CITGO Petroleum Corporation and Asbestos Exposure

Company History

CITGO Petroleum Corporation is an American oil refining and marketing company headquartered in the United States. The company operates as a major petroleum refiner, transporter, and marketer of transportation fuels, lubricants, petrochemicals, and other industrial products. CITGO’s operations have historically centered on its network of petroleum refineries, pipeline systems, and petrochemical processing facilities — complex industrial environments that, for much of the twentieth century, relied heavily on asbestos-containing insulation materials to manage the extreme heat and pressure generated by refining processes.

Like many large industrial operators of the mid-twentieth century, CITGO’s facilities were constructed and maintained during an era when asbestos was the standard material for insulating pipes, boilers, vessels, and other high-temperature equipment. Petroleum refining operations require the management of superheated steam, caustic chemicals, and volatile hydrocarbons at elevated temperatures — conditions for which asbestos insulation was considered an engineering necessity from the 1940s through the late 1970s. The transition away from asbestos-containing materials at facilities like those operated by CITGO generally occurred in the early 1980s, following growing regulatory pressure and evolving understanding of the health hazards associated with asbestos fiber exposure.

CITGO has been named as a defendant in asbestos-related personal injury litigation, primarily in connection with conditions at its refineries and related industrial facilities. These cases have involved workers who alleged occupational exposure to asbestos-containing materials during employment at CITGO-operated sites.

Asbestos-Containing Products

According to asbestos litigation records, the primary category of asbestos-containing materials at issue in claims involving CITGO facilities is pipe insulation. Plaintiffs alleged that asbestos-containing pipe insulation was widely used throughout CITGO’s refinery infrastructure during the decades spanning the 1940s through the early 1980s.

In petroleum refining environments, pipe insulation served a critical function. Extensive networks of pipes carried superheated steam, crude oil, refined products, and chemical intermediates throughout refinery systems. Insulating these pipelines was essential both for process efficiency and for worker safety in controlling surface temperatures. Court filings document that asbestos-containing insulation materials — manufactured by a range of third-party product manufacturers — were specified, purchased, and installed throughout these systems during the relevant period.

Plaintiffs alleged that asbestos-containing pipe insulation used at CITGO facilities was present in both pre-formed pipe covering sections and in blanket or wrap-style insulation applied to irregular surfaces, fittings, valves, and expansion joints. According to asbestos litigation records, these materials typically contained chrysotile asbestos, and in some product formulations, amphibole asbestos varieties including amosite, at concentrations commonly ranging from 15 to 85 percent by weight depending on the product type and manufacturer.

Court filings document that in addition to pipe insulation, other asbestos-containing materials were present in the general refinery environment, including insulation on boilers, heat exchangers, pressure vessels, and turbines, as well as gasket and packing materials used in valve and flange maintenance. While pipe insulation represents the central documented product category in litigation involving CITGO, workers at petroleum refineries were often exposed to multiple asbestos-containing products simultaneously as a function of their work environment.

It is important to note that CITGO, as a refinery operator, was not a manufacturer of asbestos-containing insulation products. According to asbestos litigation records, the company’s involvement in litigation has centered on its role as a premises owner and operator — that is, the entity responsible for the conditions at facilities where workers were exposed to asbestos-containing materials installed and used on-site.

Occupational Exposure

The workers most frequently identified in asbestos litigation involving CITGO facilities include pipefitters, insulators (also known as asbestos workers or laggers), boilermakers, millwrights, maintenance mechanics, and laborers who worked at petroleum refineries and related processing plants. According to asbestos litigation records, exposure occurred in several distinct ways.

Installation and new construction. Plaintiffs alleged that during the construction or expansion of refinery units, insulators cut, shaped, and applied asbestos-containing pipe covering and block insulation to piping systems. These cutting and fitting operations generated significant quantities of respirable asbestos dust. Workers in adjacent trades — pipefitters, ironworkers, and laborers — were also present in these environments and were exposed to airborne fibers.

Maintenance and repair work. Court filings document that routine refinery maintenance required the removal and replacement of asbestos insulation to access underlying pipe systems, valves, and equipment. Pipefitters and maintenance workers who stripped existing insulation prior to performing repairs generated some of the highest dust concentrations recorded in industrial hygiene literature from this era. After repairs were completed, insulators would reapply new asbestos-containing materials.

Turnaround and shutdown work. Petroleum refineries undergo scheduled shutdowns — commonly called “turnarounds” — during which large numbers of contract and maintenance workers perform intensive repair and upgrade work throughout the facility. According to asbestos litigation records, turnaround conditions concentrated multiple trades in enclosed spaces simultaneously, amplifying cumulative exposure levels for all workers present.

Incidental bystander exposure. Plaintiffs alleged that workers who did not directly handle asbestos-containing insulation were nonetheless exposed to fibers released by the work of others in shared workspaces. In refinery environments with limited ventilation, airborne asbestos fibers could remain suspended for extended periods, affecting all workers in the vicinity.

The diseases most commonly alleged in litigation involving CITGO facilities include mesothelioma, lung cancer, asbestosis, and pleural disease. Mesothelioma — a malignant cancer of the lining of the lungs, abdomen, or heart — is considered a signature asbestos-related disease, with no known cause other than asbestos fiber exposure. The latency period between initial asbestos exposure and the clinical presentation of mesothelioma typically ranges from 20 to 50 years, meaning that workers exposed at CITGO facilities during the 1950s through the 1970s may be receiving diagnoses today or in the coming years.

CITGO Petroleum Corporation has been named as a defendant in asbestos personal injury litigation in courts across the United States. According to asbestos litigation records, these cases have been filed primarily by former refinery workers and, in some instances, by their family members alleging secondary or take-home exposure resulting from asbestos fibers carried home on work clothing.

Plaintiffs alleged that CITGO, as the owner and operator of petroleum refinery facilities, had a duty to maintain safe working conditions and to warn workers of the hazards associated with asbestos-containing materials used on its premises. Court filings document that litigation against CITGO has proceeded on theories including premises liability and negligence, with plaintiffs contending that the company knew or should have known of asbestos hazards and failed to take adequate protective measures.

CITGO has not established an asbestos bankruptcy trust fund. The company has not filed for bankruptcy protection in connection with asbestos liability, and no dedicated asbestos trust has been created to compensate claimants. This distinguishes CITGO from a number of asbestos product manufacturers and distributors that resolved mass asbestos liability through the bankruptcy trust system. Litigation against CITGO must proceed through the civil court system.

It should be noted that in many asbestos cases arising from refinery work, claims are pursued against multiple defendants simultaneously. Workers who developed asbestos-related diseases after employment at CITGO facilities often have claims not only against CITGO as a premises defendant but also against the manufacturers and distributors of the specific asbestos-containing insulation products that were used at those sites. Many of those product manufacturers have established asbestos bankruptcy trusts, and claimants may be eligible to file trust claims in parallel with or independent of litigation against CITGO.

If you or a family member developed mesothelioma, lung cancer, asbestosis, or another asbestos-related disease after working at a CITGO petroleum refinery or related facility, the following options may be available:

  • Civil litigation against CITGO. Because CITGO has not established an asbestos bankruptcy trust, claims must be filed through the civil court system. These cases are typically handled by attorneys who specialize in asbestos personal injury law on a contingency-fee basis, meaning no upfront legal costs are required.

  • Trust fund claims against insulation product manufacturers. Many companies that manufactured the asbestos-containing pipe insulation and related products used at petroleum refineries have established asbestos bankruptcy trusts. Depending on your specific work history and exposure documentation, you may be eligible to file claims with one or more of these trusts. Trust fund claims can often be filed independently of litigation and may proceed on a separate timeline.

  • Documenting your exposure history. Building a successful claim — whether through litigation or trust fund filings — depends on establishing specific details about your work history: the facilities where you worked, the years of employment, the trades you performed, and the specific products you handled or worked near. Employment records, union records, co-worker testimony, and Social Security work histories can all serve as supporting documentation.

An attorney experienced in asbestos litigation can evaluate your work history, identify all potentially responsible parties, and advise on whether civil litigation, trust fund claims, or a combination of both is appropriate for your specific circumstances.