<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml"
xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word"
xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml"
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">

<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=ProgId content=Word.Document>
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15">
<meta name=Originator content="Microsoft Word 15">
<link rel=File-List href="08-1386_files/filelist.xml">
<link rel=Edit-Time-Data href="08-1386_files/editdata.mso">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<title> Delek Refining, LTD., Docket No. 08-1386</title>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
 <o:DocumentProperties>
  <o:Author>Walter, J. David</o:Author>
  <o:Template>Normal</o:Template>
  <o:LastAuthor>Walter, J. David</o:LastAuthor>
  <o:Revision>2</o:Revision>
  <o:TotalTime>0</o:TotalTime>
  <o:Created>2018-08-03T16:28:00Z</o:Created>
  <o:LastSaved>2018-08-03T16:28:00Z</o:LastSaved>
  <o:Pages>1</o:Pages>
  <o:Words>30334</o:Words>
  <o:Characters>172909</o:Characters>
  <o:Lines>1440</o:Lines>
  <o:Paragraphs>405</o:Paragraphs>
  <o:CharactersWithSpaces>202838</o:CharactersWithSpaces>
  <o:Version>16.00</o:Version>
 </o:DocumentProperties>
 <o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
  <o:AllowPNG/>
 </o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]-->
<link rel=themeData href="08-1386_files/themedata.thmx">
<link rel=colorSchemeMapping href="08-1386_files/colorschememapping.xml">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
 <w:WordDocument>
  <w:TrackMoves>false</w:TrackMoves>
  <w:TrackFormatting/>
  <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
  <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
  <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
  <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
  <w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
  <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
  <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
  <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
  <w:Compatibility>
   <w:BreakWrappedTables/>
   <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
  </w:Compatibility>
  <m:mathPr>
   <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
   <m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
   <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
   <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
   <m:dispDef/>
   <m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
   <m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
   <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
   <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
   <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
   <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
  </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
 <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="false"
  DefSemiHidden="false" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
  LatentStyleCount="375">
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
   UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
   UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
   UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
   UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
   UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
   UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
   UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
   UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="index 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="index 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="index 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="index 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="index 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="index 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="index 7"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="index 8"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="index 9"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
   UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
   UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
   UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
   UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
   UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
   UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
   UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 7"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
   UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 8"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
   UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 9"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Normal Indent"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="footnote text"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="annotation text"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="header"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="footer"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="index heading"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" SemiHidden="true"
   UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="table of figures"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="envelope address"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="envelope return"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="footnote reference"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="annotation reference"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="line number"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="page number"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="endnote reference"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="endnote text"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="table of authorities"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="macro"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="toa heading"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="List"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="List Bullet"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="List Number"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="List 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="List 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="List 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="List 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="List Bullet 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="List Bullet 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="List Bullet 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="List Bullet 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="List Number 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="List Number 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="List Number 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="List Number 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Closing"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Signature"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="true"
   UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Body Text"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Body Text Indent"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="List Continue"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="List Continue 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="List Continue 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="List Continue 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="List Continue 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Message Header"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Salutation"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Date"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Body Text First Indent"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Body Text First Indent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Note Heading"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Body Text 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Body Text 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Body Text Indent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Body Text Indent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Block Text"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Hyperlink"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="FollowedHyperlink"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Document Map"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Plain Text"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="E-mail Signature"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="HTML Top of Form"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="HTML Bottom of Form"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Normal (Web)"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="HTML Acronym"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="HTML Address"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="HTML Cite"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="HTML Code"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="HTML Definition"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="HTML Keyboard"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="HTML Preformatted"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="HTML Sample"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="HTML Typewriter"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="HTML Variable"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Normal Table"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="annotation subject"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="No List"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Outline List 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Outline List 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Outline List 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Simple 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Simple 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Simple 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Classic 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Classic 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Classic 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Classic 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Colorful 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Colorful 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Colorful 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Columns 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Columns 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Columns 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Columns 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Columns 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Grid 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Grid 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Grid 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Grid 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Grid 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Grid 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Grid 7"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Grid 8"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table List 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table List 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table List 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table List 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table List 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table List 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table List 7"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table List 8"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table 3D effects 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table 3D effects 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table 3D effects 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Contemporary"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Elegant"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Professional"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Subtle 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Subtle 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Web 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Web 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Web 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Balloon Text"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="Table Grid"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Theme"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" Name="Revision"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" QFormat="true"
   Name="List Paragraph"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" QFormat="true"
   Name="Intense Quote"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" QFormat="true"
   Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" QFormat="true"
   Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" QFormat="true"
   Name="Subtle Reference"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" QFormat="true"
   Name="Intense Reference"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" SemiHidden="true"
   UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Bibliography"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
   UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="41" Name="Plain Table 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="42" Name="Plain Table 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="43" Name="Plain Table 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="44" Name="Plain Table 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="45" Name="Plain Table 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="40" Name="Grid Table Light"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="Grid Table 1 Light"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52" Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
   Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
   Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
   Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
   Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
   Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
   Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
   Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
   Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
   Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
   Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
   Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
   Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
   Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
   Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
   Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
   Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
   Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
   Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="List Table 1 Light"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="List Table 6 Colorful"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52" Name="List Table 7 Colorful"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
   Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
   Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
   Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
   Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
   Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
   Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
   Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
   Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
   Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
   Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
   Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
   Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
   Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
   Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
   Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
   Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
   Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
   Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Mention"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Smart Hyperlink"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Hashtag"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Unresolved Mention"/>
 </w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<style>
<!--table
	{border-spacing: 0pt;
	empty-cells: show;}
span.WPFLOATSTYLE
	{left:10px;
	position:absolute;
	right:10px;
	visibility:hidden;}

 /* Font Definitions */
 @font-face
	{font-family:"Cambria Math";
	panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
	mso-font-charset:0;
	mso-generic-font-family:roman;
	mso-font-pitch:variable;
	mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Calibri;
	panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;
	mso-font-charset:0;
	mso-generic-font-family:swiss;
	mso-font-pitch:variable;
	mso-font-signature:-536859905 -1073732485 9 0 511 0;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Verdana;
	panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;
	mso-font-charset:0;
	mso-generic-font-family:swiss;
	mso-font-pitch:variable;
	mso-font-signature:-1610610945 1073750107 16 0 415 0;}
@font-face
	{font-family:"French Script MT";
	panose-1:3 2 4 2 4 6 7 4 6 5;
	mso-font-charset:0;
	mso-generic-font-family:script;
	mso-font-pitch:variable;
	mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
 /* Style Definitions */
 p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{mso-style-unhide:no;
	mso-style-qformat:yes;
	mso-style-parent:"";
	margin:0in;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
	mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
	mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
	mso-believe-normal-left:yes;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{mso-style-noshow:yes;
	mso-style-priority:99;
	color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;
	text-underline:single;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{mso-style-noshow:yes;
	mso-style-priority:99;
	color:purple;
	text-decoration:underline;
	text-underline:single;}
p
	{mso-style-noshow:yes;
	mso-style-priority:99;
	margin-top:0in;
	margin-right:0in;
	margin-bottom:.75pt;
	margin-left:0in;
	mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
	mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
	mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
	{mso-style-name:msonormal;
	mso-style-unhide:no;
	margin-top:0in;
	margin-right:0in;
	margin-bottom:.75pt;
	margin-left:0in;
	mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
	mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
	mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;}
span.wpfloatstyle
	{mso-style-name:wpfloatstyle;
	mso-style-unhide:no;
	border:solid black 1.0pt;
	mso-border-alt:solid black .75pt;
	padding:5.0pt;
	background:#FFFFE1;}
span.wpnormal
	{mso-style-name:wpnormal;
	mso-style-unhide:no;
	mso-ansi-font-size:11.0pt;
	mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;
	font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
	mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
	mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
	mso-bidi-font-family:Calibri;
	font-variant:normal !important;
	color:black;
	mso-text-animation:none;
	font-weight:normal;
	font-style:normal;
	text-decoration:none;
	text-underline:none;
	text-decoration:none;
	text-line-through:none;}
.MsoChpDefault
	{mso-style-type:export-only;
	mso-default-props:yes;
	font-size:10.0pt;
	mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
	mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
	{size:8.5in 11.0in;
	margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;
	mso-header-margin:.5in;
	mso-footer-margin:.5in;
	mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
	{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
 /* Style Definitions */
 table.MsoNormalTable
	{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
	mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
	mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
	mso-style-noshow:yes;
	mso-style-priority:99;
	mso-style-parent:"";
	mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
	mso-para-margin:0in;
	mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
	font-size:10.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
</style>
<![endif]--><![if mso 9]>
<style>
p.MsoNormal
	{margin-left:4.45pt;}
</style>
<![endif]>
<meta name=KEYWORDS
content="OSHRC Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
 <o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026"/>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
 <o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
  <o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1"/>
 </o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>

<body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='tab-interval:.5in;
margin-left:4.45pt;margin-right:9.0pt'>

<div class=WordSection1>

<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
var gAgent = navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase()
var gWindows = ( (gAgent.indexOf( "win" ) != -1 ) || ( gAgent.indexOf( "16bit" ) != -1 ) )
var gIE = ( gAgent.indexOf( "msie" ) != -1 )
var bInlineFloats = ( gWindows && gIE && ( parseInt( navigator.appVersion ) >= 4 ) )
var floatwnd = 0

var WPFootnote1 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-align: justify"><span style="font-size: 11pt"><span style="font-family: \'Calibri\', sans-serif"></span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt"><span style="font-family: \'Times New Roman\', serif"> At the time of the alleged violation, this provision was codified at § 1910.1200(f)(5)(i).  The\
substance of the provision now appears at 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1200(f)(6), although the language has\
been amended.  <i>See</i> Hazard Communication, 77 Fed. Reg. 17,574, 17,586, 17,785-86, 17,788 (Mar.\
26, 2012) (final rule).  We will refer to § 1910.1200(f)(5)(i) because that is the provision applicable\
here.</span></span></p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote2 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-align: justify"><span style="font-size: 11pt"><span style="font-family: \'Calibri\', sans-serif"></span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt"><span style="font-family: \'Times New Roman\', serif"> In affirming Item 4, the judge essentially amended the citation by “delet[ing]” factual allegations\
related to two of the PHAs upon which the Secretary originally relied.  The Secretary raises no\
objection to the judge’s amendment.</span></span></p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote3 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-align: justify"><span style="font-size: 11pt"><span style="font-family: \'Calibri\', sans-serif"></span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt"><span style="font-family: \'Times New Roman\', serif"> With respect to these items, we note that Delek does not dispute that the PSM standard applies to\
the process equipment at its Tyler, Texas, facility.  Delek does, however, argue that the Secretary\
failed to establish the company’s knowledge of the violative conditions.  <i>See Astra Pharm. Prods.,\
Inc.</i>, 9 BNA OSHC 2126, 2129, 1981 CCH OSHD ¶ 25,578, pp. 31,899-900 (No. 78-6247, 1981)\
(“[T]he Secretary must show . . . that . . . the cited employer either knew or could have known of\
the condition with the exercise of reasonable diligence.”), <i>aff’d in pertinent part</i>, 681 F.2d 69 (1st\
Cir. 1982).  We disagree.  The record shows that Delek retained several of the prior owner’s\
supervisors when it assumed ownership of the refinery—their actual knowledge of the violative\
conditions at issue, therefore, became Delek’s knowledge.  <i>See Access Equip. Sys., Inc.</i>, 18 BNA\
OSHC 1718, 1726, 1999 CCH OSHD ¶ 31,821, p. 46,782 (No. 95-1449, 1999) (“[K]nowledge can\
be imputed to the cited employer through its supervisory employee.”).  In any event, the record also\
supports the judge’s finding of constructive knowledge here, because “it was not reasonable for [the\
company] . . . to simply rely on [the prior owner’s] representation[s]” regarding the PHA and\
compliance audit items, and so Delek “did not exercise reasonable diligence” in this regard.  <i>Delek\
Refining, Ltd.</i>, No. 08-1386, slip op. at 11, 42 (OSHRC May 9, 2011) (ALJ).</span></span></p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote4 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-align: justify"><span style="font-size: 11pt"><span style="font-family: \'Calibri\', sans-serif"></span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt"><span style="font-family: \'Times New Roman\', serif"> Like Delek, our dissenting colleague overlooks this explicit distinction, as she reads the <i>AKM</i>\
decision as “not limited to the recordkeeping context.”  This is curious, considering that the <i>AKM</i>\
court “simply conclude[d] that the statutory language in Section 657(c) which deals with record-keeping is not authorization for OSHA to cite the employer for a record-making violation more than\
six months after the recording failure.”  675 F.3d at 758.  Perhaps this is why our colleague asserts\
in the alternative that “[w]hile the [<i>AKM</i>] court . . . speculated that there might be cases in which\
the Secretary might prevail on a continuing violations theory, outside of the context of\
recordkeeping violations, the court’s examples were limited” and distinguishable from the\
circumstances here.  This suggestion is simply wrong.  There is no difference between the <i>AKM</i>\
court’s examples and the circumstances here.  Whether an employer continues to expose employees\
to identified, yet unaddressed, process hazards, “continues to subject . . . employees to unsafe\
machines,” or “continues to send . . . employees into dangerous situations without appropriate\
training,” the employer perpetuates a hazardous condition.  <i>Id.</i>  Indeed, five of the PHA items Delek\
did not address were marked “high priority,” one of which, as the judge found, exposed Delek’s\
employees to potential fire and explosion hazards.</span></span></p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote5 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-align: justify"><span style="font-size: 11pt"><span style="font-family: \'Calibri\', sans-serif"></span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt"><span style="font-family: \'Times New Roman\', serif"> The dissent asserts that the statute of limitations begins to run five years after completion of a PHA\
and three years after completion of a compliance audit (based on the PHA and compliance audit\
schedules in the standard), but nothing in the standard indicates that the obligation to conduct a new\
PHA or compliance audit erases the obligation to address previous findings and/or\
recommendations.  Additionally, the dissent posits that the statute of limitations “may [begin]\
run[ning] much sooner based on the specific facts adduced by the parties,” because the Secretary\
has contradicted his position by arguing in a later case that “[t]imely [under § 1910.119(e)(5)] means\
. . . at most one to two years depending on the scope and complexity of the issue . . . and the risk\
posed by the hazard.”  <i>BP Prods. N. Am., Inc.</i>, No. 10-0637, 2013 WL 9850777, at *37 (OSHRC\
Aug. 12, 2013) (ALJ), <i>review pending</i>, No. 10-0637 (OSHRC Sept. 16, 2013).  Contrary to the\
dissent’s claim, the Secretary in the instant case has not suggested that the duty to correct the\
identified problems did not arise until the completion of the PHA or compliance audit schedule—he\
has repeatedly noted that the problems must be corrected “promptly.”  In any event, the issue is not\
when the duty to correct a problem identified in a PHA or compliance audit <i>first arises</i>, but whether\
that duty is <i>continuing</i>.  The Secretary here, as he did in the case the dissent references, asserts that\
the citation is timely not because of when the duty first arose, but because the violation—along with\
employee exposure to identified hazards—persists.</span></span></p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote6 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-align: justify"><span style="font-size: 11pt"><span style="font-family: \'Calibri\', sans-serif"></span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt"><span style="font-family: \'Times New Roman\', serif"> This is not to say that Delek was bound by the findings and recommendations in the PHAs and\
compliance audits conducted by the prior owner—Delek could have conducted its own review and\
developed its own response plan.  But it did not, so its failure to respond violated § 1910.119(e)(5)\
and (o)(4).</span></span></p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote7 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-align: justify"><span style="font-size: 11pt"><span style="font-family: \'Calibri\', sans-serif"></span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt"><span style="font-family: \'Times New Roman\', serif"> In making this argument, Delek relies in part on the testimony of its two experts, who stated that,\
in their opinion, the PPU is not subject to the PSM standard.  We decline to consider this testimony\
as it amounts to a legal opinion.  <i>See Goodman v. Harris County</i>, 571 F.3d 388, 399 (5th Cir. 2009)\
(noting that under Federal Rule of Evidence 704, “an expert may never render conclusions of law”);\
<i>Estate of Mixon v. United States</i>, 464 F.2d 394, 406 (5th Cir. 1972) (“Although this legal opinion\
by the examiners recognized as experts in their particular field[] are quite interesting, we do not find\
them the least bit controlling.”); <i>Erickson Air-Crane, Inc.</i>, No. 07-0645, 2012 WL 762001, at *3 n.7,\
2009-12 CCH OSHD ¶ 33,199, p. 55,760 n.7 (OSHRC Mar. 2, 2012) (finding judge properly\
excluded expert testimony consisting of legal opinion).</span></span></p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote8 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-align: justify"><span style="font-size: 11pt"><span style="font-family: \'Calibri\', sans-serif"></span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt"><span style="font-family: \'Times New Roman\', serif"> Delek’s overly-narrow view of the “process” at issue here is perhaps most clearly demonstrated by\
its argument that in order to qualify as “process equipment,” the PPU must by itself handle\
hydrocarbon vapors in the requisite quantity under the standard.  The PSM standard indeed “applies\
to . . . [a] process which involves a . . . flammable gas . . . or a flammable liquid . . . in a quantity of\
10,000 pounds (4535.9 kg) or more . . . .”  29 C.F.R. § 1910.119(a)(1)(ii).  The standard, though,\
does not require that each piece of equipment involved in the process handle the requisite 10,000\
pounds.  The record shows that the FCC process as a whole contains about 397,000 pounds of\
flammable mixtures.  The amount, then, that actually comes into contact with the PPU, or any other\
constituent part of the process, is immaterial to the applicability issue.</span></span></p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote9 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-align: justify"><span style="font-size: 11pt"><span style="font-family: \'Calibri\', sans-serif"></span></span><span style="font-size: 10pt"><span style="font-family: \'Times New Roman\', serif"> </span></span><span style="font-family: \'Times New Roman\', serif"><span style="font-size: 12pt">Nor do we find merit in Delek’s claim that if the PPU qualifies as a “control”—and as “process\
equipment” more generally—then “any air conditioner in any workplace in the country” would be\
covered by the PSM standard.  The PPU was designed to protect the FCC unit’s control room and,\
therefore, it was designed to be part of the refining process.  Delek’s own Mechanical Integrity\
Manual virtually concedes this point, stating that “[t]he frequency of inspection and testing of\
process piping and equipment shall be consistent with” several standards, and then including\
“[c]ontrol room pressurization” as one of the pieces of equipment to be regularly inspected.  In this\
regard, the PSM standard does not apply to any piece of random equipment that happens to be\
present—it applies to <i>necessary</i> parts of the “process.”</span><span style="font-size: 10pt"></span></span></p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote10 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-align: justify"><span style="font-size: 11pt"><span style="font-family: \'Calibri\', sans-serif"></span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt"><span style="font-family: \'Times New Roman\', serif"> Our dissenting colleague inexplicably accuses us of “rel[ying] primarily” on this letter as somehow\
“expand[ing] the term ‘process,’ ” when our treatment of this letter is obviously limited to rejecting\
Delek’s assertion of inconsistent interpretations of “process” on the part of the Secretary.</span></span></p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote11 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-align: justify"><span style="font-size: 11pt"><span style="font-family: \'Calibri\', sans-serif"></span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt"><span style="font-family: \'Times New Roman\', serif"> As further support for its position, Delek relies on another OSHA interpretation letter, which states\
that “[t]he employer is required to determine the extent of the process used” in deciding “[w]hat\
types of hardware that see contact with explosives are covered by the PSM rule.”  OSHA\
Interpretation Letter from Deputy Director of Compliance Programs H. Berrien Zettler to Sam\
Mannan (May 25, 1994).  This language cannot reasonably be construed as giving the employer\
final say regarding what is covered by the standard.  Rather, it only explains how an employer might\
go about discovering what is and is not covered.</span></span></p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote12 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-align: justify"><span style="font-size: 11pt"><span style="font-family: \'Calibri\', sans-serif"></span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt"><span style="font-family: \'Times New Roman\', serif"> For most of these employees’ thirty years in the FCC unit, the refinery was not owned by Delek. \
The record reflects, however, that Delek used the steam lance in this manner after acquiring the\
refinery.</span></span></p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote13 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-align: justify"><span style="font-size: 11pt"><span style="font-family: \'Calibri\', sans-serif"></span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt"><span style="font-family: \'Times New Roman\', serif"> We note that another provision of the PSM standard, which the Secretary did not cite here, may be\
implicated by the conduct alleged in Item 9(b).  Section 1910.119(f)(1) requires an employer to\
“develop and implement written operating procedures that provide clear instructions for safely\
conducting activities involved in each covered process consistent with the process safety\
information.”  29 C.F.R. § 1910.119(f)(1).  Specifically, operating procedures must address, among\
other considerations, “[n]ormal operations,” “[c]onsequences of deviation [from operating limits],”\
and “[s]teps required to correct or avoid deviation [from operating limits].”  29 C.F.R.\
§ 1910.119(f)(1)(i)-(ii). Because Delek’s use of the steam lance was a regular and recurring practice\
at the refinery, it would appear to qualify as a “[n]ormal operation[]” for which an operating\
procedure should have been, but the record shows was not, developed and implemented.  29 C.F.R.\
§ 1910.119(f)(1)(i)(B).  The lance could be considered a “[s]tep[] required to correct or avoid\
deviation” in operating limits, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119(f)(1)(ii)(B), given that the lance was used to\
keep the regenerator’s shell at a safe operating temperature after a hot spot developed.  Use of the\
steam lance might also qualify as an “[e]mergency operation[],” 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119(f)(1)(i)(E),\
given that it was used when a problem with the refractory arose.  Nonetheless, this provision of the\
PSM standard was not cited by the Secretary and so any potential violation is not before the\
Commission.</span></span></p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote14 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-align: justify"><span style="font-size: 11pt"><span style="font-family: \'Calibri\', sans-serif"></span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt"><span style="font-family: \'Times New Roman\', serif"> The cited provision requires that each covered employer then “promptly address the team’s findings\
and recommendations [from the PHA]; assure that the recommendations are resolved in a timely\
manner and that the resolution is documented; document what actions are to be taken; complete\
actions as soon as possible; [and] develop a written schedule of when these actions are to be\
completed . . . .”  29 C.F.R. § 1910.119(e)(5).</span></span></p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote15 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-align: justify"><span style="font-size: 11pt"><span style="font-family: \'Calibri\', sans-serif"></span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt"><span style="font-family: \'Times New Roman\', serif"> While the original citation also addressed findings from a 2005 PHA, the judge concluded that the\
Secretary failed to bear his burden regarding all items relating to the 2005 PHA.  The 2005 PHA is\
not at issue before the Commission.</span></span></p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote16 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-align: justify"><span style="font-size: 11pt"><span style="font-family: \'Calibri\', sans-serif"></span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt"><span style="font-family: \'Times New Roman\', serif"> <i>Jugaad</i> is a colloquial Hindi word that can mean an innovative fix, or ensuring that things happen\
with minimal or inadequate resources, even if they must happen “by hook or by crook.” E<span style="font-variant: small-caps">lla</span>\
F<span style="font-variant: small-caps">rances</span> S<span style="font-variant: small-caps">anders</span>, L<span style="font-variant: small-caps">ost</span> <span style="font-variant: small-caps">in </span>T<span style="font-variant: small-caps">ranslation</span> (2014). </span></span></p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote17 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-align: justify"><span style="font-size: 11pt"><span style="font-family: \'Calibri\', sans-serif"></span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt"><span style="font-family: \'Times New Roman\', serif"> The judge found no unresolved items from the 1998 PHA.  Additionally, although the judge’s\
decision to affirm this violation was based on unresolved items from PHAs not specified as\
examples in the citation, Delek never objected to the admission of evidence relating to the non-specified PHAs and does not dispute on review the judge’s decision in this regard.</span></span></p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote18 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-align: justify"><span style="font-size: 11pt"><span style="font-family: \'Calibri\', sans-serif"></span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt"><span style="font-family: \'Times New Roman\', serif"> My colleagues seek to impose the PSM obligations at issue here on Delek on the basis that it hired\
many of Crown’s managers and supervisors.  They state:  “The record shows that Delek retained\
several of the prior owner’s supervisors when it assumed ownership of the refinery—their actual\
knowledge of the violative conditions at issue, therefore, became Delek’s knowledge.”  However,\
this analysis confuses the prima facie element of “applicability” with the prima facie element of\
“knowledge.”  Such a fact does not in these circumstances address the applicability of the cited\
standard to a particular employer.  </span></span><span style="font-family: \'Times New Roman\', serif"><span style="font-size: 10pt"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt"><i>See Ormet Corp.</i>, 14 BNA OSHC 2134, 2135, 1991-93 CCH\
OSHD ¶ 29,254, p. 39,199 (No. 85-0531, 1991) <span style="color: #231f20">(Secretary has the burden of proving: (1) the\
applicability of the cited standard; (2) the employer’s noncompliance with the standard’s terms; (3)\
employee access or exposure to the violative conditions; and (4) the employer’s actual or\
constructive knowledge of the violation)</span><span style="color: #000000">.  </span></span></span></p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote19 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-align: justify"><span style="font-size: 11pt"><span style="font-family: \'Calibri\', sans-serif"></span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt"><span style="font-family: \'Times New Roman\', serif"> The Supreme Court has referred to the “free transfer of capital” and the concern of placing\
restrictions on successor employers, which might reduce the incentives purchasers have to take over\
failing businesses, as factors to be considered in shaping successorship doctrine.  <i>See</i> <i>Howard\
Johnson Co. Detroit Local Joint Exec. Bd., Hotel & Rest. Emps. & Bartenders Int’l Union</i>, 417 U.S.\
249, 255 (1974); <i>NLRB v. Burns Int’l Sec. Servs., Inc.</i>, 406 U.S. 272, 287-89 (1972).</span></span></p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote20 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-align: justify"><span style="font-size: 11pt"><span style="font-family: \'Calibri\', sans-serif"></span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt"><span style="font-family: \'Times New Roman\', serif"> <i>See</i> Order Denying Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment at 5 (“[T]he Court agrees with\
the Complainant that under the ‘substantial continuity’ and ‘successor liability’ doctrines, a\
successor employer that substantially continues its predecessors [sic] business may be attributed\
certain labor and employment obligations of the old employer; such as obligations under the OSH\
Act.”).  Notably, the Order Denying Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment did not resolve\
the successorship question in the Secretary’s favor; rather, it simply denied summary judgment to\
Delek based on questions of fact regarding successorship.  In other words, the judge merely\
concluded that the successorship question was entitled to proceed to trial.</span></span></p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote21 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-align: justify"><span style="font-size: 11pt"><span style="font-family: \'Calibri\', sans-serif"></span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt"><span style="font-family: \'Times New Roman\', serif"> In that decision, in utilizing the NLRB’s “substantial continuity” test, the Commission found that\
it was appropriate to rely on two prior violations committed by a predecessor business as the basis\
for affirming as “repeat” a violation committed by the successor, Sharon & Walter. As to the third\
factor, the Commission specifically noted that the same principal was in charge of both companies\
and ran their operations on a daily basis.  He was the sole owner and supervisor of both businesses,\
and he had control over decision-making in both companies, including that related to employee\
safety and health.  <i>Sharon & Walter</i>, 23 BNA OSHC at 1295-96, 2009-12 CCH OSHD at p. 54,902.</span></span></p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote22 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-align: justify"><span style="font-size: 11pt"><span style="font-family: \'Calibri\', sans-serif"></span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt"><span style="font-family: \'Times New Roman\', serif"> The judge’s Order Denying Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment contains one conclusory\
sentence with no analysis or evaluation of the facts necessary to conclude that Delek is a successor\
to Crown:  “In this case, the Secretary asserts that Respondent bought the Tyler facility in April,\
2005 and has continued the business of the predecessor company.”  The judge’s final order makes\
no finding regarding successor liability, and in any case the judge’s earlier statement regarding the\
Secretary’s theory, contained in the order denying summary judgment, is insufficient to support a\
finding of successor liability.</span></span></p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote23 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-align: justify"><span style="font-size: 11pt"><span style="font-family: \'Calibri\', sans-serif"></span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt"><span style="font-family: \'Times New Roman\', serif"> My colleagues’ analysis suggests that Delek had notice of the standard’s applicability to it,\
irrespective of successor liability, because “Delek could have conducted its own review and\
developed its own response plan. But it did not, so its failure to respond violated § 1910.119(e)(5)\
and (o)(4).”  The majority offers no discussion of at what time Delek failed to promptly conduct its\
own review in light of the three-year and five-year time frames provided in § 1910.119(e)(5) and\
(o)(4).  This failure, coupled with the fact that the Secretary’s inspection of Delek occurred less than\
three years after its purchase of the facility, leads to the conclusion that the company had not yet\
failed to meet either provision’s time frame.  Moreover, despite the majority’s theory, this is not the\
violation alleged in the Secretary’s citation.  Clearly, the citation alleges violations with regard to\
the PHA findings and compliance audits conducted by Crown.  Further, any failure to conduct an\
“initial process hazard analysis” on processes covered by the PSM Standard would require a citation\
to § 1910.119(e)(1), which was not cited.  My colleagues’ contrary construction of the standard is\
fundamentally unfair and cannot be expected to guide employers in their conduct.  <i>Lisbon\
Contractors, Inc</i>., 11 BNA OSHC 1971, 1974, 1984-85 CCH OSHD ¶ 26,924, p. 34,500 (No. 80-97,\
1984) (“A construction of a standard that bears no reasonable relationship to the standard’s plain\
words cannot be expected to guide employers in their conduct.”);  <i>see also S.G. Loewendick & Sons,\
Inc. v. Sec’y of Labor</i>, 70 F.3d 1291, 1297 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (“Congress and the courts require that\
agency action reflect clear, rational decision making that gives regulated members of the public\
adequate notice of their obligations.”); <i>Diebold, Inc. v. Marshall</i>, 585 F.2d 1327, 1335-39 (6th Cir.\
1978); <i>Cardinal Indus.</i>, 14 BNA OSHC 1008, 1011, 1987-89 CCH OSHD ¶ 28,510, p. 37,801 (No.\
82-427, 1989).  To the extent that the Secretary’s choice of language does not effectuate what the\
Secretary may have intended, the remedy lies in further rulemaking by the Secretary rather than the\
adoption by this Commission of an interpretation that is not supported by the standard and its\
preamble as promulgated.  <i>See Diamond Roofing v. OSHRC</i>, 528 F.2d 645, 650 (5th Cir. 1976)\
(regulations cannot be construed to mean what an agency intended but did not adequately express). \
The Secretary asserted that Delek failed to resolve Crown’s PHAs, and not limited to Crown’s most\
recent PHA, which was conducted in 2005 (although the judge found no unresolved items from this\
one), but the 1994, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2003, and 2004 PHAs as well.  The Secretary does not\
allege how Delek failed to promptly resolve PHAs conducted by a prior owner more than ten years\
before it had control or possession of the facility. Further, for the Commission to impose liability\
upon Delek to encourage abatement of on-going obligations of a predecessor would usurp the\
legislative function.</span></span></p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote24 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-align: justify"><span style="font-size: 11pt"><span style="font-family: \'Calibri\', sans-serif"></span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt"><span style="font-family: \'Times New Roman\', serif"> <i>See</i> <i>Kerns Bros. Tree Serv.</i>, 18 BNA OSHC 2064, 2067, 2000 CCH OSHD ¶ 32,053, p. 48,003 (No.\
96-1719, 2000) (“Where it is highly probable that a Commission decision would be appealed to a\
particular circuit, the Commission has generally applied the precedent of that circuit in deciding the\
case—even though it may differ from the Commission’s precedent.”) (citing 29 U.S.C. §§ 660(a)\
and (b)).</span></span></p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote25 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-align: justify"><span style="font-size: 11pt"><span style="font-family: \'Calibri\', sans-serif"></span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt"><span style="font-family: \'Times New Roman\', serif"> In concluding that the time bar is not dispositive here, the majority asserts that no statute of\
limitations ever accrued (much less ran) because a violation of § 1910.119(e)(5) continues\
indefinitely unless and until an employer satisfies its subsection (e)(5) obligations.  The majority’s\
conclusion improperly converts inaction into action, and I conclude that this theory would transform\
the failure to right a past wrong into a reason not to start the limitation clock—a result in\
contravention of <i>AKM</i>.</span></span></p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote26 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-align: justify"><span style="font-size: 11pt"><span style="font-family: \'Calibri\', sans-serif"></span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt"><span style="font-family: \'Times New Roman\', serif"> The <i>AKM </i>court concluded that the Secretary’s proposed construction of the statute of limitations\
(i.e., the application of the continuing violations doctrine) was not entitled to deference because the\
statute was clear and the Secretary’s proposed construction was unreasonable.  675 F.3d at 754. \
Accordingly, the <i>AKM </i>court did not reach the question of whether the interpretation of a statute of\
limitations is the <i>type </i>of question which triggers deference, and did not decide whether “deference\
to agency interpretations of statutes of limitations is warranted as a rule.”  <i>Id.</i>  I reach the same\
conclusion here.  I conclude that the statute is clear on its face and the Secretary’s proposed\
construction is unreasonable because it would extend the statute <i>ad infinitum.</i>  Hence, I do not reach\
the question of whether the Secretary could ever be entitled to deference in construing a statute of\
limitations.</span></span></p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote27 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-align: justify"><span style="font-size: 11pt"><span style="font-family: \'Calibri\', sans-serif"></span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt"><span style="font-family: \'Times New Roman\', serif"> While <span style="color: #1c1a1a">the court itself speculated that there might be cases in which the Secretary might prevail on\
a continuing violations theory, outside of the context of recordkeeping violations, the court’s\
examples were limited.  It mentioned current failures to place guards on machines and the current\
presence of untrained employees in dangerous situations.  675 F.3d at 758.  It is possible, however,\
that a continuing violations argument is unnecessary in both those cases.  In both, cited physically\
violative conditions actively persist into, and thus “occur” during, the limitations period.  While\
setting the limits of such examples is not necessary for the disposition of this case before the\
Commission, clearly, the alleged violation here is not the type of exception to the six-month statute\
of limitations contemplated by the court in <i>AKM</i>.</span></span></span><span style="font-family: \'Times New Roman\', serif"><span style="font-size: 10pt"><span style="color: #000000"></span></span></span></p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote28 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-align: justify"><span style="font-size: 11pt"><span style="font-family: \'Calibri\', sans-serif"></span></span><span style="font-size: 10pt"><span style="font-family: \'Times New Roman\', serif"> </span></span><span style="font-family: \'Times New Roman\', serif"><span style="font-size: 12pt">Interestingly, the Secretary’s current enforcement position represents a departure from his position\
on the same cited standard in another case before the Commission, <i>BP.</i>  This disregard may be\
because the Secretary’s position in <i>BP</i> is inconvenient for the current position taken by him.  </span></span></p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote29 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-align: justify"><span style="font-size: 11pt"><span style="font-family: \'Calibri\', sans-serif"></span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt"><span style="font-family: \'Times New Roman\', serif"> As previously noted, the judge found no unresolved items from the 1998 PHA.</span></span></p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote30 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-align: justify"><span style="font-size: 11pt"><span style="font-family: \'Calibri\', sans-serif"></span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt"><span style="font-family: \'Times New Roman\', serif"> It is unclear from the record when, exactly, the 2003 PHA was completed.</span></span></p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote31 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-align: justify"><span style="font-size: 11pt"><span style="font-family: \'Calibri\', sans-serif"></span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt"><span style="font-family: \'Times New Roman\', serif"> The language of the cited standard would guide the judge in assessing whether a shorter time should\
apply because Delek’s actions were delinquent—for example, whether the findings were “resolved\
in timely manner;” whether the employer “complete[d] actions as soon as possible;” and whether\
the employer followed any “written schedule of when these actions [were] to be completed.”  29\
C.F.R. § 1910.119(e)(5).</span></span></p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote32 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-align: justify; line-height: 0.239583in"><span style="font-size: 11pt"><span style="font-family: \'Calibri\', sans-serif"></span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt"><span style="font-family: \'Times New Roman\', serif"> The majority ignores the expert opinion presented by Delek on the issue of whether the PPU is\
“process equipment” within the meaning of the standard.  In doing so, the majority reasons that the\
expert testimony in question involves a legal conclusion.  I disagree with my colleagues’\
characterization of the testimony.  I find it is relevant to industry custom and how industry views\
the PPU at issue. <i>See Cormier Well Serv</i>., 4 BNA OSHC 1085, 1087, 1975-76<i> </i>CCH OSHD ¶ 20,583,\
p. 24,620 (No. 8123, 1976) (testimony of compliance officer of industry safety practices used to\
show industry recognition).  Such testimony bears upon the ultimate factual question of whether the\
Secretary has proven a violation of the cited standard.  <i>Burkhart v. Washington Metro. Area Transit\
Auth.</i>, 112 F.3d 1207, 1212-13 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (holding that while an expert may not “testify as to\
whether a legal standard has been satisfied,” he can “offer his opinion as to facts that, if found,\
would support a conclusion that the legal standard at issue was satisfied”).  Indeed, “the testimony\
of an expert witness is particularly appropriate where . . . the trier of fact is presented with evidence\
of a highly technical nature.”  <i>Gisriel v. Uniroyal, Inc.</i>, 517 F.2d 699, 702 (8th Cir. 1975) (citing<i>\
Holmgren v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc</i>., 516 F.2d 856, 857-858 (8th Cir. 1975)); <i>Hoppe v. Midwest\
Conveyor Co.</i>, 485 F.2d 1196, 1202 (8th Cir. 1973).  My colleagues’ suggestion that this issue is a\
legal question about which expert legal opinion is improper is contradicted by the Secretary’s\
presentation of evidence to show that the PPU falls within the PSM standard as a matter of fact.  It\
is fundamental that, provided all other Rules of Evidence are satisfied, a qualified expert “may\
testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if . . . the expert’s scientific, technical, or other\
specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact\
in issue . . . .”  Fed. R. Evid. 702(a).  “An opinion is not objectionable just because it embraces an\
ultimate issue.”  Fed. R. Evid. 704(a).  <i>United States v. Van Dyke</i>, 14 F. 3d 415, 422 (8th Cir. 1994)\
(court committed reversible error by failing to admit expert testimony that would have assisted\
factfinder “in understanding the regulation and defendant’s reasons for asserting that he had not\
violated the provision”). I find that the expert testimony is entitled to substantial weight.</span></span></p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote33 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>The hearing transcript exceeded 3,100 pages.</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote34 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>AAD Watkins earned a Bachelor of Science degree in industrial technology from Texas A&M in 1985. He has\
been an ADD since about 2004, and before that he served as an OSHA safety specialist. (Tr. 92-94).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote35 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>The four other COs were Theresa Salazar, Wanda Murray, Jorge DeLucca and Craig Webber. (Tr. 100).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote36 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>There is insufficient evidence showing that any PHA team’s findings and recommendations for 1998 and 2005\
were unresolved, with status unknown, or not complete as of March 6, 2008.</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote37 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Delek had no PSM coordinator at the refinery prior to December, 2007. (Tr. 755). </p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote38 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>As Ms. Tarpley explained, PHAs are done on a five-year cycle, such that only certain of a facility’s equipment and\
units are due for a PHA in any given year. (Tr. 2763).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote39 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Ms. Tarpley testified that she did not perform any work on the first list, as it represented items that La Gloria had\
closed before the sale of the refinery on April 29, 2005. (Tr. 2770).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote40 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>These numbers are the Bates Numbers Delek put on the documents it provided to OSHA.</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote41 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>The Secretary also contends there are 26 items on pages 11510 through 11512 that, although shown as being closed\
on February 20, 2008, with Mr. Martin being the responsible person, were not in fact closed. S. Brief, pp. 15-16.\
However, 21 of the 26 items are insurance items, which, for the reasons set out below, will not be considered PHA\
items. Of the five items that remain, only one, Item 42, is on the Secretary’s list in her brief. That item is addressed\
<i>infra</i>. Mr. Simmons indicated the four remaining items were not among the ones that remained open at the time of\
the inspection. (Tr. 2301-03). For this reason, and as the Secretary cites to no specific testimony in regard to these\
four items, they are not considered unresolved PHA items here.</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote42 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Delek has presented no evidence, and makes no claim, that the regulatory items should not be considered PHA\
items. In addition, the Secretary’s list contains five items which, on the basis of C-19, have no type indicated. These\
five items will also be considered PHA items.</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote43 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>The evidence fails to support a finding that the condition concerning the placement of the 60-V-15 into a\
mechanical integrity program presented a hazard at the work site since it was already there and no further relief was\
necessary.  Accordingly, Item 89 is not considered a PHA item.  <i>See Akzo Nobel Chemicals Inc.</i>, 18 BNA OSHC\
1643, 1645 (No. 96-0062, 1998)(item alleging a violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119(e)(5) vacated where record fails\
to support a finding that the condition “presented a reasonable probability that a hazard was present at the worksite,\
....”).  </p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote44 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Item 9(b), <i>infra</i>, addresses a “hot spot” on the FCC Unit’s regenerator.</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote45 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>The evidence fails to support a finding that the condition concerning the pipe specification of the discharge piping\
on PSV-213 in regard to the 500° Fahrenheit (“F”) oil temperature presented a hazard at the work site.  Accordingly,\
Item 51 is not considered a PHA item.  <i>See Akzo Nobel Chemcials Inc.</i>, cited in footnote 11, <i>supra</i>.</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote46 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Delek asserts that eight of these 16 items (excluding items 93, 90, 13, 8, 5, 39, 78 and 87) have been either\
“addressed in some way” or are “in progress,” pursuant to witnesses Simmons, Tarpley, and Martin. <i>See</i> R. Brief, p.\
26, n. 256-57. Delek provides no transcript cites for this testimony, however, and the testimony the Secretary has\
cited, as set out above, shows that all of these 16 items were not completed as of March 11, 2008.</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote47 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>In a related argument, Delek asserts that the PSM standard does not impose a duty on a company that buys a\
facility to review and recompile all of the process safety information that the previous owner had a duty to compile.\
R. Reply Brief, pp. 2-3, citing to <i>Copperhead Chem. Co. (“Copperhead”)</i>, No. 99-2198, 2000 WL 1708284\
(O.S.H.R.C. A.L.J. Nov. 15, 2000). That case involved a different matter under the PSM standard; <i>i.e</i>., an alleged\
violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.11(d) for not completing a compilation of written process safety information (“PSI”)\
before conducting a PHA. Although the ALJ found that Copperhead had no interest, control, or duty in compiling\
the PSI, Judge Schoenfeld acknowledged that the Act “generally holds a Respondent responsible for safety and\
health hazards within its control arising from an earlier owner’s failure to comply with applicable standards....” (<i>Id.,\
</i>at *2).  Here, Delek had by March, 2008 control over:  establishing a system to promptly address the PHA team’s\
findings and recommendations; assuring that the recommendations were resolved in a timely manner and that the\
resolution was documented; documenting what actions are to be taken; completing actions as soon as possible;\
developing a written schedule of when these actions are to be completed; and communicating the actions to\
operating, maintenance and other employees whose work assignments are in the process and who may be affected by\
the recommendations or actions.  The Court finds that Delek had a continuing duty to comply with the requirements\
of 29 C.F.R. § 1910(e)(5).  Respondent failed to satisfy its duty in this regard as of March 6, 2008, nearly three years\
after it purchased the refinery.</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote48 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>The Court notes that of the 16 cited items addressed above, five are high-priority safety items. Further, three of\
these were still outstanding at the time of the hearing in this matter. </p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote49 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p><i>See also</i> C-59, at p. 02124, where Mr. Martin complained when looking into a tank overflow occurring on\
September 24, 2007 about an ongoing attitude at Delek to not want to document incidents. (Tr. 1573, 1610; C-59).   </p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote50 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>The AAD testified that Ms. Tarpley provided OSHA with JX-X. (Tr. 278).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote51 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Mr. Simmons testified that the OPs in JX-X were certified on July 22, 2008. That date, however, is several months\
after the date when OSHA discovered the violation.</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote52 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>The Court agrees with the AAD that a certificate under this PSM standard must be in writing. The Court also finds\
that a properly executed written certificate under this PSM standard must be dated and signed by the person who is\
attesting that the OPs are current and accurate.  (Tr. 577-78).  The signature must also be identifiable. This\
requirement to certify in writing is at least implicit in the language of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119(f)(4).  <i>See</i> <i>Albemarle\
Corp.</i>, 18 BNA OSHC 1730, 1732, (Nos. 93-0848, 93-1715, 1999).  <i>See also </i>Process Safety Management of Highly\
Hazardous Chemicals; Explosives and Blasting Agents, 57 Fed. Reg<i>. </i>6356, 6380 (February 24, 1991)(“Since it is\
extremely important to the safe operation of covered processes that operating procedures remain current and\
accurate, OSHA has added a precaution to guard against the use of outdated or inaccurate operating procedures by\
requiring that an employer verify annually that the operating procedures are current and accurate.”). </p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote53 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>From 2002 through April, 2005, Mr. Simmons was the Area Manager who oversaw the FCCU. From April, 2005\
through May, 2007, he was the operations manager whose area of responsibility included the FCCU. (Tr. 1987,\
1989-90).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote54 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>To support her position that the violation was serious, the Secretary notes an accident that injured an employee who\
was working on a power feed to the FCCU’s flare in 2007. The flare malfunctioned, causing burning hydrocarbons\
to spew out. There was a flash fire, resulting in radiation burns to the employees’s face and eyes, and the employee\
required hospitalization. Gary Baldwin, the employee’s supervisor, agreed that a contributing cause of the accident\
was not having a procedure for the work being done. (Tr. 1199, 1236, 1250-54, 1289-91, 1297-98).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote55 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>The FCCU control room also has an air conditioner that is not related to the PPU. The record shows, however, that\
the air conditioner cycles on and off, unlike the PPU. The record further shows that the air conditioner frequently did\
not operate properly. It broke at least ten times between 2005 and 2008 and had to be repaired. (Tr. 383, 414-415,\
1283, 1299-1301; R-N).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote56 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Mr. Simmons, the refinery manager, testified the PPU shuts off when the gas monitor detects vapors at 20 percent.\
(Tr. 2361-62). Gary Baldwin, the electrical and instrumentation (“E&I”) supervisor, testified this occurs when\
vapors at 50 percent are detected. (Tr. 1199, 1236, 1287-88). Mr. Baldwin is the second-highest-ranking employee at\
Delek with respect to electrical matters. (Tr. 1199, 1296). His testimony in this regard is thus credited over that of\
Mr. Simmons.</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote57 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Mr. Baldwin at first thought the PPU was not working at all. He later learned that only the heating and cooling\
elements were faulty and that the blower itself worked. (Tr. 1242-43).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote58 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Another problem for many years was that the refrigeration system used to cool the PPU’s air utilized water from\
the refinery’s cooling water tower. This resulted in the tubes to the PPU’s cooling element condensers being\
clogged. This issue was finally resolved in March 2009, when the refinery put in lines to use city water. (Tr. 385-86,\
395-99, 402-44).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote59 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Mr. Juarez, the inspection supervisor, agreed his office sent the e-mails to the E&I department quarterly. He had\
seen PPU inspection records before, but not for a long time and well before Mr. Baldwin’s tenure as the E&I\
supervisor. (Tr. 1312, 1352-53, 1359-63). Mr. Baldwin testified that has served as an electrical instrumentation\
supervisor since Delek bought the refinery in April, 2005. (Tr. 1199-1200).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote60 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>The absence of a record of an event that would ordinarily be documented is probative of the fact that the event did\
not occur. <i>U.S. ex rel. Compton v. Midwest Specialities, Inc.</i>, No. 96-4374, 1998 WL 30811, at * 7, n. 6 (6<sup>th</sup> Cir. Jan.\
22, 1998). There is no documentation in the record that shows that the biannual PPU inspection had ever been\
performed by Delek.<span style="font-family: \'Times New Roman\', serif"> Accordingly, the Court finds that the biannual PPU inspections were not performed by Delek as\
required. </span>The Court further finds that Delek failed to test and inspect the PPU in the FCCU Control Room to ensure\
it was in operation, was functioning properly and was effective in its function.<span style="font-weight: bold"></span></p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote61 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Mr. Todd also testified that a portion of the PPU was not working in the FCCU’s control room in March, 2008 and\
confirmed that it had not been working for a number of years. (Tr. 428, 459-60).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote62 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>The Court has additionally considered the testimony of Frederick Brooks, the Secretary’s expert for this item, and\
has noted his education, qualifications and experience. (Tr. 801-31, 893). In view of the Court’s findings above, his\
opinions need not be set out in this decision.</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote63 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>At the end of her cross-examination, the Secretary’s counsel asked Mr. Reynolds whether it was true that a covered\
process under the standard may include equipment that does not come into contact with a highly hazardous chemical\
if that equipment is critical to the safety of the process. Mr. Reynolds responded that, if “OSHA believes it is true,\
and [OSHA] has issued that in an interpretation letter, it must be true.” (Tr. 3012-13).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote64 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p><i>See</i> C-56, p. 2, and C-57, p. 5, n.4.</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote65 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>A Class I, Division 2 area includes a location “to which ignitable concentrations of gases or vapors might\
occasionally be communicated unless such communication is prevented by adequate positive-pressure ventilation\
from a source of clean air, and effective safeguards against ventilation failure are provided.” <i>See</i> 29 C.F.R.\
1910.399(2)(iii).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote66 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>C-21 is the AAD’s OSHA 1-B for this item. It contains basically the same information, but states that Mr. Baldwin\
told the AAD that the entire refinery was a Class I, Div. 2, area.</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote67 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>The regenerator’s interior temperature is 1220° to 1280° F. (Tr. 182-84, 219-21, 2223).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote68 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Messrs. Gaddis and Juarez testified the hot spot was about 2 feet by 1 foot, while Mr. Simmons indicated it was\
about 14 inches by 8 inches. (Tr. 234, 1394-95, 2147).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote69 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>This same area had a similar hot spot from early February to mid-August of 2005. A steam lance was applied to the\
hot spot, until the refractory was repaired sometime after mid-August when a turnaround took place. The record\
indicates that the refractory is inspected and repaired at every turnaround. (Tr. 1374-75, 1387-92, 1407-08; C-34, p.\
3).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote70 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>The normal temperature of the vessel’s wall is about 350° F. The hot spot’s temperature rose to 850° F in 2005;\
with a steam lance, it was kept to about 600° F. (Tr. 1387; C-34, pp. 2-3).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote71 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Delek disagrees with this contention. R. Brief, pp. 66-67.</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote72 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Mr. Arendt did not rely on C-34 to conclude that no change within the meaning of the standard had occurred. (Tr.\
2735).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote73 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>As the Secretary notes, besides inspecting the regenerator from the walkway, FCCU employees must also go up on\
the regenerator to manually shut the valve that “blocks in” the vessel. To do so, they must go past the hot spot. (Tr.\
1759-60, 1763-64). S. Brief, p. 53.</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote74 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p><i>See</i> C-37, OSHA 1-B. (Tr. 642-45; C-37).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote75 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Ms. Tarpley agreed that under the standard Delek was responsible for promptly determining and documenting an\
appropriate response to each of the compliance audit’s findings. (Tr. 782). </p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote76 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Mr. Whaley admitted that Delek, to his knowledge, did not do anything to determine and document appropriate\
responses to the findings in C-38. (Tr. 1832).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote77 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Delek also argues that the PSM standard does not impose a duty on a company that buys a facility to review and\
recompile all of the process safety information that the prior owner had a duty to compile. R. Reply Brief, pp. 39-40.\
That argument was considered and rejected <i>supra</i>, in footnote 15. It is rejected here for the same reasons.</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote78 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>The Secretary notes an incident in which there was a “hot oil blowback” in the Coker Unit in April 2008. Three\
workers were burned with oil of 300° F near the end of a process in which the hot oil went down a drain. This\
incident resulted in a written procedure that required more protective equipment for employees doing this work and a\
requirement that the oil be less than 180° F. The Secretary states that without ensuring the report was reviewed with\
affected personnel, further injury could result if not all factors were considered. (Tr. 360; C-60; S. Brief, pp. 60-61).\
<i>See U.S. ex rel. Compton v. Midwest Specialities, Inc.</i>, 1998 WL 30811, at *7, n.6 (The absence of a record of an\
event that would ordinarily be documented is probative of the fact that the event did not occur.). </p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote79 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>C-40, the AAD’s OSHA 1-B for this item, states that the shafts were about 29 inches high and that the unguarded\
parts of the fan and motor shafts were 12 and 8 inches, respectively.</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote80 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>The existence of a hazard is not negated by the absence of an injury tied to the hazard. <i>See A.E. Burgess Leather\
Co., Inc.</i>, 5 BNA OSHC 1096, 1097 (No. 12501, 1977), <i>aff’d</i>, 576 F.2d 948 (1<sup>st</sup> Cir. 1978).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote81 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Mr. Yost said he and an operator are the only two workers in the Boiler Unit on their 12-hour shift. There are three\
more two-man crews who also work in that unit. (Tr. 2427-28).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote82 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>The Court finds that the cited standard applies to Respondent since § 1910 applies to any employment and place of\
employment in any industry.</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote83 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>The Secretary’s motion at the hearing to amend Instance a to read “Flare Knockout Drum” rather than “Flash\
Knockout Drum” was granted. (Tr. 238, 1921-22).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote84 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Mr. Gaddis indicated the full and correct number of the equipment is “85-1-E-9A.” (Tr. 239-40). This decision will\
refer to the number as “E-9-A,” as set out in the citation. (Tr. 661).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote85 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Similarly, Delek states that the names of the vessels and equipment in the refinery also inform employees of their\
contents. R. Brief, pp. 87-88, 96-97.   </p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote86 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>The process flow diagram also shows only general process information. <i>See</i> R-T (large). </p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote87 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>This evidence, in my view, refutes Delek’s contention that the very name of a vessel informs employees of what its\
contents are.</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote88 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>One of these is the GV-154 vessel, called the 85-G-V-154 or relief gas knockout drum on its P&ID. <i>See</i> R-W\
(large). The other is the E-9-A Exchanger, called the 85-1-E-9A or raw oil/circulating bottoms exchanger on its\
P&ID. <i>See</i> R-U (large). Although these vessels may be mentioned elsewhere in the OPs, that they are not set out in\
the table of contents is significant.</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote89 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Mr. Todd indicated that although maintenance and contract employees are provided information about the hazards\
of the job they will be doing, he does not train them like he does new employees in the FCCU. Thus, they are\
provided only general information, <i>i.e.</i>, that vessels in the work area contain hydrocarbons, benzene and H2S. (Tr.\
2530-31, 2567-69).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote90 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Mr. Martin indicated there was a list of all of the refinery’s equipment, although he did not have it in his office.\
There was no evidence that list showed vessel contents. (Tr. 3075-78).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote91 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>In this regard, I note Mr. Todd’s testimony that, while operators are supposed to refer to the OPs, they do not\
always have time to do so if something is happening with the process. The operators instead will go back and review\
the OPs later, when they have the time to do so. (Tr. 440-41). As the Secretary points out, as Mr. Todd is responsible\
for training new operators, it is likely that all of the FCCU operators would act in a similar manner. S. Brief, p. 76-77.</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote92 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>While Delek represents the case to be a Commission decision, it is a Judge’s decision. A copy of the decision is an\
exhibit to Delek’s reply brief. </p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote93 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>The employees exposed to the conditions in the FCCU are set out in Item 9b, <i>supra</i>. I find that employees with\
similar jobs would be exposed to the cited condition in the Alky Unit.</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote94 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p><i>See</i> 29 C.F.R. § 2200.90(a) (“The decision shall include an order affirming, modifying or vacating each contested\
citation item and each proposed penalty, or directing other appropriate relief.”).</p>\
</span>'

function WPShow( WPid, WPtext )
{
  if( bInlineFloats )
    eval( "document.all." + WPid + ".style.visibility = 'visible'" );
  else
  {
    if( floatwnd == 0 || floatwnd.closed )
      floatwnd = window.open( "", "comment", "toolbars=0,width=600,height=200,resizable=1,scrollbars=1,dependent=1" );
    floatwnd.document.open( "text/html", "replace" );
    floatwnd.document.write( "<html><head>\r\n" );
    floatwnd.document.write( "<style> p { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:1px; } </style>\r\n" );
    floatwnd.document.write( "</head><body>\r\n" );
    floatwnd.document.write( WPtext );
    floatwnd.document.write( '<br>Close');
    floatwnd.document.write( "</body></html>" );
    floatwnd.document.close();
    floatwnd.focus();
  }
}

function WPHide( WPid )
{
  if( bInlineFloats )
    eval( "document.all." + WPid + ".style.visibility = 'hidden'" );
}
</script></span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>

<p align=center style='text-align:center'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>United
States of America</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p align=center style='text-align:center'><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>OCCUPATIONAL
SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p align=center style='text-align:center'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>1120
20<sup>th</sup> Street, N.W., Ninth Floor</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p align=center style='text-align:center'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Washington,
DC 20036-3457</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>

<div>

<table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0
 style='border-collapse:collapse;mso-yfti-tbllook:1184;mso-padding-alt:4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt'>
 <tr style='mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;height:.4in'>
  <td width="53%" style='width:53.0%;border-top:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
  border-left:none;border-bottom:none;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
  mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .75pt;mso-border-right-alt:solid windowtext .75pt;
  padding:0in 5.85pt 0in 5.4pt;height:.4in'>
  <p style='text-align:justify'>SECRETARY OF LABOR,<span style='font-size:11.0pt;
  font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
  </td>
  <td width="47%" style='width:47.0%;border:none;mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .75pt;
  padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.85pt;height:.4in'>
  <p style='text-align:justify'> <span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
  "Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
  </td>
 </tr>
 <tr style='mso-yfti-irow:1;height:.4in'>
  <td width="53%" style='width:53.0%;border:none;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
  mso-border-right-alt:solid windowtext .75pt;padding:0in 5.85pt 0in 5.4pt;
  height:.4in'>
  <div>
  <p align=right style='margin-bottom:9.95pt;text-align:right'>Complainant,<span
  style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
  </div>
  </td>
  <td width="47%" style='width:47.0%;border:none;mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .75pt;
  padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.85pt;height:.4in'>
  <p style='text-align:justify'> <span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
  "Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
  </td>
 </tr>
 <tr style='mso-yfti-irow:2;height:.4in'>
  <td width="53%" style='width:53.0%;border:none;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
  mso-border-right-alt:solid windowtext .75pt;padding:0in 5.85pt 0in 5.4pt;
  height:.4in'>
  <div>
  <p align=center style='margin-bottom:9.95pt;text-align:center'>v.<span
  style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
  </div>
  </td>
  <td width="47%" style='width:47.0%;border:none;mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .75pt;
  padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.85pt;height:.4in'>
  <p style='margin-left:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'>OSHRC Docket No. 08-1386<span
  style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
  </td>
 </tr>
 <tr style='mso-yfti-irow:3;height:.4in'>
  <td width="53%" style='width:53.0%;border:none;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
  mso-border-right-alt:solid windowtext .75pt;padding:0in 5.85pt 0in 5.4pt;
  height:.4in'>
  <div>
  <p style='margin-bottom:9.95pt'>DELEK REFINING, LTD.,<span style='font-size:
  11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
  </div>
  </td>
  <td width="47%" valign=top style='width:47.0%;border:none;mso-border-left-alt:
  solid windowtext .75pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.85pt;height:.4in'>
  <p> <span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
  </td>
 </tr>
 <tr style='mso-yfti-irow:4;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes;height:.4in'>
  <td width="53%" style='width:53.0%;border-top:none;border-left:none;
  border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
  mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext .75pt;mso-border-right-alt:solid windowtext .75pt;
  padding:0in 5.85pt 0in 5.4pt;height:.4in'>
  <div>
  <p align=right style='margin-bottom:9.95pt;text-align:right'>Respondent.<span
  style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
  </div>
  </td>
  <td width="47%" style='width:47.0%;border:none;mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .75pt;
  padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.85pt;height:.4in'>
  <p style='text-align:justify'> <span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
  "Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
  </td>
 </tr>
</table>

</div>

<p style='margin-bottom:9.95pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>ON BRIEFS:</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:6.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Scott Glabman, Senior
Appellate Attorney; Charles F. James and Heather R. Phillips, Counsel for
Appellate Litigation; Joseph M. Woodward, Associate Solicitor of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health; M. Patricia Smith, Solicitor of Labor; U.S.
Department of Labor, Washington, DC</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>             For
the Complainant</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Mark
S. Dreux, Esq.; Carol Connor Cohen, Esq.; Valerie N. Webb, Esq.; Micah R.
Smith, Esq.; Arent Fox, LLP, Washington, DC</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>             For
the Respondent</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Donald
D. Evans, Deputy General Counsel, American Chemistry Council, Washington, DC;
Harry M. Ng, Vice President and General Counsel, American Petroleum Institute,
Washington, DC; Gregory M. Scott, Executive Vice President and General Counsel,
National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, Washington, DC</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>             For
the Amici Curiae</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p align=center style='margin-top:11.95pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;
margin-left:0in;text-align:center'><b>DECISION</b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-bottom:6.0pt'>Before: ROGERS, Chairman; ATTWOOD and M<span
style='text-transform:uppercase'>ac</span>DOUGALL, Commissioners.<span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-bottom:6.0pt'>BY THE COMMISSION:<span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'>The
Occupational Safety and Health Administration inspected an oil refinery in
Tyler, Texas, owned and operated by Delek Refining, Ltd. At issue on review are
six serious citation items issued as a result of the inspection, all of which
were affirmed by Administrative Law Judge Dennis L. Phillips, and for which he
assessed a total penalty of $30,600. Four of these items allege violations of
various provisions of OSHA’s process safety management
(“PSM”) standard, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119, one item alleges
a violation of the machine guarding standard at 29 C.F.R.
§ 1910.219(c)(2)(i), and one item alleges a violation of the hazard
communication standard at 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1200(f)(5)(i).<span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote1',%20WPFootnote1%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1310" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote1" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote1 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'>For the
reasons set forth below, we vacate two citation items—the machine
guarding item and one of the PSM items, and affirm four citation
items—the three remaining PSM items and the hazard communication item,
for which we assess a total penalty of $21,150.<span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:.5in;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in'><b>I.         Serious
Citation 1, Item 4: 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119(e)(5)—Process Hazard
Analyses of Highly Hazardous Chemicals, and Item 12: 29 C.F.R. §
1910.119(o)(4)—Compliance Audits</b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:22.45pt'>            The
PSM standard, which applies to certain enumerated processes, is aimed at
“preventing or minimizing the consequences of catastrophic releases of
toxic, reactive, flammable, or explosive chemicals.” 29 C.F.R. §
1910.119 (“Purpose”). To that end, paragraph (e) of the standard
requires an employer to have “a team with expertise in engineering and
process operations” conduct “an initial process hazard analysis . .
. on processes covered by this standard,” and then, “[a]t least
every five (5) years after the completion of the initial process hazard
analysis,” update and revalidate the analysis. 29 C.F.R. §
1910.119(e)(1), (4), (6). In response to the process hazard analysis
(“PHA”), the employer must:<span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'>establish a system to promptly address the
team’s findings and recommendations; assure that the recommendations are
resolved in a timely manner and that the resolution is documented; document
what actions are to be taken; complete actions as soon as possible; develop a
written schedule of when these actions are to be completed; communicate the
actions to operating, maintenance and other employees whose work assignments
are in the process and who may be affected by the recommendations or actions.<span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:22.45pt'>29 C.F.R. §
1910.119(e)(5). Under Item 4, the Secretary alleges that Delek violated
§ 1910.119(e)(5) by failing to address the findings and
recommendations from several PHAs conducted by the refinery’s prior
owner.<span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'>Item 12
relates to paragraph (o) of the PSM standard, entitled “Compliance
Audits,” which requires employers to “certify that they have
evaluated compliance with the provisions of [the PSM standard] at least every
three years,” and to “promptly determine and document an
appropriate response to each of the findings of the compliance audit, and document
that deficiencies have been corrected.” 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119(o)(1),
(4). Under this Item, the Secretary alleges that Delek violated
§ 1910.119(o)(4) by failing to properly respond to findings from a
PSM compliance audit conducted by the prior owner.<span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'>The judge
affirmed both citation items, finding a total of sixteen unaddressed items from
six PHAs, and ten unresolved items from the compliance audit.<span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote2',%20WPFootnote2%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1309" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote2" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote2 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span>On review, Delek makes two arguments challenging the
judge’s decision. First, the company claims that the judge erred in
rejecting its pre-hearing argument that both citation items are time-barred by
the Occupational Safety and Health Act’s statute of limitations. OSH Act
§ 9(c), 29 U.S.C. § 658(c). Second, the company claims that the judge
erred in concluding that it was obligated to address the findings and recommendations
of the refinery’s prior owner, and the Secretary therefore failed to
establish noncompliance with either of the cited provisions. Like the judge, we
reject both of Delek’s arguments and affirm Items 4 and 12.<span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote3',%20WPFootnote3%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1308" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote3" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote3 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'><b>A.        Statute
of Limitations</b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'>Section 9(c)
of the OSH Act provides that “[n]o citation may be issued under this
section after the expiration of six months following the occurrence of any
violation.” 29 U.S.C. § 658(c). Delek contends that Items 4 and
12 relate to PHAs and compliance audits conducted before the company’s
acquisition of the refinery, and center on inadequate recordkeeping that
preceded the citation’s issuance by several years. The judge rejected
this argument, but Delek contends that <i>AKM, LLC v. OSHRC</i>, 675 F.3d 752
(D.C. Cir. 2012), issued after the judge’s decision on this issue,
supports vacating both items. We disagree.<span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'>In <i>AKM</i>,
the D.C. Circuit ruled that employers cannot be cited for failing to record
work-related injuries more than six months after the initial obligation to
record the injuries attached. The <i>AKM </i>court was addressing two of
OSHA’s recordkeeping provisions: 29 C.F.R. § 1904.29(b)(2),
which requires completion of “an OSHA 301 Incident Report form, or an
equivalent form, for each recordable injury or illness entered on the OSHA 300
Log,” and 29 C.F.R. § 1904.29(b)(3), which requires injuries and
illnesses to be recorded “within seven (7) calendar days of receiving
information that a recordable injury or illness has occurred.” The citation
at issue in <i>AKM</i> alleged violations of both provisions and was issued
“at least six months after the last unrecorded injury occurred.” <i>AKM</i>,
675 F.3d at 753. In explaining how § 9(c) applies to OSHA’s
recordkeeping regulations, the court noted that the statutory provision’s
use of the term “ ‘occurrence’ . . . clearly refers to a
discrete antecedent event,” and analyzed its effect as follows:<span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'>[E]mployers must make records of workplace injuries in
whatever form the Secretary requires within the time period established by the
Secretary—here, seven days after the injury. If they fail to do so, that
is a violation. Pursuant to Section 658(c), OSHA may cite employers for
violations within six months of the violation’s occurrence. If an injury
is reported on May 1, OSHA can cite an employer for the failure to create a
record beginning on May 8, and a citation issued within the following six
months, and only the following six months, would be valid.<span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:22.45pt'><i>Id.</i> at 755-56. Simply
put, under <i>AKM</i>, the statute of limitations period begins to run when the
violation—the failure to record a recordable injury—inures. The
court rejected the Secretary’s contention that there was a
“continuing violation”—that is, that the employer’s
continued failure to make the required record constituted a daily renewal of
the violation that effectively tolled the statute of limitations period.<span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:22.45pt'>            Delek
contends that this holding applies to the violations alleged in Items 4 and 12,
but the company overlooks the distinction the <i>AKM </i>court drew between
“discrete record-making violation[s],” <i>id.</i> at 759, which
qualify as “occurrence[s]” that trigger the statute of limitations,
and instances where “a company continues to subject its employees to
unsafe . . . situations,” which “toll the statute of limitations on
a continuing violations theory since the dangers created by the violations
persist.”<span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>
</span><a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote4',%20WPFootnote4%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1307" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote4" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote4 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><i>Id.</i> at 758. Here, neither Item 4 nor Item 12 alleges a
“discrete record-making violation” that is a breach of a duty that
occurred only once, at a specific time. Thus, we conclude that both of the
alleged violations fall into the second category identified by the
court—that is, they can be considered under a continuing violations
theory.<span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'>The PSM
provisions cited here do contain some documentation requirements. <i>See</i> 29
C.F.R. § 1910.119(e)(5) (“The employer
shall . . . assure . . . that the
resolution is documented[;] . . . document what actions are
to be taken; [and] . . . develop a written schedule of when these actions are
to be completed . . . .”); 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119(o)(4)
(“The employer shall promptly . . . document an appropriate response to
each of the findings of the compliance audit, and document that deficiencies
have been corrected.”). But these provisions require action beyond mere
recordkeeping—the employer must take corrective actions as well. <i>See</i>
29 C.F.R. § 1910.119(e)(5) (“The employer shall establish a
system to promptly address the team’s findings and
recommendations,” and “assure that the recommendations are resolved
in a timely manner.”); 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119(o)(4) (“The
employer shall promptly determine . . . an appropriate response to each of the
findings of the compliance audit.”). Accordingly, the violations alleged
here were not one-time failures to perform a task at a specified time.<span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote5',%20WPFootnote5%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1306" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote5" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote5 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span>Rather, because the corrective actions required by the cited
provisions directly address “preventing or minimizing the consequences of
catastrophic [chemical] releases,” 29 C.F.R.<br>
§ 1910.119 (“Purpose”), and because the failure to take those
actions means the dangers described in the PHAs and compliance audits at issue
persisted, each day that passed without the recommendations being addressed
meant the violative conditions continued, and could be cited by OSHA. We therefore
reject Delek’s argument that Items 4 and 12 are time-barred under
§ 9(c) of the OSH Act.<span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'><b>B.        Noncompliance</b><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'>As it did
before the judge, Delek contends that the Secretary failed to establish the
company’s noncompliance with the cited provisions because the
refinery’s prior owner performed the PHAs and compliance audits at issue,
so only the prior owner was responsible for addressing the resulting findings
and recommendations. According to Delek, an employer purchasing a facility is
not “required to investigate and satisfy obligations created by a prior
employer, especially where, as here, the new employer was led to believe that
no obligations remained outstanding.” The judge rejected this argument,
concluding that Items 4 and 12 were based on Delek’s own conduct (or lack
thereof), and the fact that responsibility for these items originated under
previous ownership did not absolve Delek of its own OSH Act obligations. We
agree.<span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'>The PSM
standard expressly applies to “[a] <i>process</i> which involves a
chemical at or above [certain] specified threshold quantities” and
“[a] <i>process</i> which involves [certain] flammable gas[es] . . . or .
. . flammable liquid[s].” 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119(a)(1)(i)-(ii)
(emphasis added). The process at the refinery before Delek purchased it was the
refining of crude oil into usable fuels, and that same process continued after
the acquisition, as did the hazards and PSM compliance items identified in the
subject PHAs and compliance audits. Of course, the cited provisions of the PSM
standard require action by “[t]he employer,” but the
standard’s focus remains the “process”—there is no
language in the standard limiting its obligations to a particular employer, let
alone the one that conducted the required PHAs and compliance audits. <i>Compare,
e.g.</i>, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.146(c)(8) (“host employer”
requirements); 29 C.F.R. § 1910.147(f)(2) (“on-site
employer” and “outside employer” requirements); 29 C.F.R.
§ 1926.1402(c) (“controlling entity” requirements); 29
C.F.R. § 1926.1407(e) (“utility owner/operator” requirement);
29 C.F.R. § 1926.752(a) (“controlling contractor”
requirements). In other words, under the PSM standard, any shortcomings
involved in the “process” at the refinery that continued after the
transfer of ownership were Delek’s responsibility to investigate and
remedy.<span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote6',%20WPFootnote6%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1305" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote6" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote6 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'>The PSM
standard also sets a schedule for auditing and abating potential process
hazards and PSM compliance issues, and there is nothing in the standard to
suggest that this schedule is reset or altered by the sale of the facility in
which the process takes place. The PSM standard requires PHAs and compliance
audits to be completed on prescribed schedules—five and three years,
respectively—and requires certain follow-up actions after completion. 29
C.F.R.<br>
§ 1910.119(e)(5)-(6), (o)(1), (o)(4). The last of the PHAs and compliance
audits at issue here were completed in the year of Delek’s acquisition of
the refinery, so the next ones were due to be completed five years and three
years, respectively, after the acquisition. But nothing in the standard
indicates that this schedule was intended to terminate the obligation to follow
up on already-completed PHA and compliance audit findings in the interim (or,
as the judge found, the still-open items from the earlier PHAs and compliance audits).
<i>See</i> 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119(e)(5), (o)(4).<span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'>Indeed,
reaching a contrary conclusion here would lead to the absurd result of
permitting deficiencies identified by a previous owner to go unaddressed for
more than the entire PHA/compliance audit schedule’s time
period—that is, in excess of five and three years, respectively. Such a
result makes little sense in light of the PSM standard’s goal of
“preventing<br>
. . . the . . . catastrophic releases of . . . chemicals;” neither the
transfer of ownership nor the cycling of the PHA/audit schedule diminishes the <i>need</i>
to correct a deficiency. 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119
(“Purpose”). In short, nothing in the PSM standard indicates that
an employer’s purchase of a facility nullifies obligations stemming from
prior findings and recommendations. Because the PSM standard applies to the
process itself and sets a specific schedule for compliance, the
standard’s obligations, including the compliance schedule, survive a
transfer of the process’s ownership. Accordingly, we reject Delek’s
challenge to the noncompliance element of the Secretary’s prima facie
case and affirm both citation items.<span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'>In so
ruling, we disagree with our dissenting colleague that these violations are
grounded on successor liability. Our colleague views successor liability as the
determinative issue with respect to Items 4 and 12 because she misapprehends
the PSM standard. As discussed above, the standard does not limit the
obligation to address PHA and compliance audit items to the employer that
conducts the PHAs and compliance audits. Indeed, as the Secretary alleges,
Delek <i>itself</i> violated the PSM standard by failing to address outstanding
PHA and compliance audit items. Thus, the judge did not—as the dissent
puts it—“simply presume[] that Delek is a successor,” nor is
our decision a “summary affirmance of the judge’s
presumption.” Rather, successor liability is patently irrelevant here and
has absolutely no bearing on our holding.<span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:.5in;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in'><b>II.       Serious
Citation 1, Item 8: 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119(j)(4)(i)—Inspection and Testing
of Process Equipment</b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:22.45pt'>            Paragraph
(j) of the PSM standard—addressing “[m]echanical
integrity”—provides that “[i]nspections and tests shall be
performed on process equipment.” 29 C.F.R.<br>
§ 1910.119(j)(4)(i). Under Item 8, the Secretary alleges that Delek
violated this provision by failing to inspect and test its positive
pressurization unit (“PPU”) in the control room for the
refinery’s fluid catalytic cracking unit. The judge affirmed this item,
concluding that: (1) the PPU is subject to the PSM standard; (2) Delek failed
to inspect and test the PPU: (3) the company had knowledge of this failure; and
(4) employee exposure was established. On review, Delek argues only that the
judge erred in finding that § 1910.119(j)(4)(i) applies to the PPU. <i>See
Astra Pharm. Prods., Inc.</i>, 9 BNA OSHC 2126, 2129, 1981 CCH OSHD ¶
25,578, pp. 31,899-900 (No. 78-6247, 1981) (“[T]he Secretary must show .
. . that . . . the cited standard applies.”). We disagree and therefore
affirm Item 8.<span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'>Fluid
catalytic cracking (“FCC”) involves converting crude oil into
usable fuels, such as gasoline, by a process that could release hazardous
vapors. The FCC unit’s control room, from which Delek employees manage
this refining process, is pressurized by the PPU to keep any such vapors from
entering. As the judge noted, the vapors can be toxic to the employees and
could pose an explosion hazard, given that the wiring in the control room is a
potential ignition source. The PPU consists of an intake stack that draws in
outside air, a fan that pulls the air into the control room, and heating and
cooling elements that regulate the temperature inside the room. The PPU also
has two sensors—one connected to an alarm that indicates whether the
control room is indeed pressurized, and another that detects the presence of
combustible gas and shuts down the intake stack to keep the gas from entering
the room if vapor levels reach 50 percent.<span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'>Delek
contends that § 1910.119(j)(4)(i) does not apply here because the PPU is
not “process equipment.” The PSM standard defines
“process” as:<span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'>any activity involving a highly hazardous chemical
including any use, storage, manufacturing, handling, or the on-site movement of
such chemicals, or combination of these activities. For purposes of this
definition, any group of vessels which are interconnected and separate vessels
which are located such that a highly hazardous chemical could be involved in a
potential release shall be considered a single process.<span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:22.45pt'>29 C.F.R. § 1910.119(b).
Not all equipment involved in any such activity, however, is subject to the
inspection and testing requirements of the cited standard. Section
1910.119(j)(4)(i) only applies to certain types of equipment, such as
“[c]ontrols (including monitoring devices and sensors, alarms, and interlocks)”
and “[p]umps.” 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119(j)(1). Thus, to be
subject to § 1910.119(j)(4)(i), a piece of equipment must first be
“process equipment,” and then must qualify as one of the types of
such equipment enumerated in § 1910.119(j)(1).<span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:22.45pt'>            Delek
contends that the PPU is not “process equipment” because it is not
directly involved in converting crude oil to usable fuels.<span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote7',%20WPFootnote7%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1304" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote7" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote7 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span>The standard’s focus, however, is not that narrow.
Delek’s refining process includes operating the FCC unit as a whole, and
this is done from the FCC unit’s control room, which is kept in safe
working order by the PPU. Without the PPU providing positive pressure,
hydrocarbon vapors could leak into the control room and—because of the
wiring there—cause the type of catastrophic explosion that the PSM
standard was intended to prevent. And short of such an explosion, the toxic
vapors could harm the employees inside the control room, compromising the
management of the refining process. We find, therefore, that the PPU is an
integral part of the overall FCC unit “process.” After all, the PSM
standard does not require that every part of a “process” come into
contact with hazardous chemicals. 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119(b) (defining
“process” as “any activity <i>involving</i> a highly
hazardous chemical”) (emphasis added). Here, viewing the
“activity” involving the FCC unit in its entirety, the PPU is part
of a “process” covered by the PSM standard because it is an
integral part of the “manufacturing, handling [and] on-site movement of
[highly hazardous chemicals].”<span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote8',%20WPFootnote8%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1303" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote8" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote8 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><i>Id.</i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'>Delek next
argues that, even if the PPU is part of the refining process, it is not one of
the types of “process equipment” subject to §
1910.119(j)(4)(i), such as a control or a pump. We find, however, that the PPU
is a “control” for two reasons. First, the PPU has sensors to
monitor air pressurization and combustible gas levels, thus satisfying examples
of a “control” in the standard’s text. <i>See</i> 29 C.F.R.
§ 1910.119(j)(1) (specifying that “[c]ontrols . . . <i>includ[e]
monitoring devices and sensors</i>, alarms, and interlocks”) (emphasis
added). Second, the PPU is an integral part of the FCC unit control room, which
itself is a “mechanism used to regulate or guide the operation of a
machine or an apparatus or system,” <i>Webster’s Third New
Int’l Dictionary</i> 496-97 (1986), as the control room regulates the
internal workings of the vessels that handle the chemicals involved in the
refining process. The PPU’s regulation of the control room’s
positive-pressure atmosphere makes the PPU integral to that
“control”—and thus a “control”
itself—because, as discussed above, entry of hazardous hydrocarbon vapors
into the room could prevent the control room from managing the refining
process.<span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote9',%20WPFootnote9%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1302" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote9" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote9 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:22.45pt'>            Finally,
Delek argues that deeming the PPU “process equipment” is
inconsistent with prior statements from OSHA, placing particular reliance on an
OSHA Interpretation Letter from Director of Enforcement Programs Richard E.
Fairfax to Howard J. Feldman (Jan. 31, 2008). Delek points to language in the
letter stating that “[t]he boundaries of the covered process are based on
the equipment which contain [highly hazardous chemicals].” Delek
maintains that this language supports a narrower view of the FCC
“process” here. We disagree.<span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote10',%20WPFootnote10%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1301" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote10" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote10 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span>The part of the letter in which this language appears is
entitled “PSM Coverage of Utility Systems,” and it clearly
indicates that machinery not containing chemicals, such as the PPU, can
nonetheless be part of a “process”:<span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:40.25pt;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'>OSHA does not agree that utility systems are
categorically outside the scope and application of the PSM standard. It is
OSHA’s long-standing position that utility systems <i>are</i> part of the
PSM-covered process when employers use them to control/prevent and mitigate
catastrophic releases . . . .<span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p align=center style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:40.25pt;margin-bottom:6.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:center'>* * *<span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:40.25pt;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'>[T]he proper safe functioning of all aspects of a
process, whether they contain [highly hazardous chemicals] or not, are
important for the prevention and mitigation of catastrophic releases of [highly
hazardous chemicals], due to their direct involvement in the overall
functioning of the process.<span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:40.25pt;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'>As a result, it is OSHA’s position that if an
employer determines that a utility system or any aspect or part of a process
which does not contain a [highly hazardous chemical] but can affect or cause a
release . . . then, relevant elements of PSM could apply to these aspects.
OSHA’s position is that any engineering control, including utility
systems, which meets the above criteria must be . . .
inspected/tested/maintained per OSHA PSM requirements.<span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:22.45pt'><i>Id.</i> Delek makes much
of the letter’s “if an employer determines” language, and
argues, in effect, that equipment is not part of a process unless an employer
deems it as such. But there is no indication in the language of the PSM
standard or its regulatory history that OSHA meant to give employers, at their
sole discretion, the option of excluding equipment from the standard’s
coverage. In this context, it is evident that the letter was just written in
the vernacular.<span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>
</span><a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote11',%20WPFootnote11%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1300" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote11" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote11 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span>Therefore, we conclude that the PPU qualifies as a
“control” under § 1910.119(j)(1)(v), and that it was
subject to the inspection and testing requirement of
§ 1910.119(j)(4)(i). Accordingly, we affirm Item 8.<span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:.5in;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in'><a name=n1></a><a name=n2></a><b>III.      Serious
Citation 1, Item 9(b): 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119(</b><b><span style='font-family:
"French Script MT";mso-bidi-font-family:Calibri'>l</span>)(4)—Management
of Change (MOC)</b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:22.45pt'>            <a
name=n3></a>Paragraph (<span style='font-family:"French Script MT";mso-bidi-font-family:
Calibri'>l</span>) of the PSM standard addresses the management of changes to
process chemicals, technology, equipment, and procedures. Subsection (<span
style='font-family:"French Script MT";mso-bidi-font-family:Calibri'>l</span>)(4)
provides that, “[i]f a change covered by this paragraph results in a
change in the process safety information required by paragraph (d) of this section,
such information shall be updated accordingly.” Under Item 9(b), the
Secretary alleges that Delek violated this provision by failing to
“ensure that a[n] MOC [was] documented and on file when steam lances
[were] applied to identified ‘hot spots’ on the exterior of
processing equipment in the FCC Unit.” The judge affirmed this item,
finding that Delek was required to have an MOC procedure on file regarding the
company’s use of the steam lance, but failed to do so. On review, Delek
argues that the judge erred in concluding that § 1910.119(<span
style='font-family:"French Script MT";mso-bidi-font-family:Calibri'>l</span>)(4)
applies here, because use of the steam lance was not a “change”
under the standard. We agree and therefore vacate Item 9(b).<span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:22.45pt'>            A
vessel in the FCC unit—the regenerator—stands about 50 feet high
and 20 feet wide, and is covered by a carbon steel shell. Just inside the shell
is a 4-inch-thick liner called the refractory, which is designed to keep the
shell’s exterior at a safe temperature and protect it from the erosive
effect of the refining process occurring inside, where temperatures are
routinely in excess of 1,200° F. Over time, though, the refractory can
deteriorate, leaving the shell vulnerable to damage. For this reason, Delek
conducts routine infrared inspections of the shell.<span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:22.45pt'>            Shortly
before the OSHA inspection at issue here, Delek detected a “hot
spot” on the outside of the regenerator, an indication that the
refractory was thinning in that area. As it routinely does whenever hot spots
occur, the company used a “steam lance” to cool this part of the
shell. The steam lance is a 6- to 8-foot pipe connected to a steam hose that is
in turn connected to the refinery’s boiler system. The pipe, which has
holes in the end of it, is situated so that the steam from the boiler, which is
no hotter than 250° F, is directed at the hot spot, cooling the outside of
the shell to within a safe operating temperature. The steam lance is used
continuously on the hot spot, and maintained by the FCC unit operators, until
the refractory can be repaired during the next “turnaround,” the
period when Delek shuts down the reactor/regenerator for maintenance.<span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'>Delek
contends that its use of the steam lance was not a covered change because it
was part of a regular and recurring maintenance cycle. We agree. While the PSM
standard does not define “change,” OSHA has explained that the term
“includes all modifications to equipment, procedures, raw materials, and
processing conditions . . . .” OSHA Publication No. 3133, Process Safety
Management Guidelines for Compliance, at 16 (1994). Other provisions of the
standard also shed light on what is meant by “change.” Subsection
(2) of the MOC provision states that the “written procedures to manage
changes . . . shall assure that [several] considerations are addressed prior to
any change,” including “[t]he technical basis for the proposed
change,” “[m]odifications to operating procedures,” and the
“[n]ecessary time period for the change.” 29 C.F.R. §
1910.119(<span style='font-family:"French Script MT";mso-bidi-font-family:Calibri'>l</span>)(1)-(2).
Subsection (<span style='font-family:"French Script MT";mso-bidi-font-family:
Calibri'>l</span>)(3) provides that “[e]mployees involved in operating a
process and maintenance and contract employees whose job tasks will be affected
by a change in the process shall be informed of, and trained in, the change
prior to start-up of the process or affected part of the process.” 29
C.F.R.<br>
§ 1910.119(<span style='font-family:"French Script MT";mso-bidi-font-family:
Calibri'>l</span>)(3). Taken together, we view this language as contemplating
that a “change” covered by the standard is something new,
different, and unfamiliar, as opposed to a regular and recurring event.<span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'>Here, there
was nothing new and different about Delek’s use of the steam lance.
Indeed, the record shows that its use was part of the refinery’s standard
operating procedure. One FCC unit employee testified that in his thirty years
at the refinery, hot spots had occurred many times, and “steam [was]
applied to all of them.” Another employee in the FCC unit similarly
stated that in his thirty years on the job, “putting steam on a hot spot
. . . we’ve done it since I’ve been out there,” and
“it’s a very common practice.”<span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote12',%20WPFootnote12%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1299" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote12" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote12 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span>Moreover, a Delek supervisor testified that “apply[ing]
the steam at the location” of the hot spot was “a common theme at
Delek,” and the refinery manager stated that the practice was so common
that “a steam hose . . . was . . . continually out there [near the
regenerator] . . . [and] attached to the steam header.” Finally, one of
the Secretary’s expert witnesses, a licensed engineer and certified fire
and explosion investigator, testified that it “is a very common practice
in the refining industry . . . to use steam as a cooling agent.” Based on
this evidence, there is nothing in the record to show that Delek’s use of
the steam lance was a deviation from the baseline workings of the refinery. On
the contrary, the record supports Delek’s position that its use of the
steam lance was part of the company’s regular operation of the
regenerator.<span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'>Nor do we
consider Delek’s use of the steam lance to be a temporary change, which would
be “subject to the [MOC] provisions.” OSHA Publication No. 3133,
Process Safety Management Guidelines for Compliance, at 16. OSHA has stated
that “[i]t is important that a time limit for temporary changes be
established and monitored since otherwise, without control, these changes may
tend to become permanent.” In addition, OSHA has made clear that the MOC
“procedures are used to ensure that the equipment and procedures are
returned to their original or designed conditions at the end of the temporary change.”
<i>Id.</i> As these statements show, the standard contemplates that an employer
will roll back new and discrete modifications after a defined period of time.
Delek’s use of the steam lance, in contrast, was a regular and recurring
phenomenon, such that it was a routine part of the company’s operations.
Additionally, the steam lance was routinely used until the next turnaround, at
which point the refractory would be repaired and the steam lance would be
rendered unnecessary until another hot spot developed. In light of the
foregoing, we conclude that Delek’s use of the steam lance was not a
change contemplated by the cited standard, and we therefore vacate Item 9(b).<span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote13',%20WPFootnote13%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1298" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote13" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote13 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:.5in;
text-indent:-.5in'><b>IV.      Serious Citation
1, Item 13: 29 C.F.R. § 1910.219(c)(2)(i)—Guarding Horizontal
Shafting</b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:22.45pt'><b>            </b>Under
this item, the Secretary alleges that Delek violated 29 C.F.R. §
1910.219(c)(2)(i), which provides that “[a]ll exposed parts of horizontal
shafting seven (7) feet or less from floor or working platform . . . shall be
protected by a stationary casing enclosing shafting completely or by a trough
enclosing sides and top or sides and bottom of shafting as location
requires.” According to the Secretary, Delek failed to ensure that
exposed rotating shafts were guarded on two pieces of machinery in the
refinery—an air fan and a cooling tower pump motor. In affirming this
item, the judge concluded that the Secretary established the exposure element
of his prima facie case by showing that it was reasonably predictable employees
would be in the zone of danger created by the fan and motor. <i>See Astra
Pharm. Prods.</i>, 9 BNA OSHC at 2129, 1981 CCH OSHD at pp. 31,899-900
(“[T]he Secretary must show . . . that . . . employees had access to the
violative condition.”). On review, Delek challenges the judge’s
ruling on exposure. We agree that the judge erred in this regard, and we
therefore vacate Item 13.<span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:22.45pt'>            To
establish exposure, “the Secretary . . . must show that it is reasonably
predictable either by operational necessity or otherwise (including
inadvertence), that employees have been, are, or will be in the zone of
danger.” <i>Fabricated Metal Prods., Inc.</i>, 18 BNA OSHC 1072, 1074,
1997-99 CCH OSHD ¶ 31,463, p. 44,506 (No. 93-1853, 1997). “[T]o meet
this burden, the Secretary must do more than show that it may be physically
possible for an employee to come into contact with the unguarded machinery in
question.” <i>Jefferson Smurfit Corp.</i>, 15 BNA OSHC 1419, 1421, 1992
CCH OSHD ¶ 29,551, p. 39,953 (No. 89-553, 1991). Rather, “the
Secretary must establish that employees are exposed to a hazard as a result of
the manner in which the machine functions and the way it is operated.” <i>Id.</i><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:22.45pt'>            As
Delek contends on review, the record here fails to establish its employees were
exposed to the unguarded rotating shafts. There is no evidence that any
employees were stationed at or near either piece of machinery. In fact, one
Delek employee testified that no one worked at the fan or pump motor and no one
had any duties near these machines. Additionally, the only other testimony
regarding employee exposure to the zone of danger created by the unguarded fan
and pump motor was mere speculation. One FCC unit employee testified that
“you could stand” next to the fan and “walk up that close and
actually just touch it,” and “you could get as close to [the pump
motor] where I could touch on the back there.” Although this testimony
shows how close an employee <i>could </i>get to these machines, it does not
establish how close any employee <i>actually came</i> to the zone of danger,
either as their work required or through inadvertence. Moreover, the record
shows that the back of the pump motor was fully encased and does not move.
Another witness testified that employees stay between 5 and 10 feet from the
fan and pump motor, which is not close enough for reasonably predictable
inadvertent contact. <i>See, e.g., Fabricated Metal Prods.</i>, 18 BNA OSHC at
1075, 1997-99 CCH OSHD at p. 44,508 (finding no exposure where “employees
stood no closer than 18 to 24 inches away from the presses in the course of
their work,” and those “walking by . . . were farther away”).
Finally, although OSHA’s Assistant Area Director testified that, while
walking through the refinery during the inspection he “could have come
within five feet of the equipment” at issue, and that
“someone . . . passing by . . . could accidentally
trip and fall onto the rotating shaft,” his testimony does not show how
close employees actually came to the equipment, and no evidence was adduced
regarding conditions on the floor that would make a trip-and-fall reasonably
predictable. <i>See Buffets, Inc.</i>, 21 BNA OSHA 1065, 1067, 2004-09 CCH OSHD
¶ 32,806, p. 52,535 (No. 03-2097, 2005) (rejecting exposure claim based on
“potential slip hazards” near unguarded machines where the
“CO never mentioned slip hazards as a basis for exposure . . . [and]
“employees wore slip-resistant shoes and kept the floors swept and
cleaned”). In short, none of this testimony establishes that it was
reasonably predictable for employees to be in the zone of danger created by the
unguarded rotating shafts of the fan and pump motor.<span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'>In light of
the foregoing, we find the Secretary has shown only that it was
“physically possible for an employee to come into contact with” the
cited machinery, which is insufficient to establish employee exposure. <i>Jefferson
Smurfit</i>, 15 BNA OSHC at 1421, 1992 CCH OSHD at p. 39,953. Accordingly, we
vacate Item 13.<span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:.5in;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in'><b>V.        Serious
Citation 1, Item 15: 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1200(f)(5)(i)—Labeling of
Hazardous Chemical Containers</b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:22.45pt'><b>            </b>Under
this item, the Secretary alleges that Delek violated a provision of the hazard
communication standard providing that, with limited exceptions, “the
employer shall ensure that each container of hazardous chemicals in the
workplace is labeled, tagged or marked with the . . . [i]dentity of the
hazardous chemical(s) contained therein.” 29 C.F.R. §
1910.1200(f)(5)(i). <a name=n4></a>According to the Secretary, Delek failed to
comply with respect to three vessels in the FCC Unit—a flare knockout
drum, the regenerator, and an exchanger—and one vessel in the
refinery’s alkylation unit. In affirming this item, the judge found that
none of these vessels was labeled, tagged, or marked as required by the
standard. Delek, however, argued that it had complied by alternative
means—that several of the company’s documents gave employees the
requisite information. The judge rejected this argument, concluding that these
written materials were insufficient, particularly because an employee would
have to access a number of documents to obtain the necessary information. Delek
challenges this ruling. Although we disagree with the judge’s rationale,
we affirm the violation for the following reasons.<span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'>The cited
standard states that containers of hazardous chemicals must be labeled, tagged,
or marked, “[e]xcept as provided in paragraphs (f)(6) and (f)(7) of this
section.” 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1200(f)(5). Paragraph (f)(6)
provides that employees may be informed of chemical hazards by way of written
materials other than labels, but only if the materials convey the requisite
information and are “readily accessible” to the employees:<span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'>The employer may use signs, placards, process sheets,
batch tickets, operating procedures, or other such written materials in lieu of
affixing labels to individual stationary process containers, as long as the
alternative method identifies the containers to which it is applicable and
conveys the information required by paragraph (f)(5) of this section to be on a
label. The written materials shall be readily accessible to the employees in
their work area throughout each work shift.<span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:22.45pt'>29 C.F.R. §
1910.1200(f)(6). Because this alternative means of compliance is phrased in
terms of an exception, Delek has the burden of establishing that its
documentation: (1) identifies the chemicals contained in each of the four
vessels listed in the citation; and (2) provides information about the
potential hazards of those chemicals. <i>See</i> <i>Peavey Grain Co.</i>, 15
BNA OSHC 1354, 1359, 1991 CCH OSHD ¶ 29,533, p. 39,875 (No. 89-3046, 1991)
(party claiming exception has burden of proving inclusion within it); 29 C.F.R.
§ 1910.1200(f)(5)(i)-(ii) (stating that vessels must be marked with
the “[i]dentity of the hazardous chemical(s) contained therein,”
and “[a]ppropriate hazard warnings . . . which provide at least general
information regarding the hazards of the chemicals, and which . . . will
provide employees with the specific information regarding the physical and
health hazards of the hazardous chemical”). We find that Delek has failed
to make this showing.<span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'>Delek
maintains that its employees can identify the chemicals with which they work by
using the company’s piping and instrument diagrams (“P&IDs”),
along with several other documents. Employees can then, according to Delek,
consult the material safety data sheets (“MSDSs”) for those
chemicals, which contain information on their hazards. However, the record
shows that this documentation is insufficient to convey the requisite
information. To begin, the P&ID for the alkylation unit, which contains one
of the four cited vessels, does not show the chemicals this vessel contained,
nor does any other document of record. And while it is true that the P&IDs
show the hazardous chemicals in the other three cited vessels—the flare
knockout drum contained vapor, hydrocarbon vapors, and purge gas; the
regenerator contained flue gas; and the exchanger contained slurry and cold/raw
oil—the record shows that there were no MSDSs for these named substances,
despite the refinery manager’s general statement that “there [was]
a full set of” MSDSs at the refinery.<span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'>Specifically,
an FCC unit operator gave undisputed testimony regarding the availability of
MSDSs for these particular substances. He testified that employees could not
“find an MSDS on something called, in and of itself, vapor,” and
that “there is [no] MSDS for something called purge gas.” He also
stated that “there [is no] MSDS that would refer to, quote/unquote, flue
gas”—rather, to learn of the hazards of flue gas, employees would
“need to know that [carbon monoxide] was in it,” and then find the
carbon monoxide MSDS. As for slurry, he stated that an employee would need to
know that “carbon black might be another name for it,” and look for
the MSDS for that named chemical. In other words, there were no
MSDSs—which purportedly identify the chemical hazard warnings—for
the hazardous chemicals contained in the cited vessels.<sup> </sup>The same is
true for Delek’s operating procedures and training materials—two
other sets of documents Delek claims contain the requisite information. The
section of the operating procedures entitled “Properties and Hazards of
Chemicals Used in the Process” contains information about the hazards of
hydrocarbon vapors, but it contains nothing about purge gas, flue gas, or
slurry. And the training materials contain no information regarding the hazards
of any chemical. Due to this mismatch, Delek’s written materials failed
to “provide employees with the specific information regarding the
physical and health hazards of the hazardous chemical[s]” inside the
flare knockout drum, regenerator, and exchanger. 29 C.F.R.
§ 1910.1200(f)(5)(ii).<span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'>In reaching
this conclusion, our analysis departs from that of the judge, whose primary
concern appears to have been that to determine a cited vessel’s contents,
an employee would have had to access a number of documents. We do not consider
a hazard communication program that requires employees to consult more than one
document necessarily noncompliant with § 1910.1200(f)(5). Under the
standard, an employer is required to communicate with employees regarding
chemical hazards by means that are effective, and any hazard communication
program must meet that test. <i>See</i> 29 C.F.R.
§ 1910.1200(f)(5)(ii) (requiring “[a]ppropriate hazard
warnings, or alternatively, words, pictures, symbols, or combination thereof,
which provide at least general information regarding the hazards . . . , and
which, in conjunction with the other information immediately available . . .
will provide . . . specific information regarding the . . . hazards . . .
.”); <i>see also</i> Hazard Communication, 59 Fed. Reg. 6126, 6159 (Feb.
9, 1994) (final rule) (“[E]mployers may, as an alternative to specific
hazard warnings, provide more general hazard information on the labels as long
as the specific physical and health hazards of the chemicals are effectively
conveyed through implementation of the other aspects of the hazard
communication program . . . .”). Accordingly, because the documents on
which Delek relies, taken together, fail to convey the requisite information
for all four of the cited vessels, we affirm Item 15.<span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:6.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.95pt;margin-left:
0in;line-height:17.2pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p align=center style='margin-top:6.0pt;text-align:center;line-height:22.45pt'><b>ORDER</b><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-bottom:6.0pt;text-align:justify;line-height:22.45pt'>            We
vacate Citation 1, Items 9(b) and 13, and we affirm Citation 1, Items 4, 8, 12,
and 15. The parties challenge neither the judge’s characterization of the
violations we affirm, nor the penalties he assessed for them. Therefore, we
characterize each violation as serious, and assess a total penalty of
$21,150—a $6,300 penalty for Item 4, a $6,300 penalty for Item 8, a
$6,300 penalty for Item 12, and a $2,250 penalty for Item 15. <i>See KS Energy
Servs., Inc.</i>, 22 BNA OSHC 1261, 1268 n.11, 2004-09 CCH OSHD ¶ 32,958,
p. 53,925 n.11 (No. 06-1416, 2008) (affirming characterization and penalty
where neither was in dispute).<span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify'>SO ORDERED.<span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-left:3.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in'><u>/s/</u>______________________________<span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify'>                                                                                    Thomasina
V. Rogers<span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify'>                                                                                    Chairman<span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify'>                                                                                    <u>/s/</u>______________________________<span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify'>                                                                                    Cynthia
L. Attwood<span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify'>Dated: April 23,
2015                                                Commissioner<span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:22.45pt'>M<span style='text-transform:
uppercase'>ac</span>DOUGALL, Commissioner, concurring in part and dissenting in
part:<span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:22.45pt'>            I
join in the majority’s decision to vacate Citation 1, Items 9(b) and 13,
and to affirm Citation 1, Item 15, for the reasons stated in the majority
opinion. However, I dissent from my colleagues’ determinations regarding
Citation 1, Item 4; Citation 1, Item 8; and Citation 1, Item 12. For the
reasons detailed below, I would remand Item 4 to the judge for further
proceedings, and I would vacate Items 8 and 12.<span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:22.45pt'><b>DISCUSSION</b><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:22.45pt'><b>I.         Citation
1, Item 4 (29 C.F.R. § 1910.119(e)(5))      </b><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'>The Process
Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals standard (“PSM
Standard”), 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119, contains requirements for the
management of hazards associated with processes using highly hazardous
chemicals. Subsection (e) of the PSM standard requires each covered employer to
conduct an initial process hazard analysis (“PHA”) on processes covered
by the standard and, at least every five years thereafter, to update and
revalidate that PHA to assure that it is consistent with the current process.<span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote14',%20WPFootnote14%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1297" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote14" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote14 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><i>See</i> 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119(e)(1), (e)(6). In
Citation 1, Item 4, Delek was cited under § 1910.119(e)(5) for failing to
“promptly address” findings from PHAs performed in 2004 and
earlier,<span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote15',%20WPFootnote15%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1296" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote15" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote15 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span>even though it is undisputed that Delek did not own or operate
the facility in question until April 29, 2005, and that the PHAs from the years
covered by the citation were performed not by Delek but by the facility’s
prior owner, Crown Central (“Crown”). Against this backdrop, I
conclude that the judge’s decision to affirm this item was in error for two
reasons. I respectfully cannot join my colleague’s decision affirming
this item, which appears to be an act of <i>jugaad</i>.<span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote16',%20WPFootnote16%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1295" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote16" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote16 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-bottom:9.95pt;line-height:17.2pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:1.0in;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in'><b>A.        In
Finding Successor Liability, the Judge Erred in Failing to Apply the
Substantial Continuity Test
            </b><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'>Citation 1,
Item 4, alleges that Delek violated § 1910.119(e)(5) when it “did
not promptly address the team’s findings and recommendations.” The
citation further states: “For example, the PHA team’s findings and
recommendations from the 1994, 1998, 1999, [and] 2004 [PHAs] . . . are
still unresolved or status is unknown and/or not complete.” The judge, in
affirming Item 4, and based on the evidence presented at the hearing, found
unresolved items from the 1994, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2003, and 2004 PHAs.<span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote17',%20WPFootnote17%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1294" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote17" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote17 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span>The Secretary and the judge either assume that Delek was the
same entity that performed the PHAs at issue from 1994 through 2004 (and there
is no dispute that it was not) or that, as a purchaser of the facility in
question, Delek became responsible for Crown’s alleged violations. My
colleagues appear to misunderstand both the jurisprudence regarding successor
liability and the governing precedents in claiming that these violations are
not grounded on successor liability and in stating that the concept is
“patently irrelevant here.” Despite the hyperbole in the majority
opinion, a successor finding is necessary before we can impose liability upon
Delek for PHAs conducted by Crown. <span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'>While my
colleagues decline to address whether Delek has successor liability for
Crown’s alleged violations, they do so on the basis that the PSM
“standard does not limit the obligation[s] . . . to the employer that
conducts the PHAs and compliance audits.” What my colleagues fail to
recognize is that no matter what word-smithing in which they choose to engage,
they seek to have Delek “step in the shoes” of Crown and to place
liability upon Delek for PHAs initially conducted by Crown—the very
concept of successor liability—without undergoing the required analysis
to find that there is “substantial continuity” between the two
enterprises. In my view, the standard’s plain language does not apply to
a subsequent purchaser like Delek because the standard presumes that the
respondent employer is the same entity that performed the PHA in question.
Indeed, it would be problematic to require a respondent employer to <i>promptly
address findings</i> from an investigation in which the respondent employer
played no role whatsoever. This is especially true where, as here,
uncontroverted evidence establishes that the respondent employer in completing
the corporate asset transaction had been assured by the facility’s seller
that all findings of all prior PHAs had been addressed.<span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote18',%20WPFootnote18%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1293" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote18" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote18 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span>Under the standard’s plain language, Delek had no
obligations under (e)(5) with respect to the PHAs performed in 1994, 1997,
1998, 1999, 2000, 2003, and 2004. Hence, despite the majority’s efforts
to place a square peg in a round hole, only if Delek is deemed to have
successor liability can it be in violation for its predecessor’s
violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. <span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'>The OSH Act
itself and its legislative history are silent with regard to whether corporations
that purchase the assets of a company that has violated the OSH Act should also
acquire that company’s OSH Act liabilities. Thus, the general rule that a
purchasing entity does not have successor liability applies, such <a
name="SR;2702"></a><a name=SearchTerm></a>that a corporation that purchases
another corporation “is not responsible for the seller’s debts or
liabilities<a name="SR;2720"></a>, except where (1) the purchaser expressly or
impliedly agrees to assume the obligations; (2) the purchaser is merely a
continuation of the selling corporation; or (3) the transaction is entered into
to escape liability.”<span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>
</span><a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote19',%20WPFootnote19%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1292" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote19" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote19 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><i>Golden State Bottling Co. v. NLRB</i>, 414 U.S. 168, 182 n.5
(1973). The judge correctly noted—in an order denying Delek’s
motion for summary judgment—that an acquirer of a facility may still be
subject to liability for actions by the facility’s prior owner <i>if</i>
the acquirer is deemed a <i>successor</i>,<span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote20',%20WPFootnote20%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1291" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote20" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote20 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span>he—in his final order—neither considered the
question of successor liability as a matter of fact or law, nor made any
findings relating to this question. Instead, the judge’s final order
simply presumed that Delek is a successor. I dissent from my colleague’s
summary affirmance of the judge’s presumption that fails to apply
Commission precedent on this issue and our “substantial continuity”
test for finding successor liability.<span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'>The
Commission first considered the issue of a successor entity’s liability
under the OSH Act for violations committed by a predecessor in <i>Sharon &
Walter Constr. Co.</i>, 23 BNA OSHC 1286, 2009-12 CCH OSHD ¶ 33,103
(No. 00-1402, 2010). In <i>Sharon & Walter</i>, the Commission addressed
this issue and adopted a long-standing multi-factor test used by the National
Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) and the courts to determine when,
under the National Labor Relations Act, a successor entity must satisfy the
obligations of a predecessor. 23 BNA OSHC at 1294, 2009-12 CCH OSHD at p.
54,901 (<i>citing Burns Int’l Sec. Servs., Inc.</i>, 406 U.S. at 280-81; <i>John
Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston</i>, 376 U.S. 543, 550-52 (1964)). As the
Supreme Court observed, the focus of the NLRB test is whether there is
“substantial continuity” between the two enterprises. <i>Fall River
Dyeing & Finishing Corp. v. NLRB</i>, 482 U.S. 27, 43 (1987).<span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'>Pursuant to <i>Sharon
& Walter</i>, the factors the Commission considers to determine
“substantial continuity” under a successorship theory are: (1)
whether the business of both employers is essentially the same; (2) whether the
work and working conditions of both companies is basically the same; and (3)
whether there is a continuity of personnel who control decisions related to
safety and health. In affirming the violation as “repeat,” the
Commission found that all three elements were met.<span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote21',%20WPFootnote21%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1290" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote21" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote21 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><i>Sharon & Walter</i>, 23 BNA OSHC at 1294-96; 2009-12 CCH
OSHD at p. 54,902 (citing <i>Fall River</i>, 482 U.S. at 43). In adopting the
“substantial continuity” test, the Commission noted in <i>Sharon
& Walter</i> that “this test enables us to fully assess the nature
and extent of the distinctions and similarities between a successor and
predecessor based on criteria that are well-suited to the OSH Act and the facts
of each case before us.” 23 BNA OSHC at 1294-95, 2009-12 CCH OSHD at
54,901.<span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'>Upon review
of the judge’s decision in the instant case, it is evident that the judge
failed to apply the substantial continuity test as set forth in <i>Sharon &
Walter</i>. Indeed, the judge’s decision is completely devoid of a
discussion or the application of the substantial continuity factors.<span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote22',%20WPFootnote22%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1289" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote22" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote22 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span>Thus, I would remand this case to the judge to apply the
Commission’s precedent in <i>Sharon & Walter</i>, and the substantial
continuity test, to determine if Delek may be liable as a successor for any
alleged violations of § 1910.119(e)(5) committed by its predecessor,
Crown.<span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote23',%20WPFootnote23%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1288" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote23" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote23 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:1.0in;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in'><b>B.        The
Court’s <i>AKM</i> Decision, Which Held That the OSH Act’s
Six-Month Statute of Limitations for Issuing OSHA Citations Applies Where an
Employer Has Merely Failed to Correct a Prior Violation and Rejected the
Secretary’s Continuing Violations Theory, Is
Applicable            </b><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in'>On April 6, 2012 (hence, after
the judge’s decision in this case), the D.C. Circuit held in <i>AKM LLC
v. OSHRC</i>, 675 F.3d 752 (D.C. Cir. 2012), that the statute of limitations
for issuing OSHA citations means precisely what it says—that “[n]o
citation may be issued under this section after the expiration of six months
following the occurrence of any violation.” <i>Id.</i> at 755 (citing 29
U.S.C. § 658(c)). Thus, even if the judge had properly applied Commission
precedent regarding the substantial continuity test and determined Delek to be
a successor to Crown, we must determine upon review whether <i>AKM</i> supports
vacating this item (as well as Citation 1, Item 12). My colleagues try to
divert attention from the clear holding in <i>AKM</i> by concluding that the
court could not possibly mean what it said and that its holding is limited to
recordkeeping violations. I disagree with the majority decision and find that
the court’s holding in <i>AKM</i> may require vacating Item 4; consequently,
I would remand this citation item to the judge for further consideration.<span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote24',%20WPFootnote24%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1287" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote24" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote24 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in'>In <i>AKM</i>, the D.C. Circuit,
in interpreting 29 U.S.C. § 658(c), held that there is no ambiguity in the
statute, and “the word ‘occurrence’ clearly refers to a
discrete antecedent event—something that ‘happened’ or
‘came to pass’ ‘in the past.’ ” 675 F.3d at 755
(quoting <i>Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan</i>, 536 U.S. 101, 109
& n.5 (2002)). Thus, the court rejected the Secretary’s theory, which
had been accepted by the Commission, that Congress intended a violation of
recordmaking requirements to be treated as a continuing violation. <span
style='color:#1C1A1A'>The court explained that the Secretary’s theory
“runs afoul of our precedents,” which state that the
“lingering effect of an unlawful act is not itself an unlawful
act,” and that the “mere failure to right a wrong . . . cannot be a
continuing wrong which tolls the statute of limitations, for if it were, the
exception would obliterate the rule.” </span><i><span style='color:black'>Id.</span></i><span
style='color:black'> at 757 (quoting <i>Felter v. Kempthorne</i>, 473 F.3d
1255, 1260 (D.C. Cir. 2007); <i>Fitzgerald v. Seamans</i>, 553 F.2d 220, 230
(D.C. Cir. 1977)). This explanation is just as true for the PSM Standard on
review before the Commission as it was for the recordkeeping standard in <i>AKM</i>.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in'><i><span style='color:black'>AKM</span></i><span
style='color:black'> recognizes that the continuing violations doctrine is an
exception to the “standard rule that the limitations period is triggered
by the existence of a complete cause of action, [u]nless Congress has told us
otherwise in the legislation at issue.” <i>Id. </i>at 758 (citations and
internal quotation marks omitted). Hence, a complete cause of action exists
under § 1910.119(e)(5) at the time when the employer becomes
delinquent in its obligations to promptly address and document items relating
to a particular PHA. Congress has not told us otherwise. </span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in'><span style='color:black'>Perhaps
most notably, the <i>AKM </i>court recognized that “the mere failure to
right a wrong . . . cannot be a continuing wrong which tolls the statute
of limitations.” <i>Id. </i>at 757. Indeed, “the lingering effect
of an unlawful act” is not itself an unlawful act. <i>Id.</i>
Consequently, where a violation amounts to “inaction” rather than
“continued actions,” the continuing violations theory is wholly
inapplicable. <i>Id.</i> at 758 (“While we [have] held that continued
actions may extend the statute of limitations, nothing . . . suggests that <i>inaction</i>
has the same effect, and this case is about inactions . . . .”) (emphasis
in original). Here, as in <i>AKM</i>, “the Secretary’s continuing
violations theory would transform the failure to right a past wrong into a
reason not to start the limitations clock—a result our precedents plainly
proscribe.”</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>
</span><a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote25',%20WPFootnote25%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1286" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote25" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote25 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><i><span style='color:black'>Id.</span></i><span
style='color:black'> at 758.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in'><i><span style='color:black'>AKM</span></i><span
style='color:black'> also recognizes that certain violative conduct—like
the § 1910.119(e)(5) violation here or the record-keeping violation in <i>AKM</i>—is
“not even the sort of conduct we generally view as giving rise to a
continuing violation” because “continuing violations are those
whose character as a violation did not become clear until [they] w[ere]
repeated during the limitations period, typically because it is only [the]
cumulative impact . . . that reveals [their] illegality.” <i>Id.</i> at
757 (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, a
continuing violation <i>does not exist</i> where the violation in question
“would be immediately apparent to an OSHA administrator.” <i>Id. </i>at
757. Delek’s (or its predecessor’s) alleged failure to comply with
§ 1910.119(e)(5) would have been immediately clear after Delek (or
its predecessor) failed to act within a reasonable time; subsequent, cumulative
violations were unnecessary to reveal the (alleged) illegality of the conduct
in question. Moreover, as in <i>AKM</i>, Delek’s alleged failure to
comply with the standard in the required time period would have been
immediately apparent to an OSHA administrator. Both considerations dictate that
the continuing violations doctrine has no application here.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in'><span style='color:black'>While
the majority attempts to distinguish <i>AKM </i>as applicable only to
recordkeeping violations, I do not read <i>AKM</i> as being so limited. </span><span
style='color:#1C1A1A'>The court’s holding was not limited to </span><span
style='color:black'>the recordkeeping context but, rather, applied to the text
of this statute, 29 U.S.C. § 658(c), “<i>which expressly applies </i></span><i><span
style='color:#252525'>to ‘any</span></i><span style='color:#252525'> <i>[OSHA]</i>
<i>regulations</i> prescribed pursuant to this chapter.’”</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote26',%20WPFootnote26%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1285" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote26" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote26 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><i><span style='color:#252525'>Id.</span></i><span
style='color:#252525'> at 755 (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 658(c)) (emphasis
added).</span><span style='color:black'> The <i>AKM</i> court held that the
continuing violations theory should not (and could not) be applied to
contravene the plain language of the operative statute of limitations by
unreasonably extending the time period in question. Indeed, the <i>AKM</i>
court noted, the Secretary’s proposed continuing violations rule would
have had “absurd consequences” by expanding the operative statute
of limitations <i>ad infinitum</i>. <i>Id. </i>at 758. Hence, the <i>AKM</i>
court observed:</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>Nothing in the statute
suggests Congress sought to endow this bureaucracy with the power to hold a
discrete record-making violation over employers for years, and then cite the
employer long after the opportunity to actually improve the workplace has
passed. An interpretation of a statute purporting to set a definite limitation
upon the time of bringing action, without saving clauses, which would,
nevertheless, leave defendants subject indefinitely to actions for the wrong
done would . . . we think, defeat its obvious purpose. </span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:22.45pt'><i><span style='color:black'>Id.
</span></i><span style='color:black'>at 759<i> </i>(citations omitted). The
same reasoning supports the conclusion that the continuing violations theory is
inapplicable here.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>
</span><a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote27',%20WPFootnote27%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1284" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote27" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote27 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'><span
style='color:black'>Accordingly, based on <i>AKM</i>, I conclude that the OSH
Act’s six-month statute of limitations set forth in 29 U.S.C. §
658(c) applies to the PSM Standard, that the continuing violations theory does
not permit the Secretary to avoid an otherwise applicable time bar, and that my
colleagues’ contentions to the contrary rely upon a strained
interpretation of <i>AKM</i>. However, the OSH Act’s six-month statute of
limitations set forth in 29 U.S.C. § 658(c), as interpreted by the <i>AKM</i>
court, must be construed against the backdrop of the specific requirement that
an employer’s obligations under § 1910.119(e)(5) must be addressed
within five years of the PHA in question before the obligation under (e)(5) is
supplanted with a new substantial obligation to update and revalidate the PHA. <i>See</i>
29 C.F.R. § 1910.119(e)(6). That is to say, an employer’s
obligations under § 1910.119(e)(5) become delinquent and, hence, a cause
of action accrues, at the outer limit, five years after the completion of the
PHA. Thus, any statute of limitations must run—<i>at the very latest</i>—coupling
the five year span of time between PHAs with the OSH Act’s six-month
statute of limitations. <i>See BP Prod. N. Am., Inc.</i>, No. 10-0637, 2013 WL
9850777, at *37 (OSHRC Aug. 12, 2013) (ALJ) (“In light of the context and
the standard’s purpose to prevent catastrophes, resolution of the PHA
recommendations and hazard control [under § 1910.119(e)(5)] must be
completed within the five-year PHA-revalidation cycle . . . .”).</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote28',%20WPFootnote28%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1283" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote28" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote28 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'><span
style='color:black'>However, that does not end the Commission’s analysis
because the Secretary has previously gone one step further, recognizing that <i>the
five-year revalidation cycle marks the outer limit and, in most cases, an
employer’s obligations under (e)(5) become delinquent much sooner</i>. <i>Id.</i>
at *37 (“[T]he Secretary asserts, ‘Timely [under (e)(5)] means in
this context, <b><i>at most one to two years</i></b> depending on the scope and
complexity of the issue analyze [sic], and the risk posed by the hazard . . .
.’ ”) (emphasis added). Hence, it is possible that the statute of
limitations here ran even sooner.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'><span
style='color:black'>As noted by the Supreme Court in <i>Martin v. OSHRC
(CF&I Steel Corp.)</i>, 499 U.S. 144 (1991):</span><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>The Secretary’s
interpretation of OSH Act regulations in an administrative adjudication . . . <i>is</i>
agency action, not a <i>post hoc</i> rationalization of it. Moreover, when
embodied in a citation, the Secretary’s interpretation assumes a form
expressly provided for by Congress. <i>See</i> 29 U.S.C. § 658. Under
these circumstances, the Secretary’s litigating position before the
Commission is as much an exercise of delegated lawmaking powers as is the
Secretary’s promulgation of a workplace health and safety standard.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:22.45pt'><i><span style='color:black'>Id.</span></i><span
style='color:black'> at 157 (emphasis and citations in original). <i>See also </i>Commission
EAJA Rule 106(a), 29 C.F.R. § 2204.106(a) (<a name="SR;1104"></a>position
of Secretary includes his litigation position as well as his action or inaction
prior to the litigation); <i>Mazza v. Sec’y, Dep’t of HHS</i>, 903
F.2d 953, 959 (3d Cir. 1990) (revision in agency interpretation not accepted
when it flatly contradicted agency’s previous position, stated closer to
enactment of governing statute). <i>Compare Leone Constr. Co.</i>, 3 BNA OSHC
1979, 1981, 1975-76 CCH OSHD ¶ 20,387, p. 24,322 (No. 4090, 1976)</span><span
style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;mso-bidi-font-family:
Calibri;color:black'> </span><span style='color:black'>(finding that unreviewed
<a name="SR;343"></a>administrative law judge’s decision <a name="SR;346"></a>does
not constitute binding precedent for the Commission).</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'><span
style='color:black'>In addition, consistent with the Secretary’s position
taken in other litigation before the Commission, the Preamble to the PSM
Standard concludes regarding § 1910.119(e)(5): </span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>[W]hen an employer decides
that a recommendation requires action, then an employer should develop a
written schedule of the actions which are to be completed. It is OSHA's
intention that the actions to be taken as a result of the process hazard
analysis recommendations be completed as soon as possible. In most cases, OSHA
believes that employers will be able to complete these actions <i>within a one
to two year timeframe</i>, but notes that in unusual circumstances longer
completion periods may be necessary. </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:22.45pt'><span style='color:black'>Process
Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals; Explosives and Blasting
Agents, 57 Fed. Reg. 6356, 6379 (Feb. 24, 1991) (final rule) (emphasis added).
Thus, it has been the Secretary’s position that a violation of § 1910.119(e)(5)
is established in most cases in one to two years, within the five-year PHA
revalidation cycle at issue. <i>See Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Shalala</i>, 512
U.S. 504, 515 (1994) (“[A]n agency’s interpretation of a . . .
regulation that conflicts with a prior interpretation is entitled to
considerably less deference than a consistently held agency view.”)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted);<i> CF&I Steel</i>, 499
U.S. at 157 (Secretary’s consistency in applying the interpretation
embodied in a citation is a factor bearing on the reasonableness of the
Secretary’s position).</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'><span
style='color:black'>The citation here was issued on August 18, 2008. Hence,
pursuant to the Secretary’s position in other litigation, any item
relating to any PHA completed prior to February 18, 2003 (in other words, 5
years, 6 months earlier) is absolutely time-barred—thus, the 1994, 1997,
1998, 1999, and 2000 PHAs.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote29',%20WPFootnote29%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1282" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote29" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote29 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>Any alleged failures relating to
findings and recommendations from any later PHA—in other words, the 2004
PHA and, perhaps, the 2003 PHA</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote30',%20WPFootnote30%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1281" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote30" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote30 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script>—</span><span style='color:black'>may still be time-barred based
on the general one-to-two-year rule announced by the Secretary in <i>BP </i>and
the standard’s preamble. The application of this shorter time period
would depend upon the specific facts adduced by the parties—whether the
employer should reasonably have addressed its § 1910.119(e)(5)
obligations in a <i>shorter</i> time period.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote31',%20WPFootnote31%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1280" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote31" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote31 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>Thus, I would remand this item to the
judge to consider not only whether Delek can properly be deemed the successor
of the prior owner, Crown, but also, based on the evidence presented as to the
scope and complexity of the issue analyzed and the risk posed by the hazard,
when Delek’s obligations became delinquent under § 1910.119(e)(5), and
thus whether any alleged violation from the 2003 or 2004 PHA remains timely.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:
22.45pt'><b><span style='color:black'>III.      Citation
1, Item 12 (29 C.F.R. § 1910.119(o)(4))    </span></b><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'><span
style='color:black'>Citation 1, Item 12, requires an analysis similar to Item
4. Section 1910.119(o)(1) provides: “<i>Compliance Audits</i>. (1)
Employers shall certify that they have evaluated compliance with the provisions
of this section <b><i>at least every three years</i></b> to verify that the
procedures and practices developed under the standard are adequate and are
being followed.” 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119(o)(1) (emphasis added).
The cited standard then requires employers to “promptly determine and
document an appropriate response to each of the findings of the compliance
audit, and document that deficiencies have been corrected.” 29 C.F.R.
§ 1910.119(o)(4). The judge concluded that Delek failed to determine and
document an appropriate response to each finding from the 2005 PSM audit.
However, again it is undisputed that the 2005 PSM audit was performed in early
2005, prior to Delek’s acquisition of the facility in question, and that
it was performed not by Delek but, rather, by the facility’s prior owner,
Crown. I conclude that the judge erred in affirming this item for the same
reasons discussed above with respect to Item 4.</span><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'><span
style='color:black'>As discussed with respect to Item 4 above, the judge not
only failed to determine whether there is successor liability, but whether 29
U.S.C. § 658(c) time-bars the allegations. Since
§ 1910.119(o)(1) requires that a new compliance audit be performed at
least every three years, an employer’s obligation under (o)(4)—to <i>determine
and document a response </i>to each compliance audit—is supplanted every
three years with a new obligation: the obligation to replace the compliance
audit with a brand new compliance audit. As a result, any cause of action under
§ 1910.119(o)(4), for failure to determine and document a response to
a given audit, accrues—<i>at the very latest</i>—three years after
the audit in question. Further, in accordance with the Secretary’s
litigation position in <i>BP</i> and the standard’s preamble, it may run
much sooner based on the specific facts adduced by the parties.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'><span
style='color:black'>Here, the 2005 compliance audit appears to have concluded
on February 12, 2005. Thus, if successor liability is established, Delek failed
to meet its obligations under § 1910.119(o)(4) on February 11, 2008, <i>at
the very latest</i>. The operative statute of limitations therefore ran six
months later, on August 11, 2008, <i>at the very latest</i>. Thus, the
Secretary’s citation, issued seven days later, on August 18, 2008, is
untimely. In accordance with <i>AKM</i>, as discussed <i>supra</i>, the
continuing violations theory is insufficient to avoid the time-bar where Delek
failed to correct a previous violation. Thus, because the Secretary’s
citation was issued more than 3 years and 6 months after the completion of the
2005 audit, even if Delek is deemed to be a successor to Crown, there is no
possible basis to conclude that the citation is timely. For these reasons, no
remand is necessary, and I would vacate Item 12.</span><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-bottom:9.95pt;line-height:17.2pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:
22.45pt'><b><span style='color:black'>IV.      Citation
1, Item 8 (29 C.F.R. § 1910.119(j)(4)(i))         </span></b><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'><span
style='color:black'>Section 1910.119(j)(4)(i) requires that specified
inspections and tests must be performed on all “process equipment.”
The Secretary contends under Item 8 that Delek violated
§ 1910.119(j)(4)(i) by failing to perform the requisite inspections
and tests on its positive pressurization unit (“PPU”), which is a
device that takes air from the atmosphere and moves it into the
facility’s control room. In essence, the PPU system is a ventilation
control system that ensures that no hazardous vapors reach individuals working
within the control room in the event of an unexpected release of hazardous
chemicals elsewhere in the refinery. On review, Delek argues that the judge
erred in finding that § 1910.119(j)(4)(i) applies to the PPU. I agree that
§ 1910.119(j)(4)(i) does not apply to the PPU because, in my view, it
is not part of a “process” covered by the PSM Standard and is not
“process equipment” as defined by the cited standard; therefore, I
would vacate Item 8.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:
22.45pt'><b><span style='color:black'>A.        The
PPU Is Not Part of a “Process” Covered by the PSM
Standard       </span></b><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'><span
style='color:black'>The PSM Standard applies only to a “process”
that involves a chemical at or above specified threshold quantities or a
flammable liquid or gas in a quantity of 10,000 pounds or more. 29 C.F.R.
§ 1910.119(a)(1). The term “process” is defined in pertinent
part as: “any activity involving a highly hazardous chemical including
any use, storage, manufacturing, handling, or the on-site movement of such
chemicals, or combination of these activities.” 29 C.F.R. §
1910.119(b). The PPU system is not a covered process under the PSM Standard
because it is not an activity involving hazardous chemicals. It does not
involve the <i>use </i>of hazardous chemicals; or the <i>storage</i> of
hazardous chemicals; or the <i>manufacturing</i>, <i>handling</i>, or <i>on-site
movement</i> of hazardous chemicals. At most, the PPU is simply a tool to
prevent the spread of chemicals to a specific area if and when an unexpected
release has occurred; however, this is not sufficient to bring it within the
definition of process as defined by § 1910.119(b). Hence, I conclude that
the standard cited in Item 8 does not apply to the PPU.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'><span
style='color:black'>In finding that the cited standard applies to the PPU,
which does not contain, much less even contact, a hazardous chemical, the majority
notes that the definition of the term “process” has been expanded
by the Secretary beyond the plain language of the definition. Accordingly, to
the Secretary, the term “process” now includes those components
which mitigate the release of hazardous chemicals. In support of this
construction, the majority relies primarily on an interpretive letter from the
Secretary dated January 31, 2008. I question whether the Secretary expanded the
term “process” through the January 31, 2008 interpretative letter;
and even if he has, I question whether such expansion is entitled to deference.
<i>See</i> <i>CF&I Steel</i>, 499 U.S. at 158 (Secretary’s
interpretation, first asserted in a citation, is entitled to deference only if
reasonable); <i>AKM</i>, 675 F.3d at 754 (finding that an unreasonable
interpretation by Secretary not entitled to deference). However, I conclude
that we need not reach this question upon our review because the January 31,
2008, letter is distinguishable and inapplicable to the facts presented here.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'><span
style='color:black'>Unlike the system at issue in the Secretary’s January
31, 2008, letter, the PPU system here does not mitigate against the release of
hazardous chemicals; rather, it merely interrupts the spread of those chemicals
from one room into the next after the release has already occurred. In this
regard, the PPU is even further removed from the definition of
“process” than the system in the Secretary’s interpretive
letter. I conclude that the PPU is akin to a door, window, wall, or any other
structural or mechanical device that interrupts the circulation of
already-released hazardous chemicals—while such devices may be part of
and connected to a facility dealing with hazardous chemicals, they are too far
removed from the definition of “process” to give rise to a violation
of § 1910.119(j)(4)(i).</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;line-height:
22.45pt'><b><span style='color:black'>B.        The
PPU Is Not “Process Equipment” Under the PSM
Standard           </span></b><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'><span
style='color:black'>The majority claims that Delek bases its defense regarding
this item on the contention that the PPU is not process equipment because it is
not directly involved in converting crude oil to usable fuel. Delek’s
contention is not so limited. Rather, Delek contends that the PPU neither meets
the PSM Standard’s definition of a “process” nor is it
“process equipment” within the standard’s specific list of
covered equipment. In order to affirm this citation item, not only must the PPU
be a part of a “process” covered by the PSM Standard, but it must
be “process equipment” as defined by § 1910.119(j)(4). It is
not. Paragraph (j)(4)(i) of the PSM Standard, which is at issue in this item,
applies only to a very specific list of “process equipment.” I
find, in disagreement with my colleagues, that not one of the items on that
list includes or describes the PPU: it is not a pressure vessel or a storage
tank; it is not a piping system; it is not a relief vent system or device; it
is not an emergency shutdown system; it is not a control; and it is not a pump.
<i>See</i> 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119(j)(1)(i)-(vi). Further, I find persuasive
the collective testimony of Delek’s expert witnesses, who have more than
30 and 35 years, respectively, of experience with industry standards on process
equipment and who opined that a PPU is not process equipment.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote32',%20WPFootnote32%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1279" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote32" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote32 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>At most, the PPU is simply a tool to
prevent the spread of chemicals to a specific area if and when an unexpected
release has occurred; however, this is not sufficient to bring it within the
definition of process equipment as defined by § 1910.119(j)(4)(i).</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'><span
style='color:black'>The majority’s discussion of the various forms of
process equipment is insufficient to support Item 8. While the majority found
that the PPU is a type of control and therefore qualifies as “process
equipment” under § 1910.119(j)(1), the majority misconstrues the
dispositive issue before the Commission—which is, while §
1910.119(j)(1) recognizes that a control may be a form of process equipment,
the threshold question in assessing whether a control (or any other process
equipment) falls under (j)(1) is still <i>whether it is a part of a process</i>.
Where a particular control is not part of a “process,” the fact
that the term “control” appears in subsection (j)(1) is of no
consequence—there is simply not the required nexus.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-bottom:6.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:
22.45pt'><span style='color:black'>The majority concludes that even if
equipment is not part of the process itself, the FCC unit, in which the PPU
works, “regulates the internal workings of the vessels that handle the
chemicals involved in the refining process;” thus, the PPU too becomes
“process equipment.” Under the majority’s definition of a
control, there is virtually no limit to what constitutes “process
equipment.” According to the majority’s reading of the standard,
every item in the workplace with a control switch is process equipment, <i>regardless
of whether it directly contributes to a process</i>, as long as it is somehow
connected to the refining process at the facility. An interpretation that
departs so far from the purpose of the standard is clearly not reasonable and
fails to provide the regulated community with adequate notice as to their
compliance obligations. <i>See</i> <i>Lisbon Contractors, Inc</i>., 11 BNA OSHC
1971, 1974, 1984-85 CCH OSHD ¶ 26,924, p. 34,500 (No. 80-97, 1984); <i>S.G.
Loewendick & Sons, Inc. v. Sec’y of Labor</i>, 70 F.3d 1291, 1297
(D.C. Cir. 1995). I reject such a reading of the standard and conclude that the
cited standard does not apply to the PPU; thus, I would vacate Item 8.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:22.45pt'><b><span
style='color:black'>CONCLUSION</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'><span
style='color:black'>I am concerned that the majority’s holding here has
increased the compliance burdens and costs for employers—particularly
those acquiring new facilities. Under the majority’s decision, acquiring
employers are now required to ignore the cycles set forth in
§ 1910.119(e) and (o) and to investigate, with no statute of
limitations to create a guide as to how far back to go, the extent to which
predecessors complied with the PSM Standard. Such an expansive burden may lead
employers to prioritize PHAs and audits over other safety concerns, something
that could actually reduce workplace safety. In addition, by broadening the PSM
Standard’s definition of “process,” my colleagues have
brought a host of other equipment in a facility that is not in contact with a
highly hazardous chemical within the coverage of the standard—the bounds
of which are unclear and place new uncertain compliance obligations (though certain
to be time-consuming and costly ones) upon employers.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-bottom:9.95pt;line-height:17.2pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'><span
style='color:black'>In conclusion, I dissent from my colleagues’
determinations regarding Citation 1, Item 4; Citation 1, Item 8; and Citation
1, Item 12; as I would remand Item 4 to the judge for further proceedings; I
would vacate Item 8; and I would vacate Item 12.</span><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:11.95pt;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:11.95pt'><span style='color:black'>                                                                                     <u>/s/</u>________________________________</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:11.95pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
3.0in;text-indent:.5in'><span style='color:black'>Heather L. MacDougall</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:11.95pt'><span style='color:black'>Dated: April 23,
2015                                                Commissioner</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='line-height:22.45pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman"'>

<hr size=4 width="100%" noshade style='color:green' align=center>

</span></div>

<p style='text-align:justify'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black'>                            </span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black'>                                            United
States of America</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black'>OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:black'>                                  1120
20th Street, N.W., Ninth Floor</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;color:black'>                                        Washington,
DC 20036-3457</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'> </span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'> </span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<div class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>

<hr size=1 width=288 style='width:3.0in' align=left>

</span></div>

<p style='margin-left:3.0in;text-indent:-3.0in'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-left:3.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-3.0in'><span
style='color:black'>SECRETARY OF
LABOR,                           :</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>                                                                        :</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-left:3.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-3.0in'><span
style='color:black'>                        Complainant,                          :</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>                                                                        :</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-left:4.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-4.0in'><span
style='color:black'>            v.                                                         :                      OSHRC
DOCKET NO. 08-1386</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-left:2.5in;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>:</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>DELEK REFINING,
LTD.,                           :</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>                                                                         :</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-left:3.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-3.0in'><span
style='color:black'>                        Respondent.                            :</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<div class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>

<hr size=1 width=288 style='width:3.0in' align=left>

</span></div>

<p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-left:4.0in;text-indent:-4.0in'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-left:4.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-4.0in'><span
style='color:black'>Appearances:  Sheryl L. Vieyra, Esquire                               Mark
S. Dreux, Esquire</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-left:4.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-4.0in'><span
style='color:black'>                        Delores
G. Wolfe,
Esquire                             Micah
R. Smith, Esquire</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-left:4.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-4.0in'><span
style='color:black'>                        Michael
Schoen,
Esquire                                Arent
Fox, LLP</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-left:4.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-4.0in'><span
style='color:black'>                        U.S.
Department of
Labor                              Washington,
D.C.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-left:4.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-4.0in'><span
style='color:black'>                        Dallas,
Texas                                                  For
the Respondent.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>                        For
the Complainant.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-left:1.0in;text-indent:-1.0in'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-1.0in'><span
style='color:black'>Before:            Dennis
L. Phillips</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>                        Administrative
Law Judge</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p align=center style='text-align:center'><b><i><u><span style='color:black'>DECISION
AND ORDER</span></u></i></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            This
proceeding is before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
(“the Commission”) under section 10(c) of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. § 651 <i>et seq</i>. (“the
Act”). On February 19, 2008, the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (“OSHA”) began an inspection of Respondent’s
facility, located in Tyler, Texas. As a result, on August 18, 2008, OSHA issued
to Respondent a 15-item “serious” citation and a one-item
“other” citation. Respondent contested the citations. On August 24,
2009, the parties filed a Joint Notice of Partial Withdrawal of Certain Citation
Items. This left for resolution Items 4, 6, 8, 9(b), 12, 13 and 15 of Serious
Citation 1. The hearing in this matter was held in Dallas, Texas, on September
1-4, 2009, November 2-6, 2009, and March 1-4, 2010.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote33',%20WPFootnote33%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1278" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote33" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote33 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>Both of the parties have submitted
post-hearing briefs and reply briefs.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p align=center style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:center;line-height:29.95pt'><b><i><u><span
style='color:black'>Background</span></u></i></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            Respondent
Delek Refining, LTD. (“Delek”) purchased the refinery located in
Tyler, Texas, on April 29, 2005. The prior owner was Crown Central
(“Crown”), and the refinery was called “La Gloria” when
Crown owned it. OSHA initiated the inspection of Delek under its national
emphasis program focusing on process safety management (“PSM”) in
refineries. The main objective of the PSM standard is to prevent unwanted
releases of hazardous chemicals, especially in locations that could expose
employees and others to serious hazards. <i>See</i> 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119.
The purpose of the inspection was to audit Delek’s PSM program, review
its documentation, and inspect the various units in the facility. The
inspection began February 19, 2008 and continued at the refinery for about four
months. Ronald Watkins, the Assistant Area Director (“AAD”) of the
Dallas OSHA office, was the team leader.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote34',%20WPFootnote34%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1277" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote34" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote34 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>He oversaw the inspection and the
four other OSHA compliance officers (“CO’s”) assisting in the
inspection.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>
</span><a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote35',%20WPFootnote35%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1276" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote35" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote35 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>(Tr. 92-93, 100-04, 1854-55, 2762).</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            As
a result of the inspection, OSHA cited Delek for various alleged violations of
the PSM standard. Two items were issued for not promptly addressing and
correcting deficiencies found during PSM process hazard analyses and compliance
audits. Another was for not having a current, properly-certified set of operating
procedures for the refinery’s Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit, also known
as the “FCC Unit” or the “Cat Unit.” A further
condition cited under the PSM standard was the failure to inspect and test the
positive pressure unit in the FCC Unit’s control room. (Tr. 290-325).
Another item issued under the PSM standard was for not having a management of
change (“MOC”) procedure for using a “steam lance” to
cool a hot spot on the outside of a vessel in the FCC Unit called the
“regenerator.” (Tr. 119-21, 124-28, 131-40, 145-55, 160, 274-90,
291-99, 325-59).</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            Two
other citation items were issued under standards other than the PSM standard.
One item alleged that unguarded horizontal rotating shafts in the Boiler Unit
were hazardous. Another cited condition was the refinery’s failure to
label certain of its vessels that held hazardous chemicals to show what the
vessels contained. (Tr. 361-69, 468-72).</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p align=center style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:center;line-height:29.95pt'><b><i><u><span
style='color:black'>Jurisdiction</span></u></i></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            The
parties have stipulated that jurisdiction of this proceeding is conferred upon
the Commission by section 10(c) of the Act. They have also stipulated that
Respondent Delek is an employer engaged in a business affecting commerce within
the meaning of section 3(5) of the Act. <i>See </i>Answer, pp. 1-2; Joint
Prehearing Statement, p. 27, submitted August 7, 2009. I find that the
Commission has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter in this case.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p align=center style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:center;line-height:29.95pt'><b><i><u><span
style='color:black'>The Secretary’s Burden of Proof</span></u></i></b><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            To
prove a violation of an OSHA standard, the Secretary must show by a
preponderance of the evidence that (1) the cited standard applies, (2) there
was a failure to comply with the cited standard, (3) employees had access to
the violative condition, and (4) the employer knew or could have known of the
condition with the exercise of reasonable diligence. <i>Astra Pharmaceutical
Prod.</i>, 9 BNA OSHC 2126, 2129 (No. 78-6247, 1981). The Secretary contends
she has met her burden as to all of the remaining items. Delek contends she has
not met her burden as to any of the items.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p align=center style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:center;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>                                 <b><i><u>Item
4 – Alleged Violation of 29 C.F.R. 1910.119(e)(5)</u></i></b></span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            Item
4 alleges a violation of 29 C.F.R. 1910.119(e)(5), a provision of OSHA’s
PSM standard. The cited provision states that:</span><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>The employer shall establish
a system to promptly address the team’s findings and recommendations;
assure that the recommendations are resolved in a timely manner and that the
resolution is documented; document what actions are to be taken; complete
actions as soon as possible; develop a written schedule of when these actions
are to be completed; communicate the actions to operating, maintenance and
other employees whose work assignments are in the process and who may be
affected by the recommendations or actions.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            The
citation alleges that Delek “did not establish a system to promptly
address process hazard analysis team’s finding[s] and
recommendations.” It also alleges that the process hazard analysis
team’s findings and recommendations for 1994, 1998, 1999, 2004 and 2005
were still unresolved and/or incomplete at the time of the OSHA inspection.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote36',%20WPFootnote36%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1275" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote36" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote36 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            Under
the PSM standard, a refinery must conduct a process hazard analysis
(“PHA”) of its equipment every five years. Under Crown, a number of
PHAs had been done between 1994 and April 2005. On December 10, 2007, Delek
hired Dewana Tarpley as its PSM coordinator.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote37',%20WPFootnote37%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1274" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote37" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote37 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>Her job was to oversee and manage the
PSM program and to head up the PHA that was to occur in May 2008.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote38',%20WPFootnote38%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1273" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote38" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote38 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>Ms. Tarpley had some difficulty
finding the information from the previous PHAs. This was due to its storage in
various areas on the refinery’s premises. She ultimately found both hard
copies and electronic copies of La Gloria’s previous PHAs. She found the
electronic copies by accessing the safety administration portion of
Delek’s network system. As she began going through the information, she
realized that confirming the status of the prior PHA items was going to be a
big job. She also realized that, despite being told when she was hired that all
of the items from La Gloria’s PHAs had been completed, that was not the
case. Ms. Tarpley took her concerns to management. During the last quarter of
2007, Delek contracted with Process Safety Reliability Group
(“PSRG”) to organize the information, verify the status of the PHA
items, and provide that information to management. Under Ms. Tarpley’s
supervision, PSRG took several weeks to develop C-19, a PHA
“tracker” consisting of three lists. The first list showed the PHA
items that La Gloria had closed prior to the refinery’s sale. The second list
showed the PHA items that had been closed since the sale. The third list showed
the PHA items that were still open. The second and third lists were updated as
new information about PHA items was learned.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote39',%20WPFootnote39%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1272" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote39" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote39 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>(Tr. 736-38, 789-90, 1789-93,
1824-28, 2761-78, 2886-99).</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            Ms.
Tarpley was the main contact for OSHA to request documents from Delek. On March
11, 2008, pursuant to a document request, Ms. Tarpley provided OSHA with C-19,
the PHA tracker. Upon reviewing C-19, AAD Watkins noted there were many items
still open and that a number of those were shown as high-priority items. Some
items in C-19 had been open since the nineties. The AAD discussed C-19 with Ms.
Tarpley and her supervisor, Donald Whaley, the environmental health and safety
(“EHS”) manager. Both indicated that some items marked as closed
might not in fact be closed. The AAD also spoke to Robert Martin, Delek’s
emergency response coordinator. He went over a number of items on C-19 with Mr.
Martin that were shown as his responsibility and as having</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>been closed a day or two after OSHA’s arrival. The
AAD learned that less than half of those items were actually closed. The AAD
concluded Delek had violated the PSM standard as it had not promptly addressed
and resolved the prior PHA items. (Tr. 131-40, 145-55, 160, 736-38, 1789).</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            There
is no dispute that the cited standard applies to Delek. Ms. Tarpley, the PSM
coordinator, testified that the standard applies due to the nature of
Delek’s processes and the quantity of chemicals at the facility. (Tr.
755-56, 781). <i>See also</i> C-24. The parties do dispute the number of PHA
items that were still unresolved at the time of the OSHA inspection. The parts
of C-19 at issue are those captioned “PHA Items Open” (“open
items”) and “PHA Items Closed Since Sale” (“closed
items”). The open items in C-19 are two pages, numbered 11508 and 11509.
The closed items in C-19 are six pages, numbered 11510 through 11515.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote40',%20WPFootnote40%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1271" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote40" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote40 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>The Secretary contends there are 30
items on these pages that were not resolved at the time of the OSHA inspection.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote41',%20WPFootnote41%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1270" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote41" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote41 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>S. Brief, pp. 17-21.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            As
a preliminary matter, I note that many of the items the Secretary lists in her
brief as being incomplete at the time of the inspection are shown as
“INS,” or insurance items, on C-19. S. Brief, pp. 17-21. Ben Frank
Simmons, Delek’s refinery manager, explained the notations on C-19. For
example, for Item 6, the first item on C-19, the “00-PHA” refers to
the year the PHA was done (2000), the “ALK” refers to the unit
involved, etc. (Tr. 2277-89). He noted that the “TYPE” column
refers to whether the item was an insurance (“INS”), a safety
(“S”), or a regulatory (“REG”) item. (Tr. 2284-85). He
also noted that the insurance items were recommendations of Delek’s
property insurer in order to protect the equipment. (Tr. 1286-87). Ms. Tarpley
testified that she understood that the insurance items were included in C-19
for tracking purposes. (Tr. 2911-12). Mr. Martin verified that the insurance
items were recommendations of Delek’s property insurer and were put on
C-19 to keep track of them. (Tr. 1664-65). He stated that when Delek’s
insurer visited annually to look at the fire water system, he encouraged the
representative to “write up” anything that would help him get
equipment that would enhance Delek’s fire protection system. He believed
that many of the insurance recommendations were not items a PHA team would
include in a PHA. (Tr. 1765-67).</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            Delek
contends that, in view of the record, the insurance items were not actually PHA
items and were put on C-19 solely as a means of tracking them. R. Brief, p. 5;
R. Reply Brief, p. 9. I agree, and I find that the Secretary has not shown that
the insurance items on C-19 were in fact PHA items. Thus, items on the
Secretary’s list in her brief that are shown as insurance items on C-19
will not be considered PHA items. Taking this into account, there are 18 items
left to resolve.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>
</span><a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote42',%20WPFootnote42%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1269" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote42" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote42 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>These items are summarized as
follows, in the order in which they appear on the Secretary’s list:</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'><u><span style='color:black'>Item 93, p. 11508</span></u><span
style='color:black'> – 2004 PHA recommendation for eng’g review as
to use of fiber cast material for Fluor specifications was not done as of
11/4/09 per Heraeio Alex Juarez, Delek’s inspection supervisor. (Tr.
1306-07, 1312, 1474-78).</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'><u><span style='color:black'>Item 89, p. 11508</span></u><span
style='color:black'> – 2003 PHA recommendation for eng’g review as
to relief protection for certain equipment was open as of March 11, 2008 per
Mr. Simmons; eng’g review was done “fairly recent[ly]” as of
11/4/09 per Mr. Juarez.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>
</span><a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote43',%20WPFootnote43%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1268" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote43" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote43 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>(Tr. 1503-05, 2290-91).</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'><u><span style='color:black'>Item 90, p. 11508</span></u><span
style='color:black'> – 2003 PHA recommendation for eng’g review as
to pipe specifications and potential piping failure still open as of 3/11/08
per Mr. Simmons. (Tr. 2290-91).</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'><u><span style='color:black'>Item 69, p. 11508</span></u><span
style='color:black'> – 1997 PHA recommendation for eng’g review as
to emergency isolation valves remotely located was open on 3/11/08 per Mr.
Simmons. (Tr. 2301-04).</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'><u><span style='color:black'>Item 4, p. 11508</span></u><span
style='color:black'> – 2000 PHA recommendation (high-priority safety
item) to install emergency isolation valve was not installed until the 2009
turnaround. Per Mr. Simmons, open on 3/11/08; valve was ordered for 2005
turnaround but not received in time. He admitted valve could have been
installed before 2009 by shutting unit down. (Tr. 147, 2291, 2301-06).</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'><u><span style='color:black'>Item 25, p. 11508</span></u><span
style='color:black'> – 2003 PHA recommendation to install air-actuated
valve on certain equipment was open as of 3/11/08 and not addressed until 2009
per Mr. Simmons. (Tr. 2291, 2302, 2379-80).</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'><u><span style='color:black'>Item 13, p. 11508</span></u><span
style='color:black'> – 1997 PHA recommendation (high-priority safety
item) for eng’g review concerning installation of unit isolation valves
was open and still under review as of 3/3/10 per Ms. Tarpley. (Tr. 148,
2794-95).</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'><u><span style='color:black'>Item 8, p. 11509</span></u><span
style='color:black'> – 1994 PHA recommendation, to consider labeling
production and utility lines with “water,” “steam” and
“cooling” still not completed as of 11/4/09. Per Mr. Martin, an
employee had grabbed a steam line and been burned. (Tr. 1602-08). </span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'><u><span style='color:black'>Item 42, p. 11511</span></u><span
style='color:black'> – 1994 PHA recommendation (high-priority safety
item), to install remote valve actuator on FCC Unit reactor, due to fire, still
open on 11/5/09, per Mr. Martin.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote44',%20WPFootnote44%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1267" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote44" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote44 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>(Tr. 1755-65). <i>See also </i>Mr.
Simmons’ testimony. (Tr. 2294-95, 2303).</span><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'><u><span style='color:black'>Item 3, p. 11512</span></u><span
style='color:black'> – 2000 PHA recommendation (high-priority safety
item) to install emergency isolation valves on certain equipment was not
completed until 2009 per Mr. Simmons. (Tr. 2300, 2303, 2396).</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'><u><span style='color:black'>Item 5, p. 11512</span></u><span
style='color:black'> – 2000 PHA recommendation, identical to Item 3, <i>supra</i>,
except that Item 3 was a “Phase I” recommendation, while Item 5 was
a “Phase II” recommendation. Completed in 2009 per Mr. Simmons.
(Tr. 2300, 2303, 2396).</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'><u><span style='color:black'>Item 39, p. 11512</span></u><span
style='color:black'> – 1994 PHA recommendation for eng’g review of
“liquid leg problem” between flare drum and flare stack was open as
of 3/11/08 per Ms. Tarpley. (Tr. 2799).</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'><u><span style='color:black'>Item 78, p. 11513</span></u><span
style='color:black'> – 1997 PHA recommendation for eng’g review of
certain equipment was still open on 3/11/08 per Ms. Tarpley. (Tr. 2803).</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'><u><span style='color:black'>Item 87, p. 11513</span></u><span
style='color:black'> – 2003 PHA recommendation for eng’g review of
relief protection on certain equipment still open on 3/11/08. Per Ms. Tarpley,
review determined relief protection was adequate, but vessel to be replaced in
late 2010 or in 2011 due to environmental regulatory requirements. (Tr.
2804-05).</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'><u><span style='color:black'>Item 51, p. 11513</span></u><span
style='color:black'> – 1998 PHA recommendation for eng’g review as
to pipe specifications for certain equipment was still open on 3/11/08.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote45',%20WPFootnote45%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1266" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote45" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote45 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>(Tr. 2806-07).</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'><u><span style='color:black'>Item 59, p. 11514</span></u><span
style='color:black'> – 1999 PHA recommendation (high-priority safety
item) for eng’g review as to possible installation of emergency isolation
valves on certain equipment still open as of 3/11/08. Per Mr. Simmons, item
still in eng’g and development phase, to determine proper course of
action, as of 3/2/10. (Tr. 2301-03, 2397-98).</span><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'><u><span style='color:black'>Item 37, p. 11514</span></u><span
style='color:black'> – 1999 PHA recommendation to paint exterior and
channels of certain equipment was still open on 3/11/08 per Mr. Simmons. (Tr.
2301-03).</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'><u><span style='color:black'>Item 67, p. 11514</span></u><span
style='color:black'> – 2000 PHA recommendation to paint piping on certain
equipment was still open as of 3/11/08 per Mr. Simmons. (Tr. 2301-03).</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            Excluding
Items 51 and 89, the foregoing shows that all of the remaining items were still
open and not resolved as of March 11, 2008, when Ms. Tarpley provided C-19 to
OSHA.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote46',%20WPFootnote46%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1265" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote46" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote46 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>Delek nonetheless asserts it was not
in violation of the cited standard. First, it suggests that it did have a
system within the meaning of the standard, based on C-19. R. Brief, p. 25. I
agree with the Secretary, however, that Delek did not have a system within the
meaning of the standard. The standard required Delek to have a system in place
to “promptly address the [PHA] team’s findings and
recommendations,” to “assure that the recommendations are resolved
in a timely manner,” and to “complete actions as soon as
possible.” (Tr. 773-74; S. Reply Brief, pp. 1-2) It is clear from the
record that Delek had no such system in place from the time it bought the
refinery in April 2005 until almost three years later in early 2008.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            Second,
Delek contends it was not aware that the prior PHA items had not been resolved
and that the Secretary has not shown it had knowledge of the cited condition.
Delek asserts it had asked La Gloria to ensure that any outstanding PHA
findings were addressed prior to the sale, so that Delek could focus on complying
with the Clean Fuels Initiative, and that La Gloria had advised it this had
been done. Delek claims it reasonably relied on La Gloria’s
representation and believed no action was needed until the next PHA, which
according to Mr. Simmons was due in 2008.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote47',%20WPFootnote47%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1264" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote47" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote47 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>(Tr. 2109; R. Brief, pp. 15-16, 27).
Mr. Whaley, Delek’s EHS manager, also testified to this effect. (Tr.
1815). Mr. Whaley, however, did not begin working at the facility until July
30, 2007, and his knowledge was based on what other persons, like Mr. Simmons,
told him. (Tr. 1789, 1815-17). Mr. Simmons testified that Crown directed its
employees to complete all the PHAs they could before the sale. (Tr. 2108,
2271-72). Mr. Simmons admitted, however, that “We knew that there were
PHA items that were outstanding....” (Tr. 2272). In any case, I find that
it was not reasonable for Delek, as the new owner, to simply rely on
Crown’s representation and to not even look at the prior PHAs for nearly
three years. I also agree with the Secretary that, if Delek had exercised
reasonable diligence, it would have become aware much earlier that there were
still outstanding PHA items. S. Reply Brief, pp. 2-5. As Mr. Whaley’s
testimony indicates, Delek was involved with many other matters at that time
and PHAs were simply not a priority. (Tr. 1818-19). The Secretary has
demonstrated the knowledge element as to this citation item.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            Third,
Delek contends that the many improvements it has made to the facility are much
more important and have had a much greater impact on safety than the PHA items.
These improvements are set out in detail in Delek’s brief. R. Brief, pp.
5-14, 16-24. Delek also asserts it has spent millions of dollars on these
improvements. R. Brief, pp. 14-15, 24. The Secretary counters that many of the
improvements have been profit-enhancing projects, based on Mr. Simmons’
testimony, and that a relatively small amount was spent on safety. S. Brief,
pp. 8-9. Regardless, I agree with the Secretary that Delek may not excuse its
failure to comply with the standard by arguing that other projects it has
completed were more important. S. Reply Brief, pp. 2-3. Delek’s
contention is rejected.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            As
to the employee exposure element, the Secretary notes that the unresolved PHA
items include most of the units in the refinery. <i>See</i> S. Brief, pp.
17-21, and C-19. As she also notes, the employees who work in those units would
be exposed to the hazards posed by the cited conditions. One specific example
she notes is Item 42, on page 11511 of C-19. This item is a “high
priority” safety item, and the recommended action is to “install
remote valve actuator on FCC Unit reactor, due to fire.” This item was
still open on 11/5/09, in view of Mr. Martin’s testimony. He also
testified that without the valve, employees were exposed to a fire and
explosion hazard.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>
</span><a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote48',%20WPFootnote48%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1263" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote48" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote48 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>(Tr. 1759-64). The Secretary points
out that 16 employees work in the FCC Unit, which operates on a 24-hour basis
365 days a year. Four employees work in the unit on each 12-hour shift. S.
Brief, pp. 22-23. The Secretary has demonstrated the employee exposure element,
and, as she has shown all four elements of her burden of proof, this citation
item is affirmed. It is affirmed as serious, based on the AAD’s testimony
that various items, some of which were high-hazard items, were still open and
presented explosion and fire hazards. (Tr. 273). <i>See</i> section 17(k) of
the Act (a violation is serious if there is a substantial probability that the
cited condition could result in death or serious physical harm).</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            The
Secretary has proposed a penalty of $6,300.00 for this item. In assessing
penalties, the Commission is required to give due consideration to the gravity
of the violation and to the employer’s size, history and good faith. <i>See</i>
section 17(j) of the Act. The AAD testified that the violation had high
gravity, due to the outstanding PHA items that posed an explosion and fire
hazard. He further testified that a 10 percent credit was given for
Delek’s history. No credit was given for size, due to Delek’s 270 employees,
or for good faith, due to the deficiencies in Delek’s safety program.
(Tr. 272-73).</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            There
are other factors to consider in determining an appropriate penalty for this
item. First, I note that of the 101 PHA items contained in C-19, the record, as
set out <i>supra</i>, shows that there were 16 outstanding PHA items at the
time of the OSHA inspection. I have also considered the improvements that Delek
has made to the facility, as discussed above. The Secretary, however, asserts
the amounts spent on safety were relatively small. Further, as found above,
Delek did not address the pending PHA items for nearly three years, some of the
items still have not been resolved, and three of these are high-priority safety
items. And, as the Secretary points out, the refinery has had a number of
accidents since Delek bought it. There have been eight to ten fires, some of
which were caused by the unexpected release of hydrocarbons. (Tr. 1608-09,
1628-29). The worst of these, by far, was a fire and explosion in November 2008
in the SAT Gas Unit, which killed two employees and injured several more. (Tr.
1629, 2332, 2396-97). Another incident occurred about six months before the
OSHA inspection began. A compressor tripped, forcing the DHT Unit into a hot
shutdown and causing two fires. (Tr. 1631-38; C-60). Other reported accidents
are set out elsewhere in this decision.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote49',%20WPFootnote49%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1262" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote49" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote49 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><i><span style='color:black'>See also</span></i><span
style='color:black'> S. Brief, pp. 6-8.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            On
balance, and upon considering all of the foregoing, the Court finds the
proposed penalty of $6,300.00 to be appropriate for this item. That penalty is
assessed.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p align=center style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:center;line-height:29.95pt'><b><i><u><span
style='color:black'>Item 6 – Alleged Violation of 29 C.F.R.
1910.119(f)(3)</span></u></i></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            The
cited standard provides as follows:</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>The operating procedures
shall be reviewed as often as necessary to assure that they reflect current operating
practice, including changes that result from changes in process chemicals,
technology, and equipment, and changes to facilities. The employer shall
certify annually that these operating procedures are current and accurate.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            Item
6 alleges that Delek did not ensure that the operating procedures for the FCC
Unit (“FCCU”) were current, accurate and certified annually as of
April 24, 2008.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            The
FCCU’s process contains 397,500 pounds of flammable mixtures. <i>See</i>
C-24, p. 767. The process involves gas oil and catalyst entering the reactor.
There, the gas oil is “cracked” into smaller hydrocarbons. The
resulting vapors go to the fractionator, another vessel in the FCCU. After
further processing, the products and vapors become gasoline. Sixteen employees
work in the FCCU, which operates 365 days a year. There are four employees on
each of the two 12-hour daily shifts. (Tr. 169-72, 420-21).</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            The
AAD visited the FCCU’s control room on February 28, 2008. He requested
the operating procedures (“OPs”) for the unit and was shown OPs
dated 1999. OSHA then requested the unit’s OPs by subpoena. The OPs
received, JX-X, were not the same, having different dates.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote50',%20WPFootnote50%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1261" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote50" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote50 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>The AAD returned to the FCCU and
asked for the OPs the operators were actually using. He was handed a third set
of OPs that showed La Gloria’s name and a date of September 14, 1992.
This third set showed it had been prepared by Isaac Johnson and signed by Jimmy
Jones. Messrs. Martin and Whaley were present at the time, and the AAD asked
them for a copy of the 1992 OPs. No such copy was ever provided. The AAD later
reviewed JX-X. He noted that the OPs in JX-X were not signed to certify they
were correct and accurate. The AAD concluded that the failure to have one
current set of OPs for the FCCU that was properly certified was a violation of
the standard. (Tr. 274-90; C-27).</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            Jeffrey
Gaddis is an “A” operator in the FCCU. He has worked at the
refinery for about 30 years. For most of that time, he has worked in the FCCU.
He is responsible for operating the unit and overseeing the three other
employees on his shift. Mr. Gaddis testified there were three sets of OPs in
the FCCU control room at the time of the inspection. One was an old set, and
the other two were drafts that were being updated. At the time of OSHA’s
investigation, he used the old set because he felt comfortable with it. Also,
he had not been told that the drafts were finished. Mr. Gaddis said the old set
of OPs had been in place in the unit for a long time. He did not know whether Delek,
in 2008, had a procedure to ensure the OPs in his unit were current, accurate
and certified on an annual basis. He also had never seen any type of a paper
certification by anyone representing that the OPs were accurate or current.
(Tr. 169-77).</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            Patrick
Todd is also an “A” operator in the FCCU. He has worked in the FCCU
for 25 years. His duties are the same as those of Mr. Gaddis. Mr. Todd
testified there were three sets of OPs in the FCCU’s control room in
March 2008. He said there were draft OPs being worked on at that time and that
the OPs were updated after the OSHA inspection. He believed he had been using
La Gloria’s OPs at the time of the OSHA inspection. (Tr. 417-20, 423-28).</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            Delek
presented the testimony of Mr. Simmons, the refinery manager, to rebut the
Secretary’s evidence. According to Mr. Simmons, Delek, after purchasing
the refinery in 2005, hired procedure writers who, together with an operator
from each unit, updated all of the OPs for all of the units. Drafts of the
updated OPs were provided to the units for review and comment by the other
operators. The OPs were finalized in 2006, and further updates were made to
Delek’s OPs in 2007 and 2008. Mr. Simmons testified that he and Alan
Clover certified JX-X as being current and accurate on July 22, 2008. He noted
that the procedures in JX-X had multiple revision dates. He said that was
Delek’s process for showing the last time that a procedure was actually
revised. (Tr. 2057-66).</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            Delek
also elicited testimony from Mr. Todd as to this item. Mr. Todd testified he
was a “major writer” of the OPs shown in JX-X. He said that most of
the OPs written in 2005 were accurate and were left as they were. He also said
that, to the best of his knowledge, as of February or March of 2008, JX-X was
an accurate and complete copy of the FCCU’s OPs. (Tr. 438-41).</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            Based
on the foregoing, the Court finds the Secretary has shown the alleged
violation. As the Secretary indicates, Delek overlooks the testimony of Messrs.
Gaddis and Todd. S. Reply Brief, pp. 7-9. That testimony shows that they were
using the old procedures of La Gloria at the time of the inspection. (Tr. 174,
425-28). Those procedures were over 15 years old in February 2008, and the
draft OPs in the unit were not being used. Mr. Gaddis testified he had never
been told that the drafts had been finished. (Tr. 174). The record establishes
there were no current, accurate and certified OPs in the unit at the time of
the inspection.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>
</span><a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote51',%20WPFootnote51%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1260" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote51" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote51 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>While Mr. Todd believed the OPs in
JX-X were correct and accurate at that time, they were not certified.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote52',%20WPFootnote52%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1259" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote52" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote52 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><i><span style='color:black'>See</span></i><span
style='color:black'> <i>Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc.</i>, No. 96-0062, 1998 WL
799135, at *12 (O.S.H.R.C.A.L.J., Nov. 13, 1998)(violation of 29 C.F.R. §
1910.119(f)(3) affirmed when compliance officer “did not observe any
certificates on the documents.”) JX-X shows the OPs were revised on
multiple dates in 2005 and 2007. The “Approved by” box at the top
of each procedure, however, is blank.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            As
an example of employee exposure, the Secretary states that “start-up
procedures ... have changed over the years in response to new equipment,”
citing to Mr. Todd’s testimony. S. Brief, p. 29. Delek asserts the
Secretary “misstates the record” here and in other respects. R.
Reply Brief, p. 13. I disagree. Delek’s question to Mr. Todd and Mr.
Todd’s answer are as follows:</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
1.0in;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>Q.The
basic procedure has stayed the same, has it not?</span><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
1.0in;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>A.On most equipment, yes.
The start-up procedure – the overall start-up procedures have changed
accordingly with new equipment and stuff that we would get in, and then you
just update your procedures as the equipment comes in.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>(Tr. 441-42). A reasonable inference from the above is that
there were changes to the FCCU’s OPs that were required to be put in
writing and certified. A further reasonable inference, in light of the
15-year-old OPs in use at the time of the inspection, is that those changes
were not being put in writing and certified. In view of the record, I find the
Secretary has established all the elements of her burden of proof. The
knowledge element is shown by Mr. Simmons’ testimony. (Tr. 1987-90,
2057-66).</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>
</span><a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote53',%20WPFootnote53%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1258" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote53" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote53 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>This item is affirmed as serious. I
agree with the Secretary that not having current, accurate and certified OPs
exposed employees to the hazards of uncontrolled hydrocarbon and other chemical
releases.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>
</span><a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote54',%20WPFootnote54%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1257" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote54" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote54 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            The
Secretary has proposed a penalty of $2,250.00 for this item. The AAD testified
that the cited condition was a hazard in that employees in the FCCU would not
have proper OPs in the case of an emergency or other events such as startup or
shutdown of the unit. At least 16 employees (four per shift) were exposed to
the hazard. Delek received no reduction for size or good faith as to this item,
but it did receive a 10 percent reduction for history. (Tr. 288-90). The Court
finds the proposed penalty of $2,250.00 appropriate. That penalty is
accordingly assessed.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p align=center style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:center;line-height:29.95pt'><b><i><u><span
style='color:black'>Item 8 – Alleged Violation of 29 C.F.R.
1910.119(j)(4)(i)</span></u></i></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            The
cited standard requires inspections and tests to “be performed on process
equipment.” Item 8 alleges that all safety/mitigation systems supporting
process equipment were not inspected and tested under a formal preventive
maintenance program. It also alleges that as of March 6, 2008 Delek did not establish,
implement and document a system to ensure the operability, function and
effectiveness of the positive pressurization unit (“PPU”) in the
control room of the FCCU.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            According
to Delek’s Mechanical Integrity Manual (“Manual”), the
purpose of a PPU is to keep “harmful or hazardous vapors from
entering” a control room by means of positive pressure. <i>See</i> C-51,
p. 750. C-51 required weekly checks of the cited PPU to ensure that it was
working. Documented inspections were to be done biannually and were to be kept
on file. <i>Id</i>. When the AAD asked about this matter, he learned there was
no documentation of testing or inspections of the PPU. Also, one FCCU operator
told him the PPU had been down for years. The AAD saw a number of electrical
appliances in the FCCU control room. He concluded that they were a hazard
because, if flammable vapors entered the room, the appliances would be an
ignition source. (Tr. 290-306, 434-36; C-4, C-6).</span><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            The
cited PPU has been in place in the FCCU’s control room since 1978 or
1979. It consists of an intake stack that draws in outside air and a fan that
pulls the air into the control room. The PPU contains heating and cooling
elements. As air is blown through the PPU, it passes over the heating and
cooling elements. Without these elements the control room could still be
pressurized, but would be uncomfortable.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote55',%20WPFootnote55%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1256" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote55" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote55 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>The PPU has two sensors. One connects
to an alarm that indicates whether the control room is pressurized. The other
detects the presence of combustible gas. This sensor, an “LEL gas
monitor,” has an alarm set at 20 percent. If it reaches 50 percent, the
PPU shuts down to keep vapors from entering the control room.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote56',%20WPFootnote56%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1255" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote56" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote56 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>This protects the operator and
equipment in the room in the case of an uncontrolled release of hydrocarbon
vapors, so the operator can continue to operate the equipment in the control
room. (Tr. 177-80, 189, 230-31, 236-37, 259-60, 383, 404-05, 409-10, 1244,
1269-70, 1282-83, 1287-88, 1336-37, 2084-85).</span><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            At
the time of the OSHA inspection, the control room was not pressurized. The
blower function of the PPU could be used to pressurize the room, but the
heating and cooling elements were not working. When the PPU was turned on, it
brought in outside air that was not temperature controlled. This made it
unpleasant to work in the control room. The operators were thus not using the
PPU as a matter of course because it was not fully functional. (Tr. 177-80,
190, 230-31, 389-91, 1241-43). Mr. Gaddis, an FCCU operator, testified that
this had been the situation for eight to ten years before the inspection. He
had submitted a work order during that period requesting that the PPU be
repaired, but no repairs were undertaken. (Tr. 177-80). Mr. Baldwin testified
he became aware of the PPU not working properly in 2006.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote57',%20WPFootnote57%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1254" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote57" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote57 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>He began looking for a company that
could repair it. In September 2008, Delek engaged Air Cybernetics. It took Air
Cybernetics some time to locate the heating and cooling parts needed for the
repairs. The repairs were made in March of 2009. The repairs took around two
weeks, required three to four Air Cybernetics employees, and cost about
$25,000.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>
</span><a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote58',%20WPFootnote58%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1253" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote58" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote58 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>(Tr. 387-93, 1199, 1236, 1241-44).</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            C-51
states that “[o]perators should check the lights, horn and
test/acknowledge buttons at least weekly for proper operation. If a problem is
found a work order should be written.” C-51, p. 750. Mr. Gaddis testified
he had never seen this requirement before the hearing. He indicated the
operators in the FCCU did not check the PPU before March 2008 and that he knew
of no rules or procedures that required them to do so. He said that before the
repairs, the alarm light indicating there was no pressurization was on all the
time because the PPU was turned off. He also said that since the repairs, he
checks the PPU’s alarms on a regular basis. (Tr. 180-81, 190, 256-60).
C-51 further states that “[d]ocumented inspection[s] should be done
biannually.” <i>Id</i>. Mr. Baldwin testified he received a quarterly
e-mail from the inspection department to test the LEL gas alarms on the PPUs in
the various units. Upon receiving the e-mail, he would send an employee to test
and calibrate the PPU alarms and to inspect the belts on the motors of the PPU
blowers. He received no feedback as to this testing, and no records in this
regard were kept.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>
</span><a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote59',%20WPFootnote59%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1252" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote59" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote59 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>(Tr. 1244-47, 1261-64).</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            The
record shows that the cited PPU was not operating properly at the time of the
OSHA inspection and had not been for many years. While the blower part of the
PPU was functional, the operators kept it turned off as it was uncomfortable to
be in the control room without the heating and cooling elements working. The
record also shows that before the OSHA inspection, operators were not checking
the PPU alarms as required by C-51. And, while E&I employees reportedly did
quarterly tests and inspections of the LEL gas alarms on the PPU, no records of
these quarterly tests were being maintained as set out in C-51. Moreover, the
Manual stated that a “Documented [PPU] inspection should be done biannually.”
It also called for these PPU inspections to be documented and “kept on
file.” (C-51, p. 750).</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote60',%20WPFootnote60%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1251" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote60" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote60 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>Delek contends that the cited
standard does not apply because the PPU is not process equipment. The
Secretary, however, contends that the PPU is process equipment within the
context of the PSM standard.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            As
the Secretary notes, the PSM standard states that subsection (j)(4) applies to
the “following process equipment: (i) Pressure vessels and storage tanks;
(ii) Piping systems (including piping components such as valves); (iii) Relief
and vent systems and devices; (iv) Emergency shutdown systems; (v) Controls
(including monitoring devices and sensors, alarms, and interlocks) and, (vi)
Pumps.” <i>See</i> 29 C.F.R. 1910.119(j)(1). The Secretary asserts that
the PPU is process equipment under (j)(1)(v) because it has controls, including
monitoring devices, sensors and alarms. She also asserts the PPU is a safety
system, under 29 C.F.R. 1910.119(d)(3)(i)(D) and (H). S. Brief, p. 34.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            The
PPU is located in the FCCU’s control room. Mr. Juarez, Delek’s
inspection supervisor, testified the control room is necessary to operate the
FCCU’s process and that it is an essential part of the process. (Tr.
1347-50). Mr. Juarez also testified, as did Mr. Todd, an FCCU operator, that
the control room has controls, alarms and monitoring devices needed to run the
process.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>
</span><a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote61',%20WPFootnote61%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1250" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote61" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote61 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>(Tr. 419-20, 1351). It is clear from
the record the PPU also has sensors and alarms. (Tr. 189-90, 257-59, 1269). Mr.
Juarez testified that any work order pertaining to a defect that impacted the
PPU’s safe operation would be of very high importance and rated a two, on
a scale of one to ten with one being the most important. (Tr. 1354-56). The
Secretary concludes that subsection 119 (j) applies to the PPU because it has controls,
including monitoring devices, sensors and alarms. S. Brief, pp. 34-35.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            As
to the PPU also being a safety system, the Secretary notes that C-51,
Delek’s Manual, states that the purpose of the PPU is to keep
“harmful or hazardous vapors from entering” the control room. She
points out that the record shows the PPU is intended to protect the operators
in the control room. It is thus an important element in the safety of
employees. She further points out that the PPU is also intended to protect the
process in the case of an upset. That is, the PPU keeps harmful vapors out of
the control room so the process can continue to be handled and brought under
control. The Secretary notes the Delek managers who testified to this effect
and acknowledged the critical safety function of the PPU. These include E&I
Supervisor Baldwin, Inspection Supervisor Juarez, Refinery Manager Simmons and
Emergency Response Coordinator Martin. (Tr. 1239-40, 1354-59, 2359-60,
3067-68). Toby Cubine, a co-owner of Air Cybernetics with 21 years of
experience with PPUs, also testified as to the safety functions of the PPU.
(Tr. 379-81, 404). The Secretary concludes the record shows the PPU is a safety
system under the standard. S. Brief, p. 35.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            The
Secretary contends that the PPU’s operation also falls under the
definition of “process.” The PSM standard, at 29 C.F.R.
1910.119(b), defines “process” as:</span><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'><u><span style='color:black'>[A]ny activity</span></u><span
style='color:black'> involving a highly hazardous chemical including any use,
storage, manufacturing, <u>handling</u>, or the on-site movement of such
chemicals, or combination of these activities. <u>For purposes of this
definition, any group of vessels which are interconnected and separate vessels
which are located such that a highly hazardous chemical could be involved in a
potential release shall be considered a single process.</u></span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>            (Emphasis
added).</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            The
Secretary asserts that utilizing a PPU constitutes “any use” as
well as “handling” of vapors in the event of a release. She notes
the testimony of Mr. Cubine that the pressurized air inside the control room
presses against the air on the outside and pushes it back. (Tr. 404-05). The
PPU thus “handles” the highly hazardous chemicals in a process in
the case of an upset and is covered by the standard. The Secretary also notes
OSHA interpretation letters in the record that establish that process equipment
can include equipment that does not come in direct contact with the process
chemicals. In one such letter dated May 25, 1994, a writer asks about whether
hardware that contacts explosives is covered by the PSM standard. <i>See</i>
C-56, p. 1 (Ques. 1). OSHA’s response, in relevant part, is:</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>The employer is required to
determine the extent of the process used to manufacture the explosive device
described above. A covered process may include equipment within the facility
which may or may not contact the explosive, or explosive device components,
during the manufacturing activity.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            In
this same letter, another writer asks about the limit of process equipment that
must be included in a mechanical integrity program, which is subsection 119(j)
of the standard. <i>See</i> C-56, p. 2 (Ques. 2). OSHA’s response is as
follows:</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>OSHA believes that certain
equipment is critical to process safety. <u>At least</u> the equipment
specified in (j)(1) must be subject to the requirements of 1910.119(j).
However, if an employer deems additional equipment to be critical to the safety
of a particular process, the employer should consider that equipment to be
covered by 1910.119(j) and treat it accordingly. (Emphasis added).</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            In
another letter dated January 31, 2008, a writer asks if utility systems like
steam, nitrogen, electricity, plant air and process water are part of the PSM
covered process, especially since they do not contain a highly hazardous
chemical. <i>See</i> C-57, pp. 1-2. OSHA’s response is on page 3 of C-57:</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>It is OSHA’s
long-standing position that utility systems <i>are</i> part of the PSM-covered
process when employers use them to control/prevent and mitigate catastrophic
releases of HHC. A process is defined in 29 CFR 1910.119(b) as any activity <b>involving</b>
a highly hazardous chemical ... if an employer determines that a utility system
or any aspect or part of a process which does not contain an HHC but can affect
or cause a release of HHC or interfere in the mitigation of the consequences of
a release, then, relevant elements of PSM could apply to these aspects.
(Emphases in original).</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            The
Secretary notes that, based on the foregoing, OSHA’s position is that a
covered process under the PSM standard may include equipment in a facility that
is not in contact with a highly hazardous chemical. She further notes that this
interpretation comports with the purpose and meaning of the standard, as set
out in Appendix C to the standard. <i>See</i> C-3, App. C. The Secretary
contends that OSHA’s interpretations and opinions regarding the standard,
as set forth in C-56, C-57 and Appendix C, are entitled to deference. <i>See
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,</i> 467 U.S.
837, 842-44 (1984). S. Brief, pp. 35-37.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            I
agree with the Secretary that OSHA’s interpretation is entitled to deference.
<i>See Martin v. OSHRC</i>, 499 U.S. 144, 150-51 (1991) (an agency’s
interpretation is entitled to deference so long as it is
“reasonable” and “sensibly conforms to the purpose and
wording of the regulations”) (citations omitted). I find that OSHA’s
interpretation here meets this test. The PPU has monitors, or sensors, and
alarms. Its purpose is to prevent hazardous vapors from entering the control
room, so as to protect employees and equipment. It is not involved in any
actual processing of hazardous chemicals. C-56 and C-57, however, noted above,
make it clear that a covered process under the PSM standard may include
equipment that is not in contact with a highly hazardous chemical. They also
make it clear that equipment that is “critical to the safety of a
particular process” or that “can affect ... a release of HHC”
may be included. As set out <i>supra</i>, four Delek managers acknowledged the
critical safety function of the PPU. (Tr. 1239-40, 1354-56, 1359, 2359-60,
3067-68). And, as already noted, the PPU can affect a release, in that it
prevents hazardous vapors from entering the control room.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            Appendix
C, part of C-3, also supports OSHA’s interpretation. The
“Mechanical Integrity” provisions of Appendix C state in relevant
part as follows:</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>The first line of defense an
employer has available is to operate and maintain the process as designed, and
to keep the chemicals contained. This line of defense is backed up by the next
line of defense which is the controlled release of chemicals through venting to
scrubbers or flares, or to surge or overflow tanks which are designed to
receive such chemicals, etc.These lines of defense are the primary lines of
defense or means to prevent unwanted releases. The secondary lines of defense
would include fixed fire protection systems like sprinklers, water spray, or
deluge systems, monitor guns, etc., dikes, designed drainage systems, and other
systems which would control or mitigate hazardous chemicals once an unwanted
release occurs. These primary and secondary lines of defense are what the
mechanical integrity program needs to protect and strengthen these primary and
secondary lines of defenses where appropriate. The first step of an effective
mechanical integrity program is to compile and categorize a list of process
equipment and instrumentation for inclusion in the program. This list would
include pressure vessels, storage tanks, process piping, relief and vent
systems, fire protection system components, emergency shutdown systems and
alarms and interlocks and pumps.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            Based
on all of the foregoing, I find that the PPU is process equipment within the
meaning of 29 C.F.R. 1910.119(j)(1). In so finding, the Court has considered
all of Delek’s arguments. For example, Delek urges the standard does not
apply since PSM-covered equipment must contain or be connected to equipment
containing more than a threshold quantity of a highly hazardous chemical. It
also urges that the standard does not apply as the PPU does not qualify as a
process, <i>i.e.</i>, it does not store, manufacture, move, handle or otherwise
have an impact on the process. Finally, Delek urges the standard does not apply
as the PPU is not process equipment meeting any of the specific terms under 29
C.F.R. 1910.119(j)(1). R. Brief, pp. 37-45; R. Reply Brief, pp. 15-21.
Delek’s arguments, however, are not supported by the record, especially
the OSHA interpretation letters and Appendix C. The Court has also considered
the testimony of John Reynolds, an engineer and Delek’s expert for this
item.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote62',%20WPFootnote62%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1249" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote62" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote62 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>The Court has noted Mr.
Reynolds’ education and qualifications and his extensive experience in
the refinery business. (Tr. 2929-67). Like Delek’s arguments, however, Mr.
Reynolds’ opinions are simply not supported by OSHA’s
interpretation letters and Appendix C.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote63',%20WPFootnote63%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1248" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote63" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote63 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>I do not find his opinions
persuasive. I find, accordingly, that the cited standard applies to the PPU.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            There
are several arguments of Delek that, despite the above, must be addressed.
Delek urges that, beyond the equipment explicitly set out in 29 C.F.R.
1910.119(j)(1), it is the employer’s decision to determine that any other
equipment is also covered. It also asserts that it has evaluated its facility
and determined the PPU is not part of the covered process. R. Brief, p. 41; R.
Reply Brief, pp. 16-18. In support of this argument, Delek points to
OSHA’s statements in C-56 and C-57, as follows:</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>However, if an employer
deems additional equipment to be critical to a particular process, that employer
should consider that equipment to be covered by [paragraph (j)(1)] and treat it
accordingly.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>
</span><a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote64',%20WPFootnote64%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1247" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote64" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote64 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            Delek
also points to certain testimony of Mr. Simmons. Mr. Simmons, however, stated
only that he did not consider the PPU process equipment. He did not state he
had made any evaluation in that regard. (Tr. 2087, 2124). In any case, I have
already noted the testimony of four Delek managers, including Mr. Simmons,
indicating that they considered the PPU critical to the safety of the process.
(Tr. 1239-40, 1354-56, 1359, 2359-60, 3067-68). Delek’s argument is rejected.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            Delek
next notes the testimony of Mr. Baldwin indicating that he believed the air
conditioner in the control room also provided positive pressure and did the
same job the PPU did. R. Brief, pp. 52-53. Mr. Baldwin did, in fact, testify to
that effect. (Tr. 1283-85, 1299). As noted <i>supra</i>, the record shows the
air conditioner cycled on and off, unlike the PPU. The record also shows the
air conditioner frequently did not operate properly and had to be repaired at
least ten times between 2005 and 2008. (Tr. 383, 414-415, 1300-01; R-N).
Finally, Mr. Juarez testified that, to keep the control room safe, the PPU had
to be on continuously to keep any fumes or hazardous vapors out. (Tr. 1259).
Delek’s suggestion that the air conditioner served the same purpose as
the PPU is rejected.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            Delek
further urges that the Secretary did not prove that the FCCU’s control
room was a classified area, such that the unclassified electrical equipment in
the room posed a hazard. R. Reply Brief, pp. 21-24. I find, however, that the
testimony of Mr. Baldwin establishes that the entire FCCU, including the
control room, was a Class I, Division (“Div.”) 2 area.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote65',%20WPFootnote65%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1246" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote65" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote65 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>The AAD testified that during the inspection,
Mr. Baldwin told him the control room was a Class I, Div. 2 area. He also
testified that both Messrs. Baldwin and Martin told him that they were aware
that the control room should be pressurized and that the pressurization for the
room was not working.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>
</span><a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote66',%20WPFootnote66%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1245" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote66" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote66 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>(Tr. 294-95, 315, 323). The AAD
further testified that due to the control room’s classification, it had
to have either Class I, Div. 2 electrical equipment or a properly-operating
PPU. The AAD stated that because the room had neither, an explosion could have
resulted if hazardous vapors had entered the room. (Tr. 295).</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            At
the hearing, Mr. Baldwin denied telling the AAD that the control room was a
Class I, Div. 2 area. He agreed that he had told the AAD that the FCCU was a
Class I, Div. 2 area. (C-28). He stated that while he himself was not qualified
to make such a determination, he knew the FCCU was a Class I, Div. 2 area
because of his 34 years at the facility and other professionals at the refinery
informing him of the classification. He stated that the purpose of having a PPU
in the FCCU’s control room was to help maintain positive pressure in the
room. When asked the benefit of that, he said:</span><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>Because inside control
rooms, there’s not Class I, Div. 2 instrumentation or whatnot. You
maintain positive pressure so that you can use that instrumentation within the
confines of that room. (Tr. 1239-40).</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            Mr.
Baldwin then agreed that if the PPU was on and functional, classified electric
lines were not needed. He also agreed that the PPU’s purpose is to
protect both the occupants and any equipment in the control room from hazardous
vapors in the case of a release. (Tr. 1240). Mr. Baldwin’s testimony was thus
in agreement with that of the AAD. That is, the control room either had to have
a properly-functioning PPU to keep hazardous vapors out or it had to have Class
I, Div. 2 electrical equipment in it, so that, if hazardous vapors entered the
room, there would be no ignition sources. Mr. Baldwin’s testimony, along
with the rest of the record, plainly supports a finding that the control room,
like the rest of the FCCU, was a Class I, Div. 2 area. Delek’s argument
is rejected.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            The
foregoing establishes Delek violated the terms of the cited standard. It also
establishes that control room operators such as Messrs. Gaddis and Todd were
exposed to the cited condition. Finally, it establishes that Delek managers,
including Messrs. Baldwin and Martin, had knowledge of the condition. This item
is affirmed as a serious violation, as it is clear that an explosion in the
control room could result in death or serious injuries.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            The
Secretary has proposed a penalty of $6,300.00 for this item. The AAD testified
that this item had high gravity because of the hazard of explosion. The PPU was
not working properly and the operators kept it turned off. The condition had
existed for many years, Delek managers were aware of it, and the PPU was not
repaired until a year after OSHA discovered the condition. No reductions were
given for good faith or size, but a reduction for history was given. (Tr.
323-24, 271-74). The Court finds the proposed penalty appropriate. A penalty of
$6,300.00 is therefore assessed.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p align=center style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:center;line-height:29.95pt'><b><i><u><span
style='color:black'>Item 9(b) – Alleged Violation of 29 C.F.R.
1910.119(l)(4)</span></u></i></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            Item
9(b) alleges a violation of 29 C.F.R. 1910.119(l)(4), which provides as
follows:</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>If a change covered by this
paragraph results in a change in the process safety information required by
paragraph (d) of this section, such information shall be updated accordingly.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            This
item alleges that Delek did not ensure that a MOC was documented and on file
when steam lances were applied to identified “hot spots” on the
exterior of processing equipment in the FCCU. The cited equipment is the
regenerator, which is one of the main vessels in the FCCU. It is about 50 feet
high and 20 feet wide, and another vessel, the reactor, sits on top of it. The
regenerator’s shell is made of carbon steel. Inside the shell is a 4-inch
liner of gunite, a cement material, called the refractory. The
refractory’s purpose is to protect the shell from the heat and the
erosive effect of the process that takes place in the vessel.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote67',%20WPFootnote67%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1244" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote67" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote67 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>This erosion affects the refractory,
however, causing it to thin, crack and otherwise deteriorate over time. The
regenerator’s manway is an area that is regularly monitored for hot spots
due to the refractory’s tendency to thin there. The subject hot spot was
detected in early 2008 during a routine infrared inspection by All Tech. All
Tech is the contractor Delek uses to make such inspections. The hot spot was
just above the regenerator’s manway. It was about 2 feet by 1 foot.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote68',%20WPFootnote68%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1243" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote68" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote68 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>After it was detected, a steam lance
was used to cool the hot spot. The steam lance was a 6 to 8-foot pipe that was
connected to a steam hose. The hose was connected to a steam header, which
provided steam from the refinery’s boiler system. The pipe had holes in
the end of it, and it was welded to legs that were set up at the manway. The
pipe was directed at the hot spot so that the steam continuously leaving it
would cool the spot. The steam lance was used on the hot spot until</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'> the 2009 turnaround, when the refractory was
repaired.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>
</span><a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote69',%20WPFootnote69%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1242" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote69" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote69 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>(Tr. 171-72, 181-88, 213-14, 222,
233-36, 325-27, 421-23, 429-32, 1365-67, 1370-74, 1383, 1394-95, 2144-45,
2147-50; C-34, pp. 2-3).</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            The
AAD became aware of the hot spot while he was inspecting the FCCU on February
28, 2008 when he noticed steam on the regenerator during his initial walk
around the facility. He concluded the steam lance was a change in operation
that required an MOC procedure, especially since the vessel would require more
frequent inspections due to the hot spot. He believed that if the heat
continued on the vessel wall, the metal’s composition would change and
the wall could become brittle and rupture. He also believed that there would be
a problem keeping the hot spot cool if the boiler supplying the steam went down
for some reason. The AAD learned that there were no written procedures in
regard to using the steam lance on the hot spot. (Tr. 325-32, 592).</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            Because
of the AAD’s concern about the hot spot, Delek had Aptech Engineering
Services (“Aptech”), a consulting company it contracts with as
needed, evaluate the regenerator and prepare a report. The report, C-34, dated
June 2, 2008, states it is a common industry practice to apply steam to a hot
spot on the exterior of a vessel wall to keep the temperature below about
600° F. It also states that, upon considering the maximum allowable
temperature for the regenerator’s exterior wall (802° F) and assuming
the hot spot in 2005 had not been cooled and had had a “steady state
temperature” of 850° F, there was “substantial remaining
life” in that area. According to the report, if no steam was applied to
the subject hot spot and the spot ran at 900° F, the vessel had a minimum
of 12,248 hours (about a year and a half) before it should be shut down for
inspection and maintenance. And, if the hot spot was cooled continuously with
steam and kept below 650° F, then it had “essentially infinite
life” and operation in that mode was safe. (Tr. 1368-69, 1494-96,
1525-28; C-34, pp. 2-4).</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            Delek
contends the Secretary has not shown that the PSM standard applies to the
regenerator as it does not process a flammable liquid or gas in a quantity of
10,000 pounds or more. I do not agree. As the Secretary points out, the PSM
standard applies to a process involving a flammable liquid or gas on site in
one location in a quantity of 10,000 pounds or more. <i>See</i> 29 C.F.R.
1910.119(a)(1)(ii). S. Brief, p. 9. Further, 29 C.F.R. 1910.119(b) defines
“process” as follows:</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>[A]ny activity involving a
highly hazardous chemical including any use, storage, manufacturing, handling,
or the on-site movement of such chemicals, or combination of these activities.
For purposes of this definition, any group of vessels which are interconnected
and separate vessels which are located such that a highly hazardous chemical
could be involved in a potential release shall be considered a single process.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            The
FCCU’s process contains 397,500 pounds of flammable mixtures, with 7,500
of that total being in the reactor at any one time. <i>See</i> C-24, p. 767.
The process starts by gas oil and catalyst entering the reactor. There, the gas
oil is “cracked” into smaller hydrocarbons. The resulting vapors go
to the fractionator, another vessel in the FCCU. After further processing, the vapors
ultimately become gasoline. At the bottom of the reactor, the catalyst is
stripped of hydrocarbons. The catalyst then goes into the regenerator. The
regenerator uses heat and air to separate any remaining carbon from the
catalyst. After regeneration, the catalyst is reused. (Tr. 171-72, 1865-67,
2142-46, 2695-97).</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            Delek’s
contention is premised on its claim that the reactor/regenerator is separate
from the rest of the FCCU. It also notes that only 7,500 pounds of gas oil are
in the reactor at any one time and that the only materials in the regenerator
are spent catalyst, air, and trace amounts of hydrocarbons. R. Brief, pp.
60-62. Delek, however, overlooks the testimony of its own expert, John Arendt,
an engineer with extensive experience in process safety, risk analysis and the
PSM standard. Much of his experience has involved refineries. (Tr. 2574-87,
2683-84). Mr. Arendt testified that the reactor and the regenerator are
connected and that the reactor is connected to “a lot of the components
in the FCCU.” He also testified that “[v]essels that are
interconnected that contain a threshold quantity of the hazardous material
would be considered to be a part of the boundary of the process.” (Tr.
2693). Finally, Mr. Arendt testified that the regenerator is “process
equipment, as it operates in the process of the unit.” (Tr. 2732,
2758-59). Based on the evidence of record and the definition of
“process,” set out <i>supra</i>, I find that the PSM standard
applies to the regenerator. Delek’s contention is rejected.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            Delek
next contends that the Secretary has not shown that the “change”
here was one within the meaning of 29 C.F.R. 1910.119(l)(1). R. Brief, pp.
62-66. That provision states that:</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>The employer shall establish
and implement written procedures to manage changes (except for
“replacements in kind”) to process chemicals, technology,
equipment, and procedures; and, changes to facilities that affect a covered
process.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            Messrs.
Arendt, Gaddis, Juarez and Simmons all testified as to their belief that using
the steam lance was not a change to the regenerator’s process chemicals,
technology, equipment or procedures. (Tr. 237, 1443, 2152-55, 2701-09). This
belief was based on the fact that there were no changes to the internal process
in the regenerator. The chemicals and technology were the same, as were the
procedures and equipment. The Secretary, however, contends there were changes
to the regenerator’s technology, equipment and procedures. She notes that
due to the refractory’s condition, the exterior vessel wall was a higher
temperature than normal.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>
</span><a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote70',%20WPFootnote70%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1241" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote70" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote70 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>She also notes that the steam lance
was used to do what the regenerator was designed to do, <i>i.e.</i>, to keep
the vessel’s exterior at an acceptable temperature. Messrs. Arendt,
Gaddis, Juarez and Simmons all agreed this was so. (Tr. 186-87, 1442, 1557-58,
2154, 2329-30, 2750-51). The Secretary further notes the exterior of the vessel
was changed due to the hot spot. Messrs. Arendt, Juarez and Simmons all
testified that increased heat could cause the metal to change color. (Tr.
1553-55, 2322, 2749). Mr. Juarez indicated that had actually occurred and that
the hot spot area was darker in color. (Tr. 1553-55). Messrs. Arendt, Gaddis,
Juarez and Todd all agreed that, with time, excessive heat in the hot spot area
could cause the metal to deteriorate and make the regenerator unsafe to run.
(Tr. 234-35, 423, 1483-41, 2756-57). Finally, the Secretary notes that the hot
spot had resulted in a change to the procedures for the regenerator. The record
shows that once the steam lance was in use, All Tech inspected the hot spot
area much more often. (Tr. 185, 1376-77, 1385, 1418-19, 1429-30, 2151-52,
2321-22). S. Brief, pp. 49-51.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            The
Secretary further contends that the steam lance was a change that required the
PSI for the regenerator to be updated.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote71',%20WPFootnote71%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1240" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote71" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote71 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>S. Brief, p. 51.She notes that
paragraph (d)(2)(i) of the standard requires information concerning the
technology of the process to include, <i>inter alia</i>, the following:</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>(D) Safe upper and lower
limits for such items as temperatures, pressures, flows or compositions; and,</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>(E) An evaluation of the
consequences of deviations, including those affecting the safety and health of
employees.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            The
Aptech report, C-34, shows that the maximum allowable temperature of the
vessel’s wall was 802° F. It also shows the hot spot’s
temperature in 2005 was 850° F for an unspecified period. Aptech performed
a remaining life evaluation, by using 850° F as the steady state
temperature for the entire time the hot spot existed in 2005. Aptech also
assumed 900° F as the “worst case operating condition” for the
remaining period of operation, presumably until the next shutdown.
Aptech’s report concluded the regenerator could run safely at 900° F
for a minimum of 12,248 hours (about a year and a half) before it should be
shut down for inspection and maintenance. Mr. Arendt testified he had relied on
the information in C-34 in reaching some of his opinions in this matter.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote72',%20WPFootnote72%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1239" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote72" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote72 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>He agreed that the 900° F
temperature in C-34 was a presumption, as there was no analysis and conclusion
that the vessel would not exceed 900° F. He also agreed that in a
worst-case scenario, if a high enough temperature was maintained for a
sufficient period, the vessel could degrade and fail and the materials inside
could be released. These would include hot spent catalyst, hot air, water
vapor, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and trace amounts of hydrocarbons. Mr.
Arendt stated that all the materials would go up into the air and dissipate,
except for the hot catalyst, although he noted that the hydrocarbons could
cause a fire. As to the hot catalyst, he said that “[y]ou wouldn’t
want to come into contact with items that were, you know, a thousand
degrees.” (Tr. 2756-58).</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            Based
on the foregoing, I find that the Secretary has shown that Delek was required
to have an MOC procedure documented and on file as to the use of the steam
lance. I have considered the testimony of Delek’s witnesses, especially
Mr. Arendt, that the changes in this case were not changes to the process
chemicals, technology, equipment or procedures. I have also considered Mr.
Arendt’s qualifications and experience in the PSM standard. My reading of
the standard, however, together with the evidence in this case, persuades me
the Secretary’s interpretation of the standard is correct. I further find
that Delek was required to update the PSI for the regenerator due to the use of
the steam lance, in view of paragraphs (d)(2)(i)(D) and (E), set out above. I
have noted the Aptech report and its conclusion the regenerator could have run
safely for some time with the hot spot’s temperature at 900° F. However,
Mr. Arendt agreed there was no analysis in C-34 to show the hot spot would not
have exceeded that temperature. Also, Delek did not have C-34 before use of the
steam lance on the hot spot began and had no real basis for concluding its use
was safe. And, without further evidence to support the claims in C-34, I am
simply unwilling to accept those claims at face value.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            I
have noted the testimony of Delek employees that steam lance use is routine in
the industry and is considered a safe work practice. (Tr. 235-37, 436-37, 1429,
2155-60). The Aptech report also makes this claim, as does Mr. Arendt. (Tr.
2709-11; C-34, p. 2; R-D, p. 5). Mr. Arendt, however, essentially admitted that
there was no support in the PSM standard for his opinion that the use of the
steam lance here was a safe work practice such that an MOC was not required. He
agreed that the term “safe work practice” does not appear anywhere
in paragraph (l) of the standard. He also agreed that, while the term does appear
in paragraph (f), neither paragraph states that use of a “safe work
practice” provides an exemption from the MOC requirements. (Tr. 2730-31).</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            The
Secretary has also shown employee exposure to the cited condition. Sixteen
employees work in the FCCU, which operates 365 days a year. There are four
employees on each of the two 12-hour daily shifts. FCCU employees make rounds
on their shifts. These include going up on the regenerator’s walkway that
is at the manway level. Supervisors and maintenance employees also enter the
FCCU as needed. (Tr. 169-70, 420-21, 460-61, 1392-93, 1406, 1415-20, 1429,
1548).</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            Finally,
the Secretary has shown that Delek had knowledge of the cited condition. Inspection
Supervisor Juarez was aware of the hot spot in 2005. He was also aware of its
recurrence in early 2008. He testified that after meetings with supervisors
were held, maintenance workers fabricated the lance and set it up at the
regenerator’s manway. (Tr. 184, 1383, 1387-92, 1408, 1415-20, 1429).</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            In
light of the evidence of record, the alleged violation is affirmed. It is
affirmed as serious due to the testimony of Mr. Arendt, <i>supra</i>, as to
what the consequences of a failure of the regenerator wall could be. (Tr.
2756-58). Specifically, a fire on the regenerator or hot catalyst being
released could cause serious injury or death. This is particularly true since,
as set out above, FCCU employees go up on the regenerator’s walkway that
is at the manway level.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>
</span><a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote73',%20WPFootnote73%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1238" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote73" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote73 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>The finding of a serious violation is
supported by evidence that the reactor has caught fire before. (Tr. 188). The
reactor sits on top of the regenerator and is connected to it. A fire on the
reactor could affect not only the reactor itself but also the regenerator. The
finding of a serious violation is also supported by evidence that the boiler
system has failed on several occasions and that there has been an explosion in
one of the facility’s boilers. (Tr. 183, 1255). If the boiler system
failed, the steam lance would also fail.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>            The
penalty proposed for this item is $6,300.00. The AAD testified this item was a
serious hazard. There were changes to the vessel’s operation and no
written procedures to indicate, for example, how often the lance should be
inspected, how long it was to be used, and what to do if the boiler system
supplying the steam failed. (Tr. 329-32). OSHA gave a reduction in the penalty
for history, but no reductions were given for good faith or size. (Tr. 271-74,
331-32). The Court finds the proposed penalty appropriate. That penalty is
assessed.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p align=center style='margin-right:-4.45pt;text-align:center;line-height:29.95pt'><b><i><u><span
style='color:black'>Item 12 – Alleged Violation of 29 C.F.R.
1910.119(o)(4)</span></u></i></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            Item
12 alleges a violation of 29 C.F.R. 1910.119(o)(4), which provides that:</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:31.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
31.45pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>The employer shall
promptly determine and document an appropriate response to each of the findings
of the compliance audit, and document that deficiencies have been corrected.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            The
citation alleges as follows:</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:31.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
31.45pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>The employer did not
ensure that an appropriate response to each of the findings of the compliance
audit required by 29 CFR 1910.119(o)(1), has been determined and documented and
does not document that the deficiencies have been corrected. The violation was
observed on or about February 29, 2008, at 1702 Commerce St., Tyler, Texas
where the employer did not determine and document an appropriate response to
each finding from the 2005 PSM audit.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            Employers
are required to “certify that they have evaluated compliance with the provisions
of this section to verify that the procedures and practices developed under the
standard are adequate and are being followed.” 29 C.F.R. 1910.119(o)(1).
Employers must develop a report of the audit findings and must retain the two
most recent audit reports. 29 C.F.R. 1910.119(o)(4)-(5). Upon OSHA’s
request, Ms. Tarpley gave the AAD C-38 and C-39, the refinery’s audit
reports for 2004/2005 and 2001, respectively. The AAD noted that C-38 showed
numerous deficiencies that had not been addressed or corrected.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote74',%20WPFootnote74%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1237" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote74" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote74 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>He noted the same problem with C-39,
and he observed that some of the deficiencies in C-39 had been carried over to
C-38. When he asked Ms. Tarpley about what corrections or responses to
deficiencies had been made to the 2001 and 2004/2005 PSM audits, she was unable
to provide him with anything. She told him that she could not give him what she
did not have. (Tr. 333-57; R-R).</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            Ms.
Tarpley testified she was unaware of the audit reports until February or March
of 2008. She found them in hard copy and electronic format at the time of the
OSHA inspection. She also testified she could not find any documentation for
the closure of the items in the audits, despite the fact that she conducted a
thorough search for about two weeks. She said there were about 50 deficiencies
in C-38, that she discussed with management her inability to find any documents
showing the corrections for C-38, and that she was told to get the information
that was required. R-R, dated August 29, 2008, is her report showing responses
for the C-38 items. (Tr. 785-87, 2835, 2838-40, 2899-2902).</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            The
Secretary contends there are 14 items contained in R-R that, based on the
testimony of Ms. Tarpley about her investigating these items in 2008, were not
corrected as of February 29, 2008. The Secretary lists these items on pages
57-59 in her brief. The items are summarized as follows:</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:31.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
31.45pt;text-align:justify'><u><span style='color:black'>Item 2, p. 1</span></u><span
style='color:black'> – Info. concerning safe lower limits was reportedly
not provided for Crude/Vac Unit or DHT Unit. Ms. Tarpley testified she learned
the safe upper and lower limits were available and evidently had been since
before Delek bought refinery. Accordingly, the Court finds that no deficiency
existed with regard to this item. Item 2 is not a violation of the standard.
(Tr. 2847-48).</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:31.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
31.45pt;text-align:justify'><u><span style='color:black'>Item 4, p. 1</span></u><span
style='color:black'> – Info. was not available for flare systems
protecting units. Ms. Tarpley testified that a flare study for the flare
systems began in 2006 and was completed at the end of 2008. (Tr. 2845-46,
2905-09).</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:31.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
31.45pt;text-align:justify'><u><span style='color:black'>Item 5, p. 1</span></u><span
style='color:black'> – Some of the process technology info. requiring
updating had reportedly not been revised and needed to be updated. Ms. Tarpley
testified that in response to this item, the information was reviewed, found to
be complete, and not in need of updating. Accordingly, the Court finds that no
deficiency existed with regard to this item. Item 5 is not a violation of the
standard. (Tr. 2848-50).</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:31.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
31.45pt;text-align:justify'><u><span style='color:black'>Item 6, p. 1</span></u><span
style='color:black'> – There was no electrical classification info. for
the DHT Unit and the electrical classification drawings for the Crude Vacuum
Unit were not updated or reviewed since 1979. New drawings for the entire
refinery were done as of March 4, 2010, but they had not been done as of
February 29, 2008. (Tr. 2843-45, 2905-09).</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:31.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
31.45pt;text-align:justify'><u><span style='color:black'>Item 7, p. 2</span></u><span
style='color:black'> – No study for flare systems. Ms. Tarpley testified
that a flare study was begun in 2006 and completed in late 2008. (Tr. 2845-46,
2905-09).</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:31.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
31.45pt;text-align:justify'><u><span style='color:black'>Item 10, p. 2</span></u><span
style='color:black'> – Not all areas of the [PHA] recommendations have
been implemented, further review is necessary. Ms. Tarpley testified that the
PHA tracker was created in February 2008. (Tr. 2851-52).</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:31.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
31.45pt;text-align:justify'><u><span style='color:black'>Item 36, p. 7</span></u><span
style='color:black'> – “Contract Employee injury/illness log. The
PSM Coordinator maintains a log, but is not advised of all injuries/illnesses
by La Gloria supervisors. A system should be implemented to catch all required
reporting incidents.” Ms. Tarpley testified that a PSM Coordinator has
been maintaining a log since January 2008 and now there is a system to ensure
injuries/illnesses reported. (Tr. 2863-64).</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:31.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
31.45pt;text-align:justify'><u><span style='color:black'>Item 38, p. 7</span></u><span
style='color:black'> – Some contractors perform audits of their
personnel, while some do not. Ms. Tarpley testified that the self-audit requirement
did not start until 2008. (Tr. 2866).</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:31.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
31.45pt;text-align:justify'><u><span style='color:black'>Item 43, p. 8</span></u><span
style='color:black'> – Maintenance materials and spare parts. Some work
has been done in this area, but additional work should be done. Ms. Tarpley
testified a Positive Material Identification (“PMI”) machine was
purchased in 2008. (Tr. 2872-73, 2905-09).</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:31.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
31.45pt;text-align:justify'><u><span style='color:black'>Item 45, p. 9</span></u><span
style='color:black'> – “Incident investigation.... There is a
recommendation backlog that we are still working on. Because of that this item
will be listed as deficient.” Ms. Tarpley testified that process changed
in 2008 to track incident investigations. (Tr. 2875-76).</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:31.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
31.45pt;text-align:justify'><u><span style='color:black'>Item 46, p. 9</span></u><span
style='color:black'> – “Incident investigation....System is
currently being modified.” Ms. Tarpley testified that while incident
reports were being reviewed with affected personnel, there was no report
sign-off requirement to show this had occurred. She also testified the system
was updated in 2008 to enhance incident report formatting and that other
improvements are still being worked on. (Tr. 2876-79, 2905-09).</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:31.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
31.45pt;text-align:justify'><u><span style='color:black'>Item 47, p. 9</span></u><span
style='color:black'> – “Documentation of response for compliance
audit findings.... For this audit, the deficiencies will be brought to the
attention of upper management, ... The correction of the deficiencies will also
be documented.” Ms. Tarpley testified that a new compliance audit
procedure was developed in 2008 to address this item. (Tr. 2879-80).</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:31.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
31.45pt;text-align:justify'><u><span style='color:black'>Item 48, p. 9</span></u><span
style='color:black'> – “Documentation of deficiency correction....
deficiencies will be brought to the attention of upper management....correction
of the deficiencies will also be documented.” Ms. Tarpley testified the
new procedure, developed in 2008, addresses this item. (Tr. 2879-80, 2905-09).</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:31.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
31.45pt;text-align:justify'><u><span style='color:black'>Item 49, p. 10</span></u><span
style='color:black'> – “[E]mergency action plan should be evaluated
... and should be revised as necessary.” Ms. Tarpley testified that the
plan was revised in 2008. (Tr. 2881).</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            Items
4 and 7 both relate to the flare study, and Items 47 and 48 both relate to the
documenting of audit deficiency corrections. Accordingly, the Court finds that
Items 4 and 7 are one finding and one correction, as are Items 47 and 48. Based
on the foregoing, I find that Delek did not determine and document an
appropriate response to ten of the above audit findings before February 29,
2008.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote75',%20WPFootnote75%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1236" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote75" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote75 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>Ms. Tarpley specifically admitted
this was true as to Items 4, 6, 7, 43, 46 and 48. (Tr. 2905-09). I find this
was also true as to the other items listed above, except Items 2 and 5. Ms.
Tarpley was unaware of the audit reports until February or March of 2008. After
learning of them, she searched for two weeks before determining that no
documentation for the items existed. In light of her testimony, and the fact
that R-R is dated August 29, 2008, it is clear the items were addressed after
February 29, 2008. The Court concludes, therefore, that there were ten
unresolved audit items at the time that OSHA discovered the violative
condition.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            Delek
claims it had no reason to believe that any La Gloria audit items were
outstanding. As Delek notes, Mr. Whaley, the EHS manager, and Ms. Tarpley both
testified to their understanding that La Gloria had addressed all the audit
items before Delek bought the facility. (Tr. 1830, 2835-38). R. Brief, p. 76;
R. Reply Brief, pp. 38-39. As the Secretary points out, however, Delek had C-38
and C-39 in its possession, in hard copy and in electronic format, from the
time it purchased the facility. S. Brief, pp. 56, 59, 61. Further, C-38, La
Gloria’s audit report for 2004 /2005, shows a date of May 5, 2005. Ms.
Tarpley testified this was the “print date” of the report, based on
her contacting Sage Environmental, the contractor that conducted the audit.
(Tr. 2836, 2902-04). In view of this date, which was after Delek purchased the
refinery, it is reasonable to conclude that Delek, as the new owner, received
C-38 at the time it was issued. In any case, as the Secretary points out, Delek
had the 2001 and 2004/2005 reports in its possession for three years and did
nothing to confirm that the audit items had been addressed and corrected.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote76',%20WPFootnote76%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1235" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote76" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote76 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>S. Brief, p. 62; S. Reply Brief, p.
26. The Court concludes that Delek did not exercise reasonable diligence to
promptly determine and document an appropriate response to each of the findings
of the compliance audit, and document that deficiencies have been corrected.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            Delek
also claims that it complied with the standard. It notes it had the previous
two audit reports, as required by 29 C.F.R. 1910.119(o)(5). It also notes that
the basis of this citation item was its failure to retain documentation showing
the actions it had taken to address issues identified in past audits. Delek
urges that paragraph 1910.119(o)(5) has no requirement to retain such
documentation. It point outs that when OSHA published the proposed PSM
standard, there was such a requirement in the standard. Specifically, the
proposed subsection (o)(5) read as follows:</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:31.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
31.45pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>Employers shall retain
the two (2) most recent compliance safety audit reports, as well as the
documentation described in paragraph (o)(4) of this section.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            Delek
concludes that, because the requirement was contemplated in drafting but was
not included in the final standard, it must be assumed that the exclusion was
purposeful. Delek also notes that since the standard became final in May 1992,
OSHA has issued no interpretation letters in regard to the requirement to
retain the documents. R. Brief, pp. 75-76; R. Reply Brief, pp. 37-38.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            I
disagree with Delek’ argument. As the Secretary points out, the citation
alleges Delek violated 29 C.F.R. 1910.119(o)(4). That subsection required Delek
to promptly determine and document an appropriate response to each audit
finding and to document that deficiencies had been corrected. The issue is not
whether Delek failed to maintain documentation but, rather, the fact that Delek
did not document in any way that the audit deficiencies had been corrected as
of the violation date of February 29, 2008. Even assuming Delek had addressed
some of the deficiencies before the inspection, the record clearly shows that
not all of them had been corrected. (Tr. 2905- 09). I agree with the Secretary
that the failure to respond to the deficiencies for almost three years was
neither prompt nor reasonable under the standard. And, even the deficiencies
that Delek had addressed before the inspection had not been documented. S.
Reply Brief, pp. 26-27. Delek’s argument is rejected.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote77',%20WPFootnote77%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1234" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote77" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote77 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            The
foregoing establishes all elements of the Secretary’s burden other than
employee exposure. I agree with the Secretary that she has met that element.
Item 10 of the above audit findings states that “not all areas of the
[PHA] recommendations have been implemented, further review is
necessary.” Item 4 of this decision, set out <i>supra</i>, shows that 16
PHA items, some of which were high-priority safety items, had not been
implemented. These conditions exposed employees to hazards. One specific
example discussed earlier herein was PHA Item 42, which involves the failure to
install a remote valve actuator on the FCCU’s reactor. The 16 FCCU
employees were all exposed to the hazard of fire that could have resulted from
that condition. Item 46 of the audit findings also showed employee exposure.
That item stated that incident reports “appear to be reviewed with
affected personnel, however, there is no documentation or sign-offs to
demonstrate that affected personnel are being informed and/or review incident
investigation reports.”</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote78',%20WPFootnote78%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1233" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote78" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote78 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>®-R, p. 9). Finally, Item 6 of
the audit findings was that there was no electrical classification information
for one unit and that the electrical classification for another unit had not
been updated or reviewed since 1979. As the Secretary notes, Item 8 of this
decision, set out above, demonstrates that electrical classification of units
in the refinery is critically important. <i>See</i> S. Brief, pp. 60-61. I find
that the Secretary has shown employee exposure to the hazards of the cited
condition. This item is affirmed as a serious violation.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            The
Secretary has proposed a penalty of $6,300.00 for this item. The AAD testified
that Delek failed to audit its PSM program, which is the employer’s
process for containing highly hazardous chemicals. He also testified that Delek
is in a high-hazard industry, that a release could lead to an explosion, and
that Delek has had an explosion at its refinery. OSHA thus considered the cited
condition a high-gravity item. The AAD further testified that while a reduction
for history was applied, no reductions for size or good faith were given. (Tr. 271-74,
359-61).</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            In
assessing a penalty for this item, I have considered the fact that, of the 50
audit items set out in R-R, ten items have been found to violate the standard.
OSHA, however, has determined this item to have high gravity, for the reasons
stated above. And, Delek did not address the audit items for three years, even
though it had the audit reports in its possession the entire time. I also note
the number and types of accidents Delek has had, as set out in the
Court’s prior discussion of Item 4, <i>supra</i>. On balance, the Court
finds that the proposed penalty of $6,300.00 is appropriate. That penalty is
assessed.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p align=center style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;
margin-left:-4.45pt;text-align:center;line-height:29.95pt'><b><i><u><span
style='color:black'>Item 13 – Alleged Violation of 29 C.F.R.
1910.219(c)(2)(i)</span></u></i></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            Item
13 alleges a violation of 29 C.F.R. 1910.219(c)(2)(i), which states that:</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:31.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
31.45pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>All exposed parts of
horizontal shafting seven (7) feet or less from floor or working platform ...
shall be protected by a stationary casing enclosing shafting completely or by a
trough enclosing sides and top or sides and bottom of shafting as location
requires.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>            This
item alleges that rotating shafts were not guarded on the following equipment:</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>            a)
Sealing air fan to ignition air fan #9, model B0252FLG3UL, Type TIKK
(“the fan”)</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>            b)
General Electric motor of #6 cooling tower pump #X115460 (“the
motor”)</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            The
cited fan and motor are located in the Boiler Unit. The fan turns on and
provides air in order to create more pressure when the differential pressure
inside the boiler compared to outside the boiler gets close to being equal. The
motor takes water out of the cooling tower and delivers it to the overhead
condenser or elsewhere for the main boiler feed-water pump. The AAD testified
that he and an operator, Kevin Payne, walked by the shafts in the unit. Both
shafts were rotating at the time. The AAD described the shafts as being in the
main aisle way of the unit.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote79',%20WPFootnote79%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1232" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote79" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote79 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>He said the shafts should have been
enclosed. He believed that the operators and technicians in the unit, while
walking by the equipment, could trip and fall onto the rotating shafts. (Tr.
201, 361-69, 2419-21; C-40). Operator Kevin Payne was exposed to the hazard for
12 hours per day and three days per week. (C-40). The fan’s shaft is
shown in C-41(d) and (e). The motor’s shaft is shown in C-41(a), (b) and
(c). The photographs are telling and help establish that the two shafts were
not guarded and constituted a hazard.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote80',%20WPFootnote80%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1231" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote80" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote80 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>(C-41(a)-(e)). The motor and fan were
observed by OSHA in operation and there was nothing to warn employees of the
hazard. (C-40). </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            Mr.
Gaddis testified that he was close enough to touch the back of the motor when
he passed the equipment. (Tr. 196-97; C-41(c), at letter “C”). He
also testified there was a walkway and place to stand where an employee could
“walk up that close and actually just touch” the fan. (Tr.
195-96;C–41(e), at letter “A”). Operations technicians
inspect these units daily and the unguarded shafts were within hands reach of
employees walking or working around them. John Yost, Jr., has been a boiler
tech in the Boiler Unit for three years. He testified he walked by the cited
shafts several times per shift while making his rounds.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote81',%20WPFootnote81%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1230" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote81" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote81 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>He also testified that when
performing their rounds employees should walk by the motor. He further
testified that he got within 5 feet of the shafts. According to Mr. Yost, the
fan operates automatically, and there is no on/off button or other means to run
it. The motor operates constantly, and its shaft rotates at about 3,600
rpm’s. The button to turn on the motor is 7 to 8 feet away from the
shaft. When operating, the fan turns on a slow rolling basis. Mr. Yost said
there were times other employees might be in the Boiler Unit, <i>i.e.</i>,
maintenance employees sometimes had to fix equipment, or employees from other
units might be invited in to see, for example, where their lines terminated. He
also said he had worked on special projects in the Boiler Unit and had seen
other boiler technicians make their rounds. When they did, he observed that
they got within 5 feet of the cited shafts. (Tr. 2417-38; C-40).</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            I
agree with the Secretary that based on the foregoing, “employees either
while in the course of their assigned working duties, their personal comfort
activities while on the job, or their normal means of ingress-egress to their
assigned workplaces, will be, are, or have been in a zone of danger,” in
that they come within a few feet of the unguarded machinery on a regular basis.
<i>Gilles & Cotting, Inc.</i>, 3 BNA OSHC 2002, 2003 (No. 504, 1976). <i>See
also Phoenix Roofing</i>, 17 BNA OSHC 1076 (No. 90-2148, 1995); <i>Dover
Elevator</i>, 16 BNA OSHC 1281 (No. 91-862, 1993); <i>Clement Food Co.</i>, 11
BNA OSHC 2120 (No. 80-607, 1984). On the basis of the record, the Court finds
that the Secretary has shown employee access to the cited hazard.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            The
Court also finds Delek knew of the cited condition. The two unguarded shafts
are in plain view on a major walkway in the Boiler Unit. (C-40, C-41). The
unguarded shafts are inspected daily, and management, including Mr. Simmons, is
aware of these inspections. (Tr. 1987, 1989-90; C-40).</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            The
evidence of record establishes a violation of the cited standard as to both the
fan and motor. The evidence shows that the standard applies, that its terms
were not met, that employees were exposed to the cited condition, and that the
employer knew or should have known of the condition.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote82',%20WPFootnote82%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1229" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote82" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote82 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>Both instances in Item 13 are
affirmed as serious. Delek exposed its employees to the hazard of being caught
in these unguarded parts while they were rotating, which could have caused
serious hand or finger injuries, including broken bones. The fan rotated at
about 3,600 rpms. The violative condition created the possibility of an
accident involving a substantial probability of serious physical harm to
employees. <i>Flintco Inc.</i>, 16 BNA OSHC 1404, 1405 (No. 92-1396, 1993). </span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            A
penalty of $3,150.00 has been proposed for Item 13. The AAD testified about the
hazards of the condition and the number of employees exposed. The only
reduction for Item 13 was a 10 percent reduction for history. (Tr. 271-74,
358-69; C-40). The Court finds the proposed penalty reasonable and appropriate.
A penalty of $3,150.00 is assessed.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p align=center style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;
margin-left:-4.45pt;text-align:center;line-height:29.95pt'><b><i><u><span
style='color:black'>Item 15 – Alleged Violation of 29 C.F.R.
1910.1200(f)(5)</span></u></i></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            This
item alleges that Delek was in violation of 29 C.F.R. 1910.1200(f)(5), a
provision of the Hazard Communication (“HAZCOM”) standard. The
cited standard states that:</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:31.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
31.45pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>(5) Except as provided in
paragraphs (f)(6) and (f)(7) of this section, the employer shall ensure that
each container of hazardous chemicals in the workplace is labeled, tagged, or
marked with the following information:</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:31.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
31.45pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>(i) Identity of the
hazardous chemical(s) contained therein; and,</span><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:31.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
31.45pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>(ii) Appropriate hazard
warnings, or alternatively, words, pictures, symbols, or combination thereof,
which provide at least general information regarding the hazards of the
chemicals, and which, in conjunction with the other information immediately
available to employees under the [HAZCOM] program, will provide employees with
the specific information regarding the physical and health hazards of the
hazardous chemical.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>The specific vessels
cited were the following:</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:31.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
31.45pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:31.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
31.45pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>a. FCC Unit, GV-154 Flare
Knockout Drum, not marked</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>
</span><a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote83',%20WPFootnote83%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1228" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote83" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote83 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
31.45pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>b. FCC Unit, Regenerator,
not marked</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>            c.
FCC Unit, E-9-A Exchanger, not marked</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>            d.
Alkylation Unit, 86-E-501, not marked correctly on equipment summary list</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            The
AAD testified that as he was walking through the different units at the
facility, he noted that a number of the vessels were not tagged or marked to
show their contents. The four cited vessels, three in the FCCU and one in the
Alkylation (“Alky”) Unit, were examples of what he saw. He further
testified that under the HAZCOM standard, vessels must be marked to identify
their contents. While he saw equipment lists that showed the vessels with their
identifying numbers, the lists did not identify the vessels’ contents.
Further, the 86-E-501 vessel in the Alky Unit, besides not identifying its contents,
also was not identified properly on the Alky Unit’s equipment list. The
AAD said that if someone had to go out into a unit in an emergency, to turn a
valve to shut off a vessel, for example, a vessel that was not properly marked
could be a hazard. (Tr. 468-72, 649-53; C-40).</span><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            The
HAZCOM standard applies to any chemical known to be present in the workplace
such that “employees may be exposed under normal conditions of use or in
a foreseeable emergency.” The standard requires employers to provide
information to their employees about the hazardous chemicals to which they are
exposed. <i>See</i> 29 C.F.R. 1910.1200(b)(1) and (2). A “hazardous
chemical” is “any chemical which is a physical hazard or a health
hazard.” 29 C.F.R. 1910.1200(c).</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            There
is no dispute that there are hazardous chemicals at Delek’s refinery.
(Tr. 2309). In the FCCU, these include gas oil, heavy cycle oil, light cycle
oil, naphtha, gasoline and hydrocarbon vapors. (Tr. 171). JX-X, Delek’s
operating procedures for the FCCU, states that benzene, a suspected
cancer-causing hydrocarbon, is found in all “gasoline, naphtha, and full
range of hydrocarbon mixtures.” It notes that hydrogen sulfide
(“H2S”) “is also present in the gases produced in the Cat
Unit.” JX-X sets out the properties and physical and health hazards of
chemicals in the FCCU, including benzene, H2S, hydrocarbon vapors, and heavy
and light cracked oils. <i>See</i> JX-X, pp. 12803-04.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            The
FCCU vessel GV-154, called the flare knockout drum, contains gasoline, naphtha
products, propane, butane and hydrocarbon vapors such as relief gas. (Tr.
207-08, 242-43). These are chemicals that can pose health or physical hazards. <i>See</i>
JX-X, pp. 12803-04. Mr. Gaddis is an operator who has worked in the FCCU for 30
years. He testified that in 2008, the flare knockout drum did not have a label
on it to identify its contents or the hazards of those contents. (Tr. 207-08).
Mr. Simmons, the refinery manager, confirmed the testimony of Mr. Gaddis. Mr.
Simmons also confirmed that the flare knockout drum had no notations on it to
warn that its contents were, for example, flammable, dangerous to inhale, and
capable of causing burns on skin. (Tr. 2310-14).</span><span style='font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            The
regenerator in the FCCU contains catalyst, a combustion promoter, and additives
called LO-SOX and Super Z. It also contains hydrocarbon vapors, which may
contain H2S or “other lethal substances.” (Tr. 205-06; JX-X, pp.
12803-04). The catalyst and hydrocarbon vapors are hazardous chemicals that can
be physical and/or health hazards. <i>See</i> JX-X, pp. 12803-04. Mr. Gaddis
testified that in 2008, the regenerator did not have a label on it that
identified its contents. (Tr. 205-06). Mr. Simmons confirmed this testimony.
Mr. Simmons also testified that there were no notations on the regenerator to
inform employees of the hazards of the contents. (Tr. 2310-14).</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            The
FCCU’s E-9-A Exchanger is a slurry-oil exchanger that has slurry on one
side and raw oil on the other side.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote84',%20WPFootnote84%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1227" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote84" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote84 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>“Slurry” is the term used
to refer to carbon black circulating bottoms. (Tr. 207-08, 239-40, 2310-11;
R-U). In light of its contents, the E-9-A Exchanger contains chemicals that can
represent health or physical hazards. <i>See</i> JX-X, pp. 12803-04. Mr. Gaddis
testified that in 2008, the E-9-A Exchanger did not have a label identifying
its contents or their hazards. (Tr. 207-08).</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            Mr.
Simmons testified that in April 2008, the Alky Unit vessel 86-E-501 had no
markings on it to identify what it contained. He also testified that the vessel
contained sulfuric acid, caustic and “several different chemicals that
would be hazards in the unit.” He admitted there were no warnings on the
vessel to indicate whether the contents were flammable, dangerous to inhale, or
capable of causing burns on skin. (Tr. 2312-14, 2372-73).</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            The
foregoing shows that none of the cited vessels was labeled, tagged or marked to
identify its contents or to warn of the hazards of the contents. Delek,
however, contends it complied with the alternative method set out in subsection
(f)(6) of the standard. That subsection states as follows:</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:31.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
31.45pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>The employer may use
signs, placards, process sheets, batch tickets, operating procedures, or other
such written materials in lieu of affixing labels to individual stationary
process containers, as long as the alternative method identifies the containers
to which it is applicable and conveys the information required by paragraph
(f)(5) of this section to be on a label. The written materials shall be readily
accessible to the employees in their work area throughout each work shift.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            Delek
asserts it informs employees of the contents of vessels in many ways. One is
through piping and instruments drawings (“P&ID’s”).
P&ID’s show the vessels in the refinery, the process flows, and the
process chemicals.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>
</span><a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote85',%20WPFootnote85%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1226" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote85" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote85 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>Another is through drawings used for
training. Mr. Todd, another FCCU operator, testified about drawings he utilizes
when training new employees in his unit. These are color-coded to indicate
vessel contents in the FCCU. The process flow diagram for the refinery also
shows what materials flow into and out of each unit. Finally, the OPs for the
refinery’s units set out the chemicals that move into the various vessels.
In the FCCU, for example, the startup procedures indicate the
regenerator’s contents. R. Brief, pp. 86-87, 94-97; JX-X.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            Delek
further asserts that the FCCU’s OPs also set out the hazards of chemicals
in the unit. One section, entitled “Properties and Hazards of Chemicals
Used in the Process,” discusses the hazards of various chemicals in the
process, particularly hydrocarbons and hydrocarbon mixtures. It also notes
other hazardous substances, such as benzene, catalyst and H2S, and the PPE to
use for these substances. R. Brief, pp. 88, 98-99; JX-X, pp. 12803-04.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            Delek
notes that its material safety data sheets (“MSDS”) have the most
detailed hazard information about the hazardous chemicals in the refinery. The
MSDS are available in the control rooms (in books and electronically), and
employees may access them at any time. R. Brief, pp. 89, 99.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            Delek
also discusses the training it provides all new employees. This includes books
covering refinery operations, a course on the hazardous chemicals in the
process, and computer-based training (“CBT”) and tests on topics
such as HAZMAT and HAZOP. The CBT also has an MSDS module, which addresses, <i>inter
alia,</i> how to read MSDS. Employees next have unit-specific training where
they learn about the operations where they will be working. They learn the
locations of vessels in the unit and the chemicals that are in the vessels, and
they are tested in this regard. They also learn about the hazardous chemicals
in their units and what PPE is required. The new employees then work with an
experienced operator in the unit who trains them in their job duties. All
employees in the facility also receive fire protection training. R. Brief, pp.
89-92, 100-02.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            Delek
states that maintenance workers receive the same training that all new hires
do. Also, before they do any work in a unit, a work permit and job safety
analysis are completed. The worker then goes to the assigned area of the unit,
where the hazards of the job are discussed. Delek indicates that its contract
employees receive similar but more limited training. R. Brief, pp. 92-93,
102-04.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            Despite
the foregoing, I agree with the Secretary that Delek did not comply with the
standard. The P&ID’s show general process information but do not
always show the chemicals in a particular line or vessel.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote86',%20WPFootnote86%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1225" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote86" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote86 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>(Tr. 2205; R-U, R-V, R-W (large)).
They contain no information about the hazards of the chemicals involved. (Tr.
2314, 2535). There are also multiple P&ID’s for a single vessel, and
a single vessel can have multiple names in the refinery. For example, the cited
GV-154 vessel, called the “relief gas knockout drum” on its
P&ID, is also called the “flare knockout drum,” “knockout
drum,” and “knockout pot.”</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote87',%20WPFootnote87%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1224" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote87" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote87 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>(Tr. 2224-25). Further, terms on one
P&ID can have different meanings in other parts of the refinery. The term
“circulating bottoms exchanger” set out on one P&ID would refer
to different products in different units. (Tr. 253-54; R-U (large)). Finally,
while operators use the P&ID’s in their jobs, they are not trained in
how to read them. (Tr. 241, 253). S. Brief, pp. 73-74.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            As
to the OPs, the Secretary notes that while they contain some required
information, they are insufficient to inform employees where particular
chemicals may be encountered in a unit. I agree. The “Properties and
Hazards” section in the FCCU OPs does contain information about hydrocarbons
and hydrocarbon mixtures all being flammable. It also notes some other
hazardous chemicals like benzene, catalyst and H2S. It does not, however, state
where these chemicals may be located in the FCCU. Mr. Simmons basically
admitted that was not the purpose of this section. (Tr. 2318; JX-X, pp.
12803-04). S. Brief, p. 74. Further, my review of the FCCU OPs persuades me
they do not meet the standard. That is, they do not enable an employee to
readily and easily learn what chemicals are in a particular vessel and what the
hazards of the chemicals are. First, the OPs are over 400 pages long. Second,
some of the individual OPs are quite lengthy, and expecting an employee to read
through a complex and detailed OP to learn what a vessel contains is clearly
unreasonable. <i>See, e.g.</i>, JX-X, pp. 12948-62, 12963-78. Third, while JX-X
has a table of contents that sets out a number of pieces of equipment
separately, two of the cited vessels do not appear in that table of contents.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote88',%20WPFootnote88%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1223" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote88" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote88 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>Finally, while the OPs do identify
various chemicals in the FCCU’s process, they do not necessarily define
the chemicals or state their hazards. <i>See, e.g.</i>, JX-X, pp. 12956, 12971
(identifying, but not defining, “slurry” and “flue
gas”). I find that, while the OPs contain detailed instructions for
operating the FCCU, they are not, as Delek claims, a means of complying with
the cited standard.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            I
further agree with the Secretary that the drawings Mr. Todd uses to train new
employees in the FCCU are insufficient to meet the standard. As noted above,
the drawings are color-coded to indicate the contents of the vessels in the
FCCU. As the Secretary points out, however, there is no legend to explain the
meaning of the colors. Thus, even though the employees are given copies of the
drawings to keep, they may not recall what the different colors represent.
Also, the record shows that the colors on Mr. Todd’s computer print
differently and are a different color on the drawings he actually gives the
employees. The drawings Mr. Todd uses in his training do not contain
information about the hazards of the chemicals in the FCCU. And, refresher
training for long-term employees is only provided if it is requested.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote89',%20WPFootnote89%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1222" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote89" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote89 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>(Tr. 2469-70, 2487-91, 2530-35,
2569-70). S. Brief, p. 75.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:
"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            As
to MSDS, the Secretary agrees that Delek has books in its control rooms that
contain the MSDS for the chemicals in the refinery. The MSDS, however, do not
tell the reader where to find the referenced chemicals in the refinery. (Tr.
203-04, 2314-15). MSDS training is given to some but not all employees in the
FCCU, and, when a new MSDS comes out, it is put in the MSDS book in the control
room. Employees review the MSDS book on their own. (Tr. 2531-32). The MSDS book
in each unit is 3 to 4 inches thick. (Tr. 2316). Mr. Todd indicated there were
no MSDS for chemicals such as flue gas, purge gas or slurry. For flue gas, an
employee would need to know that it contains carbon monoxide (“CO”)
and then look up the MSDS for CO. Similarly, for slurry, an employee would need
to know it is called carbon black and then look up that MSDS. (Tr. 2534). S. Brief,
p. 74.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            The
Secretary notes that when Mr. Martin, Delek’s emergency response
coordinator, was shown C-46, the equipment list for the Alky Unit, he had not
seen it before.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>
</span><a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote90',%20WPFootnote90%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1221" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote90" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote90 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>C-46 does not show the contents of
the vessels. When asked what documents he would look at to identify the vessels
in a unit, Mr. Martin referred to the P&ID’s and the OPs. When asked
what documents he would look at to determine the contents of vessels in a unit,
Mr. Martin could identify no such documents. Instead, he stated that the unit
operators were the source of information as to the chemicals in vessels and the
hazards of those chemicals. (Tr. 3071-72, 3075-81). S. Brief, p. 75-76.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            Based
on the above, the Court finds that Delek has not shown it met the procedures
set out in subsection (f)(6) of the standard. I agree with the Secretary that,
to determine a vessel’s contents, an employee would have to access a
number of documents, including P&ID’s, OPs and possibly training
documents. Even accessing all of those documents might not provide the employee
with all the vessel contents, and the OPs might not contain the necessary
hazard information. The employee would then need to go to the MSDS book in the
unit’s control room to learn specific information about the hazards of
the chemicals in the vessel. Such a system clearly does not meet paragraph
(f)(6) of the standard, particularly in the case of an upset or emergency when
employees would need to have ready and easy access to the required information.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote91',%20WPFootnote91%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1220" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote91" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote91 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            In
its reply brief, Delek urges its system is “quite similar” to one
the Commission approved of long ago.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote92',%20WPFootnote92%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1219" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote92" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote92 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>It refers to a 1987 decision of a
Commission Judge that found the employer’s system met the paragraph
(f)(6) requirements. In particular, the employer labeled each piece of
equipment in the refinery to show the type of equipment and an identifying
number. Before working on equipment, an employee reviewed an equipment list
book in the unit’s control room. The book had the number and name of the
equipment and referenced the appropriate MSDS for that equipment. The employee
then reviewed the referenced MSDS, which were kept in another book. Employees
were trained in the labeling system and in how to read and interpret MSDS. They
were tested after the training. <i>Fina Oil & Chem. Co.</i>, No. 86-0904,
1987 WL 89097 (O.S.H.R.C. A.L.J., Feb. 3, 1987). R. Reply Brief, pp. 46-48. I
disagree that Delek’s system is “quite similar” to the one
described in that case, for all of the reasons given above. Delek’s
argument is rejected.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            Delek
makes a number of other arguments in its reply brief. For example, it urges
that the cited pieces of equipment are not “containers” under the
standard, that employees were not exposed to a hazard because the cited
equipment is self-contained, and that the Secretary’s position as to Delek’s
system is inconsistent with a recent OSHA compliance directive. R. Reply Brief,
pp. 49-51. I have considered these arguments, and they are rejected.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            One
final argument of Delek is that Item 15d is incorrect. Item 15d alleges that
Alky Unit vessel 86-E-501 was not marked correctly on the equipment summary
list. C-46, the equipment list for the Alky Unit, shows that equipment as a
“depropanizer tower.” The record shows the 86-E-501 vessel, built
in 1979 as a depropanizer tower, was converted to act as a propylene stripper
in the early 1980’s. Since then, it has functioned as a propylene
stripper. The operators now refer to it as the “new depropanizer,”
the “propylene stripper,” and other terms. C-44, a screen shot of
the computer control screen for the vessel, shows it as “propylene
stripper.” C-45, a screen shot for another Alky Unit vessel, 86-E-101,
shows it as “depropanizer.” Mr. Simmons testified that C-46 is used
as an equipment inspection list and that the inspectors who use C-46 know the
86-E-501 vessel as a depropanizer. C-47, a pressure vessel list for the Alky
Unit, shows both the 86-E-501 vessel and the 86-E-101 vessel as depropanizers.
Mr. Simmons said that for inspection and work order purposes, a vessel is
referred to by its number. (Tr. 2167-75). Delek contends that since C-46 and
C-47 both accurately refer to the cited vessel as a depropanizer, Item 15d is
incorrect. R. Brief, pp. 105-08; R. Reply Brief, p. 46. </span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            I
agree with the Secretary that a vessel having various names among operators and
between operators and inspectors is a hazard. In an emergency, several names
for a vessel could be confusing and could prevent an employee from identifying
the chemicals in a vessel and the hazards of those chemicals. S. Reply Brief,
pp. 33-34. Similarly, showing the cited vessel as a “depropanizer”
on equipment lists might lead to the same kind of confusion in an emergency. In
this regard, I note that while the 86-E-501 vessel is shown as a depropanizer
on both C-46 and C-47, the 86-E-101 does not appear on C-46 at all and is shown
as a depropanizer on C-47. The Court finds that the Secretary’s
allegation as set out in Item 15d of the citation is correct.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            The
evidence of record establishes a violation of the cited standard as to all four
of the vessels set out in Item 15. That is, the evidence shows the standard
applies, that its terms were not met, that employees were exposed to the cited
condition, and that the employer knew or should have known of the condition.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote93',%20WPFootnote93%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1218" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote93" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote93 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></span><span style='color:black'>All four of the instances in Item 15
are affirmed as serious. As the Secretary states, Delek employees were at risk
of coming into contact with hazardous chemicals and not being aware that was
the case. She notes a 2007 incident in which acid overflowed from a tank. The
exposed employees did not know if the material was acid or not until Mr. Martin
arrived and confirmed it was acid. The only sign posted on the tank said
“acid.” <i>See</i> C-59. She notes another 2007 incident in which
an employee was working on a power feed to the FCCU’s flare. The flare
malfunctioned, burning hydrocarbons spewed out, and a flash fire resulted. The
employee suffered radiation burns to his eyes and face. The incident was caused,
in part, by a failure to label and warn employees of the hazards of the
procedure. (Tr. 1250-59, 1290-91). S. Brief, p. 78.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            A
penalty of $2,250.00 has been proposed for Item 15. The AAD testified about the
hazards of the condition, the number of employees exposed, and the fact that
several vessels were involved. The only reduction for Item 15 was a 10 percent
reduction for history. (Tr. 271-74, 468-72. The Court finds the proposed
penalty appropriate. A penalty of $2,250.00 is assessed.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p align=center style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;
margin-left:-4.45pt;text-align:center;line-height:29.95pt'><span
style='color:black'>                                 <b><i><u>FINDINGS
OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW</u></i></b></span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            The
foregoing decision constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of law in
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a).</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p align=center style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;
margin-left:-4.45pt;text-align:center;line-height:29.95pt'><b><i><u><span
style='color:black'>ORDER</span></u></i></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            Based
upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is ordered that:</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            1.
Citation 1, Item 4, alleging a serious violation of 29 C.F.R. 1910.119(e)(5),
is modified to the extent that allegations relating to the PHA team’s
findings and recommendations from 1998 and 2005 are deleted from the citation;
the remainder of the citation item is otherwise AFFIRMED, and a penalty of
$6,300.00 is assessed.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>
</span><a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote94',%20WPFootnote94%20)"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-no-proof:yes;
text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img border=0 width=16 height=14
id="_x0000_i1217" src=footnoteicon.gif alt=Footnote></span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote94" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote94 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            2.
Citation 1, Item 6, alleging a serious violation of 29 C.F.R. 1910.119(f)(3),
is AFFIRMED,</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>and a
penalty of $2,250.00 is assessed.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            3.
Citation 1, Item 8, alleging a serious violation of 29 C.F.R.
1910.119(j)(4)(i), is AFFIRMED, and a penalty of $6,300.00 is assessed.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            4.
Citation 1, Item 9(b), alleging a serious violation of 29 C.F.R.
1910.119(l)(4), is AFFIRMED, and a penalty of $6,300.00 is assessed.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            5.
Citation 1, Item 12, alleging a serious violation of 29 C.F.R. 1910.119(o)(4),
is AFFIRMED, and a penalty of $6,300.00 is assessed.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-4.45pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            6.
Citation 1, Item 13, alleging a serious violation of 29 C.F.R.
1910.219(c)(2)(i), is AFFIRMED and a penalty of $3,150.00 is assessed.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-9.0pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>            7.
Citation 1, Item 15, alleging a serious violation of 29 C.F.R.
1910.1200(f)(5)(i), is AFFIRMED, and a penalty of $2,250.00 is assessed.</span><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-9.0pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-9.0pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
247.45pt;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-9.0pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
247.45pt;text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'><span style='color:black'>_____/s/______________________
The Honorable Dennis L. Phillips</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-9.0pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>                                                                                                U.S.
OSHRC Judge</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-9.0pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-indent:-.5in'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-9.0pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in'><span style='color:black'>Date:   April
27, 2011</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:-9.0pt;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
-4.45pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'>            Washington,
D.C.</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

</div>

</body>

</html>