death of a geological surveyor on friday

[trowelmonkey]

My bad, I meant SURCHARGING (I was thinking of soap, super-fatted.... It must've been the thought of all that exciting new literature. Me thinks I should move into spying and correction, it can't be anymore traumatic and I'm sure the pay's better.)

I'm sure you know it under its correct name. As we all know, different types of soils vary in strength/cohesiveness etc which is why there is no hard and fast rule on shoring anymore.

In short adding weight on top (spoil heap and plant) stress the underlying soil and this can lead to collapse when it would otherwise not do. At its most basic, you stand on the trench edge and it collapses because the downward thrust of your weight is not evenly distributed. This is not relevent most of the time, but worth bearing in mind on deep excavations, VIBRATIONS can weaken the soil structure. And on all sites, heavy water saturation is a danger too. Fissures can open up a good meter from the edge on even just ordinary deep slots. It really is about thinking further than the archaeology in front of your nose, which is often easier said than done.

Back to the big urban site. Again, this is not just about the spoil heap. It's also about all heavy vehicles, particularly the dumpers. At the risk of turning into Troll, it's not nice when the section edges quiver every time plant drives by a good 1.5m above your head.

For those fresh out of uni, people die in collapses not because their faces get covered, but because their chest gets crushed.

This is an American guide, but the illustrations are very relevent:
http://159.238.91.226/osha/pamphlets/excavation.pdf

This one's from an British H&S consultancy, but is ultimately American as well:

http://www.healthandsafety.co.uk/otm_v_2.html#9

[Windbag]

I've been fortunate enough never to be injured on site (except the usual back pains that go with the territory) but I've had some hairy moments, especially watching peat extraction in advance of development. The ground tends to crack open as material is removed from one side, but the grass on top masks it, leaving you to put your foot down a gaping hole in the ground. You only do it once!

[drpeterwardle]

I have asked people to refrain from discussing the specifics of the case. I repeat that request.

The matter will be under investigation by the H&S executive as a matter of course.

Peter Wardle

[Austin Ainsworth]

quote:Originally posted by BRahn

"...have all site staff read the risk assessment (which covers entering potentially unsafe trenches)and then sign to say that they understood the document."

Except (in my experience) they *don't* generally cover entering trenches beyond saying something like 'exercise caution when entering the trench'. If someone truly believes they can safely stand within inches of a deep section, as long as they think they're 'exercising caution'... Hence my question about formal training.

(There's the side issue of whether or not a signed risk assessment would stand up in court, too!)

My experience of risk assessments is that they tend to be much more detailed than those you have worked with.

Sad to hear that some companies still don't compile them properly.

Edit: sp.

[1man1desk]

I see that Dr Pete has edited one of my previous posts to remove some comment, and does not want us to discuss the specifics of this case.

I can't see why. The case has been published; it is in the public domain, and open to discussion as far as I can see. I cannot see that discussion on this forum that is based on published information can have any effect on the investigation or its outcome. I believe that the comments that were edited out were fair comment and not in any way controversial.

In any case, the comments in my post that Dr Pete has edited out were not principally about the specifics of the case - they were about the photograph taken from the victim's employer's website and posted here by Sith, with no objection from Dr Pete.

Dr Pete, I would be grateful if you could either restore my original post, or give a full explanation on this forum of why you shouldn't.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[chiz]

[quote]Originally posted by Austin Ainsworth

I always found it good practice to have all site staff read the risk assessment (which covers entering potentially unsafe trenches)and then sign to say that they understood the document.


You shouldn't be allowed on site till you have read the method statement for your tasks (and for any other tasks that impact on it), and you have every right to see the risk assessments. Paperwork is tedious and especially on short jobs with little time, filling out 15 risk assessments (yes it can be that many)is a faff before you can get the machine going, but that's what you must do.

Demand to see the method statement, ask questions and challenge it if it appears too unspecific or generic, and ask to see the risk assessments. It is unfortunate that few (if any?) degree courses take the education of their students in real archaeological practice and standards, including H&S seriously enough to prepare them for the real world.

Tragic news, and I hope all relevant industries learn from this so more families don't have to suffer such a loss.

[drpeterwardle]

I have locked this topic because my request not to discuss the specifics of this case or the company involved has been ignored and I donot have the time to write an explanation to 1man1desk.

David is away.

Dr Peter Wardle

[Gog]

What a ridiculous answer. If you have the time to read the post and huff and puff like Captain Mainwaring, you have time to answer his question. You do want to, don't you?

:face-confused:

[Dirty Dave Lincoln]

Dr.Peter,perhaps a private email sent to 1man to explain your reasons would be preferable to you instead of posting on an open forum.At least then 1man would know why you did what you did.

[drpeterwardle]

I will post a response later today.

Peter