BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
KESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
SUBTITLE C - HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATIONS
SECTION 3004 - STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO
OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
PARTS 264 AND 265
SUBPART B - GENERAL FACILITY STANDARDS
SECTION 264.16 STANDARDS FOR PERSONNEL TRAINING
SECTION 265.16 INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR
PERSONNEL TRAINING
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
APRIL 29, 1980
-------
'-24401
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paqe
FOREWORD iv
INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE FOR THE REGULATION 1
I. RCRA Authority for the Regulation 1
II. Key Definition 1
III. Damage Cases 3
IV. State Regulations 5
ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS FOR PERSONNEL
TRAINING 8
I. Proposed Standard 25Q.43-4(a) 8
A. Summary of Proposed Standard 8
B. Rationale for the Proposed Standard 9
C. Summary of and Response to Comments 11
Issue #1: The format/content of the
training programs 11
Issue #2: Exemptions to the training
requirements 15
Issue #3: The compliance schedule 19
Issue #4: "Grandfathering" previous
training 24
D. Final Regulation Language 24
II. Proposed Standards 250.43-4(b)(2) and (3) 25
A. Summary of Proposed Standards 25
B. Rationale for the Proposed Standards 25
C. Comments Received on the Proposed Standards 26
D. Analysis and Response to Comments 26
E. Final Regulation Language 27
-------
Page
III. Proposed Standard 250.43-4(b)(1) 29
A. Summary of Proposed Standard 29
B. Rationale for the Proposed Standard 29
C. Summary and Response to Comments 30
Issue #1: Personnel records and the
1976 Privacy Act 30
Issue #2: The required level of detail of
the recordkeeping requirements 33
D. Final Regulation Language 36
IV. General Comments on all of the Proposed
Training Standards 38
References 40
Appendix I State Regulations 41
Appendix II Final Regulation Language 42
-------
FOREWORD
This is one of a series of documents providing support
and background information for regulations issued under
Section 3004 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). This background document is divided into two parts.
The first part contains introductory material which addresses
the Congressional authority for the regulation, key definitions
used in the regulation, examples of damage incidents which
illustrate the need for the regulation, and a description of
precedents set for the regulation by state and/or other
Federal statutes. The second part of this document describes
the regulation as originally proposed, summarizes and responds
to comments received that relate to the proposed regulation,
and indicates the Agency's rationale for the final regulation.
On December 18, 1978, in §250.43-4 of the RCRA Section
3004 regulations, the Agency proposed standards for training
for personnel at hazardous waste facilities. As specified
in §250.40(c)(2)(iii) of the proposed rules, the proposed
§250.43-4 standards also applied to personnel at facilities
with interim status. This document addresses these proposed
personnel training standards.
The text of the final standards for personnel training
is contained in Appendix II of this document.
IV
-------
- 1 -
INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE FOR THE REGULATION
I. RCRA Authority for the Regulation
In Section 3004 of Subtitle C of the Solxd Waste Disposal
Act, as substantially amended by the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, as amended (42 U.S.C. §§6901
et seq.), the Congress of the United States requires the
Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to promulgate regulations to establish such standards
for hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal faci-
lities as may be necessary to protect human health and the
environment.
Section 3004(6) of RCRA states that the standards to be
promulgated by the EPA must include requirements for
"... such additional qualifications as to ...
training for personnel ... as may be necessary or
desirable;"
EPA is establishing regulations to ensure that personnel
at hazardous waste facilities have the requisite skills and
knowledge to perform their tasks in a consistently competent
manner. Such training is necessary to protect human health
and the environment from the risks of operating hazardous
waste facilities with inadequately trained personnel.
II. Key Definition;
The following term, which is defined in Part 260, is
pertinent to this area of regulation:
-------
- 2 -
"Personnel" or "Facility Personnel" means all
persons who work at, or oversee the operations of a
hazardous waste facility, and whose actions or failure
to act may result in noncompliance with the requirements
of Parts 264 or 265 of this Chapter.
This definition has been changed slightly from the
proposed version, by the addition of the phrase "or oversee
the operations of". This phrase has been added in order to
clarify that the term "personnel" applies to supervisory as
well as non-supervisory personnel.
In addition, a commenter suggested that the word "damage",
in the proposed version of the definition, should be replaced
by the phrase "a substantial present or potential hazard"
because:
(l) the word "damage" is unquantified, and therefore
ambiguous; and
(2) the suggested word change will bring the defini-
tion of "hazardous waste facility personnel" into
line with the definition of "hazardous waste"
given in Section 1004(5) of RCRA.
The Agency agrees that the suggested word change makes the
definition of "personnel" more specific than the proposed
version of the definition. However, rather than key the
definition of "personnel" to the potential for an employee
to cause "a substantial present or potential hazard to
human health or the environment", the Agency believes that
keying the definition to the potential for an employee to
cause a facility to fail to comply with the Section 3004
-------
- 3 -
standards, is even more specific than the commenter's suggested
word change. Therefore, the final definition of "personnel"
includes those employees whose actions, or failure to act,
may result in non-compliance with the requirements of 40 CFR
Parts 264 or 265 of this Chapter -
The Agency has deleted the definition of "training",
specified in §250.41(a)(86) of the proposed rules, from the
final regulations. The proposed definition of "training"
specified the instruction which was required to be received
by facility personnel. Since both the proposed and final
standards specify the training required of facility personnel,
the Agency believes that the proposed definition of "training"
is unnecessary.
Ill. Damage Cases
The cases described below are good examples of the
types of damage that can result when facility personnel lack
sufficient expertise in the areas to which they are assigned.
They provide part of the rationale for EPA's decision to
establish standards for the training of hazardous waste
facility personnel.
(i) In October, 1974, a bulldozer operator was killed
in an explosion at an industrial landfill in Edison
Township, New Jersey, as he was burying and com-
pacting several 55 gallon drums of unidentified
chemical wastes. ^
(2) In 1978, a truck driver died while dumping a load
of chemicals into an open pit in Bayou Sorrel,
Louisiana. According to the coroner's report, the
cause of death was hydrogen sulfide asphyxiation,
-------
- 4 -
which was generated by the placement of the chemicals
onto other wastes which had previously been placed
in the pit.2
(3) In the summer of 1974, a bulldozer operator experi-
enced dizziness and eye irritation while burying
drums at a sanitary landfill in Michigan. He left
the bulldozer, and upon returning found the machine
in flames. The fire was caused by ignition of
flammable wastes in the drums that he was burying.
The landfill operator had unknowingly received
flammable wastes from a waste hauler.^
(4) An employee of a Dakota County (Minnesota) landfill
was seriously burned when a caterpillar tractor
that he was operating crushed and ignited a container
of flammable solvent. The container was not sus-
pected to contain flammable waste because the
landfill was not licensed to dispose of flammable
waste. The employee suffered burns over 85% of
his body and was hospitalized in intensive care
for four and one-half months.4
Damage incidents (1) through (4) illustrate the need to
instruct facility personnel of the importance of knowing the
identity and ch emic alproperties (e.g., reactivity and incom-
patibility with other wastes) of the wastes which they are
assigned to manage. They also illustrate the interdependence
of the Section 3004 standards to achieve their intended
collective purpose, i.e., protection of human health and the
environment from the improper management of hazardous waste.
Damage incidents (I) through (4) point out that, at facilities
where employees who analyze waste are different from those
who dispose of it, if one employee fails to analyze waste
properly, the employee who disposes of it may adversely
affect human health and the environment even though he per-
forms his job in accordance with good management practices.
Thus, regardless of how well some employees are trained at
-------
- 5 -
hazardous waste facilities, unless all employees are suffi-
ciently trained to perform their jobs, the potential for
damage to human health and the environment exists.
IV. State Regulations
The Agency reviewed several States' solid waste manage-
ment regulations to assess the State governments' perceived
need to establish training standards for people who manage
solid and/or hazardous waste. Although the specificity of
these regulations varies considerably from State to State,
their very existence reflects the State governments' belief
that training requirements should be established for personnel
who are employed at solid and/or hazardous waste facilities.
The following discussion describes the training standards
prescribed by the States of Oregon, Connecticut, Arkansas,
and New York.* The influence which these States' regulations
had in the development of the training requirements prescribed
in the RCRA Section 3004 rules, is described in the next
section of this document.
At one end of the spectrum are the training requirements
for Oregon, which are written in terms of a general performance
standard. These regulations simply require that all facility
personnel be trained in proper procedures for the handling,
transfer, transport, and storage of hazardous waste, including,
but not limited to, familiarization with contingency plans.
Citations for these regulations are contained in Appendix I.
-------
- 6 -
Connecticut's and Arkansas' training requirements, on
the other hand, are far more specific than those of Oregon.
They require that facility operators be certified, and they
establish certain minimum criteria which must be met before
certification is granted.*
In addition to requiring training for facility operators,
Arkansas' regulations specify that non-supervisory personnel
at facilities must also receive sufficient training to:
- read and comprehend label instructions, operational
procedures, contingency plans and regulatory directives;
- understand the basic nature of the materials which they
are assigned to manage; and
- operate all equipment which they are assigned to operate.
* In Connecticut, certification of facility operators is
contingent upon:
- demonstrating to the Commissioner that the operator has
had sufficient training (on-the-job or classroom instruc-
tion) in procedures for operating a solid waste facility
so that he is able to oversee the operation of a facility
in accordance with applicable State and Federal laws and
regulations; and
- passing an examination (written, oral, or performance
oriented) which is designed to test the applicant's
knowledge of facility operating procedures that affect
public health, safety, and the environment.
In Arkansas, certification of operators involves no
formal testing. However, Arkansas does require that the
applicant's qualifications include:
- a bachelor of science degree in engineering or in phy-
sical sciences; and
at least four years of experience in management, engi-
neering, or in conducting chemical/physical analyses.
-------
- 7 -
Arkansas requires that facility personnel receive this training
within 12 months of the effective date of its regulations.
The State of New York takes a different approach to the
training requirement. New York's regulations do not specify
the type of skills or knowledge which must be acquired in
order to comply with its regulations. Instead, the State
requires that all personnel at solid and/or hazardous waste
facilities attend a training course which the State either
provides or approves.
New York's compliance schedule is slightly more lenient
than Arkansas'. New York allowed personnel at existing
facilities up to 18 months from the effective date of its
regulations to attend the training course. However, new
personnel at existing facilities, and all employees at new
facilities, must attend the training course within 12 months
of their date of employment at the facility.
-------
- 8 -
ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS FOR PERSONNEL TRAINING
Standards for training for personnel at hazardous waste
facilities were specified in §250.43-4 of the RCRA Subtitle C
regulations proposed on December 18, 1978. As specified in
§250.40(c)(2)(lii). the §250.43-4 training standards also
applied to personnel at facilities with interim status.
In the final rules, the training standards applicable to
permitted facilities (prescribed in §264.16 of the final
rules), are identical to the training standards applicable
to facilities with interim status (prescribed in §265.16 of
the final rules). Because they are identical, no distinction
is made between the two sets of standards in this document.
The order of the training standards in the proposed
rules is different from the order of the training standards
in the final rules. In this document, the proposed training
standards are analyzed in the order in which the final version
of these standards appear in the final rules.
I. Proposed Standard 250.43-4(a)
A. Summary of Proposed Standard
The proposed standard required that, within six
months of the effective date of the regulations, or
within six months after the date of employment at a
hazardous waste facility, all personnel at hazardous
waste facilities must:
(1) complete a course of instruction which enables
them to perform their duties, or
-------
- 9 -
(2) demonstrate that they are sufficiently com-
petent to perform their duties.
B. Rationale for the Proposed Standard
The purpose of the standard was to reduce the
potential for mistakes which might threaten the public
or the environment by ensuring that facility personnel
acquire expertise in the areas to which they are assigned
Like New York and Arkansas, the Agency specified a
deadline for acquiring the requisite training - The
Agency's selection of 6 months from the effective date
of the regulations for this deadline, actually gives
owners or operators 12 months from the promulgation date
of the regulations to ensure that their personnel are
adequately trained.
Initially, the Agency had considered an 18 month
compliance schedule for the training standard, following
the example of New York. However, comments received on
pre-proposal drafts of the regulations pointed out that
an 18 month compliance schedule would be so generous
that—in view of the immediacy and the seriousness of
the problem (i.e., incompetent facility personnel)—the
intent of the regulations would be undermined.5
-------
- 10 -
As a result, the Agency re-evaluated its position
on the length of the compliance schedule for the training
standard. The following factors influenced the Agency's
decision to shorten the time interval from 18 months to
12 months:
1. Training personnel to manage hazardous waste is
similar to training personnel to manage hazardous
materials. For those facilities which already have
training programs in hazardous material management,
the major part of these existing programs can be
used to fulfill the requirements of the RCRA Section
3004 training standard.6
2. Many of the skills which are already required in
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's
training requirements 7 are applicable to managing
hazardous waste. Thus, the skills which hazardous
waste facility personnel have acquired to ensure
their own safety will, in large part, fulfill the
training requirements of the RCRA Section 3004
rules.
3. In choosing the length of the New York compliance
schedule (18 months), that State had to factor in
sufficient time for the certification process which
its regulations entail (e.g., the administering of
exams, the processing of paperwork, the approving
of training courses, etc.). Since the RCRA training
-------
- 11 -
requirements do not incorporate a certification
program, the Agency does not have to allow for
this time-consuming process in selecting the length
of the RCRA compliance schedule.
4. Many courses in hazardous waste management (e.g.,
the National Hazardous Materials Training Course
offered by the Toxic Substance Control Laboratory
of Vanderbilt University) have been developed in
anticipation of the market which will be created
by the promulgation of the RCRA Section 3004 training
requirements. Thus, there are more courses which
facility personnel can attend to comply with the
RCRA Section 3004 rules than there were in 1977,
when the State of New York promulgated its regu-
lations .
Thus, the Agency believes that it is reasonable to
expect facility personnel to be trained in compliance
with the Section 3004 standard within this 12 month
interval.
C. Summary and Response to Comments
Issue #1; The format/content of the training programs.
a. Summary of Comments;
1. The standard should allow the use of in-
house training programs and on-the-job training in
lieu of formal classroom instruction.
2. The proposed standard is vague and highly
subjective because it does not specify the:
-------
- 12 -
type, length, or intensity of the required
training;
- persons who are considered to be qualified
to conduct the required training;
- persons to whom it is to be demonstrated,
and the criteria that will be used to
determine whether a "sufficient degree of
competence in hazardous waste management"
has been achieved.
b. Analysis of and Response to Comments
1. The Agency agrees that formal classroom instruc-
tion may not always be the best approach to training,
and that supervised on-the-job training is a valid
substitute for, or supplement to, formal instruction.
Therefore, the Agency has reworded the training stan-
dard (§264.16(a)), to reflect the Agency's acceptance
of in-house training programs and on-the-job training
as a means of complying with the training requirements
However, the content, schedule, and techniques to
be used in the on-the-job training program must be
described in the training records required in
§264.16(d)(3) and will be subject to approval during
the permitting process.
2. Given the variability in waste types, management
processes, and employee functions at hazardous waste
facilities, the Agency believes that it is neither
necessary no desirable to rigidly specify training
-------
- 13 -
courses in regulations. For example, employees at
small operations tend to perform more functions
than employees at large operations. Thus, small
facilities often require a greater diversity of
skills of their employees than do large facilities.3
Like the State of Oregon, the Agency believes that
a general performance standard is an appropriate
approach to use in establishing regulations for
the training of solid and/or hazardous waste facility
personnel. However, the final training standards
specify the type of emergency response procedures
with which facility personnel must become-familiar.
The Agency provided specific training requirements
for this aspect of the facility's training program
because the Agency believes that the ability to
respond to emergencies is the most important skill
that facility personnel must acquire to minimize the
potential dangers associated with hazardous waste
facilities. In addition, as stated in the preamble
to the proposed regulations, (40 CFR Part 250
Subpart D, p. 58985) the Agency is preparing a
training manual which will describe the type of
instruction which the Agency believes is appropriate
for the various functions carried out at hazardous
waste management facilities. This manual will
provide general guidance on how to comply with the
-------
- 14 -
fxnal Section 3004 training standards, but the in-
formation contained in the manual will not be regu-
latory requirements with which facility personnel
must comply.
In response to the commenters' concerns regarding
certification of the training received by hazardous
waste facility personnel, the Agency has decided not
to include a certification program in its training
requirements. In making this decision, the Agency
took the following factors into consideration:
1. The many types of wastes involved, the
variations in methods and systems of disposal, and
the great role of private enterprise in hazardous
waste management (which is much greater than in
wastewater treatment, where the Agency instituted a
certification program) makes it difficult to develop
a national certification program for hazardous
waste facility personnel.9
2. The State certification programs for
hazardous waste facility personnel have markedly
different requirements for certification, (e.g.,
compare Connecticut and Arkansas). Thus, it would
be difficult to devise a certification program
which would reconcile the differing State policies
on what qualifications should be required of all
facility personnel.
-------
- 15 -
3. §264.i6(d) of the regulations requires
that the training records of the facility personnel
be made available to the Regional Administrator
upon request. The Agency believes that because
these training records will be subject to scrutiny
by the Regional Administrator, facility owners or
operators will make a concerted effort to ensure
that their personnel are adequately trained.
Based on the above considerations, the Agency
decided not to include any provisions for formal
certification of either instructors or facility
personnel with respect to demonstration of compe-
tence in hazardous waste management. The revised
language of the final regulation—which allows the
use of on-the-job training—provides that any person
trained in hazardous waste management procedures
may teach the training program.
Issue #2; Exemptions to the training requirements.
a. Summary of Comments;
1. The training requirements should not
apply to personnel who:
- do not actively engage in operating the
facility;
work under the direct supervision of
others who are trained.
2. The training requirements should not
apply to facilities which:
-------
- 16 -
generate and dispose of waste on-site.
- dispose of low hazard, large volume wastes
on-site.
treat or store low hazard waste, because
such facilities pose no greater threat to
the public or the environment than
facilities which treat or store hazardous
materials with characteristics comparable
to low hazard wastes.
b. Analysis of and Response to Comments;
1. The Agency agrees that only personnel who are
actively engaged in operating the facility require
training in hazardous waste management. The language
of the final standard reflects this change.
The Agency does not accept the suggestion that
non-supervisory personnel need not meet the training
requirements. On the contrary, these personnel are
in direct contact with the waste and the equipment
used to manage the waste, and thus, as the damage
cases cited above show, their actions (or failure
to act) — even more than those of supervisory
personnel — can result in mistakes which might
threaten human health or the environment. Unlike
the proposed standards, however, the revised rules
do not require all facility personnel to receive
their training in a formal setting, i.e., the
-------
- 17 -
classroom or training workshop. Thus, facility
owners or operators may choose to send only their
supervisory personnel to formal training programs,
and then have these supervisors conduct informal,
on-the-job training sessions for the facilities'
non-supervisory personnel.
2. The Agency recognizes that damage incidents
are less likely at facilities which dispose of
their own waste than at facilities which dispose of
other generators' waste because, comparatively
speaking, employees at the former type of facility
are likely to be more familiar with the identity
and chemical properties of the wastes which they
manage (i.e., the potential for adulterated or mis-
identified waste is reduced). Nonetheless, the
Agency believes that there are certain skills/
knowledge which are required of all personnel who
manage hazardous waste (e.g., familiarity with the
facility's contingency plan, plant equipment and
chemical characteristics of the waste which the
employee is assigned to manage, etc.). In any
kind of hazardous waste facility, deficiencies in
these skills/knowledge may cause facility personnel
to make mistakes which could threaten human health
or the environment. Therefore, the training require-
ments apply to all facilities which manage hazardous
waste.
-------
- 18 -
With respect to facilities which dispose of
low hazard, high volume waste on-site, the Agency
believes that the additional flexibility that has
been incorporated into the revised standards (i.e.,
allowing in-house training, which can be tailored
to the specific needs of the employees' job require-
ments as they relate to hazardous waste management
and safety), will allow facilities which manage low
hazard waste to tailor their training programs to
the degree of hazard associated with their waste
management operation.
Turning to the commenter's comparison with
hazardous material facilities, the Agency believes
that the training requirements which it has prescribed
in these rules would be appropriate for facilities
which treat or store hazardous materials as well
as hazardous waste. RCRA, however, gives the Agency
no authority over facilities that do not deal with
waste. Those skills which OSHA requires to ensure
the safety of workers at hazardous material facil-
itieslO will, in large part, satisfy the training
requirements prescribed by EPA for hazardous waste
facilities.
As for the supposed inequity of regulating
hazardous waste facilities more stringently than
hazardous material facilities, RCRA's statutory
-------
- 19 -
mandate is to prescribe such regulations for hazar-
dous waste facilities as may be necessary to protect
human health and the environment. The Agency believes
that the training standards which it has prescribed
in the Section 3004 RCRA rules are necessary to pro-
tect human health and the environment.
Issue #3: The compliance schedule.
a. Summary of Comments:
1. The six months period for compliance with
the training requirements may be too short because:
- of the present and short-term future unavaila-
bility of training facilities for hazardous
waste management;
- in other comparable programs (e.g., water
and sewage), certification of plant operators
in some areas has taken over a year.
2. For employees hired after the effective
date of the regulations, training should be required
before waste handling is begun. The rationale for
a six month delay is appropriate to avoid disruptions
in the work of persons already on the job performing
necessary daily functions, but is inappropriate for
persons not yet working.
3. The training of personnel should be
required in order to receive a permit.
-------
- 20 -
b. Analysis of and Response to Comments:
1. The Agency's selection of 6 months from the
effective date of the regulations as the date by
which facility personnel must comply with the
training requirements, actually gives owners or
operators 12 months from the promulgation date of
the regulations to ensure that their personnel are
adequately trained. The rationale for the selection
of a 12 month compliance schedule, rather than a
longer period, for the training requirements is
contained on pages 9-11 of this document.
The Agency believes that the following modifi-
cations which have been made to the rules makes
the 12 month compliance schedule at least adequate
to allow facility personnel to be trained in accor-
dance with the revised rules:
a. The Agency's acceptance of on-the-job
training as a means to comply with the training
requirements will help to offset the problems
caused by the alleged temporary shortage of formal
training courses. In areas of the country where
formal classes in hazardous waste management are
unavailable, in-house training programs and on-
the-job training can be used to provide the
requisite training.
-------
- 21 -
b. The Section 3004 training standards are
being promulgated in two phases. Since the majority
of the Phase I standards are non-technical (e.g.,
the manifest and recordkeeping requirements), the
Agency believes that most training can be conducted
in-house. When the rest of the Section 3004
standards are promulgated, facility personnel will
be given another 12 months from the promulgation
date of these additional standards to acquire the
training needed to comply with this second set of
standards.
Thus, the Agency does not anticipate that the
shortage of formal courses in hazardous waste
management will cause facility personnel to miss
the 12 month deadline for the training requirements.
In addition, as was explained in response to
the comments under Issue #1, the regulations have
no provision for formal certification of the training
received by facility personnel. Therefore, there
will be no bottlenecks in a certification process
to delay compliance with the training requirements.
2. It would certainly be preferable for facility
personnel to be trained before they are allowed to
manage hazardous waste. However, the Agency believes
that imposing such a requirement is impractical on
three counts:
-------
- 22 -
a. Some facilities will rely on formal classroom
instruction to comply with the training require-
ments, and (in some areas of the country)
these courses may only be offered once a year.
Thus, for these facilities, this requirement
might mean that some new employees would not
serve in a productive capacity to the facility
for a considerable period of time;
b. The requirement would preclude the use of on-
the-job training as a means to comply with the
training requirement;
c. The requirement would necessitate owners or
operators to employ extra personnel to allow
for resignations. These extra personnel
would be needed to carry out duties normally
performed by employees who resigned, until
new employees are adequately trained.
The Agency believes that owners or operators
and insurers recognize that untrained employees
are more likely to have accidents than trained
employees. To keep their insurance premium rates
low, the Agency expects owners or operators will not
assign new employees to manage hazardous waste until
after they have been taught the rudiments of the
processes used at the facility to properly manage
hazardous waste. Although the Agency expects that
-------
- 23 -
most new employees will be trained in-house soon
after they are hired, the Agency believes that a
reasonable compliance perxod for the training of
these employees must be provided to minimize the
potential disruptive influence that the regulations
might have on facility operations. Therefore, the
12 month compliance schedule for the final training
standards applies to both new and existing facility
personnel.
However, an additional provision has been
included in the final rules which prohibits new
employees from working in unsupervised positions
until after they have completed the training require-
ments of §264.16(a). This provision will allow new
employees to work productively soon after they are
hired, but will provide more protection to human
health and the environment than that provided by
the proposed rules, by ensuring that new employees
are supervised by trained employees (i.e., do not
work alone) until they themselves are trained.
3. Under the Phase I regulations, no permits
will be issued to facilities, and thus, the suggested
requirement for a facility to train their personnel
before receiving a permit is infeasible. Under the
Phase II regulations, permits will be issued, but
the Agency believes that a 12 month compliance
-------
- 24 -
schedule for the training standards is warranted
for reasons stated earlier in this document.
Therefore, the Phase II standards do not require
facilities to train their personnel before receiving
a permit.
Issue #4: "Grandfathering" previous training.
a. Summary of Comments:
The regulation should not reject training or
courses of instruction which were given to existing
personnel before the effective date of the regulations.
b. Analysis of and Response to Comments;
The regulation does not reject such instruction.
The standard requires that personnel "shall have
attended ..."; thus, the standard places no limita-
tion on when such training must take place.
However, the Agency believes that even experi-
enced facility personnel will have to receive some
additional training. If nothing else, they will
have to be taught how to comply with the Section
3004 non-technical requirements (e.g., how to fill
out the manifest) which pertain to the duties
which they are assigned.
D. Final Regulation Language;
(a)(l) Facility personnel must successfully complete
a program of classroom instruction or on-the-job training
that teaches them to perform their duties in a way that
ensures the facility's compliance with the requirements
of this Part. The owner or operator must ensure that this
program includes all the elements described in the
document required under paragraph (d)(3) of this Section.
-------
- 25 -
(2) This program must be directed by a person
trained in hazardous waste management procedures, and
must include instruction which teaches facility personnel
hazardous waste management procedures (including contin-
gency plan implementation) relevant to the positions in
which they are employed.
(b) Facility personnel must successfully complete
the program required in paragraph (a) of this Section
within six months after the effective date of these regu-
lations or six months after the date of their employment
or assignment to a facility, or to a new position at a
facility, whichever is later- Employees hired after
the effective date of these regulations must not work
in unsupervised positions until they have completed the
training requirements of paragraph (a) of this Section.
II. Proposed Standards 250.43-4(b)(2) and (3)
A. Summary of Proposed Standards
The proposed standards required that facility
personnel be familiar with the facility's contingency plan,
and take part in an annual review of the initial training
which they received in hazardous waste procedures relevant
to the positions in which they are employed.
B. Rationale for the Proposed Standards
The Agency believed that it makes little sense for
a facility to have a contingency plan unless the facility
personnel are able to implement the plan in case of an
emergency. Thus, the proposed rules required that
facility personnel be familiar with the facility's
contingency plan.
The Agency also believed that new and more sophis-
ticated technology will be developed for hazardous
waste management (due, in part, to the passage and imple-
mentation of RCRA), which may result in process changes
-------
- 26 -
at some facilities. In order to keep facility personnel
abreast of such changes, and to inform them of the charac-
teristics of wastes which are new to the facility—as
well as to review what was taught in the initial training
session—the Agency proposed that personnel take part,
at least annually, in a review and update of their
initial training.
Because changes in facility processes or emergency
equipment, or in the type of waste which the facility
accepts, may lead to modification of the facility's
contingency plan, the Agency specified that the facility's
contingency plan should be included in the annual review.
C. Comments Received on the Proposed Standards
The standards should require that facility operators
must assure that all employees are aware of safety
procedures and are acquainted with facility contingency
plans as necessary to ensure effective response to
emergencies. As proposed, violations resulting from
incompetence could not be enforced from the standpoint
of non-compliance with the standard.
D. Analysis of and Response to Comments
The Agency agrees that the suggested revision
strengthens the effectiveness of the standards for
enforcement purposes. Therefore, the Agency has incor-
porated language comparable to that suggested in the
final rules.
-------
- 27 -
E. Final Regulation Language
(a)(3) At a minimum, the training program must be
designed to ensure that facility personnel are able to
respond effectively to emergencies by familiarizing
them with emergency procedures, emergency equipment,
and emergency systems, including, where applicable:
(i) Procedures for using, inspecting, repairing,
and replacing facility emergency and moni-
toring equipment;
(li) Key parameters for automatic waste feed
cut-off systems;
(lii) Communications or alarm systems;
(iv) Response to fires or explosions;
(v) Response to ground-water contamination
incidents; and
(vi) Shutdown of operations.
* * *
(c) Facility personnel must take part in an annual
review of the initial training required in paragraph (a)
of this Section.
In addition to incorporating the elements of proposed
§250.43-4(b)(2) into revised §264.16(a)(3), the final
standard also includes elements of proposed §250.43-3(a)(8)
The Agency believes that since proposed §250.43-3(a)(8)
deals with the aspects of the contingency plan which
must be taught to facility personnel, it is more appro-
priate to specify these items in the training standards
rather than in the contingency plan standards.
In addition to the items in proposed §250.43-3(a)(8),
the Agency has added three items to the list of emergency
response procedures with which facility personnel must
be familiar:
-------
- 28 -
- response to fires or explosions; and
- response to groundwater contamination incidents.
shutdown of operations
The Agency has added these three items to the final rules
because the examples provided of areas of instruction in
which facility personnel were to be trained in proposed
§250.43-3(a)(8). were largely concerned with emergency
equipment and emergency systems, rather than emergency
procedures. However, since the proposed rules required
owners or operators to design "a program for familiarizing
employees with emergency procedures, emergency equipment,
and emergency systems ...", the Agency believes that
examples of "emergency procedures" should also be included
in the final rules.
Since the majority of the Subpart C standards for
Preparedness and Prevention are designed to minimize the
hazards associated with fires and explosions", the Agency
specified "response to fires and explosions" as one of
the examples of an emergency response procedure with
which facility personnel must become familiar.
The Agency specified "response to ground-water
contamination incidents" as a second example of an
emergency response procedure, to illustrate that facility
personnel must be trained in procedures to minimize non-
sudden, as well as sudden, threats to human health and
the environment. The inclusion of this second example
in the final rules is in response to comments received
-------
- 29 -
on the proposed Contingency Plan rules, which suggested
that the contingency plan include responses to ground-
water contamination, as well as acute emergencies.
Because emergencies at facilities will sometimes
require that operations at facilities be stopped, the Agency
specified "shutdown of operations" as a third example of
an emergency procedure with which facility personnel must
become familiar.
III. Proposed Standard 250.43-4(b)(1)
A. Summary of Proposed Standard
The proposed standard required that the following
records be maintained and made available to the Regional
Administrator upon request:
1. A list of the job titles of all positions at
the facility related to hazardous waste management,
and a written description of:
- the requisite skill, education, respon-
sibilities, and duties for each of these
positions; and
the type and quantity of introductory and con-
tinuing training that will be given to each
person filling each of the positions.
2. Records which document that the requisite
training has been given to facility personnel.
B. Rationale for the Proposed Standard:
The Agency chose not to incorporate a certification
program into its training requirements (see page 14 of
-------
- 30 -
this document for an explanation of this decision).
Therefore, an alternate approach had to be devised to
ensure that facility personnel, charged with specific
dutxes related to hazardous waste management, have the
requisite training and competence to perform these
duties.
The Agency believed and believes that if the
training records of facility personnel are subject to
scrutiny by the Regional Administrator, then owners or
operators will be more apt to provide their employees
with the level of training necessary to perform their
duties in a manner which complies with the training
requirements of Section 264.16(a), than would be the
case if no records were required. The requirement
for maintaining facility personnel training records
provides a review framework substituting for that of a
certification program.
C. Summary and Response to Comments
Issue #1; Personnel records and the 1976 Privacy Act
a. Summary of Comments;
The requirement that individual personnel
training records be made available to the Regional
Administrator may constitute an invasion of privacy
and thus be inconsistent with the privacy rights
of individual employees (Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C.
§552a (1976)). The Regional Administrator does not
-------
- 31 -
need, and should not have, access to the job descrip-
tions of facility personnel.
b. Analysis of and Response to Comments:
The commenter is apparently relying upon
5 U.S.C. 552a(e)l of the Privacy Act of 1974, which
specifically allows each agency (including the EPA)
that maintains or collects a system of records to
(1) maintain in its records only such
information about an individual as is
relevant and necessary to accomplish a
purpose of the agency required to be
accomplished by statute or by executive
order of the President; [emphasis added]
The information required by the proposed
standards is both necessary and relevant to the
attainment of RCRA's statutory purposes. The
commenter has specifically objected to giving the
Regional Administrator access to (1) job descrip-
tions, and (2) personnel training records. The
job descriptions describe positions rather than
individuals; thus they are not private personal
information. They are also essential to any regu-
latory evaluation of the adequacy of the facility's
training program; thus the Regional Administrator
has a legitimate need for them. Personnel training
records may well include "information about an
individual." However, in the absence of a certifi-
cation program or an agency-administered training
program, they are necessary for the Agency to
-------
- 32 -
determine that personnel have the skills called for
by their job descriptions and their specific duties
in handling hazardous wastes. Thus, both sets of
records can be provided to the Regional Administrator
without conflict with the Privacy Act.
The privacy interests of employees at hazardous
waste facilities are also protected by an additional
safeguard after the Agency reviews the personnel
training records. Section 552(a)(2) of the Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) says in part:
To the extent required to prevent a clearly
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
an agency may delete identifying details
when it makes available or publishes an
opinion, statement of policy, interpreta-
tion, or staff manual or instruction.
and Section 552(b) of the FOIA reads:
(b) This section [requiring release upon
request] does not apply to matters that
are -
(6) personnel and medical files and
similar files the disclosure of which
would constitute clearly unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy; [emphasis
added]
Thus, the Agency has full authority to prevent
indiscriminate dissemination of the personnel
training records once it has reviewed them. This
safeguard, while not relevant to the Privacy Act
claim raised in the comment, provides additional
support for the Agency's decision that employees'
-------
- 33 -
privacy interests in their personnel training files
do not outweigh the need to know that employees who
handle hazardous waste are adequately trained.
Issue #2; The required level of detail of the
recordkeeping requirements.
a. Summary of Comments:
1. The requirement for detailed written job
descriptions may lead to union grievances and
arbitrations because such detailed job descriptions:
tend to limit the scope of the job
- tend to lower operator productivity
- are difficult to keep current in some
industries due to frequent process modi-
fications .
In order to avoid this type of labor problem,
Section 250.43-4(b)(ii) should be revised as follows:
A written job description for each position
listed under paragraph (b)(l)(ii) which shall
be consistent in nature with practices for
other positions in the same company location
or bargaining unit ...
2. The standard places too large an emphasis
on bureaucratic recordkeeping/ and entails additional
costs which serve no useful purpose. The standard
should be revised to require facility operators to
make available to the Regional Administrator, upon
-------
- 34 -
request, a list of all employees, their duties, and
qualifications.
b. Analysis of and Response to Comments ;
1. It is not the Agency's intent to interfere
with labor-management issues. EPA's only interest
in the job descriptions of facility personnel is to
enable the Agency to evaluate each employee's
potential for making a mistake which might threaten
human health or the environment. This, in turn,
will help the Agency determine if each person is
receiving a level of training that is commensurate
with the person's duties and responsibilities. The
Agency believes that the suggested rewording of the
standard will not diminish the Regional Administrator's
ability to make this determination, and therefore
has revised the standard as follows:
"A written job description for each position
listed under paragraph (d)(l) of this Section.
This description may be consistent in its degree
of specificity with descriptions for other
similar positions in the same company location
or bargaining unit, ..."
2. The Agency believes that all of the recordkeeping
requirements which are included in the training
standards are necessary in order to carry out the
intent of the standard. That is, the intent of the
-------
- 35 -
standard is to provide the Regional Administrator
with a mechanism to evaluate whether a facility's
personnel are receiving the type of training which
they need in order to perform their duties in a
competent manner.
The commenters have suggested that the standard
should only require facility operators to make avai-
lable to the Regional Administrator, upon request,
a list of all employees, their duties, and quali-
fications. The difference between this suggested
requirement and the requirement contained in the
proposed standards, depends on how one interprets
the commenters1 use of the term "qualifications".
Presumably, the commenters use the term to mean
something along the lines of a resume. If so, then
the Agency disagrees with the commenters1 suggestion.
The employee's training records are the most impor-
tant pieces of information that the Regional
Administrator needs to determine if facility
personnel are receiving the type of training which
they need to perform their duties in a competent
manner. Most resumes do not contain the level of
detail which the Regional Administrator needs to
make this determination.
The Agency believes that the proposed wording
of the standard accurately reflects the type of
-------
- 36 -
information which the Regional Administrator will
need to carry out the standard's intent. Therefore,
the Agency has not incorporated the second suggested
revision into the final rules.
D. Final Regulation Language
(d) The owner or operator must maintain the following
documents and records at the facility:
(1) The job title for each position at the facility
related to hazardous waste management, and the name of the
employee filling each job;
(2) A written job description for each position
listed under paragraph (d)(l) of this Section. This
description may be consistent in its degree of specificity
with descriptions for other similar positions in the same
company location or bargaining unit, but must include
the requisite skill, education, or other qualifications,
and duties of employees assigned to each position;
(3) A written description of the type and amount
of both introductory and continuing training that will
be given to each person filling a position listed under
paragraph (d)(l) of this Section;
(4) Records that document that the training or
job experience required under paragraphs (a), (b), and (c)
of this Section has been given to, and completed by,
facility personnel.
(e) Training records on current personnel must be
kept until closure of the facility; training records on
former employees must be kept for at least three years
from the date the employee last worked at the facility.
Personnel training records may accompany personnel
transferred within the same company.
§264.16(e) was adopted from the section of the
proposed regulations which deals with Manifest, Record-
keeping, and Reporting (§250.43-5(b)(5)). The Agency
believes that the grouping of the standards which deal
with training records into the same section of the
-------
- 37 -
revised rules, reduces the need to cross-reference within
the regulations, and thus makes the revised rules easier
to follow than the proposed rules. Response to comments
on proposed §250.43-5(b)(5) is contained in the background
document for Manifest, Recordkeeping, and Reporting.
-------
- 38 -
IV. General Comments on all of the Proposed Training Standards
Comment #1; The section of the regulations on training
should simply require that personnel be trained in hazardous
waste management. The details should be left to the owner or
operator.
Response; The level of flexibility that the commenter has
suggested is such that it would be impossible for the Agency
to bring enforcement actions against facilities which did not
comply with the suggested standard. However, the Agency
believes that the modifications which have been made to the
standards (i.e., allowing the training program to be tailored
to the employees' job requirements and allowing on-the-job
training) achieve the intent of what the commenter has requested,
i.e., more flexibility.
Comment #2; The requirements of the training section will
distort low-hazard or non-hazard jobs so as to create
unjustified "hazard" classifications and unnecessary demands
for "hazard" pay. The standards should be modified so as to
avoid creating problems in collective bargaining in manufac-
turing activities.
Response : The training standards only require that facility
personnel acquire training in the skills needed to perform
their duties in a competent manner- The standards do not
require that personnel in "low-hazard positions" receive
training needed to perform "highly-hazardous duties." Thus,
-------
- 39 -
the Agency does not believe that the promulgation of its
training requirements will give rise to unjustified, demands
for "hazard" pay. Insofar as the required training makes the
employees aware of previously unrecognized hazards in their
work, the Agency expects this to lead to a desirable increase
in the caution with which employees handle hazardous waste.
-------
- 40 -
References
1. RCRA Legislative History in U.S. Code: Congressional
and Administrative News. 94th Congress, 2nd Session,
Volume 5, 1976. U.S. Congress. House Report on the
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. House
Document 94-1941, p. 19.
2. Morning Advocate, Baton Rouge, LA, July 29, 1978.
3. Confirmed by telephone on November 14, 1979, by Cindy
Giansante, Environmental Scientist, EPA, Washington, D.C.,
with Colton B. Phillips, Sanitary Supervisor, Genessee
County Health Department, Michigan.
4. Hazardous Waste Generation - Twin Cities Metropolitan
Area. Barr Engineering Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
October, 1973, p. B-2.
5. Comments submitted by Dr. Steve Miesel, Ph.D, Temple
University, on a Pre-Proposal Draft (March 24, 1978) of
the RCRA Section 3004 Standards, June 29, 1978.
6. Comments submitted by W.C. Parnell of the E.I. DuPont De
Nemours & Company, on the Proposed EPA Survey: Training
of Hazardous Waste Facility Operators, September 19, 1979.
7. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, Training Requirements of OSHA
Standards (OSHA 2254), February 1976, Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 63 pages.
8. Special Substances Report 1977, Volume I. Industrial
Special Wastes Generated in Iowa and Manpower Charac-
teristics of Employee Handlers. Contract #76-4300-01,
p. 51.
9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hazardous Waste
Management Issues Pertinent to Section 3004 of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. Office
of Solid Waste. EPA Contract No. 68-01-4657, Sept. 1978
p. 219.
10. Op. cit. Training Requirements of OSHA Standards.
-------
- 41 -
APPENDIX I
State Regulations which were reviewed:
Arkansas Proposed Hazardous Waste Regulations (July 27, 1979).
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Solid Waste
Management Regulations; Section 19-524-1 through 19-524-12;
Adopted January 10, 1975; Amended January 4, 1978.
New York State, Part 360, Solid Waste Mangement Facilities
(May 17, 1977), Section 360.7 Facility Operator Requirements.
Oregon Solid Waste Control (1977), Chapter 459.517.
Washington Hazardous Waste Regulations (July 12, 1978)
WAC 173-302-320 Personnel Requirements.
-------
- 42 -
APPENDIX II
§264.16 Personnel Training
(a)(l) Facility personnel must successfully complete
a program of classroom instruction or on-the-job training
that teaches them to perform their duties in a way that
ensures the facility's compliance with the requirements
of this Part. The owner or operator must ensure that
this program includes all the elements described in the
document required under paragraph (d)(3) of this Section.
(2) This program must be directed by a person
trained in hazardous waste management procedures, and
must include instruction which teaches facility personnel
hazardous waste management procedures (including contin-
gency plan implementation) relevant to the positions in
which they are employed.
(3) At a minimum, the training program must be
designed to ensure that facility personnel are able to
respond effectively to emergencies by familiarizing
them with emergency procedures, emergency equipment,
and emergency systems, including, where applicable:
(i) Procedures for using, inspecting, repairing,
and replacing facility emergency and moni-
toring equipment;
(ii) Key parameters for automatic waste feed
cut-off systems;
(lii) Communications or alarm systems;
(iv) Response to fires or explosions;
(v) Response to ground-water contamination
incidents; and
(vi) Shutdown of operations.
(b) Facility personnel must successfully complete
the program required in paragraph (a) of this Section
within six months after the effective date of these
regulations or six months after the date of their
employment or assignment to a facility, or to a new
position at a facility, whichever is later. Employees
hired after the effective date of these regulations
must not work in unsupervised positions until they have
completed the training requirements of paragraph (a)
of this Section.
-------
- 43 -
(c) Facility personnel must take part in an annual
review of the initial training required in paragraph (a)
of this Section.
(d) The owner or operator must maintain the following
documents and records at the facility:
(l) The job title for each position at the facility
related to hazardous waste management, and the name of the
employee filling each job;
(2) A written job description for each position
listed under paragraph (d)(l) of this Section. This
description may be consistent in its degree of specificity
with descriptions for other similar positions in the same
company location or bargaining unit, but must include
the requisite skill, education, or other qualifications,
and duties of employees assigned to each position;
(3) A written description of the type and amount
of both introductory and continuing training that will
be given to each person filling a position listed under
paragraph (d)(l) of this Section;
(4) Records that document that the training or
job experience required under paragraphs (a), (b), and (c)
of this Section has been given to, and completed by,
facility personnel.
(e) Training records on current personnel must be
kept until closure of the facility; training records on
former employees must be kept for at least three years
from the date the employee last worked at the facility.
Personnel training records may accompany personnel
transferred within the same company.
[§§264.17 - 264.29 Reserved]
-6
GPO 368-065
------- |