| The Home page of ILPI's Safety Data Sheet (SDS) Resource, the leader in SDS information since 1995! | |
| The history and philosophy behind this resource. | |
| A curated collection of books and reference materials concerning Safety Data Sheets and closely related topics. | |
| Paste your plain text SDS into the SDS-Demystifier, and it will be converted into a hypertext-enriched document with links to detailed explanations of each key term. | |
| An extensive list of frequently asked questions about Safety Data Sheets including regulations, content, compliance, and more. | |
| A humorous take on Safety Data Sheet jargon. Fill in the blanks on our entry form to generate a personalized Unsafety Data Sheet to share with your coworkers. | |
| Since 1995, we've maintained this massive curated list of the best places to find Safety Data Sheets on the Internet. | |
| Way more than a glossary, this hypertext-enhanced resource covers hundreds of SDS-related terms and expert knowledge. Each entry includes both the SDS relevance and links to additional authoritative resources. | |
| Archived results of Safety Data Sheet related polls taken by some of our millions of site visitors | |
| You are here! The OSHA regulations behind SDS regulations, including the inspection guidelines and over 400 official interpretations letters under the Hazard Communication Standard | |
| Commercial suppliers of SDS authoring and management software as well as cloud compliance services. | |
| Commercial companies that will create SDS's for your specific needs as well as SDS translation companies. |
Safety signs, banners, and scoreboards? Get yours at Safety Emporium!
OSHA Hazard Communication Letters of Interpretation
Incidental spills versus emergency response
- Issued
- Record type
- Interpretation
- Historical standard
- 1910.1200, 1987 expanded rule (PDF)
- Current standard
- HCS 2024, as amended
ILPI assessment: Incidental releases remain distinct; spill size alone is not decisive
This letter compares the obsolete 1987 HCS with HAZWOPER emergency response. Its central HazCom conclusion remains consistent: even an incidental spill needs appropriately trained and equipped workers, and calling a spill ordinary does not establish that it is safe to handle.
Use the current emergency-response definition, response requirements, and current information and training requirements. Actual substances, exposure potential, location, worker capability and protective measures determine the situation; quantity alone is not a universal test. The enclosed attorney's assertion that HAZWOPER does not apply is not OSHA's conclusion. This review does not decide whether a particular ammonia, chlorine or agricultural-chemical release is incidental.
OSHA archive notice: OSHA marks its matching original as an archive document that may no longer represent agency policy and is retained for historical research. This notice does not by itself establish formal withdrawal.
Last reviewed: .
About this ILPI assessment
This comparison with current requirements is not a finding that OSHA has formally withdrawn this letter. This assessment reflects editorial judgment informed by human review and AI assistance. It is an opinion, may contain errors or omissions, and is not an official OSHA determination. For guidance on how OSHA requirements apply to your circumstances, contact your local OSHA office.
OSHA's notice about interpretation letters
The following notice is published on OSHA's interpretation pages; it is general guidance, not a letter-specific withdrawal notice.
OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at https://www.osha.gov.
Source: OSHA's original letter page.
November 2, 1990
Mr. Dean G. Kratz
McGrath, North, Mullin & Kratz, P.C.
Suite 100
One Central Park Plaza
222 South Fifteenth Street
Omaha, Nebraska 68102
Dear Mr. Kratz:
This is in response to your August 7, 1990, letter where you indicated that 29 CFR 1910.120 [ILPI: Original 1989 HAZWOPER context (PDF) · Current HAZWOPER] does not apply because all example conditions referenced by your client can be "absorbed, neutralized or otherwise controlled at the time of the release by employees in the immediate area, or by maintenance personnel."
The position that we presented to Mr. Larry Huston in our July 25, 1990 letter continues to be our position. Nuisance spills, minor releases, etc., which do not require immediate attention (due to lack of danger to the employees) are not considered emergencies. The quantity of product spilled does not by itself determine if an incidental spill has occurred. Variables include the type of material spilled and the location of the spill. An ordinary spill that can be safely handled by workers is not an emergency. Such employees must have the proper equipment and training under the other OSHA standards, such as the Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200) [ILPI: Original HCS 1987 context (PDF) · Current HCS]. However, the examples described by Mr. Huston seem to indicate a potential for exposure of employees to hazardous substances and in amounts in excess of those that could be categorized as ordinary. Anhydrous ammonia, chlorine, and some agricultural chemicals are quite capable of creating emergency spills.
[ILPI note: At issuance: 1910.1200, 1987 expanded rule (PDF). Current counterparts: incidental-release/emergency definition and emergency-response provisions. Apply actual hazard and worker-capability facts; HazCom training is still required where applicable. OSHA marks this letter archived.]
I hope this clarifies the issue. If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Patricia K. Clark Director
Directorate of Compliance Programs
August 7, 1990
Ms. Patricia K. Clark
Director Designate
Directorate of Compliance Programs
U. S. Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Washington, D.C. 20210
Dear Ms. Clark:
I have been asked to respond to your letter of July 25 to Larry Huston wherein you advise him that Section (q) of 29 CFR 1910.120 [ILPI: Original 1989 HAZWOPER context (PDF) · Current HAZWOPER] applies to the ConAgra facilities where they (1) use anhydrous ammonia as a cooling agent, (2) manufacture, process, and store agricultural farm chemicals, and (3) use chlorine as a bleaching agent during the processing of flour for baking. Your conclusion in this regard ignores the following part of the definition of emergency response in Section (a)(3) of 1910.120 [ILPI: Original 1989 HAZWOPER context (PDF) · Current HAZWOPER]:
Get your GHS-compliant labels and signs from Safety Emporium.
Responses to incidental releases of hazardous substances where the substance can be absorbed, neutralized, or otherwise controlled at the time of the release by employees in the immediate release area, or by maintenance personnel are not considered to be emergency responses within the scope of this standard.
In all of the examples referred to you by Mr. Huston, hazardous substances can be "absorbed, neutralized, or otherwise controlled at the time of release by employees in the immediate area, or by maintenance personnel." Therefore, it is our opinion that 29 CFR 1910.120 does not apply under the circumstances described to you in Mr. Huston's letter of June 7, 1990.
If you have any other thoughts or suggestions on this matter, please let me know.
Sincerely yours,
Dean G. Kratz
The original official public domain version of this document is available from OSHA at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/1990-11-02.