Back to Federal guidance

OSHA and EPA flammable liquid containment requirements

Summary In a variance review, OSHA considered whether its flammable liquid containment rule conflicted with an EPA emergency requirement. OSHA said both addressed keeping releases away from ignition sources through drainage and containment, and that the requirements complemented one another. It concluded that the company did not need a variance for the described approach.
Document
Federal opinion letter
Agency
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
Document number
1992-10-06-0
Date issued
October 6, 1992
Status
Active
OSHA's posted text carries a correction dated February 4, 2004.
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.

October 6, 1992

MEMORANDUM FOR: JAMES J. CONCANNON, DIRECTOR
OFFICE OF VARIANCE DETERMINATION

FROM: ROGER A. CLARK, ACTING DIRECTOR
[DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS]

Subject: Application by Clark Processing, Inc. for a variance concerning 29 CFR 1910.106(e)(3)(iv)

We have completed our review of the subject application. We are in agreement with the Office of Safety Standards Programs that a variance is not necessary. OSHA's standard at 29 CFR 1910.106(e)(3)(iv) and EPA's standard at 40 CFR 264.56(e) have the same objective, that is, to remove flammable and combustible liquid releases from fire and other ignition sources by channelling and containing the releases. Emergency draining and containment requirements include stopping any processes that may generate and direct the releases to fire or to non-contaminated areas.
OSHA's 1910.106(e)(3)(iv) and EPA's 264.56(e) standards do not contradict, but complement each other. Since employee safety is OSHA's principal concern, the Agency recommends that Clark Processing, Inc. implement its proposal to comply with [29 CFR 1910.38, Employee emergency plans and 1910.39 Fire prevention plans,] not as a substitute for meeting the EPA requirement, but as an auxiliary response to it.
If the company follows the recommendations outlined above, then it will meet the intent of both our 1910.106(e)(3)(iv) and EPA's 264.56(e) standards.
[Corrected 2/4/2004]

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