Hazardous waste on sites

[Digger]

Lang Park (now ANZ?) stadium IS in Brisbane.

[beamo]

Uncle Andy

If this had occurred in the UK there would be several prosecutions pending against the University and their staff, and also the landowner.

Although the students may not technically be 'employed' by the University, employment law relating to H & S is usually couched in such a way that it covers non-employees that are at risk from the employer's activities. The University will also have a general 'duty of care' towards all students, and there would be the possibility of bringing a case of 'gross negligence' if it could be shown that the university staff were aware of the hazard but chose to deal with it in an irresponsible manner.

Any removal of asbestos should have been carried out under the Hazardous Waste Regulations 2005.

There would also be a case against the University and the landowner regarding failure to prevent the spread of a pollutant and to notify the correct authorities (Environmental Protection Act II)


Beamo

[deepdigger]

Needle proof gloves and trousers are available, I'll post a link if I can find it!

deep

[uncle andy]

Sorry Digger, site was in Vic, not too familiar with BrisVegas.

Thanks Beamo, the legislation appears to be similar here. There is an ombudsman looking into the matter, so we will see what happens.

[troll]

Greetings Uncle Andy! Would`nt be talking about the very same grown-up in charge of students that placed students in precarious situations recently would we?

Needles, UXBs, contaminated ground.Whatever.Walk off site and don`t return until you have a piece of paper in your hands that demonstrates that the issue has been dealt with by a professional.Always ask to see a site/phase/task specific risk assessment and, a method statement prior to setting foot on site. Beware- I had asked on this forum some time ago if commercial units in the UK routinely carried out both a previous site-use analysis and a raft of chemical tests in order to determine contamination risk prior to fieldwork. The overwhelming silence would seem to be a resounding "no" then. The truth is- it costs too much. Units will do what they can to increase their profit margins and it is obvious that Human life is not considered in an equal light to budgetry interests. University staff can and do behave in a similarly cavalier fashion. Use students to trash site, make up papers, publish, grow taller. Tiz not uncommon. Student, volunteer, staff or visitor- you all have the same rights. This kind of work practise will only stop when employers are forced to include things like "1.4 million pounds worth of compensation" to each digger who contracted a cancer-related illness during our employ. Refuse then have a word with a nice barrister.Or the media, whatever tickles yer fancy. One thing you should`nt ever do- sacrifice your health in order to make a days pay and guarantee your bosses profit margin.

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[1man1desk]

I don't disagree with the thrust of Troll's comments. Some issues of detail, however.

Under most circumstances, it is the legal responsibility of a client to make sure the site is safe before putting a contractor to work on it, or if there are hazards to make the contractor aware of them. Archaeological contractors should not therefore need to do the type of testing/investigation that Troll suggests.

What they should do, however, is ask their client about the likely presence of any such hazards, and ensure that the client's answer is based on having taken whatever steps are reasonable in the circumstances to find out.

If an unexpected hazard does arise during the work, the unit should take what steps are appropriate to keep their staff safe (including leaving the site if necessary), and they should be able to pass on any extra cost to the client.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[Sparky]

"I don't disagree with the thrust of Troll's comments"

Love it!!!!

[tom wilson]

1M1D is right though, isn't he Sparky? Troll can rant all he likes, but archaeological contractors aren't responsible for the sites they send staff onto, only for the staff themselves. If the site is dangerous, down tools and contact the client. It's for the client to make the site safe, for us and all of the other subbies. Do you really think the plasterers and chippies and brickies etc. etc. all expect their companies to do the same H&S investigations over and over? I don't think so.

All this knee-jerk damn-the-bosses nonsense gets a little tiresome after a while.

'Have a good plan, execute it violently, do it today'.
General MacArthur

[uncle andy]

Hello Troll, hows things? Sorry I cant catch up with you next year, got a bit on down here,.

No, it wasnt the same person we are talking about.

In response to Toms comment about blaming the bosses, in the case that I am familiar with, the project was an academic dig funded by a research grant. In such a situation, Troll is entirely correct. The buck does stop with the dig director, and in my opinion, to expect students to dig, uninformed of the dangers and without protective gear, while he sits back in the artefact tent, is unprofessional and unethical, as well as being blatently illegal. Unfortunately some academics seem quite content to use/abuse students to further their academic careers regardless of how serious the consequences may be.

[tom wilson]

Alright, seems a little hypocritical for me to accuse other people of ranting, I grant you.

However, we are getting somewhat at cross-purposes here, Andy. I would imagine that the academics running the site you refer to carry the responsibilities that the client does in a British commecial environment (as 1M1D described). However generally speaking, archaeological units in the UK do not do contamination surveys because it isn't their job, not because they are evil, money-grabbing tyrants out to destroy our health and heritage in pursuit of the miniscule profit margins available.

'...it is obvious that Human life is not considered in an equal light to budgetary interests...'

???



'Have a good plan, execute it violently, do it today'.
General MacArthur