Nuclear Hazard Category 3 (Low-Hazard) Facilities

DOE-HDBK-1074-95

a nuclear facility is designated as nuclear hazard category 1 or 2. Furthermore,

facilities with programs that are subject to accreditation need not apply accreditation

standards to training programs for job positions that are not identified as

accreditable. Alternative techniques can and should be used when designing

training programs. A study by Honeywell in 1978 revealed that at least 29

techniques are available and used for analyzing job requirements. This study

concluded that (1) no one technique was any better than any other, and (2)

regardless of the technique used, analysis results must be used for systematic

approaches to training to succeed.

Normally, the level of formality and effort required to develop training is directly

related to task complexity and hazards associated with the consequences of

inadequate task performance. In addition, competency of the instructional

developers, availability and quality of subject matter experts, availability of facility

procedures, support of line management, and other factors are important in

selection of the appropriate technique(s). When the complexity of the job and

consequences of errors are considered with the factors mentioned above, training

programs can be developed effectively and efficiently by grading the effort to fit the

circumstances.

Nuclear Hazard Category 3 (Low-Hazard) Facilities

From a practical perspective, training programs at low-hazard nuclear facilities may

consist primarily of regulatory-driven training (e.g., OSHA training, industrial safety

and hygiene training, radiation worker training, etc.). The formality and detail

associated with the training that supports the facility-specific mission may be

minimal. The resource expenditure on training at a category 3 facility should be

commensurate with the low level of risk. At nuclear hazard category 3 facilities,

analysis may be simplified, learning objectives may be written at a level of detail not

necessarily related to rigid standards or quantitative testing, and instructional

material may consist of less-formal guides.

Guides should include key points that support learning objective(s) and supporting

information should be included as necessary. This approach differs from nuclear

hazard category 1 and category 2 facilities, at which additional detail and

consistency in format is more appropriate and necessary to address the increased

complexity and hazard associated with many tasks that are performed.

Evaluation of trainee competency is expected at low-hazard facilities. Qualitative

A-2