964 F.3d 418
5th Cir.2020Background
- Sanderson Farms operates a Waco chicken‑processing plant using anhydrous ammonia (>10,000 lbs), so OSHA’s Process Safety Management (PSM) standard, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119, applies.
- OSHA inspected the plant and issued citations; Items 5a and 5b challenged here allege violations of the mechanical integrity program: 5a (j)(2) — no written procedures for safety cutouts, emergency‑stop testing, and pressure‑vessel level control; 5b (j)(4)(i) — failure to inspect/test three compressor cutouts and two emergency stops.
- Relevant equipment: compressor cutouts (shut compressors on out‑of‑spec conditions), emergency stop buttons (shut ammonia flow in the machinery room), and pressure‑vessel level control (prevents overflow).
- An ALJ affirmed Item 5a and Item 5b (compressor cutouts and emergency stops); the Commission declined discretionary review, making the ALJ’s order final; Sanderson sought review in the Fifth Circuit.
- The Fifth Circuit applied substantial‑evidence and arbitrary‑and‑capricious review and denied Sanderson’s petition, affirming the violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §1910.119(j) mechanical‑integrity program cover the cited compressor cutouts and emergency stops? | Sanderson: Components of compressors are excluded; emergency stops are not emergency shutdown systems and do not maintain mechanical integrity. | Secretary: Cutouts are “process equipment” and “controls”; emergency stops fall within emergency shutdown systems/controls listed in §1910.119(j)(1). | Court: Equipment falls within §1910.119(j); ALJ’s inclusion was not an abuse of discretion. |
| Did the alleged violations expose employees to a hazard? | Sanderson: Failures would not cause a release; other devices would mitigate any overpressure or release. | Secretary: PSM standards presume hazard; testimony showed failures could cause or worsen an ammonia release; lack of procedures/testing increases risk. | Court: Hazard is presumed under the standards; Sanderson failed to rebut exposure. |
| Does §1910.119(j)(4)(i) require RAGAGEP to establish which equipment must be tested? | Sanderson: (j)(i) is limited to equipment RAGAGEP require testing for; Secretary must prove RAGAGEP mandate testing here. | Secretary: (j)(4)(i) independently requires inspections/tests of process equipment; subsections (ii)/(iii) govern how and frequency (RAGAGEP). | Court: (j)(4)(i) imposes a baseline duty to inspect/test process equipment; RAGAGEP informs procedures/frequency but does not limit which equipment must be tested. |
| Did Sanderson satisfy §1910.119(j)(2) written‑procedures requirement? | Sanderson: Overview, schedules, daily/monthly/annual checklists and training constitute written procedures and comport with industry practice. | Secretary: Provided documents are mere checklists/schedules lacking step‑by‑step maintenance procedures; §1910.119(j)(2) requires written procedures showing how to perform maintenance. | Court: Checklists and schedules are insufficient; Sanderson lacked required written procedures; violation affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin v. OSHRC, 499 U.S. 144 (recognition of Secretary’s role setting/enforcing workplace safety standards)
- Excel Modular Scaffold & Leasing Co. v. OSHRC, 943 F.3d 748 (standard for appellate review of ALJ/Commission orders)
- MICA Corp. v. OSHRC, 295 F.3d 447 (substantial‑evidence review standard)
- Trinity Marine Nashville, Inc. v. OSHRC, 275 F.3d 423 (review of Commission legal conclusions)
- Delek Ref., Ltd. v. OSHRC, 845 F.3d 170 (discussion of equipment that mitigates releases)
- Bunge Corp. v. Sec’y of Labor, 638 F.2d 831 (when a general standard requires proof of hazard)
- Corbesco, Inc. v. Dole, 926 F.2d 422 (fair‑notice/reasonableness principles for OSHA regulations)