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 issues 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 work 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 environmental 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 based 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 

requirements 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 managing 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 laboratories. 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 arena.

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: Johnson & 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 maintainingrecords for three years 

or the closure of the facility. We would like to see this 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 generators). We also recommend that such records only be required to be retained for three 

years by generators.

Stakeholder: ESS Group Subject:Scope of personnel needing RCRA training 

Comment: 40 CFR 265.16(a) requires that facility personnel be trained 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 example, 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 through 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 procedures 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 employee 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

Comment: 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.

Stakeholder: 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 

also the same generators experiencing numerous RCRA violations at the time of a compliance evaluation 
inspection (CEI). On the same note, generators having detailed training programs in hazardous waste 

management requirements, and although not required, makean 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 

identification; 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 above 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 occur 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 accordance 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. Job 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 language:

(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 while 
providing 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 period of 

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

means 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 emergencies 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 who 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 

records 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 the 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 

contact 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 maintained 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 community 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 

through 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 address 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 “clean” records different from the records kept in 

employee’s personnel files.

Stakeholder: Alcoa Subject: Job descriptions
Comment: Revise requirement for written job descriptions for employees that manage hazardous 

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). This 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 not 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 responsetraining 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 require response training for releases that can be cleaned up 

by the personnel in the immediate area. OSHA acknowledges that the training received under 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 third 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 to 
CESQGs to contain 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. Elimination 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, under 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.

Stakeholder: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 personnel 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 subject 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 RCRA 
Burden Reduction Proposed Rule, along with others identified under 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 proposed 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 by more 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), clarifying 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 plan 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 probably be synthesized into 4 themes: Evaluating the utility of 

existing employee records (i.e., job title, job description, 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 employee 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 and 
job positions to other alternatives that streamline requirements, such as those proposed by 

Dominion Power and others. 

Potential EPA Response: Evaluate content of Burden 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 fulfill 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 existing 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.” 

Requiring maintenance of RCRA employee training records at SQG facilities. This issue has 

to be evaluated and addressed from more holistic viewpoint, particularly since 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.