-401-2

ES-401 PWR Examination Outline Form ES-401-2

Plant Systems - Tier 2/Group 1 (RO / SRO)

System # / Name K

1

K

2

K

3

K

4

K

5

K

6

A

1

A

2

A

3

A

4

G* K/A Topic(s) IR #

003 Reactor Coolant Pump 

004 Chemical and Volume 

Control 

005 Residual Heat Removal

006 Emergency Core Cooling

007 Pressurizer Relief/Quench 

Tank

008 Component Cooling Water

010 Pressurizer Pressure Control

012 Reactor Protection

013 Engineered Safety Features 

Actuation 

022 Containment Cooling 

025 Ice Condenser 

026 Containment Spray 

039 Main and Reheat Steam

059 Main Feedwater 

061 Auxiliary/Emergency 

Feedwater 

062 AC Electrical Distribution

063 DC Electrical Distribution

064 Emergency Diesel Generator

073 Process Radiation Monitoring

076 Service Water

078 Instrument Air

103 Containment 

K/A Category Point Totals: Group Point Total: 28/5
ES-401, Page 42 of 50

ES-401 5 Form ES-401-2

ES-401 PWR Examination Outline Form ES-401-2

Plant Systems - Tier 2/Group 2 (RO / SRO)

System # / Name K

1

K

2

K

3

K

4

K

5

K

6

A

1

A

2

A

3

A

4

G* K/A Topic(s) IR #

001 Control Rod Drive 

002 Reactor Coolant

011 Pressurizer Level Control

014 Rod Position Indication 

015 Nuclear Instrumentation 

016 Non-Nuclear Instrumentation

017 In-Core Temperature Monitor 

027 Containment Iodine Removal

028 Hydrogen Recombiner and

Purge Control

029 Containment Purge

033 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling

034 Fuel Handling Equipment

035 Steam Generator

041 Steam Dump/Turbine Bypass 

Control

045 Main Turbine Generator

055 Condenser Air Removal

056 Condensate

068 Liquid Radwaste

071 Waste Gas Disposal

072 Area Radiation Monitoring

075 Circulating Water

079 Station Air 

086 Fire Protection

K/A Category Point Totals: Group Point Total: 10/3
ES-401, Page 43 of 50

ES-401 Generic Knowledge and Abilities Outline (Tier 3) Form ES-401-3

Facility: Date of Exam:

Category K/A # Topic RO SRO-Only

IR # IR #

1.

Conduct of

Operations

2.1.

2.1.

2.1.

2.1.

2.1.

2.1.

Subtotal

2.

Equipment 

Control

2.2.

2.2.

2.2.

2.2.

2.2.

2.2.

Subtotal

3.

Radiation 

Control

2.3.

2.3.

2.3.

2.3.

2.3.

2.3.

Subtotal

4.

Emergency 

Procedures / 

Plan

2.4.

2.4.

2.4.

2.4.

2.4.

2.4.

Subtotal

Tier 3 Point Total 10 7
ES-401, Page 44 of 50

ES-401 Record of Rejected K/As Form ES-401-4

Tier / 

Group

Randomly 

Selected K/A

Reason for Rejection
ES-401, Page 45 of 50

ES-401 Sample Written Examination Form ES-401-5

Question Worksheet

Examination Outline Cross-Reference: Level RO SRO

Tier # _____ _____

Group # _____ _____

K/A # _________________

Importance Rating _____ _____

K/A Statement:

Proposed Question:

Proposed Answer: ______

Explanation (Optional):

Technical Reference(s): _______________________________________________

(Attach if not previously provided, _______________________________________________

including version/revision number) _______________________________________________

Proposed references to be provided to applicants during examination: _________________

Learning Objective: _________________________ (As available)

Question Source: Bank # _______

Modified Bank # _______ (Note changes or attach parent)

New _______

Question History: Last NRC Exam ____________ (Optional: Questions validated at the facility since 10/95 will generally undergo less rigorous review by the NRC; 

failure to provide the information will necessitate a detailed review of every question.)

Question Cognitive Level: Memory or Fundamental Knowledge _____

Comprehension or Analysis _____

10 CFR Part 55 Content: 55.41 _____

55.43 _____

Comments:
ES-401, Page 46 of 50

ES-401 Written Examination Quality Checklist Form ES-401-6

Facility: Date of Exam: Exam Level: RO SRO

Item Description

Initial

a b* c*#

1. Questions and answers are technically accurate and applicable to the facility.

2. a. NRC K/As are referenced for all questions.

b. Facility learning objectives are referenced as available.

3. SRO questions are appropriate in accordance with Section D.2.d of ES-401

4 The sampling process was random and systematic (If more than 4 RO or 2 SRO questions were 

repeated from the last two NRC licensing exams, consult the NRR/NRO OL program office).

5. Question duplication from the licensee screening/audit exam was controlled as indicated below 

(check the item that applies) and appears appropriate

__ The audit exam was systematically and randomly developed; or

__ the audit exam was completed before the license exam was started; or

__ the examinations were developed independently; or

__ the licensee certifies that there is no duplication; or

__ other (explain)

6. Bank use meets limits (no more than 75 percent from the 

bank, at least 10 percent new, and the rest new or 

modified); enter the actual RO / SRO-only question 

distribution(s) at right

Bank Modified New

/ / /

7. Between 50 and 60 percent of the questions on the RO 

exam and at least 50 percent of the questions on the 

SRO-Only portion of the exam are written at the 

comprehension/analysis level; however, the SRO exam, 

overall, may exceed 60 percent if the randomly selected 

K/As support the higher cognitive levels; enter the actual 

RO / SRO-Only question distribution(s) at right.

Memory C/A

/ /

8. References/handouts provided do not give away answers or aid in the elimination of distractors.

9. Question content conforms to specific K/A statements in the previously approved examination 

outline and is appropriate for the tier to which they are assigned; deviations are justified.

10. Question psychometric quality and format meet the guidelines in Appendix B.

11. The exam contains the required number of one-point, multiple choice items; the total is correct 

and agrees with the value on the cover sheet.

Printed Name / Signature Date

a. Author _____________________________________________________________ __________ 

b. Facility Reviewer (*) _____________________________________________________________ __________ 

c. NRC Chief Examiner (#) _____________________________________________________________ __________ 

d. NRC Regional Supervisor _____________________________________________________________ __________ 

Note: * The facility reviewer’s initials or signature are not applicable for NRC-developed examinations. 

# Independent NRC reviewer initials items in Column “c”; chief examiner concurrence required.
ES-401, Page 47 of 50

ES-401 Site-Specific RO Written Examination Form ES-401-7

Cover Sheet

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Site-Specific RO Written Examination

Applicant Information

Name:

Date: Facility / Unit

Region: I II III IV Reactor Type: W CE BW GE

Start Time: Finish Time:

Instructions

Use the answer sheets provided to document your answers. Staple this cover sheet on top of 

the answer sheets. To pass the examination, you must achieve a final grade of at least 80.00 

percent. Examination papers will be collected 6 hours after the examination begins

Applicant Certification

All work done on this examination is my own. I have neither given nor received aid.

_______________________________

Applicant’s Signature

Results

Examination Value ________ Points

Applicant’s Score ________ Points

Applicant’s Grade ________ Percent
ES-401, Page 48 of 50

ES-401 Site-Specific SRO Written Examination Form ES-401-8

Cover Sheet

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Site-Specific SRO Written Examination

Applicant Information

Name:

Date: Facility / Unit

Region: I II III IV Reactor Type: W CE BW GE

Start Time: Finish Time:

Instructions

Use the answer sheets provided to document your answers. Staple this cover sheet on top of the 

answer sheets. To pass the examination you must achieve a final grade of at least 80 percent 

overall, with 70 percent or better on the SRO-only items if given in conjunction with the RO exam; 

SRO-only exams given alone require a final grade of 80 percent to pass. You have 8 hours to 

complete the combined examination, and 3 hours if you are only taking the SRO portion.

Applicant Certification

All work done on this examination is my own. I have neither given nor received aid.

__________________________________

Applicant’s Signature

Results

RO/SRO-Only/Total Examination Values ______ / ______ / ______ 

Points

Applicant’s Score ______ / ______ / ______ 

Points

Applicant’s Grade ______ / ______ / ______ 

Percent
ES-401 Written Examination Review Worksheet 

Q

1.

LOK

(F/H)

2.

LOD

(1-5)

3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Errors 5. Other

6. Source

(B/ M / N)

7. Status

(U /E /S) 8. Explana

Stem

Focus Cues T/F Cred. 

Dist Partial JobLink Minutia # / 

Units

Back

ward

Q –

K/A

SR

O 

Only

Instructions

(Refer to Section D of ES-401 and Appendix B for additional information regarding each of the following concepts:

1. Enter the level of knowledge (LOK) of each question as either (F)undamental or (H)igher cognitive level.

2. Enter the level of difficulty (LOD) of each question a 1(easy) to 5 ( difficult); (questions with a difficulty between 2 and 4 are acceptable)

3. Check the appropriate box if a psychometric flaw is identified:

• “Stem Focus”: The stem lacks sufficient focus to elicit the correct answer (e.g., unclear intent, more information is needed, or too much needless infor

• “Cues”: The stem or distractors contain cues (i.e., clues, specific determiners, phrasing, length, etc.).

• “T/F”: The answer choices are a collection of unrelated true/false statements. 

• “Cred. Dist”: The distractors are not credible; single implausible distractors should be repaired, more than one is unacceptable. 

• “Partial”: One or more distractors is (are) partially correct (e.g., if the applicant can make unstated assumptions that are not contradicted by stem).

4. Check the appropriate box if a job content error is identified:

• “Job Link”: The question is not linked to the job requirements (i.e., the question has a valid K/A but, as written, is not operational in content).

• “Minutia”: The question requires the recall of knowledge that is too specific for the closed reference test mode (i.e., it is not required to be known from 

• “# / Units”: The question contains data with an unrealistic level of accuracy or inconsistent units (e.g., panel meter in percent with question in gallons).

• “Backward”: The question requires reverse logic or application compared to the job requirements.

5. Check questions that are sampled for conformance with the approved K/A and those K/As that are designated SRO-only (K/A and license level mismatches 

6. Enter question’s source: (B)ank, (M)odified, or (N)ew. Verify that (M)odified questions meet the criteria of ES-401 Section D.2.f.

7. Based on the reviewer’s judgment, is the question as written (U)nsatisfactory (requiring repair or replacement), in need of (E)ditorial enhancement, or (S)atis

8. At a minimum, explain any “U” Status ratings (e.g., how the Appendix B psychometric attributes are not being met).

ES-401, Page 49 of 5

0
ES-401 2 

Q

1.

LOK

(F/H)

2.

LOD

(1-5)

3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Errors 5. Other

6. Source

(B/ M / N)

7. Status

(U /E /S) 8. Explana

Stem

Focus Cues T/F Cred. 

Dist Partial JobLink Minutia # / 

Units

Back

ward

Q –

K/A

SR

O 

Only

ES-401, Page 50 of 5

0
ES-401N, Page 1 of 53

ES-401N

PREPARING INITIAL SITE-SPECIFIC WRITTEN EXAMINATIONS

A. Purpose 

This standard specifies the requirements, procedures, and guidelines for preparing site-specific 

written examinations for the initial licensing of reactor operator (RO) and senior reactor operator 

(SRO) applicants at power reactor facilities licensed under Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR) Part 52, “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power 

Plants.”

B. Background 

This section, ES-401N, applies to new reactors licensed under 10 CFR Part 52. The content of 

the written licensing examinations for ROs and SROs at new reactors is dictated by 10 CFR 

55.41, “Written Examinations: Operators” and 55.43, “Written Examinations: Senior 

Operators”. Each examination shall contain a representative selection of questions concerning 

the knowledge, skills, and abilities (K/A) needed to perform duties at the desired license level. 

Both the RO and SRO examinations will sample the 14 items specified in 10 CFR 55.41(b), and 

the SRO examination will sample the 7 additional items specified in 10 CFR 55.43(b). Given 

that SRO-U (upgrade) applicants previously passed an RO licensing examination covering the 

topics specified in 10 CFR 55.41(b), they may apply for a waiver of the RO portion of the SRO 

written examination pursuant to 10 CFR 55.47, “Waiver of Examination and Test 

Requirements.”. (Refer to ES-204, “Processing Excusals and Waivers Requested by Reactor 

Operator and Senior Reactor Operator Applicants.”).

The written operator licensing examination is administered in two sections, including a generic 

fundamentals examination (GFE) and a site-specific examination. The GFE covers those K/As 

that do not vary significantly among reactors of the same type (i.e., pressurized- or boilingwater) and is generally administered early in the license training process. (For a description of 

the program, refer to ES-205, “Procedure for Administering the Generic Fundamentals 

Examination Program.”) The instructions in this standard apply only to the site-specific 

examination.

Except as noted in Section D.1.b of this examination standard (ES), the “Knowledge and 

Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant Operators: Pressurized-Water Reactors Westinghouse 

AP1000” and the “Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant Operators: 

Advanced Boiling Water Reactors” (NUREG-2103 and 2104, respectively, available in the 

Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) as Accession Nos. 

ML11307A367 and ML11354A280) provide the basis for developing content-valid licensing 

examinations. Each K/A stem statement has been linked to an applicable item number in 

10 CFR 55.41 and/or 55.43. Preparing the license examination using the appropriate K/A 

catalog, in conjunction with the instructions in this NUREG-series report, will ensure that the 

examination includes a representative sample of the items specified in the regulations.
ES-401N, Page 2 of 53

C. Responsibilities

1. Facility Licensee

The facility licensee will perform the following activities, as applicable, depending upon 

the examination arrangements confirmed with the NRC’s regional office in accordance 

with ES-201, Initial Operator Licensing Examination Process,” Form ES-201-1, 

Examination Preparation Checklist, before the scheduled examination date:

a. Review the proposed written examination outline provided by the NRC regional 

office in accordance with Section D.1, and submit the revised outline to the 

NRC’s regional office for review and approval in accordance with ES-201.

b. Submit the reference materials necessary for the NRC’s regional office to 

prepare and/or validate the requested examination(s). (Refer to ES-201, 

Attachment 3.) 

c. Prepare the proposed examination(s) in accordance with Sections D.2 through 

D.4, review the examination(s) in accordance with Section E, and submit the 

examination(s) to the NRC’s regional office in accordance with ES-201.

d. Review the proposed examination outline(s) and written examinations with the 

chief examiner (and others as necessary) via telephone. If requested and 

coordinated, meet with the NRC examination team in the regional office or at the 

facility to review the proposed examination(s) comments. (Refer to ES-201.).

e. Revise the proposed examination outline and examination(s) as agreed upon 

with the NRC’s regional office; however, the NRC retains final authority to 

approve the examination.

f. Facility licensees that prepare the examination shall ensure that appropriate 

controls are implemented to keep the comprehensive audit or screening 

examination that is given at or near the end of the license training class (as well 

as any practice exams and quizzes that are developed after beginning work on 

the licensing examination) from compromising the integrity of the licensing 

examination. Some examples of acceptable control measures (other methods 

might also be acceptable, but will have to be reviewed and approved on a 

case-by-case basis):

• The facility licensee could prepare the audit examination using a 

systematic and random sampling process that is similar to that used to 

prepare the NRC’s licensing examination as discussed in Section D.

• The facility licensee could prepare and finalize the audit examination (and 

any practice exams and quizzes) before receiving the licensing written 

examination outline from the NRC.
ES-401N, Page 3 of 53

• The facility licensee could develop the audit (as well as any practice 

exams and quizzes) and the licensing examinations using independent 

examination teams.

• The facility licensee could certify as part of the examination submittal that 

there is no question duplication between the facility licensee’s audit and 

the NRC’s licensing examinations.

2. NRC Regional Office

The NRC’s regional office will perform the following activities: 

a. Ensure that the outline and examinations are prepared in accordance with Section D.

b. Ensure that the examinations are reviewed for quality as described in Section E.

c. Meet with the facility licensee, when and as appropriate, to pre-review the 

examination(s) in accordance with ES-201.

D. Examination Preparation

1. Develop the Outline

Develop the written examination outline in accordance with the following general 

instructions: 

a. Select the appropriate examination outline model for the licensing examination 

being developed: 

• For RO applicants, use only the left side of Form ES-401N-1 (ABWR) or 

ES-401N-2 (AP-1000®).

• For SRO-I (instant) applicants, use both the RO and SRO portions of Form 

ES-401N-1 (ABWR) or ES-401N-2 (AP1000®).

• For SRO-U applicants, use both sides of Form ES-401N-1 (ABWR) or 

ES-401N-2 (AP-1000®) unless the RO portion is waived in accordance with 

ES-204.

b. Systematically and randomly select specific K/A statements (e.g., K1.03 or 

A2.11) from NUREG-2103(for AP-1000®) or NUREG-2104 (for ABWRs) to 

complete each of the three tiers (i.e., Tier 1, Emergency and Abnormal Plant

Evolutions; Tier 2, Plant Systems; and Tier 3, Generic Knowledge and Abilities) 

of the applicable examination outline. In order to maintain examination 

consistency, the facility licensee’s site-specific K/A list shall not be used in place 

of the NRC’s K/A catalog. Attachment 1 provides an example of an acceptable 

methodology for randomly selecting K/As within the defined structure of the 

examination outline to achieve as broad a sample as possible. Other 

methodologies may be used, provided that they meet the following criteria:
ES-401N, Page 4 of 53

• Are reproducible and comprehensible and yield an examination outline that is 

free of bias.

• Adhere to the applicable examination model.

• Minimize the number of K/As related to any particular system or evolution 

(i.e., every system or evolution in the group should be sampled once before 

selecting a second K/A for any system or evolution).

• Sample at the specific K/A statement level.

Examination authors and reviewers can eliminate inapplicable or inappropriate 

K/A statements by (1) discarding randomly selected K/As during the outline 

development process or (2) prescreening the entire K/A catalog to eliminate 

inappropriate K/As before beginning the random selection process.

Refer to the remainder of this section for specific requirements and guidance 

regarding K/A elimination.

The topics for the generic K/A category in Tiers 1 and 2 (i.e., Column “G” on 

Forms ES-401N-1 and ES-401N-2) shall be selected from Section 2, “Generic 

Knowledge and Abilities,” of the applicable K/A catalog. However, only those 

topics that are relevant to the selected evolution or system shall be included; 

therefore, generic K/As for Tiers 1 and 2 for both RO and SRO examinations 

should be randomly selected from the following set:

2.1.7, 2.1.14, 2.1.17, 2.1.18, 2.1.19, 2.1.21, 2.1.22, 2.1.24, 2.1.25, 2.1.27, 2.1.28, 

2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.2.8, 2.2.17, 2.2.19, 2.2.21, 2.2.22, 2.2.23, , 2.2.24, 2.2.26, 2.2.28, 

2.2.30 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.3, 2.4.4, 2.4.6, 2.4.7, 2.4.8, 2.4.9, 2.4.14, 2.4.16, 2.4.17, 

2.4.24, 2.4.25, 2.4.27, 2.4.28, 2.4.33, 2.4.36, 2.4.37, 2.4.38, 2.4.39, 2.4.40.

All other generic K/As for Tiers 1 and 2 may be eliminated before or after the 

random selection process, and examinations for single-unit licenses may also 

eliminate K/As 2.2.3 and 2.2.4.

Examination authors and reviewers should ask themselves the following 

questions to help determine whether a K/A statement is appropriate for testing: 

• Is the subject K/A relevant (i.e., is the system, component, process, 

procedure, or event installed, in use, or possible) at the subject facility?

• Is the importance rating of the K/A equal to or greater than 2.5 for the 

license level of the proposed examination, or is there a site-specific 

priority that justifies keeping the K/A if its importance rating is below 2.5?

• Is it possible to prepare a psychometrically sound question related to the 

subject K/A? 

• Is it possible to prepare a question at the correct license level related to 

the subject K/A? A question at the RO level should test one (or more) of 

the 14 items listed under 10 CFR 55.41(b) that the K/A is linked to, or 

test at a RO level as determined from the facility’s learning objectives. 
ES-401N, Page 5 of 53

A question at the SRO-only level should test one (or more) of the seven

items listed under 10 CFR 55.43(b) that the K/A is linked to, or test at a 

level that is unique to the SRO job position as determined from the 

facility’s learning objectives. The fact that a particular K/A does not 

reference 55.41 or 55.43, does not, in and of itself, disqualify the K/A 

from testing on the RO or SRO written examination.

• Is the subject K/A more appropriately tested on the written examination

rather than the operating test? A K/A only associated with an “ability” is 

not a sufficient reason to reject the K/A in and of itself. The justification 

should include one or more reasons why the operating test is a better 

evaluation tool.

If these questions can all be answered in the affirmative, the subject K/A is 

probably appropriate for testing. The fact that a K/A does not have a 

corresponding facility learning objective, was not covered in training, or is subject 

to selection in multiple tiers, is not sufficient basis for eliminating the K/A from 

any tier of the outline.

Facility licensees that elect to prescreen and eliminate any K/A statements from 

the random selection process should make arrangements for their NRC regional 

office to review their screening process and results before the NRC develops the 

examination outline or they submit the revised examination outline comments. 

Any subsequent changes to the list of K/As from which the examination outline is 

generated would also have to be documented, justified, and reviewed by the 

NRC. All K/A statements that are eliminated after they have been randomly 

selected to fill an examination outline shall be documented on Form ES-401N-4, 

“Record of Rejected K/As,” or equivalent, and replacement K/As shall be 

requested from the NRC chief examiner as needed. Form ES-401N-4 shall be 

submitted to the NRC regional office for review in conjunction with the revised 

outline.

Enter the K/A statement numbers, a brief description of each topic, the topics’

importance ratings for the license level of the exam (use the RO and SRO ratings 

for the RO and SRO-only portions, respectively), and the point totals (system, 

category, group, and tier) on the examination outline. The proposed point totals 

for each group and tier must match the number specified on Forms ES-401N-1 

and ES-401N-2, as applicable.

c. Special attention is required to ensure that the SRO examination tests at the 

appropriate license level. The SRO outline (refer to the right-hand portion of 

Forms ES-401N-1 or -2, as applicable) shall include 25 K/A statements that 

relate to the topics in 10 CFR 55.43(b).

A number of the generic K/As in Section 2 of the catalogs are specifically linked 

to one or more topics specified in 10 CFR 55.43(b), and all of the Category A2, 

AA2, and EA2 K/A statements are similarly linked. Consequently, the K/As for 

the SRO examination will be drawn from those K/A categories (denoted by 

Columns “A2” and “G” in the SRO-only section of the applicable examination 

outline) and from all K/A categories related to the fuel handling facilities, which 

are specifically identified for sampling in 10 CFR 55.43(b)(7). The fact that a K/A 

is linked to both 10 CFR 55.41 and 10 CFR 55.43 does not mean that the K/A 

cannot be used to develop an SRO-only question, nor does it exclude the K/A 
ES-401N, Page 6 of 53

from sampling on the RO examination. However, to be used on the SRO-only 

section of an examination, a question developed from a K/A linked to both 10 

CFR 55.41 and 10 CFR 55.43 should test at the level of the 10 CFR 55.43(b) 

item number(s) that the K/A is linked to, or test a level that is unique to the SRO 

job position as determined from the facility’s learning objectives. K/A topics 

linked to 10 CFR 55.41(b) may also be appropriate for developing SRO-level 

questions, if the questions developed evaluate K/As at a 10 CFR 55.43(b) level, 

or at a level that is unique to the SRO job position as determined from the 

facility’s learning objectives. Attachment 2, “Clarification guidance for SRO-only 

Questions,” provides additional guidance that may be used when developing 

SRO-only questions. Use of this guidance is not a requirement.

d. After completing the outline, check the selected K/As for balance of coverage 

within and across the three tiers. Ensure that every applicable K/A category is 

sampled at least twice within each of the three tiers so that a valid sample will 

likely be maintained even if some questions are deleted as a result of postexamination comments (except as allowed by Note 1 on Forms ES-401N-1 and 

ES 401N-2). Similarly, ensure that no emergency/abnormal plant evolution 

(E/APE), system, or K/A category is oversampled (i.e., avoid selecting more than 

two K/A topics from a given system unless they relate to plant-specific priorities. 

Make any adjustments needed by systematically and randomly selecting 

replacement K/A statements. When performing these checks, the SRO exam,

which consists of 75 RO questions and 25 SRO questions, may be considered as 

a 100-question test overall and adjustments can be made to ensure balance of 

coverage and appropriate sampling. Also check the overall balance of the entire 

licensing examination, including the walk-through and the dynamic simulator test, 

and make any necessary adjustments. Document and justify all changes on 

Form ES-401N-4 and submit the documentation with the completed/revised

outline.

e. The NRC-developed outline will be sent to the facility for review in accordance 

with ES-201. Facility revisions and previously approved outlines shall be 

independently reviewed by a facility supervisor or manager before being 

submitted to the NRC’s regional office in accordance with ES-201. The NRC 

must receive the revised outline along with Form ES-401N-4 by the date agreed 

upon when the examination arrangements were confirmed (normally 

approximately 90 days before the scheduled examination date).

f. The NRC’s chief examiner will ensure that the revised outline is independently 

reviewed within 5 working days (or as otherwise agreed with the facility licensee) 

and provide comments and recommended changes, as appropriate. The NRC’s

chief examiner shall review all K/A rejections and changes, to ensure they are

unbiased. The examiner shall also review and approve the site-specific item or

topic substitutions. Refer to Section C.3 of ES-201 for additional guidance 

regarding outline reviews.

2. Select and Develop Questions

a. Prepare the site-specific written operator licensing examination using a 

combination of existing, modified, and new questions that match the specific K/A 

statements in the previously approved examination outline (refer to Section D.1 

and ES-201) and the criteria summarized below. Ensure that the questions 
ES-401N, Page 7 of 53

selected for Tier 3 maintain their focus on plant-wide generic knowledge and 

abilities and do not become an extension of Tier 2, “Plant Systems.”

When selecting or writing questions for K/As that test coupled knowledge or 

abilities (e.g., the A.2 K/A statements in Tiers 1 and 2 and a number of generic 

K/A statements, such as 2.4.1, in Tier 3), try to test both aspects of the K/A 

statement. If that is not possible without expending an inordinate amount of 

resources, limit the scope of the question to that aspect of the K/A statement 

requiring the highest cognitive level (e.g., the (b) portion of the A.2 K/A 

statements) or substitute another randomly selected K/A.

Any time it becomes necessary to deviate from the previously approved 

examination outline, discuss the proposed deviations with the NRC’s chief 

examiner and obtain concurrence. Also explain on Form ES-401N-4 why the 

original proposal could not be implemented and why the proposed replacement is 

considered an acceptable substitute.

b. Ensure that each question is technically accurate and free of the following 

psychometric flaws and job content errors that could diminish the validity of the 

examination:

• implausible distractors 

• confusing or ambiguous language 

• confusing or inappropriate negatives 

• collection of true/false statements 

• backward logic 

• specific determiners 

Appendix B provides a detailed discussion of and examples of questions containing 

each of these and other errors. Appendices A and B contain more detailed instructions 

and guidelines for preparing and formatting content-valid examinations and should be 

referred to as necessary while preparing the examination.

Questions that have been previously used on an NRC examination at the facility 

since 10/1/95 (i.e., a validated question) may be acceptable in their own right, 

however, it may have to be edited or replaced if it conflicts with another question 

on the examination or if necessary to meet the criteria on the written examination 

quality checklist (Form ES-401-6). Technical and psychometric flaws that cause 

the question to have no or multiple correct answers would have to be corrected 

regardless of when they are identified.

c. Ensure that the questions will differentiate between competent and less-thancompetent applicants determine if they are appropriate for the job level being 

examined, and confirm that they are operationally oriented when possible. Refer 

to Appendix A (Section C.2) and Appendix B (Section C.1.a and Section B of 

Attachment 2) for additional discussion of and examples to illustrate the concept 

of operational validity.

Establish a level of difficulty that discriminates between applicants who have and 

have not mastered the required knowledge, skills, and abilities. See 

Appendices A (Section C.3) and B (Section C.1.e and Section C of Attachment 2) 

for further guidance on setting the level of difficulty for individual test questions. 
ES-401N, Page 8 of 53

The applicants should be able to complete and review the RO examination within 

4 hours, and the SRO-only examination within 2 hours. (Refer to ES-402, 

“Administering Initial Written Examinations,” for actual administration time limits.)

In order to maintain examination quality and consistency, between 50 and 60 

percent of the questions on the RO examination and at least 50 percent of the 

questions on the SRO-Only portion of the examination shall be written at the 

comprehension/analysis level. The SRO examination, overall, could exceed 60 

percent because the K/A categories emphasized on the SRO-only examination 

are generally consistent with the higher cognitive levels. The cognitive level of 

any question drawn directly from a bank will be counted at its face value. Refer 

to Appendix B (Section C.1.d and Section A of Attachment 2) for further guidance 

regarding the levels of knowledge and sample questions written at each level.

d. The 25 SRO-level questions shall evaluate the additional knowledge and abilities 

required for the higher license level in accordance with 10 CFR 55.43(b) or the 

facility licensee’s learning objectives. Questions related to 10 CFR 55.41(b) 

topics may also be appropriate SRO-level questions if they evaluate knowledge 

and abilities at a level that is unique to the SRO job position. The fact that a 

particular K/A does not reference 55.43, does not, in and of itself, disqualify the 

K/A from testing on the SRO written examination. The SRO-only questions shall 

be consistent with the cognitive level of the approved K/A statement.

e. All test questions shall be in the multiple choice format described in Appendix B. 

Each question shall have four possible answer choices and be worth one point.

f. To avoid compromising the integrity and security of the examination and to 

enhance consistency, observe the following limits on bank use when preparing 

the examination:

• Take no more than 75 percent of the questions for the examination (i.e., 

56 questions for the RO and 19 questions for the SRO-only) directly from 

the facility licensee’s or any other written examination question bank 

without significant modification.

• If the bank contains more than one question that fits a specific K/A 

statement, randomly select from among the available questions unless 

there is an appropriate basis for selecting a specific question (e.g., a 

particular question has a higher cognitive level, has better discrimination 

validity, is more operationally oriented, or addresses site-specific 

priorities).

• Write at least 10 new questions (8 for the RO examination and 2 for the 

SRO-only) at the comprehension/analysis level, as described in 

Appendix B. Generally, if a question is created without reference to a 

bank question and has not been previously exposed at the facility, then it 

can be considered a “new” question.

• Select the remaining questions for the examination (nominally 11 for the 

RO and 4 for the SRO-only) from the facility licensee’s or any other bank, 

but significantly modify each question by changing at least one pertinent 

condition in the stem and at least one distractor. Changing the conditions 
ES-401N, Page 9 of 53

in the stem so that one of the three distractors in the original question 

becomes the correct answer would also be considered a significant 

modification. The intent or objective of the question does not necessarily 

have to be changed. Adding or deleting irrelevant information and 

making minor changes (e.g., the unit number, component train, or power 

level when it makes no difference) would not be considered a significant 

modification to the question.

g. A technical reference, including the reference’s revision or version number (if 

applicable) and a cross-reference to the facility licensee’s examination question 

bank, if applicable, shall be noted for every question. If the facility licensee has a 

learning objective applicable to the question, it should also be referenced. 

However, the absence of a learning objective does not invalidate the question, 

provided that it has an appropriate K/A and technical reference. Refer to ES-201 

for additional instructions for documenting the source of questions on 

facility-written examinations.

To facilitate the review process, examination authors should consider providing a 

brief explanation of why the answer is correct, and each of the distractors is 

plausible but incorrect. This optional practice increases the efficiency of the 

examination review process and promotes the detection and correction of 

problem questions before the examinations are administered.

Reference materials (such as diagrams, sketches, and portions of facility 

procedures) may be used on a selective basis as attachments to the written 

examination. Ensure that any reference material used in the examination is easy 

to read and clearly marked, provides an effective and objective way for the 

applicant to demonstrate knowledge of the topic or concept, and does not give 

away the answers to other questions on the examination or improve the 

applicant’s chances of guessing the correct answer by eliminating incorrect

distractors. ES-402 does not allow the SRO and RO examinations to be given 

independently. Therefore, an RO reference shall not give away an answer to an 

SRO question and vice versa.

Form ES-401N-5 is a sample worksheet for use in preparing the questions for the 

written examination. Facility licensees may use that or a similar form to 

document the information related to each proposed question that is submitted to 

the NRC for review and approval.

3. Review and Submit the Examination

a. Review the entire examination to ensure that it satisfies the criteria on Form 

ES-401N-6, “Written Examination Quality Checklist.”

b. Forward the examination package, including all proposed attachments and the 

completed quality checklist, to the first reviewer. Section E provides instructions 

for conducting the quality reviews.

Facility-developed examinations must be reviewed by a supervisor or manager 

before they are sent to the NRC’s regional office in accordance with ES-201. 

Facility authors shall submit their examinations for management review in time to 

support their delivery to the NRC’s regional office approximately 60 days before 

the scheduled examination date.
ES-401N, Page 10 of 53

NRC examiners shall submit their examinations to the chief examiner for review 

at least 1 week before the scheduled pre-review by the facility licensee (refer to 

ES-201).

4. Assemble the Examination

a. Format the examinations using a one-question-per-page layout by placing one

complete question on each page.

b. Use a cover sheet in the format shown in Form ES-401N-7 (or 8), “Site-Specific 

RO (or SRO) Written Examination Cover Sheet,” as applicable, for all RO and 

SRO written examinations. Fill out all items in the upper section of the cover 

sheet, except the name of the applicant, when preparing the examinations.

E. Quality Reviews

When reviewing questions, reviewers should try to put themselves in the position of the 

applicants by attempting to answer the questions without using reference material or referring to 

the answer key. Reviewers should ensure that the conditions and requirements posed in the 

question are complete and unambiguous, all necessary information is provided, all unnecessary 

information is deleted, the intended answer clearly follows from what is asked in the question, 

and all of the distractors are plausible.

1. Facility Management Review

If the examination was prepared by the facility licensee, it shall be independently 

reviewed by a supervisor or manager before it is submitted to the NRC’s regional office 

for review and approval in accordance with ES-201. The reviewer should evaluate the 

examination using the criteria on Form ES-401N-6 and include the signed form in the 

examination package submitted to the NRC. Facility licensees are responsible for 

ensuring that contractor-prepared examinations meet the guidelines specified here and 

are encouraged to verify the origins of the questions used to construct the examination

2. NRC Examiner Review

a. The NRC’s regional office staff shall review the examination as soon as possible 

after receipt so that supervisory approval can be obtained before the final review 

with the facility license, which is normally scheduled about 3 weeks before the 

examination date. It is especially important for the regional office to promptly 

review examinations prepared by a facility licensee because of the extra time that 

might be required if extensive changes are necessary. The chief examiner shall 

consolidate the comments from all NRC reviewers and submit one set of 

comments to the author or facility contact. Refer to Section C.3 of ES-201 for 

additional guidance regarding examination reviews

b. If the NRC prepared the examination, the NRC’s chief examiner (or designated 

NRC reviewer) shall independently review every examination question using 

Form ES-401N-9, “Written Examination Review Worksheet,” and review the 

overall written examination using Form ES-401N-6, “Written Examination Quality 

Checklist.” The facility reviewer blocks in Column “b” are not applicable for 

NRC-prepared examinations.
ES-401N, Page 11 of 53

c. If the facility licensee prepared the examination, the NRC’s chief examiner (or 

designated NRC reviewer) shall review every examination question using Form 

ES-401N-9, and review the overall written examination using Form ES-401N-6. 

Depending on the expected technical quality of the examination and the time 

available before the scheduled review with the facility licensee, the regional office 

staff shall independently review and verify the technical accuracy of a sample of 

the written examination questions.

At the discretion of the chief examiner / designated NRC reviewer and the 

responsible supervisor, the review of examination questions may begin by 

reviewing a sample of facility licensee submitted questions – 15 RO/SRO 

questions, and 10 SRO-only questions. If this sample review determines that > 6 

RO / SRO questions or > 4 SRO-only questions are unsatisfactory per Form 

ES-401N-9, then, with the approval of the responsible supervisor, the written 

examination may be returned to the facility licensee for re-work and correction 

without reviewing the remainder of the examination. The facility licensee will be 

expected to correct the identified unacceptable flaws and like-kind flaws that may 

exist in the remainder of the examination, and resubmit the entire written 

examination for NRC review. Alternatively, if the sample review identifies an 

excess of unsatisfactory questions, the chief examiner / designated NRC 

reviewer, in consultation with the responsible supervisor, may continue the 

review of the entire written examination without returning the examination to the 

facility licensee, and submit all examination comments to the facility licensee at 

one time.

Regardless of whether a sample review is conducted, or the examination is 

returned to the licensee, every question that is proposed for use on the written 

examination shall be reviewed using Form ES-401N-9.

d. There are no minimum or maximum limits on the number or scope of changes 

the regional office may direct the author or facility contact to make to the 

proposed examinations, provided that they are necessary to make the 

examinations conform to established acceptance criteria. All unacceptable flaws 

identified by using Form ES-401N-9 (including questions that do not match the 

intent of the approved K/A, have more than one implausible distractor, or are

intended as SRO-only questions but are not at the SRO license level as 

discussed in Section D.2.d) shall be corrected by rewriting or replacing the 

questions before the examination is administered. Questions that do not match 

the intent of the approved K/A statement, but are otherwise good questions, shall

nonetheless be replaced with questions that match the K/A. Other flaws of a less 

serious nature (e.g., editorial clarifications or enhancements, single implausible 

distractors) should still be corrected before the examination is administered, but 

they will not be categorized as unacceptable for purposes of documentation in 

the examination report in accordance with Section E.3 of ES-501, “Initial 

Post-Examination Activities.” Form ES -401N-9 may be provided electronically to 

the facility under exam security guidelines (i.e., password protected) at the 

discretion of the responsible supervisor or chief examiner.

e. Upon supervisory approval, generally at least 21 days before the examinations 

are scheduled to be given; the chief examiner will review the written 

examinations with the facility licensee in accordance with ES-201.
ES-401N, Page 12 of 53

When providing feedback to the facility licensee regarding unacceptable 

questions, the chief examiner shall, at a minimum, explain how the Appendix B 

psychometric quantitative and qualitative attributes are not being met. For 

example, if the question is determined to have more than one implausible 

distractor, the attendant explanation shall articulate the reasons the examiner 

believes each of the faulty distractors is not credible.

Examinations that are written by the NRC shall be clean, properly formatted, and 

ready to administer before they are reviewed with the facility licensee. The 

region shall not rely on the facility licensee to ensure that the quality of the 

examination is acceptable for administration.

f. After reviewing the examination with the facility licensee, the chief examiner will 

ensure that any comments and recommendations are resolved and the 

examination is revised as necessary. If the facility licensee developed the 

examination, it will generally be expected to make whatever changes the NRC 

recommends.

g. After the necessary changes have been made and the chief examiner is satisfied 

with the examination, he or she will sign the quality checklist and forward the 

examination package to the responsible supervisor for final approval. If the 

examination was written by the facility licensee, the chief examiner should 

include a copy of the original submittal with the examination package

3. NRC Supervisory Review

a. The responsible supervisor shall review all questions that are determined to have 

unacceptable flaws in accordance with Form ES-401N-9 before any comments 

are provided to the facility licensee. The responsible supervisor shall review the 

entire examination before authorizing the chief examiner to proceed with the 

facility pre-review in accordance with ES-201. The supervisory review is not 

intended to be another technical review, but rather a general assessment of 

examination quality, including a review of the changes being recommended by 

the chief examiner, and a check to ensure that all applicable administrative 

requirements have been implemented.

b. Based on the results of the sampling review conducted in accordance with 

Section E.2.c (above), the responsible supervisor (in coordination with regional 

management and the NRR/NRO operator licensing program office, as 

appropriate) will continue the examination review as follows:

• If fewer than six RO / SRO sampled questions and fewer than four

SRO-only sampled questions contain unacceptable flaws as determined 

by using Form ES-401N-9, the regional office shall review, in detail, the 

remainder of the examination using Form ES-401N-9, and shall provide 

comments to the facility licensee for rework and correction.

• If six or more of the RO / SRO sampled questions or four or more of the 

SRO-only sampled questions contain unacceptable flaws as determined 

by using Form ES-401N-9, the regional office may return the written 

examination (with explanatory comments) to the facility licensee for 

rework and correction without reviewing the remainder of the 
ES-401N, Page 13 of 53

examination. Refer to Section C.2.h of ES-201 for additional guidance 

regarding examination delays.

Alternatively, if the responsible supervisor and the chief examiner / 

designated NRC reviewer conclude that the remainder of the examination

can be reviewed and corrected in time for the scheduled examination 

date, the regional office should continue the review using Form 

ES-401N-9 and provide comments to the facility licensee for correction.

c. The responsible supervisor should ensure that any significant deficiencies in the 

original examinations submitted by a facility licensee are evaluated in 

accordance with ES-201 to determine the appropriate course of action. At a 

minimum, the supervisor should ensure that they are addressed in the final 

examination report in accordance with ES-501.

d. Following the facility review, the responsible supervisor should again review the 

examination to ensure that the concerns expressed by the facility licensee and 

the NRC have been appropriately addressed. The supervisor shall not sign Form 

ES-401N-6 until he or she is satisfied that the examination is acceptable to be 

administered

4. Facility Peer Review

As a final check of the examination’s technical accuracy, facility management should 

consider administering the examination (under security agreements) to one or more 

licensed personnel who were previously uninvolved in developing the examination. In 

light of examination security concerns, the NRC discourages the use of certain 

individuals (e.g., the applicants’ supervisors or coworkers) to validate the examination. 

Any comments made and problems identified during the trial administration shall be 

discussed with the NRC’s chief examiner and resolved before the examination is 

administered to the license applicants. The intent of the review is to identify and correct 

deficiencies that may affect the validity of the examination.
ES-401N, Page 14 of 53

F. Attachments/Forms

Attachment 1 Example Systematic Sampling Methodology

Attachment 2, Clarification guidance for SRO-only Questions

Form ES-401N-1 ABWR Examination Outline

Form ES-401N-2 AP-1000® Examination Outline

Form ES-401N-3 Generic Knowledge and Abilities Outline (Tier 3)

Form ES-401N-4 Record of Rejected K/As

Form ES-401N-5 Sample Written Examination Question Worksheet

Form ES-401N-6 Written Examination Quality Checklist

Form ES-401N-7 Site-Specific RO Written Examination Cover Sheet

Form ES-401N-8 Site-Specific SRO Written Examination Cover Sheet

Form ES-401N-9 Written Examination Review Worksheet
ES-401N, Page 15 of 53

ES-401N Example Systematic Sampling Methodology Attachment 1

The following process, which uses the ABWR outline (Form ES-401N-1) for illustration, may be used 

for each group in Tiers 1 and 2 of the RO examination outline.

1. Review each group and delete those items (emergency/abnormal plant evolutions (E/APEs) 

for Tier 1 and systems for Tier 2) that clearly do not apply to the facility for which the 

examination is being written; be prepared to explain the basis for the deletions to the NRC’s 

chief examiner. Add any operationally-important systems or E/APEs that relate to the facility 

but are not included in the generic lists on Form ES-401N-1.

2. Sequentially number the remaining items in the group and sequentially annotate the same 

number of tokens. If we assume that 3 of the 23 E/APES in Tier 1, Group 1 were deleted in 

Step 1, there should be 20 tokens, numbered 1 to 20.

a. Because the number of items remaining in the group (in this case 20) is the same as the 

required number of points for the group specified in the right-hand column of the 

examination outline, each item in the group would be sampled one time.

b. If the number of items remaining in the group is smaller than the required number of 

points for the group (e.g., Tier 2, Group 1 has 25 items but requires 26 points), sample 

each item once, and determine the rest of the sample by randomly selecting and 

removing tokens (in this case 1 of 25) until the required total number of points (26) is 

reached. Update Form ES-401N-1 to note the selected item.

c. If the number of items remaining in the group is larger than the required number of points 

for the group (e.g., Tier 1, Group 2 has 15 items but only requires 7 points), randomly 

select and remove the required number of tokens (7) and note them on Form 

ES-401N-1.

3. After selecting the topics to be sampled in each group as described in Step 2, count the 

number of K/A categories in the group (e.g., six for each group in Tier 1 (i.e., K1, K2, K3, A1, 

A2, and G)) and sequentially annotate the same number of tokens (in this case 6). For each 

E/APE (and system) selected in Step 2, randomly select and remove a token and note the 

K/A category on Form ES-401N-1. If the E/APE (or system) was sampled more than once in 

accordance with Step 2.a, randomly select a second K/A category. If the selected K/A 

category contain no K/A statements having an importance rating above 2.5, systematically 

select another K/A category, unless the lower importance is justified based on plant-specific 

priorities. Then replace all tokens in the container and repeat the process for every selected 

item in each group.

4. Use a similar method to randomly select from among the K/A statements under each 

selected K/A category. Describe each K/A topic in the space provided on Form ES-401N-1 

and enter the importance rating. K/As having importance ratings less than 2.5 can be used if 

justified based on plant priorities; the facility contact should be prepared to explain the basis 

to the NRC’s chief examiner.

For Tier 3 (plantwide generics) of the examination outline, randomly select K/As from Section 2 of

the NRC’s K/A catalog so that each of the four K/A categories (i.e., “Conduct of Operations,” 

“Equipment Control,” “Radiation Control,” and “Emergency Procedures/Emergency Plan”) has at 

least two items (one is allowed for Radiation Control if replaced by another Tier 3 Category K/A.)
ES-401N, Page 16 of 53

Repeat Steps (1) through (4), above, to select the required number of topics for the SRO-only 

portion of the exam. With respect to Step (3), select topics from the shaded portions of the Tier 1 

and 2 outlines (i.e., the “A2” and “G” K/A categories, which are linked to 10 CFR 55.43, and the fuel 

handling equipment, which is specifically identified for sampling in 10 CFR 55.43(b)(7)). For Tier 3, 

select seven K/As linked to 10 CFR 55.43; sample one of the categories only once.
ES-401N, Page 17 of 53

ES-401N Clarification Guidance for SRO-only Questions Attachment 2

Purpose

The purpose of this document is to promote consistency for examiners and licensees when 

developing and reviewing senior reactor operator (SRO)-only written test items.

Scope

This document provides clarifications and guidance for fulfilling the intent of Title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 55.43 and NUREG-1021, ES-401N, as they pertain to 

SRO-only written test items. Bracketed [ ] items reference the source of the guidance.

References

1. K/A catalogs (NUREG-1122 and NUREG-1123)

2. 10 CFR 55.43 written examination: senior operators

3. 2006 Region 2 Examiner’s Workshop SRO-only topic presentation (Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML062060498) 

4. Operator Licensing Feedback Web page (http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operatorlicensing/op-licensing-files/ol-feedback.pdf) questions 401.29, 401.30, 401.35, 401.36, 

and 401.37.

Table of Contents

1. Section I: NUREG-1021, NUREG-1122, NUREG-1123 Sample Plan Requirements

2. Section II: Examples of the Additional Knowledge and Abilities As They Relate to an 

SRO License and the 10 CFR 55.43(b) Topics

3. Section III: Justification for Plant-Specific Exemptions

4. Section IV: Examples of Satisfactory SRO-Only Test Items

5. Section V: Examples of Unsatisfactory SRO-Only Test Items
ES-401N, Page 18 of 53

ES-401N 2 Attachment 2

I. NUREG-1021, NUREG-1122, NUREG-1123 Sample Plan Requirements

[ES-401N, Section D.1.c]

SRO-only K/A statements MUST be either an:

• “A2” statement. [All emergency/abnormal “A2” catalog statements are linked to 

10 CFR 55.43(b). Plant systems “A2” statements are still valid SRO-only K/A material 

even though some do not have a 10 CFR 55.43 designator in the catalog.]

o One exception: In Tier 2, Group 2, selection does not have to be A2 provided it is 

related to fuel handling facilities and procedures per 10 CFR 55.43(b)(7).

OR

• “G” statement. [in the case of Tier 3, linked to one or more of the 10 CFR 55.43 topics] 

[OL Feedback Item 401.29]

Example below shows K/A categories for SRO-only Points
ES-401N, Page 19 of 53

ES-401N 3 Attachment 2

II. Examples of Additional Knowledge and Abilities As They Relate to an SRO License 

and the 10 CFR 55.43(b) Topics [ES-401N, Section D.1.c]:

A. Conditions and limitations in the facility license. [10 CFR 55.43(b)(1)]

Examples of SRO exam items for this topic include:

• Reporting requirements when the maximum licensed thermal power output is 

exceeded.

• Administration of fire protection program requirements such as compensatory 

actions associated with inoperable sprinkler systems, fire doors, etc.

• The required actions for not meeting administrative controls listed in Technical 

Specification (TS) Section 5 or 6, depending on the facility (e.g., shift staffing 

requirements).

• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, if 

applicable.

• Processes for TS and FSAR changes.

Note: The analysis and selection of required actions for TS Sections 3 and 4 may be 

more appropriately listed in the following 10 CFR 55.43 topic.

B. Facility operating limitations in the TS and their bases. [10 CFR 55.43(b)(2)]

Some examples of SRO exam items for this topic include:

• Application of Required Actions (Section 3) and Surveillance Requirements (SR) 

(Section 4) in accordance with rules of application requirements (Section 1).

• Application of generic Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) requirements 

(LCO 3.0.1 thru 3.0.7; SR 4.0.1 thru 4.0.4).

• Knowledge of TS bases that are required to analyze TS required actions and 

terminology.

• Same items listed above for the Technical Requirements Manual (TRM) and 

Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM).

SRO-only knowledge generally cannot be claimed for questions that can be answered 

solely based on knowledge of ≤ 1 hour action statements and the safety limits since 

Reactor Operators (ROs) are typically required to know these items.

SRO-only knowledge generally cannot be claimed for questions that can be answered 

solely based on expected RO TS knowledge. RO’s are typically expected to know the 

LCO statements and associated applicability information, i.e., the information above 

the double line separating the ACTIONS from the LCO and associated applicability 

statements (standardized TS; see example below)
ES-401N, Page 20 of 53

ES-401N 4 Attachment 2

Above this 

line

RO 

knowledge
ES-401N, Page 21 of 53

ES-401N 5 Attachment 2

Figure 1: Screening for SRO-only linked to 10 CFR 55.43(b)(2)

(Tech Specs)

Can question be answered solely by knowing ≤ 1 

hour TS/TRM Action? RO question

Yes

No

Can question be answered solely by knowing the 

LCO/TRM information listed “above-the-line?”

Yes

RO question

No

Can question be answered solely by knowing the 

TS Safety Limits?

Yes RO question

No

Does the question involve one or more of the following for TS, 

TRM, or ODCM? 

• Application of Required Actions (Section 3) and Surveillance 

Requirements (Section 4) in accordance with rules of 

application requirements (Section 1)

• Application of generic LCO requirements (LCO 3.0.1 thru 

3.0.7 and SR 4.0.1 thru 4.0.4)

• Knowledge of TS bases that is required to analyze TS 

required actions and terminology

SRO-only 

question

Yes

No

Question might not be linked to 

10 CFR 55.43(b)(2) for SRO-only
ES-401N, Page 22 of 53

ES-401N 6 Attachment 2

C. Facility licensee procedures required to obtain authority for design and operating 

changes in the facility. [10 CFR 55.43(b)(3)]

Some examples of SRO exam items for this topic include:

• 10 CFR 50.59 screening and evaluation processes.

• Administrative processes for temporary modifications.

• Administrative processes for disabling annunciators.

• Administrative processes for the installation of temporary instrumentation.

• Processes for changing the plant or plant procedures.

Section IV provides an example of a satisfactory SRO-only question related to this 

topic.

D. Radiation hazards that may arise during normal and abnormal situations, including 

maintenance activities and various contamination conditions. [10 CFR 55.43(b)(4)]

Some examples of SRO exam items for this topic include:

• Process for gaseous/liquid release approvals, i.e., release permits.

• Analysis and interpretation of radiation and activity readings as they pertain to 

selection of administrative, normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures.

Analysis and interpretation of coolant activity, including comparison to emergency 

plan criteria and/or regulatory limits.

SRO-only knowledge should not be claimed for questions that can be answered solely

based on RO knowledge of radiological safety principles; e.g., RWP requirements, 

stay-time, DAC-hours, etc.

E. Assessment of facility conditions and selection of appropriate procedures during 

normal, abnormal, and emergency situations. [10 CFR 55.43(b)(5)]

This 10 CFR 55.43 topic involves both 1) assessing plant conditions (normal, 

abnormal, or emergency) and then 2) selecting a procedure or section of a procedure 

to mitigate, recover, or with which to proceed. One area of SRO level knowledge (with 

respect to selecting a procedure) is knowledge of the content of the procedure versus 

knowledge of the procedure’s overall mitigative strategy or purpose.

The applicant’s knowledge can be evaluated at the level of 10 CFR 55.43(b)(5) by 

ensuring that the additional knowledge of the procedure’s content is required to 

correctly answer the written test item, for example:
ES-401N, Page 23 of 53

ES-401N 7 Attachment 2

• Knowledge of when to implement attachments and appendices, including how to 

coordinate these items with procedure steps.

• Knowledge of diagnostic steps and decision points in the emergency operating 

procedures (EOP) that involve transitions to event specific sub-procedures or 

emergency contingency procedures.

• Knowledge of administrative procedures that specify hierarchy, implementation, 

and/or coordination of plant normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures.

SRO-only knowledge should not be claimed for questions that can be answered solely

using “systems knowledge”; e.g.:

• how the system works.

• system flow path.

• component locations, etc.

SRO-only knowledge should not be claimed for questions that can be answered solely

using fundamental knowledge of:

• the basic purpose, the overall sequence of events that will occur, or the overall 

mitigative strategy of a procedure.

• any AOP entry condition.

• plant parameters that require direct entry to major EOPs; e.g., major

Westinghouse EOPs are E0, E1, E2, E3, ECA-0.0, and Red/Orange Functional 

Restoration Procedures and major General Electric EOPs are Reactor Vessel 

Control, Primary Containment Control, Secondary Containment Control, and 

Radioactive Release Control.

• immediate operator actions of a procedure.

Section IV and V of this document provide several satisfactory and unsatisfactory 

examples of test items related to this 10 CFR 55.43(b)(5) topic.
ES-401N, Page 24 of 53

ES-401N 8 Attachment 2

Figure 2: Screening for SRO-only linked to 10 CFR 55.43(b)(5)

(Assessment and selection of procedures)

Can the question be answered solely by knowing 

“systems knowledge”, i.e., how the system works, 

flowpath, logic, component location? RO question Yes

No

Can the question be answered solely by knowing 

immediate operator actions? Yes

Can the question be answered solely by knowing 

entry conditions for AOPs or plant parameters 

that require direct entry to major EOPs?

Yes

No

Does the question require one or more of the following?

• Assessing plant conditions (normal, abnormal, or 

emergency) and then selecting a procedure or section of a 

procedure to mitigate, recover, or with which to proceed

• Knowledge of when to implement attachments and 

appendices, including how to coordinate these items with 

procedure steps

• Knowledge of diagnostic steps and decision points in the 

EOPs that involve transitions to event specific subprocedures or emergency contingency procedures

• Knowledge of administrative procedures that specify 

hierarchy, implementation, and/or coordination of plant 

normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures

SRO-only 

question

Yes

Can the question be answered solely by knowing 

the purpose, overall sequence of events, or 

overall mitigative strategy of a procedure?

No

No

Yes

Question might not be linked to 

10 CFR 55.43(b)(5) for SRO-only

No

RO question

RO question

RO question
ES-401N, Page 25 of 53

ES-401N 9 Attachment 2

F. Procedures and limitations involved in initial core loading, alterations in core 

configuration, control rod programming, and determination of various internal and 

external effects on core reactivity. [10 CFR 55.43(b)(6)]

Some examples of SRO exam items for this topic include:

• Evaluating core conditions and emergency classifications based on core 

conditions.

• Administrative requirements associated with low power physics testing processes.

• Administrative requirements associated with refueling activities, such as approvals 

required to amend core loading sheets or administrative controls of potential 

dilution paths and/or activities.

• Administrative controls associated with the installation of neutron sources.

• Knowledge of TS bases for reactivity controls.

G. Fuel handling facilities and procedures. [10 CFR 55.43(b)(7)]

Some examples of SRO exam items for this topic include:

• Refuel floor SRO responsibilities.

• Assessment of fuel handling equipment surveillance requirement acceptance 

criteria.

• Prerequisites for vessel disassembly and reassembly.

• Decay heat assessment.

• Assessment of surveillance requirements for the refueling mode.

• Reporting requirements.

• Emergency classifications.

This does not include items that the RO may be responsible for at some sites such as 

fuel handling equipment and refueling related control room instrumentation operability 

requirements, abnormal operating procedure immediate actions, etc. For example, an 

RO is required to stop the refueling process when communication is lost between the 

control room and the refueling floor, therefore, this is a task that is both an RO and 

SRO responsibility and is not SRO-only.

III. Justification for Plant-Specific Exemptions

The 25 SRO-only questions shall evaluate the additional knowledge and abilities required for 

the higher license level in accordance with 10 CFR 55.43(b). [NUREG 1021, Section ES-401N, 

Section D.2.d]
ES-401N, Page 26 of 53

ES-401N 10 Attachment 2

The fact that a facility licensee trains its ROs to master certain 10 CFR 55.43 knowledge, 

skills, and abilities does NOT mean that they can no longer be used as a basis for SRO-only 

questions. [Operator Licensing Feedback Web page (http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operatorlicensing/op-licensing-files/ol-feedback.pdf) Item 401.36]

The SRO-only test item is required to be tied to one of the 10 CFR 55.43(b) items. However, 

if a licensee desires to evaluate a knowledge/ability that is not tied to one of the 10 CFR 

55.43(b) items, then the licensee can classify the knowledge/ability as “unique to the SRO 

position” provided that there is documented evidence that ties the knowledge/ability to the 

licensee’s SRO job position duties in accordance with the systematic approach to training 

(SAT).

• Justification: A question that is not tied to one of the 10 CFR 55.43(b) items can still be

classified as “SRO-only” provided the licensee has documented evidence to prove that 

the knowledge/ability is “unique to the SRO position” at the site. An example of 

documented evidence includes:

o The question is linked to a learning objective that is specifically labeled in the lesson 

plan as being SRO-only (e.g., some licensee lesson plans have columns in the 

margin that differentiate AO, RO, and SRO learning objectives) [NUREG 1021, ES401N, Section D.2.d]

AND/OR

o A question is linked to a task that is labeled as an SRO-only task, and the task is NOT 

listed in the RO task list.
ES-401N, Page 27 of 53

ES-401N 11 Attachment 2

IV. Examples of Satisfactory SRO-only questions

Westinghouse: E07 Saturated Core Cooling

EA2.2 Ability to determine and interpret the following as they apply to the 

(Saturated Core Cooling): Adherence to appropriate procedures and operation 

within the limitations in the facility’s license and amendments. (CFR: 43.5/ 

45.13): 3.3/3.9

A Steam Generator Tube Rupture has occurred and the crew is performing actions 

contained in EOP-4.2, SGTR with Loss of Reactor Coolant - Subcooled Recovery. The 

following plant conditions currently exist:

• All Critical Safety Function (CSF) Status Trees are GREEN except:

o Core Cooling - YELLOW due to RVLIS level

o Inventory - YELLOW due to RVLIS level

• The crew has determined that the RHR Sump Level (based on RWST drawdown) is 

LESS than expected.

Which ONE (1) of the following identifies the required implementation of procedures for 

this event? 

A. Transition to EOP-4.3, SGTR w/ Loss of Reactor Coolant – Saturated Recovery. 

Implementation of the CSF Yellow Path procedures is not allowed while in EOP-4.3.

B. Remain in EOP-4.2.

Implementation of the CSF Yellow Path procedures is not allowed while in EOP-4.2.

C. Transition to EOP-4.3, SGTR w/ Loss of Reactor Coolant – Saturated Recovery.

The actions of both Yellow Path procedures must be performed.

D. Remain in EOP-4.2.

The actions of both Yellow Path procedures must be performed.

Justification: The question requires the applicant to assess plant conditions and 

to know the content of procedures in order to select a required course of action. 

Linked to 10 CFR 55.43(b)(5).
ES-401N, Page 28 of 53

ES-401N 12 Attachment 2

IV. Examples of Satisfactory SRO-only questions (cont’d)

EPE: 295028 High Drywell Temperature

EA2.01 Ability to determine and/or interpret the following as they apply to HIGH 

DRYWELL TEMPERATURE: Drywell temperature. (CFR: 41.10/ 43.5/ 45.13): 

4.0*/4.1*

Following a small break LOCA on Unit Two (2) the following conditions exist: 

Drywell temperature 270°F

Drywell pressure 5.0 psig

Torus pressure 2.5 psig

Torus level +5 inches

Reactor pressure 395 psig

Containment H2O2 Monitors CAC-AT-4409 & 4410 are not available at this time. 

Chemistry has been notified but they have not yet sampled the drywell.

Which ONE (1) of the following procedures provides the required actions that mitigate 

these plant conditions?

A. SEP-05, Primary Containment Purging.

B. SEP-10, Section 4, Defeating Drywell Cooler LOCA Lockout.

C. SEP-03, Suppression Pool Spray Procedure.

D. SEP-02, Drywell Spray Procedure.

Justification: The question requires the applicant to assess plant conditions and to 

know the content of procedures in order to select a required course of action. 

These procedures are not major EOPs, i.e., they are supplementary emergency

procedures directed from within the major EOP. Linked to 10 CFR 55.43(b)(5).
ES-401N, Page 29 of 53

ES-401N 13 Attachment 2

IV. Examples of Satisfactory SRO-only questions (cont’d)

Generic APE: 027 Pressurizer Pressure Control System (PZR PCS) Malfunction

AA2.15 Ability to determine and interpret the following as they apply to the 

Pressurizer Pressure Control Malfunctions: Actions to be taken if PZR pressure 

instrument fails high. (CFR: 43.5/ 45.13): 3.7/4.0

Unit 1 initial conditions:

• Time = 10:00

• Reactor Power = 100%

• 1-RC-PORV-1455C (Pzr Pressure PORV) indicates open

• Both Pzr Spray Vlvs indicate open

• RCS Pressure = 2200 psig decreasing

• 1-AP-31.00 (Increasing or Decreasing RCS Pressure) initiated

Current conditions:

• Time = 10:01

• Reactor Power = 97%

• RCS Pressure = 2100 psig increasing

• Spray valve in MANUAL and closed

• 1-RC-PORV-1455C in MANUAL and closed

Based on these conditions, which ONE (1) of the following identifies (1) the pressurizer 

pressure control component that failed high and (2) the status of 1-RC-PORV-1455C 

operability in accordance with Technical Specifications?

A. 1-RC-PT-1444

PORV is OPERABLE

B.1-RC-PT-1444

PORV is INOPERABLE

C.1-RC-PT-1445

PORV is OPERABLE

D.1-RC-PT-1445

PORV is INOPERABLE

Justification: The first part of the question can be answered using RO knowledge

of systems. The second part of the question can only be answered by an SRO 

applicant if he/she knows the information in the TS bases. No reference was 

provided. This question is linked to 10 CFR 55.43(b)(5).
ES-401N, Page 30 of 53

ES-401N 14 Attachment 2

IV. Examples of Satisfactory SRO-only questions (cont’d)

Generic K/A G2.2.6: Knowledge of the process for making changes to procedures.

(CFR: 41.10/ 43.3/ 45.13): 3.0/3.6

The plant has developed a new surveillance test procedure with the following attributes:

• The test procedure involves a process that was NOT previously described in the FSAR

• The test procedure does NOT constitute an un-reviewed safety question

• The test procedure will require a change to Tech Specs

Which ONE (1) of the following identifies whether a license amendment is required and 

whether the surveillance test procedure can be implemented without NRC approval in 

accordance with 00056-C, 10 CFR 50.59 Screening and Evaluations?

A. License amendment is NOT required; NRC approval is NOT required

B. License amendment is NOT required; NRC approval is required

C. License amendment is required; NRC approval is NOT required

D. License amendment is required; NRC approval is required

Justification: The question is linked to one of the duties reserved for the SRO 

licensed individual, i.e., 10 CFR 55.43(b)(5) (Procedures used to obtain authority for 

design and operating changes to the facility).
ES-401N, Page 31 of 53

ES-401N 15 Attachment 2

V. Examples of Unsatisfactory SRO-only questions

APE: 008 Pressurizer (PZR) Vapor Space Accident (Relief Valve Stuck Open)

AA2.22: Ability to determine and interpret the following as they apply to the 

Pressurizer Vapor Space Accident: Consequences of loss of pressure in RCS; 

methods for evaluating pressure loss. (CFR: 43.5/ 45.13): 3.8/4.2

• A pressurizer steam space LOCA has caused PPLS and SIAS actuation.

• CETs are stable at 550°F.

• RCS pressure is stable at 1300 psia.

• Pressurizer level is 20 percent and rising.

• HPSI flow is 390 gpm.

With no operator action and assuming temperatures remain constant, how will pressurizer 

level, pressurizer pressure, and HPSI flow respond?

A. Pressurizer level will stabilize slightly above 20%, pressure will lower and HPSI flow 

will increase.

B. Pressurizer level will rise to 100%, pressure and HPSI flow will remain constant.

C. Pressurizer level will rise to 100%, pressure will rise and HPSI flow will decrease.

D. Pressurizer level will stabilize slightly above 20%, pressure will rise and HPSI flow will 

decrease

The question stem does not link to one of the seven 10 CFR 55.43(b) statements 

even though the K/A is linked to 10 CFR 55.43(b)5. The question only tests 

assessment of plant conditions. An RO is expected to understand integrated 

system response. 
ES-401N, Page 32 of 53

ES-401N 16 Attachment 2

V. Examples of Unsatisfactory SRO-only questions (cont’d)

Generic K/A G2.1.7: Ability to evaluate plant performance and make operational 

judgments based on operating characteristics, reactor behavior, and instrument 

interpretation. (CFR: 41.5/ 43.5/ 45.12/ 45.13): 4.4/4.7

Reactor power is 29% during a reactor startup when the reactor operator trips the main 

turbine due to high vibration. Which ONE (1) of the following identifies the required 

procedures?

The SRO should now anticipate implementing procedures that will:

A. Maintain reactor power less than 29% since power will increase after the main turbine 

trip.

B. Recover from the reactor scram caused by the turbine trip.

C. Recover vessel level using the feed and condensate system.

D. Scram the reactor.

The question is asking for plant response and what to do about it, NOT selection or 

application of a procedure. An applicant can answer the question using integrated 

plant and system knowledge, i.e., knowledge that is not unique to the SRO. 
ES-401N, Page 33 of 53

ES-401N 17 Attachment 2

V. Examples of Unsatisfactory SRO-only questions (cont’d)

APE: 065 Loss of Instrument Air

AA2.06 Ability to determine and interpret the following as they apply to the Loss of 

Instrument Air: When to trip reactor if instrument air pressure is decreasing. 

(CFR: 43.5/ 45.13): 3.6*/4.2

Unit 1 is currently at 82% power. A down power is in progress to remove the 1A MFW pump 

from service. Which ONE (1) of the following plant conditions would require you to direct an 

IMMEDIATE manual trip of the reactor?

A. Instrument air pressure is currently 59 psig and lowering.

B. 1A and 1B SG levels are 75% and increasing.

C. BOTH heater drain pumps trip.

D. 4.16 KV bus 1B3 de-energizes due to an electrical fault on the bus.

The justification for this question was that the SRO is responsible for directing the 

action to trip the reactor; however, the RO is still required to know immediate reactor 

trip criteria listed in the abnormal procedure. Just because the SRO directs the action 

does not mean that the knowledge is unique to the SRO position.
ES-401N, Page 34 of 53

ES-401N 18 Attachment 2

V. Examples of Unsatisfactory SRO-only questions (cont’d)

K/A 007 Pressurizer Relief Tank / Quench Tank System (PRTS)

G2.2.44: Ability to interpret control room indications to verify the status and 

operation of a system, and understand how operator actions and directives affect 

plant and system conditions. (CFR: 41.5/ 43.5/ 45.12): 4.2/4.4

Given the following:

• Unit 1 is at 100% power, RCS pressure indicates 2225 psig and stable.

• 1B-F1, PRZ RELIEF TK HI PRESS alarm is received.

• PRT pressure indicates 14 psig and rising slowly.

• PRT temperature is 92°F and stable.

• PRT level is 70% and stable.

Which ONE (1) of the following describes the appropriate operator response?

A. Ensure PZR PORVs are closed, and PG and N2 to PRT are isolated.

Go to 1-AP-16, Increasing Primary Plant Leakage.

B. Ensure PZR PORVs are closed, and PG and N2 to PRT are isolated.

Vent the PRT in accordance with 1-OP-5.7, Operation of the Pressurizer Relief Tank.

C. Submit a WR. Verify PG water alignment and cool the PRT by draining and refilling in 

accordance with 1-OP-5.7.

D. Submit a WR. Cool the PRT by draining and refilling in accordance with 1-OP-5.7. 

Refer to 1-AP-16, Increasing Primary Plant Leakage.

The justification for this question was that each choice required selection of 

procedures. However, this is not SRO-only because choices also include 

responsive actions which an RO can deduce using systems knowledge; therefore, 

procedure selection is not actually required to answer the question.
ES-401N, Page 35 of 53

ES-401N ABWR Examination Outline Form ES-401N-1

Facility: Date of Exam:

Tier Group

RO K/A Category Points SRO-Only Points

K

1

K

2

K

3

K

4

K

5

K

6

A

1

A

2

A

3

A

4

G* Total A2 G* Total

1.

Emergency & 

Abnormal Plant 

Evolutions

1

N/A N/A

20 7

2 7 3

Tier Totals 27 10

2.

Plant

Systems

1 26 5

2 12 3

Tier Totals 38 8

3. Generic Knowledge and Abilities 

Categories

1 2 3 4

10

1 2 3 4

7

Note: 1. Ensure that at least two topics from every applicable K/A category are sampled within each tier of the RO and

SRO-only outlines (i.e., except for one category in Tier 3 of the SRO-only outline, the “Tier Totals” in each K/A

category shall not be less than two). (One Tier 3 Radiation Control K/A is allowed if the K/A is replaced by a K/A 

from another Tier 3 Category).

2. The point total for each group and tier in the proposed outline must match that specified in the table. The final

point total for each group and tier may deviate by ±1 from that specified in the table based on NRC revisions. The

final RO exam must total 75 points and the SRO-only exam must total 25 points.

3. Systems/evolutions within each group are identified on the associated outline; systems or evolutions that do not 

apply at the facility should be deleted with justification; operationally important, site-specific systems/evolutions 

that are not included on the outline should be added. Refer to Section D.1.b of ES-401N for guidance regarding 

the elimination of inappropriate K/A statements.

4. Select topics from as many systems and evolutions as possible; sample every system or evolution in the group 

before selecting a second topic for any system or evolution.

5. Absent a plant-specific priority, only those K/As having an importance rating (IR) of 2.5 or higher shall be selected. 

Use the RO and SRO ratings for the RO and SRO-only portions, respectively.

6. Select SRO topics for Tiers 1 and 2 from the shaded systems and K/A categories.

7. The generic (G) K/As in Tiers 1 and 2 shall be selected from Section 2 of the K/A Catalog, but the topics must be

relevant to the applicable evolution or system. Refer to Section D.1.b of ES-401N for the applicable K/As.

8. On the following pages, enter the K/A numbers, a brief description of each topic, the topics’ importance ratings 

(IRs) for the applicable license level, and the point totals (#) for each system and category. Enter the group and

tier totals for each category in the table above; if fuel handling equipment is sampled in a category other than 

Category A2 or G* on the SRO-only exam, enter it on the left side of Column A2 for Tier 2, Group 2 (Note #1 

does not apply). Use duplicate pages for RO and SRO-only exams.

9. For Tier 3, select topics from Section 2 of the K/A catalog, and enter the K/A numbers, descriptions, IRs, and point

totals (#) on Form ES-401N-3. Limit SRO selections to K/As that are linked to 10 CFR 55.43.

G* Generic K/As
ES-401N, Page 36 of 53

ES-401N 2 Form ES-401N-1

ES-401N ABWR Examination Outline Form ES-401N-1

Emergency and Abnormal Plant Evolutions - Tier 1/Group 1 (RO / SRO)

E/APE # / Name / Safety Function K

1

K

2

K

3

A

1

A

2

G* K/A Topic(s) IR #

APE2001 Partial or Complete Loss of

Forced Core Flow Circulation / 1 & 4

APE2003 Partial or Complete Loss of AC / 6

APE2004 Partial or Total Loss of DC Pwr / 6

APE2005 Main Turbine Generator Trip / 3

APE2006 Reactor Scram / 1

APE2015 Control Room Evacuation / 7

APE2017 Partial or Total Loss of CCW 

Reactor Building Cooling Water / 8

APE2018 Partial or Total Loss of Inst. Air / 8

APE2020 Loss of Shutdown Cooling / 4

APE2023 Plant Fire On Site / 8

APE2024 Generator Voltage and Electric 

Grid Disturbances / 6

APE2022 Refueling Accidents / 8

EPE1001 High Drywell Pressure / 5

EPE1002 High Reactor Pressure / 3

EPE1003 Suppression Pool High Water 

Temp. / 5

EPE1004 High Drywell Temperature / 5

EPE1006 Low Suppression Pool Wtr Lvl / 5

EPE1007 Reactor Low Water Level/ 2

EPE1008 High Secondary Containment 

Area Temperature / 5

EPE1009 High Secondary Containment 

Area Radiation Levels / 9

EPE1010 Reactor Building HVAC Exhaust 

High Radiation / 9

EPE1013 Scram Condition Present and

Reactor Power Above APRM Downscale or

Unknown / 1

EPE1014 High Off-site Release Rate / 9

K/A Category Totals: Group Point Total: 20/7
ES-401N, Page 37 of 53

ES-401N 3 Form ES-401N-1

ES-401N ABWR Examination Outline Form ES-401N-1

Emergency and Abnormal Plant Evolutions - Tier 1/Group 2 (RO / SRO)

E/APE # / Name / Safety Function K

1

K

2

K

3

A

1

A

2 G* K/A Topic(s) IR #

APE2002 Loss of Main Condenser Vac / 3

APE2007 High Reactor Pressure / 3

APE2008 High Reactor Water Level / 2

APE2009 Low Reactor Water Level / 2

APE2010 High Drywell Pressure / 5

APE2011 High Drywell Temperature / 5

APE2012 High Suppression Pool Temp. / 

5

APE2013 Inadvertent Reactivity Addition/ 1

APE2014 Incomplete Scram / 1

APE2016 High Off-site Release Rate / 9

APE2019 Inadvertent Cont. Isolation/ 5 & 7

APE2021 Loss of CRD Pumps / 1

EPE1005 High Suppression Pool

Wtr Lvl / 5

EPE1011 Secondary Containment High 

Differential Pressure / 5

EPE1012 Secondary Containment High 

Floor Drain Sump/Area Water Level / 5

K/A Category Point Totals: Group Point Total: 7/3
ES-401N, Page 38 of 53

ES-401N 4 Form ES-401N-1

ES-401N ABWR Examination Outline Form ES-401N-1

Plant Systems - Tier 2/Group 1 (RO / SRO)

System # / Name K

1

K

2

K

3

K

4

K

5

K

6

A

1

A

2

A

3

A

4 G* K/A Topic(s) IR #

SF1RRS & SF4RRS Reactor 

Recirculation System

SF1RFC Recirculation Flow 

Control

SF1SLC Standby Liquid Control

SF2RHRLPFL RHR: Low Pressure 

Flooder Mode

SF2HPCF High Pressure Core 

Flooder

SF2RCIC & SF4RCIC Reactor 

Core Isolation Cooling

SF2FWC Feedwater Control

SF3ADS Automatic 

Depressurization System

SF3SRV Safety Relief Valves

SF4RHRSDC RHR: Shutdown 

Cooling Mode

SF5RHRSPC RHR: Suppression 

Pool Cooling Mode

SF5RHRSPR RHR: 

Drywell/Wetwell Spray Mode

SF5LDIS Leak Detection and 

Isolation System

SF6EPDS AC Electrical 

Distribution

SF6VAC Vital AC Power Supply

SF6DC Direct Current Power 

Supply

SF6DGCTG Emergency 

Generators (Diesel/CTG)

SF7RTIS Reactor Trip and 

Isolation System 

SF7SRNM Startup Range Neutron 

Monitor 

SF7ELCS ESF Logic and Control 

System

SF7APRM Average Power Range 

Monitor/Local Power Range 

Monitor

SF8IAS Instrument Air

SF8RBCW Reactor Building 

Cooling Water

SF8RSW Reactor Service Water

SF9SGTS Standby Gas Treatment 

System

K/A Category Point Totals: Group Point Total: 26/5
ES-401N, Page 39 of 53

ES-401N 5 Form ES-401N-1

ES-401N ABWR Examination Outline Form ES-401N-1

Plant Systems - Tier 2/Group 2 (RO / SRO)

System # / Name K

1

K

2

K

3

K

4

K

5

K

6

A

1

A

2

A

3

A

4

G* K/A Topic(s) IR #

SF1CRD Control Rod Drive

SF1FMCRD Fine Motion Control Rod

Drive Mechanism

SF1RCIS Rod Control and Information 

System

SF2RWCU Reactor Water Cleanup

SF2CD Condensate

SF2FW Feedwater

SF2AFI Alternate Feedwater Injection

SF3NBS & SF4NBS Main and Reheat 

Steam

SF3EHC Steam Bypass and Pressure 

Control/Turbine Pressure Control

SF4MT Main Turbine Generator and 

Auxiliaries

SF5SEC Secondary Containment

SF5PCS Primary Containment and

Aux.

SF5RPV & SF9RPV Reactor Vessel 

Internals

SF6I&C Instrumentation and Control 

Power Supply

SF7ATIP Automated Traversing In-core 

Probe

SF7MRBM Multichannel Rod Block 

Monitor

SF7NBI Nuclear Boiler Instrumentation 

SF7PICS Plant Information and Control 

System

SF7SPTM Suppression Pool 

Temperature Monitoring

SF7RSS Remote Shutdown System

SF7APR Automatic Power Regulator

SF7ATLM Automated Thermal Limit 

Monitor

SF7RMS & SF9RMS Radiation 

Monitoring

SF8FPS Fire Protection

SF8FH Fuel Handling 

SF9FPC Fuel Pool Cooling/Cleanup

SF9RD Radwaste

SF90G Offgas

SF9CRHVAC Control Room Habitability 

Area HVAC

SF9HVAC Plant Ventilation Systems

K/A Category Point Totals: Group Point Total: 12/3
ES-401N, Page 40 of 53

ES-401N AP-1000® Examination Outline Form ES-401N-2

Facility: Date of Exam:

Tier Group

RO K/A Category Points SRO-Only Points

K

1

K

2

K

3

K

4

K

5

K

6

A

1

A

2

A

3

A

4 G* Total A2 G* Total

1.

Emergency & 

Abnormal 

Plant 

Evolutions

1

N/A N/A

18 6

2 9 4

Tier Totals 27 10

2.

Plant

Systems

1 28 5

2 10 3

Tier Totals 38 8

3. Generic Knowledge and Abilities 

Categories

1 2 3 4

10

1 2 3 4

7

Note: 1. Ensure that at least two topics from every applicable K/A category are sampled within each tier of the RO and

SRO-only outlines (i.e., except for one category in Tier 3 of the SRO-only outline, the “Tier Totals” in each K/A

category shall not be less than two). (One Tier 3 Radiation Control K/A is allowed if the K/A is replaced by a 

K/A from another Tier 3 Category)

2. The point total for each group and tier in the proposed outline must match that specified in the table. The final

point total for each group and tier may deviate by ±1 from that specified in the table based on NRC revisions. 

The final RO exam must total 75 points and the SRO-only exam must total 25 points.

3. Systems/evolutions within each group are identified on the associated outline; systems or evolutions that do 

not apply at the facility should be deleted with justification; operationally important, site-specific 

systems/evolutions that are not included on the outline should be added. Refer to Section D.1.b of ES-401N 

for guidance regarding the elimination of inappropriate K/A statements.

4. Select topics from as many systems and evolutions as possible; sample every system or evolution in the group 

before selecting a second topic for any system or evolution.

5. Absent a plant-specific priority, only those K/As having an importance rating (IR) of 2.5 or higher shall be 

selected. Use the RO and SRO ratings for the RO and SRO-only portions, respectively.

6. Select SRO topics for Tiers 1 and 2 from the shaded systems and K/A categories.

7. The generic (G) K/As in Tiers 1 and 2 shall be selected from Section 2 of the K/A Catalog, but the topics must

be relevant to the applicable evolution or system. Refer to Section D.1.b of ES-401N for the applicable K/As.

8. On the following pages, enter the K/A numbers, a brief description of each topic, the topics’ importance ratings 

(IRs) for the applicable license level, and the point totals (#) for each system and category. Enter the group 

and tier totals for each category in the table above; if fuel handling equipment is sampled in other than 

Category A2 or G* on the SRO-only exam, enter it on the left side of Column A2 for Tier 2, Group 2 (Note #1 

does not apply). Use duplicate pages for RO and SRO-only exams.

9. For Tier 3, select topics from Section 2 of the K/A catalog, and enter the K/A numbers, descriptions, IRs, and

point totals (#) on Form ES-401N-3. Limit SRO selections to K/As that are linked to 10 CFR 55.43.

G* Generic K/As
ES-401N, Page 41 of 53

ES-401N 2 Form ES-401N-2

ES-401N AP-1000® Examination Outline Form ES-401N-2

Emergency and Abnormal Plant Evolutions - Tier 1/Group 1 (RO / SRO)

E/APE # / Name / Safety Function K

1

K

2

K

3

A

1

A

2

G* K/A Topic(s) IR #

E-0, Reactor Trip or Safeguards 

Actuation / 1, 2, 3, 4

ES-0.1, Reactor Trip Response / 1, 2, 3, 

4

ES-1.3, ADS Stage 1 – 3 Actuation 

Response / 3

ES-1.4, ADS Stage 4 Actuation 

Response / 3

A-313, Uncontrolled Cooldown / 4 

A-336, Malfunction of Protection and 

Safety Monitoring System / 7

E-1, Loss of Coolant Accident / 2, 3

A-342, Reactor Coolant Pump 

Malfunction / 1, 2, 3, 4

A-337, Passive RHR Heat Exchanger 

Leak / 4

A-343, Loss of Normal Residual Heat 

Removal / 4

A-317, Loss of Component Cooling Water

/ 8

ES-0.2, Natural Circulation Cooldown / 4

FR-S.1, Response to Nuclear Power 

Generation / 1

E-3, Steam Generator Tube Rupture / 3

E-2, Faulted Steam Generator Isolation /4

A-301, Rapid Power Reduction / 1

A-307, DAS Operations at Local Cabinets 

/ 7

FR-C.1, Response to Inadequate Core 

Cooling / 4

A-323, Loss of 6.9 kV, 4160 V, or 480 V 

Bus Power / 6

ES-1.1, Passive Safety System 

Termination / 3

A-345, Loss of Nuclear Service Water / 4

A-329, Loss of Instrument Air / 8

ECA-1.1, Loss of Coolant Accident 

Outside Containment / 3

FR-H.1, Response to Loss of Heat Sink / 

4

SDP-1, Response to Loss of RCS 

Inventory During Shutdown / 2

SDP-2 Response to Loss of RNS During 

Shutdown / 4

K/A Category Totals: Group Point Total: 18/6
ES-401N, Page 42 of 53

ES-401N 3 Form ES-401N-2

ES-401N AP-1000® Examination Outline Form ES-401N-2

Emergency and Abnormal Plant Evolutions - Tier 1/Group 2 (RO / SRO)

E/APE # / Name / Safety Function K

1

K

2

K

3

A

1

A

2 G* K/A Topic(s) IR #

A-311, Rod Control System Malfunction / 1

A-308, Loss of Control Room AC / 8

A-320, Loss of Circulating Water / 8

A-302, Emergency Boration / 1

A-327, Startup Feedwater System Malfunction / 4

A-328, Malfunction of Feedwater Heaters and 

Extraction Steam / 4

FR-I.1 Response to High Pressurizer Level / 2

A-314, Fuel Handling Incident / 8

A-304, Steam Generator Tube Leak / 3

A-333, Main Turbine Malfunction / 4

FR-Z.1, Response to High Containment Pressure / 

5

SDP-4, Response to Rising Nuclear Flux During 

Shutdown / 1

SDP-5, Response to RCS Cold Overpressure 

During Shutdown / 3

SDP-6 Response to Unexpected RCS 

Temperature Changes During Shutdown / 4

A-306, Evacuation of Control Room / 8

A-318, Condensate System Malfunctions / 4

FR-C-2, Response to Degraded Core Cooling / 4

FR-C.3, Response to Saturated Core Cooling / 4

FR-H.2, Response to Steam Generator 

Overpressure / 4

FR-Z.2, Response to Containment Flooding / 5

FR-Z.3, Response to High Containment Radiation / 

9 

FR-Z.4, Response to Low Containment Pressure / 

5

A-332, Turbine Trip Without Reactor Trip / 4

ES-1.2, Post LOCA Cooldown and 

Depressurization / 4

A-321, Loss of Data Display and Processing 

System / 7

FR-P.1, Response to Imminent Pressurized 

Thermal Shock Condition / 3

A-340, Reactor Coolant Leak / 2

FR-1.2, Response to Low Pressurized Level / 2

FR-1.3, Response to Voids in Reactor Vessel / 2
ES-401N, Page 43 of 53

ES-401N 4 Form ES-401N-2

ES-401N AP-1000® Examination Outline Form ES-401N-2

Emergency and Abnormal Plant Evolutions - Tier 1/Group 2 (RO / SRO)

E/APE # / Name / Safety Function K

1

K

2

K

3

A

1

A

2 G* K/A Topic(s) IR #

A-326, Feedwater System Malfunctions / 4

A-331, Loss of plant DC Power or Batteries / 6

A-348, Degraded Grid / 6

K/A Category Totals: Group Point Total: 9/4
ES-401N, Page 44 of 53

ES-401N 5 Form ES-401N-2

ES-401N AP-1000® Examination Outline Form ES-401N-2

Plant Systems - Tier 2/Group 1 (RO / SRO)

System Name / Safety Function K

1

K

2

K

3

K

4

K

5

K

6

A

1

A

2

A

3

A

4

G* K/A Topic(s) IR #

Reactor Coolant / 2, 4 

Steam Generator / 4

Normal Residual Heat Removal/ 4

Passive Residual Heat Removal/4

Passive Core Cooling / 2

Component Cooling Water / 8

Pressurizer Pressure Control / 3

Automatic Depressurization / 3

Reactor Trip System / 7

Engineered Safeguards Actuation 

/ 2

Diverse Actuation / 7

Passive Containment Cooling / 5

Main Steam / 4

Main and Startup Feedwater / 4

AC Electrical Distribution / 6

Class 1E and Non 1E DC and 

UPS / 6

Onsite Standby Power System / 6

Service Water / 4

Compressed Air / 8

Containment System / 5

Reactor Coolant Pump / 4

Chemical and Volume Control/1, 

2

K/A Category Point Totals: Group Point Total: 28/5
ES-401N, Page 45 of 53

ES-401N 6 Form ES-401N-2

ES-401N AP-1000® Examination Outline Form ES-401N-2

Plant Systems - Tier 2/Group 2 (RO / SRO)

System Name / Safety Function K

1

K

2

K

3

K

4

K

5

K

6

A

1

A

2

A

3

A

4

G* K/A Topic(s) IR #

Digital Rod Control / 1

Pressurizer Level Control / 2

Rod Position Indication / 1

Incore Instrument System / 7

Containment Air Filtration / 8

Containment Hydrogen Control / 

5

Main Control Room HVAC / 8

Spent Fuel Pool Cooling / 8

Condensate / 4

Condenser Air Removal / 4

Main Turbine and Main Turbine 

Control / 4

Fuel Handling / 8

Gaseous Radwaste / 9

Radiation Monitoring / 7

Circulating Water / 8

Fire Protection / 8

Steam Dump Control System / 4 

Nuclear Instrumentation System / 

7

Liquid Radwaste System / 9

K/A Category Point Totals: Group Point Total: 10/3
ES-401N, Page 46 of 53

ES-401N Generic Knowledge and Abilities Outline (Tier 3) Form ES-401N-3

Facility: Date of Exam: 

Category K/A # Topic RO SRO-Only

IR # IR #

1.

Conduct of

Operations

2.1.

2.1.

2.1.

2.1.

2.1.

2.1.

Subtotal

2.

Equipment 

Control

2.2.

2.2.

2.2.

2.2.

2.2.

2.2.

Subtotal

3.

Radiation Control

2.3.

2.3.

2.3.

2.3.

2.3.

2.3.

Subtotal

4.

Emergency 

Procedures / Plan

2.4.

2.4.

2.4.

2.4.

2.4.

2.4.

Subtotal

Tier 3 Point Total 10 7
ES-401N, Page 47 of 53

ES-401N Record of Rejected K/As Form ES-401N-4

Tier/Group Randomly Selected KA Reason for Rejection
ES-401N, Page 48 of 53

ES-401N Sample Written Examination Form ES-401N-5

Question Worksheet

Examination Outline Cross-Reference: Level RO SRO 

Tier # _____ _____

Group # _____ _____

K/A # ___________________

Importance Rating _____ _____

K/A Statement

Proposed Question:

Proposed Answer: ______ 

Explanation (Optional): 

Technical Reference(s): _________________________________________________

(Attach if not previously provided _________________________________________________

(including version/revision number) _________________________________________________

Proposed references to be provided to applicants during examination: _________________

Learning Objective: _________________________ (As available)

Question Source: Bank # _______

Modified Bank # _______ (Note changes or attach parent)

New _______

Question History: Last NRC Exam ____________

(Optional: Questions validated at the facility since 10/95 will generally undergo less rigorous review by the NRC; 

failure to provide the necessary information will result in a detailed review of every question.) 

Question Cognitive Level: Memory or Fundamental Knowledge _____

Comprehension or Analysis _____

10 CFR Part 55 Content: 55.41 _____

55.43 _____

Comments
ES-401N, Page 49 of 53

ES-401N Written Examination Quality Checklist Form ES-401N-6

Facility: Date of Exam: Exam Level: RO SRO

Item Description

Initial

a b* c*#

1. Questions and answers are technically accurate and applicable to the facility.

2. a. NRC K/As are referenced for all questions.

b. Facility learning objectives are referenced as available.

3. SRO questions are appropriate in accordance with Section D.2.d of ES-401

4 The sampling process was random and systematic (If more than four RO or two SRO 

questions were repeated from the last two NRC licensing exams, consult the NRR/NRO OL 

program office).

5. Question duplication from the licensee screening/audit exam was controlled as indicated 

below (check the item that applies) and appears appropriate :

__The audit exam was systematically and randomly developed; or

__ the audit exam was completed before the license exam was started; or

__ the examinations were developed independently; or

__ the licensee certifies that there is no duplication; or

__ other (explain)

6. Bank use meets limits (no more than 75 percent from the 

bank, at least 10 percent new, and the rest new or 

modified); enter the actual RO / SRO-only question 

distribution(s) at right

Bank Modified New

/ / /

7. Between 50 and 60 percent of the questions on the RO 

exam and at least 50 percent of the questions on the 

SRO-Only portion of the exam are written at the 

comprehension/analysis level; however, the SRO exam, 

overall, may exceed 60 percent if the randomly selected 

K/As support the higher cognitive levels; enter the actual 

RO / SRO question distribution(s) at right.

Memory C/A

/ /

8. References/handouts provided do not give away answers or aid in the elimination of 

distractors.

9. Question content conforms to specific K/A statements in the previously approved examination 

outline and is appropriate for the tier to which they are assigned; deviations are justified.

10. Question psychometric quality and format meet the guidelines in ES Appendix B.

11. The exam contains the required number of one-point, multiple choice items; the total is correct 

and agrees with the value on the cover sheet.

Printed Name / Signature Date

a. Author _____________________________________________________________ __________ 

b. Facility Reviewer (*) _____________________________________________________________ __________ 

c. NRC Chief Examiner (#) _____________________________________________________________ __________ 

d. NRC Regional Supervisor _____________________________________________________________ __________ 

Note: * The facility reviewer’s initials or signature are not applicable for NRC-developed examinations.

# Independent NRC reviewer initials items in Initial column c; chief examiner concurrence required.
ES-401N, Page 50 of 53

ES-401N Site-Specific RO Written Examination Form ES-401N-7

Cover Sheet

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Site-Specific RO Written Examination

Applicant Information

Name:

Date: Facility / Unit

Region: I II III IV Reactor Type: AP-1000® ABWR

Start Time: Finish Time:

Instructions

Use the answer sheets provided to document your answers. Staple this cover sheet on top of 

the answer sheets. To pass the examination, you must achieve a final grade of at least 80 

percent. Examination papers will be collected 6 hours after the examination begins

Applicant Certification

All work done on this examination is my own. I have neither given nor received aid.

__________________________________

Applicant’s Signature

Results

Examination Value __________ 

Points

Applicant’s Score __________ 

Points

Applicant’s Grade __________ 

Percent
ES-401N, Page 51 of 53

ES-401N Site-Specific SRO Written Examination Form ES-401N-8

Cover Sheet

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Site-Specific SRO Written Examination

Applicant Information

Name:

Date: Facility / Unit

Region: I II III IV Reactor Type: AP-1000® ABWR

Start Time: Finish Time:

Instructions

Use the answer sheets provided to document your answers. Staple this cover sheet on top of 

the answer sheets. To pass the examination you must achieve a final grade of at least 80 

percent overall, with 70 percent or better on the SRO-only items if given in conjunction with the 

RO exam; SRO-only exams given alone require a final grade of 80 percent to pass. You have 

8 hours to complete the combined examination, and 3 hours if you are only taking the SRO 

portion.

Applicant Certification

All work done on this examination is my own. I have neither given nor received aid.

__________________________________

____

Applicant’s Signature

Results

RO/SRO-Only/Total Examination Values ______ / ______ / ______ 

Points

Applicant’s Score ______ / ______ / ______ 

Points

Applicant’s Grade ______ / ______ / ______ 

Percent
ES-401N Written Examination Review Worksheet Form ES

Q

1.

LOK

(F/H)

2.

LOD

(1-5)

3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Errors 5. Other

6. Source

(B/ M / N)

7. Status

(U /E /S) 8. Explanation Stem

Focus Cues T/F Cred. 

Dist Partial JobLink Minutia # / 

Units

Back

ward

Q –

K/A

SRO 

Only

Instructions

(Refer to Section D of ES-401N and Appendix B for additional information regarding each of the following concepts:

1. Enter the level of knowledge (LOK) of each question as either (F)undamental or (H)igher cognitive level.

2. Enter the level of difficulty (LOD) of each question on a scale of 1(easy) to 5 ( difficult); questions with a difficulty between 2 - 4 are acceptable)

3. Check the appropriate box if a psychometric flaw is identified:

• “Stem Focus”: The stem lacks sufficient focus to elicit the correct answer (e.g., unclear intent, more information is needed, or too much needless information

• “Cues”: The stems or distractors contain cues (i.e., clues, specific determiners, phrasing, length, etc.).

• “T/F”: The answer choices are a collection of unrelated true/false statements.

• “Cred. Dist”: The distractors are not credible; single implausible distractors should be repaired, more than one is unacceptable.

• “Partial”: One or more distractors is (are) partially correct (e.g., if the applicant can make unstated assumptions that are not contradicted by stem).

4. Check the appropriate box if a job content error is identified:

• “Job Link”: The question is not linked to the job requirements (i.e., the question has a valid K/A but, as written, is not operational in content).

• “Minutia”: The question requires the recall of knowledge that is too specific for the closed reference test mode (i.e., it is not required to be known from memo

• “# / Units”: The question contains data with an unrealistic level of accuracy or inconsistent units (e.g., panel meter in percent with question in gallons).

• “Backward”: The question requires reverse logic or application compared to the job requirements.

5. Check questions that are sampled for conformance with the approved K/A and those K/As that are designated SRO-only (K/A and license level mismatches are u

6. Enter the question’s source: (B)ank, (M)odified, or (N)ew. Verify that (M)odified questions meet criteria of ES-401N Section D.2.f.

7. Based on the reviewer’s judgment, is the question as written (U)nsatisfactory (requiring repair or replacement), in need of (E)ditorial enhancement, or (S)atisfactor

8. At a minimum, explain any “U” Status ratings (e.g., how the Appendix B psychometric attributes are not being met).

ES-401N, Page 52 of 5

3
ES-401N 2 Form ES

Q

1.

LOK

(F/H)

2.

LOD

(1-5)

3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Errors 5. Other

6. Source

(B/ M / N)

7. Status

(U /E /S) 8. Explanation Stem

Focus Cues T/F Cred. 

Dist Partial JobLink Minutia # / 

Units

Back

ward

Q –

K/A

SRO 

Only

ES-401N, Page 53 of 5

3

ES-402, Page 1 of 7

ES-402

ADMINISTERING INITIAL WRITTEN EXAMINATIONS

A. Purpose

This standard specifies the requirements and procedures for administering written examinations 

for the initial licensing of reactor operator (RO) and senior reactor operator (SRO) applicants at

power reactor facilities. As such, this standard includes instructions for proctoring the

examinations and conducting post-examination reviews of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC)-developed examinations.

B. Background

As noted in ES-201, “Initial Operator Licensing Examination Process,” facility licensees will

generally prepare the written operator licensing examinations, subject to review and approval by

the NRC per Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 55.40(b)(4). Generally, 

examinations that are prepared by the facility licensee will also be administered by the facility 

licensee in accordance with the instructions contained herein.

C. Responsibilities

1. Facility Licensee

a. Under 10 CFR 55.49 and 55.40(b)(2), power reactor facility licensees shall 

establish, implement, and maintain procedures to control examination security and 

integrity.

b. The facility licensee shall provide a single room suitable for administering the

written examination. To ensure examination integrity, the room shall be large

enough so that there is only one applicant per table, with a 1-meter (3-foot) space 

between tables.

The examination room and supporting restroom facilities (i.e., the examination 

area) shall be located to prevent the applicants from having contact with all other 

facility and contractor personnel during the written examination.

c. If desired and compatible with examination security requirements, the facility 

licensee may arrange for the applicants to have lunch, coffee, or other 

refreshments during the examination.

d. Before the scheduled examination date, the facility licensee should familiarize the

applicants with the examination policies and guidelines contained in Appendix E.

e. The facility licensee shall provide the necessary number of copies of the approved

examinations, answer sheets, and handouts (e.g., equation sheets, selected 

technical specifications, and steam tables) for each applicant, as directed and 

approved by the NRC chief examiner. An English dictionary should also be 

available in the examination room.
ES-402, Page 2 of 7

The facility licensee may use machine-gradable answer sheets if desired, but this

is not required.

f. If the facility licensee developed the examination, it shall also administer the

examination to the applicants identified on the “List of Applicants” (Form ES-201-4) 

as arranged with the NRC chief examiner and in accordance with the specific 

instructions in Section D.

g. The facility licensee will send a letter to the NRC regional administrator to formally 

withdraw the applications of any individuals whose names appear on Form 

ES-201-4 but who will not be taking the examination. The regulations in 

10 CFR 2.107(a), state that the Commission may permit an applicant to withdraw 

an application before the issuance of a notice of hearing on such terms and 

conditions as it may prescribe, or may, on receiving a request for withdrawal of an 

application, deny the application or dismiss it with prejudice. If the application is 

withdrawn before issuance of a notice of hearing, the Commission shall dismiss 

the proceeding. Withdrawal of an application after the issuance of a notice of 

hearing shall be on such terms as the presiding officer may prescribe.

h. As discussed in Section E, the facility licensee should provide the NRC’s regional

office with formal comments for consideration during the grading process (refer to 

ES-403, “Grading Initial Site-Specific Written Examinations”). The facility 

licensee may also request an informal meeting with the NRC’s chief examiner to 

discuss the examination questions and resolve facility concerns.

2. NRC Regional Office

a. The NRC’s regional office may administer the examination, at its discretion, in

accordance with the specific instructions in Section D, even if the examination was

developed by the facility licensee. However, the regional office will generally 

arrange for the facility licensee to administer the examination. (Refer to ES-201 

for further instructions on examination scheduling.)

If the NRC developed the examination, the regional office may arrange for an NRC 

examiner or the facility licensee to administer the examination.

b. If the facility licensee will conduct the examinations while the NRC examiners are

on site, the chief examiner should inspect the examination facilities to ensure their 

adequacy. In addition, the NRC examiners should periodically monitor the exam 

to ensure that the proctor is appropriately addressing the applicants’ questions. If 

this is not feasible, the regional office should consider having an examiner check 

the facilities during the preparatory site visit (if one is deemed necessary) or upon 

arriving at the site for the operating tests.

If the facility licensee will conduct the examinations when no NRC examiners are

on site, the chief examiner will ensure that an NRC point of contact is available in 

the regional office to respond to facility questions while the examinations are being 

given. If the NRC prepared the examination, an examiner familiar with the 

examination content must be available to respond to the applicants’ questions by 

telephone.
ES-402, Page 3 of 7

The written examinations may be administered as soon as they and the license 

applications (including any applicable waivers or excusals) have been approved. 

The region shall not allow the written examination and operating test dates to 

diverge by more than 30 days without obtaining concurrence from the NRR/NRO

operator licensing program office. (Refer to ES-201 for additional guidance 

regarding examinations that have to be rescheduled to achieve an acceptable 

product.)

c. When the applicants have completed the written examination, the chief examiner 

may conduct an examination review with the facility staff as described in Section E, 

below.

D. Examination Administration Instructions

1. Make Preparations

a. Arrange for the applicants to be proctored at all times while taking the written 

examination. Ensure that the proctor clearly understands his or her 

responsibilities (refer to Section D.2) before the examinations are distributed.

If the NRC will administer the examinations, the chief examiner should consider 

using the following resources to ensure adequate proctoring:

• NRC secretarial help

• another examiner

• other NRC employees

The examiner may arrange for facility employees to proctor the examination for

brief periods if it is necessary for the examiner to take a short break.

b. At least one individual who is familiar with the intent of the questions (i.e., an NRC 

examiner or facility employee who took part in developing the examination) shall 

be available to clarify examination questions for the applicants during the 

examination.

c. Remove from the examination area, or otherwise remove from the applicants’

view, any wall charts, models, or other training materials that might compromise 

examination integrity.

d. Only NRC-approved applicants are allowed to take the examination. If 

necessary, the NRC examiner shall verify each applicant’s identity and 

examination level against Form ES-201-4 before beginning the examination. Any 

errors or absences shall be resolved with the facility staff, and the form shall be 

updated as required.

e. If possible, the RO and SRO applicants shall be seated at alternate tables. The

proctor shall construct a chart illustrating the seating arrangement of the applicants 

during the examination.
ES-402, Page 4 of 7

f. If the applicants will record their answers on machine gradable forms that offer

more than four answer choices (e.g., “a” through “e”), use a straight edge to line 

out the inapplicable column(s) before distributing the forms.

2. Start the Examination

a. Remind the applicants that they may use calculators to complete the examination, 

and that only reference materials provided with the examination are allowed in the 

examination area.

b. Pass out the examinations, blank answer sheets, and all required handouts 

approved by the NRC chief examiner (e.g., steam tables, equation sheets, and all 

approved reference material for each portion of the examination). The 

examination proctor shall ensure that RO applicants only get references 

associated with the RO examination and the SRO applicants get references 

associated with the examination sections they are taking (e.g., an SRO-upgrade

that is only taking the SRO-only portion of the examination would only get 

references associated with the SRO-only portion of the examination). SRO 

applicants that are taking both sections of the SRO examination (i.e., RO and 

SRO-only) shall be distributed both portions of the examination, including 

approved reference material, at the start of the examination with no requirement to 

complete the RO portion of the examination prior to starting the SRO-only portion 

of the examination. Instruct the applicants not to review the examination until told 

to do so.

c. Provide each applicant with a copy of Appendix E, “Policies and Guidelines for

Taking NRC Examinations,” and brief the applicants on the rules and guidelines 

that will be in effect during the written examination (i.e., review Parts A and B of

Appendix E). If time permits and the operating tests have not yet been 

administered, review those policies and guidelines (i.e., Parts C, D, and E of

Appendix E) as well; this will save time later and give the applicants greater

opportunity to resolve any questions they may have.

d. Instruct the applicants to verify the completeness of their copies by checking the

appropriate cover sheet (Form ES-401-7 or ES-401N-7, ES-401-8 or ES-401N-8, 

or ES-701-8) and each page of the examination. RO applicants should have a 

75-question exam and SROs should have a 100-question exam, unless they have 

obtained a waiver (per ES-204, “Processing Excusals and Waivers Requested by 

Reactor Operator and Senior Reactor Operator Applicants”) to upgrade their RO 

licenses with a 25-question SRO-only exam or they are taking the 40-question 

SRO examination limited to fuel handling.

e. Answer any questions that the applicants may have regarding the examination 

policies. Start the examination and record the time.

3. Monitor the Examination

a. The proctor shall give full attention to the applicants taking the examination. The

proctor shall not read procedures or other material, grade examinations, or engage 

in any other activities in a manner that may divert his or her attention from the 

applicants and possibly cause the examination to be compromised.
ES-402, Page 5 of 7

b. Personnel responding to questions raised by applicants during the examination 

must be extremely careful not to lead the applicants or give away answers when

clarifying questions. If the proctor has any doubt about how to respond to an 

applicant’s question, it is best to withhold additional guidance and instruct the

applicant to do his or her best with the information that is provided.

Any question changes or clarifications shall be made on a chalk board or white

board, if available, and called to the attention of all the applicants. Changes made 

to questions during the examination should be made in ink on the NRC’s master 

copy and a copy that is retained by the facility staff after the examination is 

administered. Changes shall be reviewed and approved by the NRC’s chief 

examiner as part of the grading process (refer to ES-403).

All applicant questions regarding specific written examination test items during 

exam administration and post-exam reviews with the licensee training staff and all

statements of clarification shall also be documented (verbatim if possible) for

future review by the NRC’s chief examiner and for reference in resolving grading 

conflicts.

c. The proctor shall periodically advise the applicants of the time that remains to

complete the examination. Normally, a chalk board or white board is available

and can be used for this purpose.

4. Complete the Examination

a. As the applicants complete the examination, ensure that they sign the examination 

cover sheet and staple it on top of their answer sheets. Collect the examination 

packages, including the questions and answer sheets, and any reference material 

provided with the examination. Verify that all applicants have entered their names 

on both the answer and cover sheets, and record the official start time and the time 

at which each applicant completed the examination in the space provided on the 

examination cover sheet.

b. Retain the cover and answer sheets for grading in accordance with ES-403. The

question books may be distributed to the applicants after the last examination has

been collected.

c. Remind the applicants to leave the examination area, as previously defined.

d. When the allotted time for the examination (3 hours for the 25-question 

SRO-upgrade exam, 4 hours for the SRO exam limited to fuel handling, 6 hours for 

the RO exam, and 8 hours for the combined RO/SRO exam) has elapsed, instruct 

the remaining applicants to stop work, sign their examination cover sheets, and 

turn in their examinations. The times allotted for taking each examination as 

noted above shall not be extended except for unavoidable situations (e.g., loss of 

power, building evacuation, emergency response, etc.) and the licensee shall first 

notify the NRC’s regional office to ensure that a point of contact remains available 

to respond to questions. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure his/her 

physical capability to complete the examination in the allotted time. The facility 
ES-402, Page 6 of 7

licensee shall inform the NRC when all of the applicants have completed the 

examination.

e. Deliver the completed examination packages, the marked-up master 

examinations, the list of applicant questions and answers, and the seating chart to 

the NRC’s chief examiner or the appropriate facility representative, as applicable, 

for review and grading in accordance with ES-403.

E. Post-Examination Reviews

1. If the NRC administered the examination, the chief examiner shall ensure that the master 

copy of the examination reflects all changes made to questions during the administration 

of the examination. The chief examiner will then provide a copy of the master 

examination and answer key to the facility staff and answer any questions they may have 

regarding the NRC’s examination review and comment process.

2. If the NRC developed the examination, the chief examiner will also provide the facility 

licensee with a copy of the examination as edited during the facility prereview. If the

facility reviewers believe that the NRC did not adequately resolve the prereview 

comments, they should address those concerns in a formal comment letter.

3. The NRC’s chief examiner will ask the facility prereviewers to confirm that they did not

divulge any information about the examination(s) by having them sign the 

post-examination security statement (Form ES-201-3) after the examinations are 

completed.

4. The facility licensee should submit formal comments within 5 working days after the

examination is administered. However, the facility licensee may expedite the grading 

process by giving draft comments to the NRC chief examiner before he or she leaves the 

site. The NRC will consider comments not submitted within the requested time on a 

case-by-case basis; however, late comments may delay the examination grading process.

The facility licensee shall collect all comments from the license applicants during exam 

administration and post-exam reviews and submit them to the NRC. When submitting 

applicant comments to the NRC, the facility licensee should identify by docket number 

which applicant made the comment (which may be useful to the NRC should the applicant 

request an informal review or a hearing), and include a facility position for each applicant 

comment. Note that the NRC examination report (refer to ES-501, Section E.3) will not 

identify examination comments by applicant docket number. 

5. The facility licensee should submit all comments in the following format:

• Indicate source of comment (i.e., facility licensee or applicant). If submitted by 

applicant, then indicate docket number associated with the comment.

• List the question, answer, and reference.

• State the comment and make a recommendation as to whether the answer should 

be changed or the question should be deleted. The facility licensee shall include 

a facility position for each applicant comment.

• Support the comment with a reference, and provide a copy if it was not included in

the original reference material submittal. (Note: The NRC will not change the

examination without a reference to support the facility’s comment.)
ES-402, Page 7 of 7

6. Formal comments should be signed by an authorized facility representative and

addressed to the responsible NRC regional office per 10 CFR 50.55(b)(2), with a copy to 

the applicable NRC chief examiner.

7. Although the NRC will review all post-examination comments submitted by a facility 

licensee, the agency is likely to approve only certain kinds of comments. In the interest of 

efficiency, facility licensees should consider the guidance contained in ES-403 

Section D.1, before submitting post-examination comments to the NRC. 

ES-403, Page 1 of 6

ES-403

GRADING INITIAL SITE-SPECIFIC WRITTEN EXAMINATIONS

A. Purpose

This standard explains the requirements and procedures for grading site-specific written 

examinations for the initial licensing of reactor operator (RO) and senior reactor operator (SRO) 

applicants at power reactor facilities. As such, this standard includes instructions for evaluating 

and revising the examinations after they are administered, grading the examinations, and

conducting the first review of the graded examinations.

B. Background

As discussed in ES-201, “Initial Operator Licensing Examination Process,” facility licensees will

generally develop and administer the initial operator licensing written examinations, subject to 

review and approval by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Facility licensees will 

also be expected to grade the written examinations; evaluate the outcome; and submit the 

examination results to the responsible NRC regional office for review, approval, and licensing 

action in accordance with ES-501, “Initial Post-Examination Activities.”

C. Responsibilities

1. Facility Licensee

a. If the facility licensee developed and administered the written examinations, the

licensee is also expected to perform the following grading activities, as described 

in Section D:

• Review and resolve any questions and comments that arose during or after the 

examination (refer to ES-402, “Administering Initial Written Examinations”).

• Grade the examinations and review the grading using Form ES-403-1, “Written 

Examination Grading Quality Checklist.”

• Evaluate the applicants’ performance on the examination.

Facility management will review the examination grading based on the guidance in

ES-501 and will forward the graded examinations and all associated 

documentation to the NRC’s chief examiner so that it is received, when practical, 

within 5 working days after the examination was administered.

b. If the NRC developed the examinations, the facility licensee’s responsibility is

limited to providing the NRC’s chief examiner with comments and 

recommendations regarding question deletions and answer key changes. Such

comments and recommendations should normally be received within 5 working 

days after the exit meeting. Any delay in submitting the comments will likely result 

in a comparable delay in the final licensing actions. (Refer to ES-402 for 

additional instructions regarding the post-examination review and comment 

process.)
ES-403, Page 2 of 6

2. NRC Regional Office

a. If the facility licensee grades the examinations, the regional office shall provide 

guidance and assistance, as necessary, to ensure that the facility licensee 

complies with the instructions in Section D.

b. If the NRC developed the examinations, the regional office should grade the

examinations in accordance with Section D after receiving any comments and

recommendations from the facility licensee (refer to ES-402). The regional office 

may take advantage of the facility licensee’s machine grading capability if it is 

available.

c. After the examinations have been graded, the regional office shall review the

grading, process the documentation, and complete the licensing actions in

accordance with ES-501.

D. Grading Instructions

The author of the examination should normally grade the examination; however, the examination 

may be graded by another equally qualified individual if the author is not available, the number of

applicants is unusually large, or the NRC regional office or facility licensee wishes to expedite the

grading process. The examinations shall be graded as expeditiously as possible, in accordance 

with the following instructions:

1. Evaluate Questions and Comments

a. Evaluate all questions posed by applicants during the examination, any

pen-and-ink changes made on the master examination during its administration, 

and any post-examination comments or recommendations received from the

facility licensee and applicants after the examination was administered. 

Determine if any questions should be deleted from the examination, or any 

answers need to be changed. Do not delete any question or change any answer 

unless there is a valid reference to support the change. An unreasonable 

assumption on the part of an applicant does not justify the acceptance of an 

alternative answer.

If there is some doubt as to whether the NRC’s chief examiner will accept a

proposed change, the grader is encouraged to discuss the matter with the chief

examiner before proceeding with the grading process. This may help to minimize 

the need for grading corrections during the quality reviews.

For each comment and recommendation, the NRC’s chief examiner shall 

document the reason that the question was changed or the comment was not

accepted; this information will be included in the examination report, as discussed 

in ES-501.

b. Despite the extensive reviews performed by both the NRC and the facility licensee 

before examination administration (refer to ES-201, Attachment 5), it is possible 

that a few isolated errors may be discovered only after an examination has been 

administered. These types of errors, if identified and adequately justified by the 

facility licensee, are most likely to result in post-examination changes agreeable to 

the NRC:
ES-403, Page 3 of 6

• a question with an unclear stem that confused the applicants or did not provide 

all the necessary information 

• unintended typographical errors in a question or on the answer key

• newly discovered technical information that supports a change in the answer 

key

• a question that is at the wrong license level (RO versus SRO) or not linked to 

job requirements

Given that both the NRC and the facility licensee agreed that the examination met 

the requirements of NUREG-1021 before the examination was administered, 

these types of question errors, identified after examination administration, are less 

likely to result in examination changes:

• a question that does not exactly match it's referenced K/A statement

• a question for which references would be needed to provide the correct 

answer, even though the facility licensee and the NRC previously agreed that 

the question should be closed-reference.

• a question that contains psychometric errors that do not increase its difficulty or 

make the question confusing. (For example, a question with two implausible 

distractors or a collection of true or false answers would be unsatisfactory 

during examination pre-review, but neither problem would justify deleting a 

question after examination administration.)

Although the NRC will review all post-examination comments submitted by a 

facility licensee, in the interest of efficiency, facility licensees should consider the 

above examples before submitting post-examination comments to the NRC. 

Facility licensees with post-examination comments are encouraged to discuss 

them with the chief examiner before formally submitting any comments in writing.

c. If it is determined that there are two correct answers, both answers will be 

accepted as correct. If, however, both answers contain conflicting information, 

the question will likely be deleted. For example, if part of one answer states that

operators are required to insert a manual reactor scram, and part of another 

answer states that a manual scram is not required, then it is unlikely that both 

answers will be accepted as correct, and the question will probably be deleted.

If three or more answers could be considered correct or there is no correct answer, 

the question shall be deleted. 

Annotate the recommended changes on the master examination and answer key, 

and document the reason for every change or deletion.

d. Those applicant questions, facility comments, and recommendations that do not

result in answer key changes or question deletions, should be evaluated to 

determine whether the associated test questions might benefit from editorial 

changes before they are used on another examination.
ES-403, Page 4 of 6

e. Before depositing the questions in any examination bank, revise the questions to

incorporate all changes, comments, and enhancements, as appropriate.

2. Grade the Examinations

a. Copy each applicant’s answer sheet, and set the copies aside for later use during

the grading review process.

b. On each applicant’s original answer sheet, indicate which questions were 

answered incorrectly, note their correct answers, and indicate which questions (if 

any) were deleted. If the answer sheet is more than one page long, it is helpful to 

note the total number of incorrect answers on each page to aid in tabulating the 

final grade.

If the examinations are graded by machine, attach a copy of each applicant’s 

profile report to his or her answer sheet, or manually annotate the answer sheet as

noted above.

c. If it is necessary to change a grade during the grading process, do so by lining out 

the original grade in such a way that it remains legible. Briefly explain the reason

for the change on the applicant’s answer sheet, and initial the change. Under no 

circumstances will a grader use “white-out” or other methods that obscure the 

change.

d. After grading all the questions, enter the applicable “examination value(s)” (i.e., the 

original test point total minus the point value of any deleted questions) for the RO, 

SRO-only, and overall exams in the “Results” section of the cover sheet of the 

applicant’s written examination (Form ES-401-7 or ES-401N-7 for ROs, ES-401-8 

or ES-401N-8 for SROs, or ES-701-8 for SROs limited to fuel handling). Also 

enter the “applicant’s score” and “applicant’s grade” (i.e., the applicant’s score 

divided by the examination value) on each part of the examination (RO, SRO, and 

overall) in the spaces provided on the form.

If a facility chooses to share its preliminary grades with the applicants, it should 

caution them that the outcome might change if the NRC does not accept all of the

facility licensee’s recommended changes to the examination answer key.

3. Evaluate and Review the Grading

a. Evaluate the applicants’’ performance on each examination question to identify 

any indications of a problem with the question or a deficiency in the applicants’

training program. A table that summarizes the applicants’ answers on each 

question, or a computerized item analysis (if the examinations were graded by 

machine) may be used to identify items with which the applicants had problems.

If it appears that a test question was faulty, determine whether the question should 

be deleted, the answer key should be changed, and/or the question should be 

revised before reuse. Then regrade the examinations as necessary.

If it appears that the training program was deficient, determine the need for

remedial training and/or a program upgrade.
ES-403, Page 5 of 6

b. After evaluating the examinations, review the grading in detail and complete Form

ES-403-1, “Examination Grading Quality Checklist.”

c. Forward the examination package (i.e., the master examination and answer key, 

justification for any examination changes, any item analysis that was performed, 

the applicant’s examination cover and answer sheets (the graded original and one

clean copy), and Form ES-403-1) to the designated facility representative (if

applicable) or to the NRC’s chief examiner for review in accordance with ES-501.

E. Attachments/Forms

Form ES-403-1 Written Examination Grading Quality Checklist
ES-403, Page 6 of 6

ES-403 Written Examination Grading Form ES-403-1

Quality Checklist

Facility: Date of Exam: Exam Level: RO SRO

Item Description Initials

a b c

1. Clean answer sheets copied before grading

2. Answer key changes and question deletions justified and

documented (Facility Reviewer initials not required (N/A) if post 

examination comments submitted)

3. Applicants’ scores checked for addition errors

(reviewers spot check > 25% of examinations)

4. Grading for all borderline cases (80 ±2% overall and 70 or 80, 

as applicable, ±4% on the SRO-only) reviewed in detail

5. All other failing examinations checked to ensure that grades 

are justified

6. Performance on missed questions checked for training 

deficiencies and wording problems; evaluate validity of

questions missed by half or more of the applicants

Printed Name/Signature Date

a. Grader _________________________________ _________

b. Facility Reviewer(*) _________________________________ _________

c. NRC Chief Examiner (*) _________________________________ _________

d. NRC Supervisor (*) _________________________________ _________

(*) The facility reviewer’s signature is not applicable for examinations graded by the NRC; 

two independent NRC reviews are required.
ES-501, Page 1 of 33

ES-501

INITIAL POST-EXAMINATION ACTIVITIES

A. Purpose

This standard describes and coordinates the activities that must be completed after the initial

operating tests and written examinations have been administered and graded in accordance with 

the ES-300 and ES-400 series of the examination standards, respectively. Specifically, this 

standard includes instructions for assembling and reviewing the examination package, notifying 

the facility licensee and applicants of the examination results, preparing the examination report, 

and retaining examination records.

B. Background

The goal of the NRR/NRO operator licensing program office is to complete licensing or denial 

actions within 30 days after the facility licensee submits the graded examinations or its formal 

written examination and operating test comments to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC). The NRC and facility licensee staffs should establish their priorities and schedules to 

achieve this goal.

Per Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 55.31(b) the Commission may, at any 

time after the application has been filed, require further information under oath or affirmation in 

order to enable it to determine whether to grant or deny the application.

C. Responsibilities

1. Facility Licensee

a. The facility licensee shall refrain from communicating results of the written 

examination with the NRC until the operating examination has been administered

to each applicant. If the facility licensee participated in developing, administering, 

and grading the examination, the licensee shall forward the following examination 

documentation to the NRC’s chief examiner (marked “addressee only”) as soon as 

possible (within 5 working days, when practical) after all parts of the exam have 

been administered:

• the graded written examinations (i.e., each applicant’s original answer and 

examination cover sheets) plus a clean copy of each applicant’s answer sheet 

(ES-403, “Grading Initial Site-Specific Written Examinations”)

• the master examination(s) and answer key(s), annotated to indicate any

changes made while administering and grading the examination(s) (ES-402,

“Administering Initial Written Examinations,” and ES-403)

• any questions asked by and answers given to the applicants during the written 

examination (ES-402)

• any substantive comments made by the applicants after the written 

examination or operating test, with an explanation concerning why the 

comment was accepted or rejected (this item is encouraged but not required) 

(ES-402)
ES-501, Page 2 of 33

• the seating chart for the written examination (ES-402)

• a completed Form ES-403-1, “Written Examination Grading Quality Checklist”

(ES-403 and Section D.1)

• the results of any performance analysis that was performed for the written 

examination, with recommended substantive changes (ES-403)

• original Form(s) ES-201-3, “Examination Security Agreement,” with a pre- and 

post-examination signature by every individual who had detailed knowledge of 

any part of the operating tests or written examination before they were 

administered.

Refer to the referenced examination standards for a more detailed discussion of

each documentation requirement.

b. If the facility licensee did not participate in developing, administering, and grading 

the examination, the licensee should submit comments and recommendations 

regarding the NRC-developed written examination to the NRC’s regional office as

soon as possible (within 5 working days, when practical) after the exit meeting. 

The facility licensee shall include comments made by the license applicants who 

took the examination. (Refer to ES-402 for more detailed instructions.)

2. NRC Regional Office

a. The NRC’s regional office shall ensure that the operating tests and written 

examinations are graded in accordance with ES-303, “Documenting and Grading 

Initial Operating Tests,” and ES-403, respectively.

b. The NRC’s regional office shall ensure that the examination results and licensing 

recommendations receive the required reviews and approvals in accordance with 

Section D, that the associated administrative requirements are completed in

accordance with Section E, and that the required records are retained in

accordance with Section F.

The regional office may use Form ES-501-1, “Post-Examination Check Sheet,” to 

track completion of the administrative items after the examinations are

administered.

c. NRC regional management should also review the overall examination results and 

any generic findings, deficiencies, or issues to determine whether any followup 

action is required. 

If the facility licensee recommends deleting or changing the answers to four or

more of the questions on an RO written examination (or two or more on an

SRO-only exam) that it developed, the regional office should ask the facility 

licensee to explain why so many post-examination changes were necessary and 

what actions will be taken to improve future license examinations. As discussed 

in Section E.3.a, below, the regional office will also consider post-examination 

deletions and changes when evaluating the quality of the facility licensee’s

proposed examination for documentation in the examination report.
ES-501, Page 3 of 33

If seven or more of the questions on an RO examination (or two or more on an

SRO-only exam) are deleted during the grading process, the regional office should

evaluate the remainder of the examination to ensure that it still satisfies the test

outline sampling requirements in ES-401 or ES-401N, “Preparing Initial 

Site-Specific Written Examinations.” The regional office shall consult with the 

NRR/NRO operator licensing program office if the validity of the examination is in 

question.

If the content validity of the examination is affected [e.g., several knowledge and

ability (K/A) topics are not covered, or the majority of the remaining K/As are

associated with a small number of systems] as a result of deleting questions, the 

NRR/NRO operator licensing program office will make a decision concerning 

whether the examination should be voided.

D. Examination Reviews and Licensing Action

Except as noted below, the quality reviews generally constitute spot checks, or sampling, to follow 

up on the work performed by the operating test and written examination graders in accordance 

with ES-303 and ES-403, respectively. If the quality reviews indicate significant problems, 

additional detailed review will be necessary.

Reviewers should discuss all grading discrepancies with the grader or previous reviewer before

making any changes. In addition, the reviewers shall document any changes by carefully lining 

out the original entry so that it remains legible, entering the revision with a brief explanation, and 

initialing the change. These changes may be documented electronically as long as the original 

entry is apparent and the individual making the change is identified along with an explanation for 

the change. Reviewers shall not use “white-out” or other methods that obscure the original entry.

1. Facility Management

If the facility licensee graded the written examinations, a supervisor or manager shall

confirm the quality of the grading and sign the bottom of Form ES-403-1 before sending 

the examinations to the NRC’s regional office.

The NRC will consider the signed form to represent facility management concurrence with 

the individual and collective examination results, including the justification(s) for any

proposed examination change(s).

2. NRC Chief Examiner (or Designee)

The written examination grading shall be independently reviewed by at least two NRC

personnel using Form ES-403-1 as a guide. If the examination was graded by the chief

examiner, another examiner shall conduct the independent review. If the chief examiner 

conducts the independent review, he or she should not normally perform the supervisory 

review required by Section D.3, however, he or she are not precluded from performing the 

supervisory review.

a. If the facility licensee graded the written examinations, the chief examiner shall

immediately inventory the examination package to ensure that all required 

materials have been submitted. The chief examiner shall inform the responsible 
ES-501, Page 4 of 33

supervisor of any obvious deficiencies, and shall contact the facility licensee to

determine the status of any missing documentation.

b. The chief examiner shall independently analyze each examination and answer key 

change that was made or recommended by the facility licensee or a license 

applicant to determine whether it is justified. During the analysis, the chief 

examiner will keep in mind that both the facility licensee and the NRC had 

previously agreed that the examination met the requirements of NUREG-1021

(refer to ES-201, Attachment 5). Therefore, as discussed in Section D.1 of 

ES-403, certain kinds of post-examination comments and recommendations are 

less likely to justify grading or answer key changes.

The chief examiner shall ensure that the reason for accepting or rejecting each 

change or recommendation is documented in the examination report. The report 

shall briefly state the region’s basis for accepting or rejecting each facility 

comment; simply stating concurrence with no explanation is not sufficient. The

chief examiner will not accept a change to the examination unless the facility

licensee submits a valid reference to support its recommendation.

c. The chief examiner shall review the remaining items on Form ES-403-1. In so

doing, the chief examiner should apply his or her judgment when reviewing the 

examination results and should adjust the level of the review based on the

performance of the applicants and the facility licensee (e.g., the number of

questions changed or deleted, the average grade, the number of borderline or

failing grades, etc.). If the examination was graded by machine or using a

template, the chief examiner shall ensure that the template accurately parallels the 

approved answer key.

The chief examiner shall independently grade every borderline examination 

(i.e., those between 78 and 82 percent overall and between 66 and 74 percent on 

the SRO-only portion (or 76 and 84 percent if the RO portion was waived), as

applicable) using the final, approved answer key and the clean applicant answer 

sheets provided by the facility licensee.

d. The chief examiner should review the written examination results and the facility 

licensee’s performance analysis (if applicable) for indications of:

• deficiencies in the applicants’ training program, so that they may be addressed 

in the examination report

• poor question construction, so that the applicants are not graded unfairly, any 

significant problems can be addressed in the examination report, and the 

questions can be corrected before reuse

• any indications that the examination was compromised

e. When satisfied with the examination grading, the chief examiner and written 

examination grader/reviewer (as applicable) shall complete the following actions:

• Sign and date Form ES-403-1 and pass it on to the responsible supervisor for 

management review (see Section D.2.h).

Record the written examination results (including RO, SRO, and total points 

and grades from each applicant’s Form ES-401-7 or ES-401N-7, ES-401-8 or 
ES-501, Page 5 of 33

ES-401N-8, or ES-701-8) and the names of the NRC Examiners who wrote, 

graded, or reviewed the examinations in the “Written Examination Summary”

section of each applicant’s Form ES-303-1, “Individual Examination Report.”

• Check the written examination’s “Pass,” “Fail,” or “Excuse/Waive” block in the

“Examiner Recommendations” section of each applicant’s Form ES-303-1 and 

sign in the space provided. To pass the examination, applicants must achieve 

an overall grade of at least 80 percent, with a 70 percent or better on the 

SRO-only items, if applicable. Retake and upgrade applicants who only take 

the SRO exam must achieve an 80 percent or better to pass. SRO-upgrade 

applicants who do take the RO portion of the exam and score below 80 percent 

on that part of the exam can still pass overall, but may require remediation 

(refer to Section E.4.a). SRO-instant applicants who pass the operating test 

and the written examination overall but fail the SRO portion of the written exam 

are not automatically eligible for an RO license; however, they may apply for an 

RO license, and request a full RO examination waiver, after accepting a final 

denial of their SRO application (refer to Section D.1.a of ES-204, “Processing 

Excusals and Waivers Requested by Reactor Operator and Senior Reactor 

Operator Applicants”). Such a waiver would be contingent upon the 

applicant’s eligibility for an RO license (refer to the training and experience 

guidelines in ES-202) and the applicant’s demonstration of control board 

competence during the simulator operating test (refer to ES-303).

f. The chief examiner shall also review, in detail, the other examiners’ operating test 

documentation to ensure that the test (as given) and its grading meet the

requirements in ES-301 and ES-303. In so doing, the chief examiner shall ensure 

that the other examiners’ operating test comments support the pass or fail 

recommendations and check for consistent documentation and grading among the 

operators tested on the same simulator crew.

If the documentation is accurate and complete, and the licensing recommendation 

is appropriate, the chief examiner shall check “Pass” or “Fail” and sign and date the

“Final Recommendation” block on Form ES-303-1. By contrast, if the licensing 

recommendation is not appropriate based on the documentation presented, the 

chief examiner shall discuss the examination findings with the NRC examiner of 

record and resolve any disagreement.

If the chief examiner administered the operating test, the responsible regional 

supervisor shall designate another examiner to independently review the

documentation and sign the “Final Recommendation” block on Page 1 of Form

ES-303-1.

g. The chief examiner shall record the results of the operating tests and written

examinations (including the RO, SRO, and overall grades for each applicant) on

Form ES-501-2, “Power Plant Examination Results Summary.”

h. The chief examiner shall ensure that the examination documentation is complete 

and contains all of the items identified in Section F before forwarding the entire 

package to the responsible supervisor for review and approval in accordance with 

Section D.3.

If the written examinations were administered much before the operating tests, the 

chief examiner should enter that data on the form and forward it with the completed 
ES-501, Page 6 of 33

written examination package to the responsible supervisor for review and approval 

in advance of the operating test results.

3. NRC Management Review and Licensing Action

a. The responsible supervisor shall ensure that all examination results and 

documentation are complete. The supervisor shall evaluate the written 

examination results, ensure that the required quality reviews were completed,

work with the chief examiner and the facility licensee (as necessary) to resolve any 

grading problems, and then sign and date Form ES-403-1 to document approval of 

the process.

Every written examination shall have at least two levels of NRC review. 

Therefore, the NRC examiner who performed the regional quality review is

disqualified from also performing the supervisory review.

b. The responsible supervisor will also independently review the operating test 

results, check the “Issue License” or “Deny License” block in the “License 

Recommendation” section of each applicant’s Form ES-303-1, and sign and date 

each form. Under no circumstances will the same individual sign all three levels 

of recommendation on Form ES-303-1 (i.e., operating test administrator, chief

examiner, and NRC supervisor).

If the responsible supervisor (or licensing official) does not believe that the

operating test documentation supports the final recommendation, he or she shall 

consult the NRC examiner of record and the chief examiner to discuss and resolve 

any disagreements.

c. As discussed in Section C.2 of ES-303, any operating test licensing 

recommendation that deviates from the nominal grading instructions in Section 

D.2 of ES-303 (e.g., recommending a simulator test failure based on a single error 

with serious safety consequences or a passing grade despite multiple errors 

related to the same rating factor) requires written concurrence from the NRR/NRO

operator licensing program office before completing the licensing action.

If a recommendation is overturned during the review by regional management (or 

the NRR/NRO operator licensing program office), the responsible supervisor will

line out and initial the affected summary evaluations. The supervisor will then 

enter the new summary evaluation in the appropriate block, explain the change on 

Form ES-303-2, “Operating Test Comments,” and attach that comment form to the 

applicant’s Form ES-303-1.

d. For failures of:

• the written examination, the regional office shall analyze the 

question-by-question performance of each applicant who passed the written 

portion of the examination with a grade of 82 percent or lower on the 

examination overall (74 or 84 percent, as applicable, for the SRO-only items) to 

ensure that any question deletions or changes will not affect the licensing 

decision. If necessary, the regional office shall delay making the final 

licensing decision for these applicants until any written examination informal 

NRC staff reviews or adjudicatory hearings have been evaluated for impact on 

the licensing decisions. 
ES-501, Page 7 of 33

• the walk-through portion of the operating exam, the regional office shall 

analyze the performance of each applicant who passed the walk-through with 

an overall grade of Satisfactory on 80 percent of the JPMs and meets the 

Administrative Topics criteria described in Section D.2.a of ES-303 (60 percent

for SROs and 50 percent for ROs) to ensure that any changes will not affect the 

licensing decision. If necessary, the regional office shall delay making the 

final licensing decision for these applicants until any walk-through examination 

informal NRC staff reviews or adjudicatory hearings have been reviewed for 

impact on the licensing decisions.

• the simulator operating test portion of the operating exam, the regional office 

shall analyze the performance of each applicant who passed the simulator with 

an overall grade of Satisfactory (as determined by the evaluation criteria in 

Section D.2.b of ES-303), for any “same scenario-same event’ error that would 

result in a failure if subsequently assessed as a critical task during an 

administrative review, to ensure that any changes will not affect the licensing 

decision. If necessary, the regional office shall delay making the final 

licensing decision for these applicants until any simulator operating 

examination informal NRC staff reviews or adjudicatory hearings have been 

reviewed for impact on the licensing decisions.

Informal NRC staff reviews (appeals) are limited to the contested items only;

however, if other errors are identified based on the provided information then 

the review may include the items identified.. Because it is not possible to 

know in advance which error(s), if any, would be contested for a simulator 

failure, licenses are held in abeyance whenever: (1) a failing applicant and a 

non-failing applicant both make an error during the same scenario event (note 

that abeyance criteria is not limited to a single operating crew), and (2) a 

regional evaluation of the non-failing applicant’s “same scenario-same event” 

error determines that it would result in a failure if assessed as a critical task 

during an informal NRC staff review.

It is the responsibility of the regional office that has the simulator failure(s), to 

first identify whether any non-failing applicant has a “same scenario-same 

event” error, and then to perform an evaluation to determine whether the 

outcome of an informal NRC staff review could potentially result in a failure of 

that applicant if the error were to be assessed as a critical task. The regional 

evaluation shall consist of individually setting each identified “same 

scenario-same event” error to “0” (or a “1” for Communications errors), to see 

if any passing applicant would fail if the error were to become a critical task 

(note that multiple errors shall be simultaneously set to either “0” or “1” as 

applicable). Any affected license would be subject to having the licensing 

decision delayed.

The “same scenario-same event” error approach: (1) covers any case where 

errors may be assessed under different competencies and/or rating factors, 

(2) works “cross-license-level,” given that RO and SRO competency areas 

don’t always match, (3) extends the evaluation process to non-failing 

applicants on other crews who may have made the same or similar errors, 

(4) provides a straightforward, streamlined, and focused evaluation process 

that is limited in scope and minimizes the number of licenses subject to a 
ES-501, Page 8 of 33

delayed licensing decision, and (5) ensures a consistently fair and equitable 

grading standard for all applicants in the event a contested item is assessed as 

a post-exam critical task during the informal NRC staff review process.

e. It is the responsibility of the affected NRC regional office to determine if licenses 

have to remain in abeyance if an applicant decides to request an adjudicatory

hearing following the outcome of an informal NRC staff review. If the region 

determines that it is highly unlikely that the adjudicatory hearing results will affect 

the licenses held in abeyance then the region may decide to finalize the licensing 

decision and issue the affected licenses.

f. Attachment 6 to this examination standard provides a sample letter that an 

applicant may submit accepting the license denial and waiving all rights for 

requesting an informal NRC staff review or an adjudicatory hearing under 10 CFR 

2.103(b)(2). This letter must be sent to the appropriate region as specified in 

10 CFR 55.5. Additionally, the option to send the acceptance of the license denial 

and waive all informal NRC staff review and adjudicatory hearing rights is entirely

optional for the applicant. The attachment also provides a sample letter from the 

NRC acknowledging receipt of the acceptance of the license denial from the 

applicant and providing guidance for the reapplication provisions of 10 CFR 55.35. 

This letter also serves as the final denial of the application for a license. The 

applicant can choose not to respond to the license denial letter and following 

expiration of the 20-day clock associated with the denial letter the applicant may

follow the reapplication provisions of 10 CFR 55.35. However, if the applicant 

desires to accept the license denial and not request an informal NRC staff review 

or an adjudicatory hearing then the applicant may submit a letter to the NRC 

waiving all rights to request an informal NRC staff review or an adjudicatory 

hearing and request the NRC to issue the license denial immediately.

g. Before issuing a license in any instance, the regional office shall ensure that the

applicant (1) has been determined to be medically fit within the past 24 months; 

(2) has not developed any permanent physical or mental condition that would be 

reportable under 10 CFR 55.25, “Incapacitation Because of Disability or Illness) 

(10 CFR 55.25); and (3) is up-to-date in the requalification training program.

h. After making the licensing recommendations, the responsible supervisor will have

the operator licensing assistant prepare a license, preliminary results, denial, or 

notification letter for each examined applicant and forward the examination 

package to the regional licensing official. A denial letter will not be sent to 

applicants who withdrew before taking any part of the license examination (i.e., if 

an applicant takes any part of a license examination and decides to withdraw the 

application before completing the entire examination then the applicant would 

receive a denial letter). Attachments 3 and 4 to this examination standard provide 

sample RO and SRO (conditional) license letters, as well as sample preliminary 

results and denial letters.

The preliminary results letter is issued based on the regions’ initial grading results 

that indicate the applicant failed any portion of the initial license examination. 

This letter gives the applicant the option to accept the preliminary results or 

request an informal NRC staff review. A request for an informal NRC staff review

must be made and postmarked within 20 days following the date the preliminary 

results letter was issued. To account for mail delivery, the region should delay 

issuing further correspondence for an additional 5 calendar days to ensure the 20 
ES-501, Page 9 of 33

days have expired. A sample Preliminary Results Letter is available in 

Attachment 4.

The final denial letter is issued upon expiration of the 20 days an applicant has to

request an informal NRC staff review or if the NRC staff upholds the preliminary 

results following an informal review. This letter formalizes the license denial and 

provides instructions for requesting an adjudicatory hearing and how to reapply for 

a license. The applicant has 20 days from the date of the final denial letter to 

request an adjudicatory hearing. A sample final denial letter is available in 

Attachment 4.

The notification letter is issued to notify an applicant that he or she passed the 

examination, but that his or her licensing action will be delayed. For example, if 

the NRC granted an applicant a deferral and allowed him or her to take the 

examination before completing all of the training and experience requirements, the 

regional office shall normally not issue a license to the applicant until the facility 

licensee has certified in writing that the applicant has completed all of the deferred

items. (Refer to ES 202, “Preparing and Reviewing Operator License 

Applications,” and ES-204.) A sample notification letter is available in 

Attachment 5.

i. The final licensing decision is made by the NRC’s regional administrator or his or

her designee, who must be at or above the branch chief level; short-term

designees shall not make licensing decisions unless specifically authorized by the 

regional administrator. The licensing official will consider all recommendations; 

make changes as described above; and sign each applicant’s license, denial, or 

notification letter, as applicable.

E. Examination Followup

1. Notify Facility Licensee of Results

The NRC’s regional office will notify the facility licensee and applicants of the examination 

results (as described below) only after they are reviewed and approved by the licensing 

official.

a. The regional office should normally notify the facility licensee’s designated 

representative of the examination results by telephone, and may confirm the

results by mailing a copy of Form ES-501-2 under a separate cover letter. For 

each applicant who failed or had significant deficiencies that warrant further

evaluation and retraining by the facility licensee, the regional office will also send 

the facility licensee a copy of the applicant’s Form ES-303-1 and written 

examination answer sheet. These form(s) shall not be placed in the NRC’s Public 

Document Room or distributed with the final examination report.

If the written examinations were administered much before the operating tests and 

management has approved the results of those examinations, the regional office 

may notify the facility licensee of those results rather than waiting until the

operating tests are completed.
ES-501, Page 10 of 33

b. After the licensing official has signed the license, denial, and notification letters, 

the regional office shall send each applicant’s letter along with the following 

materials:

NOTE: the following materials may be sent either electronically via cd/electronic 

storage device or hard copy.

• a copy of Forms ES-303-1 and ES-303-2

• a copy of Form ES-D-1 (and Form ES-D-2 if the applicant failed the simulator 

operating test) reflecting the “as run” scenario conditions but without any rough 

examiner notes regarding the applicant’s performance (pen-and-ink markups 

of the original, approved scenarios are acceptable)

• a copy of all JPMs that the applicant failed (if the applicant failed the operating 

test in the walk-thru or admin topics categories)

• a copy of the applicant’s written examination cover and answer sheets (as well 

as a copy of the master written examination and answer key if the applicant 

failed the written examination) reflecting the “as administered” JPM conditions 

but without any rough examiner notes regarding the applicant’s performance 

(pen-and-ink markups of the original approved JPMS are acceptable).

c. The regional office shall ensure a copy of Form ES-501-2 is placed in ADAMS in 

accordance with Section F.1. If any of the examinations are later regraded in 

response to an applicant’s request for an informal NRC staff review (refer to 

ES-502, “Processing Requests for Administrative Reviews and Hearings After 

Initial License Denial”), the original Form ES-501-2 on file in the regional office 

shall be corrected by lining out the old grade, entering the new grade, and initialing 

the change. Additionally, whenever a change is made, the regional office shall 

ensure a copy of the revised form is placed in ADAMS in the appropriate master 

examination file.

d. The responsible supervisor should consider phoning the facility licensee 

management counterpart to discuss the examination outcome and lessons 

learned. Any pertinent feedback on the examination process should be 

forwarded to the operator licensing program office for consideration.

2. Return the Facility Reference Material

If the facility licensee desires, the NRC’s chief examiner shall ensure that the reference 

materials provided for NRC examiners to use in preparing for the examinations are

returned to the facility licensee as soon as possible. If none of the applicants failed the 

examination, the materials should be returned as soon as the NRC issues the licenses. If 

an applicant was denied a license based on an examination failure, the reference 

materials should be retained during the period in which the applicant may request an 

informal NRC staff review or an adjudicatory hearing. If an applicant requests an informal 

NRC staff review or an adjudicatory hearing in accordance with ES-502, the chief 

examiner shall consult with their regional counsel before returning or destroying any 

document related to the examination.
ES-501, Page 11 of 33

3. Prepare the Examination Report

The NRC’s chief examiner shall prepare the final examination report when all portions of

the examination have been graded and documented. If the regional office delays some 

licensing actions in accordance with Section D.3, it should issue the report clearly stating 

that the examinations were passed, however, the associated licenses will not be issued 

until the facility notifies the NRC in writing that all requirements have been met. In this 

case there would be no need to amend the examination report once the licenses are 

issued. The examiner should follow the principles in NRC Manual Chapter 0612, “Power 

Reactor Inspection Reports,” when preparing the report. The report may be tailored to 

the specific examination that was administered, i.e., the report need not include any 

reference to an operating test if a written exam was all that was administered, such as 

during a retake examination or an examination in which the applicant was granted an 

excusal from a portion of the examination.

a. The final examination report shall document the following:

• Whether the quality of the submitted examination material was within the range 

of acceptability expected by the NRC. This will be determined as follows:

– Written Exam: The NRC will evaluate the submitted written examination 

questions (RO and SRO questions shall be considered separately) using

the guidance in Sections E.2-3 of ES-401 or ES-401N to determine the

percentage of submitted questions that required replacement or significant 

modification or that clearly did not conform with the intent of the approved 

K/A statement. Any questions that were deleted during the grading 

process, or for which the answer key had to be changed, will also be 

included in the count of unacceptable questions.

– Operating Exam: The NRC will evaluate the submitted operating test 

material by using the guidance in ES-301 E.2 – E.3 and the instructions on 

Form ES-301-7. The NRC will determine the total percentage of 

unsatisfactory operating test items using Form ES-301-7. This form and 

metrics shall be updated with post-exam changes. The final metric on 

Form ES-301-7, “Operating Test Total Percent Unsatisfactory” signifies the 

percentage of the submitted operating test that required replacement or 

significant modifications to conform to the acceptance criteria in ES-301 

Section D.

• Note: If the review indicated that a specific event in a scenario 

did not require significant, discriminatory operator actions, it

should not be included in the total unless that event was one of

the required minimum events for any of the applicants 

according to Form ES-301-5 or the entire scenario was 

inadequate. Specific malfunctions that were added to the 

scenarios to provide complications or distractions for other 

events should not be judged solely on their individual merits.

– If 20 percent or fewer of the test items for the submitted operating test, RO

written examination, and SRO written examination (assessed separately) 

required replacement or significant modification, the report will simply state 
ES-501, Page 12 of 33

that the facility licensee’s submittal was within the range of acceptability 

expected for a proposed examination. If applicable, an observation shall

be included, indicating that the examination changes agreed upon between 

the NRC and the facility were made according to NUREG-1021.

– Note: NRC-validated written questions, JPMs, and scenario events that

required replacement or substantial modification will not be counted unless 

the facility licensee caused the current unacceptable flaw since the time the 

NRC previously approved the test item. (For example, the question’s

reference changed, but the question was not revised accordingly.)

– If more than 20 percent1 of the submitted test items (with the operating test 

and RO/SRO written exams assessed separately) required replacement or 

significant modification, the report shall include a factual description of the 

test item changes (observations), including the number and types of test 

items replaced and/or significantly modified as a result of the joint NRC and 

facility licensee examination review process. The report shall also note 

that the overall submittal was outside the acceptable quality range expected 

by the NRC and that future examination submittals should incorporate any 

lessons learned from this effort. NOTE: Any sample test items submitted 

for review prior to the final licensee exam submittal as allowed by ES-201 

C.2.c should not be counted toward the 20 percent threshold if changes 

were incorporated which resulted in acceptable test items

– Negative observations regarding the adequacy of the facility licensee’s

proposed examination (e.g., stating that the proposed examination was not 

adequate for administration) shall only be made if the examination was not 

the facility’s first submittal and the NRR/NRO operator licensing program 

office has concurred in the evaluation.

• Any delay in administering the examination and the reason for the delay, and 

any extensions of the written examination time beyond the nominal time limits 

specified in ES-402

• The results of the examination, including any significant grading deficiencies if

the facility licensee graded the examinations

• An overview of the examination security measures and activities evaluated 

while preparing and administering the examinations and any examination 

security issues and incidents or other matters requiring facility attention

Note that initial examination security issues will generally be documented in

the examination report if (1) the potential or actual compromise was discovered 

while developing the examination and resulted in replacing or modifying any 

proposed test item(s), (2) the potential or actual compromise was discovered 

after the examination was administered, but would have resulted in replacing 

or modifying test items if the NRC had known about it earlier; (3) two or more 

lesser security issues were discovered, but did not necessitate the 

replacement of test material; or (4) other security issues were discovered with 

 

1 Note that the nominal 20 percent threshold may be raised or lowered, based on the specific circumstances, with 

NRR/NRO operator licensing program office concurrence. For example, no comment may be warranted if the 

same error was made in a number of questions; conversely, a comment may be warranted based on the egregious 

nature of the deficiencies even though the 20 percent threshold was not reached.
ES-501, Page 13 of 33

extenuating circumstances (with concurrence from the NRR/NRO operator 

licensing program office.

• Any other issues or findings discussed at the exit meeting.

b. The report shall include (or cite the ADAMS accession number) the following:

• a copy of the final written examination(s) and answer key(s) with all changes 

(made during and after the examination) incorporated

• a copy of the facility licensee’s (and applicants’) specific comments and

recommended changes regarding the operating tests and written examination 

that were administered. If applicant comments were submitted, redact the 

applicant docket number from the examination report. The NRC regional 

office shall retain a non-redacted version; indicating applicant docket numbers, 

until any informal NRC staff reviews or adjudicatory hearings are complete 

(refer to ES-502). 

• the specific NRC explanation for accepting or rejecting each facility 

recommendation and a specific justification for every additional item deletion or 

change (refer to Attachment 1 for examples of facility comments and NRC 

resolutions)

• a simulator fidelity report (as described below, when applicable)

Generic comments submitted by the facility licensee about the examinations or the 

administration process should also be included in the report, accompanied by

regional office responses, as appropriate.

c. The simulator fidelity report shall document the NRC examiners’ evaluation of the 

performance or fidelity of the simulation facility during the preparation or conduct of 

the operating tests. Attachment 2 provides a sample report.

All previously undocumented simulator deficiencies encountered while preparing 

or conducting the operating tests should be described in sufficient detail to allow 

followup the next time the NRC staff conducts Inspection Procedure (IP) 71111.11,

“Licensed Operator Requalification Program,” at the facility. The NRC examiners 

may include in the simulator fidelity report any concerns about physical fidelity 

(hardware or equipment discrepancies) or functional fidelity (performance of the

simulation facility during normal, surveillance, abnormal, or emergency events). 

Each deficiency should include a description of the operation, event, or transient 

that was in progress, and how the simulation facility failed to accurately model the 

expected performance of the reference plant.

d. The applicants’ names and specific grades (i.e., Form ES-501-2) shall not be

published in the examination report.

e. The NRC’s regional office shall send the final examination report to the facility 

licensee and ensure that a copy is made available to the public.
ES-501, Page 14 of 33

4. Perform Other Activities

a. If an applicant did not complete the SRO upgrade training program or failed the

upgrade examination, regional management should ensure that the RO licensee 

complies with the requirements of 10 CFR 55.53(e), (f), and (h) and 10 CFR 

55.59(a) before resuming active duties as an RO.

Similarly, the regional office should ensure that SRO upgrade applicants who

passed and did not participate in RO requalification training while they were 

enrolled in the upgrade training program comply with 10 CFR 55.59(a). If an 

applicant missed the annual operating test or the comprehensive written 

requalification examination required by 10 CFR 55.59(a)(2) and then did not take 

the RO portion of the written licensing examination, the applicant must complete 

additional training in accordance with 10 CFR 55.59(b) and must make up the 

missed requalification examination to verify proficiency in the 10 CFR 55.41 topics 

before resuming licensed duties as an RO or commencing duties as an SRO

(which requires testing on both 10 CFR 55.41 and 55.43 items). However, the 

NRC would consider the requirements of 10 CFR 55.59(a)(2)(i) to be satisfied if the 

applicant repeats the applicable portions (to be determined using a systems 

approach to training) of the license training program and passes a comprehensive 

audit examination covering the topics required by 10 CFR 55.41.

SRO applicants who passed the written examination overall but scored below 80

percent on the RO (10 CFR 55.41) portion of the written examination will require 

additional review to determine the nature of their deficiencies and the need for 

additional training. Under 10 CFR 55.31(b), the Commission may at any time 

after the application has been filed, and before the license has expired, require 

further information under oath or affirmation in order to enable it to determine 

whether to grant or deny the application or whether to revoke, modify, or suspend 

the license. Under 10 CFR 55.7, the NRC may, by rule, regulation, or order, 

impose upon any licensee additional requirements deemed appropriate or

necessary to protect public health and to minimize danger to life and property. If 

the SRO applicant’s deficiencies pose such a threat, the NRC may require the

facility licensee to provide remedial training and reevaluation and to submit 

evidence of its completion to the NRC.

b. Once the licensing decisions are complete, the NRC examiners should discard any 

marked-up documentation or rough notes for those applicants who receive licenses 

(except as noted below). In accordance with ES-502, NRC examiners should 

retain all applicable notes and documentation associated with examination failures

until the license denials become final; this may include simulator operating test 

notes regarding crew members who passed the test if the notes contain information 

relevant to the failing applicant’s performance. Examiners are advised that such 

notes would be subject to disclosure if requested under the Freedom of Information 

Act.

c. Agency policy requires that all documents that are not classified, proprietary, sensitive 

or otherwise protected (e.g., under the Privacy Act or Freedom of Information Act) 

must be made available to the public. Therefore, the NRC’s regional office shall 

ensure that all documents associated with the licensing examination (i.e., those listed 

in Section F.1, below), excluding those containing the applicants’ names or grades, 

are placed in the NRC’s Public Document Room as soon as possible after the

examinations have been completed. NRC Manual Chapter 0620, “Inspection 
ES-501, Page 15 of 33

Documents and Records,” and SECY-04-0191, “Withholding Sensitive Unclassified 

Information Concerning Nuclear Power Reactors from Public Disclosure,” (ADAMS 

Accession Nos. ML093270149 and ML042310663, respectively) provide additional 

policies and guidance in this area.

F. NRC Record Retention

1. The NRC’s regional office shall ensure, for the most recent initial examination at each 

facility, that originals (whenever possible) or copies of the following items either are 

retained in the facility’s master examination file or are electronically available in ADAMS. 

The italicized items should be retained or available for the last two examinations at each 

facility so that examiners can verify compliance with the guidelines for test item repetition.

a. ES-201, Attachment 4, “Corporate Notification Letter”

b. ES-201, Attachment 5, “Examination Approval Letter,” with pen-and-ink changes on 

Form ES-201-4, “List of Applicants,” to identify the applicants who were actually 

examined

c. Form ES-201-1, “Examination Preparation Checklist”

d. the written examination and operating test outline(s), along with Form ES-201-2,

“Examination Outline Quality Checklist,” and Form ES-401-4 or ES-401N-4, “Record 

of Rejected K/As” (or the equivalent LSRO forms from ES-701)

e. the proposed NRC- or facility-developed operating tests and written examination 

(including comments made by the facility licensee or the NRC, as applicable)

f. the final written examination and answer key with all changes incorporated (the

pen-and-ink corrections made for the applicants while the examination was

administered may be changed to typewritten corrections; however, all changes shall 

be annotated in such a way that they are evident)

g. Forms ES-401-6 or ES-401N-6, “Written Examination Quality Checklist,” and 

ES-401-9 or ES-401N-9, “Written Examination Review Worksheet” (or the equivalent 

LSRO forms from ES-701), and any reference handouts (or a list thereof) provided to 

the applicants

h. the as-given scenarios including Forms ES-D-1, “Scenario Outline,” and ES-D-2,

“Required Operator Actions,” for each scenario set administered, as well as the

as-given walk-through tests including Forms ES-301-1, “Administrative Topics 

Outline,” and ES-301-2, “Control Room/In-Plant Systems Outline,” and the JPMs for 

each walk-through test (all record copies should reflect the “as run” test conditions; 

pen-and-ink markups of the original, approved forms are acceptable)

i. for each operating test administered, Form ES-301-3, “Operating Test Quality 

Checklist,” Form ES-301-4, “Simulator Scenario Quality Checklist,” Form ES-301-5,

“Transient and Event Checklist,” Form ES-301-6, “Competencies Checklist” and Form 

ES-301-7, “Operating Test Review Worksheet” (or the equivalent LSRO forms from 

ES-701).

j. Form ES-403-1, “Written Examination Grading Quality Checklist”
ES-501, Page 16 of 33

k. Form ES-501-2, “Power Plant Examination Results Summary Sheet”

l. the final “Examination Report,” with all enclosures

m. Form ES-201-3, “Examination Security Agreements”

2. The NRC’s regional office shall place the following items in each applicant’s docket file:

a. Forms ES-303-1, “Individual Examination Report,” ES-303-2, “Operating Test 

Comments” (original copies, all pages, including strip charts and other attachments 

that support the licensing decision), and ES-D-1, “Scenario Outline,” as well as 

Form(s) ES-D-2, “Required Operator Actions,” if the applicant failed the simulator 

operating test (all record copies should have the required signatures and reflect the

“as run” test conditions; pen-and-ink markups of the original, approved forms are 

acceptable)

b. all correspondence with the applicant

c. the applicant’s original written examination cover sheet (Form ES-401-7 or ES-401N-7, 

ES-401-8 or ES-401N-8, or ES-701-8) and answer sheet

G. Attachments/Forms

Attachment 1 Sample Facility Comments and NRC Resolutions

Attachment 2 Sample Simulator Fidelity Report

Attachment 3 Sample License Letters

Attachment 4 Sample Preliminary Results, Sample Informal NRC Staff Review 

Acknowledgement Letter, and Final Denial Letters

Attachment 5 Sample Notification Letter

Attachment 6 Acceptance of License Denial and Waiver of Hearing Rights

Form ES-501-1 Post-Examination Check Sheet

Form ES-501-2 Power Plant Examination Results Summary
ES-501, Page 17 of 33

ES-501 Sample Facility Comments and NRC Resolutions Attachment 1

Question #28

Comment: The question asks for the required method of securing a diesel generator and

ensuring that an auto restart does not recur following auto initiation on receipt of a valid

loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) signal with offsite power still available to its associated

emergency bus. The question is recommended for deletion because the system operating 

procedure directs that the diesel be unloaded, verifying that the 4KV bus auto transfer 

annunciator is reset, and then secured by placing the handswitch in “pull to lock.” Therefore, the 

key answer (i.e., ensure that the “4KV “UTO TRANSFER INOP” annunciator is lit before placing 

the control switch in PULL TO LOCK) is incorrect.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Resolution: Recommendation accepted. The 

question is deleted because there is no correct answer. The intended answer specified that the 

annunciator be confirmed as “lit” when it should have specified “reset” in accordance with System 

Operating Procedure No. 123, Section 5.1 (Revision 29).

Question #51

Comment: The question asks for a description of the operation of the residual heat removal 

(RHR) Loop B outboard injection valve if the level rapidly decreases to 119.5 inches with RHR

Loop B operating in the shutdown cooling mode. The question is recommended for deletion 

because the outboard injection valve reopens automatically when the Group 4 isolation is reset, if 

a low-pressure coolant injection (LPCI) loop selection is sealed-in. Therefore, the key answer 

(i.e., the operator must reset the shutdown cooling isolation and manually reopen the RHR Loop B 

outboard injection valve) is incorrect.

NRC Resolution: Recommendation not accepted. The RHR Loop B outboard injection valve 

will not auto-open unless the operator manually resets the shutdown cooling isolation signal. 

Therefore, the use of the phrase “manually reopen” is correct, and the key answer is correct. 

The facility-provided reference supports that manual action is required to open the injection valve.
ES-501, Page 18 of 33

ES-501 Sample Simulator Fidelity Report Attachment 2

Facility Licensee: (Facility name) 

Facility Docket No.: (number) 

Operating Tests Administered on: (date) 

This form is to be used only to report observations. These observations do not constitute audit or inspection findings 

and, without further verification and review in accordance with IP 71111.11, are not indicative of noncompliance with 10 

CFR 55.46, “Simulation Facilities.” No licensee action is required in response to these observations.

While conducting the simulator portion of the operating tests, examiners observed the following items:

(EXAMPLES)

Item Description

HPSI Header B 

pressure (PI-301)

The pressure instrument read mid-scale regardless of actual pressure.

Head bubble During a scenario that caused a rapid depressurization during natural 

circulation, the vessel head level indication indicated a void (bubble). 

The confirming indications (i.e., pressurizer level and pressure) failed to 

verify or confirm the bubble.

Steam Generator A

wide-range level

The meter has been out of service for the last three operating tests 

(approximately 18 months).
ES-501, Page 19 of 33

ES-501 Sample License Letters Attachment 3

NRC Letterhead

(Date)

LICENSE

(Applicant’s name)

(Street address)

(City, State ZIP code)

Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974

(Public Law 93 - 438), as amended; and subject to the conditions and limitations incorporated 

herein, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission hereby licenses you to manipulate all controls of 

the (Name of facility, facility license number).

Your License No. is OP- (number), and your Docket No. is 55 - (number). The effective date is

(date). Unless sooner terminated, renewed, or upgraded, this license shall expire 6 years from 

the effective date.

This license is subject to the provisions of Title 10, Section 55.53, “Conditions of Licenses,” of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 55.53), with the same force and effect as if fully set forth 

herein.

While performing licensed duties, you shall observe the operating procedures and other 

conditions specified in the facility license authorizing operation of the facility.

The issuance of this license is based upon examination of your qualifications, including the

representations and information contained in your application for this license.

A copy of this license has been made available to the facility licensee.

For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

(Name and title of licensing official)

Docket No. 55 - (number)

cc: (Facility representative who signed the applicant’s NRC Form 398)
ES-501, Page 20 of 33

ES-501 2 Attachment 3

NRC Letterhead

(Date)

LICENSE

(Applicant’s name)

(Street address)

(City, State ZIP code)

Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 

(Public Law 93 - 438), as amended; and subject to the conditions and limitations incorporated 

herein, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission hereby licenses you to direct the [licensed] [[fuel 

handling]] activities of [licensed] operators at, and to manipulate [all] [[fuel handling]] controls of 

the (Name of facility, facility license number).

Your License No. is SOP - (number), and your Docket No. is 55 - (number). The effective date is

(date). Unless sooner terminated, renewed, or upgraded, this license shall expire 6 years from 

the effective date.

This license is subject to the provisions of Title 10, Section 55.53, of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR 55.53), with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.

While performing licensed duties, you shall observe the operating procedures and other 

conditions specified in the facility license authorizing operation of the facility. You shall also 

comply with the following condition(s):

• You shall wear corrective lenses while performing the activities for which you are licensed.

The issuance of this license is based upon examination of your qualifications, including the

representations and information contained in your application for this license.

A copy of this license has been made available to the facility licensee.

For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

(Name and title of licensing official)

Docket No. 55 - (number)

cc: (Facility representative who signed the applicant’s NRC Form 398)

[ ] Include only for unrestricted senior operators.

[[ ]] Include only for senior operators limited to fuel handling under 10 CFR 55.53©.
ES-501, Page 21 of 33

ES-501 Sample Preliminary Results Letter Attachment 4

NRC Letterhead

(Date)

[Applicant’s name]

[Street address]

[City, State, ZIP code]

Dear [Mr. / Ms. XYZ]:

This is to inform you that your preliminary grade on the [operating test, written examination, or 

both] taken on [date(s)], in connection with your application for a [reactor operator, senior reactor 

operator] license for the [facility name], indicates that you did not pass that (test, examination, or 

both). As a result, you have the opportunity to provide additional information prior to the

U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) making a final licensing decision. Enclosed is a 

copy of the [operating test, written examination, or both] results indicating those areas in which 

you exhibited deficiencies. [A copy of the master answer key is also provided.]

You may, within 20 days of the date of this letter, request an informal NRC staff review of the 

grading of your test and/or examination. 

However, if you take no action within 20 days from the date of this letter, the preliminary results

will become final and the NRC will send you a final denial letter along with instructions on how to 

file for an adjudicatory hearing or apply for a new test and/or examination.

If you request an informal NRC staff review, send a written request to [Director, Division of 

Inspection and Regional Support, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001 or Director, Division of Construction Inspection and 

Operational Programs, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 or, for non-power facilities, Director, Division of Policy and 

Rulemaking, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001]. If submitting 

via private courier (e.g., FedEx, UPS), send your request to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD

20852, instead of using the Washington, DC, address. Your request must identify the portions of 

your examination that you believe were graded incorrectly or too severely. In addition, you must 

provide the basis, including supporting documentation (such as procedures, instructions, 

computer printouts, and chart traces), in as much detail as possible, to support your claim that 

certain of your responses were graded incorrectly or too severely.

The NRC will review your claim, finalize your grading, and inform you of the results. If the 

preliminary results are sustained, the NRC will send you a letter informing you of the final denial 

with instructions on how to file for an adjudicatory hearing or apply for a new test and/or 

examination.
ES-501, Page 22 of 33

ES-501 Sample Preliminary Results Letter page 2 Attachment 4

If you have any questions, please contact me at [Number].

Sincerely,

[Name], Chief 

[Branch]

[Division]

Docket No.: [55-XXXXX]

Enclosure:

As stated

cc w/o enclosure: Senior Facility Licensee Representative

cc w/enclosure: Facility Licensee Training Manager

CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
ES-501, Page 23 of 33

ES-501 Sample Informal NRC Staff Review Acknowledgement Letter Attachment 4

NRC Letterhead

(Date)

[Applicant’s name]

[Street address]

[City, State, ZIP code]

Dear [Mr. / Ms. XYZ]:

This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter by this office on (Date), requesting an informal 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff review of the preliminary results of your [reactor 

operator, senior reactor operator] license examination. We will review the information and the 

material you provided and inform you of our decision.

The review process is described in NUREG-1021, “Operator Licensing Examination Standards 

for Power Reactors” Section ES-502.D, “Administrative Review Procedures.” The review 

process encompasses grading reconsideration of the identified examination and/or test item(s). 

The review may also include consideration of the item(s) by a multi-person board selected from 

other regional offices and headquarters staff. The NRC endeavors to complete the review of 

your claims, reconsider your grading, and inform you of the results of the review in a timely 

manner, typically within 75 days.

If you have any questions, please contact me at [Number].

Sincerely,

[Name], Chief

[Branch]

[Division]

Docket No.: [55-XXXXX]

CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
ES-501, Page 24 of 33

ES-501 Sample Final Denial Letter Attachment 4

NRC Letterhead

Date

[Applicant’s name]

[Street address]

[City, State, Zip code]

Dear [Mr. / Ms. XYZ]:

[In response to your letter received by this office on [date], the staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) has reviewed the grading of the [operating test, written examination, or both] 

administered to you on [date], and reconsidered the preliminary results issued to you on [date]. In 

spite of the additional information you supplied, the staff has determined that you did not pass the 

[test, examination, or both]. The results of our review of your claims are enclosed.]

OR

[On [date], the NRC informed you of the preliminary grading associated with your application for a 

[senior] reactor operator license due to your failure of the [operating test, written exam, or both]. 

You were afforded a 20 day period to request an informal NRC staff review. The 20 day period 

has expired and you have not requested a review.]

Consequently, the preliminary results of your [operating test, written exam, or both] now become

the final results and a final denial of your license. You have the following options:

You may reapply for a license in accordance with Title 10, Section 55.35, of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR 55.35), subject to the following conditions:

* a. You may reapply for a license two months from the date of this letter.

* b. Because you passed [a written examination and/or the 

administrative/systems/simulator operating test] on [date(s)], you may request a 

waiver of [that or those] portion(s). 

* c. Because you did not pass the [SRO portion of or written examination overall or 

administrative/systems/simulator operating test] administered to you on [date(s)], you 

will be required to retake that portion. 

** a. You may reapply for a license [6, 24] months from the date of this letter.

** b. Because this is your [second, subsequent] examination failure, you will be required to 

retake both the written examination and the operating test.

*** a. You may reapply for a license [2, 6, 24] months from the date of this letter.

*** b. Because you did not pass either the operating test or the written examination 

administered to you on [date(s)], you will be required to retake both the operating test 

and the written examination.
ES-501, Page 25 of 33

ES-501 Sample Final Denial Letter page 2 Attachment 4

You may also request an adjudicatory hearing pursuant to 10 CFR 2.103(b)(2) within 20 days. 

Under 10 CFR 2.307(a), you may request an extension of the time limits if you can show good 

cause.

If you request an adjudicatory hearing pursuant to 10 CFR 2.103(b)(2) based on the final denial 

contained in this letter, submit your request electronically through the NRC’s E-Filing system in 

accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 2.302(a) through (g).

Regulations in 10 CFR 2.302(a) state:

Documents filed in Commission adjudicatory proceedings subject to this part shall be 

electronically transmitted through the E-Filing system, unless the Commission or 

presiding officer grants an exemption permitting an alternative filing method or unless the 

filing falls within the scope of paragraph (g)(1) of this section (i.e., information that may not 

be transmitted electronically for security or other reasons).

In addition, 10 days before the date your request for hearing is due, you must request a digital 

ID certificate from the NRC in order to access the Electronic Information Exchange system. The 

instructions for obtaining a digital certificate are found in 10 CFR 2.302(f) and on the NRC Web 

site at: http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.

Adjudicatory hearings are conducted under 10 CFR, Part 2, Subpart C. Specifically, 10 CFR 

2.309 sets forth the requirements for hearing requests and contentions. 10 CFR 2.309(f) sets 

forth the requirements for an admissible contention. Briefly, an admissible contention must: 

provide a specific statement of law or fact to be raised or controverted; provide a brief explanation 

of the basis for the contention; demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is within the 

scope of the proceeding; demonstrate that the contention is material to the findings that the NRC 

must make to support the denial of the license; provide a concise statement of the alleged facts or 

expert opinions which support your position and on which you intend to rely, together with 

references to specific resources and documents you intend to rely on; and, provide sufficient 

information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the NRC staff on a material issue of law or 

fact, including references to parts of the denial letter, review and analysis that you dispute and the 

reasons for each dispute.

For further details, you should refer to 10 CFR 2.309(f)(1).

If you have any questions, please contact me at [Number].

Sincerely,

[Name], Chief 

[Branch]

[Division]
ES-501, Page 26 of 33

ES-501 Sample Final Denial Letter page 3 Attachment 4

Docket No.: [55-XXXXX]

Enclosure:

As stated

cc w/o enclosure: Senior Facility Licensee Representative

cc w/enclosure: Facility Licensee Training Manager

CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

* Use for initial RO or SRO license applicants who passed either the operating test or the 

written examination but failed the other.

** Use for second and subsequent retake applicants.

*** Use for applicants who failed both the operating test and the written examination.
ES-501, Page 27 of 33

ES-501 Sample Notification Letter Attachment 5

NRC Letterhead

(Date)

(Applicant’s name)

(Street address) 

(City, State ZIP code)

Dear (Name):

The purpose of this letter is to forward the results of the site-specific operating test and written

examination administered to you during the week of (date) in connection with your application for 

a (reactor operator, senior reactor operator, limited senior reactor operator) license for the (facility 

name). Copies of your operating test and written examination answer sheets are enclosed.

However, as explained in paragraph D.3.c of Examination Standard (ES) 501 in NUREG-1021,

“Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors,” Revision 11, the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) will not issue your license [until your employer certifies in writing 

that you have acquired all of the training and experience for which you were previously granted a 

waiver.] [[until we determine that your medical condition and general health are satisfactory for 

licensing.]] [[[because any written examination with a passing grade of 82 (74 or 84, as applicable

for SRO-only) percent or below is normally held for review until those applicants who failed the 

examination have had an opportunity to request an informal NRC staff review of their examination 

results or request an adjudicatory hearing pursuant to 10 CFR 2.103(b)(2).

After resolving potential changes from any informal NRC staff review or adjudicatory hearing, the 

NRC will issue your license if your final grade remains at or above 80 (70 or 80, as applicable for 

SRO-only) percent. Should changes result in your final grade being below 80 (70 or 80, as 

applicable for SRO-only) percent, the NRC will send you a preliminary results letter, which will 

outline your response options.]]]

[[[[because any operating examination with a grade of Satisfactory on 80 percent of the 

“walk-through” test (where the percentage of Satisfactory grades in the Administrative Topics 

area, as described in Section D.2.a of ES-303, was met), is normally held for review until those 

applicants who failed the examination have had an opportunity to request an informal NRC staff 

review of their examination results or request an adjudicatory hearing pursuant to 10 CFR 

2.103(b)(2).

After resolving potential changes from any informal NRC staff review or adjudicatory hearing, the NRC 

will issue your license if you maintain a final grade of Satisfactory on at least 80 percent of the 

“walk-through” test (with minimal competence established in the Administrative Topics area). Should 

changes result in a final grade of Satisfactory on less than 80 percent of the “walk-through” test, or 

a final grade of Satisfactory on 80 percent of the “walk-through” test and minimal competence not 

established in the Administrative Topics area, the NRC will send you a preliminary results letter, 

which will outline your response options.]]]]

[[[[[because any operating examination with an overall grade of Satisfactory on the simulator test 

(as determined by the evaluation criteria in Section D.2.b of ES-303), that includes a “same 

scenario-same event” error that would result in a failure if assessed as a critical task during an 
ES-501, Page 28 of 33

ES-501 Sample Notification Letter page 2 Attachment 5

informal NRC staff review, is normally held for review until those applicants who failed the 

examination have had an opportunity to request an informal NRC staff review of their examination 

results or request an adjudicatory hearing pursuant to 10 CFR 2.103(b)(2).

After resolving potential changes from any informal NRC staff review or adjudicatory hearing, the NRC 

will issue your license if your final simulator test grade still meets successful ES-303 evaluation 

criteria. Should changes result in a final simulator test grade that no longer meets successful 

ES-303 evaluation criteria, the NRC will send you a preliminary results letter, which will outline 

your response options.]]]]]

If you have any questions, please contact (name) at (telephone number).

Sincerely,

(Name and title of licensing official)

Docket No. 55 - (number)

Enclosures: As stated

cc: (Facility representative who signed the applicant’s NRC Form 398)

[ ] Use only for applicants who need to complete training or experience prior to licensing.

[[ ]] Use only for applicants whose medical condition is still under review.

[[[ ]]] Use only for applicants whose final licensing action is pending the resolution of written 

examination informal NRC staff reviews or hearings.[[[[ ]]]] Use only for 

applicants whose final licensing action is pending the resolution of operating 

examination “walk-through” test informal NRC staff reviews or hearings.

[[[[[ ]]]]] Use only for applicants whose final licensing action is pending the resolution of 

operating examination simulator test informal NRC staff reviews or hearings.
ES-501, Page 29 of 33

ES-501 Sample Acceptance of License Denial Letter from Applicant Attachment 6

[This letter submitted by applicant to the appropriate regional office as described in Title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations 55.5, “Communications.”]

Name: [Applicant’s name]

Docket Number:

Examination Date:

I accept the [Preliminary Results] [Final License Denial] regarding the above-referenced operator 

license application. I further waive all rights to an informal NRC staff review or an adjudicatory 

hearing pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 2.103(b)(2) regarding 

the [preliminary results] [final license denial] of my operator license application and request that 

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission issue a final denial in this matter.

__________________________ ____________________

Signature Date
ES-501, Page 30 of 33

ES-501 Sample Acceptance of Waiver of Attachment 7

Hearing Rights and Final Denial Letter

NRC Letterhead

Date

[Applicant’s name]

[Street address]

[City, State, Zip code]

Dear [Mr. / Ms. XYZ]:

In response to your letter received by this office on [date], you indicated that you did not wish to 

contest the [preliminary results] [final license denial] issued to you on [date] and you waived any 

right to an informal NRC staff review or an adjudicatory hearing under Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 2.103(b)(2). Consequently, the staff of the U. S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) has determined that it is appropriate at this time to issue this final

denial letter with respect to your application for a license.

Please be advised that, in light of this final denial of your license application, you may avail 

yourself of the reapplication provisions of 10 CFR 55.35, “Re-Applications,” after [2,6, or 24] 

months from the date of this letter.

Sincerely,

(name and title of licensing official)

Docket No. 55 - (number)

cc: (Facility representative who signed the applicant’s NRC Form 398)
ES-501, Page 31 of 33

ES-501 Post-Examination Check Sheet Form ES-501-1

Post-Examination Check Sheet

Facility: Date of Examination:

Task Description Date Complete

1.* Facility written exam comments or graded exams received and

verified complete

2.* Facility written exam comments reviewed and incorporated and

NRC grading completed, if necessary

3.* Facility operating test comments reviewed and incorporated and 

NRC grading completed, if necessary

4.* NRC chief examiner review of operating test and/or written exam 

grading completed

5. Responsible supervisor review completed

6. Management (licensing official) review completed

7. License and denial letters mailed

8. Facility notified of results

9. Examination report issued (refer to NRC IMC 0612)

10. Reference material returned after final resolution of any appeals

Items identified with an * may not be required to document a retake examination. Place an N/A in 

the “Date Completed” column if not applicable to the associated retake examination.
ES-501, Page 32 of 33

ES-501 Power Plant Examination Results Summary Form ES-501-2

PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION — FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Power Plant Examination Results Summary

Facility: Plant Status: Hot Cold 

Written Examination Date:

Prepared by: Facility NRC 

Operating Test Date(s):

Prepared by: Facility NRC 

NRC Examiners:

Overall Results

Applicants: Total # # Passed % Passed # Failed % Failed

RO

SRO

Individual Results

Name Docket # 

55 - ( )

Type 

(1) 

Written Grade

RO / SRO / TOT

Operating Test(2)

W - T ADM SIM

 / /

 / /

 / /

 / /

 / /

 / /

 / /

 / /

 / /

 / /

 / /

NOTES:

(1) 1=RO; 2=SRO-I; 3=SRO-U; 4=RO-Retake; 5=SRO-I-Retake; 6=SRO-U-Retake; 7=SRO-Fuel

(2) P=Passed; F=Failed; W=Waived

PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION — FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
ES-501, Page 33 of 33

ES-501 2 Form ES-501-2

PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION — FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Power Plant Examination Results Summary

(Continuation Sheet)

Facility:

Examination Date(s):

Individual Results

Name Docket # 

55 - ( )

Type

(1)

Written Grade

RO / SRO / TOT

Operating Test(2)

W - T ADM SIM

 / /

 / /

 / /

 / /

 / /

 / /

 / /

 / /

 / /

 / /

 / /

 / /

 / /

 / /

 / /

NOTES:

(1) 1=RO; 2=SRO-I; 3=SRO-U; 4=RO-Retake; 5=SRO-I-Retake; 6=SRO-U-Retake; 7=SRO-Fuel

(2) P=Passed; F=Failed; W=Waived

PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION — FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ES-502, Page 1 of 5

ES-502

PROCESSING REQUESTS FOR INFORMAL NRC STAFF REVIEWS AND 

ADJUDICATORY HEARINGS

A. Purpose

This standard describes the options and associated responsibilities regarding informal U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff reviews of preliminary results for a license 

examination failure and adjudicatory hearings related to license application denials and final 

license denials. This standard also addresses license re-applications after a final license denial.

B. Background

Operator license applicants who are denied the opportunity to take an NRC licensing examination 

because they do not meet the eligibility requirements for a license pursuant to Title 10 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 55, “Operator’s Licenses,” and those applicants who are 

denied a license because they failed a written examination or operating test administered 

pursuant to 10 CFR Part 55 are notified of their denials in writing. The preliminary results letter

and the final denial letter describe the nature of the deficiencies noted and inform the applicants of 

their available response options. Applicants may reapply pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 

55.35, “Re-Applications.” 

C. Responsibilities

1. Applicant

a. An applicant who does not appear to meet the experience and training 

requirements for a license may be asked to provide additional information to the 

NRC’s regional office in accordance with ES-202, “Preparing and Reviewing 

Operator Licensing Applications.” If the NRC still denies the application after the 

applicant provides the additional information requested by the NRC, the applicant 

may exercise one of the following options within 20 days after the date on the 

application denial letter from the regional office:

(1) Do nothing. The denial letter then becomes the final denial. The 

applicant may reapply after obtaining the requisite training or experience.

(2) Request a hearing pursuant to 10 CFR 2.103(b)(2). Applicants must 

submit such requests electronically in accordance with the requirements of 

10 CFR 2.302, Filing of documents. Detailed guidance on making 

electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic 

Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC Web site at 

http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.

b. If an applicant fails the operator licensing written examination or operating test (or 

both) and receives a preliminary results letter issued by an NRC regional office in 

accordance with ES-501, “Initial Post-Examination Activities,” the applicant has 

20 days from the date on the letter to exercise one of the following options:
ES-502, Page 2 of 5

(1) Do nothing. The preliminary results then become final, and the NRC will 

send the applicant a final denial letter providing rights to an adjudicatory 

hearing under 10 CFR 2.103(b)(2). The applicant may reapply, under

10 CFR 55.35, 2 months after the date on the final denial letter, 6 months 

after the second final denial, and 24 months after each successive final 

denial.

(2) Request an informal NRC staff review of the written examination, the 

operating test, or both, in light of new information to be provided by the 

applicant. Applicants must submit such requests to the Director, Division 

of Inspection and Regional Support, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001 or 

Director, Division of Construction Inspection and Operational Programs, 

Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555-0001. If submitting via private courier 

(e.g., FedEx, UPS), send the applicant’s request to 11555 Rockville Pike, 

Rockville, MD 20852, instead of using the Washington, DC, address. 

The applicant’s request for an informal NRC staff review must identify the 

item(s) for which additional review is requested and must include 

documentation supporting the item(s) in contention. The applicant is 

responsible for ensuring that the request and the supporting 

documentation are sent to the NRR/NRO operator licensing program office 

within 20 days after the date on the preliminary results letter.

If the NRC administratively reviews a failure and determines that the

applicant did not provide sufficient basis to justify passing grades on all 

sections of the licensing examination, the NRC will issue a final denial letter 

to the applicant. The applicant may then request an adjudicatory hearing 

pursuant to 10 CFR 2.103(b)(2). In such instances, the applicant must 

submit a request for a hearing after an administrative review within 20 days 

after the date on the final denial letter from the NRR/NRO operator 

licensing program office. In addition, the applicant must submit the 

hearing request electronically in accordance with the requirements of 

10 CFR 2.302, “Filing of Documents.” Detailed guidance on making 

electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic 

Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC Web site at 

http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. 

If the applicant does not request a hearing when the NRR/NRO operator 

licensing program office issues the final denial, then the applicant may 

reapply for a license, pursuant to 10 CFR 55.35, 2 months after the date of

the final denial letter, 6 months after the second final denial, and 24 months 

after each successive final denial.

(3) Submit a letter to the regional office stating that he or she accepts the 

preliminary results or final license denial and waives all rights to an informal 

NRC staff review or waives all rights to an adjudicatory hearing under

10 CFR 2.103(b)(2). The NRC will then issue a final denial letter 

acknowledging the waiver of informal NRC staff review and hearing rights 
ES-502, Page 3 of 5

and provide guidance for reapplication provisions of 10 CFR 55.35. See 

ES-501, Attachment 6, “Sample Acceptance of License Denial and Waiver 

of Hearing Rights Letters,“ for sample letters associated with applicant 

acceptance of license denials and NRC acknowledgment of waiver of 

informal NRC staff review and hearing rights.

2. Facility Licensee

a. The NRC may ask the facility licensee to provide reference materials, technical 

support, and (if the facility licensee prepared the examination) a confirmation of the 

validity of the test items, as necessary for the NRC staff to evaluate and resolve 

any concerns raised by a license applicant that asked the NRC to reconsider an 

examination failure.

b. The facility licensee should ensure that any written examination questions that are 

determined to be invalid (e.g., those that have no or multiple correct answers) are 

retrieved from any examination bank into which they have been deposited and 

corrected or discarded.

3. NRC

a. The NRC will conduct 10 CFR Part 55 license application hearings in accordance 

with 10 CFR Part 2, “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings and 

Issuance of Order.” as requested on eligibility as described in Section D.1, below.

b. The NRC will conduct informal NRC staff reviews of 10 CFR Part 55 license 

denials based on preliminary examination results as described in Section D.2, 

below.

c. The NRC will conduct 10 CFR Part 55 operator licensing hearings in accordance 

with 10 CFR Part 2, “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings and 

Issuance of Orders.”
ES-502, Page 4 of 5

D. Administrative Review Procedures

1. Application Denial

If an applicant does not agree with the final denial for an application of an operator or 

senior operator license the applicant may request a hearing pursuant to 10 CFR 

2.103(b)(2).

2. Examination Results

If an applicant requests an informal NRC staff review in accordance with Section C.1.b, 

the NRR/NRO operator licensing program office will generally complete its review, as 

follows, within 75 days after receiving the request.

a. The NRR/NRO operator licensing program office will determine whether to 

(1) review the informal NRC staff review internally; (2) have a non-affected

regional office review the informal NRC staff review, or (3) convene a three-person 

panel to review the applicant’s documented contentions. The informal NRC staff 

review panel shall be composed of a minimum of three individuals which include a 

non-affected regional branch chief and an individual from the NRR/NRO operator 

licensing program office. The appeal panel shall not include any certified 

examiner from the affected region or who was associated with the exam 

administration. The NRR/NRO operator licensing program office member should 

assure that the agency protocols are followed with respect to process,

documentation, and independence.

For written examinations, the review will generally focus only on those questions 

that the applicant is contesting. The review shall evaluate the original grading of

the applicant’s (or applicants’) examination(s), the reference material supplied by 

the facility licensee, and the contentions and supporting documentation provided 

by the applicant(s). If there are multiple appeals, all question deletions and 

answer key changes will be applied equally to each appellant’s examination, 

without regard to who submitted the informal NRC staff review request. 

Moreover, in those rare instances when a generic finding results in an answer key 

change (e.g., failure to provide a print or other reference necessary to answer a 

question), the corrective action may be applied, as appropriate, to adjust the 

grading of other questions that were not contested.

For operating tests, the review shall evaluate the examiner’s comments, the

examination report, the test that was administered (including video/audio 

recordings, if applicable), and the contentions and supporting documentation 

provided by the applicant or facility licensee (e.g., plant system descriptions, 

operating procedures, logs, chart recorder traces, and process computer 

printouts).

b. Based on the findings and recommendations from the informal NRC staff review, 

the NRR/NRO operator licensing program office will decide whether to sustain or 

overturn the applicant’s license examination preliminary results. The NRR/NRO

operator licensing program office will then notify the applicant in writing of the 

results of the review.
ES-502, Page 5 of 5

c. When the NRR/NRO operator licensing program office has concurred in the results 

of the review, the NRC’s regional office will (1) issue a license if the new 

information showed that the requirements of 55.33 were met, (2) review the 

examination results of the other applicants to determine if any of the licensing 

decisions are affected, (3) update the master examination file to reflect any test 

item deletions or answer key changes, and (4) consider the need to correspond 

with the facility licensee regarding the quality of the examination, as discussed in 

Section C.2.c of ES-501.

ES-601, Page 1 of 35

ES-601

CONDUCTING NRC REQUALIFICATION EXAMINATIONS

A. Purpose

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 55.59(a) requires licensed operators and

senior operators to complete a requalification program developed by the facility licensee and to 

pass a comprehensive requalification written examination and an annual operating test. In lieu 

of accepting the facility licensee’s certification that the operator has passed the required 

examinations and tests administered within the facility licensee’s Commission-approved program, 

the NRC may administer a comprehensive requalification written examination and an annual 

operating test.

This standard provides general guidance and requirements for conducting NRC requalification 

examinations. In addition this standard provides guidance and procedures for evaluating the facility 

licensee’s licensed operator requalification training program to ensure that it is effectively maintaining

the competency of the licensed operators. Specific guidance and requirements for conducting the

comprehensive requalification written examinations and the annual operating tests (including both the

plant walk-through and dynamic simulator sections) are provided in ES-602 through ES-604. These 

standards are not a substitute for the operator licensing regulations and are subject to revision and

other changes to the internal operator licensing program policy.

B. Background

Section 306 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA, Public Law 97-425) authorized and

directed the NRC to promulgate regulations, or other appropriate guidance, for training and

qualifying nuclear power plant operators. Those regulations were to include requirements 

governing the administration of requalification examinations and operating tests at nuclear power 

plant simulators. The NRC’s requalification evaluation program consists primarily of periodic, 

onsite requalification inspections, supplemented with NRC examinations at facilities where the

NRC believes that ineffective training is causing operators to commit errors. The oversight 

program will require the NRC to actively oversee each facility licensee’s requalification training 

programs, and the Commission’s regulations will continue to contain legally binding requirements 

that apply to the conduct of operator requalification examinations by facility licensees.

When determining the scope of a facility’s requalification inspection and examination activities, 

regional managers will consider overall facility performance, the results of the NRC’s inspection 

programs (e.g., requalification, emergency operating procedure, and resident), the results of

routine initial and requalification examinations, and other factors. Generally, the facility will only 

need to meet the inspection requirements of Inspection Procedure (IP) 71111.11, “Licensed 

Operator Requalification Program” (Adams Accession No ML040210317). However, when 

necessary, the NRC can initiate augmented activities in accordance with program office guidance 

to ensure safe plant operation. Those activities could include a training program inspection in

accordance with IP 41500, “Training and Qualification Effectiveness,” operational evaluations of

on-shift crews, or NRC examinations conducted in accordance with this series of examination 

standards.
ES-601, Page 2 of 35

The NRC will conduct requalification examinations only when it has lost confidence in the facility 

licensee’s ability to conduct examinations, or when the staff believes that the inspection process 

will not provide the needed insight. Regional management should consider conducting 

requalification examinations or operational evaluations when any of the following conditions exist:

• requalification inspection results indicate an ineffective operator requalification program

• operator errors are a major contributor to operational problems

• allegations have been raised regarding significant training program deficiencies

The decision to conduct NRC examinations should be implemented through the normal resource 

planning system, because an inspection activity will be replaced with examinations that are more 

resource-intensive. Using the existing inspection planning process will ensure that the regional 

office and the NRC’s Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) and Office of New Reactors 

(NRO) will consider the need to conduct examinations, as well as the alternative expanded 

inspection tools, when allocating the required resources. Operational evaluations should be 

considered as a reactive effort based on immediate safety concerns.

C. Scope

The NRC-conducted requalification examinations will measure the effectiveness of a facility 

licensee’s requalification program by evaluating the licensee’s ability to adequately prepare written 

examination questions, job performance measures (JPMs), and simulator scenarios, as well as its 

ability to properly evaluate its operator’s performance. The examination procedures are based on a

systems approach to training (SAT) program, as defined in 10 CFR 55.4, “Definitions”. To the extent 

possible, these procedures rely on existing requalification program standards for developing and

implementing the NRC’s examinations. The SAT approach allows the NRC to conduct 

requalification examinations that are fundamentally consistent with existing facility-developed 

programs. As such, this approach reduces the impact on the facilities and improves the reliability of

the NRC’s assessment of requalification training programs.

The NRC-conducted requalification examination will normally be composed of three parts, 

including a two-section open-reference written examination, a walk-through evaluation, and a

dynamic simulator evaluation. The three examination parts are further described in ES-602, 

“Requalification Written Examinations,” ES-603, “Requalification Walk-Through Examinations,”

and ES-604, “Dynamic Simulator Requalification Examinations,” respectively. The NRC will

consider preferentially using the facility licensee’s requalification examination structure or

methodology if it is different from that described herein, provided that it complies with 10 CFR

55.59 “Requalification,” and is free of significant flaws. The regional office shall consult with the

NRR/NRO operator licensing program office to determine the appropriate examination procedure.

To the extent practical, the examination will be based on the facility licensee’s requalification 

program and learning objectives. The facility licensee is expected to use the plant-specific job

and task analyses (JTAs) as the basis for developing the examination materials and

substantiating the importance rating factors for each task. The facility licensee may also refer to

the NRC’s Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant Operators: PressurizedWater Reactors (NUREG-1122 or 2103) or Boiling Water Reactors (1123 or 2104), for additional 

guidance on identifying job-specific importance rating factors. The use of a JTA will result in

more technically sound and operationally oriented examinations.
ES-601, Page 3 of 35

An examination team composed of NRC examiners and facility representatives, will develop, 

review, and conduct each requalification examination. Parallel evaluation of operator 

performance by NRC examiners and facility evaluators will enhance the NRC’s ability to assess 

both individual and program performance.

The administrative guidelines and procedures for conducting an NRC requalification examination 

are outlined in Attachment 1, “Examination Timetable.”

D. Examination Preparations

1. Communication

a. When the NRC determines that it is necessary to conduct a requalification 

examination, the regional office will notify the facility licensee to be evaluated at 

least 90 but preferably 120 days before the examination start date, using the

corporate notification letter shown in Attachment 2. If possible, the NRC will 

schedule the site visits to coincide with the facility’s requalification training cycle. 

Depending on the number of operators and crews at the facility, it may be 

necessary to conduct the examinations over a period of 2 or more weeks to attain 

the required sample size. The requalification training cycle, referenced herein 

and throughout NUREG-1021, is that continuous period of time (not to exceed 24 

months) within which the facility licensee conducts its operator requalification 

training program.

If the purpose of the examination is to retest operators who previously failed an

NRC-conducted requalification examination, the regional office should modify the

corporate notification letter, as appropriate.

b. The facility licensee is expected to respond to the corporate notification letter at

least 60 days before the evaluation by submitting the materials and information 

requested in the letter.

The facility licensee may request that the NRC’s chief examiner or another NRC

representative meet with appropriate facility licensee managers and the operators 

to be examined. Such a meeting should be scheduled during the examination 

preparation week as discussed in Section D.5.

c. At least 30 days before the examination, the NRC will confirm with the facility 

licensee which operators have been selected to participate in the evaluation.

2. Selection of Operators

a. The NRC expects facility licensees to train and examine their operators in the

same crew configurations with which they normally operate the plant. Generally, 

the NRC expects the crew to include no more than five operators, but the agency 

will consider larger crews on a case-by-case basis.

At times, to ensure an adequate sample size, the examination team may configure 

crews that do not routinely work together to perform shift duties. Mixed crews of

shift and non-shift operators should not be configured unless the facility licensee
ES-601, Page 4 of 35

routinely evaluates mixed crews in its requalification training program, or the

facility licensee’s normal crew size is so large that it is necessary to separate a

normal crew for examination purposes.

b. All crew members for requalification dynamic simulator examinations must be

currently licensed on the facility and up-to-date in the facility licensee’s

requalification program.

c. The selections will be made to minimize perturbation of the facility licensee’s

schedules and plant operations. Operating crew(s) in training will be given first

priority during the examination week(s). If the NRC is reevaluating the facility’s

program after an unsatisfactory evaluation, the selection process should favor 

operators who either failed their previous NRC-conducted examinations or were 

not previously examined.

d. During retake examinations, the dynamic simulator crew evaluation may include 

operators who have passed an NRC requalification examination. However, these

operators will not be required to take the written or walk-through portions of that

examination. The operators’ performance on the simulator examination will be 

evaluated in accordance with the guidance of ES-604.

e. A shift technical advisor (STA) may be added to the crew if the facility normally 

uses an STA during requalification training. In such instances, the NRC expects 

the STA’s duties and responsibilities to be the same as those assigned during

requalification training and plant operations. 

f. The NRC will review the list of crews and operators submitted by the facility 

licensee, and will recommend any necessary changes.

3. Reference Material

a. The NRC expects the facility licensee to supply the reference materials requested 

in the corporate notification letter (see Enclosure 1 to Attachment 2). The NRC 

will evaluate the facility’s reference materials for adequacy before the scheduled 

preparation week, using the “Evaluation Checklist for Facility Reference Material,”

Form ES-601-2.

b. The NRC reserves the right to prepare the requalification examinations using the

facility’s background reference materials if the facility licensee’s test items are

inadequate for examination preparation. If the NRC prepares the examination, 

the staff may require reference materials comparable to those listed in ES-201, 

Attachment 3, “Reference Material Guidelines for Initial Operator Licensing 

Examinations.”

c. The NRC expects the facility licensee to provide a sample plan that meets the

guidelines of Attachment 3, “Examination Sample Plan,” for the NRC’s use in

developing the examination.
ES-601, Page 5 of 35

4. Examination Team Selection

a. The NRC will contribute no fewer than two examiners to the examination team. 

The regional office should consider assigning additional examiners if the operating 

crews for the dynamic simulator examinations contain five or more operators. To

promote consistency in requalification program administration, regional office

management should try to assign an examiner who participated in a prior 

requalification inspection or examination at the facility to be part of the NRC’s

examination team.

In most cases, the NRR/NRO operator licensing program office will send a

representative to observe the examination process or an examiner to participate 

as an additional member of the examination team. The program office will work 

with the responsible regional supervisor to make the necessary arrangements.

b. The facility licensee is expected to provide an employee to work with the NRC as

part of the requalification examination team. The employee should be drawn from

the operations staff, and must be an active senior reactor operator (SRO) as

defined in 10 CFR 55.53(e) or (f). The NRC encourages the facility licensee to

designate another employee from the training staff to be a member of the

examination team. This employee should also be a licensed SRO, but may be a

certified instructor. If the facility licensee desires, and the chief examiner agrees, 

the facility licensee may also include additional employees from the operations or

training staffs who have qualifications comparable to the facility’s other 

examination team members.

The function of these examination team members is to provide facility-specific 

technical assistance to the NRC in developing and reviewing the written 

examination items, plant walk-through topics, and dynamic simulator scenarios. 

If necessary, the facility representatives may participate as facility evaluators in

conducting the operating test or written examination. However, the facility 

representatives should only be used as evaluators if they routinely perform that

function during the administration of the facility licensee’s requalification program.

5. Examination Development

The facility licensee may develop proposed written examinations and operating tests and

forward them to the NRC as part of its reference material submittal (see Attachment 2). 

In accordance with 10 CFR 55.59(a)(2)(ii), the facility licensee must ensure that the

operating tests require the operators to demonstrate an understanding of and ability to

perform the actions necessary to accomplish a comprehensive sample of the items 

specified in 10 CFR 55.45(a)(2) - (13), inclusive, to the extent applicable to the facility.

Approximately two weeks before the scheduled examinations, the NRC examiners will 

visit the facility to make final preparations for the examination. The written, walk-through, 

and dynamic simulator examinations will be developed in accordance with ES-602, 

ES-603, and ES-604, respectively. The examination should distinguish between reactor 

operator (RO) and SRO knowledge and abilities to the extent that the facility training 

materials allow the examiners to make these distinctions. The NRC examiners will rely 

upon the facility licensee’s examination team members for site-specific technical 

assistance in developing, reviewing, and validating the written examination static 

scenarios and items, plant walk-through topics (JPMs), and dynamic simulator scenarios.
ES-601, Page 6 of 35

The chief examiner and the responsible regional supervisor will determine the required 

length of time on site and the required number of examiners. This determination will be 

based on the experience of the examiners, the quality of the facility licensee’s testing 

material, and the level of effort required to develop new test items.

If requested by the facility licensee, the chief examiner will brief the operators and

managers about the requalification examination process. The examiner will use this

time to explain the examination and grading processes and to respond to any questions 

that the operators may ask about the NRC’s examination procedures. If the schedule 

does not allow them to meet during the preparation week, they may meet at any mutually 

agreeable time.

6. Examination Security

To ensure examination security, each facility representative who acquires knowledge of

the content of the NRC’s requalification examination before it is administered will be

subject to the security restrictions described below from the time he or she first acquires 

the specific knowledge until the examination exit meeting.

To the maximum extent possible, only the examination team members and a simulator 

operator should be given specific knowledge about the content of the examination. The

facility evaluators should be given the package of simulator scenarios and JPMs the week 

before the examination to allow them to prepare for their evaluation, including coordinating 

the use of the simulator to perform JPMs and scenarios. If the facility licensee submits a

proposed examination, those who participate in developing the examination become

subject to the security restrictions when their involvement begins. Also, if facility 

representatives other than the examination team members are used to time validate the

written examination, they too become subject to the security restrictions as soon as they 

are exposed to the examination questions.

Facility representatives who acquire specific knowledge of the NRC’s examinations will

sign Form ES-601-1, “Examination Security Agreement,” or a reasonable facsimile before 

their examination involvement begins and again after the examination process is complete 

(i.e., following the exit meeting).

E. Operator and Program Evaluation Procedures

1. Examination Administration

a. For each selected operator, conduct a requalification examination using ES-602, 

ES-603, and ES-604 for the written, walk-through, and simulator portions of the

requalification examination, respectively. Document operator performance on

Form ES-601-5.
ES-601, Page 7 of 35

b. The number of persons present during an operating test should be limited to

ensure the integrity of the test and to minimize distractions to the operators. 

Under no circumstances will another operator be allowed to witness an operating 

test. Exam security considerations preclude using operating tests as training 

vehicles for potential future applicants.

Other examiners may observe an operating test as part of their training or to audit 

the performance of the examiner administering the operating test. The chief 

examiner may permit others (such as resident inspectors, regional personnel, 

researchers, or NRC supervisors) to observe an operating test if the applicant 

does not object to the observers’ presence. Deviations from this policy must be 

approved, in advance, by the NRR/NRO operator licensing program office.

Other non-NRC personnel (e.g., representatives from the Institute of Nuclear 

Power Operations or the Nuclear Energy Institute) may observe the operating 

tests with prior approval from the NRR/NRO operator licensing program office. 

The chief examiner will control the observers’ activities in accordance with 

guidance provided by the program office.

2. Examination Grading

a. The facility licensee is expected to grade the written examinations and operating

tests in parallel with the NRC’s examiners.

b. The facility evaluators are expected to provide preliminary pass/fail results for the

simulator and walk-through portions of the examination by the end of each day, 

and the final results before the exit briefing or at the end of each examination week 

for multiweek examinations.

c. The NRC will notify the facility licensee immediately if any operator’s performance 

on the examination is sufficiently poor to require immediate removal from licensed 

activity. The NRC will also notify the facility licensee of the results of the

examination in accordance with ES-605, “License Maintenance, License Renewal 

Applications, and Requests for Administrative Reviews and Hearings.”

d. The facility licensee will provide the NRC with the final results of the written 

examinations and an overall summary of the examination results within 2 weeks 

after the exit meeting.

3. Evaluation of Requalification Programs

A requalification program evaluation requires a minimum sample size of 12 operators. 

The sample size is determined by counting the number of operators taking the dynamic 

simulator examination. This total includes those operators who only participate in the

simulator examination for the purpose of meeting crew composition requirements, but 

excludes those operators who are being reexamined after failing a previous 

NRC-conducted examination.

If less than one-half of the operators taking the dynamic simulator examination complete 

the entire examination, the regional supervisor will determine whether a valid program 

evaluation can be made. In these instances, the regional supervisor will contact the

NRR/NRO operator licensing program office.
ES-601, Page 8 of 35

a. A satisfactory requalification program meets each of the following criteria:

(1) At least 75 percent of the operators must pass all portions of the

examination in which they participate. The pass rate is determined by

dividing the number of operators who pass all portions of the examination 

in which they participate by the total number of operators in the sample.

In the event of a crew failure, only those operators who receive a

satisfactory evaluation in the individual follow-up evaluation will be counted 

when calculating the operator pass rate.

When calculating the pass rates, fractions should be rounded up to the next 

highest whole number. For example, if 15 operators are evaluated, 75 

percent passing would be 11.25 operators; thus, 11 of 15 passing would not

meet the 75 percent requirement, but 12 would.

(2) At least two-thirds (66 percent) of the crews must pass the simulator examination.

For requalification examinations with more than three crews participating, 

three out of four, or four out of five crews must pass to satisfy this

requirement.

b. The NRC will consider the following areas in the overall program evaluation, and

may use the related findings to identify facility weaknesses that will be 

documented in the examination report:

(1) The facility evaluators do not concur with the NRC examiners on all

unsatisfactory crew evaluations.

(2) More than one facility evaluator is determined to be unsatisfactory. 

Section D of Appendix C provides guidance that examiners should use to

assess evaluator competence.

(3) The facility licensee failed to train and evaluate an operator in all positions 

permitted by the individual’s license. (For instance, the facility is required 

to train and evaluate an SRO in the RO position, as well as in directing 

operators.) An SRO will not be required to perform RO activities during

the simulator portion of the operating test; however, his or her performance 

will be evaluated if the facility normally places the SRO in a shift RO 

position during the simulator examination. Otherwise, RO skills will be 

evaluated during the performance of JPMs.

(4) The facility licensee has insufficient administrative controls to preclude an

RO or SRO with an inactive license from performing licensed duties. 

Operators must meet the requirements of 10 CFR 55.53, “Conditions of 

Licenses,” to restore an inactive license to active status.

(5) The facility licensee has insufficient quality control of its examination bank. 

The NRC will evaluate the facility’s performance in this area if post examination 

changes to facility-developed test items result in significant modifications or

deletions of more than 10 percent of the questions on the written examination.
ES-601, Page 9 of 35

(6) The number of test items duplicated from any past examination or

combination of examinations administered during the current 

requalification training cycle (as described in 10 CFR 55.59(a)(1)), or the

number of operating test items repeated on successive days of an

examination period, is such that the discrimination validity and integrity of

the examination could be affected. When test items are repeated, they

should be selected in a distributed manner and approximately equally over 

all previous examinations to reduce predictability (if a large number of

items were taken from the most recent examination).

(7) The facility licensee’s failure decisions are not as conservative as the

NRC’s. To ensure that the rationale for the evaluation is fully understood, 

the NRC will review with the facility managers any case in which the facility

licensee passed an operator whom the NRC failed. In addition, the NRC 

will assess whether the facility licensee’s evaluations are conducted in

accordance with documented facility guidance and whether facility 

managers periodically assess their evaluation process.

The NRC also expects the facility program to explicitly link an operator’s

examination failure with unsafe performance. In this way, all facility 

failures and NRC failures will agree. In certain instances, the facility 

licensee’s program may have operator performance standards that are not

explicitly linked to unsafe performance, and thus do not meet the threshold 

stated in these standards for the operator to fail the examination. In such 

instances, the facility licensee is expected to differentiate failures in which 

the operator performed at an unsafe level from those in which the operator 

failed for reasons other than safety (i.e., not meeting higher

facility-established performance standards). In these instances, 

operators identified as failing for safety reasons would also be considered 

NRC failures.

4. Evaluation of Operator Performance

To pass the NRC-conducted requalification examination, the operator must pass a written 

examination and an operating test consisting of a walk-through examination and a

dynamic simulator examination. These examinations are developed and administered in

accordance with ES-602, ES-603, and ES-604, respectively, unless the NRR/NRO

operator licensing program office authorizes the regional office to use the facility 

licensee’s alternative examination methodology. To pass the operating test, the operator 

must also be a member of a crew that passes the dynamic simulator examination.

F. Unsatisfactory Operator or Program Evaluation

1. Actions Following an Unsatisfactory Operator Evaluation

In all cases, a facility licensee’s administrative procedures should ensure that an operator 

who fails a requalification examination is removed from licensed duties, given remedial 

training, and reexamined before being allowed to return to licensed duties. This also 

applies to an SRO who performs only RO-level duties at the facility when the failure is 

caused solely by activities involving SRO responsibility. ES-605 contains the procedure 

for notifying the operator about his or her performance on the requalification examination, 

as well as guidance about the actions to be taken for an operator to return to licensed duty.
ES-601, Page 10 of 35

The NRC has deleted the regulation (10 CFR 55.57(b)(2)(iv)) that required an operator to

pass an agency-administered requalification examination as a prerequisite for license 

renewal. Nonetheless, it would be inappropriate to renew the license of any operator 

who failed to pass any NRC-conducted requalification examination, without some level of

agency involvement in the retesting process. The amount of NRC involvement may 

include conducting the retest in accordance with the appropriate examination standard(s); 

inspecting the facility licensee in accordance with IP 71111.11, “Licensed Operator 

Requalification Program,” as it retests the operator; or reviewing the reexamination 

prepared by the facility licensee. The regional office, in consultation with the NRR/NRO

operator licensing program office, will determine the appropriate level of involvement on a

case-by-case basis depending on the quality of the facility licensee’s program. As long 

as the operator submits a timely renewal application, the term of the license will continue 

until the renewal requirements are satisfied or the operator fails three NRC-conducted

examinations as discussed in ES-605.

If an operator who failed a requalification examination is not prepared for a reexamination 

after 6 months of remedial training, the regional office will request the following information 

from the facility licensee:

• confirmation that the facility licensee still has a need for the individual’s license

• the expected completion date of the operator’s remedial training and when the facility 

licensee will be ready to administer its retake examination 

• assurance that the operator will not be returned to licensed duties until he or she

successfully retakes the examination (or portion thereof) administered by the facility 

licensee with a satisfactory requalification program or in accordance with the

provisions of the confirmatory action letter (CAL) if the facility licensee has an

unsatisfactory program and the NRC has not determined it to be “provisionally 

satisfactory.”

The NRC will inform the facility licensee that a comprehensive requalification examination 

may be necessary if the operator is not ready to take a retest within 1 year after failing the

examination.

2. Actions Following an Unsatisfactory Requalification Program Evaluation

The NRC will take the following actions for all requalification programs that the agency 

evaluates as unsatisfactory:

a. The NRC expects the facility licensee to identify program deficiencies and

corrective actions to improve operator performance. The NRC will use a CAL to

establish a formal dialogue and to document the facility licensee’s corrective action 

commitments.

An operator who fails the requalification examination, as determined by the NRC, 

will be subject to an NRC-administered reexamination before resuming licensed 

duties.
ES-601, Page 11 of 35

An operator whose performance does not meet facility standards, as determined

by the facility licensee, is expected to be remediated and reevaluated by the facility 

licensee in accordance with the provisions of the facility licensee’s requalification 

program. The NRC will review and/or monitor the reexamination to ensure the

adequacy of the facility licensee’s requalification program.

b. The NRC will schedule a meeting with senior facility managers to review the

examination results, as well as the identified deficiencies and their root causes, the

proposed corrective actions and the schedule for their implementation, and the

need for follow-up inspections and examinations. (Refer to Section F.3 for

additional guidance on conducting augmented inspections.)

The regional administrator will evaluate the examination and inspection results 

and make a decision regarding the continued operation of the facility and possible 

enforcement action against the facility licensee. At a minimum, the regional 

administrator should consider the following factors when making this

determination:

• the results of previous program evaluations including corrective actions

• the significance of generic performance deficiencies identified during the

program evaluation

• recent facility events that relate to licensed operator performance

• recommendations by the NRC staff (including the results of any operational 

evaluations and inspections)

c. If the unsatisfactory program evaluation is caused by operator performance 

deficiencies, an operational evaluation is required. The operational evaluation is 

intended to help the regional administrator determine if the facility’s remaining 

operating crews are suitably qualified to continue to operate the facility. In this

case, the facility licensee identifies the individual operators and shift crews it

proposes to use to continue plant operations. The regional office may choose not 

to evaluate those operators who passed their most recent NRC-conducted initial or

requalification examination within the past 12 months. However, the regional 

office will evaluate all other operators in those areas noted as operational 

deficiencies during the requalification examination, regardless of whether they 

have already passed or not yet taken the facility-administered requalification 

examination. The regional office will conduct the operational evaluations in

accordance with the guidance in ES-603 and ES-604, as applicable.

If the facility licensee proposes to use a shift crew that is significantly different from

its normal configuration, even though all of the operators may have recently

passed an NRC-conducted examination, the regional office may perform an

operational evaluation of this crew.

The regional office should schedule the operational evaluation as soon as possible 

after determining that the facility licensee’s requalification program is 

unsatisfactory. The evaluation should not be delayed to accommodate the

facility’s operating schedule, the completion of programmatic corrective actions, or

the completion of remedial training for operators who failed the requalification 
ES-601, Page 12 of 35

examination. The operational evaluation may identify further program 

deficiencies that may need to be reflected in the CAL discussed in Section F.2(a) 

or may warrant additional inspection by the NRC. Additional operator 

weaknesses that require remediation may also be identified.

d. The NRC will review the corrective actions the facility is to perform, the expected 

follow-up actions by the NRC, and the schedule for each.

As part of the follow-up activities, the NRC may conduct additional operational 

evaluations, requalification retake examinations, and augmented inspections, as

necessary. Before these activities, the NRC will verify that the facility licensee 

has completed the applicable corrective actions, and will obtain a certification of

crew readiness from the facility managers. Regional managers should consider 

using a new chief examiner and having examiners from other regional offices 

participate on those operational evaluations and requalification retake 

examinations that have potential restart approval implications.

e. The regional administrator will incorporate into the decision concerning follow-up

activities any extraordinary circumstances surrounding the examination that may 

have a bearing on the validity of the examination results.

f. When the NRC determines that a requalification program is unsatisfactory, the

program will remain unsatisfactory until the facility licensee completes all identified 

corrective actions agreed upon by the NRC for restoring the program to

satisfactory status and the NRC completes all related follow-up activities.

For purposes of allowing facility examiners to perform reexamination functions, 

however, a facility may attain a status of “provisionally satisfactory” provided that

the facility has completed to the NRC’s satisfaction all short- and intermediate-term 

corrective actions agreed on with the NRC.

Once the NRC determines that the facility licensee has satisfactorily implemented 

these corrective actions, the regional administrator or designee will determine 

whether to permit the facility to reexamine all operators who failed the

NRC-conducted requalification examination for the purpose of returning the

operators to licensed duties. Any operator who fails the NRC-conducted 

examination still needs to pass a future NRC-administered (i.e., conducted, 

inspected, or approved, as appropriate) requalification examination to renew the

license. Long-term corrective actions are expected to be completed before the

NRC’s next requalification program evaluation (IP 71111.11).

To attain a satisfactory rating following an unsatisfactory evaluation, the

subsequent requalification program evaluation, with a sample size of at least 12 

operators, must satisfy the passing criteria in Section E.3.

The regional administrator or designee may specify additional actions, as appropriate. 

The specific sequence of actions is not critical; however, this sequence of events 

corresponds to a typical regional response to an unsatisfactory program evaluation. The

regional administrator or designee should defer determining if a plant shutdown is

required until he or she reviews all factors listed in Section F.2(b) above.
ES-601, Page 13 of 35

3. Augmented Inspection Guidelines

If the NRC determines that an augmented requalification program inspection is required, 

regional management shall define its scope and depth based upon the nature of the 

deficiencies.

The regional office should consider the following activities in addition to those specified in

Section F.2.

a. The regional office may conduct augmented inspection coverage of all shifts. The

inspection procedures for shift coverage should be used as appropriate. 

Inspection activities should devote particular attention to the following areas:

• operator performance and attitude

• operator overtime

• management oversight

• shift staffing

b. The regional office may develop a long-term training program inspection plan 

based on Inspection Procedure (IP) 41500, “Training and Qualification 

Effectiveness.” Such an inspection plan may include the following activities:

• ongoing status reviews of requalification training effectiveness, with an

emphasis on known program deficiencies and implementation of short-term 

corrective actions

• an inspection to determine the root cause(s) for the unsatisfactory 

requalification program evaluation, and to verify that the facility licensee’s

proposed corrective action plan should preclude or minimize the probability of

recurrence

• an inspection to evaluate the adequacy of the facility licensee’s corrective

actions, and to determine the effectiveness of the facility licensee’s SAT-based 

requalification program

c. The regional office may convene an enforcement panel to determine whether 

action is warranted on the basis of the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(i-1). The

potential exists that a requalification program rated unsatisfactory on two

successive NRC evaluations does not meet the minimum requirements of 10 CFR

55.59(c) as required by 10 CFR 50.54(i-1). The basis for any proposed 

enforcement action will be the inadequate corrective action or requalification 

program element deficiencies (identified by the inspections related to Section

F.3(b)), which led to the successive requalification examination failures.

G. Requalification Program Evaluation Report

After the regional administrator or designee approves the requalification examination results, the

regional office will prepare a final requalification program evaluation report. A copy of the written 

examination need only be included in the program evaluation report if the report addresses written 

examination problems. The regional office will issue the report within 30 days following receipt of

the facility licensee’s final results or the examination exit meeting, whichever is later, and will 

place a complete copy of the report in the facility’s requalification file.
ES-601, Page 14 of 35

The chief examiner is responsible for completing Forms ES-601-3 and ES-601-4, the “Power 

Plant Requalification Results Summary (and Continuation) Sheet(s).” The examiner will enter 

each operator’s scores in the appropriate columns. Under the “Simulator” column, the examiner 

will enter the results of the operator’s individual follow-up evaluation. If the operator did not 

receive an individual follow-up evaluation, the examiner will enter a passing score. If an operator

was a member of a crew that failed the dynamic simulator examination, but the operator passed 

or did not receive an individual follow-up evaluation, the examiner will enter a pass in the

“Simulator” column for that operator. Crew failures will be summarized in the overall results at 

the top of Form ES-601-3.

The regional office will send a copy of the summary (and continuation) sheet(s) to the

headquarters’ operator licensing assistant (OLA). The NRR/NRO operator licensing program 

office uses the results summary to verify the data in the operator licensing tracking system 

(OLTS) so that statistics can be maintained on operator performance. As it contains information 

that is subject to the Privacy Act, the regional office will not include the results summary in the

examination report.

If a small number of operators are given retake examinations, the regional office may issue an

addendum to the original requalification evaluation report instead of issuing a new report. If the

reexaminations are conducted concurrently with initial examinations or inspected during a

requalification program evaluation in accordance with IP 71111.11, the results may be reported 

as part of the initial examination or inspection report.

H. Individual Requalification Examination Report

After the regional office completes the requalification evaluation, it will keep a copy of each

operator’s NRC-conducted written, walk-through, and simulator examination results and return 

the original documents to the facility licensee. The facility licensee is required by 10 CFR 55.59 

to maintain records of these examination results along with a copy of the written examination until 

the operator’s license is renewed or 2 years after the license expires.

The NRC’s chief examiner will ensure that Form ES-601-5, “Individual Requalification 

Examination Report,” is completed for each operator who takes an NRC-conducted 

requalification examination. The report will include the following information for each individual:

• written examination grade

• the crew evaluation from the dynamic simulator examination

• the individual follow-up results (P or F) from the dynamic simulator examination

• the number (and percentage) of JPMs performed correctly, if JPMs were conducted

The regional office will send a copy of this report to the facility’s training manager and the operator 

with a letter notifying the operator of the examination results in accordance with ES-605. The

regional office will also file a copy in the operator’s docket file.
ES-601, Page 15 of 35

I. Operator License Renewal Policy

Operators are not required to take an NRC-conducted requalification examination in order to

renew their licenses. However, if an operator takes, but fails to pass, an NRC-conducted 

examination, the NRC will not renew the license until the operator passes a retake examination 

conducted by the NRC, passes a retake examination administered by the facility licensee and

inspected by the NRC in accordance with IP 71111.11, or passes an examination approved by the

NRC. The regional office, in consultation with the NRR/NRO operator licensing program office, 

will determine the appropriate level of involvement on a case-by-case basis depending on the

quality of the facility licensee’s requalification program.

ES-605 contains the specific procedures to follow for an operator who fails one or more 

NRC-administered requalification examinations, as well as the procedure for processing license

renewal applications.

J. Records Retention

1. Facility Requalification Examination File

The NRC’s regional office shall ensure that the original (whenever possible) or a copy of

the following items is either retained in the facility’s master examination file or

electronically available via the NRC’s ADAMS:

a. Examination standard attachments and forms:

• Form ES-403-1, Written Examination Grading Quality Checklist

• ES-601, Attachment 2, Corporate Notification Letter

• Form ES-601-1, Examination Security Agreement

• Form ES-601-3, Power Plant Requalification Results Summary Sheet

• Form ES-601-4, Power Plant Requalification Results Continuation Sheet (if

applicable)

• Form ES-604-2, Simulator Crew Evaluation

b. a master list of all JPMs administered and the operators to which they were

administered

c. a master list of all scenarios conducted and operators to which they were 

administered (facility-generated forms or Form ES-D-1, “Scenario Outline,” may be 

used to meet this requirement)

d. a copy of the written examination and answer key

e. a copy of the requalification examination report
ES-601, Page 16 of 35

The regional office may require that additional documents be retained in the facility’s

requalification examination file. (Note that paper copies of examinations that were 

administered before the implementation of ADAMS may be discarded after confirming that

the examination report is available in the NRC’s Public Document Room.)

2. Operator Docket Files

The regional office will retain the following records in each operator’s docket file until the 

license is renewed or 2 years after the license expires or is terminated.

a. Form ES-601-5, Individual Requalification Examination Report

b. ES-605, Attachment 1, 2, or 3, Results Notification Letter

c. a copy of all failed portions of the NRC-graded examination

3. Other Files

The regional office will retain reference materials used to develop each examination until

the NRC has resolved with the facility licensee all failures associated with the examination 

and has sent a notification letter to each operator.

K. Requalification Stress Feedback

The level of stress perceived by operators and facility personnel can affect their overall 

performance on the requalification examination. Therefore, the NRR/NRO operator licensing 

program office is interested in monitoring the stress of operators and facility personnel 

participating in the requalification examination. Regional examiners and other personnel who 

are involved with an NRC requalification examination should assume the following 

responsibilities: 

• Monitor the level of stress in operators and facility representatives, and be alert for

examination techniques that may be causing examination stress.

• Recommend to the program office any changes to NUREG-1021 that would further 

alleviate operator stress. Recommendations should be documented and forwarded to

headquarters using “Report on Interaction” (ROI) forms.

L. Attachments/Forms

Attachment 1 Examination Timetable

Attachment 2 Sample Corporate Notification Letter

Attachment 3 Examination Sample Plan

Form ES-601-1 Examination Security Agreement

Form ES-601-2 Evaluation Checklist for Facility Reference Material

Form ES-601-3 Power Plant Requalification Results Summary Sheet

Form ES-601-4 Power Plant Requalification Results Continuation Sheet

Form ES-601-5 Individual Requalification Examination Report
ES-601, Page 17 of 35

ES-601 Examination Timetable Attachment 1

Date* Activity

-120/90 The NRC notifies the facility licensee.

-60 The facility licensee sends the NRC the materials requested for developing the

examination (including written examination questions, simulator scenario banks, 

and JPMs).

The facility licensee proposes composition of the crews to be evaluated and

identifies facility examination team members.

The facility licensee may ask the NRC’s chief examiner to review the examination 

process with operators and managers.

-45 The facility licensee submits its proposed requalification written examination and

operating test.

-30 The NRC concurs on the operating crews to be evaluated.

-14 The NRC examiners visit the facility to review the JPMs to be administered, 

observe the static and dynamic simulator examinations, and validate the test 

items, as needed. The chief examiner and the regional branch chief determine 

the length of time on site and the number of examiners required, on the basis of the

examiners’ experience and the quality of the facility licensee’s testing materials.

The facility licensee designates a simulator operator. 

If requested, the chief examiner briefs the operators and managers about the

requalification examination process.

-7 The facility examination team members finalize the examinations based on

preparation week activities. Evaluators review reference material to prepare for

the JPMs and simulator scenarios.

0 The NRC administers the examinations to selected crews and operators. The

facility licensee notifies the NRC of its final results for crews and individuals at the

end of each examination week. 

+7 The NRC finalizes the examination results.

+14 The facility licensee transmits the written examination grades and a final summary 

to the NRC.

+30# The NRC issues operator results and the final requalification examination report.

* Number of days before (-) or after the examination (+), except as noted

# Number of days after receipt of facility results
ES-601, Page 18 of 35

ES-601 Sample Corporate Notification Letter Attachment 2

NRC Letterhead

(Date)

(Name, Title)

(Name of facility)

(Street address)

(City, State ZIP code)

SUBJECT: REQUALIFICATION PROGRAM EVALUATION

Dear (Name):

In a telephone conversation on (date), (Name, title) and (Name, title) arranged to evaluate the

requalification program and licensed personnel at the (facility name). The evaluation is

scheduled for the week of (date). NRC examiners and evaluators from your facility will conduct 

requalification examinations, and the NRC will evaluate your requalification program in

accordance with Sections ES-601 through ES-604 of NUREG-1021, “Operator Licensing 

Examination Standards for Power Reactors,” Revision 10. You are encouraged to ensure that

your training staff and proposed examinees are familiar with these standards.

For the NRC to adequately prepare for this evaluation, the facility licensee will need to furnish the

NRC with the approved items listed in Enclosure 1, “Reference Material Guidelines.” You are

also requested to submit, at your option, a proposed examination for use during the examination 

week. However, if you do submit a proposed examination, the personnel participating in its 

development will become subject to the security restrictions described in this letter.

Please review the guidance issued in Revision 10 of NUREG-1021 concerning the content and

scope of simulator examination scenarios. The scenario examination bank should cover the

entire spectrum of emergency operating procedures (EOPs), including alternative decision paths 

within the EOPs, and it should incorporate a range of failures with various degrees of severity for

the same type of event. Each scenario should contain simultaneous events that require the

senior reactor operators (SROs) to prioritize their actions and to assign particular tasks to other 

crew members. Each scenario should also require the SROs to decide when to make the

transition between EOPs and which actions to take within EOPs.

You are requested to designate at least one employee to be a member of a joint NRC-facility 

examination team. That employee is expected to be an active SRO as defined by Title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations 55.53(e) or (f) from the (facility name) operations department. You 

are encouraged to designate a second employee from the training staff to be a member of the

examination team. This employee should also be a licensed SRO, but may be a certified 

instructor. If desired and agreed to by the chief examiner, you may designate one additional 

employee from the training staff who has appropriate qualifications to be a member of the

examination team. In addition to these individuals, you will need to designate a simulator 

operator for scenario preview and validation during the onsite examination preparation week. In 

some cases, you may also need to designate a simulator operator during the test item review 

period. All of these individuals will be subject to the examination security agreement.
ES-601, Page 19 of 35

ES-601 2 Attachment 2

The NRC restricts any facility licensee representatives under the security agreement from

knowingly communicating (by any means) the content or scope of the examination to unauthorized 

persons, or participating in any facility licensee programs (such as instruction, examination, or

tutoring) in which an identified requalification examinee will be present. These restrictions apply 

from the day that the facility licensee representative signs the examination security agreement 

indicating that the representative understands that he or she has specialized knowledge of the

examination. The chief examiner will determine when a facility licensee representative has 

received specialized knowledge concerning the examination and will execute an examination 

security agreement. In most cases, the examination team members will not be required to enter 

into an examination security agreement more than 60 days before the examination week. The

simulator operator will normally become subject to the security restrictions during the examination 

preparation and validation week; however, this may occur as much as 45 days before the

examination week.

Sixty days before the examination administration date, please provide the NRC’s regional office 

with a proposed list of operators, including crew composition, for the examination. The list 

should include at least 12 operators, comprising three or more crews, and the current mailing 

address for each proposed operator, if different from that listed on the most recent Form 398 

submitted to the NRC. Your training staff should send this information directly to the NRC’s chief 

examiner, ensuring that each operator’s address is sent in a manner to ensure privacy.

The facility licensee may request that the NRC chief examiner or another NRC representative 

meet with the licensee managers and the operators to be examined during the examination 

preparation week, normally 2 weeks before the examination. However, if the schedule does not 

allow them to meet during the preparation week, they may meet at any mutually agreeable time. 

The NRC examiner will explain the examination and grading processes and will respond to any

questions that the operators may have about the NRC’s examination procedures. If such a

meeting is desired, your training staff should schedule it with the NRC’s chief examiner.

The facility licensee staff is responsible for providing adequate space and accommodations to

properly develop and conduct the examinations. Enclosure 2, “Administration of Requalification

Examinations,” describes our requirements for developing and conducting the examinations. 

Also, a facility operations management representative above a shift supervisor level should

observe the simulator examination process at the site.

This letter contains information collections that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). These information collections were approved by the Office of

Management and Budget, under approval number 3150-0018.

The burden to the public for these (voluntary/mandatory) information collections is estimated to 

average 25 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing 

data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 

information collection. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of 

these information collections, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the FOIA, Privacy 

and Information Collections Branch (T-5 F53), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by e-mail to INFOCOLLECTS.RESOURCE@NRC.GOV; and to 

the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202, (3150-0018), Office 

of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
ES-601, Page 20 of 35

ES-601 3 Attachment 2

Public Protection Notification

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for 

information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a 

currently valid OMB control number.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390, “Public Inspections, Exemptions, Requests for Withholding,” of

the NRC’s “Rules of Practice,” a copy of this letter and its enclosures will be available 

electronically for public inspection in the NRC’s Public Document Room or from the Publicly 

Available Records System (PARS) component of the NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the Electronic Reading Room page 

of the NRC’s public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. (Name) has been advised of the NRC guidelines 

and policies addressed in this letter. If you have any questions on the evaluation process, please 

contact (Name, regional section chief) at (telephone number).

Sincerely,

(Appropriate Regional Title)

Docket No.: 50-(Number) or

52-(Number)

Enclosures:

1. Reference Material Guidelines

2. Administration of Requalification Examinations 

DISTRIBUTION:

Public

NRC Document Control System

Regional Office Distribution
ES-601, Page 21 of 35

ES-601 4 Attachment 2

Enclosure 1

Reference Material Guidelines

1. Sixty days before the examination date, the facility licensee should provide test items to

the NRC to support all aspects of the requalification examination.

2. The facility licensee is expected to submit the following reference materials for all

NRC-conducted requalification examinations:

• an examination sample plan that meets the requirements of Attachment 3 to ES-601

• the facility’s examination banks (written, simulator, and JPM) and associated 

reference materials (including, at a minimum, technical specifications, abnormal and

emergency operating procedures, and emergency plan procedures used in

requalification training)

• additional reference materials requested by the NRC’s chief examiner

3. The facility licensee’s examination banks are expected to contain the following 

information:

• A minimum of 700 test items equally divided for use in the two sections of the written 

examination and covering all safety-related elements of the facility’s job task analysis 

(JTA). The facility licensee is expected to maintain a dynamic bank by reviewing, 

revising, or generating at least 150 questions a year. New questions should cover 

equipment and system modifications, as well as recent industry and licensee events 

and procedural changes.

• JPMs that meet the criteria in ES-603 for evaluating each reactor operator (RO) and

senior reactor operator (SRO) safety-related task identified in the facility’s JTA. The

JPM bank should expand at a rate of at least 10 JPMs per year until this goal is 

reached. It is estimated that 125 to 150 JPMs will be the final result.

• A bank of at least 30 simulator scenarios reflecting all abnormal and emergency 

situations to which an operator is expected to respond or control. At least five 

scenarios per year should be generated until all aspects of the emergency operating 

procedures are covered with sufficient variation in the type and scope of initiating 

events and level of degradation. Emphasis should be placed on scenarios that

include applicable industry events.
ES-601, Page 22 of 35

ES-601 5 Attachment 2

Enclosure 2

Administration of Requalification Examinations

1. The NRC must evaluate at least 12 operators to perform a program evaluation. The

guidelines on crew composition in the simulator are described in Section D.2 of ES-601 

and ES-604.

2. The simulator and simulator operators need to be available for examination development. 

The chief examiner and the facility representatives will agree on the dates and amount of

time needed to develop the examinations.

3. The chief examiner will review the reference materials used in the simulator. The NRC

will not authorize for use during the simulator test any reference material that is not 

normally used for plant operation in the control room.

4. The facility licensee will provide a single room for completing Section B of the written

examination. The locations of the examination room and supporting restroom facilities 

will be selected to prevent the examinees from having contact with any other facility or

contractor personnel during the examination.

5. The chief examiner will inspect the examination room to see that it meets the minimum 

standard that will ensure examination integrity. The minimum spacing standard consists 

of one examinee per table and a 1-meter (3-foot) space between tables. No wall charts, 

models, or other training materials are allowed in the examination room.

6. The facility licensee is expected to provide a copy of each reference document for each

examinee for Section B of the written examination. The material should include 

documents that are normally available to the operators in the control room (such as the

technical specifications, operating and abnormal procedures, administrative procedures, 

and emergency plans). The chief examiner will review the reference materials before the

examination begins.

7. The NRC’s requalification examination will attempt to distinguish between RO and SRO

knowledge and abilities to the extent that the facility training materials allow the

developers to make these distinctions.

8. Prudent scheduling of examination week activities is important to help alleviate undue

stress on the operators. The facility training staff and the NRC chief examiner should 

attempt to formulate a schedule that will minimize delays while conducting the

examination. The following suggestions will help to structure the examination activities to

achieve this objective:

• Consider allowing operators to stay at home until their scheduled examination times.

• Segregate the group of operators who are completing their examination, instead of the

group of operators who are scheduled to start their examination.
ES-601, Page 23 of 35

ES-601 6 Attachment 2

2 Enclosure 2

• Following simulator scenarios, the facility evaluators and NRC examiners should

quickly determine whether follow-up questioning is required so that the crew members 

may be released to talk among themselves about the scenario.

• Ensure that time validation of JPMs, particularly those performed in the simulator, is

accurate. Establish a reasonable schedule to prevent operators from waiting for

simulator availability to complete their JPMs.

9. The NRC encourages the facility licensee to video and audio record dynamic simulator 

examinations when the NRC is present. If the facility licensee records the examination, 

any use of the video recordings must be completed before the NRC leaves the site at the

end of the examination. If a disagreement over the grading of an operator’s examination 

still exists at the end of the examination week, the facility licensee may retain the

recordings for the purpose of submitting to support a request for regrading by the NRC. 

During the regrading, the NRC will review only the portion of the recordings under 

contention. After all requalification examination grades are finalized, including the review 

of any regrading requests, the facility licensee is expected to erase or destroy all video 

and audio recordings made during the examination. During the examination weeks that 

the NRC is not on site, the licensee should follow the guidance specified in their 

requalification program. Refer to ES-302, Section D.1.i for additional guidance on video 

and audio recording.
ES-601, Page 24 of 35

ES-601 Examination Sample Plan Attachment 3

A. Introduction

An examination sample plan provides a systematic approach to selecting and developing test

items to determine whether a student has mastered the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) to

be covered in a particular training program. The sample plan should provide an explicit, 

documented link between the learning objectives associated with the training program and the

test items used to perform the evaluation and to verify the relevance to the job task analysis (JTA) 

associated with the operator’s position.

ES-401, “Preparing Initial Site-Specific Written Examinations,” gives explicit guidance for

developing a sample plan for initial examinations using NUREG-1122, 1123, 2103, or 2104, the

NRC’s Knowledge and Abilities Catalogs for Nuclear Power Plant Operators, Pressurized, 

Boiling, AP1000, or Advanced Boiling Water Reactors,” respectively. A similar methodology 

may be applied to any training program. With respect to a requalification program, the scope of

topics is necessarily limited because the amount of material that is covered during a

requalification program is less than that covered in an initial licensing training program. 

However, the NRC permits and encourages reserving 10 to 20 percent of test items for topics that

have high importance ratings and contain K/As that operators should retain because of their 

safety significance, but were not necessarily covered during the requalification cycle.

B. Requalification Test Outline

The facility licensee is expected to develop a test outline for all NRC-administered requalification 

examinations. At least 80 percent of the test outline must reflect the training curriculum of the

most recent requalification cycle in a manner consistent with the distribution of emphasis in the

curriculum.

The curriculum of the requalification training cycle for which the examination is being developed 

should identify the following:

1. requalification lecture/classroom topics indicating the percent of the cycle devoted to each

2. concentration of training exercises using the simulation facility, including the types of

scenarios trained (e.g., accident, abnormal, normal) and the number of times each

scenario was run

3. special focus of the training such as plant modifications, licensee event reports (LERs), 

and major changes to operating practices or policy

4. practical training such as operation of individual systems or components for requalification 

training purposes, using either the simulation facility, mockups, or actual systems and

components
ES-601, Page 25 of 35

ES-601 2 Attachment 3

The format of the sample plan is a matter of training department preference as long as the plan 

results in a thorough and accurate assessment of the facility’s training program and its intended 

objectives. The sample plan is expected to contain the following information for use in

developing or selecting the test items to be used in the requalification examination:

1. identification of the subjects to be evaluated (system, component, procedure, or other

training subject)

2. the preferred testing medium for evaluating each subject (written, simulator, or

walk-through examination); more than one testing method may be used to evaluate a

subject

3. the learning objectives intended to be evaluated

4. a list of references used to develop the test items

5. the specific K/A topic or facility JTA KSAs that are closely linked to the learning objectives 

for each subject and the importance factors for each (the facility licensee may use a

site-specific K/A if it exists)

6. all test items used in the examination should have a K/A value of 3 or greater; the facility

licensee may propose the use of test items with NRC K/A values less than 3 with 

appropriate justification

7. the percentage or number of points of the examination that should be devoted to the topic 

area (e.g., 3 points for technical specification interpretation, or 5 percent on reactor

coolant pumps)

8. whether the subject is identified as safety-related in the facility’s JTA

9. whether the subject was covered in the cycle for which the examination is being 

developed

10. the identification code or number for previously developed test items that evaluate the

subject

11. recent safety-related issues and events (e.g., relevant LERs)
ES-601, Page 26 of 35

ES-601 Examination Security Agreement 

1. Pre-Examination

I acknowledge that I have acquired specialized knowledge about the NRC requalification examinations scheduled for the week(s

the date of my signature. I agree that I will not knowingly divulge any information about these examinations to any persons wh

authorized by the NRC’s chief examiner. I understand that I am not to instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to tho

to be administered these examinations from this date until completion of examination administration, except as specifically note

by the NRC (e.g., acting as a simulator booth operator or communicator is acceptable if I do not select the training content or p

feedback). Furthermore, I am aware of the physical security measures and requirements (as documented in the facility license

understand that violation of the conditions of this agreement may result in cancellation of the examinations and/or an enforcem

the facility licensee. I will immediately report to facility management or the NRC’s chief examiner any indications or suggestion

security may have been compromised.

2. Post-Examination

To the best of my knowledge, I did not divulge to any unauthorized persons any information concerning the NRC requalification 

administered during the week(s) of . From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the comp

administration, I did not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those operators who were administered these e

specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC.

PRINTED NAME JOB TITLE / RESPONSIBILITY SIGNATURE (1) DATE SIGNATURE (2) 

1. ____________________ ______________________________ _______________________ ________ _______________

2. ____________________ ______________________________ _______________________ ________ _______________

3. ____________________ ______________________________ _______________________ ________ _______________

4. ____________________ ______________________________ _______________________ ________ _______________

5. ____________________ ______________________________ _______________________ ________ _______________

6. ____________________ ______________________________ _______________________ ________ _______________

7. ____________________ ______________________________ _______________________ ________ _______________

8. ____________________ ______________________________ _______________________ ________ _______________

9. ____________________ ______________________________ _______________________ ________ _______________

10. ____________________ ______________________________ _______________________ ________ _______________

11. ____________________ ______________________________ _______________________ ________ _______________

12. ____________________ ______________________________ _______________________ ________ _______________

13. ____________________ ______________________________ _______________________ ________ _______________

14. ____________________ ______________________________ _______________________ ________ _______________

15. ____________________ ______________________________ _______________________ ________ _______________

NOTES:
ES-601, Page 27 of 35

ES-601 Evaluation Checklist Form ES-601-2

for Facility Reference Material

This checklist represents the minimum content of facility-generated reference material. Items 

marked “optional” should be checked if requested from the facility licensee by the chief examiner. 

The chief examiner or designee may use this checklist to make a quick, general evaluation of the

completeness and adequacy of the facility licensee’s references. The chief examiner may 

resolve any specific questions about the references with the facility staff as necessary.

I. Quantity

Actual

Reference Material Required Minimum Submitted

A. Open-reference written 350 per section; bank

examination items is to be dynamic, with at

least 150 revised, reviewed,

or newly generated 

questions per year

B. Simulator scenarios 25; + 5 per year following

the initial requalification exam

until at least 30 scenarios

covering all aspects of the EOPs

are developed

C. Job performance 95; + 10 per year following

Measures the initial requalification

exam until the JTA is fully covered

D. Technical specifications 1 copy

E. Applicable 1 set (optional)

plant procedures

F. Emergency plan 1 copy

G. Applicable 1 copy (optional)

administrative procedures

H. Sample plan 1 copy 

I. Requalification cycle 1 set (optional)

training reference material

(lesson plans, handouts, etc.)

J. Appropriate sections 1 set (optional)

of JTA or facility-specific

K/A Catalog

Reviewed by: ___________________________________ Date: _______________
ES-601, Page 28 of 35

ES-601 2 Form ES-601-2

II. Usability

Circle one

A. The reference material is legible. Yes No

B. The reference material is properly arranged and labeled for its function. Yes No

C. The reference material indicates a SAT program. Yes No

D. Reference material is available to verify that test items are appropriate,

job relevant, and technically accurate. Yes No

E. Reference material is available to adequately support the examination topics. Yes No

Comments

Reviewed by: _______________________________ Date: __________________
ES-601, Page 29 of 35

ES-601 3 Form ES-601-2

III. Quality

Exam Section Required Standards Comments

A. Sample Plan Subjects covered in requalification cycle

are identified.

The test outline incorporates:

• time spent on topic

• relative importance 

• frequency of performance

• job level (RO or SRO)

The test outline identifies

K/As (or facility equivalent)

of sufficient importance.

Plant-specific priorities are identified

(LERs, procedure changes,

system modifications, risk-dominant 

accident scenarios, risk-important

systems and operator actions1 identified 

in the facility licensee’s PRA/IPE, etc.).

Appropriate testing methods

are indicated for each K/A

(i.e., JPM, written exam, and/or simulator).

Applicable learning objectives

are associated with K/As.

Methodology exists to tie 

test items to a learning objective

and a K/A.

Sample plan includes important topics

not covered in the requalification cycle.

Test areas appropriate to ROs 

and SROs only are identified.

Reviewed by: ______________________________ Date: _______________

 1 Chapter 13 of NUREG-1560, “Individual Plant Examination Program: Perspectives on Reactor Safety and Plant 

Performance,” identifies a number of important human actions that may be appropriate for evaluation.
ES-601, Page 30 of 35

ES-601 4 Form ES-601-2

III. Quality (cont.)

Exam Section Required Standards Comments

B. Written At least 10 percent of all 

test items shall be reviewed 

using Form ES-602-1.

Test items are important to safety.

Test items are clearly written.

Test items are appropriate

to license level.

The criteria for open-reference

examinations are met.

Test items are associated

with K/As of 3 or greater

and are adequate discriminators.

A learning objective

and applicable reference

are identified for each test item.

The facility has identified 

SRO-level questions

for both sections of the exam.

If the above criteria are not adequately met, the NRC will conduct further review of the

examination bank using ES-602, Attachment 1, “Guidelines for the Development and Review of

Open-Reference Examinations,” and Form ES-602-1, “NRC Checklist for Open - Reference Test 

Items.”

Reviewed by: ______________________________ Date: _______________
ES-601, Page 31 of 35

ES-601 5 Form ES-601-2

III. Quality (cont.)

Exam Section Required Standards Comments

C. Walk-Through At least 10 percent of the JPM bank

were reviewed using Form ES-C-2.

Test outline identifies

applicable plant systems:

• systems covered in requalification cycle

• new or recently modified systems

• systems in recent facility LERs

or vendor notices

• PRA-identified risk-dominant systems

• systems in NRC generic

communications

Tasks/abilities for identified systems:

• are applicable to the facility

• are at the AO/RO/SRO level

• have a K/A value of 3 or greater

• include JPMs pertinent only to SROs

Some JPMs are performed under

low-power or shutdown operating

conditions.

Some JPMs require the operator

to implement alternative paths

within the facility licensee’s

procedures.

Facility JPMs contain the information

found on Form ES-C-1.

Reviewed by: ______________________________ Date: ___________________
ES-601, Page 32 of 35

ES-601 6 Form ES-601-2

III. Quality (cont.)

Exam Section Required Standards Comments

D. Simulator At least 10 percent of the scenarios 

reviewed using Form ES-604-1.

Scenarios are an appropriate

measure of the material

covered in the sample plan.

Scenarios are based on:

• lessons covered in the requalification

cycle 

• recent industry events

• LERs

• emergency and abnormal procedures

• design and procedural changes

Scenarios exercise the crew’s ability

to use facility procedures 

in accident prevention and mitigation.

Scenario events have a K/A

of three or greater.

Some scenarios are based on

low-power2 operations.

Some scenarios are based on

the dominant accident sequences (DAS)

for the facility as determined by PRA/IPE.

Scenario identifies critical tasks

that meet the criteria of Appendix D.

Proposed examination scenarios 

that were used for training

during the most recent training cycle

have been reviewed by the NRC

and replaced or modified, if appropriate,

to ensure the validity of the examination 

and to minimize the potential 

for examination compromise.

Reviewed by: _____________________________ Date: __________________

 2 NUREG-1449, “Shutdown and Low-Power Operation at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants in the United States,” 

defines “low power” to include the range from criticality to 5 percent power.
ES-601, Page 33 of 35

ES-601 Power Plant Requalification Results Summary Sheet 

Privacy Information - For Official Use Only

Facility: Overall Results Total Pa

Exam Date: # # 

NRC Examiners:

Reactor Operator:

Senior Operator:

Total:

Crews:

Operator

Docket

55-( )

Grader JPMs

%

Written

(A & B)

Result

Written

Sim

Crew 

NRC %

FAC %

NRC %

FAC %

NRC %

FAC %

NRC %

FAC %

NRC %

FAC %

NRC %

FAC %

NRC %

FAC %
ES-601, Page 34 of 35

ES-601 Power Plant Requalification Results Summary Continuation Sheet 

Privacy Information - For Official Use Only

Facility: Overall Results Total Pa

Exam Date: # # 

NRC Examiners:

Reactor Operator:

Senior Operator:

Total:

Crews:

Operator

Docket

55-( )

Grader JPMs

%

Written

(A & B)

Result

Written

Sim

Crew 

NRC %

FAC %

NRC %

FAC %

NRC %

FAC %

NRC %

FAC %

NRC %

FAC %

NRC %

FAC %

NRC %

FAC %
ES-601, Page 35 of 35

ES-601 Individual Requalification Examination Report Form ES-601-5

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Individual Requalification Examination Report

(Privacy Information - For Official Use Only)

Facility: Operator’s Name:

Docket No: 55- License No: Expiration Date:

Exam Type: RO / SRO Retake: 1st / 2nd / No Date of Last Exam:

Written Examination Results

Date(s) of Exam: NRC Examiner (Print): Facility Evaluator (Print):

Section A (Points)

NRC Grading Facility Grading

of of

Section B (Points) of of

Overall Score (%) % %

Simulator Examination Results

Date(s) of Exam: NRC Examiner(s) (Print): Facility Evaluator(s) (Print):

Crew Evaluation Pass / Fail Pass / Fail

Individual Follow-up Pass / Fail / N/A Pass / Fail / N/A

Walk-Through Examination Results

Date(s) of Exam: NRC Examiner(s) (Print): Facility Evaluator(s) (Print):

No. of Successful JPMs of 5 of 5

Exam Results (%) % %

NRC Examiner Recommendations

Category Results Signature/Date

Written Pass / Fail

Simulator Pass / Fail

Walk-Through Pass / Fail

RC Supervisor Review

Date: Pass / Fail Signature:

ES-602, Page 1 of 25

ES-602 

REQUALIFICATION WRITTEN EXAMINATIONS

A. Purpose

The NRC staff uses this standard to conduct written requalification examinations in accordance 

with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 55.59(a)(2)(iii). NRC examiners are to 

follow this standard, in conjunction with ES-601, “Conducting NRC Requalification Examinations,”

to prepare and administer all NRC-conducted written requalification examinations.

B. Scope

The written examination is useful for evaluating the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) of

licensed operators that are difficult to infer from behavior alone, but can be readily tested through 

written responses to questions that value interpretation and allow the examinee to use

references. Additionally, an individual’s knowledge of factual information and his or her ability to

perform “paper-and-pencil” tasks are best evaluated through a written examination.

The written examination consists of two sections for which the examinee may refer to references 

(i.e., “open-reference examinations”). Section A, “Plant and Control Systems,” is administered 

using a static simulator. Section B, “Administrative Controls/Procedural Limits,” may be 

administered in a classroom. Each section should be designed to last a minimum of 1 hour, 

including time for the operator to review his or her work. Combined, the two sections of the

written examination should be designed to last 3 hours. The facility licensee will determine the 

exact number of questions and time allowed to complete each section, on the basis of the

requalification sample plan and the license level of the operators taking the examination (reactor 

operator (RO) or senior reactor operator (SRO)).

Although the examination is designed so that examinees may use references, an examinee 

should not expect to have time to complete the examination by consulting references to determine 

each answer. A good mix of test items will contain some questions that evaluate the operator’s 

abilities to determine a correct response without delving into reference material and others that 

require the use of reference material to select the correct response. By combining test items that 

require references with those that do not, the written examination can test a broader sample of

operator knowledge within a given period.

On both sections of the written examination, certain questions will test the knowledge and abilities 

(K/As) of an RO, while others will test those of an SRO. In developing the examination, the

examiner should consult the facility’s job task analysis (JTA) and the NRC’s Knowledge and 

Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant Operators: Pressurized- Water Reactors 

(NUREG-1122 or 2103) or Boiling Water Reactors (1123 or 2104), to help identify the most 

suitable topics for an RO or SRO. Additionally, 10 CFR 55.41, “Written Examination: 

Operators,” and 55.43, “Written Examination: Senior Operators,” provide further guidance on

item selection for RO and SRO written examinations, respectively.
ES-602, Page 2 of 25

1. Section A, “Plant and Control Systems” (Static Simulator)

This section of the written examination is designed for using the simulator as a reference 

tool to visually provide realistic information and to give the operators an environment that 

is as close as possible to their normal control room. While administering this section, the

simulator will be “frozen” in the middle of an evolution, transient, or accident. In

developing the test items for this section, allow the use of references and relate them to

plant systems and components, control room indications, instrumentation and controls, 

and technical specification (TS) limiting conditions for operation (LCOs).

Section A is designed to evaluate the operators’ knowledge of plant systems, integrated

plant operations, and instrumentation and controls. In addition, it evaluates the

operators’ abilities to recognize TS LCOs and to determine the effects of postulated 

events. The NRC encourages facility licensees to include questions that test the

operators’ abilities to use their facility curves and charts.

While administering Section A, the examination team will use one “frozen” simulator 

condition or setup. The condition places the simulator in a “snapshot” of the plant 

following a major transient that resulted in an engineered safety feature initiation or a

steady-state situation at power. Some equipment should be frozen in an abnormal or 

failed condition to provide adequate material for test items.

2. Section B, “Administrative Controls/Procedural Limits”

Section B of the written examination is designed to evaluate the operator’s abilities to

analyze a given set of conditions and determine the proper procedural and administrative 

guidance to use. This section may include theory-related questions that are appropriate 

to sample the topics listed in 10 CFR 55.41 and 10 CFR 55.43, as long as they are 

operational in nature or test unique facility characteristics.

Section B is designed to test the operator’s knowledge and use of plant procedures and

administrative controls, while allowing the use of references. The NRC uses 

administrative, operating, normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures, the TS, and the

emergency plan as sources of test items for this section of the examination. The test 

items focus on how direction, guidance, and information found in these procedures are 

used or interpreted, rather than focusing on finding the procedure in which the necessary 

information is located. Additionally, the test items for Section B of the SRO examination 

examine the operator’s understanding of the reasons and bases for procedural 

requirements. The use of graphs, charts, tables, and drawings is appropriate. The

simulator may be made available to the examinees to make the examination more 

operationally oriented.

C. Examination Development

1. Facility Examination Team Members’ Responsibilities

a. The facility is expected to provide a bank of test items that are developed using the

guidance in Attachment 1 and Appendix B. The number of test items should meet 

the submittal guidelines of ES-601, Attachment 2, Enclosure 1, “Requalification 

Examination Reference Material Requirements.” Form ES-601-2, “Evaluation
ES-602, Page 3 of 25

Checklist for Facility Reference Material,” provides information that facility 

personnel may use to evaluate reference material sets before submitting them to

the NRC. 

The facility licensee shall maintain its examination question bank up-to-date by

reviewing, modifying, or creating at least 150 questions each year to expand the

bank and reflect procedure or system changes, new lesson plans, and recent 

licensee and industry events.

If the facility question bank contains at least 700 items that meet the format guidance 

of Attachment 1, the facility may release the bank to its operators for review.

b. The following items should be provided for each test question:

• applicable K/A reference and values (RO/SRO)

• reference JTA (if applicable)

• estimated time to answer

• appropriate learning objectives

• applicable reference (e.g., lesson plan, emergency operating procedure (EOP))

c. The facility is expected to provide a sample plan that meets the guidelines of

ES-601, Attachment 3, “Examination Sample Plan,” and may submit a proposed 

examination that conforms to the facility’s sample plan. The proposed 

examination should contain a total of 30 to 40 test items, depending on the time

validation (maximum of 3 hours) of the individual questions selected. Sections A 

and B should each contain 15 to 20 questions, and each section must be designed 

to last a minimum of 1 hour, with the total examination designed to last 3 hours.

The facility licensee will determine the number of questions in each section, based 

on the requalification sample plan and the license level of the operators taking the

examination (RO or SRO), and subject to the quantitative constraints of the

previous paragraph. Plant systems questions that do not directly relate to the

static scenario can be included in Section A to meet the facility’s sample plan and

the requirements of 10 CFR Part 55. In addition, up to 20 percent of the test items 

may be from topics outside the sample plan, as long as the information stated in

Section C.1.b. of this standard is provided.

If the facility licensee submits a proposed examination, those individuals involved 

in its development become subject to the security restrictions of ES-601 once

examination development commences. These restrictions remain in effect until 

the NRC examination is given. If, after developing a proposed examination, the

facility decides not to submit it for use in the NRC-conducted examination, the

developers are released from the security restrictions of ES-601.

d. After the NRC has reviewed the facility’s examination bank and commented on the

test items selected for the examination, the facility team members are expected to

prepare the examination for final NRC review and approval. The examination 

may be finalized before or during the preparation week.

e. The facility team representative will evaluate each test item that the NRC revised, 

in order to assess the following criteria:
ES-602, Page 4 of 25

• appropriateness

• time required to answer, given the operational context

• technical accuracy

• clarity

• K/A and objective references

Following this evaluation, the facility examination team representatives and the

chief examiner need to agree on the final form of the examination. They also 

need to complete a time validation of the proposed examination. A variety of

methodologies have proven effective in accomplishing this task; Attachment 1 

provides further information.

Any individual involved in time validating the examination is required to sign the

security agreement, Form ES-601-1. The examination team may add or delete 

items from the examination based on the results of this time validation, and their 

experiences. If any test items are added, it is not necessary to time validate the

entire examination again, as long as a subject matter expert (SME) has reviewed the

added questions, indicating the approximate time that an operator should take to

answer each question.

f. The facility licensee is expected to provide a sufficient number of copies of each 

reference so that each examinee can use the references during the examination 

and, immediately upon completion of the examination, compile the examinations 

and reproduce sufficient copies for their own use and that of the NRC.

g. To help relieve the burden of providing a complete set of references to each operator, 

the examination may be assembled so that a different sequence of questions appears 

on each operator’s examination. Alternatively, handouts of relevant information (e.g., 

plant curves, blank forms, etc.) may be provided with the test.

2. NRC Examination Team Members’ Responsibilities

a. The NRC will begin its evaluation of the sample plan, the bank of test items, and the

proposed examination as soon as possible after receiving the facility’s materials. 

The NRC will promptly evaluate the materials to allow sufficient time for the NRC or 

the facility to develop the test items and for the facility to revise them to meet NRC 

standards, if required. The NRC examiners should review the proposed test items 

using Form ES-602-1, “NRC Checklist for Open-Reference Test Items,” to ensure 

appropriateness, clarity, and importance to safety, as described in Attachment 1.

If the facility licensee intends to administer both sections of the examination during 

a single 3-hour period as noted in Section D.1.c, the examination team members 

must review the examination as a whole to ensure that the items in either section 

do not compromise those in the other.

b. A minimum of 80 percent of the test items will be chosen in accordance with the

sample plan. The remaining 20 percent may be substituted by the examination 

team, using facility examination bank questions or new questions that the exam 

team develops. Should it be necessary to develop additional items to satisfy the

sample plan, the NRC will ask the facility to do so.
ES-602, Page 5 of 25

c. If, after reviewing at least 75 percent of the bank, insufficient test items exist to

develop an NRC examination that meets the sample plan, the NRC staff will 

declare the bank of test items inadequate. In that event, the regional managers 

may either cancel the scheduled examination or administer an examination using

NRC-developed test items without consideration for the 20-percent substitution 

constraints.

d. If the sample plan does not include topics from outside the requalification cycle, 

the examination team should consider incorporating 10 to 20 percent 

non-requalification-cycle-specific test items.

e. If a test item does not have a clear tie to the JTA, the examiner will discuss the

applicability of the test item with the facility representatives.

D. Examination Administration and Evaluations

1. Written Examination Conduct

a. An NRC examiner or knowledgeable facility representative who has signed the

security agreement will proctor each section of the examination. At a minimum, 

an NRC examiner will observe the examination briefing as the operators begin the

examination to ensure that all administrative aspects of the examination are 

adhered to. If an NRC examiner does not continuously proctor the examination, 

an examiner will periodically visit the examination room to ensure that the proctor 

appropriately addresses questions on the content or administration of the

examination that may have arisen.

b. Section A is administered on the facility’s simulator or an approved simulation 

facility.

c. Section B may be administered in the simulator or in a classroom setting as the

facility staff and the chief examiner deem appropriate. If both sections of the

examination are administered in the simulator during a single 3-hour period, 

operators may return to a section of the examination that they already completed 

or retain both sections of the examination until the time has expired.

d. For Section A of the examination, the facility licensee is responsible for giving the

group of examinees at least one copy of all controlled reference materials 

available in the control room. Examination reference materials will not include

material that is intended for training use only. The licensee controls all reference 

materials in accordance with its 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, procedure revision 

control program. The materials should be authorized for use in operating the

power plant, agreed upon by the facility and the chief examiner, and in effect at the

time of the examination validation (i.e., the preparation week).

e. During the administration of Section B, each examinee will have available for use 

the following materials (complete, current issue):

• technical specifications

• plant procedures (EOP/AOP/NOP, etc.)

• emergency plan (as available in the control room)
ES-602, Page 6 of 25

• administrative procedures applicable to operations

• other controlled plant reference materials that are normally available in the

control room (e.g., curves and data book, forms, plant drawings, flow charts, 

etc.) and authorized for use in operating the plant

Note that “non-controlled” reference materials, such as the Emergency Operating 

Procedure Owner’s Group Basis Documents will not be provided unless they are 

authorized to be used by the control room operators during plant operations.

2. Examination Administration Procedures

The written examinations will begin only after the chief examiner has verified the

adequacy of the examination facilities and made arrangements for continuous proctoring 

of the examination as discussed in Section D.1.a of this examination standard. An NRC

examiner may act as proctor during this examination. However, the chief examiner is

responsible for ensuring that the actions described in paragraphs D.2.b through D.2.i 

(below) are complete.

Each section of the written examination will be administered as follows:

a. An NRC examiner will verify each examinee’s identity and examination level 

against the list provided by the facility licensee. If possible, the ROs and SROs 

should be seated at alternating tables. Any errors or no shows will be resolved 

with the facility staff, and the list will be update as required.

b. The proctor will remind the operators that they may use calculators to complete the

examination, and that no reference material other than that provided is allowed in

the examination area. The proctor will define the examination area for the

examinees.

c. The proctor will pass out the examinations and answer sheets and instruct the

examinees not to turn over the examination until told to do so. The examinees will 

be informed that pads of scrap paper are available from the proctor upon request.

d. The proctor will brief the examinees regarding the rules and guidelines in effect 

during the written examination using Parts A and B of Appendix E, “Policies and

Guidelines for Taking NRC Examinations.” The proctor should inform the

examinees that they may refer to the instructions directly beneath their 

examination cover sheet. The proctor will read the indicated policies verbatim.

e. The proctor will ask the examinees to verify the completeness of their copies by

checking each page of the examination. The proctor should also have the

examinees check to ensure that an equation sheet has been included in their

examinations, if required.

f. After answering any questions that the examinees may have about the

examination policies, the proctor will start the examination and record the time.
ES-602, Page 7 of 25

g. The proctor will periodically advise the examinees of the time that remains to

complete the examination. Normally, a chalk board or white board is available for

this purpose.

h. As the examinees complete the examination, the proctor will ensure that they sign 

the examination cover sheet and staple it on top of their answer sheets. The

proctor will collect the examination packages, including the questions and answer 

sheets, any references used with the examination, and all scrap and unused 

paper. The NRC examiner will keep the cover and answer sheets, dispose of the

scrap paper, and give the packages of questions to the facility licensee for

subsequent use.

i. The proctor will remind the examinees to leave the examination area, as defined

by the examination team.

3. Written Examination Evaluations

Using the examination and answer key, the facility and NRC will independently grade 

each section of the written examination and will complete the grading of all written 

examinations within 10 working days of the examination administration date. NRC

examiners will record the grades on the written examination cover sheet (Form ES-602-2) 

and complete Form ES-403-1, “Written Examination Grading Quality Checklist.”

An individual’s grade will be obtained by summing the points credited to the examinee on

both sections of the examination, and dividing by the total points available (i.e.,

compensatory grading methodology.)

To pass the written portion of the examination, operators must achieve an overall score of

80 percent on the written examination.

4. Test Item Evaluation

If a number of test items require significant modification during the grading of the

examination (e.g., more than 10 percent of the items are deleted or the answer is changed 

from the original key) the NRC will determine the root cause and reflect it in the

examination report. As discussed in ES-601, if significant deficiencies exist in the

facility’s quality control of their examination bank, the NRC will consider them as part of the

program evaluation.

If technical flaws that have some degree of safety significance are found in procedures 

while analyzing the answers to the written examination, the facility may institute an

immediate procedural change and inform all operators of the change.

E. Attachments/Forms

Attachment 1 Guidelines for Developing and Reviewing Open-Reference Examinations

Form ES-602-1 NRC Checklist for Open-Reference Test Items

Form ES-602-2 Written Requalification Examination Cover Sheet
ES-602, Page 8 of 25

ES-602 Guidelines for Developing and Reviewing Attachment 1

Open-Reference Examinations

A. Introduction

The following guidelines are intended for use by those who are involved in developing or reviewing 

test items for the written portion of the NRC’s requalification examination. As described in ES-601,

“Conducting NRC Requalification Examinations,” the written examination consists of two sections. 

Section A uses a static simulator to provide the context for questions on plant and control systems, 

while Section B focuses on plant procedures and administrative controls. Examinees may use 

references, including simulator displays, for both sections. Open-reference written examinations 

are used for two reasons:

1. Examination Validity

By permitting the use of references that are available to the control room operators, the

conditions and requirements of the written examination more closely approximate those of

the actual job. The information provided to the operators in the test items should closely 

parallel the information typically available to them, while the responses elicited by the

questions should be related to the decisions, solutions, and actions required for effective 

job performance. In other words, consulting references more closely correlates job 

demands and test demands - a cornerstone of examination validity.

2. Level of Knowledge

Use of references enhances examination validity by elevating the level of knowledge of

the test items. As described later in these guidelines, operator access to references 

precludes the use of questions that test for the mere recall of facts and specifics. Instead, 

open-reference test items require test takers to demonstrate that they can find, apply, 

analyze, evaluate, or otherwise use knowledge to handle the problems and issues they 

may encounter on the job.

B. Open-Reference Guidelines

Most principles for effective test item construction apply equally to all types of written questions, 

regardless of format. Therefore, those who develop and review open-reference test items should 

consult Appendices A and B of this NUREG-series report in addition to the guidelines in this 

section.

1. Selection of Test Topics

Use the following criteria to select test item topics for the NRC’s requalification 

examination:

a. Requalification Training Program Curriculum

Base the test topics on the curriculum of the most recent operator requalification 

program training cycle. However, the NRC may substitute up to 20 percent of the

examination topics selected by the facility with subjects not emphasized during the

requalification cycle. These test items should emphasize knowledge that is of

high importance in terms of safety significance.
ES-602, Page 9 of 25

ES-602 2 Attachment 1

b. Performance Basis

Like the requalification program itself, draw the test topics from a job-task analysis 

(JTA) for an RO and an SRO. The facility licensee should validate each test item 

by demonstrating a link between each item and the following JTA products:

• important operator tasks, as identified by the JTA

• important K/As (rated 3.0 or higher), as identified in

NUREG-1122/1123/2103/2104 or a facility-specific K/A catalog

• facility learning objectives identified as important to safety

c. Adequacy of Test Coverage

The facility’s proposed sample plan (or test outline) should be checked to ensure 

that it provides balanced, comprehensive coverage of the requalification training 

cycle topics. The distribution of proposed facility test items on the examination 

may be revised if the topics under- or over-represent the material covered in the

requalification program. Recent safety-related issues and events (e.g., those in

relevant licensee event reports) should be addressed in the sample plan. 

ES-601, Attachment 3, “Examination Sample Plan,” provides further information 

on sample plan development.

2. General Guidelines for Sections A and B

Use the guidelines in this section to construct and review test items for both parts of the

written examination. These guidelines are intended to supplement, rather than replace, 

the good practices stated in Appendices A and B.

a. Operational Orientation

As previously discussed, examination validity is enhanced to the extent that the

demands of the test match the demands of the job. Therefore, in addition to being 

derived from important K/As and testing objectives, the context and stipulations of

test items should mirror the situations encountered in the work setting. The

following example illustrates effective and ineffective ways to design test items 

from K/As and learning objectives:

K/A: Knowledge of the design attributes of the

turbine-driven auxiliary feedwater pump (TDAFWP) 

differential pressure controller

Task: Operate the TDAFWP controls during all modes of

plant operation.

Learning Objective: The student will be able to operate the TDAFWP 

differential pressure controller without error during a

loss-of-feedwater event.

Enabling Objective: After completing this lesson, the student will be able 

to explain the operation of the TDAFWP differential

pressure controller.
ES-602, Page 10 of 25

ES-602 3 Attachment 1

Poor Test Item: State the parameters used by the TDAFWP 

differential pressure controller.

Better Test Item: Before isolating the “C” steam generator (per EPP11), 

an operator noted that the transducer-fed auxiliary feed 

flow indicators for the “C” steam generator were 

reading greater than the flow indicators to the “A” and

“B” steam generators. What is the reason for this flow 

deviation?

Notice that the “better” test item requires the operator to demonstrate mastery of

the knowledge by applying it to an actual job situation. In developing items, ask 

yourself “Why is the K/A important to satisfactory job performance?” and “In what 

situation will the operator need this K/A?” The answers to these questions can 

provide a basis and context for a test item.

b. Level of Knowledge

The operational orientation required of test items on the open-reference 

examination, as well as the operators’ access to controlled documents, precludes

the use of questions that test for mere recall or memorization. Rather than 

requiring operators to simply recognize or recall facts and specifics, 

open-reference test items have the operators demonstrate understanding by using

the knowledge to address real-life situations and problems. A test item at the

higher level of knowledge requires operators to determine or identify the

appropriate fact, rule, or principle and then correctly apply it to a novel situation. 

Appendix B describes each level of knowledge. Together with Table 1 (at the end 

of this attachment) Appendix B also provides sample questions that illustrate the

various levels of knowledge.

c. Realistic Context

To additionally ensure examination validity, make the situation or problem posed in

the open-reference test item as similar as possible to the actual situations that

operators encounter on the job. Situations described in the questions should be 

realistic, and should also be free of common “context” problems, including

“backward logic” and “window dressing.”

Backward-logic questions provide operators with information they normally have to

produce, while asking them for information they normally receive, as illustrated by 

the following example:

K/A: Ability to calculate shutdown margins

Backward Logic Item: If the shutdown margin is 5.5 percent, how long has 

the unit been shut down?

Better Item: The unit has been shut down for x hours. Which of

the following is the shutdown margin?
ES-602, Page 11 of 25

ES-602 4 Attachment 1

Questions with window dressing have additional, unnecessary information, 

typically in an attempt to make a memory level item more operationally oriented, as 

in the following example:

The plant has tripped from the effects of a tornado 

crossing the site boundary. You, as Shift 

Supervisor, direct the phone talker to complete the

15-minute notification. He informs you that the

normal notification network is inoperable. Which of

the following do you direct him to use for completing 

the 15-minute notification?

Better Item: If the normal notification network is inoperable, 

which of the following methods do you use to

complete the 15-minute notification after the plant 

has tripped? 

Another common problem when constructing a question with a realistic context is

that “real world” situations often have more than one correct solution or response. 

Carefully check the question and references to ensure that each test item has only 

one correct answer.

d. Question Novelty

One of the most effective ways to ensure that an operator has a high level of

knowledge is to present novel situations and require the operator to realize both 

what information is relevant and how to apply it. If a test question does not

contain unique or varied circumstances different from those presented in training, 

the item will be reduced to eliciting simple recall.

When candidates are able to memorize test items and answers (in their static 

state) to respond to test items, we cannot really determine if they can truly solve 

the problems or if they have merely memorized the answers. Once a test item 

and its answer have been seen and rehearsed, the item ceases to be a viable 

discriminator of safe operator performance. It is no longer challenging or testing 

problem-solving ability; rather, it is simply testing recall. Therefore, test items 

must be dynamic, replacing or substituting items of like kind and difficulty to

preserve integrity in the test discrimination process.

Because an infinite number of combinations of plant or equipment parameters and

malfunctions may exist at any given time, a true test will compensate for this

variation and will become dynamic so that the test can adapt to the infinite number 

of combinations and still test the same kinds of responses, but to different 

situations.

Review the training material to ensure that questions do not include overly familiar 

conditions. Keep in mind, however, that all conditions and situations should be 

reasonable, realistic, and safety-related.
ES-602, Page 12 of 25

ES-602 5 Attachment 1

e. Relationship of Open-Reference Examinations and Direct Lookup Questions

Direct lookup questions are associated with open-reference examinations. The

key phrase here, “direct lookup,” conveys the meaning that little mental activity is 

involved other than simply copying an answer that is readily available in a

reference (i.e., simple recall of where to find the information). Merely omitting 

from the item stem any mention of where to find the answer does not make it an

acceptable open-reference question.

Do not use direct lookup questions for two reasons. First, these items only test 

memory, in that the information is readily available; this is an inefficient and less 

valid means of testing candidate knowledge. Second, other than demonstrating 

that a candidate knows where to find information, this type of question does not

test the understanding or analysis of the information that can be applied on the job. 

Consequently, this type of question will not discriminate the safe operator from the

unsafe operator.

The other option is an “open-reference” question. Use an open-reference 

examination to test candidate knowledge for the following purposes: 

• Does the candidate know which reference to use and where to find it?

• Does the candidate know how to apply the information in the reference to the

problem?

For an open-reference question, the kind and amount of information required to

solve the problem would exceed that which could normally be committed to

memory. In other words, the NRC does not expect candidates to remember the

information needed to solve the problem.

In regular closed-reference questions, we expect the candidate to know and

understand how systems operate to answer a question with the information 

provided in the stem of the question. For a closed-reference question, the

candidate would not need to consult a reference. In other words, the NRC 

expects the candidate to solve the problem by knowing and understanding how the

systems work, given various conditions set in the problem.

Whether an examination is open- or closed-reference, we should, to the extent 

possible, test problem-solving or decision-making because, at this more complex 

level of thought, we more closely approximate the job and achieve a valid 

assessment.

Memory types: Understanding how memory operates relates to understanding 

why an open-reference question is preferable. Obviously, all that we know or do 

involves memory. Operationally, however, we can look at memory as falling into

two categories:

• simple memory 

• complex memory
ES-602, Page 13 of 25

ES-602 6 Attachment 1

Simple memory can be viewed as recall or recognition of simple bits and chunks of

information. Simple memory may still be involved when the volume of information 

increases (i.e., the amount of information is large, but the process is basically 

simple memorization of more bits of information). Visualize the type of memory

required to memorize 5 letters of the alphabet versus 26 letters, or the recitation of

a short poem (or procedure) versus a long one, and so forth. This memorization 

process does not involve analysis, integration of facts, or problem solving.

Rather, the process requires repetition, practice, and rehearsal. The difference 

lies in the amount of information to be recalled, not the level of mental processing.

By contrast, complex memory, as the term suggests, involves a higher level of

cognitive processing. The bits and chunks of information must now be combined or 

integrated to create something new, solve a problem, predict a response, or make a

decision. Therefore, both the amount of information and what is to be done with it 

make the cognitive mental processes complex. Naturally, too, some questions will 

involve greater complexity than others, but the mental processes will be the same C

integrating bits of information, combining and sorting them, and distinguishing the

relevant from the irrelevant to arrive at an answer to the question. This is the

essence of an analysis/synthesis process.

As previously stated, the NRC should evaluate candidates at this complex level, 

because this level of thought processing most closely approximates that needed 

on the job. The complex, problem-solving level subsumes knowledge of the bits 

and chunks of information frequently tested at the simple memory level. 

Therefore, by testing at the complex level, we are also implicitly testing at the

simple memory level. As a prerequisite to solving the problem, the candidate 

recalls and integrates these bits and chunks of information. Therefore, testing at 

the analysis level is more efficient than testing at the simple memory level.

A Final Note: Undue emphasis is placed on the term “immediately” in the definition

of a direct lookup. Speed of knowing where to locate a reference is irrelevant to

direct lookup. The NRC expects candidates who have been trained to quickly locate 

the appropriate reference. The speed issue is relevant to whether the stem of the

question contains unnecessary cues to the candidate about where to find the

reference. If the intent of the open-reference question is to assess whether the

candidate knows where to find the information, a cue regarding the location of 

information should not be in the stem. Part of the value of an open-reference exam 

is to test the candidate’s evaluative knowledge of where to look. If the stem provides 

unnecessary cues to the reference, a candidate can immediately go to the reference 

and a value of the open-reference test is lost.

Speed in answering the question proper is a function of the level of difficulty and

the thought processes/steps required to answer the question. Obviously, if the

question is a direct lookup, by definition, it assesses only simple memory and will 

be quickly and easily answered. This type of question should never be asked.
ES-602, Page 14 of 25

ES-602 7 Attachment 1

References should be considered “tools” that operators use to solve problems. 

The correct use of these “tools” is what should be tested during the open-reference 

examination, not just the recall of facts and specifics. As previously stated, “direct 

lookup” questions should generally be avoided and should not be included in the

examination; rather, questions should be structured to determine whether

operators can identify, locate, or select correct reference information to produce 

organized responses and satisfactory solutions to job-related problems and

issues. An example of a lookup question, which should generally be avoided, 

follows:

Based on the “Alarm Response Procedure” 1ZZ-040-3, what is the setpoint 

of the high-high containment pressure alarm (PK25) on VB3?

a. 10 psig

b. 15 psig

c. 20 psig

d. 25 psig

This question should be rejected because a candidate can easily find the setpoint 

in the alarm response procedure (ARP). Some may argue that knowing how to

look up this data in the “RP makes the item valid; however, no higher-order 

cognitive skills requiring analysis or synthesis of information were required to

determine the correct response. Avoid similar questions on precautions or

prerequisites that are listed in procedures. A better question using reference 

material would be as follows:

Using the current plant conditions (assume ECCS and CS flow rates 

REMAIN CONSTANT), how much time is available before switchover to

containment recirculation?

a. 3.6 hours

b. 4.2 hours

c. 4.8 hours

d. 5.2 hours

This is a “lookup” question in a sense, but it certainly requires gathering data from 

the control boards (e.g., ECCS flow, CS flow, and RWST level) and then identifying 

the correct emergency procedure and locating and selecting the correct graph to

determine how much time is left before a specific level is reached in the RWST. It 

requires use of both the simulator and the plant procedures as references.
ES-602, Page 15 of 25

ES-602 8 Attachment 1

Another appropriate question using facility references is as follows:

Following a LOCA, automatic actions have occurred as follows:

• The reactor has tripped and is shut down.

• AFW has actuated and steam generator pressure is being controlled at 

1,005 psig, using steam dumps to the condenser.

• Containment pressure has risen to 15 psig, and no additional automatic 

actions have occurred.

Which of the following Functional Recovery Procedures should be 

implemented IMMEDIATELY?

a. FR-C1

b. FR-Z1

c. FR-P1

d. FR-I1

This question requires identifying which systems should have actuated based on

the ESFAS setpoints and which critical safety functions are compromised. The

operator should refer to the functional recovery procedures to verify which critical 

safety functions have been compromised. Knowing where to look and what to

look for are required to answer this question in a reasonable time.

The item could also be used in the simulator section by requiring the operator to

look at the control board in the “frozen” simulator to determine the plant conditions 

and deduce what critical safety functions were not met. Naturally, the more 

integration and evaluation required, the more time must be given to answer the

question.

Another question that makes effective use of reference material is:

While operating at 100-percent power, VCT and pressurizer alarms and

indications show decreasing pressurizer level with two charging pumps 

operating. Also, the blowdown and main steam radiation monitors have 

alarmed. While following the appropriate abnormal and emergency 

procedures, you, as the Shift Supervisor must evaluate the existing 

conditions. What emergency classification would you declare on the basis 

of this information?

a. Notification of Unusual Event

b. Alert

c. Site Area Emergency

d. General Emergency

This question requires the operator to consult references to classify an event. It

also requires analyzing the situation, finding the correct part of the EPIPs, and

selecting the appropriate classification.
ES-602, Page 16 of 25

ES-602 9 Attachment 1

f. Difficulty Level versus Discriminatory Value

Test developers sometimes believe, erroneously, that open-reference questions 

should be more difficult to compensate for the operators’ access to reference 

material. Frequently, this increased difficulty is in the form of requiring knowledge 

of more obscure or otherwise unnecessary information. Both open- and

closed-reference questions should have the same standard of difficulty; that is, 

difficulty should be based on the job demands and responsibilities of operators. A 

question should be constructed so that it effectively discriminates a competent 

operator from one who is not. A high K/A value should not be confused with the

difficulty or discriminating ability of a question.

g. Time Limits

Operators take considerably longer to answer open-reference questions than 

closed. (Weaker operators especially have been found to spend an inordinate 

amount of time consulting references rather than writing responses). Provide the

operators ample time to complete the examination, although not so much time that

less-than-competent operators have the opportunity to locate answers without

prior familiarization with the topic. Use the following guidelines to determine the

appropriate length of the examination:

(1) A competent operator should complete the combination of Sections A and

B in 3 hours. Give the operators an appropriate amount of time to review 

Sections A and B based on the number of questions assigned to each 

section. For example, if Section A has 15 questions and is validated for 45 

minutes, allow operators 15 minutes for review. Likewise, if Section B has 

20 questions is validated for 90 minutes, allow 30 minutes for review. The

time allocated to review Sections A and B must be included in the 3-hour 

time limit.

(2) Questions should be developed so that Sections A and B each have 

approximately 15 to 20 points, for a total test value of 30 to 40 points. The

examination sample plan should be used to determine the exact number of

questions to be asked in each section. As noted in Appendix B, 

multiple-choice questions are preferred, but other formats are acceptable. 

No question will be worth more than 2 points.

(3) In an open-reference examination, every answer need not require the

operator to use a reference. The individual developing the questions 

should make a reasonable estimate of the time required to answer each

question and identify any references needed to obtain a response.

Whether and to what extent references are needed affect what constitutes 

a reasonable amount of time to develop a response. For example, if the

static scenario is set up for an abnormal plant transient that requires

relatively rapid operator analysis or response, the time allowed to respond
ES-602, Page 17 of 25

ES-602 10 Attachment 1

to the question should be similar to that required to react to the transient. 

The NRC does not expect an operator to answer a question as quickly as 

he or she would react in the plant, but does expect that the operator would 

consult few references.

Conversely, questions involving scenarios for which an operator would

have time to consult many references would allow similar time to develop a

response to the question.

(4) Each proposed examination is expected to be time validated. The best

method would result in the examination being taken in near-test conditions 

by a representative cross-section of plant operators. Then, by taking the

average of the time it took each individual to answer each question, a

reasonable time may be established for the test. However, if a large 

deviation occurs among test takers on particular questions, they should be 

asked why they took either an excessive or relatively short amount of time 

to answer the question (compared to that anticipated). Responses may 

lead to eliminating certain operators’ times from the averaging process 

and, thereby, eliminating anomalies associated with individuals (rather 

than the test items themselves). However, logistics dictate that 

sometimes only one or a few individual(s) can participate in validating the

time to complete the test. In any case, the results need to be carefully 

evaluated for any unanticipated deviations from the amount of time 

anticipated to complete each item.

Facility managers responsible for validating the examination are expected 

to validate the time for each question similarly. When performing time 

validation of the examination, these expectations should be made clear to

the facility representatives validating the examination so that a reasonable 

estimate can be obtained.

h. Correct Mode of Measurement

No matter how high their importance ratings or operational relevance, certain

operator knowledge, skills, and abilities are not amenable to written testing, as in

the following example:

Arrange the major steps in the proper sequence to start, parallel, and load 

DG-2:

_____ Use governor control to increase DG-2 kW.

_____ Raise DG speed to 900 RPM.

_____ Match voltage with bus 1A2 voltage.

_____ Close breaker 1AD2.

Despite its operational orientation, the underlying skill addressed in this test item 

would be better assessed by having the operator simulate or perform the steps 

during either the simulator or walk-through portions of the operating examination.
ES-602, Page 18 of 25

ES-602 11 Attachment 1

3. Specific Guidelines for Section A, “Plant and Control Systems”

The guidelines in the section are specific to the Plant and Control Systems section of the

written examination as performed on a static simulator. These guidelines are divided into 

two sections, “Question Development" and “Simulator Setup.”

a. Question Development

To ensure that the operator’s knowledge of systems and integrated plant response 

is adequately evaluated, Section A of the written examination should incorporate 

the behavior of systems and controls in normal, abnormal, and emergency plant

conditions. To the extent possible, questions should require the operators to refer 

to control room indications in formulating their responses, as in the following 

example:

Which one of the following describes the location of the steam break?

a. inside containment, upstream of the steam line flow transmitters

b. inside containment, downstream of the steam line flow transmitters

c. outside containment, between “C” MSIV and “C” main steam line 

check valve

d. outside containment, between “C” MSIV and “C” main steam line 

containment penetration

The scenario used should put the plant at some point in a major plant transient 

(e.g., LOCA, SGTR, loss of all AC) with several passive or active failures 

incorporated. However, the number of malfunctions or failures included in the

scenario should be limited. No more than four minor failures should be used (e.g., 

failure of a safety-related pump to start, failed pressurizer pressure indication, 

nuclear instrumentation failure). Four will provide sufficient effects to test a wide 

range of objectives. Such a scenario would provide sufficient visual cues to

develop a good percentage (at least 50 percent) of questions directly related to the

existing plant conditions.

Questions may be used that do not relate to the transient but use the simulator as

a frame of reference only, provided the operators are aware of this lack of

relationship to the transient.

Carefully ensure that multiple questions stemming from one event do not give 

each other away. The operator should be able to understand and correctly 

answer each question, based only on the information given in the question, rather 

than on the answer to a previous question.

Use of plant diagnostic questions for which the examinee attempts to determine 

what transient has occurred are generally not suitable, given the purpose of this

section of the examination. Having the operator attempt to identify what took 

place may limit the number of questions you may ask about the transient. 

Indicate what symptoms or events have occurred, which procedure has been 

implemented, and the point in the procedure that was reached at the time the

simulator was “frozen.”
ES-602, Page 19 of 25

ES-602 12 Attachment 1

The operator’s response should either determine the root cause of the actual 

system or component failure, or (by using “what if” questions) propose a future 

event and ask for the expected response.

b. Simulator Setup

Before the test, advance the simulator recorders to provide clean readings and

check the recorders for proper operation. Check all indications (e.g., bulbs, 

meters, manual loader indications) to ensure they are in proper working order.

When the simulator has been frozen, secure the chart recorder drive power, if

necessary.

Before administering the test, verify that the simulator indications are as expected 

in order for operators to arrive at the correct answer.

Freeze any “first-out” annunciators that would normally blink to announce first-out

conditions and provide them to the operators.

If a transient is stabilized by use of plant procedures, note the step at which the

simulator is frozen and record this information on the simulator operations 

summary sheet. As necessary, give the examinees the progress of the procedure 

step in effect.

4. Ideas for Open Reference Formats

Table 2 contains a list of sample formats to assist individuals who are developing 

performance-based, open-reference questions.

Table 3 provides additional guidance on the process for developing open-reference 

questions.
ES-602, Page 20 of 25

ES-602 13 Attachment 1

Examples of Different Types of Questions Table 1

1. Memory level questions are not to be used on open reference examinations. 

2. Comprehension level questions would require the operator to demonstrate an

understanding of a concept without necessarily relating it to other material, or fully

comprehending it in depth.

A spurious safety injection (SI) signal resulted in HHSI flow to the loop cold legs 

when the plant was in Mode 4. After completing corrective actions for the

inadvertent SI initiation, you must:

a. stroke test the cold leg motor-operated stop valves within 24 hours

b. test the cold leg injection check valves for leakage within 48 hours

c. stroke test the cold leg motor-operated stop valves before entering Mode 3

d. test the cold leg injection valves for leakage before entering Mode 2

3. Analysis, synthesis, and application level questions require higher-order cognitive thought 

processes.

a. Application level questions may require the operator to apply their knowledge to

various concrete situations.

Given the following conditions:

• both main feed pump turbines tripped

• AFW automatically started

• AFW valves reset to control steam generator water level

• AFW suction pressure decreases to 7 psig

Which ONE of the following describes AFW pump response for the given

conditions?

a. the pump suction will automatically shift to nuclear service water

b. the pump suction will automatically shift to UST

c. the pump will trip when suction pressure decreases to 5 psig

d. the pump will trip after a 6-second delay
ES-602, Page 21 of 25

ES-602 14 Attachment 1

Examples of Different Types of Questions (cont’d) Table 1

b. Analysis questions require the operator to mentally integrate a number of

conditions, analyze their interrelationships, sort through and discriminate among 

distractors, and finally choose the correct answer.

Which answer below correctly indicates the posting required for a room

using the results of the following radiological survey?

SURVEY RESULTS:

AIRBORNE ACTIVITY: 6.34 E-9 uci/cc (Co-60)

FLOOR SMEAR: Beta-610 dpm/cm 2

; Alpha-4 dpm/cm2

EQUIPMENT SMEAR: Beta-1800 dpm/cm 2

: Alpha-16 dpm/cm2

GENERAL RADIATION LEVEL: 110 mr/hr

a. Radiation Area, Airborne Area and Full Anti-Cs

b. High Radiation Area, Airborne Area and Full Anti-Cs

c. High Radiation Area, Full Anti-Cs

d. Locked High Radiation Area, Airborne Area, Double Anti-Cs

c. Problem-solving questions require putting together elements to demonstrate an

understanding of the underlying knowledge.

The plant is operating at 100-percent power when a LOCA occurs. The

reactor trips automatically, but fast transfer fails and buses 1A1 and 1A2 

become de-energized. PPLS and CPHS initiate and all equipment 

operates as designed.

Which ONE of the following is the expected system response?

a. OPLS initiates load shed and starts both emergency diesel 

generators

b. OPLS does NOT actuate; the emergency diesel generators start

and re-energize buses 1A1 and 1A2

c. OPLS does NOT actuate; the emergency diesel generators do NOT 

start, and safeguards motors are started by the sequencers

d. OPLS does NOT actuate; the emergency diesel generators run at

idle speed, and safeguards motors are started by the sequencers
ES-602, Page 22 of 25

ES-602 15 Attachment 1

Example Formats for Open-Reference Questions Table 2

1. Given Plant, System, or Component Condition or Problem

• diagnose the cause of the problem

• identify the location of the problem

• predict the effect on the plant/system/component

• identify the precipitating events/actions

• classify and indicate if the conditions meet the specified criteria

• indicate and use the proper procedures/references

• identify the appropriate recuperative actions

2. Given Plant Conditions and Operator Actions or Procedural Steps Implemented

• indicate purpose/reason behind taking these actions

• determine whether the correct actions were taken given available cues

• indicate what further actions are required to achieve a desired effect

3. Given a Proposed or Hypothetical Course of Action or Recommendation

• determine its appropriateness or acceptability

• predict the expected plant/system/component response

• predict the effect on other systems/components

4. Given Data Regarding Plant Conditions or Parameters

• compute or determine the status or change in other parameters

• use charts, curves, graphs, etc., to perform calculations or estimations
ES-602, Page 23 of 25

ES-602 16 Attachment 1

Developing Open-Reference Test Items Table 3

The decision steps and mental model for developing analysis-level open-reference questions are 

as follows:

1. Determine the purpose of the test. Do you want to test knowledge where and knowledge 

what/how?

2. Determine the information needed to respond to the question. Is the volume and kind of

information such that you would not normally expect candidates to recall the information 

from memory to answer the question?

3. If the answer is yes to both Questions 1 and 2, develop an open-reference question.

4. Construct the question as two tiers:

Tier Purpose Process Criteria Outcome

1. Knowledge where Evaluate reference sources Avoid clues in stem Locate reference sources

2. Knowledge what/how Integrate multiple 

variables/events

Information volume 

and detail high (not in

memory)

Identify correct answer

Question Stem

bits, chunks of stem information

(conditions, setpoints, components, etc.)

 Mental Processes Processes

* Analyzing a. Answer * Integrate mental

 processes with

 stem information,

 reference data,

 and distractors

* Sorting b. Distractor

* Eliminating ←────→ c. Distractor ←──→

* Differentiating d. Distractor

* Evaluating

Determine Answer
ES-602, Page 24 of 25

ES-602 NRC Checklist Form ES-602-1

for Open-Reference Test Items 

Test Item Level

____ 1. Does each test item have a documented link to important operator tasks, K/As, 

and/or facility learning objectives?

____ 2. Is each question operationally oriented (i.e., is there a correlation between job

demands and test demands)?

____ 3. Is the question at least at the comprehension-level of knowledge?

____ 4. Is the context of the questions realistic and free of window dressing and backward 

logic?

____ 5. Does the item require an appropriate use of references (i.e., use of analysis skills

or synthesis of information either to discern what procedures are applicable or to

consult the procedures to obtain the answer)?

____ 6. Is the question a “direct lookup” question, or does one question on the examination 

compromise another? A “direct lookup” question is defined as a question that

only requires the examinee to recall where to find the answer.

____ 7. Does the question possess a high K/A importance factor (3.0 or greater) for the job 

position?

____ 8. Does the question discriminate a competent operator from one who is not?

____ 9. Is the question appropriate for the written examination and the selected format,

e.g., short answer or multiple choice?

____ 10. Do questions in Section A take advantage of the simulator control room setting?

____ 11. Is the question clear, precise, and easy to read and understand?

____ 12. Is there only one correct answer to each question?

____ 13. Does the question pose situations and problems other than those presented 

during training?

____ 14. Does the question have a reasonable estimated response time?
ES-602, Page 25 of 25

ES-602 Written Requalification Examination Form ES-602-2

Cover Sheet

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Written Requalification Examination

Operator Information

Name:

Date: Region: I / II / III / IV

Facility/Unit: Reactor Type: W / CE / BW / GE

AP-1000® / ABWR

Start Time: Stop Time:

Instructions

Use the answer sheets provided to document your answers. Staple this cover sheet on top of

the answer sheets. Points for each question are indicated in parentheses after the question. 

The passing grade is 80 percent. You have a total of 3 hours to complete both sections of the

examination.

Operator Certification

All work done on this examination is my own. I have neither given nor received aid.

______________________________________

Operator’s Signature

Results

Test Value (Points) Section A: __________

Section B: __________

TOTAL: __________

Operator’s Score (Points) Section A: __________

Section B: __________

TOTAL: __________

Operator’s Grade (Combined) __________ Percent

ES-603, 1 of 7

ES-603

REQUALIFICATION WALK-THROUGH EXAMINATIONS

A. Purpose

NRC examiners, working with facility evaluators, follow this standard to administer walk-through 

requalification examinations as authorized by Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 

CFR) 55.59(a)(2)(iii). The walk-through examination is an effective tool for evaluating the ability 

of a licensed operator to manipulate system components and controls, interpret references, use 

administrative procedures, and demonstrate knowledge of component locations.

B. Scope

This standard provides specific guidance and requirements for NRC examiners to use in

preparing, reviewing, and administering walk-through requalification examinations, in which each 

operator performs five job performance measures (JPMs). Each operator’s walk-through 

examination is designed to test the operator on plant systems that are important to the safe 

operation of the reactor. NRC examiners and facility evaluators jointly approve the JPMs for 

each examination. Each JPM consists of several steps, one or more of which is designated as 

“critical.” An operator must properly complete each critical step to pass the JPM.

The examination team will agree on five JPMs so that at least two are conducted in the simulator 

(or the control room) and at least two are conducted in the plant. To the maximum extent 

practical, control room JPMs will be conducted using the simulator. When operators perform 

JPMs in the control room or the plant, they will be cautioned not to manipulate the reactor 

controls. To successfully complete these JPMs, operators will demonstrate to the examiners the 

steps or actions they would take to complete the task.

C. JPM Development

1. Facility Examination Team Members’ Responsibilities

a. The NRC staff expects the facility licensee to identify the plant systems that are 

critical to protecting the public health and safety. The systems that are selected 

for the examination should meet the following criteria:

• systems covered during the current requalification cycle (the facility’s sample 

plan should identify the systems and appropriate learning objectives; see 

Attachment 3 to ES-601, “Conducting NRC Requalification Examinations”)

• new or recently modified systems

• systems that are the subject of recent facility licensee event reports (LERs) or 

vendor notices
ES-603, 2 of 7

• risk-important systems, components, and operator actions1 for plant or vendor 

generic systems, as identified through probabilistic risk assessment (PRA)

• systems that are the subject of NRC information notices

• systems that are important to safety during low-power or shutdown operations

b. For those systems that are identified as being important to safety, the facility 

representatives are expected to review the job task analysis (JTA), learning 

objectives, and the Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant 

Operators: Pressurized Water Reactors (NUREG-1122 or 2103) or Knowledge 

and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant Operators: Boiling Water Reactors

(NUREG-1123 or 2104). The facility representative should highlight for use as 

JPMs the tasks, abilities, and learning objectives that fulfill the following criteria:

• apply to the facility

• are at the appropriate level for the operator being examined [i.e., the reactor 

operator (RO) is responsible for auxiliary operator (AO)/RO tasks, and the 

senior reactor operator (SRO) is responsible for AO/RO/SRO tasks]

• have a knowledge and ability (K/A) rating of 3.0 or higher (tasks and abilities 

selected for use may have ratings below 3.0 if proper facility justification exists 

for such ratings)

c. Some tasks that are important to safety are unique to a specific plant and are not

referenced in NUREG-1122, 1123, 2103, or 2104. The NRC staff expects each

facility to maintain a list of these plant-specific tasks and develop JPMs that test 

the operator’s knowledge and ability in these areas. The facility, before 

submitting the JPMs to the NRC for review, is responsible for ensuring that the 

tasks are appropriate to the applicable license level and have a safety importance 

rating of at least 3.0.

If a facility-specific K/A is used in lieu of those specified in NUREG-1122, 1123, 

2103, or 2104, the importance ratings must be based on protecting public health 

and safety.

d. JPMs should meet the guidelines provided in Appendix C and Form ES-C-2, “Job

Performance Measure Quality Checklist.” The JPMs should indicate which steps 

are “critical” to successful completion of the task. Critical steps are those steps 

that when not performed correctly, in the proper sequence, or at the proper time, 

will prevent the system from functioning properly or preclude successful 

completion of the task. Form ES-C-1, “Job Performance Measure Worksheet,” or 

an equivalent facility form should be used to construct and format the JPMs.

In accordance with 10 CFR 55.59(a)(2)(ii), requalification operating tests require 

operators and senior operators to demonstrate an understanding of and ability to 

perform necessary actions. Therefore, JPMs selected for the walk-through 

examination shall not test solely for simple recall or memorization. Although it 

 1 Chapter 13 of NUREG-1560, “Individual Plant Examination Program: Perspectives on Reactor Safety and Plant 

Performance,” identifies a number of important human actions that might be appropriate for the operating test. In 

determining important operator actions, do not overlook actions that are relied upon or result in specific events 

being driven to lower risk contribution. This will help identify those human actions, assumed to be very reliable, 

that might otherwise not show up on a list of risk-dominant actions.
ES-603, 3 of 7

was written in a style to address written examinations, refer to ES-602 Attachment 

1, "Guidelines for Developing and Reviewing Open-Reference Examinations," 

when preparing JPMs as well. Although an operating test does not require every 

JPM to be alternate path or demonstrate detailed system understanding, simple 

one-step JPMs or JPMs that only require directly looking up the correct answer are 

not appropriate. JPMs that incorporate the testing of immediate action steps from 

memory are acceptable. However, JPMs should not solely test immediate action 

steps, and should include testing additional steps or items that are not from 

memory.

The majority of the JPMs selected for the walk-through examination will cover 

topics from the most recent requalification training cycle. In addition, the facility is

expected to create at least 10 new JPMs each year until they have a JPM bank that 

is representative of Sections C.1.a and C.1.b of this examination standard. The 

NRC anticipates that a facility’s bank will comprise approximately 125B150 JPMs; 

however, the exact number will depend on the facility’s JTA. New JPMs should 

generally be based on recent requalification training, industry events, facility 

changes, and tasks for safety-significant systems.

e. The NRC staff expects each facility to develop “time-critical” JPMs to evaluate 

time-critical tasks identified in the facility’s JTA for each licensed position. To

facilitate the selection of time-critical JPMs for the requalification examination, the 

facility licensee is expected to uniquely identify these JPMs. To successfully 

complete a time-critical JPM, the operator must perform the “time-critical” steps 

within a pre-specified time period, in addition to successfully performing all of the

critical steps that are not time-critical. The time period identified in the time-critical 

JPM should be based on a regulatory requirement or a facility commitment to the 

NRC.

f. The NRC staff also expects each facility to develop “alternate-path JPMs” and

include them in the JPM bank. To facilitate the selection of alternate-path JPMs 

for the requalification examination, the NRC staff expects the facility licensee to

uniquely identify these JPMs. Appendix C provides guidance for use in 

developing these JPMs.

2. NRC Examination Team Members’ Responsibilities

a. The NRC’s examination team will review and approve the JPMs selected by the

facility. The majority of the selected JPMs should be based on the systems 

covered during the most recent requalification cycle. However, the facility should 

also select JPMs in systems that are important to safety, regardless of when they 

were reviewed in requalification training. NRC examiners will review the JPMs 

submitted by the facility to ensure that 20 percent of the selected JPMs were not 

covered in the most recent training cycle, because this examination is intended to 

sample skills and abilities that operators should always be able to display. In 

general, examiners should select systems in Groups I and II of the appropriate 

written examination model in ES-401 or ES-401N, “Preparing Initial Site-Specific 

Written Examinations,” with Group I comprising at least 50 percent of the selected 

systems.

b. The NRC staff will discuss with the facility representatives the selected JPMs that

are not identified in NUREG-1122, 1123, 2103, or 2104 to ensure that the system 

or task meets the site-specific importance criteria. Any modifications to the 

selection of JPMs will also be discussed with the facility representatives. The
ES-603, 4 of 7

NRC may substitute up to 20 percent of the facility-proposed JPMs with 

NRC-developed JPMs. The NRC will give facility representatives sufficient time 

to review any substituted JPMs.

c. The chief examiner has the authority to decide the content of each examination 

set. NRC examiners should review the proposed JPMs using the criteria in 

Appendix C and Form ES-C-2, “Job Performance Measure Quality Checklist.”

d. The chief examiner will ensure that a sufficient number of different JPMs are 

scheduled during the examination week to avoid compromising the examination.

e. The chief examiner will ensure that the time validation of each JPM is reasonable 

and will verify that each JPM is identified as “time-critical” or “not time-critical.”

D. Examination Administration

1. Conducting JPM Walk-Through Examinations

a. The facility evaluator is responsible for conducting the walk-through examination 

while the NRC examiner observes. The NRC examiner and the facility evaluator 

may ask the operator questions to clarify his or her performance of the JPM after

the JPM is completed. In most instances, the NRC examiner will ask the facility 

evaluator to question the operator about the appropriateness of an action or a 

response that does not follow the actions specified in the JPM.

b. The facility evaluator will brief the operator, using Parts A, C, and D of Appendix E. 

If desired, the evaluator may brief the operators as a group before starting the 

walk-through examination.

c. Operators should not be informed of the expected completion time before

commencing the JPM. Informing operators of the expected completion time may 

increase tension as operators approach the time limit. However, the evaluator 

may inform operators that a JPM is time-critical, if it is normal practice to do so at 

the given facility.

d. Time should be allotted during the operating test for evaluating each operator’s

performance of five JPMs.

Each walk-through examination should last approximately 2 hours. This time 

includes the validated times associated with each planned JPM plus any

administrative tasks required to conduct the examination.

Administrative tasks include the following examples:

• transit time to and from the plant site

• time spent complying with facility security and radiological administrative 

requirements (unless this is part of the JPM being performed)

• transit time within the plant after a JPM is completed to get to a location where 

the initiating cue for the next JPM is to be given
ES-603, 5 of 7

Note: The JPM sample size will be constrained to the requirements of this 

examination standard for NRC-conducted examinations. The facility may perform 

additional evaluation of its operators outside the time frame designated for the

NRC examination.

However, any additional evaluation by the facility will not be factored into the final 

requalification evaluation of the operator by the NRC. The criteria for determining 

requalification program status remain the same.

e. JPMs that directly relate to the operator’s job functions are preferable, particularly

for SROs. For example, if an SRO will not perform an emergency action level 

(EAL) classification during the dynamic simulator or written examinations, the 

examination team may choose to have the operator perform one JPM that involves 

classifying an emergency.

f. The NRC examiner will ensure that the facility evaluator conducts an appropriate 

examination. Appendix C provides examples of good evaluation techniques to

look for during the walk-through examination. If the NRC examiner observes 

improper evaluation techniques that may render the examination invalid, the NRC

examiner will stop the walk-through and counsel the facility evaluator. If the 

facility evaluator continues to display poor evaluation techniques, the NRC

examiner will stop the examination and request that another facility evaluator 

continue the examination. If necessary, the NRC examiner may conduct the 

walk-through with the original facility evaluator observing and co-evaluating.

g. If an evaluator believes that follow-up questioning is required and is not sure how

to phrase the question, he or she should consult the NRC examiner. This will 

avoid inadvertent prompting of the operator and enhance communication between 

the facility evaluator and the NRC examiner.

h. The examiner will document the operator’s performance using the applicable 

portions of a JPM worksheet, Form ES-C-1, or the facility equivalent for each JPM. 

Document any questions asked to clarify the operator’s performance. Also, fill out 

the JPM summary matrix (Form ES-603-1) to maintain operators’ scores during 

the examination, document which JPM each operator performed, and fulfill the 

requirements of ES-601, Section J.1.b.

i. After completing an operator’s JPM set, the NRC and facility evaluators shall

discuss and resolve any outstanding issues that may result in the operator failing 

the walk-through examination or any individual JPM. A discussion of what was 

observed will often correct a difference of opinion. Unresolved differences should 

be brought to the attention of the chief examiner.

2. Grading the Examination

a. To pass the walk-through examination, each operator must successfully complete 

at least four of the five JPMs. To successfully complete a JPM, the operator must 

complete all critical steps and satisfy the completion criteria specified in the given

JPM.
ES-603, 6 of 7

b. An operator is expected to complete each JPM within the validated time period. 

For a JPM that is not time-critical, an operator may exceed the validated time if the 

facility evaluator and the NRC examiner agree that the operator is making

acceptable progress toward completing the JPM.

For time-critical JPMs, the facility representatives should identify a period that they 

consider to be the absolute maximum time in which they would expect an operator 

to perform the given task (e.g., locally opening reactor trip breakers on an 

anticipated transient without scram or locally starting an auxiliary feedwater pump 

on a loss of all feedwater). An operator who fails to meet the time criteria will 

receive an unsatisfactory evaluation for the given JPM.

E. Attachments/Forms

Form ES-603-1 JPM Summary Matrix
ES-603, Page

7 of 7

ES-603 JPM Summary Matrix 

Operators’ Names >>>

JPM Number/Brief Description

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

ES-604, Page 1 of 19

ES-604

DYNAMIC SIMULATOR REQUALIFICATION EXAMINATIONS

A. Purpose

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) examiners use this standard in preparing and 

administering dynamic simulator requalification operating tests in accordance with the provisions 

of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 55.59(a)(2)(iii).

By simulating actual plant operation, the dynamic simulator test provides a comprehensive 

evaluation of the integrated plant knowledge and skills required of operating crews. It is effective 

in evaluating a crew’s communication skills and team behavior and in identifying any areas in

which the licensed operators should be retrained to improve their knowledge and abilities (K/As) 

in accordance with the provisions of the requalification program developed by the facility licensee.

B. Scope

The dynamic simulator test consists of two scenarios. Each scenario is constructed to last 

approximately 45 to 60 minutes. The actual time needed to complete the scenarios will depend 

on the specific events within the scenarios, but should allow the crew the time necessary to

perform the actions required to respond to each event. To successfully complete this portion of

the operating test the crew must demonstrate the ability to operate effectively as a team while

completing a series of critical tasks (CTs) that measure the crew’s ability to safely operate the

plant during normal, abnormal, and emergency situations.

The NRC examiners evaluate the performance of each crew, using standard competency rating 

scales. Each competency is rated according to the crew’s ability to satisfactorily complete the

tasks that have been designated as “critical” within that crew’s scenario set. Critical means 

“necessary to place and maintain the reactor in a safe operational or shutdown condition.” Each

valid CT must meet the criteria specified in Section D of Appendix D. If the crew fails to correctly 

perform a CT, that failure would indicate a significant deficiency in the knowledge, skill, or ability of 

that crew to demonstrate team behavior and will be evaluated using the behavioral anchors on 

Form ES-604-2, “Simulator Crew Evaluation Form.”

Facility evaluators will evaluate the performance of the operators during the dynamic simulator test. 

Because the primary purpose of the dynamic simulator test is to evaluate crews, each individual is

not required to perform a specific number of CTs and may not necessarily receive an individual

evaluation by an NRC examiner. However, NRC examiners will follow up on significant individual 

performance deficiencies on CTs observed during the simulator test in a manner and setting that is 

compatible with the deficiency. A significant performance deficiency is the omission of or the 

inability to complete a CT, or the demonstration of a significant lack of knowledge or ability while 

performing a CT. This follow-up evaluation will be graded as a component of the individual’s

operating test. To meet the requirements of 10 CFR 55.59(a)(2), it is the facility licensee’s

responsibility to conduct its annual operator performance evaluations on the dynamic simulator in 

accordance with the requirements of its requalification program. The facility licensee may use the 

NRC-conducted operating test to meet this requirement if the conditions of 10 CFR 55.59(a)(2)(ii) 

are satisfied (the operating test will require the operator or senior operator to demonstrate an 

understanding of and the ability to perform the actions necessary to accomplish a comprehensive 

sample of items specified in § 55.45(a) (2) through (13) inclusive to the extent applicable to the 

facility).
ES-604, Page 2 of 19

If an operator demonstrates significant performance deficiencies linked to the execution of CTs 

during the dynamic simulator portion of the operating test, the facility and NRC examination team

members should discuss those deficiencies at the end of the dynamic simulator test.

If the operating crew performs satisfactorily and NRC examiners observe no significant individual 

performance deficiencies linked to CTs, the individual would pass the dynamic simulator test. In 

the case of operators who demonstrate significant deficiencies while performing CTs, the facility 

evaluators and NRC examiners will decide whether the operator would pass or fail by asking the 

operator follow-up questions about his or her performance to determine the extent of the 

knowledge or ability deficiency demonstrated. The number and scope of follow-up questions to 

be asked will be agreed to by the NRC examiners and facility evaluators and will be based on the 

individual’s demonstrated knowledge or ability weakness identified during the performance of 

CTs. The follow-up questions and individual’s answers will be documented and used, along with 

the individual’s performance, as the basis for a pass or fail decision. Section E.2 of this standard 

describes the method for evaluating and documenting individual performance.

In the rare event that the only way to evaluate the scope and depth of the individual’s performance 

deficiency is by conducting another scenario to gain additional information, the examination team 

(NRC and facility) will determine the content, critical tasks, operator actions, and crew position 

rotation necessary to complete the evaluation of the individual’s performance. Conducting 

another scenario is time consuming and may adversely affect the examination process. If an 

individual operator exhibits only minor deficiencies in performance and satisfactorily completes 

the testing requirements of 10 CFR 55.59(a), then remedial retraining and reevaluation will be 

conducted in accordance with the facility licensee’s requalification program.

C. Examination Development

Developing the NRC’s dynamic simulator requalification examination is a combined effort 

between the facility representatives and the NRC examiners on the examination team. The

responsibilities of the examination team members are outlined below.

1. Facility Team Member Responsibilities

a. The facility licensee develops the dynamic simulator scenarios with identified CTs 

that meet the guidance specified in Appendix D and Form ES-604-1, “Simulator

Scenario Review Checklist.” The facility licensee will submit each proposed

dynamic simulator test to the chief examiner 45 days before the scheduled 

examination.

b. The facility licensee is expected to provide a qualified simulator operator to assist

in developing and administering the simulator examinations. The simulator 

operator must be available to support the examination team during the 

examination preparation week, normally 2 weeks before the examination.

The simulator operator will be expected to sign a security agreement at the time

that the chief examiner determines that he or she has access to specialized 

knowledge of any part of the examination.
ES-604, Page 3 of 19

c. The scenarios should be based on the training that was conducted during the

requalification cycle, recent industry events, licensee event reports (LERs), 

emergency and abnormal procedures, and design and procedural changes. The

scenarios should demonstrate the crew’s ability to use facility procedures to

prevent and mitigate accidents. Some scenarios should be based on the

dominant accident sequences (DAS) for the facility or actual events that have

occurred at that or a similar facility. DAS are those sequences that contribute 

significantly to the frequency of core damage as determined by the facility 

licensee’s probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) or individual plant examination 

(IPE). The PRA/IPE should also be used to identify risk-important operator 

actions.1

 In identifying those actions, do not overlook actions that are relied upon 

or result in specific events being driven to lower risk contribution. This will help 

identify those human actions that are assumed to be very reliable and might not 

otherwise show up in a list of risk-dominant actions.

d. The facility representatives on the examination team will be given the opportunity 

to review any modifications that the NRC made to the scenarios. The 

representatives may recommend changes to events that are critical to plant safety, 

but must substantiate the reasons for those changes. The examination team has

to agree on the validity and content of each scenario before the examination.

e. The NRC encourages each utility to have its management discuss with the NRC 

any problems with examination complexity. Utility managers engaged in the

examination review will be required to sign a security agreement. Responsibility

rests with the utility to resolve any issues before administering the examination. 

This review is to ensure that the final scenarios are (1) consistent with the facility’s

requalification requirements for operators licensed at the facility, (2) within the 

capability of the simulation facility, and (3) within the scope of the facility’s

procedures.

This utility’s senior manager or representative should communicate any significant 

concerns about scenario validity to the chief examiner. If adequate resolution is 

not reached, the concerns should be brought to the attention of the NRC’s regional 

managers and then, if necessary, to managers in NRR/NRO operator licensing 

program office.

2. NRC Team Member Responsibilities

a. At least 2 weeks before the preparation week, the chief examiner or a designee will

complete a draft of Form ES-604-1, “Simulator Scenario Review Checklist,” for

each scenario that the facility proposes to use during the examination, along with 

any proposed changes to be validated during the preparation week. During the 

review of each scenario that the facility selected for the examination, the chief 

examiner or designee will consider the quantitative and qualitative factors 

described in Appendix D, as summarized on Form ES 604-1.

 1 Chapter 13 of NUREG-1560, “Individual Plant Examination Program: Perspectives on Reactor Safety and Plant 

Performance,” identifies a number of important human actions that might be appropriate for evaluation on the 

dynamic simulator operating test.
ES-604, Page 4 of 19

b. If the proposed scenarios require major changes to meet the guidance provided on

Form ES-604-1, the chief examiner will inform the regional managers and

determine the appropriate course of action. The NRC may revise the scenarios, 

as appropriate, or develop new scenarios to add to the facility’s existing scenarios, 

if required. The NRC will communicate all scenario changes to the appropriate 

facility representative early enough to allow for scenario validation before the 

preparation week. During the preparation week, the examiners may make minor 

changes to ensure that the scenario objectives are properly accomplished. The 

NRC staff will review the final scenarios with the facility’s examination team 

representatives before the examination is administered. The NRC has the final 

authority to determine the content of the scenarios and decide if a task is critical for 

evaluating the competency of the crew.

c. A key element of the examination team’s resolution of concerns regarding the

scope, depth, and complexity of simulator scenarios involves a senior utility 

manager observing the proposed examination scenarios (subject to signing an 

appropriate examination security agreement) during examination preparation. 

If necessary, this executive would raise specific concerns to appropriate NRC 

regional management for resolution before the examination is administered.

D. Examination Administration

1. Administrative Requirements

a. A facility manager or representative with responsibilities for conducting plant 

operations (at a minimum, a manager at the first level above shift supervisor) 

should be present while the simulator examinations are administered. The NRC’s

chief examiner or a designee will also be present during the administration of each 

dynamic simulator examination. The chief examiner is the principal point of 

contact between the facility manager and the NRC.

b. The examination team briefs the operating crews before the start of the simulator

scenarios, using the information in Parts A, C, and E of Appendix E.

c. Crews should be given adequate time to respond to all planned and unplanned 

events. A scenario’s contact time should be approximately 45 to 60 minutes. 

Contact time means the actual time the operators spend in the scenario; it does not 

include time spent on briefings, simulator setup, or investigating simulator 

performance problems.

d. Under no circumstance will any member of the examination team modify the

sequence of events and transients during the scenario. If the scenario is not

properly administered as a result of a simulator operator error or an unexpected 

simulator response, the examination team will confer immediately after the 

scenario set to determine whether the crew has performed a sufficient number of 

transients and events to justify an evaluation of the required competencies. If 

necessary, the examination team can run an additional scenario to ensure that the 

required competencies are addressed.
ES-604, Page 5 of 19

e. Crew rotation practices shall be discussed and agreed to during the preparation

week, and any problems shall be resolved before the administration of the 

operating test.

f. The members of the operating crew should maintain the same operating positions 

as during facility requalification evaluations. The crew members should rotate 

between positions in the manner identical to the facility’s rotation practices for

evaluations specified in the facility’s requalification program.

g. Senior reactor operators (SROs) must be evaluated in at least one scenario in an

SRO-licensed crew position. More than two simulator scenarios may be required 

to examine crews that consist of more than four SROs.

2. Post-Scenario Activities

a. If the NRC examiners and facility evaluators observe actions that are unclear 

during the simulator scenario, they should question the crew members as

necessary to develop complete documentation of the crew’s performance during

the scenario. Questions should be factual and should clarify performance related 

to observations.

b. If an examiner observes an individual who demonstrates significant deficiencies in

performing a CT, the NRC examiner and the facility evaluator will discuss those 

deficiencies at the completion of the scenario. If they determine that the

operator’s performance deficiencies cannot be assessed because of a lack of

information, the examination team has the option to conduct an additional scenario 

or a job performance measure (JPM) to obtain the necessary information.

During the post-scenario discussion, the facility evaluator is expected to describe 

the operator’s deficiencies to the NRC examiner and suggest a series of follow-up

questions designed to identify the cause of the deficiency. The NRC examiner 

will assess the facility evaluator’s ability to diagnose the operator’s deficiency and

document it in the examination report, if applicable. The NRC examiner has the 

option to augment the follow-up questions proposed by the facility evaluator, if

necessary.

The examination team should minimize the time needed to conduct this review of

crew and individual performance to minimize the impact on the operators. 

However, it is the examination team’s responsibility to ensure that the review is

thorough and complete.

The facility evaluator will conduct an individual evaluation of the operator in

accordance with Section E.2 of this examination standard. The NRC examiner 

has the option to ask additional follow-up questions.

c. Upon completing any follow-up questioning, the NRC examiners and facility 

evaluators will dismiss the crew to await the next scenario and inform the crew that

they may discuss the completed scenario among themselves.
ES-604, Page 6 of 19

d. The NRC examiners and facility evaluators will meet separately to compare 

observations and determine whether the crew omitted or incorrectly performed any

CTs.

e. The facility evaluators will discuss the crew’s performance with the NRC 

examiners after each scenario to clarify any performance deficiencies that have 

been noted. The examination team will determine whether the as-run scenario 

has invalidated any predesignated CTs or whether any new CTs should be 

designated to evaluate unpredicted events or actions taken by the crew during the 

scenario. The examination team will then revalidate the CTs in each scenario, 

using the methodology presented in Appendix D.

f. After the crew completes the last scenario, the NRC examiners and facility 

evaluators will independently complete Form ES-604-2, “Simulator Crew 

Evaluation Form,” as discussed in Section E. The facility evaluators will also 

evaluate individual operator performance in accordance with their requalification 

program requirements and Section E.2. In addition, the NRC examiners will

review the facility’s evaluations of individual operator’s performance after

completing each crew evaluation.

E. Performance Evaluations

Two separate evaluations will be conducted based on the information obtained during the 

dynamic simulator examination. The first is a crew simulator evaluation. For the 

second, the examination team uses individual simulator performance to determine 

whether follow-up questioning of the operator is necessary. The examination team may 

conclude that, after observing the operator’s performance in the dynamic simulator and 

evaluating the responses to follow-up questions, additional performance information 

about the operator must be obtained to make an individual evaluation. In this case, an

additional scenario or JPM would be conducted. The individual follow-up would then be 

documented along with the individual’s crew evaluation on Form ES-601-5, “Individual 

Requalification Examination Report.”

Each operator will be subject to failure based on a competency evaluation of his or her 

performance on the dynamic simulator and the required follow-up evaluation, if he or she 

exhibited deficient performance in executing a crew CT.

1. Crew Simulator Evaluations

After administering the dynamic simulator scenario set as discussed in Section D, the

NRC examiners and facility evaluators will independently evaluate the crew’s

performance by completing Form ES-604-2. The facility is expected to provide its final

crew evaluations to the NRC examiners before the crew members return to licensed 

duties or the end of the examination week, whichever is sooner. Specific guidance for

completing Form ES-604-2 appears on the first page of the form.

The results of the crew evaluations will be factored into each individual’s examination 

results and the facility requalification program evaluation. Members of a crew that

receive an unsatisfactory crew evaluation are expected to receive remedial training from
ES-604, Page 7 of 19

the facility licensee and to be reevaluated in accordance with the facility licensee’s

NRC-approved requalification program before returning to licensed duties. Although

operators are not required to take an NRC-conducted requalification examination for

purposes of license renewal, those who fail to pass (individually or as a member of a crew) 

an examination conducted by the NRC must be reevaluated by the NRC before their

license will be renewed. The level of NRC involvement during the reevaluation will be

determined on a case-by-case basis. (Refer to Section F.1 of ES-601, “Conducting NRC 

Requalification Examinations.”)

NRC examiners will document the results of each operator’s crew performance in the

“Simulator Examination Results” section of Form ES-601-5.

2. Individual Operating Evaluations

Individual operating evaluations on the dynamic simulator examination and the resulting 

remedial training are primarily the responsibility of the facility licensee. Unsatisfactory 

operator performance of a crew CT will be followed up after the simulator scenario and

documented on Form ES-601-5.

Facility evaluators are expected to document and grade individual operator performance 

during the dynamic simulator examination in accordance with the requirements of the

facility licensee’s requalification program. The NRC expects the facility’s grading

methodology to identify operator deficiencies. The NRC also expects the facility

evaluators to discuss those deficiencies with the NRC examiners during the meetings 

after the scenarios as described in Section D, and to document the deficiencies and 

remediate and retest the operators for the identified deficiencies in accordance with the 

facility licensee’s requalification training program. At a minimum, the NRC expects the 

facility evaluators to identify any operator on the crew who was directly responsible for the 

omission or incorrect performance of validated CTs.

Individual follow-up is conducted if an operator has significant performance deficiencies 

linked to a CT. As described in Section D.2.b of this examination standard, the NRC 

examiner will assist in developing and administering follow-up questions specific to the

deficiencies that the operator displayed in performing the CT. The examination team will

determine the number and scope of the follow-up questions that will be asked based on a 

review of the operator’s deficiencies at the completion of the scenario. The examination 

team has the option to gather additional information about an operator who displays 

performance deficiencies while attempting CTs, by either running an additional scenario 

or using JPMs, if the dynamic simulator examination and follow-up questioning are 

inconclusive.

Upon completion of the individual follow-up questions, the NRC examiner will complete an

individual competency evaluation using the appropriate sections of Form ES-604-2 or the 

facility’s equivalent form. Only those competencies that deal with the operator’s

individual performance deficiencies should be filled out. If the NRC examiner gives the

operator a rating factor score of “1” in either of the following cases, the individual fails this 

portion of the examination:

• any two rating factors in any one competency

• any one rating factor in any one competency if, in the judgment of the examination 

team, the operator’s performance deficiency jeopardizes the safety of the plant or has 
ES-604, Page 8 of 19

significant safety impact on the public. (NRC management will make the final 

decision concerning all operator failures resulting from a single rating factor evaluation 

of “1.”)

When conducting the evaluation described herein, NRC examiners will not assign rating

factor scores of “1” based solely on performance in the dynamic simulator. Follow-up

questions will be asked and the operator’s responses will be recorded to evaluate and 

document the knowledge or ability deficiency linked to the performance of a CT.

The NRC examiner will then apply the individual’s responses to the questions asked to

evaluate and justify individual performance deficiencies that warrant a rating factor score 

of “1.” The examiner will document and include the follow-up questions asked and the 

responses given by the operator. Written comments describing the operator’s

performance and the as-run simulator scenario set will be included with the results of the

operator’s simulator examination.

The NRC examiner will document the pass or fail determination for each operator’s

individual follow-up under “Individual Follow-up” in the “Simulator Examination Results”

section of Form ES-601-5, “Individual Requalification Examination Report.”

If an operator demonstrates no performance deficiencies and, therefore, does not require 

any additional follow-up questioning, regardless of whether the crew passes or fails the

dynamic simulator examination, the NRC examiner will record an “N/A” for “Individual

Follow-up” in the “Simulator Examination Results” section of Form ES-601-5.

F. Attachments/Forms

Form ES-604-1 Simulator Scenario Review Checklist

Form ES-604-2 Simulator Crew Evaluation Form
ES-604, Page 9 of 19

ES-604 Simulator Scenario Review Checklist Form ES-604-1

Note: Attach a separate copy of this form to each scenario reviewed. The examination team uses this form

as guidance as they conduct their review of the proposed scenarios.

SCENARIO IDENTIFIER: REVIEWER: 

Qualitative Attributes

 1. The scenario summary clearly states the objectives of the scenario.

 2. The initial conditions are realistic, in that some equipment and/or instrumentation may

be out of service, but it does not cue the crew to expected events.

 3. The scenario consists mostly of related events.

 4. Each event description consists of:

• the point in the scenario when it is to be initiated

• the malfunction(s) that are entered to initiate the event

• the symptoms/cues that will be visible to the crew

• the expected operator actions (by shift position)

• the event termination point

 5. No more than one nonmechanistic failure (e.g., pipe break) is incorporated into the

scenario without a credible preceding incident such as a seismic event.

 6. The events are valid with regard to physics and thermodynamics.

 7. Sequencing/timing of events is reasonable, and allows the examination team to obtain 

complete evaluation results commensurate with the scenario objectives.

 8. If time compression techniques are used, the scenario summary clearly so indicates. 

Operators have sufficient time to carry out expected activities without undue time

constraints. Cues are given.

 9. The simulator modeling is not altered.

 10. All crew competencies can be evaluated.

 11. The scenario has been validated.
ES-604, Page 10 of 19

ES-604 2 Form ES-604-1

Simulator Scenario Review Checklist (Continued)

Note: The “Quantitative Attributes” criteria address scenario traits that are numerical in nature. A second 

set of numbers indicates a range to be met for a set of two scenarios. Therefore, to complete this 

part of the review, the set of scenarios must be available. This page should be completed once per 

scenario set.

Scenario Set Consists of Scenario and Scenario 

Quantitative Attributes

 12. If the sampling plan indicates that the scenario was used for training during the 

requalification cycle, the need to modify or replace the scenario has been evaluated

 13. Total malfunctions inserted: 5 to 8 / 10 to 14

 14. Malfunctions that occur after EOP entry: 1 to 4 / 3 to 6

 15. Abnormal events: 2 to 3 / 4 to 5

 16. Major transients: 1 to 2 / 2 to 3

 17. EOPs used beyond primary scram response EOP: 1 to 3 / 3 to 5

 18. EOP contingency procedures used: 0 to 3 / 1 to 3

 19. Approximate scenario run time: 45 to 60 minutes (one scenario may approach 90

minutes)

 20. EOP run time: 40 to 70 percent of scenario run time

 21. Crew critical tasks: 2 to 5 / 5 to 8

 22. Technical specifications are exercised during the test

COMMENTS: 

 

 

 
ES-604, Page 11 of 19

ES-604 Simulator Crew Evaluation Form Form ES-604-2

The examination team should use this evaluation form during the dynamic simulator component 

of the requalification examination. The rating scales on this form are for evaluating the crew as a 

whole, rather than the individual operators. Use the following instructions when rating team

performance on the simulator examination:

1. Review the rating scales before the simulator examination so that you are familiar with

each competency to be evaluated.

2. Use Form ES-D-2, “Required Operator Actions,” or an equivalent facility form to make

notes during the examination, as described in Appendix D and ES-302, “Administering 

Operating Tests to Initial License Applicants.”

3. Complete this form immediately after the simulator examination. Evaluate the crew’s

performance on each applicable rating factor by comparing the actions of the crew against 

the associated behavioral anchors and selecting the appropriate grade. The tasks 

planned and performed during the crew’s scenario set may not permit you to evaluate 

every rating factor for every crew. Annotate those rating factors that are not used in the 

evaluation.

The examination team should pay particular attention to the completion of tasks that they

identified as critical to plant safety. The crew may compensate for actions that individual 

operators performed incorrectly, as long as the critical task was completed satisfactorily. 

Other less-significant deficiencies should also be accounted for in the rating factor 

evaluations to provide a source of information for crew remedial training during

subsequent requalification training.

4. Justify all rating factor grades of “1,” and document each justification in the space for

“Comments” on the form. Rating factor grades of “1” must be linked to the performance 

of at least one critical task.

5. Complete the examination summary sheet, recording for each scenario, the scenario 

name (or identifier), and the critical tasks performed by the crew. Annotate whether the

critical task was performed satisfactorily or unsatisfactorily. Complete the crew’s overall 

evaluation using the criteria listed in the next paragraph. Space is provided for additional 

comments about the crew’s performance.

6. The threshold for failing the simulator portion of the examination is to receive a (behavioral 

anchor) score of “1” in either of the following:

a. any two rating factors in any one competency

b. any one rating factor in any one competency if, in the judgment of the examination 

team, the crew’s performance deficiency jeopardizes the safety of the plant or has 

significant safety impact on the public. (NRC management will make the final 

decision concerning all crew failures resulting from a single rating factor evaluation 

of “1.”)
ES-604, Page 12 of 19

ES-604 2 Form ES-604-2

Simulator Examination Summary Sheet

Facility: _______________________ Examination Date: _________________

Overall Dynamic Simulator Crew Evaluation: SAT or UNSAT

Crew Members Docket No. Scenario #1 Scenario #2

Position Position

1. _____________________ 55-_________ _____________ _____________

2. _____________________ 55-_________ _____________ _____________

3. _____________________ 55-_________ _____________ _____________

4_____________________ 55-_________ _____________ _____________

5. _____________________ 55-_________ _____________ _____________

6. _____________________ 55-_________ _____________ _____________

Scenario #1: [Enter scenario descriptor]

Crew Critical Tasks SAT UNSAT

1. [Enter critical task descriptor]

2.

3.

4.

5.

Scenario #2:

Crew Critical Tasks SAT UNSAT

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Comments:
ES-604, Page 13 of 19

ES-604 3 Form ES-604-2

Diagnosis of Events and Conditions Based on Signals or Readings

Did the crew:

(a) Recognize off-normal trends and status?

3

Recognized status and

trends quickly and

accurately.

2

Recognized status and

trends at the time of, but 

not before, exceeding 

established limits.

1

Did not recognize adverse 

status and trends, even

after alarms and 

annunciators sounded.

(b) Use information and reference material (prints, books, charts, emergency plan 

implementation procedures) to aid in diagnosing and classifying events and conditions?

3

Made accurate diagnosis 

by using information and

reference material 

correctly and in a timely 

manner.

2

Committed minor errors in

using or interpreting 

information and reference 

material.

1

Failed to use, misused, or 

misinterpreted information 

or reference material that 

resulted in improper 

diagnosis.

(c) Correctly diagnose plant conditions based on control room indications?

3

Performed timely and

accurate diagnosis.

2

Committed minor errors or

had minor difficulties in

making diagnosis.

1

Made incorrect diagnosis, 

which resulted in incorrect 

manipulation of any safety 

control.

Grade for diagnosis of events and conditions based on signals and readings: SAT or UNSAT

Comments: __________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________
ES-604, Page 14 of 19

ES-604 4 Form ES-604-2

Understanding of Plant and System Responses

Did the crew:

(a) Locate and interpret control room indications correctly and efficiently to ascertain and

verify the status and operation of plant systems?

3

Each crew member located 

and interpreted 

instruments or displays 

accurately and efficiently.

2

Some crew members 

committed minor errors in

locating or interpreting 

instruments or displays. 

Some crew members 

required assistance.

1

The crew members made 

serious omissions, delays, 

or errors in interpreting 

safety-related parameters.

(b) Demonstrate an understanding of the manner in which the plant, systems, and

components operate, including setpoints, interlocks, and automatic actions?

3

Crew members 

demonstrated thorough 

understanding of how 

systems and components 

operate.

2

The crew committed minor 

errors because of 

incomplete knowledge of

the operation of the system 

or component. Some crew 

members required 

assistance.

1

Inadequate knowledge of

safety system or 

component operation 

resulted in serious 

mistakes or plant 

degradation.

(c) Demonstrate an understanding of how their actions (or inaction) affected systems and

plant conditions?

3

All members understood 

the effect that actions or

directives had on the plant 

and systems.

2

Actions or directives 

indicated minor 

inaccuracies in individuals’

understanding, but the 

crew corrected the actions.

1

The crew appeared to act 

without knowledge of or

with disregard for the

effects on plant safety.

Grade on understanding of the response of plant and systems: SAT or UNSAT

Comments: __________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________
ES-604, Page 15 of 19

ES-604 5 Form ES-604-2

Adherence to and Use of Procedures

Did the crew:

(a) Refer to and/or verify the appropriate procedures in a timely manner?

3

The crew used procedures 

as required and knew what

conditions were covered by 

procedures and where to 

find them.

2

The crew committed minor

failures to refer to and/or 

verify procedures without 

prompting, which affected 

the plant’s status.

1

The crew failed to correctly 

refer to and/or verify 

procedure(s) when 

required, resulting in faulty 

safety system operation.

(b) Correctly implement procedures, including following procedural steps in correct 

sequence, abiding by cautions and limitations, selecting correct paths on decision blocks, 

and transitioning between procedures when required?

3

The crew followed the

procedural steps 

accurately and in a timely 

manner, demonstrating a

thorough understanding of 

the procedural purposes 

and bases.

2

The crew misapplied 

procedures in minor 

instances, but made 

corrections in sufficient 

time to avoid adverse 

effects.

1

The crew failed to follow 

procedures correctly, 

which impeded recovery 

from events or caused 

unnecessary degradation 

in the safety of the plant.

(c) Recognize AOP/EOP entry conditions and perform appropriate actions without the aid of

references or other forms of assistance?

3

The crew recognized plant

conditions and 

implemented AOP/EOPs 

consistently, accurately, 

and in a timely manner.

2

The crew had minor lapses 

or errors. Individual crew 

members needed 

assistance from others to

implement procedures.

1

The crew failed to

accurately recognize 

degraded plant 

condition(s) or execute 

efficient mitigating 

action(s), even with the use 

of aids.

Grade on adherence to and use of procedures: SAT or UNSAT

Comments:___________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________
ES-604, Page 16 of 19

ES-604 6 Form ES-604-2

Operate Plant Component Controls

Did the crew:

(a) Locate controls efficiently and accurately?

3

Individual operators 

located controls and

indications without

hesitation.

2

One or more operators 

hesitated or had difficulty in 

locating controls.

1

The crew failed to locate 

control(s), which 

jeopardized system(s) 

important to safety.

(b) Manipulate controls in an accurate and timely manner?

3

The crew manipulated 

plant controls smoothly 

and maintained 

parameters within 

specified bounds.

2

The crew demonstrated 

minor shortcomings in

manipulating controls, but 

recovered from errors 

without causing problems.

1

The crew made mistakes 

manipulating control(s) that 

caused safety system 

transients and related 

problems.

(c) Take manual control of automatic functions, when appropriate?

3

All operators took control 

and smoothly operated 

automatic systems 

manually, without 

assistance, thereby 

averting adverse events.

2

Some operators delayed or 

required prompting before 

overriding or operating 

automatic functions, but 

avoided plant transients 

where possible.

1

The crew failed to manually 

control automatic systems 

important to safety, even

when ample time and

indications existed.

Grade on operation of plant component controls: SAT or UNSAT

Comments: __________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________
ES-604, Page 17 of 19

____________________________________________________________________________

ES-604 7 Form ES-604-2

Crew Operations

Did the crew membersC

(a) Maintain a command role?

3

The crew took early 

remedial action when

necessary.

2

In minor instances, the

crew failed to take action 

within a reasonable period 

of time.

1

The crew failed to take

timely action, which

resulted in the deterioration 

of plant conditions.

(b) Provide timely, well-planned directions to each other that facilitated their performance and

demonstrated appropriate concern for the safety of the plant, staff, and public?

3

Supervisor’s directives 

allowed for safe and

integrated performance by

all crew members.

2

In minor instances, the 

supervisors gave orders 

that were incorrect, trivial, 

or difficult to implement.

1

The supervisor’s

directive(s) inhibited safe 

crew performance. Crew 

members had to explain 

why order(s) could not or

should not be followed.

(c) Maintain control during the scenario with an appropriate amount of direction and guidance 

from the crew’s supervisors?

3

Crew members stayed 

involved without creating a

distraction, the crew 

members anticipated each 

other’s needs, and the 

supervisors provided 

guidance when necessary.

2

Crew members had to 

solicit assistance from 

supervisors or each other, 

interfering with their ability 

to carry out critical 

action(s).

1

Crew members had to 

repeatedly request 

guidance. The crew failed 

to verify successful 

accomplishment of orders.

Crew Operations Continued on Next Page
ES-604, Page 18 of 19

ES-604 8 Form ES-604-2

Crew Operations (Continued)

Did the crew membersC

(d) Use a team approach to problem solving and decision making by soliciting and

incorporating relevant information from all crew members?

3

Crew members were 

involved in the problem 

solving and decision 

making processes for

effective team decision

making.

2

At times, crew members 

failed to get involved in the 

decision making process 

when they should have, 

detracting from the 

team-oriented approach.

1

The crew was not involved 

in making decision(s). 

The crew was divided over 

the scenario’s progress, 

and this behavior was 

counterproductive.

Grade on crew operations: SAT or UNSAT

Comments: __________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________
ES-604, Page 19 of 19

____________________________________________________________________________

ES-604 9 Form ES-604-2

Communications

Did the crew:

(a) Exchange complete and relevant information in a clear, accurate, and attentive manner?

3

Crew members provided 

relevant and accurate 

information to each other.

2

Crew communications 

were generally complete

and accurate, but

sometimes needed 

prompting, or the crew 

failed to acknowledge the

completion of evolutions, 

or to respond to 

information from others.

1

Crew members did not 

inform each other of

abnormal indication(s) or 

action(s). Crew members 

were inattentive when

important information was

requested.

(b) Keep key personnel outside the control room informed of plant status?

3

Crew members provided

key personnel outside the 

control room with accurate, 

relevant information 

throughout the scenarios.

2

In minor instances, the

crew needed to be 

prompted for information 

and/or provided some 

incomplete/inaccurate 

information.

1

The crew failed to provide 

needed information.

(c) Ensure receipt of clear, easily understood communications from the crew and others?

3

The crew requested 

information/clarification 

when necessary and

understood 

communications from

others.

2

In minor instances, the

crew failed to request or 

acknowledge information 

from others.

1

The crew failed to request 

needed information, or was 

inattentive when 

information was provided; 

serious misunderstandings 

occurred among crew

members.

Grade on communications: SAT or UNSAT

Comments:___________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________

ES-605, Page 1 of 12

ES-605

LICENSE MAINTENANCE, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATIONS,

AND REQUESTS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS AND HEARINGS

A. Purpose

This standard provides guidelines for maintaining an NRC operator’s license and the procedures 

for processing license renewal applications, licensed operators’ requests for administrative 

reviews and hearings in connection with failures of NRC-conducted requalification examinations, 

and denials of applications for license renewal.

B. Background

The renewal license application differs in some respects from the initial license application. The

staff developed this standard to establish the procedures for processing operators’ renewal 

applications and requests for administrative reviews and hearings regarding the denial of renewal 

applications resulting from failures of NRC-conducted requalification examinations.

C. License Maintenance

1. Requalification Training and Testing

a. Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 55.53(h) imposes a condition 

that requires licensed operators to complete a requalification program as 

described by 10 CFR 55.59; “Requalification”. The requirement applies to all 

operators, even if they do not maintain watch-standing proficiency under 10 CFR 

55.53(e). Regulations in 10 CFR 55.59(a)(1) require licensed operators to 

successfully complete a requalification program that is conducted for a continuous 

period not to exceed 24 months in duration. Under 10 CFR 55.59(c)(1), the 

facility licensee is required to conduct the requalification program for a continuous 

period not to exceed 2 years. 

To keep from exceeding the 24 month / 2 year duration requirement, a 

requalification program must be completed within the anniversary month of the 

second year. For example, if a licensed operator requalification program was 

started on June 1, 2008, the facility licensee would have until June 30, 2010, to 

complete their program to ensure compliance with 10 CFR 55.59(a)(1) and (c)(1).

Under 10 CFR 55.59(a)(2), each licensed operator must pass a comprehensive 

requalification written examination and an annual operating test as part of the

24-month requalification program, therefore, the exam must occur during the 

requalification program, rather than after its completion. Although the 

comprehensive written examinations are generally conducted on the same 

24-month frequency, their timing can be adjusted somewhat near the end of the 

24-month program to account for outages and other events, thereby resulting in 

some longer testing intervals if an examination is advanced during one 24-month 

program cycle and returned to its normal timing during the following cycle. Thus, 

the interval between the administrations of successive comprehensive written 

requalification examinations may exceed 24 months for individual licensed 

operators. As long as a licensed operator successfully completes the facility 
ES-605, Page 2 of 12

licensee’s Commission-approved requalification program, including its required 

comprehensive written examination, within 24 months, as required per 10 CFR 

55.59 (a)(1), the operator’s comprehensive written requalification examination can 

be administered more than 24 calendar months from the administration of his or her 

last comprehensive written examination without requesting an exemption in

accordance with 10 CFR 55.11.

For example, consider a licensed operator who took a comprehensive 

requalification written examination on August 18, 2002, for a facility licensee 

requalification training program that ran for 24 months according to 10 CFR 

55.59(a)(1) and 10 CFR 55.59(c) from October 1, 2000, through September 30, 

2002. If that operator’s next comprehensive requalification written examination is

scheduled for September 27, 2004, the operator will exceed 24 calendar months 

between successive comprehensive requalification written examinations and the 

licensed operator is still in compliance with 10 CFR 55.59(a)(1) and (2) and 

55.59(c). The licensed operator will have successfully completed two 

consecutive requalification training programs, including comprehensive written 

examinations, within the 24-month requalification program time limit according to 

10 CFR 55.59(a)(1) and 55.59(c).

b. Newly licensed operators must enter the requalification training and examination 

program promptly upon receiving their licenses. As they just passed the initial 

licensing examination and have received none of the requalification training, new 

operators may be excused from taking any annual operating test or 

comprehensive written examination that is scheduled to be administered during 

the first requalification training cycle (nominally, lasting about 6 weeks) in which 

the operator participates. However, operators who complete one or more training 

cycles before the scheduled annual test or comprehensive examination should 

take the test and/or examination to ensure that they do not exceed the allowed 

testing intervals.

c. If the requirements of 10 CFR 55.59(a) (a) (1) and (2) are not met, the Commission 

may require the licensee to complete additional training per 10 CFR 55.59(b) and 

to submit evidence to the Commission of successful completion of this training 

before returning to licensed duties. The following are the most frequent examples 

of extenuating circumstances which result in suspension in the requalification 

program:

• temporary assignment to INPO,

• participation in a foreign interchange program,

• college attendance, and

• military assignment

The licensee should notify the regional office when any licensed operator is 

suspended from the requalification program with the details of the plan to ensure 

the operator’s qualifications and status are acceptable prior to resuming licensed 

duties.
ES-605, Page 3 of 12

The regional office will confirm its expectations regarding the operator’s return to 

licensed duties and the need for the facility licensee to certify when the actions 

have been completed per 10 CFR 55.59(b). This will be documented in a letter to 

the facility licensee with a copy to the operator.

2. Proficiency Watches

a. In accordance with 10 CFR 55.53(e), to maintain an active status, licensed 

operators are required to maintain their proficiency by “actively performing the 

functions of an operator or senior operator” on at least seven 8-hour or five 12-hour 

shifts per calendar quarter. This requirement may be completed with a 

combination of complete 8- and 12-hour shifts (in a position appropriately credited 

for watch-standing proficiency as discussed below) at sites having a mixed shift 

schedule, and watches shall not be truncated when the operator satisfies the 

minimum quarterly requirement (56 hours). Overtime may be credited if the 

overtime work is in a position appropriately credited for watch-standing proficiency. 

Overtime as an extra “helper” after the official watch has been turned over to 

another watchstander does not count toward proficiency time.

b. In accordance with 10 CFR 55.4,”Definitions, ”Actively performing the functions of

an operator or senior operator means that an individual has a position on the shift 

crew that requires the individual to be licensed as defined in the facility's technical 

specifications, and that the individual carries out and is responsible for the duties 

covered by that position." Watch-standing proficiency credit may also be 

appropriate for certain licensed RO or SRO shift crew positions that are in excess 

of those required by a facility's technical specifications. However, in order to 

credit watch-standing proficiency for such excess positions, the facility licensee 

should have in place the following procedural administrative controls:

(1) A list of all the licensed shift crew positions, including title, description of 

duties, and indication of which positions are required by technical 

specifications.

(2) For shift crew positions in excess of those required by technical 

specifications, a description of how the position is meaningfully and fully 

engaged in the functions and duties of the analogous minimum licensed 

position(s) required by technical specifications. For example, a dual unit 

facility with a common control room where technical specifications require 

two SROs per shift, could credit watch-standing proficiency for three SROs 

per shift, with one SRO responsible for overall plant operation, and the

other two SROs each responsible for the command and control of a single 

unit. In this case, the third SRO would be entitled to watch- standing 

proficiency credit, because he or she is performing duties analogous to the 

second SRO (who is required by technical specifications). Similarly, a 

dual unit facility with a common control room could credit watch-standing

proficiency for four ROs (two per unit) per shift, at a facility where technical 

specifications require only three ROs, if the fourth RO is performing duties 

analogous to the third RO (who is required by technical specifications).

If a facility cannot justify, as explained above, crediting watch-standing 

proficiency for shift crew positions in excess of technical specifications, or 

does not implement administrative controls as described above, an 
ES-605, Page 4 of 12

individual who stands watch in an excess position shall not receive 

proficiency credit. In order to maintain an active license under such 

circumstances, each licensed individual would have to rotate into a 

licensed shift crew position required by technical specifications for the 

minimum of seven 8-hour or five 12-hour shifts per calendar quarter, with 

sufficient administrative controls to document those activities.

Facility licensees that are uncertain whether shift crew positions in excess 

of those required by technical specifications qualify for watch-standing 

proficiency credit should contact their NRC regional office.

c. It is permissible for an individual with an SRO license to maintain only the RO

portion of his or her license in an active state by performing the functions of an RO 

for a minimum of seven 8-hour or five 12-hour shifts per calendar quarter under 10 

CFR 55.53(e). Moreover, an inactive SRO may reactivate only the RO portion of 

his or her license, under 10 CFR 55.53(f)(2), by completing a minimum of 40 hours 

of shift functions, including a plant tour, under the direction of an operator and in 

the position to which the individual will be assigned. However, the fact that an 

SRO license holder is routinely standing watches only as an RO does not maintain 

his or her proficiency as an SRO. Therefore, before such an SRO can resume 

duties that require an SRO license, he or she must reactivate that portion of the 

license, under 10 CFR 55.53(f)(2), by completing a minimum of 40 hours of shift 

functions, including a plant tour, under the direction of a senior operator and in the 

SRO position to which the individual will be assigned.

d. To maintain the supervisory portion of a SRO license active, a SRO must stand at 

least one complete watch (8- or 12-hour shift) per calendar quarter in a shift crew 

position credited for SRO-only supervisory licensed duties. The remainder of 

complete watches (to meet the required minimum of seven 8-hour or five 12-hour 

shifts per calendar quarter) may be performed in either a credited SRO or RO 

position. A SRO may stand all of his or her required watches in credited 

SRO-only supervisory positions, and the RO portion of the license will still be 

considered active. Similarly, for a SRO to reactivate the supervisory portion of his 

or her license SRO,under 10 CFR 55.53(f)(2), a SRO must complete a minimum of 

40 hours of shift functions, including a plant tour, under the direction of a SRO in a 

credited SRO-only supervisory position. A SRO who reactivates his or her 

license in this manner automatically reactivates the RO portion of the license; an 

additional 40 hours of under-direction watches in a credited RO position is not 

required.

e. Individuals who are licensed on two (or more) similar units at a facility are not 

required to establish proficiency on each of the similar units unless they hold a 

separate license on each unit. Performing the required seven 8-hour or five 

12-hour shifts of watch-standing per calendar quarter on a single unit maintains

the license active for all similar units identified on the license. Similarly, 

individuals who are licensed on two (or more) similar units at a facility are not

required to reactivate their license on each of the similar units identified on the 

license. Performing the required 40 hours of under-direction watches on a single 

unit reactivates the license for all similar units at a facility.

f. In addition to the under-direction watch requirements discussed above, the 

following provides clarification under license reactivation, 10 CFR 55.53(f):
ES-605, Page 5 of 12

• The 40 hours of under-direction watches required by 10 CFR 55.53(f)(2) shall 

only be credited for standing watches in a RO or SRO position appropriately 

credited for maintaining license proficiency. It is not appropriate to credit 

reactivation watch hours while under the direction of an active license holder 

who is standing watch in an “extra” or non-credited position.

• When performing under-direction watches, only one under-direction 

watchstander shall be assigned to an active license holder. Given that the 

inactive operator is required to complete (not just observe) 40 hours of shift 

functions, it would not be appropriate to divide under-direction watch functions 

among multiple individuals.

• The 40 hours of under-direction watches for license reactivation do not need to 

occur in complete shifts or be completed on consecutive days. All 40 hours 

should occur within a reasonable time frame (e.g., 30 days), and at least one 

complete on-coming shift turnover and one complete off-going shift turnover 

must be performed while under the direction of the active license holder. 

Once all the requirements for license reactivation have been completed, the 

license is considered active for the remainder of the current calendar quarter, 

with proficiency watches (i.e., seven 8-hour or five 12-hour shifts) required to 

maintain the license active during subsequent calendar quarters.

• The 40 hours of under-direction watches do not need to occur in the control 

room; they may be performed wherever the duties of the credited licensed 

position are performed.

• The 40 hours of under-direction watches must include at least one complete 

plant tour. Since it is a part of the 40 hours of under-direction watches, the 

plant tour must be performed under the direction of an active license holder. 

Although the regulations do not define the scope of a complete plant tour, the 

NRC expects that this tour will include all readily accessible major areas of the 

plant that are routinely toured by in-plant operators that contain safety related 

equipment. If a facility has developed a checklist of areas to tour, it is 

generally inappropriate to skip plant areas and mark the items as 

“non-applicable,” unless there is sufficient justification (e.g., personnel or 

radiation hazard).

g. Senior operators limited to fuel handling under 55.53(c) (LSRO) would generally 

be unable to be active as defined in meet 55.53(e). Therefore, under 10 CFR 

55.53(f), an authorized representative of the facility licensee must certify that, 

among other things, the LSRO has completed one shift under direction of an active 

senior operator prior to resuming activities authorized by the license. Ideally, 

such a watch should be performed primarily in the fuel handling area during 

refueling operations [i.e., at a time when the presence of a senior operator is

required under 10 CFR 50.54(m)(2)(iv)]. This would clearly meet the

requirements of 10 CFR 55.53(f)(2), which mandates that the licensee must

complete one shift of shift functions under the direction of a senior operator in the

position to which the licensee will be assigned, as well as the definition of actively 

perform the functions of a senior operator (in 10 CFR 55.4), which requires that the 

licensee must fill a position on the shift crew that requires the individual to be 

licensed and to carry out and be responsible for the duties covered by that 

position. This also ensures that the trainee’s activities are adequately supervised.
ES-605, Page 6 of 12

However, given the infrequency and short duration of shift functions that require

the presence of an LSRO on the refueling floor, it may not always be practical for a 

facility licensee to delay its LSRO reactivations until those shift functions are 

actually underway. In such instances, the facility licensee can satisfy the intent of 

the regulation by implementing a reactivation program that specifies, in detail, the 

refueling tasks, activities, and procedures that an LSRO must satisfactorily 

complete or simulate in order to demonstrate watch-standing proficiency.

To properly reactivate an LSRO license in accordance with 10 CFR 55.53(f), the

individual should stand a watch under the direction and in the presence of an active

SRO or LSRO, who will directly oversee the trainee’s activities and enable an 

authorized representative of the facility licensee to certify that the operator’s

qualifications are current and valid, as required by 10 CFR 55.53(f)(1). The NRC’s

requirements regarding the conduct of under-instruction or training watches are 

reflected in 10 CFR 55.13, which allows trainees to manipulate the controls of a 

facility “under the direction and in the presence of a licensed operator or senior 

operator “. Responses to Questions 252 and 276 in NUREG-1262, “Answers to 

Questions at Public Meetings Regarding Implementation of Title 10, Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 55 on Operators’ Licenses,” state that a trainee’s activities are to 

be closely monitored by the responsible person.

If a facility licensee needs to reactivate a regular SRO license as an LSRO (strictly 

for the purpose of supervising refueling activities), the operator must complete one 

shift under direction performing refueling activities, as discussed above, and the 

facility licensee must ensure that the operator is administratively restricted from 

performing full SRO duties.

If a facility licensee is unable to comply with the LSRO license reactivation 

requirements in 10 CFR 55.53(f)(2) despite the clarifications discussed above, the

licensee may, under 10 CFR 55.11, “Specific Exemptions,” request an exemption 

from the requirements in 10 CFR 55.53(e) and propose alternative criteria for 

maintaining active LSRO licenses. The Commission may grant such exemptions 

from the regulatory requirements as it determines are authorized by law and will 

not endanger life or property and are otherwise in the public interest. Such 

requests should provide the following information:

• the reason why the facility licensee is unable to comply with the requirements 

of 10 CFR 55.53(f)(2), as clarified above, for reactivating its LSRO licenses to 

supervise fuel handling

• the nature of the fuel handling activities that a licensee will have to complete in

order to remain “active” and an explanation how those activities would maintain 

proficiency to supervise actual core alterations (identify those activities that 

must be performed and those that may be simulated and how the simulation 

will be accomplished)

• the minimum duration and frequency of the fuel handling activities required to 

remain “active”

• the nature, duration, and frequency of the training related to fuel handling that

is given to its licensed fuel handlers
ES-605, Page 7 of 12

3. Medical Standards

In accordance with Subpart C, “Medical Requirements,” and Section 55.33(a)(1) of 10

CFR Part 55, “Operators’ Licenses”, the medical condition and general health of licensed 

operators must be such that it will not adversely affect the performance of assigned 

operator duties or cause operational errors that might endanger public health and safety. 

Therefore, licensed operators must be examined by a physician and determined to be fit 

every 2 years (measured from the date of the last physical examination, rather than the

date of licensing), and, under 10 CFR 55.57(a)(6), their fitness must be certified on NRC

Form 396 every time the license is renewed. As noted on NRC Form 396, the physician 

and facility licensee may use either the 1983 or the 1996 version of ANSI/ANS-3.4, 

“Medical Certification and Monitoring of Personnel Requiring Operator Licenses for 

Nuclear Power Plants,” when making their fitness determinations. Both versions of the 

standard include provisions for those cases in which the operator can demonstrate 

complete capacity to perform licensed duties, and conditional licenses for those cases in 

which compensatory measures may be required to ensure public health and safety (refer 

to Section C.3.c below). However, in both cases, the examining physician and facility 

licensee must submit a recommendation and supporting evidence, on or with NRC Form 

396, to enable the NRC to make a licensing decision.

a. If, during the term of the license, an operator is temporarily unable to meet medical 

standards but is expected to meet those standards again in the future, the facility 

licensee may administratively classify that operator’s license as “inactive” or 

require compensatory measures, such as taking any medications as prescribed 

during the temporary period to maintain medical qualifications, or impose other

operating restrictions to accommodate the operator’s medical condition until the 

operator is once again certified to meet all medical standards by the facility 

licensee. Similarly, if the operator’s medical condition precludes the operator 

from completing the requalification training program under 10 CFR 55.59(a), the

facility licensee shall administratively control the operator’s activities until he or she

completes the requirements of 10 CFR 55.59(b), “Additional Training,” including 

notification of the NRC.

The facility licensee need not notify the NRC nor request a conditional license 

concerning an operator’s temporary disability, including the temporary use of 

prescribed medications, provided that the facility licensee administratively 

prevents the operator from performing licensed duties or otherwise compensates 

for or restricts the operator, as appropriate, throughout the period of his or her 

temporary disability. If the disability extends beyond the date of license 

expiration, the operator may apply for timely license renewal in accordance with 10 

CFR 55.55(b) and 10 CFR 55.57(a). In that event, the facility licensee should 

document the nature of the operator’s temporary disability on the medical 

certificate and submit a revised certificate to the NRC after the physician 

determines that the operator meets the requirements of 10 CFR 55.33(a)(1). The 

NRC will not renew the operator’s license until the staff finds that all of the 

conditions specified in 10 CFR 55.57(b) are satisfied.

b. If the facility licensee determines that an operator’s medical condition is

permanently disqualifying in accordance with ANSI/ANS-3.4, the facility licensee 

shall notify the NRC within 30 days of learning of the diagnosis (see 10 CFR 50.74, 

“Notification of Change in Operator or Senior Operator Status” and 55.25, 

“Incapacitation because of Disability of Illness”). If an operator develops a 
ES-605, Page 8 of 12

permanent medical condition that is not identified in ANSI/ANS-3.4, but the 

examining physician believes that it could affect the operator's performance or 

cause operator errors, then it would be prudent to report the condition to the NRC 

or at least contact the NRC to inquire if the condition should be reported.

While most of the medical conditions/disabilities identified in ANSI/ANS-3.4, 

including those that result in failure to meet the minimum requirements for medical 

qualification, are likely to be permanent, the examining physician is responsible for 

evaluating each operator's medical condition on a case-by-case basis and 

assessing whether the operator will be capable of meeting medical standards in 

the foreseeable future. For example, the facility licensee should report to the 

NRC a condition for an operator who takes medication to meet the minimum

standard for blood pressure (i.e., less than or equal to 160/100 mmHg), unless the 

physician has reasonably determined that the condition will be controllable without 

medication in the foreseeable future. In addition, many physicians prescribe 

blood pressure medication prior to an individual reaching the 160/100 mmHg limit, 

and facility licensees should consider reporting this to the NRC as well.

When reporting a permanent disqualifying medical condition, if a conditional 

license is requested, the facility licensee shall provide medical certification and 

evidence on NRC Form 396 and recommend the exact wording of any license 

restriction that might be necessary. A permanent disqualifying condition is always 

reportable, even if it is being controlled and regardless whether the compensatory 

measures are recognized in the applicable version of ANSI/ANS-3.4.

c. In accordance with 10 CFR 55.33(b), if an operator’s medical condition does not 

meet the minimum standards under 10 CFR 55.33(a)(1), the NRC may condition 

the license to accommodate the medical defect. The NRC will consider the 

recommendations and supporting evidence provided on or with NRC Form 396 in 

determining the appropriate license condition. The following medical restrictions

and conditions are illustrative but not all-inclusive:

• An operator may be required to wear corrective lenses while performing 

licensed duties if his or her vision does not meet medical standards.

• An operator may be required to wear a hearing aid while performing licensed 

duties if his or her hearing does not meet medical standards.

• An RO who is at risk of sudden incapacitation may have a no-solo restriction 

that requires another licensed operator to be in view when the restricted 

operator is performing control manipulations, and someone capable of 

summoning assistance to be present at all other times while the restricted 

operator is performing licensed duties. The analogous SRO restriction would 

require another licensed operator to be in view when the restricted operator is 

performing control manipulations, and another senior operator to be present on

site at all other times while the restricted operator is performing SRO licensed 

duties or someone capable of summoning assistance to be present at all other

times while the restricted operator is performing RO licensed duties. For 

LSROs, the no-solo restriction would require someone capable of summoning 

assistance to be in view when the restricted LSRO is performing licensed 

LSRO duties.
ES-605, Page 9 of 12

• An operator may be required to take medication as prescribed, if an 

operator's medical qualification is contingent on taking a prescription 

medication.

• An operator whose medical condition is acceptable but unstable may be

required to submit follow-up medical status reports (i.e., prognosis, 

treatment, and ability to perform licensed duties) at 3-, 6-, or 12-month

intervals.

• An operator with respiratory problems may be restricted from performing 

licensed activities that require the use of a respirator.

d. With regard to prescription medications, it is important that the examining 

physician understand what medical conditions are contained in the applicable 

version of ANSI/ANS-3.4. For example, the fact that a licensed operator is 

diagnosed with gastroesophageal reflux disease and placed on the appropriate 

prescription medication would, in all likelihood, not be reportable to the NRC, since 

this condition is not addressed in ANSI/ANS-3.4. However, when assessing any

prescription medication, the examining physician needs to consider: (1) the 

possible side effects of the medication, to ensure that they will not cause 

operational errors or affect the operator's capacity to safely perform licensed 

duties; and (2) any delay in taking a medication that might be expected to result in 

the incapacity of the operator.

In addition, the actual wording of the license condition regarding medication will 

not specify a particular medical condition or medication, but it will simply state that 

the operator must “take medication as prescribed.” Therefore, 

physician-prescribed changes in medication or dosing for an existing medical 

condition are not required to be reported to the NRC, unless the examining 

physician believes that the operator's medical condition has become unstable 

(therefore requiring follow-up medical status reports to the NRC) or that the 

operator requires a no-solo license restriction. However, any new permanently 

disqualifying medical condition(s), requiring new medication(s), must be reported 

to the NRC.

Facility licensees do not need to submit a revised NRC Form 396 for operators with 

existing medical conditions, simply because NRC Form 396 has recently been 

changed to include medications. If an operator is currently prescribed medication 

for an existing medical condition, the revised NRC Form 396 should be submitted 

the next time that operator's license is due for renewal, and should be marked to 

indicate that the license will be conditioned to require taking medication as 

prescribed. A new NRC Form 396 would also be required if the operator develops 

a new permanent physical or mental condition reportable under 10 CFR 55.25.

4. Downgrading an SRO License

If a facility licensee desires to permanently downgrade the license of a senior operator at

the facility, it may do so by submitting a written request to the NRC regional office. In

such instances, the NRC regional office will (1) amend the license to restrict the operator’s

activities to those authorized for a reactor operator under 10 CFR Part 55; (2) condition the 

license to prohibit the operator from directing the licensed activities of licensed operators; 

and (3) inform the operator and facility in writing that the license will not be subject to 

renewal under 10 CFR 55.57, “Renewal of Licenses,” and that a new application (NRC
ES-605, Page 10 of 12

Form 398) will be required under 10 CFR 55.31, “How to Apply,” if the operator desires to

maintain an RO license upon expiration of the amended SRO license. The expiration

date of the original license will not change, and the operator may transition to the RO 

requalification program upon receipt of the amended license.

D. License Renewal

1. An operator who wishes to renew a license must comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 

55.57(a), as follows:

a. The operator will complete NRC Form 398, including the operator’s experience 

under the current license, the approximate number of hours that the operator spent

on operating shifts, and the date and results of the applicant’s most recent 

requalification written examination and annual operating test. The senior 

management representative on site shall provide evidence that the operator has

safely and competently discharged his or her license responsibilities and

satisfactorily completed the facility’s approved requalification program by checking 

the corresponding certification box and signing in the designated space on Form 

398.

b. The facility licensee must certify on NRC Form 396 that a physician has performed 

a medical examination within the previous 2 years, as required by 10 CFR 55.21, 

“Medical Examination,” and submit that form along with NRC Form 398.

c. The operator must submit NRC Forms 396 and 398 not less than 30 days before

the expiration date of the license. In accordance with 10 CFR 55.55(b), if the

operator files a proper application for renewal at least 30 days before the date of 

expiration, the license shall not expire until the NRC has denied the application for 

renewal or issued a new license. If the application is received more than 60 days 

in advance, the regional office should contact the facility licensee to determine 

whether it would prefer to have the license renewed immediately with a new 

effective date (the license will not be predated, nor will it exceed a 6-year license 

term) or to resubmit the application within the 60- to 30-day window preceding the 

expiration date.

If an operator is waiting to be given a reexamination after failing a requalification 

examination, the operator should still make timely application for license renewal 

under the provisions of 10 CFR 55.55(b).

Per 10 CFR 55.55(a), each operator license and senior operator license expires 

six years after the date of issuance, upon termination of employment with the 

facility licensee, or upon determination by the facility licensee that the licensed 

individual no longer needs to maintain a license. Per 10 CFR 55.55(b), if a 

licensee files an application for renewal or an upgrade of an existing license on 

Form NRC-398 at least 30 days before the expiration of the existing license, it does 

not expire until disposition of the application for renewal or for an upgraded license 

has been finally determined by the Commission. Filing by mail or telegram will be 

deemed to be complete at the time the application is deposited in the mail or with a 

telegraph company. Per 10 CFR 2.109, if at least 30 days before the expiration of

an existing license, the licensee files an application for a renewal or a new license 

for the same activity, then the existing license will not be deemed to have expired 

until the application has been finally determined.
ES-605, Page 11 of 12

d. If the license for a RO expires while he or she is participating in the facility 

licensee's SRO upgrade training program, NRC Forms 396 and 398 should still be 

submitted for timely renewal of the RO license. However, if the RO is not current 

in the facility's requalification training and testing program, because he or she is

attending SRO upgrade training, NRC Form 398 must note the exception in the

“Comments,” section and the operator must be administratively restricted from 

performing licensed duties until the individual is up-to-date in the requalification 

program.

e. 10 CFR 55.5, “Communications,” sets forth where to submit any application for a 

license of license renewal and any related inquiry, communication, information, or 

report.

f. The Commission may at any time after the application has been filed, and before 

the license has expired, require further information under oath or affirmation in 

order to enable it to determine whether to grant or deny the application or whether 

to revoke, modify, or suspend the license. After reviewing the renewal 

application, the NRC’s regional office may ask the operator or facility to provide 

supplemental information. The Regional Administrator may deny an application if 

an applicant fails to respond to a request for additional information within thirty (30) 

days from the date of the request, or within such other time as may be specified. 

See 10 CFR 2.108 and 10 CFR 2.103(b) for requirements concerning required 

written notifications associated with denials.

2. Upon receipt of a renewal application, the NRC regional office may take the following 

actions, as appropriate:

a. Review the application and issue the license renewal if the staff finds that the applicant 

satisfies the conditions in 10 CFR 55.57(b). The operator does not have to operate 

the facility for any minimum number of hours in order to qualify for license renewal (i.e., 

inactive licenses are also renewable.

b. If the renewal applicant does not meet the requirements of 10 CFR 55.57, the regional 

office shall inform the facility licensee of the deficiencies and request any 

supplemental information that the staff might require to make a relicensing decision. 

If, after evaluating the supplemental information, the regional office still concludes that 

the applicant does not meet the requirements for license renewal, the staff will issue a 

denial and provide the applicant the opportunity to request an adjudicatory hearing per 

10 CFR 2.103(b).

c. If the operator requests informal reconsideration of the application denial or a hearing, 

the regional office will review the operator’s request as directed by the NRR/NRO

operator licensing program office. The NRR/NRO operator licensing program office 

will inform the operator, in writing, of the outcome of the review.
ES-605, Page 12 of 12

E. NRC-Conducted Requalification Examination Results

1. Passing an NRC-Conducted Requalification Examination

An operator who passes all portions of the requalification examination, including being a

member of a crew that passes the dynamic simulator examination, will receive written 

notification from the NRC’s regional office.

2. Failing an NRC-Conducted Requalification Examination

a. The NRC’s regional office will notify the operator in writing of a failure of the

requalification examination. On receiving the failure notification, the operator can 

request an informal review of the failed portion of the examination. The request 

must be made as described (for reconsideration of application denials) in Section

D.1.d(2), above.

b. If an operator fails any part of an NRC-conducted requalification examination, the

facility licensee is expected to remove the operator from licensed duty and take 

corrective action consistent with the provisions of its requalification program before 

returning the operator to licensed duty. If the facility licensee’s requalification

program is unsatisfactory, refer to Section F.2 of ES-601 for a list of other 

recommended actions to be taken, including those actions the facility licensee is 

expected to complete before attaining a “provisionally satisfactory” requalification 

program status.

c. The NRC will normally administer a second (first retake) examination 

approximately 6 months after issuing the first failure notification in accordance with

Section E.2.a of this standard. That examination will concentrate on the areas in 

which the operator exhibited deficiencies.

d. The NRC will normally administer a third (second retake) examination 

approximately 6 months after issuing the second failure notification in accordance 

with Section E.2.a of this standard. The third examination will be a

comprehensive requalification examination.

Regardless of the status of the facility licensee’s requalification program, if an

operator fails a third requalification (second retake) examination, the NRC will 

thoroughly review the operator’s examination performance and may conduct a 

complete review of the facility licensee’s training program. The third failure may

be grounds for suspending or revoking the operator’s license. If an operator has 

an application pending for license renewal with the NRC at the time of a third 

requalification failure, that failure will provide the basis for denying the application. 

Notification of the operator will be handled on a case-by-case basis and 

coordinated through the NRR/NRO operator licensing program office.
ES-701, Page 1 of 25

ES-701

ADMINISTRATION OF INITIAL EXAMINATIONS

FOR SENIOR OPERATORS LIMITED TO FUEL HANDLING

A. Purpose

This standard provides specific instructions for use in preparing, administering, grading, and

documenting initial examinations for senior operators limited to fuel handling (LSRO).

B. Background

Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 55.41, “Written Examination: 

Operators” and 55.43, “Written Examination: Senior Operators”, the NRC’s written LSRO 

examinations must contain a representative selection of questions concerning the specific 

knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to perform licensed fuel handling duties. Similarly, to the 

extent applicable, the operating tests must require the applicant to demonstrate an understanding 

of and the ability to perform the actions necessary to accomplish a representative sample of the 

items in 10 CFR 55.45, “Operating Tests.” The regulations also stipulate that the content of the 

examinations and tests will be identified, in part, from learning objectives derived from a 

systematic analysis of the operators’ duties performed by the facility licensee. Therefore, the 

facility licensee’s job task analysis (JTA) for fuel handlers would provide an excellent source of 

information for developing the written examination and operating test.

Except as noted herein, the guidance in Examination Standards (ESs) 201, 202, 204, 301, 302, 

303, 401, 401N, 402, 403, 501, and 502 for administering unrestricted initial licensing 

examinations at power reactors also applies to the LSRO examination. However, the 

“Procedure for Administering the Generic Fundamentals Examination [GFE] Program” (described 

in ES-205) does not apply to LSRO applicants.

C. Responsibilities

1. Facility Licensee

The facility licensee is responsible for the same activities specified in the unrestricted ESs, 

with the following exceptions and modifications:

a. As an exception to ES-202, “Preparing and Reviewing Operator License 

Applications,” the facility licensee may request LSRO licenses that are valid for

more than one site. To do so, the facility licensee shall provide documentation 

that describes the differences in the design, procedures, technical data, and 

administrative controls of the separate facilities for which the license is being 

sought.

b. The scope, content, administration, and grading of the written examination and

operating test shall be as described in Sections D and E, below.

c. In accordance with 10 CFR 55.46(b), the facility licensee shall request the

Commission’s approval to use the plant or a simulation facility, other than a

plant-referenced simulator, in administering the operating test under 10 CFR

55.45(b)(1) or (3).
ES-701, Page 2 of 25

2. NRC Regional Office

The NRC’s regional office is responsible for the same activities specified in the

unrestricted ESs, with the following exceptions and modifications:

a. The regional office should generally conduct the LSRO examinations during a time 

when the fuel handling equipment will be available for the operating tests.

b. With the concurrence of the NRR/NRO operator licensing program office, the

regional office may issue LSRO licenses that are valid for units at more than one 

site, provided that the units are manufactured by the same vendor and are of 

similar design. The applicant must pass an examination that addresses the 

differences in the design, procedures, technical data, and administrative controls 

of the separate facilities for which the license is being sought.

c. The scope, content, administration, and grading of the written examination and

operating test shall be as described in Sections D and E, below.

d. The regional office shall coordinate with the NRR/NRO operator licensing program 

office regarding approval to use the plant or a simulation facility, other than a

plant-referenced simulator, in administering the operating test under 10 CFR

55.45(b)(1) or (3).

D. Written Examination Instructions

1. Preparation

The NRC’s written LSRO examination should meet all of the guidelines and requirements 

for question construction, quality, and facility reviews specified in ES-401 or ES-401N, “Preparing Initial Site-Specific Written Examinations,” and Appendix B, “Written 

Examination Guidelines,” except as noted below:

a. Develop the examination outline as described in Section D.1 of ES-401 or 

ES-401N, with the following exceptions and clarifications:

• Instead of using the RO and SRO models in ES-401 or ES-401N, use Form 

ES-701-1, ES-701-2, ES-701-3, or ES-701-4, as applicable to the facility, and 

Form ES-701-5 to develop the examination outline. As with the unrestricted 

examinations, topics that are not applicable to LSROs at the subject facility 

should be eliminated in accordance with Section D.1 of ES-401or ES-401N. 

Given the large number of knowledge and ability (K/A) statements that will not 

apply to LSROs, it may be advantageous to prescreen the K/As as discussed in 

Attachment 1 of ES-401 or ES-401N. When reviewing K/As for elimination, do

not focus only on the fuel handling equipment; rather, focus more broadly on the 

knowledge and abilities that an LSRO would need to support safe operation 

during fuel handling. If the facility licensee’s JTA identified other 

LSRO-relevant components, systems, and evolutions that are not included on 

Form ES-701-1, ES-701-2, ES-701-3, or ES-701-4, those items must be added 

to the appropriate tier of the outline before beginning the random selection 

process. Additional instructions are noted on the forms.

• Section D.1.c of ES-401 or ES-401N is not applicable to the LSRO 

examination.

• Use Form ES-701-7, “LSRO Examination Outline Quality Checklist,” instead of 

Form ES-201-2 when reviewing the examination outline.
ES-701, Page 3 of 25

b. Select and develop questions as described in Section D.2 of ES-401 or ES-401N, 

with the following exceptions: 

• Construct the LSRO written examination so that a competent applicant can 

complete the examination in 2.5 hours. (The applicants will be allowed 4

hours to complete and review the examination.)

• Between 50 and 60 percent of the LSRO examination questions (20 to 24

questions) shall be written at the comprehension/analysis level.

• Reactor theory, component, and thermodynamic questions that directly relate 

to the LSRO JTA may be selected from prior GFE examinations.

• Section D.2.d of ES-401 or ES-401N is not applicable to the LSRO 

examination.

• Limit the use of bank questions to no more than 30 and include at least four

new questions on every examination; the remaining 6 examination questions 

may be new or significantly modified from the facility licensee's or any other 

bank. All questions developed must be relevant to the LSRO function. To be 

considered a significantly modified question, at least one pertinent condition in 

the stem and at least one distractor must be changed from the original bank 

question. Changing the conditions in the stem such that one of the three 

distractors in the original question becomes the correct answer would also be 

considered a significant modification. 

• If the examination will be used to license the applicants at more than one 

facility, ensure that it adequately covers all of the applicable units. An

examination developed for the purpose of cross-qualifying a licensed LSRO at 

another similar facility may focus exclusively on the differences between the 

facilities.

c. Review and assemble the examination as described in Sections D.3, D.4, and E of 

ES-401 or ES-401N, using Forms ES-701-8 and ES-701-10 instead of the 

equivalent forms in ES-401 or ES-401N.

2. Administration and Grading

The NRC’s written LSRO examination shall be administered and graded in accordance 

with ES-402, “Administering Initial Written Examinations,” and ES-403, “Grading Initial 

Site-Specific Written Examinations.” The examination may be administered concurrently 

and in the same room with full-scope, initial license examinations. However, in such 

instances, the proctor should minimize any disturbance to those applicants taking the

longer examination.
ES-701, Page 4 of 25

E. Operating Test Instructions

The LSRO operating test shall generally be prepared, administered, and documented in

accordance with ES-301, “Preparing Initial Operating Tests”; ES-302, “Administering Operating 

Tests to Initial License Applicants”; and ES-303, “Documenting and Grading Initial Operating 

Tests,” except as noted below and in the specific criteria at the bottom of Form ES-701-6, “LSRO

Operating Test Outline.”

The operating test shall be performance-based to the maximum extent possible; however, given 

the nature of the LSROs’ duties, it is neither practical nor appropriate to administer the test on the 

plant-referenced simulator. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 55.45(b), the test shall be 

administered in a plant walk-through and in either the plant or a simulation facility, as approved by 

the Commission under 10 CFR 55.46(b). The facility licensee is encouraged to permit the actual 

use of equipment to handle dummy fuel elements, assemblies, or modules during the operating 

test whenever feasible. This may require careful coordination with the facility licensee to 

establish a schedule and to make sure that a licensed SRO is available, if needed. When actual 

equipment is not available or accessible (e.g., because of high radiation), administer the test 

using walk-through methods near the actual equipment or by using mockup equipment. If the 

facility licensee has a refueling machine simulator, use it to the extent possible during the 

administration of the operating test.

The operating test shall assess the applicant’s ability to execute normal, abnormal, and 

emergency procedures associated with fuel handling. Each applicant will be required to simulate 

or perform tasks related to fuel handling and, if necessary based on their performance, to answer 

questions associated with the refueling equipment and associated systems. The applicant shall 

not be held accountable for duties that are performed exclusively by the control room staff or shift

supervisor.

1. Preparation

The operating test shall consist entirely of job performance measures (JPMs) covering

those administrative topics, systems, and emergency/abnormal plant evolutions (E/APEs) 

related to refueling. No distinction between control room and facility systems/evolutions 

is required, because most (if not all) of the test will be conducted outside the control room. 

The dynamic simulator operating test requirements and guidelines in Section D.5 of 

ES-301 do not apply to the LSRO license examination.

Part of the operating test may be conducted in the control room so that those controls, 

instruments, and other materials or equipment related to fuel handling (e.g., procedures 

and diagrams) are available for reference. Although LSROs will not operate any systems 

from the control room, they must be aware of the effects (e.g., alarms) that fuel handling 

operations will have in the control room. They must also be familiar with the methods and 

requirements for communicating with the control room staff and shift supervisor. At least 

two of the JPMs must require the applicant to use the facility’s technical specifications.

The following additional guidelines clarify the expectations for each part of the LSRO 

operating test.

a. Develop the Administrative portion of the operating test in accordance with Section 

D.3 of ES-301; however, given the reduced scope of the LSROs’ responsibilities, 

the required number of tasks is reduced from five to three, distributed among the 

four administrative topics. Note that some “Conduct of Operations” subjects (e.g.,
ES-701, Page 5 of 25

reactor plant startup requirements) may not apply; however, most can be adapted 

for use during the LSRO operating test. The “Equipment Control” subjects all lend 

themselves to evaluating the required refueling maintenance and surveillance 

actions that the LSRO should be able to supervise or perform. All of the

“Radiation Control” subjects apply to refueling operations and should be evaluated 

on a sampling basis. The “Emergency Plan” topic shall be evaluated to the extent 

that the applicant is required to respond to a declared event and the knowledge 

required of a radiation worker.

b. Develop the Systems portion of the operating test as follows:

• Develop two JPMs that require the applicant to manipulate the facility’s fuel 

handling equipment.

• Develop two JPMs related to systems other than fuel handling equipment (i.e., 

systems other than 234000 (BWR) or 034 (PWR)) listed in Tier 2 of the 

appropriate written examination outline (i.e., Form ES-701-1, ES-701-2, 

ES-701-3, or ES-701-4, as modified in Section D.1.a, above).

• The specific criteria in Sections D.4.a and b of ES-301 do not apply. Two of 

the tasks shall require the applicant to execute alternative paths within the 

facility’s operating procedures.

c. Develop the E/APE portion of the operating test as follows:

• Develop three JPMs based on the evolutions listed in Tier 1 of the appropriate 

written examination outline (i.e., Form ES-701-1, ES-701-2, ES-701-3, or 

ES-701-4 as modified in Section D.1.a, above); one of the JPMs must involve a 

refueling accident.

• One of the tasks shall require the applicant to execute alternative paths within 

the facility’s operating procedures.

d. The operating test should normally take between 4 and 6 hours, depending on 

whether the LSRO actually operates refueling equipment.

e. Use Form ES-701-6, “LSRO Operating Test Outline,” to document the selection of 

Administrative, System, and E/APE JPMs to be performed (instead of using Forms 

ES-301-1 and ES-301-2); insert the applicable type codes and adhere to the 

specific criteria noted at the bottom of the form. Review the outline using Form 

ES-701-7, “LSRO Examination Outline Quality Checklist” (instead of Form 

ES-201-2).

f. Review the final operating test in accordance with Section E of ES-301, as

applicable, using Form ES-701-9, “LSRO Operating Test Quality Checklist”

(instead of Form ES-301-3).

2. Administration

Administer the operating test in accordance with Sections D.1 and D.2 of ES-302, as

applicable; Section D.3 (in its entirety) does not apply to the LSRO operating test.
ES-701, Page 6 of 25

3. Grading

Grade and document the applicant’s performance on the operating test in accordance with 

Sections D.1, D.2.a, D.3, and D.4 of ES-303, as applicable, with the following specific 

exceptions and clarifications:

a. Substitute Form ES-701-6 for Pages 2 and 3.b of Form ES-303-1 and determine a 

grade for each Administrative, System, and E/APE JPM as described in Section 

D.2.a of ES-303. “N/A” the “Simulator Operating Test” in the Summary section on

page 1 of Form ES-303-1.

b. The applicant must achieve a satisfactory grade on at least 80 percent of the JPMs 

(8 out of 10) overall and at least 60 percent (2 out of 3) of the administrative JPMs 

(i.e., the same criteria as in ES-303).

F. Attachments/Forms

Form ES-701-1 LSRO BWR Written Examination Outline

Form ES-701-2 LSRO PWR Written Examination Outline

Form ES-701-3 LSRO ABWR Written Examination Outline

Form ES-701-4 LSRO AP-1000® Written Examination Outline

Form ES-701-5 LSRO Generic Knowledge and Abilities Outline (Tier 3)

Form ES-701-6 LSRO Operating Test Outline

Form ES-701-7 LSRO Examination Outline Quality Checklist

Form ES-701-8 LSRO Written Examination Quality Checklist

Form ES-701-9 LSRO Operating Test Quality Checklist

Form ES-701-10 LSRO Written Examination Cover Sheet
ES-701, Page 7 of 25

ES-701 LSRO BWR Written Examination Outline Form ES-701-1

Facility: Date of Exam:

Tier

K/A Category Points

K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 A1 A2 A3 A4 G

*

Total

1.

Emergency & 

Abnormal Plant 

Evolutions

10

2.

Plant

Systems

20

3. Generic Knowledge and 

Abilities Categories

1 2 3 4 GFE 10

Note: 1. Ensure that at least one topic from every K/A category is sampled within each tier.

2. The point total for each tier in the proposed outline must match that specified in the

table. The final point total for each tier may deviate by ±1 from that specified in the 

table based on NRC revisions. The final exam must total 40 points.

3. Select topics from many systems and evolutions; avoid selecting more than two K/A

topics from a given system (except fuel handling equipment) or evolution (except 

refueling accident).

4. The shaded areas are not applicable to the category/tier.

5.* The generic (G) K/As in Tiers 1 and 2 shall be selected from Section 2 of the K/A

Catalog, but the topics must be relevant to the applicable evolution or system.

6. If the applicants have not previously taken the GFE, Tier 3 shall include basic reactor 

theory, component, and thermodynamic topics that apply to fuel handling operations.

7. Systems/evolutions within each tier are identified on the associated outline. Enter the

K/A numbers, a brief description of each topic, the topics’ importance ratings (IR) for 

the SRO license level, and the point totals (#) for each system and category. Enter the 

tier totals for each category in the table above.

8. For Tier 3, select topics from Section 2 of the K/A catalog, and enter the K/A numbers, 

descriptions, importance ratings, and point totals (#) on Form ES-701-5.

9. Refer to ES-401 or ES-401N, Section D.1, for guidance regarding the elimination of

inappropriate K/A statements. The facility licensee’s JTA for fuel handlers should be 

used as the basis for eliminating or adding testable topics.
ES-701, Page 8 of 25

ES-701 LSRO BWR Written Examination Outline Form ES-701-1

Emergency and Abnormal Plant Evolutions - Tier 1

E/APE # / Name / Safety Function K

1

K

2

K

3

A

1

A

2

G K/A Topic(s) IR #

295003 Partial or Complete Loss of AC

295004 Partial or Total Loss of DC

295014 Inadvertent Reactivity Addition

295018 Partial or Total Loss of CCW

295021 Loss of Shutdown Cooling

295023 Refueling Accidents

295033 High Secondary Containment 

Area Radiation Levels

295034 Secondary Containment 

Ventilation High Radiation

295006 SCRAM

295008 High Reactor Water Level

295009 / 295031 Reactor Low Water 

Level

295017 / 295038 High Offsite Release 

Rate

295019 Partial or Total Loss of Inst. Air

295020 Inadvertent Cont. Isolation

295030 Low Suppression Pool Wtr Lvl

295035 Secondary Containment High

Differential Pressure

600000 Plant Fire On Site

K/A Category Totals: Tier Point Total: 10
ES-701, Page 9 of 25

ES-701 LSRO BWR Examination Outline Form ES-701-1

Plant Systems - Tier 2

System # / Name K

1

K

2

K

3

K

4

K

5

K

6

A

1

A

2

A

3

A

4

G K/A Topic(s) IR #

205000 Shutdown Cooling

215004 Source Range Monitor

233000 Fuel Pool 

Cooling/Cleanup

234000 Fuel Handling 

Equipment

262001 AC Electrical Dist.

263000 DC Electrical Dist.

290002 Reactor Vessel 

Internals

201002 RMCS

201003 Control Rod and 

Drive Mechanism

203000 RHR/LPCI: Injection 

Mode

204000 RWCU

211000 SLC

212000 RPS

214000 RPIS

215001 Traversing In-Core 

Probe

215003 IRM

215005 APRM / LPRM

223001 Primary CTMT and 

Aux.

223002 PCIS/Nuclear Steam 

Supply Shutoff

261000 SGTS

264000 EDGs

272000 Radiation Monitoring

286000 Fire Protection

288000 Plant Ventilation

290001 Secondary CTMT

300000 Instrument Air

400000 Component Cooling 

Water

K/A Category Totals: Tier Point Total: 20
ES-701, Page 10 of 25

ES-701 LSRO PWR Written Examination Outline Form ES-701-2

Facility: Date of Exam:

Tier

K/A Category Points

K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 A1 A2 A3 A4 G

*

Total

1.

Emergency & 

Abnormal Plant 

Evolutions

10

2.

Plant

Systems

20

3. Generic Knowledge and 

Abilities Categories

1 2 3 4 GFE 10

Note: 1. Ensure that at least one topic from every K/A category is sampled within each tier.

2. The point total for each tier in the proposed outline must match that specified in the 

table. The final point total for each tier may deviate by ±1 from that specified in the 

table based on NRC revisions. The final exam must total 40 points.

3. Select topics from many systems and evolutions; avoid selecting more than two K/A 

topics from a given system (except fuel handling equipment) or evolution (except 

refueling accident).

4. The shaded areas are not applicable to the category/tier.

5.* The generic (G) K/As in Tiers 1 and 2 shall be selected from Section 2 of the K/A 

Catalog, but the topics must be relevant to the applicable evolution or system.

6. If the applicants have not previously taken the GFE, Tier 3 shall include basic reactor 

theory, component, and thermodynamic topics that apply to fuel handling operations.

7. Systems/evolutions within each tier are identified on the associated outline. Enter the 

K/A numbers, a brief description of each topic, the topics’ importance ratings (IR) for 

the SRO license level, and the point totals (#) for each system and category. Enter the 

tier totals for each category in the table above.

8. For Tier 3, select topics from Section 2 of the K/A catalog, and enter the K/A numbers, 

descriptions, importance ratings, and point totals (#) on Form ES-701-5.

9. Refer to ES-401 or ES-401N, Section D.1, for guidance regarding the elimination of 

inappropriate K/A statements. The facility licensee’s JTA for fuel handlers should be 

used as the basis for eliminating or adding testable topics.
ES-701, Page 11 of 25

ES-701 LSRO PWR Written Examination Outline Form ES-701-2

Emergency and Abnormal Plant Evolutions - Tier 1

E/APE # / Name / Safety Function K

1

K

2

K

3

A

1

A

2

G K/A Topic(s) IR #

000025 Loss of RHR System

000026 Loss of Component Cooling 

Water

000032 Loss of Source Range NI

000036 (BW/A08) Fuel Handling 

Accident

000061 ARM System Alarms

000033 Loss of Intermediate 

Range NI

000055 Station Blackout

000056 Loss of Offsite Power

000057 Loss of Vital AC Inst. Bus

000058 Loss of DC Power

000062 Loss of Nuclear Svc Water

000065 Loss of Instrument Air

000067 Plant Fire On Site

000069 (W/E14) Loss of CTMT 

Integrity

W/E16 High Containment 

Radiation

K/A Category Totals: Tier Point Total: 10
ES-701, Page 12 of 25

ES-701 LSRO PWR Written Examination Outline Form ES-701-2

Plant Systems - Tier 2

System # / Name K

1

K

2

K

3

K

4

K

5

K

6

A

1

A

2

A

3

A

4

G K/A Topic(s) IR #

005 Residual Heat Removal

015 Nuclear Instrumentation

033 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling

034 Fuel Handling Equipment

103 Containment 

062 AC Electrical Distribution

063 DC Electrical Distribution

002 Reactor Coolant

004 Chemical and Volume 

Control 

008 Component Cooling Water

013 Engineered Safety 

Features Actuation

064 Emergency Diesel 

Generator

072 Area Radiation Monitoring

076 Service Water

078 Instrument Air

079 Station Air 

086 Fire Protection

K/A Category Totals: Tier Point Total: 20
ES-701, Page 13 of 25

ES-701 LSRO ABWR Written Examination Outline Form ES-701-3

Facility: Date of Exam:

Tier

K/A Category Points

K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 A1 A2 A3 A4 G

*

Total

1.

Emergency & 

Abnormal Plant 

Evolutions

10

2.

Plant

Systems

20

3. Generic Knowledge and 

Abilities Categories

1 2 3 4 GFE 10

Note: 1. Ensure that at least one topic from every K/A category is sampled within each tier.

2. The point total for each tier in the proposed outline must match that specified in the 

table. The final point total for each tier may deviate by ±1 from that specified in the 

table based on NRC revisions. The final exam must total 40 points.

3. Select topics from many systems and evolutions; avoid selecting more than two K/A 

topics from a given system (except fuel handling equipment) or evolution (except 

refueling accident).

4. The shaded areas are not applicable to the category/tier.

5.* The generic (G) K/As in Tiers 1 and 2 shall be selected from Section 2 of the K/A 

Catalog, but the topics must be relevant to the applicable evolution or system.

6. If the applicants have not previously taken the GFE, Tier 3 shall include basic reactor 

theory, component, and thermodynamic topics that apply to fuel handling operations.

7. Systems/evolutions within each tier are identified on the associated outline. Enter the 

K/A numbers, a brief description of each topic, the topics’ importance ratings (IR) for the 

SRO license level, and the point totals (#) for each system and category. Enter the tier 

totals for each category in the table above.

8. For Tier 3, select topics from Section 2 of the K/A catalog, and enter the K/A 

numbers, descriptions, importance ratings, and point totals (#) on Form ES-701-3.

9. Refer to ES-401 or ES-401N, Section D.1, for guidance regarding the elimination of 

inappropriate K/A statements. The facility licensee’s JTA for fuel handlers should be 

used as the basis for eliminating or adding testable topics.
ES-701, Page 14 of 25

ES-701 LSRO ABWR Written Examination Outline Form ES-701-3

Emergency and Abnormal Plant Evolutions - Tier 1

E/APE # / Name / Safety Function K

1

K

2

K

3

A

1

A

2

G K/A Topic(s) IR #

APE2003 Partial or Complete Loss of AC / 6

APE2004 Partial or Total Loss of DC Pwr / 6

APE2006 Reactor Scram

APE2008 High Reactor Water Level

APE2013 Inadvertent Reactivity Addition/ 1

APE2009 Low Reactor Water Level / 2

APE2016High Off-site Release Rate / 9

APE2017 Partial or Total Loss of CCW 

Reactor Building Cooling Water / 8

APE2018 Partial or Total Loss of Inst. Air / 8

APE2019 Inadvertent Cont. Isolation/ 5 & 7

APE2020 Loss of Shutdown Cooling / 4

APE2022 Refueling Accidents / 8

APE2023 Plant Fire On Site / 8

EPE1006 Low Suppression Pool Wtr Lvl / 5

EPE1009 High Secondary Containment 

Area Radiation Levels / 9

EPE1010 Reactor Building HVAC Exhaust 

High Radiation / 9

EPE1011 Secondary Containment High 

Differential Pressure / 5

K/A Category Totals: Tier Point Total: 10
ES-701, Page 15 of 25

ES-701 LSRO ABWR Examination Outline Form ES-701-3

Plant Systems - Tier 2

System # / Name K

1

K

2

K

3

K

4

K

5

K

6

A

1

A

2

A

3

A

4

G K/A Topic(s) IR #

SF2RHRLPFL RHR: Low Pressure 

Flooder Mode

SF4RHRSDC RHR: Shutdown 

Cooling Mode

SF5LDIS Leak Detection and 

Isolation System

SF6EPDS AC Electrical Distribution

SF6VAC Vital AC Power Supply

SF6DC Direct Current Power Supply

SF6DGCTG Emergency Generators 

(Diesel/CTG)

SF7SRNM Startup Range Neutron 

Monitor 

SF7ELCS ESF Logic and Control 

System

SF7APRM Average Power Range 

Monitor/Local Power Range Monitor

SF9SGTS Standby Gas Treatment 

System

SF8IAS Instrument Air

SF8RBCW Reactor Building Cooling 

Water

SF8RSW Reactor Service Water

SF2RWCU Reactor Water Cleanup

SF5SEC Secondary Containment

SF5PCS Primary Containment and 

Aux.

SF5RPV & SF9RPV Reactor Vessel 

Internals

SF6I&C Instrumentation and Control 

Power Supply

SF9HVAC Plant Ventilation Systems

SF7RMS & SF9RMS Radiation 

Monitoring

SF8FPS Fire Protection

SF8FH Fuel Handling
ES-701, Page 16 of 25

ES-701 LSRO ABWR Examination Outline Form ES-701-3

Plant Systems - Tier 2

System# / Name K

1

K

2

K

3

K

4

K

5

K

6

A

1

A

2

A

3

A

4

G K/A Topic(s) IR #

SF9FPC Fuel Pool Cooling/Cleanup

SF9RD Radwaste

SF1 Standby Liquid Control

SF1 Control Rod Drive

SF1 Fine Motion Control Rod Drive 

Mechanism

SF1 Rod Control and Information 

System

SF7 Automated Traversing In-Core 

Probe

K/A Category Totals: Tier Point Total: 20
ES-701, Page 17 of 25

ES-701 LSRO AP-1000® Written Examination Outline Form ES-701-4

Facility: Date of Exam:

Tier

K/A Category Points

K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 A1 A2 A3 A4 G

*

Total

1.

Emergency & 

Abnormal Plant 

Evolutions

10

2.

Plant

Systems

20

3. Generic Knowledge and

Abilities Categories

1 2 3 4 GFE 10

Note: 1. Ensure that at least one topic from every K/A category is sampled within each tier.

2. The point total for each tier in the proposed outline must match that specified in the 

table. The final point total for each tier may deviate by ±1 from that specified in the 

table based on NRC revisions. The final exam must total 40 points.

3. Select topics from many systems and evolutions; avoid selecting more than two K/A 

topics from a given system (except fuel handling equipment) or evolution (except 

refueling accident).

4. The shaded areas are not applicable to the category/tier.

5.* The generic (G) K/As in Tiers 1 and 2 shall be selected from Section 2 of the K/A 

Catalog, but the topics must be relevant to the applicable evolution or system.

6. If the applicants have not previously taken the GFE, Tier 3 shall include basic reactor 

theory, component, and thermodynamic topics that apply to fuel handling operations.

7. Systems/evolutions within each tier are identified on the associated outline. Enter the 

K/A numbers, a brief description of each topic, the topics’ importance ratings (IR) for the 

SRO license level, and the point totals (#) for each system and category. Enter the tier 

totals for each category in the table above.

8. For Tier 3, select topics from Section 2 of the K/A catalog, and enter the K/A 

numbers, descriptions, importance ratings, and point totals (#) on Form ES-701-3.

9. Refer to ES-401 or ES-401N, Section D.1, for guidance regarding the elimination of 

inappropriate K/A statements. The facility licensee’s JTA for fuel handlers should be 

used as the basis for eliminating or adding testable topics.
ES-701, Page 18 of 25

ES-701 LSRO AP-1000® Written Examination Outline Form ES-701-4

Emergency and Abnormal Plant Evolutions - Tier 1

E/APE # / Name / Safety Function K

1

K

2

K

3

A

1

A

2 G K/A Topic(s) IR #

A-337, Passive RHR Heat Exchanger Leak / 

4

A-343, Loss of Normal Residual Heat

Removal / 4

A-317, Loss of Component Cooling Water / 8

FR-S.1, Response to Nuclear Power 

Generation / 1

A-323, Loss of 6.9kV, 4160 V, or 480 V Bus 

Power / 6

A-345, Loss of Nuclear Service Water / 4

A-329, Loss of Instrument Air / 8

ECA-1.1, Loss of Coolant Accident Outside 

Containment / 3

FR-H.1, Response to Loss of Heat Sink / 4

SDP-1, Response to Loss of RCS Inventory 

During Shutdown / 2

SDP-2 Response to Loss of RNS During 

Shutdown / 4

A-308, Loss of Control Room AC / 8

A-320, Loss of Circulating Water / 8

A-302, Emergency Boration / 1

A-314, Fuel Handling Incident / 8

SDP-4, Response to Rising Nuclear Flux 

During Shutdown / 1

SDP-5, Response to RCS Cold Overpressure 

During Shutdown / 3

SDP-6 Response to Unexpected RCS 

Temperature Changes During Shutdown / 4

A-306, Evacuation of Control Room / 8

FR-Z.2, Response to Containment Flooding / 

5

FR-Z-3, Response to High Containment 

Radiation / 9 

A-321, Loss of Data Display and Processing 

System / 7

A-340, Reactor Coolant Leak / 2

K/A Category Totals: Tier Point Total: 10
ES-701, Page 19 of 25

ES-701 LSRO AP-1000® Written Examination Outline Form ES-701-4

Plant Systems - Tier 2

System Name / Safety Function K

1

K

2

K

3

K

4

K

5

K

6

A

1

A

2

A

3

A

4 G K/A Topic(s) IR #

Reactor Coolant / 2, 4 

Normal Residual Heat Removal/ 4

Passive Residual Heat Removal/4

Passive Core Cooling / 2

Component Cooling Water / 8

Engineered Safeguards Actuation / 2

Passive Containment Cooling / 5

AC Electrical Distribution / 6

Class 1E and Non-Class 1E DC and 

UPS / 6

Onsite Standby Power System / 6

Service Water / 4

Compressed Air / 8

Containment System / 5

Containment Air Filtration / 8

Containment Hydrogen Control / 5

Main Control Room HVAC / 8

Spent Fuel Pool Cooling / 8

Fuel Handling / 8

Gaseous Radwaste / 9

Radiation Monitoring / 7

Circulating Water / 8

Fire Protection / 8

K/A Category Point Totals: Tier Point Total: 20
ES-701, Page 20 of 25

ES-701 LSRO Generic Knowledge and Abilities Outline (Tier 3) Form ES-701-5

Facility: Date of Exam:

Category K/A # Topic IR #

1.

Conduct of 

Operations

2.1.

2.1.

2.1.

2.1.

Subtotal

2.

Equipment 

Control

2.2.

2.2.

2.2.

2.2.

Subtotal

3.

Radiation 

Control

2.3.

2.3.

2.3.

2.3.

Subtotal

4.

Emergency 

Procedures / 

Emergency 

Plan

2.4.

2.4

2.4.

2.4.

Subtotal

5.

Generic 

Fundamentals

Subtotal

Tier 3 Point Total 10
ES-701, Page 21 of 25

ES-701 LSRO Operating Test Outline Form ES-701-6

Applicant Docket Number: 55-

Facility: Date of Examination:

Title / Description of Tasks (JPMs) Type

Codes*

Evaluation

(S or U)

Comment Page

Number

Administrative

1.

2. 

3.

Systems

1.

2.

3.

4.

Emergency/Abnormal Plant Evolutions

1.

2.

3. 

Type Codes & Criteria: (A)lternative path (2 systems; 1 E/APE))

(C)ontrol room

(D)irect from bank (≤ 7)

(I)n-plant

(N)ew or (M)odified from bank including 1(A) (≥ 1 / section) 

(L)ast NRC exam (≤ 1 / section)

(R)efueling accident (1)

(T)echnical specification (≥ 2)
ES-701, Page 22 of 25

ES-701 LSRO Examination Outline Quality Checklist Form ES-701-7

Facility: Date of Examination: 

Item Task Description

Initials

a b* c#

1.

W

R

I

T

T

E

N

a. Verify that the outline fits the model in accordance with ES-701.

b. Assess whether the outline was systematically and randomly prepared in accordance with 

Section D.1 of ES-401 or ES-401N and whether all K/A categories are sampled at least once.

c. Assess whether the outline overemphasizes any systems, evolutions, or generic topics.

d. Assess whether the justifications for deselected or rejected K/A statements are appropriate.

2.

O

P

E

R

A

T

I

N

G

a. Verify that the overall operating test:

(1) includes at least two tasks that require the use of technical specifications and

(2) does not duplicate any tasks from the applicants’ audit test(s).

b. Verify that the administrative tasks:

(1) are distributed among the four administrative topics described in ES-301,

(2) include no more than one repeat from the last NRC licensing examination, and

(3) include at least one task that is new or significantly modified.

c. Verify that the systems walk-through includes:

(1) two tasks requiring the manipulation of fuel handling equipment,

(2) two additional tasks related to Tier 2 systems other than fuel handling equipment,

(3) two tasks requiring implementation of alternative path procedures,

(4) no more than one repeat from the last NRC licensing examination, and

(5) at least one task that is new or significantly modified.

d. Verify that the E/APE walk-through includes:

(1) three JPMs based on the Tier 1evolutions, including a refueling accident,

(2) one task requiring implementation of an alternative path procedure,

(3) no more than one repeat from the last NRC licensing examination, and

(4) at least one task that is new or significantly modified.

e. Determine whether there are enough different outlines to test the projected number of

applicants and ensure that no items are duplicated on subsequent days.

3.

G

E

N

E

R

A

L

a. Assess whether plant-specific priorities (including PRA and IPE insights) are covered in the

appropriate exam section.

b. Assess whether the 10 CFR 55.41/43 and 55.45 sampling is appropriate.

c. Assess whether the sampling process adequately considered plant-specific refueling 

components, systems, and procedures that are not included in the generic models.

d. Ensure that K/A importance ratings (except for plant-specific priorities) are at least 2.5.

e. Check for duplication and overlap among exam sections.

f. Check the entire exam for balance of coverage.

g. Assess whether the proposed sample is consistent with the LSRO’s job responsibilities.

Printed Name / Signature Date

a. Author __________________________________________________________ _______

b. Facility Reviewer (*) __________________________________________________________ _______

c. NRC Chief Examiner (#) __________________________________________________________ _______

d. NRC Supervisor __________________________________________________________ _______

Note: * The facility reviewer's initials or signature are not applicable for NRC-developed examinations.

# An independent NRC reviewer initials items in Column “c”; chief examiner concurrence required.
ES-701, Page 23 of 25

____

ES-701 LSRO Written Examination Form ES-701-8

Quality Checklist

Facility: Date of Exam:

Item Description

Initial

a b* c#

1. Questions and answers are technically accurate and applicable to the facility.

2. a. NRC K/As are referenced for all questions (as applicable).

b. Facility learning objectives are referenced as available.

3. Questions are appropriate for LSRO applicants.

4. The sampling process was random and systematic (If more than three questions were

repeated from the last two NRC licensing exams, consult the NRR/NRO OL program

office).

5. Question duplication from the license screening/audit exam was controlled 

as indicated below (check the item that applies) and appears appropriate:

__ the audit exam was systematically and randomly developed, or

__ the audit exam was completed before the license exam was started, or

__ the examinations were developed independently, or

__ the licensee certifies that there is no duplication, or

__ other (explain

6. Bank use meets limits (no more than 30 questions

from the bank, at least 4 new, and the rest modified); 

enter the actual question distribution at right.

Bank Modified New

7. Between 50 and 60 percent (20 and 24)

of the questions on the exam are written at the

comprehension/analysis level; 

enter the actual question distribution at right.

Memory C/A

8. References/handouts provided do not give away answers

or aid in eliminating distractors.

9. Question content conforms to specific K/A statements in the previously approved

examination outline and is appropriate for the Tier to which they are assigned; 

deviations are justified.

10. Question psychometric quality and format meet guidelines in Appendix B.

11. The exam contains 40 one-point, multiple choice items; the total is correct

and agrees with the value on the cover sheet.

Printed Name / Signature Date

a. Author ________________________________________________________ _______

b. Facility Reviewer (*) ________________________________________________________ _______

c. NRC Chief Examiner (#) ________________________________________________________ _______

d. NRC Regional Supervisor ________________________________________________________ _______

Note: * The facility reviewer's initials or signature are not applicable for NRC-developed examinations.

# An independent NRC reviewer initials items in Column “c”; chief examiner concurrence required.
ES-701, Page 24 of 25

ES-701 LSRO Operating Test Quality Checklist Form ES-701-9

Facility: Date of Examination: Operating Test Number:

Item Description Initials

a b* c#

1. The operating test conforms to the LSRO’s job responsibilities and the previously approved outline 

(Form ES-701-4).

2. Any changes from the previously approved outline have not caused the test to deviate from any of 

the acceptance criteria (e.g., item distribution, bank use, repetition from the last two NRC 

examinations) specified on the outline.

3. There is no day-to-day repetition between this and other operating tests to be administered during 

this examination.

4. The operating test does not duplicate items from the applicants’ audit test(s). (See Section D.1.a 

of ES-301).

5. Overlap between the written examination and the operating test is within acceptable limits.

6. It appears that the operating test will differentiate between competent and less-than-competent 

applicants.

7. Each JPM includes the following, as applicable:

• initial conditions

• initiating cues

• references and tools, including associated procedures

• reasonable and validated time limits (average time allowed for completion) and specific 

designation if deemed to be time-critical by the facility licensee, and

• specific performance criteria that include:

– detailed expected actions with exact criteria and nomenclature

– system response and other examiner cues

– statements describing important observations to be made by the applicant

– criteria for successful completion of the task

– identification of critical steps and their associated performance standards; and

– restrictions on the sequence of steps, if applicable.

Printed Name / Signature Date

a. Author __________________________________________________________ _______

b. Facility Reviewer (*) __________________________________________________________ _______

c. NRC Chief Examiner (#) __________________________________________________________ _______

d. NRC Supervisor __________________________________________________________ _______

Note: * The facility reviewer's initials or signature are not applicable for NRC-developed examinations.

# An independent NRC reviewer initials items in Column “c”; chief examiner concurrence required.

 
ES-701, Page 25 of 25

ES-701 LSRO Written Examination Form ES-701-10

Cover Sheet

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

LSRO Written Examination

Applicant Information

Name:

Date: Region: I II III IV 

Facility/Unit: Reactor Type: W CE BW GE 

AP-1000® ABWR 

Start Time: Stop Time:

Instructions

Use the answer sheets provided to document your answers. Staple this cover sheet

on top of the answer sheets. The passing grade requires a final grade of at least 80.00 percent. 

Examination papers will be picked up 4 hours after the examination begins.

Applicant Certification

All work done on this examination is my own. I have neither given nor received aid.

__________________________

Operator’s Signature

Results

Test Value __________ Points

Applicant’s Score __________ Points

Applicant’s Grade __________ Percent

ES-702, Page 1 of 7

ES-702

ADMINISTRATION OF REQUALIFICATION EXAMINATIONS

FOR SENIOR REACTOR OPERATORS LIMITED TO FUEL HANDLING

A. Purpose

The NRC’s requalification examinations for senior reactor operators limited to fuel handling 

(LSROs) are administered under this standard in accordance with the provisions of Title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR( 55.59(a)(2)(iii).

B. Background

In conjunction with ES-601 through ES-603, this examination standard provides general guidance 

for facility licensees and requirements for NRC examiners to use in preparing, administering, 

grading, and documenting NRC requalification examinations for LSROs. Except as noted 

herein, the methodology and guidance presented in ES-601 through ES-603 also applies to 

LSRO requalification examinations, as they relate to administering full-scope requalification 

examinations at power reactors.

C. General Differences

The LSRO examinations will be conducted in accordance with the methodology outlined in

ES-601, “Conducting NRC Requalification Examinations,” with the following exceptions:

1. The NRC will coordinate with the facility licensee to schedule the NRC’s LSRO 

examinations concurrent with the facility licensee’s LSRO requalification examination 

schedule. If practical, the examination team will conduct the LSRO examination shortly 

before or after an outage to facilitate access to refueling equipment because some of the

equipment is not accessible during plant operations.

The NRC may administer LSRO requalification examinations concurrent with full-scope 

initial license or operator requalification examinations.

2. The facility licensee’s LSRO requalification program, LSRO job task analysis, and 

associated learning objectives will provide the basis for the examination if they are of

sufficient scope and depth. The items in 10 CFR 55.43, “Written Examination: 

Senior Operators,” and 55.45, “Operating Tests,” will be sampled as appropriate to the 

LSRO’s limited responsibilities.

3. The LSRO requalification examination will consist of a written examination and a

walk-through operating test, which is administered and evaluated individually. 

References to the crew-based dynamic simulator test and the associated crew evaluation 

criteria and forms do not apply to LSROs.

4. Whenever possible, the facility licensee should include an LSRO on the examination 

team.
ES-702, Page 2 of 7

5. The requirement to examine at least 12 operators to arrive at a program evaluation is not

applicable to LSRO examinations. The region and, if necessary, the NRR/NRO operator 

licensing program office, will determine the appropriate sample size based on the number 

of LSROs licensed at the facility.

6. The “Corporate Notification Letter” (Attachment 2 to ES-601) shall be revised as

necessary to reflect the examination arrangements and to specify a modified list of

reference material requirements associated with LSRO fuel handling activities. The

NRC’s regional office will review the reference material using the applicable portions of

Form ES-601-2.

7. The NRC staff expects the facility licensee to maintain JPM and written examination banks 

for use in evaluating LSROs. Facility licensees should periodically update these 

examination banks to reflect areas of emphasis in training and to ensure that they

represent all applicable knowledge and skills. There is no minimum threshold or ceiling 

for these banks.

8. The NRC’s regional office will document the agency’s LSRO requalification examination 

results using Forms ES-702-1, “LSRO Requalification Examination Report,” and

ES-702-2, “LSRO Requalification Results Summary,” instead of Forms ES-601-3, 4, and 

5.

9. This standard does not provide for a formal LSRO requalification program evaluation; 

however if more than one-third of the examined LSROs at a facility fail, the NRC may need 

to inspect the LSRO requalification program. The regional staff is responsible for

determining whether such an inspection should be conducted. If an inspection is

performed, the staff should assess at least:

a. the content of the training program, the development of examination materials, and

the quality controls

b. the administrative controls for maintaining training material current with procedural 

revisions and design changes

c. the training and evaluation techniques of the facility licensee’s evaluators

d. the evaluation techniques that the facility licensee uses to determine whether it

has effectively implemented and assessed its training

e. the frequency, scope, and depth of the training provided to the operators

Section D discusses specific exceptions related to each category of the examination. Any

questions regarding the program office’s expectations regarding the conduct of LSRO

requalification examinations shall be referred to the NRR/NRO operator licensing program office 

for resolution.
ES-702, Page 3 of 7

D. Examination Differences

1. Written Examination

The written examination will be developed, administered, and evaluated as described in

ES-602, “Requalification Written Examinations,” with the following exceptions:

a. The written examination will be “open reference” and will contain a minimum of 25 

points in a single section; static simulator scenarios do not apply to the LSRO 

examination. The time limit for completing the examination shall be 2 hours, but 

the examination should be constructed so that a competent LSRO can complete it 

in 1.5 hours. The examination should emphasize refueling procedures, 

administrative controls, and abnormal and emergency procedures. The 

examination should include questions associated with industry and licensee event 

reports and recent plant modifications that affected refueling operations and 

systems that apply to the facility.

b. Form ES-702-3 will be used as a cover sheet rather than Form ES-602-1.

2. Walk-Through Operating Test

The walk-through operating test will be developed, administered, and evaluated as

described in ES-603, “Requalification Walk-Through Examinations,” with the following

exceptions:

a. Each LSRO will be administered an operating test consisting of five tasks/JPMs. 

Whenever possible, these tasks/JPMs should include the use of refueling 

equipment to manipulate dummy fuel only, or the use of a refueling machine 

simulator if one is available at the facility. If dummy fuel manipulation or the use of 

a simulator is not possible, the refueling tasks should be simulated. The

requirement to conduct a minimum number of JPMs in the control room/simulator 

is not applicable to LSRO examinations.

b. Each JPM will consist of a task that is normally performed by fuel handling 

personnel and will include tasks performed both before and after refueling and for

maintenance, surveillance, or testing of systems or equipment. The examination 

team may evaluate the LSRO’s ability to perform normal fuel handling 

administrative tasks including documenting clearances, maintenance activities, 

and surveillances. The operating test should also evaluate the LSRO’s response 

to abnormal or emergency events associated with fuel handling.

c. If sufficient facility-developed JPMs are not available, the NRC can conduct a

walk-through examination of the type administered to an initial LSRO applicant, as

discussed in ES-701, “Administration of Initial Examinations for Senior Operators 

Limited to Fuel Handling.”

3. Dynamic Simulator Operating Test

The dynamic simulator operating test described in ES-604, “Dynamic Simulator 

Requalification Examinations,” is not applicable to LSRO requalification examinations.
ES-702, Page 4 of 7

E. Attachments/Forms

Form ES-702-1 Individual LSRO Requalification Examination Report

Form ES-702-2 Power Plant LSRO Requalification Results Summary

Form ES-702-3 LSRO Written Requalification Examination Cover Sheet
ES-702, Page 5 of 7

ES-702 Individual LSRO Form ES-702-1

Requalification Examination Report

PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION — FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Individual LSRO Requalification Examination Report

Operator’s Name: Facility:

Docket No.: 55- Retake Exam: 1st / 2nd / # Date of Last Exam:

License No.: SOP - Expiration Date:

Written Examination Results

Date of Exam: NRC Examiner: Facility Evaluator:

Overall Grade (%)

NRC Facility

% %

Operating Test Results

Date of Test: NRC Examiner: Facility Evaluator:

No. of JPMs Correct of of

Final Grade (%) % %

NRC Examiner Recommendations

Category Results Signature

Written Pass / Fail

Operating Pass / Fail

NRC Supervisor Review

Date: Pass / Fail

PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION — FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
ES-702, Page 6 of 7

ES-702 Power Plant LSRO Form ES-702-2

Requalification Results Summary

PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION — FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Power Plant LSRO

Requalification Results Summary

Facility: Exam Date:

Examiners:

Overall

Results

--->

Total # of

Operators

Passed

(# / %)

Failed

(# / %)

Individual Results

Operator’s

Name

Docket

No. 55-

Grader JPM %

Overall

Written

(%)

Results (P/F)

Written Operating

NRC

Fac

NRC

Fac

NRC

Fac

NRC

Fac

NRC

Fac

NRC

Fac

PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION — FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
ES-702, Page 7 of 7

ES-702 LSRO Written Requalification Form ES-702-3

Examination Cover Sheet

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

LSRO Written Requalification Examination

Operator Information

Name:

Date: Region: I II III IV 

Facility/Unit: Reactor Type: W CE BW GE 

AP-1000® ABWR 

Start Time: Stop Time:

Instructions

Use the answer sheets provided to document your answers. Staple this cover sheet on top of 

the answer sheets. Points for each question are indicated in parentheses after each question. 

The passing grade requires a final grade of at least 80.00 percent. Examination papers will be 

picked up 2 hours after the examination begins.

Operator Certification

All work done on this examination is my own. I have neither given nor received aid.

____________________________

Operator’s Signature

Results

Test Value __________ Points

Operator’s Score __________ Points

Operator’s Grade __________ Percent

A-1

APPENDIX A

OVERVIEW OF GENERIC EXAMINATION CONCEPTS

A. Purpose

This appendix provides an overview of two fundamental examination concepts - validity and 

reliability - as they apply to the development of NRC operator licensing and requalification 

examinations. Specifically, this appendix discusses the following topics:

• the rationale for providing guidance for the construction, review, and approval of NRC

examinations (Section B)

• the various aspects of validity and how the NRC establishes the validity of its

examinations (Section C)

• the concept of reliability and how it is maintained on NRC examinations (Section D)

B. Background

The fact that the NRC’s operator licensing examinations are prepared and administered by many 

different individuals working in various locations makes it imperative to establish and follow a

defined set of administrative structures and protocols to ensure that the examinations are

administered successfully and consistently. External attributes, such as the number and types of 

items, the length of the examination, security procedures, proctoring instructions, and other

administrative details are essential to the orderly conduct of an examination. These factors have 

a significant effect on the reliability and validity of an examination C the cornerstones that allow the 

NRC to make confident licensing decisions.

The internal attributes of the examination, such as its level of knowledge, level of difficulty, and

use of item banks, also impact the operational and discriminatory validity of the examination, 

which, in turn, can affect its consistency and reliability. If the internal and external attributes of

examinations are allowed to vary significantly, the uniform conditions that are required by Section

107 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the basis upon which the NRC’s licensing 

decisions rest are challenged. The NRC must reasonably control and structure the examination 

processes to ensure the integrity of the licenses it issues.

Acceptable levels of examination consistency, uniformity, and fairness would be impossible to

achieve without quantitative and qualitative acceptance criteria. The examination standards

identify many of the quantitative criteria necessary for a well-balanced and consistent 

examination. Although the NRC’s Knowledge and Abilities Catalogs for pressurized and 

boiling-water reactors (NUREG-1122, 1123, 2103 and 2104) have brought a degree of

consistency to the qualitative issue of safety-significance, there is no comparable mechanism to

aid in determining an examination’s level of knowledge or difficulty before it is administered. In

the end, the validity and consistency of the NRC’s examinations depend largely on the individual 

and collective judgments of the people who write and review the examinations. The discussions 

herein clarify the intent of the NRC’s examination criteria, thereby decreasing the likelihood that 

inconsistencies among examinations, particularly with regard to the level of knowledge and 

difficulty, will jeopardize the validity of the NRC’s licensing decisions.
A-2

C. Validity

For a test to be considered valid, it must be shown to measure that which it is intended to

measure. In the case of the NRC examinations, the intent is to measure the examinee’s

knowledge and ability, such that those who pass will be able to perform the duties of a reactor

operator (RO) or senior reactor operator (SRO) to ensure the safe operation of the plant. The

following subsections outline the three principal facets of test validity and the techniques that are 

used to establish the validity of NRC examinations.

1. Content Validity

a. Establish a Link to Job Duties

In order to develop valid examinations, the knowledge and abilities (K/As) selected 

for testing must be linked to and based upon a description of the most important 

job duties. This is accomplished by conducting a job task analysis (JTA), focusing 

on the delineation of essential K/As.

The testing industry endorsed this approach to the development of content valid 

licensing examinations in the 1985 revision of the “Standards for Educational and

Psychological Testing” published by the American Educational Research 

Association, the American Psychological Association, and the National Council on

Measurement in Education. Those standards treat licensing examinations in a

separate section in recognition of their importance and uniqueness. Accordingly, 

those seeking additional technical guidance are encouraged to consult Chapter 11 

of the standards for further clarification.

To ensure content validity in the NRC’s examinations, the JTA performed on the

licensed operator and senior operator positions by the Institute of Nuclear Power 

Operations (INPO) served as the initial source of information. The INPO JTA 

identified more than 28,000 K/As and nearly 800 tasks. The extensive number of 

tasks and K/A statements is attributable, in part, to the specific purpose of the 

analysis, which was to provide an information base to be used in developing 

training programs that would be applicable to all pressurized- and boiling-water 

facilities. Accordingly, many of the individual statements were too specific or too 

elementary for use as the basis for development of the NRC’s examinations. The 

job content of special interest to the NRC is that subset of K/As that are required for 

the safe operation of the nuclear plant. Although safe performance and efficient

performance may have considerable overlap, any K/A that contributes to efficiency 

but not safety is an inappropriate focus for the NRC’s examinations.

The following publications provide the basis for the development of content valid 

examinations for ROs and SROs, consistent with the testing industry standards 

described above:

• NUREG-1122, “Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant 

Operators: Pressurized-Water Reactors,”

• NUREG-1123, “Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant 

Operators: Boiling-Water Reactors,”
A-3

• NUREG-2103, “Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant 

Operators: Pressurized-Water Reactors, Westinghouse AP-1000”

• NUREG-2104, “Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant 

Operators: Advanced Boiling-Water Reactors,”

The fact that the K/As from which test items are developed are drawn or sampled 

from the same universe regardless of who develops the examination ensures that 

the examinations are consistently content valid. Furthermore, developing the

examinations using the appropriate K/A catalog in conjunction with the applicable 

examination standards and related appendices will ensure that the examinations 

cover a representative sample of the topics listed under Title 10 of the Code of

Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 55, “Operators’ Licenses.”

The NRC’s K/A catalogs 1122 and 1123 were developed on the basis of the INPO 

JTA and were reviewed by licensed ROs and SROs, as well as the NRC’s own 

license examiners. The NRC’s K/A catalogs 2103 and 2104 were developed on 

the basis of the Design Center JTA and were reviewed by system experts and 

design knowledgeable personnel many of who were legacy plant ROs and SROs, 

as well as the NRC’s own license examiners. These experts reviewed the K/A 

statements for accuracy and completeness, and then rated each statement with 

respect to its importance to safe plant operation. Further explanation of the 

content of the K/A catalogs is provided in Section 1 of each catalog.

In addition to the NRC’s K/A catalogs, learning objectives from the facility 

licensee’s training program often provide a supportive reference for test items to

be included in the NRC’s examination. Since facility learning objectives are

specific to the job requirements at a given site, they should provide an excellent 

basis for test item development. However, because they are not always stated at 

the comprehension or analysis levels of knowledge (the preferred focus for NRC 

examinations) they should be referenced only to the extent that they support a test 

item that is being developed.

b. Use a Sample Plan

Once the essential K/As have been identified through the conduct of the JTA, test 

specifications must be developed. The test specifications consist of a content 

outline or sample plan indicating what proportion of items or questions shall deal 

with each K/A. Because a single test cannot measure every knowledge or ability 

required to be a licensed operator, it must sample the required knowledge or

performance in a manner that allows inferences to be made regarding the

examinees’ performance on the broader population of knowledge, even though it 

was not tested. The sample must be evenly distributed and soundly based so that 

the NRC can confidently assume that the untested knowledge is proportionately 

known or not known in relation to the score on the sample. In other words, by 

testing performance on the sample, it is possible to make inferences concerning 

the broader area of knowledge not tested. This is referred to as a “validity 

inference.”

The sample plan is at the heart of making a validity inference. Research indicates 

that when samples are not chosen systematically and according to the sample 

plan, the sample is biased and, therefore, its validity is reduced. When the
A-4

sample is biased or skewed in a particular direction, it introduces some degree of

sampling error, which makes it impractical to infer or generalize that the examinees 

have mastered the larger population of untested knowledge from which the sample 

was drawn. 

Test items selected for inclusion in an NRC examination should be based on K/As

contained in the appropriate K/A catalog. Testing outside the documented K/As

can jeopardize the content validity of the examination. Content validity can also 

be reduced if important K/As are omitted from the examination. Therefore, the 

sample of K/As that are tested should cover all of the K/A categories in the catalog 

in a fashion that is consistent with their contribution to the public protection function 

of the examination. Not all categories are equal in this regard. This conclusion is 

based on the analysis of ratings on importance and testing emphasis collected 

from licensed SROs and NRC license examiners. The specific examination 

standards provide additional guidance on how to develop test outlines that will 

ensure adequate content coverage.

It is important to note that there is a difference in the testing demands for an initial

examination versus a requalification examination. The requalification 

examination is based upon the plant’s systems approach to training during the

requalification cycle and will more closely parallel the training received in the

requalification program. Consequently, the instructional and testing processes 

are more closely linked. The initial examination, on the other hand, covers all 

instruction related to safety-significant K/As that either were or should have been 

taught during the training program. The examination standards ensure that the 

K/As are sampled in a relatively uniform process that would likely include content 

and instruction that occurred from the beginning to the end of the program and not

be focused upon any particular segment of instruction.

2. Operational Validity

The second facet of validity is operational validity. To the extent possible, test items 

should address an actual or conceivable mental or psychomotor activity performed on the 

job. In this regard, the more operationally oriented a test item is, the more valid the test

item. Since operationally valid items involve skills central to job performance (i.e., 

analysis, prediction of events or system responses, or problem-solving), the items should 

be written at the comprehension or analysis level, rather than the level of simple

fundamental knowledge. The theoretical knowledge classification system upon which 

the NRC bases its operational validity estimates is Bloom’s Taxonomy.

Bloom’s taxonomy suggests that testing knowledge at higher cognitive levels (i.e.,

comprehension and analysis) is more efficient and operationally valid because those 

higher levels include the fundamental knowledge required, in part, to answer the

higher-level question. Furthermore, the higher the level tested in the test item, generally 

the more operationally valid that test item will be, since it is at the higher levels that

questions invoke problem-solving, diagnosis, prediction, and analysis of conditions, 

events, and responses.
A-5

Designing test items that test the application of knowledge in different content situations 

(i.e., process testing) is at the heart of designing good, discriminatory test items. Just as

a math teacher would not design a test to ask multiplication questions that were identical 

to practice questions, so too should the examination author minimize asking questions 

that are identical to those previously rehearsed or tested. Test items should attempt to 

assess similar knowledge applications in different contexts, thereby assessing student’s 

problem solving skills in new and different applications. These applications should be 

item substitutions of comparable difficulty, neither harder nor easier than those practiced. 

This practice provides assurance that the examination is valid and discriminatory, since 

the process (rather than the specific content) is primarily measured.

The NRC cannot make confident and consistent validity inferences (i.e., licensing 

decisions) if one examination assesses knowledge at lower cognitive levels, and another 

assesses knowledge at higher levels (greater depth). While each examination may meet 

sample plan coverage guidelines, they test different levels of knowledge and, 

consequently, they are different and inconsistent measuring instruments. Therefore, 

they yield different validity inferences regarding minimally safe operator performance. 

Refer to Section D for a more detailed discussion of consistency and reliability and to 

Appendix B for a more detailed discussion of the various levels of knowledge as they 

relate to the development of written test questions.

3. Discrimination Validity

The third facet of validity concerns the examination’s ability to discriminate, or make some 

distinction along a continuum of examinee performance. In that regard, the primary 

objective of the NRC’s examinations is to determine if the examinees have sufficiently

“mastered” the knowledge, skills, abilities, and other attributes to perform the job of an RO 

or SRO at a specific plant. The NRC’s examinations are not intended to distinguish 

among levels of competency or to identify the most qualified individuals, but to make 

reliable and valid distinctions at the minimum level of competency that the agency has 

selected in the interests of public protection.

a. Criterion-Referenced Testing

The NRC’s initial and requalification examinations, like most licensing 

examinations, are criterion- rather than norm-referenced tests. This means that

there is a pass/fail or minimal cut score or grade that the examinee must achieve to 

demonstrate sufficient knowledge and ability to safely operate the power plant. If 

the examination does not intend to discriminate at an agreed-upon minimal 

measure of knowledge or performance, there is little reason to administer the

examination. For a criterion-referenced test to be effective, both the individual 

test items and the overall examination must discriminate between applicants who 

have and have not mastered the required knowledge, skills, and abilities.

b. Cut Scores

For NRC examinations, the overall cut scores (on the written examination and 

walk-through) are fixed at 80 percent (although lower cut scores apply to subparts 

of the examination); it is the content of the examination that varies from occasion to 

occasion because of the plant-specific character of the test material. As
A-6

discussed below, there are several reasons why the cut score must be fixed, 

including the uniqueness of each examination, consistency, and public 

confidence.

In the writing, reviewing, setting of scoring standards, and grading of any particular 

NRC examination, both the examination author and the reviewer are well aware of 

the NRC-established passing score of 80 percent. They may also have 

knowledge of how prior examinees have performed on questions similar to those 

being used on the examination under construction and expectations as to how a 

qualified or unqualified applicant should perform on the examination. They must 

use this knowledge to control the nature and difficulty of the examination, such that 

an examinee who is deemed to be qualified scores above the passing grade, while 

an examinee who is deemed to be unqualified scores below that grade.

The traditional cut score on the examination should not be viewed as arbitrary. 

Rather, it reflects a point on the test at which author and reviewer judgment 

separates the qualified from the unqualified. Nonetheless, the judgment is

probably similar to other methodologies for determining passing test scores. For

example, rather than explicitly judging the probability that a minimally qualified 

applicant will pass an item, the author is implicitly being asked to write an

examination on which, in the author’s judgment, the minimally qualified applicant 

will obtain a score of at least 80 percent. Achieving this objective requires the 

author and reviewer to integrate their content and process skills.

c. Level of Knowledge Versus Level of Difficulty

As further discussed in Appendix B, the NRC uses Bloom’s Taxonomy as the basis 

for classifying the level of knowledge of its test items [i.e., written examination 

questions, job performance measures (JPMs), and simulator events]. Simply 

stated, level of knowledge represents the range of mental demands required to 

answer a question or perform a task; in other words, level of knowledge is a 

continuum of mental rigor that ranges from retrieving fundamental knowledge (low 

level) to retrieving that knowledge and also understanding, analyzing, and 

synthesizing that knowledge with other knowledge (high level).

The accurate classification of knowledge as low- or high-level requires the

application of objective criteria. While different reviewers can arrive at different 

conclusions regarding the knowledge level of individual test items, a common set 

of criteria can make the classification an informed process, thereby minimizing the 

differences among reviewers. Consistency among reviewers is important 

because this NUREG establishes specific criteria relative to the number of higher 

cognitive level (HCL) test items on the site-specific written licensing examination. 

Keep in mind that classifying a test item’s level of knowledge is not equivalent to 

determining its level of difficulty, which is discussed as a separate issue below.

When evaluating level of knowledge, two key elements must be considered. 

Specifically, those elements are (1) the number and type of mental steps 

necessary to process the given data and arrive at the correct answer, and (2) the

training and experience level of the target test group.
A-7

Generally, an HCL test item will require at least two mental steps, one of which 

requires the recall of acquired knowledge, and the other requires associating two

or more pieces of data. The number and types of mental steps that must be

considered are those necessary to rule out plausible incorrect distractors as well 

as the steps needed to identify the correct answer. Distractors can contain 

knowledge that the applicant might need to manipulate with other information 

contained in the question in order to answer the question and this, in turn, may 

raise the level of knowledge of the question. However, it is largely the stem of the 

question that drives the mental thought required to answer the question.

An HCL test item will have at least two data points that must be associated. 

These data points may be provided in the test item, or they may have to be recalled 

from memory by the examinee. For example, the examinee may be given one 

plant operating parameter in the stem of a question and have to recall a setpoint to 

evaluate whether a particular action should have occurred. This is considered 

HCL because it requires the examinee to (1) recall a setpoint beyond the 

information given in the stem and (2) compare the setpoint to a given data point. 

Since more than one mental step was necessary to answer this question, and two 

data points had to be associated or compared, it should be classified as HCL.

Similarly, if a test item elicits a mental demand that requires a “why” or “how”

response such that the examinee must derive the correct explanation, prediction, 

or action, the item is testing at the comprehension or application level. 

Comprehension/application level test items require the examinee to recall stored

knowledge and understand the relationship between two or more pieces of data 

(such as events or conditions) given in the stem of the test item. In sum, HCL test 

items require multiple mental processing steps, which are usually the recall and 

integration of two or more pieces of data. Good HCL test items are operational in 

nature and require demonstration of understanding and problem solving.

Test items that simply ask examinees to provide a single answer that requires a 

“who, what, when, or where” response are typically fundamental knowledge 

(low-level) questions because they involve recalling or recognizing a single answer 

or chunk of information. The examinee is not required to understand cause-effect 

relationships or system responses. Therefore, if a test item simply asks for a

reactor trip setpoint, and does not require a comparison with an operating 

parameter value, it would be considered a lower cognitive level question because

only one mental step, with no data association, is necessary to arrive at the 

answer.

With regard to the operating test items (i.e., JPMs and simulator events), the

regulations (10 CFR 55.45(a) and 55.59(a)(2)(ii)) specifically require an

assessment of the examinees’ understanding of and ability to perform 

the actions specified in the regulation. Alternate path JPMs are used to assess

such understanding during the walk-through because they require examinees to

evaluate unplanned conditions or events while executing procedures and to 

implement acceptable, alternative methods of accomplishing the assigned tasks.

As previously noted, the training and experience of the target test group also must

be considered when evaluating level of knowledge. A reviewer can approach the 

classification from the perspective of an “expert,” with a predetermined belief about 

the mental processes required to answer a given question, and incorrectly assume 

that the novice applicant will use the same processes. This is a form of 
A-8

perceptual bias that can affect level of knowledge, as well as level of difficulty, 

classifications. When examining new license applicants, it is expected that the 

typical applicant will need to mentally analyze, or figure out, the answers to HCL 

questions. Whereas the expert is able to answer a test item quickly and easily, 

the novice may have to eliminate plausible distractors to arrive at the correct 

answer, an indication of an HCL question. Therefore, when making the level of 

knowledge determination, examination writers and reviewers should place 

themselves in the context of the “novice applicant” and assess the components of 

the test item that the novice must manipulate to answer the test item.

Keep in mind that many test takers may easily arrive at the answer; however, ease 

of answering a question is a relative concept and should be clearly separated from 

the mental processes, or level of knowledge, required to answer the test item.

In summary:

• Level of knowledge is a taxonomy to determine the mental processes used to 

answer a question. Those processes are classified as either lower or higher 

cognitive level and should not be confused with level of difficulty.

• An HCL test item requires at least two mental steps, one involving the recall of 

acquired knowledge, and the other requiring the association of two or more 

pieces of data. The number and type of mental steps that must be considered 

include those necessary to rule out plausible incorrect distractors as well as the 

steps needed to identify the correct answer. If there is doubt concerning the 

number of associations, err on the side of classifying the item as HCL. As a 

tip, attempt to answer the question in an unaided recall manner (i.e., if the 

question were in the completion or short answer format, cover the distractors 

and attempt to complete the answer). Then, analyze the mental process 

needed to answer the question using the “who, what, when, or where”

(fundamental) or the “how or why” (comprehension/analysis) criteria discussed 

above.

• When assessing level of knowledge, the examination writers/reviewers must 

use the perspective of the test taker in the target group (i.e., novice versus 

expert) to avoid perceptual bias. The reviewer has seen the item, knows the 

answer, and may not appreciate the mental processes that an examinee may 

use to answer the question.

Level of difficulty is a separate concept, but is often influenced by the test item’s

level of knowledge. Although HCL test items are generally more difficult, this may 

not always be true. A fundamental knowledge question may be easy (e.g., How 

many inches are in a foot?) or difficult (e.g., In what year was the printing press 

invented?).

The NRC evaluates a test item’s level of difficulty to ensure that the item can help 

discriminate between safe and unsafe operators. The examination’s overall level 

of difficulty, as well as that of its individual test items, should center around the 80

percent cut score. (See additional guidance below.)
A-9

Assigning a level of difficulty rating to an individual test item is a somewhat 

subjective process. As when assessing the level of knowledge, examination 

authors and reviewers must “detach themselves” as subject matter experts, place 

themselves in the position of the novice applicant, and apply what they know about 

previous applicants’ performance on similar test items. For example, if a 

particular item was “missed” by 10 to 20 percent of past license applicants, the 

item would be considered moderately discriminating, with a difficulty rating of 3 on 

a 5-point scale. It would be reasonable to expect that a similar item will perform 

similarly with a comparable test group. Conversely, if 95 percent or more of 

license applicants typically answer a particular test item correctly, it is likely that 

future use of a comparable item will yield a similar result, so a difficulty rating of 1 

would be justified.

d. Cut Scores and the Level of Difficulty

For the cut score of 80 percent to be meaningful individual test items must be 

written “near” that level. A target level of difficulty range of 70 to 90 percent is

recommended for individual test items. Test items that are so difficult that few (if 

any) of the examinees are expected to answer correctly do not discriminate and 

should not be used on an NRC examination. Similarly, test items that are so easy 

or fundamental that even those examinees who are known to have performance 

problems will be able to answer correctly should be used with discretion. It is 

expected that every examination will contain some test items that all or most of the 

examinees will answer correctly or incorrectly. This does not necessarily mean

that the test items or the examination are invalid.

It should be stressed that the intent is not for everyone to get a score of 80 percent. 

In fact, historically about 90 percent of examinees score 80 percent or above on

the NRC examinations. A score of 80 percent is the minimal pass score that the 

author and reviewer must keep in mind as a functional level of discrimination for 

setting item difficulty. To achieve this, the test author must keep in mind and 

integrate the following concepts:

• the level of knowledge required of examinees taking the examination

• the operational validity of the questions (i.e., are they expressed as a

conceivable job behavior?)

• the ability of the distractors to distract the examinees

• the examinees’ past performance on items of similar difficulty

e. Use of Item Banks

Test item banks are a valuable resource for learning and represent one

fundamental basis for training and testing. However, it would be inappropriate to

copy all or a significant portion of the items for an examination directly from the

bank if the same items were previously used for testing or training. Test item

banks must be used properly to maintain the validity, reliability, and consistency of 

the examinations. Previously administered test items reduce examination 

integrity because examination discrimination is reduced.
A-10

Discrimination is reduced because the cognitive level at which the examinees are

tested could decrease to the simple recognition level if the item bank is small and

available for the examinees to study. The comprehension and analysis levels of 

knowledge may not be assessable because mental thought has been reduced to a 

recognition level, and decision-making is absent because test items, JPMs, or 

scenario events have been rehearsed and are anticipated. In short, challenge 

and mental analysis are lost and the examinees are tested at a rote-rehearsal 

level. An examination cannot assess higher cognitive and analytical abilities if a 

significant portion of the items within the examination have already been seen.

Furthermore, when the bank of items from which the examination is drawn is

known to the examinees before the examination, the examination is said to be 

highly predictable. Predictable examinations tend not to discriminate because 

what is being tested is simple recognition of the answer. Although studying past

examinations can have a positive learning value, total predictability of examination 

coverage through over-reliance upon examination banks reduces examination 

integrity. When the examinees know the precise and limited pool from which test 

items will be drawn, they will tend only to study from that pool (i.e., studying to the 

test) and may likely exclude from study the larger domain of job knowledge. 

When this occurs, it decreases the confidence in the validity inferences that are 

made from performance on the test to that of the larger realm of knowledge or skill 

to be mastered.

Therefore, the NRC has placed limits on the use of facility item banks or other such 

available banks or resources that have been published, reviewed, or used as the

basis for training; the specific limits are discussed in the examination standards. 

The NRC appreciates the amount of resources required to develop new test items 

that are appropriate for use on an NRC examination, and it realizes that existing 

test items are a valuable resource that should not be wasted. Therefore, the 

NRC has elected to strike a balance in setting limits on the mix of previously used 

bank items, modified bank items, and newly developed (i.e., not previously seen) 

items. Additional limits have been placed on the repetition of test items from prior 

quizzes and examinations given at the facility.

D. Reliability

Reliability is the second fundamental testing concept that has played a decisive role in the 

development of the NRC’s initial and requalification examination programs. Whereas the notion 

of validity emphasizes the appropriateness of the content of the NRC examinations, reliability

stresses consistency, repeatability, and the degree of confidence that the examination process 

will result in valid pass / fail decisions. The reliability of an examination is as important as its

validity; if an examination is not reliable, it cannot be valid.

The importance of examination consistency (reliability) cannot be overstated. In fact, test

reliability represents the consistency among examinations which, in turn, gives the NRC the

confidence that all examinations are valid measures from which to make confident and valid

licensing decisions. The combined effects of item bank use, the level of knowledge tested in the 

individual test items, and the expected discriminatory (difficulty) level of the items play an 

important role in determining the reliability of the examination.

The higher the reliability of a test, the fewer errors will be made in determining if the examinees 

have mastered the job requirements. Examinations should differ only in the specific content 

covered, not in their developmental processes, manner of sampling, item construction criteria, 
A-11

level of item bank use, or their levels of knowledge and difficulty. The standardization of the 

process creates consistency of measurement. Ideally, any two examinations that are developed

using these procedures and guidelines and administered to the same group of examinees should 

produce comparable results; likewise, the results of any examination administered to different but 

similarly trained and qualified examinees should also yield comparable results.

The standardized examination development, administration, and grading procedures described in 

this NUREG have evolved over a period of years in an effort to enhance the reliability and, hence, 

the validity of the NRC’s licensing decisions. The importance of having these procedures and 

complying with their intent has grown in proportion with the number of individuals and 

organizations that have become involved in the examination process.

Section 107 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, requires the Commission to prescribe 

uniform licensing conditions for operators. Therefore, facility licensees are expected to develop 

and submit their proposed examinations based on the guidelines and instructions contained here. 

The NRC discourages facility licensees from using testing methodologies that do not conform to 

the policies, procedures, and practices defined in this NUREG. Nonetheless, facility licensees 

may propose alternatives to specific guidance in NUREG-1021, and the NRC will review and rule 

on the acceptability of the alternatives.

B-1

APPENDIX B

WRITTEN EXAMINATION GUIDELINES

A. Purpose

This appendix provides background information concerning the principles and practices for

developing multiple-choice written test questions for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) initial and requalification examinations. Examination authors and reviewers should use 

this guidance when selecting, constructing, and reviewing questions for use in NRC written 

examinations. Specifically, this appendix addresses the following topics:

• written examination background (Section B)

• the basic psychometric principles (i.e., low level of knowledge, low operational validity, low 

discriminatory validity, implausible distractors, confusing language or ambiguous 

questions, confusing or inappropriate negatives, collection of true/false statements, 

backward logic) and other guidelines applicable to the question development process 

(Section C)

• a checklist for reviewing multiple-choice questions (Attachment 1)

• examples of questions that illustrate the psychometric principles (Attachment 2)

• a list of references that provide additional information concerning the development of

written examinations (Attachment 3)

For a discussion of the specific written examination criteria that apply to NRC initial and

requalification examinations, refer to ES-401 or ES-401N, “Preparing Initial Site-Specific Written

Examinations,” and ES-602, “Requalification Written Examinations,” respectively. Refer to 

ES-602 Attachment 1, “Guidelines for Developing and Reviewing Open-Reference 

Examinations,” for specific guidance on how to develop open-reference written examination 

questions.

B. Background

1. The Importance of the Written Examination

Society has institutionalized written examinations as an accepted and important facet of

performance testing, and they are routinely used as an integral factor in measuring human 

performance in nearly every field of study. Educational institutions from elementary 

through graduate schools use written examinations, in part or in whole, to measure 

intended competencies. Moreover, many fields of business, including the legal, medical, 

educational, and accounting professions, use written examinations for licensing and

credentialing activities.

The importance of knowledge testing should not be underestimated, because knowledge 

is the underpinning of professional performance. The objectives of knowledge testing 

are varied; they may include assessing fundamental understanding, as well as testing 

more advanced levels of expertise. The most effective tests of knowledge include 

questions and test items that measure the application of knowledge that directly relates to

an individual’s job. In the case of operator licensing, the NRC’s written examination 

yields a key measure that allows the agency to make a confident decision regarding the

safety-significant performance of the individual seeking a license.
B-2

De-emphasizing or sidestepping knowledge testing through careless or simplistic testing 

processes, or treating it secondarily to other portions of the examination that are more 

operationally oriented could affect subsequent job performance. Failing to focus on

testing the individual operator’s cognitive abilities (i.e., comprehension, problem-solving, 

and decision making), or paying insufficient attention to the operator’s fundamental 

understanding of job content (e.g., systems, components, and procedures), may 

ultimately place job performance at risk of gradual degradation. When the demand for

disciplined learning and study declines or the level of knowledge (depth of application) 

required for the job is reduced, it could lead to less time spent in training preparation, less 

mental review and practice, more forgetting of factual details, less reinforcement and

application of job concepts, and a gradual decline in performance.

Moreover, without a solid fundamental knowledge base, operators may not perform 

acceptably in situations that are not specifically addressed in procedures. Since every 

performance has an underlying knowledge component, that knowledge and its depth need 

development and assessment to ensure the operators’ competence on the job. Recent 

studies assessing mental performance in cognitively demanding emergencies point out 

that higher-level cognitive thought (such as event diagnosis and response planning) are 

important in responding to safety-related events.

2. Objective Versus Subjective Test Items

Traditionally, questions that require the examinee to supply an answer (e.g., short answer 

and essay) have been considered “subjective,” while questions requiring the examinee to 

select an answer (e.g., multiple-choice) have been considered “objective.” These terms 

arose from the scoring of the items. If graders require subject matter expertise to 

interpret the answers, the question is considered subjective. By contrast, if graders can 

score the examination by verifying a single letter or number, the question is considered 

objective.

Multiple-choice items are the most common and most popular of the select-type items. 

For reasons of consistency and reliability, they are currently the only type of items 

acceptable for use on NRC initial licensing examinations. Although multiple-choice items 

are not as easy to construct as other forms, they are very versatile, can be used to test for

all levels and types of knowledge, and minimize the likelihood that the examinee will 

obtain the correct answer by guessing. Scoring multiple-choice examinations is also 

considerably more reliable and less time-consuming than scoring open-ended response 

items. Furthermore, since each item requires less time to answer; more items can be 

used to test a larger sample of K/As. This provides better content coverage, which also 

increases test reliability.

For purposes of NRC requalification examinations and initial operating tests, the definition 

of “objective” differs from the traditional definition discussed above. In this case, an

objective test item is one for which (1) there is only one correct answer, and (2) all qualified 

graders would agree on the amount of credit allowed for any answer.

Therefore, all questions on NRC examinations shall be objectively gradable, regardless of

the item format. Questions with no single correct answer or for which the credit given can 

vary, depending on who graded it or when it was graded, have no place on an NRC

examination.
B-3

C. Question Development

Examination authors and reviewers should observe the following generic principles and question 

construction guidelines when preparing NRC written examinations. The guidance is based upon 

psychometrics - the process of applying sound qualitative processes to mental measurements. 

The generic principles apply to all question formats, including multiple-choice, while the

guidelines in Section C.2 apply strictly to the multiple-choice format. It is important to minimize 

the number of psychometric errors in NRC examinations because test items that are free of

psychometric errors yield greater measurement validity.

The following principles and guidelines are summarized on Attachment 1, which can be used as a

desk-reference during the process of developing and reviewing questions. The list appears to be 

long, but the concepts become internalized with practice, and the process becomes less difficult. 

Many of the principles are accompanied by examples that illustrate the psychometric errors that

should be avoided. Attachment 2 provides additional examples. 

1. Generic Principles

a. Ensure that the concept being measured has a direct, important relationship to the

ability to perform the job. Although Appendix A stresses the importance of

relevant K/As and testing objectives, it is equally important that the construction of

the question itself clearly reflects the importance of the topic. Phrase the question 

so that it has “face validity,” as well as underlying content validity. That is, make 

sure that the question would be considered reasonable to other subject matter 

experts using the same reference materials.

It is not always necessary to establish a direct, word-for-word match between a

question and a facility learning objective. A broadly stated learning objective may 

support any number of related questions.

Similarly, the absence of a facility learning objective does not preclude the

development of a valid, K/A-based question. This is consistent with the concept 

of the NRC examination as providing checks and balances on the facility 

licensee’s training program, thereby alerting the licensee that it may need to 

develop such a learning objective.

Although it is appropriate to develop questions regarding knowledge that is

embedded in or covered by procedures, the knowledge tested should not be trivial 

in nature.

b. Make sure that the question matches the intent of the K/A.

It is very easy to wind up with a question that tests a relatively trivial aspect of an

important K/A topic. When reviewing your draft question, ask yourself whether it

is likely that someone could answer the question correctly and still not meet the

objective or intent of the K/A or perform the responsibilities or tasks for which the

K/A is needed.
B-4

If you are having difficulty translating a K/A into a test question, ask yourself the

following questions to help generate ideas for potential test questions:

(1) What are the common misconceptions about this topic?

(2) Why is this topic important to satisfactory job performance?

(3) Under which circumstances would it be important to understand this topic?

(4) What might an individual do if he or she does not understand this topic?

(5) What might be the consequences of a lack of knowledge about this topic?

(6) How can the individual demonstrate his or her knowledge of this topic?

c. State the question unambiguously, precisely, and as concisely as possible, but

provide all necessary information.

Often the individuals who develop a question assume that certain stipulations or

conditions are inherent in the question when, in fact, they are not. It is very 

difficult for the person who wrote a question to review it impartially or through the

eyes of a new reader. Therefore, it is very important to have others review your 

questions to ensure that they include all necessary information, and excludes all 

extraneous or superfluous information. For example, it is not necessary to 

provide a status for each annunciated parameter that is in its normal 

(non-alarming) state. Refer to Section C.3 for additional guidance regarding 

examination reviews and to Part B of Appendix E for the instructions provided to 

applicants regarding question clarity and assumptions.

However, as discussed in Appendix A, keep in mind that the key purpose of any

test item is to assess important knowledge and abilities at a level that distinguishes 

between safe and unsafe applicants. A test item’s ability to make that distinction 

is referred to as its discrimination validity. For a question to discriminate at the

appropriate level, the test author must exercise judgment in establishing the initial 

conditions posed in the stem of the question. Providing too much information may

“lead the applicant to the answer” and decrease the discrimination validity of the

question because the answer is obvious to all applicants.

For closed-reference questions related to a specific plant procedure, it is generally 

desirable for the question to cite the number and title of the subject procedure, 

thereby limiting the possibility of an alternative correct answer if another procedure 

happens to relate to the same activity. For open-reference questions, use caution 

to ensure that the question does not become a direct look up, with a pointer to help 

the applicant find the answer.

d. Write the question at the highest level of knowledge reflected in the testing 

objective.

One of the most challenging aspects of question development is attaining the

appropriate level of knowledge. The reference benchmark that the NRC uses to 

classify the levels of knowledge of test items is Bloom’s Taxonomy, a classification 

scheme that permits the grouping of items by the level (depth) of mental thought 

and performance required to answer the items. (Refer to Attachment 3 for

references related to Bloom’s Taxonomy). Although Bloom’s Taxonomy is most

pertinent to written examination questions, it can also be applied to simulator 

scenarios and JPMs. In ascending order, the three levels (depths) of mental 

thought and performance are as follows (refer to Section A of Attachment 2 for

examples of each level):
B-5

• Level 1 (i.e., fundamental knowledge or simple memory) tests the recall or

recognition of discrete bits of information. Examples include knowledge of

terminology, definitions, set points, patterns, structures, procedural steps and

cautions, and other specific facts.

• Level 2 (i.e., comprehension) involves the mental process of understanding the

material by relating it to its own parts or to some other material. Examples 

include rephrasing information in different words, describing or recognizing 

relationships, showing similarities and differences among parts or wholes, and

recognizing how systems interact, including consequences or implications.

• Level 3 (i.e., analysis, synthesis, or application) testing is a more active and

product-oriented testing approach, which involves the multifaceted mental 

process of assembling, sorting, or integrating the parts (information bits and

their relationships) to predict an event or outcome, solve a problem, or create 

something new. This level requires mentally using the knowledge and its 

meaning to solve problems.

Although test questions should be written to reflect the level of knowledge that is

most appropriate for a specific K/A, it is best to avoid high percentages of

fundamental knowledge-level questions on the examination. (Refer to ES-401 or 

ES-401N for specific limits.) When there is a choice between two levels of

knowledge, try to write the question to reflect the higher level. In general, test 

items at the comprehension and analysis levels are the most operationally 

oriented and, therefore, tend to be the most valid and discriminatory measure of

operator knowledge and safe performance. Questions that require only

memorization or recall are not acceptable for use on open-reference 

examinations.

e. Avoid questions that are unnecessarily difficult or irrelevant.

As discussed conceptually in Appendix A, both the level of knowledge and the

difficulty of an item are at the heart of examination discrimination. Authors should 

develop examinations that are estimated to center around the 80-percent cut score

level, with individual item difficulty estimated to fall in the 70- to 90-percent difficulty 

range. (These parameters should not be viewed as precise benchmarks, but 

rather as approximate end points.) Examination authors should consider the

results of past examinations when preparing a new one. Past performance on

individual test questions may provide a basis for generating new questions and for 

estimating the level of difficulty of the examination. For example, questions that

everyone answered incorrectly may indicate that the topic did not receive sufficient 

emphasis in training or that the item was poorly worded. Conversely, questions 

that everyone answered correctly may indicate that the item was written at too low 

a level or the distractors were not very plausible.

Since item difficulty can usually be decreased or increased through revision, the

examination author need not be overly preoccupied with difficulty when writing the

items. Instead, the author should focus on achieving a valid measure of the

concept he or she is attempting to evaluate.

When attempting to determine the appropriate level of difficulty, it may be helpful to 

think of two groups of individuals, one composed of experienced operators and the
B-6

other of typical applicants, and evaluate the likelihood that each group of

individuals will be able to answer the question. If at least 80 percent of the job

incumbents or license applicants should be able to answer the question as written 

based on the expected knowledge levels for the position (operator or senior 

operator), the item is likely written at an appropriate discriminatory level. 

Examination authors and reviewers may also consider the following factors in an

effort to identify questions that are unnecessarily difficult or irrelevant:

• Could someone do the job safely and effectively without being able to answer 

the question? If so, is it because (1) the content is inappropriate, (2) the

wording is unclear, or (3) the level of understanding is too great?

• What aspects of the item or option might cause the most difficulty? Has the

item been made artificially difficult? Can a person understand the principle 

being tested and still miss the item?

Estimates of difficulty made by the examination author and reviewers may vary 

somewhat, but should not vary widely. Unless there is some reason to doubt the

estimates of some reviewers, the average estimate may be taken as a basis for

assessing the suitability of item difficulty for the examination. Items should be 

revised if estimates fall well below or above the 70- to 90-percent target range.

Research has shown that when authors write test items in their own area of

specialization, they have a tendency to underestimate the difficulty of a concept or

principle being tested. This tendency can manifest itself in two ways. 

Specifically, (1) the author will view items of average difficulty as being easy, or

(2) in an effort to include plausible misleads among distractors in a multiple-choice 

test item, the author may make the item even more difficult. For this reason, an

estimate of item difficulty made by the reviewers will probably be more accurate 

than one made by the author of the item.

Examination authors should take care not to develop an examination with wide

swings of individual item difficulty. For example, writing half the items at a

60-percent difficulty level with the other half at a 100-percent difficulty level would 

yield an average of 80 percent; however, this approach has numerous flaws. The

items at the 100-percent level, by design, would be meaningless, since they would 

fail to discriminate at any level because the expectation is that nearly everyone 

would answer the question correctly. On the other hand, those written at the

60-percent difficulty level, by design, would also not discriminate and would

likewise be unfair because 40 percent of the examinees would not be expected to 

answer those items correctly.

f. Limit the question to one concept or topic, unless a synthesis of concepts is being 

tested.

There is a common misconception that testing for multiple K/A topics in one 

question is a time efficient way to examine. However, questions containing a

variety of topics and issues only serve to confuse the examinee about the purpose 

of the question and what is expected in terms of a correct response. Each

individual question should test one K/A topic, and that topic (as well as the intent of

the question) should be clear to both the reviewer and the examinee.
B-7

g. Avoid copying text directly from training or other reference material.

Another common tendency among examination developers is to copy sentences 

directly from reference material and turn them into test questions. Unfortunately, 

questions written in this way generally encourage rote memorization. 

Furthermore, copying from reference material can cause ambiguity or deficiency in

questions because the replicated material often draws its meaning and importance 

from its surrounding context. Therefore, important assumptions or stipulations 

stated elsewhere in the material are often omitted from the test question. Finally,

such questions can frequently be answered correctly by examinees who do not 

really understand the concept, but do remember the specific wording on a page of

reference material. Conversely, examinees who understand the topic, but not in

the exact way it was written in the material, may miss the question because of

unstated assumptions or other missing information.

h. Avoid “backward logic” questions that ask for what should be provided in the

question, and provide what should be required in the examinee’s response. 

Section G of Attachment 1 provides examples of backward logic questions.

In addition to testing on valid topics, it is important to examine on those topics in a

way that is consistent with how the K/A should be remembered and used. Do not 

test on the topic in a backward way.

2. Other Question Construction Guidelines

The following principles and guidelines apply specifically to multiple-choice questions:

a. Use four answer options.

The four-distractor multiple-choice item with only one correct answer is the only style 

that is considered acceptable for NRC examinations. However, the use of test items 

with multiple correct answers from which examinees must select the “most correct”

answer is not acceptable because such items significantly reduce the reliability of

examination results by increasing the effect of examiner subjectivity in the examination 

development and grading processes.

The five-answer option contributes nothing to the question, and any format with fewer 

than four distractors makes guessing correctly more probable. The following four 

basic models are acceptable and may be used in combination with one another.

Model A: a. correct answer

b. plausible incorrect answer

c. plausible incorrect answer

d. plausible incorrect answer

This model depicts the traditional multiple-choice design format with one correct 

single-word/phrase answer followed by three incorrect single-word/phrase options. 

Note that all options are of similar length.

Model B: a. correct answer

b. plausible misconception

c. plausible incorrect answer

d. plausible incorrect answer
B-8

This variation of Model A uses a plausible misconception as one of the three incorrect 

answers. Again, note that all options are of similar length.

Model C: a. correct answer with correct condition (e.g., because, since, when, if,

etc.)

b. correct answer with plausible incorrect condition

c. plausible incorrect answer with incorrect condition

d. plausible incorrect answer with incorrect condition

Model C depicts an acceptable design that uses answers with conditions (i.e., a

setting, event, cause, or effect) that may make the answer correct or incorrect. Note 

that Model C shows only one correct answer with its correct condition, and all options 

are similar in length.

Model D: a. correct answer

b. plausible incorrect answer

c. correct answer with plausible incorrect condition

d. plausible incorrect answer with incorrect condition

Model D is useful when it is not possible to create four options of similar length. This 

model shows paired lengths (two long and two short options), which prevents any one 

option from standing apart (either too long or too short) from the remaining options.

When using Models C or D, it is particularly important to maximize the plausibility of

any incorrect conditions that appear in multiple distractors, to minimize the chances 

that examinees will be able to eliminate those distractors by detecting one piece of

implausible information.

b. Do not use “all of the above” or “none of the above.”

“All of the above” questions provide inadvertent clues to the examinee. When the “all 

of the above” option is the correct response, the examinee must simply recognize that

two options are correct to answer the question correctly. Similarly, when “all of the

above” is used as a distractor, the examinee only needs to be able to determine that

one option is incorrect in order to eliminate this option. “None of the above” responses 

should not be used with “best answer” multiple-choice questions, since it may always 

be defensible as a response.

c. Do not present a collection of true-false (T/F) statements as a multiple-choice item.

As previously discussed, each item should focus on one K/A topic that is determined

by the stem of the question. A question containing answer options related to many 

separate issues does not increase the efficiency of the question. To the contrary, 

questions with multiple topics confuse the examinee about the meaning and purpose 

of the question.

As a way of determining if you have a test item that is a collection of T/F statements,

check whether the answer can be determined or the distractors can be rejected without 

the information contained in the stem. If so, you likely have a question that is a T/F 

collection. Refer to Section F of Attachment 2 for sample questions that illustrate this

psychometric deficiency.
B-9

d. Define the question, task, or problem in the stem of the question.

In designing multiple-choice questions that are operationally based and require an

application/use scenario, one suggestion is to provide the conditions in the first part of

the question, separated by a double space from the body of the question, and blocked 

to the left column with each condition bulleted, as in the following example:

Given the following conditions:

• Both main feed pumps tripped

• Auxiliary feedwater (AFW) automatically started

• AFW valves reset to control steam generator water level

• AFW suction pressure decreased to 7 psig

Which ONE of the following describes the AFW pump response for the given 

conditions?

a. Suction will automatically shift to the nuclear service water system.

b. Suction will automatically shift to the upper surge tank.

c. Trip when suction pressure decreases to 5 psig.

d. Trip after a 6-second time delay.

Include as much necessary information as possible about the problem or situation in

the stem, leaving only the solution, action, or effect for the answer options. Consider 

the following “poor” and “better” examples:

(Poor) At 50 percent power:

a. The equilibrium xenon reactivity worth is approximately equal to the equilibrium 

xenon worth at 100 percent power.

b. The equilibrium xenon reactivity worth is approximately one-half the

equilibrium xenon worth as 100 percent power.

c. The equilibrium xenon reactivity worth is approximately two-thirds the

equilibrium xenon worth at 100 percent power.

d. The equilibrium xenon reactivity worth is approximately three-fourths the

equilibrium xenon worth at 100 percent power.”

(Better) How does the equilibrium xenon reactivity worth compare to the

equilibrium xenon reactivity worth at 100 percent power?

a. equal to

b. one-half

c. two-thirds

d. three-fourths

e. When possible, avoid using negatively stated stems. If a negative stem is necessary, 

highlight the negative word (e.g., not, never, least).

It is very tempting to write negatively stated questions, since they can be constructed 

by picking three true statements out of the reference material and changing a fourth 

statement to make it false. However, studies have shown that examinees do not do 

as well on negatively stated questions, because they overlook the negative word or 
B-10

because negatively stated questions require examinees to select an answer that is not 

true or characteristic, which can be somewhat confusing. In addition, these questions 

tend to emphasize negative learning. For example, consider the following stem of a

multiple-choice question:

During 100 percent power operation, the feedwater heater 2A high level dump

valve opens inadvertently. The condensate pumps will not do which of the

following:

This stem can be made to read positively:

During 100 percent power operation, the feedwater heater 2A high level dump

valve opens inadvertently. The condensate pumps will:

a. increase flow to maintain feedwater flow rate

b. trip because of a runout condition

c. have no response

d. trip because of low suction pressure

Although a negatively stated question is sometimes unavoidable, never use a

negatively stated stem with a negatively stated answer option, as illustrated by 

example E.3 in Attachment 2.

f. Provide sufficient counterbalance in questions with multipart answers.

Multiple-choice questions can legitimately contain multipart answer options. 

However, if the answers contain too many parts or too many options for each part, 

cues indicating the correct answer may be unavoidable. Consider the following 

example:

The reactor coolant system (RCS) is in hot standby with no reactor coolant pumps 

(RCPs) running. If the once-through steam generator pressure is decreased, 

according to the plant verification procedure, which of the following temperature 

responses indicates the presence of natural circulation?

a. T-H increases, T-C remains the same

b. T-H increases, T-C decreases

c. T-H decreases, T-C decreases

d. T-H remains the same, T-C decreases

The examinee could choose the correct answer (c) without knowing about the T-C 

temperature response in this situation, since “T-H decreases” only occurs in option “c.”

Notice that two-part answers, with each part containing a two-option response, provide 

complete counterbalance, since all contingencies can be covered in four responses, 

as in the following example:

Which of the following is a definition of quadrant power tilt ratio?

a. minimum upper detector output divided by average upper detector output

b. maximum upper detector output divided by average upper detector output

c. minimum upper detector output divided by average lower detector output

d. maximum upper detector output divided by average lower detector output
B-11

A highly recommended multipart question format is one in which the two-part answer 

options consist of a two-level response (e.g., yes/no; off/on) and a reason, as in the

following example:

Which of the following describes the behavior of equilibrium xenon reactivity over 

core life?

a. It decreases because of the increased fuel burnup.

b. It decreases because of the decrease in plutonium-xenon yield.

c. It increases because of the increase in thermal flux.

d. It increases because of the decrease in boron concentration.

Sometimes, in an effort to improve their plausibility, distractors may include secondary 

pieces of information that have lower relative importance and discriminatory value 

than the key point of the distractor. However, those secondary pieces of information 

are not irrelevant; the value of the question should be considered as a whole and not 

discounted because the answer choices contain information of lower importance.

g. When possible, include common misconceptions as distractors. Since the purpose of

the examination is to differentiate between competent and less-than-competent 

examinees, a good source of questions involves topics in which there are common 

misconceptions about important K/A topics. For example, the following question was 

based upon a common misconception about loss of subcooling margin:

During a small-break loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) with a resultant loss of

subcooling margin, why are the RCPs secured?

a. to prevent pump damage resulting from operation under two-phase conditions

b. to prevent core damage resulting from rapid phase separation upon 

subsequent loss of RCS flow

c. to reduce RCS pressure by removing the pressure head developed by the

RCPs

d. to remove the heat being added to the RCS by the operating RCPs

h. Make all answer options homogeneous and highly plausible.

Consider the following “poor” and “better” examples:

On a loss of condenser circulating water intake canal, the upper surge tank, 

hotwell, and condensate storage tank will supply sufficient feedwater to allow 

decay heat removal for approximately:

Poor Better

a. 15 minutes 8 hours

b. 8 hours 24 hours

c. 48 hours 48 hours

d. 3 months 72 hours

Notice how one method of changing the difficulty level of a question is to vary the

similarity of the answer options. The distractors should be similar enough to be 

chosen by those who do not meet the testing objective, yet different enough so they do 

not test trivial issues or distinctions. Also note how the answer options in each case 

are listed in order of magnitude.
B-12

i. If the answer options have a logical sequence, put them in order (as in “h,” above).

j. Avoid overlapping answer options, as in the following example:

The self-powered neutron detector uses rhodium, which decays with a half-life of

42 seconds. How long will it take for a detector to indicate approximately 

95 percent of an instantaneous power level change?

Poor Better

a. 2 to 4 minutes 1 to 2 minutes

b. 4 to 6 minutes 3 to 4 minutes

c. 6 to 8 minutes 5 to 6 minutes

d. 8 to 10 minutes 7 to 8 minutes

k. Do not include trivial distractors with more important distractors.

In the search for distractors, it is very tempting to include relatively trivial facts along 

with options that focus on more important issues or concepts, as in the following 

example:

Which of the following is true concerning the turbine?

a. The turbine is rotated at low speed when shut down to prevent distortion of the

turbine casing.

b. Turbine eccentricity is the measure of turbine speed.

c. The turbine blades are cooled by hydrogen gas.

d. Technical specifications require that at least one turbine overspeed protection

system must be operable in Mode 2.”

Relative to the other options, option “c” could be considered a trivial distractor. Even 

if included as an incorrect answer, relatively unimportant information jeopardizes the

content validity of the question. Also, note that this question consists of a collection of

true/false statements as described in Section C.2.c.

l. Vary the position of the correct answer; avoid a pattern.

Make sure the position of the correct answer is randomized throughout the

examination. This means that options “a,” “b,” “c,” and “d” should be correct about an

equal number of times, but in no specific order.

m. Avoid “specific determiners” that give clues as to the correct answer. Specific

determiners include the following:

(1) distractors that do not follow grammatically from the stem, as in the following 

example:
B-13

During 100 percent normal power operation, a single steam flow element in the

steam generator feedwater control system fails high. This will cause:

a. the feedwater valves to increase steam generator level slightly before 

returning the level to normal

b. before returning the level to slightly above normal, the feedwater valves to 

increase the steam generator level significantly

c. the feedwater valves to increase the steam generator level to the level of a

reactor trip

d. the feedwater valves to increase the steam generator level slightly and

maintain the increased level”

Note the improvement when distractor “b” is reworded as follows:

b. the feedwater valves to increase the steam generator level significantly before 

returning the level to slightly above normal

(2) options that can be judged correct or incorrect without reading the stem

(3) equivalent or synonymous options, which rule out both options for an examinee 

who recognizes the equivalence

(4) an option that includes another option (for example: (a) less than 5; (b) less than 3)

(5) implausible distractors

(6) a correct answer that is longer than the distractors

(7) qualifiers in the correct answer (e.g., probably and ordinarily) unless they are also 

used in the distractors

(8) words such as “never” or “always,” which suggest an incorrect option

(9) a correct option that differs from the distractors in favorableness, style, or

terminology, as in the following example:

Which action or occurrence is likely to cause water hammer?

a. maintaining the discharge line from an auto starting pump filled with fluid

b. water collecting in a steamline

c. pre-warming of steam lines

d. slowly closing the discharge valve of an operating pump

In the above question, all options except for “b” (the correct answer) describe 

preventive actions, while option “b” describes a condition that occurs as a result of

negligence or oversight. A test-wise examinee would only need to know that

water hammer is not a desired occurrence to determine that “b” is the least 

favorable and, therefore, the correct answer.

n. When appropriate, use distractors that are generically correct statements, but do not 

correctly answer the question, as illustrated in the following example:
B-14

Preparations are being made for refueling, and the following plant conditions exist:

• The refueling cavity is filled with the transfer tube gate valve open.

• The SFP LO LEVEL and CTMT SUMP HI LEVEL annunciators are in alarm.

Which ONE of the following is the required IMMEDIATE ACTION in response to 

these conditions?

a. Verify alarms by checking the containment sump level recorder and spent fuel 

level indication.

b. Sound the containment evacuation alarm.

c. Initiate containment ventilation isolation.

d. Initiate control room ventilation isolation.

Answer “a” is a generic good practice, but it is not responsive to the conditions 

specified in the stem of the question. It is not a required immediate action, nor is it an

appropriate response in light of the mutually confirmatory annunciators that are in

alarm. 

3. Reviewing Test Items

Examination reviewers can assist examination authors by performing technical content, 

level of difficulty, psychometric, and editorial checks, and it is advantageous to consider 

each of these four areas separately and in this order. If there is a need to revise an item 

on the basis of one stage of the review, the changes should be made before going further 

because the changes at each stage could well affect the subsequent reviews. For

example, a criticism that appears to affect only one distractor may ultimately lead to

changes in other parts of the item, so time spent reviewing the item for grammar and

punctuation may be wasted.

There are also some advantages associated with having the questions reviewed for

clarity, grammar, expression, spelling, and punctuation by someone who is not familiar 

with the area being tested. Such a reviewer can determine whether an item can be 

correctly answered by a person without knowledge of the field.

The examination author and reviewers should ask themselves the following types of

questions:

• Will the examinees clearly know what they are expected to do?

• Do they have all the information they need to work with?

• Does answering the question depend on certain assumptions that must be stated?

Attachment 1 presents a more thorough list of suggestions for examination authors and

reviewers.

D. Attachments/Forms

Attachment 1 Question Development Checklist

Attachment 2 Examples

Attachment 3 References
B-15

Appendix B Question Development Checklist Attachment 1

1. Does the concept being measured have a direct, important relationship to the ability to

perform the job?

2. Does the question match the testing objective and intent of the K/A?

3. Is the question clear, concise, and easy to read? Could it be stated more simply and still 

provide the necessary information? Should it be reworded or split up into more than one 

question?

4. Is each question stated positively, unless the intent is to test knowledge of what not to do?

5. Does the question provide all necessary information, stipulations, and assumptions 

needed for a correct response? Does the stem include as much information as possible?

6. Is the question written at the highest appropriate level of knowledge or ability for the job

position of the person being tested?

7. Is the question free of unnecessary difficulty, trickiness, or irrelevance?

8. Is the question limited to one concept or topic, making it something other than a collection 

of true-false items?

9. Does the question have face validity?

10. Are key points underlined or highlighted?

11. Is each question separate and independent of all other questions?

12. Are the answer options homogeneous and highly plausible? Are common 

misconceptions used as distractors? Is the question free of trivial distractors?

13. Are “none of the above” and “all of the above” avoided?

14. Are there four answer options for each question?

15. Are the answer options of the questions ordered sequentially?

16. Is the question free of “specific determiners” (e.g., logical or grammatical inconsistencies, 

incorrect answers that are consistently different, verbal associations between the stem 

and the answer options)?
B-16

Appendix B Examples Attachment 2

A. Levels of Knowledge

The first three examples illustrate how the level of knowledge tested can vary among a series of

questions that focus on the same pair of K/As. Even though the K/A statements use verbs 

(identify, define) that elicit a fundamental or simple memory level of knowledge, the item author 

can increase its operational validity by testing at a higher cognitive level.

• 191004K101 (PWR) or 291004K101 (BWR): Identification, symptoms, and

consequences of cavitation

• 193006K111 (PWR) or 293006K109 (BWR): Define or explain cavitation

1. Fundamental Knowledge/Simple Memory

Which one of the following describes pump cavitation?

a. Vapor bubbles form when the enthalpy difference between pump discharge and pump 

suction exceeds the latent heat of vaporization.

b. Vapor bubbles form in the eye of the pump and collapse as they enter higher-pressure 

regions of the pump.

c. Vapor bubbles are produced when the localized pressure exceeds the vapor pressure at 

the existing temperature.

d. Vapor bubbles are discharged from the pump, where they impinge on downstream piping 

and cause a water hammer.”

This question simply asks for a description of cavitation and, as such, is a “low cognitive order”

question that does not require any understanding, analysis, or problem-solving. The

examinee merely needs to recognize the correct description (b); the other options appear 

plausible but are, nonetheless, incorrect.

2. Comprehension

Cavitation in an operating pump may be caused by:

a. lowering the pump suction temperature

b. throttling the pump suction valve

c. increasing the pump back-pressure

d. increasing the pump suction pressure

This example requires the examinee to determine causation, which requires an understanding 

of the correct answer and recognition that the incorrect answers are indeed, incorrect. As 

with any item, the quality of this item is determined by the distractibility of the incorrect options.
B-17

Appendix B 2 Attachment 2

3. Analysis

While on surveillance rounds, an operator notices that a centrifugal pump is making a great 

deal of noise (like marbles rattling inside the pump casing) and the discharge pressure is

fluctuating. This set of conditions indicates pump:

a. runout

b. cavitation

c. bearing deterioration

d. packing deterioration

This example requires the candidate to analyze multiple abnormal indications (multiple

effects) for an operating centrifugal pump and determine the cause (complex cause-effect). 

All the distractors are initially plausible in that they have face validity (i.e., they have 

reasonable connections to centrifugal pump operation).

4. Low Level of Knowledge” Questions

The following four examples illustrate “low level of knowledge” questions, which should be 

used judiciously on NRC examinations.

Which one of the following is powered from 4160 VAC bus 1A?

a. Residual heat removal (RHR) pump A

b. RHR pump B

c. RHR pump C

d. RHR pump D

Select the full core display indication of a drifting control rod.

a. red light

b. white light

c. blue light

d. amber light

Although the above items have a high K/A value, they are written at a low level of knowledge 

and also have low operational validity and low discriminatory value. The following question 

tests at a low level of knowledge because it does not test the examinee’s ability to recognize 

the class of fire or select the correct extinguisher. All the examinee has to know is that water 

is used for class A fires.
B-18

Appendix B 3 Attachment 2

Concerning use of water as a fire extinguishing agent, select the correct statement from the

following:

a. It is the primary agent for extinguishing Class A fires and is also effective on Class B and C 

fires.

b. It is the primary agent for extinguishing Class B fires and is also effective on Class A and C 

fires.

c. It is the primary agent for extinguishing Class A and B fires but is not effective on Class C 

fires.

d. It is the primary agent for extinguishing Class B and C fires but is not effective on Class A 

fires.

The next question might be considered a fundamental knowledge level question that errs in

the opposite direction. That is, it could be too difficult unless the operators are expected to 

memorize the correct time requirement to prevent damage to equipment. Moreover, this item 

may also have low discriminatory validity unless at least 80 percent of the examinees are 

expected to know the answer from memory.

RCP 2A tripped after running for 50 minutes. The RCP was restarted, but tripped again 

within 15 seconds. Which ONE of the following is the minimum required interval before the

next attempt to start RCP 2A?

a. 15 minutes

b. 30 minutes

c. 45 minutes

d. 60 minutes

B. Low Operational Validity

The next three questions illustrate another common psychometric deficiency, known as low

operational validity, which should be avoided on NRC examinations.

1. Under which one of the following conditions should the shift supervisor inform the shop

steward? 

a. initiation of a directed overtime request

b. disciplinary action against a supervisory employee

c. medical injury of a contractor employee

d. personnel error by a bargaining unit member

While this question may be related to a shift supervisor’s job, it has nothing to do with nuclear 

safety and should not be included on an NRC examination.
B-19

Appendix B 4 Attachment 2

2. Which one of the following main steam line components is designed to limit the differential 

pressure across the steam dryer assembly?

a. main steam line flow elbows

b. main steam isolation valves

c. main steam shutoff valves

d. main steam line flow restrictors

Knowing the purpose of a flow restrictor is not a good indicator of the operator’s ability to

operate the plant. Thus, knowing the answer to this question is not clearly job-related.

3. Given that all components controlled by the “Locked Valve, Breaker, and Component Control”

administrative procedure must be properly sealed and tagged, which one of the following is

the correct location for the ‘XXXX-XXXX’ tag for an electrical breaker?

a. wired to the breaker handle

b. glued to the breaker cubicle

c. attached to the breaker cubicle with a magnetic clip

d. wired to the breaker cabinet door

This question is likely unrelated to the reactor operator’s job function and, therefore, would be 

unacceptable.

C. Low Discriminatory Validity

The next three questions illustrate another common psychometric deficiency, known as low

discriminatory validity, which should be avoided on NRC examinations.

1. Which one of the following reactor water levels will initiate the RHR pumps?

a. level 1 only

b. level 1 and 2 only

c. level 1 and 2 and 3 only

d. level 6 only

The information in this question should be known by all operators at all times. Therefore, the

question has low discriminatory value and also tests at a low level of knowledge.

2. The plant is recovering from a scram that resulted from a spurious Group I isolation. The

cause of the isolation has been repaired and preparations are being made to reopen the main 

steam isolation valves (MSIVs). Reactor pressure is currently 825 psig and the main steam 

lines are being pressurized.
B-20

Appendix B 5 Attachment 2

WHICH ONE (1) of the following is the LOWEST main steam line pressure that will allow the

MSIVs to be opened in accordance with the procedure?

a. 625 psig

b. 675 psig

c. 725 psig

d. 775 psig

This question does not discriminate and has low operational validity because, in real life, the

applicant may not be expected to have memorized the procedure.

3. SG (corrected) = SG (uncorrected) + (T - 77 degrees F)(.001) + (Level Mark)(.003)

3

Based on the above information, the specific gravity (SG) is ? , which ? 

meet the Technical Specification (TS) Category A limit. Note: This question requires the

use of TS 3.8.2.3.

a. 1.198 does NOT

b. 1.195 does NOT

c. 1.207 does

d. 1.201 does

This question might appear to test the examinees’ ability to understand and apply battery 

parameters to the determination of TS operability. However, the question really only tests 

their ability to substitute certain parameters into a given equation and perform an arithmetic 

calculation. Reference to the TS noted in the question is not required based on the three 

different values of SG (corrected) supplied as distractors. Therefore, the question has a low 

discriminatory value because any individual possessing adequate arithmetic knowledge will 

arrive at the correct answer.

D. Implausible Distractors

The next two questions illustrate the concept of implausible distractors, which is another common 

psychometric deficiency that should be avoided on NRC examinations.

1. Which of the following will cause the RHR pumps to start during a design-basis LOCA?

a. low drywell pressure

b. high reactor water level

c. high drywell pressure

d. MSIVs in the NOT OPEN position

Distractors “a,” “b,” and “d” are implausible, considering minimal knowledge of the plant

response to a LOCA.
B-21

Appendix B 6 Attachment 2

2. Which ONE of the following conditions will NOT result in a shutdown of the standby gas

treatment system (SBGTS)?

a. manual shutdown

b. high-temperature (107 °C, 225 °F) charcoal bed

c. high-temperature (82 °C, 180 °F) heater inlet

d. overloads in the local control panel

Distractor “a” is very implausible, and distractor “d” is subjective. The question is also written 

from a negative perspective.

E. Confusing Language

The following questions illustrate how confusing language and inappropriate negatives in the

stem of the question can mislead examinees. Such questions should be avoided on NRC

examinations.

1. Which one of the following parameters will start high-pressure coolant injection (HPCI), 

reactor core isolation cooling (RCIC), and the SBGTS?

a. low reactor water level

b. high primary containment pressure

c. high reactor building exhaust radiation

d. low reactor building differential pressure

This question could result in four correct answers, since the question could be interpreted 

individually or collectively.

2. Which ONE of the following most accurately describes the response to a static inverter failing.

a. The power supply will automatically transfer to the alternate 600 V Bus 2C / Vital AC 

Transformer 2A.

b. The 125 VDC battery will maintain power to the Vital AC Cabinet for up to 5 hours.

c. The power supply can be manually transferred to the alternate 600 V Bus 2C / Alternate 

Static Inverter by pressing a transfer pushbutton.

d. The power supply can be manually transferred to the alternate 600 V Bus 2C / Vital AC 

Transformer 2A by positioning the transfer switch to ALTERNATE.

This question implies an automatic response, but the listed correct answer and one distractor 

are operator actions, not responses to the loss of the static inverter.

3. Regarding temporary plant alterations (TPAs), technical reviews are NOT required for:

a. a TPA NOT installed using an approved procedure

b. TPAs installed on BOP systems BUT ARE required for safety related systems

c. a TPA that has NOT been directed by the shift supervisor to be an emergency TPA

d. all TPAs directed by the shift supervisor.
B-22

Appendix B 7 Attachment 2

This question contains multiple problems. (1) While negative questions can be used, they 

should be used for good reason; there appears to be no good basis for asking this question 

negatively. (2) Two of the distractors (“a” and “c”) also contain a negative, creating a double 

negative with readability confusion, a violation of good item writing practice. The question 

should more appropriately ask the conditions under which technical reviews are required, 

thereby eliminating the negative in the stem.

F. Collections of True/False Statements

Collections of true/false statements typically only test simple rote memory; the examinee simply

needs to recall a definition or condition. The questions elicit no comprehension or

problem-solving; hence, they lack operational validity. This type of question allows an examinee 

to answer the question without referring to the stem of the question and should be avoided on

NRC examinations.

1. Which ONE of the following is true?

a. High drywell pressure will auto-start the emergency diesel generators.

b. Low reactor water level will trip the main turbine.

c. High reactor pressure will initiate RCIC.

d. High reactor power with the mode switch in startup will NOT close the MSIVs.

2. Which one of the following describes pump cavitation? 

a. Vapor bubbles form when the enthalpy difference between pump discharge and pump 

suction exceeds the latent heat of vaporization.

b. Vapor bubbles form in the eye of the pump and collapse as they enter higher-pressure 

regions of the pump.

c. Vapor bubbles are produced when the localized pressure exceeds the vapor pressure at 

the existing temperature.

d. Vapor bubbles are discharged from the pump, where they impinge on downstream piping 

and cause a water hammer.

G. Backward Logic

Backward logic questions ask the examinee for information that is normally received, while

providing the examinee with information that he or she normally has to supply. In an operational 

setting, operators are faced with conditions and required to know what procedure(s) to use. 

These questions ask them to do just the opposite and, therefore, should be avoided on NRC 

examinations.
B-23

Appendix B 8 Attachment 2

1. Which of the following parameters will simultaneously start HPCI, RCIC, and SBGTS?

a. high RPV water level

b. high drywell pressure

c. low RPV water level

d. low drywell pressure

It would be better to select a parameter and then request the expected system response 

because that is more operationally relevant.

2. If it takes 0.354 cubic meters (12.5 cubic feet) of concrete to build a square loading pad that is 

6 inches thick, what is the length of one side of the pad?

This question gives the examinees information they should be asked to calculate, while it

requires them to provide information they would be given in an actual work situation.
B-24

Appendix B References Attachment 3

1. Bloom, Benjamin, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of

Educational Goals, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain, David McKay Company, New York, 

1956.

2. Isaac, Stephen, Handbook in Research and Evaluation: A Collection of Principles, 

Methods, and Strategies Useful in the Planning, Design, and Evaluation of Studies in 

Education and the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd ed., Edits Publishers, San Diego, CA, 1995.

3. Novac, J., and Gowin, D., Learning How to Learn, Cambridge University Press, 2002.
C-1

APPENDIX C

JOB PERFORMANCE MEASURE GUIDELINES

A. Purpose

This appendix provides a framework for preparing and evaluating job performance measures 

(JPMs) to ensure they are of appropriate substance and format for initial operator licensing and

requalification examinations. The following elements are discussed in detail or attached for

information:

• a basic procedure for developing new JPMs (Section B), including forms to document the

JPMs and to assess the quality of the product (Forms ES-C-1 and ES-C-2)

• guidelines for developing and using alternate-path JPMs (Section C)

• a discussion of walk-through evaluation techniques (Section D)

Adhering to the concepts and guidelines discussed here, in association with the specific operating 

test criteria cited in ES-301, “Preparing Initial Operating Tests,” or ES-603, “Requalification 

Walk-Through Examinations,” as applicable, will enhance the consistency and validity of the 

walk-through tests.

B. Developing and Reviewing JPMs

This section addresses the major JPM components and instructions for their development. The

instructions apply to both the initial and requalification examination programs, except as noted. 

Although they are written from the perspective of developing new JPMs, the instructions should

also be referenced, as necessary, when modifying existing JPMs for reuse and when reviewing 

proposed JPMs for quality.

Select the systems and tasks to be evaluated during the walk-through portion of the operating test 

in accordance with the specific initial and requalification examination criteria in ES-301 and

ES-603, respectively. If a JPM already exists for the selected task, it should be reviewed against 

the guidelines and criteria discussed here to ensure that it is acceptable for use. If a new JPM is 

required to evaluate the selected system or task, prepare the JPM in accordance with the 

following basic steps and document the JPM using Form ES-C-1, “Job Performance Measure 

Worksheet,” or equivalent. Form ES-C-2, “Job Performance Measure Quality Checklist,” can be 

used to verify that the relevant criteria are satisfied.

1. Specify Initial Conditions

Determine those system and plant conditions that would permit the task to be performed 

realistically. They should provide sufficient information about the status of the plant and

system to facilitate task performance, without coaching the examinee. If the task is

intended to be performed on the simulator, it is worthwhile to differentiate those specific 

initial conditions and system realignments that are necessary for the task to be performed

as planned from those other general conditions that add realism and set the stage for 

performing the task but have no real bearing on its successful execution. Breaking down 

the initial conditions in such a manner will simplify the simultaneous administration of 

different tasks by two or more examinees.
C-2

All of the required operator actions preceding the starting point of the JPM should be 

completed unless a given action is purposely omitted as part of an alternate path JPM. If

the JPM is intended to evaluate the examinee’s ability to implement an alternate path 

(refer to Section C) within the facility licensee’s procedural guidance, the initiating 

equipment or instrument failure should be reflected in the simulator initial condition 

specifications.

The JPM shall also include an initiating cue that provides the stimulus for the examinee to

begin performing the task. When appropriate, the cue should clearly specify the desired 

endpoint for the task. For example, if it is desired for the examinee to start and load the 

emergency diesel generator, the cue should state the load at which the task will be 

considered complete. Alternate path tasks, as described in Section C, may have an 

actual endpoint different from that stated in the initiating cue.

The initial conditions and initiating cue may be duplicated on a separate sheet of paper so

that they can be handed to the examinee. This is particularly helpful for tasks with

detailed initial conditions or those that will be performed in high-noise areas. Take care 

to ensure that the initial conditions and initiating cue do not reveal the nature of any

alternate path JPMs that are planned.

2. Identify References and Tools

The JPM shall identify those plant procedures that require task performance, as well as 

the procedures that provide guidance, directions, or standards for performing the task. 

When reviewing JPMs selected from the facility licensee’s bank, it is important to ensure 

that the procedures identified in the JPM are still current.

The JPM shall also identify any special tools or equipment (e.g., a stopwatch, wrench, 

fuse puller, or spool piece) that the examinee will need to perform the task. It is helpful to

the examiner who will be administering the test if the JPM states the location(s) in which 

these items may be found. It is expected that any required tools will be readily available 

to the plant operators; they should not be staged specifically for the examination.

3. Develop Performance Criteria

The JPM should have meaningful performance requirements that will provide a legitimate 

basis for evaluating the examinee’s ability to safely operate the system or the plant. 

Artificially subdividing existing tasks to generate new ones may dilute the value of the JPM 

to a point where it becomes meaningless.

In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 55.45(a) and 

55.59(a)(2)(ii), operating tests require operators and senior operators to demonstrate an 

understanding of and ability to perform necessary actions. Therefore, JPMs selected for 

the walk-through examination shall not test solely for simple recall or memorization. 

Although it was written to address written examinations, refer to ES-602, Attachment 1, 

“Guidelines for Developing and Reviewing Open-Reference Examinations,” when 

preparing JPMs as well. Although an operating test does not require every JPM to be 

alternate path or demonstrate detailed system understanding, simple one-step JPMs or 

JPMs that only require directly looking up the correct answer are not appropriate. JPMs 

that incorporate the testing of immediate action steps from memory are acceptable. 

However, JPMs should not solely test immediate action steps, and should include testing 

additional steps or items that are not from memory.
C-3

The JPM shall identify specific performance standards, or checkpoints, that will permit the

examiner to evaluate successful progress toward completing the task in accordance with

the procedural references. Detailed control and indication nomenclature and criteria 

(e.g., switch positions and meter readings) should be identified whenever possible, even if 

these criteria are not specified in the procedural step. The JPM should also note any

important observations that the examinee should make while performing the task.

The JPM must clearly identify the task standard (i.e., the predetermined qualitative or 

quantitative outcome) against which task performance will be measured. Every

procedural step that the examinee must perform correctly (i.e., accurately, in the proper 

sequence, and at the proper time) to accomplish the task standard shall be identified as a 

critical step and shall have an associated performance standard. In general, critical 

steps should consist of verifiable actions. Refer to ES-301, Attachment 2, “Verifiable

Action Guidelines” for information on verifiable actions. 

If there are any specific procedural restrictions on the sequence in which the steps are

performed, they shall be clearly noted in the JPM.

4. Develop Examiner Cues

The JPM shall identify appropriate system response cues so that the examiner can

provide the examinee with specific feedback regarding the component and system 

reactions to the examinee’s manipulations, especially those procedural steps that are 

identified as critical to task completion. The response cues are particularly important in

the following situations:

• in-plant tasks that will be simulated because the examinee will not have available the

normal indications (e.g., alarms, flow rates, temperatures, and pressures) that would 

be observed during actual task performance

• alternate path JPMs that require the examinee to perform auxiliary procedures when

equipment or instrumentation fails during use

System response cues may not be necessary for those tasks that will be performed on the 

simulator.

To the extent that it is possible to anticipate incorrect actions that the examinees might

take, it is beneficial to note the expected system response cues in the JPM as an aid to the 

examiner who will be administering and evaluating the task.

The JPM shall also identify any additional cues or instructions that the examiner might

need to provide to the examinee in response to procedural steps for which the examinee 

will not be held accountable (i.e., those steps that have either already been performed or 

will be performed by other personnel in remote locations).

5. Develop a Time Standard

Every JPM shall identify an estimated average time for completing the task. The time

should be measured from the moment that the examinee is read the initiating cue at the 

plant location in which an operator would normally be given the order to perform the 

specified task.
C-4

JPMs that are considered time-critical (i.e., those having a task standard that must be

completed within a time period specified in a regulation or a facility commitment to the

NRC) shall be uniquely identified and specifically validated. The facility licensee must

agree that a failure to complete the task within the specified time will justify a failure of the 

given JPM.

C. Developing and Using Alternate-Path JPMs

JPMs are intended to be tasks that an operator must be able to perform, which relate to the

operator’s particular job task analysis. Operators are frequently challenged to perform auxiliary 

procedures when equipment or instrumentation fails during use. Therefore, examinees are

expected to be able to use alternative methods to perform tasks. Alternative paths are evaluated 

during an examination by incorporating malfunctions of instrumentation or components that 

require the examinee to perform actions other than those performed when a system responds 

normally.

JPMs in which malfunctions occur are used to provide a method to evaluate whether an examinee 

has the skills and knowledge at the level needed to safely operate the system. This type of JPM, 

called “alternate path,” provides an excellent opportunity to observe how the examinees execute 

alternative paths within the wide spectrum of procedures under their cognizance that would not 

otherwise be examined. All alternate path JPMs should include the following five characteristics:

1. Success Path

Each JPM should have a valid, facility-endorsed success path. This path may require 

analyzing initial conditions to determine an alternative method for completing the task, 

mitigating a system-related problem that occurs during the task, or realigning the system.

2. Procedurally Driven

For each JPM, a procedure should address the actions that are required (i.e., if the JPM 

requires an alternative method to complete the task, the procedure would have an exit 

step that directs the use of that alternative method). The examinee may be required to 

use some common practices endorsed by the facility that are addressed through generic 

administrative procedures or policies (e.g., shifting controls to manual).

3. Logical Sequence

The sequence of procedurally driven actions should be logical. For example, an 

examinee performing a normal evaluation when a malfunction occurs should not be 

expected to enter emergency operating procedures. More realistically, the examinee 

would attempt to correct the problem by referring to an annunciator response procedure or 

abnormal operating procedure. However, an examinee performing a normal evolution 

may encounter a situation requiring a reactor trip. The JPM should not contain a 

cascading sequence of malfunctions, for which several procedures must be used 

simultaneously, that occur while performing a task. This type of activity is better tested in 

the dynamic simulator portion of the examination.
C-5

4. Independent of Crew Dynamics

Each JPM should allow the examinee to complete the task or mitigate a problem that 

occurs during a task without having to rely on the actions of other control room operators. 

This provision does not prohibit simulator operators from acknowledging non-pertinent 

alarms or unexpected reactions of other systems that are not associated with the task. 

Also, the JPMs may still require the examinee to use the simulator operator to perform 

needed manipulations in the plant.

5. Validated in Advance

Each JPM should be validated before the examination begins and should not be changed 

thereafter. The JPM should not be a surprise to the examiners or simulator operators. 

Each JPM should be validated as early as possible before the examination is to be 

administered to allow time for changes to be made.

D. Walk-Through Evaluation Techniques

This guidance is intended to assist NRC examiners and facility evaluators in administering JPMs 

by illustrating good and bad examples of walk-through examination techniques.

1. Providing Cues

Cuing refers to the information that an examiner provides to an examinee when

conducting a JPM. When conducting JPMs on the simulator, the simulator provides most 

of the required cues. However, when conducting JPMs outside of the simulator, the 

examiner must provide realistic and timely information to the examinee.

a. Verbal Cues

Verbal cues are often required to provide relevant system information, such as valve 

position, meter deflection, or indicating light status. The examiner must be careful to 

provide the examinee with the indications that should be readily observed (e.g., “the 

red light just illuminated” or “the valve position indicator does not move”). An 

examiner can give too much information or inappropriate information (e.g., providing

indications that are not visible or audible to the examinee) that could invalidate the 

JPM. The examiner must keep in mind what the examinee would see and hear 

while performing the JPM, and provide consistent cues.

b. Non-Verbal Cues

It is important to maintain a “poker face” when an examinee provides an incorrect

response or performs the wrong procedural step. Voice inflections indicating 

something has been performed incorrectly, or changing the manner in which cues 

are given (e.g., talking more methodically, or rapidly) are examples of non-verbal 

communications that should be avoided.

Thorough preparation and familiarity with the JPM is vital to providing proper cuing. 

Knowledge of what indications will be available and how they will respond to the

examinee’s actions allow an examiner to give accurate and timely cues when an 

examinee is incorrectly performing the task.
C-6

2. Evaluation Skills

When evaluating an examinee, an examiner must have the ability to differentiate between 

what he or she knows or believes to be true about an examinee’s ability and how the 

examinee actually performs on the JPM. As previously discussed, an examiner must be 

familiar with the JPM to be able to accurately evaluate performance. Errors made by the 

examinee performing the JPM may not be seen, or pertinent questions may not be asked, 

if the examiner has not prepared for the examination.

An examiner must remain attentive to the examinee’s actions at all times. This will 

ensure that the examiner provides timely cues and detects errors in performance.

3. Exam Administration

While conducting the walk-through examination, the examiner must be aware of conduct 

that is appropriate for a trainer, but is inappropriate for an examiner. As a trainer, 

interacting with the examinee during the performance of the JPM to gain insight into what 

the examinee is thinking is a good practice. However as an examiner, this is distracting 

to the examinee and could inadvertently result in prompting or leading the examinee.

When conducting JPMs in the simulator, examiners should not manipulate any controls or

silence/acknowledge any alarms. The examiner must take a “hands off” approach to

maintain the proper testing environment.

The examiner must be careful to shield any notes or grading from the examinee to prevent 

giving an indication of performance, which may either provide a false sense of security or 

increase stress levels.

If an examinee’s actions are not clear, the examiner must be prepared to ask appropriate 

follow-up or clarifying questions. Documenting these questions and the subsequent 

answers is important as they may have a bearing on an examinee’s overall grade.

E. Attachments/Forms

Form ES-C-1 Job Performance Measure Worksheet

Form ES-C-2 Job Performance Measure Quality Checklist
C-7

Appendix C Job Performance Measure Worksheet Form ES-C-1

Facility: Task No: 

Task Title: Job Performance Measure No: 

K/A Reference: 

Examinee: NRC Examiner: 

Facility Evaluator: Date: 

Method of testing:

Simulated Performance _______________ Actual Performance ________________

Classroom ______________ Simulator ______________ Plant __________

Read to the examinee:

I will explain the initial conditions, which steps to simulate or discuss, and provide initiating cues. 

When you complete the task successfully, the objective for this job performance measure will be

satisfied.

Initial Conditions:

Task Standard:

Required Materials:

General References:

Initiating Cue:

Time Critical Task: Yes/No

Validation Time:
C-8

Appendix C 2 Form ES-C-1

Performance Information

Denote critical steps with a check mark

_________________________________________________________________________

______ Performance step:

Standard:

Comment:

_________________________________________________________________________

______ Performance step:

Standard:

Comment:

_________________________________________________________________________

______ Performance step:

Standard:

Comment:

_________________________________________________________________________

Terminating cue:
C-9

Appendix C 3 Form ES-C-1

Verification of Completion

Job Performance Measure No. _______________

Examinee’s Name:

Examiner’s Name:

Date Performed:

Facility Evaluator:

Number of Attempts:

Time to Complete:

Question Documentation: 

Question: __________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

Response: _________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

Result: Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory

Examiner’s signature and date: _______________________________ ________
C-10

Appendix C Job Performance Measure Form ES-C-2

Quality Checklist

Every JPM should:

1. ___ be supported by the facility licensee’s job task analysis.

2. ___ be operationally important (meet the NRC’s K/A Catalog threshold criterion (2.5 for 

initial exams, 3 for requalification exams) or as determined by the facility and agreed to 

by the NRC). JPMs shall not test only for simple recall or memorization (refer to 

ES-602 Attachment 1).

3. ___ be designed as either SRO only, RO/SRO or AO/RO/SRO.

4. include the following, as applicable:

a. ___ initial conditions

b. ___ initiating cues

c. ___ references and tools, including associated procedures

d. ___ validated time limits (average time allowed for completion) and specific 

designation of those JPMs that are deemed to be time-critical by the facility 

operations department

e. ___ operationally important specific performance criteria that include:

(1) ___ expected actions with exact control and indication nomenclature and

criteria (switch position, meter reading), even if these criteria are not

specified in the procedural step

(2) ___ system response and other cues that are complete and correct so that 

the examiner can properly cue the examinee, if asked

(3) ___ statements describing important observations that the examinee 

should make

(4) ___ criteria for successful completion of the task

(5) ___ identification of those steps that are considered critical

(6) ___ restrictions on the sequence of steps
D-1

APPENDIX D

SIMULATOR TESTING GUIDELINES

A. Purpose

This appendix provides a framework for preparing and evaluating simulator scenarios to ensure 

that they are of appropriate scope, depth, and complexity for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission’s (NRC’s) initial operator licensing and requalification examinations. Specifically, 

this appendix includes detailed discussions or attachments concerning the following elements:

• a basic procedure for developing new simulator scenarios (Section B), including a description 

of the associated qualitative and quantitative attributes (Section C) and the critical task (CT) 

methodology (Section D)

• the competencies in which reactor operators (ROs) and senior reactor operators (SROs) are 

expected to be proficient (Section E)

• the simulator security considerations for scenario validation and administration (Section F)

• selected examples of initial and requalification scenarios (Attachments 1 and 2)

Adhering to the concepts and guidelines discussed here, in association with the specific criteria 

cited in ES-301, “Preparing Initial Operating Tests,” or ES-604, “Dynamic Simulator 

Requalification Examinations,” as applicable, will enhance the consistency and validity of the

dynamic simulator operating tests.

B. Integrated Scenario Development

This section summarizes the major activities that contribute to the development of dynamic 

simulator scenarios. The instructions apply to both initial and the requalification examination 

programs, except as noted. Although they are written from the perspective of new scenario 

development, the instructions also apply when modifying existing scenarios for reuse and when 

assessing the quality of proposed scenarios.

1. Identify Scenario Objectives

A scenario must have specific objectives. For a requalification examination, these are 

derived, in part, from the facility’s requalification training program objectives. However, 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 55, “Operators’ Licenses,”

requires that the initial licensing operating tests include a representative sampling of items 

(1) through (13) in 10 CFR 55.45, “Operating Tests” and annual requalification operating

tests include a comprehensive sampling of items (2) through (13) in 10 CFR 55.45, 

“Operating Tests.” Therefore, both tests shall sample the various operating skills and

abilities that the NRC requires for licensing an operator and the operating crew. Thus, it 

is not sufficient to limit a requalification examination to topics covered in the requalification 

cycle.
D-2

The basic objective of a scenario is to evaluate the operator’s ability to respond to events 

that are most appropriately tested in a dynamic simulator environment. Specifically, such 

events include those that require the operators to demonstrate their knowledge of

integrated plant operations, as well as their ability to diagnose abnormal plant conditions 

and work together to mitigate plant transients that exercise their knowledge and use of

abnormal and emergency operating procedures (AOPs and EOPs). Additionally, the

scenario must require the operators (usually the SROs) to use technical specifications 

(TS) and, for requalification examinations, to implement the emergency plan. Section E 

of this appendix discusses the full range of competencies in which operators must

demonstrate proficiency during the simulator test.

2. Select Initial Conditions

The initial conditions established for a dynamic simulator operating test must allow each

scenario to commence realistically. In other words, the initial conditions should be 

representative of a typical plant status, with various components, instruments, and

annunciators out of service. It is also realistic to have maintenance or surveillance 

activities in progress. All, some, or even none of these initial conditions may have a

bearing on subsequent scenario events. Initial conditions should also be frequently 

changed, to prevent future events from becoming predictable. In addition, initial 

conditions should be varied among the scenarios and include startup, low-power, and

full-power situations.

Briefly describe the initial conditions, including any items that would normally be 

addressed during the shift turnover, in the space provided at the top of Form ES-D-1, or 

equivalent.

3. Select and Document Events

After establishing the initial conditions, select a sequence of events designed to achieve 

the stated objectives. Section C discusses a number of qualitative and quantitative 

criteria to consider when selecting events. The specific requirements for each 

quantitative criterion are enumerated in ES-301 and ES-604, as applicable.

Each event shall have or contribute to an objective, whether it is to evaluate the operator’s

knowledge of a recent system modification, their ability to respond to a safety-significant 

event, or their use of the TS for a particular safety-related component. Uncomplicated 

events that require no operator action beyond the acknowledgment of alarms and

verification of automatic actions provide little basis for evaluating the operators’

competence and should not be included on the operating test unless they are necessary 

to set the stage for subsequent events.

Develop scenarios so that various systems are affected by each type of event (i.e., normal 

evolutions, instrument failures, component failures, and major plant transients). Having 

one equipment failure cause or exacerbate another can also be useful to evaluate the

operators’ understanding of system and component interactions. Balancing the severity 

of events and the demands they place on each operating position (e.g., RO and balance of 

plant (BOP)) will allow each operator to demonstrate his or her competence across a

range of conditions.
D-3

All events do not have to be linked; that is, one event need not occur for the next event to

logically occur (although in many instances, such a relationship adds to the credibility of

the scenario). However, the scenario should not consist of a series of totally unrelated 

events. A well-crafted scenario flows from event to event, giving the operators sufficient 

time in each event to analyze what has happened, evaluate the consequences of their 

action (or inaction), assign a priority to the event given the existing plant conditions, and

determine a course of action. Exercise care that one event does not fully mask the

symptoms of another because the operators could overlook the malfunction and cause the

event or competency coverage for the scenario set to be deficient.

Record each planned operation, malfunction, and transient on Form ES-D-1 and number 

them sequentially. Cross-reference each event to a simulator malfunction number, if

applicable, or briefly describe the simulator instructions that must be entered.

For each event listed on Form ES-D-1, prepare a Form ES-D-2, “Required Operator 

Actions” (or equivalent), as follows:

• Enter the scenario, event, and page numbers and a brief description of the event at 

the top of the form. 

• Include information about when the event is to be initiated (e.g., by signal of the

lead examiner/evaluator, timeline, or plant parameter). 

• Identify the symptoms or cues that the operators will be provided, the expected 

actions to be taken, communications to be made, the references to be used by

each operating position (e.g., the SRO, RO, and BOP operators) on the crew, as 

well as the event terminus (i.e., the anticipated point at which the examiners or 

evaluators will have enough information on operator performance to move on to 

the next event).

• Include every required operator action; this is particularly important for the CTs

(refer to Section D, “Critical Task Methodology”) and other verifiable actions and

behaviors that will provide a useful basis for evaluating the operators’ competence. 

• List expected actions in chronological order. Certain actions may be required 

throughout the event (for instance, if a safety or relief valve fails open, the 

operators should continually monitor pressure and water level). Flag these 

actions to show that they are continuous.

• Space the expected actions on Form ES-D-2 to allow room for examiner to

document the operator’s performance during the simulator test. Leave the far-left 

column of the form blank so that it may be used to record the actual time key 

actions occurred during the test.

• Flag all CTs in a manner that makes them apparent to the individuals who will be 

administering the operating test (e.g., by using underlines, asterisks, or bold type).

Identify the measurable performance standard for each CT. Additional 

discussion of CTs, and what constitutes an appropriate measurable performance 

standard, is discussed in Section D of this Appendix.

• When possible, include set points and other parameters to provide an objective 

method for evaluating the operator’s performance. Statements such as
D-4

“Performs actions in accordance with Procedure XXXXX” generally do not provide 

sufficient guidance and are inadequate. However, the statement “Performs 

actions of steps XXX of Procedure XXX (attached)” is acceptable.

4. Determine the Scenario Endpoint

Specify the endpoint of the scenario on the last operator action sheet (Form ES-D-2) by 

identifying a particular plant condition, procedural step, or other point that is clearly 

recognizable. The scenario should not be terminated until the stated objectives have 

been achieved.

5. Validate the Scenario

Validate every scenario to ensure that it will run as intended. When modifying a 

previously validated scenario, real-time validation may not be necessary. However, if

there are major changes or if someone questions the validity, revalidation in real-time is 

recommended.

C. Scenario Attributes

All valid scenarios contain common elements that make the scenarios useful as evaluation tools. 

A properly constructed scenario provides for an accurate test of each individual operator’s skills 

and abilities as well as an opportunity to evaluate the crew members’ team-dependent skills and

abilities. Each scenario shall be of sufficient scope and complexity to demonstrate the difference 

between competent operators and crews and those that are not performing at an acceptable 

level. It also must require the crew to demonstrate its ability as a team to adequately protect the

public health and safety in emergency conditions, using the facility’s EOPs.

Scenario attributes can be characterized as both qualitative and quantitative. No single qualitative 

or quantitative attribute or group of attributes can be used to determine the acceptability of a

scenario. However, a trained examiner should be able to assess the adequacy of a scenario or 

develop a new scenario, using both sets of attributes. This assessment, combined with 

validation of the scenario on a real-time basis, should be sufficient to determine whether a

scenario is an acceptable tool for use in measuring the competency of a crew or its individual 

members.

1. Qualitative Attributes

a. Realism/Credibility

Introducing unrealistic or incredible events into a scenario can affect the validity of

the scenario and provide negative training. Piping, component, and instrument 

failures often occur in such a way that deterioration can be tracked over a discrete 

time period (e.g., a small leak that propagates over time or a pump failure 

preceded by a high-vibration condition). Including such precursors in scenarios is 

important, where appropriate. A great deal of evaluative feedback can be 

obtained by observing how an operator or crew responds to a gradually worsening 

condition. A good technique inserts an event precursor (e.g., a small steam 

generator tube leak) and maintains the plant at a slightly degraded condition to

observe how the crew incorporates that condition into its conduct of subsequent 

plant operations.
D-5

Although scenarios may include faults that occur with little or no warning (e.g.,

valve operators fail, fires occur in breakers or transformers, undetected pipe 

erosion results in piping failures), such faults often provide minimal evaluative 

benefits because they happen so suddenly that operators have little to do but 

watch the event unfold. These events are most useful when trying to establish a

plant condition for subsequent evaluation goals or to assess the ability of an

operator or crew to use procedures in a symptom-based (rather than an

event-based) mode.

Mechanistic component failures are well-documented events that occur each year 

and often in multiple numbers. However, nonmechanistic failures (e.g., pipe 

breaks) generally occur singularly; therefore, unless there is a connective 

precursor, such as a seismic event, it would not be realistic or credible to have 

several piping systems fail during any one scenario.

Simulated events that appear to violate the laws of physics and thermodynamics 

contribute to negative training and are to be avoided. Time compression 

techniques, which are discussed later, may also contribute to negative training. 

However, if the intent of a scenario is to evaluate a crew’s ability to execute 

procedural steps that may take a long time to reach during an event (e.g.,

hydrogen generation during a core uncovery event), such a technique may be 

useful. In such instances, the scenario must contain a cue that, when the crew 

detects the indications for such events, they are informed that the parameters are 

not responding as expected for the actual plant and that time is being compressed. 

This cue should be presented at the first opportunity that does not distract the crew 

from responding to available indications and before the crew challenges the

validity of those indications. For example, in the first PWR scenario (Attachment 

1), the cue should be given following the crew’s determination that a reactor 

coolant system (RCS) feed and bleed may be necessary (in accordance with

FR-H.1), but prior to steam generator levels requiring initiation.

Time compression can also include a ‘jump’ forward in time to test important tasks 

that occur after a prolonged period of time. For example, jump greater than 21 

hours forward in time following a loss of all AC power on an AP-1000® plant so that 

actions to be taken prior to a loss of DC power can be evaluated. If this ‘jump’ is 

used, the crew must be provided with a turnover or cue addressing any relevant 

plant conditions that changed due to the time compression. The crew should also 

be allowed an opportunity to brief prior to resuming the scenario.

b. Event Sequencing

The sequence of events has a major effect in establishing the complexity of a

simulator scenario. The pace at which malfunctions are entered can also

adversely affect the way an operator or a crew responds.

Malfunctions may be entered simultaneously at separate control panel locations, 

provided that an individual applicant can handle each event without requiring 

extensive assistance.

Too short a time between malfunctions may mask the effects of a particular 

malfunction and divert the operator’s attention. This cuts short the observers’

ability to evaluate the operators’ response to the earlier malfunction and may be 
D-6

prejudicial to a fair evaluation. Conversely, extending the time between 

malfunctions so that no operator activity is in progress may cause undue stress. 

During an examination, the operators expect something to occur; too much time 

between events should be avoided.

Therefore, the insertion of malfunctions in the scenario should be carefully timed. 

Rigorously following a planned time sequence of events is often less valid than 

initiating malfunctions on the basis of plant parameters or operator actions. The

appropriate sequencing of events relates directly to the objectives of the scenario.

Event sequencing may involve time compression to speed up the response of key 

parameters so that the scenario can proceed to the next event within a reasonable 

time. Time compression may be accomplished by adjusting parameter 

indications or accelerating plant behavior characteristics so that plant indications 

trigger an event more quickly than would typically occur in reality (e.g., opening a

drain path from a steam generator that is not noticeable to the operator so that the

simulation reaches the entry conditions for a loss of heat sink.) This method is 

acceptable as long as the time compression gives the operators time to perform 

tasks that they would typically perform during the period in which time is 

compressed. To avoid wasting the operator’s time determining the validity of their 

indications, the examiner should inform the crew before the scenario begins that

time compression may be used during an event, and should debrief them after the

scenario to minimize the potential for negative training.

Frequently, important evaluative benefit is gained in terms of safety significance by

having key components or instruments fail after entering the EOPs. This process 

compels the operators to respond immediately to a safety-related situation by 

taking alternative actions to mitigate the event. This process also allows for a 

better evaluation of the operators’ overall knowledge of plant procedures and

systems because the event must be incorporated into the mitigation strategy for

the remainder of the scenario. Conversely, instrument and component failures 

that are initiated after the major transient sometimes require little action and may 

provide little insight into the operator’s competence.

c. Simulator Modeling

The scenario shall not exceed the limits of the facility licensee’s configuration 

management system by altering a simulator model to obtain a desired effect. For

example, it is not appropriate to increase the post-trip decay heat input in order to

maximize internal core temperatures during a loss of cooling event; the simulator 

model must be allowed to perform as designed. The scenario may simulate 

events for which a simulator malfunction does not exist by using overrides or 

remote functions for local operator actions. An example would be failing 

indicators to simulate an inoperable component.

d. Evaluating Competencies

Each scenario set shall ensure that all of the rating factors within each competency 

can be evaluated; moreover, the scenario must incorporate events that will allow 

an unsatisfactory evaluation of an operator or crew in a particular rating factor if the 

operator’s or the crew’s actions (or inaction) degrade the condition of the plant or 
D-7

threaten public health and safety. Scenarios that require little analysis or 

problem-solving and few operator actions may not provide an adequate basis to

evaluate the required rating factors.

Section E describes the individual competencies that apply to the RO and SRO 

license levels during initial and requalification examinations. ES-303,

“Documenting and Grading Initial Operating Tests,” identifies the rating factors 

within each competency for the initial licensing examination (specifically, on Forms 

ES-303-3 and ES-303-4 for RO and SRO applicants, respectively), while ES-604 

identifies the crew competencies that apply only to requalification examinations.

e. Level of Difficulty

The dynamic simulator operating test must discriminate between those examinees 

that have and have not adequately mastered the knowledge, skills, and abilities 

required to be licensed operators. Simulator scenarios that are either too easy or

too difficult are not effective discriminators.

In general, the level of difficulty of a scenario will increase with an increase in its

quantitative attributes, such as the number of malfunctions or CTs (discussed 

below). However, the number of quantitative attributes in a scenario is not always 

indicative of the scenario’s level of difficulty; that is, two scenarios having the same 

quantitative attributes can vary significantly in level of difficulty. There are no 

definitive minimum or maximum attribute values that can be used to identify 

inappropriate scenarios that will not discriminate because they are too easy or 

difficult.

The two most important determinants of the level of difficulty of a simulator 

scenario are the amount of analysis and problem solving and the number of

operator actions required to mitigate the events in the scenario. Malfunctions that

require analysis or problem solving increase the level of difficulty because they 

require the examinees to integrate a number of system conditions, evaluate their 

interrelationships, and take actions that demonstrate an understanding of the

underlying concepts. Scenarios that consist of a number of unrelated 

malfunctions that require little or no operator analysis or response are generally

less challenging.

f. Scenario Overlap

The final product of all required scenarios should not contain more than 50 percent

of the events (excluding the major events) from the previous two NRC initial 

licensing exams. Events found in spare scenarios will count as previously-used if 

they were made publicly available in the NRC’s records management system 

(Agencywide Documents Access and Management System). Should a facility

encounter difficulty meeting this requirement (for example, because of large class 

sizes requiring more scenarios be generated than normal), the facility should 

coordinate with the NRC chief examiner to meet the intent of this section to the 

extent possible. Additionally, any repeated major events from the last two NRC 

exams should be changed so as to alter the course of action (within the emergency 

procedures) for the given scenario(s). It is expected that all major events would 

be broadly sampled over the course of several exams, and that no major event will 

routinely be omitted without justification. Furthermore, any other scenarios that 
D-8

are extracted from the facility licensee’s bank without significant modification must 

be altered to the degree necessary to prevent the applicants from immediately 

recognizing the scenarios based on the initial conditions, the sequence and 

repetition of events used, or other cues.

2. Quantitative Attributes

Those traits discussed in the previous section provide for a qualitative assessment of the

complexity of a simulator scenario. However, some characteristics of a scenario can be 

quantified and generally have a bearing on the complexity and level of difficulty of the

scenario. The following discussion describes these characteristics, while ES-301 and

ES-604 enumerate a target range for each trait that is applicable to the initial and

requalification examination, respectively. The ranges are not absolute limitations; some

scenarios may be an excellent evaluation tool but may not fit within the ranges. 

A scenario that does not fit into these ranges should be evaluated to ensure that it is 

appropriate.

a. Normal Evolutions

Normal evolutions include activities such as a feed pump startup, turbine loading, 

generator synchronization, and reactivity manipulations, which include evolutions 

such as a reactor startup or changing power with boron concentration, control

rods, or core flow. Reactivity manipulations are considered significant if they 

produce a clearly observable plant response, such as bringing the reactor critical 

from a substantially subcritical state, raising power to the point at which reactivity 

feedback from nuclear heat addition is noticeable and a heatup rate is established, 

or changing reactor power manually with control rods or recirculation flow.

Normal evolutions can be used as a backdrop on which to stage the emergency or

abnormal situations. For example, a main feedwater control valve may fail 

passively (i.e., as is) before the operators conduct a normal power change.

Time-consuming normal evolutions (such as a power escalation from low power) 

can provide an opportunity to evaluate the SRO’s supervisory or resource 

management skills. Events such as component or instrument failures may be

added to challenge the operators while continuing the power escalation.

Short surveillances (e.g., exercising safety rods or paralleling the emergency 

diesel generator with the grid) may be used to examine the operator’s dexterity on

the control panels or to involve operators who are not engaged in other activities.

b. Total Malfunctions

Total malfunctions are the number of instrument (e.g., nuclear, control, or process) 

and component failures (e.g., pump, motor, valve, or pipe) used to initiate the

events that constitute a scenario, including those initiated after EOP entry (see

Item C.2.c below). To count as a separate malfunction, they must involve a

significant system response and require operator action to correct. For example, 

an anticipated transient without scram or trip (ATWS or ATWT) is a single 

malfunction, regardless of how many instructions a simulator operator must

program to produce it.
D-9

Components that are placed out of service at the beginning of a scenario as part of

the shift turnover conditions, and of which the crew is made aware, are not 

considered malfunctions. Component or instrument failures that require no

operator actions or response do not count toward the recommended total number 

of malfunctions.

c. Malfunctions after EOP Entry

A scenario must include at least one malfunction that results in vital instruments or 

components failing after the EOPs have been entered (these may have been 

inoperable at the beginning of the scenario or before EOP entry) and should 

influence the operators’ choice of mitigation strategy. For example, failing a high 

head safety injection (SI) pump to start on a large-break loss-of-coolant accident 

(LOCA) does not affect the mitigation strategy; however, this would have an effect

if it were the only available high head SI pump on a small-break LOCA.

d. Abnormal Events (include alarm response procedures if significant and verifiable 

actions are required)

Each scenario shall evaluate the operator’s ability to implement AOPs. An

abnormal event may or may not be a precursor to the major transient (see Item 

C.2.e below), although it can add to the credibility of a scenario, such as preceding 

a total loss of feedwater with a single feed pump trip. However, certain events 

may cue the operators about subsequent events. Therefore, if a scenario is 

derived from the facility licensee’s bank, it is wise to vary or modify the precursor 

events that lead to the major transient. It is also good to insert abnormal events 

that are not always predictive of the same major transient (e.g., a steam generator 

tube leak does not always lead to a subsequent tube rupture).

Some abnormal events for each scenario should require the operators to

recognize and interpret TS. This recognition and interpretation can also be 

incorporated into the scenario by designating TS-related equipment that is out of

service at the start of the scenario.

Components or instrument failures that occur following EOP entry do not count 

toward the recommended total number of abnormal events.

e. Major Transients

A major transient is one that has a significant effect on plant safety and leads to an

automatic (or manual, if initiated by an operator) protective system actuation, such 

as a reactor trip or an engineered safety system actuation. A single major

transient that actuates more than one automatic protective system actuation will

be counted as a single major transient. Examples include loss of offsite power, 

LOCA, steam or feed line break, steam generator tube rupture, and loss of

feedwater. A major transient should normally involve activation of the facility’s

emergency plan.

f. EOPs Used

A scenario that requires the operators to refer to many different EOPs may not be 

as complex as a scenario for which only one EOP is used, but which requires use 

of alternative decision paths and prioritization of actions within the EOP to deal 
D-10

with the situation. Therefore, this attribute should reflect the EOPs that have 

measurable actions that the crew must take. Moreover, the primary scram

response procedure that serves as the entry point for the EOPs is not counted. 

(In the case of AP-1000® plants where the EOP entry procedure is prolonged, this 

procedure can be counted if there are significant operator actions and it is 

approved by the chief examiner and associated branch chief as part of the exam 

approval process.)

For boiling-water reactors (BWRs), the number of “EOPs Used” shall be counted 

consistent with the following four top-level Emergency Procedures Guidelines: 

(1) reactor pressure vessel (RPV) control, (2) primary containment control, (3)

secondary containment control, and (4) radioactivity release control. Use of

multiple control sections of these guidelines do not count separately as “EOPs 

Used.” For example, use of RPV level control and RPV pressure control should

be counted as “one EOP Used - RPV control.”

g. EOP Contingency Procedures Used

Contingency procedures are used when there is a challenge to a critical safety 

function or if plant conditions have become severely degraded. Therefore, using 

them in a scenario provides an opportunity to observe the operators attempt to

execute a mitigation strategy that clearly has safety significance to the plant and

the public health and safety. Each scenario set shall require the operators to

enter and perform safety-related tasks within an EOP contingency procedure at

least once.

The following list of contingency procedures is neither unique nor all-inclusive. 

Scenario developers and reviewers should consider it as a set of general guides 

that may not fully apply to all scenarios.

(1) Westinghouse

Optimal Recovery Procedures designated as Emergency Contingency 

Action procedures:

• Loss of All AC Power With or Without SI Required

• Loss of Emergency Coolant Recirculation

• LOCA Outside Containment

• Uncontrolled Depressurization of All Steam Generators

• Steam Generator Tube Rupture (SGTR) With Loss of Reactor Coolant 

Subcooled Recovery

• SGTR With Loss of Reactor Coolant-Saturated Recovery

• SGTR Without Pressurizer Pressure Control

Functional Recovery Procedures entered as a result of RED or ORANGE 

conditions on the Critical Safety Function Status Trees:

• Response to Nuclear Power Generation/ATWS

• Response to Inadequate Core Cooling
D-11

• Response to Degraded Core Cooling

• Response to Loss of Secondary Heat Sink

• Response to Imminent Pressurized Thermal Shock Conditions

• Response to High Containment Pressure

• Response to Containment Flooding

(2) Combustion Engineering

• Entry into Functional Recovery Procedures (FRPs)

• Transition among Functional Recovery Safety Function success paths

• Transition from one safety function to another within the FRPs

(3) Babcock and Wilcox (B&W)

The B&W EOP structure does not identify procedures that can be easily 

recognized as contingency procedures. However, use of the descriptions 

given above for Westinghouse contingency procedures provides guidance 

on the types of events to be considered.

(4) General Electric

• Alternative Level Control

• Emergency Reactor Pressure Vessel Depressurization

• Primary Containment Flooding

• Level/Power Control

• RPV Flooding

• Steam Cooling

h. Simulator Run Time

A scenario should be designed to run approximately 60 to 90 minutes. However, 

this does not preclude scenarios taking more or less time. The nominal run time 

of 60 minutes may not provide sufficient time to conduct a scenario that

progresses through several EOPs or requires performance of fairly involved 

procedural steps. It is possible to conduct very meaningful and involved 

scenarios in less time, but care should be taken not to place an undue burden on

the operators by initiating malfunctions at too rapid a pace. This parameter is 

one of many that should be considered in assessing the overall quality of a

scenario, and as long as the scenario meets the other criteria stated here, the

scenario run time is a secondary concern.

i. EOP Run Time

The time during which the operators are involved in EOPs has a strong relationship 

to the complexity of the scenario because most CTs occur in the EOPs and the

actions the operators take have the most potential to affect the health and safety of

the public. Therefore, a significant percentage of the time a scenario is 

progressing should be spent in the EOPs. Usually, more time is required when

contingency procedures are in effect, because it generally takes some time for the

plant to degrade to a point where critical safety functions are jeopardized. 

However, operators should be evaluated in EOP activities beyond the point at 

which an event is diagnosed and initial mitigation actions are taken. Many of the 
D-12

actions taken to stabilize the plant and recover from a transient are safety 

significant. Therefore, scenarios should be allowed to progress so that these 

operations can be observed.

Scenarios should not be solely EOP oriented. Valuable assessments can be 

made within AOPs with the plant at power because of the level of safety 

significance associated with transients in these conditions.

j. Critical Tasks

Critical tasks (CTs) range between simple safety-significant tasks (e.g., starting

the standby liquid control system (SLC) during an ATWS condition or tripping a

reactor coolant pump during a small-break LOCA) and tasks that require a higher 

level of skill and involve several crew members (e.g., executing a rapid cooldown

within predefined limits using steam generator power-operated relief valves

(PORV) or using low-pressure injection systems to maintain the vessel level while 

cooling the suppression pool). The critical tasks that are initially incorporated into 

the scenario are a combination of EOP-based CTs and critical tasks that can be 

predicted by improper operator action or inaction (e.g., an unintentional RPS or 

Engineered Safety Feature (ESF) actuation). Because not all operator actions 

can be predicted, there may be additional events that are determined to be CTs 

after the scenario is administered. These are considered “post-scenario critical 

tasks.” 

Note: An unintentional RPS or ESF actuation does not equate to a failure 

to perform a CT. A post-scenario CT may be created if that unintentional 

actuation results in a significant plant degradation or significantly alters a 

mitigation strategy. The active of initiating the actuation is not a CT.

There may be times that either an individual or the crew “create” a new critical task. 

As will be discussed in Section D, the critical aspect of an unintentional or 

unnecessary RPS or ESF actuation is to ensure that they do not occur. 

Therefore, if an unintended protection action does occur during a scenario, or 

would have occurred, but different applicant prevented it (as described in 

Appendix E), CT criteria has been met. For example, if an unintended reactor trip 

or ESF actuation occurs, the CT to “take action during an event to prevent a 

reactor trip or ESF actuation” was not met.

The difficulty level and equitable administration of the operating test must be 

considered when assessing the appropriateness of the number of CTs in a

scenario or scenario set. The number of CTs per scenario is outlined in ES-301 

and is broken down into “EOP-based” CTs and “Overall” CTs. “Overall CTs is the 

total number of CTs that can be reasonably identified during validation and is a 

target rather than an absolute limit. A scenario must have a least 2 CTs.

Refer to Section D for a detailed explanation of the CT methodology.

D. Critical Task Methodology

Critical tasks provide the examination team an opportunity to evaluate whether an individual or 

crew has successfully completed those actions which are of significant importance to safety of the 

plant and the public. The simulator test is graded based on competencies; every error that 
D-13

reveals an operator’s competence is considered equal unless it is related to the performance of a 

critical task. Critical tasks are used during initial and requalification examination scenarios in the 

following manner:

• Initial licensing exam scenarios: CTs provide a basis for individual operator competency 

evaluations because they help the examiner focus on tasks that significantly impact the 

safety of the plant or the public. Refer to ES-303, “Documenting and Grading Initial 

Operating Tests,” for specific instructions on grading CTs on initial examinations.

• Requalification exam scenarios: CTs are used to evaluate crew performance on tasks 

that are safety significant to the plant or the public. CTs are objective measures for 

determining whether the performance of an individual or a crew is satisfactory or 

unsatisfactory. Refer to ES-604, Dynamic Simulator Requalification Examinations, for 

specific instructions on critical tasks in dynamic requalification examinations. 

1. Identification of Scenario-Specific Critical Tasks

A CT must include the following elements:

a. Safety Significance

In reviewing each proposed CT, assess the task to ensure that it is essential to

safety. A task is essential to safety if its improper performance or omission by an

operator will result in direct adverse consequences or significant degradation in

the mitigative capability of the plant.

If an automatically actuated plant system would have been required to mitigate the 

consequences of an individual’s incorrect performance, or the performance 

necessitates the crew taking compensatory action that would complicate the event 

mitigation strategy, the task is safety significant.

Examples of CTs involving essential safety actions include those for which 

operation or correct performance prevents the following:

• degradation of any barrier to fission product release

• degraded emergency core cooling system (ECCS) or emergency power 

capacity

• a violation of a safety limit

• a violation of the facility license condition

• incorrect reactivity control (such as failure to initiate emergency boration or

SLC, or manually insert control rods)

• a significant reduction of safety margin beyond that irreparably introduced by

the scenario
D-14

Examples of CTs involving essential safety actions include those for which a crew 

demonstrates the following abilities:

• effectively direct or manipulate engineered safety feature (ESF) controls that

would prevent any condition described in the previous paragraph

• recognize a failure or an incorrect automatic actuation of an ESF system or

component

• take one or more actions that would prevent a challenge to plant safety

• prevent inappropriate actions that create a challenge to plant safety (such as 

an unintentional reactor protection system (RPS) or ESF actuation)

b. Initiating Cue

Each CT in a scenario must have an initiating cue. An initiating cue is an 

expected signal or notice (indication, alarm, communication, or procedure step) 

that designates when a critical action should be performed. The cue need not 

indicate that the action is a CT.

Appropriate cues include the following examples:

• verbal direction by or reports from other crew members

• procedural steps, such as satisfying entry conditions, flow chart decision 

points, and “response not obtained” columns

• indication of a system or a component malfunction (including passive failures) 

by meters or alarming devices

c. Measurable Performance Standard

A CT’s measurable performance standard consists of observable actions taken by 

at least one member of the crew. These standards ensure that the exam team 

can objectively evaluate when the CT has or has not been accomplished. 

Consequently, the performance standard for a CT includes two parts:

1) expected action(s)

2) safety significant boundary conditions that clearly identify at what point a 

CT must be accomplished

Ultimately, the purpose of a boundary condition is to ensure examiners have 

agreed upon limits for what is acceptable for task completion—and failure. When 

bounding critical tasks, in addition to asking what constitutes how the task is met, it 

can be helpful to ask how an applicant or operator could fail the task. If objective 

criteria for failure cannot be determined, the task may not be critical. For

post-scenario critical tasks, boundary conditions are typically inherent to the CT 

itself, e.g., for an unintended RPS actuation, the boundary condition would be the 

expectation that the applicant should have taken action prior to the actuation

occurring.
D-15

Performance standards that include passive traits like “understanding” (such as an 

applicant must understand the significance of a certain plant response) or 

“observation” (such as an applicant must observe the performance of a system) 

cannot be objectively measured and are not suitable for CT performance 

standards.

The NRC and facility licensee shall review each CT to ensure that it is objective. 

An objective CT performance standard includes limiting conditions for when a CT 

must be accomplished. For example, “If pressure falls below 1,400 psi, start 

pump xyz,” is a performance standard that is not objective. The operator 

performing this task could conceivably start the pump when pressure reaches zero

psi and still not violate the performance standard stated in the procedure, even

though the facility licensee expects the operator to start the pump sooner. The

NRC and facility licensee should agree in writing that the limits for each CT are

acceptable before the examination begins. For the example given above, adding 

an acceptable pressure tolerance (e.g., within 200 psi) would clarify the standard 

of performance that is expected.

Measurable performance standards include the following examples:

• actions taken as the result of transitioning between EOPs (for example, 

transitioning to and performing the actions required in FR-S.1 if the reactor 

does not trip (Westinghouse), or performing an automatic depressurization 

after confirming indications of high suppression pool temperature (General 

Electric))

• control manipulations (such as a manual reactor trip or the start of an ECCS 

pump)

• verbal reports or notifications of abnormal parameters or conditions (such as

“all control rods are not inserted” or “containment pressure is greater than 2 

psi”)

• For pre-identified CTs where an applicant failing to take an action or taking an

incorrect action results in an unintentional RPS or ESF actuation, the 

measurable standard is that action taken to preclude the RPS/ESF actuation. 

The measurable performance standard is the prevention of the unnecessary 

trip or ESF actuation and does not imply that the applicant’s action must be

completed without errors.

Example (PWR): For a failed open pressurizer spray valve, the 

measurable performance standard is the action taken to preclude a reactor 

trip or ESFAS actuation. Actions such as closing the block valve or taking 

manual control of the master pressure controller would be suitable for 

determining the performance standard. If the applicant makes an error in 

taking the master pressure controller to manual (or in the performance of 

another related action), but the reactor does not trip because of their error, the applicant has met the critical task.
D-16

• Applicants will be held accountable for errors that are corrected by other 

members of the control room team as outlined in Appendix E. If an applicant 

neglects to take an action, or takes an incorrect action and is subsequently 

corrected by a team member, the examination team will determine the impact 

of that lack of action or incorrect action on the scenario as it relates to a critical 

task. The measurable performance standard will depend on the 

consequence of the applicant’s lack of action or incorrect action if it had not 

been corrected by the crew.

Example: An applicant takes an incorrect action and is corrected by the 

crew thus preventing the unavailability of an ESFAS pump. If that pump 

was required for the subsequent Major Event during the scenario, the 

examination team may identify this as a post-scenario CT. The

measurable performance standard is action was taken such that the 

ESFAS pump was available to mitigate the major transient.

The following are examples of performance standards that cannot be measured 

objectively during a simulator scenario:

• understanding (such as of the significance of a certain plant response)

• verification that an expected response has occurred

• passive observations (such as monitoring the performance of a system)

d. Performance Feedback

During the time-span of a critical task, performance feedback must be available to 

at least one member of the crew. This feedback provides the crew member with 

information about the effect of the crew’s actions or inaction on the CT. The crew 

must be able to oversee that their action had an impact or that their inaction is 

causing plant conditions to degrade. This requirement must be met for all CTs.

2. Critical Tasks as “Generic” Safety Tasks

Avoid assigning the “CT” designation to generic tasks that have safety significance but do 

not meet all of the criteria required to identify a critical task.

Although a crew is not performing optimally if it fails to anticipate a scripted automatic 

action given sufficient time to assess plant behavior, crew members are not required to

anticipate an automatic action. A crew member may, at any time, take manual action in

advance of an automatic action if, in the crew member’s judgment, manual action is 

needed to place the reactor in a safe condition. If an operator takes an action that the

examiners did not expect, the examiners must further evaluate the individual’s rationale 

for taking that action. Such preemptive actions may indicate a misunderstanding of plant

conditions or a weakness in integrated plant knowledge that should be clarified with

follow-up questions. Taking a preemptive manual action when an automatic action is 

imminent because of an incorrect action or inaction does not mitigate the initial incorrect 

action/inaction. 

Example: An applicant fails to manually control pressurizer pressure (where

pressure is controllable per the validated scenario) and reaches a pressure 

threshold at which the crew initiates a manual trip. This is a CT because pressure 

was intended to be a controllable variable in the scenario guide.
D-17

Taking manual control of an automatic safety system qualifies as a CT only if the

auto-initiation feature fails to work. It is then safety significant for the crew to take manual 

actions, as plant conditions clearly indicate that an automatic action should have occurred 

and did not. Moreover, during scenario development and validation, identification of CTs 

is based on those actions which, if performed incorrectly or omitted, degrade the

mitigation strategy needed in the scenario. If the manual system has also failed and no 

action will be effective, this should not be identified as a CT. However, if an operator or 

the crew significantly deviates from or fails to follow procedures that affect the 

maintenance of basic safety functions, those actions may form the basis of a CT identified 

in the post-scenario review. Before administering the exam, developers and examiners 

should make an effort to identify events where applicant inaction or common applicant 

error have the potential to result in an automatic RPS or ESF actuation. One method to 

accomplish this is to make a blanket statement in the scenario guide that states: 

“Causing an unnecessary plant trip or ESF actuation may constitute a critical task failure. 

Actions taken by applicant(s) will be validated using NUREG-1021 Appendix D 

Methodology for Critical Tasks.”

Emergency event classification is not required by NUREG-1021 to be part of the simulator 

scenario; Emergency Plan understanding is explicitly tested during the Administrative 

Topics Job Performance Measures. However, if a facility does include an event 

classification in a simulator scenario, performance of an event classification does not meet 

the CT criteria. Although an incorrect classification could adversely affect public health 

and safety if the appropriate instructions are not given to public service agencies in a

timely manner, all four aspects of a CT are not met. Emergency event classifications 

have safety significance, an initiating cue, and a measurable performance standard but do 

not provide the applicant performance feedback for correct or incorrect classification. If a

misclassification occurs, the emphasis for corrective action is placed on the facility 

licensee and an appropriate period allotted for corrective action implementation.

Therefore, although emergency classification is still an area that is to be evaluated, it

should not receive the weight of a CT. If a misclassification occurs, the examiners should 

determine the rationale used to establish the classification to determine whether the crew 

understood the status of the plant and incorporate into the program evaluation those 

pertinent corrective actions deemed appropriate. If a widespread problem is observed 

during a program evaluation, the examiner should share this information with other 

inspection program managers.

E. Competency Descriptions

1. Reactor Operator

a. Interpret/Diagnose Events and Conditions Based on Alarms, Signals, and

Readings

This competency involves the ability to accurately and promptly recognize and

analyze off-normal trends and diagnose plant conditions to guard against and

mitigate conditions that are out of specification. It includes the abilities to prioritize 

one’s attention in keeping with the severity and importance of annunciators and

alarm signals and to correctly interpret and verify that signals are consistent with 

plant and system conditions. It does not include knowledge of system operation, 

such as set points, interlocks, or automatic actions, or the understanding of how 

one’s actions affect the plant and system conditions.
D-18

b. Comply with and Use Procedures, References, and Technical Specifications

This competency involves the ability to refer to and comply with normal, 

alarm/annunciator, abnormal, emergency, and administrative procedures in a

timely manner (i.e., in sufficient time to avoid adverse impacts on plant status). It

includes the ability to recognize EOP entry conditions, carry out immediate actions

without assistance, and recognize and comply with required limiting conditions for

operation and action statements. It also includes the use of control room 

reference materials, such as prints, books, and charts, to aid in the diagnosis and

classification of events and conditions.

c. Operate Plant Component Controls

This competency involves the ability to locate and manipulate controls to attain a

desired plant and system response or condition. It includes knowledge of system 

operation, including set points, interlocks, and automatic actions and the ability to

locate plant and system instruments/indications and to understand how one’s

actions affect plant and system conditions. It also includes the ability to take 

manual control of automatic functions, when appropriate.

d. Communicate and Interact with Other Crew Members

This competency involves the ability to provide and receive pertinent information, 

both oral and written (e.g., log entries). It includes the ability to carry out 

supervisory instructions and to interact with other crew members with respect to

conditions affecting safe plant operation, regardless of which applicant’s control 

board is directly affected.

2. Senior Reactor Operator

a. Interpret/Diagnose Events and Conditions Based on Alarms, Signals, and

Readings

This competency involves the ability to diagnose plant conditions to guard against 

and mitigate conditions that do not meet specifications. It includes the abilities to

prioritize one’s attention in keeping with the severity and importance of the

annunciators and alarms and to correctly interpret the significance of each alarm 

and verify that it is consistent with plant and system conditions. It also includes 

the ability to recognize and analyze off-normal trends in an accurate and timely 

manner. In addition, it includes knowledge of system operation, such as set 

points, interlocks, or automatic actions, or the understanding of how one’s actions 

affect the plant and system conditions, unless that knowledge is evaluated under 

Control Board Operations.
D-19

b. Comply with and Use Procedures and References

This competency involves the ability to refer to and comply with normal, 

alarm/annunciator, abnormal, emergency, and administrative procedures in a

timely manner (i.e., in sufficient time to avoid adverse impacts on plant status). It

includes the use of control room reference materials, such as prints, books, and

charts, to aid in the diagnosis and classification of events and conditions. It also 

includes the ability to use procedures correctly and ensure correct implementation 

by the crew.

c. Operate Plant Component Controls

This competency involves the ability to locate and manipulate controls to attain a

desired plant and system response or condition. It includes knowledge of system 

operation, including set points, interlocks, and automatic actions and the ability to

locate plant and system instruments/indications and to understand how one’s

actions affect plant and system conditions. It also includes the ability to take 

manual control of automatic functions, when appropriate.

d. Communicate and Interact with the Crew and Other Personnel

This competency involves the ability to provide and receive pertinent information in

a clear, easily understood manner. It includes the ability to keep crew members 

and personnel outside the control room informed of plant status.

e. Direct Shift Operations

This competency involves the ability to take timely and decisive actions in

response to problems during both normal and off-normal situations. It includes

the ability to provide timely and well-thought-out directions that indicate concern 

for safety; to encourage a team approach to problem solving and decision making

by soliciting and incorporating feedback from crew members; and to remain in a

position of oversight to maintain the “big picture.” It also includes the ability to

ensure that the crew carried out correct and timely activities.

f. Comply with and Use Technical Specifications

This competency involves the ability to recognize plant conditions covered by TS

and inoperable equipment. It includes the ability to locate the appropriate 

specifications for inoperable equipment and correctly interpret and ensure 

compliance with any limiting conditions for operation and action statements.

F. Security Considerations for Simulator Operating Tests

Simulators present a unique set of integrity concerns during the development and administration 

of operating tests. NRC examiners and facility licensees should be aware of the simulator’s

vulnerabilities and take appropriate measures to ensure that operating test security is maintained 

in the three areas of (1) the instructor station, (2) the programmer’s tools, and (3) the external 

interconnections. Because facility licensees are more familiar than the NRC examiners with their 

simulator’s unique capabilities, limitations, and vulnerabilities, it is expected that the licensees will 

take responsibility for determining and implementing whatever measures might be necessary to

ensure the integrity of the operating tests.
D-20

Most of the instructor station features can be checked through the tableau or graphic interface 

provided at the instructor’s console. The programmer’s tools and the external interconnections 

are not generally apparent to the instructor or the examiner. The simulator staff should be 

consulted to determine the status of those items.

1. Instructor’s Station Features

• Snapshots: All simulators have snapshot capability. Initial conditions (ICs) are

recorded for future recall.

• Backtrack: Backtrack files are snapshots that are automatically recorded at

predetermined intervals (usually up to 1 hour of operation at intervals as frequent as 1

minute). Backtrack files are usually only accessible through the BACKTRACK 

feature. The files typically can be overwritten by real-time operation, but cannot be 

erased.

• Replay/Playback: The replay/playback feature steps through a series of snapshots and displays 

the output status (lights, meters, etc.) for each sequentially. Often, the replay feature uses 

the backtrack files, although separate replay file storage may be provided.

• Scripts/Computer-Assisted Exercises: Many simulators have a feature that allows

preprogrammed implementation of malfunctions and remote functions based on time 

and/or logical conditions. The simulator staff may use scripts to facilitate scenario 

administration, and can typically store scripts for future use. Stored scripts can also 

be selected for review and editing from the instructor’s station.

• Initial Conditions Summary: Snapshots are usually labeled on the IC menu of the

instructor’s station with date/time recorded, pertinent plant parameter status, and

instructor’s comments. Even if the comment field has been changed to indicate that a 

snapshot is available for reuse, the data (scenario initialization) may still be 

representative of test conditions until the snapshot is overwritten or updated.

• Malfunction Summary: Malfunction summary menus display the status of selected 

malfunctions, both active and inactive. The malfunction summary is usually 

IC-dependent and, therefore, depicts the malfunctions that were active or staged when 

an IC (such as a scenario validation) was stored.

• Monitored Parameters: Instructors are afforded the capability to define individual or 

groups of parameters for display or printout. The monitored parameter group 

assignments can be recalled for review and editing. If used to facilitate scenario 

validation or examination administration, the monitored parameters can provide 

insight into the focus of the examination.

• Trend Recording: Groups of parameters can be defined and assigned to trend 

recorders. The recorders may be, but are not necessarily, located at the instructor’s

station. The recording may also be in file format for presentation on instructor’s

station screens. Recording sessions are typically activated or deactivated at the

instructor’s station.

• Student Performance Monitoring: Special groups of parameters and simulated plant 

operating conditions can often be assigned to a tracking and recording function that
D-21

plots an individual student’s performance during training exercises. Recording 

sessions are typically activated or deactivated at the instructor’s station. Video and 

• Audio Recording: Many simulators are equipped with video and audio recording 

capability in the control room. Video and audio controls are typically located at the

instructor’s station. Refer to ES-302 Section D.1.i regarding the requirements 

associated with video and audio recording initial license examinations.

• Sequence of Event Files: Many simulators have the capability to monitor and record 

sequence of events during simulator scenarios. These files may stay in place and 

remain accessible until deleted or overwritten by subsequent scenario runs provided 

examination security is maintained.

2. Programmers’ Tools

• Software Terminals: Simulator engineers have access to real-time monitoring and

control of simulator and model conditions through software support terminals. These 

terminals may be located in the computer facility or the engineer’s desk.

• Independent Executives: The conditions for scenarios can sometimes be replicated 

off-line using independent executive programs. These programs should not be in

communication with the input/output. Independent executives and their associated 

initialization files may provide an indication of planned exercises if they have been 

used to resolve problems during scenario validation.

• Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs): Instructor’s station graphical user interfaces often

display simulated plant conditions and performance in real-time. At remote locations, 

such as a programmer’s desk, the GUI could display the full scenario.

3. External Interconnections

• ESF Feeds: Many simulators have data links to the ESF and the operations 

management offices for emergency planning drills. These links can display simulated 

plant condition to observers outside the simulated control room during scenario 

validation or examinations.

• Remote Plant Process Computer and Instructor Station Screens: Repeater screens 

in the training area can display scenarios in real time to observers outside the

simulated control room.

• Modems and Remote Simulator Support Systems: Many simulators are equipped 

with modems from the instructor’sstation or simulation computers for outside 

monitoring and control of simulator status and activities by parties off site.

G. Attachments/Forms

Attachment 1 Example Initial Dynamic Simulator Scenarios

Attachment 2 Example Requalification Dynamic Simulator Scenarios

Form ES-D-1 Scenario Outline

Form ES-D-2 Required Operator Actions
D-22

Appendix D Example Initial Dynamic Simulator Scenarios Attachment 1

Facility: _______PWR________ Scenario No.: ____1___ Op-Test No.: ___1___

Examiners: __________________________ Operators: _____________________________

__________________________ _____________________________

__________________________ _____________________________

Initial Conditions: IC-38; 100% power, middle of life; CCP “B” is running; Unit 2 is in Mode 5.

Turnover: The following equipment is out of service: DG “A” (6 hours); CCW pump “A” (2 days); VCT

level transmitter LT-185; the block valve for PORV 456 is inoperable with power removed; MFP “A”; and

AFW pump “A” (30 hours). All required surveillances have been done. A severe thunderstorm 

warning is in effect.

Critical Tasks:

1. Restore feedwater to “A” Steam Generators prior to reaching dry out conditions (40 inches WR).

2. Establish heat sink using Feed and Bleed of “A” Steam Generator within 5 minutes of the “B” 

PORV failure to open.

Event 

No.

Malf. 

No.

Event 

Type*

Event

Description

1 XXX,

XXX

C(RO) 

N(BOP)

R(RO)

70-gpm tube leak on “A” SG (ramped over 5 minutes) with running CCP 

trip and failure of standby pump to start; requires power reduction

2 XXX I(RO) pressurizer level instrument L-459 fails low

3 XXX C(ALL) instrument bus 112 inverter failure

4 XXX,

XXX

M(ALL)

I(BOP)

450-gpm tube rupture on “A” SG (ramped over 3 minutes) with an “A” SG 

pressure transmitter failure causing the PORV to open

5

XXX,

XXX,

XXX

M(ALL)

C(BOP)

concurrent failures of the station auxiliary transformer and the “B” DG 

result in a loss of all AC power; power remains available through Unit 2

TDAFW pump trips on overspeed (can be reset)

* (N)ormal, (R)eactivity, (I)nstrument, (C)omponent, (M)ajor

Note: The scenarios in this attachment are individual examples; they are not intended to represent complete 

scenario sets/operating tests.

For each planned event, enter on Form ES-D-2 (or equivalent) a description of the event and detailed

actions required by the applicable plant procedures (e.g., normal, abnormal, emergency, and

administrative, including the TS and emergency plan) for each operating position (i.e., SRO, RO, BOP) in

a manner similar to the first event on the next page.
D-23

Appendix D 2 Attachment 1

Op-Test No.: __1__ Scenario No.: __1__ Event No.: __1__ Page _1_ of _5_

Event Description: A 70-gpm tube leak on the “A” SG (ramped over 5 minutes), combined with a trip of

the running CCP and a failure of the backup CCP to start, forces a reduction in power because RCS

leakage exceeds TS limits.

Time Position Applicant’s Actions or Behavior

RO/SRO/BOP

Recognize indications of the tube leak on the “A” SG:

• air ejector offgas radiation monitor

• steam line radiation monitor

• charging/letdown mismatch

• SG blowdown radiation monitor

SRO

Direct RO/BOP actions in accordance with AOP-1.2:

• monitor and control pressurizer level and pressure

• monitor and control VCT level

• verify leakage greater than TS limit

• announce possible high radiation in turbine building

• verify tube leak with SG samples

• have health physics verify release calculation

• commence unit shutdown

• notify NRC

• minimize secondary contamination

• classify the event in accordance with the EPIPs (unusual event)

RO/BOP Execute AOP actions in accordance with SRO directions

SRO/RO

Recognize running CCP tripped:

• no charging flow

• pump tripped light

• various charging/letdown annunciators

SRO

May direct RO/BOP per AOP-1.3:

• isolate letdown

• monitor pressurizer level and pressure

• start the standby CCP

• reestablish letdown

• refer to TS 3.8.1

• initiate repairs

` SRO

Supervise/coordinate power reduction:

• review precautions in GOP-3

• ensure delta-I maintained within limits

• verify load reduction rate

RO

Coordinate with BOP to initiate power reduction:

• review GOP-3 precautions

• calculate/estimate boration required for shutdown

• contact load dispatcher

• borate and/or insert rods to maintain T-ave within 5F of T-ref and

maintain delta-I within limits

BOP

Coordinate with RO to initiate power reduction:

• review GOP-3 precautions

• operate turbine controls to maintain unloading rate
D-24

Appendix D 3 Attachment 1

Facility: _______PWR________ Scenario No.: ____2___ Op-Test No.: ___2___

Examiners: ___________________________ Operators: ____________________________

__________________________ _____________________________

__________________________ _____________________________

Initial Conditions: IC-20; approximately 100% power, 218 ppm boron (EOL), equilibrium xenon; bank

“D” rods are at step 216

Turnover: The operations department is making preparations to shut down the plant as a result of 

equipment problems. Train “B” CSS logic failed an actuation test last shift; the LCO for TS 3.3.2 was

entered 2 hours ago; I&C is working on the problem. MDAFW pump “B” is out of service to repair an oil 

leak and should be back in about 45 minutes. The block valve for PORV 445A is closed and

deenergized for leakage control.

Critical Tasks:

1. Manually trip the reactor using manual trip pushbuttons within 1 minute of a failure of the automatic trip.

2. Establish a primary to secondary heat sink on “B” SG prior to reaching 70 inches WR in “B” SG.

Event 

No.

Malf. 

No.

Event 

Type*

Event

Description

1 XXX,

XXX I(BOP)

spurious containment spray actuation, phase “B” isolation, and CSS 

pump “A” failure to auto start (reset malfunction to allow equipment 

restoration and before required stop of RCPs)

2 N/A N(BOP) 

R(RO) begin normal shutdown as a result of CS problems

3 XXX C(RO) boric acid filter plugged (100% in 1 minute) at start of boration; when

asked, filter d/p is 80# (remove when backflushed)

4 XXX I(RO) narrow range RCS temperature detector fails high

5 XXX,X

XX C(BOP) emergency bus 1A-SA normal feeder breaker trips, and DG “A” breaker 

trips 2 minute later

6

XXX,X

XX,

XXX,

XXX

M(ALL)

C(BOP)

C(RO)

“A” SG line break in containment with auto SI on high containment 

pressure but failure of reactor and turbine trip; the local manual breaker is

operable and the turbine will follow; TDAFW pump overspeed on SI; 

PORV “B” failure to open in auto or manual

* (N)ormal, (R)eactivity, (I)nstrument, (C)omponent, (M)ajor

For each planned event, enter on Form ES-D-2 (or equivalent) a description of the event and detailed actions 

required by the applicable plant procedures (e.g., normal, abnormal, emergency, and administrative, including the

TS and emergency plan) for each operating position (i.e., SRO, RO, BOP) in a manner similar to the first event for the

first PWR scenario (page 2 of this Attachment).
D-25

Appendix D 4 Attachment 1

Facility: _______BWR________ Scenario No.: ____1___ Op-Test No.: ___1___

Examiners: ___________________________ Operators: ____________________________

__________________________ _____________________________

__________________________ _____________________________

Initial Conditions: IC-11; approximately 90% reactor power at dispatcher request; at power for 28 days, 

beginning of cycle; core spray pump 2A is out of service to replace a breaker closing coil; APRM F failed 

downscale last shift and is bypassed

Turnover: Raise power to 100% when contacted by dispatcher; test core spray pump 2A when the

clearance is lifted (imminent)

Critical Tasks:

1. During failure to scram conditions with reactor power above 3%, terminate and prevent injection from 

all sources except SBLC, RCIC and CRD until level lowers to at least -33 inches.

2. Inhibit ADS within 3 minutes of the start of an ATWS event.

Event 

No.

Malf. 

No.

Event 

Type*

Event

Description

1 N/A R(RO) raise reactor power to 100% upon load dispatcher’s request

2 XXX N(BOP) 

C(BOP)

test core spray pump 2A starting at step 7.9.2 of PT-07.2.4a and

respond to the motor overload

3 XXX C(SRO) individual bus breaker failure (MCC DGD), requiring DG #4 to be 

declared inoperable and a plant shutdown in accordance with TS 3.0.5

4 XXX I(RO) 

C(BOP)

UPS inverter 2A malfunction and loss of UPS (no APRMs, rod positions, 

or rod control)

5 XXX C(BOP) turbine bearing #3 vibration alarm

6

XXX,

XXX,

XXX,

XXX

M(ALL)

C(ALL)

turbine trip and reactor scram with very few rods inserted (SLC pump 2A 

will trip after initiation and the scram discharge volume vents and drains 

fail to reopen when RPS is reset)

bypass valves fail closed after turbine coasts down (no UPS)

* (N)ormal, (R)eactivity, (I)nstrument, (C)omponent, (M)ajor

For each planned event, enter on Form ES-D-2 (or equivalent) a description of the event and detailed actions 

required by the applicable plant procedures (e.g., normal, abnormal, emergency, and administrative, including the

TS and emergency plan) for each operating position (i.e., SRO, RO, BOP) in a manner similar to the first event for

the first PWR scenario (page 2 of this Attachment).
D-26

Appendix D 5 Attachment 1

Facility: _______BWR________ Scenario No.: ____2___ Op-Test No.: ___1___

Examiners: ___________________________ Operators: ____________________________

__________________________ _____________________________

__________________________ _____________________________

Initial Conditions: IC-17; 100% reactor power; B CRD pump is in service

Turnover: The load dispatcher has asked that power be lowered to 70%, and chemistry requests an

SSW surveillance to be run at the beginning of the shift.

Critical Tasks:

1. Emergency depressurize the reactor once RPV water level cannot be maintained > -162 inches and 

prior to reaching -180 inches RPV water level.

2. With RPV pressure below the Shutoff Head of the available Low Pressure system(s), operate

available Low Pressure system(s) to restore RPV water level above T.A.F. (-162 inches).

Event 

No.

Malf. 

No.

Event 

Type*

Event

Description

1 N/A R(RO) decrease power to 70%

2 XXX N(BOP) 

C(BOP)

perform SSW surveillance in accordance with chemistry request; 

SSW pump B will trip shortly after start

3 XXX I(RO) feedwater master controller fails as is

4 XXX C(BOP) loss of power to Division 2 ESF bus

5 XXX

M(ALL)

C(BOP)

M(ALL)

C(BOP)

1.5 minutes after event 4, the service transformers lock out, the 

Division 1 EDG fails to start, and a 5% recirculation loop break 

develops in the drywell

30 seconds after initiating, the high pressure core spray pump trips

* (N)ormal, (R)eactivity, (I)nstrument, (C)omponent, (M)ajor

For each planned event, enter on Form ES-D-2 (or equivalent) a description of the event and detailed actions 

required by the applicable plant procedures (e.g., normal, abnormal, emergency, and administrative, including the

TS and emergency plan) for each operating position (i.e., SRO, RO, BOP) in a manner similar to the first event for

the first PWR scenario (page 2 of this Attachment).
D-27

Appendix D Example Requalification Attachment 2

Dynamic Simulator Scenarios

The following are two PWR and two BWR simulator scenario outlines that can be used for

reference when developing or reviewing requalification examinations.

PWR Scenario One: Loss of Heat Sink

Scenario Objectives

• Evaluate the operators’ use of the “Loss of Heat Sink” procedure, FR-H.1.

• Evaluate the crew’s performance of a “bleed-and-feed” sequence, using reactor head 

vents and pressurizer vents.

Scenario Summary

Initial Conditions:

• 75 percent power

• “B” auxiliary feedwater pump inoperable

• One PORV (A) leaking and isolated

Events:

• Feed pump control problem that will eventually trip causing a partial loss of feed

• Total loss of main feedwater

• Loss of all feedwater

Scenario Sequence

• “A” feedwater pump hydraulic control unit problems prompt the crew to reduce power.

• During power reduction, the “A” feedwater pump trips, causing a plant runback.

• Feedline break occurs causing a reactor trip.

• Auxiliary feedwater pumps fail over several minutes, causing a loss of all feedwater, and

prompting the crew to initiate a feed-and-bleed procedure.

Event one: Malfunction/loss of feed pump

Crew responds to a problem with the “A” feed pump, which eventually trips and causes a

runback.

Malfunctions required: 2 (RFP “A” HCU failure and RFP “A” Trip)
D-28

Objectives:

• Evaluate the crew’s use of normal operating procedures (NOPs) to reduce power when

the feed pump starts to fail.

• Evaluate the crew’s use of abnormal operating procedures (AOPs) to respond to a partial 

loss of feed.
D-29

Appendix D 2 Attachment 2

Success Path:

• Use the NOPs to reduce power when initial problems occur with the feedwater pump.

• Use the AOPs to respond to the partial loss of feedwater and stabilize the plant to avoid a

reactor trip.

Event two: Feedline rupture/reactor trip

Crew responds to a total loss of feed flow with only the remaining motor-driven AFW pump 

available.

Malfunctions required: 1 (feedline rupture)

Objective:

Evaluate the crew’s response to a loss of feed transient requiring a reactor trip by using the

reactor trip response and reactor trip recovery EOPs.

Success Path:

• Recognize the impending reactor trip, trip the reactor if time permits, and implement the

appropriate immediate actions.

• Make the correct transition to the reactor trip recovery EOP upon completing the

immediate and applicable subsequent actions of the reactor trip EOP.

Event three: Loss of all AFW/PORV failure

Crew responds to a total loss of feed flow, eventually implementing a bleed-and-feed 

procedure with a failed PORV. Evaluators inform the crew that time compression is being 

used to accelerate the decrease in steam generator level.

Malfunctions required: 2 (failure of all AFW and “B” PORV fails to open)

Objective:

Evaluate the crew’s ability to recognize that there is no longer a heat sink, and correctly

implement the applicable contingency procedure (loss of heat sink), including performing the

bleed-and-feed procedure.

Success Path:

• Implement the EOP for loss of heat sink.

• Attempt to reestablish auxiliary feed flow; when SG levels become too low, initiate the

bleed-and-feed procedure.

• Critical Task: Restore feedwater to “A” Steam Generators prior to reaching dry out conditions 

(40 inches WR).

• Recognize the failure of the available PORV and reenergize, unblock, and open the

leaking PORV; open both pressurizer and reactor head vents to ensure adequate bleed 

flow.

• Critical Task: Establish heat sink using Feed and Bleed of “A” Steam Generator within 5

minutes of the “B” PORV failure to open.
D-30

Appendix D 3 Attachment 2

Scenario Recapitulation

Total Malfunctions: 5

Abnormal Events: 1

Major Transients: 2 (loss of main feed and total loss of feed)

EOPs Entered: 1

EOP Contingencies: 1 (loss of heat sink)

Critical Tasks: 2
D-31

Appendix D 4 Attachment 2

PWR Scenario Two: LOCA and Cold Leg Recirculation

Scenario Objectives

• Evaluate the crew’s response to unidentified primary leakage.

• Evaluate the crew’s response to a circulating water pump trip and a condenser tube leak.

• Evaluate the crew’s use of the EOPs during a LOCA with adverse containment conditions.

• Evaluate the crew’s sensitivity to key parameters and ability to implement cold leg

recirculation.

Scenario Summary

Initial Conditions:

• 100 percent power

• Inoperable “A” diesel generator and “A” instrument air compressor

• Seismic event occurred during last shift

Events:

• Primary leak increases to a point requiring a reactor trip.

• AFW pumps fail to automatically start on reactor trip.

• Leak leads to a safety injection (SI) and high-pressure SI pumps fail to start automatically; 

LOCA occurs, RWST leak occurs, and crew must initiate cold leg recirculation.

Scenario Sequence

• A small pressurizer steam space leak increases to a point requiring a reactor trip and

eventually to the point of SI initiation.

• The high-pressure SI pumps fail to start automatically.

• A LOCA occurs as a result of the seismic event.

• When the SI pumps start, the thermal shock causes a LOCA in the RCS.

• The high pressure of the LOCA causes adverse containment conditions.

• An RWST leak will also occur concurrent with the SI that will eventually prompt the crew to

initiate cold leg recirculation.

• RWST level will eventually drop to the point where the crew must initiate cold leg

recirculation.

Event one: Unidentified leakage attributable to pressurizer steam space leak

The crew reacts to unidentified primary leakage, eventually requiring a reactor trip.

Malfunctions required: 1 (pressurizer steam space leak)
D-32

Appendix D 5 Attachment 2

Objectives:

• Evaluate the crew’s use of AOPs and TS to respond to unidentified primary leakage.

• Evaluate the crew’s knowledge of parameters in the AOP that require a trip because of

primary leakage.

Success Path:

• Use the AOPs, increase reactor makeup and calculate a leak rate.

• Use the NOPs to commence a reactor shutdown in accordance with TS.

• When leakage exceeds the AOP parameters, trip the reactor.

Event two: Reactor trip/AFW pump fails to start automatically

The crew trips the reactor on excessive leakage in accordance with the AOP. The AFW

pumps fail to start automatically, requiring manual initiation.

Malfunctions required: 1 (AFW failure to auto start)

Objective:

Evaluate the crew’s use of the EOPs following a reactor trip, with the complication that the

AFW pumps fail to start automatically.

Success Path:

• Recognize that the AFW pumps failed to start automatically and manually start the

pumps.

• Correctly perform the reactor trip EOP and make the transition to the reactor trip recovery

EOP after completing the immediate actions and applicable subsequent actions.

Event three: Increasing pressurizer leak/SI pumps fail to start

The pressurizer leak increases, causing a loss of pressurizer level/pressure requiring an SI. 

The charging pumps fail to automatically start, requiring manual start.

Malfunctions required: 2 (pressurizer leak increases and charging pumps fail to auto start)

Objectives:

• Evaluate the crew’s ability to monitor important parameters in the EOPs and initiate SI 

when required.

• Evaluate the crew’s ability to manually start the charging pumps following an SI signal.
D-33

Appendix D 6 Attachment 2

Success Path:

• Initiate SI when pressurizer level and pressure decrease to the values stated in the EOPs.

• Recognize the failure of charging pumps to automatically start, and manually start the

required charging pumps to complete the SI initiation sequence.

• Critical Task: Establish at least 4000 gpm of SI flow prior to pressurizer level reaching 

low setpoint.

Event four: LOCA/adverse containment

A LOCA occurs as a result of the seismic event, which leads to adverse containment 

conditions. RWST level decreases to the point where the crew must enter the EOP for

initiating cold leg recirculation. Evaluators inform the crew that time compression is being 

used to accelerate the decrease in RWST level.

Malfunctions required: 2 (LOCA and RWST leak)

Objectives:

• Evaluate the crew’s use of the EOPs with adverse containment.

• Evaluate the crew’s ability to recognize the need for and use the cold leg recirculation 

procedure.

Success Path:

• Correctly enter and use the LOCA EOP and the containment functional recovery EOP 

using adverse containment criteria.

• When RWST levels reach the low-low alarm and the reactor sump level is high enough, 

enter and implement the cold leg recirculation EOP.

• Critical Task: Establish cold leg recirculation of 500 gpm within 5 minutes of entering cold 

leg recirculation EOP.

Scenario Recapitulation

Total Malfunctions: 6

Abnormal Events: 2

Major Transients: 2 (leak requiring SI and LOCA with high containment pressure)

EOPs Entered: 4 (enter LOCA EOP twice)

EOP Contingencies: 1 (containment safety)

Critical Tasks: 2
D-34

Appendix D 7 Attachment 2

BWR Scenario One: Loss of Offsite Power with a LOCA

Scenario Objective

Evaluate the operators’ use of the “Emergency Depressurization” and “RPV Flooding” EOP 

contingency procedures.

Scenario Summary

Initial Conditions:

• 98 percent power

• “A” average power range monitor (APRM) failed and bypassed

Events:

• Reactor core isolation cooling (RCIC) becomes isolated during an RCIC flow surveillance.

• Loss of offsite power/Division III diesel generator fails to start, disabling the high-pressure 

core spray (HPCS).

• Small-break LOCA occurs.

• Adverse containment conditions make the reactor level instrumentation unusable.

Scenario Sequence

• The RCIC system becomes isolated during surveillance testing, rendering the system 

inoperable.

• Faults in the 345-KV switchyard and reserve auxiliary transformer result in a loss of offsite 

power and a reactor scram.

• The Division III diesel generator fails to start and will not start manually, disabling the

HPCS system.

• The plant transient causes a recirculation line break resulting in a small break LOCA that

develops over several minutes.

• Reactor level instrumentation becomes erratic and unusable because of the rapid 

decrease in pressure and the elevated drywell temperature.

Event one: RCIC isolation

The crew responds to an isolation of the RCIC system during a full-flow test surveillance.

Malfunctions required: 1 (RCIC isolation)

Objective:

Evaluate the crew’s use of TS to determine that RCIC is inoperable.
D-35

Appendix D 8 Attachment 2

Success Path:

Use TS to recognize that the RCIC system should be declared inoperable until the problem 

can be investigated and corrected.

Event two: Loss of offsite power with concurrent Division III diesel generator failure (HPCS)

The crew responds to the loss of offsite power, reactor scram, and loss of high-pressure 

injection sources.

Malfunctions required: 2 (loss of offsite power and HPCS failure)

Objective:

Evaluate the crew’s response to a plant transient that causes a reactor scram and a loss of

high-pressure injection sources by using the RPV and primary containment control EOPs.

Success Path:

• Maintain RPV pressure at less than 1065 psig using the main turbine bypass valves.

• Manually control pressure with safety relief valves (SRVs) upon a loss of electrohydraulic 

control (EHC) hydraulic pressure because of the loss of power to the EHC pumps.

• Initiate suppression pool cooling and pump down in accordance with EOPs if the

temperature in the suppression pool exceeds 90 °F or the level exceeds 18.5 feet.

• Critical Task: Establish suppression pool cooling once suppression pool exceeds 90 °F

and before temperature reaches 110°F.

Event three: Small-break LOCA

The crew responds to a loss of vessel inventory and an inability to maintain a level greater

than the top of the active fuel, eventually implementing emergency depressurization.

Malfunctions required: 1 (LOCA)

Objective:

Evaluate the crew’s ability to recognize an inability to maintain reactor water level and

correctly implement the applicable contingency procedures, including emergency

depressurization.

Success Path:

• Execute RPV emergency depressurization so reactor pressure can be decreased to allow

injection by the low-pressure ECCS systems.

• Critical Task: Commence RPV emergency depressurization and lower pressure to 400 

psig to achieve 800 gpm of ECCS flow.
D-36

Appendix D 9 Attachment 2

Event four: Reactor level instrumentation failure

The crew recognizes a loss of reactor level instrumentation and responds in accordance with 

RPV flooding EOP.

Malfunctions required: 1 (reactor level instrumentation failure)

Objective:

Evaluate the crew’s ability to recognize failed reactor level instrumentation and correctly 

implement the applicable actions of the RPV flooding EOP to ensure adequate core cooling.

Success Path:

Reflood the RPV in accordance with the EOPs and establish adequate core cooling. 

Adequate core cooling will be ensured when reactor pressure can be maintained greater than

120 psig with at least three SRVs opened by manually controlling the low-pressure ECCS

injection flow.

Scenario Recapitulation

Total Malfunctions: 5

Abnormal Events: 3

Major Transients: 2 (emergency depressurization and RPV flooding)

EOPs Entered: 2

EOP Contingencies: 3 (alternate level control, emergency depressurization, and

RPV flooding)

Critical Tasks: 2
D-37

Appendix D 10 Attachment 2

BWR SCENARIO TWO: POWER OSCILLATIONS WITH AN ATWS

Scenario Objective

Evaluate the operator’s use of the “Level/Power Control” and “Emergency Depressurization”

EOP contingency procedures.

Scenario Summary

Initial Conditions:

• 75 percent reactor power

• High-pressure core spray pump out of service

• “B” recirculation pump flow control valve is locked

Events:

• The “A” reactor recirculation pump trips, causing power oscillations, and an SRV fails 

open during the power oscillations.

• Anticipated transient without scram (ATWS) requiring lowering of level to control power.

• Feed system pumps fail to restart and standby liquid control (SLC) pumps and RCIC pump 

trip during the transient, complicating recovery from the event.

Scenario Sequence

• The “A” recirculation pump trips, resulting in power oscillations within 5 minutes. The

reactor fails to manually scram.

• The SRV sticks open during power oscillations.

• Condensate booster and feedwater pumps fail to restart, and the SLC pumps trip after

power is reduced less than 3 percent.

• RCIC pump trips after it is restarted by an operator.

Event one: “A” recirculation pump trip resulting in power oscillations

The crew responds to a recirculation pump trip and a failure of the reactor scram system.

Malfunctions required: 2 (recirculation pump trip and ATWS)

Objectives:

• Evaluate the crew’s use of AOPs and EOPs to respond to an ATWS and to restore the

power and flow parameters to acceptable values.

• Evaluate the crew’s use of TS that apply to single recirculation loop operation.
D-38

Appendix D 11 Attachment 2

Success Path:

• Recognize power to be in Region B or C of the power and flow map, and initiate control rod 

insertion to reduce thermal power.

• Recognize symptoms of thermal-hydraulic instability, and attempt to manually scram.

• Use the EOP flow charts for RPV level, power, and pressure control.

• Trip the “B” recirculation pump, and initiate actions to achieve control rod insertion and to 

actuate the SLC system in accordance with the EOPs.

Event two: SRV sticks open during power oscillations

The crew recognizes and responds to the stuck open SRV, eventually implementing the

actions of the primary containment control EOP.

Malfunctions required: 1 (SRV sticks open)

Objective:

Evaluate the crew’s ability to recognize the failed open SRV and implement the applicable 

abnormal and emergency procedure actions.

Success Path:

• Initiate actions to close the SRV.

• Use EOPs to initiate suppression pool cooling and reduce the level.

• Terminate all injection into the RPV, except for the control rod drive and SLC systems 

when suppression pool temperature exceeds 110 °F with reactor power less than 3 

percent.

• Critical Task: During failure to scram conditions with reactor power above 3%, terminate 

and prevent injection from all sources except SBLC, RCIC and CRD until level lowers to at 

least -33 inches

Event three: Failure of injection sources after control rod insertion

The crew responds to a loss of vessel inventory and the inability to maintain a level greater

than the top of the active fuel by eventually implementing emergency depressurization.

Malfunctions required: 3 (feedwater system failure, SLC pump trip, and RCIC fails to start)

Objective:

Evaluate the crew’s use of EOPs to respond to an inability to maintain the reactor water level 

and initiate an emergency depressurization.

Success Path:

• Execute RPV emergency depressurization to allow for injection by the low-pressure 

ECCS systems.

• Critical Task: Initiate RPV emergency depressurization by opening at least 6 SRV’s

when drywell pressure cannot be maintained below the PSP limit.
D-39

Appendix D 12 Attachment 2

Scenario Recapitulation

Total Malfunctions: 6

Abnormal Events: 2

Major Transients: 2 (ATWS and emergency depressurization)

EOPs Entered: 2

EOP Contingencies: 3 (level and power control, alternate level control, and

emergency depressurization)

Critical Tasks: 2
D-40

Appendix D Scenario Outline Form ES-D-1

Facility: ________________ Scenario No.: _____________ Op-Test No.: _________

Examiners: ___________________________ Operators: ____________________________

__________________________ _____________________________

__________________________ _____________________________

Initial Conditions: ___________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

Turnover: _______________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

Critical Tasks: ____________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

Event 

No.

Malf. 

No.

Event 

Type*

Event

Description

* (N)ormal, (R)eactivity, (I)nstrument, (C)omponent, (M)ajor
D-41

Appendix D Required Operator Actions Form ES-D-2

Op-Test No.: _____ Scenario No.: _____ Event No.: _____ Page ___ of ___

Event Description: _________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

Time Position Applicant’s Actions or Behavior

E-1

APPENDIX E

POLICIES AND GUIDELINES FOR TAKING NRC EXAMINATIONS

Each examinee shall be briefed on the policies and guidelines applicable to the examination 

category (written, operating, walk-through, and/or simulator test) being administered. The

examinees may be briefed individually or as a group. Facility licensees are encouraged to

distribute a copy of this appendix to every examinee before the examination begins. All items

apply to both initial and requalification examinations, except as noted.

A: General Guidelines

1. [Read Verbatim] Cheating on any part of the examination will result in a denial of your

application or action against your license.

2. If you have any questions concerning the administration of any part of the examination, do

not hesitate to ask them before starting that part of the test.

3. Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) applicants will be tested at the level of responsibility of the 

senior licensed shift position (i.e., shift supervisor, senior shift supervisor, or whatever the 

title of the position may be).

4. You must pass every part of the examination to receive a license or to continue performing 

license duties. Applicants for an SRO-upgrade (SRO-U) license may require remedial 

training in order to continue their Reactor Operator (RO) duties if the examination reveals 

deficiencies in required knowledge and abilities.

5. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) examiner is not allowed to reveal the 

results of any part of the examination until they have been reviewed and approved by NRC 

management. Grades provided by the facility licensee are preliminary until approved by 

the NRC. You will be informed of the official examination results about 30 days after all 

the examinations are complete.

B: Written Examination Guidelines

1. [Read Verbatim] After you complete the examination, sign the statement on the cover

sheet indicating that the work is your own and you have not received or given assistance 

in completing the examination.

2. To pass the examination, you must achieve an overall grade of 80 percent or greater, with 

70 percent or greater on the SRO-only items, if applicable. If you only take the SRO 

portion of the exam (as a retake or with an upgrade waiver of the RO exam), you must 

achieve an overall grade of 80 percent or better to pass. SRO-U applicants who do take 

the RO portion of the exam and score below 80 percent on that part of the exam can still 

pass overall, but may require remediation. Grades will not be rounded up to achieve a 

passing score. Every question is worth one point.

3. For an initial examination, the nominal time limit for completing the examination is 6 hours 

for the RO exam; 3 hours for the 25-question, SRO-only exam; 9 hours for the combined 

RO/SRO exam; and 4 hours for the SRO exam limited to fuel handling. The times allotted 

for taking each examination as noted above shall not be extended except for unavoidable 

situations (e.g., loss of power, building evacuation, emergency response, etc.) and the 
E-2

licensee shall first notify the NRC’s regional office to ensure that a point of contact remains 

available to respond to questions. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure his/her 

physical capability to complete the examination in the allotted time. 

For a requalification examination, the time limit for completing both sections of the

examination is 3 hours. If both sections are administered in the simulator during a single 

3-hour period, you may return to a section of the examination that you already completed 

or retain both sections of the examination until the allotted time has expired.

4. You may bring pens, pencils, and calculators into the examination room; however,

programmable memories must be erased. Applicants shall not bring tablets, cell phones 

or other communications or electronic devices or recorders into the examination room. 

Use black ink to ensure legible copies; dark pencil should be used only if necessary to 

facilitate machine grading.

5. Print your name in the blank provided on the examination cover sheet and the answer

sheet. You may be asked to provide the examiner with some form of positive 

identification.

6. Mark your answers on the answer sheet provided, and do not leave any question blank. 

Use only the paper provided, and do not write on the back side of the pages. If you are

using ink and decide to change your original answer, draw a single line through the error, 

enter the desired answer, and initial the change. If you are recording your answers on a 

machine-gradable form that offers more than four answer choices (e.g., “a” through “e”), 

be careful to mark the correct column.

7. If you have any questions concerning the intent or the initial conditions of a question, do

not hesitate to ask them before answering the question. Note that questions asked

during the examination are taken into consideration during the grading process and when 

reviewing applicant appeals. Ask questions of the NRC examiner or the designated 

facility instructor only. A dictionary is available if you need it.

When answering a question, do not make assumptions regarding conditions that are not

specified in the question unless they occur as a consequence of other conditions that are 

stated in the question. For example, you should not assume that any alarm has activated 

unless the question so states or the alarm is expected to activate as a result of the 

conditions that are stated in the question. Similarly, you should assume that no operator 

actions have been taken, unless the stem of the question or the answer choices 

specifically state otherwise. Finally, answer all questions based on actual plant 

operation, procedures, and references. If you believe that the answer would be different 

based on simulator operation or training references, you should answer the question 

based on the actual plant.

8. Restroom trips are permitted, but only one applicant at a time will be allowed to leave. 

Avoid all contact with anyone outside the examination room to eliminate even the

appearance or possibility of cheating.

9. When you complete the examination, assemble a package that includes the examination

questions, examination aids, answer sheets, and scrap paper, and give it to the NRC

examiner or proctor. Remember to sign the statement on the examination cover sheet

indicating that the work is your own and that you have neither given nor received 

assistance in completing the examination. 
E-3

10. After turning in your examination, leave the examination area as defined by the proctor or

NRC examiner. If you are found in this area while the examination is still in progress, 

your license may be denied or revoked.

11. Do you have any questions?

C: Generic Operating Test Guidelines

1. If you are asked a question or directed to perform a task that is unclear, you should not

hesitate to ask for clarification.

2. The examiner will take notes throughout the test to document your performance, and the

examiner may sometimes take a short break for this reason. The amount of note-taking 

does not reflect your level of performance. The examiner is required to document 

satisfactory as well as less-than-satisfactory performance.

3. The operating test is considered “open reference.” The reference materials normally 

available to operators in the facility and control room (including calibration curves, 

previous log entries, piping and instrumentation diagrams, calculation sheets, and 

procedures) are also available to you during the operating test. However, you should 

know from memory certain automatic actions, setpoints, interlocks, operating 

characteristics, and the immediate actions of emergency and other procedures, as 

appropriate to the facility. If you desire to use a reference, you should ask the examiner if 

it is acceptable to do so for the task or question under consideration.

You may not solicit technical information from any other person.

4. To maintain test integrity and fairness, you must not discuss any aspect of your operating 

test with, or in the presence of, any other examinee who has not completed the applicable 

portion of the operating test (i.e., the administrative topics, the systems walk-through, or

the dynamic simulator test).

D: Walk-Through Test Guidelines

1. The walk-through test covers control room systems, local system operations, and

administrative requirements. The examiner will evaluate these areas using job

performance measures (JPMs) and specific followup questions, as necessary.

The initial walk-through consists of 15 JPMs for RO and SRO instant applicants and 10 for

SRO-U and senior reactor operators limited to fuel handling (LSRO) applicants. Except 

for LSROs, most of the JPMs will be conducted in the control room or simulator and the 

remainder will be conducted in the plant.

The requalification walk-through consists of a total of five JPMs, with at least two in the

control room/simulator and at least two in the plant.

2. The examiner may be a visitor at this facility. When you enter the plant, you may be 

expected to escort the examiner and ensure that he or she complies with safety, security, 

and radiation protection procedures.
E-4

3. You should not operate plant equipment without appropriate permission from the

operating crew. Nothing the examiner says or asks will be intended to violate this 

principle.

4. Before beginning each JPM, the examiner will describe the initial conditions, explain the

task that is to be completed, indicate whether the task is time-critical, and explain which 

steps are to be simulated or discussed. You should perform or simulate the required 

actions as if directed by plant procedures or shift supervision. Do not assume that the 

examiner will accept an oral description of the required action unless the examiner 

indicates otherwise.

5. Time-critical JPMs have been validated by your facility and must be completed within the

predetermined time interval to obtain a satisfactory grade for that JPM. You will be 

permitted to take whatever time is necessary to complete those JPMs that are not 

time-critical, provided you are making reasonable progress toward achieving the task 

standard. If the examiner believes that you are not making reasonable progress, the 

examiner will ask you to explain what remains to be done and how long it should take 

before stopping the task. You will be permitted at least twice the validated time to 

complete the JPM, whether you are making progress or not.

6. When performing JPMs, you are expected to make decisions and take actions based on

the facility’s procedural guidance and the indications available. Some of the tasks that 

the examiner asks you to perform will require implementation of an alternative method 

directed by plant procedures.

7. If your facility licensee’s procedures and practices require the use of procedure readers or

peer checks, you may ask the NRC examiner to perform those functions. However,

because the NRC examiner must evaluate your individual performance without assistance 

from others, he or she will simply acknowledge your request and proposed actions, 

regardless of their accuracy or correctness.

As part of the examination, the examiner may ask followup questions to investigate your

knowledge of an administrative topic, system, or task. Many of the questions will require 

you to use plant reference material, while others should be answered without the use of 

references. If you need to consult a reference to answer a question, ask the examiner if it

is acceptable to do so. There is no specific time limit for any question; however, you may 

be evaluated as unsatisfactory on a question if you are unfamiliar with the subject or 

reference material and are unable to answer the question in a reasonable period of time. 

You will not be permitted to conduct unlimited searches of the plant reference material 

during the examination.

9. To facilitate the examination and better enable the examiner to assess your level of

understanding, please verbalize your actions and observations while performing the

JPMs. Also, please inform the examiner when you consider your performance of each 

JPM and your answer to each question to be complete.

10. If you need a break during the test, you should ask the examiner.

11. Do you have any questions?
E-5

E: Simulator Test Guidelines

1. Your primary responsibility is to operate the simulator as if it were the actual plant. If you

believe that the simulator is not responding properly, you should make decisions and

recommendations on the basis of the indications available, unless directed otherwise by 

the examiner.

2. If the examiner asks you a question, you should answer it only if doing so will not interfere 

with simulation facility operations.

3. Teamwork and communications are evaluated. You can enhance the evaluation process 

by vocalizing your observations, analyses, and the bases for your actions.

Requalification examinations evaluate the crew’s ability to safely operate the plant and the 

performance of both the individuals and the crew.

4. If you recognize, but fail to correct, an erroneous decision, response, answer, analysis,

action, or interpretation made by the operating team or crew, the examiner may conclude 

that you agree with the incorrect item.

Members of the operating team or crew (whether applicants or surrogates) should perform 

peer checks in accordance with the facility licensee’s procedures and practices; non-crew 

members and NRC examiners will not perform this function. However, if you begin to 

make an error that is corrected by someone else, you will be held accountable for the 

consequences of the potential error without regard to mitigation by the crew.

5. You should keep a rough log during each scenario that would be sufficient to complete

necessary formal log entries.

6. A designated facility instructor will act as the auxiliary operators, radiation health and 

chemistry technicians, maintenance supervisors, plant management, and anyone else 

needed outside the control room.

7. The facility instructor (or examiner) will provide a shift turnover briefing before the scenario 

begins. The briefing will cover present plant conditions, power history, equipment that is 

out of service, abnormal conditions, surveillances that are due, and instructions for the 

shift.

8. Control board switches may be purposely misaligned to enhance a scenario or transient 

where appropriate. You will not be required to locate misaligned switches as part of the

evaluation. If a switch is misaligned, it will be tagged or otherwise highlighted as

appropriate to the facility and will be noted during the shift turnover briefing. The

examiners will not misalign switches during the scenario.

9. Time compression may be used to expedite the sequence of events in some scenarios, 

but it will not preclude you from performing the actions that you would typically be required 

to perform in response to the events. If time compression is used, you will be informed 

during scenario.

10. You will be given sufficient time (normally about 5 minutes) to familiarize yourselves with

plant conditions before starting each simulator scenario.
E-6

11. The initial test will normally consist of two or three scenarios lasting a total of 3 - 4 hours. 

The requalification test will normally consist of two scenarios lasting about 1 hour each. 

You may be given a short break between scenarios.

12. SRO upgrade applicants who fill the role of an RO or balance-of-plant operator during a 

scenario will be evaluated on their ability to manipulate the controls even though an 

examiner may not be assigned to directly monitor their performance.

13. During the simulator operating test, you and your crew may be electronically recorded 

using the available video/audio equipment provided by the simulator. The NRC may 

review the recordings to resolve/confirm examiner documentation of specific errors in your 

performance that they may have, such as verifying the action(s) taken and their timing, 

and verifying communications that the NRC may not have heard during your examination.

14. Do you have any questions?
F-1

APPENDIX F

GLOSSARY

Achievement test: An instrument designed to measure a trainee’s skill proficiency or grasp of

some body of knowledge.

Annual: In most instances, a period of time equal to 365 days reckoned from any point in a

calendar year to the same point in the following calendar year. However, annual requirements 

in successive years can reach a period of nearly 2 years. “Annual’ could encompass a range 

extending to 729 days depending on when an event occurred in the first calendar year and

viewing December 31 of the following calendar year as meeting the annual requirement.

Applicant: Any individual who has submitted an NRC Form 398, “Personal Qualifications 

Statement - Licensee,’ in pursuit of a reactor operator (RO) or senior reactor operator (SRO)

license. For purposes of this and the NRC’s other examination standards, “applicant’ is 

synonymous with “candidate.’

Applicant license level: The level of operator license (i.e., RO or SRO) for which the 

applicant has applied.

Aptitude test: An instrument designed to assess an individual’s potential for performing some

task or skill area.

Average: A score that provides an indication of the typical performance of a group of scores. 

The mean, median, and mode of a distribution of scores are all commonly used as averages.

Biennial: In most instances, a period of time equal to 730 days and synonymous with “2

years.’ Biennial requirements can extend beyond 730 days if the requirement is met during the

anniversary month of the second year. For example, a biennial medical examination last

performed on January 10, 2013, would be due again by January 31, 2015. In this case, 

January is seen as the anniversary month, and the biennial requirement is satisfied even though

the period of time between the two examinations is longer than 730 days.

Bloom’s Taxonomy: A classification system that depicts knowledge and information 

processing in a hierarchy from lowest to highest as fundamental knowledge, comprehension, 

analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.

Calendar quarter: One of four parts of a calendar year, each consisting of a 3-month 

segment. In any calendar year, the first quarter is from the first day of January to the last day 

of March, the second quarter is from the first day of April to the last day of June, the third 

quarter is from the first day of July to the last day of September, and the fourth quarter is from

the first day of October to the last day of December.

Central tendency: A term referring to the most typical performance of a group of individuals; 

generally the mean, median, or mode

Cognitive: Aspects of a person or test level that refer to knowledge or understanding.

Content validity: The degree to which a test measures the specific objectives or content.

Correlation coefficient: A numerical value, ranging from -1 to +1, that indicates the

relationship between two sets of scores or other measures of each individual in a group. A

value of 0 indicates no relationship; +1 or -1 indicates a perfect relationship (either positive or 

negative).
F-2

Criterion: A characteristic or combination of characteristics used as the basis for assessing 

performance.

Criterion-referenced test: An examination based upon mastery of objectives of content that

was or should have been taught and mastered and one that uses an established standard or

cutoff score as a measure of acceptable performance.

Cut score: The score at which a trainee is deemed to have met the criteria for an exam.

Defer: To postpone completion of a license application requirement(s) until a later date, 

typically after the applicant passes an initial NRC licensing examination. An applicant’s request 

to defer a requirement(s) is documented as a “deferral,” on NRC Form 398. The deferred 

item(s) shall be completed by the applicant prior to the NRC issuing a license.

Designated nuclear control room operator: In accordance with Section C.1.2 of Regulatory

Guide 1.8, Revision 3, an individual assigned to a licensed control room operator position 

identified in either Technical Specification Table 6.2.1 or the table of “Minimum Requirements 

per Shift for On-Site Staffing of Nuclear Power Units by Operators and Senior Operators 

Licensed under 10 CFR Part 55” in Title 10, Section 50.54(m)(2)(I), of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR 50.54(m)(2)(i)).

Diagnostic test: An instrument that is designed to identify an individual’s strengths and

weaknesses in a given content area.

Difficulty index: A numerical index, ranging from 0.00 to 1.00, that indicates the percentage of

trainees who correctly answer a test item. An index of 0.00 indicates that no one correctly

answered the test item, while an index of 1.00 indicates that all individuals correctly answered 

the item.

Discrimination index: A measure of a test item’s ability to differentiate between good and

poor trainees. A high discrimination index indicates that more high performers than low

performers correctly answered the item. (High and low are typically determined by overall test 

scores, but may also be established by external criteria.)

Discrimination validity: Setting the item difficulty at an estimated level around the cut score.

Distractor: An incorrect alternative among the possible answers for a test item.

Equivalent forms: Two or more exams that test the same objectives using different test items 

or the same test items in a different sequence.

Error of measurement: Any difference between an obtained score and a true score on a test. 

The actual error of measurement can only be estimated, since it is impossible to know the true

score.

Excuse: To excuse a re-applicant from the requirement to complete portions of a reexamination or test in accordance with 10 CFR Part 55.35(b). Granting such a release is 

referred to as an “excusal.”

Frequency distribution: A graphic display listing scores or score intervals on one axis of a

graph, and the number of trainees at that score or in that interval on the other.

Item analysis: A set of procedures performed on examination items to determine their

difficulty and discriminating power.
F-3

Item bank: A group of test items covering a defined area. Items for a test can be chosen 

from this source.

Item stem: The part of a test item that presents the problem or situation to be solved. The

item stem may be a question requiring a response, or a statement that is followed by the

alternatives from which the trainee must choose the best answer.

Job performance measure (JPM): An evaluation tool that is based on tasks contained in the

facility’s job task analysis (JTA) or the applicable NRC Knowledge and Abilities Catalog 

(NUREG-1122, 1123, 2103 or 2104) and requires the applicant to perform (or simulate) a task 

that is applicable to the license level of the examination.

Job task analysis (JTA): A systematic analysis of the knowledge, skills, and abilities required

to perform a particular occupation.

Learning objective: A statement of the behavior a trainee is expected to exhibit following

instruction.

Low-power: In accordance with NUREG-1449, “NRC Staff Evaluation of Shutdown and LowPower Operation,’ the range of reactor power from criticality to 5 percent.

Mastery test: A term synonymous with “criterion-referenced test’ (i.e., one that evaluates the

expected behavior following instruction).

Mean: An indication of “central tendency.’ Mean usually refers to the arithmetic mean, which

is computed by summing all the scores of a group, and dividing that sum by the number of

scores in the group.

Median: A measure of “central tendency’; the point on a scale of scores that splits the scores 

in half, with 50 percent of the scores below this point, and 50 percent of the scores above this

point.

Mode: The least reliable of the common measure of “central tendency’; the “mode’ is the most

frequently occurring score in a distribution of scores.

Multiple-choice item: A test item that is composed of an item stem and several alternatives 

from which the trainee must select the best answer.

Normal distribution: A theoretical frequency distribution represented by a symmetrical bellshaped curve; sometimes referred to as the bell curve.

Norm-referenced: A score interpretation based on the comparison of an individual’s score 

with a comparable reference group.

Nuclear power plant experience: As defined in Section 2 of ANSI/ANS-3.1-1993, “American

National Standard for Selection, Qualification, and Training of Personnel for Nuclear Power 

Plants,’ applicable work performed in a nuclear-fueled electric power production plant during 

pre-operational, startup testing, or operational activities. Observation of others performing work 

does not constitute experience.

Objective test: A test that can be scored without subjective judgment in the scoring.

On-the-job training: Participation in nuclear power plant startup, operation, maintenance, or

technical services as a trainee under the direction of experienced personnel.
F-4

Operating test: That portion of the operator licensing examination based on direct interaction 

between an examiner and an applicant. The operating test assesses applicant knowledge of 

the design and operation of the reactor and its associated plant systems, both inside and 

outside the control room. It is administered in a plant walk-through and a simulation facility.

Operational validity: A test item that (1) relates to the operations of the job and appears 

reasonable to ask and (2) is expressed in an operational context that requires the candidate to

mentally or physically perform through understanding or analysis.

Performance test: Any test that requires the trainee to demonstrate either mental 

performance through knowledge testing or skill by actual operation or manipulation of tools and 

equipment. Typically, performance tests connote the meaning of skill testing.

Plant-referenced simulator: As defined in 10 CFR 55.4, “Definitions,” a simulator modeling 

the systems of the reference plant with which the operator interfaces in the control room, 

including operating consoles, and which permits use of the reference plant’s procedures. A

plant-referenced simulator used to administer operating tests (under 10 CFR 55.45(b)) or to

meet experience requirements (under 10 CFR 55.31(a)(5)) must be designed and implemented 

in accordance with 10 CFR 55.46, “Simulation Facilities.”

Power plant experience: As defined in Section 2 of ANSI/ANS-3.1-1993, applicable work 

performed in a fossil-fueled or nuclear-fueled electric power production plant during 

pre-operational, startup testing, or operational activities. Observation of others performing work 

does not constitute experience.

Predictive validity evidence: The ability of a test to forecast future performance on a

subsequent measure.

Psychomotor: The domain of human performance that relates to physical performance based

on mental activity.

Range: The smallest interval on a scale of scores that will include all scores; mathematically

defined as the largest score minus the smallest score plus one.

Raw score: The numerical score first assigned when scoring a test before conversion to a

derived score.

Reactor operator applicant: An unlicensed individual who is applying for an RO license.

Reference plant: As defined in 10 CFR 55.4, the specific nuclear power plant from which a

simulation facility’s control room configuration, system control arrangements, and design data 

are derived.

Related experience: In accordance with Section C.1.1 of Regulatory Guide 1.8, “Qualification 

and Training of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants,” Revision 3, experience in performing job 

duties in the discipline for which the individual seeks qualification; such experience may or may 

not be at a nuclear power plant.

Related technical training: Formal training beyond the high school level in technical subjects 

associated with the position in question, such as acquired in training schools or programs 

conducted by the military, industry, utilities, universities, vocational schools, or others. Such

training programs shall be of a scheduled and planned length and include textual material and

lectures.

Reliability: The consistency or repeatability of any measure as an indicator of confidence in

that measure.
F-5

Responsible nuclear power plant experience (RNPPE): As defined in Section C.1.3 of

Regulatory Guide 1.8, Revision 3, a senior operator applicant has actively performed as a

designated nuclear control room operator or as a power plant staff engineer involved in the dayto-day activities of the facility. Time spent in academic or related technical training may fulfill 

the requirement for RNPPE, on a one-for-one basis, up to a maximum of 1 year.

Scenario: An integrated group of events that simulates a set of plant malfunctions and

evolutions at a simulation facility.

Scenario set: A group of scenarios that constitutes a complete simulator test (i.e., “Integrated

Plant Operations,’ of the operating test).

Score: A numerical indication of the performance an individual displays on a test.

Senior reactor operator instant (SRO-I) applicant: An unlicensed individual who is applying 

for an SRO license.

Senior reactor operator upgrade (SRO-U) applicant: A licensed RO who is applying for an

SRO license on the same unit(s).

Simulation facility: As defined in 10 CFR 55.4, one or more of the following components, 

alone or in combination, used for the partial conduct of operating tests for operators, senior

operators, and applicants [under 10 CFR 55.45(b)] or to establish on-the-job training and

experience prerequisites for operator license eligibility [under 10 CFR 55.31(a)(5)]:

(1) a plant-referenced simulator

(2) a Commission-approved simulator under 10 CFR 55.46(b)

(3) another simulation device, including part-task and limited-scope simulation devices, 

approved under 10 CFR 55.46(b)

Staff engineer: In accordance with Section C.1.4 of Regulatory Guide 1.8, Revision 3, an

individual in a technical support position (i.e., personnel covered in Sections 4.4.10 and 4.6 of

ANSI/ANS3.1-1993) who is responsible for the coordination and implementation of plant

equipment control; integrated operation procedures; operations, maintenance, and radiological 

support; or review of modification and maintenance plans for plant systems.

Standard deviation: A measure of variability of a set of scores around the group mean. The

standard deviation is mathematically defined as the square root of the mean of the squared

deviations of the scores from the mean of the distribution.

Standard error of measurement: An estimate of the standard deviation of the errors of

measurement associated with the scores in a given test.

Standardized test: A test that has the directions, time limits, and conditions of administration 

made consistent for all offerings of the test; this test is usually norm-referenced.

Statistic: A numerical value computed on a sample of data.

Technical Specifications: A document that identifies the plant-specific safety limits, system

operability and surveillance testing requirements, and administrative controls. Whether stated 

or not, references to the technical specifications in this NUREG include those administrative 

controls that have been moved to other technical requirements documents.

Test: A measurement instrument; examination.
F-6

True score: The ideal or correct score for an individual. Its value cannot be known, but it can

be estimated when assumptions regarding error of measurement are made.

Validity: The degree to which a test measures what it purports to measure.

Video recording. An electronic medium used for recording, copying, and playback of moving 

visual images and associated audio components. Storage media include digital video disk, 

video cassette tape, and compact disk.

Waive: To forgo or relinquish a legal requirement that the NRC is legally entitled to enforce. 

Forgoing such a requirement is documented as a “waiver.” The NRC’s ability to waive 

examination and test requirements is specified in 10 CFR Part 55.47.




NUREG-1021, Rev. 11

Draft

Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors