|
U.S. Department of Labor | |
||||
| Occupational Safety & Health Administration | ||||||
 |
|
Standard Interpretations
07/28/1992 - Bloodborne pathogen standard's applicability to electric utilities. |
Standard Interpretations - Table of Contents |
| • Standard Number: | 1910.1030 |
July 28, 1992 Stephen C. Yohay Attorney for Edison Electric Institute Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue 1450 G. Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 Dear Mr. Yohay: This is in response to your letter of March 5, regarding the applicability of 29 CFR 1910.1030, "Occupational Exposure to Bloodborne Pathogens", to electric utilities. We apologize for the delay in this response. The bloodborne pathogens standard addresses the broad issue of occupational exposure to blood and other potentially infectious materials and is not meant solely for employees in health care settings. Since there is no population that is risk free for human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis B virus infectivity, any employee who has occupational exposure to blood or other potentially infectious materials is included within the scope of this standard. It is important to note that the definition of "occupational exposure" comprises the reasonable anticipation that the employee will come into contact with these fluids during the course of performing his or her work duties. Therefore, OSHA anticipates that this standard will impact upon all non-health care industries in a similar fashion, i.e., that employees who are designated as responsible for rendering first aid or medical assistance as part of their job duties are to be covered by this standard. This is because it is reasonable to anticipate that an employee designated to render first aid will have occupational exposure to blood or other potentially infectious materials. You are correct in your interpretation that employees who perform "Good Samaritan" acts are not, per se, covered by this standard, although OSHA would encourage an employer to offer follow-up procedures to an employee who experiences an exposure incident as the result of performing a "Good Samaritan" act. This is because such an action does not constitute "occupational exposure", as defined by the standard. The key to this issue is not whether employees have been trained in first aid, but whether they are also designated as responsible for rendering medical assistance. For instance, while all line workers may be trained in first aid and CPR, not all of these employees would necessarily be designated to render first aid. For example, a six-person crew could have two of the six employees designated to render medical assistance and also to be covered by the benefits of 29 CFR 1910.1030. You are therefore correct in your statement that the standard does not necessarily apply to employees who are trained in first aid (especially when the company only requires that employees perform forms of emergency assistance that do not involve exposure to body fluids) but rather to those employees who are required by the employer to actually administer first aid. Please note that OSHA has recently issued a policy statement specifying that failure to offer the hepatitis B vaccine pre-exposure to persons who render first aid only as a collateral duty, will be considered a technical violation carrying no penalties, provided that a number of conditions are met. These conditions are described in the enclosed We hope this information is responsive to your concerns. Thank you for your interest in employee safety and health. Sincerely, Patricia K. Clark, Director Directorate of Compliance Programs Enclosure [This document was edited on 10/29/2002 to strike information that no longer reflects current OSHA policy.] |
|
Standard Interpretations - Table of Contents |
 Back to Top |
www.osha.gov | www.dol.gov |
Contact Us | Freedom of Information Act | Customer Survey Privacy and Security Statement | Disclaimers |
||
| Occupational Safety & Health Administration 200 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20210 |
||
