“Docket No. 90-1271_90-1549 SECRETARY OF LABOR,Complainant,v.PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY,Respondent.OIL, CHEMICAL AND ATOMIC WORKERSINTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 4-227,Authorized EmployeeRepresentative.Docket No. 90-1271 & 90-1549(Consolidated)DIRECTION FOR REVIEW AND ORDERAn order of Administrative Law Judge Louis G. LaVecchiaapproving a settlement agreement between the Secretary of Labor and Respondent, Phillips66 Company (\”Phillips\”), is hereby directed for review under section 12 (j) ofthe Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. ? 651-78 (\”the Act\”),and Commission Rule 91 (a), 29 C.F.R. ? 2200.91 (a). For the reasons that follow, we setaside the judge’s order and remand for further proceedings.Following an explosion and fire at Phillips’ petrochemicalfacility in Pasadena, Texas, the Secretary, through the Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration (\”OSHA\”), conducted a lengthy inspection resulting in theissuance of a citation setting forth detailed and complex allegations of violations ofsection 5 (a) (1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. ? 654 (a) (1). These allegations were repeatedindividually and separately for each of the 566 employees alleged to be exposed to thehazard of fire and explosion at that facility, and each of the 566 violations were allegedto be willful. The Secretary sought penalties in the amount of $5,660,000 for theviolations of section 5 (a) (1). The Secretary further alleged serious violations ofstandards promulgated under the Act, for which she proposed an additional penalty of$6,200. Phillips contested all the citations in their entirety. Thereafter, the Secretaryand Phillips entered into a settlement agreement, and Judge LaVecchia approved thatsettlement in his order which is now before us.The settlement agreement essentially: 1) deletes the allegedwillful characterization, 2) slightly reduces the penalty to be paid by Phillips, and 3)greatly extends the abatement periods for the violations. While the maximum abatementperiod specified in the citations and the Secretary’s complaint was approximately tenmonths, the settlement agreement creates a graduated abatement schedule for severaldifferent Phillips worksites, including worksites other than the facility involved in theinspection and citations at issue here. Depending on the worksite, the prescribedabatement period varies from approximately three years to eight and one-half years fromthe date of a final Commission order.The Secretary served a copy of the proposed settlementagreement on the labor unions representing Phillips’ employees by facsimile transmissionon August 21, 1991, only one day before the agreement was executed by the Secretary andPhillips. On August 23, 1991, the executed agreement was filed with the judge’s office bymail and was received by the judge on August 20, 1991. The judge approved the agreement inan order dated September 5, 1991. There is no indication that the executed agreement wasserved on any of Phillips’ unions.On August 30, 1991, Local 4-227 of the Oil, Chemical and AtomicWorkers International Union (\”union\”), one of the collective bargainingrepresentatives for Phillips’ employees, wrote to the Commission as follows:Please be advised that we received the proposed settlementagreement…on August 21, 1991 and vigorously object to its entry.On behalf of the [union], we object to the manner in which thisis being settled. We have had insufficient time to study the document at length andfurther, object to:1. The fact that the fines have been lowered;2. A deletion of the willful violation findings;3. The period of time with which Phillips is allowed to abate; and4. Any further objections we may have to the findings once we have sufficient time toreview our copy.We construe this letter as a petition for discretionary reviewof the judge’s order under Commission Rule 91 (b), 29 C.F.R. ? 2200. 91 (b), whichprovides that \”[a] party adversely affected or aggrieved by the decision of the Judgemay seek review by the Commission by filing a petition for discretionary review.\”It is well-settled that employees or their representatives, mayobject to settlement agreements solely on the ground that the abatement period specifiedin the agreement is unreasonable. General Electric Co., 14 BNA OSHC 1763, 1765,1987-90 CCH OSHD ? 29,072, p. 38,849 (No. 88-2265, 1990). Since the union here is raisingsuch an objection, and this is a significant case in which the parties to the settlementagreement have sought to greatly extend the abatement periods, we direct review in orderto consider that objection. [[1]] Because Judge LaVecchia did not rule on the union’sobjections to the settlement agreement, and the objections raise factual issues regardingthe reasonableness of the extended abatement periods set forth in the settlementagreement, we remand for development of the necessary factual record and determination ofthe merits of the union’s objection to the abatement periods prescribed by the settlementagreement.Furthermore, neither the parties to the settlement agreementnor Judge LaVecchia acted in accordance with the Commission’s rules and case law regardingthe procedures for allowing employees or their representatives to raise objections tosettlement agreements. Rule 100 (c), 29 C.F.R. ? 2200.100(c), provides, in pertinentpart, as follows:When a settlement agreement is filed with the Judge or theExecutive Secretary, proof of service shall be filed with the settlement agreement,showing service upon all parties and authorized employee representatives… If the timehas not expired under these rules for electing party status, or if party status has beenelected, an order terminating the litigation before the Commission because of thesettlement shall not be issued until at least ten days after service to consider anyaffected employee’s or authorized employee representative’s objection to thereasonableness of any abatement time.The purpose of this rule is to ensure that employees or theirrepresentatives have the opportunity to present, and to have the judge consider, anyobjections they may have to the reasonableness of the abatement period in the settlementagreement before the agreement is approved. General Electric, 14 BNA OSHC at 1764,1987-90 CCH OSHD at p. 38,849.The record here fails to show that the executed copy of thesettlement agreement was served on the union. [[2]] Furthermore, even assuming the unionhad been properly served, Judge LaVecchia failed to afford the union the full 10-dayperiod prescribed by Rule 100 (c) for the filing of objections to the abatement period.Under the Commission’s rule regarding the computation of time,the period in which the union could file objections with the judge did not expire until atleast September 9, 1991, and would not have expired until September 12, 1991 had the unionbeen served by mail as was the judge. [[3]] Therefore, not only did the judge err byapproving the settlement agreement in the absence of proof of service of the executedagreement on the union, but he also denied the union the opportunity to make known itsobjections to the settlement agreement in a manner consistent with the Commission’srules.[[4]]We further note additional aspects of these cases that warrantthe attention of the parties and the judge on remand. The Secretary has filed a motionrequesting that the Commission remand these proceedings for the reasons that the union hasraised an objection cognizable under the Act and the judge issued his order prematurely,grounds which we have addressed in this order. In that, motion, however, the Secretaryalso contends that the union has standing to challenge the extended abatement periods onlyfor the particular worksite at which the inspection occurred. In the Secretary’s view, theunion may not object to the abatement periods prescribed in the settlement agreement forfacilities that were not cited by the Secretary. We express no opinion on the merits ofthat contention at this time. On remand, the parties may present their arguments to thejudge regarding the permissible scope of the union’s objection to the time forabatement.[[5]]In addition, although technically there are two consolidatedcases before us at this time, Phillips’ contest of the citations issued as a result ofOSHA’s inspection of the Pasadena facility, where the fire and explosion occurred,constitutes only one docket number, 90-1549. OSHA, nonetheless, also issued citations atanother Phillips worksite known as the \”Sweeny Complex,\” and these othercitations are currently pending before Judge LaVecchia in docket no. 90-1271. The\”Sweeny Complex\” is one of the additional worksites encompassed in thesettlement agreement at issue. Accordingly, regardless of the merits of the Secretary’sargument that the union is not entitled to challenge the abatement dates set forth in thesettlement agreement with respect to the Sweeny plant, the union conceivably may beentitled to dispute the abatement dates prescribed for the violations at issue in docketno. 90-1271.[[6]]Judge LaVecchia previously granted the parties’ joint motion toconsolidate this proceeding with docket no. 90-1271. In order for any settlement agreementthat may be approved on remand in docket no. 90-1549 to take effect, the two cases will ofnecessity have to be severed. Similarly, to the extent any settlement agreement approvedin docket no. 90-1549 alone also disposes of any citation items at issue in docket no.90-1271, those items would have to be severed from docket no. 90-1271 so that thesettlement agreement could properly become a final order. See R & R Builders, Inc.,14 BNA OSHC 1844, 1987-90 CCH OSHD ? 29,105 (No. 88-282, 1990) (discussion of severanceof citation items). On the other hand, the parties are of course free to enter into asingle settlement agreement disposing of both docket numbers, in which event consolidationwould continue to be appropriate.We therefore instruct the judge on remand as follows: the judgeis to issue a ruling on the extent to which the union may challenge the abatement periodsspecified in the settlement agreement after affording the parties, including the union, anopportunity to be heard on that question. Once the judge determines the permissible scopeof the union’s objections, the judge is then to make findings on the merits of thoseobjections based on an appropriate evidentiary record. If he determines that the union’spermissible objections are meritorious and that an abatement period shorter than thatprovided in the settlement agreement is appropriate, he is to enter an order disapprovingthe settlement agreement. On the other hand, if the judge finds that the abatement periodsthe union may properly dispute are reasonable, he is to approve the agreement. In thatevent, or in the event the Secretary and employer submit another settlement agreement towhich the union does not object, the judge shall determine an appropriate disposition ofdocket no. 90-1271 in accordance with our remarks above. Finally, we emphasize that anysubsequent settlement agreement submitted to the judge must be in compliance with theservice requirements of Rule 100(c) and that any order by the judge approving such anagreement must afford the union the full 10-day period for making objections prescribed byRule 100(c).Accordingly, these cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with thisopinion. We also order that further proceedings be expedited, pursuant to Rule 103, 29C.F.R. ? 2200.103.Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.ChairmanDonald G. WisemanCommissionerVelma MontoyaCommissionerDated: September 25, 1991LYNN MARTIN, Secretary of Labor,United States Department of Labor,Complainant,v.PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY,Respondent.OSHRC DocketNo. 90-1549ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTA Stipulation and Settlement Agreement has been filed in thiscase which disposes of all issues pending before the Review Commission. Uponconsideration, it is ORDERED:1. The Stipulation and Settlement Agreement is approved and itsterms are incorporated into this Order.2. The citations are affirmed as modified in that Agreement. Dated this 5th day of September, 1991.JUDGELYNN MARTIN, Secretary of Labor,United States Department of Labor,Complainant,v.PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY,Respondent.OSHRC DocketNo. 90-1549STIPULATION AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTPhillips 66 Company (\”Phillips\”) and Lynn Martin,Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor (\”Secretary\” or\”OSHA\”), in settlement of the captioned case, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. ? 2200.100,hereby agree to the following. This Agreement disposes of any and all issues contained inthat case.1. To supplement and enhance existing safety practices andprocedures, Phillips agrees to implement process safety management procedures at itsHouston Chemical Complex (\”HCC\”) pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. Thegoal of the process safety management system is to prevent the incidence and mitigate theconsequences of uncontrolled releases of highly hazardous chemicals. The process safetymanagement system shall: (1) provide a systematic approach to identifying, evaluating, andcontrolling hazards in the processes listed herein; (2) provide a management structure toaddress the findings of the process hazard analysis; (3) recommend corrective action; and(4) confirm and document completion or other disposition of recommended correctiveactions. The core component of the process safety management system at HCC shall be aprocess hazard analysis for each process that has the potential for an uncontrolledrelease of highly hazardous chemicals, and separate process safety management analyses toassess factors bearing on the overall safety of the HCC. The processes subject to thisAgreement are as follows: (1) polyethylene units; (2) developmental unit; (3)polypropylene unit; (4) K- Resin unit; and (5) neohexene unit.2. The process hazard analysis shall be conducted by Phillipsor under its direction utilizing a methodology that will best address the hazards of theparticular process at issue. The process hazard analysis shall include, but not beconfined to, (1) a human factors analysis of working conditions that may adversely impactthe safety performance of HCC personnel and potentially contribute to accident eventsequences, and (2) an analysis of the safety effectiveness of process hardware, piping,valving, and instrumentation, especially during maintenance operations or upset\/emergencyconditions. The process hazard analysis shall be performed by individuals with expertisein engineering and in process operations. The team shall include at least one person withexperience and knowledge specific to the hazard or process under evaluation, and be led byan independent consultant. Such independent consultant has been retained by Phillips.3. In addition to the process hazard analysis, Phillips willaddress the following issues in separate process safety management analyses to ensure thatthese areas conform with applicable OSHA standards or generally accepted industrypractices: (a) the adequacy of its safety permit and hot work permit procedures, includingenforcement; (b) compliance with OSHA’s standard regarding lockout\/tagout of energysources during maintenance operations; (c) proper classification of hazardous locationsand control over the introduction of ignition sources into such hazardous locations; (d)contingency planning for upset conditions and emergency response planning; (e) upset andemergency condition detection systems, and systems to mitigate the scale of hazardouschemical releases; (f) the siting, separation, design and configuration of physicalfacilities and equipment to ensure that the facilities are designed, maintained,inspected, tested and operated in a safe manner; (g) the training of operators,technicians, and maintenance personnel, including HAZCOM training; (h) the safety ofexisting Standard Operating Procedures and maintenance procedures; and (i) the assignmentof authority and responsibility to identify and correct hazardous conditions.4. Phillips agrees that the process safety management systemwill promptly address the findings of each process hazard analysis and process safetymanagement analysis and develop appropriate recommendations. This management system shall(1) implement and document any actions taken pursuant to the process hazard\/process safetymanagement analyses; (2) communicate such actions to operations, maintenance or otherpersonnel who work in the facility, including contractor employees whose workingconditions are affected by the findings and recommendations of an analysis; and (3) assurethat all corrective action is implemented according to this Agreement. Phillips managementwill prepare written responses to each process hazard analysis. If, upon consideration ofthe recommendations contained in the process hazard analysis, management determines thatcorrective action is required, that action will be taken. If management disagrees with ahazard assessment or recommendation contained in a process hazard analysis, the writtenresponse shall explain and justify the disagreement.5. Within thirty (30) days after execution of this Agreement,Phillips shall provide the OSHA Houston Area Office with the name of a management contactperson for HCC. The management contact person shall meet with the OSHA Houston AreaDirector within sixty (60) days thereafter, and as necessary to review actions planned orundertaken by HCC pursuant to this Agreement. Such meetings can be requested by OSHA orPhillips.6. Phillips agrees to provide the OSHA Houston Area Office witha certified copy of the process hazard\/process safety management analyses and anymanagement responses thereto, and to review with OSHA any comments or recommendations itmay have upon request.7. Phillips agrees to conduct the process hazard\/process safety management analysesrequired by this Agreement, provide copies of such analyses and management responses toOSHA, and address any recommended corrective actions contained in or arising from suchanalyses, in accordance with the following schedule: Task Completion Date 1. Identify process hazard\/process safety management analysis staff. 30 days from date of final Commission Order 2. Complete process hazard\/process safety management analyses. 1 year from same 3. Provide OSHA Houston Area Office with process hazard\/process safety management analyses. I year from same 4. Provide OSHA Houston Area Office with management responses. 30 days from completion of analyses 5. Complete actions recommended by process hazard\/process safety management analyses. As soon as practicable, but within 2 years from completion of Step 2 8. If the schedule contained herein cannot be met, OSHA will not unreasonably deny atimely-filed petition for modification of abatement. 29 C.F.R. ? 1903.14a.9. Phillips further agrees that on or before the scheduledcompletion date for each numbered task in Paragraph 7 above, it will transmit writtenverification to the OSHA Houston Area Office that the task has been completed asscheduled.10. Phillips further agrees to provide to OSHA an evaluation,to be conducted by an independent consultant, of the adequacy of settling leg maintenanceprocedures performed while polyethylene reactors are in operation. This evaluation will beforwarded to the OSHA Houston Area Office no later than six (6) months from the date of afinal Commission Order.11. If OSHA disagrees with Phillips’ determination of (1) theassessment of a process safety hazard, (2) the need for corrective action, or (3) anappropriate time frame for executing corrective action, OSHA will state its points ofdisagreement, and the reasons therefor, in writing so that Phillips may review them. OSHAand Phillips will then engage in good faith discussions to resolve the disagreement. Thisparagraph shall not limit OSHA’s right to use, as appropriate, enforcement methodsprovided by the OSH Act.12. Phillips agrees to develop and maintain a compilation ofwritten safety information to enable Phillips and all exposed employees, includingcontractor employees, to identify and understand the specific hazards posed by theprocesses involving highly hazardous chemicals present at HCC. This safety informationwill be communicated to all exposed employees, including contractor employees, and shalldescribe the hazards of the highly hazardous chemicals used in the process, as well asinformation pertaining to the equipment and technology involved in the process. Inaddition, Phillips agrees to develop and implement written operating procedures to provideclear instructions for safely conducting process and maintenance operations consistentwith the process safety information it develops. The steps required by this paragraphshall be completed within 90 days of the completion of the process hazard\/process safetymanagement analyses required under ? 7.13. Phillips agrees to train each employee involved in acovered process or maintenance operation in an overview of the process and in pertinentoperating procedures for that process. The training will emphasize the specific safety andhealth hazards of the process, and safe operating procedures and practices applicable tothe process. Refresher and supplemental training shall be provided at least annually inthe event the process does not undergo significant change, or concomitantly with anyprocess change or modification to ensure understanding and adherence to the currentoperating procedures of the process or maintenance operation. Such training will becompleted prior to assigning an employee to a process or maintenance operation.14. Phillips agrees to inform any contractor performing workon, or near, a process, of the known potential fire, explosion or toxic release hazardsrelated to the contractor’s work and the process, and ensure that contractor employees aretrained in the work practices and emergency procedures necessary to safely perform theirjob.15. Phillips will implement a process safety management systemat its Borger Refinery & NGL Process Center, Philtex\/Ryton Complex, Sweeny Refinery& Petrochemical Complex, and Woods Cross Refinery in accordance with the terms andtimetable provided in Appendix \”A,\” which is incorporated herein by reference.16. All documents or other information made available byPhillips under this Agreement shall be handled in accordance with Section 15 of the OSHAct, 29 U.S.C. ? 644, 18 U.S.C.? 1905, and 29 C.F.R. ? 1903.9. Phillips will have theobligation to identify the document, information, or portion thereof that containsproprietary or confidential information.17. OSHA agrees not to issue citations to Phillips for anyworking conditions identified in the process hazard analysis or any other analysisrequired by this Agreement, provided such conditions are being or will be addressed ingood faith in accordance with this Agreement (including correction, if necessary).Phillips agrees to allow OSHA access to HCC to determine progress and compliance with thisAgreement. OSHA agrees that, assuming good-faith implementation of this Agreement byPhillips, it shall not conduct general schedule inspections, except that OSHA may conductmonitoring inspections to determine compliance with this Agreement. OSHA retains the rightto conduct all other types of inspections permitted under the OSH Act.18. No later than six (6) months following Phillips’verification that it has completed all of the actions enumerated in Paragraphs 1 through14 of this Agreement, OSHA shall return to Phillips all copies of Phillips’ process hazardanalyses, written management responses, and other safety analyses. OSHA shall notthereafter retain any such copies.19. OSHA amends Citation No. 1, Inspection No. 106612433 issuedApril 19, 1990, to delete any characterization of the alleged violations containedtherein.20. Phillips agrees to pay the amount of FOUR MILLION DOLLARS($4,000,000.00) in settlement of Citations Nos. 1 and 2, as amended, Inspection No.106612443 issued April 19, 1990, within thirty (30) days of a final Order of theCommission.21. The parties agree that this Settlement Agreement shallbecome the final Order of the Commission and an agreed Order is attached hereto. The termshereof shall be subject to enforcement under ? 11(b) of the Act. Phillips consents to theentry of such an Order by the Circuit Court of Appeals.22. The parties agree that the Citation as amended andNotification of Proposed Penalty, Complaint, Answer, Stipulation and Settlement Agreement,Phillips’ Notice of Contest, Phillips’ failure to continue to contest, Phillips’ abatementof the alleged violations, Phillips’ payment provided herein and the Commission’s FinalOrder entered herein shall not constitute any evidence or admission on the part ofPhillips of any violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act or regulations orstandards promulgated thereunder. None of the foregoing shall be admitted into evidence,in whole or in part, in any proceeding or litigation in any court, agency or forum, exceptin proceedings brought directly under the Act by the Secretary. The contents of theStipulation and Settlement Agreement are for the exclusive benefit of the parties hereto,and none of the foregoing constitute evidence or an admission on the part of Phillips thatany of the conditions alleged in the Citations or Complaint existed or were a cause,proximate or otherwise, of any accident, or damages, if any, resulting therefrom. Phillipsis entering into this Settlement Agreement without any prejudice to its rights to raiseany defense or argument in any future or pending cases before the Commission or in anyother proceedings, including but not limited to the right to assert that any futureconditions identical or similar to those alleged in the original Citations or theComplaint do not violate the Occupational Safety and Health Act or any standardpromulgated thereunder. By entering into this Settlement Agreement Phillips does not admitthe truth of any alleged facts, any of the characterizations of Phillips’ alleged conductor any of the conclusions set forth in the Citations or Complaint issued in this matterregarding the standards cited therein.23. Phillips certifies that the names and addresses of allauthorized employee representatives of affected employees are:Oil, Chemical and Atomic WorkersInternational Union, AFL-CIOLocal Union No. 4-227 (clerical group)F.G. Bunch Oil, Chemical and Atomic WorkersInternational Union, AFL-CIO Local Union No. 4-227(clerical group)Joe CampbellOil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO Local Union No. 4-227 (plant group)B. G. MartinezOil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO Local Union No. 4-227 (plant group) Joe CampbellInternational Brotherhood of Electrical WorkersLocal Union No. 716G. G. WelchInternational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO J. D. Muhl Phillips further certifies that there are no other unionsrepresenting affected employees except as set forth above.24. The Secretary certifies that service of the fully executedSettlement Agreement was made on each authorized employee representative by facsimiletransmission on August 21, 1991. Affected employees have not raised objections to thereasonableness of any abatement period specified herein.25. Each party agrees to bear its own fees and other expensesincurred by such party in connection with any stage of this proceeding.DATED August 22, 1991.FOR PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY FOR U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABORJohn VanBuskirkSenior Vice PresidentALAN C. McMILLANDeputy Assistant SecretaryOccupational Safety and Health AdministrationMarion R. FroehlichCounsel for Phillips 66 CompanyROBERT P. DAVIS Solicitor of LaborJAMES E. WHITERegional Solicitor JACK F. OSTRANDERCounsel for Occupational Safety and HealthSUE ANN WOLFFSenior Trial Attorney BRIAN L. PUDENZJANICE L. HOLMES Trial AttorneysAPPENDIX \”A\” TO STIPULATION AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY AND LYNN MARTIN,SECRETARY OF LABOR, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Phillips 66 Company (\”Phillips\”) and Lynn Martin,Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor (\”Secretary\” or\”OSHA\”), hereby agree to the following:1. Phillips agrees to implement a process safety managementsystem at its Borger Refinery & NGL Process Center, Philtex\/Ryton Complex, SweenyRefinery & Petrochemical Complex, and Woods Cross Refinery. This system will be acomprehensive process safety management system which includes but is not limited to thesteps described in the Agreement to which this Appendix \”A\” is attached.2. Phillips agrees to abide by the following timetable: Task Completion Date 1. Identify process hazard\/process safety management analysis staff. 30 days from date of final Review Commission Order 2. Complete process hazard\/process safety management analysis on the following units: Two and one-half years from date of final Review Commission Order Sweeny: 26.1 ARDS Unit, A Train 30 HF Alkylation Unit 26.1 ARDS Unit, Trains A and B 28.1 DEA Regenerators and Sour Water Strippers 28.2 Sulfur Unit 15 Hexane Isom 3 FCC Unit 4 FCC Gas Plant 27.1 HOC Unit 27.2 HOC Gas Plant 43 Copper Treater 10ABC NGL Fractionation 17 Light Aromatics Recovery 19 Benzene Hydrogenation Borger 43 Sulfur Recoverv Unit 22 HF Alkylation 9 Crude Unit 10 Crude Unit 34 Sulfur Recovery Unit 42 ARDS 11 Ethane Recovery Unit 29 Cat Cracker 28 Crude Unit 40 Cat Cracker 35 Amine Treater & H2S Dryers 41 Hydrogen Unit 44 Amine & Sour Water Treater 6 Hexane Isom Philtex: Propylene Unloading and Storage H2S System SO2 Unloading and Storage Butadiene Unloading and Storage Woods Cross: 7 HF Alkylation 10 Solvent Deasphalting 11 Straight Run Gas Plant 62 Propane Pit 3. Complete process hazard\/ process safety Four and one-half years from managementanalysis on the following same units: Sweeny: 15 Benzene Hydrogenation 56 Waste Water System 22 Ethylene Plant I0D NGL Fractionation 21 NGL Fractionation 11 Catalytic Reformer 14 Catalytic Reformer 24 Ethylene Plant 18 Propylene Fractionation 7 Heavy Aromatics Recovery 26.2 Hydrogen Purification Unit 20 Pentane Isomerization 25.2 Distillate HDS Borger: 19.2 Reformer 7 Reformer 2.2 NGL HDS 19.1 Naphtha HDS 19.3 Distillate HDS 36 HDS Treater 1.6 Propane Treater 4 Butane Isom 5 Pentane Isom 6 Benzene Hydrogenation 26 Light End Recovery & Alky Feed Treater Philtex: Dimethyl Sulfide Blending and Storage Methyl Mercaptan Reaction and Storage PropaneStorage and Processing Butane Storage and Processing Anhydrous HCl Storage Woods Cross: 4 TCC 6 Reformer 12 NHDS 68 Pressurized HC Storage 86 Pressurized HC Truck Loading\/Unloading 87 Pressurized HC Railroad Loading\/Unloading 5 Vacuum 8 Crude 13 C5\/C6 Isomerization 4. Complete process hazard\/process safety. Six and one-half years from same managementanalysis on the following units: Sweeny 62 Clemens Terminal 68 Sweeny Tank Farm, #1 Pumphouse 88 Freeport Terminal #1 89 San Bernard Terminal 86 Truck Loading Rack 87 Tank Car Loading Rack 6 MTBE Unit and Hydroisom Unit 58 Pipelines 25 Crude Unit 9 Crude Unit 51 Steam Plants 52 Water Treater 90 Jones Creek Terminal 92 Freeport Terminal #2 \u00a0 Borger: 12 Pantex Cryogenic Gas Plant No. 7 Cols. 35-42, 45 No. 1 Cols. 7, 9-12 No. 1 Cols. 13-17 No. 4 Cols. 23-27 No. 4 Cols. 18-22 No. 6 Cols. 28-34 23 Straight Run Fractionator Cols. 104, 105, 108, 109, 111, 117 N-Butane Treater2.1 Minalk Treater13 Front end clean-up NGL Train Rack NGL Truck RackAbove Ground Propane Storage and LoadingRAW NGL Feed System E\/P Caverns and Handling Propane Caverns and HandlingAbove Ground IC4 Storage and HandlingAbove Ground NC4 Storage and HandlingIsobutane Caverns and Handling N-Butane Caverns and Handling De-ethanized NGL Feed SystemAlky Feed Caverns and Handling Above Ground 1C5 Storage and HandlingAbove Ground NC5 Storage and Handling5. Complete actions recommended by\u00a0 process hazard\/processsafety management analyses.As soon as practicable, but within two years from completion of the processhazard\/process safety management analysis on each unit3. Upon request by OSHA, Phillips shall make available to OSHAany documents prepared pursuant to this Appendix \”A\” including verification ofcorrective actions taken.4. The parties recognize that circumstances may cause delays to occur, such asconstruction or design problems and delays in obtaining necessary permits. If thetimetable contained herein cannot be met, Phillips will communicate that information toOSHA including the reason (s) for the delay and the expected completion date (s). Theparties agree that all undertakings by Phillips pursuant to this Appendix \”A\”are part of a settlement of a dispute between the parties and do not constitute anabatement of any unsafe condition.5. All documents or other Information made available byPhillips under this Appendix shall be handled in accordance with Section 15 of the OSHAct, 29 U.S.C. ? 644, 18 U.S.C. ? 1905, and 29 C.F.R. ? 1903.9. Phillips will have theobligation to identify the document, information, or portion thereof that containsproprietary or confidential information. No later than six (6) months following Phillips’verification that it has completed all of the actions enumerated herein, OSHA shall returnto Phillips all copies of Phillips’ process hazard\/process safety management analyses,written management responses, and other safety analyses. OSHA shall not thereafter retainany such copies.6. OSHA agrees not to issue citations to Phillips for anyworking conditions identified in the process hazard analysis or any other analysisrequired by this Appendix, provided such conditions are being or will be addressed in goodfaith in accordance with this Appendix (including correction, if necessary). Phillipsagrees to allow OSHA access to the above facilities to determine progress and compliancewith this Appendix. OSHA agrees that, assuming good-faith implementation of this Appendixby Phillips, it shall not conduct general schedule inspections, except that OSHA mayconduct monitoring inspections to determine compliance with this Agreement. OSHA retainsthe right to conduct all other types of inspections permitted under the OSH Act.DATED August 22, 1991.FOOTNOTES: [[1] ]We further construe the letter as a request for partystatus and we grant the request in accordance with Rule 20(a), 29 C.F.R. ? 2200.20 (a):\”Affected employees and authorized employee representatives, by notice of electionfiled at least ten days before the hearing, may elect party status concerning any matterin which the Act confers a right to participate.\” The record does not reflect thatany hearing date was set in these proceedings.[[2]] Although the union here was not a party when thesettlement agreement was executed, Rule 100 (c) nevertheless is intended to ensure thatall employee representatives have notice of the terms of a settlement agreement.Therefore, even non-party employee representatives are entitled to be served with a copyof the executed settlement agreement. General Electric Co., 14 BNA OSHC 1763, 1764n.2, 1987-90 CCH OSHD ? 29,072, p. 38,849 n.2 (No. 88-2265, 1990); General MotorsCorp., Delco Electronics Div., 14 BNA OSHC 1753, 1987-90 CCH OSHD ? 29,069 (No.88-1112, 1990).[[3]] Commission Rule 4 is as follows:? 2200.4 Computation of time.(a) Computation. In computing any period of timeprescribed or allowed in these rules, the day from which the designated period begins torun shall not be included. The last day of the period so computed shall be included unlessit is a Saturday, Sunday or Federal holiday, in which event the period runs until the endof the next day which is not a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday. When the period oftime prescribed or allowed is less than 11 days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays andFederal holidays shall be excluded from the computation.Under this rule, assuming a service date of August 23, 1991, the 10-day period allowed byRule 100(c) for the filing of objections by the union would not have expired untilSeptember 9, not counting intermediate weekend days and the Federal holiday of September2, 1991. In addition, Rule 4(b), 29 C.F.R, ? 2200.4(b), provides that where a document isserved by mail, three days shall be added to the period prescribed for filing a response.[[4]] We note that the union filed its letter of August 30,1991 with the Commission rather than with the judge, contrary to Rule 8, 29 C.F.R. ?2200.8, which requires that after a case is assigned to a Judge and until the judge’sdecision is docketed with the Commission, all documents shall be filed with the judge.While we do not excuse the union’s violation of our rules, the record reflects that theExecutive Secretary for the Commission sent the union’s letter back to the judge’s office,where it was received on September 11, 1991. Accordingly, had the judge waited untilSeptember 12, 1991, the expiration of the 10-day period allowing for service of thesettlement agreement on the union by mail, he would have received the union’s objection intime to consider that objection before issuing an order.[[5]] It is unclear at this time what position the Secretarywould take with respect to approval of the settlement agreement in the event the judgewere to accept the Secretary’s argument that the union’s right to challenge the abatementperiod is limited to the period for abating the hazard at the cited plant. However,insofar as the Secretary may be suggesting that the portion of the settlement agreementprescribing abatement periods for the other facilities should be approved regardless ofany objections by the union, we emphasize that a judge is not empowered to exciseprovisions from a settlement agreement and approve the agreement only in part. JohnDeere Foundry, 9 BNA OSHC 1351, 1981 CCH OSHD ? 25,218 (No. 78-5498, 1981)(consolidated) (selective approval of a settlement agreement may not reflect the intent ofthe parties to the agreement).[[6]] We do not know whether the union has elected or may beentitled to elect party status in docket no. 90-1271 as the representative for affectedemployees at the Sweeny facility. We also do not know whether the citations in docket no.90-1271 involve the same hazards or working conditions as those covered by the settlementagreement here.”