A good few of my mates are now diggin 18/19th Century industrial sites (poor sods). How many Project Manager types out there can put their hands up and say that they insist on chemical analysis on site prior to allowing any fieldwork? Or, are archaeologists just chucked at the project regardless of hydrocarbons/cadmium/asbestos/heavy metals? Have any industrial diggers ever seen a mention in the risk assessments? Or indeed, any risk assessments at all?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2005
No never seen any mention of heavy metals or contaminents!
A friend of mine did a watching brief at an old gasworks site where the soil was sampled and found to be contaminated with allsorts of nasties, the gas board people were only allowed on site wearing specialist clothing but he was expected to just get in there!
Shocking, but hey, we are treated like a waste product everyday so why not??
deep
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2004
About 15 years ago I worked on industrial reclamation schemes on lead mines, and just sent off by my then employer without a word about H&S. The mining tailings were finely ground and full of heavy metals. The engineers on site were slightly shocked that we had been given no brief, gloves, facemasks, water to wash hands etc. I had to arrange these things myself, after talking it over with someone in the Health and Safety Executive (you can also phone in problems anonymously). Strangely enough there wasn't a whimper from the organisation employing me.
At the very least you should have gloves and somewhere to wash your hands. Facemasks where dusty are also a good idea. Disposable suits and showers are needed in some situations.
Asbestos is a potential hazard in most buildings as well (pre 1980 or so), and your employers are legally obliged to identify it, map it, assess it and present all workers with the results, with advice on how to proceed.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
Whilst working for unit last year everyone employed had to go on an asbestos training day thingy - taught you about how to recognise it (very difficult!), what prescautions to take (e.g. masks, gloves) and what nasty things can happen to you. Was personally impressed cos only working with unit on temporary basis at time albeit in pre-1980s buildings, but everyone was obligied to go. Would recommend for every unit, especially those dealing with industrial/ building surveys etc. Worrying thing is how hard it is to actually recognise the stuff!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
It?s not often I get shouty but I am quite incensed. Gas works, bitumen works, petro-chemicals etc (and probably any sort of chemical works for that matter), even ones that are 100+ years old can contain very dangerous chemicals. It is totally unacceptable, nay illegal, for people to be working there without full safety suits and, even on open air sites, breathing equipment. There is a chance your machine could clip pockets of gas/chemical infused soil, or even just pockets of neat chemicals inside gasometers etc. These sites house chemicals including benzenes, phenols and compounds containing cyanide. Not only could you breathe these in but they can also be absorbed through your skin. I cannot stress this in stronger terms:
These chemicals can make you sterile, they can create cell mutations causing birth defects in unborn children. They can cause cancer.
Shop anyone who suggests you work on these sites without proper safety gear to the Health and Safety executive immediately.
These sites are safe if done properly but there must be no corner cutting. All members of staff should be safety-inducted on day one, given safety equipment and instructions on how to use it.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
Moley- I`m in your canoe mate. Seems to me that field ops are expected to turn a blind eye when the grown ups simply can`t be bothered or worse, write a child-like excuse for a risk assessment. I said this before but here goes anyway...any employer that neglects their HS obligations are just spitting in our faces. It`s bad enough that sh*t rolls downhill but it seems that it also has the propensity of floating to the top too. One thing that concerns me at the moment is this fad of producing generic risk assessments where grown ups are simply prompted to tick appropriate boxes. This is not an assessment, this is a side-step. As you rightly say, ex industrial sites (and some rural) have the real potential to pose some very serious threats to the well-being of those working on them. Here`s a couple of points I think are worthy of discussion. For one, how many grown-ups in managerial archaeology are actually qualified to write risk assessments? Who, within the overall loop, can insist upon them in the same way as project designs/method statements? Finally, why the f*ck have I only seen eleven of them in eight years work? (I wrote most of them) and finally-finally, who the hell do these units/individuals think they are? Not only are they breaking the law-they are placing workers in dangerous positions while they continue to pretend that they are incredibly important and competent archaeologists. I have no qualms about going toe to toe with grown ups that err on the side of pig-ignorance in HS. Again-curators out there....can someone please insist that the ALGAO handbook on HS should be held on site every time as a condition? May save some bloodied noses...... 
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2004
Ultimately every individual has a responsibility to look after themselves.
You should not rely on the competence of others for your safety, whatever the legal position - they are your bollacks after all.
Don't be sheeplike and expect people to care for your safety or look after your interests - they don't.
If you feel uneasy about anything - stop and get some proper advice from the HSE - they are always interested in site conditions.
Mind you, speaking as a former grown-up - you can train people, supply information and safety gear, undertake daily site inspections, walk the staff round and point out hazards, and shout 'put that freeking hat on' 10 times a day for 12 months (I have done this), and at least 20% of your staff will ignor you. And, no-one uses the handwashing facilities before eating...
Supervisors and consultants can get bad press, and a bit of a kicking on this site on occasion, but having to work with a load of sullen unco-operative incompetents with a limited outlook can be even more tiresome than having an irritating or useless boss 
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
Pete-agreed on all counts. It has to be said however that employers have legal obligations underpinned by a duty of care. A culture of pro-active HS on site has to start with them. How am I supposed to be aware of chemical risk for example if the grown ups actively choose to ommit this from their assessment? If indeed, an assessment has even been considered-let alone carried out. Another concern is where units are working on live construction sites. There is always a nasty grey area where our risk assessments do not overlap with that of the developer. Time and time again, I have been on sites where we all toe the line in our own little empires only to find crane drivers sweeping badly loaded slings over our heads and muppet sun readers driving dumpers erratically in a pubescent attempt at impressing the lady archaeologists. All I ask for is that our employers follow the law and fulfill their duty of care. I do take on board however the point that HS is a personal as well as a collective responsibility. That said, you ca`nt take me to court for falling down a hole but, you can (and should) take an employer to court for crass negligence.  p.s what hand -washing facilities? Actually, what facilities? I raised the issue of the almost complete lack of (HS) professionalism in commercial archaeology when I attended the joint IFA/PROSPECT conference. A general feeling of shock and surprise was expressed...shows how far removed from reality they both are and further, as nothing has changed, a good illustration of how HS is paid nothing but lip service in "professional" archaeology despite legislation to the contrary.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2005
Yeah, right on Troll, all too often we take every precaution we can only to get some P***k disregarding his bit and putting us all in danger!!
deep
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2004
The moral and legal weight is on the employer - but site workers let themselves down badly here by carrying on, either unaware or uncaring of potential dangers.
You are perfectly entitled to down tools and walk off if you are worried about something - it is irresponsible not to.
You may get a reputation as a troublemaker, but your employer will be the one facing potentially imprisonable offences, and HSE have similar investigative powers to Customs and Excise, in that I think they can kick your door down and remove all your documents without asking first.
and beat you with rubber truncheons...
|
