Most of the letters of interpretation issued by OSHA over the years have dealt with PSM applicability issues. This newsletter will focus on several interpretations dealing with emergency response planning, specifically HAZWOPER training requirements. The regulation governing emergency response training is considered part of the PSM Standard by reference. Paragraph (n) of 29 CFR 1910.119, the PSM emergency response element, refers to 29 CFR 1910.120(p) or (q), the HAZWOPER standard. Note that most of these interpretations pre-date the adoption of the final PSM Standard.

Interpretations of PSM Standard With Respect to Emergency Response Planning – HAZWOPER Training

The following utility interpretations of the PSM Standard have been paraphrased and summarized for ease of reading and for space considerations in this article. The exact wording, including fuller explanations by OSHA made be found in the actual documents referenced.

Question: Are engineering personnel qualified to conduct in house HAZWOPER training?
Answer: If it is believed that a "staff engineer with an Engineering degree", satisfies the language of section (q)(7), that engineer can conduct an in house training program. The exact language of the regulation concerning trainers can be found in 1910.120(q)(7). The final rule states: "(7) Trainers. Trainers who teach any of the above training subjects [section q(6)(i-v)] shall have satisfactorily completed a training course for teaching the subjects they are expected to teach, such as the courses offered by the U.S. National Fire Academy or they shall have training and/or academic credentials and instructional experience necessary to demonstrate competent instructional skills and a good command of the subject matter of the courses they are to teach.." 

You mention in your letter that you intend to have the engineer train your employees through the requirements for a hazardous material technician (section (q)(6)(iii). This raises concern at OSHA as it makes no allowance for training of the "on scene incident commander", who will direct the emergency response beyond the first responder level. This individual is the key player of the Hazmat team. Section (q) requires that someone be identified as the on scene incident commander and trained to a level commensurate with his duties as such (the level of training required is described in section (q)(6)(v)). Perhaps, your "staff engineer with an Engineering degree", who will perform your in house training program should be trained to on scene incident command level and designated as such. (OSHA letter of May 10, 1991)

Question: What are the different training requirements for the various roles in an emergency response plan?
Answer: Section (q)(6) has different training requirements because different roles are to be assigned to different employees in anticipation of an emergency response to release of a hazardous substance. Those employees that will be required to notify the proper authority of the release and take no further action would only be required to have "first responder awareness" level training. Those informed of the incident and who take an aggressive role to stop the release of hazardous substance must be trained at least to the "hazardous materials technician" level. In your specific situation, i.e., having only one hazardous substance, there is really no difference between the "hazardous material technician" level and the "hazardous materials specialist" level. Ultimate responsibility for directing the emergency response is in the hands of the "on scene incident commander". 

The issue of training requirements for experienced current employees is addressed in section (q)(6)(i) through (q)(6)(v) Sections (q)(6)(i) and (q)(6)(ii) require training "or" "sufficient experience" whereas sections (q)(6)(iii) through (q)(6)(v) require "at least 24 hours of training" in addition to demonstrating competencies. Therefore, if you conclude based on documentation that your current employees can objectively demonstrate competency in the areas described in section (q)(6)(i) and (q)(6)(ii) they may certify those employees as trained to the first responder awareness level or first responder operations level respectively. However, the hazardous material technician, hazardous material specialist, and on scene incident commander levels all require a minimum of 24 hours training regardless of experience. (OSHA letter of May 10, 1991)

Responses by OSHA to various questions: (OSHA letter of December 30, 1991)

• People trained to the First Responder Operations level do not require training in patching tanks or barrels. [However, training in patching techniques may be helpful if employees are attempting to control an incidental release, or a non-emergency.]
• Employees trained to the Operations level may only take defensive action, such as placing absorbent and constructing dikes, to defensively contain the release of a hazardous substance. If they are taking aggressive action to stop the release of a hazardous substance during an emergency situation, they need Hazardous Material Technician level training. 
• Training for Hazardous Material Technicians must meet the minimum 24 hours of Operations level training and proven experience in the listed competencies. You may use your current 14 hour Operations level course as a foundation and add the balance of the time by going into more depth.
• Employers who may experience an emergency that involves hazardous substances must develop an emergency response plan if they decide to respond to emergencies in-house. An employee must be trained to the proper level, which depends on the procedures that the employer expects that employee to perform. The employer may also opt to develop an emergency action plan, in accordance with 1910.120(q)(1) (which refers to 29 CFR 1910.38(a)). By creating an emergency action plan the employer will evacuate employees when an emergency occurs, and will not allow employees to assist in handling the emergency. An outside HAZMAT team would be contacted to control the emergency incident. 

Question: Does OSHA certify HAZWOPER training programs or instructors?
Answer: Currently, OSHA does not certify individuals or approve training programs. 29 CFR 1910.121, "Accreditation of Training Programs for Hazardous Waste Operations," is in rule making, but has suffered delays so it is not definitely known when the standard will become mandatory. 29 CFR 1910.121 does not presently propose to accredit training programs for employees engaged in emergency response activities, however you may want to monitor the progress of this new standard and anticipate changes in your training and certification programs to ensure continued compliance. Editor’s Note: Currently, 29 CFR 1910.121 is still “reserved” indicating that OSHA has still not adopted this regulation.

The "Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response" standard (HAZWOPER), 29 CFR 1910.120, states in paragraph (e)(5) that "Trainers shall be qualified to instruct employees about the subject matter that is being presented in training". In addition, 29 CFR 1910.120(e)(5) explains that the qualifications of the instructors may be shown by academic degrees, completed training courses and/or work experience. At this time, OSHA does not have any specific requirements to certify an instructor. The subjects that trainers should be able to convey to employees at hazardous waste operations who need training are summarized in paragraphs (e), (p) and (q) of the HAZWOPER standard. In addition, OSHA has proposed a standard entitled "Training Programs for Hazardous Waste Operations," (29 CFR 1910.121). (OSHA letter of February 12, 1992)

Question: Are Train the Trainer courses to be specific for each type of hazardous waste operations and/or emergency response operations? Does this mean there are Train the Trainer courses for HAZMAT trainers? 
Answer: A Train the Trainer course must instruct the trainer on the subjects to be covered in the employee training course. It is unlikely that one course would be able to incorporate all of the topics required to be covered for all hazardous waste operations and emergency response operations. A more practical approach would be to create separate courses. The trainer must be able to demonstrate an understanding of the material to be transmitted to employees. Training courses for employees outlined in the HAZWOPER standard (and the proposed 29 CFR 1910.121, although it may differ in the final rule) can be used as a foundation for train the trainer courses, but more time should be allowed for a more in depth explanation of the material. (OSHA letter of February 12, 1992)

Question: What is meant by academic credentials? Does this mean a person with a degree in safety, industrial hygiene, toxicology, environmental science, and/or some other related degree? 
Answer: Yes. Trainers may also show transcripts from courses in safety and industrial hygiene that are not necessarily part of a degree. (OSHA letter of February 12, 1992)

Question: Would an engineer, not having a degree in safety or industrial hygiene, and not having attended an adequate number of safety and hygiene courses, related to aspects concerning hazardous wastes or materials, be considered to have the proper academic credentials? If so, what would an adequate number of safety and hygiene courses be? 
Answer: An adequate number of courses would vary depending on the course and the engineer's experience and training in safety and industrial hygiene practices. As mentioned above, the trainer must be able to demonstrate an understanding of the material to be transmitted to trainees and have some credentials or experience in training others. (OSHA letter of February 12, 1992)

Question: Does experience mean that a person that has spill experience and a 40 hr. hazardous waste and emergency response course can teach the training course? If so, does this mean that a person can teach all aspects of the hazardous waste or emergency response course? 
Answer: It seems unlikely that the person described above would able to instruct employees on all aspects of the hazardous waste or emergency response course, and would feel confident in answering any questions that employees may have during their training. However, such a person could probably teach some aspects of the course. (OSHA letter of February 12, 1992)

Question: The subpart (q)(7) states that trainers "shall have satisfactorily completed a training course for teaching the subjects they are expected to teach, such as courses offered by the U.S. Fire Academy, or they shall have the training and/or academic credentials and instructional experience necessary to demonstrate competent instruction skills and a good command of the subject matter in the specific subject they are to teach." I will assume the standard is speaking of the Maryland Fire Academy when it states the U.S. Fire Academy. Here again we are speaking of training and/or academic credentials. What exactly does this mean? 
Answer: The Incident Command System and the training levels within a HAZMAT team originated from the National Fire Protection Association's (NFPA) Standard for Professional Competence of Responders to Hazardous Materials Incidents, codified as NFPA 472. Emergency response training given by the U.S. Fire Academy in Emmittsburg, Maryland, would be identical or similar to HAZWOPER training requirements outlined in paragraph (q). (OSHA letter of February 12, 1992)

Question: Where do you draw the line on who is and who is not qualified to instruct these courses: * Does field experience in industry, pipelines, or manufacturing with the occasional emergency conditions qualify as experience with emergency response or hazardous materials?
Answer: If the person described above actually responded to an emergency and/or was trained in emergency response their experience may suffice. (OSHA letter of February 12, 1992)

Question: Would the normal safety training given to employees in industry or manufacturing be considered as experience for a HAZWOPER or HAZMAT instructor?
Answer: This may satisfy some of the training requirements, although the instructor will probably need additional, more thorough, training to convey the information to employees. (OSHA letter of February 12, 1992)

Question: If the trainer has a degree, but in a field unrelated to the subject being taught, and has satisfied some of the other requirements for a trainer would that trainer be considered qualified to teach that subject?
Answer: No. Trainers must be trained in the subject they are expected to teach. (OSHA letter of February 12, 1992)

Question: Should a trainer be certified [a] safety, industrial hygiene, toxicologist, or other professional with expertise in the subject he/she is to teach. If the trainer is not a certified professional and has attended a Train the Trainer course in the subject he is to teach but does not have significant professional experience and/or experience as an instructor in the subject areas of safety, industrial hygiene, or other subjects related to the subject to be taught; can that instructor be considered competent?
Answer: Possibly, if the trainer has been sufficiently trained he or she may teach the course to employees. Professional experience is only one of the criteria that may satisfy a trainer's credentials to teach. Other criteria, such as a train the trainer course, may also satisfy the credentials. (OSHA letter of February 12, 1992)

Question: What would OSHA consider significant professional and/or training experience?
Answer: Any experience from which a person is able to attain information, enabling them to later draw on the experience while teaching. Field experience in industry, pipelines, or manufacturing may qualify as training experience if the person is actively involved in the development or implementation of site safety and health plans, engineering controls, or emergency response provisions. (OSHA letter of February 12, 1992)

Question: What would OSHA use as grounds to [c]ite a company on their HAZWOPER or HAZMAT training concerning the trainer's qualifications?
Answer: OSHA would issue a citation if an OSHA compliance officer found that a trainer did not have academic qualifications, sufficient experience or training in the material that trainer was teaching. (OSHA letter of February 12, 1992)
Editor’s Note: These questions and their answers indicate that OSHA will examine the training that emergency responders receive and the qualifications of the trainers on a case-by-case basis and rule on the merits of each training program individually. The proposed rule on HAZWOPER (29 CFR 1910.121) has not been adopted and is over 10 years old.

Question: Does the Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response regulation (HAZWOPER) apply to plant maintenance personnel, including those with refrigeration system duties?
Answer: Generally, the emergency response provisions in 29 CFR 1910.120 paragraph (q) apply to employers who use refrigeration systems utilizing anhydrous ammonia as a cooling agent. Employers must determine if there is a potential for release of ammonia in their facility which could result in an emergency situation, due to the nature of anhydrous ammonia and the refrigeration units in which it is used. Employees who would be expected to participate in an emergency response must be trained in accordance with the requirements described in paragraph (q)(6). (OSHA letter of January 26, 1993)

Although verbal interpretations have no official standing and federal employees rarely speak for attribution, there have been a number forums following the adoption of the PSM Standard where OSHA representatives have made themselves available to speak about PSM and to answer questions. These verbal interpretations contain some interesting information on OSHA’s thinking (or at least the thinking of the person answering the question). Also, OSHA has published non-mandatory guidance on PSM issues in OSHA Publication 3133 (the “purple booklet”). This guidance is also unofficial and is not mandatory. To our knowledge, there have been no verbal clarifications or other non-mandatory guidance on HAZWOPER training that have been issued.

To see a specific letter or other interpretive document published by OSHA, visit OSHA’s website at http://www.osha-slc.gov/OshDoc/toc_interps.html. 

As a service to our clients and readers, AcuTech has included many of these documents, including the letters of interpretation discussed above, in a continuous Word® file. This file allows for easier searching for keywords that might be of interest and makes it easier to determine if an interpretative document has been published on a particular topic or if any of them address a specific PSM-related issue. 

Note to our readers who have downloaded or used the interpretations file in the past: This file has been updated and now includes interpretations from the OSHA regulations that form the requirements for an emergency response plan, including alarm system and HAZWOPER training requirements. The updated file may be found at http://www.acusafe.com/psm/process-safety-management-interp_letters.html 

In the next month’s issue of the AcuSafe newsletter, we will include additional discussions of interpretations related to emergency response planning (HAZWOPER applicability) that are referenced by the PSM Standard. 

If you have an interpretation that you would like to share with AcuSafe or feedback about this feature, please email us at editor@acusafe.com.  To go back to the OSHA Interpretations Feature Index, click here or go back to AcuSafe.