SAN FRANCISCO, CA —
OSHA Inspection: BAE SYSTEMS SAN FRANCISCO SHIP REPAIR
Referral inspection · Safety discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a referral safety inspection of BAE SYSTEMS SAN FRANCISCO SHIP REPAIR in FOOT OF 20TH ST, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94107 (NAICS 336611). OSHA activity number 311409528.
Watch BAE Systems SAN Francisco Ship Repair — free
Get an email when a new federal OSHA severe-injury report for BAE Systems SAN Francisco Ship Repair is published. One employer, no account, unsubscribe in one click.
Where did this inspection happen?
- Establishment
- BAE SYSTEMS SAN FRANCISCO SHIP REPAIR
- Site address
- FOOT OF 20TH ST
- City
- SAN FRANCISCO
- State
- CA
- ZIP
- 94107
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Referral (C)
- Scope
- Partial (B)
- Discipline
- Safety
- Advance notice
- No
- Union status
- Y
When did the case open and close?
- Opened
- Closing conference
- Case closed
- Last modified
- Data loaded
Establishment context
- NAICS code
- 336611
- SIC code (legacy)
- 3731
- Employees
- 2600
- Ownership type
- A
- Industry flags
- Maritime safety.
Citations
10 citations on file for this inspection.
5(a)(1)
- Issued
- Abate by
- Penalty
- Initial $5000.00 · Current $5000.00
General-duty citation text
Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970: The employer did not furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from recognized hazards that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees in that employees were exposed to possible injury from accidents caused by equipment which was not properly maintained and inspected: a)Dry-dock number two, wingwall cranes # 33 and # 34: As required by the Portal, Tower and Pedestal Cranes Standard ASME B30.4-2003, Chapter 4-2, Inspection, Testing and Maintenance, dated reports and records were not made as required by section 4-2.1.3 (frequent inspections) and 4-2.1.4 (periodic inspections) and signed and dated reports were not available as required by section 4-2.2.3 (test records) b)Dry-dock number two, wingwall cranes # 33 and # 34: As required by ASME B30.4- 2003, Section 4-2.3.1, the employer failed to implement a preventative maintenance program based on the crane manufacturers recommendations. A FEASIBLE AND ACCEPTABLE METHOD TO CORRECT THIS HAZARD IS TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES OUTLINED IN ASME B30.4-2003 INSPECTION TESTING AND MAINTENANCE SECTION 4-2.2.3. WHICH STATES DATED REPORTS AND RECORDS SHALL BE MADE AND AVAILABLE FOR ALL TESTS OF REPAIRED, ALTERED OR MODIFIED CRANES REQUIRED UNDER PARAS. 4-2.2.1 AND 4-2.2.2. ANOTHER FEASIBLE AND ACCEPTABLE METHOD TO CORRECT THIS HAZARD WOULD BE TO ESTABLISH A CRANE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM AS REQUIRED IN ASME B30.4-2003 SECTION 4-2.3.1, WHICH STATES A PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM BASED ON THE CRANE MANUFACTURER'S (HYDRALIFT AMCLYDE) RECOMMENDATIONS SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED.
5(a)(1)
- Issued
- Abate by
- Penalty
- Initial $5000.00 · Current $5000.00
General-duty citation text
Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970: The employer did not furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from recognized hazards that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees in that crane operators were exposed to injury caused by an uncontrolled wingwall crane crashing onto the drydock floor: a)Floating dry-dock number two, east wingwall: During a docking operation the dry- dock was in a nine foot trim to the north and an American Model 203 Revolver Crane #34 with operator onboard was not secured by the pelican hook provided at the south end of the dry-dock or by rail clamps installed on the equipment. A travel brake failure along with the trim on the dock resulted in the crane unintentionally traveling the length of the wingwall (850') eventually falling approximately 60' on to the drydock floor . b)Floating dry-dock number two, west wingwall: While the dock was in a nine foot trim to the north, an American Model 203 Revolver crane #33 was not secured by the pelican hook provided at the south end of the dry-dock or by the rail clamps installed on the equipment. ONE FEASIBLE AND ACCEPTABLE METHOD OF ABATING THE HAZARD IS TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES CONTAINED IN U.S. NAVY FLOATING DRY-DOCK ARCO CHECKLIST FOR BALLASTING OR DEBALLASTING EVOLUTIONS FCR ENCLOSURE (6) PAGE 6-13B-5 STEP R WHICH REQUIRES THAT PORT AND STARBOARD CRANES BE CLAMPED DOWN FOR DOCKING. ANOTHER FEASIBLE AND ACCEPTABLE METHOD WOULD BE TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE OUTLINED IN SAN FRANCISCO DRYDOCK, INC. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE (SOP) FOR CONFIGURATION CONTROL OF FLOATING DRYDOCK NUMBER 2 ENCLOSURE A, PARAGRAPH 3,B,5 VESSEL ON DRYDOCK WHICH STATES BOTH WINGWALL CRANES WILL BE SECURED WHILE BALLASTING OR DEBALLASTING WITH A NAVY VESSEL ON DOCK.
5(a)(1)
- Issued
- Abate by
- Penalty
- Initial $5000.00 · Current $5000.00
General-duty citation text
Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970: The employer did not furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from recognized hazards that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees in that employees were exposed to possible injury while operating wingwall cranes without automatic rail clamps. a)Drydock number two, wingwall crane # 33: The crane was originally equipped with Automatic Hydraulic rail clamps. In 1997 they were removed and manually operated rail clamps installed. The manual clamps were not at least equal to the original manufacturer's specification in that they would not automatically engage the rails when the crane control was in the neutral position. b)Drydock number two, wingwall crane # 34: The crane was originally equipped with Automatic Hydraulic rail clamps. In 1997 they were removed and manually operated clamps installed. The manual clamps were not at least equal to the original specification in that they would not automatically engage the rails when the crane control was in the neutral position. A FEASIBLE AND ACCEPTABLE METHOD TO CORRECT THIS HAZARD IS TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES OUTLINED IN THE PORTAL, TOWER, AND PEDESTAL CRANES STANDARD ASME B30.4-2003,MAINTENANCE, SECTION 4-2.3.1 (b) WHICH STATES REPLACEMENT PARTS SHALL BE AT LEAST EQUAL TO THE MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATION.
5(a)(1)
- Issued
- Abate by
- Penalty
- Initial $5000.00 · Current $5000.00
General-duty citation text
Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970: The employer did not furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from recognized hazards that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees in that employees were exposed to possible injury while being hoisted by a wingwall crane: a)Drydock number two, wingwall crane # 34: The crane was used to lift employees approximately sixty feet from the high water platform and wingwall on to barges inside the dry-dock to facilitate centering of the barges during docking, and there were less hazardous alternatives which could be used to place employees on the barges. b)Drydock number two, wingwall crane # 33: The crane was used to lift employees approximately sixty feet from the high water platform and wingwall on to barges inside the dock to facilitate centering of the barges during docking, and there were less hazardous alternatives which could be used to place employees on the barges. A FEASIBLE AND ACCEPTABLE METHOD TO CORRECT THIS HAZARD IS TOFOLLOW THE PROCEDURES REQUIRED IN ASME B30.23-2005, PERSONNEL LIFTING SYSTEMS, SECTION 23-3.2.1(b) WHICH REQUIRES THE PERSONNEL LIFT AUTHORIZER TO VERIFY THAT THERE ARE NO LESS HAZARDOUS ALTERNATIVES TO PERFORMING THE WORK, OR PROVIDING ACCESS TO THE AREA. THE PERSONNEL LIFT SHALL NOT BE AUTHORIZED WHEN LESS HAZARDOUS MEANS ARE FEASIBLE. EXAMPLES OF LESS HAZARDOUS MEANS WHICH WERE AVAILABLE TO GAIN ACCESS TO THE BARGES WOULD BE TO BOARD THE EMPLOYEES PIERSIDE BY USE OF GANGWAY OR BY TRANSFERRING FROM A SMALL BOAT INSIDE THE DRY- DOCK.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $5000.00
- — Z (S) $5000.00
1915.74 A01
- Issued
- Abate by
- Penalty
- Initial $5000.00
Recent events (2)
- — I (S)
- — Z (S) $5000.00
5(a)(1)
- Issued
- Abate by
- Penalty
- Initial $5000.00 · Current $5000.00
General-duty citation text
Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970: The employer did not furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from recognized hazards that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees in that employees were exposed to possible injury from accidents caused by the crane operator not being allowed to conduct a trial personnel lift prior to the actual lift: a)Drydock number two, east wingwall, crane # 34: Two employees were hoisted approximately sixty feet high in a manbasket by crane number thirty four from the east wingwall of dry-dock number two to Manson crane barge EINER, then from the barge to the highwater platform, and a trial lift was not performed to ascertain that hoist equipment setup and configuration were correct, load capacities were accurate, and that no hazardous interferences exist, and to further demonstrate the operators operational competence. b)Drydock number two, west wingwall crane # 33: Two employees were hoisted in a manbasket approximately sixty feet high and moved by crane number thirty three from west wingwall to barge number forty seven, and a trial lift was not performed to ascertain that hoist equipment setup and configuration were correct, load capacities were accurate, and that no hazardous interferences exist, and to further demonstrate operators operational competence. c)Drydock number two, west wingwall crane # 33: an employee was hoisted in a manbasket approximately sixty feet high and moved by crane number thirty three from barge number forty seven to the west wingwall, and a trial lift was not performed to ascertain that hoist equipment setup and configuration were correct, load capacities were accurate, and that no hazardous interferences exist, and to further demonstrate operators operational competence. ONE FEASIBLE AND ACCEPTABLE METHOD TO CORRECT THIS HAZARD IS TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES OUTLINED IN PERSONNEL LIFTING SYSTEMS STANDARD ASME B23-2005, SECTION 23-3.2.2(a)(9), HOISTING OPERATOR, WHICH STATES "PERFORM A TRIAL LIFT PRIOR TO LIFTING PERSONNEL WITH THE PLATFORM ON EACH SHIFT AND AFTER ANY CHANGE OF SETUP, LOCATION, HOIST EQUIPMENT CONFIGURATION OR OPERATORS." ANOTHER FEASIBLE AND ACCEPTABLE METHOD TO CORRECT THE HAZARD IS TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES OUTLINED IN UNITED STATES CRANES, INC. SUPER CAGE USER/ OPERATOR GUIDELINES PAGE 16 ITEM (ii)(D), WHICH STATES THAT A COMPLETE TRIAL RUN SHALL BE PERFORMED TO TEST THE ROUTE OF TRAVEL BEFORE EMPLOYEES ARE ALLOWED TO OCCUPY THE PLATFORM.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $5000.00
- — Z (S) $5000.00
5(a)(1)
- Issued
- Abate by
- Penalty
- Initial $5000.00 · Current $5000.00
General-duty citation text
Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970: The employer did not furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from recognized hazards that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees in that employees were exposed to possible injury from accidents caused by the employer not conducting frequent or periodic inspections and maintaining records of such inspections for the super cage manbasket: a)Drydock number two, east wingwall, crane # 34: Two employees were hoisted approximately sixty feet high in a manbasket by crane # 34 from the east wingwall of dry-dock number two to Manson crane barge EINER, then from the barge to the highwater platform, and periodic and frequent inspections of the SuperCage manbasket used to make the lift were not conducted. b)Drydock number two, west wingwall, crane # 33: Two employees were hoisted approximately sixty feet high in a manbasket by crane # 33 from the west wingwall number two to Manson crane barge EINER, then from the barge to the highwater platform, and periodic and frequent inspection records of Lifting Technologies manbasket used to make the lift were not kept by or with the platform, available for review. ONE FEASIBLE AND ACCEPTABLE METHOD TO CORRECT THIS HAZARD IS TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES REQUIRED IN PERSONNEL LIFTING SYSTEMS STANDARD B30.23-2005, SECTION 23-2.1.1.(b)(2)(a) AND (b),INSPECTION, TESTING AND MAINTENANCE WHICH STATES FOR FREQUENT INSPECTIONS "DATED RECORDS FOR THE HOISTING EQUIPMENT AND PERSONNEL PLATFORM SHALL BE MADE AND KEPT BY THE PLATFORM USER FOR THE DURATION OF THE PERSONNEL LIFT OPERATION." FOR PERIODIC INSPECTIONS, DATED RECORDS FOR THE PLATFORM SHALL BE MADE BY THE PLATFORM OWNER. THE LAST PERIODIC INSPECTION SHALL BE KEPT WITH THE PLATFORM AND AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW." ANOTHER FEASIBLE AND ACCEPTABLE METHOD TO CORRECT THE HAZARD IS TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES OF ASME B30.23-2005 SECTIONS 23-2.1.1.(c)(1) AND (2) AS REQUIRED BY US CRANE, INC SUPERCAGE USER/ OPERATOR GUIDELINES.
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $5000.00
- — Z (S) $5000.00
1915.111 A
- Issued
- Abate by
- Penalty
- Initial $5000.00 · Current $5000.00
1915.117 B
- Issued
- Abate by
- Penalty
- Initial $5000.00 · Current $2500.00 Reduced
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $2500.00
- — Z (S) $5000.00
1915.73 D
- Issued
- Abate by
- Penalty
- Initial $5000.00 · Current $2500.00 Reduced
Recent events (2)
- — I (S) $2500.00
- — Z (S) $5000.00
More inspections at BAE SYSTEMS SAN FRANCISCO SHIP REPAIR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA—2016-08-05 00:00:00
BAE SYSTEMS, SAN FRANCISCO SHIP REPAIR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA—2012-05-17 00:00:00
BAE SYSTEMS, SAN FRANCISCO SHIP REPAIR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA—2012-02-11 00:00:00
BAE SYSTEMS, SAN FRANCISCO SHIP REPAIR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA—2009-10-27 00:00:00
BAE SYSTEMS SAN FRANCISCO SHIP REPAIR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA—2008-06-20 00:00:00
BAE SYSTEMS SAN FRANCISCO SHIP REPAIR
View BAE SYSTEMS SAN FRANCISCO SHIP REPAIR's full OSHA safety record →
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 336611)
NORTH CHARLESTON, SC—2026-07-14
DETYENS SHIPYARDS, INC.
KINGSFORD, MI—2026-07-14
LAKE SHORE SYSTEMS, INC DBA TRIDENT MARITIME SYSTEMS
AMELIA, LA—2026-07-10
CONRAD SHIPYARD, LLC
PORTSMOUTH, VA—2026-07-09
PALFINGER MARINE USA INC.
STUART, FL—2026-07-07
APPLIED CONCEPTS UNLEASHED, INC.
More inspections in CA
EL CAJON, CA—2026-07-16
GRANITE AND MARBLE CONCEPTS INC.
LIVERMORE, CA—2026-07-16
RJMS CORPORATION
BAKERSFIELD, CA—2026-07-16
MAYORGA FARM LABOR SERVICES
SANTA PAULA, CA—2026-07-16
AHUATZI PRODUCE INC.
SANTA PAULA, CA—2026-07-16
MENDOZA PRODUCE
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 311409528.