Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
4th October 2006, 12:17 AM
Just wondering what mitigation procedures should be in place if someone is instructed to work on a site that is awash with used needles. Should the site be cleared by professionals before anyone is asked to carry out excavation, evaluation etc etc. I've been looking at the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Act 2002 but was wondering if anyone one has direct experience of working in this type of environment and what procedures were in place (if any)to ensure the safety of staff on site.Just asking on behalf of a worried collegue.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
4th October 2006, 01:45 AM
I have had to deal with this on a number of occassions. I suggest but accept no liability for the advice ....
1. Refer to organisation's safety officer straight away.
2. Do not work on said land until the matter has been dealt with.
3. In particular to not have contact with the ground ie kneeling etc unless it clear and obvious that no needles are present.
For the safety officer.
1. Refer to employer - the site has to be totally secured
2. The council will do a sweep of the site removing needles
In general do not assume that if a sweep has been done that the place will be needle free.
If you are doing building recording:
Proceed with caution but only in good light provided that you are wearing strong leather etc shoes.
Another hazard is that the needle users may be present.....
This should all be covered in the risk assessment and in fact is easy to deal with at least in theory.
This is the type of information we should share as an industry.
Dr Peter
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2006
4th October 2006, 01:50 PM
I have also dealt with this concerning building recording and I disagree with Dr Peter on this one (although I assume you meant after a council sweep). The council sweeps are not generally very comprehensive if the building is, in fact, awash with needles (in my experience).
You should leave the building immediately and await instruction from the client as to when the site is needle free. What if you fall over and catch your hand on a needle? What if the substances within the needles get embedded into your boots and you trail them everywhere? Drug users also use tricks by leaving needles on door hinges at the top (so I'm told) so will spray people coming along with their contents. All grim stuff, but reality.
I certainly would not be proceeding with building recording unless all needles had been removed and (as is often the case) if it is in a known 'drug den' then make sure there are at least two people working in the bulding and that one of them (sorry ladies this is just me) is a bloke, or better still a representative from the client.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
4th October 2006, 01:58 PM
Whilst working on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link project in London we were instructed during the initial project H&S briefing about the dangers of drug related equipment being uncovered/discovered during excavation work. The CTRL policy was for a trained person with a 'sharps' container and the appropriate picking up equipment to be on each working site. Needless to say appropriate PPE including sturdy gloves and eye protection was to be worn whereever there might be a danger of coming across needles.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
4th October 2006, 02:10 PM
Dr Peter gave the main piece of advice required here - don't go onto the land.
Under the Health & Safety at Work Act all employers have to provide a safe working environment - land strewn with drug-using paraphernalia cannot be considered to be safe.
Your employer should request that the client / landowner clean the site up before any archaeological work commences. I wouldn't bother involving the council unless the land is council-owned. The site should be secured in order to prevent drug users from continuing to use it.
Beamo
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
4th October 2006, 02:34 PM
can only agree with the above... If there is even one or two nedles, the land is unsafe.. Thre is nothing on this earth that would have me in an enviroment where needles are present...
Bloody dangerous... (even one site where in the undergrowth, how nice... a drug user who had hung themselves and gently decayed off the noose... nobody had noticed, until developement time...!)
kevin points out a further precaution... no matter how well it is cleared... be prepared for the one they missed... ! It only takes one... and just becasue you are told it is safe... does not mean it is. This is your life we are talking about here.
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
4th October 2006, 07:37 PM
It is worth noting that leaving the land should have no consequences for the archaeological unit. If the client has not provided a safe site, the contractor should leave until the client makes it safe. If this means that the unit has staff not being used, clever units will have made sure that there are standing time clauses in the contract.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
5th October 2006, 04:47 AM
Interesting discussion. I recently bacame aware of a university dig where sudent volunteers were required to excavate soil layers contaminated with broken asbestos. No protective clothing or masks were supplied and the students were not alerted to the potential hazards until midway through the excavation.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
5th October 2006, 09:27 AM
Uncle Andy, which site? Lang Park Stadium?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
6th October 2006, 08:24 AM
actually an Australian site. But I would be interested in knowing how this situation was dealt with elsewhere, as the students involved are understandably reluctant to take action for fear of recriminations. The most disturbing part is that this material was uncovered in a previous seasons dig and the directors were still content to return without taking any precautions.
