Analysis of Production Safety in the Construction Industry of China in 2018

sustainability

Article Analysis of Production Safety in the Construction Industry of China in 2018

Xin-Hui Zhou 1, Shui-Long Shen 2,* , Ye-Shuang Xu 1 and An-Nan Zhou 3

1 State Key Laboratory of Ocean Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, School of Naval Architecture, Ocean, and Civil Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China 2 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering, Shantou University, Shantou 515063, China 3 Civil and Infrastructure Engineering Discipline, School of Engineering, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT), Victoria 3001, Australia * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-754-8650-4551; Fax: +86-21-6419-1030

Received: 8 July 2019; Accepted: 18 August 2019; Published: 21 August 2019

Abstract: Construction accidents are a signiﬁcant hazard to the community, aﬀecting sustainable development. This paper summarizes the safety situation of the construction industry in China over the past ten years. Detailed analysis is performed on fatal accidents that occurred in 2018 to reveal the spatiotemporal distribution pattern and characters of construction safety accidents. The construction failures are mainly attributed to management aspects rather than technical aspects. A case involving a major accident during shield tunnel construction in Foshan, Guangdong, in 2018 is investigated in detail. Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) is used to analyze the management issues of the Foshan metro project during planning, geological investigation, design, and implementation of construction works. The SEA result shows that the safety risk was very high with a low total SEA score. Based on the analysis, a guideline for safety construction management for sustainability is proposed.

Keywords: construction; accident; project management; strategic environmental assessment; China

1. Introduction China has experienced rapid economic development over the last two decades, especially in urban infrastructure construction, which is a miracle of human achievement. Currently, the construction industry plays a crucial role in the national economy of China. The GDP output value from the construction industry was 23.5 trillion RMB¥ ($USD3.4 trillion) in 2018 [1], whereas China’s total GDP was 90 trillion RMB¥ ($USD13 trillion) [2]. In 2018, the housing construction area increased to 14.09 billion square meters [1]. However, this rapid development came at the cost of the collapse of the environment and human health. Although China’s construction industry has continued to develop in recent years, it is still labor-intensive and serves as a typical example of an extensive economy, due to its low technology use and unbalanced development. Some situations caused the collapse of ecosystems and even loss of life due to safety failures [3–5]. In recent years, not only natural hazards [6] but also construction-induced accidents have threatened safety and sustainable development [7,8]. Thus, this is not a sustainable development mode for the environment, the economy, and society. Sustainability means making sustained improvements to peoples’ quality of life. Kelly [9] stated that “the construction and engineering sectors have a hugely important role to play in delivering the infrastructure for a sustainable future”. The Institution of Civil Engineers [10] state that “sustainable development is now absolutely central to civil engineering and we must organize ourselves accordingly”.

Sustainability 2019, 11, 4537; doi:10.3390/su11174537 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2019, 11, 4537 2 of 14

The construction industry in China features scattered construction sites, complex construction environments, a large number of personnel, and high mobility [11]. These features of China’s construction industry result in high frequency of safety accidents during construction activities. However, the safety of construction engineering is of great significance for the sustainable development of the economy and social stability. The Chinese government identified these problems and tried to change this development mode recently. In recent years, the Chinese government issued and amended several Laws and regulations on environmental protection and sustainable development, e.g., Construction Law [12], Safety Production Law [13], Environmental Protection Law [14], and Urban and Rural Planning Law [15]. These laws and regulations tried to decelerate the construction speed and advocated strategic environmental assessment (SEA) during the planning, design, and implementation of construction works [16,17]. The construction industry is high-risk and can cause significant impacts to the environment and human health [18–20]. In response, with the rapid development of the construction industry, there have been many studies on various topics aiming to improve safety in the construction industry. The research topics can be mainly clustered into three major groups, namely, the safety management process, the impact of individual and group or organizational characteristics, and accident data [21]. From the perspective of the safety management process, research has become more comprehensive on safety measures [22,23], safety assessments [24,25], safety knowledge [26,27], safety monitoring [28,29], etc. The study on the characteristics of stakeholders’ involvement in construction, namely, site workers [30,31] and groups or organizations [30,32], is crucial to enhance construction safety. Moreover, accident data is the basis of many studies, including accident statistics [20,33], accident cost analysis [34], and accident causation [35]. This paper belongs to the latter research group, though incorporates accident statistics and management analysis. This paper summarizes the fatal accidents in the construction industry in China over the past ten years. The objectives of this study are: (i) to recognize the status quo and trends of safety in the construction industry in China; (ii) to analyze the features of accidents; (iii) to provide a basis for the government to establish the management regulations for sustainable development by reporting and analyzing the only major accident based on SEA; and (iv) to propose the mitigation measures for project management regarding accidents.

2. Background Figure1 summarizes the fatal accidents related to production safety in the construction industry in the past ten years in China. As shown in Figure1, from 2009 to 2015, the numbers of accidents and fatalities showed a clear decreasing trend annually, which indicates that production safety gradually improved in general. However, the number of accidents per annum from 2016 to 2018 increased significantly. A reason for the sudden increase in accidents in 2016 is that the way accident data is reported was adjusted [36]. The validation date of the former reporting regulations for production safety accidents, established in 2014, became invalid in 2016. A more comprehensive statistical report regulation on production safety accidents was issued and implemented in 2016 [37]. The number of non-fatal, small accidents and number of deaths after an accident should be included in the report data under the new reporting regulations, which led to a significant increase in the number of reported accidents and deaths. However, the main reason for the annual increase in the numbers of accidents and fatalities since 2016 is the ineffective governance in the safety management. It is worth noting that the data in Figure1 is from MOHURD [ 36], which does not fully cover all accidents for the problems in the accident reporting system and its implementation in China. Although some less serious accidents may not be reported, the data is still important for research on the overall trends. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4537 3 of 14 Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 14

1000 Data from MOHURD Number of accidents (2009−2018) Number of deaths 800

600

400

200 Number of andaccidents deaths

0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Year

FigureFigure 1.1. Fatal accidents related toto productionproduction safetysafety fromfrom 20092009 toto 20182018 inin China.China.

TableTable1 1shows shows the the accident accident classification classification standards standards in in China. China. The The classifications classifications are are defined defined accordingaccording toto the the following following three three aspects: aspects: death death toll, toll, seriously seriously injured injured toll, toll, and and direct direct economic economic loss [loss38]. As[38]. summarized As summarized in Table in 1Table, accidents 1, accidents are classified are classified into four into levels: four levels: particularly particularly serious serious accidents, accidents, major accidents,major accidents, large accidents, large accidents, and general and accidents.general accidents. The data The in Figure data in1 includes Figure 1 four includes levels four of accidents. levels of Accordingaccidents. According to Table1, into 2018Table there 1, in were 2018 734 there production were 734 accidents production and accidents 840 deaths and in 840 construction deaths in engineeringconstruction projects, engineering which projects, include which 1 major include accident 1 major and accident 21 large accidents,and 21 large with accidents, a total of with 87 deaths. a total Theof 87 number deaths. of The large number accidents of decreasedlarge accidents by two decr but theeased total by number two but of the accidents total number increased of by accidents 42 from thoseincreased in 2017. by 42 There from werethose no in particularly2017. There seriouswere no accidents particularly in Chinaserious in accidents 2018. Overall, in China within in 2018. the pastOverall, 10 years within the the situation past 10 of productionyears the situation safety in constructionof production projects safety wasin construction generally stable projects in China, was whereasgenerally the stable past in 3 yearsChina, has whereas seen an the increasing past 3 year numbers has ofseen accidents an increasing and fatalities. number of accidents and fatalities. Table 1. Accident Classification Standard (data from GOSCPRC, 2007 [38]).

Table 1. Accident Classification StandardSeriously (data from Injured GOSCPRC, Toll 2007Direct [38]). Economic Loss Accident Level Death Toll (D) (SI) (DEL, in Million RMB¥) Death Toll Seriously Injured Direct Economic Loss ParticularlyAccident serious Level accident 30 D 100 SI 100 m DEL (D≤) Toll (SI≤) (DEL, in Million≤ RMB¥) Major accident 10 D < 30 50 SI < 100 50 m DEL < 100 m ≤ ≤ ≤ ParticularlyLarge serious accident accident 3 30D ≤

3.1.3. Analysis Accident on Types Safety Accidents

3.1. AccidentAccording Types to MOHURD (2018), the production safety accidents related to construction engineering can be divided into the following six types: collapse accidents, falling from heights, struck by objects, mechanicalAccording injury to accidents, MOHURD crane-related (2018), the accidents, production and safety other typesaccidents of accidents related [39to]. construction The “other” typesengineering include can vehicle be divided injuries, into electric the following shocks, poisoning, six types: ﬁres, collapse and explosions.accidents, falling Figure from2 shows heights, the numberstruck by and objects, proportion mechanical of various injury types accidents, of accidents crane-related in China accidents, in 2018, and including other types the four of accidents levels of accidents.[39]. The As“other” shown types in Figure include2, the vehicle percentage injuries, of falling electric accidents shocks, is thepoisoning, largest, accountingfires, and forexplosions. 52.18%, whileFigure being 2 shows struck the by number objects and and proportion mechanical of injury various accidents types of reached accidents 15.2% in China and 5.86%, in 2018, respectively. including Thethe four percentages levels of of accidents. crane-related As shown accidents in Figure and collapse 2, the percentage accidents wereof falling similar accidents (botharound is the largest, 7.4%), whereasaccounting the for percentage 52.18%, while of other being types struck of accidents by objects was and 11.85%. mechanical Falling injury from accidents heights reached was the 15.2% most and 5.86%, respectively. The percentages of crane-related accidents and collapse accidents were similar (both around 7.4%), whereas the percentage of other types of accidents was 11.85%. Falling

Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 14 Sustainability 2019, 11, 4537 4 of 14 fromSustainability heights 2019 was, 11 ,the x FOR most PEER frequent REVIEW type of accident in the construction industry, accounting for 4more of 14 than half of the total number of accidents occurring in 2018. fromfrequent heights type was of accident the most in frequent the construction type of accident industry, in accounting the construction for more industry, than half accounting of the total for number more thanof accidents half of the occurring total number in 2018. of accidents occurring in 2018. Data from: MOHURD (2018) 112 (15.26%)

Data from: MOHURD (2018) 112 (15.26%) 55 (7.49%) 55 (7.49%) 54 (7.36%) 54 (7.36%)

43 (5.86%)

383 (52.18%) 43 (5.86%) 87 (11.85%) 383 (52.18%) 87 (11.85%) Falling from heights Struck by objects Crane-related accidents Collapse accidents Falling from heights Struck by objects Mechanical injury accidents Other types Crane-related accidents Collapse accidents Other types Mechanical injuryFigure accidents 2. Accident types in 2018. Figure 2. Accident types in 2018. Figure 3 illustrates the number and proportion of large accidents in 2018. As shown in Figure 3, 21 large accidents in 2018 included 9 collapse accidents, 4 crane-related accidents, 2 falling from Figure3 3 illustrates illustrates thethe numbernumber andand proportionproportion ofof largelarge accidentsaccidents inin 2018.2018. AsAs shownshown inin FigureFigure3 3,, heights accidents, 1 case of mechanical injury accident, 5 cases of other types of accident, including 1 21 largelarge accidentsaccidents in in 2018 2018 included included 9 collapse 9 collapse accidents, accidents, 4 crane-related 4 crane-related accidents, accidents, 2 falling 2 fromfalling heights from case of electric shock, 1 case of landslide, and 3 cases of poisoning and asphyxiation. Although there heightsaccidents, accidents, 1 case of 1 mechanicalcase of mechanical injury accident, injury accident, 5 cases of5 cases other of types other of types accident, of accident, including including 1 case of 1 were 112 cases of people being struck by objects, no large accidents of this type occurred in 2018. The caseelectric of electric shock, 1shock, case of1 case landslide, of landslide, and 3 casesand 3 of cases poisoning of poisoning and asphyxiation. and asphyxiation. Although Although there there were number of collapse accidents was ranked fourth among the total accidents, however, first in the 112were cases 112 ofcases people of people being struckbeing struck by objects, by objects, no large no accidents large accidents of this type of this occurred type occurred in 2018. in The 2018. number The category of large accidents, which implies that the consequences of collapse accidents are often more numberof collapse of accidentscollapse accidents was ranked was fourth ranked among fourth the among total accidents, the total however,accidents, ﬁrst however, in the categoryfirst in the of serious. categorylarge accidents, of large which accidents, implies which that implies the consequences that the consequences of collapse accidentsof collapse are accidents often more are serious.often more serious. Data from MOHURD (2018) 42.86% Data from MOHURD (2018) 42.86% 19.05% 19.05%

0%9.52% 4.76% 9.52% 4.76% 23.81% Falling from heights Struck by objects 23.81% Crane-related accidents Collapse accidents MechanicalFalling from injury heights accidents OtherStruck types by objects Crane-related accidents Collapse accidents MechanicalFigure 3. injuryProportion accidents of large accidents inOther 2018. types Figure 3. Proportion of large accidents in 2018. 3.2. Time Period of Accidents Figure 3. Proportion of large accidents in 2018. 3.2. Time Period of Accidents Figure4 demonstrates the monthly distribution of four levels of accidents with death numbers in 3.2.2018. TimeFigure As shownPeriod 4 demonstrates of in Accidents Figure4, the accidentsmonthly distribution in 2018 mainly of four occurred levels in of April accidents to September, with death whereas numbers the in 2018. As shown in Figure 4, the accidents in 2018 mainly occurred in April to September, whereas numberFigure of accidents 4 demonstrates was lower the monthl after Octobery distribution and before of four March. levels The of monthaccidents with with the death lowest numbers number the number of accidents was lower after October and before March. The month with the lowest inof 2018. accidents As shown was February. in Figure This 4, the can accidents likely be in attributed 2018 mainly tothe occurred traditional in April Chinese to September, Spring Festival whereas in theFebruary, number during of accidents which most was construction lower after projectsOctober wereand suspended.before March. The month with the lowest

Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 14 Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 14 number of accidents was February. This can likely be attributed to the traditional Chinese Spring Sustainabilitynumber of2019 accidents, 11, 4537 was February. This can likely be attributed to the traditional Chinese Spring5 of 14 Festival in February, during which most construction projects were suspended. Festival in February, during which most construction projects were suspended. 110 110 Number of accidents Data from: MOHURD (2018) 100 Number of accidents Data from: MOHURD (2018) 100 Number of deaths 90 Number of deaths 90 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30

Number of accidents or deaths 20 Number of accidents or deaths 20 10 10 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec -- Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec -- Month Month Figure 4. Monthly distribution of accide accidentsnts with death number in 2018. Figure 4. Monthly distribution of accidents with death number in 2018. The time distribution for large accidents with deathsdeaths in 2018 is presented inin FigureFigure5 5.. AsAs shownshown The time distribution for large accidents with deaths in 2018 is presented in Figure 5. As shown in Figure5 5,, thethe largelarge accidents accidents in in 2018 2018 mainly mainly occurred occurred in in the the morning. morning. NoNo accidentsaccidents werewere reportedreported in Figure 5, the large accidents in 2018 mainly occurred in the morning. No accidents were reported around noon, because in China, midday is generallygenerally aa restrest time.time. There were still some accidents around noon, because in China, midday is generally a rest time. There were still some accidents reported after 18:00, which maymay bebe duedue toto overtimeovertime workwork duringduring tighttight constructionconstruction periods.periods. reported after 18:00, which may be due to overtime work during tight construction periods.

25 Number of accidents Number of accidents 25 Number of deaths Data from: Number MOHURD of deaths (2018) 20 Data from: MOHURD (2018) 20

15 15

10 10

5 Number of accidents or deaths 5 Number of accidents or deaths

0 0 0 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 -02:00 -04:00 -06:00 -08:00 -10:00 -12:0 -14:00 -16:00 -18:00 -20:00 -22:00 -24:00 0 0 -02 -04 -06 -08 :0 -10 -12 -14 -16 -18 :00-20 :0 -22 -24 6:00 0 0 00:00 02:00 04:00 0 08:0 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:0 22:00 6:00 00:00 02:00 04:00 0 08 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18 20 22:00 Time of day Time of day Figure 5. Daily distribution of large accidents in 2018. Figure 5. Daily distribution of large accidents in 2018. 3.3. Provincial DistributionFigure of Accidents 5. Daily distribution of large accidents in 2018. 3.3. Provincial Distribution of Accidents 3.3. ProvincialThe provincial Distribution distribution of Accidents of production safety accidents was uneven in 2018. The provincial distribution was closely related to the economic development status and supervision intensity of each province. Figure6 shows the number of accidents and gross domestic product (GDP) in di ﬀerent

Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 14

The provincial distribution of production safety accidents was uneven in 2018. The provincial Sustainability 2019, 11, 4537 6 of 14 distribution was closely related to the economic development status and supervision intensity of each province. Figure 6 shows the number of accidents and gross domestic product (GDP) in different provinces of of mainland mainland China China from from 2016 2016 to 2018. to 2018. The top The ten top provinces ten provinces in terms in of termsnumber of of number accidents of accidentswere Jiangsu, were Guangdong, Jiangsu, Guangdong, Chongqing, Chongqing, Sichuan, Anhui, Sichuan, Zhejiang, Anhui, Fujian, Zhejiang, Heilongjiang, Fujian, Heilongjiang, Gansu, and Gansu,Hubei, andaccording Hubei, accordingto the accident to the accidentstatistics statistics in 2018. in 2018.It is Itnoted is noted that that four four provinces provinces (Sichuan, (Sichuan, Heilongjiang, Fujian, and Gansu) were newly ranked in the top ten in 2018. Furthermore, the number of accidents inin thesethese fourfour provinces provinces increased increased annually annually from from 2016 2016 to to 2018. 2018. This This statistical statistical result result can can be attributedbe attributed to theto the fast-booming fast-booming economy economy and and inadequate inadequate security security awareness awareness in these in these provinces provinces from 2016from to2016 2018. to 2018.

Figure 6. Number of accidents in 31 re regionsgions of China from 2016 to 2018.

Although the number of accidents in Jiangsu, the second province in terms of provincial GDP, Although the number of accidents in Jiangsu, the second province in terms of provincial GDP, was the highest in recent years, its safety situation has improved, as the trend shows a clear decrease. was the highest in recent years, its safety situation has improved, as the trend shows a clear decrease. In addition, the number of accidents and deaths in 2018 in Ningxia, Hebei, Hainan, Shaanxi, Beijing, In addition, the number of accidents and deaths in 2018 in Ningxia, Hebei, Hainan, Shaanxi, Beijing, Qinghai, Shanghai, Shandong, and Liaoning increased compared to in 2017. Most of these provinces, Qinghai, Shanghai, Shandong, and Liaoning increased compared to in 2017. Most of these provinces, such as Beijing, Shanghai, and Shandong, feature high GDP outputs. Generally, the economically such as Beijing, Shanghai, and Shandong, feature high GDP outputs. Generally, the economically developed provinces are at greater risk of productionproduction safety accidents due to the large number and large scale ofof constructionconstruction projects.projects. Some areas with relatively low economiceconomic development,development, such as Hainan, Ningxia, and Qinghai, experienced rapid development due to the increase in governmentgovernment investment in recent years,years, and therefore,therefore, thethe constructionconstruction industry in these provincesprovinces expandedexpanded accordingly. However,However, the the technology technology and and management management of of production production activities activities in thesein these provinces provinces did notdid developnot develop simultaneously. simultaneously. As a result, As a theresult, number the ofnumber production of production safety accidents safety also accidents increased. also increased.In 2018, ﬁfteen provinces in China suﬀered from large or major safety accidents in the construction industry.In 2018, One majorfifteen accident provinces and in two China large accidentssuffered occurredfrom large in Guangdongor major safety Province, accidents with a totalin the of 19construction deaths. Although industry. there One was major only accident one major and accident two large in accidents China in 2018,occurred it still in caused Guangdong great lossProvince, to life andwith property—this a total of 19 deaths. was the Although Foshan there shield was tunnel only collapse one major accident. accident The indetails China ofin this2018, major it still accident caused aregreat reported loss to inlife the and following property—this chapter was to explain the Foshan the background, shield tunnel development collapse accident. process, The and details causes of this accident.major accident are reported in the following chapter to explain the background, development process, and causes of this accident.

Sustainability 2019,, 11,, 4537x FOR PEER REVIEW 77 of of 14

4. A Case Study of Major Accident 4. A Case Study of Major Accident On February 7, 2018, a collapse accident occurred (8:40 p.m.) during the shield tunnel constructionOn February of Huyong 7, 2018, Station a collapse to Ludaohu accident occurred Station in (8:40 the p.m.) first phase during of the rail shield transit tunnel line construction2 in Foshan ofCity, Huyong Guangdong Station toProvince. Ludaohu Figure Station 7 inillustrates the ﬁrst phase the geographical of rail transit linelocation 2 in Foshanof this City,safety Guangdong accident, Province.showing the Figure ground7 illustrates collapse. the The geographical ground collapse location was ofapproximately this safety accident, 6 m to 8 showingm in depth. the The ground area collapse.of the ground The collapse ground was collapse about was 4192 approximately m2 and the volume 6 mto of 8the m collapse in depth. was The close area to 25,000 of the m ground3 [40]. collapseBased on was the aboutstandards 4192 mshown2 and in the Table volume 1, this of the ac collapsecident was was classified close to 25,000as a major m3 [40 accident,]. Based onwhich the standardsresulted in shown 11 deaths, in Table 11 missing, this accident person, was 8 classiﬁed injuries, asand a major about accident, 53.238 whichmillion resulted RMB¥ in($USD7.724 11 deaths, 1million) missing direct person, economic 8 injuries, loss. and Yu about et al. 53.238 [41] investigated million RMB the¥ ($USD7.724 technical issues million) related direct to economic the accident. loss. YuThe et results al. [41 ]showedinvestigated that this the accident technical was issues caused related by the to theleakage accident. of the The brush results seals showed at the tail that of thisthe accidentshield machine was caused [41]. byThis the collapse leakage accident of the brush was seals the only at the major tail of accident the shield in machine the construction [41]. This industry collapse accidentin 2018. The was post-accident the only major report accident showed in the that construction there were many industry management in 2018. The problems post-accident in this project report showed[40]. that there were many management problems in this project [40].

FigureFigure 7. 7.The The collapse collapse during during tunnelling tunnelling in Foshan in Foshan metro metro line 2line in 2018, 2 in induced2018, induced by groundwater by groundwater leakage. leakage. 4.1. Accident Process 4.1. AccidentTable2 tabulates Process the development process of the accident over time. On 7 February 2018, the shield machine was located in a complex geological environment at a depth of about 30.5 m, where the Table 2 tabulates the development process of the accident over time. On February 7, 2018, the ground contains mucky silt, silty sand, and medium sand, with conﬁned water. During the assembly shield machine was located in a complex geological environment at a depth of about 30.5 m, where operation of the segment, the soil warehouse pressure suddenly increased and the tail of the shield the ground contains mucky silt, silty sand, and medium sand, with confined water. During the machine appeared to sink with the seepage. Although the construction workers immediately took assembly operation of the segment, the soil warehouse pressure suddenly increased and the tail of urgent plugging measures, the leakage and sand blasting area continued to expand, which caused the the shield machine appeared to sink with the seepage. Although the construction workers shield machine and segment structure to deform downward. Once the tunnel structure failed, a huge immediately took urgent plugging measures, the leakage and sand blasting area continued to amount of the muddy sand suddenly poured into the tunnel, which pushed the shield machine trolley expand, which caused the shield machine and segment structure to deform downward. Once the back approximately 700 m. Meanwhile, the mud-sand ﬂow and the associated air waves knocked tunnel structure failed, a huge amount of the muddy sand suddenly poured into the tunnel, which down or buried some of the workers, which caused heavy casualties. pushed the shield machine trolley back approximately 700 m. Meanwhile, the mud-sand flow and

Sustainability 2019, 11, 4537 8 of 14

Table 2. Development of the collapse accident in Foshan metro line 2 on February 7, 2018 (data from EMBF, 2018 [40]).

Time Line Critical Events 18:10 Excavation of the 905th ring was finished and shield tail was cleaned. The first piece of the segment was assembled. The pressure of the soil 18:52 chamber increased from 233 kPa to 276 kPa. The tail of the shield machine began sinking. The right side of the first segment burst upward. 18:54 The slurry flowed over the surface of the remaining segments. 19:03 The situation was reported and emergency measures were taken. 19:47 Personnel failed to control the danger. 20:03 The vertical deviation of shield tail reached 460 mm. − 20:35 Personnel in the tunnel began to evacuate. The muddy sand flow sprayed around the 899th ring segment. The shield 20:36 tail sank 463.5 mm. A large area of ground collapsed. A huge amount of muddy sand poured 20:40 into the tunnel. The mud-sand flow and air waves hurt some workers trying to escape.

4.2. Accident Causes According to the investigation from the Guangdong Provincial Government [40], there are three direct technical causes of the accident [41]: (i) the geological and hydrological conditions at the site were very challenging, and therefore the risk of groundwater leakage was high when the shield machine passed through this section; (ii) the sealing device at the tail of the shield machine did not work well during the construction process. Some seepage channels were generated under high external water and earth pressures; and (iii) after the tunnel structure failed, a large amount of muddy sand swiftly entered the tunnel, forming strong mud-sand flows and air waves along the longitudinal direction of the tunnel. In addition, the government investigation showed the management causes of the accident [40]. This was an engineering procurement construction (EPC) project. Figure8 shows the EPC management relationship chart. For comparison, the original mode of EPC project management is also presented in Figure8a. As shown in Figure8b, there were 12 parties involved in the construction management of this project, involving investment, construction, supervision, operation, exploration, design, and labor dispatch. As shown in Figure8, compared to the original EPC mode, there are many management levels, resulting in increasing safety and environmental risks. For example, the right-line shield machine experienced several instances of shield tail leakage before the accident, which presented great risk to the shield tunneling. The construction party did not eliminate this safety hazard. As a violation of the Labor Law [42], the working hours of construction site staff were extended in this project. Moreover, safety production inspections were not carried out regularly. There was inadequate supervision of some government departments, such as the transportation bureau, fire station, and production safety supervision bureau. The project was a safety production risk point in Foshan city, nevertheless it was constructed without the relevant formalities, such as construction project planning permit, and fire design plan reviews. Even worse, some construction workers continued to carry out rescue work in the tunnel in this dangerous situation, which led to serious casualties. Technical problems were the direct cause of this collapse accident, whereas adequate safety management could have avoided the accident. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4537 9 of 14 Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 14

(b)

Design Procurement Construction (a) EPC Mode

Supervisor Government Client Authorization Monitor 1 Industry department Survey EPC Open tender Contractor Design Contracter Shield Monitor 2 · construction TJ1 TJ2 · TJ7 · Design Procurement Construction Sub-contractor work Branch 1 Branch 2 Tender Joint Branch 3 Branch of project Labor department

FigureFigure 8. 7.The The EPCEPC projectproject management relationship chart (data from EMBF, EMBF, 2018 [40]). [40]). ( (aa)) the the original original modemode of of EPC EPC project project management,management, ((bb)) thethe EPCEPC managementmanagement situation of Foshan Metro Metro Line Line 2. 2. 4.3. SEA Analysis 4.3. SEA Analysis Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) was proposed and applied to analyze sustainable Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) was proposed and applied to analyze sustainable development problems related to the social, economic, cultural, human health, and environmental [43] development problems related to the social, economic, cultural, human health, and environmental factors at a strategic level. Shepherd and Ortolano [44] summarized six principles for SEA effectiveness [43] factors at a strategic level. Shepherd and Ortolano [44] summarized six principles for SEA in promoting sustainable urban development. To check the risks of metro tunnel construction at the effectiveness in promoting sustainable urban development. To check the risks of metro tunnel strategic level, SEA analysis was used in this paper and applied to the construction management of construction at the strategic level, SEA analysis was used in this paper and applied to the construction Foshan metro line 2. management of Foshan metro line 2. The evaluation of the project management of Foshan Line 2 is presented in Table3. The score is The evaluation of the project management of Foshan Line 2 is presented in Table 3. The score is given according to the following management factors: (1) sustainability principles were considered given according to the following management factors: (1) sustainability principles were considered inin municipal municipal managementmanagement andand urbanizationurbanization phases, but were insufficient insufficient during during the the construction construction phase;phase; (2) (2) there there was was nono simultaneoussimultaneous assessmentassessment of the impact on on the the surrounding surrounding environment environment after after thethe construction construction started; (3) (3) many many factors factors were were not not considered considered relating relating to th toe thecumulative cumulative impacts; impacts; (4) (4)there there was was a aproblem problem with with sealing sealing of of the the shield shield ma machinechine that that was was not not effectively effectively solved; solved; (5) (5) land land subsidencesubsidence monitoringmonitoring waswas carried out, with with 19 19 alarms alarms issued issued from from June 1 June 1, 2017, 2017, to to February 7 February 7, 2018, 2018, butbut inappropriate inappropriate disposaldisposal methodsmethods werewere takentaken when dangerous situations occurred; occurred; (6) (6) a althoughlthough therethere were were a a lot lot of of government government andand companycompany regulations,regulations, they are are not not well well implemented implemented during during the the constructionconstruction process, process, and and the the supervision supervision work work was was inadequate. inadequate. AsAs shownshown inin TableTable3 ,3, only only 12 12 out out of of a totala total of 30of points30 points are are obtained, obtained, indicating indicating that that the the environmental environmental and and construction construction risk risk of Foshan of Foshan Line 2Line was 2 very was high very basedhigh based on the on SEA the analysis.SEA analysis.

TableTable 3.3. SpeciﬁcSpecific evaluationevaluation ofof Foshan line 2 using SEA principles [44]. [44].

SEA Principle Project Management of Foshan Line 2 Score OutScore of 5 Out of SEA Principle Project Management of Foshan Line 2 1 Yes: Sustainability principles were generally considered. 3 5 1 2 Yes: Sustainability Not perfect: principles Most of the were assessment generally was conductedconsidered. just before the project. 2 3 Not perfect: Multiple and correlated impacts were not considered 3 2 2 Not perfect:comprehensively. Most of the assessment was conducted just before the project. 2 3 Not perfect:Not perfect:Multiple Did and not correlated adhere to the impa principlects were of sustainability not considered during comprehensively. the 2 4 2 Not perfect:construction Did not process.adhere to the principle of sustainability during the construction 4 Not perfect: The ground settlement was monitored during construction. 2 5 process. 2 However, there was no appropriate feedback or disposal measures. Not perfect: The ground settlement was monitored during construction. However, 5 6 Not perfect: Legal and public monitoring mechanisms were not implemented 1 2 Total scorethere was no appropriate feedback or disposal measures. 12 6 Not perfect: Legal and public monitoring mechanisms were not implemented 1 Note: If SEA principles are fully and positively followed, a full score of 5 is awarded for each principle; the total Totalscore score for the SEA principles is out of 30. 12

Sustainability 2019, 11, 4537 10 of 14

5. Discussion To ensure sustainable development, it is crucial to analyze previous accidents. This collapse was judged a liability accident by the Guangdong provincial government [40]. This accident revealed some potential project management weaknesses. With a low total score of only 12 out of 30 for the SEA assessment, the safety risk of this project was very high. The contractor showed insuﬃcient management of safety risks, improper emergency response, and untimely evacuation of personnel, which were all responsible for this accident. In addition, eﬀective technical and management measures were not taken to eliminate hidden risks, e.g., the defective performance of shield tail seals. To avoid similar accidents in the future, the following guidelines for risk management based on the conducted analysis are proposed (see Figure9).

(i) Step I: Incorporation of SEA. We propose the SEA concept be incorporated into project management. Strategic risk assessment should be conducted at the project level. The total score of the SEA should be higher than 24. He et al. [14] verified that when an SEA score increased from 16 to 24, the environmental risk (land subsidence) was reduced greatly. (ii) Step II: Limitation of Construction Speed. Based on SEA results, the appropriate construction speed of the project should be discussed and determined by the supervising government body, the client, and the contractor. (iii) Step III: Strengthen Safety Management. There are many subcontractors with loose connections, and it is crucial to reduce the numbers of subcontractors. The training of the laborers should be improved. However, when the number of subcontractors cannot be reduced, supervision and monitoring should be improved during implementation. An operational manual should be distributed to all engineers and workers in the field. Moreover, overtime work in the field should be limited. (iv) Step IV: Establishment of Monitoring and Early Warning System. The full monitoring system should include not only field monitoring but should also establish a working group application for cell phones. An overview of the field situation should be uploaded each day, and when a risk warning is received, this information should be uploaded every minute. A comprehensive safety early warning system should be established to replace the passive after-the-fact safety management model with active advanced warning.

After these guidelines are implemented, the risks will be reduced greatly. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4537 11 of 14 Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 14

• The sustainability principles • Environmental impact • Multiple and correlated impacts Step I • Sustainability Incorporation of SEA • Environmental management • Legal and public monitoring Total score > 24

Client Quality

Appropriate Step II Contractor Safety speed Construction speed

Supervisor Environment

• Fewer sub-contractors • Training of labor • Strengthen supervision Step III • Distributing operational manual Safety management • Limiting overtime works …

Field monitoring safety early room Step IV warning system Monitoring and early warning system Working group APP

FigureFigure 9.8. TheThe guidelinesguidelines forfor riskrisk management.management.

6.6. ConclusionsConclusions ThisThis paperpaper analyzed analyzed the productionthe production safety insafety the Chinesein the constructionChinese construction industry. The industry. management The reasonsmanagement were investigatedreasons were in investigated detail via the in SEAdetail concept. via the GuidelinesSEA concept. for Guidelines risk-control for management risk-control inmanagement construction in wereconstruction proposed were to ensureproposed community to ensure sustainability.community sustainabi Major conclusionslity. Major conclusions are drawn asare follows: drawn as follows: (1)(1) Safety accidentsaccidents cause cause great great losses losses of life of and life property, and property, which expose which the expose problems the in problems construction in managementconstruction hinderingmanagement the sustainablehindering the development sustainable of development society. Over theof society. past ten years,Over the numberpast ten ofyears, fatal the accidents number ﬁrst of steadily fatal accidents declined fromfirst 2009steadily to 2015, declined however from the 2009 production to 2015, safety however situation the duringproduction the mostsafety recent situation three during years becamethe most worse. recent Inthree addition, years became large accidents worse. In that addition, cause masslarge casualtiesaccidents that have cause not been mass completely casualties preventedhave not been in China. completely prevented in China. (2)(2) The analysis of thethe accidentsaccidents inin 20182018 showsshows thatthat safetysafety developmentdevelopment waswas distributeddistributed unevenlyunevenly inin China.China. Jiangsu Jiangsu province province had the largest numbernumber ofof fatalfatal accidentsaccidents inin recentrecent years,years, butbut thethe situation improved inin 2018.2018. The seasonalseasonal distributiondistribution ofof fatalfatal accidentsaccidents showsshows thatthat thethe lowestlowest number of accidents occurred in February,February, andand thethe accidentsaccidents mainlymainly occurredoccurred inin thethe morningmorning over a one-dayone-day period.period. The most frequent accident type was fallingfalling fromfrom heights;heights; nevertheless,nevertheless, thethe mostmost commoncommon largelarge accidentsaccidents werewere collapses.collapses. (3)(3) The management reasons were investigatedinvestigated through a ﬁeldfield failurefailure casecase studystudy ofof thethe shieldshield tunneltunnel constructionconstruction inin Foshan,Foshan, GuangdongGuangdong Province.Province. SEASEA waswas usedused inin anan environmentalenvironmental impactimpact assessment to analyze the safety risks for this case. According to the SEA results, inadequate management of this project led to high safety risks. Inadequate safety management often leads

Sustainability 2019, 11, 4537 12 of 14

assessment to analyze the safety risks for this case. According to the SEA results, inadequate management of this project led to high safety risks. Inadequate safety management often leads to the deterioration of other factors, e.g., personnel, facilities, and environmental factors, and ultimately lead to accidents. At the same time, proper safety management can identify and eliminate various potential hazards. Therefore, it is important to enhance safety management during construction. (4) To ensure production safety in the future, a guideline based on SEA was proposed, including the following 4 aspects: (i) an SEA score over 24; (ii) limitation of construction speed; (iii) strengthened safety management.; (iv) establishment of monitoring and early warning systems. Moreover, the accident reporting system is crucial in studying accidents, which is closely related to the experience of the accidents. Thus, an integral accident reporting system, including fatal, trivial, and even potential accidents, detailed classiﬁcation, and comprehensive impacts, is also highly recommended.

Author Contributions: This paper represents a result of collaborative teamwork. S.-L.S. developed the concept of the manuscript. X.-H.Z. drafted the manuscript. Y.-S.X. provided constructive suggestions and revised the manuscript. A.-N.Z. revised the manuscript. The four authors contributed equally to this work. Funding: The research was funded by the Innovative Research Funding of the Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality (Grant No. 18DZ1201102), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) (973 Program: 2015CB057802). Acknowledgments: The authors would like to express their sincere appreciation to the anonymous reviewers and editors, whose constructive suggestions helped the authors to rethink and rework the manuscript to improve the quality greatly. Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂict of interest.

References

1. China Construction Industry Association (CCIA). Statistical Analysis of Construction Industry Development in 2018. Available online: http://www.zgjzy.org/menu20/newsDetail/2010.html (accessed on 11 April 2019). (In Chinese) 2. National Bureau of Statistics of People’s Republic of China (NBSPRC). The Statistical Communique of the National Economic and Social Development of the People’s Republic of China. Available online: http://data.stats.gov.cn/publish.htm?sort=1 (accessed on 28 February 2019). (In Chinese) 3. Lyu, H.M.; Shen, S.L.; Zhou, A.N.; Yang, J. Perspectives for ﬂood risk assessment and management for mega-city metro system. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2019, 84, 31–44. [CrossRef] 4. Lyu, H.M.; Shen, S.L.; Zhou, A.N.; Zhou, W.H. Flood risk assessment of metro systems in a subsiding environment using the interval FAHP-FCA approach. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 101682. [CrossRef] 5. Wu, Y.X.; Lyu, H.M.; Han, J.; Shen, S.L. Dewatering-induced building settlement around a deep excavation in soft deposit in Tianjin, China. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2019, 145, 2045. [CrossRef] 6. Lyu, H.M.; Wu, Y.X.; Shen, J.S.; Zhou, A.N. Assessment of social-economic risk of Chinese dual land use system using fuzzy AHP. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2451. [CrossRef] 7. Chai, J.C.; Shen, S.L.; Ding, W.Q.; Zhu, H.H.; Cater, J.P. Numerical investigation of the failure of a building in Shanghai, China. Comput. Geotech. 2014, 55, 482–493. [CrossRef] 8. Wang, Z.F.; Shen, S.L.; Modoni, G. Enhancing discharge of spoil to mitigate disturbance induced by horizontal jet grouting in clayey soil: Theoretical model and application. Comput. Geotech. 2019, 111, 222–228. [CrossRef] 9. Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE). Sustainable Development Goals and Civil Engineering. Available online: https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Sustainable_Development_Goals_and_civil_ engineering#Sustainable_futures (accessed on 26 July 2019). 10. Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE). Council puts Sustainability Top of Education Curriculum. Available online: https://www.ice.org.uk (accessed on 17 December 2002). 11. Zhang, S.L.; Yuan, S. A study on spatial diﬀerences of housing and municipal works safety accidents in China and their evolution. China Saf. Sci. J. 2014, 24, 133–137. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2019, 11, 4537 13 of 14

12. Ministry of Justice of the People’s Republic of China (MJPRC). Construction Law of People’s Republic of China. Available online: http://www.moj.gov.cn/Department/content/2019-06/11/592_236649.html (accessed on 11 June 2019). (In Chinese) 13. Ministry of Justice of the People’s Republic of China (MJPRC). Safety Production Law of People’s Republic of China. Available online: http://www.moj.gov.cn/Department/content/2014-09/02/592_201265.html (accessed on 2 September 2014). (In Chinese) 14. Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People’s Republic of China (MEEPRC). Environmental Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China. Available online: http://zfs.mee.gov.cn/fl/201404/t20140425_271040. shtml) (accessed on 25 April 2014). (In Chinese) 15. Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People’s Republic of China (MEEPRC). Urban and Rural Planning Law of the People’s Republic of China. Available online: http://fgs.mee.gov.cn/fl/201906/t20190605_ 705768.shtml (accessed on 23 April 2019). (In Chinese) 16. Xu, Y.S.; Shen, S.L.; Ren, D.J.; Wu, H.N. Analysis of factors in ground subsidence in Shanghai: A view based on a strategic environmental assessment. Sustainability 2016, 8, 573. [CrossRef] 17. He, X.C.; Yang, T.L.; Shen, S.L.; Xu, Y.S.; Arulrajah, A. Land subsidence control zone and policy for environmental protection of Shanghai. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2019, 16, 2729. [CrossRef] 18. Zhao, X.H.; Cheng, W.C.; Shen, J.S.; Arulrajah, A. Platform collapse incident of a power plant in Jiangxi, China. Nat. Hazards 2017, 87, 1259–1265. [CrossRef] 19. Lyu, H.M.; Cheng, W.C.; Shen, J.S. Investigation of collapsed building incidents on soft marine deposit: Both from social and technical perspectives. Land 2018, 7, 20. [CrossRef] 20. Meng, W.L.; Shen, S.L.; Zhou, A.N. Investigation on fatal accidents in Chinese construction industry between 2004 and 2016. Nat. Hazards 2018, 94, 655–670. [CrossRef] 21. Zhou, Z.; Goh, Y.M.; Li, Q. Overview and analysis of safety management studies in the construction industry. Saf. Sci. 2015, 72, 337–350. [CrossRef] 22. Liu, P.; Li, Q.; Bian, J.; Song, L.; Xiahou, X. Using interpretative structural modeling to identify critical success factors for safety management in subway construction: A china study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1359. [CrossRef][PubMed] 23. Mahfuth, K.; Loulizi, A.; Al Hallaq, K.; Tayeh, B.A. Implementation Phase Safety System for Minimising Construction Project Waste. Buildings 2019, 9, 25. [CrossRef] 24. Gunduz, M.; Ahsan, B. Construction safety factors assessment through frequency adjusted importance index. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2018, 64, 155–162. [CrossRef] 25. Lyu, H.M.; Sun, W.J.; Shen, S.L.; Zhou, A.N. A newly designed expert system of triangular fuzzy AHP and its application to risk analysis for metro tunnel construction. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2019, 1757. [CrossRef] 26. Bo˙zena,H.; Mariusz, S. Methodology of Analysing the Accident Rate in the Construction Industry. Procedia Eng. 2017, 172, 355–362. [CrossRef] 27. Hossain, M.A.; Abbott, E.L.; Chua, D.K.; Nguyen, T.Q.; Goh, Y.M. Design-for-safety knowledge library for BIM-integrated safety risk reviews. Autom. Constr. 2018, 94, 290–302. [CrossRef] 28. Kim, D.; Liu, M.; Lee, S.; Kamat, V.R. Remote proximity monitoring between mobile construction resources using camera-mounted UAVs. Autom. Constr. 2019, 99, 168–182. [CrossRef] 29. Umer, W.; Li, H.; Lu, W.; Szeto, G.P.Y.; Wong, A.Y. Development of a tool to monitor static balance of construction workers for proactive fall safety management. Autom. Constr. 2018, 94, 438–448. [CrossRef] 30. Low, B.K.L.; Man, S.S.; Chan, A.H.S.; Alabdulkarim, S. Construction worker risk-taking behavior model with individual and organizational factors. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1335. [CrossRef][PubMed] 31. Chi, S.; Han, S.; Kim, D.Y. Relationship between unsafe working conditions and workers’ behavior and impact of working conditions on injury severity in US construction industry. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2012, 139, 826–838. [CrossRef] 32. Fargnoli, M.; Lombardi, M. Preliminary Human Safety Assessment (PHSA) for the Improvement of the Behavioral Aspects of Safety Climate in the Construction Industry. Buildings 2019, 9, 69. [CrossRef] 33. Altunkaynak, B. A statistical study of occupational accidents in the manufacturing industry in Turkey. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2018, 66, 101–109. [CrossRef] 34. Umar, T. Briefing: Cost of accidents in the construction industry of Oman. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Munic. Eng. 2017, 170, 68–73. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2019, 11, 4537 14 of 14

35. Hoła, A.; Sawicki, M.; Szóstak, M. Methodology of classifying the causes of occupational accidents involving construction scaffolding using pareto-lorenz analysis. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 48. [CrossRef] 36. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China (MOHURD) (2009–2018). Circular on the Situation of Production Safety Accidents in Housing Municipal Engineering. Available online: http://www.mohurd.gov.cn/wjfb/index.html (accessed on 22 March 2019). (In Chinese) 37. Ministry of Emergency Management of the People’s Republic of China (MEMPRC). Available online: http://www.chinasafety.gov.cn/gk/gwgg/201612/t20161208_241624.shtml (accessed on 8 December 2016). (In Chinese) 38. General Office of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China (GOSCPRC). Report on Production Safety Accident and Regulations of Investigation and Treatment. Available online: http://www.gov.cn/flfg/ 2007-04/19/content_589264.htm (accessed on 19 April 2007). (In Chinese) 39. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China (MOHURD). Safety Standards for Prevention and Control of Construction Accidents, JGJ/T429-2018. Available online: http://www.mohurd.gov.cn/wjfb/201808/t20180821_237293.html (accessed on 14 February 2018). (In Chinese) 40. Emergency Management Bureau of Foshan (EMBF). Investigation Report on “2.7” Leakage and Collapse Accident in the First Phase of the Rail Transit Line 2 Project of Foshan City, Guangdong Province. Available online: http://fssyjglj.foshan.gov.cn/ajdt/gzdt/201808/t20180802_7172561.html (accessed on 1 August 2018). (In Chinese) 41. Yu, C.; Zhou, A.N.; Chen, J.; Arulrajah, A.; Horpibulsuk, S. Analysis of a tunnel failure caused by leakage of the shield tail seal system. Undergr. Space 2018.[CrossRef] 42. Ministry of Justice of the People’s Republic of China (MJPRC). Labor Law of People’s Republic of China. Available online: http://www.moj.gov.cn/Department/content/2019-01/17/592_227066.html (accessed on 17 January 2019). (In Chinese) 43. Therivel, R. Systems of Strategic Environmental Assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 1993, 13, 145–168. [CrossRef] 44. Shepherd, A.; Ortolano, L. Strategic environmental assessment for sustainable urban development. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 1996, 16, 321–335. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).