Document 91aKwka2d3xE0b8Vkp17Mqgk5

TO: Distribution XF> Interoffice Communication FROM: DATE: SUBJ: T. G. Grumbles February 22, 1990 VISTA OSHA PROPOSED RULE ON ACCREDITATION OF TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE OPERATIONS OSHA has finally proposed their standard which would set the standards and procedures for training programs offering HAZWOPER training to comply with Paragraphs (e) and (p) for the standard. I've attached the draft standard. At this time, no action is required unless you wish to comment on the proposed standard. Page 2790 of the standard expressly discusses retroactiveness of training provided prior to promulgation of this standard. Essentially, if you can demonstrate equivalency, by documentation or certification, that previous experience and training provided the "skill attainment" equivalent to accredited training program requirements, you have met the requirements. English translation of this means any course we give or outside contractor we use for training should generally meet the criteria listed on Page 2793 and 2794 of the attached. T. G. Grumbles dlj . 1015 Attachment Distribution: SAFETY DIRECTORS Bruce Trego-Aber, Bill Jones-Balt, Harry Peirce-Blane, A. E. Russell-Hmd, K. L. Fogg-LCCP, R. V. Gantz-LCLAB, G. M. ShirleyLCVCM, J. D. Harris-Okc, R. B. Martin-Austin, D. A. Barclay, D. L. Morgan, J. R. Drumwright cc: PLANT MANAGERS R. W. Seymour-Aber, L. R. Bauer-Balt, G. D. Williams-Blane, J. Pavao-Hmd, J. Friend-LCCP, J. W. Ware-LCLAB, R. A. Conrad-LCVCM, H. D. Garrison-Okc, P. L. Foote-Prem, V. W. Weiss-Austin D. L. Cohen, W. L. McClain VVV 000011126 2776 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 1990 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF LABOR dates: 1. Comments and information on enactment of SARA, a final standard this proposal must be received on or . under section 6(b) of the Occupational Occupational Safety and Health before April 26.1990. c- Safety snd Health Act for the health and Administration 29 CFR Part 1910 [Docket No. S-760-B1 RIN 121B-AB27 Accreditation of Training Programs for Hazardous Waste Operations agency: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Labor. ' ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. summary: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is proposing a new rule containing the accreditation procedures for certain training programs required by OSHA. ` These proposed-accreditation - procedures were mandated by Congress : when section 126 of the Superfund * . Amendments and Reauthorization Act 2. Requests for public hearings on this safety of employees engaged in proposal must be received an or before - _ hazardous waste operations and March 27,1990. emergency response. SARA also addresses: 1. Comments and information on this proposal should be -_ sent in quadruplicate to the Docket Office, Docket No. S-760-B, Occupational Safety and Health : ^- : indicated that certain specific areas of - employee protection, in particular employee training, were relevant to protect employees engaged in hazardous waste operations. OSHA issued a Administration, Room N-2634, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20210. , >, \ ^ `- proposed rule on hazardous waste . operations and emergency response, including provisions for training, on Comments, requests for hearings and ! ; - information received may be inspected and copied in the Docket Office. * * ~ - August 10,1987 (52 FR 29620). Public hearings on the proposed rule were held during October 1987. As a result of that proposed rule and the public hearings 2. Requests for a public bearing on r* ' held with respect to that proposal, this proposal should be sent in -- - v- ''*' OSHA published a permanent final rule quadruplicate to Mr. Thomas Hall, Division of Consumer Affairs, -' "* for hazardous waste operations and . .. emergency response on March 6,1989 Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Room N-3649,200 Constitution Ave., NW. Washington,-- (54 FR 92S4). That permanent final rule ~will become effective on March 6,1990. .The interim rule remains in effect until DC 20210. - - , : that date. of 1966 (SARA) (Pub. L. 99-499, 29 U.S.C. 655 note) was amended in December 1987. That amendment requires OSHA to develop specific procedures for the accreditation of hazardous waste operation training programs that are no less comprehensive than those procedures adopted by the environmental Protection Agency under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: *ln related action, on December 22, Proposed Rule: Mr. James F. Foster, US. ; 1987, as part of an omnibus budget Department of Labor. Occupational- reconciliation bill, the President signed Safety and Health Administraiton, 'several amendments to SARA. One of . Division of Consumer Affairs, Room N-^ - those amendments states: 3647,200 Constitution Avenue, NW, f z'-\ Washington. DC 20210, 202-523-8151. ' That section 126(d)(3) of SARA is amended Public Hearing: Mr. Thomas HalL by adding a new sentence at the end thereof as follows: The certification procedures shall Division of Consumer Affairs, be no leas comprehensive than those adapted Title II of the Toxic Substance Control Occupational Safety and Health by the Environmental Protection Agency in Act (TSCA) (15 U.S.C. 2848). Title U of Administration, Room N-3649, 200 . ' its Model Accreditation Plan for Asbestos TSCA is aiso known as the Asbestos Constitution Ave, NW, Washington, Abatement Training as required under the Hazard Emergency Response Act of DC 20210,202-523-8615. ._ Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act of 1989 (AHERA). - . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ~1986. The training programs required to be accredited under this proposed L Background ; : 'This proposed rule is prepared in response to this amendment to the regulation are found in 29 CFR 1910.120, - On October 17,1986, the President budget reconciliation biiL paragraphs (e) and (p). These training signed into law the Superfund programs are required for employees '* Amendments and Reauthorization Act involved in clean-up operations at of 1988 (SARA) (Pub. L 99-199). As part EPA's Contractor Model Accreditation Plan uncontrolled hazardous waste sites being cleaned-up under government ' mandate, and for employees involved in certain hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) operations. It is not proposed to accredit training programs for employees engaged in emergency response activities. This proposed rule would supplement the existing permanent final rule for of SARA, the Secretary of Labor (the Secretary) was directed to issue an interim final rule within 60 days after the date of enactment, which was to provide no less protection for workers engaged in covered hazardous waste operations than the protections contained in two specified documents. Those two documents were the * - Environmental Protection Agency's On Thursday, April 30,1987, the . Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its Contractor Model Accreditation Plan (Model Plan) in the Federal Register (52 FR 15875). This is the plan referred to as the Model Accreditation Plan for Asbestos Abatement Training in the amendment to SARA. The Model Plan was published in response to section 206 of hazardous waste operations and emergency response published on March 6,1989 (54 FR 9294) as required by Congress in SARA. This notice of proposed rulemaking contains the criteria OSHA proposes to (EPA's) "Health and Safety Requirements for Employees Engaged in Field Activities" manual (EPA Order 1440.2), dated 1981. and the existing ' .. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards under Title II of the Toxic Substances Control 'Act (TSCA) (15 U.S.C. 2646). Note.--For the purposes of this discussion. Title II of TSCA will be referred to as -AHERA. - use-to evaluate for accreditation the . -subpart C of 29 CFR part 1926. OSHA 7 . While EPA was notrequired to issue - training programs requiredin $ 1910.120. published an-interim final rule as . the Model Plan as a final regulation, .'This notice also proposes to amend'-- directed in the Federal Register on they decided to make the Model Plan paragraphs (e)end (p)of 29 CFR. - .. -.December 19.1986 (51 FR 45654). - ^--available in the Code of Federal 1910.120 to make the necessary - SARA also directed the Secretary to tr Regulations (CFR) as an appendix to ' references lo this proposed rule. - issue,`within oneyear after the date of regulations required under AHERA. 2- | - VVV 0000IU27 i. .j \iv . >V1-9i -vt 4? & >,J| >- - Vi'" Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 1990 / Proposed Rules 2777 Section 206 of AHERA, requires local examination are equivalent to the Model education agencies (LEA's) to use "accredited persons'* to perform the Plan's requirements. OSHA will be considering the following asbestos-related tasks: concepts of Units III and IV of the EPA 1. Inspecting for asbestos-containing Model Plan during the development of materials (ACM) in school buildings this rule. under a local education agency'3 authority. OSHA`s Proposed Rulemaking 2. Preparing management plans for such schools. 3. Designing or conducting response actions with respect to ACM in such schools. The purpose of this rulemaking is to propose the criteria which OSHA will use to evaluate applicants who apply for accreditation to conduct the training required in 29 CFR 1910.120. The Model Plan requires persons seeking accreditation to take an initial Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response training course, pass an examination and participate in continuing education, LEA's have the option of hiring accredited contractors to conduct asbestos work or having in-house personnel receive accreditation. Accredited personnel are not required to be used to conduct operations and maintenance activities. AHERA requires states to adopt a contractor accreditation Model Plan atleast as stringent as the EPA Model The proposal is based, in part, upon the information and data collected by Dr. Richard F, Andree of Safety and Health Management Consultants, Inc. during the performance of work conducted under contract to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Directorate of Safety Standards Programs (Contract #B9F83334). Dr. Andree collected information from sources involved with hazardous waste operation and Plan. Persons can be accredited by a emergency response training. These state with an accreditation program at least as stringent as the EPA Model Plan. Persona may also obtain sources include selected grantees developing courses under grants issued by the National Institute of accreditation by passing an EPAapproved training course and examination that in EPA's judgment are Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) pursuant to section 126(g) of SARA, various unions, and various hazardous consistent with the Model Plan. States waste training consultants. may exercise their authority to have The hazardous waste operations accreditation program requirements training program of 40 hours duration, more stringent than the Model Plan. which is included in paragraph (h)(1) of The Model Contractor Accreditation 29 CFR 1910.121, was compiled from a Plan is divided into four units. The first review of the 29 CFR 1910.120 unit discusses EPA's "Model Contractor - requirements and a content analysis of Plan" for states. Unit 11 specifies materials submitted by several of Dr. procedures a state must follow to Andree's sources. These sources receive EPA Model Plan approval for the included the International Union of state's contractor accreditation program. Operating Engineers; Law OSHA is not considering the content of Environmental; the Midwest Consortium Units I and U because they address state for Hazardous Waste Training; plan issues, and they are being left to Noodwood Clyde Black and Veatch; the states for their consideration. correspondence from Dr. Michael S. The third unit of this Model Plan ' Bisesi, Subcommittee Chairman, AIHA/ discusses EPA approval of courses and ACGIH Hazardous Waste Committee; course examinations. EPA sponsors and the Superfund Hazardous Waste seeking approval of training courses Worker Health and Safety Training must submit training materials to EPA. Grants Program of the NIEHS. The training course and examination The hazardous waste operations must be consistent with the Model training programs of 24 hours duration, Plan's requirements in these areas in order for approval to be granted. The fourth unit of the Model Plan which are included in paragraphs (h)(2) and (h)(3) of 29 CFR 1910.121, were compiled from a review of the 29 CFR addresses the treatment of persons who 1910.120 requirements and a content have had previous training. Persons may analysis of materials submitted by other be accredited if they have completed an sources. These sources included Law EPA-approved asbestos training course Environmental; the Oil, Chemical, and in their discipline and have passed or Atomic Workers (OCAW) Hazardous can pass an examination in their discipline. Such persons may be . Waste Project; the Midwest Consortium for Hazardous Waste Training; and Dr. - accredited, on an interim basis, if in Michael Bisesi of the American EPA's judgment the course and Industrial Hygienist Association. In addition. Information from several other sources was utilized in outlining the 40- and 24-hour model training programs as well as the following documents: "Occupational Safety and Health Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste Site Activities''--USDHHS. PHS, CDC, N10SH: USGPO:1905; and "Protecting Personnel at Hazardous Waste Sites"--Levin, S. P. and Martin, W. Fu Butterworth. MA; 1985. Each individual Topic/Standard and supporting criteria has been developed using the draft accreditation procedures, materials noted previously, and basic training/education theory. The development of the accreditation procedures was based, as required by Congress, upon the Model Plan. The procedures were designed for both the 40-hour and 24-hour initial training programs. Where possible, the OSHA program tracked the EPA Model Accreditation Plan for Asbestos, as directed by Congress in the December 22,1987 amendment. The program does differ in several respects due to the OSHA regulatory format and requirements; the nature of the 29 CFR 1910.120 requirements: and the lack of detailed procedures in die EPA Model Plan. The 40-hour program, to be provided "off-site" by either a specific employer or by a training vendor, is a "generic" program providing the course sponsor with a wide range of educational topics and methods for students. This 40-hour generic program is possible because the employer must also provide a three day (or more) site specific training program (norr-accredited) to further qualify an employee. The generic approach also permits the employer to develop a course that more adequately addresses the work task that employees will be performing. For example, if employees are not required to wear Level A protection during the performance of their work, they would not have to be trained in the use of that equipment. OSHA is providing certification for training programs--not for individual trainers. The reason for that decision is the legislative history of the amendment to section 126. That history states that the amendment is "lo require Federal certification procedures for Superfund worker training programs (emphasis added)." (Congressional Record. H. 12683. December 21,1987). No mention is made of certifying instructors. In addition, by certifying oniy training programs which contain procedures for hiring competent instructors, OSHA will accomplish the goal of having competent instructors without involving the government in the enormous VVV 000011128 2778 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 18 / Friday, January 28, 1990 / Proposed Rules administrative burden oficertification of. . In addition government resources will of training programs covered by the individual instructors. Attempting to do be used in the certification process. scope of this rule.: -r. . that would substantially reduce" . OSHA requests comment on the In paragraph (a)(3), OSHA proposes resources OSHA would have available appropriateness of charging a user's fee the definitions for terms that are used in for other occupational safety goals. and. if so, on what basis the amount this rule. - Secondly, OSHA is providing should be determined. In paragraph (b), OSHA would v- certification.of training programs for The certification process proposed establish the procedures for requesting hazardous waste site workers and TSD has a number of steps. OSHA requests ' accreditation of training programs. facility workers, and not for emergency comments on whether a simpler system Paragraph (b)(1). provides that any response employees. The reason for this ,,would be sufficient to insure a good - . . interested party considering themselves decision is that the amendment . . basis for determining whether . capable of conducting any of the . . requiring certification is ta paragraph -: certificates should be granted. - training programs required in 29 CFR (d)(3) of section 126 which covers. .. .; ;- Comments are also requested on the 1910.120 may apply.. - . .. - ,"general site workers" and their ; , = . procedures which should be included in : - In paragraph (b)(2) OSHA is "managers and supervisors"--not to : a simpler system of accreditation. - addressing the issue of multi-state r .s paragraph (d)(4) of section 126 which .; OSHA has not, in this proposal, accreditation; Section 18 of the OSHA covers "training of emergency response required that refresher training be from Act permits any state to develop,- and r personnel." Further, there are many . a certified training program. The basis receive OSHA approval for. its own universities and organizations (e.g., the for this is that such training should be . state occupational safety and health 1 International Fire Service Training more oriented to a specific job and plan that provides worker protection "at - Association or the International Society therefore could be better provided by least as effective" as that protection of Fire Service Instructors) which the employer directly. It should be noted . provided under the Federal program. provide training programs for emergency that S 1910.120 (e)(5) requires that all . The state plan states may choose to response employees and whichhave - persons doing training be qualified. adopt a parallel state standard for the ' developed training programs to be used OSHA requests comment on this issue - accreditation of hazardous waste ' by employers of emergency response as well.. training programs which relies solely on personnel. - : OSHA also requests comment on the Federal OSHA accreditation of training Finally, there is a very large number. - property rights of training programs programs or may establish their own of emergency response personnel and.. accredited by the Federal government .. state accreditation programs. States fire departments and it would be , and developed with Federal monies. choosing to establish their own difficult,far OSHA.to attempt to accredit Who can use these programs? What, if. . .. accreditation programs must establish, a - such a large number of programs. Such any, cost should be associated with the .-program that is "at least as effective" in..: , accreditation would take away . use of these programs? ... , . structure and. operation as the Federal .. substantially from resources used.for... other occupational safety and health .. goals for which OSHA has prime II. Summary and Explanation of the ' Standard program and must honor Federal "accreditation. They must also assure that parties receiving state accreditation responsibility. OSHA requests . The proposed rule is divided into two of their training programs understand . comments on this specific decision. basic sections. First OSHA is proposing that state accreditation applies only OSHA is not proposing to require . the procedures by w'hich an interested within that state. - - . - certified refresher training. OSHA - party must submit its application for OSHA is proposing paragraph (b)(2)(i) : believes that refresher training is closely accreditation. Second, the minimum - to consider any training program tied to the requirement of the work site criteria and content are proposed for the accredited under the OSHA - and that in general the employer is In training programs that OSHA will accreditation program to be an the best position to arrange training to consider as acceptable for accreditation. acceptable accredited program in any - accomplish that goal most effectively. In This notice also proposes the < state or territory. Thus persons seeking addition it would be difficult to arrange necessary corrections to paragraphs (e) multi-state accreditation of their training . a certified training program for an 6- . and (p] of 29 CFR 1910.120 that would - programs must apply for Federal hour course. , .- recognize the content of this proposal accreditation.-' The below discussion explains when it becomes a final rule. The Likewise. OSHA is proposing in- OSHA's procedures for certification t specific paragraphs in 29 CFR 1910.120 paragraph (b){2){ii) that where any-> - training programs. If there are a- that are affected by this proposal and - training program that has received an - substantial number of applications, a - - that would have to be changed are .. - - - - individual state accreditation from an ; backlog of accreditation paperwork is. - (e)(l)(i),(e)(3)(i), (e)(3)(ii), {e}(3)(ui), . : OSHA approved state plan, that training likely to occur. OSHA has partially met . (e)(3)(iv), (e)(4), (e)(9). (p)(7)(i). and - program must be resubmitted for this problem by providing for . (p)(7)(ii).... . . . - ,. accreditation, where necessary, in each provisionalcertification permitting In paragraph (a) of $ 1910.121. OSHA state with an approved state plan unless commencement of training prior to all - proposes the scope, application and the - the applicant's program-has also . procedural steps being completed. An : necessary definitions for this proposal. received Federal OSHA accreditation. : additional way of reducing the initial Paragraph (a)(1) contains the scope Thus, persons who already have a - backlog of applications would be to statement. OSHA is proposing to . training program accredited in one state - include a grandfather provision for accredit only those training programs plan state and who wish to expand their training. Such a.provisionmight permit, required in 29 CFR 1910.120, paragraphs program to other states must either for example, a training program meeting (e) and (p). All other training programs apply for Federal accreditation of their certain objective criteria to continue in required by 29 CFR part 1910 would not training programs or apply individually progress until final certification or . be covered by this proposal. to appropriate state plan states. ' denial of certification by OSHA. OSHA In paragraph (a)(2), OSHA is , - Representatives of several state plan - requests comments and suggestions on . proposing that this rule would apply to states have raised the further possibility this issue. . any applicant requesting accreditation of entering into reciprocity agreements. VVV 000011129 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 18 / Friday, January 20, 1990 / Proposed Rules 2779 whereby accreditation in one state plan required before the application can be state would be accepted by another considered. such state and/or result in an expedited In paragraph (c)(2) OSHA is proposing application procedure. the requirements for accreditation that The proposals in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) would permit a preliminary decision by and (ii) are being made to initiate the Assistant Secretary for OSHA. In discussion in the record on how OSHA paragraph (c)(2)(i) OSHA would require should approach the issue of state plan that the applicant demonstrate in its accreditation and multi-state application the following: accreditation involving one or more 1. That it has a written training state plan states. program indicating that it will train In paragraph (b)(3) OSHA establishes employees in the topics required by 29 the required content of applications for CFR 1910.120; training program accreditation. In 2. That it has competent staff and paragraph (b){3](i) OSHA proposes the facilities to carry out the training specific information that must be program properly: present in the applications forFedcral 3. That it is capable of property and accreditation. OSHA would appreciate effectively training employees in the further information on the costs topics required in 29 CFR 1910.120; associated with submitting an 4. That it has an effective method of application package containing the measuring whether the employee has specific information proposed in this been adequately trained in the areas of paragraph. required training; In paragraph (b}(3)(ii) OSHA is 5. That it maintains adequate records proposing the information required in of the program and employees who have applications for reciprocal Federal successfully completed the program; and accreditation of state accredited training 6. That it continues to meet the programs. Comments are specifically requirements for accreditation. sought as to whether Federal In paragraph (c)(2)(ii) OSHA would applications for programs already provide for a preliminary decision by accredited by an OSHA approved state the Assistant Secretary for OSHA as to .plan should receive special whether or not the applicant has met the consideration through an expedited requirements for accreditation based procedure. Here too OSHA would upon the completed application file. _ appreciate any comments as to the cost In paragraphs (c)(3)(i), (ii) and (iii), the of submitting the information proposed " Agency would grant preliminary in this paragraph. accreditation of the applicant's training Paragraph (b)(4) would identify the program if the application appears to locations where applications for meet the requirements for accreditation accreditation could be filed. OSHA is and would notify the applicant of the presently considering the possibilities preliminary accreditation. Upon receipt for filing locations. This paragraph of the notification of preliminary contains a proposed general address in accreditation, the applicant could begin Washington, DC. to conduct the accredited training In paragraph (b)(5) OSHA is program. proposing the methods by which an In paragraph (c)(4) OSHA is proposing applicant can amend or withdraw an the procedures to be followed if the - application once it has been submitted . preliminary review of an application for accreditation. Under paragraph warrants the denial of preliminary (b)(5)(i), an applicant would be able to accreditation by the Assistant Secretary revise or amend an application at any of OSHA. time prior to the final decision by OSHA Under paragraph (c)(4)(i) OSHA on the accreditation application. would deny preliminary accreditation of In paragraph (b)(5)(h) an applicant a training program if tbe application would be able to withdraw an does not appear to meet the application, without prejudice, at any requirements of this proposed rule or the time prior to the final decision on the training program requirements of the accreditation application. targeted provision in 1910.120. In paragraph (c) OSHA is proposing . In paragraph (c)(4)(H) OSHA proposes the review and decision process that the to notify the applicant in writing of the Agency will follow for processing ; decision not to grant preliminary training program accreditation applications. accreditation and to identify the specific requirements of the training criteria that In paragraph (c)(1) OSHA proposes to were not met and the reasons therefor. provide written notification of receipt by In paragraph (c)(4)(iii) OSHA the Agency of all applications for accreditation. The Agency may also proposes to permit applicants to - resubmit the original application with a ' request in its notification of receipt any statement of reasons why the applicant additional information it believes is believes that the original application met the requirements for accreditation, and would permit the applicant to request accreditation under paragraphs (e)(5) and (e)(6) of this section. In paragraph (c)(4)(iv) OSHA proposes to permit applicants who receive a preliminary denial of accreditation to submit a revised application for further review by the Agency pursuant to the procedures of this section. In paragraphs (c)(5)(I)> (if), and (iii) OSHA is proposing to have a public comment period during which any interested parties may comment on the preliminary decision by the Assistant Secretary for OSHA on a training program's accreditation application. OSHA is proposing that a 60-day comment period be provided to the public after the preliminary decision of the Assistant Secretary has been published in the Federal Register. All relevant documents associated with tbe training program application would be made available to the public for review and copying. OSHA also proposes to permit any interested party to request a public hearing, if the party can demonstrate the need for a hearing, in accordance with the requirement of 29 CFR part 1905. subpart C, on OSHA's decision. In paragraph (cX6) OSHA is proposing the procedures by which the Assistant Secretary for OSHA will make a final decision on applications for training program accreditation. In paragraph (c)(d)(i) OSHA proposes that the Assistant Secretary's preliminary decision will be reissued as the final decision if there are no comments objecting to the preliminary decision. Where there are comments objecting to the Assistant Secretary's preliminary decision, OSHA-ft proposing that the Assistant Secretary issue a written final decision on the application based upon the evidence in the record from the full applications, the supporting documentation, the staff - recommendations, and the written comments and evidence submitted during the public comment period. In paragraph (c)(6)(ii) OSHA is proposing the procedures to be followed when there is a valid request for a hearing on the Assistant Secretary's decision. Under paragraph (c)(8](ii)(A) the Assistant Secretary would issue a notice of hearing before an Administrative Law Judge of the Department of Labor pursuant to the rules specified in 29 CFR part 1905. subpart C. Under paragraph (c)t8)flfXB) the Administrative Law Judge would issue a decision (including reasons) based on vvv 000011130 2780 Federal Register. / Vol. 55, No, 18 / Friday, January 26, 1990 / Proposed Rules the application, the supporting . program continues to meet the documentation, the staff. , . requirements of this section: and that recommendation, the public comments supporting documentation is provided - and the evidence submitted during the upon which its conclusions are based. hearing (the record)--stating whether or The applicant may also make a change . not it has been demonstrated, based on . .upon notification of OSHA However, if a preponderance of evidence, that the on subsequent review, OSHA . applicantmeets the requirements for . . determines that the change is accreditation. inconsistent with this section and then Under paragraph (c)(6)(ii)(C) any- notifies the applicant of the party to the hearing may file exceptions inconsistency, the applicant must revert within 20 days after the issuance of the to the original elements. - decision of the Administrative Law . .Under paragraph (d)(3) an accredited . Judge in accordance with the provisions applicant may renew its accreditation of subpart C of 29 CFR part 1905. If ' by filing a renewal request at the .exceptions are Hied, the Administrative address in paragraph (b)(4) of this Law Judge, would forward the decisions, ; section not less than 180 calendar days. . exceptions and record to the Assistant ' nor more than one year, before the Secretary for the final decision on the expiration date of its current application. . *' accreditation period. When an Under paragraph (c)(6)(ii)(D). the ' accredited applicant has filed such a . Assistant Secretary would renew the ' renewal request the current. record, the decision by the accreditation would not expire until a Administrative Law Judge, and the ` final decision has been made on the - exceptions. Based upon that review. the renewal request The procedures of Assistant Secretary would issue the .... paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. final decision (including reasons) of the - In paragraph (d)(4) OSHA is Department of Labor stating whether the proposing that an accredited applicant applicant has demonstrated that it could not transfer its accreditation to meets the requirements of accreditation. - any other person or organization. In paragraph (c)(6)(iii)OSHA - - - In. paragraph (d)(5) OSHA Is proposes to publish a notice of the final proposing the procedures by which the 'decision in the Federal Register and to : Agency could revoke the accreditation send a copy of the final decision to the of a training program. applicant . Under paragraph (d)(5)(i) the Agency In paragraph (d) OSHA is proposing may revoke its accreditation of a . the terms and conditions of training program if the accredited accreditation. The terms and conditions applicant has failed to continue to would have to be complied with in order satisfy the requirement of this section or for the applicant's training program . the Agency's letter of accreditation, or accreditation to remain in effect .. .has misrepresented itself in its Under paragraph (d)(l)(i) the ' application. ? Assistant Secretary will provide a letter Under paragraph (d)(5)(H) the Agency of accreditation to the applicant that would notify the accredited applicants will sene as evidence of accreditation. The letter would provide the specific details of the scope.of the OSHA ' prior to proposing to revoke accreditation, of the basis for the proposed revocation, and would allow accreditation as well as any conditions , rebuttal or correction of the alleged imposed by OSHA. deficiencies. Any evidence in rebuttal or Under paragraph (d)(l)(ii) OSHA - of correction of deficiencies would have would grant accreditation for a period of to be received by the Agency within 60 ' three years after initial accreditation days of notification or OSHA would and for a period of five years for each initiate its revocation proceedings. If the subsequent renewal of accreditation. - - deficiencies could not be corrected, The dates of the period of accreditation OSHA would be able to revoke its would be stated in the accreditation accreditation 30 days later unless the letter. accredited applicant requested a hearing . Under paragraph (d)(l)(iH) the . - within that time. accredited applicant would be required - Under paragraph (d)(5](iii) any to satisfy ail of the requirements of this - hearing requested by an applicant - section and the letter of accreditation would have to be held pursuant to the during the period of accreditation. rules specified in 29 CFR part 1605, Under paragraph (d)(2) the accredited subpart C. . . . applicant may change elements of the Under paragraph (d)(5)(iv) the parties accredited training program by notifying * of the hearing would be limited to . the Assistant Secretary of the change. OSHA and the accredited applicant certifying that the revised program- Decisions.at the hearing would be made change meets the requirements -of this .. in accordance with the procedures proposal: that.the entire accredited - - specified In paragraph (c)(6) erf this proposal, except that the burden of proof would be on OSHA to- - - demonstrate that the accreditation -. should be revoked because the accredited applicant is not meeting the requirements of accreditation, the Agency's accreditation letter, or has , . misrepresented itself in its application. Under paragraph (d)(5)(v) any interested party would be able to file a complaint stating that the accredited applicant is not meeting the - requirements of accreditation, the -. Agency's accreditation letter, or has misrepresented itself in its.application. - Such a complaint would have to contain the specific information as to the . deficiencies identified. OSHA would ' acknowledge 9uch complaints in writing' and provide the accredited applicant with a copy of the complaint subject to the Privacy Act limitations. Under paragraph (d)(5)(vi) OSHA would investigate any complaints and, upon completion of any investigation, could invoke the revocation procedures described in this proposal. If the decision would be not to pursue revocations, the complainant would be - notified in writing by OSHA of its " : investigation findings and reason why . the accreditation remains valid. . In paragraph (e) OSHA is proposing the primary obligations of the accredited applicant Under paragraph (e)(1) the applicant would allow OSHA or its authorized : representative to attend, evaluate and monitor any part of the accredited. training program without charge or cost to OSHA. OSHA would not give advance notice of attendance at the training program. Under paragraph (e)(2) the applicant would agree to modify the accredited training program if the training requirements of this section or 1910.120 are changed, or if any other OSHA standard which is the subject of training is changed in a manner that will affect this section. Modifications in the . training program would have to take place no later than 30 days after this section or other relevant standard becomes effective.. .... , ... Under paragraph (e)(3) the applicant . would have to agree to modify the - - accredited training program upon . . OSHA's request if the "state of the art" changes relative to any of the topics provided in the training program. , Under paragraph (e)(4) the applicant: . would agree to provide annually to - OSHA, no later than 60 days after the accreditation anniversary date, the t * - name and location of each program . . given, the date given, the number of participants in each program, and the ' . : it VI * 9r' VVV 000011131 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No, 18 / Friday, January 20, 1990 / Proposed Rules 2781 number of participants that were III. Preliminary Regulatory Impact existing Occupational Safety and Health certified as having successfully completed each program. Analysis. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and Environmental Administration (OSHA) standards under subpart C of 29 CFR part 1926. In paragraph (f) OSHA is proposing, Assessment OSHA published an interim final rule as the criteria for examinations. Examinations would cover the necessary skills and knowledge to I. Executive Summary Regulatory History directed in the Federal Register on December 19.. 1986 (51 FR 45654). SARA also directed the Secretary to perform expected duties. Each The Occupational Safety and Health issue, within one year after the date of examination would have to cover the Administration (OSHA) is proposing to enactment, a final standard under important topics included in the training develop a new rule for the accreditation section 6(b) of the Occupational Safety program adequately. Comments are of training programs for hazardous and Health Act for the health and safety requested on whether the regulations waste operations as mandated in of employees engaged in hazardous cv should specify the type of exams in : greater detail and, if so. in what way. amendments made to the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act waste operations and emergency response. SARA also indicated that In paragraph (g) OSHA is proposing of 1986 (SARA) in December 1987. ` certain specific areas of employee the criteria for certificates of completion The training programs proposed to be protection, in particular employee . to be given to students. accredited under this new regulation are training, were relevant to protect Under paragraph (g)(1) the accredited required by the regulations in 29 CFR employees engaged in hazardous waste applicant would issue certificates to 1910.120, paragraphs (e) and (p), and operations. OSHA issued a proposed students who have attended and apply to employees involved in clean-up rule on hazardous waste operations and successfully completed the training operations at uncontrolled hazardous emergency response, including . program. waste sites being cleaned-up under provisions for training, on August 10, Under paragraph (g)(2) the certificate government mandate, and to employees 1987 (52 FR 29620). Public hearings on would have to include the accredited involved in certain hazardous waste the proposed rule were held during applicant's name, the student's name, treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) October 1987. As a result of that the accredited program name, the dates operations conducted under the proposed rule and the public hearings of the program, a statement indicating Resource Conservation and Recovery held with respect to that proposal, that the participant successfully Act of 1976, as amended (RCRA) (42 OSHA published a permanent final rule completed the program, the location U.S.C. 6901 et seq). It is not proposed to for hazardous waste operations and where the program was given, and an accredit training programs for emergency response on March 6,1989. . identifying number unique to the employees engaged in emergency That permanent final rule will become student. response activities. effective on March 6,1990. In paragraph (h) OSHA is proposing This proposed rule would supplement In addition, on December 22.1987, as the specific course content for those the existing permanent final rule for part of the Reconciliation Bill, the training courses that will be offered in hazardous waste operations and President approved several amendments accredited training programs. emergency response published on March to SARA. One of the amendments I ( II 1 1, liM ln h A a ii` Under paragraph (h)(1) OSHA would 6.1989 as required by Congress in the requires the Secretary to specify the establish the minimum subjects to be Superfund Amendments and content of hazardous waste operation covered in the training course required Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) training, and to set up a process to in paragraph (e) of 11910.120 for the 40- (PUB. 1. 99-499). accredit the training programs. The hour training program. Executive Order 12291 (46 FR13197, original language of SARA mandated Under paragraph (h)(2) OSHA is proposing the minimum subjects that must be covered in the 24-hour training course required in paragraph (e) for employees engaged in occasional visits to uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. February 19.1981) requires that a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) be conducted for any rule having major economic consequences on the national economy, individual industries, or government. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L 90-353, 94 Stat 1164 [5 only the number of hours of training. This proposed rule is prepared in response to this amendment. Populations and Industries Affected - This standard potentially affects approximately 7,000 individual trainers Under paragraph (h)(3) OSHA is U.S.C. 601 et seq.]) similarly requires most of whom will be employed by proposing the minimum subjects that must be covered for an additional OSHA to consider the impact of a final rule on small entities. consulting firms in SICs 17 (Special Trade Contractors) and 891 sixteen hours of training for employees who have received 24-hours of accredited training for uncontrolled On October 17,1986, the President signed into law the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (Engineering, Architectural, and Surveying Services). It was assumed that individual trainers are employed by hazardous waste site operations, and of 1986 (SARA) (Pub. L. 99-499). As part small consulting firms with an average who want to work in areas where 40- of SARA, the Secretary of Labor size of 5 trainers per firm. Thus, there hours of training are required. (Secretary) was directed to issue an are approximately 1,400 (7,000 divided . i Under paragraph (h)(4) OSHA is interim final rule within 60 days after by 5) potential applicants affected by proposing the minimum training subjects the date of enactment, which was to this standard. The total population to be that must be covered in the training provide no less protection for workers trained are employed in government course required in paragraph (p) of engaged in covered hazardous waste mandated hazardous waste operations, 1910.120 for the 24-hour training ' operations than the protection contained privately initiated operations and u*: program.. in two specified documents. Those (wo RCRA-reguiated facilities. ' Under paragraph (h)(5) OSHA is proposing the minimum training subjects documents were the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) "Health and Cost of Compliance that must be covered in the 8-hdur ; Safety Requirements for Employees - ' The. standard is expected to involve training course for managers and ' Engaged in Field Activities" manual an application cost of S92.50 for each of supervisors. _. ' (EPA Order 1440.2), dated 1981. and the . the 1,400 potential applicants for wv 000011132 2782 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 18 / Friday, January 26. 1990 / Proposed Rules accreditation. OSHA'expects that two Benefits thirds of these training firms^wiil apply for reciprocal accreditation (i-e. accreditation iaseveral states) at an additional cost of $640 perapplicatioo. The first year cost of compHanee is $135498. The cost for the third and eighth yean is also projected to be $135,098 since complete reapplication is required by the proposed standard. Case studies indicate that exposures to hazardous wastes cause both acute ' _ and chronic adverse health effects. Compliance with the .standard will reduce employee exposures through accredited training programs and. - therefore, will prevent potential employee fatalities and illnesses resulting from these exposures. Though Regulatory Flexibility Analysis not quantified, the primary economic benefits expected from this proposed Pursuant to the Regulatory flexibility regulation will be an improved level of Act (Pub. L. 96-353. 94 Stat 1164 (5 training at hazardous waste operations. U.S.C. et seq.JJ, the Assistant Secretary The main beneficiaries will be the has assessed the impact of the standard employees and the employers at and concluded that fuil compliance with hazardous waste operations. the standard will not have a significant impact upon a substantial number of small entities. The important criterion that governs a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is whether the standard adequately considers die special compliance Technological Feasibility The standard does not require the use of capital equipment or work practices not readily available. OSHA has, therefore, determined that the standard is technologically feasible. problems faced by small entities.' II. Industries and Populations Affected "Significance" is determined by the effect upon the profits, the market share, Background and the financial viability of smaH The proposed Part 1910 on Hazardous entities. In particular, OSHA must determine whether compliance with the standard will piece small entities at a Waste require that the training provision of the standard be met by programs accredited by the Occupational Safety competitive disadvantage to large and Health Administration. The training entities. ,' The standard applies uniformly to all potential contracting instructors. Also, since OSHA's analysis of costs show's that the standard will impose minimal compliance costs and since many of the trainers are likely to be attached to contracting firms. OSHA has determined that there will be no differential impact on small firms. programs proposed to be accredited under this new regulation apply only ta employees involved in clean-up operations under government mandate, clean-up at uncontrolled hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) operation conducted under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1978, as amended (RCRA) (42 U.S.C. raoi et seq.). The new regulation does not propose to accredit training Impact on International Trade programs for employees engaged in OSHA evaluated the potential impact that this standard will have upon ' ' international trade. Based upon the minimal potential impact of the standard on the prices of the products and services. OSHA believes that there will be no effective change in the level of exported or imported products. .. emergency response activities. This proposed rule would supplement the existing .permanent final rule for hazardous operations and emergency response as required by Congress in the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) (Pub. L. 99-499). In this chapter, OSHA briefly describes these hazardous waste Environmental Impact Assessment In accordance with the requirements of the National Environmsiial Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321. et seq.J, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEO) NEPA regulations (40 CFR part 1500. et seq.J, and the - operations and estimates the number of - sites and employees potentially affected by the standard. The number of potentially affected employees was derived from QSHA'a hazardous waste Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA). Data Sources Department of Labor's Implementing - OSHA's primary data sources- regulations for NEPA compliance (29 included: The April 1987 study by the CFR part 11), The Assistant Secretary Eastern Research Croup (ERG) (1], a has determined that the standard-will ' July 29.1987 ERG Memorandum (2J, and not have a significant impact oa the the comments supplied In response to external environment. the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), die comments made during the public hearings, and the post-hearing comments and submissions. The ERG report (1] were based on Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sources, and the analyses of experts in the field of hazardous waste operations. In OSHA's fRIA) [2] and in its Preamble to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR). OSHA requested comments concerning the data used is its Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA). Consequently OSHA believes that it has given due notice So all responsible parties -and that the data used are the best available for this (PRIA). Industries and Activities Affected by the Standard The majority of instructors are currently employed in the industry sectors Special Trade Contractors [SIC 17) and Engineering, Architectural and Surveying Services [SIC 891). In general these Instructors are attached to firms servicing specific hazardous waste operations. In th> section. OSHA has developed estimates of the potential population of workers to be trained. This is identical to the population at risk analysis developed in the RIA for Hazardous ' Waste Operations and Emergency Response. . - Average PotentialPopulation to be , Trained at Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites. Personnel involved in hazardous waste cleanup operations may be employed by federal and state governments. Superfund program contractors and subcontractors with EPA, state cleanup contractors and subcontractors, and private-party cleanup contractors. In order to determine the number of employees needed for a cleanup operation. OSHA estimated the approximate types and numbers ofpersonnel needed to clean up a typical small uncontrolled hazardous waste site and a typical large uncontrolled hazardous waste site. These estimates are based on ERG (1. p. 3-59]. As seen in Table 1. the number of personnel at the site varies during the cleanup procedures. With respect to the typical small site, between 4 and 8 employees work at the site taking samples and making visual observations during the preliminary investigation.' ' During the actual cleanup activities, between 7 and 12 employees (primarily heavy equipment operators, truck' drivers, drum handlers/technicians/ laborers) work at die aite removing the hazardous waste. Finally, between 4 and 6 employees (primarily heavy equipment vvv 000011133 Federal Register / Voi. 55. No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 1990 / Proposed Rules 2733 operators and track drivers) are required for the final grading and site reclamation work. ". Table i.--average Personnel Re quirements To Clean Up Uncon trolled Waste Sites Type of Activity .* site: Number Of employ ees Large ate: Number of employ ees Preliminary actrvilier State and Federal u- Sampling technicians___ 1-2 Constructor) supervi- sots'1contractor man- Security personnel - -- Tntal 0 4-6 Cleanup:' ' State and Federal su _ Heavy equipment oper- '2 '' Orum handlers/techni, , 2-3 ' Other craftsmen, elec..trteians, maintenance .2-4 - ' - -o ' Construction supervi- (. J i'. Bors/corttractor man- 4-8 3-6 3-6 1 13-23 . 4-6 ' " 6-8 i-2 - A .C Decontaminaton'Officer _ - 0-1 I - 1- ' 7-12 57-78 Final grading and site recta* . mation: State and Federal su- ' Heavy equipment oper- 2 Construction : supervri 1 4-6" ' 7-11 Source ERG rt. p. 3-59]. Typically, between 13 and 23 employees work at large sites taking samples and making visual observations during the preliminary investigation. During the actual cleanup activities, between 60 and 80 employees (primarily drum handlers/technicians/laborers, truck drivers, and heavy equipment operators) work at the site removing the hazardous waste. Finally, between 7 and 11 employees (primarily heavy equipment operations and truck drivers) are required for the final grading and site reclamation. Total Potential Population to be Trained at Uncontrolled Hazardous , Waste Sites. ERG reported (1, p. 3-62) that there are 10 large contractors (each employing about 400 workers) and 40 smaller contractors (each employing unloading, handling of containers prior about 75 workers) involved in cleanup to waste disposal, disposal operations, operations at uncontrolled hazardous . and subsequent activities (e.g.. entry waste sites. OSHA, therefore, estimates into disposal units which may leak, that there are about 50 firms with general maintenance operations, etc.). approximately 7,000 workers performing ERG reported (1. p. 3-18] that the the cleanup of uncontrolled hazardous number of employees who work in the waste sites. In addition to these primary vicinity of the hazardous waste cleanup contractors, local treatment and storage area of RCRA- subcontractors are often hired to regulated facilities ranges from 5 perform various tasks during the employees at small and/or highly cleanup. ERG estimated(l, p. 3-62) that automated facilities to 100-150 there are about 1,750 subcontractor employees at very large facilities. In the employees who work for some length of Hazardous Waste RIA (2, p. 11-28), time during the year at hazardous waste OSHA had estimated that there are an sit cleanup operations. Further, there are average of 25 employees at land about 17 contractor and subcontractor disposals, injection wells, and site managers for each of the 50 cleanup incinerators (hereafter referred to as contractors giving a total of land disposal facilities) and an average approximately 850 site supervisors who of 10 employees at other treatment, would be at risk from exposure to storage, and disposal facilities. hazardous substances during these site cleanups. This is presented in Table 2. ERG reported (1. p. 3-19) that there are 888 active land disposal facilities of The engineering/technical services employees will also need to be trained. Based on the ERG report (1, Table C-5), which 523 are land disposal facilities. 49 are injection well facilities, and 319 are incinerators. Multiplying the 888 active OSHA estimates that there are 100 . engineering/technical services firms land disposal facilities times 25 employees per facility indicates that each with an average of 25 professionals there are about 22,200 employees at risk and a managers who are at risk from from hazardous wastes in land disposal exposure to hazardous substances ' facilities. In addition, multiplying the during cleanup operations. Thus an estimated 3,100 employees and . -. estimated number of 3.050 other '' - treatment, storage, and disposal - managers of waste engineering/ . , facilities times 10 employees per facility technical services firms will be in th'e - indicates that there are about 30.500 population at risk. OSHA estimates that employees at risk from hazardous the potential population to be trained at wastes in these facilities. Thus, in its government-mandated uncontrolled RIA (2, p. II-26)j, OSHA estimated that hazardous waste site cleanups is 12,700 employees per year. 52,700 employees work in active RCRAregulated facilities and potentially . With respect to the total population subject to training. . covered at privately initiated hazardous waste site cleanups, most of these employees also work at governmentmandated hazardous waste site cleanups. Nevertheless, there are some No disaeriting comments concerning . these estimates received by OSHA, these estimates have been incorporated into this PRIA. employees who work only at privately- III.'Regulatory and Non-Regulatary initiated waste site cleanups. OSHA Environments estimates that the number of workers in this latter group is 10-percent of the Regulatory Environment population to be trained at government- OSHA has examined the existing mandated hazardous waste site : regulatory environment and believes cleanups. Thus, about 1,300 employees . that the training certification provisions who work only at privately-initiated ! . of Part 1910 will help to insure adequate hazardous waste site cleanups will need training for workers and will not to be trained. produce any adverse economic impacts. In sum, OSHA estimates that the total Economic inefficiency would result if annual population-at-risk at all OSHA takes too much time to certify uncontrolled hazardous waste site 1 applicants and- programs. The time spent cleanups is 14.000 employees. by an applicant awaiting accreditation Potential Population to be trained at is time during which no certified training RCRA-Regulated Facilities. At a can be performed. OSHA has, however, manufacturer's RCRA-regulated facility, attempted to offset this effect by employees may face potential exposure - allowing for "preliminary accreditation'*. during container handling and waste After review of the application and any treatment processes. At a commercial additional information, the agency will land disposal facility, employees may grant a preliminary accreditation if the face potential exposure during vehicle - applicant appears to meet the general VVV 000011134 2784 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 1990 f Proposed Rules requirements stipulated by the standard. This preliminary accreditation will allow the instructor to begin his'program at a facility pending a final decision. The agency will also allow for "preliminary non-accreditation" if a cursory review indicates an inadequate program. Preliminary decisions are subject to reversal. Non-Regulatory Environment Executive Order 12291 requires the investigation of the non-reguiatory environment as a possible alternative to the regulatory environment OSHA believes that a non-reguiatory environment would be inferior to a regulatory environment The training certification requirements were promulgated because employers and employees are often unable to independently evaluate training programs. Essentially, the regulation is designed to insure an independent review of the content of training programs and the qualifications and \ experience of potential instructors. In the absence of regulation, employers may encounter situations in which they would have to bear the economic loss of replacing unqualified trainers or require that employees face increased risk. The requirement that trainers possess certain qualification is a requirement that should promote greater employee safety and also greater economic efficiency. Thus, OSHA conclused that the regulatory environment is preferred to the non-regulatory environment TV. ProposedRegulatory Environment Introduction The proposed regulation has been designed to ensure that the levels of safe work procedures indicated in 29 CFR part 1910 on hazardous wastes and materials Is maintained via a training provision. In order to fulfill this purpose, this proposed regulation establishes the criteria and administrative procedures to be met in order that: Potential training Instructors and programs may be recognized. Proposed training programs may be reviewed and evaluated by expert staff in order to determine whether the programs meet the appropriate standards which ensure worker safety. The potential trainers and training programs meeting the appropriate criteria become accredited by an OSHA certification system. As these criteria and procedures have been described in the Preamble to this proposed regulation, they are not described in detail in this Preliminary Regulatory Impact Assessment (PRIAJ. Costs of Compliance .Methodology The costs of compliance for this ; standard apply only to clean up operations at uncontrolled hazardous waste sites under government mandate, and to certain hazardous waste treatment and disposal operations under the-Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1978 {RCRA) {42 U.S.C. 0901 et seq.). Training instructors and programs for employees engaging in emergency response activities are not covered. The cost of compliance are estimated in the following manner. OSHA determined, based on the estimated population at risk from Chapter il of this PRIA* the number of employees to be trained by the standard. OSHA then calculated the number of instructors required to adequately train employees. The appropriate cost for assembling and masting out an application package was applied to the total number of applicants to calculate the total compliance cost for the first year. Annual costs of compliance were determined by applying the appropriate number of accreditations demanded per year to the cost of an application package in conjunction with the stipulation that an initial accreditation is renewed in three years from the date of issuance and every five years thereafter. OSHA calculated the total number of employees to be trained based cm ERG'S [lj estimates of numbers of firms, employees per firm, and approximate turnover rates for government mandated and RCRA-regulated facilities. Table 2 shows the total number of existing employees, turnover rates, employees retained per year, and the numberof new hires per year. First year populations to be trained are developed in Table 3. Populations to be trained in subsequent years are developed in Table 4. '' Table 2.--Total Numbers of Existing and New Employees at Government Manoated Facilities and RCRA-Regulated Facilities Type of firm Number of Employees firms per firms Employee type Existing employees Government mandated lacdMea: ITS 1,750 RCRA-Regulated faeffities: Treatment and storage fadfiy_________ 100 688 3,053 Sttoconvactar supervisor......... '6 25 10 ISO 600 22,200 30,530 Source; ERG 1J. Tables C-l. C-4. UB. Department of Labor. Office of Regulatory Analysis. February 1388. Turnover rate New employees Employees retained per year . fl?s 1,750 .25 440 .20 140 .73 110 .10 250 .10 60 5,250 12*0 560 40 540 .20 4.400 17,600 _2D 8.100 . 24,400 Table 3.--First Tear Population to Be Trained Employee VP0 Eeafing employees Total Current Nweberte - compkance train " New employee* Total - Cutter* Number to compliance train Total number to train Governmentmandated ladStett (Vytint.'ll* fnmrartnr minnrieor Subcontractor riper*Wit Enginnonng -- ' _ i 7.000 1,750 rm . 160 500 6.40 s.00 J9 4200 1,780 - 17S 112 825 1,750 440 140 1 250 QJO .TO .M .to . .70 *33* 400 06 . 100 75 5.425 2,150 . _ *n 212 700 VVV 00001U35 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 1990 / Proposed Rules 2735 Table 3.--First Year Population To Be Trained--Continued Employe* type Existing employees . Total Current Number to compUancs tram Total New employees Currant Number to compliance train Tola! number to train RCRA regulated facilities: 600 22200 30.530 .75 150 60 -75 5,500 4,400 .75 7,625 6,100 Sane ERG [1] Tables C-1, C-4. U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Regulatory Analysis. February 1989. Table 4.--Annual Population To Be Trained .70 18 168 so 2.200 7,700 .25 4,575 12,200 Employee type Existing employees retained Total Curers Number to compliance train Total New employees Cisrenl Number to compliance Sam Total number to train Government mandated facilities; -; V 1 RCRA regulated facilities: 4 5,250 1,310 560 40 2250 17,800 24,400 .00 .BO JO .90 JO .25 1410 56 225 8.900 18.300 1,750 440 140 110 60 4.400 6,100 1,225 1,750 .10 400 1,710 JO 98 154 .10 ICO 120 75 .70 te 72 JO 2.200 11,000 J5 4,575 22875 Source: ERC (1} Table C-1, C-4. U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Regulatory Analysis. February 1239. Population To 5e Trained. (Government ERG reported [1, C-4] that, on supervisors), will need this initial Mandated Cleanups) average, the 1.750 newly hired training in the-first year and in each All supervisors and employees at hazardous waste site cleanups must either have sufficient experience or be adequately trained in the safe handling - contractor employees receive 30-percent and the 440 newly hired subcontractor employees receive 10-percent of thetraining required by the standard. Consequently, initial training will be year thereafter (See Table 3). The training provision also requires that all supervisors receive 6 hours of annual retraining. Based on the ERG report )l, C--l), OSHA estimates that 90- of hazardous substances. Adequate training is dependent upon the level of protective clothing required for the job, for example, employees required to provided to a full-time equivalent of 1,625 new employees of whom 1,225 will be new contractor employees end 400 will be new subcontractor employees. percent of the contractor supervisors and 50-percent of the subcontractor supervisors currently receive annual retraining. Consequently, annual wear Levels A or B or C protective The training provision also requires retraining will be needed for 56 of the - clothing will need 40 hours of training plus 3 additional days of supervised that all employees receive 8 hours of annual retraining. Based on the ERG 560 contractor supervisors and 20 of the 40 subcontractor supervisors who work experience. The amount of training report (1, C~4j, OSHA estimates that 90- remain with the same employer for at required for supervisors is also percent of contractor employees but least a year (see Table 4). dependent upon the level of protective none of the subcontractor employees In addition to the contractors and clothing to be worn by the employees receive this annual retraining. subcontractors, the training provision being supervised. Supervisors are Consequently, annual retraining will be will also affect engineering/technical required to have 8 hours more training needed by 525 of the 5,250 contractor service employees and managers who than that received by employees at employees and all of the 1,310 work at government-mandated cleanup every level of protective clothing. All subcontractor employees who have sites. Consequently, 625 current employees and supervisors are to been employed by the same employer employees (315 at Levels A and B - receive a written certificate upon for at least a year (see Table 4). protective clothing and 310 at Level C completion of training. The training provision also affects protective clothing) and 150 current ERG reported [1, C-4) that although contractor and subcontractor managers (75 at Levels A and B some contractor employees have had supervisors. OSHA estimates that 175 protective clothing and 75 at Level C formal classroom training, few have had current contractor supervisors (105 at protective clothing) will need off-site 40 hours of off-site training. Many Levels A and B protective clothing and initial training. In addition, ERG . contractor employees, however, have 70 at Level C protective clothing) and reported [1, Table C-4] that 30-percent had substantial hazardous waste site 112 current subcontractor supervisors of the 250 new employees hired annually cleanup experience. OSHA determined (56 at Level B protective clothing and 56 (75 employees) and 30-percent of the 60 that 40-percent of the 7,000 current at Level C protective clothing) will need new managers hired annually (16 contractor employees (2,800 employees) off-site initial training. In addition. managers) will need this initial training but none of the 1,750 current OSHA estimates that 70-percent of the in the first year and in each year / subcontractor employees have had 140 new contractor supervisors hired thereafter (see Table 3). / sufficient training and/or work annually (08 supervisors) and 90-percent The training provision also requires experience to fulfill this training of the 110 new cleanup subcontractor that all employees receive 8 hours of requirement (see Table 3). supervisors hired annually (100 ' annual retraining. Based on the ERG vvv qOOO 2786 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 18 / Friday, January 28, 1990 / Proposed Rules report [1. Table C-4J, OSHA estimated - . All-new employees wilt need this that 90-percent of the engineering/ .... initial training. Assuming a 20 percent Table 5.--Populations to be Trained ' and the Number of Instructors Re technical services employees receive this annual retraining; Consequently. . turnover rate. RCRA-regulated facilities annually hire 10.500 new employees quired : annual retraining will be needed by 225 of the 2,250 engineering/technical (4,400 at land disposal sites and 6.100 at treatment and storage facilities). ERG - First year- Annual services employees who remain with the reported [1. Table G-1J that one-half of *" same employer for at least a year (see- - Table 4). . . .. . - The training provision also requires that all managers received hours of annual retraining. Based on the ERC the 4,400 new land disposal site employees (2.200 employees) and 75percent of the 6,100 treatment and . . storage facility employees (4,575 employees) currently do not receive . Government Mandated Waste Operations Population to be trained: Existing and new contracExisting and new contrac- 7,575 ' '3,460 report [1. C-4], OSHA estimates that 90percent of the engineering/technical -- - services managers receive this annual retraining. Consequently, annual - initial training..Unlike the initial training of current employees in which a number of employees can be trained at one. time, the initial training of new employees - - tor supervisors- ,-- Existing .and new engipeering employees Existing and new engineoring managers____ 495 700 - 168 - 274 300 72 retraining will be needed by 54 of the .. will be done on an individual basis. 540 managers who remain with the same OSHA estimates that the initial training - Subtotal 9,728 ' 4.106 Privately Initiated waste employer for at least a year (see Table of new employees will involve one operations employees --. - 693 ; `411 4). : - ..... - instructor training two new employees. Subtotal- 9.621 4,517 Population To Be Trained (Privately ' Initiated Cleanups ` , The training provisions also require . that these employees receive 8 hours of - Number of Instructors (at 1:5 annual retraining. ERG reported [1. 1.964 903 ' OSHA assumes that the activity level' Table G-l] that 50-percent of the 17.800 . . RCRA-Reguiated Facilities of privately-initiated hazardous waste land disposal site employees (8.900 - . Population to be trained ; site cleanups is 10-percent of that at a government-mandated hazardous waste sites and training requirements are v similarly scaled (i.e. training levels at -privately initiated cleanups are 10- employees and 75-percent of the 24,400 treatment and storage facility employees (18.300 employees) who have been employed at the same RCRA-regulated facility for at least 1 year will need . Land disposal employees (newt-------------------------- Treatment and storage ' employees (new). 2J200 : 4.575 Subtotal 6,775 2.200 4,575 6.775 percent of.those at government . additional annual retraining. RCRA- mandated cleanup sites]. (See Table 3 regulated facilities can conduct annual Number of instructors (at 1:2 -f,-. ; . _ Ratio) ........... ............... .. 3,390 . 3,390 andTable4). :i ., retraining on-site and these sessions will Population to be trained: -- . Population To Be Trained (RCRA-! Regulated Facilities involve a safety and health supervisor. . -training an average of 10 employees.'.. Land disposal employee. (current)........ -______ _ Treatment and storage 5,500- 8.900 Paragraph (p)(7), requires that all Population of Instructors Demanded employees (current).--- 7,625 18.300 RCRA-regulated facility supervisors and From the above analysis, there are Subtotal .13,125 . 27.200 employees must have either sufficient 9.820 employees involved in government Number of Instructors (at 1:10 experience or be adequately trained in - mandated and privately initiated Ratio). 1 1,310 2,720 the safe handling of hazardous , hazardous waste clean-up operations substances. Adequate training is defined who require training in order to comply as 24 hours of initial training and 8 . with the Hazardous Waste Operations Total number of instructors demanded____ ---........_____ 6,700 7.C00 hours of annual refresher training. In . and Emergency Response Standard. . addition, all supervisors and employees Assuming on average one instructor to are to receive a written certification >- train 5 employees, a total of 1,964 Cost of the Standard upon completion of training. Supervisors , instructors will be required. Similarly. ' - A standard application package is . and employees who have had sufficient . RCRA-regulated facilities employ 6,775 required to have the following materials work experience or training are - new employees who will need to be included: considered to have fufilled this.initial - trained. - (i) Application for Federal training requirement but they must Since new employees are hired at . receive 8 hours of retraining annually. . irregular intervals, it Is not feasible to Accreditation. The application for Federal accreditation'of training OSHA estimates that approximately train new hires at the same ratios as programs shall provide, as a minimum, 75-percent of current supervisors and - existing employees. Therefore, an - the following information.' employees working at RCRA-regulated instructor to employee ratio of 1 to 2 (A) The applicant's name; address and facilities have had sufficient training - was assumed for new employees. In telephone number. and/or work experience to fulfill the addition, 13,125 current employees will (B) The name, title, address and initial training requirement Thus, require training at an instructor to telephone number of person who will .. compliance with this provision will. . . employee ratio of 1 to 5. Calculations act as liaison with OSHA. . require the initial training of 13,125 yield 4,700 instructors for RCRA- (C) The training program curriculum. current employees (5,500 employees at regulated facilities. The total number of (D) An. analysis of how the training land disposal sites and 7.625 employees instructors required, therefore, is < program meets the subject criteria noted at treatment and storage facilities). The projected to be 6,700. Assuming that the in this section. average RCRA-regulated facility will . average training team consists of five (E) Length of training in hours. r . conduct training sessions on-site and . -instructors, OSHA estimates that there (F) Amount and type of hands-on these sessions will involve the safety ' will be roughly 1.400 applicants (each training. >' . _ ^ . and health supervisor training an . ' - . , training group services about 9 RCRA (G) Length, format content and average of 10 employees. and/or CERCLA facilities {see Table 5). passing score of examinations.- VVV 000011137 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 18 / Friday, January 28, 1990 / Proposed Rules 2737 (H) Topics covered in th$ training assumes that of the 1,400 first time Impact on International Trade program. _ : (I) A copy of all course materials (student manuals, instructor notebooks,' handouts, audio visual aid& etc.). (]) A detailed statement about the development of the examinations used in the training progTam. including skill demonstration examinations. potential applicants, two thirds will apply for reciprocal accreditation (accreditation in several states). This is estimated to consume half an hour of clerical time at $9.00 a hour and $1.50 in, administrative expenses for a total application cost of $9.00. The first year cost of reciprocal applications is OSHA evaluated the potential impact that this standard will have upon international trade. Based upon the minimal potential impact of the standard upon the prices of the affected products and services, OSHA determined that there will be no (K) Required qualifications for each $5,598.00. The total first year cost is. effective change in the level of exported instructor position by subject area. therefore, $135,098.00. or imported products as a consequence Instructors shall have academic Instructors must renew their of this standard. credentials. Field experience or a accreditation three years from the date combination of both and training of initial accreditation and five years experience for the specific subject they after the first renewal. OSHA estimates are teaching. that 1,400 accredited instructors will be (L) The applicant's experience in needed each year to meet mandatory providing related training programs. retraining needs of employees and (M) Description and an example of the initial training of new employees. numerically identified certificates issued to students who attend and successfully complete the training program. (N) The materials required in paragraphs (C), (G) and (I) above shall also be provided in any language other' than English if the program is to be provided in a language other than English. ' (O) The maximum number of students to be accepted into a given training program course. (P) The ratio of instructors to students for each hands-on subject. (Q) Certification that the information submitted in the application is accurate Assuming 1.400 potential applicants, the total cost of reapplications for accreditation and reciprocity for the third and eighth years of regulation is $135,098.00. OSHA assumes that the application cost per instructor will be recovered in the fee charged for his services. As the standard imposes a minimum cost of compliance on firms and individuals seeking accreditation, OSHA has determined that there will be no substantive economic impact as a result of this standard. Also, since the demand for instructors is expected to be and complete. (ii) Application for reciprocaJ " relatively inelastic (due to the mandatory training requirement), costs accreditation. Applicants for reciprocal should be passed along to those accreditation shall provide as a requiring instruction. minimum the following: (A) The applicant's name, address and telephone number. (B) The name, title, address and telephone of the person who will act as Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 99-353, 94 StaL 1164 (5 U.S.C. et seq.]), the Assistant Secretary Environmental Impact Assessment In accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.G 4321, et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations (40 CFR part 1500, et seq.). and the Department of Labor's implementing regulations for NEPA compliance (29 CFR part 11), the Assistant Secretary has determined that the standard will not have a significant impact on the external environment. Benefits The primary economic benefits expected from this proposed regulation would be a guaranteed level of adequate training at hazardous waste operation. The main beneficiaries would be the employees and the employers at hazardous waste operations. At present, there exists no private or public training accreditation program which would ensure the integrity of training courses. The guarantee of effective training programs ensures not only that the benefits outlined in the RIA on hazardous waste operations are met, but a liaison with OSHA. has assessed the impact of the standard also that there will be a greater level of (C) Certification that the information and concluded that full compliance with information available in the appropriate submitted in the application is accurate. the standard will not have a significant markets regarding safety instruction and (D) A copy of the letter granting impact upon a substantial number of procedures. Economic theory suggests accreditation from any of the OSHA small entities. that greater information leads to greater approved state programs. The important criterion that governs a efficiency in the competitive market U OSHA estimates that the assembly of Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is the application package will consume whether the standard adequately References two hours of professional time at $20.00 considers the special compliance 1. Eastern Research Groups, Inc .per hour, ore hour clerk typist time at problems faced by small entities. ''Preparation of Data to Support a Regulatory S9.00 per hour and a fee of $3.50 for "Significance'' is determined by the Analysis and Environmental Impact administrative expenses (photocopies, effect upon the profits, the market share, Assessment of the Proposed Standard for packaging, postage, etc.). Individual item and the financial viability of small Working at Hazardous Waste Sites." costs are as follow: video tape copies at entities. In particular. OSHA must Preliminary Report prepared for the U.S. i' $5.00 a copy, one video tape of a slide determine whether compliance with the show at $25.00 a copy (approximately 20 standard will place small entities at a - Department of Labor under Contract No. T-9F-5-0057. Arlington. Massachusetts, April minutes of running time accounting for competitive disadvantage to large 1987. 200 Blides at 5 seconds per slide), and entities. - 2. U-S- Department of Labor. Occupational $5.00 for photocopies of pamphlets and The standard applies uniformly to all Safety and Health Administration, Office of handout materials. The total co9t of the potential applicants. Also, since OSHA's Regulatory Analysis. "Regulatory Impact and application package is S92.50 analysis of costs indicate (hat the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the Applying this cost lo the number of standard will impose minimal Occupational Standard for Hazardous Waste irst year applicants 11.400 potential applicants), the first year cost of pplicahons will be $129,500 OSHA compliance costs. OSHA believes that there will be no substantial differential tm<M) i on small firm* Operations and Emergency Response (29 CFR Part 19101." Washington. D.C. December 14, tnaa VVV 000011X38 2788 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 18 / Friday, January 28, 1990 / Proposed Rules IV. OMB Approval Under the Paperwork Reduction Act This proposed standard contains : "collection of Information"' ' ' ; (recordkeeping) requirements pertaining to the procedures for applying for ' . accreditation of training programs. ' OSHA estimates that these records would be required to be maintained by the applicant in order to fulfill the renewal requirements of this rule. The Agency believes that the records ` necessary for renewal would not be retained by the employer for more than five years when a new seit of records would be developed. Public reporting burden for this ' " collection of information is estimated to average three and one-half hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching ' existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and _ completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any . other aspect of the collection of information, including suggestions for . reducing this burden to, Docket Office.. Docket No. S-760-B. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. v Room N-2634, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington. DC 20210: and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork ` Reduction Project (121ft-AB27). Washington, DC 20503. . V. Federalism This proposed regulation has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12612 (54 FR 41085; October 30, 1987) regarding Federalism. Executive Order 12612 requires that agencies, to the extent possible, refrain from limiting state policy options, consult with states prior to taking any actions that would' restrict state policy options, and take ` such actions only when there is clear constitutional authority and the '' presence of a problem of national scope. The Executive Order provides for preemption of state law only if there is a clear Congressional intent for the . Agency to do so. Any such, preemption is to be limited to the extent possible. - This proposed rulemaking is directed by Congress under amendments to the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1980. as amended (SARA). The constitutional authority and Congressional intent for - Federal action in. the area of training - accreditation for employees engaged in hazardous waste operations is mandated clearly in the amendments to - paragraph (d)(3) of section 128 of SARA. Congress therefore has identified the ' accreditation of employee training programs for employees engaged in performance oriented nature of this hazardous waste operations as a proposed rule, of and by itself, allows problem of national scope through the - for flexibility by states and owners or enactment and amendment of SARA. operators of hazardous waste sites or - With respect to section 4 of Executive providers of acceptable training to : Order 12612. section 18 of the OSH Act - provide as much safety as possible using ` also expresses Congress' clear intent to varying methods consonant with the preempt state laws relating to issues conditions in each state. - ' - ' with respect to which Federal OSHA Ih summary, there is a clear national has promulgated occupational safety or problem, identified by Congress, related health standards. Under the OSH Act a to accredited occupational safety and state can avoid preemption only if it health training programs in hazardous submits, and obtains Federal OSHA ' waste operations. Those states which -approval of a plan for the development of such standards and their . have elected to participate under section 18 of the OSH Act would not be enforcement. Occupational safety and preempted by these proposed ' 'health standards developed by such regulations and Would be able to approved Plan states must, among other address special,.local conditions within ! things, be at least as effective in providing safe and healthful employment and places of employment as the Federal standards. Where such the framework provided by this ; performance oriented standard while ensuring that their standards are at least as effective as the Federal standard. : standards are applicable to products : State comments are invited on this distributed or used in interstate commerce-, they may not unduly burden ' commerce and must be justified by ' - proposal and those that are submitted to ' ' the record will be fully considered prior to promulgation of a Final Rule. - :, ' compelling local conditions (See section 18(c)(2)). '. .. .. ; ' Section 126 of SARA, under paragraph (f), requires that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provide those state and local government workers who are not covered by the protections of OSHA approved state plans with . protection that is identical to that - provided tinder the Federal OSHA - - The Agency certifies that this document has been assessed in light of . the principles, criteria, and requirements stated in sections 2 through 5 of ' Executive Order 12621. This rulemaking would not.change the state's ability to . discharge traditional state governmental functions or other aspects of state sovereignty". . standards. State and local government , VI. Public Participation workers, employed In 27 non-OSHA state plan states and the District of Columbia, would not normally be covered by the standards promulgated under Federal OSHA or approved state OSHA programs. OSHA has worked .with EPA in the development of this. .proposed rule to assure that the v- protections provided to all state and local government employees i9 Interested persons are requested to ' submit written data, views and arguments concerning this proposal. These comments must be postmarked by April 26.1990. and submitted in ; quadruplicate to the Docket Office. . Docket No. S-760-B. Room N-2634. U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue. NW,, Washington. DC 20210. consistent with that provided by the . : The data, views and arguments that Federal OSHA standard and the OSHA are submitted will be available for ACL "V'.'. . .. . public inspection and copying at the ... ' It is not clear to OSHA whether it 1 above address. All timely submissions . would be appropriate for EPA to set up . received will be made a part-of the a duplicate certification of training . record of this proceeding. programs for .the 27 states for which - - Additionally, under section 6(b)(3) of EPA will issue a regulation. OSHA the OSH Act and 29 CFR 1911.11, : requests comment on this issue. interested parties may.file objections to This proposed rule is written so that employees engaged in hazardous waste the proposal and request an informal hearing. The objections and hearing operations and related emergency response operations in every state, requests should be submitted in quadruplicate to Mr. ThomasHall. - . . . including those state and local - ' Division of Consumer Affairs, . ., government employees in states Occupational Safety and Health regulated by EPA. would be protected - Administration, N-3649, U.S. - by general performance oriented - Department of Labor, Washington, DC - standards.-States that will be covered : 20210 and must comply with .the < .. by regulations issued by EPA under ; following conditions: . ` paragraph 126(f) of SARA will be . ` -1. The objections and hearing requests provided the same option. Moreover, the must include thename and address of VVV 000011139 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 19S0 / Proposed Rules 2789 the individual or organization making the objection or request; - North Carolina, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, $ 1910.120 Hazardoua'waste operations and emergency response. 2. The objections and hearing requests Vermont. Virginia, Virgin Islands, must be postmarked by March 27,1990. Washington and Wyoming. (e) Training. 3. The objections and hearing requests must specify with particularity the provisions of the proposed rule to which objection is taken or about which the hearing request is made, and must state the grounds therefor; 4. Each objection and hearing request must be separatelystated and. numbered: and ' 5. The objections must be - accompanied by a detailed summary of the evidence proposed to be adduced at the requested hearing. Interested persons who have After the effective date of a final Federal rule, until such time as a state standard is promulgated, Federal OSHA' will provide interim enforcement assistance, as appropriate, in these states. List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1910 Accreditation, Certification. Hazardous materials, Hazardous substances. Hazardous wastes. Incorporation by reference, Training, Waste disposal. Nets to this paragraph (e): Training provided prior to the effective date of 29 CFR 1910.121 will be considered acceptable in . meeting the requirements of this paragraph even though it may not have been provided through an OSHA accredited training program. (1) General, (i] All employees (such as, but not limited to, equipment operators, general laborers and others) working onsite and exposed to hazardous substances, health hazards, or safety hazards shall receive training objections to various provisions or have Authority meeting the requirements of this changes to recommend may, of course, make these objections or , recommendations in their comments and OSHA wiil fully consider them. There is. only need to file formal "objections" separately if the interested person desires to request an oral hearing. OSHA recognizes that there may also This document has been prepared under the direction of Gerard F. Scanned, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW,, Washington, DC 20210. Pursuant to section 126 of the Superfund paragraph and accredited by OSHA under 29 CFR 1910.121 before they are permitted to engage in hazardous waste operations that could expose them to hazardous substances, safety, or health hazards. They shall also receive refresher training as specified in this paragraph. be interested persons who, through their knowledge of safety or their experience in the operations involved, would wish to endorse or support certain provisions in the standard. OSHA welcomes such supportive comments, including any pertinent accident data or cost information which may be available, in order that the record of this rulemaking will present a balanced picture of the public response on the issues involved. VII. State Plpn Standards This Federal Register document Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99--496) as amended (29 U.S.C. 655 note), sections 6 and B of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655, 857, section 4 of the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 553), Secretary of Labor's Order 9-83 (48 FR 35736) and 29 CFR part 1911, it is proposed to amend 29 CFR part 1910 by . adding a new section. 29 CFR 1910.121, Accreditation of Training Programs for Hazardous Waste Operations, and by revising paragraphs (e) and (p) of 11910.120, as set forth below. (3) Initial training, (i) General site workers (such as equipment operators, general laborers and others) engaged in hazardous substance removal or other activities which expose or potentially expose workers to hazardous substances and health hazards shall receive a minimum of 40 hours of training in a program accredited by OSHA under 29 CFR 1910.121, and a minimum of three days actual field experience under the direct supervision of a trained, experienced supervisor. proposes a new standard. 29 CFR 1910.121, Certification of Hazardous Waste Operations Training Programs, for inclusion in subpart H of 29 CFR part 1910, OSHA's general industry Signed at Washington, DC this 22nd day of January, 1990. Gerard F. Scanneil, Assistant Secretary ofLabor. (ii) Workers on site only occasionally ' for a specific limited task (such as. but not limited to, ground water monitoring, land surveying, inspections, management site visits or geo-physical standards. It also would revise certain parts of 29 CFR 1910.120 to reflect requirements in this proposal. PART 1910--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS surveying), and'who are unlikely to be exposed over permissible exposure limits and published exposure limits, The 25 states or U.S. territories with 1. The authority citation for subpart H shall receive a minimum of 24 hours of their own OSHA approved occupational of part 1910 is proposed to be amended training in a program accredited by safety and health plans must develop a by revising the third paragraph to read OSHA under 29 CFR 1910.121. and a comparable standard applicable to both . as follows: minimum of one day actual field ..d the private and public {state and local government employees) sectors within Authority: Sections 1910.120 and 1910.121 issued experience under the direct supervision of a trained, experienced supervisor. six months of the publication date of a under the authority of section 126 of the (iii) Workers regularly on site who permanent final rule or show OSHA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization work in'areas which have been why there is no need for action, e.g., Act of 1986 as amended (29 U.S.C. 655 note), monitored and-fully characterized if because an existing state standard sections 6 and 8 of the Occupational Safety indicating that exposures are under f* i* /w>- it ; .u covering this area is already "at least as effective as" the new Federal standard. . These states and territories are Alaska. Arizona, California. Connecticut (Plan covers only state and local and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655, 657), section 4 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). 29 CFR part 1911 and Secretary of Labor's Order 9-83 (48 FR 35738), . . 2. Section 1910.120 as revised effective permissible exposure limits and ' published exposure limits where respiratorsare not necessary, and when the characterization indicates that there are no health hazards or the possibility .i/ government employees), Hawaii,' ! March 6,1990, and published at 54 FR of an emergency developing, shall Y* Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, 9317 (March 8.1989) is proposed to be receive a minimum of 24 hours of ' . .vl Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada. New amended by revising paragraphs (e) (1), training in a program accredited by * Mexico, New .York (Plan covers only (3), (4), and1 (9) and (p)(7) to read as OSHA under 29 CFR 1910.121. and a state and local government employees), follows: ' r- minimum of one day actual field VVV 000011140 27S0 Federal Register / Vol. 55, No. 16 / Friday, January. 26, 1990 / Proposed Rules experience under the direct,supervision of a trained, experienced supervisor. (iv) Workers with 24 hours of OSHA accredited training who are covered by (a)(3) (ii) and (iii) of this section, and who become general site workers or who are required to wear respirators.. shall receive an additional IS hours of accredited training and two days of supervised field training necessary to total the training specified in paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section before performing general site work. (4) Management and supervisor training. On-site management and supervisors directly responsible for hazardous waste operations shall receive 40 hours of initial training accredited by OSHA under 29 CFR 1910.121. and three days of supervised Held experience. The training may be ' reduced to 24 hours and one day supervised field experience if the only area of their management and supervisory responsibility is employees covered by paragraphs (e)(3) (ii) and (iii) of this section. In addition, all on-site management and supervisors directly responsible for employees engaged in hazardous waste operations shall receive at least eight additional hours of specialized training, accredited by OSHA under 29 CFR 1910.121. at the time of job assignment The specialized training shall cover such topics as. but not be limited to. the employer's safety and health program and the associated employee training program (including site hazards); personal protective equipment program; spill containment program; and health hazard monitoring procedures and techniques. * (9) Equivalent training. Employers who can show by documentation or certification that an employee's work, experience and/or previous training received prior to March 6,1990. has resulted in training equivalent to that OSHA accredited training required in paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(4) of this section shall not be required to provide the initial training required in tide paragraph to such employees. However, certified employees who begin work at anew site shall receive appropriate, site specific training before site entry and have the appropriate supervised field '' experience at the new site. Equivalent ; training includes academic training, the training that existing employees might have already received from actual hazardous waste site work experience. or any previously unaccredited training ' received to meet the requirement* of 23 CFR 1910;i20 prior to the effective date of 29 CFR 1910.121. (p) Certain Operations Conducted Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of1976 (RCRA). * * * -(7) Training program. Note to this paragraph (p)(7): Training___ provided prior to the effective date of 29 CFR 1910.121 will be considered acceptable in meeting the requirements of this paragraph even though it may not have been provided through an OSHA accredited training program. (i) New employees. The employer shall develop and implement a training, program, which will be part of the employer's safety and health program, for employees involved with hazardous waste operations so that those employees will be able to perform their assigned duties and functions in a aafe and healthful manner. The initial training shall be for 24 hours and be accredited by OSHA under 29 CFR 1910.121. Employees shall receive eight hours of refresher training annually. Employees who have received and successfully completed the initial accredited training required by this paragraph shall be given a written certificate attesting that they have successfully completed the necessary training in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.121. (ii) Current employees. Employers who can show by documentation or certification that an employee's work experience and/or previous training has. provided the skill attainment equivalent to the initial accredited training required by this paragraph, shall be considered as meeting the initial training requirements of this paragraph for that employee. Equivalent training includes the training that existing employees might have already received from actual site work experience or from unaccredited training programs given prior to the effective date of 29 CFR . 1910.121. Current employees shall receive eight hours of refresher training annually. *** 3. A new 1910.121 of Tide 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be added to read as follows: S 1910.131 Accreditation of training programs for hazardous waste operations. (a) Scope, application, and definitions--(1) Scope, (i) This section* contains the procedures to be used in . obtaining the necessary accreditation * from the U.S. Department of Labor. . Occupational Safety and Health Administration, to conduct the 40-hour. ; the 24-hour, and the manager training programs for hazardous waste operations required in 29 CFR 1910.120r paragraphs (e) and (p). Notes to this paragraph (a)(l)(t): 1. Training programs containing more hours than the minimum amount required for accreditation may be submitted for accreditation if it is necessary for more time to present appropriate training material. For example, applicants may submit a 60-hour training program for 40-hour accreditation if it is necessary for more time to cover the training material necessary for a particular operation. Courses would be accredited for the amount of hours closest to but below the amount of hours submitted in the application. In the above example, the 60-hour course would be accredited as a 40-hour course if it met the minimum criteria for 40 hours of training. 2. An accredited training program may make use of courses or materials designed for other training programs so long as they meet the requirements of this section. For example, a generic course addressing personal protective equipment would be acceptable as part- of an accredited training program provided that employees are also given specific training for the particular types of personal protective equipment to be worn at a specific site. ' (ii) All other OSHA training requirements in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations are not within the scope of this section. (2) Application. This section applies to any applicant who requests accreditation of training programs within the scope of this section. (3J Definitions. "Applicant" means an employer or organization capable of conductingtraining programs meeting the requirements of this paragraph who has applied to the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, for accreditation of a specific training program. "Examination" means any written test or non-written practical test used to evaluate the knowledge and/or specific skill level of the student during or at the conclusion of a training program. (b) Requests for accreditation--(1) Eligibility. Any applicant considering itself capable of conducting any of the training programs as required in 29 CFR 1910.120 (e) and (p) eligible to apply for accreditation of that training program.' (2) Reciprocity--(i) Federally accreditedprograms. Any hazardous waste operation training program that has received accreditation from the U.S. Department of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, shall be considered an accredited program ` pursuant to section 128 of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 as amended (29 U.5.C. 655 note) ' in any state or territory. (ii) State accreditedprograms. Each training program for hazardous waste operations that- has received an Individual state accreditation from-an VMV OOOO Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 18 / Friday, January 26. 1990 / Proposed Rules 2791 OSHA approved state plan state shall not be considered accredited outside of the individual state's jurisdiction unless OSHA also has granted accreditation^:) the training program. (3) Content ofapplications.---(i) Application forFederai accreditation. The applicant for Federal OSHA accreditation of training program shall provide, as a minimum, the following information: (A) The applicant's name, address ar.d telephone number. ' (6) The name, title, address and telephone number of the person who will act as liaison with OSHA. (C) The training program curriculum including the topics to be covered and the length, format, content and passing scores of examinations. CD) An analysis of how the training program meets the subject criteria noted in this section, and which training requirements in $ 1910.120 the training program is targeted to meet. (E) Length of training in hours. (F) Amount and type of hands-on ' training. : (G) A copy of all student textbooks and instructor notebooks including lessonplans. i.- i (H) Required qualifications for each Instructor position by subject area. - Instructors shall have completed a ' "train-the-trainer" type of training session for their subject training area or shall have the academic credentials, field experience or a combination of both and the training experience for the specific subject they are teaching. (I) Description and an example of the numerically identified certificates that would be issued to students who would attend and successfully complete the training program. ()] The materials required in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) (C), (G) and (I) of this section shall also be provided in a language other than English if the training program is to be provided in a . language other than English. _ . . (K) The maximum number of students to be accepted into a given training program course. (L) The ratio of instructors to students for each hands-on subject. (M) Certification that the information submitted in the application is accurate and complete. (ii) Application for reciprocal Federal accreditation ofstate accredited programs. Applicants for Federal . reciprocal accreditation of state accredited programs shall provide as a minimum the following: - (A) The applicant's name, address and telephone number. (B) The name, title, address and upon the completed application'file and telephone number of the person who the written recommendations of the will act as liaison with OSHA. accreditation staff. (C) Certification that the information (3) Preliminary accreditation, (i) After submitted in the application is accurate. review of the application and any (D) An official copy of the letter additional information, the Agency will granting state accreditation of a training grant preliminary accreditation if the program from any of the OSHA application appears to meet the approved state programs. requirements for proper accreditation. (E) The materials submitted to the . . (ii) "The Agency will notify the state for its accreditation if requested by applicant in writing of the decision to OSHA. grant preliminary accreditation. (4J Filing office location. Applications (iii) Upon receipt of the notification of shall be submitted to: OSHA Hazardous preliminary accreditation, the applicant Waste Training Accreditation Program,:. may begin to conduct the accredited U.S. Department of Labor. Washington, DC 20210. (5) Amendments and withdrawals, (i) The applicant shall be permitted to revise an application any time prior to a final decision on the accreditation application. (ii) The applicant shall be permitted to withdraw an application, without prejudice, at any time prior to the final decision on the accreditation. application. (c) Review and decision process.--{1) Acknowledgement. The Agency will training program. (4) Denial ofpreliminary accreditation, (i) After review of the application and any additional information, the Agency will deny preliminary accreditation if the application does not appear to meet the requirements of this section or the training program requirements of the targeted provisions in 1910.120. (ii) The Agency will notify the applicant in writing of the decision not to grant preliminary accreditation, and acknowledge in writing the receipt of all applications it receives. The Agency may request additional information if it will identify the specific requirements of this section or those of $ 1910.120 that - were not met and the reasons therefor. -' believes information relevant to the {iii} After receipt of a notification of requirements for accreditation has been' preliminary non-accreditation, the omitted or is incomplete. (2) Requirements for accreditation andpreliminary decision by the applicant shall be permitted to submit a . revised.application for further review by the Agency pursuant to the procedures Assistant Secretary ofLabor for of this section. Occupational Safety and Health, (i) The (iv) The applicant may resubmit the requirements for accreditation are: original application with a statement of (A) That the applicant demonstrate reasons why the applicant believes that that it has a written training program the original application meets the that meets the applicable paragraphs of requirements for accreditation, and may this section and it will train employees request accreditation under paragraphs in the topics required by 29 CFR (c)(5) and (c)(6) of this section. 1910.120: (5) Public comment period, (i) The (B) That it has competent staff, and preliminary decision by the Assistant facilities to carry out the training Secretary to grant accreditation or to properly; deny accreditation when the applicant (C) That it is capable of effectively appeals the preliminary decision, with a training employees in the topics required summary of the application and in 29 CFR 1910.120; decision, will be published by the (D) That it has an effective method of Agency in the Federal Register. A measuring whether the employees have - decision to deny accreditation which is been adequately trained in the areas of ,' not appealed will not be published in required training; ' the Federal Register. (E) That it will maintain adequate ' ' (ii) The Agency will provide a records of the program and employees minimum of 60 calendar days for written who have successfully completed the comments on the applicant's fulfillment program; and ;! ' of the requirements for accreditation (F) That it is capable of and will ' and the Assistant Secretary's decision. continue to meet the requirements for The application, supporting documents, accreditation. staff recommendations, statement of (ii) The Assistant Secretary of Labor applicant's reasons for requesting' ' for Occupational Safety and Health approval, and any comments received: (Assistant Secretary) will make the ' : will be made available for public preliminary decision as to whether or inspection and copying at the Docket : not the applicant has met the' - Office, U.S. Department of Labor,........ requirements for accreditation, based OSHA, Room N-2S34.200Constitmion VVV 00001X142 2702 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 1990 / Proposed Rules Avenue. NW., Washington. DC. (202) 523-7894. (iii) Any interested party-maysubmit comments. In addition, any interested party may request a publio hearing on OSHA's derision by the close of the comment period in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR part 1905, subpart C, if the party can demonstrate why a hearing is necessary to present evidence relevant to the decision which can not be presented through public comments. (6) Final decision by the Assistant Secretary'--(i) Without a public hearings Where there is no hearing, the Assistant Secretary will issue a written final decision on the application based on the evidence in the record from the comments, if any, the full application, the supporting documentation, the staff recommendations, and the written comments and evidence submitted. (ii) With a public hearing. If there is a valid request for a hearing on an application, the following procedures will be used: (A) The Assistant Secretary will issue a notice of hearing before an Administrative Law Judge of the Department of Labor pursuant to the rules specified in 29 CFR part 1905, subpart C. (B) After the hearing, pursuant to 29 CFR part 1905, subpart C, the Administrative Law Judge shall issue a decision (including reasons) based on the application, the supporting documentation, the staff recommendation, the public comments and the evidence submitted during the hearing (the record), stating whether it has been demonstrated, based on a preponderance of evidence, that the applicant meets the requirements for accreditation. If no exceptions are filed, this is the final decision of the Department of Labor. (C) Upon issuance of the decision, any party to the hearing may file exceptions within 20 days, pursuant to subpart C. If exceptions are filed, the Administrative Law Judge shall forward the decision, exceptions and record to the Assistant Secretary for the final decision on the application. (D) The Assistant Secretary shall review the record, the decision by the Administrative Law Judge, and the exceptions. Based on these, the Assistant Secretary shall issue the final derision (including reasons) of the Department oi Labor stating whether the applicant has demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that it meets the requirements for recognition. (iii) Publication of the final decision. % A notice of the final decision will be published in the Federal Register, and a copy of the Assistant Secretary's fiual decision will be sent to the applicant. (iv) Review of the Assistant Secretary's final decision. The final decision of the Assistant Secretary, or the Administrative Law Judge if no exceptions are filed, is the final decision of the Department of Labor. (d) Terms and conditions of accreditation--(1) Accreditation of program. The following terms and conditions shall be part of every accreditation: (1) The accreditation of each training program will be evidenced by a letter of accreditation from the Assistant Secretary. The letter will provide the specific details of the scope of the OSHA accreditation as well as any conditions imposed by OSHA. (ii) The accreditation of each training program shall be valid for three years after the initial accreditation, and valid for five years for each subsequent renewal unless revoked for good cause. The dates of the period of accreditation will be stated in the accreditation letter. (iii) The accredited applicant shall continue to satisfy all the requirements of this section and the letter of accreditation during the period of accreditation. (2) Revision of an accreditedprogram. The accredited applicant may change elements of the accredited training program by notifying the Assistant Secretary of the change, certifying that the revised program change meets the requirements of this section: that the entire accredited program continues to meet the requirements of this section: and that supporting documentation is provided upon which its conclusions are based. The applicant may make the change upon notification of OSHA. However, if on subsequent review.. OSHA determines the change is inconsistent with this section and so notifies the applicant, the applicant must revert to the original elements. (3) Renewal ofan accreditedprogram. An accredited applicant may renew its accreditation by filing a renewal request at the address in paragraph (b)(4) of this section not less than 180 calendar days, nor more than one year, before the expiration date of its current- accreditation. When an accredited applicant has filed such a renewal request, the current accreditation will not expire until a final decision has been made on the renewal request. The renewal request will be processed in accordance with the procedures of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. _(4) Transfer ofan accredited program, . An accredited applicant may not - transfer its accreditation to any other person or organization. .., . <, - 1 (5) Revocation ofan accredited program, (i) The Agency may revoke its accreditation of a training program if the accredited applicant either has failed to continue to satisfy the requirements of ' this section or the Agency's letter of accreditation, or has misrepresented itself in its application. (ii) Before proposing to revoke accreditation, the Agency will notify the accredited applicant of the basis of the proposed revocation, and will allow rebuttal or correction of the alleged deficiencies. The Agency must receive any evidence in rebuttal or of ' corrections of deficiencies from accredited applicants within 60 days from the date of OSHA's notice of proposed revocation or OSHA will initiate revocation proceedings. If the deficiencies are not corrected. OSHA may revoke its accreditation 30 days later after the date OSHA receives the applicant's response unless the accredited applicant requests a hearing within that period. (iii) If a hearing is requested, it shall be held before an Administrative Law Judge of the Department of Labor pursuant to the rules specified in 29 CFR part 1905, subpart C.- (iv) The parties of the hearing shall be limited to OSHA and the accredited applicant. The decision shall be made pursuant to the procedures specified in paragraph (c)(6) of this section, except that the burden of proof shall be on OSHA to demonstrate that the accreditation should be revoked because the accredited applicant is not meeting the requirements of accreditation, the Agency's accreditation letter, or has misrepresented itself in its application. (v) Any interested party may file a complaint stating that the accredited applicant Is not meeting the requirements of accreditation, the Agency's accreditation letter, or has misrepresented itself in its application. Such complaint shall contain specific information as to the deficiencies identified. OSHA will acknowledge such complaints in writing and provide the . accredited applicant with a copy of the complaint subject to Privacy Act limitations. (vi) OSHA will investigate such complaints and upon completion of such investigation may invoke the revocation procedures described in this section. If the decision is not to pursue revocation*, the complainant will be notified in . writing-by OSHA of its investigation findings and reason why the - , accreditation remains valid. , ,, .. . vvv OCOOlU*3 Federal Register / Vol. 55. No. 18 / Friday. January 28. 1990 / Proposed Rules 2793 (e) Requirements ofan accredited (ivj Fire and explosion hazards (i.e., (xxix) Sources of reference, additional applicant Each accredited applicant flammable and combustible liquids, information and efficient use of relevant shall: "" reactive materials). manuals and hazard coding systems. (1) Allow OSHA or its authorized (v) General Safety hazards, including (xxx) Principles of toxicology and representative to attend, evaluate and ' electrical hazards, powered equipment biological monitoring. monitor any part of the accredited hazards, walking-working surface (xxxi) Rights and responsibilities of training program without charge or cost hazards and those hazards associated employees and employers under OSHA to OSHA. OSHA will not give advance with hot and cold temperature extremes. and CERCLA. notice of attendance at the training (vi) Confined space, tank and vault (xxxii) "Hands-on" field exercises and program. hazards and entry procedures. demonstrations. (2) Agree to modify the accredited (vii) Names of personnel and (xxxiii) Final examination. training program if the training alternates, where appropriate, (2) 24-hour hazardous waste clean-up requirements of this section or . 1910.120 are changed or if any other OSHA standard which is the subject of training is changed so that it will affect this section. The modification in the training program shall take place no later than 30 days after this section or other relevant standard becomeseffective. (3) Agree to modify the accredited training program if the "state of the art" changes relative to any of the topics- provided in the training program. (4) Agree to provide OSHA annually, no later than 60 days after the accreditation anniversary date, the name and location of each program given, the date given, the number of . participants in each program, and the ' number of participants that were certified as having successfully completed each program. (f) Examinations. Examinations shall cover the necessary skills and knowledge. Each examination shall adequately cover the important topics included in the training program. (g) Certificates. (1) The accredited applicant shall issue certificates to students who have attended and successfully complete the training program. (2) The certificate shall include the accredited applicant's name, the student's name, the accredited program name, the dates of the program, a statement indicating that the participant successfully completed the program, the location where the program was given and an identifying number unique to the student. (h) Specific course content --(1) 40hour hazardous waste clean-up course. As a minimum, the training course required in paragraph (e) of { 1910.120 for the 40-hour training program shall include the following topics: ' (i) Overview of the applicable responsible for site safety and health at the site. (vlii) Specific safety, health and other hazards that are to be addressed at a site and in the site safety and health plan. (ix) Use of personal protective equipment and the implementation of the personal protective equipment program. , (x) Work practices that will minimize employee risk from site hazards. (xi) Safe use of engineering controls and equipment and any new relevant technology or procedure. (xii) Content of the medical surveillance program and requirements, including the recognition of signs and symptoms of overexposure to hazardous substances, - (xiii) The contents of an effective site safety and health plan. (xiv) Use of monitoring equipment ' with "hands-on" experience and the implementation of the employee and site monitoring program. (xv) Implementation and use of the informational program. (xvi) Drum and container handling procedures and the elements of a spill containment program. (xvii) Selection and use of material handling equipment (xviii) Methods for assessment of risk and handling of radioactive wastes. (xix) Methods for handling shock- sensitive wastes. (xx) Laboratory waste pack handling procedures. (xxi) Container sampling procedures and safeguards. (xxii) Safe preparation procedures for shipping and transport of containers. (xxiii) Decontamination program and procedures. (xxiv) Emergency response plan and procedures including first-aid. course. As a minimum, the 24-hour training course required in paragraph (e) of this section for employees engaged in occasional visits to uncontrolled hazardous waste sites shall include the following topics where they are applicable to the job function to be performed: (1).Overview of applicable paragraphs of 29 CFR 1910.120 and the elements of the employer's effective occupational safety and health program. (ii) Employee rights and responsibilities under OSHA and CERCLA. (Iii) Overview of relevant chemical exposures to hazardous substances (i.e., toxics, carcinogens, irritants, sensitizers* etc.). (iv) Overview of the principles of toxicological and biological monitoring. (v) Use of monitoring equipment with hands/on practice and an overview of a site monitoring program. (vi) Overview of site hazards including fire and explosion, confined spaces, oxygen deficiency, electrical hazards, powered equipment hazards, walking-working surface hazards. ' (vii) The contents of an effective site safety and health plan. (viii) Use of personal protective equipment and the implementation of the personal protective equipment program. .* (ix) Work practices that will minimize employee risk from site hazards. (x) Site simulations with "hands-on" exercises and practice. (xi) Emergency response planning and response including first-aid. (xii) Content of the medical surveillance program and requirements, including the recognition of signs and symptoms of overexposure to hazardous substances. (xiii) Decontamination programs and - procedures. paragraphs of 29 CFR 1910.120 and the . (xxv) Safe site illumination levels.- - (xiv) Safe use of engineering controls - elements of an employer's effective - (xxvi) Site sanitation procedures and - and equipment. occupational safety and health program. equipment for employee needs. (xv) Sources of references and (ii] Effect of chemical exposures to (xxvii) Review of the applicable - efficient use of relevant manuals and hazardous substances (i.e.. toxicity, appendices to 29 CFR 1910.120. knowledge of hazard' coding systems.-- carcinogens, irritants, sensitizers, etc.). - (xxviii) Overview and explanation of - (xvi) Final examination. . - : . (in) Effects of biological and ; ! OSHA's hazard communica tion (3) 16-hour supplemental trainingfor radiological exposures. - ; standard (29 CFR 1910.1200). - uncontrolled-hazardous waste sites, As . VVV OOOOUl^ 2794 Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 18 / Friday, January 26. 1990 / Proposed Rules a minimum, employees who have (xvii) Overview and explanation of 1910.120(p)(3) including the recognition received 24 hours of accredited training OSHA's Hazard Communication of signs and symptoms of overexposure for uncontrolled hazardous waste site Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200). to relevant hazardous substances. operations shall receive training in the ,, (xviii) Sources of reference and (x) A review of the employer's following topics before they are allowed additional information. decontamination program and to work in areas where 40 hours of (xix) Final examination. procedures meeting the requirements of training is required: (4) 24-hour treatment, storage, and 29 CFR 1910.120(p)(4). (i) Relevant chemical exposures to disposal (TSD) course. As a minimum, (xi) A review of the employer's hazardous substances beyond that the training course required in training program and the personnel previously covered. paragraph (p) of S 1910.120 for the 24- responsible for that program. (ii) Site hazards including Ore and hour training program shall include the (xii) A review of the employer's explosion, confined spaces, oxygen deficiency, electrical, powered ' equipment, and walking-working . - following topics:. (i) Overview of the applicable paragraphs of 29 CFR 1910.120 and the persona! protective equipment (PPE) program including the proper selection and use of PPE based upon specific site surfaces beyond that previously elements of an employer's effective hazards. covered. occupational safety and health program (xiii) Safe use of engineering controls (iii) Names of personnel and and those responsible for the program. and equipment. alternates responsible for site safety and (ii) Overview of relevant hazards such (xiv) A review of the applicable health at the site, where appropriate. as, but not limited to. chemical appendices to 29 CFR 1910.120. (iv) Use of monitoring equipment and exposures, biological exposures. Gre and (xv) Principles of toxicology and the implementation of the employee and explosion exposures, radiological biological monitoring. the site monitoring program beyond that previously covered. ' (v) Implementation and use of the :informational program. _ exposures, heat and cold exposures. (iii) General safety hazards including those associated with electrical hazards, powered equipment, and walking (xvi) Rights and responsibilities of employees and employers under OSHA andRCRA. (xvii) Sources of reference and (vi) Drum and container handling procedures and the elements of a spill' . containment program. (vii) Selection and use of material . . handling equipment: r-i ' - (vtii) Methods for assessment of risk .and handling of radioactive wastes. _ . . (ix) Methods for handling shock-. sensitive wastes. .' :- . (x) Laboratory waste pack handling procedures. (xi) Container sampling procedures ;and safeguards. (xii) Safe preparation procedures for shipping and transport of containers. {xiii) Decontamination program and procedures. : (xiv) Safety site illumination levels. : ! (xv) Site sanitation procedures and equipment working surfaces. efficient use of relevant manuals and (iv) Confined space hazards and knowledge of hazard coding systems. procedures. (xviii) Hands-on exercises and (vl Work practices that will minimize demonstrations with equipment ; employee risk' from workplace hazards. . . (vi) Emergency response plan and expected to he used during the -performance of work duties. . ___ procedures including first-aid meeting (xix) Final examination.. the requirements.of paragraph (p)(0) of . (5) Additional 8 hours oftrainingfor 5 1910.120.= : supervisors and managers. Supervisors (vii) A review of the employer's hazardous waste handling procedures and managers shall receive an additional eight hours of training in the including the materials handling program and the spill containment following subjects: (i) Management of hazardous wastes program. (viii) An overview and explanation of the employer's Hazard Communication ' Program meeting the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.1200 for those chemicals other than hazardous wastes in the workplace; (ix) A review of the employer's and their disposal. (ii) Federal, state and local agencies to be contacted in the event of a release of hazardous substances. (iii) Management of emergency procedures in the event of a release of hazardous substances. . (xvi) Review of the applicable <r ; medical surveillance program meeting (FR Doc. 90-1734 Filed 1-23-90,12:01 pm) appendices to 29 CFR 1910.120. the requirements of 29 CFR BILLING COOC 4SIO-2S-M Distribution: SAFETY DIRECTORS TOG: XF: Bruce Trego-Aber, Bill Jones-Balt, Harry Peirce-Blane, A. E. Russell-Hmd, K. L. Fogg-LCCP, R. V. Gantz-LCLAB, G. M. ShirleyLCVCM, J . D. Harris-Okc, R. B. Martin-Austin, D. A. Barclay, D. L. Morgan, J. R. Drumwright cc: PLANT MANAGERS R. W. Seymour-Aber, L.. R, Bauer-Balt, G. D. Williams-Blane, J. Pavao-Hmd, J. Friend-LCCP, J. W. Ware-LCLAB, R. A. Conrad-LCVCM, H. D. Garrison-Okc, P. L. Foote-Prem, V. W. Weiss-Austin J. A. DeBernardi, T. H. Huffman, G. G. Draper, W. L McClain, D. L. Cohen RF VVV 000011146