BEFORE THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD OF



                          THE STATE OF OREGON



                           HEARINGS DIVISION



Oregon Occupational Safety &                                    
     Health Division			) Docket No:  SH-95164

					)

		Plaintiff,		)

					)

		vs.			)  Citation No:  B3184-032-95

					)

	CITY OF BEAVERTON		)

					)

		Defendant.		)  OPINION AND ORDER



	Hearing was held in Portland, Oregon, on Wednesday, November
15, 1995, with Harris reporting.  Or-OSHA was represented by
Marilyn Harbur, Assistant Attorney General.  George Fetzer, the
Risk Manager for the City of Beaverton, represented the
defendant.  Exhibits 1-12 were admitted into evidence.  The
record was closed on day of hearing.  



ISSUE:



	Whether the City of Beaverton was required to guard the
operating part of a paper drill under 29 CFR 1910.212(a)(3)
(ii), on appeal of item 2 of the citation?  At hearing, the
defendant withdrew its appeal of item 1 of the citation.



FINDINGS OF FACT:



	1.  At all relevant times, the City of Beaverton was an Oregon
employer, subject to the Or-OSHA standards.



	2.  On January 23, 1995, William Brumm, a safety compliance
officer with Or-OSHA conducted a routine safety inspection of
the City of Beaverton as an employer that came up on OSHA's
inspection list.  



	3.  While conducting his inspection, compliance officer Brumm
noticed that the paper drill did not contain a guard on the
drill operating area.  He prepared a violation report that
resulted in the issuance of citation No. B3184-032-95, with the
violation cited as Item 2.  



	4.  No penalty was assessed for violation of item 2 because of
the low probability of injury and the low seriousness of any
injury.



OPINION:



	OR-OSHA contends that the defendant was required to guard the
paper drill found in the defendant's reproduction area under
29CFR 1910,212(a)(3)(ii).  This standard provides:



"The point of operation of machines whose operation
exposes an employee to injury, shall be guarded.  The guarding
device shall be in conformity with any appropriate standards
therefor, or, in the absence of applicable specific standards,
shall be so designed and constructed as to prevent the operator
from having any part of his body in the danger zone during the
operating cycle."



	A "guard" is defined by OAR 437-02-242 (32) as "a barrier that
prevents entry of the operator's hands or fingers into the point
of operation."



	The defendant contends that there was no exposure to danger
because the paper drill had a motor driven drill, but was
operated by a foot lever by the employee using the drill so that
the operator controlled the operation, the paper in the machine
was held down by a clamp so that there was no reason for an
employee to put his hands in the drill and as a general rule,
the employees did not put their hands near the drill during
operation.  The defendant further argued that after the
inspection, it had tried a temporary cardboard guard, but it
interfered with the drill's operation.



	The compliance officer said that from his experience with
similar paper drills, they are guarded by Plexiglas that are
mounted on the front of the machines, they do not interfere with
the operation of the machine, and they protect workers from
injuring their hands by a cuts or other minor injuries as when a
worker would reach into the machine to straighten paper. 
Because the operator controlled the lowering of the drill by a
foot pedal and because the likelihood of injury was low and the
injury that would occur not likely serious,  he assessed no
fine.   Even the defendant admitted that the manual for the
machine and the notice on the machine warned people of the
danger of injuring themselves with the drill.   While the
citation was for a general violation in guarding the point of
operation of the machine and there was no specific standard for
guarding the paper drilling machine, I find that OR-OSHA has
shown that the employer did violate the general standard in that
it did have an unguarded point of operation of the paper drill
machine that would expose employees to danger of injury, however
minor.



ORDER:



	IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Citation No.B3184-032-95 is
affirmed.



	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 Portland, Oregon, November 22, 1995



				Workers' Compensation Board

				VINITA J. NEAL

				Administrative Law Judge