Safe excavations in Mexico and NOM-031-STPS-2011

The pipe is ready, and the crew hopes to finish before the shift changes. A trench that appears routine may concentrate unresolved decisions about soil, buried utilities, machinery, and access. The safety question belongs before entry: who checked today’s conditions, and what evidence supports authorizing the planned work?

For site engineers, safety personnel, and students, we propose organizing that discussion around verifiable decisions. The aim is to recognize what the project’s competent team must resolve and how those decisions reach the crew. This article offers a planning framework; it does not design a protective system or replace a project’s excavation procedure.

Begin with the applicable Mexican reference

NOM-031-STPS-2011 devotes Chapter 11 to excavations and addresses risk analysis and inspections (Secretaría del Trabajo y Previsión Social [STPS], 2011). As of October 17, 2026, the official PLATIICA catalog lists it as current (Secretaría de Economía, n.d.). The complete text and other applicable provisions belong in the project’s safety review.

Avoid copying a threshold or solution from international materials without checking its jurisdiction and conditions. The OSHA references used here belong to the U.S. framework. They support the study of principles and the development of questions, but do not replace Mexican requirements or establish that a particular excavation is safe.

Authorization needs information about the site

Before starting, we suggest bringing the planned activity, available background information, utilities requiring verification, responsible personnel, and approved procedure into one working record. “Pending” must retain its meaning: a drawing that still needs confirmation cannot silently become a verified utility location. Establish how each information gap will be resolved.

Organize the review around concrete questions: what is known about the ground, which nearby elements could be affected, and which operations will take place around it? Connect the outcome with the relevant assessment and design instead of leaving it as an archived checklist. A signature is useful only if it represents the verification it claims.

Selecting protection requires a specific assessment

OSHA distinguishes protective systems and requires their selection or design to address anticipated conditions and loads (Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA], n.d.-b). This helps explain why a universal slope cannot be recommended from a photograph or a brief conversation. Selection belongs to competent personnel and the project’s technical process.

When reviewing the file, check that it identifies the proposed system, the conditions supporting its selection, and the documents used for installation and inspection. If manufactured equipment is involved, the site team needs access to its instructions and limitations. A component available in storage is not accepted merely because it fits inside the excavation.

Changes must return to the assessment

A modified access route, an additional operation, or a difference between predicted and encountered conditions may require the procedure to be reviewed. Decide in advance how such differences will be reported and who determines the next action. That prevents the crew from having to improvise a solution simply to maintain the schedule.

A change record can be concise: what was found, when it was identified, who was informed, and which decision followed. Connect it with the technical documentation required. Its purpose is to keep conditions, procedure, and authorization consistent, rather than accumulate forms that nobody uses to make decisions.

The supervisor can use that record during handover so the next shift receives the decision and its limits, rather than an unexplained instruction to continue.

Inspection requires authority to correct conditions

In OSHA’s approach, a competent person combines the ability to identify hazards with authority to take corrective action (OSHA, n.d.-c). For site organization, identify the responsible person, a substitute, and the escalation process for conditions beyond their remit. An appointment needs to be supported by resources and effective authority.

OSHA 1926.651 addresses inspections before work and after events that increase hazards, together with removal of exposed personnel when dangerous conditions are identified (OSHA, n.d.-a). Explain to the crew which changes to report and how to request a new assessment under the project’s applicable procedure.

Inspection records need findings and decisions. If an unacceptable condition appears, the file should show the corrective action and subsequent verification before work resumes. Repeatedly marking a favorable box without recording what was found removes information that could help prevent the problem from recurring.

Prepare access and emergency arrangements beforehand

OSHA’s reference includes entry and exit arrangements and provisions for hazardous atmospheric conditions (OSHA, n.d.-a). During planning, ask the responsible person to explain how those matters will be addressed for the specific activity. Identifying a need for additional assessment should lead to obtaining it before people are exposed.

The crew also needs to know how to activate the emergency plan and whom to notify. Practice that communication from a safe area, and confirm that planned routes and contacts match the current construction phase. Rescue should not be improvised by sending coworkers into the excavation; it requires trained personnel and the resources specified in the plan.

For a briefing exercise, ask each participant to explain the reporting route in their own words. A disagreement about whom to contact or who can authorize a restart is useful information: resolve it before the activity begins. Keep the exercise outside the hazard area and within the project’s training arrangements, with the responsible supervisor involved.

Turn review into learning

A student chapter could work with a fictional excavation and identify the information missing from its assessment, without proposing protective dimensions through intuition. On site, the opening question can be what changed and who reviewed it. Safety benefits when stopping, consulting, and correcting are planned decisions backed by the organization.

Sources and recommended reading in APA 7 format

Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (n.d.-a). 1926.651—Specific excavation requirements. https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1926/1926.651

Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (n.d.-b). 1926.652—Requirements for protective systems. https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1926/1926.652

Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (n.d.-c). Trenches and excavations: Competent person. https://www.osha.gov/etools/construction/trenching/competent-person

Secretaría de Economía. (n.d.). NOM-031-STPS-2011. PLATIICA. Retrieved October 17, 2026, from https://platiica.economia.gob.mx/normalizacion/nom-031-stps-2011/

Secretaría del Trabajo y Previsión Social. (2011, May 4). Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-031-STPS-2011, Construcción—Condiciones de seguridad y salud en el trabajo. Diario Oficial de la Federación. https://dof.gob.mx/normasOficiales/4376/stps/stps.htm

Continue exploring

Leer este artículo en español · More civil engineering articles · ASCE Mexico webinars · Community and student chapters

Illustrative photograph: Built Robotics / Unsplash.

Contact

We are always here to help

SOCIAL MEDIA

LINKS OF INTEREST

[email protected]