Back to Federal guidance

Hazard communication for sealed chemical sensors

Summary A safety consultant asked whether small sensors containing corrosive chemicals were exempt as articles from hazard communication duties. OSHA said the exemption applies when normal use does not expose workers, but construction, removal, or disposal that creates exposure can trigger the rule.
Document
Federal opinion letter
Agency
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
Document number
1993-08-31
Date issued
August 31, 1993
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.

August 31, 1993

Ms. Denese A. Deeds, CIH
Senior Consultant
Industrial Health & Safety Consultants, Inc.
[Recipient address omitted]
Dear Ms. Deeds:

This is in response to your letter of June 21, to Mr. John Miles concerning the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) Hazard Communication Standard, 29 CFR 1910.1200. Mr. Miles forwarded your inquiry to the Office of Health Compliance Assistance for response. Please accept our apologies for the delay in responding to your letter.

You explain that employees working with or around small sensors which contain small amounts of corrosive chemicals would not be exposed to the hazardous chemicals under "normal conditions of use." OSHA agrees that these sensors would be considered articles as long as employees were not exposed to the hazardous chemicals, and, therefore, would not be covered by the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS).

If employees were exposed to the hazardous chemicals contained in the sensors during the construction of scientific instruments, or during the removal and disposal of old sensors, the HCS would apply. It is the employer's responsibility to determine if there is a threat of exposure to hazardous chemicals. OSHA instruction CPL 2-2.38C, dated October 22 1990, states the following in paragraph K.3.c.:

In some cases, a hazardous chemical may be present for a long period of time without an employee exposure until repair or demolition activities are performed. By way of example, employers involved in work operations where jackhammers are being used to break up a sidewalk know that they are exposing their employees to a hazardous chemical (silica), even though they did not "bring" the hazard to the site. Even though other provisions of the standard may not be enforceable (MSDS and labels), the employer should still develop a hazard communication program to inform their employees "about the hazardous chemicals to which they are exposed." Employers may utilize their already existing hazard communication program to communicate information on these types of hazards to their employees, as per paragraph (e)(3).

If there is potential for employee exposure, employers are required to include information regarding the hazards of the corrosive materials in the sensors in their hazard communication program.

We hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions please contact [the Office of Health Enforcement at (202) 693-2190].

Sincerely,
Roger A. Clark, Director
Directorate of Compliance Programs

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Corrected 12/6/2024]

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