OSHA has inspected Williams Tank Lines 5 times in California since 2001.
The latest one began on Nov 15, 2017 after a complaint, in Chico.
Those inspections ended with 14 citation items: 5 serious and 9 other-than-serious.
Penalties were first proposed at $49,815 and now stand at $18,590, 63% lower after settlements or reviews.
How that compares: the median penalty per cited inspection for education employers since 2015 is $0, and Williams Tank Lines averages $670 (1 cited inspection).
Williams Tank Lines also files yearly injury logs with OSHA, summarized below.
Citation items per year, by inspection date.
California · latest 90 days of OSHA records
1,111employers cited
Get notified the morning OSHA posts each new citation in California: the employer, the site address, the rules broken and the penalty.
Incident on May 12, 2004: Employee injures foot when ran over by tanker
At approximately 5:48 a.m. on May 12, 2004, Employee #1, a trainee-driver, was w orking with another coworker, a trainer driver, on Lane Number 2 of a gas tanker facility. A truck driver had backed his tanker into the gas tanker facility to load the tanker with gasoline and diesel fuel. The trainer-driver unhooked the f ront hose of the tanker as Employee #1 unconnected the rear hose. When Employee #1 unhooked the rear hose, he stepped out of Lane Number 2 and into Lane Number 3. In Lane Number 3, a filled tanker was pulling out of the station and struck E mployee #1 in his foot. The tanker ran over the back of his right foot, causing serious injuries. He was transported to a medical center, where he received medi cal attention and was hospitalized for postoperative treatment of his injured fo ot.
No citations from this inspection.
Inspection 305475808 OPENED APR 19, 2004Closed
Accident · Partial · Safety · 21 employees at the site · Closed Sep 13, 2010
Incident on Mar 23, 2004: Employee is injured when run over by truck
At 3:30 a.m. on March 23, 2004, Employee #1, a truck driving trainee working for William Tank Lines, was receiving training sessions at the employer's terminal in Long Beach, CA. The employer was a petroleum tanker truck line and it trained drivers with at least one year of verifiable large rig over-the-road trucking p ractice. Experienced drivers were assigned as trainers to ride along with traine es. The terminal was used as a staging area where trucks were kept, cleaned, and prepared for runs. Trucks being cleaned or serviced for trial runs were parked in one or two lines to the south of the main office. There was no established mi nimum distance requirement between the two lines of trucks. At the time of the i ncident, the first coworker was assisting his trainee, Employee #1, in preparing a Peterbilt tractor with dual tankers (company Number 91) for a trial run. The vehicle was parked on the left side of that morning's two-row arrangement, close to the main office. The second coworker, a trainer operating a Peterbilt tracto r (Model Number 379 and company Number 2027) that was hauling two tankers, drove around the office and parked at the head of the line on the right side to pick up his trainee. As a result, the second coworker's tractor was parked beside Emp loyee #1's rig. When the second coworker had picked up his trainee, he set the t ractor in motion once again. Employee #1 was located in front of his rig and his trainer was closing a side of their tractor's engine cover. The second coworker said that he looked in his left rearview mirror and saw Employee #1 and then lo oked at his right rearview mirror in order to maneuver the vehicle to avoid seve ral parked cars. When we looked at his left rearview mirror again, he saw Employ ee #1 lying on the ground between the front and rear tires of his back tanker (N umber 9928). The second coworker immediately stopped the tractor. The first cowo rker said that he did not see what happened at the moment Employee #1 fell under the wheels, but that he did hear a thump and screamed to warn the second cowork er to stop his vehicle. A manager assessed Employee #1's condition and sent for paramedics. Employee #1 suffered a crushed pelvis and a fractured clavicle. He w as taken to the Long Beach Memorial Hospital for rehabilitation. Employee #1 doe s not recall anything that happened prior to him performing preliminary truck ch ecks.
Citation and rule
Type
Proposed
Current
Issued
Status
Citation 1, item 1
29 CFR 3272 C
Serious
$20,250
$8,435
May 21, 2004
Final
Citation 2, item 1
29 CFR 3272 E
Serious
$20,250
$840
May 21, 2004
Final
Inspection 300815339 OPENED DEC 13, 2001Closed
Complaint · Partial · Health · 55 employees at the site · Closed Jul 9, 2002
From the Form 300A summaries employers file with OSHA each year. Rate = recordable cases per 100 full-time workers.
In 2025, the Stockton site logged 7 recordable injuries or illnesses among about 334 workers: 0.0 per 100 full-time workers, against a median of 2.9 for its industry. Those cases cost 7 days away from work.
Site and year
Workers
Cases
Days-away cases
Rate
Industry median
Williams Tank Lines
Stockton · 2025
334
7
3
0.0
2.9
Stockton - 01
Stockton · 2021
98
3
0
3.2
2.9
Chico - 05
Chico · 2021
17
2
2
9.6
2.9
Chico-05
Chico · 2016
27
0
0
0.0
2.9
Included with any plan: 11 more yearly logs from these sites, back to 2016, with each site's average rate over its latest three years. Already a subscriber? Sign in.
Alert subscribers get notified of each newly cited employer in California the morning it is posted. See the alert plans.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA enforcement data. A citation is OSHA's allegation; employers can contest it, and the status column shows where each item stands. Something wrong on this page? Tell us.