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

-------