HAZWOPER coverage at contaminated groundwater treatment plants

July 28, 1993
Ms. Karen Stoller
Health and Safety Manager
Barr Engineering Company
[Recipient address omitted]
Dear Ms. Stoller:
Thank you for your letter dated February 22, concerning the Occupational Safety and Health's (OSHA's) Hazardous Waste. Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) regulation, 29 CFR 1910.120.
As you may know, the State of Minnesota is administering its own occupational safety and health program under a plan approved and monitored by Federal OSHA. Therefore, employers in the State of Minnesota must comply with State occupational safety and health requirements. As a condition of plan approval, States are required to adopt and enforce occupational safety and health standards at least as effective as those promulgated by Federal OSHA. If you would like further information regarding Minnesota occupational safety and health requirements, you may contact the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry directly at the following address:

[Ms. Shirley Chase, Commissioner
Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry
443 Lafayette Road
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155
Telephone: (651) 284-5010]

We are providing our Federal OSHA interpretation in response to your concerns. Please bear in mind that the State of Minnesota must be at least as protective as Federal OSHA and may be more stringent.
Your question requests clarification on the applicability of HAZWOPER to potable water treatment facilities (WTF) involved in CERCLA remedial actions. Specifically, you ask if HAZWOPER applies to a WTF that treats a regional contaminated groundwater plume from a hazardous waste site yet is located several miles downgradient from the contaminated source, i.e. outside the fence line.
The standard states in paragraph (a)(1) that employees involved in hazardous waste operations are covered by the standard "unless the employer can demonstrate that the operation does not involve employee exposure or the reasonable possibility of employee exposure...." Your letter suggests that the WTF believes that there is no significant exposure to hazardous substances. Your example is one where that may indeed be the case. However, OSHA cannot confirm whether your assessment of employee exposure is adequate. If you have sufficient monitoring data to validate your position that employees at the WTF are at "no significant exposure" to contaminants, then indeed, the WTF would not appear to be covered by paragraphs (b) through (o) or (p) of HAZWOPER. Other OSHA standards, such as the Hazard communication standard, 29 CFR 1910.1200, may of course be applicable.
However, section (q) of 1910.120 applies to workplaces that have a potential for emergencies caused by the release of hazardous substance, for example chlorine at the WTF. The HAZWOPER standard provides employers with the option of either using employees to respond to emergencies meeting the requirements in section (q), or evacuating their employees from the hazardous area when an emergency occurs and providing an emergency action plan in accordance with [29 CFR 1910.38, Employee Emergency Plans].
We hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions please contact the State of Minnesota.
Sincerely,
Roger A. Clark, Director
[Directorate of Enforcement Programs]
(Correction 4/18/03)

[Requester letter reproduced on OSHA page; omitted here.]