BAYTOWN, TX —
OSHA Inspection: RAVEN BUTENE-1, LLC
Unprogrammed Related inspection · Safety discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened an unprogrammed Related safety inspection of RAVEN BUTENE-1, LLC in 10328 INTERSTATE 10 SERVICE ROAD, BAYTOWN, TX 77521 (NAICS 325110). OSHA activity number 348346701.
OSHA opens inspections for many reasons — routine scheduling under a national or local emphasis program, an employee complaint or referral, or a follow-up after a reported injury. Opening or conducting an inspection is not itself an allegation or a finding that this employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.
Where did this inspection happen?
- Establishment
- RAVEN BUTENE-1, LLC
- Site address
- 10328 INTERSTATE 10 SERVICE ROAD
- City
- BAYTOWN
- State
- TX
- ZIP
- 77521
- Mailing
- 602 SAWYER STREET SUITE 200, HOUSTON, TX 77007
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Unprogrammed Related (G)
- Scope
- Partial (B)
- Discipline
- Safety
- Advance notice
- No
- Union status
- B
When did the case open and close?
- Opened
- Closing conference
- Last modified
- Data loaded
Establishment context
- NAICS code
- 325110
- Employees
- 56
- Ownership type
- A
Citations
6 citations on file for this inspection.
1910.119 F04
- Issued
- Dec 17, 2025
- Abate by
- Feb 5, 2026
- Penalty
- Initial $11,585 · Current $11,585
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.119(f)(4): The employer did not develop and implement safe work practices to provide for the control of hazards during operations such as lockout/tagout; confined space entry; opening process equipment or piping; and control over entrance into a facility by maintenance, contractor, laboratory, or other support personnel: On or about June 24, 2025, in the Raven facility, the host employer (Raven Butene-1) did not fully implement all elements of its existing safe work practices intended to control entrance into certain PSM covered process units by contract personnel, in that the host employer relied on permit authorization and supervision controls rather than a process-unit-specific method to verify contract employees on the unit.
Recent events (2)
- — I (O) $11585
- — Z (S) $11585
1910.119 J02
- Issued
- Dec 17, 2025
- Abate by
- Feb 5, 2026
- Penalty
- Initial $11,585 · Current $11,585
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.119(j)(2): The employer did not establish and implement written procedures to maintain the on-going integrity of process equipment: a) On or about June 24, 2025, in Raven facility, the host employer, did not fully document a task-specific procedure addressing the cleaning and decontamination activities associated with Vessel 307 A/B within its existing maintenance work practice programs.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $11585
- — Z (S) $11585
1910.132 D02
- Issued
- Dec 17, 2025
- Abate by
- Feb 5, 2026
- Penalty
- Initial $11,585 · Current $11,585
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.132(d)(2): The employer did not verify that the required workplace hazard assessment had been performed through a written certification that identifies the workplace evaluated; the person certifying that the evaluation has been performed; the date(s) of the hazard assessment; and, which identified the document as a certification of hazard assessment. On or about June 24, 2025, at the Raven facility, the employer did not maintain written certification verifying that a workplace hazard assessment addressing personal protective equipment requirements had been performed for an initial line break activity.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $11585
- — Z (S) $11585
1910.134 C01
- Issued
- Dec 17, 2025
- Abate by
- Feb 5, 2026
- Penalty
- Initial $11,585 · Current $11,585
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1): A written respiratory protection program that included the provisions in 29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1)(i) - (ix) with worksite specific procedures was not established and implemented for required respirator use: On or about June 24, 2025, and at times prior, at the Raven facility, the employer did not fully document task-specific criteria for determining when respiratory protection would be required for employees observing initial line break activities involving hazardous chemicals.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $11585
- — Z (S) $11585
1910.134 E01
- Issued
- Dec 17, 2025
- Abate by
- Feb 5, 2026
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.134(e)(1): The employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employee's ability to use a respirator, before the employee was fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace: On or about June 24, 2025 and times prior too, in the Raven Butene-1 facility, the employees were not medically evaluated to determine their ability to use the respirator, while working with the hazardous chemicals.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
1910.134 F02
- Issued
- Dec 17, 2025
- Abate by
- Feb 5, 2026
- Penalty
- Initial $0 · Current $0
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2): The employer did not ensure that an employee using a tight-fitting facepiece respirator is fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator, whenever a different respirator facepiece (size, style, model or make) is used, and at least annually thereafter. On or about June 24, 2025 and time prior too, in the Raven Butene-1 facility, the employees were not fit tested for the respirators, while working with the hazardous chemicals.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $0
- — Z (S) $0
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 325110)
More inspections in TX
Source
This record is reproduced from the U.S. Department of Labor Open Data API (OSHA inspection dataset). The original IMIS detail view is available at OSHA's Establishment Search for activity number 348346701.
Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.