Back to Federal guidance

Vinyl chloride emergencies under HAZWOPER

Summary A chemical industry group asked whether vinyl chloride limits prevented emergency entry to address dangerous leaks. OSHA said HAZWOPER’s emergency response provisions were more protective and instructed enforcement offices to apply them in the described situation. OSHA labels the letter an archive document.
Document
Federal opinion letter
Agency
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
Document number
1995-03-15-2
Date issued
March 15, 1995
Status
Archived by the agency
OSHA labels this an archive document and warns that it may no longer represent OSHA policy.
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.

The current status of this document is unclear
OSHA labels this an archive document and warns that it may no longer represent OSHA policy. It may no longer reflect the agency's current position. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance, and verify current law before relying on anything here.
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.

NOTICE: This is an OSHA Archive Document, and may no longer represent OSHA Policy. It is presented here as historical content, for research and review purposes only.

March 15, 1995

Hasmukh C. Shah, Ph.D.
Manager, Vinyl Chloride Panel
Chemical Manufacturers Association
[Recipient address omitted]
Dear Dr. Shah:

This is in response to your letter of July 26, 1994, requesting clarification of the application of the Vinyl Chloride Standard (29 CFR 1910.1017) and the Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response standard (29 CFR 1910.120; HAZWOPER). Please accept my apology for the delay in this reply.

You have questioned the practicality of complying with 1910.1017(g)(5)(i) which reads as follows:

"Entry into unknown concentrations or concentrations greater than 36,000 ppm (lower explosive limit) may be made only for the purposes of life rescue;"

You have expressed your understanding that the more updated emergency response provisions of 1910.120(q) do not apply since HAZWOPER states in 1910.120(a)(2) that where there is a conflict or overlap between standards the provision more protective of employee health and safety applies.

We do not agree with your understanding. HAZWOPER allows entry into unknown atmospheres or into concentrations greater than the lower explosive limit for emergency response purposes. However, as you point out in your letter, failure to respond to leaks of vinyl chloride could itself lead to catastrophic failures or explosions that could be life threatening. Thus, we interpret the HAZWOPER provisions to be more protective to worker safety and health. We will be notifying our enforcement offices to enforce HAZWOPER section (q) instead of 1910.017(g)(5)(i).

We hope this information is helpful. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

Sincerely,
Ruth McCully, Director
Office of Health Compliance Assistance

[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