Operator Licensing

Examination Standards

for Power Reactors

Final Report

Office of New Reactors

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

NUREG-1021, Rev. 11

Operator Licensing

Examination Standards

for Power Reactors

Final Report

Manuscript Completed: November 2016

Date Published: February 2017

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

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 reactor operator licenses 

at power reactor facilities in accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations

(10 CFR) Part 55, “Operators’ Licenses.”

The intent of these examination standards is 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. As stated in 10 CFR 55.40, “Implementation,” “[t]he 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 Revision 10 to NUREG-1021 in December 2014 to (1) add guidance for 

licensing of operators for new reactors, (2) add, as references, NUREG-2103, “Knowledge and 

Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant Operators: Westinghouse AP1000 Pressurized-Water 

Reactors,” issued October 2011, and NUREG-2104, “Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for 

Nuclear Power Plant Operators: Advanced Boiling-Water Reactors,” issued December 2011, 

(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 NUREG-1021 to (1) clarify the waiver process for 

10 CFR 55.47, “Waiver of Examination and Test Requirements,” (2) clarify the excusal process

for 10 CFR 55.35(b), (3) clarify the independent review (appeal) process and revise the process 

and timeframe for the submission of post-examination comments, (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 published 

on the NRC’s operator licensing Web page and approved in a regional report on interactions.

Most of the changes in Revision 11 to NUREG-1021 derive from recommendations in a report 

issued by the Operator Licensing Lessons Learned Review Team in November 2014. The NRC 

established the review team to assess the issues contributing to the Atomic Safety and 

Licensing Board decision on March 18, 2014, overturning the staff’s denial of a senior reactor 

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

decision, the Board highlighted the NRC 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 

provided 23 recommended improvements to the operator licensing process.

This NUREG is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-

808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule 

as defined in the Congressional Review Act.
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), control number 3150-0018.

PUBLIC PROTECTION NOTIFICATION

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection 

of information unless the document requesting or requiring the collection displays a currently 

valid OMB control number.
v

CONTENTS

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

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

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

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

ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................xxxix

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-102-6

E. NUREG-Series Reports ...............................................................ES-102-7

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-201-17

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-204-4
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-205-5

E. Attachments/Forms......................................................................ES-205-6

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-301-18

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-401-14

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 Followup..................................................................ES-501-9

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

G. Attachments/Forms....................................................................ES-501-17

ES-502 Application Denials and Processing Requests 

for Informal NRC Staff Reviews ...............................................................ES-502-1

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

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

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

D. Administrative Review Procedures ..............................................ES-502-3

ES-6xx REQUALIFICATION EXAMINATIONS AND OTHER LICENSE ACTIONS

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-601-10

G. Requalification Program Evaluation Report...............................ES-601-14

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-601-17
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-602-8

ES-603 Requalification Walkthrough 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 Demands for Hearings.................................ES-605-1

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

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

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

D. License Renewal........................................................................ES-605-11

E. NRC-Conducted Requalification Examination Results..............ES-605-13

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-701-2

D. Written Examination Instructions .................................................ES-701-3

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

F. Attachments/Forms......................................................................ES-701-7

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-16

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. Walkthrough 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-18

F. Security Considerations for Simulator Operating Tests................................... D-20

G. Attachments/Forms.......................................................................................... D-22

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. Walkthrough Test Guidelines..............................................................................E-3

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

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

xi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 55, “Operators’ Licenses,” 

(1) establishes 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 under 10 CFR Part 50, 

“Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilizations Facilities”; 10 CFR Part 52, “Licenses, 

Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants”; or 10 CFR Part 54, “Requirements for 

Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants,”, (2) provides the terms and 

conditions upon which the Commission will issue or modify these licenses, and (3) provides 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 a reactor operator (RO) or a senior 

reactor operator (SRO) as defined in 10 CFR Part 55.

The Commission will approve an initial application for a license in accordance with the 

regulations in 10 CFR Part 55 if it finds that (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 

operating test and the requisite written examination in accordance with 10 CFR 55.45, 

“Operating Tests,” and either 10 CFR 55.41, “Written Examination: Operators,” or 

10 CFR 55.43, “Written Examination: Senior Operators.” 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 but include conditions in the license to accommodate the medical 

defect. 

Under 10 CFR 55.40, “Implementation,” 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 

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 in accordance with 10 CFR 55.40(b). Power 

reactor facility licensees that have elected to prepare, proctor, and grade the written 

examinations required by 10 CFR 55.41 and 10 CFR 55.43 and to prepare the operating tests 

required by 10 CFR 55.45 shall prepare the required examinations and tests in accordance with 

the criteria in NUREG-1021, as described above.

The staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) developed Revision 11 to 

NUREG-1021, “Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors,” following a 

series of public meetings with the Nuclear Energy Institute’s Licensed Operator Focus Group. 

Summaries of those meetings, which have taken place since the NRC published Revision 10 to 

NUREG-1021 in December 2014, are available through the NRC’s operator licensing Web site

at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operator-licensing/meetings.html and 

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactor-op-lic/meetings.html.

The table following “Backfitting and Issue Finality” below summarizes significant (but not all) 

changes from Revision 10 to NUREG-1021. Vertical bars in the margins to identify modified 

text are not used in this Revision 11 to NUREG-1021 due to the significant amount of changes 

to the document. Pages xl through xliii list acronyms and abbreviations that appear in this 

Executive Summary and throughout NUREG-1021.

xiii

BACKFITTING AND ISSUE FINALITY

In NUREG-1021, the NRC establishes the policies, procedures, and practices for examining 

licensees and applicants for RO and SRO licenses at nuclear power reactor facilities under 

10 CFR Part 55. Revision 11 to NUREG-1021 (1) clarify the waiver process for 10 CFR 55.47, 

“Waiver of Examination and Test Requirements,” (2) clarify the excusal process for 

10 CFR 55.35(b), (3) clarify the independent review (appeal) process and revise the process 

and timeframe for the submission of post-examination comments, (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 published

on the NRC’s operator licensing Web page and approved in a regional report on interactions.

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

10 CFR 50.109, “Backfitting,” 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 mandated 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, which 

must be prepared using the criteria in NUREG-1021 in effect 6 months before the examination 

date.1

 Because licensees under 10 CFR Part 50 and 10 CFR Part 52 are not required to

prepare the 10 CFR 55.41 and 10 CFR 55.43 examinations and 10 CFR 55.45 tests, changes to 

the criteria used to prepare the examinations and tests are not imposed upon them; therefore,

these changes do not meet the definition of “backfitting” in 10 CFR 50.109 and are not 

inconsistent with the finality provisions in 10 CFR Part 52.

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

structure of the testing regime in 10 CFR Part 55 involves updating NUREG-1021 to reflect 

lessons learned and ensure uniform conditions for licensing individuals applying for operator 

licenses. The language in 10 CFR 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 it could be revised within 6 months of the examination date. Although 

10 CFR 55.40 went into effect only in 1999,2 the NRC has published revisions to NUREG-1021 

since October 1983. Because current facility licensees under 10 CFR Part 50 have known of, 

and have experienced, this regime for more than three decades and because current facility 

licensees under 10 CFR Part 52 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 10 CFR Part 52, and the 

backfitting and issue finality provisions themselves, do not apply to these licensees.

Backfitting or issue finality regulations do not appear in 10 CFR Part 55, and the backfitting 

provisions in 10 CFR 50.109 and the finality provisions in 10 CFR Part 52 do not protect power 

reactor operator licensees because neither 10 CFR 50.109 nor 10 CFR Part 52 applies to power 

reactor operator licensees under 10 CFR Part 55.

Revision 11 to NUREG-1021 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 

 1 See 10 CFR 55.40(a)–(b).

2 See “Initial Licensed Operator Examination Requirements; Final Rule,” in Volume 64, Number 78, of the 

Federal Register, pages 19868–19878, dated April 23, 1999.
xiv

would not constitute backfitting, as defined in 10 CFR 50.109, or would not otherwise be

inconsistent with the applicable issue finality provisions in 10 CFR Part 52, because such 

applicants are not within the scope of entities protected by 10 CFR 50.109 or by the relevant 

issue finality provisions in 10 CFR Part 52. The exception to this principle is a combined license 

applicant under 10 CFR Part 52 that references an already-issued design certification or early 

site permit, but this exception does not apply to the requirements in 10 CFR Part 55.
xv

Changes from NUREG-1021, Revision 10

Across multiple Examiner Standard (ES) sections: deleted specific references to item block numbers on 

NRC Form 398 and NRC Form 396 so that forms can be revised independently of NUREG 1021. 

Specific references were changed to generic subject related references.

ES-000

Changed title of ES-204, ES-502 and ES-605. Made numerous editorial changes regarding reference to 

the regulations. Added information about the purpose of this revision.

ES-102

B.1, replaced “chapter” with “Act” since the information is from the AEA.

B.3, clarified Veteran Skills to Jobs Act description.

C.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. Added a reference to 10 CFR 2.103(b) for 

denial of operator license applications.

C.2, revised acronyms for consistency.

C.3, revised paragraph to match the regulation.

C.5, editorial changes to consistently refer to the applicable regulation and clarified where the facility 

licensee has responsibility.

C.6, 7, and 8, editorial changes to consistently refer to the applicable regulation.

D.3, added clarification that the Regulatory Guide is subject to a condition of use.

D.5 and 6, remove the word “currently” in front of “endorses”

E.3, updated reference/revision for NUREG 0800.

E.5 and 6, added reference to NUREG 1122 Revision 3 and NUREG 1123 Revision 3 with a “To Be 

Determined” date since they will be published before this revision of NUREG 1021 goes into effect.

E.8, added reference to the NRC Enforcement Policy and included reference to Part 52 licenses.

F.3, updated ANSI/ANS 3.4 reference to most current revision and referenced the current revision of RG 

1.134.

F.4, corrected the title of ANSI/ANS 3.5-2009.

ES-201

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

initial operating exam. Specified that the minimum amount of examination development for the yearly 

examination that is developed by the NRC. Revised “should” to “shall” for the regions to obtain 

NRR/NRO approval to implement initiatives that could undermine examination consistency.

C.1, simplified the use of an 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. Facility licensees should 

discuss applicant eligibility questions with their NRC regional office before commencing an initial license 

training class. A final NRC determination of eligibility will be provided after receiving a formal waiver 

request with the final (not preliminary) application.

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 Operator Licensing 

Program Feedback FAQ No. 201.3.

C.1.c and e, clarified that the attachments are associated with this examination standard.
xvi

Changes from NUREG-1021, Revision 10

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 Operator Licensing Program 

Feedback FAQ No. 201.4 and incorporates guidance to promote consistency between the regions. Also 

specified that the facility shall review the examination outline provided by the NRC and provide feedback 

if any changes are necessary. Added wording for the facility licensee to provide the NRC any 

prescreened K/As for elimination from the written examination outline. 

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.”

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

questions. Also deleted the words stating “because they will generally undergo less rigorous review by 

the NRC.”

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. Added footnote to clarify that minor 

formatting changes to a bank question do not require submittal of the original bank question.

Replaced “modifying” with “changing” on second bullet to clarify that modified questions have to meet a 

specific criteria, thus a bank question can be changed without meeting the definition of a modified 

question.

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. Added due date to submit NRC prepared exams 

to the facility 75 days before the exam date, consistent with the changes in Form ES-201-1. 

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

NRC developed exams.

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. Replaced “concurrence” with “agreement” to clarify that this does not need to be a formal 

submittal request.

C.1.m, added preliminary and final application due dates to the facility responsibility section.

C.2.a, clarified the minimum content for the yearly exam developed by the NRC.

C.2.b, changed first contact of facility licensee from 6 months to 8 months, consistent with the changes 

in Form ES-201-1. 

C.2.c, changed next contact of facility licensee from 5 months to 7 months, consistent with the changes 

in Form ES-201-1. 
xvii

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 Operator Licensing Program Feedback FAQ No. 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.

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.

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 4th bullet to clarify that this only applies to facility developed examinations.

Added an additional bullet to discuss the need for the licensee to review and comment on the NRC 

provided sample plans as soon as possible. Also added that any changes to NRC prepared 

examination outlines will be made by the NRC.

Revised due date for references to 210 days before the exam for NRC prepared exams, consistent with 

the changes in Form ES-201-1.

Added due date at 150 days before the exam date for operating test outlines prepared by the facility, 

consistent with the changes in Form ES-201-1. 

Revised due date for facility prepared exams to 75 days before the exam date. 

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

via cover letter. Additional editorial changes to correct format. Reworded bullet to clarify that the cover 

letter is part of a formal submittal to the NRC.

Revised all other applicable bullets to clarify expectations on communicating excusal and waiver 

requests

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

“should” with “shall” to ensure that regional offices inform the facility of dates by which the region 

expects to provide comments.

C.2.e (previously C.2.d), clarified that the attachments are associated with this examination standard. 

Revised due date for corporate notification letter to 210 days before the exam date. 

C.2.f (previously C.2.e), deleted the words “try to” in the paragraph. Revised date for assigning NRC 

examiners to 7 months before the exam date. 

C.2.g (previously C.2.f), replaced paragraph with additional guidance on importance of the validation site 

visit. 

C.2.h and I (previously g and h), re-ordered paragraphs to align with order of process.

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

were scheduled to be given rather than by the end of the review week. 
xviii

Changes from NUREG-1021, Revision 10

C.2.i (previously C.2.g) added “excusal” to the discussion involving waivers and specified it is related to 

the retake examination. Added information about why the preliminary application is submitted and 

reviewed, and included information about timing of final applications (also including timing of final apps 

in C.1.m).

C.2.j (previously C.2.i) added a provision to allow the facility to re-validate an examination after 

incorporating changes and corrections if the facility wants to do a re-validation.

C.2.k (previously C.2.i), 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. Updated guidance to match information in Form ES-201-4. Made several minor editorial 

wording changes.

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

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

checklist. Clarified that the attachment is applicable to this examination standard.

C.3.c, changed “if” to “whether.” Deleted guidance to submit references with the corporate notification 

letter. 

C.3.d, added additional guidance for the NRC to review comments received from the licensee regarding 

the NRC provided examination outlines.

C.3.f, added guidance for NRC authored exams to be submitted to the facility for review at least 75 days 

before the exam date. Increased time to 3-4 weeks to complete the balance of quality reviews in 

accordance with changes in Form ES-201-1. 

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

developed by the NRC for review. 

C.3.g, revised wording to make it more consistent with ES-201 C.1.k revision. Changed reviewing 

exams with the facility from 3 weeks before the exam date to 5 weeks before the exam date, per 

changes in Form ES-201-1. Removed guidance listed here for NRC authored exams which 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. Changed the letter from g to f on this page because the change was made to C.3.f, not 

C.3.g.

C.3.i, removed reference to questions since these are no longer pre-scripted.

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 be made no later than two weeks before 

the operating test start date.

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. Deleted 4th paragraph regarding information that the same 

examiner should administer all portions of the exam since this practice is rarely followed.

C.3.k, added “excusals” to clarify what is on Form ES-201-4.

D.1, added “Supervisors” to title.

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. 

Specified that the licensing official for a re-take operating test shall be different than the licensing official 

for the failure of the previous operating test.

D.1.b, clarified that the examiner cannot participate in the grading of the examination.

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 Operator Licensing Program Feedback FAQ No. 401-

32. Revised this additional bullet to clarify the prohibited activity.

Attachment 1, first paragraph, minor editorial change. 
xix

Changes from NUREG-1021, Revision 10

Attachment 1, Physical Security, 3, minor editorial change to add “Facility.”

Attachment 1, minor editorial changes (“must” to “shall”; “might” to “may”). Clarified that the double 

envelope submission is for physical submissions, and indicated that submissions need not be mailed.

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.

Attachment 2, minor editorial changes for clarification.

Attachment 3, clarified guidance by moving some content from second paragraph to the first paragraph 

and added wording to state that the exam material supplied by the licensee is based on considerations 

noted in the documents. Removed wording that required the support material to be properly bound.

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. 

Attachment 4, updated Paperwork Reduction Act Statement.

Form ES-201-1, Examination Preparation Checklist, replaced with new checklist and new due dates. 

Two months were added to the overall checklist, with approximately 6 weeks added for exam 

preparation, and two weeks added to review and address exam comments and to get the examination 

approved. Added items for the facility submitting to the NRC prescreened K/As for elimination from the 

written examination outline, the NRC submitting the written examination outline to the facility, the NRC 

submitting NRC prepared exams to the facility, and the facility submitting preliminary waiver/excusal 

requests. Revised target dates consistent with adding two months to the timeline. 

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.

ES-202

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 waivers, excusals and deferrals. Specific references to 

block numbers on NRC Form 398 and 396 has been removed to allow future changes to be made to 

these forms without having to revise this NUREG. 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. Deleted the time requirement 

for excusals to make consistent with plain language of the regulation and reworded paragraph. Also 

clarified that the information in ES-204 provides guidance on what waivers/excusals the regional office 

can approve.

Added license deferral to examples of when the NRC will consider a medical reexamination waiver for a 

medical exam that occurred more than 6 months from license date.

Updated references for ANSI/ANS 3.4 and Regulatory Guide 1.134 by removing the revision number 

and date since licensees can use previous versions that they are committed to. 

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

added an example of a reactivity manipulation. 

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

procedure.

C.1.c, added guidance that 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.
xx

Changes from NUREG-1021, Revision 10

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. 

Added “excusals” as something that the NRC needs to evaluate on an application.

C.1.g, clarified the regulatory requirements associated with providing information related to an informal 

NRC staff review and specified that the applicant has the responsibility to respond to these requests

C.1.h, provided additional guidance related to process for an applicant/facility licensee withdrawing an 

application prior to completion of the examination process and that the applicant is expected to promptly 

notify the NRC under these situations.

C.1.i, added a new paragraph which describes the information the NRC must provide to the applicant 

when an application is denied. Clarified that the applicant is responsible for demanding a hearing.

C.1.j, added a new paragraph which describes what the applicant can do if the NRC denies an 

application based on medical conditions or general health.

C.2.a, added guidance that applies to deferrals and excusals. Removed requirement for regional office 

to communicate with the Office of Enforcement via telephone and/or email and added a requirement that 

the communication must be documented. 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 independent of hearing results.

C.2.b deleted specific references to item block numbers on NRC Form 398 so that this form can be 

revised easily. Specific references were changed to generic subject related references. Also a typo was 

corrected. Removed the guidance for SRO certified instructors to fill out experience details on Form 398 

due to new revised definition in ACAD 10-001.

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 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.1.b, revised to be consistent with D.1.a revision.

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

consistent with current NANT guidelines.

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

current NANT guidelines.

D.4, revised cold license eligibility.

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. Added the 

most updated guidance regarding electronic filing when requesting an adjudicatory hearing.

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. Cross referenced preliminary waiver request time deadlines 

from ES-201.

C.1.c, changed “manning” to “staffing”

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

C.2.b, added guidance to address excusals. Changed should to shall to require regions to notify the 

program office when a waiver/excusal is denied.

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

Changes from NUREG-1021, Revision 10

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. Updated reference from 

OLTS to Reactor Program System Operator Licensing Module (RPS-OL) which was in previous 

paragraph e. Added statement regarding 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.e, added guidance to address excusals. Moved guidance from previous paragraph d to this section.

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.

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 Systematic Approach to Training process to 

determine and conduct remedial training.

Modified guidance on criteria to consider when an SRO-I fails the SRO-only portion of the written and 

applies as an RO. Removed reference to “waiver” in this section and specified that the application 

submitted should be a “new” application that requests the NRC to consider their performance on their 

SRO op test and RO portion of the written exam as evidence that they have completed the necessary 

examinations to become an RO. Among other considerations, the section requires evaluating RO 

eligibility and the applicant’s performance in administrative tasks and control board ops during their op 

test. Guidance still requires program office concurrence to approve the RO application and issue an RO 

license.

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 reactivity manipulations 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 because it is no longer applicable as a result of 

this change.

D.1.i, revised wording to be consistent with the change to RO on-site experience requirement (6 months 

vs. 1 year). 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.j, changed the word “Pursuant” to “Under” where applicable.

D.1.k, in first paragraph changed “item 17” to “Comments section” for NRC Form 398. Added a “NOTE” 

on using GFE exams from the bank that may have flawed questions. 

ES-205

Multiple changes made to this entire section to facilitate the transition to both NRC contractor and 

industry developed GFEs (other GFE authors).

B, added clarifying information related to the number of GFEs that may be administered during each 

year.

C.1.a, added a “should” statement: Individuals who plan to take the GFE should be enrolled or 

designated as future enrollees in a facility sponsored training program that will satisfy the eligibility 

requirements for an RO or SRO license. Deleted guidance for facility licenses to certify that all 

individuals who plan to take the GFE are enrolled in a facility sponsored training program. Deleted 

statement that operator licensing trainees do not need to complete all the training required for licensing 

before they take the GFE. Added a statement that the facility licensee must submit a written request for 

the GFE to be administered to each individual and referenced 10 CFR 55.31(a)(3). 
xxii

Changes from NUREG-1021, Revision 10

C.1.a, noted that email is an acceptable method for withdrawing an individual from the GFE. Also added 

placeholder note for the future ability to register individuals for the GFE via the NRC public website.

C.3.b, added placeholder note for the future ability to register individuals for the GFE via the NRC public 

website.

C.3.f, removed reference to “hard” copy of GFE results because dockets files are digital.

Attachment 1, Sample Notification letter, added reference to 10 CFR 55.31(a)(3) and an explanation for 

how this regulation relates to the GFE. Deleted guidance for facility licensees to state that requested 

registrants are enrolled in a facility licensee sponsored training program leading to NRC operator or 

senior operator licensing. Increased the timeframe for posting each GFE on the NRC public website to 

reflect the delayed-release schedule and allow past GFEs to be used for audit examination purposes. 

Modified the examination dates such that the June and December GFE exams are optional.

Attachment 1, Enclosure Sample Registration Letter, deleted statement that all listed personnel are 

enrolled in the facility training program that satisfies the eligibility requirements for a RO or SRO license. 

Added statement that The registrants should have completed the generic fundamentals portion of the 

training program by the examination date and will be able to meet all other requirements of 10 CFR 

55.31 in the future.

Attachment 2, deleted NRC project manager from the distribution list. Enclosure 2 modified to remove 

the limit of 3 individuals who have access to the GFE exam material as long as all individuals are on the 

security agreement.

Attachment 4 GFE Test Item Distribution, added one item under Basic Energy Concepts to PWR topic 

list and adjusted the number of Basic Energy Concepts items on the BWR list to reflect changes in 

NUREG 1122, Revision 3 and NUREG 1123, Revision 3.

ES-301

A, added the words “excusals and” in reference to title of ES-204 and added title for 10 CFR 55.45.

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

description of the walkthrough and simulator portions of the operating test.

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.1, changed wording on administration of the administrative topics JPMs to align with current practice. 

Clarified that the walk-through is a portion of the operating test. Added 2nd paragraph describing reason 

for admin JPMs.

B.2, clarified that the walk-through is a portion of the operating test.

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

description of the simulator scenario process.

C.1.a, added “and review the” 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, exchanged the 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, changed “category” to “part” for clarification. 

D.1.e, minor editorial changes for clarity.

D.1.f, removed “DAS” and spelled out the words for clarity.

D.1.h, changed “tests” to “portions” for clarification.

D.1.k, clarified that Attachment 1 was associated with this examination standard.
xxiii

Changes from NUREG-1021, Revision 10

D.2.a, added titles to the Form numbers and removed titles later in the document.

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 excusal” in reference to waivers and excusal information covered by ES204. Corrected reference to K/A catalogs and clarified JPMs are part of the operating test.

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

D.3.g, revised due date for admin outlines from 90 days to 150 days before the exam date in 

accordance with changes to Form ES-201-1 

D.3.i, revised the number of days the operating test must be submitted for review from 45 days to 75 

days to align with changes to Form ES-201-1.

D.4.b, editorial change to remove “upgrade” and replace with SRO-U.

Note 1, revised with latest title name for NUREG-1449.

D.4.c revised due date for walk-through outline from 90 days to 150 days before the exam date, per 

new Form ES-201-1

D.4.e, clarified walk-through as a portion of the operating test. Revised due date to 75 days from 60 

days and clarified that this is prior to exam administration date.

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. Clarified that SRO-U applicants may be required 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.

D.5.b, altered the definition of significant modification for a simulator operating test to establish scenario 

overlap limitations. Noted that reactivity manipulation events are exempt from this limit. Added 

requirement that all scenarios to be either new or significantly modified. 

D.5.c, removed footnote 2 since previously defined.

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 target for scenarios 

of at least two pre-identified critical tasks. Changed the word “event” to “evolution, failure or transient” 

regarding how to credit items on the Transient and Event Checklist. Specified Attachment 2 was part of 

this examination standard.

D.5.e, revised due date for simulator operating test outline from 90 to 150 days before the exam date, 

per new Form ES-201-1

D.5.f. replaced the word “substantive” with “verifiable” regarding operator actions to be consistent 

throughout NUREG. 

D.5.g, revised due date for the operating test from 60 to 75 days before the exam date to align with 

changes to Form ES-201-1

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.

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. Added the word chief in front of 

examiner.

E.2.b, added the word chief in front of examiner. Revised date for review with the facility licensee from 

21 days to 5 weeks to align with changes to Form ES-201-1. 

E.2.e, revised date for review with the facility licensee from 21 days to 5 weeks in accordance with 

changes to Form ES-201-1.

F, added Form ES-301-7 to the list of forms.

Attachment 2, Verifiable Action Guidelines, added reference to Appendix C for JPMs. 
xxiv

Changes from NUREG-1021, Revision 10

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

that all scenarios are new or significantly modified in accordance with new significant modification 

requirements listed in ES-301 D.5.

Form ES-301-4, Simulator Scenario Quality Checklist, added a qualitative attribute No. 13 to check that 

CTs are distributed among applicants across scenarios. Removed “EOP based” designation for CTs 

and changed this line to “Pre-identified Critical Tasks.” As long as a CTs meets the methodology in 

Appendix D it can count as a CT. The target for a scenario is at least 2 pre-identified CTs. Revised 

EOP contingency procedure (quantitative attribute) to account for requirement to enter and take actions 

in at least one EOP contingency procedure per scenario. Revised attribute 9 to reflect change to 

overlap restrictions to instead require every scenario to be either new or significantly modified.

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.

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

determine operating test acceptability criteria in ES-501 E.3.a.

ES-302

A, replaced “integrated plant operations” with “simulator” to clarify actual part of the exam.

C.1.b, added title to 10 CFR 55.49.

C.1.d, added guidance related to the facility licensee withdrawing an application.

C.2.a, added “licensee” to be consistent throughout NUREG.

D.1.b, provided additional guidance if an applicant withdraws an application and clarified that 10 CFR 

55.35(a) is “Not Applicable” to this situation.

D.1.c, new paragraph added that provides guidance if a facility licensee withdraws an application and 

clarified that 10 CFR 55.35(a) is “Not Applicable” in this situation.

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

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

D.1.f, add guidance 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. NRR/NRO 

program office approval is required for this situation.

D.1.i, added guidance that specifies the licensee develops the testing schedule to be align with the 

guidance in ES-201.

D.1.k, removed reference to a “proposed denial letter” and changed it to refer to a preliminary or final 

denial letter to align with examination failure process changes in ES-501 and ES-502. Clarified that 

video and audio shall be made available to the NRC upon request and that facility licensees are 

responsible for laws associated with video and audio recording. Clarified that applicants who 

preliminarily or finally fail the simulator operator test will be given an opportunity to view the video 

recording of the test if applicable.

D.1.l, added language to explain the reason for limiting the simulator operating test to only one senior 

operator position. Also expanded the guidance to explain the senior operator position duties.

D.1.m, removed the additional set of words which were typed twice. Added the word “that.” Placed 

information in item D.1.l into this section and replaced “Pursuant” with “Under.”.

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

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. Added guidance that these documents are to be retained until all licensing actions are 

complete.

D.3.h, made these “shall” statements for exam security purposes and to help in re-creating events if 

necessary.

D.3.l, clarified that the operating team is the “simulator operating team.”

D.3.n, added guidance that any emergency classification following completion of the scenario is not time 

critical and that the emergency classification is not required to be a part of the scenario. Added 

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

criteria. Clarified that event classification would be based on the current simulated plant conditions at 

the end of the scenario when the simulator is in freeze.

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 referred to completion of any licensing actions 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 informal NRC 

staff review purposes.

D.3.q, added the words “amount of” as an editorial change in the last sentence.

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.

A, replaced the word “categories” with “parts” for clarification.

B, minor spelling changes and deleted reference to total breadth of knowledge and ability since each 

performance deficiency is graded on its own.

C.1, minor spelling changes. 

C.2, changed the word “granted” to “issued.”

D.1, replaced “Rough” with “Examiner” in the title to this section.

D.1.b, changed the word “verify” to “evaluate.”

D.1.c, clarified that the notes pertain to administering the operating test.

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. Revised the limit on the number of rating factors that can be assigned to a single 

performance deficiency to 2. Sufficient justification for rating factor(s) assigned is still required.

D.2.a, minor editorial wording changes for clarity in the paragraph on grading the overall applicant’s 

performance. Added guidance for documenting a waiver or excusal on Form ES-303-1.

D.2.b, discontinued the “point back” practice by deleting RF scores for correctly performing an activity 

related to a rating factor in which points were previously deducted. 

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
xxvi

Changes from NUREG-1021, Revision 10

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.b, added titles to the listed NUREG’s. Editorial.

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.a, added guidance related to an “excusal.”

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

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. Added the 

different options that could be used (i.e., S, U E, or W) for the Operating Test Summary.

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

A, added pointer to 10 CFR 50 for power reactor licensed facilities. This was moved from Section B.

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. Changed “license” to “operator” in 

regards to the training program and several minor editorial changes.

Removed the K/A catalog accession numbers, because they are searchable in ADAMS, and to avoid 

any confusion when Rev 3 of the K/A catalogs are published as to which K/A catalog is expected to be 

used.
xxvii

Changes from NUREG-1021, Revision 10

C.1.a, added line item for the facility to submit prescreened K/As for elimination from the written exam 

outline to the NRC in accordance with changes to Form ES-201-1. Re-numbered C.1.a thru f to C.1.a 

thru g. 

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

will review the proposed outline and submit a revised outline to the NRC per ES-201. Also added 

guidance that the licensee should send comments/feedback on the outlines for approval by the NRC. 

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

over the phone if possible.

C.1.f, clarified that the NRC has final approval for” all” examinations.

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 now developing all sample plans. Added wording that licensees that prescreen K/As 

shall provide the NRC with a list of K/As that should be eliminated. Added guidance to specify that RO 

and SRO questions don’t always have to have a reference to 55.41 or 55.43. 

Added a statement that replacement K/As can be requested from the chief examiner or his/her 

designee. Clarified that if the answer is “no” to the last bulleted question on K/A suitability, then the 

justification must include the reasons why the K/A is better suited for operating test.

Added a statement to the first paragraph that the latest revision of the K/A catalog available at the time 

the facility requests the written exam outline should be used to develop the written examination outline. 

Also stated that if there are evolutions or systems in the latest revision of the K/A catalog that are not 

represented on ES-401-1/2, the program office should be contacted to determine which tier and group 

the topics in question should be added to prior to sampling. Including the statement to use the latest 

revision available at the time the facility requests the written examination outline (i.e., sample plan) 

allows facilities to obtain sample plans without delay, as most facilities request to start writing their 

exams earlier than 6 months before the exam, meaning they are writing their exams that must meet Rev 

11 before Rev 11 is expected to be published. Additionally, this wording supports a smooth transition 

even in the event of a delay in publication of the K/A catalog. The second sentence added accounts for 

any changes to the K/A catalogs between their current draft form and what they may look like at final 

publication. Any future change to the K/A catalog can be supported without additional modification to 

ES-401. 

Deleted K/A 2.4.11 from the list of Generic K/As to sample on the written exam. These changes support 

publishing NUREG 1122 Revision 3 and NUREG 1123 Revision 3 in the future. The removal of K/A 

2.4.11 from NUREG 1021, before Rev 3 of the K/A catalogs are published is justified because the 

anticipated time between publication of NUREG 1021 and the K/A catalogs is short, and the K/A itself is 

broad (2.4.11: Knowledge of abnormal condition procedures). Even if sample plans are still being 

developed from Revision 2/Supplement 1 of the K/A catalog when Rev. 11 of NUREG 1021 is in effect, 

the K/As that remain will still result in questions being developed that address procedures for abnormal 

conditions. Added a statement that licensees may elect to provide the NRC regional office with a list of 

K/As that do not apply to their facility prior to the NRC developing a sample plan.

D.1.c, deleted the title for Attachment 2.

D.1.d, added guidance for reviewing the outlines for 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 for approval. 

Change required based on NRC providing the sample plan. Deleted facility due date for written exam 

outlines, since the NRC will develop all outlines.

D.1.f, clarified reviewing and approving any revisions to the outline is the chief examiner’s responsibility. 

Removed the timeframe that the independent review has to be completed within 5 days. 

D.2.a, added requirement that replacement K/As must be obtained from the NRC chief examiner. 
xxviii

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.

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.

D.2.d., added guidance that not having a K/A reference to 10 CFR 55.43 would not prevent the 

development of an SRO level question. 

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

what constitutes a “new” question. Clarified that to meet “new” question guidance, both attributes must 

be met.

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

part of the exam. Changed “should” to “shall” with respect to the exam authors providing an explanation 

on why a written examination question’s correct answer is correct and each distractor is plausible but 

incorrect. Deleted “optional” to make this practice mandatory.

D.3.b, changed “60 days” to “75 days” and “at least 1 week” to “approximately four weeks” to be 

consistent with the schedule provided in ES-201.

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

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

E.2.a, changed “about 3 weeks” to “35 days” to be consistent with the schedule provided in ES-201.

E.2.b, removed title for Form ES-401-6.

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.

E.2.e, changed “21 days” to “35 days” to be consistent with the schedule provided in ES-201.

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

was incorporated into NUREG-1021. Added reference to ADAMS Accession Number in the references 

section. Minor editorial changes for spelling and punctuation. Changed the web address for the 

Operator Licensing Program Feedback webpage to reflect the most-recent version. Section III removed 

the reference to the web page for feedback because the website is listed in the References section. 

Updated picture of Form ES-401-2 to reflect current formatting.

Form ES-401-1 and -2, minor editorial wording changes in the directions.

Revised both forms to accommodate Rev 3 of the K/A catalog. Included instructions for which systems 

to remove from sampling when Rev 3 of the K/A catalog is used and which systems to add to the 

sample when Rev 3 of the K/A catalog is used. The same notes were added to both the PWR and BWR 

outlines, even though the BWR contains no systems to delete. Added terminology and safety function

annotations to each system per Rev 3 of the K/A catalog. Added the following systems/evolutions with a 

note to use with Rev 3 of the K/A catalog: Service Water (Normal and Emergency) (BWR Tier 2 Group 

1), Circulating Water System (BWR Tier 2 Group 2), RCS Leak (PWR Tier 1 Group 2), Loss of Forced 

Circulation/LOOP/Blackout (PWR Tier 1 Group 2), Integrated Control (PWR Tier 2 Group 1), Control 

Room Ventilation (PWR Tier 2 Group 2). Annotated the following systems/evolutions to allow not 

sampling when using Rev 3 of the K/A catalog: CE A11 (PWR Tier 1 Group 2), CE A13 (PWR Tier 1 

Group 2), 079 Station Air (PWR Tier 2 Group 2). [Note that Station Air still appears in the draft Rev 3 

K/A catalog index, but has no K/As associated with it.]. Added K/A numbers to outlines for new 

systems/evolutions to match Rev. 3 of K/A catalogs. Formatted the tables for better readability and to 

keep each tier/group on a single page.
xxix

Changes from NUREG-1021, Revision 10

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. Removed statement 

about previously NRC-approved questions receiving less rigorous review to be consistent with change to 

ES-201 C.1.h.

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

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

extraneous information from the form and replaced with a reference to the information located in ES-401 

D.2.c. 

Changed guideline from 50-60% percent of questions at the comprehension/analysis level to the actual 

number (between 38 and 45 questions of the questions on the RO exam and at least 13 questions of the 

questions on the SRO only portion of the exam are written at the comprehension/analysis level). Added 

line item 2.c to reflect change to make distractor analysis and correct answer explanation mandatory.

Form ES-401-7, removed extra spaces in the instruction section.

Form ES-401-8, revised “8 hours” to “9 hours” to complete the combined examination. Revised the last 

sentence to read the “SRO-only” portion. 

Form ES-401-9, changed wording in form instructions from Job Content Errors to Job Content Flaws to 

match terms used on form.

ES-401N

Formatting and minor changes made throughout ES-401N in order to be consistent with ES-401. 

A, added pointer to 10 CFR 50 for power reactor licensed facilities. This was moved from Section B.

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. Changed “license” to “operator” in 

regards to the training program and several minor editorial changes. Removed the word “including” to 

stay consistent with ES-401 wording. Removed the K/A catalog accession numbers, because they are 

searchable in ADAMS, and to avoid any confusion when Rev 3 of the K/A catalogs are published as to 

which K/A catalog is expected to be used.

C.1.a, added line item for the facility to submit prescreened K/As for elimination from the written exam 

outline to the NRC in accordance with changes to Form ES-201-1. Re-numbered C.1.a thru f to C.1.a 

thru g.

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

will review the proposed outline and submit a revised outline to the NRC per ES-201. Also added 

guidance that the licensee should send comments/feedback on the outlines for approval by the NRC.

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

over the phone if possible.

C.1.f, clarified that the NRC has final approval for” all” examinations.

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

D.1.a, added guidance “depending on the facility design” for clarification. Changed the designation 

“AP1000®” to “AP-1000®” to be consistent with other portions of ES-401N. 
xxx

Changes from NUREG-1021, Revision 10

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. Added wording that licensees that prescreen K/As 

shall provide the NRC with a list of K/As that should be eliminated. 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. 

To maintain consistency with ES-401 wording, added a statement to the first paragraph that the latest 

revision of the K/A catalog available at the time the facility requests the written exam outline should be 

used to develop the written examination outline. Also stated that if there are evolutions or systems in 

the latest revision of the K/A catalog that are not represented on ES-401N-1/2, the program office should 

be contacted to determine which tier and group the topics in question should be added to prior to 

sampling. Including the statement to use the latest revision available at the time the facility requests the 

written examination outline (i.e., sample plan) allows facilities to obtain sample plans without delay, as 

most facilities request to start writing their exams earlier than 6 months before the exam, meaning they 

are writing their exams that must meet Rev 11 before Rev 11 is expected to be published. Additionally, 

this wording supports a smooth transition even in the event of a delay in publication of the K/A catalog. 

The second sentence added accounts for any changes to the K/A catalogs between their current draft 

form and what they may look like at final publication. Any future change to the K/A catalog can be 

supported without additional modification to ES-401N.

To maintain consistency with ES-401 wording, added a statement that licensees may elect to provide 

the NRC regional office with a list of K/As that do not apply to their facility prior to the NRC developing a 

sample plan.

D.1.c, deleted the title for Attachment 2.

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 for approval. 

Change required based on NRC providing the sample plan. Deleted facility due date for written exam 

outlines, since the NRC will develop all outlines.

D.1.f, clarified reviewing and approving any revisions to the outline is the chief examiner’s responsibility. 

Removed the timeframe that the independent review have to be completed within 5 days. 

D.2.a, added requirement that replacement K/As must be obtained from the NRC chief examiner.

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. 

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.

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. 

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

what constitutes a “new” question. Clarified that to meet “new” question guidance, both attributes must 

be met.

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

part of the exam. Changed “should” to “shall” with respect to the exam authors providing an explanation 

on why a written examination question’s correct answer is correct and each distractor is plausible but 

incorrect. Deleted “optional” to make this practice mandatory.
xxxi

Changes from NUREG-1021, Revision 10

D.3.b, changed “60 days” to “75 days” and “at least 1 week” to “approximately four weeks” to be 

consistent with the schedule provided in ES-201.

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

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

E.2.a, changed “about 3 weeks” to “35 days” to be consistent with the schedule provided in ES-201. 

E.2.b, removed title for Form ES-401-6.

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-401N-9 may be transmitted electronically at the chief examiners 

discretion as long as it is password protected.

E.2.e, changed “21 days” to “35 days” to be consistent with the schedule provided in ES-201.

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

was incorporated into NUREG-1021. Added reference to ADAMS Accession Number in the references 

section. Changed the NUREG numbers in the References section to reflect the ABWR and AP-1000® 

K/A catalogs.

Changed the web address for the Operator Licensing Program Feedback webpage to reflect the mostrecent version. Minor editorial changes for spelling and punctuation. Section III removed the reference to 

the web page for feedback because the website is listed in the References section. Updated NUREG 

numbers in Table of Content.

Replaced picture of Form ES-401-2 with picture of ES-401N-2 to make it more applicable.

Form ES-401N-1 and -2, minor editorial wording changes in the directions. 

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. Removed statement 

about previously NRC-approved questions receiving less rigorous review to be consistent with change to 

ES-201 C.1.h. 

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. Removed 

extraneous information from the form and replaced with a reference to the information located in ES401N D.2.c. 

Changed guideline from 50-60% percent of questions at the comprehension/analysis level to the actual 

number (between 38 and 45 questions of the questions on the RO exam and at least 13 questions of the 

questions on the SRO only portion of the exam are written at the comprehension/analysis level). Added 

line item 2.c to reflect change to make distractor analysis and correct answer explanation mandatory.

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

Form ES-401N-8, changed “8 hours” to “9 hours” to complete the combined examination. Revised the 

last sentence to read the “SRO-only” portion.

Form ES-401-9N, changed wording in form instructions from Job Content Errors to Job Content Flaws to 

match terms used on form.

ES-402

A, clarified that the purpose is for written exams only.

B, revised wording to be more consistent with current practice in that the facility typically administers the 

written examination, regardless of who authored the examination.

C.1.g, clarified the guidance regarding the withdrawal of an application by an applicant or the facility 

licensee and referenced the regulations that are applicable for this situation. Specified that the applicant 

and facility licensee are responsible for promptly notifying the NRC regarding any application changes.

C.2.b, added wording to address excusals and made minor editorial changes to re-arrange words.

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.
xxxii

Changes from NUREG-1021, Revision 10

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

D.3.b, added that all applicant questions and clarifications during exam administration should 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.

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. Revised the 

allotted time for an SRO to complete the combined RO/SRO written examination to 9 hours.

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 

before making a licensing decision. Also extended the time to submit licensee and applicant comments 

to 20 calendar days. Revised guidance that the licensee “shall” submit docket number with applicant 

comments and that the licensee should include a facility position.

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

E.6, clarified that formal comment should be provided to the applicable chief examiner.

E.7, added statement that all commenters should consider additional guidance specified in ES-403.

ES-403

C.1.a, revised due date to submit exam grading and post exam comments from 5 days to not more than 

20 days to allow for better quality comments. Now consistent with revised ES-501.

C.1.b, revised due date to submit exam grading and post exam comments from 5 days to not more than 

20 days to allow for better quality comments. Now consistent with revised ES-501.

C.2.b, clarified that comments can be from both the facility licensee and the applicant.

D.1.a, clarified wording that the facility recommends question deletions and answer key changes to the 

chief examiner.

D.1.b, added wording to account for applicant post exam comments along with facility post exam 

comments. Corrected a spelling error.

D.1.d, added wording to account for applicant post exam comments along with facility post exam 

comments.

D.2.d, added clarifying information to truncate and not round the written examination scores.

D.3.a, replaced applicants” with applicants’. Deleted “should be” in second paragraph.

Form ES-403-1, 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. 

Revised the form to indicate that the facility provides justification for proposed answer key changes and 

deletions and that the form can be marked “N/A” if there are no post exam comments, as there would 

then not be expected to be any proposed answer key changes or deletions.

ES-501

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

test. 

C.1.a, new paragraph added regarding 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 resulted in re-lettering of the C.1 sub-categories.

C.1.b, bullet 2, clarified that this is for the written examination only.

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

operating test and revised time for post exam comments to 20 calendar days. Added that the facility 

licensee should provide a facility position for each applicant comment.
xxxiii

Changes from NUREG-1021, Revision 10

C.1.c, 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. Added guidance that this applies to the 

entire exam and that the comments shall be submitted within 20 calendar days and should include a 

facility position for each applicant comment.

C.2.c, changed “should” to “shall” with regard to the NRC reviewing the written exam after questions 

have been deleted. Placed items in a bulleted format.

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 and clarified that the NRC “accepts” the signed form as the official facility approval of the exam 

results.

D.2, revised guidance to specify the chief examiner shall not perform the supervisory review if he or she 

performed the independent review and added additional guidance to ensure an independent review of 

the exam results is conducted in all cases.

D.2.a, clarified that the actions taken by the chief examiner are predicated on receiving the examination 

package.

D.2.b, added guidance for the collection on license applicant comments and facility licensee comments.

Added title for ES-201.

D.2.c, clarified that this applies to the written exam only.

D.2.d, revised “should” to “shall” for the chief examiner to review any facility licensee exam analysis.

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. Added title to all the form numbers. Added reference 

to the ability to “excuse” an applicant for parts of an examination.

D.2.f, changed “operators” to “applicants.” Added title for ES-301.

D.2.h, revised “much time” to a “significant amount of time.”

D.3.b, added the word “with.” In the last sentence. Moved two paragraphs from D.3.b to new D.3.c to 

separate different aspects of the process. Editorial change.

D.3.b through f, information has been moved from the previous version to better describe the actions 

regarding licensing issues in a more coherent manner. 

D.3.c, added option of a denial action.

Removed guidance for region office to delay license issue to those applicants until any written 

examination requests for informal NRC staff review have been reviewed for impact on the licensing 

decisions because the regulations in 10 CFR 55 allows the NRC to suspend, modify or revoke a license 

if warranted.

D.3.d, added new guidance for what the region should verify before issuing a license. Added guidance 

for new applicants on when they should take the medical exam.

D.3.e, added guidance for the licensing assistant on types of letters to prepare following an examination. 

Added guidance for the issuance of a preliminary results letter, denial letter, notification letter and 

application withdrawal notification/response letter. Clarified that all attachments are related to this 

standard. Added an additional Attachment 6 to this standard which provides NRC response letters if a 

facility licensee/applicant withdraws an application prior to completing the examination process.

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

authorized by the Regional Administrator. Added guidance on which documents should be signed by 

the licensing official.
xxxiv

Changes from NUREG-1021, Revision 10

E.1.a, added guidance that all documents related to an exam shall be placed in ADAMS in the 

applicants docket file. Deleted second paragraph that allowed the regional office to notify the facility 

licensee of exam results before completion of the operating tests to align with change in C.1.a. This 

applies only when the written exam occurs before the operating test. Added that the NRC may send the 

forms to facility licensees electronically.

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.

E.1.c, clarified guidance pertaining to informal NRC staff review process.

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 informal NRC staff review or hearing. Replaced 

regrade with “informal NRC staff review” to be consistent across the NUREG.

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. Added clarification that the examination report does not need to be amended when 

licenses are held until the licensee certifies that all deferral requirements are met 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. The section also includes some minor editorial changes such as 

adding the title of Form ES-301-5.

E.3.b, removed reference to administrative reviews and added guidance that the NRC will address 

applicant comments along with facility licensee comments.

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 because 

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). Clarified second paragraph related to an SRO-upgrade applicant 

passing the licensing exam but did not participate in Requalification training during the license class and 

that additional training may be required prior to commencing duties as an RO or SRO. Revised all 

“should” statements to “shall” statements.

E.4.b, clarified guidance for retaining examination documentation. All examiner documentation shall be 

retained until licenses are issued or any informal NRC staff review or adjudicatory hearings are 

completed.

E.4.c, added “docket numbers” as an excluded item to be made publicly available. Added reference to 

NUREG 0910, “NRC Comprehensive Records Disposition Schedule.” 

Added information that some of the items containing exam material will be marked for delayed public 

release, 2 years after exam administration, in ADAMS to allow facility licensees the ability to re-use both 

written exams and operating tests for audit examination purposes.

F.1, added guidance that all records are to be retained in ADAMS as official agency records and added 

guidance that paper documents should not be retained more than 60 days as required by government 

policy.

F.1.f, h,l, corrected previous revision which inadvertently removed italicized items for facility retention 

items following initial licensing examination.

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

G. revised attachment titles and added new Attachment 6, “Sample Application Withdrawal Notification 

Letter and Sample Application Withdrawal Response Letter.”

Attachment 1, revised sample post exam comment format to include applicant comments.
xxxv

Changes from NUREG-1021, Revision 10

Attachment 2, added guidance in sample simulator fidelity report to include a deficiency number if 

applicable.

Attachment 3, revised “Licenses” to include example of medical defect.

Attachment 4, revised to provide an example of an application denial letter. Updated to current process 

for electronic request for an adjudicatory hearing. Added a sample preliminary results letter and a 

sample informal NRC staff review acknowledgement letter. Revised the sample denial letter to account 

for the issuance of the preliminary results letter. 

Added a reference to 10 CFR 55.31(c) with guidance pertaining to supplementing the application with 

updated medical information.

Attachment 5, revised sample notification letter to remove any reference to holding licenses in abeyance 

since this process is being eliminated.

Attachment 6, added sample NRC notification and response letters for two situations: when a facility 

licensee withdraws an application prior to completing the examination process and when an applicant 

withdraws his/her application prior to completing the examination process.

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

reviewed prior to grading the examinations. Also incorporated “*” in the first four steps to indicate that 

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

the items. Added reference to applicant comments along with facility comments.

Form ES-501-2, Note 1, Item 7, added “handling” as an editorial change.

ES-502

The name of this section has been changed from “Processing Requests for Administrative Reviews and 

Hearings after Initial License Denial” to “Application Denials and Processing Requests Informal NRC 

Staff Reviews.” 

A, added words to reflect the informal NRC staff review process.

B, added background for the preliminary results letter and clarified that this letter and the denial letter will 

describe any deficiencies noted during the examination process. Added guidance related to the informal 

NRC staff review process. Provided reference to 10 CFR 55.31(b) and clarified that an applicant can 

supply supplemental medical information to supplement an application.

C.1.a, added guidance related to the preliminary results letter and how to request reconsideration of the 

preliminary results. Added guidance related to 10 CFR 55.5 for methods to send information to the NRC 

for an informal NRC staff review. 

Clarified that the timeline to demand a hearing may be longer than 20 days if specified in the notice. 

Added a paragraph that describes the process for an applicant to request the NRC to set an application 

denial date. This is similar to the prior guidance of requesting the NRC to waive the rights to an informal 

NRC staff review or hearing rights. Combined information in C.1.a.(1) through (3) and C.1.b.(1) through 

(3) into a new list: C.1.a-d.

C.2.a, added guidance for the facility licensee to establish a single point of contact to provide support 

when an applicant demands a hearing.

C.3.a, added title of 10 CFR Part 2 and moved information in C.3.c to this location. Eliminated the 

process of performing administrative reviews on application denials related to medical or eligibility 

requirements.

C.3.b, added guidance related to informal NRC staff reviews.

D.1.a, revised guidance to specify that any application denial will provide for hearing rights.

D.2, revised this entire section to add more guidance regarding the informal NRC staff review process.

ES-601

E.2.c, revised title to match updated title for ES-605.
xxxvi

Changes from NUREG-1021, Revision 10

J.2.b, deleted reference to attachments in ES-605 which no longer exist.

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. 

ES-605

Revised title to accurately reflect the contents of the standard.

A and B, removed the word “adjudicatory” since it is not necessary.

C, added section C.5 to discuss definition of operator license amendments and the process for operator 

license amendments.

C.1.a, corrected an error in the dates for the example of a requalification program completion. Clarified 

that these requirements apply to “licensed” operators.

C.1.c, clarified guidance when a licensee decides to suspend going to Requalification training 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.

C.2.d, clarified that reactivation of a license shall include a “complete” plant tour and cover all required 

shift turnover procedures. Other minor editorial changes made in this section.

C.2.e, added a clarification that reactivation shall include a plant tour per 10 CFR 55.53(f).

C.2.f, added the word “regarding” and moved the word “under” for clarification.

C.2.g, revised “be active” to “maintain an active status” for clarification. Other minor editorial changes.

C.3, revised to account for most recent version of ANSI/ANS-3.4.

C.3.b, clarified first paragraph to contact the appropriate NRC regional office rather than the NRC in 

general for medical questions. Other minor editorial changes.

C.3.c, clarified this applies to the “general” medical condition.

C.3.d, revised first paragraph to include “drug interactions and dosages” for the physician to consider as 

specified in ANSI/ANS-3.4. Deleted last paragraph referencing change to NRC Form 396 as that 

revision has been in use long enough to allow deletion.

D.1.a, removed reference to item number 19 when filling out NRC Form 398.

D.1.c, clarified that wording to state that a renewal request is “dispositioned.” Other minor editorial 

changes.

D.1.d, removed reference to item number 17 when filling out NRC Form 398.

D.1.e, changed “of” to “or.”

D.1.f, clarified that the operator is the licensee and removed extra wording at end of paragraph.

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. Added 

clarification that the notice shall also be sent to the licensee in writing.

D.2.c, revised wording to describe what is needed to demand a hearing.

E.2.c, deleted reference to previous section. 

E.2.d, deleted reference to previous section.

ES-701

Revised titles to the ES Standards that are referenced in this standard.
xxxvii

Changes from NUREG-1021, Revision 10

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 clarifies that verifiable actions also 

apply to JPMs. Deleted statement that critical steps should consist of verifiable actions and instead 

provided further guidance on how to determine if a step is critical or not, including examples of nonverifiable actions that would still be considered critical steps. Also added that a JPM should not consist 

solely of non-verifiable actions.

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.f, 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. Added that reactivity manipulations are exempt from 

the overlap limit because of a limited number of methods for adding or removing reactivity. Revised 

major event guidance.

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 should have at least 2 CTs. Revised section to remove inconsistencies and 

further clarify how many critical tasks should be in a scenario and clarify what activities are critical.

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.

D.2, provided a critical task example for an applicant taking a 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 type 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. 
xxxviii

Changes from NUREG-1021, Revision 10

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.

F.1, updated reference to ES-302 for video recording.

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. 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.7, clarified reference to appeals since they are referred to as “informal NRC staff reviews” elsewhere 

in this NUREG.

B.9, removed the last sentence.

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” based on changes across the NUREG. 

Added definition for “event” as used in reference to simulator scenarios for clarity and consistency.
xxxix

ABBREVIATIONS

ABWR advanced boiling-water reactor

AC alternating current

ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (NRC)

ADS automatic depressurization system

AEA Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended

AFW auxiliary feedwater

ANS American Nuclear Society

ANSI American National Standards Institute

AO auxiliary operator

AOP abnormal operating procedure

AP1000® Westinghouse AP-1000® pressurized-water reactor

APE abnormal plant evolution

APRM average power range monitor

ARP alarm (or annunciator) response procedure

ATC at the controls (operator)

ATWS anticipated transient without scram

BOP balance of plant (operator)

BWR boiling-water reactor

C Celsius

CAL confirmatory action letter

CCP centrifugal charging pump

CCW component cooling water

CD-ROM compact disk, read-only memory

CE Combustion Engineering

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CRD control rod drive

CS core spray

CSF critical safety function

CT critical task

CTMT containment

CVCS chemical and volume control system

DAS dominant accident sequence

DC direct current

DG diesel generator

DIRS Division of Inspection and Regional Support (NRR)

E/APE emergency/abnormal plant evolution

ECA emergency contingency action (procedure)

ECCS emergency core cooling system

EDG emergency diesel generator

EHC electrohydraulic control

EIE electronic information exchange

EOL end of life

EOP emergency operating procedure

EPIP emergency plan implementing procedure

ES examination standard

ESF engineered safety feature

ESFAS engineered safety feature actuation system

F Fahrenheit

FR Federal Register
xl

FRP functional recovery procedure

FSAR final safety analysis report

GFE generic fundamentals examination

GL generic letter

gpm gallons per minute

GUI graphical user interface

HCL higher cognitive level

HCU hydraulic control unit

HPCI high-pressure coolant injection

HPCS high-pressure core spray

HPSI high-pressure safety injection

HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning

IC initial condition

I&C instrumentation and control

ID identification

IMC Inspection Manual Chapter (NRC)

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 ability

LAN local area network

LCO limiting condition for operation

LOCA loss-of-coolant accident

LOD level of difficulty

LOK level of knowledge

LPCI low-pressure coolant injection

LPCS low-pressure core spray

LPRM local power range monitor

LSRO limited senior reactor operator (senior operator limited to fuel handling)

LWR light-water reactor

MCC motor control center

MDAFW (P) motor-driven auxiliary feedwater (pump)

MFP main feedwater pump

mmHg millimeter of mercury

MSIV main steam isolation valve

N/A not applicable

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)

NUREG NRC technical report designation
xli

ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual

OE operating/operational experience

OGC Office of the General Counsel

OLA operator licensing assistant

OPLS offsite power low signal

OMB Office of Management and Budget (U.S.)

PARS Publicly Available Records System

PCIS primary containment isolation system

PCS pressure control system

PORV power-operated relief valve

PRA probabilistic risk assessment

PRT pressurized relief tank

PRTS pressurizer relief tank system

psi pounds per square inch

psia pounds per square inch, absolute

psig pounds per square inch, gauge

PWR pressurized-water reactor

PZR pressurizer

RBMS rod block monitor system

RCIC reactor core isolation cooling

RCS reactor coolant system

RCP reactor coolant pump

RF rating factor

RFP reactor feed pump

RGregulatory guide (NRC)

RHR residual heat removal

RMCS reactor manual control system

RO reactor operator

ROI report on interaction

RNPPE responsible nuclear power plant experience

RPIS rod position indication system

RPS-OL Reactor Protection System-Operator License

RPS reactor protection system

RPV reactor pressure vessel

RWST refueling water storage tank

S (AT) satisfactory

SAT systems approach to training SBGTS standby gas treatment system

SG specific gravity

SGTR steam generator tube rupture

SI safety injection

SLC standby liquid control

SR surveillance requirement

SRO senior reactor operator

SRO-I senior reactor operator-instant

SRO-only senior reactor operator-only

SRO-U senior reactor operator-upgrade

SRV safety relief valve

SSW standby service water

STA shift technical advisor

TDAFWP turbine-driven auxiliary feedwater pump
xlii

T/F true-false (statement/question)

TMI Three Mile Island

TPA temporary plant alteration

TRM Technical Requirements Manual

TS technical specification

U (NSAT) unsatisfactory

UPS uninterruptible power supply

U.S.C. United States Code

V volt(s)

VCT volume control tank

W Westinghouse
ES-101, Page 1 of 1

ES-101

PURPOSE AND FORMAT

OF OPERATOR LICENSING EXAMINATION STANDARDS

A. Purpose

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 55, “Operators’ Licenses,”

requires that applicants for reactor operator (RO) and senior reactor operator (SRO) 

licenses 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, “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. The regulation at

10 CFR 55.40(a) states the following:

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.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 55.40(b)(1), power reactor facility licensees may prepare, proctor, 

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

may prepare the operating tests required by 10 CFR 55.45 as long as they prepare the 

required examinations and tests in accordance with the criteria in NUREG-1021.

NUREG-1021 establishes 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, as amended, 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 licensee 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 such 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 and other license actions

ES-7xx: Fuel-handling examinations

ES-102, Page 1 of 9

ES-102

REGULATIONS AND PUBLICATIONS

APPLICABLE TO OPERATOR LICENSING

A. Purpose

This standard lists the U.S. statutes and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 

regulations 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 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, as amended (AEA) (42 U.S.C. 2137), 

states the following: 

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 [Act]; 

(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 [Act] or 

any rule or regulation issued thereunder whenever the Commission 

deems such action desirable.

The Commission has noted the following:

Section 189a of the 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 9

Source: Final Rule, Informal Hearing Procedures for Nuclear 

Reactor Operator Licensing Adjudications (Volume 55 of the 

Federal Register, page 36801; September 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 following:

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 (Pub. L. 112-147, July 23, 2013, 126 Stat. 1138) provides 

that each Federal licensing authority shall 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 U.S. 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”

Under 10 CFR 2.103(b), if the NRC finds that an application does not comply with the 

requirements of the AEA and the Commission’s regulations, the agency may issue a 

notice of denial of the application and inform the applicant in writing of the nature of any 

deficiencies or the reason for the denial and the right of the applicant to demand a 

hearing within 20 days from the date of the notice or such longer period as may be 

specified in the notice.

Under 10 CFR 2.107(a), 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.
ES-102, Page 3 of 9

2. 10 CFR Part 9, “Public Records”

Subpart A, “Freedom of Information Act Regulations,” implements the provisions of the 

Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), concerning the availability of NRC records to 

the public for inspection and copying.

Subpart B, “Privacy Act Regulations,” implements the provisions of the Privacy Act of 

1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), concerning disclosure and availability of certain NRC records 

maintained on individuals.

Subpart C, “Government in the Sunshine Act Regulations,” 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, “Production or Disclosure in Response to Subpoenas or Demands of Courts 

or Other Authorities,” describes procedures governing the production of NRC 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 establish standards for protection against ionizing 

radiation resulting from licensed activities.

4. 10 CFR Part 26, “Fitness for Duty Programs”

The regulations at 10 CFR Part 26 prescribe 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 Part 55, 

“Operators’ Licenses,” to operate a power reactor must be reported to the NRC per 

10 CFR 26.719(b). 

5. 10 CFR Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities”

The regulations in 10 CFR 50.34(b)(8) require that the final safety analysis report 

(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, “Requalification.”

Relevant Conditions of Facility Licenses

Under 10 CFR 50.54, “Conditions of Licenses,” the following sections apply:
ES-102, Page 4 of 9

• 10 CFR 50.54(i): Except as part of an individual’s operator training, the facility

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 10 CFR Part 55.

• 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 

10 CFR 52.103(g) for a combined license, as applicable, the facility licensee shall 

have in effect an operator requalification program. The operator requalification 

program must, as a minimum, meet the requirements of 10 CFR 55.59(c). The

facility 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 10 CFR Part 55 present at the controls.

• 10 CFR 50.54(k). An operator or senior operator licensed pursuant to

10 CFR Part 55 shall be present at the controls at all times during the operation 

of the facility.

• 10 CFR 50.54(l). The facility 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 10 CFR Part 55.

• 10 CFR 50.54(m)(1). A senior operator licensed pursuant to 10 CFR Part 55 

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 startup and approach to 

power, recovery from an unplanned or unscheduled shutdown 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 the minimum shift staffing specified in 10 CFR 50.54(m)(2)(i)–(iv). 

Change in Operator or Senior Operator Status

Under 10 CFR 50.74, “Notification of Change in Operator and Senior Operator Status,” 

each facility licensee shall notify the appropriate Regional Administrator as listed in 

Appendix D, “United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regional Offices,” to 

10 CFR Part 20 within 30 days of the following in regard to a licensed operator or senior 

operator:

• permanent reassignment from the position for which the facility licensee has 

certified the need for a licensed operator or senior operator under 

10 CFR 55.31(a)(3)

• termination of any operator or senior operator

• permanent disability or illness as described in 10 CFR 55.25, “Incapacitation 

because of Disability or Illness”
ES-102, Page 5 of 9

Training and Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel

Under 10 CFR 50.120, “Training and Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel,” 

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 plant personnel, including 

nonlicensed operators, shift supervisor, and shift technical advisors.

6. 10 CFR Part 52, “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power 

Plants”

The regulations in 10 CFR Part 52 govern 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 AEA (68 Stat. 919) 

and Title II of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 1242).

The regulation in 10 CFR 52.79(a)(14) requires an application to contain a description of 

the operator training program and its implementation necessary to meet the 

requirements in 10 CFR Part 55.

The regulation in 10 CFR 52.79(a)(34) requires an application to 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 55.59.

7. 10 CFR Part 55, “Operators’ Licenses”

The regulations at 10 CFR Part 55 do the following:

• Establish procedures and criteria for the issuance of licenses to operators and 

senior operators of utilization facilities licensed under the AEA or Section 202 of 

the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 10 CFR Part 50 or 

10 CFR Part 52.

• Provide for the terms and conditions upon which the Commission will issue or 

modify these licenses.

• 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 Part 73 include 10 CFR 73.55(p), which requires approval by 

a licensed senior operator, at a minimum, for the suspension of security measures.
ES-102, Page 6 of 9

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 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 American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) 

Nuclear Quality Assurance Standard (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 the Operational Phase of Nuclear Power Plants,” subject 

to a condition on its use.

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 require the presence of a

reactor operator (RO) at the controls of a nuclear power unit and a senior reactor 

operator (SRO) in the control room from which the nuclear power unit is being operated.

5. Regulatory Guide 1.134, “Medical Assessment of Licensed Operators or 

Applicants for Operator Licenses at Nuclear Power Plants,” Revision 4, 

September 2014

This RG endorses ANSI/ANS 3.4-2013, “Medical Certification and Monitoring of

Personnel Requiring Operator Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants,” in its entirety. 

However, facility licensees may continue to use either the 1983 version of 

ANSI/ANS 3.4, which was previously endorsed in its entirety by Revision 2 of RG 1.134, 

issued April 1987, or the 1996 version of ANSI/ANS 3.4, which was previously endorsed, 

with exceptions, by Revision 3 of RG 1.134, issued March 1998.

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 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, issued 

April 1987, April 1996, and October 2001, respectively.
ES-102, Page 7 of 9

E. NUREG-Series Reports

1. NUREG-0660, “NRC Action Plan Developed as a Result of the TMI-2 Accident,”

Volume 1, 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 (TMI), 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,” August 2016

Section 13.2.1, “Reactor Operator Requalification Program; Reactor Operator Training,”

describes the training and licensing of operators and identifies information to be 

submitted by applicants for construction permits, operating licenses, standard design 

certifications and combined licenses.

4. NUREG-1122, “Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant 

Operators: Pressurized-Water Reactors,” Revision 2, Supplement 1, 

October 2007, and Revision 3, release date to be determined

This document provides the basis for developing content-valid licensing examinations for

operators at pressurized-water reactors (PWRs). 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. Revision 3 of NUREG-1122, when released, will standardize the catalog 

format, promoting consistency among all catalogs (PWR, boiling-water reactor (BWR), 

AP1000, and advanced boiling-water reactor (ABWR)) and include enhancements to the 

generic, systems, procedures, and fundamentals sections as recommended by the 

Licensed Operator Focus Group.

5. NUREG-1123, “Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant 

Operators: Boiling-Water Reactors,” Revision 2, Supplement 1, October 2007,

and Revision 3, release date to be determined

This document provides the basis for developing content-valid licensing examinations for

operators at BWRs. It contains 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. Revision 3 of NUREG-1123, when 

released, will standardize the catalog format, promoting consistency among all catalogs 

(PWR, BWR, AP-1000, and ABWR) and include enhancements to the generic, systems, 

procedures, and fundamentals sections as recommended by the Licensed Operator 

Focus Group.
ES-102, Page 8 of 9

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 PWRs and BWRs.

8. NUREG-1600, “General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement 

Actions,” May 2000, and “NRC Enforcement Policy,” August 2016

These documents address 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., 10 CFR Part 55 license holders 

and applicants, and 10 CFR Part 50 and 10 CFR Part 52 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® PWRs. 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 ABWRs. 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.

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, 
ES-102, Page 9 of 9

supervisors, operators, and technicians). RG 1.8, Revision 3, endorses the 1993 

version of this standard, with additions, exceptions, and clarifications.

2. ANSI N18.7-1976/ANS 3.2, “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 above.)

3. ANSI/ANS 3.4-2013, “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 4 of

RG 1.134 endorses this standard in its entirety; however, facility licensees may continue 

to use the 1996 version, which was previously endorsed, with exceptions, by Revision 3

of RG 1.134.

4. ANSI/ANS 3.5-2009, “Nuclear Power Plant Simulators for Use in Operator Training

and Examination”

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, respectively.

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, Revision 2, issued 

February 1978, in identifying the types of activities that should have procedures or 

instructions to control the activity.

ES-201, Page 1 of 32

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. The regulation at 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 in this NUREG, (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. 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 in this NUREG 

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 shall prepare at least one examination per calendar 

year to certify new examiners, if necessary, and to maintain examiner proficiency. This yearly 

examination shall minimally consist of the entire written examination and the outlines for the job 

performance measures (JPMs) and scenarios (e.g., Appendix D ES-D-1 forms).

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.
ES-201, Page 2 of 32

The NRC will make a reasonable attempt to administer all license examinations on the dates 

requested by facility licensees. At times, 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 shall be scheduled only under extenuating 

circumstances, such as a shortage of licensed ROs or SROs at the facility. If a facility licensee 

has fewer than three license applicants, the examinations may be delayed until more applicants 

are trained. 

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 Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation/Office of New Reactors (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. 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 will 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. In 

accordance with 10 CFR 55.40(c), facility licensees who elect to have the NRC
ES-201, Page 3 of 32

prepare, proctor, and grade any portion of their operator licensing examinations 

shall submit written requests (to the responsible NRC regional office) for those 

examinations. The licensee should make it very clear whether it is requesting 

the NRC to prepare the entire exam or whether the exam preparation 

responsibilities will be split between the NRC and the facility licensee, which is 

typically called a “split exam.” A response to the NRC’s annual letter will satisfy 

this requirement for a written request.

b. In accordance with 10 CFR 55.49, “Integrity of Examinations and Tests,” 

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 Web site 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

licensees under 10 CFR Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and 

Utilization Facilities,” and 10 CFR Part 52, “Licenses, Certifications, and 

Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants”).

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 to this examination standard 

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. 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 of

this examination standard for additional guidance on procedure freezes.
ES-201, Page 4 of 32

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. If available, the facility licensee will provide 

to the NRC any prescreened knowledge and abilities (K/As) for elimination from 

the written examination outline (refer to ES-401/ES-401N, D.1.b), with a 

description of the facility’s prescreening process. The licensee shall review the 

proposed written examination outline provided by the NRC regional office and 

submit feedback to the regional office if any changes are necessary. The

proposed outlines and examinations shall cover all portions of the license 

examination (written, dynamic simulator, and walkthrough) at all license levels 

relevant to the applicants (RO, SRO, and senior operator limited to fuel handling 

(i.e., 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 examinations 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 NRC 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 test:

• 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 that it was administered.

• For those items that were derived from changing existing/current bank 

items in any way1

, 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)

 1 A submittal of the original bank/existing item is not required if the changes were minor formatting changes (such 

as changing font type or spacing).
ES-201, Page 5 of 32

and at least 75 days before the exam date. The facility reviewers should include

their comments and recommendations on a copy of 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. 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.

The facility reviewers may retain a copy of the applicable marked-up 

examination(s), subject to the physical security considerations in Attachment 1 to

this examination standard.

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 standard, the facility licensee should 

communicate those concerns to the NRC and, if appropriate, request a meeting 

with the NRC to address the concerns. The NRC 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 NRR operator 

licensing program or the chief of the NRO operator licensing program office for 

resolution.

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 of this standard 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 facility 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 10 CFR 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 by telephone but, with approval from NRC regional management 

and agreement of both parties, may be conducted in the regional office or at the 

facility.
ES-201, Page 6 of 32

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.

m. In accordance with ES-202, the facility licensee shall submit the license 

applications along with a letter requesting that licensing examinations be

administered; preliminary applications are due approximately 30 days before the 

examination, and the final signed applications are due 14 days before the 

examination.

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. This yearly examination shall minimally consist 

of the entire written examination and the outlines for the job performance 

measures (JPMs) and scenarios (e.g., ES-D-1 forms).

b. Approximately 8 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 7 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 regional management agrees to this option, the discussion 

should include the exact date and time that would be a mutually 

acceptable for the office or site visit.

• the guidance related to freezing plant procedure changes (refer to 

Attachment 2)
ES-201, Page 7 of 32

• 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 (only applicable to facility-developed examinations)

• the need for the licensee to review the NRC-provided examination 

outline(s) and provide comments for any necessary changes

– Note that the NRC will make any changes to the NRC-prepared 

examination outline(s).

• the requirement that an authorized representative of the facility licensee 

must approve the initial examination outlines and examinations before 

they are provided to the NRC as a formal submittal (including cover letter) 

for review and approval

• 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 office approximately 210 days before the scheduled 

examination date

• the need to have the operating test outlines delivered to the NRC 

approximately 150 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 

75 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., ES-301 and ES-302)

• dates and simulator availability for validating exam materials on site; 

these materials should include all 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 allow for an examiner 

orientation, the retrieval of additional reference material, and an 

audit of the accuracy of the license applications in accordance 

with 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 onsite validation and again at the beginning of 

administration of the operating tests
ES-201, Page 8 of 32

• the option to submit some sample test items (e.g., 5 to 10 written 

questions, 1 scenario, and 1 to 2 JPMs) 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 in accordance with 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. 

– This discussion should include a justification of waiver and 

excusal requests, noting that waivers and excusals should be 

submitted as early in the process as possible (ideally more than 

60 days before the exam), using preliminary NRC Form 398, 

“Personal Qualifications Statement—Licensee”). 

– The official (not preliminary) NRC Form 398 submitted for the 

applicant will document the NRC’s final decision on whether to 

grant a waiver or excusal request.

d. The relevant NRC regional office may negotiate earlier due dates with the facility 

contact, but it 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 shall 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 210 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 to this examination standard is an example of such a 

letter; the exact wording may be modified, as necessary to reflect the situation.

f. Approximately 7 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.
ES-201, Page 9 of 32

Regional management should 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 (e.g., NRC 

preparatory site visit), 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. Under some circumstances, such as 

the retake of operating tests, validation activities can be conducted on site just 

before the scheduled examination administration date. This alternative to a 

separate validation/preparatory 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 (e.g., NRC preparatory site visit), the regional office should determine 

whether a separate preparatory site visit is necessary and appropriate. When 

making this determination, 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., whether it is new or has been recently 

upgraded).

h. The responsible regional supervisor will review the examination outlines and the

draft examinations and evaluate any recommended changes and corrections 

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, walkthrough, 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 
ES-201, Page 10 of 32

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 any waiver and excusal requests in 

accordance with ES-204. The regional office shall communicate any errors or 

missing information noted during the preliminary application review to the 

licensee to ensure it has an opportunity to make corrections before the final 

signed applications are submitted 14 days before the examination date. This 

process will help to prevent unnecessary delays in approving the exam for 

administration.

j. After the chief examiner has verified that the necessary changes and corrections 

have been made and that, if requested by the facility, a facility revalidation has 

been performed, 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 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 (using 

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 authorize the facility licensee to administer the written 

examinations, if applicable. Form ES-201-4 will identify the approved applicants 

by name, docket number, and level of examination to be administered 

(e.g., SRO-upgrade, SRO-instant, or RO). All applicants listed on the form will 

be administered complete examinations (written examinations and operating

tests) 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; instead, 

it 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
ES-201, Page 11 of 32

• 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.

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 activities, the chief examiner and responsible supervisor should 

determine whether an orientation trip to the facility is appropriate.

b. NRC examiners monitor and ensure the integrity of the examination process, but

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 shall 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 to this examination standard 

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. The purpose of this review is to determine 

whether 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 shall 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, taking into account comments received from the licensee pertaining to 

the NRC-provided outlines. The chief examiner should adapt the level of 
ES-201, Page 12 of 32

oversight and coordination based on the experience of the individuals who are 

preparing the examinations. 

e. The chief examiner shall 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 shall note and review 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 or her review/concurrence, as applicable, by signing the bottom of

the form. If the outlines are significantly deficient, refer to item C.2.h for

additional guidance.

f. The chief examiner shall ensure that the written examinations and operating tests 

are independently reviewed for quality in accordance with the applicable 

checklists (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) 

that he or she 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 3 to 4 weeks after the written examinations and 

operating tests are received from the author or facility contact.

The chief examiner shall 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 or 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 those expected on NRC-prepared 

examinations. If the examinations are significantly deficient, refer to item C.2.h

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 
ES-201, Page 13 of 32

outlines to the facility reviewers after they sign the security agreement 

(Form ES-201-3) and at least 75 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 to this examination standard.

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 5 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. The 

review may also be conducted in the regional office or at the facility with approval 

from NRC regional management and upon agreement of both parties (refer to 

item C.1.k).

h. After 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 JPMs to the other assigned examiners so that they can familiarize 

themselves with those materials and be better prepared to probe the applicants’

potential deficiencies if required.

j. The designated facility contact shall develop a schedule for the operating test to 

optimize the efficiency of examiners and applicants based on the mix of RO and 

SRO applicants. The schedule will identify crews for the simulator scenarios 

and the timing of JPMs and will propose 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 the 

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 generally will not make changes less than 2 weeks before 

the examination start date to allow some time for affected applicants to adapt to 

working as a crew before they 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. No applicant will be required to participate in more than one scenario 

above the minimum required, in which case, a surrogate operator is to be used. 

If, at the discretion of the chief examiner, it is desired to use surrogate operators 
ES-201, Page 14 of 32

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. 

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 of which 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 

coordinate the arrangements with the assigned examiners and the facility 

licensee.

The written examinations may be administered as soon as they and the final

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.

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 or excusals) 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.
ES-201, Page 15 of 32

1. NRC Examiners/Supervisors

a. An examiner shall not be assigned to evaluate any portion of a re-take operating 

test for an applicant if that examiner participated in the determination of either of 

the following for that same applicant:

• a failure of a previous operating test

• a denial of a request to be excused from reexamination of any portion of 

the operating test (i.e., the examiner was involved in the decision to deny 

the excusal)

The licensing decision associated with the re-take operating test for an applicant 

shall be made by a supervisor other than the supervisor that made the previous 

determination for an operating test failure.

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 shall not assign that examiner any direct 

responsibilities for developing, administering, or grading written examinations or 

operating tests for that facility. Regional management shall 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 appearance of conflict. Such notifications must include the 

following information:

• the nature and extent of previous personal and professional relationships 

with the applicants

• issues 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. 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:
ES-201, Page 16 of 32

• the design and administration of classroom and simulator instruction,

including scheduled sessions, individual coaching, and remedial training,

specifically for 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 signoffs

• 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 and addition of questions to the facility common question 

bank (used to create both NRC and non-NRC examinations and quizzes)

if these questions are to be included in the NRC examination under 

development

– If questions are simply being developed to expand the size of the 

question bank, 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, 

including the review of examinations, quizzes, and remedial training programs, 

as well as the counseling of applicants concerning nontechnical issues. 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.
ES-201, Page 17 of 32

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 18 of 32

ES-201 Examination Security and Attachment 1

Integrity Considerations

The NRC and facility licensee personnel must be attentive to examination security measures to

ensure compliance with 10 CFR 55.49. 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 shall 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 

shall 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 includes 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 may be appropriate.

3. Any examination outlines, written examinations, and operating tests physically 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 shall be withheld from public disclosure until after

the examinations are complete. Physical submission is not the only permissible means 

of submitting examination material to the NRC.

If physical submission is used, the facility licensee shall follow up on its examination 

mailing by communicating with the NRC’s chief examiner to ensure that the package 

was received.
ES-201, Page 19 of 32

ES-201 2 Attachment 1

If electronic submission is used, examination material shall not be transmitted by

nonsecure electronic means. Transmission using the NRC’s internal LAN in the 

resident inspector’s office or through password-protected electronic files over the

Internet (if the facility licensee’s word processing software provides adequate security 

and is compatible with the NRC’s software) is permissible. The password shall be

provided to the NRC’s chief examiner separately by mail (not by e-mail), fax, or 

telephone. The files do not need to be encrypted.

4. The facility licensee is expected to report immediately 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 shall determine whether examination security 

problems were noted in the past and ensure that corrective actions have been taken to

preclude their recurrence.

6. The facility licensee and the chief examiner shall 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 shall not place any new or modified test items 

(i.e., written questions, JPMs, 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 shall 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 
ES-201, Page 20 of 32

ES-201 3 Attachment 1

more than one version of the bank, or the staff should not make general statements,

such as “Exam B will not overlap with Exam A”). The restriction is not intended to limit 

licensees from discussing the general aspects related to an initial license examination,

such as overall examination construction as described in these examination standards. 

However, specific attributes of the examination content are not to be disclosed (e.g., how 

many JPMs or scenarios come directly from the bank; how many alternate path JPMs 

are on the exam; and how many technical specification calls are in the scenarios).

3. Facility licensees are responsible for the integrity, security, and quality of examinations 

prepared for them by contractor personnel.
ES-201, Page 21 of 32

ES-201 Guidelines for Freezing Plant Procedures Attachment 2

The 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

on those that they have seen in the control room. There have been cases in which 

such confusion contributed to applicants’ failure on the written examination because the

applicants 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 the applicants’ 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 expects the facility licensee to provide training to fill the gap; if the changes are 

significant, the NRC could 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. 

Facility contacts should discuss the details of, and the basis for, their freeze proposals 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 licensee's proposal and negotiate a mutually acceptable plan and freeze date.
ES-201, Page 22 of 32

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 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 shall 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. 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. 

All reference materials provided for the license examinations should be approved, final 

issuances and should be marked as such, and 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 electronic media (in a format that is

compatible with the NRC’s software), as hardcopy, or a combination of both, as arranged with 

the NRC’s chief examiner. If the facility licensee prepares the examinations, the hardcopy 

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, based on the above considerations, 

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. 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 

flowpaths, components, controls, and instrumentation
ES-201, Page 23 of 32

ES-201 2 Attachment 3

• material used to clarify and strengthen understanding of normal, 

abnormal, and emergency operating procedures (including severe 

accident management guidelines)

• 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 

and individual plant examination

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 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 and abnormal or special procedures)

6. standing orders (important orders that are safety related and that 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)
ES-201, Page 24 of 32

ES-201 3 Attachment 3

11. emergency plan implementing procedures

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 setpoints document

15. 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. 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 25 of 32

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 operator licensing examinations at (facility 

name) during the week(s) of (date).

As agreed upon 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 to 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)/The 

written examination outline was provided to your staff on (date). 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 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 NRC 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. Delays in 

receiving the required materials, or the submittal of inadequate or incomplete materials, may 

cause the examinations to be cancelled or 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, along with any video 

and audio recordings of the dynamic operating tests, until the NRC takes licensing action on all 

the applications and any adjudicatory actions on any hearing demands are complete.

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) (Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) control number 3150-0090) at least 60 days before the first examination date

(if possible). Contact Mr./Ms. (Name, typically the chief examiner) to determine the method for 

submission of the waiver or excusal requests. Preliminary reactor operator and senior reactor 

operator license applications (OMB control number 3150-0090) and medical certifications (OMB 

control number 3150-0024) should be submitted at least 30 days before the first examination 

date. If the preliminary applications are not received at least 30 days before the examination

date, a postponement may be necessary. Final signed applications certifying that all training
ES-201, Page 26 of 32

ES-201 2 Attachment 4

has been completed and requesting any waivers or excusals, as applicable, should be 

submitted at least 14 days before the first examination date.

Although the guidelines for receiving waiver or excusal requests call for at least 30 days before 

the first examination date (preliminary) and 14 days before the first examination date (final), the 

requests should be submitted as early as possible in the process (see the 60-day guideline 

above). Resolutions resulting from verbal inquiries by the licensee to the NRC are not binding. 

Submittals addressing waivers or excusals, or both, should be in writing (i.e., using NRC 

Form 398, “Personal Qualifications Statement—Licensee,” or as directed by Mr./Ms. (Name)

when contacting (him or her) to determine the method for submission). The NRC will document 

its final decision on whether to grant a waiver or excusal on the final (not preliminary) NRC 

Form 398 submitted for the applicant. The NRC will not provide its decision until the final 

application is submitted to the agency.

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 [2,250 hours per examination or response] [[400 hours per examination or 

response]], including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the information 

collections. You may submit comments on any aspect of the information collections, including 

suggestions for reducing the burden, to FOIA, Privacy and Information Collections Branch 

(T-5 F53), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by 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 collection 

of information unless the document requesting or requiring the collection displays a currently 

valid OMB control number

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390, “Public Inspections, Exemptions, Requests for Withholding,” of 

the agency’s “Rules of Practice,” a copy of this letter and its enclosures will be available 

electronically for public inspection through the Agencywide Documents Access and Management 

System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible on the NRC’s Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html.
ES-201, Page 27 of 32

ES-201 3 Attachment 4

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)

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 28 of 32

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 examination at (facility name).

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has approved the subject examinations, and 

you may administer the written examination in accordance with Revision 11 to NUREG-1021, 

“Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors,” on (date). The NRC staff will 

administer the operating tests during the week(s) of (date). The list of the applicants approved 

to take the examination has been provided to (Name, Title). The 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 (telephone number). 

Please contact your Chief Examiner, (Name), at (telephone number), if you have questions or 

identify any errors or changes in the license level (reactor operator or senior reactor operator) or 

type of examination (partial or complete written examination or operating test, or both) specified 

for each applicant approved to take the examination. 

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 29 of 32

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

-240 1. Examination administration date confirmed (C.1.a; C.2.a–b). For NRC-prepared exams, 

arrangements are made for the facility to submit reference materials (C.1.e; C.3.c; Attachment 3). 

-210 2. NRC examiners and facility contact assigned (C.1.d; C.2.f).

-210

3. Facility contact briefed on security and other requirements (C.2.c). As applicable, the facility 

contact submits to the NRC any prescreened K/As for elimination from the written examination

outline, with a description of the facility’s prescreening process (ES-401, D.1.b). 

-210 4. Reference material due for NRC-prepared exams (C.1.e; C.3.c; Attachment 3). 

-210 5. Corporate notification letter sent (C.2.e).

-195

6. 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 the exam security agreement) (C.1.e–f; C.2.h;

C.3.d–e).

-150 7. Operating test outline(s) and other checklists due, including Forms ES-201-2, ES-201-3, ES-301-1, 

ES-301-2, ES-301-5, and ES-D-1, as applicable (C.1.e–f; C.3.d–e).

-136 8. Operating test outline(s) reviewed by the NRC and feedback provided to facility licensee (C.2.h;

C.3.d–e). 

-75

9. Proposed examinations (written, JPMs, and scenarios, as applicable) and outlines (Forms 

ES-301-1, ES-301-2, ES-D-1, ES-401-1/2 or ES-401N-1/2, and ES-401-3 or ES-401N-3);

supporting documentation (including Forms ES-301-3, ES-301-4, ES-301-5, ES-301-6, ES-401-6, 

ES-401N-6, and any Form ES-201-2 and ES-201-3 updates); and reference materials due 

(C.1.e–h; C.3.d).

-75 10. Examinations prepared by the NRC are approved by the NRC supervisor and forwarded for 

facility licensee review (C.1.i; C.2.h; C.3.f–g).

-60 11. Preliminary waiver/excusal requests due (C.1.m; C.2.c; ES-202).

-50 12. Written exam and operating test reviews completed (C.3.f).

-35 13. Examination review results discussed between the NRC and facility licensee (C.1.i; C.1.k–l; 

C.2.h; C.3.g). The NRC and the facility licensee conduct exam preparatory week.

-30 14. Preliminary license applications and waiver/excusal requests, as applicable (NRC Form 398) due 

(C.1.m; C.2.i; ES-202).

-14 15. Final license applications and waiver/excusal requests, as applicable (NRC Form 398), due and 

Form ES-201-4 prepared (C.1.m; C.2.k; ES-202).

-7 16. Written examinations and operating tests approved by the NRC supervisor (C.2.j–k; C.3.h).

-7 17. Request facility licensee management feedback on the examination (C.2.l).

-7

18. Final applications reviewed; one or two (if more than 10) applications audited to confirm 

qualifications/eligibility; and examination approval and waiver/excusal letters sent (C.2.k; 

Attachment 5; ES-202, C.3.j; ES-204).

-7 19. Proctoring/written exam administration guidelines reviewed with facility licensee (C.3.k).

-7 20. 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. 

These dates are for planning purposes and may be adjusted on a case-by-case basis in coordination with the facility licensee.
ES-201, Page 30 of 32

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 overemphasizes 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) conforms with the qualitative and

quantitative criteria specified on Form ES-301-4 and described in Appendix D and in 

Section D.5, “Specific Instructions for the ‘Simulator Operating Test,’” of ES-301 (including 

overlap).

3.

W

A

L

K

T

H

R

O

U

G

H

a. Verify that the systems walkthrough outline meets the criteria specified on Form ES-301-2:

(1) The outline(s) contains 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 applicant’s 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 radiologically controlled area

tasks meets 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 whether 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 probabilistic risk assessment and individual 

plant examination insights) are covered in the appropriate exam sections.

b. Assess whether the 10 CFR 55.41, 55.43, 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 the last 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 _________________________________________________ ________

* Not applicable for NRC-prepared examination outlines.

# The independent NRC reviewer initials items in column “c”; the chief examiner’s concurrence is required.
ES-201, Page 31 of 32

ES-201, Page 31 of 31

ES-201 Examination Security Agreement 

1. Pre-Examination

I acknowledge that I have acquired specialized knowledge about the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing exa

the week(s) of as of the date of my signature. I agree that I will not knowingly divulge any information ab

any persons who have not been authorized by the NRC’s chief examiner. I understand that I am not to instruct, evaluate, or p

feedback to those applicants scheduled to be administered these licensing examinations from this date until completion of exam

except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC (e.g., acting as a simulator booth operator or communicator is ac

does not select the training content or provide direct or indirect feedback). Furthermore, I am aware of the physical security m

(as documented in the facility licensee’s procedures) and understand that violation of the conditions of this agreement may res

examinations and/or an enforcement action against me or the facility licensee. I will immediately report to facility managemen

examiner any indications or suggestions that examination 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 licensing exam

during the week(s) of . From the date that I entered into this security agreement until the completion of exam

not instruct, evaluate, or provide performance feedback to those applicants who were administered these licensing examination

noted 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 32 of 32

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 16

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 senior operator limited to fuel handling (i.e., 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 do the following:

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 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 an individual 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, the NRC will use a qualified medical expert to review the medical evidence 

submitted by the facility to determine whether a conditional license should be issued

(“Operators’ Licenses and Conforming Amendments; Final Rule,” in Volume 52 of the Federal 

Register, page 9453–9455, issued 1987 (52 FR 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 American National Standards 

Institute (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 

may find that the applicant's medical status is satisfactory for licensing only if additional conditions are placed 
ES-202, Page 2 of 16

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 (“Operators’

Licenses and Conforming Amendments; Final Rule” (52 FR 9453–9455; 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 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 

licensees 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.

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.

 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 applicant from receiving a license (NRC Form 396A; see

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 16

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, “How To Apply.”

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 whether 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 issued February 2010

(NANT 2010). Unless otherwise informed by a facility licensee, the NRC staff believes that the 

education and experience guidelines described in 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 SRO

eligibility for degreed personnel and the length of time associated with responsible nuclear 

power plant 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.

 4 The NRC staff has reviewed the NANT 2010 guidelines and considers them to be equivalent to the agency’s 

guidelines in Revision 3 to RG 1.8. RG 1.8 now endorses American National Standards Institute/American 

Nuclear Society (ANSI/ANS) 3.1-1993, “Selection, Qualification, and Training of Personnel for Nuclear Power 

Plants,” issued 1993, with certain clarifications, additions, and exceptions. It replaces Revision 2 to RG 1.8, 

which was issued in conjunction with the 1987 rule change and endorsed the 1981 revision to ANSI/ANS 3.1.
ES-202, Page 4 of 16

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.” The 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, 

“Re-applications,” applies, and the applicant must complete and submit a new 

NRC Form 398. A new NRC 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 NRC 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 in his or her next application on NRC Form 398 to be 

excused from reexamination on the portions of the written examination or 

operating test that he or she had passed. This opportunity to request an excusal 

only applies from one application to the application immediately following and 

does not continue forward to subsequent reapplications. 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 what 

the regional office can approve for these and other waiver or excusal criteria.

Before 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. If more than 

6 months have passed since the date of 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 certify in 

writing in the “Comments” section on the form that the applicant has not 
ES-202, Page 5 of 16

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 a medical reexamination waiver if an applicant is reapplying for a 

license (because of the withdrawal of a previous application, license denial on a 

previous application, or termination of a previous license at the same facility), if 

an examination is delayed from its originally scheduled date, or if the issuance of 

the license has been deferred. (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 do not need to 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, which the NRC endorsed in 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 ANSI/ANS 3.4 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-water reactor (BWR) or 

pressurized-water reactor (PWR)) 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 on 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 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 
ES-202, Page 6 of 16

changes for each applicant. Manipulations must be performed in accordance 

with a station-approved procedure. RO and SRO-instant applicants may get 

credit for control manipulations in either the at-the-controls or balance-of-plant 

position as long as the above criteria are met. SRO-instant applicants shall not 

get credit for reactivity manipulations while they are in a supervisory position

(i.e., supervising another operator performing the manipulations would not be 

acceptable). 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. Documentation of significant control manipulations on NRC 

Form 398 is not required for SRO-upgrade applicants.

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 of 1954 

requires license applicants to be citizens of the United States; therefore, 

noncitizens 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, “Personnel Access 

Authorization Requirements for Nuclear Power Plants,” and 10 CFR 73.57, 

“Requirements for Criminal History Records Checks of Individuals Granted 

Unescorted Access to a Nuclear Power Facility, a Non-Power Reactor, or Access 

to Safeguards Information,” including a criminal history check and background 

investigation.

e. Preliminary waiver/excusal requests should be submitted at least 60 days before 

the examination date or as early as possible to allow NRC evaluation of the 

sufficiency of the justification. Failure to allow adequate time to review the 

justification could result in the denial of the waiver or excusal. This timeframe 

permits the NRC staff to make preliminary eligibility determinations, process the 

medical certifications, evaluate any waivers or excusals, and obtain additional 

information (if necessary) while allowing the facility licensee to finish training the 

applicants before the certified applications are due.

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. 

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 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, 
ES-202, Page 7 of 16

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 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. The NRC will consider this 

request met when it receives the official signed applications (NRC Form 398), 

usually accompanied with a cover letter, from the licensee for the individuals that 

are scheduled to take the initial licensing examinations.

g. Under 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 an application. In some 

circumstances, the NRC’s regional office will provide the applicant with 

predecisional examination failure results and ask if the applicant would like to 

provide further information in support of an informal NRC staff review. The 

applicant is responsible for responding to any requests made under 10 CFR 

55.31(b) within the timeframe specified in the preliminary results letter.

h. The applicant is expected to promptly inform the NRC’s regional office in writing if 

the applicant wishes to withdraw an application. As required by 10 CFR 

2.107(a), if the application is withdrawn prior to issuance of a notice of hearing 

(as will ordinarily be the case), the Commission shall dismiss the proceeding. 

Under 10 CFR 55.31(a)(3), an applicant is required to submit, among other 

things, a written request from an authorized representative of the facility licensee 

by which the applicant will be employed that the written examination and 

operating test be administered to the applicant. Under 10 CFR 55.31(a)(4), an

authorized representative of the facility licensee shall certify using NRC Form 

398 the facility licensee’s need for an operator or a senior operator to perform 

assigned duties. Should either of those circumstances change, the facility 

licensee and/or the applicant must promptly notify the NRC and, if applicable, 

submit an updated NRC Form 398 and/or withdraw the application.

i. If the NRC finds that an application does not comply with the requirements of the 

Atomic Energy Act and the Commission’s regulations, then, as required by 10 

CFR 2.103(b), the NRC will issue a notice of denial of the application and inform 

the applicant in writing of: (1) the nature of any deficiencies or the reason for the 

proposed denial or the denial, and (2) the right of the applicant to demand a 

hearing within twenty (20) days from the date of the notice or such longer period 
ES-202, Page 8 of 16

as may be specified in the notice. The applicant is responsible for exercising the 

applicant’s right to demand; hearings do not occur absent a request.

j. Per 10 CFR 55.31(c), an applicant whose application has been denied because 

of a medical condition or general health may submit a further medical report at 

any time as a supplement to the application. The applicant is responsible for 

providing any corresponding updated NRC Form 396, "Certification of Medical 

Examination by Facility Licensee," and updated NRC Form 398, "Personal 

Qualification Statement—Licensee."

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, or 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 NRC 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 Reactor Program System—Operator 

Licensing, the NRC’s regional office shall verify that none of the applicants’

names appear on the 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 in the NANT guidelines 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 does not need to complete the “Training,” or “Experience Details”

sections on NRC Form 398, except as noted below, and the regional office may 

accept the application without further review.
ES-202, Page 9 of 16

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” section of NRC Form 398 (refer to Section C.1.c).

Any exceptions or waivers from the education and experience requirements 

outlined in the NANT guidelines must be explained 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 NANT or RG 1.8, 

Revision 3) and questions to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

(NRR)/Office of New Reactors (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, RO, engineering officer of the watch, propulsion plant watch supervisor, or 

engineering watch supervisor), objective quality evidence must be supplied to 

confirm the duration an applicant was “in a position” as described above, not just 

the duration of the applicant’s 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 whether the facility licensee made a reasonable effort to remediate the 

deficiencies that caused the applicant to fail the previous examination.

c. The regional office may determine that (1) 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. In such 

instances, the regional office will note the deficiencies and request that the 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.
ES-202, Page 10 of 16

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 to this examination standard). The responsible 

regional supervisor, or designee, shall check the “Does Not Meet Requirements” 

block at the bottom of NRC 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 398) 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.

D. NRC License Eligibility Guidelines

RG 1.8 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 endorses the guidelines contained in ANSI/ANS 3.1-1993; specific 

clarifications, additions, and exceptions are noted in Section C 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 NANT 2010 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.
ES-202, Page 11 of 16

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 the 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 

nonlicensed operator

(b) spend at least 12 months performing operational duties as a 

nonlicensed operator at a comparable (BWR/PWR) facility

(c) spend at least 6 months performing operational duties as an ACTIVE 

licensed RO at a comparable (BWR/PWR) facility

(d) spend at least 24 months in a position equivalent to the RO at a 

military reactor

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

conducted under the supervision of licensed personnel. This time should 

not count toward the 6-month 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 nonlicensed (i.e., SRO-instant) 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 the site for which the applicant seeks a license 
ES-202, Page 12 of 16

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 at a facility of the same vendor and 

vintage or 1.5 years at a comparable (BWR/PWR) or noncomparable 

facility, or have spent at least 2 years in a position that is equivalent (or 

superior) to a licensed RO at a military reactor (e.g., propulsion plant 

watch officer, RO, engineering officer of the watch, propulsion plant watch 

supervisor, or engineering watch supervisor). The 2 years spent 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 RNPPE, the applicant should participate in RO

activities at power levels greater than 20 percent for at least 6 weeks.

(4) The eligibility of equipment operators, plant technicians, and nondegreed 

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.

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) above.

(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
ES-202, Page 13 of 16

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). The applicant should 

have 6 months of experience at the site for which the LSRO license is being 

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 licensing process used before the first refueling outage that 

provides a consistent method for operations personnel to acquire the knowledge and 

experience required for licensed operator duties up to the first refueling outage. The 

cold licensing process is described in Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 06-13A, “Template 

for an Industry Training Program Description,” Revision 1, issued March 2008. The 

NRC accepted the guidance in NEI 06-13A on December 5, 2008, for use in combined 

operating license applications for proposed new plants (Agencywide Documents Access 

and Management System Accession No. ML082950140).

Cold licensed operator candidates do not need to 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 before 

issuance of the individual’s NRC operator license.

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 16

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 letter 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

(10 CFR) 55.31, “How to Apply”; 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.

Under 10 CFR 2.103(b)(2), you may demand an adjudicatory hearing regarding this denial of 

your application within 20 days after the date of this letter. Under 10 CFR 2.307(a), you may 

request an extension of this time limit if you can show good cause.

A demand for a hearing shall be filed in accordance with 10 CFR Part 2, “Agency Rules of 

Practice and Procedure,” which is accessible electronically on the NRC’s Web site at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. Generally, a demand for a hearing should 

explain why you believe that the NRC’s denial of your application was in error and why you 

believe that you have, in fact, satisfied the requirements for license issuance.

[Consult with the Office of the General Counsel/regional counsel for the most up-to-date E-Filing 

language.]

A demand for a hearing must be filed in accordance with the NRC’s E-Filing rule (Volume 72 of 

the Federal Register, page 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires 

participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the Internet or, in some cases,

to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their 

filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.

To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days before the filing 

deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at 

hearing.docket@nrc.gov or by telephone at 301-415-1677 to (1) request a digital identification

(ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or his or her counsel or representative) to digitally 

sign documents and access the E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which he or she is 

participating and (2) advise the Office of the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a 

demand for hearing. Based on this information, the Office of the Secretary will establish an 

electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if one has not already been established. 

Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC’s public Web site at 

http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. System requirements for 

accessing the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC’s “Guidance for Electronic 

Submission,” which is available on the agency’s public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/sitehelp/e-submittals.html. Participants may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web 
ES-202, Page 15 of 16

ES-202 2 Attachment 1

site but should note that the NRC’s E-Filing system does not support unlisted software and the 

NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance in using unlisted software. 

If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the 

E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC’s online, Web-based 

submission form. To serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, 

users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC’s Web site. Further 

information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser 

plug-in, is available on the NRC’s public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html.

Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the 

participant can then submit a demand for hearing. Submissions should be in portable 

document format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC’s public Web 

site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the 

time the documents are submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing system. To be timely, an 

electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. eastern time 

on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the 

document and sends the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The 

E-Filing system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to the document to the 

NRC’s Office of the General Counsel and to any others who have advised the Office of the 

Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer does not need to serve 

the documents on those participants separately.

A person filing electronically using the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance 

by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the 

NRC’s public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by e-mail to 

MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC Meta System 

Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. eastern time, Monday through Friday, 

excluding Government holidays. 

Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents 

electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their 

initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. 

Such filings must be submitted by (1) first class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of 

the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 

Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff, or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service 

to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, 

Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing 

a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. 

Filing is considered complete by first-class mail at the time the document is deposited in the 

mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service at the time the document is 

deposited with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, upon granting an exemption 

request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding 

officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing 

no longer exists. 

Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC’s electronic hearing 

docket, which is available to the public at http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless they are excluded 
ES-202, Page 16 of 16

ES-202 3 Attachment 1

pursuant to an order of the Commission or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not 

to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or 

home telephone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires 

submission of such information. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts 

that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a fair use application

under copyright law, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their 

submission.

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

requirement. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) may excuse an applicant from 

reexamination on the portions of the written examination or operating test that the applicant had 

passed during his or her prior application or waive any or all of the examination and test 

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 facility licensees under 10 CFR Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization 

Facilities”) and the Office of New Reactors (NRO) (for facility licensees under 10 CFR Part 52, 

“Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants”) 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 Qualifications

Statement—Licensee.”

For excusals and waivers of written examination or operating test requirements, 

the applicant should specify the following applicable examination categories to be 

excused or waived: 

• written examination categories: generic fundamentals examinations

(GFEs), RO-level questions, SRO-only questions, or ALL

• operating test categories: administrative topic job performance 

measures (JPMs), control room system JPMs, in-plant system JPMs, 

simulator operating test, or 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.
ES-204, Page 2 of 9

b. As stated in ES-201, waivers and/or excusals should be requested at least 

60 days before the examination date, if possible, to allow the NRC ample 

opportunity to review the substantiating information provided and request 

additional information if necessary. The facility should contact the NRC to 

determine the method of submission for these early waiver and/or excusal 

requests (i.e., a point of contact will be specified in the corporate notification 

letter and will generally be the chief examiner for the examination). Additionally, 

the NRC expects the preliminary applications (unsigned NRC Form 398), which 

are submitted 30 days before the examination, to contain the information 

specified in paragraph C.1.a of this standard about the waiver and/or excusal 

request. At least 14 days before the examination date, the final applications are 

due to the NRC. The certifying signatures (from the facility licensee’s senior 

management representative on site and the applicant) on the final application 

substantiate the basis for the applicant’s excusal or waiver request. Although 

the facility is expected to submit waiver and/or excusal requests early, binding 

NRC resolutions are only documented on the final signed applications.

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 staffing 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.
ES-204, Page 3 of 9

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 shall 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.

d. The decision on whether to grant or deny an excusal or waiver request will be 

based on the applicant’s final signed (not preliminary) NRC Form 398. 

Therefore, this decision will not be made until a final application is received. The 

region shall document the disposition of every excusal or waiver request, 

whether it is granted or denied, by completing the block designated “For NRC 

Use” on the applicant’s final NRC Form 398 and by entering the data in the 

Reactor Program System—Operator Licensing.

e. The regional office shall promptly notify the applicant in writing concerning its

disposition of the excusal or waiver request and provide an explanation if the 

request is 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 notification to the applicant. 

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. If 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 examination and operating test, etc.), the applicants may 

refer on their individual NRC Form 398s to a joint justification letter. Such group 

requests will be resolved in the same manner as individual requests, i.e., the 

disposition will be documented on the final NRC Form 398 and entered into the 

Reactor Program System—Operator Licensing and approval or denial 

notifications, as applicable, will be provided to each applicant.
ES-204, Page 4 of 9

D. Excusal/Waiver Criteria

1. Excusals/Waivers Approved by the Regions

a. If an applicant failed only one portion of the site-specific licensing examination 

(i.e., either the written examination overall, the SRO-only section of the written 

examination, the simulator operating test, the walkthrough overall, or the 

administrative topics portion of the walkthrough), the region may excuse the 

applicant from reexamination for those examination areas that he or she passed. 

This excusal is only applicable to those portions of the examination or test that

the applicant passed as part of his or her immediately prior application, not as 

part of earlier applications. 

To evaluate the request, the region will determine whether 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, affirming that the applicant was fully remediated per the 

licensee’s approved systems approach to training (SAT)-based 

training program

– documentation showing the content and scope of remediation and 

retraining efforts completed with the applicant since the previous 

examination failure

– content of the testing and evaluations that the applicant has 

completed since the previous examination failure, including his or 

her results

– evidence of the applicant’s participation in the licensee’s licensed 

operator requalification training program since the previous

examination failure, including the results of any evaluations of the 

applicant

• If an applicant failed a portion of the examination but passed other 

portions of the examination, the region may excuse the applicant from 

reexamination on the portions of the examination or test that he or she 

passed with sufficient evidence of remediation, retesting, and retraining 

performed in accordance with the licensee’s SAT-based training program,

as described above.

The NRC expects the facility licensee to follow its SAT-based training 

program to remediate applicants before a retake examination. However, 

the region should consider that the operator licensing process inherently 

assumes that the applicant is expected to demonstrate adequate 

knowledge and abilities in all portions of the examination at one point in 

time to receive a license.
ES-204, Page 5 of 9

• Note that an SRO-instant applicant who passed the operating test and

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 and 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, upon accepting the denial of the 

applicant’s SRO-instant application, submit a new application for an RO 

license and ask the NRC to consider the applicant’s passing of the SRO 

operating test and written examination, with the exception of the 

SRO-only portion of the written examination, to satisfy the requirement in

10 CFR 55.33, “Disposition of an Initial Application,” that the applicant 

pass an RO written examination and operating test. The NRC’s review 

of the request will determine whether the new application does the 

following:

– Satisfies 10 CFR 55.31, “How To Apply,” with respect to an RO 

license (including the applicant’s eligibility for an RO license).

– States that the applicant satisfies the “health” requirement in

10 CFR 55.33.

– States that the operating test that was passed provided evidence 

of the applicant’s control board competence and administrative 

duties to satisfy the requirements in 10 CFR 55.45, “Operating 

Tests,” for an RO operating test.

– States that the portions of the written examination that the 

applicant passed satisfy the requirements in 10 CFR 55.41, 

“Written Examination: Operators.” 

Note: Such a request cannot be granted without first obtaining 

concurrence from NRR/NRO.

b. The region may waive training requirements specified in the final safety analysis 

report (FSAR) when the FSAR authorizes waiver of those specific requirements 

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. For reapplications (e.g., following a 

license denial, an application withdrawal, or a reinstatement request for a 

terminated license at the same facility) or for an examination that 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 
ES-204, Page 6 of 9

examination is within 24 months of the anticipated licensing date and that the 

“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 may be requested if

an applicant does not meet the medical standards in the applicable version of

American National Standards Institute/American Nuclear Society

(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 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 Nuclear Energy Institute 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.

(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 at 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 Section D.1.k 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
ES-204, Page 7 of 9

(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

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 1 month of the 6 months of 

onsite experience for either an RO or 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 months spent as an extra RO or SRO on-shift in 

training

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 
ES-204, Page 8 of 9

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 stated in 10 CFR 55.57, “Renewal of Licenses,” 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 SRO-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 

(boiling-water reactor or pressurized-water reactor) 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 on the NRC’s GFE Web page and administered, under 

controlled conditions, by the facility licensee;

NOTE: Some of the past GFEs may contain less than the original 

100 or 50 questions because of question deletions or because of 

questions containing multiple correct answers. If the randomly 

selected GFE contains flawed questions, simply remove them from 

the GFE before it is administered and score the GFE on the basis of 

the revised denominator. For example, question 21 of the 2002

boiling-water reactor GFE had two correct answers. Therefore, in 

order to use this GFE, question 21 would have to be removed, and 

the examinee’s grade would have to be 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; or
ES-204, Page 9 of 9

(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 

entrance into 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 of 

the 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 senior operator limited to fuel handling (i.e., 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.

b. With regard to the examination requirements for “identical” second or subsequent

units at the same site, NRR/NRO may waive any or all of the 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 Section 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 15

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 issue the 

examination results.

B. Background

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 55.41, “Written Examination: Operators,”

and 10 CFR 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 RO and SRO licenses 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-water reactors (PWRs) and 

boiling-water reactors (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 GFE waivers. The GFE 

program does not apply to applicants for a limited senior reactor operator license (i.e., senior 

operator limited to fuel handling).

The GFEs for BWRs and PWRs are developed by the NRC’s GFE contractor and typically 

administered by the NRC two times per year on the Wednesday following the first Sunday in 

March and September. The NRC may administer one or two additional GFEs per year, on the 

Wednesday following the first Sunday in either June or December, if designated industry-based 

exam authors (other GFE authors) develop and submit the additional GFEs to the NRC for 

review and approval. 

C. Responsibilities

1. Facility Licensee

a. Individuals who plan to take the GFE should be enrolled or designated as future 

enrollees in a facility-sponsored training program that will satisfy the eligibility 

requirements for an RO or SRO license. 
ES-205, Page 2 of 15

Per 10 CFR 55.31(a)(3), an applicant shall submit a written request from an 

authorized representative of the facility licensee by which the applicant will be 

employed that the written examination be administered to the applicant. The 

NRC does not require an applicant to file NRC Form 396, NRC Form 398, and 

the evidence and certifications required under 10 CFR 55.31(a)(4)-(6) prior to 

granting a request to administer the GFE section of the written examination. 

The facility licensee must submit a written request to the NRC for the GFE to be 

administered to each individual. A sample registration letter is provided with the

NRC notification letter (Attachment 1). 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, as applicable, of the change

in writing (e-mail is acceptable), as specified in the examination cover letter 

before the examinations are administered.

Note: The NRC is developing an online registration portal for the GFE that will 

be used to request that the GFE be administered to individuals. This process will 

eliminate the need to submit a written request.

b. Upon receiving the approved examinations, 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 included in 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. For GFE contractor developed exams, 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 agreements

e. For other GFE authored exams, the facility licensee shall perform a preliminary 

grading of the examinations and follow the instructions in the examination 

package for post exam processing.

2. NRR Operator Licensing Program Office, GFE Contractor, and Other GFE 

Author(s)

a. The NRR operator licensing program office will designate a coordinator to

oversee the GFE activities of the regional offices, the GFE contractor, other GFE 

author(s), and the facility licensees.
ES-205, Page 3 of 15

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 currently 

scheduled GFE administration dates for the entire year and inform facility 

licensees when the registration letters are due to the NRC. The NRR GFE 

coordinator shall be notified and provided with contact information of other GFE 

authors approximately 4 months prior to development of each GFE examination.

c. Under 10 CFR 55.40(b)(2), facility licensees who prepare their own examinations 

shall establish, implement, and maintain procedures to control examination 

security and integrity. In accordance with 10 CFR 55.49, “Integrity of 

Examinations and Tests,” 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. ES-201, Attachment 1, 

“Examination Security and Integrity Considerations,” summarizes several 

examination security and integrity considerations for GFE authors. 

d. The GFE contractor or other author(s) 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 45 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 

15 days before the GFE administration date.

e. The GFE contractor will assemble the approved examination packets for 

contractor developed GFEs 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. If the GFE was not developed by the GFE 

contractor, then the NRR operator licensing program office will distribute the 

examination packets in the same manner, except as noted below.

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 (Note: GFE contractor exams only)

• applicant answer sheet instructions

f. On the day that the GFE is administered, the NRR GFE coordinator and GFE

contractor or other GFE author(s) should be available to answer questions from 

facility proctors if the need arises.

g. For GFE contractor exams only: upon receiving the examination answer sheets 

from the facility licensees, the GFE contractor shall score, grade, and tabulate 
ES-205, Page 4 of 15

the overall item statistics and generate facility and regional grade reports. 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 GFEs. Questions with acceptable statistical characteristics shall be 

moved into the “validated” GFE question bank.

The GFE 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 agreements

h. For other GFE authored exams: the NRR operator licensing program office will 

determine the final scores, tabulate the overall item statistics and generate facility 

and regional grade reports. The NRR GFE coordinator 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.

i. The NRR GFE coordinator will ensure that copies of the final master BWR and 

PWR examinations are placed on the NRC public Web site at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operator-licensing/generic-fundamentalsexaminations.html.

3. NRC Regional Office

a. Regional management should assign an individual to coordinate GFE 

administration in the region.

b. The NRC will issue a notification letter each year to facility licensees informing 

them to submit registration letters for the upcoming scheduled GFEs.

Note: The NRC is developing an online registration portal for the GFE that will 

be used to request that the GFE be administered to individuals. This process will 

replace the need to submit a registration letter.

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 (for GFE contractor exams only), with a copy to the NRR GFE 

coordinator, or only to the NRR GFE coordinator (for other GFE authored exams)

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.
ES-205, Page 5 of 15

e. The regional office shall distribute the GFE results to their participating facility 

licensees. Attachment 3 to this examination standard includes a sample cover 

letter.

f. The regional OLA shall update the applicants’ status (pass or fail) in the Reactor 

Program System—Operator Licensing and ensure that a 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 GFE Coordinator 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) who will not proctor 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 NRR GFE Coordinator 

within 3 working days from the date of receipt. If the NRR GFE Coordinator does not 

receive the reviewers’ comments within the allotted time, the examinations will proceed 

on schedule. Otherwise, the NRR GFE Coordinator, GFE contractor and/or other GFE 

authors 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:

Westinghouse AP1000 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 shall conform to 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.
ES-205, Page 6 of 15

E. Attachments/Forms

Attachment 1 Sample Notification Letter and Sample Registration Letter

Attachment 2 Sample Examination Cover Letter

Attachment 3 Sample Results Letter

Attachment 4 GFE Test Item Distribution
ES-205, Page 7 of 15

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 ##, 20##

[June ##. 20##]

September ##, 20##

[December ##, 20##]

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

Under 10 CFR 55.31(a)(3), an applicant for an operator license must submit a written request 

from an authorized representative of the facility licensee by which the applicant will be employed 

that the written examination and operating test be administered to the applicant. The NRC 

permits a request for administration of the GFE section of the written exam to be made and 

granted prior to the applicant’s successful completion the facility licensee's requirements to be 

licensed as an operator or senior operator and prior to the facility licensee's certification of the 

need for an operator or a senior operator to perform assigned duties. However, the facility 

licensee should only request administration of the GFE section of the written exam for 

applicants who will have completed fundamentals training by the date of the examination.

The letter should identify the individuals who will take the examination. The letter should also 

identify the personnel who will have access to the examinations before they are administered 

(e.g., proctors) and include the address and name of the individual to whom the examinations 

are to be sent.

To allow the NRC to assign docket numbers, both the NRC Regional Administrator and the 

Chief, Operator Licensing and Training Branch, should receive your letter 30 days before each 

desired examination date shown above. A sample registration letter is enclosed.
ES-205, Page 8 of 15

ES-205 2 Attachment 1

Copies of the administered BWR and PWR GFEs and their answer keys will be available for 

review in the NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS)

immediately after administration of the second subsequent GFE. The NRC will also update its

GFE Web Page, http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operator-licensing/generic-fundamentalsexaminations.html, at this time.

Sincerely,

(Appropriate regional representative)

Docket No. 50- or 52-(Number)

Enclosure: As stated
ES-205, Page 9 of 15

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 to have the 

following (number) individuals take the (boiling-water reactor or pressurized-water reactor)

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, “Operators’ Licenses,” docket number (if applicable) for each person.)

The registrants should have completed the generic fundamentals portion of the training program 

by the examination date and are expected to meet all other requirements of 10 CFR 55.31 in the 

future.

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 10 of 15

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 note 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 or NRR GFE

coordinator). 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 the contents of this exam before it is administered must 

be limited to persons who have a need to know.

The top portion of the security agreement is expected to be completed now, and the bottom 

portion is to be completed immediately after the exam has been administered. 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 or 

NRR GFE coordinator) 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 11 of 15

ES-205 2 Attachment 2

You are responsible for reproducing the number of exam copies required for the number of

individuals taking the exam. Before 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 by

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 or NRR 

GFE coordinator) 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 GFEs 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. [For GFE contractor exams only:] 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 or NRR GFE coordinator)

The following items must be mailed via Overnight Delivery Service to (Name of contractor or 

NRR GFE coordinator) and postmarked no later than (date):

• completed answer sheets

• applicant-signed exam cover sheets

• administrator/proctor-signed security agreements(s)
ES-205, Page 12 of 15

ES-205 3 Attachment 2

Mail all of the above exam-related materials addressed as follows:

(Name)

(Name of contractor or NRR GFE coordinator)

(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

Public
ES-205, Page 13 of 15

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 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 Forms “A” and “B” with answers

2. Examination Results Summary for (Facility Name)

3. Individual Answer Sheets
ES-205, Page 14 of 15

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

193002

193003

193004

193005

193006

193007

193008

193009

193010

Thermodynamics Theory

Thermodynamic Units and Properties

Basic Energy Concepts

Steam

Thermodynamic Processes

Thermodynamic Cycles

Fluid Statics and Dynamics

Heat Transfer

Thermal Hydraulics

Core Thermal Limits

Brittle Fracture and Vessel Thermal Stress

1

1

2

1

1

2

1

3

1

1

Total Items 50
ES-205, Page 15 of 15

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 Theory

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

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

3

1

Total Items 50

ES-301, Page 1 of 33

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 Requirements.” (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, “Operating Tests,” including the use of reactor plant simulation 

facilities and the conduct of multiunit 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 walkthrough 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 itself, if approved by

the Commission under 10 CFR 55.46(b).

The operating test consists of an individual walkthrough portion and a simulator test. The

individual walkthrough 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 walkthrough examinations are commonly referred to as “job 

performance measures” (JPMs), and these two terms are used interchangeably throughout this 

NUREG. The individual walkthrough portion consists of a set of JPMs. The second portion of

the operating test, the “simulator operating test” or “simulator test,” is administered on a 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved or plant-referenced simulator. A 

simulator test consists of a set of simulator scenarios, and each scenario, in turn, consists of a 

set of scenario events. 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,

in their entirety, both portions of the 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 33

1. Administrative Topics

This part of the walkthrough portion of the operating test covers K/As that are generally 

associated with administrative control of the plant. It implements 

10 CFR 55.45(a)(9)–(12) 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 JPMs and asking specific “for cause” followup questions, as necessary, 

based on the applicant’s performance (refer to ES-302).

Each applicant receives a set of administrative topic JPMs designed so that the

examiners can evaluate each applicant individually on a range of topics appropriate to 

the applicant’s license level.

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

• prestartup activities

• maintenance

• tagging and clearances

• temporary modification of systems

• changes to procedures and plant design

• technical specifications (TS), including plant mode

• familiarity with, and use of, piping and instrument drawings 

The third topic, “Radiation Control,” evaluates the applicant’s K/As 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 33

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 typically administered in a classroom walkthrough format 

in accordance with ES-302 and graded in accordance with ES-303.

2. Control Room/In-Plant Systems

This part of the walkthrough portion of the 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 in 10 CFR 55.45(a)(3), 

(4), and (7)–(9) and encompasses several types of systems, including the primary 

coolant, emergency coolant, decay heat removal, auxiliary, radiation monitoring, and

instrumentation and control systems.

This part of the walkthrough 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 

K/As relative to each system are evaluated by administering JPMs and, when 

necessary, specific followup questions based on the applicant’s performance of each 

JPM.

Each applicant receives a set of control room and in-plant system JPMs designed so

that the examiners can evaluate each applicant individually on a range of topics

appropriate to the applicant’s license level.

This part of the operating test is administered in a one-on-one walkthrough format in

accordance with ES-302 and graded in accordance with ES-303.

3. Simulator Operating Test

This portion of the operating test implements 10 CFR 55.45(a)(1)–(9) and (11)–(13). 

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.
ES-301, Page 4 of 33

The simulator test consists of a set of simulator scenarios, and each particular scenario 

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 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 receives a set of scenarios designed so that the

examiners can evaluate each applicant individually on a range of competencies 

applicable to the applicant’s license level. Appendix D describes those competencies, 

and Forms ES-303-3, “RO Competency Grading Worksheet for the Simulator Operating 

Test,” and ES-303-4, “SRO Competency Grading Worksheet for the Simulator Operating 

Test,” break down each competency for ROs and SROs 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 Form ES-303-4, SRO Competency 3, 

“Operate Plant Component Controls,” is optional for SRO-upgrade (SRO-U) applicants

because they do not have to fill a position that requires control board operations.

However, if SRO-U applicants 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

on the examination arrangements confirmed with the NRC 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 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 regional office, in accordance with 

ES-201.

d. Review the comments on the proposed examination outlines and tests 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 comments (refer to ES-201).
ES-301, Page 5 of 33

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.

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 part 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 simulator 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 the applicants 

in a single day. The facility licensee and the NRC 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.
ES-301, Page 6 of 33

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 regional office and the facility licensee (refer to ES-201).

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 licensee’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 SRO-U or SRO-instant (SRO-I), 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 the applicant is

licensed. SRO applicants should demonstrate their supervisory abilities and an

attitude of responsibility for safe operation, and they 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 operating test:
ES-301, Page 7 of 33

• 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.

• In directing licensed activities, the SRO must have a broader and more

thorough knowledge of the facility licensee’s administrative controls and

methods, including limitations imposed by the regulations and the facility

licensee’s TS 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 is a readily 

available source of operationally oriented plant anomalies.

Evaluate the dominant accident sequences for the facility to determine whether 

they are suitable for testing, on a sampling basis, during the dynamic simulator or 

walk-through tests. Dominant accident sequences 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 which actions to evaluate, do

not overlook actions that are relied upon for 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 multiunit 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 walkthrough 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.
ES-301, Page 8 of 33

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 walkthrough 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 walkthrough operating test could be administered on

Unit 2 or Unit 3 or both.

h. The operating test should examine a broad range of K/As, systems and

components, and operations and events. The walkthrough and simulator

portions 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 walkthrough 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 walkthrough 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 administer the operating tests but were not involved in test

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.
ES-301, Page 9 of 33

Refer to Attachment 1 of this examination standard 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 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.

2. Walkthrough 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 licensee’s testing materials without significant modification and how 

much of the walkthrough 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, “Administrative Topics Outline,” and

ES-301-2, “Control Room/In-Plant Systems Outline,” 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” Walkthrough

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.
ES-301, Page 10 of 33

a. For each of the administrative topics listed in the table 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 do not need to be evaluated on every topic (i.e., as indicated

above, “Equipment Control,” “Radiation Control,” or “Emergency Plan” can be 

omitted by doubling up on “Conduct of Operations”), unless the applicant is

taking only the “Administrative Topics” part of the operating test (with a waiver or 

excusal of the systems walkthrough and simulator test in accordance with

ES-204). 

K/As associated with each administrative topic shall be selected from Section 2 

of the applicable NRC K/A catalog for pressurized-water reactors (PWRs) or 

boiling-water reactors (BWRs) (i.e., NUREG-1122, “Knowledge and Abilities 

Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant Operators: Pressurized Water Reactors,” or

NUREG-2103, “Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant 

Operators: Westinghouse AP1000 Pressurized-Water Reactors,” and 

NUREG-1123, “Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant 

Operators: Boiling Water Reactors,” or NUREG-2104, “Knowledge and Abilities 

Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant Operators: Advanced Boiling-Water Reactors,” 

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 part 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; therefore,

SRO applicants are evaluated in greater depth on the administrative topics. All 

SRO administrative JPMs must be written at the SRO level. RO applicants only 

need to 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:
ES-301, Page 11 of 33

“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 an attempt 

should be made 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 TS.

“Radiation Control”

This topic may be covered in conjunction with the JPMs prepared for the in-plant 

systems walkthrough. One possibility is to evaluate these subjects during the 

required entry into the radiologically controlled area.

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.
ES-301, Page 12 of 33

“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 walkthrough 

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, briefly describe the specific administrative activities selected 

for evaluation.

g. Forward the completed outline to the NRC 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 

150 days before the scheduled examination date. Refer to ES-201 for additional 

instructions on the review and submittal of the examination outline.

The NRC 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 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 D.2 and the JPM guidelines in Appendix C.

i. When the materials are complete, review the quality of the final administrative 

walkthrough test using Form ES-301-3, “Operating Test Quality Checklist.” This

review shall be performed in conjunction with the associated systems 

walkthrough 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 

licensee reviewer or the NRC chief examiner, as appropriate, for review and

approval in accordance with Section E. The NRC chief examiner must receive 

the test approximately 75 days before the scheduled administration date, unless

other arrangements have been made.
ES-301, Page 13 of 33

4. Specific Instructions for the “Control Room/In-Plant Systems” Walkthrough

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 NUREG-2103 for PWRs 

and NUREG-1123 or NUREG-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”).

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 NUREG-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.
ES-301, Page 14 of 33

At least one of the tasks shall be related to a shutdown or low-power1 condition, 

and four to six of the tasks for RO and SRO-I applicants and two to three of the

tasks for SRO-U applicants shall require him or her to execute alternative paths 

within the facility licensee’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 radiologically controlled area. 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. Also indicate the type of

JPM by entering the applicable code(s) identified at the bottom of the form.

c. Forward the completed walkthrough test outline to the NRC 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 outlines are normally 

due approximately 150 days before the scheduled examination date. Refer to 

ES-201 for additional instructions on the review and submittal of examination 

outlines.

The NRC 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 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 walkthrough portion of 

the operating test for quality using Form ES-301-3 and make any changes that

might be necessary. To minimize duplication, this review shall be performed in

conjunction with the associated administrative topic walkthrough 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 chief examiner, as appropriate, for review and approval in accordance with 

Section E. The NRC chief examiner must receive the test approximately 

75 days before the scheduled administration date, unless other arrangements 

have been made.

 1 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-301, Page 15 of 33

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 (ATC)) 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” (Form 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 in the ATC or BOP position 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).

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 scenario shall be new or significantly modified to 

ensure that the applicant has not had the opportunity to rehearse or practice the 

scenario. A significant modification means that, for each scenario, at least two 

events have not been used on the previous two NRC initial licensing operating 

exams. Because of a limited number of methods for adding reactivity, reactivity 

manipulation events are exempt from this overlap limit. Additionally, 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-power, 

and full-power situations. 
ES-301, Page 16 of 33

Review the associated walkthrough 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 walkthrough 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. Chief examiners and exam writers should 

ensure that each scenario includes at least two preidentified critical tasks. 

Furthermore, to assist in promoting exam consistency among applicants, chief 

examiners and exam writers should carefully assign applicant teams to each 

scenario set so that, whenever possible, the applicants are evaluated on a similar 

number of preidentified critical tasks.

At a minimum, each scenario set must require each applicant to respond to the

types of evolutions, failures, 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 of this 

examination standard) 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 action on the part of 

the applicant and provide little insight on 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 that the applicants 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.
ES-301, Page 17 of 33

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 TS 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 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 

to the NRC chief examiner so they are received by the date agreed upon with the

NRC regional office at the time the examination arrangements were confirmed; 

the outlines are normally due approximately 150 days before the scheduled 

examination date. Refer to ES-201 for additional instructions on the review and

submittal of the examination outlines.

The NRC 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 chief examiner approves the operating test outlines, prepare the

final simulator test materials by revising Form ES-D-1 as requested by the NRC 

chief examiner and completing a detailed operator action form (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 in accordance with Form ES-301-5.

g. Review the completed simulator operating test for quality using Form ES-301-4

and make any changes that might be necessary. This review shall be 

performed in conjunction with the associated walkthrough test (refer to 

Sections D.3 and D.4) to minimize duplication.

Submit the entire operating test package to the designated facility licensee 

reviewer or the NRC chief examiner, as appropriate, for review and approval in

accordance with Section E. The NRC chief examiner must receive the test 

approximately 75 days before the scheduled administration date, unless other 

arrangements have been made.
ES-301, Page 18 of 33

E. Quality Reviews

1. Facility Licensee Management Review

If the facility licensee prepared the operating test, a supervisor or manager familiar with

both the exam contents and the examination standards in this NUREG shall 

independently review the preliminary outline and the proposed test before they are 

submitted to the NRC 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 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 chief 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 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 on 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 5 weeks before the administration 

date. It is especially important that the chief 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 NRC 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 licensee contact. There are no minimum or maximum limits on the

number or scope of changes the chief examiner may direct the author or facility

licensee 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.
ES-301, Page 19 of 33

e. Upon supervisory approval and generally at least 5 weeks 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 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 licensee

review. The supervisory review is not intended to be another detailed review, 

but rather a 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 

Activities.”

c. Following the facility licensee 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 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 33

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 to also include “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 safety injection (SI)

termination criteria change following an SI reinitiation?” implies that the termination 

criteria will change, when in actuality they do not.

6. Do not use direct lookup questions that only require the applicant to recall where to find

the answer to the question. The operational orientation required of questions on the

walkthrough 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 lookup 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 walkthrough portion of the operating test. Although the checklist was 

developed for use in evaluating requalification written examinations, all the criteria,

except 9–11, and the K/A rating on item 7 are generically applicable.
ES-301, Page 21 of 33

ES-301 Verifiable Action Guidelines Attachment 2

“Verifiable actions” is a phrase used in this NUREG in ES-301, Appendix C and Appendix D. 

The context in which the phrase is used has to do with evaluating operators’ competence during 

portions of the operating test.

Section D.5.d of this examination standard 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, not just make a telephone call to an operator to take some action in the field. An

applicant on the telephone directing an operator to take some action in the field while he or she

is observing control room indications is NOT performing a verifiable action; instead, the 

applicant 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 whether 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, 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., shutdown-margin

calculation or leak-rate calculation) that 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 or she closes a valve or repositions a switch. The examiner does

not 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 or she would perform a verifiable 

action, such as “I am turning the hand-wheel in the clockwise direction and 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 TS 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 on a procedure requirement or for information only 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 that includes diagnosis of the event/malfunction, 

the applicant should NOT be given credit for the event/malfunction.
ES-301, Page 22 of 33

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 and Criteria: (C)ontrol room, (S)imulator, or Class(R)oom

(D)irect from bank (≤ 3 for ROs; ≤ 4 for SROs and RO retakes)

(N)ew or (M)odified from bank (≥ 1)

(P)revious 2 exams (≤ 1, randomly selected)
ES-301, Page 23 of 33

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, and 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, and 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, and in-plant systems and

functions may overlap those tested in the control room.

* Type Codes Criteria for R /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 33

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 to 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. Walkthrough 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 walkthrough 

outlines (Forms ES-301-1 and ES-301-2) 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 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 ______________________________________________ __ _ ______________ 

* The facility licensee signature is not applicable for NRC-developed tests.

# The independent NRC reviewer initials items in column “c”; the chief examiner concurrence is required.
ES-301, Page 25 of 33

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 following:

• 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. Scenarios are new or significantly modified in accordance with Section D.5 of ES-301.

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 preidentified critical tasks across scenarios, when 

possible.

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. Entry into a contingency EOP with substantive actions (> 1 per scenario 

set)

/ /

6. Preidentified critical tasks (> 2) / /

* The facility licensee signature is not applicable for NRC-developed tests.

# An independent NRC reviewer initials items in column “c”; chief examiner concurrence is required.
ES-301, Page 26 of 33

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 I/C 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 33

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.) (Forms ES-303-1 and ES-303-3 describe the competency 

rating factors.)

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 TS (3)

Notes:

(1) Includes TS compliance for an RO.

(2) Optional for an SRO-U.

(3) Only applicable to SROs.
ES-301, Page 28 of 33

ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet 

Facility: Exam 

1 2 3 

Attributes

4 

Job Content

5 

Admin JPMs

ADMIN 

Topic 

and K/A

LOD 

(1-5) U/E/S Ex

I/C

Cues 

Critical Scope

Overlap

Perf.

Key Minutia Job

Link Focus Steps (N/B) Std.

1

Simulator/In-Plant Safety 

Function 

and K/A JPMs
ES-301, Page 29 of 33

ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet 

Instructions for Completing This Table:

Check or mark any item(s) requiring a comment and explain the issue in the space provided using the guide below.

1. Check each JPM for appropriate administrative topic requirements (COO, EC, Rad, and EP) or safety function requirements and corres

(ES-301, D.3 and D.4)

2. Determine the level of difficulty (LOD) using an established 1–5 rating scale. Levels 1 and 5 represent an inappropriate (low or high) d

that is being tested. Mark in column 2 (Appendix D, C.1.f)

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. (Appendix C, 

• The JPM contains appropriate cues that clearly indicate when they should be provided to the examinee. Cues are objective an

• All critical steps (elements) are properly identified.

• The scope of the task is not too narrow (N) or too broad (B).

• Excessive overlap does not occur with other parts of the operating test or written examination. (ES-301, D.1.a, and ES-301, D

• The task performance standard clearly describes the expected outcome (i.e., end state). Each performance step identifies a s

 completion of the step.

• A valid marked up key was provided (e.g., graph interpretation, initialed steps for handouts).

4. For column 4, “Job Content,” check the appropriate box if the job content flaw does not meet the following elements:

• Topics are linked to the job content (e.g., not a disguised task, task required in real job).

• The JPM has meaningful performance requirements that will provide a legitimate basis for evaluating the applicant's understan

 operate the plant. (ES-301, D.2.c)

5. Based on the reviewer’s judgment, is the JPM as written (U)nacceptable (requiring repair or replacement), in need of (E)nhancement, o

answer in column 5.

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 
ES-301, Page 30 of 33

ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet 

Facility: Scenario: 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Event Realism/Cred. Required 

Actions

Verifiable 

actions LOD TS CTs Scen. 

Overlap U/E/S Explanation
ES-301, Page 31 of 33

ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet 

Instructions for Completing This Table:

Use this table for each scenario for evaluation. 

2 Check this box if the events are not related (e.g., seismic event followed by a pipe rupture) OR if the events do not obey the laws of physi

3, 4 In columns 3 and 4, check the box if there is no verifiable or required action, as applicable. Examples of required actions are as follows: 

• 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 (Uncomplicated events that require no operator action beyond this 

should not be included on the operating test unless they are necessary to set the stage for subsequent events. (Appendix D, B.3)

5 Check this box if the level of difficulty is not appropriate.

6 Check this box if the event has a TS.

7 Check this box if the event has a critical task (CT). If the same CT covers more than one event, check the event where the CT started o

8 Check this box if the event overlaps with another event on any of the last two NRC examinations. (Appendix D, C.1.f)

9 Based on the reviewer’s judgment, is the event as written (U)nacceptable (requiring repair or replacement), in need of (E)nhancement, or 

in column 9.

10 Record any explanations of the events here. 

In the shaded boxes, sum the number of check marks in each column. 

• In column 1, sum the number of events. 

• In columns 2–4, record the total number of check marks for each column. 

• In column 5, based on the reviewer's judgement, place a checkmark only if the scenario's LOD is not appropriate. 

• In column 6, TS are required to be ≥ 2 for each scenario. (ES-301, D.5.d)

• In column 7, preidentified CTs should be ≥ 2 for each scenario. (Appendix D; ES-301, D.5.d; ES-301-4)

• In column 8, record the number of events not used on the two previous NRC initial licensing exams. A scenario is considered 

unsatisfactory if there is < 2 new events. (ES-301, D.5.b; Appendix D, C.1.f)

• In column 9, record whether the scenario as written (U)nacceptable, in need of (E)nhancement, or (S)atisfactory from column 11 of 

scenario table.
ES-301, Page 32 of 33

ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet 

Facility: Exam Date:

Scenario

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 11

Event 

Totals

Events 

Unsat.

TS 

Total

TS 

Unsat.

CT 

Total

CT 

Unsat.

% Unsat.

Scenario 

Elements

U/E/S Explanation

Instructions for Completing This Table:

Check or mark any item(s) requiring comment and explain the issue in the space provided.

1, 3, 5 For each simulator scenario, enter the total number of events (column 1), TS entries/actions (column 3), and CTs (column 5). 

This number should match the respective scenario from the event-based scenario tables (the sum from columns 1, 6, and 7, respective

2, 4, 6 For each simulator scenario, evaluate each event, TS, and CT as (S)atisfactory, (E)nhance, or (U)nsatisfactory based on the following 

a. Events. Each event is described on a Form ES-D-2, including all switch manipulations, pertinent alarms, and verifiable actio

between at-the-controls and balance-of-plant applicants during the scenario. All event-related attributes on Form ES-301-4 a

unsatisfactory events in column 2.

b. TS. A scenario includes at least two TS entries/actions across at least two different events. TS entries and actions are deta

the total number of unsatisfactory TS entries/actions in column 4. (ES-301, D.5d)

c. CT. Check that a scenario includes at least two preidentified CTs. This criterion is a target quantitative attribute, not an abs

Check that each CT is explicitly bounded on Form ES-D-2 with measurable performance standards (see Appendix D). Enter 

CTs in column 6.

7 In column 7, calculate the percentage of unsatisfactory scenario elements: 

8 If the value in column 7 is > 20%, mark the scenario as (U)nsatisfactory in column 8. If column 7 is ≤ 20%, annotate with (E)nhanceme

9 In column 9, explain each unsatisfactory event, TS, and CT. Editorial comments can also be added here.

Save initial review comments and detail subsequent comment resolution so that each exam-bound scenario is marked by a (S)atisfactory resolu

�

2 + 4 + 6

1 + 3 + 5

� 100%
 ES-301 Operating Test Review Worksheet Form ES-301-7

 

Site name: Exam Date: 

OPERATING TEST TOTALS

Total Total 

Unsat.

Total Total % 

Unsat. Explanation Edits Sat.

Admin.

JPMs

Sim./In-Plant

JPMs

Scenarios

Op. Test 

Totals:

Instructions for Completing This Table:

Update data for this table from quality reviews and totals in the previous tables and then calculate the percentage of 

total items that are unsatisfactory and give 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 

nine administrative JPMs were submitted, enter “9” in the “Total” items column for administrative JPMs. 

For scenarios, enter the total number of simulator scenarios.

2. Enter the total number of (U)nsatisfactory JPMs and scenarios from the two JPMs column 5 and 

simulator scenarios column 8 in the previous tables. Provide an explanation in the space provided.

3. Enter totals for (E)nhancements needed and (S)atisfactory JPMs and scenarios from the previous 

tables. This task is for tracking only.

4. Total each column and enter the amounts in the “Op. Test Totals” row. 

5. Calculate the percentage of the operating test that is (U)nsatisfactory (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 follows:

• satisfactory, if the “Op. Test Total” “% Unsat.” is ≤ 20%

• unsatisfactory, if “Op. Test Total” “% Unsat.” is > 20%

6. Update this table and the tables above with post-exam changes if the “as-administered” operating test 

required content changes, including the following:

• The JPM performance standards were incorrect.

• The administrative JPM tasks/keys were incorrect.

• CTs were incorrect in the scenarios (not including postscenario critical tasks defined in 

 Appendix D).

• The EOP strategy was incorrect in a scenario(s).

• TS entries/actions were determined to be incorrect in a scenario(s).

ES-301, Page 33 of 33

ES-302, Page 1 of 14

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 simulator 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

Facility licensees typically 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 

particular operating test, an NRC operator 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, “Integrity of Examinations and Tests,” 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 NRC chief examiner) to facilitate the 

administration of the operating tests in accordance with Section D.

d. Inform the NRC regional office in writing if an applicant withdraws from the

examination process before it is complete or if the facility licensee withdraws its 

request to administer the written examination/operating test to an applicant.
ES-302, Page 2 of 14

2. NRC Regional Office

The NRC regional office is responsible for the following activities:

a. Work with the facility licensee 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 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation/Office of New 

Reactors (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 from the examination process, the NRC chief 

examiner will ask the applicant to follow the 10 CFR 55.5, “Communications” 

methods and submit the request to the appropriate regional office. The chief 

examiner may direct the applicant to 10 CFR 2.107, which states in part that the 

Commission may permit an applicant to withdraw an application prior to 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. 10 CFR 55.35(a) is inapplicable in this 

situation.

c. If a facility licensee withdraws its request in writing that the written 

examination/operating test for an RO, SRO, or LSRO license be administered to 

an applicant, the application is incomplete and will not be evaluated further by the 

NRC. 10 CFR 55.35(a) is inapplicable in this situation.

d. Each applicant identified on the “List of Applicants” (Form ES-201-4) shall be 

administered an operating test as indicated on the form.

e. 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 
ES-302, Page 3 of 14

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 NRC 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.

• When surrogate operators are required to complete the operating crew 

(e.g., during retake tests or for a class consisting entirely of reactor 

operators (ROs)), the NRC 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 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 a shift technical advisor (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.

f. For the administration of operating test job performance measures (JPMs) and 

for purposes of test integration and continuity, it may be advantageous for the 

NRC 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:

• If a three-person operating crew consists entirely of senior reactor 

operator-upgrade (SRO-U) 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 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 
ES-302, Page 4 of 14

will always be individually evaluated by an NRC examiner, regardless of 

what operating position they fill during a given scenario. 

• When necessary for exam efficiency or to minimize the use of surrogates, 

it may be 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 the other applicants) and that the scenario is in 

addition to the minimum required for that applicant. This exception 

requires NRC program office approval.

g. The examiner is expected to administer the planned operating test in accordance 

with the prepared and approved walkthrough test outlines (Form ES-301-1, 

“Administrative Topics Outline,” and Form ES-301-2, “Control Room/In-Plant 

Systems Outline”) and simulator scenarios (Form ES-D-1, “Scenario Outline,”

and Form 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.

h. Examiners may administer the same operating test (walkthrough 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 JPMs shall not be repeated during subsequent days.

If previously agreed upon by the facility licensee, examiners may also administer 

the same operating test (walkthrough 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 it will complicate the scheduling process.

i. The NRC chief examiner should ensure the licensee develops 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. 

j. 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.

k. Video and audio recording by the facility licensee of the administration of 

simulator operating tests is encouraged if the simulator is equipped with properly 

functioning video and audio recording capability. The following conditions apply 

to the facility licensee’s video and audio recording of the simulator operating test:
ES-302, Page 5 of 14

• The facility licensee is responsible for complying with all applicable laws 

governing audio and video recordings.

• After initial set up/alignment of the camera(s) and microphone(s) by 

facility licensee personnel under observation of the NRC chief examiner, 

the video and audio recordings will be made with no changes to the 

camera(s) or microphone(s) setup. 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 takes its licensing action on all of the applications and

adjudicatory actions on any hearing demands are complete, 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.

• 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 preliminarily or finally failed the simulator operating test 

performance will be provided an opportunity to review the video and audio 

recordings of their simulator operating test. The facility licensee shall 

notify the NRC chief examiner before providing this opportunity to an 

applicant.

l. 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

licensee’s staff shall be allowed to observe an operating test without the 

NRC 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 

licensee training or operations staff (e.g., an 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.

• Although the applicants will generally be expected to perform “peer 

checks” in accordance with the facility licensee’s operations and training 
ES-302, Page 6 of 14

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. 

• Only one individual (applicant or surrogate) is allowed to fill the senior 

operator position during the simulator operating test. This position, 

typically referred to as the “shift supervisor,” “control room supervisor,” or 

“unit supervisor,” is the senior licensed operator immediately responsible 

for control of the unit. One of the facility licensee simulator operators 

typically plays the role of other on-shift positions (e.g., STA, shift 

manager, work control supervisor, and assist/third control room operator), 

whether licensed or not. In rare circumstances, a surrogate crew member 

may fill such a position (only if that position is required by the facility’s 

license). The SRO applicants still need to be able to perform the tasks 

normally carried out by additional personnel, but they are not required to 

demonstrate those duties as part of the simulator scenario portion of the

operating test. SRO applicants will typically demonstrate those 

responsibilities during the “Administrative Topics” portion of the 

“Walkthrough” portion of the operating test. This includes 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), which are normally a part of the 

operating test for SRO applicants. (Refer to SECY-98-266, 

“Final Rule—Requirements for Initial Operator Licensing Examinations,”

dated November 13, 1998, Attachment 1, 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 NRC 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) 

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. 
ES-302, Page 7 of 14

The chief examiner should also give the applicants the opportunity to 

object to the presence of observers.

m. The NRC 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 licensee staff. Notwithstanding 

the fact that the facility licensee 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 licensee 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 NRC 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 walkthrough locations.

o. The NRC 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. Walkthrough

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 
ES-302, Page 8 of 14

during an emergency), the examiner shall document the differences and 

coordinate with the facility licensee 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 that 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 licensee 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 licensee training 

manager to address the issue.

c. The examiner should encourage the applicants to sketch diagrams, flowpaths, 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

licensee 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 
ES-302, Page 9 of 14

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

a time-critical JPM) 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.

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 walkthrough evaluation techniques, as

discussed in Section D of Appendix C.

3. Simulator Operating Test

a. Before administering the simulator operating test, 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 licensee

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 
ES-302, Page 10 of 14

dry run or otherwise reviewed with the simulator instructor(s), the NRC 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 Form ES-D-1 and Form 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 writeup 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 facility licensee simulator operator and ensure that 

he or she has the most up to date 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 onsite preparation visit. The NRC chief examiner 

shall ask the facility licensee simulator operator to record selected parameters,

and if the facility licensee has a standard list of recorded parameters, this list will 

be reviewed during scenario preparation to determine whether additional 

parameters need 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 until the NRC takes its licensing action on all 

the applications and adjudicatory actions on any hearing demands are complete.

g. The examiner in charge of each scenario should arrange a suitable 

communication system with the facility licensee 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 licensee simulator 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.
ES-302, Page 11 of 14

h. Before beginning each scenario set, the examiners shall have the facility licensee 

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 examiners’ 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 NRC chief examiner should ensure that the facility licensee simulator 

operator (or examiner) playing the role of other plant personnel is aware of the 

timescale 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 facility licensee 

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 licensee 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.

l. The simulator 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 
ES-302, Page 12 of 14

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 and in-plant systems JPMs 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 an emergency 

classification within the normal event classification period of time. In most cases, 

the applicant is asked to classify the event based on the current simulated plant 

conditions after the scenario is complete and after the simulator is in a freeze

state; however, event classification is not required to be part of the scenario. As 

explained in Appendix D, performance of an event classification does not meet 

the critical task (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 

competencies. This discussion shall include the CTs during the scenario, 

including whether an applicant’s action(s) or inaction(s) resulted in a 

post-scenario CT. (See Appendix D for the evaluation methodology if the

outcome or possible outcome of an applicant’s action or inaction meets the 

threshold of a CT.) 

These post-scenario CTs must be validated against the CT methodology in 

Section D of Appendix 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 his or 

her crew. As outlined in Appendix E, an applicant who is corrected will still be 

held accountable for what would have transpired if he or she had taken the action 

without correction. The examination team must analyze those corrected actions 

to determine whether 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 whether the as-run scenario 

invalidated any predesignated CTs. 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.
ES-302, Page 13 of 14

The NRC 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 demonstrated potential performance deficiencies during the 

operating test, the examiner shall ask the facility licensee simulator operator to 

provide copies of the logs, charts, data, audio, video, or 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 until the NRC takes its licensing action on all the applications 

and adjudicatory actions on any hearing demands are complete. Refer to 

Section D.3.f above for simulator data retention requirements.

The NRC chief examiner shall also ask the facility licensee simulator operator to 

retain copies of the same materials until the NRC takes its licensing action on all 

of the applications and adjudicatory actions on any hearing demands are 

complete, 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 NRC 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.

• 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.
ES-302, Page 14 of 14

When the simulator has been restored to full operability, the NRC 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 Section D.3.k above. If the scenario is going to be resumed with a 

test in progress, the applicants should be allowed a reasonable amount of time to 

re-familiarize 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 parts 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 herein 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 meets the minimum requirements 

to safely operate the facility for which the license is sought. The examiner documents and 

evaluates each performance deficiency 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 

examiners might require to evaluate an 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 operating 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 demonstrated 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 demonstrated several 

performance deficiencies with minimal or no safety consequences, the examiner may 

recommend that the applicant be issued a license even if the grading instructions in Section D 

would normally result in a failing grade. 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 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation/Office of 

New Reactors (NRR/NRO) operator licensing program office before completing the licensing 

action.
ES-303, Page 2 of 19

3. NRC Chief Examiner

a. The NRC chief examiner shall arrange a meeting of the NRC’s examination team 

members after the operating test is 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 NRC 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

licensee contact.

c. The NRC 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 NRC 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 NRC supervisor must concur in any recommendation to overturn 

the examiner’s initial recommendation and provide specific reasons for this action 

on Form ES-303-2, “Operating Test Comments” (or equivalent).

D. Grading and Documentation Instructions

1. Review and Categorize Examiner Notes and Documentation

a. Review the walkthrough job performance measures (JPMs) and simulator 

scenarios that were performed and the performance-based followup questions 

that were asked. Evaluate all 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. Evaluate 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 NRC 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 notes and documentation generated while administering the operating 

test, 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 (RF) descriptions in Appendix D 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,” as appropriate, code each deficiency with the

number and letter of the RF(s) it most accurately reflects (e.g., 4.a). 

Keep in mind that, for the senior reactor operator (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 Section D.2.b of this examination standard. 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 about these RFs 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 about TS 

compliance is substantiated by post-scenario questioning. 

Whenever possible, attempt to identify the cause of each performance deficiency

and code each deficiency with no more than two different RFs. Ensure that the 

documentation for each performance deficiency appropriately justifies the RF(s) 

assigned, consistent with the criteria in Section D.3.b.

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 NRC 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 “Walkthrough”

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/In-Plant 

Systems” parts of the walkthrough portion of the operating test.
ES-303, Page 4 of 19

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.

• The task standard for the JPM must be accomplished by correctly 

completing all 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.

• 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 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

and systems JPMs, determine an overall grade for the “Walkthrough (Overall)” by 

calculating the percentage of satisfactory grades for the administrative topics and 

systems JPMs. If the applicant has an “S” on fewer than 80 percent of the 

administrative topics and systems combined (i.e., 12/15 for reactor operator (RO)

and senior reactor operator-instant (SRO-I) applicants and 8/10 for senior reactor 

operator-upgrade (SRO-U) applicants), the applicant fails the walkthrough portion 

of the operating test and receives a “U” overall.

Additionally, in order to ensure minimal competence is met 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 (i.e., 2/4) of the administrative topics JPMs, the 
ES-303, Page 5 of 19

applicant fails this part of the walkthrough. Retake applicants who were granted 

an excusal from the systems walkthrough 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 administrative topics JPMs (i.e., 4/5 for RO and SRO applicants) to pass.

Document the applicant’s grades in both the “Walkthrough (Overall)” and 

“Administrative Topics” 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 walkthrough 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 RF and competency. 

Keep in mind that the simulator test is generally graded based on competencies 

rather than consequences; every performance deficiency that reflects an 

operator’s competence is considered equal unless it is related to the

performance of a critical task (CT) (as determined in accordance with ES-301 

and Appendix D).

• If there is no basis upon which to grade an RF (i.e., it is “not observed”

(N/O)), circle the “0” under “Weighting Factors,” enter an “N/O” under “RF 

Grades,” and explain the entry in accordance with Section D.3 below. 

Depending on which RF is “N/O,” circle the appropriate “Weighting 

Factors” for each remaining RF applicable to that competency; the 

“Weighting Factors” for each competency must always add up to “1.” If 

more than one RF per competency or more than two RFs overall are not 

observed, inform the NRC 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 an RF and has no

performance deficiencies, circle an “RF Score” of “3” for that RF.

For the purposes of the next two bulleted items, 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 CT. “Noncritical errors”

are all other performance deficiencies that are not associated with the failure of a 

CT.

• For noncritical errors, the following applies:

– If an applicant has a single performance deficiency related to an

RF, other than RFs under the “Communications and Crew 

Interactions” (or “Communications”) competency, circle an “RF 

Score” of “2” for that RF. If the RF is under the communications 

competency, no deduction is taken for the first performance 

deficiency.
ES-303, Page 6 of 19

– If an applicant has two performance deficiencies related to an RF, 

other than RFs under the communications competency, circle an

“RF Score” of “1” for that RF. If an applicant has a second or a 

third performance deficiency in an RF under the communications 

competency, a one-point deduction is taken, resulting in an “RF 

Score” of “2.”

– If an applicant has three or more performance deficiencies related 

to an RF, other than RFs under the communications competency,

circle an “RF Score” of “0.” If an applicant has four or more 

performance deficiencies in an RF under the communications 

competency, a two-point deduction is taken, resulting in an “RF

Score” of “1.” The minimum score for RFs under communications 

is “1.”

• For critical errors, the following applies:

– For all RFs, except those under the communications competency, 

a missed CT results in a three-point deduction for an “RF Score”

of “0.”

– For RFs under the communications competency, a missed CT 

results in a two-point deduction for an “RF score” of “1.” The 

minimum score for RFs under communications is “1.”

– Failing to perform one CT will not necessarily result in an 

automatic operating test 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 RF. 

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 “RF 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 
ES-303, Page 7 of 19

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.

Note that Competency 3, “Control Board Operations,” is optional for SRO-U 

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 applicants’ 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 

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 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 notes and documentation. 

Justify in detail on Form ES-303-2 (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:
ES-303, Page 8 of 19

• 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 CT

• 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 followup questions asked and the applicant’s responses

• the correct answer or action with an appropriate facility licensee reference 

(e.g., lesson plan, system description, and procedure name and number)

• the knowledge and ability number and its importance rating (as given in 

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: Westinghouse AP1000 Pressurized-Water 

Reactors”; or NUREG-2104, “Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear 

Power Plant Operators: Advanced Boiling-Water Reactors”) and the 

facility licensee’s learning objectives

• 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 (e.g., “did not know decay heat removal system”) are not

adequate.

Whenever possible, substantiate comments with printouts, strip chart recordings, 

audio, video, 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 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, 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
ES-303, Page 9 of 19

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 RF 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?).

e. Retain notes and documentation until the NRC chief examiner and regional office 

management have reviewed the examiner’s recommendations and concurred 

with 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 RF 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 “Operating Test” portion of the “Examiner

Recommendations” section in the applicant’s Form ES-303-1. Make a “Pass”

recommendation only if all “Operating Test Summary” blocks of Form ES-303-1

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 NRC 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(s) Administered: 

Walk-Through (Overall) (S, U, E, or W)

Administrative Topics (S, U, E, or W)

Simulator Operating Test (S, U, E, or W)

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

Walkthrough 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 (0, 1, 2, 3, 

or N/O); and RF grades from Form ES-303-3 and sum to obtain Competency Grades.]
ES-303, Page 13 of 19

PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION—FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

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 (RFs) 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 (RFs) 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 (RFs) 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 (RFs) 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 (RFs) 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 (RFs) 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 (RFs) 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 (RFs) 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 (RFs) 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 

decisionmaking?

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

operation of 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 (RFs) 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 = 0.33 2

(b) N/O = 0.50 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 = 0.33 2

(a) N/O =0.50 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 = 0.34 2

(a) N/O = 0.50 1

(b) N/O = 0.50 0

ES-401, Page 1 of 52

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 

10 CFR 55.41, “Written Examination: Operators,” and 10 CFR 55.43, “Written Examination: 

Senior Operators,” respectively. Each examination shall contain a representative selection of

questions concerning the knowledge and abilities (K/As) and skills 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 also sample the 7 additional items 

specified in 10 CFR 55.43(b). Given that senior reactor operator-upgrade (SRO-U) 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, 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-water reactors

(PWRs) or boiling-water reactors (BWRs)) and is generally administered early in the operator

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, NUREG-1122, “Knowledge and

Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant Operators: Pressurized Water Reactors,” and

NUREG-1123, “Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant Operators: Boiling 

Water Reactors,” available in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 

(ADAMS), provide the basis for developing content-valid operator licensing examinations. 

Each K/A stem statement has been linked to an applicable item number in

10 CFR 55.41 and/or 10 CFR 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 on the

examination arrangements confirmed with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s 
ES-401, Page 2 of 52

(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. If available, provide to the NRC any prescreened K/As for elimination from the 

written examination outline, with a description or basis for eliminating any K/A.

b. Review the proposed written examination outline provided by the NRC regional

office in accordance with Section D.1 and submit comments/feedback on the

outline to the NRC’s regional office for review and approval in accordance with

ES-201.

c. 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).

d. 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.

e. Review the proposed examination outline(s) and written examinations with the 

chief examiner (and others as necessary) by 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.)

f. 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.

g. Facility licensees that prepare the examination shall implement appropriate 

controls to keep the comprehensive audit or screening examination that is given 

at or near the end of the license training class from compromising the integrity of

the licensing examination. This also applies to any practice exams and quizzes 

created after beginning work on 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) include the 

following:

• 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.
ES-401, Page 3 of 52

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, as follows:

• For RO applicants, use only the left side of Form ES-401-1, “BWR 

Examination Outline,” or Form ES-401-2, “PWR Examination Outline,”

depending on the facility design.

• For SRO-instant (SRO-I) applicants, use both the RO and SRO portions 

of Form ES-401-1 (BWR) or Form ES-401-2 (PWR), depending on the

facility design.

• For SRO-U applicants, use both sides of Form ES-401-1 (BWR) or

Form 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. Use the latest revision of the K/A catalog 

(NUREG-1122 or NUREG-1123) available at the time the facility licensee 

requests the written 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. If the latest revision of the K/A catalogs includes emergency and/or 

abnormal plant evolutions or plant systems that are not represented on Form 

ES-401-1 (BWR) or Form ES-401-2 (PWR), contact the program office to 

determine to which tier and group the topics in questions should be added before

sampling. 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-401, Page 4 of 52

• 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.

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) prescreening the entire K/A catalog to eliminate 

inappropriate K/As before beginning the random selection process. Licensees

that prescreen K/As shall provide the NRC regional office with a list of K/As that

should be eliminated, along with a basis for eliminating each K/A, before the 

NRC develops the written examination outline. Refer to the remainder of this 

section for specific requirements and guidance on K/A elimination.

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, 2.4.18, 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 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?
ES-401, Page 5 of 52

• 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 it 

should test at an 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 

it should 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 10 CFR 55.41 or 10 CFR 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

than on 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. If the answer is “no,”

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.

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 before 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 or his or her designee as needed. 

Form ES-401-4 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

Form ES-401-1 or Form ES-401-2, as applicable) shall include 25 K/A 

statements that relate to the topics in 10 CFR 55.43(b).
ES-401, Page 6 of 52

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 it should 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 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 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-401-2). Similarly, ensure that no emergency/abnormal plant evolution, 

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-only 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 walkthrough 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. A facility supervisor or manager shall independently review facility 

revisions to the previously approved outlines before the outlines are submitted to

the NRC’s regional office for approval in accordance with ES-201. 

f. The NRC chief examiner will ensure that any revision to the outline is 

independently reviewed and provide comments and recommended changes, as

appropriate. The NRC chief examiner shall review all K/A rejections and

changes to ensure that they are unbiased. The chief examiner shall also review 

and approve the site-specific item or topic substitutions. Refer to Section C.3 of

ES-201 for additional guidance on outline reviews.
ES-401, Page 7 of 52

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 plantwide generic K/As and do not 

become an extension of Tier 2.

When selecting or writing questions for K/As that test coupled K/As (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, obtain replacement K/As (if needed) from the 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.

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, “Written Examination Quality 

Checklist”). Technical and psychometric flaws that cause the question to have 

no or multiple correct answers would have to be corrected regardless of when 

these flaws are identified.
ES-401, Page 8 of 52

c. Ensure that the questions will differentiate between competent and 

less-than-competent applicants, determine whether 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 K/As and skills. 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 (38–45 questions) and at 

least 50 percent of the questions on the SRO-only portion of the examination 

(13 questions) 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 on the levels of knowledge and

sample questions written at each level. 

d. The 25 SRO-level questions shall evaluate the additional K/As 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 K/As at a level that is unique to

the SRO job position. The fact that a particular K/A does not reference

10 CFR 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 
ES-401, Page 9 of 52

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 both created without referring to 

a bank question and has not been previously exposed at the facility, 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 shall provide a brief 

explanation of why the answer is correct and why each of the distractors is

plausible but incorrect. This 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 an SRO question and vice versa.

Form ES-401-5, “Sample Written Examination Question Worksheet,” is a sample 

worksheet for use in preparing the questions for the written examination. Facility 
ES-401, Page 10 of 52

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.

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 75 days before 

the scheduled examination date.

NRC examiners shall submit their examinations to the chief examiner 

approximately 4 weeks before they are forwarded to the facility licensee to allow 

the NRC chief examiner and the NRC supervisor to review them. (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, if possible.

b. Use a cover sheet in the format shown in Form ES-401-7, “Site-Specific RO 

Written Examination Cover Sheet,” or Form ES-401-8, “Site-Specific 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-401-6 and include the signed form in the

examination package submitted to the NRC. Facility licensees are responsible for
ES-401, Page 11 of 52

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 35 days 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 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. The facility reviewer blocks in

Column b are not applicable for NRC-prepared examinations.

c. If the facility licensee prepared the examination, the NRC 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 at 

least six RO/SRO questions or at least four SRO-only questions are 

unsatisfactory per Form ES-401-9, the written examination may, with the 

approval of the responsible supervisor, be returned to the facility licensee for 

rework 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 to 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 whether 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.
ES-401, Page 12 of 52

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 35 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

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.
ES-401, Page 13 of 52

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 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation/Office of New 

Reactors 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-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 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-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

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.
ES-401, Page 14 of 52

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 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 15 of 52

ES-401 Example Systematic Sampling Methodology Attachment 1

The following process, which uses Form ES-401-1, “BWR Examination Outline,” for illustration, may 

be used for each group in Tiers 1 and 2 of the reactor operator (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

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 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. Assuming 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, remaining.

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 knowledge and ability (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 six). 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 contains no K/A statements that have 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 that have importance ratings of less than 2.5 can be

used if they are justified based on plant priorities; the facility contact should be prepared to

explain the basis to the NRC 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/Plan”) has at least two items

(one radiation control K/A is allowed if it is replaced by another Tier 3 category K/A).
ES-401, Page 16 of 52

ES-401 2 Attachment 1

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 Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations

(10 CFR) 55.43, “Written Examination: Senior Operators,” 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 17 of 52

ES-401 Clarification Guidance for SRO-Only Questions Attachment 2

Purpose

The purpose of this document is to promote consistency for examiners and facility licensees when 

developing and reviewing senior reactor operator-only (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, “Written Examination: Senior Operators,” pertaining to 

SRO-only written test items. Bracketed [ ] items reference the source of the guidance.

References

1. Knowledge and ability (K/A) catalogs (NUREG-1122, “Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for 

Nuclear Power Plant Operators: Pressurized Water Reactors,” Revision 2, dated 

June 5, 1998, and NUREG-1123, “Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power 

Plant Operators: Boiling Water Reactors,” Revision 2, dated June 5, 1998)

2. 10 CFR 55.43

3. 2006 Region II Examiner’s Workshop SRO-only topic presentation (Agencywide 

Documents and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML062060498)

4. Operator Licensing Program Feedback Web page

(http://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1608/ML16084A735.pdf or ADAMS Accession 

No. ML16084A735 (questions 401.29, 401.30, 401.35, 401.36, and 401.37)

Contents

Section I: NUREG-1021, NUREG-1122, and NUREG-1123 Sample Plan Requirements

Section II: Some Examples of the Additional Knowledge and Abilities as They Pertain to an 

SRO License and the 10 CFR 55.43(b) Topics

Section III: Justification for Plant-Specific Exemptions

Section IV: Examples of Satisfactory SRO-Only test items

Section V: Examples of Unsatisfactory SRO-Only test items

 
ES-401, Page 18 of 52

ES-401 2 Attachment 2

I. NUREG-1021, NUREG-1122, and 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.]

− 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).

• “G” statement. [In the case of Tier 3, linked to one or more of the 10 CFR 55.43 

topics.] [Operator Licensing Program Feedback Item 401.29]

The example form below shows K/A categories for SRO-only points.
ES-401, Page 19 of 52

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 the following:

• 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 and fire doors

• required actions necessary when a facility does not meet the administrative 

controls listed in Technical Specifications (TS), Section 5 or 6, depending on the 

facility (e.g., shift staffing requirements)

• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System requirements, if applicable

• processes for TS and final safety analysis report 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 Technical Specifications and Their Bases

[10 CFR 55.43(b)(2)]

Some examples of SRO exam items for this topic the following:

• application of required actions (TS Section 3) and surveillance requirements (SR)

(TS Section 4) in accordance with rules of application requirements 

(TS, Section 1)

• application of generic limiting condition for operation (LCO) requirements 

(LCO 3.0.1 through 3.0.7; SR 4.0.1 through 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.
ES-401, Page 20 of 52

SRO-only knowledge generally cannot be claimed for questions that can be answered 

solely based on expected RO TS knowledge. ROs 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) in the example below).

Above this 

line

RO 

knowledge
ES-401, Page 21 of 52

ES-401 5 Attachment 2

Figure 2-1 Screening for SRO-Only Linked to 10 CFR 55.43(b)(2)

(Technical Specifications)

Can the question be answered solely by knowing 

≤1-hour TS/TRM Action? RO question Yes

No

Can the question be answered solely by knowing 

the LCO/TRM information listed “above the line?”

Yes

RO question

No

Can the 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 the 

TS, TRM, or ODCM:

• application of required actions (TS Section 3) and SRs (TS 

Section 4) in accordance with rules of application 

requirements (TS Section 1)

• application of generic LCO requirements (LCO 3.0.1 through

3.0.7 and SR 4.0.1 through 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 22 of 52

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 the following:

• screening and evaluation processes under 10 CFR 50.59, “Changes, Tests and 

Experiments”

• 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 the following:

• process for gaseous/liquid release approvals (i.e., release permits)

• analysis and interpretation of radiation and activity readings as they pertain to the 

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., radiation work permit

requirements, stay time, and DAC hours).

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

or 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.
ES-401, Page 23 of 52

ES-401 7 Attachment 2

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. The following are examples:

• 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 (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 knowledge should not be claimed for questions that can be answered solely

using “systems knowledge,” such as the following:

• how the system works

• system flowpath

• component locations

SRO-only knowledge should not be claimed for questions that can be answered solely

using fundamental knowledge of the following:

• the basic purpose of a procedure, the overall sequence of events that will occur, 

or the overall mitigative strategy of a procedure

• any abnormal operating procedure (AOP) entry condition

• plant parameters that require direct entry into major EOPs (e.g., major 

Westinghouse EOPs are E0, E1, E2, E3, ECA-0.0, and Red/Orange Functional 

Restoration 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

Sections 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 24 of 52

ES-401 8 Attachment 2

Figure 2-2 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 into major EOPs?

Yes

No

Does the question require one or more of the following:

• assessment of plant conditions (normal, abnormal, or 

emergency) and then selection of a procedure or section of 

a procedure to mitigate or 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 25 of 52

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 the following:

• evaluation of 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 the following:

• refuel floor SRO responsibilities

• assessment of fuel-handling equipment SR acceptance criteria

• prerequisites for vessel disassembly and reassembly

• decay heat assessment

• assessment of SRs for the refueling mode

• reporting requirements

• emergency classifications

This list 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, and AOP immediate actions. 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 task is both an RO and SRO responsibility, not an 

SRO-only responsibility.

III. Justification for Plant-Specific Exemptions

The 25 SRO-only questions shall evaluate the additional K/As required for the higher license 

level in accordance with 10 CFR 55.43(b). [Section D.2.d of this examination standard]

The fact that a facility licensee trains its ROs to master certain 10 CFR 55.43 K/As and skills

does NOT mean that they can no longer be used as a basis for SRO-only questions. [Operator 

Licensing Program Feedback Item 401.36]
ES-401, Page 26 of 52

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 K/A that is not tied to one of the 10 CFR 55.43(b) items, the 

licensee can classify the K/A as “unique to the SRO position” provided that there is documented 

evidence that ties the K/A to the licensee’s SRO job position duties in accordance with the 

systematic approach to training.

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 that the licensee has documented evidence to prove that the 

K/A is “unique to the SRO position” at the site. An example of documented evidence includes

the following:

• The question is linked to a learning objective that is specifically labeled in the lesson 

plan as being SRO-only (e.g., some facility licensee lesson plans have columns in the 

margin that differentiate auxiliary operator, RO, and SRO learning objectives). 

[Section D.2.d of this examination standard]

AND/OR

• 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 27 of 52

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:

− Core Cooling—YELLOW due to RVLIS level

− 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 with 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 with 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 28 of 52

ES-401 12 Attachment 2

IV. Examples of Satisfactory SRO-Only Questions (continued)

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 and -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 29 of 52

ES-401 13 Attachment 2

IV. Examples of Satisfactory SRO-Only Questions (continued)

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 the 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 Valves indicate open

• RCS Pressure = 2,200 psig decreasing

• 1-AP-31.00 (Increasing or Decreasing RCS Pressure) initiated

Current conditions:

• Time = 10:01

• Reactor Power = 97%

• RCS Pressure = 2,100 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 PZR pressure 

control component that failed high and (2) the status of 1-RC-PORV-1455C operability in 

accordance with TS?

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 30 of 52

ES-401 14 Attachment 2

IV. Examples of Satisfactory SRO-Only Questions (continued)

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 unreviewed safety question.

• The test procedure will require a change to TS.

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 evaluation?

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 31 of 52

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 1,300 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 32 of 52

ES-401 16 Attachment 2

V. Examples of Unsatisfactory SRO-Only Questions (continued)

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 33 of 52

ES-401 17 Attachment 2

V. Examples of Unsatisfactory SRO-Only Questions (continued)

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 the 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 deenergizes 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 34 of 52

ES-401 18 Attachment 2

V. Examples of Unsatisfactory SRO-Only Questions (continued)

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 2,225 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.

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 35 of 52

ES-401 BWR Examination Outline Form ES-401-1

Facility: Date of Exam:

Tier Group RO K/A Category Points SRO-Only Points

K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 A1 A2 A3 A4 G* Total A2 G* Total

1.

Emergency and

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 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 it 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. 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’ 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

* These systems/evolutions must be included as part of the sample (as applicable to the facility) when Revision 3 

of the K/A catalog is used to develop the sample plan. They are not required to be included when using earlier 

revisions of the K/A catalog.

** These systems/evolutions may be eliminated from the sample (as applicable to the facility) when Revision 3 of 

the K/A catalog is used to develop the sample plan.
ES-401, Page 36 of 52

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 K1 K2 K3 A1 A2 G* K/A Topic(s) IR #

295001 (APE 1) Partial or Complete Loss of

Forced Core Flow Circulation / 1 & 4

295003 (APE 3) Partial or Complete Loss of

AC Power / 6

295004 (APE 4) Partial or Total Loss of DC 

Power / 6

295005 (APE 5) Main Turbine Generator Trip / 

3

295006 (APE 6) Scram / 1

295016 (APE 16) Control Room Abandonment 

/ 7

295018 (APE 18) Partial or Complete Loss of

CCW / 8

295019 (APE 19) Partial or Complete Loss of

Instrument Air / 8

295021 (APE 21) Loss of Shutdown Cooling / 

4

295023 (APE 23) Refueling Accidents / 8

295024 High Drywell Pressure / 5

295025 (EPE 2) High Reactor Pressure / 3

295026 (EPE 3) Suppression Pool High Water 

Temperature / 5

295027 (EPE 4) High Containment 

Temperature (Mark III Containment Only) / 5

295028 (EPE 5) High Drywell Temperature

(Mark I and Mark II only) / 5

295030 (EPE 7) Low Suppression Pool Water 

Level / 5

295031 (EPE 8) Reactor Low Water Level / 2

295037 (EPE 14) Scram Condition Present 

and Reactor Power Above APRM Downscale 

or Unknown / 1

295038 (EPE 15) High Offsite Radioactivity 

Release Rate / 9

600000 (APE 24) Plant Fire On Site / 8

700000 (APE 25) Generator Voltage and 

Electric Grid Disturbances / 6

K/A Category Totals: Group Point Total: 20/7
ES-401, Page 37 of 52

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 K1 K2 K3 A1 A2 G* K/A Topic(s) IR #

295002 (APE 2) Loss of Main Condenser 

Vacuum / 3

295007 (APE 7) High Reactor Pressure / 3

295008 (APE 8) High Reactor Water Level / 2

295009 (APE 9) Low Reactor Water Level / 2

295010 (APE 10) High Drywell Pressure / 5

295011 (APE 11) High Containment 

Temperature (Mark III Containment only) / 5

295012 (APE 12) High Drywell Temperature / 

5

295013 (APE 13) High Suppression Pool 

Temperature. / 5

295014 (APE 14) Inadvertent Reactivity 

Addition / 1

295015 (APE 15) Incomplete Scram / 1

295017 (APE 17) Abnormal Offsite Release 

Rate / 9

295020 (APE 20) Inadvertent Containment

Isolation / 5 & 7

295022 (APE 22) Loss of Control Rod Drive

Pumps / 1

295029 (EPE 6) High Suppression Pool Water 

Level / 5

295032 (EPE 9) High Secondary Containment 

Area Temperature / 5

295033 (EPE 10) High Secondary 

Containment Area Radiation Levels / 9

295034 (EPE 11) Secondary Containment 

Ventilation High Radiation / 9

295035 (EPE 12) Secondary Containment 

High Differential Pressure / 5

295036 (EPE 13) Secondary Containment 

High Sump/Area Water Level / 5

500000 (EPE 16) High Containment Hydrogen 

Concentration / 5

K/A Category Point Totals: Group Point Total: 7/3
ES-401, Page 38 of 52

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 K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 A1 A2 A3 A4 G* K/A Topic(s) IR #

203000 (SF2, SF4 RHR/LPCI) 

RHR/LPCI: Injection Mode

205000 (SF4 SCS) Shutdown Cooling

206000 (SF2, SF4 HPCIS) 

High-Pressure Coolant Injection

207000 (SF4 IC) Isolation 

(Emergency) Condenser

209001 (SF2, SF4 LPCS) 

Low-Pressure Core Spray

209002 (SF2, SF4 HPCS) 

High-Pressure Core Spray

211000 (SF1 SLCS) Standby Liquid 

Control

212000 (SF7 RPS) Reactor Protection

215003 (SF7 IRM) 

Intermediate-Range Monitor

215004 (SF7 SRMS) Source-Range 

Monitor

215005 (SF7 PRMS) Average Power 

Range Monitor/Local Power Range 

Monitor

217000 (SF2, SF4 RCIC) Reactor 

Core Isolation Cooling

218000 (SF3 ADS) Automatic 

Depressurization

223002 (SF5 PCIS) Primary 

Containment Isolation/Nuclear Steam 

Supply Shutoff

239002 (SF3 SRV) Safety Relief 

Valves

259002 (SF2 RWLCS) Reactor Water 

Level Control

261000 (SF9 SGTS) Standby Gas 

Treatment

262001 (SF6 AC) AC Electrical 

Distribution

262002 (SF6 UPS) Uninterruptable 

Power Supply (AC/DC)

263000 (SF6 DC) DC Electrical 

Distribution

264000 (SF6 EGE) Emergency 

Generators (Diesel/Jet) EDG

300000 (SF8 IA) Instrument Air

400000 (SF8 CCS) Component 

Cooling Water

510000 (SF4 SWS*) Service Water 

(Normal and Emergency)

K/A Category Point Totals: Group Point Total: 26/5

ES-401 5 Form ES-401-1
ES-401, Page 39 of 52

ES-401 BWR Examination Outline Form ES-401-1

Plant Systems—Tier 2/Group 2 (RO/SRO)

System # / Name K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 A1 A2 A3 A4 G* K/A Topic(s) IR #

201001 (SF1 CRDH) CRD Hydraulic

201002 (SF1 RMCS) Reactor Manual Control

201003 (SF1 CRDM) Control Rod and Drive 

Mechanism

201004 (SF7 RSCS) Rod Sequence Control

201005 (SF1, SF7 RCIS) Rod Control and 

Information

201006 (SF7 RWMS) Rod Worth Minimizer

202001 (SF1, SF4 RS) Recirculation

202002 (SF1 RSCTL) Recirculation Flow Control

204000 (SF2 RWCU) Reactor Water Cleanup

214000 (SF7 RPIS) Rod Position Information

215001 (SF7 TIP) Traversing In-Core Probe

215002 (SF7 RBMS) Rod Block Monitor

216000 (SF7 NBI) Nuclear Boiler Instrumentation

219000 (SF5 RHR SPC) RHR/LPCI: 

Torus/Suppression Pool Cooling Mode

223001 (SF5 PCS) Primary Containment and

Auxiliaries

226001 (SF5 RHR CSS) RHR/LPCI: Containment

Spray Mode

230000 (SF5 RHR SPS) RHR/LPCI: 

Torus/Suppression Pool Spray Mode

233000 (SF9 FPCCU) Fuel Pool Cooling/Cleanup

234000 (SF8 FH) Fuel-Handling Equipment

239001 (SF3, SF4 MRSS) Main and Reheat Steam

239003 (SF9 MSVLCS) Main Steam Isolation Valve

Leakage Control

241000 (SF3 RTPRS) Reactor/Turbine Pressure 

Regulating

245000 (SF4 MTGEN) Main Turbine 

Generator/Auxiliary

256000 (SF2 CDS) Condensate

259001 (SF2 FWS) Feedwater

268000 (SF9 RW) Radwaste

271000 (SF9 OG) Offgas

272000 (SF7, SF9 RMS) Radiation Monitoring

286000 (SF8 FPS) Fire Protection

288000 (SF9 PVS) Plant Ventilation

290001 (SF5 SC) Secondary Containment

290003 (SF9 CRV) Control Room Ventilation

290002 (SF4 RVI) Reactor Vessel Internals

51001 (SF8 CWS*) Circulating Water

K/A Category Point Totals: Group Point Total: 12/3
ES-401, Page 40 of 52

ES-401 PWR Examination Outline Form ES-401-2

Facility: Date of Exam:

Tier Group

RO K/A Category Points SRO-Only Points

K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 A1 A2 A3 A4 G* Total A2 G* Total

1.

Emergency and

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 it 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’ 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

* These systems/evolutions must be included as part of the sample (as applicable to the facility) when Revision 3 

of the K/A catalog is used to develop the sample plan. They are not required to be included when using earlier 

revisions of the K/A catalog.

** These systems/evolutions may be eliminated from the sample (as applicable to the facility) when Revision 3 of 

the K/A catalog is used to develop the sample plan.

ES-401 2 Form ES-401-2
ES-401, Page 41 of 52

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 K1 K2 K3 A1 A2 G* K/A Topic(s) IR #

000007 (EPE 7; BW E02&E10; CE E02) 

Reactor Trip, Stabilization, Recovery / 1

000008 (APE 8) Pressurizer Vapor Space 

Accident / 3

000009 (EPE 9) Small Break LOCA / 3

000011 (EPE 11) Large Break LOCA / 3

000015 (APE 15) Reactor Coolant Pump

Malfunctions / 4

000022 (APE 22) Loss of Reactor Coolant 

Makeup / 2

000025 (APE 25) Loss of Residual Heat 

Removal System / 4

000026 (APE 26) Loss of Component 

Cooling Water / 8

000027 (APE 27) Pressurizer Pressure 

Control System Malfunction / 3

000029 (EPE 29) Anticipated Transient 

Without Scram / 1

000038 (EPE 38) Steam Generator Tube 

Rupture / 3

000040 (APE 40; BW E05; CE E05; W E12) 

Steam Line Rupture—Excessive Heat 

Transfer / 4

000054 (APE 54; CE E06) Loss of Main 

Feedwater /4

000055 (EPE 55) Station Blackout / 6

000056 (APE 56) Loss of Offsite Power / 6

000057 (APE 57) Loss of Vital AC 

Instrument Bus / 6

000058 (APE 58) Loss of DC Power / 6

000062 (APE 62) Loss of Nuclear Service

Water / 4

000065 (APE 65) Loss of Instrument Air / 8

000077 (APE 77) Generator Voltage and 

Electric Grid Disturbances / 6

(W E04) LOCA Outside Containment / 3

(W E11) Loss of Emergency Coolant 

Recirculation / 4

(BW E04; W E05) Inadequate Heat

Transfer—Loss of Secondary Heat Sink / 4

K/A Category Totals: Group Point Total: 18/6
ES-401, Page 42 of 52

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 K1 K2 K3 A1 A2 G* K/A Topic(s) IR #

000001 (APE 1) Continuous Rod Withdrawal / 1

000003 (APE 3) Dropped Control Rod / 1

000005 (APE 5) Inoperable/Stuck Control Rod / 1

000024 (APE 24) Emergency Boration / 1

000028 (APE 28) Pressurizer (PZR) Level Control

Malfunction / 2

000032 (APE 32) Loss of Source Range Nuclear 

Instrumentation / 7

000033 (APE 33) Loss of Intermediate Range Nuclear 

Instrumentation / 7

000036 (APE 36; BW/A08) Fuel-Handling Incidents / 8

000037 (APE 37) Steam Generator Tube Leak / 3

000051 (APE 51) Loss of Condenser Vacuum / 4

000059 (APE 59) Accidental Liquid Radwaste Release / 9

000060 (APE 60) Accidental Gaseous Radwaste Release / 9

000061 (APE 61) Area Radiation Monitoring System Alarms 

/ 7

000067 (APE 67) Plant Fire On Site / 8

000068 (APE 68; BW A06) Control Room Evacuation / 8

000069 (APE 69; W E14) Loss of Containment Integrity / 5

000074 (EPE 74; W E06 & E07) Inadequate Core Cooling / 

4

000076 (APE 76) High Reactor Coolant Activity / 9

000078 (APE 78*) RCS Leak / 3

(W E01 & E02) Rediagnosis & SI Termination / 3

(W E13) Steam Generator Overpressure / 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—Depressurization / 4

(BW E09; CE A13**; W E09 & E10) Natural Circulation/4

(BW E13 & E14) EOP Rules and Enclosures

(CE A11**; W E08) RCS Overcooling—Pressurized Thermal 

Shock / 4

(CE A16) Excess RCS Leakage / 2

(CE E09) Functional Recovery 

(CE E13*) Loss of Forced Circulation/LOOP/Blackout / 4 

K/A Category Point Totals: Group Point Total: 9/4
ES-401, Page 43 of 52

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 K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 A1 A2 A3 A4 G* K/A Topic(s) IR #

003 (SF4P RCP) Reactor Coolant 

Pump 

004 (SF1; SF2 CVCS) Chemical and

Volume Control 

005 (SF4P RHR) Residual Heat 

Removal

006 (SF2; SF3 ECCS) Emergency 

Core Cooling

007 (SF5 PRTS) Pressurizer 

Relief/Quench Tank

008 (SF8 CCW) Component Cooling 

Water

010 (SF3 PZR PCS) Pressurizer 

Pressure Control

012 (SF7 RPS) Reactor Protection

013 (SF2 ESFAS) Engineered 

Safety Features Actuation 

022 (SF5 CCS) Containment Cooling 

025 (SF5 ICE) Ice Condenser 

026 (SF5 CSS) Containment Spray 

039 (SF4S MSS) Main and Reheat 

Steam

059 (SF4S MFW) Main Feedwater 

061 (SF4S AFW) 

Auxiliary/Emergency Feedwater 

062 (SF6 ED AC) AC Electrical 

Distribution

063 (SF6 ED DC) DC Electrical 

Distribution

064 (SF6 EDG) Emergency Diesel

Generator

073 (SF7 PRM) Process Radiation 

Monitoring

076 (SF4S SW) Service Water

078 (SF8 IAS) Instrument Air

103 (SF5 CNT) Containment 

053 (SF1; SF4P ICS*) Integrated 

Control

K/A Category Point Totals: Group Point Total: 28/5
ES-401, Page 44 of 52

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 K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 A1 A2 A3 A4 G* K/A Topic(s) IR #

001 (SF1 CRDS) Control Rod Drive 

002 (SF2; SF4P RCS) Reactor 

Coolant

011 (SF2 PZR LCS) Pressurizer 

Level Control

014 (SF1 RPI) Rod Position 

Indication 

015 (SF7 NI) Nuclear 

Instrumentation 

016 (SF7 NNI) Nonnuclear 

Instrumentation

017 (SF7 ITM) In-Core Temperature 

Monitor 

027 (SF5 CIRS) Containment Iodine 

Removal

028 (SF5 HRPS) Hydrogen 

Recombiner and Purge Control

029 (SF8 CPS) Containment Purge

033 (SF8 SFPCS) Spent Fuel Pool 

Cooling

034 (SF8 FHS) Fuel-Handling 

Equipment

035 (SF 4P SG) Steam Generator

041 (SF4S SDS) Steam 

Dump/Turbine Bypass Control

045 (SF 4S MTG) Main Turbine 

Generator

055 (SF4S CARS) Condenser Air 

Removal

056 (SF4S CDS) Condensate

068 (SF9 LRS) Liquid Radwaste

071 (SF9 WGS) Waste Gas 

Disposal

072 (SF7 ARM) Area Radiation 

Monitoring

075 (SF8 CW) Circulating Water

079 (SF8 SAS**) Station Air 

086 Fire Protection

050 (SF 9 CRV*) Control Room

Ventilation

K/A Category Point Totals: Group Point Total: 10/3
ES-401, Page 45 of 52

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 46 of 52

ES-401 Record of Rejected K/As Form ES-401-4

Tier/Group Randomly 

Selected K/A

Reason for Rejection
ES-401, Page 47 of 52

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 ____________

Question Cognitive Level: Memory or Fundamental Knowledge _____

Comprehension or Analysis _____

10 CFR Part 55 Content: 55.41 _____

55.43 _____

Comments:
ES-401, Page 48 of 52

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.

c. Correct answer explanation and distractor analysis provided (ES-401, D.2.g)

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% from the bank, 

at least 10% new, and the rest new or modified); enter the 

actual RO/SRO-only question distribution(s) at right.

Bank Modified New

/ / /

7. Between 38 and 45 questions of the questions on the RO 

exam and at least 13 questions of the questions on the 

SRO-only portion of the exam are written at the 

comprehension/analysis level (see ES-401, D.2.c); 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 is required.
ES-401, Page 49 of 52

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 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 50 of 52

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 9 hours to complete the combined examination and 3 hours if you are only taking 

the SRO-only 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 Flaws 5. Other

6. Source

(B/M/N)

7. Sta

(U/E/

Stem

Focus Cues T/F Cred. Dist. Partial Job Link Minutia #/Units Backward Q – K/A SRO Only

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 inform

• “Cues”: The stem or distractors contain cues (e.g., clues, specific determiners, phrasing, length). 

• “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, and more than one is unacceptable. 

• “Partial”: One or more distractors are partially correct (e.g., if the applicant can make unstated assumptions that are not contradicted by the stem).

4. Check the appropriate box if a job content flaw 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 mismatche

6. Enter question’s source: (B)ank, (M)odified, or (N)ew. Verify that (M)odified questions meet the criteria of Form 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 51 of 5

2
ES-401 2 

Q

1.

LOK

(F/H)

2.

LOD

(1–5)

3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other

6. Source

(B/M/N)

7. Status

(U/E/S) 

Stem

Focus Cues T/F Cred. Dist. Partial Job Link Minutia #/Units Backward Q – K/A SRO Only

ES-401, Page 52 of 5

2
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 

ES-401N applies to new reactors licensed under 10 CFR Part 52. The content of the written 

licensing examinations for ROs and SROs is dictated by 10 CFR 55.41, “Written Examinations: 

Operators,” and 10 CFR 55.43, “Written Examinations: Senior Operators,” respectively. Each 

examination shall contain a representative selection of questions concerning the knowledge and 

abilities (K/As) and skills 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 also sample the 7 additional items specified in 10 CFR 55.43(b). Given that 

senior reactor operator-U (SRO-U) 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, 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-water reactors 

or boiling-water reactors) and is generally administered early in the operator 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, NUREG-2103, “Knowledge and 

Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant Operators: Westinghouse AP1000 Pressurized-Water 

Reactors,” issued October 2011, and NUREG-2104, “Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for 

Nuclear Power Plant Operators: Advanced Boiling-Water Reactors,” issued December 2011, 

available in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), provide 

the basis for developing content-valid operator licensing examinations. Each K/A stem 

statement has been linked to an applicable item number in 10 CFR 55.41 and/or 10 CFR 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 on the 

examination arrangements confirmed with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s 

(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. If available, provide to the NRC any prescreened K/As for elimination from the 

written examination outline, with a description or basis for eliminating any K/A. 

b. Review the proposed written examination outline provided by the NRC regional 

office in accordance with Section D.1 and submit comments/feedback on the 

outline to the NRC’s regional office for review and approval in accordance with 

ES-201.

c. 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.) 

d. 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.

e. Review the proposed examination outline(s) and written examinations with the 

chief examiner (and others as necessary) by 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.) 

f. 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.

g. 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) include the following:

• 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, as follows: 

• For RO applicants, use only the left side of Form ES-401N-1, “ABWR 

Examination Outline” (advanced boiling-water reactor (ABWR)), or 

ES-401N-2, “AP-1000® Examination Outline” (Westinghouse AP-1000®

pressurized-water reactor (AP-1000®)), depending on the facility design.

• For SRO-instant applicants, use both the RO and SRO portions of 

Form ES-401N-1 (ABWR) or Form ES-401N-2 (AP-1000®), depending on 

the facility design.

• For SRO-U applicants, use both sides of Form ES-401N-1 (ABWR) or 

Form 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. Use the latest revision of the K/A 

catalog (NUREG-2103 or NUREG-2104) available at the time the facility licensee 

requests the written examination outline. To maintain examination consistency, 
ES-401N, Page 4 of 53

the facility licensee’s site-specific K/A list shall not be used in place of the NRC’s 

K/A catalog. If the latest revision of the K/A catalogs includes emergency and/or 

abnormal plant evolutions or plant systems that are not represented on 

Form ES-401N-1 (ABWR) or Form ES-401N-2 (AP-1000®), contact the program 

office to determine to which tier and group the topics in questions should be 

added before sampling. 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.

• 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.

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) prescreening the entire K/A catalog to eliminate 

inappropriate K/As before beginning the random selection process. Licensees 

that prescreen K/As shall provide the NRC regional office with a list of K/As that 

should be eliminated, along with a basis for eliminating each K/A, before the 

NRC develops the written examination outline. Refer to the remainder of this 

section for specific requirements and guidance on 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, and 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: 
ES-401N, Page 5 of 53

• 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 it 

should test at an 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 10 CFR 55.41 or 10 CFR 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

than on 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. If the answer is “no,” 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 before 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-401N-4, 

“Record of Rejected K/As,” or equivalent, and replacement K/As shall be 

requested from the NRC chief examiner or his or her designee 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, 
ES-401N, Page 6 of 53

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 

Form ES-401N-1 or Form ES-401N-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 

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 it should 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) 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 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 

post-examination comments (except as allowed by Note 1 on Forms ES-401N-1 

and ES-401N-2). Similarly, ensure that no emergency/abnormal plant evolution, 

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-only 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 walkthrough 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. A facility supervisor or manager shall independently review facility 

revisions to the previously approved outlines before the outlines are submitted to 

the NRC’s regional office for approval in accordance with ES-201. 
ES-401N, Page 7 of 53

f. The NRC chief examiner will ensure that any revision to the outline is 

independently reviewed and provide comments and recommended changes, as 

appropriate. The NRC chief examiner shall review all K/A rejections and 

changes to ensure that they are unbiased. The chief examiner shall also review 

and approve the site-specific item or topic substitutions. Refer to Section C.3 of 

ES-201 for additional guidance on 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 plantwide generic K/As and do not 

become an extension of Tier 2.

When selecting or writing questions for K/As that test coupled K/As (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 chief 

examiner, obtain replacement K/As (if needed) from the 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 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 
ES-401N, Page 8 of 53

examination quality checklist (Form ES-401N-6, “Written Examination Quality 

Checklist”). Technical and psychometric flaws that cause the question to have 

no or multiple correct answers would have to be corrected regardless of when 

these flaws are identified.

c. Ensure that the questions will differentiate between competent and 

less-than-competent applicants, determine whether 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 K/As and skills. 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 (38–45 questions) and at 

least 50 percent of the questions on the SRO-only portion of the examination 

(13 questions) 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 on the levels of knowledge and 

sample questions written at each level.

d. The 25 SRO-level questions shall evaluate the additional K/As 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 K/As at a level that is unique to 

the SRO job position. The fact that a particular K/A does not reference 

10 CFR 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.
ES-401N, Page 9 of 53

• 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 both created without referring to a 

bank question and has not been previously exposed at the facility, 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 shall provide a brief 

explanation of why the answer is correct and why each of the distractors is 

plausible but incorrect. This 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 an SRO question and vice versa.
ES-401N, Page 10 of 53

Form ES-401N-5, “Sample Written Examination Question Worksheet,” 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.

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 75 days before 

the scheduled examination date.

NRC examiners shall submit their examinations to the chief examiner 

approximately 4 weeks before they are forwarded to the facility licensee to allow 

the NRC chief examiner and the NRC supervisor to review them (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, if possible.

b. Use a cover sheet in the format shown in Form ES-401N-7, “Site-Specific RO 

Written Examination Cover Sheet,” or Form ES-401N-8, “Site-Specific 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 
ES-401N, Page 11 of 53

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 35 days 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 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. The facility reviewer blocks 

in Column b are not applicable for NRC-prepared examinations.

c. If the facility licensee prepared the examination, the NRC 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 at 

least six RO/SRO questions or at least four SRO-only questions are 

unsatisfactory per Form ES-401N-9, the written examination may, with the 

approval of the responsible supervisor, be returned to the facility licensee for 

rework 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 whether 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.
ES-401N, Page 12 of 53

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 35 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 

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 
ES-401N, Page 13 of 53

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 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation/Office of New 

Reactors 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 

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 
ES-401N, Page 14 of 53

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 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-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 Form ES-401N-1, “ABWR Examination Outline,” for 

illustration, may be used for each group in Tiers 1 and 2 of the reactor operator (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 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 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. Assuming 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, remaining.

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 knowledge and ability (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 six). 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 contains no K/A statements that 

have 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 that have importance ratings of 

less than 2.5 can be used if they are justified based on plant priorities; the facility contact 

should be prepared to explain the basis to the NRC chief examiner.
ES-401N, Page 16 of 53

ES-401N 2 Attachment 1

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 it 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 outlines (i.e., the “A2” and “G” K/A categories, which are linked to Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 55.43, “Written Examination: Senior Operators,” 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 facility licensees 

when developing and reviewing senior reactor operator-only (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, “Written Examination: Senior Operators,” 

pertaining to SRO-only written test items. Bracketed [ ] items reference the source of the 

guidance.

References

1. Knowledge and ability (K/A) catalogs (NUREG-2103, “Knowledge and Abilities 

Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant Operators: Westinghouse AP1000 Pressurized

Water Reactors,” issued October 2011, and NUREG-2104, “Knowledge and Abilities 

Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant Operators: Advanced Boiling-Water Reactors,”

issued December 2011)

2. 10 CFR 55.43

3. 2006 Region II Examiner’s Workshop SRO-only topic presentation (Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML062060498) 

4. Operator Licensing Program Feedback Web page 

(http://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1608/ML16084A735.pdf or ADAMS Accession 

No. ML16084A735) (questions 401.29, 401.30, 401.35, 401.36, and 401.37)

Contents

Section I: NUREG-1021, NUREG-2103, and NUREG-2104 Sample Plan Requirements

Section II: Examples of the Additional Knowledge and Abilities as They Relate to an SRO 

License and the 10 CFR 55.43(b) Topics

Section III: Justification for Plant-Specific Exemptions

Section IV: Examples of Satisfactory SRO-Only Test Items

Section V: Examples of Unsatisfactory SRO-Only Test Items
ES-401N, Page 18 of 53

ES-401N 2 Attachment 2

I. NUREG-1021, NUREG-2103, and NUREG-2104 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.]

− 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.] [Operator Licensing Program Feedback Item 401.29]

The example form 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 the following:

• 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 and fire doors

• required actios for not meeting administrative controls listed in Technical 

Specifications (TS) Section 5 or 6, depending on the facility (e.g., shift staffing 

requirements)

• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System requirements, if applicable

• processes for TS and final safety analysis report 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 Technical Specifications and Their Bases

[10 CFR 55.43(b)(2)]

Some examples of SRO exam items for this topic include the following:

• application of required actions (TS Section 3) and surveillance requirements 

(SR) (TS Section 4) in accordance with rules of application requirements 

(TS Section 1)

• application of generic limiting condition for operation (LCO) requirements 

(LCO 3.0.1 through 3.0.7; SR 4.0.1 through 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.
ES-401N, Page 20 of 53

ES-401N 4 Attachment 2

SRO-only knowledge generally cannot be claimed for questions that can be answered 

solely based on expected RO TS knowledge. ROs 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) in the example below).

Above this 

line

RO 

knowledge
ES-401N, Page 21 of 53

ES-401N 5 Attachment 2

Figure 2-1 Screening for SRO-Only Linked to 10 CFR 55.43(b)(2)

(Technical Specifications)

Can the question be answered solely by knowing 

≤1-hour TS/TRM Action? RO question

Yes

No

Can the question be answered solely by knowing 

the LCO/TRM information listed “above the line?”

Yes

RO question

No

Can the 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 the 

TS, TRM, or ODCM:

• application of required actions (TS Section 3) and SRs (TS 

Section 4) in accordance with rules of application 

requirements (TS Section 1)

• application of generic LCO requirements (LCO 3.0.1 through

3.0.7 and SR 4.0.1 through 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 the following:

• screening and evaluation processes under 10 CFR 50.59, “Changes, Tests 

and Experiments”

• 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 the following:

• process for gaseous/liquid release approvals (i.e., release permits)

• analysis and interpretation of radiation and activity readings as they pertain to 

the 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., radiation work permit

requirements, stay time, and DAC hours).

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 or 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. The following are examples:
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 (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 knowledge should not be claimed for questions that can be answered solely

using “systems knowledge,” such as the following:

• how the system works

• system flowpath

• component locations

SRO-only knowledge should not be claimed for questions that can be answered solely

using fundamental knowledge of the following:

• the basic purpose of a procedure, the overall sequence of events that will 

occur, or the overall mitigative strategy of a procedure

• any abnormal operating procedure (AOP) entry condition

• plant parameters that require direct entry into major EOPs (e.g., major 

Westinghouse EOPs are E0, E1, E2, E3, ECA-0.0, and Red/Orange 

Functional Restoration 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

Sections 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 2-2 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 into major EOPs?

Yes

No

Does the question require one or more of the following:

• assessment of plant conditions (normal, abnormal, or 

emergency) and then selection of a procedure or section of 

a procedure to mitigate or 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-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 the following:

• evaluation of 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 the following:

• refuel floor SRO responsibilities

• assessment of fuel-handling equipment SR acceptance criteria

• prerequisites for vessel disassembly and reassembly

• decay heat assessment

• assessment of SRs for the refueling mode

• reporting requirements

• emergency classifications

This list 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 and AOP immediate actions. 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 task is both an RO and SRO responsibility, not 

an SRO-only responsibility.

III. Justification for Plant-Specific Exemptions

The 25 SRO-only questions shall evaluate the additional K/As required for the higher license 

level in accordance with 10 CFR 55.43(b). [Section D.2.d of this examination standard]
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 K/As and skills 

does NOT mean that they can no longer be used as a basis for SRO-only questions. 

[Operator Licensing Program Feedback 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 K/A that is not tied to one of the 10 CFR 55.43(b) items, the 

licensee can classify the K/A as “unique to the SRO position” provided that there is 

documented evidence that ties the K/A to the licensee’s SRO job position duties in 

accordance with the systematic approach to training.

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 that the licensee has documented evidence to prove that 

the K/A is “unique to the SRO position” at the site. An example of documented evidence 

includes the following:

• The question is linked to a learning objective that is specifically labeled in the lesson 

plan as being SRO-only (e.g., some facility licensee lesson plans have columns in the 

margin that differentiate auxiliary operator, RO, and SRO learning objectives).

[Section D.2.d of this examination standard]

AND/OR

• 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:

− Core Cooling—YELLOW due to RVLIS level

− 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 with 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 with 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 (continued)

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 and -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 (continued)

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 the 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 Valves indicate open

• RCS Pressure = 2,200 psig decreasing

• 1-AP-31.00 (Increasing or Decreasing RCS Pressure) initiated

Current conditions:

• Time = 10:01

• Reactor Power = 97%

• RCS Pressure = 2,100 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 PZR pressure 

control component that failed high and (2) the status of 1-RC-PORV-1455C operability in 

accordance with TS?

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 (continued)

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 unreviewed safety question.

• The test procedure will require a change to TS.

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 evaluation?

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 1,300 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 (continued)

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 (continued)

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 the 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 deenergizes 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 (continued)

 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 2,225 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.

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 that 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 

and 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 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 it 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-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’ 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 Power

/ 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 Instrument 

Air / 8

APE2020 Loss of Shutdown Cooling / 4

APE2023 Plant Fire Onsite / 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 

Temperature / 5

EPE1004 High Drywell Temperature / 5

EPE1006 Low Suppression Pool Water 

Level / 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 Offsite 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 Vacuum

/ 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 

Temperature / 5

APE2013 Inadvertent Reactivity Addition / 

1

APE2014 Incomplete Scram / 1

APE2016 High Offsite Release Rate / 9

APE2019 Inadvertent Containment

Isolation / 5 & 7

APE2021 Loss of CRD Pumps / 1

EPE1005 High Suppression Pool

Water Level / 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

Auxiliaries

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 

and 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 section (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 it 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-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’ 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 above 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, 4,160-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

In-Core 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 ____________

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.

c. Correct answer explanation and distractor analysis provided (ES-401N, D.2.g)

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% from the bank, 

at least 10% new, and the rest new or modified); enter the 

actual RO/SRO-only question distribution(s) at right

Bank Modified New

/ / /

7. Between 38 and 45 questions of the questions on the RO 

exam and at least 13 questions of the questions on the 

SRO-only portion of the exam are written at the 

comprehension/analysis level (see ES-401N, D.2.c); 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 Initial column c; chief examiner concurrence is 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 9 hours to complete the combined examination and 3 hours if you are only taking 

the SRO-only 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 

Q

1.

LOK

(F/H)

2.

LOD

(1–5)

3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other

6. Source

(B/M/N)

7. Sta

(U/E/S

Stem

Focus Cues T/F Cred. Dist. Partial Job Link Minutia #/Units Backward Q – K/A SRO Only

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 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 inform

• “Cues”: The stems or distractors contain cues (e.g., clues, specific determiners, phrasing, length).

• “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, and 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 the stem).

4. Check the appropriate box if a job content flaw 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 mismatch

6. Enter the question’s source: (B)ank, (M)odified, or (N)ew. Verify that (M)odified questions meet criteria of Form 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)atis

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 

Q

1.

LOK

(F/H)

2.

LOD

(1–5)

3. Psychometric Flaws 4. Job Content Flaws 5. Other

6. Source

(B/M/N)

7. Status

(U/E/S) 8

Stem

Focus Cues T/F Cred. Dist. Partial Job Link Minutia #/Units Backward 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 written 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 under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 55.40(b)(4). Generally, 

the facility licensee administers the written examination in accordance with the instructions 

contained herein, although the NRC regional office may choose to administer the examination at 

its discretion.

C. Responsibilities

1. Facility Licensee

a. Under 10 CFR 55.49, “Integrity of Examinations and Tests,” and 

10 CFR 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
ES-402, Page 2 of 7

directed and approved by the NRC chief examiner. An English dictionary should 

also be available in the examination room.

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 Form ES-201-4, “List of Applicants,”

as arranged with the NRC chief examiner and in accordance with the specific 

instructions in Section D.

g. As part of the application, the applicant is required by 10 CFR 55.31(a)(3) to 

submit a written request from an authorized representative of the facility licensee 

by which the applicant will be employed that the written examination and 

operating test be administered to the applicant. The applicant and facility 

licensee are expected to promptly provide an update to the application if 

circumstances change (e.g., request to withdraw from the examination process). 

As stated in 10 CFR 2.107(a), the Commission may permit an applicant to 

withdraw an application prior to 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 prior to issuance of a notice of hearing, the Commission 

shall dismiss the proceeding.

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 
ES-402, Page 3 of 7

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.

The written examinations may be administered as soon as they have been 

approved and the license applications have been determined to be complete 

(including determinations on any applicable waivers or excusals). The region 

shall not allow the written examination and operating test dates to diverge by

more than 30 days without obtaining concurrence from the Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation/Office New Reactors 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.
ES-402, Page 4 of 7

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.

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 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, “Site-Specific RO Written Examination 

Cover Sheet,” or Form ES-401N-7, “Site-Specific RO Written Examination Cover 

Sheet”; Form ES-401-8, “Site-Specific SRO Written Examination Cover Sheet,”

or Form ES-401N-8, “Site-Specific SRO Written Examination Cover Sheet”; or 

Form ES-701-8, “LSRO Written Examination Quality Checklist”) 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.
ES-402, Page 5 of 7

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.

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-examination 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
ES-402, Page 6 of 7

for the RO exam, and 9 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), and 

the facility licensee shall first notify the NRC’s regional office to ensure that a 

point of contact remains available to respond to questions. The applicant is 

responsible for ensuring his or her physical capability to complete the 

examination in the allotted time. The facility licensee shall inform the NRC when 

all 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 the 

staff 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 pre-review. If the

facility reviewers believe that the NRC did not adequately resolve the pre-review 

comments, they should address those concerns in a formal comment letter.

3. The NRC’s chief examiner will ask the facility pre-reviewers 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, “Examination Security 

Agreement”) after the examinations are completed.

4. The facility licensee should submit formal comments within 20 calendar 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-examination 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 (this may be useful should the 

applicant request an informal staff review or demand a hearing) and should include a 

facility position for each applicant comment. Note that the NRC examination report 

(refer to Section E.3 of ES-501, “Initial Post-Examination Activities”) will not identify 

examination comments by applicant docket number. 
ES-402, Page 7 of 7

5. The facility licensee should submit all comments in the following format:

• Indicate the source of the comment (i.e., facility licensee or applicant). If the 

applicant submits the comment, indicate the 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 comment.)

6. Formal comments should be signed by an authorized facility representative and

addressed to the responsible NRC regional office, 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, commenters should consider the guidance 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 the package is received not 

more than 20 calendar days after all parts of the licensing examination have 

been administered.

b. If the NRC developed the examinations, the facility licensee’s responsibility is

limited to providing the NRC’s chief examiner with any facility licensee and 

applicant comments and recommendations on question deletions and answer 

key changes. Such comments and recommendations should normally be 

received within 20 calendar days after all parts of the licensing examination have 

been administered. Any delay in submitting the comments will likely result in a 
ES-403, Page 2 of 6

comparable delay in the final licensing actions. (Refer to ES-402 for additional 

instructions regarding the post-examination review and comment process.)

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 facility licensee 

and applicant 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 instructions below.

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 facility licensee and applicant comments or 

recommendations. Determine whether any questions should be deleted from 

the examination or whether any answers need to be changed. Do not 

recommend deleting any question or changing any answer unless a valid 

reference supports 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. The following types of errors, if identified and 
ES-403, Page 3 of 6

adequately justified by the facility licensee or an applicant, are most likely to 

result in post-examination changes agreeable to the NRC:

• 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, 

the following types of question errors, identified after examination administration, 

are less likely to result in examination changes:

• a question that does not exactly match its referenced knowledge and 

abilities 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 or an applicant, in the interest of efficiency, facility licensees or 

applicants should consider the above examples before submitting 

post-examination comments. Facility licensees with post-examination 

comments are encouraged to discuss them with the chief examiner before

formally submitting any comments in writing.

c. If a question is determined to have 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.
ES-403, Page 4 of 6

d. Those applicant questions and facility licensee and applicant 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.

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, “Site Specific 

RO Written Examination Cover Sheet,” for ROs; ES-401-8 or ES-401N-8, “Site 

Specific SRO Written Examination Cover Sheet,” for SROs; or ES-701-8, “LSRO 

Written Examination Quality Checklist,” 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. Do not round up or down, but 

instead truncate the examination score in the tenths place. For example, if an 

applicant correctly answers 59 of 75 questions, the score is documented as a 

78.6.

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.
ES-403, Page 5 of 6

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 changed, and/or the question 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.

b. After evaluating the examinations, review the grading in detail and complete 

Form ES-403-1.

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. Proposed answer key changes and question deletions 

justified and documented (facility reviewer initials not required 

(N/R) if NO post-examination comments are 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 exam) 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 one-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 34

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. 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 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation/Office of New Reactors (NRR/NRO)

operator licensing program office is to complete application licensing or denial actions within 

30 days after the facility licensee submits the graded examinations and formal written 

examination and operating test comments to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 

The NRC staff and facility licensee staff should establish their priorities and schedules to 

achieve this goal.

Under 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 

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 to the NRC until the operating test has been administered to each 

applicant. 

b. If the facility licensee participated in developing, administering, and grading the

licensing examination, the licensee shall forward the following examination 

documentation to the NRC chief examiner (marked “addressee only”) as soon as 

possible, but not more than 20 calendar days, after all parts of the licensing

examination 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 written 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)
ES-501, Page 2 of 34

• any questions asked by the applicants and the answers given to the 

applicants during the written examination (ES-402)

• all examination administration or post-examination review comments 

made by the facility licensee and the applicants after the written 

examination and/or operating tests (ES-402)

(Include an explanation for each comment and explain why the comment 

should be accepted or rejected. The facility licensee should also include 

a facility position for each applicant comment.)

• 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 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.

c. If the facility licensee did not participate in developing, administering, and grading 

the licensing examination, the facility licensee shall submit all facility licensee and 

applicant comments and recommendations regarding the NRC-developed written 

examination and/or operating tests to the NRC’s regional office as soon as

possible but not more than 20 calendar days after the exit meeting. Include an 

explanation for each comment and explain why the comment should be accepted 

or rejected. The facility licensee should also include a facility position for each 

applicant comment. (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.
ES-501, Page 3 of 34

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. Specific followup items include the following:

• 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.

• If seven or more of the questions on an RO examination (or two or more 

on a SRO-only exam) are deleted during the grading process, the 

regional office shall 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 decide if 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 reviews 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 provided that the 

original entry is apparent, the individual making the change is identified, and an explanation for 

the change is included. 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 (facility 

reviewer) before sending the examinations to the NRC’s regional office.
ES-501, Page 4 of 34

The NRC accepts 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 written examination is graded by 

NRC examiners, one NRC examiner shall grade the examination and a second NRC 

examiner shall independently review the grading. If the chief examiner conducts the 

independent review, he or she shall not perform the supervisory review required by 

Section D.3. If the facility licensee graded the written examination, the NRC chief 

examiner shall review the written examination grading and then forward the results for 

the supervisory review required by Section D.3. If the chief examiner finds errors in the 

licensee grading that require changes to scores, another NRC examiner shall perform a

second independent review of the examination.

a. If the facility licensee graded the written examinations, upon receipt of the written 

examination package, 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 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, “Initial Operator Licensing Examination Process,” 

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 

licensee and license applicant 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 or license applicant 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, and the number of borderline 

or failing grades). If the written examination was graded by machine or using a

template, the chief examiner shall ensure that the template accurately parallels 

the approved answer key.
ES-501, Page 5 of 34

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 shall review the written examination results and the facility 

licensee’s performance analysis (if applicable) for indications of the following:

• 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. Upon completion of 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,

“Site-Specific RO Written Examination Cover Sheet”; Form ES-401-8 or 

ES-401N-8, “Site-Specific SRO Written Examination Cover Sheet”; or 

Form ES-701-10, “LSRO Written Examination Cover Sheet”) 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 “Waive/Excuse” 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 SRO-upgrade applicants that only take the SRO 

exam must achieve an 80 percent or higher to pass. SRO-upgrade 

applicants that 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 that 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 the 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, 
ES-501, Page 6 of 34

“Preparing and Reviewing Operator License Applications”) 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, “Preparing Initial Operating Tests,” 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 applicants 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 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 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 a significant amount of time before 

the operating tests, the chief examiner should note this on the form and forward 

it, with the completed 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 
ES-501, Page 7 of 34

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 with 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 or denial action.

If a recommendation is overturned during the review by regional management, 

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. Before issuing a license, the regional office shall ensure that the applicant has

satisfied the health requirement of 10 CFR 55.33, “Disposition of an Initial 

Application,” through either (1) a certification by the facility licensee that 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 or (2) a Commission determination, 

considering the recommendations and supporting evidence of the facility licensee 

and of the examining physician, that specific license conditions will accommodate 

any applicant medical defects. For new license applicants, the medical 

certification is generally based on a medical evaluation conducted no more than 

6 months before the anticipated date of licensing (refer to ES-202, Section C.1.a,

for additional information). The regional office must also ensure that 

SRO-upgrade applicants and individuals who initially received a pass letter are 

up to date in the licensee’s requalification training program. 

e. After making the licensing recommendations, the responsible supervisor will

provide the examination package to the operator licensing assistant to prepare a 

preliminary results letter, denial letter, notification letter, or license letter for each 

examined applicant and forward the examination package to the regional 

licensing official. 

Under 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. A Preliminary 

Results Letter is one such method of gathering further information. A 

Preliminary Results Letter is issued when the region’s grading results indicate 

that the applicant failed any portion of the initial license examination. This letter 

gives the applicant the option to provide further information to be used in an 
ES-501, Page 8 of 34

informal NRC staff review. The applicant should respond to the 55.31(b) 

request (i.e., the Preliminary Results Letter) within twenty (20) days from the date 

of the request, or within such other time as may be specified in the letter. 

Inquiries, communications, and reports concerning the application must be filed 

as specified in 10 CFR 55.5. To account for mail delivery, if applicable, the 

region should delay issuing further correspondence for an additional 5 calendar 

days to ensure the 20 days have expired. A sample preliminary results letter is 

available in Attachment 4 of this standard.

A Denial Letter is issued when the Commission is unable to make the findings in 

10 CFR 55.33(a) (addressing health and passing the written examination and 

operating test) or, if applicable, the Commission is unable to approve a 

conditional license under 10 CFR 55.33(b). As a prerequisite to a denial letter, 

the staff typically wait until, as applicable, an applicant does not request an 

informal NRC staff review within 20 days or within such other time as may be 

specified, or the NRC staff upholds the preliminary results following in informal 

NRC staff review.

A denial letter is required to meet 10 CFR 2.103(b). If applicable, this letter 

optionally may provide instructions on how the applicant may reapply under 10 

CFR 55.35 (for written examination and/or operating test failures) or under 10 

CFR 55.31(c) (for medical conditions). Attachment 4 of this standard provides a 

sample denial letter.

Because 10 CFR 55.35(a) sets the permissible earliest time for filing of reapplications based on “the date of the denial,” some applicants may elect to 

respond to a 10 CFR 55.31(b) request for informal NRC staff review by asking 

the NRC to immediately send the denial. The NRC should promptly send the 

denial and firmly set the date of the denial to be used in 10 CFR.35(a), as well as 

the date of denial to demand a hearing under 10 CFR 2.103(b).Note: The 

permissible date of the re-application process in 10 CFR 55.35 is based on the 

date of the Staff’s denial of the application. An applicant may re-apply under 10 

CFR 55.35 and/or supplement under 10 CFR 55.31(c) during the pendency of a 

hearing on a previous application. An applicant is not required to waive or 

decline to exercise the right to demand a hearing as a pre-requisite to reapplying.

A Notification Letter is issued if an applicant has passed the requisite written 

examination and operating test in accordance with 10 CFR 55.41 and 55.45, or 

55.43 and 55.45, and the applicant’s general medical condition meets the 

minimum standards under 10 CFR 55.33(a)(1) or may be accommodated with 

appropriate conditions under 10 CFR 55.33(b), but the applicant has not to-date 

completed all the elements of 10 CFR 55.31. This letter notifies the applicant that 

his or her license will be issued when the incomplete (deferred) items are

resolved. The regional office will issue a license when the applicant and/or 

facility licensee, as appropriate, completes the deferred items. (Refer to ES-202 

and ES-204.) Attachment 5 of this standard includes a sample notification letter.
ES-501, Page 9 of 34

Attachment 3 of this standard includes sample license letters.

An Application Withdrawal Notification Letter is sent from the NRC to notify an 

applicant that the facility licensee withdrew its request that the written 

examination and/or operating test be administered to the applicant. In this case, 

the application is considered incomplete.

An Application Withdrawal Response Letter is issued if an applicant withdraws 

his or her application in writing prior to completing all applicable portions of the 

written examination and/or operating test required to complete the licensing 

process. In this case, the applicant’s withdrawal is considered an application 

denial for failure to pass the written examination and operating test. 

Attachment 6 of this standard includes sample application withdrawal notification 

and application withdrawal response letters.

f. 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 in 

writing, with any limitations, by the Regional Administrator. The licensing official 

will consider all recommendations; make changes as described above; and sign

each applicant’s license letter and license, denial letter, preliminary results letter

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) after they are reviewed and approved by the 

licensing official.

a. The regional office should notify the facility licensee’s designated representative 

of the examination results by telephone and may confirm the results by mailing or 

sending electronically a copy of Form ES-501-2 under a separate cover letter. 

For each applicant who failed or has 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 forms are official agency records and are 

kept in the NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 

(ADAMS). Form ES-501-2 is nonpublic and sensitive with viewer rights only for 

those who have a need to know. Form ES-303-1 is placed into each applicant’s 

docket file; it is also nonpublic and sensitive with viewer rights only for those who 

have a need to know.

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 materials

listed below.
ES-501, Page 10 of 34

NOTE: The following materials may be sent either electronically via Electronic 

Information Exchange/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, “Scenario Outline” (and Form ES-D-2, “Required 

Operator Actions,” if the applicant failed the simulator operating test) 

reflecting the “as-run” scenario conditions but without any rough examiner 

notes on the applicant’s performance (pen-and-ink markups of the 

original, approved scenarios are acceptable)

• a copy of all job performance measures (JPMs) that the applicant failed (if 

the applicant failed the operating test in the walkthrough or administrative

topics categories), reflecting the “as-administered” JPM conditions but 

without any rough examiner notes on the applicant’s performance 

(pen-and-ink markups of the original, approved JPMs are acceptable)

• 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)

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 ES502, “Application Denials and Processing Requests for Informal NRC Staff 

Reviews”), 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 requests the return of reference material, the NRC chief examiner 

shall ensure that the 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 and/or demand a hearing. If an 

applicant requests an informal NRC staff review and/or demands a hearing, the chief 

examiner shall consult with their regional counsel before returning or destroying any 

document related to the examination.
ES-501, Page 11 of 34

3. Prepare the Examination Report

The NRC chief examiner shall prepare the final examination report when all portions of

the written examination and operating tests 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, although the examinations were passed, the 

associated licenses will not be issued until the facility notifies the NRC in writing that all 

deferred requirements have been met. If this statement is used, it is not necessary to 

amend the examination report once the deferred licenses are issued. The examiner 

should follow the principles in NRC Inspection 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 only a written examination 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:

• the quality of the submitted written examination and operating test 

material in relation to the range of acceptability expected by the NRC 

This will be determined as follows:

– The NRC will evaluate the submitted written examination 

questions (RO and SRO questions shall be considered 

separately) using the guidance in Sections E.2 and E.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.

– The NRC will evaluate the submitted operating test material by 

using the guidance in Sections E.2 and E.3 of ES-301 and the 

instructions on Form ES-301-7, “Operating Test Review 

Worksheet.” 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-examination changes. 

The final metric on Form ES-301-7 signifies the percentage of the 

submitted operating test that required replacement or significant 

modifications to conform to the acceptance criteria in Section D of 

ES-301.

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, “Transient and Event Checklist,” 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.
ES-501, Page 12 of 34

– 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 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 examinations 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 before the final 

licensee exam submittal, as allowed by ES-201, Section C.2.c,

should not be counted toward the 20-percent threshold if changes 

were incorporated that 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 either the written examination or operating test 

and the reason for the delay

Include any extensions of the written examination time beyond the 

nominal time limits specified in ES-402.

 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 34

• 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: 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

it 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 they did not necessitate the replacement of test material,

or (4) other security issues were discovered with 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 of) 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 

With respect to applicant comments, redact the applicant docket number 

from the examination report. The NRC regional office shall retain a 

nonredacted version, indicating applicant docket numbers, until any 

adjudicatory hearings are complete (refer to ES-502). 

• the specific NRC explanation for accepting or rejecting each facility 

licensee and applicant specific comment and a specific justification for 

every additional item deletion or change (refer to Attachment 1 for 

examples of facility licensee 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 
ES-501, Page 14 of 34

followup the next time the NRC staff conducts Inspection Procedure 71111.11,

“Licensed Operator Requalification Program and Licensed Operator 

Performance” (ADAMS Accession No. ML14217A409), 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.

4. Perform Other Activities

a. If an applicant did not complete the SRO-upgrade training program or failed the

SRO-upgrade examination, regional management shall 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 shall ensure that SRO-upgrade applicants who

passed and did not participate in RO requalification training while they were 

enrolled in the SRO-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 topics under 

10 CFR 55.41, “Written Examination: Operators,” before resuming licensed 

duties as an RO or commencing duties as an SRO (which requires testing on

items under 10 CFR 55.41 and 10 CFR 55.43, “Written Examination: Senior 

Operators”). 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 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, “Additional Requirements,” 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 
ES-501, Page 15 of 34

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 during the period in which the applicant may request an informal NRC 

staff review and/or demand a hearing and until adjudicatory actions on any 

hearing demands are complete. This documentation may include simulator 

operating test notes on crew members who passed the test if the notes contain 

information relevant to the failing applicant’s performance. Such notes may be 

subject to disclosure in the event that an applicant demands a hearing and 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 (listed in Section F.1 below), excluding those containing the applicants’

names, docket numbers, or grades, are placed in ADAMS as soon as possible after 

the examinations have been completed. Some of the items containing exam 

material will be marked for delayed public release, 2 years after exam administration,

in ADAMS to allow facility licensees the ability to re-use both written exams and 

operating tests for audit examination purposes. NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 

0620, “Inspection Documents and Records,” dated September 12, 2011; 

NUREG-0910, “NRC Comprehensive Records Disposition Schedule,” issued 

March 2005; and SECY-04-0191, “Withholding Sensitive Unclassified Information 

Concerning Nuclear Power Reactors from Public Disclosure,” dated 

October 19, 2004 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML093270149, ML051390495, and 

ML042310663, respectively), provide additional policies and guidance in this area.

F. NRC Record Retention

1. The NRC’s regional office shall ensure that all examination documents are added to 

ADAMS and declared as official agency records. Paper documents should not be 

retained beyond 60 days after they have been added to ADAMS and declared as official 

agency records The items listed below 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”
ES-501, Page 16 of 34

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 senior operator limited to fuel 

handling (LSRO) forms from ES-701, “Administration of Initial Examinations for 

Senior Operators Limited to Fuel Handling”)

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. Form ES-401-6 or ES-401N-6, “Written Examination Quality Checklist”; 

Form 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 and ES-D-2 for each scenario 

set administered, as well as the as-given walkthrough tests, including 

Form ES-301-1, “Administrative Topics Outline,” and Form ES-301-2, “Control 

Room/In-Plant Systems Outline,” and the JPMs for each walkthrough 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; Form ES-301-6, “Competencies Checklist”; and Form ES-301-7

(or the equivalent LSRO forms from ES-701)

j. Form ES-403-1, “Written Examination Grading Quality Checklist

k. Form ES-501-2, “Power Plant Examination Results Summary”

l. the final “Examination Report” with all enclosures

m. Form ES-201-3, “Examination Security Agreement”

2. The NRC’s regional office shall place the following items in each applicant’s docket file:

a. Form ES-303-1; Form ES-303-2 (original copies and all pages, including strip 

charts and other attachments that support the licensing decision); Form ES-D-1;

and Form ES-D-2 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, Form ES-401-8 or ES-401N-8, or ES-701-10) and answer sheet
ES-501, Page 17 of 34

G. Attachments/Forms

Attachment 1 Sample Facility/Applicant Comments and NRC Resolutions

Attachment 2 Sample Simulator Fidelity Report

Attachment 3 Sample License Letters

Attachment 4 Sample Preliminary Results Letter, Sample Informal NRC Staff Review 

Acknowledgement Letter and Sample Denial Letter

Attachment 5 Sample Notification Letter

Attachment 6 Sample Application Withdrawal Notification Letter and Sample Application 

Withdrawal Response Letter

Form ES-501-1 Post-Examination Check Sheet

Form ES-501-2 Power Plant Examination Results Summary
ES-501, Page 18 of 34

ES-501 Sample Facility/Applicant Comments and NRC Resolutions Attachment 1

Question #28

Provide the question, answer, and reference.

Facility Comment: The question asks for the required method of securing a diesel generator 

and ensuring that an automatic restart does not recur following automatic initiation on receipt of 

a valid loss-of-coolant accident 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 4-kilovolt (kV) bus automatic

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.

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

Provide the question, answer, and reference.

Applicant Comment (include applicant’s docket number): 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 should be deleted because the outboard injection valve reopens 

automatically when the Group 4 isolation is reset if a low-pressure coolant injection 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.

Facility Position on Applicant Comment: The facility licensee concurs with the applicant’s 

comment.

NRC Resolution: Recommendation not accepted. The RHR Loop B outboard injection valve 

will not automatically 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 the statement that manual action is required 

to open the injection valve.
ES-501, Page 19 of 34

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 Inspection 

Procedure 71111.11, “Licensed Operator Requalification Program and Licensed Operator 

Performance,” 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 midscale regardless of actual pressure. 

Include deficiency number if applicable.

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. Include deficiency number, if applicable.

Steam Generator A

wide-range level

The meter has been out of service for the last three operating tests 

(approximately 18 months). Include deficiency number, if applicable.
ES-501, Page 20 of 34

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, and 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 number is OP-(number), and your docket number is 55-(number). The effective 

date is (date). Unless this license is terminated, renewed, or upgraded sooner, it shall expire 

6 years from the effective date.

This license is subject to the provisions of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations

(10 CFR) 55.53, “Conditions of Licenses,” 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 on 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 for any license conditions necessary to accommodate medical defects.
ES-501, Page 21 of 34

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, and 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 number is SOP-(number), and your docket number is 55-(number). The effective 

date is (date). Unless this license is terminated, renewed, or upgraded sooner, it shall expire 

6 years from the effective date.

This license is subject to the provisions of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations

(10 CFR) 55.53, “Conditions of Licenses,” 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 on 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(c).

[[[ ]]] Include for any license conditions necessary to accommodate medical defects.
ES-501, Page 22 of 34

ES-501 Sample Preliminary Results Letter Attachment 4

NRC Letterhead

(Date)

[Applicant’s name]

[Street address]

[City, State, ZIP code]

Dear [Mr. / Ms. Applicant’s name]:

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 the

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 denial letter along with instructions on how to 

demand a hearing or apply for a new test and/or examination.

If you request an informal NRC staff review, send the request to [Region XX]. Under 10 CFR 

55.5(b)(2), any related inquiry, communication, information, or report must be submitted to the 

Regional Administrator by an appropriate method listed in 10 CFR 55.5(a). The Regional 

Administrator or the Administrator’s designee will transmit to the Director, Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation or Director, Office of New Reactors, as appropriate, any matter that is not 

within the scope of the Regional Administrator’s delegated authority. 

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 application

denial with instructions on how to file for an adjudicatory hearing or apply for a new test and/or 

examination.
ES-501, Page 23 of 34

ES-501 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 24 of 34

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. Applicant’s name]:

This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter by this office on (date), requesting an informal 

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 25 of 34

ES-501 Sample Denial Letter Attachment 4

NRC Letterhead

(Date)

(Applicant’s name)

(Street address)

(City, State Zip code)

Dear [Mr. /Ms. Applicant’s name]:

[In response to your letter received by the Office of (Nuclear Reactor Regulation/New Reactors) 

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 denial of your license.

Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 55.33, “Disposition of an Initial 

Application,” the NRC will approve an initial application for [an operator license/a senior operator 

license] if it finds that (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. Your application was denied because [the NRC determined, considering the 

recommendations and supporting evidence of the facility licensee and of the examining 

physician, that you [do not satisfy the requisite health requirements/you did not pass the written 

examination/you did not pass the operating test/you did not pass either the written examination 

or the operating test].

* When you have met the requirements, you may submit another application.

** Under 10 CFR 55.35, “Re-Applications,” you may file a new application [2/6/24] months after 

the date of this letter.

[Under 10 CFR 55.31(c), an applicant whose application has been denied because of a medical 

condition or general health may submit a further medical report at any time as a supplement to 

the application.]

[Because you passed the written examination but did not pass the operating test, you may 

request, in the new application, to be excused from reexamination on the written examination. 
ES-501, Page 26 of 34

ES-501 2 Attachment 4

The NRC may grant this request at the agency’s discretion if it determines that sufficient 

justification is presented.]

[Because you passed the operating test but did not pass the written examination, you may 

request, in the new application, to be excused from reexamination on the operating test. The 

NRC may grant this request at the agency’s discretion if it determines that sufficient justification 

is presented.]

[Because you passed the written examination and the (administrative topics, control 

room/in-plant systems, simulator) part of the operating test but did not pass the remainder of the 

operating test, you may request, in the new application, to be excused from reexamination on 

the written examination and the (administrative topics, control room/in-plant systems, simulator) 

part of the operating test. The NRC may grant this request at the agency’s discretion if it 

determines that sufficient justification is presented.]

[Because you did not pass either the written examination or the operating test, you will be 

required to retake both the written examination and the operating test.]

Under 10 CFR 2.103(b)(2), you may demand a hearing on this denial of your application within 

20 days after the date of this letter. Under 10 CFR 2.307(a), you may request an extension of 

this time limit if you can show good cause.

A demand for a hearing shall be filed in accordance with 10 CFR Part 2, “Agency Rules of 

Practice and Procedure,” which is accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC’s 

Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. Generally, a demand for a 

hearing should explain why you believe that the NRC’s denial of your application was in error 

and why you believe that you have, in fact, satisfied the requirements for license issuance.

[Consult with the Office of the General Counsel/regional counsel for the most up-to-date E-filing 

language.]

A demand for a hearing must be filed in accordance with the NRC’s E-Filing rule (Volume 72 of 

the Federal Register, page 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires 

participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the Internet or, in some cases,

to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their 

filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.

To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days before the filing 

deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at 

hearing.docket@nrc.gov or by telephone at 301-415-1677 to (1) request a digital identification 

(ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign 

documents and access the E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating and 

(2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a demand for a hearing. Based 

on this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this 

proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket. 

Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC’s public Web site at 

http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. System requirements for 

accessing the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC’s “Guidance for Electronic 
ES-501, Page 27 of 34

ES-501 3 Attachment 4

Submission,” which is available on the agency’s public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/sitehelp/e-submittals.html. Participants may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web 

site but should note that the NRC’s E-Filing system does not support unlisted software and the 

NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance in using unlisted software. 

If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the 

E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC’s online, Web-based 

submission form. To serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, 

users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC’s Web site. Further 

information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser 

plug-in, is available on the NRC’s public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/esubmittals.html. 

Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the 

participant can then submit a demand for hearing. Submissions should be in portable 

document format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC’s public Web 

site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the 

time the documents are submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing system. To be timely, an 

electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. eastern time 

on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the 

document and sends the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The 

E-Filing system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to the document to the 

NRC’s Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the 

Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer does not need to serve 

the documents on those participants separately.

A person filing electronically using the NRC’s adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance 

by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the 

NRC’s public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by e-mail to 

MSHD.Resource@nrc.gov, or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC Meta System 

Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. eastern time, Monday through Friday, 

excluding Government holidays. 

Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents 

electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their 

initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. 

Such filings must be submitted by (1) first class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of 

the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 

Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff, or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service 

to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, 

Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing 

a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. 

Filing is considered complete by first-class mail at the time the document is deposited in the 

mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service at the time the document is

deposited with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, upon granting an exemption 

request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding 

officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing 

no longer exists. 
ES-501, Page 28 of 34

ES-501 4 Attachment 4

Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC’s electronic hearing 

docket, which is available to the public at http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless they are excluded 

pursuant to an order of the Commission or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not 

to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or 

home telephone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires 

submission of such information. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts 

that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a fair use application

under copyright law, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their 

submission.

If you have any questions, please contact me at [telephone 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

* Use for application denials regarding failure to meet health requirements.

** Use for application denials regarding failure to pass the written examination or operating 

test, or both.
ES-501, Page 29 of 34

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, we 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.]] 

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.
ES-501, Page 30 of 34

ES-501 Sample Application Withdrawal Notification Letter Attachment 6

NRC Letterhead

(Date)

(Applicant’s name)

(Street address)

(City, State ZIP code)

Dear (Mr. / Ms. Applicant’s name):

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the facility licensee has withdrawn its request that 

the written examination/operating test for an (RO/SRO/LSRO) license be administered to you; 

therefore, your application is incomplete and will not be evaluated further by the NRC. This is 

not considered a denial under 10 CFR 55.35(a) because your application is not being denied 

because of failure to pass the written examination or operating test, or both. Therefore, you 

may file a new application at any time.

[Additionally, you passed the (written examination or operating test) and have not yet taken the 

(operating test or written examination). Though you did not actually fail the (written 

examination or operating test), for the purposes of 10 CFR 55.35(b), which provides the NRC 

the ability to excuse portions of an examination that have been passed, the NRC considers you 

to have failed the (operating test or written examination) that you have not yet taken such that, 

in any new application that you file with the NRC, you may request to be excused from reexamination on the portions of the examination or test which you have passed. The NRC may, 

in its discretion, grant this request if it determines that sufficient justification is presented.]

If you have any questions, please contact (name) at (telephone number).

Sincerely,

(Name and title of licensing official)

Docket No. 55-(XXXXX)

cc: (Facility representative who signed the applicant’s NRC Form 398)

[ ] Use only for applicants who have passed either the written examination or operating 

test.
ES-501, Page 31 of 34

ES-501 Sample Application Withdrawal Response Letter Attachment 6

NRC Letterhead

(Date)

(Applicant’s name)

(Street address) 

(City, State ZIP code)

Dear (Mr. / Ms. Applicant’s name):

In response to your letter received by this office on [date], you specified that you are 

withdrawing your application for an (RO/SRO/LSRO) license.

[For the purposes of 10 CFR 55.35(a), the NRC considers that your application is denied as a 

result of failure to pass the written examination, operating test, or both. Therefore, you must 

comply with the time limits of 10 CFR 55.35(a) for the filing of a new application.]

[[You passed the (written examination or operating test) and have not yet taken the (operating 

test or written examination). For the purposes of 10 CFR 55.35(a), the NRC is considering your 

application as having been denied because of failure to pass the (operating test or written 

examination). Therefore, you must comply with the time limits of 10 CFR 55.35(a) for the filing 

of a new application.

However, since the NRC is considering you to have failed the (operating test or written 

examination) that you have not yet taken, pursuant to 10 CFR 55.35(b), you may, in any new 

application that you file, request to be excused from re-examination on the portions of the 

examination or test which you have passed, which request the NRC may in its discretion grant if 

it determines that sufficient justification is presented.]]

If you have any questions, please contact (name) at (telephone number).

Sincerely,

(Name and title of licensing official)

Docket No. 55-(XXXXX)

cc: (Facility representative who signed the applicant’s NRC Form 398)

[ ] Use if the applicant has taken neither the written examination nor operating test.

[[ ]] Use if the applicant has passed either the written examination or operating test.
ES-501, Page 32 of 34

ES-501 Post-Examination Check Sheet Form ES-501-1

Post-Examination Check Sheet

Facility: Date of Examination:

Task Description Date Complete

1.* Facility and applicant written exam comments or graded exams 

received and verified complete

2.* Facility and applicant written exam comments reviewed and 

incorporated and NRC grading completed, if necessary

3.* Facility and applicant 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 preliminary results 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 

informal NRC staff reviews

Note: Items identified with an asterisk (*) may not be required to be documented on a retake examination. Place 

an N/A in the “Date Completed” column if the item is “Not Applicable” to the associated retake examination.
ES-501, Page 33 of 34

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 Handling

(2) P=Passed; F=Failed; W=Waived; E=Excused

PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION—FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
ES-501, Page 34 of 34

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 Handling

(2) P=Passed; F=Failed; W=Waived; E=Excused

PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION—FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
ES-502, Page 1 of 4

ES-502

APPLICATION DENIALS AND PROCESSING REQUESTS 

FOR INFORMAL NRC STAFF REVIEWS 

A. Purpose

This standard describes the options and associated responsibilities with respect to informal 

NRC staff reviews and license application denials.

B. Background

Applicants who are denied an operator license are notified of their denial in writing. The 

preliminary results letter and the denial letter describe the nature of the deficiencies noted, 

provide a reason for the denial and inform the applicant of his or her available options. Prior to 

a denial, in response to a request under 10 CFR 55.31(b), an applicant may request an informal 

NRC staff review of the license examination grading results. After a denial, applicants may 

reapply for a license in accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations

(10 CFR) 55.35, “Re-Applications,” and/or demand a hearing on the denial under

10 CFR 2.103(b). An applicant whose application has been denied because of a medical 

condition or general health may submit a further medical report at any time as a supplement to 

the application.

C. Responsibilities

1. Applicant

a. An applicant who receives a preliminary results letter and is provided the 

opportunity to provide additional information per 10 CFR 55.31(b) may request

reconsideration of the preliminary results via an informal NRC staff review. 

Applicants must submit such requests following the instructions of 10 CFR 55.5.

The applicant’s submittal must clearly state the basis for the request, the item(s) 

for which additional review is requested, and must include documentation 

supporting the item(s) in contention.

b. An applicant whose application for a license has been denied because of failure 

to pass the written examination or operating test, or both, may file a new 

application two months after the date of denial. The application must be 

submitted on Form NRC-398 and include a statement signed by an authorized 

representative of the facility licensee by whom the applicant will be employed that 

states in detail the extent of the applicant's additional training since the denial 

and certifies that the applicant is ready for re-examination. An applicant may file 

a third application six months after the date of denial of the second application, 

and may file further successive applications two years after the date of denial of 

each prior application. The applicant shall submit each successive application on 

Form NRC-398 and include a statement of additional training. An applicant who 

has passed either the written examination or operating test and failed the other 

may request in a new application on Form NRC-398 to be excused from re-
ES-502, Page 2 of 4

examination on the portions of the examination or test which the applicant has 

passed. The Commission may in its discretion grant the request, if it determines 

that sufficient justification is presented.

c. An applicant whose application is denied may demand a hearing within twenty 

(20) days from the date of the notice or such longer period as may be specified in 

the notice under 10 CFR 2.103(b)(2). Under 10 CFR 2.307(a), the applicant 

may request an extension of this time limit if he or she can show good cause. A 

demand for a hearing shall be filed in accordance with 10 CFR Part 2, “Agency 

Rules of Practice and Procedure,” which is accessible electronically from the 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Library on the agency’s Web site at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. Generally, a demand for a 

hearing should explain why the applicant believes that the NRC’s denial of his or 

her application was in error and why the applicant believes that he or she has, in 

fact, satisfied the requirements for license issuance. 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 on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/sitehelp/e-submittals.html.

d. An applicant who receives a preliminary results letter and is provided the 

opportunity to provide additional information per 10 CFR 55.31(b) may respond 

via 10 CFR 55.5 methods stating that additional information will not be provided 

and that the NRC should set the application denial date. The NRC will then 

promptly issue a final denial letter acknowledging the waiver of an informal NRC 

staff review. The denial will be accompanied by hearing rights, as applicable,

and provide guidance for reapplication under 10 CFR 55.35 or medical 

supplementation under 10 CFR 55.31(c). 

2. Facility Licensee

a. The NRC may ask the facility licensee to provide reference materials, technical 

support, and a confirmation of the validity of the test items if the facility licensee 

prepared the examination to allow the agency to resolve any concerns raised by 

an applicant. Therefore, the facility licensee is expected to designate a single 

point of contact to provide answers and reference materials for detailed technical 

questions, as necessary. The facility point of contact will be established with 

input from the affected region.

b. The facility licensee should ensure that any written examination questions that 

are determined to be invalid (e.g., those that have no correct answers 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 hearings for operator licensing under 10 CFR Part 55, 

“Operator’s Licenses,” in accordance with 10 CFR Part 2, “Rules of Practice for 

Domestic Licensing Proceedings and Issuance of Order” as described in Section 

D.1, below.
ES-502, Page 3 of 4

b. The NRC will conduct informal NRC staff reviews of 10 CFR Part 55 license

preliminary examination results, if requested by an applicant, as described in 

Section D.2, below.

D. Administrative Review Procedures

1. Application Denial

If an applicant does not agree with the denial for an application of an operator or senior 

operator license the applicant may demand a hearing pursuant to 10 CFR 2.103(b)(2). 

The application denial letter (Attachment 4, “Sample Denial Letter,” of ES-501) provides 

detailed guidance related to the process of demanding a hearing.

2. Examination Results

If an applicant requests an informal NRC staff review of his or her preliminary 

examination results, 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 an independent qualified 

examiner from one of the non-affected regions 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 from a non-affected region with one 

individual designated as the chairperson. The appeal panel shall not include 

any individuals who were associated with administration of the licensing 

examination. The NRR/NRO operator licensing program office should assure 

that the agency protocols are followed with respect to process, documentation 

and independence.

Informal NRC staff reviews shall be limited to the contested items only. 

However, in the unlikely event a new error is identified as a direct result of the 

contested item review, the uncontested error and its effect, if any, on the 

applicant’s pass/fail result should be determined and documented. 

For written examinations, 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 multiple applicants requested an informal staff review, all 

question deletions and answer key changes will be applied equally to each 

applicant’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 
ES-502, Page 4 of 4

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.

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 10 CFR 55.33 were met, (2) update 

the master examination file to reflect any test item deletions or answer key 

changes, and (3) consider the need to correspond with the facility licensee 

regarding the quality of the examination, as discussed in Section C.2.c of ES501.
ES-601, Page 1 of 36

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 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (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. ES-602, “Requalification Written 

Examinations”; ES-603, “Requalification Walkthrough Examinations”; and ES-604, “Dynamic 

Simulator Requalification Examinations,” provide specific guidance and requirements for conducting 

the comprehensive requalification written examinations and the annual operating tests (including 

both the plant walkthrough and dynamic simulator sections). 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 (Public Law 97-425) authorized and

directed the NRC to issue 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 and Licensed Operator Performance,” dated 

September 24, 2014 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) 

Accession No. ML14217A409). 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 36

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 walkthrough evaluation, and a

dynamic simulator evaluation. The three examination parts are further described in ES-602, 

ES-603, and ES-604, 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 NUREG-1122, “Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant Operators: 

Pressurized Water Reactors”; NUREG-2103, “Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear 

Power Plant Operators: Westinghouse AP1000 Pressurized-Water Reactors”; NUREG-1123, 

“Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant Operators: Boiling Water Reactors”; 

or NUREG-2104, “Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant Operators: 
ES-601, Page 3 of 36

Advanced Boiling-Water Reactors,” 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.

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.

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.
ES-601, Page 4 of 36

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 nonshift operators should not be configured unless the

facility licensee 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 walkthrough 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 Form ES-601-2, “Evaluation Checklist for

Facility Reference Material.”

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.

c. The NRC expects the facility licensee to provide a sample plan that meets the

guidelines of Attachment 3 of this examination standard for the NRC’s use in

developing the examination.
ES-601, Page 5 of 36

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 walkthrough 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 2 weeks before the scheduled examinations, the NRC examiners will visit 

the facility to make final preparations for the examination. The written, walkthrough, 

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 walkthrough topics (JPMs), and dynamic simulator scenarios.
ES-601, Page 6 of 36

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 chief 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, walkthrough, and simulator portions of the

requalification examination, respectively. Document operator performance on

Form ES-601-5, “Individual Requalification Examination Report.”
ES-601, Page 7 of 36

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 walkthrough 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 Demands

for 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.
ES-601, Page 8 of 36

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.

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 followup 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.
ES-601, Page 9 of 36

(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.

(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 walkthrough 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.
ES-601, Page 10 of 36

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.

The NRC has deleted 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 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.
ES-601, Page 11 of 36

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.

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 followup 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 whether 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 
ES-601, Page 12 of 36

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 

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 

followup actions by the NRC, and the schedule for each.

As part of the followup 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 followup

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 followup 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, 
ES-601, Page 13 of 36

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 whether a plant 

shutdown is required until he or she reviews all factors listed in Section F.2(b) above.

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 on 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 IP 41500. 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
ES-601, Page 14 of 36

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.

The chief examiner is responsible for completing Forms ES-601-3 and ES-601-4, “Power Plant

Requalification Results Summary Continuation Sheet.” 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 followup evaluation. If the operator did not receive an

individual followup 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 followup 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 NRC 

Headquarters operator licensing assistant. The NRR/NRO operator licensing program office 

uses the results summary to verify the data in the Reactor Program System—Operator 

Licensing, 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, walkthrough, 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.
ES-601, Page 15 of 36

The NRC’s chief examiner will ensure that Form ES-601-5 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 followup results (pass or fail) 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.

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 electronically available via 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 Form”
ES-601, Page 16 of 36

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

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 ADAMS.)

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

b. 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

NRC Headquarters using report on interaction forms.
ES-601, Page 17 of 36

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 Summary Continuation Sheet

Form ES-601-5 Individual Requalification Examination Report
ES-601, Page 18 of 36

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 or examination exit meeting, whichever is later.
ES-601, Page 19 of 36

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). U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) examiners and

evaluators from your facility will conduct requalification examinations, and the NRC will evaluate 

your requalification program in accordance with ES-601, “Conducting NRC Requalification 

Examinations,” through ES-604, “Dynamic Simulator Requalification Examinations,” of

NUREG-1021, “Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors,” Revision 11. 

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 in Revision 11 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 (10 CFR) 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 20 of 36

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, 

“Personal Qualification Statement—Licensee,” 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.

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 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 21 of 36

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 collection 

of information unless the document requesting or requiring the collection 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 Publicly Available Records System 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 22 of 36

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 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (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 this 

examination standard

• the facility’s examination banks (written, simulator, and job performance 

measures (JPMs)) 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

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, “Requalification Walkthrough 

Examinations,” for evaluating each reactor operator and senior reactor operator

safety-related task identified in the facility’s job task analysis

The JPM bank should expand at a rate of at least 10 JPMs per year until this

goal is reached. An estimated 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 23 of 36

ES-601 5 Attachment 2

Enclosure 2

Administration of Requalification Examinations

1. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (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, “Conducting NRC Requalification Examinations,”

and ES-604, “Dynamic Simulator Requalification Examinations.”

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 reactor

operator and senior reactor operator 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 24 of 36

ES-601 6 Attachment 2

2 Enclosure 2

• Following simulator scenarios, the facility evaluators and NRC examiners should

quickly determine whether followup questioning is required so that the crew 

members may be released to talk among themselves about the scenario.

• Ensure that time validation of job performance measures (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 

its requalification program. Refer to Section D.1.j of ES-302, “Administering Operating 

Tests to Initial License Applicants,” for additional guidance on video and audio recording.
ES-601, Page 25 of 36

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 and abilities (K/As) and skills

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, “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: 

Westinghouse AP1000 Pressurized-Water Reactors”; or NUREG-2104, “Knowledge and 

Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant Operators: Advanced Boiling-Water Reactors.” 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:

• requalification lecture/classroom topics indicating the percent of the cycle devoted to

each

• 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

• special focus of the training, such as plant modifications, licensee event reports, and

major changes to operating practices or policy

• 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 26 of 36

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:

• identification of the subjects to be evaluated (system, component, procedure, or other

training subject)

• the preferred testing medium for evaluating each subject (written, simulator, or

walkthrough examination); more than one testing method may be used to evaluate a

subject

• the learning objectives intended to be evaluated

• a list of references used to develop the test items

• the specific K/A topic or facility JTA K/As and skills 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)

• 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

• 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)

• whether the subject is identified as safety related in the facility’s JTA

• whether the subject was covered in the cycle for which the examination is being 

developed

• the identification code or number for previously developed test items that evaluate the

subject

• recent safety-related issues and events (e.g., relevant licensee event reports)
ES-601, Page 27 of 36

ES-601 Examination Security Agreement 

1. Pre-Examination

I acknowledge that I have acquired specialized knowledge about the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requalificatio

scheduled for the week(s) of as of the date of my signature. I agree that I will not knowingly divulge any inform

examinations to any persons who have not been authorized by the NRC’s chief examiner. I understand that I am not to instruc

performance feedback to those operators scheduled to be administered these examinations from this date until completion of e

administration, except as specifically noted below and authorized by the NRC (e.g., acting as a simulator booth operator or com

acceptable if I do not select the training content or provide direct or indirect feedback). Furthermore, I am aware of the physica

and requirements (as documented in the facility licensee’s procedures) and understand that violation of the conditions of this ag

cancellation of the examinations and/or an enforcement action against me or the facility licensee. I will immediately report to f

the NRC’s chief examiner any indications or suggestions that examination 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 28 of 36

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; plus 5 per year following

the initial requalification exam

until at least 30 scenarios

covering all aspects of the 

emergency operating procedures

are developed

C. Job performance 95; plus 10 per year following

measures (JPMs) the initial requalification

exam until the job task analysis

(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

(e.g., lesson plans and handouts)

J. Appropriate sections 1 set (optional)

of the JTA or facility-specific

knowledge and ability (K/A) 

catalog

Reviewed by: ___________________________________ Date: _______________
ES-601, Page 29 of 36

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 systems approach to training 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 30 of 36

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 (reactor operator (RO)

or senior reactor operator (SRO))

The test outline identifies

K/As (or facility equivalent)

of sufficient importance.

Plant-specific priorities are identified

(license even reports (LERs), procedure changes,

system modifications, risk-dominant 

accident scenarios, risk-important

systems and operator actions1 identified 

in, for example, the facility licensee’s probabilistic

risk assessment (PRA)/individual plant 

examination (IPE)).

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.

A 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 Revision 3, “Individual Plant Examination Program: Perspectives on Reactor 

Safety and Plant Performance,” issued December 1997, identifies a number of important human actions that may 

be appropriate for evaluation.
ES-601, Page 31 of 36

ES-601 4 Form ES-601-2

III. Quality (continued)

Exam Section Required Standards Comments

B. Written At least 10 percent of all 

test items shall be reviewed 

using Form ES-602-1, “NRC Checklist

for Open-Reference Test Items.”

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 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

will conduct further review of the examination bank using Attachment 1, “Guidelines for the

Developing and Reviewing Open-Reference Examinations,” to ES-602, “Requalification Written 

Examinations,” and Form ES-602-1.

Reviewed by: ______________________________ Date: _______________
ES-601, Page 32 of 36

ES-601 5 Form ES-601-2

III. Quality (continued)

Exam Section Required Standards Comments

C. Walkthrough At least 10 percent of the JPM bank

were reviewed using Form ES-C-2,

“Job Performance Measure Quality Checklist.”

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 auxiliary operator/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-2, “Job Performance Measure Quality Checklist.”

Reviewed by: ______________________________ Date: ___________________
ES-601, Page 33 of 36

ES-601 6 Form ES-601-2

III. Quality (continued)

Exam Section Required Standards Comments

D. Simulator At least 10 percent of the scenarios are

reviewed using Form ES-604-1, “Simulator 

Scenario Review Checklist.”

Scenarios are an appropriate

measure of the material

covered in the sample plan.

Scenarios are based on the following:

• 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 3 or greater.

Some scenarios are based on

low-power2 operations.

Some scenarios are based on

the dominant accident sequences

for the facility as determined by a PRA/IPE.

The 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,”

issued September 1993, defines “low power” to include the range from criticality to 5-percent power.
ES-601, Page 34 of 36

ES-601 Power Plant Requalification Results Summary Sheet 

Privacy Information—For Official Use Only

Facility: Overall Results Total 

Exam Date: # 

NRC Examiners:

Reactor Operator:

Senior Operator:

Total:

Crews:

Operator

Docket

55-( )

Grader JPMs

%

Written

(A & B)

Resu

Written

S

Crew 

NRC %

FAC %

NRC %

FAC %

NRC %

FAC %

NRC %

FAC %

NRC %

FAC %

NRC %

FAC %

NRC %

FAC %
ES-601 Power Plant Requalification Results Summary Continuation Sheet 

Privacy Information—For Official Use Only

Facility: Overall Results Total 

Exam Date: # 

NRC Examiners:

Reactor Operator:

Senior Operator:

Total:

Crews:

Operator

Docket

55-( )

Grader JPMs

%

Written

(A & B)

Resu

Written

S

Crew 

NRC %

FAC %

NRC %

FAC %

NRC %

FAC %

NRC %

FAC %

NRC %

FAC %

NRC %

FAC %

NRC %

FAC %

ES-601, Page 35 of 36
ES-601, Page 36 of 36

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 Followup Pass / Fail / N/A Pass / Fail / N/A

Walkthrough 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

Walkthrough Pass / Fail

RC Supervisor Review

Date: Pass / Fail Signature:
ES-602, Page 1 of 27

ES-602 

REQUALIFICATION WRITTEN EXAMINATIONS

A. Purpose

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (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 and abilities (K/As) and skills 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 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 NUREG-1122, “Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for

Nuclear Power Plant Operators: Pressurized Water Reactors”; NUREG-2103, “Knowledge and 

Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant Operators: Westinghouse AP1000 Pressurized-Water 

Reactors”; NUREG-1123, “Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant Operators: 

Boiling Water Reactors”; and NUREG-2104, “Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear 

Power Plant Operators: Advanced Boiling-Water Reactors,” to help identify the most suitable 

topics for an RO or SRO. Additionally, 10 CFR 55.41, “Written Examination: Operators,” and

10 CFR 55.43, “Written Examination: Senior Operators,” provide further guidance on item 

selection for RO and SRO written examinations, respectively.
ES-602, Page 2 of 27

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.

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 limiting conditions for operation 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 to this examination standard and Appendix B. The

number of test items should meet the submittal guidelines of Enclosure 1, 

“Reference Material Requirements,” of Attachment 2 to ES-601. Form ES-601-2,
ES-602, Page 3 of 27

“Evaluation 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 references (e.g., lesson plan and emergency operating 

procedures)

c. The facility is expected to provide a sample plan that meets the guidelines of

ES-601, Attachment 3, 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, “Operators’ Licenses.” 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
ES-602, Page 4 of 27

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 

to assess the following criteria:

• 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, “Examination Security Agreement.” The

examination team may add or delete items from the examination based on the

results of this time validation and the 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 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) 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.
ES-602, Page 5 of 27

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.

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 

nonrequalification-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 

followed. 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 procedure revision control program

under Appendix B, “Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel 

Reprocessing Plants,” to 10 CFR Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production 

and Utilization Facilities.” The materials should be authorized for use in
ES-602, Page 6 of 27

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):

• TS

• plant procedures (emergency operating procedures, abnormal operating 

procedures, and normal operating procedures)

• emergency plan (as available in the control room)

• 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) and authorized for use in operating the plant

Note that “noncontrolled” 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. The proctor 
ES-602, Page 7 of 27

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.

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, “Written Requalification Examination Cover Sheet”) 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 its examination bank, the NRC will consider them as part of the

program evaluation.
ES-602, Page 8 of 27

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 9 of 27

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 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (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 the two reasons

described below.

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 Appendix A 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
ES-602, Page 10 of 27

ES-602 2 Attachment 1

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.

b. Performance Basis

Like the requalification program itself, draw the test topics from a job task 

analysis (JTA) for a reactor operator and a senior reactor operator. 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 knowledge and abilities (K/As) (rated 3.0 or higher), as 

identified in NUREG-1122, “Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear 

Power Plant Operators: Pressurized Water Reactors”; NUREG-2103, 

“Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant Operators: 

Westinghouse AP1000 Pressurized-Water Reactors”; NUREG-1123,

“Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant Operators: 

Boiling Water Reactors”; and NUREG-2104, “Knowledge and Abilities 

Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant Operators: Advanced Boiling-Water 

Reactors,” 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 underrepresent or overrepresent 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 
ES-602, Page 11 of 27

ES-602 3 Attachment 1

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.

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.
ES-602, Page 12 of 27

ES-602 4 Attachment 1

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?

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.
ES-602, Page 13 of 27

ES-602 5 Attachment 1

When candidates are able to memorize test items and answers (in their static 

state) to respond to test items, we cannot really determine whether they can truly 

solve the problems or whether 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.

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.
ES-602, Page 14 of 27

ES-602 6 Attachment 1

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 decisionmaking 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:

(1) simple memory 

(2) complex memory

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, some 

questions will involve greater complexity than others, but the mental processes will 

be the same—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 
ES-602, Page 15 of 27

ES-602 7 Attachment 1

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 properly 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.

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. The following is an example of a lookup 

question, which should generally be avoided:

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 ARP 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:
ES-602, Page 16 of 27

ES-602 8 Attachment 1

Using the current plant conditions (assume emergency core cooling 

system (ECCS) and containment spray (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 refueling water storage 

tank (RWST) level) and then identifying the correct emergency procedure and

locating and selecting the correct graph to determine how much time is left 

before the RWST reaches a specific level. It requires use of both the simulator 

and the plant procedures as references.

Another appropriate question using facility references is as follows:

Following a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA), automatic actions have 

occurred as follows:

• The reactor has tripped and is shut down.

• Auxiliary feedwater (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 engineered safety feature actuation signal 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 factors 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.
ES-602, Page 17 of 27

ES-602 9 Attachment 1

Another question that makes effective use of reference material is as follows:

While operating at 100-percent power, volume control tank 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. Which 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 emergency 

plan implementing procedures, and selecting the appropriate classification.

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 openand 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-reference questions. (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 the opportunity to

locate answers without prior familiarization with the topic. Use the following four

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 and 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.
ES-602, Page 18 of 27

ES-602 10 Attachment 1

(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 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 eliminating the test items themselves). However, 

logistics dictate that sometimes only one or a few individuals 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.
ES-602, Page 19 of 27

ES-602 11 Attachment 1

h. Correct Mode of Measurement

No matter how high their importance ratings or operational relevance, certain

operator K/As and skills are not amenable to written testing, as in the following 

example:

Arrange the major steps in the proper sequence to start, parallel, and load 

diesel generator DG-2:

_____ Use governor control to increase kilowatt power to DG-2.

_____ Raise DG speed to 900 revolutions per minute.

_____ 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 walkthrough portions of the operating examination.

3. Specific Guidelines for Section A

The guidelines in the section are specific to the Section A of the written examination as 

performed on a static simulator. These guidelines are divided into two sections, 

Section B.3.a, “Question Development,” and Section B.3.b, “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” main steam isolation valve 

(MSIV) and “C” main steam line check valve

d. outside containment, between “C” MSIV and “C” main steam line 

containment penetration
ES-602, Page 20 of 27

ES-602 12 Attachment 1

The scenario used should put the plant at some point in a major plant transient 

(e.g., LOCA, steam generator tube rupture, loss of all alternating current power) 

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 failures 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 is 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 which point in the procedure was reached at the time the

simulator was “frozen.”

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.
ES-602, Page 21 of 27

ES-602 13 Attachment 1

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 22 of 27

ES-602 14 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 signal resulted in high head safety injection flow to the

loop cold legs when the plant was in Mode 4. After completing corrective 

actions for the inadvertent safety injection initiation, you must do the following:

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 his or her 

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 upper surge tank.

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 23 of 27

ES-602 14 Attachment 1

Examples of Different Types of Questions (continued) 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/cm2

; Alpha-4 dpm/cm2

EQUIPMENT SMEAR: Beta-1,800 dpm/cm2

: 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. Pressurizer pressure low signal and containment 

pressure high signal initiate, and all equipment operates as designed.

Which ONE of the following is the expected system response?

a. Offsite power low signal (OPLS) initiates load shed and starts both 

emergency diesel generators.

b. OPLS does NOT actuate; the emergency diesel generators start

and reenergize 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 24 of 27

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 whether 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 the 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 on Plant Conditions or Parameters

• Compute or determine the status or change in other parameters.

• Use, for example, charts, curves, and graphs to perform calculations or estimations.
ES-602, Page 25 of 27

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 26 of 27

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, 

knowledge and abilities (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 27 of 27

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, Page 1 of 7

ES-603

REQUALIFICATION WALKTHROUGH EXAMINATIONS

A. Purpose

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) examiners, working with facility evaluators, follow 

this standard to administer walkthrough requalification examinations as authorized by Title 10 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 55.59(a)(2)(iii). The walkthrough 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 walkthrough requalification examinations in which each 

operator performs five job performance measures (JPMs). Each operator’s walkthrough 

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 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 or 

vendor notices
ES-603, Page 2 of 7

• risk-important systems, components, and operator actions1 for plant or

vendor generic systems as identified through probabilistic risk 

assessment

• 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 NUREG-1122, “Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear 

Power Plant Operators: Pressurized Water Reactors”; NUREG-2103, 

“Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant Operators: 

Westinghouse AP1000 Pressurized-Water Reactors”; NUREG-1123, “Knowledge 

and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant Operators: Boiling Water 

Reactors”; and NUREG-2104, “Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear 

Power Plant Operators: Advanced Boiling-Water Reactors.” 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, NUREG-1123, NUREG-2103, or NUREG-2104. 

The NRC staff expects each facility to maintain a list of these plant-specific tasks 

and develop JPMs that test the operator’s K/A in these areas. Before submitting 

the JPMs to the NRC for review, the facility 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, 

NUREG-1123, NUREG-2103, or NUREG-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

 

1 Chapter 13 of NUREG-1560, “Individual Plant Examination Program: Perspectives on Reactor Safety and Plant 

Performance,” issued December 1977, 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, Page 3 of 7

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 walkthrough 

examination shall not test solely for simple recall or memorization. Although it 

was written in a style to address written examinations, refer to ES-602,

Attachment 1, when preparing JPMs as well. Although an operating test does 

not require every JPM to be an 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 walkthrough 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 

125–150 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 prespecified 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 
ES-603, Page 4 of 7

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, “Preparing Initial Site-Specific

Written Examinations,” 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, NUREG-1123, NUREG-2103, or 

NUREG-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 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.

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 Walkthrough Examinations

a. The facility evaluator is responsible for conducting the walkthrough 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 walkthrough 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 will inform operators that a JPM is time critical.

d. Time should be allotted during the operating test for evaluating each operator’s

performance of five JPMs.

Each walkthrough 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.
ES-603, Page 5 of 7

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

Note: The JPM sample size will be constrained to the requirements of this 

examination standard for NRC-conducted examinations. The facility may 

perform an additional evaluation of its operators outside the timeframe 

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 

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 walkthrough examination. If the NRC examiner observes 

improper evaluation techniques that may render the examination invalid, the

NRC examiner will stop the walkthrough 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 

walkthrough with the original facility evaluator observing and co-evaluating.

g. If an evaluator believes that followup 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 Form ES-603-1, “JPM Summary Matrix,” 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 walkthrough 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.
ES-603, Page 6 of 7

2. Grading the Examination

a. To pass the walkthrough 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.

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 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-603, Page

7 of 7

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 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 followup 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 10 CFR 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 followup 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 followup questions and the 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 (the NRC and facility) will determine the content, CTs, 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, 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 (DASs) for the facility or actual events that have occurred at that or a 

similar facility. 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.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 they 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 the Office of 

Nuclear Reactor Regulation/Office of New Reactors 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 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,” issued December 1997, 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 followup

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 followup 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 followup questions.

c. Upon completing any followup 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 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 followup 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 followup 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 followup 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 followup 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 followup 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 followup questions specific to the

deficiencies that the operator displayed in performing the CT. The examination team 

will determine the number and scope of the followup 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 followup questioning 

are inconclusive.

Upon completion of the individual followup 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:
ES-604, Page 8 of 19

• 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 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. Followup

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 followup 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 followup under “Individual Followup” in the “Simulator Examination Results”

section of Form ES-601-5.

If an operator demonstrates no performance deficiencies and, therefore, does not 

require any additional followup questioning, regardless of whether the crew passes or 

fails the dynamic simulator examination, the NRC examiner will record an “N/A” for

“Individual Followup” 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 the conditions do not cue the crew to expected events.

 3. The scenario consists mostly of related events.

 4. Each event description consists of the following:

• the point in the scenario when it is to be initiated

• the malfunction(s) that is 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 indicates so. 

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 emergency operating procedure (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 the 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 simulator 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 (e.g., 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 the crew’s 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 abnormal operating procedure (AOP) and emergency operating procedure 

(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 a 

degraded plant 

condition(s) or execute an 

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 a

control(s), which 

jeopardized a 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 a 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 members:

(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 an 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 members:

(d) Use a team approach to problem-solving and decisionmaking by soliciting and

incorporating relevant information from all crew members?

3

Crew members were 

involved in the 

problem-solving and 

decisionmaking processes 

for effective team 

decisionmaking.

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 a 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 the crew

sometimes needed 

prompting or failed to 

acknowledge the

completion of evolutions or 

to respond to information 

from others.

1

Crew members did not 

inform each other of an

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 14

ES-605

LICENSE MAINTENANCE, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATIONS,

AND REQUESTS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS AND DEMANDS FOR HEARINGS

A. Purpose

This standard provides guidelines for maintaining a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

operator’s license and the procedures for processing license renewal applications, licensed 

operators’ requests for administrative reviews and demands for 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 demands for hearings on 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 

licensed operators, even if they do not maintain watch-standing proficiency under

10 CFR 55.53(e). The 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 the 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 14

licensee’s Commission-approved requalification program, including its required 

comprehensive written examination, within 24 months, as required by

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, “Specific 

Exemptions.”

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, but the licensed operator is still in compliance with 

10 CFR 55.59(a)(1) and (2) and 10 CFR 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 

10 CFR 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 operators participate. 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 an operator has not met the requirements of 10 CFR 55.59(a)(1) and (2), the 

Commission may require the operator to complete additional training in 

accordance with 10 CFR 55.59(b) and to submit evidence to the Commission of 

his or her successful completion of this training before returning to licensed 

duties. The following examples are the most common extenuating 

circumstances that result in an operator’s suspension in the requalification 

program:

• temporary assignment to the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations

• participation in a foreign interchange program

• college attendance

• military assignment

The facility licensee should notify the regional office when any licensed operator 

is suspended from the requalification program with the details of the facility 

licensee’s plan to ensure that the operator’s qualifications and status are 

acceptable before he or she resumes licensed duties.
ES-605, Page 3 of 14

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. Working overtime as an extra “helper” after the

official watch has been turned over to another watch-stander 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 reactor operator (RO) or senior reactor 

operator (SRO) shift crew positions that are in excess of those required by a 

facility’s technical specifications. However, 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 at which

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 at which technical 

specifications require only three ROs if the fourth RO is performing duties 

analogous to the third RO (who is required by technical specifications).
ES-605, Page 4 of 14

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 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 an SRO license active, an 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. An 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 an SRO to reactivate the supervisory 

portion of his or her SRO license under 10 CFR 55.53(f)(2), he or she must

complete a minimum of 40 hours of shift functions, including a complete plant 

tour and required shift turnover procedures, under the direction of an SRO in a 

credited SRO-only supervisory position. An 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 
ES-605, Page 5 of 14

single unit, including a plant tour, 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 about license reactivation under 10 CFR 55.53(f):

• The 40 hours of under-direction watches required by 10 CFR 55.53(f)(2) 

shall only be credited for standing watches in an 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 

noncredited position.

• When performing under-direction watches, only one under-direction 

watch-stander 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 to be completed on consecutive days. 

All 40 hours should occur within a reasonable timeframe (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 in an active

state 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 and 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 “nonapplicable,” unless there is 

sufficient justification (e.g., personnel or radiation hazard).

g. Senior operators limited to fuel handling under 10 CFR 55.53(c) (i.e., limited 

SROs or LSROs) would generally be unable to maintain an active status as 

defined in 10 CFR 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 
ES-605, Page 6 of 14

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. It also meets the definition of “actively perform the 

functions of a senior operator” in 10 CFR 55.4, which requires the licensee to 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.

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, “General Exemptions,” 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,” issued November 1987, 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, 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
ES-605, Page 7 of 14

• the nature of the fuel-handling activities that a licensee will have to 

complete to remain “active” and an explanation of 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 explain 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

3. Medical Standards

In accordance with Subpart C, “Medical Requirements,” of 10 CFR Part 55, “Operators’ 

Licenses,” and 10 CFR 55.33(a)(1), 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 from 

the date of licensing). In addition, under 10 CFR 55.57(a)(6), their fitness must be 

certified on NRC Form 396, “Certification of Medical Examination by Facility Licensee,”

every time the license is renewed. As noted on NRC Form 396, the physician and 

facility licensee may use the 1983,1996, 2013, or the most recently endorsed version of

American National Standards Institute/American Nuclear Society (ANSI/ANS) 3.4, 

“Medical Certification and Monitoring of Personnel Requiring Operator Licenses for 

Nuclear Power Plants,” when making their fitness determinations. These 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 all 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 additional training requirements of 

10 CFR 55.59(b), including notification of the NRC.

The facility licensee does not need to 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 
ES-605, Page 8 of 14

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 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 10 CFR 55.25, “Incapacitation because of Disability or Illness”). If an 

operator develops a 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, it would be prudent to report the 

condition to the NRC or at least contact the appropriate NRC regional office 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 

millimeters of mercury (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 of 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 general 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.
ES-605, Page 9 of 14

• 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.

• 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 followup 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, drug interactions, and 

dosages 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 followup 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.
ES-605, Page 10 of 14

4. Downgrading an SRO License

If a facility licensee and SRO desire to permanently downgrade the SRO’s license, they

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 an RO 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

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.

5. License Amendments

a. A license amendment request is required whenever information changes that 

would require a change to the physical operator license. Some examples of 

changes that require a license amendment include the following:

• legal name (such as first or last name)

• address

• type of license (such as the downgrade of an SRO license discussed in 

Section C.4 of this examination standard)

• permanent medical condition or restriction (as discussed in Section C.3 of 

this examination standard)

• addition of another unit at a multiunit site (requested using NRC 

Form 398, “Personal Qualification Statement—Licensee”; also see

Section D.3 of ES-204, “Processing Excusals and Waivers Requested by 

Reactor Operator and Senior Reactor Operator Applicants”)

Some examples of changes that would not require a license amendment include

the following:

• e-mail address

• education

• additional industry experience

• editorial issues (such as a typographical error)

• new facility medical contact

• use of a new ANS/ANSI standard (ANSI/ANS 3.4 or ANSI/ANS 15.4, 

“Selection and Training of Personnel for Research Reactors”)
ES-605, Page 11 of 14

If there is a question as to whether or not an information change requires a 

license amendment, the facility licensee should contact the applicable program 

office for clarification.

b. A license amendment request requires a signature from the affected licensed 

operator in accordance with 10 CFR 55.31(b); 10 CFR 55.31(d); 10 CFR 55.9, 

“Completeness and Accuracy of Information”; 10 CFR 55.61, “Modification and 

Revocation of Licenses”; and Sections 107 and 182a of the Atomic Energy Act of 

1954, as amended. The NRC will not take action on the operator’s license in 

response to the license amendment request without a signed statement of fact 

from the affected licensed operator. For the purpose of medical condition 

license amendments, the affected licensed operator can satisfy this requirement 

by signing the NRC Form 396. To meet this requirement, the facility licensee 

may e-mail or submit via electronic information exchange the operator-signed 

license amendment request to the NRC region office.

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 has 

satisfactorily completed the facility’s approved requalification program by

checking the corresponding certification box and signing in the designated space 

on NRC 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 dispositioned the

application for renewal. 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).
ES-605, Page 12 of 14

Under 10 CFR 55.55(a), each operator license and senior operator license 

expires 6 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. Under

10 CFR 55.55(b), if a licensee files an application for renewal or an upgrade of 

an existing license on NRC Form 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. Under 

10 CFR 2.109, “Effect of Timely Renewal Application,” 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.

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. The regulations at 10 CFR 55.5, “Communications,” set forth requirements on 

where to submit any application for a license or 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 licensee or facility licensee to 

provide supplemental information. The Regional Administrator may deny an 

application if an applicant fails to respond to a request for additional information 

within 30 days from the date of the request or within such other time as may be 

specified. (See 10 CFR 2.108, “Denial of Application for Failure to Supply 

Information,” and 10 CFR 2.103(b) for requirements concerning 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 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 applicant and the facility licensee of the 

deficiencies and request any supplemental information that the staff might 

require to make a renewal 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 notice of denial of the 
ES-605, Page 13 of 14

application and inform the applicant in writing of the right of the applicant to 

demand a hearing within 20 days from the date of the notice or such longer 

period as may be specified in the notice in accordance with 10 CFR 2.103(b).

c. A demand for a hearing shall be filed in accordance with 10 CFR Part 2, “Agency 

Rules of Practice and Procedure,” a current copy of which is accessible 

electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC’s Web site at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. Generally, a demand for a 

hearing should explain why the applicant believes that the NRC’s denial of his or 

her application was in error and why the applicant believes that he or she has, in 

fact, satisfied the requirements for license renewal. 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.

E. NRC-Conducted Requalification Examination Results

1. Passing an NRC-Conducted Requalification Examination

a. 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 in the failure notification letter.

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, 

“Conducting NRC Requalification Examinations,” 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. 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. 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 
ES-605, Page 14 of 14

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 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation/Office of New 

Reactors operator licensing program office.
ES-701, Page 1 of 26

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 (i.e., limited LSROs 

or LSROs).

B. Background

Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 55.41, “Written Examination: 

Operators,” and 10 CFR 55.43, “Written Examination: Senior Operators,” the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) written LSRO examinations must contain a representative 

selection of questions concerning the specific knowledge and abilities (K/As) and skills 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 the following examination standards for administering 

unrestricted initial licensing examinations at power reactors also applies to the LSRO 

examination:

• ES-201, “Initial Operator Licensing Examination Process”

• ES-202, “Preparing and Reviewing Operator Licensing Applications”

• ES-204, “Processing Excusals and Waivers Requested by Reactor Operator and Senior 

Reactor Operator Applicants”

• ES-301, “Preparing Initial Operating Tests”

• ES-302, “Administering Operating Tests to Initial License Applicants”

• ES-303, “Documenting and Grading Initial Operating Tests”

• ES-401, “Preparing Initial Site-Specific Written Examinations”

• ES-401N, “Preparing Initial Site-Specific Written Examinations”

• ES-402, “Administering Initial Written Examinations”

• ES-403, “Grading Initial Site-Specific Written Examinations”

• ES-501, “Initial Post-Examination Activities” 
ES-701, Page 2 of 26

• ES-502, “Application Denials and Processing Requests for Informal NRC Staff Reviews”

However, ES-205, “Procedure for Administering the Generic Fundamentals Examination

Program,” does not apply to LSRO applicants.

C. Responsibilities

1. Facility Licensee

The facility licensee is responsible for the same activities specified in the unrestricted 

examination standards, with the following exceptions and modifications:

a. As an exception to ES-202, “Preparing and Reviewing Operator Licensing

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).

2. NRC Regional Office

The NRC’s regional office is responsible for the same activities specified in the

unrestricted examination standards, 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 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation/Office of New 

Reactors (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).
ES-701, Page 3 of 26

D. Written Examination Instructions

1. Preparation

The NRC’s written LSRO examination should meet all the guidelines and requirements 

for question construction, quality, and facility reviews specified in ES-401 or ES-401N

and Appendix B, 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 reactor operator and senior reactor operator (SRO)

models in ES-401 or ES-401N, use 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”; or 

Form ES-701-4, “LSRO AP-1000® Written Examination Outline,” as applicable 

to the facility; and Form ES-701-5, “LSRO Generic Knowledge and Abilities 

Outline (Tier 3),” 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 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 K/As 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, “Examination Outline Quality Checklist,” when 

reviewing the examination outline.

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 generic fundamentals 

examinations (GFEs).
ES-701, Page 4 of 26

• 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 4 

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 Form ES-701-8, “LSRO Written Examination 

Quality Checklist,” and Form ES-701-10, “LSRO Written Examination Cover 

Sheet,” 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 and ES-403. 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.

E. Operating Test Instructions

The LSRO operating test shall generally be prepared, administered, and documented in

accordance with ES-301, ES-302, and ES-303, 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 walkthrough 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 ensure 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 walkthrough 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.
ES-701, Page 5 of 26

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 his or her

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 LSRO’s

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., 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 System No. 234000 (boiling-water reactor 

(BWR)) or System No. 034 (pressurized-water reactor (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).
ES-701, Page 6 of 26

• The specific criteria in Sections D.4.a and D.4.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 to document the selection of administrative, system, and 

E/APE JPMs to be performed (instead of using Form ES-301-1, “Administrative 

Topics Outline,” and Form ES-301-2, “Control Room/In-Plant Systems Outline”); 

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 (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, “Operating Test Quality Checklist”).

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.

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, “Individual 

Examination Report,” and determine a grade for each administrative, system, 

and E/APE JPM as described in Section D.2.a of ES-303. Indicate “N/A” for 

“Simulator Operating Test” under “Operating Test Summary” 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).
ES-701, Page 7 of 26

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 8 of 26

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 and

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, IRs, and point

totals (#) on Form ES-701-5.

9. Refer to Section D.1 of ES-401 or ES-401N 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 9 of 26

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 

Instrument Air

295020 Inadvertent Containment

Isolation

295030 Low Suppression Pool Water 

Level

295035 Secondary Containment High

Differential Pressure

600000 Plant Fire On Site

K/A Category Totals: Tier Point Total: 10
ES-701, Page 10 of 26

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 

Distribution

263000 DC Electrical 

Distribution

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 11 of 26

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 and

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, IRs, and point totals (#) on Form ES-701-5.

9. Refer to Section D.1 of ES-401 or ES-401N 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 12 of 26

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 

Nuclear Instrumentation

000036 (BW/A08) Fuel-Handling 

Accident

000061 ARM System Alarms

000033 Loss of 

Intermediate-Range Nuclear 

Instrumentation

000055 Station Blackout

000056 Loss of Offsite Power

000057 Loss of Vital AC Instrument

Bus

000058 Loss of DC Power

000062 Loss of Nuclear Service

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 13 of 26

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 14 of 26

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 and

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, IRs, and point totals (#) on Form ES-701-3.

9. Refer to Section D.1 of ES-401 or ES-401N 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 15 of 26

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 Power

/ 6

APE2006 Reactor Scram

APE2008 High Reactor Water Level

APE2013 Inadvertent Reactivity Addition / 1

APE2009 Low Reactor Water Level / 2

APE2016High Offsite Release Rate / 9

APE2017 Partial or Total Loss of CCW 

Reactor Building Cooling Water / 8

APE2018 Partial or Total Loss of Instrument

Air / 8

APE2019 Inadvertent Containment Isolation

/ 5 & 7

APE2020 Loss of Shutdown Cooling / 4

APE2022 Refueling Accidents / 8

APE2023 Plant Fire On Site / 8

EPE1006 Low Suppression Pool Water 

Level / 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 16 of 26

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 

Auxiliary

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 17 of 26

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 18 of 26

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 and

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, IRs, and point totals (#) on Form ES-701-3.

9. Refer to Section D.1 of ES-401 or ES-401N 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 19 of 26

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 6.9-kV, 4,160-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 20 of 26

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 21 of 26

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 22 of 26

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 23 of 26

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 walkthrough 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 walkthrough includes:

(1) three JPMs based on the Tier 1 evolutions, 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, 10 CFR 55.43, and 10 CFR 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 is required.
ES-701, Page 24 of 26

____

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 is required.
ES-701, Page 25 of 26

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

• 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

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 is required.
ES-701, Page 26 of 26

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 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 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) requalification examinations for senior 

operators limited to fuel handling (i.e., limited SROs or 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, “Conducting NRC Requalification Examinations”; ES-602,

“Requalification Written Examinations”; and ES-603, “Requalification Walkthrough 

Examinations,” 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, ES-602, and ES-603 also apply 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, 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 10 CFR 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

walkthrough operating test, which are 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 Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation/Office of New Reactors (NRR/NRO) operator licensing program 

office will determine the appropriate sample size based on the number of LSROs 

licensed at the facility.

6. The Sample 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, “Evaluation Checklist for Facility Reference Material.”

7. The NRC staff expects the facility licensee to maintain job performance measures 

(JPMs) 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 Form ES-702-1, “Individual LSRO Requalification Examination Report,”

and Form ES-702-2, “Power Plant LSRO Requalification Results Summary,” instead of 

Form ES-601-3, “Power Plant Requalification Results Summary Sheet “; 

Form ES-601-4, “Power Plant Requalification Results Summary Continuation Sheet”;

and Form ES-601-5, “Individual Requalification Examination Report.”

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 the following:

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, “LSRO Written Requalification Examination Cover Sheet,” will 

be used as a cover sheet rather than Form ES-602-1, “NRC Checklist for

Open-Reference Test Items.”

2. Walkthrough Operating Test

The walkthrough operating test will be developed, administered, and evaluated as

described in ES-603, 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

walkthrough 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

Facility

NRC

Facility

NRC

Facility

NRC

Facility

NRC

Facility

NRC

Facility

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 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 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (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—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 NUREG-1122, “Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power 

Plant Operators: Pressurized Water Reactors”; NUREG-2103, “Knowledge and Abilities 

Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant Operators: Westinghouse AP1000 Pressurized-Water 

Reactors”; NUREG-1123, “Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant Operators: 

Boiling Water Reactors”; and NUREG-2104, “Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear 

Power Plant Operators: Advanced Boiling-Water Reactors,” for pressurized-water reactors and 

boiling-water reactors 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 
A-2

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.

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 (K/A) 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 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 

reactor 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.

NUREG-1122, NUREG-1123, NUREG-2103, and NUREG-2104 provide the 

basis for the development of content-valid examinations for ROs and SROs, 

consistent with the testing industry standards described above.
A-3

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 NUREG-1122 and NUREG-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 

NUREG-2103 and NUREG-2104 were developed on the basis of the Design 

Center JTA and were reviewed by system experts and design knowledgeable 

personnel, many of whom 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. Chapter 1 of each catalog further explains

the content of the K/A catalogs.

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 level 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 K/A

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 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. 
A-4

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 the testing demands for an initial examination are

different from those for a requalification examination. The requalification 

examination is based on 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 

would not be focused on 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 will be. Because 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 at 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 a higher cognitive level (HCL)

(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.

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 

the student’s problem-solving skills in new and different applications. These 

applications should be item substitutions of comparable difficulty, neither harder nor
A-5

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). Although each examination may 

meet sample plan coverage guidelines, they test different levels of knowledge;

consequently, they are different and inconsistent measuring instruments. Therefore, 

they yield different validity inferences regarding minimally safe operator performance. 

Section D provides a more detailed discussion of consistency and reliability, and 

Appendix B gives 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 whether 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

the examinee must achieve a pass/fail or minimal cut score or grade to 

demonstrate sufficient K/As 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 K/As and skills.

b. Cut Scores

For NRC examinations, the overall cut scores (on the written examination and 

walkthrough portion) 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 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. 
A-6

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

understanding, analyzing, and synthesizing that knowledge with other knowledge 

(high level).

The accurate classification of knowledge as either low or high level requires the

application of objective criteria. Although 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 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:

(1) the number and type of mental steps necessary to process the given data 

and arrive at the correct answer

(2) the training and experience level of the target test group

Generally, an HCL test item will require at least two mental steps—one 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 
A-7

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. Because 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 at 10 CFR 55.45(a) and 10 CFR 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 walkthrough portion 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 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, 
A-8

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, the following concepts apply:

• 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, future 

use of a comparable item will likely yield a similar result; therefore, 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 decisionmaking 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 

examinees have already seen a significant portion of the items within the 

examination.

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 overreliance 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
A-11

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, 

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 (T/F) statements, 

and 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. 

Attachment 1 to ES-602 gives 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

Deemphasizing 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 decisionmaking) 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 knowledge and abilities (K/As. This provides 

better content coverage and 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 on 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 (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 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 the draft question, consider 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.

To facilitate the translation of a K/A into a test question, consider the following 

questions to help generate ideas for potential test questions:
B-4

(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 the

questions to ensure that they include all necessary information and exclude all 

extraneous or superfluous information. For example, it is not necessary to 

provide a status for each annunciated parameter that is in its normal 

(nonalarming) state. Section C.3 provides for additional guidance on

examination reviews, and Part B of Appendix E gives the instructions to 

applicants on 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 K/As 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 
B-5

applied to simulator scenarios and job performance measures. 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):

• 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.
B-6

Because 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 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—(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.
B-7

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.

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 2 provides examples of backward logic questions.

In addition to testing on valid topics, it is important to test 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:
B-8

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

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, and other such conditions)

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 Model 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 
B-9

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 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 whether a test item 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, the question is likely a T/F 

collection. Section F of Attachment 2 provides sample questions that illustrate 

this psychometric deficiency.

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 at 100-percent power.
B-10

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 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.
B-11

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 indicate 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

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.
B-12

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 on a common misconception about 

loss of subcooling margin:

During a small-break loss-of-coolant accident 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.

i. If the answer options have a logical sequence, put them in order (as in “h”

above).
B-13

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 T/F 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-14

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 (e.g., (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 
B-15

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:

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. It is advantageous to consider 

each of these four areas separately and in this order. If an item needs revision during 

one stage of the review, the changes should be made before going further because the

changes at each stage may 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.
B-16

The examination author and reviewers should ask 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-17

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 knowledge and ability?

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-18

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 knowledge and abilities (K/As). Even though the K/A 

statements below use verbs (i.e., identify, define) that elicit a fundamental or simple memory 

level of knowledge, the item author can increase their operational validity by testing at a higher 

cognitive level:

• 19104K101 (pressurized-water reactor (PWR)) or 291004K101 (boiling-water reactor 

(BWR)): identification, symptoms, and consequences of cavitation

• 193006K111 (PWR) or 293006K109 (BWR): definition or explanation of 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-19

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 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) examinations.

Which one of the following is powered from 4,160 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 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-20

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 (i.e., 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-21

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-22

Appendix B 5 Attachment 2

WHICH ONE 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)(0.001) + (Level Mark)(0.003)

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 

loss-of-coolant accident (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-23

Appendix B 6 Attachment 2

2. Which ONE of the following conditions will NOT result in a shutdown of the standby gas

treatment system?

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, reactor core 

isolation cooling, and the standby gas treatment system?

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-V DC 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 balance-of-plant systems BUT ARE required for safety-related 

systems
B-24

Appendix B 7 Attachment 2

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

This question contains two main problems. First, although negative questions can be used, 

they should be used for good reason; there appears to be no good basis for asking this

question negatively. Second, two of the distractors (“a” and “c”) also contain a negative, 

thus creating a double negative with readability confusion, which violates 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 automatically start the emergency diesel generators.

b. Low reactor water level will trip the main turbine.

c. High reactor pressure will initiate reactor core isolation cooling.

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 are required to know which 

procedure(s) to use. These questions ask them to do just the opposite and, therefore, should 

be avoided on NRC examinations.
B-25

Appendix B 8 Attachment 2

1. Which of the following parameters will simultaneously start high-pressure coolant injection, 

reactor core isolation cooling, and the standby gas treatment system?

a. high reactor pressure vessel water level

b. high drywell pressure

c. low reactor pressure vessel 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-26

Appendix B References Attachment 3

1. Bloom, B., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational 

Goals, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain, David McKay Company, New York, NY, 1956.

2. Isaac, S., 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 edition, Edits Publishers, San Diego, CA, 1995.

3. Novac, J., and Gowin, D., Learning How to Learn, Cambridge University Press, New 

York, NY, 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 (Form ES-C-1, “Job Performance 

Measure Worksheet,” and Form ES-C-2, “Job Performance Measure Quality Checklist”)

• guidelines for developing and using alternate-path JPMs (Section C)

• a discussion of walkthrough evaluation techniques (Section D)

Adhering to the concepts and guidelines discussed herein, in association with the specific 

operating test criteria cited in ES-301, “Preparing Initial Operating Tests,” or ES-603,

“Requalification Walkthrough Examinations,” as applicable, will enhance the consistency and

validity of the walkthrough tests.

B. Developing and Reviewing JPMs

This section addresses the major JPM components and the 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 walkthrough 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 herein 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 or equivalent. 

Form ES-C-2 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 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 (10 CFR) 55.45(a) and 

10 CFR 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 walkthrough examination shall not test solely for simple recall or 

memorization. Although ES-602, “Requalification Written Examinations,” was written to 

address written examinations, refer to Attachment 1 to that standard 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; however, the performance of some JPM steps 

may be required to meet the task standard, but these steps do not meet the definition of 

a verifiable action (refer to ES-301, Attachment 2, “Verifiable Action Guidelines,” for 

information on verifiable actions). JPM steps that are required to meet the task 

standard, but are not verifiable actions, must still be designated as critical steps. For 

example, during a control room JPM where a system is being aligned, if a manual valve 

in the plant must be opened in order for the task to be complete, the phone call to direct 

a field operator to open the valve would be designated a critical step, even though a 

phone call to have a field operator manipulate a component is not a verifiable action per 

ES-301 Attachment 2. Similarly, for an in-plant JPM that involves aligning a system, if 

the applicant is required to call the control room to start a pump or open a valve and the 

actions taken in the control room are necessary in order to accomplish the overall task 

standard, any phone call to direct those actions would also be designated a critical step, 

even though phone calls are not verifiable actions. For these examples, the applicant 

will direct the field operator to perform a hypothetical verifiable action. Under no 

circumstances should a control room or in-plant JPM consist solely of critical steps that 

are not 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.
C-4

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. 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 licensee 

commitment to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (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 licensee-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 licensee that are addressed 

through generic administrative procedures or policies (e.g., shifting controls to manual).
C-5

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 simulator operating test portion of the examination.

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 

nonpertinent 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. Walkthrough Evaluation Techniques

This guidance is intended to assist NRC examiners and facility licensee evaluators in 

administering JPMs by illustrating good and bad examples of walkthrough 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.
C-6

b. Nonverbal 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 a change in the manner in which cues 

are given (e.g., talking more methodically or rapidly) are examples of nonverbal 

communication 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.

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 walkthrough 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 followup 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 Licensee Evaluator:

Number of Attempts:

Time to Complete:

Question Documentation: 

Question: __________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

Response: _________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

Result: Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory

Examiner’s signature: _______________________________ Date: ________
C-10

Appendix C Job Performance Measure Form ES-C-2

Quality Checklist

Every JPM should do the following:

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 and 3 for requalification exams) or as determined by the facility licensee 

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 

licensee operations department

e. ___ operationally important specific performance criteria that includes:

(1) ___ expected actions with exact control and indication nomenclature and

criteria (e.g., switch position and 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 each simulator operating test 

scenario (“simulator scenarios” or “scenarios”) to ensure that they are of appropriate scope, 

depth, and complexity for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) simulator 

operating test portion of the 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 herein, 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 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 licensee’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 in 10 CFR 55.45(1)–(13) and that annual requalification operating

tests include a comprehensive sampling of items in 10 CFR 55.45(2)–(13). 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 operating procedures (AOPs) and emergency operating 

procedures (EOPs). Additionally, the scenario must require the operators (usually 

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 (ICs) established for a dynamic simulator operating test must allow 

each scenario to commence realistically. In other words, the ICs 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 ICs may have a bearing on

subsequent scenario events. ICs should also be frequently changed to prevent future

events from becoming predictable. In addition, ICs should be varied among the

scenarios and include startup, low-power, and full-power situations.

Briefly describe the ICs, including any items that would normally be addressed during 

the shift turnover, in the space provided at the top of Form ES-D-1, “Scenarios Outline,” 

or equivalent.

3. Select and Document Events

After establishing the ICs, 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, his or her ability to respond to a

safety-significant event, or his or her 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 operator’s 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 (i.e., 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 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, 

and 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) 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 the 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. Section D of 

this appendix discusses additional CTs and what constitutes an appropriate 

measurable performance standard.
D-4

• When possible, include setpoints and other parameters to provide an objective 

method for evaluating the operator’s performance. Statements, such as

“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 public health and safety in emergency conditions, using the facility

licensee’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 
D-5

(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.

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 sometimes 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 

pressurized-water reactor (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, “Loss of Heat 

Sink”) but before 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, a jump greater 

than 21 hours forward in time following a loss of all alternating-current (AC)

power on an AP-1000® plant so that actions to be taken before a loss of 

direct-current 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 before 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.
D-6

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 

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 operators’ time 

determining the validity of the plant indications, the examiner should inform the 

crew before the scenario begins that time compression may be used during an

event and should debrief the crew 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 posttrip 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-7

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 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

Form ES-303-3, “RO Competency Grading Worksheet for the Simulator 

Operating Test,” and Form ES-303-4, “SRO Competency Grading Worksheet for 

the Simulator Operating Test,” for RO and SRO applicants, respectively), 

whereas 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 obtained the minimum level of 

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 (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

To limit overlap, every scenario must be new or contain at least two events that 

were not used on the previous two NRC initial licensing operating tests (as 

discussed in ES-301, Section D.5.b). Events found in spare scenarios will count 

as previously used events if they were made publicly available in the NRC’s 

records management system (Agencywide Documents Access and Management 
D-8

System). Reactivity manipulations are exempt from this overlap limitation. 

Additionally, if any major event is repeated from either of the previous two NRC 

initial licensing operating tests, the examination author should change the major 

event, the ICs, or subsequent malfunctions (or a combination) to alter the course 

of action (within the emergency procedures) for the given scenario(s). The NRC

expect that all major events would be broadly sampled over the course of several 

operating tests and that no major event will routinely be omitted without 

justification. If a facility licensee encounters difficulty meeting these

requirements (e.g., because of large class sizes requiring the generation of more 

scenarios than normal), it should coordinate with the NRC chief examiner to meet 

the intent of this section to the extent possible. Furthermore, any other 

scenarios that 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 ICs, 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 a change in 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 (10 CFR 55.59(c)(3)(i)(A–F), (R), (T), (W), and (X)

describe control manipulations and plant evolutions).

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.
D-9

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 Section C.2.c). 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 (ATWS) or an anticipated 

transient without trip is a single malfunction, regardless of how many instructions 

a facility licensee simulator operator must program to produce it.

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-pressure 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-pressure SI pump on a

small-break LOCA.

d. Abnormal Events (include alarm response procedures if significant and verifiable 

actions as 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

Section C.2.e), 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.
D-10

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

licensee’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 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 NRC 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 four top-level guidelines for emergency procedures: 

(1) reactor pressure vessel (RPV) control 

(2) primary containment control 

(3) secondary containment control

(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

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.
D-11

(1) Westinghouse PWR

Optimal recovery procedures designated as emergency contingency 

action procedures include the following:

• 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 include the following:

• response to nuclear power generation/ATWS

• response to inadequate core cooling

• 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 PWR

• 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 PWR

The Babcock and Wilcox EOP structure does not identify procedures that

can be easily recognized as contingency procedures. However, use of

the descriptions given above for the Westinghouse contingency 

procedures provides guidance on the types of events to be considered.

(4) General Electric BWR

• alternative level control

• emergency RPV depressurization

• primary containment flooding

• level/power control

• RPV flooding

• steam cooling
D-12

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 public 

health and safety. 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 

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

CTs range between simple safety-significant tasks (e.g., starting the standby 

liquid control (SLC) system 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 CTs that are initially incorporated into the scenario

are referred to as “preidentified CTs.” 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. ES-301 

outlines the target number of preidentified CTs per scenario. Preidentified CTs 

are part of the scenario design and are included on the ES-D forms. A scenario 

should be written with at least two preidentified CTs. 
D-13

Because not all operator actions can be predicted, either an individual or the 

crew may, at times, “create” a new CT. Additional events may be determined to 

be CTs after the scenario is administered. These are considered “post scenario 

CTs.” 

Section D gives a detailed explanation of the CT methodology.

D. Critical Task Methodology

CTs provide the examination team with an opportunity to evaluate whether an individual or crew 

has successfully completed those actions that are of significant importance to the safety of both

the plant and the public. The simulator test is graded based on competencies; every error that 

reveals an operator’s competence is considered equal unless it is related to the performance of 

a CT. CTs 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. ES-303 includes specific instructions on

grading CTs on initial examinations.

• Requalification Exam Scenarios. CTs are used to evaluate crew performance on tasks 

that are significant to the safety of the plant or the public. CTs are objective measures 

for determining whether the performance of an individual or a crew is satisfactory or 

unsatisfactory. ES-604 includes specific instructions on CTs in dynamic requalification 

examinations. 

1. Identification of Scenario-Specific Critical Tasks

Each 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 if 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 fission product barrier

• degraded emergency core cooling system (ECCS) or emergency power 

capacity
D-14

• a violation of a safety limit

• a violation of a facility license condition

• incorrect reactivity control (such as failure to initiate emergency boration 

or the SLC system or to manually insert control rods)

• a significant reduction of safety margin beyond that irreparably introduced 

by the scenario

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 CT 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, flowchart decision 

points, and “response not obtained” columns

• indication of a system or a component malfunction (including passive 

failures) by meters or alarming devices
D-15

c. Measurable Performance Standard

The measurable performance standard for a CT consists of observable actions 

taken by at least one member of the crew. These standards ensure that the 

exam team can objectively determine 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 that examiners have 

agreed upon limits for what is acceptable for task completion and what 

constitutes task failure. When bounding CTs, 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 postscenario CTs, boundary conditions are 

typically inherent to the CT itself. For example, the boundary condition for an 

unintended RPS actuation would be the expectation that the applicant should 

have taken appropriate action(s) before the actuation occurs, thereby preventing 

the actuation.

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 pounds per 

square inch (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 0 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 

(e.g., 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”)
D-16

• For preidentified CTs for which an applicant’s failing to take an action or 

taking an incorrect action would result in an unintentional RPS or ESF 

actuation, the measurable standard is that action is 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 engineered safety features actuation system 

(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 manual control of the master 

pressure controller (or in the performance of another related 

action), but the reactor does not trip because of his or her error, 

the applicant has met the CT.

• 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 CT. 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 and, therefore, are not suitable for CT 

performance standards:

• understanding (such as an applicant must understand the significance of 

a certain plant response)

• verification that an expected response has occurred

• passive observations (such as an applicant must observe the 

performance of a system)
D-17

d. Performance Feedback

During the time span of a CT, 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 its action had an impact or that its 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 CT.

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 followup 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 the pressure reaches a 

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.

Taking manual control of an automatic safety system qualifies as a CT only if the

automatic-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 postscenario review. Before administering the exam, developers 

and examiners should make an effort to identify events for which applicant inaction or 

common applicant error has 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 “Causing an unnecessary plant trip or ESF actuation may constitute 

a CT failure. Actions taken by the applicant(s) will be validated using the methodology 

for critical tasks in Appendix D to NUREG-1021.”

This NUREG does not require emergency event classification to be part of the simulator 

scenario; understanding of the emergency plan is explicitly tested during the 

administrative topics job performance measures. However, if a facility licensee does 

include an event classification in a simulator scenario, performance of an event 
D-18

classification does not meet all four aspects of the CT criteria. Emergency event 

classifications have safety significance, an initiating cue, and a measurable performance 

standard, but they do not provide the applicant performance feedback for correct or 

incorrect classification.

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 setpoints, interlocks, or automatic actions, or the

understanding of how one’s actions affect the plant and system conditions.

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 setpoints, 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-19

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 

setpoints, 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.

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 setpoints, 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
D-20

the ability to provide timely and well thought out directions that indicate concern 

for safety, to encourage a team approach to problem-solving and decisionmaking

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 at (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.

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. 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 and meters) 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.
D-21

• IC 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

the 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 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 Section D.1.j of ES-302, 

“Administering Operating Tests to Initial License Applicants,” for requirements 

associated with video- and audio-recording initial license examinations.

• Sequence of Event Files. Many simulators have the capability to monitor and 

record the sequence of events during simulator scenarios. These files may stay 

in place and remain accessible until deleted or overwritten by subsequent 

scenario runs provided that 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 facility licensee’s computer or

the engineer’s desk.

• Independent Executives. The conditions for scenarios can sometimes be 

replicated offline using independent executive programs. These programs 
D-22

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 GUIs 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’s station 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-23

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; inoperable block valve for PORV 456 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” SG before reaching dry-out conditions (40 inches WR).

2. Establish heat sink using feed and bleed of “A” SG before an extreme challenge to the core 

cooling safety function exists.

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 procedures, including the TS and emergency plan) for each operating position (i.e., SRO, 

RO, and BOP) in a manner similar to the first event on the next page.
D-24

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-25

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 on the 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 before an extreme challenge to 

containment safety function exists.

2. Establish a primary to secondary heat sink on “B” SG before 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; DG “A” breaker trips 

2 minutes 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 procedures, 

including the TS and emergency plan) for each operating position (i.e., SRO, RO, and BOP) in a manner similar to

the first event for the first PWR scenario (page 2 of this attachment).
D-26

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 on the 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 the 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 No. 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 No. 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 procedures, 

including the TS and emergency plan) for each operating position (i.e., SRO, RO, and BOP) in a manner similar to

the first event for the first PWR scenario (page 2 of this attachment).
D-27

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 the RPV water level cannot be maintained at greater 

than -162 inches and before reaching the -180-inch RPV water level.

2. With RPV pressure below the shutoff head of the available low-pressure system(s), operate

 the available low-pressure system(s) to restore the RPV water level above the top of active fuel

(-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 procedures, 

including the TS and emergency plan) for each operating position (i.e., SRO, RO, and BOP) in a manner similar to

the first event for the first PWR scenario (page 2 of this attachment).
D-28

Appendix D Example Requalification Attachment 2

Dynamic Simulator Scenarios

The following are two pressurized-water reactor (PWR) and two boiling-water reactor (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 FR-H.1, “Loss of Heat Sink.”

• 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 (AFW) pump inoperable

• one power-operated relief valve (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.

• A feedline break occurs causing a reactor trip.

• AFW 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

The crew responds to a problem with the “A” feed pump, which eventually trips and causes a

runback.

Malfunctions required: 2 (RFP “A” hydraulic control unit failure and RFP “A” trip)
D-29

Appendix D 2 Attachment 2

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.

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

The 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 emergency operating procedures 

(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

The 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 the steam generator level.

Malfunctions required: 2 (failure of all AFW and failure of “B” PORV 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.
D-30

Appendix D 3 Attachment 2

Success Path:

• Implement the EOP for loss of heat sink.

• Attempt to reestablish auxiliary feed flow; when the steam generator levels become too 

low, initiate the bleed-and-feed procedure.

• Critical Task: Restore feedwater to “A” steam generators before 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 a heat sink using feed and bleed of “A” steam generator within 

5 minutes of the failure of “B” PORV to open.

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: Loss-of-Coolant Accident 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 loss-of-coolant accident (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

• occurrence of a seismic event during the last shift

Events:

• The primary leak increases to a point requiring a reactor trip.

• AFW pumps fail to automatically start on reactor trip.

• The leak leads to a safety injection (SI), and high-pressure SI pumps fail to start 

automatically; a LOCA occurs, a refueling water storage tank (RWST) leak occurs, and

the 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 reactor coolant 

system.

• 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.
D-32

Appendix D 5 Attachment 2

• The 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 an unidentified primary leakage, eventually requiring a reactor trip.

Malfunctions required: 1 (pressurizer steam space leak)

Objectives:

• Evaluate the crew’s use of AOPs and technical specifications (TS) to respond to

unidentified primary leakage.

• Evaluate the crew’s knowledge of parameters in the AOP that require a trip because of

the 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 automatically 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.
D-33

Appendix D 6 Attachment 2

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 

automatically start)

Objectives:

• Evaluate the crew’s ability to monitor important parameters in the EOPs and initiate an 

SI when required.

• Evaluate the crew’s ability to manually start the charging pumps following an SI signal.

Success Path:

• Initiate an 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 4,000 gallons per minute (gpm) of SI flow before the

pressurizer level reaches a low setpoint.

Event Four: LOCA/Adverse Containment

A LOCA occurs as a result of the seismic event, which leads to adverse containment conditions. 

The RWST level decreases to the point at which 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 the 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 the cold-leg recirculation procedure

and use it.

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.
D-34

Appendix D 7 Attachment 2

• Critical Task: Establish cold-leg recirculation of 500 gpm within 5 minutes of entering 

the 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-35

Appendix D 8 Attachment 2

BWR Scenario One: Loss of Offsite Power with a LOCA

Scenario Objective

Evaluate the operators’ use of the “emergency depressurization” and “reactor pressure vessel 

(RPV) flooding” EOP contingency procedures.

Scenario Summary

Initial Conditions:

• 98-percent power

• failure and bypass of the “A” average power range monitor

Events:

• The reactor core isolation cooling (RCIC) system becomes isolated during an RCIC flow 

surveillance.

• The loss of offsite power/Division III diesel generator fails to start, disabling the

high-pressure core spray (HPCS).

• A 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)
D-36

Appendix D 9 Attachment 2

Objective:

• Evaluate the crew’s use of TS to determine that the RCIC system is inoperable.

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 1,065 pounds per square inch, gauge (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 degrees Fahrenheit (F) or the level 

exceeds 18.5 feet.

• Critical Task: Establish suppression pool cooling once the suppression pool exceeds 

90 degrees F and before the temperature reaches 110 degrees 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)
D-37

Appendix D 10 Attachment 2

Objective:

• Evaluate the crew’s ability to recognize an inability to maintain the 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 emergency core cooling system (ECCS).

• Critical Task: Commence RPV emergency depressurization and lower pressure to 

400 psig to achieve 800 gpm of ECCS flow.

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:

• Re-flood 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-38

Appendix D 11 Attachment 2

BWR Scenario Two: Power Oscillations with an Anticipated Transient without Scram

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

• out-of-service HPCS pump

• locked “B” recirculation pump flow control valve

Events:

• The “A” reactor recirculation pump trips, causing power oscillations, and an SRV fails 

open during the power oscillations.

• Anticipated transient without scram (ATWS) occurs, requiring lowering of the level to

control the power.

• Feed system pumps fail to restart and the 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.

• The 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.
D-39

Appendix D 12 Attachment 2

• Evaluate the crew’s use of TS that apply to single recirculation loop operation.

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 flowcharts 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 the suppression pool temperature exceeds 110 degrees F with reactor power less

than 3 percent.

• Critical Task: During failure to scram conditions with reactor power above 3 percent, 

terminate and prevent injection from all sources except SLC, RCIC, and control rod drive

until the 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 failure of RCIC to

start)
D-40

Appendix D 13 Attachment 2

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 six SRVs 

when the drywell pressure cannot be maintained below the PSP limit.

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-41

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-42

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, walkthrough, 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 1 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 exam for the senior operator limited to fuel

handling (LSRO). The times allotted for taking each examination as noted above shall 

not be extended except for unavoidable situations (e.g., loss of power, building 
E-2

evacuation, emergency response), and the licensee shall first notify the NRC’s regional 

office to ensure that a point of contact remains available to respond to questions. The

applicant is responsible for ensuring his or 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 requests for informal NRC staff reviews (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
E-3

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. 

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 both 

satisfactory and 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 

whether 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 

walkthrough, or the dynamic simulator test).

D. Walkthrough Test Guidelines

1. The walkthrough 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.
E-4

The initial walkthrough consists of 15 JPMs for RO and SRO-instant applicants and 10

for SRO-U and 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 walkthrough test 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.

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, he or 

she 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.

8. 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.
E-5

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. 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; 

noncrew 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.
E-6

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 the scenario.

10. You will be given sufficient time (normally about 5 minutes) to familiarize yourselves with

plant conditions before starting each simulator scenario.

11. The initial test will normally consist of two or three scenarios lasting a total of 3 to

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-U 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 or confirm examiner documentation of specific errors in 

your performance that the NRC may have, such as verifying the action(s) taken and its 

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 a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

Form 398, “Personal Qualification 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.
F-2

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).

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 applicant shall 

complete the deferred item(s) before the NRC issues a license.

Designated nuclear control room operator: In accordance with Section C.1.2 of Regulatory

Guide 1.8, “Qualification and Training of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants,” Revision 3,

issued May 2000, an individual assigned to a licensed control room operator position identified 

in either Technical Specifications Table 6.2.1 or the table entitled “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 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 they 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.

Event: Any normal evolution, instrument or component failure, equipment malfunction, 

reactivity manipulation and major plant transient when used in the context of the simulator 

scenario portion of the operating test.
F-3

Excuse: To excuse a reapplicant from the requirement to complete portions of a 

reexamination or test in accordance with 10 CFR 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.

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: An evaluation tool that is based on tasks contained in the

facility’s job task analysis or the applicable NRC knowledge and abilities catalogs

(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: Westinghouse AP1000 Pressurized-Water 

Reactors”; and NUREG-2104, “Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant 

Operators: Advanced Boiling-Water Reactors”) and requires the applicant to perform (or 

simulate) a task that is applicable to the license level of the examination.

Job task analysis: 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, “Shutdown and Low-Power Operation at 

Commercial Nuclear Power Plants in the United States,” issued September 1993, 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.
F-4

Normal distribution: A theoretical frequency distribution represented by a symmetrical 

bell-shaped 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 American National Standards 

Institute/American Nuclear Society (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 preoperational, 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.

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 walkthrough 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 that models

the systems of the reference plant with which the operator interfaces in the control room, 

including operating consoles, and that 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 

preoperational, 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.
F-5

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 arrangement, and design data are

derived.

Related experience: In accordance with Section C.1.1 of Regulatory Guide 1.8, 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.

Responsible nuclear power plant experience: 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 day-to-day 

activities of the facility. Time spent in academic or related technical training may fulfill the 

requirement for responsible nuclear power plant experience 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 applicant: An unlicensed individual who is applying for an 

SRO license.

Senior reactor operator-upgrade 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)):

• a plant-referenced simulator

• a Commission-approved simulator under 10 CFR 55.46(b)

• another simulation device, including part-task and limited-scope simulation devices, 

approved under 10 CFR 55.46(b)
F-6

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/ANS 3.1-1993) who is responsible for the coordination and implementation of plant

equipment control, integrated operation procedures, operations, maintenance, and radiological 

support or for the 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.

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 55.47, “Waiver of Examination and 

Test Requirements.”






NUREG-1021, Rev. 11

Final

Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors