**Summary of Stakeholder Comments By Topic (Training)** 

**Stakeholder:** American Chemical Society **Subject:** Waste management plan for university labs that incorporates training requirements
Comment: An ongoing issue in the management of laboratory wastes under RCRA has been confusion concerning the proper management protocols for chemical wastes in the laboratory. **The storage and management of chemicals in laboratories**  **, which includes the iss**  **ues identified by the EPA under the title of this section, is subject to several different regulatory requirements,**  **including the OSHA Laboratory Standard and appropriate local fire codes.**  Adding to the confusion, the discontinuous nature of laboratory wor k often makes it unclear as to where and when a particular chemical container becomes a RCRA hazardous waste. This confusion has led to several jurisdictions citing laboratory institutions based on RCRA procedural requirements in situations where no enviro nmental threat exists. **The American Chemical Society believes that the best approach to the management of chemical wastes in the laboratory is institution** 

**- specific.**  **Therefore, laboratory requirements for identification, labeling and training should be base**  **d on an institutional laboratory waste management plan that specifically describes standards for proper chemical and waste storage in the laboratories, and the**  **specific procedures for assuring that the chemical wastes are managed according to RCRA requirem**  **ents when it leaves the laboratory.** The ACS does not believe that the current "one size fits all" approach of RCRA provides any incentive for reducing the amount of hazardous waste produced by laboratory operations, and, in fact provides an incentive for m anaging wastes according to RCRA when better, less polluting opportunities are available.

**PROPOSAL:** For these reasons, the ACS solicits the explicit support of the EPA for a laboratory chemical waste management plan approach to chemical waste in laborato ries. This plan could be similar to that described by the group of higher education associations in the comment in this docket, although we believe that this approach can be successfully applied in any laboratory setting, not simply the higher education ar ena .

**Stakeholder:** State of Michigan **Subject:** Job titles and descriptions

**Comment: Eliminate the generator requirement**  for job titles and descriptions as part of recordkeeping(40 CFR 262.34)

Stakeholder: J ohnson & Johnson **Subject:** Reduce recordkeeping requirements

Comment: Johnson & Johnson has 44 facilities in the PTrack program and this filing summarizes the interests expressed by our facilities. Specific ideas for relief suggested by our members were: **Revising 265.16(d)**  which calls for maintaining a lot of information for training including job titles, written job descriptions, written descriptions of the amount and type of training, and maintaining records for three years or the closure of the facility. **We would like to see t his pared down to just training records showing**  **employees had their annual training.**

**Stakeholder:** ESS Group **Subject:** Recordkeeping requirements for SQGs

Comment: **40 CFR 262 Subpart D**

- Although training of employees at large and small quantity generators is required, there is no record keeping requirement for such in 40 CFR 262 Subpart D. 40 CFR 265.16 (applicable to large quantity generators only) requires training records to be kept until closure for current employees. Since 40 CFR 262 Subpart D provides recordkeeping requirements applicable to generators, we suggest adding a requirement to document that required training has been completed (for both large and small quantity generato rs). We also recommend that such records only be required to be retained for three years by generators.
**Stak eholder:**  ESS Group **Subject:** Scope of personnel needing RCRA training

Comment: **40 CFR 265.16(a**) r equires that facility personnel be tr ained through classroom instruction or

on - the

-job training and that the program be directed by a person trained in hazardous waste management procedures. **It is not clear whether this regulation requires that all employees attend a training program.**  For exa mple, the hazardous waste manager for a site checks the federal register, reviews new regulations, and uses other such means to train herself through self

- study. She, in turn, trains the employees at the facility. Is she required to be trained other than t hrough her on

- the

-job self

- study?
**Stakeholder: ESS Group Subject: Contingency plan requirement** **Comment: 40 CFR 265.16(a)(3)** describes specific items that must be included in the training program. The

contingency plan is required to discuss specific p rocedures to follow in the event of an emergency. **We suggest that the training regulation just state that the contingency plan must be reviewed.** 

**Stakeholder:** ESS Group **Subject:** Duration for maintaining training records

Comment: **40 CFR 265.16** requires that training records for current em loyees be kept until closure of the facility. There does not appear to be an environmental benefit to having old training records. **We suggest that employee training records be kept for three years** , similar to most other record keeping requirements. Should EPA prefer to require companies to keep training records for extended periods of time, we suggest that records for employees no longer working with hazardous waste only be kept for three years after the employ ee stopped having responsibilities related to hazardous waste and that “closure of the facility” be defined to mean the discontinuing of the hazardous waste generation activities.

**Stakeholder:** Conoco Phillips **Subject:** Rely on EMSs to train personnel

C omment: ConocoPhillips Company recommends that EPA clarify the expectations forthe RCRA training requirements and, as a test case for the use of Environmental Management System (EMS), allow generators to address training needs by way of an EMS.

**Stakehold er:**  State of Delaware Subject: Clarify content of training

Comment: **With regard to training requirements, the content and format for hazardous waste generator training is unspecified in the regulations. Nor can much guidance be found.**  **In many cases, training consists of OSHA §1910.120 (HAZWOPER) training and review of a site’s hazardous waste**  **contingency plan (if applicable) and site specific emergency response procedures.** The majority of generators do not realize that these details are in addition to general hazardous waste management training requirements. It has been DE

- DNREC's experience over the last twenty years of program implementation that the generators who believe they are meeting RCRA training requirements by utilizing HAZWOPER alone are al so the same generators experiencing numerous RCRA violations at the time of a compliance evaluationinspection (CEI). On the same note, generators having detailed training programs in hazardous waste

management requirements, and although not required, make an effort to familiarize personnel working in satellite accumulation areas with hazardous waste requirements, experience fewer, if no, hazardous waste violations at the time of a CEI. **Thus, at a minimum, the regulations should be specific as to the training required for each category of**  **generator, with the conservative requirement found in 40 CFR Part §262.34(d)(5)(iii) applied to all. As for training requirements, the DE** 

**- DNREC believes training for LQGs be specific to hazardous waste**  **identificat ion; pretransport requirements; manifesting; recordkeeping and reporting; LDR; air**  **emission standards; and emergency preparedness and contingency plans. SQGs would experience similar training requirements as related to the regulatory applicability of the a**  **bove to that generator category. Further while the regulations do not require those managing waste in satellite accumulation**  **areas be trained, we suggest training be required.** Again, it has been our experience that satellite accumulation area violations oc cur when personnel responsible for the areas have not received training. Training may be as simple as instructing personnel in these areas that containers must be labeled and closed.

**Stakeholder:** Dominion Power Subject: Job descriptions

Comment: In ac cordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 265.16 (d)(1) and (2), Dominion must provide job descriptions for the trained employees of an LQG for the life of the facility. J ob descriptions may change frequently, resulting in an an unnecessary administrative burden to maintain original and updated job descriptions for an extended period of time. **Therefore, Dominion recommends that EPA delete the requirement to maintain job descriptions for trained personnel. Dominion recommends EPA consider**  **the following langu age:**  **(D) The owner must maintain the following records at the facility: (1) Training documentation, which includes:**  **(i) a list of all trained employees (name and SSN) (ii) Job title**  **(iii) Date of training, and (iv) Instructor’s name and title**  **(2) Copy of training materials.**  Dominion believes that the above requirements will reduce the current administrative burden whileproviding adequate training documentation that the required training has been given to facility personnel.

**Stakeholder:** State of North Carolina Subject: Clarify what “annual” means

Comment: 40 CFR 262.34(a)(4) ref. 40 CFR 265.16(c) should specify that “annual” is a 365

- day p eriod of time. The State of North Carolina has guidance that suggests that performing an “annual RCRA update”

m eans that it should be performed within 365 days of the previous RCRA training. A specific definition of “annual” would help the enforceability of this regulation.

**Stakeholder: State of North Carolina Subject:**  Job titles
**Comment: 40 CFR 262(a)(4) ref. 40 CFR 265.16(d)(1** 

**- 3) should be withdrawn from the training**  **requirements.** Hazardous waste job titles and descriptions serve little purpose in assisting facility personnel in performing their hazardous waste management duties and responding to emergen cies properly. The focus of this regulation should, instead, be on **ensuring personnel are properly trained and that appropriate records are maintained on site to document proper training. A**  generator should maintain a listing of names of each individual wh o participates in the facility’s hazardous waste management program. Instead of maintaining individual records of the type and amount of introductory and continuing training that will be give to each person filling a position, as stated in 40 CFR 262.34(a) (4) ref. 40 CFR 265.16(d)(3), the facility should maintain a written description (e.g. in the form of a training outline) of the amount of both introductory and continuing training that will be given to the individuals in the program as a whole. Training

r ecords that specify training dates should be maintained for each individual and retention of records should remain as outlined in 40 CFR 262.34(a)(4) ref. 40 CFR 265.16(e).

**Stakeholder:** State of Alabama Subject: Clarify definition of facility personnel

**Comment: Clarification of definition of facility personnel** 

**– 262.34(a)(4) references 265.16, which**  **describes t**  **he hazardous waste training that facilities must conduct. Throughout Rule 265.16, the term “facility personnel” is frequently used to**  **describe those persons subject to the training requirements. No clear definition of facility personnel is given. This has been interpreted in the past**  **by both state and EPA inspectors as applying only to those who are directly involved with or come in**
**cont act with 90/180 day hazardous waste accumulation areas. However, ADEM has encountered a** **number of other interpretations of this term in the field. Additionally, Rules 265.16(d)(1),(2), and (3)**

**state that training documents and requirements must be maintain ed for those positions "related to**  **hazardous waste management," and Rule 265.16(d)(4) again refers to "facility personnel." Rule 265.16(e) states that training records on "current personnel" must be maintained. These phrases**  **seem to be used interchangeably , but the definition of "hazardous waste manager" seems to refer to a**  **much smaller group than "facility personnel" implies. The lack of a clear description or definition for “facility personnel” makes the training requirements difficult for the regulated c**  **ommunity to be sure that they are adequately training all of the personnel necessary for compliance with the rule. To**  **resolve this issue, ADEM recommends that, for the purpose of Rule 265.16, “facility personnel” or "persons required to maintain documented**  **training" should be defined explicitly in the regulations as “those employees that have a direct effect on the hazardous waste accumulation activities at the**  **facility, whether by direct contact with the 90/180 day hazardous waste accumulation areas or thr** **ough hazardous waste management activities such as conducting inspections, signing manifests, etc.”** 

**Stakeholder:** PhRMA **Subject:** EMSs in lieu of training requirements
**Comment: 265.16 & 265.16(d)(2)**

**- PhRMA recommends that EPA allow generators to addre**  **ss training via their equivalent internal management systems approach, and that the requirements for**  **maintaining written job descriptions be dropped for generators, or at least be less prescriptive.**

**Stakeholder:** State of Florida **Subject:** Proper records
Comment: Generator Training, Preparedness/Prevention and Contingency Plan Requirements: 262.34 **Deficiencies in training are usually obvious because of other noncompliance issues at the facility.** Environmental staff have been known to keep separate “clea n” records different from the records kept in employee’s personnel files.

**Stakeholder:** Alcoa **Subject:** Job descriptionsComment: **Revise requirement for written job descriptions for employees that manage h**  **azardous**

**wastes** The requirement for large quantity generators to document job descriptions for all employees involved in the management of hazardous waste **should be revised.** This requirement is found at §265.16(d)(2) and is incorporated by reference into §262.34(a)(4). **Th is requirement, although necessary**  **for TSDFs, can be streamlined for generators without increasing human health or environmental risk.**

**Stakeholder:** Graphic Arts Coalition (GAC) **Subject:** Redundancy with other statutes

Comment: **EPA regulations, OSHA regulations and DOT regulations all include requirements to train employees handling hazardous materials, including hazardous wastes.**  Given the basis for the training is due to on

- site storage and management of chemicals as either raw materials or hazardous wastes, **the GAC believes one common training session that satisfies all three (3) requirements would impart needed**  **information to employees in a more effective manner. In addition, the requirements specified by**  **RCRA are vague and no t specific regarding what is required, especially for SQGs. It is not clear, for**  **example, what subjects should be covered by training, who is subject to training, and how often a person should be trained. Clarification and harmonization of the SQG response**  **training requirements is recommended.** 
**In order to avoid unnecessary and costly training, the mandatory response requirement for SQGs should be revised to directly correspond with OSHA’s HAZWOPER requirements or ideally, simply**  **reference the OSHA requirements as meeting the mandatory requirement for SQGs. Under the**  **HAZWOPER standard, OSHA does not r**  **equire response training for releases that can be cleaned up by the personnel in the immediate area. OSHA acknowledges that the training received unde**  **r the Hazard Communication Standard is sufficient for employee protection. In addition, OSHA allows a**  **company to forego training if a policy is in place to evacuate the building under emergency circumstances and call in a third party for emergency response** 

. However, because the SQG regulation requires the generator to respond to any release, this automatically imposes HAZWOPER training under OSHA. Since CESQGs have no mandatory emergency response requirements under RCRA, they can take advantage of the thi rd party response option and not train under HAZWOPER. SQGs and LQGs are required to meet both the RCRA response and HAZWOPER requirements, which are redundant. Both SQGs and LQGs should be given the same option that is currently offered toCESQGs to conta in and evacuate.

**Stakeholder:** American Petroleum Institute (API) **Subject:** Job descriptions

Comment: Wastes generators are required to comply with personnel training found at §265.16. **API requests EPA eliminate the requirements for maintaining written**  **job descriptions and other documentation requirements for generators.**  **E limination of these paperwork requirements was proposed by EPA in**  **the January 17, 2002 Burden Reduction Initiative proposed rulemaking (67 FR 2518), but has not yet been finalized.** 
API provided comments to EPA’s “Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Burden Reduction Initiative”, 68 FR 61662 (October 29, 2003). **API supported the Agency finding that a person completing the OSHA training, including training for emergency response, u**  **nder 29 CFR 1910.120(p) fulfills the RCRA emergency response training requirements. Providing the option of continuing with a RCRA**  **emergency response program in addition to the OSHA requirements will benefit those facilities that are not required to train**  **under 29 CFR 1910.120(p). API supports allowing a facility to select compliance with either the RCRA or OSHA emergency response training requirements.** 

**Stak eholder:**  SOCMA **Subject:** Recordkeeping requirements

Comment: **SOCMA Urges RCRA Burden Reduction in Recordkeeping and Reporting.** SOCMA generally supports efforts to reduce record keeping and notification requirements that have proven to be redundant or of little value to regulators. **In this regard, SOCMA agrees with EPA’s prior statements that**  **it is not necessary to require facilities to comply simultaneously with equivalent emergency response training programs under both the RCRA and OSHA programs. However, EPA needs to recognize that**  **not all facilities and not all p ersonnel are required to complete the OSHA training programs. Hence, it**  **is very important toSOCMA members that EPA allow compliance with the OSHA training programs as an alternative to compliance with RCRA training, while still allowing facilities not subj**  **ect to OSHA training the option of continuing with their current RCRA training programs.** 
Overall, SOCMA believes that the paperwork reduction and burden reduction steps embodied in the RCRABurden Reduction Proposed Rule, along with others identified unde r this initiative, will be of direct benefit to

both state and federal regulators, as well as to the regulated community. Discussions with SOCMA members have again confirmed that the points raised by SOCMA with respect to that Proposed Rule continue to be priorities that will be of significant benefit to SOCMA members. For smaller companies with limited staff and resources, even small adjustments in the regulations can be quite significant in helping a facility balance a workload. Most importantly, these pr oposed changes can eliminate unproductive requirements and thereby enhance the ability of these companies to focus their resources on more useful environmental compliance and performance activities.

**Analysis of Comments** 1. **19 individual comments**  received from 15 different stakeholders. 2. **Comments addressed 10 different topics** with 3 topics addressed b y m ore than one stakeholder. Topics receiving the most comments included: Eliminating and/or modifying existing regulations associated with maintaining records for job descriptions, job titles, etc (6), utilizing EMSs in lieu of RCRA training requirements (3), clarif ying the scope of who should be trained, or what constitutes “facility personnel” (2). Other topics mentioned included: requiring recordkeeping for personnel associated with SQG facilities; clarifying requirements for contingency

p lan action within the training requirements; changing the length of time records must be maintained for active facilities (3 years or forever); clarifying training content; i.e., what employees need to know such as waste determination, waste handling, etc.; clarifying the definition of “annual” training; requiring facilities to keep “honest” vs. bogus training records; and eliminating any redundancies or overlaps in training between RCRA requirements and other statutes, such as OSHA (HAZWOPER) or DOT. 3. The above 19 comments can probabl y be s ynthesized into **4 themes** : Evaluating the utility of existing employee records (i.e., job title, job descripti on, length of time records must be maintained, etc.), use of EMSs in lieu of RCRA training regulations, improving the clarity (i.e., who must take the training, definitions “annual” and “facility personnel”, contingency plan, content of training, and Other (addressing redundancy , bogus records, and scope (records for SQG personnel). **Key comments on each Theme/Topic: Evaluating**  **the utility**  **of existing**  **employee records:**  More comments were received on this topic then any other associated with employee training. Current regulations require a considerable amount of recordkeeping associated with emplo ye e training, including job description, job title, training course materials, date of training, etc. At issue is the cost and benefits of requiring this information. Recommendations varied from eliminating certain components, such as job titles andjob positions to other alternatives that streamline requirements, such as those proposed b y

Dominion Power and others. **Potential EPA Response: Evaluate content of B urden Reduction rule relative to ANPRM**  **comments and determine if any additional changes are necessary via rule making process. Environmental management plans: Three**  organizations recommended deferring to a facility ’s environmental management plan to fulfi ll RCRA training requirements. At issue would be the content of that plan, its enforceability and whether facilities could opt into using that plan in lieu of RCRA employee regulations. **Potential EPA Response:** EPA would have to issue a rule modifying exi sting regulations and allowing organizations the ability to defer to their EMSs as satisfying RCRA training requirements. **Improving the clarity of the regulations:** As stated above, several commenters sought clarification from EPA on particular terms. These included: who must take the training, definitions of “annual” and “facility

personnel”, contingency

plan, and content of training, etc. **Potential EPA Response:** Clarifying guidance could be issued, but we would need to get confirmation from OGC . A rule also would work. At issue are the costs and benefits of either approach; i.e., time, legal ramifications, scope (i.e., what else would be included in a rule**). Other**  **(addressing redundancy, bogus records, and scope (records for SQG personnel).** The issue of RCRA redundancy with other statutes was a recurring comment. **Potential Action** : A careful evaluation would need to be conducted, particularly with OSHA HAZWOPER requirements to determine extent of overlap and potential gaps if a facility were allowed to defer to another statute. A rule would be needed to allow for this deferral to OSHA. **Bogus Records:** Not sure if there is a solution other than issuing an Enforcement Alert warning facilities of the consequences of “doctoring records.” **Requi ring maintenance of RCRA employee training records at SQG facilities.**  This issue has to be evaluated and addressed from more holistic viewpoint, particularl y s ince this would increase compliance costs for SQGs. **Potential Action** : None right now, but a rule would be necessary if we ever went forward with such a proposal.