Overfilling and life expectancy. (LP Tanks)

[Wookie]

And thanks for that, but no one really asked about federal requirements for semiannual air testing, but when we do.....

Commercial diving regulations as far as the Coast Guard go fall under 46 CFR subpart B, Commercial Diving. Reading the applicability section of 46 CFR 197.202 might make a charter boat operator a little nervous, especially where it says "...This subpart applies to commercial diving operations taking place at any deepwater port or the safety zone thereof as defined in 33 CFR part 150; from any artificial island, installation, or other device on the Outer Continental Shelf and the waters adjacent thereto as defined in 33 CFR part 147 or otherwise related to activities on the Outer Continental Shelf; and from all vessels required to have a certificate of inspection issued by the Coast Guard including mobile offshore drilling units regardless of their geographic location, or from any vessel connected with a deepwater port or within the deepwater port safety zone, or from any vessel engaged in activities related to the Outer Continental Shelf..." and you'd say "Crap, man, that's not what the inspector told me", until you read it a little closer, especially the part where it says "...This subpart applies to commercial diving operations..." and you say phew, that lets me out, because, you see, The definition of commercial diving includes the following statement: "Commercial diver means a diver engaged in underwater work for hire excluding sport and recreational diving and the instruction thereof."

So, the current regulations state that commercial diving specifically exempts sport and recreational diving and the instruction thereof, regardless of depth and gear type. Now, recreational and sport are not further defined in the Coast Guard regulations, but I (and my lawyer) have made the case that if you aren't doing research, and you aren't being paid, you aren't a commercial diver.

So, how does this exempt me from OSHA? well, lookie here: OSHA UPDATE ( I know that this isn't an OSHA link, but if you want a copy of the actual MOU, I'll drag it out for you)

Which says, in part, "OSHA defines its jurisdictional boundaries within a state to include its territorial waters which extend three nautical miles from the coastline, except in the Gulf of Alaska where the territorial waters extend three marine leagues or approximately nine miles (Seattle Regional Instruction CPL 2.6A dated August 12,1992).
The scope of the Act, however, was limited by Section 4(b) (1), (29 USC 653 (b)(1)), which states: "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to working conditions of employees with respect to which other Federal Agencies…exercise statutory authority to prescribe or enforce standards or regulations affecting occupational safety or health."

Thus in the case of vessels, OSHA would have jurisdiction if there is one employee, the vessel was within the geographic area of jurisdiction, and no other federal agency had preempted them under the 4(b)(1) section." (All 3 cases must apply for OSHA to be in effect)


The Coast Guard is another federal agency which may exercise occupational safety and health jurisdiction and thereby preempted OSHA on vessels. Note that before preemption occurs, another agency not only needs to have jurisdiction, but must exercise that jurisdiction. At this point, several definitions must be understood,. An "inspected vessel" means one that the Coast Guard has inspected and has issued a current Certificate of Inspection. The routine boarding of a vessel by the Coast Guard to assure compliance with certain laws does not make the vessel an "inspected vessel". Common classes of vessel normally "inspected" are passenger vessels carrying more than six passengers, tankers, and cargo vessels."

...and more importantly, goes on to say: In order to clarify the regulatory status of some vessels, OSHA and the Coast Guard entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) published in the Federal Register, Vol. 48, No. 54, March 18, 1983. This MOU acknowledged that the Coast Guard had preempted OSHA with respect to "inspected" vessels. It did not address "uninspected" vessels although by their omission, it can be read that this class of vessels remains under OSHA jurisdiction."

What this means to me is that inspected vessels are specifically exempt from the regulations of OSHA by MOU signed between the Coast Guard and OSHA. I don't fall under OSHA. I fall under Coast Guard. Coast Guard regulations specifically exempt recreational and sport diving without definition and without regard to depth and gear type.

That's why OSHA and Coast Guard regulations for commercial diving don't apply to me. But congratulations, y'all did keep me awake thinking about it last night.

OBTW, I did find the letter that specifically exempts the Spree from carrying a chamber, but it didn't apply in this case, it only applies while carrying research divers engaged in research when the researchers have an MOU with the Coast Guard to perform evacuations from the Spree in the event of a dive related injury.

 

[nitroxfox]

ORIGINAL EXCLUSIONS FROM OSHA’s COMMERCIAL DIVING STANDARD
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 no-decompression limits. OSHA concluded that a valid distinction existed between SCUBA diving instructors and commercial divers which warranted an exclusion. The SCUBA diving instructor, who is an employee, is student oriented – not task oriented. The dive location is not determined by the location of a particular job as it is in commercial applications, where operations must of necessity be conducted under environmental conditions that are often adverse. The SCUBA diving instructor, by contrast, selects a location which is usually clear, shallow, and warm. Indeed, a swimming pool is the dive location for most SCUBA diving instruction. Such dives are discontinued if the slightest difficulty occurs. SCUBA diving instructors do not utilize construction tools, handle explosives, or use welding or burning tools. As a result of these factors, SCUBA diving instructors are rarely exposed to adverse sea states, temperature extremes, great depths, poor visibility, or heavy workloads, some or all of which are common to the majority of commercial diving operations. However, OSHA took into consideration that
C-2
some diving techniques and conditions pose greater potential hazards than others, regardless of the purpose of the dive. Thus, this exclusion for SCUBA diving instruction was limited to a restricted diving range, a particular diving mode, and specific equipment. The exclusion from the standard applies only to instructional diving which uses open-circuit compressed air SCUBA and is conducted within the no-decompression limits. The standard defines no-decompression limits as the depth-time limits of the “no-decompression limits and repetitive dive group designation table for no-decompression air dives” of the U.S. Navy Diving Manual, or equivalent limits that the employer can demonstrate to be equally effective. No distinction per se is made between instructors of prospective recreational divers and instructors of prospective commercial divers. However, the training for commercial divers involves diving that is surface-supplied, uses mixed-gas as a breathing gas, requires decompression, often involves adverse environmental conditions, or involves the use of underwater tools and equipment; each of these factors potentially increases the hazards of the operation. It is emphasized that when recreational diving instruction exceeds the specified limits, the OSHA diving standard applies. It is noted that individuals engaged in recreational diving not otherwise related to their respective employments, are not within the authority of the OSH Act, and, are outside the scope of OSHA’s diving standard. On the other hand, SCUBA diving for a commercial rather than instructional purpose is covered by the OSHA diving standard, regardless of equipment or depth-time range.


It is emphasized that when recreational diving instruction exceeds the specified limits, the OSHA diving standard applies.,

Wookie,

My point is simply that there are so many differing opinions that one should go by the published standard. No one will ever be able to get 4 lawyers in the same room without getting 4 opinions unless they are on the same dole!!

While I may agree that the CG may have authority on an inspected vessel, it is not the same case for a 6 pack boat.( uninspected vessel). Please do not confuse my knowledge of this crap with acceptance. I am only providing information.

I encourage all to verify information for themselves. I do not profess to know all on this, it is a learning experience. It may be the case that neither You nor I may be correct. As a matter of fact, that would be the case as we are having a spirited discussion and are in about 80-90% agreement. Ther is always room for interpretation.

I do appreciate all of your input and will continue to check the veracity of your infomation.

I would also ask others to consider the point that a customer on your boat is a GUEST. Are they paying for a service? Just ask the Captain in Italy on the Concordia!! Even though the guests paid for a cruise and when signing the contract, agreed to only sue in Italian court, there are still litigations taking place in the USA. He jumped ship and left the GUESTS to fend for themselves!! How do you see that working out. If a legal action is brought against you or me, we will have to answer and defend no matter how right or wrong we are. That is the world we live in.

I encourage you to get an official opinion in writing from the appropriate regulatory authority and cover your backside. Speculation will only get us so far in court. However, if you are making a good faith attempt to abide by an official interpretation, you may have a leg to stand on.
Gone are the 1970s when one could get away with things. We are now in 2012. Most of our customers, at least here in the USA, have means and education. They expect to be catered to and be serviced to a certain standard.

I do appreciate all of your points and wish you success in your ventures.

 

[nitroxfox]

Wookie,

Just reading a bit more. It would still seem that the DOT may have jurisdiction, being a Federal Agency, even if OSHA is pre-empted.

The scope of the Act, however, was limited by Section 4(b) (1), (29 USC 653 (b)(1)), which states: "Nothing in this chapter shall apply to working conditions of employees with respect to which other Federal Agencies…exercise statutory authority to prescribe or enforce standards or regulations affecting occupational safety or health."

Thus in the case of vessels, OSHA would have jurisdiction if there is one employee, the vessel was within the geographic area of jurisdiction, and no other federal agency had preempted them under the 4(b)(1) section." (All 3 cases must apply for OSHA to be in effect)


The Coast Guard is another federal agency which may exercise occupational safety and health jurisdiction and thereby preempted OSHA on vessels. Note that before preemption occurs, another agency not only needs to have jurisdiction, but must exercise that jurisdiction

BTW,

The compliance officer I spoke with at OSHA tell me that if I am a US flagged vessel disembarking and returning to a US location, OSHA applies. I often go beyond 9 miles in the Gulf and would be outside of US jurisdiction, but as soon as I return, Whamo!! Again , I am just relaying info, but you leave US waters within 3 miles on the East coast of FL and 9 miles in the Gulf. If an accident happens outside those limits, you may have some remedy in court and with the Feds. If, however, you are within those limits, you may be burnt.

We all need to ask some pointed questions so we know how to properly comply. I encourage you to inquire of the appropriate authorities how to proceed and comply with their specious regulations.

Thanks again for all of you input.

 

[redacted]

I don't think Wookie does any shore diving.

 

[davetowz]

My stance is and will continue to be this: When I have to stand in front of a judge or jury, I can honestly say that I use the most stringent limits when making decisions . I adhere to the 23.5% for O2 cleaning and I utilize the DOT approved operating pressure when filling any and all tanks.
What will stand a better chance, That concept or can you tell me when a steel tank burst from filling beyond approved service pressures.
YMMV. Cheers.

 

[PfcAJ]

Good thing you'll never have to stand in front of a judge about it because it NEVER happens. I won't either for the exact same reason.

How many data points do you need before you change your mind about something? This all reminds me of the monkeys getting squirted with water story...

 

[Leadking]

Good thing you'll never have to stand in front of a judge about it because it NEVER happens. I won't either for the exact same reason.

How many data points do you need before you change your mind about something? This all reminds me of the monkeys getting squirted with water story...

Never say never.

Many accidents and fatalities have occured due to a high pp02 event.

 

[PfcAJ]

I know that fact all too well. Whats that have to do with 'overfilling' tanks though?

 

[Shftrdog]

The problem with overfilling is not as much that they will fail Hydro its more that they will explode. For a tank to pass a Visual inpection you can have a crack through the threads as long as you have 8 good threads from the top out of the 15. If you over fill a tank you have a very high chance of an explosion. PSI/PCI has done test were they had a tank with a crack through all of the 15 threads and it will filled at a proper fill rate (no faster than 500psi per min) and filled to only 3000PSI and that tank did not explode. They did the same fill rate and over filled it, and the tank ruptured at 3300PSI. So yes everfilling will shorten the life of the tank but you will still get quite a few hydros, the problem is that overfilling causes cracks and the more you do it the higher chance of a tank rupture. If you want a tank that you can fill past 3000psi get a HP tank. They make tanks that have a working pressure higher than 3000psi. I would recomend only filling to 3000psi or getting new tanks with higher working pressures.

 

[redacted]

Come on now. Let's face it, anybody who would overfill a scuba tank would probably speed on public roads. We should all rue the risks involved in that dangerous practice.