1 / 38

New Mexico Operator Training Conceptual Proposal

New Mexico Operator Training Conceptual Proposal. Federal Energy Policy Act Requirements. Act signed by President Bush August 8, 2005 Section 9010(a) of the Act requires operator training, and that EPA’s Guidelines take into account: State training programs in existence;

thetis
Télécharger la présentation

New Mexico Operator Training Conceptual Proposal

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. New Mexico Operator TrainingConceptual Proposal

  2. Federal Energy Policy Act Requirements • Act signed by President Bush August 8, 2005 • Section 9010(a) of the Act requires operator training, and that EPA’s Guidelines take into account: • State training programs in existence; • Training programs being used by tank owners and operators; • The high turnover rate of tank operators and other personnel; • The frequency of improvement in UST equipment technology; • The nature of businesses in which tank operators are engaged; • Substantial differences in the scope and length of training needed for different classes of operators; and • Other factors EPA determines are necessary to carry out the Act.

  3. Federal Energy Policy Act Requirements (2) • Final Grant Guidelines to States for Implementing the Operator Training Provision of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 were issued August 2007 • EPA webpage link provides both the text of the law and the Grant Guidelines at • www.epa.gov/oust/fedlaws

  4. Requirements of Grants Guidelines • States must implement the Guidelines for Operator Training by: • Requiring operator training for all operators in each class; • Developing state-specific operator training requirements consistent with the Guidelines by August 8, 2009. These requirements must: • Be developed in cooperation with tank owners and operators; • Take into consideration training programs already in place; • Be appropriately communicated to tank owners and operators; • Establishing a procedure to identify individuals that must be trained; and • Ensuring all operators are trained in accordance with the Guidelines.

  5. Requirements of Grants Guidelines (2) • Guidelines identify 3 classes of operators to be trained: • Class A Operator: • Has primary responsibility of operating and maintaining the tank system, including management of resources and personnel • Focuses on broader aspects of statutory and regulatory requirements, and operating standards • Typically ensures that the appropriate person: • Properly operates and maintains the tank system; • Maintains appropriate records required; • Properly responds to emergencies caused by releases; • Makes financial responsibility documents available as requested.

  6. Class A Operator • At a minimum, Class A operators must be trained in the following: • General knowledge of tank system requirements to make informed decisions regarding compliance with all federal and state regulatory requirements, including: • Spill prevention • Overfill prevention • Release detection • Corrosion protection • Emergency response • Product compatibility • Financial responsibility documentation requirements; • Notification requirements; • Release and suspected release reporting; • Temporary and permanent closure requirements; • Operator training requirements.

  7. Class B Operator • Implements applicable tank system regulatory requirements and standards in the field. • Has responsibility for day-to-day operation, maintenance and recordkeeping, such as: • Release detection method, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements; • Release prevention equipment, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements; • Appropriate individuals are trained to properly respond to emergencies caused by releases or spills. • Compared to Class A, Class B operator has more in-depth understanding of O&M aspects, but may have a more narrow breadth of applicable regulatory requirements.

  8. Class B Operator (2) • At a minimum, training for Class B operators should include: • Components of tank systems; • Materials of tank system components; • Methods of release detection and release prevention applied to tank system components; • Operation and maintenance requirements that include: • Spill prevention; • Overfill prevention; • Release detection; • Corrosion protection; • Emergency response; • Product compatibility • Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; and • Class C operator training requirements.

  9. Class C Operator • Class C operator is an employee; • Generally is the first line of response to events indicating emergency conditions; • Responsible for responding to alarms or other indications of emergencies caused by spills or releases; • Notifies Class B or Class A operator and appropriate emergency responders when necessary; • Typically: • Controls or monitors the dispensing or sale of regulated substances; or • Is responsible for initial response to alarms or releases. • At a minimum, Class C operator must be trained to take action in response to emergencies or alarms

  10. Training Deadlines • Guidelines require that Class A, B and C operators are trained by August 8, 2012 • States may establish a schedule for phasing in training before this deadline • After August 8, 2012 initial training: • Class A and B operators must be trained within 30 days (or another state-specific reasonable time period) of assuming operation and maintenance responsibilities • Class C operators must be trained prior to assuming responsibility for responding to emergencies • If a tank system is found out of compliance, appropriate operators must be retrained • At a minimum, retraining is required for violation of EPA’s Significant Operational Compliance requirements for release prevention and release detection or for state-specified requirements • Retraining must occur within a reasonable period of time • States requiring at least annual operator training would meet the retraining requirements

  11. Acceptable Approaches to Operator Training • Operator training program conducted or developed by the state or by a third-party with prior state approval. State should develop criteria for approving third-party training providers and programs. • Appropriately administered and evaluated verification of operator knowledge (an exam), accomplished either through the state or a third party. Exam must measure operator knowledge required in EPA Guidelines. • Training for a Class C may be conducted by a Class A or B. • States may develop reciprocity standards for training approved by other states. • A state may use any combination of the above approaches.

  12. Verification of Training • States must implement a system to ensure all operators are trained in accordance with the requirements of the Guidelines • Two methods suggested: • Require owners and operators to maintain training records at the facility (or readily available) for verification during inspection • Require owners and operators to report Class A, B and C operator compliance

  13. New Mexico’s Approach • Include ASTs in all requirements for operator training, although federal Energy Policy Act only covers USTs • Above ground tanks present the same or greater potential risk to human health and for environmental emergencies • Level the playing field for tank owners and operators by having equal requirements for ASTs and USTs wherever possible • AST systems tend to be less mechanized and automatic, and many require more hands-on attention from operators

  14. Why Is Operator Training So Important? • Public health emergencies: people exposed to hazardous and carcinogenic vapors, substances and potentially to fires • Environmental emergencies: releases and spills that can contaminate drinking water supplies, explosive hazards • Provide response to alarms on release prevention and detection systems, and corrosion protection equipment • Improve compliance so that errors are corrected

  15. NM: Three Classes of Operators • Adopt the 3 classes in the Guidelines, or consider combining Class A and B? • NM would allow one person to have multiple classifications (if he receives training for multiple classifications). • Is 30 days a reasonable time period for Class A and B to be trained? Would another period of time be more reasonable? • Ideas for phasing in the training deadline of August 8, 2012? By owner name or id number in each quarter of 2012? • Should there be special requirements for un-manned facilities? Should an operator be required within a specified distance or response time? Should automatic alarm or notification be required for release detection equipment?

  16. NM: Class A and B Options • Private training conducted by third party contractor • Trainers must be approved by PSTB, based on standards and application process in rules • Courses must be offered around the state, at least quarterly • Focus on each individual system, its components and requirements, so operators know exactly what to do with their system • Cost of $300-$350 for 8-hour course for each operator, paid by class attendee

  17. NM: Class A and B Options (2) • Possible online training options • Difficult to obtain verification of proficiency, such as a test • Lower cost likely than classroom training, but less individually tailored to each system and little opportunity for questions • No national test option, unless test meets all requirements and standards for training • Similar concerns to those for online training • Rarely tailored to state-specific regulations

  18. Class A and B Discussion Items • Retraining is required by Guidelines for SOC violations • Should any other violations trigger retraining? • Should retraining include the entire 8-hour class? • What “targeted” retraining options are reasonable? Online or video options for particular topics or violations? How to determine if these are effective: • How often should A and B operators re-certify? NM proposes every 5 years, to cover changes in regulations and technology

  19. Class A and B Discussion Items (2) • No reciprocity for New Mexico Class A or B operators • Other state training programs won’t include NM regulations • Some state programs only include USTs • Owners may hire professional operators if they prefer not to be trained themselves • Should there be limits on the number of facilities a Class A or B operator may service? Limit Class B to 25 facilities, so can visit at least once a month? • How to ensure professional operators are trained for the particular equipment and regulatory requirements for each facility? • Transferability of training to another facility? • Should Class A and B re-take training if they switch to another facility? • Should training be generic enough to cover all types of facilities?

  20. Class A and B Discussion Items (3) • Possible deferral or exemptions • Federal Guidelines do not provide any deferral or hardship exemption • Marginal owners who cannot afford training may not be able to afford compliance either • Oregon hardship exemption was never used and is now being deleted from regulations • Possible one-time deferral of re-training for 1 facility operators who have no violations? (Or, deferral only if no SOC violations?)

  21. Class C Options • Will be trained by Class A or B on-site, usually with brief hand-out materials (that should be provided in A/B training) • Federal Guidelines require Class C operator to be trained before assuming responsibility for responding to emergencies. Train the Class C when learning how to run cash register and dispense fuel. • No retraining or re-certification required for Class C. Turnover is very high in these positions, which will take care of time-limited training. • Must be trained every time they change to a different facility, to ensure they learn the appropriate response protocols and contact information for each tank system.

  22. Tracking Certified Operators • PSTB does not have budget or staff to track in database • Owners will provide operator names and proof of training at inspections (like Financial Responsibility and tank testing records) • Trainers must provide certificate of successful completion and track names of operators trained (in case of Bureau verification) • Would owners prefer to send in certified operator information with annual fees? Or as operators change?

  23. What Are Other States Doing? • Oklahoma: • Prepared a “Rule Impact Statement” on the purpose, applicability and reasons for rules on operator training • Did not receive any public comments • Planning to use third party trainers or testers, so no cost to agency • Wyoming: • Planning to use an ICC test for training • No regulations yet • Montana: • Uses Montana Tankhelper online training with test • Works with details of each facility but little verification of knowledge and few regulatory references

  24. What Are Other States Doing? (2) • Colorado • In the process of developing rules • Heading toward ICC-style certification with Colorado-specific additions • Are considering allowing in-house company training, if approved by state agency • Texas • Had planned training program to be implemented by Texas Petroleum Marketers, Petroleum Equipment Institute and Petroleum Training Solutions, requiring classroom training for $150-300 per operator • In March or April 2008, PEI pulled out • Texas is starting over, evaluating options for operator training • Regulates both ASTs and USTs

  25. What Are Other States Doing? (3) • California • Has required operator training since 2005 • Requires ICC test (California UST System Operator exam) with re-certification (and re-testing) every 2 years • Allows third party companies to contract with owners to be certified operators for a variety of facilities • Arizona • Just passed statute to gain authority to develop operator training; will be effective 9/08; only covers USTs • No draft rules or training program yet • Will make owners responsible for developing and implementing a training program • Kansas • Currently requires training from Petroleum Training Solutions (private third-party trainer); exploring other training options • 3 levels of operator required, like Guidelines, that must be trained within 90 days of hire; only applies to USTs

  26. What Are Other States Doing? (4) • Oregon • Required operator training since 6/03 for USTs only; note: no self-service facilities in Oregon are allowed • One-time only requirement; training provided through Petroleum Marketers and approved vendors; minimal standards to approve vendors (now being upgraded) • Only active vendor is Petroleum Training Solutions, providing 8-hour course for $350 addressing specific equipment and regulatory requirements for each facility

  27. What Are Other States Doing? (5) • Oregon (continued) • In process of revising program to comply with Guidelines, especially classes of operators • Deleting “hardship exemption,” as no one has ever applied to use it • Provides statistics that operator training has improved compliance rate: • In 2001, 66% of facilities did not meet operational requirements for leak detection. • By late 2007, SOC compliance rate had risen to 88%

  28. Summary of NM Approach • Develop a meaningful program that will improve compliance, prevent harm • Include both ASTs and USTs in operator training to create a level playing field • Allow owners some flexibility in training and re-training options • Comply with federal Guidelines • Place minimal cost, training and tracking burdens on PSTB

  29. Suggestions and Comments from Stakeholders

More Related