From: Bunnell, Ross [mailto:Ross.Bunnell@ct.gov] 

Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 11:04 AM

To: 'William Yeman'; Sullivan, Kevin T; 'Mark Dennen'; 'Sean Carney'; 'Yan Li'; 'Mike Hastry'; 'John 

Duclos'; 'Michael Wimsatt'; 'Brett Putnam'; 'Russ Brauksieck'; 'Heather Parent'; 'Melanie Loyzim'; 'Terri 

Goldberg'; 'James Paterson'; Simoes, Steve

Cc: Metcalf, Lynn

Subject: RE: Question from VT DEC on State Hazardous Waste Regulations

Steve:

We’re pretty much similar to New York on this issue, with one exception (see last paragraph below).

In Connecticut, we expect personnel who are involved in the management of hazardous waste at an 

LQG site to be included in the list of names and job descriptions required under 40 CFR 265.16(d)(1) 

and (d)(2). In addition, we also look to see that these job description specifically include the hazardous 

waste duties of these personnel. The personnel we would expect job descriptions for would include, as 

you described, “... anyone who completes/signs a manifest, manages waste in a designated storage 

area, maintains a storage area inventory, conducts daily inspections ..., or is designated as an 

emergency coordinator.” We would not, however, expect job descriptions for personnel whose only 

hazardous waste activities include adding hazardous waste to satellite containers. With respect to 

satellite containers, we concur with long-standing EPA guidance which indicates that wastes managed 

in satellite accumulation areas are not subject to hazardous waste requirements that are not 

specifically identified in 40 CFR 262.34(c), such as personnel training, weekly inspections, emergency

planning, Subpart CC air emissions requirements, and generator closure. See for example, the 

following RCRA On-Line documents (note that these are live links to the actual EPA documents):

ROL # 11317

ROL # 11373

ROL # 11779 (see second-to-last paragraph)

ROL # 13777

ROL # 14418

ROL # 14703 (see in particular the intro text and the answer to question 8)

As a result, we don’t typically look for the job descriptions for the “general workforce” as you 

described it (i.e., those who do not have any hazardous waste duties other than adding waste to 

satellite containers) to see if they include hazardous waste responsibilities. We would, however, 

support a generator’s decision to voluntarily provide hazardous waste training to personnel whose only 

hazardous waste duties involve adding waste to satellite containers as a good Best Management 

Practice, so as to prevent spills and other mishaps.

In addition, to address your three bulleted questions specifically:

 When conducting inspections, do you limit your review of job descriptions to “key” personnel 

responsible for the more significant HW management activities, or do you review job 

descriptions for all employees?
CT DEEP Reply: We would review job descriptions only for those personnel involved in 

hazardous waste management (although, as noted above, we would not review job 

descriptions for personnel whose only responsibilities involve the addition of hazardous waste 

to satellite containers).

 If you review job descriptions for more than just the “key” HW personnel, what do you 

typically ask for in order to evaluate compliance with the job description requirement? In 

other words, let’s say there are 150 general workforce employees who may handle HW in 

some way... how do you go about evaluating job descriptions for these employees? (e.g., 

random, employees met during the walk-through, all employees...)

CT DEEP Reply: Not applicable, since CT DEEP does not review job descriptions beyond the 

“key personnel” that are involved in hazardous waste management.

 What information do you require in order to consider a job description adequate? Do you 

require that hazardous waste handling responsibilities be specified in all cases?

CT DEEP Reply: CT DEEP does require that each of the employees involved in hazardous waste 

management (again, other than the addition of waste to a satellite container) have their 

hazardous waste duties spelled out in writing. This could be in an actual personnel department 

job description, or in documents created specifically for the LQG’s hazardous waste program.

For example, many LQGs will develop a “training plan” that will include, among other things, a 

listing of the names of the personnel that are subject to LQG training requirements, and their 

hazardous waste job descriptions.

Lastly, I noted that NY DEC stated in its response that if an LQG operates without using any less-than-90-

day storage areas (i.e., ships waste off-site directly from satellite areas only), they would consider the 

LQG not to be subject to personnel training requirements. Connecticut would not make this same 

interpretation. Rather, even in the case of an LQG that operates only satellite accumulation areas, CT 

DEEP would still require that the facility emergency coordinator(s) be trained, in addition to any 

emergency response or spill cleanup personnel the LQG might have. We would also still expect 

personnel involved in preparing and signing manifests to be trained. And, because Connecticut requires 

LQGs (and SQGs) to comply with 40 CFR 265.15 inspection requirements, which include inspections of 

emergency response equipment, we would still require personnel performing emergency equipment 

inspections to be trained under 40 CFR 265.16. We believe that, regardless of the EPA guidance 

exempting satellite areas from personnel training requirements, the language of 40 CFR 265.16 applies 

to more than just less-than-90-day areas. In particular, 40 CFR 265.16(a)(1) states that “facility 

personnel must successfully complete ... training that teaches them to perform their duties in a way that 

ensures the facility’s compliance with the requirements of this part.” The requirements of “this part” 

(i.e., Part 265) include more than just the container management requirements of Subpart I and 40 CFR 

262.34(a). They include requirements such as the preparedness and prevention requirements of 40 CFR 

265 Subpart C, the Contingency Plan requirement of Subpart D, and the manifest system, recordkeeping, 

and reporting requirements of Subpart E. Furthermore, 40 CFR 265.16(a)(3) states that “at a minimum, 

the training program must be designed to ensure that facility personnel are able to respond effectively 

to emergencies ...”. Although, as noted in the above EPA guidance documents, satellite storage areas 

are not subject to Contingency Plan requirements per se, we believe these requirements would apply to 
transfers of hazardous waste from satellite areas to loading/unloading areas, to temporary storage of 

wastes in loading/unloading areas prior to shipment off-site, and to events such as spills, fires, 

explosions, or natural disasters that could require “facility-wide” response or implementation of the 

facility evacuation plan. As a result, we would also require such an LQG to have a Contingency Plan, 

even though they don’t have any less-than-90-day storage areas. And, we believe that training 

applicable personnel in the Contingency Plan is key to its effectiveness during an emergency.

--Ross Bunnell

Sanitary Engineer 3

-----------------------

Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection (DEEP)

Bureau of Materials Management and Compliance Assurance

Waste Engineering & Enforcement Division

Tel. 860.424.3274

Fax 860.424.4059

Email: ross.bunnell@ct.gov

Website: www.ct.gov/deep

Conserving, improving and protecting our natural resources and environment;

Ensuring a clean, affordable, reliable, and sustainable energy supply.

From: William Yeman [mailto:wxyeman@gw.dec.state.ny.us] 

Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 8:26 AM

To: Sullivan, Kevin T; Bunnell, Ross; Mark Dennen; Sean Carney; Yan Li; Mike Hastry; John Duclos; 

Michael Wimsatt; Brett Putnam; Russ Brauksieck; Heather Parent; Melanie Loyzim; Terri Goldberg; James 

Paterson; Steve Simoes

Cc: Lynn Metcalf

Subject: Re: Question from VT DEC on State Hazardous Waste Regulations

Steve,

Here in NYS we're the same as USEPA in this area of the regs. USEPA has stated in the following 

guidance document (RO# 11373) that personnel training is not required for satellite 

areas: http://yosemite.epa.gov/osw/rcra.nsf/0c994248c239947e85256d090071175f/050C6C5304BEC238

8525670F006BDC53/$file/11373.pdf ) 

I believe the confusion comes from 262.34(a) invoking training requirements for 90-day areas by just 

pointing to 265.16 rather than writing the entire training requirement directly within 262.34(a). This 

saved space, but the downside is the word "facility" in 265.16 is erroneously read by many as meaning 

the training requirement applies across the LQG's entire "facility" rather than just for the 90-day area. 

This image cannot currently be displayed.
(Please keep in mind that when an LQG operates without having a 90-day area, he/she is not subject to 

any training requirements under EPA's haz waste regs. [Such LQGs ship directly from satellite areas.] 

Hence it is inconsistent [and I think illogical] to now require facility-wide training for that LQG if he/she 

merely adds a 90-day area; the addition of a 90-day area would merely invoke additional requirements to 

that added 90-day area. This is one reason why USEPA says in this RO# 11373 guidance that training 

requirements are not required for satellite areas: Satellite areas are physically located outside of 90-day 

areas.)

Several years ago Jim O'Leary set out to make 262.34(a) "free standing", i.e., rewrite 262.34(a) so that 

the 90-day LQG requirements were located 100% within 262.34(a) itself. However, I believe that effort 

was such a monumental task that the final product never fully transformed 262.34(a) into "TSD-free" 

language.

take care

Bill Yeman

NYSDEC

Albany NY

wxyeman@gw.dec.state.ny.us

518-402-9594 (desk #)

>>> "Terri Goldberg" <tgoldberg@newmoa.org> 11/18/2013 3:58 PM >>>

Steve Simoes, VT DEC has asked me to forward the following questions to you. Please cc 

me on your responses so I can compile them. Thank you for your help with this effort. 

Vermont is curious about how the other Region 1 and 2 states interpret/implement the 262.23(a)(4) 

requirement to comply w/ 265.16. In particular we are interested in the 265.16(d)(2) provision which 

requires facility owner/operators to maintain “a written job description for each position (at the facility 

related to HW management).”

When conducting LQG compliance evaluation inspections (in addition to verifying that initial and annual 

training has been provided and records are available), we verify that anyone who completes/signs a 

manifest, manages waste in a designated storage area, maintains a storage area inventory, conducts 

daily inspections (VT is more stringent), or is designated as an emergency coordinator has a written job 

description that specifically addresses HW management duties (for many LQGs, these are maintained by 

the HR Department at a separate location). While that is fairly straightforward, we find that the job 

description requirement is more difficult to evaluate for “general workforce” employees (e.g., those 

employees who may add waste to a satellite accumulation container). Typically, the job descriptions for 

the general workforce employees are generic and don’t address any HW management duties. We also 

find that more and more businesses are choosing to “just train everyone” on an annual basis and that 

these trainings often cover all key elements of HW management (e.g., contingency plan implementation, 

container management, satellite accumulation, marking/labeling, UW, UO...). 

So, w/ respect to the 265.16(d)(2) “written job description” requirement:

 When conducting inspections, do you limit your review of job descriptions to “key” personnel 

responsible for the more significant HW management activities, or do you review job 

descriptions for all employees?

 If you review job descriptions for more than just the “key” HW personnel, what do you typically 

ask for in order to evaluate compliance with the job description requirement? In other words, 
let’s say there are 150 general workforce employees who may handle HW in some way... how do 

you go about evaluating job descriptions for these employees? (e.g., random, employees met 

during the walk-through, all employees...)

 What information do you require in order to consider a job description adequate? Do you 

require that hazardous waste handling responsibilities be specified in all cases?

Thanks in advance.

Steve Simoes, Environmental Analyst V

Hazardous Waste Program, Vermont DEC

1 National Life Drive - Davis 1

Montpelier, VT 05620-3704

802-522-0386 - Telephone 

steve.simoes@state.vt.us