Back to Federal guidance

Guarding live parts in electrolytic cell operations

Summary An OSHA region asked about a citation for live-part guarding on an electrolytic cell line. OSHA said the cited 1971 electrical provision did not fit a process where contact with live conductors was inherent and grounding contact was guarded against. It recommended withdrawing the cited violation.
Document
Federal opinion letter
Agency
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
Document number
1980-12-08-0
Date issued
December 8, 1980
Status
Archived by the agency
OSHA labels this an archive document that may no longer represent OSHA policy; it does not give a replacement or withdrawal date.
Status last verified October 10, 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OSHA labels this an archive document that may no longer represent OSHA policy; it does not give a replacement or withdrawal date. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance, and verify current law before relying on anything here.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NOTICE: This is an OSHA Archive Document, and may no longer represent OSHA Policy. It is presented here as historical content, for research and review purposes only.

December 8, 1980

MEMORANDUM FOR: GILBERT J. SAULTER
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR

ATTENTION: HERBERT M. KURTZ

THRU: JOHN MILES FIELD COORDINATOR

FROM: BRUCE HILLENBRAND
ACTING DIRECTOR, FEDERAL COMPLIANCE
AND STATE PROGRAMS

SUBJECT: Interpretation of 1910.309(a), NEC-1971
Articles 110-17(a)

This is in reference to your July 18, 1980, memorandum on the above subject. This also confirms conversations between Mr. Pete Wasko, a member of my staff, and Mr. Herbert Kurtz of your office and Mr. Thomas Curry, AD-Harlingen Area Office, on the subject matter. In response to your staff members' request in these conversations for written confirmation, this memorandum serves to substantiate our recommendation to withdrawal, as indefensible, the alleged violation of 29 CFR 1910.309(a), NEC Article 110-17(a), in the Harlingen Area Office's citation dated June 24, 1980, against Reynolds Aluminum Company.

The intent of NEC Article 110.17(a), which addresses the guarding of live parts, is to prevent workers from being able to contact both sides of an electric circuit. Contact with both the live (ungrounded) part and ground will provide a path for current to flow through the body. In normal workplace operations, contact with ground or a grounded object is very common and guarding against contact with live parts, as required by Article 110.17(a), is necessary. However, in the electrolytic cell line operation, contact with the live portion of electric circuits is required, and contact with ground or a grounded object is to be guarded against. The 1971 NEC is silent on the electrolytic cell line operation.

Therefore, applying 1910.309(a), NEC Article 110-17(a), to the electrolytic cell line operation or maintenance is inappropriate and legally indefensible. For further substantiation the 1978 NEC contains a new article 668 on electrolytic cells. The 1978 NEC Article 668-3(c)(Exceptions No. 1 and No. 4) specifically exempt Article 110 from applying in the electrolytic cell line working zone (see Articles 668-2 and 668-10 for definition of the electrolytic cell working zone).

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