Quarry firm prosecuted following serious hand injury

Dimension stone company fined after employee loses two fingers due to unguarded drilling rig

A QUARRY company has been fined after an employee lost two fingers when his hand came into contact with a drill fitted to a hydraulic excavator at a dimension stone quarry. The worker was directing the drilling operation while a colleague operated the controls in the excavator, when his glove became entangled around the rotating drill causing the amputation.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive into the incident, which occurred on 16 January 2014 at Lingberry Quarry, near Staindrop, Co. Durham, found that the preventative measures taken by the company to control the risks were not adequate or suitable.

Peterlee Magistrates’ Court heard that a guard had not been fitted to the drill which could have prevented the accident. The only control in place was a single trip wire fitted to one side of the drill mast.

However, as the employee was being twisted against the opposite side of the mast to the trip wire, he was unable to activate the device. It was a number of seconds before the excavator operator became aware of the situation and stopped the drill.

Robert Thomas Charlton (trading as Border Stone Quarries) pleaded guilty to a charge under Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment 1998 for failing to prevent access to dangerous parts of equipment. He was fined £7,200 and ordered to pay costs of £27,000.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Specialist Quarries Inspector Mike Tetley said this was an accident that could easily have been prevented.

‘The expected guarding standard for this type of machine working in this environment would be an interlocked guard, as frequent access to the drill was required. There are established legal requirements relating to machinery guarding and these are complemented by HSE and industry-specific guidance,’ said Mr Tetley.

He added: ‘Entanglement in the rotating parts of drilling rigs has caused fatalities and serious injuries including amputations, as in this case. These are known risks and need to be appropriately controlled by companies operating this type of equipment.’