Back to Federal guidance

Definition of Reasonable Diligence as stated in 1910.1096(d)(1).

Summary A senator asked when an employer’s knowledge of elevated radon in a surrounding area created a duty to survey the workplace. OSHA said the answer depended on the facts and was not triggered by a fixed percentage alone, but an EPA report covering the area or media reports of excessive exposure could require testing or further inquiry. The letter interprets 29 CFR 1910.1096(d)(1).
Document
Federal opinion letter
Agency
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
Document number
1991-04-17-0
Date issued
April 17, 1991
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.

April 17, 1991

The Honorable John McCain
United States Senate
[Recipient address omitted]
Dear Senator McCain:

This is in further response to your letter of February 11, to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) concerning radon.

My letter of January 17, to Mr. Craig I. Willison of American Radon Corporation, related that an employer must conduct the survey described at 29 CFR 1910.1096(d)(1) of the ionizing radiation standard if he or she knows, or could have known with the exercise of reasonable diligence, of the existence of artificially enhanced concentrations of environmental radon-222 in the workplace. You seek a clarification of the term "reasonable diligence" in relation to knowledge of the existence of artificially enhanced concentrations of environmental radon-222. You described a theoretical situation in which ten percent of the structures surveyed in an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study area were found to exceed the radon standard, and inquired whether the exercise of "reasonable diligence" would lead an employer to conduct a survey to determine concentrations of radon in his or her workplace. Additionally, you inquired as to what incidence of radon found in surrounding buildings would trigger the exercise of "reasonable diligence" on the part of the employer, if ten percent was not the threshold requirement.

The answer to your question concerning the definition of "reasonable diligence" depends upon facts specific to each individual case. In this case, OSHA's definition would not be based solely on the percent of structures found to contain levels of radon exceeding the standard. However, given a situation in which an employer is provided with a copy of the referenced EPA report, it could be argued that knowledge of this incidence of radon, plus the fact that his workplace is within the confines of the geographical area surveyed, could give rise to a duty to test, or at a minimum, to make further inquiry. In addition, an employer could know of a potential hazard with the exercise of reasonable diligence if the media has reported excessive radon exposure in the area where the workplace is located.

We appreciate the opportunity to clarify this matter for you.

Sincerely,

Gerard F. Scannell
Assistant Secretary

[Requester letter 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