BEFORE THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD OF



                          THE STATE OF OREGON



                           HEARINGS DIVISION



Oregon Occupational Safety &

  Health Division			)  Docket No: SH89250

		Plaintiff		)  Citation No. M84120748

		vs			)

COLUMBIA HELICOPTER			)  

		Defendant		)  OPINION AND ORDER



	This is a contested case under the Oregon Safe Employment Act
ORS Chapter 654. The matter came on for hearing in Portland
February 22 1990. Plaintiff Oregon Occupational Safety  & Health
Division (OSHA) was represented by counsel Stephanie Smythe
assistant attorney General. Defendant Columbia Helicopter was
represented by counsel Richard  Humphreys Jr.



	Documentary evidence consists of a packet of 7 documents
described and indexed by an exhibit index which documents were
admitted into evidence as Exhibits 17.



                         FINDINGS OF FACTS



	Defendant/employer was cited July 10 1989 for violation of the
Oregon Safe Employment Act in that while engaged in helicopter
logging the landing drop zone was only 45 feet from the
loading/decking area,   instead of the minimum required 125 feet
violation  of OAR 437-80-350(7).



	The penalty for this violation is $1 000 using Table 1 of OAR
437-01-145. That penalty was reduced by 20% to $800 as the
employer was immediately taking the necessary steps; to correct
the violation.



	At the time the Safety Compliance officer Mr. McCarthy
inspected the logging site the helicopter was on the ground as
the air was; to hot for flying. The Safety Officer was advised
that the helicopter had been in use earlier that day.



	Exhibit 6  consists of photographs which depict the landing and
loading zones of the logging operation. The safety Officer
testified that the front-end loader was about 45 feet from the
drop zone and that the orange-colored vehicle was about 75 feet
from the drop zone.



	When a helicopter unloads logs they are not gently laid or the
ground. When one end of the load touches the ground the logs are
released. There would be a certain amount of rolling and
shifting involved in this type of operation.



	The defendant/employer concluded that the orange-colored loader
was not ill any danger because the log pile was between it and
the drop zone and would serve as a barrier. However, with wind
surges and down drafts even the 75 feet would not be a constant.



	None of defendant's  were brought to the hearing as witness's
by defendant.



	The pile of logs shown in the middle of the picture in logging
parlance is called a cold deck.



	The Safety Officer has been with OSHA for about 20 years.
Before that he had about 10 years experience working in various
capacities as a logger.



                     ULTIMATE FINDINGS OF FACT 



	On the day of the Safety Officer's inspection the loading area
and deck area were less than 125 feet from the drop zone.



                    OPINION AND CONCLUSIONS Of LAW



The(! rule! for which defendant was cited for violating reads ''The landing drop zone shall be not less than one hundred twenty-five (125) feet from the loading or decking area OAR 437-80-350(7)."
It is clear from the Safety Officer's testimony as well as the photographs that the drop zone! was considerably less then the! 125 feet from the loading/decking area as mandated by the safety regulation. Defendant's attempt to impeach the Safety Officer was unsuccessful. None of the people on the job the day the inspection was made was called as a witness by defendant. Defendant argued the chart drawn by the Safety Officer on page 3 of Exhibit 5 reveals that at times the front-end loader would be l50 feet from the drop zone. that may be so. However, that factor does not negate the charge! that much (if not most) of the working area was considerably less than 125 feet from the drop zone. After giving consideration to all the evidence I conclude the citation and penalty ought to be approved. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the citation of July 10 1988 together with the $800 penalty be, and the same hereby are, approved and affirmed. Defendant's request for relief therefrom is denied and this matter is dismissed.. NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES: If you are dissatisfied with this Order you may, not later than sixty (60) days after the mailing date on this Order request a review by the Court of Appeals third floor Justice Building Salem OR 97310 pursuant to ORS 183.480 and 183.482. A request for review shall be mailed to the Court of appeals at the above address with copies of such request mailed to) all other parties s to this proceeding. Failure to mail such a request for review within sixty (60) days after the mailing date of this; Order will result in LOSS OF Right T0 APPEAL FROM THIS ORDER. Entered at Portland and Oregon on MAR 16, 1990 WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD H. DON FINK Referee e