Delek Refining, Ltd. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission
845 F.3d 170
5th Cir.2016Background
- Delek Refining purchased the Crown Central Tyler refinery on Apr. 29, 2005 and took possession then.
- OSHA conducted a Feb.–Apr. 2008 inspection and issued a Aug. 18, 2008 citation for Process Safety Management violations.
- Citations at issue: Item 4 (PHA findings nondisposition) and Item 12 (compliance audit responses) tied to pre-purchase findings.
- Item 8 alleged failure to inspect a positive pressurization unit (PPU) linked to PSM inspection requirements.
- OSHRC upheld some items and remanded/ vacated others; the court vacates Items 4 and 12 and affirms Item 8.
- The main questions are whether Items 4 and 12 are time-barred and whether the PPU falls within the PSM inspection regime.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 658(c)’s six‑month limit bars Items 4 and 12. | Delek argues these are continuing violations tolled by Volks. | Secretary argues continuing-violation tolling applies. | Items 4 and 12 barred by six‑month limit. |
| Whether the PPU is within the PSM “process” and thus subject to § 1910.119(j) inspections. | PPU is not part of the process; not within § 1910.119(b)/(j). | PPU is an integral part of the FCCU process and qualifies as process equipment. | PPU is covered by § 1910.119(b) and (j); Item 8 affirmed. |
| Whether the agency’s interpretation of § 1910.119 is reasonable when ambiguous. | The text is clear; deference not owed. | Text is ambiguous; the Secretary’s interpretation is reasonable. | Court defers to Secretary’s reasonable interpretation for Item 8. |
| Whether the discovery rule was applicable to the timing of Items 4/12. | Discovery rule would toll timing. | Discovery rule not invoked or applicable to these items. | Discovery rule not controlling; timing based on § 658(c). |
Key Cases Cited
- Volks, dba Volks Constructors v. Secretary of Labor, 675 F.3d 752 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (six-month limitations period; continuing violations discussed)
- Contender Farms, LLP v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 779 F.3d 258 (5th Cir. 2015) (statutory construction tools and ambiguity analysis)
- City of Arlington v. FCC, 133 S. Ct. 1863 (2013) (clear statutory text controls; deference limited when text clear)
- Lari v. Holder, 697 F.3d 273 (5th Cir. 2012) (deferring analysis when agency interpretation is reasonable)
- Martin v. OSHRC, 499 U.S. 144 (1991) (standard for reviewing agency determinations of law)