This is not a new area of debate to those in this sector / discipline. However, recently I had received conflicting messages from the HSE regarding CDM applicability to AW.

My own interpretation is that CDM does apply... where AW are carried out in preparation to an intended future structure. This interpretation was supported by one of the HSE's team. However, another of the HSE's team stated that 'CDM does not apply to AW'.

I am looking for further clarification from the HSE regarding the above conflict, in the meantime, one for debate!

Simon

Looking at CDM 2007 and the definition of construction work in Reg 2 I would say, no CDM does not apply to AW.

However applying the principles of CDM would help to ensure the health, safety and welfare of those doing the AW.

For example, if you have a team of say three people working in an area to uncover some 'old stuff' you need to have a safe system of work to do so and will probably need to protect the site from external damage on behalf of whoever the client is with a boundary fence. They may need to dig excavations that require supporting so you will need competent people who understand how and when to do this so it might need some sort of design work. They will also need to know if there are underground services, so whoever you are doing the work on behalf of will need to provide this information. Also if plant is used, you need to ensure competence before rushing off and hiring a small excavator. They will need to have an understanding of other potential hazards and what control measures there are. They will also need some sort of welfare provision etc, etc.

If you were called onto a construction site by a Client to do something like this the Principal Contractor would expect that a competent AW team would be able to prepare a risk assessment and method statement outlining how they intended to carryout their work. Once agreed and approved the PC would allow the team to complete the works. The PC would also be expected to provide relevant information to the AW team to help ensure their H&S as well as inducting them.

IMO based on the extract from Reg 2 below the excavation work is not in preparation or relation to any construction works.

There are shed loads of other Regs that apply hence the SSOW based on requirements of MHSWR but a requirement of CDM as well.


“construction work” means the carrying out of any building, civil engineering or engineering construction work and includes—
(a) the construction, alteration, conversion, fitting out, commissioning, renovation, repair, upkeep, redecoration or other maintenance (including cleaning which involves the use of water or an abrasive at high pressure or the use of corrosive or toxic substances), de-commissioning, demolition or dismantling of a structure;
(b) the preparation for an intended structure, including site clearance, exploration, investigation (but not site survey) and excavation, and the clearance or preparation of the site or structure for use or occupation at its conclusion;
(c) the assembly on site of prefabricated elements to form a structure or the disassembly on site of prefabricated elements which, immediately before such disassembly, formed a structure;
(d) the removal of a structure or of any product or waste resulting from demolition or dismantling of a structure or from disassembly of prefabricated elements which immediately before such disassembly formed such a structure; and
Executive
(e) the installation, commissioning, maintenance, repair or removal of mechanical, electrical, gas, compressed air, hydraulic, telecommunications, computer or similar services which are normally fixed within or to a structure,

Simon

I see where you are coming from, however unless the excavations the AW teams have dug are used as the foundation trenches its still not construction work, just some prelimiary work carried out to ensure any historically important data is not lost for all time.

I fully agree with Winter: archeologocical excavations are not construction activities per the CDM regulations. Their primary purpose in to assist in the location and removal of artefacts and physical remains. The fact that a structure will be constructed there at a later date is a separate issue.

I would say any AW is relevant here:

(b) the preparation for an intended structure, including site clearance, exploration, investigation (but not site survey) and excavation, and the clearance or preparation of the site or structure for use or occupation at its conclusion;

The AW is not just to discover and remove artefacts; for example there may be gravesites there which could have voids as large as 1 cub.m., clearly any such possible hazard must be found and made safe before vehicles, scaffolding etc are brought on site.

Simon

I dont think we will agree on this issue but consider this; if you dig four AW holes 2m long, 1m wide and 1m deep in the middle of the proposed site for a large building that once you have mapped whatever's in the bottom the client says, ''thanks leave them open as I have construction work starting here next week and the some of the spoil from the foundations from the 20x20x20x20mx1.5m trench being dug can be thrown in and compacted'', would you still consider your AW work to be the preparation for an intended structure?

You still need to plan the work to ensure it is done safely and complies with various legislative requirements but I dont believe in this case CDM 2007 is one of them, but following them wouldnt do any harm.

Is grave digging covered under CDM?

Genuine question, I dont know the answer.

Winter, cemetries don't usually have structures built on top of new graves, so grave-digging isn't construction, it's just excavation followed by a lifting/lowering operation, I suppose LOLER might apply :o)

Prob worth reading through the [reference removed] on this very discussion http://webcommunities.hs...tion/view?objectId=30158

However, if a dig is occuring within a CDM site then CDM will clearly come into play.

In my view A-Works are not CDM areas as digging out an unexploded bomb, a body, a radioactive source or buried asbestos are also not CDM works [U can still be using a JCB/Shovel to dig out the body etc. Both of which can be CDM tools but they can be used for other areas]

You can have a situation where on digging a trench for foundations on a CDM job the trench reveals a bomb / AW / a radioactive source, body etc. But when dealing with the find, inclusive of more digging CDM stops - MHSW etc and other laws then apply. Once the 'other' areas are dealt the site is handed back and CDM gets underway again

such possibilities if foreseeable should be covered in the CDM site management system [note that I have not used the word 'plan' as a plan is but part of a management system]

simplessss!

Dear all

The grave bit was an example of a hole, I know we dont dig graves on construction sites. I believe that is what cemetaries are for.

Of course if the work is on a site where CDM is already being applied, it will come under CDM as the AW team will have to work under the control of the PC that is already applying it.

However I believe the initial point of this thread was to decide if CDM applied to all AW work, which in my opinion I strongly believe it doesnt.

Simon

I would suggest you contact 'Time Team' on whatever channel they are on and ask them for their opinion. I think they use safety consultants, however from some of what you see them do it makes you wonder!!

They may be able to finish this debate with a definative expert answer.

Simon

I think you are back to square 1 in terms of getting a definative answer.

I know how I would do things and that would include ensuring that there is a good robust safe system of work in place that included; induction, comptency checks, training for those that needed any, risk assessment, methodology, permits to dig and underground services checks, welfare provision, site security, edge protection as required for holes, access/egress, lighting if required and so on, traffic management plan if there was plant and muck away involved.

There are probably a few more things I have not included that if I sat here for a while and thought carefully would come to the front of my mind.

Evereything mentioned above links back to CDM 2007 as you are planning the works to be done safely

SP

CDM definition of "construction work" = Factories Act 1961 definition of "building operation" + definition of "work of engineering construction" (as extended by two codes of regulations) + when CDM being drafted added a couple of bits of text to cover things which were seen as being loopholes, e.g. dismantling of very large items of plant akin to demolishing a building.

So, when the courts come to interpreting "construction work" should have reference to the judgments as to what constituted a "building operation".

In general anything that anything necessary but ancillary to the "building operation" is itself part of the "building operation". Numerous cases including Horsley v Collier and Catley Ltd [1965] 2 All E.R. 423 and [1965] 1 W.L.R. 1359. Page 506 of my 1976 edition of "Redgrave's Health and Safety in Factories" (by far the most common page I open up in either that edition of 2010 edition!!!)

So, for example major new build road scheme - won't proceed without various site investigations including AW, so in my view the AW forms part of the overall "construction work".

Personally, if it's archaeological dig just as an academic enquiry - ie a green field, someone wants to discover what the Romans got up to there, then I'd say CDM does not apply.

However, if it's an archaeological investigation because that's a condition of the permissions for going on to do building works - ie, someone wants a building, and an investigation has therefore been required, then I'd say it's clearly "preparation for an intended structure, including ... exploration, investigations ... and excavation".

I've worked on two projects recently with archaeological investigation in the enabling works and all parties agreed that it fell under the CDM of the whole project (at least, no-one queried the assumption that it did).

The Health and Safety Commission published Draft Guidance (Managing Health and Safety in Construction) Annex B, prior to the ACoP for the CDM Regulations. This Guidance existed from 2005 until 2007. On page 65 it specifically excluded Archeological Works from the definition of "construction work". At the HSC meeting on the 17 October 2006 the Draft Guidance was accepted in full as the basis of the proposed ACoP.

In the text book "CDM 2007 - Questions and Answers" (published by Butterworth Heinemann) Archeological Investigations are also excluded from the definition of "Construction Work". The author is a former H&S inspector and CDMC.

The debate continues :-)

SP,

In the past on a housing project where the house builders have provided hoarding and welfare facilities well before any construction occurred, I have issued an F10 with the archaeologists identified as the Principal Contractor as they were clearly supervising their own site. The F10 was in place in order that the HSE knew what was taking place behind the hoarding.

I have also worked on projects where demolition has previously taken place and where archaeology is taking place alongside ground preparation works and on that occasion CDM Regulations clearly did apply.

Looking at Regulation 2 (1) b Interpretation for “construction work”

(b) the preparation for an intended structure, including site clearance, exploration, investigation (but not site survey) and excavation, and the clearance or preparation of the site or structure for use or occupation at its conclusion;

Arguably when construction takes place, it falls into this category!

Afternoon All,
Whilst STILL awaiting a response from the HSE (following further targeted phone call and email), what could be the potential outcome(s) if something went horribly wrong during an AW dig (of course no one wants that) in context with this thread.

Let's say the dig is a / multiple deep excavations on an operational site with multiple known hazards. The AW last for 60 days, a team of say a dozen with one or two 360 excavators and dumpers.

The AW are working on the basis of a written letter from the HSE that CDM2007 doesn't apply to AW (which was written prior to 2007) and in consideration to the fact that many construction specialists are divided in their interpretation of the Regulations.

What do you think guys?

Ron, thanks for you response.

I fully understand where you're coming from and, if I looked at the HSE prosecution site, I bet I'd find nothing relating to AW and CDM. As you say, any AW prosecution would probably be brought under another SI.

The scenario set out previously is currently live and therefore real. From the outset, it had around a 10 week programme. As framework CDM-C this has been an interesting concept. I'm not sure I fully agree with your interpretation but am inclined to now lean towards it.

The general consensus (forum contributors) and rationale, in so far as the works are being managed by A N Other mechanism / process is logical. I think this project is therefore unlikely to set a precedence in relation to 'a non CDM compliance.'

I will provide an update if I get a formal response from the HSE, until then, thanks all.

So CDM does sometimes apply - but 'only' in 90% of cases.

Well done getting a comment out of HSE.

I wish this kind of thing (and the 'can employees contribute to upgrade their PPE' question) would make it onto something more formal than "I read on teh web a post by someone that someone at HSE said x y z". I'm not doubting Simon's word, but it's not exactly a definitive cite, and when I need to quote something to someone in (say) 18 months time...

Simon, please don't misunderstand - I genuinely think the clarification you've managed to get is brilliant - it's great when someone does get some guidance from HSE and shares it here. It's frustration with HSE, not you. Even if you do provide names for who said what, it's still just "I read on a discussion forum on the internet..." and nothing you can do changes that.

They should know that most AW is part of construction, if they didn't they should never have said CDM did not apply, and having said that and then discovered that it did in most cases, they shouldn't have just quietly dropped it from a 'does not apply' list. All IMO, of course.