THE STATE OF OREGON

                           HEARINGS DIVISION

Oregon Occupational Safety &                                    
  Health Division			)  Docket No: SH92014 

		Plaintiff		)  CITATION NO: C963303191


		Defendant		)  OPINION AND ORDER

	Pursuant to notice, a hearing was convened and closed on August
6, 1992, in Medford, Oregon, before the undersigned referee.
Plaintiff, Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Division ("OR
OSHA"), was represented by Mr. Norman Kelley, Assistant Attorney
General. Defendant, Naumes, Inc., was represented by Mr. Peter
Naumes and Mr. Royal Inman. Exhibits 1 through 8, including A
and 5A, were received in evidence.


	Whether defendant violated OAR 437-1470-20(1), as set forth in
Item 1-1.

                      PRELIMINARY MATTERS

	At the beginning of the hearing, the parties informed me that
OR OSHA was rescinding and withdrawing the alleged violation set
forth in Item 2-2. Furthermore, defendant clarified that it was
not contesting and admitted to the violation set forth in Item

                         FINDINGS OF FACT

	Defendant owns and operates five farm labor camps. The camp at
South Stage Road has a well. The well is the source of drinking
water. On August 9, 1991, defendant hired a consultant to test
the purity of the water. The test results indicated that the
water was not contaminated. Ex. A.

	On or about August 19, 1991, the camp was occupied by farm
workers for the harvest season. An OR OSHA scheduled inspection
of the camp's water supply took place on September 12, 1991. The
inspection was conducted by OR OSHA Safety Officer, Ms. Garnet
Cooke. At the time of the inspection, 33 farm laborers were
working at the camp.

	The sample of water taken by Cooke underwent laboratory
analysis by a consultant. The test results indicated bacterial
contamination from both coliform and fecal coliform. Ex. 412.

	After learning that its water was contaminated, defendant
promptly remedied the situation. On October 7, 1991, it
commissioned another water purity test. The test results
revealed that the contamination was no longer present. Ex. 5A.

	OR OSHA cited defendant on October 24, 1991. Defendant was
unaware of the Oregon Administrative Rules set forth in Chapter
437, Division 112.


1. Cooke is an expert in Industrial Hygiene.

2. Peter Naumes, if called as a witness, would have testified
that: (1) defendant took the prior occupancy water sample and it
passed; (2) as soon as defendant was notified by OR OSHA that it
had failed the September 12, 1991 water purity test, defendant
found the problem and remedied it; and (3) defendant was
operating under Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 437,
Division 147. It did not have a copy of Division 112, however,
and does not see that Division 112 required it to obtain two
water sample tests.

3. On or about August 19, 1991, the camp was occupied by farm
labor workers for the harvest season.


OAR 437-147-020(1) states: "All domestic water furnished at labor camps shall conform to the required standards for purity as required in OAR, Chapter 437, Division 112, Water and Sanitation, which sets specific limits on the presence of certain substances in water supplies." Likewise, OAR 437-112-020(2) provides: "If the presence of coliform organisms are detected during the bacteriological analysis of a water sample, the water supply from which the sample was taken shall be considered contaminated."
Here, there is no dispute that coliform organisms were detected in the September 12, 1991 water samples of defendant's water supply. It, therefore, was contaminated and, in violation of OAR 437-147-020(1), did not conform with the required standards for purity. Defendant argued that it was conscientious and did not act unreasonably. I agree. However, the reasonableness of defendant's actions are not at issue. State of Oregon safety rules require operators of farm labor camps to ensure safe drinking water. Although defendant made reasonable efforts to comply with those rules, it fell short. Its water supply was, in fact, contaminated. A citation and penalty is one of the hazards of doing business. Accordingly, I conclude that defendant violated OAR 437-147-020(1) as set forth in Item 1-1. I further conclude based on the credible and reliable testimony of Cooke, that the violation was serious. Therefore, the $150 penalty was appropriate. ORDER IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Item 1-1 in the October 24, 1991 Citation and the associated $150 penalty, are approved and upheld. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that OROSHA has rescinded and withdrawn the alleged violation set forth in Item 2-2 in the October 24, 1991 Citation. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Item 2-3 in the October 24, 1991 Citation and the associated $75 penalty, are upheld and approved. NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES: You are entitled to judicial review of this Order. Proceedings for review are to be instituted by filing a petition in the Court of Appeals, Supreme Court Building, Salem, Oregon 97310, within 60 days following the date this Order is entered and served as shown hereon. The procedure for such judicial review is prescribed by ORS 183.480 and ORS 183.482. ENTERED at Salem, Oregon, on Sept. 3, 1992 WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD By KIRK SPANGLER, REFEREE