Re: OSHA General Duty Clause

[Guest guest]

KC and group,

Before the bandwagon gets revved up to start citing the OSHA

General Duty Clause as it applies to mold, we must be aware of

the obstacles we will meet. It received extensive discussion and

reseach during the development of the IICRC S520 mold

remediation standard (referenced from the OSHA Web site in

your other post) as to whether or not OSHA would REQUIRE and

enforce Personal Protection Equipment for workers.

OSHA only enforces regulations relating to the workplace. They

do not set the regulations. However, one purpose for the General

Duty Clause was so they could act when there were a " hazard "

that wasn't specifically addressed.

The S520 Committee officially requested clarification. There was

never a written official response to the committee from OSHA,

only verbal ones and they were not definitive or consistent.

Several of us had personal conversations with those at different

levels of OSHA. If there was one overall theme to all this it was

perhaps best expressed by a past officer of OSHA:

(paraphrasing) " Until industry generally accepts mold as a

hazard, the General Duty Clause will not be applied to events

involving mold. "

The response is disturbing for a couple of reasons. OSHA should

not be taking direction based on " industry acceptance, " they

should be protecting workers from industry. Direction should

come from NIOSH. They reference S500 and S520 on their Web

site as credible sources but their (paraphrased) position can be

made only if they ignore the " Health Effects " chapter in S520.

Efforts need to be focused on who influences OSHA.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> http://www.ergoweb.com/resources/reference/guidelines/oshageneralduty

> clause.cfm

>

> The Clause

> In order to include the consideration of ergonomic hazards in normal

> work place inspections without the use of specific standards, OSHA

> has turned to the provisions of Section 5 of the OSH Act or

> the " General Duty Clause " which states:

>

> Section 5:

>

> A. Each Employer:

>

> shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of

> employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing

> or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees;

> shall comply with occupational safety and health standards

> promulgated under this Act.

> B. Each employee shall comply with occupational safety and health

> standards and all rules, regulations and orders issued pursuant to

> this Act which are applicable to his own actions and conduct.

>

> Discussion

> It is under the provisions of paragraph 5A(1) that OSHA cites for

> ergonomic disorders. The language in paragraph 5B gives the

> impression that the employee holds significant responsibility for

> complying to health and safety standards. Although it appears that

> the employee could be fined by OSHA for not complying to health and

> safety standards, the employer bares most of the responsibility for

> compliance in the eyes of OSHA.

>

> If an ergonomic hazard (or other hazard) exists, OSHA inspectors may

> issue a citation under the General Duty Clause when the following

> criteria are met:

>

> There is not an applicable OSHA standard.

> The employer failed to keep the work place free of a hazard to which

> employees of that employer were exposed.

> The hazard is (or should have been) recognized by the employer.

> The hazard is causing or was likely to cause death or other serious

> physical harm.

> There is a feasible and useful method to correct the hazard.

> The absence of specific ergonomic standards requires interpretations

> when using the general duty clause.

>

> Would the hazard cause serious physical harm?

>

> Is the hazard recognized?

>

> Do feasible abatement methods exist?

>

> Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

> General Duty Clause (GDC).

>

>

>

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

>

>