Back to Federal guidance

Bloodborne pathogen coverage for lifeguards

Summary An OSHA region asked whether lifeguards fell under the bloodborne pathogens rule. OSHA said their emergency response duties generally made blood exposure reasonably anticipated, so covered lifeguards should receive the rule’s protections, including the hepatitis B vaccine offer, subject to the actual duties and employment period.
Document
Federal opinion letter
Agency
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
Document number
1993-07-09-0
Date issued
July 9, 1993
Status
Active
Status last verified October 9, 2026

Apply this to your situation

This page explains the general guidance. Ask about your specific situation and see what current federal labor law says, with citations.

About this page: The full text below is the official document from Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Ezel adds the plain-English summary and tracks the document's status. The official source linked on this page is authoritative for any reliance.

July 9, 1993


MEMORANDUM TO: Linda R. Anku
Regional Administrator

FROM: Roger L Clark, Director
Directorate of Compliance Programs

SUBJECT: Coverage of Lifeguards Under 29 CFR 1910.1030


Your memo of March 18, 1993 asked us to clarify whether lifeguards are covered under the Bloodborne Pathogens standard.
Generally, lifeguards are considered to be emergency responders and, therefore, would be considered to have occupational exposure. Emergency response is generally the main responsibility of lifeguards, therefore, such duties could not be considered collateral.
Although it is the employer's responsibility to determine which, if any, of the employees have occupational exposure, employers of lifeguards should examine all facets of the lifeguard's emergency response duties, not just "retrieval from deep water."
For example, divers sometimes miscalculate and hit their head or another part of their body on the diving board on the way down, causing injury where blood is present. It may be reasonably anticipated that a pool patron will dive or fall into shallow water and sustain injuries where blood is present. Victims of near-drownings may hit their head on the bottom or side of the pool, causing them to bite their tongues, cheeks, or lips; so even the administration of cardio-pulmonary rescusitation (CPR) when other injuries are not apparent may result in occupational exposure. It may also be reasonably anticipated that pool patrons will slip on wet surfaces or cut themselves on soda can pop tops, bottle caps, or other debris left around the pool. In most of these cases, if not all of them, it would generally be the lifeguard's duty to render assistance.
As you pointed out, some employers defend their argument that lifeguards do not have occupational exposure by saying that lifeguards are present only "to satisfy liability concerns."
However, in our view, this fact reflects the reasonable anticipation that pool activities may be dangerous, resulting in injuries where blood is present.
Ocean lifeguards, as evidenced by testimony given during the rulemaking process, have even more opportunity for exposure to blood or OPIM. Examples of ocean lifeguard exposure include rescuing swimmers stung by a man-of-war or attacked by sharks or other ocean dwellers, surfers suffering head or body trauma and cuts from surf boards, victims of boating accidents, swimmers propelled by the surf into piers or pilings covered with barnacles, and so forth.
An employer is required to offer all the protections of the Bloodborne Pathogens standard, including the hepatitis B vaccine, to all employees with occupational exposure. Because the emergency response duties of occupationally exposed lifeguards are not considered to be collateral, the vaccine must be offered after training and within 10 working days of initial assignment.
We understand that lifeguards are often seasonal employees and may not be in the same employ long enough to receive the complete vaccine series. Those workers with occupational exposure should be offered the required inoculations scheduled in the series while they are employed. If the third injection, for instance, would be due after the employee's term of employment has ended, the employer would not be obligated to offer it. If the employer anticipates rehiring the lifeguard the following season, it would be in the employer's best interest to ensure the completion of the series within the time frame recommended by the CDC.
[Corrected 08/16/2007]

[Earlier regional memorandum reproduced on OSHA page; omitted here.]

What does federal law require in your situation?

Ezel checks current federal labor law against your facts and answers with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace