The decision this case can inform
Use this record when a routine laboratory or quality-control task places a worker beside hot, caustic, poorly visible, or unguarded process material.
Final MSHA fatal-accident record. It documents the unsafe access and missing physical barrier; it does not select a specific sampling technology.
What the public record actually establishes
- F1
The sampling route was about 40 inches wide, wet and slippery, with the pit edge difficult to distinguish.
- F2
The task exposed the technician to a hose and other trip hazards beside an unguarded precipitator-dust pit.
- F3
The sampled material was approximately 190–200°F and caustic.
- F4
MSHA concluded that no railing, barrier, or cover and no safe sampling access had been provided.
Facts and reported results are kept separate from the lesson a plant may choose to test.
Operating context
Routine QC sampling required travel beside a narrow, slippery, visually obscured hot precipitator-dust pit.
Intervention or finding
MSHA concluded safe access and a railing, barrier, or cover had not been provided.
Documented result
A laboratory technician fell into 190-200 F caustic dust and died from burns and shock.
Plant interpretation
Engineer sampling points and routes so routine QC work does not require leaning, climbing, or exposure to open hot-material pits.
Transfer boundary
Does not specify a sampling device.
Questions to verify at your plant
These are decision checks, not operating instructions. Resolve them through local risk assessment, technical review, and authorization.
- 01
Can the sample be obtained from grade or behind a fixed barrier without leaning over the process?
- 02
Are the route, edge, and sample point unmistakable under steam, dust, poor lighting, spills, and cleanup activity?
- 03
What prevents a slip, hose movement, or unexpected body motion from reaching the hazard?
- 04
Has routine sampling been reviewed with the same design rigor as maintenance access?