Safety and occupational healthSH-004

Kiln dismantling fall through a removed handrail

Lafarge Corporation · Tampa Mill, Florida, USA · 1997

Use this record when

The decision this case can inform

Use this record when managing a temporary guardrail removal, dismantling project, or travel route altered by stored materials and contractor work.

Evidence scope

Final MSHA fatal-accident finding for one kiln-dismantling job. It supports the event chain and barrier failures, not a universal fall-protection design.

Source-supported facts

What the public record actually establishes

4 sourced points
  1. F1

    A 35-inch top-rail section had been removed from the elevated walkway and had not been restored.

  2. F2

    A 12 × 12 × 40-inch piece of rounded cribbing was left in the travel path opposite the opening.

  3. F3

    The worker stepped on the cribbing, which rolled, and fell 28 feet through the unguarded opening.

  4. F4

    The victim was a temporary laborer with four months of mining experience, one month at the site, and no Part 48 training.

Structured interpretation

Facts and reported results are kept separate from the lesson a plant may choose to test.

01

Operating context

A kiln-dismantling walkway had a removed handrail section and rounded timber cribbing in the travel path.

02

Intervention or finding

MSHA concluded failure to restore the handrail and remove the obstruction caused the fall.

03

Documented result

A temporary worker stepped on rolling cribbing and fell 28 ft through the opening.

04

Plant interpretation

Control temporary barrier impairments with authorization, protection, visible ownership, and restoration before normal access.

05

Transfer boundary

Specific fall-control requirements vary by task and jurisdiction.

Before applying the lesson

Questions to verify at your plant

These are decision checks, not operating instructions. Resolve them through local risk assessment, technical review, and authorization.

  1. 01

    How is every temporary barrier impairment authorized, marked, protected, owned, and closed?

  2. 02

    Does the job plan control loose or rollable materials in access routes as well as the opening itself?

  3. 03

    Can a newly assigned or temporary worker recognize the altered route without relying on local memory?

  4. 04

    Who verifies restoration before the area returns to normal access?