Diver missing at Cove 2, West Seattle

[Thalassamania]

When I took my DM training, my dive buddy was a Seattle PD who was training to be a part of the dive team. The biggest limitation these folks have is that none of them are trained to go beyond recreational depths ... In Puget Sound, even at that particular dive site, it's easy to go beyond the depths they're qualified to work in ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

"They also complete a three-week Working Diver course conducted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)."

Here is the manual: http://www.ndc.noaa.gov/pdfs/NWDSSM_version 1.0.pdf

Here is a section that is relevant:

3.3 Depth Limitations
3.3.1 Initial Limitation. Although the nominal depth to which NOAA divers are certified is 130 fsw, all newly certified NOAA divers shall be limited to a maximum depth of 60 fsw until approved to dive deeper by the UDS (Unit Diving Supervisor).
3.3.2 Certification to Dive Deeper than130 fsw.
A. A diver holding a 130 fsw certificate may be certified to a depth greater than 130 fsw after successfully completing a NDCSB-approved deep-diving training program.

That course is available to them.

 

[Rustykfd]

The problem with a paid diver is that they have to meet OSHA requirements. I know there are arguments about this, but once the "rescue" exemption is gone, they are doing a commercial dive. Diving deeper than 60 feet requires a lot of logistics.

 

[Thalassamania]

The problem with a paid diver is that they have to meet OSHA requirements. I know there are arguments about this, but once the "rescue" exemption is gone, they are doing a commercial dive. Diving deeper than 60 feet requires a lot of logistics.

With all due respect, you are spouting nonsense. The rescue exemption basically states that regardless of your status you may do whatever you need to to prevent death, serious injury or grave environmental damage. That is true. However, police and fire search and rescue are even more exempted than are science divers, who must abide by a code of practice at least as stringent as that maintained by the AAUS.

The facts are:

... The original OSHA diving standard provided three specific exclusions which remain in effect as follows:

1. “Instructional diving utilizing only open-circuit compressed air scuba within the nodecompression limits.”
2. “Search, rescue, and related public safety diving by or under the control of a governmental agency.”
3. “Diving governed by the Protection of Human Subjects regulations of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) or equally effective rules or regulations of anotherFederal Agency.”

OSHA received a number of comments from persons engaged in diving incidental to police and public safety functions, and the Agency concluded that an exclusion was appropriate for such applications. The "by or under the control of a governmental agency" language is intended to make the exclusion applicable to all divers whose purpose is to provide search, rescue, or public safety diving services under the direction and control of a governmental agency (e.g., local, state, federal government) regardless of whether or not such divers are, strictly speaking, government employees. Diving contractors who occasionally perform such services privately on an emergency basis, and who are not under the control of a governmental agency engaging their services, do not come under this exclusion.

Such divers may, however, be covered by the provision concerning application of the standard in an emergency [29 CFR §1910.401(b)]. In excluding these search and rescue operations, OSHA determined that safety and health regulation of the police and related functions are best carried out by the individual States or their political subdivisions. It is pointed out that this exclusion does not apply when work other than search, rescue and related public safety diving is performed (e.g., police divers repairing a pier).

Training is covered by the exemption just as operations are. So, while a State OSHA might or might not have jurisdiction, Fed OSHA is out of the picture.

See:

EXCLUSIONS AND EXEMPTIONS FROM OSHA'S COMMERCIAL DIVING STANDARD
by Stephen Sea Butler
U.S. Department of Labor
OSHA Division of Maritime Compliance Assistance
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.; Room N3610
Washington, DC 20723 USA
http://www.si.edu/dive/pdfs/Butler.pdf

Your implication is also that a sworn volunteer has more freedom from workplace safety regulations that does a paid professional. That is also wrong, and that is one of the reasons that informal (non-sworn) volunteers are never accepted.

 

[lt fd]

DOSH DIRECTIVE Division of Occupational Safety and Health, Department of Labor and Industries
32.15 Diving Operations Involving Search and Rescue (Updated) Date: January 28, 2011

I. Purpose
This directive establishes inspection procedures and enforcement policies related to diving operations involving “search and rescue” (SAR) activities conducted or coordinated by local governments.

II. Scope and Application
This directive applies to all DOSH enforcement and consultation activities related to diving operations involving the public sector. It also applies to private employers involved in search and rescue, including those acting in support of the public sector. This directive replaces any previous guidance on the subject, whether formal or informal.

III. References
 Chapter 296-37 WAC, Commercial Diving Operations
 Chapter 296-305 WAC, Safety Standards for Firefighters
 DOSH Directive 32.00, Law Enforcement
 WAC 296-800-11010, Provide and use means to make your workplace safe
 WAC 296-800-14020, Develop, supervise, implement, and enforce safety and health training programs that are effective in practice

IV. Background
Questions are periodically raised about the application of the Commercial Diving Operations standard (Chapter 296-37 WAC) related to diving activities conducted or coordinated by local governments, including law enforcement, firefighting, and public safety agencies.

The source of the confusion is two-fold. Some readers of the standard are misled by the phrase “commercial diving” in its title to believe that the standard applies only to profit-making enterprises. In addition, the exemption in WAC 296-37-510(2)(b) for “search, rescue, or related public safety purposes…” has at times been incorrectly read as providing a broad exemption to all governmental diving activities, as well as to
governmental search and rescue activities not related to diving.

Although the term “search and rescue” (SAR) is not defined in Chapter 296-37 WAC, well-established definitions exist within the industry. In the National Search and Rescue Plan, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) defines SAR as “the employment of available personnel and facilities in rendering aid to persons and property in distress.” To further clarify the issue, the USCG considers SAR operations to be deactivated
when the survivor is delivered to a position of treatment or safety, or when there is no longer hope for rescue.

V. Enforcement Policies
A. While the title of Chapter 296-37, Commercial Diving Operations, may be confusing to some, the language of the standard itself is quite clear.
1. WAC 296-37-510(1) states that the standard “shall apply throughout the state wherever diving takes place within the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor and Industries.
2. WAC 296-37-510(1) also states that the standard “applies to diving and related support operations conducted in connection with all types of work and employments. . .” with the exception of several specific, listed exemptions.
B. Unless the activity falls within a specific exemption, the activity of any employee who dives is covered by the standard.
1. One specific exempted activity is “search and rescue” (SAR). Employers who engage in diving activities beyond search and rescue (after there is no longer hope for rescue), are covered by the standard.
a. SAR does not include:
 The search for or recovery of the bodies of victims
 The search for or retrieval of evidence, or
 Any other activities that are not time-sensitive in nature and not directly related to the SAR activities.
b. WAC 296-37-510(2)(b) does not exempt SAR diving operations from general requirements such as those found in WAC 296-800-11010,
particularly the requirement to “provide and use safety devices, safeguards, and use work practices, methods, process, and means that are
reasonably adequate to make your workplace safe.”

2. Specific requirements apply in accordance with any limitations found in the standards themselves. (For example, those found in the Firefighters Standard, Chapter 296-305 WAC). All SAR activities not subject to specific regulation would remain subject to the general requirements such as those in WAC 296-800-11010, as well as the general training requirements found in WAC 296-800-14020. Application of these requirements related to law enforcement activities is addressed in more detail in DOSH Directive 32.00.
3. The guidance in this directive makes no changes to any other requirements found in any other standards.

VI. Technical Support
If questions, problems or concerns arise, compliance officers should contact their respective supervisors first and then their regional managers, as appropriate. For further technical information or assistance with the rule or with this directive, please contact Jim Rone, the Maritime Safety Compliance Specialist at (360) 902-4956.

 

[NaixelsyD]

As a person that dives and was taught by the person that passed away I would like to say a few things.

First he would not want people to criticize the work done by the authorities. He himself volunteered his time to help as a first responder, not as a diver but as disaster relief. There is still a lot of unanswered questions but let's not jump to conclusions. This is very surprising to me because he was a overly conscientious diver that didn't take unnecessary risks. But accidents do happen and this is just one of them.

He would not want you blaming anyone for this but rather learn and become better and safer for it. He was a loving and heartfelt guy that I will never forget.

 

[Jax]

DOSH DIRECTIVE Division of Occupational Safety and Health, Department of Labor and Industries
32.15 Diving Operations Involving Search and Rescue (Updated) Date: January 28, 2011.

<snipped>

Welcome aboard, LT FD! Sorry it is under these circumstances, but we welcome your input and participation. :wavey:

 

[Jax]

As a person that dives and was taught by the person that passed away I would like to say a few things.

First he would not want people to criticize the work done by the authorities. He himself volunteered his time to help as a first responder, not as a diver but as disaster relief. There is still a lot of unanswered questions but let's not jump to conclusions. This is very surprising to me because he was a overly conscientious diver that didn't take unnecessary risks. But accidents do happen and this is just one of them.

He would not want you blaming anyone for this but rather learn and become better and safer for it. He was a loving and heartfelt guy that I will never forget.

Thank you, NaixelsyD! So sorry for the lost of your friend.

Welcome to ScubaBoard. I wish it were under better circumstances. We are a chatty bunch and there are many divers to meet here.

 

[merxlin]

---

---

A ScubaBoard Staff Message...

Please remember that the Accidents and Incidents forum exists so that we may learn from these events, and as such has special rules. Please keep these in mind as you post as violating these rules willl result in your posts being removed.

Special Rules for Accidents & Incidents Forum

The purpose of this forum is the promotion of safe diving through the examination and discussion of accidents and incidents; to find lessons we can apply to our own diving.
Accidents, and incidents that could easily have become accidents, can often be used to illustrate actions that lead to injury or death, and their discussion is essential to building lessons learned from which improved safety can flow. To foster the free exchange of information valuable to this process, the "manners" in this forum are much more tightly controlled than elsewhere on the board. In addition to the TOS:

(1) You may not release any names here, until after the names have appeared in the public domain (articles, news reports, sheriff's report etc.) The releasing report must be cited. Until such public release, the only name you may use in this forum is your own.
(2) Off topic posts will be removed and off topic comments will be edited.
(3) No flaming, name calling or otherwise attacking other posters. You may attack ideas; you may not attack people.
(4) No trolling; no blamestorming. Mishap analysis does not lay blame, it finds causes.
(5) No "condolences to the family" here. Please use our Passings Forum for these kinds of messages.
(6) If you are presenting information from a source other than your own eyes and ears, cite the source.
(7) If your post is your hypothesis, theory, or a "possible scenario," identify it as such.
(8) If your post is about legal action that concerns a mishap, use the Scuba Related Court Cases forum.
Thanks in advance,

---

 

[Thalassamania]

DOSH DIRECTIVE Division of Occupational Safety and Health, Department of Labor and Industries
32.15 Diving Operations Involving Search and Rescue (Updated) Date: January 28, 2011 ...]

Thanks for the info on DOSH (Washington State's workplace safety organization).

As I stated earlier: "So, while a State OSHA might or might not have jurisdiction, Fed OSHA is out of the picture."

Correct?

If I may hijack for a moment: Do scientific divers in Washington State enjoy access to an alternative standard as provided for by OSHA? Has there been any attempt by the public safety diving community to go that same route?

Thanks.

 

[Jax]

If I may hijack for a moment: Do scientific divers in Washington State enjoy access to an alternative standard as provided for by OSHA? Has there been any attempt by the public safety diving community to go that same route?

Thanks.

Thal, what would be an alternate standard? What would be the benefits to go that route?