Millard Refrigerated Services, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, 718 F.3d 892

Millard Refrigerated Services experienced a August 2010 ammonia release exceeding 30,000 pounds at its Theodore, Alabama facility, triggering OSHA inspections and process safety management concerns.
OSHA cited Millard for 18 violations, including two process safety management violations related to incident history reporting and employee training deficiencies.
ALJ upheld 13 violations and ordered a $15,250 penalty, with Millard challenging the agency’s determinations upon discretionary review.
The key contested issues focus on the May 2010 process hazard analysis (PHA) reporting and whether it identified a prior 2007 release, and on employee training adequacy for the plant engineer.
Millard argued the May 2010 PHA identified the 2007 incident by reference to a PHA Addendum, but the court found the identification lacking and the reference opaque.
A separate challenge concerned whether Millard could be held responsible for White’s training deficiencies, as he was still in training and under supervisory oversight at the time.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the May 2010 PHA identify the 2007 release as required?	May 2010 report incorporated the May 2007 Addendum identifying the 2007 incident.	The May 2010 report did not clearly identify the 2007 incident; the reference to the Addendum was opaque and insufficient.	No; May 2010 report failed to satisfy §1910.119(e)(3)(ii) identification.
Was Millard obligated to ensure White understood training for process safety management?	White was in training and could rely on supervision; lacked opportunity to consult manuals during interview.	Employer must ascertain understanding of training; White demonstrated lack of understanding of basic PSM concepts.	Yes; substantial evidence supports violation of §1910.119(g)(3).
Is OSHA estopped from citing for the ladder-gate violation based on prior inspection conduct?	OSHA’s past failure to cite or remark on gates implied reliance or estoppel against future enforcement.	No equitable estoppel against the government; inspection remarks cannot create a prior binding assurance of compliance.	No; estoppel defense fails.

Oregon Health & Science Univ. v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414 (1990) (equitable estoppel against the government is limited; requires more than mere administrative silence)
Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985) (agency discretion in enforcement actions; broad discretion to defer or enforce)
A.E. Staley Mfg. Co. v. Sec'y of Labor, 295 F.3d 1341 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (deference to OSHA interpretations consistent with statute and regulations)
A.J. McNulty & Co. v. Sec'y of Labor, 283 F.3d 328 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (familiar administrative-law review standards for agency findings)
Keating v. FERC, 569 F.3d 427 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (estoppel considerations require showing detrimental reliance and misconduct)