PSDarchives.proposedoshachange

Proposed OSHA Change

3-10-03

This is from Safety & Health March 2003

Note that this proposed change applies to recreational divers.

"OSHA is proposing an amendment to its Commercial Diving Operations standard
to allow recreational diving instructors and diving guides to use
alternatives to an onsite decompression chamber. The changes will impact
recreational scuba divers who dive at 130 feet or less.
These scuba divers would be allowed to use nitrox breathing gas under
specified conditions, making a decompression chamber near the dive site
unnecessary, according to the proposed change announced in the January 10
Federal Register. In nitrox diving, a mixture of oxygen and nitrogen gases
replace compressed air as the breathing gas. Comments must be submitted by
April 10.
The revision does not change requirements for commercial divers who do not
regularly use scuba gear. OSHA administrator John Henshaw said the proposed
changes stem from changes in the diving industry.
'The diving industry has developed innovative diving methods and procedures
that have helped prevent and treat diving accidents such as decompression
sickness and embolism. By relieving many of the industry's employers of an
unnecessary regulatory requirement, we believe our proposed revision will
help them focus even more on the safety and health of their workers,'
Henshaw said."

Lifeguard Systems

3-11-03

I'm not usually the one to chime in on issues in which I am not completely aware, but there are two BIG question marks in my mind regarding this OSHA announcement.

#1. "OSHA is proposing an amendment to its Commercial Diving Operations standard to allow recreational diving instructors and diving guides to use alternatives to an onsite decompression chamber. The changes will impact recreational scuba divers who dive at 130 feet or less.

Maybe I’m missing something, but since when did OSHA control recreation SCUBA instruction and diving? I’ve been a teaching DM for several years and I’ve NEVER heard of any requirement for a chamber. That would pretty much shut down the recreation training industry…

#2. “These scuba divers would be allowed to use nitrox breathing gas under specified conditions, making a decompression chamber near the dive site unnecessary, according to the proposed change announced in the January 10 Federal Register.”

Beg pardon? While I understand that EAN has the potential to reduce DCS risk, this factor cannot in and of itself “make the decompression chamber unnecessary”. IMHO, even for commercial diving, Nitrox shouldn’t be a consideration for the removal of a chamber.

Am I missing the point? Or is this another somewhat ridiculous effort by the government to impose its interpretation onto a vocation it apparently knows little about?

Det. Todd Hancock

Dive Team Coordinator

Napa County Sheriff's Dept

Underwater Search and Recovery Team

3-11-03

According to the OSHA director of Maritime compliance OSHA (or a State agency who's regulations exceed the minimum OSHA requirements) regulates all employee's who dive as a function of thier employment. Currently within the OSHA regulation (29 CFR http://www.osha-slc.gov/SLTC/commercialdiving/index.html ) recreational AIR SCUBA instruction is exempted from OSHA commercial standards.

Any time a diver is using and air source either less than 19.5 %O2 or more then 22.5% O2 it is considered mixed gas diving and falls under the commercial diving standard. Anytime divers are using mixed gas for commercial diving operations they are required to have a recompression chamber at the dive site.

One instructional company "Dixie divers" has requested and been approved for an exception to this standard allowing thier employee's / instructors to dive NITROX during recreational SCUBA instruction.

This revision to the policy would allow all recreational diving instructors diving to less than 130 FSW to dive mixed gas (NITROX specifically)

Mr Stephen Butler the director of Maritime Compliance is a retired Navy diving officer with over 20 years of commercial and military diving experience.

Jeffrey M. Lane

3-11-03

That doesn’t seem to address the issues raised in the original post, which states that OSHA “is proposing an amendment to its Commercial Diving Operations standard to allow recreational diving instructors and diving guides to use alternatives to an onsite decompression chamber. The changes will impact recreational scuba divers who dive at 130 feet or less.”

I understand that OSHA has and will regulate Commercial diving operations, but again, in the original post, it appears that the requirement of a chamber is being eliminated specifically because of the benefits of EAN diving, “These scuba divers would be allowed to use nitrox breathing gas under specified conditions, making a decompression chamber near the dive site unnecessary, according to the proposed change”

I apologize for the quip about the author of the regulation. I’m sure he is imminently qualified. However, from the post, it appears as if this amendment to the OSHA commercial diving regulation is completely out of whack with current recreational diving standards as well as DCS theory and the pros/cons of Nitrox vs a recompression chamber (which isn’t currently a standard item on most recreational training sites)

I merely was confused by these seeming contradictions, and apparently still don’t “get it”.

Todd

3-12-03

OSHA regulations do not apply to public safety dive teams. In fact the WEB
site provided earlier provides the links to a summary of the applicable
sections of the Code of Federal Regulations, I have reprinted them here:

1910.401(a)(2)

This standard applies to diving and related support operations conducted in
connection with all types of work and employments, including general
industry, construction, ship repairing, shipbuilding, shipbreaking and
longshoring. However, this standard does not apply to any diving operation:

1910.401(a)(2)(i)

Performed solely for instructional purposes, using open-circuit,
compressed-air SCUBA and conducted within the no-decompression limits;

1910.401(a)(2)(ii)

Performed solely for search, rescue, or related public safety purposes by or
under the control of a governmental agency....

Again, as I have noted before the OSHA regs are helpful in our construction
of Team Guidelines but if you meet the requirements of the exception OSHA
regulations do not apply. Obviously, there may be seperate State, local or
contractual requirements that might refer to the OSHA regs.

Thomas J. Gerard

3-25-03

I don't know who the OSHA Director of Maritime Safety and Compliance is. I don't know exactly what he said and I don't know why. I do know what the regulation says. It is about as clear as the federal government can make it.

Once again, it says that a dive team is exempt from OSHA regulation if its work is "Performed solely for search, rescue, or related public safety purposes by or under the control of a governmental agency...." 1910.401(a)(2)(ii) )emphasis added.

Whoever made the statement you reference seems to have limited his interpretation of the Reg.

I did some research and there are no reported Federal Court cases or OSHA administrative decisions interpretating this section. In addition, I recently asked the folks on this list if they were aware of OSHA having taken action against any public safety dive teams, there were no responses. We know that there are deaths and injuries in public safety dive teams. If OSHA was going to interprete this regulation as this individual apparently did I suspect it would at least once, have been challenged and a decisoin would have resulted.

Tom Gerard

3-26-03

If OSHA was going to interprete this regulation as this individual apparently did I suspect it would at least once, have been challenged and a decisoin would have resulted.

A lot of us reach as much of OSHA as we can. The bottom line is do you want to be the test case?
Chuck

3-28-03

I was thinking about this issue more last night, taking in to account the
time frame Morgan Wells was working on this stuff for NOAA, the industry
view about oxygen as a whole was similar to the common views on hydrogen as
a dilution gas that prevail today.

Looking through the NOAA dive manual you can read (verbatim in fact) the
comments listed in the OSHA amendment proposal, I have not been able as yet
to find any reference to oxygen accidents when working with less than 40%
O2 percentages, in fact the ones I have found have been dealing with 100%
O2... I will continue to look...

Now that aside considering partial pressure of oxygen within a compressor
(this applies to the specific item about continuous down stream testing of
the air for hydrocarbon contamination) the current industry standard for
banking compressed air is 4500 psi (often companies are running 6000 psi
systems now)

(4500 psi / 14.7) + 1 ata = 320.82 ata x .21 (pp O2 in ata of ambient air)
= 64.49 pp O2 in ata at compressor operating pressure / bank pressure

Filling a cylinder (we use 2400 psi steels) with either NOAA 32 or NOAA 36
exposes the compressor and associated equipment to a lower partial pressure
of O2 than using the same compressor to top off your air bank...

NOAA 32 at 2400 psi = 52.56 ata of O2
NOAA 36 at 2400 psi = 59.13 ata of O2

These figures are just an example that it would be more appropriate (in my
opinion) to regulate bank pressures or compressor operating pressures for
NITROX blending, than intake O2 partial pressures (or downstream
hydrocarbon levels for that matter) this of course only applies to systems
that are ensuring a homogenous mix of the intake air. (and of course
conducting all required divers air testing, we conduct it quarterly in
Florida...)

Jeffrey M. Lane
Diving Engineer
Florida State University

Back to PSD archives index page

Lifeguard Systems, Inc. Box 594 Shokan, NY 12481

Phone: 845-657-5544

Fax: 845-657-5549