**April 8, 1999**

***FY 1998 Accomplishments and Highlights:***

> ***NIEHS/DOE Hazmat Worker Training Program***

**Submitted by the**

**National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences**

**Division of Extramural Research and Training**

**Worker Education and Training Program**

**Research Triangle Park, NC**

**[\
]{.underline}**

**[Table of Contents]{.underline}**

1 Introduction [3](#introduction)

2 FY 1998 Program Highlights [4](#fy-1998-program-highlights)

2.1 Continuation of the peer-reviewed DOE Worker Training awards
[4](#continuation-of-the-peer-reviewed-doe-worker-training-awards)

2.1.1 Laborers-AGC Education and Training Fund
[5](#laborers-agc-education-and-training-fund)

2.1.2 University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey
[42](#university-of-medicine-and-dentistry-of-new-jersey)

2.1.3 ICWU Center for Worker Health and Safety Education
[52](#icwu-center-for-worker-health-and-safety-education)

2.1.4 International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE)
[65](#international-union-of-operating-engineers-iuoe)

2.1.5 United Brotherhood of Carpenters Health & Safety Fund:
[73](#united-brotherhood-of-carpenters-health-safety-fund)

2.1.6 Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union:
[87](#oil-chemical-and-atomic-workers-international-union)

2.1.7 International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF)
[102](#international-association-of-fire-fighters-iaff)

3 Publication of \"Resource Guide for Evaluating Worker Training\"
[110](#publication-of-resource-guide-for-evaluating-worker-training)

4 Continued operation and support for a national clearinghouse
[110](#continued-operation-and-support-for-a-national-clearinghouse)

5 Trainee Environmental Job Tracking Initiative
[111](#trainee-environmental-job-tracking-initiative)

6 Worker Trainer Programs: Guidelines for Success
[112](#worker-trainer-programs-guidelines-for-success)

7 Summary of the Environmental Job Training Summit in New Orleans, LA
[113](#summary-of-the-environmental-job-training-summit-in-new-orleans-la)

8 Continuation Applications [113](#continuation-applications)

9 Conference on Workplace Safety & Health Training
[114](#conference-on-workplace-safety-health-training)

10 Guidelines for Training in Support of Workplace Safety and Health
Programs
[114](#guidelines-for-training-in-support-of-workplace-safety-and-health-programs)

11 Technical Workshop on Virtual Safety and Health Training
[116](#technical-workshop-on-virtual-safety-and-health-training)

12 Request for Applications (RFA) Development Process
[116](#request-for-applications-rfa-development-process)

13 Conclusion [117](#conclusion)

14 Appendix 1: Percent and Total of NIEHS/DOE
[118](#appendix-1-percent-and-total-of-niehsdoe-courses-completed)

15 Appendix 2: Five-Year Summary [119](#appendix-2-five-year-summary)

16 Appendix 3: FY 97 Funding [120](#appendix-3-fy-97-funding)

17 Appendix 4: FY 98 Funding [121](#appendix-4-fy-98-funding)

18 Appendix 5: TRAINING PARAMETERS
[122](#appendix-5-training-parameters)

19 Appendix 6: Target Populations [123](#appendix-6-target-populations)

20 Appendix 7: Total Training by NIEHS Awardee
[124](#appendix-7-total-training-by-niehs-awardee)

**April 8, 1999**

**FY 1998 Accomplishments and Highlights:**

**NIEHS/DOE Hazmat Worker Training Program**

# Introduction

Since the initiation of the Superfund Worker Training Grants Program in
1987, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)
has developed a strong network of non-profit organizations that are
committed to protecting workers and their communities by delivering
high-quality, peer-reviewed safety and health curriculum to target
populations of hazardous waste workers and emergency responders.

The Worker Training Program was originally authorized for five years (FY
87-91) by Congress with the passage of Section 126 of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). The program is
administered by NIEHS through an interagency agreement with EPA. During
October 1990, Congress reauthorized the Superfund program for an
additional three years (FY 92-94), which included an authorization of
\$20 million per year for the NIEHS Worker Training Program. For FY 96,
Congress provided \$18.5 million for the NIEHS Worker Training Program.
EPA separately transferred \$2 million to support the continuation of an
initiative for pilot project to train minority young adults for careers
in the environmental restoration industry.

Through the encouragement of multi-state, university-based consortiums
and the development of national non-profit organizations which have
focused on specific workforce sectors, this NIEHS program has
established technically-proficient curriculum materials and
quality-controlled course presentations. These courses have been
delivered to hazardous waste workers and emergency responders in every
region of the country and have established new national benchmarks for
quality worker safety and health training. The program also has
represented a major prevention education activity for NIEHS as technical
scientific and basic research information is delivered to target
populations with high-risk toxic exposures.

Throughout the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear weapons complex,
a vast and intensive cleanup effort is now underway. Tens of thousands
of DOE employees involved in the cleanup program require safety and
health training to help reduce the risk of their being exposed in the
course of their work to hazardous materials and hazardous waste
products. One effort to enhance training capabilities at these sites has
been through the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
(NIEHS) Worker Health and Safety Training Program, created in 1993 under
the terms of an interagency agreement with DOE. An initial needs
assessment conducted that year in an effort to better understand the
training needs of workers across the DOE nuclear weapons complex
estimated that between 10,000 and 60,000 workers at DOE facilities would
require initial training. Five years after the start of training in
1994, large-scale environmental cleanup is underway throughout the DOE
complex and more than 70,000[^1] presences have been logged in NIEHS
awardee HAZMAT training classes.

Across the DOE complex, approximately 1.2 million contact hours of
hazardous materials training were delivered by the NIEHS awardees
between 1994 and 1998. During this period, dozens of different courses
were offered by nine awardees to workers at sites throughout the DOE
complex. The courses can be classified in eight general categories: Site
Worker, Site Worker Refresher, RCRA/Industrial, Emergency Response,
Radiation, Lead Abatement, Asbestos Abatement, and Other. During the
four years covered, the largest category of training was Site Worker
Refresher, which accounted for 48 percent of course attendees between
1994 and 1998. The second largest category was Site Worker, which
accounted for nearly 11,000 course participants and almost half of all
contact hours of training provided between 1994 and 1998. The next
largest category was RCRA/Industrial, followed by Asbestos Abatement,
Radiation, Emergency Response, and Lead Abatement.

While the NIEHS awardees have provided training at more than thirty DOE
sites, half of the trainees worked at two of the largest sites, Hanford
and Oak Ridge, where more than 36,000 course participants received over
half a million contact hours of training. At the Hanford and Oak Ridge
sites, nearly 20,000 course participants (53 percent of those trained
between 1994 and 1998) received nearly 160,000 contact hours of Site
Worker Refresher Training, and close to 10,000 participated in
RCRA/Industrial training.

The goal of the NIEHS/DOE worker training program has been to provide
site-specific, quality training to workers in a timely and
cost-effective manner**,** through a partnership involving government,
contractors, and labor organizations. A cornerstone of the program is
the use of "worker-trainers," employees well-versed in performing a
given task in a hazardous environment who are trained to instruct other
workers. Benefits of the partnership include fostering cooperation
between management and workers, improving efficiency and quality of
training, improving the ability to address worker concerns, and
empowering all stakeholders to address site-specific safety and health
needs. Training is available to DOE and contractor employees; regulatory
agency personnel; state, local, and Tribal government officials; and
local emergency responders working in hazardous substance response and
emergency response operations at DOE sites.

# FY 1998 Program Highlights

During FY 98, (September 1, 1997 -- August 31, 1998) major program
accomplishments of the DOE/NIEHS Worker Training Program include:

## Continuation of the peer-reviewed DOE Worker Training awards 

## 

## After the completion of the third program year on the projected five year long cooperative agreements to support worker training activities, 7 organizations submitted progress reports, training data and budget requests and training plans on July 1, 1997. Budget adjustments in the proposed funding plan were based on the training needs of high-risk populations, national geographic coverage in training availability and the published program priorities for training support. Awards were made on September 1, 1997 for each of the programs supported with DOE Environmental Management resources.

Highlights of the training activities carried out by the NIEHS/DOE
Worker Training awardees include:

### Laborers-AGC Education and Training Fund

Laborers-AGC DOE Training: BRIEF SUMMARY OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS

During the 1997-98 Department of Energy (DOE) Hazardous Waste Worker
Training Program (HWWTP) year, the Laborers-AGC Education and Training
Fund (Laborers-AGC) conducted 270 course presentations with 2,950
participants representing approximately 71,336 contact training hours of
training. It is anticipated that Laborers-AGC total training for 1997/98
under the DOE program will be 148 weeks, which will fall just short of
the goal of 151 training weeks proposed in our letter to NIEHS on March
13, 1998, but will exceed the number proposed at the outset of the
training year.

Training was provided by seven training centers and two mobile units.
The seven fixed sites trained workers who would be needed for
environmental remediation work at nearby DOE facilities, including
Hanford, NTS, Rocky Flats, Los Alamos, Sandia, Oak Ridge, the St. Louis
airport site, and Savannah River. Some refresher training was conducted
for laborers who may work at FUSRAP sites, but now that jurisdiction for
these sites in under the Army Corps of Engineers, training for these
sties will be conducted under the EPA HWWTP. The Virginia/North Carolina
Mobile Unit conducted training for DOE headquarters personnel, and the
Iowa Mobile Unit responded to needs that the fixed sites could not meet.
In most instances, the Iowa Mobile Unit provided Asbestos Worker or
Refresher training for Los Alamos and Sandia DOE facilities.

This year, courses offered under the DOE HWWTP included the following:
the 80-hour Hazardous Waste (HW) Worker, 8-hour HW Worker Refresher,
24-hour Radiological Worker II, 8-hour Radiological Worker II Refresher,
40-hour Asbestos Abatement Worker, 8-hour Asbestos Abatement Worker
Refresher, 40-hour Asbestos Abatement Supervisor, 8-hour Asbestos
Abatement Supervisor Refresher, and the 32-hour Permit-Required Confined
Space Entry Worker. In addition to these standard courses, several new
short courses were provided to workers who would be starting jobs at the
Oak Ridge DOE facility. The prime contractor there, BNFL, requested
training in the following short courses:

¥ Hearing Conservation ¥ Lockout-Tagout

¥ Hazardous Waste Characterization ¥ Lead Awareness

¥ Fall Protection ¥ Fire Watch

¥ Hazard Communication

IBT DOE Training: BRIEF SUMMARY OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS

To increase the effectiveness and quality of the HWWTP, the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) program developed a
pre-test/post-test and a protocol for donning and doffing self-contained
breathing apparatus (SCBA) and air purifying respirators (APR). The data
acquired from the pre-test/post-test will be utilized by program
management to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the program. The
SCBA and APR donning and doffing protocol will increase the trainee's
retention rate by providing more effective methods for teaching trainees
the proper procedures for donning and doffing the equipment.

The program revised all the manuals to include:

1\. Changes in the regulations and procedures governing the removal of
hazardous waste and the transportation of hazardous materials.

2\. Additional graphics to assist trainees in understanding complex
topics.

3\. Clearly stated learning objectives and review questions.

Further, the format for the 8-hour HW Refresher manual was changed to
loose-leaf to permit instructors to include topics in the course that
fulfill the specific training needs of the students.

To expand the DOE curriculum to meet the training demand, the program
has begun the development of four new courses:

1\. 8-hour Respiratory Protection

2\. 32-hour Lead Abatement

3\. 32-hour Asbestos Abatement

4\. Transportation of Radiological Waste

These course are in the developmental stages, and will be fully
implemented in the 1998-1999 program year.

As originally proposed, the program has completed the final phase of the
Student Tracking and Reporting System (STARS) database and the Financial
Tracking database. To further enhance the existing STARS data base, the
program has begun the development of the Marketing data base. The
Marketing data base will interface with STARS and contain information
that will be utilized by the field coordinator and marketing manager to:

1\. Establish training schedules to meet the needs of remediation
contractors

2\. Facilitate the employment of trainees on hazardous waste sites,
Superfund sites, and remediation sites

The program conducted two Instructor Development Programs (IDP) in the
1997-1998 program year. To maintain their Radiological Control Worker II
certifications, instructors participated in a Radiological Control
Worker II course, sponsored by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories.
The course consisted of lectures and dress-out activities. Instructors
also participated in site visits to the NOVA Laser Fusion Facility and
the construction site for the National Ignition Facility.

A second IDP was held from July 27, 1998 through August 1, 1998, at the
Nevada Test Site. The instructors will participate in site visits to the
Nevada Test Site, the Nevada Test Site Hazardous Materials Spills
Center, and Yucca Mountain Storage Facility for Low Level Radioactive
Waste. Employees of DOE and Bechtel/Nevada will give the instructors
guided tours of the sites. Further, the protocol for donning and doffing
SCBAs and APRs will be pilot-tested during this IDP. Trainees for the
pilot testing will be drawn from Teamsters Local Union 631 (Las Vegas,
Nevada).

As initially proposed, the program conducted a joint venture Instructor
Development Program in conjunction with the Laborers-AGC, an Advisory
Board meeting, and a site audit of one training center.

1\. TRAINING ACCOMPLISHMENTS\--Laborers-AGC

The DOE HWWTP courses are offered at the following regional training
centers.

1\. Albuquerque, NM 5. Las Vegas, NV

2\. Augusta, GA 6. Middletown, OH

3\. Belton, MO 7. Oak Ridge, TN

4\. Brighton, CO 8. Pasco, WA

5\. Buffalo, NY 9. Pasco, WA

Courses conducted at the Buffalo, NY training facility were for FUSRAP
sites. Now that these sites are under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps
of Engineers, training will no longer be continued under the DOE
program. Similarly, the training at Belton, MO was done for a specific
DOE site near the St. Louis airport. Training will only be continued
there when a definite need for extra trained workers has been
established,

In addition, Laborers-AGC provides DOE courses at other locations
through the use of the Iowa Mobile Unit and the Virginia/North Carolina
Mobile Unit. DOE Headquarters personnel are served by the mobile units.

A total of 197 presentations with 2,105 participants have been held to
date under the DOE HWWTP. A total of 48,296 contact training hours were
provided during this program year. Training data for the program year is
graphically depicted and is provided in Appendix 4. These graphs show
which sites have conducted the most training and allow easy comparisons
among the sites.

Additional tables give the anticipated training to be provided under the
program from June 1, 1997 to August 31, 1998. We expect to conduct
another 44 presentations and to train approximately 528 workers. With
this additional training, Laborers-AGC will conduct approximately 148
weeks of training, meeting the goal that was established prior to the
beginning of the 1997/98 training year, but falling just short of the
projected goals in our letter to NIEHS on March 13, 1998.

The total number of training weeks is expected to be lower in 1998 than
in 1997, however, the number of participants trained has increased from
last year. This increase is due, in part, to larger classes.
Laborers-AGC has set a minimum class size for all DOE courses. If the
size of the class is too small, training will be pro-rated. If a
refresher course does not have the minimum number of participants, the
course will not be reimbursed at all. Another key reason that
participant levels are up from last year is that the environmental
remediation work at Oak Ridge finally started. Hundreds of Laborers are
required to man the Oak Ridge projects. As was stated in the past,
unexpected changes, or even anticipated changes can change training
needs over night. This fact demonstrates why it is difficult, if not
impossible to plan for short or long term DOE training.

Although the number of people trained is greater than last year,
Laborers-AGC continues to experience difficulties at some of the DOE
facilities. Many DOE contractors are still reluctant to use the NIEHS
grantee training. They, and DOE site managers, change the training
requirements regularly, especially when a contractor changes or new DOE
manager is appointed. Others question the validity of Laborers-AGC
training and may require already trained workers to retake courses that
they have not approved.

Trainee Characteristics

About 60 percent of the trainees are between the ages of 25 and 44. This
is the same percentage reported last year. The percentage of trainees in
the 18-24 category declined by 3 percent and the 25-34 age group
increased by 2 percent. Although these are minor shifts, more mature
workers may be seeking jobs in the environmental field.

Information on DOE trainee race changed significantly during the first
half of the 1997/98 program year. The Caucasian category rose from 48
percent last year to 68 percent this year. This 20 percent increase
cannot be fully explained. We do know that the largest growth area under
the DOE program has been the training for the Oak Ridge clean-up
activities. Many of the people trained were already employees of BNFL,
so their minority figures may be having an effect of the data.
Similarly, if the Oak Ridge area has a small percentage of minorities
then training will reflect that fact. This is a question that
Laborers-AGC will attempt to answer before the final report.

DOE Training Trends

On the whole, anticipated training needs for DOE facilities have not
been as great as anticipated. However, this year, long awaited
remediation contracts for the Oak Ridge site were finally awarded to
BNFL (British Nuclear Fuels Limited). Training for work at Oak Ridge has
risen dramatically and those who are trained are getting cleanup jobs.
On the other hand, work slowdowns at Rocky Flats and policy changes at
Savannah River have cut into jobs and training has diminished below what
was projected. A graphic depiction of total participants trained across
the training sites is provided in Appendix 4.

Because of the way DOE site remediation jobs progress, no one has been
able to accurately predict which projects will begin during any given
year. Therefore, it has been most difficult to develop a training plan
that maintains its relevance throughout an entire year. Contacts with
DOE contractors and business managers at LIUNA locals as well as job
site tracking has enabled Laborers-AGC to make reasonable decisions
regarding training needs. In the next year, jobs are expected to
increase at Oak Ridge, Rocky Flats, and the Nevada Test Site. Other
training will remain at about the levels they were in the 1998 program
year. One possible exception is Savannah River. If certification issues
are cleared up, training for laborers could increase significantly.

DOE HWWTP 1993-1997 Training Overview

Table 3 shows the number of students trained in the DOE HWWTP from the
start of the program in September 1, 1993, to August 31, 1997. As is
depicted, the number of workers trained has increased significantly from
year 1 to year 2 of the program. In year 3, training numbers declined,
but in year 4, they increased. In year 5 (current year) DOE training
numbers are expected to show an increase again. The increase will have
been a result of the large need for training at the Oak Ridge DOE
facility. Numbers for year 5 (September 1997 through August 1998, will
not be reported until the year end.

TABLE 3

DOE HWWTP \--YEARS 1 TO 4

NUMBERS TRAINED

Course Yr. 1 Yr. 2 Yr. 3 Yr. 4 Totals

HW Worker 374 575 326 308 1,583

HW Worker Refresher 427 598 626 722 2,373

HW Operations 51 23 - - 74

HW Supervisor 3 3 - - 6

HW Supervisor Refresher 7 14 19 28 64

Rad Worker II 270 410 240 195 1,115

Rad Worker II Refresher - - 46 30 76

Asbestos Abate Worker 545 497 359 379 1,780

AA Worker Refresher 84 222 418 378 1,102

AA Supervisor 32 20 12 11 75

AA Supervisor Refresher - 8 51 49 108

Lead Abatement Worker - 90 49 55 194

Lead Abate Worker Ref - - 29 36 65

Lead Abatement Supervisor - 6 8 1 15

Lead Abate Sup Refresher 5 5

Confined Space 13 13

Totals 1,793 2,466 2,183 2,210 8,648

Training Costs

Table 4 shows the actual expenditures per year under the DOE HWWTP and
costs per person and per contact hour.

TABLE 4

DOE HWWTP - TRAINING COSTS BREAKDOWN

Year Expenditures Trainees Costs/Person Contact Hours Cost/Contact Hour

Year 1 2,388,518 1,929 1,238 67,673 35.29

Year 2 2,254,977 2,522 894 91,435 24.66

Year 3 1,648,714 2,188 754 58,552 28.16

Year 4 1,575,181 2,220 709 60,192 26.17

Totals/ \$7,867,390 8,859 \$888 277,852 \$28.31

Averages

\* All years have funds for the IBT removed from the totals.

During the first four years of the program, 8,859 workers have been
trained. The average cost per person since the inception of the DOE
HWWTP is \$888 with \$28.31 per contact hour being expended. Training
and training costs have remained about the same during the past two
years. Recently there has been a slight decrease in costs per person and
costs per hour of training. This trend may continue into Year 6 because
the high number of larger classes at Oak Ridge will keep costs per
person down. Year 5 expenditures and training numbers are not included
because training is incomplete.

1\. TRAINING ACCOMPLISHMENTS - IBT

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) DOE HWWTP provided
training through its two training centers:

1\. Northern California Teamsters Apprentice Training and Education
Trust Fund located in Rancho Murieta, California.

2\. Central/Southern Region Training Center located at Teamsters Local
Union 89 in Louisville, Kentucky.

Training accomplishments for the period of September 1, 1997 through
June 1, 1998 are discussed here. Training accomplishments for the period
of June 1, 1998 through August 31, 1998 will be provided in the Year End
Report.

For the period of September 1, 1997 through June 1, 1998, the DOE HWWTP:

1\. Certified 71 workers in the 48-hour HW Worker Training Course.

2\. Certified 467 workers in the 8-hour HW Refresher Course.

3\. Certified 88 workers in the 24-hour Radiological Control Worker II
Course.

4\. Certified 185 workers in the 4-hour Transportation Awareness Course
that was incorporated into the 48-hour HW Worker Training Course and the
8-hour HW Refresher Course.

The DOE HWWTP accomplished 120% of the proposed training goal for the
8-hour HW Refresher Course; 100% of the proposed training goal for the
24-hour Radiological Control Worker II Course; and, 49% of the proposed
training goal for the 48-hour HW Worker Training Course. The program did
not implement the 8-hour Respiratory Protection Course in GY98, pending
a needs assessment at the DOE Sites. (Appendix 5 provides a summary of
IBT training accomplishments by training center and by course.)

In June 1998, the DOE HWWTP executed training contracts with the Eastern
Region Training Center and the Southern California Training Center. The
Eastern Region Training Center will provide DOE training to workers who
are employed, or have the potential for employment at Brookhaven
National Labs. The Southern California Training Center will provide DOE
training for workers who are employed, or have the potential for
employment, at the Santa Susanna DOE Site. Training accomplishments for
these two training centers will be reported in the year end report.

2\. TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS\--Laborers-AGC

Trainee Application

The DOE HWWTP now uses two standardized application forms instead of the
single generic form that has been used in the past. The old application
has been revised to correct basic items such as date and program code.
Questions on trainee characteristics (age, race, and gender), current
employment, and certification are still included. Laborers-AGC can also
get information on the effectiveness of the course materials and
instructor capabilities by calculating the percentage of trainees that
passed the course and were certified. In the 1997/98 DOE HWWTP year, 94
percent of the trainees taking the environmental courses successfully
completed their training.

In October 1997, a new refresher application was developed and
distributed to training funds for use with all environmental refresher
courses that are conducted under the DOE HWWTP. This application is
designed to not only get information on trainee characteristics, but
also to obtain information on where trained workers have been employed
and the type of work they have done since their training. In particular,
trainees are asked to note any environmental cleanup work that they have
done.

A second part to the refresher application has been piloted at several
sites. Trainees are asked if they have seen or been part of any action
that required the use of health and safety protection skills in their
jobs. Workers are questioned about their willingness to approach site
managers about situations that they felt would jeopardize their health
and the health of other workers. Trainees are also asked to give
examples of how the hazardous waste worker training has benefited them
at work, at home, or on their free time.

Much of the information that is included in the second part of the
refresher application will be used to generate class discussions on
workplace hazards, personal protective equipment, and workers\' rights.
Instructors will help trainees learn through their own experiences and
the experiences of others. Trainees will have the opportunity to discuss
the decisions made by the worker or the supervisor and to determine what
actions could have made the job safer.

During July and August 1998, instructors from each of the training sites
that participate in the NIEHS HWWTPs will attend a two-day
train-the-trainer on how to moderate the discussions on real workplace
situations. Instructors will learn how to initiate discussions, as well
as, lead trainees in thinking through problem situations and making
informed decisions about solving safety problems. Identifying problems,
selecting appropriate safety precautions, and bringing the problem to
the attention of the supervisor are important skills that environmental
workers must have to protect themselves and their fellow workers.

Medical Review

Each site also requires trainees to complete a blood pressure screening,
pulmonary function test, and medical questionnaire. The trainee\'s
medical information is then reviewed by the site\'s medical professional
who will provide a written opinion on whether the employee has any
medical condition that would place the employee at increased risk from
class activities or wearing PPE. Participants are approved or denied
training as set forth in the medical protocol (revised in 1997).
Although the medical screening cannot be used for work clearance,
trainees do get an idea of whether they would pass a full physical exam
and can refuse work that requires medical clearance. This can reduce
time and costs for the employer.

The Laborers Health and Safety Fund of North America (LHSFNA) maintains
physical custody of the trainee medical records. The LHSFNA inputs the
information contained in the medical questionnaires and medical forms
into a database and generates a preliminary report on the base line
health information of the trainees. Additional reports on the
information contained on the questionnaire can be generated as needed
for statistical analysis and programmatic decision-making. As of now, no
medical information will be included in the TRAC database. This
maintains the confidentiality of the trainees\' records.

Training Records

In addition to the trainee applications and medical questionnaires,
other records and information are gathered on the participants during
the HW Worker and HW Operations courses. For the hands-on portion of the
course, records include:

1\. Trainee record sheet for pulse, temperature, and weight

2\. Trainee fit test record

3\. Performance test observation form for inspecting and donning
half-face air purifying respirators (APRs)

4\. Performance test observation form for inspecting and donning
full-face APRs

5\. Performance test observation form for doffing and cleaning APRs

6\. Final written exam

These records are used to monitor a trainee\'s performance and to
document completion of the tasks.

In addition, trainees are given standard operating procedures (SOPs)
sheets to complete on the mock hazardous waste site. The SOP sheets
detail procedures trainees would see on a hazardous waste site.
Instructors monitor these activities and evaluate each trainee\'s
ability to complete these assignments in a proficient and safe manner.

Trainees are also evaluated during the classroom portions of the course.
At the conclusion of the 80-hour and 45-hour courses, all students take
a written exam. The trainee must score a 70% grade or better to be
eligible for certification. (They must score an 80% or higher on the
Radiological Worker II exam.) The HW Worker exam format, process, and
questions are currently being revised. Test questions will be put into a
test bank of approximately 300-400 items that will be chosen randomly on
tests that are re-constructed every six months. In addition, this
written test will be administered differently. It will take place in
three parts over the course of the 80-hour training period, with each
portion counting as a percentage of the total examination score. Test
questions are directly linked to the course work. In order to make the
testing information more realistic, and to help some trainees overcome
possible learning issues, the new test questions use a great deal of
visual information.

Training Program Evaluation

Laborers-AGC\'s program evaluation efforts include:

1\. Monitoring courses and instructors.

2\. Reviewing course materials (including manuals, audiovisual
materials) for technical accuracy and for ease in reading.

3\. Relevancy of information and training to the trainees\' jobs and
impact of the training on their behavior at work and at home.

Monitoring

Class and site monitoring continued as they have in prior years.
Laborers-AGC program staff periodically monitor sites, especially if a
site is conducting a class for the first time or if a problem at the
site has been identified through other monitoring or QA/QC activities.

In addition to Laborers-AGC staff visits, sites are monitored by master
trainers and other professionals. For the first time, Laborers-AGC will
use retired training fund directors to monitor HW Worker classes. (So
far, three training directors are willing and able to monitor the HW
training.) Their experiences in the field and as training directors
(overseers) provides a unique evaluation perspective. Laborers-AGC
contracts with a law firm to conduct monitoring of the legal rights
section of the hazardous waste worker training. Laborers-AGC also uses
the services of a professional who has overseen several Superfund
remedial actions. He visits several sites to observe the hands-on
training, particularly field simulation activities. Finally,
Laborers-AGC contracts with the LHSFNA to observe the medical effects
portion of the HW worker courses.

After any evaluation, the monitor discusses concerns with the site
director and offers suggestions for improvement. Each monitor submits a
report to Laborers-AGC upon completion of a course or site evaluation.
If action needs to be taken, the concerns are discussed with the site
director and recorded in writing to the site director.

Letters and reports from course monitors are kept on file at both the
site and at Laborers-AGC headquarters. Laborers-AGC staff review the
reports and address any issues of concern with the site\'s training
director.

Laborers-AGC Staff Monitoring Activities

Monitoring activities consist of site visits to verify training
effectiveness and to ensure compliance with Laborers-AGC program
elements and with applicable industry standards and requirements. During
the 1997/98 program year, one site monitoring visit to Oak Ridge, TN was
conducted. This visit specifically focused on the Radiological Worker II
course.

Monitoring that is conducted by outside evaluators is summarized below:

The Laborers Health and Safety Fund of North America

The Laborers Health and Safety Fund of North America (LHSFNA)
periodically monitors the health effects portion of the HW Worker or the
HW Operations courses. At most training facilities, a medical
professional presents the health effects curriculum and conducts the
medical screening for trainees. The LHSFNA provides the oversight,
policy, and guidance for these functions. LHSFNA staff also provide
assistance to the health professional during their first HW Worker
course.

During the past year, the LHSFNA monitored the following DOE training
sites:

¥ Oak Ridge, TN

¥ Albuquerque, NM

¥ Brighton, CO

Initial class delivery and new medical professional training was
conducted at the Oak Ridge site.

In their oversight role, LHSFNA also conducts a secondary review of the
completed medical questionnaires and blood pressure and spirometry
reports that are submitted by the medical professionals. Rigorous review
of provided medical information helps ensure that trainees do not have
physical conditions that may restrict use of PPE.

Clean Sites, Inc.

A representative from Clean Sites, Inc., Stuart T. Allen, routinely
reviews the mock sites and practical exercises during HW Worker courses
at various training facilities. Mr. Allen observes trainees conducting
clean-up activities while they are wearing PPE. Trainees typically use
remediation and sampling equipment that may be used on an actual
hazardous waste site.

During the 1997/98 program year, Stu Allen conducted three monitoring
visits under the DOE HWWTP, with one more site visit planned for the
Pasco, WA site during the summer. Visited sites are as follows:

¥ Augusta, GA

¥ Brighton, CO

¥ Oak Ridge, TN

Mr. Allen also helped revise the final exam for the HW Worker course,
provided current information on environmental remediation to
instructors, and attended the Laborers-AGC HW Advisory Board meeting.

Connerton and Ray

The law firm of Connerton and Ray provides expertise in legal
regulations governing hazardous waste site cleanup, treatment storage
and disposal, and worker health and safety. Michael Barrett, a lawyer
with Connerton and Ray, monitors presentations of the legal rights
section of the HW Worker course. He also provides legal assistance on
matters related to training activities at the sites. He also serves as
recording secretary for the HWWTP Advisory Board meetings.

Course Materials

Laborers-AGC dedicates significant staff time to development and review
of course materials. To support this function, program specialists keep
updated on environmental remediation techniques, technologies, and
regulations. This knowledge is used in the continual process of updating
course materials. Some of the courses that are currently under review
and modification include the Permit-Required Confined Space, the HW
Refresher and a new 24-Hour Limited Access Worker course. In addition,
course exams, practical exercises, audio-visual aids (including
Powerpoint presentations) and other course materials are also reviewed
regularly.

In addition to Laborers-AGC staff, outside professionals help develop
material and peer review materials for accuracy, completeness, and
relevancy. Instructors from various training funds also work with
Laborers-AGC to form curriculum committees. These committees review new
courses and updated material. Their input is especially relevant because
they see things from a vantage point obtained from years of instructing.

To get a good overall review of a course and its material, all users\'
input must be included. The key instrument currently in use for the
HWWTP is the instructor/course evaluation form.

Instructor/Course Evaluations

At the end of every HW Worker and HW Operations course, trainees
complete an instructor/course evaluation. Currently these forms are
being sent to Laborers-AGC for review and compilation. Ellen Warhit, a
subgrantee to Laborers-AGC, was contracted to summarize the data from
these evaluations.

Using a random sampling of 10 student evaluations from each training
site, mean scores were calculated for each site by each course section
for the following variables:

¥ Course content ¥ Instructor preparation

¥ Instructor presentation ¥ Visual aids

¥ Text materials ¥ Discussion session

¥ Quality of training facility/site ¥ Handout materials

¥ Value of field work or assignments ¥ Technical value

¥ Overall opinion of the course

On a scale of 1 to 5, every training site rated an average of 3.68 or
higher for all selected variables for every course section on the
student evaluations. Most scores were above 4.00. While these scores are
still above average, the overall ratings are lower than they were last
year. One possible reason for this is the introduction of the newly
revised HW Worker manual last year. Instructors may have been less
confident with the material, thereby weakening their presentations.

The course handouts tended to receive lower scores among the sites when
compared with values for other variables. Visual aids also received
lower scores more frequently than the other variables. Laborers-AGC is
aware that some updating of the visual aids and handouts is needed.
Laborers-AGC has already begun revising the HW Worker course visuals and
intends to develop Powerpoint presentations for instructor use.

This is the final year that the current Instructor/Course Evaluation
Form will be used. A new form has been developed, which is simpler to
use and is designed for computer scanning and analysis. A pilot of the
form will take place this summer with a modified version of the form
that does not require computer readability. Instructors at several
training sites will give the form to trainees in an 80-Hour HW Worker
class. The instructors can observe the students\' reactions to the form
and note if all questions were seriously considered or if the trainees
selected all of one category to complete the form as soon as possible.

The pilot forms will be sent to Laborers-AGC and reviewed by an
education specialist and program staff. Any necessary modifications will
be made, and then the form will be reformatted to make it computer
scannable. A copy of the pilot form is provided in Appendix 9.

Impact of Training on Work Habits

As mentioned in the Trainee Applications section of this report, a new
HW Refresher course application was developed and has been used for
about six months. Several sites are using the second sheet of this form,
which provides information on the use of the HW Worker Training on the
job, incidents that were prevented or better handled because of the
training, and what areas of training the worker has been able to apply
to the job and home life.

Trainee Comments-Skills Used on the Job

1\. All decon, PPE, respirators, health and safety, different types of
filters.

2\. Decon line, respirator, confined space entry, fall protection,
lock-out/tag-out.

3\. Confined space, air monitoring, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide,
etc. Monitor my own heat stress.

4\. Working with flammable gas.

5\. I have become proficient in the use of proper PPE and job specific
abatement materials, such as surfactants and encapsulants.

6\. Conduct inspections of hazardous waste facilities, nuclear
facilities, and industrial facilities.

7\. Used PPE to decon materials in radiological zones. Used MSDS to
identify chemicals used in work.

8\. Removing hazardous waste from tanks to safe location for
remediation.

9\. Spill clean up. Decontamination steps. Necessary PPE. Breathing
procedures.

10\. HazMat refresher manual is a great tool and source of information.

Trainee Comments-Potential Safety Incidents at Work Prevented Because of
Hazardous Waste Training

1\. Recognized unusual substance in the ground. Brought it to boss\'
attention. Testing showed it was benzene. Referred to MSDS.

2\. Proper decon prevented taking toxins home to family.

3\. Having somebody on top when in a manhole.

4\. Smell of something. Respirators weren\'t adequate. Refused to enter
confined space.

4\. Full air was needed. Air monitor went off. Got everyone out.

5\. I separated acetylene and oxygen tanks to prevent any possible
incident. They were stored side by side.

6\. there have been countless scenarios when training has paid off.

7\. Insisted on proper amount of time between breaks in confined space.

8\. Explosion in tunnel in East Lansing, MI.

9\. Discovering a hidden chemical hazard when performing regular
remediation tasks.

10\. Cleaning of a hydrazine spill.

11\. Going to Level B protection in an unknown situation (possible
chemicals).

12 If the area was hot, I made sure I had the right PPE.

13 Did not cross a line that had high levels of radioactive material
that was not marked.

14\. Coke, gas explosions, carbon dioxide poisoning.

15\. Hole watch. Because my airline blew off, and hole watch retracted
me.

16\. Prevented two different chemicals from being placed in one drum,
which might have caused a chemical reaction.

17\. Found a drum while digging.

18\. Helped prevent a tank from ripping apart.

19\. Heat exhaustion.

20\. Blowing out the manhole to reduce the gases to a level to gain
entry.

21\. I stopped a person from opening a bulging drum, setting up proper
decon.

22\. As a steward I was able to instruct the crew on contamination and
avoidance, fire safety, and use of proper protection for chemical use.

23\. Helped evacuate work area when hazardous atmosphere was present and
avoided contamination using proper PPE.

24\. Experienced heat stress and was able to recognize the symptoms. On
numerous occasions while monitoring I was able to prevent a potential
disaster or death.

25\. Found asbestos (friable) on a HazMat site and notified supervisor.

Trainee Comments-Areas of Training Applied to Job or Home

1\. Able to confidentially enter confined space areas knowing I\'ve
taken all safety precautions.

2\. Removing lead paint prior to removing I-beams during demolition.
Wearing PPE during cutting with torches.

3\. PPE, always being alert for slips, trips and falls or any
malfunctioning electrical hazards, building contaminants.

4\. PPE, ventilation, MSDS.

5\. Use MSDS, hazard ID, first aid.

6\. Recognize potential hazards.

7\. Safety, working with others, communication.

8\. Daily work in a hazardous environment-most areas of HW Worker are
applied continuously.

9\. I\'m able to read and understand the posted warning signs at
Fernald.

10\. Decon procedures, excavation, drum testing.

11\. Decon, PPE, air monitoring.

12\. PPE, hazard recognition, HazCom, material handling, all aspects of
the job.

13\. Knowledge of proper use and application of PPE. All training used
commonly in daily situations.

14\. All of my skills and training have been used on a daily basis for
the past 3 years.

15\. Emergency management.

The training has also been beneficial for contractors who hire trained
workers. The continuing need for workers with environmental remediation
skills is very apparent. Selected comments from two DOE contractors
include the following:

BNLF, regarding Oak Ridge remediations - \"We would like to applaud your
efforts in the administration of scheduling training for our company.
Your dedication to customer service is evident by the quality of
training that your group provides, and locations that are conducive to
learning.\"

KWI, Construction, Inc. (regarding Savannah River remediations) -
\"\...it was at that time that I shared with you the importance of the
RWT (Radiological Worker Training)

. . . and asbestos training that you give to our employees. These types
of training help to ensure the safety of our employees. . . . Should
this not be such an advantage to us, our employees would not be able to
perform their duties sagely and in areas where work is offered them.\"

Roy F. Weston , Inc. (Weston) (regarding Oak Ridge remediations) - \"Roy
F. Weston was tasked with removing over 25,000 cubic yards of mercury
and low level radioactive contaminated soil from the flood-plain of East
Fork Poplar Creek last summer. Thanks to the diligent observance of
safety procedures, WESTON was able to complete the project with zero
lost time recordable incidents. Considering that the laborers cleared
over 15 acres of heavily forested area using chain saws, and were
present during many hazardous operations\".

2\. TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS\--IBT

Trainee Characteristics

The program utilizes a Student Demographic Form to obtain information on
the demographic characteristics of the trainees. The form is distributed
to trainees at the beginning of each course. The instructors encourage
the trainees to complete the form, but advise them it is voluntary and
that the information will remain confidential and be used for government
reporting purposes only.

These charts represent trainees who participated in the 48-hour HW
Worker Training Course and the 8-hour HW Refresher Course for the period
of September 1, 1997 through June 1, 1998.

Minority Training

Northern California Training Center

In program year 1996-1997 the Northern California Training Center
implemented an outreach plan to target Native Americans for
participation in DOE Worker Training. Many DOE sites are adjacent to, or
located on, Native American reservations. Federal law, and many state
laws, require the remediation contractors to hire their workforce
directly from the tribes that live on, or are in close geographical
proximity to, the targeted DOE sites.

To market the program to Native Americans, the Northern California
Training Center participated in the Tribal Employment Rights Council
(TERO) Conference. As a consequence, the training center conducted
training for seven Native Americans who represented the Shoshone-Bannock
Tribe, the White Mesa Utes, and the Navajo Nation.

The Northern California Training Center has also established an on-going
relationship with the California Private Industry Council and the
Sacramento Employment Training Alliance to provide training for
disadvantaged inner city residents.

Trainee Performance Data

Testing

All courses require trainees to take a written, final examination. A
minimum score of 70% is required to pass the courses. In the rare
instances where a trainee fails to pass the final examination, the
instructor will spend additional time with him/her reviewing course
materials. When the trainee is comfortable with the material, he/she
will retake the final examination. If a trainee fails the final
examination due to poor reading skills, the instructor will administer
the test orally.

The 4-hour Transportation Awareness Course has a 20-question multiple
choice examination. The examination is a learning tool and not graded.
The test is reviewed with the trainees at the conclusion of the course
so the instructor is confident that they fully understood the materials.

Pre-Test/Post-Test

The program contracted with FOF Communications to develop a
pre-test/post-test for utilization in the 48-hour HW Worker Training
Course and the 8-hour HW Refresher Course. The pre-test/post-test will
improve the program\'s ability to evaluate the effectiveness of the
training program.

The development of the Pre-Test/Post-Test consists of four major tasks.

1\. Develop test question database - The core of the pre-test/post-test
is a database which will contain approximately 200 test questions
corresponding to the major learning objectives of the 48-hour HW Worker
Training Course and the 8-hour HW Refresher Course. The
pre-test/post-test data base was established by having the instructors
evaluate and rank questions drawn from several different HW Worker
Training Course examinations. A total of 112 questions were selected by
the instructors for inclusion in the database. These questions were
subject to further review and evaluation by FOF and the program\'s
industrial hygienist. Where necessary, the selected questions were
modified or new questions were developed that correspond to the Learning
Objectives of the DOE Curriculum.

2\. Develop scan-entry answer sheets - FOF will develop a universal
one-page scannable test answer sheet, which will be incorporated into
the Student Tracking and Reporting System (STARS) data base. The tests
will be machine scored; the results entered into the database; and the
data downloaded to the program office. Program management will use the
pre-test/post-test database to generate reports that will assist in the
evaluation of the program.

3\. Design scanner and data base program - The program has contracted
with the information systems specialist who designed and implemented
STARS, to develop the pre-test/post-test database. Two interrelated
computer programs are required to link the test questions database and
the scan-entry answer sheet. One program will enable the responses to be
scanned from the answer sheets and compiled into a database. The other
program will compile the questions into answer sheets and test question
booklets.

4\. Conduct pilot evaluation of pre-test/post-test - The program
pilot-tested the pre-test/post-test in June 1998. The results of the
pilot test will be evaluated to: (1) determine the effectiveness of the
test booklets and answer sheets, (2) determine the reliability and
validity of the test questions, and (3) compare and report on the pre
and post training results among trainees participating in the pilot
test.

Hands-On, Practical, and Table Top Exercises

One of the main components of the DOE Curriculum is the utilization of
hands-on and table top activities to demonstrate difficult concepts to
the trainees.

Confined Space Monitoring Exercise

The program\'s instructors attended the OSHA 500 and OSHA 510 Courses,
\"Safety Standards for the Construction Industry.\" Exercises obtained
from the courses have been incorporated into the DOE Worker Training
Curriculum. One such exercise is confined space monitoring, which
demonstrates to trainees the need to monitor all areas of a confined
space.

The exercise utilizes a combustible gas monitor, butane lighter fuel,
and a five-gallon water bottle. Prior to the exercise, the instructor
will place a small quantity of butane in an open bottle. The instructor
tells trainees that the bottle represents a confined space, and they use
a combustible gas monitor to take a reading of the gases in the top area
of the bottle. (The butane will have settled in the bottom of the
bottle.) After obtaining a negative reading from the combustible gas
monitor, the instructor drops a lit match into the bottle. The butane
ignites and a flame vents out of the top of the bottle. Appropriate
precautions are taken during the exercise to ensure the safety of the
instructors and trainees.

Other hands-on and tabletop exercises include air-purifying respirators,
radiation monitor inspection and use, self-contained breathing
apparatus, donning and doffing, monitoring with colormetric tubes, drum
staging, and decontamination procedures.

Protocol for Donning and Doffing Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus and
Air Purifying Respirators

FOF Communications conducted the GY96-97 Outcome Survey of the DOE HWWTP
to determine the effectiveness and quality of the training. A finding of
the Outcome Survey was that the hands-on and dress-out activities
utilized by the program for self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA)
and air purifying respirators (APRs) were not as effective as expected
with respect to trainee retention rates for donning and doffing
procedures. In an effort to address this issue, the training program
revised the protocol and check-list for the SCBA and APR dress-out.

FOF Communications is working with the program\'s industrial hygienist
to: (1) revise the APR and SCBA donning/doffing check-list, (2) develop
a written protocol for hands-on testing of APR and SCBA donning/doffing
by trainees, and (3) produce a written report of the results of the
pilot testing of the new protocol. The following is a summary of the
five major steps that will be performed by FOF in developing the SCBA
and APR protocol:

1\. Develop a list of critical steps for tasks and sub-tasks involved in
APR and SCBA donning and doffing.

2\. Develop a check-list and hands-on simulation which demonstrate the
critical steps of APR and SCBA donning and doffing.

3\. Demonstrate the SCBA and APR donning/doffing protocol for
instructors in June, 1998; where merited, FOF will revise the protocol
based on instructor comments.

4\. Pilot-test the SCBA and APR protocol with instructors and trainees
in July 1998.

5\. Analyze data and prepare a written report on the effectiveness of
the new protocol.

The program demonstrated the new APR and SCBA protocol in a 4-hour
session at the 1998 Instructor Development Program (IDP). The session
introduced the program\'s instructors to the practical considerations of
hands-on evaluation methods for trainee dress-out in APRs and SCBAs, and
prepared them for an instructor calibration, which will be conducted in
July 1998. The instructors also discussed the reasons and concepts
behind the utilization of hands-on and dress-out activities. Problems
such as time, personnel requirements, subjectivity, reliability, and the
methods and reasons for instructor calibration were addressed.

To demonstrate the need for instructor calibration and standardized
checklists, three instructors donned and doffed APRs and SCBAs; the
remaining instructors scored them utilizing the checklists. NOTE: The
consultant privately requested two of the instructors to intentionally
make mistakes while donning and doffing the SCBAs and APRs. The
evaluations were tallied and presented to the class. The difference in
ratings, the reasons(s) for the differences in the ratings, and
solutions to correct the discrepancies were discussed.

The program proposes to implement the revised SCBA and APR
donning/doffing protocol in the next program year (September 1, 1998
through August 31, 1999).

Training Effectiveness

In October 1998 representatives of the Hanford DOE Facility reviewed
IBT\'s 8-hour HW Refresher course. In December, 1998, IBT received a
letter from the reviewer who reported \"\....that there were significant
changes to the Teamsters 8-hour HW Operations and Emergency Response
Training\...The most significant change is the incorporation of the
Department of Energy Systematic Approach to Training (SAT) methodology.
The HAMMER October Conduct of Training Classroom Evaluation concluded
that all OSHA and DOE objectives were met\...the quality of the course
delivery rated very high.\"

The students who attended the training were required to evaluate the
course. The evaluation criteria was as follows:

1\. Appropriateness of the course to safety needs

2\. How the course covered the topics

3\. Amount of hands-on training

4\. Overall satisfaction with course content

5\. Knowledge, skill, experience of instructor

6\. Instructor skill in making information clear

7\. Depth of coverage of important topics

8\. Use of audio-visual presentations

9\. Quality of audio-visual presentations

10\. Up-to-date materials

11\. Overall satisfaction with course presentation

12\. Classroom quality

13\. Facility comfort and amenities

14\. Appropriateness of props

15\. Adequacy of PPE

16\. Facility safety

17\. Overall satisfaction with the HAMMER facility

The survey was distributed to 757 trainees, of which 591 trainees
completed the survey. The majority of the trainees were \"Very
Satisfied\" with the quality and effectiveness of the training.

Literacy Issues

All instructors receive training in identifying trainees who may be
having difficulty comprehending course materials. If a trainee is
experiencing difficulty, the instructor will verbally tutor him/her in
the course materials.

The program has also revised the 8-hour HW Refresher Manual and the
48-hour HW Worker Training Manual to delete unnecessary sections and
rewrite sections that were either unclear or confusing. Additional
graphics were added to the manuals to assist the trainee in
understanding complex concepts through visual imagery.

The program has also developed new hands-on testing protocols which will
increase the emphasis placed on testing the trainees practical
applications of the knowledge learned in the classroom.

3\. CURRICULA UPDATES - LABORERS-AGC

All completed manuals have been sent to the National Clearinghouse under
separate cover as requested by NIEHS. The following is a brief
description of new courses and revisions planned for existing courses.

24-Hour Hazardous Waste Limited Access Worker

This new course is similar in content to the 45-Hour HW Operations
Training, but it is structured to meet the needs of a different
audience. It satisfies the training requirements of 29 CFR 1910.120 for
those workers who will be on site only occasionally to perform specific,
limited tasks and/or workers who are unlikely to be exposed over
permissible exposure limits and published exposure levels. This course
will also satisfy the training requirements for those workers who are
regularly on site but work in areas that have been monitored and fully
characterized indicating that exposures are under permissible exposure
limits and published exposure limits where respirators are not
necessary, and the characterization indicates that there are no health
hazards or the possibility of an emergency developing.

Hazardous Waste Worker Manual

Groundwater Remediation

Feedback from instructors and student evaluations indicated a need to
clarify and simplify the groundwater section of the HW Worker Manual.
The revised section combines soil and groundwater information and
categorizes remediation technologies into the following three groups:

¥ Technologies that destroy or alter contaminants

¥ Technologies that extract or separate the contaminants

¥ Technologies that immobilize the contaminants

The new section will be provided to all HW Worker instructors at the
upcoming HW Worker Instructor Refreshers.

Respiratory Protection

A digital version of the respiratory protection curriculum has been
created and will incorporate the revised standard (CFR 1910.134) that
will be effective on October 5, 1998. All HW Worker course instructors
have been provided with the changes to this section.

Toxic Trivia Computer Game

The Toxic Trivia computer game, developed for and demonstrated at the
NIEHS Trainers Exchange in Los Angeles, has been requested by a number
of grantees and NIEHS staff. The final review is in progress and the
game\'s database of questions is under development. Some basic
reformatting will also make the game easier to use. Laborers-AGC expects
the game to be available for both Mac and Windows environments by August
30, 1998.

Training Technologies

The following sections of the HW Worker Manual have been transferred
into the Powerpoint format:

¥ Hazard Recognition

¥ Personal Protective Equipment

¥ Air Monitoring

¥ Hazard Communication

¥ Groundwater Remediation (under development)

Hazardous Waste Refresher Manual

Laborers-AGC in the process of revising the HW Worker Refresher manual
to reflect changes made in the 80-Hour HW Worker manual last year. The
major changes are as follows:

1\. Section 1, Hazard Recognition, has been reorganized to include OSHA
terminology.

2\. The Health Effects, Workplace Monitoring, Groundwater Remediation,
Material Handling, and Respiratory Protection sections are being
rewritten.

3\. New worker and refresher exams have been issued to sites for review,
comment, and pilot testing.

3\. CURRICULA UPDATES - IBT

The DOE HWWTP forwards copies of all curriculum to the National
Clearinghouse. As of June 1, 1998, the National Clearinghouse has on
file the following IBT curricula:

1\. HW Worker Training Manual (Spanish and English)

2\. 8-hour HW Refresher Manual (Spanish and English

3\. 4-hour Hazardous Materials Transportation Awareness Manual

4\. 16-hour Emergency Response Manual

5\. Radiological Control Worker II Manual

48 Hour Hazardous Waste Worker Training Manual and 8-Hour Hazardous
Waste Refresher Manual

In GY98, the program revised the 48-hour HW Worker Training Manual and
the 8-hour HW Refresher Manual. The revisions to the manuals include:

1\. Changes in regulations and procedures governing the removal of
hazardous waste and hazardous materials

2\. Additional graphics to assist trainees in understanding complex
topics

3\. Clearly stated learning objectives and review questions

Further, the manual was edited to remove unnecessary text, and provide
clearer written explanations of complex topics.

The format for the 8-hour HW Refresher Manual was changed to loose-leaf,
rather than bound. There are 20 separate modules in the 8-hour HW
Refresher Course Manual, which fulfill the requirements for refresher
training as contained in 29 CFR 1910.120 (e) (8). The core modules for
the 8-hour HW Refresher Course are:

1\. Site Safety Personnel

2\. Site Hazards

3\. Personal Protective Equipment

4\. Engineering Controls and Equipment

5\. Medical Surveillance and Health Effects

6\. Decontamination Procedures

7\. Emergency Response Plans

8\. Confined Space Entry Procedures

9\. Spill Containment

With the revised format of the manual, instructors may select additional
modules to fulfill the specific training needs of the trainees, based on
their work and requirements of the remediation contractors.

Instructors are also free to add site specific materials to the manuals.
These additions may include site maps; confined space regulations;
examples of hazardous events that occurred on a particular site; lessons
learned; and, a list of remediation contractors, DOE Sites, and/or key
contacts for employment on the site.

4-Hour Hazardous Materials Transportation Awareness Manual

The program developed A Supplement to the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Manual. The supplement contains materials on all relevant
changes to Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations, through
January 1998.

The program is developing a corresponding twenty-question examination
which includes the new DOT regulations.

Radiological Control Worker II

Based on instructor comments, the industrial hygienist made the
following revisions to the Radiological Control Worker II Manual:

1\. Added an explanation of annual limit of intake (ALI)

2\. Added an explanation of derived air concentrate (DAC)

3\. Added the DOE Consolidated Learning Objectives

4\. Corrected typographical and formatting errors

Lead Abatement Course and Asbestos Abatement Course

The program has contracted with the Alice Hamilton Occupational Health
Center (AHOHC) to develop a 32-hour Lead Abatement Course and a 32-hour
Asbestos Abatement Course. AHOHC will utilize the \"EPA Model Asbestos
Worker Training Manual\" and the \"Residential Lead-Based Paint
Abatement Manual\" as a base for the IBT\'s curriculum. AHOHC developed
this curriculum for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and it is
nationally recognized as the model curriculum for Lead and Asbestos
Abatement Courses. They have received approval of the Asbestos Abatement
Curriculum in 15 states; and, approval for the Lead Abatement Curriculum
in seven states. AHOHC, with the assistance of IBT Program Staff, will
tailor the existing curriculum so it is appropriate to the types of jobs
Teamsters and affiliated crafts would actually perform on a lead
abatement or asbestos abatement job.

The Lead Abatement Course will comply with the requirements of the OSHA
Lead Standard for the Construction Industry (29 CFR 1926.62), and the
requirements of the Department of Energy (DOE) Order 440.1, \"Worker
Protection Management for DOE Federal and Contract Employees.\"

The 32-hour Lead Abatement Course will comply with the requirements of
the OSHA Asbestos Standard for the Construction Industry (29. CFR
1926.1101), and the Department of Energy Order 440.1, \"Worker
Protection Management for DOE Federal and Contractor Employees.\"

The Alice Hamilton Occupational Health Center will:

1\. Conduct a follow-up to the IBT\'s needs assessment to ensure the
curriculum is appropriate to the type of work Teamsters and affiliated
crafts would actually perform on a lead abatement and/or asbestos
abatement job.

2\. Develop student manuals, lesson plans, and tests for the Lead
Abatement and Asbestos Abatement Courses.

3\. Develop appropriate hands-on and dress-out activities for the
courses.

4\. Assist in planning, developing, and teaching a Train-the-Trainer
Program which is scheduled for August 1998.

5\. assist program management in selecting and purchasing training
equipment and supplies that are appropriate to the courses.

6\. Assist the program in developing simulated lead and asbestos
abatement sites, which will be utilized in the hands-on and dress-out
portions of the course.

7\. Obtain certification of the Lead and Asbestos Curriculum in two
states.

Respiratory Training Course

Trainees who participate in the 48-hour HW Worker Training Course
receive Respiratory Protection Training. However, it became apparent to
Hanford DOE that many site workers only wore respiratory protection
intermittently. Consequently, the workers forgot the proper procedures
for donning and doffing an APR and/or SCBA, and were wearing them in an
unsafe manner. Further, the 8-hour HW Refresher course does not provide
workers with adequate \"refresher\" training on donning and doffing an
APR or SCBA.

In an effort to maintain and/or upgrade the workers knowledge of
Respiratory Protection, the Hanford DOE Site initiated the development
of a Minimum Criteria Document for Respiratory Training, and spearheaded
the development of an 8-hour Respiratory Protection Course. During GY98,
the IBT\'s DOE HWWTP, in cooperation with other grantees, participated
in: (1) the development of a Minimum Criteria Document for Respiratory
Protection Training, and (2) the development of a Respiratory Protection
Refresher Course for the Hanford DOE Site.

The program plans to adapt the Respiratory Protection Course to other
DOE sites during Program Year 99.

4\. ADVISORY BOARD ACTIVITIES - LABORERS-AGC

The eight current members of the Advisory Board are:

¥ John Finklea, MD, Chairman of the Advisory Board Center for Disease
Control

¥ Chuck Barnes, Vice President and Northwest Regional Manager,

Laborers\' International Union of North America (LIUNA), Seattle, WA

¥ Glenn Paulson, Ph.D., Consultant, Chicago, IL

¥ John LeConche, Administrator, New England Laborers\' Training Academy

¥ John E. Gibbons, Consultant, El Granada, CA

¥ Brian McQuade, Executive Director

Laborers\' National Health and Safety Fund of North America

¥ Stuart T. Allen, Consultant, Clean Sites, Inc.

¥ Christopher P. Engquist, Executive Director, Laborers-Employers
Cooperation and Education Trust

¥ James M. Warren, Executive Director

Laborers-AGC Education and Training Fund

The HW/DOE Advisory Board is a group of highly qualified individuals
with the educational requirements and experience to offer advice and
consultation to the EPA and DOE HWWTP and the MWTP. Their involvement
enhances the quality of the training programs and enables Laborers-AGC
staff to quickly reach sources of information that may otherwise be
unavailable or inaccessible.

During the 1997/98 program year, Laborers-AGC\'s HW Advisory Board held
one meeting on May 7 and 8, 1998.

May 7-8, 1998 Advisory Board Meeting

The May 1998 meeting of the Laborers-AGC Advisory Board was held at the
National Airport Hilton Crystal City in Arlington, Virginia. Items
discussed at the Advisory Board meeting included:

1\. Laborers-AGC\'s year-end reports for the 1997/98 EPA and DOE HWWTPs
and the MWTP. A similar update was provided by the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters.

2\. Laborers-AGC\'s new Director Development Program.

3\. Minority worker training and brownfields.

4\. Laborers-AGC TRAC database and the HW Waste Refresher database.

5\. Training evaluations-instructor and course evaluations

6\. DOE audit for Oak Ridge, Savannah River, Rocky Flats, and Hanford

7\. Spirometers

8\. HW Worker and Refresher cards and job tracking

9\. UXO training

10\. Naval ship scrapping

Some of the topics that received more attention are briefly discussed
below.

During the current program year, Laborers-AGC initiated a new training
program, the Director Development Program. The program is designed to
provide professional training to training fund directors and
administrators by providing short management courses. In addition to
courses, discussion groups are held on issues relevant to training
programs. The directors also participate in team building exercises.
Feedback from one participant\'s survey was very positive.

A discussion on the growth of minority worker programs presented some
new opportunities for Laborers-AGC affiliated training funds.
Laborers-AGC is currently involved in two MWTPs funded by EPA through
NIEHS. They are currently located at the Cuyahoga Community College in
Ohio and in San Francisco. Next year, only the San Francisco training
program will continue. Laborers-AGC will be adding training programs in
New Haven, Connecticut and in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Finally,
Laborers-AGC is looking into the possibility of working on the
Brownfields Showcase Communities by providing the needed training for
local involvement in the clean-up and building process.

A presentation on the two new databases resulted in a discussion on
various ways to obtain information on jobs. Means to track workers to
ascertain their involvement in environmental remediation work are, at
best, time intensive, and at worst, impossible. Currently Laborers-AGC
is obtaining trainee information from HW Worker course applications and
employment information during refresher classes. For a limited number of
DOE sites, Laborers-AGC has worked with the training funds and the LIUNA
locals to get specific job information on individuals trained in the
1995/96 program year. A discussion on \"smart cards\" ensued. A smart
card looks and works much like a credit card. Information on the
individual\'s training and work experience would be stored on an
integrated microprocessor chip located within the card. This information
could then be accessible to the Locals to match job requirements with
training.

The Advisory Board reviewed the new instructor and course evaluations.
At their suggestion, these evaluations will be pilot tested before they
are finalized as computer scannable forms. This pilot is being conducted
throughout the summer at the Oak Ridge, TN; Savannah River, GA; Pomfret
Center, CT; and Kingston, WA training centers, as well as with the Iowa
Mobile Units.

The Advisory Board also discussed new training and job opportunities in
unexploded ordnance (UXO) and naval ship scrapping. As DOD sites come
through the remediation pipeline, expertise in identifying and removing
any unexploded ordnance becomes critical to ensuring the safety of
workers and the community. As of now, there are too few sweepers (people
who identify the location of the UXO) and technicians (those who
identify the type of ordnance and determine how it is to be removed or
destroyed) available to address the need. LIUNA has added UXO worker
representation within the North Florida Employees Local 630.
Laborers-AGC will work with this local to develop UXO curriculum for
sweepers and to identify and train a small work force to meet the new
demand for UXO trained workers at DOD facilities.

John Gibbons gave a brief presentation on naval ship scrapping. Efforts
to dismantle old Navy ships have resulted in a controversy over how to
handle the hazardous waste from the ships and as a byproduct of the
scrapping efforts. Accusations of sending hazardous waste to foreign
countries stopped clean-up and recycling activities by overseas
companies. The issue is now before Congress and will likely put the ship
scrapping in with other hazardous waste remediation projects. The Board
decided to follow the issue and to consider what training would be
needed for workers engaged in ship scrapping.

4\. ADVISORY BOARD ACTIVITIES - IBT

On May 19, 1998, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters conducted
the annual EPA and DOE HWWTPs Advisory Board Meeting. The following
individuals attended the Advisory Board Meeting:

Members of the Advisory Board

¥ Dr. Donald Dawson, Chairman

¥ Dr. Murray Cohen, President, Consultants in Disease and Injury Control

Invited Guests

¥ Mr. Larry McDonald, Director, IBT Building and Construction Trades
Division

¥ Mr. Bill Diltz, Director, IBT Education Department

¥ Dr. Deborah Wilson, Chief, Occupational Safety and Health Branch,
National Institute of Health

¥ Mr. Charlie Barrett, Industrial Hygienist, Occupational Health
Foundation

¥ Mr. Dave Mallino, Connerton and Ray

¥ Mr. Larry Spriggs, Soft-Con Enterprises

¥ Mr. Steven Lelewar, Principal Scientist, Bechtel-Nevada

¥ Dr. Jack Finklea, Chairman, Laborers-AGC Advisory Board

Training Center Staff

¥ Mr. Steve Smith, Lead Instructor, N. California Teamsters Training
Center

¥ Mr. Troy Ohlhausen, Instructor, N. California Teamsters Training
Center

Program Staff

¥ Mr. LaMont Byrd, Director, Safety and Health Department

¥ Ms. Chee Chang, Program Manager, NIEHS HWWTP

¥ Ms. Melissa Bakula, EPA Assistant Program Manager, NIEHS HWWTP

¥ Mr. Geoffrey Quinn, DOE Field Coordinator, NIEHS HWWTP

¥ Mr. Terry Bumpers, Marketing Manager, NIEHS HWWTP

Mr. William Bergfeld, Director-Programs, Laborers-AGC and Mr. Ken Allen,
National Field Coordinator, Laborers-AGC, were invited to the Advisory
Board Meeting. However, due to scheduling conflicts, they were unable to
attend.

Presentations were given on the accomplishments of the EPA and DOE
HWWTPs in the 1997-1998 Program Year, the future of the Superfund, the
results of the site audit conducted by the Occupational Health
Foundation, outreach activities and trainee tracking; curriculum
development; instructor development, presentation enhancement; training
equipment, the STARS data base, the Marketing Data base, the Teamsters
National Training Committee, and Instructor Development Programs (IDP).

The Advisory Committee recommended that:

1\. The program develop a medical monitoring protocol to determine the
long-term health effects of employment on a hazardous waste site.

2\. The program develops and implements a coordinated marketing plan,
emphasizing the insurance benefits contractors will receive if their
workforce has participated in the EPA and DOE HWWTP.

5\. TRAINEE FOLLOW-UP - LABORERS-AGC

Trainee Tracking-TRAC (Training Records and Classes) Data Base

For the 1997/1998 program year, Laborers-AGC requested raw data directly
from the sites and entered all of the training data into an Excel
spreadsheet, as was done last year. This helps ensure the consistency
and accuracy of the data for the 1997/98 program year. Laborers-AGC
inputs data from the trainee applications, including information
required by NIEHS. However, the training spreadsheets are a temporary
option for summarizing annual training data. In following years,
training information will be stored on the new Laborers-AGC TRAC
database.

All Laborers-AGC affiliated training funds will be connected to a
network that will allow them to input information (such as grant-funded
training) and to retrieve information (such as summaries of new training
technologies that are being tested at other training facilities). The
TRAC data base will include information gathered from trainees when they
attend courses at Laborers-AGC affiliated training funds. When a Laborer
takes a course, the training fund will input personal information into
the database. Courses taken at a later date will be entered simply by
pulling up the worker\'s existing record and adding new class
information.

There are several advantages to using an organization wide database. One
obvious advantage is that Laborers-AGC and the training funds can get
up-to-date information about classes conducted under the NIEHS programs.
In addition, Laborers-AGC, the training funds, and local business
managers will be able to identify workers with the necessary
qualifications for specific jobs. When trainees attend their annual HW
Refresher, they will be asked to provide employment data, including job
type, contractor, job location, and duration of their job.

Training funds may also input data that is relevant to their operation
but not required by Laborers-AGC. This private information can be locked
out from all other data base users. For example, a training fund may
keep its apprenticeship information on the database, including training
records and pay rates. This can be locked so that no one else can access
it. Some of the information in the database will be secured so that only
specified people can modify the data.

Currently, Laborers-AGC is conducting TRAC data base workshops to train
administrative personnel from each training facility. After all sites
have at least one staff member trained on the new data base, historical
training information will be incorporated into TRAC, then new
information will be entered directly. There will be an overlap with the
old spreadsheet and the new TRAC to ensure a smooth transition and to
maintain a back-up system if there is a problem with TRAC. Through the
Laborers-AGC network, sites will be able to access non-confidential
information from Laborers-AGC and other training facilities. All NIEHS
participating sites should be on the network and running TRAC by
September 1998, for use in the new program year. Remaining sites, (many
of which conduct HW Refresher courses) will be operational by the end of
December 1998.

Secretaries and bookkeepers from the DOE HWWTP sites will have the
opportunity to use TRAC before they attend the secretaries/bookkeepers
meeting in early August. At the meeting, training fund staff will review
the data base capabilities and discuss problems that they may have
encountered during June and July

Hazardous Waste Refresher Data Base

Information from the new HW Refresher applications is currently being
entered into a small database, separate from TRAC, so that
job/employment entries can be summarized for reporting purposes. When
the larger, organization-wide TRAC database is operating smoothly, the
refresher data will be incorporated into it. Although the use of
refresher participants to obtain data yields valuable and current
employment data, a significant number of workers will be missed. Some
may have taken their refresher course with another provider, or may not
have recently been on an environmental remediation job and have let
their certification expire.

Although the refresher database is still under development, some
information is available. A total of 2,563 records (trainees) have been
entered. These represent most of the trainees that took the HW Refresher
during the 1997/98 program year. However, there are several sites that
started to use the refresher application later than expected, and some
sites where different versions of refresher applications are still in
use. Laborers-AGC has contacted all sites regarding the importance of
using the new refresher application and will reiterate this information
at the HW Instructor Refresher courses that will take place this summer.

Refresher trainees reported a total of 3,560 jobs. Note that because
most trainees have worked on several jobs since they took the HW Worker
course, there are more jobs than trainees. At present, DOE and EPA HWWTP
trained workers are both entered into the data base and are identified
as to which grant program they have been trained under. Although this
information is recorded, Laborers-AGC has more work to do on the
database before we can get separate reports on DOE training.

Of the 3,560 jobs reported, 1,853 (52%) have been categorized as
environmental. However, two of the job categories,
Supervisor/Professional and Other Craft are primarily, if not
exclusively, made up of environmental jobs. Supervisors often mention
incidents that identify their work as environmental, and most of the
workers that Laborers-AGC trains from other building crafts are being
trained for a specific environmental job and require training
immediately. Therefore, a more accurate enumeration of environmental
jobs listed by refresher trainees would be 2,028 or 79%.

Similarly, many of the jobs listed as General Laborer could be on a
hazardous waste site. Even though a job is listed as general laborer,
cleanup, pipeline, confined space, excavation, etc., it does not
necessarily mean that the job is not an environmental remediation job.
For example, several trainees at a refresher course in Idaho listed
their job as Laborer. Yet these people were working at the Bunker Hill
(hazardous waste) site in Smelterville, ID for the Morrison Construction
Co. Therefore, the number of environmental jobs is most likely
underestimated.

The following table presents jobs listed by type.

TABLE 5

JOBS LISTED BY TYPE

Group Category Work Type \# of Jobs

Environmental Environ. Laborer Asbestos 566

Environmental Environ. Laborer Haz. Waste 1,021

Environmental Abatement Lead 157

Environmental Radiation Worker Rad. Worker 109

Super/Professional Supervisor/Professional Sup./Pro. 139

Other Union Other Craft Other Craft 36

General Laborer General Laborer Laborer 1,513

Other Jobs Other Other 19

TOTAL 3560

Of all the jobs specifically categorized as environmental, the following
percentages of work type are:

¥ Hazardous waste 55% of Environmental Jobs

¥ Asbestos abatement 31% of Environmental Jobs

¥ Lead abatement 8% of Environmental Jobs

¥ Radiation worker 6% of Environmental Jobs

Demand for Trainees, Placement, and Feedback

Cooperation Trust Tracking System (CCTS)

Laborers-AGC, LECET, and Laborers-AGC\'s national field coordinator
continue to review the demand for certified hazardous waste remediation
laborers. Information on environmental jobs that have been bid, the
location and low bidder for the job, the value of the job, and whether
the job is union or non-union are included into the Cooperation Trust
Tracking System. This information provides an indication of how many
people are working on large environmental remediation jobs throughout
the country.

By cross-referencing the environmental jobs included in the CCTS with a
listing of Superfund sites, Laborers-AGC was able to estimate the number
of Superfund sites requiring trained laborers and the number of laborers
needed. This information is extrapolated from the dollar amount expended
on the site. (Note that most DOE sites are included within the Superfund
National Priorities List of hazardous waste sites.)

During the 1998 program year, approximately \$965 million was expended
to signatory union contractors working on the final National Priorities
List (NPL) (Superfund) projects. Total dollar amounts for contracts are
not usually expended in the year that they are awarded. Expenditures for
these clean-up contracts may be spent over several years. These
Superfund projects employed 5,795 craft workers. Trained Laborers made
up 50% of that work force or 2,895 laborers.

Dollar amounts on Superfund projects are generally multi-year projects,
and the Laborers-AGC tracking reflects that. For example, a \$1.2
billion award was given to Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation for
the environmental remediation of the Rocky Mountain Arsenal near Denver,
Colorado in December of 1997. Our tracking reflects only \$30 million in
program year 1998 for this project. However, we expect \$100 million per
year will be expended over the next 12 years and our tracking system
will show the subcontractor award that is actually expended on this
project. Conversely over \$2 billion was awarded from 1995 to 1997 on
total environmental restoration contracts (TERC ) and remedial action
contracts (RAC). A portion of that money was expended in fiscal year
1998, creating a need for training environmental workers that would be
employed on these sites. At this time, we are only capable of matching
final NPL sites with our CCTS tracking system. We are not tracking
CERCLA, RCRA, Brownfields, or state lead sites. We are working with Ruth
Ruttenburg and Associates and others to improve our tracking ability.

5\. TRAINEE-FOLLOW UP - IBT

Trainee Employment

The following is a summary of trainees who participated in the DOE
HWWTP, and as a result of the training have acquired employment on DOE
sites.

Central/Southern Region Training Center

During the 1997-1998 Program Year, the Central/Southern Region Training
Center provided DOE Worker Training in the Southern, Central, and
Mid-Western United States. Table 6 contains a summary of trainees who,
as a result of their training, were employed on DOE Sites.

TABLE 6

TRAINEES EMPLOYED ON DOE SITES

DOE SITENUMBER OF TRAINEES EMPLOYED ON SITEPaducah Gaseous Diffusion
Plan 53Savannah River Site 89Times Beach 30Weldon Springs 92TOTAL:264

Northern California Training Center

During the 1997-1998 Program Year, the Northern California Training
Center provided DOE worker training in the Pacific Northwest and Western
United States. Table 7 contains a summary of trainees who, as a result
of their training, were employed on DOE sites.

TABLE 7

TRAINEES EMPLOYED ON DOE SITES

DOE SITENUMBER OF TRAINEES EMPLOYED ON THE SITEINEEL 32Monticello Mill
Tailings Site 30Hanford DOE206Fort Hall Public Works 10Lawrence
Livermore Labs 16TOTAL:294Student Tracking and Reporting System (STARS)
Database the program has completed the final phase of the development
and implementation of the Student Tracking and Reporting System (STARS)
data base. The main database for STARS has been installed at the program
office. a training center specific database, which partially replicates
the database resident in the program office, has been installed at the
four training centers. Both the program office and training center
personnel have received training on STARS. The synchronization and
downloading capabilities of STARS are fully functional, which permits
the program office to download trainee data directly from the training
centers databases.

Marketing Data Base

Soft-Con Enterprises has begun the development of a marketing database
utilizing the MapInfo Geographic Development Application. The
information systems specialist has met with the IBT\'s Building Material
and Construction Trade Division and the DOE field coordinator to discuss
the requirements of the database. In addition, he has also met with Mr.
Ken Allen, national field coordinator for Laborers-AGC, to review and
evaluate their data base to determine which elements may be incorporated
into the IBT\'s marketing database.

The marketing database will contain:

1\. The names and locations of remediation contractors

2\. Types of contaminants found on a particular hazardous waste or
Superfund site

3\. Total costs of the remediation projects

4\. The percentage of workers on a remediation project that will be
involved in the transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous
waste

5\. The core skills required of the workers on the remediation sites

The marketing database will interface with the existing STARS trainee
database to generate rosters of qualified workers who reside within a
one hundred mile radius of a particular site. The field coordinator and
marketing manager will use these lists to establish training schedules,
and facilitate the employment of the program\'s trainees on DOE sites.

6\. INSTRUCTOR SUPPORT - LABORERS-AGC

Train-the-Trainers

Laborers-AGC policy continues to require that instructors in the DOE
HWWTP satisfactorily complete the basic 80-hour HW Workers course. Upon
completion of the 80-hour course, instructors are given an additional 40
hours of instruction for the HW Instructor course. Finally, in order to
teach any other environmental course, the instructor must attend
course-specific train-the-trainers.

Under the 1997/98 NIEHS program year, Laborers-AGC conducted one HW New
Instructor Train-the-Trainer. Seventeen instructors attended the course,
including seven IBT instructors. In August, Laborers-AGC will conduct a
Radiological Worker II Train-the-Trainer and the annual Radiological
Worker II Instructor Refresher in August 1998.

In addition to the train-the-trainers listed above, Laborers-AGC will
conduct four regional HW Instructor Refresher courses. At these
sessions, instructors will learn techniques for initiating group
discussions on site incidents that required the HW training. Instructors
will learn how to keep the comments focused, obtain complete and
reliable examples, get workers to clearly identify the problem and
discuss possible actions that could be taken in a similar situation.

These discussion sessions will be incorporated into the HW Worker
Refresher course. In addition to helping trainees learn to identify and
resolve problem situations, the exercise will also provide excellent
information on the effectiveness of the training provided by
Laborers-AGC. The HW Instructor Refresher courses will be held in July
and August, 1998. Instructors will be asked to use the activity and
related form (the second page of the Refresher course application) in
all of their HW Worker Refresher courses beginning September 1, 1998.

Table 8 lists the course, number of participants, course length, and
contact hours for the instructor courses listed above.

TABLE 8

INSTRUCTOR PRESENTATIONS

Course/Start Date \# of Participants Course Length Contact Hours

HAZ.I (11/17/97) 10 40 hours 400

RAD.I (8/23/98) 7\* 40 hours 280 \*

RAD.IR (8/29/98) 11\* 32 hours 352 \*

TOTALS 36 1,032

\*Projected

HW Instructor Refreshers (Instructor Development Program)

In order for instructors to maintain their certification, Laborers-AGC
requires participation in the annual Instructor Development Program
(IDP). The IDP is a multi-year program designed to enhance instructional
skills and knowledge through participation in professional development,
technical, and hands-on courses. Professional courses focus on the
skills and knowledge necessary to become a more effective instructor.
Technical courses provide instructors with current industry information
along with the background information necessary to teach specific
subject matter. Some technical courses are also hands-on and focus on
demonstration and practice. In addition, course laboratories are
scheduled for evenings and must be attended by those taking the course.
Evening workshops are also offered. Some are required and some are
optional.

This year\'s IDP was held from June 6-12, 1998, at the DoubleTree
Conference Center, St. Louis, MO. A total of 56 courses were offered in
either 4- or 8-hour modules. Courses are varied, ranging from Dealing
with Alcohol and Drugs in the Workplace to Identifying and Dealing with
Learning Disabilities, and Planning Information and Skill Lessons. All
EPA and DOE HWWTP instructors must attend this training or he/she will
not be recertified to teach.

This year, as in the past, instructors from the IBT attended the IDP.
Thirty Teamsters attended a variety of courses that Laborers-AGC and IBT
identified as appropriate for both organizations. Approximately 20 DOE
training program instructors attended the IDP.

Related Instructional Activities

In October 1997, Laborers-AGC held its first Directors Development
Program (DDP). The DDP was designed to provide learning opportunities
for training fund directors and administrators. Information on the DDP
is provided in Appendix 27. The directors\' courses were shorter than
the IDP courses and geared toward managerial and professional
development. Courses were a combination of formal instruction, hands-on
activities, case work, and discussions. Directors were encouraged to
bring materials and experiences that could be used directly in the
training sessions. The main idea was to have interactive instruction
rather than presentations from university professors or consultants.
Courses offered are:

¥ Listening and Responding

¥ Offering Effective Presentations

¥ Recruitment, Retention, Marketing, and Media Relations

¥ Data Base Management

¥ Budgets and Financial Management

The DDP was very successful and the participants support making the
program an annual event.

Laborers-AGC also realizes that the training funds can not operate
smoothly without the work that is conducted by secretaries and
bookkeepers. Each year Laborers-AGC holds a Secretaries/Bookkeepers
meeting for the NIEHS HWWTP and DOE training sites. Like the DDP, the
Secretaries and Bookkeepers meeting provides a combination of
presentations, hands on activities, quizzes, and discussions to help the
participants understand and use materials provided and required by
Laborers-AGC. All policies, including financial, operational, and
reporting, are reviewed and discussed at the meeting. At the October
1997 meeting, the secretaries and bookkeepers had the opportunity to
learn and try the new computer database. They also heard a presentation
on the development and growth of Laborers-AGC. The next
Secretaries/Bookkeepers meeting will be in August 1998.

6\. INSTRUCTOR SUPPORT - IBT

Joint Venture Instructor Development

On June 6-12, 1998, IBT and Laborers-AGC instructors attended the annual
Instructor Development (IDP) Program in St. Louis, Missouri. IBT
instructors participated in courses with instructors from Laborers-AGC.

On June 7, 1998, IBT instructors participated in a workshop on
\"Protocols for APR and SCBA Dress-Out.\" The industrial hygienist and a
consultant from FOF Communications presented the revised protocol and
checklists for APR and SCBA dress-out to the instructors for review and
evaluation.

Training Directors/Bookkeepers

In conjunction with the IDP, the program held the annual Training
Directors and Bookkeepers/Secretaries Meeting on June 6, 1998. The
program manager and the director of the Safety and Health Department met
with the training directors and their representatives to discuss
training accomplishments, outreach activities, and trainee tracking, as
well as to establish training plans for the upcoming program year.
(Exhibit 5 provides materials from the meeting.)

The program\'s administrative and grants management staff met with the
Bookkeepers/Secretaries and Instructors to update them on revisions to
the Administrative Procedures Manual, financial reporting requirements,
and the trainee data base.

Mr. Larry Spriggs, Soft-Con Enterprises gave a presentation on STARS and
the Marketing databases. Mr. Rod Wolford, FOF Communications, gave a
presentation on the pre-test/post-test.

Radiological Control Worker II Instructor Refresher

To maintain their Radiological Control Worker II certification, the
program\'s instructors participated in a Radiological Control Worker II
Course sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory (LLNL). The course was held from May 5 to May 7,
1998 and consisted of: (1) classroom lecture, (2) hands-on and dress-out
activities, and (3) site visits to the NOVA Laser Fusion Facility and
the construction site for the National Ignition Facility.

In order to successfully complete the course, the DOE required the
program\'s instructors to develop and give presentations on assigned
topics in the Radiological Control Worker II Manual.

The Radiological Control Worker II course refreshed the instructors on
the following topics:

1\. Rad Worker II curriculum (radionuclides, background radiation,
health effects, radiation and contamination controls, PPE, dose limits,
and radiation area posting

2\. DOE regulations

3\. Lessons learned

4\. Dress-out procedures and hands-on activities

5\. Teaching techniques for the classroom

6\. Rad Worker II computer based training

7\. Hands-on activities

8\. Radiation monitoring equipment

9\. Testing procedures

During the course, a representative of DOE/LLNL conducted a workshop on
monitoring equipment. The monitors utilized by Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, as well as by the Teamsters DOE HWWTP, were
demonstrated. After the review of the monitoring equipment, instructors
participated in a hands-on activity at a simulated LLNL lab which
required them to properly use:

1\. Monitors to detect simulated hazards

2\. A glove box to dispose of contaminated gloves

3\. A step off pad to control contamination

All instructors successfully completed the course and received their
Radiation Control Worker II certifications.

DOE Instructor Development

The program has scheduled a DOE Instructor Development Program for July
27, 1998 through August 1, 1998, at the Nevada Test Site and Teamsters
Local Union 631 (Las Vegas, Nevada). The two main components of the IDP
will be: (1) site visits, and »2) pilot testing of the APR and SCBA
Protocol.

The instructors will participate in a site visit to the Nevada Test
Site, the Nevada Test Site Hazardous Materials Spills Center, and Yucca
Mountain. Employees of DOE and Bechtel/Nevada will give the instructors
guided tours of the sites.

Mr. Rod Wolford, FOF Communications, Bruce Millies, industrial
hygienist, and the program\'s instructors will pilot test the protocol
for APR and SCBA Dress-out. Using the revised APR and SCBA protocol, the
program\'s instructors will dress-out and evaluate members of Teamsters
Local Union 631 as they don and doff SCBAs and/or APRs. The
effectiveness of the protocol will be evaluated by Mr. Wolford, and
where merited the protocol will be revised to reflect instructor
comments and suggestions.

Quality Assurance/Quality Control

To ensure that the quality and consistency of the training program are
maintained, the program:

1\. Requests trainees to evaluate the course curriculum, instructor
ability, hands-on activities, training resources, and equipment.

2\. Contracts with the Occupational Health Foundation to conduct a site
audit of one Training Center.

3\. Uses instructor feedback to evaluate the effectiveness of the
existing program and to pilot-test new curriculum and/or training
activities.

Trainees are asked to complete a course and instructor evaluation at the
conclusion of each course. These evaluation forms are forwarded to the
program office where they are reviewed by program management. If a
deficiency in a particular training center is noted, a plan to correct
it will be developed and implemented by the program staff. In some
cases, the industrial hygienist will visit a training center to work
with the instructors in a subject area where they may be having
difficulty.

An industrial hygienist from the Occupational Health Foundation will
conduct a site audit of a training center. The consultant will utilize
the audit instrument that is based on the NIEHS Minimum Criteria
Document. The industrial hygienist will review and evaluate instructor
ability; use of training resources; and dress-out activities and
procedures. The industrial hygienist will issue a written report of
his/her findings, and changes may be made to the program to reflect the
industrial hygienist\'s findings.

Site Audit of the Central/Southern Region Training

An industrial hygienist from the Occupational Health Foundation audited
a 48-hour HW Worker Training course taught by the instructors from the
Central/Southern Region Training Center. The audit was conducted from
February 25 to February 27, 1998.

The strengths of the program, as noted in the auditor\'s report are as
follows:

1\. The classroom facilities were good.

2\. The instructors were knowledgeable about the course materials.

3\. The instructors divided the modules between themselves, and gave
each other support.

4\. At the beginning of each day of class, the instructors reviewed the
previous day\'s material.

5\. There was good interaction between the trainees and the instructors.

6\. The instructors utilized a laptop computer with Powerpoint, a VCR,
and an overhead projector to present training resources.

7\. An adequate amount of training equipment was available for
demonstration purposes and for use in the dress-out activities.

During the dress-out activities the auditor noted:

1\. The instructors placed a strong emphasis on teamwork among the
trainees.

2\. The instructors emphasized to the trainees the importance of being
aware at all times of their partner\'s location and physical condition.

3\. The instructors emphasized that while working on a hazardous waste
site, the trainees must be aware of the conditions around them, and know
how and when to safely evacuate a contaminated zone.

4\. The instructors monitored and recorded the trainees pulse rates when
they engaged in dress-out activities; those trainees who had an elevated
pulse rate did not dress-out in the next level of PPE.

5\. The instructors required trainees to take their own pulse rates
after they completed the personal protective equipment activity.

The Site Audit Report contained two recommendations to improve the
overall training program. The auditor noted that it was difficult to
simulate a hazardous waste site in a parking lot. He suggested that the
instructors contact the local fire academy, or other such organization,
and arrange to utilize their outdoor activity areas for dress-out.

Secondly, the auditor noted that the program does not utilize an
occupational safety and health professional to screen and monitor the
trainees during dress-out activities. He suggested that the program
contract with an Occupational Health Clinic to provide a nurse or
physician to monitor the trainees during dress-out activities. (See
Appendix 21 for a copy of the Audit Report.)

To ensure the safety of trainees, the program requires that all trainees
submit proof of a recent DOT Physical Examination, prior to registering
for the HW Worker Training Course. If a trainee does not posses valid
proof of a recent physical examination, he/she will not be permitted to
participate in the course.

Hanford Site Audit

The Hanford/Hammer DOE Site, in conjunction with Fluor-Daniel, conducts
routine audits of the training courses provided by the IBT for workers
on the Hanford DOE Site. On May 14, 1998 the IBT received a letter from
Mr. Bill G. Robinson, Conduct of Training, HAMMER, which evaluated the
quality of the 8-hour HW Refresher Course.

Mr. Robinson\'s letter addressed recent changes made to the curriculum
of the 8-hour HW Refresher Course. \"\...The most significant change is
the addition of craft-specific hands-on training that was recently
added. The HAMMER \"May Conduct of Training Classroom Evaluation\"
focused on the addition of the craft-specific, hands-on training\....the
evaluation concluded that the exercise was well thought out, supported
several of the course learning objectives, and aided to the overall
learning environment for the workers. The Student Evaluations from the
month of May showed the addition of hands-on training to be a great
success.\" (A copy of the Hanford Hammer letter is provided in Appendix
15.)

Financial Tracking Data Base

In GY98 the program contracted with Technical Engineering and
Applications Management, Inc. (TEAM) to develop a Financial Tracking
database. The database was completed in April, 1998, and is utilized by
the grants management staff to track federal funds.

The Financial Tracking database has the capabilities to:

1\. Track training center expenditures by personnel costs, student fees,
mobile unit expenses, instructor travel, and miscellaneous.

2\. Track program budgets.

3\. Provide a mechanism to manage cash flow and expenditures by
creating, formatting, and printing separate obligation and expenditure
reports for the DOE Program, the HWWTP, and the EPA No-Cost Extension
Fund.

4\. Maintain a log of invoices received by the program office.

In May, 1998, TEAM began work to expand the existing Financial Tracking
database to include a Vendor File Tracking System. The Vendor File
Tracking System will assist the grants management staff in tracking the
status of all requisitions, purchase orders, and invoices through the
payment process. (See Exhibit 6 for materials regarding the functions
and capabilities of the Financial Tracking data base.)

7\. SUMMARY OF RELATED INFORMATION/ACTIVITIES-LABORERS-AGC

Staff

The principal investigator for the EPA, DOE, and MWTP HWWTP is James M.
Warren, who has participated in the HWWTP since its inception. William
Bergfeld continues to be involved as Laborers-AGC\'s Director-Programs.
Gene Gasbarro, Director of Administration of Laborers-AGC, provides
administrative oversight on how the NIEHS programs relate to the
organization as a whole.

Other key Laborers-AGC staff contributing to the program are Cynthia
Herleikson, Administrative Manager; Donna McDaniel, Program Coordinator;
Michael Glassic, Program Coordinator; Gary Gustafson, Program
Specialist; Joshua Kapelner, Financial Manager; and Ken Allen, National
Field Coordinator. Appendix 22 provides

a list of the staff who participate in the NIEHS programs along with
their job descriptions.

New Training Technologies

Over the past few years, Laborers-AGC investigated various
computer-based technologies for use in the classroom. Some of the
options currently being considered and/or being pilot tested include:

¥ Offering the classroom portions of refresher courses by computer so
that trainee recertification can be expedited if the worker is unable to
attend a scheduled refresher course.

¥ Providing computer scannable forms for evaluations and exams.

¥ Developing trainee review sections and short quizzes for student use
after classroom sessions end for the day.

¥ Developing Powerpoint presentations for all sections of the HW Worker
course.

¥ Consolidating each trainee\'s training and certification record on a
computerized \"smart card\" for easy job placement.

¥ Networking training fund computers within their own site and with
Laborers-AGC and other training funds.

Currently, the Northwest Laborers-Employers Training Trust Fund has a
computerized Radiological Worker II Refresher course. This enables
trainees to review information at their own pace. Other computerized
activities are under development and/or being pilot tested, including
computerized evaluation forms and Powerpoint presentations. In addition,
Laborers-AGC will be providing every site under the HWWTP with an LCD
projector, multimedia computer, presentation software, and multimedia
authoring tools to facilitate the change to Powerpoint.

Finally, Laborers-AGC is developing a proposal for the South Central
Laborers Training and Apprenticeship Fund located in Livonia, LA. This
training fund has been the beneficiary of a gift of 20 computers. With
these computers, Laborers-AGC recommends the creation of a computer
network, development of data tracking and reporting capabilities, and
creation of customized training modules. The success of this project
will help determine which technologies should be available to all the
HWWTP training sites.

Subgrantees and Consultants

Laborers-AGC has in place written and signed inter-organizational
agreements that require compliance with all federal regulations and
policies for all the following subgrantees: the Laborers\' Health and
Safety Fund of North America (LHSFNA), Clean Sites, Inc. (CSI),
Connerton and Ray, and Dr. Eric Rice.

Laborers\' Health and Safety Fund of North America (LHSFNA)

The LHSFNA trains and monitors medical professionals who are hired by
the training facilities to conduct pretraining medical screening and to
present the health effects portion of the HW Worker course. Medical
professionals are checked for quality assurance purposes on a continuing
basis by LHSFNA\'s certified occupational health nurse. These
evaluations were discussed in the Training Effectiveness Section of this
report.

The LHSFNA also helps develop curriculum, conducts research, teaches
instructors, and coordinates the annual Medical Professionals
Conference. The LHSFNA report is provided as Appendix 8.

During the 1997/98 program year, the LHSFNA developed several courses or
course material that can be used during the HW Worker course, or in some
cases, as a stand-alone short course. LHSFNA developed a Hearing
Conservation course that is being pilot tested at the Oak Ridge training
facility. This course is expected to be available by the end of August.

The LHSFNA is also developing a HW Characterization course that deals
with the various types of waste and how to safely sample and handle
them. This course is also slated to be available in August.

LHSFNA staff also participated as master trainers at the Instructor
Development Program. They taught Respirator Selection and Respirator Fit
Testing courses.

Due to scheduling difficulties, the 1997 Medical Professionals
Conference was held in October 1997. Some agenda items were:

¥ Demonstration and training on Burdick spirometers

¥ Presentation of the back injury prevention program

¥ Instructional skills presentation

The 1998 Medical Professionals Conference will be held this August in
Miami. Tentative agenda items include:

¥ Workplace accidents at hazardous waste sites

¥ Spirometry clinic

¥ Demonstration of a portion of the Health Effects section of the HW
Worker course

¥ Reports from medical professional volunteer committees

This year, a new spirometer was tested to see if it met the needs of
medical professionals at training sites. The Burdick spirometer was
selected as equipment that will be provided to all training sites. New
spirometers were needed to replace old unreliable machines and to
simplify pulmonary testing and test interpretation. All sites should now
have a Burdick spirometer for use in conducting medical screening.

The LHSFNA develops and monitors the medical clearance protocol used by
medical professionals who conduct screening for HW Worker training.
Periodically, these protocols are reviewed to reflect changes in the
NIEHS HWWTPs. This year, the policies and procedures manual was updated
to include use of the Burdick spirometer. This new procedures manual
will be provided to medical professionals at the upcoming medical
conference in August, 1998.

Connerton and Ray

Michael Barrett, an attorney from Connerton and Ray, acts as a master
trainer for the legal rights portion of the new instructor classes and
for pilot presentations. He also monitors the legal rights portion of
the HW Worker course at Laborers-AGC training facilities. Mr. Barrett
and Ms. Connerton provide legal guidance on issues that affect training
and the conduct of training by Laborers-AGC affiliated sites.

Dr. Eric Rice

Dr. Eric Rice, an adult education expert, is a master trainer for the
EPA and DOE HWWTP. Dr. Rice also develops and teaches courses at the
annual IDP and serves on the HWWTP Curriculum Development Committee.

During the past year, Dr. Rice worked with Laborers-AGC on the HW Worker
course examination, and helped revise and pilot test a new instructor
and course evaluation form. Dr. Rice worked with Laborers-AGC staff to
develop the HW Refresher Application. Both the evaluation and the
application forms will be out of the pilot phase before the end of the
current program year and will be used at all HWWTP sites in September
1998.

Clean Sites, Inc.

Clean Sites, Inc. provides expertise on hazardous waste remediation
techniques. Staff member Stuart Allen assists Laborers-AGC with the
development of model hazardous waste sites for conducting hands-on
training activities. Mr. Allen conducts QA/QC visits to observe the
hands-on training and provide training sites with ideas for improvement.
Clean Sites\' monitoring activities are discussed in the Training
Effectiveness section of this report.

Internal Audits

Early in the NIEHS 1998 program year, Laborers-AGC hired an internal
auditor to help ensure that training sites are managed properly with
respect to the program and Laborers-AGC policies. Since his hire, Mr.
Steve Kapisak has reviewed auditor reports, developed monitoring
protocol and developed agreed upon visited procedures for sites that are
not required to have an A-133 audit. Mr. Kapisak also developed a site
audit plan that was immediately implemented. By the end of the current
program year, Mr. Kapisak will have conducted audits of the following
DOE sites:

1\. Las Vegas, NV

2\. Brighton, CO

3\. Albuquerque, NM

The site audits include the following information or activities:

1\. Review class reimbursement forms.

2\. Identify fixed assets and compare accuracy of site records with
Laborers-AGC\'s records.

3\. Review recent A-133 audit and conduct agreed-upon procedures for
sound fiscal and administrative management.

4\. Obtain the completed internal control checklist and review for
potential control weaknesses.

5\. Document the site review and develop recommendations.

An example of a site audit report is provided in Exhibit 7.

Strategic Planning

At the LIUNA national convention in September 1996, Laborers-AGC was
directed under LIUNA Resolution Number 5, to \"develop a\... strategic
plan of operation for laborers\' training that will serve as a vision
for the next five years.\" For the past six months, Laborers-AGC has
worked with LIUNA members and officials, training directors, and
contractors to develop this strategic plan. Information and input was
obtained through several focus groups, a needs assessment survey,
workshops, while the planning process was accomplished through the
strategic planning executive committee and its subcommittees.
Approximately 1,000 individuals contributed in some way to the
development of the 1997 Strategic Plan.

Seven critical initiatives are addressed by the 1997 Strategic Plan:

1\. Communication, Coordination, and Cooperation

2\. Curriculum Development and Delivery

3\. Funding and Financial Management

4\. Lifelong Learning

5\. Marketing, Recruitment, and Retention

6\. Skill Standards

7\. Total Quality Management

Action items for each initiative serve to guide Laborers-AGC\'s progress
over the next five years as it strives to fulfill its mission \"to
improve the quality of life for LIUNA members and expand the competitive
position of union employers.\"

### University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey

[DOE TRAINING ACCOMPLISHMENTS]{.underline}

Numbers presented in this report include actual training from
9/1/97-5/31/98 as well as projected training from 6/1/98-8/31/98. Table
1 details training activities for the current year and includes: course
name and corresponding hours, number of course offerings, number of
workers trained, number of contact hours and DOE sites. As reported, 120
courses were conducted during this time period with 1238 workers
trained. Contact hours totaled 12,682. Training accomplishment data have
been summarized in chart format according to NIEHS specifications and
submitted via electronic mail.

Table 2 presents a list of courses originally projected in the workplan
for 1997-98, as well as courses requested mid year from DOE sites. As
indicated above, training totals for the year ("Trained") include data
as of May 31, 1998 as well as projected training for the remainder of
this time period. These totals are compared with the initial workplan
for the year ("Projected"). As noted, over 138% of the overall workplan
has been achieved. Changes in training need from DOE sites were
anticipated to the best of the Center's ability, however, given the
changeable nature of worker training, not all training objectives were
fully achieved, while others were exceeded. Additionally, three courses
were requested by DOE sites which were outside of the Center's scope of
work. The Center responded to the need for these courses: 08-Hour Haz
Mat DOT (1 trainee), 40-Hour Site Worker (1 trainee) and 08 hour
Refresher (3 trainees) demonstrating our commitment to meet the needs of
our target population held in our regularly scheduled courses.

TABLE 1: DOE TRAINING ACTIVITY BY AGENCY AND COURSE 1997-98\*

+------------------------+----------+-----------+---------+----------+
| Agency                 | \# of    | \# of     | Contact | DOE Site |
|                        | Courses  | Trainees  | Hrs     |          |
+------------------------+----------+-----------+---------+----------+
| **UMDNJ**              | 1        | 1         | 40      | PPPL     |
|                        |          |           |         |          |
| 40-Hr Site Invest      |          |           |         |          |
+------------------------+----------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 08-Hr Refresher        | 4        | 93        | 744     | BNL      |
+------------------------+----------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 08-Hr Refresher        | 5        | 10        | 80      | FUSRAP   |
+------------------------+----------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 08-Hr Refresher        | 7        | 9         | 72      | PPPL     |
+------------------------+----------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 08-Hr Confined Space   | 3        | 17        | 136     | PPPL     |
| Ref                    |          |           |         |          |
+------------------------+----------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 21-Hr Confined Space   | 1        | 2         | 42      | PPPL     |
+------------------------+----------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 08-Hr Haz Mat Tech Ref | 3        | 15        | 120     | PPPL     |
+------------------------+----------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 08-Hr Em Resp Ref      | 4        | 43        | 344     | BNL      |
+------------------------+----------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 08-Hr Asb Cont Ref     | 1        | 1         | 8       | PPPL     |
+------------------------+----------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 04-Hr Asbestos         | 2        | 58        | 232     | BNL      |
| Awareness              |          |           |         |          |
+------------------------+----------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 04-Hr Asbestos O & M   | 2        | 32        | 128     | BNL      |
| Ref                    |          |           |         |          |
+------------------------+----------+-----------+---------+----------+
| **UNIV AT BUFFALO**    | 7        | 46        | 1104    | WV       |
|                        |          |           |         |          |
| 24-Hr RCRA-TSD         |          |           |         |          |
+------------------------+----------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 08-Hr RCRA Refresher   | 37       | 545       | 4360    | WV       |
+------------------------+----------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 08-Hr Operational      | 3        | 8         | 64      | WV       |
+------------------------+----------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 08-Hr Rad Wrker I      | 3        | 15        | 120     | FUSRAP   |
+------------------------+----------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 08-Hr Rad Wrker I      | 11       | 50        | 400     | WV       |
+------------------------+----------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 16-Hr Rad Wrker II     | 13       | 179       | 2864    | FUSRAP   |
+------------------------+----------+-----------+---------+----------+
| 16-Hr Rad Wrker II     | 13       | 114       | 1824    | WV       |
+------------------------+----------+-----------+---------+----------+
| TOTAL                  | 120      | 1,238     | 12,682  |          |
+------------------------+----------+-----------+---------+----------+

\*Based on reported training to May 31 and projected training June
1-August 31, 1998

TABLE 2: DOE TRAINEES AND CONTACT HOURS AS PERCENTAGE OF

WORKPLAN: 1997-98\*

Trained Projected Percent

+------------------------+-------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| [Agency]{.underline}   | [T    | [Hou  | [Tra   | [      | [Com   |
|                        | raine | rs]{. | inees] | Hours] | plete] |
|                        | es]{. | under | {.unde | {.unde | {.unde |
|                        | under | line} | rline} | rline} | rline} |
|                        | line} |       |        |        |        |
+------------------------+-------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| **UMDNJ**              | 1     | 40    | 5      | 200    | 20%    |
|                        |       |       |        |        |        |
| 40-Hr Site Invest      |       |       |        |        |        |
+------------------------+-------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| 08-Hr Supervisor       | 0     | 0     | 5      | 40     | 0%     |
+------------------------+-------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| 08-Hr Refresher        | 112   | 896   | 75     | 600    | 149%   |
+------------------------+-------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| 08-Hr Operations       | 0     | 0     | 15     | 120    | 0%     |
+------------------------+-------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| 08-Hr Confined Space   | 17    | 136   | 30     | 240    | 57%    |
| Ref                    |       |       |        |        |        |
+------------------------+-------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| 21-Hr Confined Space   | 2     | 42    | 12     | 252    | 17%    |
+------------------------+-------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| 08-Hr Confined Space   | 0     | 0     | 12     | 96     | 0%     |
| Rescue                 |       |       |        |        |        |
+------------------------+-------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| 08-Hr Haz Mat Tech Ref | 15    | 120   | 40     | 320    | 38%    |
+------------------------+-------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| 08-Hr Em Resp Ref      | 43    | 344   | 60     | 480    | 72%    |
+------------------------+-------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| 04-Hr AHERA Inspector  | 0     | 0     | 5      | 20     | 0%     |
| Ref                    |       |       |        |        |        |
+------------------------+-------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| 08-Hr Abs Control Sup  | 1     | 8     | 15     | 120    | 7%     |
| Ref                    |       |       |        |        |        |
+------------------------+-------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| 04-Hr Asbestos         | 58    | 232   | 25     | 100    | 232%   |
| Awareness              |       |       |        |        |        |
+------------------------+-------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| 04-Hr Asbestos O & M   | 32    | 128   | 20     | 80     | 160%   |
| Ref                    |       |       |        |        |        |
+------------------------+-------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| **UNIV AT BUFFALO**    | 46    | 1104  | 30     | 720    | 153%   |
|                        |       |       |        |        |        |
| 24-Hr RCRA-TSD         |       |       |        |        |        |
+------------------------+-------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| 08-Hr RCRA Refresher   | 545   | 4360  | 490    | 3920   | 111%   |
+------------------------+-------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| 08-Hr Operational      | 8     | 64    | 10     | 80     | 80%    |
+------------------------+-------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| 08-Hr Rad Wrker I      | 65    | 520   | 10     | 80     | 650%   |
+------------------------+-------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| 16-Hr Rad Wrker II     | 293   | 4688  | 40     | 640    | 733%   |
+------------------------+-------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
| **TOTAL**              | **1,  | **12, | *      | **8    | **     |
|                        | 238** | 682** | *899** | ,108** | 138%** |
+------------------------+-------+-------+--------+--------+--------+

\* Based on reported training to May 31 and projected training June
1-August 31, 1998

2\. DOE TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS

As detailed in the Center's competing application, the Center collects
registration (i.e. trainee characteristics) and evaluation data on
scannable forms which are processed via an optical mark reader. As such,
data input and management are computerized, facilitating timely program
tracking, reporting and analysis.

[Trainee Characteristics]{.underline}

A summary of DOE trainees\' demographic characteristics is presented in
Table 3. The majority of trainees were male (85%), Caucasian (83%) and
had some education beyond a high school diploma (80%). The largest age
category was 36-45 and the primary language for almost all was English.

TABLE 3: MAJOR DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS FOR DOE TRAINEES: 1997-98

+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| [Characteristics]{.underline}                | Trainees              |
|                                              |                       |
|                                              | [(n=909               |
|                                              | )]{.underline}        |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| **Gender**                                   |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Male                                         | 85%                   |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Female                                       | 15%                   |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
|                                              |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| **Ethnicity**                                |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Caucasian                                    | 83%                   |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Afr-Amer                                     | 5%                    |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Hispanic                                     | 2%                    |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Asian                                        | 1%                    |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Native American                              | 3%                    |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Other/Unknown                                | 6%                    |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
|                                              |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| **Education**                                |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Some high school                             | 3%                    |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| High school grad                             | 18%                   |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Some college                                 | 26%                   |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| College. grad                                | 31%                   |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Some grad school                             | 7%                    |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Graduate degree                              | 13%                   |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Other/Unknown                                | 3%                    |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
|                                              |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Age                                          |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| 17‑25                                        | 4%                    |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| 26-35                                        | 29%                   |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| 36-45                                        | 38%                   |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| 46-55                                        | 20%                   |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| 56+                                          | 7%                    |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Unknown                                      | 2%                    |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
|                                              |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Primary Language                             |                       |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| English                                      | 96%                   |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Spanish                                      | 1%                    |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
| Other/Unknown                                | 3%                    |
+----------------------------------------------+-----------------------+

Table 4 details work history data for DOE trainees. Thirty-eight percent
of the trainees reported their primary job duty as RCRA/TSD work, while
a large proportion (39%) reported "other". Open ended responses for
"other" were reviewed and coded revealing a diversity of job duties.
With regards to occupational categories, \"Professionals\" (23%) and
\"Laborer\" (18%) were the most commonly reported. Lastly, the primary
work setting for most was a DOE site (87%).

[Training Minorities]{.underline}

As reflected in Table 3, a large proportion of the DOE trainees
identified themselves as Caucasian. Ninety-eight trainees identified
themselves as minority, specifically, 43 (5%) as African Americans, 18
(2%) as Hispanics, 11 (1%) as Asians, and 26 (3%) as Native Americans.
Training provided to the DOE sites are not open enrollment; trainees are
identified by the site and consequently are self selected. As such,
UMDNJ and the University at Buffalo conduct no outreach to minorities
for this program. However, anecdotal information obtained from Princeton
Plasma Physics Laboratory, Brookhaven National Laboratory, and West
Valley Laboratory indicate that the workforce identified for health and
safety training predominately reflect their workforce.

TABLE 4: PRIMARY JOB DUTY, OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY AND

WORK SETTING FOR DOE TRAINEES: 1997-98

+-------------------------------------+-----------------+-------------+
|                                     | [Traine         | Percent     |
|                                     | es]{.underline} |             |
|                                     |                 |             |
|                                     | (n=909)         |             |
+-------------------------------------+-----------------+-------------+
| **Job Duty**                        |                 |             |
+-------------------------------------+-----------------+-------------+
| Waste Site Clean-up                 | 81              | 9%          |
+-------------------------------------+-----------------+-------------+
| Waste Site Investigator             | 15              | 2%          |
+-------------------------------------+-----------------+-------------+
| Waste Transportation                | 5               | 1%          |
+-------------------------------------+-----------------+-------------+
| RCRA/TSD                            | 349             | 38%         |
+-------------------------------------+-----------------+-------------+
| Other                               | 354             | 39%         |
+-------------------------------------+-----------------+-------------+
| Missing/Unknown                     | 105             | 12%         |
+-------------------------------------+-----------------+-------------+
| **Occupational Category**           |                 |             |
+-------------------------------------+-----------------+-------------+
| Officials and Managers              | 38              | 4%          |
+-------------------------------------+-----------------+-------------+
| Professionals                       | 210             | 23%         |
+-------------------------------------+-----------------+-------------+
| Technician                          | 143             | 16%         |
+-------------------------------------+-----------------+-------------+
| Craftworker (skilled)               | 71              | 8%          |
+-------------------------------------+-----------------+-------------+
| Operative (semi-skilled)            | 65              | 7%          |
+-------------------------------------+-----------------+-------------+
| Laborer (unskilled)                 | 163             | 18%         |
+-------------------------------------+-----------------+-------------+
| Service worker                      | 14              | 1%          |
+-------------------------------------+-----------------+-------------+
| Other                               | 147             | 16%         |
+-------------------------------------+-----------------+-------------+
| Unknown                             | 58              | 6%          |
+-------------------------------------+-----------------+-------------+
| Work Setting                        |                 |             |
+-------------------------------------+-----------------+-------------+
| Private Industry                    | 4               | 0%          |
+-------------------------------------+-----------------+-------------+
| Public Sector                       | 89              | 10%         |
+-------------------------------------+-----------------+-------------+
| DOE Site                            | 786             | 87%         |
+-------------------------------------+-----------------+-------------+
| Missing/Unknown                     | 30              | 3%          |
+-------------------------------------+-----------------+-------------+

[Trainee Performance]{.underline}

NIEHS guidelines call for proficiency measures of trainees using
demonstration and/or written items. We administer a skills demonstration
checklist for procedures in equipment handling and mock decontamination.
Where relevant, these activities include special skills and procedures
for the presence of radioactive conditions. Evaluation of these
activities is straightforward: trainees in relevant courses are not
considered to have completed the course without successful and orderly
demonstration of checklist items. Trainees may repeat a demonstration
during the course of the assessment.

[Training Effectiveness]{.underline}

Trainees complete course evaluations with 4-point ratings (1=poor,
4=excellent) to evaluate trainers, facilities, activities, materials,
equipment and the course overall. Trainees are also asked to categorize
how well course objectives were met and how appropriate the level of
technical instruction was. Mean outcomes from items are summarized in
Table 5. As reported, ratings ranged from 3.3 (\"facilities and
equipment\") to 3.8 (\"instructors\' knowledge of topics\"); the Overall
Rating is 3.6. Ninety-six percent of trainees responding stated the
course objectives were completely met and 97% believed the level of
technical instruction they received was on target (Table 6).

TABLE 5: MEAN OUTCOMES OF SELECT STUDENT EVALUATION ITEMS

FOR DOE TRAINEES: 1997-1998

  ------------------------------------------- ------------------------ -----------------
  [Item]{.underline}                          [Rating]{.underline}\*   [N]{.underline}

  Instructors' preparation                    3.7                      872

  Instructors' knowledge of topics            3.8                      872

  Instructors' communication skills           3.8                      873

  Overall instructors' rating                 3.8                      858

  Hands-on activities †                       3.6                      412

  Facilities and equipment                    3.3                      825

  Quality of printed material                 3.4                      868

  Coverage of state regulations               3.4                      781

  Coverage of federal regulations             3.5                      856

  OVERALL RATING                              3.6                      806
  ------------------------------------------- ------------------------ -----------------

\* 1= poor, 2=average, 3=good, 4=excellent

† Courses greater than 8 hours in duration

While data regarding student satisfaction with training are valuable,
the best measure of training effectiveness comes from worksite
experience. Due to practical and administrative constraints, work site
observation of worker practices is not feasible. Consequently, we have
implemented an impact assessment survey that is administered to
Refresher course trainees; these trainees received their previous
training from UMDNJ and the University at Buffalo. Respondents indicated
whether they or their co-workers addressed 12 workplace issues since
training. Each issue was addressed by at least half of the respondents
(Table 7). A large proportion have addressed issues concerning MSDSs and
other information on chemicals (85%), labeling of chemical containers
(79%) and personal protective equipment (79%). These data are suggestive
that training does facilitate safe work practices. It should be noted
that a negative response (i.e., "No) does not mean an issue [has
not]{.underline} been addressed at the workplace, simply that the
training was not a catalyst for the workplace change.

TABLE 6: MEETING OF COURSE OBJECTIVES AND APPROPRIATENESS OF TECHNICAL
INSTRUCTION FOR DOE TRAINEES: 1997-1998

  ------------------------------------------- --------------------------- -----------------------
  Item                                        [Respondents]{.underline}   [Percent]{.underline}

  **Meeting of course objectives**                                        

  Not met                                     1                           0%

  Partially met                               31                          4%

  Completely met                              726                         96%

  **Appropriateness of technical                                          
  instruction**                                                           

  Too simplistic                              11                          1%

  On target                                   711                         97%

  Too sophisticated                           14                          2%
  ------------------------------------------- --------------------------- -----------------------

TABLE 7: ISSUES ADDRESSED AT WORKPLACE SINCE TRAINING

BY DOE TRAINEES (N=563 )

  --------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- ------------------
  [Issue]{.underline}                                       [Yes]{.underline}   [No]{.underline}

  Availability of MSDS and other info on chemicals          85%                 15%

  Labeling of chemical containers                           79%                 11%

  Proper personal protective equipment available            79%                 21%

  Proper personal protective equipment training             76%                 24%

  Development of site safety and health plans               70%                 30%

  Proper procedures for decon                               64%                 36%

  Availability of air monitoring instrument                 62%                 38%

  Confined space training                                   63%                 37%

  Enrollment in medical surveillance program                63%                 37%

  Fit testing for respirators                               62%                 38%

  Training in use of respirators                            62%                 38%

  Adequate supply of respirators available                  59%                 41%
  --------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- ------------------

Twenty percent of the trainees indicated that they had changed their
workplace practices since their last training. When asked for details,
the majority responded that there is a "heightened awareness of safety
issues." Additionally, more than two thirds (70%) of them indicated that
they were [more]{.underline} likely to approach their supervisor
regarding a health and safety issue as a result of the training. This
data is suggestive that training is effective in empowering workers to
advocate for their workplace rights. Lastly, 91 trainees have reported
that they had been involved in incidents which they believed would have
resulted in illness or injury had they not received the training.

[Literacy Issues]{.underline}

UMDNJ and the University at Buffalo have not encountered literacy
problems in the target populations trained at the DOE sites. The target
population is fairly well educated; only 1% of trainees has less than a
high school education. Regardless, the training staff is experienced in
identifying and addressing literacy problems as has been detailed in
previous progress reports. Assistance for trainees\' literacy needs is
readily provided. Various effective training methods are utilized which
allows for trainees to learn in their own manner; these methods include
lecture, small group activities, and hands-on training. UMDNJ and the
University at Buffalo offer students the option of an oral exam if they
cannot read or if they are not comfortable with the English language.
Instructors at the University at Buffalo and UMDNJ are familiar with
\"The Right to Understand: Linking Literacy to Health and Safety
Training\" produced by the Labor Occupational Health Program at UC
Berkeley and incorporate its principles within their courses. The
Center\'s flexibility to respond to special needs will continue to be a
priority of the Center as its member agencies seek to meet the needs of
their target populations.

3\. CURRICULA UPDATES

[UMDNJ]{.underline}

Significant curricula updates were initiated by UMDNJ. The 08‑Hour
Refresher course manual has been revised to create a more user-friendly
manual. New case studies have been developed. This year, UMDNJ is using
Grand Street Mercury as the site, replacing Nascolite Corporation. As
discussed in previous applications, UMDNJ uses the case study approach
for the Refresher training. In the course, students read EPA, New Jersey
Departments of Environmental Protection and Health and Senior Services,
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and local newspaper
reports and are asked to identify the hazards, select the level of
personal protective equipment, and prepare the remediation of the site.
During appropriate times of the day, slides of the site are shown to
offer more insight for the students.

The 40‑Hour Initial course manual was also revised. The new manual is in
the final stages of revision. New classroom exercises have been
developed, as well as a new format, making the manual easier for the
students to use. The new 40‑Hour Initial manual will be used by the
University of Buffalo.

The revised manuals will be forwarded to the NIEHS Clearinghouse when
completed for inclusion in the curricula catalog.

[University at Buffalo]{.underline}

As indicated above, the cooperative effort between UMDNJ and the
University at Buffalo will result in curricula revision of the 40‑Hour
Initial course manual.

The Hazardous Waste Refresher manual was revised again this year as a
joint effort between University at Buffalo and West Valley personnel
(manual to be forwarded to the NIEHS Clearinghouse when complete). We
will begin using it July, 1998. The basic material is covered, however,
additional emphasis is placed on site-specific hazard recognition and
identification and training in the use of the North American Emergency
Response Guidebook and the ANSI format MSDS. The Hazard Recognition and
Identification module is conducted as a practical exercise in which
students are required to interact with the instructor in pointing out
hazards on photos taken around the site. Lecture material on the NAERG
and ANSI format MSDS's is supplemented by practical exercises requiring
students to find information and make decisions based on that
information.

4\. ADVISORY BOARD ACTIVITIES

The Advisory Board is chaired by Glen Paulson, Ph.D.; members of the
Board are listed in Exhibit 3 and include representation from unions,
government, academia, and hazardous waste industry. As noted in the
approved minutes from the May 1997 meeting (Exhibit 3), the Board
members were very pleased with the progress that the Center is making;
this was reconfirmed at the April 1998 Board Meeting. Meeting notes from
the April 1998 meeting have not been included since they have not yet
been approved by the Advisory Board during this application time. The
Board of Advisors membership was reviewed and it was announced that
there are no vacancies at this time, but that nominees for future
members should be considered since some individuals are reaching the end
of their terms.

Feedback from the Advisory Board included actions such as: summarizing
the successes achieved by the Center during this past year; developing a
computer-based testing model to enhance the Center's evaluation process;
developing a working group to identify additional target groups and
training initiatives. Also, the Board of Advisors suggested that the
program on Emergency Response to Chemical and Biological Weapons course,
developed by the NJSP, be a model available on a national basis.

The next meeting of the Advisory Board will take place in Spring 1999.
Informal input will be received from members throughout the year; this
would include correspondence and development of working groups.

5\. TRAINEE FOLLOW-UP

Practical and administrative constraints make on-site tracking of
trainees not feasible for the Center. However, the Center employs survey
methods to obtain data from trainees once they complete the training.
Information regarding the impact of training is detailed in Section 2,
Training Effectiveness.

6\. INSTRUCTOR SUPPORT

The Center Management Committee has had initial meetings to plan the
bi-annual trainer exchange for instructors in the NJ/NY HMWTC. Based
upon the comments from our first trainer exchange, there needs to be
more time to exchange ideas and methods used by each member of the
Center. The topics to be discussed include training methods, hands-on
activities, and other interactive training techniques.

[UMDNJ]{.underline}

The support given to instructors in UMDNJ's training courses includes
professional development, continuing education programs, newsletters,
and other sources of information. All of the instructors in the program
are professionals currently active in the hazardous waste industry. They
must keep current with new legislation, equipment, and trends in the
industry in order to operate effectively at their usual employment site.
Several instructors are Certified Industrial Hygienists or Certified
Safety Professionals, and need to obtain professional development
credits to maintain their certification. The "Clearinghouse Newsbrief"
is another source of information given to instructors. The news and
information presented allows instructors to see what is current with
other training centers and new in the hazardous materials industry.

Mr. Malool has attended and presented at several meetings, as well as
prepared lectures for a graduate level course during the past year. Mr.
Malool attended the Virginia State Hazardous Materials Emergency
Responders Conference. He presented a session on Emergencies at
Electrical Substations and PCB Exposure. Mr. Malool also attended the
NIOSH Educational Resource Center Hazardous Materials Annual Meeting.

Mr. Rosen attended the NIOSH ERC Hazardous Materials Annual Meeting. The
meeting presented updates on Superfund, and other topics of interest to
health and safety training. Mr. Rosen also attended the American Public
Health Association Annual Meeting, attending several sessions sponsored
by the Occupational Safety and Health Section.

[University at Buffalo]{.underline}

Funding considerations did not allow us to send instructors to other
training courses. However, instructors are provided updated information
(e.g. regulatory changes, technical information, etc.) continuously and
make extensive use of the Internet for up to date information.

### ICWU Center for Worker Health and Safety Education

**DOE GRANT ‑ TRAINING ACCOMPLISHMENTS FOR YEAR 6**

In DOE Year 06, the ICWU Center for Worker Health & Safety Education
continued to deliver training initiated during the first four years of
the grant. This project is operated as a consortium in cooperation with
the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM)
and the United Steelworkers of America (USWA).

The total number of persons trained at all DOE sites during the current
grant year is expected to be 2,100 persons at 132 sessions (15,792
person hours). In addition, the Center will have devoted 19
\"trainer‑weeks\" to develop the DOE trainers for an additional 662
person hours. These numbers are consistent with the revised budget
submitted by the ICWU to NIEHS on November 10, 1997 subsequent to our
reduced award. This budget and training plan stated that \... this award
level will result in a reduction of approximately 50% in the number of
classes/students served . (See Attachment N for the revised budget and
training plan, which was approved by NIEHS). A comparison of the
original DOE target population, our revised 1998 training projection and
our total estimated site training numbers is given in Attachment M.
Although we have exceeded our 1998 projections in 3 of the 5 sites, at
no sites does our projections meet the need for training at any site. We
strongly believe that either workers are not being defined by the
contractors as needing training or they are being trained through other
vendors. Not included in these numbers are numerous weeks of training
delivered under the EPA grant where we utilized the skills of the DOE
trainers. Attachment J gives the detailed state by state breakout of all
participants and a computer diskette is enclosed with the data as
requested by NIEHS.

At four of our five active sites, quality training is being delivered at
the same level as during the last grant. At one site (Rocky Flats)
however, this has been at a reduced rate. The history of the DOE grant
at each site has demonstrated significant fluctuations from year to
year. Regretfully this has resulted this year in a significant reduction
at a site that had contributed substantially to our overall total last
year.

The primary reason for this reduction is the outsourcing of training by
the Rocky Flats management. Despite a strong training program,
curriculum, Center staff and trainers, at this point we have not been
able to sustain the significant level of training delivered during the
last grant year. We are hopeful we can reestablish the level of training
which was previously conducted and well received but are obligated to
inform you of this significant decrease.

Due to the substantial reduction in available grant funding (from \$1
million to \$650,000), we could not commit to the same amount of
training knowing that we did not have the funds to actual deliver
previous years training levels. At our Nuclear Advisory Committee
meeting in October, the consensus of the site coordinators was that to
commit to the same amount of training conducted in the previous year
would likely do irreparable damage to our working relationships built
over the life of the DOE grant. We, therefore, informed the site
contractors of our decreased funding level and delivered training at a
reduced level. In the second half of the current grant year we were able
to shift funds to increase the training at Oak Ridge and Hanford.
Therefore, the final numbers are expected to be greater than last year
at Hanford and only slightly less than last year at Oak Ridge. We have a
reasonable expectation that training at these sights will expand with
additional respirator training at Hanford and refreshers at Oak Ridge.

We were able to deliver approximately the same amount of training at
Amarillo and Kansas City as we did last year. In addition, specific
reasons continue to exist at both of these sites: primarily layoffs,
redefinition of training eligibility by the contractor, and the
continuing decreased perceived need by the contractor to train the
established work force in 40 hour initial programs. The ability of the
trainers to deliver training is far greater than the amount scheduled by
all contractors.

In summary, we currently are delivering the same amount of training at 4
of the five active sites. Our ability to deliver training to the much
larger population that needs this hazardous materials training is
contingent on two factors; the funds to pay trainers and the agreement
with management to conduct the training with all other factors in place.
If funding is not available, the record at Hanford and Oak Ridge is
clear: [the contractor will seek training vendors
elsewhere]{.underline}. If Rocky Flats training returns to a significant
percentage of that conducted during the previous grant year, we could
only conduct these classes if we are funded above the requested level.

Vital to this program is the assistance of the other two Internationals
in this grant, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers and the United Steelworkers of America, with their associated
site coordinators and trainers. Although the Consortium has the support
of the contractors at most sites, the contractors perceived needs for
continued training has decreased. Without contractors being willing to
release the workforce and require training, it is not possible to
schedule classes. We remain committed to the original plan as outlined
in the 1993 grant application. Our consortium has in place the
experienced trainers, facilities and equipment to launch further
expansion and train workers identified as needing training if the
Department of Energy and its associated contractors so desire.

The following sites have conducted programs during the current grant
year: Oak Ridge, TN; Amarillo, TX; Hanford, WA, Rocky Flats, CO and
Kansas City, MO. These sites have a core group of experienced on‑site
trainers who can competently present programs with only quality control
from Cincinnati. We have conducted only limited training over the course
of the grant at the other three sites targeted by the DOE grant
(Albuquerque, NM (Sandia Labs), Fernald, OH and West Valley, NY) and are
therefore reducing the funding request at these sites. A more detailed
description of each site\'s achievements follows.

Workers at these sites are members of ICWU, USWA, IAM, or other locals
affiliated with the respective Atomic Trades and Labor Councils as well
as salaried personnel. The Center and it\'s affiliated unions have built
working relationships with their respective locals, Councils,
contractors (both line management and training personnel) and DOE
operations offices to sustain the continual delivery of quality
hazardous materials training.

The key to this training has been the on site trainers from the shop
floor who have completed our Chemical Emergency Response program
followed by the train‑the‑trainer program. The vast majority have
completed an apprentice type program under the guidance of the Director
of Trainer Development. This consists of Trainer Refresher and Technical
Skills sessions, co-facilitation with our educational staff and
experienced trainers, and on site observation by Center staff The Center
has improved these trainer sessions during the current grant year by
designing all advanced trainer courses to meet the specific needs of
each DOE site as well as each trainer. We now have an experienced and
seasoned group of 35 DOE trainers who have been conducting training on
site from two to four years. Due to turnover, we did train one
additional new DOE trainer.

Complementing the work of the Director of Trainer Development in
implementing structural improvements in our trainer program, three other
staff members continue to play key roles: the Nuclear Training
Coordinator who has regular contact with each site\'s operation; the
Education Director, who writes new material, revises the eight hour site
refresher curriculum, updates modules and ensures quality control across
the complex; and the Center Director who supervisors and coordinates
these staff. Besides the other educational staff at the Center, the
other key staff are the ICWU, IAM and USWA Nuclear Liaisons who have the
majority of regular contact with each site. Finally, the day to day
contact with contractors has mostly been through the On Site
Coordinators who coordinate all training, meet logistical needs and
answer the majority of management questions. The Nuclear Advisory
Committee is an annual meeting of all these staff to coordinate their
activities and ensure that grant requirements are met.

It has been possible to deliver this level of training only with the
full cooperation of each site contractor. Site management arranges for
the final scheduling of all classes and ensures that participants are
assigned as part of their job to attend training. The contractor and DOE
office conduct extensive quality control on a regular basis. We are
making every effort to answer all questions asked by the contractors and
local DOE offices and meet their requirements but it is ultimately up to
the on site contractor management to schedule participants to our
classes. We hope that the clear pattern of success at these five sites
will be achieved at the three remaining locations. Once we have the
opportunity to present our program, we have been able to scheduled an
increasing number of classes. Some contractors have used these trainers
to conduct other non‑grant related training, an excellent indication of
long term support and institutionalization of our program.

The Center is successfully meeting the new requirement at all DOE sites
to yearly revise the refresher program at each site. The EPA program
rarely taught an individual worker more than once, while all DOE sites
have the same work force participating in annual refreshers. To meet the
need of these participants, the Center has relied on those who are the
primary delivers of the program: the on site, part time DOE trainers.
These trainers have the most direct knowledge of the actual program,
shop conditions, lessons learned at each site, direct knowledge of all
previous year s refreshers and the types of questions and problems the
DOE work force face. We have, therefore, relied on them to revise the
program and develop new material. A Center staff person is assigned to
facilitate this process and then works closely with the Education
Director and the Director of Trainer Development.

Oak Ridge, Tennessee

This program has a four year history of training at a sustained high
level. The site trainers are from ICWU Local 252 and IAM Local 480 with
a full time Center staff member located on site. These courses have been
led by the on site trainers for four years, with only oversight by
instructors from the Center. Those trainers have taught one 40‑hour
CERCLA course, one 16 hour hands‑on program, one 24‑hour programs, one 8
hour CERCLA refresher and 17 eight hour Hazardous Waste refresher
programs as of 5/31/98. 349 workers were trained in these sessions for a
total of 3,120 person‑hours. The additional programs currently scheduled
before the end of the current grant year include 10 Hazardous Waste 8
hour refresher programs scheduled at Oak Ridge (for an expected
additional 1,920 person‑hours). This represents a yearly total of 4,928
expected person hours.

At this point, Lockheed Martin has determined that there are no
additional groups of workers who need the 8 hour refresher or 40 hour
initial training. OSHA has initiated a joint pilot project with DOE to
investigate the transition to external regulation of health and safety
activities. We will be discussing with the appropriate authorities how
the determination of applicability of 1920.120 has been made and if
there is a need for more workers who handle hazardous materials to be
trained. We disagree with management s determination but continue to
discuss this question. Ultimately, however, it is their decision to
schedule classes and assign workers to attend.

This program previously was awarded the DOE Award of Excellence by the
US Department of Energy. These trainers, as with most trainers at the
DOE sites, have progressed to the point that the Center can rely on them
to assist at other DOE sites and with the Cincinnati program. This site
s activities operate as independently as possible with only periodic
site visits by the Center\'s staff.

The Center has developed a strong working relationship with Lockheed
Martin that has led to further requests for additional training. The
institutionalization of this program is further demonstrated by the fact
that the trainer who we developed with grant funds to conduct Rad Con II
and other HAZWOPER training was hired by Lockheed Martin to be part of
their salaried training staff.

The trainers at Oak Ridge, with the assistance of Center staff
(including one staff site visit), have developed the third level of
refresher training for this site during the current grant year. The
experience and expertise of the site trainers was the key element in
developing these more advanced refreshers due to the unique nature of
this program (see Attachment C for a comparison of DOE to EPA training
program characteristics).

Hanford, Washington

IAM Local 1951, in cooperation with IBEW Local 984, continue to deliver
refresher programs. Through May 31 they conducted 20 one‑day CERCLA
refresher courses, 33 four hour respirator refresher courses and one 40
hour CERCLA course for 765 participants (5,180 person hours). These
programs are conducted with the cooperation of the HAMMER facility, a
nationally recognized and independently federally funded regional
training facility. The 4 hour respirator refresher is being delivered
through a curriculum we helped develop and accomplishes two basic
objectives. One, it gives adequate time to a subject that had to be
compressed within the curriculum of the refresher course, and two, it
relieves the refresher course of an item that made it increasingly
difficult to cover refresher topics adequately.

There are six additional 8‑hour refresher programs (an estimated 960
person hours), a one-day respirator introduction class (88 person hours)
and 9 four- hour respirator courses (396 person hours) scheduled for
Hanford before the end of this grant year. We, therefore, expect to
deliver a total 6,624 person hours to 995 workers by the end of Year 6.
The Center also relies on the expertise of the Hanford Radiation
Technician trainers who are currently conducting training to develop
radiation related training material.

The Center s staff conducted 32 hours of trainer development on site, 32
hours working with three trainers (12 trainer‑days) in developing an
updated refresher (hours not reported above) and a visit by the IAM DOE
Liaison. In addition, one ICWU Center staff member participated in an on
site review by DOE s Headquarters staff from the Offices of
Environmental Restoration and Waste Management and Environmental Health
and Safety staff of the HAMMER program and attended the opening of the
HAMMER facility in September, 1997.

At this point, the contractors (through the HAMMER facility) have
determined that there are no additional groups of workers who need the 8
-hour refresher or 40 hour initial training. We will be discussing with
the appropriate authorities how the determination of applicability of
1920.120 has been made and if there is a need for more workers who
handle hazardous materials to be trained. We disagree with management s
determination but continue to discuss this question. Ultimately,
however, it is their decision to schedule classes and assign workers to
attend.

Amarillo, Texas

In cooperation with the Amarillo Metal Trades Council, IAM Local 1255
delivered five 8-hour CERCLA refresher courses and twelve 8-hour
awareness classes for 251 participants (2,008 person hours). The
trainers at this site include two from IBEW local 602 and one from OPEIU
local 306. At this point there no additional courses planned for the
duration of the current grant year. These trainers have also conducted
two 8-hour awareness courses for fourteen local fire fighters with
responsibility for emergencies at the Pantex facility (an additional 112
person hours). We, therefore, have delivered 2,120 person hours of
training by the end of Year 6. In addition, the IAM DOE Liaison made a
site visit and a Center staff spent a week on site developing the
updated refresher.

The Amarillo program was previously awarded the \"Technical Service
Citation Award\" at the Pantex facility. The Pantex facility has
previously estimated that our program will save the contractor
approximately \$27,000 yearly. These trainers have been approved by the
Texas Department of Agriculture to give eight hours of continuing
education credits to pesticide applicators in pesticide handling. They
also delivered 5 hours of awareness training to a five-state meeting of
hairdressers (230 person hours). Although these programs were NOT funded
by the DOE grant, they are excellent indications of the growth of the
Center\'s field centers for future delivery of cost effective EPA
training and cooperation between the two grants.

At this point, Mason Hanger, the contractor, has determined that there
are no additional groups of workers who need the 8-hour refresher or 40
hour initial training. We will be discussing with the appropriate
authorities how the determination of applicability of 1920.120 has been
made and if there is a need for more workers who handle hazardous
materials to be trained. We disagree with management s determination but
continue to discuss this question. Ultimately, however, it is their
decision to schedule classes and assign workers to attend.

Kansas City, Missouri

IAM Locals 314 and 990 continue to conduct refresher programs in year 6.
They conducted five 8‑hour CERCLA refresher programs to 77 participants
(616 person hours). A Center staff and the IAM DOE Liaison spent one
week on site developing the next level of refresher training which was
subsequently delivered. Regretfully, the contractor determined that no
workers needed the 40-hour initial course. A Center staff traveled to
the site to develop an updated refresher with the trainers. The IAM
liaison assisted with the delivery of training with one Center staff
reviewing the program for quality control.

At this point, Allied Signal, the contractor, has determined that there
are no additional groups of workers who need the 8-hour refresher or 40
hour initial training. They decreased the number of workers they
determined to require refresher training this year. We will be
discussing with the appropriate authorities how the determination of
applicability of 1920.120 has been made and if there is a need for more
workers who handle hazardous materials to be trained. We disagree with
management s determination but continue to discuss this question.
Ultimately, however, it is their decision to schedule classes and assign
workers to attend.

Rocky Flats, Colorado

Despite the previous three years of successful training that was well
received, in year 6 there has been a serious reduction in the amount of
training requested by the contractor. During the first quarter of the
current grant year, we delivered 7 CERCLA refreshers to 174 participants
for a total of 1,392 person hours. As reported in last year\'s progress
report, by the end of May, 1997 the training at Rocky Flats reached
1,275 participants (12,120 person hours). This site delivered 57% of our
total training last year where it is expected to conduct 9% this year.
We have hopes that this temporary setback will be reversed in the
immediate future but this will ultimately be determined by the site
contractor.

We are communicating with the Sandia Atomic Trades and Labor Council and
Lockheed Martin, the contractor for Sandia Labs, Albuquerque, New
Mexico. We are also in communication with FERMCo, the Fernald Atomic
Trades and Labor Council and ICWU local 501 regarding future training
activities at Fernald, Ohio. We have experienced trainers who will be
able to initiate training when it is scheduled. We are also in
communication with IAM Lodge 1180 regarding future training activities
at the DOE site in West Valley, New York.

Cincinnati, Ohio

The Cincinnati Center continues to serve a number of roles including the
initial introduction for prospective trainers and DOE contractors to the
Center\'s adult education methods and style. This is a similar process
that succeeded in marketing the program under the EPA grant and is vital
to the cooperation necessary under the DOE grant. The Cincinnati
facility is the central facility for the advancement of trainers who are
the primary deliverers of courses under the DOE grant. A more in depth
discussion of this work is covered in Section 6 (Instructor Support and
Trainer Development).

Six DOE trainers participated in a two-day Curriculum Symposium. We have
two Technical Skills trainer sessions scheduled in June and August, 1998
(for a total of 14 additional trainer weeks). In addition, a limited
number of DOE trainers traveled to Cincinnati to assist with programs
under the leadership of the Director of Trainer Development for an
additional 7 trainer‑weeks. They conducted modules with the educational
staff and practiced modules with other trainers with feedback from the
Director of Trainer Development. It should be noted, however, that when
experienced trainers train EPA participants, this is paid out of the EPA
grant.

In addition, the staff attended three NIEHS sponsored meetings. Center
staff attended the Technical Workshop on Trainer Development program at
the George Meany Center in December, 1997, the Environmental Jobs Summit
in March 1998 and a NIEHS/DOE grantees meeting in June at Oak Ridge.

2\) TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS

A\) Participant characteristics: Ethnic and job category distribution of
participants are presented in Attachment E are included on the diskette
which is forthcoming (these are the available statistics as of May 31,
1998 but does not include those to be trained between May 31 and August
31, 1998). The table below gives demographic data by sex, race, age and
education without cross tabs by job category. A computer file with
printed copy of the geographic distribution is being sent from
Cincinnati under separate cover.

As DOE sites have come on line with training, the on site coordinator
collects demographic information with forms similar to those used for
EPA participants in Cincinnati. With the development of computer
capabilities at all sites and the continued increase in the numbers of
people trained, we expect data will be entered in a timely manner into a
database at each site.

These data range within each variable from 1,009 to 1,210 of the 1,221
participants we have demographic forms for through May 31, 1998 (forms
are not collected for respirator classes and on site trainer practice
sessions are excluded).

> Table 1

Demographic Information for ICWU Center Attendees

DOE Grant Year 6

  ---------------------- -------- ---------------------- ------------------
  **Gender** (n=1,210)            **Race** (n=1,092)     

                                                         

  Male                   975      White                  924

  Female                 235      African‑American       51

                                  Hispanic               49

                                  Asian‑American         8

                                  Native American        25

                                  Other                  35

  99% response rate               89% response rate      

                                                         

  **Age** (n=1,073)               **Education**          
                                  (n=1,105)              

                                                         

  ‑29                    86       Graduate Work          183

  30‑39                  322      Completed College      232

  40‑49                  407      Some College           348

  50‑59                  227      Trade/Technical School 152

  60                     31       Completed High School  169

                                  Some High School       19

                                  Some Grade School      2

                                                         

  88% response rate               90% response rate      
  ---------------------- -------- ---------------------- ------------------

Information in Attachment E is based only on participants who gave
complete information in all categories (total of 1,100 participants)
with a resulting lower response rate. (90%)

B\) Training Minorities: We have continued to encourage the contractors
and participating locals to send women and minority participants to all
programs. We have been successful in recruiting DOE trainers whose
demographics more accurately reflect the work force at these sites. Of
the 35 active DOE trainers (excluding 1 site coordinator who does not
train), 8 (23%) are women and 8 (23%) are minorities.

We hope to continue this diversity with ongoing efforts to train as many
qualified members as trainers as possible. The Director of Trainer
Development has been able to devote significant effort to incorporate
material to ensure an equitable and fair treatment of all individuals
involved with our program. This includes the elimination of all
practices that result in the division of participants based on race,
sex, and nationality and encourages the philosophy of the strength of
our diverse work force.

C\) Participant performance data: We have continued to implement the
participant evaluation method developed over the last four years. The
tests identify learning needs at the beginning of the program and are
written simply to measure fundamental skills that relate to each module.
We have worked closely with DOE to develop tests that are consistent
with DOE regulations and orders. These include wording of particular
questions, ensuring similar but not identical questions in key subject
areas and other methods to vary pre and post questions.

Pre and post tests are administered to all participants in the initial
general site worker training. For refresher classes, the use of tests
varies from site to site due to variables such as contractor needs, and
significant time restrictions to cover all mandated material in only
eight hours. Data currently available from one site that regularly gives
pre and post test for the refresher classes have shown over the years
that the amount of pretest knowledge of participants is slightly
increasing. This effect is to be expected at DOE sites where the Center
conducts annual refresher over an extended period (see Attachment H).
However, pre‑training scores in areas related to chemical protective
clothing, respirators, decontamination and labels & placards continue to
show the need for training. With the DOE and contractor mandate to
conduct individual testing for initial training, we have implemented
methods to remediate any participant who does not have the passing score
of 80% and avoid any perception of \"job jeopardy\".

D\) Year 06 Long Term Evaluation Report:

Because of the unique nature of DOE facilities, the use of the EPA
evaluation tool at the DOE sites was discontinued while we developed a
DOE specific evaluation tool. The unique differences between DOE and EPA
sites which prompted this decision are outlined in Attachment C. From
the evaluation perspective, there is currently no method of determining
if 10 similar responses of successful change from 10 participants
represented 10 changes or 1 change reported by 10 different people.
Instead, the DOE evaluation project measures change as perceived by a
significant percentage of the work force, not one or two individuals
representing the entire site. The nature of training the same work force
in annual one-day refresher courses is another major aspect of the on
site DOE project and a difference with the EPA program.

The process of instrument modification to reflect the nature of the DOE
program will be coordinated by our consultant, Dr. Marcus. To assist
with this project, we developed a working relationship with Paul Becker
of West Virginia University. He has extensive experience with labor
education and evaluation projects. After a number of meetings with these
consultants, staff and a DOE trainer, we have revised the evaluation
tool and it is currently being pre‑tested. Initial results are expected
by the end of the current grant year and will be forwarded to NIEHS. It
should be noted that the current ongoing EPA evaluation project resulted
in a peer review article that documents numerous attempts to change
health and safety conditions and many successful improvements.

Of the 110 people who have been interviewed in the past year, 77 were
from Oak Ridge, TN; 17 from Amarillo, TX; and 16 from Kansas City, MO.
The numbers we attempted to contact were limited by the dates of their
previous refreshers and the need to have from 11 to 16 months of time,
post training, to attempt worksite changes. Trends that we saw in our
preliminary results from the pre‑testing of the evaluation instrument
last year at Oak Ridge, TN (n=44) continue to reflect the same major
differences between DOE and EPA sites. For example, one big difference
is in the composition of the class. In the EPA classes, at least 95% of
the participants belong to a union. Of the 110 people interviewed who
work at DOE sites where we conducted training, 37% belonged to a union.

Another major difference is the number of people who have been through
our training before. For the EPA classes, approximately 8% of those
coming to Cincinnati have been through training we have done before. Of
the 110 people at the DOE sites, an average of 67% said they had been
through our training before (Oak Ridge = 61%, Amarillo = 82%, Kansas
City = 81%).

Last year we added a question to see if the participants conduct
training of workers on their regular jobs. Thirty‑two of the 110 workers
(29%) said they do. Of these 32 workers, 28 taught others about health
and safety issues they learned about in our class. They taught an
average of 55 people for an average of 11 hours. But, even if they did
not actually train others, most of the people (78%) have at least talked
to coworkers about what they have learned in our program (ranging from
74% at Oak Ridge to 94% in Kansas City!) and 46% have talked with
representatives of management about these issues (ranging from 42% at
Oak Ridge to 69% in Kansas City).

Since many of these participants have been through multiple training
courses, one of the challenges is to develop new materials so new
material is covered. Of those interviewed, 57% said they learned new
information as a result of this particular refresher course (ranging
from 47% at Amarillo to 60% at Oak Ridge). Looking at just union
members, 73% said they learned new information from this refresher.
Overall, 38% reported becoming more involved (ranging from 19% at Kansas
City to 43% at Oak Ridge). Of those who belong to a union, an average of
52% reported being more involved. The items that helped people become
more involved the most (n = 42) are \"Greater awareness of hazards in
the workplace\" (91%), \"Worker trainers who taught the course\" (88%),
and \"Learning how to use educational tools to find out more about
chemicals in the workplace\" (83%). Other items are listed in Attachment
I.

Since these participants have been through multiple training sessions,
last year we added a question to this instrument to help in assessing
the educational needs of those in the class. When asked what topics they
wanted to learn more about, the majority (64%) said \"Incompatibility of
Chemicals\". This is similar to the preliminary data we reported last
year. As an effort to respond to this need, we have recently developed
an Incompatible Chemicals game that we hope to incorporate in our
training at DOE sites. Other areas respondents wanted to learn more
about included \"Health Effects of Chemicals\" (54%), Lessons learned
(50%) and \"OSHA Standards\" (46%). The ranking of other topics asked
can be seen in Attachment I.

Most (85%) thought the length of the refresher course (1 day) was
adequate. The results were similar on this question between union and
nonunion responders. This was surprising to us since most of the
feedback we get on our evaluations from EPA participants is that our
4‑day initial HAZWOPER course is not long enough. But since DOE
participants have reported to us having more training than EPA
participants, this reflects another difference between these two
populations.

Interest in health and safety also increased slightly as a result of
this training. On a scale of 0 ‑ 10 with 0 being \"no interest\" to 10
being \"extremely interested\", participants averaged 7.0 interest
before the training and 8.1 afterwards (this is not statistically
significant since the Standard Deviation is 2.4). This interest level
before training is lower than we see in the EPA participants who are
coming into our program for the first time. The average interest score
for EPA participants on the Pre‑Course Questionnaire is averaging 9.3.
This again may be the result of the differences in recruitment and
composition of the class or a result of the high security period (which
discouraged too much interest in health and safety) at these sites which
many attendees remember all too well.

One area of concern is the number attempting changes in the workplace.
The overall percentage attempting change is much lower, on average, for
people who have been through DOE refreshers than EPA participants have
attempted before even attending our course. Part of this could be that
there is much more room for improvement in general industry than at DOE
sites.

Of the 110 interviewed at DOE sites, 32% (35 workers) reported as having
made attempts, with 80% (28 of these attempts) being successful. This is
comparable to numbers self‑reported by EPA participants before taking
our class (30% attempted to make improvements in this area with 77% of
them successful). But many of the participants coming to the EPA course
were chosen to attend by their locals because they have been involved in
making health and safety changes in the workplace. The attempts and
success rates for other areas at DOE sites can be found in the
Attachment I.

An additional factor in this analysis is the significantly reduced
response rate. This varied from 21 to 30% (Oak Ridge local members
responded twice as much as salaried workers). One important factor to
consider is that since the registration of participants is handled on
site by the contractor, the Center does not verify addresses and phone
numbers before participants register for classes. Inaccurate information
currently on hand may decrease the response rate. Although we have
attempted to improve this percentage, the results in the current year
are similar to last year s rates.

E\) Literacy issues: Since it is often difficult to determine if a
participant has a literacy problem, our Center has developed all of its
modules to be interactive so that these participants can learn material
without being singled out. One tool that was developed for DOE sites to
see if training was effective is a review game called \"HazMat
Pursuit\". This review uses a game board with colored spaces and all
questions are read aloud so as not to possibly embarrass someone who has
reading difficulties. If a participant does very well during this
exercise and then does very poorly on a written test, that alerts the
trainer that there may be a possible literacy problem and they should
try asking the participant the test questions verbally. Due to time
limits for curriculum within the eight-hour refreshers, this module is
only used in the initial 40 hour CERCLA course.

3\) CURRICULA UPDATES

During grant year 06 the Center continued its efforts to adapt, modify
and integrate materials for educating workers regarding chemical
emergency response and hazardous waste work. The key to the continual
updating of the refreshers is the knowledge and experience of the DOE on
site trainers. With the assistance of the Center\'s Education Director
and the Educational Staff, we have compiled site specific Refresher
manuals for each site. The Center s staff main task is to ensure quality
control and accuracy. The existing Resource and Activity Manuals are
used for all forty-hour classes.

The DOE grant is based on the principle that all trainers are from each
site. To accomplish this goal, the Center needs to ensure that
educational materials are consistent and clear to enable the part time
trainers to practice and deliver the modules. This is also critical for
new trainers who are periodically added. We have had the benefit of
input from all trainers on improving existing material which helps
ensure that our curriculum does not remain static. Their experience
provides a direct link to the DOE work force and has helped meet
numerous requests from contractors to develop site specific modules.
Updating and modifying the curricula is an ongoing process that is lead
by the Education Director and involves the entire educational staff.
This process has become an ongoing part of the Center\'s program of
quality control and assurance.

Due to the nature of the DOE grant, with refresher programs being
requested by contractors to essentially the same workers each year, the
Center has further developed the team method to develop new refresher
courses and modify existing material. After a request is initiated from
the site or by a Center staff who observes a need for a modification,
the Education Director and the Center Director discuss the appropriate
project time line. The Administrative Assistant monitors the overall
progress on all priority educational projects to ensure their timely
completion.

A Center staff member is assigned to act as a lead with the experienced
DOE trainers from that site (with the on site coordinator and Liaisons)
to write or modify existing resource material, exercises or facilitator
guides. The designated Center educational staff travels to the site and
meets with the trainers to arrive at a consensus for new material. For
updated and new refreshers, a new agenda, module description and an
outline of each module\'s objectives, questions and answer keys are
designed.

The actual writing of this material is then shared between the Center
staff and on site trainers (with most sites equipped with compatible
word processing capabilities). Technical assistance is sought primarily
from the ICWU Health & Safety staff, the Health and Safety staff of the
two other unions, as well as from the other consortium members. The
primary staff which approve DOE material are the Education Director, the
Director of Trainer Development and the Nuclear Coordinator. This method
has shortened the review process and led to a significant amount of
material being updated.

4\) The ICWU Center for Worker Health and Safety Education Board of
Advisors

The Board of Advisors for the Center\'s DOE and EPA Hazardous Materials
Worker Training Program is due to meet on July 15, 1998 in Akron, Ohio,
the headquarters of the ICWU. The major topics of this Board meeting
will be the reduction in likely grant funding under the DOE grant and
resulting decrease in some areas under both the DOE and the EPA grants,
input from the Board on training material and programs and other items
which we have asked the Board to propose. We will review our efforts to
restore our grant and our efforts to continue training with a budget at
approximately half the 1995‑96 amount. As in previous years, the BOA
meeting is open to any major topic that members would like to address.

The Board of Advisors for the Center\'s EPA and DOE Hazardous Materials
Worker Training Program last met in November, 1996 in Cincinnati. The
major topic of this Board meeting was the reduction in grant funding
under both the EPA and DOE grants. In addition, we mailed the Board a
sample module and facilitator guide which were reviewed in the meeting.
We also met in May, 1997 with a number of the Union Consortium members
to discuss the current status of our budgets and other training topics.
We plan to hold these union meetings on at least an annual basis. Two
members of the Board, Dr. Eula Bingham and Dr. Nick Ashford, have toured
the Center during the current grant year.

This Board meeting will include our new members, Dr. Linda Rae Murray,
Dr. Tony LaMontagne, and Dr. Kathleen Fagan. Dr. Murray is a noted
expert in occupational health and safety and assisted us in teaching
toxicology to trainers during the June Technical Skills class. Dr.
LaMontagne has extensive experience with toxicology and worker
education. Dr. Fagan is a board certified occupational health physician
and has assisted the Center in teaching toxicology in Cincinnati and at
the USWA\'s Linden Hall facility.

Nuclear Advisory Committee

To coordinate the training at the seven targeted DOE facilities, the
Center has held regular meetings of the Nuclear Advisory Committee. The
last meeting of this committee was in October, 1997 in Cincinnati, Ohio
in conjunction with our curriculum symposium. Due to budget constraints,
this was attended only by representatives of those sites actively
conducting training.

The most pressing question was the reduction in the 1997‑98 DOE grant.
With the lack of carryover funds to make up the shortfall, we have had
no choice but to notify the contractors at all sites that we could not
deliver the same amount of training as in previous years. (After careful
monitoring of our expenses through the early months of the grant, this
was subsequently changed to meet our revised training plan. At four of
the four sites this resulted in an increase in training.) All other
aspects of the DOE program were addressed, including marketing programs
to DOE contractors, assistance from NIEHS and DOE offices, trainer
development, updating refreshers and other adjustments in the
curriculum, ongoing efforts in soliciting support from the contractors
and NIEHS grant applications.

These meetings are invaluable in coordinating activities with remote,
self-sufficient training sites. We have currently scheduled the next
meeting to take place in October, 1998 immediately after the next
NIEHS/DOE grant award. This will enable us to discuss the latest grant
award level and budget, collect input on areas to expand or reduce
activities and discuss possible areas of expansion into other training
opportunities in each sites geographical area. In addition, the Nuclear
Coordinator devotes significant efforts to minimize the isolation of the
geographically remote sites throughout the grant year through regular
contact and conference calls.

5\) PARTICIPANT FOLLOW‑UP

Our major effort in the follow up of DOE participants is the long-term
evaluation project. The current status of these efforts is detailed in
section 2D of this report (Training Effectiveness, Year 06 Long Term
Evaluation Report). The EPA evaluation tool has been revised to gather
site specific information regarding the use of resources and ability to
improve work place conditions. These data confirm the success we have
demonstrated during previous years and replicates the improvements
previously reported under the EPA grant.

6\) INSTRUCTOR SUPPORT

The Center has an ongoing program of encouraging professional
development for educational staff and on site trainers in order to
improve their knowledge and skills necessary to effectively facilitate
health and safety modules. Due to the large reduction in this year s
award, no trainers attended educationals and staff only attended six
education­als (partially funded through the DOE grant) during the current
grant year. Attachment G is a listing of the continuing education
courses that the full‑time health and safety educational staff at the
Center have attended since the last progress report.

We have made a concerted effort to sponsor classes in Cincinnati for
advanced technical information for the DOE trainers. These are described
more in depth under the Trainer Development.

Besides these courses, two educational staff have assisted in the
presentation of an OSHA 501 course at the Cincinnati Center conducted by
the Occupational Health Foundation (OHF), a consortium member of the
OSHA Region 3 Training Institute. These two staff are certified to
present this program with the OHF. The educational staff also have the
opportunity of attending the modules by various experts who are brought
to Cincinnati for the Technical Skills and Trainer Refresher courses.

7\) TRAINER DEVELOPMENT

The training and development of trainers continued to be a central
objective of this program during Grant Year 06. The Director of Trainer
Development has further instituted structural development of trainers
(both the EPA and DOE) during this grant year. This Director leads the
five-day Train the Trainer, Trainer Refresher and Technical Skills
classes. She has instituted consistent evaluation methods that allow the
trainer to develop at their own speed while ensuring consistency and
quality in program delivery.

In addition, she works intensively with the trainers while they assist
with the Cincinnati sessions. It should be noted that given the DOE
trainers current level of development, when they are teaching EPA
participants, this is funded through the EPA grant. We have further
developed this process by taking the opportunity for the trainers to
practice various modules with the Director of Trainer Development while
they are not working on modules to present in front of the class. Each
of these sessions continues to be an opportunity for rank and file
trainers to provide important support for the Center\'s full‑time
instructors. In addition, each session is a valuable educational
experience and on‑the‑job training for the trainers. The Director of
Trainer Development has held this position for four years with two years
of experience as a trainer and three years as an instructor at the
Center. This enables her to know the important points to emphasize in
the development of new trainers.

The trainer practice session is the key area where trainers can practice
their skills, observe other trainers\' styles, and receive feedback from
the Director of Trainer Development and other educational staff. The
technical skills trainer session is reserved for those trainers who have
mastered the fundamental adult education skills and need a fuller
background in a number of the subject matters that our modules touch
upon. These programs assist the Center in assuring the site contractors
that trainers have the technical capability to conduct HAZWOPER
training. Six trainers and the Center staff attended our two-day
Curriculum Symposium in the fall of 1997 delivered by the Labor
Occupational Health Program of Berkeley, California. LOHP staff reviewed
the fundamental principles of adult education and interactive methods
which have been vital to the Center s success. This was well received by
the DOE trainers who, as mentioned earlier, have the key role in writing
new DOE refreshers.

The Center brings in subject experts who are familiar with our methods
for brief presentations followed by in depth discussion with the
trainers. Educational staff also attend as their schedule permits. This
method is cost effective when compared to sending trainers to commercial
courses. During this grant year, we have developed trainer classes that
are tailored to the specific needs of the trainers as identified by the
Center. The June technical skills class, for example, featured Dr. Linda
Murray, a member of our Board of Advisors. She has committed to
conducting a three day in depth course for staff and trainers in
delivering toxicology modules. In previous years we offered the OSHA 501
class which covered basic rights and responsibilities.

As mentioned in Section 3, Curricula Updates, of this Progress Report,
the Education Director, with the assistance of staff and on site
trainers, has continued to review all modules to ensure they are user
friendly for the trainers. This process assures the development of
consistent facilitator guides that are critical for trainer use and DOE
and contractor review.

### International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) 

National Hazmat Program DOE Progress Report

This year the IUOE has been working closely with DOE contractors to
assure that the most appropriate quality training is provided to the
customer. This past year has seen several strategic transitions take
place at the DOE sites. These transitions have included the recent
changes in contract awards such as BNFL at the Oak Ridge, Tennessee
location. This situation and the respective training needs of this
contractor were speculated during the previous year\'s application. The
late award and subsequent transition had taken longer than anticipated.
However, since that time ,great strides in the provision of that
training has been made.

The IUOE has worked closely with Fluor-Daniel Hanford to create a new
\"climate\" for worker learning. This project, in particular,
illustrates the cooperative effort by this organization to be
responsive, as well as responsible, to the needs identified by the
customer. In this situation, the customer, in cooperation with the local
field office and this organization, identified the critical need to
provide additional respiratory protection training. This was identified
through lessons learned and other health and safety analysis performed
at the site. Therefore, in response to this need the IUOE mobilized
efforts and the appropriate subject matter experts to work with the
customer, and the field office, to further identify the problem, develop
specific knowledge and performance based objectives. A curriculum was
developed for the subject matter based upon the assumptions stated in
the developed objectives.

The IUOE assisted in the development of a model \"pilot\" course that
was then delivered to a gathering of subject matter experts that
accounted for representation of all customer, partner, and regulators
needs at the Hanford site. The program was deemed an overwhelming
success as this \"pilot\" was even further developed to meet the needs
of the above mentioned individuals. A second pilot was then provided by
the IUOE which has since been adopted and is currently up and running.
This is a crown jewel of what can be developed with true cooperation
between organizations. The IUOE has also been responsible for the
provision of the train-the-trainer program for this particular subject
matter area. In other words---anyone who will provide this training must
first attend, and successfully complete, a course of instruction offered
by the IUOE prior to delivery of this criterion to identified
individuals at the Hanford site.

This is just another example of how the IUOE cooperates with the
contractor/customer to provide quality-training opportunities to workers
in the DOE arena. This scenario is repeated at most every DOE site
within the complex.

The IUOE has also put forth an aggressive effort to assure that
Radiological Worker Training meets and exceeds the needs indicated by
contractors at Oak Ridge, Weldon Springs, and at the Savannah River
Site. Subject matter experts have met with respective site
representatives and DOE officials to assure that quality training is
provided to their work force in a manner that is complimentary to their
particular mission.

For the year to date, 2,034 workers have been trained by our program,
with an estimated 205 workers to be trained in the remaining two months
of this program year.

Utilizing the IUOE's network of local union training instructors**,**
DOE classes are coordinated by the staff in Beckley and Oak Ridge and
are closely linked to cleanup jobs. Training equipment, training
materials and supplies are sent from Beckley to local union training
programs or DOE facilities.

**Move to New Facility**

As of December, 1997, the combined IUOE programs have moved into the new
state-of-the-art training and testing facility located adjacent to the
MSHA Training Academy in Beaver, West Virginia. The DOE Technology
Assessment Cooperative Agreement funded the construction of the new IUOE
facility which consists of three buildings for administration;
technology testing and training; and equipment storage, printing and
distribution

**Trainee Effectiveness Data**

Participants are administered a pre- and post-test. The pre- test is
intended to assess the knowledge possessed by the participant prior to
the application of the training. The post-test is administered to
contrast and compare with the results of the previously administered
subject matter areas. This will provide the basis for any modification
of the training program as to better support the participant in their
elevation of knowledge in the respective subject. This will also provide
a basis for the instructor to modify their teaching techniques and
therefore provide the curricula in a more useful manner.

Performance evaluations allow the instructor to assess the practical
skills of the participant that will prove critical in the execution of
their work to be performed at hazardous waste sites. This also provides
a basis for the participant to know what is expected of them for
assessment during the practical exercises. This will allow them to
direct their attention accordingly as well as prepare for application to
actual work scenarios.

The attached captioned tests have been designated as standard operating
procedure for the administration of hazardous waste worker training
programs that will be delivered from an effective date of July 1, 1998
and extend until otherwise revised. This information shall be submitted
to the National HAZMAT Program along with the currently required
reporting procedures. This information shall be tabulated to assess
program effectiveness and serve as an integral apart of the analysis
process for further program revision and improvement.

**Impact of Hazardous Waste Training**

A pilot program has been instituted at one of our local training sites
for the collection of **the impact of hazardous waste training on the
worker in their respective work**. This particular program consists of a
simple questionnaire during hazardous waste refresher training programs.
The assessed information identifies which participants have been engaged
in work at hazardous waste sites since their initial training program or
since their last refresher training program. The participants are
queried as to what hazardous materials they have been working with,
their level of protection provided and utilized, and information as to
any possible exposure.

This pilot program also assesses the hazardous materials that workers at
non- hazardous waste sites have been exposed to. This allows for the
participant to respond accordingly as to what chemical exposure may have
occurred or to what impact the hazardous materials training has had upon
them and their actions in such situations.

It has become apparent, as a result of this inquiry, that workers are
exposed, or potentially exposed, to a wide range of hazardous substances
during work performed at non- hazardous waste sites. Considering this
potential impact on worker safety and health this program shall be
requiring that this instrument be administered for all upcoming
hazardous waste refresher-training classes until otherwise notified.
This will not only provide a basis for the instructor to better address
and facilitate the needs of their program participants but for this
office to collect data that will be useful in the analysis of overall
program effectiveness in reaching those impacted by hazardous waste
training who are not necessarily working at hazardous waste sites. This
will also allow for more guided assumptions to be made regarding the
minimum criteria for hazardous waste refresher training topical areas
and other pertinent criteria.

**Literacy Issues**

This program has been cognizant of the need to provide user-friendly
materials for program participants for a number of years. Working under
the assumption (provided to participants at NIEHS Literacy Workshops)
that graduates of four-year, non-technical degree programs are reading
at or about the eighth (8^th^) grade level, this organization has
addressed this particular issue to better facilitate the needs of the
target population. This has been done by assuring that all participant
materials have been adjusted to reflect a high sixth (6^th^) grade
level. This provides a more even playing field for those who need to
know technical information in a format that will allow them to read and
then place the written materials into a context that will be beneficial
to them in their assignments of work at hazardous waste sites as well as
locations not designated as such, but where the possibility of coming
into contact with these materials may exist---a situation that our
target population members encounter on a not infrequent basis.

**Special Programs Update**

This program has been a significant partner with Fluor-Daniel Hanford in
the identification, development and implementation of a respiratory
protection-training program that has been made mandatory for all site
personnel who are required to utilize respiratory protection. This site
specific program for all Hanford workers is very dynamic in the fact
that participants are placed into small learning groups where more
individualized attention is afforded to the participants and therefore
critical knowledge and performance subject matter areas may be readily
addressed. This assures individuals attending these programs are
prepared to a necessary and sufficient level of training and performance
prior to work assignments as well as refreshed to assure compliance with
any significant changes in policy and procedures that would otherwise
effect their health and well being.

This program was not only a significant player in the development of
that draft curriculum but was selected by the customer, Fluor-Daniel
Hanford, to present the initial pilot program as well as the
subsequently revised program currently in use today. It is also of great
significance to note that the customer assigned this organization to
instruct a train-the-trainer program for this particular subject matter
area. Therefore, *all individuals utilized to currently instruct the
respiratory protection curriculum have attended programs facilitated by
IUOE members.*

**Advisory Board Activities**

This organization has utilized a cadre instructors from across the
country to provide critical input to current programs as well as to
provide information as to the development of programs specifically
identified that impact the individuals that serve as the target audience
for the training delivered.

Current programs are discussed regarding their relevance to our target
population. Information regarding the updating of curricula and related
materials is foremost in these deliberations. The addition of new
regulatory compliance issues and the complimentary deletion of outdated
criteria are performed. The development of additional subject matter
areas that have been identified as critical is initiated/performed to
provide the optimum level of protection so program participants remain
the most safe, productive, and profitable for their respective
employers. This cadre of master instructors has also been instrumental
in specifying and developing master instructor refresher curricula.

The attached minutes reflect the discussion of the meeting held on
December 11-12, 1997 in Beckley, WV.

**Instructor Support**

Instructional personnel are supported through annual refresher training,
update packets, teleconference/electronic consultation, college credit
programs, and instructor supplement support. Annual refresher training
provides the primary platform where instructors are refreshed on
critical subject matter areas as well as brought up to date on newly
emerging regulations, tools, techniques, and innovations as they relate
to the safety and health of hazardous waste workers.

Some of the subject matter areas have changed very little over the
years. Although little change has occurred, it is of great importance
that refreshment in these areas is undertaken to assure that compliance
is maintained and augmented as appropriate. Refresher is designed to do
just that---refresh. Over the years, \"new\" interpretations of \"old\"
subject matter areas may provide a totally new view as to the intent and
significance of a specific subject.

Subject matter areas are also prone to change due to revisions in their
specific government regulations. This is most often driven by the
results of research and response to actual or simulated field
conditions. Many times when regulations and accompanying procedures are
initially drafted very little may be fully realized about the entire
span of their effects and consequences. Therefore, as time goes by, more
is understood and the appropriate revisions are eventually made based on
trends seen by those who work within these areas, as well as by
statistical analysis of the situation.

Update Packets

Even though current instructors are brought back for annual refreshers,
items such as regulatory guidance and tools techniques, and innovations
may be released just shortly *after* the refresher training has been
completed. This essentially means that an individual may go for an
entire year before updating takes place. This is a very unhealthy
thought process due to our commitment to arm instructors with the most
up-to-date information to fire from their arsenal of facts and related
training activities.

Therefore, the development, compilation, and distribution of master
instructor update packets has been implemented to provide this necessary
information in a more timely manner. Information regarding revisions to
current regulations, procedures, tools, techniques, and innovations are
distributed to instructors on a quarterly basis as the information is
necessary. Subsequent classroom instruction may be offered at the time
of the next respective annual refresher as necessary to assure that the
subject matter is implemented and a thorough understanding of the
materials is realized.

**Teleconferencing/Electronic Assistance**

During the course of the year, between the times of annual refreshers,
questions arise through the instructor\'s independent study or posed by
participants when initial and site worker refresher training programs
are conducted. The IUOE stresses the need for instructors to provide
feedback to program participants in a timely fashion and most
importantly---accurately. Whereas, our cadre of instructors are well
armed to provide a vast amount of knowledge regarding a broad subject
spectrum it is not possible to answer all of the questions all of the
time.

The Training Department provides support to instructors by providing
technical information and/or interpretations requested by instructors at
the local unions. This program has been an overwhelming success as well
as a valuable asset to instructors. Many of the requests are to simply
to confirm what the instructor already knows, but wants to be sure what
they are sharing with program participants is the most current. Recent
changes to 29CFR 1910.134- Respiratory Protection- has accounted for the
majority of the requests in recent months. A close second has been
information regarding silica/silicosis and followed by asphalt fumes,
diesel exhaust, and chemical specific information respectively. Queries
are answered and reinforced by the transmission of documentation for
further reference and distribution to affected parties. In particular,
this transmitted information often becomes a handout for the classroom.
It has also come to our attention that the *highest incidence of these
requests originate during the presentation of annual refresher
training*. It is evident that program participants who have undergone
initial training and have subsequently returned for annual refresher
training are responsible for the majority of the inquiries. Many times
it is due to their potential/real exposure that stimulates their need to
know how they, or their family, may be adversely affected. Immediate
responses to these questions enhances the field instructors rapport with
participants in their respective programs as their questions posed to
the instructor are apparently important enough for the instructor to
take the time to seek further technical information that is accompanied
by supportive reference. The instructor also has added confidence in as
far as knowing that their inquiry will be addressed quickly and
accurately.

**College Credit**

The IUOE has worked aggressively with several colleges and universities
around the country to provide programs of professional development that
have augmented the knowledge and skills of our instructors. Many
instructors have enrolled in college credit programs and have obtained
degrees in subject matter areas that are relevant to their mission of
providing quality training. Inquiry from institutions of higher learning
has been processed that has aided instructors in the award of college
credit from their life long learning experiences coupled with their
participation in instructor training programs offered through the IUOE.

**Subject Matter Expert Supplemental Support**

Although current master instructors go back to their local unions with a
great wealth of information and skills in a wide variety of subject
matter areas, one person is only capable of retaining, or even
specializing in, only so many subject matter areas. Support is available
not only by teleconferencing/electronically connected means---actual
assignment of instructional personnel possessing specific subject matter
expertise may be dispatched to augment training programs needing
specialized attention. This may include, but not be limited to, the
following: chemical process safety management ,specialized radiological
concerns, and critical emergency response issues.

**Attendance at NIEHS-sponsored workshops**

Representatives from IUOE attended NIEHS-sponsored workshops in April
1998 in New Orleans, LA , and Oak Ridge, TN in June 1998.

**Advocating the Need for Training**

This program continues to promote the need for training to agencies,
contractors, and others. A recent high-profile example of Congressional
support for emergency response training occurred following a June 20,
1998 train derailment which caused a chemical spill near Huntington,
West Virginia dumping about 30,000 gallons of formaldehyde along the
train route. The spill forced about 500 people in a one-mile radius to
evacuate their homes, with approximately a dozen people being taken to
hospitals for breathing difficulties

**Trainee Follow Up**

This program coordinates closely with IUOE International, local union
staff and contractors to place trained members in DOE, EPA, DOD, state
and private hazmat cleanup jobs. The program continues to utilize Dodge
On-Line to track the phasing of hazmat jobs. An extensive notification
system is in place to alert affected local unions and contractors of
hazmat job opportunities.

**Curricula Updates**

*Biosafety* -- Describes contagious illnesses of concern to operating
engineers, including: waterborne diseases (giardiasis, salmonella,
shigella, e. coli, hepatitis A, cholera), airborne diseases
(Legionnaires' disease, tuberculosis, psittacosis, cryptococcoses,
histoplasmosis, coccidiomycoses), and diseases spread by animals and
ticks (Lyme disease, rabies). An Instructor's Manual provides
supplemental information.

*Bloodborne Pathogens* - Covers terminology, identification of two most
significant bloodborne pathogens, (AIDS and hepatitis B), incidence,
transmission, treatment, and responsibilities of employers as detailed
by 29 CFR 1010.1030

*Cold Stress* -- Covers how the body loses heat; signs, symptoms, and
first aid for mild, moderate, and severe hypothermia; cold injuries; and
prevention of cold stress. An Instructor's Manual provides supplemental
information.

*Hazard Communication* -- Covers all sections of 29 CFR 1910.1200 and 29
CFR 1926.59: purpose, scope and application, definitions, hazard
determination, written hazard communication programs, labels, MSDS's,
employee training and information, and trade secrets.

*Hazard Waste Operations and Emergency Response* -- Covers all sections
of 29 CFR 1910.120: scope, application, definitions, safety and health,
site characterization, training, medical surveillance, engineering,
drums and containers, decontamination, and emergency response.

*Heat Stress* -- Covers the body's normal cooling mechanisms, signs and
symptoms of heat-related illnesses, evaluating the risk of heat stress,
and controlling heat stress. An Instructor's Manual provides
supplemental information. The role of PPE in adding to heat stress is
discussed.

*New OSHA Respiratory Protection Standard 29 CFR 1910.134* -- Outlines
the regulation which became effective 4-8-98, and for which compliance
is mandatory 10-5-98. Sections include: permissible practices;
definitions; respiratory protection programs; selection of respirators;
medical evaluation; fit testing; use of respirators; maintenance and
care of respirators; breathing air quality; identification of filters,
cartridges, and canisters; training and information; program evaluation;
recordkeeping; dates; and appendices. This presentation is geared for
master instructors who need an in-depth understanding of the new law.

*Understanding Material Safety Data Sheets* -- Explains MSDS's,
including: product information, hazardous components, physical data,
fire and explosion data, health hazard data, reactivity data, and safe
use and handling.

Videos

*Cold Stress* - An overview of the body\'s warming mechanisms and the
hazards of hypothermia and cold injuries.

*Confined Space* - The hazards and protocol for entry into
permit-required confined spaces.

*Emergency Response* **-** An overview of the nature of emergencies at
hazardous waste facilities, collateral duties, and the incident command
system.

*Hazard Communication* **-** An introduction to the legally acceptable
means of communicating hazards in the workplace to employees.

*Heat Stress* **-** An overview of the body\'s cooling mechanisms, heat
stress signs and symptoms, and the importance of prompt treatment.

*Introduction to Government Regulations* **-** A brief view of the
history of occupational safety and health legislation, and the agencies
involved in this area today.

*Lead* **-** An introduction to the uses and hazards of lead, and the
importance of protection from lead exposure in the workplace.

*Noise* **-** An introduction to the structure and function of the ear,
noise-induced hearing loss, and hearing protection devices.

*Radiation* **-** An overview of atomic structure, background and
man-made radiation, radiation detection devices, and radiation in the
workplace.

*Solvents* **-** An overview of the uses of organic solvents, their
hazards, and protection from solvents in the workplace.

.

**FY 99 IUOE DOE Training Plan**

The training plan for fiscal year 1999 will reflect the response of the
IUOE to the needs identified and anticipated from DOE contractors. The
IUOE has a long-standing track record of providing responsible responses
to the specific needs of the customer. This budget year should be no
different. The IUOE will coordinate initial, refresher, supervisory, and
all other requested training, such as radiological worker, confined
space attendant, entrant, rescue, and others that are provided to the
customer. This shall include all aspects of curricula development
presentation and evaluation of programs and responsible personnel.

The Beckley staff will be directed by the administrator and will
maintain close communication with he principal investigator. The IUOE
staff will oversee and duly direct all aspects of the delivery of
quality training and associated support of instructors and
accommodations to the customer requests. The training director will also
serve as lead instructor for all train the trainer activities, both
initial and refresher. All curricula presented to instructors will be a
reflection of guidance documents developed specifically through the DOE
for such purposes, as well as regulatory drivers that shall include, but
not be limited to the following: 29 CFR 1910.120, 134, 132, 146, 147,
etc.

Radiological worker training requests have greatly increased and are
anticipated to increase further due to the dynamics of recently revealed
projects that will incur greater numbers of workers and supervisors who
will need required training. Projects at Savannah River, regarding the
tritium facility, and the re-starting of activities in uranium
enrichment at Oak Ridge Y-12. Training has already increased at the
above-mentioned location. A specific memorandum of understanding between
the IUOE and Bechtel Savannah River has already been signed.

The program currently projects that approximately 1800 will be refreshed
and 600 Operating Engineers will be trained and certified for work in
DOE environmental restoration and waste management. This projection is
based on the availability of cleanup funding and the current demand for
heavy equipment operators and mechanics.

The Beckley staff will continue to modify curricula, training materials,
and aids. A master instructor committee will continue to review and
comment on draft copies with the modified curricula introduced at the
instructor refresher classes in Beckley with subsequent implementation
at the local union level.

The Beckley staff and master instructors will continue the refinement
and implementation of pre-and post-test questionnaires to evaluate the
effectiveness of training delivery.

### United Brotherhood of Carpenters Health & Safety Fund:

DOE Training SUMMARY

The Construction Consortium for DOE Hazardous Waste Training, under the
stewardship of the UBC Health & Safety Fund, includes the Ironworkers,
Sheet Metal Workers, Painters, Roofers, Asbestos Workers, Plasterers and
Cement Masons, and Boilermakers. Training was delivered at eleven DOE
sites during the current grant year. Seventy-six hazardous waste
refreshers and fourteen 40-hour site worker courses were conducted in
the first nine months of the current grant year. In addition to these
hazardous waste classes, the Construction Consortium has conducted lead
and asbestos abatement courses and refreshers, hazard communication /
MSDS courses, and confined space classes. In the next grant year, the
Consortium plans to continue training workers needed for the cleanup
effort throughout the DOE former weapons complex. In addition, the
Consortium plans to expend new efforts to reach out to the new
contractors who are assuming a growing share of the environmental
cleanup workload at DOE sites.

The Construction Consortium for DOE Hazardous Waste Training, under the
stewardship of the UBC Health & Safety Fund, includes the Ironworkers,
Sheet Metal Workers, Painters, Roofers, Asbestos Workers, Plasterers and
Cement Masons, and Boilermakers. A major advantage of this Consortium is
that it provides a structure by which health and safety training for
hazardous waste activities can be taught in a multi-trade setting which
is representative of construction and hazardous waste work at DOE sites.

As of May 31,1998, the UBC Health & Safety Fund has conducted seven
40-hour site worker courses, with three more scheduled, for a projected
total of ten courses. This compares to our goal of only seven courses
for the grant year. In addition, the class size of these courses has
been larger than we had anticipated. We had projected reaching only 122
students with 40-hour Hazwoper training this grant year, and in fact we
have already reached 162. If attendance continues at the present rate,
we will exceed our goal for number of students in 40-hour courses by
90%. The largest factor in this increase in demand for 40-hour training
is the emergence of BNFL as a major contractor for the cleanup of the
K-25 site in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

We have also exceeded our projected goals for confined space training
and for MSDS / hazard communication training by significant margins
already this year. This, too, is attributable to our relationship with
BNFL in Oak Ridge.

The UBC Health & Safety Fund had proposed conducting 70 hazardous waste
refreshers. This would have been a substantial increase over our
performance the previous year. As of May 31, 41 refreshers had been
conducted. Six additional refresher courses are scheduled between June 1
and August 31, 1997, so that we appear to be on track to reach only 67%
of the projected refresher training classes. The primary reasons for
this shortfall in refresher training appear to be a reduction in demand
for training through the Hammer facility in Richland, Washington; and a
reduction in demand for refresher training from M&O and M&I contractors
at the Oak Ridge site. We have discussed the trend at Hammer with
management there, and expect to see a change in that pattern in the near
future. Another very important factor is that the classes we have
conducted are averaging about 18% larger than expected. So while we have
only done about 59% of the number of classes (as of May 31), we have
trained 69% of our goal in terms of the number of students, in 75% of
the allotted time. --So in fact we are very close to being on-pace with
our refresher training.

In our progress report for the previous grant year, we noted that we had
been approached by the HAMMER program at Hanford, Washington to help
provide Radiological Worker II training; and that we had had similar
discussions with Bechtel Savannah River. In response to these
discussions, we had conducted a Radiological Worker II train-the-trainer
at Fernald in April, 1997. By the time (late June, 1997) we were
preparing our training goals for the current grant year, we had already
begun to discount the level at which we expected the demand for these
courses to materialize, and therefore set a very modest goal of two
Radiological Worker II courses. Even this demand was not realized.

Following is a list of all other courses proposed and conducted by the
UBC Health & Safety Fund under the DOE grant:

[]{.mark}

[Course Proposed]{.underline} [Conducted]{.underline} [%
Accomplished]{.underline}

Haz waste worker 7 7 100

Haz waste refresher 70 41 59

Asbestos abatement 1 0 0

Asbestos refresher 1 5 500

Confined space 1 3 300

Lead abatement 1 1 100

Construction safety 7 0 0

Radworker 2 0 0

Lead refresher 0 1

The Ironworkers are on pace to meet their training projections for
40-hour hazardous waste worker courses, and to significantly exceed
their projections for hazardous waste refresher courses. The Ironworkers
had planned to conduct six 40-hour courses, and have already conducted
four by May 31, 1997. They planned to conduct 30 refreshers, and have
already conducted 34. The Ironworkers have conducted all four of the
four planned 32-hour lead worker abatement courses. The Ironworkers are
planning a trainer refresher before August 31.

The other consortium members are generally behind schedule in meeting
their expected DOE worker training targets. The Asbestos Workers, with
one 40-hour hazardous waste worker course, one asbestos worker course,
one lead abatement worker course, and one lead abatement worker
refresher, are further along than the other Consortium members. The
Boilermakers got a late start because of the train-the-trainer courses
occurring so late in the grant year.

Training was conducted at the following DOE sites: Hanford, Oak Ridge,
INEEL, Fernald, Grand Junction, Rocky Flats, Portsmouth, Paducah, Los
Alamos, Argonne East, and Santa Susanna.

In June, 1998 the UBC Health & Safety Fund conducted two
train-the-trainer courses: one in Whittier, California, and one in
Atlanta, Georgia. These both served a mix of trainers destined to teach
in connection with DOE and non-DOE courses. An earlier
train-the-trainer, originally scheduled for November, 1997 to
accommodate the Boilermakers as the new partner in the Consortium, was
canceled because the Boilermakers trainers were not ready.

In late June / early July, 1998, the Consortium will conduct an
in-service training session for experienced DOE trainers. The main
topics will be scaffold safety, OSHA's new respirator standard, and
beryllium. DOE-EH staff have agreed to teach the session on beryllium.

As we reported last year, we were encouraged by DOE-EH to participate in
DOE\'s then-new Training Improvement Partnership Program. We understood
that our Consortium, along with MK-Ferguson Company of Oak Ridge, had
been accepted into the Partnership, using Oak Ridge as our site. UBC
Health & Safety Fund staff traveled to Oak Ridge with Roy Gibbs, Special
Assistant to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Worker Health and
Safety, DOE, to further this effort. We met with two DOE Deputy Site
Managers as well as with contractor personnel. While those meetings were
very positive, our efforts to follow up have not been very fruitful; and
we have heard very little about the overall TIP program in recent
months.

**[Trainee Characteristics]{.underline}**

Demographic information on trainees is compiled and analyzed by the
University of Kentucky\'s Behavioral Research Aspects of Safety and
Health Group (BRASH), based on course registration forms filled out by
each trainee.

Compared to persons trained during the previous grant year, we can see
that this year's trainees are:

1.  A little more highly educated

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  A little more female

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  A little older

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Less likely to be employed at the time they took the training

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  More experienced in dealing with hazardous materials

Demographics of course trainees appear below.

FY 1997 NIEHS DOE Training Summary

Demographic Information

UBC Construction Consortium for Hazardous Waste Training

**Gender**

 Female 9.6%

 Male 90.4%

**Education**

 8th Grade or less .7%

 Some high school 2.1%

 High school graduate/GED 23.6%

 Some college or technical school 30.4%

 Technical school graduate 9.6%

 College graduate 24.3%

 More than a college degree 9.4%

**Primary Language**

 English 99.7%

 Spanish .2%

 Other .1%

**Age**

 21-29 9.9%

 30-39 25.5%

 40-49 41.8%

 50-60 20.8%

 \>60 2.2%

**Currently Employed**

 Yes 73.9%

 No 26.1%

**Race**

1.  White 86.9%

 Black 2.3%

 Hispanic 3.7%

 Native American 5.0%

 Asian/Asian American .9%

 Other 1.2%

**Prior H & S Training**

 Yes 92.1%

 No 7.9%

**Type of Employer**

 Private Company 97.9%

 Local/County Government 2.1%

**Hazardous Materials Experience**

 None 16.4%

 Less than one year 11.8%

 More than one year 71.8%

**[Training Minorities]{.underline}**

Minorities comprised 13% of training participants in DOE classes,
significantly less than in the Consortium\'s EPA training. The race and
gender makeup of our DOE audience is determined by the demographics of
the DOE sites at which we conduct training. This is especially true of
refresher training, in which our students are selected primarily by the
DOE contractors with whom we cooperate.

**[Trainee Performance]{.underline}**

The Construction Consortium administers pre-and post-training tests to
evaluate how effectively our programs teach the required material. The
test results, compiled and analyzed by the University of Kentucky /
BRASH, clearly indicate that trainees come away with significantly more
knowledge than they had before taking the hazardous waste program.
Trainees in DOE 40-hour classes improved an average of 32 points from
pre- to post- test. This is slightly lower than the average improvement
(36) in our EPA classes.

Surprisingly, DOE participants score only about 7 percentage points
higher on the pre-test than do participants in our EPA 40-hour classes--
despite the fact that a much higher percentage (92% v. 69%) of DOE
participants report having had prior occupational health and safety
training, and a much higher percentage of DOE participants (84% v. 53%)
report having previous experience in dealing with hazardous materials.

In addition to written testing, trainees are evaluated during hands-on
activities. All trainees are expected to be able to inspect and don
respirators and protective clothing, perform appropriately in a mock
hazardous waste exercise, and proceed properly through a decontamination
line. Check lists document that these activities were performed during
the final site simulation exercise.

Lead and asbestos abatement courses have a skills-based test in addition
to written exams. Trainees' hands-on work practices are graded
individually by instructors. This required testing takes place after
participants have performed the work practices as a group under
instructor guidance.

**Training Effectiveness**

At the Consortium's Hazardous Waste Advisory Committee meeting in March,
1998, David Blackburn of the University of Kentucky presented findings
from a followup study of 470 trainees who participated in refresher
training under both the DOE and EPA funding in 1996-97. Among his key
findings:

1.  The consortium's training is producing workers who utilize
    information resources and engage in proper work practices.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  The trained workers are acting as change agents to make their work
    environments safer.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Trainees used their safety and health skills and awareness off the
    job as well as at work.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Workers seeking to implement change in the workplace generally met
    with success.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Two-thirds reported talking with co-workers about changes they can
    make to perform their jobs more safely.

BRASH / University of Kentucky also tracks the "Level 1\" evaluations
completed by course participants as well as the participant performance
on pre-and post-tests of knowledge. At our Advisory Committee meeting in
March, 1998, Mr. Blackburn presented the compiled findings for each
grant year, 1992-1997, relating to the 40-hour hazardous waste worker,
8-hour refresher, and 16-hour confined space training courses. This
information is broken out according to whether the courses were "EPA" or
"DOE".

## Literacy Issues

There were no new literacy issues raised during the current grant year.

**Special Requests**

It will be noted that we have done more Confined Space training than
anticipated, and have done Hazard Communication / MSDS training that
really had not been anticipated a year ago. The reason is that these
training courses were specifically requested by BNFL to prepare workers
for their cleanup activities at the East Tennessee Technology Park
(formerly the K-25 site at Oak Ridge, Tennessee). In meeting this
contractor's needs, the UBC Health & Safety Fund worked with the
contractor's training staff to save a day from the training schedule by
eliminating redundant information covered by the hazardous waste, hazard
communication, and confined space training.

## 

**Curricula development**

**40-hour Site Worker Manual**

Our project continues to revise the Midwest Consortium Site Worker
Manual to enhance its readability, improve its relevance to the work
performed by our target audience, and increase the number of
illustrations. These changes are intended to improve the overall utility
of the manual as a tool for effective hazardous waste worker training
for construction workers.

The manual is also being modified to include a more extensive section on
radiation, in compliance with DOE TRADE recommendations. We believe this
helps trainees at both Superfund and DOE sites by making them more aware
of possible radiological hazards. We are striving to get the final
revised version completed and printed before the end of this grant year.
We will of course forward this to the Clearinghouse as soon as it is
printed.

**8-hour Refresher Course**

The Midwest Consortium has recently completed a revision of their
student manual for hazardous waste refresher training. The UBC Health &
Safety Fund and most consortium partners have used the "old" version of
this manual since the beginning of this "DOE grant." The revised version
is currently under review by Fund staff. We anticipate having this
printed and in circulation before the end of this grant year

Each year, the Construction Consortium adapts the Midwest Consortium's
new refresher small group activity. This year's scenario, "Brunswick
Maintenance Facility", incorporates radiological hazards for the first
time, in addition to chemical hazards. This was done at the specific
recommendation of DOE contractor representatives. The first draft was
authored by David Blackburn of the University of Kentucky, and evolved
with input from Emil Lippert of the UBC Health & Safety Fund and others,
including in particular Mr. Greg Zigulis, Safety and Health Manager,
MK-Ferguson Company of Oak Ridge. A copy of this scenario has been sent
to the Clearinghouse.

**Advisory Board Activities**

The DOE project shares its Advisory Committee with the \"EPA Superfund\"
Hazardous Waste Worker project. The Advisory Committee held its annual
meeting in Palm Springs, California, and March 7, 1998. This year's
meeting included three new DOE contractor representatives: John Brock,
Labor Relations Manager, Bechtel Jacobs, Richard Coe, Director of
Training, Fluor Daniels Hanford, and Grahame Codd, Project Manager,
BNFL. Also attending and presenting at the 1998 meeting was C. Rick
Jones, Director, Office of Worker Protection Programs and Hazards
Management, U. S. Department of Energy. The minutes of that meeting are
found in Appendix C.

In addition to the Hazardous Waste Advisory Committee, the UBC Health &
Safety Fund maintains a separate Site Leaders Advisory Committee,
consisting of leaders of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters local and
regional affiliates servicing key Department of Energy sites. Members of
this Committee currently are:

C. Steve Crumley, representing INEL

Richard Garretson, Business Representative, UBC Local 2403, representing
Hanford

Mike Kuberski, Executive Secretary-Treasurer, Rocky Mountain Regional
Council,

representing Rocky Flats

Dan Maples, President, Knoxville Building Trades Council, representing
Oak Ridge

Cliff Kahle, Senior Business Representative, representing

the Nevada Test Site

Larry Phillips, representing Savannah River

The Committee met twice during the current grant year: once in
California, and once Virginia. During the California meeting, the
Committee heard a presentation on beryllium concerns in environmental
cleanup from C. Rick Jones of DOE-EH, and a presentation on BNFL's plans
for future work in the DOE complex from Grahame Codd of BNFL. The
Committee\'s advice continues to be very important to project staff in
understanding and planning for near-term developments in demand for
training, and in helping project staff to deal effectively with site
contractor representatives to meet their training needs efficiently.

**Trainee Follow Up**

The largest number of participants in Consortium courses associated with
DOE sites across the nation are found in our refresher training. They
are being refreshed in order to be allowed to pursue their work at that
particular DOE site for another year. The sites where the most training
takes place under this grant project are Oak Ridge, Tennessee and
Hanford, Washington.

Most participants in Consortium training courses at Oak Ridge are
employees of:

-   MK-Ferguson Company of Oak Ridge

1.  Lockheed Martin Energy Systems

2.  Lockheed Martin Energy Research

3.  BNFL

4.  ATI

5.  other contractors active at the Oak Ridge sites.

As the table below will show, we train employees of other entities as
well at Oak Ridge\-- including employees of the Department of Energy.

At Hanford, we have trained in the last year, employees of:

1.  Fluor Daniels Hanford

2.  Fluor Daniels Northwest (a separate company)

3.  Babcock-Wilcox Hanford

4.  Lockheed Martin Hanford

5.  Battelle Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

6.  U. S. Department of Energy

7.  Bechtel Hanford

8.  Babcock & Wilcox Hanford

9.  Waste Management Hanford

10. CH2M Hill

11. Washington State Dept. of Ecology

12. and others.

Our best source of information about information about the types of work
done by our trainees is that which is reported by students in UBC
refresher courses. The following is a sampling of the information
reported through this method, in DOE refresher training during the
current grant year at Hanford and Oak Ridge:

**[Contractor]{.underline} [Site, location]{.underline}
[Work]{.underline}**

**Oak Ridge:**

LMES Y-12 Decontamination

LMES Y-12 Pipefitting

LMES Tennessee State Superfund Project Manager

LMER ORNL Electrical Maintenance

LMES Y-12 Nuclear Facilities

LMES Y-12 Radiological Monitoring

LMES ETTP RCRA Closure

LMER ORNL Engineer

F.S Speery K-25 Tear out brick & reline

LMES K-1070 Mitchell Branch Project Manager

LMES TSCA Incinerator Incinerator repairs

LMER X-10 In-situ vitrification

LMER X-10 Cleanup

ORNL Waste Operator

DOE X-10 Supervision

DOE ETTP, Y-12, X-10 Oversight of maintenance program

LMES Y-12, Alpha-4 Cleanup

Lockheed Martin K-25 Transportation

ATI X-10 Dismantlement

ATI ETTP Pipefitter

LMES Welder

BNFL ETTP Laborer

Lockheed Martin K-25 Laborer

ATI K-25 Remove machinery

Johnson Controls Y-12 water treatment Satellite storage

MK-Ferguson Y-12, X-10, K-25 Carpenter

Lockheed Martin ETTP Drum yard sludge overpack, TSCA incinerator
shutdown

**Hanford:**

Bechtel Hanford 100 N area Haz Mat specialist /

waste shipper

CH2M Hill Sampling

Waste Management QA

Bechtel Hanford Pump & treat plants

Los Alamos Tech. Associates 200 Area tank farms Planning, scheduling,
coordination of waste related work

Lockheed Martin Hanford 200 West Work Planner

SESC Project Engineer

Fluor Daniels NW Engineer

Fluor Daniels NW Management

Waste Management Site characterization

DE&S Hanford K Basins Management observation of asbestos removal

Waste Management Hanford T Plant Cleanup engineering

FDH Millwright

Fluor Daniels 200 West Maintenance

Numatec Hanford Laboratory work

Lockheed Martin Safety Oversight

FDH WRAP Electrical

FDH T Plant

Bechtel Hanford ERDF Engineer

DOE Oversight

Battelle Tinker AFB, Okla. RI/FS, RA

State of WA-- Dept. of Ecology Oversight/sampling/

regulatory/ remediation

FDH Pipefitter

FDH Millwright

FDH Tank farms Tank sampling

FDH Carpenter

Bechtel 100N, 100C, 100F Electrical

FDH Pipefitter

Waste Management Administration

Bechtel Hanford 100 D Site remediation

Lockheed Martin Core sampling

FDH Insulator

BWHC Cleanup

Dyncorp Ironworker/Operator manager

FDH 200 E / East Tank Farms

Lockheed Martin Safety Engineer

Lockheed Martin Env. Restoration

FDH Electrician

FDH 200 W tank farms Carpenter

WMX Driller / sampler

DOE ERDF, 100 N Oversight

Bechtel Hanford 233-S D&D

SESC tank farms Field engineering

Waste Management Fed.

Services Hanford Team lead at TSD

Duke Engineering Management

Waste Management Hanford WRAP Engineer

Waste Management NW Waste management

FDH Characterization project Operations

FD Northwest Electrician

FDH East & West tank farms Electirician

Lockheed Martin Hanford Tank characterization

FD Northwest 300 Area Carpenter

FDH Tank farms Chemical monitoring

DOE Contractor oversight

FD NW 222 S Pipefitter / welder

FD NW 100 K W Lead paint removal

Bechtel Hanford QA auditing

FD NW 300, 400 areas Painter

**The Ironworkers report that trained members have obtained work at the
following DOE sites:**

MK-Ferguson, McCarthy Weldon Springs, MO Structural steel, metal

Bros., Specialized Iron buildings, fence erection, rebar (30)

Morrison, Knudsen, Babcock Mound, Ohio Reinforcing & Rigging(4)

& Wilcox, BW Technical,

Fryman & Kook

Missouri Valley Construction Pantex, Texas Structural (3)

Wise Construction, Security Fernald, Ohio Machinery installation,

Fence fencing, reinforcing slabs,

rods, footings (7)

Arrington Construction, INEEL, Idaho Rebar, steel erection,

Lockheed Martin, Idaho Iron, fence, rigging (30)

Continental Steel, Kiewit

Johnson Controls Los Alamos, NM Rebar, steel erection, demolition, fence
erection, rigging, fabrication (35)

MK-Ferguson, Oak Ridge, Tennessee Structural, rigging, rebar

Lockheed Martin, Davis (70)

Construction, Continental

Steel

Bechtel, Muns Steel, Savannah River Site, SC Rebar, rigging, fence

Erico Construction, erection, demolition (100)

Grays Construction

Bechtel, Fluor Daniels Hanford, Washington Reinforcing, structural,

Hanford, Fluor Daniels NW, fence erection, rigging,

Battelle, Rust Federal Services demolition (70)

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

## Instructor Support

The UBC Health & Safety Fund and its partners in the Construction
Consortium are very cognizant of the need to provide in-service training
to instructors who teach hazardous waste worker training. All District
Environmental Coordinators and Master Trainers working for the UBC
Health & Safety Fund attended the UBC Health, Safety and Apprenticeship
Conference in Palm Springs, California in March, 1998. These instructors
participated as both workshop speakers and participants. Many local
trainers who train for the Fund under this grant also attended. All
instructors attended plenary sessions and workshops that provided them
with new information on developments in health and safety. These help to
broaden their knowledge and help make them stronger teachers of
occupational health and safety courses.

The UBC Health & Safety Fund will host, on June 20-July 2, 1998, an
in-service training session for DOE instructors from all of the
consortium partners at the Maritime Institute of Technology and Graduate
Studies in Linthicum, Maryland. This will include instructor training on
scaffold user safety, update on the new OSHA respirator standard, and
training on hazards of beryllium exposure in environmental restoration
work at DOE sites.

The UBC Health & Safety Fund staff instructors also participated in a
two-day course on presentation skills in September, 1997.

In addition, various trainers have received training in additional
subject matter areas, such as instructor training in fall protection,
ergonomics, OSHA 500 construction safety and health training, and other
courses. This training serves the dual purposes of broadening the
instructors\' range of teaching competencies, and also deepening their
expertise in occupational safety and health\-- thus making them
better-informed instructors.

Instructors employed by the other consortium partners attended
instructor workshops conducted by their national training organizations.
Virtually all Sheet Metal instructors attend their National Training
Fund's annual instructor training at Ohio State University. Virtually
all Ironworkers instructors attend the Ironworkers National Training
Fund\'s instructor conference at the University of California at San
Diego.

UBC instructors are evaluated at least once per year by outside experts
under contract to the UBC Health & Safety Fund. Marianne Brown, Director
of the Labor Occupational Safety and Health program at the University of
California at Los Angeles, coordinates this evaluation effort.
Instructors are evaluated on their presentation skills, relationship
with trainees, technical accuracy of information, and use of interactive
training techniques. The feedback that the trainers receive helps them
to see their strengths and weaknesses, as well as providing a valuable
quality control tool for the Fund.

During the current grant year, the UBC Health & Safety Fund has worked
with consultants from the Tulane University School of Public Health
(under our DOE grant) to develop and pilot test a new system for using
our District Coordinators to evaluate local instructors. We expect this
system to be completed and implemented during the next grant year.

The other consortium partners use somewhat different approaches to
evaluating the teaching of their instructors. The favored approach, by
the Painters and Ironworkers, for example, is conduct this observation
during practice teaching that instructors do during their annual
instructor conferences.

The UBC Health & Safety Fund continues to work with the BRASH program at
the University of Kentucky to conduct evaluation of our training based
on pre- and post-test scores and on written evaluations of classes by
participants.

**[Supplement Progress]{.underline}**

The Consortium's only supplement under this program was for the
Boilermakers to come into the Consortium and begin training as a
partner. Unfortunately, they were not ready for a train-the-trainer
early in the grant year. Several Boilermakers instructors took part in
train-the-trainers conducted in June, 1998 in Whittier, California and
in Atlanta, Georgia.

### Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union: 

### 

**1[) DOe Training Accomplishments]{.underline}**

In our previous grant year the OCAW provided training to all of our
seven targeted DOE sites. This represents 2226 workers for total of
21584 contact hours through May 31. Our projection is that by the end of
the grant year we will have trained 2226 employees for a total of 26464
contact hours. Included in these numbers are three 24 hour Hazardous
Waste and Emergency Response trainings for 65 employees at the Los
Alamos National Laboratory, representing 1560 contact hours.

Our training numbers have remained what we had anticipated they would
be, even with a lot of uncertainty with contractor changes at Oak Ridge,
Mound Laboratories, Hanford, Brookhaven National Laboratories, and the
Paducah and Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion plants.

We completely revised our 8 hour refresher workbook to include several
safety systems activities, introduction to logic tree diagramming, and
an appendix of where the objectives of 29CFR 1910.120 are covered in the
workbook. We held three 24-hour train the trainer sessions to ensure our
trainers were trained in the new materials. The last day of these
sessions was in actual training classes with workers.

This year, the following curricula were pilot tested: DOE Refresher and
Radiation Worker II.

**2) [TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS]{.underline}**

We evaluate the effectiveness of our training along four different
dimensions: 1) site-specific training needs; 2) trainer performance; 3)
trainee participation in and completion of learning activities; 4)
impact on work practices and engineering standards; and, changes or
attempted changes in safety systems flaws.

In order to gather useful information in these areas, we use a variety
of instruments and approaches.

## A. Site-Specific Training Needs

Local union officers and international union representatives are
consulted to assist us in identifying site-specific training
[needs]{.underline}. We also conduct a regular survey of our local
unions to determine what they think are the most important safety &
health issues they are facing. Courses are set up in response to these
identified needs.

In addition, we use an attendance form in each of our classes to help us
identify the job classification, previous safety & health training, and
demographic characteristics of each trainee. The information on this
form enables us to compare the perceived training needs as described by
union officers and staff with the actual needs as reported by the
trainees.

## B. Trainer Performance

An essential precondition for effective training is effective trainers.
We monitor trainer performance closely using both site visits and
Activity Evaluation forms that are completed by every trainee at the end
of each learning activity. In addition, we require trainers to critique
each other after each class presentation. These trainers engage in a
candid discussion about the class and make suggestions to each other
about ways to help them improve as trainers.

**C. Individual Trainee Performance**

The most effective training provides the greatest learning enhancement
to the largest number of individuals with the smallest expenditure of
time, effort, or other resources. We keep track of how well our training
is doing in this respect in two ways.

# 1. Worker-Trainer Oversight

The OCAW program relies entirely upon participatory, small group
learning activities. Our trainers monitor the progress of each
individual in a training session to ensure that there is universal
trainee participation and learning.

**2.** **Participant Self-Observation and Monitoring**

Moreover, the groups themselves, whose work is tightly structured by the
learning activities, work closely together and monitor their own
progress and the progress of each of their members. This self-monitoring
supplements the trainers\' oversight.

D.  **Measure Impact on Work Practices and Standards and**

**Changes or Attempted Changes in Safety Systems Flaws**

Finally, the bottom line of any training program is its [impact on work
practices and engineering standards]{.underline} in the workplace and
how much activism our trainees exhibit towards [changing or attempting
to change workplace safety systems flaws.]{.underline} This will be
measured by Focus Groups, 3 of which were held this year. No results are
currently available.

Following is an Executive Summary of the 1996-97 Impact Evaluation of
Hazardous Materials Training:

*Hazardous Materials Impact Evaluation, DOE Facilities Report*

*September 1996 - August 1997*

**Executive Summary**

This report evaluates NIEHS funded OCAW hazardous materials training
programs at Department of Energy (DOE) sites conducted during the
1996/1997 grant year. Self-reported observations of awareness, actions
and organizational change were collected from respondents who had
participated in OCAW training. Quantitative and qualitative data were
collected via telephone interviews conducted approximately six months
following training sessions. New Perspectives Consulting Group conducted
the evaluation as a subcontractor for the Labor Institute.

Participants were randomly selected from registration lists. Sixty
Impact Interviews were completed. Fifty-one were with workers from three
DOE facilities: three from Los Alamos in New Mexico, 20 from Hanford in
Washington, and 28 from Oak Ridge in Tennessee. Nine interviews were
conducted with managers at the Oak Ridge, Tennessee facility. Key
conclusions from these interviews follow.

**The training catalyzed action on health and safety concerns.** Almost
two-thirds (63.3%) of DOE evaluation participants said they were more
willing to raise workplace concerns after the training. While 20 percent
of those interviewed reported that they or their co-workers had raised
at least one health and safety concern with management as a result of
the OCAW training.

**Health and safety systems changes were made as a result of the
training.** Changes were made in response to over half (56.3%)of the
health and safety concerns raised by workers after the training.
Three-quarters (76.2%) of the reported management initiated changes were
attributed to the training. Almost half (48.4%) of the reported changes
were focused on changing health and safety systems. System changes
included: creating or revising standard operating procedures,
eliminating dangerous chemicals, and redesigning unsafe jobs.

**Workers felt better prepared to respond safely to emergencies.**
Almost all (95.0%) of the evaluation participants reported that they
believed they were better prepared to respond safely to an emergency
situation involving hazardous materials because of the OCAW training.
Over half (55.0%) felt they were "much better prepared."

**The training increased worker awareness and changed manager
attitudes.** Almost all (91.8%) of the workers and managers indicated
that they felt more aware of health and safety conditions because of the
OCAW training. In addition, almost half (45.0%) of those interviewed
felt that manager attitudes towards health and safety had also shifted
because of the training.

**Worker-trainers were preferred over professional trainers.** Almost
three-quarters (71.7%) of DOE workers and managers praised OCAW
worker-trainers. People felt more comfortable learning from their peers
and thought that worker-trainers were effective because they bring real
world knowledge to the training. Ten percent (10.0%) of the evaluation
participants volunteered that they valued the small group activity
method discussion and sharing of experiences among participants. Doing
practical exercises at the training helped participants learn to apply
new knowledge.

To strengthen future evaluations, we recommend two new protocols be
developed: a follow-up system to track down more specific details about
hazardous materials incidents or near misses, and a protocol that allows
for more specific questions about how health and safety concerns are
raised.

# Trainer Report Back

We also maintain regular contacts with local safety & health committees
at the various worksites where our program has been held, using the
Trainer Report Back Form and other reports to chart any steps that need
to be taken to correct problems and eliminate hazards identified in the
course of the training.

These contacts and reports provide the program with information about
specific changes that participants would like to see made at their
worksite, and helps us track the extent to which management has been
able to respond to these concerns.

The report back forms also provide us information about problems
trainers may have encountered during the class, including differences in
literacy levels and cultural or organizational barriers to either the
learning or to the translation of learning into impact.

Information gathered by these activities provides the data to address
the programs concerns in the following areas.

**a) Trainee Characteristics**

> Our attendance form collects information on each person attending one
> of our training sessions, including name, address, local union, age,
> sex, educational background, job classification (ten categories),
> previous safety & health training, and optional questions about ethnic
> identity.

**b) Training Minorities**

> During the past year, approximately 11.4% of the participants in the
> DOE trainings were ethnic minorities. 13.8% were women; 4.8% were
> African-American men; 8.5% were African-American women; 2.9% were
> Hispanic men; 1.5% were Hispanic women. 2.3% were American Indian or
> Alaskan native men and women; 1.0% were Asian or Pacific Islanders,
> and 21.5% fell under the category of other.

**c) Trainee Performance Data**

> As part of our program\'s educational philosophy and goals, every
> trainee in one of our classes is required to complete the required
> tasks in a given activity successfully before moving on to the next
> one. Each trainee is, in this way, \"tested,\" though we prefer to
> think of the learning process as a more cooperative undertaking and to
> stress the fact that trainees, by participating in the activity, learn
> together and are, in effect, \"tested\" together.
>
> Our approach has several advantages, including close monitoring of
> individual participation by other members of the group, immediate
> feedback about tasks from both group members and trainers, and the
> opportunity for continuous comparison of one\'s own understanding of
> and knowledge about an issue with that of others. This approach not
> only allows for better self-monitoring and self-correction, but it
> also more closely mirrors the actual processes of cooperation and
> learning that occur in the workplace.

**d. Training Effectiveness Information**

**1. Evaluations done at time of training:**

a)  *Activity Evaluation Forms:* These forms are completed by the
    trainees after each activity. The importance of the activity to the
    trainee is rated from 1 (least important) to 5 (most important).
    Trainees are also asked to report which of the activity's fact
    sheets contains the most important information, what was the most
    important point discussed, and what could be done to improve the
    activity. This information helps us determine if the activity's
    objectives were met. An summary of this data is attached.

b)  *Evaluation Workshop Forms:* These are used to evaluate the OCAW
    Worker-to-Worker health and safety training workshops. Attendees are
    asked to make a list describing the most important things they have
    learned during the workshop, and to give their experiences at their
    worksite concerning health and safety problems.

c)  *Evaluation Activity Priority Concern Lists:* These concerns are
    discussed in the classroom with the trainer which includes proposing
    ways to resolve the issue.

d)  *Dialogue about Proficiency Assessment*: This year OCAW engaged in a
    concerted dialogue within the organization and with members in the
    wider health and safety training community about the relationship
    between improving workplace health and safety and the role of
    individual participant testing. This dialogue has included: written
    documents and papers which have been circulated for discussion; and
    dialogue within the OCAW CAT team, the OCAW Advisory Committee,
    employers, contractors, other grantees, and within the SREPP
    consortium. No consensus has been reached and so we plan to continue
    the dialogue in the upcoming year.

**2. Evaluations done following training:**

a)  *Impact Study to Understand How Training Impacts Participants'
    Thinking About Systems of Safety.* OCAW launched a new initiative to
    learn about and understand: 1) how workers perceive systems of
    safety concepts as presented in OCAW curriculum; and 2) how systems
    of safety concepts influence the process workers follow after
    participating in OCAW training; as well as 3) document changes back
    at worksites in systems of safety that prevent hazardous materials
    incidents and exposure, work practices, and response to hazardous
    spills or releases that can be attributed to OCAW training. This new
    initiative utilizes an innovative focus group design that allows us
    to study the thinking of individuals and the group in heir responses
    to case study of a hazardous materials incident in which
    participants are asked to identify the causes of the incident and
    subsequently what actions they believe would prevent the incident
    from happening again. Pre training and post training focus groups
    are being conducted with participants from the same site. To date
    six focus groups have been conducted at three DOE sites. No results
    are currently available.

b)  *Publication of Article by Dr. Allan Hanson titled "Evaluating
    HAZWOPER Training Programs".* The article was published in the June
    1998 issue of Occupational Health and Safety on pages 37 to 66. This
    paper was commissioned by OCAW with funding provided by NIEHS.

c)  *"Worker Trainer Led Health and Safety Training Leads to Worker
    Action and Workplace Change" Article:* Development of article for
    publication reporting results of OCAW and SEIU impact interviews
    with workers and managers from nuclear facilities, oil and chemical
    refineries, hospitals, and blue collar government sites. Results
    attribute the following changes to union sponsored training led by
    worker trainers using the Small Group Activity Method: worker
    attempts to make change, health and safety systems changes,
    individual work practice changes, increased preparedness to respond
    to hazardous materials emergency and increased willingness by
    managers to make workplace changes. Anticipate article to be
    submitted to professional journal by the end of 1998.

d)  T*rainer Report Back Forms:* These forms are filled out by the
    trainers after each class. They give useful information about how
    the class went and includes suggestions on improving the activities.

**e.) Literacy Issues**

> The OCAW uses the Small Group Activity Method in all its courses. This
> method is particularly gram. We rely on our worker-trainers to
> integrate participants with limited literacy skills into appropriate
> learning groups. They report that a small number of people in each
> class have difficulty reading the material in our workbook. Often,
> however, these individuals are already sitting with people who are
> aware of their problem and can help them deal with it. If necessary,
> though, the trainers do not hesitate to shift the learning groups
> around so that those with limited literacy skills can get the maximum
> benefit from the program.

We can also report that the New Jersey Occupational Safety & Health
Education Project based at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
uses our curricular materials as the basis for a less reading-intensive
safety and health workshop aimed at both English and Spanish-language
audiences. Once perfected, we plan to use materials as a bridge or
introduction to our more intensive workshops.

The New Jersey project has also translated our learning activities into
Spanish and conducted several successful pilots with them.

**3)** **[Curricula UpdateS:]{.underline}**

The major thrust of curriculum development for the proceeding year was
the integration of the OCAW's logic tree diagramming into our core
curriculums. The OCAW's Health & Safety Curriculum Adaptation Team (CAT)
has developed a methodology for systematically analyzing incident and
accidents in order to identify their root causes. We have taken the
logic tree method and introduced it as a training vehicle. Through the
use of this vehicle we make "systems thinking" come alive through
interactive visual training exercises. Workers are asked to analysis
real incidents to determine which health and safety system had failed
and to make recommendations to remedy the flaws. By engaging in this
process our expectation is that workers will gain a greater
understanding of the hazards they face on the job, the steps they can
take to protect themselves on a day to day basis and, most importantly,
to become systems analysts. By training workers to view the work world
from a system of safety perspective not only raises their awareness but
offers the only opportunity for proactive prevention to take place. By
that we mean that the training will lead to workers identifying flaws in
systems **before they cause accidents, injuries or exposures.**

At a recent technical training one of our OSHEC's tracked the evolution
of the OCAW's training program by diagramming the following anecdote:
The workers lived in a village at the bottom of a mountain upon which
they worked. On top of the mountain lived a giant. As the giant moved
around he dislodged boulders that rolled down the mountain and injured
the workers. The workers complained and were given training on how to
dodge the boulders. The training consisted of workers being driven
around in a van with no windows which stopped at various sites at which
time the doors of the van were opened and the sites were identified as
dangerous. Then the workers were allowed to take charge of the boulder
dodging training. The first thing they did was to put windows in the van
so they could see where the boulders were coming from. Then they got rid
of the van and got a four wheel drive vehicle and started to climb the
mountain to try to stop the boulders from coming down in the first
place, prevention. The OCAW Health & Safety systems based hazards
analysis curriculum provides workers with the tools to climb the
mountain in order to stop the boulders rather then just dodging them.

Another exciting tool to help workers analyze safety hazards at the work
site is currently being developed. This training will integrate the
OCAW's systems of safety method into a Job Safety Analysis framework.
Applying Job Safety Analysis principles to the workplace will reinforce
the principles of prevention of accidents and incidents at the workplace
by helping workers apply systems based analysis to the work place in a
systematic way. For example, workers will be able to do a JSA of a
confined space entry on a case by case basis as well as to analyze the
entire confined space entry program as a system with a view toward
identifying any potential flaws in the system.

Safety systems have been successfully integrated as the template for our
health and safety training program. The recent up date of the hazmat
training work book introduces systems thinking with a "Systems of
Safety" activity. This is the first activity in the workbook and the one
used to introduce the training. In our DOE refresher we have fully
integrated systems as the vehicle to deliver the safety training. The
workbook consists of an updated Systems of Safety activity, a Lessons
Learned activity which analyzes an incident from a DOE site using the
interactive logic tree approach; the Chemical Safety Game, another
interactive activity in which the trainees sort out a group of
chemicals, their health and safety properties as well as the health and
safety systems, which should be in place to protect workers from
exposures; Applying Systems Thinking, is another logic tree activity in
which an incident is dissected in order to achieve a better
understanding of the systems which are, or should be in place; the
Physical Hazards activity sets the trainees at solving a task by which
the trainees review hypothetical accidents, and Getting to
Recommendations is an activity in which employees complete a logic tree
of a hypothetical accident and make recommendations on what systems
should be put in place to reduce the probability of repetition.

**Curricula Production:**

The following are curriculum that were modified, updated and desktop
published over the past grant year:

**DOE**

1.  Chemical and Radioactive Hazardous Waste Cleanup Workbook: Volume 1,
    1,500 copies.

2.  Chemical and Radioactive Hazardous Waste Cleanup Workbook: Volume 2,
    2,500 copies.

3.  Annual Refresher Training for Hazardous Waste Operations, Draft 4.3,
    1,000 copies.

4.  Annual Refresher Training for Hazardous Waste Operations, Draft 4.3,
    1,500 copies.

5.  Annual Refresher Training for Hazardous Waste Operations, Draft 4.3,
    200 copies.

6.  Annual Refresher Training for Hazardous Waste Operations, Draft 4.3,
    50 copies.

7.  Annual Refresher Training for Hazardous Waste Operations, Draft 4.3,
    250 copies.

8.  Annual Refresher Training for Hazardous Waste Operations, Draft 4.3,
    250 copies.

9.  Annual Refresher Training for Hazardous Waste Operations, Draft 4.3,
    30 copies.

10. Annual Refresher Training for Hazardous Waste Operations, Draft 4.3,
    100 copies.

11. Annual Refresher Training for Hazardous Waste Operations, Draft 4.3,
    600 copies.

12. Annual Refresher Training for Hazardous Waste Operations, Draft 4.3,
    40 copies.

13. Annual Refresher Training for Hazardous Waste Operations, Draft 4.3,
    200 copies.

14. Annual Refresher Training for Hazardous Waste Operations, Draft 4.3,
    60 copies

15. Rad Con Revision, 4/98

16. Cards for Name That Chemical, 10 sets, 10/97

**4)** **[Advisory Board Activities:]{.underline}**

The advisory board to the Department of Energy/NIEHS training grant will
meet in October, 1998. The meeting will be held in conjunction with our
annual OSHEC meeting allowing the advisory board to observe first-hand
the Oshecs involved with their annual Train-the-Trainer meeting.

> **[MANGEMENT POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE]{.underline}**

In response to concern over programmatic direction, the Department set
up a special policy committee composed of people active in the public
health and legislative community.(list of members, **Appendix H**)

Their first year's work was devoted to an analysis of how OCAW's health
and safety program could be improved. The perception on the part of the
public and occupational health community that the Union was isolated on
a series of issues. Most of the lack of communication revolved around
two issues:

-   The continued use of worker-trainers to fill functions that are
    normally held by professionals;

-   Our aversion to testing

The testing issue has been particularly acute at Hanford. It has been an
issue at Hanford since Flour Daniel assumed the Management and
Integration contract at Hanford. Their argument is that they need to be
assured that the individual understood the material in the class and
that a written test is the only way to know. They look at this as a
liability issue. We have had countless meetings with their Training
Director to discuss this issue and so far there has been no resolution
to the conflict. We are still doing training at Hanford without testing,
and discussions will resume in the near future with President Wages and
Mr. Charles Little, Vice President Flour Daniel Hanford.

We do have support from DOE Headquarters, who wonder why this issue is
still being raised.

In trying to embrace a broader health and safety direction, we began to
look for partners who might be interested in joining with us. Our first
impulse was to achieve this goal through a discussion of safety systems
in the occupational health community. Our aim was to point out the
futility of individual testing in the framework of a systems approach.

The approach did not work and, in fact, was perceived as incendiary by
some. With the aid of our review committee, we have crafted a new
approach which brings together diverse unions with the common purpose on
constructing a unified approach to evaluation. The Self-sufficiency
Research and Evaluation Pilot Project (SREPP) has successfully used
workers as evaluators and, at the same time, highlighted the irrelevance
of testing.

This year, we plan to work towards a broader collaborative effort among
the various grant programs and find common elements and projects to join
together on.

We plan to hold six meetings of the Policy Review Committee in the
upcoming year in conjunction with curriculum team meetings, technical
meetings, and other functions of the grant. The input of this group has
been a very positive influence on the program and our outlook. The
Evaluation Director will be attending four of these meetings.

**5)** **[Trainee Follow up:]{.underline}**

With very few exceptions, all of those trained by OCAW under the current
training grant are employees at their respective DOE facilities. Our
greater concern is not the applicability of our training, but rather,
the large number of employees we may be missing. Attendance at our
training is based upon mid-level management\'s interpretation of the 29
CFR 1910.120 requirements, which can be vague. One example is that some
managers are granting equivalency training 29 CFR 1910.120 (e)(9), to
workers taking both the 8-hour refreshers and the 24 hour training. They
are basing their decisions on other training that their department
furnishes them. Some of this other training includes; Off Road Defensive
Driving, Lessons Learned, Radiological Worker II, etc. The lessons
learned training usually consists of a written document which the
workers are required to read and sign, almost always during break or
lunch. There is never anyone who can properly answer questions about
this document nor is there anyone there to verify that the document was
even read.

While the regulations clearly recognize and allow for exemptions from
training due to equivalencies, the OCAW is concerned that these
exemptions will become the rule rather than the exception. If this does
become the rule, the DOE will be faced at nuclear weapons complex
clean-up sites with an ill-trained work-force.

**6)** **[TRAINER Support:]{.underline}**

In 1997-98, we continued our goal of constantly upgrading the quality of
our training. For a worker-centered program this involves both improving
the curriculum and improving the skills of the worker trainers. We
concentrated on the following approaches:

**1. Using worker-trainers to train new workers-trainers**. It is
important to stress that in our delivery system the trainer is not the
expert on subject matter. They are supposed to know what is in the
workbook. They are not trained to provide off-the-cuff guidance on
health and safety issues that are not covered. Instead they are trained
to lead a discussion and discovery process which we call the Small Group
Activity Method. The expertise the trainers must improve upon is their
understanding and use of this pedagogical method. For us, "sticking to
the method" is the single most important skill our trainers must have.

> We are fairly certain that the best way to improve the pedagogical
> skill of our veteran training force is to deploy it in training new
> trainers. Therefore, the heart of our current trainer support system
> is to find opportunities for trainers to be a part of
> train-the-trainer programs for new worker-trainers. We feel that when
> workers conduct new train-the-trainer programs they become much more
> self-conscious of their training technique and greatly improve on it.
> In short, they end up practicing more of what they preach. During this
> grant year we used 8 trainers in 2 different train-the-trainer
> programs.

2.  **Technical Training.** Systems of safety is the one extremely
    important technical-analytical concept that holds together all of
    our curriculum. A key component of trainer support is our annual
    technical meeting which we use to bring the trainers up to speed on
    emerging issues, new curricula and new tools to use.

> Due to scheduling conflicts the technical meeting is scheduled for
> October, 1998. The proposed agenda for the Annual Technical Training
> is as follows:

a.  Workers As Evaluators

> The primary purpose for this session will be to help introduce the
> trainers to the concept of workers as evaluators (SREPP). We will run
> several of the SREPP activities designed by the curriculum writing
> team so that our trainers can begin to explore the various aspects of
> evaluation. By doing so, we will be actively involving these trainers
> in OCAW's ongoing evaluation process.

b.  Training Techniques

> We will be experimenting with activities to help the trainers review
> their training techniques. We will especially concentrate on the SGAM
> power-sharing focus. We'll explore both the underlying philosophy and
> mechanics for ensuring that the power-sharing takes place as much as
> possible.

c.  Curriculum Writing

> More and more trainers are interested in the curriculum writing
> process. Therefore we will conduct a portion of our advanced
> curriculum writing seminar for all the worker-trainers.

d.  Job Hazard Analysis and Systems of Safety

We will be introducing the concept of JHA and systems of safety as a new
tool for achieving prevention in the workplace. This curriculum is
currently being developed and we will be seeking input in developing
this new approach.

3.  **Curriculum writing**. Curricula and workbooks are the key to our
    learner-centered approach. The better the curricula, the better the
    training. Those that participate in curriculum writing, we believe,
    gain extra insight into training, and thereby become better
    trainers. This is not a mystical process. Rather, it happens because
    our worker-curriculum writing process involves conceptualizing,
    writing, research and testing \-- and the testing is done by
    worker-trainers who did not write the curriculum in question. This
    process of curriculum writing enriches the worker-trainers involved.
    Invariably it leads to better training. Our goal is to get more and
    more worker-trainers significantly involved in the curriculum
    writing-testing process. This past year 28 trainers participated
    either in the writing or the testing of new curricula, up from 11
    the previous year.

4.  **Learning the Evaluation Process.** In addition, instructor
    training emphasized the critical role of evaluation. In our process,
    evaluation attempts to document how the courses help promote shop
    floor health and safety change. To facilitate that process,
    instructor training focused on how to make each course generate a
    participant-generated list of specific health and safety items that
    need to be fixed on the shop floor. We built trainer commitment for
    the idea that the very act of developing such lists helps promote
    change. We also developed trainer understanding on how the lists
    provide a trail for the evaluation process to see whether or not
    changes, or attempted changes, actually occurred as a result of the
    training.

#### *7) [Supplemental Progress:]{.underline}* {#supplemental-progress .unnumbered}

# 

We involved 28 of our worker-trainers in either development or field
testing of our new 8 Hour Refresher curriculum in this grant year. In
December 1997, we field tested our curriculum in a real class room
setting in Oak Ridge utilizing 6 worker trainers and 3 curriculum
writers as observers. In January 1998, we utilized 11 worker trainers
and 3 curriculum writers as observers in Hanford to field test our 8
Hour Refresher. In March 1998, we utilized 6 trainers, who were not
involved in the other previously mentioned field tests, and 3 curriculum
writers as observers in Paducah to field test our 8 Hour Refresher. Then
in April, we sent 2 trainers to Mound Laboratories for our final field
test where we utilized 6 trainers and 1 curriculum writer/observer.
These field tests served two main purposes; 1) it tested our new
curriculum, providing vital information for any changes and 2) it served
to train almost all of our trainers on the new curriculum.

In this grant year we involved 3 worker-trainers in our evaluation
process. We conducted a total of 2 focus groups (one pre training and
one post training) at each of three DOE Sites (Oak Ridge, Paducah, and
Hanford). Working with our evaluations consultant, Tobi Mae Lippin,
these worker/trainer/evaluators wanted to know if, in fact, our training
caused the worker to consider systems flaws as the cause of accidents or
incidents rather than the traditional model of always blaming the
worker.

**Self-sufficiency Research and Evaluation Pilot Project (SREPP)**

OCAW has served as the lead organization in SREPP. Although the SREPP
workshops and actual program work began late in the grant year, the
SREPP concept of involving workers as evaluators has been central to
OCAW's evaluation this year. This has included involving the OCAW
Curriculum Adaptation Team in discussing evaluation at it's trainers
meeting last summer, and following through on their suggestions to
design the focus group project described above.

Worker trainers and the Evaluation Coordinator worked closely throughout
the year to move the focus group project along. This included designing
and co-facilitating all focus group sessions. In addition, a team of
OCAW folks including two worker trainers, a staff member, and a staff
member of the Labor Institute, worked closely with SREPP facilitators to
develop and design curricula for the SREPP workshops. While the
involvement of this team served to create a high quality worker-relevant
SREPP workshop, it also had other subtle impacts on educating these OCAW
worker trainers and staff further about evaluation. This increased
knowledge and understanding led to increased involvement and more
informed input into the regular OCAW evaluation. In fact, it actually
led to hands-on involvement by worker trainers in the focus group design
and implementation.

**II. Planning for the next budget period:**

**Summary of Planned Activities:** **DOE Grant** **1998-99**

From the start of this program it has been our intention to involve
workers in every aspect of the training effort. Our theory was, and
still is, that the more workers are directly involved, the more
effective the training will be. We believe that such worker involvement
helps promote a positive culture of safety through which workers on the
job feel equipped to improve the systems of safety at work.

We see this empowerment as a series of steps or plateaus. The first
plateau entailed training workers to be health and safety trainers. To
make this initial step successful we used the Small Group Activity
Method \-- a learner centered pedagogy conducive to adult learning and
to use by worker-trainers. We still use this method, and we still are
working to improve both the delivery and the curricula around which it
is built.

The next step was to involve worker-trainers in expanding our training
capacity by developing a worker-led train-the-trainer program. We found
out that experienced worker-trainers are fully capable of training new
worker-trainers. This second stage of empowerment allowed the program to
expand its delivery system through this worker-led train-the-trainer
process.

In addition to training, and training new trainers, we also found that
experienced worker-trainers could make major contributions to the
drafting and modification of curricula. We found that our curricula
became greatly enriched as experienced worker-trainers brought their
shop-floor experiences to bear on the design of materials needed for the
training process.

Now we are entering another stage of empowerment as we bring
worker-trainers into the evaluation phase of the program. This year we
hope to develop a system of worker-evaluators to further enrich the
program.

However, the development of this top to bottom, worker centered program
poses many challenges. We have found that in order to make this program
of worker-centered training effective we must constantly review and
improve its essential features. We believe that this next year offers us
an excellent opportunity to intensify our review process. In fact, we
plan to re-examine every critical aspect of our program to make certain
that we are as effective as possible in delivering high quality training
that protects our membership by improving the systems of safety which
govern the workplace. The following summarizes the major elements of
work for the upcoming year:

**1. Program Review Committee**. We are establishing a high level
program review committee of the top health and safety officials within
the program, and selected outside consultants to help us review all
areas of the program. This committee will meet periodically during the
year to conduct a program review and make recommendations for change and
improvement.

**2. Trainer Support**. We recognize that our exclusive use of
worker-trainers and the small group method requires special trainer
support efforts. In addition to a technical training, we have found that
worker trainers develop most quickly when they are engaged in advanced
program activities such as curricula modification and train-the-trainer
programs. We find this to be the case regardless of the subject of the
curricula or the train-the-trainer program as long as it is a Small
Group Activity Method program. Therefore, in the upcoming year we will
seek as many opportunities as possible for worker-trainers to engage in
the curricula modification process and to train new worker-trainers. In
addition, we intend to review each aspect of our current trainer support
systems and to experiment with various additional means to assist our
trainers.

**3. Curriculum Modification**: Curricula modification has developed
into a critical cog in our training operation. We have found that
workers who are involved in writing and field testing reworked
curriculum turn out to greatly improve their training. Also, the
involvement of worker-trainers has led us towards the development of a
more coherent "systems of safety" approach to training. The use of this
analytic approach requires that we carefully review and modify each of
our curricula so that they consistently develop the systems approach as
the fundamental framework for prevention. As a result, we plan to
continue our worker-curriculum writing efforts this coming year.

4.  **Worker Evaluators:** We intend to improve our overall evaluation
    process by developing worker-evaluators. Over the next year, in
    conjunction with other grantees, we enter into our second year
    building an evaluation process that centers on the involvement of
    worker-evaluators.

5.  **Evaluation:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
a)  *Activity Evaluation Forms:* Since the inception of OCAW's training,
    we have been doing a participant evaluation following each activity.
    We are committed to evaluating each activity because of the multiple
    uses of this information including: an immediate tool for
    participants to voice their opinions and feelings about the training
    directly to trainers; a vehicle to provide immediate feedback for
    trainers about how their training is going; key feedback about new
    curricula during pilot tests of new material or tasks; and ongoing
    quality assurance to spot problem curricula, trainer performance or
    other things that might interfere with effective training. During
    the next year, OCAW will re-examine our Activity Evaluation Forms to
    see how they are constructed; how they are used and by whom; and how
    they can be handled in a more efficient manner using available
    technologies. OCAW's SREPP team will take the lead in this project.
    They will bring this discussion to the annual OSHEC Technical
    Training in October. The aim is to develop and implement a set of
    recommendations to improve the effectiveness and use of Activity
    Evaluation Forms.

b)  *Evaluation Activity Priority Concern Lists:* These concerns will be
    discussed in the classroom including proposed ways of resolving the
    issues.

c)  *Impact Focus Groups to Understand How Training Impacts
    Participants' Thinking About Systems of Safety.* We will continue
    our initiative to learn about and understand: 1) how workers
    perceive systems of safety concepts as presented in OCAW curriculum;
    and 2) how systems of safety concepts influence the process workers
    follow after participating in OCAW training; as well as 3) document
    changes back at worksites in systems of safety that prevent
    hazardous materials incidents and exposure, work practices, and
    response to hazardous spills or releases that can be attributed to
    OCAW training.

This new initiative utilizes an innovative focus group design that
allows us to study the thinking of individuals and the group in their
responses to case study of a hazardous materials incident in which
participants are asked to identify the causes of the incident and
subsequently what actions would prevent the incident from happening
again.

Pre training and post training focus groups will be conducted with
participants from the same site. We intend to complete eight focus
groups, four pre and four post at four different sites around the
country. Two will be at DOE sites and three will be at EPA regulated
sites.

In addition, we will begin to track focus group participants to learn
how systems of safety training has influenced their thinking about
health and safety over time following training via telephone interviews
about any actions to attempt to improve health and safety systems at
their worksites, and to document changes back at worksites in systems of
safety that prevent hazardous materials incidents and exposure, work
practices, and response to hazardous spills or releases that can be
attributed to OCAW training. We will call each participant at least
twice during the grant year. The telephone interview will use both
quantitative and qualitative methods.

> Consistent with OCAW's commitment to the Self-sufficiency Research
> Evaluation and Pilot Project (SREPP) OCAW worker trainers and staff
> from the OCAW SREPP Team and the Evaluation Coordinator will work
> closely on the continuation of the focus group project, including
> conducting and organizing focus groups as well as the analysis and
> writing of the report. This group will also aid in the development of
> the follow-up phone interview portion of this evaluation. This will
> include development of the interview guide and protocols and possibly
> conducting interviews as well.

**6. Pilot Testing New Curriculum:** We will continue to pilot test new
curricula as it is created in real training situations. Information
about new curriculum will be gathered from activity evaluation forms;
observation by members of the Curriculum Adaptation Team, the Labor
Institute, OCAW Grant Administrators, and sometimes plant managers,
contractors or DOE officials; and interviews with training participants
This year we anticipate pilot testing the following DOE curricula:
Respiratory Protection, 8 Hour Refresher and Radiation Worker II.

**7. Dialogue about Proficiency Assessment***:* OCAW will continue to
engage in a concerted dialogue within the organization and with members
in the wider health and safety community about the relationship between
improving workplace health and safety through training and testing
participants. This dialogue will continue to include: written documents
and papers which have been circulated for discussion, dialogue within
the OCAW CAT team, The OCAW Advisory Committee, the Management Policy
Preview Committee (formerly the Program Advisory and Planning
Committee), employers, contractors, other grantees, and within the SREPP
community. We anticipate this dialogue advancing through the ongoing
relationships among worker trainers involved in SREPP:

**8. Complete article tentatively entitled "Worker Trainer Led Health
and Safety Training Leads to Worker Action and Workplace Change"
Article***:* Complete the writing of an article for publication
reporting results of OCAW and SEIU impact interviews with workers and
managers from nuclear facilities, oil refineries and chemical plants,
hospitals, and blue collar government sites. Results attribute the
following changes to union sponsored training led by worker trainers
using the Small Group Activity Method: worker attempts to make change,
health and safety systems changes, individual work practice changes,
increased preparedness to respond to hazardous materials emergency and
increased willingness by managers to make workplace changes. Anticipate
article to be submitted to professional journal by the end of 1998.

9.  **Trainer Report Back Forms:** These forms will be filled out by the
    trainers after each class. They will provide useful information
    about how the class went and will provide good suggestions as to
    improving the activities.

10. **SREPP:** OCAW's SREPP Pilot Project*.* The second SREPP workshop
    at the end of year‑one will assist OCAW's team in developing an
    evaluation plan to guide the development and implementation of our
    pilot project. Shortly after the second SREPP workshop, OCAW's team
    will determine the focus of our pilot evaluation project(s).

> The OCAW team will refine and implement data collection and analysis
> plans prior to the third workshop (\"Development of Meaning and
> Reporting of Findings,\" tentatively scheduled for the early part of
> 1999). This will be followed by ongoing data collection and analysis
> and the generation of a project team evaluation report. The pilot
> project(s) will be the major focus of the OCAW SREPP team in the
> upcoming year. We anticipate that there will be pilot evaluation(s) of
> DOE and EPA training by different members of the OCAW SREPP team.
>
> At this time we do not know the specific nature of the OCAW pilot
> project(s) because they have not been selected yet. However, efforts
> will be made so that the SREPP pilot evaluation project(s) integrate
> with, or complement the focus group and follow-up phone interview
> project described above. Funds to cover the costs of these project(s)
> are included in the OCAW Supplemental SREPP Proposal Budget.
>
> OCAW's team will participate in all SREPP workshops and the
> development of evaluation reports of our pilot evaluations, as well as
> the inter‑program draft report of lessons learned from SREPP prior to
> the fourth SREPP workshop.

**[Full Time Health and Safety Representatives]{.underline}**

Two five-day training courses to prepare the health and safety
representatives to carry out their responsibilities were conducted in
October, 1997 and May, 1998. The thrust of the October, 1997 training
was leadership training and systems of safety. The May, 1998 school
focused on systems of safety, human factors, introduction to the logic
tree, and use of the internet.

In an effort to define the role of the health and safety representatives
and provide them with a job that is independent of serving as a "runner"
for the company safety and health department, the Health and Safety
Department has developed a program called Triangle of Prevention (TOP)
which relies on the full time health and safety representative for its
success. TOP consists of a tracking system, a training program and the
health and safety representative. The training system focuses on
providing every worker in the plant with the knowledge to accurately
assess a problem and report an incident. The Union has begun a campaign
nationwide to promote the TOP program.

**[Trainer Support]{.underline}**

During this next year we plan to continue the three support systems that
we believe have worked well in the past \-- technical meetings to work
on systems of safety issues, participating in train-the-trainer
sessions, and curricula writing and field testing.

However, we also want to conduct a major review of trainer support to
reevaluate each of these items and to see what else should be added to
the overall trainer support effort. At the beginning of the grant year
we will conduct such a review within the staff, the worker-trainers and
the newly formed review committee. Our hope is to generate an even more
coherent overall plan.

For the remainder of the year we hope to test and evaluate new trainer
support ideas that will be generated by the earlier review process. By
the end of the year we hope to have in place a fully reviewed and
modified trainer support system that can take us into the next year,
(and perhaps even over that bridge to the next century.)

**[Staffing]{.underline}**

Doug Stephens is in his second year as the Grant Administrator for the
DOE/NIEHS Worker Training Program for the OCAW. Gillian Smith continues
to be his Administrative Assistant. Mr. Rick Hillier, CIH, resigned his
position as our full-time Industrial Hygienist. We are currently
searching for a replacement for Mr. Hillier.

### International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) 

PROGRESS REPORT FOR DOE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT

The IAFF/DOE program has two aims:

> • To determine the specific needs of fire service personnel in and
> around DOE facilities, conduct appropriate training, and evaluate the
> results of training.
>
> • To ensure institutional competency after project completion by
> training qualified instructors at each location to continue hazardous
> materials training beyond the completion of the IAFF/DOE Cooperative
> Agreement.

Using the NIEHS/DOE sponsored Ruttenberg study and other sources of
information, the IAFF identified five DOE sites at which personnel were
not adequately trained in hazardous materials emergency response. The
IAFF proposed training at least 100 emergency responders who work either
at or surrounding the identified DOE sites each year. Accordingly, the
IAFF has trained more than the amount projected in the original proposal
each of the past two years. Based on those trained to date (through July
1, 1998), the IAFF is pleased to announce that the goal of 100 trainees
per year will be exceeded for the third consecutive year.

The IAFF has either delivered or scheduled three different types of
hazardous materials training programs this project year: two different
Hazardous Materials Instructor Training programs and a Confined Space
Rescue program. Also this year, the IAFF will conduct an Instructor
Development Conference in Washington, D.C. for some of its Master
Trainers (instructional staff).

It should be noted that the IAFF has achieved two significant
accomplishments directly related to the IAFF/DOE project this year:

> \(1\) **In-roads have been established for training volunteer fire
> fighters and mutual aid emergency responders at and around the
> Savannah River Site (SRS**). As noted in past progress reports and
> year-end summaries, the IAFF encountered problems reaching the target
> audience of volunteers and mutual aid responders. This year, more than
> 25 responders from the area will receive training. We are finalizing
> details to conduct additional courses in the area, possibly before the
> end of the current grant year.
>
> \(2\) **The IAFF has developed a working relationship with DOE's
> HAMMER facility at the Hanford site in Washington State.** The IAFF
> now participates as a formal member of HAMMER's Advisory Board and
> attended its most recent meeting in New Orleans during May 1998. At
> least two training programs will be scheduled at the new,
> state-of-the-art facility, by the end of the grant year.

The IAFF is pleased to report ongoing success with the IAFF DOE
Cooperative Agreement. The following report details the progress of the
IAFF training.

**1. [Training Accomplishments]{.underline}**

As described in the IAFF's FY '96 report, sites for training under the
DOE program were identified by several means. The IAFF reviewed news
reports of fire fighters who had refused to respond to facilities
because they were insufficiently trained. The IAFF had also received
reports from its membership regarding training needs in departments at
and around DOE facilities. The primary source of information for site
selection, however, came from an NIEHS/DOE-sponsored report by Ruth
Ruttenberg & Associates, Inc. (January 1994). Of those sites with the
poorest training for emergency responders, five were those chosen for
IAFF training (Hanford, Savannah River, Oak Ridge, Rocky Flats, and
Lawrence Livermore).

For each year of this Cooperative Agreement, the IAFF proposed training
a total of 100 emergency response personnel at five DOE sites using a
series of training programs that would enable an untrained fire fighter,
upon completion, to effectively respond to radiation incidents using
offensive as well as defensive tactics, and to train other response
personnel at DOE sites in basic, defensive emergency response
operations. However, the IAFF has approximately doubled the original
estimate each year. This year, the IAFF has trained almost 100 emergency
responders during four separate courses. It is expected that the IAFF
will train an additional 80 responders during the remaining four courses
scheduled this summer.

The training conducted and scheduled to take place this year encompasses
a wide array of hazardous materials emergency response levels. The IAFF
conducted its "special issues" Instructor Training program, which
analyzes Confined Space Operations, Hazardous Materials Training for the
Emergency Medical Services, and Hazardous Materials Training for
Infectious Diseases, at the Oak Ridge, Lawrence Livermore, and
Hanford-area training events. A custom format of the Instructor Training
program was developed and delivered to the responders at the Savannah
River site. The SRS course focused on the IAFF Infectious Diseases
program.

The IAFF's has remained successful in the DOE grant project due to a
flexible approach to training emergency responders. For this and the
previous year, the most comprehensive and cost-effective approach was to
conduct Instructor Training programs. Since many response personnel at
several locations had received previous hazardous materials training,
the best medium for delivery of training and distribution of training
materials was to conduct a regional Instructor Training program that
could incorporate on-site personnel, adjacent emergency responders, as
well as those fire service trainers in the region who have taught (or
would be available to teach in the future) the target response groups.
The IAFF, therefore, scheduled Instructor Training for those individuals
who were adequately trained to the level of First Responder Operations.
Second, survey responses (reported in FY '96) consistently identified
the need for specialized training, so these programs were added to the
IAFF training schedule (e.g. Confined Space Operations & Rescue,
Infectious Diseases, etc.).

Finally, the work schedules of the primarily volunteer fire fighter
audience have made it extremely difficult to schedule any courses,
notwithstanding lengthy training events such as the 80+ hour Technician
level training program. The largely volunteer audience at several sites
(especially Savannah River) has demonstrated unwillingness to submit to
training that extends beyond a weekend. The majority of the target
audience has a primary occupation other than the fire service. This has
forced the IAFF to plan, cancel and re-schedule training events several
times at certain DOE facilities (e.g. Savannah River). This year, the
IAFF has succeeded in adapting the "weekend training format" for at
least one course at SRS. These events demonstrate the IAFF's desire to
provide this needed training in the format most convenient for the
affected emergency response groups.

**[Training Effectiveness]{.underline}**

Tools for collecting data on trainees and impact of training were
submitted in the original application for this cooperative agreement.
Data reported here are preliminary and not detailed since all of the
training has not been completed. Furthermore, the IAFF is in the process
of switching over to an optical mark scanning system that will process,
disseminate and structure data to a degree much greater than that
required by NIEHS. (See Appendix B.) During the short transition, we are
able to provide only generalized data. As in the previous progress
reports submitted by the IAFF, updated and complete statistics will be
submitted to NIEHS by October 31.

*a. **[Trainee Characteristics]{.underline}***

All trainees complete profiles which provide the IAFF with general
information about themselves. At the beginning of each training program,
registration forms are administered. As noted in last year\'s
Continuation Grant Application, partial reporting of preliminary data
would not provide a fair prediction of the final results. Our
preliminary data was unable to register the true number of minorities
reached, as well as the vast worker categories receiving training. The
data to be reported for FY \'98 will be very similar to the final
progress reports submitted in FY \'96 and FY '97. The overall numbers
trained are still above our original projection of 100 trainees, and the
demographics, work history, Department characteristics, and DOE site
experience will remain essentially the same. Preliminary review of the
data does suggest a greater representation from emergency responders who
have direct working relationships with the target DOE sites (on-site Haz
Mat responders and on-site fire department personnel).

*b. **[Outreach to Minority Trainees]{.underline}***

The IAFF continues to recruit minority trainees by encouraging labor and
management representatives to recruit minorities for the IAFF classes.
In addition, the IAFF has revised its training announcement letters
requesting departments and IAFF representatives to encourage minority
participation. The steady increase in the numbers of minorities
receiving training through the IAFF supports these efforts. Examples of
training announcement letters have been provided to NIEHS in the past
and remain available upon request.

In addition to these efforts, the IAFF will continue its work in making
IAFF training, particularly for the First Responder Operations
level---the level of response required of all fire fighters---available
to responders who speak only Spanish. The IAFF has five Master Trainers
who are bilingual, though none of the surveyed sites have requested
classes in Spanish.

*c. **[Trainee Performance Data]{.underline}***

The training conducted and scheduled to take place this year encompasses
a wide array of hazardous materials emergency response levels.

Participants in the Instructor Training program are evaluated primarily
by observing presentations, particularly a final presentation of an
assigned section of materials from one of the IAFF hazardous materials
training programs. The trainees of the Confined Space and Emergency
Medical Services courses receive extensive didactic and hands-on
training that requires demonstrated skill proficiency. Final evaluations
on the training received will be forwarded in the October 31 report.

The IAFF proposed to evaluate the immediate impact of First Responder
training on student performance using various tools developed with the
assistance of Dr. Alex Cohen, including written pre- and post-tests and
observation of skills demonstrations. No First Responder programs will
fall within the dates of FY '98. However, the results of evaluations for
FY '98 Confined Space and Instructor Training programs will be reported
in the fall. Specifically, the tools developed for First Responder
training will serve as the basis for testing and evaluation in the other
courses conducted under the DOE grant.

The IAFF also elicits responses from trainees regarding the materials,
training environment, and Master Trainers. Evaluations of the training
process are conducted throughout each training program so that
modifications can be made as needed. These evaluation forms, submitted
with the original proposal, focus on the Master Trainers' instruction,
the speed and depth of the classes, and the facilities. Of the classes
conducted to date, the reviews of the instructors, the materials, and
the facilities have been more than satisfactory. A summary of
evaluations for all training programs will be submitted as part of our
October 31 update.

*d. **[Training Effectiveness Information]{.underline}***

In addition to data reflecting trainee understanding and competence, the
IAFF collects data on the outcome of training; that is, the impact on
work practices and worker health and safety. Because much of the
training is scheduled for the end of FY '98, this data is not yet
available and will be submitted at least six months after training to
allow an appropriate period to assess impact more than once. Tools for
assessing training effectiveness (for example, Participant Action
Statement forms) were submitted in the original grant proposal. The IAFF
will also review departmental incident reports, logs from fire officers,
and personal interviews following incidents to compile anecdotal reports
of training impact.

In addition, the IAFF will continue to monitor morbidity and mortality
data through the Death and Injury Survey conducted by the IAFF's Health
and Safety Department. Past reports are available upon request. Analysis
and comment on the reports will be included with our final submission to
NIEHS this Fall.

*e. **[Literacy Issues]{.underline}***

In our experience, both career and volunteer fire fighters have reading
and writing skills sufficient to meet the requirements of IAFF training
programs. In most situations, particularly in professional fire
departments, admittance into the fire service is a highly competitive
process and applicants must pass a series of tests, including written
tests. According to the written evaluations of Master Trainers who
conduct the IAFF programs, IAFF staff members who attend them, labor
representatives, and trainees, there has not been a single instance in
which a trainee has failed to understand written materials or
instructions. This was demonstrated objectively by performance on
written quizzes and tests (which are completed individually, under the
supervision of Master Trainers) as well as by student evaluations
regarding the manner in which information was conveyed in each training
program. Reports of these evaluations are discussed in the above section
on trainee performance data.

The IAFF will continue to emphasize the need for sensitivity to literacy
problems in its Master Trainer meetings and Instructor Training
programs. Note that an Instructor Development Conference is scheduled at
the end of this grant year. The Conference will emphasize trainer
development and improving their instruction through small-group
activities. Should literacy problems be encountered in an IAFF training
program, Master Trainers will work with individuals during breaks and
before and after class periods to cover information in written training
materials verbally, on a one-to-one basis. Evaluation forms can also be
completed with the help of Master Trainers or IAFF staff who are
on-site.

*3. **[Curricula Updates]{.underline}***

The IAFF sought funding through the NIEHS/DOE program to update
curricula for the Technician Program. Also, other curricula utilized in
this program was developed and updated with other sources of funding.
The programs developed or updated are as follows:

*Hazardous Materials Training for Emergency Responders: Technician*

This is a comprehensive course involving over 240 hours of instruction
for emergency responders at the Technician level (as defined in 29 CFR
1910.120). The program is a compilation and update of two courses funded
in past years by the NIEHS-EPA program (Hazardous Materials Team Member
and Hazardous Materials Specialist). Funding for this program was
provided through carryover funding from the NIEHS-DOE FY '96 and '97
programs. This program is still under development. When completed, a
draft will be sent to NIEHS for review.

*Hazardous Materials Training For First Responders*

This program is the workhorse of the IAFF Hazardous Materials Training
Program. It was originally developed nearly 9 years ago with NIEHS-EPA
funding. It is a 24-hour program that trains emergency responders to the
"Operations" level. This program is widely recognized in the U.S. as a
standard for fire fighter training, as has been certified by state fire
marshals in a number of states, most recently, California. Through
funding from NIOSH, the IAFF is working on a 3rd Edition update of this
program.

*Hazardous Materials Training for First Responders: Radiation
Emergencies: First Responder Operations*

This is a new 24-hour program that has been developed to refresh
emergency responders on basic hazardous materials response in day-one,
and then moves to comprehensive training regarding response to
radiological incidents in days-two and three. Developed under contract
with Fluor Daniel Fernald (DOE), the program is intended for emergency
responders who may face incidents involving the transport of radioactive
waste. The program was intentionally developed to have a broad
application for all radioactive wastes and should prove useful in both
the NIEHS EPA and DOE programs. A copy of this program was forwarded to
NIEHS for review in June, 1997

*4. **[Advisory Board Activities]{.underline}***

A list of Advisory Board members and their professional affiliations is
provided in

Appendix C. This year, the Advisory Board met in Las Vegas Nevada to
review the IAFF Hazardous Materials Training Program. They also enjoyed
the opportunity to tour operations at DOE's Yucca Mountain project.

Meeting minutes of the Spring 1998 Advisory Board meeting are included
in Appendix D. The Advisory Board reviewed each of the newer training
programs available, the IAFF's budget under the NIEHS and DOE
Cooperative Agreements, and the plans for training and evaluation. Since
several Board members are fire service representatives, they provide
essential oversight regarding training content and program feasibility.

*5. **[Trainee Follow-up]{.underline}***

Trainee follow up data is not yet available because the training is not
complete. After this summer's scheduled training, the IAFF will maintain
contact with participating departments to follow trainees. IAFF
Hazardous Materials Assistants will send letters and follow up with
telephone calls to elicit information about hazardous materials response
activities, particularly responses to DOE sites. This data, along with
anecdotal reports, will be submitted to NIEHS following completion of
training. This allows the IAFF to collect data approximately six months
following completion of training and analyze it before submitting a
comprehensive report.

In addition, the IAFF will conduct a written follow-up survey of
Instructor Trainees 6 - 12 months after the fiscal year to assess their
use of IAFF hazardous materials training programs in training fire
fighters in their departments and other response personnel.

*6. **[Instructor Support]{.underline}***

The IAFF has supported the skills of IAFF Master Trainers through
previous meetings, written communication, and verbal review of feedback
forms by IAFF staff with individual Master Trainers. The IAFF received
approval to conduct a Master Instructor Refresher meeting in FY \'96.
The meeting was an overwhelming success. Accordingly, another conference
has been scheduled for this Summer, funded partially with carry over
funding from last year's DOE budget. We will organize the IAFF Master
Trainers for the review of training programs, presentation methods, and
any concerns regarding the programs funded through NIEHS. This meeting
is described in greater detail in the Training Plan.

**II. TRAINING PLAN**

The IAFF surveys of the five targeted DOE sites indicate that multiple
additional programs are needed at all sites for the next grant year.
This is consistent with the NIEHS/DOE sponsored Ruttenberg study which
stated that several years of training will be needed to address the
deficiencies at each site. Training will continue at these sites into
future Grant years until response personnel are adequately trained and
can continue training without further assistance.

For FY99, the IAFF proposes to conduct seven (8) direct training
programs (*First Responder Operations, Emergency Medical Services,
Confined Spaces, Technician*) and four (4) Train-the-Trainer Programs.
This number will provide at least two programs at each of the five
selected DOE sites, while two sites will receive three programs. At this
point, the exact courses to be conducted at each site have not been
determined as the emergency responders in those areas have not completed
their local schedules. This information will be forwarded to NIEHS upon
completion of scheduling at the sites.

Training completed to date is listed below, as well as those events
tentatively scheduled for this grant year. (Tentative information is
listed in italics).

Site Class Date \# of Students Contact Hours

Hanford, WA Instructor Training 6/29-7/2 25 800

*Confined Space Rescue July '98 25 800*

Lawrence Livermore, CA Instructor Training 6/8-6/12 14 448

*Instructor Training 8/10-8/13 25 800*

Rocky Flats, CO *Instructor Training 8/3-8/6 20 640*

Savannah River, SC Instructor Training 6/27-6/28 30 480

*Instructor Training August '98 20 320*

Oak Ridge, TN Instructor Training 6/1-6/4 25 800

Washington, DC *Instructor Conference August '98 17 340*

TOTALS **9 Programs** **201** **5,428**

The content of the classes to be given at DOE sites have been presented
as part of earlier applications to NIEHS. As noted in the NIEHS - EPA
reapplication, the Instructor Training program can be customized - at
the request of local emergency responders - to include modules for any
current IAFF course. As local needs demand and resources permit, we may
accept more than the projected number of students into a given class.

As noted by the figures suggested above in both Direct and Instructor
Training events, the IAFF proposes to train well in excess the numbers
projected in our original proposal. The total number of trainees as
shown in last year's numbers (201) represents a \"best-case\" scenario
for the next year.

The IAFF will follow Instructor Trainees to track the number of
emergency response personnel they train in the year following training.
We anticipate that each Instructor Trainee (approximately 160 ) will
train at least 30 personnel each, for a total of 4,800 personnel trained
at various levels of emergency response in the year following Instructor
Training. The IAFF encourages instructors to report any/all training
after they have completed the Train-the-Trainer program.

**2. [Evaluation]{.underline}**

The IAFF will continue to evaluate Direct Training and Instructor
Training courses as described in our original application. In addition,
under a separate grant, the IAFF has embarked on an effort to assess
long-term behavioral changes on emergency response personnel resulting
from training. The long-term assessment program was developed and
implemented in consultation with Dr. Alex Cohen, a human factors
psychologist whose research experience has focused on environmental
factors affecting health, productivity and well-being, and behavioral
approaches to workplace hazards control.

In brief, the IAFF initiated a follow-up interview evaluation project to
complement the First Responder Operations course. The intent of the
project was to analyze knowledge gain, competency level shift, long-term
behavioral (action statements), and administrative changes that take
place as a result of the First Responder course. The IAFF experience
with our on-site interviews was shared with other NIEHS grantees at the
NIEHS workshop, "Measuring and Evaluating the Outcomes of Training"
(March 1996). The IAFF travels to different locations to conduct
interviews with randomly-selected trainees approximately six months
after their training is conducted.

The IAFF proposes developing a similar approach to following selected
trainees in the Confined Spaces and Emergency Medical Services programs.
Participants in Train-the-Trainer programs will continue to be evaluated
and followed with written questionnaires as described in our original
proposal.

**3. [IAFF Master Trainer Meeting]{.underline}**

The IAFF has maintained contact with our Master Trainers through written
and verbal communications, direct supervision during training programs,
and feedback from the Project Director following his review of student
evaluations after training program completion. As noted earlier, the
Instructor Development Conference conducted in FY '97 was an undisputed
success. Many IAFF Instructors reported that the Conference was the most
beneficial training they had received since the original IAFF Master
Training program (1993). The Master Trainers will meet to refresh
skills, ensure consistent delivery of materials, and to review updated
materials, as well as learn of any previously unreported difficulties.
The IAFF has scheduled a 3-day meeting of the Master Trainers who have
taught in the IAFF NIEHS projects most frequently. Master Trainers will
meet in Washington, DC, near the IAFF Headquarters. During this meeting,
we plan to review existing training materials and evaluation tools,
practice presentation methods, and provide advanced training for the new
Instructor Training program which will include more recently developed
IAFF programs.

The focus for the FY '98 Conference will be on improving IAFF instructor
skills and competencies. In order to maintain our "cutting-edge"
training approach, the IAFF will be instructing advanced presentation
methods (computerized projection systems), small group activity
workshops, and the latest adult learning techniques. In addition, we
anticipate that the meeting will allow the exchange of information with
IAFF staff and other Master Trainers. The budget for this meeting is
described in detail under Budget Justification. More attendees will be
added as the budget allows.

## 

## 

# Publication of \"Resource Guide for Evaluating Worker Training\" 

During May 1998, the Resource Guide for Evaluating Worker Training: A
Focus on Safety and Health was published by RRA in conjunction with the
George Meany Center and NIEHS. This guide summarizes the insights and
methodologies of the NIEHS Worker Training Awardees in conducting
formative and summative program, training, instructor and trainee
evaluations. During March 1996, NIEHS sponsored the first national
conference on Measuring and Evaluating the Outcomes of Hazardous Waste
Worker Training to examine the methods which have been developed by
various programs to document the effectiveness of training activities.
Drawing on public health experts in the evaluation field, awardee
representatives spent two days exploring the methodological issues that
underlie the collection of program effectiveness data. Breakout sessions
examined issues from trainee comprehension of curricula to outcome
results in the workplace after training had taken place. The significant
resources that have been allocated for NIEHS training awards require
that recipients demonstrate not only effective implementation, but also
positive impacts on the health and safety of trained workers. The
findings reported at the technical workshop and the publication of the
Resource Guide clearly demonstrate that NIEHS grantees have responded to
the challenge for program evaluation and have documented monumental
changes in the health and safety of workers and communities across the
United States.

##### 

# Continued operation and support for a national clearinghouse 

The Clearinghouse functions as a link between the DOE awardees of NIEHS
Worker Training cooperative agreements and other members of the general
public who are concerned with quality worker health and safety training.
Tasks of the Clearinghouse include, but are not limited to, the
distribution of curricula, research work to support the development of
the NIEHS Worker Training Program, cataloguing of training materials,
and other information pertaining to worker health and safety training
for hazardous materials, waste operations, and emergency response, as
well as other related activities. The Clearinghouse is the information
exchange and dissemination mechanism for 7 worker training programs
whose support from the (DOE) is intended to set a high standard for
health and safety training to protect workers in the burgeoning
environmental technology sector.

The Clearinghouse web page has been redesigned and includes a help desk
section designed to provide information on the Internet for both the
computer novice and the expert. Links exist for the following topics:
Brownfields, Regulations, Hazard Communication, Hazardous Materials
Libraries, Lead and Asbestos, Material Safety Data Sheets, NIEHS
Grantees, Pollution Prevention, Radiation, and State Resources.

Also linked to the page are documents produced by the Clearinghouse,
including the **Resource Guide for Evaluating Worker Training: A Focus
on Safety, and the Minimum Criteria Document**. Interested parties are
now able to register for workshops and meetings on-line via the
Clearinghouse Web Page.

Features of the updated Web Page were presented at the October awardee
meeting. This task by the Clearinghouse will also include enhancing the
existing Web page and related resources, collecting data on existing
computer technology, linkages to other resources, and direct assistance
and consultations in creating on-line access for individual users and
participating organizations in the NIEHS program. The Help desk program
will increase the use of Web page resources, available LISTSERV
resources, NIEHS FTP site, email exchange, on-line conferencing
capabilities and related electronic resources. The Clearinghouse web
address is: http://www.niehs.nih.gov/wetp/clear.htm

# Trainee Environmental Job Tracking Initiative 

###### 

###### In our request for continuation applications during May 1998, NIEHS asked that each awardee propose a system to track trainees and collect post-training employment information. A number of the awardees have proposed approaches which build on existing trainee registrations, while others are creating innovative systems to catalogue employment experience through refresher training exercises. At a September 1998 all-awardees meeting, NIEHS and DOE staff discussed the various approaches which various awardees have proposed in their applications and initiated a process to set a \"minimum criteria\" for the collection of baseline employment information on trainees. 

In addition, RRA and the Clearinghouse have been tasked with supporting
this effort by providing technical assistance to awardees during this
process. During the first six months of the contract year, the
Clearinghouse helped coordinate and support several awardee pilots on
trainee tracking. Significant attention will continue to be dedicated to
trainee tracking during the second half of the contract year.

Besides conducting a telephone survey of awardees to gather information
on data collection systems, the Clearinghouse helped organize a meeting
on tracking, in Washington, D.C., which was attended by about 40
representatives of awardee organizations, NIEHS, DOE, and EPA. As a
basis for discussion, before and after the meeting, the Clearinghouse
collected and disseminated, by fax and with the help of a tracking
listserve, the data collection instruments used by various awardee
organizations.

Technical/research support was also supplied to awardees who
participated in a series of tracking conference calls organized by NIEHS
during September and October. The conference calls were organized for
sub-groups of NIEHS awardees: separate calls were conducted for the
industrial union group, the construction group, the DOE group, the
university group and the Minority Worker Training Program group. The
results of these conference calls were presented at the October awardee
meeting. A new trainee-tracking page has been added to the Web Page. All
awardees have created pilots projects to collected trainee employment
data

Descriptions of these efforts include:

International Association of Firefighters

The IAFF has selected training sites by identifying departments near
geographic locations with the highest densities of DOE Superfund sites
and TSD facilities. The IAFF entered data from the federal EPA NPL Final
Site Bulletin (dated 10/02/95) into a software program (Geographic
Information System) that mapped the entered locations and listed the top
locations for NPL sites. For site clusters near several smaller cities,
the IAFF identified central locations for training. The sites receiving
training over the past three years were among these top locations.

Laborers-AGC Education and Training Fund

Laborers-AGC recently developed a separate application to be used for
all environmental remediation refresher courses. This form continues to
provide demographic information that was included on the old form, but
it also has a section on recent work activities in the environmental
remediation field. Trainees are asked to provide their work history on
hazardous waste sites, including the job location , contractor, and date
of job. They are also asked to indicate if their training was relevant
to their job, prepared them for their job, or improved their health and
safety on the job.

University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey

The registration form used by the New Jersey/New York Consortium is a
scannable form. Data are collected in several means. 1. Registration
forms; 2. Follow-up questionnaires; 3. Refresher Courses. It collects
typical demographic data, including age, gender, education level,
ethnicity, primary language. Additionally, it collects whether the
trainee is employed, and where they are employed (i.e. private industry,
government, union, DOE site), and job duty (i.e. clean-up of waste
sites, transport wastes, TSD of wastes, site investigation).

# Worker Trainer Programs: Guidelines for Success 

Key to the success of the Superfund Worker Training Program has been the
continuing development of trainers at the local level throughout the
United States. NIEHS has undertaken an effort to inventory
Train-the-Trainer Programs for hazardous waste workers and emergency
responders in order to examine the characteristics of successful
programs. This inventory process and a companion technical workshop was
resulted in the publication of **Worker Trainer Programs: Guidelines for
Success in hazardous waste Operations and Emergency Response,** a
technical document which summarizes best practices and lessons learned
for the development of high quality train-the-trainer programs**.** It
is the goal of this effort to establish a national consensus for how to
maintain the delivery of high quality HAZWOPER training through the
ongoing support and development of both professional and worker
trainers. This national development of a minimum criteria document
includes a state of the art discussion concerning the current status of
the unique characteristics of train-the-trainer programs which will
include the content of training programs, mechanisms for ongoing support
of peer trainers, and minimum qualifications for trainers in 1910.120
programs. Information has been collected and catalogued from NIEHS
Worker Training awardees to document the processes and content of
existing trainer programs, refresher and tune-up activities, and other
activities which assure the ongoing technical competency of trainers
supported by NIEHS programs.

# Summary of the Environmental Job Training Summit in New Orleans, LA

In March 1998 more than 170 participants conferred for a workshop on
environmental job training with the focal point of continuing review and
planning for the Minority Worker Training Program. Participants
represented trainees, peer trainers, labor unions, professional
trainers, training program administrators, colleges and universities,
community groups, environmental justice advocates, consultants, and
government officials. Hosted by Xavier University and sponsored by Clark
Atlanta University, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and NIEHS in
cooperation with the National Clearinghouse for Worker Safety and Health
Training, discussion centered on:

-   A look-back of three years of start-up and training in the MWTP and
    progress since the technical workshop at Cuyahoga Community College
    in Cleveland, April 17, 1995 on "Environmental Job Training for
    Inner City Youth."

-   A review of the programs as they currently exist, evaluating
    recruitment, life skill training, jobs skill training, safety and
    health training, placement, retention, and advancement.

-   A look forward at ways to improve training, training partnerships,
    and training-to-work partnerships. Substantial time both formally
    and informally was spent strengthening and forging such vital links.

Participants were invited to a tour of facilities such as training
sites, chemical companies, brownfield sites, and other sites in the New
Orleans and Mississippi River Chemical Corridor. The Opening Plenary
included welcome from Norman Francis, President of Xavier University,
and Dr. Yvonne Scruggs-Leftwich, Executive Director and CEO of the Black
Leadership Forum. This first plenary provided an excellent overview and
challenge to training with emphasis on urban infrastructure issues, and
how to maximize the benefits of training for trainees, the community and
the training providers. Several breakout sessions were presented on
topics such as Life Skills Management and Curriculum Issues; Incentives
and Barriers to Modifying Construction/Cleanup Contracts; Linking Up
With Other Job Training Programs; and Raising the Level of Training.

# Continuation Applications

Eight and a half million dollars of the FY 98 funds for the were
allocated to continue support of the DOE Worker Training Program to
train hazardous waste workers and emergency responders.

See Appendix 13 for Awardee Breakout of FY 98 Funds for the period of
September 1, 1998 to August 31, 1999. Budget adjustments in the proposed
funding plan have been based on the training needs of high-risk
populations, national geographic coverage in training availability and
the published program priorities for training support. Consideration has
also been given to previous funding patterns, awardees\' efforts to
generate program income for independently continuing their programs, and
the availability of unobligated balances from prior years, as well as
other administrative considerations. Budget line items have been
adjusted for each individual awardee to target training delivery to
focused populations and assure that program costs are related to direct
training support. Budget adjustments have been recommended which will
assure that awardees will still be able to undertake the most critical
parts of their proposed programs as outlined in their initial
applications.

For each component of each awardees' noncompeting reapplication, an
analysis and review was carried out to evaluate the program progress
during the current year, compliance with existing terms and conditions,
measures of program effectiveness and other quality assurance factors.
Individual progress report forms for each awardee are included as
appendices to this document, along with budget worksheets, in which
targeted reductions have been made in specific line item categories.

# Conference on Workplace Safety & Health Training

With the involvement of the EPA/NIEHS Superfund Worker Training Program,
an interagency effort has been initiated to examine health and safety
training. A National Conference on Workplace Safety & Health Training
will be held October 24-26, 1999 in the Henry VIII Hotel & Conference
Center, St. Louis, Missouri, co-sponsored by the National Institute for
Occupational Safety & Health, the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, and the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences. The conference is planned to bring together cross-sector
representatives to look at the workplace of the future, and plan new
approaches to occupational safety and health training, evaluation
strategies, and enabling policies to meet better the challenges ahead.

The conference is designed to be participatory and engage conference
attendees in the process of planning for the future. Considering
medical, insurance, lost-productivity, and personal costs, it is
estimated that occupational injury and illness costs totaled \$171
billion/year in 1992 for the U.S. These great costs to industry,
insurance, and society highlight the need for safety and health
interventions in the workplace, and an important role for public health
training and education professionals.

The conference will discuss how changes in the nature of work and the
makeup of the work force require changes in training and education
programs; explore how training and education relate to other components
of effective health and safety systems; identify new approaches and
technologies that can enhance traditional teaching methods; consider how
to evaluate the impact of training and education programs as one
component of many in the health and safety system; and stimulate
collaboration among business, labor, academia, professional
associations, government agencies and others to identify additional
resources and shape future directions for training and education.

# Guidelines for Training in Support of Workplace Safety and Health Programs

On November 12-13, 1998, a National Technical Workshop was held in
Silver Spring, Maryland at the George Meany Center to develop a
consensus document "*Guidelines for Training in Support of Workplace
Safety and Health Programs."* This Workshop was organized with the
specific intent to develop consensus guidelines, based upon the unique
experience of the participants, to provide guidance associated with the
development of training programs in support of employer safety and
health programs. OSHA recently announced, in the annual regulatory
agenda for the Agency, the intention to promulgate a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking for a comprehensive Safety and Health Program Rule. Training
is proposed as a requirement in the draft rule. Yet, very little detail
is included with regard to the development of training programs
associated with the Program rule.

The Guidelines developed in this Workshop and the resulting Guidance
Document will serve as important resource to OSHA during the rulemaking
process and to employers and trainers who seek to develop quality
workplace training programs in support of their safety and health
programs. The purpose of this guidelines document, therefore, is to
provide a comprehensive source of guidance and information to aid
employers, trainers, training providers, and training program developers
in the development, delivery, evaluation and continual improvement of
training to support and enhance workplace safety and health. These
guidelines are based upon the extensive experience of the Workshop
participants in occupational training and training associated with the
OSHA Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response standard
specifically.

# Technical Workshop on Virtual Safety and Health Training

[WORKER TRAINING AND THE INTERNET: A RESOURCE AND A TRAINING
MEDIUM]{.underline} will be an upcoming technical workshop in April 1999
in Denver, Colorado. Both computer-based training and on-line distance
learning are becoming invaluable resources for hazardous waste and
emergency response training information. Worker access to the Internet
can provide quick information on locations of hazardous waste sites,
types of chemical hazards, methods of accident and exposure prevention,
details about choosing and using personal protective equipment,
suggestions about monitoring and surveillance, and a myriad of other
topics of critical importance to worker safety and health. Many of these
Internet resources are linked to the NIEHS Clearinghouse Web Page. This
upcoming technical workshop and companion research paper surveys
resources currently available on-line to aid in hazardous materials
training and will examine efforts to evaluate the effectiveness of these
training methods and resources.

The Internet is also being used increasingly as a training provider.
Many colleges and universities are on-line to provide a variety of
academic and technical courses. Some of these courses are of a
correspondence nature, and students can contact a faculty member and
submit papers by E-mail. Some courses provide chat room and live-on line
interaction. Some courses provide interactive curricula on-line complete
with videos and self-testing. This technical workshop will survey the
state-of-the-art of virtual training, with a focus on safety and health
training, and a further focus on HAZMAT training.

# Request for Applications (RFA) Development Process

During August 1999, the NIEHS will be releasing the next formal program
announcement which will describe the hazardous waste worker training
program and its specific objectives, delineated grant application
procedures, defined characteristics of the programs to be funded and
established review criteria and procedures. In its announcement, the
NIEHS will specify a deadline in December 1999 for grant applications
from qualified non-profit organizations to support curriculum
development, direct training delivery and program evaluation.

NIEHS\' announcement will specifically state that proposed training
activities and curricula will be required to meet OSHA regulations, as
NIEHS has significantly expanded the proposed target populations for
OSHA-required training to include workers involved in waste site
investigations and assessments and in the transportation and generation
of hazardous waste; groups facing potential health risks that are
similar to cleanup workers and emergency responders.

The NIEHS will request that potential grant applicants demonstrate the
following: the ability to describe, access and train identified target
populations; to assemble an experienced program staff with adequate
technical expertise to work under a qualified training director and to
provide appropriate training facilities and equipment for implementing a
multi-year worker training program. The NIEHS will also require that
grant applicants submit a detailed training plan with numerical goals
and objectives, as well as develop an independent board of advisors with
appropriate training and expertise to evaluate and oversee the proposed
worker training program. Each applicant also will be required to develop
a proposed training program quality control and evaluation plan.
Consortium arrangements will be encouraged to minimize duplication of
efforts, to provide wide geographic coverage and to reduce
administrative costs.

# Conclusion

Based on our program experience over the past eleven years, the NIEHS
will continue to use cooperative agreements as the appropriate mechanism
for making awards to non-profit training organizations for fiscal years
1995-99. Because of the substantial programmatic involvement by NIEHS
staff to ensure the consistency, appropriateness and technical
reliability of funded training programs, the use of cooperative
agreements appear to be a more suitable instrument for supporting
extramural training of hazardous waste workers and emergency responders
and assuring the delivery of high quality safety and health programs to
high-risk populations.

In administering the DOE Hazmat Worker Training Program through an
Interagency Agreement with DOE, the NIEHS ensures that the traditional
peer review process of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) provides
the essential framework for the oversight of grant application reviews,
and guidance of the program with grants management activities and
ongoing program administration. Technical experts in toxicology,
industrial hygiene, labor education and hazardous waste management from
both the public and private sectors have played an ongoing role in
assuring that NIEHS supported programs demonstrate high technical merit
and adhere to stringent standards for quality control through periodic
site reviews and an ongoing peer review process.

The NIEHS/DOE Hazmat Worker Training Program must continue to meet the
EM-related national environmental goals of protecting communities from
exposures to wastes at abandoned dumpsites and currently operating
facilities and from exposures related to the storage, treatment and
disposal of waste. Additionally, we will continue to develop programs to
protect and train those who live and work in communities affected by DOE
environmental remediation activities. These goals will be achieved by
responding to the nation's changing needs for worker training in the
area of hazardous waste operations and emergency response to hazardous
materials.

The need for a trained workforce to handle environmental cleanup
activity at DOE has not diminished in recent years. To the contrary, the
DOE complex continues to be a very active laboratory for environmental
remediation technology, and the continued reduction in the number of
production facilities generates a corresponding increase in the number
of sites to be cleaned up. The waste management process also continues
to grow. Changes in the nature of the contracting to performance-based
makes the importance of contractor utilization of a very well trained
workforce compelling. The information available for the 1994 Needs
Assessment was, by virtue of the gaps in actual knowledge about cleanup
activity, somewhat sketchy.

The 1994 and 1997 Needs Assessments were prepared on the basis of
information on cleanup activity that was not always comprehensive; since
then, DOE has generated much more information about its environmental
remediation plans, and the DOE awardees have also delivered a
substantial amount of training throughout the complex. The information
in this report demonstrates that there is a significant level of cleanup
activity underway, and that the workers trained through the NIEHS
program now constitute\--and are likely to continue to constitute\--a
substantial part of the DOE workforce.

The NIEHS model programs will continue to encourage innovation for
training difficult-to-reach populations. This program is addressing
issues such as literacy, appropriate adult education techniques,
training quality improvement and other areas unaddressed directly by the
market place. The program enhances rather than replaces private sector
training by demonstrating new and cost-effective training techniques and
materials.

Appendices for DOE Progress Report

# 

# Appendix 1: Percent and Total of NIEHS/DOE Courses Completed

+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+
| ##                       |      |      |      |      |      |     |
|  DOE/NIEHS WORKER EDUCAT |      |      |      |      |      |     |
| ION AND TRAINING PROGRAM |      |      |      |      |      |     |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      |     |
| **PERCENT AND TOTAL OF   |      |      |      |      |      |     |
| NIEHS COURSES COMPLETED, |      |      |      |      |      |     |
| WORKERS TRAINED, AND     |      |      |      |      |      |     |
| CONTACT HOURS, BY SITE   |      |      |      |      |      |     |
| FOR BUDGET PERIOD        |      |      |      |      |      |     |
| 09/01/97-08/31/98**      |      |      |      |      |      |     |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+
| **SITE**                 | *    |      | *    |      | *    |     |
|                          | *COU |      | *WOR |      | *CON |     |
|                          | RSES |      | KERS |      | TACT |     |
|                          | COM  |      | T    |      | HOU  |     |
|                          | PLET |      | RAIN |      | RS** |     |
|                          | ED** |      | ED** |      |      |     |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+
|                          | **   | **P  | **   | **P  | **   | **  |
|                          | NUMB | ERCE | NUMB | ERCE | NUMB | PER |
|                          | ER** | NT** | ER** | NT** | ER** | CEN |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      | T** |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+
| Argonne National         | 4    | 0%   | 76   | 1%   | 1    | 0%  |
| Laboratory               |      |      |      |      | ,088 |     |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+
| Brookhaven National      | 15   | 2%   | 256  | 2%   | 2    | 1%  |
| Laboratory               |      |      |      |      | ,648 |     |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+
| Fernald Environmental    | 8    | 1%   | 98   | 1%   | 2    | 1%  |
| Management Project       |      |      |      |      | ,464 |     |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+
| Formerly Utilized Sites  | 29   | 3%   | 309  | 2%   | 4    | 2%  |
| Remedial Action          |      |      |      |      | ,024 |     |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+
| Hanford                  | 212  | 22%  | 4    | 29%  | 49   | 23% |
|                          |      |      | ,339 |      | ,714 |     |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+
| Idaho National           | 83   | 8%   | 1    | 9%   | 13   | 6%  |
| Engineering Laboratory   |      |      | ,383 |      | ,432 |     |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+
| Kansas City Plant        | 7    | 1%   | 115  | 1%   | 3    | 2%  |
|                          |      |      |      |      | ,488 |     |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+
| Lawrence Livermore       | 4    | 0%   | 50   | 0%   | 992  | 0%  |
| National Laboratory      |      |      |      |      |      |     |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+
| Los Alamos National      | 21   | 2%   | 359  | 2%   | 9    | 4%  |
| Laboratory               |      |      |      |      | ,040 |     |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+
| Mound Plant              | 16   | 2%   | 238  | 2%   | 1    | 1%  |
|                          |      |      |      |      | ,904 |     |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+
| Nevada Test Site         | 32   | 3%   | 323  | 2%   | 7    | 3%  |
|                          |      |      |      |      | ,144 |     |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+
| Oak Ridge Field Office   | 251  | 26%  | 3    | 26%  | 66   | 31% |
|                          |      |      | ,900 |      | ,864 |     |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+
| Paducah Gaseous          | 21   | 2%   | 303  | 2%   | 4    | 2%  |
| Diffusion Plant          |      |      |      |      | ,240 |     |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+
| Pantex Plant             | 20   | 2%   | 274  | 2%   | 2    | 1%  |
|                          |      |      |      |      | ,208 |     |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+
| Portmouth Gaseous        | 32   | 3%   | 360  | 2%   | 3    | 2%  |
| Diffusion Plant          |      |      |      |      | ,328 |     |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+
| Princeton Plasma Physics | 18   | 2%   | 45   | 0%   | 418  | 0%  |
| Laboratory               |      |      |      |      |      |     |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+
| Rocky Flats Office       | 41   | 4%   | 500  | 3%   | 7    | 3%  |
|                          |      |      |      |      | ,169 |     |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+
| Santa Susana Field       | 5    | 1%   | 81   | 1%   | 2    | 1%  |
| Laboratory               |      |      |      |      | ,432 |     |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+
| Savannah River Site      | 59   | 6%   | 744  | 5%   | 17   | 8%  |
|                          |      |      |      |      | ,200 |     |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+
| Umtra Project Office     | 3    | 0%   | 41   | 0%   | 1    | 1%  |
|                          |      |      |      |      | ,968 |     |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+
| Waste Isolation Pilot    | 1    | 0%   | 6    | 0%   | 48   | 0%  |
| Plant                    |      |      |      |      |      |     |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+
| Weldon Spring Site       | 12   | 1%   | 248  | 2%   | 2    | 1%  |
| Remedial Action Project  |      |      |      |      | ,984 |     |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+
| West Valley              | 69   | 7%   | 856  | 6%   | 9    | 4%  |
| Demonstration Project    |      |      |      |      | ,072 |     |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+
| Other^1^                 | 16   | 2%   | 144  | 1%   | 3    | 2%  |
|                          |      |      |      |      | ,782 |     |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+
| # TOTAL                  | 979  | 100% | 15   | 100% | 217  | 1   |
|                          |      |      | ,048 |      | ,651 | 00% |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+

^1^ Includes: Department of Energy -- Headquarters and others

# Appendix 2: Five-Year Summary

+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| ### DOE/NIEHS   |                 |                 |                 |
|                 |                 |                 |                 |
| ### 5 YEAR T    |                 |                 |                 |
| RAINING SUMMARY |                 |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| #####           | ###             | ##              | **Total Contact |
|                 |   Total Courses | # Total Workers | Hours**         |
| ##### Year      |                 |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| 1994            | 476             | 7,107           | 184,605         |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| 1995            | 1,082           | 13,524          | 249,368         |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| 1996            | 1,195           | 18,663          | 291,107         |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| 1997            | 1,270           | 18,394          | 244,212         |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| 1998            | 979             | 15,048          | 217,651         |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| ##### TOTAL     | 5,002           | 72,736          | 1,186,943       |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+

# Appendix 3: FY 97 Funding

+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| ### DOE/NI                               |                           |
| EHS WORKER EDUCATION AND TRAINING AWARDS |                           |
|                                          |                           |
| **FOR BUDGET PERIOD 09/01/97-08/31/98**  |                           |
|                                          |                           |
| **FY 1997 FUNDS**                        |                           |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| **AWARDEE**                              | **HWWT 9/97 AWARD**       |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| International Chemical Workers Union     | \$650,000                 |
| Council                                  |                           |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| International Association of Fire        | \$300,000                 |
| Fighters                                 |                           |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| Laborers-AGC Education and Training      | \$2,180,000               |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers           | \$970,000                 |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| University of Medicine & Dentistry of    | \$298,175                 |
| New Jersey                               |                           |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| International Union of Operating         | \$1,300,000               |
| Engineers                                |                           |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| United Brotherhood of Carpenters         | \$2,297,825               |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| **TOTAL**                                | **\$7,996,000**           |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+

# Appendix 4: FY 98 Funding

+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| ### DOE/NI                               |                           |
| EHS WORKER EDUCATION AND TRAINING AWARDS |                           |
|                                          |                           |
| **FOR BUDGET PERIOD 09/01/98-08/31/99**  |                           |
|                                          |                           |
| **FY 1998 FUNDS**                        |                           |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| **AWARDEE**                              | **HWWT 9/98 AWARD**       |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| International Chemical Workers Union     | \$1,000,000               |
| Council                                  |                           |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| International Association of Fire        | \$400,000                 |
| Fighters                                 |                           |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| Laborers-AGC Education and Training      | \$2,180,000               |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers           | \$1,025,000               |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| University of Medicine & Dentistry of    | \$350,000                 |
| New Jersey                               |                           |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| International Union of Operating         | \$1,078,000               |
| Engineers                                |                           |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| United Brotherhood of Carpenters         | \$2,403,000               |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| **TOTAL**                                | **\$8,436,000**           |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+

# Appendix 5: TRAINING PARAMETERS

+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+---------+
| **FINAL FIVE YEAR |       |       |       |       |       |         |
| SUMMARY:**        |       |       |       |       |       |         |
|                   |       |       |       |       |       |         |
| **DOE\\NIEHS      |       |       |       |       |       |         |
| WORKER EDUCATION  |       |       |       |       |       |         |
| AND TRAINING      |       |       |       |       |       |         |
| PROGRAM**         |       |       |       |       |       |         |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+---------+
| TRAINING          | **1   | **1   | **1   | **1   | **1   | **      |
| PARAMETERS^1^     | 994** | 995** | 996** | 997** | 998** | TOTAL** |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+---------+
| Number of         | 8     | 8     | 8     | 7     | 7     |         |
| Awardees          |       |       |       |       |       |         |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+---------+
| Courses Completed | 476   | 1,082 | 1,195 | 1,270 | 979   | 5,002   |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+---------+
| Workers Trained   | 7,107 | 1     | 1     | 1     | 1     | 72,736  |
|                   |       | 3,524 | 8,663 | 8,394 | 5,048 |         |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+---------+
| Contact Hours     | 18    | 24    | 29    | 24    | 21    | 1,      |
|                   | 4,605 | 9,368 | 1,107 | 4,212 | 7,651 | 186,943 |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+---------+
| Dollars Awarded   | \     | \     | \     | \     | \     | \$44,   |
|                   | $9,89 | $9,71 | $8,93 | $7,99 | $8,43 | 985,300 |
|                   | 8,826 | 9,474 | 5,000 | 6,000 | 6,000 |         |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+---------+
| Cost Per Contact  | \$    | \$    | \$    | \$    | \$    | \$37.90 |
| Hours             | 53.62 | 38.98 | 30.69 | 32.74 | 38.76 |         |
+-------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+---------+

#### ^1^Data based on program years of training which begin on September 1, 1993 through August 31, 1994; September 1, 1994 through August 31, 1995; September 1, 1995 through August 31, 1996; September 1, 1996 through August 31, 1997; September 1, 1997 through August 31, 1998.  {#data-based-on-program-years-of-training-which-begin-on-september-1-1993-through-august-31-1994-september-1-1994-through-august-31-1995-september-1-1995-through-august-31-1996-september-1-1996-through-august-31-1997-september-1-1997-through-august-31-1998. .unnumbered}

# Appendix 6: Target Populations

+-----------+----------+---------+--------+--------+-------+-------+
| **DO      |          |         |        |        |       |       |
| E/NIEHS** |          |         |        |        |       |       |
|           |          |         |        |        |       |       |
| **TARGET  |          |         |        |        |       |       |
| POPU      |          |         |        |        |       |       |
| LATIONS** |          |         |        |        |       |       |
|           |          |         |        |        |       |       |
| **9/1/97  |          |         |        |        |       |       |
| --        |          |         |        |        |       |       |
| 8/31/98** |          |         |        |        |       |       |
+-----------+----------+---------+--------+--------+-------+-------+
| #### T    | **C      | **%**   | **\#** | **%**  | *     | **%** |
| arget {#t | ourses** |         |        |        | *\#** |       |
| arget .un |          | **Co    | ##     | **Wor  |       | **Co  |
| numbered} | **Com    | urses** | #### W | kers** | **Co  | ntact |
|           | pleted** |         | orkers |        | ntact | Ho    |
| **Popu    |          | **Comp  |        | **Tra  | Ho    | urs** |
| lations** |          | leted** | ####   | ined** | urs** |       |
|           |          |         | Traine |        |       |       |
|           |          |         | d {#tr |        |       |       |
|           |          |         | ained  |        |       |       |
|           |          |         | .unnum |        |       |       |
|           |          |         | bered} |        |       |       |
+-----------+----------+---------+--------+--------+-------+-------+
| CERCLA    | 395      | 40%     | 7,030  | 47%    | 11    | 52%   |
| C         |          |         |        |        | 3,332 |       |
| leanup^1^ |          |         |        |        |       |       |
+-----------+----------+---------+--------+--------+-------+-------+
| RCRA/I    | 284      | 29%     | 4,502  | 30%    | 4     | 20%   |
| ndustrial |          |         |        |        | 3,312 |       |
+-----------+----------+---------+--------+--------+-------+-------+
| Emergency | 28       | 3%      | 340    | 2%     | 5,325 | 2%    |
| Response  |          |         |        |        |       |       |
+-----------+----------+---------+--------+--------+-------+-------+
| Radiation | 94       | 10%     | 942    | 6%     | 2     | 9%    |
|           |          |         |        |        | 0,448 |       |
+-----------+----------+---------+--------+--------+-------+-------+
| Lead      | 11       | 1%      | 113    | 1%     | 2,552 | 1%    |
| Abatement |          |         |        |        |       |       |
+-----------+----------+---------+--------+--------+-------+-------+
| Asbestos  | 92       | 9%      | 1,099  | 7%     | 2     | 10%   |
| Abatement |          |         |        |        | 2,424 |       |
+-----------+----------+---------+--------+--------+-------+-------+
| Other     | 75       | 8%      | 1,022  | 7%     | 1     | 5%    |
|           |          |         |        |        | 0,258 |       |
+-----------+----------+---------+--------+--------+-------+-------+
| *         | **979**  | *       | **15   | **     | *     | **1   |
| *TOTALS** |          | *100%** | ,048** | 100%** | *217, | 00%** |
|           |          |         |        |        | 651** |       |
+-----------+----------+---------+--------+--------+-------+-------+

^1^ The overall majority of training remains in the CERCLA Cleanup
training.

####   {#section-10 .unnumbered}

# Appendix 7: Total Training by NIEHS Awardee

+-------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| **DOE//NIEHS Worker Education |            |            |           |
| and Training**                |            |            |           |
|                               |            |            |           |
| **TOTAL TRAINING For Budget   |            |            |           |
| Period 09/01/97-08/31/98**    |            |            |           |
+-------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| #                             | **COURSES  | *          | **        |
|                               | C          | *WORKERS** | CONTACT** |
| # AWARDEE                     | OMPLETED** |            |           |
|                               |            | *          | **HOURS** |
|                               |            | *TRAINED** |           |
+-------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| International Chemical        | 119        | 1,994      | 19,954    |
| Workers Union Council         |            |            |           |
+-------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| International Association of  | 6          | 156        | 4,793     |
| Fire Fighters                 |            |            |           |
+-------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| Laborers-AGC Education and    | 315        | 3,748      | 84,752    |
| Training                      |            |            |           |
+-------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| Oil, Chemical & Atomic        | 182        | 2,945      | 28,432    |
| Workers                       |            |            |           |
+-------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| University of Medicine &      | 122        | 1,347      | 14,250    |
| Dentistry of New Jersey       |            |            |           |
+-------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| International Union of        | 129        | 2,337      | 27,936    |
| Operating Engineers           |            |            |           |
+-------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| United Brotherhood of         | 106        | 2,521      | 37,534    |
| Carpenters                    |            |            |           |
+-------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+
| **TOTAL**                     | **979**    | **15,048** | **        |
|                               |            |            | 217,651** |
+-------------------------------+------------+------------+-----------+

####  {#section-12 .unnumbered}

[^1]: The total of 71,700 presences logged is probably higher than the
    number of workers who actually participated in courses because some
    individuals attend more than one class and many participants in
    basic training take part in refresher courses the following year.