Utah Commercial Diving Accident

[DA Aquamaster]

Why so sad? This is a clear case of a company using SCUBA divers to do commercial diving work. It is not only unsafe to use SCUBA on any work where the diver is not clearly visable, but it is a violation of federal OSHA regulations.

1 - "failed to surface at about 1 p.m. Tuesday" diver was not in communication with the surface support team.

2 - "Other divers on the team found Loveria under 18 feet of water" this implies that there was no tether to the surface and the diver was working independently which can only be done on SCUBA - no tether = OSHA violation.

3 - Portadam is a cofferdam manufacturer and supplier, not a commercial diving company, nor a construction company so they most likely hired someone locally who has SCUBA gear to do any of the under water work that was needed.

- Professional? The word means "pert. or engage in a profession, or sport for pay" Websters. That describes everyone on this site or in the country that has a Divemaster or Instructor certification. This is a common misconception of divers by the news media and the general public, i.e. if one is certified to SCUBA dive than one is qualified to be a "professional diver".

My condolences to his family, and God help the company that hired him.

He was from New York, so are you implying they hired a local diver in New York and sent him to Utah when they could have just as well hired a "local" diver from Utah and saved a whole lot of travel, lodging and perdiem expenses? Please don't run my company.

I'd conclude from what the article says that he was more likely to be a professional diver anyway.

As for your contention that OSHA regs prohibiting scuba diving - you are badly misinformed. I am speaking as someone who has done commercial diving in scuba for years and more importantly as some one who actually understand the regs when I read them - which is also important as I am a fed who works with, interprets and gives guidance on federal regs for a living.


29 CFRF 1910.424(b)

Limits. SCUBA diving shall not be conducted: (note the colon here - it means the following limits apply, it does not mean "Scuba Diving Shall not be Conducted")

1910.424(b)(1) (the (1) here means it is a subpart of (b))

At depths deeper than 130 fsw; (as in "Scuba diving shall not be conducted at depths greater than 130 ft.")

1910.424(b)(2)

At depths deeper than 100 fsw or outside the no-decompression limits unless a decompression chamber is ready for use;

1910.424(b)(3)

Against currents exceeding one (1) knot unless line-tended; or

1910.424(b)(4)

In enclosed or physically confining spaces unless line-tended. (Note the "unless line tended" here.)
1910.424(c)

Procedures. (for situations where the diver is in enclosed or physically confining spaces)
1910.424(c)(1)

A standby diver shall be available while a diver is in the water.

1910.424(c)(2)

A diver shall be line-tended from the surface, or accompanied by another diver in the water in continuous visual contact during the diving operations. (this one is a little bit of a grey area, as (b)(4) states "line tended" but the procedures in (c)(2) state "or accompanied by a diver in continuous visual contact", but I think the intent is clear - use a tender in low viz but a diver and no line is allowable when visibility permits. Makes sense to me as in some situations the line itself is an entanglement hazard I would rather be without.)

1910.424(c)(3)

A diver shall be stationed at the underwater point of entry when diving is conducted in enclosed or physically confining spaces. (This would apply whether a line is used or not - and in the past I have had to have another diver along and in the water even when it was only 6 ft deep when working inside headgates that were "confining" - presumably to pull me back out if I wedged since 6' of water is still awful hard to breathe under.)

1910.424(c)(4)

A diver-carried reserve breathing gas supply shall be provided for each diver consisting of:

1910.424(c)(4)(i)

A manual reserve (J valve); or

1910.424(c)(4)(ii)

An independent reserve cylinder with a separate regulator or connected to the underwater breathing apparatus.

1910.424(c)(5)

The valve of the reserve breathing gas supply shall be in the closed position prior to the dive.


So in effect:

1. If the SCUBA diver is between 100 and 130 feet and/or making dives outside the decompression limits a recompression chamber must be available, but the job can still be done on SCUBA.

2. If the diver is at less than 100 ft and within the no deco limits, the job can still be done on SCUBA and no recompression chamber is needed.

3. If the job does not place the diver in an enclosed or physically confined space, a tender or in water diver in visual contact is not required.

4. If the current is 1.0 kts or higher a line tender is required.

5. All SCUBA divers, at any depth or in any situation, must have either (a) a J-valve or (b) a bailout bottle of some sort that allows the valve to be turned off to prevent air loss.

Now in this case he was in a lake (no current and no tender required) in less than 20 ft of water (last time I read a US Navy Table - the one OSHA refers to in the Appendix to determine whether a dive is within the NDL's -there is no deco limit for 20 feet, so it is safe to say he was within them) in what can be assumed to be a non enclosed and non phyically confined space meaning a tender was again not required and that the dive could be done on scuba and still be in compliance with OSHA as long as he had either a J-valve or some type of bailout bottle.

My advice is to stop talking about things you are not well informed about and to stop speculating and creating imaginary causes and legal infractions in the accident forum.

 

[stas]

Why so sad? This is a clear case of a company using SCUBA divers to do commercial diving work. It is not only unsafe to use SCUBA on any work where the diver is not clearly visable, but it is a violation of federal OSHA regulations.

Its sad because he died.

 

[Desert Pirate]

Stas is right, it is a tragedy because of loss of a life to family friends and colleages... regardless of how perfessional, whoevers deffinition of a perfessional one decides to use, he was.

 

[Coldiver1]

As a former commercial diver working on both coasts, we used Scuba for a lot of applications. Commercial diving includes any underwater construction, destruction, or what is considered non-recreational be it from welding struts to cleaning pools. We do a job any way that we can that we feel is safe and efficient.
Thank you Aquamaster for the regulations.

 

[z3r0c00l]

Sad also because 18 feet is an easy swim out. Do you have to have a buddy system when using scuba in a commercial dive?

 

[DA Aquamaster]

It depends (read the regs above to see when one is required). At other times a buddy may be useful or may be of no use, in the way or even a potential liability.

For example if you are lifting a 1000 lb anchor near a dock in zero visibility, the last thing you want or need is a buddy in the way who can't see you anyway and who may get squished if the rigging fails and the anchor comes back down. Me, since I sent it up, know where it went up and can be sure I am not in the potential impact zone if something breaks. (And if it is practical, you use surfaced supplied gas to fill the bag and surface before it goes up to ensure no one get's squished.)

In most cases there is either a line tender or some other suirface support person who is keeping track of you, handing you stuff, keeping the boats off you, etc. who will take appropriate action if something odd looks like it is occuring.

Staying safe is part self reliance and a large part using common sense and superior judgement to keep yourself out of situations that require superior diving skills.

 

[DeepSeaDan]

OSHA's comm. dive regs. are too slack with respect to scuba use IMO.

I like the Canadian regs. better. Greater limitations on scuba use.

Personally, I'd like them to be even more restrictive. There is great comfort, control & safety in the use of surface supplied gear, with all the redundancy of a standard surface air or gas diving spread. Trouble is, it's expensive, & all the small-timers don't want to have to pony up the cash to jump in with the big boys.

It's an ongoing problem, & one that's hard to fix.

If I'm working U/W, give me my helmet & hose, comms., bailout, copious gas supply, standby, chamber ( as required ), & a crew of well-trained, seasoned pros.

That scenario will stack the deck that I will wake up to do it all again tomorow.

Best,
DSD

 

[Mike Edmonston]

It depends (read the regs above to see when one is required). At other times a buddy may be useful or may be of no use, in the way or even a potential liability.

I have to say, that I have really learned alot by reading this thread. I was always under the impression that commercial diving was Hard hat territory only. The reason for this, is that a commercial outfit visits my shop regularely, and what they dive is shallow 20 foot canals and pump stations in the everglades. They told me that OSHA requirements mandate that they dive Hard hats. Now is that a Federal or State / Regional requirement? Is it possibly an insurance issue by the contracting company or the Outfit's carrier?

They needed another diver a couple weeks ago, but COULD NOT hire a SCUBA tained individual.

Could the requirements be different in Florida?

Thanks for any answers guys...

 

[DA Aquamaster]

OSHA's comm. dive regs. are too slack with respect to scuba use IMO.

I like the Canadian regs. better. Greater limitations on scuba use.

Personally, I'd like them to be even more restrictive. There is great comfort, control & safety in the use of surface supplied gear, with all the redundancy of a standard surface air or gas diving spread. Trouble is, it's expensive, & all the small-timers don't want to have to pony up the cash to jump in with the big boys.

It's an ongoing problem, & one that's hard to fix.

If I'm working U/W, give me my helmet & hose, comms., bailout, copious gas supply, standby, chamber ( as required ), & a crew of well-trained, seasoned pros.

That scenario will stack the deck that I will wake up to do it all again tomorow.

Best,
DSD

Regs aside, the last word needs to be had by the diver as to what is or is not safe. My all time favorite was the Corp of Engineers wanting an inspection of the grate covering one of the 24' diameter intake tunnels at a depth of about 90 ft feeding one of the seven intake tunnels on a hydro electric dam.

This was not bad as things go except they wanted to keep the adjacent tunnels (about 50 feet to either side) open and in fact increase their flow rates to near maximum so that power generation was not interrupted while the tunnel in question was inspected.

That was a great big "no fricking way" with a firm statement that whether the regs allowed it or not, no one was going down unless all the tunnels were shut down completely until everyone was out of the water. Bureaucrats can be pretty stupid at times and the time to realize that is not when you are stuck firmly to the grate of a hydro electric inlet tunnel flowing full blast for the rest of your short remaining life.

 

[DeepSeaDan]

Regs aside, the last word needs to be had by the diver as to what is or is not safe. My all time favorite was the Corp of Engineers wanting an inspection of the grate covering one of the 24' diameter intake tunnels at a depth of about 90 ft feeding one of the seven intake tunnels on a hydro electric dam.

This was not bad as things go except they wanted to keep the adjacent tunnels (about 50 feet to either side) open and in fact increase their flow rates to near maximum so that power generation was not interrupted while the tunnel in question was inspected.

That was a great big "no fricking way" with a firm statement that whether the regs allowed it or not, no one was going down unless all the tunnels were shut down completely until everyone was out of the water. Bureaucrats can be pretty stupid at times and the time to realize that is not when you are stuck firmly to the grate of a hydro electric inlet tunnel flowing full blast for the rest of your short remaining life.

...that someone dove scuba in the above scenario AT THE ASSURANCE of the client that all would be as agreed? If they did, then you've made my point. There is "no frickin' way" this cowboy would dive any type of flow control structure on scuba; and, that practice is verboten in the Canadian regs.

For good reason too. Fact is, poo-poo happens, people can frig-up. So me wants my deepsea divin' security blanket to keep me warm if someone doesn't do as they were supposed to. We can't eliminate all risk; but should things go south, I'll be far better off in commercial gear than with self-containment.

It's my ****, after all. So, by gum, I think I've made part of your point too!!

By the way; I use to inspect dam faces & sluice gates with one ( farthest from entry ) turbine running. I'd sandbag my limits. At my limit, I'd be stretched taught on the end of that umbilical by the draw of that turbine, though it's hundreds of meters away. The roar of the water movement & the sound of gravel being dragged along the bottom made my choice of limits quite conservative...

...I feel a spate of "stories of daring-do" coming on!!

Regards,
DSD