The US Coast Guard (USCG) is attempting to revise its commercial diving regulations, which are found in 46 CFR Part 197. Since 1998, several entities in the commercial dive and maritime industry have submitted comments to the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), which began the process for implementing the change within the federal regulations. The Association of Diving Contractors International (ADC) has been one of the more actively involved organizations submitting proposed changes to the Coast Guard, having originally done so in 1995.

Over the last six years, there have been over a dozen commercial diving injuries and deaths associated with improper maintenance and work practices, fatigue, and lack of training. The direct effect of these casualties was the recognition by the Coast Guard of a need for change in the commercial dive operation regulations, an expansion of USCG industry outreach programs, and the development of a "partnership in excellence" with the commercial dive sector.

USCG Commercial Diving Investigations
Defined by the Coast Guard, a diver means "a person working beneath the surface, exposed to hyperbaric conditions, and using underwater breathing apparatus." While commercial diving operations may differ in scope from that of recreational diving, a commercial diver is an individual typically specialized in diverse dive operations and underwater work activities such as welding, water-blasting, pipe-laying and non-destructive testing.

The majority of these activities are performed almost daily onboard inspected vessels and outer continental shelf (OCS) facilities under the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard. Recognizing a need to enforce regulatory compliance and ensure safe work practices associated with these activities, the Coast Guard published its commercial diving operation regulations in 1977. Since then, only minor changes have taken place.

Since 1992 the Coast Guard has investigated 10 injuries and 12 deaths associated with commercial diving operations. These events have plotted the course for the Coast Guard into revising and potentially implementing new dive regulations.

One particular diving casualty investigated by the Coast Guard was the result of improper maintenance, poor training, and inadequate dive operation standards. In 1997, a male diver was making a surface-supplied air dive in shallow water from a dive vessel in the Gulf of Mexico. The scope of operation was to carry a crossover line between the dive vessel's moon pool and its stern to serve as a downlink to the underwater work site during a saturated dive operation.

This was the diver's first commercial dive. He was wearing normal dive apparel for the given operation (coveralls, fins, harness), a borrowed helmet, and no bailout bottle.

The diver appeared a bit nervous before commencing the dive, understandable for one's first solo dive in a non-training environment. After having entered the water, the diver requested to "slack diver" and soon turned on his free-flow valve. Topside, the dive superintendent observed an audible change in voice during communications along with an incoherent response from the diver regarding depth and distance to the crossover line.

The dive superintendent asked the diver again how far he had left to crossover (a pneumometer reading was never taken by the dive superintendent). The diver's reply was garbled and then went silent.

Quickly the order "Come up on the diver!" was given and the diver was pulled out. On reaching deck, it was observed that the umbilical was still securely attached to the dive harness, but the dive helmet was off the diver's head and his air was free flowing. When the diver was brought up on deck he was found to have no pulse and was not breathing.

Showing no signs of life, the diver was rushed into the deck decompression chamber. The dive superintendent performed CPR while both were blown down inside the chamber to depth. The diver was blue in the face and a white froth emitted from his mouth. CPR was continued by a relief team (none of which had current CPR certification) and the dive vessel was immediately en route to a platform to have the diver medevaced ashore.

During the Coast Guard's investigation, the dive equipment, including the victim's helmet, appeared in good condition. As the investigation continued, it was found that the surface-supplied air system was linked to the saturation system by a ball valve and check valve to allow for compressed air blow-downs of the vessel's dive chambers. These valves had deteriorated o-ring seals, which were replaced prior to the dive, but the valves were not placed back in the isolation position. As a result, the diver was asphyxiated with helium gas that had contaminated the air supply line. In addition, it was discovered that the diver had unlocked his helmet yolk after he entered the water. This explained why his helmet wasn't on.

Sadly, these instances of improper maintenance, lack of training, and complacency with dive operation standards contributed to the death of a young man.

Because both the number of commercial dive casualties is small (when compared to the size and specialized nature of the industry) and casualty data collection is relatively skewed, it is difficult to correlate the number of deaths and the rate at which the commercial dive industry has grown. Every year it is evident that commercial divers die while working in US waters. This can be contributed to the rise in offshore commercial activity, along with complacency regarding safe work practices.

Compared to OSHA's investigations, which number approximately six to 13 fatalities annually, Coast Guard diving casualty investigations are relatively small. OSHA's data has been compared as equivalent to a risk of "28-50 deaths per 1,000 workers over a lifespan of 45 years." While these numbers may not be particularly alarming, the Coast Guard has determined that a more focused approach in dive casualty investigation and the regulatory oversight of commercial dive operations needs to take place.

Continuing Progress
Since 1996, Coast Guard Marine Safety Offices in the Gulf Coast region have increased their industry outreach by hosting regulatory safety seminars, instituting dive compliance training programs, and promoting "train the trainer" programs. Inspectors have met with commercial diving operators in both formal and informal settings, conducting slide presentations, holding discussions, and giving regulatory training sessions. Discussions have revolved around USCG policy and enforcement of commercial dive operations.

Opportunities such as these have provided a chance for industry to meet one on one with the Coast Guard and develop a professional working relationship and understand each other's mission.

In a collaborative safety initiative between Gulf Coast Marine Safety Offices and several commercial diving companies, potential shortcomings with Coast Guard commercial diving education and training have been identified. The focus of concern lies specifically with the implementation of formalized training on new dive technology and diving physiology for marine inspectors.

In close cooperation with various industry representatives, some solutions have been developed. The most effective has been to hold a seminar on commercial dive training during the Coast Guard's OCS Inspection Course (held for prospective OCS marine inspectors).

The one-day session is dedicated to a review and in-depth look at commercial dive operations, typically with a dive company volunteering to host the session. At this course, inspectors are able to acquire a first-hand look at dive equipment, review basic dive terminology, and discuss related safety concerns with actual commercial divers.

The Coast Guard understands and fully appreciates the partnership it has with the commercial dive industry. Through cooperative training programs like these, we will be able to produce a more knowledgeable inspector in the commercial diving arena.

Revising the Regulations
While the Coast Guard is taking a proactive approach to training its marine inspectors, a strong and concerted effort in revising the commercial dive regulations has taken place.

As a very specialized sector of the maritime industry, a dive operation presents a dynamic experience and highly technical challenge for a Coast Guard marine inspector. Currently, Part 197 regulations do not reference up-to-date industry standards. In pursuit of ensuring regulatory compliance, the inspector is equipped with no regulatory authority to enforce diver certification or dive training. Essentially, the diving operation itself and associated equipment are the only facets the inspector can control.

In the majority of diving operations inspected and dive accidents investigated by the Coast Guard, it was found that paperwork required by the regulations was not in order. This could be an indicator of poor management practices on behalf of the diving companies.

One of the many suggestions recommended by the maritime industry is to incorporate the ADC's Consensus Standards into the Coast Guard's dive regulations. Opposition to this potential incorporation is based on the premise that the ADC's Consensus standards are representative of a specific group or sector of individual interests, which do not correlate with those who are not members of the ADC.

A potential solution may be to establish a committee, similar to the National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee, to develop recommendations on performance measures. These recommendations would then be submitted to the USCG during the rulemaking process. This committee would continue to meet annually after publication of the Final Rule and make recommended improvements and updates as technology and circumstances change. As a result, an active voice for the commercial dive industry as a whole would be established.

The Challenge of Implementation
The intent of revising the regulations is to update and bring the Coast Guard's rules in line with that of the diving industry and other regulatory bodies. Though it has been a long and arduous process, significant input has been received for the regulatory revision project. Collecting additional data and public comments has proved successful in assisting the Coast Guard during the regulatory project. The Coast Guard has reviewed historical documentation of marine casualties as well as comments from leading companies and representatives in the commercial dive and marine industry. With this information, regulation revision is on the near horizon.

Unfortunately, during this time of regulatory review, some substandard and "fly-by-night" operators have emerged, taking advantage of operating outside the bounds of the regulations. With an increase in offshore activity, there are some operators who have taken advantage of this timeframe and pushed their operations to the limit, seemingly willing to sacrifice an individual's life for economic gain. With the education seminars and public outreach programs previously mentioned, the Coast Guard has been able to stifle substandard diving operations and increase regulatory compliance.

The current regulations impose specific requirements on commercial dive operations that take place on board Coast Guard-certified vessels or on OCS facilities. Some public comments have been submitted suggesting that the Coast Guard should hand over all regulatory authority to OSHA. As of now, regulatory authority for commercial dive operations is still retained by the Coast Guard.

The concept of allowing the Coast Guard to regulate diver training and certification standards is an assertive argument held by many within the diving community because the commercial dive industry has self-regulated itself in regard to training and certification of divers. Implementing training standards for an industry that has regulated itself for over 30 years puts the Coast Guard in a new and challenging position. Regulatory control over training standards originally set forth from both the Association of Commercial Diving Educators (ACDE) and the ADC is quite different than what the Coast Guard's role has been in regard to commercial diving when first established in 1977.

The intent of the Coast Guard in regulating commercial diving operations is to ensure that divers follow safe work practices while conducting diving operations on both the OCS and inspected vessels. Again, because of the relatively small number of casualties that typically occur annually, there hasn't been a substantial push by industry for the Coast Guard to regulate training standards.

Though merchant mariners are licensed and regulated by the Coast Guard, doing the same to commercial divers would be an involved process. However, with this process comes the potential benefit of harmonizing regulations with other agencies and organizations in an effort to increase diving safety.

The commercial diving industry has set its own standards for training under the watchful eye of the ADCE and the ADC. The Coast Guard has worked closely with both organizations and several ideas have been shared and discussed in relation to diver education, training, and certification standards.

Traditionally, a rulemaking process maximizes the opportunity to involve public comment and solicitation for improvements to be made. In this case, a substantial amount of information and data collection has been made available and the Coast Guard has afforded a lot of time and effort in revising Part 197. Ample time has been given to the public and maritime industry for soliciting of input. Leading organizations such as the ADC and major stakeholders in the commercial dive industry have voiced their concerns in regard to revising the regulations. The Coast Guard has maximized this opportunity to gather as much information as it possibly can to ensure all entities have been able to express their concerns and thoughts.

Regulatory policy, which explicitly deviates from industry standards and practice, creates a number of complex concerns. Among them are potential added cost to the industry affected in order to meet the new policy, an allotted time frame to implement the policy, and how the new policy will be an improvement over the old policy that was replaced. These issues are paramount when considering the final review and implementation of the new diving regulations and the Coast Guard has been successful in insuring that all entities directly affected by the revision have been addressed.

The Goal: Increased Safety
Over three years have passed since the concept of revising the commercial diving regulations first began. While implementation appears to have been slow, the Coast Guard has been meticulous in gathering a significant amount of data and conducting a thorough analysis. Many suggestions from various points of view have been brought to the Coast Guard's attention, but none as evident as the understanding of an urgent need to revise and update the regulations.

Subchapter V's revision structure may largely depend on the resolution to incorporate certification and training requirements for divers, and whether the Coast Guard will administer these requirements or simply verify compliance with an accepted standard.

Overall, a very challenging revision and implementation process of the Coast Guard's commercial diving regulations has resulted in a hotly debated regulatory project that has spurred an opportunity to increase commercial diving safety. UW

Lt. Mike Farrell is Chief of Inspections and Investigations at the US Coast Guard's Marine Safety Office in Duluth, Minnesota. He can be reached at mfarrell@msoduluth.uscg.mil.