Rank: Super forum user 
|
Good morning all,
Archaeological works are currently taking place on a site I am involved with. The works are outside of the construction phase so CDM 2015 doesn’t apply.
Prior to the above works, UXO assessments had been undertaken in line with CIRIA 681 and detailed survey techniques commissioned by the client. Removal of a number of UXOs carried out and the site given a ‘clearance certificate.’
All sounds good!
The archaeologists then took control of the site on the basis of the above, but during their works further UXOs have been discovered. Control measures include a specialist ‘Watching Brief’ on site full time and measures are in place to address any anomalies found.
Clearly the preceding survey(s) did not capture all UXOs, I’m not sure what technique(s) were used (Magnetometer, GPR etc.?). Subsequently the specialist has carried out its own Magnetometer survey of the site and the site still appears littered with possible UXOs based on the readings!
My question is…..
Should this project now go back to a full UXO clearance exercise taking precedence over the archaeological investigation. The archaeological team to stand-down or be temporarily re-assigned. Therefore, archaeological presence on site during the site clearance as the ‘Watching Brief’ as opposed to the other way round? My belief and understanding is that safety should always take precedence, incl. archaeology. On the basis of risk I feel this would be the right course of action to propose.
Needless to say the archaeology programme is suffering huge stand-down and costs whilst exposed UXOs are being dealt with. I look forward to your thoughts.
Simon
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Simon, I have no specific knowledge of either UXO or archaeology. However, assume you suspect asbestos or mercury or benzene to be present in the work area - what would you do?
By my thinking, each of these hazards must be adequately dealt with to render the site safe for work and my examples give a chance to retreat before significant exposure. A sizable bang does not offer a second chance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
An assessment has identified the presence of unexploded ordnance whose condition is likely to have deteriorated over time - given such materials are present their safe disposal / neutralisation must take precedence over any other activity regardless of any damage to the archaeology of the site. Without being flippant the only employer who should be sending people to knowingly work in the vicinity of unexploded ordnance are the MoD
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
An assessment has identified the presence of unexploded ordnance whose condition is likely to have deteriorated over time - given such materials are present their safe disposal / neutralisation must take precedence over any other activity regardless of any damage to the archaeology of the site. Without being flippant the only employer who should be sending people to knowingly work in the vicinity of unexploded ordnance are the MoD
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Well the original survey wasn’t very good was it? The report
should describe what method was used and against what standard .it should make it
clear whether ground works can proceed in this area and it hasn’t. The client
should get the original surveyors back and get them to do the survey right.
Until that time all archaeological work should stop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I worked on a project some years ago where there was a high likelihood of UXOs is some areas. A permanent UXO team were present for all excavations. If I recall correctly it was permitted to dig 1 metre before the area was re-scanned by the UXO team.
This might work where excavations are fairly shallow or infrequent, not so sure for archaelogical digs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.