Trench collapse on a pipeline project

Tick each point that your answer made clearly and only once. Points here are this site's own. A real examiner may accept other valid points.

• Eastway was chosen on lowest price, with no check of competence, training, safety record or insurance before the work started.
• Calder filed Eastway's method statement without reading or challenging it, so its weaknesses were not found.
• Calder did not review Eastway's risk assessment, which rates trench collapse as low risk with no real controls.
• There was no joint planning of the work with Calder, Eastway, the water authority and the traffic company before it began.
• The SM visited only once a day, so there was little supervision or monitoring of what Eastway workers were doing.
• Calder did not check that the shoring boxes on site were being used for a deep trench in wet sand.
• No site induction or safety rules for contractors are mentioned, and Eastway's workers had no training on excavations.
• The near miss with the gas pipe two weeks earlier was not recorded, investigated or shared, so no lesson was learned.
• Programme delay and the daily penalty put pressure on Eastway to work faster, and Calder did not manage this.
• Calder treated safety as Eastway's job alone, so no one took the lead on the site as a whole.
• There was no emergency or rescue plan for the trench, and no first aider on the trench team.
• Long working time by the foreman, 11 days in a row, was not noticed or controlled.
• Poor storage and management of spoil and vehicles near the edge were not corrected by Calder.
• There was no permit or sign off by Calder to confirm that the trench was safe to enter.
• There was no way for Eastway workers to stop work or raise concerns with Calder.

Marks counted: 0 of 14

Tick each point that your answer made clearly and only once. Points here are this site's own. A real examiner may accept other valid points.

• He is overconfident from 20 years of experience without any problem, so he underestimated the danger of wet sand and a deep trench.
• His attitude is that shoring slows the work, so he judged speed as more important than safety.
• He is likely to have been fatigued after 11 days in a row, which affects judgement and attention.
• Pressure to catch up on a delayed programme may have made him take shortcuts.
• He may lack current knowledge or training on excavation safety, because no formal training is mentioned.
• He tolerated a spoil heap and a lorry at the trench edge, which suggests poor perception of the load on the wall.
• He normalised the unsafe practice because earlier trenches had not collapsed, so danger felt routine.
• He stood outside the trench and so did not feel the risk himself, and he did not check the trench wall.
• He did not speak up to the SM or insist on shoring, which suggests he did not feel able to challenge.
• He reported the gas pipe strike late in the day and treated it lightly, which suggests a poor risk perception.
• He set the example for his younger workers, who copied what he did.

Marks counted: 0 of 10

Tick each point that your answer made clearly and only once. Points here are this site's own. A real examiner may accept other valid points.

• The purpose and scope: which excavations it covers, such as trenches over 1.2 metres deep, and who it applies to.
• Who is responsible: the person who plans, a competent person who inspects and authorises, and the supervisor in charge each day.
• Competence and training needed for those who dig, shore, inspect and supervise, with records.
• Pre-work survey of the ground and weather, including soil type, rain, groundwater and the effect of vibration from traffic.
• Checks for buried services using drawings, detection equipment and trial holes, and what to do if a service is found.
• The method of preventing collapse: shoring, trench boxes, benching or battering the sides, chosen from the ground conditions.
• Rules on spoil heaps, materials, plant and vehicles, such as keeping them at a set distance from the edge, with barriers.
• Safe access and exit, such as ladders at set intervals so nobody is more than a set walking distance from one.
• Protection of the edge and of the public and other workers, with barriers, signs and traffic management.
• Control of water, by pumping and checking the effect on the walls.
• Inspection of the excavation before each shift, after rain and after any event that could affect it, with a signed record.
• A rule that nobody enters until the inspection has been done and the excavation has been declared safe, and a stop work rule if conditions change.
• Rules on working alone, a lookout at the edge and how many people may be in the trench.
• Emergency and rescue arrangements: equipment, who is trained, how to call emergency services and what to do if the wall moves.
• First aid provision and the location of the nearest hospital.
• Safe plant use and maintenance, with a banksman or marshal for machines near people.
• Personal protective equipment such as helmets, safety footwear and high visibility clothing.
• Coordination between firms on the road, including the water authority staff, and how changes are shared.
• How hours of work and rest will be controlled, and a requirement to report near misses and incidents.

Marks counted: 0 of 18

Tick each point that your answer made clearly and only once. Points here are this site's own. A real examiner may accept other valid points.

• The SM visits the trench once a day and spends most of the time in the cabin, so management is not visible where the high risk work is done.
• The SM accepted the cheapest subcontractor and its method statement without checks, so safety did not influence decisions.
• The SM gave only a verbal instruction to be more careful after the gas pipe near miss, and took no further action.
• No report was written and the water authority was not told, so there is no learning culture.
• The SM allowed shoring boxes to stay beside the cabin and did not insist on their use.
• Programme and penalty pressure was passed to the contractor without any check on the effect on safety.
• The SM did not set or enforce standards such as spoil heap distance or vehicle exclusion.
• The SM said Eastway was responsible for its own workers, which shows poor ownership as principal contractor.
• The SM did not check the long hours of the foreman.
• There was no emergency plan, and the SM did not lead on preparation for an incident.
• The SM did not communicate with the water authority staff who were working near the trench.
• The SM did not consult workers on site, or encourage them to raise concerns.

Marks counted: 0 of 12

Tick each point that your answer made clearly and only once. Points here are this site's own. A real examiner may accept other valid points.

• It is a generic document prepared by the owner, who did not visit the site, so it does not reflect real conditions such as the 3.2 metre depth and wet sand.
• Trench collapse is rated low although the consequence is death, and no reason is given for the rating.
• The control for the main hazard is that workers are experienced, which is not a control measure, and take care is vague.
• It does not say what shoring, battering or other support will be used, even though boxes were available on site.
• It does not mention spoil heaps, vehicles or the lorry parked at the edge.
• It does not consider rain, groundwater or traffic vibration, which affect the wall.
• It does not include access and exit, rescue arrangements or first aid.
• The people at risk are listed in narrow terms, with no mention of the foreman, the water authority staff, the public or the traffic company.
• The buried services control is check drawings, but the drawings were incomplete, so no detection method or trial holes are mentioned.
• There is no review and no date of the last review, so the assessment was not updated as conditions changed.
• No workers were consulted, and there is no sign that it was shared with Calder or the workers.
• There are no actions, owners or deadlines and no inspection routine.

Marks counted: 0 of 12

Tick each point that your answer made clearly and only once. Points here are this site's own. A real examiner may accept other valid points.

• To find the immediate, underlying and root causes so that the same event does not happen again.
• Near misses show weaknesses before someone is killed, such as the gas pipe strike two weeks before.
• To prevent further injuries and deaths, to workers, other firms and the public.
• To meet legal duties to report, investigate and improve, and avoid further enforcement action.
• To stop losses, such as delay, fines, claims, higher insurance and lost clients.
• To check that existing controls such as the risk assessment, method statement and supervision work.
• To show workers that management cares, which builds trust and encourages reporting.
• To improve training and procedures with real examples.
• To share lessons with other firms on the road and across the industry.
• To improve the way contractors are selected and managed in future.
• To maintain the reputation of the firms and the client's confidence.
• To reduce the risk of the same cause being repeated on another project.

Marks counted: 0 of 12

Tick each point that your answer made clearly and only once. Points here are this site's own. A real examiner may accept other valid points.

• There was no joint planning meeting among Calder, Eastway, the water authority and the traffic company.
• The water authority staff worked within a few metres of the trench but were not told about the gas pipe near miss.
• There was no system to share hazards and risk assessments between the firms.
• Calder did not coordinate the work of the different firms in the same road space.
• The SM assumed Eastway was responsible for Eastway workers, but each firm should still collaborate and each stays responsible for its own people.
• Eastway also did not ask Calder to approve shoring or to provide help, so collaboration failed in both directions.
• No one made sure that the water authority staff were safe from the lorry and the trench edge.
• There was no single emergency plan for the site shared by all, which delayed rescue.
• There was no regular meeting on site to review progress and safety.
• Signs and barriers by the traffic company were not integrated with the site layout.

Marks counted: 0 of 10

Tick each point that your answer made clearly and only once. Points here are this site's own. A real examiner may accept other valid points.

• Recording and analysing the numbers and rates of injuries, and of fatalities, over time and by trade.
• Recording incidents that cause damage, such as the gas pipe strike, with the cost.
• A system for reporting near misses and analysing them for trends, with feedback to workers.
• Records of working days lost and sickness absence by contractor.
• Records of enforcement notices, warnings or complaints from the authority, the client or the public.
• Cost of incidents including repair, delay, claims and penalties.
• Records of ill health such as hand or back problems reported by workers.
• Investigation of each incident, with causes and actions tracked until closed.
• Reviewing the incident records of each subcontractor and using them in future selection.
• Analysis of trends, for example by activity such as excavation or by site, to find where to put effort.
• Insurance claims data and what it shows about the common causes.
• Reporting the findings to the board or client and using them to set improvement targets.

Marks counted: 0 of 12